• Win a Free Custom Engraved Brass Coin!!!
    As a way to introduce our brass coins to the community, we will raffle off a free coin during the month of August. Follow link ABOVE for instructions for entering.

Airfix Golden Hind 1/72 with added rigging and details

Ahhh.....nice kit. Got one in the stash. This is wandering from ships, will PM you so that this can return to ship modelling
 
So, I have been looking at various completed GH builds, to get ideas for colours. Many look too bright for my liking. But in doing this I have found something interesting (to me, at least!) The Airfix model seems to be different to the Revell and the Mamoli and Eugen.T's plans! I suppose it is not the first time that Airfix (or anyone!) has made errors. But I thought I would show you what I mean. Maybe things like railings come and go, but the level of the bowsprit and the decks seems more important...! Anyone got any ideas? The Airfix kit seems to be the one that is different to the others...

Pic-0531.jpg
Note that the decorative line on the Mamoli model is in line with the guns...but is above them in the Airfix kit.

Pic-0532.jpg
The Revell seems to match the Mamoli....

Pic-0533.jpg
I also compared to Eugen.T's plans and they seem closer to Revell and Mamoli.

i.e Airfix seems to be an outlier!

Thoughts?

Perhaps I should not be surprised - on their Endeavour the mizzen shrouds foul the railings so they got some measurements very wrong there!
 
Last edited:
There are no original plans of the Golden Hind and they didn't discover it's wreck lying on the bottom of the English Channel. All model kits as well as the full size reconstructions they made in Britain are based on pictures of what similar ships of the time looked like, or are educated guesses. So, do whatever you think looks good on your model. The Revell version is probably smaller than the original and has too few guns, but who knows?
 
Submarinerblue said:
There are no original plans of the Golden Hind and they didn't discover it's wreck lying on the bottom of the English Channel. All model kits as well as the full size reconstructions they made in Britain are based on pictures of what similar ships of the time looked like, or are educated guesses. So, do whatever you think looks good on your model. The Revell version is probably smaller than the original and has too few guns, but who knows?
Click to expand...
Thanks. I wondered if it was something as simple as that :-) Appreciate your reply!
 
Yep, agree. No photo's either apparently. I would do a dry run of your kit parts to check the shrouds and chains don't foul the gunports and rails.
 
Off the wall question. Have you looked/searched the National Maritime Museum in England or Australia's Archives for any contempory paintings or illustrations ( if any exist)
 
No, but that is a good idea. I did buy the Anatomy of the Ship volume on the Susan Constant, since this is a contemporary ship and probably very similar. So likely a good reference - I think I saw that on one of the forums here.
I must try to avoid "rivet-counter-syndrome" and not get too fussed with reproduction. They are models, after all, not replicas :-)
 
Totally agree. If it were Victory, then yes, rivet count away because of the cast amount of references available, but the GH, not so much. I say model away to your hearts content! No one can prove you wrong!
 
europapete said:
rivet count away because of the cast amount of references available, but the GH, not so much. I say model away to your hearts content! No one can prove you wrong!
Click to expand...
I certainly agree the sentiment, but there is a yawning rabbit hole just a step ahead of you, and it is this.

When you go back a couple of centuries, there are no plans, no science. Shipbuilders learned what worked by seeing which ships came back from their voyages. And that means that if you look into the history and origins of the ship, you could discover more, and if you then look into other ships of the same period you could discover more about what features and shapes were fashionable. Then you create some drawings to note those features, and see what fits, and how a builder of the day might have prepared such a ship for such a voyage - bearing in mind that altering the rig, the masts, and so on wasn’t impossible.

And now you can build a model and rightly claim a level of authenticity. Change kit parts, add and modify away, and when questions may be asked, you quote sources, and justifications for the ‘angle of the foremast is more indicative of ships of that period than the kit makers represent.’

Now, my lad, you are deep in the well of shipbuilding research, and you may never be able to get back to ‘just’ assembling a kit without needing to check on ‘just a few’ details.

But the sense of achievement is way greater than mere assembly and a good paint job. It takes that an multiplies by 5, by 10…

Welcome.


Jim
 
Jim Fortnam said:
I certainly agree the sentiment, but there is a yawning rabbit hole just a step ahead of you, and it is this.

When you go back a couple of centuries, there are no plans, no science. Shipbuilders learned what worked by seeing which ships came back from their voyages. And that means that if you look into the history and origins of the ship, you could discover more, and if you then look into other ships of the same period you could discover more about what features and shapes were fashionable. Then you create some drawings to note those features, and see what fits, and how a builder of the day might have prepared such a ship for such a voyage - bearing in mind that altering the rig, the masts, and so on wasn’t impossible.

And now you can build a model and rightly claim a level of authenticity. Change kit parts, add and modify away, and when questions may be asked, you quote sources, and justifications for the ‘angle of the foremast is more indicative of ships of that period than the kit makers represent.’

Now, my lad, you are deep in the well of shipbuilding research, and you may never be able to get back to ‘just’ assembling a kit without needing to check on ‘just a few’ details.

But the sense of achievement is way greater than mere assembly and a good paint job. It takes that an multiplies by 5, by 10…

Welcome.


Jim
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right :-) Indeed I have already experienced this in a small way. When I was attaching the driver to the Endeavour, I realised that if I did what it said in the kit, then the sail would look ridiculous because it was only attached to the gaff. It was too late to attach to the mizzen mast (too many lines in the way now!) so I added an eyebolt immediately behind the mizzen and ran a line from the clew to the eye bolt. That at least made the sail look plausible! It still needed a sheet, of course, or it would just blow in the wind and be useless. I discovered that the real Endeavour had an iron-horse so I made one of those and attached the sheet line there. there was really no room - it is not a great model! But it looks OK to non-experts. It also has my first coil of rope!
Pic-0551.jpg

As for the evolution of the technology, I again agree. The Master of the replica Endeavour (Anthony Longhurst) recommended some books for me as references. One was "The Way of a Ship" by Alan Villiers (who lived right here in Melbourne). And he has stories telling the evolution of certain technologies...e.g. Captain X thought this could be better if it was modified in this way....and then someone from England took the idea and extended it by adding blah blah. Fascinating stuff.

There is no avoiding these rabbit holes. And...would we really want to?

Cheers Jim!

P.S. I recently watched Billy Bud (highly recommended if you have not seen it) and the technical advisor was Alan Villiers.

Pic-0551.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top