• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kruginmi

  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Michigan, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

525 profile views
  1. I just got this book for Father's Day from my son and I wanted to add my very favorable impressions from page 1 to page 197. Incredible, just simply incredible. I read half the book last night, finishing it up today. The pictures are numerous, spot on and just simply go on and on. As a builder of a plank on frame model I found this insight into an original 3 decker build very informative and will help me going forward. For example it is okay to simplify some structures (the one piece after cistern as an example), or have a non functioning tiller. It is okay to use 'SWOPEM' (Situation Where One Part Equals Many). Great to see was the presentation of 'Nobody's Perfect.' A pictorial of things found on the model that were obvious mistakes or modifications made to account for fit by the original builder was awesome. They happen to everyone and glad to see (once again) it is okay to keep them on the model. My only 'regret' (maybe too harsh) is that the middle deck memory board (picture taken form directly above) is only one page in size, whereas the rest are a full two pages in size. I would LOVE to have access to these pics in a digital format. SO much to take in and learn from. I expect to pick this book up many times. When things are going slow, when I need some inspiration or I am figuring out how to advance my build in a particular area. A wonderful resource, a wonderful read and a book that I will keep close at hand. I highly recommend, especially those that are either in a PoF build, or have one under their belt. So much information about the internals of a ship model. Mark
  2. I will add a pic of something this is a better thing added in the newer instructions - Belaying pin identification. The older instructions just have numbers shown on which pin to attach to. The new ones have the same, but a separate breakout that identifies by name what is what. There are two pin out diagrams for the upper works. The above shows one of each. There are a total of 219 attachment points identified between the two diagrams. -Mark
  3. I agree they are newer versions. Just interesting that they occupy really the same real estate (same size paper) but for some reason it was decided to modify how presented. I believe the instructions are adequate for the model as built. Giving a heads up to people getting this kit of the differences out there.
  4. I currently have 3 kits of the 1/96 Revell Constitution. The original was started by my Father prior to his passing that I have recently pulled out to finish. The other two I have picked up for missing and / or extra parts in the build (warpage, etc). What I didn't expect to see was the difference in rigging instructions. The good news is that essentially they say the same thing, one set goes about it more verbally while the other set is more visually based (this set also had separate sheets for with or without sails). I provide the following comparisons: I actually see them as complimentary, though I give the edge to the (I believe older) set that is more visual. Drawing out each mast separately keeps the whoops factor minimized. Just throwing this out there for other 1/96 Revell builders for their information. Mark
  5. Wow, exactly what I needed. After hours of experimenting, a much easier approach that produces very consistent quick results. Thank you so much Steve (and Bender). Mark
  6. I wanted to add a couple comments having received this book as a birthday gift recently. He has built a beautiful ship. Being an owner of the TFFM series (well used for my Druid) this is a great addition for his extensive treatment of quarter galleries and expanded headwork. As I plan out my next build (or two, or three) I thought a fire ship is a little off of the beaten path and perfect for the desired 1/48th scale I like. For those people like myself I make the following fireship specific notes on this book: - He clearly states in the preface that the included plans are specific to the hull. There are no deck plans or furniture defined (firedeck or weatherdeck). There is strictly a planking plan for the weather deck - He defines the plan number required to procure these from the Royal Museum. I was able to go the museum site and look at a reduced sample. Having this available greatly aided reading and understanding the supplied text. For building you will absolutely need to buy this addition. - I do like the treatment of the fire port arrangements. Pictures with accompanying graphics really help to drive home how it works. - I wish more of the same was supplied for the fire troughs. While there are oblique views (of his build on the Museum firedeck plan) some more graphics would have helped. He talks at length about trestles (the method of raising the troughs off of the deck) but nothing to accompany to show his solution. I would have loved to see some more exploded diagrams. - He chose not to include any examples of the actual incendiaries (fire barrels, barras, and bavins / reeds). He does reference a ship that does show this and I was able to view reduced images of it on line. Once again, some drawn diagrams would have been extremely helpful to understand layout and conventional practice. I am still 'assuming' that nothing was present between the fire troughs. A very useful book in the TFFM line. Also a very good resource for information about fire ships but just know that additional material will be required. -Mark
  7. Hey Chuck - Just doing a little call out on a little of why you needed the break. Working through getting the Druid-X ready to start rigging and Syren has helped a TON. Larger blocks went together with no problem (still have to tumble them). Great resource to have on hand to help select associated rigging line. -Mark
  8. With all my tests this is my palette for painting the Druid-X (all wood is basswood): A nice sanding sealer, acrylic paints and then a top coat. I originally chose a satin coat but that proved way too glossy over the paint. The flat looks great, but the camera shot still looks a little shiny. I used both off the shelf 'craft' acrylics and more expensive ones (model colors). I used generally three coats for each. Coverage seemed good for all. I did some light sanding after the applying the sealer. Tomorrow I actually put brush to my mast and main yard arm. Hoping it meets my expectations. Mark
  9. After much thinking, egg nog and input from people, I have come to a decision....(drum roll).... I will be adding blocks affixed directly to the deck beam below the deck using ring bolts for those lines of concern (look at added green and purple annotations): The sheets, brace and two clewlines will incorporate these blocks, which equates to two blocks between each railing section. The single halyard will use a double block with the starboard mainsail clew line (though not present on this build). Happy New Year, Mark
  10. The rigging plans referenced were prepared for the Smithsonian Institution by Merritt A. Edson, Jr. in 1976. This was for (I believe) a model constructed of the original Brilliant. Mr. Hahn did pull the British drawn conversion plans for his hull model plans and I have no idea if rigging ones also exist. Since it is a Frankenstein ship (a little it of this, a little bit of that) I am not too concerned about exact accuracy, if that is possible at all. This is an exercise in learning all things rigging and how to properly replicate them in scale for me. It is a good mental task to work through all of this stuff and not just accept anything drawn as unquestionable. Mark
  11. Whoops - clarification. The plans shown are BEFORE the deck was extended so.....the railing ended up once converted by the British to be over the fore end of the cargo hatch shown on the plans (but still same size and shape). It would end just before the right side of the snippet shown. I believe the original questions are still valid. I am opting towards adding sheaves for the clews at the lower end of the stanchions. Mark
  12. Adding to the mix is that this is a deck 'add on.' The British added it upon purchase of the cargo ship to allow the installation of the capstan. They did add two new vertical supports that go through the cargo hatches directly below that support this rail. I will look at moving the mainsail clew lines or introduction of single sheaves just for their use. As for the belaying pins, the plans were for the US cargo ship as built in 1774. I just assumed they were appropriate for the period. Thanks for all the help! Mark
  13. Thanks Henry. I somewhat agree however.....I am thinking (maybe my first mistake) that you add the 17 lines all together and it would add up. The plans seem to show nothing special, just use the belaying pins and only the top rail. I just wondered if there was something I was missing. Mark
  14. For some more of my source data. These are snippets from the Smithsonian plans for the original HMS Brilliant. This is referencing the AFT BREAST RAIL. You can see how small the posts for the rail are. Not even the width of the pin rail on the bulwark, and looks like not even the same thickness. Hard to believe sheaves are stuck to them. There is a little brace on two of the five posts near the base. The sheave illustrated for the kevel (on the bulwark) shows using a sheave is possible. Ho Ho Ho, Mark
  15. (Pulled this from my build log, seemed a more logical place to ask the question) A future problem to tackle involves the quarter deck rail (pic from full Druid mid-construction): The following lines are connected to this rail: 1. Mainsail clewlines 2. Mainsail buntlines 3. Mainsail Leechlines 4. Topsail Clewlines 5. Topsail reef tackles 6. Topgallant sheets The question is how? Per the plans this rail is not a real 'beefy' one. Tying them all just to the top rail would seem foolhardy given the stresses. Normally you would see some sheaves either attached to, or through the bases of each column but these rails seem too thin for that. At the very least belay pins seem in order (total 16, 4 between each post), but the runs of the lines are in question. With two lines per category (port / starboard) I currently do not have a firm decision. If I was rigging a full ship you would also add: 1. Mainstaysail halyard 2. Mizzen Topsail Bowline 3. Fore Topgallant Brace Any opinions? Mark