Author Topic: Resin conversions  (Read 11249 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline aptivaboy

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: Resin conversions
« Reply #30 on: 17 Aug , 2009, 13:32 »
Bill,

http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=EU53023 is pretty good. Its mainly for the bridge, and is really good for a midwar Gato. Used in conjunction with the White Ensign sets, it can really dress up a model.

http://www.squadron.com/NoStock.asp?item=EU53029 is a big improvement over the plain kit sides. It shows the rivet pattern on the side plates, but I'm not sure it replicates the overlapping lap joints. Anyone?

http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=EU53028 is a problem child. Its basically a redo of the kit's plastic deck, but in etched metal. The problem is that the kit and Eduard etched deck are both for postwar boats with the oval marker buoys. There were other differences, I'm sure. I've compared it to wartime photos of the Cod, and the after deck isn't terribly close. If you want to build a postwar boat, then its awesome. If you want a wartime boat, then not so much. It all depends on how accurate you want to be.

Hope this helps,

Robert

Offline bill_c

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: Resin conversions
« Reply #31 on: 17 Aug , 2009, 14:07 »
Thanks, Robert. Can one use the hinge plates for detailing without the suspect limber holes?

How accurate? As accurate as possible. Not interested in the kit maker's short cuts. Grrrrr.

But man, whatever happened to OOB?  :D :D :D

Offline Division 6

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: Resin conversions
« Reply #32 on: 17 Aug , 2009, 18:37 »
If you go to the Eduard site you can look at the PDF files for the different PE kit assemblies.
Just type Gato in the search bar and all 3 kits show up.

http://www.eduard.cz/

Eric...

Offline bill_c

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: Resin conversions
« Reply #33 on: 18 Aug , 2009, 08:19 »
If you go to the Eduard site you can look at the PDF files for the different PE kit assemblies.
Just type Gato in the search bar and all 3 kits show up.

http://www.eduard.cz/

Eric...
I have done that previously, but it doesn't clarify things. One person says the hinge plates are good, another says the limber holes are wrong. It's a lot of money to waste on the wrong item.

Offline Division 6

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: Resin conversions
« Reply #34 on: 18 Aug , 2009, 15:08 »
I personally didn't bother with them not only because of cost but also because they would still need to be modified to match my boat.
If you want rivets you would probably be better off getting those decals and doing it yourself using pictures and blueprints as a guide.

E...

Offline Rokket

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2,362
  • Gender: Male
  • Submarine Enthusiast
    • AMP - Accurate Model Parts
Re: hull casing
« Reply #35 on: 27 Aug , 2009, 03:28 »
I've been measuring proportions, and here's my new thought - the Portsmouth casing was not simply angled, but CURVED - see attached pic.

This means that whether the p-hull was slightly diff or not, it wouldn't necessarily have to be different to fit an extension.

By dropping (at least part) of the Revell hull casing (the main EB limber section), a PE Portsmouth section could be put in place and curved with new supports behind (rather than cladding like the Eduard).

AMP - Accurate Model Parts - http://amp.rokket.biz

Offline TAS

  • Midshipman Cadet
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Resin conversions
« Reply #36 on: 27 Aug , 2009, 08:52 »
Hey guys,
I've been reading with interest all the comments about the P/MI  vs EB limbers etc. and all I can say is more research awaits. I've looked a a lot of pics and I've got some opinions on the subjuct (subject to revisions when I'm proven wrong). I don't feel the pressure hull influenced the superstructure very much at this point. Pics show the P/MI boats early on were sloped very evenly and did not have the "curvy" bit that shows prominently in some pics. Look at Silversides, Wahoo, and other early examples. I do see in Alden's book on p 116 a pic of Balao (Ports) launching in 1942 with the "swoopy" surerstructure but without the extrs row of limber holes. It appears to be something of a bulge in the super. plating although I don't know the reason for it. I don't know if MI turned to this configuration at the same time frame or later or even at all. The EB boats seem to not have this particular thing going on. It all points to more research to do. I think there was not much mods. done to the deck or superstructure save the obvious limber variations and the tipped dive planes. I think it comes down to 3 basic versions of the superstructure.
1. EB style with limbers not following the bottom curve and the long drainage slot all the way aft.
2. P/MI early with limbers in a shallow slope, bottom edge gently curving almost meeting the hull, limber holes aft.
3. P poss. MI '42-'43 with the "bulge" and "curvy" bottom edge, original style limber holes fore and aft.

All of the above were modified at intervals with additional limber holes both in the superstructure and roundover.
Decking changed in mid war as teak became scarce and deck details are hard to find. The most obvious changes that affected theboats appearance were the changes both at re-fits and during construction to the fairwater and shears. Armament seemed to be at the commanders discretion.
More work to be done and patience is required for optimum results.