A Big Job – 1/600th Airfix Ark Royal

[kitchentable]

My latest build is something I want to share in WIP.   This is my first WIP posting.  The 1/600 Airfix HMS Ark Royal is a classic (1966 dies) and a model I built the first time round when I was about 11 years old.   I will get the build going for a couple of months, but then I will set it to one side for a while as other projects need attention.  Posting it as a WIP does have the effect of putting pressure on me to return to it without too long a gap.

 

I have done the obvious steps of buying the WEM PE, sourcing a few more Swordfish, and researching Admiralty Grey.  I have bought 3D-printed boats and life rafts at huge expense. I prefer not to think of the cost, but focus on the astonishing detail.  They come from MicroMaster NZ.   I bought some boats for my HMS Tiger build years ago when MicroMaster used community printing at Shapeways.  They were expensive and no more than adequate.  The price might be about the same but now the quality is bonkers good.  

 

I have enquired about HACS MkIV directors and pom-poms from MicroMaster, but don’t tell the wife.  There are no resin or 3D-printed aftermarket 4.5” turrets (but if someone knows better….).  

 

With other builders interests in showing her in the condition of the Bismarck attack or the day she was lost, I decided to build in the condition of her first commission in early 1939.   The lack of a decent authoritative ship history and fairly scant photos on the net or in books makes a few things guess work.  Clearly the light guns around the island are in the earliest configuration, but the funnel change from short to tall is assumed to be a change made earlier on builders trials.   The Ark carried only Swordfish in her early months.

 

 

For the fine detail I invested in Witold Koszela book #34 “The British Aircraft Carrier Ark Royal” which contains very nice 1/400 plans, but no real info on her modifications programme.  One good inspiration was a nice build of the same kit on another forum, which included PE.  I felt I could push a bit further than that very good effort, apart from the work the other guy did on the in-water setting.  I can’t hope to match that aspect.  There is a WIP on a 1/350 Ark Royal on this site, which has a superb level of detail.  I will not religiously try to emulate that because there is the aforementioned uncertainty on build state info, and I can’t match all the detail at 1/600.

 

Original condition, except some work starting on the Quarterdeck openings

 

Work has started on the hull.   I cut away the 4.5” mount “ice-cream cones” because they are not true to life; the radio mast supports were all removed (they are in the PE set).   Whilst most of the centre section hull side cut-outs look accurate, for some reason Airfix messed up the forward cut-outs that look into the fo’c’sle and the same for the quarterdeck ones.  These needed to be blanked off where appropriate and recut. I also cut out a small fwd opening on the centreline right under the flight deck.

 

Gun support fairing removed, and MicroMaster sample boats

 

I will carry on with the hull halves as there is a lot to do in many areas.

 

[Faraway]

For paint, you might want to consider https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/ 

Very accurate colour.

Jon

[kitchentable]

Thanks Jon.  Good tip.  I do use Sovereign paints for all my major external finishes.   I have three tins of AP507A ready.

[kitchentable]

Second Instalment of the Ark Royal build

 

I have now built replacements for the 4.5” gun ice-cream cones from solid rod.  The geometry is hard to capture correctly but they are a big improvement.  I am part way through fitting liners to all hull side cut-out to give the protruding lip.  It’s a really fiddly job but apart from giving the needed lip it gives a more rounded corner to the cut-out that matches real life. I used 0.25x1.5mm plastic strip.  

 

 

The build is really starting to get serious now as I am launching into fixing 0.3mm square plastic rod on the hull to represent the distinct plate welds.  These needed to be sanded back to about 0.1mm to reduce the effect.   I haven’t finished either the cut-out edging or these welds as the photos show.  Both jobs are a bit dull so I’m mixing it up, and, spraying some AP507A from Sovereign Hobbies to check for a good finish on these mods (that is on the port side).  Really living the dream.

 

On the photo above, can anyone tell me what the external structure is running down under the gun mount?

 

The hull welds do present a classical modeller’s conundrum.  The welds are very visible in life, and would be visible on a 1/600 model.  However there seems no way to create a true scale weld.  It should be about 0.15mm high and protrude 0.015mm. A gnats c___k as they used to say!   I take the Impressionist approach and add the weld seams as best I can using the smallest plastic rod I can find (0.3mm square from Plastruc).  I could have stuck on 0.1mm diameter brass rod but I don’t think I could disguise the circular nature of it.  Writing this now makes me think of squashing the brass rod in a vice to gain a tiny rectangular section.  It’s too late to change tack now though.  I suppose just scoring lines would be another approach.  Okay, ideas for another build.

 

The only other progress is on the fairleads.   I thought for a long how to achieve fairleads very close to the deck edge.   My chosen solution is to use 0.5mm copper wire bent to a circle.

 

 

 

 

This is a photo of the hull inside.  It actually looks pretty convincing from the other side.  It is easy to work the copper to adjust the ends to the fairlead geometry.   I will include an external shot next time.   I also then hope to reach the stage of portholing and starting the photo etch on the hull exterior features.

 

This photo gives an idea of the plans I am using.  Trouble is, where there are easy points of comparison with life, the plan maker seems to have made some odd decisions on the curves.

 

[TallBlondJohn]

Probably a bit late know but I've done very fine weld lines with carefully masked paint or Mr Surfacer. I found very thin plastic strip tends to fall apart when sanding.

[kitchentable]

Thanks for the weld line tips.   I thought about masking but the weld lines are so close together (2-3mm) that it looked just too big a job.   Of course sticking on rod is a big job as well.  I guess it is nye on impossible to a priori to estimate long much each of the different options will take or what the overall effect will be over more than a little test area.  Do you have any photos of your painted weld lines?   I just looked on line for Mr Surfacer.  I have never used it; what is its special feature (over regular paint).

 

I have kind of mastered sanding the weld rods down to a trace.   If the cement bond is really strong I can stop sanding “just in time”.   Anyway, all ideas are always welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kitchentable]

Next Instalment 

 

The Ark had very noticeable external armour fitted amidships.   0.15mm plastic sheet was used, bonded down with superglue to avoid poly cement distorting the thin sheet.   The previous build on another modelling site gave that tip.

The photo shows the plate, plus most of the hull-side cut out lips added.  They do not show up very well on a photo this zoomed out.

 

There are various odd structures on the hull exterior, including ledges for the life rafts.   Airfix made a right hash of items like that, so they been corrected/added from plastic card.  

 

I did not really notice the stern issues until now.   The starboard hull side has a crisp stern overhang that looks true to life.   The port side is rather vague with curves where it should be crisp.

 

 

 

The photo shows the work starting on the port side to bring it to a match with the starboard.  You can also see the slit I cut above the main quarterdeck openings.   The slit will be turned into five discrete openings.  Airfix placed a couple of random trapezium shapes in the wrong places (see the starboard side).   Achieving the correct positions of all the openings, welds etc on a fast closing stern section is a challenge.  To achieve near true to life does require the hull section geometry to be accurate, and that is near impossible to measure or change.

 

I could not resist doing a fairly complete spray of AP507A to the port side.   The stern is not finished yet.   The welds need a little more fettling to make them even.   The fairleads I described in the previous post are just visible.  You have to take my word that they are sneakily rather good, but not at all photogenic.  The paint will be lightened a little when I start to care about the finished colour.

 

 

More next time, although I do detect there is not a whole lot of interest in this one!  

[Knb.1451]

Youre really going all out on this old kit, keep up the good work. I like seeing 1/600 builds, I sure wish more people would request them at a higher rate from manufacturers.

[ArnoldAmbrose]

4 hours ago, kitchentable said:

More next time, although I do detect there is not a whole lot of interest in this one!  

       Gidday, although I haven't made a comment up to now I have been interested in what you're doing here. The majority of my model ships are Airfix 1/600 scale, including this model. I did the 'Ark' many years ago, before I'd heard of modeling forums, PE and AM stuff. I was also under the misguided belief that all model kits are always accurate (😁) and didn't alter them back then.

I agree that Airfix ship kits are usually lacking in accurate small detail. I did my 'Ark' OOB, but added the aircraft a few years later, and these I did modify a little, adding undercarriage, prop blades or discs, and torpedoes to the Swordfish. I wasn't aware of the inaccuracies of the ship you've pointed out when I did her.

       I am always interested in what modelers do to Airfix 1/600 ship models, including your model here, so I apologize for my lack of comments earlier. Keep up the good work. Regards, Jeff.

[kitchentable]

On 2/14/2023 at 3:39 AM, ArnoldAmbrose said:

       Gidday, although I haven't made a comment up to now I have been interested in what you're doing here. The majority of my model ships are Airfix 1/600 scale, including this model. I did the 'Ark' many years ago, before I'd heard of modeling forums, PE and AM stuff. I was also under the misguided belief that all model kits are always accurate (😁) and didn't alter them back then.

I agree that Airfix ship kits are usually lacking in accurate small detail. I did my 'Ark' OOB, but added the aircraft a few years later, and these I did modify a little, adding undercarriage, prop blades or discs, and torpedoes to the Swordfish. I wasn't aware of the inaccuracies of the ship you've pointed out when I did her.

       I am always interested in what modelers do to Airfix 1/600 ship models, including your model here, so I apologize for my lack of comments earlier. Keep up the good work. Regards, Jeff.

Thanks Jeff; nice encouragement.   I think Airfix models of that era are actually amazing.   Okay, for the Ark the bow and the stern were drawn and scraped on a Friday afternoon but the majority of the model is a very decent attempt.  For the Ark there was no prototype to photograph and given that there seem to be no builders plans available now, I think they did not have them in 1966.   Making two halves of a model symmetrical was solely down to the die maker with his hand tools.  If anyone can say anymore about the process in the 1960s then I would love to hear it.

 

My main reservation about making 1/600 models is the challenge of photographing them.  For a start, various greys do not catch the light well, and there seems no perfect focal length to work at.   Showing a detail clearly tends to reveal associated modelling mistakes or lack of care.  When I photograph 1/72 aircraft there is always an optimum image size that matches a human eye view.

Phil

[ArnoldAmbrose]

1 hour ago, kitchentable said:

My main reservation about making 1/600 models is the challenge of photographing them.  For a start, various greys do not catch the light well, and there seems no perfect focal length to work at.   Showing a detail clearly tends to reveal associated modelling mistakes or lack of care.

       Gidday again Phil, a lot could depend on an individual's equipment. I'm certainly no expert in photography but I've found with my particular camera I set the zoom about half way and then physically move back and forth until the model takes up most of the screen. This gives me a reasonable depth-of-field. I also usually angle the model ship diagonally across the screen to get it in the photo as large as I can. This seems to work for me but I acknowledge that different people use different equipment. A downside is that close-up photos show all the blemishes of my poor workmanship.

       Naturally, good light helps but I don't like using a flash inside. A neutral coloured background seems to help too.

Anyway, enough of me rattling on. Regards, Jeff.

[Keyworx]

Watching with interest - I recall building this when I was knee high to a grasshopper - it seemed huge at the time! If I recall it ended up being blown up in the stream at Magnolia dell in Pretoria. Good old days

[Chewbacca]

Only just seen this thread.  Like Jeff I love the old 1/600 Airfix range, have built all of them over the years and modified a fair few in recent years though the last time I built ARK was definitely over 40 years ago.

 

For weld lines, have you considered stretched sprue?  You can get it very thin and using liquid cement hides its round nature.

 

I make fairleads in 1/600 scale using strips of 20 thou sheet styrene about 1.2 mm wide.  Mark it off in sections about 0.8 mm and drill two tiny holes in each, opening them up into an oval with either a very fine #10 blade or a rat tail file.  You can see an example here in my LONDONDERRY build (though I think this was 30 thou; they are slightly overscale):

 

[ArnoldAmbrose]

25 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

I make fairleads in 1/600 scale using strips of 20 thou sheet styrene about 1.2 mm wide.  Mark it off in sections about 0.8 mm and drill two tiny holes in each, opening them up into an oval with either a very fine #10 blade or a rat tail file.  You can see an example here in my LONDONDERRY build (though I think this was 30 thou; they are slightly overscale):

       Gidday, what a coincidence, I did some fairleads for the 1/600 Flower class corvette just last night. My method has some differences and some similarities to Chewy's above. Like Chewy I use 20 thou styrene although I know it as 0.5mm thick, and use 4mm strips, Evergreen 127. For a large ship such as yours I drill two holes as does Chewy then file them into a single slot. I use a set of gas welding nozzle cleaners as files, they work a treat on styrene. For a small ship such as the corvette I only drill a single hole then file it into a slot, being smaller. But here's a difference - when drilling two holes I find it almost impossible to get them both in the centre of a narrow styrene strip (lousy quality control of my workmanship) so I use a wider strip (the 4mm) and make the slot across the strip. Then I use the slot itself for direction of any cuts. Once the slot is done I shape the top of the fairlead (the end of the strip) parallel to the slot and to the desired shape, then shape the sides of the fairlead, all this while it is still a long strip for ease of handling. When I'm happy with it I cut it from the strip (which is cutting the base line) again parallel with the slot I've fashioned.

       The photo below shows two methods I use, with or without base plates. I usually do them without, so use steps 1,2,7,8,9.

 

Here's some fairleads I've done for a 1/600 HMS Jamaica a little while back, using the method described. they weren't painted when photographed.

 

       Hopefully between Chewy and I we've helped a little. Apologies if this has hijacked your thread a little. Regards, Jeff.

[kitchentable]

Lots of interest now; thank you.  I will pick up the interesting tips and points made.

 

Work on the stern continues.   The rather poorly moulded port side has been plastic carded and filled so that it matches the starboard side.  This gives suitably crisp edges, but I’m sure some further work will be needed to finish it off when the two hull halves are bonded.  Making the five square cut outs above the quarterdeck cut outs has been finished for one side and copying that technique for the other will be no problem.  Photos show they had very visible netting inside them, which I can fit before the flight deck is added.  I guess the sharply raked stern increased the propensity of matelots to fall out, hence the nets.  I don’t know whether there is a deck between the quarterdeck and these small cutouts.  Anyone?  Quarterdecks I have been on have had as much headroom as they can muster, and it seems that Ark had the room to offer.

 

The stern construction near the freeboard (do carriers have freeboard?) was very different to the rest of the hull.  Longitudinal and vertical external braces were very evident.  This looks like a design change during the building programme.  It is an easy job to add the bracing, compared to the weld lines that have bothered me so much.  It might look a bit agricultural at model scale, but it was in life.  The five cut-outs above the quarterdeck show up in the photo.

 

 

I appreciate the finish in the photo looks rubbish.  I tend to paint, then go back for more sanding.

 

The model has a fault than has only just been spotted, and it will slow me down as I correct it.   The aft-most boat bay (aft of the 4.5” mounting above) is out of place.   Frankly, nothing on the kit seems to be in exactly the right place, but this is a fault that needs fixing.   The boat bay is higher than it should be.   I can’t live with that error because it knocks all the weld seams and portholes out of place.   Cutting away the deck of the bay from inside and lowering the deck-head from outside looks to be the answer.  The bay needs to drop down by a whole deckhead height.

 

I am including a photo of the fairleads, taken before hull painting.  I am rather pleased that the copper hoop idea (not knowingly copied from anyone) works so well.  It will require some fettling of the fore/aft decks before they can be dropped in.  I will address some good ideas from others on how to make fairleads in another post.  The fairleads are in the 2nd and 4th opening, counting from the bow,

 

None of the Airfix portholes are in the correct places, but having the weld seams in fairly accurate position allows my own portholing to proceed with some confidence.  I am still in two minds as to whether the portholes are all the same size.  I will make most 0.5mm and some 0.4mm near the bow. I found it is an unexpectedly big challenge to get good alignment on the portholes.  The human eye is very discerning to even tiny misalignment.  I have temporarily stuck plastic strip butting up to the weld seams and then drilled using the gash strip as a rest.   Photos clearly show that all Ark's decks were flat (horizontal) and that portholes were a fixed distance from deck/deckhead.  Thats not surprising but it dioes set the challenge clearly of having rows of lined up portholes.

 

I do have some catching up to do on the starboard side.  Most of my description of the build has come from work done on the port side.  It will take quite a few weeks to add the weld seams and the portholes to the starboard side.

 

I’m in two minds then whether to bond the two halves together, or fit the below deck areas with all their associated detailings before the hull joining happens.  I don’t think it matters to the ease of build, but one might be better for my sense of achieving something.   

 

 

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

Only just found this; nice start.  I am one of the 1/350 builders of Ark on this forum, so have spent an unhealthy (but fun) amount of time staring at plans and blurred photos, so might be able to answer some of your questions.

 

The “external structure running down below the gun mount” is one of several gash (rubbish) disposal chutes.  In those days (and indeed well into the 80s) they just used to chuck rubbish over the side. There is another chute back aft by the rear-most 4.5” sponson, plus a shorter one from the berthing bay hull opening below and behind the crane.  Same both sides, from memory.

 

The projecting structure at the backend of the flight deck was called the “round-down”.  It wasn’t a change during build, but was always designed that way; Ark’s design was heavily influenced by the Washington Treaty, which limited carriers by displacement, so they used every trick they could think of to keep her weight down.  That’s why so much of her structure was welded (instead of riveted, which was standard practice at the time), and the round-down gave maximum flight deck size without extending the entire hull and thus incurring weight penalties.

 

The openings above the quarterdeck were senior officer territory (similar idea to the so-called “Admiral’s stern walk” seen in WW1 battleships).  They weren’t nets, but rather fetching 1930s suburban sash windows; this is a photo from inside. 

 

 

If you can find a copy, the excellent book British Warships of the 2nd World War detailed in the Original Builders’ Plans contains drawings of Ark; they aren’t complete (no port side view), and they show her as she was meant to be, rather than necessarily as she was (e.g. port side pom-poms shown fitted, when they were actually only added in 1941, after the Bismarck action).  But they are still fascinating, and will tell you more about what various things were actually for than any other source.  Worth every penny, particularly since they also contain drawings of numerous other RN ships of the time.

 

Hope that helps.  Just ask if you need more; there are several people on BM who are genuine Ark Royal experts (a category into which I would not place myself).

 

Have fun

 

Crisp

[kitchentable]

On 2/18/2023 at 8:31 AM, Chewbacca said:

Only just seen this thread.  Like Jeff I love the old 1/600 Airfix range, have built all of them over the years and modified a fair few in recent years though the last time I built ARK was definitely over 40 years ago.

 

For weld lines, have you considered stretched sprue?  You can get it very thin and using liquid cement hides its round nature.

 

I make fairleads in 1/600 scale using strips of 20 thou sheet styrene about 1.2 mm wide.  Mark it off in sections about 0.8 mm and drill two tiny holes in each, opening them up into an oval with either a very fine #10 blade or a rat tail file.  You can see an example here in my LONDONDERRY build (though I think this was 30 thou; they are slightly overscale):

 

Thank you to Chewy, and Jeff, for these replies on the fairlead question.

 

On 2/18/2023 at 9:25 AM, ArnoldAmbrose said:

       Gidday, what a coincidence, I did some fairleads for the 1/600 Flower class corvette just last night. My method has some differences and some similarities to Chewy's above. Like Chewy I use 20 thou styrene although I know it as 0.5mm thick, and use 4mm strips, Evergreen 127. For a large ship such as yours I drill two holes as does Chewy then file them into a single slot. I use a set of gas welding nozzle cleaners as files, they work a treat on styrene. For a small ship such as the corvette I only drill a single hole then file it into a slot, being smaller. But here's a difference - when drilling two holes I find it almost impossible to get them both in the centre of a narrow styrene strip (lousy quality control of my workmanship) so I use a wider strip (the 4mm) and make the slot across the strip. Then I use the slot itself for direction of any cuts. Once the slot is done I shape the top of the fairlead (the end of the strip) parallel to the slot and to the desired shape, then shape the sides of the fairlead, all this while it is still a long strip for ease of handling. When I'm happy with it I cut it from the strip (which is cutting the base line) again parallel with the slot I've fashioned.

       The photo below shows two methods I use, with or without base plates. I usually do them without, so use steps 1,2,7,8,9.

 

Here's some fairleads I've done for a 1/600 HMS Jamaica a little while back, using the method described. they weren't painted when photographed.

 

       Hopefully between Chewy and I we've helped a little. Apologies if this has hijacked your thread a little. Regards, Jeff.

 

I have re-evaluated my bright idea of the copper hoops and am a bit less gung-ho about it now.   I think the plastic card version is entirely adequate and much more mainstream than mine.   In my defence, I think it was the location on Ark that seduced me into something more novel.   All the Ark's fairleads are located in the hull cut-outs, so the side plating and the cut-out lips are contenders for getting in the way of the placing a conventional fairlead on the deck.   I wanted the fairlead to be as outboard as possible (as life) so the copper let me bend the ends outward slightly.   Anyway, I think we have kicked the pants out of that particular subject!

[kitchentable]

12 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Only just found this; nice start.  I am one of the 1/350 builders of Ark on this forum, so have spent an unhealthy (but fun) amount of time staring at plans and blurred photos, so might be able to answer some of your questions.

 

The “external structure running down below the gun mount” is one of several gash (rubbish) disposal chutes.  In those days (and indeed well into the 80s) they just used to chuck rubbish over the side. There is another chute back aft by the rear-most 4.5” sponson, plus a shorter one from the berthing bay hull opening below and behind the crane.  Same both sides, from memory.

 

The projecting structure at the backend of the flight deck was called the “round-down”.  It wasn’t a change during build, but was always designed that way; Ark’s design was heavily influenced by the Washington Treaty, which limited carriers by displacement, so they used every trick they could think of to keep her weight down.  That’s why so much of her structure was welded (instead of riveted, which was standard practice at the time), and the round-down gave maximum flight deck size without extending the entire hull and thus incurring weight penalties.

 

The openings above the quarterdeck were senior officer territory (similar idea to the so-called “Admiral’s stern walk” seen in WW1 battleships).  They weren’t nets, but rather fetching 1930s suburban sash windows; this is a photo from inside. 

 

 

If you can find a copy, the excellent book British Warships of the 2nd World War detailed in the Original Builders’ Plans contains drawings of Ark; they aren’t complete (no port side view), and they show her as she was meant to be, rather than necessarily as she was (e.g. port side pom-poms shown fitted, when they were actually only added in 1941, after the Bismarck action).  But they are still fascinating, and will tell you more about what various things were actually for than any other source.  Worth every penny, particularly since they also contain drawings of numerous other RN ships of the time.

 

Hope that helps.  Just ask if you need more; there are several people on BM who are genuine Ark Royal experts (a category into which I would not place myself).

 

Have fun

 

Crisp

 

Thank you for showing interest in my build.   I was trying to attract your attention a few weeks ago having seen your fabulous Ark, but I'm not a big "poster" and probably did not try the right channels.

 

You have helped me a lot with just those few words.   Gash chutes, of course!   And those natty "georgian windows".   It seems style over substance: why shift yourself all that way aft of the wardroom just to sit in a rather naff place that looks as appealing as the old public bar used to.   

 

Do you have a view on the accuracy of the plans in Witold Koszela's book on Ark Royal?  I am finding it a useful reference in many ways, but equally I worry that some obvious areas look wrong in the plans, such as the 4.5" gun mount fairings.   I used it tonight to add some details to the port frame 32-80 area, such as bulkheads and hatches.   The book shows some towed "fish" stored here.   I have searched and searched on the net but I cannot work out what they are.  Why would a carrier have Asdic kit, and they certainly cannot be mine hunting gear.   Anyway, having now photographed my work this evening I think it looks a bit shabby and I will invest more time at the weekend.

 

 

I will restrict myself to one more question.  It ties to my goal to build Ark in the form she had at her first commission in early 1939.   Is there any detailed information on what was actually different to the more common representations from 1940 onwards.  I cannot find many photos that show detail from 1939.   

 

Phil

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

The towed “fish” are paravanes; two per side. They were anti-mine devices, used to “fly” underwater and thus stretch a steel wire either side of the ship from the bow; most mines at the start of the war were still conventional moored mines (heavy concrete sinker on the sea bed to which the mine was anchored by a cable), and the paravanes were designed to cut the wire (so the floating mine could then be destroyed by gunfire) and/or force it away from the ship.  
 

In the well-known photo below, of Ark in Portsmouth in 1940, the weird chain contraption hanging down from the bullring and then running either side of the bow is part of the paravane set-up; you can see that the starboard chain runs to the very bay that Witold shows (& he’s right; the paravanes are also shown in the builders’ drawings).  That small crane visible at the aft end of the paravane bay in this photo was used to launch and recover the paravanes.

 

They would be streamed whenever the ship was operating in waters shallow enough for moored mines to be a threat.  As the photo shows, they clearly didn’t bother to remove the streaming wires for short stays in port, knowing that they’d need to stream again when they next went to sea.  As magnetic, acoustic and pressure mines were developed, moored mines started to die out , so paravanes became less useful - but that was long after Ark’s demise.

 

 

Witold’s drawings are very good; in particular, much better than the Profile Morskie ones which contain several clear errors (e.g. the routing of the de-gaussing cable).  They’re not perfect - or rather, to be strictly accurate, there are a couple of places where he shows a minor feature that I cannot see in any photograph (but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong) - but I’d say they are more than adequate for anything you’re likely to want to depict in 1/600.
 

I will answer further about Ark’s evolution between 38 & 41 later, but I have to do some work now!

 

Crisp

[kitchentable]

A little more on my Ark Royal.

 

I have worked on the port side details from frame 40-80.   I cut out the Airfix "staircase" and added a more convincing inclined ladder and handrail.   The compartments are finished to the detail level target, except I will build a couple of paravanes as per ex-FAAWAFU info,   

 

On 2/22/2023 at 9:01 AM, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

The towed “fish” are paravanes; two per side. They were anti-mine devices, used to “fly” underwater and thus stretch a steel wire either side of the ship from the bow; most mines at the start of the war were still conventional moored mines (heavy concrete sinker on the sea bed to which the mine was anchored by a cable), and the paravanes were designed to cut the wire (so the floating mine could then be destroyed by gunfire) and/or force it away from the ship.  
 

In the well-known photo below, of Ark in Portsmouth in 1940, the weird chain contraption hanging down from the bullring and then running either side of the bow is part of the paravane set-up; you can see that the starboard chain runs to the very bay that Witold shows (& he’s right; the paravanes are also shown in the builders’ drawings).  That small crane visible at the aft end of the paravane bay in this photo was used to launch and recover the paravanes.

 

They would be streamed whenever the ship was operating in waters shallow enough for moored mines to be a threat.  As the photo shows, they clearly didn’t bother to remove the streaming wires for short stays in port, knowing that they’d need to stream again when they next went to sea.  As magnetic, acoustic and pressure mines were developed, moored mines started to die out , so paravanes became less useful - but that was long after Ark’s demise.

 

 

Witold’s drawings are very good; in particular, much better than the Profile Morskie ones which contain several clear errors (e.g. the routing of the de-gaussing cable).  They’re not perfect - or rather, to be strictly accurate, there are a couple of places where he shows a minor feature that I cannot see in any photograph (but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong) - but I’d say they are more than adequate for anything you’re likely to want to depict in 1/600.
 

I will answer further about Ark’s evolution between 38 & 41 later, but I have to do some work now!

 

Crisp

 

I have fixed the handrail to the hull inside.  It looks "okay", but is it set inboard too much?   Should I thin the hull being refixing.   Handrails are set in board about a foot usually, but that is only 0.5mm at this scale.  I canit make the hull that thin!

 

ex-FAAWAFU was hoping to help more on the 1939 build standard, so I am eagerly watching for that.

 

kitchentable

[ArnoldAmbrose]

2 hours ago, kitchentable said:

I have fixed the handrail to the hull inside.  It looks "okay", but is it set inboard too much?   Should I thin the hull being refixing.   Handrails are set in board about a foot usually, but that is only 0.5mm at this scale.  I canit make the hull that thin!

Gidday, I'd leave them as they are. They look very good now, and viewers aren't going to inspect your model with a set of builder's plans and a micrometer. Well, not many anyway. 😁

Seriously, I'd suggest you don't stuff around with it. Regards, Jeff.

[Faraway]

3 hours ago, kitchentable said:

I have fixed the handrail to the hull inside.  It looks "okay", but is it set inboard too much?   Should I thin the hull being refixing.   Handrails are set in board about a foot usually, but that is only 0.5mm at this scale.  I canit make the hull that thin!

I’m with Jeff @ArnoldAmbrose on this one. Leave it as it is, the rails look very good, and in my experience anything I’ve tried to ‘improve’ because I thought it ‘wasn’t quite right’ has turned into a “complete disaster, darling”.

Jon

[Thom216]

Agreed, those railings look good where they are.

[kitchentable]

On 2/22/2023 at 9:01 AM, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

The towed “fish” are paravanes; two per side. They were anti-mine devices, used to “fly” underwater and thus stretch a steel wire either side of the ship from the bow; most mines at the start of the war were still conventional moored mines (heavy concrete sinker on the sea bed to which the mine was anchored by a cable), and the paravanes were designed to cut the wire (so the floating mine could then be destroyed by gunfire) and/or force it away from the ship.  
 

In the well-known photo below, of Ark in Portsmouth in 1940, the weird chain contraption hanging down from the bullring and then running either side of the bow is part of the paravane set-up; you can see that the starboard chain runs to the very bay that Witold shows (& he’s right; the paravanes are also shown in the builders’ drawings).  That small crane visible at the aft end of the paravane bay in this photo was used to launch and recover the paravanes.

 

They would be streamed whenever the ship was operating in waters shallow enough for moored mines to be a threat.  As the photo shows, they clearly didn’t bother to remove the streaming wires for short stays in port, knowing that they’d need to stream again when they next went to sea.  As magnetic, acoustic and pressure mines were developed, moored mines started to die out , so paravanes became less useful - but that was long after Ark’s demise.

 

 

Witold’s drawings are very good; in particular, much better than the Profile Morskie ones which contain several clear errors (e.g. the routing of the de-gaussing cable).  They’re not perfect - or rather, to be strictly accurate, there are a couple of places where he shows a minor feature that I cannot see in any photograph (but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong) - but I’d say they are more than adequate for anything you’re likely to want to depict in 1/600.
 

I will answer further about Ark’s evolution between 38 & 41 later, but I have to do some work now!

 

Crisp

 

Thanks for the "steady on" guidance.  I took it.   However I did add a couple of stowed paravanes.  Even though they are small they show up clearly, so it was worth the effort.  

 

 

They look shocking in this photo, but they are only 4.5mm long with 8 parts, so to the eye they look fine.  I hand-painted with Humbrol 11 which was a mistake.  The paint seemed almost useless.

 

I am now working at the starboard side cutouts.   I can read engineering drawings ok, but I'm struggling to interpret Witold's drawings in the area of the double stacked cutouts.   The lower deck (termed lower hangar deck) is clear, but the deck above (termed lower gallery deck) is a bit of a puzzle.   Was it a kind of mezzanine walkway that allows a view down onto the lower hangar deck?   I cannot work out whether there are cut-outs in the lower gallery deck, and which structures from the lower hangar deck rise up through the lower gallery deck.   

 

Any help on this would be great.  Especially any photos of the real thing.

 

kitchentable

[Faraway]

54 minutes ago, kitchentable said:

They look shocking in this photo, but they are only 4.5mm long with 8 parts, so to the eye they look fine.

Close up photos are most definitely NOT the friend of modellers. But then, we don’t make them to be seen that close.

Jon