Srodbro

Dave: All the advice given by those experienced expert modelers above is really good stuff. At the risk of ruffling modeling sensitivities, I offer an alternative that is satisfactory to me, while admitting that I readily trespass on scaling and coloring guidelines, to get the effect I like. Perhaps only the product information might be useful. I used a foil tape product generally used for sealing the seams of foil-backed insulation ( clearly much thicker than scale). I painted several strips of this stuff with a “ hammered copper” spray paint, then gave a dust coating of flat brown, of varying density. I cut the tape to the copper cladding sheet size I wanted ( probably larger than scale) then selected individual tiles at random and applied to the hull. Finally, I dappled on with a nearly dry brush some green patina, Testors “ sublime green”. Here are the products used: Bottom pic is of the painted tape, without the flat brown dusting. Top pic includes several of the cut cladding tiles. Here is the clad hull, prior to green weathering. Here it is with green added. Of course, nobody will ever see the hull from this angle, so here’s an idea of how it looks from the side. I try to represent my models as working ships, weathered, abused and beaten, especially if it is a whaler ( as this one is), rather than pristine, perfect museum exhibits. I have been at working waterfronts, and at ports where recreations and replicas are displayed, and there is clearly a difference in the respective appearances. You have to model what you like ( unless you are getting paid for it) Like I said, just another alternative.

Mystery Solved ! I obtained from Mystic Seaport Museum a drawing of the try works construction details. Here are a couple ( very rough) sketches that describe the construction shown on the drawings. The bottom course of brick rests on a layer of yellow pine sheathing over the deck. This course has open joints with no mortar between. Several courses with mortar joints lay on top of the base course, and form the floor of the furnace. In several locations, brick piers are built up to where the iron pots can rest on them. I suspect ( but this isn’t clear from the construction drawings) that these piers extend all the way down to the sheathing, penetrating the water course. In the sketch the blue represents the water “ coolant “ that provides additional protection to the deck. Filled at the “duck pen” the water level could be kept high enough there to assure flow thru the bottom course interstices. The next sketch shows additional detail The bricks of the bottom water course are widely spaced athwart ships to provide even more water protection. This whole try works structure would have been enormously heavy. There is a wooden plank structure with massive iron brackets fastened to the deck on the starboard and port sides of the structure to hold it in place, but it doesn’t seem there is much to keep it from sliding fore-aft … but apparently the weight was enough. Nonetheless, the working of the ship must have played havoc with the integrity of the joints. Seeing this construction, I wonder whether the water course was less intended to protect the deck from heat than from fat/grease leaking thru the layers of brick ( due to cracks in the masonry and joints ) from the burning of blubber scraps as fuel and spreading fire to the deck below. At any rate, the arrangement of this water course and the structure supporting the pots is more clear.

A clean desk is a sign of a sick mind.

Regarding Post #10 & #11: Might early black “ tar” have been used on hulls primarily to deter deterioration by those nasty salt water worms that eat wood?

Thanks for the reminder. Upon further search of their website, it appears that they have a separate detail drawing of the tryworks construction. I have a set of Morgan plans purchased from them, but the particular detail I’m looking for is not included. I will contact them. Below is a copy of the section thru the tryworks on those plans. Not much help in describing the relationship between the pots/masonry/deck. However, the lowest course of bricks curiously shows conspicuously large joints between the bricks of that course. Perhaps this is to allow water retention at the bottom? We will see what the additional detail shows. I’ll update this post then.

I’m working on a couple of model whale ships and have a question about the construction of the Try-works. I have read that the furnace below the pots enclosed by the brick masonry was separated from the ships structure by a water-filled “duck pen”. Wiki says “A reservoir of water under the bricks keeps the furnace from scorching the wood of the deck. I’m having a hard time visualizing how this worked. In these pics from the web, there is clearly a substantial masonry structure supporting the pots and the lid. And while the fire in the furnace might not have had to be a blaze like in a smelter (I think the blubber probably released its oil at relatively low temperatures, like 150°), the trying out process lasted for days, so the ships structure certainly needed protection from the heat. Iron pots that big had to weigh several hundred lbs plus the weight of the blubbery contents. The masonry support must also have been complemented by some internal baffles to get the heat all around the pots, and back to the chimney. So, where is this layer of protective water? In the lower pic, I can imagine that the wooden structure below the fellow’s knee could be a water tank. But, if so, how was all that masonry and the weight of the pots supported above it?

Don’t forget to obtain a building permit. Workshops are famous focal points for “ home inspectors” and code enforcement officials, which could affect your ability to sell the property some day.

All excellent suggestions. I’d add a couple more regarding electrical: In lieu of duplex receptacles install quadruplex … seems like wherever you put them, you always need one more to avoid plugging/unplugging frequently. Also, consider a couple mounted at ceiling … you gotta do wiring for lights up there anyway, and having the outlet above is another way to avoid dragging the cord across the bench. Finally, if this is an addition, presumably there is a new floor. Consider running power under the floor to a recessed utility box with outlets (maybe even a compressed air terminal) in it. Ok, one other thing: Consider something to keep your feet comfortable while standing. I have a 3’x4’ glued-up section of 3/4” thick T&G flooring to stand on at the workbench ( but not while feeding my table saw) … softer and warmer than concrete. Heck … this is fun: spending your money!

I highly recommend this book as a great guide to deciding what works for you, whether a fine piece of woodworking, or a true WORKbench. You don’t mention if you are contemplating a freestanding bench or a wall bench. My freestanding bench is roughly 3ft by 6 ft, and stands about 39” high. The height was determined by the height of my table saw ( my bench servers as an extended runout) and the runout of my power miter saw, the complementary heights having been useful at times. The other characteristic I’d highly recommend is build it really ROBUST! Mine is made of pressure treated 6x6’s and 4x4’s. The top is a series of laminated 2x4’s, with a 1x6 oak skirt run around the top. With the exception of the top ( which has three threaded steel rod running thru the laminations), all joinery is held together by mortise and tenon and half dovetail joints, wooden pegs and wedges. Pressure treated lumber is 50% heavier than kiln dried, and shrinks very little. The bench is heavy, and without being bolted down, doesn’t move. I generally build solid hull models, several have been large half-hulls, and when attacking a stack of glued together laminations with planes, rasps, gouges and chisels it is nice to have all your effort go thru the tool and into the wood, and not into moving the bench or fighting wobbly joints. As mine is a WORKbench and not furniture, I don’t hesitate cutting right into the top, or drilling holes into it to secure a piece or an auxiliary light source … I fill and refinish the top every couple of years. While I love my shop, I envy anyone who is setting up a new one.

Mark: My vote would be for rigging off-model as much as possible. I tried it on my last model, and liked it. However, on my next build I’m going to rig everything from topmast up separately from the lower mast and yard, to keep a lot of the clutter from above out of the way for as long as possible. Also, I’d wait until the very end to add the ratlines for the lower mast shrouds … keeps open space for accessing the fife rail and pinrails to secure lines from above

Dvm27: Thanks for that video link. Breathtaking!

I am currently building Kate Cory and Chas Morgan. I’ve read many of the posts on copper weathering, but have a specific question. The pic below is from ModelExpo catalog of Morgan. I really like the look of this copper hull. I don’t think this model is, however, from the kit … maybe a prototype. Certainly not the copper tape included in the kit. My question: Does anyone know what the coppering/weathering technique on this model is? Or, any guesses? Thanks.

Here is what I did. 1 If no sail, then no buntlines. If sail is furled, then run buntlines to belaying point. 2. On Fore Topgallent yard with no sail, attached block for clew to sheet ( here, Topgallent yard is in lowered position, while Topsail yard is partly lowered for reefing). 3. At lower course, with furled sail ( although I think same could be done on bare yard) attach together clew, sheet and tack. Distance from yard/boomkins would be whatever looks good to you, but on mine the clew is buried up in the sail) 4. If no headsails, I just eliminated the halyard, downhaul and sheets on this model, but have hooked them all together on another, similar to the clew-sheet-tack on a square sail. All the details of my rigging may not be entirely correct (the upper block for the Fore Topgallent clew should certainly be closer to the yard) but I take artistic license on my models, for my own enjoyment.

ANSWERED! I knew someone out there would eventually reveal its name. In NRG Journal, Vol. 67, No. 2, page 164, it is named as an Angel Cleat, (presumably the two “ wings” calling to mind an angel. Thanks to Clayton Feldman for his articles on building a model of Skuldelev 3.

This thread may be a good reference to respond to your #43 post.

Just a thought … If using the dowel-in-drill chuck method, be prudent about your drill RPM. High RPM increases risk of snapping off the spar, perhaps with injurious results ( to the spar and drill operator) especially on thin spars. More so the longer the spar is.

Probably can’t go wrong with basic black. Images of Pride of Baltimore I and II seem to show black. I don’t think there is any standard. I think whatever turns you on. And even tho they say to never, ever use glossy finish ( flats only), sometimes I kinda like a bit of sheen on my spars. I’ve done black, white, green and gray with clear or natural on the unpainted portion.

Very nice work.

Your build is really looking good. Very, very nice. Just a comment on channels and pinrails. On Dapper Tom, the length and mounting height of the channels and pinrails are just about equal, and almost exactly opposite each other below the rail. I found to my chagrin on past models that when I eventually get to rigging shrouds and belaying lines from above that the channels and pinrails invariably are weak points that break when I hunker down on the lanyards, or insert a belaying pin into a just-a-bit too tight hole ( I’m probably just too heavy handed for this work). So, I now make a point of reinforcing those elements with a piece of brass wire run thru each. I reinforce at the fife rails, as well. Just a thought. Those things are really inconvenient to fix while rigging. ( Sorry … not sure why pics got rotated).

What type of wood did you use for the cat heads?

Line ( tack) terminates on the boomkins, outboard of the block. I erroneously terminated mine inboard of the block.

Boomkins for foresail tacks. Circled in green. Not sure how I decided on size shape or location, probably from a different model, but seems to work. It’s hidden pretty well on the plans

SHIFTING TOPMASTS In Chapter Eight of Truelove, notorious landlubber Dr. Maturin describes to another landlubber the process they are observing of shifting topmasts. As I am, myself, a landlubber, I googled several references to learn what this process entails. It’s a lot of work. But, Maturin says: The old Surprise, with a crew that had been together a great while, all men-of-war’s men, was extraordinarily good at it; and I remember that once, in the West Indies, shifting topmasts at the same moment as the Hussar, considered a crack ship, she did so in one hour and twenty-three minutes, Now, it isn’t quite clear whether Maturin is recalling the time for one mast or all three, but either way, that seems a very short time for the effort involved. What do you think?

1). Raised letters on transom: Applied a raised name board with flat letters 2). Skylight: On another model I wanted to be able to see down thru the hatches to the deck below. I chiseled out a portion of the hull about double the size of the hatch opening, framed the opening, added the cowelling and planked the lower deck. It turned out well with the shadows highlighting the depth. I suppose something similar could be done for a skylight.

Thanks for your kind comment. I approach modeling as an activity designed to be satisfactory to me, so how picky I am at the details depends on the day I am doing them. Frequently, they don’t pass muster the following day, but as another member states, “ the wood is forgiving “. I initially spent hours carving, sanding, filling, sanding, filling, etc. ad naseum trying to get the hull shaped just right, tossing the whole thing into the trash, retrieving it, and continuing on another day. In the end, I decided that wasn’t nearly as important to me as getting into the satisfaction of the rest of the build. So, my tip would be: If it becomes a burden, it’s no longer a hobby. Also, remember that the model is an illusion. Unless you’re looking at the model from directly below ( and not many people do that) you can’t tell if the hull is exactly symmetrical. I have learned that Model Shipways solid hull blanks are machined more symmetrical than others are. This model has been around for many years and instruction sheets have been revised several times. The first model I bought I got on eBay, and it was an unbuilt kit from many years ago .. the instructions were printed on one 8 1/2 x 11 sheet, rather than the multi-page booklet that comes in the kit now. But, the plans appear the same. Consequently, there might be some instructions that don’t exactly match the plans. So, you may need to use some of your own woodworking intuition to get where you want to be. As far as getting the masts located as desired, I learned to depend less on the hole in the deck and more on adjusting the shrouds and stays … maybe make the holes a bit too big. The general rule I read about for rigging sequence is “Inboard-to-outboard and fore-to-aft. “ Belaying a line on a pin on the fife rail after the shrouds and ratlines are in place ( that is, doing all running rigging after all standing rigging) can be challenging, tho that’s what I did on my first build. On my current builds I’m experimenting with installing rigging as much as I can onto the masts and spars off-ship prior to stepping the masts into the hull, then firming up standing rigging, then tightening up on running rigging. Like I say: I am experimenting with that process. Here’s a pic We shall see how that works. Might wind up in the trash some day. Ok, just one more tip then I’ll return your log to you: I could never get the footropes on the yards to look good using any sort of thread .. they just wouldn’t hang right. I found using fine brass wire and then carefully painting it had a much more pleasing effect. Good luck.