1/700 HMS Hood (as sunk) by pascalemod / COMPLETE

[pascalemod]

Humbrol 27 is XF-54 but it may be a touch too dark for 1/700. The colour issue is really subjective indeed so up to you on that one

For the degaussing, I'm really struggling with my references. Best I can do for you is the Anatomy of the Ship book. It shows the cable roughly following the deck line, although slightly separating from it once it's past the muzzles of Y turret and wrapping around the stern a little bit below the deck, a gap about it's own width. Can't be 100% but I don't think you can go very wrong with that. Honestly though, I don't know how fine the PE degaussing cable you have is but looking at how small the stern is in 1/700 it will barely make a difference.

Mate, you see how crazy I am about these details? But I came to same conclusion as you. It goes ahead as suggested.

Now, XF 54 is a Dark Grey and usually used in German warships to show the dark grey (think bismarck hull "ends" in Baltic camo). I would say in 1/700 you need to dilute it 20% or so with white in order to get scaled dark grey. Therefore on Hood it wouldnt be my starting point - however the XF66 they recommend on HMS Hood Association website to me just looks bland grey and not close enough to the bluish hue of a british warship.. So I will be using a custom mix that to my eyes suits, and we can debate this till cows go home:

[Vlad]

I find the Hood association colour page a bit confusing. At the top it states that AP507A and B were the same colour mix, with B being more glossy and therefore appearing slightly lighter in photos. The research for this is fairly recent. However, further down the page in the May 1941 section they continue to recommend medium and light grey paints in accordance to the now discredited belief that AP507B was a medium grey halfway between 507s A and C. To me it just feels like the site was only partially updated or they're deliberately sitting on the fence on the issue.

Now, I generally don't subscribe to the scale lightening principle and I'm usually quite happy to use dark and/or vibrant colors on my builds. Hood was difficult for me because of the need to reconcile my own biases and perceptions of the ship being medium grey (fuelled by decades of seeing models and other sources painted wrong) with the new research saying she always was dark grey (except in the Med).

If I was painting a ship that I knew was AP507A (and always perceived as dark in my mind, for example Hood in the 1920s or Royal Oak in 1939), I would not hesitate to reach for a much darker colour, something like Extra Dark Sea Grey (I use Xtracrylix for that one but an online search turns up Tamiya XF-63 as a possible match). If AP507B is the same colour, my starting point of Humbrol 27 (XF-54) is already lighter by enough to account for the gloss. For me anyway.

[SovereignHobbies]

I think a partial update is probably what has happened.

I fully support their latest position though - I've been elbow deep in RN paint research cutting through all the chaff and getting right back to original official documentation with the assistance of 4 notable forum members from here.

It's as plain as day in these period official documents that 507A was simply a cheaper version of Home Fleet Grey replacing the "luxury" version called 507B which had enamel in it for harder wearing, which made 507B glossier than 507A.

We (the research group that is) are working through some anomalies surrounding the way colours are and were previously measured, but are of the opinion that Home Fleet Grey was somewhere between what Snyder & Short present as "AP507A Dark Grey" and "AP507B Medium Grey". The dark greys observed on turret tops and similar appear to be examples of officially documented non-slip deck paints, which were available in a range of colours including Dark Grey, Home Fleet Grey, and so on getting lighter.

I think somewhere along the line someone has become a bit muddled. It does mean that quite a few currently accepted RN schemes (such as Warspite being in 507A and 507B disruptive) simply cannot be correct.

Home Fleet Grey will be settled fairly soon I think. I've just released a new B5 / B15 today and will be releasing a free to download PDF explaining how we arrived at the particular shade. We will do the same for Home Fleet Grey.

[pascalemod]

I think a partial update is probably what has happened.

I fully support their latest position though - I've been elbow deep in RN paint research cutting through all the chaff and getting right back to original official documentation with the assistance of 4 notable forum members from here.

It's as plain as day in these period official documents that 507A was simply a cheaper version of Home Fleet Grey replacing the "luxury" version called 507B which had enamel in it for harder wearing, which made 507B glossier than 507A.

We (the research group that is) are working through some anomalies surrounding the way colours are and were previously measured, but are of the opinion that Home Fleet Grey was somewhere between what Snyder & Short present as "AP507A Dark Grey" and "AP507B Medium Grey". The dark greys observed on turret tops and similar appear to be examples of officially documented non-slip deck paints, which were available in a range of colours including Dark Grey, Home Fleet Grey, and so on getting lighter.

I think somewhere along the line someone has become a bit muddled. It does mean that quite a few currently accepted RN schemes (such as Warspite being in 507A and 507B disruptive) simply cannot be correct.

Home Fleet Grey will be settled fairly soon I think. I've just released a new B5 / B15 today and will be releasing a free to download PDF explaining how we arrived at the particular shade. We will do the same for Home Fleet Grey.

Do you have a pic of your proposed Hood 1941 paint, best you think of? To me it just would make sense it would be a darker shade of gray because 1) it would serve in Atlantic and 2) it is up north and 3) it is a camouflage that needs to blend the ship into the water as best as possible. So from all of these, a light gray makes no sense, a dark gray makes MORE sense and a shade of blue or green is only a result of reflections in different photos, film, etc and as such the hue is free to interpretation.

Here is where i am at right now after few test paints. Thoughts? The pic ofc is of Hood in 1939, but scheme stays I believe. Also, my favourite is the bottom left pic.

[SovereignHobbies]

No, I can't post any such image at this time. That's not to say I don't have a good idea what it looks like, but as a company in the business of selling model paints we claim to be the best quality going I can't publish anything until the research is complete.

It was a fairly dark grey with a blue, NOT a green quality. The pigments used were white, black and ultramarine blue only.

[pascalemod]

No, I can't post any such image at this time. That's not to say I don't have a good idea what it looks like, but as a company in the business of selling model paints we claim to be the best quality going I can't publish anything until the research is complete.

It was a fairly dark grey with a blue, NOT a green quality. The pigments used were white, black and ultramarine blue only.

IF you look at the pic I posted - does the image at the bottom strike close or way off, in your opinion?

[SovereignHobbies]

I think the square on the bottom left is a reasonable representation. HFG wasn't as light as S&S 507B but was lighter than their 507A. There's a lot of variance in photographs because of different types of films, different exposure times on the cameras and different lighting conditions.

[pascalemod]

I think the square on the bottom left is a reasonable representation. HFG wasn't as light as S&S 507B but was lighter than their 507A. There's a lot of variance in photographs because of different types of films, different exposure times on the cameras and different lighting conditions.

Thanks! I am trying not to create too many problems for myself on this build and get too much into the weeds.

As it happens, I just purchased the 3D printed turrets that cost more than the kit, so yeah, now there is that too.

[SovereignHobbies]

Advanced Modelling Syndrome. It gets most people sooner or later

[Vlad]

Ah, so both the old S&S 507A and 507B were wrong? I assumed the 507A was correct and was basing my darker interpretations on that, I shall have to re-evaluate my own colour perceptions. When I saw XF-66 initially I googled it and it looked too light to my eyes, but now seeing your mixes as you photographed them (and next to the same colour footage I was using as reference) the blue mix looks great

Good luck with the turrets, I hope you'll be as impressed with them as I was. I dry-brushed mine the other day and the tiny rivet details just popped out and they looked amazing. Just make sure you cure them in sunlight when you get them, clean them up well and prime them. You're using acrylics so you should have no painting issues (3D printed parts do NOT like enamels).

I hope you're going to be doing a WIP thread, I look forward to seeing this come together!

[SovereignHobbies]

I don't think 507A is wrong per se, just perhaps not actually relevant to WW2. The chip is annotated with a 1920 date.

We've got a timeline we've been compiling of pattern 507 greys and when they first appeared, when they were revised etc and the pigmentation for them. Whilst 507C existed continuously, in 1929ish there was a survey of Captains asking if better quality paint would help reduce time spent painting. The consensus was "yes" so 507A disappeared and 507B appeared in its place as a durable glossy paint. The pigments were shifted around a bit generally tending towards lighter. Blue was introduced, at first Egyptian Blue then changed to Ultramarine Blue, all the while called either Home Fleet Grey or Dark Grey (Home Fleet Shade) in documents.

[pascalemod]

Ah, so both the old S&S 507A and 507B were wrong? I assumed the 507A was correct and was basing my darker interpretations on that, I shall have to re-evaluate my own colour perceptions. When I saw XF-66 initially I googled it and it looked too light to my eyes, but now seeing your mixes as you photographed them (and next to the same colour footage I was using as reference) the blue mix looks great

Good luck with the turrets, I hope you'll be as impressed with them as I was. I dry-brushed mine the other day and the tiny rivet details just popped out and they looked amazing. Just make sure you cure them in sunlight when you get them, clean them up well and prime them. You're using acrylics so you should have no painting issues (3D printed parts do NOT like enamels).

I hope you're going to be doing a WIP thread, I look forward to seeing this come together!

I will be experimenting a bit with adding glossy blue instead of matte blue which I happen to have too. This mix might actually do the trick and make the paint slightly glossy as I think it should look. Lets see. I really would like to get this thing accurate now, but that means Im also placing a lot of pressure on myself and this costs fun. Also, the rivet counters will eat me alive for getting some part of a porthole wrong. So Ill take it easy but will post a WIP thread soon.

Meanwhile my IG (https://www.instagram.com/pascalemod/) has all my builds where I find posting is WAY easier compared to this forum where the pics need to be in certain size, I need to bring them from my phone to the laptop, etc. But I wanna get impressions of people who are not on IG, so WIP thread will be up and running. I have another 2 ships in parallel WIP so there is plenty of material.

[pascalemod]

Progress - turrets arrived as well. Yes, worth the upgrade totally! Saves time on construction too and Im gonna compare - may be add those brass barrels. Time to set these into daylight and get them "cured".

[Vlad]

Glad you like them have to point out though, you have A and B turrets the wrong way around in that picture

[pascalemod]

Glad you like them have to point out though, you have A and B turrets the wrong way around in that picture

Well I wouldnt make that mistake when assembling

Ive started installing the PE from flyhawk.

Few observations:
1) The PE brass is quite thin and flares out on large parts a bit too much. Might be good in this scale but a paint to work with
2) IT calls for removal of some parts of the superstructure as you attach brass sheets. There is no replacement parts provided. Case in point the rear plate between barbette and the superstructure now needs installation of some piping.
3) There is way too much stuff that is pointlessly small and for scale dont need to be there like the 1mm or less triangles that go on wavebrreakers.
4) brass barrels are only for main caliber - I think if you make a huge set and include barrels, throw in secondaries at least, I can pay an extra buck

So while this PE set is huge, Im gonna skip SOME of it. On Bismarck build I used Eduard set - just one sheet, and used everything. And it was very plain sailing. Here Im fighting it a lot. But thats part of the fun!

[Vlad]

Yup, I agree some PE manufacturers go really overboard with the things they include, especially in 1/700. I generally go very light on PE because I like to build fairly stress free and actually finish thing. But I do have a "full" Flyhawk set for an IJN Atago that I bought when I got really excited about the prospect and am now terrified to touch! I will also probably end up not using some of it.

For the detail removal, what I've done in the past is use the "chisel" attachment on my hobby knife, which I don't use often and therefore is usually very sharp even if not brand new. Because of the shape of the blade you can push it along the deck/bulkhead and carefully remove details while leaving them intact, then reattach them later. I've done this with bollards and other small deck fittings in 1/700.

[pascalemod]

Yup, I agree some PE manufacturers go really overboard with the things they include, especially in 1/700. I generally go very light on PE because I like to build fairly stress free and actually finish thing. But I do have a "full" Flyhawk set for an IJN Atago that I bought when I got really excited about the prospect and am now terrified to touch! I will also probably end up not using some of it.

For the detail removal, what I've done in the past is use the "chisel" attachment on my hobby knife, which I don't use often and therefore is usually very sharp even if not brand new. Because of the shape of the blade you can push it along the deck/bulkhead and carefully remove details while leaving them intact, then reattach them later. I've done this with bollards and other small deck fittings in 1/700.

Deck fittings are something Im gonna leave, except the hoses on deck. The ammunition boxes will be left, I dont think making those makes a lot of sense out of PE for example. Im yet to prime it, so once Ive done that I can judge how bad it looks as is.

[pascalemod]

An update on the Hood. Few comments:

1) Turrets.
Ive received the turrets and tried to paint them. Paint doesnt stick too well, and I didnt know I had to scrape off attachment points, so that was my bad and hence you see scraped off sides of the turrets. The issue though is that it seems like the roof of the turret has a finger like texture on it and Im not sure how to properly remove it. Anyone has ideas?

2) General comment on Flyhawk as I go alone - I think it calls for the absolute top end modeller. I suspect Eduards PE set is going to be much better-stronger, even if brass is a bit thicker. I think longevity is important and I think Flyhawk is so thin you can break it by looking at it. SO thats why Im not doing cages on the funnel tops. Ill weather them best I can, and hope rigging above will distract.

3) Hood hull halves are an utter nightmare for me to merge, putty galore, etc. Im gonna do best I can and this is a hull with paint stripped from it from first try. Super annoyed but Im still hanging in there!

4) Trumpeter instructions are pound for pound worse than Revell and worse than Bismarck, and the order and logic of assembly, as well as part numbering is messed up. You just dont join A1, A2 with G3 roof and B2 rear wall to make a little box. Its like an alien came up with this system who is devoid of earth logic, but I digress.

on to pics:

[Vlad]

Looking good!

For the turrets, did you follow all the preparation steps for 3D printed parts, cleaning, leaving them in sunlight and/or under a UV lamp for a bit, priming? If nothing else you absolutely need to prime the parts, ideally with something a bit stronger than hobby paint. I use acrylic car body primer, comes in rattle cans from my DIY store for doing paint touch ups on your car. Not sure what brand you have where you live but there's bound to be an equivalent.

What attachment points? I don't recall having to sand anything off on my turrets.

The texture is a result of the 3D printing process, it's basically the rows it prints in. It doesn't bother me that much. I've seen threads on this site where people go to great lengths to smooth it (there was talk of lightly sand blasting the parts) but for me a couple of layers of primer and then paint does the job of covering it very well.

[pascalemod]

Some progress shots to update the thread. Ive been busy, as it seems to happen to many, but I had struggled so far a lot with the build. Mainly the PE from Flyhawk is hell so I need to figure out better ways to add it but so far, here is the progress.

Painted hull, boot topping, turrets, funnels, did few superstructures. Going to focus properly on the wooden deck next.