wq3296

10-4 Chuck

Greetings Keith,

I have never entered my models in any kind of a contest, so I can't provide an answer. However, I expect that realism would be taken into account. Scale model work can never be perfect, nor should it be. Some of the best models I have ever seen were put on the internet by the daughter of a man who had passed away. They were perfect in there imperfection. Anyone who has been around real ships, fishing boats, historic ships, etc. will tell you that they are not perfectly painted or finished. They never look better than the day they are launched. I think when modeling a ship, the builder needs to be aware of this fact. I strive for period correctness since I have no desire a build a ship model that the finish and paint work of a Ferrari.

wq3296

Really garym?
 
Unlike you, I spend more time living life and building models than I do satisfying myself...with extensive research on minutia. You purposely twisted the intent of my initial post and I will not let you get away with it. My point was that a ladder has rungs spaced at 12" so it's not a bad call to think that ratlines could present the same spacing, particularly as shown at modeling scales. Are you ready to say that no ships have ever had ratline spacing less than 14"? You would be on this ice, I think. Does your library include Longridge's book on modeling the Victory? If so, go to page 231 and you will see that the spacing taken off of the actual ship was 13". Oops! Looks like your statement is equally misleading and misinformed.

My original post was meant simply to provide an opinion, as many folks do who follow MS, not dogma. I wonder: do you research every post for accuracy? If so, I want to let you know that you've missed many that had major inaccuracies greater than my subjective opinion amounting to scale inches. I am always willing to learn from anybody who has more information than I, including you. However, I am not receptive to your smart-#%* answers and indirect and unwarranted criticism.

wq3296

Jan,

At 1:100 scale? 4" is .04 which is slightly more than 1/32" (.031). Good luck trying to maintain that tolerance. Probable not worth the effort after all said and done.  

wq3296

Bear, 

The difference between 12" and 15" spacing at 1:48 scale is 1/16" (.0625). 1/16" tolerance is in the context of dealing with rigging thread and, I would argue, is difficult to consistently maintain. My opinion is based on the facts that 1.) to look correct the ratline should sag slightly in middle 2.) the tying of the ratlines to the shrouds can cause the thread to twist such that they will not lay truly horizontal, 3.) finally, and most importantly, I expect that actual ratlines on real ships were not perfectly spaced or perfectly level. Of course, 1/16" (.0625) tolerance is easily achieved with wood, metal, plastic. I totally agree with your last statement about being too perfect.

By the way, 1/16" (.0625) is .0052 of a foot, which is 12". Not sure how you came up with .001. 

Really garym?

Assuming 1:48 scale, the difference between 12" and 13", or even 15" is practically indistinguishable. At 1:64 or 1:96 scale - forget about it. Even at 1:48 you can't build consistently to 1/16" tolerance no matter what the research shows. Research is important when it makes sense and will yield information critical to the proper configuration of the model. Beyond that how far do you want to take it?

wq3296 

Greetings Bear,

Common sense would peg the distance at 12" - same as a common step ladder. This spacing seems quite natural, and may have come from ratlines first, and over time was applied to ladders when they were manufactured to typical standards.

wq3296

Richard,

I have done several ships with the copper tape, most recently Euro Model's Ajax. The only thing I ever worry about is lifting of the tape at the corners due to handling. These can always be smoothed down at any time. Otherwise, the minor dings, scratches, etc can be considered "patina" so long as the runs are straight and correct. After all, this is a ship's hull and not a model of a Bentley. Keep it real. 

wq3296

All,

I have built two Corel kits (Berlin and Endeavour) and, in my opinion, they are very fine kits in all respects. Yes, both are singled planked with very nice walnut strips. Both kits are for the experienced builder, especially the Berlin. I have no problems with single planked kits, having built several. I really don't care if a kit is single or double planked. I believe most actual ships from the age of sail were single planked.

If you can't do a good job with the first layer of planking, you probably can't do a better job with the second layer. Usually, it is not the kit but rather a lack of builder experience. You have no safety net with a single planked job, so you have to improve your skills for a good result. I don't think the kit is overpriced at all, since you get what you pay for. My kits had very high quality components, and the instructions and plans are detailed enough for an experienced builder.

Andy, if you laid out the money for this kit, I expect it is because you have the experience to build it. Go to it.

wq3296 

Greetings,

Yes, nice beautifully built models, but nothing really new. It seems the construction methods are just variations on old riffs.

wq3296 

Dafi,

You lost me. What is your point? If you are saying that the primary use of the chains was to facilitate emergency steering, I agree. 

wq3296

Greetings Hipexec,

Bingo. Of course emergency steering is the main reason for the chains. In the previous long dissertation on this subject, the reason given for chains is to recover a rudder that might become unshipped if the pintles/gudgeons should break off. My question is, what good is a recovered rudder if the pintles/gudgeons are broken? Further, why have such an elaborate system of chains just to recover the rudder? It would seem that just a length of chain attached to the rudder and a stout ring in the stern would do the job. In my opinion, common sense would dictate that such an elaborate system of chains and rope would be for a much higher purpose (emergency steering) than just supporting the rudder if it ever became unshipped.

wq3296

Dafi,

It seems from the Wiki article that the ship had battle damage, so it is probable that the loss of the original rudder was also a result of battle damage. The article says that the temporary rudder installed to replace the original rudder was lost, too. So what? We all agree that rudders could fall off for various reasons. We are trying to figure how to rig the chains since their main function is to steer the ship if the steering system goes kaput.

wq3296 

Greetings Wefalck,

On the bigger ships, it is hard to imagine how such a large structure could be unshipped and then fall away. On Victory, the rudder head extends all the way up to the Ward Room, where the top was used as a table to hold drinks. Accordingly, the rudder extends through the after most portion of the lower gun deck where the tiller and steering system are located. In order for the rudder to be lifted clear and drop out of the gudgeons assumes that the tiller and steering tackle have broken away - certainly possible. Of course, this is my opinion and I am open to other points of view. However, according to Longridge, the chains on Victory were for emergency steering.

WQ3296

All,

See Longridge's book, Plate 35, re: Victory. Plate 35 is an actual photo of the Victory and the chain is not festooned across the transom and hung with rings as shown in GMT's photos. Note that this is a photo of the actual ship. The caption states that the "chains provide some control of the rudder should the tiller be put out of action." I suppose it would prevent loss of the rudder if it were to become unshipped, but that is not the primary purpose. I would tend to build based on an actual ship rather than another model.

wq3296

Greetings GTM,

Good question. I agree with you that the way the photo depicts the chain ends does not seem correct. I checked Longridge's book on the Victory. She is a contemporary of the ST. The photo in the book shows a separate chain on each side of the rudder head that is supported similar to the ST photo. However, there is a line at the end of each chain which enters a hole in the counter just under the transom. These entrance holes are located about 7/8 the distance from the rudder center line to the edge of the transom. The rudder had a spare hole in the head that could accept an emergency tiller in the event that the main tiller was disabled. The emergency chain/line arrangement was used in the event that the helm, or tillers, or even the rudder head within the ship, were disabled. The rudder could still be moved by pulling on the lines that were inside the ship. I expect that large ships like ST and Victory would require some kind of tackle to pull on the those lines. In the absence of other information, I would rig your rudder the same way as on the Victory.

wq3296 

Greetings Mark,

I haven't been impressed with any of the previous attempts to answer your question since there is not one definitive answer. I built a relatively high end kit from Corel (Berlin) that has widely spaced bulkheads and is single planked with thick walnut intended to be left natural. Once the hull was planked, she seemed to be as solid as any other model I have ever built. I have also built several high end Blue Jacket and MS kits that are single planked in basswood over widely spaced bulkheads. These kits call for painted hulls. In my opinion, strength is not the primary reason for double planking, since practically any configuration of hull construction will produce adequate strength. Frankly, how much strength does a static ship model need? I am familiar with construction of wooden boats, and most are single planked. From what I've read, most early ship construction relied on one exterior layer of planking, although there was an inner layer applied to the inner face of the frames in some ships.

As you know, many models of early ships are double planked, with the outer layer being of thinner mahogany, walnut, etc. The obvious and only reason for this is to simulate the look of the actual ship. However, if the ship is of later vintage and had a painted hull, in my opinion, there is no need for double planking. Further, I see no compelling reason for double planking since a hull can be singled planked with wood intended to painted or left natural. With that said, I think a double planked model would be better for a beginner because it is easier to plank over a planking that is used as a base for the thinner, outer planking. It all comes down to skill and how the ship should look when completed, and not strength or any other hocus pocus.

wq3296

Greetings Hamilton,

So far missed in this discussion is the fact that the primary function of wales was to reduce bending (hogging, sagging) of the hull. In cases where the ship was supported by a wave crest midships, the bow and stern would tend to sag because they would be left unsupported. This tendency to bend at the ends of the ship would be resisted by the wales. Even at anchor, the bow and stern tend to sag because they are less buoyant than the fuller sectioned midships. Accordingly, the midship wale section would be wider to better resist bending. It would seem that the wale width could be reduced toward the bow and stern since maximum bending moment would occur midships. I doubt wales would have been maintained at a constant width just because it may have looked better. 

wq3296

Michael,

I have the magazine articles - it is an MS kit.

Greetings,

I have seen models fitted with gun port lids on decks, or portions thereof, open to the weather (spar decks, gun decks on open wasted frigate type vessels, quarter decks, etc.). Acknowledging that there may not be a hard and fast rule regarding gun port lids on gun ports open to the weather, I contend that these lids would generally be unnecessary and were probably not fitted on real ships. Of course, lids would be required on guns located below decks or in cabins for obvious reasons.  If the guns were fitted with tampions, they were pretty much water resistant so lids would seem to serve no important purpose. This is how I see it, but if someone has a different take on it I am willing to listen.

wq3296

Maturin,

Stating my opinion. Note that I said if you have a choice of manufacture, and can afford better, stay away from Chinese junk. I check everything I buy, and I am aware that some of the components contained within are made elsewhere. Of course, no way of knowing that until the thing breaks down and you find out that the part that failed was made in China.

wq3296

Greetings Ian,

Ever hear the expression "cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey"? It does not mean what you may think. It is my understanding that a monkey was a brass holder with reliefs in it to accommodate iron shot. Apparently, when it got cold enough, the brass would contract more than the iron shot, causing the shot to roll off the monkey. Probably will not answer your question, but a good story.

wq3296

Greetings  Keith,

Really? I guess you haven't driven a new American car in the past 15-20 years. We learned some hard lessons from Japan in the 70s-80s about value and quality. Now, dollar for dollar we can go heads up with any car manufacturer in the world. If you doubt this, read magazines that compare cars and you will understand what I mean.

I understand about quality control, and foreign companies doing business in China may be able to produce an acceptable product. However, in my opinion, the vast majority of Chinese owned and operated companies make garbage. I guess if that's all that is available, or you can't afford better, you buy Chinese.

wq3296

Greetings Maturin,

I would eliminate right off the bat any that are made in China, unless there is no other choice. Yes, stuff made in China is cheap, but I have found in almost every case that it is garbage. Other than Chinese food, I go out of my way not to buy Chinese products because they are poorly engineered, poorly made, and the materials are inferior. My first choice is made in the U.S.A., but some Japanese and European stuff (re: German) can be good. The Chinese are good at making shirts and cheap plastic widgets - nothing that involves moving parts.

wq3296

Thank you Peter.