Subject: SMML15/10/98VOL333 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:07:54 +1000 (EST) shipmodels@wr.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Flower Class/Western Approaches Scheme: 2: Why Schnellbooten are called "E-boats" 3: Re: Metric scale conversion one more time 4: Re: Metric scale conversion one more time 5: Scales and E-boats 6: HMS Illustrious at Sydney harbour 7: Re: Polly Paints 8: Re: Metric scale conversion, Bernhard 9: Re: Metric Scale 10: resin casting 11: Re: Time is money 12: Airfix Ship Models 13: Freedom of Information?? On yer bike...... 14: Re: I'm Back! 15: Naval aviation web site 16: Enough Already on the Parts Copying 17: Not More Flowers! 18: re copying parts 19: Re: Paint Removal 20: metric conversion 21: Classified pictures 22: Re: E-Boats and Bismarck Photographs 23: Re: "Mystery" ILLUSTRIOUS class carrier 24: Re: help Needed with replacement part -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Item for SMML Traders, Announcements -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Tom Dean Subject: Re: Flower Class/Western Approaches Scheme: Ed Grune asked about painting an early Corvette Model. Yes it would be appropriate to use one of the early Western Approache patterns on the early ships. Many wore this scheme even before they were refitted with extended fo'c'scles and had masts moved further aft etc. Sackville herself had a 3 colour pattern in the latter stages of her short fo'c'sle configuration. It would off white, light blue, an pale green. These were painted in specific patterns so you will have to get a drawing of her. You would also be correct in painting one of the early ships medium gray overall. As probably stated before, you will have to nail down a specific time and ship to be even closely accurate to the paint. Every ship was different and painting was often done with whatever was available. Coincidently, I have never found a picture of Sackville wearing the later stage camo scheme she now sports. Also she would not have worn the red and white barber pole stripes of the 5th escort. She was in it for a short time but was not configured as she now is. If you want to contact me off list Ed, please feel free. Tom Dean Hamilton, Ontario Canada -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: BSteinIPMS@aol.com Subject: Why Schnellbooten are called "E-boats" >> I have a question, why are German Schnellboote referred to as "E-Boats" and not "S-Boats"? What does the "E" stand for? << The Germans called their motor torpedo boats "Schnellbooten" (fast boats), but the British called them "Enemy boats" (E-boats) for, I believe, ease of identification and writing. Bob Steinbrunn Minneapolis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: ironship@usit.net (Jon Warneke) Subject: Re: Metric scale conversion one more time Hi Rusty and Everyone, >> I didn't receive any answers to this email last time so I thought I'd give it one more try. The Moskva plans I have are 1M:100. What does this mean? 1 meter equals 100 millimeters? My metric conversion is rusty so can anyone give me the formula to convert metric scale to standard ship scales (1/350, 1/700 , >etc.)? << More than likely this is a 1 meter to 100mm scaling. The conversion for this (from meters to inches) is to take the number of meters and multiply by 39.3701 (or roughly that). This will give you the actual length in inches. However, be suspect of these plans. I've found that most plans that I've received are not in the scale listed in the legend. An example is a set of plans I got when I was working on the Gulfstream USS Miami. The plans were listed as 1/192 scale, but were actually 1/189 scale. Your best move is to measure a known length on the plans (WL length is an easy one to do), and then do the math to determine the actual scale of the plans. Here's an example. Let's say you have a ship with a waterline length of 600 feet, and the plans you have show a length of 15 inches. Multiply the actual waterline length by 12 to get the length in inches (7200), then divide that amout by 15 (the length the plans show). The result is 480, or the scale of the plans is 1/480. Then to enlarge them to 1/350, divide 480 by 350 to get an enlargement of 137%, or to reduce them to 1/700, divide 480 by 700 to get 69% (the percentages are rounded). This is your best bet to determine the actual scale of these plans, and to convert them to a "standard" scale. Jon Warneke Iron Shipwrights -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Norman Samish" Subject: Re: Metric scale conversion one more time Hi Rusty, I don't know what 1M:100 means- it may refer to the scale of the plans. If you know approximately how long the Moskva is you can determine the probable conversion by comparing the image length of the hull in the plans to the estimated length of the ship. Suppose the image length on the plan is 7.9" and you estimate from a photo in a reference book that the ship is about 200 meters long. There are 39.39 inches per meter so the ship length is 200*39.39=7,878 inches. The plan scale is therefore 7,878/7.9 = 997 to one. It's unlikely the plan makers would use such an oddball scale, but 1,000 to one is likely. So you could safely assume the plans are 1,000 to one and the actual length of the Moskva is 200*7,878/(7.9*1000) or 199.4 meters. If you want to convert these plans to full-size plans for a 1:350 model, you would have to enlarge them so that the hull length was 199.4*39.39/350 or 22.44". This would mean an enlargement factor of 22.44/7.9 or 2.84. Now that you owe me, don't forget that you promised to tell me your method of modeling super realistic water. Thanks, Norm Samish -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Jens H. Brandal" Subject: Scales and E-boats >> The Moskva plans I have are 1M:100. What does this mean? << Scales are just ratios of a dimension measured on a model or drawing and the real thing. For the example you mentioned, the drawings should work out to 1:100 by the sound of it. That means 1 metre on the drawing equals 100 metres on the real thing (does it still exist?). Or one foot equals 100 feet if you'd like. A scale is independent of your measurements - inches or millimetres - it doesn't matter. A particular scale may be derived from imperial measurements, and that often gives a non-rounded off number as the scale when you compare dimensions with the same nomenclature (i.e. mms to mms, and not inches to feet). Countries swearing by the metric system prefer rounded figures like 1:50 (like old Heller and Fujimi kits), 1:100 (like the small Tamiya models) and 1:350/1:700. When Airfix, Revell and Monogram started out, they apparently thought that one inch to six feet (which in turn is 72 inches) gave a nice scale for larger aircraft, and that one inch to four feet (48 inches) was nice for the smaller ones. Ships seem to have been more of a fit the box scale. As for 1:35 as a "standard" armour scale, I can only assume that an average person of 175 centimetres height would equal 50 mms in that scale. Maybe the ship scales followed, so that 1:700 gave a 20 times smaller scale? More and more countries are converting to the metric system, so claiming 1:192 as a "real" scale is rather futile IMO... >> I have a question, why are German Schnellboote referred to as "E-Boats" and not "S-Boats"? What does the "E" stand for? << The "E" stands for "Enemy" IIRC. Jens -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Shane& Lorna Jenkins Subject: HMS Illustrious at Sydney harbour >> I recently acquired a couple of photos of ILLUSTRIOUS class carriers (that I will be publishing in the next PSM) that were taken in 1945 at the Captian Cook drydock in Sidney Harbor. Neither ship is identified and several of this class were in the Pacific in 1945. One of the ships carries the deck code letter "R". Does anyone know which ship carried this code? Hi Dan, Without actually seeing the pics I would hazard a guess that one of the carriers would almost definitely be HMS Illustrious, as she was the first ship to use the Captain Cook Graving Dock at Garden Island (HMAS Kuttabul). She had to drydock three weeks before the dock was officially opened in March 1945 (I think). When I worked at GI in the 80's, I had the good fortune to actually go down into the dry dock. Also to have a look thru the photo's detailing the making of the dock & also what ships had used it(pity I don't have access to them now). And BTW Sydney is spelt with a Y not an I :-) All the best, Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Michael Connelley Subject: Re: Polly Paints Hello: I have also use Polly Scale paints for a while. I agree that they go on great either sprayed or brushed out of the bottle, but their colors are funny and they also change color as they dry, making them hard to mix. So...the question which begs to be asked: Is there an acrylic or otherwise water soluble paint which goes on well but also has accurate colors? How much to Tamiya and Gunze have in naval colors? For my Arizona, all I need is a good Ocean Grey....all the other colors are pretty standard like red and black and white etc etc. Is the Polly Scale Ocean Grey an okay color or should I look elsewhere? Cheers Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Ernst-Bernhard Kayser Subject: Re: Metric scale conversion, Bernhard >> The Moskva plans I have are 1M:100. What does this mean? 1 meter equals 100 millimeters? My metric conversion is rusty so can anyone give me the formula to convert metric scale to standard ship scales (1/350, 1/700 , etc.)? << Hi Rusty, what you call a metric scale (e.g.: 1/100, 1/350, 1/700) is really easy to grasp. It is simply a ratio: "length of a thing on the plan" divided by "length of the thing in real life" You can do the measurement in your favourite unit no matter whether it is metric, colonial, or even self-invented. Furthermore, for every length you take from a plan you can decide which unit is the most convenient for you to use. The only thing you ought to keep in mind is you must use the same unit on the plan and for the "real thing". For example, given the scale is 1/100 and you find the length of a gun barrel is 2 INCHES on the plan. Thus, the real barrel is 2 INCHES x 100 = 200 INCHES! Once you have figured the real length in inches you can recalculate it into other units (like 16í 8íí). Of course if you donít like inches as the initial unit, try werst, nanometers, or lightyears ;-) . You see these scales are not really metric, rather they should be called universal. I like them much better than the angloamerican scales which mix feet and inches. Now to the second part of the problem, how to redraw a plan from scale 1/100 to a plan 1/96 (or 1íí/8í) . In scale 1/96 everything is a tad longer. How much? According to my arithmetic it should be: 100 / 96 = 1.042 This means, every length taken from the 1/100 plan must be multiplied by 1.042 for the 1/96 plan. More practically spoken, make a photocopy with enlargement set to 104% and you are all set. As you see, the difference between the two scales is minor; the 1/96 model is just 4.2% longer/wider/higher than the 1/100 model. Especially if you are not fanatic about the scale you might just build a 1/100 model and use the original plan. How about other scale conversions? Hereís a table with some popular scales. I hope it is not messed up too much by your email reader. If the columns are misaligned switch your font to a non-proportional one (like "Courier") original scale desired scale multiply ____________________________________________________________ 1/100 1/96 1.042 (enlarge to 104%) 1/350 1/96 3.646 (enlarge to 365%) 1/700 1/96 7.292 (enlarge to 729%) 1/96 1/350 0.274 (reduce to 27%) ********************** in general ************************** 1/a 1/b a/b (enlarge a/b x 100%) ************************************************************ I hope my explanation helped to solve your problem rather than further confuse matters. I am sure you (sort of) knew all this before without realizing it. The word METRIC probably is petrifying many modellers who grew up on fractions of inches ;-). I should stop now patronizing everyone.. Happy modelling Bernhard -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: SeaPhoto@aol.com Subject: RE: Metric Scale >> I didn't receive any answers to this email last time so I thought I'd give it one more try. The Moskva plans I have are 1M:100. What does this mean? 1 meter equals 100 millimeters? My metric conversion is rusty so can anyone give me the formula to convert metric scale to standard ship scales (1/350, 1/700 , etc.)? << Rusty, Every metric plan I have seen, and being something of a German nut, that is a quite a few, is just like every other plan. The scale is 1:100 instead of 1:96 or whatever. The metric "version" of 1:48 is 1:50 and 1:192 is 1:200, etc. No formulas other than that apply. I have some Czech plans of Russian ships (Gotta love that world economy!) and the same ratios apply. So, the part drawn on your plan is 1/100 the size of the real part. Hope this helps. Kurt SeaPhoto Maritime Photography The source for on board, detailed photo sets of today's warships! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: CHRIS DRAGE Subject: resin casting Hi all SMMeLies, I hope this request isn't covering ground already discussed on SMML - but I am going to have to resin cast a 1:700 hull which was made for me. I need to make several as I will have to scratch build this one from the hull up. It's basically an Empire Ship (CAM Ship, Oceans, Forts Parks, etc) Can any Brit reading this recommend a decent resin and moulding material available in small quamtities in the UK. ......and can I use Lego bricks to build the mould casement???? Are there any problems in moulding from a resin master? All comments and help gratefully accepted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Time is money >> From what he says (and I believe), Mike never duplicated those parts with the intent to 'make money off of other peoples' work'. He did it to save time. << Ever heard the expression "Time is money"? If it saves him time, then he make money as a result. Sorry, but that's the way it is. A whole lot of time can be saved by copying the whole kit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Malcolm Subject: Airfix Ship Models A well known British dealer? Is there another one in the UK? Sales of the last 2 ship rereleases have been satisfactory if not brilliant and Airfix have at least 2 more due for next year. They will probably be announced publically at the nationals. And if you want a Daring we would be happy to oblige KingKit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Douglas Martin" Subject: Freedom of Information?? On yer bike...... Folks: The UK is NOT known for giving away any information on anything, there is supposed to be 'Open Government', but NO Freedom Of information Act - dont think you've any right to know anything that the Government dont want to tell you. It never ceases to amaze me why they bother now, hiding info from all these years back, perhaps its so us mere mortals dont lose 'faith' in our 'leaders' (pardon me while I pick myself off the floor.........) I dont know if anyone from the UK can remember the TV program on H.M.S. Glorious, where there were 'suggestions' of a 'cover up' of the real reasons why the carrier was detached and virtually alone before meeting the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau off Norway - but the situation is either typical of a conspiracy theory or there was something being covered up. The suggestion was that Glorious returned to the UK so that the Air Officer could be 'court martialled', and that the distress messages sent by her were picked up by the Devonshire (taking King Haaken to Scapa), and ignored, as well as the future 'Ultra' top man not being believed when these signals were 'heard' in the UK. (There were 800 survivors, reduced to 30 after several days in the water, who 'could' have been saved). (The Captain of H.M.S. Coventry (Falklands 1982), his father? was the Captain of the DD Ardent or Acasta, was interviewed in the program, sadly he died recently of cancer. As to RN Ships firing to the last on the Bismarck, well, make up your own minds, I think its something that if true can be 'accepted' now, (there really is nothing we can do about it now), I'm sure there are many other things we cant be proud of in wartime, politics stink..... Back to Airfix, I'm sorry to hear that the re-issue was a 'flop', I think the day of model ships being built by kids has long gone - I rarely see anyone in the local Beatties buy them (including me....I'm sad to say) Douglas (I'm not saying anything about the 'C' word......) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Alberto Rada Subject: Re: I'm Back! Hi Caroline & Gang Thanks for the condolences, I did have a UPS but no Surge Protector for the telephone line, well, now I have one. No, I have not yet started the Sheffield, but that’s your fault, I just finished MDC’s Swordfish (Shameless plug : you can have a look at it in the IPMS/USA Fleet Air Arm Special Interest Group page ): http://www.faasig.org/gallery.htm Well, this model was such a piece of art that it inhibited me from starting it for more than a year, so, the same thing is happening with the Sheffield, OK OK , I’ll finish the HMS Apollo, get lots of courage . . . . SALUDOS Alberto -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: BSteinIPMS@aol.com Subject: Naval aviation web site Those among you who build steel naval ship models and have an interest in carriers or naval aviation may care to note the following: I just received (unexpectedly) a printed catalog from the National Museum of Naval Aviation at Pensacola, Florida, U.S.A. While the catalog is for the museum gift shop which sells the usual gift shop items, the museum proper does have a web site at: URL: http://www.naval-air.org The gift shop is located at: URL: http://www.navalaviation.com The mailing address for a free catalog is: Flightdeck Museum Shop Naval Aviation Museum Foundation P.O. Box 33104 Pensacola, FL 32508-3104 Having been there, I'd rate this aviation museum among the top four in the U.S. (The other three are: 1. The U.S. Air Force Museum, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Fairborn, Ohio. 2. The National Air & Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 3. The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Air Adventure Museum, Oshkosh, Wisconsin.) Bob Steinbrunn Minneapolis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: rmorin1@banet.net Subject: Enough Already on the Parts Copying I think it may be time for someone to say that this thread re: parts copying may have gone a bit too far. We are now at a point where the actions of Mr. Czibovic are being equated with the imminent demise of Western civilization and where the level of civility is at a dangerously low level. In fact, it is time for the defense to put on its case in the matter of Certain Self-Righteous SMMLies v. Czibovic. The central question in this case is whether Mr. Czibovic's actions constitute actionable infringement of the Skywave copyright. A fair reading of all of the facts and circumstances shows clearly that they do not. The undisputed facts establish that Mr. Czibovic did not copy Skywave's parts without their knowledge and permission. Rather, in writing, Mr. Czibovic sought their prior permission to copy certain of their copyrighted parts for the purpose of including those parts in kits he was intending to produce and sell. Mr. Czibovic's request put Skywave on notice concerning a potential infringement of their copyright. At this point, it would have been a simple matter for Skywave to communicate to Mr. Czibovic any objection they might have had to his intended course of action. It would have taken nothing more than a one-page (even one-paragraph) letter stating that the parts were protected by a valid copyright held by Skywave and that Skywave denied permission to copy them. Skywave sent no such letter. Subsequently, Mr. Czibovic copied the Skywave parts and included them in kits which he sold to, among others, Skywave. At this point, Skywave was on notice that Mr. Czibovic had carried through with his stated intention of copying their parts. Once again, Skywave had an opportunity to object. They could have sent Mr. Czibovic a letter objecting to the copying and threatening a variety of legal actions if he failed to desist. Skywave sent no such letter. Instead, they enetered into a mutually benefical commercial relationship with Mr. Czibovic based in part on traffic in the copied parts. By these actions, Skywave not only endorsed the copying of the parts, they profited from it. Based on all of the relevant facts, it is clear that Skywave's actions in this matter comprised not only the "tacit approval" claimed by Mr. Czibovic but, in fact, effective consent to his copying of their parts. As in other areas of the law, the holder of a copyright cannot "sit on his rights" when he becomes aware of potential infringements. If he wishes to perserve the benefits afforded by the copyright, it may be necessary for him take some affirmative action to protect himself. Skywave may not have objected to Mr. Czibovic's actions for any number of reasons. They might not have cared about the copying, they might have believed that they would suffer no material damages as a result, or they might even have welcomed it as a means of increasing their revenues (through the distribution of Corsair Armada kits) at little risk to themselves. Whatever their reason, it is clear that Skywave was fully aware of what Mr. Czibovic was doing. Consequently, it was entirely reasonable for Mr. Czibovic to interpret their continuing failure to object, along with their continuing desire to do business with him, as their approval of his actions. It has been argued that the "correct" course of action for Mr. Czibovic would have been to offer Skywave a royalty for the right to copy their parts. However, no one is obligated to pay more for something than is asked. Had Skywave objected to his initial request, Mr. Czibovic may have may have chosen to propose a royalty as an inducement to Skywave to change their mind. Since Skywave offered no objection, the point is moot. In summary, it is clear that Mr. Czibovic has acted in an entirely above board and honorable manner toward Skywave. He did not copy their parts before informing them of his desire to do so. Skywave not only failed to object, they also particpated in and profited from transactions involving the copied parts. That others in the place of Skywave might have acted differently is not relevant to the issue between Skywave and Mr. Czibovic. The choice was Skywave's and others lack standing to take Mr. Czibovic to task in this matter. Skywave chose not to object, despite many opportunities to do so. Their actions, taken in their entirety, constitute a knowing and valid consent to Mr. Czibovic's conduct. As a footnote, it is appropriate to note that Skywave could at any time during the remaining term of the copyright change their mind. They could then attempt either to stop the copying or otherwise demand compensation for permitting the copying to continue. However, their actions and their failures to object to date would most likely bar them from prevailing in an action to recover back damages relating to the parts already copied. Jim Chambers -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: "Mike Leonard" Subject: Not More Flowers! I don't want to (inserting nautical phrase) "beat a dead horse" here but... At an antique dealer in Norfolk this past weekend I came across a superb photo of a Flower-class corvette, identified on the back as USS Tenacity (PG 71). The date was faded -- April or August 1944. The picture measures 15" long by 19" wide and clearly shows the type armament fitted when in American service (4" forward and 3" aft). The vessel carries what might be Western Approaches camouflage: a very light splinter pattern and black hull numbers. Maybe it's Measure 16 (Thayer). The detail is amazing and I just might have to join the ranks of the list members hunting for that elusive 1/72 Matchbox/Revell kit! Also attended the regional IPMS show, where Iron Shipwright was showing off several new 1/350 masters: Graf Spee, Hood, a Tribal-class destroyer, and a few other WW2 RN ships. (Hey, where's that Panay we've been waiting for?) Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: "Denis G. Campbell" Subject: Re: copying parts Fernando Yohan justifies the purchase of copied parts because it is for our benefit and reduces our cost. The same applies to buying the TV off the back of a pickup truck. It is a benefit and does reduce our cost. I suppose the two are completely different in some eyes but it is only in degree that they differ. It remains as someone else said,"it's ok if you only syeal a little but not if you steal a lot" Sort of like only being a little bit pregnant - you either are or you aren't, there are no degrees or increments. The thread continues from my last post on this subject - the morals are being defined by each of us now to suit personal convenience. The days of a commonly held moral standard are, sadly, gone Denis Campbell -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: Alan Simon Subject: Re: Paint Removal >> Before I go experimenting I thought I would solicit some advice. I recently purchased an old Revell "Hawaiian Pilot" model that had been started and partially painted. The paint looks to me to be enamel and I would like to remove it as easily and as safely as possible. Any suggestions on taking off 30+ year old paint? << Haven't done any serious paint stripping since my model RR days over 15 years ago. Back then automobile brake fluid worked well without damage to MOST plastics. Best to test on small obscure part. Wear rubber gloves in ventilated area. Immerse and thoroughly coat part. Paint should begin to craze/bubble and slough off after 10-15 minutes of contact. Remove stubborn specks with toothbrush. Re-apply and let stand longer, if necessary. Wash several times in dishwashing liquid and water. Model RR supply houses like Walthers (on the web) may still carry a similar commercial paint stripper that's not quite as harsh on the modeler. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: Ron or Julie Hillsden Subject: metric conversion Rusty wrote: >> The Moskva plans I have are 1M:100. What does this mean? 1 meter equals 100 millimeters? My metric conversion is rusty so can anyone give me the formula to convert metric scale to standard ship scales (1/350, 1/700 , etc.)? << Rusty, your plans are probably 1/100 (1 meter=100 meters). Lets leave metric and imperial units out of this for a second, and just think of the fraction or ratio. The fraction or ratio is common between the units of measure, ie 1/100 is 1/100 in either metric or imperial. If you want to convert your 1/100 plan to 1/350, divide all measurements by 3.5. If you want 1/700, divide by 7. I should probably quit at this point, but given half a chance, I can confuse anybody! You will know from recent posts that several of us build 1/96, which is because the original plans were imperial and we use an imperial measurement 1"=8'. Why? Because it is a handy size and pretty close to 1/100 which is 1" = 8.3333'. It isn't very convenient for us to measure lengths in units of 8.333 feet, but we can live with 8' 1 metre = 3.28 feet or 39.4 inches. A 328 foot ship is 100 metres long. In 1/100, a model would be 1 meter or 3.28 feet (39.4 inches). So the fraction is a ratio and it doesn't change. As a matter of interest, we started building metric ships in Canada a few years ago. Builders plans come in 1/50 and 1/100. I am an oldie but a goodie, so it took me a little while to figure out how easy these are to work with. You just move decimals around, no more 12X table!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: "Jens H. Brandal" Subject: Classified pictures I read with great interest the mail about classified photos of the Bismarck's final hours, and I decided to call a friend in Scotland who has been researching the TSR.2 for several years and got access to lots of previously classified material. His best advice was to contact the Imperial War Museum and ask for the photos. Photos from WW2 *should* be no problem, but reports and documents may still be classified. If the photos are classified, ask for a dispensation, and give a good reason, and you will normally get it. Saying that you are researching the colour scheme of the Bismarck to make an accurate model should be a good enough reason. If they won't let you have copies, they will have to give you a reason why the photos cannot be published. This is pretty much what he told me, and as he got a photo of a Buccaneer carrying a nuke it must work:) Jens -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) From: Sanartjam@aol.com Subject: Re: E-Boats and Bismarck Photographs Hi All, This is completely off the cuff, but it seems like I had read that, although there was some mystery about the British use of the term "E-Boat," some people thought the term stood for "Enemy Boat." That's my $.02 (or less). I'm intrigued by this packet of photographs of the Bismarck in a British archive. The logical place for such a packet to be, even if not yet released to the public, is the Public Record Office in Kew. Can it be confirmed that they are at the PRO? I can't conceive of why a document relating to the Bismarck would be withheld from public view for 75 years (assuming it was created in 1941-42), but you never know, and there are certainly at least some other documents from WWII that have not yet been released. In any event, since the photographs would be black and white, I wouldn't be so sure they would resolve the "yellow turret top" controversy. On a final note, the UK does not have a "Freedom of Information Act" like the one in the USA, although I think there has been some talk of passing one since the Blair government was elected. Interesting stuff.... Best regards, Art Nicholson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) Subject: Re: "Mystery" ILLUSTRIOUS class carrier From: dhjonespsm@juno.com (Daniel H. Jones) Dear friends, Thank you to all who posted and those who e-mailed me directly about the mystery ship. Conclusion is that it is probably HMS FORMIDABLE that we are looking at withthe deck code "R". I suspect that the other ship is IMPLACABLE but have no real point of identification except for another photo of her entering the same drydock and the similarity of details. Again, thanks very much to all who responded. Dan Jones -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) From: "Robert J. Mitchell" Subject: Re: help Needed with replacement part Hi gang, i have a small problem, I've been asled to build the revell 1/720 scale Prinz Eugen for someone and I've discovered part 17 in the forward superstructure is missing, I was wondering if anyone can help. the Revell rep in Melb tells me that it's currently out of production, yet I saw a recent re-release of theis kit in a chainstore not that long ago. Does anyone know the current status of the kit or can anyone help with a replacement part. I have quite a large spares box I might be able to trade you something in return. regards Bob Mitchell -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Ian Wilkins Subject: Item for SMML Traders, Announcements I'd like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to a new Naval History site that should be of interest to all. It will eventually constitute a searchable data base on all combatant vessels of WWII, and hopes to act as a forum for debate on critical issues in naval history. Already the Naval History on Line database provides details of RN, Australian, and Polish navies, and provides technical, construction, and launch details of all vessels as well as chronological accounts of fleet dispositions. I know the author of the site very well and can vouch that at least ten years steady of research has gone into the development of the content of these pages. You will not find a more accurate, critical, and rigorous distillation of this information anywhere. You can check it out at http://www.uq.net.au/~zzddelli/navyhome.htm Ian Wilkins -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume