The Ship Model Forum

Would it be safe to assume the this IJN Heavy Cruiser Ashigara DX. with Etching Parts from fujimi is a just a re-release with PH? found here on http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10172076

Yes, it will be like this(The model is IJN Haguro):


Value for money and Fujimi's IJN Myoko class is way better in accuracy from Hasegawa's.

Could someone correct the mistakes on the profile please.
I think there are some...

***************** CAUTION!!! *****************

THE PREVIOUS POST FROM NIMITZ4145 CONTAINS AN ADWARE ATTACK TROJAN

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle

Hello Guys....

Considering the previous warning message, I post my file from Hostingpics :



Hope you'll enjoy

If you can send me the diagram via a email, I can correct the mistake on the cruiser. PM me for my email.

I like the Hasegawa ones better than the Fujimi one. If you add a nice etch set to the Hasegawa one you can have a very nice model. I just think the plastic details on the fujimi kit are watered down compared to the Hasegawa one. On value you are right, Etch with the kit is nice. But i prefer Hasegawa's lines.

_________________
On the Bench
1/350 Independence
1/350 Dunkerque
1/350 Shimakaze
1/350 Sharnhorst Dragon
1/350 Belfast

I notice the two Aoshima kits of Haguro 1944 and Nachi 1943...are they considerabley different?

What should I expect regarding differences in the kits? Just light AA and radar?

There are slight differences in the foremast,wind baffles,air ducts to the rear of the station,platform over the bridge and i believe searchlights + more AA.

_________________
On the Bench
1/350 Independence
1/350 Dunkerque
1/350 Shimakaze
1/350 Sharnhorst Dragon
1/350 Belfast

Hi

Does anyone know which particular period the Hasegawa or Fujimi 1/700 kits of this class represent and if any of the class differences (aa fix etc) are represented in the 4 name kits?

You can build either a 1944 version or early war ones. A combination of both can make a masterpiece. Almost all difference are represented.

Could you expand on this a little more please? What exactly does the Fujimi and Hasegawa have, or lack, that would necessitate bashing both kits to create a single "masterpiece".

I believe you, I just would like to know if it is the the small, easily replaced/added details that is driving your comment or if it is the actual quality of moldings and major shapes that are different.


For a late 1943 (Empress Augusta Bay) build of both Myoko and Haguro; an early 1943 build of Nachi (Komandorski); early 42 build of Ashigara (2nd Java Sea) these are my concerns............:

-If hulls, superstructures, deck-houses and other major parts are correct in size and shape in either kit then there is no reason for ME to ransack multiple kits. Superior shape and major sub-assembly molding... that is the game breaker. I can take care of all the other small bits and various details myself, i.e. small molded on deck details, vents etc. All that molded on junk is coming off anyway.

I could care less about the tiny stuff, I care about things like bow flare, undulating sheer lines, camber, correct superstructure curvatures, bridge levels, walkways.... major additions that should be present for the time frame depicted above.... if any.

Things like this is what I'd like for you to explain, or anyone to explain.... which manufacturer holds the BASIC ACCURACY advantage.... please.

Of course, just for clarity I'm speaking of the 1/700 scale.

_________________
The closer the correspondence between a man's perception of reality and reality itself, the greater the man. - Renato Constantino

Fujimi has better main turrets and main deck details. Also the main bridge is better. So I will use the Fujimi hull as a base + turrets and main bridge, and the rest from Hasegawa.

Also keep in mind that both kits are 10 years old, and by today standards(compare them for example with Fujimi's IJN Tone) they are lucking the detail of modern kits.

Just out of curiosity, do the original blueprints for these ships still exist, or are all of these kits based upon photographic guess work?

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle

Yes, original blueprints do exist, at least up to the last refits prior to war.

Hello to you all. It seems a century since I have posted something on the forum. I am more an airplane modeler but I do enjoy building ships too, and I have followed the great works of D. Kaplan who helped me with my "Chokai" some times ago, and whose knowledge on IJN is always amazing me! José Soca did also a great job on the last model I did, the IJN Myoko. like him I did get the Flyhawk set after my built was well advanced using left over PE parts from GMM and Lion's roar IJN Takao. I usually do my ships in water line configuration but I decided for a change. I also did apply my weathering technics from planes to ship and the result is the one on the pics. My references were the Gakken on the Nachi, and the Warship pictorial on the Myoko class cruisers, the bible on the subject (Lacroix) was also consulted when in doubt. I did not find a decent rigging pattern for a 1942 configuration so some connections might be invalid! Anyway I did enjoy this built immensely and I will probably tackle the Shokaku latter this year! My best regards to you all, cheers, Jean.

A really great job, Jean. I am SO looking forward to your Shokaku build. Perhaps you will post in-process photos?

No sweat Dan, I certainly will! Now I 've got to get one of those!

Very nice job on the Myoko. It's nice to see one in it's 42 configuration done right.

_________________
On the Bench
1/350 Independence
1/350 Dunkerque
1/350 Shimakaze
1/350 Sharnhorst Dragon
1/350 Belfast