hobby boss USS arizona 1/350 BB-39 [1941]

It's probably the lens fisheye, but the barrels don't look parallel to me. Try making a pattern that had three truly parallel lines to adjust if you need to.

steve5

just starting to see what I'm getting myself into . 38 pieces of PE , plus 12 barrel's .

 

     The metal barrels look super.   I do note that in your picture they are set to different elevations as if they could be elevated/depressed separately from adjacent barrels in the same turret.  I think that may be wrong.  I was of the opinion that all 3 barrels in a BB-38 and BB-39 turret were set to same elevation on all 3 barrels.   Guess we need a Pennsylvania class expert to answer this one.  

   Something to consider before you use glue!

   Nino

thank's gentlemen

gmorrison - will have another look at them . I was Pretty tired whenI finished .

nino - I haven't set them in yet , was waiting till I fixed them on the deck before gluing them in position .

One point to consider. The upper/lower hull isn't broken along Arizona's actual waterline, so if you don't paint or repaint following the break between pieces she'll be 8-10 scale feet too high out of the water.

Yes, that's a flaw on several Trumpeter kits. 

On BB-39, the rifles were set in threes at the same elevation.

thanks tracy , as my maths isn't that great how much higher should I put the water line ?

got some guns done ,

the funnel

Steve,

Such fine detail at such a small scale, looking good there mate, can't wait to see her finished.

Michael D.

thank's michael , I am going to have to practise my bending of the PE . it isn't great . I have heard about annealing the brass , might try it . after I watch some you tube .

Hey Steve, that funnel looks awesome. Nice work bending and fitting all that. It looks really good! Yeah, look into annealing because it might make your job easier. It helps to keep the metal from kinking, allowing a person to achieve smoother curves.

This does look very nice. 

May I make a couple of suggestions?

Assuming these are not test fit pictures. One real challenge of building complex warships at smaller scales is painting them. 

PE should be primed up front, either while still flat or at least before installing. ESP. With acrylic paint final colors.

This particular ship had vertical and horizontal surfaces painted two colors that are very close, but not identical, and in many cases the deck was a different linoleum color, or natural wood.

Later in the war the verticals of USN ships changed a lot, while the decks stayed mostly blue.

It is very hard to paint all of that once railings are installed. 

However much you can pre-paint, the better.

10 feet at 1/350 scale is 1/35 of a foot. Which is about 1/3 of an inch.

Round down a little to match the range Tracy noted- call it 5/16”.

Now there’s a black stripe at the waterline, the boot topping.  

Its wider than you think, maybe 4 feet or so. I’d be interested to hear the opinions on that. It’s a bit of a painting clenched as well, since it’s top and bottom edges are on level lines and it’s true dimension varies as the hull slope changes.

GMorrison

Yes, that's a flaw on several Trumpeter kits. 

GM,

Is that really a “flaw”?  I thought it was a “feature”!  

The problem with most waterline hulls is that you that you can‘t show the model on anything other than a perfectly flat calm sea.  Having some extra hull material would allow you to show the subject underway, with some wave and wake action sculpted into the display base‘s “sea”.

-Bill

thanks gmorrison for the help in the math's , alway's was only average at that . I wasn't sure how I would go at the PE . seem to be bumbling through , will try the annealing process , and see what happen's after that regarding painting and gluing . as I will have to heat up the PE first and I don't think acrylic like's naked flames , or laqueur , enamel for that fact . but I appreciate the input .

rcboater

 

 

GMorrison

Yes, that's a flaw on several Trumpeter kits. 

 

 

 

GM,

Is that really a “flaw”?  I thought it was a “feature”!  

The problem with most waterline hulls is that you that you can‘t show the model on anything other than a perfectly flat calm sea.  Having some extra hull material would allow you to show the subject underway, with some wave and wake action sculpted into the display base‘s “sea”.

 

-Bill

 

 

 

Or worse, I’m building a Dragon CL and the waterline version is ok, but the separate lower hull half is a good 15’ too shallow. It’s going to require a insert.

Steve, you are one of the best & your photo etch is really super. That is a beautiful PE set & you work on it looks perfect. What kind of paint did you decide on. 

                                                                  Gene

thank's gene mate , will be using MM & tamiya paint's .

GMorrison

Its wider than you think, maybe 4 feet or so

Somewhere in my pile of refernce material is a guidline to boot topping widths, which was by class/size of ships.

And, IIRC, the widths are a guideline, as it mentions that ships at sea benefit from wider boot topping than ships largely in harbors in peacetime.

I want to say that battleships were recommended a 6' boot topping, as that allowed a lot of steaming (and using up expendibles) whitout showing any read bottom paint.

During wartime the boot topping width was doubled, as ships were more likely to expend ammo as well as ordinary expendibles; also to cruise to much more extended range.

The wider boot topping was also considered to help confuse exactly where i nthe water the ship was, which would confuse the range estimate.

The captain of the ship was the final arbiter of just where the boot topping started and stopped viz-a-viz load waterline.  Some captains would go 1/3 and 2/3; some 1/2 & 1/2.  Often, this was set out during dry docking when a ship would be at its lightest.  Weld lines would be scribed on the hull to guide painting layout (the hull numbers & name were similarly scribed).

6' at 1/350 is 0.205" (5.22mm)

Well you caught me. I think 6' is the deal for a big BB but it seemed a little beyond- memory fails.

It's hard to paint the stripe while afloat, and to be anywhere below light would be impossible.

Interesting though, and again not as big a deal on BB-39 as on my current builds the CL's.

Ammunition was loaded in advance of a mission, not much before. An Atlanta Class CL had 16 5" guns and each had 200 rounds on board for a battle. That's 3200 rounds at 100 pounds or so each, 320,000 pounds.

That equates to 16 tons, which on a 5,000 ton displacement ship is a 0.3% difference. Assuming 20 foot freeboard, thats about 9".

Add 100 pounds per sailor (1,000) another 5 tons or 2-3".

Then fuel.

You get 24" or so of difference. 

since this subject has come up , I have decided to glue the two halve's together , thought it would be pretty simple , but they didn't line too well . the top halve was a bit wider than the bottom , it has taken a bit of sanding to get it too primer stage , [ that's next ] it will still need a fair bit of work after that .

CapnMac82

Somewhere in my pile of refernce material is a guidline to boot topping widths, which was by class/size of ships.

I'd really like to know what that manual is, because it flies in the face of the technical documentation I've read.

gmorrison

I followed your logic until the end. When you divided pounds to get tons I think you dropped zeros. So instead of 16 tons of ammunition it should be 160 tons and for the crew instead of 5 tons, 50 tons. Also I think the average weight of a crew member should probably be 150 lbs not 100.

One last comment. In the case of my ship (at a much later date) the magazines were always kept full only being topped off for ammunition expended in practice shoots. Since we were using ammo left over from WWII we were encouraged to use as much as we wanted. In the case of the Atlanta I would expect it would return from a battle with a reserve  still in the magazines and be immediately rearmed so it was ready for the next one.

You're right.

Displacement tonnage is base on volume, not weight; adding and subtracting weight gets complicated.

In the case of an Atlanta, your expendables are all the bunker fuel, all the ammo (5", 40mm, 20mm, and torpedoes), potable water, food stuffs, and all the spares.

The CL(AA) were taught at Newport becasue, as over-sized destroyers, they had pretty dramatic stability equations.  The CLs had more beam and did not produce the same sort of head-desking equations.

CapnMac82

Displacement tonnage is base on volume, not weight; adding and subtracting weight gets complicated.

In the case of an Atlanta, your expendables are all the bunker fuel, all the ammo (5", 40mm, 20mm, and torpedoes), potable water, food stuffs, and all the spares.

The CL(AA) were taught at Newport becasue, as over-sized destroyers, they had pretty dramatic stability equations.  The CLs had more beam and did not produce the same sort of head-desking equations.

 

The 100 pounds/ sailor wasn't the warm body; it's the expendables and it's a low estimate.

CapnMac82

The CL(AA) were taught at Newport because, as over-sized destroyers, they had pretty dramatic stability equations.  The CLs had more beam and did not produce the same sort of head-desking equations.

My Basic Naval Architecture class at CGA used the DD-692 (long hull).  I still have the book and the graphs -  for solving tons per inch immersion/stability problems...

Sorry to hijack, or pirate more appropriate, this thread.

Just finished a book about 19th Century merchant ship design. Unlike the Navy, they pay taxes and the tonnage is entirely a formula based on just a handful of overall dimensions.

The art was in building a beamy ship with convex bows that could still sail reasonably fast.

It was seriously thought that deeper ships sailed faster.

I've updated my CL-52 build (hull) over on my WIP thread.

As far as BB-39 is concerned, Steve5 you need to rent "Here Comes The Navy".

Nino

 

 

 

steve5

just starting to see what I'm getting myself into . 38 pieces of PE , plus 12 barrel's .

 

 

 

 

 

     The metal barrels look super.   I do note that in your picture they are set to different elevations as if they could be elevated/depressed separately from adjacent barrels in the same turret.  I think that may be wrong.  I was of the opinion that all 3 barrels in a BB-38 and BB-39 turret were set to same elevation on all 3 barrels.   Guess we need a Pennsylvania class expert to answer this one.  

   Something to consider before you use glue!

   Nino

( My hand written notes that I have in my old Dragon Pennsylvania  kit box says "...the guns could not elevate independently".  Not a reference I would bet the farm on but something that will need to be confirmed.)

 

 

 

Actually The gimick Trumpeter used for the Arizona's barrels is suprisingly accurate it actually allows you to pose the barrels at different elevations seperately. Which means you can pose all guns elevated to firing position or you can pose two barrels in post firing(loading) position with the last gun in the turret firing.