Rory Smith wrote:I am not up on the HMCS Snowberry's changes over time, but would the photo in the attached link be of the Snowberry as the Revell kit is trying to represent? Looks like the forward main gun housing is two colors and there are a few other color differences from others' models I have seen posted of Snowberry. It almost looks like the number K166 has been photoshopped or something in this photo. Also, was the lower hull red or black? It appears black in this photo.
The Revell kit is NOT of the Snowberry, but is HMS Bluebell. Originally released in the late seventies by Matchbox as the Bluebell. Revell simply changed the name of the ship. Ships were different from each other, Revell did not care.
Alan Raven.
You might expand on that. I built the kit as Snowberry with a few minor changes (see my build article on this site). Most of the work was getting rid of the 1970's moulding work.
Any ship larger than a Destroyer is a waste of metal.
Yeah, I still have the Matchbox kit (1/2 built, back in the box). There is provision for Bluebell,Snowberry & Saucy, w/ some indications for mods, for each ver. I have the Man o War for Flowers they are very similar to me. What are you saying? jc
Hi just wanted to say.That is one fine looking vessel there. I have done the MATCHBOX version for R.C. and she performs quite well.I used ALL the radio gear from my last tug build and I do operate her in real world weather.I built bulkheads inside the kit bulkheads with an internal drain just in case.So far no water has gotten in.Back aft I made the stern deck removable from the front of the depth charge racks to the stern.I use pressure fit technology with no problems so far. Just wanted to let you know.Oh, and the model has not had anything scale removed or modified for removal of deck sections except the antennas. commodore4
JCRay, the kit his a bit heavy handed for todays standards. The most noteable changes are in the bulwarks on the stern and the keel. Both are way too thick. The plates on the sides of the hull can be sanded down a bit if you don't want. The portholes are wrong. Check pictures of Snowberry. All these ships were different in many ways. Most of it is very subtle. Suggest you have some good pictures of the ship you want to build, in the time period you want it to represent. There are many other things that can be changed. Remember, this is a 70's/80's kit and it represents the manufacturing of the time.
Any ship larger than a Destroyer is a waste of metal.
Yes, it's one of those kits where if you're not into major surgery or spending the bucks for the PE to make it better, you better forget it. If you're new to ship modeling and want to build a large model, it's a good kit to get your feet wet.
Any ship larger than a Destroyer is a waste of metal.
Yes but be sure to check out the GLS & the Sirmar replacement sets, the weapons are toylike, & you need to remove the planking from the steel decks that were not planked.Les's build shows, It can be a thing of beauty! jc
HI . I AM NEW TO THIS . MY UNCLE GEORGE SAILED IN THE CORVETTE NAVY. CANADIAN . I HAVE A CORVETTE MODEL THAT IS ABOUT 36 INCHES LONG . IS THIS THE REVELL 1/72 SCALE ?
Just a note, the Matchbox & Revell instructions have the bridge supports shown backwards. The ribs are on the outside ,as shown in photo's, at least on Snowberry! Also the wheel house doors are reversed, the doors are at the front (towards the bow). jc
Last edited by JCRAY on Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks Les, I take photo's but posting them is a mystery. I've never joined a web host like photobucket. I would be curious as to one you would recommend. jc
Quick question, I have seen on another site (which I forgot to bookmark while surfing!) a model of a Flower class corvette fitted with a Sea Fox floatplane on a trainable catapult on the rear superstructure.
I was not aware of any catapult-equipped corvettes, is this a 'what if' or did they actually exist?
If so, it was discussed on another site (why there instead of asking here, where it's actually located, I don't know...) and the conclusion was that it's very much a work of fiction.
And likewise, would anyone know where I can find additional photos of HMCS Algoma in the scheme depicted in this photos (which appears to be an admiralty disruptive type scheme)?:
I've done multiple Google searches and checked just about every on-line source I am familiar with, and I've checked the standard published references (Ensign/Man O'War, and MacPherson's book on Canadian Flower Class Corvettes) so I am hoping that maybe someone holds an unpublished photo of these ships in these schemes from a private collection or an archive.
Would like to build USS Tenacity or similar to go with my HMS Bluebell. Been to Navsource, Steelnavy, Google, and have the Shipcraft volume. Would really like some more plans and photos that show details of the pilot house, deck houses, and armament.
