What-If Montana-class BB-67

[caramonraistlin]

EJM:

No, sorry I didn't take any pictures during the construction phase. Let me look at the completed model over the weekend and see if I can reconstruct what I did. I also made an entirely new one piece deck out of styrene stock. I then with a magnifying head set and a steel rule drew hundreds of lines (entire length of the hull) starting from the center and working my way towards the outside. I next scribed all these lines with an x-acto no. 11 blade (s). They are spaced about 1/32" apart. I had originally planned to also scribe lines across these to represent the ends of each individual planks but I was tired by then and never did. Using a dremel I then cut all the various pieces off of the stock deck and placed them on the new one. Like I previously mentioned, I'll take a look again this weekend and see if I can't come up with something.

Sincerely

Michael Lacey

[caramonraistlin]

EJM:

I forgot that I have been building one of the Tillman maximum battleship designs based on the Tamiya Missouri hull. The one I'm building is one of the 1000' ones with 6 triple 16" turrets. It also had 3 funnels. I used the same method to lengthen and widen it as I did on my Montana. I've uploaded several quick shots of it. Some of them are blurry but I hope you can get the idea of what I've done. I probably can get better pictures during the day so if something isn't quite viewable I'll try again tomorrow. I hope the link works all right. Take a look when you have the time.

Sincerely

Michael Lacey

http://s461.photobucket.com/albums/qq33 ... attleship/

[EJM]

How thick is that balsa strip going from stem to stern? How much wider is the gap at the bow and stern? Kinda looks like maybe 1/8" or 1/4"?

[caramonraistlin]

EJM:

The balsa strip is 1/8". This model will be based on the Tillman Design IV-2 one of the proposed 80,000 ton ships. However the beam was to be 108' to pass through the Panama canal unlike the Montana which was wider. I measured the width of my hull and to be 108' it should be about 3.72". Mine measures 3.81". I guess at the time I figured close enough as the only strip stock I had long enough was 1/16" balsa which I used two of. I believe on my Montana I used 1/4" balsa and remember it was fine until I got several inches from the bow and the cut sides of the hull wouldn't meet the balsa. At this point I sanded/tapered the balsa where it was supposed to meet the hull until the gap was closed. I didn't take any measurements of how much I removed but I probably measured the gap at the bow front and removed half of this from each side of the balsa starting at the point where the balsa was meeting the sides with no gap. I then tried to remove this amount working towards the bow. I probably would have drawn a line across the bottom and top of the balsa from the no gap point to the bow point with the widest gap so that I could check my progress. It may sound more complicated that it actually was as I basically introduced a taper in the width of the stock until I could clamp the front of the hull against it for gluing. I used plenty of super glue and let it dry over night. I don't remember having to do this with the stern as everything seemed to pull together fine. Hope this helps. I do know it is vital to have all of this lying on a long flat surface to get everything to line up right. Fortunately most of the bottom is fairly flat so this helped greatly.

Michael Lacey

[EJM]

Back on Page 26 of this thread, I made a post about a blog discussing and showing buildups of different Montanas. I didn't find out about this till just recently when I was browsing that blog, but the albums and images being shown/hosted by Bubbleshare for that blog, will cease to function/exist on November 15, 2009. One Montana builder who used to post in this thread was RandyM. His pics are currently shown at that blog. If anyone knows how to get a hold of him, maybe we can persuade him to come back here to MW and share his Montana build pics with us again? It would be a shame to lose all those buildup pics. And if anyone knows Greg Lee (who is the person that created that blog), then maybe we can get him to share his Montana references/pics here also.

Montana blog:
http://buildingmontana.blogspot.com/

[RandyM]

Hi EJM... (it's been so long, I can't remember anyones' names - sorry!!)

For what it's worth, I finally got around to beginning the process of consolidating my modeling efforts in one place. Sadly, during the process I lost the HDD in my computer which housed all my photos (and music... a bad combination) and lost 4 months' worth of photos, including all the latest images of progress made on Montana (make backups regularly; make backups regularly; make backups regularly... ) so I have to rebuild some of my photo database with respect to this particular project.

BUT, what I do have is now up and running: if interested it is located here: http://www.nulspace.com/hobbies/montana/intro.aspx. I'll check out the blog you mention just as soon as I get the chance: thanks to both you and Sauragnmon for the heads' up!

Randy

[Sauragnmon]

Good to see your build log back up, Randy. I hope you can manage to get time management back under way to see some progress on your monster. I loved watching your build coming up as you rebuilt the superstructure and added factors. I still think a few 20mm galleries would look good on the aft structure in a few good places.

Welcome back to the fold, man.

[Anonymous]

Oh, I agree with you! Sadly due to my HDD catastrophe, the website doesn't document the FOURTH (that's right - FOUR) iteration on the superstructure, as follows:

1. After discovering how bloody awful the kit parts were, I started by adding a square bridge to the front of the kit part. The bridge looked ok (but had its own set of "issues") but the kit parts still looked, well... sh!tty.

2. Designed a replacement for the worst (?) parts of the forward deckhouse, including a new square bridge. I thought it looked pretty cool, so I started working on how to integrate it with the kit part of the aft deckhouse/boathouse. Again I realized how really unacceptable the Yankee Modelworks parts were/are.

3. Designed a new aft deckhouse to "go" with the new fwd house.

4. Since a) there were still some kit parts being used in the previous configuration, b) the new fore and new aft houses hadn't really been designed to go together, and c) since those awful kit parts kept nagging at me every time I looked at my work, I decided to toss the whole thing and do the entire house from scratch, and this time all as one piece. I made some modifications to the maindeck superstructure to support my new plan, made some drawings in AutoCAD (since I was sort of getting tired of trashing my work and starting over, I wanted to be sure in advance that I would be happy with this effort) and started cutting styrene.

Below is a shot of the current configuration, complete with some of the awesome L'Arsenal 40mm and 20mm parts (thanks to Tony Bunch) posing for the photo. I'd forgotten that I'd also picked up some searchlights from Paper Lab - they are super nice as well.

Thanks for bringing this stuff up: pull Montana down off the shelf has served to remind me of two points:

1. I *really* need to get going on this kit again, and
2. Yankee Modelworks should give serious consideration to doing a significant redesign of their kit. :)

[RandyM]

[EDIT] - in the words of the great Homer Simpson... D'oh! I guess I was too preoccupied/stupid to notice I wasn't logged in... hence the duplicate post (thanks Tim).

-RSM

[EJM]

Sorry to hear about your hard drive, Randy. I hope you'll be able to get things fixed and sorted again soon. I'm going through the same thing........sorta. None of my Montana pics are lost (I have everything backed up.). But my comp OS is giving me trouble, so my best friend is currently working on building a new comp for me and will be reinstalling a new OS.
But enough about me. I hope to see some new pics and progress reports from you in the future. Your build really impressed me when you posted about it long ago. I'm also planning on building another Montana possibly next year. Only this time, it'll be as the Montana was originally designed with the boat cranes, boats, etc. I already have a 1/350 North Carolina kit to rob some parts from.

[Sauragnmon]

Nice, she's coming along well Randy - looking forward to when you get moving into the 20mm galleries along the deck and such, she should be quite a mean little floating fortress when you progress along. If I do a Montana, chances are I'd give her the 3" fittings, because I happen to have a stockpile of them thankfully enough (I just like the 3" guns, what can I say).

I remember we discussed the 20mm galleries, and positions for them, so I didn't think you were ignoring me in truth. She's coming along well though, and looks good. I hope your time frees up enough you can get back to her. My own Iowa's sitting here staring at me in partially-worked state of being, needing her putty work corrected further and smoothed off.

[Timmy C]

Randy, just fyi, if you make a post as a guest, it has to be approved one one of the moderators before it will appear for public viewing. As you probably noticed, if you are logged in, your post will appear automatically (as long as you've made more than 3 posts). These are anti-spam measures, and you may note that we no longer have any automated spam on this board

And of course, your Monty looks great!

[GTDEATH13]

It is very good to see that this thread is reviving... Randy and EJM looking forward to seeing progress or pics from your work...

I will get back on my build asap and with new plans and modifications...

[Sauragnmon]

Welcome back to the party as well, Nikos - looking forward to seeing your revived plan.

[EJM]

It is very good to see that this thread is reviving... Randy and EJM looking forward to seeing progress or pics from your work...

I will get back on my build asap and with new plans and modifications...

Good to see you posting again. I'll be looking forward to more pics and progress reports.
As for myself, there's really nothing more to show about the Montana I had built. Rigging is finished. There's just a few tiny details left and then I hope to finally submit pics to the MW gallery later this summer.

[GTDEATH13]

Greetings to all Montana fans...

I was kitbashing two 1/700 modernised Iowa kits to produce a modernised Montana...

While I was waiting for some putty to set I noticed a 1/350 North Carolina kit I have on my desk gathering dust due to unwillingness for repair and overhaul....

My point is that would not it be more correct to kitbash a North Carolina kit to produce a Montana? Some earlier builds in this topic, as well as my current project, used Iowa kits.

By my point of view, the North Carolina design is much more close to the Montana design, from a shape aspect. Both the armor belt and most of the superstructure details resemble the North Carolina, much more than the Iowa or the South Dakota class....

Does anyony else share my opinion???

Perhaps I get myself a Couple of North Carolinas at 1/700 to try my lack for a Montana post WWII...

P.S. If anyone is interested in the modernised Montana there is a topic at the what-if section of the Calling all Ships Fans section...

[Dick J]

Converting a North Carolina has a couple of advantages as well as some major drawbacks. For the hull sides, it is a bit closer than an Iowa kit. Also, the original design for the Montana bridge face/conning tower is closer in concept to the North Carolina than an Iowa. But the bow, stern and funnels are closer to the Iowa - the North Carolina kit is not even close in these areas. The Montana would have had the same main battery guns and turrets as the Iowa (but with 4 rather than 3 turrets), but these were different from those on the North Carolina and South Dakota classes. Many assume that the Montana's would have been completed with the Iowa bridge, but this is only speculation. However, the one designated as a fleet flagship (I believe it was the Ohio, but I'm not positive about that) would have probably needed something closer to the Iowa bridge in order to add the third conning tower level. (South Dakota and Iowa had the third level, which is why these two ships never carried the quad 40MM on turret II.)

[EJM]

My point is that would not it be more correct to kitbash a North Carolina kit to produce a Montana? Some earlier builds in this topic, as well as my current project, used Iowa kits.

If I go to build another Montana next year, it'll be the early designed version with the boat cranes and boats amidships, North Carolina'ish type bridge structure, etc. I've got a 1/350th NC at home and I'll definately be robbing parts from that to build another Montana. I also have another 1/350th Missouri as well for extra parts. Chances are though, I'll use the Missouri hull to build the Montana and cut it as described in earlier posts to make it longer and wider.
But right now, I'm busy with my Habbakuk project, then It'll be off to work on a special F/A-18E. So maybe next year the second Montana will get done.

As for why my Montana looks sorta like an "IOWA wannabe", Well, back during the early phases of construction from 2004-2006, I really didn't have the money, modeling skills, or other resources to build the Montana the way it should have looked in various pics, sketches, and other plans. But now that I have a NC kit, my next Montana will be better.

[RandyM]

Dick raises a good point, and one I spent a great deal pondering before taking the plunge. FWIW, my reasoning went like this:

- original plans for Montana called for a round bridge much like was in current design process for Iowa. Makes sense, since USN seems to be all about re-use where possible - especially back then with a war looming.

- during the Iowa production run, the round bridge was found to be inadequate to the point that all existing class ships were refit - and wasn't New Jersey actually built with a square bridge?

Given the above, and given that the first Montana launch would have followed the last Iowa launch by a fair amount of time, I can't see any logical way in which, had Montana production moved forward, USN would have not incorporated lessons learned on Iowa into Montana - including the square bridge configuration. In other words, (and again, my opinion FWIW), the first Montana would have been configured very closely to the last Iowa in terms of bridge layout, etc.

As for the hull, I don't think it matters what you start off with - Montana's displacement was so much larger than either No. Carolina or Iowa that you're going to need to make substantial changes to either one to "get it right." If only YMW would offer JUST the hull for sale... (sigh)

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, but it does not take a great leap of faith to understand that the Dept of Navy models we've all seen photos of were very preliminary and obviously based on the current "state of the art" (as seen in early Iowa builds), and that many, many changes would have been incorporated prior to the first delivery.

That's the fun (for me) of building Montana - you can either model a model which was never built, or model something you think might have been built but never was. No matter which way you choose, you'll have to try pretty hard to get it "wrong."

[GTDEATH13]

I think that a lengthened and widened North Carolina class hull will resemble the Montana hull without much alterations-additions... Both the bow and the armor belt are likewise... The bow in particular is almost identical...

The main difference is the shape of the funnels and the main turrets... Although the barbette diameter, the roller path diameter and the distance apart gun axes are the same...

But what we are discussing here is whether it is easier/cheaper to convert a North Carolina or an Iowa kit to a Montana. The Trumpy NC is more expensive than the Tamiya Iowa (1/350 scale). And you can get 2 Tamiya kits at almost 1.5 times the price of the Trumpy kit. That is surely in favour of the Iowa kits...

But what if you blend the NC kit with that of an inferior quality IOwa kit, lets say Mini Hobbie... You get the turrets, many extra guns and lots of extras...Huh... I cant get my mind straight... Perhaps the best way is to find out in the proccess...