Subject: SMML VOL 2233 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 04:05:08 +1000 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http://sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: TEXACO OKLAHOMA 2: Re: Nautical Research Journal 3: Re: Russian Pauk Type 1241P FAS Plans 4: Re: Trident Hobbies 5: new books from tin can sailor 6: LEX and SARA 7: Re: Deck planking in 1/350 - yes or no? 8: Re: Sub chaser bibliography 9: Re: Eagle Boat PE56 10: Re: NRJ article 11: Help me moor the Scharnhorst 12: Re: R/N Destroyer Photo 13: Re: Planking in 1:350 14: Re: Russian Pauk Type 1241P FAS Plans 15: Re: Yamato 16: WW II deck colors of British (& Commonwealth & Allied) destroyers - red lead? 17: WW II German destroyer deck colors 18: Re: Oldest ship ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Randy Ward Subject: Re: TEXACO OKLAHOMA >> I was wondering if anyone had any resources on the TEXACO OKLAHOMA, a tanker which went down off Cape Hatteras in the early 70's? I've checked with Bethlehem Steel and Texaco, but was unsuccessful in getting any specific information about her. She was built in 1956 or thereabouts. Does anyone have any information about a kit that would be appropriate for her, conversion or otherwise? << Jerry, should I assume that you have the report on the sinking? If not, it's about 3MB, and is at: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/moa/boards/texoklahoma.pdf My interest is more with the Texaco North Dakota and her sister, Texaco New York. They were both built at Newport News, early 1950s. Was the Oklahoma a T-2? If so, the old Mission Capistrano kit would probably be a good starting place for a conversion. I understand it represents a typical T-2, even more so than it does the Mission tankers. And the Smithsonian has plans for the T-2, probably more detailed than you'd want. Randy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: URUDOFSKY Subject: Re: Nautical Research Journal I am glad to see that the resolve of the NRG has now been implemented to include some "modern" vessels. The NRG's Journal has always been a work of art and scholarly endeavor by very learned persons, and a great joy to me. Ulrich Rudofsky ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Re: Russian Pauk Type 1241P FAS Plans Gary, ACDSee is a file viewer and photo edit package that I am using all the time. You can get a v.5.0.1 version for a free trial period at: http://www.acdsystems.com/English/index.htm I am not associated with ACDSee in any way, I am just a user of their product. Best wishes Darius ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Ives100 Subject: Re: Trident Hobbies >> Has anyone out there had any problems with Trident Hobbies? << I had just the opposite experience- very fast & friendly service at good prices. Chris runs a one man shop and may be away for the holiday weekend. Tom Dougherty ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: Bob Patmore Subject: new books from tin can sailor Three new books Robert Sumrall has just released three books on the following ships: USS Alabama BB-60, USS Joseph P. Kennedy DD-850(Gearing Class), and the USS Laffey DD-724(Sumner Class). Each book contains from 68 to 76 pages with line drawings of different fits, color profiles showing paint schemes, over 100 photos in each, and description of armarment, electronics, fire control and radar. Price 10.95 web site is www.destroyers.org Pretty impressive. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: WILLIAM ORETO Subject: LEX and SARA The box art for the Saratoga kit is the same as what is sitting on my shelf. Lexington kit box art is missing the "G" in Lexington. Wouldn't that be a kick if released without correction. As for the kits. I'm not going near either kit unless they are re-worked, if not I'll pass on the decal sheet. Bill Oreto ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Keith Bender" Subject: Re: Deck planking in 1/350 - yes or no? Hi SMMLies, Deck planking on the Tamiya MO. I know the question. There is a gap of .040 between two deck sections. You can slide the mid section fwd. or aft to keep the gap at one end or the other. I've built ten of these kits and the modern NJ is the same with the deck problem. I measured it all and it works best if you slide the mid section fwd and keep the gap aft. To fill the gap put your deck sections together as if they are on the hull. Also put the mid section in it's place between the two and pencil around the aft area just fwd of turret #3. When you pick the mid section up you'll see a large area of un-used scribed deck that will be covered by the mid section superstructure. I cut this planking to the size needed to fill the two gaps (port & stb). Just take your time and make sure the plank lines are lined up together and no one will notice your patch job. KTB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Fkbrown90 Subject: Re: Sub chaser bibliography I wish to publicly compliment the transcriber of SMML for the flawless manner in which my contributions have been handled over the years. I have made a few typos in the past, and panic-button follow-up messages to SMML resulted in corrections prior to release, for which I am grateful. That happened again, in the Sub Chaser Bibliography in Volume 2232 of SMML. This item has a very complicated format, due to its nature, but again, a typo was corrected and subsequently perfectly transcribed. But this time I had also made two more typos that got past me, and consequently appeared in the Bibliography. First, for anyone interested, please refer to the third item under the heading of ARTICLES IN USNI PROCEEDINGS, the title of the article by J.A. Furer should be 110 Foot etc., not 119 Foot etc. Second, in the credits paragraph I misspelled James Pasquill's name by omitting the "s". I offer my apologies to James Pasquill, and to the unsung transcriber whom I suspect is taken for granted by so many of us. This embarrassment gives me resolve to "mind my 'p's and 'q's" in the future. Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Fkbrown90 Subject: Re: Eagle Boat PE56 Talk about serendipity ! Remember a month or so ago I initiated some discussion about the Eagle boats of WW 1 and WW 2? There was only one substantive response, from Ed Grune who is making a model of this ugly duckling of the Navy. Well, you could have knocked me over with a sledge hammer when tonight when out of the blue I caught a documentary on the History Channel about the U.S.S. Eagle PE56 which was destroyed in the Casco Bay area of Maine two weeks before V-J Day, with many lives lost. At the time the Navy's Board of Inquiry erroneously deemed the cause of the explosion that destroyed 56 to be a boiler explosion, apparently ignoring survivor's claims that they had seen a submarine. But a local (Brockton, Massachusetts) revisionary naval historian has proven that the explosion was indeed caused by a torpedo fired by a German submarine. The Navy recanted, and just last year acknowledged the error and atoned itself to the three remaining survivors. The current Navy is to be complimented for its action. Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: Fkbrown90 Subject: Re: NRJ article To: Bob Steinbrunn Yes, I believe the author is a big executive in professional baseball. Building model ships might be his hobby. He must be good at it to be accepted by NRJ. I wonder if his wife thinks he is devilishly handsome. Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "amyhoffman" Subject: Help me moor the Scharnhorst Hi Cameron, I don't know the answer myself, but I know you can get it (99% sure) from one of the members @ http://www.bismarck-class.dk/ I have received plenty of help from them there about the German Navy. Hope to see you there. Amy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: WRPRESSINC Subject: Re: R/N Destroyer Photo Some time ago a French gentleman sent me a photo of an A class destroyer taken at Scapa Flow in April 1940. This was used to produce artwork that appears in Camouflage Vol 1V in the Warship Perspective series. Unfortunately I has forgotten the name of the person. If he would come forward I will send a complimentary copy to him. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Stephen Varhegyi" Subject: Re: Planking in 1:350 Yeah, I had similar thoughts with my 1:350 Bismarck. It's a real pisser how they have the deck in three pieces. Silly idea to motorise this kit really. Too small for the lake and too big for the bathtub. I ended up sanding off all the deck detail with a toothpick wrapped in sandpaper for the tricky bits. This is a major undertaking believe me. Then to get the right affect on the decking I sprayed three coats of progressively lighter brownish to teak colours laying strips of tape approximating the width of the decking each time all over the decking. After final coat has dried take all the tape off. This will leave you with a patchwork of decking colour strips all over. Looks a bit overwhelming, until you give it a very light spray with the last colour again to blend everything in. This techinique is not for everyone and there is a lot of sanding and masking but the final result will surprise you. Remember the thinner you keep your tape strips the more realistic it will look. Steve Varhegyi ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: "Bruce Buchner" Subject: Re: Russian Pauk Type 1241P FAS Plans >> I have a set of plans that I have downloaded but they are in an ACDSeeRAR format. Does anyone have the software that can open these? << Gary, RAR files are produced by WinRAR. It can be downloaded from this site. It is an archive and compression program that will also handle .Zip files. http://www.rarlab.com Bruce Buchner ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: Vincent.Mccullough Subject: Re: Yamato The Nichimo 1:200 kit is the 41-42 configuration of the Yamato. Vince McCullough ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: Jeffon10 Subject: WW II deck colors of British (& Commonwealth & Allied) destroyers - red lead? Gentlemen 1. I respectfully request your assistance in identifying appropriate deck paint colors for British destroyers during WW II, in general, and specifically for the HUNT Class. 2. Looking at photos in my references on the HUNT Class and other British destroyer classes of WW II, I find some walk/gun deck areas appear to be a lighter color than the nearby steel decks, and some walk/gun areas appear to be darker. In others, walk areas seem to match the adjacent steel deck areas in tone. I'm tempted to interpret these walk areas as SEMTEX (a cement of creamy light gray color introduced circa 1941), CORTICENE (a pre-war tile for crew comfort of mid brown color) and simply painted or primed-only decks, respectively. 3. Page 86 of the reference, "CANADA'S FLOWERS: History of the Corvettes of Canada - 1939-1945" by Thomas G. Lynch, offers an interesting comment wrt 1945 refits for Pacific service - quote "Semtex surfaces are no longer to be painted." In the absence of other info and info above, this suggests that most war emergency construction after (say 1941) had SEMTEX vice pre-war brown CORTICINE tile in the walk areas and that the naturally-colored light gray SEMTEX was painted to match the steel decks IAW 1942 painting instructions until 1945. 4. Thus, in the absence of other info, I'm guessing early war new construction British fleet destroyers possibly at least thru the TRIBALs had brown CORTICENE in the walk areas. (Steel deck area color-who knows?) Commencing no later than the "War Emergency Classes" (Q to Z and Cs ), as completed, probably would have had SEMTEX walk areas painted to match the steel decks. As an aside, I submit any earlier-constructed destroyers with brown CORTICINE tile in the walk areas which served in Artic waters would have lost their tiles. (If not removed intentionally, chiping of ice from the decks would have made short work of them.) Hence, in 1942-1945, Q to Z and C Classes, and all earlier class units having served in the Artic, probably had monotone painted gray decks. 5. Having speculated upon the deck colors of British "fleet destroyers" throughout WW II above, the issue of HUNT Class's deck colors is even more complex. I can't imagine HUNTs being fitted ot as well as "fleet destroyers," but my review of a few undated or suspiciously dated photos suggests they were. So, some (early) units had brown CORTICINE, some had color blended-to-match-the-steel SEMTEX, some with light gray SEMTEX P.S./ Incidentally, why would pre-war British steel deck areas be painted gray as depicted in most artistic renditions? The Ensign/Man of War series centerfold on V&W's suggests steel deck areas in WW II were in fact painted red lead. Further, the Polish MIRAGE 1/400th kit of British re-fitted Polish WW II destroyer BLYSKAWICA box art also shows most steel decks are painted red lead. Also, I seem to recall painted renditions of French pre-war destroyers with red lead decks. Lastly, I submit US destroyers into late 1930s had red lead colored steel decks based on reading between the lines of the publications of the Floating Drydock and a USNI Proceedings cover. (HA !!!) And why wouldn't pre-war/eary war steel decks be painted red lead, given the distain afforded by the allies to the threat to ships from the air in 1939? Regards, Jeff F. of IPMS, USNI, and WSMS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: Jeffon10 Subject: WW II German destroyer deck colors Gentlemen Here's the last of my 4 e-mails on the subject of deck and under hull colors. 1. The instructions for my Heller 1/400th WW II German "Z31" (= NARVIK class) destroyer and "Torpedoboot" (= a 300 foot destroyer type) describe the decks as: Z31 light gray with chocolate brown walk/gun handling areas Torpedoboot dark gray near anchors and dark wood elsewhere 2. The Z31 scheme is said to have been applied during the Norwegian campaign in 1941-42. As I submitted in an earlier e-mail on British deck colors, I doubt the chocolate areas, which would have been tile for the comfort of the prewar crews, would have survived the chipping of ice from the decks. Hence, the decks would end up monotone gray. 3. As for the "Torpedoboot", my conversion chart for Humbrol colors may be off but I doubt a 300 foot "destroyer escort" would have had dark wood decks. Dark redish-brown primer I could understand given what I preceive as a widespread late 1930s under appreciation of the threat from to ships at sea from aircraft. 4. Universally, I can't understand why the deck area around the anchors/anchor chain on the forcastle, I all of the example I've shared in the e-mails on British and German destroyers is painted different. Ok, seamen don't work in this area when the ships are at sea. Therefore, it's not likely brown tile or gray SEMTEX. But in the cases of the "Torpedoboot" and the Heller kit of the Polish destroyer BLYKSWICA, why is the area gray vice primer. (Particularly since BLYKSWICA decks are otherwise red lead primer.) Regards, Jeff ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: BECJPARKER Subject: Re: Oldest ship Oldest ship in service is the USS Constitution. It's open as a memorial ship it take visitor aboard, and even sailed under it's on power in 2000. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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