allanyed

Vaddoc, If you look in the Boats of Men of War, on page 35 there is an engraving by J.A. Anderson published in 1807 "getting up of a kedge anchor" using the davit. W. E. May mentions in the caption that the boat is similar to a 21 foot yawl longboat found on a sixth rate. You can also find this engraving at the RMG Collections site. https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/111915.html I have some doubt that a capstan would ever be used on a ship's boat. The left photo in your post may be similar to the way the anchor was raised off the bottom in the engraving. The right hand photo is a thirty foot launch with a windlass which was mortised for hand spikes for getting up an anchor, but I did not include the hand spikes when I took the photo. Allan

You raise the bar higher and higher with each new series of photos. GREAT work including the photos!! I dare say, your patience level must be in the stratosphere, never settling for less. Allan

VERY WELL DONE!!!! Thank you very much for sharing this, it very useful. I have a question regarding your shorter rails. (If you already posted this, my apologies.) How do you make the "bump" in the stanchions where the rail passes through? Allan

As to nautical terms, the learning curve has been a long one (at least for me) and still, some new terms pop up now and again. If you have a chance, read some of the contracts from the late 17th and early 18th centuries and there will be a slew of terms to deal with, if only because of the odd spellings compared to today. Keep in mind the ring around the mast is not a cover or ring at all so maybe easier to make it the way it actually was, that is, a series of wedges to hold the mast tight to the partners. Then again either way you go, it should be finished as Wefalck mentioned, with a canvas cover. Thick grayish paint serves well to replicate the canvas so you would not see the seams of the wedges "wedged" together around the mast. The best reason to try to the mill though is to get in some practice!! Allan

Glenn, I think there may be some misunderstanding of what you call a mast cap. You mention it is on the deck. The mast cap is at the top of the mast, and is usually rectangular with rounded corners, has a square hole for the lower mast top and a round hole for the lower part of the mast above it to pass through. It sounds like you are looking to make a ring instead of a ring of wedges at the mast partners where the mast passes between the deck beams, or in POB, between bulkheads. Can you post a sketch and confirm this is for your current build for Cheerful. Below is a sketch showing the top of a mast and the mast cap. If you are looking to make a ring, a lathe might be easier than using the milling machine. Allan

Maury, It sounds like the model is plank on bulkhead, is that the case? If yes, filling the space between the frames before planking is common and very good practice. Even so, when planking, following the tutorials is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED as the way to go. It is not as difficult as it may appear and it will avoid ruining the model. Just laying the strake of planking without spiling or tapering and pre-bending to shape will have the planks buckle. Or, to avoid that, the planking would have to be laid down in an unrealistic pattern and even so, could still be problematic with the buckling issue. Ship modeling is not quick and easy, nor do I think it was ever meant to be. Quick and easy is not synonymous with satisfactory in this case, and more than likely would yield something totally unsatisfactory. There are no rules, but this is just meant as some food for thought based on more than a few years of personal experience. Allan

This model would be impressive at 1:48. It is doubly so at this small scale. I will be following your build more closely now as it gives me hope in the possibilities of small scale builds. Allan

The bar has been set SOOOO high by your build. If you ever decide to go into a new field such as surgery, I would trust you and your scalpel totally. Allan

Toni, If you are going to buy copper wire, get spools and cut pieces to length. FAR cheaper. I bought four different sizes in a box which each spool being 100 feet long. You can find all kinds of diameters and spool sizes to meet your needs. The one that worked for me is https://www.amazon.com/Copper-Round-Assorted-24-26-28-30-Spool/dp/B07D54TM1G/ref=sr_1_12?dchild=1&keywords=copper+wire+spool+stl&qid=1594460184&sr=8-12 Allan

Patrick, My apologies, I was not thinking that far back. 17th century is as far back as I had photos of models so at a loss regarding 16th century. Looking at modern models including the following built by James Lees and Philip Wride in 1988 of a galleon of circa 1588 it SEEMS to not have battens, at least for the foremast. I could not find a higher res photo so not 100% sure on this model. The following contemporary drawing appears to be without the batten as well. Allan

I have two new two copies of The Master Shipwright's Secrets by Richard Endsor, only need one. $30 plus shipping. Please PM me if interested. Allan

Jan, Based on how the clue block is rigged, I agree with you that would make the most sense. As stated earlier, I have only seen drawings and rigged models with the leech lines on the fore side of the sail. I just now did some more digging and based on the first photo below, the clue garnet does stay on the aft side of the sails. The leech lines can be seen on the second photo on the fore side of the sail on this model circa 1750.

Patrick There is no need to remove the strip from the channel once the deadeyes are installed. Below are contemporary models from the 17th and 18th centuries, all of which have the molding across the edge of the channel. I do not believe these were ever removed once in place unless a deadeye or the strip itself had to be replaced. Allan

Mike, Thanks for clarifying the situation. Keep in mind that the drawing you show has the clue and sheet as the same rope for the topsail which does not make sense as they are two different lines with two different purposes. Hopefully your other drawings clarify this. Also the clue garnet would be tied to the spar with a timber hitch, not a seizing so it could be untied with some ease. For the clue, sheet and tack, the block arrangement at the clue of the sail is important. Below is probably appropriate for Enterprise. The bolt rope and clue of the sail is in red to more easily see how this is rigged. The clue block is the one through which line #19 on the drawing you posted goes. Allan

Mike, I am not 100% sure on which side of the sail the line runs, but assume (usually a big mistake) it is correct on the drawing that you posted. There are a lot of members here that will have more knowledge on that specifically and can confirm or correct. Are there additional drawings for the rigging of the sails? Jaager, I did not look at any other lines before and now that I have I agree they do not appear to be correct at all. While this is an American ship, the rigging should not be that different than British Navy ships of that time. On the drawing posted, the buntlines and blocks are missing on the lower sails. (there would not be any on the topgallants for ships smaller than 1st rates) The leechlines and blocks are missing (On British ships, they would have run on the fore side up to 1773 the aft from 1773 to 1815, and on the aft side from 1815. ) No leechlines would be carried on the topgallants. Bowlines and bridles are missing. It appears that topsail clue and sheet are the same line which is incorrect. The topsail clue line block would be secured to the clue of the topsail with an eye. The topsail clue line runs from the topsail yard about 3/4 in from the yard arm through this clue block at the clue of the sail, up to a block secured to the topsail yard just inboard of the standing part then down to the deck. The sheet would have a knot at the end of the line and held to the topsail clue in an eye. The sheet would go from the clue through a block under the the topsail yard near the slings, then out to the sheet block at the yard arm of the lower yard, through a center block under the lower yard, then down to and through a sheave in the bitts. Same basic problem in the drawing for the topgallant rigging. For the topgallant rigging, there appears to be a lift block on the topsail yardarm. At least for British ships, the topgallant lifts did not run to blocks on the topsail yardarms so there would not be a lift block on the topsail yards. Topgallant clue lines rove from the clue of the sail up through blocks a few feet outboard of the slings, then down to the lower top and made fast to a cleat. All in all, if you are looking for a bit more accuracy I would not use this drawing to rig your model. Mike, I would refer to one of the classic books on rigging such as Lees Masting and Rigging among others. Petersson's Rigging Period Ship Models would likely help though it is for a specific ship (Melampus 1785) and may have some additional minor differences with Enterprise 1799. Hope this helps! Allan

Mike The clue garnet which is what you show has the standing part made fast to the yard with a timber hitch. As the drawing shows, the line then runs down the front of the sail, through the clue garnet block and then back up the aft side of the sail to the block which should be seized to the yard a little inboard of the standing part, then down to the bitts. Keep in mind that for 1799, the tack block was first seized to the clue and then the clue garnet block and sheet block were stropped around the clue of the sail and tack block seizing, not directly to the sail, therefore the tack block will have to be seized to the clue before you can attach this clue garnet block. Allan

Unless someone has a contemporary drawing or photo of a contemporary model of Surprise showing crows feet were still in use in your time frame, you are probably safe to leave off the crows feet. Allan

Hello Helge, I assume you are speaking about the crows feet and euphroe block. You say "without crowfeet on the top". Do you mean on the topmasts or the lower mast tops? If you could attach a sketch that would be great. Per Lees, the top masts rarely had crows feet at any time and for the lower masts they generally stopped being used by the end of the 18th century. Hastings 1818 below shows no crows feet but I found a frigate of 1805 that looks to still have crows feet. Allan

Hello Sheerline, Look at the drawing on page 77 of Longridge's The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships which is about building a POB of Victory. It is very clear on how the wale strakes end at the stern. Another very clear drawing on how the strakes end at the counter is on page 17 of volume II of TFFM. Franklin's Navy Board Ship Models has numerous photos of contemporary models some of which are relatively clear showing the same construction of the end of the wales. You can see something similar in planking expansion drawings such as the one for Squirrel (1785) on the NMM Collections website. https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/83495.html As a side note, I believe the lower wale on Victory actually had four strakes of anchor stock planks. Probably just a kit error that you can fix if you wish. Even so, it does not wrap around as you correctly surmised. Allan

Yes Sandor if the mast diameter is 12mm the main stay should be as you wrote, 1.91mm diameter. I guess the appearance being too thick is really how you see it, but based on Lees, at least for British ships, 1.91 is correct. As the closest you have is 2 mm, it will appear too large by 5%. But, if you go to 1.6mm it will be undersized by 16%. Your choice in the end. Allan

Sandor, At least for British ships of war, all standing rigging (except ratlines, robands, gaskets, and brails which are usually a given fixed circumference) can be determined as a ratio going back to the diameter of the lower masts. Running rigging can be determined as a proportion to the appropriate stays. The proportions also vary with the year the ship was rigged. To which line are you referring, what ship, year, and to which scale are you building? Allan

Phil, your comment on smaller vessels made me curious. I looked at photos of the contemporary model of the royal yacht Henrietta (1670) and the gratings seem to be flat or possibly conform to the rounding of the beams. This may also have to do with the era. I believe the coamings and head ledges rose above the flat of the deck much higher as time went on. The following are the Henrietta, a fourth rate of 1705 and the Prince Royal 1773 Allan

Ken, If you have not already seen it, try to find the documentary they did with Darryl and his team in Greenland where they tried to resurrect the B-29 Kee Bird. 99.9% done when disaster struck. Allan

Hi Henry Miriam's dictionary is not a nautical dictionary so probably not really applicable. Rounding or round up is the correct term for the curvature of the beams athwartships (when looking fore and aft.) Look at the scantlings in the Establishments, Steel and the Shipbuilder's Repository and you will see that each deck for each size ship is described to "round up" or have a "rounding" a specific number of inches. In addition, if you look at contemporary contracts, where this curvature is specified, it is referred to as rounding. Camber is not a term used anywhere in these contemporary sources even though the definition does seem to fit. Allan

I just spotted this build and was VERY happy that I did. While I have not built a plane model in 60 years, it may be time again. The reason for this is that your build brought back memories of Darryl Greenamyer (RIP) and his Red Baron 104. (Darryl was also a test pilot for the SR71 at the Skunk Works), and flew all manner of planes from Mustangs to Bearcats. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and worked with his team to provide the paint for the Red Baron as I worked for PPG at the time. Even got a chance to sit in the cockpit for a minute. Several of my coworkers and I flew in to Tonopah and Mudd Lake for the four pass low altitude speed record run October 2, 1976 which the French officials messed up, but it was a thrill of a lifetime. He did make another run later that they got right and the record still stands at 998 mph although the early run was a bit faster. The heartbreak was when he had to ditch the plane after a test run for the altitude record for which the Red Baron was specially equipped on the nose with steering rockets. Long story short, his gear did not come down and lock so could not land. He was near Edwards at that time and they put him on a crash line and had him bail out. With all the talk of color schemes, if I do build a 104, the following is what I would go for having had a chance to be part of that little bit of history. Below are pictures of Darryl and the RB and the RB itself. Allan