Viking ship kit

HI PAVEL, IWOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORIGANAL AND UPGRADE IS AND APPROXIMATE COST. IF NOT TO GREAT AND THE SIZE IS THE SAME IS ONE OF THE OLDER VERSIONS STILL AVAILABLE. GOD BLESS STAY SAFE YOU AND YOURS DON
 
donfarr said:
HI PAVEL, IWOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORIGANAL AND UPGRADE IS AND APPROXIMATE COST. IF NOT TO GREAT AND THE SIZE IS THE SAME IS ONE OF THE OLDER VERSIONS STILL AVAILABLE. GOD BLESS STAY SAFE YOU AND YOURS DON
Click to expand...
The old version is still available. Differences between the old version and the new one in everything. Keel, frames, cutting boards, decks, spars, sails, there is practically not a single element that would not have received its development. Outwardly, both built versions are practically indistinguishable. But inside, these are completely different approaches to the design of the drakar. The first version was released almost three years ago, and I was sure that it would not need to be finalized, but over time, many new ideas appeared on how to make the construction of the mozhelist easier, and from these ideas a new version appeared) In three weeks I will start publishing photos of the construction stages new "Oseberg", and everything I wrote about can be seen for yourself)
 
Hi Pavel,
it is very sad, that you will use another scale for the Gokstad ship. In my opinion 1/25 is a really good if not perfect scale for a private modeller to built this kind of vessels. The only advantage of 1/32 are the figures, that are available to built a small diorama with such a boat.
 
AnobiumPunctatum said:
Hi Pavel,
it is very sad, that you will use another scale for the Gokstad ship. In my opinion 1/25 is a really good if not perfect scale for a private modeller to built this kind of vessels. The only advantage of 1/32 are the figures, that are available to built a small diorama with such a boat.
Click to expand...
Hi
The fact is that the scale of the model that we use in the manufacture of the kit is a convention dictated by the market. If there is a steady demand for a new set, it will not be difficult to release it on a larger scale. It's just a matter of time, because absolutely all the elements of the ship are already drawn in vectors, and increasing or decreasing them is a purely technical moment. Below I show an example of computer development of the new "Oseber"

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

4.jpg
 
ChrisP said:
I built the large scale Billings model and do not understand the criticism of the quality of the timber. Most of the kit parts comprise the planking which is pre-cut plywood and, if care is taken when setting each plank so the plank spacing is correct, it produces a perfect replica. I hate to say it but there are excellent build logs of this kit on "the other channel".
Click to expand...

Bob Ellis said:
They may possibly have upgraded the planks, the two I have are admittedly old but it is practically balsa. Either way I've checked out Pavel's and it's 5 times the quality and a damn sight cheaper.
Click to expand...

the planks are very good quality birch ply, about 1mm thick.

I like the look of the Drakkar model, the scale makes it more manageable for display and it appears to be very similar to the Billings 1/25 kit, with the notable and welcome exception that the frames are built up from solid wood (or so i believe) while Billings has plywood frames that need a lot of staining to disguise the plies. Which begs the question - should the model be stained dark oak and the deck planks laid loose and uneven, to replicate the museum ship, or is it preferable to finish it as if it is newly built and seagoing? AFAIK the Oseberg was only built as a burial ship and never went to sea. The depth of the hull suggests that it might easily be swamped on a transatlantic voyage to the fishing grounds of eastern Canada or Iceland.
 
ChrisP said:
the planks are very good quality birch ply, about 1mm thick.

I like the look of the Drakkar model, the scale makes it more manageable for display and it appears to be very similar to the Billings 1/25 kit, with the notable and welcome exception that the frames are built up from solid wood (or so i believe) while Billings has plywood frames that need a lot of staining to disguise the plies. Which begs the question - should the model be stained dark oak and the deck planks laid loose and uneven, to replicate the museum ship, or is it preferable to finish it as if it is newly built and seagoing? AFAIK the Oseberg was only built as a burial ship and never went to sea. The depth of the hull suggests that it might easily be swamped on a transatlantic voyage to the fishing grounds of eastern Canada or Iceland.
Click to expand...
Personally I'd make it shipshape. What sort of stain? Colron usually requires a couple of coats and the dark oak has too much black in the mix. I blend colours until I'm satisfied. As always, do test runs. It would make sense to use darker tones, no doubt they were heavily tarred.
 
ChrisP said:
the planks are very good quality birch ply, about 1mm thick.

I like the look of the Drakkar model, the scale makes it more manageable for display and it appears to be very similar to the Billings 1/25 kit, with the notable and welcome exception that the frames are built up from solid wood (or so i believe) while Billings has plywood frames that need a lot of staining to disguise the plies. Which begs the question - should the model be stained dark oak and the deck planks laid loose and uneven, to replicate the museum ship, or is it preferable to finish it as if it is newly built and seagoing? AFAIK the Oseberg was only built as a burial ship and never went to sea. The depth of the hull suggests that it might easily be swamped on a transatlantic voyage to the fishing grounds of
Click to expand...
In our new drakar, the keel is made of wood, specifically walnut, so you don’t have to paint it much. Only frames are made of plywood, and then only the part that is in the hold. Everything that is visible is only made of wood. Here is the composition of each frame, only the lower main part is made of plywood. Everything else is made of wood, taking into account the direction of the wood texture.

5.jpg
 
Last edited:
In our new drakar, the keel is made of wood, specifically walnut, so you don’t have to paint it much. Only frames are made of plywood, and then only the part that is in the hold. Everything that is visible is only made of wood. Here is the composition of each frame, only the lower main part is made of plywood.
And here is the design of the keel. All parts from 2 mm walnut plate. When assembled to a full keel, this will give a total of 4 mm. And the keel itself will turn out to be even and very hard.

6.jpg
 
Pavel Nikitin said:
Hi
The fact is that the scale of the model that we use in the manufacture of the kit is a convention dictated by the market.
Click to expand...
Speaking of scale, the Oseberg box says the scale is 1/25 (which I know to be correct) but also 1/350. Is this just an error, or does it mean something else?
1661103694220.png
 
Signet said:
Speaking of scale, the Oseberg box says the scale is 1/25 (which I know to be correct) but also 1/350. Is this just an error, or does it mean something else?
Click to expand...
This is my not sufficiently accurate knowledge of the correct spelling of the scale in inches)) In Europe, the metric system of measurements is common, unfortunately I still did not fully understand how to translate the length and scale into inches.
 
Pavel,

1/25 is a metric scale. For 1/25 is no inch per feet scale common.
1/24 or 1/2 inch per feet is a similiar british scale. 1/2 * 1/12 (1foot = 12 inch) = 1/24
 
Pavel Nikitin said:
This is my not sufficiently accurate knowledge of the correct spelling of the scale in inches)) In Europe, the metric system of measurements is common, unfortunately I still did not fully understand how to translate the length and scale into inches.
Click to expand...
No, I don't care about the inches and fractions, they're easy to calculate. I was referring to the two different scales on the box, 1/25 being correct, 1/350 obviously no:
1661110081419.png
It's not important, though, really. I was just curious.
 
Signet said:
No, I don't care about the inches and fractions, they're easy to calculate. I was referring to the two different scales on the box, 1/25 being correct, 1/350 obviously no:
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly what I meant, I did not understand the inch scale, and 1/350 is most likely not correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top