Ship Modeling FAQ, Part 16/25 (Q72-75: 22K)
John O. Kopf
Rec-models-scale-archive-name: Ship_Modeling_FAQ/part16
Posting-Frequency: quarterly
Expires: Fri, June 29, 2001 00:00:00 GMT
Last-modified: 21 December 2000
This is the Frequently Asked Questions FAQ (part 16) on ship modeling.
Obligatory Disclaimer: The information contained in this message was
contributed by individuals, who, unless otherwise indicated, speak
only for themselves and not the institutions or businesses they are
associated with. The author(s) and editor(s) of this material make no
warranties as to the correctness of the information provided.
This material should be considered copyright by the author(s). This
material may be redistributed for non-commercial use without explicit
permission of the author(s) as long as the text is used exactly as is
(except for reformatting) and the author(s) is given full written credit
for the material. Commercial use requires explicit permission of the
author(s).
The questions being addressed are listed in part 01 of the FAQ.
###################################################
72. I am looking at the same task of joggling the deck and never
having done it not sure how to go at it. How does one cut the
margin plank? Looks like a tight spot to make all the small cuts
and what if I miss cut on say the last plank on a run? Is the
margin glued in first, cut first, or mark and cut as you go? I
think I'll call this the Devil plank..... ;-) (Jeff Johnson)
A. I will try and guide you through this. The margin plank is
wider. I would make it at least 1 1/2 times the width of the deck
plank. It is laid against the waterway around the entire
perimeter of the deck. If the curve at the bow won't allow
bending, then you will have to cut the plank to fit the curve and
scarph that into the straight piece.
The joggle cuts are made as you go. When the taper on the end,
called the snipe, reaches a length of twice the plank width, you
start joggling. Lay the plank end in place over the margin plank,
and put a pencil tick mark where the plank crosses over the
margin on the outside. Put another tick mark at the end in the
middle. With a ruler, join the two tick marks and cut. Now use
this as the template for cutting out the margin plank. I use a
combination of #11 knife and small razor sharp chisel. I use a #2
pencil point to darken the edges to simulate pitch caulk. As with
most everything else in good modeling, there are no short cuts.
I would suggest you practice with a scrap deck, and when
comfortable with the process, then go to your model. Actually, it
is more difficult to explain than doing it. (Phil Krol)
73. I have been playing around with adding white to colors to achieve
the effect of haze and scale viewing distance from the subject
with a 1/4" scale model.
I have concluded that it is not worth the effort. Also, the
group at the local hobby shop brought up some good points, among
them:
1. Black is black.
2. There wasn't nearly as much air pollution even 50 years ago,
so there would not have been as much effect from haze; and
3. No one can dispute the exact colors because the eyewitnesses
are all dead.
Any opinions from this group? Specifically, is there a scale at
which you would use scale effect, but would not at larger scales?
(Bob Andreotti)
A. In the age of sail there was a tremendous amount of air
pollution from lamp oil, dung, garbage, trash, leaves, wood,
charcoal, and coal being burned for cooking, for heating, and
(later) for steam power. The actual historical atmospheric
pollution load has been measured from its frozen black remains
in the ice layers of both the North and the South Poles. So,
perceived colors during the age of sail would have appeared
more subdued than today - the haze would have been much greater,
as it has been scientifically measured to have been.
To render a scale color, one must add a small amount of the
complementary color (opposite on the color wheel - to gray the
color - black will *not* work to do this kind of graying) and
*then* add white - producing a color that matches the prototype
color when viewed from an actual 75 to 150 feet away for a 1:48
scale model that will be viewed at 18-to-36 inches away (twice
the prototype distance for 1:96, etc.). Scaling the colors for
application on a model, along with using several shades (layman's
term) of the same color (*several* highlight shades and *several*
shadow shades), makes a tremendous difference in making a model
appear to be a prototype that has been reduced in size and is
still in the glaring sunlight (or moonlight, when appropriate as
in a night-time diorama) - rather than a *caricature of a
prototype* in toy colors (single prototype colors applied in
scale ... pity). A side-by-side comparison of two similar or
same models, each painted one of the two different ways, is very
telling - once the difference is seen, toy colors are left
behind.
Why spend a year or more building a model only to cover it with
inappropriate colors, especially colors of only one shade that
happen to be way too saturated and unscaled? Paint your ship
model the same way that a military miniature soldier is painted -
there is absolutely no reason that the painting techniques of
soldiers and ships should be different - for best effect. The
soldier painting technique is not difficult and the results
speak for themselves when they are applied to a scale model ship.
Black is *not* black (same for white) - even in prototype.
Anyone thinking thusly has not been observant, especially for
scale effect. In scale, black is properly a very dark gray
(sometimes cool, sometimes warm - depending on the surroundings)
and white is properly an off-white (showing the various reflected
colorings of its surroundings - not a uniform off-white by any
means).
Get a black poster board and cut it into one square as large as
can be made. From the remaining strip, cut a small black square
as large as the width of the strip will allow. Prop the large
black square on one side of a room. From the other side of the
room compare the perceived black colorings of the two squares
while holding the smaller black square. If they are different,
how are they different? Try this simple experiment again in the
sunlight at the prototype distance for your scale viewing
distance. We did this simple experiment at a South Bay Model
Shipwrights club meeting at night and indoors only - there were
no disbelievers in the need to scale *black* to a dark gray that
was surprisingly much lighter a gray than what was initially
expected.
I hope that someone tries this easy experiment and reports their
findings (to include the distance(s) across the room, and/or the
yard, and the hand-held distance) to this listing.
I have actual paint manufacturing formulae for interior and
exterior paints for the painting of houses and ships that were
published in 1812, to include the exact pigments from early
1800s America. Having made such paints, I can tell you they
were all *dead flat* within a day's drying time - which would
have to be even flatter in scale to appear correct. (Yes, you
must also scale the shine.) The eyewitnesses of early 1800s
American ship paints and their colors are *not* all deceased -
for several have seen my *1812 paints* at South Bay Model
Shipwrights club meetings (southern San Francisco Bay area).
*Every* scale model, regardless of scale, needs its colors
scaled. A scale model is an attempt at creating an illusion
and nothing destroys that effect quicker, except for poorly
executed human figures still on their bases, than poorly executed
painting of the model. Unscaled, saturated colors on a scale
model scream, *Look at me! I-m not real!*
Are tree trunks brown? Mostly *no* - most of them are gray!
The major exceptions are the conifers and the palms. This comes
from seeing - *not* looking with a preconceived, incorrect
notion.
Model paints should have descriptive retail names *not* like
*caprail green* - but like *dehazed and too saturated for scale
caprail green*.
The finalization of *color* is a combined result of the physical
laws of nature and of the physiological and psychological
perception of seeing (not merely looking). One must *still*,
however, be observant in an unbiased manner with no preconceived
notions. We should strive to duplicate what is actually seen ...
rather than what is wanted to be seen ahead of time. Color can
not be described *a priori* - you have to mix-to-match the
prototype color *while positioned* the prototype distance away
from the prototype color that the model will normally be viewed
in scale distance, as above. (Ray Morton)
***Bob, you've just hit one of my buttons;-) There are a number
of factors that affect the way in which we view and use colour,
and what suits one may not suit another. My own preference is
for the judicious use of scale colour, and I rather think a
number of your assertions could be open to comment.
The first thing I would caution anyone against is the simple
adding of white in slavish adherence to some mystical formula
as has been proposed by the model aeroplane press in particular.
There are far too many variables of weather and light for this
to be an effective approach. You need to develop an artist's eye
for what is right - look at paintings and see how much pure black
and white is used, look at the way distance lowers the overall
contrast and shifts any colour toward its complement - reds
tend towards cooler shades, blues to warmer. Add the fact that
over any body of water there is a lot of light scattering and
the effects may be even more noticeable.
Even with this you may get stuck on occasion, which is what
happened to me very recently when trying to scale down a red-
oxide colour which kept going murky brown on me.
Here I really must disagree, black definitely isn't black at
more than a few feet, though it may be less susceptible to the
effects in some conditions. Even a first year art student will
know not to use pure black or white on a painting. If you make no
other attempt at scale colour, I would seriously think about
toning down that black, not with white, but with a warmish light
brown. Similarly let down the white with a drop of grey
Not nearly as much air pollution? Harrumph:-) Well, in some
places maybe but not round these parts - the air's a lot cleaner
than it was 50 years ago. We're also looking at haze caused by
water over sea, which is potentially a rather different
proposition to a blanket of yellow smog in it's effect on
different colours - why do you use a UV filter when taking photos
over water? Remember that haze is only one factor in the scale
colour effect, atmospheric scattering does most of it.
I'd be more convinced by a small scale model where the modeller
had made an effort to just tone things down a little. And, yes,
you can dispute the colours to some extent to the extent that it
was say Home Fleet grey and not Mountbatten Pink - what we can't
do is say that it was painted FS36014 and that is how it looked
at 10:00hrs on the 3rd July 1943, in a sou'wester off the Azores.
That's where the eye of the artist comes in.
It's not so much the scale as the reason for building the model
that would affect my choice of the nature and intensity of any
colouring system.
In case 1 we might be looking at a dockyard model of a Stuart
warship. I'd be very dubious about applying scale colour here,
since the reason for the model was to display natural wood, with
the carving gilded and coloured. Here I'd suggest you might
almost want to emphasize colour, by using artists oils and making
the richness and depth of the colour a feature. Similar reasoning
might be applied to a formally displayed model of clipper with
her yards squared and sails unbent.
Case 2 could be a 1/700th model of HMS Compass Rose, in a sea
setting, weathered and battered by the wartime North Atlantic
gales. Here, I'd really think hard about the use of not only
"scale" colour, but also colour tempered by the grey light which
might further lower the contrast. In this second case we are
really thinking about what is effectively a 3D painting, the
paint serves to give the sense of time and place as much as the
model itself.
In between these two cases are a myriad of possibilities; how
successful the model is will to a large extent depend on how
clear your vision of the final product is. If the approach is
consistently one of displaying craftsmanship to the highest
level all the way though, then scale colour may be superfluous.
OTOH if, like me, you are generally trying to produce 3D
paintings, where the model only serves to give the paint the
right shape, then you might find developing an eye for scale
effects will help breathe life into your models.
Lastly, please do paint her under the same type of light that
you intend to display the model under - artificial light can do
weird things to your carefully chosen mixes.
(Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton)
74. How do I get decals to "disappear"?
A. First paint the surface with a high gloss. After it dries apply
the decals. Pat them dry once you put them in the right spot.
Let dry at least 24 hours. Then cover the area with a flat coat.
No decal film. (Dick D)
***Here's how I did it when I was supplementing my income by
making and painting model RR equipment.
1. Surface *must* start out as high gloss, so that reflectivity
of surface equals the reflectivity of decal and the surface
finish is as smooth as it can be.
2. Use a large bowl of *distilled* water to avoid hard water
stains.
3. Soak decal completely off the paper. Using tweezers, grab
decal and wash it back and forth carefully so that all trace of
decal adhesive is gone. Lift out carefully and lay on a piece of
blotting paper. With a corner of a paper towel, sop up any water
laying on top of it.
4. Paint the spot the decal is to lie on with decal solvent,
such as Solvaset.
5. Holding your breath (:-)) lift the almost dry decal and place
it carefully on the solvent. Use your good, small brush to move
the decal gently into position and to "tamp" out any bubbles. If
the decal "bridges" a seam (such as a plank groove), don't
despair, just let it dry.
6. (optional) If there is a "bridge", after the decal has dried,
carefully cut it with a fresh scalpel blade (Xacto is too dull
and will tear it). If there is a persistent bubble, "x" it with
the blade. Then paint the decal again with solvent. You can do
this several times on difficult, irregular surfaces.
7. Let dry and harden at least overnight and then spray with
"deglossifier" -- I used to use Testor's Dullcoat, dunno if it's
still made.
As with any modelling technique, practice on scraps before
attempting on your pride and joy. With a little practice, and
good thin decals like the old Champion RR line, you can get it so
that the film just about disappears from view. (Earl Boebert)
***I am a 20 year old college student who has been building
ships for about 10 or so years. My great uncle and I are the
model shipwrights of the family and frequently share our
occasional epiphanies. One method of making those dang water slip
decals actually stick to a model, I happened upon when I grabbed
the wrong brush out of the wrong fluid (This glue like stuff
instead of water). There is a product out there (don't have the
bottle in from of me right now) that I believe is made by
Modelmaster. This stuff is meant to be used to make tiny windows
for airplanes or for gluing in windows without getting fogging or
a opaque look to the run over. This mystery stuff comes in one of
those diamond shaped bottles with the long tip on it. The maker
also makes a glue with a syringe tip in the same type of bottle.
Anyway, all you do is squeeze a bit of this slop out into a
mixing dish (only a bit) and add 2 drops of water from your wet
brush. Stir it up really well now. After your decals have soaked,
go ahead and put them on the model and let them dry a couple of
years (no matter how long they dry I can never get them to
stick). After they are good and dry, take a tiny detail brush and
just apply a bit of it to the surface of the decal, just barely
to applying the decal to a semispherical object in which the
decal always has edges the stick up and look awful. My theory is
that there is some sort of melting that goes on when the glue is
applied and the overall surface tension of the glue actually
pulls the decal to the surface. The glue will dry with a clear
finish, not overly glossy either. If done properly you can not
tell that the stuff was actually applied. I have done this on
ever decal I have ever used for the past year or so now and it
has worked wonders. It is also great to simulate water in buckets
on the deck of a ship. Structurally this stuff is pretty rigid
too. The nearest description of how this stuff works on the
decals is that it laminates them to whatever surface. I hope that
my little tidbit of info may be of some use. (Aaron J Warren)
***Sounds like he's describing something like Microscale Krystal
Klear.
I don't know if Krystal Klear will melt the decal but plastic
model cement would and it's in the RMS FAQ as one of the
techniques for old decals which does not stick but I supposed
Microsol would be a better solution :-)
While we're on the subject of decals, chk out this site:-
http://www.vitachrome.com/vitacal/products.htm for the latest
ink-jet decal paper, avail in August. (Lim Chan Hiok)
***I recently purchased a set of solutions and blank sheets of
decal paper from Microscale, Inc, in Costa Mesa, CA. They sell a
wide range of decals for the model railroad gang, for dollhouse
minature decals, and blank sheets in several colors. They have a
nice catalog which includes this three bottle set of solutions to
be used in the manufacture, application, and finishing of decals.
I did the hull numbers on the Mare Nostrun - A Mediterranean
fishing boat - using pre-printed number sets from their catalog. When finished and sealed, they really did "disappear", even
showing the grooves between the planks through the decal.
I also did a rather elaborate set of panel markings for the
front panel of a home brewed electronic equipment. The panel had
a slightly textured finish which looked like it would present a
problem when applying the decals.
I designed the labels and other markings using Corel Draw and
printed them on blank decal paper on my 5P HP laser jet printer.
They turned out beautifully and really look better than a home
brew silk screening job.
In both cases, I slavishly followed the instructions included in
the Microscale catalog and was very pleased with the results. I
seldom have success on the initial attempt with a new technique
or process, so I'll attribute most of the success to the quality
of the product(s) and the instructions supplied by Microscale.
(Lowell Frazier)
75. I am preparing to rig the guns and carronades on the quarterdeck
and forecastle of the Diana. To date, I have been able to find
good written and pictorial directions for the guns; however, I
cannot find anything specific on rigging the carronades.
(Phil Main)
A. Have a look at the illustrations on page 142 of Brian Lavery's
*Arming and Fitting of English Men of War*. These show breechings
and side-tackles.
The breeching for a 32-pounder carronade was 8" in
circumference, clinched to an eyebolt beside the gunport, and
taken through the loop above the cascabel. [Not spliced, since
they often needed to be replaced in a hurry.] If nothing else,
this should be shown.
According to Douglas *A Treatise on Naval Gunnery* (1855), page
415, 'second-breechings' or 'preventer breechings' were always
rigged on carronades when in action. This was because if a
breeching ruptured or pulled a ringbolt, the piece was liable to
be thrown on its sides and cause damage to the carriage. He says
that the ends of the preventer were taken through holes in the
ship's side and toggled, but does not specify exactly how the
inboard part was rigged. Caruana in *History of English Sea
Ordnance: The Age of the System* Volume 2 page 380, mentions
preventer breechings, but doesn't elaborate. In any case, the
modeler would be better ignoring this item.
The side tackles ran from eyebolts at the rear end of the slide
to eyebolts in the ship's side. The second figure in Lavery's
book show this as a luff-tackle, rigged to advantage ...i.e. with
a velocity ratio of four. The other figure is less clear, since
the artist seems to be showing both outboard blocks overlapping,
but my best guess is that he is representing gun-tackles rigged
to advantage (VR or three). With 32-pounders, luff-tackles seem
more likely, but only the most enthusiastic modeler should be
content with gun-tackles (two single blocks).
No train tackle was needed with a carronade, because it never
needed to be hauled inboard. [The train tackle was so named
because it was secured to the train (trail) or rear of the gun,
not because it had anything to do with training the weapon.]
However, Figure G3/1 on page 109 of David White's monograph on
*Diana*, indicates an eyebolt for a 'training tackle' on the rear
of the carriage, just above the truck. I don't what his authority
this was, but if it is authentic, it suggests that tackles were
used as well as handspikes to train the gun. [I would consider
White a most reliable source]. However once gain, even if one
could find support for training tackles, they would be best
ignored by the modeler. (John H. Harland)