ccoyle

Hi, Emmet. I think you might be misunderstanding me. I am not casting aspersions on Amati. I am simply confused as to why you would make a case that your model represents Pinta when it clearly seems to be what Amati's designer thought Nina would look like. Actually, Wikipedia can be problematic as source material, and this instance is a good example of why. Whoever submitted the second photo of the 1892 replicas has misidentified the two ships. The ship on the left is Santa Maria; the one on the right is Nina, not Pinta. A Google image search for "1892 Nina replica" will verify this. I don't see any other information at Wikipedia that suggests that a lateen-rigged model would represent Pinta. Even though Nina is reported to have been re-rigged with square sails during the voyage, all of the replicas made of her, including the 1892 replicas in the photos, show her as lateen-rigged, while Pinta is always square-rigged. That is certainly an option, especially when much regarding the actual appearance of a particular vessel is conjecture. You linked to the Wikipedia article about Pinta, but not the one on Nina, which article supports the notion that only Nina was lateen-rigged. Anyways, not trying to be argumentative. The only thing that ultimately matters is that you enjoy the building process and are happy with the final result -- no matter what you decide to call it. Take care, friend!

We don't have a guide such as what you are looking for, but we do have a number of members who have built scratch models from card. In the list of topics here, look for build logs in the scratch category. Reading through those logs should give you an idea of how to get started.

Again, I am confused about where you are getting your source material, i.e. the picture in your last post. You must keep in mind that no one knows exactly what Columbus's ships looked like; all models of them are generalized reconstructions. Therefore, there are differences between each company's kit design. The Nina in your photo does not look exactly like your kit, but then your kit is from Amati, so you should only compare your kit to what Amati thinks Nina looked like, not some other company or source. Hope that makes sense.

I'm curious about how you came to this conclusion. If the box and plans say Nina, the only way i can think of that it might be Pinta is off they boxed up the wrong parts; if that's true, you'll have some difficulties putting it together.

Outstanding model -- congratulations!

Seaforth World Naval Review 2020 Edited by Conrad Waters Barnsley, UK: Seaforth, 2019 26.0 x 24.6 cm format, paperback, 192 pages 200 B&W and color illustrations MSRP £24.00 ISBN: 978 1 5267 6062 3 Section 1: Overview Section 2: World Fleet Reviews Section 3: Significant Ships Section 4: Technological Reviews The title of Seaforth Publishing's World Navy Review 2020 is only very slightly misleading -- it just came off the presses this past November, but because of the inevitable time lag in bringing a book like this to market, it only considers data through June of 2019. Still, that's pretty fresh. As I seem to be finding these days when I review collective works, there are parts of the book that I liked, and other parts that I didn't like quite so much. But before I get into that, let's take a quick look at what you'll find between the covers. Section 1 is a brief summary of the worldwide naval 'big picture', e.g. the political background, partners and alliances, budgets, and a comparison of the fleet strengths of the world's major naval powers. Section 2 includes the fleet reviews, divided into subsections by region: North and South America, Asia and the Pacific, the Indian Ocean and Africa, and Europe and Russia. Not surprisingly, within each subsection, most of the page real estate is devoted to the navies of major combatants. For North America, as an example, the navies of Canada and the USA each get separate treatment; Mexico and everyone else get a combined four paragraphs. The discussion for each navy includes a list of current forces along with details about which vessels are slated for retirement in the near future, vessels currently under construction or working up, projects currently in development, and status reports on budgets and procurement. Three subsections are dedicated to more detailed treatments of developments within the British Royal Navy, the German Deutsche Marine, and Finland's Suomen Merivoimat. Section 3 is dedicated to discussions of particular classes of vessels. The lucky subjects here are India's Kamorta class corvettes, the UK's Tide class fleet tankers, Norway's HNoMS Maud fleet support ship, and the USA's Virginia class attack submarines. Section 4 devotes space to some of the trending developments in naval technology. The three subsections cover naval aviation, submarine technology, and a look at Brazil's progress towards building an indigenous nuclear submarine. Okay, so now I'll get back to the likes and dislikes. Section 1 is basically an intro, so there's not much to like or dislike about it. Sadly, I can't say the same for Section 2, the fleet reviews. That section reads pretty much like a "naval overviews for bean counters" -- with sincere apologies to all of you bean counters out there. Basically, each review does little more than say what's being added to the fleet, what's being retired from the fleet, what's ahead for the fleet, and how much does it all cost. If you're looking for detailed information about the classes of vessels in each fleet, e.g. plans, 3-views, specifications, armaments, and descriptions of combat capabilities, strengths and weaknesses, and how each class stacks up against the competition, you'll be disappointed. There are however plenty of photos, mostly in black and white -- a necessary concession to the fact that a book like this caters to a niche audience and isn't expected to sell a lot of copies. For the casual navy fan, Section 3 is much better, although individual readers may disagree about which subsections they like best. For me, the subsection on the Virginia class boats was the highlight, possibly of the whole book. As the the subsection subtitle suggests, there is enough meat here regarding the "Origins, Design Drivers, and Description" to keep the reader interested. I particularly enjoyed reading about the post-Cold War constraints on the design and the descriptions of the class's rather impressive technological developments. Section 4 also includes some pretty good reading. Much of the subsection on naval aviation is dedicated to the development and deployment of the F-35 B and C naval variants. Most of us are probably aware of the F-35 program's teething troubles, but there is no denying that the plane is expanding the envelope of naval aviation capabilities, as this section makes clear. There is also a good deal of content, both in this section and in Section 2, devoted to Britain's new Queen Elizabeth class carriers, whose air wings will include the F-35B. The subsection on trending submarine technology is also a high point of this section; I found especially interesting the discussion of advancements in electro-optical sensing and how they have effected both submarine design and operation. So if you are interested in a treatise on year-over-year developments in the world's navies, have a look at Seaforth's World Naval Review 2020. You'll probably find something to like, and at an MSRP of only £24.00, it won't do too much damage to your wallet. CDC

Modelik is one of those publishers who publish the work of many out-of-house designers. If you like this model and decide to do additional RR models, the key will be to look for the designer's name on the issue in addition to the publisher.

Smooth ... very smooth! 😉

Hi, Nate. A photo would go a long way toward answering your question. Snapping suggests that the plank is experiencing stress that should have been mostly alleviated by a proper planking procedure, so as barkeater pointed out, we first need to determine why the plank snapped. Did you fair the bulkheads before you started planking (have to ask, because every once in a while we see a newcomer skip this important task)? Did you spile the planks? Did you pre-soak and/or pre-bend the planks? What kind of glue are you using? How did you secure the planks while the glue set? Take care!

Hi, Oddball, and welcome to our forum. I don't know much about this kit other than some pictures one can find on the internet. It is not one that we see being built all that often -- in fact, I don't think that we even have any build logs of it here at MSW. I do have some concerns about the kit. The first is that I have no idea what Mantua used as the source material. The entire ship just doesn't look 'right' in either hull form or rig, especially compared to the general forms found during the golden age of piracy. Also, it is a very old kit design, and I doubt that Mantua has done much, if anything, to upgrade the kit to current industry standards. As a beginner, you face a real chance of being frustrated by the kit's smallish parts (being 1/100 scale) and probably sparse and poorly translated instructions (Italian kits are notorious for the latter). Whether you will be happy with the model's representation of actual pirate ships is a matter of personal taste. Your dilemma results from the fact that there are many much better options for first builds on the market, but that you already have this kit in hand. I can't make the decision to go ahead or not for you, but you will be better prepared to build your model if you go into the project armed with foreknowledge of the challenges ahead posed by the kit itself rather than your lack of experience. Whatever you decide, we stand by ready to dole out advice should you need it. Cheers!

Hmm -- that's an interesting photo. It's curious that this was called a Schnellbaukasten, or "quick-build kit", considering that one has to cut out the printed parts. Typically, "quick build" (one also sees "weekender" kits on the market) means that a kit is a simplified design intended to make construction easier at the expense of fidelity to the subject. In this case, the subject is a flight of fancy, since the makers are conflating the terms "pirate" and "slaver". Either way, the hull form doesn't look right for the 1840s. Enjoy building this little bit of modeling history -- I'll be interested to see how it turns out. Cheers!

Part of the reason the Germans never deployed four-engine bombers in number was philosophical. All the combatants of the Great War engaged in strategic bombing, but by the late 1930s really only the British and Americans still had both the political will and the nascent equipment to implement such a policy in the event of a future conflict. Germany had switched its attention to utilizing air power as mobile artillery in the Blitzkrieg combined arms doctrine, and after their early successes in 1939/40 it did not appear that they would need any strategic bombing capability. By the time it became apparent that the war would be a protracted one, Germany was well behind in the development of heavy bombers, which is why the He 177 Greif wasn't introduced until 1942. By then, almost all of Germany's output of aircraft engines, including the Greif's DB 601s, were needed for fighters for the defense of the Reich. As happened in other instances, Germany's efforts at heavy bombers were another example of too little, too late.

People's opinions on sails vary a great deal, but I have never been a big fan of sewn sails (though I'm using them on my current project simply because they were available, and I didn't feel like making them scratch). The issue is two-fold in that 1.) sewn stitches on models are always way over-scale (this is due to the small size of real-life stitches), and 2.) the stitching on sails is never actually visible at what's known as "scale viewing distance". Think of it this way: when your 1:32 scale model is viewed from 12 inches away, that's like viewing the real deal at 32 feet -- you can't see real stitches from that distance. At 1/32nd scale, one foot of real deal is represented by 3/8 of an inch on the model; even if the real-life stitches are an inch long (ridiculously large), that still works out to trying to cram twelve scale stitches into only 3/8" of sail hem. That's why when I do choose to make sails, I glue the hems instead of sew them. Just one modeler's opinion!

Just a side note to mention that one of our sponsors, Chesapeake Light Craft, offers a couple of full-size dory kits much like the model you are building.

Another piece of beautiful work, Xavier!

Hi. Your post is a little vague on the details of your project. You say it's a kit, but don't say which kit. Are the frames already shown on the plans? If not, how are you planning to predraw them? Or are you looking for advice on how to do that task? Cheers!

Go ahead and leave them so that others who might run into the same situation will be able to follow the discussion.

I'm not an authoritative source on RN colors of that period, but if that middle color is authentic, then I would opt for artistic license and go for the bottom color!

In most kits with false decks, like yours, the slots are already cut out, and the bulwark extensions are removed after planking the hull. I'm not familiar with the design of this kit, so I can't say why your false deck doesn't have such slots. Hopefully someone else can answer for you.

Talking about madrone makes me nostalgic for my native Northern California, where it is common in mixed forests with redwoods and Douglas fir. It's a highly-esteemed fuel for homes with wood heating.

The lateen-rigged caravel is a good-looking vessel -- my personal favorite from among Columbus's flotilla. Amati are a very reputable kit manufacturer, and your luthier's skills should be capable of turning this into a fine finished product. Cheers!

Welcome and good luck with your project!

Good idea -- I made the change.

Welcome aboard! Tip #1 is to write thread titles that more accurately indicate the information you're looking for. I took care of this one for you. As for the requested tip, I can't help with that one, but we have some pretty knowledgeable members who can. Hopefully one can hook you up soon with the information you need. A 1/10 scale reproduction is very ambitious as well as intriguing -- I hope that you'll share some progress photos. Cheers!

Very handsome -- congratulations!