Jump to content
bryanc

Navio Rayo Puesto de Combate by bryanc - Disarmodel (Spain) - 1:32 - 1748 (year she was built)

Recommended Posts

Open the box!

 

The box; 58 x 30 x 6.5cm is not overbig, but a hefty 2kg according to the dispatch note, and it alarmed me enormously when I first took possession of it. It rattled as if every component within was loose and this worried me considerably. When opened it wasn’t as bad as it sounded. All the pieces were sound and tied together, the majority of the rattling must have come from the plastic box of preformed components which were well and truly mixed together! Having travelled 1,110 miles this isn’t surprising!

 

post-17543-0-66061500-1467214164.jpg

 

The box contained said stout plastic box compartmentalised to hold the separate preformed components, an A4 manual c/w full colour photographs, a huge “poster” depicting 3 views of the finished build with limited nomenclature, two big bundles of firmly bound lengths of wood and four more smaller ones including what appears to be a short length of broom handle! This I assume is destined to be the mast, and by its huge diameter gives an idea of the big scale of the kit. Lastly the plinth on which the whole kit sits, and which indeed is an integral part of it. This is solid and quite well cut. Several laser cut sheets of various thicknesses were held together in a plastic bag.

 

post-17543-0-57778200-1467214197.jpg

 

First impressions were good. The quality of the wood appears very high, as does the quality of the preformed components. The laser cut sheets do worry me a tad, as the laser cuts do leave wide gaps of un-burnt wood, and on thicker pieces this can lead to problems extricating the pieces intact, as I know to my cost.

 

post-17543-0-12697400-1467214224.jpg

 

The manual however made me groan. The photos are fairly good, and plenty of them, each with individual items numbered. These numbers correspond to the parts list in the rear of the manual, where are also to be found the diagrams of each of the six laser cut sheets. What did make me groan though were the build instructions themselves. I think the word is minimal!

 

Thankfully this shouldn’t be too complicated a build, but just as well if I had to rely on the instructions themselves.

 

However I’ll persevere, the first job to paint the plinth black…

 

 

Bryan

Edited by bryanc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad this has turned up Bryan,  :) As you say getting half cut laser pieces out is a pain.

Minimal instructions make a mockery out of their advertising that it is done in the English language as matching part numbers doesn't need a language

However it's a nice looking kit and will make a good display piece and is going on top of my list of what to get next :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it turned up Bob, a couple of days after the estimate, but safe and sound nevertheless. It is a nice looking kit, and does look to be of good quality, but oh the manual; the English instructions are the ones in blue in the above photograph; hardly going into detail! From my brief look it is obvious you're very much on your own, and I can't find any other build logs anywhere to help (gulp!). However I should think that once you've got the basic shell up, it shouldn't be too difficult, nor take that long - relatively speaking ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like it will be really nice once built, it is very reasonably priced too considering it's pretty big for a section.

Here's a link to a PDF you can download with a lot more pictures of the completed model might help with the build

just click on the pictures to open them and then click again for bigger views

http://www.afizon.es/es/productos/disarmodel-navio-rayo-20148-detalle?tmpl=component&format=pdf

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys and especially you Bob, the pictures afforded by the .pdf are truly wonderful, and make me salivate to get going! Not a great deal of opportunity afforded for bashing, but such a "diorama" doesn't really need it.

 

However the manual v materials are not going to help. I've already fallen at the first. Forgive me for labouring a point, but its going to be a struggle if you have to constantly make a choice between materials provided and the manual. Below is a photo of the first instruction from the manual. Clearly the gap between the two outer ribs is intended to be 40mm, and the middle gap is 67mm. Unequivocal really.

 

post-17543-0-04518900-1467280573_thumb.jpg

 

Then how does one then rationalise the fact that the parts (pre-cut mind) which fit directly between the ribs (4, 8 and 9 for the outer and 5 and 7 for the inner) are 30mm and 55mm long respectively)?!

 

Am I missing something, or being stupid? There is little choice but to go with the parts provided, but will this mean other inaccuracies later? Suggestions welcome!

 

Bryan

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bryan.

I had similar problems with my sections. Clearly what is depicted in the pics are the main hull side frames and the 5 gun port openings. I would start by checking the size of the supplied gun port lids this should give you an idea of what the actual size of those openings should be. Although I don't know the thickness of the material they might have mistakenly added the extra mm onto the larger measurements. I also notice they give you the measurement of how far back know to place the 4 uprights on the Base but do not give the measurement of how far in the 2 outer uprights fit, if they had there would at least be a better basis to help figure it out.

Sorry I can't be anymore helpful at this stage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at it again I noticed that when fitting the uprights it gives the distances between them as being measured between the inner parts. But in picture 2 the distances are measured between the outer edges. Check where parts 4a are fitted. If that distance is really 5mm then your materials would be about 1mm thick which they obviously aren't. I think your problem is where they are depicting the measurements differently between the two pics. Check if measuring the hull uprights from the outer edges make it any better

Hope I'm making myself clear

Edited by Cobr@

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Paul and Bob, you're quite correct both of you, its somewhat creative labeling to say the least. The two top ports are a case in point as you say; the distance between the outer edge and the right hand side of 4a as shown would be about 15mm, not the 5mm it maintains. I've got that far now, and have made my 4a closer to the edge, and that '5mm' is still a good 10mm!

 

post-17543-0-12748900-1467318050.jpg

 

Just posted the photo above and looking at it anew, the middle port seems to be located too high. I've just measured it against the photo dimensions and its the thickness of the cross member (part 7) too high, dammit!

 

I'll gingerly slice it out as a whole section (hopefully) and re-position it. I hope the photo is correct in its dimensions in that regard (it says its 63mm from the extreme top to the top of part 7), the positioning of that port is important of course.

 

This is proving challenging!

Edited by bryanc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at picture 2 from the instructions it is supposed to be slightly higher than center. Also if you check out the frontal view and rear view photo's in the PDF of the finished build you can see there it is slightly above center, but as yours is still in skeletal form it is hard to see how far out if any it is.

Paul and myself found out from our section builds that no matter what the measurements say they are often telling you lies. as you said before you are better going with the precut material sizes where possible

 

Also it looks like the early stages are also a balancing act as well as a Mensa test :huh:

Edited by Cobr@

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bob, yes the mid gun-port section is intended to be higher than centre, I just hope the dimensions given on the photo are correct, there's no way of knowing for sure until that mid deck goes in, as there are no pre-cut parts to help confirm things. That mid section has now been cut out and replaced not once but twice! BTW you did previously mention using the gun-port lids to gauge the opening sides; alas there are no supplied gun-port lids, you have to make your own (from planking as far as I can ascertain) and quote "take the existing gap into account when doing so". Similarly Paul mentioned using 1:1 plans to assist - there are no 1:1 plans unfortunately!

 

The whole thing does look a bit Heath-Robinson and precarious at this stage, but is actually remarkably solid, and thanks to some overnight twisting is also laterally blob on! (Lines up perfectly from the side view)!!

 

Well you can't say its not challenging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bryan. It's obvious that nobody at Disar has built this kit following their own instructions, if they had they should have picked up on all the discrepancies in the measurments. If they got it sorted they would sell more kits IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Onward

 

I thought I’d better do an update as things are moving on surprisingly rapidly (partly because the weather has been appalling and I’ve been indoors more than usual). Once the initial inaccuracies reported earlier were (sort of) resolved, the next stage, the planking of both the hull (inside and out) and the lower deck was carried out. The deck was no problem at all, and I’m pleased with it.

 

post-17543-0-59328500-1467562262.jpg

 

Given the much larger scale of this kit as opposed to earlier work I’ve done, this time I elected to use “proper” treenails on the deck. It’s been very much experimental, as I’ve never done it before, but apart from some awkwardness at the start it’s gone OK, and I’m fairly pleased. The stain I use on the deck will make or break it of course, and I’m still unsure what exactly to use. I also elected to tree nail the front of the hull, I'm being a bit of a masochist, but it will add to the realism, hopefully.

 

post-17543-0-05544300-1467562460.jpg

 

The planking up both inside and outside of the hull continued apace, and it was very enjoyable and satisfying (the supplied wood is very good). Ordinary carpenter’s wood glue was used exclusively throughout, with every batch of two or three planks being clamped while they set, whilst I busied myself with treenails. Each plank needed to have a recess along the edge, which I must confess I used my Dremel to provide (why I haven’t got recessed fingers as well I’ll never know)!

 

The gun ports were tricky as one might expect, especially the top two which were redone several times. One thing about working at this scale is that it’s got to look right, and that takes work, and more creativity than I am used to!

