RE: The GZG Digest V2 #897

> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:31:56 +0100
> From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de (K.H.Ranitzsch)
> Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Progress report from the shipyard......
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adam Benedict Canning" <dahak@dahak.free-online.co.uk>
> >
> > Large spheres are a pain to cast, ones with weapon towers and an
> > equatorial engine ring bulge, backed up by traditionalist flying
> > saucer designs might appeal.
>
> The Perry Rhodan pulp universe relies mostly on ships of
> that design. I
> would like to see something along those lines.

That was what I was thinking of. Combined with the way the novel Space
Viking describes the big ships.

> Are spheres really that difficult ? How about two
> hemispheres or smaller
> sections ?

There are two problems unless casting technologies have changed since
I was in the business.

1 Thickness of the moulds. The blanks for the spin moulds I was using
meant that one dimension of the casting was limited to about an inch.

A three piece model, ring bulge and two domes that fit into it should
be possible but heading towards excessive levels of fiddly to assemble
at more than about two inches in diameter.

2 When you vulcanise the old the casting looses a certain a percentage
of relief in the same dimension. Human figures one does things like
angle them differently to minimise the observable effect. Look at the
early Soriasta figures from GW for an example of this effect when they
didn't know how their new metal worked. This can be dealt with by over
emphasising the relief in that dimension. Its a bit more noticeable on
something that should be a sphere, though creative deformation of the
master would cope with that.

The Question is thus would we be satisfied with a fleet work who's
largest ship model is the size and rough shape of a mandarin orange or
would we keep pestering Jon for larger ships. A conversion kits for a
plastic children's tennis ball and toilet ballcocks might satisfy such
requests.