Rob Wood

Jacques Littlefield, the man who owned the world's largest private collection of armored vehicles, was local to where I live in California. Outside one of the buildings on his compound was a large propeller, just sitting on the ground. It turned out to have been salvaged from the Lusitania. Not certain what happened to it after he died, but I found a photo of it here:

01 May 1898: Cruiser Olympia (Credit: Cruiser Olympia at Independence Seaport Museum) 5:41am - May 1st, 1898 - 117 years ago, Commodore George Dewey on-board the USS OLYMPIA gave the order "You may fire when ready, Gridley." Captain Charles Vernon Gridley, commanding the OLYMPIA from the armored conning tower, ordered the forward turret to commence firing. The forward two 8" guns fired, followed by a volley of 5" gun fire from the main deck.These were the first shots that initiated the Battle of Manila Bay in the Philippines. The Battle of Manila Bay was the first Naval action between the United States and the Spanish Empire during the Spanish-American War of 1898. Days before, Commodore George Dewey had received orders from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt, to pursue and destroy the Spanish Fleet in the Spanish-held Philippines. The U.S. Asiatic squadron, led by the Flagship OLYMPIA, consisted of six "brand-new" modern steel warships. The Spanish Fleet, led by Admiral Patricio Montojo consisted of eight mostly-outdated steel and iron warships. By 12:40pm, the battle was over. Dewey's fleet suffered few casualties and little damage, while Montojo's fleet suffered nearly 350 casualties and all ships sunk or burned. This marked the rise of the U.S. into the international scene, placing it just below the top superpowers of the day - the British Empire, Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, and Czarist Russia. The Battle of Manila Bay instantly made Commodore Dewey and his flagship, OLYMPIA, forever famous. The ship continued long past obsolescence until 1922, riding on the fame it gained for itself in 1898. Today, the ship continues to serve as a Naval memorial and museum - still floating on Admiral Dewey's accomplishment.

I think I have it. Found an almost complete work on mail packets and steamers in a PDF here: http://www.rfrajola.com/swiss/S11.pdf Mail Service in the 18TH Century CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN French Mail Packets A French "Compagnie de Sieur Gautier" had a contract for service between Bordeaux and Mexico from September 1827 to early 1830, with calls at Havana. A French government subsidized mail packet line, the "Cie Generale Transatlantique" started a line to Mexico in 1862, calling at Santiago. In 1865 the lines were extended to all over the Caribbean and regularly serviced St. Thomas, Puerto Rico and Cuba until after 1900. French consular postal agencies, which were opened in Havana, Santiago, San Juan and San Thomas in 1865 closed with the effective date of the UPU in 1877. Mail could be sent by either (1) French Merchant or Naval vessel from LeHavre; (2) British steamers of the Admiralty Packet and later Royal Mail Steam Packet Company or (3) through Spain (Cadiz-Tenerrife) by clipper to Havana. On rare occasions the Spanish route was selected for Swiss mail. The letter documented here [see PDF linked above] is part of an archive discovered in the early 1990's, all addressed to the Convent of Santa Teresa, Cuba. The letter was sent through the French forwarding agent MANDROTE & CIE, in LeHavre who placed the letter on board of the French Naval Sail Corvette (18 guns) SYLPHlDE. The SYLPHIDE was built by Lorient in France and launched on May 12, 1823 and lost on December 1850 off the shores of Tortugas in the Caribbean Sea. MANDROTTE & CIE sent the letter to the Cuban forwarding agent MANGUAGA ECHEVERRY & CIE- who was responsible for delivery to the convent in St.Teresa. I believe Sylphide was a Diligente-class sail corvette, chosen for speed. (Makes sense for a mail packet, right?) Credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_corvette_Diligente_%281801%29 Isn't this fun? Rob

16 April 1944: U-550 Sunk Off Nantucket (Credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-550) 1944 - USS Gandy (DE 764) intentionally rams German submarine U-550 off Nantucket Shoals in Atlantic Ocean. USS Joyce (DE 317) and USS Peterson (DE 152) join Gandy and deploy depth charges and gunfire to sink the submarine. On 16 April 1944, south of Nantucket Island, U-550 located convoy CU 21, bound for Great Britain from New York City. The Pan Pennsylvania, one of the largest tankers in the world, was unwisely straggling behind the convoy; U-550 torpedoed her. The ship quickly caught fire and began to sink. As the vessel settled, the submerged U-boat maneuvered underneath her hull in an effort to hide from the inevitable counterattack by the convoy's escorts. Convoy CU-21 was escorted by Escort Division 22, consisting of Coast Guard-manned destroyer escorts reinforced by one Navy DE, USS Gandy, which took the place of USS Leopold, which had been lost in action the previous month. The escort division's flagship, USS Joyce and USS Peterson rescued the tanker's surviving crew, while the Joyce detected the U-boat on sonar as the Germans attempted to escape after hiding beneath the sinking tanker. U-550  '​s engineering officer later said, "We waited for your ship to leave; soon we could hear nothing so we thought the escort vessels had gone; but as soon as we started to move – bang!"[5] The Joyce delivered a depth-charge pattern that bracketed the submerged submarine. The depth charges were so well placed, a German reported, that one actually bounced off the U-boat's deck before it exploded.[5] The attack severely damaged U-550 and forced her to the surface, where the German sailors manned and fired their deck guns. Joyce, Peterson and Gandy returned fire. Gandy rammed U-550 abaft the conning tower and Peterson dropped two depth charges which exploded near the U-boat's hull. Realizing they were defeated, the U-boat's crew prepared scuttling charges and began abandoning their boat. Joyce rescued 13 of U-550  '​s crew, one of whom later died from wounds received during the fire-fight. The remainder of the U-boatmen went down with their submarine. Joyce delivered the prisoners of war and Pan Pennsylvania survivors to the authorities in Great Britain. Note: There is evidence that some crew members who were trapped in a forward compartment managed to escape, using breathing apparatus, only to perish on the surface. U-505 Wreck Found Read Full Story

10 April 1940: First Battle of Narvik (credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Narvik) The 2nd Destroyer Flotilla—under Commodore Bernard Warburton-Lee and comprising five H-class destroyers (HMS Hardy (flagship), Hotspur, Havock, Hunter and Hostile—moved up the Narvik fjord in the early morning, and surprised a larger Kriegsmarine force (10 destroyers), under the command of Kommodore Friedrich Bonte. In the pitched battle that ensued, both commanders were killed.

MDF is simply more dimensionally stable than plywood. There is really no argument there. The reason is that there is no grain to pull dimensionally in any particular direction. MDF is also much more finely grained than any other wood product, whether natural or man-made. I have some samples here of some incredibly super-fine details cut out of a sheet of MDF that would be impossible to obtain with plywood. Is MDF dust more toxic than plywood dust? That's debatable, but somewhat irrelevant: If model makers don't use appropriate precautions against dust when sanding or cutting any materials, they are playing with their own lifespans. All of that said, I have built many, many pieces of furniture with MDF, but never a ship model. The very characteristics that make MDF attractive to kit manufacturers are potential drawbacks to kit builders, toxicity aside. MDF is much easier to split in the end grain, because there are no longitudinal fibers present to hold it together. Susceptibility to swelling when exposed at length to moisture has already been discussed. On the other hand, there's something to be said for material that resists warping, as MDF does, and for the ease of cutting, shaping and sanding. My 2 cents... Rob

09 April 1914: First Recorded Aerial Bombing of Warships (credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_9_April_1914) The Action of 9 April 1914 was an important turning point in naval and aviation history. On the said date one of the first naval/air skirmishes took place. This engagement took place off the coast of western Mexico during the Mexican Revolution. The action was part of the naval campaign off Topolobampo at the edge of the Gulf of California. A Constitutionalist biplane dropped bombs on two Huertista gunboats; they all missed.

I think I'm at a point in my life, maybe due to age, where I think a lot more about longevity and sustainability than I did when I was younger. I did build a model that was displayed (briefly) at the Smithsonian Air & Space museum, so maybe that experience has helped shape my thinking now. I doubt seriously that any model I build in the productive model building years remaining to me will find its way into a museum of the caliber we've been discussing, but I certainly don't want any model I build to delaminate 10 or 12 years from now. I like the idea of building things that last, whether a model, a piece of furniture, or a friendship. CA glue has its uses, for sure, and the main reason I have used it - and I'm sure it's a common one - is speed. I build combat warship models, and would never have a ship ready for the next event if I didn't have CA for repairs. But what I think we're talking about in this discussion are static display models. I can see using CA or other time-saving adhesives if there's some kind of deadline, but otherwise, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What is the logic behind speeding up the build, if the experience of the build itself is the main reason behind the project? Rob

Keep in mind that the information that I posted here that started the thread was narrowly concerned with model ship standards of the U.S. Navy. According to Dana Wegner, both the Navy and the Smithsonian follow these guidelines. To me, it's common sense to define what "museum quality" means to the Navy and Smithsonian curators. One merely needs to visit those museums for an education on what it means within this narrow scope. On the subject of "modern" construction materials and adhesives: I have certainly had some CA wood joints fail over the years, and even more metal-to-metal and metal-to-wood joints delaminate. As to why, I have not undertaken a scientific analysis, mainly because I don't have the knowledge or time. The guidelines above don't say that a CA joint won't last 100 years, just that there is no empirical evidence to argue that it will. To further complicate it, there is no standard by which CA is made. Different formulas have different characteristics, and there is no way to predict either its holding ability or its chemical stability over time. I will relate one personal anecdote about one adhesive, though. I used contact cement to affix the finished layer of planks to the hull per the instructions in the Swift Virginia Pilot Boat kit. The hull was beautiful for around 12 years, when - one by one - the planks began to peel off the substrate. It all now needs to be stripped down and re-planked. And this is the point behind the guidelines. Most museums are understaffed. No one wants to take a ship model out of its glass case and rebuild it. Merely removing a model from its case exposes it to a slew of new environmental variables, and even touching the rigging of an old model can be enough to break it. Rob

I posted this info simply as a basis for discussion about the various materials and construction standards used by the U.S. Navy and the Smithsonian. I also posted it because I recently learned that this info had been available on the old MSW site, "before the crash." I was hoping we might discuss the nuts and bolts of the requirements, and not engage in debating semantics. For example: The idea that a ship model is expected to last at least 100 years before deterioration is visible. It suggests that ship models, at least those accepted by the Navy and the Smithsonian, must be constructed with posterity in mind. Whether or not we as model builders plan on donating our models to museums, I think it's worth discussing why we build them in the first place. What happens to them? I can tell you one thing that happens to old ship models: the heirs of the builder's estate are left to deal with them. If they aren't built with posterity in mind, the heirs can't find a museum that will take them. That might be OK with some of us, but it places an unfair burden on our families after we're gone. I now own 3 such models. In all three cases, the sons and daughters of the builders couldn't find museums that wanted them, but they didn't want to try to sell them on eBay or dispose of them, because the models were labors of love, and the heirs didn't want to dishonor the memories of their fathers. They found me, instead, so now they're my burden, and they're damaged because the heirs had no idea how to care for them. Just food for thought.

07 April 1863: Combined Navy/Army Union Forces Attack Fort Sumter (credit: http://civilwarnavy150.blogspot.com) At noon on April 7, 1863, the largest concentration of ironclad warships yet seen in the Civil War prepared for action in the main ship channel leading to Charleston harbor.

05 April 1942: Imperial Japanese Navy Attacks Ceylon (credit: Wikipedia) 1942 – World War II: The Imperial Japanese Navy launches a carrier-based air attack on Colombo, Ceylon during the Indian Ocean raid. Port and civilian facilities are damaged and the Royal Navy cruisers HMS Cornwall and HMS Dorsetshire are sunk southwest of the island. British heavy cruisers HMS Dorsetshire and Cornwall under Japanese air attack and heavily damaged on 5 April 1942 Photo taken from a Japanese aircraft - Imperial Japanese Navy. This photo was captured by U.S. Forces on Attu Island, Alaska, in 1943 and became U.S. Navy photo 80-G-71202 now in the U.S. National Archives, available via wwiiarchives.net, see also www.warship.get.net.pl

In my warship combat club, we've been doing quite a bit of development work using 3D printers. While there are limitations in both the equipment and the materials economically available to the hobbiest, the technology is advancing by leaps and bounds. I've read all of the posts here on the subject, and have my own take on it. If you set the quality of the printed parts aside for a moment, keeping in mind that this will continue to improve as time goes on, aren't we left with the 3D printer as simply another power tool in the shop? If your particular style of model ship building does not include power tools, then a 3D printer does not factor into your approach. But if you do, in fact, use power tools to shape parts in your build, then I think it's reasonable to look at this technology in the same way you look at a scroll saw, band saw, table saw or Dremel saw. Just as any given power tool may not be your cup of tea, a 3D printer might not either. Rob

Skip, for the MSN story on the 3D house, try this link: http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/design/the-3d-printer-that-can-build-a-house-in-24-hours/ar-BB5nN8s Rob

Well, there you go: You can find anything on the Internet! Then there's this: http://www.stephens-kenau.com/endurance-product-view-47.html Rob