Beef Wellington

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Beef Wellington

  • Birthday June 26

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,178 profile views
  1. Could this also be just a "simple" mistake by the model maker(s). The discrepancy is so obvious when you've seen it, but I had to the look at both pictures a few times before it hit me...and that was after I knew what I was looking for
  2. I think this is all perhaps a little misleading, and I cannot comment of the Fore and Aft volume. Peterssen's 'Rigging period ship models' clearly states as its premise the documentation and illustration of the rigging found on a contemporary model Melampus, and that alone - with no allusion to represent alternative rigging options or other ships or the models accuracy to reality. Faults present in that model will clearly be reflected in the book, and as such it never purports to be an authoritative source or provide scale illustration. Clarity of illustration, showing the key points and principles is a an important goal, and rigging dimensions are never mentioned or asserted, illustrations in the contemporary bible "Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor" by Lever could accused of the same fault and that was truly a professional reference book and not a guide to modelers. Is it really so inaccurate so as to avoid it?
  3. Jim, I think you've got this sorted and good input from others. Just for completeness though, Petersson also shows the double systems for the fore and main yard so there really is no conflict. As Rick points out, whether double and single comes down to yard size and basic engineering.
  4. I believe (but of course can't find a reference) that the red ensign would have been flown by any ships operating directly under Admiralty orders. That would not be typical, as most ships would be under the command of a flag officer even if they are operating "independently" from the main body of a fleet, and hence adopt the red, white or blue squadron designation of the commanding admiral.
  5. Based on my reading of the plan pictures, the hawse hole sits quite squarely above the upper deck, sitting between the upper and lower cheeks. Looking at the first posted side profile where the cheeks would be (even though they are not shown) these does seem to reconcile to be being above (just) the upper deck level. The hole in the deck seems to then be logically placed to allow the hawse to be fed below after the windlass. The second side profile shows the cheeks and upper or hair bracket lower than I would have expected (the upper cheek is located where I would have thought the lower cheek would be) - that looks odd to me and seems to cause the discrepancy, but of course I am certainly not an expert.
  6. Hi Ivi, really nice work. I'm curious about the stern cabins, do they appear at all on the plans or elsewhere. I know this set-up is usual in larger ships, but they seem so very small on this vessel that I question their utility and especially considering the space premium to accommodate the crew.
  7. John - it would have gone sooner had I seen your post earlier Looks like one beautiful kit and they seem to be like gold dust now...
  8. Hi BE, I think I understand your conundrum....I wonder if this is one of those situations where what happened in practice vs what looks good on a model diverge? It seems logical to me that they would run outside of the other rigging in practice, but this may then cause them to foul when no sails are present which could look a little odd.
  9. This is great thread, something I have done a lot of thought and analysis into as well. One correction to #9 above though, copper is naturally pinkish and it is this colour that is seen when newly shined or subject to repeated abrasion. Copper gradually 'browns' when weathered naturally but it can develop a greenish patina in certain environments especially when constantly wet in salt water environment betwixt wind and water. I think Dafi's first picture above is a perfect illustration of this. Other thought on this subject is that it is once again in the eye of the beholder. Scaling down seems to be as much an art as a science so its probably not worth while obsessing over the nails. Good example is paint colour, it seem back looks too 'black' when scaled , so people often use a very dark gray. Glossy paint is much more distracting at smaller scale so people tend us a matte or a satin when a semi-gloss may have been used in practice.
  10. Thanks Chuck for sharing, a very interesting read. There are couple of topics that I think I would have expected to be commented on or explored more but weren't. The similarity of the model to existing original plans is not really explored, nor the fact that these workhorse brigs probably changed significantly over the course of their commissioning for those that lasted, there were at least a couple of these that switched from brig to ship rigged and back in the course of their lifetime, so additions of stern deckhouses doesn't seem too much of a stretch, and again, this is a feature identified on original plans. Although not really on point, the model in the NMM is least like any of the available plans so reliance on comparison to that is probably a sticky wicket. I suspect that the figurehead is a later addition to appease some owner's ideal that a "ship model should have one", but no evidence to back that up other than other documentary evidence to the contrary in surviving plans. Of course any captain or owner of the actual ship could have added a figurehead.... Bottom line, its a beautiful model.
  11. Wasn't quite sure where to put these pics, but here seemed as good a place as any (Sorry these aren't exactly professional quality). One of the interesting models in the Rogers collection at the Annapolis Naval Museum is this the following model of a Cruizer Class sloop. I curse myself because I forgot to take picture of the plate, so if anyone else has that info then please share. I'm not going to analyze, but the following jumped out at me. I wonder how much of this was reflective of reality and how much was model makers whimsy.... Dare I say, the square tuck.... The presence of a Spritsail Topsail Yard Figurehead which are not shown on any plans Cannons rather than carronades, and the inclusion of 2 additional stern chasers Stern deck houses appear consistent with those shown on many plans Presence of fore platform, and bucklers on the foremost gun port Capstan placement consistent with plans and more logically located toward stern Aft davits which were RN anathema
  12. Ron - sadly, I didn't make it due to kid commitments, but I have the book on my Xmas list...assuming its getting a good review? John - similar comments, its maybe less a comment on the business side of the museum to what a museum should be in an ideal world. Just a shame that these days the 'public' is not really a target for museum activities, and seems a bit of an 'executive toy' to be the big donors.
  13. Ron, looks like it closes Sunday 4th December, hopefully I can get a chance to head down this weekend. Thanks for posting!
  14. Frolick, this does feel a little like conjecture. I know I'm going to sound argumentative, but think its important that opinions don't get confused with facts. There is a bigger picture here to understand here and its important to understand the broader strategic direction as well as just ship construction techniques. I'm not a professional historian, just a interested amateur whos done lots of reading from various sources. And yes, I have a sweet spot for the Cruizers.... Many significant, successful ships of wide array of rates, before and after, were built in private yards. Its not appropriate to conclude that private yards equated to lower quality/lower skill levels Timber availability was a concern, and had been before and was to continue to be after this period. Your interpretation reads a little like the 'tired empire on its last legs and the cruiser design was the best it could do' story, which clearly was not the case when you look at the size of the fleet and individual ships of the post war battlefleet right until end of sail. Ship design and the compromise with available funds had been a factor in the RN for centuries. There is a need to recognize how ships were designed and approved. It was very often Royal Naval policy to adopt, rescale and shamelessly copy successful designs. It is apparent from looking at draughts and models that the Cruizers owe a lot to cutter design, including the square tuck and significant rake of the keel. These ships were selected after building prototypes and letting the "best ship win", I don't think its an appropriate conclusion to reach that square tucks, despite being anachronistic, were necessarily compromises. The need for economy was driven more from manpower usage and the need to project naval power on far flung strategic stations with the dwindling number of sailors needed given the escalating threat. Therefor the cruisers provided an excellent balance of firepower, long range cruising ability and crew minimization (which is apparent when comparing the Swan to Cruiser classes, different ships for different roles). Now living in the States, it never ceases to amaze me that there is little understanding of the context of the US revolutionary war against the broader, and larger global war Britain was engaged in against Napoleonic France and Spain.
  15. I think it shows the square tuck pretty clearly...I'll bet my lunch money.