Subject: SMML VOL 2416 Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:30:11 +1100 SMML is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http//sandlehobbies.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1 Re All I want.... 2 possible variations of 1/700 scale Niko destroyers 3 Re Displaying models 4 Re Call it a question of scale? 5 A question of scale 6 WW 1 German ship designation 7 Re How do you ......? 8 Re Future and Galahs 9 Trumpter Nimitz? 10 sailors on models 11 H.M.A.S. Sydney/Kormoran Action 12 1/700 decals 13 U-boat 14 Upcoming 1/700 scale Niko ORP Dragon and Conrad 15 Niko 1/700 scale ORP destroyers availibility 16 Re A question of scale -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1 New books coming in the Warship Pictorial Series! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From Brooks Rowlett Subject Re All I want.... >> I do understand manufacturing economics and the need to make a buck, and the niche market inhabitaed by the resin manufacturers. However, it seems you are missing my point entirely. << Not at all. You say you understand that, but then fail to draw the logical conclusion. >> My basic complaint is about the lack of choice presented by the injection manufacturers. Primarily WW2 vessels and mostly modern American subjects. Other countries aside from the US have Navies too! So why is the manufacturing bias towards the US made ships? Is it too much to expect the major players to undertake some market research and actually ask us what we would like to see? << What makes you think they HAVEN'T done marketing research? Just because you haven't been questioned, doesn't mean they don't do it. What is the ship model market in other countries? What is the amount of ship model sales required of one kit to pay back the investment in a mold for a new ship? Let's say it is $50,000, and another $10,000 or so to prepare to market this new kit (add the box to the inventory, commission a cover painting, draw up the instructions, new entry in the catalog, inventory record adustment, etc. etc. etc. Let's assume the price of plastic and packing for a 1/700 kit sized for that $50,000 mold is $4, shipping overhead is another $1, and the wholesaler pays $8 for the kit (we will ignore what the wholesaler gives it to the store for). That means the company gets $3 back per kit so it has to sell 20,000 units of a model to make its initial investment back. Can you guarantee that a model of a WWI German battleship - and they had good reputations - will sell 20,000 units? The company that did the German 1/350 battleships is out of business. What does that tell you? And note I haven't even included any figure for the salary for the workers who run the injection machinery; ONLY materials and other overhead. On the other hand, if a company invests the same amount in a 1/24 NASCAR automobile kit, they could easily sell 50,000 units in the US, at a guess. We ship modelers need to remember that we are near dead last in popularity of our subject for injection kits, and thinking otherwise is living in a wishful world. REMEMBER that the majority of kit purchases are by CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS. Therfore cars are first, airplanes second, tanks third, ships fourth and real and science fiction space models are probably last; and everything is would be in a 1-2% "other" category. FURTHER, we are also of a split personality compared to the other subjects - many people who build ships build wood kits or from scratch, and they consider plastic kit builders mere dabblers. Finally, those who do take plastic ships seriously are also split between sailing ships and steam era. That too divides the market. There is not a simple universe of ship model builders - there is a great degree of specialization, resulting in a market that often simply does not justify going for variety, especially with the cost of kits these days. I could afford to buy the entire 1/700 waterline series in the 1970s to early 1980s, but I no longer could do that even without buying all the additional choices now available in resin. In essence the very availability of more things has reduced the chance of me buying any one thing. I wish it was different too. Brooks A. Rowlett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Harold Stockton" Subject possible variations of 1/700 scale Niko destroyers I thought that people would be interested in possible variations of other destroyers that could be made from the Niko 1/700 scale destroyers. The Destroyers Burza and Wicher were the first large, modern ships of the Polish Navy, and the design was based on that of the French "torpilleurs d'escadre" of the Bourrasque ("Gust of wind") class. As such, the following French vessels could be built Bourrasque (1927, "Gust of wind", class leader.), Tramontane (1927), Siroco (1927, "Moroccan Wind"), L'Orage (1926, "Storm"), Trombe (1927, "Waterspout"), Tempête (1926, "Tempest"), Ouragan (1927, "Hurricane"), Cyclone (1927), Typhon (1928, "Typhoon"), Simoun (1926), Mistral (1927, "Desert Wind"), Tornade (1928, "Tornado"). The Bourrasque, under the orders of the Commander Fouqué, took part in the evacuation of Dunkirk, its was finished when it struck a mine on May 30, 1940 on the Nieuport coast. Tramontane operated in the Atlantic, and took part in the evacuation of Dunkirk where its stem is torn off on May 30, 1940 by a torpedo of Schnellboote S-24 (in Pas-de-Calais). It will be scuttled in Brest on June 18, 1940. Mistral is also engaged in the Atlantic, taking part in the evacuation of Dunkirk. On May 29, 1940, the footbridge of the Mistral is devastated by the blast of a bomb of German Ju-88 that exploded within 1.5 meters from the edge. The commander is seriously wounded in the blast, two men are killed and a fire devastates the part of the front 130mm mount. The destroyer is seized by the English at Plymouth on July 3, 1940. It will be restored in 1944, then put in reserve at Hartlepool. The destroyer is finally brought back to France (Cherbourg) by a British crew on August 25, 1945, it is condemned on February 17, 1950. Another of these destroyers at Dunkirk was the L'Orage which takes part on May 23, 1940 at about 7h00 to the coastal bombardments on the positions of the 2nd Panzer (Rommel) in Dunkirk. Towards 18h10 whereas it is bombarded and strafed by German planes, being struck on several occasions. The Ouragan is seized by the English at Plymouth on July 3, 1940. It is restored with the F.N.F.L. (Free French Navy) and is used as a basis for naval traing classes and is then put in reserve at Hartlepool. After the war it is towed to Cherbourg on September 19, 1945, and is condemned on April 7, 1949. Simoun begins the war in the Mediterranean, February 23, 1940 it attacks, approaches and runs the German submarine U-54 in the Atlantic. Based in Casablanca at the time of the Operation Torch (November 8, 1942), Simoun will take part in the release of Corsica (as from September 1943) then to the libertion of Provence on August 15, 1944. It will be condemned on February 17, 1950. At the beginning of the war Siroco was operating in the Atlantic where it engaged U-49, which it damages severely on November 20, 1939. Also taking part in the operations of evacuation of the pocket of Dunkirk, the already full Sirocco (with 930 men aboard) is torpedoed close to West Hinder by both Schnellboote S-23 and S-26 on May 31 1940 at approximately 1h15. Completely immobilised, it is finished off by German Ju-88s. Aaltogether, 660 men are killed or reported missing, with 330 survivors including 122 men of the crew and its commander the Lieutenant commander of Toulouse-Lautrec. The Tempest is operating in the Mediterranean at the start of the war, being based in Morocco at the time of the allied landings as part of Operation Torch of November 1942. It will be committed thereafter in the release of Corsica in September 1943, then will take part in the liberation of Provence on August 15, 1944. It will be condemned on February 17, 1950. Tornade is also engaged in the Mediterranean, and arrives at Seas-El-Kébir on July 3, 1940. Being based at Oran the Tornade participant in convoys to Tunisia, where it runs up against the Allied operations of Torch in North Africa. Being set on fire, it is finally sunk close to Oran on November 8, 1942. Another vessel that is caught and sunk in similar circumstances as the Tornade by the British squadron is the Tramontane, which is also scuttled at Oran. Likewise, the Trombe is also engaged in the Mediterranean, and also escapes from the English trap of Seas-El-Kébir on July 3, 1940. It is disarmed in Toulon in September 1940, and is scuttled on November 27, 1942. The ship is refloated by the Italians (FR 31), repaired and towed in Italy, and is finally restored in Bizerte with the French on October 28, 1943. It will take part in the release of Corsica (September 1943) and in the invasion of Provence (August 15, 1944). It will be damaged on April 16, 1945 by a torpedo of a high-speed Italian motorboat . She is condemned after the war in February 1950. Another sister that was operating in the Mediterranean was the Typhon, which also escapes destruction at Seas-El-Kébir on July 3, 1940. Being based at Oran, she participated in convoys to Tunisia. Typhon also runs up against the Allied invasion force in North Africa. This vessel engages in a two day running battle against the British squadron close to Oran (November 8, and 9 1942). The Typhoon is scuttled finally in Oran on November 9, 1942. And with a little modification to the Niko kits of the Burza and Wicher, one could model the fourteen vessels of the French L'Adroit (1929) class; of the La Railleuse (1928), Bordelais (1930), Le Mars (1928), L'Alcyon (1929), Basque (1930), Le Fortuné (1928), Boulonnais (1928), Forbin (1930), La Palme (1928), Brestois (1928), Fougueux (1930), Foudroyant (1930), and Frondeur (1931). In the end, twenty-eight French WW-II destroyers could be modeled from these two kits. An interesting proposition for expanding your 1/700 scale fleets. Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject Re Displaying models To Ray Have seen my suggestions on SMML about displaying models in a more natural setting, such as Waterline models, or as I prefer, on keel blocks to simulate a drydock environment? If you contact me off-post, I will send you some guidelines about the sequence of incorporating the drydock into the making of your model, things I learned the HARD way. Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From BRADFORD CHAUCER Subject Re Call it a question of scale? >> So, here's the question. Should this ship be built at the published length of 252' 1", and accept that the beam, deckhouses, fittings, and other stuff will be larger than all the other kits we've produced? Or, say the length was transposed and build to the dimensions of 225' 1" x 50', which according to the plans and other evidence seems to be the correct dimensions? Thanks for the time. << Jon From your discussion, it appears that if you assume that the length was wrong and the beam correct on the plans you have, then the deck houses and other structures also appear to be more correct to scale, while if you assume that the length is correct and the beam wrong then the other structures also are off. If that is a correct intrepretation, then simple experimental technique says that the larger group of correct dimensions should rule and assume trhat the one wrong dimension is an error. Inother words, use the dimension set that causes the fewest inconsistancies. It is interesting to note that the GWF,org site is also inconsistent in dimensions of the ships of the class. They list Arkansas and Wyoming at 252 and Connecticut at 225. Connecticut was a later ship of the class, I wonder whether the as built ships of the class were actually built to the shortwer dimension but the plans for Arkansas and Wyoming never corrected, with the correct dimensions only noted on plans for Connecticut?? Regards, Bradford Chaucer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From Kurt Van Dahm Subject A question of scale Jon I would go with the 226' dimension as it is supported by the plans from BuShips from the original drafts. BuShips had access to the original information the others did not and they may very well be correct too or they may have just accepted BuShips as fact. I would be suspicious of the others only because of personal experience with information being passed on from one "researcher" to another w/o checking the facts. I was hired by the Illinois & Michigan Canal Corridor Association to build a diorama of Lock 14 on the I&M Canal and their plans for rebuilding a lock tender's house and mule barn as well as 3 canal excursion boats to be pulled by mules between Lock 14 and Lock 13 on the historic I&M Canal at LaSalle, IL. I had some aerial photographs and artist's drawings to go from as well as some historic photos of mule barns and lock tender's homes and shipyard plans for the 3 new boats to be built to work from. I traveled to LaSalle to photograph the site and take some measurements. Upon returning home and getting into my drawings I found that every one of my reference works failed to list an actual size of the lock chamber. Every one picked up Professor John Lamb's description of the locks as (paraphrased) "Each lock was identical in size and could accommodate a boat a maximum size of 99' x 16' wide". Well, that was fine, but it didn't give me a dimension for the actual chamber of the lock. I was making another trip right past this lock so I took along my long tape measure and found that it was 102' between the gates and 20'6" wide at the top surface. I had made measurements of the areas around and outside the gates previously but had not measured between the gates because I KNEW this dimension was documented in Professor Lamb's book and elsewhere. John Lamb is the acknowledged expert on the I&M Canal and his statement was 100% accurate as far as it went but it just shows that original research - my measuring the lock - trumps secondary research - books - in most instances. Go with the dimensions from the plans made with access to the original works. Unless somebody steps forth and says that they measured the actual ship in person at a different dimension I think this is most likely the correct dimension. Take care, Kurt Van Dahm Westmont, IL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject WW 1 German ship designation I just read an article about the WW 1 German navy, and it suffixed the names of the battleships with the letters S. M. S., such as S. M. S. Hindenburg, etc. Please, SMML, what do the letters signify? Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From Bill Weckel Subject Re How do you ......? >> Does anybody else there feel that presentation-type models look really silly with a complement on board? << Ray, I agree completely. I think your ship on pedestals would look odd with a crew. I've also always wondered about the modelers who build underway dioramas with no crew on board. Unless you're modeling the Flying Dutchman or a modern naval vessel under NBC attack, I think these "ghost ships" look very strange. My hero's are Jim Bauman and Peter Van Buren for this very reason. These two really have a knack for bringing their ships to life. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From "Stephen Varhegyi" Subject Re Future and Galahs Bill Michaels wrote >> If any of the Australians here are willing to smuggle me a few Galahs, I will send them more Future than could be used in several lifetimes. << How come no-one ever asks us to smuggle really interesting specimens like Western Taipans, Funnel Web Spiders, Blue Ringed Octopi or Salt Water Crocs for that matter. To paraphrase one of our local Michael Jackson imitators (aka the baby dangler), "Crikey, they're beautiful creatures!". Did you hear the true story about the bloke who was trying to smuggle snakes out of Australia by stuffing a bag down his leg. Yup, you guessed it, one got loose and bit him on his trouser snake. Fair dinkum. Thanks for the offer of Future for Galahs, but smuggling wildlife is a serious offence here in the antipodes. Besides, after watching Mr J Springer's show, it looks like you've got enough of your own. No offence intended. Steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From "The code" Subject Trumpter Nimitz? Hello group, Any word out there yet as to when we can expect this 1/350 scale beasty to be on the market?? As an old Nimitz hand I am really looking forward to it.. cheers BC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From "Reynaga, Tim@EDD" Subject sailors on models >> In the christmas spirit this year, I was presented with a Trumpeter USS FRANKLIN and USS ARIZONA that fell under the catagorey of "GEE, I would sure appreciate it if you could build these up for me. AND I sure would like to see them manned and how they looked like underway." No1. I do not do sea-scapes and No2. Since I do not do sea-scapes, putting the little sailors on the little ships( which since I do not do sea-scapes means that the ships will be on pedestals) seems ludricous to me. Since nothing more that a bottle of Chevas Regal is at stake, I would not feel badly about leaving the little sailors off of the decks of these ships. Does anybody else there feel that presentation-type models look really silly with a complement on board? << Hi Ray, I don't think little sailors on pedestal mounted ships look any more ludicrous than the models themselves; who ever saw a real ship balanced on giant centerline brass columns?! Still, I love ship models both on pedestals and in seascapes and have built them both ways. It is really just a matter of taste as to how scale sailors look on presentation-type models. While they admittedly do look more natural on seascaped ships, I use figures on my pedestaled models too. The little guys become a sort of visual starting point for viewers (especially non-ship modelers) who immediately find in them something familiar. Still, it is just a matter of taste...but with a bottle of Chevas Regal at stake, I would very seriously consider putting a crew aboard in either case. regards, Tim ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From "Brett Morrow" Subject H.M.A.S. Sydney/Kormoran Action Due to the impending release of NNT`s 1/700 kits of the Sydney & Kormoran and the, no doubt, renewed interest in this famous engagment I have stumbled across a most interesting web site by W Whittake on this subject. Warren and his mate Lindsay have done exhaustive self funded research into this subject and have come up with wreck sites and other very important facts which I believe are very plausible, relevant and should not be ignored. After many years of reading about this famous action , I just can`t believe the official findings. Keeping an open mind, how could a captain(Burnett) place his ship in such a position, knowing a raider was operating in the area, and was in fact dispatched to intercept this ship.Bearing in mind the suspicion that the Kormoran had aroused on the Sydney, can anyone believe no protest would have been challenged by other officers, especially the fact that most of the officer rank where seasoned vets from the Mediterranean campaigns. How can a raider,stated under official records, fire three ranging salvos, before a full 6 inch salvo reply from Sydney which went over, remember that the Sydney was a highly successful battle seasoned criuser, Even with fire control knocked out, at 1500 yards you`d have to be blind?! Why was Detmers always tight lipped about the action and was worried about being courtmarshalled and tried as a war criminal? I have absolutely no affiliation with Warren, but I highly recommend his site for stimulating and compelling reading. This is not anything to do with the sub theory, with all the collected data this will surely make you ponder. I stumbled onto this site through a Google search by typing in" H.M.A.S. Sydney/Kormoran Action," on the Google second page there are a couple of links to W Whittake`s site,alternately you could try........ http//www.albury.net.au/~wwhittake/sydneysearch/ , but I seem to have trouble getting to the site this way. Have a read,it`s a big site packed with heaps of info. It definately throws much doubt on this subject, which still has not been put to rest after 63 years, most excellent. Please post your comments. Cheers, Brett Morrow ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From "D. MacAhonic" Subject 1/700 decals Hi all, I just acquired about 300 (actually 435) aircraft (WWII & Mod.) in 1/700 scale at a yard sale. They need to be repainted so I have started cleaning the paint of with (Easy-Off oven cleaner) does this stuff work great. I need to find some decals in 1/700 scale to finish these planes off with (as I don't have enough in my extras) .....Japanese, German, USA, British and modern too. Does anyone on the list have any extra decals they want to get rid of? or know of a place where they can be purchased? email me off list please. Thanks all Douglas MacAhonic (from the family of Ernst MACH and we all know who he was.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From Iain Wyllie Subject U-boat Hi Brooks, I'd be delighted if you could provide some information to prove me wrong as I don't particularly fancy tackling the necessary mods, for example- 1. Some photos showing a Type VII where the aft hole of the sloping row at the bow is a significant distance fwd. of the top corner of the anchor recess as in the kit. 2. Ditto showing the forward flooding slot closer than 3 frame spaces from the aft end of the anchor recess. I deliberately did not mention the flooding hole patterns as it is clearly obvious that these varied widely, mostly at the after end of the rows, the ones athwart the tower being either evenly spaced, in pairs or in different numbers,those athwart the deck gun having regular or uneven spacing etc., etc. I very much doubt if the anchor recess would be moved without good reason as it would involve altering the frames behind it, the short hawse pipe and the sloping bulkhead which supported it. My main concern was that I could find no photograph confirming the relationship between the anchor recess, the flooding holes, the torpedo tube doors and the fwd. hydroplane mount as portrayed in the kit. This is not, of course, to say that such a relationship did not exist, just that, of the hundreds of photos I have examined, I have not seen one like it. Iain ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From "Harold Stockton" Subject Upcoming 1/700 scale Niko ORP Dragon and Conrad Announced, but with no release date, there is news that Niko (http//www.nikomodel.pl/zywica.html ) will be releasing an upcoming 1/700 scale ORP Dragon and Conrad light cruisers. No prices or release date is known as of yet. The Dragon was part of the RN World War I Emergency program ships, designed generally similar to the Cairo class of "D" class cruisers. Danae ("ORP Conrad") and Dragon (incorporated a hanger with the bridge, where the others had a flying off platform.) were ordered prior to the Cairo class and had the normal bow, the remainder had the modified bow. Dragon had a hanger incorporated into the bridge, the remainder except Danae, were provided with flying off platforms aft. They came into service in 1918. The ships of this class were intended to be converted to anti-aircraft cruisers but the outbreak of war in 1939 put an end to this. Both of these kits will fill in a hole in both WW-I and WW-II collections. Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From "Harold Stockton" Subject Niko 1/700 scale ORP destroyers availibility I just heard from Adam Koscicki, niko@nikomodel.pl , of Niko kits about their different 1/700 scale multimedia, resin and photoetched, ORP destroyers availibility. According to Mr.Koscicki; "It is possible to lodge order on our internet address [http//www.nikomodel.pl ]. Price of one model is $ 22,5 plus cost of delivery [$2,13 for the US, HS], one model weights near 20g. You can pay me by Western Union on my surname, I send package after payment. If you agree write. I salute. Adam Koscicki Legnica POLSKA "To reduce high postage costs I suggest, when you buying kits, books or accessories weighted to 2kg in total, I'm sending in form of "small pacquet". All parcels will be send as "registred letter". In this case the mailing cost shall be as follows Priority mail P&P Weight Zone A B C D USD USD USD USD 0 g - 20 g $2,08 $2,13 $2,18 $2,34 20 g - 50 g $2,16 $2,24 $2,34 $2,61 50 g - 100 g $2,42 $2,61 $2,82 $3,39 100 g - 250 g $3,45 $3,89 $4,37 $5,74 250 g - 500 g $5,39 $6,37 $7,37 $10,32 500 g - 1000 g $9,08 $11,05 $13,03 $18,95 1000 g - 1500 g $13,11 $16,39 $19,68 $29,55 1500 g - 2000 g $16,87 $21,47 $26,08 $39,89 Time of delivery European countries to 3 days Rest od the World to 6 days Zones A Europe (with Russia & Israel) B North America & Africa C Asia, South & Central America D Australia & Oceania Harold Stockton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From Gary Kingzett Subject Re A question of scale Jon, looks like you'll need a rubber ruler to make this one come out exactly, but there are a couple of indications that might help. 1. Scaling the photo on page 100 of Alden's "Steel Navy", using the length of the cutters as 32 feet, the waterline length comes out to 248 feet. Also in this photo, notice that the superstructure and other equipment do appear higher than normal, perhaps to compensate for the low freeboard. 2. Using the data from Friedman of Length X Beam X Hull depth we can develop a hull volume coefficient. Divide that into the displacement we get an index of tonnage per cubic foot. For Puritan that number is .0165, for Monterey that number is .0161. We have to do a little figuring to get the hull depth for Arkansas, figuring freeboard of 3 feet and draft of 11 feet 9 inches gives a hull depth of 14 feet 9 inches, the tonnage per cubic foot index for Arkansas can be figured. If we use a length of 225 feet in the calculations, we get an index of .0194. If we use 255 feet, we get an index of .0170. Finally to get it to fit even more exactly, if we use the actual displacement tonnage (as listed, from Hovgaard) rather than design displacement we get an index of .0160. That means to me that the length has to be 250-255 feet for Arkansas. But, that only works if the beam is 50 feet. You can also get close by using a length of 225 and a beam of 55 feet, but that length to beam ratio is bad, about 41, whereas Puritan was 51 and Monterey about 4.51. My guess is that the Arkansas was 252 feet long with a 50 foot beam. The problem with your drawings may well come from the fact that the ship was originally going to be 210 feet long, and somewhere along the line, some overworked draftsman, faced with another round of politically inspired design changes said something like, "To hell with it, when they make up their minds, we'll make a new set of drawings," and then never did. Gary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From SteveWiper@aol.com Subject New books coming in the Warship Pictorial Series! Warship Pictorial #22 & #25 are in the final proofreading stages. WP #22 - USS Ticonderoga CV/CVA/CVS-14 This book covers the career of this American aircraft carrier from her WWII days thru her time in the Vietnam War to her final missions of the Apollo and Skylab recoveries in the early 1970s. The book will have 72 pages, 8 of which are in color. USA Retail $16.00 WP #25 - IJN Yamato Class Battleships This book covers the two completed ships of this class of super dreadnoughts Yamato and Musashi and gives brief coverage on the carrier conversion Shinano. The book will have 64 pages with a color plan and profile illustration of Yamato as she appeared in 1941 on the two page center spread. USA Retail $14.00 Both books will go to the printer by the beginning of February and ship to distributors and hit the store shelves by the end of the month. Thank you, Steve Wiper www.classicwarships.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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