Copper leafing instead of paint for plates on hull?

Well you also have to size it for the leaft to stick and that's basically rubbing the leaf over a glue basecoat. Personally I like either the old square bottle Testors copper or SNJ's copper with their copper polishing powder. The latter is very bright and shiny when first applied bu over the years it gets a very nice natural patina.

This is a complicated subject, maybe worthy of some discussion.

In the first place, I'm not sure what "copper leaf" actually is. Gold leaf - the real stuff - comes in the form of extremely thin sheets. (Gold has the unusual ability to be flattened out considerably thinner than virtually any other metal. Real gold leaf is, I believe, about a millionth of an inch thick. Any liquid or paste labeled "gold leaf" is not the genuine article. Real gold leaf is also quite expensive. Various companies in the arts and crafts world make "patent gold leaf," which handles and looks almost like the real stuff - and costs considerably less. I've seen stuff labeled "silver leaf" and "copper leaf" in similar packages - but I'm pretty sure it isn't real silver or copper.

Real leaf (and, I imagine, real silver or copper leaf - if there actually is such a thing) is tricky to apply. It requires, as Mr. Smith described, some careful preparation in the form of sizing and adhesive. If the bottom of your model's hull is smooth (e.g., if the model has a solid wood hull) this might work. If you're dealing with a plastic kit that has molded-in plating lines and spike heads, though, I'd be concerned that the sizing and adhesive would blur the detail.

I've fooled around a little bit with gold leaf on ship models, and I've never really been satisfied with it. Getting it to stick onto fine details without looking dull or powdery seems to be quite a challenge. I know some modelers swear by it, but frankly I've never seen a gold-leaf-decorated model that really impressed me. (Exceptions: the old Board Room-style models, which are enormous.) I really like the look of modern metallic hobby paints better.

If what you're after is a bright, metallic copper color, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Smith: there are easier, more practical ways to get it. The "copper" paints in most standard hobby lines (Testor's, Floquil, Humbrol, etc.) actually give a mighty nice finish. An alternative would be the adhesive-backed copper foil sold by Bare Metal Foil. I haven't tried it, but the company has a good reputation.

The question of scale accuracy is another matter. The color of real "coppered" bottoms is a popular subject for argument among serious ship modelers.

Recent research has established that copper wasn't the only metal used for the purpose. The actual material - and its color - depended to a large extent on the date. Copper sheathing (with genuine copper) appeared at about the time of the American Revolution. (During that conflict the British Royal Navy copper-sheathed its warships on a regular basis when they came into suitably-equipped docking facilities. By the end of the Revolution most British warships were coppered.) It was discovered, however, that copper was fragile; it wore out pretty quickly. It was, however, in wide use in European and American navies and merchant marines from about 1770 to about 1850.

In the middle of the nineteenth century metallurgists started experimenting with other, tougher sheathing materials. Contemporary advertisements and building contracts for the American clipper ships of the 1850s refer to "red metal" (copper) and something called "yellow metal," which was touted as being considerably more durable (and more expensive). "Yellow metal," it's been established, was a mixture of copper and zinc - which, according to the dictionary, equals brass.

By the 1850s, it seems, big ships had pretty much abandoned copper and switched to yellow metal. There were variants on the theme; the Cutty Sark, for example, was sheathed with something called "Muntz Metal." It apparently was indeed made of copper and zinc, but in proportions that gave it a reddish tinge. (George Campbell's fine book, China Tea Clippers, which I happen to have at hand, says Muntz metal appeared in the 1830s as a 50/50 mixture of copper and zinc, but that in 1846 the manufacturer switched to 60% copper/40% zinc. The latter concoction, presumably, is what was put on the Cutty Sark.)

To open yet another can of worms, start thinking about what the stuff actually looked like. There are different arguments about that, too.

Either copper or brass, if exposed directly to oxygen, will turn a mottled, rather light green; brass, if left alone long enough, will turn black. Theoretically, the scouring effect created by saltwater as the ship moved was supposed to erode the surface of the sheathing, constantly exposing new, bright metal. I have my doubts as to whether that actually happened. Photos of copper- (or yellow-metal-) sheathed sailing ships suggest that there was quite a bit of variation in the composition of the individual sheets; in some old pictures of drydocked ships the hulls look like patchwork quilts. And various things stuck to the metal. A ship that had been in the water for several years would likely be trailing a considerable amount of seaweed - to say nothing of barnacles and other marine growth. An accurate reproduction of a metal-sheathed sailing ship that had been in service for a while would not be the sort of thing I'd want in my living room.

Over the years ship modelers have taken various approaches to the problem. One is to sheath the hull with bright, new copper (or brass) and either spray it with clear lacquer (to keep it bright) or leave it alone and live with whatever patina it acquires. Some modelers heat their plates with a torch first. (I don't care for that technique myself. I'm not convinced that heat accurately duplicates what those real plates went through.) Another approach is to paint the bottom with high-quality copper-colored paint and say to hl with it. Yet another (which I happen to like) is to paint the bottom with a mixture of pale greens, greys, and browns, thereby at least suggesting the appearance of a hull that's been in the water for some time. Or, of course, one can avoid the whole problem by slicing the model off at the waterline.

One of the nice aspects of sailing ship modeling, to my notion, is that it leaves considerable room for interpretation and personal taste. There are lots of ways to deal with metal-sheathed hulls. I say - read up on the subject, find out what options are realistic, and take your pick.

By now I suspect albinooscar wishes he'd never made his original post. Sorry about that. This is interesting stuff - and pretty important to the appearance of a finished model. Good luck. It's a great hobby.

I'm going through this atm with the 1/100th victory, I have used the Testors copper, both the rattle can and the bottle for touchup. Airbrushing mettalics despite what you may hear is a right royal pain in the ass!
The finish I have is excellent I think, it looks like copper and once dryed I sprayed a couple of thin layers of dull coat, this knocks the gloss of a little and also protects what is a very dellicate paint surface.
Nail marks! each and every model I have seen that shows these, looks wrong in my eyes! they are far too big to be scale, I, and this is just me, prefer to not see them, I think they detract from the rest of the model.

This is the testors copper, I did not use flash as it reflects atm.
You can see more pics of this spray here: http://pclincs.com/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=7

QUOTE: Originally posted by jtilley This is a complicated subject, maybe worthy of some discussion. By now I suspect albinooscar wishes he'd never made his original post. Sorry about that. This is interesting stuff - and pretty important to the appearance of a finished model. Good luck. It's a great hobby.

Not at all jtilley, I am very glad that you went through all the trouble to post such a lengthy explanation/reply. I wish I got more in other forums that I read.

In the past I have used enamel paint for the hull. I understand all the hassles involved with using leaf and just wanted some input and boy did I get input. I have really never been one to do anything other than what the instructions said to do. I’ve done a lot of models and am now ready to start customizing the next ones I do.
jtilley, you also mentioned copper foil, how thick is that compared to tin foil one would use for cooking?

Thanks to all for the replies. Keep them coming!
Ron

Bare Metal Foil is much thinner than common kitchen tin foil - you have to ensure that it is applied to a very clean surface - if you don't every piece of dust over which it is applied will show thru it (as bumps). But if you're willing to work with it and take your time, it will give you a fantastic finish.

QUOTE: Originally posted by jtilley This is a complicated subject, maybe worthy of some discussion. In the first place, I'm not sure what "copper leaf" actually is. Gold leaf - the real stuff - comes in the form of extremely thin sheets. (Gold has the unusual ability to be flattened out considerably thinner than virtually any other metal. Real gold leaf is, I believe, about a millionth of an inch thick. Any liquid or paste labeled "gold leaf" is not the genuine article. Real gold leaf is also quite expensive. Various companies in the arts and crafts world make "patent gold leaf," which handles and looks almost like the real stuff - and costs considerably less. I've seen stuff labeled "silver leaf" and "copper leaf" in similar packages - but I'm pretty sure it isn't real silver or copper.

Most of the copper leaf is copper, modern manufacturing methods allowing for annealing in the process of rolling it out that thin. Silver leaf is usually a silver alloy but since silver tarnishes so fast it's pretty pointless. Gold leaf (if I refer to leaf I mean the real stuff, if in quotes like "leaf" I mean the fake stuff)...real gold leaf is on the order of .00001" thick, 24K gold goes transparent at about 2 millionths thick.

QUOTE: Real leaf (and, I imagine, real silver or copper leaf - if there actually is such a thing) is tricky to apply. It requires, as Mr. Smith described, some careful preparation in the form of sizing and adhesive. If the bottom of your model's hull is smooth (e.g., if the model has a solid wood hull) this might work. If you're dealing with a plastic kit that has molded-in plating lines and spike heads, though, I'd be concerned that the sizing and adhesive would blur the detail.

It can be done on plastic ships from about the size of Revell's old Flying Cloud to Heller's big HMS Victory, the question would be "is it worth it?". There are sizes that will work quite well and not obscure the detail, assuming you use them correctly.

QUOTE: I've fooled around a little bit with gold leaf on ship models, and I've never really been satisfied with it. Getting it to stick onto fine details without looking dull or powdery seems to be quite a challenge. I know some modelers swear by it, but frankly I've never seen a gold-leaf-decorated model that really impressed me. (Exceptions: the old Board Room-style models, which are enormous.) I really like the look of modern metallic hobby paints better.

I've done a little gold leafing on 1/16 scale and 120mm figures and it works quite well for insignia or in one case sword hilt and scabbard mounts. It would not be worth the bother for smaller figures in my opinion.

QUOTE: The question of scale accuracy is another matter. The color of real "coppered" bottoms is a popular subject for argument among serious ship modelers.

Sounds like the steelnavy era discussion on whether to weather a ship or present it as a clean dockyard style model.

QUOTE: To open yet another can of worms, start thinking about what the stuff actually looked like. There are different arguments about that, too.

That's where you need to decide what you as the modeller want. Artistic license and all that....of course if it is a commission build the customer decides, whether you like the style or not, it's his money.

QUOTE: Either copper or brass, if exposed directly to oxygen, will turn a mottled, rather light green; brass, if left alone long enough, will turn black.

If exposed to just air with little humidity and no salts or acid, copper will also turn black. Most metals that react with oxygen have two forms of oxidation, in the case of ferrous alloys we all know about that nasty red rust, it also can oxidize black which is what gun bluing really is; the black form is very hard and tight to the surface and actually inhibits rust. Aluminum has a hard black oxide and a soft white oxide. Cuprous alloys have a hard black oxide and a flaky green oxide, commonly called verdigris.

QUOTE: Over the years ship modelers have taken various approaches to the problem. One is to sheath the hull with bright, new copper (or brass) and either spray it with clear lacquer (to keep it bright) or leave it alone and live with whatever patina it acquires. Some modelers heat their plates with a torch first. (I don't care for that technique myself. I'm not convinced that heat accurately duplicates what those real plates went through.) Another approach is to paint the bottom with high-quality copper-colored paint and say to hl with it. Yet another (which I happen to like) is to paint the bottom with a mixture of pale greens, greys, and browns, thereby at least suggesting the appearance of a hull that's been in the water for some time. Or, of course, one can avoid the whole problem by slicing the model off at the waterline.

For an Admiralty style look I like straight SNJ copper with their copper powder applied over it and just let it age and patina naturally. For a slightly more weathered look I prefer either the Testors square bottle or SNJ airbrushed on followed by a slight dark wash. Then I take some green, white and pale grey coarsely mixed (you want swirls of each color to show) and apply some blobs radomly near the waterline and a few lower on the hull, then take a thinner soaked piece of old T-shirt and drag it down the hull...gives a nice streaked effect if done right.

QUOTE: One of the nice aspects of sailing ship modeling, to my notion, is that it leaves considerable room for interpretation and personal taste. There are lots of ways to deal with metal-sheathed hulls. I say - read up on the subject, find out what options are realistic, and take your pick.

Unlike the steelnavy era you're right, sailing ships allow more artistic options.

QUOTE: Originally posted by vapochilled This is the testors copper, I did not use flash as it reflects atm. You can see more pics of this spray here: http://pclincs.com/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=7

That looks great!

There was a recent issue of Ships in Scale where the author and builder of a Texas revenue cutter used actual scale copper plates to simulate the copper sheathing on the ship. I thought it looked pretty good.

Regards,

I've seen those copper plates for sale, but your looking at an awful lot of money and serious time to fit them.

I wouldn't recommend trying to fit individual copper plates to the hull of a plastic kit that has plating detail molded in. That would be an exercise in masochism. I think the Bare Metal Foil approach would work (I know that company makes nice stuff), but in honesty I haven't tried it.

Some plastic kits don't have such detail. Quite a few years ago I did an H.M.S. Bounty, based on the extremely old, 1/110-scale Revell kit. The Revell designers completely missed the fact that the Bounty was copper-sheathed; the hull halves had raised "planking seams" molded on them. I sanded off that detail and plated the bottom with sheets of .001 copper, applied with contact cement. (I had my doubts about whether that adhesive would stick effectively to styrene, but almost thirty years later it shows no sign of coming loose.) I bought the copper, in sheets, from Model Shipways (this was long before that company got bought by Model Expo); I'm not sure where one would find it now. I had to cut it into individual plates, about 3/16" x 7/16". The job did take a while (about a week of evenings, if I remember right), but I'm pretty happy with the results.

My most recent model is a Model Shipways/Model Expo pilot schooner Phantom. The kit had a cast resin hull, and came with a spool of adhesive-backed copper foil tape for sheathing the bottom. The tape was twice as wide as it should have been, but after I cut it in half it worked quite satisfactorily. The adhesive seems to stick fine - though I don't yet have any feel for how long it will last. I didn't apply any weathering or finish to it; I want to see what sort of color changes it goes through naturally. (It's a small model. The worst-case scenario is that I have to peel the stuff off and replate it - which would take about an evening.)

Here's a link to some pictures of this little model: http://gallery.drydockmodels.com/phantom . I'm afraid none of the shots shows the plating really well, but maybe they're adequate to suggest the general effect.

I'm pretty sure the tape in the Phantom kit is the same stuff that's used in the stained glass trade. Making stained glass windows and other decorations is a fairly popular hobby; several companies sell supplies for it. I've gotten on the mailing lists of a couple of them (I have no idea how). The catalogs include quite a variety of copper tapes - and, interestingly, copper sheet with pressure-sensitive adhesive on the back.

My next big project is the clipper ship Young America, on 1/96 scale. I'm trying to make up my mind about the hull sheathing. The real ship was sheathed with "yellow metal." I've bought some .001" brass shim stock (from Lee Valley - www.leevalley.com ) for the purpose, but frankly I haven't completely convinced myself that it's the right color. I've also got just about enough of that Model Shipways .001" copper left to do this model. The copper probably would look nicer, but the brass would be more accurate - maybe. Decisions, decisions. This is one reason why that model is making extremely slow progress.

A couple of years ago I had the pleasure of reviewing a book called Modelling Sailing Men-of-War, by Philip Reed. It's a detailed treatise on how he built a model of a British 74-gun ship on the scale of 3/32"=1'. The finished model is magnificent - one of the finest I've ever seen. I was particularly interested in Mr. Reed's unusual approaches to some long-standing ship modeling challenges. (What he accomplished with carving burrs in a Dremel tool is really remarkable.) It's a waterline model, but several rows of sheathing are visible above the waterline. Mr. Reed made the plates out of (drum roll, please) painted tissue paper. I practically dropped my teeth when I read that one, but it's impossible to argue with the results.

This has been a highly informative thread,and I have learned a lot.
I have a half compleated model of Cutty Sark on the shelf (I'm up to the rigging...shudder.) and after talking to the Cutty Sark Trust l painted the lower hull mat red and then overpainted that with Humberol Brass. This matched the colour in their photos.
I think they said she was sheathed in "monnel" ? metel but it was over ten years ago and i'm not sure.
l painted the ship as per photos in the book "Log of the Cutty Sark' by Lubok. I also set up the ships boats and railings as per the book photos of her in Port Jackson (Sydney Harbour)

Dai

Dai Jones - Now that you've jogged my memory I think you're right. The American Heritage Dictionary (which happened to be lying near my computer) defines "Monel" as "a trademark used for an alloy of nickel, copper, iron, and manganese." Sounds to me like a reddish brass - or maybe a brassy red. And what it looked like after it had been on the ship for some time is anybody's guess.

The first time I visited the Cutty Sark, in 1978, I bought, from the gift shop on board, a fascinating booklet about the restoration of the ship. It described in considerable detail the condition she was in when the restorers took her in hand (in the 1950s), the construction of the drydock where she now rests, and all sorts of interesting stuff about how she was restored prior to being put on public exhibition. I remember that the booklet had some interesting things to say about the hull sheathing. Unfortunately I can't lay hands on it. Dn. Will keep looking.

McMaster Carr www.mcmaster.com has both copper and brass shim stock in 0.001" thickness. They also carry bronze, however, the thinnest is 0.005"

From what I remember of Monel, it has a silver color rather than a copper color. I cannot say for sure though, as we don't have any in the shop right now. There are several alloys of Monel, but all of them contain more nickel than copper. The most common alloy is Monel 400. It is noted for its resistance to salt water so it may have been used on ship bottoms.

I'm "replying" to get this thread moved to the first page. The subject has come up in another thread.

Are the plates on real ships overlapping or butted? I have seen molded in detail both ways. If they are overlapping, do you start at the bow or the stern, at the waterline or at the keel. Do you cut the adhesive backed foil in small rectangles or strips that run the full length?

The real stuff was laid in relatively small sheets, about 48" long by 14", 20", or 24" wide. The usual method was to start at the bottom of the sternpost and work forward and upward. Each plate overlapped the one aft of it and the one below it by about 2".

The British Royal Navy seems, for some reason, to have used a slightly different system. On British warships the plating process apparently started at the aft end of the waterline, so each plate overlapped the ones aft of and above it. (That's one of the many things that Heller got right in its H.M.S. Victory kit.)

Those rules weren't followed all the time. When a ship got recoppered, for instance, several gangs might be working on the job simultaneously, and when one gang's work collided with another's they might or might not pay attention to what overlapped what.

The copper was held to the hull with copper nails, driven through pre-punched holes. (Fairly early in the development of the process the experimenters discovered that iron nails wouldn't work. Putting a piece of iron next to a piece of copper and submerging both in salt water produces an electrolytic reaction that dissolves the copper. The holes in the copper quickly enlarged around the iron nails, and the copper fell off. Hence the shift to copper nails.) The holes were punched in a diagonal pattern across the surface of the plate, and in more closely-spaced rows around the edges. A drawing by George Campbell that I happen to have in front of me shows 61 nail holes in each sheet. Few modelers worry about the exact arrangement and number of holes, except perhaps on very large scales.

In high-quality work on large ships the copper was generally laid over a layer of tarred felt or paper. Pounding the nails in would produce a shallow "dimple" around each nail head. On "medium" scales modelers often represent the nails with shallow dents, made with some sort of fairly sharp instrument (e.g., a darning needle) after the copper's in place. That's what I did on my Bounty and Phantom models. If the plastic kit manufacturer indicates the nail heads as raised dots, it's worth thinking about sanding them down a little - till they're barely visible.

On a small ship, like that little Phantom model, starting at the bottom of the rudder post and working your way forward and up just about does the job. (Not quite; see below.) On the hull of a big ship things aren't quite so simple. Covering a big surface full of compound curves with small rectangular plates is, in terms of geometry, a rather complicated task. Big ships generally had their copper applied in "gores," or belts. This is an easy concept to illustrate visually, but tricky to describe in words. If you're working with a plastic kit, or a wood kit that has a good set of plans, the designer and/or molde maker will have taken care of the problem for you. If you're plating a smooth bottom of a big ship, you really need to get hold of a book that shows how it was done. There are several good ones on the market; if you'll let us know what sort of ship you're interested in I can probably recommend an appropriate book or article.

The fore- and aft-facing surfaces of the stem and sternpost generally were covered with separate rows of plates. If the ship had a false keel, it was coppered independently, so if it got ripped loose the rest of the plating wouldn't be affected. The rudder also was coppered separately. Occasionally I see a model with a copper bottom and the pintles and gudgeons (i.e., hinges) for the rudder painted black, presumably to represent iron. That doesn't work. To avoid the electrolysis problem mentioned above, the pintles and gudgeons had to be made of copper or bronze.

Due to the varying curvature of the hull's cross-sections, if you start at the bottom and work your way up the top row of plates won't be parallel to the waterline. In high-quality work it was customary to finish the job with a "waterline strake" - a single belt of plates running along the waterline. This was sometimes painted white or red - but not as often as some kit manufacturers seem to think. (George Campbell's plans of the Cutty Sark, for example, are quite emphatic: she did not, when she was in active service, have a painted stripe on her waterline.)

In model work, the .001" copper (or brass) sheets we've been talking about can generally be laid with the scale amount of overlap (or nearly so; if they overlap a little too much, nobody will know). To lay them without any overlap would be quite a job - particularly where the goring strakes intersect, and a substantial number of the plates aren't rectangular. One extremely skilled modeler, Donald McNarry, works on extremely small scales (1/192 and smaller) and says in his books that he lays his copper sheathing with no overlap (on the grounds that, at such small scales, the thickness of the overlapping plates would be too conspicuous). While I was working at the Mariners' Museum I had to do a little bit of conservation work on a McNarry model, and discovered it was true: the plates didn't overlap. I have no inclination to try that myself.

Most of the plastic kits on the market do a remarkably good job of representing the sheathing. Like Powder Monkey, I've seen a few (the old Revell yacht America comes to mind) that represent the outlines of the sheets as simple raised lines, with no overlap. In a case like that one could sand off the detail and start over with real copper - but I'd recommend thinking twice before doing it.

Too long as usual, and probably far more than Powder Monkey wanted. Sorry about that. Hope this helps a little.

Thanks Jtilley,

I have a couple of ships I am working on now. The plastic ones will have the copper painted on the bottoms. I also have the Mini Mamoli Constitution. It is a small wooden model. I have a roll of tape and thought I would give it a try. It is small, so I am not overly concerned about absolute accuracy, just so it looks good.

Ok. I’m certainly not going to put individual plates on. That would just be ridiculously hard and time consuming.
If I use the foil with the adhesive on it and I screw it all up will I be able to take it off? I feel pretty confident that I can do the foil thing but just in case I do screw it up I will want to just use paint but still have it look half a*s decent.

BTW, where is the best place to get this foil?

Ron

The adhesive foil is used for making stained glass windows. A craft store that caters to this type of work should have it.

You can buy the tape from Model Expo: www.modelexpoonline.com . The bigger sheets of thinner, adhesive-backed foil are sold by Bare Metal Foil: www.bare-metal.com .

I honestly don't know whether it would be possible to cover the bottom of a hull like the Constitution's with big sheets, as opposed to scale plates. I'm inclined to think it might not. The hull of a ship is a complicated compound curve. Bare Metal Foil has the reputation of being extremely flexible and a little stretchy, but it's hard for me to believe it would stretch enough to cover a shape like that without wrinkles. This is one reason why the old-timers used relatively small sheets: they eliminated the problem of compound curves.

The tape can be peeled off with little difficulty if you make a mistake and notice it fairly quickly. I peeled more than one plate off that little Phantom model (my one experience with the stuff) while I was working on it. The last step of the application process was to give the whole thing a good, thorough burnishing. Whether the plates would come loose after being burnished - and whether they'd peel off now, a couple of years later - I confess I don't know.

I also don't know how easy it is to remove Bare Metal Foil. I understand the aircraft modelers sometimes use it as a masking substance for painting canopies; that implies that it's possible to peel it off bare plastic. I suspect it would stick more firmly to wood - but I haven't had any experience with it.

If I were working on a kit like this I'm not sure what approach I'd take. The copper-colored paint approach does seem to have a lot to recommend it.

I'm afraid I'm not being much help. Maybe another member who has more experience with Bare Metal Foil can contribute.

You can buy the tape from Model Expo: www.modelexpoonline.com . The bigger sheets of thinner, adhesive-backed foil are sold by Bare Metal Foil: www.bare-metal.com .

I honestly don't know whether it would be possible to cover the bottom of a hull like the Constitution's with big sheets, as opposed to scale plates. I'm inclined to think it might not. The hull of a ship is a complicated compound curve. Bare Metal Foil has the reputation of being extremely flexible and a little stretchy, but it's hard for me to believe it would stretch enough to cover a shape like that without wrinkles. This is one reason why the old-timers used relatively small sheets: they eliminated the problem of compound curves.

The tape can be peeled off with little difficulty if you make a mistake and notice it fairly quickly. I peeled more than one plate off that little Phantom model (my one experience with the stuff) while I was working on it. The last step of the application process was to give the whole thing a good, thorough burnishing. Whether the plates would come loose after being burnished - and whether they'd peel off now, a couple of years later - I confess I don't know.

I also don't know how easy it is to remove Bare Metal Foil. I understand the aircraft modelers sometimes use it as a masking substance for painting canopies; that implies that it's possible to peel it off bare plastic. I suspect it would stick more firmly to wood - but I haven't had any experience with it.

If I were working on a kit like this I'm not sure what approach I'd take. The copper-colored paint approach does seem to have a lot to recommend it.

I'm afraid I'm not being much help. Maybe another member who has more experience with Bare Metal Foil can contribute.

There's an excellent article from FSM available here: http://www.finescale.com/fsm/objects/pdf/foiledlightning.pdf

It shows household foil being applied to a P-38 Lightning with (as the article says) "plenty of compound curves."

Regards,

Now I've got to go and build a plane!

I'm "replying" to get this topic moved to p. 1. The subject has come up again in a more recent thread.

This is one of the more interesting discussions I've had the fortune to read.
jtilley, thanks for the link to photos of your "phantom". Very nicely done!
I do like the choice of sails brailled up/furled. I have two of these kits (one pre-built,and damaged), that I'll be building(re-building). I intend to do a full hull, with boltropes, instead of sails, and a waterline (probably the pre-built) with sails brailled up. The latter to be part of a model railroad module.
Pete

There is a wooden ship company in South Africa near me that uses the copper tape for stained glass hobby work. Then they dimple from behind using a dress makers pin wheel to simulate the rivets and the effect is fantastic with practice it looks perfect and is relatively quick. Their stuff commands huge prices internationally so they spent a lot of time coming up with this method.

The best copper paint I've ever used is Floquil airbrushed on. The little Testors bottles are very nice a bright, but require a protective coat...Floquil does not. And..as to the reason copper was used, anyone who raises tropical fish (salt aquariums) knows that copper is deadly to crustaceans, arthropods, and cephalopods. Copper actually kept barnacles OFF. That's why it was used...barnacles slow ships down (simple friction resistance). Where copper plates went missing, barnacles attached themselves to the wood. Then the barnacles acquired seaweed, then ships had to be careened to be cleaned and replacement copper sheets were attached.

There is also a decopage hobby paint kit called "Patina-it" that can be sprayed lightly over the Floquil copper and the result is awesome. By the way..if you want to get a good look at copper on an old ship, Boston or San Francisco are the places to go...to see the real thing.

I really don't have much interest in building sailing ships (too many strings and fiddly bits) but after reading all this (or maybe from playing lots of Sid Miers Pirates lately) you have developed an interest, I may look around for something to build this winter.

Regarding the BMF, I've only used the chrome but it is fairly easy to use, for a large curved surface I think I would cut smaller sections and apply it, it is not highly visible where the edge is so if you laid the section lines along some change in detail like along plank lines it would not show without a very close exam. I have not used their other colors but would assume it is similar, although I have heard you need to be careful with the black as you can rub the color off, don't know if other metalics would share this problem. It is self stick, and can be peeled off and reapplied if you goof most of the time. It is not usually a problem to peel it off if you make a mistake or don't like the look, it tends to tear easily so it may take awhile to get it all off but it will come off without damaging the underlaying surface or leaving a sticky residue. It is very thin so is rarely a problem as far as covering detail, I would recommend a burnishing tool made for the job instead of the back of a tool handle, the tool I got was pretty cheap, $10 or so IIRC.