Subject: SMML Vol 3090 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:26:24 +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 RFA Sir Galahad 2 Re Kit Quality 3 USS Wasp 4 Landing Craft Addendum 5 Re Revell U-Boat ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From Subject RFA Sir Galahad I looked at the list of Taubmann plans on Loyalhanna's website, he apparently has a problem with keeping his photos straight on the website- The photos are of both the Armed Trawler Sir Galahad, and the RFA. Text suggests these drawings are for the armed trawler, not the RFA. Jim Hathaway ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From David Wells Subject Re Kit Quality "Danny Blackburn" wrote >> First of all, dimensional accuracy is an absolute MUST for any good kit. There is no such thing as a "good, inaccurate" kit. The whole raison d'etre for a replica model, is to accurately reflect its subject. Otherwise, it isn't really a "model". There is only the slightest tolerance available for error, in this regard. << I can see Danny's point, but some dimensional problems are easier to fix than others. One case in point is the infamous old Lindberg Essex-class. This is not a great kit, by any standard. Its major dimensional problem is that the beam is too wide. But since the hull is in two pieces, split along the keel it is easy to fix this problem. (this kits other problems are harder to fix!) Thus, the principle I would defend is that kits with easily fixed problems are better than kits with hard-to-fix problems. >> Historical accuracy is a two-pronged factor First, it is equal to dimensional accuracy, to the extent that it affects dimensional accuracy. A subject being modelled to reflect its existence during a certain time-frame or historical period, can affect dimensional criteria, and vice-versa. It would be inappropriate, for instance, to model Scharnhorst as originally built with a straight-stem bow, but otherwise fitted and detailed as of Operation Cerberus (Channel Dash). This is rather obvious, but it illustrates my point. Second, it is a matter of correctability during the build process, and ties-in with the materials and manufacturing factor (in order to facilitate the necessary corrections, if needed). The latter aspect may or may not allow historical correction, depending on the circumstances. << Once again, Danny has a point. But to a large extent, this is a matter of the modeller choosing the right kit, and the modeller's skill in fitting and modifying it. If, however, a manufacturer sells a Scharnhorst kit as being "as fitted in the Channel Dash" and it's got a straight stem, there's a problem. Perhaps worse still is when a kit has some features from some refits, and other features from others, so that it does not represent the ship at any given time. "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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From Reynold.Oh@defence.gov.au Subject USS Wasp G'Day all. 1. I just saw a documentary on the resistance of Malta during WWII. It mentioned that the USS Wasp was loaned to the British in order to deliver 100 fighter aircraft in two runs. Was the USS Wasp the only US Navy aircraft carrier to operate in the Mediterranean Sea? 2. The program featured archival footage of Italian aircraft as well as the famous footage of the USS Ohio entering the Grand Harbour with her deck almost at her water-level. George, out......... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From "Daniel Taylor" Subject Landing Craft Addendum Hi All Kerry got back to me offline and made a very good observation about suitable vehicles to use. Milicast, besides producing the landing craft, also do a number of vehicles adapted for amphibious assault. These include Shermans with wading gear, a DD Sherman (the one on the site is defreocked, but they now have one with a full screen and one with the screen lowered is due any time now), Sherman Crab, D7 Armoured Dozer and a number of Churchill AVRE tanks with various engineer fits. They also do some landing craft crews with more sets specifically for larger craft to follow, hopefully by the summer. A reminder of the site www.milicast.com They are away at a show until probably Tuesday, possibly Wednesday (bad weather arriving in the UK) and so don't worry if you don't get an immediate response to messages. Hope that inspires some of you. Dan Taylor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From Richard Simpson Subject Re Revell U-Boat Greg, We also have some experience with subs - though at 1144 they are more than a touch tricky and the only one that has so far sailed operationally into battle was immediately rammed and sunk by HMS Rodney before it could engage. People keep trying though and will be happy to share. Contact me directly I can put you in touch with someone in your area. The main people playing at present are in Canberra and Melbourne Beyond that, some of the chaps in TF 72 has experience in this field as well. You might like to get in touch with Russ at Defence Models and Graphics and see who he can put you in touch with. They have some people in Sydney I believe. Regards Richard Simpson Sydney, Australia www.ausbg.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Reviews, Articles, Backissues, Member's models & Reference Pictures at http//smmlonline.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume