The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:57 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 667 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 34  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 10:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Posts: 863
Location: EN83
EJ Foeth wrote:
During WWII, HMS Hood wasn't very clean at all. Nearing her destruction, weathering is allowed.


Thanks, EJ! Some degree of weathering is allowed, sure. Perhaps my chosen words didn't convey my meaning (a problem I frequently encounter) well enough, so I've deleted the term "relatively" (which was intended to mean "relative to other ships") from my post, replacing it with what I hope will be a better term.

Hood was, indeed very active during the war, but as I correctly indicated, she was still one of the cleanest ships in the fleet. Her final time period sporting 507B didn't begin until late 1940; thus, even at the time of Rheinübüng, her paint wasn't terribly old.

"Don't overdo it" is good advice for Hood models.

_________________
:no_2: Danny DON'T "waterline"...!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 11:33 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10886
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Tracy White wrote:
The upgrade set is totally different from what WEM or any other PE builder is going to offer. Props and gun barrels.

Except for Lionroar ;)

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 11:59 am 
You may want to study the following page, A LOT:

http://www.hmshood.com/models/tips/HoodPaint.html


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 11:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9884
Location: EG48
OK, as we speak I am gluing the aft deck piece to the hull. Fit generally is pretty good. The taper of the very tip of it didn't quite match it's spot in the hull but a little reprofiling with a sanding stck fixed it in less than a minute. This area up to Y barbette fits really nicely and if you work it in 3/4-1" at a time you won't need to worry about putty at all. The joint outboard X & Y barbettes is a little different. Not bad, but it takes more work and "hand clamping" to get the joint to disappear. The area forward of the main barbettes fit as well as the area aft of them.

One area I discovered people should pay attention to are the bulkheads on the aft end of the superstructure. Parts C9 (port) and C14 (Starboard) have a raised line on the inside surface for the are of the main deck that extends aft to rest on. The problem is that these lines are too high and push the deck up such that there is a step up at the joint that shouldn't be threre, or at least doesn't look right. I cut most of it off, leaving enough for the extreme aft part of the deck, and it fixed the problem at least in the test fit stage. There will be a minor gap between the bulkheads inside this area and the boat deck, but I don't think it'll be visible, and it's certainly easier to fix than the step.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 10:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:57 am
Posts: 15
Location: San Francisco
I've seen the same step your seeing, but I think when you put the ladders on each of the bulkheads the ladder platform will eliminate the step.
Mark Pfaff


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 4:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1377
Location: Warwickshire, England
ChrisC wrote:
Ok so I have kind of gotten into the Hood craze as well although a little differently. I picked up a 1/700 Tamiya Hood and a 1/700 Tamiya Prince of Wales and am going to combine them, along with some photoetch from WEM, to create Hood as she might have appeared in 1944 in the Pacific, rebuilt over 3 years after her encounter with Bismarck into a "fast battleship" similar to what happened to the Japanese Kongos. Anyways, here is an image I conjured up of what it may appear like. Credit goes to the Hood Association website whose Hood 1942 drawing was used as the basis for this one. Not sure about the camo color yet, just having fun.


One thing that immediately springs to mind is if your doing her c1944 the aircraft would have been landed by then and probably the space would have been filled with some of the ships boats and more AA.

For general appearance maybe use Renown on her last commission 1944-45.

There is an excellent large plan of her in this Raven and Roberts A & A plans book.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 6:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:56 pm
Posts: 1185
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
These drawings brings a new discussion to mind. What secondary guns she would have? I believe that the 5.3'' that we see on one of the previous drawings are a bit overkill for the ship herself. She wasn't a very large ship afterall...being her beam only some 105 feet. KGV BB's are more larger then her therefore better ships to carry 8 double 5.3'' mounts. Also, she had before her sinking the 4'' double turrets which were a fine weapon...why not keepong them. Thirdly, the 4.5'' shielded guns "à lá" Renown style. Most likelly a good choice also. No matter way she looks so much better before the supposed hyphothetical refit. :big_grin:

_________________
"Build few and build fast,
Each one better than the last"
John Fisher


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 6:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1377
Location: Warwickshire, England
Filipe Ramires wrote:
These drawings brings a new discussion to mind. What secondary guns she would have? I believe that the 5.3'' that we see on one of the previous drawings are a bit overkill for the ship herself. She wasn't a very large ship afterall...being her beam only some 105 feet. KGV BB's are more larger then her therefore better ships to carry 8 double 5.3'' mounts. Also, she had before her sinking the 4'' double turrets which were a fine weapon...why not keepong them. Thirdly, the 4.5'' shielded guns "à lá" Renown style. Most likelly a good choice also. No matter way she looks so much better before the supposed hyphothetical refit. :big_grin:


5.25" not 5.3" :big_grin:

I agree with Filipe Hood would not have the beam and top weight stablity to mount as many secondany's as a KGV, Lion or Vanguard.

As this suppose rebuild is done in wartime the 4" secondaires would have been retained and merely relocated and perhaps increased, they were fine weapons and the only gun that would be readily available in large numbers.

Remember also it could be argued the KGV class and Dido's would have been given priority for any completed 5.25" and in the cruisers there was already a shortfall!!! again reinforcing it's more likely she would have had 4" twins, and by 1944 some 40mm bofors and bristling with lots of 20mm oerlikons ala Renown above.


Last edited by Laurence Batchelor on Mon May 22, 2006 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Placeholder
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 11:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9884
Location: EG48
We had a thread in main erupt into an excellent exchange on Hood so I copied over the pertinent posts from the WHere are the Hood Reviews thread to save them for future readers.

Post on!

maxim wrote:
There is an additional review:

HMS Hood

HMS Hood Upgrade Set

But I wrote it only in German. Sorry.

But my impression is that the kit is very good. At some points the kit is more correct than the drawings by Thomas Schmid on the hmshood.com site (the splitter shields around the after 4 in twin).

The hull has too much freeboard, if built as waterline kit (around 4 mm), but the hull is correct, if the full hull version is built. The only problem is where the division of the two parts is: it is not at the position of the waterline in deep condition of 1941.

There is no lower border of the armour on the hull. This is correct at the position of the anti torpedo bulge, but probably not in front and after the bulge.

The position of the Typ 279 M radar antenna is wrong: it's in front of the mast, but the drawings show, that it is fixed behind the mast. But perhaps also drawings are wrong again. This is easy to correct.

The AA guns could be improved, especially the 1.27 cm MGs, which have no shields and no magazines. Also the boats are lacking detail.


EJ Foeth wrote:
Well, it seems they completely frelled up the main turrets, the roof is all wrong. The boats are just afwul and all wrong. Unfortunately, getting new boats will be quite difficult to say the least.


EJ Foeth wrote:
I also noticed that you'd better buy Steve Nuttall's barrels, they are infinitely better. The 15" barrel is really way off.

Have a look:

Right:
[img]http://www.warshipmodels.com/~users/Foeth/barrels2.jpg[/img]

Wrong:

Ah well, link doesn't work, but it's from the above German review site


maxim wrote:
EJ Foeth wrote:
Well, it seems they completely frelled up the main turrets, the roof is all wrong. The boats are just afwul and all wrong. Unfortunately, getting new boats will be quite difficult to say the least.

On which sources your statement is based?



EJ Foeth wrote:
Anatomy Of The Ship: HMS Hood by Roberts and many many photographs....


maxim wrote:
EJ Foeth wrote:
Anatomy Of The Ship: HMS Hood by Roberts and many many photographs....

Ok. I asked, because some of the drawings, which I found, had faults. E.g. the old Profile of Hood has the UP deck totally wrong and also the drawings by Thomas Schmid on hmshood.com have faults.

The barrels of Steve Nuttall look really much better.

What is wrong with the roof of the 38,1 cm turrets? Could you post a drawing or photo, which show the difference?


EJ Foeth wrote:
The roof consists of three plates witha few bolts:

[img]http://www.ontheslipway.com/pictures/new/tips_mainturrets/tips_hoodmainturret06.jpg[/img]

so without those ridges. The 3D by Schmidt has these ridges as well.

Image

Most drawings have a few flaws to a lot. BTW, could you post the correct UP deck or source? I think it's also wrong in the AOTS volume as well.


David Gatt wrote:
I think you need to do more research regarding the top of your turrets as they do have a step down on them. I would agree that the step down on the trunpy Hood looks a bit deep but it is there. I've placed 5 pictures of it on my downloads page, just head here. http://idisk.mac.com/davidgatt-Public?view=web


maxim wrote:
EJ Foeth wrote:
The roof consists of three plates witha few bolts:

so without those ridges. The 3D by Schmidt has these ridges as well.

Ok. I see. This fault is similar to the exaggerated hull "plates" at the hull of Trumpeter, which are thicker than the armour. But this is an exaggeration - and not a total wrong roof.
EJ Foeth wrote:
BTW, could you post the correct UP deck or source? I think it's also wrong in the AOTS volume as well.

I compared the drawings of Schmidt (see here) with the kit and the original. The drawings and the kit appear to be correct, except that the drawings are wrong with the splitter shields around the aft 4 in twin, whereas the kit is correct. You could see this splitter shields behind the pom pom:
Image


EJ Foeth wrote:
Ah ok, that's the aft 4" gun platform, I thought you meant the UP launcher platform on B-turret. The aft 4" gun emplacement is a recent discovery which the HMS Hood site managed to convey to Trumpeter, but barely. The kit is not entirely correct. WEM will provide a better emplacement (Not the one on their old etchings, they promised to correct their original design).

This is already an old pic, but it should look like this:

[img]http://www.warshipmodels.com/~users/Foeth/hoodaft4in.jpg[/img]

Note that in this pic I started filling up the windows in the aft searchlight platform. Trumpeter also added an open version, but those windows were covered with canvas.


maxim wrote:
David Gatt wrote:
I think you need to do more research regarding the top of your turrets as they do have a step down on them. I would agree that the step down on the trunpy Hood looks a bit deep but it is there. I've placed 5 pictures of it on my downloads page, just head here.<http://idisk.mac.com/davidgatt-Public?view=web>

Could it be, that the turret roof consists of the three plates? The front and the after plate are riveted on the middle one, which are therefore lower than the other two? Trumpeter hat the rivets on additional "plate", which are higher than the roof plates.


EJ Foeth wrote:
Quote:
I think you need to do more research regarding the top of your turrets as they do have a step down on them.


It's not too visible on that particular picture, but I have the correct step in the roofs. The plates are overlapping. The AOTS HMS Hood shows ths beautifully in a side drawing.

http://ontheslipway.hamershof.com/index.jsp?ID=14&CID=7

[img]http://www.ontheslipway.com/pictures/new/tips_mainturrets/tips_hoodmainturret03.jpg[/img]


maxim wrote:
EJ Foeth wrote:
Ah ok, that's the aft 4" gun platform, I thought you meant the UP launcher platform on B-turret. The aft 4" gun emplacement is a recent discovery which the HMS Hood site managed to convey to Trumpeter, but barely. The kit is not entirely correct. WEM will provide a better emplacement.

Hmm, the kit looks very similar to your photo of this model.

I called this deck "UP deck", because Trumpeter called it that way. I meant the first deck of the superstructure.


EJ Foeth wrote:
It does, I heard the HMS Hood site comment they didn't exactly like the curvature on the bulkheads.

Here is a good view of Trumpeters turret and what's wrong with it:

[img]http://www.warshipmodels.com/~users/Foeth/hoodturret.jpg[/img]

Some of it can be corrected, but the ridges are really difficult to solve if you want to retain the bolts. They basically ruined it.


David Gatt wrote:
I've posted some more 3D art work of the turrets. They look good. Yes there is some problem with the shape of the aft 4 inch gun platform, Trumpy is close to being correct, there is some comment on the Hood association page.


EJ Foeth wrote:
I appreciate your feedback, but you cannot use Schmidt's 3D model as a source, it is inaccurate.


David Gatt wrote:
EJ Foeth wrote:
[quote]I think you need to do more research regarding the top of your turrets as they do have a step down on them.


It's not too visible on that particular picture, but I have the correct step in the roofs. The plates are overlapping. The AOTS HMS Hood shows ths beautifully in a side drawing.

http://ontheslipway.hamershof.com/index.jsp?ID=14&CID=7

[img]http://www.ontheslipway.com/pictures/new/tips_mainturrets/tips_hoodmainturret03.jpg[/img]


Cool the images on the link look better. :surfer:[/quote]

David Gatt wrote:
EJ Foeth wrote:
I appreciate your feedback, but you cannot use Schmidt's 3D model as a source, it is inaccurate.


Yes I agree, my apologies. I've just found a photo in The Battlecruiser HMS Hood an illustrated Biography by Bruce Taylor, which shows some sort of ridging along the side of the Turret. The photo is on page 75. You can see it in Z turret.
I agree with you that the front edges of the Trumpy turret are too sharp, and yes the viewing detail is missing.
if you don't have this book, I can scan the image and post it up on my site.


EJ Foeth wrote:
I have the book, it has many interesting pictures if you want to build a Hood model. I'll look it up tonight (You could post it if other members are interested?) Btw: Z-turret? There's only X and Y ;) You probably mean the remnants of the aircraft launching system that was planned on top of the X turret (#3) but abandoned (IIRC). WEM * almost* managed to get in right this time! Looks a bit like this:

[img]http://www.warshipmodels.com/~users/Foeth/barrels5.jpg[/img]

Note that there should be one more "square with cross" extending the turret, but the cat knocked the turret of the model! Still have to repair that one.... My version is actually too thick, an etched part does look better.


David Gatt wrote:
oops, yes I meant 'Y' :destroyer: :destroyer: :Oops_1:

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 11:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Posts: 863
Location: EN83
Lozza1981 wrote:
Filipe Ramires wrote:
These drawings brings a new discussion to mind. What secondary guns she would have?


I agree with Filipe Hood would not have the beam and top weight stablity to mount as many secondany's as a KGV, Lion or Vanguard.


Greater consideration should be given to Hood's theoretical stability. Wartime or not, her ageing machinery and boilers would be among the first items replaced, as would likely be the removal of a large portion of her upperdeck, those useless torpedoes and tubes, and one of her funnels.

Even if she could only have gotten a Malaya-style refit otherwise, it's certain that her displacement would have been reduced, freeboard gained, and both space & arrangements for more twin 4"HA made available. In the alternative, 4.5" BD mounts could have been fitted, perhaps in place of her removed 5.5" LA mountings, a-la Queen Elizabeth and Renown.

I would tend toward the latter, rather than more upper-deck 4" Twins, as these would not have "robbed" any destroyers or other warships then completing. The 4.5" BD mounting, to my knowledge, was never considered for ships smaller than capitals and carriers.

_________________
:no_2: Danny DON'T "waterline"...!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 5:53 pm
Posts: 507
Location: DERBYSHIRE UK
Here's a few more comments -

http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/misc/ ... review.htm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:56 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Stafford, UK
Hi,

question for EJ Foeth, have you used/seen the Sambrooke Marine plans ?

Hood is the next ship in line for me so I am starting to collect refernces.

Regards,
Mark D.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 1:05 pm 
Yes I have, but the AOTS Hood contains the same information. If you want larger scale drawings, they work, but they are quite old.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:56 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Stafford, UK
since I already have a set from about 3 years ago how accurate are they ?

Regards,
Mark D.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 1377
Location: Warwickshire, England
The in profile sheet would IMHO cost around £50 from the NMM and thats all thats really needed, unless you are completely scratchbuilding the hull too, or is this Forth you modifiying the WEM 1/350???


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 3:21 pm 
@ Mark: I suppose the drawings are as good as the AOTS volume, but that one has more information. I believe the drawings were initially intended as GA drawings, not modeling. But, the drawings were made before the AOTS volume.

@ Lozza: Deep down there is still a WEM Hull. I wasn't proficient at building my own model then and adapted it. I should have done the hull as well, it is still a source of worry from time to time. Ah well, next time!


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 7:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 5:53 pm
Posts: 507
Location: DERBYSHIRE UK
Here's a reply to a post I made over on the HMSHOOD forum -
From Frank Allen -

Quote:
I plan on posting a more in-depth review of the kit once I actually start building it. Don't know when I'll have time to start though. You see, I also have a lot of website overhauling to carry out.

For what its worth, I have taken a close look at the kit parts. Overall, I think they've done an admirable job. For the most part, they listened to my suggestions. They didn't execute all the suggestiong exactly, but they did incorporate most things as advised. I've also noted some errors on the actual kit which were not present in their designs I reviewed (at least things I that weren't apparent). So, its not perfect, but it IS the best model of the ship yet made, plastic or resin.

If anyone out there would like to write a review for us, please let me know. I can then jump in with some observations I have made. For now, here is a very brief listing of things that can be addressed: conning tower slits are not consistently sized. They look "off" to me. There are hatches on the kit where the forward 0.5" machine gun ammo boxes should be. There are solid shields around the rear 0.5" mgs...when that should be railing. The square edged support beam above the "notch" on the port side of the ACP structure is too bulky...it was actually angled inward. There are a few doors and ladders in wrong places around the ship. Boats are a bit plain (but they didn't have much information on boats). The radar hood needs to have the square appendage removed from the port rear side (this information was not passed to them in time to be incorporated into the kit). The biggest problem of all are the 15" turrets. The shap is too angular, the roofs have ridges. It didn't look that bad in their drawings...

Despite all this, most of thes problems are easily fixed. Not sure what to do about the turrets...a bit of sanding is in order I guess...

Anyone else have any comments about the kit? Maybe we can get a list of good points and bad points going that will help in preparing an article. Please let me know.

Frank


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2006 3:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:56 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Stafford, UK
Trumpeter Hood

I suspect I may not be the only one so heres a warning, my upper hull has a very slight warp in it such that the hull sides bend inwards thus when you dry fit the deck pieces particulary the centre section you will find the deck appears to wide......it will push out with medium pressure but if you plan on prepainting the deck first it is very worthwhile checking.

Next once the decks are fitted check it still lines up with the lower hull, while the fit initally looks good you will need some sanding and filling to get a perfect fit, I suspect this is because of Hood's curves at the point Trumpeter split the Hull.

Anyway its time to spend some money at WEM, pictures to follow later.....

M. D.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2006 4:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:56 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Stafford, UK
Ok,

some pictures to illustrate the warp,

http://www.warshipmodels.com/~users/Mark-Deakin/IMG_1414Send.jpg
http://www.warshipmodels.com/~users/Mark-Deakin/IMG_1413Send.jpg

Mark D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2006 3:00 pm 
The ISW turrets are lousy. Evil rumour is spreading that you may be able to buy these:

[img]http://www.ontheslipway.com/pictures/new/tips_mainturrets/tips_hoodmainturret06.jpg[/img]


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 667 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 34  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group