Moderators: BB62vet, MartinJQuinn, Timmy C, Gernot, Olaf Held, Dan K, HMAS, ModelMonkey
What parts and other stuff do you need?I have the basic donor kits I'd need for the Montana, but to do it right I'd need so many aftermarket detail and replacement parts, that the cost makes it impossible for me to do.
Now THAT is interesting! That raised my curiosity a couple notches.Anyway, if it will help brighten up anyone's day, I ran across a *very* interesting photograph the other day, and I thought I would share it with everyone.
You're quite right. I ran across an interesting image while doing some initial research, (regrettably, I did not record the source) that shows the hull section amidships. Ahe angled armor belt is clear, as is the peculiar shape of the lower hull form. I wish I knew something about hydrodynamics, because the hull form looks to be far more streamlined? than the Iowas. Here's the image:navydavesof wrote:Hey, guys,
I am just curious. It seems that a lot of people like to think that beacuse the beam on the Montanas was greater than that on the Iowas, if you built a Montana that the beam would have to be significantly larger. I want to point out that at 1/350 scale and lower, the increase in beam is very nearly unnoticable. At scale, the ships are very nearly the same width. The difference could be made up with some strip styrene laid along the sides and the armor belt, another strip of styrene, laid angled just below that.
From a modeling perspective, the challenge would be buildng the torpedo blister below the water-line. The ANGLED armor belt is easy enough. The width of the ship would be very nearly un-changed.
Just a thought, guys!
"Noticable" is a very subjective parameter. I have built Montana in 1/700. At that scale, the difference between 108 scale feet and 121 scale feet is .223 inches - 12% of the model width. Even in 1/700 scale, I find that difference VERY noticable. In 1/350, the difference is .446 inches. On the length, it might not be significant, but on the beam, almost half an inch should be noticed. At least, I probably would.navydavesof wrote: It seems that a lot of people like to think that beacuse the beam on the Montanas was greater than that on the Iowas, if you built a Montana that the beam would have to be significantly larger. I want to point out that at 1/350 scale and lower, the increase in beam is very nearly unnoticable. At scale, the ships are very nearly the same width. The difference could be made up with some strip styrene laid along the sides and the armor belt, another strip of styrene, laid angled just below that.
Indeed I stand corrected. To a modeler's eye one would notice. The point I was trying to make but did not was that some people go to the effort of cutting the hull down the middle and widening it by an inch or so that way, way over doing it. Instead, all that has to be done is stip plastic added to the sides of the hull for all the work. It works so much better taht way, because you can make the prominance of the armor belt that way as well. Depending on which version one would be constructing, the Montana would be considreably longer, 1021 feet for the 33 knot version versus 888 for Iowa.Dick J wrote:"Noticable" is a very subjective parameter. I have built Montana in 1/700. At that scale, the difference between 108 scale feet and 121 scale feet is .223 inches - 12% of the model width. Even in 1/700 scale, I find that difference VERY noticable. In 1/350, the difference is .446 inches. On the length, it might not be significant, but on the beam, almost half an inch should be noticed. At least, I probably would.navydavesof wrote: It seems that a lot of people like to think that beacuse the beam on the Montanas was greater than that on the Iowas, if you built a Montana that the beam would have to be significantly larger. I want to point out that at 1/350 scale and lower, the increase in beam is very nearly unnoticable. At scale, the ships are very nearly the same width. The difference could be made up with some strip styrene laid along the sides and the armor belt, another strip of styrene, laid angled just below that.
Huh? Where are you coming up with 1021 ft. length for the Montana? Anyway, check all my links and other info. on the first page of this thread.the Montana would be considreably longer, 1021 feet for the 33 knot version versus 888 for Iowa.
I am probably wrong, since I'm going on 4 hours sleep from yesterday, but I think this was "Design Study #8" and it is the version I am building at 1/200 which works out to 61.25" in length.Cliffy B wrote:There was a proposed fast version with the Montana's armament that would have been over 1000 feet. Friedman had some design sketches and tables of it in the chapter on the Montana in the Illustrated Design History of USN BBs IIRC.
Awesome! Cliffe is right on the money with Norman Friedman's book. There were several 33-knot versions, none of which were contracted. I apologize, the length was not 1021. It was 1050' and bore 320,000shp for 33-knots and an Iowa's power plant at 212,000shp and 31-knots. Hydrodynamics is so cool.lancer525 wrote:But it's fun to speculate, and by golly, it looks cool too! The whole reason my first post is what it was, is that I've already encountered a few people who have jumped up and screamed "THAT'S NOT WHAT IT WAS!"... To which I reply, "Oh? Show me a Montana tied up at a pier anywhere, and I'll correct it."Cliffy B wrote:There was a proposed fast version with the Montana's armament that would have been over 1000 feet. Friedman had some design sketches and tables of it in the chapter on the Montana in the Illustrated Design History of USN BBs IIRC.
I'm working on putting together a 3-D render of my proposed 1020.8-foot hull. No armor belt notch in this hullform, it's basically a "stretched" Iowa. Smooth sides. But it looks really good... I should be finished with the render by the weekend. It's only the hull, so far, but...
Friedman is one of the best, if not the best resources I've ever seen. He breaks the technical down to where a total ignoramus like me can follow it... Apparently, you and I saw some of the same information in some places, because the version I am working on was 1020'-9" or so. I know there were plans to make it big enough to carry the 18" monster gun they were developing. In fact, I've seen photos of it:navydavesof wrote:Awesome! Cliffe is right on the money with Norman Friedman's book. There were several 33-knot versions, none of which were contracted. I apologize, the length was not 1021. It was 1050' and bore 320,000shp for 33-knots and an Iowa's power plant at 212,000shp and 31-knots. Hydrodynamics is so cool.lancer525 wrote: I'm working on putting together a 3-D render of my proposed 1020.8-foot hull. No armor belt notch in this hullform, it's basically a "stretched" Iowa. Smooth sides. But it looks really good... I should be finished with the render by the weekend. It's only the hull, so far, but...
There is always some miserable person somewhere, that only enjoys life when they can make someone else miserable too. There are self-proclaimed experts all over the place, and unfortunately, those of us who just want to enjoy ourselves with our hobby, and who are imaginative enough to model "what if" suffer the brunt of them.I saw that debate someone had going with you about "that's not right!" concerning a ship that was not built. Like was stated before, the only evidence that could be called into support is the drawings given to the yards to begin construction.
That is one of the most difficult things I have encountered to this point in the project. I've seen so many iterations of the superstructure, that I just don't know what would work best. I have my ideas, but it's going to take some fiddling around in my 3D software to figure out which parts of the ones I have, to use. Sheeesh...Everything else is just fun. I would love to see a 1/350 Montana with the armor belt. I have already been challenged to build one as modernized in the 1980s...and not just modernized as the Iowas were, either, but something that would be been a more effective utilization of the real estate in the super structure.
Well, don't be too excited. It's still a long way from being anything I am willing to show anyone. But, I will present when I have something worthwhile.Like others I am sure, I am looking forward to seeing some more Montana stuff on here!
I'm sure that the armor belt was intended to be internal, as you say, exactly like the Iowas.Sauragnmon wrote:No belt, quite an odd configuration indeed - perhaps it means simply no external belt, but instead a very internal like Iowa?
There are a few places that I am just not happy with the look, but I have a good idea what it will take to fix them. The one that's bugging the bejeebers out of me is the crease on the stern. I can't, for the life of me, seem to get rid of it. Every time I try something, it gives me these weird bulges and creases. Oh well... I'm going to keep plugging away...All in all, the render looks good, I think. Very well rounded, looks for the most part quite right.
Nice looking hull. What program are you using?lancer525 wrote:There are a few places that I am just not happy with the look, but I have a good idea what it will take to fix them. The one that's bugging the bejeebers out of me is the crease on the stern. I can't, for the life of me, seem to get rid of it. Every time I try something, it gives me these weird bulges and creases. Oh well... I'm going to keep plugging away...
This weekend, I am going to use the newly-discovered "scaling" function, and resize a copy down to the dimensions of the Iowas, for comparison's sake. That should be interesting too...
Thanks!
lancer525 wrote:Gents:
Thank you for your very kind praise. I'm using a program called "DelftShip" which can be found at http://www.delftship.net
I'm using the free 3.20 version, as it has the capabilities I need. Almost all of the other CAD/Wireframe softwares have so much crap added to them that they're totally unworkable, and not worth the time and effort it takes to learn them. I want what I want NOW, and I am not going to wait around for three to five months just to learn some software. I had a drafting instructor back in the day when CAD was not nearly as common, and he told me that CAD is a tool, just like the old swing-arm drafting machines. It should make your job easier, not harder.
I am learning more tricks with this program, including something called "Controlnet Subdivide" which smooths out all those sticky little places. The program does all the fairing and dealing with all those nasty little naval architecture thingies like NURBS and hull coefficients and stuff like that. I'm hoping that I can get it to work out, so that I can transfer it to another program that will give me coordinates of corners on flat sheets, so that I can start building this puppy. At the scale I am planning on building, I'll need lots of time and patience. (and encouragement!)
