HMS Victory (Airfix 1/180) - work-in-progress photos

In some ways 1/96 and 1/100 scales are indeed a little awkward.  They lie between the huge scales (usually 1/48) of the wonderful old Board Room models, wherein the rigging can be done almost precisely to scale (complete with parcelling, serving, worming, etc.) and the smaller scales, where giving a general visual impression is usually enough.

The clove hitch (that's the term for it, by the way - not "clover") really is one of the easiest knots to tie, once your fingers get used to it.  If the knots aren't looking right, you might consider reversing the direction in which you tie them.  The direction in which the bitter end crosses over the standing part can affect the way the ratline droops - or doesn't droop - between the shrouds.

For the sake of accuracy, we probably ought to acknowledge that the expression "clove-hitched ratlines" is a slight over-simplification.  Throughout the period when ratlines were made of rope (as opposed to the later iron bars), the general practice was to form an eyesplice in each end of each ratline.  The eye was then seized to the shroud with a separate piece of light line.  The clove hitch, which is a relatively weak knot unless there's tension on both ends of the line, was used to secure the ratline to the intervening shrouds.  I don't think I've ever seen a model with eyesplices in the ratlines.  Anybody who wants to try it has my blessing; that individual will not be me.  If you secure the ends of the ratline to the foremost and aftermost shrouds with reef knots (known to Boy Scouts as square knots), and use clove hitches for the intervening ones, there will be a slight difference between them; that's a nice, practical way to do it.

Personally, I decided a long time ago that the best material for ratlines, on scales 1/96 and smaller, is wire.  Here, courtesy of our good friend Michel vrtg, is a link to my little H.M.S. Bounty, whose ratlines are silk thread:  http://www.hmsvictoryscalemodels.be/JohnTilleyBounty/index.html .

And here's a link to my Hancock model, which I built a few years later:  http://www.hmsvictoryscalemodels.be/JohnTilleyHancock/index.html .

The Hancock's ratlines are wire, and I think the difference is pretty obvious.  It's worth noting, for instance, that in a couple of those photos the ratlines on the shrouds in the foreground have become so blurry that they've disappeared, due to the limited depth of field of the camera lens.  Take a look at some photos of real sailing ships with rope ratlines; you'll see exactly the same phenomenon.  It doesn't happen to the thread ratlines on the Bounty model.

I used a spool of fine, nickel-chromium wire, which a friend happened to find in, of all places, a military surplus store.  It works great for ratlines; it's just stiff enough to be shaped into a gentle droop between the shrouds, but flexible enough to be tied in a clove hitch.  The spool I have has enough left on it to last me through this lifetime.  Unfortunately I have no idea where one could buy any more of the stuff.  Annealed copper wire might work; I haven't tried it.  If anybody knows a good source for nickel-chromium wire, please let us know.

Persevere chuck fan it's well worth it.

I don't deny it's not tricky and frustrating at times, but I don't think the Heller scale Victory is too small to do it properly as per C.N. Longridge. I found it is best to rig the lower shrouds before the mast caps and topmasts are fitted. (Don't forget to put the burton pendants on first) The shrouds are 11" in circumference which at 1:100 scale = 0.89mm dia. line. Starting with the starboard pair, the lines are seized at the masthead allowing sufficient length for turning in the deadeyes, then the first port side pair are fitted and so on.

I used a wire jig  fitted into the lower deadeyes and the upper deadeyes, once they had been loosely secured to the shroud, to ensure that the upper deadeyes maintained a level line. I did not finally seize the upper deadeyes to the shroud until the laniards had been fitted. Tension was then applied by degrees to ensure the correct alignment. Clove hitching the the ratlines (0.1mm scale line) is a pain and at about 3mm apart involve some 30 - 40 lines for the fore and main shrouds each side (up to the futtock shrouds). I think the trick is not to do too many at one time but to spread the exercise over a number of days.

A well 'rattled down'  model is a joy to behold

Same here.  I dumped the kit supplied shroud/ratlines for my Cutty Sark and am making my first attempt at making my own, using clove hitches.  It was a little difficult at first, but after a short time it became very fluid and easy to do.  If it weren't so darned time consuming?  I end up having to get up after a short time because of my bad back.  But, the results are worth it.  It looks a heck of a lot better on the kit, even in it's very amatuerish state (hopefully I'll get better with time).  But, my boy went nuts over it and now calls me a "master modeller".  I laughed.  I'll have to show him JTilley's work sometime...

Now, looking at the 1:100 Victory and Soleil Royale, I'm presented with a huge task with the ratlines on these monstrosities, along with the 1:96 Constitution.  Though, I have thought about using the kit supplied ratlines for the Constitution.  While not the best in the world, they are a bit better than the ones that came with the Cutty Sark.

Lots of good discussion going on right now.  Rigging has always been my "weak spot". 

jtilley wrote:

I think you'll find that the easiest way to get the tension on the shrouds uniform is to rig them more-or-less the way the real ones were.  The first shroud to rig on each mast is the foremost one on the starboard side.  It starts at the deadeye, runs through the lubber hole (the big rectangular hole in the top), gets seized around the masthead, then runs down through the same lubber hole to be seized to the second deadeye on the starboard side.  Then comes the first pair of shrouds on the port side, then the second on the starboard side, etc.  If there's an odd number of shrouds, the last one (or maybe the first one, depending on which source you consult; on this scale it doesn't matter much) either went all the way around the masthead and down the other side, or had a cut splice fitted around the masthead. As a modeler's trick, it's sometimes helpful to make the seizing at the masthead last.  Secure both ends of the shroud pair to the deadeyes, deliberately leaving a little slack.  Then take a length of your finest black thread and use it to tie the two legs of the shroud pair together, close under the top.  Slide that knot right up against the masthead.  Wind one end of the seizing line around both parts of the shroud pair quite a few times to form the seizing.  On the last turn, pass the bitter end between that turn and the adjacent one.  That will lock the end of the line.  For safety's sake, put a drop of white glue on the entire seizing. Hope that helps a little.  Good luck.

I am already on my third attempt to give Heller 1/100 scale Victory a good set of shrouds, rigged in correct fashion with clover hitched ratline, and stacked connection at the masttop.  1/100 scale is just too damned small for it.

If I'd known this earlier it'd have saved me a lot of time
So far I've been rigging the shrouds on each side seperately. I'll keep your advice in mind for the next time I build
a rigged ship model, it will make things a lot easier!


The destroyer is the post-war French ship Maille Breze. It is quite reminiscent of WW2 ships like the Fletcher and German Narvik-class in its superstructure and funnel layout, and in the configuration represented by the kit (1950s) it has a very heavy gun armament (even including a couple of 20mm Oerlikons), making it very like a WW2 destroyer in looks apart from the large radar masts. Later on the ship was refitted with missile armament, and this is the configuration it's currently preserved in as a museum ship.
It's one of Heller's earlier kits and the mouldings are fairly crude compared to their later efforts, but still builds a nice model with some work. The radar masts are a pain to assemble though. They'd probably be best replaced with PE if it's within your budget (and if any PE sets actually exist for this kit)
I'll post some pictures of my model when it's completed.

Here are some photos of the real ship, in both original and current states:
http://www.netmarine.net/bat/ee/maillebr/photos.htm

I think you'll find that the easiest way to get the tension on the shrouds uniform is to rig them more-or-less the way the real ones were.  The first shroud to rig on each mast is the foremost one on the starboard side.  It starts at the deadeye, runs through the lubber hole (the big rectangular hole in the top), gets seized around the masthead, then runs down through the same lubber hole to be seized to the second deadeye on the starboard side.  Then comes the first pair of shrouds on the port side, then the second on the starboard side, etc.  If there's an odd number of shrouds, the last one (or maybe the first one, depending on which source you consult; on this scale it doesn't matter much) either went all the way around the masthead and down the other side, or had a cut splice fitted around the masthead.

As a modeler's trick, it's sometimes helpful to make the seizing at the masthead last.  Secure both ends of the shroud pair to the deadeyes, deliberately leaving a little slack.  Then take a length of your finest black thread and use it to tie the two legs of the shroud pair together, close under the top.  Slide that knot right up against the masthead.  Wind one end of the seizing line around both parts of the shroud pair quite a few times to form the seizing.  On the last turn, pass the bitter end between that turn and the adjacent one.  That will lock the end of the line.  For safety's sake, put a drop of white glue on the entire seizing.

Hope that helps a little.  Good luck. 

jtilley wrote:

One golden rule of ship modeling is:  if you can't do it reasonably to scale, leave it off.  Your idea of just rigging the shrouds (the vertical lines) isn't bad.  Plenty of good models on such tiny scales omit the ratlines (the horizontal lines).  For a first attempt, that might be the most practical solution.

After a lot of trial and error I've finally decided to rig the shrouds/ratlines manually (so far they're about 50% done on one side). It's not actually hard to do if you drill out the deadeyes first (a Dremel is very handy) and the finished
result looks far better than ready-made shrouds and ratlines, whether they're made with the Airfix/Heller "loom" or supplied with the kit. (The main problem with these seems to be actually attaching them to the deadeyes/masts in the right place without them sagging, which makes them look very unconvincing). And it seems to be a less tedious and repetitive job than assembling the lines on the "loom"

Originally I was going to attempt adding the ratlines as well, but I'll probably follow your suggestion and just do the shrouds. I have a couple of sailing ship kits in larger scales, such as Airfix's 1/72 Golden Hind, and when I build these I'll attempt rigging the horizontal ratlines as well.
(It's interesting that you consider 1/171 a "tiny" scale, as I'm more used to 20th-century warship models (which are usually anything from 1/700 to 1/350) it seems quite a large scale to me!)

Unfortunately there's no easy solution to the shroud-and-ratline problem.  I question whether that "loom" gadget could ever be made to do a decent job of it.  (In the olde dayes Airfix, like Revell, provided plastic-coated-thread "shroud and ratline assemblies."  The plastic parts in the kit are designed to accommodate them.  They were awful.  Just about anything - with the possible exception of the hideous injection-molded assemblies that come with the smaller Revell kits nowadays - would be an improvement.)  On my last attempt at this kit (more years ago than I like to think about) I used the old-fashioned "needle through the shroud" method.  It worked ok, but if you haven't done it before I can't honestly recommend a huge, elaborate ship like this as a way to learn it. 

One golden rule of ship modeling is:  if you can't do it reasonably to scale, leave it off.  Your idea of just rigging the shrouds (the vertical lines) isn't bad.  Plenty of good models on such tiny scales omit the ratlines (the horizontal lines).  For a first attempt, that might be the most practical solution.

EPinniger wrote:

(Can anyone identify the destroyer on the shelf behind?)

 

That looks like the USS Fletcher, but I'm problably wrong. 

I really like the look of that Victory!

 

Two (not very good) photos of the model, now fully assembled (other than anchors + boats) but needing rigging + ratlines. Rigging is about 25%-30% done now, but the ratlines are on hold until I've figured out the best way to make them. The "loom" supplied in the kit works fairly well, but I'm not sure of the best way to join the lines together. CA glue is too clumsy-looking and black paint isn't strong enough to hold them together under tension. I'll try diluted PVA wood glue later.
Rigging the vertical ropes of the ratlines by hand would be fairly easy to do (if the deadeyes are drilled out first), but the horizontal ones would be a problem.




(Can anyone identify the destroyer on the shelf behind?)

Chuck Fan wrote:

I believe at the same time when Nelson ordered the outside of gunport lids painted black, he also ordered the iron bands around the masts painted yellow.   So a depiction showing both black port lids and black mast bands would not conform to Victory's appearence at the battle of Traflagar.

You're right - I assumed it was the other way round, that the black bands were painted at the same time as the gunports.
It won't be hard to repaint the masts, but if I'd taken the time to check this earlier, it would have saved a lot of painstaking painting + retouching!

To michel.vrtg - I was intending to add a diluted black or dark brown oil wash to the gallery and transom detail once the model was finished (before rigging). However other than that I'm fairly happy with the model's appearance at the minute. It's not the best by any means but it's only my second sailing ship model! Painting the gallery details is quite a tricky job, as, apart from the small size (compared to the Heller kit at least) a lot of the detail is fairly low-relief (probably partly due to worn moulds)
Also, I have no experience with oil paints at all, other than in diluted form for weathering washes (I used to use Humbrol/Revell enamels, but switched to acrylics last year)

EP, congratulations, this is a beautiful model.

But, please, now, take your time before you put the masts.

Buy some oil paint (no need to buy expensive paint, you can find cheap oil paint in packs of 12)

Apply a black wash (black oil paint + rectified turpentine) to the gallery, and let it dry.  Once it is dry, dry brush the gallery with yellow ochre (several thin coats, oil paint + a point of turpentine), and finally dry brush with light ochre + white (oil paint, not diluted).  The gallery is an important part of the model.  I can see, that you build several models at the same time, so take your time, while the paint of your Victory model is drying (it takes more time for oil paint to dry), build another model.

Thank you.

Michel

 

I believe at the same time when Nelson ordered the outside of gunport lids painted black, he also ordered the iron bands around the masts painted yellow.   So a depiction showing both black port lids and black mast bands would not conform to Victory's appearence at the battle of Traflagar.

The hull is now completed, painted (including figurehead and stern decoration) and weathered. All that's needed now is the upper masts, rigging, boats, and a few other fittings such as davits, anchors and the lower attachments for the rigging (forget the name for these - deadeyes?)





Close-ups:




Forecastle and upper gun deck:


Prow and stern close-ups:



Regarding painting - I've mostly used the new Revell AG acrylic paints on this model. (Not sure if these are available in the US yet?) For weathering/dry-brushing I mostly use cheap artist's acrylic paints which are available in most art/hobby stores, they have a texture and pigment density which is ideal for dry-brushing.

For the decks, I used a base coat of Earth Brown, followed by a heavy dry-brushing of Stone Grey (a pale greyish-brown which is also a very good match for teak decks on WW1-WW2 warships). This gives a pale, dull grey/brown look.
The hull is painted in Black and Ochre, lightly dry-brushed with dark grey + medium brown artist's acrylic respectively. Un-tarred wood parts (upper masts, hatch frames, etc.) are painted Leather Brown with a light dry-brush of either Brown (this is actually a rusty orange colour) or light brown artist's acrylic.
The copper-plated lower hull was painted with Tamiya Metallic Brown and heavily dry-brushed with dark brown acrylic, I may add a greenish "verdigris" oil wash later. Cannon barrels are painted with Revell Black then very lightly dry-brushed with graphite acrylic.
Revell Ochre was used for all the other ochre-painted parts of the ship (lower masts etc.) and Citadel "Ultramarine Blue" for the forecastle panels and the lining on the beakhead.

For gilding, the technique I use for ornate carved "gingerbread" decoration is to first undercoat with black, then heavily dry-brush with a darker, brassier gold (I used Citadel "Shining Gold"), and finally lightly dry-brushing with a brighter gold (Citadel "Burnished Gold").
However, as the Victory has very little gilding (on the figurehead, stern decoration, and a small amount of decoration on the prow) I just painted it on using "Shining Gold".

Dry-brushing definitely seems to be the key to making plastic models of wooden ships look good, as it gives a far more varied and realistic, less "flat" appearance than painting with solid colours.

A couple of notes - firstly, sailing ships are not my main area of interest in ship modelling, although it might seem like that from my posts! My main interest is actually "steel" warships from the late 19th century to WW2, especially in larger scales (1/250 to 1/72), I also build WW1 and WW2 aircraft in 1/48 and 1/32.
However, I usually post any sail-related questions or build photos on FSM as this seems to be one of the few forums where there is much interest in plastic sailing ship models.

Secondly - I have to admit that I haven't put as much effort into fixing/accurising this kit as I could. I know there are problems with the Airfix Victory such as inaccurate prow/bowsprit, missing details like flag lockers, etc.
However, with model sailing ships, I concentrate mainly on "cosmetic" improvements such as cleaning up parts, drilling out skylights and gunports, etc. - rather than spending hours researching which details to add and which inaccuracies to correct. (I do enough of that with my other modelling subjects), I find it a refreshing change to build a model "out of the box" and concentrate on finishing + painting.
So apologies to purists for any inaccuracies in my models!

The hull and lower masts are nearly painted now (other than the figurehead + stern decoration/gilding), I'll post some more photos when they're done.
To michel.vrtg - you're free to take my photos if you want to put on your website! However, the ones I've taken so far are not very good, due to poor light levels. I'll photograph the painted + weathered hull outside, so the images should be of better quality.

Please, do not forget, I can host the pictures of your  HMS Victory models :

http://www.hmsvictoryscalemodels.be/gallery.htm

It would be nice, if I could have some pictures of Airfix and Revell models under construction and built.

Thank you.

Michel

 

That is a very nice piece of work you have there.  I'm actually building the Revell Victory right now, and it isn't exactly going very smoothly for me.  I just can't seem to get the decks painted properly for my tastes.  What did you use for you decks?

I can't wait to see some more of you WIP pictures on this model!

Hello there, just to verify, the web page which gives the color scheem of the Victory is http://www.hms-victory.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=44. It states that the "yellow" color is painted yellow ocher rather than gold, the only mention of gold that I've found is in the heraldic shield.

Your work appears wonderful and very well thought out, and thank you very much for sharing it with others. My only effort with sailing ships was the Revell Thermopily (SP?) clipper when I was 14-15 years old, fully rigged, just before the family cat got into it <VBG>. Thanks again.

Thanks very much for the advice re. painting - will post some more photos once the hull painting is complete.

As I'm building the model as Victory in 1805, I've painted all the gun port lids black - I'm fairly certain this is the configuration the Airfix kit is supposed to represent, hence why I thought the colour scheme was inaccurate.

EPinniger wrote:

....I'm not relying too heavily on them as they're inaccurate in a number of other places (e.g the gunport hatches are painted the same colour as the hull, not all black as they were in 1805 and on the preserved ship as it is now).....

In this aspect the coloring instruction is not inaccurate.    For most of the time when Victory wore the yellow and black stripped paint work, her gun port lids were painted mostly yellow, so when the lids were closed, the gun ports would not be obvious.     It was only shortly before Trafalgar that the outside of the gun port lids were painted black on Nelson's explicit instructions.    Several French and Spanish ships also started using the black/yellow stripped paint work, and Nelson ordered the British port lids to be painted black to enable the british ships to be distinguised from the French ships.    At the same time, Nelson also ordered the iron reinforcing hoops on the masts, originally painted black, to be re-painted in yellow.   So on British ships, the shaft of the masts would be all one color, uninterrupted by black bands.
 

Rod is essentially right, with a few small exceptions.  If you take a look at the photos of the real ship on her website, you'll see that the vast majority of the carved work on the transom and quarter galleries is painted yellow on a black background.  There's gold leaf on a few prominent carved details, such as the coat of arms on the figurehead and some spots on the carved work at the top of the transom - the bands around the carved "cannons," the tips of the "spears," etc.  Some of the floral trim on the canopies over the entry ports is also gold leafed.  (There is, by the way, considerable evidence to suggest that those entry ports weren't there in 1805.  The designers of the Heller 1/100 kit apparently came to that conclusion.) 

In recent years historians have come to question just how much gold leaf was ever used in the decoration of warships.  It's widely suspected, though not decisively proven, that the gold paint on the wonderful old "board room models" was yellow paint on the real ships.  And recent research on the great Swedish warship Wasa has established that most of the carved figures on her were painted in natural colors, with only a few details picked out in gold leaf. 

It's possible that the Victory in the early phases of her career had a good bit of gold leaf on her.  But by 1805 gold was fading from fashion; on a 1/180 scale model of her in her Trafalgar configuration the spots of gold would be downright tiny.

Incidentally - my copy of the latest monthly flier from Squadron Mail Order came today.  Among the new products advertised in it is an enlarged reproduction of the box art from the Airfix Victory kit, in the form of a 1000-piece jigsaw puzzle.  Be still, my heart....

Yellow Ocre the Victory never had guild on it to my knowledge.During the Napolianic era most British ships of the line  where black and yellow.

Rod

Grymm wrote:

I'm really interested in watching you rig her.  I've never been that good at rigging in that scale.

Neither am I, unfortunately, so don't expect too much :D - I may end up simplifying the rigging somewhat, though I'll try to make as good a job of it as I can!

Does anyone know the answer to my question about the colour of the decoration on the transom? After studying the photos of the preserved ship closely, I still can't decide whether it's gilt or ochre/yellow paint, though it definitely looks more like the latter. As I mentioned in my first post, though, it could be that the current paintwork doesn't match the original in this respect.
The kit instructions specify gold paint, but I'm not relying too heavily on them as they're inaccurate in a number of other places (e.g the gunport hatches are painted the same colour as the hull, not all black as they were in 1805 and on the preserved ship as it is now)

The hull is nearly all painted + weathered now, other than the transom and the area below the waterline (the latter because I've run out of copper paint!)

I have lots of pleasant memories of this kit; I built it a couple of times when I was much younger.  In my opinion it and the slightly smaller Revell one are on just about the same level of accuracy and detail.  Revell handled the hull planking a little better, and didn't use the "dummy cannon" dodge; most of the gunports on the Revell kit are molded shut - with the exception of the upper deck ports and a handful, apparently arbitrarily selected, on the lower and middle decks.  Airfix included the stanchions on the upper deck (which show prominently in several of EPinniger's excellent pictures), and did a much better job on the prominent figurehead.

My biggest reservation about the Airfix kit is that I think there's something wrong with the shape of its bow.  I can't quite identify the problem (largely because I haven't had my hands on the actual kit in many years), but one effect of it is that there's far too much space between the figurehead and the bowsprit.  (In the actual ship, the crown on top of the figurehead almost bumps into the bowsprit.)  I think the error may be in the shape of the knee of the head, which doesn't seem to come up high enough.  The rails behind it also don't seem to be shaped right. 

I'm inclined to give the little old Revell kit a very slight edge in terms of accuracy.  But the Airfix one, as EPinniger is demonstrating, is quite capable of serving as the basis for an excellent scale model. Quite a few of those old Airfix kits deserve to be taken seriously.  The Airfix Wasa, in my opinion, can stand comparison with anything Heller ever produced.

We had an interesting discussion of Victory kits in another Forum thread a couple of weeks ago; I mentioned then that I'd rate them something like this:

1.  Heller 1/100.  It does have its problems, but it really is, in my opinion, one of the finest plastic kits ever produced - and I think Heller probably was correct  in omitting the ornamented entry ports.

2.  Revell 1/220, almost exactly tied with

3.  Airfix 1/171.

4.  Skytrex 1/700.  This tiny cast metal waterline model, though intended primarily for wargamers, is one of the most accurate available - the only one, to my knowledge, that shows the forecastle bulwarks in the raised configuration they probably had in 1805.

Of the numerous wood kits, the only one I've seen that deserves to be taken seriously as a scale model is the mammoth 1/72 one from CalderCraft/Jotika.  I've never actually had my hands on it (and in view of its price, over $1,000, I probably never will), but it's clearly a first-rate product.

Very nice job.  I had thought about this kit.  Like you, I have a limited monthly budget for my hobby (blame my wife).  But, I was lucky enough to get a hold of the Heller 1:100 kit for only 50 bucks. 

I'm still incredibly impressed with what you've done.  Please keep posting photos.  I'm really interested in watching you rig her.  I've never been that good at rigging in that scale.

millard wrote:

Will you be rigging the guns?what research info are you using?I built ths kit almost twenty years ago when I was just getting back into modeling.I had some fit issue's with the stern.

Thanks for the comments.
I'll probably add some basic rigging to the 6 guns and 2 carronades on the upper deck, but not any of the lower ones (too late to do these now in any case!).

The fit of the stern/transom is definitely quite poor (not surprising, if it was bad 20 years ago, mould wear can't have improved matters) as are some other areas such as the head rails (think this is what they're called?) around the prow. Most of the small parts (and quite a few of the large ones, like the masts...) also require a lot of very careful cleanup due to flash/mould lines. I shouldn't think there are many sailing ship kits currently in production where this isn't the case, however, given that most are 30-40 years old!

Regarding research, the main source I use for this is the gallery on Dry Dock Models (wooden ship modelling site). There is an extremely impressive Victory there built by (I think) Raul Guzman.
However, I'm concentrating more on improving the appearance of the kit, rather than accurisation/"rivet counting" (or rather plank counting). Mostly I use the photos on drydockmodels as a guide to how the smaller details of the ship should look and how they should be painted (the Airfix instructions aren't very clear or accurate in this respect) For example, the housing for the ship's bell actually has a copper roof, Airfix just tell you to paint the whole thing black (including the bell).

One thing I'm still not sure about is whether the decoration on the stern/transom should be gilded or not. Photos of the real Victory at Portsmouth look like it is actually painted with yellow ochre. However it may be that the preserved ship isn't gilded due to the cost of maintenance?

Please keep your post coming w/ pics. It looks like you are putting alot of work into it and it will pay off with a nice model. I want to keep track of your build, so keep the pictures coming !

Donnie

Looks like your putting a lot of detail into the model. looking real good so far.Will you be rigging the guns?what research info are you using?I built ths kit almost twenty years ago when I was just getting back into modeling.I had some fit issue's with the stern.I've been reading all the post about  this kit lately makes want to do another.Also twenty years ago my rigging  was pretty ragged.Keep the post coming we have some great guys here with info.

Rod