Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Model Boating => Topic started by: herrmill on February 08, 2012, 03:45:42 am
-
Looks like Graupner is releasing a new Titanic model in time for the 100th anniversary of the sinking. Its part of their Premium Line and, from what I have seen on the following sites, looks nicely detailed.
http://www.graupner.de/en/products/02fea07f-6862-49f6-ba74-4ef1aed40441/2104/product.aspx
http://www.westbourne-model.co.uk
http://www.v-eastonline.com/products/WP-TITANIC.html
I mention this only since they have tended to develop lines when it comes to working with KY Model, their manufacturer in China. Am hoping they do the same here since wouldn't it be nice if we would see something besides another Titanic. If they would follow with one of the famous Cunard liners such as Aquitainia or either of the Queens, I'd buy one.
-
apart from the fact that I'm almost certain that the centre propeller of Titanic was a four blader..doesn't bode well for the rest of the accuracy of the model?????
-
... and before anyone calls me a hypocrite after calling those who had a go on a certain thread this last week about a manufacturer......I'm not having a pop at the manufacturer or the QUALITY of this model.
The quality looks super.......it's the researcher that didn't do his work........would be like me building a scratch build lifeboat only to put 1 prop shaft on a boat that requires two!!
-
You're right about the props Neil but you don't see them when its in the water.(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p8/DickyD_photos/Smileys/thinking1.gif)
-
if you take a closer look at the pic, it is a four blade prop, check the distance between the port side blades to the centre prop blades O0 O0 O0
should of gone to specsavers {-) {-) {-)
-
You're right Bri (http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p8/DickyD_photos/Smileys/tumb.gif)
By the way, according to Westbournes this is going to cost £1,159.20
-
Sorry to disagree with you, Brian, but if that center prop on the model is a four blade then I'm a dutchman and by the way I have been to specsavers.
-
Sorry to disagree with you, Brian, but if that center prop on the model is a four blade then I'm a dutchman and by the way I have been to specsavers.
If you enlarge the RH pic of the Titanic on Westbourne's website you'll see that it's definitely a three bladed prop.
Brian R.
-
Looks nice doesn't she ? According to the write up, she's 'Almost ready to run' so not a lot of modelling required.
ken
-
while on the graupner website I noticed they also have a Type VII U-Boat listed as ARTR aswell, €850ish.
-
Sorry to disagree with you, Brian, but if that center prop on the model is a four blade then I'm a dutchman and by the way I have been to specsavers.
If you enlarge the RH pic of the Titanic on Westbourne's website you'll see that it's definitely a three bladed prop.
Brian R.
Actually I was disagreeing with Brian C, not you (Brian R). ok2
-
I know that TailUK, too many Brian's around!
-
Yup, I put my bets that model has a four bladed prop in the center. If you look at Dicky's picture of the prototype, the prop is in about the same position as that one on the model. You can see how the fourth blade is hidden, on the model, by the rudder. If in doubt run and axis line through the seen blades and the hub on the model, it'll show up the fourth blade.
John
-
Hi
I agree it is a 3 bladed prop. If it was 4 bladed the blades would be at 90 deg. to each other, which case a large portion of the blade would be visible in the opening between the Keel and the rudder, what is visible is the shadow cast by the lighting used shining through the opening. If you enlarge the photo above you can in fact see the start of the 3rd blade at the edge of the hub.
Must admit it looks a great model.
All the best.
Alan R
-
Defiantly a three blader on the model, it also turns in the wrong direction and is probably to large as well. The model shown on the water looks to be down by the 'ead a bit which is unfortunate but, at least they appear to have the correct colour for the funnels which, in itself, make a refreshing change.
LB
-
if you take a closer look at the pic, it is a four blade prop, check the distance between the port side blades to the centre prop blades O0 O0 O0
should of gone to specsavers {-) {-) {-)
Think that might be a bit of optical illusion
Just re read the above post and realise that you are on about the model not the actual ship.. Oops.. :-))
-
If thats the case then the starboard prop is a two blade? I think the centre prop is a 4-blade.
-
ok... on the real ship, centre prop was 4 blade with a 3 blade either side, I've downloaded the picture of the graupner model and zoomed in and its got 3, 3 bladed props with the middle prop turning in the wrong direction. But really, who cares, you don't see the props when it's in the water, unless it's sinking bow first, in which case, surely you have more to worry about.
-
Well if it was to "sink" then the rivet counters would have to keep quiet as it would be truly following in the path of the original
-
Well if it was to "sink" then the rivet counters would have to keep quiet as it would be truly following in the path of the original
That's always assuming that it was the Titanic that sank and not, as has been suggested, the Olympic. The argument being that it wasn't the Titanic but an identical ship with the same name. {:-{
-
Ive posted about the vessal swap before. It is fact that a name board photographed by a sub shows paint peeling to reveal the word Olymphic. Yes it could be this board was reused and put on the Titanic Or? John.
-
http://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic_conspiracy_theory.shtml
-
Ive posted about the vessal swap before. It is fact that a name board photographed by a sub shows paint peeling to reveal the word Olymphic. Yes it could be this board was reused and put on the Titanic Or? John.
Ooh Not seen that before..where ?
-
http://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic_conspiracy_theory.shtml
PMSL what a load of cr@p, the whole of the atlantic and they hit a ship sent to rescue them? And why would they make a new sign for the new 'olympic', and repaint the old 1 for titanic.
-
Valid point but the sign is visible. That is part of the fun of conspiracy theories. We will never know. John.
-
My only argument to this conspiricy is and always has been......you might keep one irishman with a skin full of guinness quiet with a bribe for life..........but there's no way you could keep 15000 of them quiet!!!!...................even with a bribe of Guinness for life, {-) {-) {-) {-) {-) {-)
-
I'm not convinced , however we do have a thread about it somewhere if you want to revive it as this is about the Plastic Graupner kit.. :}
-
Just read a book about Titanic...."Women and Children First", I think it was called...
Not a happy ending <:(
-
That's always assuming that it was the Titanic that sank and not, as has been suggested, the Olympic.
A claim that has been pretty conclusively debunked on a number of occasions but people just love a conspiracy.
Colin
-
Holy smokes! What a lively debate you folks tend to have here on the site. Need to visit more often. :-))
3 or 4 bladed props aside - easy to fix - what interests me is that this could very well be the beginning of a new series of ocean liners in their offering. They certainly have the warship & work boats covered, & just started offering the subs - the Type VII is one of purported three under development - so why not?
As mentioned, KY Model is the manufacturer of this one along with Graupner's other Premium Line models. You can view their entire line of ARTR models while you practice your Chinese at: www.kymodelship.com
-
Some great models on that site herrmill, do we get them all over here in the UK ? {:-{
-
Not sure who all KY sells to on your side of the pond besides Graupner & MHD, if the latter is still in business. Unless its one of Graupner's exclusive designs, all models are available to any dealer or distributor who can meet their MOQ which is considerable, ie, sea freight container loads. Unlike other Chinese manufacturers like Arkmodel, TianJie, VIPO Deck & Voyage Model, KY will not normally sell individual models.
-
When the film came out a few years back I was the first one at work to go to see it. The following day when asked about it I told them that Leonardo DeCaprio saved the ship and got it to New York, caused quite a stir. {-) {-)
-
{-) {-)
-
It does look a fine craft, if a little large to transport....
I would love to see a in depth review, especially the electronics/R/C used.
Regards
Alan
-
All pictures of that center propeller are of Olympic, there is much debate about that propeller on Titanic with many now saying it was three bladed. But that is the least of the problems with that ARTR. Its missing a lot of vents/fans on the deck houses, why are the doors brown and the cranes on the poop deck did not have brown bases. There is more but you get the idea. All the decks will have to be varnished because I've owned 2 of these models and the veneer used is not treated so its going to warp and even crack and I talk from bitter experience. But... its quite something isn't it, overall it looks good. People will stop and ask you "Did you build it yourself?" And you will have to say no. That blows.
I suppose its instant gratification, I've tried to build my own in the past but I mess up the painting. I'm looking at the Fleetscale range. I would love to by British and have a go at a Tirpitz or KGV but for me it would be a huge gamble. The money works out the same but scratch building a superstructure? How do you do the deck planking it looks...terrifying and a very long process. I just don't know.
As for that new U-Boat, I don't think it can dive properly as the blurb mentions rudder functions and forward/reverse only. Could it be more like a Robbie U-47?
-
From Graupner spec, there is no mention of hydroplane control, so in standard configuration it looks like it's a surface runner. A chap on this forum has recently purchased one, so I guess there will be more details coming in due course.
-
From Graupner spec, there is no mention of hydroplane control, so in standard configuration it looks like it's a surface runner.
"surface runner" so it doesn't hit an iceberg then........
Oh, sorry......I thought you were still talking about the Titanic ;D :D
-
Well I guess both vessels ended up being submarines, just that one wasn't intended that way!
-
Hi there!
Overall this model looks quite nice to me, with a lot of scope for further detailling. But then there is this inaccurate colour of the antifouling (which actually was rather a redish brown than red) and of the funnels. And then this model seems to be 3cm too broad. The colour of the lifeboat covers does also look a bit odd. I don't mention the center prop now... I think these would be things that could have easily done better without much more investment.
Kaspar
-
If they would follow with one of the famous Cunard liners such as Aquitainia or either of the Queens, I'd buy one.
I guess there might be a chance for the Lusitania in 2015... ok2
-
I have just seen this model at Westbourne Models, and I have to say it does look impressive, well made and detailed. The hull and decking look especially nice. It is certainly big, and costs just over a Grand, but is almost ready to run.
-
AModelworld will do them for about £850.....
Russ
-
Tbh your all wrong its a 5 blade prop
%)
-
you need to go to specksavers!!!! {-) {-) {-) {-) {-)
-
Hi there,
today I was able to take some pictures of the Titanic model at Graupner.
The model looks really good to me even though there is a small mistake. (Who is able to find it)
And yes the middle screw is 4-bladed.
Interested in more pictures?
Regards Stephan
-
Yes please!
-
Be good if they could spell....
-
If thats the case then the starboard prop is a two blade? I think the centre prop is a 4-blade.
Mmmm, I knew I was right after all....
-
It's nice to be perfect all the time, {-) {-) {-) {-)
Some of us, just don't cut it..................actually I must confess I saw one in Lancaster the other day at the model shop........and it was very impressive....superbly detailed.....even the 4 blade prop centre shaft
-
There is an interesting article re Titanic in the Saturday Mail of 31st showing the photo posted above,of the central prop being clearly 4 bladed. It also states that the sternmost funnel of the four, is a "false" one and not connected to the boilers in any way.It states that this fourth funnel was purely cosmetic,as she "looked better" with four rather than three.I hadn't heard of this before,but agree she wouldn't have looked right with three,but perhaps that is because I cant actually visualise it.I would have thought the funnels would have been bigger,and spaced differently if only three were used?
Mick
-
There is an interesting article re Titanic in the Saturday Mail of 31st showing the photo posted above,of the central prop being clearly 4 bladed.
There is no existing photo of Titanics screws known. However, it has always been assumed that this propeller had four blades as the one on her sister Olympic did, but nobody really know wether this was the case or not. There is an article about this qustion published by Mark Chirnside (http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/mystery-titanic-central-propeller.html) (for rivet counters only) ok2
A remark about the fourth funnel: although it carried no smoke it was not completely idle as it provided ventilation for the engine rooms. That "ventilation funnel" was one of the reason why the Olympic class ships had only very few conventional vents on her decks, which in turn is the reason for their very uncluttered appearance.
-
How's this, then?
-
How's this, then?
This iconic picture is very often claimed to be Titanic. But it shows Olympic... That's also true for many other pictures especially of the ships interior. As Titanic had a very short life and was not open for public prior her maiden voyage there were not many pictures of here interior taken.
-
That is the photo that was published in the Daily Mail article that I mentioned, and they were saying it was of the Titanic,and I agree with them that it is what they say. I cannot believe that the builders of the mighty ship would not have some kind of photographic record of her build,so I would disagree that there are no known photos of her props.
Mick
-
That is the photo that was published in the Daily Mail article that I mentioned, and they were saying it was of the Titanic,and I agree with them that it is what they say. I cannot believe that the builders of the mighty ship would not have some kind of photographic record of her build,so I would disagree that there are no known photos of her props.
Mick
I quote Mark Chirnside, who has published some highly regarded books about the "Olympic Class" ships:
When Olympic entered service in 1911, her propellers were photographed and these well-known photos show her turbine-driven central propeller as a four-bladed casting. In Britannic’s case, not only is a four-bladed propeller visible in period photos, but this propeller is also visible today on the wreck. However, at present, no known photos appear to exist showing Titanic’s propellers in place and, given that the central propeller is not visible on the wreck, this raises an intriguing question.
As Titanic was the second ship of her class she got much less attention prior her maiden voyage than Olympic which was the first of the trio. That's why it is very realistic that no photo of here props has been taken. It was pre-digicam-era...
-
http://www.dellamente.com/titanic/thennow.htm (http://www.dellamente.com/titanic/thennow.htm)
-
http://www.dellamente.com/titanic/thennow.htm (http://www.dellamente.com/titanic/thennow.htm)
again, the picture in the dry dock shows Olympic. That's also a well known photo published in many books as being Olympic (Titanic never had a white painted CWL...)
-
If thats the case then the starboard prop is a two blade? I think the centre prop is a 4-blade.
I,ve yet to meet a Tadpole or a Stickleback,that can tell the difference,between a 2,3, or 4 bladed prop, wether it be plastic or brass,
-
I,ve yet to meet a Tadpole or a Stickleback,that can tell the difference,between a 2,3, or 4 bladed prop, wether it be plastic or brass,
{-) :-))