Subject: SMML18/12/99VOL763 Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 00:17:52 +1100 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Essex cl CVs 2: Resin Kits & CV-6 3: Re: Help on translation material, please 4: Re: Paint problem 5: Japanese Language 6: USS Massachusetts 7: 54 mm Man 8: Re: APMA Sydney? 9: On 1/96 and 1/125 figures 10: Re: 54mm Scale 11: Re: Letrset dry transfers 12: Re: 54mm Scale 13: Re: 54mm 14: Paint problem 15: Re: E-Boats 16: Re: Paint problem 17: Re: PE questions w/ answers 18: Royal Navy WW2 "Pacific" Paint Scheme Question 19: Chinese ships 20: Re: CW Indianapolis 21: Re: USS MASSACHUSETTS 22: Re: USS Massachusetts 23: US Light Cruisers in Action 24: USN SHIP CLASSING 25: 40mm and 1.1' guns 26: Re: Ship Classes 27: Re: Essex Long/Short Hulls 28: Re: Enterprise lighting in the hangar deck 29: On the Life-Like 1/350 Missouri 30: Re: Higgins Boat models by BMC 31: Re: Modern USN paint color 32: RE: [Cosmo] Learning Japanese [OFFLIST REPLY] (fwd) 33) T3 fleet oilers 34) Revell USS Lexington -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Essex cl CVs I located this sight and have to recommend it to those wanting more information about the Essex cl carriers in general. Includes explainations of all the post war modernization programs, very brief histories of the ships, as well as photos. http://www.uss-salem.org/navhist/carriers/us_fleet.htm Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Charles Jarvis Subject: Resin Kits & CV-6 Hi All: I've recently gotten back into building plastic ship models after a hiatus (wife, kids, house, job, etc.), but I've never done a resin kit. Now I've seen one that's caught my eye and I'd like to pick it up and give it a try. I'm not real familiar with the how to's and wherefore's, so I'd like to pick up a how to book on them that covers all the aspects: assembly, adhesives, paints, detailing, etc. Is there a "The Book" on the subject out there, and where could I order it? Also, I'd like to get a good kit of U.S.S. Enterprise (CV-6) as she appeared in 1942. Any suggestions? Thanks: Charlie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Geir Aalberg Subject: Re: Help on translation material, please You'll have most work trying to sort out the Kanji characters. Alphabetical sorting is no easy task in Kanji! The Kodansha's Pocket Kanji Guide: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/4770018010/ which I've got has three methods for finding the right letter, like counting the strokes of the character (easiest if it's not smudged or too complex), or finding the 'root' part of the character. This makes it much easier to use than my Chinese dictionaries. Geir Aalberg http://www.fandom.no/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Geir Aalberg Subject: Re: Paint problem >> The paint thickens and begins to polymerize before I can finish. << That's one of the reason I stopped using acrylics. I have tried artist's retarder, which only seem to prolong drying time some 50%, which is still far too short. But other than mixing larger batches, you could try what's known in art circles as a "stay-wet pallette". While this can be bought for $10 at an art supply store, you can make a simple one for yourself: Take a plastic tray with a smooth and even bottom. Put into this a coffee filter and saturate it with water. Pour off the excess, then cover it with a piece of greased food wrapping paper (or whatever it's called in the US). When used as a mixing board the paint will soak up water by osmosis and stay wet (hence the name). If covered it may even stay wet for days, although there is a chance of molding. Geir Aalberg http://www.fandom.no/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Japanese Language I don't have a web site you can go to, but in college the book we used was "Japanese For Busy People". I believe it has two volumes, but it will only be good for general communication. I've known a number of folks through my anime fandom connection over the years who have attempted to learn Japanese to translate the various books and movies for which there are no english translations. The most difficult part of learning Japanese is mastering the Chinese derived Kanji. Just to read a newspaper you have to be familar with 1,945 basic symbols (in addition to the eighty someodd Katakana and Hiragana sylibary symbols). Keep in mind, these do not include the symbols needed to translate/understand more complex/less used technical and engineering terms. I'll pass this message on to someone who might be able to give you a better heads up on this. No guarantee they will respond, but that's the only thing I can do. Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: USS Massachusetts Unless you don't care for accuracy, or you're a masochist, avoid the Revell 1:720 kit of the Massachusetts like the plauge. I picked up the identical USS Alabama kit up off ebay about a month ago as a nostalgia kit. Other than from the USS Alabama on-line store for $12, I haven't seen this kit offered anywhere (other than in it's identical Massachusetts Revell-Germany release). After buying the Signal/Squadron On Deck USS Alabama book though, and comparing the photos/drawings with the kit, I'm starting to regret it. The problems are many and not easy to fix without a lot of scratch work. It's good for a general approximation, or for a modeler who may not care about accuracy/detail. A better choice would be the Hasegawa 1:700 Alabama kit. Hasegawa also has a 1:700 South Dakota, but that's a poor choice for a Massachusetts because the SoDak was fitted out as a flagship, has two less 5/35 mounts and a somewhat different superstructure. I don't have the Hasegawa Alabama kit (yet), but it's available through Hobbyweb for under $15 (less shipping). Of course, you'll probably need to study photos/plans to alter the kit to match the Massachusetts (since the ships had subtile differences during the course of their service lives). As has already been stated, I've never seen a 1:600 SoDak class BB model. The only ones I'm familar with are the 1:350, 1:700, and 1:720 kits. Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Polvi, Henry" Subject: 54 mm Man Ok, taking out the calculator, 54mm = 2.126" x 32 = 68" (a pretty short man) or x 34 = 72.3" ( an little over avg guy or a short guy with a helmet?) "jolly tars are our men..." Henry Polvi Thornhill, ON -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Sanartjam@aol.com Subject: Re: APMA Sydney? Hi Shane & The SMML Gang, What's this about an APMA kit of the Sydney I ?!? What scale is it and how could I get one? Thanks, Art Nicholson Hi Art, It was a 1/700 kit & no longer available. A fair few years back an APMA member Ley Reynolds was doing resin castings of various things eg: 1/700 Leander (Type 12), Sydney I, Type 15 FFs, amongst other conversions & add-ons. The resin castings was of a reasonable quality for the time. But the club decided to stop this a few years ago, Lorna & I joined whilst it was being slowly wound down & as a consequence there's very little left. The Sydney I have, is basically the hull & that's it. A nice scratchbuild project if I ever get around to it ;-). There's a couple of APMA SMMLies who may be able to explain it better than I in this respect. Sorry, i can't be of any more help. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "Steven P. Allen" Subject: On 1/96 and 1/125 figures On 1/96 and 1/125 figures: Does anyone have a source for figs in these scales? Thanks, Steve Allen BTW, has there ever been a Forestal-class in 1/350? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "James owen" Subject: Re: 54mm Scale To add to replies already submitted: 54mm is the term used in model figure circles to describe the height of a bareheaded figure modelled to a scale of 1/32. This scale itself is derived from the old Imperial scale of 3/8 of an inch to one foot. This was the scale widely used by the firm of Britains who produced, and still produce, a wide range of model and toy soldiers, farm animals and farm machinery in the U.K. Many model manufactuers still produce figures in this scale. When Tamiya and other Japanese firms cornered the AFV kit market they used a scale of 1/35 which was subsequently adopted by many figure manufacturers. To further confuse the issue French firms such as Historex produce figures to a scale of 1/30. Other scales derived from the ratios found in Imperial measurements are; 1/96 or 1/8th of an inch to one foot; 1/192 or 1/16th of an inch to one foot; 1/72 or one inch to six feet; 1/600 or one inch to 50 feet; 1/1200 or one inch to 100 feet. There are numerous other scales, however these are the most likely to be encountered in ship modelling. It might be worth pointing out that US, European and British model railway scales, although having the same names have different representative fractions. On another note, thanks to those who helped with my Essex query. On a further note I have just built the WEM HMS Jervis and it is a superb model to build. Jim Owen. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Letrset dry transfers Letraset dry transfer letters can be found at architectural supply houses. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Edd Pflum Subject: Re: 54mm Scale >> ...while for some reason the Japanese chose 1/35th instead. << Hi James, The reason I've seen (and it seems to make sense) is that these are 'metric' scales. 1:100, 1:75, 1:50, 1:35, and 1:25 are the metric equivalents of 1:96, 1:72, 1:48, 1:32, and 1:24. The round numbers make scaling easier in the decimal-based metric units. Edd -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Kelvin Mok" Subject: Re: 54mm >> The "54mm" scale for figures comes from the size of dime-store soldiers that were sold in the '30's and 40's. There is a lot of confusion there because some manufactures measured from feet to top of the head, others from feet to the top of the headgear, etc. Today, 54mm scale for figures is considered 1/32 scale. << There is one more variation according to a guy in my city who does prize winning figures. Some heights are scaled to the figure's eyes. For example 1/35 figures from Italearei are slightly larger than Tamiya's. He encounters the same problem with larger cast metal figures. Kelvin Mok -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Kurt Van Dahm Subject: Paint problem Gary Kingzett asked about a retarder for acrylic paints. Gary, you don't mention the brand of paint you are using, but try Badger's #16-460 Retarder. It's meant to extend the drying time for airbrushing, but it should work for brushing too. Take care, Kurt Van Dahm Westmont, IL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "J. London" Subject: Re: E-Boats Not wishing to beat this subject to death but members may be interested in the efforts British Naval Intelligence made prior to WW2 to get a photograph of one of these ships. They apparently went about it in true James Bond style unaware that a very fine picture was printed in 1938 Jane's, obligingly placed there as an advert by the builders Lürssen Werft of Bremen. The armament, but not the speed, was specified as including 2 torpedo tubes (as specified by the customer), 1 AA gun (ditto), depth charges and smoke developing equipment. I have no idea how many foreign orders were placed but a smart British Admiralty might have done well to have ordered one themselves. Mike London -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: "Kelvin Mok" Subject: Re: Paint problem >> Can any of you suggest what to use as a retarder? TIA. << There is indeed such a product at any artists' supply store. Its a transparent gel and has more uses than as a retarder. Read the earlier post on Future Wax for the additional uses. Kelvin Mok -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: Rick Heinbaugh Subject: Re: PE questions w/ answers Ralph Koziarski wrote >> And finally...are all Tamya's DD and DE kits crap? If anyone knows of any good ones (at least some detail) then please let me know. As I don't really have the money to splurge on a Resin kit or one of those pricy Skywave models. << And Rusty White wrote: >> Without a doubt, the best and most detailed /700 scale Fletcher class model is the Skywave Cochrane (I hope I spelled that right) kit. Lots of incredibly small detail on the bulkheads. You can order all these items from online hobby shops that advertise on the Warship web site. << Actually the EXCELLENT Skywave FLETCHER class kit is CALLAGHAN (DD792), Skywave kit #W-1. It currently retails ~$12-$15 (US dollars). With great surface detail & many optional parts for different variations, I think it is the best value for a FLETCHER, although many folks prefer the Tamiya kit for its accuracy. I'm completely satisfied with the accuracy of the CALLAGHAN kit. Watch out buying Skywave FLETCHERs, though... originally Skywave made an earlier molding, two ships in a box for 3.50 - $8. This molding had a bunch of major innacuracies. It was greatly reworked to become the CALLAGHAN kit. I still have a stockpile of these and they're nearly useless. Add one of the reasonably priced PE sets for US destroyers from Flagship, Gold Medal Models or Tom's Modelworks (listed alpabetically, not necessarily by preference - each has good features) and the walkway decals Rusty mentioned, and you have the potential for a great FLETCHER. The COCHRANE that Rusty mentions above is a post-war CHARLES F ADAMS class DDG. A beautiful kit, it was made by Skywave for $20-$25 and later picked up by a Hong Kong company, Dragon. Dragon added a very nice lower hull and cut the price by ~50%. You now see the same moldings in boxes labelled by Dragon, DML, Shanghai Dragon and Revell of Germany. All of them are with reasonable prices. A great DDG kit. Rick Heinbaugh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: AllenFW2@aol.com Subject: Royal Navy WW2 "Pacific" Paint Scheme Question I'm trying to identify the colours used in a specific paint scheme used by the British (in the Pacific)in the latter half of World War Two. The scheme in question consisted of vertical surfaces (hull and superstructure) being a very light grey (almost white)and horizontal surfaces being very dark (possibly black). There was also a dark strip running parallel to and just above the waterline (covering the armour side belts). I've seen photos of both Nelson and at least one of the KGV class in this scheme. What were the colours involved? I'm guessing Ms4a for the light grey but I'm not sure. I'm also not sure of the dark band on the hull sides or the horizontal colours. This information is needed for a "what if" line drawing of Hood for the "Battle Cruiser Hood" web site. The drawing will be of Hood in 1942 - if she had survived the Bismarck fiasco and had undergone her planned 1942/43 refit. Rather than put her in the basic greys (AP507A, B or C), we'd like to put her in Pacific camouflage (a very likely place for her ultimately to have been sent). Sorry about this question, I guess I should know the answer, but our knowledge of RN paint schemes ends on 24 May 1941 :). Thanks Frank Allen Editor, "Battle Cruiser Hood" http://www.hmshood.com or http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/2966/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: "Mike" Subject: Chinese ships Greetings, If anyone has plans/diags/info to help Nicolas (see below), please send to me at the website, & I'll make them available. Many thanks, Mike SMML Webmaster >> Hi, I have an interest in pre-dreadnought era ships and I have bought a Chinese kit in 1/300 of a small battleship. This seems to be a German (Vulkan) built 'pocket' battleship which fought in the Sino-Japanese clash of 1884. All the documentation is in Chinese and my info stops there. Can anyone provide plans or drawings or any useful info ? Thank you Nicolas Protonotarios << -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Re: CW Indianapolis Rusty is quite correct in his appraisal of the Indianapolis kit. It was one of my early efforts, maybe the first, it has been at least 7 years since I designed this kit. I my receive an order for 50 of these, if so the kit instructions will be improved, with some minor improvements to the kit also. The kit builds the "Indy" from mid 1944, through May of 1945, not her last refit, but the dates depicted give the modeler two camo options, which, by the way, are very well displayed in our first book, covering the "Indy", which is about to go out of print. Buy it while there are a few still left! Thanks, Steve - Classic Warships -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: John Sheridan Subject: Re: USS MASSACHUSETTS So far as I know, there are no 1/500 or 1/600 models of any of the SOUTH DAKOTA class BBs. There is (or was) a 1/700 kit from one of the Japanese manufacturers, and Revell had (has?) a dismal 1/720 kit. The best available-- and it happens to be MASSACHUSETTS--is a 1/350 resin kit. From the shameless plug department: You can see pictures of my BWN 1/350th USS Massachusetts model on the WARSHIP website at: http://www.warship.simplenet.com/gallery.htm John Sheridan @ Microscale Decals http://www.microscale.com If I'm talking Decals, then i'm talking for Microscale, Otherwise I am speaking for myself. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) From: "Mike Leonard" Subject: Re: USS Massachusetts Alan Mackechnie asked - >> So, can anybody recommend a good model? I'm looking at 1/500 or 1/600 - I don't think I'd be quite up to a 1/350 resin job. << You're pretty much limited here to the Revell 1/720 kit, which is really terrible (IMHO) or modifying one of the Japanese kits in 1/700. ALABAMA would be easiest; SOUTH DAKOTA needs to have another pair of 5-inch mounts added. That's the kit I was able to find and am altering it accordingly to make a BB-59 from 1944-45. Mike L Alexandria, VA USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) From: Schiefet@cs.com Subject: US Light Cruisers in Action Just stopped by "Modelers Junction" and picked up the latest Squadron/Signal publication "US Light Cruisers in Action." This is a very nice addition to my library. There are some very nice pics and drawings from reliable sources. Even a drawing of the bulky, overloaded (and actually kind of ugly) missile conversion of the Little Rock. Good descriptions of the camo schemes as well. Page 22 show the damaged St. Louis approaching the Vestal (AR-4). For the SMMlie looking for a Vestal photo, it's here. The forecastle is all the way back to the main mast. On another note, two people approached me at work this week about a story in the paper relating to "Raising the Arizona." Apparently some genius felt she should be raised in order to stop the pollution caused by the oil seepage. I confirmed with the Arizona memorial folks that this is totally untrue. Happy Holidays everyone. Here wishing for kits under the tree. Steve Singlar Pelham, NH (Where there is no snow in sight.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) From: Dave Baker Subject: USN SHIP CLASSING As one who was involved in the naming and classing of USN ships during the 1980s (I helped in picking the names for over 200 USN and MARAD Ready Reserve Force ships), I have to take issue with the statement that the USN does not give class namea to its ships. The standard definition of "class" is a group of ships ordered to a generally similar set of specifications and plans, with the understanding that there will be minor variations from builder to builder and over time. When a major modification is brought in, then either the class name changes, or some sort of modifier is added, such as the current ARLEIGH BURKE FLIGHT IIA program, the first ship of which was the OSCAR AUSTIN (DDG 79). Common nicknames like "AEGIS Cruiser" are really slang terms and usually come from either the press or from sloppy usage. In recent years, the USN has also tended to class ships informally by the hull number of the first unit of the design (as in SSN 688 class for LOS ANGELES class, with SSN 688I standing for those later-construction boats that have improved systems). I must also take issue with the recommendation that JANE'S is a good source for ship class names (although, for the USN, Norman Polmar's SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT is indeed reliable). JANE'S frequently and erratically violates the concept of class whereby the class name never changes, regardless of what country owns the ship. Thus, ships of the same class in several navies are given different class names in JANE'S, the class names either being what the local navy calls it or the name of the first ship of the class in the recipient fleet, as renamed by the local navy. I always figured that the inconsistancies in JANE'S stemmed from their being so beholden to official information, which, from very long experience, I can assure you is not always ACCURATE information. JANE'S also departs from standard NATO spellings for its class names for former Soviet Bloc warships; thus, while the NATO name for the once ubiquitous Polish-built medium landing ship class is POLNOCNY, JANE'S has always misspelled it "Polnochny" (which is at least how one should pronounce it); similarly, JANE'S always spelled the WHISKEY class submarine name incorrectly, on the ground, I believe, that no true Brit would spell Whisky as Whiskey. The Russians and Germans, of course, have a second form of classing through the use of Project numbers, and if you'd care to see a throroughly researched and pretty complete list of the current Russian ones, it can be found in COMBAT FLEETS OF THE WORLD. The British Type system is applied to some (but not all) combatant classes, but certainly not all other warship types, while the Germans have a very thorough "Klasse" numbering system that has been adhered to since the rebirth of their fleet in the 1950s. The USN used to have an SCN-series design numbering system, but that fell by the wayside over two decades ago. The biggest problem with the taxonomy of USN ships today is the inconsistant usage of the standard Secretary of the Navy Instruction on ship type designations. Local authorities create their own typing systems, and even though the USN is far smaller than it was a decade, ago, chaos is creeping into the name and typing system. At the moment, the Military Sealift Command even has two ships named FISHER, which is not only likely to lead to confusion but is even in violation of a General Order dating from 1920 that has never been rescinded. We are also not supposed to reuse hull numbers, but poltics, of course, brought us the illogical SSN 21 through SSN 23 (the next SSN will be SSN 774) and the equally inconsistant PC 1 through PC 14 numbering. Anyway, in COMBAT FLEETS, I try to apply a uniform typing system and a uniform classing system: once a GEARING, always a GEARING, folks. I know that few of the world's naval enthusiasts have heard of COMBAT FLEETS (my publisher is not the most enthusiastic of marketers), but we do offer far, far more for much, much less money than our major English-language competitor; our last edition ran 1,220 pages, had over 1,3 million words of information, and contained nearly 5,000 illustrations--all for the princely sum of $150.00 U.S., although Naval Institute Members could get it for about a third off. And our contents are not subject to alteration by any local Ministry of Defence. Cheers/Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) From: Schiefet@cs.com Subject: 40mm and 1.1' guns In a previous edition of the newsletter, someone was asking about the 40 mm guns. Page 31 of Light Cruiser In Action has two excellent photos of the 40 & 20 mm guns aboard the USS Juneau. The detail of the mounts and gun tubs is very clear. There are dozens of 4 round clips stowed inside the splinter shield of the 40 mm mount. What struck me the most however, is that most of the men in these photos did not survive. Someone had mentioned 1.1' guns a while back. The only set I have ever seen was at the Washington Navy Yard museum in 1994. They came from the USS Enterprise CV-6. They look like cheap toys compared to the 40 mm mounts. Steve Singlar Pelham NH -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) From: James Corley Subject: Re: Ship Classes >> I am not aware that the USN officially assigned ships classes in the '50s and '60s.  I don't think they do so now. The closest it comes to an official designation is when new ships are ordered. Differences come about if they a built in multiple yards and as new models of equipment are used. Then there are repairs, modifications, and alteration (SHIPALTS).  By the end of their useful life the ships built as a class provide wonderful verity as modeling subjects. Anyone can refer to a group of similar ships as a class; Ships and Aircraft, and Janes are likely to follow accepted usage. << The USN has a definite ship "class" scheme....it is called the SCB number (from the old Ship Construction Bureau) and each specific design encompases a class. The navy also has future combatant competitions that lead the the awarding of a contract for a leader for a new class, i.e., the LPDX which became the San Antonio/LPD-19 and the ongoing SC-21 system proposals likely to yield up to 3 class (a DD, DDG and possibly a CG) variants of the same basic design much like the 1960s DDX/DXG/ yeilded the Spruance/Kidd/Ticonderoga classes. The Nimitz class CVNs began as the SCB-102 in FY67, and are currently being built as the SCB-102C (IIRC) with CVN-76. If I have my numbers right, the semi-Nimitz CVN-77 will be a SCB-102D, and the CVX-78 becoming the SCB-103. SCB numbers were initally issued sequentially, with the Forrestal class being SCB-80 and the old Norfolk DL being SCB-1 in FY48. THE CURRENT SCHEME (oops) uses groups for the SCBs, with carriers getting 100 numbers, Cruisers getting 200s, etc. Hope this helps. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) From: James Corley Subject: Re: Essex Long/Short Hulls >> The SCB-27a project was for H-8 Hydraulic Catapults and support features to operate modern (jet) aircraft. The SCB-27c project was for C-11 Steam Catapults and support features to operate jet aircraft. SCB-125 project was angled deck modifications. SCB-125a project applied only to ORISKANY and gave her an angled deck and steam catapults. FRAM applied only to the ships redesignated CVS in the late 50s and early 60s. It dealt mainly with ASW capability. << And then you have the ANTIETAM, which never recieved an official SCB number, but I have heard her called the "SCB-27B" since the B designation never made it to the fleet and no information concerning it's particulars has surfaced. And LEXINGTON was no longer an SCB-125 by the time she retired in 1989. Would that make her an "SCB-125B"?? (SCB-125+FRAM+later mods) >> Because of the original selection of mothballed ships for modernization in 1948 and the outbreak of the Korean War, the newest ESSEX class (VALLEY FORGE, PHILIPPINE SEA, PRINCETON, etc) never received either mod << But some of these ships did recieve at least a partial SCB-27A upgrade...most of the upgrade island structure found on the original ESSEX/WASP conversions are inlcuded, espcially the electronics suite. JZ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28) From: DrT388@aol.com Subject: Re: Enterprise lighting in the hangar deck You might try getting a fiber optic kit, produced by AMT. I saw one at a hobby store yesterday in Nitro, WV. They were selling it for $21.32 and included 1200 inches of fiber as well as a lot of other accessories needed. Looked like a decent deal. Regards, David -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29) From: "Steven P. Allen" Subject: On the Life-Like 1/350 Missouri On the Life-Like 1/350 Missouri: Can anyone tell me anything about this kit? Is it the same as the Revell 1/350 Iowa class? Thanks, Steve Allen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30) From: RCClem@aol.com Subject: Re: Higgins Boat models by BMC >> What is the 'Higgins boat set' you bought? Figures, or the boat itself? The Lindberg LCVP is 1:32 and is a fairly good model. << Edd asked the above. I have not received them yet, but the seller said that they were made by BMC (British Motor {or Model} Corp?). The models are supposed to be about 12" long but that doesn't fit with a scale of 1/32. Its frustrating to buy something sight unseen, not even a photo.I have built the Lindberg LCVP in 1/32 and the Airfix LCM Mk III in 1/72 for my dad, who drove them both in the Pacific. Ebay has several sellers that offer models or video tapes on all types of landing craft. Roger Clemens Hinsdale, Illinois where it looks like we may have a White Christmas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31) From: "John Snyder" Subject: Re: Modern USN paint color According to my partner, Randy Short: Haze Gray: FS 36270 (26270 for scale effect) Deck Gray: FS 36008 (26176 for scale effect) John Snyder Snyder & Short Enterprises The Paint Guys -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: RE: [Cosmo] Learning Japanese [OFFLIST REPLY] (fwd) Per the request for information on learning Japanese, I received this response from a member of the anime list I'm a member of. >> Forwarded - Written by JMCENTE@lakegrp.com on 17-Dec-99* Hi Derek, I'm fellow Cosmolister, Jim McEntee. Nice to meet you. I though I should reply direct to you on this subject so you can forward the information to your friend. I am currently studying Japanese at Berlitz Language Center. I have tried many self study computer CD's, audio tapes and books and I eventually settled on a formal class. I've bought about as many books as I can get my hands on and in my opinion two stand out in the crowd; For grammar: Japanese Complete Course (Living Language Complete Courses. Compact Disc Edition) Ana Suffredini (Editor) Random House (Audio); ISBN: 0609602799 There's an audio tape version if you don't have an audio CD Player, ISBN: 0609602780 This comes with a 40 lesson book, a decent dictionary and audio CD's for you to 'hear' what is in the book, which is essential if you are leaning alone or you will end up sounding like Gomer Pyle trying to speak Japanese ^_^ The coursebook alone is priceless. It has some of the most handy reference pages and best concise grammar explanations I have seen. You can also opt to buy just the coursebook, ISBN: 0609803026 For writing: Japanese for Busy People - Kana Workbook : Kana Workbook (Japanese for Busy People) Kodansha International; ISBN: 4770020961 This book will teach you how to read and write kana (the 142 hiragana and katakana characters), including the proper stroke order for writing, but it will not teach you kanji (the thousands of Chinese characters) I have not even though about undertaking kanji at this time. I hope this will be of some help for your friend. Jim McEntee << Consider this to be an addenda to my last message. Based on my personal experience, you need to get a grasp on the use of Hiragana (for Japanese words) & Katakana (for foreign words) along with basic grammar usage before you're going to be able to get a handle on the use of Kanji. This was something my professor I had in a college Japanese class placed a heavy emphasis on in regards to those brought up in a society steeped in non-asiatic languages. The reason for this is you need to learn proper pronounciation or you're going to find yourself lost when you delve into Kanji. From what I remember, the basic grammar is pretty simple to master, and it's a lot easier to read than to discern from listening (due to the speed at which native Japanese tend to speak). In my case at least, the words tended to run together, which gave me fits in my verbal tests. For this, you REALLY need a practice partner to master. I cannot over emphasis this enough. Likewise, the best way to learn the basics (sylabaries and characters) is to practice by writing them over and over again. Think about how you learned your ABCs...you have to do the same thing to get a good grasp on the sylabary (and later Kanji) characters. It's not an overnight thing. I've known die hard anime fans who have been studying Japanese for nearly 20 years, and even they will be the first to admit they are far from being flueant (sp?). Need I say this -- as with any language, either you use it or you lose it. I've never had the need to speak it, so other than a few words, I've pretty much lost everything I learned back in 92-93. Go back to what I said about having a practice partner. A lady I work with, who knows six languages, has repeatedly told those trying to learn new languages that practice by speaking and writing on a daily basis is the only way to really become proficient. She's constantly getting on to those who speak broken Spanish to only talk to her in spanish for the sole purpose of getting in as much practice as they can. Those who I know who have studied Japanese for all these years are able to translate as well as they do because they also practice speaking it so they stay familar with the basic grammar usage and individual words. You can sit there with character charts, dictionaries and translate text, but that becomes a very time consuming chore after awhile. Trust me, been there, done that, it's a RPITA spending an hour trying to flip back and forth in a dictionary to translate a few sentances. That said, there are a number of good Kanji dictionaries available. My ex-fiancee' absonded with all of mine for her translation projects (and I never got them back after we parted ways). However, check out http://kanjisite.tripod.com/ This is a site with some good references to learning Kanji, with links to other sites as well. I had a Hiragana, Katakana, and Kanji workbook that in addition to the sylabary characters, had all 1,945 basic Kanji characters that I picked up at my college bookstore for about $20. Again, this is one of the books I no longer have, but I "believe" it was an earlier edition of... Kanji and Kana: A Handbook of the Japanese Writing System (Tuttle Language Library), Revised Edition (June 1997), by Wolfgang Hadamitzky and Mark Spahn, Charles E Tuttle Company, Tokyo. ISBN 0804820775 It's avaliable through Amazon for $19.95 (and you can link to it directly from the Kanji site, along with other books on the subject). Mind you though. This is only a workbook, not a translation dictionary. A good Japanese to English dictionary is also a must, and I'll warn you, good ones are not cheap. My ex-fiancee dropped nearly a $100 for a fairly decent one about ten years ago. I grant you the prices may have dropped somewhat since then, but I wouldn't hedge my bets on it. Maybe others here know of some that are suitable without being over priced. I hope this helps those looking for more information about this. Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: T3 fleet oilers JFYI, I located yet another fleet oiler site. http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3556/navy.html This one is dedicated to the USS Taluga, which I believe was the last Cimmaron cl T3 cl vessel to serve actively in the USN. There are links from this site to other fleet oiler associations. Photos, etc are sparse, but they do have some histories, and contact information with former crew members. Doug...if you follow the link to the Fleet Oiler assocation site from this one, there is link to another site through which you might make some contacts that might be useful for your 1:350 project. . Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Revell USS Lexington Well, I broke down yesterday and picked up the old Revell Lady Lex kit at a local hobby shop for $13 (with a 1/3 off discount unknown until I got to the counter). Odd, the last carrier I built was the nearly identical Revell Hornet back in my senior year of HS, so it seems I'm picking up where I left off. Not surprisingly though, the kit seems much worse than I remember. Before I finish with this, I may be wishing I would've found a way to secure and drop the bucks on an OOP JSP Oriskany. I think if there'd been an alternative I would've avoided this one, but lacking any... I really do hope that eventually someone will evenutally produce a decent 1:700 SCB-125 Essex again (I can't afford a 1:350 ship of this size). This one is good for practice (I'm thinking lots of rust and weathering techinques to bone up on among other things), but given it's liabilities (too narrow a hull, too tall a island, etc), I don't know if it's possible to correct all of it's flaws. Anyone who has experience accurizing this kit, *please* contact me. I like a good challenge, but dang, this un's gonna be fun! ( All that said, a few questions have come to mind while scanning over the kit. I know there is a (sorely needed) GMM brass kit for this model. Can anyone tell me whether or not it includes padeyes for the deck (I'm gonna be drilling until the cows come home). For that matter, did they even have padeyes. I know, this question may seem dumb, but there's a pic of an F-8 on the Ticonderoga in Mersky & Polmar's "The Naval Air War in Vietnam" which shows what looks to be wood planking on the deck. Likewise, does this set it include replacement radars for only those that come with the kit, or does it provide any alternatives. I'm wanting to transform this kit into a Yankee Station c.1967/68 Tyco or Shangri La (hence the rust/weathering), and both ships had different radar fits than this kit has. I've considered making it a Oriskany, but I'm not sure if it can be done (easily that is) given she was slightly longer and wider, and I'd have to toss the flight deck and build a new one with sheet styrene. Naval Base has developed a decal set for these kits, but are they avaliable as a seperate item (apart from the kit). Obviously I'll need new numbers and names, but apart from that...well, this kit must have been sitting on the shelf for a LONG time because the decals are extremely yellowed. I know...tape them to a window and let the sun bleach them out, but... Of course, I'll have to replace the training air group with an attack one. I have my work cut out for me there, because I have no idea where to start scratching planes that small. The odd thing about this kit though is it includes four F-4B Phantom IIs. I seem to remember reading in Combat Fleets 76-77 (among other books) that the modernized Essex's not operate either the Phantom or A-6 Intruder because of an assortment of incompatablities relating to their cats, arrestor gear, and/or elevators. That's why they were limited to CVWs with only F-8s, A-1s, A-4s, KA-3s (which seems to be a contradiction, given the size of those birds...), and E-1s as CVAs. As such, it doesn't make sense for there to be Phantoms included with this kit. (Sigh), before I get finished with this thing, the brass, sheet styrene, and resin kit folks are gonna be in love with me ). Any and all advice appreciated. Thanks in advance. Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar2@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for having SMML at your home, why not stop by our home at: http://www.smml.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume