bruce d

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48377930 Bruce

I have used all of them except CAD in preparing my Pickle. The most promising for a quick result must be photo editing provided the subject has the right proportions to start with. The most reliable must be 'Paper, pencil and ruler (with a little help from French curves) and an eraser.

Fantastic. Your build log of Cheerful is my benchmark. Bruce

I will tell you about my process before I offer advice: you may think I am bonkers. I am nearly finished drawing my plans. This will be my third version. As there were no drawings of the prototype, but her dimensions were known, I researched, compared other ships, studied scantlings, fretted over details and then, with relief, settled on La_Recouvrance as a starting point. She shared many features with my subject AND had been modeled AND was well documented. So I used her lines, distorted the image with PhotoShop to make her the correct beam, painstakingly traced each frame section to scale, drew a keel, blah blah blah... and then realised that La_Recouvrance just could not be stretched/tweaked to look like Pickle. A lot in common, yes, but what I wanted: no. Next, I tried manually adapting the drawings I had digitally produced to make her lines right. This required a total reboot and after some wasted time I accepted that I would be better off to start again from scratch. So I did. Now, the silver lining to this cloud is that my first two attempts taught me good lessons in both digital and traditional technique and, more importantly, over time I had refined my 'mind's eye' image of what Pickle should look like and what will and won't work in a scratchbuilt model. The drawings I am producing now are stripped right down to the basics of hull lines, deck levels, mast and gunport positions etc. So, Caleb, I hope this is useful to you. I have not found a magic wand or a button to push that will produce drawings on demand and I confess there may have been a touch of such silliness in my original decision to scratchbuild a subject that has no existing plans (I can almost hear myself saying 'How hard can it be?), But I am stubborn, or so I have been told. I know you asked about bulkheads but they are a component in the puzzle so forgive the ramble. If you can find a drawing of a ship with the same lines and sections, you should be able to trace them and make the adjustment for depth of planking. Otherwise, study the excellent articles in MSW and other online sources that show how to read drafts, buttock lines etc and plot your own. I know that sound oversimplified but it is what I had to do in the end. Other than roll up your sleeves and see what happens when you start, there is only one bit of practical, nuts-and-bolts advice I can pass on. If there is a set of drawings for the ship you are modeling, or one with the same proportions and general lines, great: get it in your head and ignore the differences. Then, find a set of plans for a model of a similar ship that you like. In this case it is not the ship you need to like, it is the PLANS FOR THE MODEL you must like. Use these plans as, shall we say, 'extensive reference' when breaking down the parts needed to make your model. See what the keel, deadwood, fashion pieces etc look like in the model plans, how the stern and stem are shaped, how the bulkheads join up with the centre piece, do they support the deck or is that a job for separate beams, and so on. Then you at least have a starting point for each of the same issues when you go back to the tasks needed to make that ship you have in your head. Sorry for the long answer, you have given me a soapbox to tell of the experience so far. I will start a build log when there is something to show for all this preparation. Hope this helps and doesn't scare you off, I have enjoyed it even if I do moan about the learning curve. Bruce

Have you seen this?

Back in post #2 I said 'It sounds like we are plotting similar projects.' Little did I know: mine is 'Pickle', which I am sure you know worked with Entreprenante at Trafalgar on rescue work. Can't help immediately with plans for either of your ships but I will keep my eyes open. Keep us informed. Regards, Bruce

Hello Caleb and welcome to MSW. It sounds like we are plotting similar projects. 'SPEEDY' 1828, available online, may be useful to you, also '10-gun Sloop MEDIATOR'. There are others, of course, and there may be some feature of the ship that leads you to one particular set of plans, but I will let the members with more experience speak on that point. Can you tell us the ship? In my case, I found that the plans I originally wanted to use as a starting point simply were no help because there is a difference between what makes a good laser-cut kit (ease of assembly, good solid joints between keel and bulkheads etc.) and what is best for a scratchbuilt model: also, after a couple of false starts, I realised that any existing plans for a model with different buttock lines would only be useful as inspiration and guidance because I still needed to draw my own bulkheads. This turned out to be more straightforward than I thought and the feeling of accomplishment once I had produced 'my plans' for 'my ship' was pretty good. You will get knowledgeable support here (I have) and I hope you start a build log. Regards, Bruce

Hello Phil, Very nice work. I discovered your build log when looking for accounts of deck planking and will be duplicating your experiments with different methods of caulking. I will be watching from now on. Bruce

... and I now realise they were both from the same proposal.

It looks like two different ships to me. The scond was a proposal for 'KING CARL' according to the description: here is the Google Translation... "Drawings by miniature painter Étienne Compardel after Jean Berain, probably 1694. In 1693 Jean Berain received an order from Tessin to make embellishments for a Swedish naval ship. The vessel would actually be called King Carl, but Berain wanted a ship name that was better suited for allegorical interpretations and the ship came therefore called the Victory. (However, some ship with this name was never launched). Berain delivered the 1694 drawings, which are now available at the War Archives. Compardel was then commissioned to perform detailed, beautifully colored drawings and the colors of blue and gold were adapted to the Swedish national coat of arms. On the stern, the Segergudinnan placed a four-span. (Source: The exhibition catalog of "The Sun and the North Strait" at Nationalmuseum) Provenance Collection: Lieutenant Malmborg Production 1694 (uncertain date)"

Gerhard, Wunderbar! Downloaded, many thanks. I have been looking for 'the rules' about the size and position of regal emblems/monograms on English cannons and all arrows point to Peterson. If it is in there I will post the results. I believe the files were originally hosted and available for downloading by a website promoting tourism and diving in Bermuda. I have contacted them and do not believe they plan to put them back online: they politely offered to sell me a hard copy (vol 1) from their tourist centre bookshop. Now to get comfortable and view a thousand pages … Regards, Bruce

Gerhard, may I also visit your dropbox? I have been looking for the Green Albums also. Regards, Bruce

Allan, what a great source! I found vol 1 in scribd but have not (yet) found the remaining pieces. It is a study of the work of one of the world's best authorities on identifying cannon found on the ocean floor and I am sure I will spend a lot of time studying the mass of information contained. So far it looks like it discusses the processes but not the rules but I will enjoy reading it in more detail. I will continue looking for the other pieces that complete the work. Many thanks.

Thanks, Wefalck. Yes, I found it in PDF quickly and it comes close but does not state the rules. What a great piece of reference material! I am glad to have this one. My observations tell me that the width of most regal monograms (if that is the correct name?) is roughly just less than half the diameter of the part of the barrel where it is cast: so if you looked down on it from above the emblem should appear to occupy nearly half of the section you are seeing. Not very exact but that is what I see. If there is a source of course I will be glad to chase it down. Best bet at the moment is 'Boxer, E.M. Treatise on Artillery' which is quoted greatly in the 'MCCONNELL (1988): British Smooth-Bore Artillery' from Wefalck. Regards, Bruce

Hello all, I hope someone can help. Were there rules dictating the size and placement of the regal monogram cast into English cannons/carronades? The George III era is of particular interest but now that the subject is raised I wonder if there is a standard reference source? Thanks, Bruce

Hello Jimmy and welcome to MSW. Bruce (south of you)

Clark, thank you for the link. I recently got a Proxxon FET saw and have been learning how to get the best from it. So far I think the saw is better than I am: everything I have attempted, from rabbets to thin strips, has worked with a little practice. No tool is sacred (well, perhaps the Byrnes saw ...) so I will be making a couple of modifications to my Proxxon. Maybe if you find your saw has a limitation, you will also find a solution and post it here? Dust extraction would be first on my list if I had your saw. I haven't found a tool yet that works better when it is dirty. Regards, Bruce

Hello Tony, Welcome to MSW.

Alan, many thanks. Bruce

I have a couple of lathe chucks sitting in the conservatory. They are too hot to pick up.

Keith, thanks, that makes it straightforward (I like straightforward). I am very impressed with the looks of your Germania and will experiment with the home-brew wipe-on-poly on the different woods I am accumulating for my build. My garage/workshop is very poorly sheltered from the Sussex elements and I intend to get this round of experiments over quickly now the weather has turned nice. Bruce

I have read a few posts saying good things about wipe-on-poly. However, I haven't seen the product here in the UK: any suggestions? Is it here but under a different name? Thanks, Bruce

Hello Maury, They do different jobs. The s/c will hold the workpiece on the centre-line axis of the lathe providing the workpiece is round or the number of sides is divisible by the number of jaws (usually three but there are s/c chucks with four or six jaws for specialist purposes, such as this one). An independent four-jaw can do the same trick with odd shaped pieces. The independent requires each of the four jaws to be set to achieve the correct position, and the operator must have the ability to establish when a piece is centred correctly. The s/c is the same every time so you just put the workpiece in and tighten it down: it is centred (within it's limits of accuracy). If possible, get both. Setting the four-jaw chuck gets easier with practice and it enables you to get more creative with the lathe/milling machine. The three-jaw is the 'go to' for most fabrication. If, for example, you intend to make a working steam engine from castings you will need both: if turning cannons, the three-jaw is all that is needed. By the way, simple dividing can be done using either without extra attachments. HTH Bruce

This was the arrangement for launch, not found anything yet for drydock.

It has been a while since I studied the battle, but I came to the conclusion Victorian-trained Beatty did not grasp the needs of modern gunnery. He ordered an alteration of course as the two fleets at Jutland approached while his gunnery officers were half-way through calculating their firing solutions: the need to recalculate delayed the British opening salvoes. Nobody at the time could chastise the victorious admiral but it damaged his perception among the more technically minded younger officers.