allanyed

Looks like you are off to a good start with a great subject. Speed is not really a part of ship modeling, so you should have no worries about going slow. Allan

The cat has me scared being so close to the model, (which looks really great.) Love the planking and seeing belaying pins that are to scale. Kudos to both Vanguard and you. Looking at various cannon barrel patterns from the 18th century I cannot find barrels that look like these. Do you know what pattern these are? Thanks! Allan

Thanks Glenn, I think there were bolsters on the topmast trestletrees, at least according to Lees (below pic). Not really that noticeable on the model though. Allan

Hi Glenn, Is the last photo the top of the topmast or topgallant mast? Thanks Allan

In Danny's quest to make the Lees ratios available to everyone for free and easy to use it appears he may have some ratios wrong. In addition to the 1670-1710 period which is not useable, he may have misinterpreted the ratios in other time periods for the foremast diameters, therefore his diameters for the foremast are wrong so it may be best not to use his system for the foremasts diameters. Lees states that the diameter of the foremast is the same proportion as the main mast. I believe this means proportion to the foremast length, not the main mast length. If not, why not just writer the diameter of the foremast is the same as the main mast, which it was not. For example, for the Artois class, 1794. Main Mast Length Diameter Lees 92.645' 27.79" Vadas 92.645' 28.236" Foremast Length Diameter Lees 83.38' 25" Vadas 83.38' 28.236" For possible confirmation that the foremasts were smaller in both length and diameter, at least for the approximate period in question, I looked at some contemporary plans of masts. The foremasts are smaller in diameter than the main masts. An example are plans J7801 and J 7796 at RMG and on the Wiki Commons site in high resolution. for a 74 gun ship . The main mast maximum diameter is 37" and length is 111.6' The foremast maximum diameter is 32" and has a length of 95' 8" From David Steel's The Elements and Practice of Rigging 1794 The diameters in proportion to the length, in the royal navy, are as follow: viz. The main and foremasts of ships of 100 to 64 guns inclusive, are one inch in diameter at the partners to every yard in length. Ships of 50 to 32 guns inclusive, 9/10 of an inch to every yard in length. And ships of 28 guns and under, 7/8 a of an inch to every yard in the length. https://maritime.org/doc/steel/ Allan

It appears the kit is not without its challenges already but will you be marking out the lines of planking so you can accurately taper the hull strakes of planking? Then again, if Protector had a coppered bottom most of the planking below the wales will be covered. Allan

There are all the deck plans for a 60 but it is a 1745 Establishment plan rather than 1719. ZAZ1907 at RMG Still it may be useful if coupled with the 1719 Establishment scantlings. It actually shows carlings and ledges, lodging and hanging knees as well as the beams which are not commonly shown. https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-81698 Allan

My fault Druxey. Just went with what I saw on line which I know is not always the best idea. 😕 From the American Bee Journal As beeswax is the primary construction material of the beehive, its chemical composition is integral to how the hive functions. This same material, the storage location of food resources and developing brood, must be relatively non-reactive, so beeswax's neutral pH (7) suits the need perfectly.Aug 1, 2015 Allan

Hi Ken IF you do decide to change them, it would probably be easier to unrig the lines and open the upper holes then re-rig rather than removing the blocks and reinstalling. Allan

The material of your rigging line will be part of the equation. In general a wax with neutral pH is best. As paraffin is alkaline (pH of 9) it could affect the longevity of the fibers. How much depends on the type of rope you are using. Bees wax is typically pH neutral so may be a better way to go if you want to use wax. In either case, wax will hold dust and very difficult to clean so be sure your model is properly cased. There has been mention of conservator's wax, hopefully some members can shed more light. Allan

That is my take as well. Proportions of the foremast are the same proportions as the main mast. For example if the diameter of the main mast is one inch for every three feet of length of the main mast the diameter of the foremast is one inch for every three feet of length of the foremast. FWIW regarding accuracy the human eye can only perceive a dimension difference of about 0.1mm if the objects are within the same field of view. Allan

