Calling all IJN Fuso (扶桑) and Yamashiro (山城) fans

[tenacioustanaka]

Is anyone privy to the knowledge of whether or not Flyhawk or any of the PE companies will do a DEDICATED super PE set for the new release 1/700 Fujimi '44 Fuso and Yamashiro?

[Haijun watcher]

Is anyone privy to the knowledge of whether or not Flyhawk or any of the PE companies will do a DEDICATED super PE set for the new release 1/700 Fujimi '44 Fuso and Yamashiro?

What's wrong with using this PE set from Fujimi, advertised on the Ebay link below, that is for their Yamashiro kit?

Ebay

[tenacioustanaka]

Is anyone privy to the knowledge of whether or not Flyhawk or any of the PE companies will do a DEDICATED super PE set for the new release 1/700 Fujimi '44 Fuso and Yamashiro?

What's wrong with using this PE set from Fujimi, advertised on the Ebay link below, that is for their Yamashiro kit?

Ebay

I'm sure it is a decent fret and nothing wrong there. BUT...... if I am going to build one of these ships, I prefer to begin with a set that gives me as much brass as possible from the get go. That is why I'm anxious to see Flyhawk or some other major etcher do a super set dedicated for the brand of kit I choose to work with.

I have the Aoshima offerings for both ships and now that I see there is too much AWKWARD work to correct them to my tastes, I'd prefer to begin with something that is more correct right off the bat, which is what Fujimi offers.

[Pagodaphile]

Is anyone privy to the knowledge of whether or not Flyhawk or any of the PE companies will do a DEDICATED super PE set for the new release 1/700 Fujimi '44 Fuso and Yamashiro?

What's wrong with using this PE set from Fujimi, advertised on the Ebay link below, that is for their Yamashiro kit?

Ebay

I have the Fujimi set like that for their Hiei. While these are nice starter sets, they don't qualify as "Super Sets" compared to the current releases from Flyhawk, Rainbow and Five Star.

I have the same quest Tenacious.... after learning too late of the shortcomings of Aoshima's Fuso and Yamashiro molds. While the FH supers fit the Aoshimas, the pagoda's are problematic for Fujimi.

[Atma]

While the FH supers fit the Aoshimas, the pagoda's are problematic for Fujimi.

Thats cause the FlyHawk PE set is not made for Fujimi, it was made for the simplistic Aoshima's pagoda.

[tenacioustanaka]

Hey Atma, speaking of supersets, have you seen that mammoth 1/700 Kongo set from Veteran Models? What is your take on that if you have?

[Henk]

Quick question:

What is the difference between the Fuso Fuijimi 1935 and Fuso Fuijimi 1938?
Is it just a single AA-gun like the 1938 with the early war version or is the difference more significant?

Greetings,

Henk

[Haijun watcher]

Hello all,

This question is for those who have built or are building Aoshima models of this class.

I have the Aoshima 1942 version of the Yamashiro that I intend to build. Does anyone know if the wooden deck intended for the Aoshima 1944 Yamashiro version can fit on the 1942 kit?

I ask because most vendors at Ebay, such as the one below, are selling wooden decks only intended for the 1944 version. There doesn't seem to be a wooden deck for the 42 version, at least from what I see in my searches so far.

Ebay ad: Yamashiro wooden deck for Aoshima

Those vendors whom I do ask either don't reply or say their ad is for a 1944 kit.

[Haijun watcher]

Ahem, anyone please?

Hello all,

This question is for those who have built or are building Aoshima models of this class.

I have the Aoshima 1942 version of the Yamashiro that I intend to build. Does anyone know if the wooden deck intended for the Aoshima 1944 Yamashiro version can fit on the 1942 kit?

I ask because most vendors at Ebay, such as the one below, are selling wooden decks only intended for the 1944 version. There doesn't seem to be a wooden deck for the 42 version, at least from what I see in my searches so far.

Ebay ad: Yamashiro wooden deck for Aoshima

Those vendors whom I do ask either don't reply or say their ad is for a 1944 kit.

[Mike W]

One of my next upcoming projects is Aoshima's 1/700 Fuso (1944). I posted a question in the general part of the forum about the open 25mm mounts that were fitted with shields and one opinion suggested that most ships in 1944/5 would have had them fitted.

I can't see anything in the 'Anatomy' Fuso book about shielded 25mm mounts but I realise that there may be more information available then when that books was written. So is there any new info to suggest whether both Fuso and indeed Yamashiro (I have that to build too) had shielded 25mm mounts by the time of Leyte Gulf?

thanks
Mike

[blacman]

.... BUT...... if I am going to build one of these ships, I prefer to begin with a set that gives me as much brass as possible from the get go....

Hi JJ,
I'm seriously consider take a challenge with Yamashiro and PE replacement....
Since structure around funnel and stern bridge is not a big deal - main pagoda needs some big efforts. All the minor stuff is ready. I'm collecting reference materials right now... looks like the most comprehensive is Anatomy of the Ship by Janusz Skulski. I have Fujimi kit already. need few months to design the PE set.
Greg

[Mike W]

Any ideas on shielded 25mm mounts on Fuso + Yamashiro crica Leyte Gulf?

thanks
Mike

[Jonathan]

Ahem, anyone please?

Hello all,

This question is for those who have built or are building Aoshima models of this class.

I have the Aoshima 1942 version of the Yamashiro that I intend to build. Does anyone know if the wooden deck intended for the Aoshima 1944 Yamashiro version can fit on the 1942 kit?

I ask because most vendors at Ebay, such as the one below, are selling wooden decks only intended for the 1944 version. There doesn't seem to be a wooden deck for the 42 version, at least from what I see in my searches so far.

Ebay ad: Yamashiro wooden deck for Aoshima

Those vendors whom I do ask either don't reply or say their ad is for a 1944 kit.

Hi Haijun. I have the 1944 deck and etch set for Aoshima Yamashiro, the instructions definitely refer to the differences that need to be made to the etch set if installing as 1942 version so it does seem to be a generic set fit for both although as I only have the deck set and neither 42 or 44 kit I cant say for definite that the deck fits the 42 kit.

[Haijun watcher]

Thanks Jonathan for your feedback.

Unfortunately, I already sold my 1942 Aoshima Yamashiro kit, but your advice may yet help other posters here.

[seigersallee]

Hi all,

Well, I want to purchase either the
Aoshima (050880) 1/700 1938 Fuso
Fujimi (43115) TOKU-74 1/700 1938 Fuso

I am under the impression that both of these kits are waterline (at least I am hoping so).

So, which of these two would you think best for ease of assembly, fit, etc. I am not a stickler for historical accuracy.

Also, what are you thoughts on the Fujimi TOKU-79 1/700 1935 Fuso. I like the idea of this version the best; but, I cannot find wooden deck or photo-etched parts for it.

Thanks...

[Atma]

Aloha seigersallee
Ease of assembly:Aoshima
Fit, accuracy:Fujimi.

As for the 1935 IJN Fuso version of Fujimi the same applies for that.

IMO Aoshima's IJN Fuso class are all bathtoys compared to Fujimi ones.

[Goodwood]

What is the general consensus regarding the "1/350 Fujimi IJN Battleship Fuso 1944 Model Kit FUJ60005" in terms of fit, accuracy, ease of assembly, etc.?

[honneamise]

What is the general consensus regarding the "1/350 Fujimi IJN Battleship Fuso 1944 Model Kit FUJ60005" in terms of fit, accuracy, ease of assembly, etc.?

I cannot comment on a "consensus" but my own obersavtions are:

-the model is obviously based on the drawings of the Skulski AotS volume and does quite successfully replicate the proportions and appearance of the ship. Shape of the hull seems pretty much spot-on, not something you see very often these days.

Fit is /seems to be (I have not yet completed the kit) very good, details are mostly very fine. Considering the intimidating Looks of the superstructure, assembly is surprisingly easy.

Cons I have found are:

-Fujimi keep insisting on their ridiculous 1mm plank width for 350th ships no matter how many modelers complain (actually too few do..) and the Fuso is no exception. 0.5mm width would have been correct as the original plank width was about 175mm, or, in other words, you get 1/175th scale planks on your 1/350 model.

-the tops of the main turrets are stepped while they should be smooth. Fujimi have completely remade those for their Yamashiro but that does not help for Fuso. Not that noticeable once all the 25mm AA-guns are installed.

-Fujimi are unable to make proper boats. Details are fine but the hull shapes are all too blunt and straight. Should be substituted with Hasegawa parts.

-as has already been stated here, some of the 25mm AA singles should actually be 13mms. Easy to fix with the Fine Molds 13mm set.

- Fujimi have very faithfully replicated the starboard side of the hull, then mirrored this and called it a port side. Porthole arrangement was quite different on the port side, though.

-Same thing happened to the pagoda bridge tower: the two levels above the 12,7cm-AA gun have an open "staircase" structure on the starboard side while the port side is fully enclosed. The kit has the staircases on both sides.

All in all a good kit, but they could have studied the Skulski drawings a little more thorough. And the Fujimi designers should be allowed for a day out to take a walk on -and measure!-real wooden planks and have a closer look at some boat hulls.

[kelaa]

Question about Fuso's port side blister at the stern

I have Fujimi's 2015 full hull Fuso kit, which is labelled to be a Showa year 13 fit (1938). The stern, however, has a blister for what I assume would be to hold the folding crane for the later fits. Would the blister be only appropriate for the 1941 and later fits? I have a picture in the attachment. It seems quite a bit of work to rectify and would just be easier just to build the 1941 version instead.

[Pieter]

The blister was already there. It seems that Fuso's docking periods were always to short to get everything done at once to the work was spread out from 1935 to 1941.