Bob Cleek

Currently, it seems the "fantasy figure" modeling and gaming community seem to have discovered artists' oils and are using them more widely than any of the other modelers. In times past, the top professional ship modelers always used artists' oils. As a painter, I'm sure you know that the model scale paint industry has long made good money selling the convenience of pre-thinned and pre-mixed paint colors at high prices, but quality artists' oils are still about as good as it gets for archival quality pigments. You may want to leach out some of the oil in your tubed oil paint by putting it on a piece of brown paper bag paper and letting the oil soak out for a bit. That will reduce the gloss, which you don't want for a miniature. Thin your oils with a bit of turpentine and perhaps a bit of acetone if spraying. Add a dash of Japan drier to speed up drying. To improve leveling and flow, a bit of linseed oil. Thinning should flatten the gloss finish. If not, add a bit of Grumbacher flattening solution. You know the drill, I'm sure. There shouldn't be any difference in durability between tubed and bottled paint, as far as I can see. The major difference between the two is in the thickness of the material, bottled paint containing large amounts of thinner and tubed paint not, and, importantly, the Japan dryer which speeds up drying in oil paint. Without that, the tubed paint will take longer to for its raw linseed oil binder to polymerize. (Raw linseed oil is also sold as food-grade "flaxseed oil" in health food stores. "Boiled" linseed oil, which isn't boiled at all, has dryers added to speed up polymerization.) Thin your acrylics with some alcohol, if that's compatible with your brand of acrylics. I prefer oils over acrylics, myself, probably because I'm more familiar with them and the results are more predictable for me. I don't like the acrylics that use water as a solvent for spraying because the water takes longer to dry than a more volatile solvent such as alcohol.

In this day and age of CNC manufacturing, I'm amazed! It's easy enough to check the accuracy of a square by laying it on a T-square or other straight edge and drawing a perpendicular line, then flipping the square over and lining up the edge with the perpendicular line. If the edge perfectly aligns with the drawn perpendicular line, it's accurate. Darn it! Now your report is going to get me checking all my squares as I have occasion to use each of them, just to make sure their true!

Ditto to what's been said about "sets." I'd add that, once opened, those expensive little bottles of paint have a nasty habit of drying up in the bottle no matter how carefully you seal them after use. You'll be amazed and dismayed at how often you will be tossing an expensive little bottle of paint that's gone bad over time. Another option, if you don't mind the learning curve if you haven't mastered the color wheel as yet, is to use tubed artists' oils and acrylics, suitably thinned and conditioned as necessary for each use. The tubed paint has a long shelf-life and small batches of thinned paint can be saved in your own bottles, if need be. If you teach yourself to mix colors (YouTube is your friend here,) you probably won't need more than a half dozen or so tubes of artists' oils or acrylics to satisfy the needs of a modeler's pallette. Small tubes can be purchased for colors rarely used, while larger tubes are available for colors you will use frequently. The cost of tubes vary depending on the color, the variable being the expense of the quality pigments involved, unlike prepared modeling paint, which is priced according to amount. In the long run, however, tubed artists' oils and acrylics are far more economical to use and generally are of a somewhat higher quality than premixed model paints. When you become comfortable mixing your own colors, those photos of guys with hundreds of expensive bottles of various modeling paint colors all displayed on little shelves in their shops, and drying up to uselessness over time, will leave you wondering, "What are they thinking?" (See: https://figurementors.com/limitted-palette/the-science-of-oil-paints-with-kyle-kolbe/)

I'd be curious to see the bad reviews on Amazon. I've been using squares for sixty years or so now and in all that time I've never seen or heard of anyone complaining about a commercially made square of any material being out of square or otherwise "inaccurate." (The rivets in a machinist's square can sometimes be loosened and the blade be out of true if the square has been dropped, but that's another matter entirely.)

Is it possible that these staysails were actually "set flying?" That is what the drawing suggests to me. Sails weren't always hanked to stays, and particularly so with lighter air sails. The head and tack were fastened to head and tack halyards and hoisted and the clew sheeted in, all from the deck with the sail unfurled or "flying." (Alternately, the sail could be sent aloft "in stops," tied sausage-fashion with light stuff which would break free when the head and tack were made fast and the sheet was hauled in.) When those sails were struck, the halyards were set go and the sail pulled down from the sheet(s.) Somebody with specific knowledge of this vessel can give you a much more reliable answer than I can, though.

If I understand correctly what you want to use it for, the proper tool for that job is a machinist's square. The come in many different sizes and prices, but are all perfectly accurate, or should be, unless you drop them. The beam (wide leg) is designed to lay on the flat surface, such as a saw table, and the blade is designed to stand perfectly normal (at a right angle) to the flat surface. https://www.grizzly.com/products/Grizzly-4-pc-Machinist-s-Square-Set/H2993?iparcelcountry=US&msclkid=41db45718134178ed1d01a2934507070&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=%5BADL%5D%20%5BPLA%5D%20%5BShopping%5D%20-%20%7BGeneric%7D%20-%20Desktop&utm_term=4585925561291301&utm_content=%7BGeneric%7D&adlclid=ADL-5c1f93f0-705f-4049-88ab-150c3be7bf86

The Theodore Alteneder and Sons drafting instrument company made stainless steel drafting triangles years ago. They came in various sizes. Alteneder made some of he highest quality drafting instruments in their day. https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/drafting-triangle-with-handle-theo-alteneder You'll have to track the eBay "drafting instruments" offerings for a while before you come across one these days. (In the last few years, high quality manual drafting instruments have become very collectible and can be surprisingly expensive, although there are still a few bargains to be found by the knowledgeable buyer.) Metal triangles can also be sometimes found on eBay in the machinist's tools section. I'm somewhat confused by your report of accuracy problems on internet reviews. It's not rocket science to produce a 12" 90 degree triangle out of sheet metal. I'd expect most sheet metal shops worth their salt would be able to turn one out for you in a few minutes. What kind of accuracy are you talking about? A Starrett or Brown and Sharpe (these are identical products) draftsman's protractor is accurate to five minutes of arc. (It was Starrett's catalog item No. 362.) This is the instrument that would have been used by a draftsman who wanted the most accurate instrument available. They were frequently used to replace triangles. They come up on eBay with some frequency, or used to. They sold for $75 bucks in the 1960's. A mint example in a good condition velvet lined fitted case may now set you back $100+, but who knows on any given day on eBay. It's a lovely instrument with classic Starrett aand Brown and Sharpe "finestkind" quality.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were on the home-page. They are "classics." I believe I posted the URLs here once before. I agree that miniature and small-scale models do demand certain accommodations. The Navy standards aren't specifically intended for miniatures, but rather for models intended for museum display. Avoiding dissimilar materials is always a good practice. I'd add to that avoiding modern materials with unproven archival qualities. Many may not value their models enough to take such pains, but they may be selling themselves short. We never know if long after we're gone, our work, if it survives, may have value we never imagined. The builders of the "Prisoner of War" models come to mind. I'm sure they never could have imagined the present value of their few works which have survived. They used natural materials out of necessity and these were "archival" by chance. Were they built with many modern materials commonly used today, particularly the products of modern chemical technology, I doubt they'd have lasted as long. I experienced this phenomenon personally just the other day when my 1970's vintage Singer sewing machine "packed it in" when it's plastic gears crumbled to bits and pieces. (Fortunately, parts are available for me to rebuild it, although if one were to have a repair shop do so, it would be cheaper to buy a new machine.)

Perhaps apropos of not too awfully much, or possibly of interest: General Admiral, Russian Imperial Navy, 1858. Designed and built by William H. Webb.

IIRC, dried real India ink should not run under any circumstances. That's why it's used to write on biology specimen tags that can be placed in preservative liquid along with the specimen. It's basically lampblack and water, although shellac is often added in commercial bottled India inks as a binder. The shellac is soluble in alcohol and the alcohol mixes with water. Acrylics are often thinned with water and alcohol, also. There may be some problems with the alcohol in the ink, if any, affecting the alcohol-soluble acrylic paint, but I'd tend to doubt it. What you describe you are trying to do is exactly what India ink is most famously able to do. I think Jaeger offers the best explanation of the phenomenon you have described.

This research paper from the Curator of Navy Ship Models, Naval Sea Systems Command, is also extremely helpful: https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Carderock/Resources/Curator-of-Navy-Ship-Models/Lead-Corrosion-in-Exhibition-Ship-Models/ While "lead bloom" or lead oxidation, is the more commonly known issue, it is well for the modeler to become well aware of the archival properties of all materials used in a model and of archival construction practices. "It's a jungle out there!" and there are many materials, or combinations of materials, that aren't really suitable for a model one wishes to last as well as it might. The Navy's curatorial staff has produced an excellent paper, Specifications for Building Exhibition Ship Models, which is the Navy's specifications for any model they commission to be built commercially. While there's always room for innovation, any serious modeler would do well to keep these specifications in mind when building any model, even if they aren't building it for the U.S. Navy. See: https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Carderock/Resources/Curator-of-Navy-Ship-Models/Specifications-for-Building-Exhibition-Ship-Models/

It sounds like Chinese pirates weren't much different in the real clipper ship days than they are in the clipper ship model days.

The colorized photo appears to be extensively "photoshopped." Note the addition of the ship, warehouse, and hills in the distance, the two men and a woman standing in the center foreground, the fellow carrying a timber halfway up the ramp, the absence of the jackstaff and the supporting pole on the port bow by the anchor. How many differences can you spot? I guest the colorist took some artistic license with the original photo.

Excellent point. However, it was my impression that no coppering at all was done until the vessel was first launched and swelled up, for the reason you note. What difference would it make to copper most of the hull when it was as likely to leak in the coppered as it was the uncoppered seams?

I noticed. Maybe they ran out and were waiting for a delivery of more? Taking a "second enlightened look" at the picture, it doesn't appear as if she's immediately ready for launching. I'd expect chain to be faked out on the ground to slow her down and more of the scaffolding to be removed and cleared away. The apparent lack of spectators ashore when a large crowd would be expected to attend the launching, and the crowd on deck, which I would expect not to be usual during a launching, may indicate that the event was some sort of "open house" shortly before launching, but not immediately before.

What a great picture! Thanks for posting it. While not a matter directly relevant to the previous discussion, I was amazed to seek how many people had climbed aboard to ride her down the ways, apparently. The photo would suggest more went down the ways along with her than watched from the shore and they all lined the rail to pose for the photographer! It appears that every one of them trudged up that ramp and then climbed that rickety wooden ladder to get up over the rail! No safety harnesses. No railings or lifelines. No "Safety First" signs in that shipyard, I'd wager! Disembarking them once she was in the water must have been a good trick, too.

The book's a classic, although dated. It's got a great selection of vessels to model, but it was written at a time when the expectations of amateur modelers were somewhat less than today. There's nothing in them to deter a competent scratch builder, but if one wants to super-detail a model with complete historical accuracy, much more research on the vessels needs to be done. What is so delightful about the book is that Underwood, quite likely at Chapelle's urging, chose vessels not usually modeled at the time and which are very interesting for that reason alone.

When viewed from "scale distances," hull plank seams are barely visible, if at all, and more so the smaller the scale is (and thus, the farther the viewing distance,) even in old museum ships. A young, well-kept ship in commission shouldn't be "showing her seams" when viewed from a distance. Many models can be faulted for exaggerated, out of scale details, such as trunnels of contrasting color, overly-wide plank seams, and over-scale copper plating laps and tacks. Studying really great models in museums soon makes it apparent that creating an impression of reality in a model is often an artistic exercise in subtle suggestion. You mileage may vary, of course.

A bit like trying to drive a tack with a sledge hammer.

Right! I forgot about the pandemic shut-downs. I know that a lot of the manuals on line are more recent than the time the T-2/T-3 tankers were designed, most being built during the war. I just thought there'd be a chance that the newer manuals would address existing vessels, especially since the class was in service for such an unusually long period of time. I neglected to mention three other possible sources, again if you haven't mined them already, 1. The Sausalito Historical Society Marinship Exhibit - US Corp of Engineers, Bay Model, 2100 Bridgeway, Sausalito, CA 94965 http://www.sausalitohistoricalsociety.com/marinship The Marinship Shipyard was one of the primary builders of the fleet oil tankers during the War. They have a museum at the former shipyard site with builder's models of the Liberty ships and T-2 tankers built there, as well as a large photo and document archive. 2. The Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front Historical Park, 1414 Harbour Way South, Suite 3000, Richmond, CA 94804. This is a museum and park run by the NPS on the site of the Kaiser Shipyards in Richmond, CA, which built more ships than any other during the War. They have exhibits of the construction of Liberty Ships and the Victory museum ship, Red Oak Victory. They may have useful photos and archives, but I'm not sure if they built tankers there. This is the yard that set the record for building a Liberty ship in four and a half days. I think it may be a safe bet that the same cargo and anchor windlasses were used on the Victories and the tankers, so the volunteers who work on the Red Oak Victory may be able to provide the data you are looking for. 3. The Mare Island Museum at the Mare Island Historic Park in Vallejo, CA, http://www.mareislandmuseum.org/venues/museum/ This is a relatively new, but apparently very active museum on the site of the now-decommissioned Mare Island Naval Shipyard, the oldest on the West Coast. It was the primary West Coast Naval Shipyard during the War and its records are now, I believe, available at the National Archives branch in San Bruno, CA. They surely did a lot of maintenance work on tankers and might be worth a try. Yes, RMS Lucania had an identical sistership, RMS Campania (1892), both being built for simultaneous use in regular transatlantic passenger service. At the time, they were the largest passenger ships afloat with the largest triple-expansion engines ever built. Campania took the Blue Ribband on her second crossing, only to have it taken from her by her sister, Lucania, which for unknown reasons, was always the slightly faster vessel. Lucania and Campania were the first transatlantic steamships built without auxiliary sails, Cunard taking the big leap of faith in steam propulsion without reliance on sail power redundancy. Lucania was also the first transatlantic vessel to be equipped with the new-fangled Marconi wireless technology. Campania was the first to maintain radio contact with shore throughout the course of an entire crossing. Lucania held the Blue Ribband for five years, a remarkable achievement at the time when the major shipping powers were competing strenuously to produce the fastest liner afloat. She lost it to Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse of Germany, which was the first liner to be powered by steam turbine engines. From a modeling standpoint, Lucania and her sister are interesting in that they have many somewhat unique details. For example, they were the first to employ electric lighting throughout, but carried dual running lights, one light above the other, one being electrically lit, while the other was lit by an oil lamp. This was required by the regulations because the authorities did not consider electrical lighting to be sufficiently reliable for use as navigational lights at the time she was built. They also were equipped with electrical communications systems from the crows' nest to the bridge and even had a sort of "capsule" affair at the stem into which a crewman could climb and be lowered so that he could advise the bridge with a view of conditions in the "blind spots" on either side beneath the bows during anchoring and mooring operations. I have a personal interest in Lucania because my maternal grandmother emigrated from Ireland to the US on her in 1898.

That's not right. Is there a way to adjust the axle? If the sanding drum isn't perfectly parallel to the table, it's certainly not much good for the use intended. Sounds like it's time to start saving up for a Byrnes.

Sounds like you're good to go. I'd guess the deck and anchor winches were "off the shelf" items at the time (which would vary from 1939 through 2000 or so.) It's hard to know what might have been added over the years during refits. If you can access a manual for the correct period, something like "Deck Operations," or "Under Way Replenishment" procedures, you will probably find the instructions for operation and maintenance and repairs for the equipment with drawings and photos. I feel your pain. I'm having the exact same problem researching the deck equipment arrangement for the Cunard liner RMS Lucania (1893.) There's a builder's model that was (don't know if it still is) on exhibit at the London Science Museum, but I haven't been able to find suitable close-up photos of that. The original plans in the Greenwich NMM are incomplete and in large part unreadable (and these days incredibly expensive.) As would make sense, the naval architects simply drew a square and wrote "winch" next to it, leaving the details to be found in the specifications list. There would be found a brand-name, or a reference to another design. You have to have contemporary close-up photos or really dig deep to find the original equipment specs and drawings.

Oh, okay... I'll put you guys out of your misery. Here's the USN's Booklet of General Plans, 1944, for the Woban Class. You'll have to draw your own lines drawings using the sections provided, but that's easy enough. The PDF is high-pixel quality and can be enlarged by holding down your "control" key and turning your mouse wheel. See: https://maritime.org/doc/plans/ytb142.pdf

You might want to begin searching for what you are looking for here: https://maritime.org/doc/#nstm (This is should be a bookmarked "favorite" for any ship modeler. It's an amazing resource.) There's copies of the declassified Navy Technical Manuals for everything under the sun, including deck winches and other gear, all available on line. These generally have drawings and specifications. A quick look at maritime.org/doc/#nstm yielded what might be a good start: the Booklet of General Plans for a Cimarron Class T3 Fleet Oiler: https://maritime.org/doc/plans/ao106.pdf It's everything you'd need to build a model. (These are high-pixel PDFs than can be enlarged without a lot of distortion. Use "Control+your mouse wheel" to enlarge.) If you want detailed drawings of the winches, those are found in the Technical Manuals also on this index site. Check out the Facebook Group for the USN Underway Replenishment Ships: https://www.facebook.com/groups/269459320336573/ You'll find guys on there that sailed on these ships and would know the type of gear that was on them. There's one guy on that group who was on the USS Cimarron (AO-22) crew that might be a good source to contact: https://www.facebook.com/william.gale.7?comment_id=Y29tbWVudDo2NjkzNDMyNzM2ODE1MDdfNjcwNDI5MjcwMjM5NTc0 You may be aware of the original construction plans repository, but in case you aren't: Special Media Archives Services Division, Cartographic and Architectural Branch, RDSC, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001; telephone (301) 837-3200. Their collection includes the general plans and drawing of most ships stricken from the Naval Vessel Register. Requests should be limited to no more than three ships at any one time. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/sources-of-ship-plans.html The photographs, drawings, and specifications for what you are looking for should be in the USN Bureau of Ships Archives in the National Archives. Here's the index: https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/019.html#19.7 All the pre-war MARAD construction records should be in there. As you probably know, the T-3 class fleet oilers were in service for a very long time, through the Vietnam War era, the last being scrapped around 2010. A lot of them ended up in the MARAD National Defense Reserve Fleet ("Mothball fleets") prior to scrapping. The gear you are looking for was probably stock items used on lots of ships. You might get lucky if you could find somebody at one of the Mothball Fleets that's been around for a while and could provide you with some information on them. Many of those guys are walking naval history books and the Reserve Fleet is being phased out, so they've got a lot of time on their hands these days.

I can't speak to the MicroMark, but the Byrnes sure does. It's a wheel on a threaded rod. Turn the wheel and adjust the thickness by as little as a gnat's ***... "bottom." (Darn Net Nanny censored me. They're doing violence to the King's English, I tell ya! Here, of all places, a man ought to be able to talk like a sailor.)