Jump to content

Bob Portsmouth

Banned for supporting piracy
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bob Portsmouth

  1. I assume the trims are for appearance only, they're reminiscent of the transoms of Yorkshire Cobles and Thonnieres and Langoustiers of Brittany where they're simply extensions of the transom boards. A look at some of those may shed a light?
  2. Down to you mate, you left me behind a long time ago!! Best of luck.
  3. I would say the the timber arrangement was structurally more or less the same for the cutters? In which case it won't differ too much from Alert. There are a lot of CAD drawings either on here or Ships of Scale.
  4. Hi Glenn, Chuck has urged me to do just that, I'll have to withdraw my finger!!! I'm moving away from RN and back to fishing sailing boats. Far too many plans!!
  5. That would have been really useful 2 years ago!!! Much better than what I had.
  6. For the build I used 6507 as it was the clearest I could download. I didn't find any with a companionway deckhouse, just a hatchway? I checked with Peter Goodwin regarding the planking, Public Records have no surviving details he could find. He concluded that it probably depended of the shipyard and the usual method they were experienced in. So I went for clinker! I haven't heard previously of Bill Shoulders information?
  7. Hi Craig, yes, all the cutters of that era, from 1777 (Alert) to Diligence 1818?, Lapwing, Swift etc.... were pretty much interchangeable (I'm building Diligence at 1:44 atm. All the fore ends were the same, some had longer counters, all about 70' LOD. I enlarged the original drafts and used the cutter speedy for above decks, there are no surviving drawings of that for Diligence, It would have been much easier to stick with Speedy 1828 (free plans on Shipmodell!) but I wanted to POF. I think the only 2 with extensive build details are Alert and Cheerful, which is why Pete wrote his book and Ch
  8. Speedy and Flirt are 2 ships (brig sloops) designed on cutter hulls for for speed and maneuverability. The only 2 in their class. Oddly they didn't take full advantage of the design (Cochran I think would have agreed!) If you compare the Greenwich drafts they are essentially identical, and, in fact, not that much bigger. I'm not talking about other models here but the design of RN ships at the time. So, in terms of the build I would say the the overall arrangement shares far more with a cutter than any brig of that era (Cruizer class etc). Since the transom is supported on knees I think the pl
  9. I'm of the opinion that all the planking would be horizontal with the exception of the square tuck, on Alert diagonal, on Cheerful vertical. This would make more sense than comparing it to brigs generally as Speedy is based on a revenue cutter design without aft cabins. This would also be necessary allow the planks to fit to the transom knees. However, in terms of the build, and the real ship, it's likely that the transom would be painted so the direction would be less visible (so leave it be Vane!!)
  10. We are of course free to work as we wish. As an adviser on other forums I do try to encourage people to push a little further, to kit bash, even if only slightly, to experiment. I started to make small 'try outs' alongside my build, like a portion of deck, many went to the bin. Some were useful. My skills improved faster the more I pushed. Eventually it became the building I enjoyed more than the finished ship. I have to admit, retirement helps!! So, gentlemen, we have debated. I have nothing further to add. The most important thing is to enjoy the ride and be justifiably proud of our efforts.
  11. Sorry guys, I really don't understand why you would consider not planking?? Yes, it requires accurate work???? You're mom never said it was going to be easy!!
  12. Vane, if you don't plank it now it can't be done later! If you use the printed board I predict that by the time you've finished the build you'll already be regretting it. But you know what they say about opinions?! Bob
  13. Ok Derek. Just looking at Diligence, it was only 8' shorter than Speedy built on the same lines. There isn't much of a tumblehome (though that could be due to me building??)
  14. Thanks Vane, very kind of you. Derek, I seem to remember the bulwark pieces are cut to a shape that doesn't require lateral bending. I've decided not to scratch Speedy, this build will keep me busy until Maris Stella release their kit. Plus I've been on other project for a couple of years (paintings mostly) so need to get my hand and eye working (I've noticed the arthritis has got worse!!) Lots for all of us to do!
  15. DelF. If you don't laterally bend the strakes (downwards) it's difficult to avoid buckling. See Chuck Passaro's youtube video Planking the Winchelsea. I use a different technique but the thinking is the same. I only single plank so they're a lot thicker, 1,5mm minimum, so I use a steamer cobbled together with B&Q plumbing bits! Then usually clamp onto the frames to set. It's a bit of a time consuming fag but I enjoy planking, and there's loads of guns to build!!
  16. I quite like the Halifax but I chose Speedy because of the graceful looks. There was only Speedy and Flirt built on cutter lines. (Funny to think Cochran was given Speedy as a punishment for 'insubordination') I only build small ships (I've lived a mile from Victory for 45 years, I never did like the looks! Nor did Peter G and he was the curator!! Too fat!) So I have a living room full of 1:48's and 1:50's. That keeps M S's kit in scale with my other ships. There isn't a 'Sophie' as described in the novels, O'Brian invented it. It's Speedy with a masters cabin under a poop deck. I'm currently
  17. In my eyes there is little that can match Speedy's prettyness. I've been working up to a build for 3 years, now the time has come. Chris' kit appears very nice but 1:64 for a cutter sized ship if far too small for me, I don't know why he chose this over a quarter scale. I was going to scratch a POB but Maris Stella's 1:48 will save a lot of time, If it doesn't arrive soon I'll start without them!! Which parts are boxwood Vane?? Cheers, Bob
  18. Harlequin, the post is in response to the apparent 'troubling concerns' a lot of builders are confused by, they obviously want the accuracy. I'd leave my timber's their natural colour. Personally I'll never build a first rater, I prefer smaller more graceful ships.
  19. No Gary, it's the Agamemnon made by a friend of his (you??) That doesn't look like the Victory paintjob either. I'm currently working on a painting of Alert with Pete, I have a good eye for colour! IF they haven't got it right it's a very expensive mess.
  20. I don't know if anyone is still following this but it's been a pet subject in all forums. First, I can't see a trace of pink, it's a dull pale not too pleasant lemon(ish). Peter advises there have been details overlooked, ignored or simply not found since he left and he is of the opinion that they still haven't got it nailed down. Possibly, although the pigments can be identified this doesn't, as already pointed out, allow for impurities. Also I'm not convinced the proportions of the mixture have been accurately determined. If Nelson picked it's present colour he must have had a stinking hango
  • Create New...