Jaager

For aspects that are essentially a color effect such as caulking, it is worth considering scale effect. If strict adherence to actual scale is followed, those color - especially dark color - parts may present as being much larger than they actually are. The Walnut dyed PVA may be as wide as is needed. Slamming the viewer with wide stripes may be a distraction. Going wider may want the color of the caulking to be dialed back in darkness, a lot.

There are several chemical bonding agents under the Elmer's umbrella. If it is white PVA that you used, then if the surfaces were close enough together, then the PVA polymers would be more than strong enough. PVA is stronger than cellulose to lignin in any species of wood. In Balsa the wood itself just barely holds itself together. If your joint tolerances were close enough, it is probable that the wood itself was the site of failure. I suspect that kits that do come with sails do so for marketing reasons. What is provided is not appropriate to the scale of the model. Unless you are at a scale above 1:48, I doubt that any woven fabric has thread that is fine enough or a weave that is tight enough to meet scale requirements. Speculation: Kit manufacturers who are serious about historical accuracy do not provide sails - those that do probably are providing a subject that has as much fiction and fantasy as historical accuracy. Wooden ship model kits are from an evolutionary development track that expected anyone who is serious about the subject would add or replace with scratch built components. The earliest kits were little more than a crudely carved hull, plans, and a push into scratch. Beyond a true beginner's kit - the focus of a wooden ship model kit instructions should be on accurate plans, with options for possible scratch augments, as much information on the individual "What" as practical, with the expectation that the builder will already know the "How" or will have the ability to dig it out. The instructions should have a bib. and Net links to make a good start on the search for the "How". One of the advantages of a wooden ship model kit is that the raw material is easy to obtain from multiple sources. In most instances, with mass market kits, the material obtained from secondary sources is superior to what is provided with the kit. Doing this should be a source of pride, additional skills, and confidence.

I appreciate the intended humor. I will use this as a gate though. I very much resist using aerosol anything. The process turns materials that would not otherwise be available to breathe into particles that gain easy access to our alveoli. It increases the concentration of volatiles that are able to get there. I use lacquer - the brushing version - to coat my patterns. It sort of simulates Mylar. There are two flavors of lacquer thinner. There is the original and there is "Green". Both contain a rogues gallery of organics that are better not allowed to float around in our bodies. From just brushing it, both solvents are fierce to breathe and to the eyes. Only using it outside works for me. The spray version would not only increase the concentration of the solvents in the air, it would allow the actual particles of lacquer itself to be small enough to breathe. I know - spray booth - and/ or space suit - can remediate most of the effects. I prefer to not create situations where remediation is necessary if I can avoid it. The brushing lacquer is "designed" or "by its nature must" leave a thick layer - that is the whole point in what I use it for. I know spray lacquer can leave a thin protective barrier - I played a trombone thru age 19. Lacquer is used to keep the brass shiny and in the hands of teens in travel and outside conditions, the finish often needs renewal. But, professionals applied it in "supposedly" ( it was the 60's ) safe conditions. At home, it fails my cost vs benefit evaluation.

It does take on a white color in patches, so it may well be water and not oxygen. To speculate, if it is water, then it is a physical mixture instead of chemical reaction. If so, then if the flakes could be dehydrated, then the flakes would be restored. I wonder if a low heat oven would drive off the water without degrading the shellac?

In my hands, the flake form of super blonde shellac has a shelf life. When it is too old, it does not easily dissolve. The flakes fuse together and the lot that almost instantly dissolves when new. It will still be a gel at the bottom of the alcohol container after a week, if you have had the flakes for a few years. The flakes are sold in plastic bags, which does not exclude oxygen very well.

I have nothing to suggest about why your polyurethane will not polymerize. I do not think lacquer is an appropriate clear finish for any ship model that is not a toy. It is out of scale in thickness and is used to build up a thick layer and is usually glossy. Glossy is not scale appropriate for 1:60. Polyurethane has more who favor it than eschew it here. I am firmly in the eschew camp. It is a modern synthetic plastic. It is great for bar tops and wooden floors. I see anything plastic (except for PVA) as being against the spirit of a wooden vessel built before 1860. A traditional clear finish that is easy to use, allows extensive control, and is compatible with almost everything is shellac. I can be applied using cloth or a brush. It has an excellent reverse gear. Ethanol (95%) or isopropanol (100%) (91%?) or Methanol (if you can get it) makes it go away. I am betting it is not so easy to remove sticky polyU. Premixed shellac comes as "clear" and amber. Shellac flakes do also, plus there are darker shades - shades that are not dewaxed or slightly dewaxed. If it is not enough, traditional varnish, poly, lacquer, both types of paint can be used to coat over it.

Home Depot has paper cones with windows, nylon bags, and covers for 1 gal cans.

I do not see these decorator models as being actual ship models. They are more a minimalist impressionistic version. When viewed as being an actual ship model, they are absurd. When viewed as impressionistic art, some have a bit of charm. I see merit in Bob's suggestion that there may be some value in the old ones, if they are what they originally were. I see an attempt to add more authentic details when restoring a decorator model as totally missing the point of what these things really are. That sort of "restoration" yields something that is neither fish nor foul. It removes any value that the original may have. The damage on the one that you have may too much to be a candidate for restoration. Your time would be better spent on building an actual ship model from scratch.

I have it in mind to use a ball bearing race in the tail stock. I have two types of speed controls. One is a dimmer switch and the other one was for a Dremel that was constant speed. I would fix the ON/OFF switch on the drill as being always ON. Add a different ON/OFF switch up stream - I suspect that touching the drill to operate the trigger will move something that is better left in a fixed position. There are types of foot switch. A momentary switch that provides power as long as it is depressed - constant power - A click switch - it provides power until it is clicked again. There is one on the Foredom site that I have a link to that provides variable power depending on how far it is depressed. I don't think that the Foredom drills are brush motors - I think that a speed control has to be matched to motor type.

Way, way back when I was just starting with this and Underhill was one of the few important sources for scratch builders - and he is still an important source - I bought a few of his plans. They were actual blueprints. They were blue lines on a white background and not the white lines on solid blue that was still common then. The quality was so-so at best - I do not imagine that the intervening years have been kind. Back then, there were not a lot of choices for scratch plans, I think that the NMM was doing photography. You sort of had to go in person to even know what was possible. I have not been able to determine which class Underhill's 12 gun brig of 1840 belongs to. He was probably accurate with his post 1860 merchant sail plans - an era that few NA have done much to compete with him even now. I take scans into my raster based graphics program and do any scaling there - as well as cleanup and line isolation and print that for pattern use. It also makes register and alignment points easy to add. Greatly enlarging small scale plans also makes the lines wide and ambiguous. Doing a tracing in a graphics program gets better lines for patterns.

The plans in the book are probably a much reduced copy of the 1/4" plans. If the book illustrations are enlarged, it comes down to how much artifact is introduced and how much that bothers you. The 1:48 plans just need a reduction of 0.8 - plus whatever correction factor your home scanner requires- which you probably already know and used for the ship itself.

Check the plans for ship's boat drawn by Underhill at the Brown, Son and Ferguson web site. I count 5 possibles - about page 20-21 https://skipper.co.uk/catalogue/drawings-and-plans/page/20

I think it is Steele, but even two hundred years later, the outer frames at both bow and stern were allowed to have a reduced sided dimension. This was under strict limits. I imagine that at earlier times, things were more fluid. The length of the timbers probably had an irregular range, based on what was in the yard. The frames themselves probably sported a large number of chocks in the spaces, rectangular, irregular, and of a size to hold the frames as a unit, but small enough not to block air circulation. At a certain point, there will be a clash of practical reality and economy with scale model esthetics and modeler's convention. The frame profile in Blom of the 7P - done at the time of the build - displays an irregular mess. The Dutch used the three frame method to shape the hull on the ways. The English used the three frame method to shape the hull on the drawing board. The cross section at each station was extracted from this shape. This was the data used in the mold loft. In England, I see something like this: The plans that were from the architect were seen as optimistic suggestions by the mold loft and shipwright. The molds and jigs from the loft were of the midline of the bends at each station. The shipwright determined the shape of everything in between.

Until I read the title I had not registered the significance of the 1570 date for Baker. The broad outlines for his design methods are still in use 100 years later in Deane. Were I from a naval architecture and an early modern period historian and my ambition was to produce a temporarily definitive text for ship design of the period, I would explore the following assertions: Unfortunately, no matter how well it is done, such a text would only ever be unprovable supposition. The first to develop this "new" design and construction method were the Dutch. The Dutch were totally secretive within their own family clans as to what were the specifics of their methods. The English imported Dutch shipbuilders to get their own industry started with these "modern" designs. The Dutch had been using the three frame method to define the underwater body from the beginning. What Baker is doing is trying to produce a systematic and reproducible explanation of what the Dutch were doing "on the back of an envelop that they carried in their shirt pocket". The English wanted large ship plans - for the Royals - before any wood was committed to the ways. A committee instead of a diva shipwright. The Dutch had to deal with vast shallow water estuaries for hull forms. This is a constraint that the English did not have. Some of Baker may reflect general Dutch methods, but making changes to produce a deeper and more narrow hull. Perhaps a synthesis of traditional Renaissance cross sections with "modern" design methods.

Not exactly - will not work - more that it may be a lot more complicated than it first appears to be. I have a Model Boats catalog of plans from about 1970. It has a lot of plans for pond boats and competition craft. About every one had an under water body that was unattractive. I suspect that there is a serious reason that such designs were done. While it may not be felicitous for first contact to be a warning that you may be in a mine field, it does not change the situation concerning the mines. I took it that by posting photos - you were inviting comments. Often, when I make comments like in the post above, others, who were much more informed and experienced jump in and clarify the situation. The result of the scrum is usually a lot of helpful information. My intention was to meet the first lesson in The Parable of the Frozen Russian Bird.

Maxx, I have zero experience with RC, so everything I write about this is a layman's theory. I suspect that this is another Dennis Moore situation. It seems that in every case - the physics / hydrodynamics of a floating model when under sail does not directly translate to how the actual vessel behaved on water ? Wind is also a sort of fluid in this situation and the safe range is more of a log function than a linear one? (The safe range is narrow?) Much more ballast is needed? The degree of heeling allowed for a model of a larger vessel before it will not recover is almost nil? The hulls are either much deeper and way out of scale or there is wing below the keel. Either one tends to make a model sort of a pig when viewed on shore? (A very personal judgement since esthetics is not something that fits a formula.) Easy access to the bilge after a session is important? It is probably a really good thing for the bulk of the water proofing to be on the inside of the hull? POB is probably about the least efficient and most troublesome method to use to fabricate a floating hull. ( My solo bias is that POF with zero spaces is probably the user friendly fabrication method for an age of sail hull that is intended to take to the water. ) (A hollowed out loaf of sliced bread.) As with modern full size replicas, if you intend much time on the water with it, an electric version of a Volvo Penta would make control and recovery less frustrating. If this is more than a whim, a topsail schooner as a first ( you probably already have sloop down pat ) and then a brig, before wrestling with a three master (4 with the bow spars).

It hurts my brain to even think about how to run the numbers, but 1:36 may be 2-3 times the volume of 1:48. If you are going to feature any vessels of significant size, your lumber needs will be significant. I would not give any thought to setting up my lumber stock to be "just in time". I would have enough for 3 vessels on hand and replace that PRN. It is probably a sign of me aging, but rolling the bones tells me that we are at an inflection point and among other things, lumber cost and availability will be more difficult than just an extrapolation of past behavior. Do not depend on what is available today to be there tomorrow. This is an interesting opportunity to exercise fantasy and imagination: You already have experience with small mills and if if your use so far has you wanting to upgrade, this is probably not a frivolous exercise for you. In your place, I would probably bite the bullet and make sure that what I bought was a serious machine. One that is sturdy, precise, and accurate. A machine that did not use proprietary accessories. I checked Little Machine Shop and found that the micro mill that I kept the link for, has been discontinued. At this stage I would investigate what the professionals use and avoid anything that is mass market. The present inventory seems to be: "SIEG SX1P" HiTorque Micro Mill, 2MT Spindle $1000 120 lb SIEG X2D Mini Mill $800 180 lb HiTorque Mini Mill $1400 180 lb HiTorque Mini Mill, Deluxe $2100 190 lb The practical factor is maybe that these machines are for milling iron or steel or blocks of Al. For wood, the quality of the cutters and their edge is probably the key factor. I expect that the ceiling rail tracks and the electric chain hoist needed to lift and move these machines will add to the overall cost.

The books covering "how to" for ship modeling from before 1970 list Lancewood as one of the preferred species for spars. Another species is Degame. I do not recall Buxus simpervirens (Boxwood) being listed as being especially favored for spars. For Lancewood and Degame, splitting spar stock out of the plank along the grain would be the way to help prevent any bending or dog leg crooks over time. For any part of a hull, any of the three would be a superior species, if POF is the method under discussion. The problem being that all three have been all but impossible to obtain for about 70 years or so. I suspect that even if Lancewood was available as 4x4 or 8x4 stock, the cost for 10-20 BF needed for frames, clamps, hooks, and beams would be a bit prohibitive. But, I wonder if this new post Covid economy is going to affect most other species to drive the price up? Now may be similarly seen as a golden age of missed opportunity for even our more limited choices when viewed from a time not all that far into the future?

Hans, It is probably prudent if the chamber holding a model not be tightly sealed. Consider making provision for the chamber to "breathe" yet sort of sequester any dust floating in the air. Glass wool may help as well as discouraging any small spiders from entering. PVA and I think some species of wood outgas acetic acid.

I was going under the impression that the unit in question would be a UK only deal. Bob, cut thru my knot and jumped on the most simple answer - just save the head and attach it to a regular soldering iron handle. That would make the plug on the sale unit not relevant. It would also open it up to the US. I was looking at Romex at Home Depot, since a recent post was about how expensive a coil has become. The 220V is 4 wire. The plug on Ebay is two prong and round. I was trying to get my head around a match up of 4 wire Romex with that plug. I also wonder if a kid who stuck a metal object on into a 220V plug would have a more interesting experience than a US kid who did it with a 110V?

220V is not common for routine appliances over here, but from what I see, there are 4 wires. one ground, usually green coded - which is maybe not needed for a simple resistance circuit. one return - usually coded black two that are hot usually coded white. In a native 220V system, perhaps only one white? Would it need to be a wire with a larger diameter? For water flow,it is 4/3 pi r cubed? so maybe an increase of 1/3 would handle the additional electrons? Anyway - could not a wire cutter and a screw driver allow the plug to be replaced? or The end piece looks like it is a simple screw mount into the handle and shaft of a standard resistance solder unit A new handle may be price competitive with a replacement plug? Running a logic exercise using what little that I think I know: if both white wires feed into the tip, would not twice the power essentially decrease the time of getting up to temp and increase the max temp to 150 -200% of a 110V unit? If only one of the white wires actually made the trip to the tip, would it be the same as a 110V unit?

Phantom may be worth a reevaluation for what it is, instead of what it is not. Phantom has an elegant hull. The curves are appealing. The vessel itself is spare but the overall presentation has a beauty to it. I remember it as coming as a carved hull in both 1/4" and 1/8" scale. If it has a copper bottom, using actual metal at either scale would probably ruin the elegance. Tissue paper or just paint or - a planking over the solid using a veneer of an appropriate species of wood? A small vessel at 1/8th scale is more an expression of a skill at miniature scale. A lot of the materials that we use at larger scales begin to lose translation ability at 1/8th and artful faking begins to be needed.

There is also a Chinese copy of the Chopper - for half its price - less well made - and probably not a licensed version, but the original may not have been an original enough construct to gain legal protection. For the same lower price, there is a HF powered version. This machine does the job, except that the safety ON trigger wants to be jammed ON for it to work in a practical way, The table to the right of the blade is not really there and needs to be added - scrap acrylic sheet - a 3/4" plywood base, screws and spacers. The blade is a raw amputation device waiting to happen - the housing for the handle makes dealing with the cutoff pieces all but impossible and the spinning blade throws the freed product into the air behind the machine or into the vertical support for the hinge. Sometimes a miter box and saw or the frustrating Dobson seems a better way. We do not really want to use Basswood for such small parts. The cutter is essentially a razor blade. Getting a fixed blade thru hardwood of any real thickness without a hydraulic press force and needing to sharpen the edge every few cuts to avoid crush of fibers are compromises inherent to the design.

Do yourself a favor and read this ASAP: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/13703-for-beginners-a-cautionary-tale/ In the spirit of a scientific thought experiment, I propose the following: It is true that more than a few have begun with a Victory kit (or SotS or Constitution) and managed a successful completion. But I seriously doubt that any one of them would have felt the need to ask the question that you did. The self assured arrogance or whatever personality traits that are required to carry them past the initial intimidating barrier and all the many subsequent ones on to a finish are the mental tools that would also keep them from even considering asking anyone else about the wisdom of their choice. Starting with a monster and finishing it is a infrequent occurrence. For these most popular of ship model kit subjects, the number that have been barely or even never been started vastly,vastly out number the number taken to completion. If you have no background in miniature wood working, if plastic kits are your only experience, then you would do well to spend time and imagination reading a lot of kit build logs. Plastic is a separate skill set for skills beyond research and painting. This is a new world. It is broad enough to engage several lifetimes, but not impossibly open ended. Nothing else will expose you to the technology - the entire technology - of the time period of a chosen subject.

Enamel paints use organic solvents that are not misable with water. If you are spraying enamel paint, the condensed water vapor that increased pressure produced would probably make a mess of your paint application. The most common class of model paint now is acrylic which uses water as a solvent. A slug of water may dilute pigment concentration, but it may be easier to just direct the nozzle to a piece of scrap cardboard until the water clears - if it appears. The existing trap would probably cover you anyway.