• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About shipaholic

  • Birthday 01/14/1959

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Warrnambool Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

398 profile views
  1. Hi Steve I am building this same model, however I am doing a lot of scratch building and have not followed the instructions very much. This is because I am an experienced builder. I have found that although detailed, the instructions aren't very good in places. I assume that the only deck you have already planked is the lower deck and will not be seen very well, if so just leave it and move on. Cutting the deck planks short as in the instructions in not a very good way to do it, I left most of my planks their original length. The planking pattern in the instructions is also wrong. Do not use contact adhesive, it looks like your planks are sitting up because there is too much glue under them that has partially hardened before you laid the planks . Use white PVA glue. Check out my build log to see the decking pattern I used. A lot of the joins are just drawn on in pencil. If there is any thing you need to know, just ask, we are here to help each other. Cheers Steve
  2. Those models are HMB Endeavour built according to the plans in a book "Anatomy of the Ship - Captain Cooks Endeavour" by KH Marquardt. The author of the book argues that the ship must have had bumpkins because a rough sketch by Sidney Parkinson (the artist on Cooks first voyage) showed some strange looking things protruding from the ship's bow. But when fitted as described and as shown in the above photos of those models, the bumpkins would severely interfere with the anchor during catting and also foul with the anchor cables when the ship was at anchor. I am building the Endeavour and have not included bumpkins for this reason. Many modellers however insist on following that book even though it has many errors and assumptions. I have searched many many paintings of ships from that era and have never seen a ship of Endeavour's type with bumpkins.
  3. Hi Dash and Robin I have just had a close look at my draughts, both 3814a and 3814b have the asterisks and ticks as you described Robin and show the mizzen stepped in the keelson. But there aren't any visible for the mizzen mast on draught 3814, just for the main and fore masts Cheers Steve
  4. You are welcome Robin. I also thought it was an insult to call your wonderful painting a sketch. That picture was used in almost every media story here in Australia Cheers
  5. Here is 3814c from Karl Marquardts website, apparently it is drawn on linen and it is a composite of the three real draughts and includes deck plans 3819 and the disputed stern view
  6. Hi Dash I have a draught marked 3814 which is the "as fitted" one I have a 3814a which is the second one in the above post The one marked 3814b is the Earl of Pembroke with proposed changes - first one in the previous post I dont have 3814c - it is the one that many believe to be a much later reproduction None of the draughts indicate where the mizzen mast was stepped Cheers Steve
  7. Hi Dashi I have three draughts of the Endeavour, this one is the "as fitted" one with the longer mizzen chain plates, superimposed over enlarged copies of the AOTS mast drawings. This draught is the one I am using for my build. The other two draughts have shorter mizzen chain plates. Very confusing. If you look at the main chain plates there are huge differences in the angles of the chains. If you extrapolate the "as fitted" draught the main mast would be much taller than proposed in the AOTS, the case is the same on the Earl of Pembroke draught. I can only assume that the Earl of Pembroke's lower masts were taller than the refitted Endeavour's Cheers Steve
  8. Hi Dashi I want to weigh in on the argument. To me the main piece of evidence for a taller mizzen is the shrouds and channels. Here is a picture of my AL Endeavour with the shorter mizzen and normal width mizzen channels and the shrouds foul against the quarterdeck rail. The other photo is of the Endeavour I am currently building with the taller mizzen mast and normal channels, the shrouds sit out from the rail like they do for the fore and main mast. To me my Endeavour with a taller mizzen just looks right. Whilst we are at it, I believe that my AL Endeavour has the correct length bowsprit, the fore stays are at a slightly steeper angle than the main stays like you see on many contemporary models, but not as steep as the fore stays on the replica vessel and as depicted in the AOTS
  9. Welcome to MSW Mike. There are couple of Occre Endeavour builds on here - one just completed by Maggs and another almost complete by Kiwiron, you might get some tips by looking through those build logs. I am also building the Endeavour from what is basically the same as an Occre kit (magazine partwork) but I have deviated from the instructions and scratch built quite a few parts. Good luck with your build and I will keep an eye on your progress. Steve
  10. Robin, This is this your painting they use in the story, and they have called it an undated sketch. Hope you are getting royalties for it!
  11. Yes I agree Robin, this is old news, maybe now they have some funding to do some recovery of the wrecks. Hope so, they might find the remains of those elusive bumpkins
  12. Hi Dashicat They did indeed do repairs to ironwork. They were not called blacksmiths but armourers. Here is a passage from Cook's Journal at Tahiti: "Tuesday, 18th. Cloudy weather with some showers of rain. This morning took as many people out of the Ship as could possibly be spared, and set about Erecting a Fort. Some were employ’d in throughing up intrenchment, while others was cutting facines, Picquets, etc. The Natives were so far from hindering us that several of them assisted in bringing the Picquets and facines out of the woods, and seemed quite unconcern’d at what we was about. The wood we made use of for this occasion we purchased of them, and we cut no Tree down before we had first obtained their Consent. By this time all the Ship’s sails were unbent and the Armourer’s Forge set up to repair the Ironwork, etc. Served fresh Pork to the Ship’s Company to-day for the first time."
  13. Its also interesting that on plan 3819 (the 1771 one) the drum is on the aft side of the wheel, whereas all other profile plans show the drum forward of the wheel. Another thing, 3819 doesnt show a fireplace its labelled as a pantry instead
  14. Dashicat In answer to your query about the great cabin stove, it is clearly visible in red in this draught (3814a) - you can see the shape of the stove and the chimney protruding above deck Steve
  15. Maybe it's not a coincidence Dafi that the Pollard system was introduced in 1771 the year of the Endeavour refit, they might have used the Endeavour as a test case to trial the new system. I agree that this has been a very interesting discussion, I wish there was more like this especially on the other disputed details about the Endeavour Cheers Steve