 

post-17543-0-59597600-1467562480.jpg

 

The rubbing strakes went on last and here again the manual was at odds with the actual kit. The strakes sit at 8mm above and below the middle gun port openings, the planking is 8mm wide, so it’s not rocket science to work out where they sit. The manual photograph however shows them much closer to the ports in both cases, so much so that the model I am constructing has one full planks’ worth of space more than the manual allows for and shows. I pray this extra height isn’t going to reflect badly when the fittings are presented to the inside later. Similarly no mention is made in the manual of the lowermost strakes, which is probably why I missed them, and they don’t appear in my photographs. They are on now, but again fall one planks worth short of the lower gun ports.

 

post-17543-0-78238600-1467562539.jpg

 

I think for appearances’ sake I think I’m going to add an additional strake to all three of the groups of rubbing strakes, so they match up with each other and the lower set of the uppermost strakes (I hope that makes some sense).  This all makes me wonder if the overall height in the kit is as much as the three planks worth more than in the manual. The photographs are beginning to suggest this :-(

 

This all sounds like I’m having a miserable time, but I’m thoroughly enjoying this kit. Manual apart it’s well-designed, very good quality, enjoyable to build and is already looking good.

 

Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks great :)

                          Did you chamfer the edges of the planks ? looks like it in the pics

 

Your plank count seems consistent with this build pic so it maybe the manual that's out or just look that way because your planks have not been fully coloured yet

post-11947-0-74298800-1467563854_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks as ever guys, your comments are much appreciated.

 

Yes Bob, the hull planks have all been chamfered on the lower edge - that's what I meant by recessed. It really adds to it doesn't it? The manual also says to draw a pencil line under each one, but I really don't see the point in that and will wait until its fully painted before committing myself to that.

 

As you correctly point out the plank count on my model is the same as in that picture, and, as far as I can ascertain, the same as in the manual, so maybe I'm worrying unnecessarily. One thing which is definitely contributing to the situation is that I've established all three (layers of) gun ports are a few millimeters short of the total height they should be. (No surprise there then). The trouble is I can't work out whether its the top or bottom that need some work. I'll re-investigate, but at least its doable.

 

You're right Paul, this particular kit needs reams of interpretation, but it seems to be a universal thing. It makes you wonder how some first timers ever get beyond their first ventures!

 

Welcome Zoltan, that Santa Maria looks a good challenge!

 

Assuming I get a couple of hours work in today, I expect the planking to be complete, and even fully painted by the end of the day, then it gets interesting!

 

Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...

 

Well here she is nicely painted, and on one hand I'm pleased and impressed (love the way the deck merges into the plinth), on the other hand the gun port size and positioning is still bothering me. Or is it the fact I put an extra strake under each set (done to try and match up the photo) but now I feel I may have overdone things. (They are going to be buggers to remove again)! At least the deck looks reasonable, but oh how I wish I had created the "plank ends" with a simple bash with a chisel and not scored them, but there's no undoing that!

 

post-17543-0-30151600-1467707198.jpg

 

I was already thinking about building the cannon for lining up purposes Bob, and now you've confirmed it. Trouble is I'll have to do them all really as there are three very different sizes, the biggest being real beasts! Maybe one of each for now.

 

post-17543-0-53339800-1467707214.jpg

 

Right, I'll get onto that now, but may varnish the whole lot while I can relatively easily... decisions decisions...

 

Bryan

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bryan

Looks great, what paint did you use for the yellow strakes

I think you may be correct it is the extra strakes you added making it look different. Also as your gun ports are still just bare holes and their different sizes to accommodate the different gun sizes may also be adding to the illusion of it being wrong. I would concentrate on thinking that as long as what you are building looks right then it will come good in the end  :)

 

E-mailed Guinea Hobbies myself yesterday about delivery times to UK. still no answer as yet

Thinking about getting this kit and the Disar Workstation for building my Endeavour on

Edited by Cobr@

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside done, now to the inside...

 

A lot of work has been done, some obvious, some less so. The less immediately obvious includes the removal of the extra strakes! I did so probably within the hour I had just posted that I'd put them on! I just wasn't happy, and I'm glad I went for it, it now looks more "proper" somehow and certainly more like the excellent photos Bob pointed out. Thankfully the surplus strakes came off easier than I anticipated and it was relatively easy to make good after I had removed them. The "yellow" ones incidentally Bob are painted standard yellow ochre, I think the photos perhaps makes them appear richer in colour than they actually are - plus its had a coat of (clear satin) varnish now which hasn't really dried yet so is more shiny than it will be when its dulled and weathered a little.

 

post-17543-0-29615000-1468064707.jpg

 

I also took the decision to make the bottom gun ports a little more narrow, so the extreme outsides have a little more "meat" for the eyelets etc. That was awkward to do, but thankfully it worked. As you see I also built one of the larger cannon (what a job!). In situ it looks fine, but I am wondering if to just take a little more off the bottom of the port, so the barrel has more clearance. Not sure. I'm quite happy it having far more space above the barrel, the cannon recoil goes upwards as well as backwards after all! And in reality there was definitely far more air above than below the barrel.

 

post-17543-0-73654400-1468064728.jpg

 

The "ladder" steps were awkward to line up, and the manual no help at all. Again the high res photos on the poster that came with the kit (and Bobs pdf) proved of far more assistance. I did think the steps look(ed) a little bit over-big and "woody", and that's one reason for the varnish, its "dumbed" the unpainted wood down a little.

 

post-17543-0-68675400-1468064961.jpg

 

But now I'm both excited and apprehensive about started on the decks etc. The instructions seem to be less than helpful as usual, but we'll see. I notice all of the deck supports that fasten to the hull are the first things to go on, so I should get an immediate rough idea of whether my gun-ports are correctly placed quite soon! I can't see they are going to be hopelessly out, and there is a little bit of room for maneuver anyway.

 

post-17543-0-56452800-1468064858.jpg

 

The kit continues to both frustrate (mainly because of the manual) and give me genuine pleasure to build - its after all very well designed and planned, and the materials are generally good and in some cases excellent. Its good fun to build, and wouldn't be as much so if it wasn't a little challenging!

 

Incidentally its my birthday next week, and I think I'm about to receive another kit as a present; I've a feeling its another cross-section, the Victory again, this time a mid ship section, perhaps the Corel one. But I'm not meant to know of course!

 

Bryan

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking good Bryan :)

                                          The cannon does look a little low in the port, but no more than a mm or so compared to the pictures, but i wouldn't worry too much as it's only meant to be a representation of the original ship not an accurate one. If it was accurate then as soon as the cannons where fired they would have smashed all those upper deck balustrades to bits. :o

As you say just have fun with the build and build it the way that makes you happy :)/

 

BTW how tall is the structure as it is, I know it's 410 when built but that's including the mast

Edited by Cobr@

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, and Bob its 22cms to where it is now, plinth included, but it will rise another 30mm or so when the other stuff goes on top of the balustrade. That broom handle of a mast obviously will take it to nearly as much again! BTW the manual, typically, says to drill the 25mm hole for the mast in the decks. Yea right, like I'm going to take an inch drill to my kit!

 

I'll take to heart what you said about the low port and give it some thought, a mm or so won't be that much of a pain to shave off, and it might make it more respectable ;-) The deck of course is cambered down from the middle of the deck to the scuppers, maybe I lost that mm by not putting much of a slope to it, that said though in one of the pics you can see the slope is quite dramatic, too much, not too little I would have thought. But hey, nothing there that isn't recoverable.

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bryan

               You could also build the rest of the cannons with a smaller wedge or move the wedge back in the rack. This will give you more elevation to the cannon barrel and make it more central in the gun port.  :)  It's exactly what i had to do with my cannons because if they were made the way the instructions said then they had a downward trajectory only :o

 

An inch drill does seem a bit drastic. better off fitting a 25mm mounting ring to the deck and fitting the mast base into it. Should be easily made from some 30mm dowel. If you have a problem getting 30mm it's available here

http://www.toolsandtimber.co.uk/timber/wooden-dowels

Edited by Cobr@

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's inspired Bob, thank you very much. A good example of a skilled modeller thinking on his feet - and sharing his wisdom. I think I'll probably do both. If you look at the RH bottom port you may just notice its about 1mm lower than the left, and the cannon looks that bit better when there, so a subtle combination of both ideas should crack it!

 

Re the mast deck hole, I think I'll do the usual; small holes around the inner perimeter, then finish off with a file. There's a good 10mm underneath and including the deck itself to support the mast anyway. But thanks for the dowel link, its an incredibly useful one and is now in my "favourites" ;-)

 

Wacko - I'll certainly do a build log when I start the new cross section and will be bashing where possible and practical. That's why I love the Victory so much, more so than any other ship of the time we know almost down the the last treenail how she looks and was built and designed - she still exists after all and is so well documented.

 

Thanks guys,

 

Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research
×
×
  • Create New...