The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:47 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
This is outside of my normal area of expertise, so this is mainly an in-box review of engineering. I bought this as a counterpart for my Mikasa, and while the box does say "1917," it does match the 1904-5 fit details I can see at her Navsource.narod page.

The box is well packed; each tree is wrapped separately and some fragile pieces have extra foam strips wrapped around them for added protection. There were no broken or warped parts that I could find on my kit.

Attachment:
File comment: Hull side
IMG_14942.jpg
IMG_14942.jpg [ 48.31 KiB | Viewed 8690 times ]


The hull is well rendered. It is split into two halves (port and starboard) with no guide on the inside for waterlining the kit. There are a few internal beams, which will make for a fairly robust hull when complete. While the instructions show these two pieces on a sprue, they were cut loose for packaging. The nubs were still present and were on the inside surface, so take care to remove them for a proper fit. I noticed a slight mold flaw (below, about the same "height" as the anchor hawse exits) on the joining surface of the bow above the waterline - if this is not sanded or cut away you will be left with a noticeable gap.

Attachment:
File comment: mating surface flaw
IMG_14998.jpg
IMG_14998.jpg [ 38.22 KiB | Viewed 8690 times ]


There is a decent amount of slide molding in the kit - the main armament gun barrels, turrets, and several pieces of the superstructure are all slide-molded for better detail with less work. There are some mold seams on the turrets to clean up, but there's no detail nearby that would be destroyed in the process:

Attachment:
File comment: Turrets
IMG_14969.jpg
IMG_14969.jpg [ 64.6 KiB | Viewed 8690 times ]


Small parts are well done as well. I would say it's reached the point where if the AA guns on the New York and Texas kits are as good I may be tempted to just leave them as is. Aftermarket barrels and shields will always be finer, but these look decent when part of a set:

Attachment:
File comment: Guns.... lots of guns.
IMG_14962.jpg
IMG_14962.jpg [ 72.47 KiB | Viewed 8690 times ]


I did go so far as to test fit the main deck pieces and hull. Because of the tumblehome shape, the aft deck piece is trapezoidal and this worried me a bit. Trumpeter did a decent job providing an alignment "shelf" below the deck for it to fit snuggle into, however I found that even with a bit of cleanup I had a hard time getting everything to fit perfectly. If I had the stern halves joined snugly the stern deck piece was pushed forward, and if I pushed the stern piece back into place it kept the hull halves from joining properly. I would advice cleanup and lots of test fitting before committing this area to glue:

Attachment:
File comment: After deck in the hull - no glue or tape
IMG_15006.jpg
IMG_15006.jpg [ 91.22 KiB | Viewed 8690 times ]

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 1980
So the stern deck piece is slightly too wide at the end and needs to be narrowed for a perfect fit? :wave_1:


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
I wouldn't say that yet. As I said above, the deck is trapezoidal, so my first pass at making it fit better was to sand the lower edge / corner where it is more likely there is a mold seam that would introduce extra material that would cause issues. It did make it better, but I haven't gone back to try some more and see if I missed an area in that sanding or if there's something else. She's not on my workbench yet, this was just part of about 30-45 minutes I spent shooting photos and doing basic work on the two hull pieces and main deck pieces.

I will say that the hull shape and design of the rear piece complicates construction a wee bit because it's less likely that you can simply drop the piece in place after the hull halves are together. It's still possible, but you have to plan for either leaving some of the hull not glued to give enough wiggle, or to maybe tack one side in place before gluing the halves together. The issue with the later method is that if you don't take care of any fit issues up front you may have larger ones when you try and glue the two hull halves together. I should also say that "complicates construction" is a relative term. If they had made the hull sides to allow for straight edges internally instead of the leaned in trapezoid, they could have run the risk of sink marks due to the thicker plastic. That is a legitimate concern; one thing I had forgotten to mention on my initial post is that some of the mount points for the internal braces have slight sink marks on the outer surface of the model from the thicker plastic. Doesn't look like it'll take more than a layer of Mr. Surfacer and some judicious sanding to fix, though.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Here's another pic I had meant to post:

Attachment:
IMG_14991.jpg
IMG_14991.jpg [ 37.7 KiB | Viewed 8597 times ]


I understand why some people like having the attach point such that it doesn't affect the visible area by causing the modeler to destroy detail in removing and smoothing it, but for a completely smooth hull I think there's no real appeal. These came off easily enough with some flush cutters and a coarse grit sanding stick, but those without such implements might find these a bit annoying.

Also, note the inner support "post" above it. There are small depressions on the outer side of this due to the extra plastic in this area. However, I suspect that those who don't want to to try and fill and smooth these will do all right with some judicious weathering and color modulation with oils.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:34 pm
Posts: 967
Location: Cologne / Germany, sometimes Poznan/ Poland and Chessington/ UK
Mmmpf ... I wanted the 1904/1905 version! Ok, I put it on list of "intersted in for the future" ;-)

Thanks for showing Tracy :-)

_________________
The advantage of wisdom is that you can play dumb; conversely, it is more difficult.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 9:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Tracy White wrote:
while the box does say "1917," it does match the 1904-5 fit details I can see at her Navsource.narod page.


Just to be clear, I'm pretty sure it is the 1904/5 version. I'm not sure if you're "Mmmpf" is indicating disappointment that it's "not" or something else.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:34 pm
Posts: 967
Location: Cologne / Germany, sometimes Poznan/ Poland and Chessington/ UK
Tracy White wrote:
Tracy White wrote:
while the box does say "1917," it does match the 1904-5 fit details I can see at her Navsource.narod page.


Just to be clear, I'm pretty sure it is the 1904/5 version. I'm not sure if you're "Mmmpf" is indicating disappointment that it's "not" or something else.


Hi Tracy,
at least and as far as I understood all the reviews of several people, it is at least a mix of the 1917 and 1904/05 version ... more in direction to 1904/05 as you wrote. But this mix is causing unnecessary extra work, no matter which version you want to make at least.
This was reason of my "Mmmpf" because this is really annoying if a manufacture isn't able to deliver what he writes on box as here again with Trumpeter. :-(

_________________
The advantage of wisdom is that you can play dumb; conversely, it is more difficult.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:07 am 
Tracy White wrote:
Tracy White wrote:
while the box does say "1917," it does match the 1904-5 fit details I can see at her Navsource.narod page.


Just to be clear, I'm pretty sure it is the 1904/5 version. I'm not sure if you're "Mmmpf" is indicating disappointment that it's "not" or something else.


There are some parts of the kit that are appropriate for 1904 version (like solid bulwarks around 6" turrets, absent in 1917) and there are some things that are only appropriate for 1917, like no aft superstructure, different handling equipment for forward boats, absence of fighting tops on masts etc..

Personally, I am waiting for the 1904 version.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Looking over the photos I can now see the differences, but they mainly appear cosmetic. Aft superstructure changes are mainly platforms I expect that there will be a super-set somewhere that will have these as well as the fighting tops in photo-etc. I may or may not trade this one in for the "true" 1904/5 version, depending on what happens over the next few months.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:44 am 
Tracy White wrote:
Looking over the photos I can now see the differences, but they mainly appear cosmetic. Aft superstructure changes are mainly platforms I expect that there will be a super-set somewhere that will have these as well as the fighting tops in photo-etc. I may or may not trade this one in for the "true" 1904/5 version, depending on what happens over the next few months.


I doubt there will be any aftermarket 1904/5 conversion kits available while there is a possibility of Trumpeter releasing a 1904/5 version.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
I doubt many aftermarket companies will want to work on two separate sets. They would prefer one that will work on both versions. Better to raise the price a little bit and include some parts that might not be used than to have to gauge the market supply for the initial release and second release.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:34 pm
Posts: 967
Location: Cologne / Germany, sometimes Poznan/ Poland and Chessington/ UK
Tracy White wrote:
I doubt many aftermarket companies will want to work on two separate sets. They would prefer one that will work on both versions. Better to raise the price a little bit and include some parts that might not be used than to have to gauge the market supply for the initial release and second release.


I think the same ... out of same reason as Tracy wrote and some other sets (i.e. 1/350 Warspite set from WEM) includes for example different types of radar etc. to make early and later version.

_________________
The advantage of wisdom is that you can play dumb; conversely, it is more difficult.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:08 pm
Posts: 942
Tracy, could you please post some photos of the forecastle deck and a side view of the front part of the hull (anchor bay areas)? IF Trumpeter used drawings from Navarin's site I expect some troubles with that part of the kit.

_________________
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H. L. Mencken


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Let me know if this is what you are looking for or if you want the entire deck. THis is not glued together by the way, parts fit fairly well without glue.

Attachment:
ForecastleDeck.jpg
ForecastleDeck.jpg [ 79.53 KiB | Viewed 7182 times ]


Attachment:
Oblique Angle.jpg
Oblique Angle.jpg [ 51.23 KiB | Viewed 7182 times ]


Side shots did not turn out and need to be re-shot, but I wanted to at least get these up for you.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:08 pm
Posts: 942
Thanks again Tracy! I will not be clogging this thread but it's good to have some info now just in case somebody decides to open a WIP thread :)

_________________
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H. L. Mencken


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
DariusP wrote:
I will not be clogging this thread but it's good to have some info now just in case somebody decides to open a WIP thread :)


I don't think it's clogging up the thread, I just said in the PM that I didn't want to clog it up with "OK" style messages. If you see items that a builder might want to improve or fix I'm all in!

Here's the port side - what were the potential issues you alluded to, or do I need to re-shot from a particular angle to give you the ability to determine that?

Attachment:
Port Side.jpg
Port Side.jpg [ 48.89 KiB | Viewed 7097 times ]


I suspect the raised "panel" detail is incorrect and would love to have a good clear view or diagram of the hull plates. The lines below the step to the bulge appear to match the armor plate, but I'm not sure if they should show as they do.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:08 pm
Posts: 942
1- the closest views of the Tsesarevich hull bottom plating that I have seen can be found here:
http://tsushima.su/uploads/photoarhiv/s ... oto/11.jpg
http://tsushima.su/uploads/photoarhiv/s ... oto/13.jpg

2- raised "panel" lines are indeed incorrect. They aren't even exaggerated, they shouldn't be there at all. If you look at this photo you can see that, even in such a close up, no panel lines are visible:
http://tsushima.su/uploads/photoarhiv/s ... oto/16.jpg
This photo also shows the details of the waist 152mm gun sponsor and ash shutes just above the armor belt. It can also be seen that bulwarks of forward and aft 152mm guns (version 1904 only) were smooth and not angled.

3- the rectangular porthole shutters are also way too thick. The round "peepholes" in those shutters were glazed so they really should be holes and not some sort of armored plugs...
4- doors for the bow searchlight are also too thick http://tsushima.su/uploads/photoarhiv/s ... oto/15.jpg
5- propellers are of the wrong shape http://tsushima.su/uploads/photoarhiv/s ... oto/18.jpg

Those are the cosmetics... The main problem that I have noticed so far lays with the forecastle deck and bow area. The bow sponsors for the 75mm guns and the adjacent part of the anchor shelves are shaped in a wrong way:
Image
Image
Image

6- as it was said before, bulwarks shielding the sides of the forward and aft 152mm gun turrets and "fence" around the waist 152mm turrets are incorrect for 1917 version
7- two weird structures on the quarterdeck were, in fact, skylights
Image
http://tsushima.su/uploads/photoarhiv/s ... oto/29.jpg

_________________
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H. L. Mencken


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
OK, here's a shot showing how the washboard extends out too far a bit better:

Attachment:
Tsesarevich Washboard Underside.jpg
Tsesarevich Washboard Underside.jpg [ 44.98 KiB | Viewed 6954 times ]


Also, not to turn this into a WIP, but I was stuck in my car for an hour or so on Friday and started messing with the kit a bit. The shutters for the small guns near the waterline fit perfectly on the stern, but the midships ones.... I thought at first that maybe Trumpeter had swapped part numbers around, but I couldn't get anything to fit anywhere and just decided to cut some sheet styrene to width and use that instead, rather than spend a lot of time filing down the plugs to get them to fit. Here's what it looks like from the back:

Attachment:
Tsesarevich casemates backside.jpg
Tsesarevich casemates backside.jpg [ 31.58 KiB | Viewed 6954 times ]


While checking out to see how it looked on the front, I noticed two things. One is what I *think* is a molding seam. It's only on the starboard side on my kit, from about the midships 6" turret back to the break to the aft deck. You can see it in the photo below about where the top of the coaling doors are, or about 1/3 of the way down from the top of the smaller casemate guns (not sure of the size):

Attachment:
Tsesarevich shell.jpg
Tsesarevich shell.jpg [ 62.71 KiB | Viewed 6954 times ]


No evidence that such a line existed on the real ship. Not sure if I feel like fixing this and the other surface detail "extras" that shouldn't be there or if I just want to keep it simple and build it. Since I'm already somewhat invested in "right-dating" it to the battle, I may just have to bite the bullet and expand the scope a bit.

*Edit* - the embarkation door near the top center of that photo is also incorrect - it split in the center and was not simply hinged at the rear as Trumpeter depicted. Reference shot on this page shows this (as well as the lack of the line I mentioned above).

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:08 pm
Posts: 942
Are those portholes really oval or is it an optical illusion due to the camera angle?

Image

BTW researching Tsesarevich is so damn frustrating! I KNOW that she was repaired soon after her return to Russia in February 1906 because she left Qingdao without her foremast but, for the life of me, I can't find the exact date!

_________________
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H. L. Mencken


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
DariusP wrote:
Are those portholes really oval or is it an optical illusion due to the camera angle?


Yes, the portholes on the slope are oval as the mold pieces came in straight from the side.

DariusP wrote:
BTW researching Tsesarevich is so damn frustrating!


Agreed - we complain about the US Navy not storing records, but pre-revolutionary Russian Navy PLUS a language barrier makes this "fun" (said with some sarcasm).

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group