Subject: SMML VOL 3035 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:37:15 +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 Modeler's Vacuform 2 Re accessibility 3 Re Renwal Polaris subs 4 Re Museum Ships 5 Re Renwal 1/200 Ethan Allen Submarine kit 6 Re MV Christmas Seal 7 Iowas 8 Re Looking for a book (Rodney & Nelson) 9 Re Canadian MV Christmas Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From Tom Ruprecht Subject Modeler's Vacuform Another place to look for a vacuform is the dental industry. Not only dental laboratories but your local dentist may have one, typically the stage is about 6 inches square. The old Mattel vacuform was smaller, maybe four inches and required closely spaced holes around the edges. The dental versions take more types and thicknesses of plastics than the toy one, also. If you want to buy one you may want to try eBay. Rupe ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From "Shirley Sachsen" Subject Re accessibility >> e. Mainly to Shane/Lorna Since the subject of prototype preservation seems to have some interest in SMML, I wonder if there could be another pointer-set added to the website (under Reference), sorted geographically, which gives location details of preserved vessels and interesting museums (or pointers to their own sites if they exist)? There are already lots of posted photos, but I have noticed several threads starting with a post along the lines "I am visiting place-X, what is there to see?" << HNSA (Historic Naval Ships Assn) has a weblisting of all their member ships http//www.hnsa.org/index.htm >> Uh, and just how is this a Caltrans issue? Alameda is an island, accessible by tube under the Oakland estuary, by bridge over the estuary, and by boat, and the former naval base is on the westernmost side. The tubes were built by the cities and only later taken into the state highway system; same for the bridges. Having worked for Caltrans for 21 years, I don't recall any particular pressure from either Oakland OR Alameda to improve vehicular access. It was certainly never on the State Transportation Improvement Plan. If it SHOULD have been, well, that's the job of the State Transportation Commission--a politically appointed body (get the picture?). << in the latest and greatest 'upgrade' of freeways in the east bay, the one exit/entrance close to Alameda was removed. there is not adequate signage directing folks to the Island. signage for Hornet also quite frankly sucks. being an island without a freeway running through it is not a problem. having reasonable signage and a simple commute from a freeway is helpful, which it does not. remaining freeway access is antiquated and heavily traveled. the simplest access to the island is High St. but that's only if you're going North. South is a little more problematic, but it's not as difficult as you might think--it only requires some familiarity--which for a tourist is a problem. as for being a tourist destination, that is indeed the fault of the... individuals....who run/market the city. there are enough Victorian era houses and neighborhoods to make Petaluma look like an urban wasteland. there's also a very nice beach facility and interpretive center. but unless you live there (and sometimes even then) you wouldn't know about it. while we're on the subject of accessibility, how would you characterize the location of the Red Oak Victory? oh, and to the poster 'hoping' I was kidding about cutting up ships to preserve them? I wasn't. it is a belief formulated after years of close proximity to the ship preservation 'business' and the starry eyed fantasy that everything should be saved.... while it would be nice, it is not practical. s ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From Ives100@aol.com Subject Re Renwal Polaris subs >> Besides the prop being wrong for an operational 608 class boat Renwal did a horrible job on the rudder. The rudder (top and bottom) they provide is molded in two pieces, a solid piece attached to the top and bottom of the hull and a moveable piece for the top and bottom. This is totally incorrect. The rudders on the boomers and most fast attacks were one solid piece for both top and bottom which moved. The diving planes are correct with a solid piece (stabilizer) attached to the left and right-hand sides of the hull and a moveable diving plane behind it, both left and right. To correct the rudder error I cut the solid pieces off of the hull with an Exacto saw and glued them onto the leading edge of the moveable pieces. Then I filled in the gaps with plastic putty. any photo of the stern of a boomer will show that the rudders are one solid piece. << In addition to Rick's observations, the other problem (well, one of the other problems) with the Renwal kits is the sail mounted planes. The Polaris boats did not have stationary "stand-offs" from the sail for the sail planes; the entire sail plane was movable. Also, when I correct the rudders, I usually scratchbuild the upper rudder, as it was noticeably taller than the lower rudder. Ken Hart wrote a great article a while back in the SubCommittee Report about correcting the exterior of the Renwall SSBN kits. I'm actually buying small motors and other detail parts from Plastruct, and intend to try to get the interior of one of the kits as accurate as possible. I have exterior drawings and the TAB book (with general interior layouts) from SSBN 611 (USS John Marshall, an Ethan Allen class boat). While the book does not have detailed drawings of the engineering spaces, there is enough there to give one a reasonable idea of how to approximate the real thing. There is also a 20 foot interior cutaway model of a 688 sub over at the Submarine Force Museum & Library, as well as the sail from the George Washington (SSBN-698). The modeler who built the 688 was an officer on one, and while it is again not 100% accurate (on purpose!) in the enginnering & reactor spaces, it's pretty darn close. Tom Dougherty ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From Ned Barnett Subject Re Museum Ships From "Shirley Sachsen" >> Alameda is not the backwater you contend. It may be a bit difficult to get to from SF, but that's thanks to Caltrans. << Actually, I was basing this on having worked for an Emeryville-based company (E-ville is located between Berkeley and Oakland) and having gone to the Hornet on many of my trips to the "Mother House" during that two-year period. I never even thought of Caltrans (I'm not sure what it is - public transit?) - I always used a car. The trip took me through dangerous-looking/ugly/run-down neighborhoods that made me lament being forced to have left my guns at home, and the route was winding and not at all clear. Based on two years' experience, I think Oakland sucks on toast, and Alameda is - as far as SF Bay goes, a backwater. Your price may vary ... >> The BB NC is in a true backwater which is only accessible by car, there is no bus, << Given that this is America, being easily accessible by car means that it's not (to me) a backwater. Hey, the North Carolina IS easily accessible by car, Wilmington being the eastern Terminus of I-40 and not at all far from the junction with the most heavily-traveled north-south arterial in the US, I-95. If anybody in NC takes public transit (except for in-city trips in Charlotte), I'm not aware of it - except in a few major cities (and then only for in-city travel) nobody much in the US uses public transit - but, good or bad/right or wrong, almost everybody uses a car. Anyway, my sense of the Showboat is that it's right off a major resort-destination beach, and just a couple of hours from Patriot's Point (making it possible for Charlie-Hustle to see both museum exhibits in a single long day). >> If you think Alameda is hard to get to, what about Stockton where they want to put IA? talk about 'tourist destination'. not. << I've got no idea about Stockton, but I was talking about Hornet - it would do a whole lot better tied up to a major SF pier than it would at the end of a decommissioned USN pier buried in the bowels of a decommissioned USN base, out of sight and out of mind. >> note also that Hornet's biggest EXCUSE is inaccessibility, it's biggest problem is its 'management'. << That may be the case - I've never met or worked with the Hornet's management (I did meet the managers of the Midway in San Diego, but that's another story). I do know that to make those money-pits work, you not only need "location, location, location" but you also need an aggressive marketing program to bring in the buckos. Years ago, I went to a great dinner-dance on the USS Yorktown at Patriot's Point. Some might argue that a PR convention has little to do with an aircraft carrier - but it brought in money to the ship and exposed the exhibit to hundreds of fairly local people (the convention covered North and South Carolina) who might return with families (as I did, many times). I know you are not thrilled with the Hornet's management - maybe with good reason - but getting the ship used as host for a nationally-televised program (even Fear Factor) isn't a bad thing. It brings in buckos, and it opens the door to people who didn't even know the Hornet existed. When I was on Midway, I was scouting locations for History Channel (for a program on D-Day - which took place a couple of years before Midway was commissioned). Perhaps it's a bit better (philosophically) than Fear Factor, but the principle still holds - you want to expose a museum to the maximum number of potential visitors - that means odd TV appearances AND it means location, location, location - something the Hornet (IMO) does NOT have, but Midway, Yorktown and North Carolina all have. Or so it seems to me Ned ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From David Wells Subject Re Renwal 1/200 Ethan Allen Submarine kit "Rick Nelson" wrote >> Besides the prop being wrong for an operational 608 class boat Renwal did a horrible job on the rudder. The rudder (top and bottom) they provide is molded in two pieces, a solid piece attached to the top and bottom of the hull and a moveable piece for the top and bottom. This is totally incorrect. The rudders on the boomers and most fast attacks were one solid piece for both top and bottom which moved. The diving planes are correct with a solid piece (stabilizer) attached to the left and right-hand sides of the hull and a moveable diving plane behind it, both left and right. To correct the rudder error I cut the solid pieces off of the hull with an Exacto saw and glued them onto the leading edge of the moveable pieces. Then I filled in the gaps with plastic putty. any photo of the stern of a boomer will show that the rudders are one solid piece. << I'm not really disputing what you say here, Rick, and indeed I'd planned some similar work on my Renwal SSBNs. Tom Dougherty provided me some pictures that confirm that the rudders were solid pieces, just as you say. My current sticking point is that the upper rudder may be larger than the lower rudder. This was certainly true on the Lafayette class, but I'm less certain on the Ethan Allen class. I have yet to see a photo or a reliable diagram that shows the upper and lower rudders on a 608 so that we can compare sizes. I am convinced that the earlier George Washington (598) class boats had equal sized rudders, and that's why Renwal did it on their 608 boat. The model parts are identical. "Matty" wrote >> HA - Rick, I can see where you're going with this thread! LOL what-all would you (and all you other good folks) ideally like to see in a resin accurization kit for the old Renwal 1/200 SSBN? << That wouldn't be a bad thing, considering that Revell-Germany re-issued the kit recently, but such a conversion kit could be pricey given the nature or resin. If we could get the correct dimensions of the rudders, we might be able to just publish a method for making them out of sheet styrene and tubing. "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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject Re MV Christmas Seal "Christmas Seal" sounds sort of like it could have originally been one of the wooden hulled WW 1 sub chasers. They were 110 Ft long and just under 15 feet wide. Franklyn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From "Leslie D. Foran" Subject Iowas Some more thoughts on displaying/recycling the Iowa There really ought to be a battlewagon on display somewhere on the West Coast. I don't know if Iowa could be fairly presented in San Francisco if the project were to be left in the hands of the City government, subject to personal political agendas and political correctness as alluded to in a previous post. Iowa, like many current museum ships, was the site of much personal sacrifice of her crew, and it is this effort that should be paramont in any interpretive displays. The Embarcadero would certainly be a high-profile place to display her. The USS North Carolina is an excellent ship to visit to see a fast battleship in her WWII condition. I forgot to mention her as a site I had visited this summer, but I found she compares very favorably with both the Massachusetts and the Alabama. North Carolina is displayed in her camo colors and retains her 20mm AA fit. She also offers an evening light-and sound show display, which I was unable to stay for but would have been wothwhile. She was not difficult to find or get access to. The thought of cutting off representative parts of the ship and "displaying them mounted on a board" may be abhorrent to some, but I think it is far preferable to recycling the ship "into razor blades" and having nothing left but a memory. Remember that most of our states have no coastline, and inland states would like to be able to display at least a part of their namesake ships, rather than lose them completely. The memorial to the USS South Dakota was well-recieved in Sioux Falls, and a whole lot better to have than nothing. There is also a piece of a heavy-caliber shell from the Battleship Kirishima that was recovered from the South Dakota on display in the Robinson Museum in Pierre, SD in an interpretive display about the South Dakota. There is also a bit of the turn of the century armored cruiser South Dakota left in Pierre. The large ornamental casting of a shield carried on the bow had taken a roundabout journey through private owners and is back at the same museum, although not on display last time I was there. And yes, this original USS South Dakota had her own silver punch bowl and cup set. And like the set from the Oregon, it is pulled from display and used on State occassions sometimes. The story of the USS Oregon is well-known and sad. It certainly is remembered in many places, a piece here and a piece there. A piece not mentioned in the recent post is, I think, the anchor displayed in a memorial in, of all places, Kawasaki Japan. This is where the hulk was scrapped out finally, and also where the ship had paid a visit in the early 1900's after running aground while on station. The ship was repaired there, and the Japanese got a good look at a modern US battleship, in comparision to the British designs they were using at the time. The Marine Vertical Envelopment tactic for power projection is a great and innovative one, no doubt. I still think a little softening-up with a 16" gun monitor sure wouldn't hurt. If tactical fire-support isn't needed all that much anymore, there are still a lot of strategic targets along industrial coastlines that could produce useful work for such a ship. The great advantage for the heavy gun is its ability to hit with more kinetic energy than a missle or gravity bomb, deliver a massive explosive payload at a sustained rate of fire, and not present aircrews with the risk of shootdown and capture or death. Normally heavily-defended targets (against airstrikes) such as bridges over estuaries, docks and material-handling facilities, and railyards would be vulnerable. Of course, maybe the idea these days is to capture this stuff intact. It probably is true that what the general public wants to see is big ships. These big ships do have room inside for interpretive displays showing the contribution of those in smaller ships. I have found this repeatedly in those ships I have visited, and it is a good way to educate the public that wars are not won by capital ships alone. The larger ship museums I have visited do have smaller units on display (destroyer USS Laffey, Coast Guard Cutter Ingham, submarine Clamagore in Charleston, SC; East German missle frigate Hiddensee, submarine Lionfish, two PT boats and various landing craft at Fall River, MA). It is important that these ships be presented and their stories told too. The aircraft carriers do make great displays, such as the USS Yorktown at Charleston, with many aircraft (not just carrier planes) on display in both the hanger and topside. The ship is filled with displays of the contributions made by various classes of ship, many, many excellent models, mostly on a large scale. The Yorktown even offers lunches cooked on board and eaten in her petty officers' ward room on the original metal trays (and the food is good, I've eaten it). Thanks to all who have taken the time to reply to this thread. Les Foran Landlocked in Nebraska (The Ocean pulled out of here many years ago, but did leave the sand dunes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From "Mark Doremus" Subject Re Looking for a book (Rodney & Nelson) Michael D'Silva writes >> have you considered Man O' War 3 - Battleships Rodney & Nelson by Alan Raven & John Roberts? Although long out of print, this is an excellent reference and is available via www.abebooks.com. Prices start from around US $35 << Michael, ah no, not really. I'm sure that it is an excellent reference, but your quote was the first I've seen below U$48. Add shipping from the UK and I'm looking at quite an investment to build a "free" kit. I really wanted to get locations for the 20mm placements late in the war (44-45) and some ideas on bulkhead door and ladder placements. Tamiya pretends she only had 8 x 20mm, what I have found poking around on the web is a lot more like 60 guns. By their guess apparently RN sailors were ordinary Supermen, leaping from deck to deck and passing through solid steel walls. Mark Doremus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From "Jon Holford" Subject Re Canadian MV Christmas Seal Photos suggest this vessel is in fact a Fairmile B type. The design originated in the UK as a prefabricated coastal patrol craft in WW2, but a great many were built in Canada. Of these, quite a few went to the USA to supplement the native built 110foot SCs. The USN classed these as SCs. They were designed for the same role as the 110 ft SCs. The Canadian boats differed slightly from the original UK product but their external appearance was very similar. I would nearly swear Christmas Seal was originally a Canadian built Fairmile. Happy New Year to all Smmlies! Jon Holford ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume