The Ship Model Forum

Has anyone used the Vector Cut Varyag Wood Deck ? I purchased the ZVEZDA 1/350 kit many years ago along with the wood deck and Master Model mast & Yards and gun barrel set . Then I waited years to purchase a photo- etch set for it . I just received the Eduard photo-etch for it that was not available years ago . Does anyone have experienced with the Eduard set ?
I also have a set of plans that I purchased from a Russian web site titled " The 1st-rank cruiser " VARYAG " Macwmao 1:200 dated 2005 . I am ready to make this model and could use any help I could get .

I had forgotten that the Modelkrak kit was supposed to show the 1917 appearance.

I have the one that Maxim mentioned - another Cndragon kit. I thought we had come to agreement that Cndragon was always a pirate of somebody else's work. The hull is different from the Modelkrak kit, and as Maxim says, it has an extensive PE sheet. The PE includes the catwalk that goes between the upper decks, weaving around the stacks. The lack of instructions for the PE is a real problem - most parts can be identified, but some are very weird. The kit seems very close to the drawings in Skvorcov's Aurora, Diana, Pallada book.

I bought this kit before coming to the understanding that cndragon was a generally copycat factory, and I am glad to know that this one doesn't seem to be a pirate. I checked WSW and NNT, as well as Combrig, and it is not a match for any of them.

Link to an (old) build review of the Modelkrak kit here.

Modelkrak has one, there is also a Chinese kit with PE parts, which can be found on Ebay. It has no company label, not even instructions.

Does anyone know of a 1/700 kit of Aurora in her 1917 appearance?
Thanks,
Rick

That today the ship would look exactly as in 1917 I would doubt. E.g. the guns and their shields could be still different (at least all the photos I found show different gun shields). After the Second World War her 152 mm guns were re-added - but because of the lack of original guns, coast-defence guns were used. The shape of the gun's shields looks different. The big work to make her look as in 1917 was done in 1984-1987 - not during her last repair this decade.

I received further clarification about the kit from Ark Models today:

The most visible difference between the 1917/2017 version (Aurora was rebuilt in 1984-1987 to resemble the 1917 version) and the pre-1984 version are the anchors. In 1917 her anchors could not be stored at the hawsepipes, therefore they were stored on the hull sides. Later this was modified and her anchors could be stored in the hawsepipes.

Pre-1984:


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_cruiser_%27Aurora%27,_Leningrad_(31208719714).jpg?uselang=de


Earlier and today's fit:


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Avrora1916.jpg?uselang=de

The book mentioned below (Cruisers of the 1st Rank. Avrora, Diana, Pallada) reveals a remarkable thing about the anti-fouling: Hull below waterline has originally been plated with copper plates (over the wood planking!!). Photos shows the bottom is more white, than any other color, I wonder why. And using antifouling paint over copper plating makes no sense.

Br:VilleH

More detailed, for sure, if that's what you mean.

Interesting, what does the kit do to correct the anchors?

Thanks Maxim. I am doing my model out of the box, not a 1917 version. After some additional research I discovered that my model is to represent the 2017 version of this ship. Can you believe it? The extra resin details provided in the ARK kit, including new foredeck, represent Aurora as it is today. Indeed the color scheme they provided is correct: grey, white, red and green.

Still, the base of the kit is still the old Heller plastic, terrible quality and moulding.

I bought recently Cruisers of the 1st Rank. Avrora, Diana, Pallada by Aleksiey V. Skvorcov, an English translation of the 2012 book published by Gangut in Russian. It is very detailed - but apparently not regarding colours...

There is a plan of Aurora as in 1917 (which requires some changes for the Heller kit, which depicts the museum ship before the 1984-87 rebuilt). The rear platform for two 45 mm is depicted differently to the bridge decks and the platform for the two 76 mm guns. The main decks are shown as planked, the other platforms (except of the platform above the wheelhouse, which is also shown as planked) appear to have gratings - but the rear platform is shown without any structure, which could indicate red linoleum.

Many Russian ships have additional stripes above the boot top in different colours.

So I got the Ark Models 1:400 Aurora anniversary set as a gift in September and am looking at starting it now. Ark Models is a Russian company, they don't do many ships and the few warships that they have are only 1:400 and 1:500 and poor quality at best, being reboxes of old Heller kits I believe. However the Aurora 1917-2017 model they have made additional resin pieces for detail as well as a basic photoetch set.

Now to the hard part, painting Aurora in the right colors. Ark Models say the model is presented as Aurora was in 1941. Aurora was stripped of armament at that time so it's anyone's guess whether 1941 version is accurate. They've also included a very peculiar painting scheme. I'm not doubting its integrity since it is a RUSSIAN company after all and they should know their stuff. It calls for red antifouling, green bootcap and white secondary bootcap. See picture attached.


In all Aurora models I've seen it always has green antifouling. Did the Soviets start using red antifouling by World War 2? What would the purpose of having two bootcap stripes be? And why a green bootcap not a black one?

Also, they've specified a kind of red linoleum color for the rear platform as well as the walkway that spans the superstructure. Odd that's its only on the one platform and not the rest. Any basis why this might be?

Couple of links for you Rade:

Old issue of Modelist Konstructor with drawings of the ship as she appeared in 1917:
http://hobbyport.ru/ships/avrora_mk77.htm
Be aware that, if you are aiming for accuracy, those old MK drawings need to be treated with a bit of caution.

A thread about building Maquette's (ex Oganiok, ex Heller) Aurora from Russian forum:
http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/vie ... 26743.html
More links in this thread.

Can't help you with RAL codes but, if you paste "крейсер аврора" (without commas) into your browser address bar you will get photos and drawings to get you going.

I don't know if it is possible to move my topic there in order not to spam the forum with repeating threads...

You might want to ask in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=83814

Hello to all,
My name is Rade and I got as a gift plastic model kit of "Aurora" made by Maquette. The build scheme is rather poor, and my main problem is the actual paints. Model represents "Aurora" in configuration after 1917, with 14*152 mm guns, so if anyone can post me some recommendations on painting scheme, preferably with RAL color codes, I would be grateful. Also any advice concerning the build would be welcomed.

As far as I know, Artwork Set replace much of Zvezda kit. But I think / my opinion is that it is superfluos because it corrects things that are not really name to be wrong. You name here as reason that hull is too narrow, well, ... I don't use now my calculator to check, but as far as I was told we are talking between 1mm to 2.5mm and the reason is simple that that model is not excactly 1/350. Sure, it is a personal view and decision if this is a problem and I accept everyones decisions of course ... but for me it is in area where it is ok.

I think necessary is only WEM Set or from someone else for PE parts, maybe brass masts and brass gun barrels.

Has anyone seen the new Artwox set for the 1/350 Varyag? Since besides wood deck, it includes brass under-deck and new superstructure, I wonder if it corrects the Zvesda kit's big problem-- hull is too narrow. Are the Artwox deck pieces wider than the Zvesda plastic kit parts? Can anyone have a look at this and tell me. I might buy a set, as expensive as it is, if it does correct this issue. Thanks!

Dave