Many kit companies would benefit from a thorough study of your build log photos when designing their instruction manuals.
Allan
Judging by the forum, Trident listened to modelers and made changes and amendments, although this is a very rare occurrence. I will say more, many manufacturers really do not like it when someone deviates from their instructions and does it their own way. But thanks for the compliment. I am doing it for myself, that is why I want to implement this kit as best as possible.
Hey Sergey,
once again really well explained and also implemented. I can understand you. I wouldn't have left the gap like that either. It would always have bothered me. Well done.
Best regards
Günther
Although the kit is quite good, it also has many omissions, inaccuracies and simplifications. But that's why we are modelers, to fix all this.
Hi Sergey
Assuming you mean the rudder, it's interesting that the leading edge, or bearding, was a separate piece and the bevel changed over time, at least on British ships. I have no idea what it was prior to 1650, but according to Goodwin it was only 30 degrees from 1650 to 1720, after which it was 45 degrees. This angled (not rounded) piece of elm or fir went from the keel to the point where the sternpost terminated at the top. A piece with similar angles was fayed to the after edge of the sternpost. Some builders like the use of a different species of wood even on a model to show it more clearly. Were there exceptions on these angles?? I would not be surprised if there were, as there seem to be exceptions on nearly everything before the use of computer controlled manufacturing . Looking at a chart of dimensions for the pintles and gudgeons given on page 130 of The Construction and Fitting of English Ships of War, it appears the gap between the rudder bearding and matching piece on the stern post is about an inch.
Allan
I also asked myself this question, but the anatomy of the Victory and Alert clearly shows that the leading edge of the Alert was not separate from the rudder, but one piece. In the picture on the left. But unfortunately, except for the top view of the hinges, there is no section of the rudder itself. But on the Victory you can see that the rudder was rounded, not beveled. But the hinges were just beveled, like the sternpost. In my case, I implemented this closer to the rounding, but with a small protrusion in the middle. Here, I will most likely do the same. At this scale, it will not be clearly visible and can be interpreted both as rounding and as beveled. To guess for sure.
And again a
little poetry in the feed...
I have been racking my brains for several weeks now on how to implement the railing posts. It is very difficult to explain what exactly I want, but even before yesterday I wanted to pause Alert and return to Victory, since I had reached a dead end. But today I spent about 5 hours doing calculations and finally came up with an idea with posts (toptimbers). On Monday I hope to be able to start implementing these ideas.
I will first try to do everything on the second hull and then decide whether to repeat on the first (although maybe I will do it as per the instructions with some adjustments).
But still, it was painful when a solution does not come, or a difficult solution comes, the implementation of which is difficult, and when today the epiphany came - I felt relieved.
And a few more words about the strength and accuracy of the plastic hull, as a basis for the rough hull. In terms of strength, it is simply like a stone. Rigid and very stable, that is, it will not warp from moisture and the СA glue will not be able to come off it ... well, and precision. For clarity, I put the deck from the first hull into the second and it fit like a glove. Of course, I did not doubt it, but it is still nice to see it.
