The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:58 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 478 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:42 am
Posts: 13
Will try that, thank you Miguel.

Also, I've been scanning through all the comments on this forum here (all 23 pages, comments from 10 years ago :shock: ) but I was wondering if there are any glaring mistakes in the Tamiya kit as depicting Repulse on the day she sunk? It seems most of the discussion here has to do with the Trumpeter kit or for those who were interested in her appearance before Dec. 1941.
Thanks again!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2019 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:14 am
Posts: 208
Location: SE Michigan
Duke wrote:
Will try that, thank you Miguel.

Also, I've been scanning through all the comments on this forum here (all 23 pages, comments from 10 years ago :shock: ) but I was wondering if there are any glaring mistakes in the Tamiya kit as depicting Repulse on the day she sunk? It seems most of the discussion here has to do with the Trumpeter kit or for those who were interested in her appearance before Dec. 1941.
Thanks again!


The after deck house is the wrong shape. It was changed when they modified the Repulse for the royal family in late 1938/early 1939. This removed the 4" BD mounts that were added in the earlier 1936 refit. The BD mounts were replaced with old Mk V 4" mounts but the shape of the deckhouse was changed to an asymmetrical shape with one side of the structure being bigger than the other. She did not actually end up carrying the Royal family and instead was just an escort for them. I've always been amazed that they never bothered to upgrade her to Mk XVI twin mounts, but I due understand there was probably shortages of mounts AND the time necessary for the change over.

_________________
Our CO prior to flying to the boomer: “Our goals on this patrol is to shoot missiles and torpedoes.”
Junior Nuke Officer (me) : “Captain, don’t we really want to be like Monty Python and ‘Not be seen’?”
CO “You seem to be missing the big picture”
“Oh”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:42 am
Posts: 13
Yes, as far as I can see, the Flyhawk pe corrects the aft deck house issues.

I have another question that I hope someone could shed some light on - I'm not certain of Tamiya's representation of the walls on top of the aft superstructure. I'm not certain what this part is called, perhaps the flying deck? But I've circled in red on my images what I mean. It seems that in the Trumpeter version, there are no gaps in the walls, at least on the port side.
Could anyone clarify this for me?
Thanks in advance!
https://imgur.com/qVyoczc https://imgur.com/P61H7GU


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 1445
Location: England
That area was not initially enclosed. It was open at the sides except for the braces holding up the deck above. This seems to remain the case after her 1936 refit. However, some pictures and other sources I have indicate that after the 1939 refit this area was enclosed on both sides, with square windows on at least part of the starboard side.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 237
Greetings All,

Your friendly neighbourhood Hood guy here...but with some questions that do not concern our beloved "7Bs!" I can never seem to finish my models of Hood. The problem is that I know WHAT to do, but lack the necessary skills to do notable pieces of it. Then there are the periodic changes which arise (right EJ?!). As a result, things are "OBE" and I never get far. My skills, already spotty, have become even more lacking. So, I thought I should get some practice in whilst trying my hand at a different ship. I wanted to “keep it in family” though, so I thought I’d try one of her less-pretty step-sisters :big_grin: . Being a fan of Clyde-built ships, the choice was obvious...Repulse. So, I’m trying my hand at the Tamiya 1/700 kit of her as sunk.

Although I don't plan on going into insane levels of detail, I do want to take it to a reasonable level (at least a little more detailed than a standard out-of-the-box build). Unfortunately, there are some things that I'm still unclear about. I did check the forum but there are still some things that were either conflicting or confusing (to me). So, I do apologise if some of this has been asked before. Hopefully some of you will be able to help.

1. Deck Composition-Planked vs Painted Metal Areas
I know that most of the large deck spaces on Repulse were planked in 1941. I also know that areas such as the focsle, bridge decks, platforms around the funnel, mast platforms, etc. were likely painted with non-slip paints. I plan on using an Artwox deck veneer for this model (I've always painted them before, but I figured I'd try an actual wood deck this time). They provide wood for most of the decks...including some areas that I find questionable. So, I'm looking for proof (or at least the latest consensus) regarding these areas:

Attachment:
tamiyadecks.jpg
tamiyadecks.jpg [ 136.14 KiB | Viewed 11542 times ]


A. Raised deck aft of B turret and forward of the bridge- the Tamiya kit (part A6) shows this as planked, but I’ve seen at least one 1941 photo of her at sea which shows a very dark deck which looks different in shade than the confirmed planked area ahead. It suggestive of painted steel. I also could’ve sworn I’ve seen earlier photos showing no planking in this area just behind "B" (but to be honest, I can't recall "when" the photos were from and they could've been from before the planking was originally added). What’s the consensus?

B. Shelter Deck- the Tamiya kit (part B29) does not depict the correct shape of this structure (I know to create the expanded Royal Compartment to starboard). Tamiya also shows this entire area as planked. I am unclear on whether this was actually fully planked. I know that the original area was planked, but am not sure if it was expanded to the two side wings (or if it was all removed or painted later). Has anyone ever been able to verify this? This is one of those areas for which I've seen conflicting info.

C. Aircraft Catapult Area- I believe this was planked. Can anyone verify this?

2. Missing Details
A. Rear Superstructure- this is the Shelter Deck and upper structure just forward of “Y” turret (formed by parts B29 and B44). The Tamiya kit is very bare/plain in this area (just like their Hood) and in need of even the most cursory detail. Can anyone share an accurate plan scan showing the location of portholes, windows, bulkhead vents and doors in Dec ‘41? The only thing I ask is that you please not use Kagero or the Morskie stuff...after their flawed Hood products (sigh), I’m afraid I don’t have much confidence in them.

Attachment:
tamiyashelter.jpg
tamiyashelter.jpg [ 95.12 KiB | Viewed 11542 times ]


B. Various- I know I need to add vents around "B" barbette. I also understand that there should be no AAA gun tubs forward or atop "Y" turrets (but assume the ones abreast the aft superstructure and mainmast were indeed present). I also need to enclose the port side of part B45 (but am unclear about starboard).

3. Paint Scheme-
I believe the current understanding is that the ship was painted in medium and very dark grey shades (not AP507C and black). Presumably, wood decks would be dulled down and metal decks would be non-slip dark grey. Do we know if the upper portion of the mainmast (above the starfish) was painted in the standard white? Anyway, it seems like we may never get this one 100% nailed down, so I guess it calls for some artistic license (no problem there). There is one thing that seems odd to me though: I’ve noticed that many folks model the ship’s forward turrets as all one shade of light grey (including the tops). I’ve seen at least one clear photo from ‘41 that clearly shows dark turret tops for “A” and “B” turrets (or at least darker than the main shade used on that area of the ship). The big question is, was it still this way when she departed for her final mission?

My apologies for asking so many questions. I can tell you exactly what to replace/detail on the Tamiya Hood (we got the same questions sooooo many times that we ultimately put together an article for our website). This, however, is NOT Hood, so I need help! I really want to finish something for once and I think this would be a great kit for the endeavor. Many thanks in advance.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:31 am 
Frank,

Please check your e-mail and/or messages, when you get a free minute!

--Dan


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 237
Guest wrote:
Frank,

Please check your e-mail and/or messages, when you get a free minute!

--Dan

Many thanks Dan!

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 487
Location: England
Frank,

I am unconvinced by the suggestion that the 'lights' were a medium rather than a light grey, or that the 'darks' were not black or near black. It contradicts what you see in photos of Repulse in her contrast scheme. I suspect this idea has come from the selective quotation of a particular sentence that Tennant wrote in one particular missive responding to his boss VABCS. But this sentence needs to be seen in the wider context of all the exchanges between Tennant and his boss when trying to cajole VABCS into accepting the merits of Repulse's home-grown ideas for camouflage painting and also the overall time from Tennant's first proposal until he ultimately paints his ship his way. The sentence may well not describe what Tennant first intended or ultimately did. It requires a lengthy explanation but I thought I would just put a marker down right away.


Best wishes,

Richard


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:42 am
Posts: 13
FW_Allen wrote:
Guest wrote:
Frank,

Please check your e-mail and/or messages, when you get a free minute!

--Dan

Many thanks Dan!


Hi Frank,

Would you mind sharing what Dan had sent you, as I am also building the Tamiya kit as sunk, and have basically the same questions/confusions as you do.
Would greatly appreciate that.

Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 237
Duke wrote:
Hi Frank,

Would you mind sharing what Dan had sent you, as I am also building the Tamiya kit as sunk, and have basically the same questions/confusions as you do.
Would greatly appreciate that.

Thanks!


I'd love to help, but I can only share things if he approves it. To be honest, I do not intend to build a 100% accurate/super-precise miniature. I was hoping this would be a less challenging build to help me regenerate my skills and get me back into modelling...but so far its requiring lots of changes and I see potential for burnout and build abandonment. So, rather than do that, I will only correct the most glaring errors (i.e, Royal apartments and things of that nature).

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:42 am
Posts: 13
FW_Allen wrote:
Duke wrote:
Hi Frank,

Would you mind sharing what Dan had sent you, as I am also building the Tamiya kit as sunk, and have basically the same questions/confusions as you do.
Would greatly appreciate that.

Thanks!


I'd love to help, but I can only share things if he approves it. To be honest, I do not intend to build a 100% accurate/super-precise miniature. I was hoping this would be a less challenging build to help me regenerate my skills and get me back into modelling...but so far its requiring lots of changes and I see potential for burnout and build abandonment. So, rather than do that, I will only correct the most glaring errors (i.e, Royal apartments and things of that nature).


I started this build with the intention of using it to work on "advanced" techniques, like error-fixing, scratch-building, and airbrushing. But I, too, also thought that this would be a less challenging build than I had initially thought, and while I don't mind that too much (just taking it slowly, it's not a race to finish first...), but what's difficult is trying to gleam off as much up-to-date information as possible from a forum that's well over 10 years old, and without having to purchase too many books and other references.
That said, I hope he approves :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 237
Duke wrote:
I started this build with the intention of using it to work on "advanced" techniques, like error-fixing, scratch-building, and airbrushing. But I, too, also thought that this would be a less challenging build than I had initially thought, and while I don't mind that too much (just taking it slowly, it's not a race to finish first...), but what's difficult is trying to gleam off as much up-to-date information as possible from a forum that's well over 10 years old, and without having to purchase too many books and other references.
That said, I hope he approves :thumbs_up_1:


This is why we opted to write-up articles on some of the most popular kits of Hood on the Hood Association's website. The idea was to highlight key issues for those who wish to accurise/detail their models. The articles are a bit rough and by no means highlight 100% of all issues (nor do we cover all models), but they are good starting points. Of course, it was easy for us as we specialise in a single ship. Naturally we understand that not everyone wants to go that far and that's just fine. It doesn't matter if some of the models aren't perfect...we're happy to know that people are building Hood. Too much rivet counting puts some people off. We need interest in the ship(s) and the hobby to grow.

Perhaps someone will ultimately do likewise for Repulse (maybe even for that "other ship" that "assaulted" Hood in 1935, :big_grin: LOL). A list here, in the forum of the common errors. If not for specific models, then perhaps a list of mistakes common to most if not all models. What does everyone always get wrong for Repulse as sunk (or whatever timeframe the other kits cover)? That sort of thing might be a very useful starting point for most folks. Maybe pieces of this sort of thing already exists, buried in various threads (quite possible). Its just a suggestion for those who know Repulse well. There's no way I'd ever attempt it myself as my familiarity lies solely with Hood. In the meantime, I'll attempt to build my little Repulse to a degree of accuracy I feel comfortable with, then get back to my beloved "7Bs." Of course, I might take a detour and finish my old Revell Gokstad drakkar/long ship or my old AMT zeppelin Macon first...

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2293
"7Bs" ?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 2:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 237
DavidP wrote:
"7Bs" ?


That's a variation of Hood's real nickname amongst the crew...at least by the late 30s. I've also seen 5Bs and 6Bs. That "Mighty Hood" stuff was indeed used, but mainly by clean-cut types and of course for the public, etc. Start with 5Bs and you have the shortest and cleanest nickname which is "Britain's Biggest Battlecruiser Built by Brown." Now, add some words to describe bovine scatology (or reproductive components) and a fatherless child and you can reach a full 7Bs (pronounced "Seven Bees" by the way)...

Darn Hood guy has hijacked the Repulse forum! Sorry about that! Back to our regularly scheduled programme featuring HMS Repair, uh, I mean Repulse...

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2019 3:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 1:27 pm
Posts: 90
Location: Caumont-sur-Durance, France
My understanding is that the nickname really should be "Mighty 'ood" and not "Mighty Hood" because the term was used first by a tabloid newspaper journalist in the 1920s, purportedly quoting a member of the lower deck.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:11 am 
I am also trying to build HMS Repulse in 1/350 scale from the trumpeter kit but have become stalled because of the many unanswered questions about the ship’s configuration in 1941. Therefore I very much support Frank Allen’s plea for a summary of the major changes that are required.
Any help gratefully received!

Happy modelling everyone

Jonathan


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 237
My Tamiya 1/700 “Repair” is going very slowly. I’ve only done a little work on the Flying Deck (FD)so far. These are mostly easy modifications (though executed somewhat roughly as I’m rather ham-fisted at times). You can see some of this in the attached photo.

Attachment:
8999F6DC-25B4-4825-AB9A-63B5A01F6E09.jpeg
8999F6DC-25B4-4825-AB9A-63B5A01F6E09.jpeg [ 91.63 KiB | Viewed 10817 times ]


1. I’ve filled in the portside bulkhead plus part of the starboard bulkhead (to include adding the angular inboard portion).
2. I added the larger portholes (my drill bit the size is prob a tad large) to both sides.
3. I corrected the shape (it’s much closer to the actual shape but not quite exact)of the pentagonal structure under the HACS pedestal.
4. I reduced the width of the four large vents (only the forward pair are seen dry-fitted into place).
5. I filled in the trunk/vent hole at the pointed aft end.
6. I’ve also cut off the two side compartments from the Shelter Deck (SD) below that.

I still have a bit of work to do to the FD before I start really working on the SD:

Off the top of my head I know that I still need to remove the “racks” (raised lines)around the edges of the rear angular portion of the deck. I have to add the starboard side pillars. I also need to add a ladder way or two. More portholes must be added, plus square windows, vents, HACS support braces and the usual photoetch (doors, hatches, rails, etc.). I also need to refine the four large vents alter the shape a bit, adjust the heights, etc. It won’t be precise, but it will be more accurate than out of the box.

As for the shelter deck below it, my next step will be to remove the mounded-in benches, add portholes and then get to work on the Royal Apartments. Flyhawk makes a detail set, but there appears to be some issues with the starboard apartments...so it’s strip/sheet styrene time I guess. Else I have to make a new angular vent that will rise up and near the end of the FD.

So progress of sorts! I just hope I don’t get burnt out and quit before I get to the SD ( which, knowing my history, is highly likely). Of course, I can always move to the model in the background ( as plain/under-detailed as it is, I still have a soft spot for the ol’ Tamiya Hood...I’m gonna build a mostly out of the box (only minor updates and minimal photoetch details) to use for quick reference and for handling (thus the reason it can’t be too intricate). It’s not too dissimilar to what we used to do for enemy threat recognition in my Air Force days...those little models were useful to our pilots and backseaters, etc. As well as I know the ship, it’s still good to have a reference mode, when viewing photos. I suppose if I get frustrated, I could do the same with this Repulse...

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:50 pm
Posts: 237
Well, I'm shelving the Tamiya 1/700 kit. Requires too much work (for me at this point in time). I can't do much right now anyway...I'm down to one arm for a couple of months (detached a bicep...ouch!). Besides, if I am going to put that much work into something, it really should be Hood. Maybe I'll revisit this Repulse kit someday though.

_________________
Frank Allen
H.M.S. Hood Association
http://www.hmshood.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 478 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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