Subject: SMML06/11/99VOL721 Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 00:20:42 +1100 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Scale Conversion Question 2: USS Wisconsin deck color 3: Soviet late- and post-WWII naval colors and markings 4: CONWAY MARITIME PRESS 5: U S S Lexington camouflage 6: Re: Help - HMS Sumarr? 7: Judging and models in cases 8: Re: Really anal USS PRINGLE (DD-477) questions 9: Choices of 1/700 subjects 10: Bookworms, take note. 11: Re: Plastic vs. Resin 12: Card models 13: Lack of Ship Models 14: Colors of seahawk a/c 15: Re: A/C colors 16: On Large DEs and Resin vs. Plastic 17: USS California in 1944 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Pine Island PE fittings 2: Old kits for sale -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: AllenFW2@aol.com Subject: Scale Conversion Question Greetings all, I have some plans in 1/720 scale. I'd like to copy them to both 1/700 and 1/600 scale. Can anyone tell me exactly how much I'd need to enlarge the originals by to get 700 and 600? I plan on using a nice laser copier at my local Kinkos. Thanks! Frank Allen PS: I wasn't a math major...spent my time dealing with English (though you can't really tell!) and history! Hi Frank, It's easy, sorry couldn't resist that ;-). I was good at maths & history - not english, that's Lorna's dept, although I'm an avid reader. What you do is divide by the scale of the plans by the scale required eg: Divide 720 by 700 to get 1/700 plans & 600 to get 1/600 plans. So the ratio for 1/720 to 1/700 is 1.03 & 1/720 to 1/600 is 1.20 Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Denis & Marilyn Campbell Subject: USS Wisconsin deck color I am building a model of USS Wisconsin as she was in 1945 (using Tamiya's 1:350 missouri kit) and need to know if the horizontal surfaces were deck blue - or were the decks natural teak. I have recieved conflicting answers to this from other sources. If the decks were blue, were the turret tops and tops of the guns also blue? I hope someone on the list can provide an answer for me Denis Campbell Avon MA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Joseph Poutre Subject: Soviet late- and post-WWII naval colors and markings Hi all, I am proceeding with my project to convert the Revell Graf Zeppelin into a hypothetical Russian experimental carrier, like the Langley and Argus. I now need references on the colors and markings of Soviet ships and naval aircraft from 1945-1949. Online, books or magazines, or your own research. Thanks in advance. Joseph Poutre Co-webmaster, Battleship New Jersey Historical Museum Society http://www.bb62museum.org/ Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Leslie Brown" Subject: CONWAY MARITIME PRESS Further to my previous posting, it does appear that Conway are back in business. Today I received my copy of Model Shipwright No 107 (only a few days later than originally promised) which contains an article on "The Eight-Barrelled 2pdr Mark VIII Gun" by our own John Lambert. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "John Sheridan" Subject: U S S Lexington camouflage >> I am in touch with a former crew member of the Lexington who states, with firmness, that the ship was painted with broad, near vertical stripes along the hull, that were green in color. This was in the period immediately after Pearl Harbor, into the first weeks of 1942. << I wonder if the "Green" he remembered was simply the Green Primer they used during the war ? (G-96) >> Question:- Are there any photos of the ship taken in this time frame that can confirm or deny the above? << I have not seen any at that exact time period. But I have seen pictures of her in late 1941 painted either MS-11 or MS-21. John Sheridan Visit my USN Ship Camo site at: http://home.earthlink.net/~jrsheridan/ I am not a Member of the Lumber Cartel (tinlc) and I am not Unit #631 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "J. London" Subject: Re: Help - HMS Sumarr? I cannot locate any ship by that name but wonder if it is, parhaps, a mangled spelling of Samaurez. There were destroyers of that name in both WW 1 and WW 2. The first a flotilla leader of the Improved Marksman Class broken up in 1931, and the second an 'S' Class destroyer 1942-50. Mike London -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Loren Perry Subject: Judging and models in cases As a former IPMS ship judge, I disagree with the idea that models in cases are "unjudgeable". The argument that a model inside a clear case hinders a judge's ability to render a competent decision does not hold up. As long as the model is visible from all sides and above, there's no problem. My lens-corrected eyes are no better or worse than any other judge's and I never had any problems spotting flaws, no matter how small. An excellent model can easily be picked out from the mediocre ones around it. Ditto for 2nd and 3rd placers. In my view, IPMS/USA is holding on to this old tradition for no discernible reason, and it's costing them in competitors. I've won a few IPMS awards in the past, but when I began selling Gold Medal Models fittings, I made a decision not to compete anymore because I prefer that my customers bring home the gold. This gives me far more pleasure than having my own models win the trophies. I also do not judge IPMS contests anymore because my being a manufacturer of the products used by competitors creates a conflict of interest. I'm an honest person, but I want to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But if I were still competing, I would not enter any contest that forbids entries with protective cases. I would instead place the model in a non-competing zone for viewing only. This is because I value the time I put into my model's construction far more than any award I might win. All glory is fleeting as they say, but damage can last far longer, and I'd rather invest my limited time in a new project instead of repairng an older one. There are others out there like me. They'd rather not risk their model's damage or loss for a few minutes of glory. When I judged, I never picked up a model out of respect to its owner unless he/she invited me to do so. I limited my touching of the model to using the tip of my finger to turn the model slowly around so I could see the other side. I treated them as the delicate and treasured objects they are. And I always kept loose objects out of my shirt pockets when I was near the judging tables. At an IPMS/USA contest, whenever I see a ship model in a case, I automatically gravitate toward it because it implies that the owner has built something worth protecting. Models out in the open hint at something that's expendable and not worth as much. An attractive case is an asset to a model ship's appearance because it mimics the presentation of a museum piece. Without a case, even the nicest display model takes on the appearance of a mere trinket or knick-knack suitable for a leftover space on a bookshelf. A nice case adds value. It is never a detriment. And as for removable cases, this may be a partial solution for the IPMSers, but in a competition, they should only be removed and replaced by the owner, and the owner should be permitted to do so immediately before and after the model is judged, with no administrative delays. But for those fine models inside permanent cases, I say let them compete. Forbidding them entry for this reason is a weak cop-out, and a competent judge will have no difficulties in making an accurate evaluation. And if a person can't see well enough to do so, then he or she isn't visually qualified to be a national level judge. I say - change the rules. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Ross Bruce-QBR000 Subject: Re: Really anal USS PRINGLE (DD-477) questions >> When the Pringle was outfitted with the catapult, does anyone know if she carried (and where) a 5-inch loading machine? << She did in fact carry the 5-inch loading machine, it was moved to the starboard side and moved to a position just aft of the original position. >> Were there 20mm ready storage lockers for the 3 20mm guns mounted around and on top of the pilothouse? << There should be at least one locker on the forward face of the Mk.37 director base for the over the pilothouse gun. Both mount 201 and 202 would have had a locker somewhere around the base of the superstructure in close proximity to the gun. >> Were there any visible storage for bombs/depth bombs/ smoke markers for the Kingfisher aircraft embarked? << The originally designed magazine for mount 53 was used as the bomb/depth charge storage. Dave, something else you should be aware of, is with regards to the A/C handling crane. On the Pringle initially it was mounted to the back of the aft stack, later after working with the setup the Navy found that this arrangement was causing the stack to be damaged and the crane was moved over to the port side main deck and supported with a tripod arrangement that attached to the superstructure. So you'll need to decide exactly when you're trying to depict her. The other problem is that no one I've checked with is really sure which catapult the Pringle and her two sisters carried. It doesn't appear to be a cruiser cat and it is definetly not long enough for a BB cat. Best guess by the experts that I've checked with is that it was a highly modified BB cat. Also the unit was an older model which had the wheels and pulleys on the outside of the cat structure and not inside as was the case of say the cats carried on the Iowa's. I'm currently scratchbuilding the Stevens in 1/144 scale...and it's not for combat!! Anyway, if you have any more questions I'll be happy to let you in on what I know. P.S. any of you PE vendors out there every thought about a set in 1/144?? please Bruce -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "Fernando, Yohan" Subject: Choices of 1/700 subjects >> However, there still remains a number of folks in Japan that still hold a grudge against the allied nations for what happened to Japan in WWII.... I doubt if we'll ever see a Tamiya, Fujimi, Hasegawa, or Pit-Road USS Arizona kit for good reason. Not that it wouldn't be appreciated, but it might be seen as bad taste and an attempt to profit off the misery of the memory of the ship. << I don't think that 'grudges' against the allies (if they even exist...) would be the reason for the Japanese companies' choices for subjects. When the waterline consortium was put together, the goal was to model a good portion of the IJN, plain and simple. Later, the series spread to include other 'foreign' subjects. Actually, many Japanese companies besides the waterline ones have US subjects that no major US comapany has- Skywave's extensive series of destroyer escorts, Kobo-Hiryu's pre-Fletcher destroyers for example. And when you look at what US manufacturers carry for ships? US ships, Bismark/Tirpitz, Prinz Eugen and a mix of British ships. And even US ships are poorly represented! I can't think of a single Japanese ship made by the major US companies. They are the worst offenders. I don't really think that any number of Japanese people hold grudges against the allies for WWII and I seriously doubt that even if one or two people did, a company would make decisions based on them. These companies established 1/700 as the de facto scale for plastic ship models, created the waterline concept on the models, and account for probably 80% of the ship kits on the market. They are the reason ALL 1/700 waterline models exist, be they plastic or resin. They have a great record behind them and continue to send new ship kits to market Let's not assign any imagined pettiness to their motives or business decisions. Sorry for the rant. Yohan Fernando -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Douglas_J_Martin" Subject: Bookworms, take note. Folks: Some of you may know this already, but, Arms and Armour Press have re-released V E Tarrants book on KGV Battleships. Its in softback, and costs £20, a mere £0.05 more than the original hardback of the early 1990s. Copy seen in Thins bookstore, Dundee, Scotland. Douglas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "karl greiner" Subject: Re: Plastic vs. Resin While I would obviously love to see new 1/350 and even larger scale ship models produced in injection molded styrene, as others have observed, the bottom line is indeed the bottom line. From time to time, the manufacturers take a chance and explore new or relatively ignored market areas with new releases. Tamiya recently took that chance with their Fletcher kit; the sales of which will surely determine the near future of new tooling aimed at ship model builders. Now, I am not privy to their sales figures, but the sense I am getting from listening to others is that Tamiya is disappointed. Well, they gave it a good shot - certainly they choose a prototype that will give them an excellent gauge of the market, while reducing the risk that a larger tool would have entailed. Years ago, AMT took a similar chance, producing a new set of molds for a subject in demand by adult modelers - a 1966 Chevy Nova. Sales were fantastic, and now you see all types of automobile kits on the shelves of retailers. The aftermarket for automobile accessories is robust, and the main magazine was purchased by Kalmbach, and is produced to their standards. That is what it takes to generate new plastic kit releases - a large dedicated group of modelers. We are dedicated, but unfortunately not large. Thankfully, cottage industries have sprung up to supply us with kits, parts, information and the other building blocks of our craft. This is the "Golden Age" of warship modeling! Kurt SeaPhoto Maritime Photography -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: PERATHJEN@aol.com Subject: Card models There has been some interest shown in paper models lately on this list; here is a web site for Paper Models International. Their catalog lists many odd ship kits. http://www.expresspages.com/P/papermodels -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Peter Mispelkamp" Subject: Lack of Ship Models To Mike Connelley and everyone else who put in his 2 cents worth about the lack of ship models: Mike: Did you know that you can almost build the entire WW II KM fleet in 1/400 scale from Heller? The only completed big ship that they never produced was the Blücher, and most modelers with even a modicum level of skill should be able to convert an Admiral Hipper into the Blücher - I did and I know of some others on this list who are planning the same thing. Braver modelers could even try - as I plan to do - to convert the Prinz Eugen into the Seydlitz - as a CV. You even have torpedoboats, S-boats, M-boats and two type VII U-boats to choose from. Over the years I have amassed a veritable fleet of over 70+ 1/400 scale World War II warships. Part of the secret is being willing to pay top dollar when a rare kit of, say, the IJN Mogami or Tone appears either as a new release or privately through a collector {a collator is someone who buys more kits than he could ever seriously contemplate building!}. There is another aspect, however. I love to build sisterships, so when Heller released the HMS Illustrious I immediately bought two, and am now searching for a third one to represent the last of the first group of three ships which the Heller kit represents. Heller's King George V can be easily converted into any of its four sisterships, and I have three of these kits already. Heller's Z-31 kit can be easily converted into anyone of her 17 sisters or near-sisters - and I already have the kits to make ten of them in my collection! Did you know that Heller's Arromaches can be readily converted into either its British World War II identity or one of its two (? -maybe more?) sisterships that saw action in this conflict? Judging by the spate of re-releases and a number of interesting new releases like Revell's Graf Zeppelin - I feel that ships are on the verge of entering the same stage that aircraft were in when vac-u-forms were the only way to round out your collection. The only draw back for ships is that until recently there was no uniformly accepted series of scales. This ,however, seems to be changing, although there still some confusion over some scales e.g 1/720 vs.. 1/700. Shane sorry for the length of this post. Please feel free to edit if need be. Guess the arrival of my new-born son has made more verbose than usual. Peter K. H. Mispelkamp Hi Peter, Geez, the reasons people give for writing long posts ;-)) Congrats on your baby son Shane & Lorna -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Denis & Marilyn Campbell Subject: Colors of seahawk a/c Rusty, Take a look at http://www.usswisconsin.org the web site of the USS Wisconsin association. They have some pictures (black & white, unfortunately) of seahawks. One shows a seahawk being recovered and definitely shows a dark top and light (gray?) bottom. I have also read somewhere that they were painted in 'glossy' sea blue (or it may have been navy blue) - check Squadron's us battleships 2 - but that give the impression they were overall blue. I think the dark-over-light might have been an early color scheme, later changed to overall blue - but definitely glossy blue Denis Campbell Avon MA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: Marc Flake Subject: Re: A/C colors Rusty: According to "Curtis Aircraft 1907-1947," the SC-1 entered service in October 1944. The Monogram "US Navy andMarine Aircraft Color Guide 1940-1949," says that new color specifications were issued effective October 7, 1944. The specifications were as follows: All carrier-based a/c were to be painted overall sea blue. Patrol and Observation a/c, whether landplane, amphibian or floatplane, were to be painted in the standard three-tone scheme. This was as follows -- White undersides with all areas that could be viewed from above in dark sea blue. The sides of a/c were then graded to blend the two colors. (I use an intermediate blue) Following previous specifications, these paints should be glossy or semi-gloss, with the exception of where the gloss would interfere with the pilots vision, i.e., the area just in front of the cockpit on the SC-1. Any floats hidden by the fuselge or wing were to have their topsides painted in intermeditate blue down to the chine. Areas not covered and open from view from above were to be painted Sea Blue. You can barely make out the three different tones on page 55 of the CW book on the Indy, but it's there if you look closely. Marc Flake Tarrant County, Texas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: "Steven P. Allen" Subject: On Large DEs and Resin vs. Plastic BaD Ship Models does a fairly complete line of 1/96 scale kits. Here's a URL for their site: http://www.sherus.com/ However, I highly recommend Lee Upshaw's Scale Shipyard: I've done business with him, and I've never been disappointed. As for resin v. plastic, you folks told me exactly what I figured I'd hear. I know all about the economics of bringing a kit to market. What I didn't know--but do now--is that the number of serious ship modelers is so small. Pity. Well, I guess I have to start smooth-talking "Household 6" . . . . Thanks, Steve Allen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: Damian Pliszka Subject: USS California in 1944 Hi, Good USS California's drawings (1944) are in Profile Morskie (Poland). In 1944 there were 40 40mm Bofors (10 x IV) placed: one behind aft 127 mm guns rangefinder (Mk 37), two on both sides of the funnel, two on the main deck just behind (looking to bow) "Y" 356 mm turret, and five around main bridge: one just over "B" 356 mm turret, and two on the each side of brigde. There were used single 20 mm Oerlikons mounts (51). After refit in 1945 there was: 56(!) 40 mm Bofors (14 x IV) placed sa above with additional four mounts placed around funnel and aft main rangefinder (Mk 34), some of 20 mm Oerlikons have twin mounts (63 total). Hope this helps Damian Pliszka Slupsk, Poland -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Loren Perry Subject: Pine Island PE fittings To Steve Allen - GMM's 1/400 Naval Ship set (No. 400-1 @ $36 plus $1 postage) is the set you want for Revell's Pine Island. It even has dedicated parts included for this kit such as the aircraft crane booms, radars, and 20mm guns, among many other useful fittings. The Revell kit is very close to 1/400 scale. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: PERATHJEN@aol.com Subject: Old kits for sale We still have several of the 1960-70 wooden ship kits left for sale. These are kits that have a part or two missing, but have mostly full size plans. SMML members who have purchased these kits are very happy with them, considering the price. For a list of available items and prices, Email me off post at mailto:perathjen@aol.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for having SMML at your home, why not stop by our home at: http://www.smml.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume