Jump to content

shipman

Members
  • Posts

    1,238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by shipman

  1. Indeed, the Beagle is a re-hash of the Revell Bounty. The 1:87 Airfix Bounty is a much better kit, the scale providing scope to get all the details correct. The AOS book shows how accurate that kit is (at least compared to the drawings in the book).
  2. Don't forget the Cutty used steel standing rigging. Running rigging, foot ropes etc were hemp. A considerable amount of chain was used on bowsprit, masts and yards.
  3. Refer back to your post #38....small boat on deckhouse, Sydney 1891. I have seen drawings/plans/models where there were 2 large boats, with a smaller one between on the aft deckhouse. A similar small boat on the fore deckhouse. It doesn't seem unreasonable to adopt such a scheme. Never come across mention of a 5th boat. As far as deck clutter; unless she was loading/unloading cargo, the decks would need to be free to allow working of the ship. It's worth looking up Alan Villiers photographs on wiki...obviously a later period, but not dissimilar ships.
  4. I recon this is as busy as a sailing ship deck would be while at sea...... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Parma_-_under_sail_in_heavy_weather.jpg
  5. This stern decoration is turning into the adventure/farce I was suspecting. I don't understand Radimir's instructions either. The transfer sheet malarky has me scratching my head big time. It could be worse; it could be me.
  6. I have this 'ornament', but don't recall there being 'transfer foil' enclosed. Hope you can make sense of their instructions.
  7. May I suggest you email hismodel? and seek their advice. Good luck.
  8. They obviously consumed the ships stock of rust inhibitor! Hope they paid the admission fee.
  9. Congratulations 'J'. Fabulous work, especially making the anchors with one hand and playing the piano with the other. Joking aside, thank you for sharing your much anticipated updates.
  10. You two chaps are making a great team. Neither are as daft as I look.
  11. Can I be the first in the cue and be cheeky and request a set of your lozenge decals? I have no means of printing and haven't a clue how to do the origination on my laptop. Kevin, see my comment #122 here. I share your pain.
  12. The best paint available in the UK, I've found, are the acrylic Citadel range from Games Workshop, which are the bees. They have very fine ground dense pigments and flow beautifully off a brush (as they are designed to). Coverage is excellent, yet they are thin enough to not obscure detail. One stroke and you're done....including a wide range of metallics. They aren't the cheapest My experience of sharpies and other felt tips is they aren't as permanent as they'd like you to think.
  13. Mmmm. My main concern is that the etch is pierced, ie there are gaps between the lettering etc. So whatever adhesive you use, it's bound to spread and squidge out and around the detail. CA often turns white, epoxy....well, it behaves like chewing gum that sets. Again, messy. The clear when dry properties of PVA types would seem to avoid those issues. I agree, pre-forming the etch to the surface it's going onto is a vital key to success. The stern decoration etch is a delicate filigree and needs some thought as to how it's applied, without destroying the whole point of using it.
  14. The 'Pledge' used to be called 'Future'; aircraft modellers dip canopies in it, which makes them perfectly clear. Not sure how good it is as a 'glue'. This Microscale product is brilliant for clear windows. It's a sort of PVA. There again, I've used ordinary PVA and got the same results. Glad you brought this up, as it seems ideal for attaching the bow and stern etch, though I have no idea how to hold the etch in place while the stuff sets. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=microscale+crystal+clear Again, I feel Longridge is as good a source as you'll find. It's worth remembering he did his own research in the 1920's when she was still afloat and had the opportunity to crawl all over the ship.
  15. My first visit to your build. Oh my! This is WAY beyond me. Can't believe what I'm seeing.
  16. I've had umpteen small value items from China, usually free postage and never incurred any additional charges. Incredible really, when you consider they are at the other side of the planet. Makes me wonder how they make any money at all.
  17. For what it's worth, I'd de-grease the parts and paint them with good old Humbrol enamel paint mat or gloss to taste. I have no time for the hit and miss of chemical treatment. Perhaps not every ones cup of tea, but you did ask.
  18. I concur with your opinion of most of the wooden kit renditions, though I have no wish to denigrate the folk who build them. Most (as an example) have planked bulwarks; they are sheet iron/steel on the ship. In addition, the wood provided is appalling quality, the grain being open and out of scale. By contrast the basic hull of the revel kit is pretty accurate, not withstanding obvious small detail issues which are easily remedied. As for the masts and spars, the fragility of the parts justifying scratch replacements in brass and wood. On the ship the belay pins are iron, painted black. The deadeyes are made of that very hard wood, Lignum Vitae, which is a dark brown. The often regarded as the bible 'plans' by Campbell, as someone here recently observed, aren't entirely accurate either. As I understand it he was commissioned to do them to compliment the ships first public appearance at the Festival of Britain in the early 50's. He was employed by the London County Council engineering department. I have no idea what his connection was to maritime affairs before or after. It would be enlightening to hear more of his background, what his sources were (other than 'conversations' with surviving sailors of the period). The original ships spec listed (naturally) accurate builders plans and a model. No trace of which survives. We do know the decorative elements at bow and stern were originally far different to those on the ship now. Like so much of history, there will be so much we'll never know.
  19. Another issue with the kit boards that the deadeyes and belay pins are mounted are at least double the width they are on the ship. Another cunning feature is that the pins locate between the deadeyes, so they can be set back. I would suggest drilling holes for new pins at the same locations where the kit ones are is pure fiction. I think you mentioned earlier about your marginal confidence tackling the rigging. If this build has already had you pulling your hair out with frustration, you must realise what lies ahead is when the party truly begins. That is when you find out your real character. Rigging explores your personality. It helps if you are already predisposed to being highly strung.
  20. When the time comes to be belaying lines to the pins I would guess it would be prudent to be careful. A tad too much tension could easily snap a few off; remember it's only plastic. I have two examples of the kit, one of which is the original UK issue (around 1962) with pre-painted hull, not only is the plastic on that one very brittle, it has dark brown swirls and smears as if the molten plastic wasn't mixed thoroughly. Looking forward to your updates. No pressure 😏
  21. re deleted #95. Here's another attempt to stay legal. A preserved original 'cat head' from the Cutty Sark....bugger! I attempted to ad a url only and up popped the image I was trying to avoid and not infringe copyright. Anyway, if you are interested, google 'cat head, cutty sark' at the Dumbarton Science Museum. You'll find several views of a delightful original specimen, without hurting any-ones felines.
  22. Many Airfix kits have had several lives. Often the original molded 'dates' have clearly been crudely erased from the master mold presses.
  23. Your and 'kevin-the-lubber' are both posting builds of this kit simultaneously on this forum. Each I;m following and where I can I hope to be making pertinent comments. Confusion between the two has made me realise you are approaching your builds with slightly different philosophy. In future I'll try and be more aware of that.
  24. Your and 'bcochran' are both posting builds of this kit simultaneously on this forum. Each I;m following and where I can I hope to be making pertinent comments. Confusion between the two has made me realise you are approaching your builds with slightly different philosophy. In future I'll try and be more aware of that. I've followed several builds of this kit, including 'Bruma's' admirable version. You are the first to spot the kit deck is too high; congratulations! That explains why the 'freeing ports' molded outboard don't register with the deck inboard. I've puzzled on this in the past, as I think those hinged flaps would be an interesting feature. I'm sure it would be a pig of a job to lower the deck, but should I ever start the two kits I have, lowering the deck would be essential. Enjoying following both these builds, each bringing new insights and solutions.
×
×
  • Create New...