IJN Hatsuzakura by Landlubber Mike - FINISHED - Pit Road - 1/700 - PLASTIC - with FiveStar PE

[cog]

It would make it cloudy, a dark greyish. So you still can see the PE. I even cut PE on a beige wall tile and can still see it. The contrast will probably be better on the dark grey. There are two sides to the sheet ...

Edited January 26, 2021 by cog

[Landlubber Mike]

21 hours ago, JohnB40 said:

Well done Mike,that is some outstanding modeling work there.The finished destroyer is miniature masterpiece. I would have had trouble just seeing the parts,even with Optivisors with the highest magnification.

John

 

Hey John, good to hear from you my fellow Unicorn hulker.  Thanks for the kind words.  Hope you are doing well!

[Old Collingwood]

Hey Mike,  I have found a solution to your miniscule  modeling  -  I have zoomed in   with my browser, wont help you out though.😁    at least this way I can see your glorious  (but mad)  workmanship   keep  it up mate.

 

OC.

[Landlubber Mike]

Thanks OC!  I wish my eyeballs could similarly zoom in and out like that.

 

I've been a little busy the past few days, but have been slowly making progress on this build - touch ups, adding the final details, etc.  I've always been bothered by the radar on the bridge tower (what looks like two horns)  - seems a touch out of scale.  I dug through the stash last night and found that I have resin aftermarket replacements that look a little smaller, so I might replace it.  A few more details and then it will be on to some weathering/shading/highlighting, and then the rigging.

 

[Landlubber Mike]

Quick update on where things are on this one.  Been a little busy with work this week but managed to get things touched up a bit, and now adding some of the details that were sitting on the linoleum and needed to be painted separately, especially near the stern.  Here are some detail pictures of the reels (I thought the kit ones lacked detail so I replaced them with some reels in a Tom's Model Works IJN reel set) and various racks:

 

 

 

 

 

Here is where things look now.  I have a few more touchups (including to unbend some PE parts), and need to add 10 more AA guns and various ammo crates and other detail pieces.  Then the plan is to Future, weather/wash, add the rails and small boats, clear coat it, then finish with the rigging and flags.  So, I think I'm on the home stretch.  Critical thing I'm trying to remind myself is to keep the model well away until I plan to add to it.  Some of the PE is so fine it's almost like you can breathe on it and it will bend.

 

 

Thanks for looking in!

Edited January 31, 2021 by Landlubber Mike

[cog]

You are killing me!

[CDW]

Looks fabulous Mike. Takes someone with the skills of a watchmaker to work in that scale. 

Your work almost persuaded me to buy a 1:700 scale Tirpitz this weekend, but I resisted the temptation. I do have an aircraft carrier in that scale. Will do that one before I buy anything else, just to make sure I'll follow through.

[lmagna]

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

[mtaylor]

This just boggles my mind... so tiny and yet so much detail.  When you're done you could probably qualify for neurosurgery.

 

[Landlubber Mike]

Thanks guys, really appreciate the kind words.

 

@CDW - Craig you should definitely go for it.  If I can do it you can.  Optivisor and a pair or two of very fine tweezers is a must (one with normal action, and another that is reverse action so you can hold the tiniest parts while folding them with the other tweezer).  I have to say that on 5-10x magnification, the parts look a little rough and would look like crap at 1/350 scale, but to the naked eye, these parts look pretty good at 1/700.  

 

@lmagna - Lou, welcome to the IJN side.  I think we’ve had this discussion, but I’ve always liked the lines of the Japanese ships more so than the US side.  The American ships (and planes during that era for that matter) have that very functional design that certainly worked well (for the most part) but to me just look less interesting.  I think the only US ship I have is the Gambier Bay escort carrier by Hasegawa.  For some reason, I’ve always been interested in that one.  

Edited January 31, 2021 by Landlubber Mike

[Egilman]

6 hours ago, cog said:

You are killing me!

Me 2....

[Egilman]

51 minutes ago, Landlubber Mike said:

 I have to say that on 5-10x magnification, the parts look a little rough and would look like crap at 1/350 scale

Scale accuracy has to give somewhere brother, and yes they would looks junky/clunky in 1/350.... But then they mk1 eyeball doesn't have the ability to sort resolutions that small.... They look best from about 8-10" away...

Where 1/350th it's about 24"......

 

You do know that with this experience you can build anything? Also, that folding 1/350 isn't the same.....

 

Beautiful work my friend, work that I cannot do.....

[lmagna]

3 hours ago, Landlubber Mike said:

The American ships (and planes during that era for that matter) have that very functional design

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. 

[Landlubber Mike]

3 hours ago, Egilman said:

Scale accuracy has to give somewhere brother, and yes they would looks junky/clunky in 1/350.... But then they mk1 eyeball doesn't have the ability to sort resolutions that small.... They look best from about 8-10" away...

Where 1/350th it's about 24"......

 

You do know that with this experience you can build anything? Also, that folding 1/350 isn't the same.....

 

It’s funny, I was about to start the Hasegawa Shimakaze destroyer at 1/350, but it’s such a nice kit I didn’t want to muck it up from having no experience.  So I got this kit to give me a little experience at a fairly low budget.  Didn’t realize what I was getting myself into!  
 

But yeah, I think 1/350 will be an easier road now that I’ve tortured myself at 1/700.  At the same time, I’ll definitely need to get it more precise.  The 1/700 stuff is all done with tweezers, pins, toothpicks, and sometimes fingertips.  Only so crisp you can get it.  
 

I’ll probably pick back up the Shimakaze when this one is done.  I’ve got two hold and folds of different sizes and some other PE bending stuff to help me.  Will certainly be a different set of techniques at that scale.  The nice thing about 1/700 scale is that it you don’t have to have perfectly crisp corners because nobody will be able to tell - the bad thing is, well, it’s 1/700 scale.

[Egilman]

6 hours ago, lmagna said:

With the possible exception of the "Treaty Class Cruisers"

I agree Lou, after the Hipper Class Cruisers, the St Louis Class and Brooklyn classes are my favorites, followed by the Cleveland class Brooklyn derivatives....

 

Beautiful ships all.....

[Egilman]

6 hours ago, Landlubber Mike said:

I got this kit to give me a little experience at a fairly low budget.  Didn’t realize what I was getting myself into!

You got the talent brother.... no question.....

 

I think it's going to look spectacular.....

[Landlubber Mike]

Lou and EG, those are some nice looking ships.  To be honest, I'm not as familiar on the US side.  Wonder if there's just more interest in Japanese ships out there?  

 

I like the Pensacola and the St. Louis class looks like a really cool one with the camo, deck details, etc.  

 

 

 

[CDW]

38 minutes ago, Landlubber Mike said:

Lou and EG, those are some nice looking ships.  To be honest, I'm not as familiar on the US side.  Wonder if there's just more interest in Japanese ships out there?  

 

 

I believe the simple answer is, the Asian market for models dwarfs the Western market. Many many more modelers in Asia than the West. The answer is an economic one. They produce models for sales. Not enough sales in the Western market. The Japanese ships are big sellers in Asia. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by CDW

[Cap'n Snack]

Absolutely insane work, LLM!

[lmagna]

19 hours ago, Egilman said:

Hipper Class Cruisers, the St Louis Class and Brooklyn classes are my favorites, followed by the Cleveland class Brooklyn derivatives....

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. 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by lmagna

[lmagna]

14 hours ago, CDW said:

The answer is an economic one. They produce models for sales. Not enough sales in the Western market. The Japanese ships are big sellers in Asia.

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. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by lmagna

[Egilman]

4 hours ago, lmagna said:

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

The Brooklyn class ships were a direct response to the "Mogami" class cruisers of the IJN... (which stunned the world's navies when they were revealed)..... A class of 35+knot ships with 15 rapid fire 6" guns and 8 5" guns... (when the Japanese abrogated the treaty their 6" guns were removed and replaced with 10 8" guns in five turrets in which configuration they served through the war) All designed after the London treaty which limited Heavy cruisers construction and classified cruisers by their gun calibre 6.1 and larger were "Heavy" and 6" or less were considered "Light"......

 

That was the inspiration for the Brooklyn class...... Very long legged, fast, cruisers that could be used for either commerce raiding or carrier escort as originally envisioned and that could hold their own in a gun battle against any heavy cruisers then in existence..... (given the limitations of the treaty)

 

Of the nine ships built only one was lost during the war, the USS Helena CL-50 to long lance torpedoes..... The last two, the USS St Louis CL-49 and the USS Helena CL-50, were modified Brooklyn's having their antiaircraft armament changed from six 5"25's to 8 5"38's (in twin turrets) The Japanese after the Battles of Savo island and the guadalcanal naval campaign had a nickname for them calling them "Machine gun cruisers" they particularly didn't like them....

 

Their hulls were based upon the preceding 10K ton New Orleans class heavy cruiser hulls redesigned (longer) to make them faster the only reason they weren't classified as heavy cruisers was the treaty, and as the Japanese action of upgunning their Mogami class to 8" guns showed they were very capable of handling such armament....

 

Their hulls were the basis of every US cruiser designed from that point forward including the Baltimore class of heavy cruisers and several of the light aircraft carriers (from cleveland class, modified brooklyn hulls)

 

Probably the most capable gun cruisers ever built up to that point in time.....

 

I'm condensing and paraphrasing a lot of Norman Friedman's US Cruisers an illustrated design history (amazon link) here... well worth the read.....

[Egilman]

7 hours ago, lmagna said:

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 agree we are well overdue for several classes of US Cruisers in injection molded plastic.... the Brooklyns head that list....

[Landlubber Mike]

Made some more progress.  Got the final 10 AA guns installed, along with some ammo crates and other assorted items.  This one in particular was fun:

 

 

 

 

 

I ended up spraying a coat of Future so I can start the wash and weathering process.  Here are some shots of what it looks like.  I always cringe when I post these, and have to remind myself that they are taken at high magnification:

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the final stretch.  Thanks for looking in!

 

[CDW]

Excellent work Mike

 

[Egilman]

3 hours ago, Landlubber Mike said:

This one in particular was fun

I can imagine......

 

Stunning work brother....

[lmagna]

5 hours ago, Landlubber Mike said:

 I always cringe when I post these

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

[Landlubber Mike]

Just about at the finish line.  Everything is assembled, just need to add the rigging.  I played around with some naval enamels from AK so I'll let those dry over the next few days, and then add a matt clear coat.

 

I'm wondering about adding a clear coat after the rigging.  I'm planning to probably use EZ-Line - would it be ok to rig the ship now, and then clear coat at the end?  Or should I first clear coat and then rig the ship?  I figure the clear coat won't effect the EZ-Line, but just wondering if anyone has any experience on this.  

 

 

 

 

Thanks for looking in!

 

 

[Canute]

That's a little jewel, Mike. Well done.

[Edwardkenway]

Great job Mike, impressive work on that small scale!