-
Posts
2,203 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Dr PR
-
Mark, It was not uncommon for topsail schooners to carry a fore course - a square sail suspended from the lower yard. I have seen several examples in books about schooners, such as the French privateer Le Comtesse Emererian 1810, ex privateer Herald or HMS Pictou 1815, HMS Sea Lark and HMS Alban1817, US revenue Cutter Louisiana 1819, and slaver Mary Adeline 1852. Howard Chapelle's "The Baltimore Clipper" has numerous other examples, including drawings from Marestier taken off ships and published in 1824. A fore course doesn't seem to be common on modern topsail schooners, but some photos (below) of the modern French Navy Belle Poule show her flying a square course with a spar to the clew something like a spinnaker or a studding sail! Note that they also have a water sail on the main boom, so they are spreading a lot of canvas to catch the wind. Like about everything else I have seen about schooner rigging it seems to have been up to the owner's/captain's whim. While I agree that brigantines are supposed to have a taller main mast than a fore mast, what else would you call the second example? I'd call it a topsail ketch but I have never heard that name used!
-
Hull Planking Question
Dr PR replied to tomsimon's topic in Building, Framing, Planking and plating a ships hull and deck
This thread has yielded some very good information! Some of the more detailed and esoteric points really apply if you intend to create a museum quality model. For this you should read the requirements for models from the Smithsonian, the US Naval Academy Museum, etc. For archival purposes we can forget epoxy, CA, and many other glues. The wood pieces should be cut to minimize shrinkage, etc. Forget plastics, 3D printing, pot metal castings and other materials that have not withstood the test of time. And so on ... But most of us are not building museum quality models (we wish!). We are building for the fun of it and the satisfaction of having done our best. It looks like the majority of builds are from kits and we use whatever materials are supplied. I seriously doubt most kit makers carefully cut each piece the "right" way! When we do make modifications to the kits or kitbash we usually get our materials from a local hobby shop, or maybe order online. Again you get whatever the supplier sends. Frankly, as careful as I am about trying to get things "right" on kit builds, I really don't think my models should last forever! I think the worry about wood expansion is perhaps a bit exaggerated. It is a problem in buildings with no humidity control that are constructed of large diameter wooden beams. Cracks are common because of stresses accumulated over large dimensions. Even on my house I have seen cracks open between siding boards, about 1/8 inch in 8 feet (96 inches) or 0.0013%, when summer temperatures get up to >100F for several days and humidity drops below 20%. But our models are made up of pieces of very small dimensions so very large stresses don't accumulate. I looked at The Wood Database and found that some green woods do contract 8% to 12% tangentially when they are dried. However it states that after drying dimensional changes are small, typically about 0.1%. Given that number, six inches of planking would change by 0.006 inches (0.00023 mm). That is about the thickness of two sheets of #24 printer paper. I have seen cracks appear in hulls I have made where planks were nailed or glued to bulkheads with a light coat of lacquer on the exterior. However, as Bob said, this cracking is likely due to poor planking techniques as much as anything else. These were some of my first kit builds. I think for most of us any materials, glues, and methods that get the job done to our satisfaction will be good enough. And everyone has their own opinions about what is "good enough." -
I agree with Bob. His naming is about as good as you can get for these rigs. The second rig is similar to a hermaphrodite brig (also called a brigantine), but doesn't appear to have a full square sail rig on the fore mast as brigs as brigantines are supposed to have. Also, every picture I have seen (and most definitions) of brigantines has had the main mast as tall as or taller than the fore mast. Ketches are two masted vessels with the mizzen (after) mast positioned ahead of the rudder/tiller and shorter than the main (fore) mast, as in the second rig, but the main mast is usually rigged fore and aft with a gaff sail, and no square topsail. Without the topsail on the main mast our second rig might be called a "staysail ketch" but I have never seen that term used. Topsail ketch? The third rig is strange. I'd call it a "mule" as it appears to be a cross between a schooner and a dhow or felucca. Let's hope it too is sterile and cannot reproduce! The sail rig on the Thames barge is called a spritsail.
-
Deck or Hull
Dr PR replied to acaron41120's topic in Building, Framing, Planking and plating a ships hull and deck
I like to plank the hull first. Then I seal the inside with epoxy paint (or resin) to prevent cracks from appearing in the future. Also, I paint the inside of the hull black anywhere it might be visible through hatch gratings, companionways, etc. (assuming you aren't building an interior that you want to be visible). -
Scanning Large Plan Sheets At Home
Dr PR replied to thibaultron's topic in CAD and 3D Modelling/Drafting Plans with Software
Ron, I used your technique to scan several hundred blueprints on microfilm from the National Archives. The microfilm scanner at our library produced images that were far too coarse for scanning the full 35mm film frames, resulting in images too blurry to read the fine print. I optically enlarged the images and scanned each 35mm frame in six overlapping scans and pasted them together in Photoshop. Some of the largest blueprints (12' x 3') were photographed in six frames producing 36 scanned images. The original photo equipment generated some spherical distortion in the images on microfilm, and the microfilm scanner at the library added even more distortion. I had to do a lot of image straightening and stretching to get back the original rectangular shapes. But then they all went together pretty smoothly. The resulting images are really good. I can read the finest print, and can even see the tiny pencil dots the draftsman used to center circles and align lines of text! -
Jeff, Looking back over my build there are several things I would do differently now! For me it is a learning project, and seeing things to do differently is a sign I must be learning! For the inverted photo you might try loading it into Microsoft mspaint (it comes with Windows) and see if it is inverted there. If so you can rotate it 180 degrees. Also you might try to save it in a different format (JPEG, PNG, BMP, etc.) I would avoid GIF files - they are easily sabotaged with viruses so many programs will not load them.
- 42 replies
-
- lively of baltimore
- lumberyard
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Hull Planking Question
Dr PR replied to tomsimon's topic in Building, Framing, Planking and plating a ships hull and deck
Bob, I appreciate the information you are providing, although I wonder if some of your "facts" aren't just "opinions." Please don't take that as a criticism - I am skeptical of most things most people say! There are a lot of "alternate facts" these days! Can you recommend a good source of information about woods and shrinkage/swelling with humidity and temperature changes? I have seen some numbers for the coefficient of thermal expansion of woods, but nothing on humidity effects. You gave an example wood swelling 1% with humidity. That seems pretty extreme to me. If my house (made of wood before plywood was used) swelled 1% it would increase in height about an inch and more than 4 inches in length! Of course it does expand and contract some, causing an occasional door to be hard to close, but my guess is it less than 0.1%, otherwise a lot of things would buckle. I stress the word "guess" because I have no way to conduct an experiment to measure expansion/contraction of the house accurately. Also, almost all of the boards are cut with the grain running lengthwise, including joists, wall studs, rafters and side planking, so I guess it would expand less lengthwise to the grain than crosswise to the grain. -
Dan, I appreciate your persistence and attention to detail. I like the Baltimore clippers and will be following your thread.I am also working on a 1:48 Baltimore clipper and kit bashing it into a revenue cutter. The deck planking came out better than I expected and was a lot of fun! I am working on the rigging plans.
-
Jeff, Nice work! I had missed this build in the past. We are both working on similar ships. I am currently designing the rigging and sails for the ship. I am curious, how long is the model (hull)? Do the plans give dimensions for the actual ship?
