Posted by Billy Blakey (via Matty) on March 1, 2009, 12:03:28 Message modified by board administrator March 1, 2009, 17:43:52
"Since we last spoke (quite a while back), I have acquired an Imai '1/700' Battleship Ise, which was my missing link (to several other Bandai and Fujimi kits), and can confirm that it has the same hull as the Bandai 1/600 / Imai 1/700 Kongo, Haruna and Yamashiro, so that means all these ships have identical hulls, closer to 1/600 than to 1/700. I also got an old Otaki 1/700 Yamashiro, expecting it to be the same kit, but it turned out to be a genuine 1/700, predating the waterline series and very similar to the Nichimo 30cm series. Unfortunately the box shows its age, and whilst the art is good it no longe glows like the Nichimos! Also, it has a bit of short moulding on the 14-inch turrets around the gun apertures. I will make these kits the subject of (an upcoming) post, and try to get a photobucket link to work...
(Editor's Note: Billy, if any problems uploading pics yourself - or it may be easier in the first place, anyway - just send the pics to me, buddy. -Ed.)
...I still browse the ship boards, but my non-contribution (lately) to Model Fleet on modelling matters is all down to the visit I made to my loft some months back. I think I told you that I went to look out some armour kits for disposal to relieve the weight on the floor, started cataloguing them, and ended up identifying gaps in the collection!! (Blatant heresy regarding armor redacted here. -Ed.)...(where would we be without Bandai, even if they are 30 years old!). Currently researching the structure / organisation / equipment of the Infantry Gun Companies, with a view to invading the Isle of Wight as part of Operation Sealion. Not sure whether to do it in 1/48 or 1/72, though! (Allright, Billy, I'll allow it - but you are really pushing it here, buddy! -Ed.)
...Also been spending a lot of time on the Railway... (God-Damnit, Billy!! -Ed.)
...I do have a Renwal USS Dewey beckoning, though. The problem is that every time I look at the old kits I put off the chore of removing the moulded on handrails...
...(and), I am awaiting with interest the Russian 1/350 pre-Dreadnoughts promised by Flagman Models of Donetsk. Hoping the World Financial Crisis has not canned them!! And buying appropriate Russian language publications from Moscow (Why do the Russians insist on writing in Russian?????).
...Meanwhile my 1/400 Potemkin is also still under construction, which is a euphemism for trying to work out how to get the parts to actually fit!!!!! I did wonder whether the original Heller kit fitted properly, and I was going to bid on one on ebay last week, but it sold for $102 !!!!! Amazing for a kit still in production...
...Another thing i should be getting on with is the Airfix 1/600 Forrestal, of which I think you know I have two, for early and late (i.e. with forward sponsons removed) ships operating in the Med. I also got a Kangam 1/600 Enterprise to accompany them, and there is the Airfix Adams class (Rommell) and Aurora Bainbridge (was Bainbridge built specifically to escort Enterprise, with similar fuelling intervals??)..."
LMAO, Billy! You've given us quite a bit to consider there, sir! Regarding Bainbridge as part of a USN "nuclear CVBG", I don't think she was specifically designed as Enterprise's escort, so much as a prototype nuclear-powered frigate - just as Long Beach was the prototype nuclear-powered cruiser. I think it was only later realized that, to get the full logistical benefit from nuclear power, ALL the vessels in the Carrier Battle Group would have to be nuclear; as it was, that status was never achieved, so a tanker and periodic refeulling of the other escorts was always needed, anyway.
Had the Pentagon/Congress (aka "Congre-Gon" ) thought it through fully to begin with, I doubt Bainbridge and Long Beach would ever have been given nuclear power. Or, perhaps it was a Navy ploy to try and force the decision to go all-nuclear after that! (I wouldn't put it past any of 'em involved...)
And as for Russians frequently resorting to using Russian, I could be wrong, but I think it might be because...they're Russians, Billy!
Meantime, we appreciate the update on your building - except of course for your gratuitous and heinous references to modeling "ar(deleted)r" and "ra(deleted)oad" subjects, that is!
For weeks I've been requesting updates on these battleships from Billy, so far with only the response, "Sorry for tardy action, but Xmas preparations, snow, etc., all conspire to delay..." I see he is going to make me beg him for these! Seriously though, hang in there, Billy, and send us pics while you warm up inside, and recover from the holidays up there.
Meantime, rooting around in my archives the other day and had opportunity to dig out the following pics Billy once sent in, showing some full-hulled Yamashiros:
Click on Image to Enlarge
Of most interest to me being three releases of exactly the same 1/600 Yamashiro mold - by Imai, Bandai and Fujimi (Bachman?) - two of which appear at left, including a glimpse of some unbuilt parts. At right I've shown, IIRC, a built version of - or possibly it was an even rarer full-hulled (true) 1/700 Yamashiro by Otaki, which Billy also mentioned - repeatedly gleaned from backgrounds of his other old shots, to eke out what details we may.
From what I can tell viewing the latter, the mid- and front portions of the hull seem pretty accurate, but the stern implausibly up-swept (like a cruiser), no doubt to accommodate motorization, with an outsized propeller.
Billy also provided a glimpse of a partially-built 1/600 Yamashiro - the Imai/Bandai/Fujimi's (universal IJN) BB hull about which I am most interested - in the following:
Click on Image to Enlarge
And he has since written me: "...(What we found for their cruiser molds) is consistent with all their 1/600 battleships using one hull (did I mention that a while ago I got their Ise/Hyuga, and it has the same hull as their Yamashiro and Kongo/Haruna) though that is more permissible (in the case of the BBs), as all three classes were very close in length..."
GREAT, Billy - but the above picture sux - show us a decent picture of it, buddy! Two weeks ago, he responded: "...Bandai Ise and Kongo have just had a warm soapy bath...(Not such a drastic step as it may sound - both are motorised and designed for bathtub operations!!)...and will pose for the camera when dry..."
Uhh...OK Billy...I think they're dry by now, buddy!
"...I assume your interest in IJN cruiser kits is as ever, so this is just a note to say that I got a Bandai 1/550...part built Chikuma:
Click on Image for FULL RES
......and can confirm that the lower and upper hull are identical components to those in the Bandai Myoko and Atago, so Bandai/Imai used the same Myoko/Atago class hull for their Tone, Chikuma and Mogami kits - i.e. all their 1/550 cruisers used the same...Bandai/Imai hull (shown here, which) is 36cm at the waterline (measured at the top of the red part in the kit...and) I found that the waterline lengths for the actual ships were very close:
Myoko 201.5m Takao 201.67m Mogami 198.06m Tone 198m
This makes the scale 1/550 for the Mogami/Tone class kits and 1/560 for the Myoko/Takao class kits.
This may also suggest that Bandai produced the Mogami kit first and then re-used the hull. That would be consistent with the Bandai catalogue numbers, which were:
8407 - Mogami 8408 - Myoko 8409 - Atago 8410 - Chokai 8416 - Chikuma 8417 - Tone (The number gaps are the battleships, not unreleased cruisers).
...(this) scan of the Bandai catalogue page I sent you some years ago...is dated 1974."
(Editor's Note: Take a close look at the map used as a background, above - I bet you never knew the Japanese came this close to invading America - and it explains a lot about what remains so suspicious about Canadians! OK, back to you, Billy...)
"...Overall the kit is not bad considering the compromises required for its target market:
Click on Image for FULL RES
Points to note are the over-broad hull, which I assume is mainly to accommodate the motor. As I said, scale length turns out to be virtually 1:550...I also think the hull is too shallow...(and) It looks like the upper and lower hulls are actually quite hard to mate accurately, and I would recommend these kits for collection in unbuilt pristine condition rather than for building.
...BTW, I don't know where you measure the beam on a ship, as hulls often flare out above the waterline, and have bulges below. But the Bandai hull is 43mm wide at main deck level where the kit forward cross-brace is, and 41mm wide at the aft cross brace. At waterline those measurements are 38mm and 40 mm respectively (i.e. a lot more hull flare above the waterline forward than aft), and whilst this is harder to measure accurately, about 46mm (at the level of) the underwater bulges at (their) widest point, which is amidships.
The hull bottom piece is not straight sided amidships, but a genuine gentle curve over the full length of the ship over the bulges, but at waterline level there is a long straight section amidships. The lines are nowhere near as fine as indicated by my 1/700 waterline series Mogami and Tone (old mould) models...
(Meantime,) my references for IJN heavy cruisers give the beams as:
Myoko class - 17.34m, later 20.73m; Takao class - 18.03m, later 20.73m; Mogami class - 19.20m, later 20.20m; Tone class - 18.50m.
All the beam measurements have '(fl)' after them (as distinct from (wl) for the length measurements). I don't know what 'fl' means, but as it changed for the first three classes after modernisation, I am assuming it includes the underwater bulges. If so, the 46mm of the model over bulges would represent 25.3m in 1/550 scale, which makes the kits considerably fatter than any of the actual ships...
...The actual kit (photographed here) is on its way back to (the seller, as he) later listed an also part-built 1:550 Mogami, which I snapped up...and have negotiated an exchange! Mogami is not quite as far built as the Chikuma, just some superstructure halves joined, and not the awful hull top/bottom mismatch which made (measurements on) the Chikuma hard to retrieve. I would have preferred an unbuilt Mogami, and indeed had been outbid when he listed one, but as I don't have a Mogami at all I am pleased to accept the compromise..."
Interesting report, Billy - and it echoes my own findings for the Nichimo 500-scale CAs, in several ways. Particularly in that their Maya-class hull, above the waterline, anyway, looks far too beamy for (any of the four of) the class (at any time) - much closer to the Mogami class, and suggesting the mold design started with the latter (even though Nichimo never did release a Mogami, AFAIK).
As for measurements, I concur "fl" sounds like some aspect(s) of the hull in the water - what I would have called the "wetted hull" - so maybe "fl" stands for fluid- or flow-something. This would be logical for hydrodynamic engineering, as it would figure largely into a ship's cruise/power characteristics, whether located at the waterline or (anywhere) below it.
The standard types of measurement are "WL" - meaning strictly at the waterline - and "OA", meaning over-all - which includes not just the hull but the entirety of the vessel such that, on a carrier for example, it includes the flight-deck overhangs. On your Mogamis note, the beam OA would also include the deck-edge gun tubs. (Really, WL measurements are commonly the more useful of the two.)
In any case, I can certainly believe your finding that the Bandai CAs are too beamy - even for Mogamis. And that, for building they are no doubt far less attractive than the 500-scale Nichimos. (I may resurrect my earlier thread on exactly that.)
But what I really want to see is your analysis of the Bandai battleships - particularly the Yamashiro mold - as that is "the only game in town" for this unique (Fuso-) class, in this scale.
So, THANKS Billy and send me your BB pics, with your writeup on those, when ready, sir!