Snug Harbor Johnny

I've learned that epoxy, like CA, goes bad after a while on the shelf - especially at room temperature. It's a good idea to buy new epoxy for a given build, and store epoxy (and CA) in the freezer (in a ziplock bag). Date the bag and still discard after 1 year (a rule of thumb).

I've found that old kits - sometimes incomplete/damaged or partially built can be found in flea markets or garage sales at a bargain price. These can be good sources of wood, parts and supplies useful to enhance current builds or to scratch build. Some old kits have good planking for those who don't want to do a lot of sawing (very dusty) or buy new stock by mail. Other items may not be as useful, so its sort of a 'grab bag'.

Gosh, I'd not heard the term settee (sail) before, so I Googled it and Wikipedia 'characterized' it (with illustration) as a lateen-like sail with the 'front corner cut off' to make a quadrilateral sail. hen I looked at the tombstone in question again and can plainly see that the front (downward) end of the sail exhibits this quadrilateral form - that is, there is a short vertical edge of sail below the end of the yard ! By George, you've got it ! (say I). The 2nd century tombstone sure seems to depict the settee sail design - the same one shown in the 5th century mosaic (and Wikipedia). The earlier work is a pretty good work piece of art rendered in perspective (note the difference in the sizes of the figures and the receding prow of the boat). This suggests that the settee came first (whose basis is a modified square sail), and the lateen evolved from that. How cool is that? Johnny

Of course, the tombstone image may be an artistic device to 'fit' the sail into the space limitations on the piece. A square sail wouldn't fit if the yard was perpendicular to the mast in this apparently unique example. Opinions will vary, and the way the lateen was 'invented' may have been by tipping the yard down toward the bow while bundling the corner of a square sail at the for end of said yard.

Your process for removing the bulky kit 'frames' after planking, then replacing them with appropriate wood strips vastly improves the ship's boats ... something that I have been pondering with the OcCre Endurance kit I have yet to build. It has four boats also - two double-ended life boats that (from photos) are apparently of the same design (the James Caird used by Shackleton survives and is on display in England), and two others with different dimensions and transoms (measurements and photos are available, but theses boats did not survive). If the kit is built 'out of the box' per instructions, the results are good enough at the intermediate level, but I'd like to go the extra mile and modify wherever practical to get closer to the original ship and its equipment. Your 'tutorial' will greatly help me when I tackle the project (however, I'm waiting to see how a couple of forum builds turn-out on this new kit - learning in the process). After doing better ribs, I'll make a more appropriate gunwales, and equip the boats with stowed oars, mast(s) and sail(s), rudder gear (where applicable) rope and supplies. Thanks mate! Johnny

That's first class work, Keith - and a great option for stanchions with railing!

I overlooked an important feature of the new kit ... the etched (or lasered) brass stanchions for the railings. They happen to be pretty flat, while the originals were cylindrical with bulged joints where the horizontals went through. I found some suitable 3-D brass stanchions in the component market on line, but the the cost with shipping (about 80 double-rail verticals, and about 16 with one rail) would exceed $100 - more than 1/2 the kit cost ... some upgrade. If cost is no object, then OK - so let's look at the provided stanchions more closely. Below a flare at the base of the flat upright, there is a 'spike' to go into the wood of the model. (Obviously a cylindrical sub-base would be much better.) To prevent a tendency to 'wobble', a fillet of glue (epoxy?) on either side of the stanchion would be needed to secure the flat ones with the kit. The 'out of the box' construction uses rigging rope as the horizontals, so care is needed not to stress the stanchions while 'rigging' with rope ... but then then the original ship had metal guard rails (everything painted white). Trying to 'thread' wire will be difficult indeed. If one purchased 3-D uprights, then the best way for every 'run' of railing would be to determine the exact spacing of the verticals (and they vary), make a holding jig for that spacing, then run straight brass railings through everything and spot solder with fine circuit board solder. Then the 'run' would have the bends or curves applied per a plan view (1:1 drawing needed), the locations to drill pilot holes 'dinked' into the deck using the formed railing itself ... then the soldered run of railing would pop into the drilled holes and the soldered nature of the railing would resist deformation and be relatively strong. OK, so why not make a jig to hold the flat stanchions at the required spacing configuration, run correctly sized brass wire (rod) through and solder at all the joins in the same way? The result would look better than using rigging rope, would be stronger as well (due to the soldered joints) and would resist casual deformation - one could tie things to the railings (as was done in history) ... and would not cast another $100 plus dollars. Johnny

There is a log underway (the first) for the OcCre Endurance by HakeZou, and I'm following his build first before doing much more. I may work on a bash of the lifeboats to make them conform to the photos of the three used in the survival/rescue part of the expedition - as well as making better sails (there are a couple of posts on these topics I made elsewhere). Dealing with sundries like blocks, deadeyes, serving shroud lines and/or making my own scale rope might do as well. Hmmmm - might be like producing a 'deluxe' version of the kit.

Ahoy! You started Johnny thinking about making sails, and some likely ideas came to mind ... and I thought (versus said) to myself, THIS time I've got to try one of my own ideas before suggesting them on the forum. Except for the full sized sail I made for my 12' Viking dinghy years ago (and sailed her too!), I have not made a model sail before. The idea was to use fine natural muslin, and that can be had in a fabric store (the Admiral got some at JoAnn's) - and it is at least 100 threads to the inch. So I fooled around with the Admirals sewing machine (a mid-grade Baby Lock with touch panel) and a scrap of muslin. She had burgundy thread in the machine, so I used that at the default 2.5mm stick length and sewed parallel lines by eye ... the presser foot was a handy guide. Johnny sews piecework of various re-enactor supplies, but he's got an old manual Kenmore thats been through the wars, and is otherwise a 'hack' sewer. This exercise is intended as a 'proof of concept', since I felt that I could do a lot better than the stock OcCre sail in my Endurance kit. Not that they are all that bad - and certainly a convenience for anyone without a decent (like the Admiral's) sewing machine or even knows how to sew. BTW I like thevbBeagle build you did, and want to get the kit for my stash. OK, once the vertical lines were sewn I realized that I could change the stitch length way down. 'Tried some at 0.2mm - but it turned out to be more 'theoretical' than practical. The setting of 1.0mm actually produced 33 stitches to the inch (0.75mm) , which I used around the perimeter with 'natural' thread. WOW, that actually looks nice and works out to a 'scale' (at 1:50) of about 1 1/2" long stitches on a full sized vessel. That is still a little large, but looks just fine to my eyes. If the vertical stitches were done in natural thread, it would be perfect. Compare the following photographs to the 'stock' sails in the kit. Now I didn't want the edges to fray, so I used a product called 'Fraycheck' - also found in a sewing store (or on line). It dries totally transparent. You can see the dark lines of stitches (again, just for this sample) which are 2.5mm (still too large, but I didn't know what I was doing at first), and compare them to the 0.75mm stitches around the edges. After the fray check dried, I pressed the edges one and clipped the corners, before sewing them down. Now then I took some 24 gauge brass beading wire from the Admirals supply and fed it through the pocket - making loops at the corners as I went. (I made one loop first to serve as a clew, fed the wire through one straight section, then made a clew by winding the wire around the narrow part of a dental tool.) In the above photo, the stitches started at 2.5mm, then I reduced to 0.75mm - and you can see how fine the smaller stitches look. The stitches on the left are 0.75mm. It is a trick not to 'kink' the wire when feeding through the next pocket along the edge. When the wire ended at the home position, it was just wrapped once around the clew and cut off with flush cutters. Note that bead working tools like fine, tapered round needle-nosed pliers (and the like) are very useful. (Thanks Admiral.) She 'caught' me at her machine, but was amused at the title sail I'd made. You can see that with the wire in place, one can gently bent it to simulate 'wind in the sail'. This is only a test piece, as mentioned above, and beading wire is available in many colors ... including shades of brown, so one would use brown colored beading wire (24 gauge) to made the clews - which I could have done a little finer with practice. But hey, this is a Johnny idea that has actually been tried! Below is the sample sail seen from the front at a corner. In the above photo the fine stitching is preferable to the coarse, and the Admiral says that if I pick a finer blond thread that what I used, I could probably make the 0.4mm setting work. - that would probably yield 0.3mm, which at 1:50 scale would be 15mm - or .6" stitches ... with approach real-life size range. (Don't know if I want to go that far, but she says that there are finer muslins approaching 200 threads to the inch!) Below is a corner from the back. Now the Admiral says that if I'm careful to press the edge over a little once, THEN press it over again before sewing the channel that runs along the edge (to feed the wire through), there will be no 'raw edge' - which is more like the real thing. Fray check is still a good precaution either way. I'm curious to hear what fellow builders think of this approach. Fair winds! Johnny

Ahoy! You've got me thinking again ... (I thought I smelled wood burning :D). Carpenters' nail sets (for tapping finishing nails below the surface of wood trim/millwork so that putty can be applied, then painted over (after the putty dries) are used so the wood work appears seamless with no fasteners apparent. OK, so I noticed that the working end of the hardened steel nail set has a spherical depression in the center and a tapered exterior that produced a circular edge to 'bite' into the small head of the finishing nail. This is so that the nail set won't 'walk' or slip to one side of the nail head (or side off the head altogether), which would further mar the woodwork (and require more putty). Now I suppose that the tapered exterior of the tool's nose could be ground or honed thinner so that this circular grip would be transformed into something like a cutter. Nail sets come in a variety of sized to suit the various diameters of finishing nails (8 penny, 6 penny, 4 penny), and some of them may be about the right scale for a tree nail of various scales. The modified nail set could be hand applied (with care) or even tapped gently to put a tiny ring-shaped cut into deck (or other) planking. Finish applied over a deck so marked would tend to accumulate more in this ring shape (but not too much more) and it would imitate caulked tree nails. Please note that this is old Johnny thinking out loud (or talking to himself again) with another idea he has yet to experiment with. Now I suppose that before using the nail set, one could apply a surface resist (a thin coat of shellac is one of my favorites for wood working in general), and THEN use the nail set. One could wipe a darker stain or filler that would seek the tiny circular recesses, yet tip away from the top surface that has been sealed. Scale, of course, would be the limiting factor. Johnny

I've used PVA for bookbinding because there is a slight 'flexibility' on the spine (built up thick) when cured. The book needs to flex without 'cracking' or breaking. When used thinly on paper on a porous substrate it is permanent alright. I think it would be better to use for deck planking that any contact cement, while carpenter's glue (Titebond) would be preferred for structural work (frames, bulkheads) where rigidity is required. Contact cement can de-bond over a long time frame, so I don't know why (other than for short-term convenience in some applications) it would be suggested by any kit manufacturer. Now I've considered a use for PVA to take advantage of some residual flexibility, yet permanence between flat porous surfaces - making my own thin hardwood plywood to use for planking (especially for ships where the natural wood will show, that is, unpainted or mostly unpainted). I have the Billings improved Oseberg kit, and the only thing I'm not crazy about is that the laser-cut strakes are made of bendable (formable) plywood where the exterior layers (each side) are of a nondescript 'white' wood that require staining after assembly. And while that can be done with care, I'm not crazy about the look of 'stained' wood. The old Billings kits (Vikings skibbe and Roar-edge for example) supplied mahogany - but the builder had to cut it out (time consuming) and as a single veneer the wood was prone to breakage along the grain. The original version of the Wasa (1:100, which I'm slowly building after many years of the planked hull on the shelf) had mahogany planking that did bend pretty well (single planked, no less) and looks beautiful as-is - no staining needed at all. OK, so I'm going to experiment with some typical thin black walnut veneer, and use three layers: one running at about a 30 degree angle one way, the middle layer vertical and the third layer at 30 degrees the other way. I'll brush on some slightly thinned PVA (water is the thinner) before assembly, perhaps running a very fine notched trowel (or equivalent) so there won't be too much glue, then press everything together on a flat surface with a board on top and a bunch of books for good measure. Once cured (like overnight), I believe that the resulting stock will be easy to slice (with a jig) using multiple X-acto cuts into whatever plank size I need for ordinary hull second planking - and the residual flexibility of the PVA will allow for forming without much risk of delimitation or breakage along a grain line. Other glues such as epoxy or carpenters glue dry too 'stiff'. In the case of the Oseberg, I'd have to trace around the strakes provided and cut out (like in the old kit versions) ... but this time the planking should be doable without breakage AND there will be a natural heartwood color that I find so attractive. Of course it could be lightly oiled to darken it somewhat, but it would still be the real color of the wood and the oil ('boiled' linseed, thinned a little with serpentine if desired) is a traditional finish I have used on reproduction match locks and flint lock rifles. A little rubbing with a fine cloth gives it a nice sheen. Now this is another 'Johnny supposition' that I think will work based on past experiences with other applications using PVA. 'Now its time for us to say good-bye - leave her Johnny leave her. The old pier head is a-drawin' nigh - and it's time for us to leave her. Leave her Johnny, leave her. Leave her Johnny leave her. Oh the voyage is done and the winds don't blow and its time for us to leave her.' Fair winds ... Johnny

Ahoy! your illustration puts me in mind of what I'll have to do to improve 4 of the five vessels in the new OcCre Endeavor kit ... Other than the title ship, what vessels are those? Why, the 4 life boats - which are all built on frames with planking at 1:70 scale. In fact, before trying to dive into the main event, I want to have a go at the lifeboats - and we're fortunate to have specification on the three use by Shackleton to escape from the Antarctic. The examples 'out of the box' are simplified (reduced # of ribs) - but still must be planked, footlings and thwarts installed and topped by an overly thick gunwale without any curve to it. So the 'bashing' job to take these small boats to the next level will be to put the gentle curve into them, as well as make them more to scale with what we know about the originals - and one of them survives to this day and can be seen in an English museum, the James Caird - a double ended life boat 22'6" long, 6' beam and 3'7" depth. The 4th boat not salvaged was apparently one of the same design as the James Caird. The other two boats had transoms: The Stancomb-Wills had a small transom and was 20'8" long, 5'6" beam and 2'3.5" inside depth. The other was the Dudley Docker having a larger transom - 22' long, 6' beam and 3' depth. All these lifeboats appear in many pictures of the ill fated expedition, and show a number of angles, how they were braced on davits when sailing and how they were modified and used for survival and escape. The framing will have to be modified to suit, and they can be equipped with oars and supplies - as well as eventually mounted where they were on the Endeavor as seen in photos. Hmmmm, sounds like a project. Johnny

Overall, a great job so far. Thanks for the tips on symmetry (or lack of it) on the stepped stern filler layers. One possible assembly technique might to 'dry fit' all the pieces to see if they are stacked correctly, then mark the top surface (actually that which faces the keel since the model is flipped for this assembly) plus R or L as each piece is removed sequentially - layed out to either side so they can be put back in the proper order with glue.

I'm relatively new on this site (and not that computer savvy), but what has worked for me is to have the images on the desktop (I'm on a Mac mini). I'll put some text in a log entry, then hit the spacebar several times to create 'blank space' below the text. Then I'll drag the desired photo into the empty space I've created (not the bar on the bottom). The photo has thus far been inserted into the empty space (and also a 'record' of the insertion in the bottom panel). Then I move the cursor with the mouse to the bottom right corner of the image just inserted, then hit the spacebar to add more 'empty space' below the image. Then I can type more text and it appears below the image already added. This process has been repeated to add a number of images. Note that there will still be 'duplicate' icons of all images in the 'panel' (bar?) at the bottom. You can ignore those. Johnny

You are indeed correct ... I never quite 'got my head around the math' of scale, and see now that fretting about infinitesimal marks on a hull below the waterline does not make for much fun in building - especially since the details ABOVE the water line are far more important (like rigging). Yet in some applications, a few items (judiciously) not quite to scale can lend a lot to the overall effect of an intermediate level build. For instance, if you peek at my (old Billings 1:100) Wasa build - I put in rows of round toothpicks where the bulkheads are (I was a teen then) as 'tree nails'. They are larger than scale tree nails should be, but still the light tan ends of toothpicks go well with the natural color of the mahogany planking. I'm rather happy with the look of it, even though ships so constructed have a lot more of them - and it seems the Wasa planks were nailed with iron rather than tree nailed. My job with recent work has been to correct major defects in the early version of the kit (loads more is known from Wasa reconstruction) in order to nudge the project closer to the prototype - but one can only do so much, yet still end up with something attractive to display.

Ahoy mates! You've jogged my memory enough to make me remember a paper model kit of the U.S.S. United States - a postwar luxury ocean liner originally built for speed with turbine engines. I think I was 8 or 9 years old, and the model I was able to make from the die-cut thick-stock color printed paper looked pretty good to my eyes. I can't remember whatever happened to that model. A few years a go I went down to the Philadelphia docks to view the United States tied-up in a state of limbo. I think the choice was either to turn it into a cruise liner (with standard engines as the turbines were reported to have been already removed) if a buyer could be found. Asbestos removal might have been an issue. Johnny

I do some piecework Colonial soldier hats and haversacks for a supplier of American Rev. War stuff for re-enactors. He said that he lost his source for brass castings of buttons and buckles of various sizes, and the one he's forced to use (India or Pakistan - not sure) has sent items with a similar decrease in detail and workmanship. My guess is that they made new molds of some type (but cheaply or by an inferior process) from the good samples sent. The 'new' stuff from the foreign supplier just does not look as good as the stuff made before. A mold wouldn't suddenly go from good to 'so-so' overnight. Next time I deliver product I could try and get clarification on this. BTW he also lost his domestic caster of pewter buttons, and had to find someone else - except in this case I think the molds were returned from the guy who was retiring aft a long time doing buttons.

You're right about going crazy with wood 'tiles'. As another reminded me, devildog's Thermie build (Mantua 1:124) used them - I was hoping to see more of that build, but there were no posts beyond page 3. I saw another post of a Mamoli Victory build where the builder used the green stained wood provided ... and it did look like a lot of trouble. Your paper idea would flex and glue to a faired surface FAR easier than wood - and the shellac (I'm a big shellac fan, and I've even compounded my own from dried flakes and ethanol - which works better and smells better than methanol as long as the ethanol is lab grade. 'Everclear' 190 proof still has 5% water which clouds the shellac.) Paper does not have the grain that wood possesses, so only one light coats of shellac might be needed. The watch gear idea proposed by another contributor might then (very lightly) make the slightest line of marks into the shellacked paper at the appropriate scale. Then paint a thin brown coat and apply verdigris washes and it should look fine. What I'll do is to make a 'test board' to see is this latest approach will work ... although it will be some time before I try and build a ship needing a copper sheathed appearance. Johnny

What a great idea, all one needs is an old non-working watch not worth repairing with a gear having the desired tooth spacing.

Referring to the bottom photo of a fine Cutty Sark model ... THAT'S IT ! I mean, that is exactly the look I'd go for, and I think that the idea of wood 'tiles' applied the bottom when second planking would give that effect if green and white washes were carefully applied by hand over a coppery-brown base paint layer. When I saw that picture, it was the same feeling in the scene form "A Charlie Brown Christmas" when Lucy asked Schroder to play Jingle Bells for her ... and version after version was rejected by Lucy who said something like, "You know, Jingle Bells - like Ho, Ho, Ho, mistletoe and ... pretty girls." Whereupon Schroder banged out a one-finger version on a toy piano ... then Lucy shouted, "THAT'S IT ! " Anyway, all this back and forth about copper sheathing (actually I love it, since anything can be a springboard for new ideas) reminds me of a scene from the musical "Fiddler on the Roof" where the men are stating their different opinions on some subject - and Tevya tells one man, "You're right". Then another man puts forth an opposing argument to Tevya who says to him, "You know, you're right." A third man exclaims, "He's right, and he's right ... How can BOTH be right?" Tevya responds, "You are also right." ... Johnny

Old Johnny is learning a lot from this thread ... there seem to be many ways to apply genuine copper, (and I confess that I've never done it myself) but I must agree that soon after a ship is in the water that 'shiny penny' effect will go away. The appearance in photos of copper on ships that have been in the water appears to me to be a brown base (like many patinated surfaces put on cast bronze sculptures ... or an old penny) with a verdigris (greenish) 'wash' overall. The Revell 1:96 Cutty I built as a teen came with the bottom pre-painted a coppery color ... so I can't say now if there was an edition of that model with this feature, or whether my father masked and did that for me before giving me the kit on my 10th birthday. As it was, the model was never protected by a case and suffered irreversible damage at some point (no one offer confessed). I then built a solid-hull Cutty from a Scientific kit and painted the bottom copper myself - the brush strokes weren't too noticeable. My cousin was the one who wrecked that ship because I saw him do it - thereafter (since he also hammered an oversized empty cartridge case into my Dad's bolt-action rifle on the same visit) the out-of-state cousin was never to visit again (setting a fire might also have had something to do with the ban). Pre-copper age vessels don't need a thing (and I like the look of unpainted wood having a natural brown color like mahogany or walnut), and an upcoming project (the Endurance) had anti-fouling paint ... quite easy to do. So what would I try for a copper sheathed ship? I saw a posting from a builder who did second planking below the waterline with rectangles of the second planking wood. Now they happened to be a little large for scale purposes, and they weren't formed uniformly to the underlying faired surface at that point in the build. But sanding would 're-fair' the bottom. I never went back to see the finished effect (or perhaps the log happened to end there), but I suppose that if the wood 'tiles' were sealed and sanded a couple of times the wood grain would vanish and leave a smooth surface like copper plates. I've a LOT of experience working with shellac on fine furniture, and if the coats are allowed to dry fully before lightly sanding with a very fine paper, a smooth surface can be had. Then I'd paint the bottom that bronze 'patina' brown color as a base, then do a judicious 'wash' of the greenish color all over - perhaps daubed on somehow and worked with q-tips so the green wouldn't take over? If the surface was not 'over shellacked', then the joints would still be visible (although the fine wood grain would be filled) and the green wash would tend to stay in the joints when wiping the 'washed' surface lightly after the green was applied. Please note that this is a proposed method, so perhaps I'll do a mock-up to explore this possible method. No copper would be needed at all. I've also seen the 'imitation gold leaf' Chuck posted, and I used that once upon a time on a carved wood project. If desired, the second planking of ship below the water line could be done with cut 'tiles' of second planking wood (preferable to scale) thereafter faired and sealed, then after thinned glue is applied the metal foil would adhere to the wood tiles. Then a series of washes would 'age' the surface as desired. ... just thinking out loud here. Fair sailing - Johnny

If it is annealed copper, perhaps a sturdy (office type - or artist's) paper cutter might work. I mean the kind with a square wooden base with grid lines, a backstop with rule and a long slightly curved blade on the right side with a grip on the end for leverage. You'd have to fashion a hard stop that would pivot up while the blade is up so the sheet would be moved out consistently. Then with the stop folded down (and the weight of the left hand - gloved to limit oils getting on the copper - pressing down on the sheet, the right hand would smartly shear off a uniform long strip. The individual plates would later have to be cit off from the strips with hand shears. That's just one idea, but I've seen good results with builders using copper tape (much easier) and using a spoked wheel (available in hobby shops) to emboss 'rivets'. Others buy the plates pre-made by fitting suppliers and go right to gluing them on. Johnny

Great going, HakeZou. I've delved a bit into the hull geometry (kit versus surviving plans) and found the kit largely accurate. Some details and photos can be found in the kit review thread on the Endurance that was initiated by our moderator. Johny.

Ahoy mates! The OcCre Endurance kit (source: Age of Sail) arrived a couple weeks ago, and apart form verifying that the stated scale is OK (the distance between perpendiculars between the center of the rudder shaft and the forward water line at the front of the keel measured about 21.25" on the kit materials - compared to 1,500" on the Endurance, so that's about 1:70.6), I was curious to see how close the kit's bulkhead profiles matched what can be found on the original ship. The available 'fuzzy blueprint' and pencil fore/aft split profile (both original) appear combined in another post, and I had to keep altering the image scale (in pieces due to the size limitation of my printer) to come up with an image that was the same between perpendiculars as the kit. I was amazed that the 'false keel' kit piece lay right over the patched-together elevation (not including keel) pretty much like a handprint - so the side view (elevation) is true to the ship. The top view (plan view) of the weather and quarter decks corresponded to the kit's deck pieces, although the fore deck's area appeared to go further out than another old published image in the public domain (showing several decks, including the forecastle deck). I noted that the location of the kit bulkheads (numbered A2 through A12) do not correspond to the locations of the original profile locations, although some are very close. This is not surprising since there is a different number of each - 11 for the kit and 13 on the old drawing. What I did was to redraw the entire thing using 'old school' techniques (pencil straightedge, French curve and the like) on a length of paper taped together from 8 1/2 x 11 sheets (what I have) to improve on the misalignments of the first attempt. The second drawing is pictured below (I stood on a chair to get the entire image into the camera's field of view): The kit bulkhead locations are numbered A2 - A12 (the same as the parts) and the original 'slices' are labeled 1 - 13 fore to aft. Someone mentioned (perhaps our moderator) that this is a big model, and they weren't kidding. However it will be a joy to work with something my less-dexterous old fingers can manipulate with ease, and can bear any amount of upgrading or added detail that can be gleaned from the many published photos of the Endurance before she met with her famous demise. I believe the kit to be a good value. Now let's take a closer look in critical areas. The right side of the above fore/aft profile view labels the original lines 1 - 7, and I made paper cut outs from the kit's bulkhead's A2 through A7 to lay on the drawing and used dotted lines for those of the kit. The elevation image also shows the 'slices' of the original as solid lines and the kit bulkhead locations as dashed lines. There is no kit bulkhead at #1 - the kit has some pieces to glue-in so the builder can nail the first planking to, but I believe that a piece of filler wood added in this area would be very helpful to 'fair' and then to plank against. A2 is slightly forward of #2, and the location of A3 & #3 match up. Yet I see that the dashed liners of A2 & A3 on the fore/aft diagram are wider for A2 (when it should be slightly narrower) and flared more at the top for A3 (the rest of the profile matches). Several contributors have noted the very wide flare on the upper bow, (not seen to be as extreme in photos of the Endurance) and the dotted line I've labeled 'ship line' on the top view represent the extent of the fore deck that conforms better to original data. This represents no problem to achieve, as its easy to trim a little off the exterior of the provided kit bulkheads (and trim the periphery of the fore deck to match. Another piece of filler wood would likely be a good idea to install between A2 and A3 before fairing. The location of A4 and #4 (as well as A5 & #5) are close enough on the drawing that one would expect them to be quite similar ... and they turn out to be ! Also A6, #6, A7, #7 and #8 turn out to be very similar. Frame location variation along the hull will make less difference in the 'middle area' on a well-faired ship - and the model appears to be an excellent representation of the Endurance lines in this area. Now we'll have to have a look at the stern. A12 is a little forward of #13, and A11 is also forward of #12, so the A frames would be expected to be a little 'fuller' than their counterparts - and indeed they are as seen on the left half of the fore/aft profile diagram. So far, so good. But with A10 a little forward of #11, it should also have slightly more width (but not much) - yet on the diagram it is narrower. The same effect can be seen comparing A9 with #10 - but less so comparing A8 with #9. The logical explanation is that these frames have been decreased a bit to ease the planking/fairing task - which it likely does. Although in this area it may represent the greatest departure form lines that can be established by surviving documentation, I hardly think its worth quibbling about in a kit designed for the intermediate builder (like myself). Even then (as with the bow) it can be corrected by either adding additional wood to the exterior of the frames in question or simply cutting new frames from stock of comparable thickness. A jig saw is very useful for this (and there are relatively small, budget-friendly saws available - otherwise use a hand-held coping saw). This will increase the difficulty of planking, but that can be aided by the use of wood inserts between frames and/or using traditional planking method other than those shown in the will-illustrated (and video documented) instructions. WHEW ! Old Johnny has had a mental workout with all of the above, but I'll admit to a certain satisfaction at having done the exercise. Yet this sort of planning is useful when thinking about a scratch-build, like I've considered for the Aurora (noted above on this thread). Fair sailing and a fair wind to all. Johnny

Ahoy mates! I've just received my Endurance kit, and all is in excellent condition (no breakage). I'll follow the current build log elsewhere on our forum and will do additional research before building it with more detail and correctness than just 'out of the box'. It seems a great starting point and the kit is well thought-out, plus the youtube videos by the manufacturer show some 4 hours of the process. An advanced project might be to use a similar approach and cut another set of hull components to build the 'other' ship involved in the ill-fated Shackleton expedition - the S.Y. Aurora. The steam yacht was built in 1876 as a whaler, and was a three masted, steam powered vessel a little larger in specifications then the Endurance, but of similar appearance seen from a distance. The Aurora had an165' overall length exclusive of bowsprit (estimated 144' between perpendiculars), 30.5'beam. 18.75' draught, and 580 gross tonnage. The Endurance was 144' overall hull length, 125' between perpendiculars, 25' beam and 348 gross tonnage. Modeling these two in the same scale would make for an interesting pair - linked forever in an historic effort to cross the continent of Antartica. The crew of the Aurora had their own harrowing story of separation, ship damage, survival and rescue. There are a number of photographs of the Aurora, and a very good profile/plan view - enough to build a pretty good replica. The lines would be different - something to work out as a close approximation since I've not been able to locate a surviving fore/aft profile drawing. Much of the design and building technique used in the OcCre Endurance can be transferred to an Aurora replica, but designing the parts, etc. would be a step-up from the intermediate execution of a straightforward kit build. It might be thought of as a 'kit bust' where one ends up with TWO ships - the original out-of-the-box (enhanced or not), and another ship linked top the first. Once can learn a lot in the process. The Aurora in dry dock.