The Ship Model Forum

Orb, that is an excellent Kirov . I have the DML one (see the Soviet Shipyard) but with mine lacking in the PE department the Trumpy one would win hands down. Trumpy kits are nice-in my opinion some of the most complete 1/700 plastic kits around.

Wolf that is a nice little scratchbuild . I hope you share the finished article.

Now continuing on a scratchbuild theme, here is my promised Gold Rover update.




As usual, all questions and comments welcomed!

orb wrote: Nektarios, great pictures! Could you perhaps recommend a good PE set which offers good flight deck safety nets? Which ones did/do you use?

I have used several PE sets with safety nets and i would recommend the GMM USN/JMSDF generic set.

ASFC

Nektarios wrote: I have used several PE sets with safety nets and i would recommend the GMM USN/JMSDF generic set.

Thanks Nektarios!

The Gold Rover is coming along nicely ASFC! Very interesting ship. I hadn't heard of it until I saw your pictures here. I imagine standing on that bridge looking down onto the forecastle must be pretty amazing

Wolf224, That's a very hansom ship and a fine model of the Magdeburg F 261! I bet that there are many modelers wishing for a production kit of her class. Keep the in-progress photos coming!

Orb, Your depiction of the Kirov tempts me to look into building it and maybe some other USSR ships. What color paint is used on the decks? It looks very detailed as 1/700 models go.

Nektarios, Your DDGs are wonderful and makes me anxious to get done with my USS Iowa and get back to my USS Sampson DDG-102.

ASFC, Thanks for the update photos on your Gold Rover build! Its turning out really nice!

NukeMM wrote:Nektarios, Your DDGs are wonderful and makes me anxious to get done with my USS Iowa and get back to my USS Sampson DDG-102.

When i started posting these photos i thought i d make you want to ignore the "One of each class-1/700 Post War" and want to build more variants for this class. Have i failed ???

Nektarios wrote:

NukeMM wrote:Nektarios, Your DDGs are wonderful and makes me anxious to get done with my USS Iowa and get back to my USS Sampson DDG-102.

When i started posting these photos i thought i d make you want to ignore the "One of each class-1/700 Post War" and want to build more variants for this class. Have i failed ???

I still have no desire to make more than one of each class, unless it is to depict a specific configuration change or to have one for single display and another (or two) of the same class for a harbor diorama. I still have a harbor diorama dream. The USS Kidd class DD was a variant of the Spruance class, I think, and I'd want to depict both of them. I am dissatisfied with the Skywave Spruance kit (USS Merrill) and I may make another Spruance from the Fujimi kit. I've heard that it is better.

Once that I am done with one of each class, I may go back and make duplicates. I may make more than one of each class if I'm not satisfied with a particular model, like the two Iowas that I have. The second one being the better of the two, in my opinion.

I may make another OHP and a Tico to display separately from the "Straight of Hormuz" diorama that I made using the USS Vincennes and USS Sides.

When I'm finished with the USN surface combatants, I'd like to go on to amphibious and auxiliary ships, and then maybe tackle some CVs.

The only actual desire to make more than one of a particular class would be the additional 1/350 Barnegat class seaplane tenders that I'd like to make, the flagships USS Greenwich Bay and USS Valcour, another USS Duxbury Bay and a USCG variant AVP. And maybe a fifth in an earlier WWII configuration.

Careful Carl, you touch a Kirov and you'll fall to the dark side!

If only you knew the power of the Dark Side... *breathing*

I personally use Vallejo for my paints - 981 Orange Brown for my decks, 905 Pale Bluegray for my main hull colour. I pick out details in Neutral Grey for a little extra definition on the ship. Kirovs are handsome ships, though. They do have some nice ships though, that's for certain, the lines are different, and the look is just so specific.

Hello ASFC
Your work looks very well ,
a couple of photos of your ship

http://www.fotosdebarcos.com/viewtopic.php?t=14928

best regards
( I�m better building models that writing english , I�sorry ... )

Thanks Carl! I spent quite some time reading different reviews and I always heard that the WEM colors are amongst the most realistic ones, so those were the ones I used. A little more expensive than others but good to work with. I tried to make the ship as detailed as possible and I must agree with Sauragnmon...the dark side is strong! I have a hunch that this ship will stay one of my favorite models for quite some time. Perhaps only a Slava or Sovremenny could top that?

Which leads me to the next "problem". I also have many ideas (too many?) as to what I'd like to build in the future and Russian ships will definitely be part of that. Originally I just wanted to build a USN carrier strike group, but an amphibious group also sounds very tempting. Just recently I got hold of a Typhoon class sub which I wanted to put in a diorama...as it is sitting in a harbor during a very cold Russian winter. Now that I've got the model, the sheer size makes me think that it might be a shame to throw the bottom 2/3 of it away. And then of course I also have two RN Type 42s laying around here... So many things one can think of and progress seems to be small, but then again, that's what makes this hobby interesting.

Ideas aren't a problem, Orb... they're inspiration. Your stash will grow, your ideas will spin, and you shall be stronger for it. The dockside at Murmansk idea would be pretty. You can see their docks in Google Earth - go to Severomorsk, you'll see the main dockyard, though if it's a recent update you won't see the Peter there, head north and west, paying attention for the inlets, and you'll soon find the submarine docks - you can't miss the Typhoons, they're docked on the east side of an inlet, in two pairs.

And besides, that's the way of modelling - it's addictive.

Pere wrote:Hello ASFC
Your work looks very well ,
a couple of photos of your ship

http://www.fotosdebarcos.com/viewtopic.php?t=14928

best regards
( I�m better building models that writing english , I�sorry ... )

Thank you. Some handy difficult to find close up photos of the rear of the Bridge aw well....cheers!

NukeMM wrote: I am dissatisfied with the Skywave Spruance kit (USS Merrill) and I may make another Spruance from the Fujimi kit. I've heard that it is better.

I do not agree with that Carl. I ve built both kits and although the Skywave kit is like 20 years older than the Fujimi one i do not find the kit much more detailed. Also the smaller parts (guns, CIWS, SS launcher) will need replacement. The only advantage this kit offers is that it has the widened hangar and maintenance enclosures for CIWS.

NukeMM wrote:When I'm finished with the USN surface combatants, I'd like to go on to amphibious and auxiliary ships, and then maybe tackle some CVs.

I surely want to see that.

Nektarios wrote:

NukeMM wrote: I am dissatisfied with the Skywave Spruance kit (USS Merrill) and I may make another Spruance from the Fujimi kit. I've heard that it is better.

I do not agree with that Carl. I ve built both kits and although the Skywave kit is like 20 years older than the Fujimi one i do not find the kit much more detailed. Also the smaller parts (guns, CIWS, SS launcher) will need replacement. The only advantage this kit offers is that it has the widened hangar and maintenance enclosures for CIWS.

NukeMM wrote:When I'm finished with the USN surface combatants, I'd like to go on to amphibious and auxiliary ships, and then maybe tackle some CVs.

I surely want to see that.

Well then, is there another decent 1/700 Spruance kit that doesn't have the error on the port side of the hangar like the Skywave 1/700 USS Merrill kit? Is there a new and corrected edition of this kit, and maybe under the a different ship's name , that doesn't have this error? There is a ledge on my kit on the same level as, and in between, the port helo pad and the small boat deck forward of that. I did not install the part that depicts a walkway deck from the helo pad to the boat storage deck, but there is still a ledge there, and you just can' scoot the hangar to the port, then that screws up the stbd side.

Sorry for the rant.





As I described in the narrative accompanying my gallery photos of my Merrill build:

I had trouble with the fit between the helo pad and the hangar section. The port side of the hangar, down to the main deck, is anatomically incorrect. Since Skywave uses the same hull for the Aegis CGs and the Spruance DDs, the Spruance hangar doesn't come out right on the port side. The Aegis CGs' hangars come down flush with the hull in this area so it assembles easily enough on those ships. I had to add some strip styrene to the helo pad piece just inside the hangar along the starboard hangar wall, otherwise there was a hole running along the inside starboard wall. The instructions show a walkway along the port side of the hangar above the main deck, but I've seen no Spruances with this feature.

Unless I missed something in how these pieces were to be assembled, in my opinion the Skywave Spruance kit is terribly flawed around the hangar area.

NukeMM wrote:Well then, is there another decent 1/700 Spruance kit that doesn't have the error on the port side of the hangar like the Skywave 1/700 USS Merrill kit? Is there a new and corrected edition of this kit, and maybe under the a different ship's name , that doesn't have this error? There is a ledge on my kit on the same level as, and in between, the port helo pad and the small boat deck forward of that. I did not install the part that depicts a walkway deck from the helo pad to the boat storage deck, but there is still a ledge there, and you just can' scoot the hangar to the port, then that screws up the stbd side.

The Fujimi kit doesn t have this mistake. All other kits in the market are Skywave variants and so they suffer from the same problems.

If you replace the kits weapons mentioned above the Fujimi kit isn t very bad. With your skills i m sure you ll make a very good kit out of it.

Well, why didn't you just say so, Nektarios?

NukeMM wrote:Well, why didn't you just say so, Nektarios?

NukeMM wrote:Well, why didn't you just say so, Nektarios?

I would have said but you didn t ask.

Seriously speaking the Fujimi kit isn t bad but it doesn t represent a huge improvement over the Skywave kit. In certain areas it is better but in other it is worse. I forgot to mention previously that the Fujimi kit masts are too thick.

Here are some photos of CVA-9. I have started to do some work on it 2 days ago.

Sauragnmon wrote:Ideas aren't a problem, Orb... they're inspiration. Your stash will grow, your ideas will spin, and you shall be stronger for it. The dockside at Murmansk idea would be pretty. You can see their docks in Google Earth - go to Severomorsk, you'll see the main dockyard, though if it's a recent update you won't see the Peter there, head north and west, paying attention for the inlets, and you'll soon find the submarine docks - you can't miss the Typhoons, they're docked on the east side of an inlet, in two pairs.

And besides, that's the way of modelling - it's addictive.

Ah, thanks Sauragnmon! I had actually found them earlier but only after having spent quite some time searching in the wrong place (yes, it was Polyarny and yes, it was because of the movie ) Still a sad sight to see those things just sitting there and rotting. I will definitely build one or two of them in the future but right now my focus is on surface ships.