Snug Harbor Johnny

The new keel pieces are placed for comparison with the original pieces, and you can see the degree of down-sizing accomplished. There are no changes to the configuration of this single frame element except the lessen the amount of keel that will project below the nethermost planking, whereas there are very significant re-designs to the cross-wise frame members and decking (which will be seen later). Ideally, I'd use computer aided frame development to get perfectly symmetrical print-outs at the desired scale for gluing to the wood before jig-sawing. What I did was to fold the paper over and cut around the first half to get something close to symmetrical - then trace around it on the wood. I got a piece of birch plywood about .200" thick (2' x 4') and pretty rigid in both axis. I had to look through almost every piece to find one that was flat - and it stayed flat in my shop. I picked another piece at another big-box store to make the gun decks from, since they will have to flex to the shape needed fore and aft. So the piece of stock was chosen from one that was rigid in one axis but flexible in the other. Below id a folded-over paper frame member. My 'hammer and chisel' methods aren't so elegant, and the pieces have to be test-fitted and trimmed as needed as I go. But its 'good enough'. Below are some pieces drawn on the wood. Now after cutting the initial ones out, they don't look too bad. But there will undoubtedly be a few re-makes when I see how the lines look. All this is a 'first ever' for me, and it is a process of discovery.

Now its time to hit the drawing board and re-scale the model. The designers 'gallionized' her over much (as there was much less to go on back then), and the beam to length also needed re-doing (as noted in the kit review). I did a fair amount of design work as a junior engineer decades ago - long before auto-cad and cad/cam technology. A proper drawing board with a manual drafting machine would come in handy, but I have to plug away with straightedge, pencil and whatever shapes are handy. The kit frames were placed on my copier and the % reduction was played around with until arriving at my best reckoning of 1:88 - what appears to be the scale of the cannons provided. I also had to adjust the beam proportions and the outer shaping of the frames. Now there is an interesting way that 'false decks' are incorporated in the kit design - but not at the levels where cannon carriages would set on them ... rather the 'approximate' center line of the barrels where the gun ports are to be cut into the hull planking. Wood is intended to be glued into notches at these point, then later drilled into from the outside after planking and cutting the gun ports. If everything does not line up quite right, there will be difficulties with this. Also, just drilling the holes all in alignment from the outside into wood pieces located somewhat behind the hull planking is problematical. My solution was to design complete gun decks (instead of two halves) that will be at the proper level to have either gun carriages (or dummy carriages) placed ... or simply wood blocks that the half cannons can be temporarily put into and adjusted to 'look right' coming out of the gun ports AS the planking proceeds up the hull. We'll let this idea evolve as the build progresses. Below is a rough sketch showing where the original internal decking related to the array of gun ports. The next two photos show the kit concept of how half-cannons would be incorporated - so you can see the challenges noted above. Below is a detail showing an oddly-shaped fore castle ... not like the Anthony Roll at all - go figure. i still haven't translated any of the Italian, but one can see that the hull is to be double planked.

Ahoy, lovers of 16th to early 17th c. ships ! My review of the massive vintage Sergal kit designed in 1975 can be found elsewhere in the forum, and I won't re-hash much if anything covered there (in the review section) ... in fact, the kit review nearly 'morphed' into a build log (never my intent) - so I was bound to eventually do a build after finishing the Vasa log - or so I thought. So in taking a break form the Swedish ship, I started accumulating pictures of a re-design of the Great Henry's framing ... and as the photos mounted I realized that a 'backlog' was accumulating, and would make for a lot of work sorting and getting any future log started. Well, we're used to many logs taking years to complete, and I'll most likely hop back and forth between the two and add occasional additions to both logs as stuff gets done. The full name of this ship is Henry Grace a Deiu (HGaD), and there is a great build of her at 1:200 already completed in the forum. It was a larger and more heavily armed version of the Mary Rose (MR), built in response to the Scottish leviathan Great Michael. There are several reference books on these ships, so I won't go into that here. Having a substantial section of the Mary Rose recovered and on display in England provides a wealth of information not just on the hull lines and construction methods, but this information can be used for the Great Henry (or Great Harry - GH either way) - as well as to correct what are perceived today as inaccuracies with the vintage Sergal kit. 'Hard to figure the thinking in marketing a limited release of a premium, large-scale kit back then, - and they might have done better with with a more manageable version, as the development and tooling could have been amortized over a higher production volume (ergo lowering the price point). The Anthony Roll was known back then, so the somewhat fanciful configuration of the fore and stern castles is amusing. The kit, as issued, is high quality and the framing parts fit well with a minimum of fussing. But we'll see what i have to do to get a more modest sized model conforming much better to what is now known from the MR. Below is a portion of the kit framing to give you an idea of the size.

'Looking good ... Have you thought about the detail seen on the original just below the gunwale (inboard), where there is wood installed with oval spaces between where white shows through?

Any day you can 'move the ball a few more yards downfield' is an accomplishment. 'Your hull looks well build to date. Now, if only Sergal would make a 'decent' Thermopylae at the same scale. Their 1:124 is a real challenge, and the reason they went with the smaller scale was to have a low price-point. A better version in a larger scale (it wouldn't take too much to modify their Cutty, since many components are interchangeable) would be a better value even at a higher price.

Ahoy Steven ! I've noted the Mary Rose deadeyes with seven (count 'em) lacing (reeving?) holes. And, yes, I'll have to fashion mine to be like those - which will be easier at 1:88 than at 1:200 for sure. I happen to have some 'teardrop' shaped metal lower deadeye surrounds from a parts kit that are about the right size (slightly larger at 1:72, so the deadeyes will be made to fit). My 'take' on this type of deadeye is this (in theory): once laced, the combined mechanical advantage will be much more than that obtained by merely three holes - especially if there are TWO loose ends of line, that is, the lacing does not begin with a stop knot. That way, two men would be pulling on the ends to tighten the shroud above. Once snug, each man would wrap his line end a few times around the lacings near a narrow end of one deadeye (frapping is the term Boy Scouts use when doing ordinary lashing ... wrap twice, frap thrice) and pass the end of the line around the frapping and out to secure with a couple half hitches ... whatever. This would give the arrangement a distinctive look - one different than the later-developed method of having only three holes and a single loose end of line that is tightened by blocks and tackle from above (to provide sufficient mechanical advantage), the free end is threaded up where the shroud is stropped to a round upper deadeye making a little gap there, then lashed with thin line to the shroud in a couple places, the way done with most models seen on the MSW forum. There's plenty of time to work out the details, and I'm now planning to do a post-1536 version. The very large scale of the 'as provided' materials had me thinking that shorter masting (sans top gallants of a pre-1536 version) might help - but not that much. A draft with a taller stern castle did make the vessel look a bit 'krank', which it nearly was according to available sources. Observers 'expect' to see a version resembling the Anthony roll - and most of the artists conceptions one can find on the web, as well as other models made.

Aye, the Holbein drawing shows a rowdy crew with a wench aboard ... and also shows the characteristic 'teardrop' shaped deadeyes.

I've finished furniture made of 'colored' wood (e.g. mahogany or black walnut) by lightly applying 50/50 'boiled' linseed oil/turpentine and allowing it to cure a few days with intermittent burnishing with a soft cloth - then applying shellac to whatever degree desired, whether a single sealcoat or a gradual buildup of layers. The oil treatment will enhance (deepen) the color and the shellac (whether clear or amber) is compatible if applied over the oil once its had a chance to fully absorb and dry into the wood. When furniture is to be painted with oil-based paint, shellac can be used as a 'spit coat' to bond any loose wood fibers and is lightly sanded before applying the paint.

Yeah, there are ratlines in abundance on the HGaD ... but since I want to reduce the scale to somewhat to 1:88 (gosh, the 1:65 hull length provided is intimidating), I'll likely opt for the 'sewing' method of ratline installation. This will prevent oversized knots ... and tying them (except perhaps a cow hitch on the ends so there are no 'short stubs' projecting as seen on some models). There are quite a few ratlines also on the Vasa - work on which has been sidelined while I work on an entirely new set of HGaD frame members at the new scale with; a.) much better hull lines based on the Mary Rose b.) curved false gun decks below the weather deck, c.) a corrected fore Castle configuration and d.) corrections to the length versus beam and stern Castle. Once a trial fitting of both frames for comparison has been done, the new set will likely need further tweaking (assuming another re-work is not required) before photography for the proposed log. It seems like I'm developing my own 'kit' based on Sergal's framing concept, then will be using materials from the Sergal kit for the execution. That beats having to cut my own planking and turning brass cannon barrels. I've not attempted to translate the Italian notes on the massive drawings yet (still might, but the draftsman's 'slant' and modified letters might puzzle Google translate). Its more a case of looking at all the sketches and 'figuring it out' ... cut to fit, bend to suit. It brings to mind old man Einar Billing's words: "You are about to begin the exciting task of building a model ... (which) is intended to be BUILT, and not merely assembled. In consequence, you must not expect the parts to fit perfectly, (and) it will be necessary to exercise skill and imagination in the building of this kit - as thought and care should be exercised during construction. After all, any child can put a puzzle together." So the venture will be something between a major 'kit bust' and 'semi-scratch'. Once phase one (frame definitization) is accomplished and documented, I'll have to go back to the Vasa since there are some similarities in masting and rigging - a good dry run to be sure. And I may flip back and forth between these two ships ... and all the other services rendered for the Admiral.

Thank you for sharing. Your work is both sensational and inspirational !

'Figured it was likely a 'temporary' glitch ... and reminds one how quickly things could just 'go away' in the event of some cyber-war, gigantic solar mass ejection event aimed directly at earth (one knocked out all telegraphs in the 1800s) or some global catastrophe (don't want to imaging one right now) . The convenience and scope of information available at one's fingertips through this and other forums is awesome, though, and it sure beats the 'old days' of scrounging through municipal libraries - which never had the sort of 'builders' techniques' laid-out with such clarity. I'm doing things I never thought practical (or even possible) with present technology ... from complex spreadsheets to Photoshop wizardry to sound editing and desktop publishing. 'Guess the rewards justify the risks, and one can always try to minimize those with multiple thumb drive AND paper backups.

Yeah, 'guess the major East Coast maritime museums have all been previous sites for the NRG ... and I'm a recent new member. So what about ... The Erie Maritime museum and U.S. Brig Niagara in Eire, PA The Maritime Museum of Sandusky, OH - just west of Cleveland The U.S.S. Cairo Museum in Vicksburg, MS

Possibles ... The Mariners Museum in Newport News, VA. - many artifacts on display including the Monitor remains, close to Colonial Williamsburg and other historic attractions The Independence Seaport Museum in Philadelphia - exhibits plus the U.S.S. Olympia, close to the Museum of the Revolution & historic sites, travel by Amtrak is possible due to the proximity of Pennsylvania station The Mystic Seaport Museum in Mystic CT Baltimore 'Inner Harbor' area (would need a hotel venue close to the harbor exhibits)

A very resourceful solution you've employed, and I'm a fan of laminating layers for bent shapes needed - and I'm also a fan of veneers. You could consider applying veneer 'planks' between the stanchions of the bulwarks to simulate planking (rather than just leaving the solid surface of the supplied plywood bulwark provided in the kit). If done before the stanchions are applied, then single, long strips are easier to work with - but one can still add shorter lengths of typical 1/80" veneer between the stanchions. The Endurance was built with multiple layers of planking that added up to a VERY thick hull (something like a couple of feet in places where the ice pressure would be greatest).

I wonder what the model's sails are made of ...

Given that Steve lives 'down under' in Australia, how about pineapple upside down cake?

'Saw this interesting story with a connection to Admiral Nelson ...

'Saw a nice photo of a clipper under good sailing conditions ... and the sails are angled as they should appear for models under sail, with a breeze coming from the stern quarter. Since she's riding high in the water, there's no cargo.

Kudos to you, sir ! You've finished a tour-de-force of a fine smaller scale model of what was a substantial ship. A much larger scale project is more compatible with my skills these days. Thank you for such a detailed log ... a great reference to those who may follow with this ship.

Roger, You're 'right on' about all the expertise on the forum (for those who invest the time to search and learn) ... in my 2 years so far I've learned more about sailing (and also steam) ships than I had up to that time. And every niche has specialists with much to offer. You're also right about the Anthony Roll sketches - and there are still a number of other paintings & other artwork that shed light on these relatively early ships. I say 'relatively', in that the 4,000 + yr old Khufu barge is REALLY early. BTW, I watch builds of ancient galleys (how 'bout that Mycenaean reconstruction) and other boats the the 'Galilee' with great interest. 'Guess I'm not a 'specialist' but one with a love of learning, as all the eras are fascinating to investigate. So now (for the moment) I'm drawn towards Henry VIII's big ship, and once agin, you are spot-on with the advice to look into the lines below the surface of the water. It is very fortunate that we have as much of the Mary Rose as we do, and there are excellent hull lines in the 'Anatomy of the Ship' book on the MR. The Sergal kit (given its 70's antiquity) has inappropriate lines, and I've already started working on frames that will be a lot closer to the ones on the MR. The logic being that the HGaD was built shortly after, but 'manned-up' a good bit, as if the Mary Rose 'grew a set'. The MR represented the cutting edge of warship development when construction began in 1509, and the HGaD likely followed suit. Nice work on the Revenge, Grandpa ... Johnny

'Looks like the Science Museum Group model has heavy beams to support the overhang in the prow area of the model - something mot seen in the Anthony image ... but then one does not see a dragon (or monster) figure head mounted on a stempost, as was typical on carracks of that era. Hmmm, I don't imagine that they'd have taken it off in 1536. The Anthony drawing does not show a cutwater either, and I doubt THAT would have been removed. This shows the challenges of trying to interpret 'too much' into any piece of artwork. How lucky are those who have either photographs or recovered hulls to guide them ... noting that the forecastle of the Mary Rose has (to date) not been found (and may never be). I don't think that there were vertical curves on the forecastle, as straight timbers were most likely used to build the 'fort'. Yet the Anthony picture has a curved profile of the back ... and if combined with the reverse curve near the bottom ( IF one posits that there was no cantilever at the gunwale), there would be a 'S' curve to the back profile of the fore castle (unlikely). Once again, there is a lot to think about. I'm in the process of making an entirely new set of framing pieces (what Sergal uses for the kit is actually a nice structural design) in a smaller scale to work with as part of the considerations. Obviously, modifying and otherwise proving-out the frame and concepts BEFORE doing any planking is advisable. And I can cut-to-fit or remake portions as part of the discovery process. This is likely how the build log will have to start.

If you are using 'real' metal 'plates', adhesion problems on the underside may be due to a smooth surface on the metal. Many types of glue hold much better to a surface that has some fine roughness (referred to as "tooth") to it. That makes for a better 'mechanical' bond. Wood generally has this property due to the wood fibers, but that can be negated by 'filling' the pores and crevices with sealer and turned into a smooth, glossy surface. Then one has the problem of trying to glue TWO smooth surfaces together. Going over the hull area to have plates glued with a fine sanding paper will impart the necessary "tooth" to that side. The plates (while flat) before forming can be roughened in a similar way, or with a fine jewelers' file. Then both surfaces will be more 'grippable' by whatever glue you are using. Many have used copper 'tape' using a variety of techniques found here and there on the forum, but I wonder about the long-term stability of 'soft' or contact bonding agents ... they may peel away after enough time goes by.

Great Scott, that's a nice little boat ! 'Love the Martian - a miniature of the one Bugs Bunny always foiled.

I totally get what you're saying about the 'order of assembly' of various details (like the capstan). Now on every build (of anything), I'm straining my brain to 'see past the instructions' (having read all of it at the outset) to see how everything has to come together - and what should REALLY go in ahead of something else. This stretches out a build, but avoids (or at least limits) the frustration of un-doing anything or working harder to fit something in. Yeah, that's called 'working smarter, not harder'.

Thank you for all the info in your reply ... This new distraction is a break from the Vasa for perhaps a couple weeks. I know that 'conclusions' are hard to draw from the Anthony roll depictions, and that the is a certain amount of subjectivity to what one thinks he's seeing in the drawing. Yeah, and most of what has survived are mostly stern quarter views. But ... my eyes think they're seeing at least some sideways cantilever' at the forward break of the 'waist' (exposed weather deck) - the back face of the fore castle. It's the 'shading' under the Anthony fore castle going forward from there that also gives the impression of 'overhang'. I'm no artist, but I've made a quick (and crude) sketch (not even as good as the Anthony roll) to try and depict what I'm seeing. My pre-1536 concept is a 2-decked fore castle with railings on top that will have shields affixed to said railing. The stern castle would have 3 decks with railing (plus shields on top). I figure when modified in 1536, the stern castle was likely reduced for a 2-deck configuration, then a partial 3rd 'deck' built onto the fore castle in the back half (per Anthony). The pre-1536 would not have top gallants. I'm a bit overwhelmed at the TOTAL dimensions of the model 'out of the box' ... like 50" stem to stern pole and as high from keel to pennants. It IS a whopper of a project, and when I look at the size of the brass turned guns, they are really at a smaller scale. The likely solution is to make all new framing at 1:88 scale (halfway between the 1:75 of the kit - apart from its length, which is more like 1:65 - and the 1:100 that I'm used to working with. The provided cannon seem consistent with an adjusted size of hull at 1:88. I'm mindful of the display case to protect the finished model. As supplied, over 50 sq. feet of glazing material would be needed for the larger size, versus 27 sq. feet for the adjusted size. I'm also mindful now that Australia is in a much different time zone (our days and nights are effectively reversed) - so please forgive my earlier oversight time-wise.