The Ship Model Forum

Thanks, James.

[quote="gscott"]Hi all. Just wondering if anyone had a resource that shows the different camo schemes for each ship in the class throughout their careers?[/quote]

To do that correctly is a very big job. The only person who's casually done that is Mal Wright, who characteristically made a total mess of it.

This single example took dick and I months to do.

Mal
[img]https://hosting.photobucket.com/0076d505-7845-4418-b995-7e60927391f5/ffe16bcf-cfa7-40c6-98b0-632dc623ca15.jpg[/img]

Reality
[img]https://hosting.photobucket.com/0076d505-7845-4418-b995-7e60927391f5/1db19551-6a52-484d-ab09-bfff1ea3067c.jpg[/img]

As you can see, he got almost every conceivable aspect wrong, which is what happens when you just guess and "fill in the blanks" as you go. The point I wanted to make is that the scope of the resource you're asking for is really a significant research project. Each ship and each scheme is a big job in its own right.

Hi all. Just wondering if anyone had a resource that shows the different camo schemes for each ship in the class throughout their careers?

Dick,

Thank you for your help. Your supposition about twin 20mm power mounts possibly being converted to Boffins also seems quite likely since I since found another image that shows at least the two I noted on top of the island were so converted. I am re-examining the as-fitted drawings and matching the various positions against photographs to see if that produces the answers.

Thanks again,
Maurice

Here are my suggestions for the location of the 17 x single 20mm:

[attachment=2]Implacable.jpg[/attachment]
I suspect that on Implacable's arrival in Australia, and before her actual service with the BPF, many, maybe all, the twin powered 20mm were converted to single 40mm boffins.

[attachment=1]40mm Mk XVI mount Boffin - Copy.jpg[/attachment]
Careful study of photos would be needed to determine this, but if you have the As Fitted plans from Greenwich they should show all the original twin 20mm locations.

I can see the two original single 40mm mountings you mention. I think they might have been Mk III Mountings:

[attachment=0]40mm Mk III mount - Copy.jpg[/attachment]
I'm finding it hard to see where the other two originals were. Surely the As Fitted's show them also?

I am largely scratch-building Implacable when serving with the British Pacific Fleet. I have all the drawings from Greenwich and a mass of photographs but none of this provides the information I need to locate the light anti-aircraft armament.

From what I've determined, Implacable carried five 8-barreled pom-poms, three 4-barreled pom-poms,, four single 40mm, seventeen twin 20mm, and seventeen single 20mm. I know the locations of the pom-poms, but cannot find out how all the other guns were disposed. I have identified a platform on each side at 'gallery deck' level beneath the foremost pom-pom each for a single 40mm. There also seem to be four single 20mm in the platform beneath the round-down and two more in each of the flatforms at the extreme bow and stern (total of 12 guns). There is also a platform outboard of the island but I have yet to find a clear shot that tells me how many guns it carried.

The other puzzle is the type of 20mm twins. One view I've found seems to feature two power-operated twin mounts abaft the funnel and on the inboard side of the island, so I wonder if all the other twins were power-operated too and where they were sited.

Any assistance will be much appreciated.

Thank you in advance,
Maurice

Pavel has kindly sent me additional photos of the new 'correct' deck. I fear that the simplistic plan view green ink amendment made on Formidable's As Fitteds has misled the designer and has resulted in moulded vertical edges to the forward faces of the flared extensions either side of the original raised decking housing the catapult. In practice these forward edges sloped gently down (and the sides of the forward protrusion gently down outwards). It will perhaps be impractical to sand back into the moulding sufficiently to achieve their true profile but some filler can perhaps be used to at least eliminate the step effects.[attachment=1]Formidable cat image1 (002) - Copy.jpeg[/attachment]
[attachment=0]Formidable cat a - Copy (002).jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=2]Formidable 1940 10 ish aerial (002).jpg[/attachment]

Today I got the correct deck, just to update this thread on Flyhawks 1941 1/700 kit of HMS Formidable.

They decks identical sans the catapult as pointed out above.

So Flyhawk is well aware of this issue, the seller in China has been quick to remedy the mistake, sent the part free of charge from Flyhawk.


Now, if this is wrong in shape or something, in small detail, this is fine for me. The big issue is fixed as you can compare to the other old deck.

Both have 2020 stamp on the back btw.

Looking forward to the correct deck pics to emulate it using styrene or putty.

Many thanks. So all three are different to each other in detail!

What we now need are some sharp, in-focus photos from various angles of the forward end of the catapult of the 'correct' deck to see exactly how the forward end has been moulded: [attachment=0]Deck 2 - Copy.jpg[/attachment]

[quote][i]'They are super tiny, this is typical flyhawk tiny fold out'[/i][/quote]

That is a general problem with FlyHawk, sometimes one phase is so densely packed it's difficult to understand some positions at all
I generally scan and increase the size of each section onto an A4 piece of paper
Don't know how they can be persuaded to change - probably all to do with the box size & packaging

[quote="dick"]Thanks for those photos.

Re the mask, it is a bit unclear from your photo's angle, but can you say if the yellow line, the port edge of the raised catapult area, is depicted as a straight line running parallel to the green line, the deck edge, or is it a bit curved getting closer to the deck edge at its forward end?
[attachment=4]IMG_7714 - Copy.jpg[/attachment]
Re the plans I'd be really grateful if you could rephoto AX1 concentrating on the forward end of the flight deck as I cannot see how they have depicted the forward end of the raised catapult area.[attachment=3]IMG_7715 - Copy.jpg[/attachment][/quote]

Dick, to first - looks like straight, but the curve is on the other side, see photo. Tough to photograph well, i dont wanna yet rip it out and try it on... May be I will later..

Again, hard to say from the angle, but - in reality the catapult is flaring out at the bow. Wider. Very slight but noticeable.
[attachment=2]IMG_3670.jpg[/attachment]

The close up of the instructions as asked. They are super tiny, this is typical flyhawk tiny fold out - I really wish someone can tell them to increase the size of their instructions and quality of printing (too thick lines).
[attachment=1]IMG_3671.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=0]IMG_3672.jpg[/attachment]

Thanks for those photos.

Re the mask, it is a bit unclear from your photo's angle, but can you say if the yellow line, the port edge of the raised catapult area, is depicted as a straight line running parallel to the green line, the deck edge, or is it a bit curved getting closer to the deck edge at its forward end?
[attachment=1]IMG_7714 - Copy.jpg[/attachment]
Re the plans I'd be really grateful if you could rephoto AX1 concentrating on the forward end of the flight deck as I cannot see how they have depicted the forward end of the raised catapult area.[attachment=0]IMG_7715 - Copy.jpg[/attachment]

Photos of the wrong parts below.

Deck (A-1) vs mask.
[attachment=2]IMG_7714.jpg[/attachment]

Elevator with beveled edge still there (P-4).
[attachment=1]IMG_7717.jpg[/attachment]

The plans are correct.
[attachment=0]IMG_7715.jpg[/attachment]

I have now heard from Flyhawk that there was a boxing error with some kits and they have offered me a 'correct' deck. If you contact them they will hopefully offer you one too.

How correct the 'correct' deck is remains to be seen.

Please could you photograph the deck mask (I don't have the kit).

I got the kit today and can also confirm the deck is wrong.

It is most evident by the deck mask. It has the correct cut out. So the deck mask can be used to outline the work to be done.

Moreover, the deck is a piece that is clearly been worked on, as if added last minute to the kit! Id post shots later, but - it has sanding marks on the inside, support marks sanded off too, the whole thing is bizarre. Really, like they forgot to make the deck and had some laying around and threw them in manually.

I told the seller the A-1 part (deck) is wrong and asked them to ask manufacturer for replacement. They did this in past with Hood (it arrived with damaged hull, so they asked me for the part numbers and a month later I had new parts!). I have little hope this is the case this time, as we dont know if FH has replacements at all. But I tried at least.

Most likely Ill just use the masking sticker to add the raised edge using styrene.

Will do. So far.... nothing....and it's Monday there...

(insert sounds of crickets chirping)

I suppose if a replacement never comes I can live with it and it will not detract from the finished model - - the kit is THAT good! - A real work of art (like their other kits). I can honestly say I still HIGHLY recommend the kit.

Jon: I did too, a few days ago, and have not heard back yet—please let me know what happens. I’ll keep everyone apprised as well.

Mike E.

Ugh! Just got my copy and it has the wrong deck.

I emailed Flyhawk to see if I could get the correct deck.

We will see… :Mad_6: :doh_1: :thinking:

The "mistake they caught" is a good theory. I have had mine pre ordered - so I probably will get pre ordered with mistake. While those buying now Im sure will get the right kit if people have correct kits indeed. Fascinating story.

It would make sense they catch the mistake and load the right files and I dunno, adjust the tooling?...