Subject: SMML15/09/99VOL669 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 01:15:13 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Short and to the point 2: IJN Jintsu 3: O'Bannon Project Update 4: Questions on Aoshima IJN BB's 5: Re: Nimitz Class Bow Projections. 6: A to I class destroyers 7: Taiyo Maru & the Tatsuta Maru 8: Zara question 9: Revell Bligh Review 10: On the Bench reviews... 11: Measure 16 12: Re: Carrier "Horns" 13: Re: Good, bad & the ugly 14: Commander's 1/350 Navajo Fleet Tuf review 15: 18th Cruiser Squadron -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Czech Picture Books WWI & Earlier Ships -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Short and to the point I agree that reviews and comments should be kept fairly short (three or four paragraphs) and to the point. If you want a complete kit review for example just contact the builder off list and he can then send you the thing. I have read some postings here that would go into 2 or more type written pages. So I'm for keeping it short and to the point and mention to contact the poster off post for more info. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "chenyangzhang" Subject: IJN Jintsu Hi Lars The type of airplane carried by Jintsu was a Type 90 biplane Bunrin's Imperial Japanese Navy Reconnaissance Seaplanes has drawings and several nice photos. More photos can be found in Ships of the World No9 Japanese Cruisers including a nice overhead view. Both these publications are in Japanese by the way. The last but by no means least place to look is Lacroix and Wells's Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War. All you wanted to know about Sendai class cruisers and more. Chris Langtree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: THENRYS@aol.com Subject: O'Bannon Project Update I thought I would give a brief update on the progress of the 1/350 O'Bannon in Ms12(mod). I've masked and sprayed the camoflauge on the hull in 5-N and 5-O (Book 'em Danno) in a pattern per the port side picture on the NavSource site. I just sort of played a best guess of the starboard side as there appear to be no photos in existence of the starboard side of O'Bannon in Ms 12(mod). I've created and stained the base for the O'Bannon as I have cut the hull to make it a waterline model and I figure that I will start to build the water base from Sculpey and Liquitex gel pretty soon. The superstructure has been sprayed with Deck Blue and the vertical surfaces have been sprayed 5-H prior to putting on the camoflauge in 5-O. I'll do this by pencilling in lightly the pattern then applying masks made from rolled up Parafilm. Is it just me or does the 5-H base color look REAL light against the 5-O Hull ? This project has been a lot of fun and I am really enjoying seeing it come together and starting to look like something other than a bunch of styrene bits. I am very much looking forward to being able to start applying all those GMM photoetch parts. My complaints thus far mainly reside with the PollyScale Marine paints. I really detest spraying acrylics, but as my local stores have excluded the Model Master 2 line in favor of Polly Scale, combined with the end of Floquil as a separate brand, I guess I might as well learn to work with them. I just hate having to stop every so often to clean the tip. I also am finding that the Polly Scale is far more finicky than enamels with respect to mixture ratio vs. getting a good smooth spray. Anyone have any advice ? If I've bored you to tears, my apologies. Todd Henry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Bill_Pasenelli@afsb.com Subject: Questions on Aoshima IJN BB's I have heard that the Aoshima is releasing a new Nagato/Mutsu model that is quite good. Is this true? Has anyone seen it? I am wanting to order, but I still have some old Aoshima IJN DD's that are really quite bad. I know these are quite subjective questions, but it would be great to get some impressions. PS Working on Tamiya Shimakaze PPS Thanks to all who replied to my query on range clocks, the collective knowledge on the list is what makes it great. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Jeffry J. Fontaine" Subject: Re: Nimitz Class Bow Projections. After sitting in an office on the fifth floor of the Navy Supply Center, here at the Puget Sound Naval Ship Yard and seeing almost every day one or more Nimitz Class CVN's and the earlier Forrestal & Kitty Hawk CV's come and go. I will tell you now that it was not only the Nimitz Class that lost the bow projections. I witnessed the removal of the fingers from the USS Indepedence and the USS Constellation. Those finger like bow projections were part of the earlier catapult launching arrangement that utilized a launch bridle that attached to several different points on the aircraft that was to be launched. If you recall ever seeing an image/photograph of an A-4 Skyhawk, or F-4 Phantom on the cats waiting to be shot, you will see a couple of cables attached to the catapult launching shoe from the wing root area of these aircraft. The aircraft had hooks mounted semi-flush with the airframe and wing to which these cables were attached. These launch bridles were fabricated for each type of aircraft and for specific aircraft weights. Which means you could not use a launch bridle for an A-4 to launch an F-4 or an A-3. The Hasegawa 48th scale F-4 Phantoms all have this as a separate part with the choice of a flush patch or a semi-recessed hook for the wing root area. With improvements to the catapult launch systems and the change over to a launch tongue on the nose landing gear of the Navy aircraft, I am referring to that thing that sticks out in front on the nose landing gear leg on all current Navy aircraft. Check pictures/images of every Navy F-14, A-7, F-18, S-3 on the cats and you will see this tongue like projecion lowered down and attached to the catapult launch shoe. This tongue is maually flipped down to engage the catapult launch shoe and is released automatically at the end of the ride as the aircraft becomes airborne. The French Navy was still using the launch bridle arrangement because they were still flying F-8's off their CV's, U.S. Navy CV's and CVN's retained at least one of the projections and the capability to launch aircraft with the launch bridle assemblies because of the Marine and Navy Reserve aircraft were equipped with the old arrangement until all F-8's, F-4's and A-4's were officially retired from the services. As a plus, it allowed the Navy to land and launch the French Navy F-8's as well, as I recall seeing images of French Navy F-8's on U.S.Navy flight decks. When all of these earlier aircraft were disposed of, the Navy had no further use for the finger sticking out in front on the bow so as the Carriers were put in for repair/overhaul the fingers were removed and the bow became a flush arrangement and more asthetic in appearance. I hope this resolves the confusion over the "finger projections" on aircraft carriers. Regards, Jeffry Fontaine From Bremerton Washington and the beautiful Kitsap Peninsula, comfortably distanced from Seattle and the Latte' swilling crowd. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Robert Lockie" Subject: A to I class destroyers August 1964 Airfix Magazine was a few months before I was born, so my interest in naval matters was minimal at the time. However, I do have an article by Ian Fleming (surely not that Ian Fleming?) in Airfix Magazine for December 1979 on the same subject. It includes 1/600 plan and profile views of Fame (1942-43), Codrington (mid-1930s) and Intrepid (after 1939-40 minelayer conversion) for those wishing to convert the Airfix Hotspur. The kit is practically unobtainable now but he comments that it is basically accurate apart from the perpetual problem of plain vertical surfaces and over-thick screens. The author seems to know his stuff and gives detailed descriptions of the modifications carried out to the three ships as well as having numbered IWM photographs of ships of other classes. He also suggests seeking out several good IWM photos (and gives the reference numbers), Edgar March's 1966 book 'British Destroyers' and Alan Raven's fine articles in Warship 1 and 2 on 'British Destroyer Appearance in WW2'. Robert Lockie Cambridge UK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Tony Medina" Subject: Taiyo Maru & the Tatsuta Maru Hello Shane, Are there models of these and do any of your consortum know the fate of these boats? Thank You, Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Minadmiral@aol.com Subject: Zara question Hi; I understand that there is a 1:400? kit of the Italian CA ZARA. Can I get an opinion on this one? Are there any other kits of Italian WWII ships of 1:700 or larger? I have a 1:600 PT Dockyard SPICA coming in resin. Chuck -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "Steven P. Allen" Subject: Revell Bligh Review The recent discussion about HMS Bullen suggests to me that I ought to review the Revell HMS Bligh/Buckley-class re-issue. Although I am not building the kit as Bligh (or even as Buckley: I'm converting her to an APD), I'll relate my impressions of the kit (and that of Tom's Modelworks PE set for it, too). For it's time, the kit is pretty good. The one-piece hull's shape is much better than earlier Revell kits; the only problem is that the sheer is horizontal till alongside the bridge, then takes a sharp angle up (no graceful curve). It shares raised weld lines with the Lindberg Rudderow kit, though Bligh's are not as pronounced. The kit has one rudder (didn't the real DEs have two?); the shafts could stand replacement; the props are OK. Revell tried to "get real" by casting handrail stantions on the superstructure; they are clunky but good for the time. However, they could not do so on the main deck edges, so they cast them on strips designed to be fitted into "gutters" molded into the deck edges. The main effect this has today-thankfully, Tom's PE railings are great-is to necessitate two gaps rather than one to be filled along the deck edges. *Sigh* Part fit is fair to good. Gap filling is complicated by the raised weld lines. The mast is a good one, for plastic; Tom comes through here with radar, antennae, and details. Same with ladders/companionways: good for old plastic; Tom's are excellent. A real downfall of this kit is the weapons suite. The guns are really clunky, though, to Revell's credit, they are all individual, and they include a 5" loading machine(!). H-R has the guns in 1/256 scale metal (I have mine on order from the Floating Drydock; I'll post an update when I get them). The K-gun racks are molded into the deck; they are thankfully easy to remove (though do watch out for the bits nearby). Tom includes both these and DC racks, though you'll have to make DCs from .060 rod. It may be possible to fit the PE racks over the cast in racks, but I don't know about the result. The Instructions are printed in 392 different languages (I think English is among them), and they include excellent working drawings, very much unlike contemporary Revellogram domestic kits 9no text, lousy pics). Paint notes are based on mixes and focus on the RN colors; I could wish for more info were I building the RN ship, but a regular builder of RN ships may not need more. The decals look useable, though I've never tried to use a decal flag. In sum, the kit would be a good box build for an easy project (and come out looking better than one might think); it has, moreover, lots of potential, despite the uncommon scale. Tom's PE really help, and the necessary work to make a real looker of the kit is not beyond the skill level of anyone familiar with plastic. I think this one is a fair value. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Jeff Herne" Subject: On the Bench reviews... In keeping with tradition... I have 2 projects aggressively underway (read: deadlines), Tom's Modelworks 1/350 USS Yorktown II (fitting out as Bunker Hill) and an Iron Shipwright's 350th HMS Sheffield. The Yorktown is a must for anyone wanting a 350th fleet carrier. I really can't complain about anything in the kit, because it's been a joy to build. I had some problems with getting the flight deck down, my own damn fault, and in the process trashed some of the side 20mm tubs. I guess the only downside, if there is one, is that there's no details on the roof of the hanger deck (or the underside of the flight deck for you left fielders). I added some Evergreen strip to simulate the bracing, and with Intrepid pics in hand, succeeded in making the view through the hangar doors interesting. The aircraft are white metal and are nicely done, unless you want to fold the wings on either the Hellcats or Avengers, in which case, it's a pain...the kit comes with 12 aircraft, 4 TBF, 4 F6F, and 4 SBD. Additional aircraft, and F4Us and SB2Cs, are also available from Tom's. My kit example is waterline, I chose waterline because of the envisioned project, a fully loaded Bunker Hill refueling a Fletcher in rough seas...the hull is 1 piece, yes, 1 piece, and is straight as an arrow thanks to a steel rod integrally cast into the hull to prevent warpage. No way to microwave a 3 foot long hull warped hull. In my conversations with Tom recently about the kit, he'll be soon offering a later war update set for his kit, featuring a dual-cat flight deck, starboard side 40mm sponsons, and modified bridge. When purchasing the kit, you'll need to specify full hull or waterline, and late war or mid-war fit. From these choices, you'll be able to model any of the short hulled Essex class. To date, Tom says he doesn't intend to do a long hull version. Save your pennies for this one, you won't be disappointed... Iron Shipwrights' HMS Sheffield is a nice kit, about 75% complete. The only complaints I have of this kit are the shelter deck and the instructions. The shelter deck shouldn't have been cast the way it was, overpour and warped. This is a tough part to cast and I don't believe anyone else could have done any better. So, I cut off all the details, and used sheet styrene. After adding the details back to the sheet, and adding the catapult, it looks 100% better than the original. Since my kit was from the initial run, Iron Shipwrights may have corrected this part (Any comments Elmer J. Fudd?). The only other gripe I have are the instructions. If it weren't for the Ensign book (Thank you Mr. Raven), I'd be totally lost on this one. The instructions are vague, but the kit is not unbuildable without them. Casting is nice, minimal clean up, the 2 Walruses (Walri?) are neat, ISW included photoetched struts and a neat canopy frame, bend it around the fuselage and use Kristal-Kleer, really neat looking when finished. There's no useful info about her camo scheme, refer back to the Ensign book for that data. It's going to be a striking model once I get the Admiralty Disruptive Scheme on her, painting should begin next week...I'll post pics of both on the website when they're completed. There's my 2 pence... Jeff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: Clifford Franklin Subject: Measure 16 While Measure 16 was developed for use in Arctic regions, it was apparently used elsewhere as well. Some of the Porter and Somers class destroyers were painted in this scheme while they were based in the canal zone/South America (see the well known picture of USS Warrington in this scheme), and also a few Raven/Auk class minesweepers in the Med. (If anyone can point me to pictures of the latter, I would be most grateful). In the Arctic, it was seen on most of the Coast Guard cutters, from late 1942 through to the end of 1944, when the Wind class icebreakers that served there were painted in this scheme. I'm pretty sure these vessels were in Ms 16, due either to the low contrast seen in photos, their area of deployment, or the date ie. an angular pattern seen on a ship in 1943, before Ms 3x was used. As far as I can tell, no US cruiser was finished in Measure 16, although a number were painted in Ms 16 patterns but using Ms 3x colours. The above information comes from The Floating Drydock camo books, and also the Del Palmieri series in Scale Models. cheers Cliff Franklin New Zealand -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Re: Carrier "Horns" >> 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. << OK, we've pinned down that one, now, what were the purpose of somewhat similar looking structures on the side edges of the decks of WWII US Carriers?? Regards, Bradford Chaucer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Re: Good, bad & the ugly >> Ugly: Military: ACW Monitors (the cheesebox on the raft left a lot to be desired) USN cagemasts BBs << Sir retract that statement or I shall have to demand satisfaction on the field of honor with Dahlgrens at 100 paces :-) To all of you who have denigrated cage masts - Bah Humbug!!! :-) Regards, Bradford Chaucer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Lamar Jones Subject: Commander's 1/350 Navajo Fleet Tuf review A modest review of the new Commander Series Models Navajo Class Fleet Tug. The hull is well done. There is on the second deck aft of the funnel a really serious error--a fiddley over what I suppose was thought to be the engine room, but what is actually the galley area. No ATF had such a structure! On the main deck aft of the correctly placed towing engine is a vertical capstan. No such on the real thing. The ATFs had a large vertical warping winch on the starboard side of the fan tail, but certainly nothing in line with the tow wire. Various hatches on the main deck are not quite all there. Especially missing is the large fan tail hatch over the aft hold, where various bits and pieces of salvage gear were stowed. The bits over the windlass are incorrectly placed. On the ATFs the bits are fore and aft of the winch, and there are only two. The kit has four set on each corner of the windlass deck plate. Nothing is contained in the kit--no casting--to fair the funnel into the second level of the deck house. A serious omission, I think, but one which is correctable with a set of drawings. The bridge air ports are drilled, but not in line, which while correctable is a bother. The various bitts on the main deck will need to have a plate which fairs them into the main rail, but I understand why this couldn't be part of the hull casting. My guess is that one can fashion the plates and simply cut the bitts off, place the plate on top, and then add the tops of the cut off bitts to the fairing plate. Should be easy enough. The hull is gracefully cast and the sheer seems close enough to true to please me. The funnel is correctly cast and the rake is OK. There is no support for the ten ton boom, aft on the second deck. Again, drawings will be needed, and these are readily available from Floating Drydock. This is a cursory review of a new, and to my mind a very welcome kit in 1/350. The subject is a good one, and the Navajo, later Apache class, are really handsome vessels, especially when compared with modern naval and commercial tugs, with some exceptions, of course. Lamar Jones -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: Clifford Franklin Subject: 18th Cruiser Squadron The 18th Cruiser Squadron in 1940 was comprised of most of the Town class cruisers, and saw service with the Home Fleet and off Norway. The only photos I have seen of them wearing the "Flotta scheme" are in the Ensign/Man-of-War book on the Town class, which shows HMS Southampton, and another shot of Southampton in June 1940 in the Australian War Memorial database (Negative numbers 001990 and 302477). For anyone who hasn't seen the AWM photgraph database, I would highly recommend it. They have a huge collection, that covers not only Australian material but other areas or ships they came into contact with, and some more besides. They can be found at: http://www.awm.gov.au/database/photo.asp cheers Cliff Franklin New Zealand -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: GrafSpee34@aol.com Subject: Czech Picture Books WWI & Earlier Ships Hi I am selling on eBay a pair of Czech picture books on European fleets 1918 and earlier. Interesting pictures, plan and overhead views in color of pre-dreadnoughts as well as numerous detail photos. Nice references for 1:700 scale model building. Should go for a reasonable price. Please have a look: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=161097606 Thanks Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume