Subject: SMML VOL 2050 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 14:16:05 +1100 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Accuracy of ship plans 2: Carrier called Bush 3: Jules Verne Nautilus 4: Re: Eastern Express Ex-Fog Tiger 5: Re: Accuracy of Ships Plans 6: Re: Not everything the Navy launches flys! 7: Re: Not everything the Navy launches flys! 8: Re: Check this out 9: Last shot at first shots.... 10: Ship Plans 11: Re: First Shot in the Pacific War 12: Epithets (was First Shot in the Pacific War) 13: Re: ISW Brooklyn 14: Re: Accuracy of the condemnation of the ships plans 15: Re: Historical note re: 1st shot in WWII 16: Help with Ship Identification 17: New Carrier ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Information 1: MERRY CHRISTMAS! Nimitz project approved! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: Re: Frog kit of HMS TIGER, and WEM News 2: Heller 1/400 Admiral Hipper 3: Felix Bustelo's 1/600 reviews ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "F. Pletscher" Subject: Accuracy of ship plans D.Przezdziecki wrote: >> Now Jon, after all that, would you be kind enough to tell me what were your primary sources for ISW's "Brooklyn"??? Since main deck layout does not tally with the original builders drawings held in US National Archives and published in Warship vol.XVI I am kind of curious.... << That is a very good question. If he is right, and the ISW model differes from builders plans - which must not necessarily show the as-build fit - I would be curious too to know from which sources the kit was built. Falk Pletscher ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Pieter Cornelissen Subject: Carrier called Bush >> http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=267385 << As we're talking about sources all the time now, do you also have serious sources (ie reasonably intersubjective and without all the frustrated remarks about another president) for this information? Pieter Cornelissen Delft The Netherlands ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Robert P. Leonti" Subject: Jules Verne Nautilus To All, I have scanned an article on scratch building a 61" Jules Verne Nautilus. I will send it to anyone intertested. Contact me via E-mail. Capt. Bob Leonti r.leonti@worldnet.att.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Geoff Baker" Subject: Re: Eastern Express Ex-Fog Tiger Hi They are currently listed at Hannants.co.uk http://www.hannants.co.uk/cgi-bin/search.pl?Mode=view&Database=cat&R=EA40005 Or you could get the Airfix one in 1/600 scale which has just been released in a pack with HMS Daring Cheers Geoff ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: James Corley Subject: Re: Accuracy of Ships Plans >> Following the thread on accuracy of plans, I can say that builders plans can be suspect from the start. The 'planned' drawings can and will vary from the actual building. This could be because of production problems, or even the designers complete **** - up. << Lockheed Marietta is still using the 1953-era drawings to build C-130H aircraft. A good friend of mine is a team leader and he says that when the outsourced parts arrive they have to be modified to fit what is actually being built. Apparently, the management at LockMart doesn't see the benefit of having the engineers actually change the plans to keep them current. Must be cheaper to use the floor labor to rework the parts, thus eliminating any supposed "savings" made by outsourcing, than actually putting the engineers to work revising the plans. Maybe that is partly why military aircraft (the F-22 is $80M+ and built in the same factory!) are getting so expensive. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: James Corley Subject: Re: Not everything the Navy launches flys! >> Check this out! These guys must be getting pretty bored! << I suspect the guys on the discussion group are the bored ones. The photo is over 20 years old. Notice things like the hi-viz Viking, the lack of a BPDMS sponson. This photo appears in the 1976 cruise book of the Enterprise, IIRC. I'll have to remember to check when I get home. BTW, for the launching of a car; This usually happens while on work-ups after the catapult has been repaired and fine tuned, and the car used is a junker. I don't think the tradition survive the 90s, but I doubt it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: EDWARD GRUNE Subject: Re: Not everything the Navy launches flys! Hugh sent the link to a photo of an auto being launched off the port catapult stating "Check this out! These guys must be getting pretty bored!" My next-door neighbor was with VAW114 on the Kitty Hawk off Vietnam. In one of his cruise books he had a photo of the Hawk departing port with a 58 Buick on the blocks where the captains gig should have been. I asked him about it -- and he said that there was a lottery to see how far they could toss the thing. It was all scrupulously fair - the XO made sure that the cat-crew didn't tank the launch - and made sure that the "official" lottery proceedings went to the Morale & Welfare Fund. You can be sure that there were many side bets as to how far it would go -- and how many times it would skip! Ed Mansfield, TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Re: Check this out >> Check this out! These guys must be getting pretty bored! http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76059 << And if you look real close, you'll see Burt Reynolds behind the wheel :-) Regards, Bradford Chaucer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "Ralph Nardone" Subject: Last shot at first shots.... >> You can make a case that WWII European theater armed combat started in 1936 with the Spanish Civil War, with minimal interruptions between large military forces until 1945. If you want to get really snotty, you can point to Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in what 1931? << Even earlier still--how about Italy's invasion of Lybia in 1925? R ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Don Macdonald" Subject: Ship Plans Good moring From Portland. Graeme on your question of trying to fine a good plan service for ship plans, I can only tell ya from what I have done in the pass, OK Here is the ones I Use and both CO.s are good. There is George at WIndjamer plan service up in Bremertion Wash That has serve me well on what I have needed they try there best to help, I have been very please with them and they have a nice web sight on the web. Another good one to work with is Tom at Floating dry docks in Tenn, They are good as well, Like George at windjamer Tom trys his best to help. As well Tom also has a nice web sight on the web you may want to take some time to check out. I have also have been very please on how I have been treated in the pass. Not sure on whear you are but I use these to plan servise all of the time when I need some plans for a ship. Ok one more idea?? Well maybe ?and yes I have done this as well, A little more work and time. If you know how to scale up or down or have some one that can it for ya, Depending on whear you are and if you can fine it?? Go to a hobbie shop pick up the kit your looking for. if you can? Some kits will run a few $$$ so keep it in mind if you go this way . Then take out the instruction sheet, that come with the kit. Take then time to scale it up or down depending on what you want to do. that is somethimes the hard part . This idea dose not work all of the time but it is a long shot. and it work the time I needed it. for I wanted to do a ship that was not in the scale I needed So I had to do it the hard way.. This is the not the best way to do it but sometimes you have no Choice ;-)) iWell that is the best I can do for ya, I am sure there are other good Plan servce COs out there but the people I told ya about is the ones I use, This is from my own personal exprence . Good luck I hope I have help you and others. Don That Portland Rustbucket ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Graham Boak" Subject: Re: First Shot in the Pacific War Just to remind those who may have forgotten, that the invasion of Malaya, and the shooting down of an RAF Catalina observing the invasion fleet, took part before the attack on Pearl Harbour. The International Date Line has a lot to answer for. This action was part of an overall Japanese attack on the Western nations, and should not be held separate just because the US was not directly involved in that particular region. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: John Snyder Subject: Epithets (was First Shot in the Pacific War) Folks, This may not sit well with everyone, particularly any veterans of the Pacific War, but I have a lot of Japanese-American friends who would take great umbrage at the term "Japs." That was a term used during WW2 in referring to an enemy we detested. Let's leave it there. This is an international forum that includes a number of members from Japan, and I personally find the use of that term embarrassing. This is a SHIP MODELLING forum; let's all try to remember a bit of courtesy and consideration for every one else. End of lecture. Best regards to all, John Snyder ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: WRPRESSINC Subject: Re: ISW Brooklyn Could somebody give the date in time that the model represents, and then does the model match the builders plans for that time frame? A mention that "details in photographs overide details in builders drawings". This statement is only partly true. I have found that in many instances the vessel has been changed in terms of fittings and those changes have not been updated on the plans, BUT; the plans as dated are complete and accurate. An example is that of the Hood where the plans mention the fitting of an aircraft crane on the aft end of the aft deckhouse. This was in place for only a week or two and there appears to be no photos taken, but she was in fact so fitted. If you look at the area in question one can see that the platform for the eight barrelled pom pom is slightly offset from the centre line, this in order to accomodate the crane. If one went by photos one would think that the plans are inaccurate but they are not. Another example is that of the cruiser Jamaica. The "as fitted" plans are dated May 1942, which shows her as built, the next set of changes are dated 1948. There were many changes shown in photos that took place in between but none appear on the plans. But the plans are indeed accurate as dated. There are many other ships that this applies to. Researching, understanding and using builders plans is sometimes extremly difficult, but they are indeed the primary reference. Photos, although very importent most definately come second. When using commercial plans it helps to know who the artist was, people such as Lambert, Roberts, Ross, Baker can be relied upon because they use official material, unfotunately many plans are drawn by people who don't care, or don't know or both. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Re: Accuracy of the condemnation of the ships plans Ok Jon lets take it point by point. You wrote: >> Well, I guess Darius caught me, since he obviously looks at books and pamphlets as primary sources, even when it's stated that they're "author's drawings". I do believe I mentioned actual plans and photographs as being primary sources of information, but to each his own. << As I already said my sources were secondary and not primary but even builders drawings and photographs printed in a good quality books are enough to tell that Modelist Korablej's plans of ships I have mentioned in my original post are so inaccurate as to be useless. When all three Borodinos are drawn with the same hull or bits of superstructures are missing and a new, mysterious ones appear than it can't be just a question of badly reproduced builders drawings in secondary sources can it??? But please put your money where your mouth is: prove to me that even a single plan that I have criticised is accurate and that I am wrong in condemning it. I will retract and apologise. Jon writes: >> Most certainly. Let's start with the numerous photos available from the Naval Historical Center online. Then, we can also include "US Armored Cruisers" by Ivan Musicant, which has numerous well sources photographs as well as textual information which will clarify many of the design details. But of course I mentioned primary sources, which means plans. So, the plans used were builder's drawings from Brooklyn Navy Yard dated June 1897, another set corrected to 05 June 1905, and finally a third set of drawings from Union Iron Works, San Francisco, dates 01 July 1914, which bear a striking similarity to the single reference you mention? << Well Jon if that is the case than how come that all the photographic references* from the late 1890s tend to support Brooklyn's main deck layout and construction details as drawn in the plans published in Warship XVI and which are so very different from the ISW's kit??? I have counted about a dozen instances where photographic evidence does seriously contradict the layout and construction details of the model and none of those instances are trivial or of "nut counting" variety. They range from wrong shapes and arrangements of steam winches to missing or wrongly positioned deck hatches with quite a bit in-between... Than Jon writes: >> Finally, I'd like to remind everyone of Darius's original statement on the Brooklyn kit. This comes from SMML vol 1953, as was as follows: >>From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: A treat for pre-dreadnoughts enthusiasts Have a look at Steel Navy's Ocober Mystery Model which IMO can only be 1/350 scale kit of USS Brooklyn by YS Master Pieces. If this indeed is the case than, boy, Yannis Sagiadinos does work FAST!!!!! He only started some time in the end of June and has the hull ready by the begining of October!!?? << To which he added... >> PS: Spencer Lawes opened an interesting possibility that USS Brooklyn might not be by YS Master Pieces but by ISW.... October Mystery Model gets more mysterious by the minute!!!! I will wait for the real designer to be revealed before progressing any further.... << So, since you've discovered who makes this kit, would you like to retract your statement of it being "A treat for pre-dreadnoughts enthusiasts"? Just asking. << No Jon, to be blunt it have been the kit's errors which I started noticing that made me doubt that "Mystery Model" was a product of YS Master Pieces a long time before the real author of the kit was revealed. With Averoff and Oregon YS managed to gain a reputation for quality which some of the longer established resin producers can only wish for. Brooklyn is one of my all time favourite ships and when I have finally seen a 1/350 model of her I was positively overjoyed!!!! And than I have noticed an error, and than another and than another and another...... But hey, since you have all this primary evidence to show that photographs and plans I have used are wrong than, I am sure, once again you can easily prove that I am wrong and you are right ..... right???? Regards Damien errrr.....sorry, Darius *I. Musicant "U.S. Armored Cruisers" US Naval Institute 1985, J.D. Alden "The American Steel Navy" US Naval Institute 1989, "Warship" vol.XVI 1992 various photographs from LIbrary of Congress ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "Art Herrick" Subject: Re: Historical note re: 1st shot in WWII From: "Doug Marrel" >> The Japanese take the prize anyway on the subject. Everyone except for a few seem to have forgotten poor old Panay, recently the subject of a kit release, and it was definitely shot first. Wasn't an accident either, despite claims at the time to the contrary. Typical ignorance of history by any American educational group. << Doug and all SMMLies, As yesterday was the 61st annerversiry of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, I thought this posting might be appropriate. THE PRELUDE TO WW II or THE PANAY (Sacony Convoy) INCIDENT - 65 years ago next Thursday, 12 December, 2002. For those of you who may not be familiar with the USS PANAY PR 5. She was a US Navy, Yangtze River Patrol gunboat, that was attacked, while at anchor, by Japanese Naval aircraft, at 1:30 PM, Sunday,12 Dec. 1937, 28 miles up the Yangtze river from Nanking, China, and bombed, strafed and sunk. At the time, PANAY was evacuating the last of the US Embassy personnel, newsmen and businessmen from Nanking. She was also escorting three Sacony oil tankers and their 13 auxiliary craft who were fleeing Nanking as the Japanese were occupying the city (the occasion now known as The Rape of Nanking). The PANAY and the Sacony convoy were neutral vessels in the Sino Japanese conflict, and PANAY had notified, by radio, the Japanese command at Shanghai of PANAY's and the Sacony convoy's anchorage location, assuming as neutral vessels they would be immune from attack. It was Sunday, so after their noon dinner the majority aboard Panay found a place for a Sunday afternoon nap and there was only one lookout, stationed in the pilot house. That morning Col. Kingoro Hashimoto, the Japanese Army area commander, had ordered Japanese Naval aircraft to attack all ships upriver of Nanking, saying they carried Chinese troops fleeing the city. thus was sealed the fate of PANAY and her sixteen Socony charges. At 1335 Japanese Naval aircraft started their attack on PANAY and the anchored Socony convoy. The first bomb, from one of three B4Y1 high-level-bombers, hit just forward of PANAY's pilot house, knocking out her radio, and when water started filling the boiler room the duty man blew the boiler safety valve, literally taking her out of action. Now bombs from six D1A1 and six D1A2 dive-bombers rained on PANAY and the convoy, and nine A4N1 fighters followed up with light bombs and machinegun fire. PANAY and all sixteen ships and auxiliary craft in the Sacony convoy were displaying American flags on their overhead awnings and flying from their masts; but later on the Japanese pilots claimed they did not see them !! PANAY's crew fought back as best they could with their eight 30cal Lewis guns, but without noticeably damaging any of the attacking aircraft, even when some planes came as close as 100 feet. The forward 3"/50 DP gun was put out of action by the first bomb and the aft 3"/50 gun was covered by awning stanchions ... but it made no difference, because the 3"/50 ready ammunition lockers on deck were empty. By 1405 the attacking aircraft had run out of bombs and the abandon ship order was given for the still anchored and sinking Panay. At the start of the attack the three Sacony oil tankers upped anchor and headed for shore under bombing and strafing attack and their thirteen auxiliaries scattered. The fighter aircraft strafed PANAY's two sampans ferrying the crew to the river's north bank. The last man left Panay at 1505 and her people hid in the tall reeds, hiding from the Japanese planes orbiting overhead, searching for them. After returning to their base to rearm the Japanese aircraft returned at 1500 to again attack the two tankers that had tied up to a pontoon on the river's south bank. On the river's north bank the third tanker lay beached and on fire. From the reeds the PANAY's people watched as soldiers from a Japanese Army launch momentarily boarded PANAY and then peppered her with machinegun fire. The American flag was still flying from the mainmast gaff!! At 1555 PANAY started to roll over and slide under by the bow, in 80 feet of water. She was the first U.S. naval ship, while in combat, to be sunk by hostile aircraft. Two Navy crewmen and an Italian newsman lost their lives and a majority of the crew was wounded in the attack. Also killed was the American captain of one of the Socony oil tankers. With the Japanese planes overhead the PANAY's people hid in the reeds and waited for darkness, then fled eighteen miles inland where they were found the second day and evacuated to Shanghai aboard PANAY's sister gunboat USS OAHU PR 6 and the British gunboat HMS LADYBIRD. The Japanese government apologized for the mistaken attack on PANAY and her Socony convoy ... SO SORRY - BIG - MISTAKE !! Neither the Japanese government nor President Roosevelt was ready for war, so "The Panay Incident" was diplomatically handled by both parties, and Japan paid $2,214,007.36 in reparations to the US government, the PANAY's crew and the Standard-Vacuum Oil Co. Again on a quiet Sunday, four years later less four days, the Japanese without provocation or warning attacked Pearl Harbor from the air!!!! "The Panay (Socony Convoy) Incident" had been a precursor of war with Japan in 1941. The day after the attack on PANAY, Col. Kingoro Hashimoto was quietly cashiered and sent back to Japan. On 25 January 1942, 49 days after Pearl Harbor, the Associated Press reported from Berlin that Hashimoto had received the prestigious Kinshi Kunsho Medal for his part in "The Panay Incident"!! As a member of a militant officer group, the Black Dragon Society, who in the mid 1930s wanted war with the United States and the British, he had given false information to Japanese Naval Air Headquarters, that ships fleeing upriver from Nanking were carrying Chinese troops and should be attacked. Hashimoto had hoped this would create an incident that would lead to war. He almost succeeded !! Copy Rights - Arthur R. Herrick Jr., Westmoreland NH, 8 December 2002 BIBLIOGRAPHY: - The Panay Incident, by Hamilton Darby Perry, The Macmillan Co., Toronto, 1969. - Yangtze Patrol (U.S. Navy), by Kemp Tolley, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1971. - Gunboats on the Great River (British Navy), by Gregory Haines, Macdonald and Jane's, London, 1976. The above is an edited excerpt from a history of the US Navy's Yangtze Patrol and The Panay Incident that I wrote for Ted Paris of the Iron Shipwright, and the full text accompanies their 1:192 resin kit of USS PANAY PR 5. Doug Marrel ... Please contact me via my e-mail address below. It is very inconvenient that the e-mail address for those posting messages on SMML are no longer displayed with their messages. Art Herrick Member: South China,Yangtze River Patrol/Asiatic Fleet Group Nautical Research Guild ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: Michael McMurtrey Subject: Help with Ship Identification While re-watching 'Victory at Sea' lately, I saw some dramatic footage of a ship sinking. It is in episode 8, "Mare Nostrum," about 22 minutes or so into the program. The footage shows the ship in a turn to port and gradually heeling over to port. As the list reaches 90 degrees and the mast touches the water, the ship is consumed in a terrific explosion. Can anyone provide details? Type of ship, name, nationality, date, and circumstances of sinking? I believe it's a British warship, but my knowlege of ships is very limited. Any help would be appreciated. Hi Michael, The ship in question is the British battleship HMS Barham. She was hit by a torpedo fired by a U-Boat on the 25/11/41 in the Mediterranean and sunk with heavy loss of life. She was a Queen Elizabeth class Battleship. Hope this helps a bit, Shane ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: "william k code" Subject: New Carrier No doubt most of yor here will disagree with what I am about to say... Thats Ok, I served as a flight deck troubleshooter on NIMITZ in the late 70s and love Naval history almost as much as I love to model.. If the Navy is going to name its next Carrier after George Bush Sr I for one disagree!! I have nothing against George Bush. He served his country well in its hour of need.. My whole beef is with naming our Capital ships after Living Presidents .. I cringed when they named the 3rd Seawolf class sub after Jimmy Carter and when CVN 76 was named after Ronald Reagan I cringed again. I think a lot of these namings are politically motivated. What of those gallant ladies of the past? Lexington, Saratoga, Wasp, Hornet, Essex. These are traditional names that go back to our founding..It is now the day where whatever Political party is in power uses its clout to name Capital ships after there favorite sons ..I for one am sick of it... Let those who are honored so be dead 100yrs. This person then would of stood the test of time. History would look back and there name will still stand out for the contributions that they made.. Washington, Lincoln ,T Roosevelt. thats the way I see it.. Putting on my flame retardent underware... Bill Code ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Information ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: SHIPMDL Subject: MERRY CHRISTMAS! Nimitz project approved! Everyone, A lot of you have been wanting the latest updates concerning the Nimitz Project. I heard today from my son (he knows the associate curator at the Omniplex Museum) that the Nimitz Project has been approved by the board of directors. I don't have any details yet, but my son gave me the news via the Associate Curator on Sunday. He said the Board of Directors approved the project (construction of 1/72 scale Nimitz Class Carrier display) in a meeting last week. The AC told my son that they would be contacting me next week with all the details. So it appears that at the least the museum has approved funds to purchase the 1/72 scale hull. I told them in my proposal that if nothing else was approved, they HAD to get the LAST known un-built 1/72 scale Nimitz hull in the world or the whole project would be off. Apparently they moved with great speed to at least get the hull. As I said, I have no details as of yet and this is what the AC told my son. I'll believe it when the curator contacts me. More when and if I hear from the curator. Rusty White President IPMS Metro Okla. City ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "WEM" Subject: Re: Frog kit of HMS TIGER, and WEM News Dear John, We have the Tiger kit available, although it is now produced and boxed by Eastern Express. It is priced at 11.08 Pounds, around $17.00. Other ex-Frog items that are availble include the Shell Welder, the Trinity House Lightship and the Royal Sovereign. Other news... We are working on our shopping basket/secure ordering site right now, and are pretty close to going "live", possibly by the end of tomorrow so.. get ready to bookmark the new site: http://WhiteEnsignModels.com The Trumpeter 1/350 HORNET should be with us by next Friday.. price is 68.04 ($104.00) so Peter Hall's design work for the photoetched brass can then proceed with due speed, once Peter finishes up with the 1/350 YAMATO/MUSASHI detail set ;^) which has to be seen to be believed, folks.... BTW, I have bumped up our pre-order for the HORNET kit (again!), so there WILL be extra kits available. We also have the additional aircraft sets arriving too: 10 aircraft per box: B25B MITCHELL (x10) 7.65 ($11.86) F4F WILDCAT (x10) 7.65 ($11.86) TBD1 DEVASTATOR (x10) 7.65 ($11.86) SBD3 DAUNTLESS (x10) 7.65 ($11.86) We have PE Brass sets ready for the latter three subjects; nicely relief etched detail as always: PE 3530 1/350 F4F WILDCAT PE for 10 aircraft 2.12 ($3.28) PE 3531 1/350 TBD1 DEVASTATOR PE for 10 aircraft 2.12 ($3.28) PE 3532 1/350 SBD3 DAUNTLESS PE for 10 aircraft 2.12 ($3.28) with B25 to follow later: PE 3533 1/350 B-25 MITCHELL PE for 10 aircraft 2.12 ($3.28) (EU Add VAT to all prices) Remember that we carry the correct colours for both ship and aircraft (except for the Mitchells) in our COLOURCOATS line-up. Cheers, Caroline Snyder White Ensign Models Home Page for WEM http://WhiteEnsignModels.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Daniel Bauer" Subject: Heller 1/400 Admiral Hipper Hello SMMLers, Does anyone out there have a Heller 1/400th Admiral Hipper for sale? Give me your price and your E-Mail address. dlbauer55@hotmail.com Regards, Dan Bauer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Timothy Dike" Subject: Felix Bustelo's 1/600 reviews >> I know the where abouts of the IMM web pages was posted sometime ago, but I cannot remember! I need to read some of the 1/600 scale reviews that Felix published for some future projects on ocean liners. Can anyone tell me where I can now find this information? << Hi Peter, The bulk of Felix Bustelo's 1/600 reviews can be found on ModelWarships.com under the ship review section. Goto http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/reviews.html and pick the "Ship Review" link on the left menu, from there you can select the 1/600 selection from the top menu. Also the "Classic Kit" selection is available on the left menu for a listing of manufactures of those kits. I'd like to do more than preserve this information. What I'd really like to add to it so please feel free to contribute any reviews or features you might have. Timothy Dike Webmaster and Editor ModelWarships.com http://www.modelwarships.com/index1.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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