A Ship Model Question

to subfixer - we all do it the way we do it because, well ... because it's a hobby, and no one dies if we screw up. Although sometimes I wonder, with the degree of passion that some of the "discussions" in here take on!

Actually, come to think of it, I can think of several companies whose kits offer the full/waterline hull option.  Some of Dragon's superb recent offerings; all (I think) of the old but good Italeri 1/700 kits; Academy; Trumpeter; some of Hasegawa's; and several of the more recent from Airfix.  There are various ways to handle the problem.  My favorite of those I've seen is the Airfix approach:  the hull is molded in port and starboard halves, full-hull, with a deep groove inside at the waterline.  If the modeler wants a full-hull model, there's no joint to fill; if he/she wants a waterline model, a few strokes of an Xacto blade along the groove will produce it.  (I hear some ship modelers object to gluing together the port and starboard halves, but I have no idea why.)

Let's hope the full/waterline option is a wave of the future.

Academy makes a nice Graf Spee in 1/350 that is quite affordable and not as big as most 1/350 battlewagons. If you want something in 1/350. It also has the option of full hull or waterline.

Brilliant! I can produce a whole range of dioramas depicting stolen motorbikes_ that'll save me a fortune too!__

I think that I may just build the bottom half of aircraft from now on and hang them from the ceiling as this is the most common way of viewing them in flight. Boy! That sure simplified things for me.

There's an interesting point at the root of this discussion. 

Scale models really do two things:  they document the shapes of the prototypes, and they reproduce, in miniature, the impression that the prototypes make on the human eye.  Most of the time those two functions co-exist without any problem.  A well-made aircraft model, for instance, does both things well; the accurate shape of a P-51 doesn't conflict with the visual impression of it.  (About the only difference I can think of between a "three-dimentional plan" of an airplane and the visual impression that it makes is that the visual impression includes the slight flattening of the tires where they touch the ground.  Replicating that in a model doesn't interfere significantly with the accuracy of it.)

A ship is different.  The actual shape of the ship obviously includes the hull below the waterline.  But under normal circumstances we don't see that part; our visual impression of the ship is based entirely on how the part above the waterline looks.  So the ship modeler - unlike the airplane or AFV modeler - has to chose between building a 100% accurate model of the prototype and a 100% accurate model of what it looks like under normal circumstances.  As the posts above demonstrate, there are strong arguments on both sides.

Years ago I read an article in a British modeling magazine in which the (very well-qualified and knowledgable) auther asserted quite emphatically that full-hull models, except the enormous ones in museums, looked "utterly ridiculous."  (He said full-hull models of sailing ships were ok, because the masts and rigging "balanced" the lower hulls.)  As an example he pointed to Revell's Wind-class icebreaker kit; he said the characteristic bulged and bumpy shape of the underwater hull looked "perfectly absurd" in a model.  I don't think the matter's that simple.  To my notion that underwater hull shape is what makes the ship an icebreaker; if the purpose of the model is to demonstrate what an icebreaker is, cutting it off at the waterline damages its effectiveness.  On the other hand, a diorama of an icebreaker shoving through an ice pack, with the model cut at the waterline, certainly would convey the "feel," and genuine appearance, of the ship more effectively.  The same goes for a destroyer or a submarine.

Bottom line (as in so many other aspects of model building):  to each his/her own.  I suggest we refrain from asserting that one type of model is "better" than the other, and acknowledge that they're different.  There's ample room for both - and nothing forces the modeler to pick one style or the other for every model.  (My own tiny collection includes both types.)  As for kits, I really like those that offer the modeler the choice of full-hull or waterline.  Trumpeter, for instance, seems to be leaning increasingly in that direction with both its 1/700 and larger scale kits.  Bravo Trumpeter.

Boat kits from the waterline series are more adaptable for making sea based dioramas. A full hull is nicer, apart from being complete it also looks better when the dull red finish breaks with the rest of the colours, making the full hull boat look far more striking.

What is it with cats and models???  Never heard of a dog, a Cockatoo or a Ferret damaging one.

With me, and 1/700 scale, it's mostly a space consideration - I live in a pretty small apartment, and there are cats. Every finished model goes into its own case, to keep dust and curious kitties off of it. Full hull models would take up at least twice as much space. Plus, when you build a waterline hull model, it opens up a lot more possibilities. With waterline hulls, and in 1/700 scales, I can cram a lot of action into a 9x4 inch case:

I prefer full hull models because as a shipyarder, I have spent a lot of time in the dry docks with the ships. Actually, there is a lot of detail on the hull that isn't included on the model hull. This is especially true on submarine models. But, if you haven't had the opportunity to see them in real life, you don't know what you're missing. If submarine modelers just modeled the topsides, over two thirds of the boat would be missing. So, to each his own.

Full hull for me,but like Tankerbuilder says.waterline is easier to handle

I prefer full hull. A word of warning though. Many kits that are sold with a top/ bottom split do not have the split at the fully laden water line.

I'm with warshipguy on this one, full hull just makes a boat look complete, I like big butts and I cannot lie.....

I find that waterline is easier to finish in ANY scale.And the idea of full hull with the very large areas of one color takes away from the hard work one does above the boot stripe.The thing is it also provides a very stable ship on which to work.full hull requires a very careful hand when the ship has a tendency to move when you don,t want it too.Besides who wants to look at all the large expanse of green or red. Not me. TANKER-builder

The Trumpeter and Dragon 1/700 Bismarck, as well as the rest of their kits, give you the option of full hull or waterline.  I prefer full hull ships, but the stand should really be well thought out. To me, most waterline builders do not really do the water well. But, that is personal opinion.

Bill

I'd agree with Dreadnought, plus there are a whole lot of subjects available in 1:700, and the price is much, much less.  You can still get some of those '70's vintage kits for in the $20+ and they still hold up pretty well.

I'm currently finishing up USS Wisconsin in "Forces of Nature" group build, so I don't have finished photos of the ship, but here are some floatplanes I did, 1/700 from Trumpeter.

 I think you'll like 1:700.  You just have to go slow, be careful, learn some tricks of the trade.  All the ships I've built (only four over the last year) have been 1:700 waterline. 

Good sailing.

I would say that the convention began with the consortium of Japanese model companies in the 70s.  Many modelers prefer waterline for small scales.  I like it for all scales.  There are esthetic and practical reasons.   In smaller scales it is easier to put the ships in seascapes and they take up less room for display purposes.  Personally, I have never cared for full hull as that big glaring red bottom (or in some cases green) is just too much.  Most people never see the bottom of a ship and it just seems more natural to some modelers to display that which is most familiar.   To each his own.