The Ship Model Forum

Of course. That's the boring life of the model maker - check, build, recheck, rinse and repeat. Just kidding if we didn't love this job we wouldn't be doing it. But that's absolutely true, and I can't thank FFG-7 enough for pointing me at the Internet Archives where I've downloaded a massive batch of plans (fully dimensioned ones sometimes) for USN, RN, MN (Marine Nationale), and Kriegsmarine ships that I can make a great use of in the next few years!

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain

you are welcome. the last time I checked I think early last year, I had over 140 sets of US Navy plans not including other navies' plans, now I am certain I have well over 200 USN plans. I've cleaned up a number of them without loosing resolution. currently working on cleaning DL-2 USS Mitscher Booklet of General Plans 1963 before starting on another 1.

Hello Everyone,

This is to address the issue of shrinkage in resin models. It actually isn't the resin that's shrinking, it's the rubber molds that shrink. Since polyeurothane resin cured through an exothermic reaction (i.e. heat), this reaction causes the rubber molds (RTV silicone for the most part) to lose "moisture", and that loss causes the actual mold to shrink. And it's not the entire mold, but rather the contact surface of the mold with the resin. And this mostly occurs with a large mold (i.e. the hull) rather than the smaller part molds, since the volume of resin used in the smaller part molds isn't enough to generate the amount of heat needed to degrade the mold at a significant rate. Small part molds usually degrade from the friction of removing the parts, and the flexing of the mold during removal. Also, RTV silicone degrades over time, mostly due to humidity and temperature. So, a brand new mold will produce an almost exact duplicate of the master used. A mold two years old, with 10 castings made from it, will have shrunk about 1-2%. A mold 5 years old, with 20 castings from it, will probably disintegrate on the 21st casting.

As for 3D printing supplanting resin casting, it probably won't be anytime soon, because of one significant factor. 3D printing gives higher fidelity, lower costs, and consistent results, but all that comes at the cost of time. A part, say with 700 layers, takes 3 hours to print. Make a mold of that part, and it takes 30 minutes to create the same part with casting. There will be shrinkage of the mold over time with the cast part, but making 6 parts in the time it takes to print one part is more cost effective. Both types of resin are about the same price per unit. This isn't to say that 3D printing is a fad, and it isn't to say that resin casting is superior. Both methods are complimentary, and in combination, will produce something injection plastics can't yet produce.

Jon

If you have stuff from other navies too I will definitely come knocking again at your door in the future. What I found is a lot but there still are some pretty obvious holes in ship types of WWII, particularly the RN and the Italian Regia Marina, and there are a lot of real and never built projects we plan to cover over the years.

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain

the UK RN plans are not the same format as the US plans as the RN profiles are a cross between outboard & inboard profiles of the US plans. when either you or HQ asks, i'll see if I have & if so then will send a copy.

I stand corrected. Thank you, Jon!

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.™

-Steve L.

Complete catalog: - https://www.model-monkey.com/
Follow Model Monkey® on Facebook: - https://www.facebook.com/modelmonkeybookandhobby

Really liking how this is panning out!

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

take a look at this.
3D Printed kit 1/350 USS Constellation Battlecruiser (full hull)
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/35563102524 ... SwoHZlbumw

Thanks, I already know that thing exists. If you take a look extensive look at it, it has a lot of problems to it, from a historical point of view, let alone printing ones.
We are trying to make it somewhat different so that they are different enough to make their own market niches.

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain

I saw issues with it but thought others here should see it to see the differences in design between ours(input) & theirs(no input).
maybe there should be a blurb in the instructions that there was input & plans from this site to show there were actual modellers' involvement with this model.

True, you make a good point. I shall discuss that with 3D-Wild and see what we can do about that.

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain

Thank you, David, for your suggestion--like publishing scientific research papers, we have been including lists of fellow modelers/warship experts in acknowledgment when we post news of product release on social media, and we will keep doing so. We hope this not only show our gratitude and respect to the ones who helped us, but also let readers know that we have been actively taking suggestions from modelers/warship experts to make as good products as possible!

you are welcome as I have seen my name mentioned a number of times on a few of your products even the 1 that might not get to market tho I did email a suggestion on that 1 on how to get it to market in a somewhat different form.

May be an unpopular and causing too much work question, but I try.

Have you considered making tiny groove all around the decks to allow fitment of railings photoetch into them (for easier installation and allowing the bottom part to sink into the deck, making it look seamless - more accurate?)

Today we tend to glue the bottom rail to them deck itself, causing it look less nice, plus making it follow the contours of the deck is always a tricky task, on bends especially. If there is a deck groove, it would not only help with it, but probably would be a first in modelling and might work well.

Just curious on your thoughts around it.

_________________
- @Shipific on IG
my gallery

@pascalemod It is in principle a good suggestion, but I can see some issues with trying to implement it. Namely: making the grooves too wide and will be noticed even after glueing PE in place; said grooves making the thin border where the hull meets the deck too fragile, particularly where the hull slopes inwards like on the bow; practicality in terms of what we can actually achieve with the printer setup at our disposal; and finally, the large amount of time needed to implement such a feature.

We will definitely look into it in the near future, however I don't want to make false promises by saying we will implement every suggestion that we receive, because while it may be good in principle and a life improvement for the modellers, if it takes for us as long to include it in each model as the rest of the actual modelling part in terms of time sunk into the enterprise, I'm sorry but that is not a beneficial trade for us and therefore our continued existence as a business company.
But maybe we'll be able to strike a sort of 'happy medium'. We'll see.

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain

Re. the question of a "groove" (or more properly a waterway) included in the deck design of the model -

I was also curious about whether or not the kit would include this detail as I hadn't looked at the pictures of it recently. So, while I agree in theory with Pascalemod's question, I also see the relevance of MFSYD's point of view as to actual kit production (time vs cost, etc.).

After reviewing photos of BB-38, I see that the ships of that era did have waterways along the length of the hull in which the chocks were located as well as the weather deck stanchions for the lifelines. This would be typical for U.S. steel warships. Last year I provided 1/357 scaled handrails for a refurbish build of a 1941 cardboard USS NORTH CAROLINA model and these handrails (obviously) were quite an improvement over the original printed handrails (cut out from the page of instructions. I was quite surprised that I was actually able to produce a complete set of these for the main deck. So, on my version of this kit my intention will be to print all the stanchions/lifelines utilizing a very thin bottom plate (much as Pascalemod has indicated) to hold these in place. Since I'm under no constraints (other than The Admiral's... ), something such as this is "doable" - not so much for a production kit designer.

Here is an example of my initial design for these lifelines -

This is just a prototype - there will be refinement to the final version.

edited - sentence structure
Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

Thank you Hank for your comment, it is indeed a big improvement what you have designed. But more to the point, currently we are only providing PE railing, so putting a bottom plate like you've done is not currently feasible, although I could see it as a possible solution. I don't know to what point test printing PE railing in 1/350 scale have gotten, it may be something that need discussing with 3D-Wild first.
It would be a best solution for all probably, but while we would like to go in this direction at some point, it is likely not going to be anytime soon. So for the foreseeable future (at least the next 3-4 kits) are going to have PE railing.

However I would like to ask you lot, were we to provide printed railings with a bottom plate, would that be better/worse, or an alternative solution to putting grooves for PE railings?

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain

MFSYD - I appreciate your reply, etc. My answer would be that it would be great if the kit(s) would include the waterway in the deck design of the model, as I think this would be appropriate for most, if not all major 20th century combatants. You could also incorporate the chocks (if so desired) into this design, as well since they normally are located above the waterway. Designing the printed stanchions/lifelines may take some time, but in the end, I think possibly an alternative to the PE option. At 1/350 scale, I made those bottom plates 0.1581mm thick, but those will be "evened" once I get back into that design after I have the kit in hand, etc. I may try to make this as "thin" as possible, which may take a few tries...nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?

Since this era of ships had "pointed" ends, I had a similar situation with the BB-55 model at the bow. I made a separate "V" shaped part which worked out well -


In this instance (LEX Class CC's), a similar part could be designed for both ends of the model.

Hope this helps!

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48

why not do a pe railing that has an extra wide bar that gets bent 90 degrees to create a foot that is either glued into a trough or onto the edge of a deck?

That is a possibility, but given the tiny size of PE bars and their fragility, we're afraid that with the constant bending they could get damaged or broken during handling. Plus there's the problem of bend them for parts that need curved railings.

_________________
We can have all of the resources in the world and still get it wrong. Not out of any incompetence, it's just because of how difficult it is sometimes to implement a physical feature without having seen it with your own two eyes. - the Chieftain