Should I, shouldn't I? —Advice needed for purchase of very old Revell model

GMorrison

Bob, that's what scale crates of medical supplies are for!

Bobstamp

The bigger problem is presented by the many sinkholes. I'm filling them, but the putty and sanding will obliterate some of that fine detail.

Ah, the "joys" of older (and elderly) kit building.

You could scribe your own planking lines.  To scale is probably out of the question (would be a blizzard of lines) so, you'd want to decide on a representational width, say 1/16 or so, after all the pothole filling.

Or, you could ger a coat of paint down, and use a 4H pencil to get lines in, which would obviate using a wash.

Or not, this is yours to build.  We are but spectators.

Bob,

I should clarify. I didn't mean to be flip; actually there is some use to gluing down details over casting flaws that cant be fixed. As long as one is systematic and not too excessive in application, it can be a "sell" as superdetails.

Bill

GMorrison

I should clarify. I didn't mean to be flip; actually there is some use to gluing down details over casting flaws that cant be fixed. As long as one is systematic and not too excessive in application, it can be a "sell" as superdetails.

Bill

It didn't occur even occur to me that you were being flippant, Bill. Nor did I understand that your comment was a suggestion. Now it all makes sense, and such "super details" are a great idea, especially since I think those sinkholes are going to be difficult to camouflage.

After filling them all with putty, and noting that one application wasn't enough, I realized that at least some of them will be hidden by the overhang of the ship's upper decks. Still, I have a lot of them to deal with. This red dots in this photo show the location of the sinkholes that aren't hidden by the superstructure (and I may have missed a couple):

Since the kit's detailing is pretty poor to begin with, some fake-but-believable detailing should help to make the model seem more realistic.

Bob

I'm near the point of painting the hull of my model S.S. Hope, which I am building as the hospital ship U.S.S. Repose (the subject of this thread). The instructions call for the lower part of the hull to be red. I have a rattle can of Tamiya Pure Red (TS-86), which is very bright, if the cap is any guide. Is it a reasonable plan to lay down an undercoat coat of black (following the primer) and then spray a light coat of red over it to simulate a darker-red, weathered look?

Bob 

Hi;

 Guess what? Some of those puppies can be fixed. The ones in tight areas can be fixed too. It's by careful( Very Careful) applications of C.A. You can build it up in layers like they do resin lakes in and on Model RailRoad sites. The whole trick is, Do NOT use Accelerator!!!

Tanker-Builder

Guess what? Some of those puppies can be fixed. The ones in tight areas can be fixed too. It's by careful( Very Careful) applications of C.A. You can build it up in layers like they do resin lakes in and on Model RailRoad sites. The whole trick is, Do NOT use Accelerator!!!

Thanks for the tip. I've managed fill most of the sinkholes with putty, at least enough to hide them. The big challenge was finding a small enough X-Acto-type chisel blade to smooth filled sinkholes that are in very cramped spaces on the deck. Next time I'll try C.A. 

Bob

can always try these. https://www.bnamodelworld.com/hobby-tools-supplies-hobby-knife-blades-trumpeter-models-tr-09924?zenid=dde2a0b588132c607fdd32c3a7d9f00e

red for the bottom?  Yes, a black undercoat would help a lot.  The red you want is almost maroon, and very flat.  And if it has a touchof brown to it, that's not bad either.

Rick

Surface_Line

Red for the bottom?  Yes, a black undercoat would help a lot. The red you want is almost maroon, and very flat.  And if it has a touchof brown to it, that's not bad either.

Rick

I'm really impressed, Bob. You want some contrast with the crosses that'll be spread all over the ship.

Have you made any accomodations for a base? Now is the time. You've already glued the hull and topsides together so it will be a little trick, but here is what I suggest.

Plan on two pedestals. For longer ships i.e. narrower ones, I usually go it 25% from each end (overall length). Beamier ones; 33%.

check topside once you have your intended dimensions and find a symetrical set of numbers fore/aft that land both points inside a deckhouse.

Once you have that, mark the centerline on the bottom, measure and drill a pair of holes. Flip her rightside up and drill a pair of holes as large as you can get away with, say 1/2".

Grap a pair of long skinny bolts, say 10-24 x 3". and two pairs on nuts. Thread one on each bolt at least 1/2".

Stick each up through the holes in the hull and get anothe nut threaded on each tightish.

Put epoxy on the end of a skewer and butter it around the outside of each nut.

When dry, unscrew the bolts.

I usually put the ship on a temporay base at this point, that's another discussion.

Bill

GMorrison

I'm really impressed, Bob. You want some contrast with the crosses that'll be spread all over the ship.

Have you made any accomodations for a base? 

Thank your for compliment, Bill. I will confess that I produced a bit of sweat during the painting of the hull.

I don’t think that there will be any problem with the crosses. They are all placed on the white upper works of Repose. Here’s a Navy photo taken off the coast of South Vietnam about seven weeks after I was a surgical patient on the ship.

If I understand the technique you explained, it’s a way to “invisibly” allow attachment of the model to a base. I had been planning to use the cradles that are supplied with the model (see image below), but your method seems better (and safer).

Bob

New problem: 

FineScale members have pointed out that main helicopter rotors, even tiny ones, just don’t look right if they don’t droop. The main rotor of the Italeri 1/72 UH-34D Seahorse that I’m working on came with droop built in, but I’ll eventually be working another Seahorse in a much smaller scale — 1/471; it’s part of the S.S. Hope hospital ship model that's the subject of this discussion; I’m building it as U.S.S. Repose, the hospital ship on which I was a patient after I was wounded in Vietnam. The main rotor of that minuscule model is only 3cm in diameter, 20.5 cm less than the 1/72 model. And it doesn’t droop at all. Here’s a photo:    

Question: How can I get it to droop realistically? I’ve considered heating it over a stovetop burner, but I think it would be difficult to obtain symmetry that way, and it could easily be damaged. Boiling water? Styrene cement to soften the plastic so it can be warped? Your suggestions will be much appreciated.

Bob

how thick are the blades as should be almost paper thin? do you have a piece of .01" sheet plastic to use the pictured rotor as a template to trace & cutout a new rotor out of that sheet plastic?

Hello Bob!

I'd say don't bother with softening the plastic - just bend them a little and it should be OK. With the exception of plastic so hard it would snap right away some of the bend usually stays with the part. Taking the panny you got in the photo as a jig might help you get all four blades uniform. Hope it helps, good luck with your build and have a nice day

Paweł

Bobstamp

in a much smaller scale — 1/471;

For 2¢ the answer is in the question.  A 12" droop is 0.0254" (about 0.6mm), which going to be about half the thickness of the plastic rotor blade maybe.  Perhaps a whole thickness.

That's not going to be very visible.

Now, if you replace the blades with, say, 26 gauge copper sheeting, that could be curled, gently, to suit.  Potentially less likely to break, too.  Ok, 26 guage is 0.01875, about 8 inches to scale, but finding thinner will be tough.

Hi,

I can't vouch for this technique, as I have never tried it for helicopter blades, but you could try "burnishing(?)" the blade set by pushing down lightly at their center with a curved spoon and and rubbing in a circular motion to try and cause a small amount of difference in height between the blade tips and hub center.

Pat

OMG no burners!

I would guess everything about that kit part is incorrect- rotor circle dimension etc.

I pulled out my Choctaw references the other day for a different project- the diameter is 56"-0".

At your scale, that's 1.427inches.

Rotor droop is considerable. Looking at photos the droop looks to be at least 36 inches.

Call it 0.075 inches at scale. That's at least 1/16 inch.

Rotation is counterclockwise.

You have instruction from the Choctaw you're building. Or wiki has a nice three view.

The kit part is crap. Everything about it is wrong and getting it right will really look swell.

Save the hub part, toss the rest. I suggest you print it out at scale on stiff paper. 

Paint the back black, cut the thing out and paint the top.

Glue it on the hub, hand brush a little silver. Bend them down 1/16".

Bill

Forgive my ignorance, but if she is just parked on the deck, wouldn't she be stowed with the rotors folded?  Less likely to injure the crew in choppy seas.  Again, I am untrained in the art of aircraft stowed on ships.  Perhaps if anchored in a calm harbor when ferrying patients on/off they would be in flight configuration.  But perhaps an alternate option.

The paper and copper options sound like the way to go.  Either would be much closer to scale than the "thick" plastic provided.

Bob

Luvspinball

Forgive my ignorance, but if she is just parked on the deck, wouldn't she be stowed with the rotors folded?....

Bob

The Navy hospital ships did not have helicopters that were permanently attached to them (attached in the military, not the mechanical sense). Helicopters based on other ships or ashore were tasked with transporting wounded patients from combat to hospital ships, then after treatment returning them to their units or continuing the evacuation process.

Bob

Hi Bob.

We were discussing mounting options.

I like to get my ships onto a base asap to keep from busting stuff off. Sometimes I use a temporary one, or for smaller models I use the final one and cover it with paper and tape. This also is handy for getting things square.

Option 1 is my preferred. Before the deck is added, or while the deckhouse locations are still open. Glue the nut inside the hull and the base can be detached and replaced at least a couple of times.

Option 2 is similar, but the bolt length becomes critical.

Option 3 may be where you are at. 

Bill

Some members have recently commented about about the scale of the U.S.S. Hope model that I’m building as the hospital ship U.S.S. Repose. They’ve suggested that the scale for the model is incorrect. That got me to questioning it as well. After spending some time with Google, Scalemates, and various mathematical conversion calculators, I’ve come to some conclusions of my own. Here they are:

Scale of Revell’s model of the hospital ship 

U.S.S. Hope, being built as U.S.S. Repose

• Length of ship before 1968:

520 ft / 6,240 in | 158.5 m / 15,850 cm

(Note: In 1968, a new section was added to Repose, increasing its length by 145 ft (44.2 m). Scalemates says Revell released the Hope model with new tooling in 1962, so it can represent the ship six years or more before it was lengthened.)

• Length of model: 

1.08 ft / 13 in        |.3302 m / 33.02 cm

• Scale of model as indicated by the kit’s description: 

1/471| 0.0021

If the 1/471 scale of model is correct for the ship as it was before 1968, the model should be13.1 inches long, just 0.1 inch longer than its actual length; I assume that some minor errors crept into my measurements, and perhaps into the measurements of the actual ship that are available on-line. 

Conclusion: The scale of the model, at least for the hull and deck parts, is essentially correct.

Math is not my strong suit, but I am confident that I’ve measured the parts correctly and done accurate conversions. However, if you think I’m in error, please let me know.

Coming up soon: My comments about the "baby" Seahorse helicopter that came with the kit.

Bob 

Shipwreck

It sounds like you have a good pre '68 Repose. Now, when were you a guest on her?

 

@Bill: Thank you for this additional detail. I agree, option one seems best. Looks like I'll have to put off gluing on the main deck and superstructure. 

Bob

P.S. I managed to screw up quoting you. Other users — just scroll up a few posts to see Bill's useful diagrams.

Bob, the scale is wrong. real ship was 520' long x 12" x 2.54cm = 15849.6cm / 32.8cm model length = 1/483.2195 scale. i measured a built Haven class model using my 24" caliper that is also metric. that scale gives the model beam of 4.51cm. do not think Repose got lengthened in 1968 as was continously busy from Feb 1966 to Jan 1970 according to it's Vietnam War Campaigns list.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/12/1216.htm

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/revell-h320-169-haven--178933

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Repose_(AH-16)

ddp59

Bob, the scale is wrong. real ship was 520' long x 12" x 2.54cm = 15849.6cm / 32.8cm model length = 1/483.2195 scale. i measured a built Haven class model using my 24" caliper that is also metric. that scale gives the model beam of 4.51cm

http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/12/1216.htm

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/revell-h320-169-haven--178933

The "baby helicopter" that's supplied with the kit is clearly too small, but I think I can scratchbuild a slightly larger, believeable version. The kit's "least correct" or "most incorrect" specification seems to be the beam, which should be, as you say, about a half centimetre greater than it is. But I have a "fix" for that, and it's not kitbashing until the beam is correct. I don't even know how to do that! Instead, I'll only look at the completed model from the port or starboard sides, never toward the bow or stern! 

Bob, what did you use to measure the length & width of the model?  the model is wider at the main deck then at the bottom of the hull so otherwords it is tapered when the hull sides should be parallel to each other. the only way to correct that is to narrow the main deck so sides are parallel which messes up the width of all structures on that deck & above.

seahorse drawing https://enacademic.com/pictures/enwiki/83/Sikorsky_SH-34G_line_drawings.PNG

ddp59

Bob, what did you use to measure the length & width of the model?  the model is wider at the main deck then at the bottom of the hull so otherwords it is tapered when the hull sides should be parallel to each other. the only way to correct that is to narrow the main deck so sides are parallel which messes up the width of all structures on that deck & above.

seahorse drawing https://enacademic.com/pictures/enwiki/83/Sikorsky_SH-34G_line_drawings.PNG