Subject: SMML VOL 1641 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:53:16 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Mississippi Shipping Company 2: Re: HMS Glamorgan 3: Re: Glamorgan 4: Prinze Eugen available in OZ 5: Say What??? 6: What is a 'Review' 7: Re: Partial review.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Ken Goldman" Subject: Mississippi Shipping Company If anyone out there has information on the Mississippi Shipping Company from the period of 1936 through 1942 please contact me off list. This figures in a book I am working on about the war history of one of their ships. Ken Goldman THE WALRUS AND THE CARPENTER unique wood sculpture and fine scale models www.walruscarpenter.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Mike Potter Subject: Re: HMS Glamorgan >> 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. << In peacetime the helicopter wore "GL/400". "Painted in RAF blue-gray overall with red-blue roundels; ROYAL NAVY titles and serials overpainted black; deck letters deleted. The code is believed to have been removed, but remained allocated (400)." It's possible that GLAMORGAN's deck letters painted out. A photo of her is in David Brown's THE ROYAL NAVY AND THE FALKLANDS WAR. She wore only "9" of her "D 19" pennant number. She was painted all-gray as seen from the side. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: chris rogers Subject: Re: Glamorgan HI Glamorgan was painted in 381c 676 Lt Weartherworks Grey (can be mixed at any dulux store) very similar to humbrol 127 but a bit greener suggest 1 drop from eye dropper in 127 to get 676, the decks where painted Dk admiralty grey BS381c 632 apart from planked section. yes her helo deck reconition letters were painted out but not the markings same as her pennant No's on her side's and stern where painted out not sure about her Helo Antrim had a wessex painted overall RAF Blue Grey (Xtra colour does this colour) and all markings where toned down ie only red and blue roundels no white all aircraft codes where black if she had a Lynx then either Lt aircraft gray with white codes, later or Royal Blue with white codes /bluegrey with black codes depending on time portrayed dont forget to cover hangar with a big tarp she coped an exocet there but it didnt explode chris Oz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Andrew Jones" Subject: Prinze Eugen available in OZ For those that are in Sydney OZ, Hobbyco has the Tamiya Prinze Eugen for $49.95.. They have about 8, well 7 when buy mine hopefully this week...hopefully -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: DaveRiley1@aol.com Subject: Say What??? Mike of Alexandria wrote in SMML Vol 1640: >> Further evidence that the world is going to hell in a hurry? ... << OK, it is the Naval Reserve Officer's Promotion Homepage. What is it you are trying to say? Dave Riley Portsmouth, RI -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Joel Labow Subject: What is a 'Review' Colleagues, I don't have enough knowledge of WWII RN practice to have an opinion on the fine details of this particular controversy, but to me the word "Review" connotes a discussion of a kit based on actual examination of the kit contents. The SteelNavy site uses the terminology 'In-the-box review' to describe a discussion based on inspection of an unassembled kit and 'Built-up review' to denote that the reviewer has assembled the kit in question...in both cases the reader knows exactly what he or she is getting. Discussions of kits based on photos or other secondhand and incomplete materials ought not in my opinion to be styled 'reviews'...'commentaries' maybe? Kit manufacturers invest a great deal of money, effort and energy into their products...we owe it to them not to generate something that purports to be a 'review' without having the actual product in hand to back up what we say. Joel Labow -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Re: Partial review.... Let me just answer couple of points from the last post by E.Marsh. He is either deliberately misleading or (lets be generous) he is quoting my first review from Steel Navy from memory only. Fact is that I have not once wrote anything about "bow plating" of the kit. The only "planting" mentioned was in connection with the shape of the kit's forward superstructure as shown in the photos. I was doubfull if the 4inch guns can be given proper "PLATED IN" look, not a word about bow planting. And I didn't drop this subject either, I am just waiting for separate resin parts and PE to be release and offer my opinion than. I would also want to point out that I have offered the close up photo of Invincible's bridge to ISW but got no reply. I am sure that now, when producers do know about its existence, they will be abble to obtain it from other sources. As to adding further errors as time progressed, there is nothing strange about it, simply I wasn't abble to see all the problem areas of the kit in a single glance. In fact I wasn't expecting to see any problems at all. And than I spotted first one, than second, than third and finaly I took out my file about Invincible and spotted the fourth problem -net shelving. Mr.Marsh seems to suggest that it somehow excuses kit producers that they have followed John Roberts's plans of the Invincible. Well not quite! It just means that they both have been equaly wrong. Let me also state once again that my first action was not to go public but to contact kit producers privately. I have decided to go public only when I have received a reply that kit's hull is in a production stage and no corrections are possible. And finally the question of my agenda, it is simple really. A lot of time, effort and expence went into making this kit of an unusual and very wecomed subject. With a little more effort put into research all the problems I have mentioned could have been avoided and than I would have no agenda at all, just paises and congratulations. On Steel Navy's MB I have also posted a question about a possibility of limited public testing of the resin kits and got lots of explanations why it is impractical, uneconomical, naive and impossible. Fine, kit producers are welcomed to produce their kits their way but I reserve for myself a right to criticise them if they will get it wrong. Reagrds D.P -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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