The Ship Model Forum

Interesting, this.

When this one hit our inbox we announced our intention to poor Ian Gazeley to burn his time too and I got started on the colouring and didn't trouble myself with the structural details. I've opened the original set of line drawings exported from Flyhawk's 3D model and this is what we have:



We laid out the deck markings correctly although curiously enough they border where the catapult should have been not where it actually was.



The image Richard shared above was the last we saw of this where the 3D model was corrected and Flyhawk wanted to know whether to reorientate the forward most white line by a couple of degrees to match the catapult, to which I agreed they should.

It's a bit of a mystery how it went backwards again to be honest.

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151

@ dick; Can you give us a bit of a teaser if you already know of whatever other ships Flyhawk has on the table?

I wasn't asked and have no particular insight into Flyhawk's future releases, but they released a Royal Navy aircraft set that included an F4U Corsair (as well as a Fairey Barracuda and Albarcore) so I assume a late war armored deck carrier might be in the works (Illustrious, Victorious, or Formidable--who knows?). Just a surmise on my part. And they did announce a late war Victorious (IIRC) a couple of years back, though I think it is no longer on their release list--but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. They often come through with surprise releases.

Thanks all who contributed to this discussion. It demonstrates the power of crowds, why Modelwarships.com is such a great site, and what a great bunch of colleagues visit this site. I learned some new things and saw some photos I never saw before.

Thanks all!

Best,

Mike E.

_________________
Mike E.

A week ago, a modeler in China also posted in Tieba about the mystery of the flight deck of the Flyhawk Formidable (link attached).

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/8005432138?pid=145377912999&cid=#145377912999

He noted that the catapult part of his kit on hand is different from his friend's kit. One with full width with flares out slightly at the forward end, one with reduced width in the forward side. After doing some research as demonstrated in the post, he suspects that the wrong deck was in fact correct for Victorious.

So, an odd packaging problem?

And a Victorious kit is upcoming?

_________________
Hong Kong Naval Model Association
https://www.facebook.com/groups/659559407492511/

Dear Kazec:

Thanks for this! The plot certainly thickens... though I am skeptical that the catapult for a late war HMS Victorious was different from that on Formidable earlier in the war, or Illustrious after her 1941 refit in Norfolk, Virginia. Below please find an IWM photo of HMS Victorious reportedly from April 1944, and it is clear that she had the catapult configuration that Formidable had in 1941 and Illustrious had after 1941. I think the Baidu entry you linked to is a clear-cut case of people seeing what they were looking for. If you look carefully at the pictures in the Baidu blog, you will see that the catapult platforms actually look like the platform in the picture below. Or maybe I am just seeing what I am looking for, LOL!!! I need to be careful, as I myself was wrong about a few things in the past day or so (and not for the first time!)....

Thanks again, and be well!

Best,

Mike E.

_________________
Mike E.

Sorry, nothing that I am aware of at the moment. But they sometimes give Jamie and I very little notice indeed to comment on their intended paint schemes (I think the record was just about a week before they went to print!).

On Teiba.Baidu there is a guy who compared many pictures of Illustrious class carrier and concluded :

我突然意识到，我手上这个“可畏”的甲板其实是胜利的甲板，然后回去翻照片考证。果不其然，FH悄咪咪地搞了个大新闻，早就把胜利的甲板开好了,
that is :
I suddenly realized that the "fearful" deck I had was actually the Victorious deck, and went back to the photos to verify. As expected, FH had quietly made a big news and had already opened the Victorious deck.

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/8005432138?pi ... 5377912999

An error in selectioning the part to be manufactured?
A Victorious comming soon?

_________________
A day spent without laughing is a wasted day!

I remain doubtful that the flare was the same on all three after the 1941 USA repairs.

It's the forward end that may have varied.

This is Formidable:


This is Victorious:


What we need is a clear photo of Illustrious 1942-1945 from a similar sort of angle to see how hers was.

This therefore would seem to be wrong for Victorious (and I suspect wrong for any if those are vertical rather than angled/chamfered edges either side at the forward edges of the flare):


(I will e-mail Flyhawk and ask.)

Dick et al:

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I am skeptical that this deck is for an HMS Victorious kit. If it is for a late war Victorious, as previously advertised (and as implied by Flyhawk's release of an F4U Corsair as part of their RN aircraft set), then the flight deck would need to have square cut outs for the 20mm guns emplaced at just below deck level at the port and starboard quarters around mid-war (see the photo below). The flight deck I have (the putative HMS Victorious flight deck) lacks these cutouts.

I think Flyhawk just screwed up, produced a few incorrect flight decks for HMS Formidable, caught their mistake, and are now producing corrected decks. So some of us got the kit for HMS Formidable with the original incorrect flight decks, others got the corrected flight decks.

That's my theory at least.

Best,

Mike E.

_________________
Mike E.

The "mistake they caught" is a good theory. I have had mine pre ordered - so I probably will get pre ordered with mistake. While those buying now Im sure will get the right kit if people have correct kits indeed. Fascinating story.

It would make sense they catch the mistake and load the right files and I dunno, adjust the tooling?...

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

Ugh! Just got my copy and it has the wrong deck.

I emailed Flyhawk to see if I could get the correct deck.

We will see…

Jon: I did too, a few days ago, and have not heard back yet—please let me know what happens. I’ll keep everyone apprised as well.

Mike E.

_________________
Mike E.

Will do. So far.... nothing....and it's Monday there...

(insert sounds of crickets chirping)

I suppose if a replacement never comes I can live with it and it will not detract from the finished model - - the kit is THAT good! - A real work of art (like their other kits). I can honestly say I still HIGHLY recommend the kit.

I got the kit today and can also confirm the deck is wrong.

It is most evident by the deck mask. It has the correct cut out. So the deck mask can be used to outline the work to be done.

Moreover, the deck is a piece that is clearly been worked on, as if added last minute to the kit! Id post shots later, but - it has sanding marks on the inside, support marks sanded off too, the whole thing is bizarre. Really, like they forgot to make the deck and had some laying around and threw them in manually.

I told the seller the A-1 part (deck) is wrong and asked them to ask manufacturer for replacement. They did this in past with Hood (it arrived with damaged hull, so they asked me for the part numbers and a month later I had new parts!). I have little hope this is the case this time, as we dont know if FH has replacements at all. But I tried at least.

Most likely Ill just use the masking sticker to add the raised edge using styrene.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

I have now heard from Flyhawk that there was a boxing error with some kits and they have offered me a 'correct' deck. If you contact them they will hopefully offer you one too.

How correct the 'correct' deck is remains to be seen.

Please could you photograph the deck mask (I don't have the kit).

Photos of the wrong parts below.

Deck (A-1) vs mask.


Elevator with beveled edge still there (P-4).


The plans are correct.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

Thanks for those photos.

Re the mask, it is a bit unclear from your photo's angle, but can you say if the yellow line, the port edge of the raised catapult area, is depicted as a straight line running parallel to the green line, the deck edge, or is it a bit curved getting closer to the deck edge at its forward end?

Re the plans I'd be really grateful if you could rephoto AX1 concentrating on the forward end of the flight deck as I cannot see how they have depicted the forward end of the raised catapult area.

Dick, to first - looks like straight, but the curve is on the other side, see photo. Tough to photograph well, i dont wanna yet rip it out and try it on... May be I will later..

Again, hard to say from the angle, but - in reality the catapult is flaring out at the bow. Wider. Very slight but noticeable.


The close up of the instructions as asked. They are super tiny, this is typical flyhawk tiny fold out - I really wish someone can tell them to increase the size of their instructions and quality of printing (too thick lines).

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

That is a general problem with FlyHawk, sometimes one phase is so densely packed it's difficult to understand some positions at all
I generally scan and increase the size of each section onto an A4 piece of paper
Don't know how they can be persuaded to change - probably all to do with the box size & packaging

Many thanks. So all three are different to each other in detail!

What we now need are some sharp, in-focus photos from various angles of the forward end of the catapult of the 'correct' deck to see exactly how the forward end has been moulded: