lmagna

Depends on the museum! Some of them are stuck up and you might have some problems but any museum that can recognize quality and skill would grab this build up in a heartbeat. Look up the pictures of the Providence Model in the Boston Museum Of Fine Arts made by Charles Davis and then compare it to the Providence made from the same plans by Alfred Brownell in Mystic Seaport museum.

 
 
Your build is just as nice as either of them and much better than Davis's version. Possibly Brownell's as well.
  

Are you certain Mike? Sanity may be a little like beauty, it's all in the eyes of the beholder. 
 
All kidding aside, this really came out nicely and it is truly one to be proud of. Looking forward the the next in the series.

Yes they are a combination of plastic and brass. Highly detailed and about 5mm in size when finished. Luckily there are only two of them. The Houston was scheduled for more, as well as surface radar but there was not enough time and she was pulled out of drydock before the work could be done. Probably for the better anyway as the 1.1 was not that good of an AA weapon anyway. I will also need to do the 8 Veteran Models 5"/25 open mounts that are not much bigger.
  

Probably stuff can only get so small in any scale and still be worked. I bought a pair of Veteran Models 1.1" Chicago pianos

in 1/350 for my Houston and they are absolutely tiny! Both of them could easily fit onto a penny with room to spare the barrels look like ant legs! and are in a little package of their own to keep them from getting lost! If I can ever get to that build, those guns will certainly be as big, (or small if you will) a challenge as anything in 1/700.

Your funeral Mike Looking forward to watching you suffer.

Why? They look excellent to me. It is amazing just how incredibly detailed this little ship is!

While it would certainly fall under economic reasons it seems that the Japanese manufactures have no problem in making all of the standard WWII German ships along with all of the Japanese ships referred to. They even seem to cover a fairly wide range of British ships in the WWWII range although possibly not as extensively as it could be. But certain areas of US ships seem to me at least, to be missing. Why the Indianapolis by two different companies instead of for example the almost identical Portland or Louisville that were not sunk by Japanese forces? I have always included the Houston in that list of why not ships, she certainly gave as good an account of herself or better than the Bismarck, and certainly better than the Tirpitz. But then the Houston suffered much the same fate at the hands of US companies over the years as well, to say nothing of history. So I consider Japanese pride as a factor of why certain US ships are not depicted also. Not so much in 1/700 but certainly in 1/350 and even more so in 1/200. 

I never thought of the Hipper class ships as being "Treaty" ships. They didn't come even close to meeting the Treaty of Versailles, the Washington Navel treaty, or even the pretty much ignored London Naval Treaty. Supposedly the Hipper and other ships of the class were built under the 1933 Anglo-German Naval Agreement, but even cheated in that in the fact that they were almost double the tonnage allowed by the treaty. The Königsberg class and later Leipzig in my humble opinion better fit the term "Treaty Class" even though I do not know if they were ever referred to as such. They do start showing the graceful but powerful lines of the later Kriegsmarine ships.
 
I am not certain what the St Louis class is, outside of the older "Protected" cruisers at the turn of the century. I always thought of the CL-47 St Louis as being one of the Brooklyn class treaty cruisers, but I do seem to be wrong pretty frequently lately. I always thought Brooklyn class looked a little strange, (As did their Japanese counterparts) with their odd forward three turret arrangement, even though the Japanese version seems more useful with two main deck and the third super firing. I always thought a midships arrangement for the extra turret would have been pretty much just as effective rather than the American design of center elevated. But it would have possibly made the ship too heavy with the separate magazine and armor required. Obviously it proved to be an effective arrangement. 
 
The ships I was primarily thinking of as "Treaty Class Cruisers" were the eleven American heavy cruisers of the Pensacola Class (CA-24) to the Portland Class (Indianapolis CA-35). I suppose I was being inaccurate in using the term as there are certainly other cruisers both heavy and light that would fall under that description. As usual I should have been more precise in my label.
 
Of course it is probably clear that the Houston CA-30, not CL-81 is my favorite of the bunch. 
 
 

With the possible exception of the "Treaty Class Cruisers", (Possibly my favorite US design used in WWII) I agree. I suppose that the same argument could be made for the German ships of WWII, possibly one of the reasons why they are so popular.
 
But then All of the cars I own are also boxes with wheels. Small box, medium box, and large box. So I suppose I just like the look of function. Gambier Bay may be taking it a bit far though. 

VERY well done Mike. Makes me almost like the looks of Japanese destroyers........... almost.

Wow ! And they can fly too ! 😁😁😁😁😁
 
Mark, it's a wing 😉😉
 
Beautiful model, Mike ! Well done !  

Thanks for pointing that out time..  a window... <smacks forehead> 

Depends on the museum! Some of them are stuck up and you might have some problems but any museum that can recognize quality and skill would grab this build up in a heartbeat. Look up the pictures of the Providence Model in the Boston Museum Of Fine Arts made by Charles Davis and then compare it to the Providence made from the same plans by Alfred Brownell in Mystic Seaport museum.

 
 
Your build is just as nice as either of them and much better than Davis's version. Possibly Brownell's as well.
  

Are you certain Mike? Sanity may be a little like beauty, it's all in the eyes of the beholder. 
 
All kidding aside, this really came out nicely and it is truly one to be proud of. Looking forward the the next in the series.

Thanks for the kind words Tim. 
I don't imagine my works would sell.  They aren't really 'museum quality' by any means.
Cheers.

Dont know if this might help  - it  looks like it shows the different  decks and frame point  locations  - perhaps  like  timber runs on a wood warship  - perhaps they might go to alternative frames for strength.
 
OC.

Turned out a real gem, Mike. Excellent!

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate all the kind words.  
 
@lmagna, I haven't figured out which to do next (and am embarrassed to post the list of 1/700 kits in the stash).  I'm probably going to pick some of the more easier ones to do to get more experience, and then work my way up to the cruisers, battleships, and carriers.  I'll probably go with an auxiliary ship - I've got a few in the stash that look really cool with all the cranes and sub-decks and stuff - seaplane and submarine tenders, submarine and seaplane carriers, food supply ship, oil supply ship, etc.

Oh sorry Mark, I thought you meant the picture with the engine compartment open.  That's the window if you can believe it.  The lower half would flip up that way.  I thought it was a neat feature of this kit that they split the driver's side window so you could show this feature.
 

I have an arrow pointed to it.   I don't think it's a reflection.   

Looks good, Mike.   Just a question... what's that large chrome handle on the driver's side for?  

Thanks man, really appreciate the kind words.  I still have a ways to go, as I seem to make stupid mistakes.  Example #1 - I sprayed Mr. Hobby gloss clear from the rattle can on the hood, and ruined the paint job.  Stupid me, I didn't shake the can long enough, and I think it being a brand new can, I was spraying mostly the thinner in the can.  Example #2 - I had already added the license plate decal to the hood, so when I went to repaint the hood, I taped over the decal.  Somehow paint got under the tape and ruined the decal (stupid me, I probably didn't burnish the tape enough), so no license plate on the hood.  
 
When I look at work from folks like @CDW, I have a real appreciation for how tricky it can be to get a picture perfect finish like he does.  Can't hide the flaws like you can with planes and ships!  Good news is that I have a pretty decent stash of car kits so I have more opportunities to practice.
 
 

Sorry, I didn't mean that nothing changed.  I just meant that the car remained relatively unchanged in design.  Take a look at Fords, Chevy's, etc. during the same time period and there are obviously significantly more changes in body style, technology, etc.

Your skills are growing brother.... 
 
Very impressive on a subject not so often highlighted..... One of the good things about Heller & Tamiya, they did cover many off the wall subjects you won't find anywhere else.....
 
Well done...

In fact, various details changed, for instance in later models (or only vor the 2CV6, i.e. the one with the bigger engine) the headlights became square. Also the metal radiator grille, which was chromed, was changed into light-grey plastic. I vaguely remember that other parts that were chromed were changed into plastic.
 
There were also different colours of the roof. Mine was originally the colour of the car, but the replacement I got after it had been vandalised (someone thought it funny to cut it open ...) was grey.
 
In addition, over the years they produced various 'special editions', e.g. the one with a two-colour paintwork in bordeaux/black was called 'Charleston'. These also had chromed wheel-cups on two-cloured rims.
 
I don't remember the colour of the wheel-nuts (the paint seemed to wear off), but the the special washers were light grey as the wheels usually were.