Calling all IJN Takao-class (高雄型) fans

[Dan K]

I know there were some minor differences between Atago and Takao, but I am wondering: does the Atago kit have all the sprues in it needed to build it as a Takao? (I am looking at the 44 versions for both kits).

Well, I'm actually more hands on with the 1/700 kits. For the most part, the changes needed are relatively small, depending on how far down the rabbit hole you care to go. The biggest difference is the aux. piping on BOTH sides of #1 funnel. Both 1/350 kits give you separate pieces, so you could fashion new piping from styrene rod or brass.

Technically speaking, their deck equipment layouts (particularly the mushroom vents) are not identical, and the Atago kit uses the Takao kit's main decking pieces. Some, not all, of the other minor changes illustrated below. From the Nihon no Gunkan vol. #6, the key from left to right is: Maya - Chokai - Atago - Takao

[black3actual]

Dan,

Once again, thank you. You have been of immense help. I am not looking to get too into the weeds on my builds. I am looking to ships to help me get away from that as i do enough of it with my armor business. However, I can see there are a few things I should try to get right so that, if my builds ever find their way to a show, those who DO know these ships as well as I know my tanks will be able to tell I at least made some effort to 'get it right.'

OK, I think I now have most of the basic information I am going to need. Now it's time to start collecting things for my Takao builds. While I do that, I will build my very first 1/350 ship model: the Trumpeter Roma. Everything should show up this week. I'll use that build to buy time to collect the kits and goodies for the build I REALLY want to do, the Singapore harbor Takao in 44/45

Cheers,

Joe

[Dan K]

No degaussing cable by that time.

[black3actual]

No degaussing cable by that time.

Thank to you and the rest of the guys on this board, I already knew that, so thanks -- again

Joe

[Alex G.]

Hello to all,
i'm a modeller -maybe not yet, 'cause i'm new to the hobby- from Germany, and since not to long ago i became very interested in ships, especially japanese ships.
So i bought a model from Fujimi #431239, the cruiser "Chokai" (i just liked the boxart!) in its 1942 configuration .
Now i have a question: has anyone a picture of Chokai's front bridge superstructure??? As i've seen so far, there're different porthole layouts to the four Takao-class cruisers, and now i'm not sure which is right for "Chokai"
Many thanks in advance.

[MatthewB]

Hello to all,
i'm a modeller -maybe not yet, 'cause i'm new to the hobby- from Germany, and since not to long ago i became very interested in ships, especially japanese ships.
So i bought a model from Fujimi #431239, the cruiser "Chokai" (i just liked the boxart!) in its 1942 configuration .
Now i have a question: has anyone a picture of Chokai's front bridge superstructure??? As i've seen so far, there're different porthole layouts to the four Takao-class cruisers, and now i'm not sure which is right for "Chokai"
Many thanks in advance.

This is posted just above.

The second one from the Left is Chokai (Maya - Chokai - Atago - Takao):



These would be the bridge during 1942 from my understanding of the post above.

MB

[Dan K]

In addition, three photo views

[Alex G.]

@ MatthewB

thanks for the pic. I saw it once, but my kowledge of kanji is less than average, so I wasn't sure which row depicts which ships.

@ Dan K

Your picture are very helpful, mostly the second. Thank you for posting.
And your Chokai was the motivation for me to begin duilding ships. An outstanding model.

I think it's time for me, to buy some books about japanese ships.

Thanks again
Alex

[Alex G.]

@Dan,

sorry, my mistake. It was the "Maya" of course.

Greetings
Alex

[Dan K]

You are most welcome, Alex. I actually did both Chokai and Maya, which are in the gallery. My Chokai is correct for August-November, 1942.

The second photo was taken in March, 1942, before the twin 25mm AA and tubs were mounted on the lower bridge face, and the covered navigation posts removed.

[Alex G.]

Hi Dan,

I knew I saw both ships built by you, and they're most inspiring. And they where the reason, my main interest shifted from tanks and planes to ships (it's not only the vessels but also their history)

So, many thanks for the Inspiration
Alex

[Dan K]

Alex, thank you for the compliment. Makes my day.

[Richard OMalley]

Working on Takao early ( no blisters)and late ( with blisters ) in 1/96 scale

[Dan K]

Great project. Hope you post a W-I-P thread about them.

[William]

Does anyone know of the overall quality of the 1/500 Nichimo kits of this class? I am considering them as a project with my grandsons as a way of introducing them to the hobby.

Thanks!

Bill Morrison

[DougC]

It is/was a typical 60's era kit - oversized AA guns, few deck or superstructure details, thick molding, slightly better than Airfix kits of that era, maybe a little better than Revell. It was designed to be motorized.

[Dan K]

As good an entry point as any. Like the Revell kits.

[Vlad]

I bought the Fujimi 1/700 IJN Atago and I wanted to make the build a bit more special than my usual so I bought the Flyhawk PE set for it. The set says it's for the Takao but I thought "sister ships from same manufacturer, how different can they be?". Turns out I couldn't have been more wrong... They have completely different molding, the large upper deck pieces from the PE set aren't even close to fitting, and the more I look into the details the more it seems the set replaces parts on Takao that are completely different on Atago.


My question is, can I salvage this? I really don't want to get stuck into a research marathon regarding the differences between the two ships. I can just about swallow ditching the major upper deck pieces because the Fujimi kit has fairly fine tread molded on. But what about the rest? For example, all the bridge platforms, all the various towers, raised walkways and AA platforms around the funnels. Are these accurate for Atago and so can I just use them instead of the kit parts without giving it too much thought? What else is likely to not fit or be just plain wrong?

On top of this, Flyhawk's instructions are less than helpful. I would say at best only about a quarter of the parts are actually called out with proper assembly diagrams, the rest the builder is left to work out for themselves. Are there more detailed instructions available online, even if "unofficial" as in just a detailed build log?

Help would be much appreciated! Thanks!

[Dan K]

On the face of it, that doesn't make much sense as Atago and Takao are virtually identical except for a couple of small details. My first question: Did you buy the set for the Aoshima version, or the Fujimi version. FH makes for both.

[Vlad]

On the face of it, that doesn't make much sense as Atago and Takao are virtually identical except for a couple of small details. My first question: Did you buy the set for the Aoshima version, or the Fujimi version. FH makes for both.

Yup, made sure I got the version for the Fujimi kit. I've been scrolling through the instructions for Takao and Atago side by side online and I can definitely see differences in the parts breakdown.

http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10133602
http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10227036

It seems parts K4 and M3 in the Takao kit don't share the shape and position of various deck details with the equivalent parts K2 and L2 in the Atago kit. The PE deck is obviously matched to the former. See comparisons below.

Definitely Fujimi version:

Shelter deck PE doesn't fit Atago part K2. However, the shape forward and the square cut-outs at the sides match the shape and raised details of Takao part K4. Also note in the side by side comparison that the locating holes are all over the place.

Aircraft handling deck PE doesn't fit Atago part L2. It's lined up with No.4 turret barbette and the forward shape and round cut-outs for the catapult pedestals are several milimetres out.

Didn't you say in another thread that the Fujimi Takao had some errors that the Atago kit corrected? It seems they re-tooled most of the kit, not just tweaked a few details.

But, since you confirm my initial assumption that the ships are essentially identical, I should be able to use all the PE parts for the gantries etc. since they completely replace the plastic rather than "augmenting" it, so they shouldn't have fit issues.