Subject: SMML VOL 2962 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:55:00 +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 Re Radar Picket Destroyers (the reason why) And Other Flights of Fancy 2 Airfix/Heller 1/400 KM set 3 Bouquets for Flowers, DEs & Frigates 4 Re Award for Flowers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From "David N. Lombard" Subject Re Radar Picket Destroyers (the reason why) And Other Flights of Fancy From Ned Barnett >> Oh - and that would explain the Hellcat's 19-1 kill ratio - the best by any aircraft, on any side, in any war, in history. The Hellcat was called the "ace-maker" and something like 300 Hellcat pilots became aces. But of course, that was all just dumb luck, having nothing to do with the remarkable maneuverability (in turns), the remarkable zoom-climb capability, or even with the docile landing characteristics (which saved the ass of many a 250-hour Ensign). << Add to that survivability courtesy of the "Grumman Iron Works" David N. Lombard Rossmoor, Orange County, CA http//www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Earth?imgsize=320&opt=-z&lat=33.8&ns=North&lon=118.08&ew=West&alt=7&img=learth.evif ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "John Clements" Subject Airfix/Heller 1/400 KM set Having just acquired this recent re-release of several Heller KM kits bundled under the Airfix label, I wondered whether everyone interested in that scale and navy/period was aware of it. It seems a real bargain to me at £40 when some pieces, especially the minesweeper, have been fetching some silly prices on EBay, as it contains 2 M35 class minesweepers, a Type 39 torpedo boat, a Narvik class destroyer, a Type VIIC U-boat and 6 of the later type E-boat with the armoured bridge. Enough for an extensive harbour scene if anyone has space for such a thing in 1/400 scale. The U-boat and E-boats are fairly crude by modern standards, but allow for several variants. The larger ships are much better, and also have a few extra parts like single 37mm pieces (better replaced with PE of course) for later fits that were not in the original kits. Each of these can be made up in a number of variants too, with different camouflage schemes keyed to Humbrol paints shown in the instructions.though as always additional research on armament and colours would be necessary, but at least they have tried. The minesweepers in particular appear to have some quite fine detail. Modellers in this scale will be aware that there is no PE set that fits any of these kits directly although some parts appear in both GMM and WEM sets for other kits, so I hope enough of us are sufficiently interested to buy from our friends and persuade them that producing a specific PE set would be worthwhile! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From "Jon Holford" Subject Bouquets for Flowers, DEs & Frigates To Michael Loring. Hi there! I don't think I can have made myself clear about what is/is not relevant to the issue I brought up. Every word you say about Flowers is true and they are a very worthwhile topic. I hope I didn't seem to suggest otherwise. BUT the RN entered the war without the benefit of recent war experience, obviously. As you say, their experience was gathered from WW1 and a good deal of theory and peacetime experiment. This led to the Flower and Hunt class escorts. From there on, they began to gain current war experience and modified their existing ships and projected designs in the light of it. Modifications to existing ships were obviously limited by the main characteristics of the existing hulls, though they were often pretty extensive, as with the Flowers. This is a worthwhile topic in itself, but the topic I sought to raise was the ships that came OUT of the war. These were, the DEs, especially the later ones, and the Loch/Bay and Castle class frigates. Experience gained with Flowers and Hunts went into their design (including that of the DEs), but the Flowers and Hunts were the source not the fruit of the WW2 experience. You raise an interesting point regarding Blackwoods (one might also add the US Dealeys) as utility corvette type A/S vessels. That too would produce an interesting debate, following AS designs from pre war to the 50s. However, every historian has to draw an artificial line round his time frame. Mine is perhaps a bit tight, but that is where I drew the line. For me, the Flowers, Hunts, PCs and to large degree the Black Swans are BACKGROUND. My parameters, which of course should not be binding on other smmlies, are for classes designed during the war in the light of its experience. That being said, if others broaden the discussion, I would be the last to complain. It is a fascinating subject and I only stand to gain in knowledge. Regards to all, Jon H ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From Reynold.Oh@defence.gov.au Subject Re Award for Flowers 1. I've been following the Corvette discussion, with interest. The facts beyond dispute are A) that they'd 'roll on wet grass' and B) that they were an adaptation of the design for a whale-catcher ship. However, I'd like to ask some logical questions. 2. I reckon that the initial whale-catcher ships were used to hunt whales far out at sea (= oceanic/pleagic, as opposed to coastal) and then to bring them back to the factory ship. Yes? (because there are no coastal whaleing ports that I know of. The last one, I believe, was the Chaynes Beach Whaling Company in Western Australia, and they used ships smaller than a corvette). Were the whale-catchers also prone to rolling too? 3. If they were pelagic, and considering the age of whaling and shipbuilding as related industries, why did such a rolling design get approved in the first place? And why was the design not corrected (with bilge keels?) to reduce the tendency after the first few whale-catchers had returned to port (presumably the whaling cews would have reported the tendency to roll), or when the design was adapted to produce the Corvette, (presumably the RN cews would have reported the tendency to roll, too)? If the tendency to roll was so well known, why was the design not corrected. Did the chief designer not know his job? Did he ever go to sea (the open sea - the real sea) in one to experience it first hand? 4. If the whale-catcher was an oceanic ship, why were the corvettes listed as coastal defence ships? Were they coastal because of their short range? Whale-catchers have their mother/factory ship, and would not/do not need to stray too far from her. 5. ACK that it was more imperative to have a convoy escort on-line, that to take it off-line to correct a design fault. Apologies for being logical George, out..... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume