Supplies of the Ship Modeler's Handbook are running out. Get your copy NOW before they are gone! Click on photo to order.
×
ccoyle
-
Posts
10,063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by ccoyle
-
Any stage of progress is fine. -
Welcome aboard! I have a soft spot for Tanzania -- I used to keep African cichlids from Lake Tanganyika.
-
Moin, moin, Kai! I look forward to seeing your work.
-
Sometimes. Depends on how much manhandling I think the part might get. I usually wick in some thin CA. Of course, my current bottle of thin CA is now more like thick CA, so if I need any, I'm gonna hafta run to Hobby Lobby.
-
Can't remember if I ever built any of the monster models, but I knocked out my share of dinosaurs. I think most of us of a certain age have probably built a few novelty kits.
-
No problem! 😉 Just remember that all of the framing in a card kit is essentially made out of beer coasters. The parts are regrettably intolerant of any sort of rough handling.
- 126 replies
-
- 10
-
-
-
Did you pre-soak the bulwarks? Best thing to do is to soak the plywood until it can easily be bent, then temporarily pin the piece to the hull (no glue) and allow it to dry. The shaped piece is then much easier to glue in place.
-
SMS Karlsruhe by Wreck1919 - 1/100
ccoyle replied to Wreck1919's topic in - Build logs for subjects built 1901 - Present Day
I think I got motion sickness just from looking at the pictures. 🤢 -
And there, my friend, is where you'd run into all kinds of trouble. Internal cockpit framing invariably needs some sanding to get the skins to fit properly, otherwise one runs into the problems alluded to in Ab's earlier post. The whole reason for leaving the X-marked portion in is to give that part some rigidity for shaping; remove it too early, and you'll have two very weak pieces of cockpit framing essentially dangling helplessly in space, just begging to be damaged. But no worries -- I'll get it all sorted.
-
A few small steps forward . . . In this first image, you can see what I meant earlier about the confusing diagrams. Compare the actual fuselage assembly with what is depicted in the diagram. That second-from-left-bulkhead is much closer to the aft-most bulkhead in real life than it is in the drawing. And you can also see a pair of locator slots on the finished structure that are not shown in the diagram -- those slots turned out to be necessary for the part that glues in from the other side. These two discrepancies were very confusing for awhile. And next up we have something I have never seen in a kit before, not even a Halisnski kit. The part marked A8 (a deck behind the pilot's seat) has a section, marked with an X in the image, that is supposed to be cut out and then temporarily reattached before gluing the deck in. But even before that, the cockpit floor piece is supposed to be glued in first -- except that if one does that, one can't add the A8 part afterwards. 🫤 I'm gonna have to think about this one a bit. Sometimes, assembling a card model is a lot like rigging a wooden ship model -- you have to have an assembly sequence worked out in advance in your mind before you start gluing bits in. Cheers!
- 126 replies
-
- 16
-
-
Looking more impressive with each update!
-
That lesson was painfully seared into my memory by my second Halinski build, the Brewster B-239, which now sits on the Shelf of Shame.
-
Wow, looks great! Congratulations!
-
If you know your Old Testament, it's kinda one of those "Aaron and the golden calf" things -- I threw in some wood and metal and out came those shelves. 🫢
- 126 replies
-
- 10
-
-
-
Welcome aboard! Your Titanic looks very nice from here.
-
Here's the new shelves that mysteriously appeared while my wife was away in California.
- 126 replies
-
- 20
-
-
-
Well, somewhat surprisingly for a Halinski kit, I ran into an issue with the diagrams. What's shown in them does not seem to match up well with the parts that are provided. The discrepancy was so jarring that I thought perhaps I had been sent the wrong laser-cut frame set, but I checked them against the printed structural parts, and they match, so that's not the problem. I have seen finished examples of this kit, so I know it can be built -- I'm just going to have to stare and ponder at the diagrams to figure out how everything goes together. Stay tuned!
- 126 replies
-
- 13
-
-
-
Hello, Malcolm. Although she is most famous for her actions in 1805, Victory was launched in 1765, so I have moved your build into the proper section. Cheers!
-
Triumph 3HW by Tim Moore - Italeri - 1/9
ccoyle replied to Tim Moore's topic in Non-ship/categorised builds
That certainly looks very realistic! -
Our forum has a built in resizing function. Double-click on any image in your post -- a dialog box will open that allows you to resize your images. I tend to resize mine to either 480 or 640 pixels in width; there is a checkbox to mark to have the software maintain the original proportions. Also, resizing only affects the display size -- members can see the original image by clicking the mage in your finished post.
-
I don't like to speak ill of any legitimate kit manufacturer, because I truly do appreciate the service they provide for modelers who can't scratch build or who otherwise just decide not to. But in this case I'm left wondering: Why? Why bring a kit to market that is neither a novel subject nor an improvement on an existing kit from a competitor? It makes little sense to me. Following on the heels of their equally unmoving Victory kit, this feels like two swings and two misses from the OcCre design department. But I'll leave it to the market to decide the fate of this new offering.
- 34 replies
-
- 10
-
-
Our Emblem ®
