Subject: SMML VOL 2062 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:46:34 +1100 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Nichimo 1/200th scale U-Boats 2: Stripping old paint 3: Floater nets on BB-63 4: CVN-65 D&S 5: Langley as a ship name 6: Re: Tiger/Daring Colors 7: Re: Tiger / Daring 8: Re: Lost Compartment 9: Thank you.(was Hello) 10: Re: James Cameron/Bismarck 11: Book - World's Worst Warships 12: A Christmas Gift from SMML subscribers 13: Re: Accuracy of the condemnation of ship's plans 14: Re: Daring/Tiger Colours 15: Re: Hornet CV-8 Bow 16: Re: Ship Drawings ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Ray Mehlberger" Subject: Re: Nichimo 1/200th scale U-Boats I asked this question before and got no answers from the guys here on SMML. Perhaps it is a case of this has been gone over before...and...being a late comer to SMML I never seen the answer previously. If that is the case, I appologize for bringing it up again. However, I am curious to know what thoughts are about the quality/accuracy of the Nichimo 1/200th scale German U-Boats and their Japanese I-Boat?? I only do a few ships...actually mostly submarines...and being a armor modeler, mostly, haven't a clue as to their accuracy or what is needed to maybe bring them up to snuff. I would appreciate any feedback at all. Thanks in advance for any help. Ray Mehlberger Contributing Armor Editor (and sometimes ship modeler) for INTERNET MODELER MAGAZINE www.internetmodeler.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: billkaja Subject: Stripping old paint Several foilks have been passing on home-brew solutions for stripping model paint. There's a product availabel designed to do exactly that-- it is called "Strip a Kit". I recently tried it for the first time-- I used it to strip some testors enamel off of an old Monogram HU-16 model. The model had been brush painted over 20 years ago. The strip a kit did a good job of removing the old paint, even where it had been brushed on rather thick. The stuff is a gel that you put on the model. You let it sit for a while then rinse it off with water. Stubborn areas may need a little scrubbing with an old toothbrush. Also, it does not have an offensive odor, and is much easier to clean up after than stuff like brake fluid. The stuff doesn't attack plastic, and you can seal a really bad subject in a plastic to "soak"" overnight if necessary. If you go to www.modelingmadness.com, you can find a link to Strip-A-Kit-- they are one of MM's sponsors. I have no interest in the company- I'm just a happy customer. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "David Edgerly" Subject: Floater nets on BB-63 A while back, I had asked the list of anyone knew if the Missouri had the Floater Net baskets installed during her shakedown period in the Atlantic. I can't find any info to confirm or deny their existence. I'm getting very close in the construction phase where they'll need to be installed if they are present. Also, I remember a question posed by someone at WEM as to interest in an update or conversion for the Revell 1/72 PT-109. Am I mistaken on this? It sure would be nice to have an Elco as nice as the S-Boot! Thanks, Dave E ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Joe & Adrienne Norris Subject: CVN-65 D&S FYI, There is an unused copy of Detail and Scale for the U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN-65) at the Chino Air Museum in SoCal. I know these are hard to find. They had two copies until I bought one last week. Joe Norris Kapolei, Hawaii ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Richa5011 Subject: Langley as a ship name >> The US Navy honored several of the early aviators with ships named after them. USS WRIGHT and USS CURTIS, I believe there was an USS  ELY, too.... (I'm not sure who PATOKA was, come to think of it... ) << Though Wright and Curtis were named for the early aviators, the others you mentioned were not. Patoka was an oiler (AO-9) and was, like all oilers of the time, named for a river. In this case the Patoka river is in Indiana. She later had the mooring mast for airships added, but still retained the designation as an oiler. There were two USS Ely's. The second, PCE-880 was named for the cities of the same name in Nevada and Minnesota. The first Ely, DE-309, was launched but never completed. She was not named for Eugene Ely, the early US Aviator. but rather for Lt. Arthur Vincent Ely (USNA '35) who was killed attacking the Japanese fleet on 4 June 1942 as a member of Torpedo Squadron 6. All of the above comes from DANFS. Nat Richards ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: John Snyder Subject: Re: Tiger/Daring Colors >> Just about to start on the Airfix Tiger/Daring, could anyone point me to the correct grey, Humbrol if possible, to use, the instructions quote no 27, but that is certainly way to dark. Nice to see these again, hope the Leander/Amazon reappear as well. << If the plans reference Humbrol 27, then they're referring to the OLD Humbrol 27; there has been a renumbering and revision of Humbrol paints since that kit was last issued, and I suspect that Airfix didn't bother to revise the plans accordingly. That said, there really isn't a correct Humbrol color. If you want to get it right, use Colourcoats M01, Modern RN Grey, available from us or from any of a number of dealers/shops worldwide. Best, John Snyder White Ensign Models Home Page for WEM, http://WhiteEnsignModels.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "John Barnum" Subject: Re: Tiger / Daring Dear Chris. I have just finished the Tiger and the grey I use is Humbrol 127 satin. I prefer this shade as I tried it on the Cumberland while serving on her. If you look at www.holly86.fsnet.co.uk you will see some of my ships, so you may judge for your self. Just as a bit of added information the Darings were not allocted pennent numbers until 1957 according to Janes Fighting Ships. Also the Tiger model is as she was in 1959 and after that the 3 after directors were changed, her bridge and bridge wings were modified along with the life raft positions. I hope this is of help to you. John Barnum ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: NAVYDAZE Subject: Re: Lost Compartment OK I will weigh in with the KITTY HAWK's lost compartment - that is the reason I mentioned a few issues ago we had the blue prints out as we had heard there was head that was sealed up somewhere on the 3rd deck and we were going to find it. Lot of other space that just turned out to be voids. Michael Donegan NAVYDAZE Naval & Aviation Artist http://www.navydaze.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "George D'Amato" Subject: Thank you.(was Hello) I would like to thank everyone for their help, and replies to my message. Also hello to David Antscherl. Nice to know i am not the only Canuck out here. Ciao All. George D'amato ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Daniel Bauer" Subject: Re: James Cameron/Bismarck Hello, You are not totally correct in your staement about the purpose of Bismarck and Prinz Eugen in Rhienubung. Their orders were to search out and destroy convoys. Prinz Eugen was to distract any escorts and Bismarck was to finish off the individual ships. That was the orders given to them when they left. The fact that no merchant men died in the combat between Graf Spee and others was lucky, but they too were to destroy Merchant Ships. They were allowed to take suvivours as the U-Booten were not allowed to do so. Regards, Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "John Rule" Subject: Book - World's Worst Warships >> "The Worlds worst warships: I considered Mr. Preston a good naval historian,but I think this book has some problems. I actually did not read it, but good a preview in a book-catalog. The front picture shows the Bismarck! Even a non navy historian would agree,that a ship,that got so much hits and still did not sink, cannot be a failed design. His statements about the Graf Spee seems to miss the whole idea about this design (the same like the frigates of the Constitution type: Faster than the stronger ships and stronger than the faster ships! All in all,this book seems me not very good! << It is difficult, without reading a book to pass comment on it. Perhaps wait until someone who has actually read the book comments, after which you can decide whether or not you should buy the book. BUT do not pass comment until you have had the opportunity to view and review it in person. Sincerely, John Rule ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Rick Heinbaugh Subject: A Christmas Gift from SMML subscribers All, Please see the posting on the Steelnavy.com board titled "Christmas at SMML". This is intentionally circumspect so Shane can't censor me. :-) Rick ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Re: Accuracy of the condemnation of ship's plans Jon, for some unexplained reason (still not being completly set up after moving my house might have something to do with it) I have missed completly your post from SMML issue 2052 and, better late than never, I feel that a reply is necessary: You write: >> Let's do take your statements point by point, starting with photos. I find it very interesting that you're able to determine exact placement of equipment from photographs. I assume that you're able to do the complex calculations needed to determine the geometry of a photo of an object and calculate the exact location of where something was actually mounted. Rough locations can be determined, but unless you're actually physically at the spot, nobody can determine exact locations from a photograph. Regardless of the plans you used to find your "errors", verifying an exact location with photographs (note to everybody; Darius doesn't have this kit. Darius has the photographs that were posted on Steel Navy) of the actual ship against photographs of the model is, at best, dubious. << No it isn't. None of my observations were based on "little to the left" or "little to the right" basis. If photograhps and plans of Brooklyn's aft show only a single winch (with extensions) there and ISW's kit have TWO separate ones in the same spot no calculations are necessary. Either photos and plans are wrong or the kit is wrong. Similaryli if the plans (with photographic support) show 4 small round covers in 4 corners of the funell bases, the fact that ISW's Brooklyn lack those details can only mean that you had an access to some better sources which clearly show that the covers weren't there (and I would like a proof that such a source exist) or that you have made an error. Same situation with hatch behind the first funnel. IMO there can be no doubt that photo on page 21 of "Warship" article once again supports the plans in showing that there was a hatch there. Location of the photo is not difficult to establish since there was only one vent base with closely spaced 4 cowl-type vents on the whole ship and two sailors in photo lean against one of those cowles. In ISW's kit there is someting there, but it certainly isn't a hatch!!! The whole funnel base is much too close to the vent base than IMO it should have been. You write: >> The set dated 1897 didn't come from the National Archives, but rather came from another source, and here's the reasons why. The US Navy, after a refit, re drew the 1897 plans and destroyed the original set. They also added a data block to the new plans stating that these had been corrected, and give the date of the correction. The National Archives holds two sets of plans for the Brooklyn, drawn at two different times. The set dated 1905 are drawn in a different style than the 1917 plans, and that's the only reason I can surmise they were kept. The 1917 plans are the ones redrawn from the 1897 plans, and show the notations in the data block dating them to a refit at Olangapo Naval Station, P.I., in 1917. As you state in your posts, your basis for all the "errors" you found come from Warship XVI 1992. After having looked at this reference, I can provide an answer to why you've found "errors". This article contains two sets of plans. The first are the 1893 SNAME plans, which are proposed design plans and are historical rather than anywhere near accurate. The second set, which I'm assuming are the one's you reference, are the same as the 1917 Olangapo plans. << I have great trouble following your argument here: we can discount 1893 SNAME plans, they are just a "concept drawings" and not a plans as such but if the plans published in "Warship" are the same as 1917 Olangapo plans, which are redrawn 1897 plans (in your own words), than what is the supposed difference between "Warship" 1897 plans and "another source" set of the same date??? And just why the "another source" ones are supposed to be superior what did you cross-referenced then with???? I have no problems with 1897, 1897 sounds like a good year to me. The fact is that BECAUSE plans in "Warship" weren't dated I have used photographic evidence to cross-reference them. And thay match in vast majority of the cases. Now there comes a moment where photographic evidence lends enough support to the plans under examination that accuracy of those plans can be fairly relied upon and it is my mesured opinion that plans published in "Warship" do represent main deck layout of this ship in late 1890s as close as we can be certain about any ship from this age (with only a very few exceptions). In short: the plans published in "Warship", and which, after cross-referencing with photographs, I consider to be accurate, disagree in many important details with ISW's Brooklyn main deck layout (as shown in plan view photograph of the kit's hull on Steel Navy's website). If you do have evidence as to why your 1897 plans should be superior to the 1897 plans and photographs that I have used than please publish it so that the matter can be resolved once and for all. You write: >> ....These are about 12 inches long, and guttered in the book at the midship wing turrets. The original plans from the National Archives are in 1/96 scale (about 6 feet long). To fit into the book, they've been reduced by 85%. Now, if you're comparing our kit to these plans, there will be differences, but they are due to the date of the plans rather than any construction or location errors. << We have been throu this, even according to you both plans are of the same date 1897 and I have photographic evidence that the "Warship" ones are accurate enough. Do you have any evidence that I am wrong??? And, once again it isn't a question of measurements taken from drastically reduced plans. Certain details are simply missing or are wrong, nothing to do with scale!!! You write: >> So here's the final piece of information I believe is important. The single source you originally reference, Warship XVI 1992, is an incorrect source. The only article on the Brooklyn in a Warship publication is actually in Warship 1991 (Vol. 15). I can unequivocally state that we did not follow the plans contained in your specifically cited source, Warship XVI 1992. The only armored cruiser plans in this volume are for the USS Maine ACR1. If these plans from Warship XVI 1992 are your source plans, I certainly hope you find a whole lot more "errors" in our kit. << Yes, you are right. I have mistakenly quoted "Warship" volume XVI instead of XV, I do aplogise for that. I have received this article as a separate item and without issue number. While checking with "Table of Contence" at "Warship's" website I have accidentally wrote down a wrong issue number. So my source is a CORRECT source, just the issue number given is an incorrect one. Rest of my argument still stands. Finally you write: >> Now, we have the following. You, without having the kit in question (D.P. doesn't own this kit; he has photos of the kit taken from Steel Navy), have said it's rife with errors. However, your specifically stated source has no information on the Brooklyn. If you're just unable to properly identify your source, the plans within it are either the proposed design (the SNAME plans), or represent the ship 20 years later than the kit itself. The photos in this specific source are mostly distance shots, or are too indistinct to determine locations of details. << Ba, humbug!!!! Didn't you just said that 1917 Olangapo plans (the ones published in "Warship") were redrawn from 1897 plans??? Are you seriously suggesting that "Warship" drawings show "Brooklyn" as she was in 1917??? That's just radiculous!!! It is also patently untrue that the photos I spoke about are "indistinct" and "mostly distance shots", you are deliberatelly trying to create wrong impression here!!! The steam winch aft is shown in two extreme "close-ups" of "Brooklyn's" stern in both "Warship" article and Musicant's book. There is nothing indistinct or distant about them. The missing hatch appears in the portrait photo of two sailors ("Warship" again) leaning against the cowl. Again nothing distant or indistinctive here, I have no doubt that if I knew the men I would have recognised them from this photo!!! If in doubt you can scan those photos and have a proper lookin larger scale, but it is totally unnecessary, the details are there bold as brass!!! Regards Darius ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: M Brown Subject: Re: Daring/Tiger Colours Per Humbrol, #27 is a match for RAL 7031, what ever that might be. Humbrol only do 3 colours used by the RN for weatherworks, # 5, which is Dark Admiralty Grey BS381C 632, was the flight deck colour used from the 1950s to about 1990 and was the deck colour from 1978 until about 1990. Since then the RN has used both, BS381C 638 Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 164) and BS381C 640 Extra Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 123) for deck colours. Up until 1968, Decks were BS4800 14C39 which is not Humbrol Deck Green! A darker colour. Weatherworks were BS381C 697 Light Admiralty Grey until 1968 and since then BS381C 676Light Weatherworks Grey. Chris Rogers posted some formula some time ago to mix these from Humbrol colours. If you are in Oz, there is a local model supplier for these colours. Otherwise, I think you might have to wait until WEM bring out their modern RN colours. Michael Brown TF72 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: Erwin Van Deynze Subject: Re: Hornet CV-8 Bow Hi Art! As I probably mentioned in my post regarding the hull and bow of the trumpeter kit, I haven't seen the kit for myself, nor do I have any the expertise on CV-9 (it floated and it had wingy things on board, and I seem to remember something about a dr. Doolittle :-). It was just that the guy that bought it, mentioned the problem to me. He has a great deal of expertise on the Pacific war, but tends to emphasize on the wrong things of a kit, that's why I asked... Now yesterday, Keith's post was an almost exact copy on his remarks! The bow too wide, and the absent flaring of the hull, only he compared it to a freighter, while Keith compared it to a tanker... Seems someone screwed up somewhere... Wienne ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: Darren Subject: Re: Ship Drawings >> I need drawings of the USS JFK, could anyone help me with info on where I can get such plans, or for any US carrier. << Ken, The Floating Drydock lists USS J.F. KENNEDY CV67 in the G series section and in the Hull lines. They have other carriers listed also. I got a NIMITZ/ENTERPRISE drawing from Taubman plans and I'm not sure how accurate they are. On the surface they look ok, but it suggests the hull lines are identical between the two and I haven't been able to confirm this. Regards, Darren Scannell ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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