Do you guys know about a free software program called "Quickscale?" It can give you tons of info about making a kit from scratch or modifying a kit. For example, I fell upon a Revhell Mission Capistrano tanker kit. "Box scale" they say... Um...yeah, but what size box? My goal was to put her next a box scale Chicago CG and box scale angle deck Yorktown. Fat chance.
The general modelling forum consensus is that she is 1/482nd scale (WTF?) or somewhere near there. Unsuitable for virtually any group/diorama use. And then, all of the "Mission" tankers were built/commissioned too late to see service in WW2 and most were immediately mothballed and then reactivated as...wait for it...research ships. This could be why the Revell box art shows no hoses, rigging, etc. They appear to be modified Cimarron Class AO's and a quick search shows that one of the last AO's before the Mission Class was USS Misspillion. Tons of photos exist of Misspillion.
Her dimensions are also easy to find and according to Quickscale, in 1/350th scale, she wouldn't be too far off to use Mission Cap as a base. But wait - Misspillion was jumboized, where a 100 foot section was inserted in the middle. Sweeeeeeeet. Using Quickscale, it is now possible to use the entire Mission Cap kit. By cutting her and then inserting a five inch section, I can bring her to 1/350th scale quite easily. I want/need a Cold War tanker so that has been a boon.
Thinking to myself "hmmm...wonder what other ships I can do that with" I fired up Quickscale and made the following discovery: the Lindberg LSD (USS Tortuga) in 1/288th scale would be the exact size of a 1/350th scale USS Pearl Harbor (Navy's newest LSD).
"But wait Don; not so fast...you still have a ton of ship to build over the Mission Cap and Tortuga kits to get them to be a modern Misspillion/Pearl Harbor." You are kinda correct, but if you scratchbuild a lot, you'll know that making the hull and getting it "true" are the most time consuming/cost prohibitive pieces of scratchbuilding. So from the standpoint alone of having the hull already done, that will shave a year off the cost/time of making these two ships. Now schedule-wise, I am nowhere near to starting these two but I thought I'd throw it out there to get ya thinking... Here's what Pearl Harbor looks like:
Cheers,
Don
I think you mean "THREE-eighty-second" scale...
Posted by Matty on October 9, 2011, 9:54:50, in reply to "Scratch-bashing"
Donny, first let me say that "scratch-bashing" is among my very favorite ways to build - especially with the old, often inaccurate or otherwise less-than-perfect model kits. (And if it wasn't me who actually invented that term - "scratch-bashing" - then let me know who came up with it first!)
But I think you've got a typo in the scale of your Revell tanker (Mission Capistrano, aka Glasgow, ex-JL Hanna): it is more like 1/380 scale - and so can't be too much (circa 8%) smaller than 350-scale. And even closer to 400-scale, where you have all those classic Heller kits (though mostly RN, not USN subjects).
That Lindberg LSD scale of 1:288 sounds closer (though I thought it was more like 1/250), and it would go well alongside the Lindberg LST and Gato, both at 240-scale, and even the Revell Abraham Lincoln at 1:250 - probably even the Revell Skipjack, at around 230-scale, as well. If it's really 288-scale, then that's even closer to all those classic DD/DEs: Revell Fletcher, John Paul Jones, Buckley - and the Lindberg (larger) Rudderow, too.
I understand your idea to convert to a modern LSD, but looking at your pic of the Pearl Harbor, it looks like you'd have to rebuild virtually everything besides the hull -a helluva lot more "scratch" than "bash" ! Of course, I've done - and enjoyed - exactly this before, but given the rarity of that Lindberg LSD mold, you might also consider whether some other hull(s) might be more economical/effective to use. Practically anything ending in a nice flat transom, it would appear!
In any case, again I do appreciate scratch-bashing - and years ago customized my own, Excell spreadsheet to do exactly the comparisons you're doing - BUT: you've GOT to make double-sure you DON'T ENTER A NUMBER WRONG, or you'll get some completely wrong results (exactly why I ended up mastering my KingFisher in 371-scale, when it was supposed to be 1:500 )!
Hand measurements of the kit plastic itself put Mission Capistrano in the 1/400something range. You enter the length of the real object and then the length of the actual plastic. You click calculate and the program tells you what scale your plastic is in. You can reverse it by entering the length of the real ship and clicking 1/4whatever and it will tell you what length the plastic hull should be.
You can then triple check by examining a kit you know is correct, like the 1/350th scale Spruance, etc. As for Tortuga, I'm only going by her stated length on the Lindberg website and her stated length which they put at 19 inches. If you enter her real length and plastic length and click calculate it shows 1/288th as the proper measurement. But - I have not picked up a Tortuga yet. But my LHS has one.
The Tort's well deck inner workings, bulkhead detail, etc, appears to not have changed much, comparing the photos of Pearl with Anchorage and other earlier LSD's. So THAT in itself is about 1/3rd of any LSD project. Don't know if I ever showed you, but I did the same thing with my 1/700th scale USS Trenton. She started life as the Airfix 1/600th scale HMS Fearless.
All I did was chop up her bridge to match USN stuff and add Skywaves spares and a scratchbuilt mast structure. As the Whidbey Island Class and Pearl Harbor all have helo decks over their well deck, I shouldn't think too many discrepancies would show through, ha ha!
Yes, the scale of the Revell Mission Capistrano tanker is "400-something" - it's just about exactly 400-scale. I just measured mine - 15.95" at the waterline - which, at Navsource's Mission Capistrano (T2-SE-A2) "length" of 524', scales out to 1/394.23 - that's within 2% (no doubt within the combined error of Navsource's reporting and my own measurement) of 400-scale. The beam appears to be 1.46% oversized - so that if you cut only 3/10 inch out of the length, it would be in perfect proportion, for 1/388.57 scale. That's only 9.9% smaller - "non-jumbo-ized", so without any bashing - than 350-scale, as you ended up considering.
But that's what was bothering me about your solution: you went the wrong way. Because - using Navsource's jumbo-ized length of 644' for Navasota (AO-106, and Mispillion's next-sister) - by length the Revell tanker is 1/484.51 - without any chopping at all! That's already a dead-ringer for your 480-scale Revell Helena CA and Boston CAG, and only 3.2% oversized next to your 500-scale Monogram Chicago CAG, Renwal Galveston CLG, Farragut DLG and/or Revell Long Beach CGN. That could make for one helluva classic refeulling diorama - and a lot smaller than doing anything in 350-scale!
For the jumbo-ized Navasota - as, presumably also for Mispillion - the kit beam is 13.05% overscale, and so would have to be reduced by 0.24". This is emminently do-able (particularly compared to adding a whopping 5" in length) and especially if you will end up waterlining anyway.
Because of my interest and large stash of the above 500-ish scale cruisers, I wouldn't mind photographing the 480-scale jumbo-ized correction, step-by-step, on one of my Revell Mission Cap hulls, if you (or anybody) would like to see it. Just let me know (any of you, out there).
I had never heard of the tanker "jumbo-ization" refits before you mentioned it, Don. It opens up a whole new world of possibilities for these Revell flat-bottomed tankers - between 1/350 and 1/480 - you can have your cake and eat it, too!