anybody building Revell's H.M.C.S. Snowberry?

I have built the kit in questiion. Not as Snowberry but a slight conversion to Polyanthus. What do you wish to know? Will help if I can.
Dai .

Hi Boats:
See my replies to the other Snowberry thread ... I built this kit a few years ago when it was marketed under the Matchbox label, and I am in the middle of scratchbuilding HMCS Chicoutimi in 1:48 scale. Let me know what assistance you need and I'll be happy to help if I can.

Not having any problems yet, but building kit for RC use and dont quite know yet what I will do with decks in case I have to work on RC equiptment inside. Various items are attached to cabins and hull sides. The paint colors had me for awhile (what color is "tank gray?") but I decided to keek it down to about 8 colors as I am not going for a contest look. Did find one problem... there are three searchlights labeled G10 but only 2 provided.

Are you building Snowberry or another corvette?

Regarding the RC access you might try making the entire engine room casing removable. I know there are a lot of goodies attached but if the whole thing comes off as a unit, up to the boiler room/funnel casing, would that work for you?? Or maybe put the batteries and charging connector down the funnel; that way you shouldn't have to R&R the decks too often ...

Two photos I have of Snowberry (1943 and 1944) show a searchlight on each bridge wing, aft of the 20mm. Many corvettes carried a small platform immediately forward of the 37mm AA bandstand that was intended for a searchlight as well, although often the light was not installed. As these ships' configurations changed quite often through the war, Revell might be giving you an option. I would go with the two on the bridge.

Further checking my references clearly shows a third light on top of the AA gun platform shelter, on a short post, not a tall pedestal like the ones on the bridge. This appears only post 1943. There is no special platform forward of the AA gun.

When I motorised my Flower I removed the enginroom deckhead, left the bulkheads in place. I edged the deckhead with a plastic wall to stop the ingress of water. I used a thin, narrow, 6v battery in a battery box that I constructed before I put the decks on. This was placed so that I did not have to use too much balast. For the balast I used some old wheel balancing weights that I obtained from one of my local tyre dealers, half a bucket for free!! Some builders I know cut a compleat section out of the upper deck, not a good idea in my opinion. Hope this is of some use.
TTFN Dai.

I built the Matchbox kit as Snowberry for RC several years ago. Some RC pointers:

1. I glued down the aft deck and the foc'sle deck sections. I glued the engine room casing in place as well. I left the main deck section loose-- on my kit it would just sorta snap right in to place. The downside of this is that you can't rig the aerials from the masthead to the aft support. (Oh well!)
2. I used a Dumas 6 volt motor with direct drive- it was an excellent powerplant for the model.
3. For ballast, I mixed lead shot with epoxy, and spread it as a paste in the bottom of the hull, along the keel. The lower in the hull, the better!
4. I used a 6 volt, 4.5Ah gel cell battery- the model ran forever, and the battery also powered the radio.
5. I used the kit supplied railings, and wish I hadn't. Next time, I'll make the railings out of brass rod, so they'll be more sturdy.
6. A number of parts are rather brittle, and subject to getting damaged as you handle the model. I already mentioned the railings. Next time, I'll also replace the "J" davits with metal rod.
7. I built a gutter under the seams where the main deck met the sides of the hull and the foc'sle deck. Any water that landed on deck and leaked though the seam was caught by the gutter and dumped on the lower aft (waterproof) deck.
8. I've seen several people build the model with the engine casing also removeable. I didn't bother, as I didn't want to deal with the life raft framework. I never missed not having a removeable engine casing. If you're unsure about sealing it up forever, glue it in place with a silicon sealant. It will give you a good watertight seal,and you can cut it loose later if you need to. (That's how I glue the deck to the hull of my Lindberg tug, too.)
9. The kit has a lot of inaccurracies. Check out Bob Pearson's FLower Class website for more info.
10.. For my model, I built it basically OOB, as I didn't know about the kit's shortcomings at the time. I did some things to improve the kit-- I added block and tackles to some of the J-davits. I sanded off the molded in ropes on the liferafts, and replaced it with thread. I took some of the kit's signal flags and folded them and put them in the flag locker. I added working port and starboard running lights, and a white masthead light.

Thanks people for the info. I've pretty much decided to do most of your suggestions anyway. I'm not much of a scratch builder, but am doing a few things to learn as I go on. I usually build RC airplanes and balsa is easier to work with than plastic, but I am learning. Thanks again.

Out of the box - the kit is impressive.
BUT many modifications (scratch built) and aftermarket components are available.
Each Flower class corvette may change over her service time, and each had differences from another.
Bob Pearsons site is helpful.-
http://www.cbrnp.com/RNP/flower/index.htm
Enjoy the kit!

I am right now! I'm in the process of converting the kit to the HMCS Morden (K170) cira 1943-44. The kit is a mess out of the box, and it reqires extensive modification(s) to be even close to accurate ..... but, as it is the only game in town (Revell ... if you are listening here, re-do the Snowberry! It makes a great side by side with the new Type VIIC/40 U-Boat that was just released!) it has to do. What I really need is clear pic's of the Morden, in the time frame above. I have had to re-do the wheel house, and I am at the stage of the upper wheel house and the layout for the main deck. I need clear photos of these areas, if you know where I can get them, anybody??? My projected build time is in the 2-3 year stage, and I have been at it for one year already. I have done exaustive internet searches with the result being a thick binder of photo's downloaded from the internet. I have seen Bob Pearson's web site (excelent!) and it has helped! Vickers website has great info on the 40mm's but I need other photo's .... so if you can help I would really appreciate it!! Thanks! Rob Savage!

In 'Corvettes of the RCN' by Ken MacPherson and Marc Milner there is a port quarter photo of Morden taken in the spring of 1944. The following is apparent from that photo:

Smoke generators are right at the stern on top of the DC rails, 2 per rail.
There is a towing wire support running over the tops of the DC rails.
There is one raft per side abreast the 40mm, on sloping structures that appear to be steel, mounted on top of the ER casing, not extending out towards the rail.
The Ensign is being flown from a small staff forward of the 40mm (probably on the old mainmast foot).
The searchlight is mounted on a platform on top of the 40mm shelter, not forward of it.
There are two rafts one on top of the other, on a sloping structure abreast the funnel, probably wood, port side only, right at the aft end of the shelter deck.
There will be a 27ft. whaler on the starboard side, not the 16' dinghy provided in the kit.
There is a 20mm on either bridge wing.
The ship is not wearing pendant numbers, or WA camo, but is overall grey.
There are five supports holding up the bridge wings; thus four spaces between them. There is one diagonal brace in the forward space, making the letter 'N' with the two adjacent supports. The next two spaces have 'X' bracing but the braces only go half way up.
The last space has one horizontal brace at the level of the center of the 'X' braces.

The DC throwers and other fittings appear to be in their standard locations.

That is about all that I can see from this photo, I suppose to make sense out of a lot of it you will have to buy the book?
Hope this helps a bit,
Bruce

Thanks to B. LeCren for the information. Could you e-mail me a copy of the photo, as I have a picture of the Morden, taken in the late summer of 1943 that shows basically the same information, but with these differences
1) The ship is in Western Approaches Camo (very clean job) that is fully down the side of the hull
2) The picture was taken before the refit in Jan. 1944
3) It has two masts, as per the originial build, but with the bandstand moved to the later location.
4) No 20mm apparent on the bridge wings, but the small scale of the picture I have obscures this detail.
Note I also have the photo's from Lynch's "Canada's Flowers' Etc (page 82) that shows the later bandstand location, but what is interesting is that the number of the engine room hatches matches the Revell kit ( 4 instead of 5) ????
5) The ship has the early bridge, with the wheel house having the small hut at the top
6) The ship has the early middle type radar but NO radar housing visible (???)
7) Smaller than normal K numbers on the side in non standard (to me anyway) lettering.

I know from reading the book written by one of the crew member (I have forgot just whom at this moment) that the Morden was refitted with the newer radar late in the war.

My e-mail is robsavage19@hotmail.com (all one word) and I would appreciate all information sent to me. As for the book you mention, most likely if I see it, I will either buy it or photocopy it completely (I had to resort to doing this for Lynch's book, as it is out of print) but I hate doing that, for obvious legal reasons.

Thanks all for your help, and keep on keeping that information coming.

PS I fully intend to visit the Sackville when I can, and make note in the log book. I know a friend of mine whose father served on the Orangeville, and he told me some of the stories that he was told. My uncle and all of the others who built and served aboard these ship deserve better rememberences than they are getting right now I have relatives that are serving aboard Royal Navy ships and a submarine, and we should THANK ALL THE VETERANS for the freedom we have, and continue to have!

It goes along way with the veterans (old and new!) that they know that we who sit at home, support them at all times, even though sometimes our Govenments do not. Next time you speak to a vet, THANK HIM/HER for the freedom!

Rob Savage

A question has to be answered here ..... Mainly I build armour models, but with the Corvettes and German Subs as the ships I like (unless you have a model of the HMS Falcon or British Subs in 1/76 scale ??) and I am appalled at the less than detailed or more like it, poorly detailed offerings that is put out by the modeling companies, for ship models. I understand that the ship are many times larger than tanks or armoured vehicles, but the details (with certain exceptions that are recent) are nothing more than inferior products, simple as that.

Take the Snowberry for example, yes it is a 1960' or 70's era kit, but Revell could have re-tooled the ship, with the obvious result that they would have sold many times more than they have. I paid for my Snowberry kit $120 Canadian, and after examining it, and starting it, most likely I will replace about 75% of it. That means that I have paid for parts that I will have to throw away. I ask WHY???

Why does the ship modeling fraternty except less than would be acceptable in the armour world??? If I purchased say, a Tamyia or other compaies kits, with the same level of detail (that is either wrong or poorly done ...) I would definetly not purchase another kit from them again. Yes, the Revell Type VII C/40 Sub, is a real gem, and most likely is worth the +$100 price here in Canada, but even that is not as detailed as I would expect. I think that the companies who make ship models know this, that they know that the ship modelers WILL ACCEPT inaccurate or missing or less than acceptable detail, because they are the only game in town.

I find that unacceptable, and we need to let the companies know this, otherwise they will continue to produce inferior product. I think that a major re-do of the Snowberry kit is in order here, at least to match the detail of the new sub from Revell.

What is your opinion here folks???

Rob Savage

Well Rob, in my opinion the Revell Snowberry model started out as a Matchbox toy, and Revell just hasn't got around to re-tooling. And they probably won't because modelers are still snapping up the kits so why go the expense? Sure I'd love to see it and other kits as well redone, but I'm not holding my breath.

The lack of detail in that model is one reason I decided to go my own way with my Chicoutimi.

Now on to some of your other questions:
I am rather poor electronically, and do not have a scanner, so I can't copy the photo you want. Frankly I think by the time it gets scanned, Emailed, and printed it will lose a lot of the detail you are looking for as it is not a great shot to begin with.

Now, after saying that I'll try at work next week ...

The book should be available from Chapters. Try them on line.

Another resource you might try is the Maritime Museum of the Great Lakes (Kingston). They can be contacted through their web site. I have visited them a few times for my Chicoutimi research and they are most helpful.

Morden would have been repainted during her January '44 refit, so that accounts for the difference in colour schemes.

The bandstand for the 40mm was never moved. Canadian corvettes always had theirs at the after end of the engine room casing except for 10 which were built to RN pattern for the Royal Navy. These 10 also had round sterns, shorter casings, and no provision for minesweeping gear. Snowberry was one of these 10, even though she was manned by the RCN, that accounts for the difference there.

The number of engine room skylights may also be an RN pattern difference, or four lights per side may have been the practice at Port Arthur Shipbuilding, who built Morden. There was a war on and in the haste, remember Canada's shipbuilding industry was disorganized at the time, yards were given a lot of discretion in which types of fittings were installed, if they did not have the Admiralty patterns specified.

The bridge was extended and the Asdic hut added during the January '44 refit. The 271 radar was apparently added at this time as well, considering your earlier picture.

When you mention the early type radar, are you referring to the Canadian SW2C? This looks like a TV antenna and was usually carried at the masthead. Some corvettes kept it even after the 271 was added as it was a decent air search set. My photo of Morden is not clear as to if this antenna is still carried after the refit.

Good luck with your build, it is always nice to see other ships besides Snowberry.
Bruce

Hi Bruce Don't bother scanning the picture .... I found a copy here in London, and I am going to photocopy it back to front (the book!)(THANKS FOR THE TRY THOUGH!!!). Now I am not sure, but I believe that the radar on the earlier picture of the K170 is the SW2C as there is no radar hut as provided in the Snowberry kit. (one of two different kinds) I am running around here, trying to find the book by one of the Morden's crew, that I read in 2002. In this book, were descriptions of the ship, etc, and this would help. What I really need though is a photograph of the area that shows the the layout of the main mast. I really don't relish the thought of having to shorten the foc'sl (sp?) if I can get away with it. But it looks likely that I will have to do it, as the Morden was in this configuration when she sunk the U-Boat. I have tapped out the web, and the offical navy (DND) as they have little other pictures other than what has alread been printed. I am approching this project like it was a armoured vehicle, and I am doing it in sub assemblies, as much as I can. It is frustrating to do ship models (other than U-Boats) as there is not much in photos around (that show details) Yes, I have checked out the Sackville pictures, but I find that the current K181 is not historically accurate as it should be. I was speaking to someone here in London, who was in the Navy at the time of the Sackville re-build, and he told me that they used the layout represented in the Revell kit, as somewhat of a place to start. Please note that these people were volinteers, and that it is not a fault of anyone, but that the Corvettes just went thought many re-fits that they just changed from 1940 to 1945. As far as what I said, in the earlier post, I still think that the ship modeling fraternaty just accepts lower standards of detail, than the armour modelers (and the details in the airplane kits too) Car models are the worst, and the just represent the general look of the real thing. Sure, It's not possible to model somthing that is 5+ city blocks long (as in the newer aircraft carriers) but I think that with reasonable amount of detail included in the box, it can go along way. I am just waiting (or chomping at the bit ....!) to get my hands on the new Revell Sub. Picture the both of them, on your (or mine main desk!) desk at home, the K170 (or your favourite ship here ...) and one of the German subs nose to nose!

Rob Savage!

Hi Rob:
First let me correct a mistake in my previous message: in it I said the 10 corvettes built in Canada for the RN had shorter ER casings. That is incorrect, the reverse was true, the RCN shortened the casing and squared the stern to make room for minesweeping gear.

BTW, in 1942 Morden may well have been carrying both masts as well as the Oropesa minesweeping gear, which is quite conspicuous on the quarterdeck, so if that is the time you are aiming for then most of what I said previously relating to the 1944 photo would not apply (for example, at that time the ship would be carrying both dinghys instead of one whaler).

To make your Snowberry into an authentic Morden with a short forecastle is going to involve extensive kit bashing, as the stern will have to be cut off and reshaped to the RCN pattern as well as shortening the aforementioned casing, and building a galley between the funnel and superstructure (shortening the casing displaced the galley from that location in RN corvettes). Then the extra mast, MS gear, and so on.

I considered long and hard about doing the same thing for Chicoutimi, and finally decided to start from scratch using the plans in the Anatomy of the Ship series book "HMCS Agassiz" as a guide. Also I wanted 1:48 scale.

I suggest you visit the gallery and forum at modelwarships.com. There are many builders of corvettes there and you may find one that has gone through this grief already.

Another photo source might be John Harland, who co-authored the Anatomy book about Agassiz. I believe he lives in Kelowna, or you can try through his publisher, Vanwell publishing, Box 2131, St. Catherines, ON, L2M 6P5

I would be interesting in learning what you find out about Morden, and how you decide to proceed.
Bruce

Hi Rob, Have this kit still in the box, is it really THAT bad? If it is, a quote springs to mind Ì've already wasted my money, I'm not going to waste my time'. I had planned to do it as K49 Compass Rose from the Cruel Sea movie, now I don't know. Is there a list of lousy kits anywhere? I don't think we should have to fix and struggle with kits, no fun in that I'd rather scratch build than try fix some-one else's mistakes. Very valid topic-Thanks.

I got this kit about 2 years ago as my "return to modelling" project.(It was the largest box in the shop). I built it virtually out of the box but added my own details with help from various modelling forums. Photos of my attempt can be seen on the modelwarships.com website, along with lots of info regarding this kit.
Personally, I don`t think that it is that bad and screams out for detailing. If you are going to modify the existing kit then go for it. You will be using filler and styrene for your mods, so a bit more will not make much difference.
I am considering buying this kit again and applying the knowledge that I have gained over the last year or so to produce a better model.
I don`t think that you have wasted money on this kit, just let yourself in for a lot of work.
Go for it!

Rob your right, the kits getting produced are mainly just above basic level and we the modler have to decide how much(the cost) to improve it. Im building the 1/20 scale Dumas PT boat,the kit for its price is very(fittings) crude so a purchased a upgrade kit from Mosquito boat hobbies,well worth it but doubled my investment,also the fibre glass hull is molded incorrectly but can be fixed, IT would be nice to see a improvement in quality in all boat kits or at least possibly offer the model in several different levels?(cost factor)

John Boyce:
Other than the complete lack of detail, the Snowberry kit makes up into a nice corvette after a lot of after market parts and other detailing is added.
Having said that, to make the ship into something other than Snowberry will involve a lot of scratch building as these ships were individually built and modified throughout their service (hence my comments concerning Morden above).
The kit is a good basic start for a generic RN pattern corvette, which is what 'Compass Rose' was after all.
Regards,
Bruce

B.LeCren, Thanks for input, might try this kit afterall. Any idea who supplies detail sets for this? Thanks again,
John

John:
I got the folowing information of some other threads in the forum on this subject. I've used Loyalhanna dockyard for odds and ends and they are quite good. When I built mine years ago it was OOB, and the one I'm doing now is scratched out so I can't comment first hand on the after market parts. I do know others here have used them with success.

Try: www.loyalhannadockyard.com
or: www.djparkins.clara.net/gls/glsmast.htm

Good luck & regards,
Bruce

Hi All, checkout http:www.djparkins.clara.net/ for detail sets for this and other subjects. Also Dynamic Dioramas for great pix of corvette and other amazing stuff. Many thanks to White Ensign Models for ref:.

Hi B.LeCren, Thanks for your reply, didn't notice there was asecond page to this forum until tonight!
Regards John.

No problem John. Like to see some pictures as you progress.
Bruce