SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Submarines,dissatifaction and vitriol

3133 views
17 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2008
Submarines,dissatifaction and vitriol
Posted by tankerbuilder on Saturday, October 3, 2009 5:18 PM
 Hey, whoa there! I know I raked REVELL over the coals, but I still build and buy their models. They MAKE MISTAKES ,like poor research, poor moldings and above all a seeming attitude of ,i don,t care. Well this is only a point of view from a frustrated shipmodeler. Yes, I know ERNIE PETIT, have for a long time. I didn,t buy this kit because I am not the least bit interested in LARGE models of submarines! I know nothing of JAPANESE hardware at all. If someone told me that Hasegawa,s kit of the KAGURO was the finest on the market, I,d have to take that face value.I had one sub years ago and I thought it was correct! Everyone in the club that was up on subs tore me a new window. I thought at 1/700 scale, who cares?The thing is,even I have detracted on a company, I believe we all have . Let,s not turn our wonderful forum into a vendetta against one product of one company.REVELL, has redeemed themselves admirably with their sub(Ithink everyone that built it liked it)Now maybe if we calm down, fence our anger, that something will work out,maybe not. Let,s wait and see. Meanwhile lets enjoy modelbuilding. We are not watchmakers(THOUGH SOME COME CLOSE) so lets enjoy our forums and not get contentious. The forums are FREE! Do any one of you know of another forum that lets you really go to the edge and such. Think about it! I,m no angel but I stopped when I got it all out .     tankerbuilder
  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Sunday, October 4, 2009 7:12 AM

Tanker . . .,

Amen! Make a Toast [#toast]

Bill Morrison

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, October 4, 2009 8:51 AM
 warshipguy wrote:

Tanker . . .,

Amen! Make a Toast [#toast]

Bill Morrison

Sign - Ditto [#ditto]
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by Gundamhead on Sunday, October 4, 2009 9:24 AM

Well, I'm glad I saw all the hub-bub. I won't be buying one because it doesn't even come close to the art on the box, which is far more accurate than the actual kit.

I however did know a little about IJN subs and had been planning to buy both the I-53 and I-20. I hope that the fact that I want more quality from American manufacturers and will spend my cash elswhere is message enough and hopefully, they do better next time on the I-20.

  • Member since
    February 2006
  • From: VIRGINIA - USA
Posted by Firecaptain on Sunday, October 4, 2009 4:35 PM
Did I miss another deleted or locked thread somewhere.....
Joe
  • Member since
    November 2004
Posted by snapdragonxxx on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 7:12 AM

Me too, Joe. I think that I've missed something somewhere.

I have built both the Revell Gato and VIIc U-Boat in 1/72 and really enjoyed building both. didn't have many, if any problems with the build at all.

Wish they were available in 1/35 with detailed interiors.... now that would be a build and a half!! - But wich company would take the risk... Italeri to follow on after their Schnellboot?

James

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 7:18 AM
A 1/35 sub? Talk about huge, might as well make it 1/24 and live on it.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    August 2008
Posted by tankerbuilder on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 8:21 AM
 HEY-subfixer! That would be a large project now would,nt it? I ,one time did this.Remember the submarine that REVELL put out years ago with the interior? You know the one where people were saying it was so ACCURATE that SOVIET employees in embassies and legations were told to buy them and turn them over to the intelligence gatherers back home? I believe it was the GEORGE WASHINGTON. Well, I liked it so much I copied it in scratchbuilding another that was about three times the original kit size.The fact is , it, according to the submariners I know was a shot in the dark in many ways ,just like all the stealth planes that preceded the F117 to the hobby shops. Now on another vein. No one has ever guessed why I like civilian vessels of the commercial variety. The fact is no two look or are equipped alike so there.s not many times it can be said that I built it wrong!.....tankerbuilder
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 9:04 AM
tankerbuilder-HEY!  I know the George Washington kit you are talking about, we had a discussion about it here on the forum a few years ago. It was totally based on conjecture. I have worked on many, many nuclear subs, including the GW, and I can assure you that they were not anywhere nearly accurate at all. But they were fun to build and looked cool, weren't they?

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 11:02 AM

Having served on six submarines in my career, including one of the early boomers, I can state categorically that the Revell kits were not accurate.

Bill Morrison

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 10:27 PM

Dr. Thomas Graham's fine book, Remembering Revell Model Kits, contains (pp. 78-79) a most interesting story about the great Rickover controversy:

"For Revell's ship model line, the decade of the 1960s began with a rousing national controvesy over one of Revell's new models.  On June 19, 1961, the front page of the New York Times carried a photo of Revell's Polaris guided missile submarine U.S.S. George Washington along with a story revealing secret testimony given by Admiral Hyman Rickover, father of the nuclear submarine.  'If I were a Russian,' declared the admiral, 'I would be most grateful to the United States for its generosity in supplying such information for $2.98.' (Actually it was cheaper:  $1.98.)  Rickover claimed top secret data had been leaked to a hobby company.  He did not mention the name of the company, and both Revell and Renwall had Polaris subs in their catalogs - but the media spotlight focused on Revell....

"When Henry Blankfort [Revell's vice president for public relations] read the story he immediately recognized this as a marvelous opportunity for some free publicity.  He contacted the press and told them Lew Glaser, President of Revell, would be available to answer questions at his home the following day.  Then he phoned Lew.  'I'm going to tell you what to do,' he said, 'and then I'm going to disappear.'  Blankfort did not want the old allegations of his supposed Communist past to muddy-up the story.  When the media men arrived at the Glaser household, Lew dived into the backyard pool with a model of the Polaris sub and surfaced blowing bubbles....A photo of the episode appeared in the next day's Los Angeles Times and later as the picture of the week in Life.  [It's reproduced in the book - and it's pretty funny.]  The Glasers were invited to appear on radio and TV for interviews.

"Lew found himself forced into the awkward position of arguing for the inaccuracy of a Revell model.  He pointed out that Revell got one big item wrong, giving the Polaris sub only eight missile launch tubes, rather than the actual sixteen.  (An error corrected in later issues of the kit.)  Glaser avowed that Revell had received no secret information, but had simply gleaned facts from trade and technical journals 'available to anyone who wants to take the time and trouble to look them up.' (Los Angeles Times, June 19, 1961, 1.) 

"Nationally syndicated columnist Walter Winchell picked up the trail of the controversy and someone fed him material for one of his columns in which he called Lew Glaser a Trotskyite and denounced Blankfort for taking the Fifth Amendment during the Congressional Un-American Activities hearings of the early 'fifties.

"The boys in the model shop at Revell found all this very amusing.  They had, of course, researched the model just as Glaser said, piecing together data on the submarine from whatever sources they could find.  One of the model's creators, Englishman Ron Campbell, recalled that the craftsmen in the model shop had no idea what kind of motor the sub had, so he just gave it a three-stage turbine like those he had once manufactured in his previous job back in Britain.

"In the end Royle Glaser [the president's wife] pronounced it "the best piece of PR we ever had, thanks to Admiral Rickover and Henry Blankfort.  We sold a jillion of the sub models because they were already in the stores."

 

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Carmel, CA
Posted by bondoman on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 12:25 AM
It had spring loaded Polaris (two) I think. I was given the model by a USN Sub commander.
  • Member since
    May 2008
Posted by tucchase on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 12:40 AM
Ahhhh, I remember that model!  Trying to get all those parts to fit inside just right so the halves would close properly!  That was the most difficult model I had tried up to that point.  I think it was in '64 and I was nine, and it was about my fourth model, and the first one I had tried to paint.  I thought it was beautiful!  The missles actually worked too!  They went up about four inches above the tube. Smile,Wink, & Grin [swg]  But what did I know?  I was nine, and loved it!
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 7:35 AM

A few observations: maybe correct ones, maybe not...

Ship modelers seem to be more tolerant to innacuracies in their models than say, an aircraft or armor modeler---why?, I'm not sure... I model a/c, armor, figs, dios and ships so I frequent all of the Forums...I base this on 2.5 years of watching the subject of kit innacuracies come up in each Forum.

When a company wants to produce a model of a tank, there's an excellent chance there is a
"real-life" one sitting somewhere that they can gain access to, climb on, pull out cameras, laser measurement devices, etc. to get proper measurements, detail pics, etc.  Of course there are also line drawings as well, and maybe even original blueprints...

When it comes to a ship, or class of ships, they may or may not still exist, and if there is a surviving specimen, they may or may not be able to gain physical access to it---and even if they did there would probably be WAY TOO MUCH to measure...

So, I am guessing most ship models are produced using drawings, and photographs to some degree...which means tolerances are probably looser than would be, for say, a tank...In addition, there is the fact that maybe a third of a ship is under water most of the time as well...

I guess my thesis is this may be why it is more difficult to produce a ship model than other types of models...and maybe why dedicated ship modelers are more forgiving to innacuracies in their models as well... 

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: EG48
Posted by Tracy White on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 5:46 PM

I can confirm some of that. I'm helping out on a project and I have two sets of plans from the national archives. One is an early fit and one is a later fit. The two plans do NOT match up with major dimensions. A large part of the reason is that the plans were actually originally on linen, which can stretch here and there.

So, then we take plans by a company such as the Floating Drydock; they probably grabbed copies of plans from the archives. We know they re-drew them, but did they take distortion into account?  How much do you actually honestly trust them (I'm not disparaging FDD here; you could say that same about any company where you weren't actually there to see the methods used)?

There have been cases of aircraft plans found to be off, but I think that there are fewer people in the ship world who can speak authoritively about a topic. I have researched the Essex class carriers wartime configurations extensively and have found many details no one knew before, some of which flew in the face of conventional wisdom. I was able to authoritvely speak on those topics by posting references from Navy records or photographs.... fewer people can take the time to hit the archives in the amount of time necessary to gain that insite.

But to another point; ships are typically smaller in scale than armor or aircraft, which makes inaccuracies smaller and harder to see. It might not all be research related.

So yes, I think there is more acceptance of minor issues in ship models.

Tracy White Researcher@Large

  • Member since
    April 2005
Posted by ddp59 on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 9:44 PM
i worked for 3yrs as a mechanical draftsman in the early 80's doing full size drawings for the torches to use to cut the steel. 1 drawing i did was a side plate for a brown boggs shear of about 84" x 154" to be cut out of 2 to 4" steel plate. had the drawing done by the end of the day & checked it out for dimensions the next morning before sent out on the floor to cut out the steel. the drawing shrank & expanded by at least 1/8" at the same time & the tolerance was about 1/32" so i had to redraw it all over again.
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: NJ
Posted by JMart on Thursday, October 8, 2009 7:04 AM

I have been away for awhile, seems I missed a few locked/deleted posts...  I remember similar comments about the Dragon Typhoon... grossly inaccurate, wrong props, wrong shape.. but really REALLY cool looking!  I remember fondly my Revell Abe Polaris sub 30+ years ago, and have ordered the re-release... who cares of accuracy? I mean, the people who know for real how the inside of a modern nuke looks like cant tell, so who will tell you it is an inaccurate build? : )  I know, I am stretching a bit... but going to Manny's point, yes, you are quite correct... I also will add that I think a ship changes more during its lifetime than your typical armor/a/c;  time at sea, refits, paint jobs, etc.  There is also the issue of unseen details at 1:700; unless you are a watch maker, no way you can add accuracy in details in many occasions. And don't even start with what is the correct "shade of gray" for a particular ship/time. The divine scale (1:700) is probably the only scale where you really REALLY see light-scale effect issues with paint hues and shades.  Great post Prof Tilley, as usual : )  cheers

 

 

  • Member since
    August 2008
Posted by tankerbuilder on Sunday, October 11, 2009 2:47 PM
HI-everybody. I am going to pipe back in on this because of the fine points made by T.WHITE and J.TILLEY. The fact is that drawings do change, especially if old and on linen! I had access to original prints of some vessels I did for a client.Believe me, the plans had stuff on them the actual ship didn,t. Now, I request access to the ship or boat for pictures and measurements, and even then I get a surprise once in a while!I would NOT care to be a researcher for ANY of the model companies, I know that much. Best example(NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE) The BAY BRIDGE. That bridge performed exactly as laid out BEFORE all our technology! The idea was for a section to fall part way and another,(IF THAT WAS THE CASE) to fall on top and be caught by the lower one!! How,s that for engineering? The designers decided part down was better than the whole bridge down! Now, translate that to models. A model is produced (STEALTH PLANES)based on engineers summations ,artists conceptions, ad infinitum. No one was ready when the F117 actually was seen in real life. None of the models I have comes close! BUT, doggone it they sure look great on my shelf! So there is hope for ANY model if dead on accuracy is that important to you.     tankerbuilder
JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.