MSzwarc

I don't have any contemporary sources, but look up the term "brightwork" in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary. Also, from Howard Chapelle's Boatbuilding: "Varnished or oiled decks are called 'bright decks' and are perhaps one of the highest tests of workmanship a builder has to meet." And here's a link to the Google books page on Brightwork: the Art of Finishing Wood by Rebecca Wittman, with a good description of what brightwork is.

Maple works well for modeling. machines and sands well, holds sharp edges, and can be worked to a finish like glass if desired. The more highly figured pieces-- curly and birdseye-- are excellent for use in bases, but it's best to use straight grained stock for the model itself.

The term "bright" means the woodwork was varnished rather than painted. No pigment would have been used on brightwork. The term is applied to both varnished woodwork, and polished metalwork on ships and boats.

Thanks for the link, Wayne. I found more useful images in the Google preview than in any of the searches I did. The cover art of the book shows a painting of a pilot boat with no ratlines (and no shrouds?), and a crew member at the masthead standing on the top mast hoop. Also found a photo of a pilot boat with furled sails and also no ratlines. Can't quite make out if the foresail is loose-footed. Anyway, great link.

Thanks for the photo, Frankie. I had seen brailed foresails before, but didn't see how this would be easily accomplished without ratlines. I, too, have done searches for both the Phantom, and for pilot schooners in general. A search for the Phantom specifically only brings up endless pictures of the MS model. And while I've managed to find a few pictures of other pilot schooners, none of them have a loose-footed foresail, and they also all have ratlines.

Perhaps such actions were not officially sanctioned, but apparently actions against civilian towns did occur when British officers "exceeded their instructions." From Chapelle's History of American Sailing Ships, pp. 33-36: "It seems that certain of the New England coast towns had made themselves conspicuous by active opposition to the Crown, and thhe British naval commander at Boston felt that their insolence should be punished. This officer, Vice-Admiral Graves, directed the fitting out of a small squadron, composed of the Hallifax , the armed ship Canceaux, and the armed sloop Spitfire, all carrying 6 guns. These he placed under the command of Lieutenant Henry Mowatt, with orders "to operate against certain enumerated towns." Before sailing on his mission, Mowatt was also given the armed transport Symmetry of 18 light guns. One of the towns against which he had orders to act was Falmouth [now Portland, Maine]. Arriving on October 17th, 1776, he sent an officer ashore with the demand that the townsmen remove themselves, their families and goods out of the village within two hours as he intended to carry out his orders to burn the place. To appreciate the situation fully, it must be remembered that the season of the year was so advanced that if these intentions were carried out it would be too late for the inhabitants to obtain new homes without great privation. It may be doubted whether Mowatt really had the orders he claimed to have, not only because of his actions, but also, according to British historians, because "his instructions were tempered with moderation." At any rate the townsmen sent off a deputation to beg that the reputed order should not be carried out. Mowatt refused to promise but proposed that if the settlement would surrender all its firearms, including four small pieces of artillery, and all ammunition, as well as turn over four hostages, he would refer the matter to his superior at Boston. After some deliberation, the townsmen rejected the proposal as too uncertain in results compared to the loss of their firearms in a wilderness. Mowatt therefore burned the village the morning of the next day. Great suffering resulted, but of more importance, the whole coast was aroused against the British."

Thanks again, Wayne. A bosun's chair was the only method I could think of, but it seemed there had to be a handier way to go aloft.

Thanks for the reply, Wayne. Are you saying the crew would use the mast hoops as a sort of ladder to go aloft?

On a schooner like Phantom, without a fore boom, how would the foresail be furled? Also, how would the furling of the main topmast staysail and gaff topsail be handled, since there are no ratlines to allow the crew to go aloft?

Thanks for the comments, everyone, and thanks for taking a look at the build log. The turtle ship is now finished, and I've posted pics in the completed model gallery.

Looking good, Wim. I found the tail structure to be the most poorly designed part of the smaller kit. Very aggravating to try to get the two tail fin pieces shaped, attached, and properly lined up.

Nice build of an interesting subject!

To break up the tedium of making the spikes, I decided to begin installing those I have finished. The installation goes quickly compared to fabricating the spikes. I started at midship so I could define the unspiked pathways around the hatches. I've got not quite 2/3 of the spikes made now, and about 1/3 of the spikes installed.

Interesting photos, showing how barely visible things like trunnels and coppering nails are closeup, never mind at modeling scale.

Thanks for your comments. More modeling madness. I decided to get the anchor out of the way since I didn't want to even think about the spikes yet. The kit anchor consists of two wooden pieces, with a thread wrapping. As I compared it to photos of anchors on turtle ship replicas, though, I could see that neither the construction, nor the shape of the flukes was the same, so I built my own anchor out of 21 pieces of wood, paper, and brass. With the anchor done, only the spikes remain, so it was time to figure out how I would do them. I considered miniature nails as well as pins, but rejected both as too large and not the look I wanted. Studying photos of the spikes and armor plates on the replica in Seoul, I decided that the spikes should be 0.02" in diameter, and should protrude 2mm from the tile. I decided to make them out of 0.02" dia. brass rod, 4mm long as follows: 1) cut rod to 8mm lengths-- easier to handle in The Dremel than 4mm 2) point both ends of rod in Dremel rotary tool 3) cut 8mm rods in half 4) blacken using Blacken-It Finally, 0.018" dia holes are drilled in the center of the armor tiles, and the spikes are press fit by pushing in with a piece of plastic rod drilled 2mm deep with a 0.025" dia hole. This tool ensures that all the spikes protrude only 2mm from the tile. On the test section I made up, no glue was necessary for a good, tight fit. The process works, and results in the desired appearance, but producing the approximately 500 needed spikes will be tedious and time consuming, so I'd best get on with it.