- 42 replies
-
- lively of baltimore
- lumberyard
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
I have to comment on Jersey City Frankies harsh criticism of Lennarth Petersson's Rigging Period Fore and Aft Craft, Naval Institute Press, 2015. I have been studying schooner rigging for several years now, and I have used Petersson's book. As far as schooner rigging goes it seems to be pretty accurate. I have found other references, drawings and photos of topsail schooners that show most of what is illustrated in the book. Frankie says the drawings are based upon an unnamed models. But Petersson tells where he found the models. The schooner model is a model if the Baltimore clipper Experiment that was built in 1808 in New York and sold to the Swedish Navy in 1812. The model is in the Naval Museum, Karlskrona, in Sweden. Petersson says it is not an exact copy of the Experiment. Frankie mentions an improperly rigged "Spanish burton" in the book. I can't find a single example of a Spanish burton. However, there is an example of a properly rigged ordinary burton tackle in the drawing of the main tackle and top on page 75. This configuration is much more common than the Spanish burton. I do agree completely with Frankie that there is a dearth of period information about the schooner rig. Most books just describe the practice of rigging large square-rigged warships. Very little seems to have been written about schooner rigs, and what does exist is usually for modern racing yachts and fishing schooners. I would be surprised if many, if any, schooners were rigged exactly as Petersson's drawings show. Looking at photos of modern topsail schooners I can find just about everything Petersson depicts on one ship or another, but no two modern schooners appear to be rigged the same way, with the possible exception of the French Navy's Etoile and Belle Poule. Petersson shows both halliards and lifts for the topsail yards. Some modern schooners have both, some use only a halliard, and some have only lifts. Here are two examples of schooner rigging Petersson shows that are unusual. He shows vangs on the fore and main gaffs. However very few books show vangs on schooner gaffs. And most photos of modern schooners do not have them. But Etoile and Belle Poule do have them. He shows bowlines on the course and topsail but I have tried in vain to find a single example of a topsail schooner with these lines. They are more typical of large square rigged ships. But these are legitimate rigging methods for some ships. The real problem is that it is possible that no two schooners were rigged exactly the same way. Owners and Captains often had their own ideas of what was "right" and that may have changed over time with experience on a particular ship. Often there were several ways to set up rigging to accomplish the same thing. But there were commonly accepted ways to do things. This is probably why there are few rigging plans for period sailing ships. They weren't needed. Everyone knew how to rig a ship.
-
Dave, It is octagonal. The normal way to create a spar is to start with a square cross-section timber. It is then tapered from the larger cross section in the middle to narrower square cross sections at the ends. This forms the basic shape of the spar. Then it is shaped to octagonal cross section, and the outer parts are trimmed again to sixteen surfaces, and then it is trimmed to make it round. This was/is the way to get cylindrical and conical pieces without having a lathe, using hand tools like planes and spokeshaves. Sometimes the middle section is left octagonal. Sometimes it isn't.
-
Here are a couple of comments related to these discussions. 1. I just had a great Christmas dinner that included barbecue ribs cooked up by my significant other's youngest son. He took home economics in school and learned to cook. He is a really good cook! So I guess I can thank his home ec teacher in part for the great ribs!. 2. I have several thousand blueprints for the Cleveland class cruisers on microfilm. I have scanned and digitized hundreds of them for making my USS Oklahoma City model. I scanned at the equivalent of about 9000 dpi on the film. This produced clear images of even the smallest lettering. Each drawing has a title box with the draftsman's initials and I soon learned to recognize the draftsman by looking at the lettering. And different people had different ways to create drawings. The scanned images are so good that I can see the tiny pencil dots that were used for centers of circles and to evenly space guide lines for the text. I love looking at these blueprints and learning how the ships were built. However, some of the lettering is very poorly done. One fellow made 3 and 5 almost identical, so if the microfilm image isn't really clear you can't tell these numbers apart. And some drawings have long sequences of comments documenting changes. These were made my multiple people and the lettering quality varies from good to horrible. Some of the draftsmen were better artists than others! **** Now I take exception to the comments that all CAD drawings are alike or not artistic. Like the paper drawings, it depends upon the draftsman. At least all of the text is legible! But different people make CAD drawings in different ways. I have worked with engineers who did sloppy work, on paper and in CAD. And I have worked with some fellows who truly were CAD artists, who took pride in their work and added all the little details that distinguish a nice blueprint from a bad one. Again, everyone has their own opinion. I have worked extensively with paper drafting and CAD. I appreciate nice work done either way.
-
Hull Planking Question
Dr PR replied to tomsimon's topic in Building, Framing, Planking and plating a ships hull and deck
Bob, Thanks for the information about wood shrinkage and expansion with humidity. I have long been aware of the problems with expansion/contraction of metal and plastic with temperature change, and the large differences of thermal coefficient of expansion for these materials. I hadn't given much thought to wood, except that it has a relatively low thermal coefficient of expansion and the problems this can cause in constructions with wood, plastic and metal. I have three plank on bulkhead hulls that date back to the 60s through 80s. All are single plank hulls. These have been in the western Oregon environment where we have humidity swings several times a year between 20% and 100% (normally 35% to 70%). Winters are especially damp. It can start raining in late October and not stop until May. Then we may have no rain from May to October. I would think this would make a good test of the effects of humidity swings on model hulls. The first two hulls (14" to 15" long, built in 1969) had planks glued (or nailed) to bulkheads with no glue between planks. As you noted, expansion/contraction was localized. Both of these hulls have pronounced cracks between some of the planks. The ordinary lacquer or enamel paint applied to the exterior was not sufficient to prevent gaps from appearing. The third hull (18" long, built in 1985) has no cracks after 35 years. The inside was painted with the epoxy paint as described in my earlier post (several coats until the wood absorbed no more). See the link to my Mantua Albatros build in the footer of this post. I think the reason it has not cracked is pretty simple. Every piece soaked up the epoxy so the bonds penetrate into the wood. Each plank is bonded tightly to the bulkheads, so the planks cannot move. Each plank is bonded tightly to its neighbors, making it difficult for gaps to appear. I would say 35 years in this environment without cracks is a pretty good test of the process. One thing that may have contributed to the stability of this hull is that it probably was built in the winter (not many good days for hiking) , with relatively high humidity. So the planks may have been expanded when they were glued together. For what it is worth, all three hulls were from kits, and the wood was whatever was thrown into the box. Back in the 60s to 80s I doubt if anyone gave any thought to how the grain ran in the wood. The plank dimensions of the 1980s kit varied quite a bit, especially in thickness! These were fairly small hulls. If I was building a 3-4 foot hull I would certainly give some thought to wood expansion and contraction. -
As a child I took 9 years of art classes outside the regular school system. In these I learned about perspective, viewpoints and such, all for the purpose of making pretty pictures - what is called "art." But I have always had the ability to create 3D perspective drawings on paper. For me it was fun. I made straight As in geometry in junior high school - it all came naturally to me. In college my freshman roommate was majoring in engineering, and he had mechanical drawing classes. Like so many people he had no concept of perspective. I would look at the three-view (front, side, top) 2D images and just draw the 3D perspective for him by hand. Years later I learned how to use mechanical drawing tools for work on drafting boards. I read through some drafting books and it was all pretty obvious. Again, it came naturally. I have always loved to draw (and still do), whether it is an artistic picture, a botanical drawing or an engineering plan for a house or machined part. Then along came CAD in the late 1980s. We used AutoCRUD at first and it was awful! What we called a VERY user unfriendly program. One day one of the engineers tried a CAD program called ProDesign. One look at the user interface (the best I have ever seen on any program) and AutoCRUD went into the trash. We have used the same program ever since, although the program has changed hands from company to company several times. Today DesignCAD is considered to be a "hobby" program, and it lacks some of the bells and whistles of more expensive programs. But it is still a very capable 2D and 3D drawing program. Considering it costs about $100 with free bug fixes and technical support, and it has a great free user Forum where you can ask experienced users how to do things and solve problems, it is a tremendous bargain. Some of the "professional" CAD programs I have also used ($15,000 per seat with $1500 per year fees for technical support and access to user forums) can't do some of the things the $100 DesignCAD can do! So I have experience from both sides. I still do preliminary "back of the napkin" sketches on paper with pencil. I love working with wood and building wood ship models. But the ability to rework a drawing in CAD without messy erasers and whiteout, or just redrawing the entire thing as you do on paper makes CAD the ONLY way to go for a large complex drawing. If you have any doubts, just ask yourself how you rescale the size of text on a paper drawing that was created with a Leroy set? You start over and create a new drawing sheet - all of it. In CAD you click on the text and say I want it 25% larger, and while we are at it let's use a different font. And I can take an old CAD drawing and modify it to create new things without starting over from scratch. But is it art, and can you use it for ship modeling? And do you need 3D? First, some people will never understand 3D drawing. One of their greatest handicaps has been familiarity with 2D drawing techniques, and even 2D CAD. In 2D you draw an image of something in the real world. In 3D you create an entirely new world. It is not drawing, drafting or anything like it - it is modeling, as if you were creating something out of modeling clay, only it is virtual clay. Very few 2D drawing techniques apply to 3D, and 3D CAD programs have a different set of tools. Instead of a pencil you have to learn to use a virtual chisel or drill. I know a fellow who has been using a 3D CAD program for years and still hasn't developed an understanding of 3D. He just doesn't get it when it comes to turning 2D sketches into 3D models. He cannot create the 3D image in his mind, and you have to be able to do this for 3D CAD. I think it would be better if he didn't try! But I was doing 3D perspective drawing with pencil on paper in grade school and instantly understood 3D CAD. So you should keep this in mind before you take the 3D CAD plunge. Like any program there is a learning curve, but if you understand 3D modeling it will be a lot easier to learn how to use the tools in the program. Can you use CAD for ship modeling? Someone commented it was good for creating new designs, and that certainly is true! But I have seen a number of CAD models of historical ships, even wooden sailing ships. There CAD has a great advantage in some ways. For example, after you have created a double sheave block you can replicate it endlessly and even resize the copies with a few clicks. With a true CAD system you can control dimensions precisely, and that is important if you are copying the design of an historical ship. Is it art? That depends upon what you call art. What is the purpose of the model? Any model, either wood or CAD? Is a chair art? I have seen a few that were exquisitely crafted, but in the end they are chairs, with a functional use. Is this art? These are images of a CAD model of the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 as it existed in the summer of 1971 (when I was aboard). It was created from the original 1959 blueprints with hundreds of modifications that were made over the years. It is a 1:1 scale model, 610 feet long in the CAD universe. You might rightly call me a "rivet counter" because I modeled all the nuts, bolts screws and rivets (everything) that were 3/16 inch (4.76 mm) across or larger in the real world. About 1/3 of the 1+ gigabyte file is nuts, bolts, rivets and screws (however, I did not model the threads - that would have made the file 50-100 gigabytes). There are several hundred thousand individual parts. It took 14 years to acquire the plans and photos of the ship and the equipment on board and convert them into the 3D CAD model. It is not a CAD model of the ship like ship builders use. It only contains the exterior. None of the internal structure is included. But it is a model of an historical ship that was produced in 3D CAD. Perhaps I am boasting, but it may be the most accurate model of a ship ever created. However, it is certainly "too accurate" to be correct for its dimensions are precise to thousandths of an inch, and for the most part the shipyards certainly didn't do that accurate work! And dimensions in the real world change with temperature and time. So is it art? What is the purpose of a model? Can models be art? If the only way to truly appreciate the model is to view images, how is this different from looking at paintings of historical ships? Each of us has an opinion, and no one's opinions are any better than anyone else's' opinion. But I have enjoyed making this CAD model as much or more than any painting, photograph or wooden model I have made. It was fun! If you are interested in this model and how it was built: For a lot more more information about the ship see: www.okieboat.com
-
Decaling carrier deck.
Dr PR replied to reklein's topic in Painting, finishing and weathering products and techniques
Model railroaders have a lot of experience putting decals on uneven surfaces. You might look at some of those forums for tips. Be certain that you have a clean smooth (glossy) surface before applying decals. Clean smooth plastic is OK, even if it has some texture. The decal setting solution actually dissolves the decal and as it dries the decal settles into textured surfaces like paint. Don't even think of trying to reposition a decal after applying setting solution! If you place decals on a satin or flat finish you will get fogging under the decal - looks awful (I speak from experience). -
Blocks and rigging size for Olympia 1:232
Dr PR replied to The_Full_Broadside's topic in Masting, rigging and sails
I don't remember the name/location of the post, but one fellow just used tiny drops of glue to simulate small blocks. Just tie the wires together and add a drop of glue. Maybe a ship in a bottle? I think a better technique would be to tie the wires together and add a drop of solder. Then you can squeeze the solder with pliers to shape the flat sides of the block, and even shape with a fine file. With a bit of care (and practice) you should be able to make decent double and triple blocks. -
OK, the lettering on the top of the capstan is really nice, but I was a bit disappointed that you didn't put the ship's name on the bell! JOKING! Have a happy holidays and a happy new year! PS: Did Vladimir finish his CLG-5 model?
-
Hull Planking Question
Dr PR replied to tomsimon's topic in Building, Framing, Planking and plating a ships hull and deck
I never use cyanoacrylate (CA) glue. Period! Some folks use a drop of CA at a few spots when planking for a quick fastening, and use wood glue for most of the bonds. I just use the wood glue and tightly clamp the planks in place. It may be a bit slower that using CA, but it does produce a better bond. One of the things to keep in mind is that wood expands and contracts with changes in humidity and temperature. This can generate some pretty strong local stresses, the sort of thing CA doesn't work well with. Some of the earliest planked ship models that I made decades ago eventually developed cracks between the planks, with some plank edges showing, even though I used wood glue between the planks! The absolutely best way to prevent cracks from developing years after the build is to paint the interior of the finished hull with epoxy paint or something like fiberglass polyester resin. Some people even apply thin fiberglass to the hull interior, but I think that is unnecessary. I have used an epoxy paint that flying airplane modelers use to seal balsa engine mounts so they don't soak up fuel. It should be thin and watery (a paint) so it will soak into the planks and bulkheads. After it hardens the hull will be rock solid and will never crack. I have 30+ year old hulls that are like new. You don't have to worry about the hull shattering if you drop it! You don't need to try to get glue between the plank edges while planking - just glue the planks to the bulkheads. This way you don't get glue on the exterior surface where it can spoil the surface of unpainted wood. After the planking is finished apply the epoxy to the hull interior. The epoxy paint will seep between the planks and soak into the wood making a very strong bond between neighboring planks and between planks and bulkheads. After it hardens you can finish sanding/scraping/painting the hull and it will retain the final shape forever. -
Kieth, Looking back at those electrical boxes on the mast inside the pin rails I think they are jack boxes. Perhaps electrical outlets or maybe communications plugs. I do not think they connect through to the interior of the mast. It looks like fairly standard exterior wiring practice using stuffing tubes where the cables enter the boxes. That type of box doesn't appear to be designed for electrical conduit. Look at the close-up photos and you will see they have screw-off caps with chain retainers on the bottom, just like the US Navy used on sound-powered phone boxes back in the last century (I don't know if they still use sound powered phones). The electrical circuit could be for power to lights or tools, or it might be a circuit for communication between crew members. Happy holidays! And keep in mind that next year is almost certainly going to be happier than this one!
-
Scottish Maid (Artesania kit) - where to anchor etc braces
Dr PR replied to gthursby's topic in Masting, rigging and sails
Petersson's topsail schooner rigging was based upon the Experiment that was built in New York in 1808. It was an early Baltimore clipper. It was sold to Sweden in 1812 and the model he referenced is in a Swedish museum. Although every contemporary book I have found on sailing ship rigging mentions only square riggers, or very little about schooner rigs, the same basic rules for rigging were used on fore and aft rigs, and especially topsail schooners. Inboard and outboard. Lines coming down from sheaves in masts and blocks on masts or inboard on spars were tied off on fife rails, bitts and ring bolts on deck around the base of the masts. Lines coming from sheaves and blocks attached the ends of spars run to pin rails, cleats and ring bolts in the deck on or near the bulwarks. Inboard to inboard, outboard to outboard. This makes sense because you don't want running rigging crossing other lines. Fore and aft. Lines from lower sails and spars lead to the forward cleats, ring bolts and pins in fife rails and pin rails. Lines from higher up lead to the aft positions. This is especially true on ships with highly raked masts. Lower to forward, higher to aft. Again, it is a way to ensure lines do not get crossed. Follow these guidelines and your model will be as accurate as you can get unless you have a detailed rigging plan for the ship you are modeling, and for the date you are modelling. However, detailed rigging plans are almost nonexistent. They were unnecessary. Everyone knew how to rig a ship, and different owners and Captains had their own "right" way. -
Greetings from Corn Valley!
-
Kevin, 3D printing has come a LONG way since the original posts in this thread. I have been watching some builds done with ~US$300-400 relatively small desktop machines (about the footprint of a home laser printer), and with careful positioning of the part there are no visible "jaggies" in the surfaces. Resolutions are a few thousandths of an inch! Some of these builds are whole ship models at 1:96 or 1:100 scale - or larger - that are printed in sections. Really amazing work! So fine resolution home printing is certainly affordable now! However, everyone who is doing this says there is quite a learning curve to designing the supports for the parts and positioning things for best results. The main concern I have is the strength of the printed parts, especially fine details like life rails and radar antennas, etc. I have seen some older technology printed parts and they are very fragile. Certainly not suitable for a RC model that will be handled a lot. And maybe not practical on a model that will have a lot of handling during assembly.
-
I agree with Bob. 150 grit leaves a lot of scratches in the wood, especially if you rub really hard. These scratches may be hard to remove with 300-400 grit, but you will eventually get a much nicer surface. I then use #0000 steel wool to get a nice satin finish. Be sure to wipe the surface with a clean cotton rag (or brush it with a stiff soft brush) after using steel wool or sandpaper. Sanding can leave grit on the wood and steel wool will leave tiny steel fibers. You should remove these before applying the next coat of paint or sealer. If you want to seal a porous wood, especially a dark wood like walnut, save the dust from sanding. Then mix it with a clear paint (whatever type you are using) to make a sanding sealer. You might want to dilute the paint 1:1 with thinner to get a thin sealer. Apply a light coat and let it dry. Then rub it with #0000 steel wool to remove the paint from the surface and leave the paint/dust in the pores. Repeat applications of the sealer until you get the surface you want. A final light rub down with #0000 steel wool will give a satin finish. Caution: commercial sanding sealers usually have talc powder in them. It dries white, and will make pores in dark wood stand out like a sore thumb. However, if you are going to paint the sealed wood with an opaque color the commercial sealers are easier to use than mixing your own.
-
Scottish Maid (Artesania kit) - where to anchor etc braces
Dr PR replied to gthursby's topic in Masting, rigging and sails
I have been studying the rigging of topsail schooners for several years, and I am of the opinion that there is no single "accurate" rigging plan. From photos of modern schooners and drawings of historical ships it seems there are about as many ways to rig the sails as there are ships. And the rigging on a ship sometimes changed while it was in service. I think Lennarth Peterssons's Rigging Period Fore-And-Aft Craft is a pretty good general guide. He states that the rigging plan is based upon a single model with a few modifications, so you can't expect every topsail schooner to have been rigged this way. Every shipowner, Captain and bosun had a preferred way to do things. Unless you have photos, or very reliable drawings, of the ship as it was rigged at the time you are modeling it you will never have an "accurate" plan. Petersson's book is a good guide for the general way the rigging was done. However if it has a fault it is that it is over rigged! He shows just about every possible line. I don't know if any single ship carried all of that rigging, but I know of quite a few that didn't. For example, he shows how bowlines were rigged to control the fore course and topsail, but I have never seen this used on a schooner. It is much more common on larger square riggers. Another example is the lifts and halliards for the foremast spars. Look at photos of modern schooners and you will see that some have both, some have only the halliards and some use only the lifts. Petersson shows a way to rig the peak halliards for the gaffs, and other books show a half dozen ways to rig them. The "accuracy" of a ship model doesn't require that every line be rigged in some perfect way. It is more important to have all the lines necessary to control the rig, however these lines are tied off on deck. And some ships did tie lines to cleats on the shrouds.
About us
Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research
SSL Secured
Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured
NRG Mailing Address
Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917
Model Ship World ® and the MSW logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,929,264 & No. 6,929,274, registered Dec. 20, 2022)
Helpful Links
About the NRG
If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.
The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.
The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.