What Happened to The I-53 Thread?

Well I see MR's playmate has run over to the Steel Navy thread where he's posting salacious attacks about the way he was treated here:

http://members.boardhost.com/Warship/msg/1253554593.html

Not to steal Mr. Stone's thunder, but Ernie Petit already has plenty of advice from many including source drawings for their C1 (its 75% correct) as well as a new project they have in the wings. Am certain he won't be losing sleep waiting for another report to show up in his inbox.

Getting back to brass tacks, its a damn shame that Lindberg didn't do it right by modeling the correct B/C3 type hull. After all, the C3 was nothing more than a modified B1/2/3/4 hull: same dimensions, same tubes, displacement only slightly larger.

Think of the possibilities they would have had with one hull tooling combined with different decks, towers, fittings & accessories for aircraft-carrying scout subs, midget carrying subs used in both Pearl & Sydney Harbor attacks as well as late-war Kaiten carriers. A C1 then could be made from that using a separate bow tooling.

If done accurately by someone who knew what they were doing, Lindberg could have taken over Revell's place in the large scale sub market, & we all would have had a blast supporting the after market guys with their photo etch, resin, wood decks & whatever else that would have come about to detail these kits. As it is, the AM guys have pretty much thrown up their hands at trying to correct what they have to work with. With the I-53, it just ain't gonna happen.

Yet another reason to stick to 1/700 ... a kaiten is about 13/16ths of an inch long and the whole frickin' sub (I-58 in this case) is a whopping 6 1/8-inches! Pretty much removes all those hangups about the niggly little details.

Fairseas wrote:

...its a damn shame that Lindberg didn't do it right by modeling the correct B/C3 type hull. After all, the C3 was nothing more than a modified B1/2/3/4 hull: same dimensions, same tubes, displacement only slightly larger. Think of the possibilities they would have had with one hull tooling combined with different decks, towers, fittings & accessories for aircraft-carrying scout subs, midget carrying subs used in both Pearl & Sydney Harbor attacks as well as late-war Kaiten carriers. A C1 then could be made from that using a separate bow tooling. If done accurately by someone who knew what they were doing, Lindberg could have taken over Revell's place in the large scale sub market, & we all would have had a blast supporting the after market guys with their photo etch, resin, wood decks & whatever else that would have come about to detail these kits. As it is, the AM guys have pretty much thrown up their hands at trying to correct what they have to work with. With the I-53, it just ain't gonna happen.

Fairseas wrote:

Well I see MR's playmate has run over to the Steel Navy thread where he's posting salacious attacks about the way he was treated here:

Even over there many people are "up in arms" about the "kit" (hmmmm...some of those sentiments sound very familair...):

C'Mon, aside from the length there isn't much that is right with that kit

Posted by Matt Flegal on September 21, 2009, 7:00:54, in reply to "Question for the unknown MIKE."
199.245.32.210

The bow is wrong. The hull contours are wrong. The sail is wrong. The rudder is wrong. The deck is wrong both in general shape as well as the fittings. I've seen the plans and photos from the archives as I've been contemplating scratchbuilding an I-52 to go with the Gato and that's BS on the excuse they're using. Amazing that they got the hull from those supposed plans yet the sail isn't accurate for the I-153. . . Also, am I to believe that the kit designer didn't do a Google search for pictures, or at least didn't look at actual pictures of the sub he was modeling? Either way it's not speaking highly of his research abilities. There is lots of photo evidence on the web, solid plans in books you can get from HLJ for under $30, heck, the great book Submarines of World War Two by Erminio Bagnasco has good accurate drawings and is available at Amazon for $15. There is plenty of information out there. It was simply not used. As to the whole spook the manufacturer out of making these kits; I say GOOD! If people just want a large submarine Revell's kits are cheaper and much better to boot, let them get the business from the casual model-maker and not have some of theose dollars go to subsidize crap. Now that there is a 1/72 I-boat on the market, no matter how crappy, there is no chance that there will be another one that is accurate. None, so by releasing a piece of garbage they've effectively prevented us I-boat fans from getting a good one down the line. Sorry, but I refuse to go down the gratitiude for any kit no matter how poorly researched or designed route. Trumpeter got justifyably criticized for it's Hornet hull shape and it was a marvel of accuracy compared to this kit. I can't help but notice that people's tolerance for kit innacuracies is inversely proportional to their interest in the kit. A bit different when their sacred cow gets gored. You can't even justify this kit based on the "well, it's cheap and a good entry level kit". It is more expensive than much better sub kits in the same scale. I also fail to understand why we cannot hold manufacturers accountable to their screwups. If Trumpeter released a 1/350 Missouri with the South Dakota's superstructure and 4 twin main turrets, should we all try and refrain from being mean because we might hurt their feelings?

...ran "...over to the Steel Navy thread..." ? 

Gee, I was posting about Lindberg's work several days before I posted similar material here.  So much for your knowing what's actually going on.

Oh and I'd say Matt Flegal demonstrated a positive and mature response in his dealings offline with yours truly.  Such a breath of fresh air, too.  Makes one wonder why two or three here can't manage the same.

Anyway, for reasons I developed today and explained to Matt a short time later, I have serious doubts about whether Lindberg will manage the molds correctly on either the I-20 or the GZ, unfortunately. 

Randy Stone wrote:

Anyway, for reasons I developed today and explained to Matt a short time later, I have serious doubts about whether Lindberg will manage the molds correctly on either the I-20 or the GZ, unfortunately.

What reasons are those?

Think of the possibilities we could have modeled IF Lindberg had done it right:

* B1: I-19, I-26, I-27, I-30, I-36 scout aircraft / midget / kaiten carriers - this type had far more historical value to modelers due to West Coast attacks in late '41, Sydney Harbor attack May '42 plus overall success in the war. I-19 holds the record for most success with a single salvo sinking the carrier Wasp, a DD & damaging North Carolina. I-26 sank the cruiser Juneau & damaged Saratoga. I-27 was one of the B1 midget carriers that attacked Sydney Harbor 31 May '42. I-30 made the first voyage to occupied France in '42. I-36 was the first kaiten carrier & survived the war.

* B2: I-41, I-44 scout aircraft / midget / kaiten carriers - I-41 damaged USS Reno Nov '44; I-44 was converted into a Kaitan carrier & sunk April '45.

* B3/4: I-58 aircraft / kaiten carriers - I-58 was originally a scout aircraft carrier & converted for Kaiten duty late '44; sank USS Indianapolis & survived the war.

* C1: I-20, I-22, I-24 midget carriers - All participated in Pearl Harbor attack; I-22 & I-24 attacked Sydney. I-24 has the dubious honor of having one of its midget sub crew become the first Japanese POW of WW2 when Ensign Sakamaki ran HA-19 aground & was washed ashore unconscious on Waimanalo Beach. His crewman shot himself after their self-destruct charges failed to detonate.

* C2: I-47 attack / kaiten carrier - I-47 partook in the first Kaitan operation along with I-36 & survived the war.

* C3: I-52, I-53 attack / kaiten carrier - I-52 in her original configuration was sunk off Cape Verde June '44 loaded with gold & Germans, & would have made an interesting subject. I-53, of course, survived the war & was the only kaiten carrier to sink a warship, DE USS Underhill.

Who knows, maybe Lindberg will see their mistake, regroup & retool with the knowledge they've learned in the past few weeks. I've got plenty of other projects in the pipeline & not in any hurry at this point to jump in & buy something that is so far off the mark.

Fairseas wrote:

"...I"m still holding out hope that Lindberg will see their mistakes, regroup & retool the knowledge they've learned in the past few weeks..."

...that just isn't going to happen here, or with the GZ.  In fact, a fair case can be made that the personal attacks drowned out "...the knowledge (they could have) learned in the past few weeks..."  That would not be the only reason, of course, but let's not dismiss how the totally negative bombast by some defeated its own purpose...if that purpose was ever to educate Lindberg.

Randy Stone wrote:

Fairseas wrote: "...I"m still holding out hope that Lindberg will see their mistakes, regroup & retool the knowledge they've learned in the past few weeks..." ...that just isn't going to happen here, or with the GZ.  In fact, a fair case can be made that the personal attacks drowned out "...the knowledge (they could have) learned in the past few weeks..."  That would not be the only reason, of course, but let's not dismiss how the totally negative bombast by some defeated its own purpose...if that purpose was ever to educate Lindberg.

Randy, you don't want to have a reasonable discussion in here, admit it.  I asked you a simple question in a civil way and you just skirt it with a repeat of your earlier post. How do you know the molds won't be fixed? I attempt to turn this thread into a civil discussion and you refuse...

I believe you enjoy all of the discourse surrounding this kit and you feel self-important by claiming to have insight into the minds and workings of Lindberg but you never fill in the blanks with facts.

Since you have nothing to add but claims of "knowing", let's enjoy some more opinions on the I-53 (PS: it isn't my job---or anyone of their consumers' job---to educate Lindberg on models they produce):

^---- LOL - Best post this month. Where's my putty? (nt)

Posted by Scott (STL) on September 21, 2009, 5:55:44, in reply to "a polite reply"
24.216.210.202

--Previous Message-- : I'm shocked! It is incredibly rude to demand : an accurate model kit from Linberg. Linberg : is not in the business of supplying accurate : model kits. Please educate yourself before : you post here, sir, thank you. : : The president of Linberg took time out from : napping to post here after the thread moved : to page 2 and we are so very priveledged : that I could cry for this feeling of : blessedness. : : Your input isnt neccesary. Mr Petit has an : expert model designer in Pakistan. He is : right and all the books and photos are : wrong. He will prove this later in : Chicago. He used terms such as : "research" and "archive" : and spent lots of money so it must be true. : So be patient please. Its the polite and : gentelmanly thing to do. : : Please also buy the $250 Graf Zeppelin as : featured in "The little Mermaid" : and "Finding Emo". In 1/180 to : 1/260-ish scale. Its big and has a swastika. : Big is good. Swastikas are cool. You want : this kit. : : It is our solem duty as model builders to : support Linberg and help them recoup 700k : invested on a YEAR of research to create : these new kits which can with labor and : putty be built into a scale model of the : subject, or any other subject , depending : on the amount of putty and labor you use. : : : Sincerely, : Michael Taylor

Just to set the record straight on Kaiten sinkings, the USS Underhill wasn't the only ship sunk by this weapon, the oiler USS Mississinewa (AO-59) was sunk by one.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mississinewa_(AO-59)

p.s. That was a very clever post by Mike Taylor.

subfixer wrote:

Just to set the record straight on Kaiten sinkings, the USS Underhill wasn't the only ship sunk by this weapon, the oiler USS Mississinewa (AO-59) was sunk by one. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mississinewa_(AO-59) p.s. That was a very clever post by Mike Taylor.

Agreed, there were two ships sunk by Kaitens with USS Mississinewa the first on 20 Nov '44 (the IJN claimed 3 carriers & 2 battleships sunk) but I said "the only warship". I think its worth noting that Lindberg's designer, Rich Melillo, couldn't name USS Underhill in one of the official reply letters that were published on the earlier, now deceased, thread.

Fairseas wrote:

subfixer wrote: Just to set the record straight on Kaiten sinkings, the USS Underhill wasn't the only ship sunk by this weapon, the oiler USS Mississinewa (AO-59) was sunk by one. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mississinewa_(AO-59)   Agreed, there were two ships sunk by Kaitens with USS Mississinewa the first on 20 Nov '44 (claims were 3 carriers & 2 battleships) but I said "the only warship". I think its worth noting that Lindberg's designer, Rich Melillo, couldn't name USS Underhill in one of the official reply letters that were published on the earlier, now deceased, thread.

The thread's not dead, it has been reincarnated in this thread. Long live the thread!

ROFL!!!!   I have seen Lindberg's Graf Zeppelin kit "as featured in the Little Mermaid" lol and my eyes are still stinging.    I'm afraid the web outrage over the "I-53" will be repeated when the GZ hits the hobby stores, it shows the same clueless, careless clumsy work.   Just horrible, and twice the price.  Its like something you'd find in the Johnson Smith Fun Factory catalog under a line like "Fool Your Friends with this Huge Nazi Aircraft Carrier! Makes Loud Fart Noises!"  

Now I hear Lindberg has another something waiting in the wings?  Can anybody reveal what it is?  I hope its not a subject of any interest to me! 

 Dave

--Previous Message-- : I'm shocked! It is incredibly rude to demand : an accurate model kit from Linberg. Linberg : is not in the business of supplying accurate : model kits. ... : Please also buy the $250 Graf Zeppelin as : featured in "The little Mermaid" : and "Finding Emo". In 1/180 to : 1/260-ish scale. Its big and has a swastika. : Big is good. Swastikas are cool. You want : this kit. : .. : these new kits which can ..  be built into a scale model of the : subject, or any other subject , depending : on the amount of putty and labor you use. : : :

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

I kind of feel like the camper that goes home to see on the evening news his campfire started a 1000 acre brushfire......

That was some interesting reading over on SN......I guess this sub is now destined to be more the poster child for the R/C sub crowd than the true scale model builder.

If LH continues to sell out their production runs of this kit, I personally don't see them fixing this one (I hope they do and wish them success), and if the GZ comes out like that prototype pictured on the I-53's instructions.....we'll then I'll know for sure what customer base they are targeting.

 

Coincidentally, my junior high school history teacher was an enlisted man aboard the Mississinewa. Nice gentleman. He never talked about the war. I did a show and tell with a Monogram cum Aurora U-boat. That is when he mentioned the Miss...

He passed on a few years ago as we all will in due time.  

 

 

 

...I do enjoy mature discourse into various topics, that I have to admit.  Please check out the discussion regarding HMS Glorious in Warship International, Volume 45, Number 4, pp. 263-264 & Volume 46, Number 2, pp. 97-100, for a flavor of how mature discussion is conducted.  And, considering a number of the folks who have PM'ed me, and Matt Flegal--among others--who responded to me from the very first on this topic--on that Board I supposedly ran to, I have found mature discourse.  That you have finally asked a question with some measure of civility may simply reflect the fact that you have come to realize how important civil discourse can be; frankly, I don't know.

I never wrote that I know the molds won't be reworked but only, based on my conversations with a number of people--both directly and indirectly involved with this whole issue--that I believe that won't be the case.  Strictly speaking, my belief of what will or will not occur is obviously not a fact I can present as such.  Then again, that is because I readily recognize the difference between 'belief' and 'fact.' 

As it happens, Matt knows the precise facts which lead me to believe what I've written, and the reason he knows these things is because he was open, polite and approachable whereas other folks were opinionated, boisterous and contemptuous of what others had to say.  It seems to me Matt's attitude has a great deal to commend it.

As to my opinions about the kit itself (and related issues such as mold rework), which you originally applauded by noting my 'stones' in calling attention to several obvious deficiencies of the kit, they will be presented when I have the chance to complete a report based on the numerous sources I have (including the Gakken I just picked up out of EBay for this explicit purpose), which are somewhat dwarfed by folks more aware of facts regarding IJN subs such as, obviously, Matt Flegal.

Randy Stone

What is it going to take to make this stop? Ok, hitting the RA button now.

That makes two of us, Bondoman. 

It's not for me to tell the moderators how to run this Forum, but it surely wasn't intended to be used the way it's been used in this thread.  I admit the past few days have been something of a revelation.  I didn't know that adults were capable of behaving like this - over such an issue as the quality of a plastic ship model kit. 

I fervently hope the moderators will lock the thread or, better yet, delete it.  That, of course, is up to them; it is, after all, FSM's site.  But if this sort of behavior becomes the norm, I, for one, want nothing more to do with it.

Enough, gentlemen.

 

Matt @ FSM