allanyed

3 hours ago, No Idea said:

I have never successfully used water to unglue my work.

If the piece is already glued on the model I tape a soaking wet paper towel to the part and rehydrate it every few hours.  Takes overnight and then some at times.   Another example, but purposely gluing parts together that will need to be separated....... when I have to make very small strips of wood such as window frame pieces that are about 0.025" square at 1:64 I thickness sand a board to that thickness then cut strips with a rule and scalpel.  These are never exactly at the same thickness as the original board, but too small to take through the thickness sander one at a time.  I glue 5 or 6 pieces side by side with the hand cut edge being the wider face of the glued up strip.  I then can run through the sander without worries.  Once done I soak the assembly for an hour or so and the glue melts and the pieces come apart very easily.   Takes a little scraping of the glue afterwards but otherwise a relatively easy task.  Thicker pieces take longer but can be done.  The hard part for me is having patience.

Allan

2 hours ago, hollowneck said:

David's Vol 2 is the one I don't have!

Sorry Ron, wish I could have been of more help.

Allan

52 minutes ago, hollowneck said:

I've squeezed both open ends of the upper chain links closed.

David Antscherl goes into great detail on how to make realistic binding, middle link, toe link and preventer plate in The Fully Framed Model Volume II pages 262-265.  Way to much to post here, but as he is a member, hopefully he will see this and post some information from his book.   

Allan

42 minutes ago, paul ron said:

wood to wood use the yellow carpenters glue. you will have to clamp the parts together till the glue sets.

Clamps are great tools when needed, but that should not be very often IF the parts are pre-fitted before gluing them together.  This includes planks if they have been tapered and pre-shaped properly.  A tapered and spiled (or pre-bent) plank will hold after about 30 seconds of finger pressure with PVA, same as with CA and will not lift from edge bending.  If it lifts and/or does not hold and springs loose it is not yet properly shaped and needs to be re-worked or replaced.  

Allan

2 hours ago, No Idea said:

and if you get it wrong IPA will undo your work.

As will water.   

Allan

Welcome aboard the good ship MSW Kai!

Allan

Hi Chris

Happy retirement to you!!!    It can be an adjustment, and not only for the retiree😁

Not to stir up a hornet's nest (yabuhebi?) but maybe consider studying the four part video on planking done by MSW's own Chuck Passaro.  It will make things much easier for you in the future as well as yield realistic planking.  Part One can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCWooJ1o3cM   This will help you eliminate all the lifting you are getting from cold edge bending.

Is there a reason your log is in the 1801-1850 section rather than the 1750-1800?  Many folks enjoy following the various Victory builds so might be missing yours as it was launched in 1765.

Allan

2 hours ago, Blue Ensign said:

Kit provided hoops at 1:64 scale are probably not feasible, but that doesn't mean they can't be added at that scale.

 

Well said B.E.  I did a 1:64 drawing to see if they show up and they are quite clear when printed.  I am guessing that it would not be difficult to include a sketch or verbal instruction about these hoops even if supplying material is impractical.   

Allan

Hi Chris

I looked at a number of contemporary drawings of masts and as you say, the wooden hoops on either side of the wooldings are not shown on any that I have seen.  Looking at photos of contemporary models they all have the wooden hoops above and below the wooldings but these are all 1:48 scale so a good bit more noticeable than they would be at 1:64.   

Allan  

Hi Glenn,

Sorry if this was raised before.  There are no wooden hoops shown above and below the rope wooldings on the masts which I thought was always done so they did not get chafed or move on the mast.  Was it not as common as I thought or could this have been an anomaly on Indefatigable?   

Regardless, she continues to be a superb build.

Allan

7 hours ago, Jonathan_219 said:

I like the Vallejo Black (70.950) but it's a little too matte for my taste.

There have been several threads on this here at MSW, but I do not recall ever seeing any information based on contemporary sources regarding the finish appearance which could be interesting.  Glossy finishes on modern fiberglass and steel hull yachts is common, but for warships I was taught that a matte finish is more realistic.   This may not be correct,  but wouldn't it make sense that the last thing a warship needs is a glossy finish so it stands out?   I am pretty sure high gloss finishes were not done, but in the end, go with what makes you happy.   

Allan

5 hours ago, Malcolm Brown said:

This is historically correct..........

......if you are referring to the main stay and main preventer stay.  If you are referring to the forestay and fore preventer stay, the collar was put on double from about 1733, not single like in the photos above.  In addition, after 1773, the collar closest to the sprit was an open heart, not a closed heart.  The drawing below for the forestay and fore preventer stay collars is from page 41 in James Lees' The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War.  Putting a double collar may not be practical or easy at 1:100 scale.    

Allan

Hi William 

Your work at this scale is quite impressive.  Regarding the collars, am I correct in thinking that they are main stay and main preventer stay collars, not forestay and fore preventer stay collars?

Thanks

Allan

Hi JJ

Looking REALLY good!  Your attention to details is great and if you do go forward with offering a kit it will be a worthwhile investment for any kit builder.  The knee of the head is spectacular, especially the tapering which is not commonly seen on the majority of modern models.

Allan

I would like to add my own welcome back Mark.  Missed your posts!

Allan

Tiziano,

This continues to be an unbelievably beautiful build. 

I truly hope we can meet again soon as we are planning to be in Toscana in September. 

Ciao

Allan

What actual diameter do you need?   One idea that comes to mind if I am picturing this correctly, you can run bamboo through a draw plate to the largest diameter you need for the mast then taper as needed with sandpaper.  My preference is to start with bamboo skewers or chopsticks and split them to a workable size, then run them through the draw plate holes until I reach the diameter I need.

Allan

I am not sure this is what you are looking for, but check out the information on the clipper Young America in Ed Tosti's build. If not, the build log may still be somewhat useful for you.   Topping lifts are explained and described in post #2683.  https://modelshipworld.com/topic/3453-young-america-by-edt-finished-extreme-clipper-1853/page/90/#comment-535631  I believe he derived the information from Bill Crothers drawings.  While this is centered on American clippers, there may be some application for your English vessel.

Allan

Welcome to MSW Peterairfix! 

Allan

1 hour ago, ccoyle said:

Why bring a kit to market that is neither a novel subject nor an improvement on an existing kit from a competitor?

Well said Chris!

56 minutes ago, Darius359au said:

Just looked at the model on Occre's site ,not sure if it's just a prototype issue and someone wasn't paying attention but there's guns directly behind deadeye's and their lanyards.

The price seems favorable and I really hope it turns out to sell well for them, but there looks to be a number of other inaccurate things including the size and number of rudder hinges, the gun patterns, belaying pins, which were not used in that time period, missing wooden bands above and below the rope wooldings, gratings with huge openings that would break an ankle in a heart beat and more.  I wonder why they chose to add another version of San Felipe rather than something different that has not be put out in kit form up to now.   

Allan

6 hours ago, wyapa said:

This makes sense. Is there a good way to assess that from pictures?

Study close ups that show the quality of construction and details of accuracy.  For example there are a lot of models of complex ships such as the SoS that show the use of belaying pins which were not used until a hundred years after she was built, incorrect cannon shapes and sizes, out of scale and incorrect number of rudder hinges, incorrect dead eye shapes, and the list goes on.  Look at contemporary  plans and models of particular ships on the RMG Collections site and other museums.  Maybe pick a ship that has not been modeled hundreds of times so you have something a little different.   

For an accurate model of the SoS go to https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66317  and compare to modern versions.  There are also contemporary drawings of her on their site as well.  A well done accurate model of SoS is going to be hard to find for less than $10,000 and even some of those in that price range may have things that are not correct.  Maybe consider a well made accurately depicted schooner or smaller naval craft if the price is an issue.

Allan

I used to use Xacto exclusively but after more than one episode of it rolling off the bench and onto the floor, or worse, onto a thigh, when it comes to blade holders I went to flat handles.   Saws and other attachments are not a problem for me with the Xacto, but definitely not scalpel blades.  My go to is Swann Morton handles and blades but there are others that are similar.

Allan

WONDERFUL build Ron

I really like seeing the great results with the use of hand tools,   You are bringing back memories of my adventure in building her.  

Allan

9 hours ago, wyapa said:

a proper model as below.

While the model is pretty, it does not come close to meeting your requirement of an accurate depiction.  But, if you like it and it will bring you pleasure, that is what matters, so go for it.

Allan