Trumpeter 1:700 Saratoga-Done

Looking very good indeed.....Cheers mark

Nice work, Don!

Just outstanding work Don,all around.

Don,

 Your carrier is beautiful and Aircraft are fantastic.  But I gotta know... How many hairs are on the brush you used to paint the Figures?   They are so realiatic I swear when I blink that look like they're moving.

( I only had 2 cups-a-Java... had it been Gene's Scotch, any apparent 1/700 Crew motion would be understandable.)

Thanks. Enjoyed the pictures and your descriptions of your construction. Outstanding work.

     Jim.

Edit: And real nice job on the lighting for the photo's.  I think we often forget the time and effort spent in showing the work done.

Nice finish, Don!

Nice finish and good work Don.  

Very well done, sir. You get BONUS points for doing a biplane air wing. My one and only carrier build, done for a friend, turned into two separate builds, the ship and the air wing (jets in my case). Just decaling 30-odd of those little guys was a project in itself.

You can be proud of this one!

Don, I had to come back & say how really beautiful that Saratoga is. I might even try something simple in 1/700, but not  the Saratoga.  I have 3 of them that I have been afraid of. 

Don, Warshipguy, Bill, just wrote me & told me to tell you what a super, great job you did on this Saratoga. That is the greatest compliment you will ever get from a super guy who can't get on the site. How can we help him?

    He has tried everything, maybe we should all write Fine Scale. 

 Don Your Saratoga is beyond beautiful. At 88 I do get short of words & I had to check my spelling so Bill wouldn't get blamed.

Finished, and I am glad!  I ended up doing much less rigging than I intended.  I thought the building of the planes was a job.  I rigged with 5 mil monofilament fly tying thread. That stuff is almost invisible!  Yet anything thicker in 1:700 scale looks to big.  Anyway, here are some shots of the result. It is too hot today to go outside to shoot sunlit shots, so will try for those midweek.  Now to start a 1:24 car and relax!

gene's right , it is beautiful work , out of my league too .

Beautiful Don, that is way, way beyond me.Really clean work on everything.

[/quote]

Don Stauffer

I am having an awful time with the Curtiss fighters!  The parts are small and very fragile.  The box contains parts for twelve planes. I only intended to use five, but I have lost or broke so many parts that I wonder if I will get five assembled, painted and decaled!

Getting the upper wing on straight is a daunting task.  There are three wing struts (two interplane and one cabane), with half molded to the lower wing/fuselage assembly and the other half molded to the upper wing.  The two interplane struts where the junction is as about 30 to 40 mil in diameter.  As one fits the upper wing on, you cannot really see that strut joint- it is obscured by the upper wing.  And I get little shifts as I let go of the tweezers holding the upper wing.  And the upper wing is so fragile!

And the landing gear is so small!  I am having a hard time even holding it in the tweezers!  Each plane consists of the lower wing/fuselage/tail molding, the upper wing, and the landing gear.  The landing gear is even harder than the wing to get aligned properly while the glue sets.

 

 

 

Don,

I know what you are going through.  Trumpeter planes with all those little wheels sent me to the looney bin a few times.  I can't imagine building a bunch of biplanes.  Too much pressure on the tweezers and the part shoots off into space, too little, and it falls off onto the floor never to be seen.  I found it takes a special breathing technique to actually puts those little parts on.

I'm now on my fourth 1/700 carrier with a full compliment of planes.  

Got the Curtiss fighters all done except for a quick glosscoat.  I also need to level the landing gear on a couple, either by bending, filing a wheel, or breaking some off and regluing.

The plane on the piece of plastic fiber will be depicted taking off, a few feet above the deck.  Notice all the fighters have spinning props (disks of celluloid punched from a piece of blister-pack plastic.  Next is mounting the planes on the deck, with some PE crew.  Then, antenna rigging (a lot of it for a carrier) will finish the project.

I remember building a pair of Curtis SOC planes- at 1/350. That was a challenge.

Might I suggest cutting the stubs of the interplanes off completely? Get the top wing on straight with maybe a pin through the top into the fuselage, then poke in a pair of little pieces.

I am having an awful time with the Curtiss fighters!  The parts are small and very fragile.  The box contains parts for twelve planes. I only intended to use five, but I have lost or broke so many parts that I wonder if I will get five assembled, painted and decaled!

Getting the upper wing on straight is a daunting task.  There are three wing struts (two interplane and one cabane), with half molded to the lower wing/fuselage assembly and the other half molded to the upper wing.  The two interplane struts where the junction is as about 30 to 40 mil in diameter.  As one fits the upper wing on, you cannot really see that strut joint- it is obscured by the upper wing.  And I get little shifts as I let go of the tweezers holding the upper wing.  And the upper wing is so fragile!

And the landing gear is so small!  I am having a hard time even holding it in the tweezers!  Each plane consists of the lower wing/fuselage/tail molding, the upper wing, and the landing gear.  The landing gear is even harder than the wing to get aligned properly while the glue sets.

looking real good there.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Got the nets and railings around the flight deck done. It was two steps forward and one step backword.  For about every two pieces I got glued on, I knocked one old piece off

The depression in the water is about half an inch greater than the beam of the ship, so there is about a quarter inch of a trough running along either side.  I am trying to fill that in with acrylic gel medium. It will take about two or three sessions to get that filled in enough (that stuff takes a lot longer to dry when you put it on really thick- far longer than acrylic paints).

While I am waiting for that to dry, I am working on airplanes.  I thought working on those Martin torpedo bombers was hard.  Wow, they are easy compared to the Curtiss multi-roll fighters!  Those things are really small. It is tough getting the top wing glued on straight. I am holding the fuselage/lower wing assembly down to a block of wood while I hold the top wing in a pair of tweezers- still it takes many attempts to get it right for each airplane.  The slightest jiggle of the tweezers makes an error in that top wing.

I also have to put the anchors on the hull yet.

Also, wondering where to put the nameplate.  The rule of thumb I see for artworks is that if you are depicting motion, the motion should move from left to right (that's what they say).

I have always put a nameplate on the starboard side of a base for normal ships. However, the planes and people on the flight deck will be obsured by the superstructure and the funnel.  I am thinking of putting the nameplate on the port side so the flight deck action is more visible.

Thanks, guys.

I don't think as much, more to do with what needed to go up when. I guess 400 feet was adequate to take off into a headwind.

After all the B-25s all got off in less than 500 feet and were heavier. Also of course quite a bit more powerful. It's a good question though.

Wasn't the take-off run for each type of aircraft taken into account when spotting the deck, too?  Those F11Cs and F4Bs didn't need as much room as the TM-1s, if I remember correctly, especially with a torpedo.

There might be a RDF antenna mast forward of the island, on thr starboard side.

There was a catapult early on, but it was removed in the mid 30's. Two were installed in late 1943. I'm just cribbing that off of Wiki.

Here's a photo of launch operations, judging by the aircraft in the lower left corner of the photograph. Normally whether assisted or not, take offs are initiated forward of the island. Otherwise a careening launch could be catastrophic.

-from Navsource.

I was able to create new searchlight positions from scrap PE and attach them to the stack.

I intend to set up the planes on deck as depicting launch flight operations.  However, I've never witnessed carrier flight operations (I'm an AF guy).  Here are a couple of questions.  There is a mast at the bow of the flight deck.  I believe a flag or streamer or something was flown there, to indicate wind over deck.  Did that actually stay up during takeoffs?

Second, how much deck space would have been allowed for takeoff (I don't believe the Sara had a catapult)?  I want to place planes waiting for launch to be a proper distance from the bow.  I am sure golden age planes took a lot less space than WW2 planes, but have no idea of what the deck arrangement would have been.  The pictures I have with planes on deck to not indicate what is going on- whether during operations or not.

Surface_Line

denim blue

 

Thanks!

Don, I have a few "peculiar" Shirt & Trouser pics headed your way in an email.

Hope you have a sense of humor. Errol Flynn is in one of the photos.

There are some red-shirted guys on the flight deck in one of the late 30's pictures.

    Jim

P.S.  Yeah,  can't post those "peculiar" ones on FSM.

denim blue

What would trouser colors be on deck crew during twenties and thirties?