Read the Review
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
Go to modelshipwrights.com for the current dynamic site!
New Content
Announcements on new content additions to the site.
Announcements on new content additions to the site.
Hosted by Jim Starkweather
Review
Very Fire: USS Missouri BB-63
TRM5150
Joined: January 03, 2010
KitMaker: 2,159 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,400 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 15, 2018 - 04:25 AM UTC
RussellE
#306
Joined: June 27, 2010
KitMaker: 3,959 posts
Model Shipwrights: 2,777 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 15, 2018 - 05:53 AM UTC
Dave, it's great to see you back in the game mate! 
Welcome back!
And with a cracking review too!
With this release and various others, Tamiya's position at the top of the 1/350 and 1/700 ship world surely will be drawn into question. Maybe even enough to give them pause to retool some more of their kits besides Yamato?
Importantly though, what is the hull form like? It seems really hit and miss (excuse the pun
) with WW2 USN kits and getting the hull shape correct regardless of manufacturer. 
Welcome back!And with a cracking review too!
With this release and various others, Tamiya's position at the top of the 1/350 and 1/700 ship world surely will be drawn into question. Maybe even enough to give them pause to retool some more of their kits besides Yamato?
Importantly though, what is the hull form like? It seems really hit and miss (excuse the pun
) with WW2 USN kits and getting the hull shape correct regardless of manufacturer. 
rolltide31
#377
Joined: June 27, 2010
KitMaker: 1,481 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,332 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 15, 2018 - 07:08 PM UTC
Russell,
Thanks, its great to be back.
I appreciate the kind words on the review. There will be another for Very Fire's 1/700 Montana coming out soon.
I will check on the hull form and let you know what I find, have to dig out my reference material for the USS Missouri, but as soon as I do i'll add that info to the review.
thanks again for the kind words.
Dave
Thanks, its great to be back.
I appreciate the kind words on the review. There will be another for Very Fire's 1/700 Montana coming out soon.
I will check on the hull form and let you know what I find, have to dig out my reference material for the USS Missouri, but as soon as I do i'll add that info to the review.
thanks again for the kind words.
Dave
McRunty
#491
Joined: April 06, 2016
KitMaker: 602 posts
Model Shipwrights: 349 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 15, 2018 - 08:55 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Importantly though, what is the hull form like? It seems really hit and miss (excuse the pun
Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me but something seems off about the bow.
rolltide31
#377
Joined: June 27, 2010
KitMaker: 1,481 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,332 posts
Posted: Monday, April 16, 2018 - 01:01 AM UTC
McRunty,
You are right, something is off on the bow. In the little research I have done since seeing your post I have found a probable cause for the issue.
#1: according to the official plans and line drawings that I have been able to find there is nothing wrong with the bow. They all show a pretty much straight line bow.
#2: The pictures of the bow on NAVSOURCE show a different shape and angle for the bow. Since these are actual photos of the USS Missouri bow I am inclined to think that the NAVSOURCE photos depict the actual bow design.
So the problem appears that Very Fire utilized the line drawings to develop the mold for the Hull.
I am now wondering at what point did the plans change from the original bow design to the bulbous bow design?
Ill continue to look, I think I have the Floating Dry-dock plans at home that I can look at for more clarity.
Dave
You are right, something is off on the bow. In the little research I have done since seeing your post I have found a probable cause for the issue.
#1: according to the official plans and line drawings that I have been able to find there is nothing wrong with the bow. They all show a pretty much straight line bow.
#2: The pictures of the bow on NAVSOURCE show a different shape and angle for the bow. Since these are actual photos of the USS Missouri bow I am inclined to think that the NAVSOURCE photos depict the actual bow design.
So the problem appears that Very Fire utilized the line drawings to develop the mold for the Hull.
I am now wondering at what point did the plans change from the original bow design to the bulbous bow design?
Ill continue to look, I think I have the Floating Dry-dock plans at home that I can look at for more clarity.
Dave
RussellE
#306
Joined: June 27, 2010
KitMaker: 3,959 posts
Model Shipwrights: 2,777 posts
Posted: Monday, April 16, 2018 - 02:16 AM UTC
Hi Dave, Rory
yes, the profile looks correct but to my Mk1 eyeball something seems amiss in the cross sectional shape of the bow.
There has been a lot of hubbub on the net about the hull shape of Trumpeter's 1/200 Iowa class, specifically the cross sectional shape of the bow, not being bulbous enough, and also at the stern from the bilge keel back.
It's relatively easy to get hull shapes correct in profile on CAD, but the real test is in the cross sectional shape-critical for an accurate hull form.
The question is: how does Very Fire's Iowa class stack up on this measure?
yes, the profile looks correct but to my Mk1 eyeball something seems amiss in the cross sectional shape of the bow.
There has been a lot of hubbub on the net about the hull shape of Trumpeter's 1/200 Iowa class, specifically the cross sectional shape of the bow, not being bulbous enough, and also at the stern from the bilge keel back.
It's relatively easy to get hull shapes correct in profile on CAD, but the real test is in the cross sectional shape-critical for an accurate hull form.
The question is: how does Very Fire's Iowa class stack up on this measure?
rolltide31
#377
Joined: June 27, 2010
KitMaker: 1,481 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,332 posts
Posted: Monday, April 16, 2018 - 06:00 AM UTC
Gents,
In order to continue the conversation regarding the hull of the Very Fire USS Missouri I went a head and dry fitted the hull together. Its a good fit without being a good fit, if that makes any sense.
Bottom line is that the builder will need some clamps to get a good smooth fit. The foreward section of the hull goes together pretty good, the clamps will be needed for the aft.
I have taken some pictures. here is are some pictures of the aft.
I applied a little more pressure with my hand than what the tape could replicate and it went together pretty well. There does not appear to be any issue with one side being higher than the other, it is just a matter of the hull appearing to being a little warped outwards..not as bad as it sounds I assure you.
Anyway, on to the more important aspect o the previous discussion, the bow. As you will see in the pictures the bulbous bow is present on the kit. The extreme straight line is what appears to be a little inaccurate but according to all the line drawings of the plans it is accurate. You can see what I mean in the pictures below.
https://ussmissouri.org/images/full-ship-lg.jpg - this site will provide you with a view of the "As built plans" for the USS Missouri.
Here are the pics of the hull following dry fit.
As you can clearly see in the photos, the bulbous bow is represented on the kit.
If there are any additional questions or concerns regarding the kit please feel free to let me know, ill be more than happy to continue the discussion and get you the answers your looking for. Want everyone to get as good a review as I can possibly provide.
thanks for looking
Dave
In order to continue the conversation regarding the hull of the Very Fire USS Missouri I went a head and dry fitted the hull together. Its a good fit without being a good fit, if that makes any sense.
Bottom line is that the builder will need some clamps to get a good smooth fit. The foreward section of the hull goes together pretty good, the clamps will be needed for the aft.
I have taken some pictures. here is are some pictures of the aft.
I applied a little more pressure with my hand than what the tape could replicate and it went together pretty well. There does not appear to be any issue with one side being higher than the other, it is just a matter of the hull appearing to being a little warped outwards..not as bad as it sounds I assure you.
Anyway, on to the more important aspect o the previous discussion, the bow. As you will see in the pictures the bulbous bow is present on the kit. The extreme straight line is what appears to be a little inaccurate but according to all the line drawings of the plans it is accurate. You can see what I mean in the pictures below.
https://ussmissouri.org/images/full-ship-lg.jpg - this site will provide you with a view of the "As built plans" for the USS Missouri.
Here are the pics of the hull following dry fit.
As you can clearly see in the photos, the bulbous bow is represented on the kit.
If there are any additional questions or concerns regarding the kit please feel free to let me know, ill be more than happy to continue the discussion and get you the answers your looking for. Want everyone to get as good a review as I can possibly provide.
thanks for looking
Dave
McRunty
#491
Joined: April 06, 2016
KitMaker: 602 posts
Model Shipwrights: 349 posts
Posted: Monday, April 16, 2018 - 09:26 PM UTC
I think another issue is that there are not that many pictures of the MO directly side on. They are always at a slight angle which changes how we see the bow.
Dry fitted together and not on the sprues changes everything for me visually. Looks much better
On a semi related note I have to say this is a very timely release. I am about to start the Tamiya Missouri and could not find a good reference for the plating on the hull. Basically how many rows of plates I would have to replicate. This does that for me!
This may be a cheeky ask but how thick are those raised plate lines?
Dry fitted together and not on the sprues changes everything for me visually. Looks much better
On a semi related note I have to say this is a very timely release. I am about to start the Tamiya Missouri and could not find a good reference for the plating on the hull. Basically how many rows of plates I would have to replicate. This does that for me!
This may be a cheeky ask but how thick are those raised plate lines?
rolltide31
#377
Joined: June 27, 2010
KitMaker: 1,481 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,332 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 - 01:28 AM UTC
Rory,
Glad the pictures are able to assist with your build and that they resolve concerns with the hull.
I will measure the panel lines for you and let you know what they measure out at.
Dave
Glad the pictures are able to assist with your build and that they resolve concerns with the hull.
I will measure the panel lines for you and let you know what they measure out at.
Dave
rolltide31
#377
Joined: June 27, 2010
KitMaker: 1,481 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,332 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 - 03:00 AM UTC
Rory,
The planks are a 1/4 wide and the panel lines ae about the thickness of the line on a ruler. Sorry, I would give you a more accurate measurement but the battery in my calipers is dead.
basically, they are thin...
Dave
The planks are a 1/4 wide and the panel lines ae about the thickness of the line on a ruler. Sorry, I would give you a more accurate measurement but the battery in my calipers is dead.
basically, they are thin...
Dave
McRunty
#491
Joined: April 06, 2016
KitMaker: 602 posts
Model Shipwrights: 349 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 - 03:27 AM UTC
Much obliged to you. I have 0.5mm tape ordered and on its way. Will hopefully provide a subtle plate line once in place and painted over.
RussellE
#306
Joined: June 27, 2010
KitMaker: 3,959 posts
Model Shipwrights: 2,777 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 - 05:11 PM UTC
Dave those end on shots look great!
It's good to see Very Fire have replicated the Iowa class hull's bulge at the bow and the stern looks good too!
Top review mate, good to see you back!
It's good to see Very Fire have replicated the Iowa class hull's bulge at the bow and the stern looks good too!
Top review mate, good to see you back!
rolltide31
#377
Joined: June 27, 2010
KitMaker: 1,481 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,332 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 - 06:10 PM UTC
Thanks Russell, its great to be back.
Stay tuned for the USS Missouri Build log, should post it in a week or two.
Also I will post some updated photos of the IJN Shokaku this weekend.
Dave
Stay tuned for the USS Missouri Build log, should post it in a week or two.
Also I will post some updated photos of the IJN Shokaku this weekend.
Dave
RussellE
#306
Joined: June 27, 2010
KitMaker: 3,959 posts
Model Shipwrights: 2,777 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 19, 2018 - 09:41 AM UTC
Will definitely be following along Dave!
I wonder: Is Very Fire the beginning of all of Tamiya's 80's 1/350 kits being retooled?
Time will tell!
I wonder: Is Very Fire the beginning of all of Tamiya's 80's 1/350 kits being retooled?
Time will tell!
timmyp
Joined: May 18, 2008
KitMaker: 496 posts
Model Shipwrights: 404 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 19, 2018 - 03:43 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Gents,
In order to continue the conversation regarding the hull of the Very Fire USS Missouri I went a head and dry fitted the hull together. Its a good fit without being a good fit, if that makes any sense.
Bottom line is that the builder will need some clamps to get a good smooth fit. The foreward section of the hull goes together pretty good, the clamps will be needed for the aft.
I have taken some pictures. here is are some pictures of the aft.
I applied a little more pressure with my hand than what the tape could replicate and it went together pretty well. There does not appear to be any issue with one side being higher than the other, it is just a matter of the hull appearing to being a little warped outwards..not as bad as it sounds I assure you.
Anyway, on to the more important aspect o the previous discussion, the bow. As you will see in the pictures the bulbous bow is present on the kit. The extreme straight line is what appears to be a little inaccurate but according to all the line drawings of the plans it is accurate. You can see what I mean in the pictures below.
https://ussmissouri.org/images/full-ship-lg.jpg - this site will provide you with a view of the "As built plans" for the USS Missouri.
Here are the pics of the hull following dry fit.
As you can clearly see in the photos, the bulbous bow is represented on the kit.
If there are any additional questions or concerns regarding the kit please feel free to let me know, ill be more than happy to continue the discussion and get you the answers your looking for. Want everyone to get as good a review as I can possibly provide.
thanks for looking
Dave
Just for some reference on the shape of the bow, there is a near head-on view of the bow, as the Mo sits at Pearl Harbor today, in my walkaround feature (it's image 18 of 22), here on this site. I don't know if there's been any modifications to the bow since she was built, so what is seen today may not be the same bow as back in the '40s.
HTH
Tim
blaster76
Joined: September 15, 2002
KitMaker: 8,985 posts
Model Shipwrights: 3,509 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 10, 2018 - 04:12 AM UTC
I am all in favor of a new retooling on the venerable Tamiya kit. Beside the 1944 version is a rare kit now. How ever i was most disappointed to see that while the sample contained PE the release wont as they want you to buy their special set. So the question is...did they reduce price accordingly?. will have to take a moment and see if the kit plus the additional PE is much more expensive than the old Tamiya with a good upgrade set
rolltide31
#377
Joined: June 27, 2010
KitMaker: 1,481 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,332 posts
Posted: Friday, February 22, 2019 - 10:40 AM UTC
Blaster,
Im sorry but I just saw your post regarding the kit. The initial release of the Very Fire USS Missouri contained all of the PE that was included in the review. Vey Fire decided about 6 months after the fact to release an upgrade kit and remove the PE from the basic kit. The price did remain the same but in all honesty it is not that expensive. The distributors are the ones who are increasing the price above what Very Fire wants as an MSRP.
Dave
Im sorry but I just saw your post regarding the kit. The initial release of the Very Fire USS Missouri contained all of the PE that was included in the review. Vey Fire decided about 6 months after the fact to release an upgrade kit and remove the PE from the basic kit. The price did remain the same but in all honesty it is not that expensive. The distributors are the ones who are increasing the price above what Very Fire wants as an MSRP.
Dave
Littorio
Joined: September 15, 2004
KitMaker: 4,728 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,080 posts
Posted: Friday, February 22, 2019 - 06:52 PM UTC
Regarding the PE question, I picked up the kit two months ago from a UK shop who had only just got it in stock and my kit does include PE.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Model Shipwrights and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.