.JPG.ca33079f5815b861e67b9c2cccd37982.JPG)
Blue Ensign
-
Posts
4,520 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Blue Ensign
-
Nice work Robert, all that frustration will soon fade from mind. Is that a nice bit of inlay work I spy on the Capstan head? Regards, B.E. -
I think you made the right decision Timmo, the wooden moulding is somehow more appropriate and what a fine job you have done on it. Enjoy your ale. Cheers, B.E.
-
The strange thing is Peter, the tops look ok when put on the model, it was only when I came to fit the trestletrees that the lubber hole question arose. I'm a bit annoyed with this setback as I don't really want to have to start re jigging the tops, especially as the Fore top is already fitted. I have now re-drawn the tops to Steel's dimensions on the back of an envelope, and both the Fore and Main are a fraction undersize but nothing one can't live with. bxxxxr Sorry to have introduced this niggling note into your log B.E.
-
Thanks Peter, nice pics and obviously not much room to hold a party on there! The more I look at the Mizen top the less happy I am. The dimensions simply don't relate to Steel. For instance the breadth of the top is given as 1/3rd the length of the topmast. The topmast is 26' 9" ergo the breadth of the top should be 42.5mm @ 1:64 scale. Applying this ratio to the kit plans we have a topmast length of 123mm (excl the pole head) 1/3rd of which = 41mm., the kit provided top has a width of 33mm. The provided cross and trestletrees are the same section as those for the Fore and Main Mast, yet the Steel dimensions for these are relative to the diameter of the Topmasts. The given Topmast diameter is 7¼” The depth of the trestletrees is ½ of the topmast diameter, and the thickness 2/3rds of the depth. From this we derive a scale thickness of 0.95mm. as opposed to 3mm as provided in the kit. Using the kit dimensions of 4mm dia. dowel for the topmast the scale would work out to 1.3mm thick trestletrees. It is becoming clear why there is no room for a lubbers hole in the kit provided top. Incidently if you look at remco's Kingfisher log there are photos of his completed tops, and the the Mizen looks far bigger in relation to the Fore and Main, than the kit provided set. I think I need to ponder this awhile yet...... Regards, B.E.
-
She's looking really good hamilton, you surely are moving along apace with this build, I'm looking forward to the detailing soon to take place. Cheers, B.E.
-
Looking good Peter, nice work on the ratlines. Regarding the Mizen Top, do you think that the trestle/cross trees are two heavy for the Top? I've just started looking at this and there hardly seems to be a Lubbers hole space left between the top and the Trestletrees. Regards, B.E.
-
Just catching up Ferit, beautiful work on the deck details, I love that last photo particularly. A pleasure to follow your build. Regards, B.E.
-
A lot of interesting deck detail there Michael, the replacement capstan looks excellent. Regards, B.E.
-
That's a nice shot of the top Augie, neat bit of belaying around the shroud cleats Cheers, B.E.
-
Nice work on the guns Timmo, I was faced with the same issue when deciding on the size of the breeching ropes for the Pegasus six pounders. The breeching rope is 4” circ = to 0.5mm ø line at scale, but I thought it looked a little thin so I upped it to 0.70mm ø which looked better to my eye. Cheers, B.E.
-
It seems evident to me Chris that the Livesay drawing was the basis of the Victory restoration, and subsequently followed by all modern authors and producers of Victory models from Caldercraft to Airfix. I think John Livesay can be relied upon to have reflected accurately how the stern of Victory looked in 1805/06, as Drawing Master his role was to teach Naval personnel not art but the ability to draw what they saw for technical and record purposes. I think you can rest easy with the design of your Victory stern. B.E.
-
I am aware of that model Chris but I rather think the contemporary drawing by Livesay has to have greater credibility. But regardless of all that it is a very fine Victory you have designed, we are lucky to have you Regards, B.E.
-
I'm slightly puzzled by your thoughts Chris in that if I were to design the stern as per her Trafalgar configuration, the stern would look very different to how it looks today,: contemporary evidence, in the form of a sketch of the stern by John Livesay, Drawing Master at the Royal Naval Academy in Portsmouth, dated December 1806, shows her looking very much as she does today even down to the decorative figures. The drawing was done on her return from Trafalgar. The Prince of Wales feathers are also absent, these were a later embellishment being fitted in 1837 having been removed from the Prince. I certainly agree that the Foc'sle looks better with the exposed timberheads, regardless of any historical considerations. Regarding the Stern Davits there is a reference in 'Nelson's Ships' by Peter Goodwin, in relation to the contemporary model of Victory in her 1803 configuration: "Also there are no fixed boat davits, these were abolished with the introduction of the closed stern circa 1796." (NMM) Presumably this is why they no longer appear on HMS Victory, which they did for many years. Regards, B.E.
-
Hi Chris, Good to hear from you again, your Victory looks magnificent, beautiful lines on the stern and Quarter Galleries. One question, I see you have included Stern Davits, does this mean you are not aiming the period of the kit specifically to the Trafalgar configuration? Regards, B.E.
-
She's looking good skippy, and some nice modifications, Pickle is an excellent kit to play around with and add little personal touches. The windlass is a great improvement, I couldn't do anything to get those irritating octagonal sections to look good. Glad Caldercraft are continuing with their good customer service, hardly worth upsetting a customer over a few copper plates. Cheers, B.E.
-
Hello Nick, This is what James Lees has to say about rigging the Euphroe and crowsfeet. The rope is spliced around the strop of the Euphroe block, its other end reeving through the central hole in the rim of the top from above, up thro' the next hole to port, through the upper hole of the Euphroe block, up thro' the inner starboard hole in the top and so on until the end finally came out of the outer hole on the starboard side of the top. There it was hitched to the underpart of the previous lead thro' the top. The Euphroe tackle comprised a single block strapped to the Euphroe block and another seized to the stay. The standing part of the fall was made fast to the Upper block. The running part , after reeving thro' both blocks was either hitched to the stay below the lower block, or was made fast around the tackle. Steel shows 23 holes around the rim of a 36 gun Frigate. The rigging line for crowsfeet was quite small ¾” circumference at full scale. Hope this helps. B.E.
-
I wonder if Jotika sent you the right amount of plates Skippy, I've just checked back on my original log and I had around 110 plates left over, and I also scrapped a few due to mis cuts and spoiling with glue.The waterline level looks fine on the photos. ... and hello to Billy, it's always good to have a canine assistant, always supportive, never judgemental B.E.
-
Nice job on the name Jason, but then I may be biased Seriously, those dry rubs do look better than the brass etched supplied versions, not least because the names on British ships were also painted on rather than stuck on in relief. I think the dry rubs give a more period look to a model, It is a pity that letraset don't do a greater range of fonts and letter sizes. Cheers, B.E.
-
Progressing very nicely Vitus, another fine Fly on the stocks B.E.
-
Your hull is looking good Skippy, and you've gone the extra distance in treenailing the planking, something I passed on. A very nice little build you have developing there Regards, B.E.
-
1:48 is the classic scale for scratch ship modelling and it does allow for realistic detailing. However, models at that scale can be very large and create accommodation problems. 1:64 I think is a reasonable compromise, and for kit builders especially, there is a good range of quality fittings now available at that scale. There are also some of the best kits on the market at that scale. I do know that the older I get the bigger the scale required B.E.
-
A fine looking build Len, I wish I could achieve the neatness of finish you display in all areas. I like what you've done with the stern, and the decoration looks excellent to my eye. I know we all fixate on those little areas where we think it hasn't perhaps gone as well as we would hope but my favourite saying is a model is more than the sum of its parts, and the sum of your parts is shaping into a very attractive Billy Ruffian. Regards, B.E.
-
My old boss used to say tidy desk, tidy mind, when viewing the detritis that was my desk, I would reply tidy desk, nothing to do! JP is the exception that proves the rule, and the completion of a very successful planking phase is an ideal time to have a GTU. ps.JP - Don't under-estimate persistence as a talent, it's what gets the job done. Cheers, B.E.
-
You're making excellent progress Hamilton, I'm very pleased to see that the sweep ports are shaping up nicely. Regards, B.E.
-
She looks magnificent Bob, a very fine build, something to aspire to, thanks for providing these wonderful reference photos. Regards, B.E.
- 81 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- kingfisher
- lauck street shipyard
- (and 1 more)
Our Emblem ®
