Subject: SMML VOL 1568 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 12:33:39 +1100 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: tugboat eagles 2: Re: Deck Decals 3: Re: Wish List and Comments from Joseph Poutre 4: Re: Best color matchs for current USN hull & deck 5: Dragon 1:700 RAN DDG kits 6: Re: Battlecruisers final part 7: Scale figures 8: Re: first resin kit 9: Few thoughts about Kombrig 10: Deck Decals again 11: WSW 700-19; Potemkin, Russian battleship, 1905 12: Re: Ticonderoga class CGs (1st batch) 13: Re: ICM Hood/Essex 14: Re: eagles 15: Russian Deck Red 16: Scams 17: Graf Spee Doco 18: Re: Enjoying the hobby -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: SantMin@aol.com Subject: Re: tugboat eagles John, Historex eagles are too stylized and also too small. Try your model railroad shop or www.walthers, there's at least one eagle in the Preiser range of animals and a few years ago, Superior Models had several EXCELLENT eagles in metal that should be about the right size. Also check your local craft shop, most have a wide range of plastic animals and I remember an eagle in that range too. Cheers, Bob Santos -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Don and Susan Leonard Subject: Re: Deck Decals I remember seeing deck decals someone had made for the 1/350 Titanic kit on the Titanic Modeling Page some time ago; they looked very good. The key was that they were clear, printed only with the plank seams and light grain detail. The deck was painted a base "wood" color, and the decals overlaid this. It was a very nice effect, and the clear decal prevented a "contact paper" look. I did a quick scan of the Titanic site, but I couldn't seem to find the pictures. Don Leonard -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: NeilTaylor54@aol.com Subject: Re: Wish List and Comments from Joseph Poutre Joseph says he was surprised that Airfix did not make a Hermes or Invincible after the Falklands. The answer is that they did'nt have the vision. I entered into a extensive correspondence with the development officer and tried very hard to persuade him. I suggested that with the addition of 4 exocets they could update the Devonshire, Leander and Amazon. This they did and admitted to me that they did produce new instructions for the Deveonshire to make a Glamorgan, but forgot to pass them on to the production unit. I was also able to persuade them to re-issue the Iron Duke, Warspite and the Liners by quoting the current second hand price. I realise that I'm not the only one to write to Humbrol, but they always replied to every letter and acknowedged my suggestions. I also suggested the use of issuing cuurent models as sister ships with a few additions eg Nelson as Rodney. It is clearly fruitful to write, even though the exocets supplied were under-scale. So to all those who were thrilled with the news of Cascade to release a new range of 1:600 models and are saving to buy them when released, lets write to Airfix/Humbrol and try and persuade them to invest in more! Neil Taylor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Allan and Crystal Plumb Subject: Re: Best color matchs for current USN hull & deck >> To anyone using Testor's Model Master enamels, what's close or any "secret formulas" out there? << I use 36375 (Light something grey) for the hull and 36118 (gunship grey) for the decks. Sometimes 36081 (engine grey) for the helo area. Add a coat of flat to the deck. It matches my photos and observation, and looks good to me. Others prefer darker colors: 36270 (neutral gray) and 36081 for all the decks. I like mine, and since I'm the one who looks at them... Allan Plumb -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Richard Scott Subject: Dragon 1:700 RAN DDG kits My thanks to all on the SMML list who contacted me off-line to provide advice on contents and availability of this kit. I am still trying to hunt down 2 or 3 kits but they are obviously getting scarce - if there are any SMMLies willing to sell, or Aussie hobbyshops with a couple of examples availble, I'd appreciate it if you can drop me a line. On a different matter, I would echo calls for a decent 1:700 or 1:600 scale Leander class frigate kit. Rich Scott -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Allan and Crystal Plumb Subject: Re: Battlecruisers final part >> IMO "battlecruisers" were those ships which their designers choose to classify ( or in couple of exceptional cases reclassify) as "battlecruisers". That's why Invincible was a battlecruiser and Regina Elena wasn't. << Different designers had different opinions about what to call their progeny, for political and other reasons. I have my opinions, too. I think a 20,000 ton ship faster than any battleship and most cruisers, with 15" guns fits _my_ definition. (Of course, I still think they were a failure. But pretty.) How about USS Constitution? Certainly she would have been a 4th rate in British service, and rather outmatched British frigates. Not much against a real