Matrim

Nice to see you! an aircraft carrier seems an interesting build log. I mainly do wooden ships but have been tempted by the odd battleship 'just cause'

that is a beautiful ship. I particularly like the rust.

You can click here to see a list of Bogue-class model kits -- not too many to choose from. Of course, there were undoubtedly many changes made to each ship over the course of its service career, along with additional differences for those in RN service. It's a start, though.

Just thought I would share these incredible pictures of the figurehead for the Swan Class Sloop "Atalanta" by David Antscherl.  The figure is boxwood with a stem of swiss pear.  The brackets and trailboard carving are also boxwood.   Note the gold leafed apples.  Just stunning carving by hand and almost hard to believe possible at this scale.  Its so tiny.   I love the facial expression.....Mona Lisa smirk...    Enjoy!!!
 
The glass dome is just 4" in diameter.
 
Chuck
 

 

 

 

 

Dear colleagues, thank you for your generous comments ... I am here again, and I hope to be more constant in sending images of the advances that are taking place. We are trying at all times to get as close as possible to the image that this emblematic ship could offer in the period of time between the last reform carried out in Carraca (Cádiz 1797 and its sad end in the Battle of Trafalgar 1805. I pass you some images ... Health and well-being for all ... take care of yourself.
 
Estimados compañeros, gracias por vuestros generosos comentarios... estoy aquí de nuevo, y espero ser más constante a la hora de enviar imágenes de los adelantos que se van produciendo.
Estamos tratando en todo momento de aproximar al máximo a la imagen que pudo ofrecer este emblemático navío en el período de tiempo comprendido entre la última reforma llevada a cabo en la Carraca (Cádiz 1797 y su triste final en la batalla de Trafalgar 1805.
Os paso unas imágenes ...
Salud y bienestar para todos ... cuidaros.
 

Hello friends Mike, Albert, Wacko, Chris, E.J. Best regards to all fellow members of the forum. Forgive for not answering your kind comments before, but for reasons of displacement I could not do it. I'm back in the workshop and with renewed strength. I finished the kitchen of the Holy Trinity, it is built in brass of 0.3 m / m and once finished I have pavonado, the covers are of copper of 0.6 m / m is something thicker so as not to have problems in the drawing. I pass some pictures, again thanks Liberto

Or you can use the search and search for a company tag. i.e Caldercraft.
 
We are not quite there yet but are tagging all builds with the company name and ship name. Though we cant avoid the odd mis-use of tags this should provide a list of all builds for a particular manufacturer.

There is an index for each of the new groups for kits. It can be seen by looking at the group
 

There is an index for each of the new groups for kits. It can be seen by looking at the group
 

I do love those barrels with the coat of arms..

I bought inserts supplied by Jim and have cut each for use with specific blades.   Well worth it, and according to Model Machines, no damage the blade during this process (to my surprise).   After the initial cut I run some sandpaper through the slot as advised and it came out great, with no contact between the blade and the insert. 
 

And a reminder to unplug the machine before tinkering with anything, please!

I've found the best way is to make my own inserts.  A piece of wood cut to match the opening and fitted.   The blade is put on and retracted completely.  The new insert is installed and the saw turned on.  Then just raise the blade through the wood.  If needed, holes can be drilled through the wood to allow dust to sucked by the vacuum. 

Quick update on rigging process.
 
Now rigged, thread sizes are those calculated from James Lees rather than suggested by the kit. Order of rig is my standard I always use and was developed from the Noel C Hackney book for the Airfix Victory. I produce my own 'manual' for the rigging back tracking as I research for the points best to attach blocks.
 
Gammoning lower mast pendants lower mast shrouds, thread used 0.75mm
Catharpins 0.25mm bobstays 0.6mm bowsprit shrouds 0.6mm Mainstay 1,27mm Main preventer stay 0.9mm Forestay 1.27mm Fore preventer 0.9mm Snaking - not rigged Crowsfeet. Jibboom horses Topmast Burton Pendants Topmast Shrouds

Futtock shrouds
Ratlines Shifting backstays

 
 

Good Morning Kurtis;
 
No worries about whatever level of accuracy you stop at. This is your project, and only you know exactly when you will be at the result you need.
 
Re quarter galleries, this is no reference to their proportion of the ship, as Mark says above. The quarter is the term used to describe that particular area of the ship; in this case, the area adjoining the sharp angle where the stern meets the ship's side. It also give a direction. For example, a lookout hailing down to the deck to report sighting something, would shout: 'sail ho! Off the starboard quarter!' Thereby giving those on deck the direction in which it lay.
 
Don't take Wikipedia as gospel. They do have a lot of good information there; but the sailing Navy is too vast a subject for accurate detailed knowledge of it to be widespread, and I have seen more than a few errors in some articles. I corrected some, but not all of them.
 
Quarter galleries were occasionally damaged by heavy seas, but the complete loss of one was rare, and more likely to occur during a battle. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark 

Yes another American who wanted to build Victory before even knowing about MSW.  I actually did not realize how popular an idea it was.  But my knowledge of history Included Nelson at Trafalgar and it never went out of my mind.
I decided to purchase the Corel Victory kit from Cornwall at the suggestion of Keith. I will not be posting very much for a while. It will take time to size this kit up and understand within reason where I am going. Any ideas about starting are welcome.

I have it from a very good source that Euromodel is back in production.  From what I understand they were having some issues with the castings,but they have apparently got that sorted out.
 
I have no connection to the company,just like their products.
 
 
Mark
 
 

If I ever made Sovereign again, I would still model the round tuck, as the square stern shown in the latest book just doesn't look right. Rudder would be next to useless.

Thanks Druxey and Jaager for your thoughts.
 
I posted this because the preponderance of evidence for the period is that the Sovereign had a round tuck, in my opinion. If Frank Fox holds the same view, I would regard this as very strong advocacy for the same. 
 
I also believe that the portrait shows a round tuck. If it were square, as Jaager mentions, the planking would not continue the lines of the main hull planking, as the fashion piece would be partly visible, and the stern planking would stop short of the knuckle.
 
Jaager, have you read the review in question, which raises a number of points that are hard to set aside, and which give a good indication of the actual level of research carried out by John McKay while preparing the book. It is undeniable that McKay is a draughtsman of outstanding ability, but I do believe that he has given insufficient consideration to the information available for this subject. 
 
There is a contemporary draught of the Sovereign available. It was found in the early 20th century, in the London house where Samuel Pepys once lived. This is also mentioned by Pepys as being amongst his possessions. For about the last hundred years it has been in the collections of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (copies are available at an extortionate price) The provenance of this is accepted as genuine. It has been colour-washed, and shows the decoration of the side in great detail, at a scale of 1:48
 
This draught also shows the tuck, in side view, with gradually fading shading running away from the line of the stern. It is very difficult to disagree that this shows a rounded shape. The reflection on the surface of the water shows the same thing.
 

Re the apparent width of the planks, although I think they are reasonable, two things might be of interest: the very different timber supply situation for the early 17th century must be borne in mind; I have seen floorboards in houses of that date, which are 2 feet wide (not that I am advocating that the planks here are that width) Secondly, the Sovereign had a notedly narrow stern, which was one reason for her unpopularity amongst admirals, and explains why she almost never served as a flagship. Given the choice, they preferred other first-rates with wider accommodation. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 
 
 

I see this as a minor controversy that seems to have lasted about 250 years.  Unless some misplaced plans from 1637 finally show up, there is no definitive resolution.  It is all a best guess.  It is unfortunate that it has taken on more significance than it deserves.  It serves to divide into two camps,  whose further differences are not evident.   This is a large ship.  There is much about it to cover in a book.  For Frank Fox to disavow McKay's entire book over a couple of choices that are open to interpretation, seems excessive.  Better to praise what works and footnote the disagreement.  Then publish the alternative in NRJ with the alternate version of the plans.
I do not see this as being subject to vote,  unless the voter is actually building a model of the ship.  And, then, which ever choice is made should have no affect on how that model is judged, if it is an entry in a contest.  A museum suit is entitled to use this as a decision point for an acquisition.  Given the current fashion / fad exercised by museums, who knows how long it will be before even the possibility is a factor?   
 
Now, valid vote or not,  I see round.  The continuation of the caulking seams in the whole white area, is my key.  A flat tuck would have different planking.  That said, them's some pretty wide boards between those seams.  Did the painter actually see the ship?  Did he use a poorly planked model of it as his source?

Mark: interesting comments. I interpret the pen and ink picture as a transitional stern, where the round tuck was still being figured out by the shipwrights. I can see that the Lely is ambiguous; as first glance it appears to be a square tuck, but on closer examination it seems to also be transitional like the drawing - especially on the port side.

Good Afternoon;
 
The recent publication of John McKay's book 'Sovereign of the Seas', which purports to give an accurate representation of the ship as built in 1637, has resulted in some fairly caustic reviews appearing on Amazon. This includes one from Frank Fox, probably the foremost expert in ships and Naval history of this period, who is deeply thanked by McKay for his help with the preparation of the book. Frank Fox starts his review with the comment that although McKay asked for his advice and comments, this was then largely ignored, so he wishes to counter the impression created that he has endorsed the book, when in fact he has no wish to be associated with it, as it contains too many inaccuracies. 
 
The largest of these centres around the shape of the stern: was she a round-tuck, or a square-tuck? Frank Fox is adamant that she was built with a round tuck, and cites ample examples to prove this.
 
John Mckay's reconstruction shows her with a square tuck, with his reason for assuming this largely based on the well-known portrait of Peter Pett, the builder of the Sovereign, by Peter Lely. This can be interpreted as showing a square tuck (although the planking is quite clearly curved, and almost vertical, both as is normal for a round tuck stern; square tucks had straight, diagonal planking) However, it is undeniable that the outer portion of the stern does show a 'knuckle', or sharp angle.
 
According to one's point of view, this can be taken as proof of a square tuck (despite the curved planking) or as an error on the part of the painter, who knew nothing of ships (Peter Lely was a portrait painter, and is very unlikely to have ever gone near Chatham where the Sovereign was generally laid up or moored)
 
However, maybe an injustice has been done to Lely, and he has actually painted an accurate portrait of her (or whoever did paint it; there is no certainty that Lely actually painted the ship's stern at all, or even the portrait of Pett)
 
Compare the three pictures below. These show part of the Sovereign/Pett painting (which is held by the National Maritime Museum) and adjacent is a drawing taken from the book 'Sailing Ships of War', by Dr Frank Howard (highly recommended if you do not have it) This shows a sketch of an English third rate in around 1634 (although this identification is not certain) She certainly has the English coat of arms, and a CR monogram. Most interesting, though, is the planking around the buttocks. This could be what is portrayed in the Sovereign painting. The final picture shows part of the stern of a model of Warrior, which shows the run of the planking in a round tuck very well.
 

I have not yet seen McKay's book, although I do intend to purchase a copy, as the drawings of the decoration are, according to Frank Fox and other reviewers, very good. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Chipping and ripping often is the result of dull cutting edges, rather than the wrong speed or feed rate.

Hi Everyone 
This is my first model of this type and having only just found this great site and wish id done so earlier! 
I’m at the rigging stage of building HMS Mars, I’ve done the stays and rat lines, ( even found how to do the mouse!) but if anyone can point me towards pics of the yard rigging stages onwards that would be great.The plans are pretty good, but seeing  it is so much more helpful, as the nearer the end I get, either I’m getting denser, or its getting more complicated!
Right now I’m not sure if I never want to see another model again, or jump straight back in and try not to repeat some of the schoolboy errors I made, there has been more than one occasion when I have sat starting blankly at a mini fail, only to realize that mistakes you make wait a while before they come back to bite you!
Any help would be very much appreciated.
thanks
John
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I never use the eyebolts that came in the kit, for two reasons: one they are always way too big, and two they are too smooth in the stem. I always do my eyebolts with the jig in the photo. I think it's self explanatory. I have two different wire diameters on each end of the drill handle to make at least two different sizes of eyebolts. This gives the eyebolt some mechanical grip in the stem.
I use a glue called Resistol Extreme. I think it goes by other names in other countries. Maybe the photo will help to identify it. The beauty of it is that residues come off like a piece of rubber if you don't wait too long, and is the strongest glue I have tried for this kind of jobs. I've never had a problem with loosening eyebolts, or anything for that matter.
 
Hope this helps


Edit 4 years later: This glue is crap. After more than 4 years everything I glued using this glue is falling apart!!!