Archive-name: ship-models-faq/part04
Posting-Frequency: monthly
Expires: Fri, 2 February 1996 00:00:00 GMT
Last-modified: 16 December 1995

This is the Frequently Asked Questions FAQ (part 4) 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 I of the FAQ.


        ###############################################


28.     Why do <your choice> cost so much?
    A:  This is an interesting question, for it illustrates the trade
        offs inherent when your modeling efforts become a business.  I
        have had some limited exposure with this (I have done some
        pattern work for The Scale Shipyard in the past) - and the time
        spent on a master is extrordinary.  For the last 3 nights I
        have been working on a 1/16" 5" twin gun mount.  When it is
        finished I will have about 9 hours into the pattern.  Will it
        be perfect?  No, I am leaving off some detail that would be
        tedious and even more time consuming to put on (rivets, etc)
        simplifying other detail (hinges for doors) and only indicate
        where other detail goes if the modeler cares to add it (grab
        rails).  Why?  There is a couple of curves here.  One is that
        adding complexity to a part shortens mold life when dealing
        with RTV rubber.   Little pieces degrade over time, and it does
        not take long for the mold to be useless. My time to build
        masters is limited, and the law of diminishing returns applies
        here.  Lastly, economics plays a part - there is a finite
        amount that most modelers will pay for a certain part.
         (The really sad thing is when someone puts hours into making
        a part, and a modeler buys one and copies it for his models,
        or worse, for his friends.  It is only through multiple unit
        sales that companies can hope to realize a profit - thus keep
        is business - thus produce new stuff.  I have been told by
        several small casting companies how frustrating it is when a
        modeler orders, essentially, one of everything, and then is
        never heard from again.)
         I hope that the Enterprise kit does well.  Chances are even
        at that price level he is not planning to retire soon on the
        profits.  8-)  It remains to be seen what the demand for such
        a kit will be.  Ultimately modelers have control over the
        quality of kits coming out.  By supporting ambitious projects
        such as this you assure more will follow.  If they do not do
        well then we must settle for less detailed, simpler kits at a
        lesser price.
         Aside from the fact that I believe it just about impossible
        to 'rip off' someone in the course of a hobby - after all, it
        is not a neccesity, just a pastime, and if prices go too high
        you can choose another - you have a very simple alternative;
        scratchbuild.
         When making a pattern I start with a chunk of acrylic, shape
        it with metal working machines, finish it with wood working
        machines and hand tools to a 2000 grit finish, detail the part
        using a combination of brass and plastic pieces, individually
        made, and then ship it to the manufacuturer for production.  If
        you feel that the finished item is worth it, then purchase it.
        If you think prices are too high, then make the items yourself
        and then market them at a lesser price - that too is what the
        free market is all about.  <Kurt (SeaPhoto) >
         ****Not to mention the most overlooked fact of all: If a
        modeler really wants to build a $1000 ship kit, rather than just
        "acquire" it, the number of dollars per hour of entertainment
        is probably cheaper than renting a movie on video. A kit of
        this magnitude would likely take at least 500 hours to
        complete to a reasonable standard, probably more. That seems
        to be pretty cheap fun if you ask me. <Hawk137>
         ***The price of the kit is not an issue.  Most of BWN's
        products are out of my range, so my only experience is seeing
        them at displays of BWN and other vendors at shows.  If the
        market will support the costs of BWN's products, then so be it.
        Hopefully, the escalating costs of unique ships is not a
        trend, but if it is, then all of us must be doing quite well.
        I understand that R&D, as well as labor and production, are
        expensive propositions in today's market, and a business has
        the right to make a profit.
         As to the assertion that "everyone wants something for
        nothing", this is not true, IMHO.  Modelers want high quality
        kits at fair and reasonable prices.  Some may consider $950 a
        fair and reasonable price, and others may not, but this
        determination is in the opinion of the modeler, and not the
        producer.  The criticism of the price should have been
        expected, and a reasonable response should have been formed
        long before all of this transpired.  All of this is in the
        past though, and hindsight is 20/20, so I agree with the main
        point of RBartolacc in that we should all get back to the
        hobby. <REDBOZO6>
         ***'Twould be great to have more kits available of ships,
        boats, and other things that make their way upon the oceans!
         Blue Water is OK (no offense intended) but maybe too expensive
        for many of us.  As I've posted before, I have reached the
        point where I absolutely refuse to purchase Japanese (Tamiya,
        Fujimi, Hasegawa, Aokii, SkyWave, etc., kits because of
        comments I've read about 'charging as much as the market will
        bear.'
         What *is* the cost of having injection mold masters made?
        After all, for any model, someone along the way has to make a
        master (or steal parts!).  Perhaps. if we as ship modelers want
        access to new kits, maybe this is the time to get together and
        develop and market our own - at cost or close to it!  We want
        the models, and I'm sure we can generate a list of preferences
        quickly.   Let's get some sort of list generated, talk among
        ourselves, make the masters, and do it!
         things to consider:
         Scales:  1:700. 1:350. 1:192 (or 1:200), etc.
         Mixed media; resin + aftermarket details; injected moldings;
          wood with plastic/pewter/Britannia details, etc.
         Most of us tend to model warships.  I would personally like to
        have access to a *good* Liberty or Victory or T2 or even C1 in
        1:350.  Other 'wants' include vessels from the transition
        (U.S.Navy) from sail to steam, particularly 1865-1905 period.
         We're not a big market, face it!  Possibly, if we cooperate,
        we can do one heck of a lot more for each other than any *major*
        kit manufacturer would ever attempt.  Any Ideas? <RAIcorn824>


29.     Where can I get 1/72 scale coast guard decals?  I'm building an
        hh-60.
    A:  Superscale #109 carries US Coast Guard markings for the HC-130,
        HU-16 and HH-3F.  You may be able to adapt these markings for
        the HH-60 (if it's not the most recent paint scheme you're
        looking for). <Abe Lynn>
         ***A generic set of Coast Guard markings are available on
        Super Scale sheet No. 72-109. Hope this helps.
        <mailto:pboyer@kalmbach.com>


30.     Am modeling a Fletcher (Revell 1/305) and was wondering if
        anyone could offer some up to date colors, FS numbers, etc.?
    A:  Floquil has come out with a series of WWII marine paints that
        match USN colors:
         a. Navy Blue 5-N - (Floquil) 818598 \
         b. Ocean Gray 5-O -          818596 |
         c. Weather Deck Blue 20-B    818600 |
         d. Haze Grey 5-H             818594 | - these are the Floquil
         e. Deck House Blue           818704 |         part nos.
         f. Pale Blue 5-P             818590 |
         g. Light Grey 5-L            818592 /
          Tom Walkowiak runs The Floating Drydock, a model
        shop/reference house (?). He has a vast library of photos of
        USN vessels, and can provide 8" x 10" glossies for given hull
        numbers and time periods.  He also sells U.S. Navy Camouflage
        & Markings for $7.99, which lists all the camouflage patterns
        used by the USN during WWII.  His address is:
         The Floating Drydock
         c/o General Delivery
         Kresgeville, PA 18333
          I have his U.S. Navy Camouflage & Markings book.  The book is
        a fair compendium of everything one would wish to know about
        U.S. Navy Camouflage & Markings in WW II.  However, if your
        worried about ABSOLUTE ACCURACY, you need to determine which of
        the hundreds of Fletchers you'll be doing - the camouflage
        patterns vary.  In fact, The Floating Drydock also sells (for
        a few bucks, I think) a list of most USN WWII vessels with the
        camouflage measures that each had during the war.  The Floating
        Drydock sells camouflage sheets for most measures and ship
        classes. <Rob Robinson>
         ***I have both, along with their color chipset.  The C&M book
        is very useful for things you don't think about until you get
        there like the horizontal colors, both decks and undersides of
        whatever.  Highly recommended, and I only wish there was
        something like it for other navies.
         BTW, the list of USN vessels/measures is only for those in
        measures 31/32/33, not 21 or 22.  And they don't mention the
        time period.  Since ships seemed to change  colors like new
        dresses, ...
         Per the aforementioned "USN Camouflage 1 of the WW2 Era" from
        Floating Drydock:
         - "After [1946-47] almost all vessels adopted Measure 13,
         solid haze gray (5-H) as peacetime paint", until the next set
         of regulations came out.
         - After March 1953, use either Measure 27 (same as 13, above)
         or 17 (also known as 14) which uses Ocean Grey vice Haze Grey.
         For both these measures, "all steel decks and all other
         horizontal steel surfaces exposed to aerial observation shall
         be painted either smooth dark gray deck type A or non-skid
         dark gray deck type B.  All overheads and the undersides of
         all other external horizontal surfaces shall be painted glossy
         or base white".
          In other words, just like a modern ship, except for details of
        the color shades and masting. <Allan "battleships!" Plumb>
         ***Try Alan Raven's "Fletcher-Class Destroyers", available from
        the Naval Institute.  There're four different camo schemes
        sketched, which show Port and starboard views, deck views, and
        sections showing mount & superstructure faces.
        <mailto:00jegroves@bsuvc.bsu.edu>
         ***BTW, new and very excellent reference volume on
        Gearing/Sumner class DD's just publiched by USNI. Author is Bob
        Sumrall, one of the curators at the USNA Museum.  Expensive
        book, but Nothing Else Even Comes Close!!!  Lots of excellent
        photos, drawings, including color renditions.  My Dad (departed
        now nearly 30 years) was Propulsion Systems Engineer for
        members of the class built by consolidated - I have lots of
        original white-lines on the ships.  Sumrall's book is as good
        as, if not better, than having *all* the original documentation,
        because he goes into as-built, as-employed details. <RAIcorn824>
         ***Two good refs:  Flush Decks & Four Pipes (a classic, now in
        2nd edition, and probably available from USNI, Annapolis, MD)
        and "The Destroyer Campbeltown", by Al Ross, one of the
        "Anatomy of the Ship" series from Conway Maritime Press /
        United States Naval Institute (depends on which continent you
        call home). <RAIcorn824>


31.     How do I make small, inexpensive cast plastic fittings?
    A:  How easy it is depends on what shape you want to cast.  If the
        object is flat on one side (e.g., water-tight doors), or can be
        made as a set of components that are flat and assembled later,
        it's fairly easy.
         The MAJOR expense is the cost of a can of RTV (Room Temperature
        Vulcanizing) rubber...get the smallest can you can find.  Your
        local hobby shop may have it, or can order it for you.  Price
        this out FIRST -- then decide if you want to continue!
         There are a number of ways to do this; I'll describe one that
        I've used.  I needed to make up a set of 8 steam cargo winches
        for a WWI vintage freighter.  Each was essentially a rectangular
        frame with various "bits" sticking out here and there.
         I decided to break the pattern into 10 parts: base, 2 sides, 2
        "cranks", 2 cams, 1 spool, 1 "head" and a gear; these would be
        assembled using brass rod.
         The base was a 1/2 x 5/8 rectangle of .015 styrene, this had
        two 3/16 x 3/16 x 1/16 blocks of styrene for steam boxes glued
        on, and some of the steam piping.
         The two sides (mirror images of one another) were .015 styrene,
        properly shaped. A round boss was added as well as a flange
        around the top and side, and a steam cylinder (a turned spool
        bedded into a carrier, both from lucite).  Also, more steam
        piping.
         The cranks and cams were 3/16 slices off a lucite rod; the
        cranks had a couple of notches filed into the edge to become
        "T" shaped.
         The spool was turned from 1/4 lucite; it had a slice of a 1/4
        10-tooth plastic pinion gear salvaged from a slot car.
         The head was turned from wood, 3/16 d x 3/16 long.
         The gear was a slice of another, 8-tooth pinion.
         NONE of these pieces had severe undercuts!
         All necesary holes were located, and either drilled through
        (on the thin stuff) or at least "dimpled" to locate for later
        drilling.
         I next took a piece of scrap plate glass (about 3" x 4" -- I
        had a lot of that left over after the last earthquake), and
        CA'ed the back of all the parts to it in a reasonably close
        pattern.
         I made a "fence" from cardboard -- just a box without top or
        bottom; approximately 1 1/4 x 2 3/4 x 1/2 high. This was
        temporarily taped to the glass surrounding the patterns.
         I smeared the inside of the box, the glass, and the patterns
        with vasoline thinned with a bit of lighter fluid as a release
        agent.
         Mix up a small amount of the RTV; try not to get any bubbles in
        it. Vibration helps -- try one of the Dremel engravers, or a
        jig saw -- anything that will vibrate and shake out the bubbles.
         Paint a thin coat of the RTV over the patterns...the thinner
        the better to avoid bubbles.  Do it again.  After a couple of
        coats, pour the rest of the RTV into the box level with the
        top, and let it set up.
         Pry the now-solid rubber block off...that's your mould.  The
        "top" of the mould should be nice and flat (from the glass),
        with the "prints" from the patterns as cavities in the surface.
         I used 5-minute Epoxy for the castings.
         Again paint the rubber with the vasoline mould release, mix up
        a small batch of epoxy (post'em note pads make a wonderful
        disposable palette for this) and fill all the cavities.  Since
        it is clear, you can see bubbles and poke them with a toothpick
        or pin.  Use an old razor blade to level the top of the epoxy
        (that will be the back of the individual castings). Once the
        epoxy on the palette is hard, you can remove the castings from
        the mould.  Being rubber, you can flex it to help get the parts
        out.
