Subject: SMML VOL 1880 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:37:09 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Weathering 2: Re: The Joys of Rust 3: Argonaute diving time 4: Re: Modeling Tips (pizza boxes) 5: Re: Weathering, et al 6: Re: weathering and scale ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: NAVYDAZE@aol.com Subject: Re: Weathering My last comment on the subject. One class of ships (boats) we left out was subs. With the exception of today's new coatings, all subs prior to that had various levels of weathering. I remember seeing a photo of a "Guppy" that had stayed on the bottom so long that she had barnacles on the sides and main deck. As far as World War II, I have talked to ex-submariners that said when they returned to the states they not only were rusted but most of the paint had been knocked off by the wave/water action and the color underneath as well as the primer was showing, very visibly in many cases at any scale. Michael Donegan NAVYDAZE Naval & Aviation Artist http://www.navydaze.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Joel Labow Subject: Re: The Joys of Rust >> having been in and around the navy my entire life, I could not disagree more. Yes, they might have a stroke, but we'd be the ones set to stroking and chipping! Exactly why when I enlisted I chose an air rating!! I was visiting AirLant a few years back (95?), and ENTERPRISE had just returned that morning from a post-yard 6 day at-sea training evolution. The hull had light rust streaking from every imaginable spot where there was a joint or opening. True, the areas that could easily be reached were nearly spotless. The same week, I visited GUNSTON HALL which had been in port for four weeks (i.e., plenty of time to paint) post deployment and the thing was a rust bucket! The outside had a good amount of rust streaking but the well deck was almost as much red rust as it was grey. I guess they let everybody go home before they started putting her back together. The CPO who was showing me around had said she was due to enter the yard (which could be why she was looking so bad) and was going to be a test victim of a new type of paint that could withstand salt spray much better than the good old grey lead, and I understand the Navy has adopted new paints that mean the swabbies get to do less chipping and painting. << I should have mentioned that my comments were based on service in DDs and DEs. Partly because their size made them more manageable and partly because their crews took more pride in them they tended to be better maintained than 'bird farms' and 'gator freighters.' Also, home port makes a difference...it's easier to keep up topside maintenance in West Coast and Florida homeports where the weather is nice all year round than it was in Newport, RI (BRRR!) or Norfolk, VA. It's true that the Navy is looking for ways to reduce crew size, since over the lifetime of a ship the biggest single expense is the cost of the crew. Coming up with more durable paints certainly makes sense. 'Deck apes' everywhere will applaud...just as they cheered when the Navy did away with NSFO (Navy Standard Fuel Oil...the black oil which fouled many a ship's side during UNREPs) and substituted distillate fuel. Joel Labow ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "L'Arsenal" Subject: Argonaute diving time Hello, About these very early submarines, it was written that it took from 6 minutes up to 15 minutes for l'Argonaute to dive depending on the sea. Quite a long time when compared to the WWII subs and after! Best regards from Normandie, Jacques Druel L'Arsenal ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: NEVENGER@aol.com Subject: Re: Modeling Tips (pizza boxes) Ok I am just catching up on my reading of my e-mail, and just had to commit on the idea of pizza boxes uses for modeling. I am sure they would make a great throw away base for air brushing. I have a habit of using cardboard for my work bench. Rich ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: "Kathy/Pirie Sublett" Subject: Re: Weathering, et al On the subject of weathering, I think I would want to use a photo of the specific ship I was modelling before I tried to weather it. We often discuss the need to determine how a ship appeared at a specific time before we start to model it, and I suggest this is even more the case with weathering. The structure of a ship alters with every refit, but its weathering alters with every voyage (or even with each day). In modelling armor you can generally assume there will be a collection of mud and dust which basically changes the color of the vehicle (20 years ago I built a lot of armor and looked at a lot of photos, so i am not completely ignorant of the subject), but you cannot make the same assumption about a ship.. I think I agree with those who would "weather" by graying the colors for distance - difficult enough - given the scales most of us model in. I have seen some very effectively weathered ships, but I must admit they were mostly in scales larger than 1/100th. Now, if anyone has bothered to read this far, I have a question. On page 5 of Steve Wiper's Warship Pictorial #6, is a photo of Omaha "shortly after commissioning". I have looked at this many times, but only today realized she is painted in white and buff (or, possibly, light gray and buff). Why on earth would the USN paint the name ship of its newest class in this archaic scheme? Some sort of historical celebration? If Wiper is in the neighborhood: is there anything on the original photo to explain this? Pirie Sublett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Ted0330@aol.com Subject: Re: weathering and scale I appreciate Don's comments, and completely agree we all can make our models any way we like. My only point is that, while technically interesting and challenging, weathering in (relativley) small scales is very svale unrealistic. 1:350 is about (sorry for my poor detail knowledge here) 30 feet per inch. Viewing a 1:350 model from 24 inches away is like being 700 feet out, and from 6 feet away like being 2000 feet away. At these distances, most of these details are not visible, or if they are, are not nearly as prominent as most weathering jobs make them. The comments about armor are instructive, since armor models are in a MUCH larger scale than ships. What would be readily apparent in looking at a tank in 1:24 would be invisible in 1:350. Each to their own........ Ted ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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