In World War II, there was a proposal to convert some or all IOWA class battleships into aircraft carriers. There's not much I've been able to find out about this proposal. Only one diagram officially exists of this never were project which is shown below.
Several days ago, I learned from a fellow modeling friend that he was thinning down his modeling stash and he had asked me if I wanted his partially built Iowa battleship/carrier model conversion. Being that he knew I loved doing what if model projects, I instantly said YES! I never even knew he had started something like this. And I've never heard of anyone else attempting this project either around the Internet or elsewhere.
So yesterday during the monthly model club meeting and Christmas party, he brought the unfinished BB/CV and gave it to me as a gift. To say I am speechless is an understatement. He also said there's some extra parts and photoetch for the model and that he'll have to mail all that to me. The only bad thing right now is that a balcony/walkway on the port bow side broke off when I was transporting it home from the club meeting. But it should be easily fixable.
I've always dreamed of starting a what if project like this in the future, but never dreamed that somebody had already beaten me to it. It's sad to see that my friend wasn't able to finish this model, but he said that he highly doubted he'd have time for it anymore, so he needed to find a good home/person who would have it rather than chucking it in the trash.
I feel honored to have this model and I hope I can eventually do it justice and make it an outstanding piece of work. Also, this model is in 1/350 scale. It might be a long time before I finish this BB/CV model project as I have 1-2 other model subjects to finish beforehand.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/40/31580683625_4236a7e356_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/1/305/31580683665_85b921d974_c.jpg)
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/1/743/31434352982_e1445b7121_c.jpg)
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/1/606/31434353012_5a4f84b232_c.jpg)
.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/422/30739686474_0695788358_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/631/30739686534_d0a48fb611_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/671/30739686564_5492ca5e4f_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5592/31434450242_687613ff8a_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/441/31434450302_3fd12a127e_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/151/30771119683_b7a1eb0e71_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/236/30771119713_d766b1728f_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/364/30771171123_32eb3f06cb_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/751/30771171133_ee26258cc6_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/95/31434575082_308834308d_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/579/31434575112_1f9fea9870_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/575/30771253383_5ee7dac555_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/123/30771253333_e81a72da23_c.jpg)
Wow, great gift!- he made a good start on it. I think the gun tubs near the bow look a bit odd. Great project!
Quote from: sandiego89 on December 11, 2016, 01:52:50 PM
Wow, great gift!- he made a good start on it. I think the gun tubs near the bow look a bit odd. Great project!
Yeah, there's a few things that look "odd" on the model. So eventually, I will be making additional deletions and additions, one of them being changes to armament and all the weapon galleries and sponsons. I want to try and get as close to the blueprint as possible........I hope. But whether the blueprint is a preliminary or final design, I don't know. :-\
Drawing says preliminary study so still in a pretty flexible stage. I'd say go with what looks good to you and reasonable in that time frame.
Looks like your friend had put a lot of work into this already. I can see why he wanted someone who might finish it. It has the potential to be a great model. Then of course you have to consider the air wing! Bearcats and Flying Flapjacks.
You will of course, do a "follow-on" rebuild with an angled flight deck, improved radar and a great deal more light AA, won't you? ;)
QuoteThen of course you have to consider the air wing! Bearcats and Flying Flapjacks.
Or would that be Bearcats chasing the Flying Flapjacks and trying to eat them? ;D (joke)
Quote from: rickshaw on December 11, 2016, 06:00:14 PM
You will of course, do a "follow-on" rebuild with an angled flight deck, improved radar and a great deal more light AA, won't you? ;)
I think one Iowa carrier conversion is enough to "test" my modeling skills and patience. I don't need any more headaches as it is. I'll concede and let you do the angled deck version. ;)
And by the end of the war these ships had enough AA guns to make the ship look like a pin cushion.
The angled flight deck rebuild can be after they were brought out of mothballs for Vietnam.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7220.15.html (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7220.15.html)
There's a bit on our Sister site that puts the Freidmans US Battleships as a primary data source with Wayne Scarpaci's Iowa Class Conversion projects as a 2nd.
Not a lot in Wayne's book just a side profile and one of his paintings as efforts were better used in building the Essex Class and developing the Midway class than modifying the two incomplete Iowa's to a Carrier configuration that was less capable than the Essex class.
Should be a nice build once you correct it, I suspect your friend got carried away with the fit applied to the Essex class for his adlibs, plus a bit of the minds eye modelling, where your mental image overrides what your references actually show.
Very nice ! Looks a natural like that. Can't wait to see more !
:wub:
Quote from: Thorvic on December 12, 2016, 03:20:54 AM
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7220.15.html (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7220.15.html)
There's a bit on our Sister site that puts the Freidmans US Battleships as a primary data source with Wayne Scarpaci's Iowa Class Conversion projects as a 2nd.
Not a lot in Wayne's book just a side profile and one of his paintings as efforts were better used in building the Essex Class and developing the Midway class than modifying the two incomplete Iowa's to a Carrier configuration that was less capable than the Essex class.
Should be a nice build once you correct it, I suspect your friend got carried away with the fit applied to the Essex class for his adlibs, plus a bit of the minds eye modelling, where your mental image overrides what your references actually show.
I'll take a look through that linked thread when I have the time. Thanks for pointing that out. :thumbsup: I do have Freidman's US Battleships book and Garzke & Dulin's Battleships book. I consider both of them to be 1st and 2nd, whereas Wayne's book (Which I also have.) might be a 3rd........but just barely. :P
Very nice work. :thumbsup:
I am looking forward to the end result.
JoeP
I'll probably use the same name that Wayne Scarpaci mentioned in his book: the USS Santa Cruz. I kinda like the sound of that. ;)
I am uncertain of a camouflage measure for the ship. I'll gladly take suggestions. But be warned: I don't have an airbrush. I do all my painting with a spray can and/or by brush painting.
Quote from: seadude on December 26, 2016, 09:53:18 AM
But be warned: I don't have an airbrush. I do all my painting with a spray can and/or by brush painting.
Nothing wrong with that at all, they're perfectly acceptable means of painting a model.
The current belief that modelling is just impossible without the use of an airbrush is a myth put about by people who are too young to have learnt how to paint with a brush.
[I'd say 'rant mode off' here, but I have no intention of turning it off!]
Rant mode continues.....lol
I've had an airbrush for almost 20 years, and hardly use it. I enjoy my modelling time and brush painting is relaxing, and a lot less clean up :thumbsup:
I painted my first model at the age of seven, using a brush(not particularly well, it must be admitted). I see no need to change now after 57 years of hairy stick wielding
On painting - I hate to paint! The only thing worse is actually decalling. Too bad I'm just a little bit too interested in a somewhat "realistic" result to leave the models unpainted all together.
That said, going through the fuss of masking, setting up a spray booth, loading and cleaning a spraygun.. not a chance. I'm brushing on. Being significantly better paid now than then when I got in to this hobby at seven, I actually now sometimes even just don't bother to clean the bloody brush, should I find it be of minor quality. Not very recyclable, I'm afraid, but I compensate by working in the green energy field.. 😉
So - brush on! I'm more interested in the cutting of plastic..
Quote from: Pellson on December 28, 2016, 12:35:12 PM
That said, going through the fuss of masking, setting up a spray booth, loading and cleaning a spraygun.. not a chance. I'm brushing on. Being significantly better paid now than then when I got in to this hobby at seven, I actually now sometimes even just don't bother to clean the bloody brush, should I find it be of minor quality.
I can't disagree with that statement, even though my niece has offered me a airbrush set up as my 65th present in March (not sure given my ongoing eye conditions it's worth it however ?). Where I do disagree is that I tend to buy the best quality brushes I can afford and then look after them. When they start to get a little "tired" then DeLuxe Materials Brush Magic works wonders :thumbsup:
Quote from: NARSES2 on December 29, 2016, 12:23:10 AM
I can't disagree with that statement, even though my niece has offered me a airbrush set up as my 65th present in March (not sure given my ongoing eye conditions it's worth it however ?). Where I do disagree is that I tend to buy the best quality brushes I can afford and then look after them. When they start to get a little "tired" then DeLuxe Materials Brush Magic works wonders :thumbsup:
Won't object to that, but what kind of brushes do you find the best?
Getting back to the model at hand.........anybody have any good suggestions for camouflage measures? Somewhere in the late 1944 to early 1946 timeframe?
Was the disruptive aka "dazzle" scheme still being used then?
Quote from: Pellson on December 29, 2016, 03:56:28 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on December 29, 2016, 12:23:10 AM
I can't disagree with that statement, even though my niece has offered me a airbrush set up as my 65th present in March (not sure given my ongoing eye conditions it's worth it however ?). Where I do disagree is that I tend to buy the best quality brushes I can afford and then look after them. When they start to get a little "tired" then DeLuxe Materials Brush Magic works wonders :thumbsup:
Won't object to that, but what kind of brushes do you find the best?
I simply go into my local stationers and browse the collection in their arts section. Flat brushes from a couple of mm up to 20mm or so (sorry to be imprecise but they are still in Imperial) and round brushes from 000 to No 4 or so
Quote from: kerick on December 29, 2016, 06:02:55 PM
Was the disruptive aka "dazzle" scheme still being used then?
I didn't it was. But looking at Google perhaps it was after all ? There are some fantastic schemes on there
On ships, if to stay historically reasonably accurate, I think you will find that MS32 applied, which basically was a matt dark sea blue on the lower parts of the hull and a lighter sea grey over that. You might have to google ship pics as unfortunately, the otherwise fantastic www.navsource.org seems to be off line.. :(
On brushes - I was more interested in the material/straw. I find pony tail close to useless, but some of the better options are.. umm.. less than politically correct to buy, it seems..
I'd go with whatever the battleships of the time were wearing :thumbsup:
Quote from: Pellson on December 30, 2016, 07:23:41 AM
On ships, if to stay historically reasonably accurate, I think you will find that MS32 applied, which basically was a matt dark sea blue on the lower parts of the hull and a lighter sea grey over that.
Disregard that. This is USS Missouri in 1944. She should be a reasonable template for you.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsteelnavy.com%2Fimages%2Fiowa%2FMs%2520shakedown%252044%252002.jpg&hash=fb41d0d9ab16fe103ab89a16c0478c986d37b52b)
That's Measure 32, Design 22D.
See, I'm not just aeroplane modeller. ;D
It's just that I did a few ships umpteen years ago. There's a good Wiki page on that stuff with lots of diagrams here :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_US_Navy_dazzle_camouflage_measures_31,_32_and_33:_battleships (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_US_Navy_dazzle_camouflage_measures_31,_32_and_33:_battleships)
That one in your pic is the very last one on the page.
Quote from: NARSES2 on December 30, 2016, 02:32:37 AM
Quote from: kerick on December 29, 2016, 06:02:55 PM
Was the disruptive aka "dazzle" scheme still being used then?
I didn't it was. But looking at Google perhaps it was after all ? There are some fantastic schemes on there
Yep, dazzle was used in WWII.
That would look awesome! Looks like there were aircraft carrier versions too. That would be worth looking up.
IIRC the dazzle painted ships were shot at more than regular one color ships but hit less often.
You guys are forgetting something. While that Wiki link to dazzle schemes is nice, it's mostly about dazzle schemes to "battleships".
What I plan to build/finish is an "aircraft carrier". ;) So, I need an appropriate aircraft carrier camouflage. Not battleship camouflage.
Dazzle was used on all ship types. Look at the various schemes and create yer own, or do a search for 'aircraft carrier dazzle'.
Voila,Yorktown:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelnavy.com%2Fimages%2Ftrumpeter%2FYorktown%2Fcv10_camo.jpg&hash=d4a3da8c92a716b40b847540302d928d2ef0ad32)
You can also go here:
http://www.shipcamouflage.com/usn_cv.htm
Click on the Measure 32, Measure 33 links.
Quote from: seadude on December 30, 2016, 03:46:33 PM
You guys are forgetting something. While that Wiki link to dazzle schemes is nice, it's mostly about dazzle schemes to "battleships".
What I plan to build/finish is an "aircraft carrier". ;) So, I need an appropriate aircraft carrier camouflage. Not battleship camouflage.
I didn't forget it, I just know that page, and there are links on it to the appropriate carrier page, which is here :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_US_Navy_dazzle_camouflage_measures_31,_32_and_33:_aircraft_carriers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_US_Navy_dazzle_camouflage_measures_31,_32_and_33:_aircraft_carriers)
Quote from: PR19_Kit on December 30, 2016, 04:13:49 PM
Quote from: seadude on December 30, 2016, 03:46:33 PM
You guys are forgetting something. While that Wiki link to dazzle schemes is nice, it's mostly about dazzle schemes to "battleships".
What I plan to build/finish is an "aircraft carrier". ;) So, I need an appropriate aircraft carrier camouflage. Not battleship camouflage.
I didn't forget it, I just know that page, and there are links on it to the appropriate carrier page, which is here :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_US_Navy_dazzle_camouflage_measures_31,_32_and_33:_aircraft_carriers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_US_Navy_dazzle_camouflage_measures_31,_32_and_33:_aircraft_carriers)
The more I look at that dazzle camouflage carrier link, the more I hate dazzle camouflage patterns. Period. Main problem I can see myself with is trying to use masking tape to get straight lines in all sorts of nooks, crannies, etc. to get all the edges of paint shapes straight. Especially if it's on/around the island superstructure with all the radars, searchlights, gun tubs, etc. Just seems like too much work to me to try and get all the "lines, edges, and shapes" straight. Especially in hard to reach areas and corners all over the ship. I think I'd rather go with a much simpler "non-dazzle" camouflage measure.
QuoteYou can also go here:
http://www.shipcamouflage.com/usn_cv.htm
Going by that link, I'll probably use either the MS21 or MS22 measures as used on Essex class carriers in 1945, which is the same timeframe I'll base my Iowa carrier in. It also appears more Essex class carriers wore the MS21 measure in 1945 than they did the MS22 measure.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on December 30, 2016, 03:37:13 PM
Quote from: NARSES2 on December 30, 2016, 02:32:37 AM
Quote from: kerick on December 29, 2016, 06:02:55 PM
Was the disruptive aka "dazzle" scheme still being used then?
I didn't it was. But looking at Google perhaps it was after all ? There are some fantastic schemes on there
Yep, dazzle was used in WWII.
I knew that Jon, I just didn't realise it had gone on so late in the war, particularly in the USN. Some of those carrier schemes are amazing, but paint them in 1/350 let alone 1/700 ? :o
Quote from: Pellson on December 30, 2016, 07:23:41 AM
On brushes - I was more interested in the material/straw. I find pony tail close to useless, but some of the better options are.. umm.. less than politically correct to buy, it seems..
Right, apologies.
Sable, pricey or a good quality synthetic brush. Get the best you can afford and then make sure you clean them properly and they will last for ever. DeLuxe Materials Brush Magic will save almost any brush, regardless of its state.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on December 30, 2016, 03:53:36 PM
Dazzle was used on all ship types. Look at the various schemes and create yer own, or do a search for 'aircraft carrier dazzle'.
Voila,Yorktown:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelnavy.com%2Fimages%2Ftrumpeter%2FYorktown%2Fcv10_camo.jpg&hash=d4a3da8c92a716b40b847540302d928d2ef0ad32)
You can also go here:
http://www.shipcamouflage.com/usn_cv.htm
Click on the Measure 32, Measure 33 links.
Now make it look "digital" just to screw with people.....
I don't have a backstory figured out yet, but I do have a few things figured out for my CVB project.
I'm going to use the USS Kentucky as my basepoint. Keel laid on March 7, 1942 and supposedly commissioned sometime in early or mid 1945 as a converted aircraft carrier. This assumes that it takes roughly 3 to 3 1/2 years to make an IOWA class battleship from keel laid to commissioning based on all the dates I've read for all the Iowa class ships.
Name will be the USS Santa Cruz.
Not sure what designation and number to use: CV-44, CVB-44, CVBB-44, CV-66, CVB-66, CVBB-66
Camouflage measure: Either MS21 or MS22. Though most Essex class carriers (Which an Iowa carrier conversion is based on) tended to use MS21 in 1945 more than MS22, the MS21 makes the ship look like a "blue brick". :P I may end up going with the MS22 instead.
I think the toughest part will be building and adding the various radars atop the superstructure. Radars tended to change about as fast as a person changed their socks. :P And not all Essex class carriers were the same from one ship to another.
Quote from: seadude on January 01, 2017, 09:29:04 AM
I think the toughest part will be building and adding the various radars atop the superstructure. Radars tended to change about as fast as a person changed their socks. :P And not all Essex class carriers were the same from one ship to another.
Absolutely, by the end of the War they are a veritable forest and as you say no ship was the same
Quote from: seadude on January 01, 2017, 09:29:04 AM
I don't have a backstory figured out yet, but I do have a few things figured out for my CVB project.
I'm going to use the USS Kentucky as my basepoint. Keel laid on March 7, 1942 and supposedly commissioned sometime in early or mid 1945 as a converted aircraft carrier. This assumes that it takes roughly 3 to 3 1/2 years to make an IOWA class battleship from keel laid to commissioning based on all the dates I've read for all the Iowa class ships.
Name will be the USS Santa Cruz.
Not sure what designation and number to use: CV-44, CVB-44, CVBB-44, CV-66, CVB-66, CVBB-66
Camouflage measure: Either MS21 or MS22. Though most Essex class carriers (Which an Iowa carrier conversion is based on) tended to use MS21 in 1945 more than MS22, the MS21 makes the ship look like a "blue brick". :P I may end up going with the MS22 instead.
I think the toughest part will be building and adding the various radars atop the superstructure. Radars tended to change about as fast as a person changed their socks. :P And not all Essex class carriers were the same from one ship to another.
Unless you plan to leave some of the big weapons in place she would be a CV, or maybe a CVB like the Midways.
That design seems a bit curious - in that the flight deck is significantly shorter than the hull.
Previously, the USN used ex-battlecruiser hulls for the extemporised carriers Lexington & Saratoga - with full length flight decks.
What with the value of flight deck space upfront for parking aircraft, its an apparently odd omission.
Unless its a sea-keeping thing, & it was figured the bow would be dipping through wave crests - in heavy weather?
I was wondering if it would be feasible to have a twin hull battleship/aircraft carrier, sort of like Tophe does many of his twin boomers.
Have two Iowa class battleships, complete with 9 x 16" guns, as the two hulls of a catamaran, with a flight deck and hangars between them.
Not withstanding the structural complexities ( articulated cross-members?) required to emulate the large sea-going double-hulled 'waka' of the Maori,
wasn't the beam of these big bruisers already dictated - by the width of the Panama canal?
Quote from: James W. on May 04, 2017, 11:40:44 PM
wasn't the beam of these big bruisers already dictated - by the width of the Panama canal?
Quite probably, and having been through the Canal I can tell you it's narrow. Our cruise ship was relatively small and we were almost scrapping the sides.
But surely in WhiffWorld there are TWO Panama Canals, one alongside the other, built especially to take those twin hulled carrier/battleships................. ;D ;) ;D ;) ;D ;)
Quote from: seadude on January 01, 2017, 09:29:04 AM
I think the toughest part will be building and adding the various radars atop the superstructure. Radars tended to change about as fast as a person changed their socks. :P And not all Essex class carriers were the same from one ship to another.
That should make it easy then....anything goes ! :thumbsup:
Quote from: NARSES2 on May 05, 2017, 05:49:45 AM
Quote from: James W. on May 04, 2017, 11:40:44 PM
wasn't the beam of these big bruisers already dictated - by the width of the Panama canal?
Quite probably, and having been through the Canal I can tell you it's narrow. Our cruise ship was relatively small and we were almost scrapping the sides.
If I'm not too mistaken, I think there's 1-2 feet of space on either side of the Iowa when it goes through the Panama Canal locks.
Quick!
Tweet 'the Donald' & suggest he re-activate 'Operation Plowshare'!
A prime display of 'merican nucular muscle at work, for peace & a big-as canal - too!
That's a "Win Win"!
Quote from: seadude on May 05, 2017, 10:47:05 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on May 05, 2017, 05:49:45 AM
Quote from: James W. on May 04, 2017, 11:40:44 PM
wasn't the beam of these big bruisers already dictated - by the width of the Panama canal?
Quite probably, and having been through the Canal I can tell you it's narrow. Our cruise ship was relatively small and we were almost scrapping the sides.
If I'm not too mistaken, I think there's 1-2 feet of space on either side of the Iowa when it goes through the Panama Canal locks.
1 foot each side, by design.
Well, make it a trimaran.
The flight deck gets its own hull, which is narrow enough to negotiate the Panama Canal.
The three hulls can separate for short periods, such as traversing the Canal. Once through to the other side the parts could be rejoined.
Quote from: JoeP on May 05, 2017, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: seadude on May 05, 2017, 10:47:05 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on May 05, 2017, 05:49:45 AM
Quote from: James W. on May 04, 2017, 11:40:44 PM
wasn't the beam of these big bruisers already dictated - by the width of the Panama canal?
Quite probably, and having been through the Canal I can tell you it's narrow. Our cruise ship was relatively small and we were almost scrapping the sides.
If I'm not too mistaken, I think there's 1-2 feet of space on either side of the Iowa when it goes through the Panama Canal locks.
1 foot each side, by design.
That's about what our cruise ship had. Fascinating watching it edge through the locks
Why worry about the Panama Canal? Just make sure you had enough in each ocean to fulfil your needs.
Quote from: zenrat on May 06, 2017, 03:42:30 AM
Why worry about the Panama Canal? Just make sure you had enough in each ocean to fulfil your needs.
"Enough"what?
Water to float that much steel in? L.O.L..
& just imagine what the turning circle would be, to head 'er into the wind - for flight ops.. blimey..
Quote from: James W. on May 06, 2017, 04:46:27 PM
Quote from: zenrat on May 06, 2017, 03:42:30 AM
Why worry about the Panama Canal? Just make sure you had enough in each ocean to fulfil your needs.
"Enough"what? ...
Enough Iowa class Battleship/Carriers obviously.
:rolleyes:
Irony lost at sea, zenrat, or did it fly over your head.. in a flightdeck clearing 16" salvo..
A whole year has gone by. What's up with this project? Well......... :rolleyes:
Went to the Manitowoc Maritime Museum Model Contest this past weekend (May 18-20) in Manitowoc, Wisconsin and took my USS Solace LHD hospital ship for competition. For the past several years since 2014 when I've gone to Manitowoc, I've always entered my models at the Novice level since my modeling skills aren't up to par next to more experienced and professional modelers. But now, things have changed. I thought maybe I'd get a 2nd or 3rd Place for my hospital ship. But instead, I got 1st Place! :o Now here's the kicker:
According to the registration information for this contest, if a person wins a gold in the Novice level, they must then enter at the Intermediate level next year. In other words, I must go up! And if a person wins a gold at the Intermediate level, they must advance to the Advanced level. You can go up, but you can't go back down.
So.........now I have to up my A game. I have to try and build something maybe even better than my hospital ship. But what? :unsure: The only thing that comes to mind is a partially built Iowa battleship/carrier hybrid that another modeling friend gave to me about 2 years ago. It's 40-50% built already. All I have to do is the other 50% or so which is more detailing, painting, and decaling. It's the only project I can think of that is already partially constructed and could be finished in time for next year. The only problem with the Iowa carrier is that not a lot of information exists about such a conversion. There is only one official diagram I have found on the Net showing such a proposal.
References that I'll be using for this model project:
1. "BATTLESHIPS: United States Battleships, 1935-1992" by William H. Garzke and Robert O. Dulin, Copyright 1995 (Updated Edition)
Chapter 8, Pages 288-291
2. "US Battleship Conversion Projects, 1942-1965, an illustrated technical reference" by Wayne Scarpaci, Copyright 2013, Pages 45 and 46.
3. "Essex Class Aircraft Carriers of the Second World War" by Steve Backer, Copyright 2009 by Seaforth Publishing.
4. "Iowa Class Battleships" by Lester Abbey, Copyright 2012 by Seaforth Publishing.
(NOTE: #'s 3 & 4 above do not have any carrier conversion information in them, but are useful with lots of model building information.)
And contrary to popular belief, Norman Friedman's book "US Battleships, an Illustrated Design History" does not have any information about Iowa battleships converted into aircraft carriers. I've already looked through the book and could find no information whatsoever. I did place an inter-library loan to check out another Friedman book from a library in my state. That would be Friedman's "US Carriers, an Illustrated Design History". I'm hoping there might be some information or schematics in that book.
Well done on the 1st Place mate :bow:
Congrats 'dude.
:thumbsup:
There's nothing about it in Friedman's U.S Carriers aside from a passing mention of
it in the context of possible conversions, including some based on the Alaska class cruisers.
No drawings at all.
Can an Admin move this thread to the Warships & Ships subforum within the Current and Finished Projects forum, please?
Anyway.........long time, no see, folks. How's it going? Decided to dig this project out of mothballs and put it back into drydock to do some more work on it and hopefully get it finished for some model contests next Spring.
Full album
https://www.flickr.com/photos/72147279@N06/albums/72157675970938062
Approximate sizes of 1/350 scale Iowa class battleship (Top), Iowa battleship/carrier conversion (Middle), and ESSEX class aircraft carrier (Bottom).
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1880/44722674301_fe5ebc7c08_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1878/44722718521_04e99bbd41_b.jpg)
Scratchbuilt the port bow 5"/38 gun platform. It's not perfect, but it's the best I could do. Still needs a little bit of light sanding where the putty is as soon as I am able to buy more sanding sticks. Next to work on will be the port aft 5"/38 gun platform which will probably have a similar configuration.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1844/44673562412_fcde209b83_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1858/44005322484_6458b4b2a4_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1896/30852652348_bed7510f52_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1847/43814277395_4e84e529c5_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1849/44722932381_cbd259ee94_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1877/44005455814_41d6d1ac6e_c.jpg)
An awesome job there. :thumbsup:
What's surprising to me is how large an Essex was compared to an Iowa. Somehow I always thought of an Essex as a relatively small ship, but it seems not.
I'm trying to figure out if I should put any sort of armament at the bow in front of the flight deck. I'm really hesitant on doing this as I feel it would interfere with flight operations. I removed the side by side 40mm gun tubs that my modeling friend had originally placed at the bow as I felt they didn't look good in that area. (See pictures on Page 1 of this thread.)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1888/44010667854_dfede4f6cd_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1860/30857960018_d717c74318_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1894/44010780114_4e66cae5cc_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1886/44010780144_bfc101f0f2_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1888/42919105240_e8ba8f6638_c.jpg)
impressive work - well done
Still deciding if I want a 40mm gun and tub in front of the flight deck. :-\ Sorry about the blurriness in any pics. One thing I am uncertain on is adding the 20mm bow shield to the bow of the model. There won't be any 20mm guns added there. Keep it or ditch it?
In one of the pics, the 40mm gun on the left is from a TAMIYA 1/350 scale USS Missouri battleship kit. The 40mm gun on the right is from a Trumpeter 1/350 scale USS Franklin CV-13 Essex class carrier kit. The TAMIYA gun is slightly less detailed, but does have the gun shield. The Franklin 40mm gun is more detailed, but doesn't have a gun shield. Tough choice on which to use. :(
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1874/43838109965_2188611e56_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1874/44697931812_9a802b2c77_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1894/29810283797_d08d133263_c.jpg)
Hi, seadude! :thumbsup:
That raised bow would concern me as a pilot, even without the gun shields in place, as many aircraft dip as they go over the end of the deck on take-off, so I'd lose the 20mm gun shields.
Not sure I like the 40mm's there, either. To me, a quad or twin either side of the flight deck would be better, having a much greater field of fire. Where it is now an aircraft could fly low into the bow with almost no way for the gunners to fire on them, as the bow is in the way. With the guns on either side of the deck, that pilot would be facing a cross-fire from up to 8 x 40mm guns
As for which 40mm's, if you want the better detail I'd go with the Franklin guns, as the shields should be fairly easy to scratch from thin styrene card.
Really like what you're doing, btw! :lol:
Added a 20mm gun bow shield from a TAMIYA USS Missouri kit to see how it looks and if it might be too big/tall in that area to use.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1874/43838109965_2188611e56_c.jpg)
The 40mm gun on the left is from a TAMIYA 1/350 scale USS Missouri battleship kit. The 40mm gun on the right is from a Trumpeter 1/350 scale USS Franklin CV-13 Essex class carrier kit. The TAMIYA gun is slightly less detailed, but does have the gun shield. The Franklin 40mm gun is more detailed, but doesn't have a gun shield. Tough choice on which to use. :(
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1894/29810283797_d08d133263_c.jpg)
Decided to ditch using a 20mm gun shield part from a TAMIYA USS Missouri kit at the bow as it was too big/high. Instead, I scratchbuilt a new shield piece which is slightly smaller from plastic strip.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1883/44721868462_4c18086bf4_c.jpg)
Side view to determine about using scratchbuilt 20mm gun shield at the bow or not. Sorry about the pic being blurry. Side view to gauge height of the 20mm gun shield on the bow in relation to height of the 40mm gun tub and the flight deck.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1890/44721890992_eb598ce589_c.jpg)
Side view to determine about using scratchbuilt 20mm gun shield at the bow or not.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1884/29834720667_20122325c4_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1868/43861937725_a940c23afb_c.jpg)
This is the port aft side of the Iowa carrier model as my modeling friend had built it long ago. As you can see, it is very plain and lacks any detail.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/151/30771119683_b7a1eb0e71_b.jpg)
This is the port aft side of the carrier model where my modeling friend who originally started this model long ago had made an opening to the hangar bay. The lighter grey panel is a bulkhead part from a Trumpeter USS Franklin Essex carrier kit that I added to give more detail to the side of the ship.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1849/43861979335_3f87dfe003_c.jpg)
I built and painted a small plane to put in the hangar deck so that opening wouldn't look so plain. I added another bulkhead piece from an Essex carrier kit that had open roller doors to that area as I felt this would add more detail to the port aft side of the ship.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1852/42961131140_97b046ffcf_c.jpg)
Quote from: seadude on September 18, 2018, 06:23:33 PM
Side view to determine about using scratchbuilt 20mm gun shield at the bow or not. Sorry about the pic being blurry. Side view to gauge height of the 20mm gun shield on the bow in relation to height of the 40mm gun tub and the flight deck.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1890/44721890992_eb598ce589_c.jpg)
I'm not into ships, but after seeing photos of WWII aircraft taking off from carriers of the time, many of them seemed to drop off the deck end before gaining height. With those images in mind, it would seem to me that the deck needs to be raised up if you want to continue with your line of thought
QuoteI'm not into ships, but after seeing photos of WWII aircraft taking off from carriers of the time, many of them seemed to drop off the deck end before gaining height. With those images in mind, it would seem to me that the deck needs to be raised up if you want to continue with your line of thought
Raising the deck is not an option as it is thoroughly built/glued on. I'm not very informative on flight deck operations, but since my Iowa carrier conversion is similar in layout to an Essex class carrier, then didn't aircraft on an Essex take off using a starboard and/or port catapults on the flight deck? The aircraft would be taking off closer to the "sides" of the flight deck, not "down the center".
Quote from: seadude on September 18, 2018, 07:09:50 PM
QuoteI'm not into ships, but after seeing photos of WWII aircraft taking off from carriers of the time, many of them seemed to drop off the deck end before gaining height. With those images in mind, it would seem to me that the deck needs to be raised up if you want to continue with your line of thought
Raising the deck is not an option as it is thoroughly built/glued on. I'm not very informative on flight deck operations, but since my Iowa carrier conversion is similar in layout to an Essex class carrier, then didn't aircraft on an Essex take off using a starboard and/or port catapults on the flight deck? The aircraft would be taking off closer to the "sides" of the flight deck, not "down the center".
Many flight deck take-offs on the the Essex class were done with just a straight deck run, no catapult. Many WWII carrier aircraft could take off without catapult assist, and this was much quicker in getting the airwing off the decks. Catapults would be used for heavier aircraft and with crowded decks, when there was not sufficient deck space for long deck runs.
So with a deck take off, they would be taking off directly over the centerline and bow. Best leave the profile low.
I would also worry about storm damage with the current configuration. Even the Iowa's would take green water over the bows in heavy seas, and the forward parts of the flight deck look awfully exposed. The Essex hull had a bit of a flare to deflect and reduce sea spray, but the Iowa bow is nearl vertical.
Great build however, love the idea!
Even if I were to remove the scratchbuilt bow shield and the 40mm tub, the bow of the ship is still high enough to get in the way of flight deck operations somewhat. Imagine no shield and gun there and an aircraft is taking off down the center of the deck, but has an "unforseen problem". It'll still crash into the bow/anchor area. Either way with or without the bow shield/gun tub, the effects would still be the same somewhat.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1890/44721890992_eb598ce589_c.jpg)
If you look at your side-by-side image & the image of USS Intrepid (below - it also shows you the bow gun lay-out), seadude, you'll see that the Essex's flight decks carry over the bow, thereby eliminating the "crashing into the foredeck" issue.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/USS_Intrepid_%28CV-11%29_operating_in_the_Philippine_Sea_in_November_1944_%28NH_97468%29.jpg/2560px-USS_Intrepid_%28CV-11%29_operating_in_the_Philippine_Sea_in_November_1944_%28NH_97468%29.jpg)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier)
If you can, I'd recommend you copy that, making the Iowa flight deck longer (no need to alter anything else, unless you want to flare out the bow).
Edit: I noticed that the rise or the Iowa's bow eliminates the possibility of the 40mm's on the centre-line of an extended deck, unless you seriously mod the bow, so maybe put two 40mm mounts on the bow, one either side & work them into the "flare"?
QuoteIf you can, I'd recommend you copy that, making the Iowa flight deck longer (no need to alter anything else, unless you want to flare out the bow).
Go back to Page 1 of this thread and view the official US Navy schematic of the Iowa carrier proposal. That is what I am trying to emulate. Notice the bow area.
QuoteEdit: I noticed that the rise or the Iowa's bow eliminates the possibility of the 40mm's on the centre-line of an extended deck, unless you seriously mod the bow, so maybe put two 40mm mounts on the bow, one either side & work them into the "flare"?
Notice the side by side 40mm tubs at the bow in these two below pics. This is what my friend originally had at the bow before I removed it as I didn't like the look of it.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/1/305/31580683665_85b921d974_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/123/30771253333_e81a72da23_c.jpg)
I'd recommend either extending the flight deck over the bows or altering the bows and cutting them shorter. Experience would tend to indicate that early carrier borne aircraft tended to be a little underpowered and once off the deck, they would lower themselves towards the ocean in front of the ship (and hence the bows of the carrier). I wouldn't worry too much about a bows on attack from Kamikazes. The ship was too narrow to make that approach accurate enough to hit and sink the carrier.
I don't think extending the flight deck to the end of the bow is an option either. Can you imagine how much overhang there'd be on either side and the amount of structural supporting needed to support that? :o Sorry, but I don't like that idea.
How is me adding a 40mm mount in front of the flight deck any worse than what was at the front of the Independence class CVL's in WWII? Look at these pics of the position and height of the 40mm mount (and Mk.51) in relation to the flight deck on Independence CVL's.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022517.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022612.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022845.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022914a.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022914b.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022908.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022211.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022513.jpg
Cut the bow off at a downward 15 degree angle from a point directly below the end of the flight deck.
It'll look weird but give you the required clearance.
Apologies for the delay in moving this, but I'm travelling around at the moment and don't always have access to the Net.
Chris
So here's another alternative to possibly putting armament (Maybe?) at the bow area. Adding two 20mm machine gun tubs which are smaller.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1958/43902837795_411967c4e7_c.jpg)
Port side of the model showing all the additional walkways, 40mm and 20mm gun galleries, Mk.51 GFCS director spots, and two scratchbuilt 5"/38 gun sponsons.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1870/44093182314_4178d6cfcf_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1876/44812881991_df0b8c25cb_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1879/43902946105_013a386623_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1938/43902977435_2b71b55e75_b.jpg)
Scratchbuilt support structures for 40mm gun tub and 5"/38 weapon sponson.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1924/44093294374_f82387a6f6_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1894/43903021605_cf44099f85_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1856/44093347584_e6df12e869_b.jpg)
Quote from: seadude on December 11, 2016, 03:01:05 PM
Quote from: sandiego89 on December 11, 2016, 01:52:50 PM
Wow, great gift!- he made a good start on it. I think the gun tubs near the bow look a bit odd. Great project!
Yeah, there's a few things that look "odd" on the model. So eventually, I will be making additional deletions and additions, one of them being changes to armament and all the weapon galleries and sponsons. I want to try and get as close to the blueprint as possible........I hope. But whether the blueprint is a preliminary or final design, I don't know. :-\
I wouldn't worry...it was war time, stop trying to make it pretty as conversions were never and were hurried. Leaving it odd looking makes it more real. Also guns were what they wanted...all over the place especially as the Japanese had kamakazi? and so didn't care....the Yanks however did and had guns a plenty to prevent air attacks....go with it
So since some folks think putting a large 40mm gun tub in front of the flight deck is a bad idea, then what about smaller 20mm machine gun tubs? Thoughts on this, folks?
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1958/43902837795_411967c4e7_c.jpg)
Quote from: seadude on September 22, 2018, 02:44:36 PM
So since some folks think putting a large 40mm gun tub in front of the flight deck is a bad idea, then what about smaller 20mm machine gun tubs? Thoughts on this, folks?
You could scratch two extending constructions to the sides and still put 40mm'ers in there. WOW by the way! :wub: <_<
I'd put them on the edge of the deck just for the safety of the gun crews in case an aircraft goes off the end of the deck.
I'm sure you will make it look awsome whatever you choose to do. :wub:
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel? Not yet. I'm probably only at the halfway point of this build. Did a lot of scratchbuilding and detailing by adding walkways made from angle strip plastic, scratchbuilding two weapon sponsons (1 forward and 1 aft on the port side.) for 5"/38 guns, adding more 20mm gun galleries, adding spare floater net baskets from 1-2 extra TAMIYA Missouri kits, adding a few extra 20mm ammo boxes in some of the 20mm gun galleries from a Trumpeter North Carolina kit, adding a few spare tubs for Mk.51 GFCS for 40mm gun mounts, plus adding other miscellaneous details here and there. Still have a long way to go. My apologies for the extreme lack of photoetch detail, but I have very bad eyesight and cannot handle very small/tiny or complicated PE. Therefore, I had to "cut corners" where needed and rob parts from other kits or scratchbuild wherever necessary. It may look sh***y like that, but I had to do what I had to do.
Still have more to do such as detailing the island superstructure, the bow (Front of the ship.), the fantail (aft) end of the ship, all guns, all radars, all aircraft, aircraft elevators in the flight deck, life rafts, and so much more.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1955/29938550017_3fefcdd878_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1923/44154944824_d96bc97ca6_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1946/44825083702_a0a98b9b29_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1917/44825118592_4449e1f6b4_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1905/44155065214_04bf4648b0_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1928/31002616828_fda18196b5_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1964/43964367015_b2d26aa594_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1919/29938839757_84174164b9_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1960/44875510801_6297e4d0fa_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1917/43964447065_5bd041e87e_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1933/44875565711_6db2706e96_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1908/29938655537_98cc160c5d_b.jpg)
Terrific work sir :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
As a consummate ship artist, along with whiffery design, I would mount two 40mm tubs along the sides of the bow, not on the deck as previously done. I'd also enclose the bow from the just below the flight deck, or create a "ramp" to the end of the bow, for failed takeoffs? Or trim the bulbous bow down and remount the anchor lower. I understand that you're trying to keep to the spirit of the preliminary design, but carrier experts would have argued the same direction about trimming down the bow. Hope this helps!
Kind of debating the following. Some portions of the underside flight deck on my model are a bit plain. I'm kinda uncertain if I should add extra supports (Indicated by red lines.) underneath the flight deck in certain areas. What do others think on this?
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1953/43082156900_981c6461a6_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1939/29957182967_25b3348fd2_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1937/43981741775_13da2ed0b1_b.jpg)
What part of "I am NOT adding two side by side 40mm gun mounts at the bow of the ship." do people not understand? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: My modeling friend had tried that (Picture below.) when he initially started this model long ago before giving it to me to finish. I took the 40mm tubs off the bow as I did not like the look of them. STOP ASKING ME TO ADD THEM (OR SOMETHING SIMILAR) BACK ON. It won't be done. :angry: :angry: :angry:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/123/30771253333_e81a72da23_c.jpg)
Quote from: salt6 on September 24, 2018, 06:19:01 PM
Are there any on the preliminary drawing?
None on the preliminary drawing shown back on Page 1 of this thread.
Such tubs being extended out like that would have been knocked off by wave action in any kind of a storm.
As for supports for the flight deck I think the additional ones would be realistic, even necessary.
Both the Iowa carrier conversion model (Bottom) and an extra TAMIYA USS Missouri battleship model hull (Top) are both lined up and even with the aft ends of the models against the box on the right. Using available references at home on the Iowa carrier conversion, I was able to determine that one flight deck elevator would be positioned where the forward #1 16" gun turret would be, and the second elevator positioned slightly aft of the #3 16" gun turret. I used the elevator deck model parts from a Trumpeter USS Franklin ESSEX kit to mark the locations where the elevators should go on the Iowa carrier model.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1963/44004746165_e8a91c076a_b.jpg)
Red horizontal rectangle is main side armor box/belt on Iowa class BB which would have been left as is for the carrier conversion. Short red horizontal lines and red circles indicate approximate positions of where 16" main gun turrets would have been on an Iowa class BB, but removed for the carrier conversion. Short horizontal blue lines and blue squares indicate approximate positions for 2 aircraft elevators for the Iowa carrier proposal.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1893/44003251954_edc98188c7_b.jpg)
After marking around the elevator parts with a pen, I then scribed into the deck with a scribing tool going around the elevator part. This is the location of the forward elevator on the Iowa carrier model.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1949/44916995471_9ba44a290d_b.jpg)
This is the aft elevator.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1966/29980841297_f80ba1d9e4_b.jpg)
Using various reference sources and pics of Essex carrier flight decks showing the starboard and/or port catapults at the forward end of the flight deck, I used Tamiya 6mm and 10mm masking tape to mark/make a straight "edge" where I wanted the flight deck catapults to go.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1979/43105112340_44b59dfe5c_b.jpg)
Using various reference sources and pics of Essex carrier flight decks showing the starboard and/or port catapults at the forward end of the flight deck, I used Tamiya 6mm and 10mm masking tape to mark/make a straight "edge" where I wanted the flight deck catapults to go.
Using the book "Essex Class Carriers of the Second World War" by Steve Backer, I learned that the starboard catapult (Top) was about 97-100 feet long. The port catapult (Bottom) was approximately 150 feet long. Using a scale model calculator website, I determined the starboard catapult would be about almost 3 1/2 inches long (Red arrow to edge of flight deck on left.). The port catapult would be approximately 5 inches long (Length between red arrows on bottom of picture.).
After studying various flight deck pictures, the port (Bottom) catapult does not go all the way to the flight deck edge. I left about 1 inch of space between the flight deck edge and the end of the catapult.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1961/43105129370_4e912f9c6b_b.jpg)
Using a ruler as best I could, I scribed the flight deck catapults. The port (Top) catapult didn't quite end up as straight as I wanted. There are some tiny "squiggles" that I may have to hide by adding a plane taking off or parking aircraft on the deck. :banghead:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1962/44917082541_fde581b545_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1956/44197480514_c3fc1763e5_c.jpg)
Added two 20mm gun tubs to the bow of the model ship below the front of the flight deck.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1938/31085848908_82ed47fd41_c.jpg)
Using Part 16 from Sprue D from a Trumpeter USS Franklin ESSEX carrier kit.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1920/31085875518_987ccc3ba4_c.jpg)
Part 16 from the Trumpeter USS Franklin ESSEX carrier kit which I added a few "odds and ends" to for extra detail. I had to cut some portion on each angled end away otherwise the part would be too long.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1965/30021502877_698b4f37b5_c.jpg)
This pic shows the "wall" under the forward flight deck where Part 16 will be going. You can obviously see how plain it looks.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1903/44910168502_f5813c7fba_c.jpg)
Best I could do with my camera. Sorry. But you can see where I put the Part 16 bulkhead.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1974/44239149054_767034b929_c.jpg)
The "wall" where you see the tiny brass photoetch door was a spare part from a Trumpeter USS Franklin ESSEX carrier kit. Before that bulkhead part was added, the original model wall was just plain styrene.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1940/44958937761_981cc0f8a0_c.jpg)
Damn, that's looking good
This will probably be the last update for awhile till I figure out what brands of paint to use and what colors to use for painting this model ship. Once I know that, then I'll have more progress pics later.
For now, I added some small photoetch hatches along the port and starboard walkways near all the weapon sponsons and galleries. Also added some photoetch doors and a few extra portholes on the island superstructure.
Went and built/painted a small sampling of aircraft that I'll have on deck. I don't want to add a lot as that will distract a person's attention away from the main ship itself which is the "main attraction" so to speak.
Built/painted the following:
4 x TBM Avenger
4 x F4U Corsair
4 x SB2C Helldiver
4 x F6F Hellcat
Sorry if they aren't painted or detailed that well. But having really bad eyesight tends to limit my capabilities from time to time.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1917/45119387072_c0f3e17a8d_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1975/45119442422_7c4822432f_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1966/43354287830_8466f9dda1_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1977/31294579888_f68e975403_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1931/43354347150_993cd31da9_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1930/31294658888_091a873fa9_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1921/31294691528_7a03d25920_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1969/30230321707_4b9942ea79_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1919/44446514814_75245de5be_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1978/31294918618_f4defd89f6_c.jpg)
Neat airwing :thumbsup:
This is a very nice what if........great work
Thanks. I'm trying to do the best that I can, but this build isn't that easy. Only 1 official US Navy plan to work from and other scant references, and not much else. :(
It's just one big build based on guesswork, gut instinct, guesswork, intuition, and more guesswork. :-\
That is so cool. Glad I came back to check in ! Love the idea of a flat top on that sexy hull. Love the airwing too !
Did some painting on my model the last several days. Couldn't paint any Haze Gray color as I didn't have the money to buy any bottles of that color. For now, the bottom hull was painted Testor Acrylic Insignia Red. Then painted the black boot stripe. Then painted Testor Acrylic 5-N Navy Blue. I'm trying to eventually paint this model in a 1945 Measure 22 scheme. Made the propeller shafts with brass rod. Trying to get the "lines" masked and straight was a P.I.T.A.! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1966/45524782051_41b00862d1_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1967/44611086265_0e0643b3a9_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1940/31652557298_80e30e0b94_b.jpg)
:thumbsup:
Looking good sir :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Looks fantastic
:thumbsup:
That hull bottom is slick!
Here is what I plan to do for adding 40mm guns to my model.
The top row left gun is from a 1/350 scale TAMIYA USS Missouri kit. The gun isn't very detailed, but it does have a gun shield.
The top row right gun is from a 1/350 scale Trumpeter USS Franklin ESSEX class carrier kit. It is well detailed, but does not have a gun shield.
Therefore, as indicated by the yellow arrow, I plan to take the gun barrels from the Franklin ESSEX kit and add them to the gun shield part from the TAMIYA USS Missouri kit.
Although I could've used photoetch accessories to detail the 40mm guns better, I have very bad eyesight and don't like working with photoetch.
What I've done with the guns is a compromise. The best of both worlds, I guess.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1953/44900478984_d3273037f2_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1920/44900479024_68e7a1a8ee_b.jpg)
Neat solution :thumbsup:
From that line up it should keep you occupied for a while ;)
Yep, that works. Good job.
:thumbsup:
I'll get back to posting in this thread in a day or two, or maybe after New Year's? :drink:
Anyway, progress has been good and the model is 90% done right now except for flight deck markings, 20mm guns, aircraft, and display base. I'm hoping to have this ship completely done in 3 weeks time for my January model club meeting.
New update. :thumbsup:
Earlier this month I began to get the upper hull and island superstructure painted with Testor Acrylic 5-H Haze Grey.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7899/46465128452_e80b293216_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4818/45603894135_0d3513db37_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4887/44700162410_0349e8abf8_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4861/44700190930_a12877db8b_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7882/46465233962_aa12fea8bd_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7809/31577246457_5bd78ebea7_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4833/32644266638_25713108b0_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7908/46517576751_852bd11620_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4865/46465379002_07e8edd20d_c.jpg)
For these next two photos, when my modeling friend originally started this model long ago before he gave it to me, there weren't that many attachment points for radars and sensors. Only 3 as indicated by the red arrows in a picture. Since I was robbing parts from a Trumpeter 1/350 USS Franklin ESSEX kit to use on my model, I had to choose carefully what to have as there were more radar pieces on the sprues than what I needed or was space for on the model. If it doesn't look right on the model in further pics below, then screw it.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7918/32644360638_6fb1bc4a09_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7807/46465405472_bd06aafe7b_c.jpg)
Below pics show the inclusion of the 40mm guns which I previously talked about and showed earlier in this thread. Also included is the meager amount of radars I added atop the island superstructure. I do like the 5" gun turrets and was able to make the barrels elevate on those. :thumbsup: The turrets do not rotate however. The flight deck has been painted 20B Deck Blue. I was thinking of leaving the aircraft elevators as is as I feel the white outline makes the elevators more visible against a dark flight deck.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4810/45793702594_3f7ecac0d9_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7853/32644401758_fd7e565fd8_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4817/46465459392_99a0347504_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7806/45604211805_14b341073d_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4907/45793765264_cde9d40a25_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4907/45793790094_d4e75d1db9_c.jpg)
Robbed 20mm guns and shields parts from a TAMIYA 1/350 USS Missouri WWII kit to use for my model. Damn shields are so tiny! :banghead: Anyway, my model will have about 45 20mm guns scattered around the ship.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4840/31577525977_dd4d8b790d_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4820/45604300115_0e921a83a1_c.jpg)
Looking good 'dude.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: zenrat on December 29, 2018, 11:51:59 PM
Looking good 'dude.
:thumbsup:
'tis indeed :thumbsup:
The Iowa carrier conversion model that I've been building recently is now on hold. I had hoped to finish it before the end of the year. But that ain't going to happen. :( Probably won't be finished till mid January 2019 sometime. All I have left is flight deck markings and aircraft. I've been told that dipping decals in warm water makes them slide off the backing paper easier. I could just nuke a bowl of water in the microwave, but it wouldn't be long before it got cold again. :( May have to invest in one of those small coffee cup warmers. :thumbsup:
Don't have dark Gloss Sea Blue paint at home to paint my aircraft, so I'll have to wait till I get some money to buy that. I tried the 3-tone blue/gray scheme on some aircraft, but it didn't work out too well due to my eyesight. So I'll switch to a overall gloss sea blue during mid to late 1945 for the aircraft.
I may try some stretched sprue rigging for the radio masts on the starboard side of the carrier. We'll see how that goes. It won't be the 3-4 wires that are usually strung between the masts, but probably only 1 wire only. At least having "something" is better than having "nothing". Don't want the radio masts to look too plain. ;) Also finished making a simple display stand for the model today.
I love the bow. It's just so cool to see 'battleship' stuck out from under the flat top like that. Not just so cool, very cool !
:thumbsup:
Since my last post, all 20mm guns have been added to the model now. There's about 45 of them around the ship.
Also..........
Planes are done for my Iowa carrier conversion model. I didn't make that many of them as I only wanted a "sample" of different types on the flight deck. They're not detailed with squadron numbers or other markings since a real Iowa carrier was never built and it would have been unknown what squadrons and such a ship would have had. I tried painting the aircraft weeks ago in the 3 tone blue/gray scheme common to most US Navy carrier aircraft, but it was proving to be a bit too difficult, so I just went with an overall gloss Dark Sea Blue which is what the Navy was changing it's aircraft to later in the war. The Avenger in the upper right corner has a spinning prop and this aircraft will be situated near a catapult on the carrier model.
4x Avengers in the top row.
4x Helldivers in the third row.
4x Hellcats in the second row.
4x Corsairs in the bottom row.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7822/31837605877_0aa7bfcfa8_c.jpg)
Started the white dashed line flight deck markings earlier in the week. Wish me luck.
Bad thing about these decal markings from the Trumpeter USS Franklin ESSEX kit is that the dashed line decals are about 3 ½ to 4 inches long. There are 20 of these dashed line decals to apply, but I've never been good at laying down very long decals. So.........I have to cut each decal down further into smaller 3/8 inch segments. Not fun. :banghead: Then hopefully try and make sure each end matches up correctly to another end of another piece of decal when I lay these down. Probably won't be done with these till end of January. Gonna be a long slow process.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4822/46054354364_2fee85fe6f_c.jpg)
Starboard side dashed white line done. Wasn't easy. Will start the port side this weekend and hope to be finished with that by Sunday. I'm going to skip adding a center white dashed line down the center of the flight deck. Port and starboard lines is enough for me.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4899/46726757232_028b6bf980_c.jpg)
Nice airgroup
:thumbsup:
I'm temporarily calling this 99% done. Not 100% done. But just 99% for now. Final pics will be posted later in forthcoming days.
Dashed white line flight deck markings are added. Unfortuneately, I don't have any dullcoat to dull those flight line decals, so they'll be "glossy" for awhile. Probably wouldn't make much difference anyway as this model can't be entered for model competition. Just "display only".
I have decided NOT to add any hull number on the flight deck as there is no documentation anywhere that would list what hull number an Iowa carrier would have. Of course, that wouldn't stop me from adding one. I could if I so desired. Some references tend to speculate and give the Iowa carrier conversion the hull number of CVB-44. This is false. CVB-41 to 44, and 56 & 57 were for the Midway class carriers. The Iowa carrier if built would have resembled the Essex class carriers in appearance. Not the Midway class. Therefore, it is speculated that any hull number the Iowa carrier was to have would be between CV-50 to CV-55 as these were also Essex carrier designs/ships.
Planes are just sitting on the flight deck. They are not glued on yet. I'm debating on various "parking configurations" for the aircraft. I'm also contemplating removing all the crappy floater net baskets which I originally used from a TAMIYA USS Missouri kit and replace them with better detailed floater net baskets from Model Monkey on Shapeways. Also contemplating buying some WWII carrier moto-tug tractors from Shapeways to put on the flight deck.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7819/31861439197_f0bdc23654_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7896/31861475067_c46438093f_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7823/31861502427_3b9e43a76f_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4906/46078238454_12dfa8565d_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7853/46803336161_904448d4c8_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4881/46750726982_1e9d0e7924_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4860/45888008435_46c9d6d801_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4832/46750753172_ce6f9276bc_b.jpg)
MOST glorious!!!!!
For 99% done she's looking 100% awesome, mate! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Very cool
FINAL PICS, PART 1
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4856/45960471275_cb294171ab_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4854/32999601278_066d1acfa1_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7858/39910151473_ac416a6673_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4845/39910204413_c8a8df6a57_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7896/45960601025_d36dd757cd_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4889/39910254873_66e2f75661_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4915/46150255234_f4a6a859c3_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7924/31933800347_ca10e87c8d_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7814/31933820517_a0813f64a9_b.jpg)
FINAL PICS, PART 2
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4844/46823089432_d7b781c094_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4855/32999804208_74f5259f99_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7847/39910336733_4bdef2e07d_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7842/32999825278_4612e00835_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4811/45960737515_f58c0908d5_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7892/46823192352_720ba615f4_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7832/46823206392_788626b6b8_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4837/46150409404_5636bfee08_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4824/39910442783_b2f3fe0cb8_c.jpg)
FINAL PICS, PART 3
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4870/45960825585_cc91a440c8_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4853/46823269302_628ca32f6b_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7872/46823287232_205f5d5d58_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7857/46875156211_0b9f4d4b22_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7902/46150548764_6306cfaf5a_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4814/46823395982_39b963d1fd_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4856/39910587173_c742106b27_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4809/31934161377_1cd318601b_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4875/46150607714_6c909be746_b.jpg)
FINAL PICS, PART 4
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7838/46823467342_61564af793_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4812/46150645624_7f0ef9924d_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4905/46150656834_c09b02de9b_c.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7889/46875392431_b57ed2c461_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4869/46875403731_cd53527fee_b.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4915/31934282107_048acf3f7f_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4832/46750753172_ce6f9276bc_b.jpg)
Certainly a very impressive piece of work :bow:
That is spectacular!!!
This work is outstanding! :thumbsup:
Thanks for the compliments, guys. :thumbsup:
Though I must say that I am a bit bummed about this model. :( Unfortuneately, it may not be eligible for entry at several model contests I want to go to this year. :banghead: At least 4-5 contests have a rule stipulating that the model entry must be the "sole work" of the person entering the model. That counts me out because as I stated at the beginning of Page 1 of this thread, another modeler previously started this model, but couldn't finish it, then gave it to me as a gift to finish and keep. So if I take it to any contests, it will be "For Display Only.". :(
I can see why they would have that rule, but it must be frustrating.
It looks great and i'm sure that even if not a competitive entry it'll still attract a lot of attention.
:thumbsup: That'll do very nicely.
Chicken dinner !
It's part 3 that does it for me. Seeing the stern and the hangar. But I'm still in love with the bow. Seeing the Battleship poking her nose out like that. Such a great build !
Stunning. A magnificent piece of work.
Now you just have to do the post-Korean War conversion upgrade to an angle deck and enclosed hurricane bow.