What-If Montana-class BB-67

[RandyM]

the one that became too small when I added the enclosed bridge. It's been bugging me so I figured that, while watching my team do their best against the Pats today, I'd fix the problem. I increased the tub size, added a new splinter shield, and some trusswork underneath the extension. I'm happy so far with the results, and the superstructure actually looks pretty cool with the wider stance.

FWIW, the 40mm mounts shown are from Lion Roar and L'Arsenal. The latter are much nicer with their 3-d resin barrels, though are missing the nice casing ejector chutes present on the Lion Roar parts.

Just about ready to start with cleanup so I can move on to painting this section.

[img]http://www.digivision.com/rsm/Montana/Bridge010.JPG[/img]

[img]http://www.digivision.com/rsm/Montana/Bridge011.JPG[/img]

[Sauragnmon]

I agree, it does look nicer with the wide stance, and I think personally the 3d barrels are worth a little loss in some of the finer detail.

[johndon]

Nice work

John

[Jefgte]

What a nice bridge!!!



Jef

[Avery Boyer]

Fantastic work!

[EJM]

Great work on those 40mm placements, Randy. I was wondering how you would do those lower 40mm placements that were so close to the bridge windows. From what I see, plus all the other bridge and superstructure details you've added, you're off to a fantastic start. At the rate you're going, it's going to take you quite a shorter time span to finish your Montana than the 4-5 years it did for mine. I predict you'll have it done before this year is done. I am impressed!

[RandyM]

I added some of the nice WEM 40mm ammo racks to the four tubs on the fwd superstructure. It's a bit of an effort to get these babies installed correctly, and to be honest, when it was all said and done I was a bit underwhelmed: partly because they don't really look like the photos I've seen, and partly because, since these are made to fit the Tamiya models, they needed a LOT of fiddling to get them to fit my Montana.

Sooooo...... I made some of my own. I'd like some opinions on which look "better." Subjective, I know, but that's why it's called an OPINION. In the photos below, in the forward tub (arrow) you'll see my homemade effort: granted there is only one row of them, but I was after an effect of "individual bulk" here. In the aft tub are the WEM parts. The third photo is the main one I found which I am using to model my parts. Don't remember where it came from...

Let me know what you think, and don't be shy if you don't like mine

[img]http://www.digivision.com/rsm/montana/AmmoBelts01.JPG[/img]
[img]http://www.digivision.com/rsm/montana/AmmoBelts02.JPG[/img]
[img]http://www.digivision.com/rsm/montana/AmmoBelts03.JPG[/img]

[Sauragnmon]

Personally, I think with a little paint work, the homebuilt ones might have a nicer effect. The WEM ones are empty racks, if you wanted to jazz them up, I'd suggest putting in some of the actual magazines. The framework look is nice on the WEM ones, but the whole empty nature sort of retracts from the concept.

[RandyM]

here's another shot - as you can see I ripped out the racks from the rear tub (ouch) and installed the fabricated ones. You raise an excellent point - any idea of the color of the ammo cans? Olive drab or ???

[img]http://www.digivision.com/rsm/montana/AmmoBelts04.JPG[/img]

[Sauragnmon]

Something says Olive Drab in my head, just on sheer principle. I mean you already have the WEM racks, at least for some of your mountings, why not put them to good use? It'll add some variety and interesting detail. The WEM racks are nice, save that they are bland for lack of proper magazines in place.

[RandyM]

I'm trying to figure out how to combine the two. The way I built the belts does not lend itself well to this: I basically built a frame of .010x.010 stock (2" crossmembers separated by .150" verticals every 1/2"), then laid down single strips of .010x.030 stock across all four crossmembers to simulate the cans. Once I had all 2" covered with "cans", I cut the structure into four sections .060 long and oila' - 8" of flexible ammo belts. I can't work much smaller than this, and since the belts as-is take up the entire vertical face of the tub, I'm not sure I can make room for the WEM racks. Maybe intersperse "empty" sections of racks with the cans - that might look cool

[ModelMonkey]

[Sauragnmon]

That is probably the quickest method... conversely, adding a line around the front of your ammo cases would also serve to simulate the outer bar of the racks as required. Or, you take the stock, size to fit in place on the rack by shaving as necessary, slide it in, glue it down, and cut it off once it's in place. That should eliminate fidgety annoyances with size.

[Dick J]

If you look closely at the photo, those aren't ammo CANS. They are 4 rounds of ammo clipped together. Picture 4 rounds clipped together and 1 clip resting in each slot of the WEM parts.

[RandyM]

Thanks for the description, Dick. Yeah, I knew they were rounds clipped together, but (unless my math is off) in 1/350, a single 40mm round in 1/350 scale would be roughly .004", and a clip of four of them would be about .018". Which is just about as small as I'm willing to work (I used .030" to simulate the clips, mainly to retain my sanity ).

A question I have is, would the clips "simply" fit down in the slots in the WEM parts?

[Sauragnmon]

True enough, that they are, 40mm rounds, in strips of four, tip down in the rack, so I guess, your colour would be better done with something like brass for the rounds since they are uncased. Leaves a man to wonder, were they designed as something like a U shaped bracket, so the four rounds are set in place, and it's two rails on the round's neck, or how are they held in place... I wonder.

[GTDEATH13]

GREETINGS FROM GREECE

I JUST GOT MY HANDS ON THE MONTANA KIT FROM YANKEE MODELWORKS.
THE SIZE OF THE BUILD IS OVERWHELMING....

THE CAST PARTS ARE VERY ROUGHLY MADE AND MOST OF THEM ARE BENT AND DISFORMED DUE TO THE WAY OF PACKAGING.
THE PHOTOECH SET LOOKS SATISFYING ENOUGH BUT I HAVE NOT EXAMINED IT TO DETAIL

THE BODYWORK NEEDED IS JUST HUGE.
THE HULL IS DEVIDED TO TWO PARTS, AS YOU CAN DESIDE WHETHER YOU WANT A WATERLINE MODEL OR NOT. BUT THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT BOTH PARTS NEED A LOT OF SANDING AND DETAILING. THE BOTTOM OF THE ABOVE WATERLINE PART IS VERY ROUGHLY SHAPED AS WELL AS THE UPPER PART OF THE BOTTOM PART. WELL THIS LEAVES A LOT OF MARGIN TO WORK WITH SO THAT YOU CAN SHAPE THE LOINTING SURFACES THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE BUT A LOT OF MATERIAL HAS TO GO AWAY.

THE DECK DETAIL IS NOT VERY SATISFYING BUT I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO WORK THAT OUT BY MY OWN AS WELL.

I HAVE MANY QUESTIONS, AS I AM USED TO BUILDING MODELS ALMOST OUT OF THE BOX. I WILL STARK WORK ON MY MONTANA AFTER I FINISH THE NORTH CAROLINA FROM TRUMPETEER I AM BUILDING. THIS LOOKS EASY COMPARED TO THE MONTANA MODEL.

WHAT KIND OF GLUE SHOULD I USE??
SHOULD I USE DIFFERENT ADHESIVE FOR THE PLASTIC-RESIN PARTS AND THE PHOTOETCHED PARTS??
WHAT KIND OF PUTTY SHOULD I USE FOR COVERING GAPS AND OTHER "MISHAPPENINGS"???

SHOULD I PAINT THE PARTS FIRST AND THEN ASSEMBLE THE KIT OR (AS I MOSTLY DID WITH THE OTHER MODELS I BUILT) ASSEMBLE SOME PARTS TOGETHER AND DECIDE WHEN THE PAINT WILL BE APPLIED?? FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE ASSEMBLED THE SUPERSTRUCTURE OF THE NORTH CAROLINA IN THRRE MAIN PARTS (BRIDGE STRUCTURE, FOR FUNNEL AND AAGUNS AND AFT FUNNEL AND CRANES) AND I WILL PAINT THEM BEFORE PLACING THEM ON THE HULL.

FOR THE PAINTJOB I AM THINKING THE MEASURE22 CAMOUFLAGE PATTERN. BUT I HAVE NOT DECIDED WHAT TYPE OF PAINTS TO USE... I USUALLY USE HAMBROL COLOURS. DO YOU THINK I SHOULD USE THEM?? DO I HAVE TO MASK THE PARTS FIRST AND THEN USE THE PAINT??

I THINK I NEED ALL THE HELP YOU CAN OFFER....

[RandyM]

Well, since I'm working on the same kit at the moment I'll jump in with my comments. However, you should know that I am *NOT* a "ship modeler" - I tend to build all sorts of subjects - so I don't have answers to many technique questions.

Anyway, here's my comments on the YMW kit (nb: this is my first resin ship model, so perhaps ALL such kits suffer these issues and my complaints are unwarranted). I agree with every one of your observations. When I first unpacked this baby, I was very excited about it. Now after having become intimate with it, I'm frankly quite disappointed, especially given the premium price being charged. First off, the hull (I prefer full-hull models). My top/bottom halves were at least 1/2" off in the length dimension, and probably closer to an inch: unacceptable, even with the given "shrinkage differential" explanation. I had to do some serious cutting/shaving/reshaping on the lower stern section to make things match up. Next up is the forward superstructure: nothing fits correctly. As you stack the decks up, you'll see that the aft end (basically the lower section of the forward funnel) is "off" on each level, again requiring significant "bodywork." In the 03/04/05 levels, you're going to find surface irregularities in the deckhouses that are probably a scale foot deep. No problem - just fix 'em, right? Sure, but this means scrapping ALL the factory surface detail.... why did I spend all this money on this kit again? Be sure you check the squareness of the structures: on my example the stacked-up forward superstructure was nearly a tenth of an inch taller at the aft end than the forward end. Again, unacceptable.

Jumping to the cast metal parts: so far the only pieces I've found in the kit which are salvagable are the main gun directors. The barrels are laughable: I contacted Burkhardt Masch in Germany who made me a set of turned brass barrels for both the mains and the 5/54s. The 40mm mounts are, compared to aftermarket, not up to snuff. Even the searchlights are not much more than little blobs of metal. Perhaps that's where I'm doing a disservice to Yankee Modelworks: comparing "stock" kit parts to aftermarket parts -- perhaps my expectations were too high.

So the way I'm looking at this project is this: the YMW kit is providing me with a (albeit expensive) jumping off point. The majority of kit parts are either unusable or require significant rework to bring them up to acceptable standard. I feel like I spent hundreds of dollars for a hull (and the hull needed to be fixed before IT was usable).

Ok, now that my rant is over, here's how I've been working on the kit. I put the hull together and got that all sorted, then started on the forward superstructure. Use cyanoacrylate (my fav is the ZAP in pink bottle: squeeze a puddle onto work surface and apply with small brass wire). I've been using Bondo Glazing and Spot putty for filling gaps since it sands easier than the resin: if you use anything harder than you're likely to sand more resin than filler. One issue I've run in to is I didn't really have a "plan" for how to configure this ship from the start, so I've sort of been flying by the seat of my pants on modifications. Which means, unless you sit down and do ALL your research / planning first, you're better off leaving the paint for when the major subassemblies are done. I use Mr. Surfacer 1000 primer with Mr. Color self-leveling thinner. A thin coat will cover your bodywork and show you all the areas that need additional cleanup.

Finally, don't get me wrong - I'm having a great time building this ship, and this forum is quite helpful. I guess my main gripe is that I expected more from the base kit than it delivered. The only way I'll know whether this is a valid gripe is to build another kit from a different manufacturer, and something tells me when my Montana is complete, I'll be wanting to build something different. Like a tank. Or a car

[Gabor]

Hi

Well, let me try to answer to your questions.

- WHAT KIND OF GLUE SHOULD I USE??

The CA glue what is used for plastic kits will be good for this kit too. Altough you will need a great amount But be careful CA glue makes a strong bond between the parts, thus you have to assembly the parts quickly. But you can use two component glue which dries slower. One of my friends uses Pattex two component glue and he is very satisfied with it.

- SHOULD I USE DIFFERENT ADHESIVE FOR THE PLASTIC-RESIN PARTS AND THE PHOTOETCHED PARTS??

If you use CA glue then no.

- WHAT KIND OF PUTTY SHOULD I USE FOR COVERING GAPS AND OTHER "MISHAPPENINGS"???

Any kind of putty is good which is used for plastic kits.

- SHOULD I PAINT THE PARTS FIRST AND THEN ASSEMBLE THE KIT OR (AS I MOSTLY DID WITH THE OTHER MODELS I BUILT) ASSEMBLE SOME PARTS TOGETHER AND DECIDE WHEN THE PAINT WILL BE APPLIED?? FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE ASSEMBLED THE SUPERSTRUCTURE OF THE NORTH CAROLINA IN THRRE MAIN PARTS (BRIDGE STRUCTURE, FOR FUNNEL AND AAGUNS AND AFT FUNNEL AND CRANES) AND I WILL PAINT THEM BEFORE PLACING THEM ON THE HULL.

I think the method what you described is good. There can not be any problem if you do it that way

- FOR THE PAINTJOB I AM THINKING THE MEASURE22 CAMOUFLAGE PATTERN. BUT I HAVE NOT DECIDED WHAT TYPE OF PAINTS TO USE... I USUALLY USE HAMBROL COLOURS. DO YOU THINK I SHOULD USE THEM?? DO I HAVE TO MASK THE PARTS FIRST AND THEN USE THE PAINT??

If you want to use Humbrol colors then you will need the following colors: H67 for the hull up to the level of the main deck, H128 from that level and for the superstructure and H182 for the deck. But if you have a chance try to get White Ensign Model colors. Their colors are better. I do not really understand your last question. If you mask the parts first then use the paint that means you painted the masking tape instead of the kit part. But if you assembly and paint some parts before placing them on the hull then those parts have to be masked when they get to their places and before you start to paint the rest of the kit.

[Avery Boyer]

- WHAT KIND OF PUTTY SHOULD I USE FOR COVERING GAPS AND OTHER "MISHAPPENINGS"???

I'd use Aves Apoxie Sculpt