Revell's 1/144th, DD-445

Fellas,

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

Kelly, FSM

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!!

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.....

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 

  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