BANYAN

Your 'cave' is starting to look very plush Hank. I have been a lurker watching your progress with some interest, and I am impressed with the forethought and finish going into your project. I went through this some years back and it has paid dividends having a well laid out and comfortable place to work - only one problem, as I am a 'toolaholic', the 'shop' started to get cluttered again and undergoing a thinning out exercise at the moment - so beware - the more space you have the more you want to put in there cheers Pat

Wow, you do work fast, and with an impressive degree of quality and craftmanship and finish. cheers Pat

You are quite correct Tony. That is exactly how it was done. The finished mast was then taken to the ship but I am not sure whether it was onboard that the spar was 'adjusted' (wood removed to set the tops parallel to the Waterline, sit in the footing correctly, etc), or whether this was all done ashore. My discussion/question was more about how much wood was removed as the authors etc do not cover this, and as pointed out would have been at the builder's whim. When the rules were determined, most masts were relatively upright with only a few degrees of rake. Victoria had 5, 10 and 15 degrees rake respectively for the Fore, Main and Mizen masts. Effectively, when removing the wood to set the trestletrees parallel, the measured 'Hounded' length of the mast (partners to Stop - top of hounds - to bottom of trestletrees) was shortened; that was why I was a little concerned. The overall length was not affected. In Victoria, as the mast was rounded in section at the hounds (not squared), before being dressed/lined at the sides for the cheeks of the hound pieces, I have 'assumed' removing more wood, thus shortening the hounded length just a little, was not significant and will have imparted the greatest strength to the trestletree support. cheers Pat

A very interesting build and great end result Greg. That 'digital graveyard' or should it be plastic mothball fleet is an impressive collection. So when are you opening for tours - after Covid of course! cheers Pat

Great subject to do hwy; I am sure Ed will be thrilled to see you making this model. With your skills I am sure you will do a very creditable job. cheers Pat

Hi Tony, thanks for looking in. To clarify, if it wasn't for the extreme rake of the masts (15 degrees for the Mizen mast) the options 1 through three would not be an issue at all as the masts are fairly upright. Therefore when checking in to fit the hounds (single piece in steam vessels of this era) the upper edge would provide a 'natural' flat/horizontal length onto which to fit the trestletrees. Unfortunately, as you rake the mast backward you are changing the angle and taking out much more of the mast when checking in for the hounds. Similarly, you have to adjust the heel of the mast such that it fits snug and parallel along its length against the keel/mast footing to allow a tight fit for the heel tenon. When the mast is up and down the hounded and headed lengths are IAW the dimensions of the masts given in the Specification. This allows easy application of the rules for shaping the mast as given by Kipping and Fincham. However, as you lay the mast backward more what is the hounded length? Is it from the partners to the stop (where the head starts) along the mast centre line (CL) or is it a true perpendicular/vertical height? I am assuming it is the first option, and therefore by adjusting the heel and how much of the stop is taken away will influence/impact of the hounded length (only a bit but still....) I am trying to stay within the rules and the given dimensions for shaping the mast by minimising the amount the heel and the stop is adjust to allow the skeletal tops to be fitted parallel to the waterline. If you look closely, option 1 has the after part of the hounds sitting proud of the stop as the tops is axis is centred on the CL crossing with the mast. Option two, which minimises the amount checked out of the stop, creates an even larger area abaft the leading edge of the mast that is not conformal/level with the stop's shoulder. Option 3, and my selected way ahead, checks more out of the mast but provides maximum support. The issue is though where is the hounded length measured, from the CL or from the point where you have checked in for the hounds creating a new lowest point for the shoulder. In reality, I don't think this would make much of a difference and the rules are given as the starting point for shaping the mast, but then adjusted to fit the ship/need? As such I created the masts (in my CAD drawing) to be slightly longer, such that after shaping the hounded length is measured along the CL of the mast between the partners and the centre/mid point of the hounding stop's shoulder. I hope this clarifies what I was trying to elicit? Simply, having to write it out and the reassurance of the responses helped me settle on a solution. cheers Pat

Very nice work Keith and I love that extra detail even if it will not be seen. If you decide to sell you can ask extra for the artwork cheers Pat

Thanks for looking in and comments Eberhard and Ed; much appreciated. You are both right in that this is deeper detail that will not be readily apparent on the model. However, as also commented I would like to get it right I think I will go with the following unless some better evidence emerges. 1. As some of the sides of the mast will be checked in (paralleled) to fit the hounds anyway, it would be unlikely that a small section deeper would make any difference to mast strength, and will allow a sightly deeper ledge for the trestle trees to sit on, so I will go with option 3. 2. I am going with option A as having an overhang on the trestletree (after checking in for the hounds) would be unlikely (to allow for wood movement and top movement). Further more, with the Jibboom for example, the width (GD) is given at the stop but it is then checked in to allow for the spider bands to sit flush. I am assuming therefore a similar principle may apply here I will keep looking though. cheers Pat

Hi folks. A question for the more learned about the fitting of hounds to the lower mastheads in 19th century ships (with particular interest for the 1850s). I am currently grappling with the correct way to fit the hounds/cheeks to the masts of HMCSS Victoria, AND also how the mast head was shaped. 1. WRT to the hounds, I have shaped and used the dimensions provided by Kipping and Fincham, both contemporary published naval architects of the period. I am reasonably confident in that Victoria will have had hounds/cheeks although some ships of the period may not have had them fitted (if I have interpreted these two authors and Harold Underhill correctly. Accordingly, I have decided to fit them but this has raised a quandary for me and I cannot find a published method as yet. I have dimensioned / shaped the masts in accordance with the given dimension provided in the 'Specification' attached to the ship's Contract IAW the rules provided by Kipping and Fincham. The attached drawing shows three options of how the hounds may have been fitted. From what I have found, they are fitted parallel to the waterline, but as the rake of the masts in Victoria was extreme (5 degrees - Foremast, 10 degrees - Main Mast, 15 degrees - Mizen Mast) the set of the skeletal tops on the hounds will have required some of the masthead stop to be checked (taken away). The three options being: a. The check being based on the mid/centreline of the mast stop; that is only half of the hound is checked into the mast stop (option 1), b. No check being based on the hounds/tops being aligning with the leading edge of the mast stop (option 2) c. The check providing full support and being fully checked in with the after edge of the mast stop (fully checked in - option 3). I am leaning towards option 1 as this provides the best support. the options drawn are for the Main Mast and will be even more severe for the Mizen. Please also remember, in the steam vessels of this era, the tops were skeletal and only fitted to the lower masts. in 'Victoria' the tops were formed from three crosstrees rather than the usual two, and each horn was fitted with a roller for the futtok/topmast shrouds (which were one piece.) 2. The other question, for which I have yet to find appropriate guidance, is the shaping of the masthead. In steam vessels of this period I am confident that the mast head was cylinderical. However, the Sprecification states 15 inches lower and 12.5 inches upper - 7 feet long. This implies a tapering/conical shape (option but most comments and illustrations show a true cylinder. The width (diameter) of the upper mast at the stop (4th quarter) is 15 inches. However the hounds are checked in at this point also. I am leaning towards the true cylindrical shape (12.5 inches at the stop as well as the head) based on Kipping and Fincham drawings but remain open to further advice on this. (option A) All suggestions, critiques, recommendations etc most welcomed. cheers Pat

Nice job on the guard rails Greg, they look very realistic. cheers Pat

Very nice stairs Kieth. Are you going to glue the companion etc down? If not, furture owners/hiolders of the model could lift it and see the lovely workmanship? cheers Pat

That grating looks very realistic Eberhard; you must be happy with those results? cheers Pat

A 'piercing' price to pay sorry mate couldn't help myself. Those figures are looking really good. cheers Pat

Another work of art Greg. cheers Pat

Nice work Gary, very clean joinery and crisp details - love how she is coming along. cheers Pat

Nice recovery Eberhard; if you hadn't told us about it one would never know. That gun is going to be wonderfully detailed, especially at the scale you are working at. regards Pat

You may hate doing them Greg, but they look good! cheers Pat

I use several methods depending on the item. For basic stuff I have constructed a right angled jig using a Poly(something) Board (the stuff bread/cutting boards are made from - see top left). Cut a thin strip long enough for two pieces and thick enough to remain rigid. Glue ( I used 2 part epoxy) and screw to the base board (whatever size you want) and use an engineer's square when setting up to ensure a true 90 deg. This allows you to square each corner as you glue up and PVA glue will not stick to it. I had previously made one from 1/4 in plate glass to use with CA also but it was chipped when a club member dropped it - haven't replaced it yet. Be sure to get the glazier to round/polish the exposed edges when he cuts it (not the bottom or side edges that form the corner though) - this can be a cheap option if you ask for 'off cuts' from larger jobs. For more fiddly bits where you want to glue up the full square /rectangular frame together I have used a sliding arrangement. These are done as needed (as per Bob's suggestion) so I cannot provide a photo but essentially the jig can be made from scrap wood (waxed surfaces to stop glue sticking - the edges and base surface must be trued and smooth though). Make the jig as above but with a much larger base board and shorter right angled pieces in one corner only. Then simply use strips of wood or metal (trued) that can be clamped to the much larger base, truing up with 'squares' as you go. The final options I use are commercial clamps - I have two types. One is a miniature framing clamp set (Top Right), and the other is for things like cabin walls (need one clamp per corner). I got mine at MicroMark years ago (no affiliation) but you can find them (or variations) elsewhere. Hope this helps? Cheers Pat

Thanks for sharing your thought process on this; surprising how many 'considerations' must be accounted for. AND, thanks for the memories - loved that show! cheers Pat

That's some micro-engineering and model assembly Greg; they look very detailed especially for that scale. cheers Pat

Having a mate who does this at cost ( a few cents per item for the materials) does help. I am very lucky in that as he also has an interest in maritime matters and is happy to draw up the 3D for nix. Commercial printers can make the items less attractive to print. Many thanks for your kind comments Carl. yep, AB is the way to go mostly, but once some dust settles you need to assist the process with a soft brush. Some parts seem to have an EM charge or the like that attracts dust more than other parts - or is that just my imagination - at my age I never know whether it is observation or perception cheers Pat

Thanks for the feedback HYI, much appreciated. In an effort to try and keep the spools wound evenly, I have used the tensioning devices used in a sewing machine to control the 'pressure/tension' of the stock thread when I am making up the spools. Basically, I put this between the stock cone of thread and the take up spool. I have yet to find a method to maintain a consistent tension on all three (or four) feed strands coming off the spools to the winding point when making rope. I agree (found that the hard way by experience) that the angle of the winding is as important as anything else. All these factors become even more important when making up Right Hand Lay (RHL) rope - the LHL is much easier as the 'mechanics' of the system are all geared towards this direction of turning. cheers Pat

Hi all; Tony, Keith B and Keith A, John, Steven, Denis, Eberhard and Jason, many thanks for looking in and generous comments; thanks also for all the likes. Eberhard, yes I think there is a big future in 3D printed parts; still a little way to go for the home printers to achieve the smooth surfaces but all depends on how much you wish to invest. There are always the aftermarket 3D Printing services (such as Shapeways) that provide ultra high definition, but as the monogram and the compressors show, it is possible to get very acceptable results with the 'home level' printers. Steven, for my part I simply provide the research and 2D drawings. A more talented mate does the 3D drawing from those and he also prints them. There is a little more involved with the 3D drawing process than simply doing a 3D drawing (to render) for printing as you have to allow for the qualities/quirks of the printer, allow for the supporting sprues etc etc. Once the 3D is done you can send the drawing off to many places to have them printed (several in Victoria but some have long waiting times for small jobs). Some of these commercial printers offer tools whereby you upload your 3D drawing and their software does a check to ensure the model will print successfully. I must admit I am still very wary of the compressors on the after transom. They fit exactly with the bottom ledge engaging the underside of the rail and the 'screwed' down knob engaging the upper surface of the carriage transom. It wouldn't take much to snap that bolt, especially when cleaning - I will just have to keep the dust off cheers Pat

A very nice hull and the machine is superb. The resulting rope appears much more consistent. i also have a 'universal' style rope walk (Byrnes) and one of the issues I also experience is the 'jumping' you highlight. If I read correctly, you put put this down simply to uneven pressure. Are you referring top the tension on the individual stands being uneven, or at the take up spool (or both)? cheers Pat

A neat fix, and something you will be happy to have finalised Mark - nothing worse than that wearisome bugging minor issue nagging away at you. cheers Pat