Matrim

I will have a look to I vaguely recollect that 'Arming and fitting' had a drawing of this as well..

Masts were usually raked because the weight of the sails is unbalancing and if the mast rakes aft then that helps counteract the added weight. There are apparently some advantages dropping a sail in wind too over a raked mast - but the maths behind that confuses me so I'll take the experts word for it. Also if you have a vertical mast with the sails out then that provides a forward force on the mast which can decrease the effectiveness of the sails. Raking counteracts this force. Finally a heavily raked mast can help with loading and unloading though this may be more relevant for modern schooner type ships than square riggers. Perhaps some of the experts can chime in. Different masts have different rakes due to the different sail plans each mast would take and thus the forces the mast and sails would apply. Not that you asked but you might have wondered 'why?'

I have ordered some anyway. I only need 4 so the cost is minor and then I can visually check. I may end up using Chuck's in their entirety or just the carriages... Worse comes to the worse and I can always scratch build them. I was surprised how bad the kit gun carriages actually were (the cannon themselves were fine)

thanks druxey. i had a look myself at 4 pdr sizes and Lavery says they were between 5 foot 6 and 6 foot which is at scale 23.8125 mm to 28.75 the smallest syren is 29.76 so is close but I wonder if I could just get the relevant carriage and use the kit cannon.

Does anyone know the length ranges of an English 4 pdr cannon and a 6 pdr cannon of around 1780? My Bounty has four four pounders but the kit cannons are 'ok' but I would prefer to get better and though I could scratch them I am just buying better for this model. I like the look of Chuck's but the smaller non-swivel ones there are 6pdrs. Since the bore is not drastically larger from a 4pdr to 6pdr I wondered if the lengths overlapped (or were the same) so I could then get the nicer looking cannon. In town so no access to the relevant books. Thanks for any opinions.

Edited title to accord with site rules.

Contacting Chuck directly would seem more appropriate and useful? and I am sure it would get sorted out..

Still generating hull decoration, gratings etc. Just started on the Catheads Here I did some extra work. The actual piece had two vertical slots in it to assist in dealing with the boats and two holes for rigging?. None of this is indicated on the plan so I assume it is not used. Instead I drilled the slots and the holes. Flattened the base and then cut a small ramp for it to sit on the rail (otherwise it would stick out to high). Here is the worked pieces Along with one of the pin rails pinned at the bottom ready to be placed. Here is the slot cut into the rail

Holly also differs in shade. I am using a darker piece for my current model. Originally holly was probably used as a 'design for effect' sort of thing. Using the actual wood miight have the correct colour biut at scale it might appaear far too dark ciompated to what the same wood would have looked like in situ.

Another fast update. I have spent the last few weeks on the channels and have just moved to some of the paintwork. My main up coming decision is whether to make my own rope for this (requiring a purchase) or buy off a 3rd party. Here is a couple of shots so far

That article does contain good advice. The key question for a new modeller (to me at least) is whether you have relevant skills in similar hobbies/work. If you have i.e you were a carpenter at work or spend all your time making furniture then a more advanced model will probably be well within your grasp. If not and you were perhaps an accountant who played tennis as a hobby then try something smaller and simpler. I started with no practical carpentry/metal work skills and started with Caldercrafts 'Snake' which I completed and enjoyed in a year (time limited so that's probably a lot more than actually needed). I am currently on their Bounty which is a nice simple kit though I would also recommend Chucks Longboat as something that is simple and nice to look at when completed without being too difficult. Basically if you fancy Mars or a ship of the line or big frigate but have no relevant skill set then do a smaller kit and treat it as an quick introduction (plus you can make all your mistakes on 'that'). Then you can move up to your dream model... Since you say you built your shed and bench you may already have that skill set so...

Time for a process post. I actually found a small method of working which helped ( you probably all know this anyway but what the hell). I was having some difficulty accurately filing/sanding down the ends of tiny posts to fit in tiny holes. Here is a tiny hole Here is the tiny post prior to tidying my tools were So I worked out that rather than trying to hold the post in my fingers (or making a jig) I could place the flat end of the square file over the post and hold the far end down with my finger allowing me to then use the triangular file to file the end with the square file both holding the post and controlling the line of approach of the triangular file (which being triangular did not 'argue' too much in its contact with the square file) note the above is missing the key controlling finger on the square file. I was much happier with the end result Anyway this is more because I will probably forget this by the time my next model roles around so its more an aide memoir!

Currently moving through the little extras for the hull. As close up photography is good at doing it shows up a lot of errors you don't always notice with the eye So for example on one side one of the steps is off (though once I noticed it with the camera I can easily see with the eye) I may have to remove the bottom one and replace The rudder was added along with the steering post I was also going to put up a picture of the bow rails but noticed an annoying gap so have instead just stipped it off, sanded the contact point and re-set with clamps.

You've been a boon to the hobby so thanks for all your efforts..

Thanks though I still think it leaves a lot to be desired. I am a great believer in incremental improvement. Though a lot of people here are true craftsman who have the talent to produce something amazing I also think you need the time to repeatedly replace errant objects and much like Software Development completing a project is as much a positive feature as anything else in the hobby. As an example take those gratings. I shall hold my breath and show a photo of my first full models gratings (the Diana also from Caldercraft) as can be seen it uses the clever slotting pieces in the kit but the finish and the cutting of the surrounding wood is not good, to put it mildly. Now since I look to improve (a little bit at least) the gratings in this model should be better than that (as they are at the same scale). So here are a couple of shots of the completed I am happy to say I think I have improved but again can see more room for improvement next time. I was also curious at the difference the scale made. Previous to this model I made the Triton cross section and the due to the increased size the gratings there were both easier and smarter the planking in this last shot also used the caulk method that failed to work with this model.

The re-planked deck is finally up. It is much better than the caulk attempt but I may use a thick liner sometimes as I found that easier to control on my Diana Here is a rougn shot of the deck I then added the rudder and used an innovative (to me) technique to make glueing easier So am now moving onto deck furniture. Here are my rough gratings sized on the plan and here they are gluing upside down They dont look pretty yet. Once dry I will sand the ends close on my disc sander before introducing a slight bevel. I'll then decide whether to re-make or not.

K found it. The 'extra' block is in the plan showing the spars etc on their own. From the books it looks like that is the throat halliard Lees If you have the swan series book 4 describes it for that sloop in section 18.51 and makes the valid comment that the block was used to hoist the gaff up to position. The Bounty book does show the eyebolt in some shots but it it a very busy section of the ship for running rigging so it might be a missed for clarity option. The written instructions dont mention it and I notice they do reference a belaying plan - this I dont seem to have so I wonder if it would appear on there.. I have emailed Caldercraft to see what comments they have to make on the block/belaying plan

K, I will check it over when I get home later. I only have one more margin plank to put down and the deck (bar sanding) is finished on mine. Saying that probably still a long, long way from masts and rigging..

Ooo interesting especially as I haven't got close to rigging on my own Caldercraft Bounty yet. Having taken a quick flick through the Anatomy book, Lees and Peterson all I could come up with was that from 1793 booms were fitted to Mizzen masts and from 1745 a gaff was rigged to small ships. The Anatomy ship also shows a gaff in some of its mast component drawings so since that agrees with Lee's I would go with a gaff and no boom. The isometric spars drawing in the Anatomys also shows just a gaff and no boom. Looking throught the Caldercraft plans I think it was named gaff-boom just because it is carrying out the same action as a seperate gaff-boom would. So just pretend it is just called gaff. I noticed no discrepancy accross the plans with regard to it though. All I saw showed just a gaff in the 'high' position on the mizzen mast which is as the Anatomy book also indicates.. Could you say what it is exactly on the plans that is confusing as I doubt it isn't the intellectual issue of what it was actually called and presumably is one of the supporting bits of rigging which might differ between plans...

I like Caldercraft myself as the instructions are decent...

I can check at home but they are very commonly available at do it yourself shops usually sold to builders/home improvers to put lines across ceilings to keep decorations/skirting boards etc even. Using amazon for some example (use 'cross line laser' to search) - a DIY shop may be cheaper with an own brand model as well cross line laser link

Well disaster struck yesterday. I was working on the deck and was following an approach I had liked (a lot) with my Triton. The deck was to be 4 shifted with gaps between each plank then treenailed (two at ends and single at intermediate). This all went well. Then it came to the caulking. This used the following steps apply a varnish to the deck (prevents the next step from 'seeping' through) get some dark wood filler and mix with black ink to darken further and then apply to the gaps between the planks use cabinet scrapers/other to scrape the deck clear ending up with a nice clean deck with filled dark caulking. All had seemed to be going well but it was far more difficult than I expected to scrape a deck on a kit with bulkheads (should have seen that one coming) and then I noticed that I was having to go extremely thin on the planks to get them even remotely scraped. After a few choice words I actually followed the historical Bounty and ripped the entire deck up. Next try (I need to order some more holly) I will use the pencil/ink edged approach. I may still return to the caulk though if ever in the same situation I would be tempted to put masking tape/other over the planks along with the varnish so simplifying scrping duties. I would also thicken the plan depth more than I did here. There were some advantages to this problem in that I was not entirely happy with the treenails. They were correctly positioned but looked too 'busy' on a 1:64 model. On the 1:48 Triton it looked good... So in the re-deck I may either simulate the treenails using a pusher to create an indentation (or perhaps a sharp pencil) but may also only do the butts. I might even not indicate the treenails at all as I am not now certain the scale is suitable. Back to the ship yards..

Shops sometimes hold stock and the prices usually reflect the cost to purchase when the stock was purchased (companies also can discount to break into a territory or compete or just because the locals in the region are more money concious than other regions) so a safe option is to check local prices before looking at cost to buy direct where exchange rates absolutely do matter. i.e in 2015 30th June the Aus dollar exchange rate was average of 2.0446 making a kit costing 871.5 including shipping cost 1781.88 dollars in 2016 just before the referendum is was 1.7713 so the kit would now cost 1543 dollars now it is 1.6566 so that same kit would cost 1443 dollars if a shop in Australia had purchased 10 victorys for re-sale in 2010 and these were priced at 1200 dollars then they may well still be 1200 dollars 7 years later (or less if the shop wanted to shift them faster) or if the producer had determined that people in that region wont pay 1500 for a kit but would pay 1200 and still make them a profit. That does not mean that prices have not changed that much.

Regardless as to the pound price the pounds instability actually makes caldercraft kits much better value to anyone who is not in the UK (less so for the US). Its dropped, what, from 1.41 to the dollar and 1.31 to the euro in 2016 to 1.32 to the dollar and 1.12 to the euro so a £1,000 kit would have cost $1,410 and 1,310 euros would now cost $1,323 and 1,120 euros so the price would have to increase 10% to counteract the fall in the pound. Saying that I expect the pound to remain low for a couple of years and then start increasing again (though not to 2016 levels) I would be unsurprised at it increasing 5%. Thats involving lots of guesswork and factors involving things the site does not permit discussion of though...

Thank you for posting, comments from professionals concerning high quality work and the trade offs involved by people who are involved in the practicalities are particularly useful.