The Ship Model Forum

The Dragon USS Buchanan kit comes with PE for some things except the radar and railings. I have seen the Dragon has an add-on PE kit with the radar and railing. Is that a better choice than Gold Medal Models Buchanan PE set? Does the GMM set give you more/better PE choices over the PE that comes with the Dragon kit (ithe GMM set does have a tower for the searchlight)? Looking to see if the GMM kit is a worthwile purchase.

I don't know what you would get in the GMM set but the Cyber-Hobby set along with the kit included PE was enough for me.

_________________
On the ways:
1/350 AFV Club LST

I have both the Cyber Hobby and GMM detail sets for the Buchanan and would recommend going with the GMM only. My only complaint with the GMM set is that while it does contain p/e for the searchlight tower, it does not contain p/e for the railing around the searchlight itself. The CyberHobby p/e is much harder to work with and the bow railing is not quite right as far as cutouts for bitts/chocks, and is not designed to incorporate the sheer/curve of the forward portion, so if you fit it, it splays outward. In addition, the CyberHobby set does not cotain support brackets for the MK 37 directo screen or the SA radar, two big items that convinced me that the GMM set was the way to go, otherwise I would have been piecemilling L'arsenal detail pieces on to my Buchanan.

BW

_________________
Brandon S. Wood

Agreed. Also, some of the railings are too long for the sections they are designed for, which means you have to cut them to get them to fit.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery

I forgot about that little issue. I remember thinking how odd it was that a p/e set designed specifically for a kit would contain railings, especially around the upper bridge works, that were too long. The Buchanan is my first ship kit and it has been an adventure and there are some areas that one has to pay particular attention to, but I consider that just part of model building. All in all, I love the detailing that has been incorporated and believe that it is at the cutting edge of injection molding. I have dry fitted and modified several pieces to eliminate as many steps/gaps as possible and still wound up using some filler, mainly around the midship deckhouse to deck join. But it has been an enjoyable build and with the GMM set, a top notch kit.

BW

_________________
Brandon S. Wood

How do the Quad 1.1" gun from the Dragon USS Buchanan amd the 40mm Bofors twin from the CyberHobby USS Buchanan kits compare with the L'Arsenal aftermarket sets? Also, what about the kit 20mm Oerlikon vs. L'Arsenal?

Hi
I work on USS Buchanan (very big superdetailling) version in August/September 1944. Steve Wiper, in these books, camouflage is Ms.31/3D, whereas according to John Snyder is MS.32/3D. I did not answer in this post. Who is right?
Kind regards
sebastien LAUSDAT
FRANCE

PS : Sorry for my poor English.

First off, let me start off by saying that the kit 1.1 is about as good as one can get with injection molding and looks pretty good with the p/e that is included in the box. I can not speak to the 40mm, but the L'arsenal 1.1though is a little gem and I have no regrets in spending the extra money to replace the kit piece and I am seriously considering getting the Master Detail brass barrells to replace the resin ones just to see what they would look like (who would have ever thought 1/350 1.1" brass barrells were even possible................)

BW

_________________
Brandon S. Wood

Hi Sebastien and welcome aboard. The camo design sheet shown in the Buchanan book is the correct one and is a perfect match for the 44 Buchanan. I think the correct name for the measure is the one in the new book.

_________________
Timothy Dike
Owner & Administrator
ModelWarships.com

No doubt the L'Arsenal versions are better. You just can't consistently mold that small of a detail in plastic. PaperLab also makes a nice 1.1" in metal. I think the L'Arsenal offers better detailing, but the PaperLab version easier as it is cast in one piece. The Master gun barrels offer that ultimate touch no matter which brand you decide to use. I have some of their 40 mm barrels and they look awesome.

_________________
Timothy Dike
Owner & Administrator
ModelWarships.com

I have both the L'arsenal and Paper Labs and for me the Paper Labs are far superior. The detail on the mount has to be seen to be believed. The castings I have are flawless.

Paul

_________________


http://paulbudzik.com/current-projects/Neptune/Lockheed_Neptune_Model_Budzik.html
http://paulbudzik.com/tools-techniques/outside_the_box.html

I've now built both the L'Arsenal and Dragon 1.1mm's and while the Dragon guns are undoubtedly the best ever produced in plastic, I prefer the L'Arsenal guns by a slight margin if only for the ease of assembly. For some reason I had greater difficulty working with the Dragon PE parts of the gun than the L'Arsenal PE parts.

_________________
On the ways:
1/350 AFV Club LST

As I enter the final leg of my Buchanan build, I am looking at purchasing the Livermore. Can any early war Pacific destroyers be built out of the box using the Livermore? I know that with enough work, just about any of the Benson/Gleaves can be built using the kits available from Dragon, but I am looking for something more simple. So all you SMEs, what are my options?

BW

_________________
Brandon S. Wood

Take a look at Friedman's US Destroyers, it does talk a the Atlantic configuration of the Benson/Livermores (which is my interest) but he may also talk about the early Pacific configuration.

4 Pacific DD's were close. Gwin, Grayson, Meredith and Monssen were sent to the Pacific just before the Atlantic ships completed refitting to the Livermore kit config. DD's 429-444 (less DD-431) had all refitted to the 4-gun 10-tube standard, with 12 .50's. In the ships that remained in the Atlantic, the 12 .50's were gradually replaced by the 6 20MM as depicted in the kit (in stages - I am meaning multiple partial changes on each ship, not each ship getting a complete one-time refit, one ship at a time), but the 4 DD's named above had been only partially modified when transferred. They carried a mix of .50's and 20MM. These 4 were later refitted to a unique config with 9 20MM (described earlier in this thread). Modeling the 9 20MM config is more difficult. The as-transferred configs can be produced from the Livermore kit by adding a few 20MM/.50 tubs and finding a source for .50's in this scale. The right mix of guns depends on the specific ship you want to do.

Just got my copy of Warship Pictorial #31 (USS Buchanan) and noticed that the top photo on page 37 (captioned as [unidentified] "Gleaves type destroyer") is Ellyson - in the same camouflage as in the photo Rick posted earlier.

Can somebody tell me what part K1 is on the Dragon Buchanan kit? I managed to lose one and now I'm scrambling to look for a resin replacement. I originally thought it was a sky lookout, but it doesn't look anything like the L'Arsenal one's

_________________

Seems appropriate that DrDull replies to drdoom... Anyway part K1 is the pedestal for the manual targeting station. There was a nice photo of USS Doran posted earlier by Charles Landrum - back on page 17.

"A great picture from LIfe of USS DORAN. This shows the two manual target detection and tracking stations behind the main director on the Gleaves Class. Dragon is a little fuzzy on the details and most photos do not show this angle."

Is there an AM kit available (or planned) to allow you to add a square bridge to the Dragon 1/350 Gleaves class destroyer kit?

to all - just polite question for help, do exist clear pictures (overshots) of the main gun turret without armour top as well as covering canvas ?

I am preparing myself for USS Livermore which is coming,-).

Thanks in advance.

best regards

Jindrich Nepevny
Prague - Czech Republic