         Warning...the epoxy does tend to stick slightly to the mould.
        if there is a bubble in the rubber adjacent to this, the rubber
        will tear there and leave the bubble exposed. The next casting
        you make from the mould will have tiny "beads" at this sites,
        as your casting cavity includes the bubbles which WILL fill
        with epoxy.  A few of these can be sliced off the parts, but
        eventually the mould will become unusable.
         How long that takes depends on how much care you took to avoid
        having bubbles in the rubber. <John Kopf>
        ***There are two main mold materials that have very different
        applications. RTV mold material is great, you can make undercut
        molds.  But, it is expensive and has limited shelf life.  Other
        is plaster of paris.  Cheap, but parts must have relief angle,
        absolutely NO undercuts or straight sides.  Limited shelf life
        also, but at price this is not a problem.
         I tried to do a zero relief cast of a hubcap that had a short,
        straight cylinder.  Got the mold off the part okay.  Then, put
        LOTS of release agent in mold.  Still, cannot get resin part
        out of mold.  Resin castings do NOT SHRINK!
         For metal parts, you may be able to get away with straight side
        sections in simple parts, as metal does shrink a bit.
         But basically, we have the dilemma of an excellent material
        (RTV) that is expensive, or a cheap material that limits the
        type of parts you can cast. <Don Stauffer>
        ***Other methods of mold-making and casting include the quick
        and expediant method of modeling clay (oil clay) and superglue.
        If you need a duplicate of an existing part that isn't too
        large or complicated, it can be made of cyanoacrylate(sp?). Get
        some modeling clay (the greyish sometimes oily stuff that never
        hardens), work it up untill its fairly plyable, then simply
        press the part to be duplicated into it to make a simple
        negative impression. You might need to try it a few times to
        get a clean and clear impression. Then, drip in a bit of CA
        glue over the whole surface and then a bit of filler
        (microbeads, or for both filler and quick setting, baking soda,
        which flash cures the CA). A few more layers of CA and filler
        will build up the object to the desired thickness. However, it
        works best if you don't rush the process with very thick
        layers, as they will be very slow to cure, even with soda or
        accellerator. Then, pull the clay away from the object, and
        with a bit of paint thinner clean off any clay that is still
        sticking to the object and there you go.
        <Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci>


32.     A friend of mine told me that CA glues (superglues, Zap-A-Gap,
        etc.) will severely weaken their bonds over time and may
        eventually turn to white powder.  Can anyone out there confirm
        or deny the above statement?
    A.  I remember a similar scare back in 1968 when I was getting back
        into models after college - Krazy Glue hadn't appeared on the
        market yet. A local hobby shop was importing the first CA we'd
        seen from Japan (Pearl Chemical). The rumor started that it
        would only last a year, so many of us went back to epoxies etc.
        The rumor was finally discredited and we returned to CA. I used
        it mostly on metal military miniatures and plastic armour all
        of which were completely painted - and they are still in one
        piece. I've known it to fail if you put it on too thick or on
        an unprepared dirty surface as and put alot of stress on the
        fix. I've also tried to open a tight joint with acetone solvent
        with limited success. The stuff does seem to last. It would be
        interesting to get a chemists opinion. <V.L. Kraut>
         ***Regarding CYA's.  I am a coatings chemist that uses CYA's
        frequently. Couple of points to remember about CYA's is that
        they are soluble in many organic solvents (acetone, methanol)
        and WATER.  Also, if the glue is cured to quickly (by using too
        much "accelerator") the heat generated will cause the glue to
        foam and reduce its strength.  I have had CYA joints exposed
        to methanol glow fuels fail, but i have never seen the glues I
        have used degrade over time.  However, it is very possible that
        years of high humidity, sunlight, or solvent exposure could
        destroy CYA. <Dave Seuferling>
         ***I've got two ship models, wood, plank on bulkhead, that I
        put together in the winter of 1982-83.  I used regular Crazy
        Glue on both and reinforced the joints between the bulkheads
        and strakes with white glue.  All the rest of the glue joints
        were strictly Crazy Glue.  No joints have separated so far, and
        neither of the models are in a glass case, so they are exposed
        to whatever the ambient room conditions are.  I used the same
        glue on a double planked hull, still far from finished, and on
        outer layerstrake has separated at the bow (no big deal to fix
        it).
         Two out of three of the above hulls have extreme compound
        curves at both bow and stern, so the joints had to have been
        under some stress, even though I hot bent them during
        construction.
         I have a fouth that I started in 84 and am still working on
        that I used Crazy Glue - wood and leather on.  The hull is
        fully nailed (2000+ nails), so even if the glue lets go, I
        don't think the planks are going anywhere.  This version of
        Crazy Glue turned out to be a lot better to work with than
        the original.  It's a bit thicker, so its more forgiving about
        slight gaps or irregularities in the joints, takes a bit longer
        to set up so tricky pieces can be coaxed into place a bit
        easier than the "instant"bond of the original allowed.
         Even if you don't want to use it as a construction glue, one
        place this stuff really shines is in threading small blocks
        when you're doing the rigging and setting the knots and
        fastenings to belaying pins and cleats. A bit of glue on the
        end of a piece of string firms it up so it becomes its own
        needle.  A long diagonal cut through the glued string creates a
        very fine point, and passing the string through the tiny hole
        in a block is no problem at all.  Rat lines and other knotted
        crossings of lines stay put if you dab a bit of glue on them,
        and if you use the original formula for this purpose, it
        disappears completely into the thread.  The W&L formula
        sometime stays visible if you use too much.
         Be aware that some shops that sell models don't accept cryo
        based glues though, so if you're building to market, check with
        the shop before you spend a lot of time building a boat they
        won't want. <Jack Silvia>
         ***One thing I have noticed is that alot of people are claiming
        to have built models of various types using CA adhesives that
        are 20 years old and aren't falling apart.
         One thing that HAS become more prevalent in the use of CA
        Adhesives is the use of "accelerators" and "ZIP Kickers" with
        the slower curing varieties of CA.  This can produce quite
        different results than the traditional methods of using CA.
        The availability of accelerators has also allowed people to use
        CA as a filler as well as an adhesive.
         Problems can occur when an accelerator is used on a thick
        application of CA.  The accelerator can instantly cure the
        SURFACE of the application, but the center stays liquid, and
        MAY not be able to cure properly if the surface hardening
        completely seals the center off from air.  This results in a
        soft core that may never fully cure, and is not structurally
        sound as an adhesive.
         I ran into this when I used CA to fill all of the windows in a
        Heller 1/72 Constellation in order to convert it to a C/EC-121.
        Some of the windows fills retained a "bubble" of uncured CA.
         It is better to do this type of operation in multiple thin
        applications, than trying to do it in one thicker one and use
        accelerator!
         I wonder how many CA problems are related to the one I had!
        Hopefully, we all learn from our mistakes. <Steve Kennedy>
        ***I've recently had a very strange experience with them that
        has me baffled, and I'd like to learn how to not repeat it....
         A couple of days ago, I was coating the interiors of cardboard
        model rocket tubes with CA in order to strengthen them.  I was
        using a store brand (I can give you the manufacturer if you
        need it) that was a couple of months old.  At first I was using
        medium, but then I ran out and switched to thick.  My finger
        was covered with the stuff, and a bit after I switched to the
        thick, I started feeling a sharp pain in that finger.  I thought
        it would go away, but it just getting stronger and stronger --
        it started feeling like my finger was on fire.
         I put my finger under water, which seemed to help.  But a few
        minutes after I would take my finger out of the water, the heat
        would start coming back.  The glue was too thick to wash off,
        and not set enough to peel off, so my husband tried cleaning it
        off with paint thinner.  That hurt too much, so he got some
        debonder, and eventually we got it all off, put some burn
        medicine on, and wrapped my finger in a bandage.  Everything
        was fine after that....
         I know it wasn't an allergic reaction because my husband got
        some on his finger while he was cleaning me up, and he started
        burning too.  I also know that CA generates heat when it cures
        -- but my husband didn't have that much on his finger....  So,
        I was curious if you might have any ideas on what caused it to
        burn so much?  Do you think it might have been mixing the
        medium and thick (both from the same manufacturer)???  Could it
        have been the age of the stuff???  Or could it just have been
        something with the brand????  Or could it have been the fact
        that I had so much on my finger????
         As I said, I'd like to avoid this in the future (and warn
        others about it too), but unless I know what exactly happened,
        there's not much that I could do that makes sense.....
        <Paul & Victoria Heisner>
         ***CA was developed as a way to "stitch" wounds together fast
        in the field, that's why you shouldn't get it on your fingers,
        and the chemical reaction involved probabely caused the burning
        of your finger. In short, don't get it on your skin! <Olaf
        Kievit>
         ***Bottom line -- Don't rely on a glue joint alone (ANY type
        of glue)...PIN the pieces to gether as well (using screws,
        nails, dowels, splines, etc., if at all possible.
         Take care when using CA...it was originally developed as an
        alternative to sutures in surgery.
         However, it IS handy to have somethig set almost instantly...
        I regularly use it in conjunction with other glues (white and
        yellow) to tack pieces together until the "slow" glue can set
        up -- instant clamps!  <John Kopf>