Subject: SMML VOL 2063 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:05:16 +1100 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Sub Chasers 2: Found on Ebay 3: Darius and Iron Shipwright 4: Re: Nichimo subs 5: Re: Accuracy of the condemnation of ship's plans 6: LANGLEY as ship name; FLYGIA 7: Re: Ely 8: HERESY! 9: Re: Nichimo U-Boat 10: Nichimo kit of the Minegumo DDK 116 11: HP-Models news 12: Detail & Scale - CVN-65 USS Enterprise 13: painting the Tirpitz ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Starline / Fleetline Subject: Re: Sub Chasers Hi Franklyn, Love to have a read of your essay on SCs (starline@netspace.net.au) and I'd like to say thanks for all the info on this subject from everyone who responded. All the very best for the Season & beyond, Kevin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Found on Ebay Hey Darrin: Is this the Canadian way of waterlining a kit??? Regards, Bradford Chaucer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Aweiner601 Subject: Darius and Iron Shipwright I really do not understand why I am going to join this discussion, I know that I probably should just keep building but it has become something that i think i need to say. It has been bothering me for some time as i watch the barbs going back and forth between Darius and ISW. First, let me say that I have dealt with both Jon W. and Ted P. on many occasions. They are true professionals. They have always tried to answer all my questions and concerns to the best of their knowledge and experience. They are always available to talk to you too. More important than anything else, they produce kits that are incredibly accurate and wonderful AND kits that no other manufacturer would even think of doing. They make kits of bizarre subjects that you will not find anywhere else. Who is doing the Edmund Fitzgerald? In the scale they offer? And they will support their kits with parts that you require, just by calling them and asking. How That being said, when i get an order from a customer, i may buy a kit, but i also get plans from floating drydock (hi Tom). I use pictures, plans, drawings and kit instructions, pictures from the customer or the web to construct the model the best i can given what i have. It may be a scratch job, or a kit from another manufacturer. If the kit is missing a hatch SO WHAT? I add the hatch from H&R, or from somewhere else..if the kit instructions show 2 winches and everything else shows one, SO WHAT? I take one away, or not add it at all. You are all builders. Part of this hobby is to use your brains as well as your hands. We all know this. That is part of the lure of what we all do. I am happier after having to change some things to Adapt to what i need to construct than to always have a straight out of the box kit to do. What i am trying to say is, a blue water navy gearing represents a certain era for instance. Now a gearing is a gearing but by the end of the war no 2 were alike. So is the kit inaccurate? No, we, as builders..NOT ASSEMBLERS..adapt to the situation and do what we need to do. Ask guys like Al Ross, or Rusty White what they do in this situation. (HI al,,Hi Rusty..by the way Rusty write me its been a while..Motion keeps me busy!!) These guys who are making these resin kits and plastic kits etc, are incredible. They take a chance every time they come out with a new model. They may in certain instances, not ever get their investment back. If it were lets say, that the entire hull was wrong, or a major deficiency in some large scale piece, then I suppose we could all scream and shout. And by the way, plans can be inaccurate too!! Now all that being said, and i know that some of you got on Darius, i also want to say that i am in awe of his knowledge of these subjects...he does seem to know what he is talking about. I am not trying to play both ends here but they both have a point. But it should not be where someone uses this forum to play out what might be a personal vendetta. The other issue here is also that this IS a forum to discuss models and state your ideas..i think we just have to all remember that this is a hobby to most, a business to some (like me) and FUN TO ALL OF US WHO DO THIS THING WE CALL MODEL BUILDING. I do not often write here, but believe me i read all the things you all write, and i am amazed and humbled by all of your knowledge and eagerness to help other builders. Hope you all have a wonderful holiday season.. Artie Weiner, President,,American Precision Models .. and like you good people a builder of models........... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Gerald McKinney Subject: Re: Nichimo subs Hi, Ray. I'm not a rivet counter, so I can't speak to their overall dimensional accuracy, but I have built all three Nichimo subs. The detail is nice if a bit heavy, and I had fit problems with the upper and lower hulls of all three. Other than that they were easy builds and looked great when finished. Hope this helps. Jerry McKinney ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Jon Warneke Subject: Re: Accuracy of the condemnation of ship's plans Hello Darius, I'm glad that you were able to finally discover your missing SMML. I'm sure you've used the intervening time well. >> 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. << There is a third possibility here, and that's your misinterpretation of the photo. Since you mention below that this photo is also in the Musicant book, I looked. It seems that the only aft photo that can determine detail on the quarterdeck is the one on page 69. This shows the skylights, the triple wheel, and the port side winch. There's also a bar running across to a pedestal on the right side of the picture. Guess what that pedestal is? It's the starboard winch. Next, we come to your circles on the sides of the funnel trunks. I'm sorry that the hatches weren't included on the kit. I guess a detail was missed. >> 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. << Actually, what you describe is a skylight with a louvered cover, but who cares about the accuracy of the charge, or that that's there on the kit, or that you aren't reading your source correctly. All that matters is that it's not what you say it should be, right? >> 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???? << Well, you see, this isn't an argument, but rather a statement. Since you couldn't follow my first and second explanations of this, let me try to explain this again as I would to my 15 year old daughter: Like see, the plans from the SNAME place were like conceptual for the ship, you know. See, like there wasn't a stern walkway on the real ship. The SNAME dudes didn't like work for the blue suit dudes see. The 1917 plans were like redrawn after the real ship was like changed by the blue suit dudes, and the 1897 plans, which like the blue suit dudes had to have drawn like the ship in 1897 so they like know what the ship they had build looked like, were like used as a basis for the redrawing, you know. See, like they were changed like the real ship was changed. The 1897 plans, since like they didn't match the ship in 1917 no more, were like tossed, OK. Then, like the ship was trashed itself, and like the last set of plans, which were like drawn in 1917 using the 1897 blue suit dude's plans as like a starting point, were the ones saved by the blue suit dudes in Washington. I hope this explanation helps, like you know... >> 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). << I'm glad you were able to find a set of plans that support your position. However, the plans in Warship are the 1917 plans, and the ship was changed and the plans were redrawn. All you're doing is finding a source which seems to back up your pre-chosen conclusion. I'd suggest you actually do some primary source research. >> 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. << Ok Darius, let me make myself perfectly clear. You do not have 1897 plans, you have redrawn 1917 plans. You are matching photos to 1917 plans. You have misidentified and misinterpreted photographs, and have so far found missing hatches and unrounded hatch combings. You are matching sources to your pre-decided position of an incorrect kit, and have used improperly dated sources to make your pre-decided points while purposely ignoring or twisting facts that disprove your position. I'm glad you consider yourself to be correct. That makes one... >> 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??? << No, one set of plans are from 1897, and another set, your set, is from 1917. Two different sets of plans. And as for "accurate enough"? OK, so all I'd had to say from the beginning is: "Big D, get over it. The kit's accurate enough for me." Really, that's all I had to say? >> 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!!! << Another false statement on your part. I said the 1917 plans, which are in Warship, were redrawn and changed from the 1897 plans. This is where you're wrong. You don't have the proper sources to make your statements. And yes, you were making dimensional charges until your charges were found to be codified by your interpretation of photographs. >> 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. << Stands on what? From your statement above, I can see you don't even have this reference, since you had to check the table of contents on the internet, rather than turn to it on your desk. So, since you don't even own the source you cite, I state to you these established facts, and then ask a cumulative question: 1. You can't properly cite your source. 2. You don't have correctly dated plans. 3. You've misinterpret photographs. 4. You've purposely misidentified this kit, knowing (according to yourself) it wasn't by the manufacturer you said it was. 5. Your "errors" consist mostly of misinterpretation of information, and are for the most part, trivialities. 6. You're conducted a private e-mail campaign to our customers portraying these falsehoods as fact. Therefore, with all these facts, why should you be believed? >> 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!!! << No, not ridiculous, factual. That is what's in Warship XV. Circa 1917 plans, which are what the National Archives holds. >> 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. << No, you're deliberately creating a false impression. The stern shot is as I've described them above, and I also cited the page number so that others can confirm what I've said. >> 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!!! << Actually, as stated above, it's a skylight with a louvered hatch, and it's on the kit. But, who really cares about the charges being accurate, just as long as the kit is??? Oh, that's backwards, isn't it? Darius, one piece of advise. Don't buy this kit. Jon ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Brooks Rowlett Subject: LANGLEY as ship name; FLYGIA >> I believe there was an USS ELY, too.... (I'm not sure who PATOKA was, come to think of it... ) << As a tanker, PATOKA had a river name, a river here in Indiana in fact. As far as I know there has never been a USS ELY. There was a large article on the FLYGIA in an early 1980s *Warship International magazine, although it did not have the kinds of plans the requestor was seeking. Brooks A Rowlett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Brooks Rowlett Subject: Re: Ely I see I was wrong about there never having been a USS ELY, but I was right that there was not one named for Eugene Ely.! Missed that message in the digest, and I am glad that Nat Richards published the correct info! Apologies for the incorrect info and also that my message was redundant! Brooks A Rowlett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Keith Butterley Subject: HERESY! Hi group "Not every superb modeler builds ships." Shane ban this person from the list, while you're at it, ban Drage as well ;-) On the subject of the worst ship, wasn't there a Swedish man o' war that capsized as soon as it was launched? Happy modelling Keith Butterley ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: "bruce simard" Subject: Re: Nichimo U-Boat Ray Mehlberger asked about the Nichimo U-Boat (1/200)........ Ray, I built several of these a few years ago. In their day, they were quite good, and If I remember correctly, the best Type IX's available. However, the industry has come an extremely long way since then. But it mostly depends on the scale and type you desire most. Granted, I'm not one to measure each dimension down to the millimeter, so take this with a grain of salt. If you're after a larger scale boat, I would recommend the Amati (Spelling ?) 1/72 scale resin Type VII. I mostly recommend the Revell 1/144th Type XXI. I feel between cost and availability,plus size, this is your best bet. But having said that, the BEST bang for the buck in my opinion is the Mirage 1/400th series ! They are available, inexpensive, and now that Mirage is supporting them with P/E sheets, the versions and conversions are almost endless. The series runs from the Type II, Type VII, and Type IX, at present. Hopefully, they will continue on. Hope this helps you out a little, if you need more info, just drop me a line directly. Bruce. P.S. - At present, a Type VIIC / Mod IV is working its way down the yards, and I'm enjoying every minute of it ! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "michael thrupp" Subject: Nichimo kit of the Minegumo DDK 116 I am building the Nichimo kit of the JSDF Minegumo DDK 116. At the top of the stack are 11 cylindrical pots, 2 big and 1 small on the centreline of the flat top of the stack, and 4 small pots down each side of the flat top. I assume that some or all of these are engine exhausts, but none have been moulded with holes in them, presumably due to avoid moulding problems. My question is, which, if any, should I drill out for a more realistic appearance? Grateful for any help Mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: Uwe Besken Subject: HP-Models news Hi everybody, as I have seen yesterday the HP-Models website (http://www.hp-models.com/) has got an update. For the actual items click on "HP-News" not on "Neuigkeiten". Far from these items there is at least one new model not mentioned on the site. It is a 1/700 Ashland-class LSD with deckload. I only heard that from Mr. Poepcke, but did not see the kit, but it should be available now. He told me that this year about 100?! new models have been released. In 2003 it will be again that amount, i.e. german "Siebel-Faehre", the "Monte ..." series and the Wilhelm Gustloff. We will see... Uwe ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: EDWARD GRUNE Subject: Detail & Scale - CVN-65 USS Enterprise Joe Norris observed in SMML2062 that he had seen what he had thought to be a "rare" Detail & Scale available for sale. They are not all that rare. Squadron has reprinted them recently and they are generally available at this time. I have two copies myself. I also have two copies of the Lexington D&S (also reprinted). Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Abhijit" Subject: painting the Tirpitz Hi How does one paint the Tirpitz camouflage colors? The pattern runs across the hull and the superstructure. It is quite difficult to get the continuity. Any suggestions. Abhi ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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