Best directions

[Jim CT]

Of all the ship kit manufacturers which have the most detailed build instruction?  Latina Artisia seemed decent, but Occre seems to be inconsistent.  The HM Lady Nelson had good enough, though not great, instructions while the HMS Terror is a few line of text and photos.

 

Any thoughts or sources would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Gregory]

Vanguard Models

 

Next would be any ModelShipways kit designed by Chuck Passaro as well as any kit from Syren Ship Model Co.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Gregory

[mtaylor]

I'd say Vanguard or Syren. Both are very innovative is both kit design and documentation.   Both have their manuals online.  Syren's are here and Vanguard's are on their site.   Both have development logs here on MSW.

[ccoyle]

It's difficult to say which manufacturer has the 'best' instructions, as typically any manufacturer will have some good instructions and some not so good. For some manufacturers, one can observe a noticeable improvement in instructions with each new kit release. And the answer to the question is also somewhat subject -- what suffices for one modeler may be deemed insufficient by another. Also, in some instances, good plans are what can make or break a build; good plans can usually compensate for skimpy instructions.

[vossy]

I also think you need to take into account the nationality of the manufacturer and thus what language the original instructions are written in.

I think sometimes some meanings etc. can get a little lost in translations from Italian to English for example. This is where good diagrams also

come in handy, and of course a good build log to follow whereby someone has rowed a course for others to follow through somewhat tricky

water.

 

Chris.

 

[Jaager]

I don't imagine that you intend to initiate a contest.  I think that you should want excellent, or at least good instructions.  The best of a group that is all junk -is still junk.

 

One aspect of wooden kits is = the basic process is pretty much the same for either of the two methods for construction: POB  and the evaporating solid carved hull.

How to do the assembly is well covered in how-to books, the wide spread journal articles,  and the build logs here.  You can do an excellent assembly with no instructions from the kit manufacturer. 

The sameness of the process is probably the reason that POB instructions from older kits are a bit general  -  it probably seemed pointless to "sing Kathleen - one more time".

 

The part that you cannot fake with general sources is the plans. They should be detailed, clear, and precise.  

Accuracy is a whole different thing.  If the subject is developed from existing plans, a half model from the original builder, or a table of offsets,  you should expect true accuracy  and any reconstruction should be footnoted as such.

If the subject is one where all that is available is the name, supposed type, and length, breadth, depth, and displacement or cargo capacity:  There is no accuracy.  It starts and ends as a fantasy.

 

Another part is the quality of the wood.  With this, there are far more losers than winners.

With the advent of laser cutting,  there is no excuse for poor precision, so if that is a kit's criticism, stay far away.  With laser, die punching is totally obsolete.  You will do better by freeing the parts yourself  using a saw - hand or machine - the difference is how long it takes you.

 

The fittings - often not difficult to substitute.

One new - in fad aspect is plastic printed fittings.   Based on history and precedent  - I make this prediction:  these parts will prove to be very ephemeral.  The very properties of the plastic needed to be melted and squirted into a predetermined stalagmite will also make it prone to ready oxidation and continuing polymerization to a brittle state which will shatter or crumble to powder.  The intensity of any UV light falling on the object will probably affect the half life.

 

[Gregory]

Hey guys,  the question was:

 

" ....which have the most detailed build instruction?  

 

Can we try to answer that question, instead of launching off into our thoughts on the other pitfalls that a beginner might encounter?

 

 

 

[allanyed]

15 hours ago, Jaager said:

One new - in fad aspect is plastic printed fittings.   Based on history and precedent  - I make this prediction:  these parts will prove to be very ephemeral.  The very properties of the plastic needed to be melted and squirted into a predetermined stalagmite will also make it prone to ready oxidation and continuing polymerization to a brittle state which will shatter or crumble to powder.  The intensity of any UV light falling on the object will probably affect the half life.

Hi Jaager,

 

This is a very interesting paragraph.   I just spent an hour researching the life span of a resin printed object and found a lot of opinions but no statistics based on actual tests, be they accelerated or real time.  It does seem to be important that the object has minimal (none is best) exposure to UV light and/or it should be protected with a UV blocker coating.  In simple terms, many are of the opinion that they will last as long as other types of plastic.  

 

FWIW  3D printing has been around for a little over 40 years now.  Not a huge history, but older than the internet🙂

 

I wonder, would the same degradation problem apply to items made of casting resin rather than printing resin?  This is a really important consideration in terms of parts turning to powder on our models.   I would hate to see someone use printed items and wake up a few years from now and find little piles of powder on their model. 

 

Allan 

Edited March 8, 2023 by allanyed

[rshousha]

Hello Jim, 

 

I think the concept of "instructions" that come with a kit, is overrated. With YouTube, various other fora, and this one, you can find some really nice build logs of just about any model you might want to build. Instead of asking the question, "which manufacturer has the best instructions", I would focus on the subject you want to build and look around and see if there is a build log that suits your skill level.  

[DennisL]

Having tried many of the current ship model companies out there, I would vote for Chuck's instructions at Syren.  I've built both Syren's Medway Longboat and Model Shipways Brig Syren and those instructions are the best I have worked with.  The instruction manual that comes with the Model Shipways Nantucket Whaleboat is also top notch. Chuck doesn't only show you where pieces go but the method of getting you there.  I would give Chris Watton at Vanguard a close second.  His printed instructions and photos are of the highest quality and combined with his pre-engineering of the model itself leads to a very successful project.  I've tried Mantua and Corel and find their instructions/details lacking in many aspects. Maybe it's a language thing.  I do have a CAF model of Le Coureur that I haven't started yet.  But looking at the complexity of the POF model and the paucity of details in the instructions I find that it will be a very difficult build based on the instructions.  The instructions almost seem like an afterthought.  I did buy the Ancre monograph of Le Coureur and hope this will be a big help.

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

On 3/7/2023 at 5:44 PM, Gregory said:

Hey guys,  the question was:

 

" ....which have the most detailed build instruction?  

 

Can we try to answer that question, instead of launching off into our thoughts on the other pitfalls that a beginner might encounter?

 

 

 

  Good point.  For those 'visually oriented' pictures can be worth many words ... and videos more so.  E.g. the OcCre build video of their Endurance (out of the box, ergo no 'busting') I found very instructive, even though the repetitive portions had to be compressed/omitted so one can watch the entire build in a reasonable time.  Only some kits have these videos, but there are videos of certain functions - like how to plank - that can be found on-line if searched out.  And, as noted by a previous post, there are multiple MSW build logs of many ships available in kit form that can be perused as needed.  Thus OcCre kits (my opinion) have good value for the money, opportunities to enhance according to builder inclination, and at least average to somewhat above average instructions and sometimes other resources to build.

 

  Woody Joe kits have many pictures for their well-engineered kits, which is fortunate since all the text is in Japanese characters (I found them tedious to translate even with a Google ap) - so that is a 'good news - bad news' situation.

 

  Artisania Latina kits are 'middle of the road' instruction/photo wise - perhaps because they are selling to many European countries and have to include a number of different languages.  In their San Juan kit (which I bought from a local store for building materials - but would be fine as a 'first build'), there are some pretty good drawings and a number of photos.  They do admit that what they show for rigging is 'simplified', so a builder wanting more complete (and more accurate) rigging must find instruction elsewhere.

 

  I have an old Mamoli kit (Golden Hind) that has many decent (and large) drawings to supplement their average, multilingual instructions.  Too bad there was that fire at Mamoli, so my guess is that the 'old stock' (pre-fire production) that can sometimes be found  (Ebay, yard sales/flea markets) are pretty good.  '

 

  By comparison, 'older' Billings kits (pre laser-cut vintage) can offer challenges in both building and instructions (per my own experience).  Newer Billings kits are much improved, and I have two that I think are fine (Oseberg and Roar Ede).

 

  

Edited March 9, 2023 by Snug Harbor Johnny
error correction

[GrandpaPhil]

The build booklet that came with my Victory Models plan set for the Revenge, which is the same that comes with the kit, is phenomenal.

[mtaylor]

4 hours ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

   I have an old Mantua kit (Golden Hind) that has many decent (and large) drawings to supplement their average, multilingual instructions.  Too bad there was that fire at Mantua, so my guess is that the 'old stock' (pre-fire production) that can sometimes be found  (Ebay, yard sales/flea markets) are pretty good.  'Not sure if Sergal is the 'successor' to Mantua (but have seen references to Sergal/Mantua as a supplier), and since I have not seen a Sergal kit I can't offer an opinion.  

 

Fire at Mantua?  Mamoli had one back about 8 years ago or so and then Dusek bought the assets including the name.

[chris watton]

Sergal and Panart were/are part of the Mantua group, from what I understand

[targa4403]

I get the impression that European manufacturers assume some advanced level of expertise in the building process otherwise their manuals would be more detailed.  It does help, though to have good plans.  So, it's not just the instructions that need to be "good" but the plans as well.  If you have built a ship before, the plans become your instruction manual, in a way.

 

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

16 hours ago, mtaylor said:

Fire at Mantua?  Mamoli had one back about 8 years ago or so and then Dusek bought the assets including the name.

  You are right, sir - and I stand corrected ... the name on the box is indeed Mamoli.  Age will sometimes 'mix names up' in my head, but at least I got the 'M' right.  I have edited the error out of my previous post.

 

  The Mamoli GH version is still a pretty nice kit (nominally 1:53 on the box, but it is very close to the Airfix 1:72 GH - I have both for close comparison of kit contents).  Mamoli has the armament on the weather deck (representing about a 19' beam on deck) where there is not enough room to have the guns recoil back without rolling up on the grates (or be loaded for that matter).  The lines are similar to the full-sized reproduction GH anchored on the Thames for tourists 'Before' the side nacelles were added at the waterline to make the ship stable.  If the Mamoli bulkheads were modified by 3 scale feet per side at the waterline and the natural tumblehome continued up from there, there could be sufficient room for cannon use on the weather deck.

 

  Airfix has the broadside armament on the deck below (as most other versions have), and the sternmost gun port is lower, consistent with the change in deck level under the quarterdeck of a race-built galleon.  They place two lighter guns per side on the weather deck.  The first port on the gun deck is also a little lower and spaced further apart than the rest ... which got me thinking about DeSilva's sworn accounts of 14 guns for broadsides (7 per side) plus '4 at the bows' (ergo 2 astern and 2 forward) - but there were doubts as to whether 2 heavy guns would be of use on the forecastle deck with space restrictions and the sail on the bowsprit, which appear to have a typically high angle on the many period illustrations of contemporary vessels posted by Krill and others on MSW.

 

  If the first port on the gun deck (below the weather deck) was nudged a little forward where the bow curves, it could indeed be a forward firing gun (reference the drawings of the Vasa contemporary in another MSW thread) - one on either side.  That would leave 5 heavy guns (port and starboard) for broadsides, plus the 4 lighter guns on the weather deck.  With the 2 stern cannon, that would make 18 guns for the principal armament - in agreement with DeSilva.  I rather like this idea ... of course speculation, as are all GH builds.  

 

   Good pictures go the 'Drake cup' are hard to find, but a side view of the silver GH on top I recently viewed had a couple square openings below the weather deck (emulating gun ports there), and what was previously thought to be 'ports' on the weather deck is the jeweler's representation of a railing there and also on the quarter deck.  All food for thought, I suppose.

 

 

[mtaylor]

5 hours ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

  You are right, sir - and I stand corrected ... the name on the box is indeed Mamoli.  Age will sometimes 'mix names up' in my head, but at least I got the 'M' right.  I have edited the error out of my previous post.

 

 

 

No worries.   Senior moments are common among many of us, including myself.

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  I googled Dusek (new to me) and found they are a Czech supplier of a number of kits - including what I presume to be 'new old stock' of the GH they list as Mamoli (still listed as 1:53 when it is really 1:70) ... as well as they own version of the GH with guns below the weather deck.  My next step is to try and 'inventory' kits and scratch builds of the GH for 'commonality' ... a sort of 'crowd wisdom'.

 

  I think that term arose from an experiment where over a hundred random passers by were asked to guess how many candies were in a big jar.  The answers were all over the place, yet when the numbers were averaged once the data was collected the answer was very close to the actual number of candies in the jar!  The experiment was repeated and found to have statistical significance.

 

  In my old profession of manufacturing/industrial engineer (sad to say I was made redundant after 30 years with the mass exodus of many types of manufacturing from the U.S. to other countries), I was tasked with creating the equivalent of an 'intelligent system' of setup and run times to streamline shop loading for a variety of complex CNC machined parts.  The 'run times' were easy, but many had failed to 'crack the nut' of reliable rating setups that could take over 12 hours in some cases (most were in the 2 -6 hour range).  The solution was to document the work content in common usable subunits, each previously built up of component units having many dozens of motion sequences typical for CNC operations.

 

 The times for small motions had roots with Gilbreth's (of Cheaper by the Dozen fame) work with 'therbligs' (micro motions), and became usable international values with H.B. Maynards MTM data (Methods Time Measurement).  Many developed easier to use systems based on combinations of MTM data.  Long story short, my own system combined hundreds to thousands of subunits.  Although the accuracy of any individual group obviously varied, the combination of MANY produced what is know as the 'leveling factor'.  That is, all the plusses an minuses effectively 'canceled each other out' to produce reliable information.