Calling all HMS "Mighty" Hood fans

[David Gatt]

Good news everyone! We�ve been in contact with Flyhawk Models, and yes, they are indeed planning to produce a Hood!

We have offered to help them with the latest details and they have accepted. So, it still must be in the initial design phase.

That's all I know for now.

Hahaaa! I emailed them through their website the other day and asked, as you suggested Frank, that they PLEASE get in touch with you. Yang replied yesterday to say they would, saying "Of course we want to create the best HMS Hood".

Gotta love Flyhawk all the more!

May I ask, what scale are we talking about here in regards to the Flyhawk release?

[EJFoeth]

I guess that it's 700 first, 350 perhaps, similar to their HMS Prince of Wales kit (that is so nice). I'm interested to learn what era they have in mind though; there are of course several configurations and many people like the mid 30s version most (which is simply does not register as Hood to me )

[ModelMonkey]

What? Not this version?

[EJFoeth]

If there ever is going to be a refit version I'd certainly hope for 4.5" between-deck turrets... more like a super-Renown

[FW_Allen]

They didn�t say what scale or version of the ship� But it�s not hard to deduce, based upon their other recent offerings, that it�s almost certainly going to be 1/700 scale. Based on the fact that they�ve done Bismarck and Prince of Wales, I would also assume it will be Hood as sunk. When we hear something, we will let you know. Hopefully, they will let us create a forum post here (like we did for Pontos). That�s up to Flyhawk though.

Personally, I�d love to see a 1920s Hood that can be altered with expansion parts/add on detail frets to other variants of the ship. It�s actually feasible to do it, but I imagine it wouldn�t be very marketable and that�s the key. The as sunk version of the ship would certainly be the most marketable.

[chuck]

It appears to me that although Hood retained her general outline, the detailed alterations made between 1921 and 1941 are very numerous and very widespread. Much of the superstructure needs to be replicated several times to capture all the different states she assumed without resorting to having unmanageably large number of interchangeable parts.


BTW, I deem Hood in her 1921 guise to be the one true Hood.


Anything afterwards is a nothing more than freeze frames of a badly losing race against naval technological progress.

[FW_Allen]

If there ever is going to be a refit version I'd certainly hope for 4.5" between-deck turrets... more like a super-Renown

I strongly suspect she would�ve looked quite a bit like her stepsister/frenemy Renown actually. I don�t think she�d have gotten the 5.25� arrangement. Of course, had she been re-fitted, her looks would�ve gone right down the drain. Of course, as Renown and her avenger HMS Rodney (baaa!*) proved, it isn�t all about the looks, LOL.

Just kidding Renown and Rodney fans!

*That�s a sheep bleating in case anyone is curious.

[chuck]

I think Hood is not really configured in a way that argues any deep modification would follow along the lines of QE or Renown. Hood was so long, and her turrets pushed so far towards the ends of the ship, that she has an extraordinary amount of space, centerline or otherwise, available midships for any serious modification. She could sport a monster AA battery midship, say 8 5.25 inch twin turret on each side on 2 different levels, plus several additional midship high angle directors.


She could be a one ship flak trap.

[PaulC]

I think Hood is not really configured in a way that argues any deep modification would follow along the lines of QE or Renown. Hood was so long, and her turrets pushed so far towards the ends of the ship, that she has an extraordinary amount of space, centerline or otherwise, available midships for any serious modification. She could sport a monster AA battery midship, say 8 5.25 inch twin turret on each side on 2 different levels, plus several additional midship high angle directors.


She could be a one ship flak trap.

Easy to imagine, but in reality all of those are weight, and she was overweight to begin with. In reconstruction, a significant amount of saved weight from removing the conning tower and other changes would have gone to bolstering horizontal protection, I would think.

I think she would have sported 20 4.5's like Renown and the QE's - I suspect the best compromise weight-wise. Still a good flak trap!

[FW_Allen]

Out of curiosity I asked both John Roberts and Maurice Northcott about this very topic (the �Large Repair� aka �1942 refit�) years ago. Neither one wanted to guess what route would�ve been taken, but both independently said more or less the same thing: Hood�s configuration would�ve depended on availability of equipment, location of repair yard (UK, USA, etc.) etc. Furthermore, operational requirements at that point in time would be considered. For example 5.25 would be optimal but if there were issues with supply, 4.5 might be used. They may have opted to leave aircraft off and utilize the hanger area for boats and tons of lighter AAA instead. We mention these and other factors in our article at http://www.hmshood.com/history/construct/repair42.htm

All I know, is that in the Admiralty files Paul Bevand and I have gone through (mainly Paul), there�s little information on the proposed �42 refit. The best one I can recall is at http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 229-20.htm . If there were ever any official drawings made, we haven�t found them. As our article states, the only mention of drawings we know of are some sketches/overlays by Hood officers from the late 30s in which they followed a Renown-like layout. These no longer exist. Of course, who knows? Maybe something is out there somewhere...after all, Hood researchers and enthusiasts do find unexpected things from time to time!

So, I guess any opinion is valid here as it�s all in the realm of fantasy, etc. Having said that, I for one would like to seen �Space Battle Cruiser Hood.�

[FW_Allen]

Hahaaa! I emailed them through their website the other day and asked, as you suggested Frank, that they PLEASE get in touch with you. Yang replied yesterday to say they would, saying "Of course we want to create the best HMS Hood".

Gotta love Flyhawk all the more!

Thanks Paul! It worked!

[ModelMonkey]

Not trying to derail the thread, but there is another what-if Hood that is very imaginative and favorite of mine. It's probably overweight, too.

If nothing else, it is a great tribute to battlescruiser HMS Hood and her crew.

[EJFoeth]

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

(And Nebula-class or bust)

[Vlad]

BTW, I deem Hood in her 1921 guise to be the one true Hood.

I would tweak that to '23/'24 guise, for the world cruise fame, but I think looks wise that nails it.

As for marketability, isn't the old Airfix 1/600 Hood a 1930s fit, with a box art that shows her as if firing at Bismarck? As people have said, Hood's profile did not change significantly in her career, you could market an excellent kit of the ship in any time frame as she's very recogniseable either way, and more causal builders may not notice or care that the fit is not actually accurate for "as sunk".

I hope they eventually do 2 versions to cover the biggest changes (5.5" secondaries), mainly because I've already built an "as sunk" and I have far more interest in the various earlier fits.

Just please, please don't do a version with the catapult fitted like Trumpeter did. She carried it for such a short span of her career, but if any part of the fitting is molded into the quarterdeck it ruins the kit as a basis for converion to any other 1920s or '30s fit.

[SovereignHobbies]

Just please, please don't do a version with the catapult fitted like Trumpeter did. She carried it for such a short span of her career, but if any part of the fitting is molded into the quarterdeck it ruins the kit as a basis for converion to any other 1920s or '30s fit.

Blanked off holes to be drilled through from underneath seems to be the escape route there. It would allow the catapult to be located if desired but without spoiling the quarter deck otherwise.

[FW_Allen]

Flyhawk Update- We've heard back from them...they are definitely in the research phase now. Based on their questions, I'm pretty sure its a 1941 version of the ship.

Before proceeding, I've pointed them to some good online resources (most notably the Hood site, EJ's site and this very site) and have warned them against certain references (primarily the Kagero Hood books...they may look good but they have some SERIOUS errors that absolutely confound me). Another thing I want to ensure they understand up front is my very own "Hood mantra": "Hood was famous, but it doesn't mean she was well documented (in her final months)." This is something Trumpeter never seemed to understand. The model can only be as accurate as our current level of knowledge...and what we know WILL change. It always does - someone will find a photo (or observe a detail in a known photo) which will change what we thought we knew about a feature.

Edit: We really need to learn more about the 1941 aerial spreader and the portside of the After Concentrating Position structure just behind the main mast. There are hardly any decent shots of the "indentation" in the mid level on the port side.

So, if anyone has any new discoveries, lets see them!

[maurice northcott]

Sounds like great news. Well done Frank...

[FW_Allen]

Sounds like great news. Well done Frank...

Thank you my Jedi Master!

Would you mind if I ran some of our "grey areas" by you? Interested in your opinion on a few puzzling things. I can send them via email if you wish.

Frank

[maurice northcott]

Frank

Yes, always got time for that shipmate, do by email please....

[Thomas E. Johnson]

What are the best 1/700 Hood kits?

Of the four mainstream kits in the 1/700 and 1/720 scale range, I'd have to say the most accurate detail-wise are the two Trumpeter kits (1931 and 1941). Some of the moulding/details are a bit thick, but otherwise, they are pretty up-to-date detail-wise. This is because Trumpeter were still listening to the right people at the time...they had not yet discovered the flawed eastern European plans nor the infamous Kagero book(s). So, while its true that we've found a few more notable detail changes since then, the kits are still good. Indeed, one could build a pretty damn good representation of the ship straight from the box. There are also plenty of aftermarket detail parts for those who want to go full tilt boogie on accuracy (does anyone say "full tilt boogie" anymore?).

Its not that the other two kits (Tamiya's 1/700 1941 Hood and Italeri/Testors/Revell/Zvezda/whoever else produces it's1/720 mid 1930s Hood) are bad. They are actually pretty decent for their era (1970s). The Tamiya kit is based on some drawings created at a time when various details of Hood as sunk had been forgotten/not yet rediscovered. Its also a bit plain/under-detailed. It does, however, lend itself to upgrading quite well. The other kit is a bit more detailed than Tamiya, but the moulding is nowhere near as crisp as Tamiya.

There is another "model" of Hood in 1/700 scale actually...well, its a pre-built miniature but of questionable quality. Its the "Forces of Valor" 1941 Hood. Its just an expensive toy and I've not looked it over in much detail...other than to note that they got all the usual things wrong and installed the mainmast starfish BACKWARDS. So, for obvious reasons, I didn't put it on the list above.

IF Flyhawk goes for Hood, I suspect it will be a game changer as long as they DO NOT USE those aforementioned plans and/or Kagero. If not, then I guess its a business opportunity for all the detail parts companies!

Flyhawk representatives, if you read this, please contact the H.M.S. Hood Association...we want NO money, we just want to help you get the details RIGHT. A review kit would be nice though

Thanks for that info!!!!