acrodave

Either will do....... Both are great to have ...... Space requirements are similar, but the bandsaw is heavier, and requires more vertical space. I have both, but I use the scrollsaw more often. If I was going to have just one, and I had a space limit, I think I would go with the Dremel Moto-Saw. Great little saw (I have one of the very early versions from the 1960's), which is easy to store, and has a lot of versatility. Table saw is nice, also...... I have the Dremel, and am pleased with it. Dave

Before you do anything, try to determine if the resin used in the molding process was Polyester, or Epoxy.... Sanding, and smelling is the easiest way to do this.......Polyester has that "classic" fiberglass smell, while Epoxy has a much less pronounced smell. The reason this is important is that polyester will not harden when applied over many, if not most, epoxies used in molding fiberglass. In any case, I would be careful to try a small area of the hull with whatever I was going to coat it with before I did the whole hull. Don't ask me how I know this unless you are immune to bad language!!!!! Dave

Looks like I started something....... I just don't know what!! First, the title of this was changed by the administrators. and, in the process, they changed the entire meaning... I wonder about that... It was never intended to address "poorly designed" kits. Poorly designed kits would be those which don't go together well as a result of poor engineering, or poor material selection. That was never a part of my post..... until the admin staff changed the title from "Is it real or is it memor........." The concern was about how to determine if a particular kit was a model of a real ship (i.e. was there a "real" ship which had the same name, and bore a reasonable resemblence to the model). I really do not care if the kit is a model of a particular ship ON A PARTICULAR DAY, or if it is a model of a reconstruction of a full sized ship on display somewhere. That ship on display in a museum is still a "real" ship.. It may not, exactly, duplicate the historical ship it is supposed to represent, but it is still a REAL ship. The Mayflower 2 is a perfect example.... it may not be the original Mayflower, but it is still a real ship. It crossed the Atlantic. (I know, as I was lucky enough to have seen it under full sail when my dad flew us out over it a day, or two before it arrived) As to accuracy of a kit..... That is an argument which could rage on for longer than any of us have to live! I have no problem when a manufacturer bases his kit on the best information he had when the kit was designed. The individual modeler can research, and detail the model to whatever accuracy he is willing, and capable of doing. My problem is when a manufacturer outright LIES about the fact that the model doesn't really depict ANY real ship and misleads the purchaser into thinking it is a "scale" model by spinning a long, detailed, story about the exploits of the real ship the kit is modeled after when the reality is that no real ship ever existed! Dave

The more I become familiar with the many great ship model kits out there, the more often I seem to hear that this one, or that one are not, in fact models of "real" ships. The manufacturere do a great job of spinning a yarn as to the exploits of the ship their kit represents, but when one does even a little research, one finds out that, many times, this model is really a fictional replica of either a non-existent ship, or at best a fictional conglomeration of a type of ship which sailed at some point in history. I realize that some ships are, simply, not historically documented, and some liberties must be taken, based upon the best we know about the real ship (the Mayflower, for example), but the ones I am talking about are just an absolute figment of someones imagination. When one reads all of the hoopla about a ships exploits, written by the kit mfgr, how can we separate truth from fiction. Even a well thought of Mfgr like Model Shipways isn't imune from some of the type of things I speak about... ALL of the advertising material, catalogs, and even the box labels, show the "Niagara" as a radient blue in color. When you get a paint set for the model, there is no blue included in the set.... Hmmnnnn. In fact there is no blue on the real ship, and, probably, never was. It's Black! When I see the extent to which modelers go to make accurate sizes of ropes, rigging, and everything else, and then see how much leeway the kit mfgrs take, it makes me cringe. I am surprised the community does not, at least, put together a list of the out, and out, fake ship kits that are out there, and that the Mfgrs are able to pull the wool over our eyes so much. Dave

Thanks for the answer I would agree...... My best assesment puts the Spirit in the era with the Natchez 3, whict was in use from 1848 to 52. I came to that view based upon the length of the Natchez 3, as well as what I could determine as to it's degree of advancement. I think I need a 30 star flag, rather than a 20!!! Ironically, most, if not all of the Natchez series of boats were built within 25 miles of where I live. They were built in Cincinnati. Dave

I'm having difficulty figuring out what adhesive to use for deck planking, and the second layer of hull planking. In this forum, I have found many articles on various forms of CA, with much "what type to use". "how to use it", and "why NOT to use it".... Same for most wood glues but...... When it comes to "Contact adhesives", all I can find is the generic term use "Contact adhesive". Even the kit instructions use this! There are a LOT of different types of "Contact adhesives", each with it's own application tricks. Does anyone have some SPECIFIC recommendations as to what Contact adhesives to use, and how to use it for deck planking, or second layer hull planking? I am concerned with such things as whether I need to finish the whole job in one session, or whether I can leave the contact adhesive on the deck "open" over the time,(in days), that it may take to do the deck. I'm in the USA, so a brand, and source of supply here would be wonderful. As an aeromodeller, I have used a LOT of CA, but the only contact adhesive I have used was for covering foam wings, and I can't figure out how that would work for planking a deck. Actually, almost the same situation exists with the term "PVA glue"....... Perhaps someone could post up a "primer" (no pun intended) on the various glue types commonly used in ship modeling.. Help ??? Thanks Dave ps: I'm sure part of the problem may be differences in terminology, and availability from one part of the globe to another...

Ok, I realize that the OcCre Spirit of the Mississippi is a fictional rendition of a Mississippi Sternwheeler, so my question is more obstract than aimed at that specific ship. The question is when did such riverboats start to ply the Mississippi, and when did they first become floating casinos? The model depicts a full gaming facility, in nice detail, BUT, the flag it flies is a US flag with only 20 stars. That would indicate the year 1818, as the 20 star flag was only used for that one, year (Ok, from Dec 10, 1817). I didn't think steam riverboats had reached the level of luxury and function of the model depicted as the Spirit of the Mississippi, as early as 1818. I would have put this boat more into the mid to late 1800's rather than that early. Anybody have any idea's? Dave