Subject SMML16/12/98VOL396 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:19:18 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Cash v. Credit cards 2: Re: Fletcher build awards answer 3: Re: Fletcher "thang" correction 4: Re: Overhauling old Queen Elizabeth kit 5: Re: 98 nats category split. 6: Re: overheard 1998 judge 7: HMS Vanguard 8: Re: Mailing Money 9: Record Inclining 10: RMS Queen Elizabeth. 11: FW: Story from Undersea Warfare Magazine 12: IPMS Fletchers 13: Re: hull lines 14: Re: Graf Spee photos 15: Re: Hull lines 16: Re: USS Warrington 17: Re: That Fletcher Project 18: TOWN CLASS - LEWES, LEEDS & LUDLOW 19: SMML Christmas carol -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: AIM USS San Francisco -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Hess1962@aol.com Subject: Cash v. Credit cards As a "survivor" of a on-line credit card rip-off (as a result of an Amazon order, no less), I have learned the hard way that these things can occur. My solution? Phone your supplier (if you know and trust them), give them your credit card number(s) for their file, then order by e-mail whenever the spirit, and budget, moves you. I have this arrangement with several vendors. Cash by mail? I've done it, most successfully, with a certain resin ship maker in the U.K.... to the satisfaction of both parties! Just seal your envelope well. Perhaps the day will come when internet purchasing is 100% safe...but it ain't here yet! Dave Hess, Kalamazoo, MI USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Fletcher build awards answer >> I personally have no quarrel with a group entry, but it does beg the question as to who takes home the prize in the event one is won. << I think arrangements could be made with the host chapters awards chairman to have some duplicates made after the Nats are over. However, I'm sure you would have to pay for them. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Fletcher "thang" correction >> I see this a fun event, not any sort of a mean-spirited prank perpetuated against the IPMS USA organization. << Apparently my remarks were forgot as fast as they were read. The term "mean spirited" or "prank" was never mentioned or inferred with my opinions. As a matter of fact, I went out of my way to say there was nothing illegal or unethical about this project. If this is intended to create interest in ship modeling, great. It's amazing to me that someone can read what I wrote and interpret the words "prank," "mean spirited" as well as what I wrote to be a conspiracy against IPMS/USA. Amazing. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Jürgen F. Mayer" Subject: Re: Overhauling old Queen Elizabeth kit Is it really HMS Queen Elizabeth? Or RMS Queen Elizabeth, the liner that I am looking for urgently? Regarding removing paintings, I made good experience (on a painted hull of a started Airfix QE2 kit) with color remover from Revell, a liquid that helps to rub off the color with a piece of cloth. It takes a lot of mechanical work, hard judding is necessary, but it leaves the plastic material untouched. However, I couldn't remove the color in the portholes, so it might really help only on flat surfaces. Juergen Stuttgart, Germany -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: 98 nats category split. >> The way I took it, the goal was simply to have enough ships of a type submitted to force a category split, which has probably never happened for ships before. << I created two new category splits at the '98 Nats. Rusty White -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: overheard 1998 judge >> The purpose of swamping the category is NOT to have the category be a permanent fixture in IPMS contests, but rather, to force the judges to give the same attention to us (the ship modelers) as they do to the aircraft and armor guys. By having 20 or 30 Fletchers there, we're going to force the judges into knowing the subject, not just picking something that looks good to them. I actually overheard a 1998 Nationals judge bypass a model because he said, "they never painted them like that". This was obviously not a ship person, because the ship WAS correctly painted in a Revised Measure 12 pattern. BTW, it wasn't mine, I have no clue who actually built it, but it did not place, and should have. << I don't mean to bore anyone with this but I feel obligated to reply as "mean spirited" as it is. I can't believe the writer feels IPMS judges don't give ships much respect. I was there as Head Ship Judge in '98. Remember what got Judges Grand Award? The USS Texas!!!!! It was up against some super good competition. Armor, figures, aircraft, space and automotive (as I recall). There were about 75 judges in the room when we picked for Judges Grand Award. The Texas, as I recall, won by two votes. There were only 11 ship judges. It looked to me like the auto, A/C, armor and all the other judges overcome their bias as far as their model preferences went. Over half voted for a ship!!! I may be wrong, but over the last 6 or 7 years, but haven't ships have won the JGW more often than any other category? Looks to me like judges are giving a lot of attention to the ships. About the judge you overheard. Just because a judge is not familiar with every measure and paint scheme ever used doesn't disqualify him as a ship judge. That's why we judge in teams. I'm a long way from being an expert on ships, so if I see something I'm not sure of I have two other modelers on my team to set me straight. Also the paint scheme, while important is not a major consideration when judging ship models. We concentrate on the "basics" of modeling first. Ninety percent of the models are eliminated because of the basics. Seam filling, proper alignment, paint, decals and (this year for the first time) photo-etch application technique. The scheme comes into consideration more when choosing first second or third. A well done multi color scheme will judge higher for instance than a one color scheme because we take the difficulty into consideration. About overhearing the judge. I am assuming you were a judge and overheard this during judging. If you heard this while the general public was in the room it could have been any category judge saying it. One word of advise. If you are concerned about the judging of your particular paint scheme, put a photo under the model to back up your claim of a Florissant orange battleship or whatever. Like I said, we don't know everything so include some documentation to insure knowledgeable judging. As long as I have been judging there have been people grumbling about the outcome. At the Nationals we are required to be available in the contest room after the banquet to answer any questions posed by modelers concerning why their model didn't do as well as another model. If you have a gripe, I would get the team together that judged your category and they would be happy to explain their decision as constructive criticism. Remember, at least three judges and an OJT (on the job training) judge vote for first second or third. I personally didn't vote, but I did break one tie. I personally looked over every single model that placed just to make sure there were no unexplainable winners. I stand behind all the ship judges and their decisions. Sorry to ramble and be "mean spirited," but there is an easy solution to the problem. Join us in Orlando and lend your knowledge as a judge to our ship judging team. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Percy, John" Subject: HMS Vanguard For those of you interested, I was browsing hobbyweb.com's "new" categories, and it looks like they have Hasegawa's 1/450 HMS Vanguard now. I thought this was OOP. I read a review of it once, and basically it wasn't very good, but as far as I know, there are no Vanguard models out there and it might at least be a good start to work on. They also have the Yamato/Musashi, Misouria, and Akagi(!), at about $28 a pop. BTW, has anyone very tried to convert/build Akagi in her original battlecruiser configuration (before conversion to a flattop)? I've been twiddling with this in the back of my mind. (I'm not connected in any way with hobbyweb.com/hasegawa, yadda yadda yadda). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Re: Mailing Money To add to the discussion, I have made several purchases from individuals in Holland, Germany, GB and Japan. In one case, I was able to use USPO Int money orders (The PINK one) which cost only a nominal amount. However most countries require a different type called an authorization, which is far more expensive and time consuming to get. In most cases, I have mailed cash with no loss. I make sure that I use larger bills to cut down on bulk, and I always send it registered mail. I have not had a problem, I admit, I don't like having to mail cash, but sometimes there is no alternative. One suggestion though, perhaps there is some way to pursuade some friendly merchant in various countries who is set up to take credit cards to set up an escrow function where they will take the credit card purchase for the overseas seller, and give him local currency (For a fee to cover costs) while the local seller ships the goods?? Regards, Bradford Chaucer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Duane Fowler Subject: Record Inclining I'm not sure what the record is, but the inclinometer on the bridge of the USCGC Jarvis (378' high endurance cutter) broke in the Gulf of Alaska, 1977, at an angle of 55 degrees. The stated unrecoverable roll was 60 degrees (I wonder what it measured on the Pucker Meter). The same storm also split the superstructure. A lot of soda crackers consumed in that one! Regards, Duane Fowler -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Colm O'Leary" Subject: RMS Queen Elizabeth. Hi Shane, Thanks for taking an intrest in my ad for help in reconstructing the kit I bought last week. But I should have put RMS in front of the Queen Elizabeth. It isn't a kit of the HMS Warspite but the old, discontinued kit of the RMS Queen Elizabeth ocean liner. The sister ship of the RMS Queen Mary. It was part of the 1/600 series of liners such as the "France" and the "Mauritania" and the "QE2" but never really took off it seems as a popular kit. Anyway, if you know of any way to take apart some of the kit without doing terrible damage I'd really apreciate it. Yours, CJ Note from Shane: That's what I get for being forgetful. I should have realised that Colm was referring to the RMS Queen Elizabeth, an Airfix nut like myself :-). Heck, if I had seen that kit, I'd picked it up in an instance. But no, I don't know of any way to take apart the kit, apart from being very careful with an exacto knife & scribing along the join lines. Shane (who's hiding in a corner, looking at old Airfix Magazines, catalogues & dreaming) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: FEREKR@ONR.NAVY.MIL Subject: FW: Story from Undersea Warfare Magazine Since someone expressed an interest in submarine-related items recently, this article may be of interest. It is an account of the "the most successful patrol ever by a U.S. submarine." Amazing story... http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/autumn98/historic.htm Cheers, Ron Ferek Arlington, VA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "Fox, John" Subject: IPMS Fletchers I would like to participate in the Fletcher thing. However there is no way I will be able to go to Orlando. Do I have to be present to enter my models? I live on Long Island, NY. Is there anyone in this area who is planning to go who would be willing to take my models? I have a USS Kidd (Skywave/Pitroad) in her fit prior to being hit by the Kamikaze, in Ms22. I have also been wanting to build the USS The Sullivans in her early 60's fit, (when my Uncle served on her), and this would be motivation to finally do it. If there are any ideas about this please let me know. If you like you can contact off-post at Jowfx@webtv.net . Thanks. John Fox -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: ironship@usit.net (Jon Warneke) Subject: Re: hull lines >> I have a copy of The Floating Drydock's hull lines for the CIMARRON-class fleet oilers.... unfortunately, I have no idea how to read them. I had planned on using them to fabricate a styrene plastic hull for a model of USS KASKASKIA (AO-27), but I don't know what the numbers mean on the contour lines. I thought initially the plans would >show the frame numbers or something, but since these contours are numbered fractionally from 0 to 10 (stern to bow, respectively), that's obviously not the case. Any help will be appreciated. << Hi Doug, Reading hull lines can be confusing, but all it takes it to figure out how the locations are referenced. In the case above, you do have "frame numbers", but they are in a different frame of reference. Each frame (station, contour) that you'll need has been numbered 0 to 10, and should have a corresponding location on the profile (side) drawing of the ship. Usually you'll find them below the keel on the drawing, possibly with either the frame numbers or the length of hull sections. If your plans don't have these references, there is another way of referencing these to the ship. Measure the top of station which would be the deck, double it if it's a half-width station, and find the corresponding length on the plan (overhead) view. This will give you the location of that station. It's a little more tedious, but it'll get a correct hull. >> Also, has anyone out there ever scratchbuilt a hull in 1:192 from styrene in this manner? I could use some tips. << As a pattern maker, this is the way I've done all of the hulls that I've made for patterns. When working with styrene to build a hull of this size, you'll need to do one of two things. Either use very heavy stock (.08" thick or greater), or use as many frames as possible. Since you only have 11 frames to work with, then use heavy stock to provide rigidity to the hull as you're building it. Next, make your keel the entire height of the hull (from the bottom to the main deck). This will make cutting the stations easier (cut the station as a solid piece) and provide a good backbone for the hull. Take the solid stations and attach them to the center keel, and then attach the main decks to the top of the keel and station backbone. This will create a very rigid skeleton. Then it's up to you how to complete it. You can either do the traditional method of "planking" using plastic strip or fill the "cells" that are formed with more stock plastic or whatever your favorite medium is. Jon Warneke Iron Shipwrights -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: JohnVCP@aol.com Subject: Re: Graf Spee photos Your idea to post these photos is a good one, the only problem is that they reside on a old MAC and the up-load sftwr (AOL 3.something) is using a compression that does not seem to be too compatible with those who requested copies. I am trying to get these up-loaded to my Windows 98-type machine at the office so I can then copy them on to a diskette and, in turn, load them on my Window 98 machine here at home and then up-load, via AOL 4.0, to you. If you followed all of that - congratulations!!!! John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: Mike Settle Subject: Re: Hull lines >. I have a copy of The Floating Drydock's hull lines for the CIMARRON-class fleet oilers .... Also, has anyone out there ever scratchbuilt a hull in 1:192 from styrene in this >manner? I could use some tips. << I can't help on reading the plans, but please keep me, and perhaps all of SMML, informed on the progress of this project. For years I have entertained the idea of scratchbuilding the Sabine, AO-25, in 1/350 scale. Mike Settle -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: James Corley Subject: Re: USS Warrington From: Rick Heinbaugh >> Malcolm, I am nearly certain that USS Warrington was named for Lewis Warrington, one of the USA's younger naval commanding officers during the unpleasantness of 1812-15 with Great Britain. << I undestand this to be the man indeed. I do know that it is the man the town of Warrington, Fla is named after. The original townsite is located near the present location of the golf course of NAS Pensacola. The town was moved across Bayou Grande sometime during/after WW1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: Mark Knowlton Subject: Re: That Fletcher Project The way I took it, the goal was simply to have enough ships of a type submitted to force a category split, which has probably never happened for ships before. >> I think the whole 1/700 Fletcher idea was to just generate more interest in the ships categories in general. << I have to disagree with the first statement, anyone who has read the Journal or been to the Nationals in recent years would know that there have been splits in the ship categories. There are allowances for splits in every major category. This year in Santa Clara, there were at least 3 that I know of. Yes, I was of those judges who supposedly knew nothing about ships that a few people have commented on. I'm all for generating interest in the ship categories, but let's make sure it's for that reason we are talking about this project. I think the original idea was to do something like this at a local contest where there are few ship related entries. Just my two cents. Mark Knowlton -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: "John Sutherland" Subject: TOWN CLASS - LEWES, LEEDS & LUDLOW I am a fairly new SMML'er attempting to build representatives of the various TOWN class destroyers in UK service. The above three - sometimes called Group 1 (Lewes) and Group 2 (other 2) or LEWES Group (all) I am having problems with. Destroyers of WWII by MJ Whitley states that all three lost the "A" and "Y" 4in guns, retaining the beam guns. In his group summary he quotes the arnament of Lewes as 2 x 2pdr & 5 x 20mm, the other 2 having 2 x 4in, 2 x 2pdr and 4 x 20mm. This summary also agrees with WARSHIPS of WWII by Lenton & Colledge. However Whitley also publishes a photo of LEWES with a caption "Lewes with her unique arnament of three 3 in guns and two 2pdrs". The photo is even more ambiguous appearing to show from a front portside angle 2 2pdrs forward of the bridge, what appears to be a shielded 4in beam gun (similar to what is normally seen as "A" gun, two guns in large tubs at "X" and replacing the searchlight tower (3in??) and a small tub on the rear of "X" (20mm?) and a suggestion of something on the "Y" position. Lenton & Colledge publish a photo of LEEDS which shows "A" and "Y" gun retained, four 20mm, two 2 pdrs, and what appears to be a 3in in "X" and a hedgehog forward of "A" gun. They also publish a very dark, indistinct photo of Ludlow which appears to fit the original Whitley description of arrangement except it also appears to have a 3in on "X" position, a hedgehog in "A" and strangely no type 271 radar. Also I cannot see any 2pdrs (but could be in the dark bridge wings?). Both Leeds and Ludlow had only 3 funnels - are these Clemson class rather than Wickes? Clearly there is confusion out there with even photos having captions that do not match. Did these ships have multiple or progressive refits that would account for the discrepancies? can anyone sort this out? HELP! Thanks John Sutherland -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: Lorna Jenkins Subject: SMML Christmas Carol To the tune of "White Christmas" with apologies to Bing Crosby :-) I'm dreaming of a ship wish list Where all my fantasies come true There are lots of Flowers, To pass the hours And the Hood by White ensign too I'm dreaming of a ship wish list The Yamato is in the pile As well as the Mauretania And the Dido, But that's just to make Bob Pearson smile I'm dreaming of a ship wish list with lots of resin kits and brass May you get everything On "your" list If you don't, boot someone up the a**e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Jeff Herne Subject: AIM USS San Francisco Accurate Image Models is pleased to announce release of the newest kit, the Heavy Cruiser USS San Francisco (CA-38) in her 1944 configuration. The kit features a solid one-piece hull, cast resin parts and photoetched brass sheet, including rails, radars, cranes and catapults. The brass fret is a joint effort from Tom's Modelwork's and Commander Series Models. From now until January 4th, 1999, the cost of this kit will be ONLY $89.95 plus $4.95 shipping and handling. Foreign orders add 20% shipping. The first 100 orders will receive this pricing, thereafter the price will be $169.95. Payment can be made by check or money order to: Accurate Image Models 406 Union Ave. Ste 630 Knoxville, TN, 37902 Shipping date will be January 15th. You can preview this kit on the Warship site: http://warship.simplenet.com For additional information or questions call 1-877-WARSHIP between 6pm and 9pm EST, or e-mail us at blacklab43@hotmail.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume