Snug Harbor Johnny

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.

My Dad once made two smaller scale clippers (1:120 Scientific kits), and used flat toothpicks that were about 0.040" wide - representing about 4.8" planks. Perhaps a tad undersized (6" scaled planks might have been better), but they looked OK and did not need any 'dots' at the butt joints. The non-tapered portion of the toothpicks he used (cut off with a razor blade) measured about 1.6" long, representing 16 foot lengths at 1:120 . I've no idea whether this sort of tooth pick is available anymore. I've seen thin wooden coffee stirrers that would do for plank stock at a larger scale. Hmmmm, 'don't know what scale the doctor's wooden tongue depressors would be, widthwise. I have various sized of pre-scribed decking stock (still available and most often used for modeling wood-sided buildings in railroad layouts or dioramas) that I'll use as needed, rather than do it plank-by-plank. That seems the easiest way to get 'good enough' results. Its like the Coach in "Cool Runnings" (a film about the Jamaica Olympic bobsled team), where he tells the team that wining a medal is a fine thing ... but if you're not good enough without the medal, then you won't be good enough with it.

Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil ?

Great planking, and you're thinking ahead. Then there's another thing to think about, and that is the thickness of the bulwarks (extensions of the bulkheads) that stick above the deck. Many have planked around these, only to realize later that they are 'too fat' below the gunwale and don't appear correct. Thinning them then leaves a rectangular anomaly at the base, flush with good decking (which may also get marred when flush cutting). Some will taper the projections from top to bottom to leave decking intact - but that is a compromise. The desired thickness can be determined at this stage and trimmed. Of course, they will be more delicate when applying planking above deck level - so care then is needed.

Popeye the Sailor has a build log for the Sergal Thermopylae, and contains a lot of info as far as he took the build on the hull work. Other Sergal considerations are: 1.) the 1:124 scale is on the small size for a clipper - as are all the old 1:120 Scientific clipper kits. I find the 1:100 restoration I'm on now to be hard enough. 2.) The Sergal Thermie stern has a vertical end to it ... look at Thermopylae photos, and you'll see a nice angle in the stern. This would not be too hard to alter at an early stage in planking. 3.) Sergal uses obvious channel with oversize deadeyes. The original has the deadeyes mounted on the gunwale (perhaps wider than average to accommodate). This change would also not be hard to make. 4.) Popeye uses an aftermarket PE kit to enhance the build, and it may be hard to find this now. Still, with a your exemplary skills the result will be fine. The Mary Rose project is amazing, mate.

Exactly my point, but sometimes I may not communicate as clearly as desired. I should have included Jr's Dad's name as well, instead of simply 'mistakenly'. Holmes Sr was a noted poet, with a large body of work. As with many artists, he's mainly remembered for a single work.

Elbe is close in spelling to Elba - the first island where Napoleon was sent. The associated palindrome is: Able was I ere I saw Elba.

Its interesting that many mistakenly think Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote 'Old Ironsides'. Holmes Jr. was a Civil War officer who shouted something like, "Get down, you fool" to President Abraham Lincoln at Fort Stevens (outside Washington D.C.) in 1864, when Confederates under Gen. Jubal Early were skirmishing at perhaps the weak point in the city's defense ring - having failed to break in the previous day before Grant's reinforcements arrived. Lincoln was the only sitting president to come under direct enemy fire during wartime. Holmes went on to a notable Supreme Court Career (associate judge), including a number of 'landmark' decisions with lasting effect.

Here's something for retirement ...