shipman

I understand the George V is in the entrance area. Strangely, when I was there I never saw it. They do have a lovely Queen Mary(?) battlecruiser builders model, but I've only ever found a few photo's of it. Don't think it's been displayed. The main collection of their wooden models have been re-located to Chatham, most of which are in storage and can be viewed by appointment...free! The Science Museum collection is mostly in storage, but the big Vanguard model is at the Riverside Museum, Scotland, along with the big Liners. Incidentally, I'm reading the Norman Ough book, and he points out lots of Vanguard detail discrepancies. But generally he says the shipyard builders models, are laced with errors, even with the original plans. Some of those models must have taken longer to build than the real ship! There's a character who sacrificed his life for his models. Wouldn't it be grand if a few heads were knocked together and a new dedicated museum created to house the lot. Pretty sure a case could be made for some lottery funding.

Norman, glad to hear another voice blowing in the wind. I checked out the NMM website a few days ago. They invite visitors comments. I was astonished to find there's now a £13 entrance fee.......I'm sure it was free when I was last there. There were several punters saying how they thought it was a waste of time and money and full of screaming kids, running about the place. At least it's somewhere dry to take them on the 364 days of cold and rain we get here. They can have it! I wonder what the original people who donated objects would think now?Makes you wonder what the Romans were doing here LOL.

Fascinating informed debate. It's so long ago now, I can't remember when I saw a tv documentary demonstrating the firing of a naval cannon. Part of the 'drama' was about proof firing the thing, I think the feature include actually re-manufacturing and testing the gun which was relatively small ('Bounty' size). When it was deemed safe, they aimed it at a substantial baulk of oak from about 50 yards. It went straight through, making a nice round entry hole but the other side was ripped to pieces, showing how dramatic the shower of splinters was. See attached photo, which I believe is displayed on HMS Victory. It looks remarkably like the one I saw on tv. Given the data it would be possible to calculate the forces involved without even seeing a gun. 'It's all in the maths'. Like most things these days, that would be beyond me, I'm afraid. Use sunscreen.

I agree with all of your comments. The quality of those models defies virtually all but a very few of modern builds. How fortunate we are that so many have survived as testimony to the talent of the builders, many of whom must have lived otherwise humble, if not impoverished lives. Oh to be a time machine fly on the wall of their workshops!

Some years ago, on my first visit to the NMM, I remember how astonished I was to see 'Implacables' stern. Boy, did it seem big. I also realised it is mounted about the proper height above the water line (where you stand bellow it). Looking at how the same structure was so dilapidated in photographs taken before it was removed, makes one realise what a fine job was done, restoring it. It may have served some perpose to naval architects, if the hulk had just been allowed to rot alone up some quiet creek. Modern health and safety would put a stop to that now, I suppose. Since that visit and similar regular visits to the London Science Museum, things have changed drastically. Neither venue's display their once renowned model collections. A national scandal. At least, most of the exhibits have been photographically recorded, but there's no substitute to seeing them in the round. Their removal means I won't be going out of my way to pay anymore visits. How would our American friends feel if the Annapolis model collections were packed up and put into permanent storage?

I also think the rope goes the wrong way through the ring. I also question the use of that ring, which, in my humble opinion is more likely to be used for lifting the entire assembly, being suspiciously close to the apparent centre of gravity. Also, if you follow the line of the breeching rope, routed through that ring, then at full extension, then there would be an unwanted lift to the carriage, with the possibility of either the rope and or the ring parting! Has anyone actually seen one of these guns fired, fully loaded with shot? The recoil is extremely violent, much more so than when fired with only a wad, during demonstrations for the tourist. It makes me laugh when this is shown in the movies, usually a big bang, a lot of smoke and the gun trundles backwards. As far as the hoo haa about this feature, I think the artist may be forgiven, after all, his depiction is admirably very clear in all other respects.

Thanks 'druxey'. Yes I found the tutorial and read it. It takes a while but I get there in the end, usually with the help and patience of the guardian angels here on this forum. Best wishes.

Thanks chaps. I have a split personality, altering between Mr. Dumb and Mr. Dumber. So the function of the fan is to give a consistent even spacing of planks at a given bulkhead. Drawing a fan consists of lines radiating from a vanishing point. So each gap between the lines represent each plank selected for the job. Back to the fan. presumably the lines are 10 degrees apart. Then you mark a paper strip with the top and bottom of the area being planked; then offer the strip to the fan so those marks coincide with the relevant fan lines; then mark off each fan line in between onto the paper. Take the paper and transfer those marks to the bulkhead. Is that it? Simples? Once again, thanks to my BIGGEST FANS!

Hi to the planking Swami's among you. I'd like to draw my own 'planking fan' as I don't have a printer. I can draw, but haven't a clue how to configure the radiating angles. I appreciate those angles must be based on something, but what? Is there a formula? I've seen one or two of these fans illustrated on the forum, but I'd like to understand the principal properly. Your wisdom required, please. On a related matter; is it possible to plank a hull without resorting to stealers? I'd like to think so.

Mark, thanks for getting back to my reply. Yes, I understand the issue compiling an index of posts. While we're here in the 'longboat rigging' area......perhaps someone can explain.....When ships boats are displayed stowed on board, rarely if ever, there's no evidence of the plates and dead-eyes for mast shrouds and stays. Yet when a boat is depicted rigged, there they are! Clearly the plates are bolted to the hull so I imagine they must be permanently there, even if the boat is un-rigged. I appreciate there's a wide range of boat styles and uses, yet it seems all of them are capable of having masts fitted. I could be wrong, but I have no recollection that this feature is indicated on original source draughts. Could it be that boats rigging is attached to inboard belaying pins. It seems to me these fixtures are included on model boats with a big assumption that 'how else can it be done?'. Another point; colours on boats and ships:- it is widely known by the younger generation, that everything prior to colour tv was black and white! So period paintings and drawings depict colours as products of artistic licence? A disturbing thought. Enough. Thanks again. Alex

Wefalck, thank you for your intervention, which is much appreciated. Now I'm aware of dafi's situation, I'll stop grinding my teeth. Thanks again.

Boxwood rulers! Boot sales and jumbles are a good source. The older the better. If you can find old printers blocks, great stuff. It's surprising what's lurking about. A simple plane can cut lovely planks from the edge of a ruler. Sharp tools or none at all. Looking at period models in museums made of Box and comparing the rubbish kit supplied open grain hardwoods.....I rest my case. Of course other woods have their uses but Box is surely the 'King' in this hobby.

Hi Lou, Davis no doubt was quoting some original source, I can only assume some Admiralty dictat. But I imagine that's a good rule of thumb for 'new build' ships as we can get now. As for wanting a simpler formula, remember things were done very differently back then. I accept there must have been considerable variations, especially when ships were adapted from their original use and/or when guns were uprated or down-rated. I do enjoy these opportunities for debate on the forum. Thank you for your welcome contribution. That's why I try to broaden my outlook on these subjects and sometimes ask challenging questions. At no time have I any wish to be abrasive or rude to anyone. It's a joy to be here.

Greetings John. I have no doubt you are correct. However, restoring a house today, that may have been restored umpteen times over 250 years, how do you judge from what period the glass was made? Having the misfortune to be living in England I have the delight of being able to see plenty of buildings, some of which can be up to a thousand years old. I can't remember seeing one that had anything other than clear glass. That doesn't mean any of it is original. Certainly during the Georgian period, posh Palladian houses would have nothing but the best. Look up Walter Wilkinson's 'Puppet' books; between the wars, each summer, he dragged a wheelbarrow, upon which was his 'Punch and Judy' show, all over the British Isles; an itinerant entertainer of sorts (no tv then). One of his journeys took him within 10 miles of where I am now. He describes accepting the hospitality of a family living in an old cottage on the 'Great North Road'. He points out that none of the windows had any glass fitted. Instead they were fitted with oiled heavy paper. That was about 20 years before I was born, so not long ago it could confidently be said to be within living memory. The cottages made way for a road widening scheme post war. Walt, having recently been mislead myself by dubious 'facts' gleaned from Wikipedia I would suggest anything there should be cross referenced with more 'reliable' sources. Dafi, how's my order for your etch ringbolts and hooks coming along? (sent you ANOTHER e-mail earlier today).

Victory at Traffalgar: I've read several contemporary accounts that the inside of the bulwarks were painted yellow. Bellow decks being whitewashed. I understand, once out of the dockyard, the cost of painting , or any other aspect of the ship's 'decoration' came out of the captains pocket. The more pigment, the dearer the paint. Of course, some officers weren't short of a bob or two, and as always, to some, Bling is paramount. It makes sense to me at least, that timbers had a regular coat of linseed oil. Ships manifest included a considerable volume of the stuff. I think the tar was used on the rigging, tops and spars and probably on the wales. Sunlight, weather and repeated coatings would make this treated wood progressively darker over time. Can't remember where I read this, but the colours of the ships boats were painted with virtual washes of muted earth colours. The hull below the waterline being tallowed, presumably looking yellowish white, not pure white. I've often wondered if each boat had its own colour, including oars, masts, thwarts etc. as an aid to identifying what goes where. Again, dedicated officers boats could be embellished with Bling also. I think it would make sense that wood treatments would be more of a practical nature, with no consideration for future modellers desire to (understandably?) make there work ornamental, to some degree, to keep the wife happy!

Distasteful as it may seem, it's no coincidence that the Marine's Walk was directly above the crew's latrines. The heads were out of sight from the rest of the ship, considering the size of the crew, there weren't many to go round. Presumably a duty Marine was there to monitor aspects of discipline. Doesn't take a lot of imagining. As for the quarter galleries; I'd be surprised if any meaningful view of anything shipboard was visible, let alone the set of the sails. What we accept as glass today as probably very different back then. I have read it was quite opaque, similar to lightly sand-blasted glass. Few if any modern models reflect this, if you'll pardon the pun.

Came across this relevant info in my library today. The Ship Model Builders Assistant by Charles Davis. Pages 229 and 230. States that port dimensions are indeed related to gun calibre/diameter (c1750). He also includes American Navy gun ports (c1850), which are somewhat larger. Also included is a formula to calculate the diameter of shot from its weight. Useful stuff, I hope.

Guy's, dafi sells a big sheet of etch brass with thousands of eye-bolts and hooks and appears to be tremendous value. However, according to his website you select the option to send the required e-mail. This I've done several times to no avail. In fact I've just had a final attempt. If my experience is anything to go by, then dafi is losing a lot of custom. It done my brain in.

mtaylor, thanks for the quick heads up response. Followed it through and found the useful pdf file. Grateful for that. However, my original post was about my frustration with trying to follow up items within the forum. Again, if I wasn't aware of 'Model Expo' it's the same issue. Call me old fashioned, but if I was looking at a book, it is often a simple matter to look at the index and find what I'm looking for. I'm all in favour of progress. Couldn't there be a proper alphabetical index on the forum, which would make life a lot easier. That would bring this modern tech back into the 18th century! Please forgive me, I suppose this is really a matter for the moderators to address. But thanks for your kind reply.

Hi, Maury S, I'm new to this forum and have a lot to learn and am probably dumber than most. Above, you say, 'The instructions / illustrations for Chuck's.....'. Without a hot link how the heck do you find those instructions if you don't know exactly where they are. Entering the details into the search box just brings up posts that make a similar referral. The only other thing I can try is to spend hours trawling through all the listings of 'masting and rigging etc'. which is laborious and frustrating. It's not just your post, this occurs all the time. And like anyone else; I've only got so much time. Please tell me, is there a better way? Thank you and my best wishes.

Just read 'A Frigate of King George' by Brian Vale. Based on the ships logs HMS Doris 42 guns. Page 78; 'to keep out the cold, the lower halves of the gun ports were caulked.....' I assume if the wind could get in, so could the sea. On a slightly different tack.......pre WW1, an Admiralty study of average wave height in different sea states. at the lower end of the scale 0-5, waves could be expected up to 8 feet high. No matter the era, the sea is the sea, which sheds a little light on how vulnerable gun ports could be to water exposure.

Hi LOU, Another factor I've read in several sources:- if battle was expected (like Trafalgar) ships would take down their best sails and use older well used sails, knowing damage was inevitable, knowing the French tactics were to disable an opponent by destroying his motive power. Those top-men must have been busy chaps!

Hello there, I have a query:- often it is said, 'add a tiny drop of 2-part epoxy'. This part of the planet that means Araldite. Well, if you have just a couple or three eye-bolts to attach, my experience with the stuff tells me you're going to waste a lot of it, even if you just dispense the smallest blob. Then there's the problem with the screw caps locking up. Araldite has a lot of usefulness, but for ring-bolts etc., surely there's a better product. Has anyone tried what could be a suitable 'Locktight' product?

Hi guy's, I've enjoyed your perceptive comments and observations, some rather thrilling. Just a thought to put my ha'perth in; as I understand it, a ship would only go to a full spread of canvas (including stunsails) during and to maximise from a period of light winds. Presumably in such conditions the sea would be relatively smooth. Surely it would be folly to be crashing through a heavy sea with all sails set. The entire plot would be ripped apart! Heave Ho, lads!

Hi, forgive me if this is the wrong area to ask this question. Perhaps it's been covered in the past, however, it's occurred to me, for extreme miniatures, has anyone any experience using human hair for rigging? Judging by the age of Victorian 'momento moiry', hair lasts forever and surely would be a better substitute than nylon mono-filament, very thin wire or stretched plastic sprue which are commonly used. And at these scales hair is a lot stronger and comes in a variety of colours. I'd appreciate feedback on the topic, thank you.