SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Need advice on painting plastic sailing ship deck.

7782 views
13 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Monday, January 23, 2006 11:55 AM
I'm "replying" to get the thread moved to p. 1 again.  The Seeadler has come up in a recent post.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    December 2005
Posted by Bigboat on Saturday, December 10, 2005 6:03 PM
Dear Prof Tilley,
I am a professor in the business school of the Cuty University of New York. My field is Marketing.

Thanks for the seeadler links. I'll check them out.
Best
Barry
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, December 9, 2005 11:21 PM

I just did a few minutes' Googling about the Seeadler.  Here are three interesting links:

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/ships/html/sh_082600_seeadler.htm

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/Letters/PictureoftheSeeadlersigne.html

http://www.ahoy.tk-jk.net/MaraudersWW1/Seeadler.html

I was wrong earlier on one point:  she did have a steel hull.  She was noticeably shorter than the Eagle (245.5' vs. 277'), and slightly broader for her length (as would befit a cargo vessel).  None of those sites has a really good photo of her, but one of them has a nice silhouette - which does in fact look quite a bit like that of the Eagle.  I imagine some better pictures are floating around somewhere.

Most interesting stuff.

Come to think of it...in another thread some months back we talked at some length about Eagle kits.  I'm pretty sure the Revell one is based on the old plans by Harold Underhill, which in fact represent the Eagle's near-sister, the Gorch Fock I.  That vessel was about 25 feet shorter than the Eagle.  So, ironically, it's just possible that the kit represents the Seeadler more accurately (slightly) than it represents the Eagle - at least in terms of overall proportions.

Before retracting my earlier anti-Revell diatribe, though, I'd like to see some more pictures of the Seeadler.  I question whether her hull was as sharp-ended as the Eagle's, and the latter's deck layout is pretty clearly that of a sail-training ship.

Anyway, all this is a fun exercise in nostalgia.  And I'm reminded of what my wife, a high school history teacher, has observed more than once about the Disney movie "Pochahontas."  (The one wherein trees can talk, raccoons can't, and Yosemite National Park, complete with mountans and waterfalls, has mysteriously been relocated to Tidewater Virginia.)  "If it gets kids interested in history, it can't be all bad."  That Revell Seeadler played a part, at least, in getting some kids, including this one, interested in naval history.

 

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, December 9, 2005 10:51 PM

Dear Bigboat,

What institution, and what subject?  I'm in the History Department at East Carolina University.

I know what you mean about the Seeadler.  I was just about twelve when I built it for the first time.  (I think I did at least one more a few years later.)  I'd never built the Eagle kit, so the Seeadler looked fine to me.

The bible on the subject, Thomas Graham's Remembering Revell Model Kits, says the Eagle first released in 1958 and the Seeadler in 1960.  If I remember correctly, in its first issue the Seeadler's instruction sheet included a "message to American youth" from Count von Luckner (the ship's captain).  The phrase "the Seeadler never robbed a wife of her husband or a mother of her child" sticks in my memory.  One has to wonder whether, when the Revell people talked him into writing that piece, they happened to mention that the Eagle was going to masquerade as his ship....

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    December 2005
Posted by Bigboat on Friday, December 9, 2005 9:09 PM
Dear Prof Tilley,
Thanks so much for your wonderful advice. I always enjoy your commentary. I will press on with the Morgan and the Seeadler, despite your misgivings. The reason is that at the age of 52 I still remember at age 11 seeing a Seeadler that a friend built and being entranced by it. I finally picked one up last year!
Best Regards
Barry
PS I am also a college professor
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, December 9, 2005 4:44 PM
I'm "replying" to get the thread moved to the top.  The topic has come up in a recent post in another thread.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 10:25 PM

Another idea (which I should have remembered last night) for representing blocks on very small scales:  glass beads.

Nowadays arts and crafts stores (such as the Michael's and Hungate's chain stores where I live) sell bags of extraordinarily small beads - well under 1/16" in diameter.  They aren't quite uniform in size.  A bag of several hundred costs a couple of dollars; the modeler can sort the contents into three or four sizes, and have plenty of each to do a model. 

The beads can be rigged pretty much like genuine blocks.  Then put a blob of white glue (or the aforementioned Titebond) on the bead to fill up the hole - and make it cease to look like a bead.  When the glue's dry, a touch of paint will complete the illusion. 

On 1/16" = 1' scale or thereabouts, Bluejacket metal fittings for the largest blocks, beads for the medium-sized ones, and knots for the smallest might make a pretty convincing illusion.

Good luck.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 7:51 PM

Being a near-complete convert to hobby acrylics, I haven't had as much experience with mixing media as some other Forum members.  I've fooled around with artist acrylics a little; I have to say I haven't been impressed with them as paints for plastic.  In my experience they don't cover as uniformly as the paints that are made for the purpose.  I have, however, used them quite a bit on other materials, such as paper for flags.  And I've done a couple of carved wood "sea" bases for small-scale warships.  For that purpose I found that artist acrylics gave a nice, deep, water-like look, which was enhanced considerably by a couple of coats of gloss acrylic varnish.  That's about the only use I normally have for glossy finishes. 

On my little model of the pilot boat Phantomhttp://gallery.drydockmodels.com/phantom  ) I wanted a little bit of a sheen on the hull, to represent gloss paint without spoiling the scale effect.  (That's easy to do with gloss finishes.)  I painted it with PolyScale black (with a hint of dark blue mixed in), let it dry for several weeks, and then gave it a thin coat of Renaissance brand microcrystalline wax.  (That's a high-quality, colorless wax that's made for museum artifacts; it comes in handy for all sorts of things.)  I'm pretty happy with the result.

House paint dealers say it's ok to put latex wall paint over solvent-based paint, but not to do it the other way around.  The solvent-based paint supposedly has an inclination to eat the more benign latex.  I've seen it happen in the case of wall paint.  I did have a bad experience once when I painted a formica-covered desk top.  Strictly in accordance with the paint man's recommendation, I gave it two coats of solvent-based white primer and then rolled on a finish coat of blue latex.  Disaster.  A couple of hours later the latex had dried - with thousands of little white lines, like cracks, where the primer was showing through.  It took three more finish coats to get an acceptable result. 

Hobby paints don't seem to be so sensitive.  Personally, I've sprayed a couple of model aircraft with flat enamel and brush-painted with acrylics on top of it; that seemed to work fine.  The acrylic showed no inclination whatever to soften up the enamel beneath, and goofs could be fixed with water.  I've always been leery of putting enamel washes on top of acrylic, but I've seen references to that technique in several FSM articles - and it seemed to produce no ill effects.  The bottom line seems to be that modern hobby paints are so good that it's pretty hard to screw things up with them.

Regarding small-scale rigging fittings - there are no rules about this stuff.  It's all up to the individual modeler.  That said, I think the Revell Charles W. Morgan is on somewhere near 3/32"=1' scale.  That's just about big enough to rig with the smallest commerically-available blocks (e.g., those from Bluejacket) - IF you want to go that route.  The Seeadler kit, as I recall, is on a considerably smaller scale. 

The "glue blob = block" approach is a very old one, and can be quite effective if done carefully.  Donald McNarry, whom I regard as one of the best ship modelers in the world, works on scales from 1/16"=1' downward, and I have the impression that he usually makes his blocks like that.  A slight variation is to use Titebond "Dark Wood" glue.  It's brown in color, and has more body to it than white glue; after it's dried a few minutes it can be shaped (with a toothpick or something similar) into a pretty convincing block-like shape.  I'd recommend touching the dried "block" with flat brown or black paint; the "block" will be brown, but pretty shiny.

In any work of this sort it's preferable to err on the small side.  Oversized blocks can wreck the appearance of a finished model - but nobody's likely to complain if they're too small.

I feel obliged to make one observation about that Revell Seeadler kit.  If you don't want to hear bad news - stop reading here. 

The kit is a slightly-modified reissue of the same company's Coast Guard training barque Eagle.  I haven't seen the Seeadler kit in many years, but as I recall the only changes are the addition of yards to the mizzen mast (to convert the rig from barque to ship), the deletion of the eagle figurehead, and maybe some changes to the ship's boats.  I've never seen any good photos or plans of the actual Seeadler, but I don't think she looked much like the kit.  As a matter of fact it sticks in my mind that she was made of wood.  I could well be wrong about that, but if I'm not the rivets and plating joints on the hull parts obviously are bogus.  And in any case, the Seeadler was a converted merchantman, built sometime prior to 1914.  The Eagle is a sail training ship built (in Germany, with the original name Horst Wessel) in the 1930s.  And that's what she looks like.  (A cargo-carrying sailing ship would not, for instance, have big portholes in the hull at lower deck level.  The Eagle (and the Revell Seeadler) have rows of such ports.  In the real ship they provide light and ventilation to the cadet living spaces.)

Revell was notorious for pulling marketing stunts like that.  The worst one, perhaps, was the boxing of a modified version of H.M.S. Bounty as H.M.S. Beagle - a vessel that, in reality, resembled the Bounty only in having a hull, a deck, and three masts.  That monstrosity, unfortunately, has resurfaced recently courtesy of Revell Germany.  I suspect the people currently in charge of the company have no idea how utterly spurious the kit is.

The Morgan, on the other hand, is a beautiful kit - one of the best Revell ever made, in my opinion.  I just wish they hadn't skimped on the whaleboats.  The hulls, as I remember, are beautifully done, but only two of them have interiors.  The bare insides of the others are fine for the two boats that are stowed on the deckhouse roof, but not for the ones on the davits.  As I recall, Revell provided vac-formed "covers" for them.  No way!  A whaleboat had to be ready for lowering at a moment's notice, and in view of all the gear inside it would have been impossible to put a cover on it. 

Otherwise, if my recollection of it is correct, it's a first-rate kit and a fine basis for a scale model.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Derry, New Hampshire, USA
Posted by rcboater on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 4:59 PM

On my Revell Flying Cloud, I used knots in a few places to simulate blocks.  A line can come up to a knot and then return to where it came from.  If you want the knot to look a little less "knotty" use a little white glue to give it a rounder shape, and then use a dab of paint when it dries.

HTH,

 

-Bill

 

Webmaster, Marine Modelers Club of New England

www.marinemodelers.org

 

  • Member since
    December 2005
Posted by Bigboat on Tuesday, December 6, 2005 4:24 PM
Dear JTilley,

I enjoyed your comments on painting ship decks as I have your previous posts.   I'm now working on a Santa Maria/Pinta/Nina tryptych and am playing around with deck colors.

I wanted to comment that when I take art classes the instructors always emphasize "fat over lean"; i.e. they say you can put oil over acrylics, never the opposite.  Is this true with Plastic model paints? Also, have you used artists acrylics and glazes?

One other question; I am working on a Revell Charles Morgan and a Revell Seeadler which do not  include blocks for rigging.  Can I assume that at that scale, the blocks are invisible or merely black dots? Should I ignore the problem and make the model as is?
Thanks
Barry



  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Greenville,Michigan
Posted by millard on Sunday, November 27, 2005 12:45 PM

You can apply the oils if you put a dull coat or future coat down in between.The method  I use is I spray Model Master  Wood Acryl down Let dry for at least 1 Hr.Than I brush on Zar wood Stain normally Natural Teak.Let that dry for over 24 Hrs. Spray MM Flat Coat Acryl. Let dry than use washes of artist oils of varying colors depending on how weathered I want.Than I dry brush.Usally Burnt Umber oils mixed with other oils.The great thing with oils is you can mix them on a pallet till you get the look you want.Remember you don't have to use a lot on your brush.If you get to dark just dry brush some white in and it will lighten it up.

Rod

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: Walworth, NY
Posted by Powder Monkey on Friday, November 25, 2005 2:52 PM
You can see the deck I did in this thread:  http://www.finescale.com/FSM/CS/forums/549635/ShowPost.aspx

I painted the deck Desert Sand out of a spray can. After it dried, I coated the entire thing with Future and let it dry for a couple of days. Then I mixed Burt Umber acrylic with water and a little dish soap and slathered it on. Using a Q-tip, I wiped most of it off. The amount of wash left behind will determine the final color. The initial coat of Desert Sand looked awful. It is almost yellow. The brown wash changes it to a nice wood color. I am not sure if it is historically correct, but it looks good on the model.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:00 PM

Back in the days before acrylic hobby paints became available, I habitually used thin enamel washes (thinned with turpentine or paint thinner) over enamel base coats, generally with no problems.  There is, however, a possibility that the turpentine will soften up the base coat - especially if the latter hasn't thoroughly dried, and/or the wash is applied heavily (so the turpentine, in effect, has a long time to dissolve the base coat before evaporating).  Also, if you don't like the initial results and try to wipe the oil/turpentine wash off completely, you may well take the base coat with it.

The idea of using an acrylic wash over an enamel base coat is a good one.  Depending on the brand of acrylic paint and various other factors (including the phase of the moon) you may find that the wash bubbles, beads up, or otherwise behaves in a manner that doesn't give the results you want.  If that happens there are several things you can try.  (1) Use distilled water.  (2) Put a little bit of dishwashing detergent in the water before you mix it with the paint.  (3) If all else fails, thin the paint with denatured alcohol instead.  I'm a fan of PolyScale acrylics; I've made all sorts of washes with them and haven't had any problems.  (As a matter of fact I've generally put acrylic washes over acrylic base coats - but I've gotten irritated a few times when the base coat has softened up.)

I gather from the articles I've read that aircraft and armor modelers frequently do this the other way around:  they put oil washes over acrylic base coats.  I've never tried that, but on the basis of the pictures in magazines like FSM, I gather it works fine. 

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Need advice on painting plastic sailing ship deck.
Posted by RALPH G WILLIAMS on Thursday, November 24, 2005 1:40 PM

Can I safely use an oil wash (artist oil Burnt Umber mixed with Turpentine) on a deck painted with an enamel base coat, or should I use only an acrylic (water based) paint wash over the enamel base coat?    Because I have just started ,I can mix or match techniques at this point.

A dry-brush of dark brown will be use  to bring out the "wood grain"  after the wash.

Any advice is much appreciated,

                                                 Thanks

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.