The Ship Model Forum

Tim,

The fire fighting system on the IOWAs is a salt water system - the water pumped up through strainers/filters from openings in the hull expressly for the fire fighting system. The sanitary sewer system is also salt water based - for the toilets & urinals. Takes a bit of adjustment when you're just out of boot camp! At least, that's how it USED to be in the real navy of the 1960's.

Good luck with your build - have you started a log on it yet?

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

Thanks for the info re: the firefighting system. Weren't there also CO2 systems?

So what would those oxygen bottles be for, then, specifically?

And no, no log yet--but I'll be setting one up shortly as I FINALLY have something to show for it after goofing around with all that PE!

Regards,

Tim W.

Tim W. wrote:


Tim,

Those short sections of cylinders included in the kit represent gas cylinders stored along the bulkheads of the ship. They were there for various uses by different crewmembers for a variety of reasons. These cylinders might have included: argon, CO2, helium, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, to name ones that I know of. They were all painted various colors - there is a standard color for gas cylinders, but I can't recall off hand what the colors are. For welding you need O2 (oxygen) as your oxidizer and a fuel source.

Don't confuse these bottled gases with the med. pressure compressed air system that injected air into the breech of the 16" guns after firing each round (gas ejection air). This pumped air system was a dedicated system for the 16" until the modernization in the '80s when additional lines were run to support the reloading system for the Harpoon Missile Launchers (I think - may have been the Tomahawks).

Anyhow, I've got the same cylinders to locate on my NEW JERSEY model and I'll probably search online for a gas cylinder info site that gives the correct color scheme for the bottles.

In 1968-69 we also had a bottle-fed fire extinguisher system mounted on the movie projection booth aft of Turret 3. Those fire-suppressant bottles were all painted red. We also had larger fire-suppressant bottles stored on a bulkhead rack on the storage locker in the converted stbd 40mm gun tub.

Re. the PE - yea, it's a real headache - I've lost more to the carpet monster than is in my model - I'm using the kit PE as parts for my superstructure modification and the Pontos PE for the normal parts not effected by my alterations.

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

The tanks are different colors? Hoo boy....unless they just painted everything 5H IAW MS-22 (I'm doing the 1945 configuration). Wanted to go with the splinter, but they were only painted that way during sea trials.

I hear you on the PE. I've lost several bits already. That, and Pontos includes a fair amount of stuff for which they give no instructions on its use (like all those doors). Figured out the range-finder details by accident. There are pictures of them in the plans, but nothing about assembly.

Sheesh!

Regards,

Tim W.

Current state. The keel pieces are assembled, and I did basic cleanup on the frames. The first image below gives a good idea of just how much difference there is between the kit and blueprints. I'll say it again, however... I think the kit hull is pretty darned good for a 1/200 Missouri. Could have been better, could have been a (lot) worse. I'm just thankful I'm here for this amazing "golden age" of kits.

Anyway, the following two images are self-explanatory. The frames are currently just placed on the keels. I decided to run an experiment: I printed the tailcone by thickening the modeled surface out to 0.020" thick. I wanted to see if it would be usable as a form. With zero cleanup the answer is a definite YES. Of course, this led me to my next idea - print sections of the surface of the hull in the same manner - especially around the tunnel with all those compound curves - and this could just solve my concern about being able to adequately sheet/plank these areas. Instead of planking, I can just use the printed surface... or use that surface as a form for a resin mold. But first I need to figure out how to print these lofted sections.

As always, comments/suggestions/gripes always welcome.

Randy

Randy,

Wow! Incredible work you've done! There's no denying the differences from those photos. The stern piece is really a good idea. I also think your approach to the skegs & tunnel are right on track. You wondered how to print these - would it be possible to print a LAYER at a time, given you're limited to a finite thickness?

This mini-reconstruction project is really getting interesting now!!

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

I've been following this thread as much for your skill in Solid Works as much as the actual subject. However, and I'm sure I'm showing my ignorance here, I'm not seeing any dramatic difference between the Trumpeter stern and the results from the actual hull lines. Perhaps I'm looking at it wrong, but from the plan view of this last photo, it appears that the kit is pretty close.



I have to admit, these ships are not high on my list of interests, so I haven't "gotten into" them, but from the simple modeler/craftsmen view, what specifically am I missing?

Randy - thank you for your postings, I have really enjoyed seeing your Solid Works drawings

Paul

_________________


http://paulbudzik.com/current-projects/Neptune/Lockheed_Neptune_Model_Budzik.html
http://paulbudzik.com/tools-techniques/outside_the_box.html

The difference is not in the deck line but in a significant extra fullness in the hull aft, particularly below the waterline.

Cheers. Tom

Agreed - pay close attention in the other pic to the skeg area - notice how much "taller" the skegs on Randy's are. This is because the Trumpeter hull is fatter and extends further down (and out). From a side, underneath, and front view, the Trumpeter hull's not bad - however when you view it as a 3D object "off axis" the differences are more apparent.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Thanks Tracy...It's the top photo above (looking from the stern) that shows a major difference. Actually, and not to be snide, from that view it looks like a Trumpeter hull.

Paul

_________________


http://paulbudzik.com/current-projects/Neptune/Lockheed_Neptune_Model_Budzik.html
http://paulbudzik.com/tools-techniques/outside_the_box.html

Paul: good eye. The sheer line from overhead is nearly identical - to within my error of measurement - with the blueprints. This was one of the first criterion I checked, since if the kit was significantly "out" from the blueprints, I would have abandoned further work (I didn't want to tear into the deck). The middle third of the hull is also very close to the blueprints. The bow could be more slender in areas, but the delta between the kit/blueprints is very small... and while some may see me as slightly insane with too much time on my hands (sadly, the latter couldn't be further from the truth), I am not a rivet counter.

However, the aft ~18 inches of the kit hull diverge significantly from the blueprints (acknowledging that the overhead "footprint" at the maindeck is very close). As others have noted, the kit hull is much more massive than it should be... hence this current effort. If I can't get the corrected parts to look good-enough, I'll just continue on with the kit hull as-is.

Moving on, I figured out how to get the entire aft section (in SolidWorks) into a printable state. I sectioned this area into three parts, thickened them outward to 0.020", and successfully imported them into the printer. Now all I have to do is physically go in to the office (I wasn't thinking yesterday afternoon and didn't initialize the printer before leaving). Maybe tomorrow. Assuming my better half lets me .

These images show the three sections, and then the three sections put together. I have to caution those interested in this work: 3d printers do NOT create production-ready finish surfaces.

Look at his stern views.

In the trumpeter hull, the skegs are not an integral part of the hull shape.

Randy,

At this point I have a question - if you were to replace the kit after 18" of the hull w/your replacement module, will you still need to use the kit skeg parts in order to finish the model? I'm not in my shop or I would give the kit part #'s I'm talking about. They are the two ends of the skeg that the shaft and screw would be attached to. It looks like your skegs end at exactly the same point as the kit originals.

Thanks,

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

Excellent question, and the answer is a bit embarrassing. When I modeled this portion of the hull, I failed to look at the kit hull (because it was so different in this area, it really didn't matter). Only when I started looking in detail at the way the skegs are terminated did I notice the kit provides them as separate pieces. My plan is to "figure it out on the go." Not very scientific I know, but sh*t happens.

If you haven't already seen it, the below photo shows very well how the skegs should look - I have yet to look at the kit parts.

Any idea what year the photo was taken? The props and vortex generators and strips look to be a fairly modern hydrodynamic innovation. Anyhoozit a good question. the terminal skeg form is a bit difficult to scratch!

Cheers: Tom

Tom - The photo is of WISCONSIN in drydock during her refit in the '80s - exact date I don't know.

Randy - The reason I asked the question re. the ends of the skegs is because I've already glued & finished in place the ones on my kit. So, if (in the off-chance) your modifications come full circle, I'll need to find new ones, etc.

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

Hank

Suppose you could saw the skeg shft boss off again. Worse comes along and a mold could be made to cast new ones. Quite the project!

Cheers. Tom

Question for those in the know...

I (finally) started looking thru the kit instructions and one thing immediately caught my eye. The 03 (Flag Bridge) deck layout seems to be in contradiction with the blueprints I have. Specifically, it seems to show three distinct deckhouses forward (but aft of the armored tower).

Looking at the scan below, the upper circle contains a rectangular and an oval-ish shaped house. In the lower circle it is clear when these two parts are located on the deck. Also within the lower circle is an obvious locator for the forward tower/stack assembly. And, if I interpret all this correctly, this results in two "breezeways" - one forward and one aft of the oval-ish deckhouse. But in the blueprints and images I have studied, there does not appear to be an open walkway between the oval house and the forward tower/stack. As far as I know, there are only two cross-walkways on Missouri: the one forward of the oval-ish deckhouse (PLEASE, someone tell me what this structure is called and put me out of my misery), and the one amidships on the 02 deck. In other words, the tower/stack/oval-ish deckhouse are all one "piece," as shown in the second image (which is my 3d model per the blueprints). I have numerous images which document this configuration.

EDIT: yes, there is another open space between the armored tower and the first deckhouse on both the 03 and 04 decks. I forgot to count these as cross-walkways because they are within the enclosed bridge spaces and well, I made a mistake.

Have I interpreted this correctly? If so, a relatively simple fix, but it would be a curious item for Trumpeter to get wrong.

Look at the next page where it shows those pieces in place. I'm "thinking" based on how close those raised placement lines are, that the oval deck house and the one aft of it (running fore and aft) will wind up touching once installed thus eliminating said 2nd breezeway. Every set of plans I have regardless of year and from walking the decks of BB-64 on a daily basis confirm this.

The oval deck house seems to be different things throughout the years. Only common feature is a 40mm ammo hoist on the starboard side, after bulkhead.

BB-63 Plans (1950) = Classroom B
BB-64 Plans (1956) = Radio VII
BB-62 Plans (1982) = Signal Shelter

Interesting though as there are viewing slits with glass covers on the port and starboard bulkheads on all the plans and are still there today. The slits and covers are very similar to the ones on the Conning Tower. Wonder what they were for... Is the answer as simple as portholes can't be installed on curved bulkheads?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

No, because plenty of smaller ships had them, as well as I believe BB-55 and -57 classes.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman