allanyed

Just as an FYI, a long while back I did a scratch build of a schooner (I think it was Columbia) and found that the plans I purchased had a hiccough. One bulkhead was incorrectly drawn and under sized and I had to redraw and make a new one the correct size. In your case, it could be that all of their kits have the same problem because of a design error. If you do remove the planks, be sure the bulkhead is correct or, if it is not, that you have the tools and material to make a new one from scratch that is the correct size. Allan

Jerry, I believe there was little interest in that they only offered two size cutters, 0.02 and 0.03", which are actually pretty useful sizes for 1:48 scale builds. A draw plate such as the one from Jim Byrnes can be used for 30 different diameters from 0.017 and larger to 0.057 As to not wishing making treenails on anyone, yep it can be a tedious task. I did a study over a few days some years back and found that I could produce about 300 bamboo trennals per hour. With 10,000 to 12,000 in a typical hull of a fully framed model, that's 40 hours of making trennals. Out of curiosity, how long would it take to make 12000 on the Vandalay unit based on your experience? Thanks Allan

Thanks Jim, Don't know about you, but If anyone would take up the challenge and create a proper index for Chappelle's American Fishing Schooners from page 313 to the end, which is a compilation of information from his notebook, I would be happy to pay for a copy of the index. While the subjects are in somewhat alphabetical order, the layout makes no sense and I find myself constantly thumbing through pages to find information. For the main topsail tack, I only recalled it going to a pin on the pin rail, not to the boom. (page 332 diagram in Chappelle) . Then I looked at the drawings of Dove that you mention and see exactly what you mean and yes, different strokes for different folks is not unusual in belaying lines. I never really looked at these drawings of Dove before and must say, she looks to be a fun build. Added it to my own bucket list. Do you have a build log going? Would love to see pics of her as your build progresses. Allan

Rick, I especially like that you included the 45 degree bevels on the cheeks as the bevel finish replaced the quarter rounds about 1791. Allan

Scott, Since I last posted I was also thinking the cleat may be for a flag halliard. I am checking with the shipyard that is rebuilding Ernestina/Effie M. Morrissey to see what information they have. Allan

Welcome aboard Tim, You are doing a very thoughtful thing for your friend. Keep in mind Victory had as many as seven different ship's boats about the time of Trafalgar so you have choices which is a good thing. Depending on the time frame of Victory she had changes in the types of boats. For the most part I believe she would have carried a combination of cutters, launches (which replaced longboats by order of the Admiralty about 1780), perhaps a pinnace, et al. There are a lot of drawings out there, and if you have a few tools, scratch building may be something to consider. Other than the kit of the longboat from Chuck Passaro at Syren (and I believe offered at Model Expo as well) there are not a lot of kit choices. Unfortunately the longboat is not appropriate type for Victory but still may something to consider. Again, welcome aboard!! Allan

I did some more checking on the drawings in Chappelle. In one drawing (page 539) the main boom guy fall belayed to the pin on the port side. The topping lift fall belays to the pin on the starboard side as Jim wrote. I cannot find anything so far in Chappelle or in the Ernestina photos as to what belays to the cleat on the starboard side of the boom. There appears to be no cleat on the port side. (Chappelle, page 547) Thanks guys!!

Honestly Eberhard, I am not yet sure at this point. As there are also cleats, (see photo below) this will take a little research. A line on the starboard pin is obvious in the photo by I don't know which line this is. Will keep you posted on what I find. Allan

It is always nice to get information on any potential material suppliers, but, is having the above advertisement from a new supplier appropriate for a first time post in this particular forum? Plus it has been pointed out many times that posting an individual's email address in an open forum is not a good thing to do. Allan

Hide glue is the longest proven glue based on models centuries old, but PVA wood glue such as from Elmers or Titebond and others are more forgiving than CA or contact cement and have quite a few years of history. There are hundreds of advocates of all types of glue at MSW, but the majority have had success with PVA over the years based on posts you will find about questions on what glue to use that come up every month. At the least try some test pieces of each that you are interested in using and find what you like best. Allan

Haliburton It may help if you go over planking tutorials as the techniques could apply in this case as well. You can cut to shape from a suitably thick sheet rather than use this straight piece, or soak it for a while in water and set up a jig and bend it and heat it with an iron as Chuck Passaro shows in one of the tutorials. Heat is as important as the wetting process. This method is similar to that advocated by the German model builder Gebhard Kammerlander. Not sure about walnut as many species of walnut are grainy and tend to be brittle thus split more easily than some other species of wood more commonly used for ship models over the centuries. Allan

Hi Al Warm welcome to MSW and Happy New Year Allan

Masts and main boom are nearly complete. For most of the metal work I have been using copper which is so easy to blacken with liver of sulfur, and a few instances where I need something harder I have gone to brass then treat it with Blacken It. For the mast tops, there are a series of blocks, cranes, heart iron on the main crane and bails as well the trestle trees, cheeks, and bolsters. The fore and main mast heads are round as they went from square tops to round about the time Effie was built. The main boom was a fun project. The only thing missing in the photos is the main sheet fairlead which will go on the starboard side and the iron strap that goes from the jaws around the mast. There is a ring at the aft end of the boom for the topping lift eye wye and shackle and there is a clew outhaul band forward of the topping lift band with two topping lift sheaves in between. There is a third ring about 1/3 of the way forward from the aft end with a wye on the under side for the sheet. At the jaw end there are the jaws, clapper, tack iron, tack iron block beneath, bail, and belaying pins. On the main mast, below where the jaws go around the mast is a wooden ring with iron band. Two belaying pins go into the wooden ring, one port, one starboard. The fore end of the iron band has an eye shown very clearly on page 539 of The American Fishing Schooners as well as on the drawings of Efffie from the Library of Congress, but I cannot find any information on the use of this eye. If anyone can share information on this, it would be greatly appreciated. Allan

Larry, Yes, I treenail IF I can do it at scale and it is appropriate for the vessel. What ship, scale, year, are you considering? If trennals are appropriate for the vessel and era, it comes down to scale for many, if not most builders. Some ships had bolts, depending on era, nation, etc. in place of or in addition to trennals on some planks. Assume the largest wooden trennals found on the largest ship are 2" diameter for the hull planking. At 1/48, the diameter would be 0.04", quite easy to make with a good quality draw plate and bamboo, boxwood, pear and a few other species. At 1/64 you would still be at about 0.03" diameter and not difficult to make with a good quality drawplate and bamboo. At 1:96, you would be down to 0.02, about the equivalent of a #75 drill diameter. (Species other than bamboo, only based on my own personal experience , have not done very well at the smallest sizes. More waste in material and time than is worth it.) For smaller ships the trennals may be smaller, say 1.5" diameter, depending on the width of the planks themselves. For 1:96 scale I know of no draw plate that goes small enough or wood that would work. The smallest hole on a Byrnes plate is 0.16 so too large. 28 gage wire could be used, but the ends would need to be filed and colored in some manner to replicate wood without staining the planking. Copper wire and liver of sulfate could be used, but it will be black and not replicate wood. It does great to simulate bolts Also care must be taken to remove metal particles that imbed in the wood as these particles will discolor as well as the intended bolt. Going to deck planking, the trennals are smaller in diameter, closer to 1". These can still be shown with some precision at 1:48, but for smaller scales will be very difficult to execute at the proper sizes. Some use pencil point marks but these are not always consistent. Many deck trennals and/or bolts were covered with wooden plugs making them virtually impossible to see at our scales. Alternatively for both hull and deck planking you can drill the proper size hole and fill them in with wood filler or a sawdust/glue mixture, then scrape and sand finish, which often looks very good. There are a number of preferences on how to execute using trennals, so you may want to try a few methods to see what works best for you. If in doubt, it is better to forget about trennals altogether if the alternative is to go over sized. The appearance of over scale trennals is not a good look. Allan

Paul, As you have a lathe, you might want to consider getting a drawing of the properly sized and shaped barrel and turning your own from brass. These can then be blackened using Blacken It or some other agent. OR, if there are a lot of barrels, make a master and then make a silicone mold and cast the barrels in metal or resin. They will all be the same, (warts and all) From the looks of the drawing you posted, the barrels and carriages don't look right. For example there are too many reinforce rings on the barrel and the trunnions are centered with the bore rather than being lower. For the P of B, should there be cascabel rings as well? Just some thoughts, but there are others here at MSW that no doubt have experience with these vessels that will hopefully give some help. Happy New Year. Allan

No matter the model, one of the best pieces of advice given above is study the planking tutorials. There are many ways to incorrectly plank the model, but only a few ways that will yield excellent results. You will see that there is no need for pins or nails at all. At a scale of 1:64, the treenails (best if made of bamboo or some other wood, not metal) would only be about 0.015 to 0.017" diameter thus very difficult to make and to see no matter the material. Looking forward to stopping in on your build log! Allan

The quarter bitts on Effie have double cross pieces. which was a first for me. Chapelle notes that these were used on the Philp P. Manta as well as in a few vessels in the late 1890's which fits for Effie. Each cross piece is secured with a single bolt. I made the post to the proper dimensions from the deck level upwards, but made the lower portion smaller. This way I could cut the hole in the deck smaller rather than trying to get a perfect opening to match the post. The larger cross section of the post at deck level then rests on the deck and there is no chance of a gap on any side. Simple but effective. The lower end of the post is cut at an angle to match the curve of the frame on which it rests. Allan

Assuming you are looking for a drawing of a Blomefield pattern 32 pounder, 9' 6" (56cwt) barrel there is a 3"=1' scale drawing on pages 260 and 261 in Volume II of Caruana's books on ordinance. The only obvious differences are you show five reinforce rings, instead of the standard four on a Blomefield 32 pounder, There are also a few other minor differences, but you are pretty close. I would not use McKay as a guide for cannon, but that is only my take. Lavery shows essentially the same drawing of the breech and muzzle. These were taken from contemporary drawings at NMM so I would consider these as more accurate if there are differences with McKay and Hahn. The drawing in the Arming and Fitting by Lavery gives dimensions of all parts. I would love to post a copy but there are copyrights involved. Allan

Anthony, there are sources for Castello (not a true boxwood, but fantastic wood for nearly any parts of a POF) Gilmer Woods seems to only have one small piece in stock but Rare Woods USA has Castello box, African boxwood and Pau Marfim which was a go to species in years past. None of them are cheap, but fantastic wood to work with. Pear is closer grained than cherry and will hold up well for framing and planking but it will be red which I like, but not everyone does. For deck planking and ships' boats, and and few other things like mast hoops, I love holly as long as it was harvested and kiln dried properly to keep out the green mold streaks. I have used holly from Gilmer and was quite happy. I assume Rare Woods would be as good. If you are using the book by David Antscherl, I believe he tends to use holly for the white bottom planking below the wales rather than painting. Allan

To which tools are you specifically referring? Allan

You are giving Ed T a run for his money on your build!!! Beautiful work. allan

Dave, Welcome to MSW! Is this a kit or scratch build? If a kit, was there a rigging drawing in the kit. Maybe ask the folks that sold it to you. Looking at the AL kit on the internet, it appears there are paper drawings included. Allan

Eberhard, No worries, this project started years ago then was set aside for other projects. It came back to life just recently as the folks that ordered the Boothbay 65 schooner also wanted Ernestina as they have been rebuilding her in their shipyard the past few years. Very glad you dropped in!!! Happy New year!!! 2021 has got to be better than 2020. Allan

Raisley, You are not being nit picky, you are trying to be accurate, good for you!! The length of a 24 gun carriage for the 1791 pattern was 6 feet 0 inches based on a drawing by Shuttleworth in the R.A. Library. The length of a 32 pounder carriage was 6 feet 8 1/2 inches. See Caruana volume II pages 376 and 378. The 32 pounder drawing is from a contemporary drawing in the British Library. The 24 was 4' 4" wide at the rear truck axles. The 32 was 5' 0" wide at the rear truck axles. The carriages were not the same size for both 24s and 32s based on the research of Caruana. Allan

Further to Gary's great information, I would not consider McKay the authority on ordinance. He appears to have used the 20 caliber rule for determining the length of the 32. This was typical in determining the length of the barrel with the exceptions of the 32 pounder and 3 pounder. For the 32, the 20 caliber rule would have the barrel at 10.62 feet as McKay gives which would have been far too heavy (the History of English Sea Ordinance, Caruana, page 220). For English sea ordinance, if there is a bible, I believe it would be the two volumes by Caruana. Allan