Subject: SMML VOL 1389 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 00:58:35 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Decline of the Hobby 2: Re: What planes in the FAA? 3: Re :Planes in the FAA 4: Re: decline/cost of our hobby 5: Re: Skipjack 6: 1/700 Royal Oak 7: Box Review - NNT 1/700 Iowa (Modern) 8: Re: ICM hood 9: What is the official Heller internet site 10: SG Radar 11: DC Navy Yard Update 12: Bridges on old USN flushdeck DDs 13: Glue 14: Re: U-Boats in Dry-Docks 15: Re: Modeling a somewhat accurate 1/48 scale 3"/21 for an S/C -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Infomation 1: SMML site update -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: BOOKS FOR SALE 2: New IHP 1:700 USS SIMS Preview -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: SantMin@aol.com Subject: Re: Decline of the Hobby >> Nothing fun is free. << While I do agree with all the statements about relative costs, I have a lot of hobbies too. But I have to disagree with that last statement. On the one hand, a walk in the country is free. On the other, a day the the Nautilus Submarine Museum is also free. If you don't count parking, so is a day at the Smithsonian. Plus many more. Cheers, Bob Santos -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Harold Stockton" Subject: Re: What planes in the FAA? Graham Boak wrote: >> Funny that. As a long-time aircraft modeller I felt that way about ships. They are so much simpler as shapes, no interiors to worry about, all just painted grey so no difficult camouflage schemes, no need for a massive research library...and best of all, there are so many fewer of them! Then there are tanks...... << I read a number of Russian military, historical and modeling magazines, and I have never been so amazed at what some of the average contributors to those magazines have done by scratch-building from all sorts of materials. In an issue of "M-Hobby", there was an article where a true artisan had built quite a few 1/72 scale modern mobile Russian ICBM's and their transporters. It was quite unbelievable to see these models in their various stages of completion, and the finished product. In a few issues of the tank magazine "Tankomaster", their were articles on scratch-building ammunition belts for 1/35 scale machine guns, casting the individual different types of track cleats that the different versions of T-34 tank had in white metal, and how to scratch-build a complete interior to a 1/35 scale tank that had been build initially from card stock. It might be a fun change of pace to build anything out of the box, and to paint anything one wishes in what ever comes to one's mind, for a mental distraction or simple amusement. But to think that assembling any kit with all of the accessories that are available, is the end all of one's particular field of the hobby, one needs to rethink what a hobby really is. There are some individuals out there that think nothing of making their own masters so as to make the detail fittings for a modeling subject that they are completely scratch-building. The word hobby is to enjoy building anything, not just what comes from a box. I am not trying to preach on what makes up a model or how it should be finished, but there are individual's modeling out there that produce work that I have never seen at any museum, much less an IPMS show. The key word here is to have FUN, even if it is in very small packages. Harold Stockton IPMS #1274 (non-active) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Darshan Ward" Subject: Re :Planes in the FAA My compliments to Mr Boak and Mr Hughes, but Good grief I had no idea that planes came with any of that stuff; they sure aren't on the kit or the box art! But seriously, Shane indicated some links to FAA sites and there are some very impressive indeed kit builds of every type and variant of RN shipborne aircraft, including some of which I'd never heard. Well worth a decko. Thanks too to Chris Rogers, that was exactly the info I was looking for. Re the airfix Bucaneer being an RAF type and needing conversion. I do remember once making a kit of this, it was years ago, but what are changes needed. Arrestor hook? folding wings and did they have that folding tail cone too? Anything else? I recently heard rumour that the RN was once again planning to build large aircraft carrier{s}. Is this for real and could anyone share information on current , recent and projected types of a/c associated with this project. Best wishes and good luck to all....... DW -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "R N Pearson" Subject: Re: decline/cost of our hobby John fiebke writes .. >> I'm also a musician. Does anybody know how much a Les Paul guitar costs? How about the home-recording equipment to have something to show your friends? The cd burners, the guitar strings, the micro-phones...we're talking several thousand here, friends. << I do. . I do. .. I have had three Les Pauls and two Strats (plus many copies of each) .. just have one of each now. As for the decline of the hobby, my 21 year old neighbour has taken up building models in the last year or so .. granted she is just doing cars, but she is having fun doing them and always shows off whatever she is working on when I visit .. Her 19 month old daughter also tries to help when I am working on something. She wants me to move a chair over to the workbench for her to stand on. I then give her a couple pieces of wood or plastic to rub together so she thinks she is helping. .. (one time I forgot to move my 1/72 Flower to a shelf and I looked over to see her holding the scratchbuilt 126 piece Hedgehog. . yikes. . we are working on "No touch" now. ) I would think that if you introduce them to models and make it seem fun for them, that after the teen years have worn off they may return to it for a form of relaxation One thing I did about ten years ago was give away almost all my built models to the neighbourhood kids .. I also bought a lot of remaindered stock from a local shop. A year after it had closed I found their stock was stashed in the back of another store and the fellow who had it sold it to me for almost a dollar a pound. I then sold many of these to the kids for cost and also helped them build them .. the more adventurish also tried the airbrush on them. It was a fun way to introduce kids to the hobby and gave me something to do during one of my bouts of unemployment. I was recently reading some old IPMS magazines, and 30 years ago they were lamenting the decline of the hobby and how the kids just weren't interested ... sound familar? As for ICM. . I would much rather see the Takao than the Hood or Essex Regards, Bob Pearson Managing Editor / Internet Modeler http://www.internetmodeler.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Ives100@aol.com Subject: Re: Skipjack >> I recently purchased the reissue of the old Aurora USS Skipjack kit. It's being done by Revell Germany and much to my surprise the hobby shop was selling it for $5.00 a piece. An that's it catalogue price.The scale is 1/230th. Now I recall the orginial version by Aurora had a hatch with a color photo of a nuclear reactor. Does any one else remember that? This version allows you to build a reactor room with what looks parts from the old Polaris kit. 2 walls and a center piece that looks like a cap boiler. << The reactor on this kit is actually misplaced a good deal aft of where it should be. Reactors, being very heavy, are located at or near the center of mass. Also, I presume they are still providing the three bladed screw, rather than the correct 5 bladed (later 7 bladed) version. I have an article from 10 years ago on correcting the sail on this kit, if you really want to go that far in terms of accuracy. The article includes 3 views of the Skipjack class, including a bottom view of the ballast tank grates, strainers, ect. I have seen this kit used very effectively in a waterline of a Skipjack in port by Ken Hart. >> I'm thinking of painting it. My research says that US Nuclear Subs had the ship name or hull numbers painted over when they went out on patrol. Yet the Skipjack was built in 1958 so there was a time when numbers were on subs. What colors were they painted at that time? Any help would be appreciated. << The numbers were on the hulls during early sea trials, and usually removed at some point there after. In the late 50's, early 60's they often had the number on both the sail and on the nose of the boat, along with the name in small letters toward the stern. Skipjacks were either all black, or black from 1/2 up the hull, and hull red 1/2 down. Some Skipjack subs were painted in the Pacific scheme, which had light gray on vertical surfaces (sides of sail, induction trunk housing). Tom Dougherty -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: "Jana & Pavel" Subject: 1/700 Royal Oak Dear SMML'ies, A few weeks ago I was browsing through the NNT web site when I came across a new release by HP Models, a 1/700 scale R class Battleship, the Royal Oak 1939. I e-mailed Nadja and Norbet at NNT with a request to inform me as to accuracy and detail before I ordered. As has been the case in the past, I was not misinformed. The kits I had ordered arrived two days ago, so I have had time to look them over. Once again a big thanks to NNT for their service, advice and prompt help. The kit of the Royal Oak, arrived undamaged, well packed in a stronger cardboard box then has been the case with earlier HP Models. Hull and parts are in plastic bags and bubble wrap. The hull looks accurate but is about 2mm too short, this I can live with. Beam is right on. Detail is good, with the unusual blister that this ship had well captured and executed. The gun turrets and superstructure looks accurate. A small aircraft is included. Instructions come on a A4 sheet, a total of 8 sheets, a plan, an assembly, colour guide in colour, two detail break up of superstructure and fittings, a parts list, and also two sheets of A3 size paper with the plan and assembly instructions duplicated. At this point I think I should say that it looks like the same details as the Profile Morski # 25 of the Royal Oak. I look forward to building this model and would not hesitate to say that it was worth the money I paid and seems to be an accurate model. after all, it is the first of the R class in 1/700.I used the Battleships of WW2, by M.J. Whitley, Profile Morski # 25 and Battleships & Battlecruisers by Tony Gibbons as guides. I had also ordered the HP Models 1/700 scale Titanic. This I hope to do as the Olympic, most probably as a troop ship. This I will review at a later stage, once I have looked it over in detail. I have I hope helped some of you in making up your minds as to this new release. Regards Pavel I have no interest in any shop or company, just a satisfied customer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Ned Barnett Subject: Box Review - NNT 1/700 Iowa (Modern) I have just received a review copy of the NNT Modell USS Iowa (1/700) in it's modern configuration. I haven't had the chance to put it together, but I do have a few observations based on what I see - what we call, in my business, the 50,000 foot view. First, the PE is superb looking - very delicate, very much scale-looking. It includes the anchor, chain, helicopter rotor, antennae for the foredeck, antennae for the mast and much more. It's impressive-looking. But there is room for after-market PE to take up the slack in railings, ladders, etc. The instructions are basically a schematic blow-up of the assembly (with color codes on the reverse side). It will take some study, but the assembly looks so straightforward as to represent no problem. The turret guns will take (IMO) a jig to get right - each gun barrel is separate, in resin. That's a challenge, but not a major or restrictive one. But the guns alone make this kit something that more advanced modelers will do better at (novices to resin might want to pull the turrets off of one of the 1/700 Iowa-class kits and save themselves a lot of gray hairs). The resin molding looks and feels smooth, with no apparent pin-holes (primer might reveal a few, but I doubt it - this looks very good, very clean). I haven't micrometered it out against Freidman's specs, but the ship looks very much in scale to me. I'll be writing a more detailed review soon, but I wanted to get this out to you. If you like 1980s-version Iowas, this one's for you. Thanks to the folks at NNT for this review model; the longer review will go in IPMS/USA, but will be "leaked" here ... Ned Barnett -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: "Keith Bender" Subject: Re: ICM hood So now the new word is maybe in 2003 for the Hood. What is ICM working with, two machinist with one 1950's Bridgeport less digital readout and .150 backlash. Come on people, sometime in this lifetime while I still can work my modeling tools and can still see parts bigger then a bottle cap. Like I said before. I'll believe it when they are sitting on my workbench. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: NEVENGER@aol.com Subject: What is the official Heller internet site Say does anyone know what is the official internet site for Hellers' models. I was going to bug them putting out the Hood, but I was not sure what site or e-mail address to use. RD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Devin J. Poore" Subject: SG Radar On a late '42 USN warship carrying an SG radar, where would this be mounted? I know it goes SOMEWHERE on the mast, but can't quite make out where JUNEAU was carrying hers at the time of her loss. My thinking is that when they moved her SC radar from the forward to the aft mast, they would have mounted the SG on the forward mast in that top most position. I have photos that "might" support this, but I can't quite make it out. I know that sometimes they would put small platforms about 3/4 of the way up the mast for these, but I can't imagine they'd leave it in a lower position when they had that top mount position available. Any input appreciated. Thanks, Devin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Mike Leonard" Subject: DC Navy Yard Update After taking care of some business at the Washington Navy Yard the other day, I stopped by the Navy Museum to see what was going on. They've added the exhibit on the Korean War but nothing else is new. The museum had posted a sign saying that they'd be closed on weekends until further notice. Probably because of increased security at the yard. Mike Alexandria, VA USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "A. H. Lindstrom" Subject: Bridges on old USN flushdeck DDs Was the bridge on the old USN flushdeckers such as the Ward open at the rear, or enclosed? Alan Lindstrom -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Robert and Janis Leonti" Subject: Glue I would like to know what is the best glue for styrene plastic? I am using .090 styrene. Thanks in advance. Capt. Bob Leonti -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: "fred lied" Subject: Re: U-Boats in Dry-Docks There are a few photos of what you are after in these three books 1. U-Boats in action -- Squadron Signal 2. Submarines of World War TWO- by Erminio Bagnasco isbn # 1-85409-532-3 3.U-Boats under the Swastika- by J.P Mallmann Showell published by Arco None of them are really that great but it will give you something to go off. The best photo [clearest] is in the one by Squadron Signal. It is allso the cheapest. If your passion is Submarines and are really into the Tec side of things the best is Submarines of W.W.2. Very good run down on all classes from all the navies. Fred Liedel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "Harold Stockton" Subject: Re: Modeling a somewhat accurate 1/48 scale 3"/21 for an S/C Franklyn, You were quite correct about the 3"/50 weapon being a different animal than the 3"/21. Though both were developed around the late 1890s, they were quite different weapons. Also, I was completely wrong in my thinking that the 3"/21 was in any way similar to the French Model 1898 75mm. The French "75" was based on a then secret "long-recoil" system that was fitted along the bottom of the weapon's barrel. The 3"/21 used the then quite universal "short-recoil" system used around the world for "QF" (quick firing) weapons, with its recoil system being placed above the barrel. Also, the 75mm breach opens to the right, while the 3"/21 uses a breach-bloc system. In short, they are two completely different weapons. So, I am thinking that the later batch of French SCs used the then familiar French Navy's pintal mount 75mm rather than the American 3"/21. What my research did show was that the Navy used the same pedestal mount of the 3"/21, because of its strength, availability, and light weight, for their Mk. IIA mount for the 20mm Oerlikon gun. So, a fairly accurate 3"/21 mount could be made by using the mount only of "HR Products" S48-22 20mm Oerlikon Sng. Mk4 Mt $3.85 (the Mk4 mount had a different shield arrangement for the weapon, but the basic mount stayed the same). Then the gun assembly could be made from using an old Revell or ESCI 1/72 105mm howitzer, which is very similar in appearance to what a 3"/21 looks like. Kit bashing I am sure, but at least a somewhat presentable 1/48 scale 3"/21. So, by employing a little research and thought into the problem at hand, we find that we can borrow a "tank" item for making naval weapons. Who would have thought? Harold Stockton 3"/21 (7.62 cm) Caliber Mark 1 A simply constructed gun intended to support landing operations also described as a boat gun. Monobloc construction and used a Fletcher breech (down-swinging carrier type). Rate of fire: 8-9 rpm. Projectile weight: 13 lb.. Muzzle velocity: 1150 fps. Range at 19.5* was 5000 yd.. 3"/50 (7.62 cm) Caliber Marks 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8. A series of 3"/50 (7.62 cm) AA guns dating back to the 1890s. The standard anti-torpedo boat gun of the late pre-dreadnoughts, armored cruisers and some destroyers. Fired fixed ammunition. Mark 2 was a built-up weapon with a side-swing carrier breech. The Mark 3 was of simpler construction. Mark 5 had uniform rifling and a Driggs-Seabury semi-automatic vertical sliding breech mechanism. Mark 6 was similar but with a longer recoil slide. Mark 8 was a Mark 6 with a horizontally instead of vertically sliding breech block and only one of these guns were built. Mark 6 Mods 4, 5, 6 and 7 were "wet guns" for submarines. Rate of fire: 15-20 rpm. Muzzle velocity: 2700 fps. Range at 45* was 14,600 yds. and the AA ceiling was 30,400 ft. Weight of mounting: 3 to 4.2 tons. 3"/23.5 (7.62 cm) Caliber Marks 4 and 14 3"/23 (7.62 cm) Caliber Marks 7, 9, 11 and 13 Mark 4 was a Bethlehem Steel design with a side-swing carrier breech block, the others were Erhardt-type "RF" (Rapid Fire) guns with a horizontally-sliding breech block. These weapons were designed as boat and landing guns. The Mark 9 was used on older submarines in a special retractable mount. The Mark 14 was first used as an AA gun in the 1920s. All guns fired fixed ammunition and had similar ballistics but were of differing construction, the early guns being of the built-up type while the latter were of Monobloc construction. Rate of fire: 8 - 9 rpm. Projectile weight: 13 lb.. Muzzle velocity: 1650 fps. Range at 45* was 8800 ft. (WW-I), 110,100 ft. (WW-II). AA altitude: 30,400 ft. Weight of mounting: 749 lb.. (Mk 9), 531 lb.. (Mk. 13). 3"/50 (7.62 cm) Caliber Marks 10, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22 A series of 3"/50 (7.62 cm) AA guns dating back to the early 1900s. Successive marks were improved designs. This was the only dual-purpose gun in the USN's inventory and widely used up to the mid-1930s, but then replaced on larger ships by 5"/38 (12.7 cm) and 4 cm mountings, although the Battleships New York and Arkansas still had them as late as 1943. Used on many smaller ships such as Destroyer Escorts and Submarines during WWII. These guns had limited effectiveness in either role, as they were not power operated and so could not be fitted for RPC. However, the invention of the VT fuse and the Mark 51 director system greatly improved their effectiveness and gave the later marks of this weapon a new lease on life. In the fall of 1945, CinCPac considered a 3"/50 (7.62 cm) with director control and VT ammunition to be superior to a twin 4 cm mount and at least equivalent to a quad 4 cm mount. Marks 10, 17 and 20 were built up guns with A tube, jacket and hoop. Mark 18 was made from copper-nickel alloy for wet mountings with A tube, jacket, screwed and shrunk breech housing. Marks 21 and 22 were very similar apart from a collar on the chase in Mark 22, which was intended a concentric counter-recoil spring fitted only in Mark 24 wartime mountings but used in post-war automatic mountings. Both had chromium plated bores and had autofretted Monobloc barrels secured to the breech housings by bayonet joints. All used a semi-automatic vertical sliding breech block. Rate of fire: 15 - 20 rpm. Projectile weight: 15 lb.. Muzzle velocity: 2700 fps. Range at 45* was 14,600 ft. AA altitude: 30,400 ft. Weight of mounting: 3 to 4.2 tons. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Infomation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Mistress Lorna Subject: SMML site update The SMML site has had some new things added. We have finally posted the pictures from the Vancouver Mini-SMMLcon held at the beginning of last month. Nice to think that SMML-cons are being held whenever SMMLies can find a reason to meet up and enjoy chatting with other ship modellers. You can find the picture that Ray Boorman took along with a list of who's who in the Members section of the site. Now that SMML is back on a regular service again, the archives have been updated as well. Numbers 1362 -1389 can now be accessed. We even have some more pictures in the Reference section - Two new pictures added to Misc ships and more shots from Rhinobones in Moscow's Victory Park There will more updates coming through every few days or so. If you've been holding off sending in stuff for the site until we returned from holiday and got going again, let me say "Thank you but you need wait no more" :-) Show me what you've been doing while I was away. You can't all be like me and build models at a glacial rate of progress! Cheers Lorna -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: CokerRE@aol.com Subject: BOOKS FOR SALE U-Boats under the Swastika by Showell $20 Cruisers, An Illustrated History 1880-1980 by Anthony Preston $25 reply off list to PC Coker at cokerre@aol.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Michael Bartel Subject: New IHP 1:700 USS SIMS Preview Now on IHP's website is a preview of the forthcoming 1:700 scale USS SIMS (DD-409) as she appeared in 1942. The kit will be produced in metal, and the target release date is December, just in time for Christmas. The projected MSRP is $25, but this is tentative at the moment. A preview of the kit can be seen at the link below: http://ihphobby.tripod.com/sims.html The kit is the first in a small selection of pre-WW2 US destroyers IHP is preparing. Mike Bartel IHP http://ihphobby.tripod.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Backissues, Member's models & reference pictures at: http://smmlonline.com Check out the APMA site for an index of ship articles in the Reference section at: http://apma.org.au/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume