1/350 ship kits we'd all like to see!

Thanks, Bondoman and Mike - good information in case (especially since it is highly unlikely anyone will issue these as true 1/350 new kits).

Cheers, Rick 

If anybody issues a 1/350 Victory I'll be mighty ticked off!  But I'd be the only one.

My pics, and I know I'm just dreaming:

RMS Majestic (1), or Teutonic

C4-S-A1 troopship

Fred

bondoman wrote:

The Revell Mission series tanker San Juan Capistrano is a T2. It's been recently rereleased as the Esso Glasgow, but includes the original guns/tubs. And the Revell Attack Transport Randall/ Montrose has also been rereleased, which is based on a Victory ship. See Onyxmans project. These are both 1/400ish scale, and incorrectly flatbottomed, but not waterline. The T2 in particular needs to be cut down to true waterline.

Just to expand on that a bit, the 1950s Revell "flat bottomed" kits that I'm familiar with, ie the "Esso Glasgow, Hawaiian Pilot, USS Montrose, have a waterline that is roughly at their light draft. The ships's would ride like that if they had no cargo, and maybe a limited amount of fuel, salt water ballast and fresh water in their tanks.  In the case of the Hawaiian Pilot and Montrose, they could reasonably be left with that waterline, although some work should be done to the exposed rudders and stern aperture. Also, at least part of the propeller would be visible at that draft. Those two types of ships have the engines located midship and would have fuel and ballast tanks in double bottoms along the length of the ship.

The T-2 is a different matter though. Her engine is aft, and tankers, up until only recently, usually don't have double bottom tanks. So a tanker without any cargo would ride down by the stern somewhat. For that reason the Glasgow, at a light draft and also on an even keel, is unrealistic and is best cut down to a deeper waterline.  IMHO

Fred

Four stack Ruben James

Marine carrier

Mikeym_us wrote:

Thats actually good to know but where exactly is the actual waterline for the T2 class of tankers?

At Fred's suggestion, I obtained a very nice set of plans of both the T2 and the VC2 from the Smithsonian collection of U.S. Maritime Commission ship's plans.

Please excuse the home made large format photo shop, here they are with glasses for scale.

The tanker-

The Victory ship-

I'm delighted in particular with the T2 drawing, it was produced at/ by Marinship in Sausalito, CA which is about 5 miles from where I sit, visible from this room across the Bay. My future subject, the Mission Carmel, was launched from those yards in 1943.

According to the drawing, the draft is 29' - 11 1/2" call it 30' and the depth is 39'-3" which I would think was measured from the main deck. This leaves a freeboard of 9'-3"+.

These dimensions are listed as "moulded" i.e. on the inside surface of the cargo area, and are at design load. The drawing has a kind of artistic waterline fore and aft that scales about 10' below the main deck, so that's the dimension.

Here's one that looks full.

Here's one that exhibits the down at the stern attitude Fred suggested.

Here's a ship that looks very light.

While she looks fresh out of the drydock, and probably empty of most everything, the freeboard looks to be maybe 20', which would mean cutting down the model's hull by at least a third. (see why below).

The Revell T2, using the beam, scales pretty close to 1/375. As a note the Pine Island scaled about 1/425, both ship and Martin Mariner. I left the amount of freeboard alone as it looked pretty good compared to photos, and I'd think the ship's weight didn't change much.

Fred's listed the scale of his Victory, if I remember it was 1/400. The freeboard on the Revell T2 kit is about 32 feet. In this shot, before I owned the plans, I eyeballed a waterline, with allowance to be sanded flat.

That's a nickel on the poop deck for scale.

That tape line scales about 15' of freeboard, which after sanding off a couple hundredths will be closer to a fully laden ship. I think I'm going to relocate the waterline a little higher just to give her a more purposeful look.

I hope this answers your question.

Bill

Great analysis Bill. When you start your T-2 you should add this to a separate thread on that build.  The Montrose scaled at 1/375, or close to that. I don't think I ever checked the scales on my two T-2 builds and I don't have them handy, but if they are also 1/375 rather than the advertised 1/400, that's good to know.

The pictures of the light T-2s are instructive. Even those are probably ballasted down a little by loading seawater in the cargo tanks. They wouldn't go to sea without some ballast, both to get the propeller immersed and to avoid blowing around like a balloon on the water. Here's a pic of a really empty tanker.

 Fred

How about a 1/96 scale......

 http://www.geocities.com/submarineworks/virginia.html

Getting back on topic, I second Davros' desire for the armed merchantman Jervis Bay. As long as we are fantasizing, how about a Rawalpindi too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Jervis_Bay_(F40)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Rawalpindi

I got another one

The USNS Glomar Explorer (T-AG-193)

For those who don't know about her, she was build by Howard Huges for the sole purpose of "Project Jennifer."

Since the K-129 had sunk in very deep water, a large ship was required for the recovery operation. However, such a vessel would easily be spotted by Soviet vessels, who might interfere with the operation and so an elaborate cover story was developed. The CIA contacted the businessman Howard Hughes, who agreed to assist.

While the ship did recover a portion of the vessel, a mechanical failure in the grapple caused half of the submarine to break off during recovery. This lost section is said to have held many of the more sought after items, including the code book and nuclear missiles. It was subsequently reported that two nuclear-tipped torpedoes and some cryptographic machines were recovered, along with the bodies of six Soviet submariners, who were subsequently given a formal burial at sea, in a filmed ceremony.

There are claims from unofficial writers (who provide no documentation nor source data) that the material recovered by the Glomar Explorer included nuclear missiles and various codebooks. It has also been suggested, again by writers with no first hand knowledge, that contrary to the official account, nearly the entire submarine was recovered and that the official CIA account amounts to disinformation to give the impression of an unsuccessful mission.

For what it's worth:

1) the other 5 Pearl Harbor Japanese carriers

2) USS Ward

3) USS Enterprise (WWII)

4) USS Long Beach

5) USS Shasta AE-33 

The IJNS Akagi is listed on Hasegawas website as "New Release- Available Soon"

There are two listed, The first being (I assume) 1941 and the other, in 1/700, as originally built with three flight decks. 

I agree with the 1960's Essex with hurricane bow and angle deck; also the Italian battleships of WWII (Littorrio class, Conte di Cavour, Giulio Cesare, etc.) How about the British Queen Elizabeth class ships, Revenge class, the Iron Dukes, etc.?

Bill Morrison

I'd like to see more of the support vessels:

LST's, LCI's, LSD's, LCT's, LCM's, mine sweepers, command ships i.e. U.S.S. Ancon. 

commando wrote:

I'd like to see more of the support vessels: LST's, LCI's, LSD's, LCT's, LCM's, mine sweepers, command ships i.e. U.S.S. Ancon.

  I would like to see them in 1/350 or 1/700.  Especially more modern day amphibs.

-Jesse

How about FUSO and YAMASHIRO?

Bill Morrison

Yamashiro, certainly (it was the last battleship to duel with other battleships, if unsuccessfully!)!!!!  I also want to put another word in for WW1 battleships, battlecruisers and armored cruisers.... and some more of the Russo-Japanese war too!

SMS Derflinger

HMS Lion

SMS Scharnhorst

HMS Good Hope

HMS Iron Duke

HMS Queen Elizabeth

SMS Friedrich Der Grosse

HMS Glasgow

And for WW2,

IJN Aoba

IJN Ryujo

Prinz Eugen!!!!!!

Agreed!  The First World War is much too under-represented. Also, how about HMS Tiger?

Bill Morrison

warshipguy wrote:

Agreed!  The First World War is much too under-represented. Also, how about HMS Tiger? Bill Morrison

Yeah, but TIGER was gorgeous!

Bill Morrison

I agree that TIGER's gunnery was bad, especially at Dogger Bank. I also believe that it improved marginally at Jutland, but I am not too sure. As for the three other LION's (LION, PRINCESS ROYAL, and QUEEN MARY), LION barely avoided disaster at Jutland while QUEEN MARY exploded. I have seen conflicting reports as to the cause of her loss; one report has her magazine exploding as a result of direct hit by a 12" shell in the magazine while the other version cites poor cordite handling procedures.

That said, the surviving LION's were sold out of service within a very few short years while TIGER survived into the 1930's. I absolutely agree that her appearance improved after shipping the mainmast.

Bill Morrison 

It's not sacrilege. There are a lot of very nice paper card ship model kits.  Now, if we can only find them in standard 1/350 scale!

Bill Morrison