Bollixing About with Billy Blakey
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!