Srodbro

I thought I would add a couple comments about scale and level of detail of my project. Scale I listed the scale of my model as 1:96, or 1/8”=1’-0”. The truth is, I don’t know what the scale really is. The resources I was able to consult while developing the plans varied in the length listed, as I mentioned earlier. The issue was further confused by data given about Fra Berlanga’s many sister ships. Also, I could never really reconcile the length of the test tank model (about 20’-4”) with any of the referenced ship lengths. The test tank model appears to be have been built closest to a scale of 1:24 ( or, 1/2”=1’-0”) but that results in a hull length of about 490 feet, which far exceeds any referenced length. Since my field measurements of the test tank model are the basis of the lines of my model ( mine being really a model-of-a-model-of-a-ship), and since I built to 25% of the field measurements, I can only say that my Fra is about 1:96. In the end, that’s probably good enough. Level of Detail I never imagined detailing this model to the same level as I have done on ships of sail (think: belaying pins, deadeyes), but wanted enough detail to evoke an image of the function and character of the ship. I thought the image below, enhanced with representative colors, was a good guide. It is included in a US Maritime Commission listing of cargo ship types. (Drawing by Karsten-Kunibert Krueger-Kopiske). It gives a good representation of the general arrangement of the cargo handling rig, location of superstructure, and suggestion of hull shape and proportions. Lastly, while I am calling this a scratch built model, I am clearly using some manufactured components (propeller, anchor, lifeboat stanchions, rails and ladders and a few other items from Blue Jacket) which takes me out of the rarified level of EdT’s Young America and Sr Amilio’s Montanes as well as many other purists (the work of whom I am in awe of), I am equally as clearly not building a kit. Nonetheless, this project has presented its own lessons and opportunities to learn the craft. Enough talk ... on to modeling.

Assembling the “sandwich” by glueing together each cutout was next. You can never have too many clamps. The width of each of the layers of the sandwich is ( obviously) from the ship centerline to the outboard curve of the hull. Because a half-hull generally stops at the centerline, this creates a problem for modeling masts, or other features that are located on the centerline. Either those features must be cut in half (difficult with masts), mounted off-center, or the hull model must be more than a half-hull. I chose the last option by adding a “spine” at the port side of the centerline. This 3/4” thick spine makes my model a “half-hull-plus-six-foot” model. Not only does this allow mounting fill diameter masts, but adds adds another dimension ( pun intended) to the visual impression of the bow shape (more on that later). Attacking the sandwich with bench planes, spokeshave, rasp, chisels, gouges and sand paper, the near final hull emerged. I chiseled out a portion of the hull to insert a separate carving of the propeller shaft nacelle, and also added the keel and rudder, topside bulwarks and the first application of wood filler. Applied the first coat of primer, which highlighted the many defects. After a sequence of further sanding-filling-sanding-filling-priming-sanding-filling-priming, (sometimes I think my models are equal parts of wood, filler, and paint) she was deemed good enough to return to the shipyard for fitting of the rudiments of a superstructure. Here the extra six feet width created by the “spine” adds depth to the bow.

Having decided on how to make the hull measurements and creating the tool to do so, I descend on Mr Morris’s 20ft model, and collected the profiles. First step was to mark out the section intervals on the hull, 12” apart, with masking tape. In the second pic above, notice the milk jug on the deck ... used for bailing the model when afloat. Gives a good idea of the size of this model. I dont have any pics pics of the contour gauge in action, since using it was a two man activity: one person to hold the gauge plumb in place against the hull, the other to adjust the gauge “pins” to the contour. But, once a contour was taken at a section location, the outline was traced onto large graph paper. The two outlines of the gauge measurements, Section #5 and #6, are shown above. The location of the waterline and ship centerline were also recorded for each section. The intersection of these two lines established a common reference for all 20 sections, and was used to align them all. The “sawtooth” outline from the contour gauge measurements were smoothed into a curve (red line) representing the hull. The curves for each section were then traced onto a single section drawing for the aft sections, and another for the forward sections. After establishing lines parallel to the waterline, offsets from the ship centerline to the hull line could be measured for each waterline and, after applying a scaling factor ( more on that later), each point is plotted onto a plan view, thus creating a series of waterline curves. Tracing each parallel “ waterline” onto a 1/2” thick poplar board, cutting out each layer of the sandwich, then stacking the boards in order, resulted in something vaguely resembling a half-hull ship model. The elapse time for the research, field measuring, drafting and first appearance of something tangible was just over one year.

You might find when you rig your ship that minor warping of spars can be mitigated by the tension on the lines.

Valeriy V: Laser scanning is what originally came to my mind, as well. However, cost was of primary concern, cost that would be exacerbated by the fact that Mr Morris’s 20ft long test tank model was located in a semi-rural location in Maine. I did consider a laser based methodology of my own, which I described in a post under another topic: I would set up two laser levels, one with a horizontal beam parallel to the ship’s waterline, the other parallel to the ship’s centerline. The horizontal laser beam would be set at an elevation just below the keel, and the vertical laser beam set just outside the port or starboard side. The model’s beam is 34”, and draft is 10”. Using a carpenter’s framing square, placing the heel of the square on the hull would allow reading offsets from the two laser beams on the blade and tongue of the square. Small levels would have to be secured to the blade and tongue of the square to assure it was plumb and level. Station lines would be taped to the hull along the waterline at recorded intervals to guide in the placement of the square. However, I discarded this approach. In theory I think it was sound, but impractical in the execution. Given the outdoor working conditions, it would have been very difficult to setup the lasers, we would be working in daylight which would make measurements hard to read, and if it were the least bit windy, the laser beams might be jiggling all over the place. How the old-timers actually took the lines off full-sized ships, would be interesting to know. I imagine some sort of scaffolding system, with registration stations from which distances to any point on the hull could be measured, then, using trigonometry, the offsets defined and plotted into a series of line drawings. Which, I think, is what laser scanning does, albeit electronically and a lot faster. But, following such a manual measuring-calculating methodology for my purposes seemed quite laborious. Then I hit on the method I ultimately used. Since what I really was trying to do was to record the contours of the ship, I created an oversized contour gauge. The frame is built of two layers of oak flooring material with about 40, 3/8”x1/8” “blades” sandwiched between. Machine screws with wingnuts allow adjustments of the compression against the blades to allow them to be positioned. Eventually, a bubble level with a zeroing quadrant was added. Pressed up against a curved shape (such as a bucket) the blades are adjusted to the shape, then clamped into place. I tested using the gauge on a canoe, and it captured the profile pretty well. the blue pen marks the gunnel, the red marks the keel. By using this device, I decided I could take contours at regular intervals along the hull, and then draw a set of sections.

I soon learned that the most difficult part of skratch building a model of a ship that is, while not obscure, is nonetheless not popular enough to have attracted a lot of attention; that the biggest difficulty, especially for a novice modeler, is finding accurate information about the ship. The modern source of all knowledge, Google, turned up various links, most of which lead to widely varying “information”. Fra Berlanga was 431 ft long, or 469 ft, or something in between, with a draft of either 19 or 25 ft, or something in between, depending on the source. She was built either during or after WWII. Other links took me to articles on her owner (originally US Navy, then United Fruit Company) and to books about United Fruit’s (perhaps nefarious) activities in Central America. All of which was very interesting, but not very helpful in pulling together information for building a model. Even the images found were of so many different vessels, it was nearly impossible to make any conclusions about her. I then posted a topic on this Model Ship World forum, asking for Banana Boat information, and through a couple of respondents, connected with member Jerome Morris. Mr Morris has had an interest in Fra Berlanga for several years, and confirmed, much to my chagrin, that there simply are NOT any surviving drawings of Fra’s lines from which she could be modeled. But, he said he did have a source that might be useful to me. Several years before, he obtained a not-so-ordinary model of Fra. The model is over twenty feet long! It was originally used as a test tank model by the builder, and subsequently used as an instructional model for a maritime school in New York. I won’t relate the entire sequence of events that led to his possession of it (that story belongs to Mr Morris) but suffice it to say it is interesting, and his restoration effort continues. The pic above is the condition in which he received it. The pic below is representative of the progress of his restoration. To my great appreciation, Mr Morris allowed me unlimited access to his project ( and permission to use images of it). Now I had what I considered to be an authoritative represention of the dimensions and lines of Fra Berlanga. All I had to do was figure out how to shrink a 20’+ model down to something at 1:96 scale. I know how to build a model up from plans and sections, but how do you scale down from a 3-D object to 2-D plans and sections?

This is my first scratch build log, and it will certainly not be up in the rarefied company of many of other members scratch build logs, but still may provide some interesting information, techniques, and entertainment. This project has its genesis in a passing remark made by an in-law. Some time ago, I scratch built a half hull model of the six masted schooner Wyoming based on drawings I obtained from the Maine Maritime Museum. I did so because I wanted to get an a better appreciation of just how big she was. I was happy with the results, but, at nearly five feet long, the Admiral had objections to where she was going to hang (the model, not the Admiral). Knowing that my son’s in-laws just completed a home addition and we’re decorating with a nautical theme, I thought, “Hey, they’ll really like this!” And, so they did. During the unveiling of my “gift”, my son’s Father-in-law mentioned that his father had been a captain in the merchant marine of the Fra Berlanga. As it happened, due to many unfortunate events in family history, the only memento he possessed of his father’s, related to his ship, was a photo similar to the one attached to this log. He said he wished he had a model, similar to the Wyoming, of Fra Berlanga. That was my que ... “I’ll make you one”. Thus begins my adventure.

Very interested in following this build. I have built several models, now, with solid hulls, several from kits. I became frustrated enough carving down what I judged to be grossly inaccurate kit hulls that I have reverted to building up my own solid hulls, which is a lot more work, but allows me to start shaping something that more closely resembles the finished shape. Perhaps my experiences have been anomalies. I wonder if you could show in your build log how much ( or how little) you have to carve off of the hull blank to get to the finished shape. Oh yeah ... it’s nice to see you thinking about furled sails while still carving the hull ... optimism at its best!

Gary I used a similar methodology when building my solid hull Niagara, but created a jig for each section. Since my solid hull didn’t have any timbers extending above the deck, I had to create my own structure. I then used the same jig to form the ceiling. The details can be seen in my build log.

Was just catching up with your posts and saw the St Clair with the Aurora Borealis. I’ve seen them, and your painting really captures the ethereal nature of the colorful curtains in the sky.

Darrell Great work on the boat. Will the addition of thwarts and stern seats help pull the gunnels back in?

Thanks to both for your kind comments. I now have a much higher respect for those who frequently work with this type figure. Much more difficult than I anticipated to place limbs where you want them and to hold onto such irregular shapes with a forceps while cementing into place. Used a lot of CA de-bonder on my fingers.

Thought I’d update. Found these guys to modify. And I found this guy to be my Tastego harpooneer from Moby Dick. Turned out ok, I think ... not going in any museum, but my Grandaughter likes it.

Hi, Tom Been following your Niagara build with interest, as I am (more or less) scratch building her sister ship, Lawrence. I’ve found you can depend on the advice of Mikiek and 6ohiocav with confidence. On an aside, several times a year we drive through your neck of the woods (White River Junction ... eat at Thyme restaurant) on our trips between Illinois and Maine. Hard to beat that scenery along the Connecticut River valley. Good luck with your build.

Absolutely outstanding planking and construction technique! That settles it ... my next build is going to be at a large enough scale to be able to show the planking detail, hoping that I can do half as good as yours. Really enjoy following your work.

Mike: Maybe the intent of the “really thick” first layer of planking is to permit radical fine tuning of the shape, sort of as a semi-solid hull below you final planking. Just a thought.

I’ve been troubled by the looks of pump handles on my models, as well, trying to reconcile a stubby handle with the need for leverage. Ive often wondered if longer handles might not be removable, like capstan bars. Though, I’ve never seen that detailed.

I was aboard Constitution a couple days ago and noticed the deck plank joint in the pic. Follow the plank joint starting at the toe of the person in the pic. Right at her toe, and again near the bottom right corner of the pic, there is a short “jog” in the joint, right angle, about 2” long. This is on the berth deck. There are similar joints on the gun deck (near the step, right of the white line, right of the sea chest in pic below) I noticed these joints in many planks, mostly within about 10 ft of ship centerline. A pair of adjacent planks may have several of these joints along their length. Do these “castellated” plank joints have a special function?

Darrell: My Lawrence is essentially scratch built based on the Model Shipways Niagara kit plans that I lofted to build a solid hull. I created a build log (in the scratch build forum, under the title “US Brig Niagara — solid hull experiment” ... sorry, don’t know how to make a link to it) and decided to rename my build Lawrence because there is even less historical information about her than Niagara, so I thought I could take more liberties with my model. The only parts from the kit that I have used so far are the horn timbers and the gun castings. I considered starting a log for Lawrence, but my workmanship is clearly at the lowest end of the spectrum of talent exhibited by most of the scratch-build modelers, and don’t want to diminish the quality of that forum. The helm ... I actually think they had a tiller, even though a wheel was used on larger contemporary ships. There is some real mechanical advantage contributed by all that tiller rigging. Thanks for for your compliment ... far too kind.

Darrell: Sorry for hijacking your topic Mike: Certainly, I cannot say that there were differences between the two ships ... most texts I have read say they were identical (which, by the way, I question, since Lawrence was launched two weeks before Niagara) ... so my differences are between what is most typically modeled, and what I (with at least a little support from other authorities or logic) frankly, like. Here are the differences I am modeling: An extra gunport on each side near the bow The wheel instead of tiller No boat davits No royal yards (this, based on the painting below, which is purported to be Lawrence ... even tho it’s dangerous to base much on artwork ) Colors, obviously. I may find more on my next trip to the Museum in Erie, PA, which has a model of Lawrence. Ok, Darrell. I promise no more hijacking.

Darrell: I am building Niagara’s sister Lawrence, admittedly taking liberties with what is typically done by most modelers of these brigs, and was recently faced with the same dilemma as you regarding the space around the capstan, skylights and companionway. I am taking a different approach, capitalizing on differences among the authorities on what the originals looked like. Chapelle, in his History of the American Sailing Navy, Figure 60, (lower plan) appears to show, not a tiller, but a wheel as the helm, which frees up a lot of space in this area. That certainly doesn’t help you at the stage you are in your build (with your beautifully rigged tiller), but might be an alternative for others to consider. Which is the course I am following, and will be adding the aftermost “skylight” as a grate. (Although this approach begs the question of where the compass would have been mounted!). As I’ll soon be starting my rigging, I appreciate your tip on the braces.

I am currently building the US Brig Lawrence and intend to rig her similar to that shown in this painting In the postings and build logs, I have seen examples of furled sails and full sails, but none of sails aback against the mast. I have had some success on another build, using paper sails, some with brass wire bolt ropes, in modeling full sails, and did okay with furled sails, but am troubled about getting the lines of the outlines of the mast and lifts into the backed sail. Any tips about achieving the desired look?

Tom: Rybka, in his book, the Lake Erie Campaign of 1813, refering to Niagara, lists “species used in construction of the hull as red, black and white oak, as well as cherry, chestnut and poplar, with cedar and pine being used to plank the bulwarks. The need for speed meant that the selection process was the nearest large tree, then the one behind it and then the next beyond that.” And while the species may have been red, black, or white, it was also “green”.

Ultimately got two boats that I’ll live with. Planking turned out okay but required some slivers to be added to fill gaps. Dark stain hides lots of problems.

Mark: Allow me to demonstrate my ignorance with a question ... On the section drawing of the cannon rigging, there is an eyebolt and ring above the gunport on the ceiling. Any idea what the purpose of this was? Your build looks great. I like the way the blackening of the guns turned out.