The Ship Model Forum

Hello!
I hope everyone is well. I thought I'd post a midweek update...

It's been really dry lately in my part of the world, my lawn has withered accordingly, causing me to notice some rather unsightly (and tenacious) weeds. So, Monday morning, I thought I would go ahead and pull some of them up before I mowed the lawn... Well...Before I knew what had happened, my fingers had gone from calloused, to blistered, to torn blisters, to the top layer of skin coming right off... very painful. These pics were taken tonight, after a good deal of healing. Initially it was very raw and painful. For two days I couldn't do any modeling at all... Yesterday I did a little work on my Akagi build (which is mostly on hold until I get this master done) just to get back into the swing, and tonight I was finally able to hit the Solferino again. Some of these pics are before the weed-pulling-incident, and some are after.

Ok, so here we go.Planking up the port side. Very challenging to get the planking patterns to match Port and Starboard. The tumble-home of the bow, and the undercut of the stern caused problems in the laying of the plank rows, which I was able to counteract on the bow by carefully spacing the upper rows of planks slightly to keep them level with the horizontal plain of the ship. The stern however was another matter... Port side planking complete. A little rough amidships but no matter, as the PE armor plate covers this entire area.Port Armor mounted. Tricky... CA does not give you a lot of 'play' time.Here you can see the problem with the stern. The undercut shape caused the plank strakes to curve downward from horizontal as they followed the shape of the hull, ultimately causing a 'hogged' appearance to the hull. For several days I rationalized this, as eventually there will be quite a few window ports, an admiral's walk, and numerous boats suspended from davits immediately above this area, which, in the final analysis would probably hide the defect... but it still bothered me. The real clincher was in considering the shape of the stern, which I had gouged out a little bit too much between the last two frame plates in trying to blend the fineness of the waterline plate shape with the fuller plan of the deck piece. In looking at the stern I realized the shape was slightly 'pinched' and as a result the PE stern walk would probably not fit properly. In considering this problem, I realized I could kill two birds with one stone by stripping off the stern planks, but leaving them in place in the depression, and then sanding them to blend the depression with the hull. I could then re-apply a new set of planks, being careful to keep them level this time... That was the plan, anyway.

Stairs!
One needs stairs for open companionways. After consulting the plans, talking to Bruno and studying some pics of the Museum Model in France that Egberth was kind enough to show me a link to (thanks Egberth!) I was able to determine the correct direction for all of the companionway stairs. I knew I would have to make these, I knew it would be a bit of a challenge, but I had a pretty good idea of the basic technique. New experiences... In retrospect, given the configuration of the companionway, it would have been easier to create a single wide stairway and then put dividing strips on top of the stairs, rather than creating separate stairways and gluing them together with spacer-dividers in between...Companionway stairs mounted to the deck plate.

Building a box around the stairs underneath the plate. The Box is not accurate strictly speaking, since the stairs go down to 'nowhere,' but it is a necessary convention so that the resin mold material will fill the companionway and show the steps, but not seep into the interior of the master and cause problems.Difficult to photograph down into the box. Very small. Box from the underside.Having spent three hours making stairs a quarter of an inch wide that went nowhere, I decided to do some of the other hatches, easier and faster to do than the remaining companionways. Not much to show for all that work when it's all said and done. But it is necessary work.Hogging stern planks... they've got to go.

Tear up those planks! Fortunately this was a fairly painless procedure... Sanding the remaining planks into a 'patch.'Replanking...It worked! Dry fit shots... She's starting to come together, thank God! Many oopses and wrong turns along the way, but somehow it's still working.Very slight camber to the deck plate, which is fitting nicely to the top. Armor plate served as a guide for hull height and symmetry amidships. Hull appears symmetrical in all three dimensions. Looks like we're gonna make it.

That's all for now. Happy Modeling!

Callan I watch your work in amazement. It truly is a pleasure to see a completely different level of model ship building and appreciate other skills. Question do you rely on an optical visor?
Dave Wooley

Very interesting project .
J'aime la Marine Fran�aise ...

Dave Wooley wrote:Callan I watch your work in amazement. It truly is a pleasure to see a completely different level of model ship building and appreciate other skills. Question do you rely on an optical visor?
Dave Wooley

Hello Dave!
Good to hear from you. Thank you for your support, mate, much appreciated. I've been modeling for a number of years off and on, but I've only been 'social' about it (clubs, blogs, contests, etc.) for about two years. The whole thing of people actually taking interest, (as opposed to the polite niceties of family and friends) the expression of enthusiasm and comments, suggestions, support, etc. is still a new thing for me. I was telling a friend the other day that I blogged my builds online and he assumed there were a lot of nasty comments, 'tearing down' etc. I told him, 'no, the forum I'm on is the complete opposite of that, it's really amazing!' And... well, it is.

Anyway, good to hear from you To answer your question, no, I'm still using the MK-I Eyeball, although I do have a magnifier in my goose-necked lamp at my work area, and very occasionally I will use that to view something extra tiny, but, as a rule I use my eyes.... Oh, incidently I always blow up text on my computer screen so I don't have to read anything super small and I never read in bad light. The last one is something my mom used to always tell me to do, and I try to do the same thing now with my girls. I don't know if any of that has made a difference or not, but so far, I've been lucky with my eyes. All my modeling friends tell me that 'the eyes start to go at about 40' and, as I was born in 1971, I'm waiting daily for the 'big blur' to show up; so far I'm still ok, thank God.

mabmanu wrote:Very interesting project .
J'aime la Marine Fran�aise ...

Ahhh Vraiment! Et moi aussi! Merci beaucoup pour les mots sympatique mon ami! Abientot.

...Probably got that French wrong there Mabmanu, feel free to correct me... Anyway, a little update before I hit the sack.Ok, stern replanking finally completed...Centerline openings in the deck plate finally finished. Grating-covered hatches fitted with shallow boxes, companion way openings completed to the depth of one deck.An easy way to create mast hole mountings is to simply glue plastic beneath the mast hole in the deck and then drill it out, as our friend Ron would say 'Simple but Effective.' Underside of the deck-plate showing styrene box fittings beneath the openings. I tore out the aztec steps I took so much time to make a couple of weeks ago, realizing that Bruno had made PE superior to anything I could scratch for the purpose. Various shots trying to show (not very successfully) the camber of the deck plate. Dry fitting the deck plate to the hull, prior to gluing. The styrene and annealed metal makes a sharp-looking two-tone scheme.

Bruno's beautiful deck plate finally glued in place, beginning the bulwark (gunwale) effort.A nice stern grating installed. A deck-house that may be some sort of pilot house aft. not sure. This deck-house will support the aft bridge structure later. The sides were trapezoidal in keeping with the stern sheer of the hull. The roof needed careful sanding to make it level so that it would form a proper base for the bridge.Beginning work on what I believe is the amidships conning tower.CT in place but not yet filled and topped. This part was extremely challenging, and took more than an hour of shaping. Here in this shot you can also see the beginning the Funnel Base. Because of the angle of the deck here, it was necessary to create the funnel base not quite flush with the deck, as you can see here. Later I will be researching plans in hopes of being able to face this with some strip in order to disguise the appearance here. Checking to see if the box is flush.Filling the funnel base with styrene.Funnel base completed. The funnel will be built and cast separately.

Bulwark and final planking...Here you can see the completed planking strakes, trimmed to shape but still looking rough. Definitely need to run a strip down the centerline, not only to hide the crudity of the planking detail here, but for the sake of preserving the ship's proper dimensions.Funny how you get so excited about specially shaped strip when you find them in the store, and then hardly ever have a chance to use them. But this one will come in handy today.

Much better!Waterline point of the bow still needs some filling...a 0.010x0.010 for the stern.That's all I have for now. Next steps will be cutting out ports, mounting window PE, mounting and cutting out special bow compartments... and then we're off to the resin studio!

Hope everyone is having a good week end. Happy Modeling!

Just became aware of this building-log. Very nice indeed.

I just wondered why the planking at the bow and stern sections was executed so coarsly, i.e. with large gaps between the planks ? Or will it be puttied-over before the mould is taken off ?

Incidentally, I used a similar method of hull construction many years ago on a much smaller model. The spaces between hand-sawn brass frames were filled with ROHACELL, a metacrylic-based foam.

I gather Egberth referred you to my Web-site (http://www.wefalck.eu/mm/maritime/Paris ... clads.html), where I have a number of pictures of the SOLFERINO and other ironclad-models in the museum of Paris and Toulon. Am I right ?

Keep going,

wefalck wrote:Just became aware of this building-log. Very nice indeed.

Thank you sir.

wefalck wrote:I just wondered why the planking at the bow and stern sections was executed so coarsly, i.e. with large gaps between the planks ? Or will it be puttied-over before the mould is taken off ?

Yes. Good question. As I began laying the strakes of the planks I discovered that the styrene strips had a tendency to curve downward as they reached the ends of the ships. This was a problem with both the bow and the stern. In the past I have been planking styrene on styrene, using styrene cement which has a good amount of 'play' time for adjustments. You can check out my other threads here

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=68243

and here

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=69922&hilit=Colossus+of+Rhodes

if you're interested.

With this build I am gluing styrene to steel and putty, which necessitates the use of CA, which, as I'm sure you know sets quicker and more suddenly than plastic cement. On reflection I realized this is caused by the shape of the stern and the bow, which have more surface area because of their shape, so a row of planks that covers all the area from waterline to gunwale on the vertical plane, will be insufficient when the hull develops a significant incline towards the horizontal, which is the case with both a tumble-home bow and a cut-away stern.

The question then is, what to do? With both the bow and the stern I was forced to allow gaps to develop as the plank strakes progressed towards the extremities in order to keep the plank strakes horizontal. It's more obvious with the Bow than with the Stern, partly because I redid the Stern and partly because the shape of the Bow makes this issue more apparent. My only other options would be to insert 'spacer' wedges between the plank strakes which I felt were problematic from a detail standpoint, or to create planks that had a very slight gradual increase in width, which would have been difficult to do uniformly and consistently. So, I have decided (for the time being) to live with the gaps. They are actually more apparent to the camera than to the eye. Keep in mind the hull is only about a centimeter in height at the moment. Also the dark color of the putty against the white of the styrene makes it more noticeable as well. I think on the final model, with all the detail in place and with the hull painted black (or rather some shade of dark grey) the gaps will not be particularly striking... at least that's what I'm hoping! If not, there is always the option of putty in the gaps, etc.

wefalck wrote:Incidentally, I used a similar method of hull construction many years ago on a much smaller model. The spaces between hand-sawn brass frames were filled with ROHACELL, a metacrylic-based foam.

Wow! You planked a hull that was smaller than 700th scale? I'd like to see that! Do you have pics of your efforts? Feel free to post them here. Just out of curiosity, what was the scale and the subject?

wefalck wrote:I gather Egberth referred you to my Web-site (http://www.wefalck.eu/mm/maritime/Paris ... clads.html), where I have a number of pictures of the SOLFERINO and other ironclad-models in the museum of Paris and Toulon. Am I right ?

Yes! Those pics were extremely helpful to me. Thank you for taking them! I hope you don't mind Egberth suggesting them to me.

wefalck wrote:Keep going,

I will, and thanks for stopping by.
Cheers!

Wow! You planked a hull that was smaller than 700th scale? I'd like to see that! Do you have pics of your efforts? Feel free to post them here. Just out of curiosity, what was the scale and the subject?

Embarrasing - I wanted to say that I worked on a much bigger model ! I had to re-write the post because it somehow was not saved and then did so in a hurry. The model is in 1/60 scale and about 40 cm long. I chose the brass frames as they serve as bulwark stanchions at the same time, which allowed me to solder-on the bulwark made from copper foil. The full hull was plated with copper foil into which rivets were embossed. The model is an 1860s steam tug and was completed about 15 years ago: http://www.wefalck.eu/mm/maritime/model ... ustug.html

Coming back to your model: I don't quite understand, why you go to the pains to plank it. At this scale plank seams would be invisible or would be grossly out of scale. I would have just smoothed the hull with putty, using the metal frames as templates.

Similarly, I find the engraved deck seams on many models over-scale. In real life, deck seams are rarely hollow, only when it is really cold and dry. Normally the pitch is more or less flush with the deck. Therefore, I think, painting-on the seams gives a more realistic impression. I haven't worked on such small scales, but probably would make decals with the deck seams; to be put on a pre-painted deck. I have been tossing with this idea even for my 1/160-scale SMS WESPE: http://www.wefalck.eu/mm/maritime/model ... class.html

wefalck

If may-- I will join in here...

firstly Wefalck ....!

I have read and admired your dedicated approach for a number of years....
( is there a gallery of completed models that can be seen?)

Ref: the above points...

I agree and disagree with you on some of the issues you raise

Ref : the planking of the hull-

- I agree that in 1/700 scale the hull planking seams would be (near) invisible, perhaps at best slightly different shades as the planes change in the light-even then perhaps not-

( I will admit to waiting and seeing- !!)

As I have a view to purchasing a Solferino casting from you! ( please Neal! )- ( I LIKE RIGGING!)

and I will admit that I had intended to fill and smooth the hull planking, perhaps leaving the merest suggestion of longitudinal lines visible here and there...)

I agree that longitudinal seams in decks small scales are permissible to be seen-- the eye expects to see them.

I personally do not like, at all! - the depiction of the butt ends of the plankingon small scale models decks --as seen on all these retrofit wooden decks that are appearing...

Viewing any real life deck-the butt end seams are near invisible--and as such seen 700 times smaller they should disappear.... as in truth should the longitudinal lines probably ought to....--

but without which the decking can seem 'flat' and 'dead'.

( and the subconscious eye expects to see the evidence)

( I building a small icebreaker -1/700- Krassin- the original ship had planked decks- the hullcasting did not;
I have been experimenting with striating thicker paint-- the effect is in some lights pleasing-in others still looks flat.



anyhow-- were it me--

I would fill the hull planking and sand until just the odd longitudinal ridge is visible.

Painting the deck seams-impossible in 1/700( to do nicely! )

deck decals...-- in principle yes- but most printers cannot print discernible lines that fine enough

Perhaps some generic decking - in paper rather than wood

from Scaledecks.com...?

The hitherto best depiction and as near scale and end effect of decking in 1/700 is in my view still from White Ensign Models on some of their kits--Warspite, Queen Elizabeth 1918 etc

such as this on my QE 1918 (tragic image quality--(35 mm scan!!! ) ooops-- just noticed the dead sailor! )

@callen

BTW, if you need more detailed photos of the SOLFERINO-model in the Mus�e de la Marine, just let me know. The museum is virtually just across the river from were I live and being a member of the Association des Amis de la Mus�e de la Marine, I have free access. Trouble is that the display arrangement and lighting is not so conducive to taking really good pictures - as everywhere, no tripod is permitted.


@Jim

You are probably right about the line-width, the seams should be about 0.03 mm in 1/350 scale while a 1 point-line on the printer is in the order of 0.1 mm I believe. Trouble is also that we are used to see certain things on models that may not necessarily have anything to do how things appear in reality. For instance, plastic-ship modellers tend to be used to incised seams.

Unfortunately, there are issues with the long-term stability of computer-printouts, particularly the colour-fastness of red dyes. Otherwise, one could think of drawing the various deck planks in slightly varying shades of whatever woodcolour might be appropriate; without any seams.

I am a slow builder (and much of my hobby-time is also going into upgrading my mechanical workshop and into photography), so all I have, is on my Web-site.

wefalck

Interesting following this discussion between the two of you.

Jim I'd be happy to talk about sending you a cast once I start casting. And feel free to do with it as you please.

Wefalck thank you for the kind offer. I may take you up on it sometime if you don't mind.

To add my 2 cents to the above conversation, I realized a number of things when I began to get serious about modeling.... things like:
The walls of the gun tubs of any model (even a resin one) are not scale, and it is probably not possible to make them scale.
Rigging, Radars, Masts, Railings, Aerials, etc. etc. are not scale, nor is it possible to make them scale.
The thickness of the wall of a funnel, even if this funnel is made out of thin brass is not going to be scale.
Things like PE doors and hatches should have raised levers and handles that are separate from the door, not mere raised bumps in the door. Also the thickness and shape of the door is not scale, not to mention the coaming that the door is intended to seal.

The width of the deck planking is not scale. Deck planking on all ships is caulked, naturally, as both of you have stated. However the only way to demarcate planking in resin, brass or styrene is to either create indentations or raised lines, neither of which are accurate, but both of which convey the idea of a wooden planked deck.

So the question is, do we attempt to evoke the nature of the ship's construction, or do we omit details in the interest of accuracy? We're talking about a spectrum of possibilities here between on the one hand details that are dimensionally inaccurate but visually informative, and the lack thereof in an effort to be dimensionally faithful to the prototype.

Modeling is all about personal choice and preference and I would never presume to insist that my own tastes in this matter should be adopted by everyone...or indeed by anyone. I know modelers who don't put railing on their ships (or indeed PE of any kind) because they say that they're not accurate and 'from this distance you can't see them anyway.' Many of these modelers (most?) are older gents who were well into modeling before the advent of PE and have no wish or desire to adopt new techniques now. I have no doubt that in a few years or so, when Veteran Models releases their new line of molecular constructed 1/700th scale ham sandwiches, beer bottles and table settings, etc. I will furrow my brow, shake my head say 'what's the point? the captain probably wouldn't eat on an open bridge anyway!' and go on doing my thing the way I have always done them.

Having said that, for myself I think there is value in representing textures and free standing details, even knowing they are not scale, for the sake of conveying to the viewer something of the nature of the ship's construction and usage. To me, a deck that is flat and featureless when I know it was planked looks 'wrong' to my eye. I would rather have planks represented in some form than have nothing. And in my opinion, what is true for the deck is largely true for the sides of the hull. In a similar way I would rather have railing than omit the railing because it is not scale. The same goes for rigging, radars, anchor chains, masts, sails, flags, aerials, etc. etc. etc.

In 'defense' of my preferences I would add that there are very few nautical subjects that can be represented with dimensional accuracy in 700th scale, perhaps the odd soviet submarine, or something of that kind, and even then there are issues, but anything with decks, rails, doors, funnels, masts, etc. you're going to be making choices between dimensional accuracy and representational textures and details.

I might add that representational conventions in ship modeling are probably as old as modeling itself. In the venerable wooden ship hobby we have the conventions such as using small metal pins instead of tree nails to fasten planking to the hull, (depending on the type and the era) of leaving the hull in bare wood, perhaps with a varnish, rather than painting the whole in the appropriate colors as was typical for virtually the whole of the age of sail, creating rigging from thread that is not scale, using simple knots in lieu of complicated roving, seizing, etc. and the well known 'admiralty model' style which leaves the planking off the lower hull in order to show the inner construction. And this is going to be true in a greater or lesser degree for virtually any scale, even very large ones.

When I view a model, my eye (my mind, I should say) responds with delight to finely rendered details. I will never forget, early in the hobby experience seeing an aircraft carrier in 350th scale by my friend Rusty White with the figures standing on that great expanse of a flat deck as if they were talking about the new captain's personality or why such-and-such petty officer needed to be retired. Of course I knew immediately they were painted two dimensional pieces, lacking the subtle shapes of the human body, but I had never seen figures so tiny in my life! I had no idea they had existed and I could not believe that someone had the audacity to buy them, paint them, and mount them on his model. They immediately gave the model a 'reality' and vividness that would have been entirely lacking without them.

Since then I have never troubled myself too much over the dimensional accuracy of fine details, as long as they are rendered as finely as possible and do not detract from the broader 'gross dimensional accuracy' of the model. For me a ship model is about conveying the idea of the ship. That is what has always appealed to me personally.

Ok Friends, update time. Funnel time. A couple of options here... sand down a plastic dowel? Bend and shape thin sheet styrene? Build up from layers? All have their pros & cons, but I thought I'd start by going to the old tubing bin and seeing what I could find. Several times over the past couple of years I have found myself compulsively snapping up tubing from the local hobby shop... only to take it home and set it aside without using it. You know how it goes... you buy something for one purpose, later change your mind, and then eventually use it for something else. So the question is... can I somehow find tubing that by dumb luck might turn out to be the right diameter? This first copper job was too narrow. Try again...Brass, slightly larger.Lucked out with the size on that one. It fit perfectly over the outline on Bruno's funnel base.

Hull windows...Matching the spacing with the opposite side was very very challenging... I tore up and respaced planking several times, never did quite get it perfect. Bruno's beautiful PE parts in place.

More progress on windows...Port side completed...I thought I would try and show the process of cutting a window port through the hull. A tricky procedure for a couple of reasons. Here you can see where I have cut the window into the existing planking. This must be done carefully, both to avoid cutting adjacent planking, and also to keep from loosening the surrounding planking if it is not firmly glued to the hull. The realization that it would be possible to re-position the window ports came after several 'between window planks' came loose and had to be replaced. Next step is to prick and pry the cut planks free from the hull, creating a recessed port into which Bruno's PE windows can be set. Another motivation for cladding the hull in planks. Sometimes all three planks would come off together. Sometimes they would come off individually, and sometimes I had to do a bit of carving to get the port hollowed out.Here is the recessed port, ready to receive a PE window. I tried to cut the ports on the small side and then carve them larger, so as to avoid cutting a port too large for the window.Here you can see planks have come loose from between the windows.