The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:38 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:53 am 
Ledinot wrote:
Thanks, peppe!
I suspected the Hasegawa 1/700 Shoho had some omissions, as the model’s hull design seemed to be based mostly on starboard photos. IJN carriers, as far as I know, had similar boarding facilities on either sides of the hull, but the Hasegawa depiction of Shoho has not. I suppose on the port side there should be a boarding door under the forward boat/paravane deck, and a ladder from gun tub to the swinging boom, with a door to the lower hangar deck. Drawings you had attached to the post support to some extent this guess.

By the way, there are (at least) two unidentified hull objects on the port side photo you provided (see attachment). They are also not on the Hasegawa Shoho; these objects remind of boiler projections on the Soryu hull…

steviecee, thanks for advice; there is a lot of sources at Free Time Hobbies, but I found nothing applicable to Shoho. As for Combinedfleet, they simply forgot about Shoho class.


If you look closely this picture is not SHOHO but RYUHO, when first built.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:32 pm
Posts: 50
Location: Moscow, Russia
DennisJP wrote:
If you look closely this picture is not SHOHO but RYUHO, when first built.

Thanks, Dennis; we (I mean Dan K. and me) had also agreed on this fact. Would you like to further discuss any issues related to Shoho (or Ryuho?) class here?

I had sent a message to Martin J. Quinn asking for a change for this thread – “Shoho class” instead of “Shoho” (my fault). Still waiting for reply…


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10505
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Ledinot wrote:
I had sent a message to Martin J. Quinn asking for a change for this thread – “Shoho class” instead of “Shoho” (my fault). Still waiting for reply…

Done.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:32 am 
Ledinot wrote:
DennisJP wrote:
If you look closely this picture is not SHOHO but RYUHO, when first built.

Thanks, Dennis; we (I mean Dan K. and me) had also agreed on this fact. Would you like to further discuss any issues related to Shoho (or Ryuho?) class here?

I had sent a message to Martin J. Quinn asking for a change for this thread – “Shoho class” instead of “Shoho” (my fault). Still waiting for reply…



Well, Pitroad had a resin model of RYUHO and I think it is the only model of the ship and now it is discontinued from HLJ.COM. So I guess it would be a good study to research the diffrences between the two ships in case I or some one else in the future has to convert Shoho or Zuiho to Ryuho, depending on the year modeled?
It is interesting how Shoho could have survived 13 bomb hits and 7 torpedo hits as well as Zuiho over 60 near miss bombs plus bomb and torpedo hits.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:32 pm
Posts: 50
Location: Moscow, Russia
DennisJP wrote:
Well, Pitroad had a resin model of RYUHO...

Surprisingly, this Ryuho kit still could be found on the Pit-Road site; perhaps it resides somewhere in archive zone...


Attachments:
IJN Ryuho - Pit-Road 2.jpg
IJN Ryuho - Pit-Road 2.jpg [ 58.88 KiB | Viewed 2260 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:14 pm 
Looking at this model maybe it is better to by a ZUIHO and convert it for the late war configuration. I know resin is usually pretty good. My WASP CV-7 is but this one looks pretty plain lacking detail.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:32 pm
Posts: 50
Location: Moscow, Russia
I think the only real problem is the deck. Whether it is short or long, the shape of Ryuho deck slightly differs from that of Shoho/Zuiho. Even more recognizable difference provide the shape and position of elevators, especially of the aft one, deck planking scheme and other deck details. The other issues like gun galleries/tubs, hull blisters and vent shafts seem to require less effort to resolve.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:36 am 
I noticed also the Ryuho had the typical back end as most carriers with the boat deck in the back as well as the different positioning of the forward support pillars for the flight deck. Also something that was a surprised to me I did not see until yesterday was the middle flight deck support column on Shoho class for the flight deck aft.
I guess at one time they were going through and rechecking all the engineering on the Carriers. Kaga, Shokaku and Zuikaku all received addition flight deck supports and now this class.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6554
Location: New York City
You do realize that Ryuho is longer, and therefore, proportionally thinner, than the Shohos?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:32 pm
Posts: 50
Location: Moscow, Russia
Dan, I think that Ryuho is longer and wider than the Shohos; the hull length/beam ratio of Ryuho is app. 9,4 while the Shoho's is app. 11,3. Therefore, the Ruyho is proportionally slightly thicker. I rely only on information from the net; perhaps you have sources that are more trustworthy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6554
Location: New York City
Interestingly, Japanese sources reference either the waterline length or the overall length but never seem to offer both. That's why it's confusing. It turns out that the Chesnau book offers everything.

Shoho class as built:

OA length/beam: 205.5m x 18m
Flight deck: 180m x 23m

Ryuho as built:

OA length/beam: 215.7m x 19.8m
Flight deck: 185m x 23m


I know the late war flight deck extension for Ryuho added 15m. I believe it was the same for Zuiho.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:11 am 
Dan K wrote:
You do realize that Ryuho is longer, and therefore, proportionally thinner, than the Shohos?


Yes, I knew Ryuho was bigger but not by much I think in 1/700 scale?


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6554
Location: New York City
OA length difference is 14.57mm, that's 5/8". It's considrable, IMHO, for 1/700 scale.

FD length difference is half of that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:00 am 
Dan K wrote:
OA length difference is 14.57mm, that's 5/8". It's considrable, IMHO, for 1/700 scale.

FD length difference is half of that.


With that much of a difference, one thing to try would be to find a straight area in the hull usually in the beam area where in looking at the photos not much detail is and insert a plastic piece to make the hull longer to be to scale. Same with the flight deck.
Just a thought. Don't know how messy it would be until I looked in detail at the photo's and dug into it. LOL :)
Then before though have to weigh the cost of the resin kit with quite a bit of scratch building and detailing compared to the Hasagawa kit some what detailed already, just a little cutting.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6554
Location: New York City
Well, the Shoho class hulls do lend themselves to an insertion but, if you are interested in accuracy, there would be a fair amount of mods involved. Take a look again out the flight deck comparison diagram posted by Peppe. The elevator shapes and location alone will require major surgery or a scratchbuilt deck. There are differences in the hull spnsons and platforms as well.

Eventually, someone will produce Ryuho in styrene. Fujimi, probably.


Attachments:
Shoho vs Ryuho class.jpg
Shoho vs Ryuho class.jpg [ 114.51 KiB | Viewed 2153 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:58 am 
the only other thing I can think of besides waiting for Fujimi or scratching everything (Gallery's ect) would be to buy a cheaper model that has the right AA gun sponson shapes and use the model as a parts model. If the drawings are accurate and the gun tubes are more hexagonal then a Unryu class model could be used for the AA catwalks.
Then I guess you have to compare the price of a parts model plus a Zuiho or Shoho to the actual Ryuho model if it can be purchased. I will probably shelf this and continue getting the other ones I want and come back to this latter. I know usually just about the time I would get the kits and start digging in they would come out with one.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6554
Location: New York City
PitRoad is re-releasing its resin version of Shoho in its original configuration as the submarine tender Tsurugisaski later this summer - http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10190797


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:38 am 
Problem solved!!! Fujimi is releasing two Ryuho kits after August. One is 1942 and the other 1945.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:29 am 
Also Pitroad is releasing as well a PLASTIC 1942 and 1945 Ryuho.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:53 am
Posts: 599
Location: Tokyo, Japan
OK, I bought the Fujimi Ryūhō (1945) kit and PE set. Looks good to me. I understand the carrier is not a sister to Shōhō and Zuihō, but nevertheless, since her discussion appears in this thread, I'll post here.
Now I see that Pitroad has also brought out two versions of the kit, similar to Fujimi. I think, but could not check the boxes, that the Pitroad kits are full-hull, or at least have the option of full-hull. In any event, they are over 1000 JPY pricier.
Does anyone have the Pitroad kits or can venture an opinion of the relative quality of the Pitroad and Fujimi kits (both short-dekc and long-deck versions)?

_________________
Gernot Hassenpflug
Find out how it works, then functionality and limits


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group