Bob Cleek

It's a lot easier to use a drawplate, which will give you a perfectly uniform diameter of whatever size you desire. Byrnes Model Machines (Makers of the Byrnes saw) offers a drawplate which produces very fine round material. They are also available in any number of shapes, such as squares, rectangles, half-rounds, and so on.

Manuals and exploded parts diagrams are available on line. Google around and you'll find them. The Unimat Facebook Group is also a helpful resource. I'm not going to hazard a guess on how to do it (although tapers usually pop out of the sleeve when the tailstock ram is pulled back into the tailstock...) I'd hate to be responsible for your having to replace some very expensive and hard to find parts if you buggered it up. Check the manual. You may well have to disassemble the ram from the tailstock and drive the dead center out with a drift. Be really, really careful not to gall threads or hit any castings with a hammer. They may break.

MicroMark has them in three sizes, called "ear polypus" forceps, which they aren't. They are properly called Hartmann ear alligator forceps. I have a cheap pair like MicroMark sells. You'll pay the same or less from a medical instrument supply house for a much higher quality instrument. The next set I buy will be the largest size I can get. They are very handy for rigging. https://new-medinstruments.com/Ear-Instruments/hartmann-alligator-ear-forceps-serrated.html

While I don't have much familiarity with Proxxon tools, they do have a good reputation in the modeling community and are reasonably priced. That said, they are "hobby grade" tools, and you get what you pay for in tools. When you consider you can purchase a brand new Sakura 14" parallel arm scroll saw for $550 right now, which is rated in the same top-end class with a $1,700 Hegner (but I won't argue that the Hegner probably isn't a bit better,) I'd hesitate to pay $350 for the Proxxon. Proxxon advertises that their saw has a "vibration reducing steel base" or something like that. There's a lot more to reducing vibration in a scroll saw than a metal base. I was lucky to be able to buy my American-made Sakura nearly new for $100 from a fellow who bought it and then had no use for it. It's light years ahead of the Craftsman and Delta scroll saws I've owned previously. The constant tension parallel arms make a huge difference in the higher quality scroll saws. So does a belt drive. Variable speed is essential if you want to cut both wood and metal and plastics. A variable speed foot pedal is handy, too. I'd take a hard look at the highly rated new Deltas and the Sakuras (http://www.pswood.com/scroll-saws/) before spending the money Proxxon wants for a lower rated machine. And, as always, there are surprising bargains to be had in top end tools on the used market. Craigslist can be your friend. (eBay, sometimes, but not so much.) Sometimes wealthy people buy very expensive power tools and lose interest, or for whatever reason want to get rid of them. Used tools in good shape are the best buy. Sakura 14"

Normally, there would be two drain pipe holes in a cockpit like that one, placed at opposite corners port and starboard. Below, the drain pipes would be crossed, so that the port hole pipe drained to the starboard side and the starboard pipe ran to the port side. This permitted the cockpit to drain completely on either tack. With a single drain in the middle of the cockpit, when the vessel heeled, the lower side of the cockpit would not drain below the center hole. Also, the run of the deck planking is very unusual. Was this as portrayed in the plans? Usually, deck planking will never butt adjacent to another butt. There will not be straight lines of butts across the deck from port to starboard. That is a structurally weak assembly and also difficult to caulk and keep watertight. These are minor notes, but perhaps of help for future reference. Very nice, crisp work! Excellent detail work on the hinged skylight. Thanks for sharing it with us.

There's an old saying, "Different ships, different long splices." It means that rigging varied from ship to ship, depending upon the captain's or mate's preferences. There are many model plans sets and books that contain "belaying pin diagrams" showing where each line was belayed, but, truth be told, those were put together by a modeler who did the research, but may or may not have been exactly the way it was done in real life. When you want to know which line to cast off, you look at what you want the line to do and follow it down from there to see which pin it's belayed to. You might remember a particular line if you used it a lot, but I don't think anybody ever intentionally memorized the pin location of every line on a square-rigged ship. The names of the lines, yes, but not the pin locations. There are certain rules of thumb, depending upon the rig and time period, but if you can't find a similarly rigged model plan that shows the belaying schedule, you'll have to fake it. I expect there's a book somewhere that contains a better description of the principles than mine, but, generally 1) The line runs from the block aloft to the nearest pin, so long as it doesn't foul any other line, shroud, sail, or yard. 2) Where there are the same lines doing the same job port and starboard, they run to the same pin on their respective side, so long as they don't foul any other line, shroud, sail, or yard. 3) Halyards and lifts generally run straight down to the closest pin around the base of their respective masts, again, so long as they don't foul any other line, etc. 4.) Sheets and braces generally run to the closest pin on the pin rails on the rails, so long as they don't foul... anything, etc. 5.) Topmast halyards, etc. could be run to the pin rails as well, sometimes led throuigh bullseyes on the shrouds. Just try to keep it orderly and keep the run of the lines clear so they don't foul and chafe on anything. It's all pretty logical and organized. If you imagine yourself a sailor using each line for its intended purpose and ask yourself, "Where should I tie off this line, you won't go too far wrong, I expect. I hope I'm not hurting anybody's feelings here, but I wouldn't give the way those lines are belayed and the falls hung on the pins particularly high marks. Line is flexible and not stiff. It hangs gracefully and not is stiff coils sticking out like is seen in the picture. The coiled fall isn't hung over the pin, either. The fall is belayed and the remaining fall from the pin is coiled. The hand reaches through the center of the coiled fall and grabs the free end of the fall where it comes off the pin, pulls it through the center of the coil while giving it a twist or two, and brings it up over the top of the coil and hangs that one doubled, twisted loop over the pin. Then the coil hangs down from that. In that fashion, one only need pull the loop off the toop of the pin and let the coil fall and the line is ready to cast off the pin and run free.

This notice by the discussed site may explain the problems some are having: "This site uses a custom design that depends on HTML5 support, meaning that for it to work properly you must be using a fairly current web browser. If you are using an older browser (any version of Internet Explorer, or any web browser older than about 2 years), you will likely see things that don’t look right or don’t work properly." Download a free copy of the Chrome browser. That works for me. Internet Explorer, a widely used browser, is, I believe, no longer supported and has been replace by Chrome, Bing, and others. As time goes on, with increasing frequency, we who have used Internet Explorer for many years will continue to encounter problems such as those mentioned in this thread. Remember when they came out with 45 RPM records with the big hole in the middle? Perhaps not. Anyway, if you are still playing your eight-track tapes, don't try to figure this out. Just use Chrome or Bing and you'll be okay.

I think that's true of a lot of kits. If one has basic skills and can follow directions, and the directions are well-written, anybody ought to be able to build one. I think the skill level ratings really apply to the amount of patience and determination it takes to complete a given kit and the kit manufacturers use them as "insurance" so when somebody buys an expensive complex kit that's going to take them ages to build, they have an excuse if the failed builder tries to blame them. But what do I know, I'm not a kit manufacturer. What I do know, though, is that the quality of the finished product is always a result of the builder's abilities, no matter how long it takes or how many parts the kit has.

Most of the brass stock box tubing is sized so the next smaller size fits perfectly into the next larger size, That make soldering sections together a piece of cake. If this were a display model (and I shudder to think how much glass it would take to display it in a case,) I'd say any tight and straight grained hard wood (hard... wood, not just "hardwood") would work. Bamboo might do well if you could get it in long sections out of a large species. You'd have to scarf pieces together to get them long enough. (Think old time fly fishing poles.) That said, if it's going to be an R/C model, you want something that has some strength because no matter how hard you try, they're going to get whacked sooner or later. You'll have to do some engineering experiments to see if the metal tubing isn't too heavy. You don't want to have a lot of weight aloft that could cause the boat to turn turtle. You can compensate for that some with some ballast, but stability is going to be an issue no matter how you cut it. Nice boat to model! There was a made for TV moving called Hemmingway and Gellhorn. It's on all the streaming video channels, some for free. It's not all that bad a movie. Worth checking out if you haven't seen it. https://www.amazon.com/Hemingway-Gellhorn-Nicole-Kidman/dp/B00C58QKAY There's some shots of the boat the set decorators worked up for the movie shots. I watched them work up close in the boatyard. I used to be a "boat wrangler" for the movie people when I was working for a yacht brokerage, so I had somewhat of a professional interest in it. They did a good job from a movie standpoint, but the brightwork was all faux painted and they didn't spend much time on the side that wasn't going to be on camera. It was a an old hulk they hauled off the mud in the Petaluma River here in Sonoma County. I think they patched the holes in her bottom with plywood and wet patch. It didn't run, of course. That's no problem in the movies, though. just lash an inflatable with an outboard alongside out of camera range in you're in business. It worked for the movie but the boat wasn't a sistership to Pilar by any stretch. As they say, "It created a compelling impression."

It does appear that the paint was applied too heavily and, hence, the "orange peel" effect, although I've encountered much worse. As has been said, the surface preparation has to be perfect... smooth as the proverbial baby's bottom. Your fingertips are the best measure of this. You can feel the imperfections better than you can see them. I always use a sanding base coat which is made for the purpose of filling minor imperfections and easily sanding to a perfectly smooth surface. Anything more than very minor surface imperfections require filling with "surfacing putty." I generally take down my base coat to 320 or 400 grit. There's not much point in going finer than that before airbrushing. If the entire surface is as in the last picture, I'd say that if you want it to be good, you are going to have to sand the entire hull with 320 and then 400 to get the surface fair to begin with. Be sure to allow the paint to really dry for a few days so it's good and hard and doesn't gum up your sandpaper. As you will be sanding hard paint instead of sanding base coat, it may be a pain, but take your time and make sure it's really perfectly smooth. Hopefully, you won't sand through the paint surface and won't need to repaint, but if you do, then make sure your paint is thinned well. Several thin coats, allowing time to dry well between each, is the way to go. Try to resist trying to get that last bit of "cover" over a wet surface. Too much wet paint is going to give you that "orange peel" again. You might also consider adding some "flowing" conditioner to the paint. This retards the drying and allows the paint to "level" better. Your paint may require a proprietary "flowing" additive. If it's an acrylic, you might experiment with Flood's "Floetrol." https://www.flood.com/products/paint-additives/floetrol-latex-based-paint-additive After you've sanded the hull fair, you can apply another coat of paint if need be. (Again, build up your paint coating with multiple thin coats. Never apply paint thickly.) I wouldn't waste time messing with proprietary varnishes of varying glosses. They are often tricky to use and get just right. Instead, I'd let the paint dry well and then rub it down to the gloss level you desire using rottenstone and pumice. These provide two degrees of very fine "grit," rottenstone being the larger grit. They are powdered abrasives applied with a water-dampened soft cloth. It will probably take some time rubbing, but you will be able to see the level of gloss as you use them. If you want, you can also speed up the process a bit by using finer grit sandpapers, and then go to the finer rottenstone and pumice abrasive. Continued rubbing with the finer pumice will bring the gloss up as high as you want. You can get pretty close with an airbrush, sometimes even "close enough," but rubbing out the surface is the only way I know to get a perfect finish. Here's a two-part video that shows how to do it on bright-finished wood, but the process is the same for varnished or painted surfaces. You won't need an electric polisher because you've only got a small piece to do and the electric polisher won't do so well on your curved surfaces. (In these videos, he uses fine grit sandpapers instead of the rottenstone and pumice because they work better with a powered sander on flat surfaces. I use rottenstone and pumice on model hulls because the surfaces are curved and a damp cloth abrades more evenly on the curves. Rottenstone and pumice, available at any paint store, are a lot cheaper than fine grit sandpapers, too!) I'd advise you paint up two or three pieces of scrap wood and use these to practice on before attacking your model. It's a process of experimenting to see how much sanding and polishing you really need to do to get to where you want the finish to be.

So true! The fact is, it's only been in recent times that kits with a high level of historical accuracy and quality materials have been available at all. There are now some pretty darn good kits on the market, but you have to know what you are doing to make sure you're not buying junk. The old kits some of us cut our teeth on forty or fifty years ago were really scratch builds more than anything else. You'd get a set of plans, a rough shaped hull block, some dowels and some sheet wood, a bit of wire and string, and some (often poorly) cast metal fittings. After that, you were on your own. Laser cut wood parts were unheard of. That said, if you invest the time and effort to learn how to read and draft plans, there is a near-limitless supply of ship modeling subjects all over the place. You can buy really nice plans drawn for modeling purposes, or spring for some of the Anatomy of the Ship books, or you can scale up something from Chapelle's and Chapman's books, order plans from the HAMMS collection at the Smithsonian or The Historic American Engineering Record Survey (HAERS) plans that are free online from the National Park website, the latter being some of the best historic ship plans available anywhere. People buy kits because they think the kit is going to make it easier. Kits do make it easier for those who are starting out, but you really pay a price for that. Kits cost many times more than scratch-building. For what some pay for kits that often remain unfinished, they could amass a great collection of fine tools and be able to build anything, anytime, anywhere, for next to nothing... and be able to sell the tools when they were done and spend the money on a nice tombstone. The only catch is that one must do their own research and look up what they need to know to get the job done. Thanks to the internet, that task is easier today by orders of magnitude than it was before. There's a lot more to this hobby than just following instructions and assembling a model no different than hundreds or thousands of others out of parts from a box. When the day comes that you start to think about freeing yourself from the constraints of the model kit marketplace, you know you've begun to arrive at an entirely different level of interest and enjoyment.

Lovely models. I very much like to see small models like these done well. The "modern" wire and turnbuckle rigging is particularly difficult, but worth the challenge. There are entirely too many Victory and Constitution, and the like, models out here, but not nearly enough of small wooden craft. Very nice presentation on the camp plaques, too!

Oh my God! I've just spent the better part of a Saturday morning completely enthralled with your website: www.shipphotographer.com I can't recommend it highly enough to the forum members. The photography is fantastic. I've see a lot of ship model photographs in my day, but always too few taken by a photographer who was a master of both photography and ship modeling at the same time. Your series on the Ukrainian ship modeling competition entries was humbling. I've never seen so much spectacularly fine work in one place outside of a museum. It would be so helpful to the ship modeling hobby here if more of us were multilingual. There seems to be so much ship modeling going on in Eastern Europe that we miss here because of the language differences. (Google translate is my friend, but our English language search engines seem to often pass over foreign websites.) I'm sure I haven't yet seen a quarter of what you have posted on your website and I have to get on with today's chores, but I've got it bookmarked for later study. Your blog is really informative, as well, and your YouTube videos are wonderful. I'm not the sort to gush over things, but I really have to say that your contributions are a remarkable addition to our craft. Thank you so much for sharing them. I can't imagine how one person could manage to have the time to put together such a great collection of ship modeling information and photographs and also hold down a full-time job as a highway engineer! Perhaps it's the synergy of having a marine archaeologist for a husband. What a great combination. You're both very lucky people! I suggest the moderators consider some way to introduce and highlight your website and videos to the forumites. There's so much there of such great beauty and value and I fear many might overlook your complete body of work when all we have of it on MSW at present is one kit-build log, which is wonderful, but hardly representative of the scope and complexity of your total body of work to date. You're unquestionably right up there with the finest modelers posting on this site, none of which, I might add, are anywhere near you when it comes to photographing their work.

I just deleted my first post in this thread. I saw I'd posted twice and said basically the same thing in the same thread and I thought I was getting a bit foggy in the head! I'm no spring chicken but not that old. Thanks for clearing that up and restoring my confidence in my sanity!

I have the same Marine Models Co. Morgan kit in "unopened" condition. One of these days I'll build it, but I've sort of outgrown kits, so I'm contemplating a lot of "kit bashing" or using the plans to build a 1:48 scale scratch-build, perhaps even plank-on-frame. The Morgan is a great vessel to model, but there are a lot of Morgan models around and if and when I build it, I would want something different from all the rest. I've decided to build her as of the date of her launch, carrying her original ship rig. I've been researching her original appearance for some time. I'd not known of the Stackpole book, so I've ordered a copy just now. From what my research has revealed thus far is that in her original configuration the windows were indeed there. (There's also a log entry relating that one was stove in at one point.) The windlass was originally abaft the foremast, where the hatch is now. The hatch was where the windlass is now. The original windlass placement seems odd, but likely allowed it better positioning for use handling the cutting in tackle and blubber hook. The deck house built on the stern was not there originally. She had a bare deck and uncovered steering station when launched. The shed roof over the tryworks area was not original, either. If anybody knows of any other changes, I'd be happy to hear of them..

Simply use whatever serves the purpose, shape-wise and wrap it in kitchen plastic wrap. CA sticks to glass and metal just fine, so... I've never had a problem with epoxies or CA sticking to plastic wrap because whatever plastic wrap that sticks tears or scrapes off easily. I have to say, though, that I use CA as little as possible. In a lot of ways, I find it nasty stuff and expensive.

Shssss! Keep that under yer hat, will ya? We don't want to blow a good thing. BTW, if you are in San Diego, you can run across the border and get lots of really good stuff you can't buy in California. Guys used to run down there and buy tributyl tin oxide to add to their boat bottom paint in CA. It was banned everywhere years ago because it killed marine organisms... which is exactly what it was supposed to do!

If you haven't already, try 3M disk adhesive, sold in auto body and fender supply houses. (If they still make it. Every time I try to buy something useful her in CA, it seems they've outlawed it!) It comes in applicator bottles, "toothpaste" tubes, and aerosol cans. It's made to easily clean off sanding pads with acetone. It does get a bit tenacious when it's been sitting for a long time, though. It may be hard to come by these days, though. Everybody seems to have gone to adhesive-backed pre-cut disks and hook and loop. Cutting your own out of sandpaper bought by the 100 sheet sleeve is way cheaper than hoop and loop!

As said, aside for a thickness sander, disk sander, and perhaps a sanding drum, there's little use for sanding machines in modeling. The thickness and disk sanders for modeling really have to be specialty machines designed to work to very close tolerances. The thickness sanders perform the same function as a thickness planer in full-scale woodworking and a disk sander for modeling has to have a very accurate table and miter gauge. These specialty modeling machines work to tolerances of .001 and don't come cheap. (Byrnes are really the only ones worth spending the money on, IMHO.) Proxxon and MicroMark market all sorts of powered modeling tools, but most all are overkill for ship modeling. Modelers cut pieces with jeweler's saws, small chisels, and hobby knives and scalpels, rather than shaping wood with sandpaper. In many instances, a scraper is the better tool than sandpaper in any event. Given the size of the work, there's no need for full-size sanders. Many is the part that's been ruined by an over-aggressive powered sanding machine. Finish sanding on models is done with paper in the grit ranges of 320 to 600, which doesn't work so well with power sanders, anyway.

I'd say Model Expo's going out of business is unlikely. They are the biggest outfit in the game. Many US companies have inventory clearance sales before March when they are taxed on the inventory they have on hand. The less inventory, the less they pay in inventory taxes. They stock up thereafter. I expect that fact, plus the big surge in demand for modeling kits and materials since the pandemic "lockdown" probably explains the shortage at present. Chuck Passaro of Syren Ship Models, who is one of the forum sponsors, and makes great rigging line, scale blocks, and other goodies, has been lamenting that he can't keep products in stock with the present demand. Another factor is that the supply chains have been disrupted due to the pandemic. Jim Byrnes has had to stop taking orders for his modeling power tools because he can't get enough motors shipped to his factory. The kit companies are probably experiencing shortages of raw materials, as well.

You realize, of course, that we have no historically accurate idea of what Columbus' ships actually looked like? If cost is an object, and ship model kits can be amazingly expensive sometimes, I'd suggest you might consider "card" models made of paper. These are much less expensive and many are even free. You download the "parts" and print them on cardstock on your printer. The parts are then cut out of the cardstock and glued together into a model. There is a separate section on the forum discussing the techniques for building with card. These aren't cheesy models, either. The cardstock is painted and sealed and quite permanent. The result is indistinguishable from full wooden models. The big advantage of working in cardstock is that you don't have to invest in tools and the downloadable kits are relatively inexpensive. Check out the build log below to see the potential of cardstock modeling. It can produce models of museum quality no different than any other material. Parts sheets for downloading for lots of different vessels with varying degrees of modeling difficulty are available. As everybody new gets told, don't get over-ambitious. It takes years, even a lifetime, to get to the point of some of the masters on this forum. The rest of us stand in awe of them. Start slow with something you like. Take your time. See if you like it. If you run into problems, you can always ask for help here. https://modelshipworld.com/forum/28-card-and-paper-models/

Kurt's the airbrush maven in here, but I'd be inclined to say that no such animal exists!

It depends upon how thick the primer will be applied. It should be applied very thinly on a model, so I'd say 320 would be as coarse as you dare. 400 would be better. 600 is probably finer than you need it. Wet or dry, doesn't matter. Dry is a lot less messy. It has to be perfectly smooth. Use your finger tips to feel for imperfections. Touch is better than sight.

It depends upon how thick the primer will be applied. It should be applied very thinly on a model, so I'd say 320 would be as coarse as you dare. 400 would be better. 600 is probably finer than you need it. Wet or dry, doesn't matter. Dry is a lot less messy. It has to be perfectly smooth. Use your finger tips to feel for imperfections. Touch is better than sight.

I share your sentiments, but, technically, they aren't exact copies and I doubt anybody's got a patent on something as basic as a table saw. ZHL, on the other hand, copies intellectual property verbatim. Still, the old maxim applies, "If the price seems too good to be true, it probably isn't." Those Asian knockoffs cost less because they are of lower quality and you get what you pay for.