Subject: SMML VOL 1834 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 13:00:02 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: ships plans rating system 2: Sankeikan mystery 3: Re: Japanese Destroyers 4: Re: Allen, DD-66, & 16mm film duplication 5: Re: metric etc holes 6: Re: Rating Ship Plans 7: Re: metric,imperial etc 8: Re: 16MM film 9: Re: Floating Dry Dock 10: Re: Plans for sale 11: Re: Plan Rating...looong rant 12: Re: Japanese Destroyers 13: Norfolk Virginia Harbor Tours: Current Photographic Access..Public Access Tours 14: Re: Metric, Imperial, Etc 15: Re: Plan accuracy 16: Re: Japanese Destroyers 17: Commissioning 18: British Corvettes and US Gunboats ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Shirley Sachsen Subject: ships plans rating system the idea of a plan rating system is interesting and something which I would certainly support. what I would like to add to the mix is 'completeness'. exterior profiles and details are well and good--if one only wishes to model or identify photographs. for the historian and ship's architecture student, interior deck arrangements and compartments are equally important. what I look for in a plan set is INTERIOR details--and the quality of the copy: is the printing clear and readable? as a student of the Essex class, and having had the privilege of running around below decks in one, nothing is more frustrating than not having a set of plans--especially when researching the evolution of spaces and their use over the service life of a vessel. in my limited experience with the 'Booklet of General Plans', there are usually 16 or 17 sheets to a set for a carrier. what I look for in a plan set is a complete set of all the sheets--not just the outboard profile and weather decks. what was equally interesting and frustrating was seeing how one Essex class to another varied in interior detail. the bulkheads might be the same, but the compartment was used differently. a set for, say, Intrepid, has some similarities to Hornet, but is different enough to not be actually usable. so, in addition to completeness, and accuracy of detail, quantity is important. the more plan sets available within a class of ships, the more comparisons can be made, and more of an appreciation of the versatility and adaptability of a class. in Jane's and Conway's a ship may be listed with a class, may look like a rubber stamp of her sisters, but rarely is she in fact. I second the kudos given to Floating Drydock. so far, nowhere else have I found plan sets that include interior decks, nor have I found anyone so accommodating to requests. and the variety of available plans is staggering. when I'm looking for a plan set, I don't start with NARA or museums, I start with Floating Dry Dock. shirley ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Sankeikan mystery After a triple heart bypass my computer desided to work again, so after about 3 weeks of terrible withdrawal pains I am back on line!!! The new Seals Models Itsukushima/Hashidate is a great release. The only problems I have discovered so far are the indentations in the ship sides (just in front of the aft 120mm gun port) which IMO are caused by placing ejection pin there and the inaccurate depiction of the main deck guns positions. I do however wonder as to why did Seals Models choose the after 1901/02 appearance for those ships. Those three ships were build primarily to counter the Chinese Chen Yuen/Ting Yuen pair and (IMO) how those ships appeared at the time of Yalu River battle would have been much more appropriate. Althrough all sankeikans took part in Russo-Japanese war it was as an escort and support vessels only, also there is the fact that the conversion from the earlier to the later version would have been much easier than the other way round. Regards D.Przezdziecki ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: JFR1945@aol.com Subject: Re: Japanese Destroyers >> I am going to be moving to Japan soon..... Let me know what you think << Hi Chris, I would vote for a good design history of the IJN DDs, which would address mission and design goals, and the design compromises that resulted. Then, how the designs succeeded in wartime, both operationally and in terms of damage absorption and survival. I do not think you need to go to "Anatomy of a Ship" level of detail (though that would be nice), because there are many Japanese sources for photos and drawing, even if one cannot read the text. John Reeder ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Phil Stewart Subject: Re: Allen, DD-66, & 16mm film duplication Michael Donegan (Michael Donegan NAVYDAZE Naval & Aviation Artist http://www.navydaze.com) asks: >> does anyone know if it is possible to make prints off of 16mm movie film? << 1. Yes! (but see below) 2. I haven't looked into the cost (need to do the same for super 8's, myself) 3. There should be film restoration and duplication services advertised. May be specialized and expensive, though. >> the film is deteriorating quickly << 4. I recommend researching film restoration a little for yourself, before selecting someone to duplicate it, if you really care about the film. An overworked third-shift photo lab worker can be the best employee on earth and make that one slip-up of his week with *your* film. 5. Where to do research? The Library of Congress The National Film Preservation Board has information on film restoration. If it isn't sufficient, the LOC has its own experts on preservation who may be of help. The Smithsonian Institution of course also has great expertise in preservation and restoration, so may be of help. >> I do know about the 16mm to VHS and may go that route << 6. No no no no no! Don't (just) do that!!!! (sorry for the stridency here) 1st: Video quality is very inferior to 16mm! (so it's not good for preservation) 2nd: VHS is the worst video! (use *at least* S-VHS for your master copy, maybe with simultaneous duplication to VHS so you can watch it frequently) 3rd: I recommend digital video (DV tape or computerized video) for quality of reproduction. DV (short for Digital Video) cameras have *very markedly* superior reproduction quality to VHS; using a DV camera to do your reproduction would be good, in my opinion. From there, a move to computer would be desirable, for the diversity of storage media and ease of duplication from there (and thus greater survivability). A high-end (near-broadcast quality or broadcast quality) NTSC (e.g.) video digitizer (full-motion video capture) on a computer would be okay (costs about $1000 for the hardware-- a PCI card for IBM PC compatible, or a FireWire NTSC digitizer for Mac). Okay, there goes (typing from the hip, so to speak). I hope it's of use! Phil Stewart http://www.gwi.net/~pstewart ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Richard Wootten Subject: Re: metric etc holes Ah now. Holes is different. They are measured by taking the inside diameter of the wall measured in inches or thous thereof from the outside diameter measured by eye, subtracting swarf, grease and any adherent bubble gum, weighed and then condensed. The condensed holes are packed with the tube and will be found to have inserted themselves when the tube is unpacked. Any missing or substandard holes are replaced under guarantee. richard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Re: Rating Ship Plans >> Cyp's proposal for a plan rating system raises interesting points. Ship's plans should be evaluated by placing accuracy above all else. Details of fittings on-deck and under the waterline are certainly vital. But fine detail rendering is useless if its placement on the drawing does not conform to prototype accuracy. It does no good to say a ship's drawing has excellent weapons detail, for instance, if those weapons are not correct for the ship on the date specified. I'd much prefer a system whereby the drawing is rated by accuracy in form, detail and date rather than giving a plan an "A++" because the draftsman festooned the rendition with things. Given a choice, I will always spend my money on an accurate and well researched plan (backed up by photos) even though 'more detailed,' but inaccurate renderings may be available. << These are all very good points. When I set out to build something, I buy **ALL** the plans corresponding to that subject. I do this because I have found that no one plan set is perfect. Use all available information! I look for plans of the ship. Plans of the weapons. Plans of the fittings. There may well be many sources of information available. On the other hand, there may by only one, or even just part of one available. Still try to get as much as possible. That's my rule of thumb. Steve Wiper ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Re: metric,imperial etc >> Not so long ago I was involved in the manufacture of steel tube. We bought steel ingots for deutche marks in metric tonnes, manufactured them in imperial feet and inches, priced the tube by the American Ton converted by formula from the imperial dimensions but paid for the shipping by Imperial ton weight. Prices were in whatever the currency of the buyer happened to be, or dollars or sterling, and we paid our taxes in sterling calculated at a weighted average of the achieved selling prices. We didn't make a lot of money on exports but it kept a lot of people happy doing the figures. << Thinking about the Euro now are we? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Re: 16MM film >> How about converting to VHS and then using a computer with a video card that has video capture. The long way around, but I have seen the cards listed as able to freeze an image from the tv and let you print it. << You are creating multiple generations and that will degrade the quality of the image. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Re: Floating Dry Dock >> There are, however, some questions I'd be interested in hearing your views on. How would you go about deciding on a definitive standard? Would there be a specific set of criteria that plans had to fulfill? Would the standard be applied to the plan creator, or each plan separately? As there is an artistic element to plan creation, would the standards be viewed as subjective? I'm not trying to put up barriers, just curious. << I think this may turn out to be impossible. You can have a set of plans that look very detailed and have clean lines, but turn out to be horribly inaccurate. I have quite a few set s of drawings of USN vessels that are copies of original blue prints and many have inaccuracies. How is one to know a particular set of drawings is inaccurate? You have to compare them with photos. Grading them would be a monumental task. You learn which draftsmen are better than others. As with my own products, you get better with age and practice. So, some draftsmen get better as the years go by. For US Navy, I have always liked the drawings by Tom Walkowiak of The Floating Drydock. His early drawings are good. I prefer them to copies of original blue prints. His latest drawings are amongst the best in the world. This is due to a few things. He has improved his skills and knowledge and also the advancements in technology (computers) have made the work vastly superior. This is a good example. I have a collection of about 300 sets of drawings of different ships. The quality is all over the map! Some are OK at best, but that was all that is available on the subject. Some are fantastic. Some I have multiple sets by different draftsmen on the same subject. I would say that if you are look for a specific set of drawings and wish to know the quality, then ask a message board such as this. Make sure to ask as many message boards as possible. That is very important. Example: I just saved about $2000 on refinancing my home because I asked many sources! This is true for anything. Especially resin kits! Oh Boy! Steve Wiper ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Re: Plans for sale >> German light cruiser SMS EMDEN (L 1908 C 1909), scale 1:100. 4 sheets. $20.00 << This is a perfect example of what I sent as the previous message about plan sets and their accuracy. Mike I am sorry to use this as my example, but in the interest of accuracy, I feel I must. The above set of plans I purchased many years ago. They looked good and detailed, but I knew a little about the Emden and having spotted a couple of things I questioned, I continued to check photos and soon found many mistakes. Major mistakes. Then a German named Huff put out a wonderful book and the absolutely best set of plans ever done on the Emden. They match the photos in every aspect. Upon comparing the two sets of plans, I destroyed the earlier set (those list above) so as not to use them. They really were that inaccurate. Both the Huff book and plans on the Emden are available thru www.christian-schmidt.com Steve Wiper ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Re: Plan Rating...looong rant >> Trying to rate anything given the above range of possible errors is clearly a waste of time. So...what to do? My only advice is to check everything you can against everything you can practically find out about your subject. Research and gather material for as long as you can...but set a deadline or it becomes an end in itself. Then accept that there will be flaws in the data... and thus the drawings...and thus the model...and get on with it! The best 'rating' is the one you set for yourself. << I could not agree more! Steve Wiper ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: SteveWiper@aol.com Subject: Re: Japanese Destroyers >> I am going to be moving to Japan soon and as such will be in a position to research a second book which will deal with Japanese destroyers. My publisher is keen on the idea but I have not yet decided which approach I would take and am interested in seeking peoples opinions on the subject as to which they would be most interested in. I can either do:- A Wells and Lacroix approach and cover all classes of destroyer. This would probably cover several volumes and take a long time. The eventual series would probably cost a lot as well. or select a particular class and cover it in depth as per The Kellys. With this approach classes under consideration would be the Fubuki, Shiratsuyu, Kagero and Akitzuki. Let me know what you think << I would suggest you do a hard bound volume on each class of WWII Japanese destroyers. After all, they do have to sell, RIGHT? By doing a volume on each class, we (the customers) can purchase them at an affordable rate. Example: I chose to do my line of books they way I did(do) for two main reasons; 1) Softbound to keep my cost down and keep the retail price affordable 2) Try to do one ship, or one class of ship per volume to have better coverage. I am doing it right because I sold 16,000 books in 2001. By you doing them in hardbound, you can continue to have Conway/Naval Institute publish them for you. Free advice and suggestions, Steve Wiper ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: stillmo@mb.sympatico.ca Subject: Norfolk Virginia Harbor Tours: Current Photographic Access..Public Access Tours >> Dear Mr. Bean, I have received your email and have made some inquiries about security concerns on your behalf. What I have been informed by the authorities is as follows; public access to our naval fleet by average photographic/video means is not illegal, and is welcome. It shall be permitted on our tours. Any photographic/video activity with "more than average equipment or interest" shall be brought to the attention of the authorities out of public awareness and public security. It has been suggested to me to inform you to contact the Navy Public Affairs Office with your intentions and references. This professional courtesy may be advisable to prevent any potential embarrassments due to "unknown intentions" that may be reported during or after the fact. As you should already be aware, this is a concern for every citizen of any country under these modern threats to a free society and I hope that you understand our concerns and that some discretion is warranted. We welcome your business and would like to assist you in any way that we can. If you would like to contact us before your visit to make us aware of your identification and credentials, we should be able to make your visit as smooth as possible. I thank you for your understanding in this matter. Thank you for choosing the Carrie B! Patrick Close Manager, Harbor Tours, Inc 757-393-4735 << ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Re: Metric, Imperial, Etc >> when you folks in the UK make tube, do you buy the holes, then tightly wrap the steel around them, or do you push the hole out the end after the steel cools? Inquiring minds want to know. << Actually I understand that in Scotland, being comprised of more frugal folk, they wrap the steel around the hole, but than when the tube is formed, extract the hole for reuse in making another tube. Regards, Bradford Chaucer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject: Re: Plan accuracy Accuracy, no matter what the application, should be a major parameter in modeling. Standards should be set, and people should be encouraged to make the effort to achieve them as best they can. "A man's reach should exceed his grasp". In my case, I began my W W 1 110 Ft. subchaser model in 1934 (as a high school sophomore) with a good drawing (only) that in retrospect seems to have been made from a pre-war concept drawing, It is very competently drafted and was made to be included in a high quality kit distributed by an ancester of today's Bluejacket Shipcrafters in Maine. I never got beyond making the hull (under supervision of a great shop teacher, a stickler for detail, I might add) , and the project got shelved. But about three years ago I resurrected it, and being far less knowledgeable and sophisticated than I was as a teen-ager, I began to research this vessel, and with an excellent contact person in Washington, D.C., obtained a wealth of official Navy drawings, containing a paradise (for me) of detail. But I also found that there were 440 of these vessels built in 1917 and 1918, in some forty independent small boatyards on all four coasts, and from what I have gathered, no two boats were alike. This was especially so after they were updated, upgraded, and retrofitted. Literature has suggested that individual builders were allowed to incorporate their local skills, talents, and procedures to some extent. Anything (within reason) to expedite delivery. A large collection of pertinent W W 1 photos bears this out. The penultimate bottom line is that it is a daunting task to create a drawing, or a model, that is indeed 100% accurate for any given one of the 440 Chasers. I compromised by "loading" my model with every "correct" detail I could find, such that it is not so much a representation of any specific boat as much as it an example of what might be found on any boat in that class. The ultimate bottom line is that it may be well nigh impossible to create a perfect drawing of a specific ship of a certain class, especially when many ship builder yards are involved, but at least some effort should be made to so do, even if it is prudent to state conditions (such as "Circa 1918", etc.). Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: Dboykap@aol.com Subject: Re: Japanese Destroyers >> I am going to be moving to Japan soon and as such will be in a position to research a second book which will deal with Japanese destroyers. My publisher is keen on the idea but I have not yet decided which approach I would take and am interested in seeking peoples opinions on the subject as to which they would be most interested in. I can either do:- A Wells and Lacroix approach and cover all classes of destroyer. This would probably cover several volumes and take a long time. The eventual series would probably cost a lot as well. or select a particular class and cover it in depth as per The Kellys. With this approach classes under consideration would be the Fubuki, Shiratsuyu, Kagero and Akitzuki. << Chris: I traded emails with Jon Parshall (he of www.combinedfleet/nihon kaigun.com fame) several months back on an unrelated topic and he mentioned that Wells and Lacroix may be working on a Japanese DD book. Of course, no idea when and if such a release is planned. That said, I would welcome (and buy :-) something of that nature or something in depth on any of the DD classes you mentioned. Dan Kaplan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: Doug Wilde Subject: Commissioning Oh Great Knowledgeable Ones, Is there a difference between a ship being placed in commission and "full commission"? While researching "my" training vessels, popular press references list commissioned as one date and I've found a naval message from the CO stating the ship was "...place in full commission..." on a different date. Thanks. Doug Wilde ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: wmcgraham@netscape.net Subject: British Corvettes and US Gunboats This requests help from Flower class Corvette experts. I am hoping to construct the British built USS Courage (PG 70) from the Revell-Germany 1:72 Flower Class Corvette kit. Preliminary research suggests that the USN version of this Harland and Wolff built corvette had different armament (for example a USN 3"50 mounted aft; no forward gunshield on the 4"), possibly a different tripod-style mast, perhaps basic USN gray paint... Unfortunately, Navsource photo archives have no photos of Courage... I was hoping that someone in this global network could point me in the right direction to complete my research and come up with a reasonable representation of this British-built US warship. Thanks Bill Graham ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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