BANYAN

Hi Druxey, I read that as Main Mast above the deck 24? Asto the extension, this may relate to an extension of the head, but your ship may be a little early for that. Mid-19th C ships had extensions added to make them "Taunt" as described by Kipping and Fincham (that is tall). However, if we interpret the above deck measurement as being from the partners to the hounds (which is standard), the extension may be referring to the 'head' or doubling? cheers Pat

Looking good John; all very symmetrical cheers Pat

Hi again folks, yet another issue I am trying to resolve (well several actually) relating to the bowsprit and Jibboom (noting 1855 time frame) Q1. From Kipping I have sufficient information to dimension and shape the spars. What is not given, and not shown in any plan, is what ratio is used to determine the housing lengths (bed to step of the bowsprit, and the doubling of the jibboom onto the bowsprit. Is anyone aware of these ratios? As best I can determine the inner end of the bowsprit was only 5 feet - is this too short for a 23 foot bowsprit? Attached is a drawing I am doing which is superimposed on the profile photo of the ship. The profile and photo do not fully align as the photo is taken with the sip laying with a slight stbd bow inclination so the angles (and lengths change). Q2. You can see where I have circled or called out possible joints for the heel chock/jibboom. From what I can make out of this photo (not great quality as it was taken in 1867/8) is where I think the heel chock ends, but not sure where the butt joint is. Both options are viable according to Kipping and to Underhill, whereby some ships of this era still employed a small/short chock, whereas other ships, especially clippers, used a longer version. see other attached drawing from Underhill. I am leaning towards the latter (longer version) as there appears som rounding down (more than the proportioned shape of a jibbom) evident. that said though, this would leave a shorter housing? Hence Q1 (part 2) Q3. the last question relates to interpreting the bopwcap as shown in the image. My read is that as it is so close fitting it is more likely to be an iron cap rather the squarer and larger wooden (old style) cap? All comments ans suggestions most welcomed. cheers Pat

Thanks Eberhard, I've not found much either. I have assumed ash chutes as there is some reference to these in contemporary ship plans, and I have read that the ash, once raised was transferred by wheelbarrow to the lee chutes for disposal. The Contract called for portable 'iron cranes' which I read as 'shiftable' So three options; a gooseneck arrangement, a derrick arrangement or a full on crane. The NMM has sketches for two such cranes for this period, but they appear a little large and will have been obvious in the imagery. My assumption then is that when required the crane would be moved to the 'lee side' and would only need a reach to service the hatch and barrows. If a derrick was used, the reach may have been sufficient to allow the ash to be dumped overboard without transfer to a barrow. The derrick could be dismantled easily when not required and maybe why it cannot be seen in the imagery. I am leaning towards the simple derrick crane shown below. cheers Pat

Nice production run Steven (cheaper by the dozen ) cheers Pat

That cap rail sets the deck off beautifully Keith, love the tone of that darker timber cheers Pat

I have recently been transcribing a lot of documents and found the 'running' writing sometimes scrawled/written quickly could be hard to read. To my eye that word is Sprit (as in the sprit yard/sail) as fitted to the bowsprit/jib? It looks like the writer didn't close up the 'p' and uses the old english form of 'r' making it appear like a separate letter? Just one further interpretation cheers Pat

Thanks Tim, look forward to seeing the progress on this wonderful model. cheers Pat

Looks a good fit Michael; once you have the ladder sorted you will be in a good position to determine how the other gear/furniture will fit.. cheers Pat

Look forward to it Matrim; looks like you have researched her fairly thoroughly. cheers Pat

Nice work on the spars and rigging; coming along very nicely Augustus. cheers Pat

Hi Keith, could these be a more modern version of the 'compressor/chain stop' used in ships from the mid-19th century. They used a cam arrangement to lift or raise the cable; when raised the bottom created a smaooth surface allowing the cable to run, when lowered it formed a depression into which a link would fall then be 'stopped'. As a final 'safety, a guillotine could be lowered/screwed down to lock the chain in place. The mechanism was controlled by a tackle fitted to the lever in the early days. Attached is a versions from the 1850's manufactured by Browne and Harfield (patented by them). The general shape of your sort of alludes to something similar. Have you search chain controller or chain compressor in the yacht chandlers web sites? Probably have but just in case. cheers Pat

Geez that looks good Keith, really neat. Ah, I'm not the only one then (forgetting things that is!) cheers Pat

Looks like you are well and truly on top of this Keith (pun intended ). I very much like the idea of the slot with sliding cams to help retain the rail in place and at the correct displacement against the bulwark. In hindsight I also wish I had thought of painting and masking the hull before adding the cap rail, as painting that proved a source of some exasperation cheers Pat

Beautiful work as always Doris, your craftsmanship and the quality of the work continue to inspire. cheers Pat

John, Michael, Carl, Keith, Druxey, Eberhard - thank you all for your very kind comments and encouragement; but as we all know we are our own worst critics Thanks also for the advice re turning acrylic; I have noted that all away. I think my issue is turning speed as I have put the 10K rpm mod onto my lathe to get the higher turning speeds required for a clean wood finish. The lowest speed is mid 1-2 k rpm, which is probably still too fast Anyway it is done now and I am onto to completing the pivot gun as best I can. Still some research required on the subject of 'ship's cranes as I need to make that decision very soon. The Contract called for 'two cranes' for ash removal. Still not sure what way to go, as I would have thought a 'goose neck' davit would have been the go, but as the Contract was specific for the 'fish davit' I think they may have specified it as such. That said, a full blown crane seems a bit excessive and there is nothing showing on the imagery. Cranes were around at the time and I have found two 'possible' illustrations/drawings of such items in the NMM (for this specific period) but they seem too big. As far as I can tell, a simple goose neck davit over the hatch would have done the trick? Any ideas? cheers Pat

Hi Steven, a pity the paper doers not provide better evidence (and discussion) for your build. This seems a common theme in some maritime subjects where authors all disagree with each other rather than getting together to try and find common ground and then develop the 'thesis' etc from there Ayt least you now know you can discount that paper. Happy New Yeatr cheers Pat

That looks so very realistic Michael; very nice work cheers Pat

Niiice; you'll be done before you know it Rob. Happy New Year cheers Pat

Exquisite! cheers Pat

Allan, I am currently building at 1:72 but am finding it more and more difficult to add the level of detail I would like (although EdT seems to be able to accomplish it ) All future builds will be at 1:40 for the reasons already given, PLUS there is a much larger 'after market' for some bits and bobs you may wish to purchase rather than scratch build. cheers Pat

Thanks John, this is what they should have looked like . Happy New Year to you both and wishing you a safe and fulfilling 2020 cheers Pat

Another warm welcome from down under Matt. I'me sure that the help of our members you will be able to complete your next ship model. cheers Pat

Great to see this stunning model back gracing our screens Michael. happy New year and the best of everything to you and yours for 2020. cheers Pat

Hi all, after a short (ish) sojourn I am back at the modelling desk; a long list of 'honey please do' jobs and continued research (on the rigging) interrupted by the festive season is my excuse The following shows the additional work that has been done. The progress photo (before fitting the circular skylights) shows the broadside gun carriages loosely sited in their future position. I cannot progress these until we finish printing the 3D barrels but unfortunately my mate helping me with that, has a few health issues and that must take priority. I have the trunnion caps, tackles and breeching ropes ready to go once we are in a position to print the guns. the pivot gun slide has also been made and all the pieces for the carriage which sits on top have been cut but not yet assembled. The circular skylights were made from turned acrylic rod (8mm) and PE which I drew up and I had etched here in Melbourne. The photos show the 'prototype skylight which has since been cleaned up a little more. Al (alpayed on this forum - building the Danmark) turned these for me as I was doing something wrong and the rod kept melting on me. These formed the base with the spigot being used as the locating pins and a small hole was drilled in the top while still in the lathe to accept a brass pin. This pin is intended to represent a small rod and cover in the actual item that could be raised to allow ventilation through the skylight. The sides were photo etched with the brass vertical bars etched deeper so that when the top and bottom were painted to represent the wooden parts, it looked like the bars were recessed. The side were rolled and formed on a dowel then silver soldered for strength before painting. The conical part represents the bars over the top but at this scale it proved simply too difficult to include the wooden framing. Overall I think they came out ok, but I am tempted to redo the tops as I could not get the 'exact' diameter of the formed cone to sit on top of the side pieces. to the eye it looks fine, but a close inspection, especially through the camera shows they are not sitting uniformly on top of the side pieces. cheers, and a very happy, healthy and safe 2020 Pat