Calling all Shoho-class (祥鳳) fans

[DennisJP]

Thanks, peppe!
I suspected the Hasegawa 1/700 Shoho had some omissions, as the model�s hull design seemed to be based mostly on starboard photos. IJN carriers, as far as I know, had similar boarding facilities on either sides of the hull, but the Hasegawa depiction of Shoho has not. I suppose on the port side there should be a boarding door under the forward boat/paravane deck, and a ladder from gun tub to the swinging boom, with a door to the lower hangar deck. Drawings you had attached to the post support to some extent this guess.

By the way, there are (at least) two unidentified hull objects on the port side photo you provided (see attachment). They are also not on the Hasegawa Shoho; these objects remind of boiler projections on the Soryu hull�

steviecee, thanks for advice; there is a lot of sources at Free Time Hobbies, but I found nothing applicable to Shoho. As for Combinedfleet, they simply forgot about Shoho class.

If you look closely this picture is not SHOHO but RYUHO, when first built.

[Ledinot]

If you look closely this picture is not SHOHO but RYUHO, when first built.

Thanks, Dennis; we (I mean Dan K. and me) had also agreed on this fact. Would you like to further discuss any issues related to Shoho (or Ryuho?) class here?

I had sent a message to Martin J. Quinn asking for a change for this thread � �Shoho class� instead of �Shoho� (my fault). Still waiting for reply�

[Timmy C]

I had sent a message to Martin J. Quinn asking for a change for this thread � �Shoho class� instead of �Shoho� (my fault). Still waiting for reply�

Done.

[DennisJP]

If you look closely this picture is not SHOHO but RYUHO, when first built.

Thanks, Dennis; we (I mean Dan K. and me) had also agreed on this fact. Would you like to further discuss any issues related to Shoho (or Ryuho?) class here?

I had sent a message to Martin J. Quinn asking for a change for this thread � �Shoho class� instead of �Shoho� (my fault). Still waiting for reply�

Well, Pitroad had a resin model of RYUHO and I think it is the only model of the ship and now it is discontinued from HLJ.COM. So I guess it would be a good study to research the diffrences between the two ships in case I or some one else in the future has to convert Shoho or Zuiho to Ryuho, depending on the year modeled?
It is interesting how Shoho could have survived 13 bomb hits and 7 torpedo hits as well as Zuiho over 60 near miss bombs plus bomb and torpedo hits.

[Ledinot]

Well, Pitroad had a resin model of RYUHO...

Surprisingly, this Ryuho kit still could be found on the Pit-Road site; perhaps it resides somewhere in archive zone...

[DennisJP]

Looking at this model maybe it is better to by a ZUIHO and convert it for the late war configuration. I know resin is usually pretty good. My WASP CV-7 is but this one looks pretty plain lacking detail.

[Ledinot]

I think the only real problem is the deck. Whether it is short or long, the shape of Ryuho deck slightly differs from that of Shoho/Zuiho. Even more recognizable difference provide the shape and position of elevators, especially of the aft one, deck planking scheme and other deck details. The other issues like gun galleries/tubs, hull blisters and vent shafts seem to require less effort to resolve.

[DennisJP]

I noticed also the Ryuho had the typical back end as most carriers with the boat deck in the back as well as the different positioning of the forward support pillars for the flight deck. Also something that was a surprised to me I did not see until yesterday was the middle flight deck support column on Shoho class for the flight deck aft.
I guess at one time they were going through and rechecking all the engineering on the Carriers. Kaga, Shokaku and Zuikaku all received addition flight deck supports and now this class.

[Dan K]

You do realize that Ryuho is longer, and therefore, proportionally thinner, than the Shohos?

[Ledinot]

Dan, I think that Ryuho is longer and wider than the Shohos; the hull length/beam ratio of Ryuho is app. 9,4 while the Shoho's is app. 11,3. Therefore, the Ruyho is proportionally slightly thicker. I rely only on information from the net; perhaps you have sources that are more trustworthy.

[Dan K]

Interestingly, Japanese sources reference either the waterline length or the overall length but never seem to offer both. That's why it's confusing. It turns out that the Chesnau book offers everything.

Shoho class as built:

OA length/beam: 205.5m x 18m
Flight deck: 180m x 23m

Ryuho as built:

OA length/beam: 215.7m x 19.8m
Flight deck: 185m x 23m


I know the late war flight deck extension for Ryuho added 15m. I believe it was the same for Zuiho.

[DennisJP]

You do realize that Ryuho is longer, and therefore, proportionally thinner, than the Shohos?

Yes, I knew Ryuho was bigger but not by much I think in 1/700 scale?

[Dan K]

OA length difference is 14.57mm, that's 5/8". It's considrable, IMHO, for 1/700 scale.

FD length difference is half of that.

[DennisJP]

OA length difference is 14.57mm, that's 5/8". It's considrable, IMHO, for 1/700 scale.

FD length difference is half of that.

With that much of a difference, one thing to try would be to find a straight area in the hull usually in the beam area where in looking at the photos not much detail is and insert a plastic piece to make the hull longer to be to scale. Same with the flight deck.
Just a thought. Don't know how messy it would be until I looked in detail at the photo's and dug into it. LOL :)
Then before though have to weigh the cost of the resin kit with quite a bit of scratch building and detailing compared to the Hasagawa kit some what detailed already, just a little cutting.

[Dan K]

Well, the Shoho class hulls do lend themselves to an insertion but, if you are interested in accuracy, there would be a fair amount of mods involved. Take a look again out the flight deck comparison diagram posted by Peppe. The elevator shapes and location alone will require major surgery or a scratchbuilt deck. There are differences in the hull spnsons and platforms as well.

Eventually, someone will produce Ryuho in styrene. Fujimi, probably.

[DennisJP]

the only other thing I can think of besides waiting for Fujimi or scratching everything (Gallery's ect) would be to buy a cheaper model that has the right AA gun sponson shapes and use the model as a parts model. If the drawings are accurate and the gun tubes are more hexagonal then a Unryu class model could be used for the AA catwalks.
Then I guess you have to compare the price of a parts model plus a Zuiho or Shoho to the actual Ryuho model if it can be purchased. I will probably shelf this and continue getting the other ones I want and come back to this latter. I know usually just about the time I would get the kits and start digging in they would come out with one.

[Dan K]

PitRoad is re-releasing its resin version of Shoho in its original configuration as the submarine tender Tsurugisaski later this summer - http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10190797

[DennisJP]

Problem solved!!! Fujimi is releasing two Ryuho kits after August. One is 1942 and the other 1945.

[DennisJP]

Also Pitroad is releasing as well a PLASTIC 1942 and 1945 Ryuho.

[Gernot]

OK, I bought the Fujimi Ry?h? (1945) kit and PE set. Looks good to me. I understand the carrier is not a sister to Sh?h? and Zuih?, but nevertheless, since her discussion appears in this thread, I'll post here.
Now I see that Pitroad has also brought out two versions of the kit, similar to Fujimi. I think, but could not check the boxes, that the Pitroad kits are full-hull, or at least have the option of full-hull. In any event, they are over 1000 JPY pricier.
Does anyone have the Pitroad kits or can venture an opinion of the relative quality of the Pitroad and Fujimi kits (both short-dekc and long-deck versions)?