ccoyle

I hear what you're saying, Andy, and like I said, I like the railroading/aircraft distinction between the two terms. But don't expect MSW to issue a policy ruling on the matter anytime soon. If the more universally accepted understanding of kit-bashing is to become the norm around here, it will have to be via that narrower definition coming into common usage among the members. Cheers!

Yes, especially the butapren, which apparently isn't available in America. I still don't know to this day exactly what sort of glue butapren is, but I do know that it is the glue of choice in the Polish card modelling community, and they include some of the finest practitioners of the art. I sure would like to know why the stuff is so special.

I kinda like Andy's definition of kit-bashing vs. super-detailing. However, around here I think you will find the two terms are used more or less interchangeably.

Steamboats played a significant role west of the Rockies, too. Many of the rivers that drain into the Pacific were navigable far upstream from their mouths, especially in the days prior to large-scale dam construction.

Hey, popeye, that's the kit line I was referring to earlier. I see on the box that the scale is 1/48, whereas Mobbsie states his model is in 1/24.

The 1/72 scale Mercury is indeed awesome. At present, there's no way my current life, budget, and model queue would justify buying it. Sigh.

As some of you also experienced with your own logs, some photo links were lost during a software upgrade a while back. The V108 tutorial lost a can-load of pics, too. But all is well now - the pictures have been restored. Model on!

Be sure to start a build log! Oregon is another fine design from Roman.

Hey, Mobbsie, of what material was the hull of the model originally? I remember about 10 years ago a bunch of models from a now-defunct English manufacturer were being sold off - can't remember if it was eBay or elsewhere. The kit line included all kinds of English smallcraft, including a bawley. The hulls were resin or plastic.

Glad to see you are back at it, David. One small bit of advice - the part you circled in the second photo, the roof of the conning tower, should be a conic section. This is made by pulling the two sides of the removed slice together. Kind regards,

Advice? Yes - start with the MSW tutorial here. Be aware that by starting with Arizona you are risking the same sort of beginner's downfall that wood builders all too often experience by starting with HMS Victory. Not saying it can't be done, but I can tell you from experience that my first couple of card ships were what I affectionately refer to as el crappola grande. It pays to start small.

Good kit choice and good start.

I can very easily imagine one of these hauled out on a Turkish beach somewhere.

I've always liked the look of these fishing boats. Good luck with your project!

The barquentine is one of my favorite rigs. Good luck with your project!

The broken tip of a fiberglass fishing rod made perfect turnbuckles for one of my models.

I knew you were from Jersey, Chuck, but it was novel nonetheless to hear the accent for the first time. (Notice that's a smiley face, not a laugh-y face.)

I would be leery of one. First of all, for me personally, I would hate the pistol grip. That just seems like it would be a much less precise way of maneuvering the tool versus either a grip-less version or something like a Dremel Flex-Shaft. Second, the reason why it probably gets mixed reviews is because it's made in China, and unfortunately Chinese-made rotary tools have a long record of mixed-bag performance. There's a reason why rotary tools are almost universally referred to as 'Dremel tools' - because Dremel set the standard by which such tools are judged.

My first two wooden models were Midwest kits, first the lobster smack followed by the Chesapeake Bay flattie. Midwest, IMO, makes the nearest thing to a foolproof beginner's kit.

Discussing instructions can be a bit of a quagmire, because with few exceptions, the instructions from any one manufacturer are not all up to the same standard. The one exception I know of is Midwest; their instructions are extremely thorough, but their kits are not traditional POB kits. Some manufacturers, like AL and OcCre, rely heavily on photo-illustrated guides. We have mentioned many times on MSW how Caldercraft instructions evolved over time, from spartan to more detailed. And, as mentioned, MS instructions, are sort of cookie-cutter in style - plus, they usually assume a considerable degree of prior knowledge on the part of the builder. The exception to the MS instructions are, of course, those written by Chuck, which are very detailed. By all means, if instructions are important, avoid the big Italian boys (Corel, Amati, Panart, etc.) like the plague - their translated instructions are usually laughable. The exception to that rule is Amati's Victory Models line, whose instructions are written by their in-house designer, Chris Watton, a native English-speaker. But, to be truthful, it is really not as essential these days to have exhaustive instructions as it might have been in days past. The two biggest challenges to a new POB builder are 1) fairing and planking a hull and 2) rigging. You completed the Jolly Roger, so you probably already have experience with rigging. That leaves building the hull - and there are considerable resources for the novice here at MSW in the form of planking tutorials (available on the NRG main page) and build logs. To me, a larger issue to consider when choosing a first POB kit is not necessarily the instructions, though those are nice, but rather choosing a subject that is likely to ensure success. The KISS principle really applies here - a less complex hull, less planking, less rigging, and less guns will all make a first POB project more readily achievable. And nothing will breed success like success. So take a look at some of the kits of smaller vessels with relatively simple rigs, e.g. cutters, schooners, et al. And then have fun with it! EDIT: Don't be a hard-sell on small kits! For an extra, and rewarding challenge, try super-detailing one of the smaller kits. Take a look at what some of our members have done with Caldercraft's Sherbourne, for example.

Brian, the scoring is not deep - just through the outermost layer of ply.

Thanks, SG, for adding these early-phase photos. Ah, that brings back memories. Yes, I think I even still have this model around somewhere - oh, yes, there it is over in my display cabinet, still looking like it did three years ago. Well, no need to comment much on the photos, as all the newer build logs chronicle these early steps of the build process. The only things I will mention, for the sake of new Fly builders, are 1) notice the deck planks beneath the forward hatch - that deck shows on the finished model, and the instructions don't mention any deck planking; 2) the paper forward screen bulkhead template (no screen bulkheads are provided for in the kit); and 3) the scoring on the plywood gunport pattern - scoring the outside of the curve on the patterns make them much easier to bend. Cheers,

You can throw them in my current ('current'? really??) build log, if you like. Afterwards, I can add some commentary.

Here's the list of links to Fly build logs. The last one is by some doofus who started his almost nine years ago and keeps letting other projects get in the way of finishing it. Martin W Vitus aliluke Padeen DiKri ccoyle

I use a headband magnifier almost 100% of the time at my bench now - at the ripe old age of 51.