The Ship Model Forum

Thank you so much, guys, I value your feedback very much!

Adding some photos from works on the deck and the hull. One of the obvious differences between Kent and Australia was the AA deck, which was one level above the main deck in case of Kent, while Australia had her secondary armament placed on the main deck. So some surgery was needed to separate the funnel bases from the AA deck. Note the holes drilled into the forecastle deck as an aid for installing PE overlay so that CA glue could be added from the bottom in the process.
[attachment=9]20210217_EOS_0028.jpg[/attachment][attachment=8]20210302_EOS_0073.jpg[/attachment][attachment=7]20210303 IMG_0024.jpg[/attachment]
Usually I´d wait with installing PE railings until most of the work on the deck and superstructure was done to keep it safe from accidental damage. In this case I had to test it at a sooner stage so that I could amend it for the final PE sheet.
[attachment=5]20210317_EOS_0147_cr.jpg[/attachment]
The bow detail shows the breasthook work in progress, still before the bottom part sculpted using acrylic putty was sanded to its correct shape.
[attachment=4]20210317_EOS_0148_cr.jpg[/attachment]
As mentioned earlier, the hull was originally prepared for portholes to be sealed with PE parts, but these did not turn out looking nicely to me.
[attachment=6]20210302_EOS_0074.jpg[/attachment]
So I had to drill out all of the acrylic putty again in order to fit the plugs Simon printed for me. These were fixed with PVA glue to be able to realign them later if needed but they looked like very much in line at the first attempt. The carpet monster only got less then 10 of them thanks to using a masking tape to hold them - after the first two of them flew into oblivion while being removed from the sprue ;) .
[attachment=3]20230903_EOS_5257.jpg[/attachment][attachment=2]20230903_EOS_5325_cr.jpg[/attachment]
Hull plating was done by spraying primer (Mr. Base White 1000). I did not dare to use masking tape over the very thin railings so I had to protect it using a piece of paper mostly held by hand while spraying so that not much was added to it´s thickness. The last photo shows the hull with hull plates in place as well as the PE overlay on the forecastle deck to add planking to the deck. Other details were added to the hull like chutes, booms, Byers anchors etc.
[attachment=1]20240111_EOS_6313_cr.jpg[/attachment][attachment=0]20240118_EOS_6314.jpg[/attachment]
BTW the vertical exhaust covers just above the waterline turned out incorrect later for Australia, so they had to be removed. A bit tricky at that late stage, but if came out not too bad in the end.

Brilliant PE work, Vladi.

Wow.

[quote="marijn van gils"]Now that is some mighty fine PE work Vladi! :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1:[/quote]

I second that, super-super cool :cool_1:

Now that is some mighty fine PE work Vladi! :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1:

Another partial update on my build – and a teaser as I plan to reveal the completed Australia this August at the time of the forthcoming Savo Island battle anniversary :cool_2:

[b]Aircraft cranes[/b]

The large cranes represented a very distinct feature of not only Kent class cruisers but of most major British pre-war warships. Originally, Kent class ships were equipped with a lighter version that was replaced later with a heavier crane along with introduction of heavier airplanes (Supermarine Seagull). Cranes deployed on different ships also differed in details. Out of the many depictions in 1/700 available on the market, none really appeared well-detailed and close enough to Australia´s cranes as can be seen on numerous photos.
Also the port and starboard cranes onboard Australia were not exactly the same. The main difference was the control platform that was placed outboard on each crane, plus there were other minor differences in the equipment (“boxes”) on each one.
[attachment=7]20210311_EOS_0132u.jpg[/attachment][attachment=8]20210311_EOS_0130u.jpg[/attachment][attachment=6]20210311_EOS_0134_cr.jpg[/attachment]
[b]Catapult[/b]

Similarly to aircraft cranes, the original lighter version of the catapult had to be adjusted to the much heavier Supermarine Walrus airplane. The catapult represents the most complicated tiny sub-assembly of the model except of the main bridge. The catapult itself (without the base) consists of over 20 PE parts plus several pieces of plastic rods and sheets.
Please note that the "sunrays" seen on the catapult turntable are incorrect and have been removed later.
[attachment=5]20211214_EOS_1519.jpg[/attachment][attachment=4]20211214_EOS_1520.jpg[/attachment][attachment=3]20211214_EOS_1521.jpg[/attachment]
[b]Foremast[/b]

Another tricky part thanks to the numerous tiny details incl. crow´s nests, lights, weatherwanes and A290 radar. A result of – as usual - lenghty discussions with Brett Morrow I think we nailed it right.
[attachment=2]20210310_EOS_0120u.jpg[/attachment][attachment=1]20210310_EOS_0122_cr.jpg[/attachment][attachment=0]20210310_EOS_0118_cr.jpg[/attachment]

For those interested, I just posted a separate [url=http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=396961]review of 1/700 3D printed figures and Walrus from MRY-SFW STORE[/url] that I bought in relation to this build.

Wow , these prints are incredible !

Hi Mike,

thanks for sharing your list, you´ve definitely nailed many of the differences. We´ve worked with Brett Morrow and spent many days aiming to address - hopefully - all the necessary modifications so our list was even longer than yours. We focused also on details not covered in the Kent kit like additional differences on the main bridge, shielded torpedo mounts, side chutes on the hull etc. etc. down to mast details and individual deck vents. There are 2 items in your list about which caught my attention:

1) reduce height of turret bases to match broadside photos of HMAS Australia
I´m not sure about this but I admit I haven´t noticed much difference. I cross-checked my model (which is in the meantime nearly ready) and I don´t see noticeable difference. Have you considered that the Aoshima kit bases partially "sink" into the recesses in the deck planking?

6) reduce height of lowest level of bridge
I haven´t used the Kent bridge at all, there are more differences there. I replaced the whole bridge with PE that I designed based on the few available plans (incl. the one you posted) and many photos, so I can´t comment on the kit´s bridge.

Once again, thanks for your willingness to help, I hope you´ll like the build :wave_1:

Vlad:

Just coming across this thread now. I will watch with eager anticipation what you do with the Aoshima HMS Kent kit. But so far, looks great!!!

A few years back, right after the Aoshima kit was released, I sat down and tried to figure out what it would take to convert a kit of HMS Kent to an HMAS Australia circa 1941-1943 using photos of HMAS Australia available on the internet and in various published reference works. Here is my list of modifications--which you might find of use:

1) reduce height of turret bases to match broadside photos of HMAS Australia
2) reduce height of catapult turntable to match height of turntable in broadside photos of HMAS Australia
3) create single latticework searchlight platform for placement aft of catapult
4) raise level of flag deck platform aft of bridge
5) raise height of funnels
6) reduce height of lowest level of bridge
7) remove weatherdeck amidships
8) alter foc's'l deck forward of breakwater to wooden planks (don't know why this smiley is showing up instead of the number eight)
9) produce new ADO platform (forward main gun director platform) atop bridge to a wedge-shaped or faceted front face (more research is required here--its appearance may have changed over time)
10) remove weather deck and add splinter shields for 4" HA guns
11) add long walkway/catwalk from flag deck to aft pom-pom platform
12) add searchlight platform athwart or wrapping around the forward funnel (configuration is not clear from photos)

I also found the following drawings online for planned alterations as part of her late war refit, though I cannot recall which website I found them on, and will remove them if there are restrictions on their use elsewhere. There might be details here that you might find useful:

[attachment=1]HMAS Australia 13.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=0]HMAS Australia 14.jpg[/attachment]

Anyhow, hope this helps!

Best,

Mike E.

Hey MB, thanks for your kind words... and good to have you at the workbench again!
I hope something might happen even with the Australia if you were a bit patient ;)

I have GOT to get my Studio back to working condition (hurricanes and floods, and then something that was discovered in my throat, kept interfering with the new Studio).

Because these builds are inspiring, and I just started to re-build USS SF when the first flood happened…

The Astoria Build is amazing, and I have been looking for a HMAS Australia for a while now.

I think I need to replace m Midship DDs with your (Matt’s) Kraken stuff…

DAMN! That is some EXCELLENT work!

MB

Hi Stefano, thank you!

As can be seen on some of the close-ups, Simon has the supports extremely thin where they attach to the actual model, so they snap off really easily using Exacto or tweezers. He suggests putting the prints into the fridge to make removing supports easier, but that was never necessary in my case. Perhaps with larger scales the supports mave to be more substantial, I don´t know.

Hope I won´t let you down about the scratchbuilding - I´m using my PE in place of that, except if I made a mistake in the design :big_grin: or small cylindrical parts that are easier to cut off plastic rods than do from PE. That was in fact behind me starting with designing PE cause I disliked me not being able to become a good scratchbuilder, especially when it came to repeating parts.

Welcome back, Vladi! That's an incredible amount of details for such a small scale. Unbelievable what technology and fine design can do together. Is detachment of the pieces from the carrier complicated?

Looking forward to see the model assembled, am sure there will be some room for old fashioned scratchbuilding too. :thumbs_up_1:

... continued

... continued

Sorry for the long interruption...

[b]3D parts by Micro Master[/b]

Besides the enormous help by Brett Morrow the other main contributor to my project is Simon Percival of Micro Master. We´ve been in touch with Simon since the days of my HMAS Canberra project so it was only logical I asked him for help with the Australia.

All Simon´s 3D parts are being designed in very large scale with an enormous level of detail so they can be provided in any reasonable scale depending on the customer´s wish. The quality of Simon´s design and printing cannot be overstated, they are simply excellent, as can be seen on the attached photos. Remember this is all 1/700 so the details are really extremely tiny and stand out in the macrophotography. The print layers are OTOH actually invisible on those parts after painting and using appropriate weathering techniques.

:thumbs_up_1:

[b]PE parts[/b]

The PE for Australia ended up to be my most comprehensive design so far, even more than my parts for USS Astoria. It included the complete forward superstructure and spanned over 2 and a half large A6 format brass sheets in 1/700. I didn´t count them but I guess there were close to 1000 individual parts. As usual, my first prototype version had some errors so I produced an improved version with even additional parts that I used for my build.

I did not make a complete deck overlay which I now think I could have done, but Aoshima´s deck planking is not bad. So the largest PE part is the overlay for the forecastle deck that was covered with wood planks, not metal as shown in the Aoshima kit. Additional large parts provide for a full replacement of the main bridge that was also different from Kent – more different than it appears at the first sight.

The PE set was designed for 1/700 but with the possibility of upscaling to 1/350 in mind. Upscaling would not mean degradation of detail in this case as the 1/700 is done in 0.1mm brass while the 1/350 would need 0.2mm thickness which would also bring an increase in the minimum dimensional requirements like line width, detail size etc.

Samples of my first attempt:

[attachment=2]20210216_EOS_0026_cr_01.jpg[/attachment][attachment=1]20210216_EOS_0026_cr_02.jpg[/attachment][attachment=0]20210216_EOS_0026_cr_03.jpg[/attachment]

[quote]sealing the portholes was in vain in the end. I was not satisfied how the PE seals turned out[/quote]

I know that moment all too well. :cry_3:

Thank you, Stefano, glad you find it hepful!

I should add that all the above work on sealing the portholes was in vain in the end. I was not satisfied how the PE seals turned out so I asked Simon and he´s been so kind to provide me with a set of 3D printed seals that look much better. So I had to drill the putty out from around 120 portholes – glad that the acrylic putty was quite soft :D