Snug Harbor Johnny

I know someone so 'into' this that he's run the 'Longship Company' since the 70s. Pictured below is the third (and best built) boat, presently located in southern Maryland on the Potomac estuary 9an offshoot of the Chesapeake Bay. 'Thought you's like to see it.

Thus far, I've never been the first to say "Welcome" to a new forum member ... but I'll say it anyway - Welcome!

You have a deft touch with the chisel (must be quite sharp) used thusly ... Hats off to your courage ! Said the cowardly Lion, "What makes a King out of a slave? - Courage. What makes the flag on the mast to wave? - Courage. ... What makes the Hottentots so hot? Who put the ape in apricot? What do they got that I ain't got? ... Courage. - You can say that again."

My apologies for not realizing we had different editions of the kit. I saw a build log (non-MSW) of a 2005 (1st edition) Roar Ege kit that had plastic ends for the ship's stand, among other differences. Since that time, there have bound to be tweaks and changes in subsequent editions - and I'm not sure which one I might have. You are right in that I often overthink things, and I often find my way down rabbit holes, blind alleys and red-herring chases. If I can figure out a reasonable way forward with what I have to work with (versus shelving it for later), it will be in a separate log. Meanwhile, I'll watch what you are able to do with interest. I did come across one line drawing based on the original (perspective view) that clarifies for me the sort of shaping in the mast step (mast fish?) that Billings gives but slight indications in their paperwork. May favorable winds and clear sailing be yours !

'Found that measuring the #4 rib to the rib size in the section drawing that the wood rib was 125% larger. Copying at 125% made for a match ... but here's where it gets tricky. A cut-out of the enlargement (full size on the model) does not match the curvature on the building bulkhead half #4. The enlarged drawing is wider ! Since the strakes are all pre-cut, making a wider bulkhead would cause the provided strakes to be shorter than needed. This would not be good. 'Guess the cross sections are there primarily for part # identification (also needed), rather than to depict the actual configuration of the assembly (otherwise known as 'true size and shape'). &$$%# !! OK - the provided bulkhead has to be used, and the idea of just overlaying an adjusted cross section drawing is out the window. And notching the bulkheads may be 'out' as well. I note that each provided strake (and the all have to be the exact one in the correct position relative to the side being built) is a specific width at each bulkhead point. The position of the 'tick marks' appears to mean where each successive plank ends with respect to the bulkhead. Some of these are close to where they should be, some a little off (depending on the plank). The area of overlap (where glue is applied to join the planks along their edges) is raised above the bulkhead by the thickness of the plank beneath. This will naturally lessen the change of accidental gluing to the bulkhead (unless too much glue is applied, then squeezes out when all those clamps are applied). It will take considerable study to adjust the tick-marks to the optimal position. Still, the wooden rib to be installed later is a good guide for those planks nearest the keel on where the tick-mark for them should be. The garboard plank bears against the extra layer glued to the keel, and represents the 'overlap' in that area. I'll have to measure each plank at the midpoint and note where the other tick-marks should be adjusted. Getting this hull planked turns out to be a lot harder than it looks.

I've imagined an alternative to formal cases - imagine thick shelves on one wall of a room (the shelves have the back edge right against the wall, and alternative to thick shelves would be two shelves - one on top of the other). One could hang plexiglass from the front and sides of one shelf (the lower one if there are pairs) going down to the one below. The hanging hardware would be pan head screws, and the corresponding holes in the plexiglass would be large enough to go over the head of each screw ... thus the panels would be easy to remove for access to the models (the height between shelving would be appropriate for the height of the models on that shelf). Most of the dust would be kept out, and perhaps only an occasional use of 'dust off' (pressurized air in a spray can) every 2 or 3 years might be needed.

OK, I'm back at home now ... really, at 71 (and counting) I'm the 'poster child' for 'retirement' these days. Since there's some insecurity about outliving what savings we have after some setbacks in the housing 'bubble', I work per-diem as a Pharmacy Technician at our local hospital about on-par with part-time work. I'm also making hay of late doing much work in the yard and garden (well, this is the time of year to do it), and also some exterior maintenance. 'Thought I'd have to tear down the lawn tractor engine to replace the rod, but it was failing motor mounts that were at fault. Still had to replace the safety switches, key assy., solenoid, and adjust the valve clearances ... among a host of deferred maintenance - runs like a top now with 24 years on it. Enough of that, I took a few pictures to try and clarify my previous comments. As mentioned, the 'whole hull' jig would be quite a lot of trouble, as the building by halves jig can be vastly improved by notching the frames provided to match the ribs to be inserted later. Once can also 'bear down' on the fore and aft ends while tapering the ends of the strakes if built in halves. The first picture is of the BACK of the provided sheet, and you can see that there are plenty of fibers still crossing over the line of laser cutting. I think that this 'a little less' than full blast method is preferable to 'over char' that you can get some some other kits. I used a 'pointy' X-Acto knife (with a fresh SHARP blade) to trim around these fibers and also to go about half way (in 2 or 3 soft cuts) through the 'tabs' that hold the part in the matrix so it won't fall out in shipping/handling. The front face of the tabs are sliced next to free the part. The next picture shows the freed part, which was handled with care ... you've seen how they can get damaged otherwise. Now for the 'tick marks' ... yeah, I thought they might indicate where the top edge of each plank is supposed to go - but this is NOT the case as will be seen. They are the inward pointing lightly lasered (they just mark the surface) short lines along the edge. In order not to mix up parts, I'm numbering them lightly in erasable pencil ... and will also mark the place on the sheet where it came from. Said sheet can be a template if I want to build the boat in better hardwood ply made up myself from 3 or 4 layers of fine veneer with rotated grain. OK, now for the 'overlay' ... rib half 4 was placed over the building bulkhead half 4 to show where to mark the 'saw tooth' (using the rib as a guide) on the bulkhead that will locate and orient each plank as it is assembled. One will have to avoid gluing the plank to the bulkhead by not having glue get too near said bulkhead. (Wood glue will be preferable to CA to prevent 'wicking', and if that bonded planks to the building bulkheads, well, that would be a big complication.) Of course, this leaves one wondering how to mark the notching for the planks above where the rib ends. (I'll get to that.) The notching can be done by first making a thin inward cut with a model train track cutting saw, then paring with an X-Acto along the edge working toward the relief cut just made. Gosh, it would have been great if Billing has laser cut the bulkheads halves WITH correct notches. Still, what is in the kit (with a few caveats) sure beats scratch building. You just have to look at the glass as 'half full' instead of half-empty. If life gives you a lemon, make lemonade. I apologize that the next picture is a little out of focus, but you can see that the cross section provided is not to full scale (pity). But I'll use my copier to scale the drawing up to full size, and used the wood part as a gauge to prove that the size of the adjusted copy is correct. Then, instead of using the the rib half to mark the notching needed on the building bulkhead, I'll glue a half cross section right to the building bulkhead ... shazaam ! I now will have ALL the notches needed going right up the side of the bulkhead. Of course, they only provide 3 cross sections, so if I want to make additional bulkheads I'll need to make my own cross sections for those ... but will they be correct? The answer for that is that the added bulkheads do not have to go all the way up, but the ribs provided will be templates to make partial building bulkheads - if I go to the trouble to do them. Having the three critical bulkhead notched will 'set up' the strakes (planks) so that the path to either end will be predetermined. Its this sort of design work that stimulates my brain cells, so I should take a break from the tedium of making over 100 more rope coils at 1:100 scale on the GF and do some larger work. I used to be an industrial engineer until made redundant at age 51 - another story I'll skip. Trimming (profiling) the keel stiffener is also tricky, and I'll have to look into that. Another idea is to add a little material to the tops of the keel (part 1) forward and aft of the central stiffener (part 3) for the garboard strake to bear against. Said material has to go between where the ribs will attach, which is why I thought of making additional partial building bulkheads. With your permission, once I do a half-jig, I can post you pictures of what I came up with - if it will help.

Micha, you've got me thinking enough to take another look inside the 703 kit box, and made a couple observations: 1.) The laser cutting is a fine line, and the power tuned back so that there is not too much 'burn' - but then it doesn't quite go thru to the back completely in places. So putting a sheet on a surface with the back side up, an X-acto knife was carefully (very lightly) run around the perimeter, noting that there are a couple of connecting tabs to partially cut. Then the sheet was flipped to partially cut the tabs from the front side. Then the delicate part could drop out almost by itself with no damage. Care in getting each part out is essential. 2.) I put half rib #4 over the half building form #4 and saw where the form could be marked with a very sharp pointed mechanical pencil to file or cut-out 'saw teeth' to match the corresponding rib. The lightly burned 'tick marks' on the edge of the form don't seem to correspond to anything, thus shouldbe ignored. I must get to work soon, but can take a couple pictures that will show better what I mean. Building the kit in halves may indeed be the way to go - perhaps enhanced by a couple extra building frames notched as above. Then the planking can be made to fit the notches so later installation of the ribs will go correctly.

'Got my box off the shelf (and the main hull parts are elsewhere, as I've reproduced them - with modifications - in 1:88 to match the scale of the cannon), and it's HEAVY ... the weightiest kit I've ever lofted (aprox. 15 pounds complete). The drawings have the date of January 1st, 1975, ergo I surmise that the release of the kit could well have been later in 1975. There is a lot of 'bang for the buck', and if built 'out of the box' in 1:65 will be quite large and impressive - if not something of an anachronism, since the design of the castles is quite conjectural and they do not conform to either the depiction on the Anthony Roll or the painting Henry VIII commissioned in the 1530s. I'll make mine in 1:88 with a castle profile a lot like Louie da Fly's Henry Grace a Dieu (a log I can recommend reviewing, as it is accomplished in a much smaller scale - and masterfully done at that). The kit masting seems rather TALL for the hull proportions, and might make a ship built like that 'krank' (tending to heel easily - the 1628 Vasa being a prime example of the effect, to our benefit by raising and restoring the entire original hull). But it is easy just to build the model with slightly less tall masting. EDIT: Now I recall reading that the Great Harry DID heel too much in brisk winds, and that was why the stern castle was reduced to improve handling. The Mary Rose handled well as built, but the rear castle was raised and extra armaments were added prior to the action that saw her sink in Henry's sight. It is unlikely that a 'lucky shot' from the French did her in - as it would have to be below the waterline, and most likely on the side she settle down on ... the very one we have today, and there are no breaches evident. I rather think that the event was much like the Vasa debacle nearly a century later.

Should the jackstays be a little 'forward' on the yard, instead of top-dead-center? 'Haven't done any yet on a 1:100 project but will, in time, get to them.

Looking at the portion of the picture the Admiral took, I can see that there IS bunching at the parrel points. Now (looking at the entire image taken) the steam frigate appears to be a Navy ship (white stripe with dark gun ports) that is flying the American flag from the spanker boom. I've tried to expand the image of the flag - and the resolution only goes so far, but there is either a 5x6 or a 5x7 array - corresponding to 30 or 35 states, respectively ... another reason to go back and have a close look at the original. (Note to Paul: this does seem to connect with the thread topic of rigging in front of the yard, so I hope it is of interest.) Wisconsin was the 30th state admitted in 1848, and Nevada the 36th in 1864 (ignoring states thought to be in rebellion at the time), so that might be the 'envelope' for the time depicted in the painting. I'll have to do research on this type of Navy ship build then (having the domes under which there are a paddle wheels). She flies a 'courtesy' flag on a fore mast back stay that is a "Red Duster" for Canada (a red flag with the union jack in the top corner), and also a blue pennant I need to get better detail on. In the background are fishing schooners such as seen in the 1937 B&W film 'Captains Courageous', so my guess is that the Navy ship is in fishing grounds off Newfoundland ... ? The composition stands out as an 'action shot' - not the 'typical' sort where an owner's named ship is represented. I'm not about to let this rest, unless the item is gone by the time we can get back there.

Thanks. I forgot about 'clews to the mast', and a portion of a photo of the painting (seem's the Admiral took it after I stared at the artwork) is pasted below. I'm tempted to go back and buy the restored painting, as it was about 2' x 3' and priced at $145.

Its clear to see how you are going about planking the hull that will support the forecastle. Yours is a fabulous project that will help me when I resume work on the Great Harry. Thanks!

I can see it ... and the lines are more graceful that those of the Cutty Sark, with the 'Big T' seeming more like a racing yacht. Perhaps thats why she had the advantage under lighter winds, as well as 'ghosting' ... although when 'hammered', the CS appears to have gained an advantage.

'Just saw an antique nautical painting where a clipper's furled sails had the 'ears' relatively close to the mast ... and other photos show them close to the yard ends, as well as near the middle. Is this due to where the blocks for the clew lines happen to be placed under the yard? (given that there were variations in how individual ships were rigged)

A nice job, and I'm familiar with the 1:150 kit - which turned out to be just a little smaller than my not-so-nimble fingers could accommodate. There is a 1:120 scale Cutty Sark (I reviewed the Monogram version) that one can occasionally find where there are TWO sets of yards ... one with extended studding sail booms, and one with them retracted. If the nearly 3' long Revell Cutty seems on the large size, the 1:120 Japanese version (if you can find one) could suit. The tool and die work is nice, and the deck level with respect to the gunwale is correct. (The 1:96 version has the deck positioned higher with respect to the gunwale, which makes the cabin roofs rise higher than the original ship.) Yet 1:96 DOES allow for more detailed rigging and other options. Rob Wiederrich demonstrates that just a little material can do for furled sails atop the yards (as they would be in harbor). With or without furled sails, the upper topsail yard would be lowered close to the lower - so the 'lifts' would be taught. The topgallant and royal yards would also be lowered. When raised, the 'lifts' droop, as there is no tension. Congratulations on your build !

This is yet another 'ah-ha' moment, and one that occurred to me previously ... as I have this kit (and the 1:25) Oseberg as well. The Oseberg kit has more 'bulkheads', as the entire deck gets eventually covered - and nobody can see that underneath the construction is not that of the original, but a technique similar to most plank-on-bulkhead models. Some of the MDW builders have installed extra cross pieces (false ribs) between the bulkheads to make the deck planking look much better - but still, with no visibility below deck is shouldn't matter what construction techniques are used. The outside appearance is what counts. Thats a plus for the Oseberg kit, but doesn't apply to the Roar Ege. Building the Roar Ege in halves would have the advantage that the keel would not be bent ... BUT there is the difficulty with fitting the notched ribs into a hull that has already been planked (whether done in halves or as a whole) AND having the notches align exactly with the planks. The odds are low that this will happen UNLESS the forms planked against also have these notches. BTW, there are not enough forms ! I've considered this for some time, and now see the 'fit' problem you have at present. Note that this same problem will apply to the old 'Vikingskibbe' 1:20 kit ribs, and they have to be cut out from flat stock as well. My thinking was for that kit, that paper templates would have to be custom made one at a time for each location on the pre-planked hull before tack-mounting to better flat stock in order to cut out custom ribbing that would then fit at their respective locations without gapping (much). I suppose this could be done for the Roar Ege kit - so why have laser cut, notched ribs? They also would have to be 'faired' at least somewhat to conform to the geometry of the planking as it narrows. Yes there is a real challenge to the Roar Ege kit, since the building forms as so few and they are not notched. So what can any prospective builder do (like me)? Step one - and here I go busting another kit - is to lay the ribs that coincide with a pair of building bulkheads to see IF the respective bulkheads COULD be notched appropriately (that is, the same as the ribs to be later inserted) BEFORE any planking starts. If not, then new bulkheads that will match the notching on the paired ribs (for later installation) must be made from other stock. I note that the cross sections provided by Billings are too few, and NOT to scale (the same size) as the model to be made. These would have to be sized on your printer (not too hard a task) to get proper sized cross sections. THEN, cross-sections would have to be drawn full size for all the other locations that will get ribbing (so one needs some drafting skills). Note that the 'notching' of the building bulkheads does NOT end where the ribs will stop - but continues up the side of the hull all the way to the top ! Once the other cross sections have been generated and checked against the laser cut pieces for each location, then additional building bulkheads have to be fabricated with notching that corresponds to the planking positions on the cross sections. ... WHEW ! The building bulkheads have to be assembled at the correct distances, strengthened by notched fore-and-aft pieces - much like many POB models. The height of the building bulkheads need to be higher, so that there is a straight line across the top to facilitate the re-enforcing notched braces. It looks like the kit has a 'curve' in the building frame - perhaps to conserve material ? Once all the above is done (for both sides, if building in halves, or alternatively - as a single, full, building jig ... the notched bracing (plus a few well placed reinforcing blocks) will yield enough rigidity to the rig that the keel will not bend) ... the jig needs to be 'faired', as any POB kit has to be. THEN, the lapstrake planking can be done accurately - although the ribs to be installed later will also have to be faired to fit them in 'just right'. Now comes the comparison with the Woody Joe Khufu barge kit ... (you know I'd throw something like this in eventually). If you check my completed build of the kit (1:72, but would have been much better in 1:48) they designed an ingenious building jig where the ribs for the planking are incorporated into the building bulkheads ... but still attached in places where they the rest of the bulkhead is 'snapped' away later. I really appreciated this way to build that kit, and there weren't too many quibbles about certain other aspects of fitting things together. So the idea hit me that the "new" Roar Ege building bulkheads (that have been 'busted' into existence) could be carefully cut out to accommodate the notched kit ribs. Then only the notching on the bulkheads above the ribs would have to be done. Since there would be nothing connecting the ribs with their respective bulkheads, small pieces of thin stock glued to both sides of the 'mother' bulkhead in a couple of places would keep the ribs in line with the mother - that would be lifted away vertically after the planking is done - leaving behind the ribs (that would be glued to each mating plank as built). That way, when the building jig is faired, the ribs will also be perfectly faired at the same time (no fussing later). As long as the builder does NOT glue planks to the building bulkheads above the ribs, the jig will lift away. As planking proceeds, light cuts or scoring can be done on the planks near the bow and stern to simulate the original - that had solid-carved ends with lands that the shaped hull planks fit into. The 1:20 "Vikingskibbe" has the bow and stern built up from pieces - and I suppose that once bonded they simulate a piece carved as a unit. But this 'stack' is dead-flat for-and-aft, and may show a 'kink' where the hull planks join them. Duplicating the base end-plank on the 1:20 model to double the thickness would provide enough material to taper the entire piece - so that all the subsequent pieces will have an 'angle' to them. This might eliminate most of the slight 'kink', and some additional hand shaping/tapering would do the rest. The Roar Ege does have 'impossible' strakes that provide a smooth transition at the ends (yet a extra piece butted to the garboard strake needs to be added, then tapered to "nothing", so there is no 'gap' when the next strake goes on) ... but, as mentioned above, scribing a 'false' staggered butt join at bow and stern will simulate solid carved ends. Please accept my apology for an over-long response (I rarely can say anything in 25 words or less), but aside from outlining techniques that might actually give a good result for the subject kit - I would not expect any beginning builder to think of these alternatives ahead of time ... only in retrospect. The extra time to have engineered a better building jig, along with better, full-size cross-sections and MUCH better instructions would have likely raised the price of the kit by 50%. I think it would have been worth it. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the show?

'Took a quick look on WIkipedia and found this: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other ships with the same name, see USS Tennessee. USS Tennessee at Brooklyn Navy Yard in 1875, after her conversion to a gun-deck frigate History United States Name Madawaska/Tennessee Namesake As Madawaska, Madawaska, Maine As Tennessee, the State of Tennessee Launched 8 July 1865 Renamed USS Tennessee 15 May 1869 Fate Sold 15 September 1886 General characteristics Class and type Wampanoag-class screw frigate Tonnage 3,281 tons Length 355 ft (108 m) Beam 45 ft 2 in (13.77 m) Draft 21 ft 8 in (6.60 m) Propulsion 2 × vibrating-lever engines (as built) Compound back‑acting engines (as refitted) Sail plan 10 principal sails = 22,500 sq ft (2,090 m2). Complement 480 Armament 2 × 8-inch (203-mm) rifles 2 × 100-pounder (45.5-kg) guns 1 × 60-pounder (27.2-kg) guns 18 × 9-inch (229-mm) smooth bore guns USS Tennessee, originally USS Madawaska, was a screw frigate built of wood at the New York Navy Yard in Brooklyn, New York, and launched as Madawaska on 8 July 1865. Powered by two Ericsson vibrating-lever engines, Madawaska departed New York City for sea trials 14 January 1867, Commander Francis A. Roe in command. Remaining at sea for one week, she steamed nearly 1,000 nautical miles (1,150 statute miles; 1,852 km) before returning when her supply of coal was exhausted. An illustration of USS Madawaska, showing the spar deck added to her in 1869. She was renamed Tennessee 15 May 1869 and timbered up to the necessary height to allow a spar deck to be installed. She was fitted with new compound back‑acting engines capable of developing 3,200 horsepower (2,400 kW). She carried 380 tons of coal but was also rigged for sail, the area of her 10 principal sails being 22,500 square feet (2,090 m2). Her duties included service as flagship of the Asiatic Squadron under Rear Admiral William Reynolds, with Captain William W. Low in command. By 1879 she was flagship of the North Atlantic Squadron under Rear Admiral Robert W. Wyman, with Captain David B. Harmony in command. On 15 February 1881 at New Orleans, Louisiana, Seaman George Low jumped overboard and rescued a fellow sailor from drowning, for which he was awarded the Medal of Honor.[1]

Good point, as I hadn't noticed the deadeye until it was pointed out and I looked again closely ('Just ordered new glasses because my prescription changed, but it will take 1 - 2 weeks to get them). 'Guess Keith and I share a couple traits, since on a Pennsylvania long rifle I made (and was showing to some new friends recently) - I kept pointing all the things I 'did wrong' (mostly small details). A man with some expertise in antique firearms said to forget real or imagined 'faults' - he thought it was beautifully done ... as is Keith's U.S.S. Tennessee !

Who says that the deadeyes have to be 'perfectly' aligned? As they are tensioning devices, variations are bound to occur over time as shrouds get periodically adjusted. Your ship looks just fine.

'Love the shellac - at 1:192, you're a brave man.

I've shared your job of adding-to or subtracting-from bulkheads ... Edit: Some might say shared your 'pain', but it not really that (although inconvenient) - its part of the journey, and keeps the mind working. We're told that having mental tasks in old age can stave-off Alzheimers - so with the stuff I'm fiddling with, I might match my Dad's intact mental abilities before he 'passed over the bar' a month shy of his 95th birthday.

Bob offers much good advice. Once I learned how to use the Syren 'Rope Rocket', I became hooked on making my own line because I can control the color by the use of material, and the thickness by varying the number of strings used in the layup. 3 threads (one on each of the three hooks) make 0.010" line (1" rope at 1:100 scale), 6 threads (2 per hook) yields 0.020" line, and 9 threads (3 per hook) yields 0.030" - very convenient at 1:100 scale. More threads or using already laid rope on the hooks can accommodate larger scales. OR - you can by scale rope from sources mentioned in earlier feedback. You put so much time and effort in a project, so why not use better scale rope. The same goes for blocks. True, it adds some cost - but the results are worth it. My early rope batches used Mettler poly thread, but there was some 'fuzz' (not as much as 'kit rope'), and my flaming process used an old-fashioned alcohol lamp with 90% isopropyl alcohol (for the lowest heat level compared to other fuels) ... and a QUICK hand, for any slowness and the poly line would part. BUT, the thread to use is Gutermann - which has almost not fuzz - so no flaming was needed, and the scale rope suppliers use Gutermann. Also, a 350 degree treatment of the hanks on a cookie sheet for 5 -7 minutes 'sets' the rope, and (unless worked) does not ravel on its own. Scale rope suppliers have already tempered their line. Listen to Roger - don't let any flame get near your model ! I like using shellac for a variety of applications. If the rigging already in place were not waxed, slightly thinned (experimented first) amber shellac might have darkened the ratlines and deadeye laces, and lessened fuzz at the same time.

I suppose that might have originated when wenches aboard would lean over the 'railing' to display their wares.