Snug Harbor Johnny

You have an excellent library. I can recommend 'Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship & Ocean Carrier' by Harold A. Underhill. I happen to have a duplicate copy if you'd like to add it to your collection.

I've seen several builds that began with a partially constructed ship. So why not start one. Besides, you've got past the grunt-work of framing and planking, and there are plenty of builds that go into these. Now you're into the 'interesting' part.

The lower the plane angle, the finer the cutting (at least I found it so). Also, I like to 'skew' the plane at an angle where possible. But the SINGLE most important thing that can improve planing performance is a super sharp cutter. The Goingmake system I got at Woodcraft (and there are other sharpening jigs available there and elsewhere) makes it easy ... especially getting an extra 2 degree 'micro bevel' after the primary angle is achieved. I use graded Japanese water stones (true them after use by working them against each other) and an ultra fine ceramic honing stone. THEN be sure to strop the edge (for burr removal) on 1/4" thick shoe leather. The blade will be as sharp as a surgeon's scalpel, so be careful how you handle it. You want to cut the wood, not yourself.

THAT'S why it always seems so cold in hospitals, and patients seldom get an adequate explanation ... just an extra blanket. As a hospital worker, I know that for every 10 degrees in delta T downwards - microbial activity goes down by half. Disease control and the prevention of nosocomial infections are a major concern, so the temperature is intentionally set to the cool side for everyone's benefit. Where do really sick people go? ... to the hospital, of course. Being a Pharmacy Technician (thought, in the hierarchy, to be above housekeeping and perhaps on par with Nurses' Aides) during the height of the pandemic, we only had paper masks, hand washing and fresh scrubs to defend ourselves - since the better masks were allocated to Doctors and Nurses. We still are regularly exposed to all sorts of 'bugs', e.g., tuberculosis, resistant bacteria, hepatitis, noro-virus and other 'tummy bugs', flu, colds and worse. So we don't mind 'chilling out' for the sake of disease control.

There are builds where the ratlines are sewn (just passed with a fine needle) through the shrouds. I've seen the ends treated with a tiny bit of CA, then clipped ... but that still leaves a little 'whisker' poking beyond - and the same thing happens if a clove hitch is used on the end. Sine those stubbly bits are not really attractive, the solution is to use a "cow hitch" - which points the very end inward, and back to the direction of the ratline just secured. That way, when the very end is trimmed, the stubble points inward on the back side (if the hitch is tied correctly), so it 'disappears' from view.

'Been thinking about the difficulties of stropping (and using) smaller blocks at 1:96 scale - still popular, especially with some classic kits - and also at 1:124 - and there are many old wood kits and still some contemporary wood kits made at 1:124, or thereabouts. Not that it can't be done, as those having high dexterity and skill have made amazing models at even smaller scales. But the 'rest of us' generally go at least a little out-of-scale on some items, and blocks/deadeyes are among them. Yet, as the scale of a model becomes larger (e.g., there are many fine kits made at around 1:72), the need to enlarge certain components relaxes somewhat. This suggests to me some sort of 'sliding scale' (a pharmacy term) whereby the percentage of enlargement is rationally increased for smaller kits, and decreases as the scale gets larger - where its easier to handle the fiddly bits. I note also that blocks from a wide variety of sources tend to come in 'even' millimeter sizes, although there are some half-sizes available, e.g. 2.5mm (and a couple others). In a Bluenose 2 by Travis (underway), he notes that in certain scales, larger blocks simply 'look better' to the observer, and I agree with him. Model building is an art, so some artistic license comes in handy. To make a long story short, I've drawn up a matrix (for me, at least) showing a few block or deadeye sizes (full size in inches), the size they'd be at various scales if they were 'true to scale', and modified sizes to help old modelers (like me) where the percentage of enlargement is reduced as the scale gets larger - until "par value" is reached. There has been slight rounding of values as needed. It can be a little confusing to read (lines help), so a second summary appears below the first as a suggestion for block or deadeye selection on a sliding scale.

The guy in the video uses LOTS of glue, but (no doubt) one can use somewhat less for 2nd planking with relatively thin stock. I intend to try this in future on a fully faired 1st planked hull - or one that has 100% blocking between bulkheads .... or even on a solid hull.

The single planking on my old 1:100 Vasa was mahogany (as many vintage Billings kits were supplied with). Mahogany is not as dark as American or English walnut, and has a richer tone than most cherry stock. (Old-growth heartwood cherry may be comparable to mahogany, but I found that cherry can be prone to splitting more than some other woods.) My favorite is new-world mahogany (although pricier now, and harder to obtain) although some don't like the grain size (not as pronounced as oak can be), but that depend on how the wood is cut. There are some walnuts (not sure of the origin) that are a lighter brown, but any of them can go a lot darker if oil or almost any finish is applied.

OMGosh, Travis - you've hit upon another method of doing ratlines that might not have struck you as such ... but when I saw the photo showing your green (starboard) light right above the deadeyes, I pictured the application I'll describe. Rather than have a paper template behind the shrouds to follow, and that means often making them for port and starboard (due the the reversed angle), and are often different for each mast and level aloft ... One can take a piece of thin, bendable metal (thin lead sheet, or copper) that is the thickness of the space to be between each successive ratline, and bend one end over to make a clip, so to speak (whether one is right handed or left handed would determine doesn't matter, since the clip can be turned upside down to put it on the 'other' side, as desired). The clip can be longer than needed (to some degree). Clip it on one side at the outer shroud, and bend the other end over the outer shroud on the opposite side. It would begin by resting on that horizontal bar over the deadeyes. Then a ratline is attached to whatever shrouds are involved, along the line of the top of the metal jig. Then unbend one end (eventually there will be metal fatigue, but if so, simply bend a new strip). The strip can be easily cut, since it is thin, on a 'guillotine-bar' (hinged on one end) paper cutter found in a stationery store. Slide the jig off the still bent end. Move the strip above the ratline just tied, slide the jig on and bend the opposite end. The jig will rest on the ratline previously tied. Going 'up the ladder', one ratline at a time, will give evenly spaced, horizontal ratlines. Hmmmm, it just occurred to me that you don't have to use metal at all, but just apply a piece of "painters' tape" of the width you want (one can always use an X-acto around the edge of roll of tape to get the desired width) on the shrouds. The tape will stick (but not aggressively) to the shrouds, and one ties or sews a ratline using the top edge of the tape as the guide. Then remove the tape and move above the ratline just tied. EUREKA ! Moving the tape a little from side to side before 'sticking' means that one piece can be used a number of times before it sticks less securely. Then just pull off a fresh piece of tape from the roll and you're good to go. "Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! He chortled in his joy." (from The Jabberwocky) Another matter ... I've obtained a copy of the L.B. Jenson 'Bluenose II' book - and it far exceeded my expectation. It appears that his drawings and specs are of the 1963 'as built' version of the Bluenose 2 - his work was commissioned in 1970 (done over 3 1/2 years) and first published in 1975 with the imprimatur of the first owner (who sold the craft to the Province in 1971 for $1 - Canadian). There was a LOT of controversy over the EXPENSIVE 'rebuild' that went over-long and over-budget (American were blamed by some due to our seaworthy laws, yet similar vessels have been built for a third or less of the aprox. $20 Million Canadian effort). There were changes made (just compare the sterns seen from astern, for one), and many say that the original Bluenose 2 was effectively 'put through a shredder', and the virtually all-new construction should have been named Bluenose 3. So perhaps the A.L. kit built "out of the box" is closer to the present ship afloat as rebuilt. (Heck, the U.S.S. Constellation was 'refurbished' in the 1850s (in a trick to get Congressional funding) ... not a new ship at all ... just fixing up an old one ... Using the Jenson Book to get closer to the 1963 version is the way I'd like to go. Of course, another builder might want to portray the ship afloat at the present time - and use the many photos available to help in that regard. Almost all ships go through 'phases', and one can choose whatever time, place and/or configuration that one can document.

Perhaps using less wide (simulating scale) planks might help. An 8" plank (about 200mm) would be 2mm wide at 1:100 ... and 2.7mm wide at 1:75 (3mm would be fine).

Standing rigging should be black 'for sure' (or at least a dark brown to simulate a dark oil treatment). Note that the H.M.S. Victory is also a 'museum ship' in dry dock, and they also have tan ratlines and deadeye lacings on it ... perhaps this is the reason that there are many Victory (and other) builds 'copying' this practice, thinking that it 'must be' authentic if its on the ship today. As for running rigging, I prefer a 'definite' (medium) tan or light brown color, because if it is a light tan it tends to photograph as 'white' ... too much contrast. White rigging line is 'right out'.

Soft wire sold at hobby stores is indeed bendable, but also 'unbendable' if later put under tension. Then again, with the flexibility of some yards and masts, the rigging has to have minimal tension to avoid bending.

I suppose a place to store an Admiralty model in progress would be a roll-top desk. You can find them at thrift or antique stores.

Welcome to the forum, mate !!! These's much to see and learn, so dive in and enjoy!

There's a racing dog like that on the sides of Greyhound buses ... better in 3D.

When I planked Vasa, I tapered BOTH edges the way barrel staves are tapered (apparently you can 'get away' with a curved taper on one side) ... for can't a ship hull be compared to an oversized barrel? This is NOT a 'straight' taper, but one that is curved (also like a barrel). But the lines of the ship's hull vary from zone to zone, more complicated than a barrel. So just drawing a straight line will give you thin gaps ... you need the 'tick marks' to give you the needed width at each bulkhead (or frame). If just drawing a straight line from max to min width worked, Chuck would have made the video that way. Believe me, he knows what he's doing.

An item related to Australia ... a country I'd love to visit (NZ also) Commercial steam lasted over a decade longer than it did in the U.S. ...

Still, these mini-saws are REAL tools capable of seriously injuring a wayward finger. As with all power tools, care in use and attention to safety is essential.

In the photo above, the nails are just visible ... so Rob's sandpaper method of randomized small dinks gives that effect. Touching on the hazards of life on board clippers: From the book 'Some Famous Sailing Ships and their Builder Donald McKay' (having an appendix in the back with ship data), of the 30 Clippers McKay built between 1850 and 1856 - 9 were burned (varying numbers of fatalities, but generally low) 30%; 6 were lost at sea (all hands) 20%; 4 were wrecked (varying numbers of casualties) 13%; 2 abandoned 7%; and 9 without end-of-service record 30%. The average time of service (where known) averaged about 11 years (10 if one excludes the Chariot of Fame, which had 23 years - to make it easier to reckon yearly odds of disaster below). Combining fire, loss at sea and wrecking - one gets 63% of these fine clippers ending up badly. So a sailor had about a 2/3rds chance of experiencing one of these fates in a 10 year period, on one ship or another, or about 6.6% chance in any year. So (statistically) during the 'golden age' of the clipper (1850s & 60s), a man who stayed a clipper sailor for 20 years would count on encountering one disaster or another. Among the notable McKay ships of the data set are: Staghound, Flying Cloud, Flying Fish, Sovereign of the Seas, Empress of the Seas, Chariot of Fame, Great Republic and Lightning.

An interesting picture of the C.S. hull. Even at this close distance, the metal plates appear to be 'wafer thin' compared to the hull size, and one can't really see any indications of nails holding the plates in place. I suppose one could simply glue on paper 'plates' that overlap, then paint as desired. The Hulme model doesn't bother with nails.

The saw you picture is still FAR superior to the "Chicago Tool" mini-saw sold at Harbor Freight - which has no fence, no fine tooth blade, and an odd sized arbor that I had to search the web to find a fine enough blade to fit it and cut modeling wood. Its a bit of a pain to use, so I'd like to try and at least find the one shown to 'step up' from what I have now. And I dare say that it will be somewhat less expensive than a $2,000 Byrnes saw - if you can find one at that price on eBay.

Superb job on your Bluenose 2 build ! As its on my future list, your modifications will be a great guide. I noted what you said about the original blocks, and your decision to use Syren blocks - and they look good as you stropped them. I also noted what Rob Wiederrich observed about the blocks one can get from a Revell 1:96 C.S., Thermie or Connie kit, the bodies of which measure about 0.140", or about 3.5mm. He has made use of them on several of his clippers. The single blocks come with either one molded becket or two. The double blocks have 2 beckets, of course, one can be clipped off if not needed in an application. These look like internally stropped blocks. At 1:96 they are a tad oversized, representing about a 13" block at that scale. At 1:75 (of the Bluenose 2) they'd be pretty close - representing about 10". So I'm pondering (for future reference) the practicality of using painted Revell blocks at 1:75, v/s slightly larger wood blocks that must be individually stropped. 'Just a thought.

Looking at the picture Rob posted and noting that the launch of the Staghound was in December of 1850, it did not appear to have a split topsail initially ... so was likely retrofitted by the mid 1850s (see below). I also note that in the very first picture shown in this topic, sails are furled with 'clews to the mast' in Navy fashion ... Rob noted elsewhere that commercial ships positioned the 'mouse ears' (dangling clews) near the end of the yards, or perhaps a quarter to a third of the way from the end. In 1841 an American, Captain Forbes, devised a means of dividing this Sail horizontally into 2 parts. The doubling of the Lower & Top Masts was made longer than usual and an extra Yard was added below the Cap which could then be raised or lowered on its Parral between the Cap and the Top. Above this, the now shortened Topsail was lowered to the Cap as before. This was the origin of the Double Topsail, later to be followed by the Double Topgallant. Donald McKay fitted this Arrangement on the famous Great Republic. This simple Division of the Sail was easier to work, and quicker, than the old Single Topsail as the Upper Topsail Yard could be Lowered from the Deck and its Sail then fell in front of the Lower portion and was blanketed by it, the men then going aloft to Furl it. Another American Shipmaster, Captain Howes, next brought out an improvement on this arrangement in 1853. In his version, the new Lower Topsail Yard was fixed to the Lower Mast Cap with a movable Crane and was additionally supported by an Iron Bar from the Top. It would not move Up or Down, however. The Upper Topsail on its still Hoisting Yard had its foot cut without any Roach and was Laced directly to the Jackstay on the Lower Topsail Yard without any gap, thus presenting an appearance as of a Single Topsail. The Upper Sail could be lowered quickly, thus saving the arduous task of Reefing as with the Single Topsail, although it still had to be Taken-in & Furled. This was but a step from the true Double Topsail 1st adopted in British Clippers in 1865 with the Ariel, whereby the 2-Sails were separate Entities, with a slight gap between them. In Howes‘ Rig, when the Upper portion was Furled on its own Yard, its foot was still Laced to the Lower Yard. With the true Double Topsails, however, the Upper was Furled completely on its own Yard. Occasionally some Captains still Laced their Upper Topsails down as close as possible to the Lower Yards. The Double Topsails & Double Topgallants were the arrangements that persisted until modern times. Aside

Ahoy, and welcome to the forum ! Square rigged ships take a little study to understand how the rigging works (form follows function). One might consider the Artesania Latina 'Bluenose 2' kit of a fore-and-aft rigged schooner (1:75 scale). NOTE: instructions must be downloaded and printed out yourself, and they are not the best. However, there is at least one complete build on the forum to completion where every aspect is covered in detail. There are also builds of Bluenose 1, which is similar to the second ship.

Most in the U.S. think Australia is just some big island down under somewhere ... but fail to comprehend that if one overlays maps of the U.S. and Australia, they are about the same size - around 3 million square miles each. Brisbane to Perth is as far as Washington D.C. is to Los Angeles as the Galah flies - both decent walkabouts. OK, if we throw in Alaska (except for 3 months, mostly a frozen wasteland with prospectors, wildlife and rugged settlers ... hmmmm, a miniature Australia - only cold?), the U.S, might be a larger. Just having a look at the partial map Steven posted gives respect for your Continent's size, scope and variety of terrain and ecosystems. Now Texans think they're big, but Texas is definitely smaller than New South Wales.