Subject: SMML VOL 1640 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:22:36 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Thanks for Book recommendation 2: Scary! 3: Re: Indiana Jones and DAS BOOT 4: Re: Partial review of Invincible 5: Re: Partial review again 6: Model Reviews 7: Reserve Retirement at 55 8: Re: Indiana Jones 9: Did I see right? 10: Re: HMS Glamorgan 11: Indiana Jones 12: naval news 13: Yemen 14: King George V 15: Hudson river Day Line -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Online Ship Contest from Roll Models -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Fernando, Yohan" Subject: Thanks for Book recommendation Just want to say thanks to everyone's book recommendations. I found a copy of Roger Chesneau's "Aircraft Carriers of the World, 1914 to the Present, An Illustrated Encyclopedia" for $22 on Amazon.com and it should be in the mail shortly! Yohan Fernando -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Mike Leonard" Subject: Scary! Further evidence that the world is going to hell in a hurry? http://www.persnet.navy.mil/pers8/pers-80/pers-80b.htm Mike Alexandria, VA USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Mike Potter Subject: Re: Indiana Jones and DAS BOOT Years ago I read that the film crew for RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK happened to encounter the film crew who were producing DAS BOOT. The same U-boat appears in both movies. Evidently the U-boat scene was an impromptu addition to the Indiana Jones movie. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Marsh Edwin Subject: Re: Partial review of Invincible Hello everybody, I would like to address a few things that "D.P." replied to in his post. He stated that this "review" of the pictures on this website that he wrote is based on a very comprehensive set of photographs. Having looked at these photographs, and having read his original "review" on Steel Navy, this "review" also has errors. In his original "review" of the photographs, he did not identify the incorrect shelving, he stated that the bow plating was missing, and that the casemates were incorrect. As I compared the photos to the drawings he specifically referenced, the plating on the bow is correctly applied, and there is no example of what the casemates look like, yet no attempt has been made to correct or withdraw these statement. Rather, all that has been done by him is to replace them with other charges that are more easily defensible. As for my sophistry, he is correct. My point was to simply show absurdity by being absurd. I view this "review" on SMML as absurd, since by his own admission, he does not have this kit. Furthermore, I ask this question. Why, since "D.P." does not have this kit, why is he being so strident in condemning this kit? Is it because these faults are so egregious that he is unable to live with himself, or does he have other motives? Now, due to the way in which his SMML "review" was posted only after he was criticized on Steel Navy for his "review" there, and because there were points added and dropped from one review to the next, I question the motives of his "review" on SMML. An example of this is that he discovered during his second probe of the kit that the shelving was drawn incorrectly on the plans, and was replicated according to those plans on the kit. This was determined by an assessment of photographic evidence. "D.P." states this fault, and he's very magnanimous in his forgiving of this fault. Why has he not shown the same toward this kit? He has used this fault that can be directly derived from these plans as point of his argument against this kit, but seems to lay blame on the kit rather than the plans. This is another point that leads toward a questioning of motives for the second "review". Further, not having the kit, and relying on another person's photos for assessment is second hand information. Unless you possess the actual subject, you truly cannot give a completely accurate assessment of it. This is shown by his dropping of the incorrect casemate charge in the second "review". It can be shown that some of "D.P."'s original charges are unwarranted, due to either improper assessment of these photos or lack of any information, and their dropping from the second "review". This shows that "D.P." was unable to fully assess the kit, and so the indefensible charges were dropped, and new ones added. As to the cause of his adamancy, or what that agenda is, only "D.P." can explain that. I question his agenda because of the forums in which he made his points, the manner in which he makes his points, and the timing and differences of his "reviews". I question the fact that he preferred to address this situation in public rather than in private. I do not question his actual points, since they are probably valid, but why is "D.P." trying so hard to make everyone aware of them? Of course this is due to his motives and agenda, but these have yet to be fully explained. Since this is the case, and his seeming unwillingness to explain them, one can only make assumptions. However, if they were to be publically aired, as widely and completely as his views of this kit have been, there would be no questions as to why he has proceeded in the way he has. This is my position. This "review" is flawed, and should not have been made public. It is inconsistent with prior "reviews" by the same person of the same photos of the same kit part, and seems to be a public search for a reason to condemn rather than an assessment of its qualities, both good and bad. No attempt has been made on either forum to address incorrect assessments of research, but rather they have been replaced with newly discovered faults. No mention of anything that could be determined to be correct is made, just the negative parts, and even these change. This kit, like any other, is flawed from what I can see, but the "review" of this kit, in it's multiple forms, is just as, if not more, flawed. The meandering, inconsistent, and wholly negative content of this "review" is what I am concerned with, as well as the shooting gallery mentality that seems to be its only motivating quality. Edwin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Re: Partial review again Gentlemen from AAA Hobbys write: >> Reviewing a prodcut when you lack the product to review (first hand knowledge) is unethical and unprofessional. And it lends itself very easily to the charges made. I had tried to ignore this "review" but you seem to not get the criticism aimed at you. Where are your references concerning the errors. If I could see you pics/plans and the kit pics, maybe I could come up with an opposite opinion of yours. But without having the kit to actually look at I would not make a fool of myself by decrying the errors when I cannot see them for myself! << I am sorry to say that you apparently didn't read my first post carefully enough. The photos of Invincible's hull clearly described as 1/350 scale ISW kit can be seen on Steel Navy.com site. If you click on "What's New" button and scroll down to March 31st entries you will be abble to see the photos of the hull just under the article about Combrig's releases. Of course that review based on something that only I have seen would be unethical and unprofessional but the photos in question are there for all to be seen and examined. You also didn't apparently notice references included at the bottom of my original post. So if you want to voice an opinion please look at the photos, compare it with references and than I challenge you to disproove my opinion that: a -shape of the stern is wrong, b -planking on the superstructure decks shouldn't be there, c -banks of hatches described in my first post are in a reversed position. My opinion that Roberts (and following him ISW) was wrong in depicting the net shelving is more difficult to prove without seeing my reference photo but I have taken a liberty of forewarding it to Shane who should be able to say if I am right or wrong on this particular matter. Regards D.Przezdziecki Hi all, Yes, I have the photo and will endeavour to compare it with the photos for the next SMML. As for this whole thread, some comments if I may: IIRC. when DP first posted this "partial" review to the Steel Navy board, he got a postive response from Steve Backer and it was only later that controversy erupted in another thread. Since there is at the moment no way of confirming this, I'm relying on memory. I have no real hassles with DP's "partial" review based on pre-release photos, since he was up front in saying what he was basing his "partial review" on. I can't comment on the review itself, except to say that as the disclaimer was made, it becomes up to the reader to make their own judgment. Now, while I would not review a kit based on photos alone, if a manufacturer releases photos of an upcoming kit in this manner, they are inviting comment either positive or negative. Finally, just because something is posted on another forum, does not preclude it being posted here. If a post is unwarranted, people will make up their own minds about it. I'm not about to delete posts, because they've been aired somewhere else regardless of what it is - provided they meet the guidelines for posting on SMML (see the SMML website for guidelines), they'll be posted here. Regards, Shane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: nd.ward@virgin.net Subject: Model Reviews I must say, I am surprised at a review being written without the actual model to hand. With careful selection of photographs it could be totally misleading. As for accuracy, I would say that the overall appearance or 'feel' could be easily be commented on, but construction? no way! I don't want to resort to personal mudslinging the way some SMMLies do, opinions are just opinions, and offence at remarks stated or implied both ways are a waste of everbodies time. Please people,- think before posting 'flames', and let the matter drop...it has very little to do with our interest or hobby. Remember 'one man's meat is another man's poison' Dave Ward -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Dain Webster" Subject: Reserve Retirement at 55 I'm sure a number of you are or were military reservists, some like me retired and awaiting the check at age 60. If so, there is a bill in congress to lower the retired age to 55. It's H.R. 3831 and I'm sure it will need broad support to pass through both houses and the president. Also . . does anyone have a good source for 1/72nd IJN figures? Thanks (:D -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: JohnVCP@aol.com Subject: Re: Indiana Jones Here are some possible answers: Whenever someone was on deck Indy went over the side and hung on to the propeller guards? Or, he found an exterior deck hatch (for storage of the inflatable boat) and hid there? Or, he just swam along side? Or, he hid in a torpedo tube; which the CO left open for this purpose? Or, would you believe that he sneaked aboard and hid in the spud locker? What about the plane suspended below the zeppelin? Where did that come from as it was never seen there before? Or the transatlantic flight in a DC3? Or the notoriously unstable Ford Tri-motor flying all by itself while Indy was asleep and/or getting ready to abandon the plane? Why was this plane carrying an inflatable life raft when it flew over the interior of China? Will this thread ever end? John Heasel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "Poutre, Joseph A" Subject: Did I see right? Some foggy part of my brain tells me that I recently saw something about a 1/350 Independence class CVL. Did I really see that, or am I just fantasizing? Thanks either way, Joe Poutre -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: annobon4@aol.com Subject: Re: HMS Glamorgan Hi Mike Does the statement "deck letters deleted" mean that the Glamorgan had the helo pad letters painted out or that the copter previously used the same letters to indentify it were painted out. Thanks for describing the helicopter's markings. Craig -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: Christopher Crofoot Subject: Indiana Jones I know there are holes in this movie... but so did George Lucas, the director. There is a simple reason for that. Lucas took a lot of inspiration from the serial movies that were put out in the 30's. Hence Star Wars began with episode IV. Lucas made no attempt to cover the plot holes in the movie in the same way that the directors glossed over things in the 30's. The movie was more about the larger than life adventures, not the inexplicable abilities of a character to hang on to a submerged Uboat. The reason it's a success is that the storyline was interesting enough for most people (rivet counters excepted) to really not care that there's no way he could have done it. Hollywood indeed, if they put out more movies like IJ, I wouldn't have to suffer through all these "sensetive movies" my wife likes! Chris -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "Andrew Jones" Subject: naval news US navy rejects 1/2 built cruise ships.. The US Navy has no interest in 2 passenger cruise ships that were built by Northrop Grumman corp for a now bankrupt customer, the chief of naval operations told lawmakers on Tuesday. Adm Clark said the navy had reached the decision after it engineers examined one 1/2 built cruise ship that Northrop was building at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, shipyard for bankrupt riverboat operator American Classic voyages co. Northrop had asked the navy to consider possible military uses --such as floating hospitals or command centres -- for the 1,900 ton passenger cruise ship and as a second one for which Northrop as already ordered parts. Adm Clark stated that was they were not suitable for the kind of platforms that we need & we are not interested he told a committee. American classic had planned to buy 2 ships at a price of 4440 million each, instead filed for bankruptcy last October, citing effects from the Sept 11 attacks. Malaysia agrees to buy French submarines..Malaysia has agreed to order 3 French submarines to a Malaysian company which is representing French warship builder DCN international. The Malaysian company has 3 months to work out terms of the contract. Apart from DCN, Germany's Howaldtserke_deutsche werft, Dutch RDM submarine & a Russian company were also believed to be bidding for the contract. The French are willing to train the Malaysians if the bought French subs. The French aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle, will visit Malaysia in May & will play host to key Malaysian navy personnel. The Subs offered to the Malaysians are the medium sized Scorpene SSK class. The deal under negotiations involves 2 Scorpene & an overhauled Agosta 70 sub. In return the French is considering a deal involving Malaysian Airlines. A sub base is being built at Teluk Sepanggar in the east Malaysian state of Sabah on Borneo Island. Malaysia has been considering subs for nearly a decade & are trying to match Singapore's submarine capability -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Mike Leonard" Subject: Yemen US Navy Ships to Return to Yemen: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17610-2002Apr9.html MWL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Karl Young Subject: King George V Hi guys, I have only been a list member for a few months, and hate to bring up a subject that has probably been talked about or discussed many times before, so please reply to me off-line. Basically I am returning to modeling after 25 years (I am 42) and would really appreciate any information or advice on the Tamiya 1/350 KGV kit. I have chosen to use WEM's photo-etch set and am ready to start the build but I'm not sure about colour/camouflage and the accuracy or omissions in the kit. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks and regards, Karl Young (Ex-Shipbuilding piping and mechanical draughtsman.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: MARDOT237@aol.com Subject: Hudson river Day Line OK guys Here a tough one: My names Marty (from Brooklyn) and you guys have been helpful before. I'm not really a ship model builder but I am a ship model and ship history fan. New York used to have a steamship company called the Hudson River Day Line and here are a few ships i would luv to find out if models exist for purchase (i doubt they ever made it to kits). I know one exist at the Smithsonian but I'm guessing its not for sale or WAY out of the price range. The Vessels we were stream river boats, mostly sidewheel and the names of the vessels I would luv to get are as follows: Alexander Hamilton (i actually rode on this one as a kid), Peter Stuyvesant, Hendrick Hudson, Washington Irving, Robert Fulton, Albany, New York, Dewitt Clinton (no relation to Bill), Chauncey Vibbard, Daniel Drew, Mary Powell. It's a total shot in the dark a nd I could never afford to buy all even if they existed (Im still saving for the Arizona and MIssouri) but I wonder if they even exist. Im looking for very small scale; there's not alot of room here. I am also interested in the same for the ironclad Monitor, built in Brooklyn, of course. I really appreciate it; you have been helpful with the Broooklyn Brdige, Arizona and Missouri before. Maybe when I finsih my house, I'll actually find time to take up ship model building again! THANKS Marty -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Brent Theobald Subject: Online Ship Contest from Roll Models Howdy! Roll Models is hosting an Online Ship Contest this week. The prize is a model of the USS Decatur DD-341 in 1/350 from Iron Shipwrights - Commander Series. I've posted a quick-look review of the model at: http://www.rollmodels.net/reviews/quick-looks/ships/350th/dd-341/dd-341.php The contest page itself is here (although there isn't much to see yet): http://www.rollmodels.net/contest/dd-341/decatur.php To enter please send me up to 9 pictures of one of your models. I would really appreciate it if you would keep the image size down to 640 pixels wide and 72dpi resolution. When you enter please include your full name and mailing address. This is so I can mail your kit to you if you win. You aren't going to receive any junk mail from us. Be sure you mail everything to me at: brent@rollmodels.com I will accept entries through Thursday night. We can start voting on Friday thru Sunday. I'll announce the winner on the following Monday. Sound like fun? Please come check out the Roll Models online catalog: http://www.rollmodels.com Thank you very much! Brent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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