Subject: SMML13/09/99VOL667 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:36:07 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Those Fletcher lines 2: USS Minneapolis Camoflage Questions 3: WW2 Independence class 4: SMML list content 5: Content of SMML 6: Re: Italian BB book and colors 7: WWI Torpedo boat deck 8: Re: INDEPENDENCE Class Air Groups 9: Re: SMML convention 10: The good, the bad and the ugly. 11: Re: On/Off Topic 12: Re HMS BULLEN 13: Ugliest-Prettiest? 14: Battleships magazine 15: Lindberg Bobtail Cruiser 16: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly , and the Tedium 17: Current projects, etc. 18: Re: WW2 Independence class 19: Re: Regia Marina 20: HMS Cornwall Controversy 21: H M S Cornwall 22: Re: Measures 16 and 33 23: Nimitz Carrier Question. 24: RN 5.25" turrets/Off the beaten track 25: HP-Models kits 26: Tamiya USS Enterprise 27: Re: On/Off Topic (+ A Proposal) 28: OT: Airplane modeling question -- Summary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: USS Arleigh Burke -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS Hi all, I'll be switching to the new distribution list as of tomorrows SMML. If you haven't re-subscribed yet & want to. Just email me & tell me you want to re-subscribe. My apologies for all the hassles. But I hope to clear up some troublesome bouncers, who I can't find on the current distribution list to take off, by doing all this. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: KDur597268@aol.com Subject: Those Fletcher lines Hi folks, Two questions: 1) Could someone remind me who makes the new SS168 "Nautilus" that was announced here a few weeks ago? 2) Maybe I missed the response, but someone asked for opinions on how to treat the raised lines on the Tamiya 1/350 Fletcher hull. I'd like to know, too. Thanks Ken Durling -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Ed Grune Subject: USS Minneapolis Camoflage Questions Hello SMMLies I figure that John Synder, the paint guy, will pick up on this right away. I'm presently working on converting the Loose Cannon QUINCY to the MINNEAPOLIS in the configuration and camoflage pattern she wore in late 1943 -- i.e. painted to give the false impression that she was a destroyer. I'm using the Classic Warships book on the Minnie as my primary painting reference for what is called a Measure 8 scheme. There seems to be some confusion with this measure when compared to the Floating Drydock book Camoflage 1. Camoflage 1 has measures 6, 7, & 8 in dark gray (5-D) and light gray (5-L). I don't dispute the Classic Warships artwork as there is photgraphic evidence of the Minnie in this camoflage measure. The Floating Drydock book has no written or pictorial evidence of similar light gray/ocean gray patterns in the 1942 - 1943 timeframes. Is the 1943 Minnie in a true Measure 6/7/8 or is it an undocumented identity confusing camoflage measure? Also, the 1943 chapters in Camoflage 1 discuss countershading of overhanging structures with white (5-U). The photo of the Minnie on page 34 of the Classic Warships book shows the shadows to be dark under the overhangs. Would the undersides of the forward superstructure's overhangs and upper bulkhead walls have been countershaded white or were they or were they Light Gray (5-L) on the Minnie? Ed Mansfield, TX -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: John Sheridan Subject: WW2 Independence class Here's the aircraft loadout when USS Princeton (CVL-23) at the time of her loss in October 1944: Air Group 27 VF-27 (24 F6F) VT-27 (9 TBM) 34 Aircraft total Assigned to TG-38.3 Most of the Independence Class Carriers carried a simular loadout. John Sheridan What I do to Spammers: http://microscale.com/images/N2.jpg I am not a Member of the Lumber Cartel (tinlc) and I am not Unit #631 Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! http://www.cauce.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Terry Sumner" Subject: SMML list content Hello all, While I very seldom post, I am one of the original members of this list and have all of them back to number one. My interest in this list was fueled by my project-in-the-works back then, the 1/350 Enterprise.(which is STILL in the works, btw) Greg Lee and I emailed back and forth quite a bit about this model and he was most helpful in getting me images I needed. While the list was supposed to be mainly for ship building techniques, it was always open to other topics which were of interest to ship modeling. IMHO, if you're into ship modeling, other topics related to ship modeling are okay for this forum, as long as they ARE ship modeling related. And I think this way in a large part because of the numbered index that was initiated quite a while ago. This index makes it quite easy to peruse the headings and then skip to which article you wish to read. Kind of like skipping over the headings of messages you don't wish to read on rec.models.scale. The ship building technique items are still there but sometimes the other stuff makes for interesting reading. My .02 worth anyway. Terry Sumner PS: BTW Shane, how many members do we have on SMML now? Just curious. Hi Terry, I'll be letting evryone know, once the new distribution list kicks in & it settles down. One of the advantages for me in this respect, it that all the re-subsribers & new subscribers will go in the one folder. This means I don't have to recount the distribution list everytime to confirm numbers. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "chenyangzhang" Subject: Content of SMML Hi all Answer to Harold...............No. Seriously though a site where everyone just talked about ship models and research rather than other ship related matters would be boring as hell. My impression of other SMMLies is that like me they're not just interested in ship modelling but ships as well. There's also nothing wrong with wanting to know which projects other people are working on, this is something you'd discuss anyway when you meet other ship modellers. It's also great fun to exchange interesting bits of trivia (like the bathtub story). The range of people are what makes this list a success and the fact that most of them are prepared to discuss different topics makes it interesting. A final point, ship models are representations of real ships which were built for differing reasons and motives. Building ship models gives you an imperative (or at least it should) to learn more about the real thing. I'm also waiting for one of the American SMMLies to announce they're building a model of Iowa's bathtub. So Shane's doing a wonderful job and as many "off topic" subjects as can be squeezed in. Chris Langtree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "John Snyder" Subject: Re: Italian BB book and colors The colors as reproduced in the book aren't bad, but they aren't accurate either. I'm going to try to talk Randy into releasing our Italian paint chip set while we're waiting on a few more original RN samples for possible inclusion in RN Set 2. So for Regia Marina accuracy.... John Snyder Snyder & Short Enterprises -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: geoff-smith@cwcom.net Subject: WWI Torpedo boat deck SMMLies, After a long lay-off, I've just resurrected a scratchbuild (inspired originally by the Digital Navy card model) of German WWI torpedo boat V-107 of 1917. Information on this class of boat seems thin on the ground and photos almost non-existent apart from a couple of long shots and small scale plans in the book Z-vor. With such a lack of info, I shouldn't be building this, but I took a liking to the design. Digital Navy's drawing of V-108 shows the decks as tan but there are enough differences between this and the plans in Z-vor to raise doubts. The colour is too dark to represent planked decks (IMHO) Can anyone best guess whether the decks would be planked, steel, or covered with something? And if steel or covered, what colour? Tan? Any ideas will help. TIA Geoff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: ECammeron@aol.com Subject: Re: INDEPENDENCE Class Air Groups INDEPENDENCE Class Air Groups were comprised of one VF Squadron of 20 - 26 F6F and one VT Squadron of 8 - 10 TBM. Numbers in each squadron varied due to combat and operational losses. Eugene -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Re: SMML convention >> I would also agree with Jeff Herne re. his comments about "no trade". This gives us all the opportunity to meet with each other without any "have to sell" "have to buy" pressure on anyone at the meet. << IMHO, part of the draw and fun of a modeling convention is being able to see and buy new kits or older stuff at a discount, as well as being able to pore through the boxes of oop upgrade and accessory stuff. However I do agree that this puts a burden on the vendors and precludes their otherwise participating in the show. How about a compromise. Have a vendor area, in a separate closeable room that can be secured, and then close the room at selected times so that the vendors can mingle, see the show, attend the seminars, and just take a break. Perhaps do something like a 60-40 open closed ratio?? Regards, Bradford Chaucer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Kelvin Mok" Subject: The good, the bad and the ugly. >> Harold, I am a relative newcomer to this group, so I don't don't presume much, but I do have to chime in and say that I'm doing a lot of scrolling to find stuff about model ship building! Although I did personally contribute to the G/B/Ugly thread, I did have a nagging sort of guilty feeling about it - sort of like "this is kind of silly." And I am personally really tired of the extremely repetitive IPMS debate, but that's just me. And now a trivia contest? Let's do it off-line, please. Next thing you know we'll be discussing desserts in the O'Brien novels and what actress should play Sophie. Oops. Sorry I mentioned it! It could be that in the switch of list management there was a "vote" to go to more open list content, in which case I guess we just keep scrolling. This list DOES have the unusual advantage of having a table of contents, which I truly appreciate. Plus I basically DO enjoy the people here, regardless of their posts. But I don't always have time to to "read the columns" you know. I vote for more substance. << The fact that so many responded to an "off topic" tread does point to its popularity. Why not let our moderator allow such posts through. Surely any SMML list can be scrolled through in less than a minute and after looking through a few such lists I (or anyone else) should know what subjects to skip. The beauty of the INTERNET is that there are no marginal costs in including everyone. There is only so much that can be discussed on any subject and they die out on their own. I for one have zilch interest in IJN warships but they would be very "on topic". Any hobby club should be as much a social club as a "technical" group. People you meet at the club are the mostly very friendly and sociable but once one group starts to impose their ideas of ships, substance (or whatever) only discussions - that's what I meant by "monomania" in an earlier post - the general membership starts to drift out and you are left with a very small group of single subject people. The club dies. That's not the intention of anyone but that's what usually happens. At the end of the day this is a hobby. We are all talking about a lot about inconsequential details of obsolete equipment and refighting batttles whose conclusion had been decisively won or lost ages ago. Does it really matter what exact color it was painted in or what lino was used? Or which battleship would have won had they slugged it out one to one. No. But settling such points seem to provide endess hours of fun in research and trying to bring the other person to the writer's point of view. Which is the whole point. Nothing is at stake whatever the outcome. And then we can go back to our day jobs and the real world. Kelvin Mok (klmok@home.com) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: Candy Forster & Rob Robinson Subject: Re: On/Off Topic Harold wrote: >> Is it just me, or is this list getting way off the point with endless messages about ugliest ships and current projects (both of which are very subjective)? This used to be a forum for exchanging ideas and hints on building ship models and ship research. Does anyone else find that it is becoming just a bit tedious? << I'm afraid I have to agree. I understand that some members would like to compare notes on the above-mentioned topics, but it would make my life a lot simpler if this list stayed with "exchanging ideas and hints on building ship models and ship research". Even with a Table of Contents, it's time-consuming to wade through the off-topic stuff to try & find the on-topic stuff. I understand that I may be in a minority & that what I call "off-topic" discussion will probably continue, but I thought I'd second the above comment anyway, FWIW. Rob Robinson Skillman, NJ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "Peter Hall" Subject: Re HMS BULLEN Hi Folks, I would like to thank those of you that have helped with my enquiry regarding HMS Bullen. The reason for my posting this note,was not a modelling question but one of family history. My mothers uncle, Cecil Bacon, was on Bullen when it was sunk and was not one of those that survived. My aunt does not know about the incident that took her dad away, so I have had to take my curiosity else where. And where better than to those that are in the know on these matters. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction so that I can maybe find out what really happened. All the best Peter Hall -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: Suvoroff@aol.com Subject: Ugliest-Prettiest? Well, my vote for most attractive warship of all time is; Jaureguiberry, 1897 and for the ugliest; The British 14" gun monitors, Abercrombie, Roberts, Raglan, and Havelock. Yamato and Musashi are close fifth and sixth, however. >> Jeffry Fontaine IPMS-USA # 32709 'from Bremerton, Washington, which is thankfully NOT a suburb of Seattle.' << Geez, and I thought I was the only Bremertonian on this list! Yours, James D. Gray Bremerton, WA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: JERRYC988@aol.com Subject: Battleships magazine Hi to all,I've been looking for a magazine that i had a copy of once but lost it. I have been trying to find a copy so i can subscribe to it and so far no luck.I am looking for a magazine called BATTLESHIPS, i know it's out there and from what i can remember it carries usefull infomation and data. So if anyone can give me the address etc so i can contact the company i sure would appreciate it-thanks Jerry Curtis Salem,Or -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "Shaya Novak" Subject: Lindberg Bobtail Cruiser Was an LMSR "Rocket Landing Ship" used late in the war in the Pacific. 1x5"/38, 4x40mm AA guns, 4x4.2" Motars, 20 automatic rocket launchers, 75 crew. I've seen videos of this at Iwo Jima awesome site to see the hundreds of rockets firing off these ships. Used as inshore fire support. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: Michael Eisenstadt Subject: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly , and the Tedium Folks: I would like to second Harold Lincoln's message about all this traffic about good, bad, and ugly ships, etc. getting a bit tedious. When was the last time we had a kit reviewed on this mailing list? We must have about 1,000 builders on this list, and between us all we must have bought every plastic and resin ship kit in existence, yet it is very rare for anyone to take the time to do a serious and thorough review -- something that could really help out their fellow builders and the manufacturers that subscribe to the list. There's something wrong here... As I've just purchased the 1/700 Samek HMS York kit, I volunteer to do an out-of-the box review when I receive it in the mail in the next few days. And I propose that others do the same with their new acquisitions on a routine basis. Perhaps, if it isn't too difficult for Shane to do, perhaps we could have separate sections for "mindless jabber" and "research." In the latter category we could have discussions about building techniques, camouflage, and book and kit reviews. That way, those like me who are so inclined,wouldn't have to wade through all the sillyness in order for us to go to what we really read SMML for. Now I'll go jump in my foxhole, curl up under some overhead cover, and prepare for the incoming... Respectfully yours (as always), Mike Eisenstadt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: "Chris Christenson" Subject: Current projects, etc. Great thread this current projects is....glad I'm not the only one with more than one on the bench. Currently finishing 3 Monogram P-38s (afterwhich I'll be admitted to "the ward"), and repairing the summer dings to my squadron of radio controlled planes. Just broke out Revell PT 109 and got all my references together---definitely not going to do the zebra camo. Also wanting to start Classic Airframes Heinkel He112 (plane-ship-plane-ship--I'll have 'em all built by the year 2299!) but the instruction sheet vanished--so does anyone have a copy they could send me or know of a Luftwaffe list or aircraft list I could get on to find it? I did call the company but have not received any response in several months. Contact me off list if anyone can help. I too have hundreds of unbuilts--- and yet my wife and even my mother-in-law will still come through at Christmas and birthday with new kits!!!!!!!!!!!! Keep up the good work Shane & Lorna! Thanks in advance Chris Christenson Ord Nebraska GO HUSKERS! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: Bill Rowe Subject: Re: WW2 Independence class Chesneau's AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, P.232 "The air group originally was to have consisted of 45 aircraft, tne 30 comprisisng three squadrons, on VF (F6F), one VT(TBM) and on VB (SBD, but with normal strength halved in the case of the last two, and reduced by one-third for the fighters; operating as transports...60-70 on deck, the numbers depending, as always on type" As I recall there was an experiment in the latter part of WW2 where they carrier only fighters. This way the CVLs provided the CAP for the Task Force. It sounds like you could have about any mix of U.S. carrier aircraft without being obviously wrong. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: MGross1352@aol.com Subject: Re: Regia Marina As the co-author of Regia Marina I'm glad to read nice things about it. There is no other book in the series as of yet (although this book is in its third printing). I do hope that a volume on heavy cruisers will be available soon. Unfortunately making a living and supporting a family make it difficult to do research and write since time is so sparse. Thanks, Mark Grossman -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: Michael Eisenstadt Subject: HMS Cornwall Controversy Folks: Well, you would think I'd know better by now, but here I sally forth into the middle of another controversy.... I checked out a photo of HMS Cornwall that was published in a German-language monograph by Siegfried Breyer, "Marine-Arsenal No. 18" (no, I don't speak German) which is devoted to the Washington-Treaty cruisers. On p. 13 there are two photos of Cornwall going down (I believe these were part of a well-known series of photos taken by the Japanese aircrews involved in the sinking that were captured or recovered later in the war/after the war.). One of the shots is of particular interest: it is a port bow view of Cornwall, bow partially under water, and she's still raising steam. Interestingly, the large hanger door is quite visible, and it appears that there is a large trapezoid painted on the door (the trapezoid looks to be a very light grey {AP507C?}, while the left and right margins of the door are almost black in color {AP507A?}). I'm not saying that Cornwall was wearing a light gray/dark gray camouflage scheme at the time of her sinking, but is it possible that this was a vestige of the two-tone light gray/dark gray scheme that our raven' mad friend from WR Press has been talking about? This wouldn't be the first case in which a vestige of an earlier scheme is retained long after a repainting or is incorporated into later schemes (the aforementioned evolution of HMS Berwick's scheme, and the evolution of HMS Norfolk's scheme in 1940-41 are good examples of this). Now that I've tossed the stink grenade into the room I'm outa here! Best wishes, Mike Eisenstadt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: WRPRESSINC@aol.com Subject: H M S Cornwall On the matter of the letter and it's complete contents, this is not for publication in this forum. You will have to wait for the book I'm afraid. As to the aquisition of photos, it sounds good, I might try it one decade. In that vein do you have any photos of the ships of the 18th cruiser squadron in the April to July 1940 time frame? I ask because ALL were camouflaged. I started looking in the mid sixties. Trawled the usual and some nonusual suspects, still looking, have not yet given up, but beginning to drag. Any ideas? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) From: Sanartjam@aol.com Subject: Re: Measures 16 and 33 Hi SMML, After reading some recent posts about the USS Nashville and whether she actually carried Ms. 16 camouflage (Thayer Blue and white), I have a few questions. First, for comparison purposes, were there any ships that were indisputably painted in Ms. 16? I've had trouble finding any, other than a poor photograph of USS Sampson on page 14 fo the Floating Drydock's first book about U.S. Navy Camouflage. I thought I'd found some in a 1973 article by Robert Sumrall in the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, "Ship Camouflage (WWII): Deceptive Art," which has photographs of the Oakland, the Palisade (AM-270), and the Astoria (CL-90) supposedly in Ms.16, but the photograph of the Oakland is surely the Reno (Sumrall gives the correct hull number, CL-96, but an incorrect name) and Glenn Arnold's book on the Atlanta's says she was in Ms. 33/24d (and Terzibaschitsch says she was in Ms. 31a!), and the first Floating Drydock book on U.S. Navy Camouflage says the Astoria was actually painted in Ms. 33/24D and that it was often mistakenly referred to as Ms. 16. I'm so confused.... Second, is there any documentary evidence one way or the other on whether the Nashville, Reno or Astoria carried Ms. 16 or Ms. 33? I wonder what Sumrall was relying on in stating the Oakland (sic: Reno) and Astoria were carrying Ms. 16 and what Terzibaschitsch was relying on in stating that the Nashville was carrying Ms. 16, other than guesswork. (Note that Terzibaschitsch's photograph of the Nashville was taken on 24 October 1944 when MacArthur was performing his stage-managed return to the Philippines. I suspect because of the late date that she was in Ms. 33 instead of Ms. 16. It might have been strange to have a Ms.16-painted ship in the Philippines at the time, but, because the area did not become a Kamikaze-rich environment until Kamikazes were used for the first time the following day, it would not have been that unreasonable to carry Ms. 16, or Ms. 33 for that matter, on 24 October.) Strangely, both Sumrall and Terzibaschitsch (I hate spelling that) correctly describe the San Francisco in 1944 as being in Ms. 33, a very light pattern that seems to be confused with Ms. 16 or vice versa. It would be nice to have some photographs of Ms. 16-painted ships and some documentation one way or the other on ships like the Nashville, Reno and Astoria. It seems to me that it would be very easy to confuse Ms. 16 and the Ms. 33 patterns using ocean gray and light or pale gray; otherwise, I doubt there would be so much confusion. I also wonder if some confusion may have resulted because, according to the sixth Del Palmieri article on U.S. Navy camouflage, some of the Ms. 16 patterns were later adapted with darker colors to Ms. 31, 32 and 33. In the absence of either photographs or documentation, I would be tempted to go with Ms. 33 for all three ships, but Ms. 16 would sure look cool on them, both literally and figuratively! Sorry to go on so long, but at least it's on-topic! Any thoughts and help would be much appreciated. I would like to build at least the Reno some day and I would like to get the colors right! Thanks, Art Nicholson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) From: "Shaya Novak" Subject: Nimitz Carrier Question. Since after WWII carriers have these two finger like pieces that hang over the bow in front where the catapults end and also on the angeled deck. What are these? I 've seen pictures that The Nimitz CVN-68 had them but the newer Nimitz's such as CVN-73 don't. What has changed since then. Thanks, Shaya -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) From: "Martin Short" Subject: RN 5.25" turrets/Off the beaten track Evening all, A question for all you WWII RN experts out there.... Is there a difference between the 5.25" HA/LA Mk1 turrets as fitted to the KGV's, and those of the Dido class cruisers? From what I can tell from photo's there is no visual difference between the KGV turrets and those of the Group1 Dido's: the only other variation being the larger Mk1* mounts fitted to Vanguard. I don't have many pics of Dido class vessels, especially the group 2 ships. In those few hazy shots that I have, the turrets appear to have a slightly different shape around the waist of the turret below the gun apertures, or am I just seeing things. Turret ventilators also seem to be a later fitment, as a result of the POW sinking? Also I recall (maybe in error), that due to the shortage of 5.25" turrets in general, and the requirements for Howe and Anson, this led to the completion of the toothless terrors Scylla and Charybdis, as well as some of the other members missing out on Q turret? Any help greatly appreciated......... On the subject of "off topic" posts, personally they don't bother me as I scrolling works for me, and I have been guilty of fuelling some of the light hearted debate in times past. My personal interest is largely restricted to WWII, and I filter accordingly. Modern warships leave me cold for example. What appears on this list is a result of input from other Smellies, so at least some of us are guilty of starting and maintaining 'trivia' threads. If the list became factual or absolutely modelling related only, I believe it would have become stale long ago. Take out the trivia posts and what have you got?, probably less than half of what turns up each day. Trivia is Ok as long as it isn't done to death or drags on, but then that is up to us as contributors to control by calling it quits when common sense says to do so. Ship modelling is just not the hot modelling topic compared to Aircraft/Armour/Vehicles etc so doesn't have the numbers to fuel a totally serious list, with serious questions all of the time...seriously!. As they say, you can please some of the people, some of the time, but what appears here is largely up to us. So there you have it, my tuppence worth, one serious bunch of questions, and one load of potential BS. Happy modelling.. Martin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) From: "Pletscher-Lenz-Schneider" Subject: HP-Models kits HP-Models kits are sometimes available from NNT Modell+Buch Versand. Their e-mail address is: mailto:NNNModell@t-online.de Yet I think the HP-Models kits of the Dutch cruisers are no joy. They are of a rather low quality standard at a rather high price. Falk Pletcsher -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) From: "Mark L. McKellar" Subject: Tamiya USS Enterprise I'm building the Tamyia Enterprise and have worked my way around the hull to where the LSO platform ought to be. Anyone have any words of wisdom about how best to fabricate that little detail??? Mark Where the Red Sox just swept the dreaded Yankees and the Patriots just beat the hated Jets -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) From: John Philip Downing Subject: Re: On/Off Topic (+ A Proposal) >> Harold wrote: >> Is it just me, or is this list getting way off the point with endless messages about ugliest ships and current projects (both of which are very subjective) ? This used to be a forum for exchanging ideas and hints on building ship models and ship research. Does anyone else find that it is becoming just a bit tedious? << >> Harold, I am a relative newcomer to this group, so I don't don't presume much, but I do have to chime in and say that I'm doing a lot of scrolling to find stuff about model ship building! Although I did personally contribute to the G/B/Ugly thread, I did have a nagging sort of guilty feeling about it - sort of like "this is kind of silly." And I am personally really tired of the extremely repetitive IPMS debate, but that's just me. And now a trivia contest? Let's do it off-line, please. Next thing you know we'll be discussing desserts in the O'Brien novels and what actress should play Sophie. Oops. Sorry I mentioned it! << I sort of feel the same way, and I make the following compromise proposal. That all non-modelling and non-information related threads be moved to a separate section at the end (near the traders). In here would go things like Good/Bad/Ugly, Captain's Bathtubs, First model, last model, Vegemite, Trivua, etc. Thus people who didn't care could just stop reading, and for those who do, we saved the best til last. I suppose it would mean more work for are illustrious listmaster, but methinks it would be nice. How about it? and in any case, keep up the good work. John Downing... (whose i-19 sub fell off the shelf yesterday, and must spend some time in drydock.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28) From: "Doremus, Mark" Subject: OT: Airplane modeling question -- Summary SMML Thanks for all your suggestions, I got at least 12 replies, both on and off list. I'm summarizing them here for future reference. Some asked what scale and how big was the slot, 1/48 and .052 x .163 (1.2 mm x 4.1 mm). The suggestions broke down into 2 groups: 1) Stick a wire, toothpick, cocktail stick, piece of sprue or cardboard into the slot or a small drilled hole. Hold it in place with friction, white glue, thick superglue or Blu-tack. 2) Mount the fins on a piece of double sticky tape mounted on a piece of balsa or MDF (what is this stuff?) or in a C-clamp, touch up the fin bottoms if required. Alp also forwarded a website with a lot of airbrushing hints on it. I've repeated it here: http://www.hyperscale.com/reference/airbrushingjk_1.htm I ended up using toothpicks with the last 1/8" or so clipped off so that they would "force fit" into the slots and not need an adhesive. Again thanks to all who helped! Mark Doremus Cold Eden Prairie, MN James, you only think you have B-24's in Navy Colors, they're actually PB4Y's. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Shaya Novak" Subject: USS Arleigh Burke Ported today at Naval Base Hobbies the USS Arleigh Burke full hull 1/700 scale from DML ********* 12.95 ********* goto our Mod. Cruiser & Dest. page: http://www.modelshipbuilding.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume