Subject: SMML08/11/99VOL723 Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 00:15:30 +1100 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Use of Future Floor polish in painting 2: Greek Georgios Averoff 3: Re: Informal gathering of SMMLies 4: Resin vs. Plastic - yet again! 5: Re: British Landing Craft - "LCF(1) & (2) 6: Re: British LCF's - Landing Craft Flak 7: Japanese Kits 8: LCF and the cost of resin kits 9: U.S.S. Oriskany 10: Re: Judging and models in cases 11: Injection vs Resin 12: Re: Landing Craft Flak 13: USS Alabama 14: WWII Yamato Wreck Model 15: Paints Available for WWII USN Colors 16: Re: Resin vs Plastic (Japanese Co's) 17: Re: Resin v. Plastic kits 18: Information on GLEEVES class USN Destroyers -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: GMM by credit card. 2: John C. Bultler Class -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: BEN8800@aol.com Subject: Use of Future Floor polish in painting I have been reading about and asking questions regarding the use of Johnson's Wax Future floor polish in painting models. Here is a response I received from David Burke who is on my WW1 aircraft modelling list. It should be of interest to all ship modelers as well. Ben Lankford Vienna, VA >> Hey Ben, I don't want to come off as 'King Future', but I have been playing around with it ever since I first heard of it as a potential modelling medium. Why Me. I dunno. I have this habit of screwing around with things. It's a wonder that i have lived this long. Basically, let me tell you some of the uses for Future that I have figured out - and I encourage you to experiment yourself to see what uses that you can come up with: On dial faces, Future on a paint brush can give a gloss effect to simulate a dial face. Future is an acrylic solution that has adherent qualities as well. Don't want to use AC or white glue to glue that windscreen in place? Future will stick it in place. Brush Future on to any part in a cockpit or external piece to turn flat to semi-gloss, and semi to gloss. If you look at my Fokker Dr.1's in the Gallery (there are 3 of them), I used a system of replicating the Fokker streaking by under-painting the fuselages and wings with an oil-based paint - Floquil's Antique White - and after that dried, using a 50-50 mix of acrylic paint and Future - along with a 1.5mm brush (the Fokker streaking was applied with an 8cm brush, which works out to 1.6666mm in 1/48 scale), I found that I got a good effect, plus the fact that the Future shrinks a little as it dries, so it 'pulls' itself into detail. Also, if I screwed up, I could remove it without disturbing the undercoat - the Antique White - a most agreeable Doped-Linen color of all I have seen. The solvent for Future is NOT: Lacquer Thinner Denatured Alcohol The solvent for Future IS: WINDEX - or any ammonia-based window-cleaner. This is both a solvent and a thinner. Solutions can be mixed upon demand, ranging from a heavy, low-pressure coat to a fine, high-pressure spray that has been thinned. Remember that Future can be tinted and mixed with paints - at acts as an extra vehicle that readly accepts tinting with other acrylic paints. You can manipulate Future to give you anything from a transparent wash to adding to your airbrush mixture with your acrylics - the paint 'pulls' into the detail, remember, and it dries HARD, so it can be lightly wet-sanded. The sanding capabilities of Future also come in handy when it is employed in another capacity: that of hiding decals. How to blend decals int paint jobs. Here, let me tell my best secret - one that I have mystified myself, and I have models that I would dare you to tell me that the markings look like decals. How do you blend the decals into the paint job? I do not use Future as a setting solution. I had an experience where I did that and the Future dried at an uneven rate, so the decal ended up all messed up. I apply my decals regularly, add a setting solution, and after the decals are totally dry, I airbrush a coat of Future. I may repeat this - depending on how the coats go on. Then I use a brush to apply Future t the outlines of the decal film. I build up a good border. Then another airbrushed coat after the outlining has dried. Let that dry, and then use the DetailMaster polishing cloth set to take the surfce down. You have to be careful, but Future dries very hard, so it is forgiving. By the way, if you spill a drop of acrylic paint mixed with Future on something, you can quickly wipe up the drop with a fingertip, and re-coat it. Future is a self- 'healing' medium. The process is time consuming: once you polish down a little, you re-spray the model with the Future/Windex mix of your choice, elevating one or two grit from the previos time. The result is that the decal film blends PERFECTLY with the Future, whigh builds up sort of a chamfer there at the edge of the decal film - it blends the decal beautifully into the paint job so that it's invisible! Again, a screw-up with a Future-mixed paint is that it if there is a screw-up, you can immediately wipe it away, or remove it with Windex. One more reason that mixing your acrylics with it is a good thing: When you paint the exteriors of your models with acrylic paints cut with Future, the colors can be mixed to give a great surface to decal - i.e. you can mix the colors to be as semi-gloss to Gloss that you desire. The Future is excellent acrylic medium. Future is great fo use with acrylic paints in an airbrush. Obviously, Future itself airbrushed gives a great gloss-coat. Such a glossy finish can be great when doing a polish coat at up to 12,000 grit. A mirror-finish can be achieved. Future is also a great 'wetting' agent when used in an airbrush - it's flow is consistent, and it works great at all pressures; paint/Future mixtures thin well with Windex, and removal of accidents can be effected with Windex on a Q-tip or paper towel. As a small-parts adhesive, it is good, and another cool use is to pre-paint wooden surfaces on ones models a woody-brown color, draw grain lines in watercolor pencil, then brush quickly with Future - one coat. It blends and softens lines, and makes parts translucent - Future can make great acrylic transluscent coats too - and gives a really cool lacquered wood effect - I'll try to take a good pic of the Pfalz interior. I have used Future as a final coat over some of my hand-carved wooden props. Here's another tidbit that maybe some of you can use: Wood laminates are easier to work with than one may think. I use two methods that make working with it a more 'plastic' material - by adding plastic: I ether soak a laminate with either Future, or more preferably, thin super-glue (AC). Adds an easier carvability and shaping by drawing CA thru the cells and grain. Future can work that way too, it just takes a bit longer. So anyway, I hope that this gives you all some of the ways that I use Future, and experiment and see what you can come up with. It's really flexible! DB << Hi gang, Dave's models can be seen in the modeller's gallery of the WW1 modelling site at: http://pease1.sr.unh.edu/ Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Erhardtsen" Subject: Greek Georgios Averoff There have been some talk about the Greek armourd ship Georgios Averoff. I would like to build this ship, but does someone have drawings oh her as she was in world war 2? I am still looking fore drawings of Swedish costal defence armourd ships Ären, Tapperheten and Manligheten. I have already made resine-copys (1/700) of the lower parts and the guns, but I only have sketch of Manligheten in W. W. 2 outfit make them - so work has stopt. Erik Erhardtsen P.S. As I make my own resine parts/ships (scala 1/700 - WW 2) I might be able to help, if someone needs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "John Snyder" Subject: Re: Informal gathering of SMMLies Let's see: we can have a "herd" of animals, a "flock" of birds, a "school" of fish, a "pod" of whales, a "murder" of crows, a "convocation" of owls...but what do we call a gathering of SMMLies? A "fleet?" A "Task Force?" A "convoy?" (No, not a "nose"...don't go there....) John (with too much time on his hands today) Snyder Hi John, How about a "scent" of SMMLies, "yellowturret" of SMMLies, or from the Mistress - a "lunacy" of SMMLies ;->> Shane PS: Lorna says it's a "parliament" of owls. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Chuck Messer Subject: Resin vs. Plastic - yet again! Okay, this one's a little off subject, but here goes: Recently, AMT announced that they were discontinuing their entire Star Trek line. All of it. It seems they were bought out by a diecast car maker, and they got draconian on AMT's a**. That's the sort of thing one has to put up with from a major injection-molded manufacturer. Resin may be pricy, but the people who run these companys have to be more careful and considerate of their customers. It's a matter of pride, not to mention survival. I wish that the plastic manufacturers made more of the stuff we like, but on the other hand, it's a good thing AMT doesn't make ships, isn't it? I'll save my nickles and dimes and get me a few more resin kits. Regards, Chuck Messer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Judy Graham" Subject: Re: British Landing Craft - "LCF(1) & (2) This is my first attempt at responding to a question on SMML, so please bear with me. There was a question about British LCF's an what were they, etc. According to my REF. "Selected Papers on British Warship Design in World War II" ISBN 0-87021-921-9, and published by the Naval Institute Press, two L.C.T. (2)'s under construction were taken in hand for conversion into "Landing Craft Flak". This decision was based on the experiences of the Royal Navy during the Crete Evacuation in June, 1941, which led to the realization that in the absence of air superiority, the Landing Craft must be able to defend themselves. The first LCF(1) was fitted with 2 x twin 4" Q.F. mountings, and 3 x 20mm Oerlikons, on single mountings. LOA was 159' 11", Beam was 31' 1", and Dispalcement was 539 tons. The second LCF(2) had the same hull and superstructure, etc., but was armed with 8 x single 2-pdr. pom-pom guns, and 4 x 20mm Oerlikons, on single mountings. After the first two vessels were built, the Royal Navy commissioned 16 more vessels in 2 groups, armed as for the LCF(2), with the 1st group having 8 x 2-pdr A.A., (8 x 1), and 4 x 20mm Orerlikons (4 x 1), and the 2nd group armed with 4 x 2-pdr A.A., ( 4 x 1), and 8 x 20mm Oerlikons (8 x 1). In addition to the LCF's, the Royal Navy also converted LCT's into LCG(L)'s as Landing Craft Gun (Large) armed with 2 x 4.7" Q.F. guns from old destroyers, and 2 to 4 x 20mm Oerlikons. These vessels had an LOA of 192', a Beam of 30', and a displacement of 570 tons. At least 30 LCG(L)-3's were built, with an improved version - the LCG(L)-4 designed and built for the Far East Theatre of Operations. This vessel had a "ship form" bow, armour plating over the vital areas, improved accommodation, and the main armament super-imposed. This vessel had an LOA of 185' 6", a beam of 38' 8", and a displacement of 570 tons. Hope all this helps. These designs are really unique, and would make interesting models for display, or suitably enlarged, as operational RC models. Cheers, Chris Preston, Victoria, B.C. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Judy Graham" Subject: Re: British LCF's - Landing Craft Flak Re - are there any kits of an LCT, suitable for conversion into an LCF(1),(2), or (3), the only kit that I recall, was a Lindbergh kit in a scale that I can't remember, which I built as a child in the 60's. I believe this was an LCT (USN), complete with an M48 Patton tank. The scale was close to 1/76th or 1/87th scale. If it's still available, you'd have to do some scratch-building for the basic structure, and if the scale is close to 1/96th scale, purchase the guns from Dean's Marine, in England. Hope all this helps. Cheers, again. Chris Preston, Victoria, B.C. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Mike Leonard" Subject: Japanese Kits John Rule commented: >> Perhaps the reason that the Japanese favour producing kits of Japanese ships is because they feel a sense of pride in the history of their navy, and probably rightly so. << Hasegawa, Fujumi, Aoshima, Tamiya: mostly Japanese Monogram, Revell, Lindberg, Aurora: mostly US subjects Heller: mostly French subjects Airfix: mostly British subjects Tauro: Italian -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Tim Perry" Subject: LCF and the cost of resin kits Hi Frank, Saw your request on SMML last night. The LCF family were based on the LCT3 and LCT4 landing craft. The tank deck was boxed in to give a deck at more or less the same height as the aft deck, and this was liberally covered with gun tubs containing 2 pdrs, single and/or twin 20mm Oerlikons etc. There are some excellent photos in Yves Buffetauts book D-Day Ships, and actor Peter Bull wrote a fascinating autobiographic recounting of his experiences in LCTs and LCFs. It was called 'To Sea in a Sieve' I think. Both are out of print now, but worth looking out for. I built my own 1:350th LCT 4 recently, I have started a LCF 4 as well but have not yet finished it. These models are scratchbuilt, as there are no kits to my knowledge in this scale. Heller did an LCT4 some time ago to 1:400, but would need converting to an LCF. Leading on from Carolines comments about the set-up costs and expected sales of such kits, regular SMMLies might be interested to know that I had a grand total of 4 inquiries for the LCT and LCF kits I was preparing a few months ago. Suffice to say, these particular kits will never see a model shop shelf!!! I spent about 80 GBP on getting etchings done, plus probably 30 hours or so on the master parts, another 20 on making the RTV moulds and a handful of castings. Luckily my day job gives me access to vac-casting kit as well as other professional modelmaking equipment; if I had to set up a proper workshop from ground up, I wouldn't see much change out of several thousands (dollars OR pounds!) I take my hat off to anyone who makes a go of selling such products to such demanding customers in such tiny numbers; I am glad I killed off my LCT project when I did though! Tim (Who is redoing his Stereolithographic LCI 'cos he got the deckhouse a full 7.5 scale feet out of place on the first one!) Perry Remember to err is human, but get a computer involved and you can REALLY mess thing up! And SO quickly! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: AZJOE1445@aol.com Subject: U.S.S. Oriskany Hi Folks, I was at my local hobbyshop and saw a Jim Shirley 1/700 U.S.S. Oriskany. I was wondering if anyone has any input about the quality of the kit or what additional work is needed to build an accurate model. Thanks, Joe Kreutz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: James Corley Subject: Re: Judging and models in cases >> In a brief reprise of my earlier post on the subject, let me just say that I agree wholeheartedly with Loren Perry's post. I say change the rules, even if it means just changing them for the ship model classes. If the aircraft and armor folks feel an overwhelming need to pick up and fondle models as a judging necessity, let them continue to do so. As an experienced IPMS/USA National, Regional and local judge, I see NO need to do so with ships. << I think that the issue of judging ship models in cases should be left up to the individuals running the show. I prefer to look at models without the case, simnply because they are easier to photograph (no flash/lighting glare). If all ship models were on bases, it would be nice because we could then turn them without touching the model. Damage to a model at a public show is almost guaranteed, but not from the judges. The primary culprits, as often noted, are items that dangle (camera bags, glasses, etc.) and kids. If allowing cases would increase the turnout simply by reducing the possibility of damage, then let the cases in. JZ "Hey, I didnt invent the rules!" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Jeffry J. Fontaine" Subject: Injection vs Resin I have been reading with interest the latest thread concerning the Injection vs. Resin issue. I can only add; how much longer must we continue to support the injection molding companies and their pathetic selection of plastic kits? I refer to the companies that year after year continue to market the same pathetic slab of plastic and expect us, the modelers to accept it and live with it. You know the ones that re-release same lame crap that we built as children. How many times do we need to see the same kit advertised year after year, the mold has been PAID FOR many times over and yet they still refrain from providing anything new, save for the container, instruction sheet and decals. How many times must we see the USS Currituck re-released, we are dealing with 1960's technology for the molds which is over thirty years old. Tamiya is not happy with their sales of the USS Fletcher, but hey it was a destroyer and not a big shiny battleship and it has a thirty dollar price tag, not something I am going to rush out and buy especially at that price. So what if Tamiya is not happy with their sales on the Fletcher, they made the decision to develop and produce the kit, based on whose input? I certainly never saw a questionnaire asking me for my wish list. Maybe the Fletcher would have been better off as a resin garage kit. Tamiya has a very large collection of kits to offer, many of which I would have nothing to do with, because it is not in my interest to have that particular kit on my shelf or in my collection. Part of Tamiya's problem was that they were not offering much of anything new for a number of years and all of a sudden DML/Dragon, AFV Club, and Academy-Minicraft started taking up the slack and kicked their ass by offering kits that Tamiya would not. Tamiya was given a wake up call and so now we have seen a few new kits from Tamiya but it still does not make up for their past practice of ignoring the modeler. Sure I may sound a little bitter, but consider the continuing increase in the prices of the individual kits? Over the past twenty years, the price of plastic has gone up continuously and what have we got from it? The same crap issued thirty years ago with a new higher price. The latest scam from Tamiya with the projected price for the Fairey Swordfish is a fine example of price gouging. How many of us have waited for a decent 1/48th scale Swordfish only to be faced with mortgaging the house a second time just to purchase one? That to me is not a good business practice. This is after all a hobby and as such should not take up all of your discretionary or recreational income just to buy a kit where ever we happen to live. I can only say that if you want to continue to be subjected to the same old kits year after year with only a few new scraps tossed in, go ahead, line up and continue purchasing those thirty year old model ship, airplane or tank kits. But for those of us that are fed up with the corporate idiots making bad business decisions and then passing the "savings" on to the customer I can only say vote with your feet and wallet and just walk away from that over-priced and out-dated kit and find something that is some persons labor of love, something that some one really put their heart into, like those garage shop models in resin of things that big business is afraid to take on and produce. Regards, Jeffry Fontaine IPMS #32709 Bremerton, Washington -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Les Pickstock Subject: Re: Landing Craft Flak Frank wrote >> We here at "Battle Cruiser Hood" recently received an e-mail asking for information on something called an LCF, or "Landing Craft Flak." Supposedly this was a British craft that was exported to other Allied countries during the war (WW2). Can anyone tell me about this? Are there any models of it? << The LCF was one of a family of gun bearing Landing craft designed to be used for combined -ops. As far as I know they weren't exported but loaned to American forces. They were armed with QF 2pdrs and 20mm Oerlikons and from the account I have seemed to be heavy on tracer. They not seem to have popular with their crews being light on splinter protection. They were deep draughted and could not far inshore but were useful in engaging beach targets at ranges up to 2000yrds. Other members of this groups of hybrids included the LCG(Gun) mounting twin 4.7 inch guns and my own favourite the LCS(Support) whose armament is described as 1 6-pounder, 2 Heavy machine guns, 2 20mm Oerlikons and a 4" Smoke Mortar Les Pickstock. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: USS Alabama I just recently obtained the old Revell 1/720 Alabama kit on ebay and am planning to use it to build a "half-way decent" replica of the ship. I recall a recent discussion here where someone said the Bama's Ms-12 scheme was replaced with a Ms 21. Did the change take place before or after the ship was shipped to the Pacific (ie, did she ever wear the dappled scheme in the Pacific)? I'm also talking "Kit's in the mail", and it's been well over 15 years since I've seen this particular kit. I know it's very crude. I'm already planning to replace the 16" gun barrels and masts with brass rod/tube, and to replace the 40-20mm AA guns, cranes, catapults, seaplanes, radars, etc with aftermarket parts. IOW, I knew the job was dangerous when I took it. That was the idea - a cheap somewhat accurate starting point to use as a training exercise to try some of the new techniques I've been learning about. As such, I'm already expecting to have to chisel/cut away a good portion of the molded details and replacing them with aftermarket/scratchbuilt items. It's also one of my planned nostalgia projects - to build properly one of those kits I built numerous copies of out of the box as a kid. Too bad I can't find any of those old Hawk Fletcher cl DDs again to put along side this kit in a diorama. I believe/seem to remember they were roughly the same scale. Or were they closer to being 1/600 kits. Hmm...the gray matter fails me, and we're talking a $0.99 model I picked up at a local Gibsons store around 1976-77. But I digress... Another thing I'm trying to remember is if the bridge-superstructure of this kit "quasi" replicates a early war or late war SoDak ship. If my memory serves me right, it represented the late war appearance. Does anyone have one of these kits that they can use to confirm/deny this? I remember the kit comes with a crude SK-2 radar ariel for the foremast. What I can't remember is if it was cast with the modified extended forward and enclosed bridge that the Mamie received in '45. Photos of the Bama in Friedmans US BBs shows a similar mod, but I don't think the two ships were identical in this regard. The deck plan of the Alabama in '43 in Breyer's BBs & BCs seems to be close to what I remember of the model. My guess is the kit is a hodge podge of details of various ships at various times during the war. I'd like to build up the ship in the dapple scheme, so something is already telling me I'll have to either go with a "what if" portrayal, or make a multitude of mods to the superstructure-bridge area to properly portray this in the early war years. This based on a pic of the ship in Westwood's "Fighting Ships of WWII" as she appeared in 43 prior to joining the British Fleet in comparison to those in Friedman's book during her 44-45 refits. This is probably my imagination, but did the Bama ever wear a Ms 32 scheme. The chart at John Synder's site says Ms 21 from 44 onward. Likewise, most of the photos I have of the ship during this time seems to bear this out. However, there are two pictures of the ship in Friedman's US BBs book of the ship inclined in dock in 2/45 where parts of the superstructure appears to indicate the presence of a dazzle scheme (at the beginning of the chapter and again later on in the same chapter). Snyder's chart shows the Indiana was the only ship of this class to ever wear a Ms 3x scheme (borne out by a pic of the Indiana in Richard Hough's Dreadnought). I can't see why they would ever switch a ship over from Ms 21 to Ms 3x given what they learned during the war - especially at this point of time. The photos of the Bama could be due to the ship being in the midst of a paint job (with various parts of the superstructure being stripped in preparation for a new paint job). This being most prevalent in the close up "looking forward" shot of the amidships area. Yet, there seems to be other areas where boundary areas between the colors look too uniform for this to be the case. Yet, I don't see any evidence on the hull itself in this photos. Very odd, so I thought I'd better check since I'm exploring all my options at this point. Addenda: There is also a small photo in the Bama directory at Navsource labled "Final Appearance undated" showing a ship in a Ms 32 scheme. The photo is too small and blurry for me to make out the hull number. Obviously this is not the Bama's final appearance. As such, I'm wondering if this is a pic of the Bama or a misfiled pic of the Indiana. Or...referring to my other photos (and comparing the scheme and the placement of the main mast, cranes, hull shape, etc), perhaps of the North Carolina ). After careful review, my bet's on the latter. I think he's got another pic of NC in that directory too because I recognize it from the Dulin and Garzke's Battleships book (the sailor scraping ice off of the 16" guns) Argh! Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: WWII Yamato Wreck Model This is a message from another list I'm on that may interest some of you IJN fans. >> As a follow-up to Ted's post about the Japanese/French expedition to the wrecksite of the Yamato, I was surfing through the Tamiya modeling website and found a short article on recreating the wreck scene in miniature form: http://www.tamiya.com/english/news/yamato_tv/yamato_tv.htm http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/yamato/index.html http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/yamato/html/soku_11.html This is indeed the model featured in the sunken Yamato documentary, and the Asahi pages cited are about the TV special in question (although that press conference pictured is another story altogether). << Photos of the model can be found at the last address. They are quite impressive. The Tamiya site describes a brief description of how they went about modifying their 1/350 scale model for use in the project. More information on the expedition can be found at... http://www.titanic-online.com/yamato/index.htm Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Paints Available for WWII USN Colors While rummaging through some old FSM articles, I found one by Roman Detyna about the camoflauge schemes for Fletcher cl DDs in the March 98 issue. He offered the following suggestions for available modeling paints to replicate the WWII Ships-2 color schemes. Pale gray 5-P_ Floquil Marine (818590), Polly Scale (505326) Light gray 5-L_ Floquil Marine (818592), Polly Scale (505328) Haze Gray 5-H_ Floquil Marine (818594), Polly Scale (505330) Ocean Gray 5-0_ Floquil Marine (818594), Polly Scale (505332) Navy Blue 5-N_ Floquil Marine (818598), Polly Scale (505334) Deck Blue 20-B_ Floquil Marine (818600), Polly Scale (505338) Dull Black 13_ Floquil Marine (818602) Haze Green 5-HG_ Floquil Marine (818605) Ocean Green 5-0G_ Floquil Marine (818606) Navy Green 5-NG_ Floquil Marine (818608) IMHO, I'd think it be wise to compare these with Snyder and Short's color chips to find out just how close they really are. Awaiting the fall out from John on how "this don't work" (cause I know he's bound to say something). I Gotta buy those chips ) (as soon as I can save up the bucks that is). Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Re: Resin vs Plastic (Japanese Co's) If I offended anyone here regarding the motivations of Japanese model compaines, you have my apologies. I am/have been on a number of Japanese animation oriented mailing lists, so I'm in no way biased against Japan. What I alluded to in the post was based on things I've been told umpteen times by people who are from, have lived in, or have regular contact with those who do live in Japan. Ah, the dangers of second hand information! Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: "Kelvin Mok" Subject: Re: Resin v. Plastic kits >> That surprises most folks. In the U.K., our actual "run-on" i.e. production, costs are around 3 times those of the U.S. producer. ......................(unless you can get your tooling/moulding done in China...). The cost of a tool for high-quality injection moulding costs around 1,000 pounds ($1,600) per individual moulded part, << This is off topic. Some years ago I was reading a Far Eastern Economics (HK) publication about the demise of the elephant ivory carving trade where the plight of old Chinese ivory carvers was highlighted. A carver was quoted as to what he could do as he was too old to learn any new trade. His was a very bleak future. There was a more recent The Economist article about a little known but multi-billion dollar and very high tech toy manufacturing industry in HK/China. One of the competitive advantages HK/China has which few countries can replicate elsewhere is the army of former ivory carvers who could execute very intricate carvings for making patterns. Ever wondered how Dragon manages to put out so many high quality new issues regularly. Kelvin Mok (klmok@home.com) Hi Kelvin, Speaking for myself, this isn't off topic in it's inference. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: Subject: Information on GLEEVES class USN Destroyers Hello to all. I am looking for information plans and pictures of the Gleeves class destroyers of the US Navy. They were built in 1940 and participated in World War II. I would be grateful if someone could point me a resource (internet pageor books). Thank you very much. Stelios Falieros, Curator Maritime Museum of Crete, Greece. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Shaya Novak" Subject: GMM by credit card. Naval Base Hobbies ships GMM, Flagship, and Toms world wide and you can pay by credit card. Goto: "What's Photoetching" page. Shaya Novak Naval Base Hobbies The Store for The Model Ship Builder http://www.modelshipbuilding.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Shaya Novak" Subject: John C. Bultler Class Naval Base has two new additions But Kenneth not 20" long. 1) J.C. Butler in 1/350 scale resin kit . 14" long 2) J. C. Butler in 1/96 scale wooden kit. 38" long Shaya Novak Naval Base Hobbies The Store for The Model Ship Builder http://www.modelshipbuilding.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for having SMML at your home, why not stop by our home at: http://www.smml.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume