lmagna

What a waste of good table space! That's what couches are made for. Why do you think they call it a 'coffee table' and set it next to the couch? Next you will say that the garage is to put the car in!

Hi Pat An interesting vessel to be sure. From what I was able to look up she did indeed have a noticeable rake on her masts. As I said before I have very little knowledge of ships of the Clipper era and I can find no listing of the hull dimensions, especially the waterline length so I can not fit her into the chart and see how close she came to the larger ships numbers, but I am almost certain that she never exceeded her hull speed just as wefalck stated in his post. I think we still need a marine architect!

I am not trying to say that the rake of the mast is designed to prevent the downward driving force of the ship. I reality I don't think that it can be prevented, and the rake was an attempt at establishing a dynamic mast angle that was more an effort to achieve a fully upright angle when the ship was actually under way and the hull started raising in the stern and coming down in the bow. Something that could not be prevented and would increase with speed and wind force. As for the forward rake of the foremast on some ships I am at a complete loss. I think that I have only seen the practice on larger Frigates and ships of that sort but then again I have never done research in the matter. I was was hoping that some people with real sailing experience, better yet, tall ship experience would chip in and bring real life knowledge to my theories. It is entirely possible that what I am saying is completely full of hot air.

The ready ammo is of course obvious but I can't find the netting or voice pipes even when I enlarge the bridge to the point of being grainy. I do find the double row of pilot house windows and wooden doors interesting though.

That's called getting married. My 'interruption' lasted over 25 years!

I was thinking that as well, along with the person using it. You could probably give me a $10,000 camera and I couldn't take that good of picture at any size! I suppose that the guy is using a builders model to point out the PE additions, that makes sense, but it looked like possibly all the things he was listing in the contents were brass colored in the pictures.

Carl That picture is incredible! It is so hard to believe that the model is 1/700!

Sounds like a divorced dad and the kids!

Hopefully that will do and the details come out. I had hopped that you were using your regular camera sorry to hear that you are not.

The only word that comes to mind right off is Impressive.

While I do not disagree in general, If you do some math, (Again I stress in over simplified form) you come up with some numbers that discount the fact that sailing ships could not exceed hull coefficient or design speed. Without going into a bunch of math formulas on wave forms and drag here are some commonly accepted numbers for hull speed. 20 feet 25 feet 30 feet 35 feet 40 feet 45 feet 50 feet 6.0 knots 6.7 knots 7.3 knots 7.9 knots 8.5 knots 9.0 knots 9.5 knots 100 feet 13.4 knots 75 feet 11.6 knots 125 feet 14.9 knots 175 feet 17.7 knots While these numbers only partly take into account beam, depth, and length of the hull they are still relatively accurate, or at least they were in the mid to late 1800s. As can be seen it is not only possible for some ships to exceed hull speed but in small ships can become quite common. Not so much in larger vessels as the power required to overcome drag and wave length becomes more than the power source can provide, (wind). Of course these numbers are routinely exceeded with modern day ships with hundreds of thousands of horsepower available but that is not what we are talking about. I included the last number as I read in one of my books that one of the faster speeds logged by the Constitution was in her escape from Annapolis in 1861. When she hit open sea according to that book she reached the speed of 13.5 knots. the Constitution was known as a fast ship for her time and while not exceeding hull speed, 13.5 knots is pretty fast even for ships of a much later design. I am not a big clipper fan so I do not have similar accounts for ships like the Cutty Sark or Thermopylae and ships of that era but it is possible that they may have exceeded hull speed at one time or another. I agree that ship design was done in many cases more by what 'looked right' and what worked in the past for similar ships built by the same yard. In some cases you also had to take into account that a ships design was also heavily influenced by whoever was going to be the first captain. Again take into the building and sailing characters of the Constitution, President, Vs. the United States. I also agree that military and civilian ships experienced different design factors when built from the keel up as such. But at the same time there was considerably more crossover than there is today that allowed many ships built as merchant ships to fulfill the role of warship as well, especially when it came to smaller ships like Sloops, Cutters, Schooners, and Brigs.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the more strongly raked masts on smaller ships was influenced by the fast that the faster you try and push a displacement hull through the water the more it will resist and the more power it will take to make it go faster. Every hull has a 'natural' speed through the water and up to that point it does not take much power to reach that speed. This factor is primarily based on hull length. As a rule a longer hull will travel through the water at a higher speed than a shorter hull. Hull shape is also a factor but not as much as length. The above of course is a very simplified and general rule. In reality it becomes a little more complex, the stuff that keeps marine engineers employed. At any rate a fast small, (short) ship will reach hull speed much easier than a longer, larger ship, as it is lighter, and can carry proportionally more sail than a larger heavier ship of the same design. But their hull speed is much lower than a larger longer ship so the faster they go beyond hull speed the greater the resistance at the waterline. As sailing ships derive their power from their sails that are elevated above the water line this pushing power will cause the ship to plow. The bow will drop and the stern will rise. Some of this is overcome with proper ballasting and trim. Stories of sailing ships going from stodgy to fast sailing ships are rampant, and in most cases it was just a matter of how the Captain ballasted and trimmed the ship. So when we look at profile drawings and pictures of small ships we see that they tend to draw much more water in the stern than the bow and that the rake of the masts tend to follow the keel angle rather than the deck. Some designs are even more radical and will have additional rake even over the keel angle. The net result though will be that at speed the mast(s) will be much more vertical than at rest. This mast rake is also more pronounced in many cases of fore-and-aft rigged ships than square rigged vessels. It was not very common to see heavily raked masts on larger ships until the large Clipper ships started being built. Interesting discussion.

In the last picture it looks like there is quite a bit of detail on the hull. Will you be able to highlight any of this, or will it just be black?

I have to follow behind Greg and OC. I like the camo pattern as well. Must mean that you made a good choice as everyone knows I have impeccable taste!

Hi OC There are a few kit-within-a-kit things with ship builds I think. The ships boat(s), the transom, and some of the deck details. Not much going on at the bow on this ship but others like most of your builds do.

Hi Mark I already had to fill in the bow because of the stupid I pulled a while back on how I chose to shorten the over all length of the hull. I did some more tweaking and tuning today and I think I am at least getting an idea on how it has to come together in my head. If I can keep it together there when I start laying blanks in a week or so then I should be able follow it through. I am beginning to think that even if I don't do a proper job it will at least be functional and I will be able to cover it up in some way or another.

Thanks Al I will at lest try and do the planking thing as others have done. At very most I may have to rip it all apart again or go the Viking funeral route. Like you say I need to just jump in and get on with it.

Easy to say, hard to do. I keep laying my test plank everywhere I can from deck line to keel, bow to transom looking for places that don't flow! But am almost certain that there will be something somewhere that will bite me in the backside that I will not notice until it is glued in place. Probably won't even notice it until I am three planks down the hull! It would almost be easier to fill in the rest of the spaces with Balsa blocks making it a solid hull and plank over that!

So it is the same build. I remember reading it back when on another forum. I had never seen it on he Shipmodeler.worldpress.com site.

Mine aren't picky They pretty much eat like horses so long as it is the same stuff and you don't embellish on the recipe for added flavor!

That makes one of us Dave! The whole prospect has me more than a little terrified. The only planking I have ever done was about 25 years ago on an Icebreaker tug hull and even though I didn't follow the rules as I know them now from this site. the hull came out OK. But this time I "Know better" and trying to do it the right way, in public so to speak, has me very nervous! I have all the bulkheads faired and I need to add some attachment pieces at the stern for the planking. I also need to do a little back tracking on the sub-quarter deck as I didn't get one side right, and I have a warp along the edge that I didn't catch until I glued it down! So I need to get it apart again and increase the camber on that one side of the bulkhead and glue it back down! It possibly would not be seen later If I went ahead, as it can only really be seen when you look down the deck sheer line, and that would not be visible after planking. But it might also become more visible, in which case it would be even harder to deal with. If it was a low spot I could just fill it in at this point and all would be good but it seems to be that somehow I did not get enough camber in that beam so the deck is too flat! Thanks for dropping into check up on me.

Thanks Ken I had not seen that build. I will go over it in more detail later as one can never get enough information on planking this kind of hull and reinforcement on the fact that it can be done! I have also looked at a number of Endeavour builds for the same reason. I have all the bulkheads faired and only have some filling to do at the stern to give the planking a place to attach and I will not be able to avoid it much longer.

That's what my kids say about almost everything that adds flavor to food, grows from the ground, and is not normally fried!...... Ketchup is the only edible red vegetable in their eyes.

Hi Piet Nice to have you drop in, it will not only save time but i am sure it will look better than anything I would hve been able to do from scratch.

I have seen Dave's build, in fact I used his build as a source for a couple of ideas on my build but it is nice to see someone who is only just ahead of me in their build and hopefully be able to follow in their wake.