For the first planking layer it is very forgiving as you can sand and fill. For the second layer, it it is not to be covered with a copper bottom you may want to study the four part video on proper planking by Chuck Passaro. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCWooJ1o3cM Nearly all your planks appear to be lifted. Even with a more severe taper as Chris discusses, you can still get lift if the planks are not properly formed for the bend and so they all end at the rabbet rather than coming to a point and short of the rabbet at the stem. If the planks are preformed there is no need for nails. Finger pressure for 30-45 seconds if using PVA glue or a few seconds with CA is all that is needed. Allan

Nice neat work! One small thing, some blocks look to be upside down so the lines are running under the sheave and over the tail rather than over the sheave and under the crown. Sketch may be more clear than words. You can see that on a real block there is no room for the line to run under the sheave. For our purposes and scales these openings are usually just another hole drilled as the line covers it as it runs down but still the line should be in the upper holes. Allan

I agree with Rusty. Don't fight it Glenn. Based on the many build logs here at MSW and elsewhere, for a full size vessel Chuck's is the gold medal winner. Allan

English and European boxwoods (I think both are called buxus sempervirens) are difficult to find and very expensive stuff if you do find some. Castello boxwood (Calycophyllum multiflorum) is great to work with but it is becoming harder to find and prices are up. One source (and I would confirm it is buxus sempervirens) is https://exoticwood.biz/ Allan

Welcome to MSW Michael! Allan

Fraser There is a drawing of Centurion 1732 that was made in 1729 in the RMG Collections which shows the body plan that you can use to draw her frames (or bulkheads if you want to build plank on bulkhead rather than plank on frame.) It also has an inboard profile showing her inner works. It is low resolution but can be purchased in high resolution as a paper plan or digital. It can then be redrawn with CAD so you can use it for laser cutting for some parts. She was built to the 1719 Establishment so there are scantlings of all her parts which can be found in several books, including Scantlings of Royal Navy Ships. The 1719 Establishment can also be found in the appendices in Peter Goodwin's The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War. There are a number of drawings of additional 60 gun ships built to the 1719 Establishment and 1745 Establishment in the RMG Collections. Allan

I have some old pieces of limbs from English boxwood that are great for carving but it is not nearly as yellow as in your photo. Those piece are REALLY yellow. If you cut a small piece, is it the same color all the way through? Almost looks dyed😀

Chris, I never really thought of that point and it seems like a valid point to be sure. I was more concerned that the end of the strakes needed to be of a thickness that was similar in order to seat properly in the rabbet. What you mention appears to be an additional advantage.🙂 Allan

The main wales on Victory are probably about 10" thick based on the Shipbuilder's Repository. The strakes below are down to about 6" thick. The thicker strakes were reduced in thickness to match the thinner strakes so they could fit into the rabbet. Hope this is a little more clear. Pic below may also help as you can see the wales get thicker as you move aft from the stem. Allan

I would trust contemporary based information before modern reproductions, even if it is the Victory. I do wonder if this is part of the current 10 year $5million pound project. It is great that they are doing this so she will be around for many more years. I have reached out to Andrew Baines asking about the linings. I HOPE he will respond. Allan

THANK YOU!!

Chris, years ago I thought there was a stop on the top as well, but looking at contemporary models, only one of many that I have seen has a top lining. Personally I would not rely on modern day Victory as a consistently reliable source of information. It is truly a treasure trove of information, but maybe not perfect after all the rebuilds. TFFM goes into the linings in detail and the contemporary models verify this. In the end, doubtless few folks would notice or care. Allan

For many of us that is one of the best reasons to choose a model to build!! Good for you!! Allan

Hi Chris Maybe not too late, and maybe not that important but there were no port lid stops/linings on the top of the ports, only the bottom and sides. The ports were made up with the sills top and bottom and frames on the sides. Linings (only about 1.5" thick) were then nailed to the frames and and bottom sill only. See photos from Preble Hall below. Don't forget that the thickness of the wales at the rabbet at the stem was reduced to the same thickness of the adjacent planking so it would seat properly in the rabbet. It looks like you did that on one wale, but hard to tell from the angle of the photos. Allan