• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Siegfried

  • Birthday 10/19/1974

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Sailing vessels from the 17th to the early 18th century, especially the ships from the states of the Holy Roman Empire and from the French Kingdom
    Electronic Music

Recent Profile Visitors

162 profile views
  1. Hi Mike, I do really like your diplomatic words. Sensational. You should work as ambassador. I could learn from you. Cheers, Daniel
  2. Hello Nigel, My father has build the DeAgostini Victory and I have to say it is of a terrible quality. Nothing matches really, the cannons and the carriages are just a kind of a joke. In the beginning it looks like a good price quality ratio. But in the end after purchasing all booklets with all pieces it was much expensive as a perfect kit you can by directly, especially after all material replacements. What's about the CC kit? Sorry, I hate to disillusion you, but this is my personal experience. Cheers, Daniel
  3. Hello Druxey, thank you for the input. I assumed the same thing. As she was private-build, she probably was build on the cheapest way always with parts of the cheapest supplier. The same thing as we have in these days :-) Parallel strakes makes sense. That the wale thickness decreased around the bow to fit the rabbet is a new aspect I've never realised. Thanks for the information. Daniel By the way, the time machine project starts next week, all what i need is a DeLorean and a flux-generator :-)
  4. Hi John, I have contacted Mr Marquardt directly by e-mail for some questions about my Schooner for Port Jackson. He took a couple of days but he gave proper answer. His E-Mail address is public However, the inside bulwarks might be dark green or better, pale yellow ochre as common on British and French ships at this time. Cheers, Daniel
  5. Hello, I am on my Bounty scratch build and am thinking about to start with the planking job. I probably start with the thicker strake above the wales. McKays AOTS Bounty offers no layout for the live and dead wood planking. As the Bounty was a Bark build for coal transport like the Endeavour, I will lean my layout on Marquardt's layout seen in his AOTS Endeavour. However, one major question is open yet. What was the right whale planking technique of the Bounty? Was it a small anchor top and butt planking as seen in AOTS Endeavour or was it a standard butt joint? Just hook and butt planking might be unusual on small vessels with no need for solid-built main wales as on frigates, man-o-wars or on bomb vessels. Another question is about the rabbet on the stem (see the red circle in the first picture). Was the rabbet for wales widened to fit with the size of the wales or thick stuff? I've never seen that on any build, even here on MSW. But it is a question that moves me. Otherwise it means, the en of the wales has to be cut down to slip properly into the rabbet. Has anyone out there an idea? Cheers, Daniel
  6. Hi Nick, I currently have posted a picture of NMM original drawings of the Rattlesnake that where taken off after her capture. The capstan shown on the plan is close to Herold Hahns plan. Cheers, Daniel
  7. Hello John & John, I found the NMM plan about the Rattlesnake/Cormorant online. The plan is listed with the object ID ZAZ4532 and describes only lines & profiles being missing any further details. Unfortunately there is no picture available on NMM's homepage. Otherwise I am sure most of the modelers of the Rattlesnake would contain this source in their build. However, on a German forum ( I have found a blog about the Rattlesnake with a small picture of her NMM plan as attached below. As it is generally known, that she was more than less impractical in use of her armament because of the fact that hight under the quarterdeck and under the forecastle was approx 4ft. Allegedly she was original fitted with 20 6 pounders. But I really doubt that common fact. As I started my Mamoli kit 10 years ago I clearly recognized that she will probably was never fitted with 20 guns because the space behind chase ports is too small regarding the bow sprit. There is not enough space to place a gun carriage. Neither to run it out nor to run it back to load it. I assume that she was just fitted with 18 or even 16 guns. And probably only with 4 pounders. If you consider the general size and the hight of the port holes it seems to be too low and too small for 6 pounders. Chappels books "history of American Sailing Ships" and "Search for Speed under Sail" seem to be not a that save source (I have the two). In his second book he has drawn a removable gangway between the quarterdeck and the forecastle. On NMM plans is no evidence for it. Normally the did a detailed job to fix all the anomalies and special characteristics of captured vessels. I need to double check Winfield and Lyon. Obviously both gentlemen declare her armament in her very short career in the Royal Navy with 12 4 pounders and 10 swivels. On NMM plans is no clue on swivels. That means, after taking off her lines it probably was an alteration of the RN. However, her RN armament of just 12 4 pounders makes her an ineffective and impractical vessel. because she was less armed as the RN Fly, Pegasus, Kingfisher... and had just a broadside of a common cutter. A cutter was much more cheaper in maintenance. In addition a cutter was manned with less than 85 hands as the Rattlesnake. I never finished my Rattlesnake because of the massive lacks of the kit. Now I am going to order the original plans as a save base for rebuilding her. Cheers, Daniel
  8. Your right John, One year later she was renamed in HMS Rattlesnake because of an existing HMS Cormorant in the Navy list. Than I have to contact the NMM. Cheers, Daniel
  9. Hello out there, Does any one know if ther exist original drawings of the US Privateer Rattlesnake? As it was common practice at the Royal Navy in these days to take off lines of captured vessels I wonder if there any original drawings of her at NMM. Indeed, I have Harold Hahns plan but especially the lower stern section, the transom seems to be unclear comparing to other sources. Some drawings idicats a flat transom in a round shape, other sources indicates a round stern as used on large british frigates and ships of the line. Cheers, Daniel