shipmodel

Amalio - 
 
Let me join with all your other fans to say what a wonderful woodworker you are.
I am frequently inspired when looking at your precision and perseverence.
Many of my models, even the museum pieces, are done in 12 months or less
While yours is still in the dockyard after more than 12 years.
 
My hat is definitely off to you, sir.
 
Dan

Hi Gerard - 
 
I guess I did not realize how small French sailors of the period were.
And now back to appreciating Johann's modeling mastery.
 
Be well
 
Dan

Hi Gerard - 
 
I guess I did not realize how small French sailors of the period were.
And now back to appreciating Johann's modeling mastery.
 
Be well
 
Dan

M. Delacroix  - 
 
You are certainly correct when you say "Using the construction plans of a merchant ship to deduce those of a 40-gun frigate is a very hazardous venture whose credibility can be seriously questioned."  However, that was not my point.  
 
Deducing the structure and appearance of Queen Anne's Revenge (built privately as Le Concorde, a small frigate) from contemporary sources was done by the History Department of East Carolina University, which is responsible for the underwater excavation and conservation of the actual ship.  I simply followed their directions to use for the external structure the Admiralty plans of Beaver's Prize and for the internal structure and details to use M. Budriot's reconstruction of Le Mercure.  My own knowledge, or lack of it, didn't come into it, just my model shipbuilding skills.
 
My point was only that the plans of Le Mercure are internally inconsistent.  No ship would have a gun deck with only 4 feet of headroom.  The sailors would have had to fight on their knees.  Something was wrong.  My thoughts and solutions to this problem are all laid out in my build log.  I hope you will read through it and let me know if you have other ideas or if you reach any different conclusions.
 
I applaud M. Budriot as one of the " greatest, specialist in French naval archaeology."  I applaud Howard Chapelle for his expertise in American shipbuilding and Brian Lavery for his works on English naval construction.  But these are men, not gods, and I have occasionally had issues with their plans and/or conclusions while still honoring the huge contributions they have made to our current knowledge of ship design and construction in the Great Age of Sail.
 
Thank you for engaging in an entertaining discussion.
 
Dan    

Hi Gerard - 
 
I guess I did not realize how small French sailors of the period were.
And now back to appreciating Johann's modeling mastery.
 
Be well
 
Dan

Hi Gerard - 
 
I guess I did not realize how small French sailors of the period were.
And now back to appreciating Johann's modeling mastery.
 
Be well
 
Dan

M. Delacroix  - 
 
You are certainly correct when you say "Using the construction plans of a merchant ship to deduce those of a 40-gun frigate is a very hazardous venture whose credibility can be seriously questioned."  However, that was not my point.  
 
Deducing the structure and appearance of Queen Anne's Revenge (built privately as Le Concorde, a small frigate) from contemporary sources was done by the History Department of East Carolina University, which is responsible for the underwater excavation and conservation of the actual ship.  I simply followed their directions to use for the external structure the Admiralty plans of Beaver's Prize and for the internal structure and details to use M. Budriot's reconstruction of Le Mercure.  My own knowledge, or lack of it, didn't come into it, just my model shipbuilding skills.
 
My point was only that the plans of Le Mercure are internally inconsistent.  No ship would have a gun deck with only 4 feet of headroom.  The sailors would have had to fight on their knees.  Something was wrong.  My thoughts and solutions to this problem are all laid out in my build log.  I hope you will read through it and let me know if you have other ideas or if you reach any different conclusions.
 
I applaud M. Budriot as one of the " greatest, specialist in French naval archaeology."  I applaud Howard Chapelle for his expertise in American shipbuilding and Brian Lavery for his works on English naval construction.  But these are men, not gods, and I have occasionally had issues with their plans and/or conclusions while still honoring the huge contributions they have made to our current knowledge of ship design and construction in the Great Age of Sail.
 
Thank you for engaging in an entertaining discussion.
 
Dan    

M. Delacroix  - 
 
You are certainly correct when you say "Using the construction plans of a merchant ship to deduce those of a 40-gun frigate is a very hazardous venture whose credibility can be seriously questioned."  However, that was not my point.  
 
Deducing the structure and appearance of Queen Anne's Revenge (built privately as Le Concorde, a small frigate) from contemporary sources was done by the History Department of East Carolina University, which is responsible for the underwater excavation and conservation of the actual ship.  I simply followed their directions to use for the external structure the Admiralty plans of Beaver's Prize and for the internal structure and details to use M. Budriot's reconstruction of Le Mercure.  My own knowledge, or lack of it, didn't come into it, just my model shipbuilding skills.
 
My point was only that the plans of Le Mercure are internally inconsistent.  No ship would have a gun deck with only 4 feet of headroom.  The sailors would have had to fight on their knees.  Something was wrong.  My thoughts and solutions to this problem are all laid out in my build log.  I hope you will read through it and let me know if you have other ideas or if you reach any different conclusions.
 
I applaud M. Budriot as one of the " greatest, specialist in French naval archaeology."  I applaud Howard Chapelle for his expertise in American shipbuilding and Brian Lavery for his works on English naval construction.  But these are men, not gods, and I have occasionally had issues with their plans and/or conclusions while still honoring the huge contributions they have made to our current knowledge of ship design and construction in the Great Age of Sail.
 
Thank you for engaging in an entertaining discussion.
 
Dan    

Yes, we should allow M. Budriot some leeway in his efforts, but we should also draw a line at some lazy techniques that affect the work of those that he is writing for.   
 
In my case I used his plans for the light frigate Le Mercure when I was building the Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard's flagship.  Although I found his detail drawings to be excellent, both in drafting and historic accuracy, there was a major problem with the hull.  It seemed as though he had simply scaled down the plans for a somewhat larger frigate.  This meant that as drawn the gun deck would have been 4 feet high.  I had to digitally remove one of his lower decks to move everything down to give me enough headroom for the sailors to work the guns.  This then affected the height and spacing of the gunports, which affected the shroud chains, etc.   All in all, it added a good deal of unnecessary work.  All of the details are in my build log if you are interested.
 
I was not overly concerned with this once I had corrected it.  Since no one knows exactly what the QAR looked like, I had a lot of freedom to make reasonable interpretations, unless they contradicted some piece of the actual ship that had been recovered from the sea floor.  However, for those in our community who build to the highest tolerances and the best historic research, I can only advise caution with M. Budriot's work.
 
To use an often quoted truism - "Trust But Verify." 
 
Be well
 
Dan

M. Delacroix  - 
 
You are certainly correct when you say "Using the construction plans of a merchant ship to deduce those of a 40-gun frigate is a very hazardous venture whose credibility can be seriously questioned."  However, that was not my point.  
 
Deducing the structure and appearance of Queen Anne's Revenge (built privately as Le Concorde, a small frigate) from contemporary sources was done by the History Department of East Carolina University, which is responsible for the underwater excavation and conservation of the actual ship.  I simply followed their directions to use for the external structure the Admiralty plans of Beaver's Prize and for the internal structure and details to use M. Budriot's reconstruction of Le Mercure.  My own knowledge, or lack of it, didn't come into it, just my model shipbuilding skills.
 
My point was only that the plans of Le Mercure are internally inconsistent.  No ship would have a gun deck with only 4 feet of headroom.  The sailors would have had to fight on their knees.  Something was wrong.  My thoughts and solutions to this problem are all laid out in my build log.  I hope you will read through it and let me know if you have other ideas or if you reach any different conclusions.
 
I applaud M. Budriot as one of the " greatest, specialist in French naval archaeology."  I applaud Howard Chapelle for his expertise in American shipbuilding and Brian Lavery for his works on English naval construction.  But these are men, not gods, and I have occasionally had issues with their plans and/or conclusions while still honoring the huge contributions they have made to our current knowledge of ship design and construction in the Great Age of Sail.
 
Thank you for engaging in an entertaining discussion.
 
Dan    

M. Delacroix  - 
 
You are certainly correct when you say "Using the construction plans of a merchant ship to deduce those of a 40-gun frigate is a very hazardous venture whose credibility can be seriously questioned."  However, that was not my point.  
 
Deducing the structure and appearance of Queen Anne's Revenge (built privately as Le Concorde, a small frigate) from contemporary sources was done by the History Department of East Carolina University, which is responsible for the underwater excavation and conservation of the actual ship.  I simply followed their directions to use for the external structure the Admiralty plans of Beaver's Prize and for the internal structure and details to use M. Budriot's reconstruction of Le Mercure.  My own knowledge, or lack of it, didn't come into it, just my model shipbuilding skills.
 
My point was only that the plans of Le Mercure are internally inconsistent.  No ship would have a gun deck with only 4 feet of headroom.  The sailors would have had to fight on their knees.  Something was wrong.  My thoughts and solutions to this problem are all laid out in my build log.  I hope you will read through it and let me know if you have other ideas or if you reach any different conclusions.
 
I applaud M. Budriot as one of the " greatest, specialist in French naval archaeology."  I applaud Howard Chapelle for his expertise in American shipbuilding and Brian Lavery for his works on English naval construction.  But these are men, not gods, and I have occasionally had issues with their plans and/or conclusions while still honoring the huge contributions they have made to our current knowledge of ship design and construction in the Great Age of Sail.
 
Thank you for engaging in an entertaining discussion.
 
Dan    

M. Delacroix  - 
 
You are certainly correct when you say "Using the construction plans of a merchant ship to deduce those of a 40-gun frigate is a very hazardous venture whose credibility can be seriously questioned."  However, that was not my point.  
 
Deducing the structure and appearance of Queen Anne's Revenge (built privately as Le Concorde, a small frigate) from contemporary sources was done by the History Department of East Carolina University, which is responsible for the underwater excavation and conservation of the actual ship.  I simply followed their directions to use for the external structure the Admiralty plans of Beaver's Prize and for the internal structure and details to use M. Budriot's reconstruction of Le Mercure.  My own knowledge, or lack of it, didn't come into it, just my model shipbuilding skills.
 
My point was only that the plans of Le Mercure are internally inconsistent.  No ship would have a gun deck with only 4 feet of headroom.  The sailors would have had to fight on their knees.  Something was wrong.  My thoughts and solutions to this problem are all laid out in my build log.  I hope you will read through it and let me know if you have other ideas or if you reach any different conclusions.
 
I applaud M. Budriot as one of the " greatest, specialist in French naval archaeology."  I applaud Howard Chapelle for his expertise in American shipbuilding and Brian Lavery for his works on English naval construction.  But these are men, not gods, and I have occasionally had issues with their plans and/or conclusions while still honoring the huge contributions they have made to our current knowledge of ship design and construction in the Great Age of Sail.
 
Thank you for engaging in an entertaining discussion.
 
Dan    

M. Delacroix  - 
 
You are certainly correct when you say "Using the construction plans of a merchant ship to deduce those of a 40-gun frigate is a very hazardous venture whose credibility can be seriously questioned."  However, that was not my point.  
 
Deducing the structure and appearance of Queen Anne's Revenge (built privately as Le Concorde, a small frigate) from contemporary sources was done by the History Department of East Carolina University, which is responsible for the underwater excavation and conservation of the actual ship.  I simply followed their directions to use for the external structure the Admiralty plans of Beaver's Prize and for the internal structure and details to use M. Budriot's reconstruction of Le Mercure.  My own knowledge, or lack of it, didn't come into it, just my model shipbuilding skills.
 
My point was only that the plans of Le Mercure are internally inconsistent.  No ship would have a gun deck with only 4 feet of headroom.  The sailors would have had to fight on their knees.  Something was wrong.  My thoughts and solutions to this problem are all laid out in my build log.  I hope you will read through it and let me know if you have other ideas or if you reach any different conclusions.
 
I applaud M. Budriot as one of the " greatest, specialist in French naval archaeology."  I applaud Howard Chapelle for his expertise in American shipbuilding and Brian Lavery for his works on English naval construction.  But these are men, not gods, and I have occasionally had issues with their plans and/or conclusions while still honoring the huge contributions they have made to our current knowledge of ship design and construction in the Great Age of Sail.
 
Thank you for engaging in an entertaining discussion.
 
Dan    

Hello,
in between I made a video about the naval artillery of my french corvette. I tried to show the different stages of construction. 
I hope that one or the other likes it and perhaps serves as inspiration.
Have fun !  LINK

Hello,
 
"Trust but verify"...
First, verify your own knowledge in this field, where your culture is obviously very superficial and does not allow you to judge objectively the work of Jean Boudriot, who is otherwise recognized as one of the great, if not the greatest, specialist in French naval archaeology.
Using the construction plans of a merchant ship to deduce those of a 40-gun frigate is a very hazardous venture whose credibility can be seriously questioned.
But everyone has the right to be wrong.
 
GD
 

Yes, we should allow M. Budriot some leeway in his efforts, but we should also draw a line at some lazy techniques that affect the work of those that he is writing for.   
 
In my case I used his plans for the light frigate Le Mercure when I was building the Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard's flagship.  Although I found his detail drawings to be excellent, both in drafting and historic accuracy, there was a major problem with the hull.  It seemed as though he had simply scaled down the plans for a somewhat larger frigate.  This meant that as drawn the gun deck would have been 4 feet high.  I had to digitally remove one of his lower decks to move everything down to give me enough headroom for the sailors to work the guns.  This then affected the height and spacing of the gunports, which affected the shroud chains, etc.   All in all, it added a good deal of unnecessary work.  All of the details are in my build log if you are interested.
 
I was not overly concerned with this once I had corrected it.  Since no one knows exactly what the QAR looked like, I had a lot of freedom to make reasonable interpretations, unless they contradicted some piece of the actual ship that had been recovered from the sea floor.  However, for those in our community who build to the highest tolerances and the best historic research, I can only advise caution with M. Budriot's work.
 
To use an often quoted truism - "Trust But Verify." 
 
Be well
 
Dan

Yes, we should allow M. Budriot some leeway in his efforts, but we should also draw a line at some lazy techniques that affect the work of those that he is writing for.   
 
In my case I used his plans for the light frigate Le Mercure when I was building the Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard's flagship.  Although I found his detail drawings to be excellent, both in drafting and historic accuracy, there was a major problem with the hull.  It seemed as though he had simply scaled down the plans for a somewhat larger frigate.  This meant that as drawn the gun deck would have been 4 feet high.  I had to digitally remove one of his lower decks to move everything down to give me enough headroom for the sailors to work the guns.  This then affected the height and spacing of the gunports, which affected the shroud chains, etc.   All in all, it added a good deal of unnecessary work.  All of the details are in my build log if you are interested.
 
I was not overly concerned with this once I had corrected it.  Since no one knows exactly what the QAR looked like, I had a lot of freedom to make reasonable interpretations, unless they contradicted some piece of the actual ship that had been recovered from the sea floor.  However, for those in our community who build to the highest tolerances and the best historic research, I can only advise caution with M. Budriot's work.
 
To use an often quoted truism - "Trust But Verify." 
 
Be well
 
Dan

Yes, we should allow M. Budriot some leeway in his efforts, but we should also draw a line at some lazy techniques that affect the work of those that he is writing for.   
 
In my case I used his plans for the light frigate Le Mercure when I was building the Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard's flagship.  Although I found his detail drawings to be excellent, both in drafting and historic accuracy, there was a major problem with the hull.  It seemed as though he had simply scaled down the plans for a somewhat larger frigate.  This meant that as drawn the gun deck would have been 4 feet high.  I had to digitally remove one of his lower decks to move everything down to give me enough headroom for the sailors to work the guns.  This then affected the height and spacing of the gunports, which affected the shroud chains, etc.   All in all, it added a good deal of unnecessary work.  All of the details are in my build log if you are interested.
 
I was not overly concerned with this once I had corrected it.  Since no one knows exactly what the QAR looked like, I had a lot of freedom to make reasonable interpretations, unless they contradicted some piece of the actual ship that had been recovered from the sea floor.  However, for those in our community who build to the highest tolerances and the best historic research, I can only advise caution with M. Budriot's work.
 
To use an often quoted truism - "Trust But Verify." 
 
Be well
 
Dan

Yes, we should allow M. Budriot some leeway in his efforts, but we should also draw a line at some lazy techniques that affect the work of those that he is writing for.   
 
In my case I used his plans for the light frigate Le Mercure when I was building the Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard's flagship.  Although I found his detail drawings to be excellent, both in drafting and historic accuracy, there was a major problem with the hull.  It seemed as though he had simply scaled down the plans for a somewhat larger frigate.  This meant that as drawn the gun deck would have been 4 feet high.  I had to digitally remove one of his lower decks to move everything down to give me enough headroom for the sailors to work the guns.  This then affected the height and spacing of the gunports, which affected the shroud chains, etc.   All in all, it added a good deal of unnecessary work.  All of the details are in my build log if you are interested.
 
I was not overly concerned with this once I had corrected it.  Since no one knows exactly what the QAR looked like, I had a lot of freedom to make reasonable interpretations, unless they contradicted some piece of the actual ship that had been recovered from the sea floor.  However, for those in our community who build to the highest tolerances and the best historic research, I can only advise caution with M. Budriot's work.
 
To use an often quoted truism - "Trust But Verify." 
 
Be well
 
Dan

Yes, we should allow M. Budriot some leeway in his efforts, but we should also draw a line at some lazy techniques that affect the work of those that he is writing for.   
 
In my case I used his plans for the light frigate Le Mercure when I was building the Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard's flagship.  Although I found his detail drawings to be excellent, both in drafting and historic accuracy, there was a major problem with the hull.  It seemed as though he had simply scaled down the plans for a somewhat larger frigate.  This meant that as drawn the gun deck would have been 4 feet high.  I had to digitally remove one of his lower decks to move everything down to give me enough headroom for the sailors to work the guns.  This then affected the height and spacing of the gunports, which affected the shroud chains, etc.   All in all, it added a good deal of unnecessary work.  All of the details are in my build log if you are interested.
 
I was not overly concerned with this once I had corrected it.  Since no one knows exactly what the QAR looked like, I had a lot of freedom to make reasonable interpretations, unless they contradicted some piece of the actual ship that had been recovered from the sea floor.  However, for those in our community who build to the highest tolerances and the best historic research, I can only advise caution with M. Budriot's work.
 
To use an often quoted truism - "Trust But Verify." 
 
Be well
 
Dan

Yes, we should allow M. Budriot some leeway in his efforts, but we should also draw a line at some lazy techniques that affect the work of those that he is writing for.   
 
In my case I used his plans for the light frigate Le Mercure when I was building the Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard's flagship.  Although I found his detail drawings to be excellent, both in drafting and historic accuracy, there was a major problem with the hull.  It seemed as though he had simply scaled down the plans for a somewhat larger frigate.  This meant that as drawn the gun deck would have been 4 feet high.  I had to digitally remove one of his lower decks to move everything down to give me enough headroom for the sailors to work the guns.  This then affected the height and spacing of the gunports, which affected the shroud chains, etc.   All in all, it added a good deal of unnecessary work.  All of the details are in my build log if you are interested.
 
I was not overly concerned with this once I had corrected it.  Since no one knows exactly what the QAR looked like, I had a lot of freedom to make reasonable interpretations, unless they contradicted some piece of the actual ship that had been recovered from the sea floor.  However, for those in our community who build to the highest tolerances and the best historic research, I can only advise caution with M. Budriot's work.
 
To use an often quoted truism - "Trust But Verify." 
 
Be well
 
Dan

Finally forging deadeyes..


I used different lengths of fittings from the factory. I evened out the slope in the channels..



Belaying pins darkened and waxed..

It turns out that coaching my son’s 5th grade CYO basketball team has been more involved than I anticipated; owing to the pandemic, we are essentially starting from scratch, so I have spent quite a lot of time finding good fundamentals drills, while I learn the broad-strokes of the Pack-Line defense.  It is all good fun, but it has cut into ship time.
 
I did manage to finish up my starboard bow angel:

I did a final/final fitting of the headrails and their supports.  Those have now been masked, primed and I’ve begun putting them into colors.
 
Per Nigel’s suggestion, I am filling-in the missing stair treads on the lower beakhead bulkhead, where the turret seats of ease used to be.
 
I made a cardboard pattern for the forward terminus of the head grating.  I’ve found that saturating this thin card with common CA (thin) makes it into a durable pattern:


I made a rub-tracing of the middle headrail profile, so that I could pattern the arcing slats of the grating.
 
I am also very happy with how this representation of scroll heads came out, in simulation of the headrail supports actually finishing beneath the lowest headrail:


As these are thoroughly impossible to carve at this scale, I make these from two diameters  of styrene rod.  It’s a little fiddly to mate the beveled end of the larger diam. rod to that of the smaller diam. rod, but I found that touching my knife point to a drop of liquid styrene cement enabled me to pick these tiny bits up and place them onto a glue spot where they belong.
 
I’ll be painting for some time, but soon the whole head structure will begin to come together.
 
Thank you for stopping by.

Hi all –
 
Here is the finish of this restoration build log.  I begin with the cannon.  Two of the guns were detached when received, with one having a carriage made out of a completely different material than the others.  A third cannon was on a similar carriage of unknown material.  I removed it so I could work on it.
 

 
I cleaned up the old glue from all of the guns, then fashioned two new carriages from ivory.  The barrels were set on the new carriages and secured with cyano.
 

 
The new carriages were aged with coffee grounds.  Actually, they took up the color a bit too well, so the brown was sanded back a bit after the photo was taken.
 

 
When I was happy with the color they were installed on deck with PVA glue.  The originals were pinned through the rear of the carriages and into the deck, but there was no room for such reinforcement, so they will have to rely on the strength of the glue itself.  Judging from other models that I have worked on, I am confident that it will be at least 50+ years before anyone will have to worry about glue failure.
 

 
Finally, I mounted the two British flags.  The large ensign at the stern was set on an ivory staff, although it was shown detached in the client’s original photos.  He failed to bring it with him when he delivered the model, so he dropped it, and a few other detached pieces, into a plain envelope and mailed it to me.  When it came the delivery process in the Postal Service had broken the staff into four pieces.
 

 
I cut a 1/8” square piece of ivory about 2 ½” long and made it octagonal with sanding drums.  Further sanding rounded it to an approximate cylinder.  Finally one end was chucked into a Dremel with a bit of paper towel to protect the ivory from the jaws of the chuck.  On low speed the shaft was held against a large flat sanding block and turned to a cylinder.  The original halyard block and line were used to mount the flag to the new staff, which was slid into two metal fittings on the inside of the taffrail.  I also took a moment to hang the boat from the davits at the stern.
 

 
At the bow the small flag was remounted in its hole in the jib boom.
 

 
With a quick cleaning and oil rubbing of the base the repair was finished.    
 

 

 
To replace the heavy glass cover a new acrylic cover was ordered and set on the base.  Two small brass nails on the short sides were installed by drilling through the plastic and into the wood of the base.  These will prevent the cover from coming loose if anyone picks it up by the cover rather than from underneath.
 

 
The client mounted the model on a pair of heavy brackets in a prominent place in his home.
 

 
He has told me that he and his family are very happy with the restoration, as am I.  I hope you all have enjoyed the journey as well.  I can only hope that the model will last another 200 years and represent a glimpse into a long-gone world of naval history and art.
 

 
Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts.
 
I will be back again with some more of the models that I am building for the Merchant Marine Academy museum.  Until then . . .
 
Stay safe
 
Dan

Thank you all so much for your kind words.
Although I build and restore models for the satisfaction of creating and preserving artworks for those who will come after, I write up the process for my fellow modelers.  Without your encouragements I would still build, but I would probably not write.
Thanks again.
 
Dan