SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Anybody have a side by side comparison of the 1/350 and 1/200 USS Missouri kits? Hull that is.

4752 views
6 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2011
  • From: Schloss Adler
Anybody have a side by side comparison of the 1/350 and 1/200 USS Missouri kits? Hull that is.
Posted by MountnRide on Sunday, December 22, 2013 6:28 AM

Confused

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Tucson, AZ
Posted by Archangel Shooter on Monday, December 23, 2013 12:12 AM

Don't have the Missouri but I do have the 1/350th and 1/200th Arizona and the Trumpeter kit is HUGE when compared to the smaller kit.

 Your image is loading...

 On the bench: So many hanger queens.

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2013
Posted by chango on Monday, December 23, 2013 8:17 PM
  • Member since
    March 2009
Posted by Gaston on Wednesday, December 25, 2013 1:34 AM

 I did look at the Trumpeteer 1/700 Iowa class, and it shares the slight "banana" look of the 1/200 ship: I would expect most of the issues are the same accross all scales, since Trumpeteer are following their 1/350 releases with their 1/200 range: The profile errors are borne out of US Navy official drawings which also show, wrongly, a rising banana stern and no curve pitch change near the bow: Just one curve all the way, which is also dead wrong, the agreement between drawings and kits notwithstanding...

 Gaston

  • Member since
    May 2009
  • From: Hobart, Tasmania
Posted by Konigwolf13 on Thursday, December 26, 2013 4:10 AM

IF, the US Navy drawings are the same as the Trumpy kits and the actual ship is different, shouldn't that mean that the 1:1 is wrong and trumpy is right since that what the official drawings say?

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Formerly Bryan, now Arlington, Texas
Posted by CapnMac82 on Thursday, December 26, 2013 11:31 PM

Tracy White should be along to opine soon.

However, "US Navy" plans/drawings are not a single, unified thing.

There were USN-issued "modeler's drawing sets" which were simplified to show only the sorts of things a person could model back in those days.  These drawing sets were also economical for being the needful stuff, no plans to the after steering flat, or the like.  

There are also some official blueprint plans for some USN ships.  These are not always "as built" (or "as re-built"), but, they are 'official.'

Let us look at an example.  Not quite 200 were built, in two superstructure types, to 3 or 4 sub forms (depending upon whether or not one wants to call the slab-sided funnels a specific type).  Each of these ships were fitted and refitted, and the fit-out changed several times just during WWII.  The ships were then modified again (sometimes) during KW; and some again in the 60s & 70s.

That makes finding an 'official' plan for a given ship a bit of an exercise.

The hulls of the Iowa-class battleships are another good example.

The midship section of the Iowas do approximate a square-sided hull with almost no rise to the floors.  Now, the floor (the bottom part of the "U" of a hull frame does have some rise, it's very small in smaller scales.  A model kit manufacturer needing hull volume for batteries for a motorized kit might be forgiven for "flattening the flat."  At least for an Iowa.

  • Member since
    November 2011
  • From: Schloss Adler
Posted by MountnRide on Friday, December 27, 2013 7:54 AM

Thanks chango that's what I was looking for.

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.