Blue Ensign

Thanks for the compliments, greatly appreciated always.
 
Build update:  
 
Presently have been working on the headrail and associated pieces, but while I was waiting for some bending pieces to cure I decided to build up the six carronades required for the poop deck.
 
When purchasing the material for this build I decided to purchase the carronades from Caldercraft.  These seem to be the closest size for this scale, plus the came with the elevation screw.
 
Carronade assembly as follows:
1. Added breeching ring 20 gauge wire.
2. Shaped out of boxwood piece, drilled hole for mounting pin and glued to bottom of carronade.
3. Cut 1/8"dowel 1/16", drill center hole, slipped down screw, drilled two hole and glued 24 gauge wire handles.
4. Screwed onto carronade and cut screw (looking at magnified picture will cut off more, plus pic shows I need some cleanup).
5. Painted after treating brass pieces in Blacken-it.  Paint used Admiralty matt (metal) black.
 
Carronade carriage assembly as follows:
1. Cut and shaped two platform pieces out of basswood and painted red.
2. Made nine eyelids for each carriage out of 28 gauge wire and attached.
3. Added two more eyelids and rings out of 24 gauge wire for breeching rope.
4. Made and shaped wheel assembly plates out of thin styrene, cut round toothpicks 1/8" for wheels, glued pieces and added to bottom of carriage.  Initially, had an additional wood pieces on bottom as my carronade drawing showed, but when I put this on the ship was too high off the deck therefore removed and cut wheel plates in half.
5. Made the pin for the carronade out of filed down toothpick through draw plate.
6. Made the two side pin holders out of 1/8" dowel, filed bottom flat, and a strip of wood for bottom piece, glued together then drilled the hole for pin.
7. Glued carronade to carriage.
8. Made front pin plate out of thin styrene, added pin, painted black and glued to carriage.
 
Next up: mounting and rigging to poop deck.
 
Take care and if your reading this thanks for looking in.

If you go down the toggle route Andy I would suggest you drill the slots for the strops before you fit the battens that radiate across the top. I had to remove and re-jig some of the battens because they cut across where the slots should be. The slots incidently fall behind the forward crosstrees and aft of the aft crosstrees.
 
I found this quite a tricky exercise at 1:64 and I'm not sure how much will be apparent once all the top hamper is fitted. Still it satisfies the inner masochist I suppose.
 
B.E.

If you go down the toggle route Andy I would suggest you drill the slots for the strops before you fit the battens that radiate across the top. I had to remove and re-jig some of the battens because they cut across where the slots should be. The slots incidently fall behind the forward crosstrees and aft of the aft crosstrees.
 
I found this quite a tricky exercise at 1:64 and I'm not sure how much will be apparent once all the top hamper is fitted. Still it satisfies the inner masochist I suppose.
 
B.E.

If you go down the toggle route Andy I would suggest you drill the slots for the strops before you fit the battens that radiate across the top. I had to remove and re-jig some of the battens because they cut across where the slots should be. The slots incidently fall behind the forward crosstrees and aft of the aft crosstrees.
 
I found this quite a tricky exercise at 1:64 and I'm not sure how much will be apparent once all the top hamper is fitted. Still it satisfies the inner masochist I suppose.
 
B.E.

Hello again Bob, here's a couple of mock-up pics of how the set up looks.
 

 

 
One of the attractions of the DB250 for me is the compactness, don't need a lot of room to work it, and it handles most of my modelling jobs.
 
My idea when I set it up is to have a detachable baseboard for the extension bed, or perhaps have it hinged in some way to fold back behind the machine board or maybe beneath it.
 
That way I can retain the benefit of the small size, but extend it to around 30" workable length when required.
 
I don't know if flex would become an issue at that length but I have worked on 8mm dowel up to 18" in length without a problem.
 
Cheers,
 
B.E.
 
 
 

Yes, we had to focus not on the instructions, and the finished model, such as this http://www.modelismonaval.com/galeria/category/100-navio-qel-montanesq-salvador-pallares-ruiz
 

Hello again Bob, here's a couple of mock-up pics of how the set up looks.
 

 

 
One of the attractions of the DB250 for me is the compactness, don't need a lot of room to work it, and it handles most of my modelling jobs.
 
My idea when I set it up is to have a detachable baseboard for the extension bed, or perhaps have it hinged in some way to fold back behind the machine board or maybe beneath it.
 
That way I can retain the benefit of the small size, but extend it to around 30" workable length when required.
 
I don't know if flex would become an issue at that length but I have worked on 8mm dowel up to 18" in length without a problem.
 
Cheers,
 
B.E.
 
 
 

Hi Ferit, I’m not very familiar with that arrangement because with British ships some time around the mid to late seventeenth century the make-up of the stern timbers changed. I believe it is referred to as from a square tuck to a round tuck at the stern.
 
Prior to the round tuck the rudder was as shown on your Berlin with the rudder head completely outside of the hull and with the tiller taken in thro’ a square hole below the transom. Because the hole had to be large enough to allow movement of the tiller, it presented problems in keeping out water.
 
With the round tuck the stern post and rudder head lengths were increased and the rudder head was taken up inside the ship thro’ the much smaller helm port and the tiller was entirely within the ship.
 
I understand that many European Navies retained the old style arrangement for some years after the British had changed, so the arrangement on your Berlin would appear to be entirely in keeping with the period.
 
The use of a whipstaff which was the primary methods of steering for larger ships of the period would be operated under both stern arrangements.
 
Sorry if my original comment raised a doubt in your mind.
 
Regards,
 
B.E.

Interesting stern post and rudder arrangement Ferit, but beautifully executed. Love the carved work beneath the transom.
 
B.E.

Thanks very much Alexander.
 
Slowly but constant. Here's a new update.
I added the Channel Wale and planks between the Main Wale and the Channel Wale.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry you've hit this problem hamilton, it's so frustrating when a desired plan fails to work.
 
I think the question you have to ask yourself is which is the most important feature that will contribute to a successful look or otherwise to the completed hull.
 
If I may venture an opinion, I would say the positioning of the wales; if the run of the wales isn't correct then the graceful sheer lines and balance of the hull will never look good.
 
You are not that far advanced, would it not be possible to blank off the sweep ports and redo the wales first, which will allow for a decent run of planking up to the topline, and a better proportion to the below waterline hull.
 
You would then be in a better position to gauge the line of the sweep ports which if re-cutting them proves too testy could at least be represented by closed blanks.
 
I do hope you resolve the problem to your satisfaction.
 
Cheers,
 
B.E.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Nice work on those Kevels Ferit, look much better than the cast version
 
Regards,
 
B.E.

Well she certainly looks better, and these things we fixate on tend to fade as more detail is put on the model to divert the eye.
Glad you feel happier about her now.
 
I like the colour contrast you are achieving.
 
Cheers,
 
B.E.

I'm rather with Greg on this one, and prefer the bare stick look on stand displayed models, and there is a great precedence for this with contemporary models of the eighteenth century. A ship in harbour for any length of time would have the sails taken down so it's not inconsistent to display a model 'bare stick'
 
The problem with kit provided sails is that the material is mostly way over scale and lacks the detail that sails should properly have such as the reinforced areas. Out of scale stitching and poor reef points can further detract from the overall look.
 
On the other hand fitting sails does allow the modeller to show the function of the running rigging and I do like to see sails on waterline models in a diorama setting, but that's the only situation I would personally fit them.
 
In the end tho' it's all down to personal preference and what individual modellers like.
 
B.E.

...

OK, I'm BACK!!!!!!!!  The relatives have headed back East with Syren none the worse for wear.  She did manage to survive a Tsunami started by an errant can of Coke.  Whew
 
But you folks have been having so much fun in my absence that I feel I must contribute something --- even a minor update.
 
So here are the mainmast lower yard buntlines and falls.  Yes, they're hard to see. 
 

 
I know I promised an overview shot but I want to finish the buntlines on the foremast first and set the next yards.
 
And tomorrow I simply MUST go catch some fish    
 
But it's great to be back tying knots and herding the spiders !
 
 

not by me you ain't...
 
M.

Well she certainly looks better, and these things we fixate on tend to fade as more detail is put on the model to divert the eye.
Glad you feel happier about her now.
 
I like the colour contrast you are achieving.
 
Cheers,
 
B.E.

Hello fellow hobbyists,
 
I would like to, firstly, thank all of you who have been so kind in taking the time to post comments, letting me know how much you appreciate my version of this Wasa build.
 
Your kind words have continued to be a real source of encouragement. I also thank those of you who were also kind enough to add a "thumbs up" to certain posts or jpg's. There is so much art to appreciate on MSW, that I am touched that you have found the interest, and the time to look at, and respond to my efforts.....Again thank you......OK.. An update.
 
 
 
 It's hard for me to believe, but the stern, and galleries in their entirety, are actually almost completed. This part of the build was very labor intensive. In retrospect, I would have done some things differently but as we say here "put a fork in it - it's cooked" and so it is. Oh what is missing are the two wood trim timbers that appear on each side of the flag and lantern spar, just above the upper gilded curved carving on the stern. I will try my first attempt at sculpturing those two pieces of wood.
 
Speaking of doing things differently; I SO regret not indenting the hull canon port framings as I was framing those. I tried to initially indent the four small pieces of wood in each port, but I didn't have enough of a lip, if you will, and nothing was aligning correctly. So I flushed them all flat along the hull. This work was done before joining the MSW community. I have since learned of a great technique. Always hindsight isn't it? So, that detail failure just glares at me now.  It will be an issue when adding canon doors. Hmmm. On the plus side only hobbyists such as us would even notice such a glaring error. I thought of pulling them all out. But I think that I would make a mess of things.
 
Segwaying forward with this posting, I enclose "full body shots" (pardon the pun) to offer a better perspective of the project as it looks so far. I also include a few other pics. as partial updates on side tasks that have been completed to date; for example deck, and hull figures were (some removed) painted and attached.
 
I'm will be taking a break for a while. I have to do some traveling again. Hmmm, and I thought that I was finally retired. I'll tune in, from wherever I happen to be, and continue to admire builds that I very much enjoy following.
 
When I find myself back on my side of the world again, I will continue with deck details that need to be added. I also plan on removing the existing ladders. (Not correct). I will also re-work the front bow cross railing that leads to the bowsprit. That is also not correct. And I removed the most stern ladders. Those will be replaced with a "bench" type looking thing with a wooden sculpture on each side above the "benches" So it goes. And then onto the masts....
Again thanks for your kind words...Always, always appreciated.
 
Regards,
 
Michael
 
 

Sorry you've hit this problem hamilton, it's so frustrating when a desired plan fails to work.
 
I think the question you have to ask yourself is which is the most important feature that will contribute to a successful look or otherwise to the completed hull.
 
If I may venture an opinion, I would say the positioning of the wales; if the run of the wales isn't correct then the graceful sheer lines and balance of the hull will never look good.
 
You are not that far advanced, would it not be possible to blank off the sweep ports and redo the wales first, which will allow for a decent run of planking up to the topline, and a better proportion to the below waterline hull.
 
You would then be in a better position to gauge the line of the sweep ports which if re-cutting them proves too testy could at least be represented by closed blanks.
 
I do hope you resolve the problem to your satisfaction.
 
Cheers,
 
B.E.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Sorry you've hit this problem hamilton, it's so frustrating when a desired plan fails to work.
 
I think the question you have to ask yourself is which is the most important feature that will contribute to a successful look or otherwise to the completed hull.
 
If I may venture an opinion, I would say the positioning of the wales; if the run of the wales isn't correct then the graceful sheer lines and balance of the hull will never look good.
 
You are not that far advanced, would it not be possible to blank off the sweep ports and redo the wales first, which will allow for a decent run of planking up to the topline, and a better proportion to the below waterline hull.
 
You would then be in a better position to gauge the line of the sweep ports which if re-cutting them proves too testy could at least be represented by closed blanks.
 
I do hope you resolve the problem to your satisfaction.
 
Cheers,
 
B.E.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Hi Force9,
 
Thank you for that.
I still remain unconvinced regarding the heavily built up front bulwarks. Again, most of the paintings and drawing I have do not show them. In fact, the evidence I have is in Peter Goodwin's book Nelson's Ships, which has a drawing with a dotted line the possible built up area (including the poop area). I have seen paintings of the Victory at Trafalgar with not only heavily built up front bulwarks, but mid-ship bulwarks too, some paintings show her with a round bow. I know that Geoff Hunt has done some recent paintings of Victory, and I know he researches his subjects thoroughly, and opts not to include enclosed front bulwarks.
 
If heavily built up front bulwarks (which would be quite a prominent feature) were added in her 1803 rebuild, I would have thought that there would have been a lot more evidence to suggest this. I do accept that built up bulwarks became more fashionable (for very practical reasons) after the lessons learned from Trafalgar - as did the round bow. There seems to be no mention of this in any of the repair notes, too.
 
Could it be that if the forecastle did have protection, it was a 'ad-hock' solution before the battle, once realising how exposed the front would be because of the tactics implemented? But even then, that still leaves the front bulwark and timberheads exposed..
 
The problem is, that if I went solely on the Clarkson Stanfield Trafalgar painting for the United Service Club 1833 (which I have always loved since a small boy), then the front would also have enclosed bulwarks, and the yellow bands from the lower and middle deck would extend right out to the bow. I have to think, is this accurate, or, by this time (almost 30 years later), are they now so used to seeing these details (especially the continued yellow lines, which I believe came into vogue once bow railings were abolished and became completely planked and enclosed. The painting doesn't seem to show the side entry port on the starboard side, too.
 
You see, it's a very difficult call to make - do I fully subscribe to that painting (which incidentally, shows only 8 shrouds for the foremast..), or go by convention? I did think long and hard about this, believe me - the decision was not made on a whim.
 
I even thought about including a set of forcastle bulwarks (laser cut) in the kit - but again, if I do this it may still not be accurate, as I would need to include the front bulkhead bulwarks too - and the only evidence I have to go on is that painting, and it shows no detail about what's happening with the fittings on the deck-side. I decided I did not want to speculate for such an important subject. If I use that painting as gospel (always dangerous to use a limited number of resources for important projects), and if I accept that she looked like that, then I also have to leave off the entry port - and then I have to explain to lots of bemused kit buyers the reason why - and I simply cannot do that based on one painting. I have a lot more valid reasons why to leave them off than on. Or - if I include the bulwarks but keep the entry port and someone askes me where I got my info for this, and I steer them towards that painting, they may turn around and say "well, OK, if that is accurate, then why include the entry port, and why have 11 foremast shrouds and not 8, like that very accurate painting?" What do I say?
 
I understand that the crew would remember important events on the ship, even the spars sticking out of the lower gun ports - but if I'm honest, I tried to remember some aspects of my first car, which I drove virtually every day and owned for almost 8 years. I remember vividly some events in that car, but now, as for details of that car, I can't even remember what side the fuel filler cap was or visualise the dash with any clear accuracy - and this was only 15 years ago!
 
 
I hope this explains more clearly why I didn't include them.
 
Chris

The first 8 starboard gun port lids are in place.
 

 

...

...