homepage

More for the Future.....

Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

More for the Future..... - 12/09/10 11:41 PM

Wasp on final trials............... soon for the the paint yard.

And then on to the next one.

Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 12/10/10 01:23 AM

.............. and for me, this shot has always represented something of the twilight of the gods.......... the demise of the dreadnought.

Posted By: zerocinco

Re: More for the Future..... - 12/17/10 11:19 PM

Now that we have them all, we can get them all painted in time for Phase Two.

CV-2 Lexington
CV-3 Saratoga
CV-5 Yorktown
CV-6 Enterprise
CV-7 Wasp
CV-8 Hornet

USS Wasp. And I guess it's time to paint the TBF, too.







Nice work as usual from Hinchinbrooke Industries. Essex next, I guess.


Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 12/18/10 12:31 AM

Oh good, you got it.

That last shot shows you how small she was. Half a Yorktown............ or perhaps a quarter Yorktown, given her speed. No wonder she spent a lot of time ferrying aircraft.

She and Ranger were really not up to the task.

And yes, an Essex is next.
Posted By: otterspotter

Re: More for the Future..... - 12/20/10 10:04 PM

Awesome shots. Love the one with the Avenger landing. When is Phase Two coming?
Posted By: zerocinco

Re: More for the Future..... - 12/20/10 10:37 PM

The SBD should arrive in a few days. B-25 is done needing mapping. B-24 starting after that. All ships off to paint. There are some things to be done but most of the pieces are in place. The Holidays are in the way right now.


Posted By: zerocinco

Re: More for the Future..... - 12/24/10 01:11 AM

Update...pre-detailing:

Posted By: otterspotter

Re: More for the Future..... - 12/25/10 08:22 PM

Nice! Keep 'em coming!
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 01/12/11 01:47 AM

Construction of CV-9 begins...............

Posted By: zerocinco

Re: More for the Future..... - 01/12/11 02:57 PM

This is going to be another great ship.
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 01/26/11 04:13 AM

More for the future...
Posted By: zerocinco

Re: More for the Future..... - 01/27/11 04:54 PM

Great start, Hinch.
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 02/15/11 11:54 PM



Update. Things coming along, if slowly.
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 03/01/11 02:26 AM

A bit more for the future..................
Posted By: 8 L.E.I.N.

Re: More for the Future..... - 03/01/11 03:47 AM

That knife edge bow....hmmmm, and all forward main battery...hmmm....has a far east flavor. I bet she has a sister too. Simply gorgeous.
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 03/01/11 03:58 AM

You've got it Mike.

HMS Nelson during scrapping at Inverkeithing.
Posted By: 8 L.E.I.N.

Re: More for the Future..... - 03/01/11 04:12 AM

I thought maybe the Nelson or the Rodney, but the profile is too bloody low. beercheers
Posted By: kverdon

Re: More for the Future..... - 03/01/11 06:22 AM

Looks like one of the IJN Tone (Class?) Cruisers to me.

Kevin
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 03/02/11 12:42 AM

You are indeed correct, sir. Early days of course, but at least the main battery is done..................

Now for that blasted split/trunked funnel.
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 03/19/11 12:40 AM

Tone in the fitting out basin.........

Posted By: zerocinco

Re: More for the Future..... - 03/19/11 04:25 PM

This was a good idea. It's going to be really nice to have Japanese cruisers as Japanese cruisers.
Posted By: Wklink

Re: More for the Future..... - 03/21/11 06:37 PM

Agreed. I don't know of too many games (short of SHIV) that actually attempted to render IJN warships other than the carriers.

The Imperial Japanese fleet probably had the best heavy cruisers of any nation at the start of the war. Too bad they were quickly outclassed by the Baltimore class and beyond but in 1941 the IJN simply had better heavy cruisers. Light Cruisers, not so much. Better destroyers for sure.
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 03/21/11 11:25 PM

A number of Japanese heavy cruisers looked good on paper, but reality proved a little different. Grossly overweight on completion, along with dubious welding, led to structural weakness, which had to be attended to later.

Even then, looking at Tone, you wonder if all that weight forward would have done well in a dangerous seaway.
Posted By: Dogsbd

Re: More for the Future..... - 03/22/11 01:17 AM

Originally Posted By: SimHQ Tom Cofield

The Imperial Japanese fleet probably had the best heavy cruisers of any nation at the start of the war. Too bad they were quickly outclassed ....


No, that wasn't bad at all. sigh
Posted By: wheelsup_cavu

Re: More for the Future..... - 04/29/11 05:34 AM

Looking real nice. smile


Wheels
Posted By: zerocinco

Re: More for the Future..... - 04/30/11 12:21 AM

Don't forget the cat.

Posted By: zerocinco

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/01/11 07:05 PM

Oops. Wrong float plane.

Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/07/11 12:18 AM

Posted By: wheelsup_cavu

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/11/11 05:57 AM

cool


Wheels
Posted By: Wklink

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/16/11 02:35 PM

Man, the Japanese made funny looking cruisers.
Posted By: DaveP63

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/16/11 09:29 PM

Originally Posted By: SimHQ Tom Cofield
Man, the Japanese made funny looking cruisers.


But extremely lethal.
Posted By: colmack

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/18/11 04:36 AM

The Tone's were Cruiser/scout seaplane carriers that's why the mains were all up front so they could fit the 6 scout seaplanes on the stern
Posted By: zerocinco

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/18/11 08:02 AM

An update from Hinch:



The final 10 missions in Phase Two will be the Battle of Midway. Crucial in the battle was knowledge of where the opposing fleet was arrayed. Each side sent out scouts before dawn. In Rising Sun, the player will fly a PBY from Midway and an E13A1 off the Tone's catapult to find the opposing fleet given a general heading. The player must find the fleet and recover to a water landing at Midway or alongside the Tone at sea. There will be no memorized autopilot courses. You must record the heading and distance to the opposing fleet for the following strike missions to dead reckon. You must seek the fleet as they did, identify your target and press your attack. Then you must fly the reciprocal heading home, find your carrier (if still afloat) and land.

Think it was tough for them? You'll know how difficult it was.
Posted By: Vonbaron

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/19/11 09:33 AM

A lot what some say here is untrue - example: Japanese Heavy cruisers had bad welding etc., were outclassed by the Baltimore class early in the pacific war is not factual. Early Japanese Heavy Cruisers of WW2 vintage like the Mogami was overweight(true), and suffered welding problems but this was overcome. THE MAJORITY of Japanese Heavy Cruisers were some of the best and toughest of cruisers of any nation in WW2. What the biggest fault of IJN cruisers was the very poor anti aircraft guns. Also excessive torpedo mounts and storage although early in the war was a factor in their victories. SO people read for example Osprey books and many like historical books and please get your facts correct before generalising and going on national pride ours is better than theirs please. By the way I think Japanese Heavy Cruisers look the most modern and best looking of just about any WW2 combatants. Mark AUSTRALIA.
Posted By: kverdon

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/19/11 08:07 PM

Everyone's treaty cruisers had their plusses and minuses. I've always wondered about many of the Japanese cruisers lack of turret armor. I also however have to give credit to their gunnery and torpedo firepower. US Cruisers I do think were a match in terms of gunnery and protection, they just lacked the superb torpedo armament the Japanese cruisers had. The pounding some US Cruisers took before going down was impressive (both what they took and what the Japanese could dish out). Comparing them or treaty Japanese Cruisers to later designs like the Baltimores is not really fair.

Where the Japanese cruisers excelled in 1942 was in their tactical use. Their superb night optics and better tactics gave them a clear advantage from Java Sea to Guadalcanal. On the other hand, for many of the early engagements, the US side squandered their tactical advantage of radar. Once that was figured out things got a bit more even.

yes, Japanese cruisers in 1942 were indeed sleek and deadly!

Kevin
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/20/11 12:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Vonbaron
A lot what some say here is untrue - example: Japanese Heavy cruisers had bad welding etc., were outclassed by the Baltimore class early in the pacific war is not factual. Early Japanese Heavy Cruisers of WW2 vintage like the Mogami was overweight(true), and suffered welding problems but this was overcome. THE MAJORITY of Japanese Heavy Cruisers were some of the best and toughest of cruisers of any nation in WW2. What the biggest fault of IJN cruisers was the very poor anti aircraft guns. Also excessive torpedo mounts and storage although early in the war was a factor in their victories. SO people read for example Osprey books and many like historical books and please get your facts correct before generalising and going on national pride ours is better than theirs please. By the way I think Japanese Heavy Cruisers look the most modern and best looking of just about any WW2 combatants. Mark AUSTRALIA.


Who's talking about a 40-page read by Osprey? Many of the Japanese heavy cruisers were over weight on completion, which led to severe stability problems. Things were rectified, but given the length/width ratio for speed, they were over-gunned and always suffered draught problems.
Posted By: Vonbaron

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/20/11 09:42 AM

[/quote]
Who's talking about a 40-page read by Osprey? Many of the Japanese heavy cruisers were over weight on completion, which led to severe stability problems. Things were rectified, but given the length/width ratio for speed, they were over-gunned and always suffered draught problems. [/quote]
Fair enough and true for some of the classes (like Mogami) but your line who's talking about a 40-page read by Osprey well I won't comment it obvious what you think but I also mentioned that as one example, I also mentioned historical books which I have and read on all the major combatants which I am sure many others do and read like yourself. As pointed out by others major cruisers of other nations had their fair share of problems. I just liked to balance the books. Have a nice day!
Posted By: 8 L.E.I.N.

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/20/11 01:43 PM

Hinch,

Any difference on the Chikuma visibly?
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/21/11 02:48 AM

Mike,

Not really. The two ships served together as a cruiser squadron, and pretty much took refits for the same issues. I'm sure there are detail differences, but for a flight sim.....?
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/21/11 03:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Vonbaron
[/quote]
Who's talking about a 40-page read by Osprey? Many of the Japanese heavy cruisers were over weight on completion, which led to severe stability problems. Things were rectified, but given the length/width ratio for speed, they were over-gunned and always suffered draught problems.

Fair enough and true for some of the classes (like Mogami) but your line who's talking about a 40-page read by Osprey well I won't comment it obvious what you think but I also mentioned that as one example, I also mentioned historical books which I have and read on all the major combatants which I am sure many others do and read like yourself. As pointed out by others major cruisers of other nations had their fair share of problems. I just liked to balance the books. Have a nice day! [/quote]



Notice all the main armament, magazines, etc., well forward on a narrow hull (see cruiser speed). Not a happy combination, especially with seas head on. Massive break up possible.
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/24/11 09:45 PM



Tone takes to the water for some shadow checking.
Posted By: wheelsup_cavu

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/25/11 06:45 PM

That's a pretty looking ship. smile


Wheels
Posted By: zerocinco

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/26/11 09:44 PM

Those compound curves look like they took a lot of work, Hinch.
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 05/27/11 01:56 AM

Compound curves are one thing. Negotiating shapes with a dearth of decent photography is another.
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 06/01/11 12:16 AM



Almost ready for time trials.
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 06/14/11 01:21 AM

More work on an Essex.

Posted By: PipsPriller

Re: More for the Future..... - 06/19/11 07:41 AM

Spectacular work as always.
Posted By: wheelsup_cavu

Re: More for the Future..... - 06/20/11 01:54 AM

Very Nice. thumbsup


Wheels
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 06/26/11 09:48 PM



A short-hull Essex takes to the water for some shadow testing. Apparently, the FAA was on hand.
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 07/01/11 12:24 AM

Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 07/19/11 02:12 AM

Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 07/28/11 11:15 PM

Another update before I go travelling..........

Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 09/02/11 01:20 AM

............

Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 09/16/11 12:00 AM

Posted By: SandyC

Re: More for the Future..... - 09/17/11 03:22 PM

Man, These ships are beautiful works of art. What I particularly like is the look and feel of steel plate, and it is great to see them under construction -just like sitting and watching in a shipyard. Thanks for all the hard work on these projects - and for the carriers in YAP.
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 10/05/11 02:52 AM

Thanks.

And once the light AA is done, and work on the radar and mast completed, Essex will be set for launch.

Posted By: Wklink

Re: More for the Future..... - 10/06/11 05:07 AM

Gonna make any modifications to the design for the 'long hulled' Essexes or will they be needed for any upcoming versions?
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 10/06/11 08:02 PM

Originally Posted By: SimHQ Tom Cofield
Gonna make any modifications to the design for the 'long hulled' Essexes or will they be needed for any upcoming versions?


Decisions like that are beyond my pay grade.
Posted By: Hinchinbrooke

Re: More for the Future..... - 11/02/11 01:42 AM



Essex set for commissioning.
Posted By: 8 L.E.I.N.

Re: More for the Future..... - 11/03/11 05:43 PM

Another Triumph, thanks Hinch.
© 2019 SimHQ Forums