Revell's 1/144th, DD-445

  SAERAT12 --I am ashamed of you. How can you call a reasonable priced box of parts that are great for scratchbuilding, junk! Why I,ve used this pile of so called junk to create some audacious ships. It,s not the start we need worry about,but the finish. The U.S.S. MELVIN (BLUE DEVIL) is NOT the cats meow as FLETCHER go. I use this kit as a base for many types of destroyers and their subsequent conversions. I have two, right now cut in quarters waiting to become, one, a GEARING FRAM and, two to become a SUMNER radar picket.I will buy kits that catch my fancy, just to build. I got a little burned when a few folks criticized my purchase of TRUMPETER,S U.S.S. NORTH CAROLINA. They said I needed all this resin and P.E. to make her correct. Well, I went to see her(The real ship) and I gotta tell you now. I can build a very good looking ship that mirrors the floating museum, and I didn,t need all that stuff!So, the accuracy issue aside, for the most part, if it,s close I just enjoy the build. Isn,t that what modelbuilding is about anyway? I remember club members getting in arguments about accuracy. If I get a commission to build for a museum or working client(CLEAN BAY ) comes to mind(I did four for them)then I will worry about accuracy. ENJOY the hobby--tankerbuilder

searat12 wrote:

Yeah, you are right, the 'Blue Devil' IS a piece of junk!  And true, model size is often a problem for display purposes, and for those with such problems, it is probably best to stick 1/700 yes?  i have al;so heard from a variety of people that the 1/700 kits are generally more accurate than a lot of the corresponding 1/350 kits.....

I used to build  a lot of 1:700 scale,  still do on occasion on special subjects of interest.   But my 15 dancing thumbs have trouble working in that small a scale.

On accuracy I disagree.  1:700 scale is probably worse for scale accuracy than is 1:350 or larger scales.   For many parts you are below the capabilities of injection molding.  Look at most 1:700 scale open gun mounts & 20mms.   To replicate parts in PE, the parts would be so fine and wispy that most modelers would not be able to form them.  You can get away with a lot in 1:700 just with paint and weathring, stuff which begins to stand out in larger scales. 

Injected 1:350 is less wrong,  at least by a factor of two, over 1:700 capabiliites.  Some resin replacements exceed the capabilities of injected plastic

1:700 scale is a compromise between display size and scale accuracy 

EdGrune wrote:

searat12 wrote: What if you wanted to build a straight-up, square-bridge Fletcher?  Are all these AM parts REALLY necessary?  It all depends on your personal choices.   What is your personal definition of accuracy?  Go to destroyerhistory.org to review the progression of armament on the Fletchers.    In it you will see that there were no square-bridge variants with the 1x twin 40mm configuration as shown in the kit.  They were in what is called the 10 barrel (5x twin mounts) configuration.  So yes,  these AM parts are really necessary.  Out of the box the kit can be made into only a few of the class Sure you could use a lesser-quality set of references.   Squadron is often wrong more times than it is right.  searat12 wrote:  As for 'large and unwieldy,' what about the old 'Blue Devil' destroyer from Lindberg?  What about the 1/200 Yamato from Nichimo?  Just what constitutes 'unwieldy?'   Large and unweildy is, well my personal opinion.   I have a 72 scale U-boat and Gato, and have no plece to display them.    I even have problems finding display for 1:350 scale aircraft carriers & battleships.   I find that I'm centering on destroyer-sized subjects.  Would I like one of these kits? Yes I would,  but not at the cited MSRP, and not of the subject matter.   And I too would like one of the up-gunned mid-to-late war variants. The Blue Devil is a piece of crap.  Its big.  Its wrong.   I have neither the time nor the interest in fixing what is wrong with it to make it presentable.

Yeah, you are right, the 'Blue Devil' IS a piece of junk!  And true, model size is often a problem for display purposes, and for those with such problems, it is probably best to stick 1/700 yes?  i have al;so heard from a variety of people that the 1/700 kits are generally more accurate than a lot of the corresponding 1/350 kits.....

Ah, Eddy, your kill'n me. Maybe I'll just focus on my Gato conversion (since I already bought those aftermarket parts) and wait to see if anyone comes out with conversion sets for this Fletcher. 

Thanks for the run down of what it would take.

searat12 wrote:

What if you wanted to build a straight-up, square-bridge Fletcher?  Are all these AM parts REALLY necessary?

It all depends on your personal choices.   What is your personal definition of accuracy?  Go to destroyerhistory.org to review the progression of armament on the Fletchers.    In it you will see that there were no square-bridge variants with the 1x twin 40mm configuration as shown in the kit.  They were in what is called the 10 barrel (5x twin mounts) configuration.  So yes,  these AM parts are really necessary.  Out of the box the kit can be made into only a few of the class

Sure you could use a lesser-quality set of references.   Squadron is often wrong more times than it is right.

searat12 wrote:

As for 'large and unwieldy,' what about the old 'Blue Devil' destroyer from Lindberg?  What about the 1/200 Yamato from Nichimo?  Just what constitutes 'unwieldy?'

Large and unweildy is, well my personal opinion.   I have a 72 scale U-boat and Gato, and have no plece to display them.    I even have problems finding display for 1:350 scale aircraft carriers & battleships.   I find that I'm centering on destroyer-sized subjects.  Would I like one of these kits? Yes I would,  but not at the cited MSRP, and not of the subject matter.   And I too would like one of the up-gunned mid-to-late war variants.

The Blue Devil is a piece of crap.  Its big.  Its wrong.   I have neither the time nor the interest in fixing what is wrong with it to make it presentable.

What if you wanted to build a straight-up, square-bridge Fletcher?  Are all these AM parts REALLY necessary? As for 'large and unwieldy,' what about the old 'Blue Devil' destroyer from Lindberg?  What about the 1/200 Yamato from Nichimo?  Just what constitutes 'unwieldy?'  Seems to me like a big campaign to 'trash' this particular model, rather than deal with, and accept it for what it IS........ Do I hear a Dragon calling?  I am beginning to sense something of a conspiracy, which means I should probably get this kit now, before it is 'shouted' off of the market....

Aurora-7 wrote:

EdGrune wrote: Oh, and BTW, the square-bridge Fletcher is available in other ship modeling scales, from 1:2400 (GHQ) to 1:192 (Iron Shipwright) Yes, I have Trumpeter's 1/350 Sullivans kit I was going to use to make the Johnston at the time of the Battle off Samar, but a 1/144 one would be a real eye catcher.

Right now there are no AM gun sets and the conversion to square bridge is just a couple of working thoughts.  

In order to convert the 1:144 round-bridge Fletcher to a mid-war square bridge variant you will need an additional four 40mm twin mounts.  The Johnston had five as lost.   You will also need at least another three 20mm Oerlikons.  

 I'm not going to make you go buy four of the kits at 125 bux per, but I will make you spend 25 bux for each of the "conjectural" AM 40mm twins.  I think my estimates are conservative.   You may want to buy five of them so that they all match.

You will also need to buy AM 20mm guns.  Lets say they are 10 bux per (conservatively).  Thats 30 bux to get you to the requisite seven.   Do they need to be consistent?   Make that 70 bux.

Now you need references and drawings to scratchbuild the square bridge and all the gun tub mods.   Your best one-stop source is the Floating Drydock's Fletcher plan eBook at 26 per.

Lets just estimate another 25 bucks for Evergreen stock to scratchbuild from.

So, in order to build a square-bridge Fletcher as the Johnston  you are going to need

1 basic kit  @ 125.00 (MSRP)

4x 40mm    @ 100.00 (SWAG)  maybe more

3x 20mm    @  30.00  (SWAG)  maybe more

reference       26.00

material          25.00  (SWAG) maybe more

total           281.00+ (SWAG)

 For less than this amount, you can buy a 1:192 resin square-bridge Fletcher as the USS Johnston from Iron Shipwright.   They have done the research for you -- you don't need to purchase reference books to get the plans correct.   They've done the heavy lifting for you of getting the square bridge laid out correctly.  The kit comes with the correct numbers of 40mm and 20mm guns.   No need to hit the after market suppliers.   The kit comes with photoetched brass to get you finer details than you can get in the plastic kit.  

The ISW kit has hatches and bulkhead details which will not be on your scratchbuilt version.  You will have to sratchbuild masters and cast duplicates.  That is a time and cost factor which I've not begun to address.

As far as size,  it might not be as large and unweildly as the revell Fletcher,  but it is still an impressive display piece when completed.   The one which was on display at the ISW table at this past year's IPMS Nats drew many favorable comments

When you stop to consider what you get in a resin kit -- it is complete.   One price gets you all.    By the time you start adding in aftermarket accessories needed to bring a plastic kit up to resin standards you are in the same price ballpark as the resin kit. 

Just some food for thought.

searat12 wrote:

As for the Revell Fletcher, has anyone seen if there are brass replacement barrels for the 5" guns available yet?

Yes, BMK Modelmarine.de Shop in Germany. 

EdGrune wrote:

Oh, and BTW, the square-bridge Fletcher is available in other ship modeling scales, from 1:2400 (GHQ) to 1:192 (Iron Shipwright)

 

Yes, I have Trumpeter's 1/350 Sullivans kit I was going to use to make the Johnston at the time of the Battle off Samar, but a 1/144 one would be a real eye catcher.

There was an article about distressing skins of aircraft, that we wingnuts circulated back in Dec. 07. I'll keep looking for the link. Basically, and this is for 1/48 scale a/c, use a #15 knife which is the one with the 1/4 round end on the blade. Draw the grid of ribs and stringers on with a Sharpie. Scrape sideways the areas. When all is scraped, oversand until the scratches are not too ugly. This is for depressions that would be about 1/8" wide by 3/8" long, or so. I have no clue what sizes you all need.

Oilcanning refers to the flexible diaphram on the bottom of this:

Or maybe the famous Red Sox pitcher.

My guess is the plates will fade back significantly, once paint is applied....

Searat, I'm not yelling. Just expressing my opinion. If I was yelling it would LOOK LIKE THIS. But let's not let that detract from the subject at hand. Yes, there are brass barrels for the Revell kit. There are a lot of aftermarket items in the works for this kit.

The hull plates are a bit overscale, I don't find them objectionable myself. This is typically done by the mold cutter as if it was done to scale the lines would most likely get polished out when the tool was finished. Even in a large scale like 1/144 a 2" plate scales out to be .017 or about 1/64th of an inch. Fine features have to be a bit exaggerated so they are still there after the mold is finished. I haven't really looked the kit over too much other than to see some of the work that others have done on it. It looks pretty accurate in shape, so it will make a good platform on which to build.

Someone mentioned the hull plates on the Revell model are 'overscale.'  Can anyone confirm this?  Is it really noticeable?  I got badly burned with the Hasegawa 'Nagato' last year, and don't want to make THAT mistake again!!

Fellas,

Keep the conversation cordial, and we'll keep the thread going. Thanks.

Kelly, FSM

Exactly!  I don't want to discuss the other thread, what interests me is the method by which this guy achieved the oilcanning effect.  Apparently, he used the eraser end of a pencil with a bit of sandpaper on it, slowly sanding away each of the indentations.... dozens of them!  A remarkable effort with remarkable results!  I know I sure don't have the patience for that sort of thing, but it always amazes me when someone does....

As for the Revell Fletcher, has anyone seen if there are brass replacement barrels for the 5" guns available yet?

 Now, now, Let's not bicker over who killed who (Monty Python). Let's just try to have fun at our hobby, besides, do you not build to please yourself? If you want "oil canning" do it, if not, build it that way. If you need to have a pissing match, "PM" each other. Because I would Guess... most of us here are here for enjoyment and commaradary. Definately not what you have turned this thread into.

                                                                         doc 

I really give up here. Apparently two grown men want to go head to head on a non-issue. Time to pop a beer and get a bag of munchies, sit down and watch the fun .

Julian

Tracy White wrote:

searat12 wrote: And the shouting begins again! Seriously, you think that is shouting? You miss the point... the MAJORITY of modelers do not want oil canning. Snap quiz: do you know how that was determined? I have the 1/144 Fletcher and I found the hull plating to be grossly overscale to the point that it's distracting. It will be okay, I think, once the paint is down and hiding the plating somewhat, but even in that scale it shouldn't really be any thicker than a piece of tape.

...and once again, the shouting begins!  Get it straight; I don't CARE what you want in a model, or what you think other people want in a model.  I know what I would like in a model, and apparently, there are others who think likewise, enough to go through enormous effort in order to achieve it.  And really, that's all there is to say about it, so can we drop this NOW, and get back to the subject at hand?  The Revell Fletcher, at 1/144 scale, looks to be a quite splendid kit, and because of its size, apparently lends itself better to a variety of weathering and detailing features than the Dragon 1/350 Buchanan, don't you agree?

 Jay, If you have been building for as long as it has taken you to write 500+ posts, DIVE IN buddy! This scale should be an easier build than say 1/700th.

                                                                           doc

This looks great. I was wondering how hard this kit would is for a non ship builder? As my father was on a Fletcher class in Korea and wanted to build it.

Jason

Tracy White wrote:

You miss the point... the MAJORITY of modelers do not want oil canning. Snap quiz: do you know how that was determined?

Humor me, tell me how you know the "MAJORITY" of modelers do not want oil canning?

Julian

searat12 wrote:

And the shouting begins again!

Seriously, you think that is shouting?

You miss the point... the MAJORITY of modelers do not want oil canning. Snap quiz: do you know how that was determined?

I have the 1/144 Fletcher and I found the hull plating to be grossly overscale to the point that it's distracting. It will be okay, I think, once the paint is down and hiding the plating somewhat, but even in that scale it shouldn't really be any thicker than a piece of tape.

Lets not get the panties all bunched up about adding or not adding what comes down to dents in a model ship If you want to try this without taking a risk contact Revell of Germany: they were prepared to supply spare hull parts for the very nice price of 15 euros so that if I plooked the oilcanning I would still have a pristine hull left. I didn't take up on their very kind offer because I got side tracked by a large number of Dragon armour models so as I said before, the Fletcher sits pretty in my stash waiting on better times. An alternative is adding shading with different tones of gray which at this scale will give the same effect (I did this in 1/72 scale on my Revell U-boat).

Julian

ModelWarships wrote:

searat12 wrote: That is a brilliant thread on oilcanning!!!  I recall having a prolonged argument in reference to the Dragon USS Buchanan in this forum some time ago, as I hoped one day a model company might be able to simply mold-in some oilcanning effects.  However, I was completely shouted down by all and sundry that this was 'impossible' and 'undesirable,' and 'we wouldn't even think of producing such a thing!!'  In any case, the 1/144 Revell destroyer is a much larger scale, so perhaps the effects are better suited to this size.  Certainly looks outstanding in this example, no doubt about it!!  Oh come on I didn't shout you down. I simply disagreed with you on the desirability of the oil canning. It is not impossible to add to the model, just time consuming and hard on my computer due to all the extra curved surfaces. In 350 scale the effect would have to be greatly exaggerated to make it show up anyway. The hull mold is pretty complicated and in this case there was only going to be one built so it was either yay or nay on oil canning. There are more modelers building their ships in pristine condition than those who weather them. So in this case the majority was served. I am not opposed to doing an oil canned version, but it would take a new tool and I don't see that happening right now. But you never know, someday Dragon may want to revive interest in the Benson/Gleaves kits and that would be one way to do it. But for now, it is up to those awesome superdetail nuts to add it to the kit and make their models stand out in the crowd.

.... And the shouting begins again!  I don't recall naming any names, but it looks like you just jumped right in anyways!  At this point, I don't care, but I was very pleased to see what an amazing amount of effort could do to produce the effect I had been discussing before, and what some of those modellers 'who don't want that sort of weathering' will do to produce it anyways...

EdGrune wrote:

These are the rubber "bath mat" tiles applied to the decks to prevent slipping.

Not rubber... essentially paint with sand in it to make it extra rough. Rubber would be too flammable. I've got a document I'm Sloooooowwwwwly working on (it's a snoozer to code but of some historical interest) detailing the Navy's transition to metal decks on carriers and how they tested the paint on them.

tankerbuilder wrote:

HI  Well the interest in squared bridge fletchers certainly is there. The truth of it is , I,ve only seen the square bridge in r.c. size ships and the LINDBERG kit , of course the old REVELL fletcher (The small one ) If you use the drawings from scale shipyard or just copy the U.S.S. MELVIN,S (from lindberg )  That bridge is not fully accurate ,but, it,s a start .

If you are going to invest  your resources (time, money, styrene, etc.) in a scratchbuilding a square bridge, you would be better served in obtaining a copy of the Floating Drydock's Fletcher plan eBook than copying the POS Lindberg kit.   The eBook has detailed plans for both round and square-bridge variants and is chocked full of photos and scrap-view drawings to detail the items shown on the larger plans.  

Bob Steinbrunn, builder of the award-winning USS Kidd model which FSM featured a few years back said that this plan book was his single most important reference in detailing his model.

The eBook is available from the Floating Drydock (floatingdrydock.com) and is in PDF format on a CD.  It also costs less than the Lindberg offering.

Oh, and BTW, the square-bridge Fletcher is available in other ship modeling scales, from 1:2400 (GHQ) to 1:192 (Iron Shipwright)

  HI  Well the interest in squared bridge fletchers certainly is there. The truth of it is , I,ve only seen the square bridge in r.c. size ships and the LINDBERG kit , of course the old REVELL fletcher (The small one ) If you use the drawings from scale shipyard or just copy the U.S.S. MELVIN,S (from lindberg )  That bridge is not fully accurate ,but, it,s a start .

  HI .... To start out , why would anyone want to put the dents in a ship known as oilcanning . ???? The scales are usually to small and would make the models in smaller scales look less than right . When I scratch build a train scale ship the oilcanning , as you call it is there . Why? well I plate these ships just like the yards do and they don,t come out smooth . Now ,I do sand them down prior to painting and the effect is hardly noticable , except when the light hits them just right . That,s the way it should be . NOW , in 1/350 or even 1/144 the effect would be to tedious to include in the build . LINDBERG,S U.S.S, MELVIN has some sink marks that when after sanding the hull ,look like the oilcanning you speak of . The 1/200 S.M.S. KRONPRINZ that I am doing as a takeoff on the paper kit has that effect . WHY ? Well every plate from centerline to the main deck is there , each , individually installed so the line of hull has some oilcanning . This phenomena is also caused by tugs AND very rough seas . You can paint for effect but at smaller (1/350 ) scale ,do you really want to do it ????

searat12 wrote:

That is a brilliant thread on oilcanning!!!  I recall having a prolonged argument in reference to the Dragon USS Buchanan in this forum some time ago, as I hoped one day a model company might be able to simply mold-in some oilcanning effects.  However, I was completely shouted down by all and sundry that this was 'impossible' and 'undesirable,' and 'we wouldn't even think of producing such a thing!!'  In any case, the 1/144 Revell destroyer is a much larger scale, so perhaps the effects are better suited to this size.  Certainly looks outstanding in this example, no doubt about it!!

 Oh come on I didn't shout you down. I simply disagreed with you on the desirability of the oil canning. It is not impossible to add to the model, just time consuming and hard on my computer due to all the extra curved surfaces. In 350 scale the effect would have to be greatly exaggerated to make it show up anyway. The hull mold is pretty complicated and in this case there was only going to be one built so it was either yay or nay on oil canning. There are more modelers building their ships in pristine condition than those who weather them. So in this case the majority was served. I am not opposed to doing an oil canned version, but it would take a new tool and I don't see that happening right now. But you never know, someday Dragon may want to revive interest in the Benson/Gleaves kits and that would be one way to do it. But for now, it is up to those awesome superdetail nuts to add it to the kit and make their models stand out in the crowd.