Roger Pellett

Johnny...it has to do if the sail is rigged military style...with the clews to the mast or commercial with them rigged as you see on the Glory of the Seas.  There is a name for both, but I can't recall them off the top of my head at this time.
 
It is true that the rigging on commercial vessels as a matter of the captains, or owner's preference.
 
Rob

Paul,  My thoughts exactly.  I believe that Peking was not scrapped but was sent to Hamburg, Germany and restored.
 
Roger

A nice project, well executed!
 
Determining the correct scale is of course important as it will determine sizes of all of the fittings that you intend to scratch build.  As an ex Coast Guard Officer, you obviously know that the “length” of a vessel has several definitions; length overall, register length, etc.  Before getting too far down the road, you might want to double check scale by using a dimension less subject to interpretation.  I would suggest that you compare the beam of your model with the published beam.
 
You are fortunate to live in my favorite small town.  Mystic has it all; a great museum, beautiful architecture, and good restaurants.  I grew up in Northeastern Ohio which was ounce the state of Connecticut’s Western Reserve.  Many of the small towns  in that part of Ohio share Mystic’s timeless quality with their white Federal Style homes and Churches.  The row of houses  just across the river, from the Seaport is particularly impressive. 
 
Roger.

Hi Roel,
 
Thank you for taking part....& I agree they are a funny hull shape. A design that is definitely trying to get the most boat from the least timber - noting that the original was designed in 1933 & I think that's the depression or soon after. I think people then also just tried harder to get more from less - 7.3m wasn't a small boat in those days, but it certainly is now.

Lower Deadeyes…

…and so it begins, the “smallest” deadeyes. 

Pin Rails are going to be so much fun. 😜

So this is a pretty complicated question. It sort of depends what you are looking to achieve. However here are a few things that might help you:
As others have suggested there are lots of youtube videos aimed at all skill levels. I would suggest searching for "intro to miniature painting" or something similar. Airbrushing is its own thing, with its own set of challenges and skills to learn. You can get smooth transition with no brush strokes with a brush. They are just different tools and mostly airbrushing allows you to save a bit of time if you are trying to do a whole bunch of stuff at once, but there is a significant investment both in money and time to learn how to use them properly. I did a presentations at MSON and MSWWNY talking about how painting can be used to enhance ship models earlier this year, if you are interested send me a PM and I can send you a copy of it. It is aimed at trying to broadly introduce painting to those not so familiar with it. If you are interested in the detailed application of painting to ships there are a lot of logs (particularly in the modern section of the build logs) where people are painting plastic ships. Alternatively if you want to see some up close pictures of painting applied to an 18th century vessel, I cover a bunch of my work and painting philosophy in my Alert log.

Greetings Fellow Modelers
 
Thanks to all for your fine comments, for the "likes" and to those watching quietly.
 
 
More Fish Hold Stuff
 
Continuing on with the fish hold, the next step was to build the back walls of the bunker partitioning.  In the drawing below, the hold is defined by the yellow cross-hatching and the back wall partitioning by the green lines.  The back walls are individual bunker partitions, but for this model I've simplified it as a single one-piece wall.  The blue dots are the vertical posts used to segment the hold into individual bunkers/pens.
 

 
 
To begin, I created a paper template of the area to be walled.
 

 
 
Planking was glued directly to the paper template.
 

 

 
 
Styrene channel was glued on at each post base location. The proper depth channel needed for this is not manufactured, but I found an “H” column that was close enough once modified.
 

 

 
 
The back wall pieces were then glued on.  A corner torn from a Post-it note makes a hands-free right-angle square.
 

 
 
At this point, I became aware of two errors that needed to be addressed.  First, the height of the perimeter partition walls, and the bulkhead end walls were too short.  This would allow a view through an open hatch to see above the walls.  It would be an extreme angle view to be certain, but a deck mock-up proved to me it was possible.  The second error is that the forward bulkhead end wall was placed 12 scale inches forward of where it should be. That's a problem because it interferes with the proper placement of the mast, which is unacceptable.  So, a second end wall was installed 12” aft of the first one.
 
In the image below the new (taller) end wall is on the right.  One would now expect that the two forward bunkers are 12” narrower than the other bunkers, but they are not.  The post spacing is correct from the aft bulkhead forward and only the forward wall was misplaced.  Indeed, I caught this error because the forward bunkers appeared to me a tad wider than the others.
 
Extra work caused by working carelessly.
 

 
 
Next, the four-sided posts for the bunker partitioning were made.  They are a five-piece styrene construction.
 

 
 
 
A construction jig is assembled. The styrene is modified “H” columns and strips from Evergreen.  Solvent cement keeps the posts from being inadvertently glued to the jig.
 

 
 
A channel is placed into the jig.
 

 
 
A flat strip is cemented on top of that. Two of these channel/flat piece assemblies are made for each post.
 

 
 
The center rectangular strip is added to one of the above assemblies.
 

 
 
Then both assemblies are cemented together.
 

 

 
 
The posts are glued onto the post bases.
 

 
 
One of the back walls is heightened, a channel extension is glued on, and a partition is installed.
 

 
 
The partitions are cut from blanks of edge-glued wood strips. A paper template of the partition is placed on the blank and the shape is cut free. They are stained with chalk and alcohol. I use alcohol to liquefy and apply the chalk because it penetrates the wood and evaporates off quickly leaving no time for the thin wood strips to warp.
 

 
 
I used “super thin” CA to glue these partitions in.  With the partition already in place, a drop of the CA at the top of the post races down the channel and glues most of the plank ends.  I have an extension tip on my bottle to help control the flow and I use the watery glue infrequently and cautiously.  I feel there should be a “skull and crossbones” on the bottle.  If you must use it, keep a can of fresh acetone at the ready.  A mishap will glue your fingers together instantly with the possibility of a trip to urgent care.  Am I exaggerating?  Not really.
 

 
 
The partitions are all in.  I'm considering partially filling a few of the bunkers with ice.  What do you folks think and what would make a convincing 1:48 ice?  It would have to be a non-soluble material.
 

 

 
 
I've installed 8 surface mount LEDs (one over each bunker) to light up the hold.  That seems like a lot, but they are small and their output will be adjustable.  Two wood strips holding four diodes each are assembled.  These LEDs are SMD 805 warm white and are attached to the strips with a clear (when dry) version of Gallery Glass.  For scale, the grid on the mat 1/2” (12.7mm)
 

 
 
Both strips attached over the bunkers.
 

 
 
Thanks for stopping by.
 
Be safe and stay well,
 
Gary
 
 

Oh, I don't know. If Woolies was gone, Coles would effectively have a monopoly. But I'm sure they wouldn't take advantage if that to hike the prices up . . . (irony).
 
Back to the subject at hand. A-a-a-and - IT WORKED!

In the event, I used a coping saw to cut it off instead of a fretsaw. It seemed like a better tool for the job. Very much heart in mouth, with the lathe at the slowest speed and gently pressing with the saw as the work rotated.
 
But - voila! Success! (very pleased - I'd been very worried that sawing the wheel off the base would destroy it, but it's turned out just as I'd hoped.)
 
Steven
 

Hi all, work continues. Now prototyping the davits. Most parts davit head, cleat,…not glued yet. Experimenting with best way to make them. Davits themselves still need cleaning and a bit more tapering towards the head.
cheers sascha
 

Micha, et all:
 
Some thoughts from a modeler who doesn’t use CAD.  CAD is not necessary for building ship models.  There are 1000’s of lovely accurate ship models built before CAD.  
 
The basic scratch ship modeling drafting task is to convert archival information into patterns that define the shape of the hull.  This information comes from a drawing, a half model, or a table of offsets.  For Nineteenth Century vessels and ships built to about 1970 hulls were not designed using simple geometric shapes.  Curves are the result of two different drafting techniques; ships curves, and splines.  Splines work by the rules for deflection of beams; a cubic equation.  Ships curves are standardized drafting tools created using different mathematical functions.  How well a particular CAD program mimics these manual drafting tools well determine the accuracy of the model.  As a Naval Architecture student a long time ago, I watched a visiting Professor from a Major Japanese university test several hull forms modeled from simple trigonometric shapes, sines, cosines, parabolas, etc. in our large towing tank.  They looked nothing like real ships.
 
All ship hull lines drawings are “faired” at one time or another.  In other words, plotted points often do not line up to allow a fair curve to be passed through.  Manual drafting requires the draftsman to use his judgement to correct this.  CAD requires either manual intervention or a mathematical algorithm.  There is therefore, no definitive example of an old ship’s hull, only different interpretations.
 
To me CAD is just another ship modeling tool.  If you enjoy working with computers and are willing to spend the $$$ and especially time to learn the program that’s fine.  On the other hand, beautiful models can be built using manual drafting techniques, or purchased plans.
 
Roger

The argument about whether this fighter or that fighter was the 'best' is fun for us to debate years later, but it was largely mooted by strategic considerations, though folks were less aware of it at the time. In order to have any real chance of winning, the Germans (and indeed all the Axis powers) needed to negate the combined industrial advantage of the Allies. German, Italian, and Japanese fighters didn't just need to be equal to their Allied counterparts -- they needed to shoot down their enemies in numbers that far exceeded their own losses. They never accomplished this, even during the Battle of Britain, when the Luftwaffe had a considerable numerical advantage. The fact that the P-40 gave at least as good as it got was seriously bad news for the Axis powers -- if both sides lost resources (planes, pilots) at an equal pace, there was never a question of who would run out of them first.

One wheel assembly completed with the 40 steel spokes…should add interest to the model. Replaced the inflation nipple with a bit of leftover brass from Mikasa, and painted the spoke nipples around the rim. They looked kind of cool left as brass but I think painted is a probably a little more realistic. Overall I’m quite happy with the outcome as opposed to the plastic version.

Wheel spoking in progress after finally getting my supplies. I’m using 0.5mm wire rods and short stubs of 0.8mm brass tube to create some sort of nipples at the rim. Remnants of the plastic spokes remain to hold the hub on centre and guide me on location and alignment, easy to screw this up otherwise I would think. 
I’m ignoring the assembly sequence of the model in the directions and have put together all the main components of the frame, so I can paint it distinctly from the body parts. Hopefully I can shoehorn everything on board later on. I’ve sprayed on a base coat of black to begin with. 
 

And here's her final resting place, in our gallery.

And with that, I declare her finished! 2 years, 2 months and 8 days. Of course, I took a couple of months to do a Fishing Trawler, and 4 months to do a whaleboat. But who's counting? I'll post some more photos soon.
 

 
 

Thank you for your interest and complements.
 
I enjoy studying these ships and in particular these examples of merchant sail from the mid 1800's.  It is also a joy to reproduce a likeness of these beautiful ships with my own hands.
 
Regards,
Pete

Welcome to the Topsail Schooner "Eagle" 1847 build log,
 
Finishing up the running rigging and final pick up, key points include:
>>> Final drops of thinned white glue to secure rigging lines
>>> Rigging coils installed
>>> Ship's boat secured
>>> Final paint touchup
>>> Model cased and mounted in brass pedestals
 
The model now rests in the home of a dear friends in the State of Maine.  They are Maine natives, which is appropriate for this ship is typical of Maine coastal traders of the mid 1800's.
 
Pete Jaquith
Shipbuilder

Welcome to Topsail Schooner "Eagle" 1847 build log,
 
The Topsail Schooner "Eagle" 1847 is a 3/16" scale plank on solid scratch build. The construction sequence is similar to my "Newsboy" 1854 build. The hull was carved from basswood laminations. Key Points include:
 
>>> Laminations were glued (dark wood glue) and doweled together
>>> Deck shear and camber was carved 1st
>>> Poop deck lifts were left loose until the fore deck was complete
>>> Inverted hull was attached to a building board giving a common base for hull templates
>>> Upper hull was recessed 3/64" for hull planking (lower hull will be coppered)
>>> Stem, keel, stern post, and rudder were fitted
>>> Mounting pedestals were fitted and mounting holes drilled
 
Pete Jaquith
Shipbuilder

Nothing special, just another part of decoration. Still the same since last october🙄
 
Jan
 

Just another small update...the more I work the less is visible....😄
But I´m trying.
Jan
 
 

It's exciting to have a stage where there's a great leap forwards in what the model looks like. This was one of those weekends, spending time taking pleasure in the unfolding of the model. Turning the model right way up & trimming the aft hull sections makes a big difference, she's looking a lot more like a yacht now. And not just like a yacht - the beamy but well proportioned lines are starting to show.
 
The support is from some free foamcore cardboard, it was easy to make but I'm not sure it's going to last the distance. 

 
Stout boats, definitely not a racehorse, with just a hint of of tumblehome....
The large volume of the hulls is really evident here.

 
I have added some scrap lead inside the hull, I think it feels better if they are slightly heavy & it's probably safer for the model. Those 4 pieces, found on a building site, are probably about 500g or 1lb. Cut into 4 pieces & glued in place. Hopefully the time spent working out the pre-cut plywood frames will make the next stages simpler. It can be quite tricky to measure  - for example - the height of a cockpit sole off the hull.

 
Next I'll start laying the cockpit plywood, & have a think about the rigging - if there needs to be anything done now while access in the hull is still possible, such as backing for the chainplates.
 
One more thing, on the related 28' design for Maluka: following her good result in the recent Fastnet, there's an article on her in the June Classic Boat mag. She's still in the UK & her owner will be cruising the north east coast of the UK the next few weeks.
 

That looks very sweet indeed, Mark! You might want to varnish or paint the lead to prevent future deterioration.

To the best of my knowledge, there were a couple of "sister" ships to Herzogin Cecilie which were Herzogin Sophie Charlotte, Viking and L'Avenir.  If my memory serves correctly they were all set up as  training ships but may not have been perfectly identical.  The 'P' Line ships were neither sisters nor identical to the Herzogin's.  Some had a central structure as well as forecastle and poop, which,  in the case of Kruzenstern was extended later in life.  One  of the best sources of information about all of these ships is "Square Riggers, The Final Epoch" by Alex Hurst (Teredo Books, 1972).  This book is the closest I have ever got to an encyclopaedia for the period.  Things get confusing when it is necessary to take into account the name changes which took place through the history of the ships of that epoch.
Good luck with the restoration: at least you don't have to reproduce that double counter aft which I found troublesome in several models.   

Thank you to all for the likes and for following along.
 
 Maggie update.....her progress has slowed these past two weeks due to an infection but hopefully once that clears she'll continue making strides in her recovery. Thank you again to each of you for your prayers and thoughts for her,
 
 I've been able to make some limited progress on the Tennessee's main shrouds. I look back with envy at those days when when I was able to devote eight hours plus at the worktable. I should have worked longer hours back then as now my eyesight for close work is diminishing. I've always been a bit of a perfectionist and so naturally my mindset when I first started working on the Tennessee was get it done as perfect as possible. Because the grains of sand drain ever faster my mindset now is, better quit messing about and get it done. It was never going to be perfect, I no longer have the luxury of tilting at windmills.     
 
 Notice the loupe among the tools used for running the shrouds. I had to start using the loupe to check my work on the deadeye lashings as on one pair I ran the line through the same hole twice. I didn't catch this till after the deadeyes were glued in place and the shroud line attached. Once upon a time I would have redone it, now, I let er fly. I don't think anyone will ever notice and I really can't tell and I know which pair it is. But it nags at me, so be it. 
 
I went back through the log and I couldn't find where I explained the how and why I lash the deadeye pairs off ship. The reason being the deadeyes are too small and there just isn't the room. 
 
 The main's channel shrouds requires the measurement from one deadeye top the the other deadeye top to be 0.70 inches, same size as a US penny. To keep the size constant I've superglued the rotating adjust balls of the third hand to keep the distance fixed. That way I don't have to use a ruler to check each pair though I do spot check to make sure the adjustment is still set correctly. 

 
Starboard side. Try as hard as I might, I can't seem to get em perfect aligned. Oh well, more shadows in the wind.  

 
 Port side. The second pair in from the left is the pair where I ran the line through the same hole twice, top deadeye, top hole. I've always intended for the model to be viewed from the starboard side so it was pretty easy 'let it fly' rationalization.
 
 Nine more pair of deadeyes and shroud lines and I can set about with ratline weaving.
 
 Again, thank you to all.  

This looks like a really nice little engine and a great value. Eye candy for steam engine junkies like me.  
 
Not a criticism but a question.  Most steam engines are double acting; steam is alternatively admitted and exhausted  from each end of the cylinder.   In other words steam pressure alternatively acts on each end of the piston.  This is a single acting engine. Steam pressure acts only on one end of the piston, the bottom.  It is also non condensing.  The condenser block is just a tray that collects water.  When the piston reaches the top of its stroke pressure across the piston is balanced and the only downward force acting on it is gravity.  Once the engine is running momentum from the flywheel is sufficient to allow gravity to overcome friction and to return the piston to the bottom of its stroke.
 
The question:  If you’ve fired up the engine will it operate from a standing start or is it necessary to first spin the flywheel?
 
Roger