Monday, February 29, 2016

Getting Down To The Heart Of The Matter

I was hoping that a new post would have been up by now. For a few weeks now, I have been busy studying European forms, and how the stern rudder in the north possibly created unusual adaptations in the south.
There was an interruption in my plans.
You see, I had a heart attack.
So, clearly there will be a delay.
But not much longer.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Models From Paper, The Other Wood Product

It was spring of 1973.
I was ten years old, in the fourth grade, and we had just finished reading about the voyage of the "Dove", a 24' sloop that a teenaged Robin Lee Graham nearly sailed around the world over a five year period, from 1965 to 1970 (he sold her and purchased a larger sloop for the final leg). It had captivated me. One of our in-class newsletters, I think "Scholastic News, Grade 4", had a little cut-and-assemble (and as it turned out, waterline) model of the "Dove" on the back cover.
This was not my first attempt at a card or paper model ship. I had checked out many books on paper projects, and there were almost always one or two paper ships in them. But this was the first one that looked like a real boat (I remember being surprised how beamy the little sloop was).
In the end, I misread the instructions; you were supposed to glue the hull section to heavier cardboard and then cut it out, so my flimsy model lasted all of a few hours. I learned enough, though, to get an idea of how paper model ships might work.
A bit over three years later, early fall 1976, my best friend Craig and I were in the midst of a miniature arms race. Be it ship or plane, we were cobbling together any kit we could find. There were models we wanted, however, that nobody seemed to make. Craig's mother, Vivian, was an artist, and had lots of supplies lying around. One weekend, she let us use some of those to try a few projects. Craig and I decided to make a couple of ships, as well as to improve upon a couple of models already in our possession.
I brought a lot of my own supplies with me. In my little box was an olive green tube of Testors' Wood Cement that I had purchased for a model rocket some time back, and I felt that this was the best choice. After all, it was, I thought, "real glue", not like that amateurish Elmer's. I decided to make a model of a torpedo gunboat, something I had seen in a book. This was a German design from the First World War, and rather resembled a small destroyer. Craig decided on something else, though I don't recall what. Since I didn't have the book with me (whereas Craig had a book), I worked from memory. Needless to say, my first attempt was a disaster. The Testors glue wasn't working, and in fact was making a sticky, gooey mess out of the first bits of my model. Craig, on the other hand, seemed to be handily working away with the Elmers', and was much further along.
In the end, we shared the white glue.
By the end of that weekend, we had managed not only to add a matte board deck to a damaged Lindberg "Arizona", making it into an erstwhile "HMS Furious" (we had to use plastic cement to attach it), but also to build two small paper/matte board ships. I had my gunboat, which I named "Melissa Sue" (I had a tremendous crush on "Little House On The Prairie" actress Melissa Sue Anderson at the time). Craig had his project, and he was pretty proud. A few weeks later, we would use some scrap matte to build a small, and rough, "Titanic". A few months later, Craig and I built a rather detailed aircraft carrier "HMS Courageous".
Not long after that, after a tragedy, Craig moved away. That was my last completed paper model, but not Craig's. He would hone his craft into adulthood and turn out some amazing model ships.
I would use the techniques I learnt on wooden models, but would not touch another paper model for some time.
In 1991, I was given, as something of a gag gift, a Dover Cut & Assemble "Mayflower", designed by graphic artist A.G. Smith. While it was a meant to be a joke, I saw in the model's construction plenty of potential. In fact, in the years since Craig's and my forays into paper modeling, I had seen plenty of examples, including large model sailing ships that were waterproofed and operational, and Eastern European model warship "kits" that had been super detailed. The Dover kit copied the W.A. Baker "Mayflower II" rather well, though a bit simplified. A short time later, I would purchase their "Santa Maria", also designed by Smith.
Aside from copying the Mayflower's principle parts in plastic and to a smaller scale, I built neither. They would simply sit in the collection, and eventually be lost. Some time later, I did attempt a card model of a 1/700 scale British destroyer escort, around 2005, but didn't get beyond the hull.
A few months back, I purchased copies of the Dover "Mayflower" and "Santa Maria" again, as reference material for my library. As I studied the "Santa Maria" in particular, I found myself thinking that, perhaps, just perhaps, it was time to try my hand at this model. There are some issues with the design (the flat stern, namely), but it does look very much like a ship from the late 15th, early 16th centuries.
To that end, I purchased another copy of the model.
For the past couple of weeks, I have been working away at it. Paper/cardstock/karton modeling is an art. While there are some techniques that aren't that uncommon from traditional model building, it is different in many ways. All of the "kits" (usually sold in book form) are printed in full color, so one must work carefully so as not to mar the finish. While you might think the material lacks strength, once the hulls are underway, they become fairly rigid. And of course, you can add more traditional materials, such as wooden masts, to detail the model if you so desire.

The hull's beginning, day two, 12th January, 2016. The rudder has been separated from the model's "spine". Amazingly, there are almost eighty pieces here. 
The almost completed hull, 3rd February, 2016. Better than I was expecting. Do note the little 1/96 scale "Very Mini Me" on the forecastle deck. I made him for purposes of reference. And because it seemed like a good idea.
My "Santa Maria" has had a few fit problems, but I've managed to work around them. The problem lies most likely with both the kit and myself. This model has long been out of print (I believe it was made that one year only), but the "Mayflower" was available up until a few years ago. Both can be found in used bookstores. Right now, I am at the point where I am about satisfied with the hull. I've added some detail, replaced a few parts with wood, and made touch up using a Prismacolor marker. It has been a learning experience, though. While it was initially frustrating, I am now enjoying the work. I like that I am using materials that are not particularly harmful. Like wooden model ship building, it has a very organic feel to it. I have started to enjoy it so much that I have found archived models of other "Santa Marias", and Columbus' other vessels, from Eastern European publishers that are decades old. This new aspect of model building is one that I am really starting to embrace.
As to why it isn't more popular is a mystery to me.
When the model is finished, I will of course share it here.

Monday, January 11, 2016

The Many Faces of the Santa Maria

Since 1885, there have been a number of studies that have attempted to show the appearance of Columbus' initial flagship, the "Santa Maria". This is an attempt to compile a basic catalog of many of them. It is by no means complete, but hopefully shows the different thinking of many of the researchers. Only three of the designs presented herein were ever built as "accurate" full sized replicas. A number of them were strictly model studies.
Dimensions are in Imperial and metric (in parenthesis). Some dimensions are estimated, and noted as such. No tonnages are given.


1. Monleon (I), 1885 -
Watercolor painting only. The ship in the center is the "Santa Maria". This is an early work by Rafael Monleon, and was actually part of a series of works depicting the history of the ship. It has been covered separately on this site. While not a true study per se, it should be considered the first serious attempt at an accurate reconstruction.


2. Monleon (II), 1892 -
Beam - 25.78' (7.86m), Keel - 64.3' (19.6m), Between perpendiculars (PP) - 77.8' (23.72m)

3. D'Albertis, 1892 - 
Beam - 27.55' (8.4m), Keel - 62.34' (19m), PP - 86.6' (26.3m)


4. Duro/Spanish Commission, 1892 -
Beam - 25.72' (7.84m), Keel - 60.7' (18.5m), PP - 74.15' (22.6m)


5 Guillen Tato, 1927 -
Beam - 24.6' (7.5m), Keel - 61.35' (18.7m), PP - 84.32' (25.7m)


6. McCann, 1927 -
(Estimated) Beam - 23' (7m), Keel - 58' (17.67m), PP - 70' (21.33m)


7. Anderson, 1930 -
Beam - 26.9' (8.2m), Keel - 54.13' (16.5m), PP - 81' (24.7m)


8. Landström (I), 1961 -
Beam - 26' (7.92m), Keel - 55.5' (16.92m), PP - 78.5' (23.93m)


9. Martinez-Hidalgo, 1963 -
Beam - 26' (7.92m), Keel - 51.84' (15.8m), PP - 77.43' (23.6m)


10. Landström (II), 1966 -
Beam - 28' (8.53m), Keel - 56' (17.06m), PP - 82' (25m)


11. Timofeyev - Моделист конструктор, 1973 -
(Estimated) Beam - 25.6' (7.8m), Keel - 62.33' (19m), PP - 78.74' (24m)


12. Serrano, 1991 -
Beam - 18.86' (5.75m), Keel - 41' (12.5m), PP - 65' (19.8m)


13. Zu Mondfeld, 1991 -
No data available. Included here because of its unique appearance, especially in the stern quarters. Certainly a fascinating design.


14. Vazquez - Coin Cuenca, 2012 -
Beam - 21' (6.4m), Keel  - 45.9' (14m), PP  - 68.9' (21m)

(EDIT 3 Jan. 2020 - Updated with correct information on the 2012 version. Mucho gracias, Juan Manuel.)

