Are solid hull kits respected?

[achuck49]

hello group

 

In a week or two I will start work on a Bi-Centennial version of the Constitution produced by Scientific.  It is a solid hull model.  It is my plan to construct it as closely as possible in the same manner as would a builder would have then.

 

Is a solid hull worthy of hard drive space?

 

Thanks for your consideration.

 

Chuck

[mtaylor]

Chuck,

 

Why wouldn't it be?  There are no "second-class" builds here and all are respected equally.

[amateur]

Real beauty is on the outside

 

Jan

[achuck49]

Thanks

 

I have not seen such a build and was wondering.

 

Chuck

[Ulises Victoria]

Hello Chuck. Of course they are. Solid hull is just another method of building. Solid hull, butter and bread, plank on bulkhead, plank on frame all have their value.

Besides, you can always plank a solid hull and no one but you (and we if you post a log ) will ever know

[omarcs]

I am building the scientific version of Cutty Sark. I would suggest you use the Scientific plans as only a suggestion. I find scientific  plans close, but due to the internet, better plans and this forum, I am making a number of changes. But, over all I am pleased. What you don't get with a solid hull is doing the planking of the hull. everything else that a kit builder does, and many thing a scratch builder does is what you will be doing. I suspect you will spend much time in the build forums seeing how others tackled the "opportunities" you will face. 

 

Remember, it is a hobby and we are pulling for you  - we are all in this together.

 

Is the true question: how would Red Green work in duct tape?

 

Omar

[JPett]

Ahoy Chuck  

 

Do not underestimate what will be required to construct this kit. Solid hull shipbuilding is not the easy way. There are quite a few logs here where very talented people have produced some highly respectable solid wood hull kits. 

 

I for one would love to see a review of your kit before you start if that is possible. I will also wish you the best on your journey and look forward to seeing your log 

[lamarvalley]

I've never done a solid hull but I have seen a few in build logs and from what I've seen they are not 'easy' builds just because they are a solid blank.

 

The builds I saw were supplied with hulls crafted in the approximate dimensions of the hull with a fair amount of shaping and precision needed to get to the proper shape. To be honest, they looked in many ways harder than POB.

 

Besides, building is not so much the method as the end result.. yes? 

[AndrewNaylor]

The time and patience fairing out a solid hull reducing the thickness of the bulwarks for planking etc is is mind blowing and when done right is as long and hard as building a good POB model just a different "mind set" My Boss owned a beautiful Chip Booth model of "Newsboy"  beautiful work every time I see it I am amazed 

Good luck with your project

Andy

[catopower]

I've built several solid hull models, some from kits and some scratch. Personally, solid hull is still my preferred form of scratch building.

 

Solid hull kits have the beauty of construction flexibility. A beginner can take a solid hull kit and do almost nothing to fix up the shape of the hull (depends a bit on the manufacturer) and build a nice looking model. A more advanced modeler can take a solid hull and fine-tune the shape to build an accurate model.

 

As pointed out, one can plank over the solid hull, which provides a solid foundation for the planking. Going a step farther, a solid hull can be carved down to accommodate the planking more accurately (the thickness of the planks do change the dimensions of the hull slightly).

 

Solid hull kits avoid some of the pitfalls of plank-on-bulkhead modeling since you don't have to worry about shaping planks unless you choose to plank over it, and you're less likely to end up with bumps and flat spots, which can often appear on plank-on-bulkhead kits if you're not careful.

 

It's true that I've seen some people be a bit disrespectful regarding solid hulls, but not really here. But it did take me a lot of work on another forum to convince them to go beyond listing model categories as: Plank-on-Frame, Plank-on-Bulkhead and Other Models. But, there's a lot of "solid" support here (pun intended).

 

Well, all of this is to say, build your model and enjoy it. I hope you start a build log and post photos of your progress.

 

Clare

[Pete Jaquith]

I have worked in both mediums:

1. MS Pilot Schooner "Katy" (solid hull over planked)
2. MS Armed Virginia Sloop (POB)
3. Topsail Schooner "Eagle" (scratch solid hull over planked)
4. Brigantine "Newsboy" (MS solid hull over planked)
5. Armed Brig "Fair American" (MS POB)

I find solid hull construction to be more accurate that many POB kits.  Additionally, I find I can complete a solid hull ready in ~ one half the time on building a POB kit.  I should be noted that most of the time in wooden sailing ship modeling is spent on deck furnature, outfit fittings, masts, and rigging.

 

Regards,

Pete

Edited September 14, 2014 by Pete Jaquith

[catopower]

Pete, your models are truly awe inspiring, and I particularly love your solid hull work. This topic wouldn't have been complete without your input! 

 

Clare

[achuck49]

I just ruined a Constructo model so tomorrow I will start a build log of a 1976 model of old Connie.  Stand by for questions.

 

Chuck

[RichardG]

I've been a member on this site for 4 months and looked at a few hundred build logs. Some I liked, some I didn't as much. My likes and "not so much likes" were the subject matter, never the person, or form, or size, or scale, or material, or period. Even those where the actual ship wouldn't be one I would build, I've clicked the "Like this" when I've seen work (or words) that impressed me.

 

This is a hobby (and a slight obsession  ). As far as I know there is only one rule - enjoy what you are doing.

 

So go for it!

 

All the best,

Richard.

[dgbot]

I have done P.O.B. solid hull. The nice thing about a solid hull is that you have a good visual at all times to see if anything is bit aligned. Plus you can add or subtract material as needed. As for your Scientific Cutty. If you decide to use another set of plans you modify it. To me the heart and beauty of a vessel is the hull. Whether painted with no planking or left natural. It the hull is properly shaped with all of it's compound curves it is a thing of beauty.

David B

[pontiachedmark]

Gidday from downunder Chuck,

 

I am a newbie at ship modelling and have read several build logs, I do not have the nerve to start my own build log yet. I believe their is no bias for one type of hull or another on this site. I do believe their is an abundance of support and knowledge provided.

 

So to answer your question, as long as you enjoy yourself and are happy with your results you are winning.

 

Best regards,

 

Mark.

[trippwj]

I think a solid hull is very respectable, and hardly a shortcut. The vast majority of models "back in the day" were solid hull type. As I recall the history of model building in the early 20th century, when the hobby developed, some of the most prominent builders - amateur and professional - preferred solid hulls. People like Charles Davis who felt that the solid hull gave you the best form for the hull. Davis, like Underhill, also worked with POB and POF, and implied what we emphasize on MSW -

 

the goal is to build and enjoy. It matters not the medium (plastic, paper, wood, clay) nor the subject matter (so long as it be ship related, that is). The goal is personal enjoyment. Skill levels differ, but the journey - whatever the duration- is to be savor end.

[amateur]

I guess I am a bit of a snob, I consider buying a kit with a solid hull as taking a shortcut with the build.

 

Yeah,

you're a snob, but we don't mind

As a 13 year aged kid I did a couple of small-scale solid hull models. I wasn't too impressed by the result, mainly because it proved quite hard to get the hull in good shape (the kitmaker in his wisdom made the hull slightly over-size, but did not provide a full set of lines to use as a template).

And unless you set youself the goal to show the ship as it was actually build, no-one will ever bother whether there are bulkeads or a solid block of wood behind the planking.

 

Jan

Edited September 15, 2014 by amateur

[demonborger]

I think solid hull is in many regards more difficult than PoB

[mtaylor]

Hmmm... as I recall, the Bluejacket Constitution is solid hull as are many of the models in museums that we admire.   The Princess Royal (got the book from Seawatch) tells about the hull being made from a large bit of wood and not frames or bulkheads.

[catopower]

This is a great discussion and I am enjoying following everyone's posts immensely. 

 

While I'm kind of an advocate of the old solid hull kits, I had to "like" Brian C's post because it's honest and I think it adds a lot to this discussion. Plus, I agree, it is a shortcut. But, like neptune (John) points out, so are all kits, really. Still, I think there need to be some kits that are more shortcut than others.

 

Anyway, the degree of shortcut depends a lot on the quality of the solid hull and availability of good plans/templates. Some kit manufacturer's hulls are less shortcut than others and can require a lot of carving and sanding to finish/correct, while others may require very little. So, I wouldn't say that all solid hull modeling is harder or easier than plank-on-bulkhead. It can be harder or it can be easier depending on what level of perfection you want and that's what I like about them. I like to see solid hull kits remain on the market through BlueJacket, Model Shipways, A.J. Fisher (still around), and even Amati (1/80-scale J-Boats kits with pre-carved hulls).

 

Clare

[Pete Jaquith]

Interesting topic.  Several additional thoughts re my earlier post:

1. Each builder should select the medium they enjoy, they are all OK
2. As I overplank the solid hull it is the base for hull planking similar to POB construction
3. I have found I can carve a solid hull, either scratch or kit supplied, faster than dealing with a typical kit POB hull
4. I find that I can carve a solid hull more accurately than a typicall POB hull
5. As a result of these factors I chose to fill the bow and stern areas on my current "Fair American" build, this has worked out well and planking will be easer as a result (picture attached)
6. It should be noted that most professional/museum class models are solid hull or plank on frame

In summary, I believe that every model builder should feel free to experiment and employ those techniques that fit their experience, access to tools and supplies, etc.

 

Regards,

Pete

Shipbuilder

[dgbot]

Amen.

David B

[mtdoramike]

I have to ask here, What do you mean you "Ruined a Constructo kit"? What did you do to ruin a Constructo kit? You also must realize that although solid hull kits appear to be easier, they are not. With a plank on frame kit, the frames or bulkheads are already shaped for you. But on a solid hull kit, they are only slightly faired and must be finished by the builder. You should have templates in your kit that will assist in fairing the hull, which is the downfall of most who attempt a solid hull going into the build with the thought of it being easier. It's called over sanding and over carving the hull. The best way to avoid this is slow as you go and check, recheck and triple check your work as you go.

 

Good luck,

Mike  

[JPett]

 

1. It should be noted that most professional/museum class models are solid hull or plank on frame

 

 

 

 I would actually like to know if there are any POB ships on display in a Museum. I think we just may have figured out who is really the "bass turd" child here. 

 

     

[mtdoramike]

 I don't know about "bass turd" child, but probably red headed step child at the minimum

[uss frolick]

I have an old, unbuilt Model Shipways solid hull Fair American kit. Her hull is the same size as the POB laser cut version, (I compared the two at the old Model Shipways brick and mortar store) and all the fittings are the same size. Yet the old "yellow shoebox" kit is marked 3/16th of an inch scale, while the new one is 1/4 inch scale.  

[mtdoramike]

Beautiful job Pete. I'll bet you will get a lot smoother hull that way as well.

[Chuck Seiler]

I guess I am a bit of a snob, I consider buying a kit with a solid hull as taking a shortcut with the build.

    I am watching a friend build the FLY (SWAN class sloop) using David Ansterchel's construction method.  He claims that this is as close to actual construction methods as you can get.  Based on what I see ALL else (POB, solid, Hahn style POF) are all short cuts.  So be it.  As others have said, enjoy what you like and make th ebest model you can. 

[Q A's Revenge]

Anyone know what "Resin" hulls are like to work with? Many of the Americas cup model Yachts have the option of Resin or plank on frame.

What were the originals made from, steel, alloy? I ask as one of these is on my list to build when my work space is ready.