Jump to content

Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

Gold Member
  • Posts

    4,942
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies last won the day on July 17 2020

Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies had the most liked content!

About Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Aberdeenshire, UK
  • Interests
    https://www.facebook.com/Melitele16ftCutter

Recent Profile Visitors

9,579 profile views

Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies's Achievements

Very Obsessed Member

Very Obsessed Member (5/9)

13.8k

Reputation

  1. Kermit Weeks has a D.VII. He's fairly interactive on Facebook and may facilitate getting you dimensions.
  2. Is this not a classical case of requiring people to state their sources and methods which led them to their conclusions? I strongly object to the modern trend of anti-intellectualism whereby everyone thinks their opinions are valid. That neither means that anyone is not able to carry out research, nor does it mean that there is no such thing as a subject matter expert. I'm frequently disagreed with on certain subjects, but often it's because someone thinks something is a reasonable argument because they only possess some reference material I have to hand. Had they already been aware of all of the circumstantial facts then they'd have arrived at a different conclusion. I've learned that no matter how much reference material we gather, there is always something we don't have and there will always be someone comes along who has it. It can be embarrassing to be corrected, especially in public, but it's ok to acknowledge that we weren't previously aware of something and have now revised our views. Often though, people choose to be aggressive about it. Basically though, if people want to make statements about stuff, then the burden of proof is upon them to construct a robust argument which will argue their point for them. We should not listen to someone simply because they make a statement. We should listen to them if their evidence is compelling. Often contradicting arguments are both based on evidence, but usually some of the evidence holds more gravitas than the other evidence does. I'd trust a primary source reference such as an engineering document with the manufacturer's stamp on it before I trusted a 3-view drawing on airwar.ru for example. I'd trust an official contemporary military publication over a modern book. Like Graham I don't know or particularly care what may or may not be wrong with this kit, but I do know what compelling evidence looks and feels like. Kit parts laid over a skewed photograph is pretty much bottom-drawer evidence. Even ignoring parallax errors digital photographs are just too easily resized in height or width altering their aspect ratios so unless it was definitely my own photo I wouldn't trust it much. That said, depending on who said "experts" were and what they based their claims on, it might either be better evidence or fail The Laugh TestTM spectacularly depending on whether this evidence was eyeballing and un-referenced opinion or factory drawings or measuring a fullsize original example. Again, I don't really care which is the case here - but the sentiment of "Experts" Wrong Again makes me a bit uncomfortable but that's perhaps me making a bigger societal link that wasn't intended, since nowadays every other person seems to think their opinion or Youtube Research confirmation biasing qualifies them to contradict, well, take your pick really - lawyer, economist, doctor, climatologist - the list of people who have dedicated their lives to a particular specialism being contradicted by folk who don't realise how much they don't know about it really is vast.
  3. I have to admit I didn't realise that was on my site. It must have been some WEM text inherited when we bought Colourcoats in 2014. I certainly didn't write it, as I know absolutely nothing about armour paints. The entire armour range is unchanged from WEM days. Mike Starmer did loan me some very valuable documents to check the British Army stuff we have, but that's it. I couldn't tell you if that stuff about German army paints is write or wrong so I certainly can't endorse that and am about to remove it from the site accordingly!
  4. I've been using Aquagloss. Aerosols can be hit or miss - the solvents in them can upset the enamel and cause some wrinkling if you are inadvertently a bit heavy-handed. Airbrush would be better I think - your paint job is too nice to spoil!
  5. That's really weird. It's almost like it's swollen - only wood doesn't really swell much along its grain. Perhaps the best thing to do is get nifty and cut round the outline of the planks like a square waveform to give you an invisible join there. Normally his decks have been perfect fits when I've seen them used before. I wonder what's happened here It's just a PDF cutting file followed by a laser, and he doesn't make the PDF until he's iterated into a master pattern that fits his sample kit.
  6. Providing you're planning on decorating your room by airbrush then maybe the spare tin will do for the walls afterall... or you can build Scharnhorst next
  7. It's easily done, but I'm confused... didn't you already get everything you need? Edit: I've caught up - we can supply in a 5 litre can if you like...
  8. When @dickrd completes his planned rewrite of the paper linked at the bottom of the above post, it will become perhaps painfully apparent that HMS Hood was mundanely normal and that most RN ships were grey or black, not red. At least not until well into WWII anyway. The appendix Richard included at the back of his first draft makes uncomfortable reading from the perspective of someone with a large collection of finished Royal Navy models with red bottoms. Of the 17 suppliers of Admiralty Quality anti-fouling paint he has identified, most didn't supply the stuff in red. The everything red myth may either be an imported American idea, or may originate from post-war sailors who excel at assuming the Royal Navy always did things exactly the way they did them sometimes decades later... They can be a source of authoritative sounding bum-steers sometimes. Always well meant, I'm sure, but like everyone they don't know what they don't know.
  9. You're one of those rare individuals who have forgotten more about a particular subject than most ever knew blockquote widgetbockquote widget
  10. Hi Evert Jan, I didn't know if you were directly involved, although it made sense that you did. I had been contacted by Yang Chen about something else who name dropped Frank only in passing. I haven't even seen the kit yet but Flyhawk generally do as suggested fairly well - I expect this is just consumers hearing what they want to hear unencumbered by the contextual implications Flyhawk cannot spell out in full on the back of a model kit box!
  11. With Flyhawk's kit released I'm getting lots of questions now. Sometimes @dickrd and I are asked to help with the kit paint guides at Flyhawk but this time they only dealt with Frank Allen of the HMS Hood Association (which is perfectly sound - Frank isn't daft). What Frank may have intended as not overstating the known truth appears to have been interpreted as ambiguity as far as HMS Hood's anti-fouling paint goes, with some on the big wide internet deciding that "it's still an open debate" about whether the anti-fouling paint was actually grey or not. I've even seen two people decide that the HMS Hood Association website's information only cites grey from 1920-1925. What Frank actually wrote on the HMS Hood Association website was: My bold. This is where a small amount of knowledge is dangerous, and I'm not referring to Frank! Whilst most of the D.495s do not specifically name a colour, they do specifically name the manufacturer of the paint, and that manufacturer only made it in grey or black! That the person filling in the D.495s didn't specifically write "grey" every time doesn't mean red is a possibility of equal likelihood, however black cannot be ruled out as Peacock & Buchan's did offer that choice. Frank originally shared these images of the 1937, 1938 and 1939-40 D.495 Docking Forms on Shipmodels.info's Calling All Ship Fans/Battleships and Battlecruisers/HMS Hood thread Page 36 (http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=4702&start=700) in November 2020 when he first noticed something that didn't match what he like everyone else alive today thought they knew: 1937 1938 1939-1940 They all still name Peacock & Buchan's, albeit abbreviated to "Peacock's". Richard then shared this excerpt from the Rate Book of Naval Stores: You can see that in most cases the hull was given two coats of "protective" paint which guarded against corrosion in contrasting colours so you could see bits where it had worn through followed by one coat of anti-fouling paint in a different colour again for the same reason. To help folks visualise this, I've drawn a picture as is my way. So in summary, if you know what colours Peacock & Buchan's actually offered, red isn't really on the cards at all as the external finish for HMS Hood despite what modellers expect and want to see. If you haven't seen it, Richard drafted a very interesting article on what he had to date and it's hosted on my site. The good news is that he's gathered a h:eap more since the National Archives opened again and is planning a redraft. I don't know yet if there are any errors in the current version he intends to straighten out, but I do know there is a lot of modeller-useable information he plans to add to it. https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/pages/royal-navy-anti-fouling-and-boot-topping-colours
  12. Thanks Guy, much appreciated. Regarding varnishes it depends what I'm doing really. Sometimes I just polish the paint up a bit. I quite like Alclad Aquagloss if I want an acrylic barrier coat for some reason, and despite getting a bad reputation I actually quite like the old Humbrol glass jar Gloss/Satin/Mattcote products, but as most of the complaints about those are about getting white spots the key to using them is an electric stirrer and dedicating a generous portion of AA battery life to ensuring the flatting agent sat at the bottom of the jars is homogenously mixed throughout instead - it's blobs of flatting agent that gives the white spots, or more commonly when brushed on, what gives the intermittent gloss/matt patchy finishes.
  13. Sky proper was a Munsell yellow-green (whoever described that as "duck egg blue" back in the day must have been lethal at traffic lights), whereas Azure was a violet-blue.
  14. A bit more digging on this reveals that the Davis wing's main attraction for Consolidated was its low drag at lower speeds and its high lift at low angles of attack, the latter being desirable for their flying boats in particular since ability to pitch a flying boat to break the surface suction and get airborne is limited. They've liked the drag results on the flying boat and carried that wing (aerofoil sections, not literally the physical wing design) forward onto the B-24, no party involved fully understanding why the wing worked so well drag-wise*. That will imply a strong nose-up trim tendency as speed increases towards the B-24's cruising speed and for me that probably explains the tail incidence at 0.5 degrees less than the wing incidence - a fairly modest negative bias. *What Davis had designed by accident was an early laminar flow section but ultimately it was an evolutionary dead-end as its high speed drag was a brick wall as aircraft performance rapidly increased.
×
×
  • Create New...