Calling all HMS York and HMS Exeter (WWII) fans

[Laurence Batchelor]

I found this today, I'm sure its darn useful to you Exeter folks, she is still showing her River Plate scars :-



Also this prewar photo, note the 4 turret error in the caption :-

[Dino Carancini]

...what a nice gift Laurence! First the Ark Royal then the Exeter!!!


... but last shot is showing me some of my mistakes I'll let you find it when she will be complete! ... or must I make a step back? ... I'll think about it tomorow...

[Dino Carancini]

..about boats, in this side, if I'm not wrong, I can see a 35ft motor boat and aft of this a 35ft motor pinnace, is this right?

[LenFricke]

Dan and Laurence - I once owned the FROG Exeter, purchased it in the 70s and traded it pre-internet to my local hobby shop for peanuts. Was aware of the NOVO release and it appears another Russian company is now producing the same kit. All these seem to be in the scale Laurence mentioned. This was not an original Airfix kit so if Airfix ever owned it then it was by acquisition but I noticed the same Russian company also picked up the FROG Cossack and Hotspir and Royal S class BB. I built all fo these and still have the R class BB model kicking around in my garage.

The Matchbox Exeter, as others mentioned, is around on Ebay and tends to run over $25. I built one back in the mid 80s. It was my understanding that this kit was based on the ship as of the time of the River Plate (sp?) battle.

Did anyone else notice that at one time Kombrig was going to produce an Exeter as per 1942 skining in the Sunda Strait area? I was certain I saw this because that was the reason I did not pick up another Matchbox kit on Ebay. Never saw a reason why this came off the Kombrig's build schedule. Perhaps the other Russian company used strong-arm tactics to prevent such competition by an excellent kit producer.

As for the York, Samek makes a 1/700 York. Perhaps one could combine the Samek kit with the Matchbox one and make a better Exeter.

[Laurence Batchelor]

Len Exeter will likely come out in resin this year or next in 1/700 & 1/350.

[Filipe Ramires]

As for the York, Samek makes a 1/700 York. Perhaps one could combine the Samek kit with the Matchbox one and make a better Exeter.

Yes, perhaps the hull of York plus a few parts (main turrets and smaller parts) are of some use to convert her to Exeter. Bridge and Funnels are too different between the two ships to be used. I also have Matchbox's Exeter but I am holding any attempt to build her so far due to the quality of the kit. Like you I am waiting for someone to produce a better Exeter in resin or in plastic (plastic..... dream on!!!! ).

[Dino Carancini]

...forgot to ask, the name on stern, was it red? Or black? Any guess?

TIA

Dino

[Laurence Batchelor]

I think it was black Dino.

I'm trying to use the grey matter to think of any prewar instance I've seen an RN ship's lettering in colour, can't think of any, but I think it was black.

I'll always keep my eyes peeled for more Exeter pics, I use to think she was a hard ship to get good photos of, I've now reversed that belief

Hotchkiss, is the spelling Dino. I'm currently researching the factory of Hotchkiss et Cie in Coventry in WW1 timeframe though. Though under a different company name they made bofors and other guns in WW2.

[wr]

Forgive me, but something is not quite corect with the model, re the aft superstructure. Are you using a kit?

A small update before the final rush! ( when a modeler is happy needs to share! )

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y28/Rufus368/exWP1.jpg

[Dino Carancini]

No it's scratchbuilt, to be honest, the aft superstructure is the part that gave me more troubles, because I had drawings of the ship as built, but in 1939 something appeared changed and I used the photos to represent it.

This is why I put this shot in this small preview.

I would be glad to know what is wrong, doesn't mean that I can change my model at this time, but just to know how was the correct shape.

Thank you in advance.

Dino

[wr]

Compare to the photo as posted by Batchelor.
To get things correct one really needs the "as fitted" plans.
I realise that getting hold of these types of plans can be a nuisence but once you have worked with them then you can never go back .
The aft superstructure remained in the "as built" configeration until the refit and repair post Plate battle.

No it's scratchbuilt, to be honest, the aft superstructure is the part that gave me more troubles, because I had drawings of the ship as built, but in 1939 something appeared changed and I used the photos to represent it.

This is why I put this shot in this small preview.

I would be glad to know what is wrong, doesn't mean that I can change my model at this time, but just to know how was the correct shape.

Thank you in advance.

Dino

[Laurence Batchelor]

Compare to the photo as posted by Batchelor.

@WR come now its Mr Batchelor to thee
Can you not do him a basic pencil drawing from the photos only?
Furthermore I'll keep pestering any news on the email front?

@ Dino I have an partial set of 'As fitteds' for Exeter as I said before, but their on loan. If I had them here I would try and get somehow the aft superstructure onto the pc for you to help, but alas I cannot. To my knowledge I'm the only one with a partial set apart from the National Maritime Museum.

[GERARD]

you can combine the 2 kits to come up wit a decent Exeter 42 with the Alan Raven drawings its not too hard just takes a bit of time here is mine Exeter with the samek York Hull I know the color looks a bit blue but at the time that was the best i could do getting close to the right paint For the Cat i took 2 seperate PE parts and soldered them together I used the olf frog kit as well for a guide . I will try and find some better pics for ya'll have a great day Gerry

[Laurence Batchelor]

A question if I may, a few of you are referring the Alan Raven's drawings???

Which are these? I was aware in Raven & Roberts Exeter is omitted and only York is drawn. I spoke to John about this and for some reason they both just kind of forgot to include her.

There is only a Profile Morskie for York and not for Exeter, so which drawings are people referring to please?

Are people referring to this sketch I posted a while back?

[Dino Carancini]

.I don't have "British Cruisers of WWII" yet, still looking for it but as you know it's not so easy to find a copy for an affordable price, I just found British Battleships and hope to get the one on the cruisers soon.

Laurence as you know I'm using the drawings in that russian pubblication and the profile Morskie for extra documentation on the few parts in common with the Exeter.

In the russian pubblication there is only a profile of the Exeter as built, the other drawings ar for the Exeter in 1941, this forced me to use the photos to represent all the changes from the original configuration to the 1939 fitting.

There are a lot of small modification from the launch to 1939:

- the roof of the aft superstructure near the director changed sometime before the Plata battle ( this isn't represented in the Matchbox kit ).

- catapults have been elevated and are on the top of a rectangular structure.

- the cover near the torpedo tubes was extended to the stern because the deck was too "wet" at high speed or in rough sea.

- mounts of the the searchlight platform near the aft funnel changed a bit.

- a small platform was added betwen the fore funnel and the fore superstructure, this platform is still cause of trouble for me and I've not built it yet ( this isn't represented in the Matchbox kit ).

In addition I suppose some change of position of some vents on the deck, but I'm not ure about this.

Dino

[wr]

I have gone over what material that I have, which is not very much.
To get the aft superstructure correct you MUST get the "as fitted" plans.
The added item between the bridge and the fore funnel appears to be an open enclosure within which two spare floats for the F111F seaplans were stowed.
As far as I can see the catapults were NOT raised, and there would be no reason to do so.

.I don't have "British Cruisers of WWII" yet, still looking for it but as you know it's not so easy to find a copy for an affordable price, I just found British Battleships and hope to get the one on the cruisers soon.

Laurence as you know I'm using the drawings in that russian pubblication and the profile Morskie for extra documentation on the few parts in common with the Exeter.

In the russian pubblication there is only a profile of the Exeter as built, the other drawings ar for the Exeter in 1941, this forced me to use the photos to represent all the changes from the original configuration to the 1939 fitting.

There are a lot of small modification from the launch to 1939:

- the roof of the aft superstructure near the director changed sometime before the Plata battle ( this isn't represented in the Matchbox kit ).

- catapults have been elevated and are on the top of a rectangular structure.

- the cover near the torpedo tubes was extended to the stern because the deck was too "wet" at high speed or in rough sea.

- mounts of the the searchlight platform near the aft funnel changed a bit.

- a small platform was added betwen the fore funnel and the fore superstructure, this platform is still cause of trouble for me and I've not built it yet ( this isn't represented in the Matchbox kit ).

In addition I suppose some change of position of some vents on the deck, but I'm not ure about this.

Dino

[Dino Carancini]

Wr, now that you told me about the spare floats I have a base to start building that "thing".

About the catapults maybe that the russian drawing I'm refering is not so accurate because it shows the ship in 1932 whit the catapults at the same level of the boat deck.

Thank you for your help.

Dino

[Laurence Batchelor]

I'll post the questionable Russian drawings here for you wr so you can see what Dino means, also please check something I left for you in the book section :-

[Dino Carancini]

Laurence the source is right and the photo is the same I was looking, but you posted the Exeter as it was in 1941.

I was refering to this profile ( not sure we can post such kind of thing due the copyright if not please a admin delete my reply ):

[Laurence Batchelor]

Sorry duly corrected above