Notes -
Monleon (II) data from his two part article "Las Carabelas de Colón" (1892), however drawings were found in "Christoph Columb - Vu Par Un Marin" by J.B. Charcot, 1928, pages 63-64.
D'Albertis drawing from "Le Construzioni Navali e L'Arte Della Navigacione al Tempo C. Colombo", 1892-1894, page 101 (via Google), with additional data from "Columbus' Ships" by Jose Maria Martinez-Hidalgo, 1966.
Duro/Spanish Commission drawing from "La Nao 'Santa Maria' Memoria de la Comisión Arquelógica Ejecutiva", Rafael Monleon et al, 1892, with additional data from "Columbus' Ships".
E. Armitage McCann drawing from a series of articles on building the model in Popular Science Magazine, December 1927 - February 1928, (via Google)
Julio F. Guillen Tato drawing and data from "Columbus' Ships", page 16.
R.C. Anderson data from "Columbus' Ships", however drawing (by Victor Lazzaro) from Time-Life "Great Ages of Man" volume "Age of Exploration", pages 83, 88 & 89.
Björn Landström (I) from "The Ship", 1961, page 103.
Jose Maria Martinez-Hidalgo drawing and data from "Columbus' Ships", page 50.
Björn Landström (II) from "Columbus", 1966, pages 46, 47, & 50.
B. Timofeyev - Моделист конструктор drawing their May, 1973 issue, pages 30 & 31.
Juan Luis Rubio Serrano drawing from "Arquitecture De Los Naos y Galeones De La Flota De Indies", 1991, pages 198 & 200.
Wolfram zu Mondfeld drawing from personal files. No other data at this time.
J.M. Lopez Vazquez & Luis M. Coin Cuenca drawing and data from "Reconstrucciones de la Nao Santa María". Also covered previously on this site.

Sunday, December 20, 2015

The Life-Like 1/250 Mayflower, Completed

The Life-Like (nee Pyro) "Mayflower" turned out to take longer to build than expected, really due to a number of unexpected issues, with both the project and myself. In the end, however, the work really paid off.
I've taken a number of images of the completed model, plus one image in particular, to give an idea of its scale.










There were a number of lessons I took away from this project. Chiefly amongst them is doing more planning before actual construction. There were a number of problems that could have been prevented had I planned ahead. As a result, the model has some rigging omitted (though at this scale, it doesn't detract too much). Other things I learnt were the extent to which "live rigging" (regular line/thread rigging as opposed to wire) can be utilized on small scale models. The cut off really isn't scale so much as size. A larger scale model of a smaller vessel, say one the size of this model, could possible be done with "live" instead of wire. There are now a couple of sections of rigging that respond to the weather.
The model looks good, however, and I am pleased with the end result. 

Sunday, December 13, 2015

The Waiting Game

It has been some time since I've posted anything substantial here, and it nags me. In my personal life, this time of the year gets hectic enough, but there have been some additional challenges this year. However, rest assured that there is a piece coming, it's just taking longer than usual to get to it.
Soon, I promise.
 - RRL

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

The Lindberg Brig of War - A Conundrum in Plastic

The Lindberg "Brig of War" - A Conundrum in Plastic

First, I should disclose that this is not a review, but more an overview. To begin with, my current project, the Life-Like (nee Pyro) "Mayflower", is about to be completed. Obviously, I already have my next project lined up, the Lindberg "Brig of War".



This is, of course, the old Pyro kit of the same name. A couple of entries previous, I discussed some of the Pyro ship models that I was acquainted with and their various merits. In an addendum, I mentioned that the "Brig of War" may have some potential. In this entry, I want to discuss some of my findings.
The model most resembles the "Fair American" found in the Henry Huddleston Rogers collection. This model was built by the Royal Admiralty after the ship had been captured. This is not a typical Admiralty model, being a full hull with no inner structure present. It's been speculated that the model was built to better understand the hull and sail. There is even some question as to which "Fair American" this model represents. Regardless, this model has served as the prototype for many models of the privateer. 
Since I now had a prototype, I decided to see just how close the brig came. I found some old plans for a wooden kit of the "Fair American" and reduced them down to the size of the plastic model, which appears to be approximately 1/170 scale.
In profile, the model is very close to this interpretation, though I suspect (and have read elsewhere) the Pyro tooling was based on the old solid hulled Model Shipways kit. 



So far, so good. The masts are a bit flimsy, dubious in detail, but very close to scale, based upon the drawings. The only problems are the bowsprit, which is a bit short, and the mizzen booms, which are similarly undersized.



The yards and attached sails, though, are horribly out of scale, as if meant for a smaller model. 



It is in looking down on the model that the real problems surface.
The model looked too beamy, though not horribly so. In fact, however, the model has a plan that looks a bit peculiar. The further aft you go, the worse it gets. As a result, the transom is nearly twice as wide as it should be.



How did the folks at Pyro do this? More to the point, why? Perhaps it was a compromise to keep it a bathroom toy and therefore buoyant. That explanation, though, doesn't make sense in light of the fact that there are some ships in this series that are far more scale-like in appearance. At this point, I suppose that we can only speculate. One thing I did find interesting is that if you took a 3/4" (19mm) wedge out of the stern and squeezed the deck together you ended up with one that was a bit closer. The amount of work that this would require, plus the work needed to correct the hull, would be significant if not altogether daunting.



Where does that leave my planned build? At this point, I am looking at simply correcting the sail plan and improving the deck detail to see how that improves the model. This was supposed to be a simpler follow up to my current project, but as model ship builders know, simpler is sometimes a rare thing.

Monday, November 23, 2015

A Most Sticky Subject

This morning, as we approach Thanksgiving Day, I'd like to discuss the virtues of attachment.
Which is to say I'd like to take a moment and write about glue.
After the discovery that I failed to attach the lift blocks to my small "Mayflower's" masts before they were secured into place, I found that I couldn't sleep. My mind raced as I sought to scheme ways to correct the issue. When I first got into miniature ships, I glued everything in place. Rigging, deck details, masts, all of this was glued into place. I've been a big fan of the water soluble glues like your classic PVA and their derivatives (Elmer's Glue-All, Aileen's Tacky Glue) as well as basic aliphatics (wood glue). To my friends in the UK, who have enjoyed the wonders of Secotine for generations, the closest we have here in the Colonies is Elmer's and Aileen's, which are similar though minus the fishy fragrance. My English friends tell me that Secotine is superior, but sadly it is not readily available here. Anyway, I have seen very little deterioration in the PVA's and aliphatics. The steam paddle tug I made for my Dad, the "Uncle Sam", is largely intact, the only damage it having received being that from when it was dropped. It is still intact twenty five years later.
Clearly, those water soluble wonder adhesives will stay with me. With caveats, however.
They are all but useless when dealing with polystyrene plastic, or any plastics for that matter.
The PVA's and aliphatics rely on the porousness of the materials to work properly, and even the hardest woods still have pores on the microscopic level. Not so plastics. They are smooth, indeed with some being so-called "self lubricating" (think polyethylene, nylons, polyesters). To attach two piece of plastic to one another, one must rely on either solvents or cyanoacrylates (CA or "Super Glue"). There are other adhesives of some value when dealing with those nasty self-lubricating engineering plastics. I recall one such concoction from our friends at DuPont that was yellow and could pretty much bond anything together, but it really was a bad choice for model work. So for plastics, most of the times its the first two I mentioned with regards to them. I have to use non-toxic Testors Plastic Cement, which leaves a wonderfully citrus smell, as if one has driven through an orange grove with a snow plow. For unpainted plastic, solvents and CA are immortal. Both weld the two components together, and that's it. Using them on painted surfaces yields less immortal results, and I am tempted to say that they are indeed fleetingly mortal. For instance, the small diesel tug I built after the "Uncle Sam" is basically falling apart.
Which then brings me to another point, and this is the heart of the matter. When I read Lloyd McCaffery's book "Ships in Miniature", he stressed permanent, physical connections. By this, he meant using trenails (small wooden nails), pegs, very fine wire and line for tying, etc. While he uses glues (in his case, hide based, which I really am not fond of for a variety of reasons), his initial attachments are made physically.
Which is what I have been doing. Well, at least trying to do. While I still use Aileen's Tacky Glue for some attaching by itself, I have been striving to plan everything out in such a way that glue is not to be relied upon.
Which brings me back full circle, at last, to the "Mayflower".
I am going to have to use a surgeon's skill for what I am going to do this afternoon; strop the lower lifts into place whilst working around all that rigging that is already up. These are items that cannot be simply glued. as they will be stressed.
Having another cup of coffee as I gird my loins for this task. As they used to say whilst working the yards on those great sailing ships of yore, "grumble ye may, but go ye must".