What are the opinions out there concerning the two types of display options for naval ship models: waterline vs full-hull?
Anyone have any interesting opinions on either, or both?
Just for the sake of simplicity, I like waterline.
Waterline model sure make the boot top easier to do. 
A waterline model sure makes the boot top easier to do.
I like both. For most ships they don’t look right out of their natural element, but if the ship has an interesting hull under the water (such as the modern hulls with the HUGE sonar domes and stabilizers) I like full hull.
Submarines are definitely better done full hull.
“For most ships they don’t look right out of their natural element…”
I agree…
I guess I see more ships out of the water than most of the people on this forum because of my job. There is absolutely nothing more awesome, in my life’s experience, than being directly beneath a Nimitz class aircraft carrier while it is sitting on the blocks in a drydock. The hull bottom is barely six feet off the basin bottom. The thing absolutely enormous. You are so tiny compared to the monster above you and at first it is very unnerving. Some people refuse to work there because they are afraid it will “fall on them”. Pansies!
How in the H*LL do they get it to balance on those blocks?
This is an interesting question. I recall reading, quite a few years ago, an article in a British modeling magazine in which a widely respected (and highly skilled) ship modeler solemnly pronounced that full-hull models of twentieth-century warships looked ridiculous. (He said sailing ship models were different, and made a partial exception for modern warship models on extremely large scales.) Such categorical pronouncements always bug me. In my opinion there is - in this realm as in so many others - plenty of room for personal taste and opinion.
It’s perhaps worth remembering that a scale model does - or has the potential to do - at least two things (and probably more). One - It provides a three-dimensional record of the actual, physical characteristics of the prototype (as a set of plans does in two dimensions). Two - it replicates, in miniature, the “experience” of looking at the prototype (as an oil or watercolor painting, or a photograph, does in two dimensions). In most forms of modeling that distinction doesn’t make much difference. An airplane, tank, or car looks more-or-less exactly like a measured, colored drawing of it. If you’re building a model of a P-51, about the only difference between the aforementioned options One and Two is whether the tires bulge under the “weight” of the aircraft or not.
A ship is different, because a big part of it is invisible to the eye most of the time. Previous posts in this thread have expressed well the differences between the visual impressions that a full-hull and a waterline model make. A waterline model (unless, like Subfixer, you’re accustomed to looking at ships in dry docks) probably does a better job of conveying the visual impression somebody would get from looking at the real ship. A full-hull model, by definition, does a better job of conveying factual information about the ship.
The British modeler I mentioned earlier chose as one of his talking points the old Revell “Wind”-class icebreaker. He said it looked ridiculous (or some such word), because the underwater hull was of such a clumsy shape. I’d argue that the shape of an icebreaker’s underwater hull is of considerable interest; it is, so to speak, what makes the ship an icebreaker. That particular class, initially, had an unusual piece of equipment: a big propeller on the bow, intended to break up ice. The idea didn’t work well, and the bow screws got removed from the ships. The first issue of the Revell kit had the bow screw. One could, it seems to me, easily argue that slicing a model like that off at the waterline would delete one of its most interesting features. On the other hand, a waterline model of a Wind-class icebreaker does give a better visual impression of what the ship “actually looked like.”
It seems to me that there’s plenty of room for both approaches. My own meager collection contains both types, and I hope I’ll never be forced to give up one or the other. In my opinion the ideal kit is one that offers the modeler both options, so he/she can make the decision on a case-by-case basis.
Manstein’s Revenge: "How in the H*LL do they get it to balance on those blocks?
The answer to this is easy; CVs are flat bottomed and keel blocks are laid in multiple strings, fore and aft and athwartships (across) in a grid. When you are among the blocks it is almost like being in a mine.
Well, I’ve heard full hull ships mounted for display described as “ship on a stick” by some.
I don’t necessarily agree with that, it’s just that in 1/700 scale most of the offerings are waterlined, and I for one have a wholeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee lot of fun making the water and all the other little bits of each individual display/diorama. Although I have to admit that scratchbuilding the 1/700 railroad rolling stock for my latest effort is kind of kicking my butt at the moment.
yep… to each its own… The large scale ship actually look better (pure aesthetics) on a nice mount. if i dont want to bother with a water base with those ubiquitous waterline 1/700s, I will just use a flat blue board as the “base”. No, will not win any medals but I like building the buggers.
It depends on the ship and my intent. Lots of times I prefered waterline, but others I wanted the whole thing. I have always been fascinated with the hydro-dynamics of hull designs.
I totally agree, the hull is where the “rubber meets the road” so to speak. Since the majority of the mass of the ship is below the waterline, it’s kind of a shame not to show it. I would like to build all of my ships so I could separate the hull from the fairwater to show them in both configurations.
I build 1/700th and prefer displaying them at sea. I seem to recall an article in FSM where the author used a clear plate at the waterline on one side to show it full hull on one side and floating on the other. It was an interesting display method if the kit has a full hull option.
I don’t have a problem with people building waterline models, but I prefer full-hull, and for many years was prevented from building decent full-hull models, because they simply weren’t available, only in waterline! I remember the first one I bought as a kid, not realising it was a waterline model (a ‘Kongo’ in 1/700). I was SO disappointed! I really wished the model producers back then (and today, for that matter) had simply gone to the small extra effort of allowing EITHER option (which some producers DID do, thus proving the concept), in which case everyone would be happy!
To my thinking the choice is in what is modeled as the underwater hull maters.
So, things like wrong shapes, missing details --like bilge keels, sonar domes and the like, “spoil” the effect of having that hull down there. (The old Revell SS United States leaps to mind, too–which was molded as a half-full/half w/l to guarantee to disappoint all.)
On top of all that is the issue of how to display a full hull. Should it be clean? Dirty? Weathered heavy or light? And since we are talking about areas not visible in photographs generally, we all get to indulge in ancedotal info and “what everybody knows.” Which then brings us to the eternal debate about “coppered” bottoms on sailing vessels (which has no one definitive answer, and many peeved “I know I’m right and they’re all wrong” types).
If I remeber correctly, the United States’ hull was classified and was being used as a test bed for the hull of USS Enterprise. The Enterprise, as old as she is, is still the fastest CVN out there. I know having eight reactors is still the major reason for her speed, but her hull shape is unique among the CVNs.
As for me,the full hull gives the subject a museum/display type of quilaty that you can not get with a waterline.Now as for waterline,they are great to give scope to your subject and how it was or is being used.I like both but most of the ships I build,I do in full hull.If I did a waterline,I would most likily show the subject in action…Also with full hull most people are in aw has to how big of a displacement the ship has in order to stay a float…Digger