Subject SMML14/09/99VOL668 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 01:24:47 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: trivia questions update.... 2: Re: SMML Content 3: HMS Hotspur and catching up. 4: Re: Nimitz Carrier Question. 5: SMML comes through again 6: Re: Kit review on SMML 7: CV(N) Nimitz Question 8: Banter 9: HMS Cornwall 10: 18th CS 11: Nimitz carrier question and making LSO platforms 12: Dido class 5.25" Gun Turret 13: Re: Nautilas model 14: Bridle arrestors 15: Re: Measures 16 and 33 16: Nimitz Carrier Bows 17: Re: USS Minneapolis Camoflage Questions 18: BULLEN SOURCE, CATAPULT HORNS, AND IFS 1 19: Re: USS Cabot - It aint over 'til it's over 20: Re: National Geographic I-52 21: IJN Jintsu 22: USS New Jersey - on the move!! 23: Kit Reviews - Skywave 1/700 I-400 24: Re: On/Off Topic + a Proposal 25: Viking Models River Monitor 26: Nimitz Carrier Question 27: Re : The Good, the Bad, the Ugly , and the Tedium 28: Shinano Color Mix 29: Ship model reviews - Tamiya 1/700 IJN Shinano 30: On/Off topic compromise 31: On the bench review 1/700 Perry Classs FFG and OT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Trivia answer and Question #2 2: Kits: Upcoming Event in Dallas, Tx 3: Re: USS Arliegh Burke detail set 4: FS: Dansk, Billing etc kits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Jeff Herne" Subject: trivia questions update.... This thought just occurred to me...I have 4 references I am using for these questions, and I am using only those questions where all 4 references agree. If there is a question in debate I WILL NOT divulge my references to you, this kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it? Surprisingly, I've already had a couple of folks ask me, "What references did you use?" Come on !! :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Charles Stephanian Subject: Re: SMML Content I, too, have to agree with Harold, et al...the list has lately gotten a bit far afield for my tastes. While, I agree that we want to keep a spirit of friendship, I feel like we are starting to slide a bit toward the 'silliness' that often exists on rec.models.scale. It's not that I object to scrolling through the topics I'm not interested in, it's just that other lists have started to go more and more off-topic and soon there's so much silliness and rancor that the value of the list diminishes to naught, and I would truly hate to see that happen here. This IS a great and valuable place...I don't advocate a serious topic only policy...just a little more restraint and thought. Soapbox now vacant.... Chas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Felix Bustelo Subject: HMS Hotspur and catching up. Hi folks, I am back from vacation, a cruise to St. John, New Brunswick and Halifax, Nova Scotia on board the Carnival Triumph, currently one of the largest if not the largest cruise ship in world (103,000 + tons!). So, I am trying to play catch up on my emails. Re: the Hotspur - she is my next project after I finish the ISW PC 461 class kit. I have photocopies of the Airfix articles (thanks to Keith Butterley) and at this moment I cannot recall the pros and cons about the articles. I promise to get back to you (who ever you are) and the rest about this. The good, the bad and the ugly: Well, to keep it simple: Good looking ships: Military: Iowa Class BBs Vittorio Venetto BBs QE class BBs (WW1 versions) Civilian: SS United States SS Normandie SS France Bad Military: Vasa (Too top heavy, sank on maiden voyage) Civilian: RMS Titanic (Beautiful ship, but in hindsight, poorly designed) Most Modern Cruise ships (While nice in some aspects, lack the grace of the "classic" liners). Ugly: Military: ACW Monitors (the cheesebox on the raft left a lot to be desired) USN cagemasts BBs Civilian: The second RMS Britannic (squat funnelled liner of the 1930's formerly White Star but later Cunard ship) Halifax is a must see for maritime buffs. The Maritime Museum of the Atlantic is great, with actual Titanic artifacts on display and a 15 min 3D movie of a dive on the wreck (Dave Carter, if you get the urge to dive again, see this movie and stay on dry land!). Ship models galore, cover the age of sail, steam and the RCN. Also has the CSS Acadia, a hydrographical survey ship, open to the public. Didn't have enough time to see everything (bad thing about cruises, only one day in port). I also visited the HMCS Sackville, a few berths down, the only surviving Flower (yes, I spelled it out!) corvette in the world. A great ship to visit, very nicely restored and free to the public. Let's say that seeing her in person has made me a fan of this class of ship. Also, in N.S. visit Peggy's Cove, a beautiful and picturesque fishing village about a hour outside of Halifax. While the village is better known now as the site where the SwissAir flight went down, it is a beautiful place to see. Boy, I am tired. I need a vacation to recover from my vacation! Cheers, Felix Bustelo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Percy, John" Subject: Re: 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. << Shaya, As far as I know, these 2 (and sometimes 1 on some ships) are waterbrakes for the steam catapult. Basically, at the front(or end, depending on how you look at it) of each steam catapult, there is a cone-shaped "bullet". When the catapult is activated, and the plane launched, this bullet goes shooting into these "fingers" that have a container of water. The water "brakes"/stops the catapult. At least, thats what I think they are. Anyone can correct me if I am wrong. John Percy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: SMML comes through again I just wanted to thank everyone who emailed information concerning the USS Oklahoma City. One guy had almost 50 photos that now are secure in my file. Yet another fella had the complete microfilm drawings of the ship! Talk about hitting the jackpot! I also learned that Sea Photo had a number of good photos as well. Well done fellas (as I tip my hat). Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Kit review on SMML >> When was the last time we had a kit reviewed on this mailing list? << I put forth a review of the Classic Warships USS Salem kit not 4 days ago. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Doremus, Mark" Subject: CV(N) Nimitz Question Shaya, I'm sure a more learned reply will appear, but for a quick answer, the "fingers" are part of the catapult mechanism. On earlier CV's, with earlier A/C they used a bridle attached to the airplane to pull it down the cat, the ramp was to ease recovery of the bridle for the next launch. On more modern CV's and A/C they use a "tow" bar attached to the airplane's front wheel. Many older carriers (pre Nimitz) are being refitted with the newer tow system and are having the ramps removed. Kinzey points this out in USS John F. Kennedy, D & S #42. Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Jeff Herne" Subject: Banter Hi gang, Contrary to many of you, I read through SMML each and every day, and I jot down little bits of camo info here and there, stuff that I didn't know (Berwick and Cornwall for example). There's a lot of information out there, and oftentimes, an off-topic post will have a useful bit of data. But more importantly, SMML is a release from everyday tedium that is focused on what we enjoy, ships, and modeling ships...if it concerns a ship, I'll read it. I like to think of many of you as more than just names on a list, I've had the pleasure of meeting a large number of SMMLies, and 95% percent of the time, we don't talk shop. Point is, if this list is kept to strictly ship modeling, many of us will get bored and simply fade away...I have too many things to juggle in my life, and the last thing I need is to read a list with nothing but the best way to paint a teak deck and remove superglue from your fingers. The off-topic, trivia, paint colors, history stuff keep it interesting, and that's why I read it everyday. I did the trivia bit for a reason...and that reason is to open new discussions and threads about ships, and their historys. How is learning about the history of a ship any different than learning about the quality of a kit? I know for fact that somebody's next project will based on one of these foolish questions...it's rekindling interesting points in history that may be suitable for modeling....so there... Eventually, we will run out of new things to talk about, and we'll simply be rehashing old data, like paravanes, Bismarck turret tops, and prettiest vs. ugliest. I vote for the off topic, within reason. If it pertains to modeling or to a ship, then why the hell not? BTW, I for one DID NOT KNOW that Iowa carried a bathtub...you learn somethin new, albeit trivial, everyday... Donning my Kevlar, Jeff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "chenyangzhang" Subject: HMS Cornwall Hi Michael You might be right but it looks more like shadows to me. The picture is pretty over-exposed. Also at some time according to WRPRESS Cornwall was painted in overall dark grey (something I don't dispute) in late '41. Chris Langtree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "chenyangzhang" Subject: 18th CS Hi WRPRESS Fair enough I respect your reasons for this but can you answer one question. When are you saying that Cornwall was first camouflaged? My argument was that it wasn't until after the encounter with the Pinguin and if I understand you correctly you are saying it was before. Also if you let me know which ships were part of the 18th CS I'll see if I can help. Chris Langtree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Jens H. Brandal" Subject: Nimitz carrier question and making LSO platforms >> 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. << You're probably going to gets dozens of answers to this one... These fingers are bridle retrievers to catch the steel wires that were used to secure the aircraft to the catapult shuttle for launch. Before these retrievers were installed, the bridle went overboard with every launch. Modern aircraft use a bar attached to the nose gear that is connected to the catapult shuttle. >> 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??? << I believe you may be thinking mostly of how to make the netting that is outside the platform itself? Been wondering about that myself as this is one of my ongoing projects (although the pressure is low at the moment). Tamiya armour and car kits often include mesh or netting to represent grilles or make turret baskets. This mesh can be glued to plastic bars that represent the structure of the LSO platform net. Cut the mesh and bars to shape, bend and glue in place. Alternatively, there are commercial photo etch sets available for mesh of different sizes. I know Accurate Armour makes sheets of photo etched netting. These are primarily designed with the 1:35 treadhead in mind, so the sizes may be too coarse for 1:350. If you can find it, this will keep its shape easier than the plastic mesh in the Tamiya kits. Jens -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "Phil Gollin" Subject: Dido class 5.25" Gun Turret If anyone is passing re. today's post on 5.25" turrets, there is (or at least was in 1986) a 5.25" turret from a Dido class cruiser sat on the pavement just outside the Pakistan Navy's Headquarters in Karachi. Unfortunately, I didn't have a camera with me so didn't get any photos, however, if any SMMLy is passing I'm sure people would be interested to see if it's still there. Phil -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: Ed Arnold Subject: Re: Nautilas model Ken Durling asked; >> Could someone remind me who makes the new SS168 "Nautilus" that >was announced here a few weeks ago?<< Ken, If you are referring to the 1/350 scale resin kit, it is by Nautilus Models, Kit #S-50, Phone (678) 777-8458, or e-mail james@nautilusmodels.com. HTH BTW, I have this kit and it's nice, good hull and superstructure, the props, guns, anchors, etc., are done in resin and possibly should have been done in white metal instead, IMO. The photo etch is also very nice. Ed Arnold -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: The Codes Subject: Bridle arrestors Those thing that stick out on Nimitz were bridle arrestors, these were used to launch earlier types of aircraft ,S-2 C-2 F-4, A-5s A-4 ect that flew during the 1950 and 60s. By the early 70s these were being replaced with a new launching spar on the nosewheels of the next generation aircraft ..Nimitz had three bridle arrestors when I serverd abourd her in the late 70s. These have been removed as she went through yard periods in the early to mid 80s..the chances of having to launch f-4bs has greatly deminished over the intervening years.. Regards Bill Code -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: ironship@usit.net (Jon Warneke) Subject: Re: Measures 16 and 33 Hi Art, and everyone else, >> First, for comparison purposes, were there any ships that were indisputably painted in Ms. 16? << Since Ms. 16, according to The Floating Drydock's Camo 1, was developed for sub-arctic use, it's highly doubtful that Nashville ever carried an Ms. 16 design into the South Pacific. Also, since Nashville was MacArthur's semi-official flagship for many of the operations down there, an Ms. 3x scheme would be far easier to maintain. Now, as to other ships that definitely carried Ms. 16, that's a more difficult one. Most of the ships that carried Ms. 16 were assigned to convoy duty in the North Atlantic, so I'd look there for ones. The Porters and Somers would be good candidates, as well as most of the Coast Guard units (Campbells, Tampas, etc.). The only psuedo-definite pictures of ships I've seen in Ms. 16 are: 1. In Time/Life's "War in the Outposts", pgs. 36 and 45 are pictures of the cutter Northland in Ms. 16, and pg. 47 has a picture of the Eastland in the same. 2. In Norman Friedman's "US Destroyers", pg. 166 of the Gleaves. If the dating of the picture is correct, this may be an example of Ms. 16. Also, (I can't find the book right away) there's a photo I remember seeing of a Somers (?!??) in probably Ms. 16, based on the date of the photo (mid-1943), the duty (North Atlantic convoy escort), and the contrast between colors (very little). >> 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 would definitely say no. Ms. 16 was an arctic camoflauge, and as such would have been used on ships expected to remain in the arctic or sub-arctic operating areas. Nashville did operate in the Aleutians in 1943, but the photos of her show her in a wavy pattern, whereas one of the requirements of Ms. 16 is an anglular pattern. Also, Ms. 16 was discontinued toward the end of 1943, so Reno and the second Astoria would probably be out of even having been considered. Jon Warneke Commanders Series Models, Inc. I am Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: PASO34@webtv.net (Andy Greer) Subject: Nimitz Carrier Bows To answer Shaya Novak's question: he asked why the Nimitz carriers had the bow extensions. When carriers went to jets and angled decks the tracks were still pretty long, thus they could halt the catapult at the end of the track. However, once the big jets(F-8, F-4, etc) began to be launched there was a problem. The problem was that catapults had previously used a bridle(rather than the breakaway bar on the front of the nose gear of today) that dragged the aircraft along and then went over the bow and was recovered. The F-4 specifically(and later "heavies" needed that little extra on the take-off and thus the track was too short with the bridle in place. If you look at all of the Cold War carriers they had them in place(they were refitted to the older units). By the late 1980s the Phantom was beginning to be phased out and all aircraft had the hook and latch unit and the bridle was no longer in use. The Phantom could still use the extra room for it's track on take-off however, and they were retained. Since the Phantom was gone by Desert Storm, the carriers no longer needed these devices and the last half of the Nimitz class was built without them. My uncle was a commissioning Warrant Officer on the Theodore Roosevelt(CVN-71) and she had them when commissioned. I am not sure which unit of the class was the first without them on construction but they have been removed now from all US carriers. (BTW, I'm no expert on this so if I'm wrong about the bridle and what time the decision was made to fit these devices please feel free to correct me). Thanks, Andy "I'll never reach my destination if I never try so I will sail my vessel until the river runs dry" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: "John Snyder" Subject: Re: USS Minneapolis Camoflage Questions I'll tackle this later in the week when I get home to all my references (including my partner, Randy Short). John (on the road again in upstate New York) Snyder Snyder & Short Enterprises The Paint Guys -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: Dave Baker Subject: BULLEN SOURCE, CATAPULT HORNS, AND IFS 1 For the benefit of Peter Hall and others interested not only in HMS BULLEN but also in other ships of the U.S. BUCKLEY class, the U.S. Naval Institute Press has recently published an excellent 209-page monograph on the entire class, THE BUCKLEY-CLASS DESTROYER ESCORTS, by Bruce Hampton Franklin. Mr. Franklin is both a knowledgable writer about ships AND a scholar, and the book is very well researched and documented. In addition to a complete set of general arrangement drawings of typical units of the class from Bethlehem's Hingham, Mass., building yard, there are photos of each and every unit of the class built, including those that went to the UK under Lend Lease as part of the so-called CAPTAINS class. A sharp, broadside photo of the BULLEN in November 1943 appears on pg. 113. For Shaya Novak, the "horns" referenced projecting from the fore end of carriers (and also from the angled deck) were an artifact of the period when USN (and RN) carrier aircraft used cable bridles when being catapulted off; the bridle was attached to the steam catapult shuttle and also to the aircraft and dropped away as the aircraft rose from the deck. The cables were then retrieved from the horn area, where they were supposed to end up. With the demise of the older aircraft that used bridle launching, the horns have now all but disappeared from operational units of the USN. For those interested in the Lindbergh "Bobtail Cruiser" kit, there was only ever ONE ship in the IFS (Inshore Fire Support) type category in the USN, the CARRONADE (IFS 1), and she was completed during the 1950s; while the LSMR conversions (some were built as such, of course) were functionally related to the IFS, they remained typed LSMR (earlier: LSM(R)) to the end of their USN careers. Thus, the Lindbergh kit represents only the CARRONADE, a ship with a vast number of visual and characteristics differences from the smaller, slower LSMR series. Dr. Norman Friedman's forthcoming U.S. NAVY DESIGN HISTORY series book on USN Amphibs will detail the origins of the LSMR and the IFS--but it will be a year or more before the book is published. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: louellet@uism.bu.edu Subject: Re: USS Cabot - It aint over 'til it's over Even though the USS Cabot was sold to a scrapping firm, they indicated that they are open to selling the ship to ECOSAT as long as they make some money. There is an article at: http://www.expressnews.com/pantheon/news-bus/military/1001btx_cabot_0910nz.shtm which goes into more detail. Also, take a look at the ECOSAT web site: http://www.divemiami.com/ecosat.htm and go to the Bulletin board section to get up to date information. As of this weekend the ECOSAT people are still hopeful that something can be worked out. "It aint over till it's over." - Yogi Berra Larry Ouellette louellet@uism.bu.edu Volunteer, USS Salem (CA 139) United States Naval & Shipbuilding Museum Quincy, Massachusetts, USA http://www.uss-salem.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: Ives100@aol.com Subject: Re: National Geographic I-52 >> The IJN sub was inbound to France with 2 tons of gold + Uranium. They had recordings of the attack including>sounds of the torpedo detonation from sonobuoys. << I don't think there were sonobouys during WWII. >> The I-52 was located 3 miles down, pretty much upright. Conning tower was intact with hull number still visible. The bow was broken up -- probably due to impact with the bottom. Aft of the conning tower there was a big hole -- fatal -- from the torpedo. Debris was scattered -- they never found the gold. << The Glomar Explorer got there first...............just kidding! Tom Dougherty -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: "Lars Scharff" Subject: IJN Jintsu Hallo, I'am currintly working on the Fujimi kid of Jintsu. I want to build her with the catapult in front of the bridge. I have photos (Whitley's Cruisers of the World War Two, Watt's Japanse warships of the World War Two), but these aren't very clear. Which aircraft, if any, was carried? What was her anti-aircraft armarment (8cm or 2.5 cm) and where they are located? Lars -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) From: CBNJBB62@aol.com Subject: USS New Jersey - on the move!! Hi guys I have some news for you. The Battleship New Jersey has left on Sept 12 from Bremerton, WA thru towing by a tug for Philadelphia, PA where the battleship will be mothballed until spring when the Secretary of the Navy decides it fate as to what city gets it: CAMDEN or BAYONNE NJ. CAMDEN thru the local newspapers are covering it's trip and the state gov's has setup a website for it. It's at: http://www.battleship-newjersey.org or http://www.battleship-newjersey.comand http://www.battleship-newjersey.net. This might interest you all. Craig Bennett -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) From: "Michael Quan" Subject: Kit Reviews - Skywave 1/700 I-400 Hi Shane & fellow SMMLies. As said yesterday: "You can't please everybody all the time!" I say lets have our cake and eat it too. I love the off-topic bantering, as it breaks the tedium, but first, let me chime in with a kit review (per Mike Eisenstadt's suggestion), that is on-topic. cheers, Mike Quan Garland TX Skywave W-48, 1/700th scale IJN Submarine Type I-400, “I-400 & I-401” Retail price: 2200 yen in Japan, or $25 from Pacific Front Hobbies The I-400 class submarine was until recently, all but forgotten among the great submarines of the world. Not much was widely known about these boats as survivors were all scrapped shortly after the war. At 393 feet in length and displacing 6,560 tons submerged and 3550 tons on the surface, they were the largest submarines ever built at the end of World War Two, and even today, remain the largest conventionally powered submarines ever built! They had a speed of 20 knots surfaced, 7 knots submerged, and with an operational endurance of four months, they could make a round trip to any port in the world, including New York, with their as-designed range of 33,000 nautical miles at 16 knots. Despite the formidable 14 cm, (6”), deck gun carried and eight bow-mounted, torpedo tubes, the “main battery” for this class of vessel was their three Aichi M6A1 Seiran aircraft, armed with either 800 kg. bombs or a 45 cm diameter, (17.71”), aerial torpedo. Starting in the late 1920's, Japan had been operating aircraft carrying submarines, and exploited this capability more than any other Navy. Initial development began in early 1942 for the ambitious strategic plan of attacking the Panama Canal Locks and rendering them inoperable by the use of attack bombers launched by submarines. In November 1942, a sub-launched, E14Y1 Glen aircraft equipped with 2 small bombs, on 2 different missions dropped bombs in wooded areas of Oregon. Spurred on by the potential of this method of attack, the IJN 5th Replenishment Program called for the construction of a total of 18 I-400 class vessels, along with the development, construction and training of the associated specialized Seiran bomber. Construction on the I-400 began on January 18th 1943 at the Kure Naval Arsenal at Honshu, with the I-401 and I-402 begun later at the Sasebo Naval Arsenal at Kyushu. The I-403 was to be built at the Kawasaki Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. at Kobe, but was never laid down. The last of the I-400 class whose keel was laid down was the I-404 at Kure Naval Arsenal in February 1944, but she was sunk while under construction after an air raid. The I-400 and I-401 were launched and sent, (along with the I-13 and I-14), on a mission to launch an aerial attack against Ulithi – the huge U.S. Navy ship anchorage in the western Pacific. As events transpired, the Japanese surrender caused this attack to be aborted at sea. Along with the efforts of the Smithsonian in restoring the sole surviving example of the Seiran, the recent kit releases in 48th and 72nd by Tamiya of the Seiran and Nanzan trainer aircraft have rekindled interest in the “Panama Canal Bombers.” Equally fascinating is the engineering that went into the design of the large, Sentoku (special submarine), type submarine to transport, service and launch the Aichi bombers. Although Aoshima already had a 700th kit of the I-400 as a part of the original Waterline Series, it was very dated, fit poorly, and accuracy was not far removed from the “toy” category. Skywave has been extremely prolific in 1999, and their latest release in 700th was eagerly welcomed. Two complete submarines are included in each box, and in contrast to the old Aoshima release, the subs can be completed as either a waterline, or as a full-hull model with display stand. Consisting of a total of 78 medium gray parts molded on three sprues, the surface detailing is very exquisite, capturing the sloping levels of the main deck as well as the widely spaced deck planks with the various cutouts to accommodate deck equipment. Drain holes, or “scuttles” if you prefer, in the hull, hangar door and sail are crisply represented; and the model very favorably matches available references. Two, four-piece Aichi Seiran aircraft are provided, and although not mentioned at all in the instructions, a third aircraft on the sprues represents the Nakajima C6N1 Myrt intended to perform scouting and post-attack assessment (from Truk)! Submarine construction breakdown follows the original Aoshima kit with the waterline hull split vertically to which the deck and sail are attached. The submerged hull is a separate, single add-on should a full-hull model be desired. A unique kit feature is the separate door to the aircraft hangar tube, which permits displaying the hangar tube open. Indeed, the Skywave instructions, (in Japanese, of course), show how to add plastic strip to the “floor” of the hangar area, as well as how to alter the Seiran to depict the “folded” airplane configuration for storage. Many interesting diorama possibilities come to mind with these options! If any faults can be found, it is limited to the lack of antennas on the deck aft of the sail – this being remedied by judicious use of stretched sprue or brass wire. At around $13 per sub, the Skywave kit represents excellent value in 1999, especially when compared to the original retail of $2.25 for the Aoshima kit of the early 70’s! All told, Skywave’s new I-400 kit is a real winner, and with some discreet finishing, can lead to a solid contest contender! References: 1. The Maru Special, Japanese Naval Vessels #13 – I-400 and I-13 class submarines, July 1977. Excellent reference with color center section painting, and numerous black and white photos of the subs after surrendering to the U.S. Navy. Japanese text. 2. Monogram Close-Up #13 – Aichi M6A1 Seiran, 1975. Out of print, but it has some interesting data and photos of the I-400 subs with details of the hangar arrangements. 3. Those with Internet access should not miss the excellent website at: http://pages.cthome.net/elrond/ “The I-400 & I-401, The Forgotten Submarines” web page contains a wealth of information by a real fan of these submarines. Don’t miss the link from this page to “The Transpacific Voyage of HIJMS I-400” at: http://home.earthlink.net/~pacerfarm/i400/i400.htm for an excellent story by the U.S. Skipper who sailed her after the war. Hi Mike, Great review. But what say we try to limit the size of the review a tad(see post further down). Otherwise, if more than one person posts the same type of review, SMML will be bloody huge every night. Not I hasten to add, that there's anything wrong with that ;-)), but some people get SMML at work & there may be size restrictions on email, etc. Over to the list. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) From: Allan Plumb Subject: Re: On/Off Topic + a Proposal >> Harold wrote: Does anyone else find that it is becoming just a bit tedious? << >> 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). How about it? << _I_ think that's the best idea I've seen yet. I'm of the "this is a social club too" faction, but this idea gives us the best of both worlds, IMHO. Keeps it from getting too dry, and leaves the "just the facts, ma'am" group with less scrolling to endure. Cool! Allan Plumb (Currently finishing a DML T80U and Kugelblitz and a M-R 1/48 B17G, and wondering when I'll start another ship. Anything but cars. :-) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) From: "K. Hagerup" Subject: Viking Models River Monitor Has anyone seen the Viking Models 1/72 River Monitor? Any comments on the kit's quality? Thanks, Ken -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) From: "K. Hagerup" Subject: Nimitz Carrier Question The extentions at the end of the catapult tracks were to catch the launch bridle on earlier aircraft. All the current US carrier (fixed-wing) aircraft use a launch bar on the nose gear. Ken USS Nimitz 85-86 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) From: Mike.Dunn@dresdner-bank.com Subject: Re : The Good, the Bad, the Ugly , and the Tedium Hi all, Sorry for the long post - in future, I'll try & keep things a lot shorter - keep to my own suggestion below! Mike E wrote :- >> I would like to second Harold Lincoln's message about all this traffic about good, bad, and ugly ships, etc. getting a bit tedious. << Personally, I agree that some threads do go on past my boredom threshold (although, seeing as I get this at work, & there ain't much to do at the moment, this threshold is a lot lower than it used to be), and that this is one of them. However, as I said to Shane in a private mail, when I get to something like this I just move the cursor over to the right a little. See that vertical bar? On my system (the dreaded MacroSloth email virus), it's a scroll-bar. So I use it. Bingo - onto another (hopefully more interesting to me) post. He continues :- >> ...yet it is very rare for anyone to take the time to do a serious and thorough review << Again, I agree - and I am as much at fault as anyone else. BUT - is this the right place for a full-blown review? While email is free for me at this address (hey, the Bank pays! Ain't the Internet wonderful?), this isn't the case for a lot of people. This is one of the reasons attachments aren't allowed. You have to bear in mind that a lot of people pay for their net access, a lot pay for the phone call, and a fair size pay per email, & more for large mails. Don't get me wrong - I'm not shooting down this thought of Mike's - I think it's a damn good one. I just happen to think that we should consider those caught in the cost-trap above. Give them the option of seeing the review or not, as the case may be. One idea for this would be an SMML web page - nothing fancy - just a list of the hyper-linked reviews so that people can go to the review they want. It keeps the charges down if there's no graphics on the pages, but there is a link in the review at certain points to a relevant graphic. Everyone would be happy - we have reviews, and they are text-only unless you want it otherwise. And more :- >> 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 look forward to it! The RN is my area of ship-modelling, even if I do have a bias to 1960-present vessels. I just wish I had the time & energy to get back to building - haven't worked on the plastic kits for months, the resins are even longer untouched, and I need a router table before I can continue with my working semi-scale Leander class, let alone think about marking up for the working sub I've plans for! Cheers, Mike D -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28) From: Mike Connelley Subject: Shinano Color Mix Howdy: I picked up the new tool Shinano today, and the color painting guide puzzled me. It calls for the main hull color to be one part green, one part blue and three parts light blue. Mixing these colors on Microsoft Paint gave me a gray-blue...close to USN color ocean gray which is definately not what the box art or the color guide shows. However, using three parts green, one part blue and one part light blue seems to do the trick. Has anyone else noticed this discrepancy? Does the green on the color chart and box art (more or less) match IJN color chips? Is there a ready made color (or one close) made by someone? If anyone is on the fence about buying this kit, it's so good it's giving my new tool Yamato an inferiority complex. Cheers Mike Connelley Hi Mike, et al, Umm, intersting point using a paint program to get an idea of paint mixes. Has anyone else done that & what was the result. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29) From: Mike Connelley Subject: Ship model reviews - Tamiya 1/700 IJN Shinano Howdy: I think Mike Eisenstadt's idea of people pitching in reviews (either short or long) of newly acquired kits is a wonderful idea. Since the Warship site is updated once a month or so, there's only so much material reviewed in each update...plus there's so many more of us to do reviews and I think we all qualify. Perhaps it's a bit un-necessary here, but I'd like to volunteer a review of the 1/700 Shinano I picked up today (retail about $37). I also recently bought the old Shinano by accident (I thought it was the new one, silly me) and this is a great improvement. I must assume it's an improvement in accuracy as I have not seen anything in the way of reference material on the Shinano and I wonder if any exists at all! Overall the parts breakdown is very different than the recent Yamato class offerings. Instead of the traditional waterline hull, this hull comes in two halves going from the waterline to the flight deck. The hull and flight deck parts sport both raised and scribed detail. The hangar deck is two parts and is visible through openings in the side of the hull. The elevators can be made up or down, and there's even a little side detail in the elevator shafts. The level of detail and finesse of detail is in excess of what we saw with the new Yamato kits, which at that time was the best I've seen in 1/700 scale plastic. On the Yamato the walls around the open AA mounts was rather thick...on the Shinano these walls are like sheet brass (well maybe not THAT thin but still amazingly thin). The 12.7 HA mounts have been re-worked from the Yamato kit and are noticably better and more accurate. The 25mm mounts are the same as on the Yamato which is to say very good but the 25mm barrels are still over scale and I'm planning on replacing them with PE. Gone are the days of overscale wedges supporting the AA installations on the sides of IJN carriers, these supports are now supplied as separate parts. The antenna masts on both sides of the deck can be posed up to angled to the side, and the deck crane can be made up or stowed. Whereas the old Shinano had a funnel with a oval cross section, the new one has a teardrop cross section. The steam pipes are separate parts and look very nice. The 32 aircraft come molded in clear plastic so you don't have to worry about trying to paint the 1/700 scale canopies, trying to make them look clear but always ending up looking like the canopies on wooden models. I think it would be neat to first paint the planes metallic blue like the cockpit interior then the camouflage colors so that you'd see the metallic blue through the clear canopy. Just a thought...might try it myself. The decals deserve note. The have a flat finish and appear thinner than previous decals I've seen from Tamiya and remind me of the decals in my SMER kits. The decals include all the 1/700 Hinomarus you'll ever use in your life, the ship's name (in white...I thought it would have been gold like the Yamato was...but then again the Yamato kit has the name in white too...go figure), and all the deck markings (the usual white lines, the white smoke angle indicator on the bow and the red and white strips on the back of the deck). The kit also comes with a two sided color painting guide which clearly shows both sides of the camo scheme which I think is very interesting. The color mixing directions are a little suspect though. I think the main hull color (the lighter green) should be three parts green, one part blue and one part light blue rather than three parts light blue, one part blue and one part green. I thought $37 was a bit steep but looking at her and considering the fit ought to be as good as the Yamato (i.e. where test fitting was simply a waste of time) it seems worth it. The Tom's Modelworks set for 1/700 IJN carriers ought to spiff it up with radars, nets and those antenna masts that look just terrible in plastic. For being the biggest WW2 subject in 1/700 scale with the best detail I've ever had the pleasure to lay eyes on in 1/700 plastic, I highly recommend this kit. Cheers Mike Connelley ....yeah, I know the biggest ship in WW2 claim can be disputed. The Yamato was heavier but not as long or wide. The Iowa class was longer but not as wide or heavy. I have no clue about the size of Essex class ships, but I don't think they exceeded 65,000 tons. At any rate this is a good sized model even in 1/700 scale. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30) From: Ross Mac Donald Subject: On/Off topic compromise The Compromise mentioned before by John Downing is a good one. I myself enjoy the "off topic" converstaion as it gives valuable addresses of people who are actually interested in stuff that I am that I would not normally ever, ever get to know. Besides I enjoy some of the fun and banter as, if I wanted to be boringly serious, I could go back to my real life...Also I can look at the contents list AND scroll past info I don't want. But for those who can't enjoy the above, how about it, Shane? Will that be too hard, or can it be feasibly accomplished? At least it will stop people WASTING SPACE whinging about an already brilliant setup that is easy to decide what to look at. Rossco IJN ships for me Hi all, Setting up the extra section is s*** easy, selecting what goes in there is another matter entirely, but that's what I'm paid the big bucks for I suppose ;-)). But keep the feedback rolling in. One thing I'm looking at is feedback editions. I'm only throwing the idea around at the moment, but one idea would be say, that every fortnight, there'd be two or three feedback issue go out in row(not nessecary every 24 hours either), along with SMML. This would give people the chance to debate any changes in SMML, etc. Remember, it's your list, so keep the ideas coming in. They may not be adapted, but I personally view it as encouraging & it shows that people care about it. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31) From: Christopher Crofoot Subject: On the bench review 1/700 Perry Classs FFG and OT I thought that doing a quick workbench review of a kit was a good idea. This review is of Revell AG's O.H. Perry 1/700 model. This model is a reissue of the skywave kit with the inclusion of a lower hull so that the full hull version can be made as well. On opening the kit I was damn impressed. This kit is tiny... I never realized how small the Perry FFG's really were ( about 7.5" inches overall). I'd never bought the skywave kit but judging from the crisp, tiny detail the molds are still in great shape. The lower hull was very well executed and fit to the upper hull looks very good. It was a struggle to decide to build this waterline because the full hull would look so nice! One major disappointment is the decals. About the only usable thing on them is the ships name and side numerals. The rest of the decal is oversize and not very sharp. Get GMM replacement decals! One mistake in the instructions would have you build this as a short hull Perry and then put a SH-60 Seahawk (LAMPS III) on board her. WRONG! If you use the short transom (the part immediately behind the hull molding (pt 60) then put the Seaking chopper (LAMPS I) on board. If you want the seahawk then use the extended transom (pt 53). The detail parts come from a skywave detail sprue that's included in the kit. They are the usual good standard. One dissappointment on the molding is the concave areas on the hull that shrunk when the plastic cooled. It left several depressions in the side of the hull. They were easy to fix but you should be aware of them. I'd recommend this kit highly...with the exception of the decals. I've already ordered GMM detail parts and decals to compensate and detail this beautiful little kit. It's a good value and the superstructure side detail is really gonna be nice with a wash to bring attention to it. AS far as OT stuff....hey! how long does it take to read the entire SMML what 20-30 minutes? Your life can't be that busy! Chris Crofoot -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Jeff Herne" Subject: Trivia answer and Question #2 The answer I was looking for was : IJN Hayate, sunk by by Marine Corps Battery "L" at Wake Island, on December 11, 1941. The correct responses were from: sanartjam@aol.com -1pt. Richa5011@aol.com -1pt. TheHenrys@aol.com -1pt. Next question: Fill in the blanks... The first exchange of fire between US and German vessels occurred on ____________ between the USS ___________ and the German ____________. Neither side scored hits. Good Luck! Jeff Remember, all replies to mailto:jherne@hotmail.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "David S. Edwards" Subject: Kits: Upcoming Event in Dallas, Tx D.S.E. Enterprises Inc, Proudly presents on December 17-19, 1999, at the Dallas Convention Center, a trade show devoted to the World of Kits. Anything & everything you can put together yourself. Getting back to Basics, Welcome to the New Millennium. Please feel free to browse our newly updated website at: http://www.kitworldintl.com or if you have any further questions please contact us at 972-554-7667 or FAX us at 972-554-6166. E-Mail us at mailto:kitworld@gte.net . Thank you for your time. We hope to see you there upcoming event on December 17-19,1999 at the Dallas Convention Center, or on any of our future events, please feel free to E-Mail us at mailto:kitworld@gte.net Phone : 972-554-7667 FAX us at : 972-554-6166 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: USS Arliegh Burke detail set Flagship Models makes a very nice detail set made to fit the Dragon/Skywave kit. It was using actual plans of the ship. It can be SEEN (along with all our product line) on our web site. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://warship.simplenet.com/Flagship.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: PERATHJEN@aol.com Subject: FS: Dansk, Billing etc kits Hi, gang. A friend who was in the hobby business years ago has a bunch of unsold kits from the 1960s and 70s. These are wooden models from companies such as Dansk, Billing, etc. He has agreed to sell them, but would like them to go to serious modelers, who can appreciate these models, and will likely finish them. Some of these are returned kits, with a missing part or two, but most all of the kits have full size plans, so any missing part could be easily made. Also, some of the kits (mostly Billing) have separate fitting kits, which are priced separately. Mostly sailing ships, but some motor launches, liners, etc. If anyone is interested in these please contact me off list, and I will give you details. Thanks, Paul Rathjen, mailto:perathjen@AOL.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume