Roger Pellett

Something went wrong, these words belong to the former message
 
A photo of the niche in which such a cannon stood. In the background the loophole with a short slit above it.

A photo of such a cannon in the National Military Museum in the Netherlands.

Constant
 

I urge you to take Roger's sage advice in the post above to heart.  I completely agree with his observations. If the subject you are modeling doesn't enthuse you to one degree or another through to the end of the build, the end of the build is quite likely not going to happen. As Dirty Harry said, "A man's got to know his limitations."
 

Some different advice:
 
Assuming that you have access to a basic collection of hand tools and know how to use them, your first model should be the one that you really want to build; kit or scratch it really doesn’t matter.  Plodding thru a beginner kit that does not interest you will not increase your interest in the hobby.  It is my opinion that .most ship modeling projects are abandoned when the builder loses interest not because they are too difficult.
 
I likewise, do not see plastic modeling as an entry to building wooden models.  Plastic modeling appears to have reached a level of sophistication where it can stand on its own as a separate modeling experience.  While I don’t personally build plastic models, I enjoy scanning the threads posted for both ship and aircraft plastic models.  Much of the work is incredible.
 
Another entry point would be the series of kits developed and sold directly by the Nautical Research Guild.  So far they offer three modeling kits:  A planking model, A capstan model, and coming soon a rigging model.  These are short term projects that would give the novice builder a taste for ship modeling without a making a major time or cost commitment.
 
Roger

Some different advice:
 
Assuming that you have access to a basic collection of hand tools and know how to use them, your first model should be the one that you really want to build; kit or scratch it really doesn’t matter.  Plodding thru a beginner kit that does not interest you will not increase your interest in the hobby.  It is my opinion that .most ship modeling projects are abandoned when the builder loses interest not because they are too difficult.
 
I likewise, do not see plastic modeling as an entry to building wooden models.  Plastic modeling appears to have reached a level of sophistication where it can stand on its own as a separate modeling experience.  While I don’t personally build plastic models, I enjoy scanning the threads posted for both ship and aircraft plastic models.  Much of the work is incredible.
 
Another entry point would be the series of kits developed and sold directly by the Nautical Research Guild.  So far they offer three modeling kits:  A planking model, A capstan model, and coming soon a rigging model.  These are short term projects that would give the novice builder a taste for ship modeling without a making a major time or cost commitment.
 
Roger

These Art Girona figures are well done.  I like Indian Army subjects and would love their Mounted Corps of Guides figure.  Maybe someday.
 
I have a simple method for mounting 54mm figures to paint:  A small block of wood glued to the bottom of the base of the figure with Duco Cement.  when the figure is done an Xacto knife or palette knife slid between the figure base and wood block separates it easily.
 
Roger
 

I don’t know what your artistic vision is for this model but if it is to accurately show hull structure, framing, deck beams, etc. I’m sure that you realize that the vessels built to defend the American Lakes were not built to British dockyard standards.  I have read that Noah Brown was told by one of the naval commanders that Lake vessels only needed to be capable of winning one battle. For example, Brown sandwiched Eagle’s deck beams between two deck clamps and omitted all knees.  As a consequence Eagle was built in a few weeks and was able to take part in the battle to prevent the British from invading via Lake Champlain.
 
Cant frames should be as simple as possible.  Also, Noah Brown had no need to conserve lumber.  Another possibility would be to “ghost” this unknown area.  This could be done by substituting a different construction technique; even a solid shaped block.
 
These are suggestions offered because you are still in the design stage.  In the end, it’s your model of an interesting subject.
 
Roger

Been a while again, but there's no messing with the 2-piece quotum. 
 
Although it doesn't look like much, I'm busy with a critical pipe. One that scared me a bit (= stopped at that point in the past) due to its complex shape. 
It's the bunker manifolds. 2 pipes are there, an HFO (Heavy Fuel Oil) system and a Diesel Oil system. They are shaped very strangely, but I assume they did it that way to make sure that the line can be drained properly to the tank, so in case of a leak on the manifold, there would only be a limited amount of oil that could possibly leak to the flange side (that is at least my theory for this odd shape). 
 
A long while back I made preparations for this system since I put a 1.5mm rod with a 90° bend already in that manifold. I would not be able to place such a pipe afterwards. I was a bit obsessed with having as little joints in those pipes as possible and always tried to make things from 1 piece. In the end, the installed pipe didn't have a good 90° bend and didn't want to go in place, so I clipped it near the bend. Made a proper 90° bend. I also could remove both pieces of the pipe that way and adjust their lengths properly without risk of damage to the rest of the construction. 
Having decided to do this, it allowed me to take the next step more easily. 
As you can see, it goes over the edge of the hatch, complicating things a bit more, as the pipe has to be properly sized and fitted, there's no way I could bend and glue the aft piece to the drip tray. 
Flanges and valves were dry fitted for testing. 

 

 
Here, handwheels are already fitted to the valves. I used 0.3mm thick styrene discs which I drilled out in the center and later on in the 4 corners.  This pipe had to be painted and fixed in order to proceed with the transverse beams above them. 

 
Here it is painted and fixed in place. The forward transverse beams are in place, since the DO system only goes to the aft drip tray. DO system (Smaller capacity and diameter of pipe) is dry fitted here. The whole process involves a lot of bending, fitting, bending, mounting the hatch back on the ship to see for the drip trays, then removing it again to work on the piping etc. 

 
Once the DO system is in place, I'm ready to continue with the transverse beams and then I can proceed 1 level up with the actual transverse cargo pipes. 

Keith.  The legs had woodworm - that is the table not the wife! That said she is looking a bit grubby today.
 
Eberhard. The only downside is it tends to be quite brittle when cut into thin strips. Otherwise it is lovely to work with.
 
Veszett. Yes you are correct - I sand a bevel on one edge of each plank to get a tight fit against the adjacent plank. 
 

Some different advice:
 
Assuming that you have access to a basic collection of hand tools and know how to use them, your first model should be the one that you really want to build; kit or scratch it really doesn’t matter.  Plodding thru a beginner kit that does not interest you will not increase your interest in the hobby.  It is my opinion that .most ship modeling projects are abandoned when the builder loses interest not because they are too difficult.
 
I likewise, do not see plastic modeling as an entry to building wooden models.  Plastic modeling appears to have reached a level of sophistication where it can stand on its own as a separate modeling experience.  While I don’t personally build plastic models, I enjoy scanning the threads posted for both ship and aircraft plastic models.  Much of the work is incredible.
 
Another entry point would be the series of kits developed and sold directly by the Nautical Research Guild.  So far they offer three modeling kits:  A planking model, A capstan model, and coming soon a rigging model.  These are short term projects that would give the novice builder a taste for ship modeling without a making a major time or cost commitment.
 
Roger

Some different advice:
 
Assuming that you have access to a basic collection of hand tools and know how to use them, your first model should be the one that you really want to build; kit or scratch it really doesn’t matter.  Plodding thru a beginner kit that does not interest you will not increase your interest in the hobby.  It is my opinion that .most ship modeling projects are abandoned when the builder loses interest not because they are too difficult.
 
I likewise, do not see plastic modeling as an entry to building wooden models.  Plastic modeling appears to have reached a level of sophistication where it can stand on its own as a separate modeling experience.  While I don’t personally build plastic models, I enjoy scanning the threads posted for both ship and aircraft plastic models.  Much of the work is incredible.
 
Another entry point would be the series of kits developed and sold directly by the Nautical Research Guild.  So far they offer three modeling kits:  A planking model, A capstan model, and coming soon a rigging model.  These are short term projects that would give the novice builder a taste for ship modeling without a making a major time or cost commitment.
 
Roger

I think that about sums it up. 
Cruise vessels nowadays do carry larger engine room crews (because also the side jobs like sewage plant, technical issues in cabins etc are part of their jobs), but not anything like on United States. 
On modern merchant ships, notably the LNG steam ships, we had an engine room crew of around 7, mostly composed of: 
2nd Engineer
2 x 3rd Engineer 
4th Engineer 
(apprentice engineer, optional)
Fitter
Wiper 
Oiler
 
Chief Engineer is an office job, much like Captain nowadays, so I'm not considering them really as part of the engine room operating crew. 
Of course these were fully automated engine rooms, unmanned during the night. Full of sensors with linked alarms that wake up the duty engineer if required. 

Bill, thank you for your service!
 
I’m always a little embarassed when people say that to me.  Compared to people of my age slogging through jungles, or serving at sea, my service was more like a (good) Govt. job.
 
aaRoger 

Really well done!!!
 
I got the book for our 6 yr old granddaughter for Christmas this year!!
Pne of my favorite books growing up!
Rick

My “Nobody” was an exaggeration.  Of course there are steam ships still operating today.  There’s about half a dozen still sailing here on the lakes although one fleet (Interlake) has been converting their’s to diesel.  And was earlier pointed out to me, there are special situations such as LNG vessels where Steam make sense by utilizing otherwise vented natural gas.  If I remember correctly, the ships in the MSC reserve fleet include high speed steamships “inherited” from US Container operators who found them to be uneconomical.
 
The bunker C comment is that of Marine Engineering experts at the University of Michigan.  It’s cheaper because it’s a residual fuel left over from the refining process. As such, it has a lot of undesirable pollutants, notably sulfur.
 
A factor not discussed is engine room manning.  World War II Navy ships had large crews, and I would assume that this would include those in the engine rooms and fire rooms.  25 years ago, there was a move by two Great Lakes Steamship operators, the ex US Steel Great Lakes Fleet and Interlake to automate the 1950’s vintage steam plants in their ships.  I had some very minor involvement in this effort.  I met one of Interlake’s vessels when it arrived at Two Harbors, MN to load ore in order to figure out the piping changes that would be required.  I believe that one ex US Steel Ship, The Calaway? was converted.  Interlake, chose instead to convert to diesel.  Great Lakes vessels have one fire room and one engine room.  United States has several of each.  Her operators would, therefore, be faced with either a huge automation project or sailing with a large engine room/ fire room crew.
 
With the exception of special situation vessels, the question is would anyone invest a huge amount of money to build a new steamship or revive a 1950’s era one sailing under US Flag rules to compete with foreign flagged passenger vessels.  I don’t think so.
 
Roger

Bill, thank you for your service!
 
I’m always a little embarassed when people say that to me.  Compared to people of my age slogging through jungles, or serving at sea, my service was more like a (good) Govt. job.
 
aaRoger 

I know a little about the “preserved ship biz” here in the USA having worked for 10+ years as a volunteer to prepare National Historic Landmark Status (NHL) documentation for the Whaleback Steamship Meteor.  In the end I was unsuccessful as a new executive director arrived on the scene (previous experience running the local zoo!) and didn’t bother to submit the material on to the necessary people.
 
NHL status is the gold standard for US Government recognition of things historic.  It is, therefore, the door thru which any federal financial support much pass.  The program is administered by the National Park Service who publish complex guidelines for the program.  A couple of salient points:  First, the project should (must?) have a connection to an important historic thread, and of course the authors of the guidelines did not include the history of technology as being one of these!  Second, and more relevant to USS Constitution, applicants are required to determine a “period of significance” to which the object will be restored.  Things that cannot be restored to this state usually do not qualify for NHL status.
 
As Henry points out, USS Constitution is a commissioned US Navy warship.  Because of this the NHL program does not apply to her.  She gets her funding as a line item in the Defense Department’s annual budget.  She is Public Relations asset for the US Navy and a large majority of the people who see her probably  have no interest in understanding her historic accuracy or lack thereof.
 
In my opinion this should not prevent the Navy from developing a plan to determine a period of significance to which the ship should be restored.  This would include replacement of Mid Nineteenth Century and later features in favor of those associated with her service in the War of 1812 or the Barbary Wars.  This would include replacement of her head, some bulwarks, and stern decorations.  Note, the presence of original structure or lack thereof is not a major NHL criteria.
 
It would seem that the Royal Navy Museum is doing better with HMS Victory as they seem to be making a real effort to return her to appearance when she fought at Trafalgar. 
 
Roger

Thank you Druxey, John, Pat and Nils for your supportive comments and thanks, as ever, to all of you who have left likes or just paid a visit.
 
And so on with the planking.
 
I started off by drawing a series of parallel lines on the hull. These act as a guide for judging the symmetry of planking on both sides of the hull.


The previous two builds consumed a whole leaf of my antique mahogany table so I dug out the second leaf from the back of the garage. I calculate that this second leaf plus the centre section will amply suffice for the remainder of my modelling career.

I cut it into 3" inch planks on my full size table saw before moving on to the Byrnes saw to cut it down further to .700" x .220" strips. I chose .220" as the nominal width of the planks because .250" seemed a little wide and .200" seemed a little narrow - very scientific!

I then cut a supply of planks sufficient to get a good start. I decided to make the planks nominally 1/16" thick (thin enough to bend easily while thick enough to give me a reasonable sanding margin). I ripped them over thickness and sanded them to thickness using my improvised drum sander.



My worry about hull sanding allowance made me stay cautiously a little above the 0.625" target plank thickness.

 
The table isn't wide enough to allow continuous planking runs so each rise takes 2 planks per side.
I am gluing the planks with waterproof PVA glue on both the back side and on the edges. The planks are pinned in place with cork notice board pins. These are "nailed" into pre drilled holes in the frames - quite a laborious task.
The first plank above (or is that below?) the previously installed plywood strake is parallel. I plan to install a number of parallel planks and then start shaping planks as I progress. Using my usual "suck it and see" approach.



I have managed to get the first 2 runs completed on both sides - 8 planks in total.

Obviously I have to give the glue time to dry before removing the pins so this makes the process a 2 planks per side per day job. At least I have plenty of time for tea breaks.
 
That's all for now folks.
 
 

For the rudder, I borrowed ideas/techniques from Ken Foran's excellent  Model building with Brass as well as Cangarda 1901 by KeithAug .  The rudder post is 1/4" dia. brass and the through-soldered fore-and-aft supports are 1/8" dia. brass.  The notched-out core portions of the rudder are Alaska Yellow Cedar and the cheeks, laminated to each side, are made from 3/32" baltic ply. A card template was used for reference.


The cheeks had recesses carved in them to accommodate part of the diameter of the rudder post to keep the rudder assembly from being too fat. The various layers were epoxied together.
 
The shaping of the rudders foil was a process of filing/sanding the cheeks and core , evenly exposing the parallel glue lines of the ply until a satisfactory shape was achieved. 
A removeable brass lower gudgeon was soldered up to accommodate the lower rudder bearing at the correct distance aft of the sternpost.
It was then epoxy-sealed and (temporarily) fastened in place.


And with that, we are current with the build (as of Mother's Day, 2024)

My “Nobody” was an exaggeration.  Of course there are steam ships still operating today.  There’s about half a dozen still sailing here on the lakes although one fleet (Interlake) has been converting their’s to diesel.  And was earlier pointed out to me, there are special situations such as LNG vessels where Steam make sense by utilizing otherwise vented natural gas.  If I remember correctly, the ships in the MSC reserve fleet include high speed steamships “inherited” from US Container operators who found them to be uneconomical.
 
The bunker C comment is that of Marine Engineering experts at the University of Michigan.  It’s cheaper because it’s a residual fuel left over from the refining process. As such, it has a lot of undesirable pollutants, notably sulfur.
 
A factor not discussed is engine room manning.  World War II Navy ships had large crews, and I would assume that this would include those in the engine rooms and fire rooms.  25 years ago, there was a move by two Great Lakes Steamship operators, the ex US Steel Great Lakes Fleet and Interlake to automate the 1950’s vintage steam plants in their ships.  I had some very minor involvement in this effort.  I met one of Interlake’s vessels when it arrived at Two Harbors, MN to load ore in order to figure out the piping changes that would be required.  I believe that one ex US Steel Ship, The Calaway? was converted.  Interlake, chose instead to convert to diesel.  Great Lakes vessels have one fire room and one engine room.  United States has several of each.  Her operators would, therefore, be faced with either a huge automation project or sailing with a large engine room/ fire room crew.
 
With the exception of special situation vessels, the question is would anyone invest a huge amount of money to build a new steamship or revive a 1950’s era one sailing under US Flag rules to compete with foreign flagged passenger vessels.  I don’t think so.
 
Roger

My “Nobody” was an exaggeration.  Of course there are steam ships still operating today.  There’s about half a dozen still sailing here on the lakes although one fleet (Interlake) has been converting their’s to diesel.  And was earlier pointed out to me, there are special situations such as LNG vessels where Steam make sense by utilizing otherwise vented natural gas.  If I remember correctly, the ships in the MSC reserve fleet include high speed steamships “inherited” from US Container operators who found them to be uneconomical.
 
The bunker C comment is that of Marine Engineering experts at the University of Michigan.  It’s cheaper because it’s a residual fuel left over from the refining process. As such, it has a lot of undesirable pollutants, notably sulfur.
 
A factor not discussed is engine room manning.  World War II Navy ships had large crews, and I would assume that this would include those in the engine rooms and fire rooms.  25 years ago, there was a move by two Great Lakes Steamship operators, the ex US Steel Great Lakes Fleet and Interlake to automate the 1950’s vintage steam plants in their ships.  I had some very minor involvement in this effort.  I met one of Interlake’s vessels when it arrived at Two Harbors, MN to load ore in order to figure out the piping changes that would be required.  I believe that one ex US Steel Ship, The Calaway? was converted.  Interlake, chose instead to convert to diesel.  Great Lakes vessels have one fire room and one engine room.  United States has several of each.  Her operators would, therefore, be faced with either a huge automation project or sailing with a large engine room/ fire room crew.
 
With the exception of special situation vessels, the question is would anyone invest a huge amount of money to build a new steamship or revive a 1950’s era one sailing under US Flag rules to compete with foreign flagged passenger vessels.  I don’t think so.
 
Roger

Bill, thank you for your service!
 
I’m always a little embarassed when people say that to me.  Compared to people of my age slogging through jungles, or serving at sea, my service was more like a (good) Govt. job.
 
aaRoger 

With the port side also ready, the standards are made to height. A simple way to measure, is to use a wooden plank as a template.

 
A mold for the semi-circular gun ports. This is slightly conical, so up to the arrow and no further, otherwise the hole is too big.

Ready.

This is how far we have come, next is the last piece of planking on the bow.

Thanks for following

The futtock staves were made from 3” served rope and are located as far below the trestle trees as the top of the mast is above the trestle trees, approximately seven feet.  For ease of installation, I used served 24 gauge wire, rather than rope.  They were lashed to the shrouds.  The picture on the left shows the lashing in white for clarity and the finished product on the right.
 
And now it is time for the dreaded ratlines.  There are some lines on a ship that are a do not change with the size of the ship, such as the footropes and ratlines, both of which must hold a seaman’s weight.  The ratlines are made of tarred 1.5” rope.  At this scale, I simply tied, rather than lashed, them to the outer shrouds.  They are secured to the inner shrouds with clove hitch knots, a drawing of which is below.  This picture is also from The Boy’s Manual.

Ratlines are spaced 12-15” apart and are parallel to the waterline.  The easiest way to keep them even is to make a line jig.  There is a tendency to pull the shrouds inward as the ratlines are added.  I like to secure a brass rod or stick to the outer shrouds to keep them straight.  This is my setup.  The clips are holding the line jig in place.  The ratlines are parallel to the waterline, not to the deck. After several hours, 220 knots and fifteen scale feet of rope, the ratlines were finished. 
 
Catharpins are ropes with an eye at each end which extend across and are seized to the shrouds at the level of the futtock staves.  According to Steel, sloops were not equipped with catharpins but I included them in the kit to illustrate their construction.  I made them from 22 gauge wire with a loop on each end.  As there is no tension on them, I did not solder the loops closed.  The catharpins are served and the ends are painted black to simulate the eye splice.    The first catharpin is located just aft of the mast and the other two are spaced out evenly along the futtock stave.

This completed the standing rigging of the lower mast.  As mentioned earlier, because this is a cross section model, lines that would not terminate on the model, such as the stays and backstays, were omitted.

Exactly, my USNavy experience was 4 years as a junior officer working as a Naval Reactors Engineer.  Yes, the famous or infamous “NR.”  All experience was with submarine reactor plants:  S1W, S2W, S3/4W and after Bettis Reactor Engineering School, S5W.  I also spent time at the D1G prototype so am familiar with that plant too.  I was disappointed when cost considerations required abandonment of nuclear surface ships other than the large carriers.   I know little about Savannah’s plant except that it was a pressurized water reactor.
 
There has been a significant development that could change the economics of nuclear ship propulsion;  the “life of the ship” core.   As you know refuelings were costly, complicated, and lengthy and were originally required every couple of years.  The navy now uses technology to produce reactor cores that do not have to be refueled during the vessel’s expected lifetime.
 
While this might cause the navy to eventually take a look at other combatants,  the business model for merchant shipping is a race to the bottom when it comes to cost.  This would preclude hiring the highly educated and trained crews that have and still do man the US Navy’s nuclear powered ships.
 
Roger

I receive a quarterly magazine from the Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Department at the University of Michigan. As might be expected published by a university it is heavily slanted towards current issues and  research.
 
Advances in Naval Architecture are often incremental.  Marine Engineering on the other had as undergone a series of distinct changes:
Introduction of Steam Propulsion
Compound Steam Engines
Steam Turbines
Diesel Engines
Unmanned engine rooms/ direct bridge control
Gas Turbines (Naval Vessels)
Nuclear Power (Submarines)
 
Each of these technologies did not emerge fully developed.  For example, the first steam turbines were connected directly to the ships propellers.  A machine that operates best at high speed was attempting to drive one intended to run at low speed.  It took 15-20 years to adopt the geared cross compounded system used by the US Navy during World War II.  The machinery in United States is the end point of this mature steam turbine technology.
 
When I went to school, Marine Engineering involved designing a unique steam plant to fit within the confines of a hull designed by the Naval Architects.  The switch to diesel engines for propulsion of much of the world’s merchant vessel tonnage and gas turbines for naval vessels changed all this.  The Naval Architects sometimes joked that marine engineering had become a “catalog punching job.”
 
Marine Engineering I now back in the news with a lot of questions to be answered.  Among these are:
 How to eliminate residual oil fuels
How to best utilize hydrogen as a fuel
Electric propulsion and hybrid electric propulsion
Even Nuclear merchant ship propulsion and sail assist
 
These ideas are obviously not all applicable to large ships traveling long distances and some are maybe just Pie in the Sky, but the point is that United States’ machinery is seriously out of date and pollution from shipboard commerce is now considered to be a major environmental problem.  Even if her owners could strike a deal with KFC to burn their used frying oil in their boilers, major changes to her machinery would be required with the possibility of completely new power plant.  This alone would probably preclude her return to service.
 
Roger