BANYAN

Looking forward to the further updates cheers Pat

Nice fix Steven, you would have regretted not doing them. In the vein of Druxey's comments - a thight for thore eyes! cheers Pat

Aw come on Hank that's the sickbay isn't it? Far too clean, that deck needs some scuffing cheers Pat

While this method was used by RAN (and RN I think) ships, it may useful to know that even up to the very early 1970s, the RAN used strips of heavy duty sandpaper as deck tread until the introduction of two part epoxy based granular paint (some sort of sand or grit introduced to the mixture). The sandpaper strips were reasonably large strips self-adhesive (sticky backed), and kept pretty by using a very thin (much diluted) flat black paint. I do not know if the USN employed similar methods. This older B+W photo of HMAS Vampire shows what I mean. As you may also note, the forecastle was given a checker-plate and welded strip treatment to assist footing grip. I hope this helps. cheers Pat

Keith, I think there would have had to be a slide on the door side of the strut - as the door went up and down it would slide to maintain the right angle. In the raised position it is correctly positioned, but as you lower the hatch door the door end of the strut, probably on a hinged sliding plate in a track, would move closer to the upper side of the door? I am not a engineer so may be shot down in flames on this suggestion All guns to bear - fire when ready! cheers Pat

Mark, that's a messy solution, especially on a phone! More so, that when I click on a period button I am immediately taken to that subforum so would need to go back to open the window anyway? Have I missed something? My way of reading/perusing the logs is to quickly see what logs are new and may be of interest to me. When the listing was a single page it was simple to just open one listing list and scroll through - only one action (except for a page turn/ next page if required). While the period groupings may make it easier to find something, there are now additional steps to be taken between opening and viewing each period. On paper this may seem/read as a minor issue (extra steps) but when trying to quickly view any new content it actually adds additional time. I will be quite honest, because of this, I now only open one listing in kit logs (for the period of my particular interest). I know (and apologies to the log owners) that this is unfair to many other builders whose logs may have piqued my interest, but I only put aside a certain amount of time for reading the forum. cheers Pat

Hi Mods and Admins. Firstly, many thanks to your ongoing efforts to keep this site relevant and informative. I know only too well how much time this takes out of your daily routines. You may have considered this, and I am not even sure if it is possible. Now that you have divided the build logs into period specific eras it takes a little longer to view all the logs. Is it possible to add persistent buttons, aligned to the Subforum eras, in the blank area beneath the Subforum Title Bar. That is, no matter which era I enter in say the scratch build logs, a button/shortcut to jump directly to another era within the Scratch build forum is always shown/accessible from within the Subforum pages? Just a thought, and appreciate your consideration cheers Pat

This looks another very interesting subject Greg, look forward to seeing the model develop. You mention PE for the guns, is that additional to go on the Micro Master guns? If so, do they do PE also? cheers Pat

What, no baldies! Nice work Steven that look great. cheers Pat

Thanks Rob, I am learning a lot as I research Victoria - just sharing what I am learning along the way. cheers Pat

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