 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / August 2005Ship Hull Painting Question
did not see it in the FAQ: A little bit of brain damage here, but can someone correct me if I am masking/painting the wrong way to get clean red/black/grey lines? First spray a line of black in the approximate area where the black line goes. Mask with the appropriate thickness of tape for the black line. Mask off more of the hull and spray red. Mask off more of the hull and spray grey. Is this the right order/procedure? Help out this old target builder - thx - Craig > did not see it in the FAQ: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > thx - Craig it is typically better to paint from light to dark I still gotta mask off the black though. better to paint the black first so it will be easier to mask off the other colors? Craig That's the way I have done it for years. You get a nice straighe boot topping that way. Use the edges of the tape you put down to cover the black to mask for the other colors. Pete >I still gotta mask off the black though. better to paint the black > first so it will be easier to mask off the other colors? > > Craig > I still gotta mask off the black though. better to paint the black > first so it will be easier to mask off the other colors? > > Craig You'd better paint the whole thing black, as black is hard to cover up without lots of coats. Personally I'd do grey first, red second, and black last. Consider black trim tape instead of painting. >> did not see it in the FAQ: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> > it is typically better to paint from light to dark Normally this is true. But it is easier to get a neat "boot topping" by doing black/red/grey. The lightest first is applicable where a dark colour underneath would "shade" the top colours. In this instance its not as critical and, in fact, a slightly darker tone to the red maybe advantageous. > Normally this is true. But it is easier to get a neat "boot topping" by > doing black/red/grey. The lightest first is applicable where a dark colour > underneath would "shade" the top colours. In this instance its not as > critical and, in fact, a slightly darker tone to the red maybe advantageous. A little OT, but Red Oxide primer makes a good red for merchant red bottoms. >did not see it in the FAQ: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Is this the right order/procedure? The way I would do it is this: First, paint the upper hull gray, going a little beyond the waterline. Then, mask the upper hull down to the top of the boot topping, and paint the lower part of the hull red. Finally, mask the lower hull up to the bottom of the boot topping, and paint your black stripe. This way, you only have to mask twice, and you don't have the problem of trying to cover the black with the gray. BTW, I've found that Floquil "Zinc Chromate Primer" (#130601) makes an excellent hull red. > did not see it in the FAQ: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Is this the right order/procedure? Works for me and I keep winning Regionals with my ships. Not a ship builder, so I have to ask. Why is the hull below the water line painted red on ships? Why not just paint the whole thing grey? While I'm at it, why the black stripe at the water line? > did not see it in the FAQ: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > thx - Craig > Not a ship builder, so I have to ask. Why is the hull below the water > line painted red on ships? Why not just paint the whole thing grey? > While I'm at it, why the black stripe at the water line? Anti-fouling paint. Used to be mostly red-lead. Nowaday's anti-fouling paint comes in various colors... blue, red, green. Very expensive stuff. About $100 to $150 per gallon. Topside gray paint is a whole lot cheaper .. $25-$30 a gallon. When you're using hundreds or thousands of gallons to paint a ship, the cost difference adds up. Military ships are gray as a sort of camouflage. Merchant ships are often white (e.g. cruise ships) or black for visibility .. just what you don't want on a military ship. As for the stripe, it is to demarcate the two different paints. Without some sort of stripe to paint to, after a few coats, the water line and the boundary between the top and bottom paints would look like spaghetti on amphetamine. This is especially important as topside painting was often done at sea or in a calm anchorage. Boris ------------------------------------- Boris Beizer Ph.D. Seminars and Consulting 1232 Glenbrook Road on Software Testing and Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Quality Assurance TEL: 215-572-5580 FAX: 215-886-0144 Email bsquare "at" earthlink.net ------------------------------------------ >Anti-fouling paint. Used to be mostly red-lead. Nowaday's anti-fouling >paint comes in various colors... blue, red, green. Very expensive stuff. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >This is especially important as topside painting was often done at sea or in >a calm anchorage. Just as a sidelight, the Titanic (and White Star ships generally) didn't have a separate boot stripe, whereas the Cunard ships typically had a white boot stripe. One of the reasons the Gunze Sangyo model of the Lusitania has a hull molded in white is that it's much easier to render the boot stripe that way. You just mask the scribed lines and paint the top of the hull black and the bottom hull red, leaving the boot topping in the white molded plastic. WWII Italian ships apparently used a chromate green below the waterline. > Just as a sidelight, the Titanic (and White Star ships generally) > didn't have a separate boot stripe, whereas the Cunard ships typically [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > paint the top of the hull black and the bottom hull red, leaving the > boot topping in the white molded plastic. Generally Flower class corvettes, civil registered Liberty ships and most WWII era merchant ships did not have boot tops. > WWII Italian ships apparently used a chromate green below the > waterline. CVN-65 originally had a green epoxy anti-fouling coating and CV-10 went into wartime service with no anti-fouling coating just the primer (apparently she had quite a beard when she went in for her first refit). > black for visibility .. just what you don't want on a military ship. As for > the stripe, it is to demarcate the two different paints. Without some sort > of stripe to paint to, after a few coats, the water line and the boundary > between the top and bottom paints would look like spaghetti on amphetamine. > This is especially important as topside painting was often done at sea or in > a calm anchorage. It came about due to oil fired boilers and the oily residue in harbor waters from fuel spills. Admirals didn't like the grunge line it left on their pretty ships. > Not a ship builder, so I have to ask. Why is the hull below the water line > painted red on ships? Why not just paint the whole thing grey? While I'm > at it, why the black stripe at the water line? Red happened to be the easiest color to achieve with anti-fouling coatings at the time they were introduced. Black boot topping came in around the time warships went from coal fired to oil fired to keep the oil slicks on harbor waters from making a grungy ring around the ship. Depends on the specific red, but red oxide is a very popular marine paint. It is cheap, but very good protection. Similar to why barns are red. Red Oxide paint was very cheap, but very good protection. I wonder if other, non-red-oxide bottom paints are red 'cause of tradition of red oxide? > Not a ship builder, so I have to ask. Why is the hull below the water line > painted red on ships? Why not just paint the whole thing grey? While I'm [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> >>thx - Craig So then is red-oxide used on the bottom because it is more durable than the grey? Just seems like it would be more economically feasible to just paint the whole thing one color. Does the US Navy currently paint the bottom of it's ship hulls red-oxide? The closest I ever got to the Navy was flying over it, as part of the speed bump being deployed in Sept. 1990. > Depends on the specific red, but red oxide is a very popular marine paint. > It is cheap, but very good protection. Similar to why barns are red. Red [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >>> >>>thx - Craig > So then is red-oxide used on the bottom because it is more durable than > the > grey? Just seems like it would be more economically feasible to just > paint > the whole thing one color. The "red-oxide" if I recall, is not iron oxide, but lead oxide. Very toxic stuff and a decidedly ecological no no. I mentioned the price differential earlier. Bottom paint at $100-$150/gallon versus top paint at $25-$40 /gallon. So it is certainly not more economical to paint it all one color. Especially since the painting is done by sailors who would otherwise be playing craps or something. Also, while topside painting can be done anywhere without special precautions, (e.g., at anchor), bottom paint has to be done in drydock and requires special precautions because of the toxic nature of the paint. As for durability, nowadays, bottom paints are deliberately not durable. These paints are designed to be ablative. That is, they deliberately erode, taking the nasty little barnacle nymphs and red algae along with it. Both the navies of the world and the shippers are very sensitive to cost issues when it comes to painting ships (thousands and thousands of gallons) so they do it in the most economical way. It isn't a matter of style or tradition. Boris  Signature------------------------------------- Boris Beizer Ph.D. Seminars and Consulting 1232 Glenbrook Road on Software Testing and Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Quality Assurance TEL: 215-572-5580 FAX: 215-886-0144 Email bsquare "at" earthlink.net ------------------------------------------ > So then is red-oxide used on the bottom because it is more durable than the > grey? Just seems like it would be more economically feasible to just paint > the whole thing one color. Does the US Navy currently paint the bottom of > it's ship hulls red-oxide? The closest I ever got to the Navy was flying > over it, as part of the speed bump being deployed in Sept. 1990. Most USN surface ships are red, subs vary from red to black. It's chemistry not color that's important. Bottom paint is toxic to sea creatures which might attach themselves to the hull thereby creating excessive drag. It's also a lot more expensive. Frank > So then is red-oxide used on the bottom because it is more durable than the > grey? Just seems like it would be more economically feasible to just paint [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >>> > >>>thx - Craig Thanks guys. > Bottom paint is toxic to sea creatures which might attach themselves to > the [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> >>> >> >>>thx - Craig > Depends on the specific red, but red oxide is a very popular marine > paint. It is cheap, but very good protection. Similar to why barns are > red. Red Oxide paint was very cheap, but very good protection. > > I wonder if other, non-red-oxide bottom paints are red 'cause of > tradition of red oxide? The single most important aspect of anti-fouling coatings on ships' bottoms is the chemistry that inhibits marine growth, everything else is secondary. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.