Subject: SMML VOL 875 Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 23:24:57 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Pearl Harbor movie update 2: Re: The ultimate "might have beens" that were 3: Re: Waveline cruisers 4: Re: HerkyBird trials on Forrestal 5: HMS BELFAST 6: Re: Scratch building hulls 7: Hornet & JAG 8: London 9: Re: Vac form help 10: Re: Pearl Harbor 11: P-51 and Blackburn Buccaneer 12: Re: HMS Wellington 13: Re: Pearl Harbor 14: Scratch building hulls 15: Re: Model Master paints 16: Pearl Harbor movie 17: Re: P-51s and the Blackburn Buccaneer 18: Re: Odd Navy Planes 19: Buccaneer Might-Have-Been 20: USS Forrestal & C-130s 21: Ships stored in Newport, RI 22: USN might have beens 23: Re: Odd Navy Planes 24: sense of humor? 25: ESSEX cruise book 26: thanks for the tour guide info 27: Re: Sale of Essex class CV's 28: Buccanner vs Intruder 29: Stripping Paint 30: Re: Sale of ESSEX CVs?? 31: Re: P-51s and the Blackburn Buccaneer 32: Re: F111-B 33: Re: F-111B, P-51s, C-130s and ESSEX CVs 34: Re. Fleet Air Arm aircraft and Blackburn Bucaneer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Fernando, Yohan" Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor movie update >>It is with some disappointment that I post this message. Judging from photographs being taken in Pearl Harbor, there will be no large battleship models built for this movie. What we'll get are attacks on destroyers carrying one five-inch mount forward. << I'm going to be optimistic here for what its worth... but could it be that these destroyers are merely filling in as 'place holders' for the real battleship images that will be done with CG overlays? Basically, they would be guides for the pilots and the cameras to set up their runs and camera shots, but for the film, computer generated images of the BBs would be overlayed on top of them. These days, more special effects are done with CG then with large scale models. While I don't think the movie's producer having a track record that includes such silliness as 'Armageddon' bodes well for the film's plot, I would hope that they would still strive to make the visuals a little more realistic than a couple of old destroyers filling in for Battleship Row. Just a thought. Don't give up hope...yet. Yohan Fernando Hi gang, I was going to suggest the above, but Yohan has put it better than I could ;-) Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: The ultimate "might have beens" that were The ultimate on this subject has to the C-130 that landed on an AC carrier as a trial to see if it was possible. Sorry, I can't recall the ship. I just recall seeing a photo of the successful landing. Now that pilot had guts. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: SHIPMDLR@aol.com Subject: Re: Waveline cruisers Did your cruiser have raised deck markings? I have the California and the warning stripes and helopad markings are all raised and a real pain in the butt to remove without damaging the surrounding detail. I was curious if they had stopped doing this on their latest releases. Rusty White Flagship Models Inc. http://www.okclive.com/flagship/ "Yeah I want Cheesy Poofs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Christopher Crofoot Subject: Re: HerkyBird trials on Forrestal Yes, Virginia, The Herkybird did land on a Carrier! And did it well too! There are pics and an explanation of why Here. Chris -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: JRuotsala@aol.com Subject: HMS BELFAST CAN SOMEONE EMAIL ME THE ADDRESS FOR THE HMS BELFAST IN LONDON? SAW IT ON THE RIVER WHEN I WAS IN LONDON LAST SEPTEMBER BUT WAS UNABLE TO GO ABROAD. THANKS JIM RUOTSALA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Matthew Prager" Subject: Re: Scratch building hulls Rusty wrote: >> I have really enjoyed the scratch building thread as of late. I'd like to know the ways to scratch build a hull from the folks on this list...Anyone know a better way? << I use several ways, including the one you described, Rusty. It all depends on the plans/drawings I have available (hull lines or deck drawings). Some of the ships I've done I've been able to get the ship's deck layout drawings from the subject's SHIP'S INFORMATION BOOK (SIB) VOL. 1. These layout drawings cover each deck/compartment on the ship. I reduce them to the appropriate scale (normally 1/700)on white paper, then cut out each deck and white glue it to a piece of sheet basswood of the required thickness. I cut out the basswood and glue the deck together, bread and butter style. Then its sanding until the hull is the proper shape, slightly undersize to compensate for a .010 sheet styrene outer covering that is superglued over the basswood. I use this form as a master plug for a RTV mold and then pour a resin copy. I've had excellent results with this method. Matt Prager -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Shirley Sachsen Subject: Hornet & JAG From: NAVYDAZE@aol.com >> She has come a long way and looks nothing like she used to including the thick sprayed on insulation/protective that covered the entire flightdeck. << That was fun to remove, BTW. The problem was stripping it off without damaging the nonskid and wood beneath. We started out with snow shovels, but graduated to roofing spades. First we had to peel back the asphalt/fibreglas mat (it weighed a ton!) like blubber from a whale... then we'd scrape off the foam beneath in big chunks. The foam thickness varied: sometimes the asphalt was right on the deck, and in other places it was several inches thick. In one of the gun mounts, it was 7 feet thick. Some of the added troubles were that we had to make sure none of this stuff ended up in the bay, and when the wind kicked up in the afternoon, foam was going everywhere. We ended up using the liferaft racks as windbreaks. We of the V1 Division Flight Deck Restoration Crew cleared 60% of that stuff off the deck in 30 days. She is now sparkling with some additional help from the USS ORISKANY as parts where used from her including the two massive radar screens that have been added. The dish and bedspring antennas were mounted just before Grand Opening in October '98. Now the bedspring rotates, and we have it running on 'Living Ship' days once a month. We got lots of other 'pointy things' off the Oriskany, too. We also acquired Oriskany's escalator. Right now our escalator is being painstaking restored using remanufactured and fabricated bearings by BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) employees who are donating their time and talent. So when the escalator is once again functional, Hornet visitors might actually be riding on Oriskany's treads. s -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "chenyangzhang" Subject: London HI Falk You may also want to try the Imperial War Musuem photo archives (you need to book in advance though). For spending there's Hannants Model Shop just outside Collindale Tube Station (turn right out of the entrance). Bookshops worth a visit are AJ Symonds at 23 Nelson Road in Greenwich Quinto at 48A Charing Cross Road - superb value (don't go to the military bookshop just round the corner - its a ripoff) Motor Books in St Martin's Court (very near Quinto) and Foyles 113-119 Charing Cross Road which has an excellent naval section. Chris Langtree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: SantMin@aol.com Subject: Re: Vac form help >> The best way to make molds is to do it the way the vac from guys have done all along. The "male" master pattern has to be made from solid styrene or wood with metal details added last. Be sure to add a piece of plastic on the bottom of the male part to elevate it from the deck of the vac forming machine. This is important so the plastic sheet will be drawn under the edge a bit. << A male mold is OK if you have no detail scribed on the master. A female mold, while a lot more work, is much, much better because you suck the soft plastic into the mold and any small details are now on the OUTSIDE of the reproduction where they belong. I make my master and them make an RTV Rubber mold of it resulting in a "soft" negative (or female mold). THen I make an RTV rubber mold of that resulting in a "soft" positive (or copy of the master). Then I make a hard resin casting in that which is a "hard" negative (or female) that I use in vac-forming copies of the master that have all the detail of the master and are not the thickness of the plastic bigger than the master. Cheers, Bob Santos. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Steven P. Allen" Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor I posted the URL to the Pearl Harbor pic on tankers.net and got this repsonse: >> Actually, Steve, the Knox Class frigates in the picture are only "placeholders" ... in the movie they will be overlayed with CGI images of the actual BBs. A similar process was used in the Special Edition Star Wars, and Phantom Menace, where actual actors were shot for the scenes with Jabba the Hutt (the one where Solo confronts him next to the Falcon) and Jar-Jar. The computerized characters were then dumped onto the film. The only major technical problem is that the ships are apparently lined up in formation with the USS Missouri ... in other words, they're pointing in the WRONG direction. There are methods that can be used to correct this ... whether they will be is another question entirely. It'll be interesting to see how well the finished product comes out. Shooting is occuring this week - and apparently Disney is going to set off a bunch of pyrotechnics on the Missiouri and frigates this weekend. Apparently there's a webcam that looks out on Pearl and the Arizona Memorial... but I haven't been able to find it :-( BTW, BB deck scenes are being shot on the USS Texas, so they'll be as close to authentic as possible. I still have major qualms about casting (Mr. Bassinger once said that President Bush should "put a gun to his head an pull the trigger ... and THIS guy gets to play Jimmy Doolittle?!?) and some of the other technical stuff (like, are they going to correctly portray the lines of the B-25Bs used in the Doolittle Raid, or just settle for those of the B-25Js that are flying today?) << -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From Alan R alanroota@aroots.freeserve.co.uk Subject: P-51 and Blackburn Buccaneer He! John are you trying to start World War III. Lets take the P-51 First. 1. This aircraft was built and developed by the US from British specs and preliminary designs. 2. It proved to be a mediocre aircraft until the British Air Ministry team of RAF designers fitted three prototypes with Merlin engines, the transformation was startling. Now the Blackburn Buccaneer. I worked on the first the prototypes while serving in the RNAS at Lossiemouth. (It was the a RN air station). From 1962 to 1964. The navy took delivery of 8 of the NA 39s as it was then. My job as an electrical technician was to upgrade and modify these aircraft while trials were carried out by the squadron flight. Though the Mk1 was under-powered it proved to have the potential as a Lo-Hi-Lo bomber. The mark 2 was to prove this assumption right. As to comparison with the Swordfish, well, remember the Buccaneer was used as a laser target marker for Tornadoes in low level attacks during Desert Storm. Not bad for an aircraft that first appeared thirty years ago! As to the stringbag John, the history of this aircraft is to well known to comment, but please remember that it served right through the entire war and it's successes are the stuff of legends. Mind you I doubt if an American pilot would have been daft enough to have climbed into the cockpit of one let alone attack a heavy battle cruiser. Good luck John and run for cover Regards Alan R P.S 'ere mate 'oo d'ya think your picking on, you might be bigger than us but we fight better when a't numbered see. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: HGYL@aol.com Subject: Re: HMS Wellington HMS Wellington, moored in the King's Reach of the Thames and currently in use as the Livery Hall of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners, was built at Devonport, commissioning in 1935. A Grimsby class sloop (one of the predecessors of the Black Swan class) her pennant number was L65 (later changed to U65). After war service, mainly escorting convoys, she was sold in 1947 and converted for her present function. She is of particular interest today as, although obviously disarmed, she is externally pretty much as originally built. I cannot recall what the RNR drill ship HMS President was prior to being converted to a drill ship but I understood that she had been removed from the Thames some years ago. Part of the RNR London Division establishment was HMS Chrysanthemum, a unit of the Anchusa group of the original Flower class convoy escort sloops. She was built by Armstrongs in 1917. My understanding is that she is the ship still moored on the Thames embankment. I would be interested if some one could confirm this and also if anyone knows what became of HMS President and can remind what she was before becoming a drill ship. Harold Lincoln -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Kenneth H. Goldman" Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor Thanks, Marc, for the Pearl Harbor update. Destroyers for battleships?????? It's a bit like kids riding broomstick "horses" while playing Cowboys and Indians. All, however, might not be lost if the studio has figured out how to use CGI to replace the destroyer "stand ins" with computer generated battleships. In that case, physical models would not be needed. A scary thought for us. :-{( Ken Goldman THE WALRUS AND THE CARPENTER http://www.wman.com/~khgold/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: "graham" Subject: Scratch building hulls I then cut bass wood slabs to fill in between the plastic hull sections. It's then a matter of sanding down the bass wood until you reach plastic. The result is an exact match of the hull. Phewwwwww what alot of sanding!!!! try leaving out the wood and plating over the hull ribs with the thinest plastic sheet you can find. much easier, well in 1/700 scale any how -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: Mark Vaughan-Jackson Subject: Re: Model Master paints Just an addition to Mike's comments on Model Matser paints. For any SMMLies in Canada there's bad news. Testors is moving/has moved the whole Model Master business south of the border. . .cost savings and a problem with printing bi-lingual labels I gather. The net result is a significant price jump. I just bought three bottles today for $10.25!!! What with this, the fact Tamyia's gone to smaller paint jars (at the same price here) and the difficulty in getting Floquil, I'm considering heading down to the nearest hardware store, paint chips in hand, and stocking up on the home decorating variety two litres at a time! Mark V-J -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: "wblad" Subject: Pearl Harbor movie No large scale model battleships are being built because they're being drawn - in a computer. The four old DD's along Battleship row won't appear in the finished film. They'll be covered by the computer generated images. They are there as reference points for the real pilots and studio's graphic artists. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: geoff-smith@cwcom.net Subject: Re: P-51s and the Blackburn Buccaneer >> Re P-51s and the Blackburn Buccaneer and the use of same by the USN; come on, who in their right mind would want a Fleet Air Arm aircraft after seeing what they had during WW 2? One has to be kidding here. I have trouble envisioning a "Stringbag" attacking Japanese ships in the Pacific! << Slightly silly argument, this. The US Navy, for a start. Since the Fleet Air Arm decided to buy Wildcats and Corsairs, wouldn't you think that the USN would have stopped using them just on the principle just quoted? You just can't understand the thinking that goes on in military minds, can you? And after those mistakes, they went on to make the mistakes of using steam catapults, angled flight decks and mirror landing system that tell you if you're flying into the sea! It's about time the USN worked out where they're going wrong and stopped using all those duff foreign ideas. Sorry, just couldn't help taking the p**s on this latest load of b******s. Geoff Who also can't help thinking that if the Japanese Navy had been flying Swordfish at PH, the result would still have been USA 0 - 1 Japan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: Al Superczynski Subject: Re: Odd Navy Planes >> All the talk about the F-111B reminded me of the C-130 that landed and took off from the Forrestal (I think). That (asside from the B-25) is probably the most unusual thing to ever fly from a carrier. Does anyone know if that was just a stunt or was the Navy actually considering operating the Herc from it's new large carriers? << You're right about it being the Forrestal, and the Navy *did* consider using the Hercules for the COD mission. See: http://www.naval-air.org/Library/Supercarrier/Hercules_Main.htm for more details. There's also a Quick Time movie at: http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/web/site/QT/hercoff.html HTH, Al http://www.up-link.net/~modeleral -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: JECHAM3981@aol.com Subject: Buccaneer Might-Have-Been John: "Stringbags" against the IJN, probably not! But, USN Buccaneers on the deck at near Mach I with Harpoons against the Kirov: tough proposition for Ivan. Jim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: "Ralph & Karen Batykefer" Subject: USS Forrestal & C-130s Yes the C-130 was being considered as a COD bird. They did a number of tests flying on and off the Forrestal. They first did touch and goes; followed by a number of landings/take offs. They had a line painted down the centerline of the ship for a landing aid. The engine gear boxes were slightly modified and the wheel brakes also were adapted. The USS Cony (a Fletcher) was serving as a plane guard at the time. Pretty impressive sight. The nose had the words "Look Ma! No Hook" painted on the right side. A brief photo page is devoted to this test in the Detail & Scale USS Forrestal book. The Washington Naval Yard has some material on the test as well. Of course the C-2 Greyhound was preferred. IHS, Ralph -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: "Rod Dauteuil" Subject: Ships stored in Newport, RI I just came back from spending a few days in Newport Rhode Island, and had to make my way over to the Navy base to see the ships mothballed there. For those that don't know, the carriers USS Forrestal and USS Saratoga, as well as the battleship USS Iowa are there. I was very surprised, because the Navy lets you get right up to the pier to see them. Apparently the road that goes by the pier was getting clogged with onlookers, so the Navy opened up a parking lot right on the water. It is adjacent to the USCG's buoy storage area. The carriers are right along the pier, and the Iowa is outboard of the Forrestal. I've seen most types of ships at one time or another, but I've never seen an aircraft carrier in person. I was astonished at the size of these ships. I can only imagine what it is like to work on one of these in drydock. Now, some observations: The Saratoga has had her main mast removed (not lowered) and it is sitting on the deck next to the island. She has a noticeable list to port, and I didn't notice any bilge pumps running. The bridge windows are covered in a protective wrap. She is tentatively heading across the bay to Quonset Point to be part of a museum. The Forrestal seems to be on a pretty even keel, and doesn't really look disturbed. The mast is in place, the bridge windows are not covered and she looks to be in good shape. I couldn't see the Iowa very well, because the Forrestal was blocking most of my view. But seeing these 2 carriers side by side, I did notice differences in their appearance, such as the shape of sponsons, some exterior plumbing, and a lot of odds and ends. Naturally, all 3 ships are riding high, which brings me to a question: The black waterline stripe was visible for about 10-12 feet above the water. Does the Navy still paint the lower portion of these hulls red? For the heck of it I pulled out my recent Revell USS Saratoga model, and the entire lower portion is black (assuming Revell did the research for accuracy). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22) From: Robert OConnor Subject: USN might have beens John Heasel wrote "Who in their right minds would want" a Buccaneer in Gull Grey and white. Well, my friends, it was the USN who invited the (then) Blackburn Corporation to compete in the competition. Blackburn chose to withdraw from the issue prior to fly-offs, because of internal financial problems and development problems with the aircraft. As for it's performance, the Buc never saw Fleet Air Arm combat action, but was well liked by aircrews and praised by the RN for it's capabilities. The plane was exported to South Africa, and following the unfortunate demise of the RN's conventional aircraft carrier force, the RN's aircraft were transferred to the RAF, where they finally were used in the Gulf War. Note that the A-6 was also still in use for that little skirmish in the desert, albeit the marks used were the later A-6D and E models. The two aircraft never really went head to head in combat competition, as by the Gulf War, their capabilities had largely been exceeded by more modern planes. I would still like to have seen the Buc in a USN paint scheme- there's a possible contest judge stumper there!!! Bottom line on the two all weather low level attack planes, is that they're both still servicable aircraft, which should continue to be used by their respective nation's military services due to their obvious versatility. The USN will, I feel, regret not upgrading the Intruder. The choice to go with the F/A 18 Superhornet will ultimately,IMHO, bomb.(No pun intended) In the meantime, GO NAVY!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23) From: "James Johnson" Subject: Re: Odd Navy Planes Hi Mike The C-130 on the Forrestal was an evaluation of using the Herc as a COD (Carrier Onboard Delivery) plane. The test went successfully, however it was right on the edge of the envelope. The Navy decided that if they used Hercs routinely that the accident rate would be excessive. I think they didn't want to use what is basically a USAF airplane on carriers. Even more odd was operating a U-2 onboard a carrier. This was tried on the USS America in the early 70's. I don't know what conclusions were reached, but the idea was never adopted. Another couple of carrier planes that were used by the USAAF were the SBD Dauntless and the SB2C helldiver. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24) From: Denis & Marilyn Campbell Subject: sense of humor? >> I resent the implication that Americans have no sense of humour. In support I ask you to check out our choices for presidential candidates. Denis Johnson << Don't confuse masochism with a sense of humor. By the way, glad to meet someone who spells our name correctly (not too many of us around) I don't mind when they add a second 'n' but object strenuously to 'e' being added to the end Denis Campbell Avon MA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25) From: Robert OConnor Subject: ESSEX cruise book SMMLies A few years age, I built my dad a Revell 1/542 scale Essex as a gift. He had served aboard her from 66-68 and has a cruise book of the Med and North Atlantic cruises during 67. The book, along with another smaller, loosly bound photo book, provided me with all the reference needed to build and mark the model. I still ogle the book when I go to mom and dads for the day, and my son really eats it up. He has a strange appreciation for the class, and has asked on more than one occasion why we don't use more, smaller cv's instead of fewer, large ships. Gee, for 11 yrs old, he's asking some pretty darned good questions. Hey, SECNAV, can you answer that?? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26) From: "Stuart Batchelor" Subject: thanks for the tour guide info I just wanted to say a very belated thank you to all the people who answered my question on places and things to visit when I travel to europe next month. I can't promise that we will be able to hit everything, but we will try our best. Thanks, Stuart Batchelor Norman, (Very windy, dusty & dry) Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27) From: Roland Mar Subject: Re: Sale of Essex class CV's Just a few thoughts on the reasons that the Essex'es weren't sold. Probably there was the problem of cost -vs- the naval strategy chosen by the countries you mentioned. Even the Brits gave up on large deck carriers [If they hadn't and say kept the old Ark Royal and a couple of squadrons of F-4's, the Falklands conflict would have been quite a bit easier for them.] If you don't have serious overseas commitments/territories to defend, CV's are expensive. The cost of an air group alone would have been prohibitive. That would cover the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, and Australia. In addition there were political factors. Spain was a kind of pariah state for most of the 1970's until free elections in 1977. There was no way Congress would have approved a sale to them. The French would rather go it alone with their own carriers than use American surplus. India was doing its naval procurement from the Soviet Union. The ABC states in South America are a special case as there is a certain reluctance on the part of our State Department. For good or ill, Americans tend to see the area as their own bailiwick, and view military expenditures there as more likely to cause competiton/warfare between these states. Finally, there is a tendency that the US used to have where they worried about the possibility that military technology transferred to other countries might be used against the US or its interests. While we don't do that now, the point is still a valid one. Imagine the 20-20 hindsight within the Brit Admiralty during the Falklands when they pondered the fact that the Argentine CV VIENTICINCO DE MAYO with its squadron of A-4's was originally HMS VENERABLE [along with the 5 Exocet-capable Super Etendards the Argentines had received to upgrade the "25 of May"'s airgroup]. She stayed in port, but there was a threat of her opening a new threat axis that would have made things lively for a while. Still in all, I do wish that we had been able to get further use out of them, even if in Allied service. I kind of like the idea of an ANZUS task force. Roland Mar -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Buccanner vs Intruder Comparing a Buccaneer to a Swordfish is like comparing night to day. On paper at least, the Buccaneer was on par with the A-6 Intruder in many respects. Go Navy! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Stripping Paint With all the talk about paint here recently, a question comes to mind. I conceed, this is somewhat off topic here, but it's related to the paint thread. I have an old 1:72 Minicraft/Hasegawa Grumman F11F-1 Tiger I'd like to refurbish. It was built slap-dash fashion back in the early 80's with landing gear up, and with an overall flat-black custom paint scheme. I still have the original box and instructions for the kit, but I chunked all the unused parts and decals. Add to that I have two sets of plans I aquired from Grumman (one blueline, scale unreadable, rather large, with the other appearing to be made for the modeler in mind). The plans aren't great (we're talking 50's-60's era public relations stuph), but they should be sufficent as a starting point. FYI, I have similar plans (from Grumman and North American) for the F9F-8, RF-9J, TF-9J, T-28B, T2J-1, F-86F, F-86D, F-86H, F-100A, F-111B, and another HUGE blueline plan for the F9F-2 (which I have no way of reproducing). I just dug these out of storage (after almost having forgot I had them), but no, they are not for sale/trade. Anyhow... The model is in "fair" condition. It's been lingering in storage in a box of peanuts for at least ten years. Why I didn't chunk it is a mystery to me (probably because I have a thing for this bird). Save for the landing gear (chunked with the rest of the unused parts), I have all the essential parts. However, it's going to have to be completely disassembled for restoration. *Offlist* can anyone suggest a good way to disassemble a model put together with Testor's Orange Top tube cement (that appears to still be holding fast). I want to restore the model with gear down. As such, I already know I'll have to do some scratchbuilding to fabricate the struts (not to mention parts of the tub). However, the main gear doors were damaged from excessive glue and a hole cut for a stand. Therefore, it's highly questionable if they can be salvaged. Given the complex curves of these doors, and their interior features, could anyone afford me -- again *offlist* a few tips on how to attack this process. The last (and biggest problem) deals with the paint. A few years back I was rummaging through a friend's FSM collection and read an article about restoring old models. The suggested method for removing paint was using oven cleaner. However, the article clearly stated, this will not work on flat black paint. It also went on to state there wasn't any method known (at that time) to strip flat black paint without destroying the model. That said....has anyone here found a method to remove thick coats of flat black paint other than sandpaper/sand blasting? For the record, I tried to obtain another kit via a web site a few months back, only to be informed "Out of Production, Out of Stock", so restoration seems to be my only option here. Go Navy! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30) From: Derek Wakefield Subject: Re: Sale of ESSEX CVs?? I have nothing to substaniate this. However, my guess is the cost of reactivating, modernizing, operating, and aquiring & maintaining an air wing for an Essex cl ship would've been too high for smaller navies. When the USN considered reactivating the Oriskany in 83, the projected reactivation cost was $170 million plus another $333 million for modernization and a new flight deck. Even then, she would've been limited to operating older aircraft that were in the process of being phased out of service. The low-milage Essexes would've probably cost even more to bring up to the standards of the day. That's my understanding of why Canada decided not to go that route. I had a similar thought about the Iwo Jima cl ships. Austraila considered a variant of this class for replacing the Melbourne, but it was dropped when the Britan offered them the Invincible. Given their relative size, I thought they would be suitable replacements for the old Colossus/Majestic cl ships - for use as ASW Carriers. Unfortunately, by the time they went to the breakers, they were all beyond their effective service lives (which goes back to operating costs) Go Navy! _|_o_|_ Derek "Tiger" (/\)akefield /---(.](o)[.)---\ iscandar@chatter.com o oo O oo o http://www.iscandar-66.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31) From: Björn Bäcklundx1bmQ= Subject: Re: P-51s and the Blackburn Buccaneer >> who in their right mind would want a Fleet Air Arm aircraft after seeing what they had during WW 2? One has to be kidding here. I have trouble envisioning a "Stringbag" attacking Japanese ships in the Pacific! << Yes you're right. Didn't the Royal Navy have a few other hopeless planes too? Wasn't they called something like Wildcat and Avenger before entering RN service? :-) Bjorn Backlund -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32) From: "John L. Bishop" Subject: Re: F111-B I would just like to say that I actually saw this plane sitting on the ramp at NWTC China Lake in the early 80's. It had no engines and the paint was pretty bad - but there it was! I was the only one there who knew that we had that very plane to thank for the birth of the F-14! It was also sitting next to a very nice B-47.... John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33) From: ECammeron@aol.com Subject: Re: F-111B, P-51s, C-130s and ESSEX CVs The Admiral who said the F-111B wouldn't be a fighter was Vice Admiral Thomas A. Christopher, the DCNO (Air) in 1968. After that remark to a Congressional Committee, he retired as a Vice Admiral. The C-130 demo launch and recovery from CVA-59 FORRESTAL in 1963 was done to evaluate the feasibility of using such aircraft as COD aircraft as carrier-based troop transports. This was during the McNamera era when all sorts of ideas were espoused. The sale of ESSEX class CVs to other nations was probably only a political fantasy. Few, if any, of the countries named could have afforded to operate one and still have other ships in its Navy. The countries that bought the British light carriers didn't really use them that much. Brazil, for example, spent years debating whether Navy or Air Force aircrews would fly fixed wing aircraft from them. Think of the manpower and fuel costs involved. Norman Polmar's 'Aircraft Carriers', published in 1969, has pictures of the P-51 and Marine Corps PBJ aboard SHANGRI-LA. Also says Navy evaluated P-51s against F4Us and found the P-51s 'inferior in firepower, speed at most altitudes, flight acceleration, maneuverability, control response, and take off and landing characteristics'. Only in level flight at maximum altitude and rate of climb above 20,000 feet did the P-51 rate higher than the F4U. See pages 468-69 of Polmar's book. Eugene -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34) From: "Phil Gollin" Subject: Re. Fleet Air Arm aircraft and Blackburn Bucaneer With regards to the rather silly remarks about the Fleet Air Arm aircraft in the Pacific, the e-mail ignores several points; 1: From before the US entered the war until nearly the end the FAA torpedo bombers were the most efficient night-time/all-weather strike force due to their superior radar (witness HMS Sheffield !) 2: Likewise, the Swordfish could operate in the ASW role from a greater range of carriers and in much worse weather than comparable US types. 3: The Mosquito/Highball combination was perceived as "too deadly" to show to the Japanese, for fear of imitation (see also the Fw-190 trials) 4: The Seafire III was, without doubt, the best carrier based low-level (upto 15,000 ft - where it matters with shipping) interceptor up to the end of the war, its weak undercarriage and lack of range not making it good as an escort fighter. 5: The British Nightfighters, first the Fulmar, then the Firefly were much better due to their having a separate radar operator. The few Hellcats that did get operational were nowhere near as effective. 6: Both times the RN Carriers came to the Pacific, HMS Victourious in 1943 and the BPF in 1945, the USN learnt new and much better Fighter Direction control techniques - indirectly part of aircraft usage. 7: As for the Blackburn Bucaneer S.2 - this had a better performance, in general, particularly at low-level than the A-6, and it existed for many years as the RAF's main nuclear strike aircraft in Europe. They regularly flew outstanding missions in the "Red Flag" exercises in the USA. And they were robust - a true story being that RAF pilots used to show the toughness of their planes to their US competitors by hitting their aircraft with a 5 pound club hammer (in very specially selected places it must be added !). Having said that the A-6 by the late 80's had a better electronics outfit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SMMLcon Infomation & posts The Deadline to pre-register for the SMML convention is April 1st 2000! If you want to attend, please contact us as soon as possible so that we can get a accurate head count. Also, for those who plan on coming to the convention from far away, the special rate on the Hotel expires on April 6th. Hotel arrangements can be found at: http://www.mikedunn.freeserve.co.uk/smml/help/smml_hotels.html The SMML convention date is May 5th and May 6th onboard the USS Salem (CA-139) Ship Museum. For more information, check out the SMML website at: http://www.mikedunn.freeserve.co.uk/smml/help/smml_con.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for having SMML at your home, why not stop by our home at: http://www.smml.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume