|
|
Post by Martin on Aug 25, 2007 14:00:24 GMT 1
Some pics of build of superstructure issues 25 and 26 nothing exciting.  and issue 26   |
|
|
|
Post by markus on Aug 28, 2007 17:31:12 GMT 1
...and that's how it looks in 6 months   |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Aug 29, 2007 10:53:49 GMT 1
lovely pic whats that ridge on the back part? did iss 27 today ended up with 3 gaps one in the middle with the 2 front parts and 2 at the back so i put filler in. lastly i take it iss 28 goes into that large gap? and at some point something goes into the back gap?ty.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Aug 29, 2007 10:55:38 GMT 1
sorry forgot to ask what fills in the stern front gap? the part under turret c.
|
|
|
|
Post by rwclancer on Aug 29, 2007 19:27:14 GMT 1
I have a 1-2mm gap where part 104 joins part 100. Would it be best to fill this with filler or cut down a plank and glue it in? Or will it be covered by another part so can be left as it is? Any ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by markus on Aug 29, 2007 20:19:56 GMT 1
lovely pic whats that ridge on the back part? did iss 27 today ended up with 3 gaps one in the middle with the 2 front parts and 2 at the back so i put filler in. lastly i take it iss 28 goes into that large gap? and at some point something goes into the back gap?ty. i guess the ridge will become the plane catapult, on top of the large gap in the back comes the hangar (if i'm right) markus |
|
|
|
Post by markus on Aug 29, 2007 20:30:29 GMT 1
I have a 1-2mm gap where part 104 joins part 100. Would it be best to fill this with filler or cut down a plank and glue it in? Or will it be covered by another part so can be left as it is? Any ideas. there shouldn't be any gap between 100 and 104. if there's no way of joining them togeter i would fill the gap with a cut-down plank (i guess this gap is covered later by deck veneer) markus |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 30, 2007 5:33:17 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by rwclancer on Aug 30, 2007 9:09:42 GMT 1
Thanks for the info. The way I see it is that I would have to remove part 100 and realign it slightly. I use non waterproof glue so I guess it would come off, but is it worth it?
|
|
|
|
Post by markus on Aug 30, 2007 9:33:57 GMT 1
Thanks for the info. The way I see it is that I would have to remove part 100 and realign it slightly. I use non waterproof glue so I guess it would come off, but is it worth it? i think it's worth it - eventually the veneer may be too small if you don't realign part 100... markus |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 31, 2007 0:07:02 GMT 1
There were lots of etchings on the Titanic, all came packed in plastic bags. I don't think I had any damaged in transit at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Aug 31, 2007 14:40:50 GMT 1
Anyone else noticed that part 100 from issue 26 was 1mm short in its length to fit onto the superstructure assembly below it built in iss 26? The super assembly is 132mm wide so even if part 100 is cenrtally placed it is still is 0.5mm short at either end. (I know part 100 only sits flush with the back edge of the super below). Yes the super at either end can be sanded to meet the short length of part 100 but this then makes the super 1mm short in it's width, hope there is no knock on effect of this  |
|
|
|
Post by swanrail on Aug 31, 2007 21:16:18 GMT 1
Part 100 was deliberately 1mm short and should be fixed EXACTLY as per the instructions. You will then find that part 103/104 (in issue 27) will fit into the "gap" tightly.
Any mucking about will give you a serious problem!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by swanrail on Aug 31, 2007 21:20:53 GMT 1
Sorry, misread you comment. My base is also 132mm wide, as is the part 100, so looks as if yours was miscut by Hachette.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Sept 1, 2007 5:34:28 GMT 1
My part 100 was 131mm wide. The superstrurcture can out at about 131.5mm, so I simply mounted it centrally and sanded the sides. To be honest, it was close enough that I didn't give it a second thought.
|
|