battleship, though. >> For the very same reason Courageous, Glorious and Furious can't be clasified as battlecruisers because Fisher himself instructed DNC to draw up designs for an "improved light cruiser". << From Robert's book: 'However, on the 6 March 1915 Fisher wrote to D'Eyncourt "I've told the First Lord that the more I consider the qualities of your design of the Big Light Battle Cruisers [...]"' (p. 51, references D'Eyncourts "A Shipbuilder's Yarn" p 69-70). My point is, the admirals and designers couldn't make up their minds. Why should we be different? We each call these ships what we want, thereby provoking periodic discussions, with no particular result, except entertainment value. If nothing else, it brought out the story about "big cats" which was new to me, so I've learned something. Cool! Allan Plumb -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Keith Butterley Subject: Scale figures Hi group, I am wondering if it really matters that some figures do not match other figures exactly, per Ron Wild 1/96 vs 1/87 or what ever it was. Let's face it if you put a group of SMMLies in the same room (definitely not an elevator in case Steve Wiper is in there as well ) it is highly unlikely that we would all be the same height and weight. Therefore would it not stand to reason that not all sailors on a ship would be clones? In other words, it is only natural that some figures might be larger/smaller than others, a variety is much more realistic and none of us would want nothing less than perfection, right? Happy modeling Keith Butterley warshipbooks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Ed Grune Subject: Re: first resin kit Barry wrote: >> I'm coming back to your great hobby after some forty-five year absence and was wondering what your recommendation would be for my first model. << Welcome back. You will find that things have changed in your absence. Resin kits are not as mystical as some people believe. They are more expensive largely due to the economies of scale. The styrene companies can get thousands of kits off a set of injection dies. A resin manufacturer considers himself lucky if he gets 50 from a resin RTV mold. The many of the filling and sanding skills you may have learned from the styrene kits are just as applicable in resin kits. All of your painting skills are directly transferable. Woodworking skills - such as cutting tapers & scarf joints and bending planks have no real direct connection. Rigging is different - but many of the skills are transferable. The new skills that you will need to master involve the manipulation (bending, straightening, gluing, etc.) of photo etched brass detail sets. For a starter kit - you want something that you can finish and give you the skills and confidence to go on to something else {i.e. larger, more complex, more expensive, etc.} Because you need to finish the kit -- I generally recommend something which is less expensive than the 300 dollar battleship. The more expensive kit often gets relegated to the closet for fear of screwing it up. I also generally recommend 1:350 scale - its a larger scale than 1:700 and more easily manipulated. After you learn the processes you can scale down to 1:700 if that is your desire. I learned this years ago when I tied flys for fishing. I started large on a pattern to teach my fingers what they were supposed to do - then move down to the actual size I would be making. Price - you don't want to be afraid of that big expensive kit - so just as a cost bogey I generally set a number at 75 to 100 dollars. Adjust that number to your personal comfort level. You want a kit that comes complete. You don't want to have to go and purchase the brass as an extra item. All of this being said as background my recommendations: Iron Shipwright - any of the small patrol craft (PC-461) up through the small amphibs and Flower-class corvettes and Roper APD. These range in cost from 30 to 75 dollars. White Ensign Models - USS Reuben James 4-pipe destroyer or HMS Mary Rose WWI destroyer either about 90 dollars. Blue Water Navy - Gato/Balao WWII Fleet subs - either about 60 dollars. Iron Shipwright has the reputation for having the best customer service in the business. I listed them first because, when you screw up - and you will - they will replace the mistake no questions asked. White Ensign Models - Caroline, John & Dave are great people to deal with. They put out a first rate product. I have never had to test any of their replacement policies. Blue Water makes a top of the line product. They are the only place for many of the cruisers and the carriers. Their top of the line gets very expensive - and they do not have a reputation for good service. There you go, my recommendations and rationale. Ed Mansfield, TX Home of the 4th consecutive year girls 5-A State Basketball Champions 3 plus one - never been done (before) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Few thoughts about Kombrig Having just take a look at new Kombrig's page at SteelNavy website it become obvious to me that Kombrig is using at least two different designers in their line on 1/700 kits. Problem is that while one of them is quite good the other one isn't!!! As an example of the work of the first one have look at Imperator Nikolay 1st. From the photo I can't tell if the measuremants are correct or not but my overall impression is very favourable. It is a nice little model, all the major details are there and kit does look like IN1 should. Of course little adittonal work would not hurt but it seems that it can be assembled almost straight from the box. As a second example lets look at Kombrig's model of Sevastopol. Again I can't tell about measurements but what a difference in design!!!!! The hull is almost completly devoided of any detail, no portholes, no armour belt, no shutters in the stern area. And what exactly are those two gadgets clinging to the ship bows some way behind anchor ports??? Never seen anything like it in the photos or drawings of this ships!!! Next: the shape of gun ports midship is wrong too and way the rounded in upper sides of the hull meet barbettes of 152mm guns is correct in forward ones and incorrect aft. The stern balcony and what can be seen of admiral's cabin there is the major disaster area and not only changes the look of the ship but is also (IMO) a pain to fix. Topside the funell bases in all 3 ships were rectangular and not square and the forward bridge platform did have two bar metal railing only and not the horrendously thick sides as those in the kit. Same company but one heck of a difference in quality of their products!!! Old motto "Buyers beware" applayes very much in this case too. Regards D.P -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Jim Johnson" Subject: Deck Decals again Tom K. wrote: >> A quarter inch caulking seam would scale down to less than 1/1000 of an inch in 1/350 scale, which I'm not sure is technically possible. Is it worth it to go to a lot of trouble to add a feature that will only be way out of scale? << Tom, you are so right. Please don't measure the splinter shields on your 1/350 scale models however, as you may find that the 1/4 inch plate on the real ship is a little overscale on the model. The fact is that putting overscale details on models is very common. The signal lanyards on almost any ship model smaller that 1/96 scale will always be overscale. Which is more important, to have the item represented, even though overscale or to exclude it because of technical difficulties. I vote for including them, even though they may be out of scale. Jim Johnson PS: Bob Santos - Please perfect your decal sheet and put it on the market. I might even build on of the several 1/350 Arizona models I have (1 resin and 2 plastic) PPS: The planks of US Battleships were attached to the deck with a gap (1/4 inch) between them their neighbor. This gap was then calked to waterproof the deck. If the planks were butted against each other there would not be any space for the wood to expand and contract when it got wet/dry and cold/hot. The only way the planks could be installed without gaps would to make the entire deck free floating. This works great in my kitchen, but would be pealed off the ship the first time a wave came over the bow. If you look close enough, you will notice a round plug at each end of every plank on an operational ship. This is where the plank is bolted to the deck. A round plug covers the bolt head. You may not see them on ship that do not go out to sea because they are not needed and add to the cost of installing the deck, but they have to be there on any ship with a wooden deck that puts out to sea -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: VONJERSEY@aol.com Subject: WSW 700-19; Potemkin, Russian battleship, 1905 can anybody tell me of their experience with this model??? ken -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "TIMOTHY BROOKS" Subject: Re: Ticonderoga class CGs (1st batch) Pardon the late response. The Ticonderoga's carry two sets of MK 32 Torpedo tubes in triple mounts (total of 6 tubes). You generally cannot see the tubes because they are located in torpedo rooms with sliding doors just forward of the break in the deck at the stern. On most model kits of Ticos (and Spru-cans), these doors are represented by slightly recessed rectangular depressions on each side at fantail level. The reference to the "20mm" guns is also more-or-less correct. Most of the Ticos and Spru-cans assigned to the Gulf received temporary mounts on the quarterdeck (just forward of the boat stowage) for 25mm Bushmaster chain guns. These mounts were manually sighted and fired, some electrically trained, some not. The guns were/are not permanent fixtures on the ships, but the deck fixtures and pedestals bases are. Guns were/are "cross-decked" (transferred) between deploying and returning ships (as are the gunners, in some cases). Purpose was/is to defend against small, fast boats (Boghammers) and to kill mines, etc. Also useful against low, slow air targets, etc. For purposes of the model, then, you do not need to do anything about the torpedo tubes (unless you want to open the doors and build the room and tubes), nor do you need to show the guns unless you specifically want to model a ship deployed to the Gulf region. Vincennes did not carry the Bushmasters at the time she shot down the Airbus, FYI. Regarding the stories on this site about removing torpedo tubes from US ships in favor of helicopters...doubt it. The purpose for retaining the tubes on the ships are multi-facetted, but, to name a few: Training firing live weapons for both the ship and the submarine (evasion); Knife-fighting (close range ASW) required when an outer-ring escort detects a submarine at close range trying to sneak past to get to the high-value target inside; Knife-fighting (close range ASW) when the escort sneaks up on a submarine (yes, it is possible, some of our escorts are that quiet when hunting); and for use against older diesel boats that the escort can literally run down. Helo time is so divided with other missions now days that elimination of the tubes would effectively remove ASW capability from the ship most of the time. You need to remember that VLA Asroc has a very significant minimum range requirement (probably left over from the nuclear version) that the tube-launched weapons cover. Tim Brooks TMC(T) (SW) USNR-R (Ret) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: John Snyder Subject: Re: ICM Hood/Essex >> I noticed that Hobbyland had the ICM Hood and USS Essex back in their "future release" preorder section. Has anyone else heard anything about them getting closer to release or are they just teasing us again? << Doug, Keep in mind that ad copy (assuming you saw this in an ad) has to be placed 3 to 4 months in advance, so what you read was written that long ago. Beyond that, there is NO indication that ICM is any closer to releasing HOOD--much less ESSEX--than they were 2 years ago. Don't hold your breath, unless you look good in blue! Best, John Snyder White Ensign Models http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/white.ensign.models -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: JohnBassman1@cs.com Subject: Re: eagles many thanks for the quick response from Gary @ Kurt I for 1 am a believer in rosters on tugs I put one on my model of seguin years ago as a joke only to find out later the real boat had one [book On The Hawser p.11] got the roster at a swap meet. thanks again for your help, sincerly John McFarlane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "Robert Healy" Subject: Russian Deck Red To All, At the risk of getting the thread back on a serious note...:) Any suggestions for a color for a modern Russian/Soviet deck red? Been mixing some colors, but nothing seems right. I have a few color pics but the hues on each vary a bit. Any manufacturers out there have some in a bottle ready to go? I do not want my new Combrig Sverdlov to join my "reserve fleet" on the shelf. Regards, Bob Healy (Andmy1:350ArizonaboxsaysBanneronthebottom...:^) Hi Robert, Check out my Krivak II build article on the SMML site. I used Humbrol 100 (Matt red/brown) for the decks. Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: "Rod Dauteuil" Subject: Scams >> Jeff told us he was taken for 210 Pounds (about $320). So, for those of you who remember the old Hill Street Blues series: "Let's be careful out there." << Apparently this scam artist also remembers Hill Street Blues, but instead remembers the other Desk Sergeant's quote "Let's do it to them before they do it to us!" Rod -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: "Simon Wolff" Subject: Graf Spee Doco Hi Erwin >> Would that be the same documentary they showed on the German television some years back? I have it taped here somewhere, but never really had the chance to view it properly, might have to do that one of these days. << It may well (in other words I don't really know) be the same documentary as shown here in Australia, if it is make sure "one of these days" is sooner than later.. it does get a bit laden with a bit of the 'Indiana Jones' syndrome but is still well worth the watching. regards Simon Wolff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: "Rod Millard" Subject: Re: Enjoying the hobby I have to agree with Mike's statement. I remember in the 50's setting on my grandparents porch putting a Revell Arizona together and I thought it was a master piece. After about a thirty year absents I got restarted and I still like what I made. Sure I find thinks I could have done better but I still have a model good enough for me. I know there builders who look at very little detail, and say this part should be 10mm further up the deck. But to me and 98 % of the people that look at it think its fine. Thats why every other ship I do is straight from the box to bring back that old enjoyment. Rod Millard -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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