Database of sailing ship kits - W.I.P version ready for download

Hello.

Thank you for the list.

You can use "Data / Sort" menu item to sort records in Excel.

I have tried to make a similar list on a russian modelling site. You can see it here: http://www.rumodelism.com/sunduk/sail-kits/

Maybe, it will be useful for you.

Best regards,

Oleg

Thanks for the link - there's some useful information on your website, particularly the scales
of the kits and the photos of built models.

Judging by the photo on your site, the Academy "Boston Whaler" kit is a re-issue of the old Pyro Charles W.Morgan. I wonder how they got the moulds? And could the Academy Roman galley and Cutty Sark kits have a similar origin?

Keep up the good work.

Thanks for the hard work.

Dick Wood

EPinniger wrote:

Judging by the photo on your site, the Academy "Boston Whaler" kit is a re-issue of the old Pyro Charles W.Morgan. I wonder how they got the moulds? And could the Academy Roman galley and Cutty Sark kits have a similar origin?

I always considered, that Roman galley and Cutty Sark (1/130) have been developed by Academy independently. However, it is only my opinion.

Very nice work, thank you.

About the Heller ships, there will soon be a new book, I'll tell you more about it when I get one.

Michel

I have the Academy "1/250 Roman Warship."  I assume it's a reissue of an Imai kit.  It certainly has all the classic Imai characterics:  beautifully subtle "wood grain," first-rate fit, ingenious parts breakdown, and attractive presentation.  (Dig those "gold-plated" lions on the stand!)  As soon as I opened the box, it screamed "Imai" at me.

I agree completely:  it can't possibly be on 1/250 scale.  There's no way it could be 1/45 either, though; the oarsmen physically wouldn't fit between the oars.  Some people have suggested it might be on 1/72 scale; that seems a little big, too.  I could just about believe 1/80, but I'm inclined to think 1/96 or 1/100 might be closer.

In several cases (e.g., the Cutty Sark, the Eagle, and the Japanese sail training barks), Imai made the same subject on more than one scale.  I wonder if there may have been more than one Imai Roman warship.  I honestly don't have any clear recollection.

At any rate, there are many things to like about that kit.  It has an overall subtle and ingenious character that's just about irresistable.  Even the injection-molded plastic "sail" is better than anything else of that sort that I've ever seen.  It has a fine fabric-weave texture, is shaped in a lovely, gently billowing configuration, and has chamfered edges, so the thickness of it is camouflaged as much as possible.

One feature of it that impressed me instantly is the little sprue of blocks and deadeyes.  Those designers figured out how to do what I thought was impossible or at least impractical:  they molded those blocks and deadeyes in styrene with holes through them and grooves around them.  Close inspection reveals how they did it:  the mold apparently was in at least four pieces, with sliding sections that had to slide out of the way as the parts were ejected.  Dragon currently promotes that technology as state-of-the-art; Imai was using it twenty years ago.  I do wonder whether such modern-looking fittings belong on an ancient galley, but if Academy sold those blocks and deadeyes separately, I'd buy them by the gross.

I have two reservations about the kit.  First (and this probably isn't a fair criticism) it's been around for a long time; I don't know much about ancient galleys, but I tend to be skeptical about any such products that were designed before the completion of the great Olympias project, which has altered so many earlier conceptions about how such ships were built.  Secondly - and again with the caveat that I don't really know much about the subject - it certainly looks like somebody involved in the design of the kit misinterpreted the arrangement of the outriggers.  (I'm probably using the wrong term; I'm referring to the long wood boxes that project from the sides of the hull, providing the fulcrums for the oars.)  In the kit, the oars are arranged in one row, and project through elongated, elliptical holes in the bottoms of the outriggers.  On the outside, vertical faces of the outriggers are another series of holes - much smaller and oval-shaped.  My impression is that those holes also are supposed to have oars sticking through them.  In other words, either the oars are in the wrong place, or this ship is supposed to be a bireme and somebody omitted a row of oars.

I'd be interested to hear what this Forum's resident expert on ancient vessels, Jwintjes, thinks of this kit.  My impression is that it's by far the best ancient galley kit on the market, but that it does suffer from some serious flaws.

About the Cutty Sark,

I see, there is a model made by Hapdong, scale 1/160 (length 540 mm)

There is a "gold plated" version of the 1/350 Cutty Sark by Academy ;

and there is the 1/350 Minicraft Cutty Sark, it must be different, because it is more expensive than the Academy model..

Sorry, as I write this, I find an answer : the Minicraft 1/350 is the ex-Imai ; the Academy 1/350 is the ex-Pyro ; there was a 1/120 scale Imai  Cutty Sark model too, it seems, that is model was not only sold by Aoshima, but by Arii too (informations found thanks to German modelers).

And, to answer a question you asked me some days ago, l'Epervier did not exist.  Leo Jahiel, director of Heller when the kit was first issued, wanted to christen Heller models with French names, but as I wrote, we'll learn soon more about it when a new book about "Heller et les bateaux" will be published.

Is there a reason why you do not talk about Minicraft in your list? Though, Imai 1/350 models can be found in Minicraft boxes now.First, Academy-Minicraft were just one same company, but since several years they are two different companies.

Thank you,

Michel

michel.vrtg wrote:

Is there a reason why you do not talk about Minicraft in your list? Though, Imai 1/350 models can be found in Minicraft boxes now.First, Academy-Minicraft were just one same company, but since several years they are two different companies.

The pictures that MJH was kind enough to post illustrate the point I was trying to make in my post of yesterday.  Notice that on the Greek ship the oars pass through holes in the outboard face of the outrigger (or sponson, or whatever it's supposed to be called), whereas the oars of the Roman ship emerge from underneath.  That doesn't make sense.  If the holes in the face of the Roman ship's sponsons aren't for oars, what are they for?  It seems to me that either (a) the oars in the Roman ship are in the wrong places, or (b) it's supposed to be a bireme, and one row of oars has been omitted.

Jwintjes - are you there?

Prof. Tilley is right, talking about the apostis, an important part of the Roman galley, I could read the same comments he made by a German modeler, there must be a row of oars missing and, if there was to be just one rank of oars, there are not enough of them.

But, please, note, oars are not so hard to do from sticks of wood, I had done 50 for the Amati bireme :

http://gallery.drydockmodels.com/album164/oars_c

Michel

My reference to "oval-shaped" holes in the apostis (thanks for the terminology, Michel) of the Imai/Academy Roman warship was in error; they're rectangular, just like the ones in the photo.  The Academy kit I have is in fact identical in all respects to the one in the picture.

I haven't really studied the prospect, but I think turning that kit into a bireme would involve considerably more than adding another row of oars.  The internal structure, which includes a vague representation of the rowers' benches, probably would have to be altered as well.  (It's entirely possible that, at the time Imai designed the kit, not enough was known about the subject to depict the benches accurately.  That, I believe, was one of the first big problems the designers of the Olympias - which is a trireme, of course, but subject to many of the same questions - had to resolve.)

Looks like the Imai/Academy kit is somewhat more believable, and considerably better executed, than the Heller/Zvezda or Aurora versions, but still a long way from a serious scale model.  That's unfortunate.  But I continue to have an enormous amount of respect for the people who designed all the Imai sailing ship kits.  We sometimes forget that, irrespective of the technology that goes into plastic kits, somewhere along in the design and production process the hands and brains of human beings make vital contributions.  The people at Imai obviously were true, highly conscientious artisans, making a genuine effort to use the most advanced technology of the time to produce models that were not only beautiful but realistic as well.  I find myself wondering (not for the first time) what the styrene sailing ship kit market would look like today, more than twenty years after Imai went under, if the company had managed to stay in business.