Subject: SMML VOL 817 Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 00:39:29 +1100 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Is SMML's objective to WIN? 2: USS Hornet (CV-8) 3: Re: Enterprise CV-6 in 1942 4: Battleship Bismarck 5: Photoetch replacement 6: NAVIS VS THE WORLD 7: Ranting on SMML 8: Re: The Naval Base 9: colors for Kitty Hawk 10: Hood Wreck 11: Navis 12: Tamiya Missouri 13: Re: Paint for JMSDF Ships 14: Re: Navis, no flame here 15: Edwarad Wiswesser Plans 16: Re: Customer Service 17: Bitching about Navis 18: Re: SMML's "Objective"?? 19: Rivalry and how it starts 20: links 21: Re: USS Wright (CVL-49) 22: Navis 23: Re: Hood 24: USS Atlanta 25: Battle of Kormandorski Island 26: A bit OT: Combat Fleets of the World 27: Re: CV-8 28: Re: USS Wright (CVL-49) 29: HMS Furious Camouflage Schemes in WWII 30: Re: Removing Decals 31: HMS Ark Royal the first/HMS Pegasus 32: USS Wright (CVL-49) 33: Two responses 34: Re: Is SMML's objective to WIN? 35: Tamiya Fletcher 5" gun replacements? 36: Re: Flower Class Corvettes 37: Kobo Hiro Kits 38: Ship models 39: Re: OT: Space Battleship Yamato 40: BISMARCK, SCHARNHORST, KING GEORGE V reference titles? 41: Elco PT's and PC Boats 42: USS Hornet, CV-8 Reference 43: Re: Hood's Wreck - Answer from HMS Hood Association 44: Re: PG-71 Tenacity 45: Naval Base Hobbies 46: Re: Customer Service 47: Re: U-571 Movie 48: Flower Class Corvettes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: News from Gold Medal Models 2: 1/700 USS Wichita CA-45 kit 3: HELP 5 to 6 foot TITANIC 4: Naval Base Hobbies 5: Fleet Air Arm Model Show, and HMS Trenchant -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS Hi SMMLies, Regarding the ongoing debate on Navis. While the vast majority of posts on this subject have been reasonable, could we please try to confine posts on the matter to the questions raised. While I am happy for this debate to continue, I am sure none of us wish to see it turn into a flame war over Navis & it's publisher against the other sites, magazines etc. Posts arguing for & against are welcome, just be careful of what you write & if need be, back up any claims. While I am loath to close the thread down, I will do so if this thread deteriorates into flaming. Also, on a sidenote regarding the Starblazers thread, I personally have no problems with fantasy ships (NOT Starships) being on the list eg: Jules Verne's Nautilus, Skydiver (UFO), USS Seaview, Flying Sub (Voyage to the bottom of the sea) Seaquest, etc. Space Cruiser Yamato is probably stretching it a tad, but what the hell - gotta cater to those Y&%$#o bods I suppose ;-). Regards, Shane Jenkins SMML Listmaster -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Mike Subject: Re: Is SMML's objective to WIN? Norm wrote : >> I cannot agree with the following statement of BECJPARKER@aol.com. "In short SMML is a team sport and the objective is to win, you need to know who is on who's team and who's fan they are." I thought the objective of SMML was to have fun, not to "win." I have the impression that most (not all) model makers are reputable and trustworthy people who will give compliments where deserved, even if they compliment their competition. << Norm, You have hit the nail on the head 100% - we ARE about having fun. That's why Shane does his stuff, it's why I do the web site, it's why all of us build models (maybe a lot, maybe a little), and all of us get enjoyment out of whatever part of ship modeling we are into. Now, if we were about winning, would I support my wife to send in reviews of ships to Internet Modeler, a publication that could easily be seen by myself as a rival in the ships area? No, I'd make damn certain that they went into SMML Review pages! But I don't do that - those who read IM and the Ships area will have noticed that she's had a review in for the last two months - 16th Century ships, but they are plastic kits and thus also fall under the SMML umbrella As to being fans of each other - hell, very few on this List knew who I was before I set up the embryonic web site that changed into the SMML site - and that includes Shane! He'd seen an occasional post but that was all, until I decided that as I was getting a lot out of SMML it was only fair that I put something back into it. And yes, we do compliment other modelers, even if the others are rivals in whatever area - as you say, the vast majority (easily 95%, if not more) of modelers (be it ship, aircraft, figures, whatever) ARE decent people - and, more to the point, being in friendly competition with others forces us to raise our work to a higher level. Seeing what someone like Peter Hall can create spurs me on - I just wish I'd known him while we lived only a few miles apart, instead of being at opposite ends of the country! It's just sad that the very small minority of other "modelers" prefer to create dissent rather than models. Mike SMML Webmaster -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Satin, Michael N. (LNG-SHEP)" Subject: USS Hornet (CV-8) Morning everyone (or at least it is here in the Colorado high country). I'd like to do a Revell 1/480 Yorktown as the Hornet. I still have a set of instructions from the issue of the kit as the Midway Carriers, and they seem to indicate that the parts from the Yorktown are the ones needed (it was the Enterprise that had different pieces). I have three questions: 1. Am I out of my mind (not necessarily rhetorical)? 2. As I recall, this kit was once issued as a dedicated Hornet with B-25s. Does anyone have this issue they'd like to dispose of? If not, how about just the B-25s? 3. I also seem to recall someone doing a set of resin upgrades to this kit. Does anyone know who that is and how to get hold of them? (Yes, I know about the GMM set and am planning to get that too.) Thanks everyone, and I look forward to hearing from you, especially on question #1! ;-> Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Michael C. Smith" Subject: Re: Enterprise CV-6 in 1942 Enterprise's AA fit changed continuously throughout 1942, for you have to know which battle you want to portray her in. Ditto on Steve Ewing's book - it's a great reference. I can't remember what the 20mm tubs look like on that kit, but at that scale, they won't be hard to scratchbuilt - there are just a lot of them, that's all. Michael Smith -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "JODY KELM" Subject: Battleship Bismarck Sir, If you are inquiring to my friend how is a life time member of the Royal Marines,he lives here in Colorado. I am just trying to get as much information on the Bismarck as I can. So that I am able to build the Bismarck as accurately as possible. I'm just looking for answers! Sincerely, Chris Kelm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Doremus, Mark" Subject: Photoetch replacement Just the other night, I heard that "sprooiing" sound that a piece of photo etch makes as it accelerates to light speed and enters the black hole located under my modeling table. It had been a funnel grill for a 1/700 destroyer. I tried to replace the grill with .015" solder glued into place with CA. As I tried to trim up the solder, it broke off. OK, I removed the old CA that I had managed to glob all over the place. Then I tried to use some .0075" brass wire. I filed small notches in the plastic, set the brass into place and tried to attach it with 5 min epoxy. I managed to get one piece in place before the epoxy hardened. Again, as I tried to trim the part, it broke free. Any ideas out there for replacing the grill with out buying a complete new set of PE? How about adhesives or tips on using small batches of epoxy? TIA Mark Doremus Eden Prairie, MN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: GHE101@aol.com Subject: NAVIS VS THE WORLD I second the motion that we should not let the Navis Magazine appraisal degenerate into a pointless battle against competing sites. Nor should it become a debate about people who are striving to smear one another. The appraisal of any modeling site is not merely an issue of quality, for most sites are good. So we often turn to other factors, such as individual tastes and experiences. Surely, we cannot impose our personal standards and tastes on others, although we can share our experiences. My experiences with Navis were downright traumatic, but I suspect others have nothing but wonderful things to say. So let us leave this issue as expeditiously as possible and move on. SMML is a wonderful site, and it shouldn't get involved in a silly flame war that serves no good end. Believe me, I have been in flame wars with Navis, and they only end up burning all involved -- not to mention being a bloody waste of time and energy. Dr. George H. Elder -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: GrafSpee34@aol.com Subject: Ranting on SMML >> In short SMML is a team sport and the objective is to win, you need to know who is on who's team and who's fan they are. If you can't figure it out, I'm a Paolo and Navis Fan. <<< I thought the objective was to keep the martians from altering my brain waves. Am I on the wrong SIG list? Dave, HECK NO, the Venusians are far more deadly than Martians - I should know they told me all about it the other night. Shane - who's wondering where his ACME Alien protector is ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: KelDQ@aol.com Subject: Re: The Naval Base >> Has anybody heard from Shaya at Naval Base? I placed an order two weeks ago from his web site and haven't heard anything from him. He usually confirms the receipt of the order with an email. I have tried to call him three times and gotten no response. I'm becoming concerned. Does anybody know if he takes a winter Vacation? << I'm starting to become a bit concerned myself. I placed an order on November 4 for the 1/500 Nimitz he was advertising. He told me at the time of order that it would be available in December. In the mean time, I get my credit card statement and see that he had already charged the model to me before shipping it. In January I got hold of him, he told me there was a slight delay but it would be shipping very soon. I mentioned I didn't appreciate my card being charged before the model was shipped, he assured me everything would be fine. Here it is mid February, I too left another message on his machine and have heard nothing back. Shaya, if you're out there, I would at least like an update as to what is going on.... Kelly Quirk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: David_L._Miller@ccmail.wiu.edu Subject: colors for Kitty Hawk While I have built many models, I have built few modern plastic ships. I am doing an ARII model of the Kitty Hawk for a client. I have consulted a number of photos and the Kitty Hawk website (Great Picture!) and from these have guestimated some colors. I am dubious of my translation of the Japanese instructions that came with the ARII kit, as they would suggest the hull bottom is painted a shade of green. Before I proceede any further, are there any standard Model Master, Floquil, Tamaya, or Humbrol colors that would be proper for this model? I would be interested in recommendations for: Hull bottom Hull and Island Flight Deck Thank You. Dave Miller -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: Colin Ritchie Subject: Hood Wreck If for no other reason that to remind people here in the UK, and elsewhere of the sacrifice made by the crew of the Hood, I would welcome a survey of the wreck, No recovery of artefacts, or contact with the wreck at all. However a full survey of the debris field would help to lay some ghosts as well as reminding the general population just what war costs . I, on occasion get asked to take along my Hood and Bismarck models to various shows, what most people can't believe about the action is the speed everything happened and the huge loss of life, on both sides ultimately. The other thing that I still find amazing are the number of people I keep meeting what were effected by the loss. My brother in law's family lost someone on the Hood, and at an exhibition last year there was an old gentlemen who has served on the ship pre- WWII, and transferred ashore on the outbreak of was, needless to say he kept us talking for some time reminiscing about her, and saying nice things about my model . Colin Ritchie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: Colin Ritchie Subject: Navis I'm in my 3rd year of subscription to Navis, and I'm pretty happy with the mix of articles, and reference material. I've also corresponded with Palo on occasion, and have had nothing but polite responses back, so I'll carry on subscribing, But please let us not getting into another war over this, Colin Ritchie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "Doremus, Mark" Subject: Tamiya Missouri WOW! Picked this up at a local retailer last night for a father-son project. I think I get to pay for it, he gets to build it. He thinks that since I dabble in Braille scale, I can help him with the tiny details. Hahaha. It's a beautiful set of plastic, including the largest molded part I've ever seen in a kit. General Tamiya detail and quality, including two 20 page instruction booklets, Japanese and English/German. There are drawings for MS 22 and MS 33/22D camo schemes with port, starboard and overhead views. But of course we can't build it that way. He'd like to show off that huge teak wood deck. I know the paint was on the deck until just after the surrender, so we'd like to do her in a '45 to '50 fit. Any sources for information on Mo during that time period? Did she go to an overall haze gray (grey) or did the Navy use another color during that time period? Mark Doremus Eden Prairie, MN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: Mitsuaki Kubota Subject: Re: Paint for JMSDF Ships Hi John, TS-32 is canned spray color produced by Tamiya. But I think this color is too bluish for JMSDF ships. Surely, JMSDF gray is darker than other navy's light gray. But to the best of my knowledge, it is lighter than IJN dark gray. It seems to me that JMSDF gray resembles USAF medium gray (FS 26270). Deck colors slightly darker than hull and upperworks gray. Best regards, Mitsuaki Kubota -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Navis, no flame here >> Paolo and Navis as a publication and a reviewer of products offends a lot of people, by trying to write what you want, honest reviews and comments. In short SMML is a team sport and the objective is to win, you need to know who is on who's team and who's fan they are. If you can't figure it out, I'm a Paolo and Navis Fan. << I don't understand where this accusation comes from. I've been following this thread and NO ONE on this list has called names or made stupid accusations. ALL the comments here have been constructive criticism. Please look up what I said about Navis. No flame there. Only constructive criticism. If your skin is that thin, I would drop SMML. I fail to see where this "team" concept came from. Since when is it so bad to express your point of view in a polite manner without being placed on a team? I merely said "I chose to take my business elsewhere." The part about the name calling on Paolo's part is true. Sorry, but it is. I didn't mention the names and neither did the other writer on the same thread. No flame. Just polite, constructive criticism. As a matter of fact, I went out of my way to give Navis credit where credit was due. Also, although I am in the business, my company won't rise or fall because of my association with this list. Flagship was around long before SMML, and will be after it's gone (God forbid). So don't make us look so lopsidedly biased concerned only with our profit margin. If you enjoy Navis, great, but give others the same opportunity on this list to politely disagree. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: eugenek Subject: Edwarad Wiswesser Plans Apparently this gentleman has drawn plans of a Benson-Livermore Class Destroyer. I have also read where he has drawn plans of a Elco PT Boats. Does anyone know where I can obtain copies of these plans? Thanks in advance. Eugene P. Kessler Silver Spring MD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: SeaPhoto@aol.com Subject: Re: Customer Service Jean-Paul Binot writes: >> Beyond the regrettable behaviour displayed by Tom Walkowiak in this instance, it seems to me that ordering goods in the US might not be such a great idea for Europeans, since it involves rather hefty shipping costs, getting into customs hassle and having the risk of getting the order lost. This does not compare favourably with the alternative of ordering goods from European sources (such as WEM, for which Caroline Carter has always been super-efficient in providing top-quality and personalised service). << Some of my best customers are in Europe, and I have only had one ordered delayed at Customs for a few weeks, and none lost. Careful packaging, and filling out the Customs form correctly make shipping from America a fairly straightforward process, at least for my company. Shipping costs are higher to Europe, of course, but if the product comes from America in the first place, you will be paying those costs one way or another, whether you purchase from an American company direct, or through a European distributor. Kurt Greiner SeaPhoto Maritime Photography Detailed, on board and overhead photography of the current US and other Navies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: Joe Costanzo Subject: Bitching about Navis I think we all need to take a deep breath and look at the situation we're in. Model warships is among the smallest niches in the hobby of scale replicas. It's not an easy subject matter (try producing a detailed tank in 1/700 scale) nor are there many resources available. Look for AVF or Airplane modelling sites and publications and you'll come up with a slew of material. As for ship modelling... there isn't much out there, and believe me I've looked. Sure FSM does an article once in a while (missed the @$#% Missouri issues, if anyone has a scanner....) but I don't consider it a dependable source. Navis, on the other hand, has a great selection of modelling articles, reviews, tips, photo resources and more ship building stuff in one place than I've ever seen. Is it perfect? No, it has its problems. Is it useful? Absolutely. As to the flame war that has erupted, and re-erupted over and over, I'm sick of it. I gave up trying to figure out who was 'right' in this whole debate a long time ago. I'm not going to let a stupid argument ruin my having a good time, which is what this hobby is about. I subscribe to Navis because I consider it a valuable, relatively inexpensive resource. That's it. You guys can debate this thing until your fingers bleed. Me, I want to build ships. Joe Costanzo (nursing another hobby knife wound in his pinkie) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: "Melvin Burmaster" Subject: Re: SMML's "Objective"?? : I suspect very few who post on this site are lawyers, political scientists, logicians or philosophers, or if so of the foregoing, we generally do not care to intrude such banal and droll concerns onto these pages. However, we've seen printed on these pages an opining which does violence to any cogent and reasonable thought. The "opining" I refer to is the patent nonsense concerning what SMML "is about", that is, to promote(?) certain manufacturers and vendors. : In the vernacular, "what in hell are you talking about?" : In more elegant prose, such a representation is equivalent to "Newspeak" and "Rightthink." Such a representation may pass for reasoned thought among the intellectually challenged PC crowd (and I'm NOT writing about personal computers, people). But on these pages, based on the comments I've read, such a representation is a gratuitous insult to the intelligence. : Reminds me of my days in graduate school when I was called a "CIA agent." My response was "if so, I'm still waiting on the check." So we in reality participate on these pages because we're covert agitprop transmission belts for a manufacturer? Damn, and I'm waiting for several free resin models (my services are valuable, at least according to the marketplace) in payment therefore. : If so, would all those who are covert agitpop transmission belts for certain manufacturers please identify themselves. I'd like to contact them and have them bid for my services. I need to replenish my depleted inventory. MJBurmaster -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Rivalry and how it starts >> Please, please, Please, please, PLEASE! Do not let this list degenerate into a Navis vs. Warship/SMML death match. This crap nearly ruins the Warship Bulletin Board sometimes. << Now you know how this stuff starts. The word Warship has never been mentioned relating to the current Navis thread. Now thanks to you it has. Funny you mention not letting the thread to "degenerate" while you're contributing to it doing just that. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: Shirley Sachsen Subject: links I'm a new subscriber, so if the following is old news to everyone, forgive me. A wealth of information can be found at: http://www.uss-salem.org It links to all sorts of other nautical sites and contains a great deal on its own. I don't spend that much time websurfing, but when I do, it is at this site. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: louellet@uism.bu.edu Subject: Re: USS Wright (CVL-49) Michael C. Smith wrote: >> I am trying to find out this ship's eventual disposition. DANFS says as of 1979 she hadn't been scrapped, and Terz. (1989 ed.) says as of 1989 (may really be 1980) she was still in reserve in the Atlantic as a communications ship. Can anyone point me to a site that has final disposition of ships? << Somewhere in the many hundreds of US Navy web sites there is a list of all ships and their dispositions. I couldn't find it again, but here is a link I did find on the USS Wright: From: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-list1.html Ship Hull Comm. Decomm.[or loss] Wright 49 9 Feb 1947 11 May 1963 Disposition Converted to and commissioned as a command 15 Mar 1956 27 May 1970 ship. Disposed of, sold by Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS) for scrapping 1 Aug 1980 Larry Ouellette Volunteer, USS Salem (CA 139) U.S. Naval & Shipbuilding Museum, Quincy, Massachusetts http://www.uss-salem.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) From: Alan Lindstrom Subject: Navis Personally I thoroughly enjoy Navismagazine.com and have found Mr. Pizzi to be very patient and helpful with my dumb e-mail questions. Some of you have alluded to comparable or better modeling websites (free or otherwise). I would be interested in knowing what they are. Please do not mention Warship, which while a nice looking and interesting site, only updates infrequently and sporadically, rarely has interesting articles, and doesn't cover aircraft. Internetmodeler is a very nice site but gives only limited coverage to ships. Maritime Miniatures is a nice little site, but is limited in scope. Are there any other websites out there I should be checking out? Alan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) From: "David C. Maschino" Subject: Re: Hood >> 2. In the 1960s/70s, Soviet and American navies used Hood (at a depth of over 7,000 ft) as a magnetic anomoly mask for submarines. Not true at all. It all comes from some FICTION book (can't recall the title). We've heard his particular one several times... << I'm pretty sure that book is entitled "Red Storm Rising" by Tom Clancy. A truly excellent must-read too. Although fiction, Clancy has an uncanny way of making you think its real. I tell ya, forget all about U-571. If they ever put RSR to the big screen properly you'll have a ***MOVIE***. David C. Maschino Hi David, Sorry mate, Red Storm isn't the book in question. I've just finished re-reading it for the umpteenth time & agree it would make a very nice movie. However, back to the topic in question, the USSR subs were hiding near the Andrea Doria, not the hood. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) From: "chenyangzhang" Subject: USS Atlanta Hi Filipie My brain must have gone to sleep. I have an old Tamiya Enterprise which is slowly decaying and being stripped for spares. I'll be happy to supply you with the 1.1 inch guns you need (which I don't need anyway). Drop me a line with where you want me to send them. Chris Langtree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) From: "chenyangzhang" Subject: Battle of Kormandorski Island Hi John John Lorelli 'The Battle of the Kormandorski Islands' says both cruisers had their planes on board. Admiral McMorris initially issued orders for them to be launched but for various reasons this didn't happen and they stayed on board the cruisers throughout the action. Chris Langtree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) From: LYRAD801@cs.com Subject: A bit OT: Combat Fleets of the World Hello, I haven't posted here for a few weeks. I guess it was about time. I'm searching for some more opinions on the USNI's Combat Fleets of the World guides. I'm more interested in information than photography. I've heard that Combat Fleets has much more, and more accurate, information than Janes. Also, it supposedly covers police forces, auxiliaries, and Coast Guards more thoroughly. Hence the huge size of the book (1,288 pages). I know that many photos are of poor quality. I'm aware of the difficulty in finding good photos of foreign warships. I'm just looking for good information, and a lot of it. Is CFs obsessed with describing weapons, like Jane's? I borrowed a copy of Jane's '91 once. It got annoying, describing the Harpoon missile dozens of times. Is it all relegated to tables in the front of the book? Are the naval aircraft better described? Janes was really skimpy on information on smaller ships. It would say something like "200+ dinghies (photo here) and then Dimensions: End. I recently found a copy online for "only" $75.00. Scholar's bookshelf sells a 98-99 Jane's for $80.00. I'm pretty much looking for accurate information and some interesting browsing. I've gone a few years without a good naval reference, and I need something up-to-date and accurate. Thanks for all replies. Daryl. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) From: "Steven P. Allen" Subject: Re: CV-8 IIRC, there is a publication available through the Floating Drydock that is an extensive study of damage inflicted on CV-8, no doubt as part of the USN DC improvement program based on the experience gained with the Yorktown class. I do not remember the name, but it is intheir catalog. Doubtless, it will have lots of drawings, diagrams, and tex useful to a modeler. Steve Allen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28) From: drwells@hogpb.mt.att.com (David R Wells) Subject: Re: USS Wright (CVL-49) "Michael C. Smith" wrote: >> I am trying to find out this ship's eventual disposition. DANFS says as of 1979 she hadn't been scrapped, and Terz. (1989 ed.) says as of 1989 (may really be 1980) she was still in reserve in the Atlantic as a communications ship. Can anyone point me to a site that has final disposition of ships? << Try the Naval Vessels Register site at http://www.nvr.navy.mil/ The page for CVL-49/CC-2 is http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/CC2.htm, which indicates she was sold for scrapping 8/1/1980 David R. Wells "There seems to be something wrong | David R. Wells with our bloody ships today" | AT&T Middletown, NJ Adm. D. Beatty, May 31, 1916 | Email: drwells@hogpa.mt.att.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29) From: Dimitrios Apostolopoulos Subject: HMS Furious Camouflage Schemes in WWII In response to Bob Chenoweth's question: Dear Bob, I have looked at a number of publications, photos, and notes about HMS Furious and have converged to the following: 1. AUGUST 1939: A portside view of Furious leaving Davenport seems to indicate that she was painted in an overall medium grey color, but it appears that her stern is in a very dark color (possibly black?). This photo is in Profile Warship, issue #24. 2. LATE FALL 1940: An oblique aerial view of her taken on November 7, 1940 shows no deck camouflage and newly painted deck markings. The same photo offers a partial view of Furious' portside which appears to be painted in a single color. I have found this photo in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) of the US. 3. SPRING 1941: My guess is that Furious was painted in the multi-colored First ADM scheme sometime in late winter or spring of 1941. This intriguing scheme was carried on her decks as can be seen in quite a number of photographs. The depiction of colors in the Profile centerfold is at least suspicious. My sense is that the scheme carried colors such as 507A-507C-MS1-MS2-B5, but I have no hard evidence to prove that. Starboard shots of this scheme are rare and not of great quality. She retained this scheme until at least after the completion of her refits at Philadelphia which lasted for six months from October 1941 to the end of March 1942. Photographic references on Furious' First ADM disruptive scheme * Quarter port-bow close-up view, early spring 1942, at Philadelphia, source: US NARA * Broad starboard view, early Spring 1942, at Philadelphia, source: US NARA and W. G. D. Blundell's book on "British Aircraft Carriers" * Broad portside view, March 1942, source: R. Chesneau's "Aircraft Carriers of the World" book, underexposed photo * Direct overhead view, August 1941, source: C. A. Jenkins' Profile Warship #24 * Broad starboard, source: Profile Warship #24 4. MID SUMMER 1942: Sometime in late spring 1942 Furious was painted in a new ADM scheme. Existing photographic evidence suggests that she retained the deck camouflage with the new scheme but I do not know for how long. The small illustration in the warship profile book represents this scheme but is mistakenly identified as Furious' 1939 scheme. This scheme seems to include colors from the new G and B range which were introduced in mid 1942 according to A. Raven's article in PSM, but it is very difficulty to judge from black and white photos. It is possible that the colors were G5, B15, G20 (green color or is it B30?), G45, and white. Photographic references: * Two clean starboard views (broad and quarter), July 1942, source: Warship Profile #24 * Oblique aerial of starboard, July 10, 1942, source: US NARA, shows new ADM camouflage but deck's camouflage scheme appears to be the same as in 1941! * Broad portside view, July 10, 1942, source: US NARA, shows new ADM scheme 5. MID 1943: Furious is wearing a simplified version of the 1942 ADM scheme. The most obvious differences are that the "blue" (possibly B15) thin elongated panel on the portside has been removed and a light grey (possibly G45) has replaced white everywhere. You may want to obtain the following 3 photos from the IWM: A17560 Broad starboard view, clean close-up A17561 Broad starboard view, wider than A17560 A17562 Broad portside view that clearly illustrates the simplification over the 1942 ADM pattern; I can distinguish only 3 colors in the portside scheme. 4. 1943-44? It seems that the 1942 ADM was modified once again. I do not actually have enough information to say with conviction that the second modification took place in 1943. The only photographic evidence of this scheme can be found in R. Jackson's "The Royal Navy in WWII" book; it is a starboard view of Furious. I have found no other photos of this scheme. The Warship Profile book and US NARA have a photo of HMS Furious taken in 1944 which shows an oblique aerial view of her flight deck. It is quite clear that the flight deck is not camouflaged. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Dimi -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30) From: "James Johnson" Subject: Re: Removing Decals There is absolutely no way to remove decals for reuse. The way decals work, is that they have a water soluble glue that attaches them to the backing paper. This paper is chosen for this use because of it's permeability. The water gets through the paper and dissolves the glue, releasing the decal. Most of the glue stays with the decal if it is applied correctly and glues the decal to the model. In order to unglue the decal, you would have to get the glue wet again, which is impossible. Removal of decals without saving them is very hard to do also. Poly-s / Floquil and now hopefully Testors makes a product called Easy Lift Off. This is designed to remove decals and paint. The time period between the point that the decal is softened and the paint is not affected yet is very small. I have yet to remove a decal and not have to touch up the paint job. Decals, once wetted, can stay on the backing paper until the paper dries out, usually about a half hour, depending on humidity, temp etc. If it dries out, it can be re-wetted without any problem. This can be done and redone many times. The only problem is that the glue may get diluted. If this happens, thin some white glue about 1/2 and 1/2 with water and apply it under the decal. If you use a solvent on your decals, the extra glue shouldn't be necessary. If you have any questions about the compatibility of the solvent and the decal, test it first. Most sheets have some decals on it that you won't use, even if it's the manufacture's logo. Most of the decals I have removed is because the solvent wrinkled the decal permanently. If you test the decals before using them, you can also determine if the decals will break up when they are wetted. This is caused by the decals being exposed to extremes of humidity and temperature. The paper and decal expand and contract at different rates and, depending on the brand, age, etc., the paper expands more than the decal and fractures. This is not noticeable until you wet the decal and then it is usually to late. If you do this with a spare decal from the sheet you can repair the decal before you use it. The way to do this is to cover it with Micro Scale's Superfilm. Paint it on with a clean brush. There is no need to airbrush, but you can, since the Superfilm is self leveling. I usually wait 10 to 15 minutes and give the decals a second coat. The problem then is that you have to trim each decal as close a possible since the entire sheet is now covered with film. In order to minimize this problem, whenever I buy a kit or decal sheet, I put it in a plastic air tight baggy. I have different sizes, from snack size to 2 gallon freezer bags. Most decal manufactures put their product in zip lock bags and some kit manufactures seal their decals in plastic bags. If you do this, the decals will last for a long,long time. I know that all you guys build what you buy and don't buy another kit until the current one is completed, but for the few of you who get a few kits ahead, bagging your decals will keep them until you get aroundtuit. I didn't mean for this to be this long. I've been decaling for over 40 years and have learned many lessons the hard way. Perhaps I'll expound some more soon, if my 5 yr old lets me alone long enough. (You ought to see the models collection this kid is going to get some day). Jim Johnson IPMS 1788 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31) From : Mike Dunn Subject: HMS Ark Royal the first/HMS Pegasus >> Looking for information on the first HMS Ark Royal, a WWI seaplane carrier later renamed to HMS Pegasus, I found a reference to an article in Warship International. It's in Vol 13, No 2, dated 1976. Would some kind soul be prepared to dig this out and copy it for me? I would cover any reasonable costs << Actually, this was (I seem to recall) the second Ark Royal......the first was a 16th Century vessel used in the Spanish Armada......January's Internet Modeler has a review of the kit that's available on her. As to this Ark Royal, I looked into the details on Pegasus some years ago (before the web became such a reference), and was easily able to get info. Unfortunately, I no longer have that info, but check in your local library for WWI references - I did & found quite a bit. Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: USS Wright (CVL-49) Michael... Try going to http://www.uss-salem.org/navhist/carriers/us_light.htm This site has a lot of great info about Aircraft Carriers in general (notably US Carriers). According to this source, the ship was decommissioned 27 May 1970, stricken 1 Dec 77, and scrapped in 1980. Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org http://www.onelist.com/community/iscandar-66 http://www.onelist.com/community/USS_Oriskany -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33) From: "Phil Gollin" Subject: Two responses First; The "Matchbox" 1/72nd Corvette is due out this year from Revell (Has any one ACTUAL confirmation yet?) If so, Flightpath should provide various upgrade sets (including possibly if demand is high enough a replacement hull !). Flightpath may also release some 1/72nd Coastal Forces, including an Anti-sibmarine Trawler. Second; The U-571 movie seems to take bits of three true stories; The capture of U-570 (by a Coastal Command Hudson aircraft) and it's evaluation and operation as HMS Graph The capture of enigma material by HMS Petard from U-559 (the only ship to sink a German, Italian & Japanese sub) The capture of a four-rotor enigma and crytographic material from U-110 by HMS Bulldog ("The Secret Capture") The point of the enigma machine (and similar) was that the capture of an actual machine was not really that important. The rotors were more important, but even the capture of these were not regarded as having compromised the security of the cypher system by the Germans, what was were the rotor settings and the plug-board settings. That shows the measure of the mathematical, "cribs", mechanical-calculating and electronic-calculating break-throughs that the Poles followed by Bletchley Park acheived. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34) From: BECJPARKER@aol.com Subject: Re: Is SMML's objective to WIN? I have to keep this going. To Charles and Norm : There are three basic types of people on this list: Players - Those that are in the hobby business. They have teams made up of people that work for them or receive favors from them in some form or fashion. They want to win 'e.g.', make money it's their living (the way it should be in a market society). Fans-They are people that take sides when they see other players or fans take shots at the player/teams they support. Spectators-They are people that watch the game and really don't care what the out come is. (most likely the average modeler on this list, that likes to build his models and have access to the products he wants) It's just like Football or baseball all the (players-teams) want to win and go to the super bowl or world series. That's not bad, that's the way it should be. My point is that the spectators (most of the hobbyist on the list) should understand that a lot of what is going on, on SMML is competition at the highest level. Anyone that thinks that the people in the hobby business are not trying to win is living in a fantasy world. Who wants to run a business and not win, have to close down and go broke? My point is that the spectators (Many of the people on this list) don't understand this and think, that guy must be a real SOB all these people are saying all these bad things about them. When what you are seeing when someone bash a manufacturer, a publication, a product, or one of the people associated with one, is most of the time just the game being played. After rereading what Yohan wrote yesterday I think he is the victim of seeing the game being played (if he is a spectator) and not knowing what's going on. Also after being in the hobby business for almost 10 years I'll tell you this isn't paranoid delusion it's just business as usual. My point is understand it, don't get upset, mad or defensive just understand. (That is of course unless you are a Player, team member or fan, then do what you can to see that your team wins). It's like they say at the track, "you can't tell the horse from the jockey without a program." Get a program. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35) From: "Mike Taylor" Subject: Tamiya Fletcher 5" gun replacements? Are there any kits out there that have decent replacements for the Tamiya 5" closed mounts? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36) From: "graham" Subject: Re: Flower Class Corvettes Revell is releasing this kit in the UK this year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Kobo Hiro Kits Pacific Front Hobbies carries and stocks a large selection of this manufacturers products. Go to www.pacificfront.com Steve Wiper -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38) From: "Phil Gollin" Subject: Ship models In my latest "Newsletter of the Society for Nautical Research" (No. 37, February 2000), the following notice appears on page 6; 31 March - 2 April 2000 Ship Modellers Association, RMS Queen Mary, Los Angeles Fourth Western Ship Model Conference and Exhibit The conference will be held aboard the RMS Queen Mary at Long Beach, California and will include a tour to the J. Paul Getty Museum. There will be a presentation by experts on Maritime History, ship and boat building, model building and nautical research, whilst the centrepiece of the conference will be the exhibit of over three hundred ship models. For further details, contact: Monica Chaban, 5950 Canterbury Drive, C204 Culver City, CA 90230. E-mail: conf@ship-modelers-assn.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Re: OT: Space Battleship Yamato We really need to drop this thread...but I must admit, it's more positive than the bash Navis thread. I guess that's saying something. Robert Said: >> Just to let you know, a series of 'translated' manga were published in the 80's and inside the front cover of issue #1, there is what appears to be blue-printed, cutaway drawings of the Yamato with the 'mods' on it. It is a sleeker version of the ship and only slightly resembles the one in the animation (Reiji Matsumoto's art is akin to Dr Seuss',) I have wanted to do a 'convert the Tamiya kit' project, keeping in mind that if Mr Speilburg were to do a 'live action' SCY (rumors were that Disney was planning one a few years ago), how close would the 'shooting model' be? << Jeeze, and to think how paranoid I was a few months back to even bring up the name of the show here. Thinking about it now though, there is a natural draw to this show (WWII naval warfare in space). I compared my 1:500 SBB kit with my 1:450 Hasegawa BB one...the differences are mind boggling. I'll say it again...it would be easier to scratchbuild a 1:350 model of the ship than it would be to convert the Tamiya kit. I mean, you'd have to chunk 95% of the kit. There are just too many differences. Books on the show are becoming increasingly difficult to find anymore. They show up on ebay from time to time (at highly inflated prices). The best book for mechanical drawings (and one I refer to quite often) was "Tokuma Shoten's Roman Album #54 - Space Cruiser Yamato Perfect Manual 2." This one can still be found occassionally, but you really have to look for it. The five vols of the WCC Anime Comics (an english translated comic adaption of SB1 [first season]) can be found new from a number of sources. This isn't the best source for tech drawings though (but issue/vol #1 included a decent side-view blueprint of the ship). Musashi Enterprises produces a SB Fleet Battle Game for which they put out a Technical Manual ($30). It's not 100% accurate as far as the show goes (re: they made a lot of stuph up not covered in the show), but the drawings are great. Their website is: http://members.aol.com/neghvar2/index.htm A good reference site for the show, with links and addresses for companies offering merchandise from the show is... http://www.primenet.com/~kosh/YAMATO/yamato.htm A few modeling sites worth checking out include... http://www.creativetype.com/kg/yamato/yamato.html http://dougd.interspeed.net/argomk2.htm http://starshipmodeler.com/gallery/km_ymto.htm http://starshipmodeler.com/gallery/md_argo.htm http://www.starshipmodeler.com/yamato/yamato.htm http://www.starshipmodeler.com/yamato/patcrusr.htm http://design.archdev.com/yamato/yamatohome.html (check out the Wunderfest Gallery on this site!!) http://www.justbetoys.com/yamato/index.html To see the big limited edition 1:200 (wood) Yamato and 1:350 (resin) Andromeda, go to... http://www.hlj.com/shs/bigyamato.jpg http://www.hlj.com/shs/bigandromeda.jpg And for those of you into 3D Computer generated models, go to... http://www.geocities.com/edf_shipyards/ This site is owned by a buddy of mine, and he has a wonderful 3D model of the Space Battleship Arizona that appeared briefly in SB3 (third season). And no...it doesn't look a thing like the one in Pearl Harbor. This Arizona was a modified Andromeda. Disney was planning to do a live-action SB movie a few years back, but the last I heard this has been shelved due to complications associated with the original producer (Yoshinobu Nishizaki) being incarcerated on drug and illegal weapons charges, and the transferral of at least some of the rights to Matsumoto in the course of Nishizaki's declaring bankruptcy after Yamato 2520 flopped. Suffice it to say, it became a copyright owners nightmare, and Disney couldn't be sure they would have a legal ground to stand on while all of this bogged down in the Japanese court system. There are still some lingering debates within the fandom about how much longer VEI will maintain the US rights to SB given all of this. Probably best...some inside sources I had informed me they were planning to drop the Yamato angle all together and have the Arizona be rebuilt as a Space Battleship. The idea being to shift the focus of the story to one with more of an American perspective. A lot of us felt if they were going to do this, it should be the Missouri. According to a friend of mine (who was on the Argo Press comics staff a few years back), the producer insisted that it had to be a "US battleship sunk in wartime". Well, there weren't too many of those, now were there. Recent discussions on this have suggested they oughta use the Yorktown (hey, it's there and unlike either the Yamato or Arizona, it's pretty much in one piece!) The only positive thing I EVER heard about this project was their hope to cast Sean Connery as Capt Avatar. I mean, in one draft of the script Nova was to be a cyborg (ala Sandor) who was the engineer (rather than the radar officer/nurse) who designed and oversaw the reconstruction of the SBB Arizona, and later turned out to be Desslok's daughter. Yeah, us die hards were foaming at the mouth over some of this. >> A sideline here, a group of us were sitting around in 1984 and were working on the cast for a live action version. Here are some of the ideas << You're not the only ones...just different results. Everyone seemed to have their own answers for that one. Dasvidanya! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40) From: Zeljko Hanich Subject: BISMARCK, SCHARNHORST, KING GEORGE V reference titles? Hi SMMLies, I hope somebody could give me a piece of advice. I am looking for the best reference titles regarding Bismarck, Scharnhorst and King George class battleships? As many good photo and drawings as possible, as well as good story. Several options for each of listed ships would be highly appreciated. What would be the best on-line source for naval, military, aviation titles? What is the best book-search site (new books, used one)? URL please? Many thanks for your effort and help. Zeljko Hanich -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41) From: "Bruce Simard" Subject: Elco PT's and PC Boats Gents; Since I'm at present finishing the Jag Collective Higgins 78 ft PT, I was just wondering if anyone on the list has built the Iron Shipwright Elco PT or the PC Craft. These are the 1/350th scale versions. None of my local shops carry these, so I'll have to mailorder sight unseen. Although the Higgins Boat may not be perfect, for the price, I'm extremely happy with the results. With a little work, (nothing exotic), a decent little boat can be had. Another benefit is for $ 20.00 you get 2, which means you can do several versions at a great price. I'm hoping the IS Elco is decent, allowing us to build up a great little collection. These plus the upcoming releases from White Ensign promises well for those who enjoy the small Gunboats. Maybe we can get them interested to produce a late war E-boat, or even an Italian MAS boat. Any info on the Iron Shipwright Elco and PC would be appreciated. TIA Bruce -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42) From: "James Kloek" Subject: USS Hornet, CV-8 Reference Floating Drydock published a book on the Hornet, "Warship's Battle Damage Report No. 1 USS Hornet (CV8). The copywrite date is 1985. It is similar to the Squadron In Action Books in size. It details the damage suffered by the Hornet at Santa Cruz, but also has a lot of other good photographs and drawings. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43) From: "John Snyder" Subject: Re: Hood's Wreck - Answer from HMS Hood Association >> 2. In the 1960s/70s, Soviet and American navies used Hood (at a depth of over 7,000 ft) as a magnetic anomoly mask for submarines. Not true at all. It all comes from some FICTION book (can't recall the title). << That would be "The Bedford Incident", also made into a movie. John Snyder -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44) From: "John Snyder" Subject: Re: PG-71 Tenacity >> Most likely Measure 12 according to Ellis's Warship Camouflage. 1942 saw widespread use of it. A graduated system of colors starting at the hull and getting lighter as you go up most usually Sea Blue was the darkest applied in a lobe pattern with Ocean Grey merging into it. On the upper works the Ocean Grey became the Darker color,with Haze Grey or light grey being the lighter tone No two Ships were exactly alike. the upper works could be dappled or streaked depending on the dockyard. << Sven is probably correct as regards TENACITY wearing Ms.12 (modified), though it would be good to find a picture of her to make sure. The only correction I would add is that by 1942 the darkest color would have been Navy Blue 5-N, since the Atlantic Fleet dropped the use of Sea Blue 5-S in October 1941, on the orders of Admiral King. John Snyder Snyder & Short Enterprises The Paint Guys -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45) From: "Michael C. Smith" Subject: Naval Base Hobbies I placed a photoetch order about a month ago and just received it - I was starting to wonder as well, but it came just fine, and the shipping was two dollars cheaper than the price I expected. Michael Smith -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46) From: Lim Chan Hiok Subject: Re: Customer Service >> Beyond the regrettable behaviour displayed by Tom Walkowiak in this instance, it seems to me that ordering goods in the US might not be such a great idea for Europeans, since it involves rather hefty shipping costs, getting into customs hassle and having the risk of getting the order lost. This does not compare favourably with the alternative of ordering goods from European sources (such as WEM, for which Caroline Carter has always been super-efficient in providing top-quality and personalised service). << I beg to differ. I've ordered from Tom and the order was incomplete, emailed him and he sent a replacement, no questions asked, all the way to Malaysia. Also I had a missing order from Model Expo, they sent by surface mail (odd!, as they normally use airmail), just got my replacement (after 7 months, only b'cos I asked them not to send the replacement until I waited out 6 months(time for surface mail). On the other hand, I had problems with a UK company, not WEM (Caroline was superb!), after emailing to and froth for 2 months, I got fed-up and re-ordered from Amazon.com. As for custom hassles, I now use UPS when ordering from the US as they handle all customs declaration, I only pay them the taxes when I collect. Guess that should be the way they operate in Europe too. Hiok KUching,Malaysia -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47) From: Sanartjam@aol.com Subject: Re: U-571 Movie Hi SMML, Regarding the upcoming movie "U-571," I understand that the film's makers have gone to great lengths to add language to the film (at the beginning or at the end I don't know) to give due credit to the Royal Navy for boarding U-110 and capturing Enigma materials. I think that this and other efforts have satisfied some of those who felt the movie wrongly gave Americans credit for what the Royal Navy accomplished. This is an important matter for me, since I had a British stepgrandfather who served in the Royal Navy (at Narvik on the Hero and later on the Valiant) who deeply resented the Americans who thought they had won the war all by themselves. It also makes me cringe at the modern-day version of the same sort of chauvinism. Having said that, I'm at a loss to understand why people seem to have automatically connected the movie "U-571" with the story of U-110. I'm no expert, but I think at least four U-boats were boarded or captured during World War II, namely, U-110, U-570, U-559, and U-505, the first three by the Royal Navy and the fourth, lo and behold, by the U.S. Navy. Given that three other boats were boarded or captured, why jump to the conclusion that the movie was really just a re-enactment of the story of U-110? At any rate, this has gotten me interested in building a model of the U-110, which I understand was a Type IXB boat. Does anyone know what rig she was in when she was boarded and captured in 1941? More to the point, could you make a U-110 out of the Nichimo 1/200 U-107, also a Type IXB boat? Not that I could hope to do better than the beautiful models of Type IX boats built by my neighbor in Austin, Texas, Tom Eisenhour, but it would still be fun to build one. One last thing question. I understand that Captain Roskill wrote a book about the U-110 incident called "The Secret Capture." Can anyone tell me anything about it? Thanks in advance. Art Nicholson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48) From: "Pletscher-Lenz-Schneider" Subject: Flower Class Corvettes Just show a little patience. Revell has announced the re-issue of the former Matchbox kit of BLUEBERRY for the second quarter of 2000. Falk Pletscher -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Loren Perry Subject: News from Gold Medal Models Three more new GMM items are now entering the prototype (test piece) stage: 1. No. 700-28 - 1/700 scale Assorted Cable Reels. Contains ninety-six (96) 3-D relief-etched cable/hawser reels in twelve (12) styles, four of each style, including USN, RN, IJN, and KM designs. Specific reels for Yamato, Missouri, Fletcher, Hood, Bismarck, others are included. Stainless steel. Price: $5.00 USD. Available Spring 2000. 2. No. 350-23 - 1/350 scale Assorted Cable Reels. Same details as above, 3-D relief-etched in brass. Price: $8.00. Available Spring 2000. 3. No. 250-6 - 1/250 scale Yamato detail set. This very large set contains complete railing (including "drooped chain" type rails for main deck with pre-shaped bow sections), ladders, radar, catapults, crane, aircraft and boat details, anemometers, doors, many other fittings, all relief-etched in 3-D brass. Includes illustrated instruction sheet. Price: $80.00. Available Spring 2000. Please, please wait until these sets' availability has been officially announced before ordering. We expect most of them to be ready around early to mid-April of this year. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: 1/700 USS Wichita CA-45 kit Classic Warships has shipped the pattern for the 1/700 Wichita kit to the casters last week, who are making the molds as we speak. The kit should be ready about the 1st. of March (I hope?). The first 50 kits will be available ONLY thru Pacific Front Hobbies, who is accepting advanced orders at this time. To view pictures of this pattern, go to www.classicwarships.simplenet.com Thanks, Steve Wiper - Classic Warships -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Shaya Novak" Subject: HELP 5 to 6 foot TITANIC I have a bonifide customer looking for a 5 to 6 ft Titanic built. Anybody know of any thing? Shaya Novak Naval Base Hobbies The Store for The Model Ship Builder www.modelshipbuilding.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Shaya Novak" Subject: Naval Base Hobbies Yes Virginia (& Loren) there is a Y2K problem. At the end of Dec. to early Jan. our orders were knocked off to planet Pluto by our webserver. You wouldn't believe what a a cock and bull story they told me. Then again late January it happpened this time to Saturn. Both times for a week. If you ordered at those times we didn't get it. I'm switching servers. Now for the Great news The 1/500 Nimitz's will dock tommorrow. and CHEAPER THAN I HAD ANTICIPATED rebates in store for those lucky customers. Shaya Novak Naval Base Hobbies The Store for The Model Ship Builder www.modelshipbuilding.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Caroline Carter" Subject: Fleet Air Arm Model Show, and HMS Trenchant Hi Guys, We have just had the new Maritime Books publication in stock. "DESTROYERS OF THE ROYAL NAVY "IN FOCUS" SINCE 1945, Warlow, h/b, 96pp, 90 photos, extended captions 9.99 POUNDS ($16.00) plus shipping AT COST Also, we have just taken delivery of the WEM 1/350 HMS TRENCHANT 1999. The kit is beautifully cast resin, as is the conning tower... literally no clean up required. The smaller parts are very cleanly cast high quality white metal, as good as the best Waveline white metal quality (and anyone who knows me knows that I normally hate the stuff!). The photoetched brass provides additional details. If you'd like to check out my feature on the kit with photos of all parts, please click below. http://whiteensignmodels.simplenet.com/trenchant/trenchant.htm Peter Hall's already built his, haven't you Peter? He will be bringing it down to the Fleet Air Arm Model Show on the 26th February for us to have on the stand... unless he enters it of course! I'll also have Jim Baumann's beautiful 1/700 WARSPITE (as seen on the WEM pages). We're hoping for a bunch of SMMllies to pay our stand a visit on that date. Huge model show this, the largest one-day show in Britain. Great family day out as well, with the unique "Carrier Experience" being great fun for adults and kids alike. We'll be in the Swordfish Centre behind the restaurant, so you don't even have to pay if you just want to come and buy something or chat.. and as usual, we'll have specials on the day. Also, it'll be the first outing for the White Ensign Models Carrier Bags (with a pic of HMS Invincible on the side!). This stunning creation is a Special Edition, only free to anyone with an order value of more than ten pounds from us at the show!! In case you didn't know it already, WEM are sponsoring the show along with Toyway, and have a stunning (returnable!) trophy by way of a large wood-mounted brass plaque with a 10 inch long engraving of HMS Illustrious in the brass done by a local artist. This is the "Grey Funnel Trophy", and will be awarded for the best warship or auxiliary model, and will be presented by the Royal Navy Top Brass towards the end of the show.. or perhaps by me! Thanks for hanging around! Caroline Carter (Where the sun's shining today!!) http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/white.ensign.models White Ensign Models -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for having SMML at your home, why not stop by our home at: http://www.smml.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume