gak1965

I wonder how many people my children's age would even get the West Germany reference. Getting old, I guess.

Well, three failed attempts to make the fore topgallant mast today (two breaks, one asymmetry). But this arrived from my one of my favorite bookstores (Powell's in Portland, OR), so not a complete loss. Fun fact from an early look through the book. The green color of my fish was chosen l because according to Steven Ujifusa's book "Barons of the Sea", McKay had originally wanted to paint it that way. Interestingly, on p 344 of the edition I have of Crothers we read that Fearless was painted a green color known as "Tea color" and that this green was used on all of the ships owned by William Weld & Co. Boston. Fearless was built after the Fish, but makes me wonder if McKay saw some of Weld's other ships and got some ideas...

No update for a few weeks (vacation), but here are some lovely model ships (and one real boat) from the Reykjavik Maritime Museum. No hints as to where I might be 🙂. George K

Yeah. Gonna have to stick a crowbar in my wallet and get one or both ...

That seems consistent with the plans and what photos I could find. The practical upshot is that I'm not going to install the chocks (if at all) until I see where the stays land on them. Better that they flow and maybe stick out slightly from the spreaders than have them bend oddly. In a month or so, I'm guessing I'll see how closely I actually followed the plans when the first topgallant stay is set. Thanks, George K P.S. It's sad to hear that you are looking for a buyer for BlueJacket. I wish you the best of luck finding a someone to continue it's wonderful operations and you the best in retirement.

Thanks all. To try to clarify my question, here is a segment of the plans. It shows (I think) that the spreaders are not changing the flow of the backstays. Now, here is a drawing I made to show the question I'm wondering about. On the left you have a mast viewed looking forward and on the right you have a mirrored mast from the side. On the looking forward view you have two options: on the left side, the spreader changes the direction of the stay, on the right, it hits it naturally and just kind of helps keep the stay in place using its natural flow. On the right, you have the same situation (although I realized it is the opposite as on the other drawing). On the left, the spreader is just sitting where the path of the stay naturally falls, and on the right, it changes the direction of the stay. This is a public domain image from Wikipedia showing a (modern) spreader - as you can see they are changing the flow of the stay: Again, my read of the plans says that this isn't what is going on - that it is following the natural path of the stay - but would appreciate anyone's insights. In either case it would prevent interference, but it will drive where I put the chocks. Thanks again, George K

Good luck. My father in law had back surgery 25 years ago and it really helped. Hopefully the same for you. George K

Happy 4th! An update on construction. The topmasts are all completed and mounted on the tops, the caps are painted and secured and we have three nice and straights masts. Finally all of the spreaders are complete (although they are not current glued to topmasts. Some photos. From the sides: From above: And from forward: One quick question to anyone in the know. Regarding the chocks on the spreaders. Are they placed in specific locations to direct the flow of the backstays at a particular location on the spreader, or are they located where the backstays naturally fall and are just there to keep them from slipping? As always, thanks for looking in! George K

It is Rich ( @ClipperFan) that reached the milestone, not me. So far, I've been lucky, and only needed some minor knee surgery. But +1 on your wishes for him! And thanks for the vote of confidence on the ship!

Didn't even realize you had surgery. Glad to hear you hit the first of hopefully many anniversaries!

They are very technical but I think they are pretty good. For most of the classes, he has diagrams (mostly side views) and lots of photos.

The Mogamis were designed as a result of the limitations imposed by the London treaty which left the Japanese with a relatively small amount of cruiser tonnage and a desire by the Naval staff to nonetheless cram as many weapons onto the platform as possible. They used new welding technologies instead of riveting (in common with lots of navies) to save weight but the first ship (Mogami) was a disaster when it went into sea trials. It was badly overweight, top heavy (and so had stability problems) and the hull was so badly bent during the trials that it affected the ability to train the guns Eventually, the first two were reconstructed and the third and fourth built to a revised standard based on the reconstructed earlier units. The whole story (and how the Royal, French, Italian, US and Japanese navies designed interwar ships) is told in a set of books written by John Jordan, called (with excellent truth in advertising) "Warships after Washington", and "Warships After London". The books are interesting from the standpoint of how each Navy responded to the challenges of meeting their military needs within the framework of a treaty that put constraints on what they could design and build. Let's just say that the Mogamis weren't the only poor design to come out of the five countries due to the combination of treaty and technological limitations of the day. George

I admire that you are making your own eyebolts and those shackles are amazing. How did you the wood parts in? Was there enough flexibility that you could pop the (former) deadeyes in and have the shackle retain it's shape? I think your cathead ornaments are great. Anything at 1:96 is going to be challenging, and I had a time making a simple star from copper tape - those are much better! George

Offhand I'd say you were setting your priorities appropriately! Congratulations, indeed! May you have a long and happy marriage! George K

Part.of the problem may be that the shrouds on your test jig aren't under the same amount of tension as the shrouds on the ship, and that tension helps prevent hourglassing. In addition, with my Niagara I clamped two pieces of wood strip on both sides of the shrouds about an inch above where I was working to fight the tendency of the knots to pull the shrouds in. I wouldn't bother with clove hitches. The scale is so small that almost no matter how good you are, they are going to look too big. At 1:150, a 0.3 mm tall knot (probably the best you can do with 0.1mm thread) is 1.75 inches at scale. I'm with Roger, go with simple overhand knots, secure with some glue or whatever. They won't tug on the shrouds as much and they won't be nearly as bulky. Looking great! George

This is probably a really dumb question, but do you know why Maris Stella chose 1:63 rather than 1:64 which, which, while somewhat arbitrary, at least makes sense to convert at scale using imperial units? Regards, George

I've started making the topmasts, beginning with the main. Rather than use the kit supplied dowels, I'm starting with larger square stock. For the main that means 3/8 square basswood which I am going to turn and then trim to size. So, the stock on my lathe, marked up to show (left to right) the bottom of square portion of the mast, the end of the round segment, and the end of the square segment. I added a mark (after this picture was taken for the beginning of the round section of the mast. Here is the mast after turning. You will note that the square ends are way too big, as the lower part of the mast should be about 1/4" square and the upper about 3/16" square. This was the expected outcome of this step. Next I took some 100 grit sandpaper and narrowed the square segments so that they were correctly sized, drilled holes for the fid, and made it from two sections of 1/32 x 1/64" blackened brass. The mast is shown below. Once I'v built all three, I'm going to stain it so that it is a little darker. Next the trestletrees, crosstrees, and spreaders. These were made out of boxwood stock. In order to get the the crosstrees to be properly aligned on the trestletrees, I dremeled the cutouts with a cutting blade while the two trestletrees were clamped together. The crosstrees themselves are made from 1/16" x 1/32" stock, and quite flimsy before they were mounted. The spreaders are only 3" square in real life (1/32" at scale), and I was very worried about the loads that they were going to be under. So, I took some blackened 1/64" x 1/32" brass and glued it to the bottom of spreaders. You can see the this in the next two photos of the trees and spreaders from above and below (the marks are where I need to put the cleats and will be removed). The brass is barely visible, and I may put some on the brace as well. As with the mast, once all three are made I'm going to remove all the pencil marks and stain them. I haven't decided yet if I am going to make the six cleats out of wood (they would be really small and fragile) or put an opened jackstay eyebolt or perhaps a bit of very fine wire. They are going to be sufficiently hidden by rigging that I'm inclined to simplicity. I wanted to get an idea what the whole assembly will look like on the model, so I slipped them onto the mast, and I have to say I am reasonably pleased. Thanks again for looking in! Regards, George K.

Looking great! Rigging ho!

When I was a boy, my grandfather built the 1:200 Nichimo version with the lights, working props, etc. I don't know what happened to it ( it got lost sometime in the intervening 52 years) but I've scanned ebay more than once for one of them. May need to make the investment, although goodness knows where I'd display it. at least it wouldn't be as tall as the sailboats so, lower case height.

Well, an update. I've been working on the lower masts while I finish odds and ends on the deck. Lots of photos for me (well 6) but we are in a period where many things get done but the ship doesn't change much in overall appearance. With additional paint, the main was painted, and it is time to start adding additional details, including the iron reinforcing on the tops and the holes for the fairleads. The first new thing that needed doing was the spencer jackstays on the fore and main masts. They are theoretically 1" or 0.01" at scale. I built mine from 24 gauge black steel wire and 0.75 x 6 mm brass eyebolts that were chemically blackened. That would make them about 2x scale, but it isn't terribly noticeable. The jackstays on the yards were smaller and I will likely use a finer wire when I make them. Here is the foremast with the spencer jackstay. Next I made the futtock shrouds from deadeyes and some fine gauge black wire. The ends were threaded through the pre-drilled holes in the top and attached to a large eyebolt that is filling in for the individual mounting points on the relevant iron. Finally I drilled a hole in the masts for the gaffs and mounted a piece of 24 gauge wire that will eventually become the gooseneck. I have seen people use circles cut from blackened copper tape to make fairly convincing hinges at this scale and that is the plan for these gaffs. Here are photos of the fore and main masts with the jackstays and the futtock shrouds. This picture also shows that I installed the amidships ladders. I ultimately used the castings, they seemed as good as I was likely to make on my own, and (on the fore) that I've started installing the blocks for the bunt and clew lines. Ideally the blocks would be of four sized (two different sizes on the main/fore) and a second (smaller) set of two sizes on the mizzen. The kit comes with three sizes of single block and functionally all 4 block sizes were closest to the 3/32 inch size - so all 24 will be the same size. The mizzen required a spencer mast, which I built from a dowel and a some strip brass bent to accept a 24 gauge wire that will be the gooseneck, the spencer and then wraps around the lower mast. I also added the futtock shrouds, and here is a photo: So, the ship looks like this now with all of the masts in place (but not yet glued in). The mizzen is slightly more raked than I want, but the picture makes it look worse than it is. I am going to get in there with my Dremel so that it will stand at the same rake as the fore and main. Finally, a view of the ship from the bow showing the masts which. Again, the alignment appears a little off because they have no shrouds and are not glued in place. Next up - on the right of the final photo you can see the brass belaying pins that I hit with some patina. I think I need to give them another treatment to make them more uniform, but otherwise they are ready to be placed. Finish stropping the rest of the blocks that are mounted on the tops (16 down, 8 to go) as well as a couple of blocks for the mizzen braces that mount on the top, and then it's time to make the topgallant masts. I build (but don't rig) the entire mast before doing it's final mounting and starting to put the shrouds in place. Hopefully that time will start to come soon. In the interim I will probably start to rig the boswsprit to give me another area to make some obvious progress. As always, thanks for looking in and the encouragement. Regards, George K

I wound up chickening out on my Passat. 1 fewer mast but at 10/inch, what a mess. And the Heller Ratline maker was a joke. One thing to check, the current Passat only has ratlines on 3 of the shrouds per mast, did Preussen use them all or did they only use the inner ones? I don't think people went aloft as much on the newer windjammers as compared to say a 19th Century warship

Saw this yesterday, thought people might be interested. It's a 1 minute clip of HMS St. Vincent (1815) making sail one last time before going to the ship breakers in 1906. No sound, but one of the few moving images of a Napoleonic era 1st rate. https://mobile.twitter.com/simonharley/status/1534068550935236609

I think we can agree that McKay was a great naval architect without beating up on the Cutty Sark. The two ships were designed for different purposes (tea trade vs. going around Cape Horn) and Linton designed around composite construction rather than all wood. It would frankly have been interesting to see what McKay would have done with composite construction (and steam) had the yard survived. The Essex that he built in 1874-1876 (although I don't know if he designed it) wasn't stricken from the Navy rolls until 1930(!) George K

On the other hand, because the mizzen has a Spencer mast there would be no problems with catching the hoops when raising the spanker.

My assumption has always been that you use built masts when getting solid masts of the correct diameter is too expensive. As @ClipperFan points out, the mizzen is narrower than the bowsprit. I'm going to guess and say that McKay could get 2 feet diameter solid masts but 3.5 feet was becoming prohibitively expensive due to more than 2 centuries of logging around Boston. The photo of Glory in Alaska (where finding big trees would be less of an issue) with a fished main, and solid fore and mizzen would seem to bear this idea out. Given that, and the fact that the description of the fore and main (but not the mizzen) mentions fishing, I think I'm going to go with a solid mizzen. The iron hoops are more open to question. In a straight pole, I would think that the hoops would be useful in preventing the mast from failing due to forces acting along the axis of the mast (i.e. downward forces that would tend to split the wood fibers apart) and not forces that are applied parallel to axis of the mast (i.e. forces from the winds on the sails). If there are proper engineers out there, please correct me. Both paintings have value to get the proper look of the ship, but both have issues. Butterworth, for example, removed all of the deadeyes from the shrouds and backstays, the China Trade painting doesn't have the masts that are known to be fished, but has hoops. Actually, calling them issues is a bit harsh, in both cases, I'm guessing they worked.quickly and/or from sketches because they didn't have photos available, and so inaccuracies crept in. But they are both models in a sense, artistic representations of more complex real things. Ideally, an engineer tells me if my supposition about the utility of the hoops is right or wrong. Barring such information, I think I'm going to go with solid mizzen, no hoops given that the photos of Glory's masts don't show them when they are poles and not built. it's fun, kind of like a detective story to go with the construction. Warm regards, George K