|
Post by Mark on May 12, 2007 8:17:41 GMT 1
HI folks, I've placed a tip about sanding the frames ready for planking in week 11 on my web site, which you may find useful. www.buildthebismarck.co.uk/modelframe.htmI'm still waiting for week 11, but I'll get planking just as soon as it arrives.
|
|
|
Post by russ on May 12, 2007 17:21:16 GMT 1
ah thanks for the grate tip it will be very useful
|
|
|
Post by chrispy on Jun 20, 2007 15:15:22 GMT 1
decided to do iss. 17. i started by placking one long plank in the middle of the deck. this allowed me to line it up proper? then i small towards the bow? and carried on from there? 2 ? for imark, the 3 long planks towards the stern are they flush? also the port bit 58? it's flush with bow but the other end sticks out abit should i cut it evel? ty
|
|
|
Post by swanrail on Jun 20, 2007 22:42:25 GMT 1
Do you mean part 59 (not 58). Mine sits about 2mm outside a plank placed along the top of the frames (the bit we have not yet fixed) along its complete length and also even all the way along. Perhaps your deck planks were not tightly butted up against each other allowing a spread?
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jun 21, 2007 10:05:50 GMT 1
yes sorry i meant 59, em i put my port side flush near the bow it's the other end thats sticking out a bit. i cut that back last night to make it level. what about the 3 planks on the stern do i make them flush? ty
|
|
|
Post by jim on Jun 21, 2007 10:35:06 GMT 1
I may be too late with this idea for many anyway I suggest screwing a straight piece of 2x1 baton along the keel centre line from inside the ship prior to planking since planking is from the deck down, this prevents any lateral or horizontal movement, planking can be continued down to the hull bottom then the baton removed. the applied planks then take over the job the baton did.
|
|
|
Post by barbod on Jun 21, 2007 11:24:57 GMT 1
I don't know if this is correct but my part Numbers 59 are about 1/2 mm thinner than the deck planks. Is this how ot is supposed to be? It will mean an obvious small ledge down the sides of the planks.
|
|
|
Post by swanrail on Jun 21, 2007 12:30:33 GMT 1
My parts 59 are also slightly thinner than the deck planks, but I have also found that not all the deck planks are identical in thickness, so it looks like a sanding job to level it all out. Ref part 59, would not recommend modifying it until the hull planking is completed upwards, then see if it fits flush with the outside of the top hull plank. I will be interested to see what sort of plank (ie thickness and width) will be supplied for the top planks - perhaps Marcus can enlighten us?
|
|
|
Post by markcarper on Jun 22, 2007 10:02:49 GMT 1
I'm considering the possibility of laying the second skin of planks overlapping the first. I feel that this will compensate for any inaccuarcies experienced where the first skins planks join. Hope that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by jim on Jun 22, 2007 17:44:10 GMT 1
on any double planked hull I have built before, the secondary planks are a lot thinner, but broader creating an automatic overlap, however it is important to create as even a surface as possible on the first layer. This is also why it is important to glue planks edge to edge as well as on frames to prevent any springing when sanding
|
|
|
Post by markus on Jun 22, 2007 17:54:55 GMT 1
My parts 59 are also slightly thinner than the deck planks, but I have also found that not all the deck planks are identical in thickness, so it looks like a sanding job to level it all out. Ref part 59, would not recommend modifying it until the hull planking is completed upwards, then see if it fits flush with the outside of the top hull plank. I will be interested to see what sort of plank (ie thickness and width) will be supplied for the top planks - perhaps Marcus can enlighten us? yes, i can - i was disappointed with the second planking from amati. planks are 300mm / 5mm /1mm, for almost the entire hull around the portholes there are drilled plates instead of planks - and what i mostly disliked was the missing planking in the upper part of the ship so i bought planks in 1200mm length and did it my way. this was the only possibility to raise the 2nd planking and so put the removable deck intothe hull, not ontomarkus
|
|
|
Post by barbod on Jun 24, 2007 10:29:47 GMT 1
Mark, you have misunderstood us - the problem I have discovered is not for the hull but for the planks for the deck included in parts 16 & 17. The shaped parts that make the edge are thinner than the main planks that we have to place down the centre of the deck.
I agree that the standard of the hull plank thickness is not very consistent but that can always be sorted out with a hell of a lot of sanding/filling to get a decent finish on the hull. Yes it would have been nice (and a lot easier!) to have planks that went the whole length of the hull but with a ship of this length, it is not feasible to send strips of this length either in the post or to your local paper shop. The same applies to the deck planks. It just makes a lot of unnecessary work to sand pieces down to a uniform level. But to supply pieces that are noticeably thinner than they should be is just plain lunacy and incompetent! It means that the whole centre of the deck has to come down by 1/2mm or find something to put on the side pieces to raise them up to the level of the centre pieces. All in all it is work we should not have to be doing! We are paying a lot of money and to get parts of wrong thickness is a real pain!
I will not be making any alterations to the planking on the deck until all the deck pieces are in place and I decide what to do - either sand or fill. Has this problem surfaced on the German site? If so what has been decided as the best course of action?
|
|
|
Post by paulhbell on Jun 24, 2007 12:39:54 GMT 1
I agree with barbod on the thickness issue, but ships deck's are higher in the middle than at the edges, so sea water runs off. This is maybe why the planks are thick than the outer pieces.
Is the deck only going to be one layer or two layers.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 24, 2007 13:28:10 GMT 1
I havent started the deck yet as I am only at Issue 15, awaiting my next delivery. I am curious why the the planks and deck pieces are different thicknesses, also why couldnt the deck pieces be a single sheet of plywood instead of a mixture of planks and plwood parts?
|
|
|
Post by barbod on Jun 24, 2007 15:13:46 GMT 1
I agree with Bob about the deck being in one piece would be far easier instead of a multitude of planks (at varying thicknesses!)but then again Hachette have got to milk our £4.99 every week from us. Why make things easy for us when they could be complicated and drawn out! The bit about decks being lower so that water can run off would be great if the deck was on a slight constant curve. This is a significant step so would still be a water trap. I think that this is yet another design fault.
Paul B
|
|