Subject: SMML VOL 2225 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:30:59 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: What happened to the Eaglewall 1:1200 moulds? 2: Metric Conversions in Squadron/Signal books 3: Trouble Applying Washes 4: KGV 5: USS Holland Plans 6: Re: Union jack 7: Re: FLAGS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (AGAIN) 8: Re: Trouble Applying washes 9: Re: RN Deck Colours (An Addendum) 10: Re: USS HOLLAND AS-3 11: Re: Soviet Scoop Pair Radar 12: Re: a Question for the Group ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Information 1: Final 2003 Nats web site update 2: Re: IPMS/USA Nationals ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Reid, John (AFIT)" Subject: What happened to the Eaglewall 1:1200 moulds? Miniature SMMLies will know that a few Eaglewall /Eagle kits of the 60s were re-issued as Pyro (and the Pyro range also included some mould previously marketed as Life-Like). But does anyone know what happened to the rest of the Eagle moulds? Do they still exist? John Reid ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: "Reid, John (AFIT)" Subject: Metric Conversions in Squadron/Signal books Many of S/S's newer "Warships in Action" titles include metric conversions for dimensions and displacements. The dimensions seem fine (and for modellers they are more important) but it seems to me that there is an error in the displacement conversions. These are apparently based on 1 ton = 2000 lbs (the so-called "short ton") rather than the Imperial ton of 2240 lbs in which I understand the Treaty displacements are expressed. As an example, in "US Light Carriers in Action", page 4, USS Yorktown CV-5 is referred to as a "20,000 ton (18144 MT)" carrier. The same atio appears in many other places in several titles. Can SMMLies confirm my hypothesis and therefore that these conversions are incorrect? (according to me CV-5 should be 20326 MT since 1 metric ton is 1000 kg = 2204 lbs) John Reid ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Tony Mattson" Subject: Trouble Applying Washes Martin writes: >> I am seeking advice regarding applying a wash to a model having finished the base coat. When I apply the wash it either runs everywhere or comes off when I try to clean up any excess. Should I apply a gloss coat after the base coat but before applying the wash? << Having completed a few grubby, weathered and battered r/c mercantile vessels I love washes for their ability to create an illusion of shadows and depth, dirt and grime, age and weathering. Time and again I've found that the wash can dry unevenly or leave large tide marks - so practice, practice, practice is the key. I've also found that a matt or semi-matt surface provides a good 'tooth' for the wash pigments to adhere to. Gloss coats tend to do the reverse, the wash runs off or wipes away easily. Hard to keep it where it should be on a glossy surface. Why not try creating depth or weathering with an airbrush? E.g. mixing up some Tamiya flat brown and flat black paint in a 10% paint - 90% thinner ratio - the actual colour of the post shade can vary upon your brown/black percentage mix but think of your last experience walking into roadside public restroom and you should be close enough. Go lightly to start and build up layer on layer as you need. varying your thinner proportions will also affect the wash. You'll also find that because the wash is in essence dirty thinners, that capillary action plays a big part so apply lightly unless you're going for the deeply weathered look. Don't necessarily paint the model - a lighter touch helps sometimes. Most any paint can be used for a wash as long as it can be thinned down effectively. Enamel washes are some of the easiest to do, since thinned enamel paint will flow into almost any crack and crevice. The problem with enamel paints is that they can soften an enamel base coat if not enough time has been allowed for the base coat to cure. So, keep rough handling to a minimum when using an enamel wash over an enamel basecoat. Acrylic washes are a little better, since after an acrylic basecoat has cured for about 48 hours, it is rock hard and very difficult to soften. But, when using an acrylic wash, make sure to add a drop of dish soap or washing up liquid to the wash water. The reason for the drop of surfactant is to break the surface tension of the wash coat (just like washing dishes). Looking at a waxed car that has just been rained on, the water droplets will bead up, because the droplets have a high surface tension. You don't want that in a wash, or the paint will settle at the edge of thinned droplets and it won't collect in the crevices properly. When the surface tension breaks from the addition of an impurity, like soap, the paint will flow into the recesses as it should. There is also nothing wrong at all with using an enamel wash over an acrylic basecoat or vice versa. From there its simply a matter of applying a suitable flat finish to bring the washes to life, some subtle darkening of inside corners to simulate shadows, then the real fun stuff - rust!!! (there's no such thing as too much rust on a mercantile vessel!!!). Hope this helps Tony Mattson Editor- Mailship Scale Marine Modellers Inc. Auckland ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "Chris and Kayo Amano-Langtree" Subject: KGV Hi Steve Your photo is later than the Bismarck action. KGV returned to the UK after Bismarck sank - she certainly did not have enough fuel to make Newfoundland. Without seeing the photo I can't comment on her wooden decks. But it was RN practice to paint the tops of the main armament and secondary armament the same colour as the steel decks if the ship wasn't camouflaged. Christopher Amano-Langtree ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Peter Russell Subject: USS Holland Plans For those interested in the above plans. They are in a double US Letter form (whatever that is)I think which means I will have to shrink them to get them to fit an A3. Anyhow there is no scale mentioned on them. The plans have everthing from Bulkheads to Lifeboats & Guns. The only thing missing is the Portside View. If you are still interested it will cost you the cost of copying and postage. No personal cheques. Send e-mail to :- aussiedecals@bigpond.com Regards Peter Russell ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Fkbrown90 Subject: Re: Union jack I believe it was Winston Churchill who said that the United States and England are two countries separated by a common language. This was brought to mind by Clive Lawford's reference to a union jack as being the flag of Great Britain (Or is it of the United Kingdom? Whatever.) In the U.K. the term is used as described by Mr. Lawford. But in the U.S. Navy the union jack refers to the somewhat smaller all blue flag containing (currently) 50 white stars, as previously flown from a smaller bow pole called the jackstaff, when the vessel is in a port or harbor. The name comes from the nomenclature of the American flag (national ensign) in which the starfield at the hoist (the vertical edge containing the attaching grommets) and the fly (the upper horizontal edge) represents the union of the various individual 46 states, plus the 4 commonwealths, which comprise the United States. Thus the American national ensign consists of a 50-star spangled union and 13 horizontal alternating red and white stripes (6 white and 7 red). But "stars and stripes" has a certain ring to it, along with the affectionate sobriquet "Old Glory". I said that the union jack was "previously" flown, for it has been replaced on all U. S. Naval commissioned vessels by the historic "rattlesnake" jack (for the "duration" of the War on Terrorism, a not very well thought out reaction to 9/11, in my humble opinion). I do not know about the proper use of the American union jack by American merchant, commercial, or privately owned vessels. I welcome comments, Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: HGYL Subject: Re: FLAGS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (AGAIN) We thrashed this one out a couple of years ago. Clive Lawford states that "the Union Jack .....was previously known as the Union Flag". This is, of course, totally incorrect. Although it is commonly and incorrectly referred to as the Union Jack, the Union Flag can only be referred to as the Union Jack WHEN WORN AT THE JACKSTAFF OF A SHIP. At all other times it is the Union Flag. Sadly, the great unwashed masses will evermore call it the Union Jack regardless. Regards to all, Harold Lincoln ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: David Wiezer Subject: Re: Trouble Applying washes Martin, Always use a paint or ink for your wash that has a different type of thinner. That way you will lessen the chance of the wash attacking the base. I use black on a cool color base, and a dark red followed by black on a warm color base. Always start the wash very dilute, you can add more if you need, but it is hard to take off a wash if you have over done it. Dave Wiezer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Frank Allen Subject: Re: RN Deck Colours (An Addendum) Hi Stephan I agree with Chris, but with the addendum that Hood still had corticene on her bridge decks. Records at the PRO indicate that she was still having corticene repaired/replaced on her bridge decks as late as her last notable refit in late 1939. There is no mention of it ever being removed or replaced by another covering in any of her shorter dockyard visits. Additionally, our veterans do not recall anything other than unpainted corticene being used until the bitter end. So, be sure to paint Hood's bridge decks a brownish shade. You can use a lightened AP507A on her forward Shelter Deck though (with the rest of the decks being unpainted teak). Frank http://hmshood.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "Mike C" Subject: Re: USS HOLLAND AS-3 USS HOLLAND was a submarine tender that also served as Adm. Lockwood's forward headquarters in the Pacific. I drew the plans in memory of my father who served in her from 1944 through 1946. Needless to say, I'm looking forward to the BWN kit. Mike Czibovic ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: Phil Stewart Subject: Re: Soviet Scoop Pair Radar >> details, drawings or pics of this fire control radar? As carried by the Kynda Class cruisers. << Hi Gary. There is a picture of this in the Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems (1989) (and possibly other editions), which I own and can make a scan of if needed (p. 90, lower right of page). Let me know if you cannot find a good picture elsewhere, or if you would like a picture to supplement what you have, and I will scan it. It's not a close-up, but it's a well-lit picture with good contrast and sufficient detail to be of use in modeling. Phil Stewart ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: Richard Sweeney Subject: Re: a Question for the Group >> I found a site that has history of the Columbia River and it has a nice picture of a sternwheeler steam boat in service on the river. Below is the link. http://www.clatsop.com/RiverTour/history.html The article mentions two steam boats. The first steam boat to operate on the river was the Beaver of 1840 and the first seam boat built on the Columbia was named the the Columbia and was built in 1856. It might be a good idea to contact the Smithsonian Institution and ask if they have plans. You could also ask about the type in general because they may have other plans. << Hello, If I'm correct the "Beaver" of which the site speaks is not really a riverine craft, She was a trade vessel belonging to the "Hudson's Bay Company" She was fairly small (about 100ft length) and a very well balanced looking ship. I have a set of plans which I obtained from Mr. David Marlow of Florida, Via Ebay. It is a two sheet set, and nicely done I'm not sure where David got the plans, but you might enquire that of him at: dmarlow2@tampabay.rr.com Rich Sweeney ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Information ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: SHIPMDLR Subject: Final 2003 Nats web site update Everyone, It's crunch time and the final update to the 2003 IPMS/USA Nats site has been made with a complete events schedule posted. All meetings, seminars, and speakers are noted with their respective rooms and times. Go to the 2003 IPMS/USA web site and download your schedule or you can pick them up at the information desk. The URL is below. Rusty White # 20181 Chairman 2003 IPMS/USA National Convention http://www.ipmsmetrookc.org OKC In 2003! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: SolidStump Subject: Re: IPMS/USA Nationals >> The IPMS/USA National Convention will be held next week in Oklahoma City, OK. Will any SMML mates be there? I will be there at my usual post with Victory Models. I look forward to seeing some of you there. << John, Pretty sure I'll be there. We exchanged emails a while back before you moved out of Atlanta. Simon Scheuer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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