Dr PR

wefalck, I used to have a D5100 but gave it to my youngest grandson when the D5200 came out. I got the D5200 for the 24 megapixel photo element. Extreme contrast images are difficult with any camera. I have made good shots of the moon at night, solar eclipse, etc. The full moon looks bright to our eyes, but it isn't nearly as bright as full sunlight. But it is a LOT brighter than the stars and nebulae! Here is a D5100 Hi-Res JPEG shot taken through a Nikon 70-300 mm FX lens (450 mm effective focal length on the DX series cameras) and cropped to 2048x1366 pixels. 1/320 second at f5.6 with ISO 200 and spot metering. The great thing about digital cameras is instant gratification. With film I had to wait a few days for the pictures/slides to come back. There was no real time verification that the picture came out. With digital you can take a shot, look at it, and adjust as necessary while hopefully the subject is still there. With model/macro photography I try to use the smallest f stop for maximum depth of field and low ISO for noise reduction. Then I just use whatever shutter speed is necessary to make the shot. The model isn't going anywhere.

I do a lot of macro photography, wildflowers, insects, etc., and use an excellent macro lens. So I have the camera equipment for model photography. I learned long ago that the best lighting for outdoors work is cloudy bright - a slight thin white cloud layer illuminated by the sun. This gives a nice diffused white light with good illumination from all around and no harsh shadows. Strong shadows are a real problem for most macro work. Of course you can't always have a cloudy bright day, especially if you are trying to photograph something indoors or at night! For indoor work I do not want a direct light. A good white light bounced off a wall or ceiling gives diffuse shadows. For ship model photography I find it best to avoid harsh contrasts from bright lights that leave part of the image underexposed and part overexposed. Low contrast lighting is usually best for illustrations. But when you have a diffused or dim light to avoid harsh shadows you need to use longer shutter speeds, especially if you are using very small apertures for greater depth of field. I mount the camera on a tripod and use up to 30 second exposure with f stops up to 34 or 40 - depending upon the light - to get good depth of field. I use a remote shutter release to avoid moving the camera. Mounting the camera on a tripod allows me to make multiple exposures from the same camera angle. I often do this, adjusting the focus point to different places of interest on the model to get sharp exposures of that part of the model. Then I use photo stacking to get very good depth of field. For example, in this composite image of 12 photos you can see the grain at the end of the bowsprit and the ring bolts on the boat booms on the stern are also in focus. This is a 22 inch (56 cm) depth of field! The diffused soft lighting allows you to see details in the shady bulwarks on the right and in the brighter lighted parts, with no harsh shadows.

Rick, I suggest you don't get too anal about the "correct" locations for tying off the rigging. There is a good chance that some things changed during the life of the ship. I modeled a mid 20th century light cruiser that was in service for several decades and there were dozens of changes over the years. Some were simple, like the bosun wanting another cleat or bitt to tie to, or new antennas to improve reception. Others were large like adding new compartments on deck of adding new equipment. But in every case the changes were made to improve the performance of the ship. I doubt that this idea was new to the 20th century! I would not be surprised to learn that 15th through 19th century ships had occasional changes to the rigging to make it "better" in the eyes of the current Captains. There are some recorded accounts where rigging and sails were changed because a "better" way was observed on another ship. Unless you have an accurate period rigging plan for a ship for the year you are modelling you will never know exactly how it was rigged. There are a few simple rules of thumb for rigging that comes from some period books on rigging ships. 1. Standing rigging like stays form triangles with the mast and deck in order to support the masts. Forward stays fasten on or near the ship's center line on deck or to the bowsprit. After stays attach to the bulwarks or channels outboard the bulwarks. 2. Running rigging from the lower spars and sails leads to the forward most points on pin rails, fife rails and belaying points on deck, and the rigging from the highest points leads to the aft most belaying points. Rigging from near the center of yards or the mast leads down to points near the base of the mast (fife rails, ring bolts on deck, etc.) and rigging from the yard arms and outboard parts of sails leads down to points along bulwarks, pin rails or ring bolts on the deck near the bulwarks. Mast tackles usually lead outboard to channels or pin rails. 3. Lines should not cross or rub together. Each must lead free and clear down to the belaying point. Since this is how ships have been rigged for centuries, if you follow these guides you will probability end up rigging the model almost exactly like the real thing.

Looks like the current 100 Watt model. The user manual and other information can be found here: https://americanbeautytools.com/Resistance-Probe-Systems/110/features I have a little experience with resistance soldering with an American Beauty 250 Watt unit. Part of the probe is a carbon electrode which is VERY brittle and breaks easily (really annoying). The carbon electrode does not react with the metal being soldered. A metal probe might arc and scar the piece being worked on, or might even weld itself to the piece, depending on the materials and current. You can use an alligator clip to connect the return circuit to one of the pieces being soldered (preferably the larger piece. However, this will create several tiny point contacts with the work piece, and you might get some arcing and pitting. Many people recommend using a large sheet of conductive metal (copper,steel, etc.) as a base and clamping the larger work piece to it to get a good electrical connection. Then the probe is positioned against the other work piece before power is turned on. The carbon probe has a relatively high resistance and therefore heats up as current flows through it. Some of this heat transfers to the work piece, but it is heat generated in the solder that causes it to melt.

Marcus, zu Mondfeld's "Standing rigging sizes" table on page 272 and "Running rigging sizes" table on page 308 have an error. This had me scratching my head for a while. They say "The figures given refer to the thickness of the main stay, 0.166% of the diameter of the mainmast at the deck (100%)." The actual number is mast diameter x 0.166, or 16.6% of the mast diameter. The resulting number is the circumference of the rope, not the diameter. Divide the circumference by Pi (3.14159) to get the diameter of the rope. **** Before I figured this out I was getting really strange rope sizes. For example, 0.166% = 0.0016. If a model's mast was 0.375 inch diameter I thought the rope diameter was 0.0016 x 0.375 = 0.0006 inch! That is about 1/5 the thickness of a sheet of 24# printer paper! That is way too small and obviously incorrect. So I tried 0.375 inch times 16.6% = 0.375 x 0.166 = 0.062 inch, or about 1/16 inch. But 1/16 inch diameter seemed much too large. Then I realized it meant a 1/16 inch circumference, or 0.0625/3.14159 = 0.019894 or 0.02 inch diameter rope for the main stay. All other rigging circumferences are based upon the main stay circumference. **** In my schooner rigging spreadsheet I used Lees' formulas for English square rigged ships. But mast diameters are smaller on schooners that on full rigged ships. So reducing the mast diameter for schooners also reduced the size of the ropes used for the rigging. However, the rigging size section of the spreadsheet is not linked to the masting part. There is a separate cell (BH9) for the rigging calculations where you enter the model's mast diameter. So for any ship type just enter the mast diameter and the spreadsheet will use Lees' rules and calculate all the rigging sizes. However, I only include the rigging used on a schooner (and not all of that it turns out - I am learning). But the spreadsheet is not locked so you can modify it however you please. CAUTION: The spreadsheet uses Lees' English unit formulas and some calculations contain English feet to inch conversions, so entering metric values for the mast diameter will result in some meaningless Metlish measurements! If you want metric values enter the mast diameter in inches and then add a column to the calculations to convert the English units to metric units. Or just rewrite the spreadsheet. Mast spar and rigging calculations.xlsx

Bill, I am kitbashing a topsail schooner kit into a hypothetical revenue cutter of about 100 tons. https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=598658 Take what you see on my link with a grain of salt. It is constructed "like" what a revenue cutter of that size might have looked like, but it is not a model of a real ship. For me it is a learning exercise. But there is a lot of information about Baltimore clippers and revenue cutters. There aren't a lot of plans available for American schooner revenue cutters, and they aren't highly detailed. Howard Chapelle's "The Baltimore Clipper" is the most detailed book I have seen, but there aren't detailed plans for any revenue cutter. Chapelle's "The History of American Sailing Ships" has plans for two revenue cutters, Morris and Joe Lane. He also discusses the 31, 51 and 80 ton designs of William Doughty. Kits of these designs are available. Chapelle's "The History of the American Sailing Navy" has plans for the revenue cutter James Madison, Roger B. Taney and Washington. If you do get this book look for the 1949 version by W. W. Norton and Co. It has two page fold out plans for many ships (no revenue cutters). The newer Salamander Book version has the drawings split on two adjacent pages with details lost in the fold. When you get to the rigging stage you might find information at this link useful: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/25679-topsail-schooner-sail-plans-and-rigging/?do=findComment&comment=750865 It explains a lot of the terminology and describes the various parts of the masting and rigging of topsail schooners.

I would think the vangs would be led forward near the base of the mast. That way they wouldn't interfere with the swing of the booms. On some schooners the vangs are attached to hooks so they can be moved easily when necessary. The lee (downwind) vangs do not need to be tightened but they should be ready in case the wind shifts or for sudden turns.

Thanks. I agree with what you have said. Marquardt uses the term "roach" for the concave foot (bottom edge) of the sail that allows it to clear the stays, referring in one instance to an extreme roach up to 2/3 the height of the sail. I think I have seen "gore" used to refer to the extended belly of the sail, but I will have to see if I can find that reference. In any case, when I see "roach" or "gore" I can at least think that the author is probably talking about the bottom of a sail. I also chuckle at some of the modern dogmatic arguments about the differences between this and that sail rig. One author pointed out that the difference between a topsail schooner and a brigantine is that when a vessel has the fore gaff sail (fore sail) raised it is a schooner, but when the gaff sail is lowered and a fore course (square sail) is raised it is a brigantine. But I have photos of vessels with both the fore gaff sail and a fore course raised at the same time. So is it a "schoonatine" or a "brigooner?"

wefalck, Good questions! One thing I noticed right away is the very long list of references (more than 100) that he quotes. Although some things he writes are speculative - and he says so - most is based upon period writings. Likewise, he has many dated illustrations to reinforce his claims, although he sometimes sees details in sketches and paintings that I cannot see! You are probably right about his use of terms from numerous languages. He states that the word "schooner" did originate in America, but might have been from a Dutch colonist who use the Dutch word "schoone," which means "beautiful" and that New Englanders often added a "r" sound to the words ending in a silent "e" to produce "schooner." And he notes that in Dutch "ch" is pronounced like the English "sh" but in America "ch" is pronounced like "k"in English. So we have the word "schooner" (pronounced "skuner" in America). Maybe. A very interesting point he makes is that before the word "schooner" appeared in America in the early 1700s the schooner rig was not called a "schooner." The Royal Navy didn't start using the term until the mid 1700s. However, the first true schooner rig may have been the HMS Royal Transport of 1694 (he has numerous drawings and photos of an original model of the vessel). Before "schooner" came into use schooners were called "sloops" and some other terms. Some authors credit the invention of the schooner to America (and who of us who are true blue Americans would doubt that?) simply because there are no reports of "schooners" in the fleets of the world before they appeared in American reports. But he reprints many earlier drawings and illustrations of schooner rigs in Europe (especially The Netherlands) long before the term came into use in America. Marquardt's history is very well researched! But in his history of the fore-and-aft rig he says nothing about the history of the lateen (latin) rigged vessels of the Mediterranean and Arab world! One of the undefined terms he uses many times is "cutter mast." I can find no other reference to this term. However, he does have one drawing of mast types with a "cutter mast," but no explanation of what the difference ifs from any other mast. There doesn't seem to be anything unique about it. Another ambiguous term is "roach" which I think is the same as the undefined term "gore" that other authors use to describe the curvature of the foot of a sail. He uses the term "schooner sail" to refer to only the fore gaff sail with a boom. Without a boom is is not a "schooner sail." But the main gaff sail with a boom is not a "schooner sail," even though it is found on almost all schooners! Again I can find no other reference for this peculiar term. But even with a few faults it is an excellent reference for schooner masting and rigging, the equivalent of James Lees' The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War (which also has a lot of undefined terms and nothing about schooners). Marquardt does reference numerous authors who have published details about schooners, and has comparisons of the different calculations. There are 23 tables of schooner masting and rigging dimensions in the Appendix, from Frederick H. auf Chapman 1768, Paris 1769, Steel 1794 and 1818, Falconer 1815, Fincham 1854, Steinhaus 1858, and Brady (US Navy Board of Navy Commissioners) 1876. Another example of Marquardt's work that I have is Captain Cook's Endeavor in the Naval Institute Press "Anatomy of the Ship" series, 1995. Just about every part of the ship is illustrated. He has similar (but not as extensive) drawings for half a dozen schooners in his Global Schooner book. And the various parts of the rigging are illustrated with as much detail as in the Endeavor book. And one other bonus for those "down under," Marquardt describes a few Australian and New Zealand schooners. Where else will you find that?

Gregory, I have not seen McGregor's The Schooner. The reviews on line are not especially flattering. One says it has few detailed plans, another says there are some. Does he give tables of dimensions for the parts of masting and rigging? If so, is he just repeating what someone else has written, or is it original research? I did note it is another Naval Institute Press book. McGregor is a well-known author of books about ships. I have McGregor's British and American Clippers. It has a lot of history, and quite a few drawings of ships, but very little construction detail. The index lists ship names and people involved in the shipping industry, but nothing about the individual parts of ships. So even if there was detailed information about the construction of a part of a ship I would have to search through the entire book to find it. And there is no glossary where the author defines the terms he used. Although I am interested in nautical history, for ship modeling I really don't need a lot of detailed history. I am looking for illustrations of how the parts of ships were constructed and not a long winded history of how the particular design came about, who the designers were and their personal histories. Compare this to Harold Underhill's Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship & Ocean Carrier, Brown Son and Ferguson, Glasgow, 1972. It is one of the best (perhaps the best) nautical books I have seen. The 12 page Index contains about 1500 entries (at least 3000 page links) and almost all are for specific details of masting and rigging. Want to know what a "lower studding sail tripping line" is? Page193. Almost every detail is illustrated, and he gives the formulas for calculating various parts and numerous tables for determining proportions of masts and spars. There isn't a separate glossary, but he does define every term he uses in the text linked to in the index. He also gives some brief histories of how and when each part came into use, plus a bit of history of the development of ships rigging. It is a must have book for modelling British clipper ships of the late 1800s and early 1900s!

Well spoken Valeriy! I have written a few books and it is a lot of work and a real time consumer! It just doesn't leave enough time for the more important things in life - like building ship models!

It has been a while since my last post. I am working on details on the hull before taking on the masting and rigging. I have decided upon the rigging and created a spreadsheet to determine sizes and lengths of different size ropes and the sizes and numbers of blocks and such. I placed the order from Syren Ship Models and was able to get what I need before Chuck runs out of stock (I hope - the order has shipped but I don't have it in hand yet). There is a new twist to my plans. Eric William Marshall recommended another book, "The Global Schooner" by Karl Heinz Marquardt, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, USA, published by Conway Maritime Press, London, 2003. It is the best book I have seen on schooner masting and rigging! I am about 2/3 through the book. After I add Marquardt's formulae to my spreadsheet I may make some changes to my plans for the dimensions for masts and spars.

I have a new reference to recommend thanks to Eric William Marshall who told me about it. "The Global Schooner" by Karl Heinz Marquardt, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, USA, published by Conway Maritime Press, London, 2003. This book is devoted to the history and construction of schooners. It has an exhaustive history of the schooner rig - the best I have seen. Did you know that the fore-and-aft rig was inspired by a Peruvian raft from the early 1600s? The book has very detailed chapters on masts and rigging with detailed drawings. Numerous tables in the appendices give rules and dimensions for mast, spars and rigging. It is the most complete text on schooner rigging that I have found. It is a large book (11.6 x 10 inches, 294 x 254 mm) with 239 pages containing many detailed drawings, full page ship plans and illustrations. The only drawbacks are poor proofreading (some text is misplaced and a few drawings are mislabeled) and the author uses numerous undefined terms that I cannot find in other books on ships' rigging. In a few cases the text is so ambiguous I can's tell what he is talking about. These are minor problems, and common to most books about sailing ships. It has a good index but no glossary. There is no list of drawings and illustrations, and that would help finding the drawings the author often refers to. When I have time I will add Marquard's rules to my masting and rigging spreadsheet.

I recall seeing a very nice large scale (1:96 or 1:48?) model of the USS Oregon in the maritime museum in Astoria, Oregon, about 45 years ago. I visited again a few years ago and the model wasn't there any more. I have no idea what happened to it.

I believe the tackle used to position the studding sail booms was temporary, and not left rigged permanently. It was taken aloft to rig the sails. On smaller ships the booms may have been manhandled to push them out or haul them back in. When in position in/out the inboard end of the boom was lashed around the yard to hold it in place.

I have to add my two cents here! My first "ship" was a 112 foot long inshore mine sweeper (MSI). Three officers and 19 enlisted. I was Engineering Officer, Supply Officer, George and 25 other official duties. I was told, when first going aboard, that ships in the US Navy were 150 feet or longer, and anything smaller was a boat. However, we had a letter from the Secretary of the Navy authorizing us to call the vessel USS Cape, United States Ship. So the Cape and her sister the Cove (MSI 1) were the smallest ships in the Navy. The Cove was probably a bit shorter than the Cape. The ships had four GMC 6-71 diesel engines ganged together to drive one 4 foot diameter bronze propeller and a 6" diameter prop shaft. The prop and shaft weighed more than the engines. If we tried to shift into reverse while the shaft was turning the momentum of the prop and shaft plus the force of the prop "windmilling" would just crank the engines over backwards, and they were happy to run that way! To reverse the prop we had to pull on a brake lever that tightened a brake shoe against the shaft and hold on until the shaft stopped turning. Then we could shift the transmission into reverse, rev up the engines, let out the clutch and start the shaft/propeller turning again. Ditto when going from reverse to forward again. All this messing around took several minutes and made close maneuvering tricky. Why am I telling this? One time when coming in to the pier the Cove timed the approach wrong and while trying to reverse engines to slow down it rammed the stern of a destroyer in the berth ahead. It cut a several inch deep "V" shaped notch in the destroyer's stern. The destroyer presented the Cove with a new name plate for the "USS Can Opener." So the Cove was probably the shorter of the two. And there were only two. They were worthless. PS: One of these days I may build a model of the Cape. A wooden model of a wooden ship.

Bob, Thanks for that information. I have seen pictures of schooners with this type of topsail, but I had no idea what they are called.

Some vessels had gaff vangs and others didn't. But without the vangs the only control of the gaff was through the gaff sail, and that wouldn't prevent the gaff from swinging side to side as the ship rolled. Only the windward vang had to be taut to control the gaff swing. The leeward vang could be loosened to allow the boom to swing outboard. The vangs were typically hooked to ring bolts in the deck, and slack vangs could be unhooked and lead forward to get them out of the way of the boom.

I have a couple of the cheap Optivisor type with plastic lenses. They were OK at first but the plastic scratches easily, and after a while the image deteriorates. Optical glass is much better. Stronger (higher diopter) glasses are a convenient way to go, but they cause eye strain after a while.

If you use very fine grit sandpaper (400 or better) and lay the sheet flat, grit side up, you should be able to rub the photo etch sheet over it to remove the resist without rounding the edges of the pieces. Rubbing with #000 or #0000 steel wool will probably round the edges, and it can get tangled in the finer etched parts and bend them. I remembered that the sodium hydroxide solution was used to remove a pressed on resist film. It doesn't take much on the surface of brass to block the etching solution. I used to make "printed" circuit boards by drawing the traces on the material with water proof Sharpie pens (laundry marker type). After etching acetone removed the ink.

I have been cutting brass (and even a bit of copper years ago) using an ordinary variable speed hand drill. I just hold the drill in my lap and use the lock on button to keep it running without having to pull the trigger. I adjust the speed screw to get a fairly slow speed. I use a set of very small files to cut grooves, and a razor saw to part off the piece. I also use the drill and saw to cut pieces of tubing. Of course, with this hand held method no two pieces are the same, so I just make a lot more than needed and pick a collection of pieces that are of adequate dimensions. Also, after cutting tubing sections I can file/sand down the ends to get matching lengths. It is certainly not precision work, but it produces "good enough" parts. Maybe some day I will cut down the cabinets in the end of my garage and make a work bench. Then I can get a milling machine and lathe (I used to use the tools at work). But then I will have to insulate the garage so I can work in winter (and protect the machines from temperature and humidity extremes). And I will have to add electrical circuits for the new machinery. Then I will have to add heating ducts to the furnace to heat the work area, and then ... When will I find time for modelling?

One of the chemicals used for an etch resist stripper is sodium hydroxide (NaOH), a strong base/alkali. Caution: NaOH will cause skin burns and eye damage. Since NaOH is a base, and is used to remove resist, acids probably won't work. Besides, acids will attack the brass. Etchants are usually water based, so most water soluble solvents probably won't work (alcohol). First I would try acetone or enamel or lacquer thinner and an old tooth brush. These solvents won't harm the brass. If they don't work try sodium hydroxide.

I have a friend who had lens replacement for cataracts - and paid extra for proportional lenses. They work well for close-up but she needs glasses for distance! I haven't use the type of loupe you link to. It looks like it would be quite a bit of weight resting on the bridge of your nose. My close up vision has been deteriorating for a number of years, and I have some astigmatism. I do use a different form of magnifier, a multiple lens visor. It works well and isn't uncomfortable. It is similar to this visor: https://www.amazon.com/Headband-Magnifier-Head-Mounted-Binocular-Magnification-1-5X/dp/B07M7H3P95/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwr_uCBhAFEiwAX8YJgaKGKYBCNNWnWEE_WXJ37_cq0yNJZmiRivPrrIzlpNVpI4N6rl3ILxoCHU0QAvD_BwE&hvadid=241934970686&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9032979&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=13202486322252462774&hvtargid=kwd-339304622&hydadcr=24660_10400764&keywords=magnifier+visor&qid=1616903724&sr=8-3

Thanks. I suspected that, and was considering it. I have used black craft paper of appropriate thickness for grout on other models.

Mike, I love these wooden runabouts too. I grew up in a tourist trap surrounded by three lakes and there were swarms of these back in the 50s and 60s. Nice models! I checked your other build and I have a question. What did you use for the white grout on the deck? I have considered building the Admiral's barge from a ship I was on and it had the mahogany deck with white grout.