Subject: SMML VOL 2955 Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:21:50 +1000 The Ship Modelling Mailing List (SMML) is proudly sponsored by SANDLE http//sandlehobbies.com For infomation on how to Post to SMML and Unsubscribe from SMML http//smmlonline.com/aboutsmml/rules.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1 Tom's Modelworks CVN 65 Enterprise Hangar Deck 2 Re Motorized Plastic R/C ships 3 Re FAA 4 Motor Oil Barges 5 Fleet Air Arm 6 Academy 1/140th scale Type IXB U-boat kit 7 Re FAA 8 Re FAA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "Robert Gervais" Subject Tom's Modelworks CVN 65 Enterprise Hangar Deck Has anyone ever used Tom's Hangar Deck for their Enterprise? I am in the build process of mine and want to add a hangar deck. Just curious if this is worth it or better to scratch build. Thanks Robert ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From Randy Ward Subject Re Motorized Plastic R/C ships >>The toy boat comes with a pack of spare propellers that are the size ideal for 1350 ships, my original reason for buying the toys. << Where are you folks getting these toy boats? The only ones I've found are at Radio Shaft, er Shack, and they didn't have propellers. Cap'n Randy (NE US ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "GRAHAM BOAK" Subject Re FAA Continuing this discussion >> But given it's role, what did it (Fulmar) kill? Snoopers? Stukas? Lumbering old second-rate Italian "targets? << Yes. And that is exactly what it was intended for. The Admiralty did not expect to encounter enemy single-engined fighters, and very rarely did. The Fulmar was designed to suppress enemy recce and intercept bombers. It doesn't actually matter too much if they ran away - aircraft running away can't bomb you. >> Only the Brits would unload a carrier's air complement before sending the carrier into combat ... << Hermes wasn't sent into combat. She was heading for a harbour and was caught unawares. >> Not even long-range JU-88 fighters or ex-range BF-110s? But in the Med, where the Fulmar saw most of it's service, the carriers were seldom out of range of land-based Italian or German (think BF-110) fighters. << The Luftwaffe did not use the Bf 110 as a long range naval fighter, at all. Other than for defensive convoy patrols. It did use the Ju 88C over the Bay of Biscay but they were never available in large numbers and were not used as escort fighters against a carrier-defended fleet. They'd have died, as all twin-engined bombers did in similar circumstances.. However, you are making a important miscalculation, here and elsewhere. You are talking "range" as if it was the real parameter involved. The range quoted in performance figures is one way, on a ferry. It probably does not allow for a reserve and certainly does not allow for any combat allowance. The true combat radius is much lower than half the quoted figures. Perhaps a third. And this does, of course, diminish the difference between these fighters (Zero, as always, is still outstanding.). For the vast majority of its operations in the Mediterranean the RN operated outside the operating distance of contemporary fighters. Regardless of what the maps may suggest. This also neglects the real operational constraint of land-based single-engined fighter pilots not being trained in over-water navigation. >> Boulton Paul built the Roc as a temporary measure to provide work for their workforce working up for the Defiant. It isn't true to say the two were built side-by-side. << Source (for one) Boulton Paul Aircraft since 1915, by Alec Brew, published by Putnam. Immediately prewar BP moved from Norwich to a new purpose-built factory in Wolverhampton. The first aircraft they built was the Hawker Demon, under licence. BP had no production contracts for any of their own designs at this time. By the end of the Demon production, the prototype Defiants had flown, and the development was proceeding, but production was still some time away. To fill the gap BP did the detail design work for the conversion to the Roc (it was their turret, after all) and the Roc followed the Demon into production. The Defiant followed the Roc as the third type to be built at Wolverhampton. However, the production contracts did overlap, so my comment wasn't strictly correct. >> The comparison (to me) is this - the Hurricane was near the end of it's development life cycle, while the F4F-3 was at the very beginning of it's life cycle. Next to come - folding wings, more guns, more powerful engines, better armor, longer range. << Yes, but that was not the position of the FAA in 1940/41/42. Jam tomorrow is no use today. I think you share an understandable bias with many US enthusiasts. Crudely expressed, the war did not begin in December 1941. What could the USN have done in the Med. in 1940/41? I'm sure you don't consider it so bluntly, but the UK's relevant equipment decisions were not made in 1939/40 but in 1937 and earlier. The UK was not free to follow an uninterrupted development of its technology but had to drop everything in 1940 in favour of mass production of what it had, in the face of imminent invasion. Yes, the Wildcat ended up better than the Hurricane - it would have been totally astonishing if it had not, given its later gestation. But in 1941/42 it wasn't. By the standards of contemporary land-based fighters (Fw190, Typhoon) it was fairly insipid. The Hurricane was already obsolescent - though it too was still fighting on at the end of the war. What was the Wildcat's excuse? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "David Hathaway" Subject Motor Oil Barges SMML'ies Another quest for drawings or plans I am afraid. Reading "the army's navy" - the story of the Army Transport Corp/Logistic Corp, there is a photo and some outline data on the Motor Oil Barges built during WWII to supply petrol to other boats and shore installations. Displacement was around 100 tons on a 104' length. Only about a dozen were built and had numbers like "MOB 8". They were hated by crew as when they carried cargo they were banned from cooking on board or heating the crew quarters. I would love to make a model of one. Are there any other books (or websites) that might make a reference to these delightfully ugly ducklings, including photographs or drawings? Or a source of plans commercially? Or a plastic or resin model I could take lines from? Otherwise it is a request to the National Maritime Museum to see if they have anything (and take a deep breath while holding my wallet very tightly ...). David ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From "Erhardtsen" Subject Fleet Air Arm >> If she was commissioned as a carrier, and if she was sunk by carriers, I don't know what else you'd call it. << You mean like CV-1 USS Langley? >> Only the Brits would unload a carrier's air complement before sending the carrier into combat ... << Only the Americans would load a carrier with planes, and send it into battle without the front half of the flight deck. No, to be serious. To me, it is only a carrier battle if the carriers fight like carriers. Hermes was a very one sided affair. You canīt use that in a debate about British fighters. No one could expect a Japanese task force outside of the Pacific in 1942. The use of Hermes to deliver planes in that situation was just (I am not sure, she carried fighters anyway) >> But even if Green or Taylor is right (273 or 280), this is not up to 1940 performance. The A5M Claude (retiring at that time) did 280 at 6,900 feet, the much-maligned Buffalo (dash-two version) did 323 at 16,500....... << Donīt retire the Claud before the Zero is coming. I am surprised, that you try to put up the speed of Cloud, at the same time as you prefer the lowest speed seen for the Fulmar. The best speed I can find fore the Claud is 273 mph, and that is fore the A5M4 with a 710 hp. Nakajima Kotobuki engine. With 610 hp it goes 265 mph. and 252 mph with 580 hp engine. The best speed fore the A5M Claude is the same as the speed fore the Fulmar. (And by the way, if I am to tease you a little, the Wildcat that lost the competition to the Buffalo had a top speed of 288 mph. - only marginally better than the Fulmar and Claud) The concept fore the Ju 88 was the same as earlier the B. Blenheim and later the D. H. Mosquito. A fast bomber. It was constructed to outrun the fighters, and it is not surprisingly, that it often did. >> I can't agree, if only because the entire design concept (2-seat recon fighter) went out of favor in the early 30s with other Carrier powers. And you can't really compare the Fulmar (a brand-new aircraft at the beginning of it's life cycle) with obsolete aircraft winding down their service.The just comparison is against those competitive aircraft that were just entering service. << Of course I can compare brand new types with obsolete aircrafts. Remember, this is not a discussion of which aircraft is best. This discussion was about whether the Fleet Air Arm had been starved by RAF or there aircrafts was up to standard at the time. My argument is, that they was not leading, but they was up to standard in August 1939 and up to the middle of 1940. It does not matter, that the American F2F/F3F did not fight - it was the fighter in use on American carriers at the time, and they was no better than the British fighters in those days. At the time the Zero and Wildcat came in use (Late 1940 and early 1941) the British was left behind, but half a year later, they came back to level using there own Wildcats. >> That 1930 mile range for the Zero, with fixed external tanks (which made them vulnerable - look what it did to Saburo Sakai) is an exaggeration, IMO. Their real operational range was "just" a phenomenal 1500 miles. << You most be mistaken naut. miles and st. miles. In naut. miles the range of the A6M2 was 1675. I know, that later models had a shorter range. My conclusion is, that the FAA carriers was acceptable equipped at the begin of W.W.II. compare with the carriers of other nations. They was not leading before they got the Corsair. To see the Buffalo put to good use, you need to look to Finland. In Finland they used the early model - not the overloaded later model - and they loved it. It was there primary first line fighter until 1944. But you canīt really take them into account. They went into 50 meter before they opened fire, and they seem to have regarded 2 to 10 fore fair odds. Regards Erik Erhardtsen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From "RAY MEHLBERGER" Subject Academy 1/140th scale Type IXB U-boat kit Hobby Lobby has a coupon on their web site that gives 50% off of kits this week. I went there and bought an Academy 1/140th scale type IXB U-boat kit, at half price. When I got home and opened it I discovered it is a motorized model. I think this hokeys-up some of the detail? Can anyone tell me if this is a decent kit, if you build it as a static model?? I am not that conversant with quality of ship models, being predominantly an armor modeler...so am naturally curious. I guess my next dumb question is...does anybody make after-market fittings for this kit. I think..by looking at the markings in the box...that they are NOT a waterslide decal...but appear to be self adhering STICKERS??? I also get the impression that...if you build the kit as a static model...sans the motor etc....you will have a lot of puttying up of access panels to do??? Thanks, in advance, for any imput about this kit. Ray Mehlberger ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Christopher & Kayo Amano-Langtree" Subject Re FAA Hi Ned A very nice post with a lot of detail and information. However, to clarify one thing the Seafire was a better dogfighter than the American planes justifying the use made of it for close air defence and the Admirals comments. Furthermore American CAPs were not that effective whilst the Royal Navy ones were much better as they were based on fighter interception techniques developed in the Battle of Britain. Thus the RN was able to vector its fighters onto the target quicker and needed fewer numbers to make a kill. The Seafire being short ranged is not surprising it was developed from a pure interceptor which was short ranged anyway but for the most part they were able to out-manoeuvre the Japanese fighters (Darwin was a freak). Christopher Amano-Langtree ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From "Allen Stevens" Subject Re FAA Gentlemen (and I suspect I am about to get shot to pieces on this) We seem to have a worrying amount of British (note not Brits its British) bashing going on here it may be that it is just friendly rivalry between the US and Britain but when I start reading comments like 'the Fulmar was a dog' (so was the P51 until it got a decent engine) 'US carriers superior to everyone' 'US DE's better than RN escorts' (my wifes grandfather who commanded a River took huge and I mean huge exception to that) etc etc I start to get uncomfortable. A lot of brave men died flying the Fulmar and a lot of brave men were saved by armoured flight decks this is not to say that the US designs did not have advantages but each were designed to different specs and different requirements. We this side of the pond could go on about the parlous state of US AS warfare at the start of the war the lack of coastal convoys etc etc but what is the point every side made mistakes including the US but at the end of the day what we did worked. As for the suggestion that the Spitfire was somehow an inferior fighter do me a favour (Note British expression not Brit) anyone heard of the Battle of Britain ? If it had been Japanese planes over Dover they would have met with the same fate as the Luftwaffe. All of this does smell rather like the old my cars better than yours debate speaking for a number of SMMLies over here its starting to turn us off. Final note what's all this wingy thingy stuff anyway lets get back to talking about good honest ships! Regards to all Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume