Subject: SMML17/06/98VOL243 Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 18:01:11 +1000 (EST) shipmodels@wr.com.au --------------------------------- Thanks for having SMML at your home, why not stop by our home at: http://warship.simplenet.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Thanks everyone! 2: Decals for ship models 3: KRIVAK PLANS 4: Re: Instructions/Decals 5: Re: USS Winslow Plans 6: Re: Plans 7: RE: Poor Quality of Kit Instructions 8: Winslow plans 9: Re: Oakland/Fletcher Refs. 10: USS John D. Ford Souvenir 11: Waterline 12: Instructions 13: Where to find 1:1250 ship models. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "FERNANDO, YOHAN" Subject: Thanks everyone! Hi everybody! I've been subscribing to SMML for over a month and like others, it has become a routine every morning to get my daily dose of ship modelling through SMML. Since my first post the other day looking for intormation on the 1/700 Tennessee and Alaska, there have been alot of helpful replies posted or sent to me directly. Thanks. But when I saw that Rob Mackie placed reviews (and pictures!) of these kits on Warship because of peoples' interest, I had to slap myself to make sure I wasn't dreaming. What more could I ask for besides someone sending the kits to my door? (Is that too much to ask?) All in all, I think this mailing list is THE BEST resource for ship modelling, and this is wholly due to the people who participate in it. Kudos to SMML and Warship. Keep it coming! Now my only problem is to decide which kit to get first! Yohan Fernando ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: John Sheridan Subject: Decals for ship models I would like to start a discussion on exactly what you folks would like to see for decals on your ship models. I know this is more of a problem in the resin kits than the plastic kits. OTOH, even the plastic kit decal sheets must have error/ommisions or are just plain showing their age. I am very interested in this discussion (for obvious reasons) and am looking for your input. Some stuff I would like to see for decals in my ship kits: 1. National Flags. These would be whatever ensign that a ship from a particular country would use on a ship. For instance, the US Navy flies the star and stripes and the Union Jack (stars only). Maybe an admiral pennant would be interesting. 2. Signal Flags. These would be the international signaling flags. 3. Hull Numbers. Correct hull numbers for pre-war, wartime, and post-war. 4. Deck markings. This would apply mostly for carriers, but if you are doing modern warships, this could include vertrep markings, landing spots, and danger circles. 5. No-skid patterns. These would be the no-skid rectangles you find on the deck. They are very evident on smaller ships like destroyers, etc. These would be extremely difficult to paint and would make an excellent decal. Let me know what you ideas / opinions are! If some good ideas can be brought forth, maybe these things can become reality. John Sheridan @ Microscale Decals http://www.microscale.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Baker Subject: KRIVAK PLANS For Mr. Tholander re availability of Russian periodicals: RUSSIAN MILITARY PARADE can be viewed on the Web at http://www.milparade.ru/ The web version gives most of the articles that appear in the magazine (which recently lowered its annual subscription from an outrageous $360 a year for six issues to $96 per year); how to subscribe is on the website. SUDOSTROYENIYE is available in the U.S. through subscription from Eastview Publications in Minneapolis, Minnesota (the main office is in Moscow); they can be E-mailed at eastview@eastview.com The issue with the excellent plan and elevation drawings (including profile of the underwater body) of KRIVAK I and KRIVAK III (the Border Guard version) is No. 8-9, 1996; if you will provide me with your address, I think I could mail you a copy of the two relevant pages. Another good source would be Pavlov's SOVIET AND RUSSIAN WARSHIPS 1945-1995 from the USNI Press, with the drawing on pg 133 showing the underwater profile. Pavlov's new 1998-99 edition, available in Russian from Eastview for $61.95 (for all of151 paperbound pages) does not carry the drawings, however. The drawings of the ships in our new edition of COMBAT FLEETS OF THE WORLD, 1998-99, U.S. Naval Institute Press, 118 Maryland Ave., Annapolis, MD 21402-5035 are also quite good, and there are lots of photos of all the variants (there are only 9 KRIVAK Is and 4 KRIVAK IIs left in Russian Navy service, with 7 KRIVAK-IIIs in the Border Guard.Ukraine has 1 KRIVAK III, 1 KRIVAK II, and two KRIVAK Is).COMBAT FLEETS costs $150.00, a bit steep, but it is 1,220 pages long and has some 4,300 illustrations (compared to Jane's at a little over 900 pages at a cost of $410 here). USNI Press can be reached also via their webpage at http://www.usni.org. Good luck with the models. Dave Baker ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Instructions/Decals Since I'm in the business, I can speak from experience. The great instructions you see in the major manufacturer's kits is a result of two things. (1) a good 3D CADD program and (2) person who can work it properly and operate it to it's maximum potential. This all boils down to money. A good 3D CADD program costs anywhere from $400.00 to $2500.00. You must use a 3D CADD program to draw perspective and exploded diagrams. I know Classic Warships uses Corel Draw (Steve uses a Mac), Viking Models uses Auto CAD - 14 and I use DesignCAD 97. The most important part of the equation is the operator. 3D CADD programs are complex and time consuming to learn how to operate properly. I typically spend five times as much time as I spend designing and drawing the detail set just on the instructions. The more complicated the model, the longer it takes to do the instructions. You then need a decent computer to run the program (at least a 266). A computer with an 8 meg. video card is a must for saving time. This runs about $1500.00. Since I produce camera ready artwork for my detail sets, I purchased a plotter which I use in my regular job anyway. Cost $5000.00! My complete system here at Flagship cost me about $10,000.00. Outside of the major financial investment,(which must be recovered from YOU) time spent on each kit must be watched. Resin kits started as craftsmans kits. They had simple instructions and left such things as rigging and small details to the modeler and his resources. Large companies can afford to have professional CADD draftsman draw thier instruction sheets. Keep in mind, most companies (like mine) are run by one or two people, in the evenings, out of thier garages, after they have already worked an 8 hour day and yet they keep turning out quality products. So the next time you aren't thrilled with the instructions that came with your kit for lack of information or whatever, give the guys a break and a thank you that you have a kit you didn't have to wait for the major manufacturers to produce. Decals are a big risk. The reason most "cottage industry" companies do not include decals is the horrendous cost and limited shelf life. Cottage industries produce very low numbers of kits compared to the big injected plastic companies. You would need at least 1000 sheets of decals to make them cost effective. I was quoted $1.00 per sheet (6"x 8") after set up fees. Unless you sell 1000 kits, you will have a lot of decals sitting and aging on the shelf. Inevitably, this is a finacial loss. So it's best to leave it to somone else. Big model companies sell kits by the thousands, so recovering the cost of the decals is pretty easy and it keeps the inventory moving. Like I said, give the "cottage industries" a break and a thank you for a good quality kit with (sometimes) mediocre instructions. Rusty White Flagship Models ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: BChaucer@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: USS Winslow Plans >>Does anyone have a set of plans for the Winslow? I like this boat a lot. << Taubman has a 1 sheet drawing in 1/4 scale for $10 BTW, with all of the discussion of the paucity of instructions provided with resin kits, Lone Star is no winner of the detail plan award either. You get 1 litle sketch with very little detail. Regards, Bradford Chaucer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: BChaucer@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Plans >> I for one am going to totally agree with Rand's assessment of the instructions that are at present included in these two kits. They do suck, and that is also the opinion of the principle in this matter, Ted Paris. Right now, he is working on revising these sets of instructions, as well as others, since this is also a learning process for him. His background is one of an armor modeler, and thus his instruction experience has been with Oh, and one last thing. This isn't meant to be an excuse, but rather an explaination. We realize that you as a modeler have invested a lot of money in these kits, and basically all you have right now is a pile of resin without proper instructions. WE blew it, and we'll make it right. On behalf of Ted, I sincerely apologize to all of you who've purchased these kits, and I assure you that this will be rectified as soon as possible. Also, if any of you have suggestions on how to make the instructions, or anything else, better on these or any of our kits, feel free to contact us and let us know what it is. That way we can be sure that we're providing the best possible product to you. Thanks for the time. Jon Warneke Iron Shipwrights << It is refreshing to see a vendor take responsibility where they have screwed up. I can also say that Ted is both aware of and frustrated by the problem of documentation, but I think that he and others are going about it in somewhat the wrong way. I would like to offer some suggestions: 1. There should be a blow up drawing of each fret of PE with all parts identified with a name or function and a reference number. This should not be that difficult as you have the drawing used to fabricate the fret! 2. There should be a side view and deck view with all PE referenced to their location by the reference number. 3. There should be a _Complete_ parts list with outline sketch/drawing of each part and a ref. number. 4. There should be a side and deck view showing the location of all resin and white metal parts. This can be the same or separate from item 2. 5. There should be photos, at least one or two overall and several detail shots of the completed model. 6. There should be a rigging guide and a clear guide for any parts that the modeler is expected to fabricate out of either kit supplied or self suplied common stock. 7. There should be basic painting instructions and where available, a list of references to more detailed reference materials. The suggestion was made elsewhere that one possibility might be to get modelers to help generate some of the documentation in exchange for a donated kit. This is probably not a bad idea. First it puts the kit and documentation in the hands of someone who is not directly involved with producing the kit. Second the modeler's perspective is different from that of the person making the masters, who may never actually deal with assembling the completed model from the parts. Finally it puts generating the documentation in the hands of someone who is not wrapped up in trying to arrange all the details of getting the kit produced. Simply put, someone like Ted is already wearing too many hats, trying to run a company and get new stuff released. There is a reason why, through out industries where product doccumentation is needed that they have tech pubs departments rather than having the CEO write the instructions in his spae time!! Well that's my rant for the day, as the man says, call 1-800-lactose to comment :-) Regards, Bradford Chaucer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Katz, Gene S" Subject: Re: Poor Quality of Kit Instructions Howdy, I think this topic calls for a response from someone who has been a kit builder, assembler of home appliances and exercise equipment, and a professional engineer/writer for more years than I like to think about. Anyway, most manufacturers give mere lip service to documentation. However, as we well know, a document should be planned and executed with the same level of quality as is done for the product which it describes have done engineering writing, specification writing, publication engineering, technical editing, whatever you want to call it, and it all comes down to planning and controlling the quality of the documentation process. Ever try to assemble an exercise bike made in Malaysia, with assembly drawings done in Mexico, and checked by someone who was in a hurry to leave early that day and was using earlier versions of the parts list? I would volunteer to review any ship manufacturer's instruction sheets if they have a desire to upgrade same. I teach an Effective Writing course to technical and admin folks at work, and have been involved with ships and shipbuilding a long time. The offer is gratis. It certainly wouldn't hurt. The usefulness of kit instructions is directly proportional to their accuracy, adequacy, completeness, and clarity. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. Gene S. Katz ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Ed Grune Subject: Winslow plans Burl: The Maryland Silver Co offers US Archives copies of plans of the Ericcson (TB-2). The Winslow (TB-5) was a member of the Foote class. I think the Foote was TB-4. You can contact them at: htt[://www.marylandsilver.com You can also contact Mike West at Lone Star Models directly and ask him about his source of plans. Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "Mike Leonard" Subject: Re: Oakland/Fletcher Refs. >> Oakland spent WWII painted in Measure 21 (5-N Overall with 20-B Deck Blue on horizontal surfaces). << Sea Classics special "US Cruisers at War 1941-45" (1984) has a few photos identified as the Oakland. National Archives numbers are provided in brackets: [80-G-65420] Aug 43 - port side - looks like overall Ms. 21 [80-G-65415] Aug 43 - overhead 3/4 view of port side [80-G-326050] 1945 - port bow - also Ms. 21 I'd love to get some good COLOR photographs of ships from WW2 from the Archives but it seems like it might be a pretty expensive and labor intensive effort. They just sent me a list of authorized vendors, so I'll look into this and report back. >> John C. Reilly's U.S. Destroyers in WWII mentions ... << This book is priceless for anybody interested in the above subject. Out of print but it turns up from time to time. Most highly recommended! Art wrote: >> I think that USS Oakland (CL-95) was always painted in Ms. 21 (Navy Blue with Deck Blue). There is a photo in Robert Sumrall's 1973 article on U.S. Navy camouflage of WWII that purports to show her in a Ms. 16 (Thayer Blue) pattern, but the caption refers to CL-96, which is Reno, and I think it's the Reno depicted rather than the Oakland. << The aforementioned Sea Classics publication has several photos of Reno, Flint, and San Juan in late-war camo. 80-G-216233 is said to be Reno but no colors or measure are suggested. Mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Mike Leonard" Subject: USS John D. Ford Souvenir Not specifically a modeling tale, but I wanted to share this with any admirers of those venerable four stack destroyers that served the USN, RN, and RCN so valiantly in WW2. Enroute to Norfolk, at a dusty little antiques shop in the sleepy village of Tappahannock, Virginia, last weekend, I found a framed embroidered silk souvenir piece from the 1920s or 30s. "Asiatic Service, USS John D. Ford" it read. In beautiful condition and rather expensive, too. Had my wife not been standing by my side, I might have had a hard time not bringing it home. That ship was one of the veterans of the Battle of Balikpapan in 1942 (first surface combat of the US Navy since 1898) and one of the few survivors of the Java Sea debacle. Maybe I'll have to go back! Mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: Alberto Rada Subject: Waterline Some of the new 1/350 kits coming out, are one piece full hull, now I have my eyes on one or two of them, but would like to present them on their watery element, how can I do this? I was discouraged from the idea of sewing the hull, by some previous post, that advised against it, on the grounds that it could break. Any ideas? SALUDOS Alberto ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Alberto Rada Subject: Instructions Dear friends Seems like the thread on instructions will get some results, Rob's post should be copied, framed and kept in a visible place by all manufacturers, including John's comments on the rigging, Jon Warneke's post, shows already some of the results, Iron Shipwrights makes some wonderful models and each one that comes out exceeds the quality of the previous one, their latest Graff Spee and 36A are absolutely superb, but their instructions are really scarce to say the least, although in the Graff Spee model, they are including the book by Siegfried Breyer, now this is a nice initiative. SALUDOS Alberto ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: b29@ix.netcom.com Subject Re: Where to find 1:1250 ship models. Anyone who wants to find these models should check out the 1200/1250 pages of the Warship website for a list of dealers in Europe and the U.S. who sell these models. There are plenty of sources to select from. Also you'll want to subscribe to Waterline International Magazine. Paul Jacobs 1200/1250 Editor http://warship.simplenet.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume