German Destroyer comparisons...

cerberusjf

And what agenda am I trying to advance, Tracy?

Not you; Mannstein... unless I'm mistaking his intent, he took my admission that I caused problems with my build's hull interface by trying to minimize the work on the deck fit as proof there is a fit problem on the hull interface.

I broke it, therefore it's a problem with the Dragon kit... "case closed," as he said.

But this is textual and not an actual face-to-face conversation, so I admit I could be missing inflection.

I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek by suggesting you were actually reading and understanding what someone else said, which is a bad way to keep pushing an agenda that requires closed thought. Once again... the subtlety was lost in text.

p38jl

Good Discussion fellas

...not enough rust...

p38jl

 

Good Discussion fellas

they must be searching for the great White Whale...

Good Discussion fellas

....but ships without railing are just too darn dangerous...just think of the lads up on the weather deck when the smoking lamp is lit....

I'll see your Tirpitz and raise you one Gneisenau...

Tirpitz...

keilau

 

Tracy White:

 

 

cerberusjf:

I think Tracy would say that the putty he used to fit the two halves together was due to his mistake in trying to adjust the fit of the upper hull to the deck first, then fitting the lower hull and nothing to do with the fact that the deck did not fit the hull...

 

Careful... it's hard to advance an agenda when you actually read and comprehend what the poster said instead of trying to slant and spin it the way Mannstein did!

 

 

What else can you do to keep the thread going. "slant and spin" will keep the original posters coming back.

Randomly inserted animated gif:

I don't care what you think of the German destroyers in question... this is just plain funny!!! Carry on!

Tracy White

Careful... it's hard to advance an agenda when you actually read and comprehend what the poster said instead of trying to slant and spin it the way Mannstein did!

Tracy, have I misunderstood something?  So what was the reason for all the putty to fair the hull halves? 

And what agenda am I trying to advance, Tracy?

Tracy White

 

cerberusjf:

I think Tracy would say that the putty he used to fit the two halves together was due to his mistake in trying to adjust the fit of the upper hull to the deck first, then fitting the lower hull and nothing to do with the fact that the deck did not fit the hull...

 

Careful... it's hard to advance an agenda when you actually read and comprehend what the poster said instead of trying to slant and spin it the way Mannstein did!

What else can you do to keep the thread going. "slant and spin" will keep the original posters coming back.

cerberusjf

I think Tracy would say that the putty he used to fit the two halves together was due to his mistake in trying to adjust the fit of the upper hull to the deck first, then fitting the lower hull and nothing to do with the fact that the deck did not fit the hull...

Careful... it's hard to advance an agenda when you actually read and comprehend what the poster said instead of trying to slant and spin it the way Mannstein did!

With pleasure!

cerberusjf please refrain from copy and pasting info from Shipmodels.info. Feel free to post a link to where the post is, but do not directly copy material from my site without my permission.

bbrowniii

Well.... not one of the ones you chose to list...

Honestly, they were the first ones I thought of at random  for fun I looked up Lindberg's 1/350 Bismarck which comes in at 640mm approx, so 78 ish mm too short

bbrowniii

But like I said, I don't care about a 1% error. I'm sure those other ships you listed, while they may be spot on for length, have other flaws that are equal to or greater than 1%. I'm also hesitant to bury an entire kit based on the measurements of its dimensions provided by a single builder. Who knows, maybe he measured wrong. It just ain't that big a deal if you ask me. It is not an obvious error that anyone looking at a completed build of the kit would easily pick out.

Funny thing is, I can't find the length quoted anywhere on Dragon's site (or anywhere else for that matter).  Both Olaf and California bound found the kit to be too short, so I think it must be. ...  Whether it is important or not is up to the modeller of course, but why no-one has picked up on this until now surprises me.

I think Tracy would say that the putty he used to fit the two halves together was due to his mistake in trying to adjust the fit of the upper hull to the deck first, then fitting the lower hull and nothing to do with the fact that the deck did not fit the hull...

Did I mention I love the Gneisenau....

I hope this thread goes as long...

Jester75

Arguing over what is important to the individual modeller is pointless folks.

Of course it is. So is arguing about sports, but I'm pretty sure that'll continue until the day the earth ends!

bbrowniii

 It just ain't that big a deal if you ask me. It is not an obvious error that anyone looking at a completed build of the kit would easily pick out.

Well, I guess it is official then...

Arguing over what is important to the individual modeller is pointless folks. I have seen builders do extensive scratchbuilding to fix a 3mm mistake in the bed of a tracked truck in 1/35th scale. To me that wasn't that important to go through the work he did, but to him it was so why would I argue with him about it? I do think that 5mm is a pretty big error especially in 1/350th scale nevermind that it is in a very important area on a ship well known for that area. Would I go through the trouble of hacking a 130 dollar kit up to correct it? Probably not, dont have that much confidence in my skills yet. But in todays world where every kit is measured up against the original plans and some like Dragon's Magic Tracks are considered a "con" on every kit they come out with because they are "time consuming" to some folks, there should be more of a fuss out there of this error. Not sure why there isnt, whether it be the OP is wrong about his measurements or what,  just sayin.

Manstein's revenge

Even Tracy White had issues with the hull, and he is a big proponent of Dragon...you can see the putty corrections he made in his build blog.

Well, I guess it is official then...

Even Tracy White had issues with the hull, and he is a big proponent of Dragon...you can see the putty corrections he made in his build blog.

cerberusjf

 

Not one kit is more than 1mm out

 

Well.... not one of the ones you chose to list...

But like I said, I don't care about a 1% error. I'm sure those other ships you listed, while they may be spot on for length, have other flaws that are equal to or greater than 1%. I'm also hesitant to bury an entire kit based on the measurements of its dimensions provided by a single builder. Who knows, maybe he measured wrong. It just ain't that big a deal if you ask me. It is not an obvious error that anyone looking at a completed build of the kit would easily pick out.

warshipbuilder

5mm overall isn't that much, other kits from other manufacturers are most likely similar.

Here are some comparisons

KGV length 227 m  => 648.6 mm in 1/350

Tamiya KGV Length: 649mm.

Bismarck length  251 m => 717.1 mm in 1/350

Revell Bismarck Length: 718 mm

Tamiya Bismarck Length 717mm

Repulse length 242m => 691.4mm in 1/350

Trumpeter Repulse Length 692mm.

Not one kit is more than 1mm out

5mm overall isn't that much, other kits from other manufacturers are most likely similar.

As for the shape, without having the kit in front of me I can't really comment further.

More of a concern are the instructions!

I wonder who will be first to publish a guide to the instructions!

It would most likely become a best-seller!

The kit's bow looks fine to me as it is.  I see no glaring need for extending it.

Bill

cerberusjf

I think so, if you go to this page and scroll down about half way, you'll see a photo with the depression outlined and if you follow the split between the upper and lower hull you'll get an idea of the shape of the  waterline.  I suppose it's something you either notice it or not.

http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=59538&start=20

For me I'm with Manstein's revenge, the bow is very improtant especially on a ship like Scharnhorst.  The bow needs to be sharp and smooth.  Dragon managed it with Independence, Trumpeter managed it with Repulse, Tamiya managed it with Bismarck and KGV...

 

I have been to that thread a number of times. To be honest, I still don't see a glaring error. Instead, when I look at pics of the real ship and the model, I realize how much of the hull we don't see because it is under water. I think that might exaggerate the effect. If you just look at the portion of the kit's bow that is above the waterline, I don't think there is that dramatic a difference.

But hey, I'm just a dumb jarhead... what do I know?

I think so, if you go to this page and scroll down about half way, you'll see a photo with the depression outlined and if you follow the split between the upper and lower hull you'll get an idea of the shape of the  waterline.  I suppose it's something you either notice it or not.

http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=59538&start=20

For me I'm with Manstein's revenge, the bow is very improtant especially on a ship like Scharnhorst.  The bow needs to be sharp and smooth.  Dragon managed it with Independence, Trumpeter managed it with Repulse, Tamiya managed it with Bismarck and KGV...

Manstein's revenge

You just don't have the trained eye of a mariner...

Yup. Just another dumb jarhead here....

Still, that means I won't get my skivvies in a twist over a percieved imperfection that I can't see!!

'Course, since I don't have the kit, nor am I likely to get it, it is a bit of a moot point. The USS Independence, however....

You just don't have the trained eye of a mariner...

These pictures are posted for instructional purposes only.

I know that the angles are not the same, but I'm not sure I see a dramatic difference. Am I missing something?