md1400cs

Members
  • Content count

    1,630
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About md1400cs

  • Birthday September 27

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Santa Monica CA USA
  • Interests
    Commercial aviation, aeronautics, diecast cars, 1/400 aircraft collecting.

Recent Profile Visitors

830 profile views
  1. Hi Mates, Got myself into a bit of a mess. As I’ve mentioned this is my second build. My Santa Maria so many years ago, by comparison, was a walk in the park, even for me a first time builder. Well as I have been really learning so much about rigging this Vasa I realize now, in retrospect, that I had/have very little foresight. For example; I installed the knights with cross-bits at the base of the foremast and main, without thinking ahead. I was happy that I had learned how to use the Proxxon to make slits for the sheaves. And let it go at that – happy to install. Even added nails in the cross pieces to “look” better. So, now, looking ahead at the Corel rigging plans I realize that the cross-bits also needed pin holes (a lot of them) It took the THIRD, and last Corel rigging page to point this out to me (a learner) grrrrr. There was no way that I could drill these fourteen holes at this point. Thought that I could wiggle the knights free and pull them up through the weather deck. The first set install they were just glued into place on the weather deck. When I built new ones with the sheaves I also cut holes through the deck and ran the new knights to the deck below. They were not “going anywhere” curses. Then thought that I would just tear out the two cross pieces and make new ones, but was nervous about those cross bit nails. Turns out the nails were only decorative and the cross bits just snapped off using small pliers. ===================== Sharing because I’m super relieved, and in case another builder misses this foresight as I did as a newbie. Cheers Mates sorry for the long prose. Ok time for a single malt – I think ha ha
  2. Ken, I'm sure to be repeating here, that said - your log is SO step-by-step informative. I'm sure that members are very appreciative of the extra time it also takes you to add, locate text within your excellent photos, of an also beautiful build. Cheers,
  3. Glenn, Just found your log. Excellent work indeed. Happy to follow along. Beautiful ship. It certainly helps to have photos of the original available. PS: Your wood and metal skills are also very nice to look at. Cheers,
  4. EJ, For some reason I had forgotten, or missed that you will add LED's. That is an area that certainly requires much forethought. Any "leaking" lights would be unfortunate indeed once you could not go backwards. Great idea. The other builders whom I have seen here adding lights seem to be very successful indeed. Adds a huge extra dimension to a ship. Good luck (:-) PS: your SR is looking quite good so far.... Cheers,
  5. Dennis, Don't know how I missed this one. Now following along as well. Yes super nice deck work indeed. Cheers,
  6. EJ, Thanks for your correct thoughts. I came to the same conclusion. I would also regret it as well – on the back-side. ================= Then (ha ha) decided to speak directly with the Admiral, - go right to the top- explaining all of the extra work that this would require, with the same results. I was told, with an unceremonious response to “return to work, or I would be put into the brig”. It was then also pointed out to me why, after so many years I am still pounding nails, cutting planks, hanging shrouds instead of enjoying tea in a captain’s quarters; Low energy seamen…..it turns out is my fate. Cheers,
  7. Gaetan, This certainly an amazing project. Thinking just about the same for your working corporate office headquarters ha ha Brilliant work indeed, Cheers,
  8. Hi mates, Anton T, and costeo - You are so kind –thanks so much for your thoughts ======================= Almost back-to-back updates, this one is small but there was a lot of needed learning. This small bit took almost four hours to figure out and execute. Hmmmm. Decided, rather than removing the already attached Futtock shrouds (used Chuck’s .018s his .012s would have been too thin. -------------------------------------- So did the following 1-2) unspooled the center futtock shroud at the stave. Wrapped it around the stave separating the three “threads, then re spooled them between the shroud to add a bit of glue at the joint. 3) removed the third ply from the shroud and attached one to each side of the shroud at the ratline. 4-5-6) did the same for the other two end shrouds also removing one strand. After wrapping around the shroud scale “looked” ok. 7-8-9) secured the mizzen backstay. 10-11) Now onto the lower mainmast shrouds, BUT the dilemma starts. Looked at the 1/1 for guidance, for the mizzen shrouds, then noticed the 1/10th where the work looked much neater then “finally saw” the difference. Hmmm? 12-13) went back to my picture bible (what I have been modeling so far. Then read/looked at Anderson – either way it seems is “ok”. Certainly the 1/10th method would be so much less work, but having already done all the topmasts, the bowsprit area, and the mizzen on one side the Peterson way – I will probably need to continue with the extra work for all of the lower shrouds. PS: I’m not even totally comfortable with the work that I have done tying off the ropes around the shrouds - so dilemma indeed. I assume that ALL “finishing off” as Anderson calls it should be the same for the entire ship? PS: Part of the problem is that I used lines that are probably too large for this area. Though the museum 1/1 seems to use a “thick” rope. Again hmmm As always thanks for your kind thoughts and visits, Cheers,
  9. EJ, Nice she will certainly sail in 017 (;-) CHeers
  10. Mates. More FYI Also the very cold, blackish, very low levels of damaging ultraviolet light, and low salt content of the waters of the Baltic Sea within Stockholm Harbor minimized the amounts of sea life that would normally consume the ship. Over the centuries the silt kept rising around and protectively covering the ship as well. And the heavily polluted 17th century water also prevented an infestation of wood-eating “shipworm” parasites. Ironically enough the Vasa is today facing a potential “second death”. It is very slowly decaying inside the museum. Copied/pasted: In 2000, signs of deterioration sprang up on the ship’s surface. A new study published July 6 in Biomacromolecules shows that the ship’s wooden hull has significantly weakened, due to decay of the wood’s structural fibers. The Vasa wood is about 40 percent weaker than regular oak wood, and has become very acidic. “We found a very clear connection between low pH, high degradation, and a large decrease in mechanical strength,” said study co-author Ingela Bjurhager, a mechanical engineer at Sweden’s University of Uppsala. More copied/pasted: In 2004, the museum upgraded its climate-control system to keep the relative humidity stable, as fluctuating humidity could lead to changes in the shape and weight of the ship. Efforts are also underway to replace the corroding steel bolts that were inserted in the ship during the 1960s with improved stainless steel ones. The Vasa does not have an immediate risk of structural failure, the researchers concluded. Still, the ship deforms a few millimeters every year. Given the extent of the wood atrophy, “It’s sort of a little bit too late to do anything,” said Bjurhager, who is focusing instead on preventing further deformation. Her team is currently working on a computer model of the ship so they can design a new support structure.
  11. Sorry Mark - did not perceive this. I should look back to your lantern pages. My bad. I should have known that you would have thought about this. Photo fooled me (:-) Regards,
  12. Mark, Your ship is looking to be a brilliant build indeed. The complicated stern looks so good. If I might offer a suggestion, though you probably are already thinking about something in this area. Your stern lanterns could be visually improved if you were to somehow “remove” the gold painted glass panes, though I hesitate to offer any advice here…. Using a combination of flat white (or red) mixed with a flat clear coat – fill-in each “dimple” where the glass should be. Or even using a translucent white would be nice as well. It would be a very subtle detail but would add (IMHO) much in the aggregate to the lanterns, hence the brilliant stern. Just a suggestion coming from someone not nearly as skilled …… PS: Your work on the yards is superb. Cheers,
  13. Jörgen Nice update, along with very informative advice. Your paint-work is very good. IMO finally, I believe that your kit will be THE Vasa kit to own. Billings was the best before, Corel as most know was very weak. It will be interesting to see what the rigging instructions will look like. As you know this has been one of the “grey” areas for those of us building a Vasa from the three main available kits. Last week I contacted DeAgostini – below are their response. I’m posting it here since you are building this specific Vasa, and for your followers who may be interested in the USA market. ====================================== Dear Michael, We have not been made aware of plans to introduce this model through Model Space USA. I will forward your email off as a suggestion as a model for us to introduce in the future. I also encourage you to subscribe to our monthly news-letter at the bottom of the Model Space website so you can be made aware when new models are being introduced. If you have any other questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me again. Regards, Danny H DeAgostini Customer Care Model Space: 877-544-6779 www.deagostiniusa.com Also, I did read that Fred Hocker noted, responding to the same question, that the month-by-month kits in the USA market do not sell very well. Most kit purchasers prefer the entire kit at once. He further stated that when this Vasa kit ships its last package to subscribers, the kit would then be complete, and its possible that the complete issue will be offered for sale in N America. Cheers,
  14. Hi Mates, Thanks for the nice comments and "likes" - Dave here are some poss. answers for your question; Why VASA Capsized In the treatise by Curt Borgenstam, Anders Sandstroem "Why VASA Capsized" (AB Grafisk Press, Stockholm 1995, ISBN 91-85268-60-7) the reasons are outlined, after a careful investigation of the wreckage and the historic archives. They concluded: 1. Too many design changes during building were made. The VASA was probably laid down as a "small" ship and completed as a "large" ship, with two gun decks instead of only one as originally planned. 2. The shipbuilding master Henrik Hybertsson became serously ill and died a year before the ship was completed. During his illness he had to delegate the supervision of the project to his assistant Hein Jacobsson. As a result the leadership on the shipbuilding side was very weak. Jacobsson had not even been informed that a stability test carried out in Admiral Fleming’s presence had indicated that the VASA was unstable. 3. By far too little ballast (only about half of the weight needed, as turned out when investigating the wreckage) had been put into the ship. That was ordered by Admiral Klas Fleming, who resented more ballast, as this would have brought the lower line of gun ports too close to the water, and the military usability of the ship would have been hampered. THEN ( my addition - paraphrasing from other sources) based on the above there were also gusty winds that day, the ship badly caught such a gust and listed to one side. This allowed the lower gun deck (with open doors) to ingest too much water.