el cid

Allen,
 
My drawing of the stunsails was based upon Darcy Lever (The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor, page 65) drawings and text for topmast studding sails (the drawing is for a topsail schooner). The line nomenclature is directly from Lever. The "loose footed stunsail" drawing you posted is based on drawing number 352, and if you read Lever's text you will see that he does not use the term "loose footed." He refers to it as a stunsail that is "set flying" without a boom. In fact, Lever doesn't define "loose footed" in his "Dictionary of Sea Terms." Biddlecomb (The Art of Rigging) also does not say anything about "loose footed" sails, but he does mention stunsails without booms as "flying." I suspect the term "loose footed" may not have been in use in the 1700s and early 1800s and may be a more modern term
 
However, the drawings you posted are not from Lever, but are from Lees (The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, page 116) and are relatively new (1979). He uses the term "loose footed" with respect to Lever's "flying" stunsail drawing.
 
Harold Underhill (Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier, page 125) refers to a "loose footed spanker" that had no boom.
 
John Leather (The Gaff Rig Handbook) defines "loose footed" as the bottom of the sail not laced or "bent" to a boom with rope bands or robands. In contrast it is common for a gaff sail to be laced (to the upper gaff and to the lower boom. But there is a fore and aft rig in which the bottom of the gaff sail is unattached to a boom, and it is called "loose footed" and "boomless gaff sail." Of course the the tack and sheet are attached to something, otherwise the canvas would just flap in the wind.
 
****
 
Note the difference between a stunsail boom and a stunsail yard. Stunsail yards are the spar the the head (top) of the sail is bent (laced) to, and it is not attached directly to anything but is hoisted by the halliard. Or, as in figure 352 the foot (bottom) of the "flying" stunsail is attached at the clews to an unattached yard that has a guy to haul it down. The yards are essentially free to swing on the halliards and guys.
 
The booms are definitely attached to the course, topsail and topgallant yards, or in the case of the lower stunsail the (swinging) boom is attached to the hull, typically in the channels. The booms are held to the yards with irons and there are several ways to rig them with the booms stowed or extended. In some cases the booms were permanently attached to the yards, and on some ships they were stowed below (to reduce tophamper weight) and hauled aloft when the stunsails were set. In all cases except the "flying yard" the foot of the stunsails were attached to the booms with tacks (outboard clew) and sheets (inboard clew).
 
 

 
 
 

rraisley,
 
"Loose footed" means the foot (bottom side) of the sail is not laced to a yard, spar or boom. The two "cringles" allamyed refers to are rope loops at the lower corners of the sails where the handling lines are attached (tacks and sheets).
 
Typically stunsails were laced to a stunsail yard at the top and loose footed at the bottom.
 
Stunsail booms were attached to the regular yards, sometimes on top, sometimes below, and sometimes forward of the yard, depending upon the country, period and whether it was a naval ship or merchant ship (nothing about sailing ship rigging is simple one size fits all).
 
A halliard ran through a block at the end of the stunsail boom or upper yard, through a block at the mast and down, and was used to haul up (lift) the stunsail yard . The lower outer corner (tack) of the upper sunsails ran through a block at the end of the sunsail boom on the yard below and then to a purchase below. The lower inner corner or sheet was attached to the inboard end of the lower boom and then ran down below. The downhaul line was attached to the stunsail yard at the top of the sail, ran down through a block at the lower outboard corner and then down to below. It was used to pull down the sunsail yard and sail. Depending upon how high up in the rigging the stunsail was set these lines either terminated at the lower mast top or at purchases on deck.
 
Stunsails on the course (lowest and largest square sail on the mast) were hauled up to the end of the stunsail boom with the halliard as shown for other stunsails. However the lower outboard tack ran to a block at the end of a stunsail boom rigged to the side of the hull (not shown), usually at the channels where the shroud deadeyes were attached. The tack then lead inboard. The sheet ran inboard to spread the bottom of the sail.
 
I have been wading through rigging plans for topsail schooners and have posted sail diagrams, definitions and some other information here:
 
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/25679-topsail-schooner-sail-plans-and-rigging/?do=findComment&comment=787759
 
It is focused on topsail schooners but there is a discussion and drawings of stunsails that you might find useful. There are also general diagrams of sails and rigging and explanations of terms.
 
Since you are making a model of the HMS Victory you would do well to get a copy of "The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860," James Lees, Naval Institute Press, Conway Maritime Press Ltd., London, 1990. It is a very detailed book, although it can be frustrating because the author often uses undefined terms and assumes the reader already is familiar with the subject.
 
Another very useful book for the ship modeler is Wolfram zu Mondfeld's "Historic Ship Models," Sterling Publishing Co., New York, 1989. It is a more general book about all aspects of sailing ship models but it has a wealth of knowledge and definitions of many of the obscure nautical terms relevant to wooded ship construction.
 

After 40 or so years of building wooden ship models, this question came to mind this morning.    How do you lay your deck planks?   
This may be a loaded question, but the reason it came up in my mind, I was looking at a build log and the deck houses, coamings and such were fixed in place before the planking was laid.   I have done this myself, but never seem to get the planks to end up perfectly even port and starboard.  I have tried a few scenarios over the years, and each seems to have advantages and disadvantages.  
 
Currently  I usually lay in three or four strakes of planking starting at the center line and working outboard.     Once the first few strakes are in place I can mark and cut out pieces of the deck at the locations of the hatch and other openings and then fix these coamings, etc. in place before adding the balance of the deck planks.  
 
Alternatively I have laid in the binding strakes first which mark the edge of the hatch openings, but it is a touch more demanding in getting these strakes exactly the same distance from the center line and then there is the situation of filling strakes in between so they are all the same width and fit neatly between the binding strakes.    Even so I like this method for ships with a lot of hatch openings, but not so much for fishing schooners or other vessels with numerous cabin openings and not so many hatch openings.  
 
For large ships, the orlop or  platform decking  is a different situation as the planks are not continuous across the tops of all the beams so have not been as much of a concern.
 
 If anyone has other methods that have been successful for them  I would love to hear about them in my never ending quest to learn more.    
 
I am not suggesting there is right way or a wrong way, I am just curious as to how others go about this and why.
 
TIA
 
Allan

I use this micro-saw:
 
https://www.umm-usa.com/catalog/tools_JLC.html
 
Tiny mitre box is also useful.
 
HTH,
 
Keith

Gentlemen, in defence of the company, I buy a lot of kits from Jotika/Caldercraft. They are a great company and their kits are, in my opinion, a great value. It's a small company and can barely keep up with the demand for their current line-up of kits and other products. The weakness of the UK pound is giving them great leverage these days and they are shipping as fast as they can. Compounding the production pressures, issues with Brexit are adding a level of complexity and administrative effort. 
 
All this means they are very busy with the kits they already produce. There is enough variety in their line-up to make most builders happy for several lifetimes and I suspect very few people have built all their kits.
 
I don't want to start a big discussion on this point. I just think we should encourage our favourite companies in this fragile industry and give them the benefit of the doubt. It is surprising to me to see that, on the one hand we want traditional companies to thrive, and then on the other we make disparaging remarks about those same companies. 
 
If others are developing new kits, that's great news. I just don't see the need to make discouraging remarks about our friends. 
 

Gary, I also served in minesweepers; USS Exploit MSO 440 and USS Affray MSO 511. Also with CO MINEDIV 121. 
Wooden ships and Iron men!
 
Regards,

Sperry,
I can't testify as to what a wooden sailing ship really sounded like at sea but I can tell you what it sounded like on the wooden ocean-going
minesweepers I served aboard. The engine noise was there, of course, but not terribly loud. In moderate to rough seas, below decks, the
noise of the waves pounding against the hull was a booming sound accompanied by some creaking and groaning of the ships structure.
Someone had drawn a vertical pencil line across two overlapping beams in the berthing compartment and it was fascinating to watch that
line separate and come back together again as the ships hull flexed. Lying on the bow in calmer weather, looking down at the bow wave,
one could only hear the wind and the hissing of the water as the bow cut through. Below decks, drifting at sea, the sound of the sea was
a gently slapping against the hull - very pleasant and relaxing. Up on the bridge a humming could be heard from the wire rigging on the
mast plus the flapping of the canvas cover over the pilot house. Not a square rigger for sure but nice anyway. Thanks for the memories
and I hope I gave you some idea of what it was like.
 
Cheers,
Gary

Aside from the obvious creaking wood, flapping canvas, wind whistling through the lines, squeaky blocks, and the rush of the waterline, there would be the inevitable sound of vomiting, flatulence, belching, and profanity.  

From the “Nelson Period”On Boats were often trimmed with a distinctive color as a way to recognize them at a distance.  They might be mentioned in logs as the red cutter or the green launch, etc.  This does not mean that the entire boat was painted this color, just an identifying strake.  As Bob says, the rest of the boat would have been painted white.
 
The instde of the boat was often painted “drab,” a mixture of burnt umber and white, or “lead” grey.  “straw” color was permitted for the interior of US Navy Boats in the mid 1800’s.
 
Thwarts and floor boards were left unpainted.
 
Paintings of US Navy Boats in the 1850’s show exteriors painted black.
 
Roger
 

To tag onto the thread, any thoughts on whether or not a boat interior would also be painted? I suspect not the floor boards, but what about the ribs and interior of the hull planking?
 
Thanks ahead,
 
Keith
 
 

None of us are expert on everything (or anything maybe). I only responded because I had the referenced book (Sumrall) on the shelf next to me when I read your post.
 
Cheers,
 
Keith

None of us are expert on everything (or anything maybe). I only responded because I had the referenced book (Sumrall) on the shelf next to me when I read your post.
 
Cheers,
 
Keith

None of us are expert on everything (or anything maybe). I only responded because I had the referenced book (Sumrall) on the shelf next to me when I read your post.
 
Cheers,
 
Keith

None of us are expert on everything (or anything maybe). I only responded because I had the referenced book (Sumrall) on the shelf next to me when I read your post.
 
Cheers,
 
Keith

Third in the 'Marina Raskova' series. Minesweeper T114 torpedoed with heavy loss of life.
W/C 14” X 10”

Soviet Catalina sighting a lifeboat from 'Marina Raskova' and two minesweepers, sunk in the Kara Sea with heavy losses. w/c 16” X 11”

After seeing C Coyle's build log for his 12 footer, I am inspired to post some pictures of my 16 ft Peterborough cedar strip; didn't know we were "allowed" to post non-model builds. I made it from the book "Canoecraft" by Ted Moores, which contains lines for several different canoe designs. I picked the Peterborough as a good type for casual paddling at the cottage, since we already had a 16 ft kevlar Prospector for trips in the back country and his 17 ft "Redbird" design is too long to hang on our garage ceiling without interfering with the opening of the door!
 
Shout out here for the Canadian Canoe Museum which is located in Peterborough. Haven't been there in a while but they have a great collection.
 
This canoe was made in the days before digital cameras, but I just this minute took some photos of the old photo album and they seem to have turned out ok. I remember the first day I had my tablesaw out in the driveway, busily ripping six gorgeous 17 ft knot-free western red cedar 1 x 6 planks into 3/4" x 1/4" strips and in doing so creating  a monstrous pile of sawdust under the saw as my blade kerf was 1/8" so one third of each plank became sawdust. My neighbour, after watching for a while, came over to ask just what it was I thought I was doing and was amazed to hear I proposed to make a canoe. I then used my router table to cut beads and coves into the strips' edges. When assembling, the strips are tacked to the forms cove side up, making it simple to run glue along inside the cove before pressing in the bead edge of the next strip above.
 
I thought it would be a great woodworking challenge but making the hull was basically tedium. If you enjoy gluing endless strips, or sanding cedar with its attendant dust, or better yet sanding epoxy resin with even more horrible dust, canoe building is for you! I did enjoy adding the ash trim and making the seats once the hull was completed.
 
The Peterborough is a good canoe for light paddling. Doesn't have the volume or the high stems for a long canoe trip, and the first time I sat it on my neck with the deep-carved yoke a friend donated the top of my head was pressed against its bottom! Very uncomfortable and not to be portaged...later changed the yoke to a shallower design but never carry it far. It weighs in the 68lb range I would guess, much heavier than our kevlar canoe which is another reason not to trip with it.
 
Anyway here are a few random shots of various stages. My talented wife painted the West Coast Native loons each side of the bow, taken from an art book we had. God we were young then 🙂
 

 
Dust everywhere! Adding the gunwales with fiberglass on exterior sanded, but it looks dull until you wet or varnish it.....

 
Making the seats which were later laced with leather "bootlace".

 
The Admiral working on the art, with the hull cleaned but not yet varnished.

 

 
Completion shot beside the old townhouse.

 
First launch; Meech Lake QC.

Although I did not end up using this, I did I believe produce a good simulation of the canvas covering by using tissue paper

In Mariposa we referred to this as "cosmetic snow." Not a lot, to be sure, but I like winter, and I don't feel like we've had a proper one unless I get at least one decent snowfall. Like some fruit trees, I need a certain amount of cold set to feel well-adjusted and productive for the coming spring and summer.

George,
 
As long as I am doing this for me I think I should share it with others. After all, others are sharing a wealth of knowledge on this Forum for me to use and enjoy.
 
About Rankine - you just have to appreciate someone who helped develop the Laws of Thermodynamics!
 
James Burke told a story about the development of thermodynamics. The Brits were trying to figure out how to make steam engines work. The Scots were trying to figure out how much heat they needed to distill a gallon of Scotch Whiskey. Does this say something about priorities?
 
And you are right about the research being as interesting as the actual model building. I really enjoy it. I always wanted to understand how all that rigging worked on sailing ships.
 
When I was "building" the CAD model of the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 I got so sidetracked with the research that it took 14 years to complete. In the meantime I investigated how just about everything on the ship worked and created a web site for the ship! One of these years I will use all of that information to build a real model of the ship.

This is somewhat of a repeat as the various points have come up in various posts in a few forums, but I recently saw photos of sails for a schooner model that were beautifully sewn on the edges and along the panel seams.  If this had been a scale of 1:12 or larger they would be  close to scale, but as the scale was 1:48 they were grossly out of scale and, for me at least, ruined what was an otherwise very nice model.  I know this comes up quite often but there is a solution to get sails that are close to scale and I hope it is worth repeating for those that may want to try something that may add to their repertoire.
 
The smallest common sewing machine thread that I could find and measure was a little under 0.01" in diameter.  I wrapped 125 turns on a steel rule in a 1 inch spacing to get the diameter.   At a scale of 1:48 this would be about over 3/8"  inch diameter thread.  At 1:64 it would be over 1/2 inch diameter and at 1:96 it would be over 3/4 inch in diameter, all of which are rope sizes rather sewing material.  The tightest spacing on a modern home sewing machine yields about 25 stitches per inch which is having each stitch 2 inches long at 1:48 and 4 inches long at 1:96, again also too large to be realistic in regards to scale.  The seams on the panels are typically 2" wide and 4" around the periphery of the sail, that is 0.04" and 0.8" at 1:48 and 0.02" and 0.04" at 1:96 scale.  The thickness of duck canvas varied with the types of sails, but 15 ounce canvas was one of the common sizes.  This is about 0.06" thick so scale sail material should be about 0.00125" thick if at 1:48 and 0.0006 if at 1"96.  Even the finest cloth that I have found so far, with a sufficiently high thread count to look like the  threads spacing are close to scale,  is 0.008" thick, thus far out of scale as well.
 
In contrast, some folks, myself included, have been working with silkspan, a nonwoven paper for making sails.   With two coats of acrylic that I used to get the right color and strengthen the material, it is 0.002" thick, much closer to scale compared to 0.008"  for 1:48.    The sails can be set up full or furled.  Adding reef points and tying off to mast hoops and spars or booms  is not a problem.   I add a small dot of tubed acrylic that I mix to match the color of the thread where the line goes through the sail and it is very strong when a hole is punched or drilled through these small dots.
 
2 inch seams for the panels were made with an acrylic paint marker pen slightly darker than the color of the sail itself.  The tip of the marker  was shaved with a scalpel to a little under the 0.004" for 1:48 scale that I needed as it does expand a bit when charged with paint.
 
Silkspan is not as strong as cloth, but with one or two coats of diluted tubed acrylic paint, it is surprisingly strong.
 
Hope this gives some members a few ideas on making sails that are closer to scale.
 
Allan

Well I have sort of finished all except for the flybridge screen rail which I broke and have not yet decided whether to solder and install. I should have done it when the flybridge was being constructed offline but I was missing a part which Amati sent me (thanks) and now that I  have it I am in two minds about doing it .
Overall a happy camper. Some detail I have changed to suit myself so can't claim absolutely faithful to the kit but not much kit bashing really, changed the colour scheme, made a different support for the radar antenna, enhanced some doors and rear companionways with some more detail.
Good kit....I found the chrome plated brass rails and posts generally the most difficult to manage, need to be bent in most cases but prone to breaking so bending has to be done very carefully so if you are starting out then watch for that.

Watched the Netflix movie last night and liked it. Interesting story, really good cinematography and lighting, and Fienes’ depiction of Brown was excellent. The romantic side stories felt contrived and unnecessary. Wife, a true Anglophile, really enjoyed it.
 
Cheers,
 
Keith

Display Stand Continued.
 
I toyed with the idea of trying a bit of inlay on the base but decided that the natural wood was better. I did however mill the edges to add interest and give it a more professional look.
 
I cut down the door handles to create pedestals. On the end of the "T" I added turned polythene cones. The cones contact the hull and I wanted something pliable to prevent hull damage. The cones are attached by screws and these give a degree of adjustment. This helps with the levelling of the model when displayed.
 
The bottom of the pedestals are drilled and tapped to take the mounting bolts which locate through the holes in the base. I then polished the pedestals on a polishing wheel.
 
I did an initial check on the functioning of the pedestals by mounting them on a scrap piece of MDF as per the photographs. The check confirmed that the pedestals would give the hull adequate support.
 
I did find that the base was prone to flexing (splaying of the pedestals). Although the mahogany base was going to be more rigid I decided to add a strengthening strap (visible in the previous pictures).
 
I then assembled the stand and placed Endeavour on it. A bit of levelling and the waterline was horizontal and the yacht had the characteristic rise towards the bow.
 
Now all I have to do is disassemble it all and polish up the base.
 

Shops main gun