The Ship Model Forum

[quote="chazi"]Hello everybody

Does anybody can help with HMS hood hull? I have in my shipyard model from polish publisher Haliński in scale 1:200 and I'm looking for hull plating (shell expansion) to make an imitation of hull plating (underwater part of hull).

thank you for help
best regards
chris[/quote]

Hi Chris,

Just curious, but did you ever get my email response from last week? You had contacted our association directly, and they asked me to answer you, which I did. I have had no reply from you, so I am checking to see if you every got my email. Please let me know.

[quote="chuck"]Why leave a gaping hole in the middle of a platform?[/quote]
We don’t know, but we see evidence not only in the official plans but in at least one photo...so sensible or not, it was there. It’s not the only odd feature on Hood.

Hi, me too! :thumbs_up_1:

I would also appreciate greatly information of the condensator water inlets, and other bigger openings below the waterline, how they look at outside. I think, those seacocks are only cone-shaped holes in outside bottom?

Br:VilleH

Hello everybody

Does anybody can help with HMS hood hull? I have in my shipyard model from polish publisher Haliński in scale 1:200 and I'm looking for hull plating (shell expansion) to make an imitation of hull plating (underwater part of hull).

thank you for help
best regards
chris

Why leave a gaping hole in the middle of a platform?

Nice timing! thanks guys, I am still working on this section so can incorporate it. ( Trumpeter 1/200). Regards, Pete in RI

[quote="SovereignHobbies"]Interesting. It's "hidden in plain sight" on the plans:

Looking at the platforms above and below I'm also none the wiser why it was there. There's a 500 gallon fire water tank below it. Or was.[/quote]

Yes indeed… It’s been right there in front of our noses all along. I’d noticed that the platform was not entirely symmetrical but had missed that open bit. Of course, that’s the way it is with a lot of little details on Hood! They’re right there in our faces, but we don’t notice some of them until a new picture is found or someone new takes a fresh look, etc.

Anyway, I compared and contrasted the ‘40 plans with the ‘31 plans and see that that particular area was originally the rear edge of the platform. The earlier plan shows stanchions and a scuttle in the area. Interestingly a comparison of the two also shows something missing from the ‘40 plans: the door to the UTPR… It’s on the starboard side between the aft ladder and the porthole. Apparently the draughtsman forgot it.

Interesting. It's "hidden in plain sight" on the plans:

[img]http://village.photos/images/user/483a5850-3d62-4900-8176-6062170ac842/resized_6e8c60f2-8315-4430-8844-bc6901cee5f1.jpg[/img]

Looking at the platforms above and below I'm also none the wiser why it was there. There's a 500 gallon fire water tank below it. Or was.

Greetings All,

[b]1. Flyhawk Hood Update[/b] - The researchers at Flyhawk are still hard at work on their two versions of [i]Hood[/i]. I'm VERY encouraged by what I'm hearing from them right now...namely that they are asking about extremely detailed things, plus they have even found a detail that EJ and I have previously missed. That tells me that they are REALLY going for accuracy.

As for when the kit will be released and how much it will cost, I have no idea. All I can say is that [b]we shall keep answering questions/providing information to Flyhawk for as long as they wish it[/b]. I'm sorry, in advance, if this upsets anyone who thinks its taking too long or feels that too much detail will raise the price (the gripes we heard during the Pontos 1/200 detail set research). In the end, its up to Flyhawk to determine how detailed the kit will be, when it will be produced and what the price will be. So, please save your breath (and the rest of us some reading) and please be patient...if these kits are as good as their [i]Bismarck [/i]and [i]Prince of Wales[/i], they will be well worth the wait and probably reasonably priced.

[b]2. New "Find[/b]" - Apparently, there was a triangular opening in the port/rear area of [i]Hood's [/i]Admirals Bridge platform in 1940/41. This was literally an area where there was no deck inboard the platform. To starboard it bordered against the port bulkhead of the Upper Tactical Plotting Room. Its two other edges were lined with short segments of guardrails. We see it in the 1940 bridge plans as well as in at least one photo from 1940. There's no indication that it was removed in her 1941 refit. As for what the opening was for...no clue. I only know that it was there.

Admittedly, this is pretty tiny on a smaller scale kit. So much so that most people can easily opt to ignore it. Its a little more noticeable in larger scales though, so detail-minded folks may wish to consider it. One could always cut out the opening and line it with photoetch rails. Alternatively, one could simulate the opening by painting a black triangle on deck and lining it with photoetch. Of course, one can also simply choose to ignore it entirely. I guess it all depends on the modeler's wishes and/or how far along they are into their builds.

We have updated our 1/350 and 1/200 Trumpeter articles accordingly: http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/models/trumpeter/trumpeter350.htm & http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/models/trumpeter/trumpeter200.htm

For those of you who don't want to wait, here is an updated photo link: [attachment=0]tr200-34.jpg[/attachment]

Thank you!

[quote="chuck"]Can any one point to confirmation that bastet aerials were indeed used on the Hood during the 1920s? If so I will included it in the model. They would add a very lively touch to the detailing of the ship.[/quote]

Not sure about pre 1923, but the WT aerials in question were in use by the time of the 1923/24 Empire Cruise (see photo). Sadly, there's just not enough detail in the earlier photos available to us. That's not to say that none exist, only that the ones we bothered to scan were lacking (or our ancient scanning was lacking). I had hoped that perhaps the construction and trials photos would help (we have great copies of these), but I suspect her rigging was not entirely complete at that point in time. For example, I don't even see her dressing line in those shots...and that's a feature she most definitely had when operational.

[attachment=1]aerials2324.jpg[/attachment]

As for the mast itself, the tops of both masts were indeed retractable. As I recall, from talking to veterans, this was of course, to allow clearance under the Forth Bridge (and possibly others). I also seem to recall that the masts were generally left down (or somewhat lowered) when not at sea. When at sea, they were raised to increase range, etc. I also remember reading that the topmost yard was repositionable during her earliest years (That's just a vague recollection and I could be wrong. I really need to go back through my references on that one!).

Speaking of 1920, remember to align her rudder plate fore and aft (it wasn't angled until much later)...see the photo. Also in said photo is some detail for the barrel-mounted flying-off platform support struts (I recall you were looking for this earlier).
[attachment=0]qdeck1920.jpg[/attachment]

AOTS HOod shows the main mast rigging were fairly simple in 1921, with just some stays, trim lines and a few simple wire aerials. Drawings in Burt, on the other hand, shows the main mast carried a number of elaborate wire basket aerials (each consist of about 6 parallel wires held in a circular formation by spacer rings, and stretched between mast heads and down to aerial tube on the boat deck). This are totally absent in ATOS.


I've not seen a photo of Hood in 1921 time frame where the basket aerials are clearly seen. But that may simple be an issue of resolution. Also, it may be possible the basket aerials are only stretched when needed, and taken down when not. I imagine the antennae on the main mast must be easily configurable, because the main top mast seems to be retractable. On some of the photos of the hsip during her world cruise, the maintop mast is elevated to a very impressive height, much higher than the top of foremoast. In majority of the photos the main top masts seems to be retrcted to be about the same height as the foremast.


Can any one point to confirmation that bastet aerials were indeed used on the Hood during the 1920s? If so I will included it in the model. They would add a very lively touch to the detailing of the ship.

[quote="FW_Allen"]Well folks, we've heard back from Flyhawk and not only are they definitely producing a 1/700 as-sunk variant, but they're also looking into producing an earlier variant: 1924. Yes Hood/Empire Cruise fans, you may be getting a kit of Hood at her shiny globetrotting best. We shall see how it works out.[/quote]


When you say "as sunk" variant, the image of two separate models, one for the front, one for the rear, comes to mind. :big_grin:

Well folks, we've heard back from Flyhawk and not only are they definitely producing a 1/700 as-sunk variant, but they're also looking into producing an earlier variant: 1924. Yes Hood/Empire Cruise fans, you may be getting a kit of Hood at her shiny globetrotting best. We shall see how it works out.

I forgot to mention another potential on-hand source of info for Hood’s bottom plating: the wreck footage.

The upturned midsection of the hull was imaged in Summer, 2001. Shortly thereafter, David Mearns gave us a number of expedition photos to display on the Hood website. You can find these in the “Hood Today” section of the site at http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001expedition/index.htm
From there, just follow the links for “H.M.S. Hood Wreck” and then “Midsection.”

The photos are small, but there might be just enough detail for you to see how the plates overlapped. It certainly won’t have all the details you require, but combined with other resources, you might be able to work something out. There are also snippets of video in the expedition documentary. If you don’t already own this, you can almost certainly find it on YouTube.

I had dealings with the Glasgow University archives back in 2017 whilst looking for drawings of HMS Walker
for a model converting the Showcase Models HMAS Vendetta to HMS Walker which was built at William Denny of Dumbarton ,

They did [b]not [/b]have ship plans as such it was more like drawings of bolts and plates
mostly the fine detail that was needed in the shipyard - not line drawing that you are after
However they might have better stuff on HMS Hood

I had to go to the National Maritime Museum and ask for specialist help for my quest
for a Refit Bridge for the V & W Class
which was forthcoming - and I got the Plans for HMS Walpole ( Doxford , Sunderland ) -
note to scan this for the first time ever cost me £ 70 ( and it was worth it )

You might have more luck with Glasgow , just have patience however , as it takes time to get a respons

I’ve had some folks ask (privately) about the status of the Flyhawk 1/700 Hood model. Well, I have nothing to report at this time. We’ve had no reply from them since the initial email a month ago. At that point in time, we directed them to several excellent resources and advised them to steer clear of questionable books (all of this was previously mentioned in an earlier post here). Presumably they are busy with their research. They must, of course, also be working on other projects. So if we hear anything more we will let you know here.

In the meantime, as always, will be scouring photos for more details. The official plans don’t really help for a few areas (at least not for 1941), so it comes down to photos/film.

[quote="chuck"]Can anyone point me to any information regarding how the bottom of the hood was plated?

On trumpeter's 1/200 hood the plating stops at the turn of the bilge.[/quote]

The Brass Foundry team at Woolwich Arsenal (any British warship lover’s “Library of Alexandria”) do actually have plans for Hood’s outer bottom plating (to include gratings, etc.), but are currently unable to handle/copy them due to the plans poor condition (they are in dire need of conservation). Unless someone here has a set they can copy (or photograph with some scale reference), The best you can do is to look at the various dry dock photos and the grating drawings in the Anatomy of the Ship book.

I suppose you could also check with the folks in Glasgow. I don’t think they’ll be able to help you but it still might be worth looking into as they do have some plans for Hood and her sisters there. At last check, they had no bottom plans specifically for Hood, but who knows what they have actually have on hand (or if they’ve given us a complete listing for our website). Speaking of the Hood website, if you check our References section, you’ll see that we have a page devoted to plans. You should be able to find a link to the Glasgow folks there. Edit- here’s the direct link: http://www.hmshood.com/reference/plans.htm

You can also contact the Brass Foundry, but they will tell you essentially the same thing I have here (we do stay in touch). Regardless of where you get your plans from (whether Greenwich or Glasgow) just be sure to differentiate between the as-planned and as-fitted. They definitely made some changes (just as one would expect), so though close, the as-planned types aren’t always as accurate as some would like.

Can anyone point me to any information regarding how the bottom of the hood was plated?

On trumpeter's 1/200 hood the plating stops at the turn of the bilge.

[quote="FW_Allen"][quote="Thomas E. Johnson"]What are the best 1/700 Hood kits?[/quote]

Of the four mainstream kits in the 1/700 and 1/720 scale range, I'd have to say the most accurate detail-wise are the two Trumpeter kits (1931 and 1941). Some of the moulding/details are a bit thick, but otherwise, they are pretty up-to-date detail-wise. This is because Trumpeter were still listening to the right people at the time...they had not yet discovered the flawed eastern European plans nor the infamous Kagero book(s). So, while its true that we've found a few more notable detail changes since then, the kits are still good. Indeed, one could build a pretty damn good representation of the ship straight from the box. There are also plenty of aftermarket detail parts for those who want to go full tilt boogie on accuracy (does anyone say "full tilt boogie" anymore?).

Its not that the other two kits (Tamiya's 1/700 1941 Hood and Italeri/Testors/Revell/Zvezda/whoever else produces it's1/720 mid 1930s Hood) are bad. They are actually pretty decent for their era (1970s). The Tamiya kit is based on some drawings created at a time when various details of Hood as sunk had been forgotten/not yet rediscovered. Its also a bit plain/under-detailed. It does, however, lend itself to upgrading quite well. The other kit is a bit more detailed than Tamiya, but the moulding is nowhere near as crisp as Tamiya.

There is another "model" of Hood in 1/700 scale actually...well, its a pre-built miniature but of questionable quality. Its the "Forces of Valor" 1941 Hood. Its just an expensive toy and I've not looked it over in much detail...other than to note that they got all the usual things wrong and installed the mainmast starfish BACKWARDS. So, for obvious reasons, I didn't put it on the list above.

IF Flyhawk goes for Hood, I suspect it will be a game changer as long as they DO NOT USE those aforementioned plans and/or Kagero. If not, then I guess its a business opportunity for all the detail parts companies!

Flyhawk representatives, if you read this, please contact the H.M.S. Hood Association...we want NO money, we just want to help you get the details RIGHT. A review kit would be nice though :thumbs_up_1:[/quote]

Thanks for that info!!!!