I'm curious and I'd like to hear some other opinions. I know of course that photo-etched parts are the only way to get very fine detail. You only have to look at the difference between a plastic radar and a photo-etched one to know what an improvement the latter can make. My question is why manufacturers use photo-etch when a plastic part would be quite satisfactory. I built a 1/72 U-boat and had bought a set of photo-etched parts for it. Included on the fret were replacement railings for the conning tower. They were flat of course, and so the kit supplied railings looked much better. Photo-etch parts that work wonderfully in the smaller scales don't look nearly as good in a larger scale.The new Vosper MTB by Italeri uses photo-etched parts for the yardarms and antennae on the mast. I don't think the actual ones were flat. I know from previous kits that Italeri can mold some very delicate parts. So why the photo-etch? I wonder if it could be a cost concern? I imagine photo-etched parts are less expensive than injection molding them. I would hope that manufacturers aren't doing it just because they want to make a photo-etched fret look more impressive. What do you think? Al

Not necessary at all. I use it because I think that in 1/350 scale a ship looks very bare without railings, and cranes and catapults look more realistic as well.

I am currently building BB-55 with the Eduard Set and it adds many hours to the build if you use PE. For example, the catapults consist of about 4 parts in plastic, but the PE ones have about 20. Gives you some ide of the extra detail with the PE.

Hi Warren, I agree that photo-etch makes a big difference in 1/350 and 1/700. It even has its uses in 1/72 and 1/35. Several Academy ship kits come with plastic railings which look like split rail fence in 1/350. I just think that some parts are not prototypical, or necessary as photo-etched. Al

I agree mate.

I just got the new Tamiya Yamato with the photo-etch railings that require you to glue the individual bollards in place and string fine wire between them... Hope it doesn't end in tears...

Gluing each post, keeping them all aligned, and then stringing the wire without knocking anything loose. That sounds like an exercise in frustration. I hope they gave you plenty of spares or you'll be spending a lot of time on hands and knees. Good luck with the build, will you be posting pictures? Al

Hi Al

I think the simple answer is no. I would rather see a clean well built and finished model without etch than a bodge job with badly fitted etch, and worse, especially in larger scales a flat 2 dimensional etched part tring to represent a 3 dimensional object.

For my personal preferenece building, 1/350th yes it is essential, I do not have the skill to scratchbuild railing, latice masts, radar scanners, ladders, cranes catapults etc etc. I get into 1/72 and above I am very careful about the use of etch, as it's 2 dimensionality does tend work against it.

I was rather amused at a model show recently to be questioned by a visitor about not using etched overlays on watertight doors on a resin kit, the moulded on ones were crisp & clean, so I felt perfecly serviceable, this guy was adament that I had not finished the job properly, regardless of all the detail I had added.

The aerials on the Vopser, at first sight I agree, they don't look quite right, i would have thought they would have a round cross section, but I must admit I need to look into that.

Si

Photo etch can be a mixed blessing: railings in 1/350th? excellent. In 1/144th ? Can be rather painful. If it doesn't look like an improvement don't use the parts, works for me
Julian

scale can be the determining factor. for instance, there is currently no way to reproduce this kind of detail in 1/350 or 1/700 with inject molded plastic:



There would be more possibility to infer decent detail in plastic for larger scales of course, but except for railings and maybe a couple of other parts, you can't touch brass for precision and surface etching detail.

No,but for me railings are needed as a bare minimum.That being said,I'm not very good at it.

I may have phrased my original question wrong. I understand the necessity of photo-etched parts to improve the appearance of a model. I just feel there are times when the provided photo-etched part isn't necessary because the plastic one it is meant to replace would do better. This applies more to photo-etched frets included with a kit as opposed to after-market sets. With an after-market set you have the option of whether to use it or the original kit provided plastic part. What concerns me is when there is no choice, as seems to be the case with Italeri's new Vosper for example. I'm not running down the manufacturer or the kit. I just wondered about their choice to provide a flat piece to represent a round part? Looking at some of the quite delicately molded parts included with the kit, they've shown the ability to mold the piece in a convincingly scale thickness. So why photo-etch? Al

Hi Al

I get what you are saying, there are cases when it appears etch is used for the sake of it. With the Vosper I agree i would have thought the radar aeriels would be round, but as i said above I need to do some research, I do rememeber from my days in the merchant navy, that wave guides , that take the signal from the radar aerial to the set were square, 1970's technology mind, but could that mean that some aerials were square section back in 40's.

As i said i need to look into that, because I do not know.

Will try to find some time soon to do some research.

Si

Hello Simon, that is exactly what I meant, photo-etch just for the sake of having it. The aerials may have been flat or had a square cross-section but I would think the yards themselves would be round. Al

Al has a point here Simon, the wave guides aboard the ships I sailed on, (about 26 years ago), had rectangular wave guides. The antennas were not supported by the wave guides though,so what you should see is a round yard, (wave guides would have run down the mast itself). (this sounds confusing even to me when I read it . Hope you get my gist )
Julian

Hi Julian,

My fault, I don't think I explained myself clearly. I was thinking more about the structure of the aerial itself I agree, the yards should be round, but that is a fairly straight forward replacement with a bit of plastic / brass rod, shaped accordingly.

I do remember some aerials, I know it is different, but the 1st colour tv aeriel we had fitted at home, 1969/70 I seem to remember, the centre pole of the aerial was square, and the side poles round.

before I build mine (summer project anyway) I am going to some research, I am equally not sure the side poles would have been tapered as etched. Still if I decide to scratch them, at least I have templates of a sort.

Bottom line, i agree, daft things to etch, but still a great kit.

Si

I saw it at the local model shop this afternoon for the princely sum of 110 Euries. I was able to withstand the temptation, (was easy with Mrs. Grem56 standing behind me making threatening noises ).
Julian

Since I stick to the larger scales, I employ PE if flatness is not an issue like ladders, porthole frames, and watertight doors, and it is not possible or convenient to make the part from sheet plastic (due to PE set costs). Making PE parts for objects with depth like anchor chains (or a 1:72 railing? ouch!) is a waste of material.

I am intrigued by the news of the new Yamato PE railing stanchions. I rejected using PE railings in the 1980s because even the 1:350 horizontal railings were too thick for my taste (except for rigid ocean liner style rails). Instead, I resorted to using brass, then plastic rod for individual stanchions with very fine acrylic thread for the railings. Now, I've taken to cutting off all but the lowest PE rails from between the stanchions and then install fine thread where the brass once connected. It sounds like Tamiya has caught up with me!

My only other issue with PE is the cost of the custom sets. All too often, a PE kit can rival the subject ship kit in price. This has led me to resort to styrene scratchbuilding or turning to our friends in the model RR hobby for certain brass details, particularly to continue with my 1:240 four stacker series. If PE fabricators will stick to flat or boxy items for their shapes, perhaps the costs can come down.

--Karl

opinions are funny old things, etch when mastered (I'm still learning) can do wonders for a model ship, the new tool models now on the market are much better and on my Kongo I used very little etch, not from a kit but from what I had laying around, a lot also depends on the skill of the builder, some take to etch like a duck to water, other struggle to understand how to bend, shape and apply the stuff which is a real pain. People at times build straight out of the box, paint and weather and that'll do sort of thing. When the Jap aircraft carrier first came out, there was a ton of accompaning etch you could buy, then model plus full etch would set you back £450.00 plus, madness, more money then sense in my opinion for a lump of plastic you'll do what with ? For that money I'd want the guns turning and firing, bridge and structure lights, and a 3-D crew, at the end of the day so to speak, its what you feel good about, full etch set, odds and ends or OOB each person has a view and taste on their building.

I take your point about using etch for the sake of using etch. For my own practice, I try to evaluate whether the etch part is sufficiently better than the molded on part to make it worth the effort. A good example is hatches. If you etch hatches don't significantly improve upon the molded on hatches, why bother, since I don't think you can only do a few in etch and leave the rest molded on and have it look right, so you are committing yourself to replace all or none. If it means extra work then try to take an objective look and say "is the etch really that much better?" before proceeding. If the answer is "no", then leave it alone unless you just really enjoy working with PE.

IMHO,

Bob

I got a generic set from Alliance MOdel WOrks for a large IJN... Ordered from Freetime for $13. Got it in the other day and there is plenty to do the kit -- 28 strips at 5 & 1/2 inch ....2 are curved slightly to compensate for the bow

A good case in point to illustrate the PE for PE's sake argument. I'm currently working on Revell's 1/72 P.T. 109 kit, with the WEM PE set. I'm now down to putting the PE on the upper works and last night I put the depression rails on the twin 50 turrets. After struggling with the PE depression rails and finally getting them mounted to my satisfaction, I took a good look at the results. To my horror, after all that work, I realized that the PE depression rails looked way to flat and two dimensional in that large scale. So, I carefully removed them, and after cleaning up the styrene depression rails from the kit, attached them. To my eye, they look much more realistic than the PE depression rails, with their flat appearance. Sometimes PE is not an improvement. You have to use your commons sense and at each step ask "is the PE better" than the molded part it replaces. If it isn't, stick with the molded parts, if it is better, then use the PE.

IMHO,

Bob