TomShipModel

Frankie, A very good explanation. Although I've belayed many times, this is the first time that someone clearly defined the how and why as well as the number of turns etc. Question though: If you are belaying to simply a timber head, that is, no underside, how do you belay? Depending on type of ship, and period, belaying pins might not have been used. If belaying was simply to a timber head, what is the correct way to belay? Thanks all, Tom

I do not use glue when I install the masts or spars. There really is no reason to. Yes, if you broke one, it would be one less problem to get around. Except for the lower yards, everything was able to be taken down at sea. You really don't need to glue anything as the rigging will hold everything together. Regarding the lower masts; I install wedges to keep them relatively tight at the deck. In full scale, there are also wedges where the mast passes through the deck. This allows me to adjust mast rake as I rip. Tom

Druxey, Thank you for that information. Very interesting that there was the forerunner of I guess a dependent care account back then. Tom

Good morning everyone, I am contemplating putting sails on my current project, HMS Liverpool of 1757. The model is 1:96. If I do sails, I'm going to use silk span. Somewhere on MSW, I read a method of using silk span, and printing the tabling and sail plan using an inkjet printer. I did a word search of the forums and did not find it. Frankly, I don't remember if it was a separate topic or a build log. It looked very promising. So, hopefully one or more of you have a better memory that I. Thanks for any and all help, Tom

Good morning all. I've seen this model up close. Very well done as others have said. Tom

Ron, Thank you for posting the video. I haven't use an airbrush at all up to now but I do have two. At some point I will give it a try. I wish that I had seen this video before I got the air brushes because I had no idea what I have and why they would work or not. Now I do have the guidance that I need, and chances are the airbrushes that I have might not be the right fit. Anyway, this video is a must for anyone who is even thinking about using an air brush.

Good morning all, As said previously on this thread, I second that you keep both. I have both and do occasionally use the Preac for very fine work, and when I'm too lazy to change blades. To be totally honest though, I haven't used my Preac in a while. The Byrnes saw I use almost every day that I'm working in the shop. Before I had my Byrnes saw, I made gratings with the Preac. The gratings for my current build (1:96) were made with the Byrnes saw. As far as blades go, Thurston in Rhode Island is first rate. I've used them several times and never been disappointed. This is doubly special because most of their business is with professional jewelers and the like. No order is too small. Their customer service is tremendous. I've ordered from them on Monday, and got blades on Friday of the same week. Google their website to access their catalog and request a quote. In a day or two you have a quote and instructions on ordering. They are first class and the blades are excellent. The three most used power tools in my shop are all be Jim Byrnes. The saw most of the time, followed by the disc and thickness sanders. I have sheets that I first thickness as needed and then cut on my Byrnes saw. Best regards,

Toni, The photo appears to be too large a file. Only one loaded.

Toni, Here are two photos of the binnacle.

Hi Toni, Excellent work on both the stanchions and the Binnacle. Turning very thin brass is a chore. I've been told, that the grade of the brass, and its hardness can be very big factors. The women from Sheerline that was at the last NRG Conference can be a help. She gave me a few very good pointers on turning very thin wooden stanchions. In ant case, the alternate method looks great. I bet that the prototype wasn't turned from one piece but made up of several pieces as you have done. The good thing about this is that you keep trying until you find something that works for you. Regarding the Binnacle; I made one for my 1:96 Liverpool, also from Swiss pear. I will post one or two photos another time. I modeled it from the Binnacle on the Victory and in the Anatomy of HMS Pandora with two compasses flanking a central lantern. For the lantern, I used a plastic bead of the appropriate size with a brass ring as a base. The lanterns are printed compass roses that I downloaded from open source pictures on the internet. I simply copied them and reduced to the appropriate size. All of that is barely visible, but it is visible. Just put "compass" into your search engine. to you all, I've seen this model in person, and it is a gem! All the best,

Thanks Chuck, SO, this allows me to filter down the content so that I can quickly review the topics that I want to follow. It helps because, as we have discussed, if I want to "follow a topic" my filter blockes those notifications as spam. This resolves that. Thanks for the tutorial.

Good Morning all, I'm currntly fabricating masts and spars for HMS Liverpool. First, as I've known from experience over and over, use the given dimensions rether than scaling from a drawing. The set of plans that I have for the masts and spars are shown on a drawing that was published in Shipwright years ago. While it is generally 1:96, the tops and crosstrees are not drawn to the same scalle as the masts. Hence, two crosstree/trestletrees go in the object lesson bin! Steel defines the following: "SNAPING, reducing the ends of any piece to a less substance." The crosstree has what is called a "snape" at each end. Basically, it is a tapering in the vertical plane with the taper of differnt length at either end of the cross tree. Lee's does describe these in detail as does Steel. I've seen many models with the longer taper on the fore side and the shorter on the after end of the cross tree. However, Steel says the following: "TRESTLE-TREES are sawed or hewed to their sizes thus. In length, they are one-fourth the length of the top-mast; in depth, half the given diameter of the mast; and in thickness, two-thirds of the depth. The insides are trimmed straight, and out of winding, and the thickness set off parallel thereto. The uppersides line straight and square, and the depth parallel. The undersides are snaped at each end, and the edges chamfered the length of the snape. One end to be once and a half the depth, the other end once the depth only, within the ends, and the snapes are lined to half the depth of the trestle-tree, and rounded to a sweep at the ends; the lower outer edge is chamfered along the whole length, and the inside only to the cross-trees. The longest snapes to be at the foremost ends of the main trestle-trees, and the after ends of the foremast trestle-trees." ​The instruction in the bold text is something that I've not seen before nor described anywhere else. It also doesn't state and instruction on the mizzen mast. This detail will not be visible to the casual observer of a model in 1:96. However, it is very curious. Have any of you run into this previously? ​Thanks,

Good Morning Mark, Yes, I agree with you. Caution is the word. For example, possibly a typo, the length of the bowsprit varies a full three feet between two editions of Steel. Also, mast diameters are a bit beefier in latter editions. I am building Liverpool after her last refit, and between 1776 and 1778 when she sank in Jamaica Bay off of Long Island New York. I have a set of masts and spars that are on the Model Shipwright plan. However, they are of mixed scales so you need to be very certain to resize based on the rules in Lee's or Steel. Also, although much different, David Anscherl's Swan class give clues although you need to go back to the earlier establishment. Very good discussion. Thanks

Good Evening Dave, Yes, there are rules for wooldings and latter Iron bands. Whether wooldings or iron bands was based on period rather than ship size. If you can get hold of Lees, or better, Steel, there are tabulations of how many mast reinforcements would be required. Basically, it was based on whether the mast was a "made mast" or a single pole. In most instances for both British and American vessels, the reinforcement was for the lower masts and for the bowsprit. Top masts and higher were generally pole masts and do not have reinforcement bands. I just needed to go to Steel for my current build, HMS Liverpool, a 6the rate, 28 gun frigate built in 1757. As others have stated, smaller vessels had pole masts and there was no reinforcement needed. Again, use the available references and you will get the picture. For example, schooners were small enough that the masts are pole masts. SO, no wooldings or iron bands. Hope that this helps, Tom

Good morning all, Well, thank you all for the replies. B.E. Yes, I will put up a building log soon. Frankly, due to work and other models, I've literally been working on and off for about a decade! I don't think that I'll go all of the way back to the beginning but I wil give a general description of what I found out along the way. An interesting issue that I run into is that I will get a good and precise method for doing something, and then finish that particular aspect and then, years latter, when I have to do it again, I have to rediscover how I did it. Very frustrating. Marc, I will be searching out the best source of serving and seizing line. I have quite a bit of rigging line that I collected over the years, but the really fine stuff is tough to find. I'll get through it though. Henry, I already crazy. You are correct, there is compromise because some actual practices just will not look correct in very small scale. That is whats important. For example, if a line is parceled over worming and seizing, doing all of that in scale would be much too bulky. Druxey, yes, the differences among different sources is a bear. However, I don't think that anyone will be doing that much detail measuring on Liverpool. Of course, it has to look right. For a 28, the bowsprit length in two different editions of Steel varies almost 3 feet! There are other minor differences in spar diameter and length but, a three foot delta would be very noticiable in any scale. Best regards all,

Thank you. I really appreciate the help. I have a the 1932 Sweetman reprint of that edition. I just finished the lower masts and bowsprit for Liverpool. I have the plans that were published in Shipwright as well as a copy of an earlier Edition. The dimensions for the lower masts as well as the bowsprit differ quite a bit. I'm going to pick one version and go with it. I'm going to put all of the rigging attachments on the spars before I step them permanently. Being only a 28, the stay collars and gammoning etc. are 5.5 inch rope. That's 0.018 inch diameter in scale. At that size, serving line would be .003" diameter. It would be very bad to use seizing that just looks out of scale. I'll see how it goes. I think that now that I have some time, I might just start a build log to get photos up. We'll see. Anyway, thank you very much. Tom

B.E. On the same website that you sent me to for the Occupation of Newport, I found a color painting of "Battle of Fort Washington", fought on the Hudson in 1776. It definitely is a White Ensign. Thank you sir, for the lead. Best Regards,

Thank You BE, What edition of Steel do you have? I need to read it a little more closely. Lee's was lead to the confusion. I'll use hearts for the stays. It is likely that I will also use them for Bobstays and Shrouds as well. They are very small for the bobstays in 1:96. Thank you for your help. I've had a valid reference all along, but alas I believe that I'm being a little bit lax. Looks like Steel replaces Lee's on my desk. Best Regards

Good morning everyone. Finally I am progressing with my current project, HMS Liverpool circa 1778, 1:96. I have made the lower masts and bowsprit and I am now putting riggind attachment points on each. Now ther question: I've checked Steel, Lee's, and David A's Swan Class to verify attachment of the Fore stay, Fore Preveter Stay and Bowsprit shrouds. Swan class show a heart (open in the case of the Fore Stay. Steel says either or, while Lee's also shows either or. Although Liverpool was built in 1757, she was rebuilt twice. Also, twenty years latter, I'm sure that her rig was updated. If I was into 1800 and latter, hearts would definitly be it. The question would be, in 1770 to 1778, would hearts be used? My guess is that when Liverpool was originally rigged it used deadeyes. But, how about in 1778? Thanks for your comments.

Thank you very much. You simulated some further thought, I believe that somewhere there is a painting of the evacuation of the Royal Governor and his family from Williamsburg Virginia. HMS Alfred was the flag ship of that squadron and Liverpool was a part. I seem to recall that Hahn has it in his book about Alfred, but it is in black and white. I'm sure that I can google it to get a look at the color version. Thank you very much for the input and good advise. Do you have any photos of Pegasus? I will post phots of Liverpool somewhere but I don't think that this thread is the correct place. Best regards, Tom

Yes, that's the one. The second of its class and the first to have cable gear raised one deck as well as the pumps etc. Sank in a storm in Long Island Sound in a storm. Thanks, Tom

Good Morning Blue Ensign, Thanks for the quick reply. I was frankly thinking along the same lines, but since there was a Shop Note, and I'd seen the same method described in the instructions for an old Model Shipways kit, I wanted to put it out there for discussion. By the way, any idea what ensign was carried by HMS Liverpool in 1778? Thanks again, Tom

Good Morning all, My current build is HMS Liverpool is 1:96 scale. The model will have a full rig. The prototype way to attach the ratlines is by clove hitch. However, I came across a Shop Note is the first volume of NRG Shop Notes, that sowed the ratlines for scales 1:96 an smaller. The reason being that a knot for that scale would look too large. Basically, you knot he ratline on the outermost shroud and then, with a very small sowing needle, pass it through and around each of the other shrouds and then tie it off on the opposite shroud. First, have you ever done it that way, and second, whether you have or haven't, is that an acceptable method. Doing it by sowing it in would save a lot of time. I'm not interested so much in saving time. I'm interested in fidelity of scale. All opinions and comments welcome. Thanks, Tom

Good evening all. I'm very impressed by this. I know that I am late to this topic, but there is something out there that can help you and it was published by the NRG in the Nautical Research Journal. It is called "Tables Showing the masts and Spars, Rigging and Stores etc. of Every Description Allowed to the Different Classes of Vessels Belonging to the Navy of the United States" Prepared by the Board of Navy Commissioners and Approved by the Secretary of the Navy, Washington: Printed by Peter Force 1826. While not a rigging plan, it gives numbers and dimensions of all Masts, Spars, Rigging Blocks, as well as how many are used for Ships from three Deck Ship of the line down to Schooners. The first two tables, Masts, Spars, Rigging etc, were published in Nautical Research Journals 14-2, 14-3, and 14-4. You can find these on the NRJ CDs available at the NRG Store. The remaining tables were published in the Journal a decade latter. These are also in the CD set. I used these tables extensively for rigging my model of USS Wasp. Although the Wasp is almost twenty years earlier, these tables did give me good incite into the suttle differences between English and United States practices. I hope that this is of some use. Tom

Toni, The friezes are wonderful. The whole concept is very daunting to me. At some point I'll attempt this.