Jump to content

Bob Portsmouth

Banned for supporting piracy
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bob Portsmouth

  1. 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?

  2. 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 Chuck made the kit! Are you intending to POB Craig? If you're going bulkhead Speedy will save a lot of grief, And I haven't found any above deck details for Lapwing. (You could just change the name, like my sprightly!!!) Spyglass, the drafts show a typical single transom.



  3. 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 planking would HAVE to be horizontal. I think that Chris got this detail wrong.

  4. 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!!)

  5. 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. Good luck to all.

  6. 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!

  7. 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!!

  8. 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 building Diligence, POF, which is my 4th cutter. It's larger (1:44) because it was intended to go into the Dockyard Museum. I don't think it will be good enough so no doubt I'll keep it. After a brig I'll probably move back to coastal fishing boats where I started. My idea is to produce an action diorama, blood on the decks, have a try at smoke and flame (lol) There'll be so much detail and scratch made crew etc. I would seriously benefit from a kit to save time. Meantime I'm enjoying your build, please keep it detailed with any problems you run into. Lots to learn!!


  9. 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

    flirt, speedy 1782 sophie.jpg

  10. 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 hangover at the time. Peter has shown me a build which he says is accurate. If so there was more yellow. (colour described by the carpenter as yellow, not yellow ochre, mixed with white)

  • Create New...