The Ship Model Forum

--

Good: thank you Cag!

It is clear that HMS HOOD's oiling fenders were, as I suspected, of the catamaran type.

Now, there are two of them in the stack shown and because they are close to the guard rails someone can use the known height of the top rail to proportionally determine the depth of each catamaran with little chance of error.

For others that are interested, each catamaran would have had a ring bolt at each corner to which the lifting slings for hoisting each in and outboard would have been hooked. Each catamaran would have been secured to the ship by two wire or rope hawsers on the two ring bolts on one of the long sides.

It would appear that the long sides of each catamaran had three cordage "rubbers" fitted to each by some method. Each of these appears to have been as "thick" as one third of the depth of the "cat:" quite large considering. This cordage was probably coir rope and thus of a ginger brown colour when new. Each "cat" was probably painted with creosote.

81542

Hi All,

Hi Evert Jan, no problem it's always a pleasure to help.

Hi 81542, again no problem I was very lucky to spot it in a photo, from what I can see those coir rope rubbers look like they came together into an eyelet through which a rope was passed and fastened to the fender sides.

Your initial post that pointed out that Hood etc had bulges makes perfect sense as any lighter or drifter or oiler alongside would have caused damage to the bulge in no time. In the image it looks like the top fender had three rubbers where as the bottom one had two, maybe damage or by design?

I should imagine they were of stout construction, I've seen the Balza catamaran rafts, especially in pics of Prince of Wales, but it's great to learn about new equipment so thanks for your explanations.

Best wishes
Cag.

Cag,

If you see only two cordage rubbers on the lower "cat," I will not argue with you. Unfortunately, I am unable to see more than I do on the image; which is not great, so I will not speculate as to how the rubbers were attached.

For your further information the balsa life raft was also known as an Admiralty punt.

81542

Hi All

Hi 81542, it's difficult to see I agree, I'm relying on the diagonal markings on the rubbers to try to distinguish the ropes, I could be very wrong.

Thanks for the info it's invaluable, I can only rely on images and my 1932 copies of the Manuals of Seamanship etc, so first hand knowledge is gratefully received. My Uncle served on Prince of Wales hence my interest in that ship, Hood and Repulse.

Thanks again
Best wishes
Cag.

Hood’s fenders seem to look a bit different by 1941: Here at the images I’ve been referring to…a small collage ranging from winter 1940/41 through Spring 1941 (do not republish).

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk

Hoy doy, (another) riddle - as the Bard might have said!

As the image in Cag's post of 11 Oct was clearly taken some years (note a 45ft steam pinnace onboard as admiral's barge) before that in FW Allen's post of 17 Oct, it stands to reason that the dimensions/construction/scantlings of the [b]OILING[b] fenders might have changed. It will merely add another factor that must be taken into account when choosing which time period to model the ship. Be that as it may those in both images are still of the catamaran type.

Personally, I think it makes little difference, though exactly what we are seeing in the left image in FW Allen's is somewhat puzzling. Is it two oiling fenders on top of a hatch cover or two on top of something else? Whatever, the apparent "lip" on top of the bottom item is confusing.

81542

Here are a couple more recent shots. I was particularly pleased that I managed to get the delicate PE WT office aerials (between the funnels) attached without disaster! LOL! (2nd photo) So far so good. I'm now dealing with the aft half of the shelter deck.

I'm not attaching any masts, derricks, jack staffs etc. or the spotting top until the end to avoid damage/breakage.

I've actually warmed to the look of the corticene/semtex on the shelter deck.

_________________
Hard a starboard.......Shoot!

Looking good! So, have you noticed any issues with the kit (other than the photoetch being very delicate)? The details look as good as they could for that kind of moulding, but how’s the fit? Instructions making sense? Although I’m very familiar with the kit drawings/designs, it’s another thing to see the physical product (hopefully I’ll be able to do so soon).

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk

Thank you Frank. For the most part things have gone together fairly well. I did have a little trouble getting the shelter deck, with all the "below deck" assembly that's involved (sections that are invisible in the completed model unless you're an ant!) to fit snugly to the fo'c'sle deck - and to some extent the aft screens to the quarter deck. Had to do a bit of filing down.

Then, there was an issue with the assembly of the CP/Admiral's bridge and its wings. The instructions are not too clear on how the lower of the two wings fits. They just show the part (Q14) with an arrow pointing to a general area. They could have maybe shown a separate profile and forward view showing how they should look when assembled. I took a look at my Trumpeter model and then figured it out. Had to do a little sanding to get them to fit right. Someone building Hood for the first time, without access to a reference, MAY have a challenge to get it fitted correctly.



But otherwise, a very straightforward and enjoyable build so far. And I've had a reasonable time with the very small PE fret. More power to the Deluxe version expert builders!! LOL!

Cheers!

Paul

_________________
Hard a starboard.......Shoot!

Well, I finally received a sample of the new Hood kit from Flyhawk. There were supposed to be multiple copies (for donation to the Hood Association) but unfortunately only one was sent. Hopefully this will be remedied shortly.

I have no plans to dive into a build immediately (I have to finish the model of a SPAD XIII first!), but am now in the process of looking the kit over in detail. Thus far, after an initial look, I unfortunately have found a small error:

Part: Boat deck (part “J”)
Error: Both forward/outward corners of the wooden planked area protrude forward past the expansion joint. On the actual ship, the planking ended at the expansion joint. I have no idea how this was overlooked by me during the many reviews of the drawings, but fortunately it’s an easy fix: The simplest way to address this is to not paint the offending areas wood colour. Instead, paint them a corticene colour. Another, more detailed option would be to scrape/fill the offending areas and re-scribe the expansion joint (then paint appropriately). If using a wooden veneer, simply trim the offending areas off. Either way it’s easy.



I also have a warning about another part (Deluxe Edition): There are several photo-etch pieces that are to be mounted vertically around each funnel. They appear to be funnel stays, but in reality were pulleys/lines for painting and maintenance. The pulleys were permanently mounted around the top of the funnels (below the flange), but the lines were not. Sometimes they were left rigged, sometimes they were not. For instance, in the famous 1940 photo of Hood being painted (port side), they are in use. In the later (and also famous) 1941 views looking down on the boat deck, they aren’t in use. So these are purely OPTIONAL. I suppose the bravest of us can at least attempt to mount just the teeny tiny pulleys without the lines (Good luck with that…bring a microscope!).


Other than that, I’ve yet to see any glaring issues thus far.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk

Evening all.... some may have noticed that I've resurrected my Hood build thread with the intention to do some more to the model and that I have noted the pages in this thread as to the changes that I will need to do to match the latest research on 'Hood'. One such change is the anti-fouling colour although my wife may not be happy having the model on display in the living room when all grey and no nice red to break it up a little, this is just one of the things that we modellers have to deal with in getting permission to display our art, to be fair Hood is a pretty big ship and in 1/200 can't exactly be tucked away in a dark corner, not to mention that i already have a large steam locomotive in the same room...

So over the last couple of days, I have been doing my own research and asking questions in my thread before getting on with the build, one such vital piece of info sought has been the best colour to use for the anti-fouling if the wife allows it. I doubt that we will ever know the true colour but I did find one piece of info which may swing it in colour choice, for no other reason than it is a form or reference although how accurate is an unknown. Ok, so I found reference to Canadian ships using RN colours during WW2 and also found a suggested anti-fouling grey colour for such models as Model Master Dark Grey FS36176, other manufactures colours to match were also given including Humbrol's equivalent of No.27 Sea Grey.

Now what does the collective think of this info, I'm not sure if the anti-fouling grey suggested is for WW2 or just after, knowing little of the RCAN this is not surprising but having built a few in the past I do recall their similarity to RN colour schemes and thus think the suggestion given could have some credence to it.

What do you guys think?

Pete

I found this Britmodeller thread on Hood which has pictures of builder's models of various ships with AF grey.

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/ind ... velations/

Have a look. It might help you with your choice of shade.

_________________
Hard a starboard.......Shoot!

Hi Paul

Many thanks for the link, very enlightening...

Cheers

Pete

You're welcome!

I have a Flyhawk kit question:

The kit is missing the gaff that comes off the mainmast just below the starfish. Is that because it was removed from Hood at some point or is it another small omission in error?

Was is replaced by the small gaff on the "crows nest" installed at the top of the mainmast when the 281 radar aerials were installed in her March 1941 refit?

Paul

_________________
Hard a starboard.......Shoot!

There should be two…one behind the starfish and another high up on the mast where you indicated. The lower one is where they flew her White Ensign (and ultimately her enormous Battle Ensign) whilst at sea. The VADM flag flew from the upper one. I’m surprised I didn’t notice the missing gaff in the drawings. Fortunately it’s a very easy addition.

Well, that’s one more small item for our upcoming “suggestions” article! So, far, there aren’t a lot of issues or detailing/correction suggestions! Not much to write about so far (which explains why I’e not written it yet.

http://www.hmshood.com/photos/miscellaneous/miscship.htm

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.org.uk

--

Morning chaps/chapesses

I'm slowly getting back into my model and changing things that have been found since I last did work on her, such as shelter deck colour etc. As I look closer at where I was with the forward superstructure I wonder if someone could enlighten me in regards to the various pipes seen under the platforms. I used to have some good images of these but can't seem to find the files now so will post this picture just to give an idea of what I'm referring too.



Looking at these pipes and noting the gentle curves in the bends, would I be right in thinking that these are most likely voice pipes rather than cable conduit? If so it's a good reference for where to position voice pipes.

Regards

Pete

Pete,

Your assessment is a good one, however, in the case of an open-topped platform and if the top of the pipe is located at an outer extremity, it could be a scupper drain pipe. This can usually be confirmed by examining the "as fitted plans," if you have copies: the location of the scuppers is usually shown. If the item is bolt upright and appears more substantial than the other "pipes," however, it may well be a support pillar.

81542

Thanks Frank. I thought as much, as both Tamiya and Trumpeter have the gaff, but decided to ask just in case it was another recent discovery! My model is 99.99% done - OOB, no extras except for the aircraft catapult remnants on X-turret. Pictures soon.

_________________
Hard a starboard.......Shoot!