Subject: SMML VOL 2990 Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:38:55 +1100 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 revell four stacker photoetch set 2 Anthony Preston's book collection 3 Re Repulse RDF 4 Re Habbakuk Project 5 Borodino 1/350 6 Questions on heller 1/400 HMS Illustrious... 7 arkmodel.com 8 Federal Navy frigate 9 Re revell four stacker photoetch set 10 Re Repulse to Renown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From BRADFORD CHAUCER Subject Re revell four stacker photoetch set >> anybody make a photoetch set for the old revell four stacker destroyers such as uss aaron ward and hms campbelltown? << Yes, Tom's Model Works does. Gold Medal Models may also have one. Regards, Bradford Chaucer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From CokerRE@aol.com Subject Anthony Preston's book collection For those interested in the book collection of the prolific British author, Anthony Preston, you can go to http//www.dominicwinter.co.uk/ Tomorrow they are auctioning off part of his collection which includes many naval volumes by Raven, Roberts, Friedman, and others. I have purchased many items over the years at these British auctions using on line catalogs. If time permits you should ask for a condition report and place your bid accordingly. It may seem troublesome but if you want to pick up some rare gems at reasonable prices, this is the way to do it. Once these items get into a dealer's hands the prices rise many times. If you are successful, the auction house will arrange for a shipper to ship the items to you and you should have it within two weeks time. For the more expensive items you can bid for the item when it comes up on the auction floor over the telephone at no additional charge. Otherwise you can place an absentee bid up to a pre-set maximum amount. If anyone wants to contact me separately about this process, I will be glad to help. I am not bidding on any of the Preston collection items. PC Coker/Charleston ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From Sanartjam@aol.com Subject Re Repulse RDF Greetings, I'm a bit puzzled by Mr. Stockton's post on this subject in SMML 2988. Yes, the Repulse did have a Type 284 gunnery radar, but the question I was responding to seemed to be directed at her air search radar. If you are suggesting the Repulse did not carry an air search radar, I would rely upon Mr. Armstrong, the ship's radar officer, who told me she had a Type 286P radar fitted on her foretop in September 1941 and indicated its position on a plan I sent him. (He said the Repulse also had a Type 273 surface search radar still in crates, but the question I was answering didn't seem to be directed to that one either.) I think Mr. Armstrong would've mentioned a Type 279 radar if the Repulse had had one. I hope this clears up the matter. Art Nicholson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From Richard Sweeney Subject Re Habbakuk Project >> When there enthusiastic talk had died down I asked them what they could tell me about the aircraft carriers that actually did see service. Blank looks. Then son number two brightened and said. "They had big balloons that carried planes as well!" So much for the Ark Royal and her immortal place in British Military History. << Shame on their teacher, but Number two son was right, even if he was off by a few years. USS Akron and USS Macon were two US Naval Zeppelins, built by Goodyear-Zeppelin Company that each carried 5 fighter planes in an internal Hanger Compartment and launched them by means od a system refered to as "The Trapeze" http//www.history.navy.mil/photos/ac-usn22/z-types/zrs4.htm Is the Naval Historical site for the Akron, you might find the link "Views of her heavier than air Group" interesting. http//www.history.navy.mil/photos/ac-usn22/z-types/zrs5.htm Is for the Macon In her section on Her Heavier than air Group, there are photo's of an interesting modification her pilots made to their planes. They had the landing gear removed, They said since they only operated on and off the Macon, why would they need landing gear, and the gear created drag, so remove the gear. Number two son was right, just off by a few years. Rich Sweeney ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From John Fraser Subject Borodino 1/350 Firstly a belated and big thanks to those who replied to my question about this kit, as it was beginning to look as if it was disappearing I decided to take the plunge and bought a couple... .. and have found what look like a few problems with the kit. From the deck up it looks fine, the problems I think are in the hull. Has anyone had experience building this kit? A review on a website says that the upper deck fits perfectly with the hull. I did a dry run (I didn't take the deck off the sprue) and found that as the deck flairs out at the anchor "beds" the hull sides at the bow barbets have to bow out quite a bit about 0.5 cm to accommodate it and bow back again to fit the rest of the deck. Likewise with the lower deck, the hull is a good cm wider than the opening in the hull at the forward end. Also there is thick flash that raises about 2mm above the top of the hull port side lower deck. Not a problem until you notice that the ledge to hold the deck in place is about 2mm below the top of this, so removing the flash will take the side down to the level of this ridge. This problem looks like it is repeated on the starboard side bow by the anchor "beds" and forward barbets. T There is also a misalignment at the bow. the starboard side being slightly lower than the port, but it looks fairly easily fixed by drilling out higher location holes. I stress I have not started gluing things together so this is really just a first impression and am wondering if anyone who has built the kit had similar findings and how they dealt with it. One way might be to cut the bottom so the hull sides bend more easily, has anyone tried this? Thanks John ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From "Roy McKay" Subject Questions on heller 1/400 HMS Illustrious... Hi all, I was recently handed a Heller 1/400 HMS Illustrious by a R/C ship modeler and asked to build it for him. I have never been 'commissioned' to do a model like this before, for someone else. Just want to know, is there anything to look out for on this re fit problems, accuracy, etc. He didn't specify what timeframe so as it's in the box should be okay, as long as it IS Illustrious at some point. Also, any aftermarket goodies I shoud get? Plan on doing this as a practice run for my 1/350 Enterprise, as so far I've only built Aircraft carriers in 1/720...... Cheers, Roy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "IF" Subject arkmodel.com Has anyone had anything to do with arkmodels as I am considering their type 23 frigate. any information would be appreciated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject Federal Navy frigate Federal Navy frigates (such as USS CONSTITUTION, USS CONSTELLATION, USS PRESIDENT, etc.) had the masts spaced unevenly. The distance between the fore mast and the main mast is greater than between the main mast and the mizzen mast (and its companion, the spanker mast). I have asked many people why this is so, and have received anything from "I don't know" to a variety of what seem to be vague guesses. I submit my own personal theory as to the reason, and humbly request SMML for comments. CONSTITUTION (and other frigates of the era) seems to have carried a minimum of four "small boats". One was suspended from davits over the stern, and three were nested on the main deck roughly amidships, between the fore mast and the main mast. The bottom boat of the nest was a rather large vessel (and may have been called a "barge", a term still used, i.e. "Admiral's Barge"). I suggest that this barge was necessarily quite long (to ferry marines ashore, etc.), causing the main mast to be further aft than it "should" have been. If this barge (and possibly its nested boats) were to be suspended from davits over the side, two negative affects would be present. One, this would place a considerable amount of weight on one side, creating an unstable overturning "moment", and Two, this location would have caused a greater reduction of mid-ship deck guns, at least on one side, to provide for maneuvering of the barge for launching and retrieval, even more guns than were already sacrificed for this purpose. Comments, please, SMML. Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From AAA Hobby Supply Subject Re revell four stacker photoetch set Patrick GMM has a set for $40 and is a most ecellent product! 240-5, 1/240 scale REVELL BUCKLEY, BLIGH AND WARD (Equips both models) James ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From David Wells Subject Re Repulse to Renown Fellow SMMLlies FYI, Allan is one of my first net.friends, so we're not really fighting. It's just an ongoing conversation that we've been having for the past many years. And I too would like to see a 1/600 Courageous/Furious/Glorious kit in original "large light cruiser" configuration. "Allan Plumb" >> -- You'll note I said "At first level". -) As noted, the two sisters' armour branched way off in the 20's. << True enough, and I certainly agree. >> -- Breyer's book has drawings of Repulse and Renown throughout their lives. If accurate (always a concern with this source), it looks like Renown's bulges were bigger than Repulse's. They appear to be longer, and show up more in overhead drawings. But, a start. << Once again, I agree. I initially used the Breyer drawing for my wooden hull, but it seems to disagree with Raven & Roberts. I share your concern about Breyer's accuracy. I don't have any references with adequate drawings of Renown's bulges, but the minimal drawings in Raven & Roberts suggest that they were narrower than Repulse's. >> -- Robert's "Battlecruisers" book has lots on original design, but not updates. Haven't seen his "British Warships of WWII" which has plans, but I don't know of what. << I always thought that Roberts "Battlecruisers" book was mistitled. It should have been called "British Battlecruisers of World War One". It's a nice book, but limited in scope. >> -- As to British Cruisers - nyah! Both were out of print (Battleships came back in a while ago, may be still in), I got my copy of Cruisers here on SMML from a member (Roger Torgeson?) << I got my copy of R&R British Battleships of World War Two the last time it was published. The Naval Instutute seems to reprint it every few years. I'm still lusting after the cruiser book. ;-) >> And no, mine are NOT for sale. -) << I suspected as much, but I appreciate the information from the book that Allan has sent me. (and yes, my HMS Minotaur project is making some progress these days....) >> Allan Plumb, another fan of HMS Lion (194x) << I'm still willing to share my recipe. In my vast pile of incomplete projects, I have a Revell 1/570 King George V --> 1/600 Lion project. And if you want to work on a conversion web page with me, I'm game. "There seems to be something wrong | David R. Wells with our bloody ships today" | Adm. D. Beatty, May 31, 1916 | http//home.att.net/~WellsBrothers/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume