|
Post by Mark on May 21, 2009 16:32:17 GMT 1
it's really looking the Biz !!
There is a serious amount of detail going into this model, and your doing a crackin' job Rush.
|
|
|
Post by rushzombie on May 21, 2009 18:16:56 GMT 1
i guess on the railings it depends on which way you start ,if you do a dry run first there shouldn,t be a problem
|
|
|
Post by rushzombie on May 21, 2009 18:18:25 GMT 1
also on the paint job, thats just the undercoats ,gonna be fun doing the top coat with the camouflage , but in for a penny in for a pound as they say,mine is going to be static not remote
|
|
|
Post by eric on May 21, 2009 19:06:25 GMT 1
Rush, are you going do the camo stipes on the superstructure?!?!?!?
If you are then you are way braver than me!
I wish you good luck and a steady hand!!!!
|
|
|
Post by rushzombie on May 21, 2009 22:14:35 GMT 1
yup doing the camo stripes on superstructure eventually,i,m hope to rig up a laser to mark the stripes
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 21, 2009 23:49:52 GMT 1
He he - good luck. I'm toying with the idea. My idea was to use a rule, pencil marks and masking tape. I think it's going to come down to how much raised detail, and hence the likelihood of paint creeping under the masking tape these is.
|
|
|
Post by Achtung!! on May 22, 2009 11:26:59 GMT 1
You could use some of that really thin masking tape/
|
|
|
Post by danny on May 22, 2009 18:23:54 GMT 1
there is a thing called masking fluid, it is used on model car bodies to prevent the windows from getting paint on them. you brush it on and after it has dried you can spray over it. when that layer dries you should be able to remove it in a fashion similar to removing woodglue from your fingers ( AKA just peeling it off), in theory anyway ;D
don't know how it holds on the bissy superstructure though, might be difficult to get off with all those raised parts and tight corners...
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 22, 2009 18:52:07 GMT 1
I know the stuff you mean Danny. It's works well and might be a good option as long as your port hole covers etc. don't get pulled off.
|
|
|
Post by Mike B on May 22, 2009 19:18:59 GMT 1
Rush, Am I seeing things or have you shortened the superstructure deck at the rear of the funnel?
|
|
|
Post by rushzombie on May 22, 2009 22:05:13 GMT 1
NOPE NOT TOUCHED IT ,DO YOU MEAN THE PART WHERE THE RAILINGS ARE PROTRUDING FROM THE EDGE,IF SO THATS HOW IT ENDED UP,WILL LOOK INTO THAT AS I TOTALLY FORGOT LOL
|
|
|
Post by rushzombie on May 22, 2009 22:14:10 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by swanrail on May 22, 2009 22:30:10 GMT 1
With my issue 79 there was an error slip saying that the picture showed the deck being shortened, hence the railing extended over as per the pictures, but this was an error. The deck should not be shortened and then the railings finish flush with the end of the deck leaving a small pasageway between the forward and aft parts. On my model, I have fitted a sloping ramp as per the aft side, which allows aircraft from the forward hangars to move onto the catapult, this as per the shipyard model,, etc. Else looking very good, Rushzombie. Must get cracking on my model again, been left for 40 issues now, problem is the sun is shining and have tons of outside jobs with higher priority!!!!
|
|
|
Post by rushzombie on May 22, 2009 22:58:48 GMT 1
LOL THAT MUST BE WHY MINES SHORT THEN AS BEFORE THE DECK SHEET PROTRUDED PAST THE EDGE,OH WELL EASILY FIXED ( HE SAYS ) LOLTHATS WHAT YA GET FOR GETTING USED TO NOT READING THE INSTRUCTIONS
|
|
|
Post by Mike B on May 23, 2009 21:52:46 GMT 1
With my issue 79 there was an error slip saying that the picture showed the deck being shortened, hence the railing extended over as per the pictures, but this was an error. My issue was the same but my deck extends about 5mm beyond the railing.
|
|