Matrim

Cheers,
I'm Just returning to modelling after several years off.
I am 'forced' due to age, etc. to no longer build POF in wood so I am going 'Virtual'.
My model will start with scantlings taken from historical references and finish with a walk-thru 3-D model.
I'm looking at a working class boat 1700's era. Now looking at a collier.
Any reference recommendations as to using blender in this type of environment?
Should I develop my lines in cad (frames etc) or do it all in blender?
Should be a multi year project. I love the research necessary.
I've looked at several posts and this seems to be the most active forum around - great members.

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest."  (unknown/various attributions)

Thanks for choosing the former and welcome to MSW!

Welcome Tom
Thanks to you and Chuck for making this collaboration possible.
I'm building the Enterprize and I'm finally happy to be able to publish it.
See you soon
Iosto

I've spent the last portion of the week musing on scale. My last attempt was at 1:60 i(if I remember correctly) but I would prefer to work at a larger scale as it makes things less fiddly. That naturally introduces space considerations though these are lessened just because it is a 32 Gun ship so is slightly smaller than other same period frigates.
 
The ships body lengths could be taken off the plans but unless built as hull only are not the main factor and it was only after several MSW members helped me to try and translate a sail plan (leading to Mark P linking a contemporary mast dimension plan for a 32) that I could get slightly more accurate figures.
 
The key two needed were the bowsprit and jiboom and driver. The sail plan listed the point the spirit sail 'started' and that allowed me to approximately place the jiboom and the plan provided the correct angle.
 

Give or take a cm or two this should give me a relatively accurate length. Width was dependant on the main yard width with some additional allowance for the stunsail booms and then reduced by 10% (I am having the yards angled to reduce space and already tested this on my Bounty allowing me to measure the space 'saved') . Height was less important so though I had the correct mast sizes calculating the correct height was left and I instead extrapolated the main mast height from my Diana model (38) above the deck and then reduced it by 94% which appears the average size reduction from a 38 to a 32. Height will also be impacted by how it will be displayed and as that has not been decided yet it becomes still less important.
 
I then through up a horrifically badly drawn sketch to mark these down at the correct scale
 

 
 
The measurements against the ship are in millimetres
 
It is certainly going to be 'big'. It is always useful to find something to compare the model end size to and I think I succeeded in that the dresser this computer is sitting on is almost the same size. The model will be 8-9 cm longer and the same wider so the width and length are very close (admittedly most of the length and width will be rigging and yards). Height wise it will end up being around half the height again.
 

 
Pluses are that it will fit through doors with slight care - a 38 at 1:48 would fit through my doors with around a cm spare so with 'extreme' care. It will also therefore sit on a wider dresser than the one shown (or a table). I suspect my wife wont let it in the house so it will potentially decorate my work room when done but as I stated earlier ship modelling is more the journey than the result.
 
If I put it in a glass case then that will also be huge.
 
Next I have to think more on materials. At least for the frame at this point.

That's lucky though it may be more amusing to bet on how long the log lasts before I throw all my toys out of the pram and start again erm again..

Not a big help you can reduce the width by angling the yards a bit.   Or just use stub masts as quite a few have done.

I've spent the last portion of the week musing on scale. My last attempt was at 1:60 i(if I remember correctly) but I would prefer to work at a larger scale as it makes things less fiddly. That naturally introduces space considerations though these are lessened just because it is a 32 Gun ship so is slightly smaller than other same period frigates.
 
The ships body lengths could be taken off the plans but unless built as hull only are not the main factor and it was only after several MSW members helped me to try and translate a sail plan (leading to Mark P linking a contemporary mast dimension plan for a 32) that I could get slightly more accurate figures.
 
The key two needed were the bowsprit and jiboom and driver. The sail plan listed the point the spirit sail 'started' and that allowed me to approximately place the jiboom and the plan provided the correct angle.
 

Give or take a cm or two this should give me a relatively accurate length. Width was dependant on the main yard width with some additional allowance for the stunsail booms and then reduced by 10% (I am having the yards angled to reduce space and already tested this on my Bounty allowing me to measure the space 'saved') . Height was less important so though I had the correct mast sizes calculating the correct height was left and I instead extrapolated the main mast height from my Diana model (38) above the deck and then reduced it by 94% which appears the average size reduction from a 38 to a 32. Height will also be impacted by how it will be displayed and as that has not been decided yet it becomes still less important.
 
I then through up a horrifically badly drawn sketch to mark these down at the correct scale
 

 
 
The measurements against the ship are in millimetres
 
It is certainly going to be 'big'. It is always useful to find something to compare the model end size to and I think I succeeded in that the dresser this computer is sitting on is almost the same size. The model will be 8-9 cm longer and the same wider so the width and length are very close (admittedly most of the length and width will be rigging and yards). Height wise it will end up being around half the height again.
 

 
Pluses are that it will fit through doors with slight care - a 38 at 1:48 would fit through my doors with around a cm spare so with 'extreme' care. It will also therefore sit on a wider dresser than the one shown (or a table). I suspect my wife wont let it in the house so it will potentially decorate my work room when done but as I stated earlier ship modelling is more the journey than the result.
 
If I put it in a glass case then that will also be huge.
 
Next I have to think more on materials. At least for the frame at this point.

I've spent the last portion of the week musing on scale. My last attempt was at 1:60 i(if I remember correctly) but I would prefer to work at a larger scale as it makes things less fiddly. That naturally introduces space considerations though these are lessened just because it is a 32 Gun ship so is slightly smaller than other same period frigates.
 
The ships body lengths could be taken off the plans but unless built as hull only are not the main factor and it was only after several MSW members helped me to try and translate a sail plan (leading to Mark P linking a contemporary mast dimension plan for a 32) that I could get slightly more accurate figures.
 
The key two needed were the bowsprit and jiboom and driver. The sail plan listed the point the spirit sail 'started' and that allowed me to approximately place the jiboom and the plan provided the correct angle.
 

Give or take a cm or two this should give me a relatively accurate length. Width was dependant on the main yard width with some additional allowance for the stunsail booms and then reduced by 10% (I am having the yards angled to reduce space and already tested this on my Bounty allowing me to measure the space 'saved') . Height was less important so though I had the correct mast sizes calculating the correct height was left and I instead extrapolated the main mast height from my Diana model (38) above the deck and then reduced it by 94% which appears the average size reduction from a 38 to a 32. Height will also be impacted by how it will be displayed and as that has not been decided yet it becomes still less important.
 
I then through up a horrifically badly drawn sketch to mark these down at the correct scale
 

 
 
The measurements against the ship are in millimetres
 
It is certainly going to be 'big'. It is always useful to find something to compare the model end size to and I think I succeeded in that the dresser this computer is sitting on is almost the same size. The model will be 8-9 cm longer and the same wider so the width and length are very close (admittedly most of the length and width will be rigging and yards). Height wise it will end up being around half the height again.
 

 
Pluses are that it will fit through doors with slight care - a 38 at 1:48 would fit through my doors with around a cm spare so with 'extreme' care. It will also therefore sit on a wider dresser than the one shown (or a table). I suspect my wife wont let it in the house so it will potentially decorate my work room when done but as I stated earlier ship modelling is more the journey than the result.
 
If I put it in a glass case then that will also be huge.
 
Next I have to think more on materials. At least for the frame at this point.

Seaforth World Naval Review 2020
Edited by Conrad Waters
Barnsley, UK: Seaforth, 2019
26.0 x 24.6 cm format, paperback, 192 pages
200 B&W and color illustrations
MSRP £24.00
ISBN: 978 1 5267 6062 3

Section 1: Overview Section 2: World Fleet Reviews Section 3: Significant Ships Section 4: Technological Reviews  
The title of Seaforth Publishing's World Navy Review 2020 is only very slightly misleading -- it just came off the presses this past November, but because of the inevitable time lag in bringing a book like this to market, it only considers data through June of 2019. Still, that's pretty fresh. As I seem to be finding these days when I review collective works, there are parts of the book that I liked, and other parts that I didn't like quite so much. But before I get into that, let's take a quick look at what you'll find between the covers.
 
Section 1 is a brief summary of the worldwide naval 'big picture', e.g. the political background, partners and alliances, budgets, and a comparison of the fleet strengths of the world's major naval powers.
 
Section 2 includes the fleet reviews, divided into subsections by region: North and South America, Asia and the Pacific, the Indian Ocean and Africa, and Europe and Russia. Not surprisingly, within each subsection, most of the page real estate is devoted to the navies of major combatants. For North America, as an example, the navies of Canada and the USA each get separate treatment; Mexico and everyone else get a combined four paragraphs. The discussion for each navy includes a list of current forces along with details about which vessels are slated for retirement in the near future, vessels currently under construction or working up, projects currently in development, and status reports on budgets and procurement. Three subsections are dedicated to more detailed treatments of developments within the British Royal Navy, the German Deutsche Marine, and Finland's Suomen Merivoimat.
 
Section 3 is dedicated to discussions of particular classes of vessels. The lucky subjects here are India's Kamorta class corvettes, the UK's Tide class fleet tankers, Norway's HNoMS Maud fleet support ship, and the USA's Virginia class attack submarines.
 
Section 4 devotes space to some of the trending developments in naval technology. The three subsections cover naval aviation, submarine technology, and a look at Brazil's progress towards building an indigenous nuclear submarine.
 
Okay, so now I'll get back to the likes and dislikes. Section 1 is basically an intro, so there's not much to like or dislike about it. Sadly, I can't say the same for Section 2, the fleet reviews. That section reads pretty much like a "naval overviews for bean counters" -- with sincere apologies to all of you bean counters out there. Basically, each review does little more than say what's being added to the fleet, what's being retired from the fleet, what's ahead for the fleet, and how much does it all cost. If you're looking for detailed information about the classes of vessels in each fleet, e.g. plans, 3-views, specifications, armaments, and descriptions of combat capabilities, strengths and weaknesses, and how each class stacks up against the competition, you'll be disappointed. There are however plenty of photos, mostly in black and white -- a necessary concession to the fact that a book like this caters to a niche audience and isn't expected to sell a lot of copies.
 
For the casual navy fan, Section 3 is much better, although individual readers may disagree about which subsections they like best. For me, the subsection on the Virginia class boats was the highlight, possibly of the whole book. As the the subsection subtitle suggests, there is enough meat here regarding the "Origins, Design Drivers, and Description" to keep the reader interested. I particularly enjoyed reading about the post-Cold War constraints on the design and the descriptions of the class's rather impressive technological developments.
 
Section 4 also includes some pretty good reading. Much of the subsection on naval aviation is dedicated to the development and deployment of the F-35 B and C naval variants. Most of us are probably aware of the F-35 program's teething troubles, but there is no denying that the plane is expanding the envelope of naval aviation capabilities, as this section makes clear. There is also a good deal of content, both in this section and in Section 2, devoted to Britain's new Queen Elizabeth class carriers, whose air wings will include the F-35B. The subsection on trending submarine technology is also a high point of this section; I found especially interesting the discussion of advancements in electro-optical sensing and how they have effected both submarine design and operation.
 
So if you are interested in a treatise on year-over-year developments in the world's navies, have a look at Seaforth's World Naval Review 2020. You'll probably find something to like, and at an MSRP of only £24.00, it won't do too much damage to your wallet.
 
CDC
 
 

Good Morning Gentlemen;
 
A model with stylised frames would indeed be a good way of building a framed model in an instance where the true framing pattern is unknown, and would follow on from a long tradition.
 
I would like to make one comment on the Navy Board pattern of framing models, though. Which is that the most common method of construction depicted in such models does actually represent a technique used in full-size practice in the early 1600s, and perhaps earlier, and was not as stylised as many authors have stated. Construction using interlocking timbers is documented archaeologically, and is specifically demanded in some early ship-building contracts. Interlocking floors and first futtocks continued into the early 1700s in some instances. 
 
A frame produced using interlocking timbers is actually very strong structurally, but was discontinued, I believe, for three reasons: firstly, the need to use relatively thick futtocks to maintain contact between adjacent timbers, which became harder to satisfy as timber shortages began to bite (this is already being complained of in the mid 1600s) Secondly, the fact that the relatively large spaces between the timbers (outside the areas of interlocking, which were obviously very strong) provided no protection against cannon-shot penetrating the ships' hulls. Lastly, the close contact between timbers encouraged dampness, which led to the onset of rot.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

I've spent the last portion of the week musing on scale. My last attempt was at 1:60 i(if I remember correctly) but I would prefer to work at a larger scale as it makes things less fiddly. That naturally introduces space considerations though these are lessened just because it is a 32 Gun ship so is slightly smaller than other same period frigates.
 
The ships body lengths could be taken off the plans but unless built as hull only are not the main factor and it was only after several MSW members helped me to try and translate a sail plan (leading to Mark P linking a contemporary mast dimension plan for a 32) that I could get slightly more accurate figures.
 
The key two needed were the bowsprit and jiboom and driver. The sail plan listed the point the spirit sail 'started' and that allowed me to approximately place the jiboom and the plan provided the correct angle.
 

Give or take a cm or two this should give me a relatively accurate length. Width was dependant on the main yard width with some additional allowance for the stunsail booms and then reduced by 10% (I am having the yards angled to reduce space and already tested this on my Bounty allowing me to measure the space 'saved') . Height was less important so though I had the correct mast sizes calculating the correct height was left and I instead extrapolated the main mast height from my Diana model (38) above the deck and then reduced it by 94% which appears the average size reduction from a 38 to a 32. Height will also be impacted by how it will be displayed and as that has not been decided yet it becomes still less important.
 
I then through up a horrifically badly drawn sketch to mark these down at the correct scale
 

 
 
The measurements against the ship are in millimetres
 
It is certainly going to be 'big'. It is always useful to find something to compare the model end size to and I think I succeeded in that the dresser this computer is sitting on is almost the same size. The model will be 8-9 cm longer and the same wider so the width and length are very close (admittedly most of the length and width will be rigging and yards). Height wise it will end up being around half the height again.
 

 
Pluses are that it will fit through doors with slight care - a 38 at 1:48 would fit through my doors with around a cm spare so with 'extreme' care. It will also therefore sit on a wider dresser than the one shown (or a table). I suspect my wife wont let it in the house so it will potentially decorate my work room when done but as I stated earlier ship modelling is more the journey than the result.
 
If I put it in a glass case then that will also be huge.
 
Next I have to think more on materials. At least for the frame at this point.

Hi all,
 
Model Ship World would very much like to announce CAFModel as a site sponsor and supporter, and also of the NRG. This has taken some real work, but it's great to see CAFModel here amongst our other sponsors, and it will be wonderful to see their creations built as logs here at MSW. We have added the CAF banner to the website, complete with a link to their own site, and included it in this post also. 

I will also start to bring you a series of in-box reviews of CAF kits here too, starting very soon. Dont forget to check out the CAF website for kits of all kinds, along with fittings and carvings.
 
Note from Admin:  CAF now meets all criteria as a legitimate MFG of ship model kits.   They have stopped producing all kits based on source material they did not have the rights to use, mainly from Ancre.   There current kits available on their website including the Enterprise, are perfectly fine and original works not taken without consent from other authors, designers and mfg's.
 
We are currently helping Tom at CAF to acquire the proper rights through an agreement with Ancre to make any Ancre kits legally allowable.  Until such time all CAF Ancre inspired kits are not allowed on MSW.  But we are hopeful they soon will be.  CAF has stopped mfg them and selling these Ancre related kits voluntarily after admitting he copied the material from Ancre without consent.   Negotiations are currently underway to rectify that situation.  
  

 



 
 
 

 

Bravo. A big "well done" to all concerned.

Oh Mark you absolute hero. I was considering making a 38 masts proportional for my 32 as Lees has nothing at the correct age range but that is absolutely perfect..

Complete at last. Now follows an unsuccessful attempt to find the best place to take a photo which sets her off nicely. But fails. 
 


 


 
I was pleased with the way that the hull and wood fittings sections went and thought most of my scratch and replacement choices both looked and worked well. This was not a surprise as after my last kit (Caldercraft Diana) I had specifically been unhappy with both of these and had then completed the Triton cross section and Chucks longboat in an attempt to improve basic wood working skill. Curiously though I had been happy with my rigging on Diana and it is something I enjoy doing a lot yet I was much less pleased with my rigging now. Probably due to the length of time since I last attempted to rig an entire ship. The worse bit if rigging for me was the shrouds. Looking back at my Diana the Shrouds are straight (still) and their primary weakness is that the ink has worked off (basically if there is any movement in the shrouds over time due to dusting etc then even sight motion will gradually de-ink). For this kit I used black thread and whether this made it worse or whether it was the relative size and distance they did not come out well. Something for me to consider in far  more detail when moving forward. 
 
The Rigging.
 
Since it’s been so long and it is likely to be a similar huge amount of time before I rig again I want to cover some of the lessons learnt concerning rigging to remind my future self of what to do. Now rigging, like many things, is an art and some people are very good at it. It is less important to an unknowledgeable observer as it is the impression of the multitude of ropes that counts rather than ‘ooo that one is seized beautifully’ but even so I want to try and move towards best practice from ‘just works’ 
 
So random notes (in no particular order) 
 
 
Add the shroud cleats to the shrouds BEFORE tying the ratlines and carrying out any other rigging. I attempted to add after I had starting rigging and it did not go well   
IF you superglue to secure a rope then ensure you put it under strain before supergluing. If you don’t then you will get a rope with a weird angle (I don’t do this any more but remembered it from last time)  You will accidentally punch a rope when tying something, so it is NOT POSSIBLE to keep ropes correctly tensioned. The solution here is to seize the highest (most easily accessible) section of the rope (usually the one on a yard) allowing it to be tightened later on in either direction. That way if something gets loose you can do something about it.  So the area on a live ship where you would tension the rigging (down on deck) is actually a locked area and tensioning is done where you can both easily reach it and where it can occur (allowing you do not glue both ends)  Order is important and not always the kit order. I think starting from rigging that bases itself close to the masts then move outwards (after the primary (not back) stays).   
Always drill block holes again and test the intended rope fits through prior to fitting on the mast/yards. You will regret it if you attach a block then find it has too small a hole for the rope. Especially if trying to do so from two inches away  
Like with gun carriage rigging I often found that it was easier to rig off model with the rope through all the relevant blocks and then attach to the model and then tighten as opposed to trying to rig onto the model directly.    
When making belaying pins it is better to have long shanks as it is easier to get purchase around them when rigging especially when other ropes are present. The shanks on the Bounty are tiny so I gave up and went for simple hitches in most cases.   
Before securing ropes try and tighten manually to see if another rope is in the way. Sometimes you add a rope think it looks okay and then tighten then when you see its actually competing with an unexpected different rope, so you have to undo and re-do.  there was something dodgy about the lifts and the way they were interacting with the shrouds. I suspect I made a big mistake somewhere so be careful of this next time.  
 
In the past I have secured the yards with a pin. This is all very well but A) Doing so prior to the shrouds going on can cause shroud issues so don’t pin until you can see the shrouds and secondly it can make securing the yards correctly difficult. I found I preferred not pinning and pulling the yard into place was the easiest approach.   
When cutting loose ends of threads always pull the loose end with tweezers first so you can see what you are cutting. Though I was much better at this this time around I still ended up cutting two-three actual ropes as opposed to the loose end I was aiming for   
When attaching blocks to ropes I found simple seizing was the easiest approach (not historical) and secured the block better. Basically wrap the thread around the block and hold close to the block with locking tweezers then a simple hitch with thin material at the block end then repeat further back. Slight drop of super glue on the securing material (not on the block holding rope!) and job done.   
Don’t forget that if you randomly tighten one rope that looks loose then you may be loosening a different rope elsewhere.    
Scale matters. My Snake and Diana are at the same scale as the Bounty but are larger ships so the rigging is (was) easier.  For this reason it looks like the Bounty rigging is even more simplified but equally there are a lot of ropes fitting in a smaller area.   
For me my next task is to build a couple of Goban (not ship modelling related but it will help hone skills with almost all of my machine tools) which should take a month or two to do correctly. After that I may re-furbish my Diana by fixing some broken rigging (and a mast ☹ ), re-inking the shrouds and generally trying to de-dust. That should take only a week to do. After that I am going to re-start my Amphion. Due to the lessons learnt above I will be upping the scale from 1:64 to 1:48. I have zero chance of getting a 1:64 scale frigate into the house so since it will be remaining in my workshop I might as well go for a 1:48. This will make some of the parts much easier to make and machine. It’s either that or drop it to 128 and lose loads of detail and perhaps go solid hull. I have a couple of months to decide. Anyway, thanks for reading and happy modelling. 
 
 

Oh Mark you absolute hero. I was considering making a 38 masts proportional for my 32 as Lees has nothing at the correct age range but that is absolutely perfect..

I use my small lathes (a Unimat DB200 and a Boley watchmakers') for turning belaying pins, master patterns for cannon, parrel trucks, deadeyes and mast coats. Never for masts and spars. They are always done by the old-fashioned four-square, eight-square then rounding off where needed using sandpaper strips. As pointed out, you'd need a longer bed lathe anyway, and your dollars (or whatever currency you use) could go to buy a lot of other tools or wood instead!

I would never tackle rounding a mast or any other spar anyway other than by hand with a small plane, taking successively tapered sections by hand although I know many use the lathe practice successfully. 
 
As an owner of a number of different lathes, if I had it to do all over again, I would choose the Sherline, as you can add to this as your skills develop and they are a great company making a great product.  Good luck with your search.  Taig also makes a nice tool, a little less expensive and there are Unimat 3's available sometimes on E-Bay but usually over priced.  I wouldn't consider any Unimat other than the 3 or the earlier SL.
 
 

Oh Mark you absolute hero. I was considering making a 38 masts proportional for my 32 as Lees has nothing at the correct age range but that is absolutely perfect..

Good Evening Matrim;
 
This might help you settle the sizes.
 
See below an extract from a 1790 volume in the British Library. This gives mast & yard dimensions for a vessel of every class, including Iris, a 32 gun ship. The photograph is slightly out-of-focus as the reading rooms are not brightly lit, and the BL do not allow the use of camera stands, so everything is hand-held with an elongated exposure.
 
The bowsprit is 52'8" (given as 17 yards & 20 inches)
 
Note that the reference to 'flying jib-boom' is actually referring to the jib-boom. This was commonly called a flying jib-boom from its introduction in the early 18th century. 
 
If you need anything more, let me know.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 

 

Hi again, the distance seems OK to me but I will leave to more experienced and knowledgeable people to respond more adequately     The bowsprit (outer end) for my Victoria (1855) is 23 feet (for a ship of 166 feet between perpendiculars and of 580 tons) so you are in the ball park I think ?  I am unfamiliar with spritsail yards and the like so can't offer too much more to assist you; sorry.
 
It is surprising what info is stored and what is lost.  For example I have hundreds of letters  written between the Crown Agency, the build Supervisor and the Governor of Victoria at the time, many of which refer to literally nearly a hundred drawings/sketches and plans - while the letters have been preserved, not a single plan or sketch has been
 
cheers
 
Pat

Does it make sense if those measurements are to do with where the spiritsail yard is in relation to the bowsprit length? So we have 5.3 foot out of sight, 24 ft over the deck then the head and relevant extensions all eventually used to flag that location? Or is the 24ft distance for the deck just too large. On a 38 the bowsprit is 55 ft long approx (and as a 32 this would be possibly 16% or so smaller? - so around 46 foot) - allowing it has not been deliberately overmasted etc which I doubt as they were deliberately designed to be slightly smaller.

ooo. All good interpretations. Though I am curious as to why that information relates to a sail plan. Unless it was to help size the sails for the available mast 'space'. It is a nice rare working scribble though I am surprised it survived. Probably chucked in a draw somewhere with something more important.

@Dubz, I will see what I can do over the weekend (Monday-Thursday I work full time, so no time to set up a new job on machine until then). Plus, I just realised, I am awaiting delivery of more 3mm pear sheet, as I have used it all.
 
DelF - Thank you! I have learned a lot over the past year, and have now built up a good group of people and suppliers. Plus I will try and constantly improve what is already released. Alert being a good example, and I have now started to laser engrave part numbers on the main structural laser sheets.
 
If anyone is interested, my wife tells me we have enough parts for one more Master Shipwright kit, so if anyone would like this, please contact me, as it will not be going on the website to buy.

Shifted to traders though the topic does not truly fit here or in books. It may be useful to list the books so people know what they are plus a general idea where you are based as (for example) is you are UK based and a US group wants them then shipping would be horrendous.
 
Note this topic which does exactly that..