Jaager

Thank you Allan, I am not sure that I will get to masting on any model. I am in a loop. My compulsion seems to be to have the availability of timber patterns not be a limiting factor for any ship that I might care to model. For decades, lofting timber patterns this huge wall blocking me, because existing POF methods are so onerous and time consuming. It was six months of really awful plotting of points and worse, trying to connect every 3 dots with a smooth curve that matches the curves on either side. My joy at finding a way to do this in a way that is both quick and accurate, has me doing it over and over. If I focus, I can start with NMM plans for a 100 gun ship and have patterns printed out and ready for wood in 10-14 days. Lesser rates are even quicker to do. A schooner is maybe 4 days. It is safe and comfortable. I think I can breakout. It is a matter of finding the discipline. I find some resonance with the posts about a compulsion to have a closet full of kits. I have boxes of envelopes of patterns for about 150 ships now. A heck of a lot less expensive than kits, but the paper is about $4.00 for a large ship. My new Epson Eco printer has removed the significant ink cost with my old Brother printer.

I will give it a closer look when the temp is a bit lower and I can concentrate. On my electronic board at present is HMS Alcide 74 1779 - it is a bit beyond my arbitrary time scale and as I have HMS Albion 1763 already in the can, it is essentially a repeat, but I like the quality of the plan. With a bit of reading, I learned that Alcide is another name for Hercules. My past experience had me seeing it as an agent that was out to kill "Al's".

No. I am essaying RN ships - mostly 50 gun and above - from 1719 to 1775. The problem is where to cut the top timbers. Many of the Body plans - and I use only the Body plan to define the timber patterns - continue to the top of the highest rail. My top timbers are a solid wall. I COULD use the appropriate members to support the highest rail at the quarterdeck and forecastle. I will not because I do not wish to chisel square holes in the main rail. I am wondering how the actual ships were constructed to support the highest decorative rails at the forecastle and quarterdeck? I have the same questions about monkey rails on clippers? Where did they stop the top timbers? My interest continues to 1860 in general, but my current focus is earlier - when the ships were elegant - not purely functional artillery platforms. Unicorn is post 1815 - besides - I already lofted a Leda class to get HMS Shannon. One exercise is to explore all of the classes of true 74's starting with L' Monarque up to 1775. with the exception of the Bellona class - which is too crowded for me. Monarque/HMS Monarch will be a challenge. The officer who took off the lines of that capture only drew the absolute minimum number of stations. The work to get the timber patterns will be less, but the frame sections will be very fat - too fat actually. I will probably subdivide by replicating stations and then have a lot more shaping of the joined sections.

Paper? I did a Google search just now for barrel making plans and a lot came up.

It comes down to your objective in building your model. If your goal is to produce a model that is as historically accurate as is reasonable, forgo any embossing or dimpling of the copper plates. Way more nails were used than any punch tool will produce. The nails were hammered flush. They are difficult to see even on the existing 1:1 reproductions or the few survivors whose currently done copper plates are a joke when compared to the practice of 200 years ago. A model would have to be larger than 1:48 for visual evidence of how the plates were attached to be valid. Any plates made of actual copper will be over scale thickness on 1:48 or smaller. Think painted paper instead.

There was a time when I had approximate dates for this: First - the wales stood proud above the planking Second - there was a transition from the bottom planking to the bottom of the main wale, but a ledge at the top Third - there was a transition at the top as well as the bottom. There was a wale -but it was not visible. The cross section was a mid waist bulge. The 17th century featured an insane number of wales - one for every full gun deck. By the mid 18th century, the Georgian I II early III liners were reduced to two wales. Or so it appears to me. I forget what the single raised strakes of carved moulding are named. digression or expansion : The waist has a heavy rail that sits on top of the top timbers. At the forecastle this rail jogs up. There is often an additional decorative rail above it. Are the stanchions that hold up this rail extensions of the actual top timbers? Or is the main rail left intact and various carpenters devises used to seat the short stanchions? The same aft? If the main rail is cut thru, its function of keeping out water from the timber end grain is impaired. If the top timbers are continued all the way to the decorative rail, the shape is set. The Station lines usually end at the bottom of the highest decorative rail. The fitting of a main rail with a series of square holes that each has to be precise is more work than it is worth for a model- seems to me.

PVA is polyvinyl acetate. Ac is an organic chemistry abbreviation for acetate. Changing Ac to AC is probably advertising hype. I see five types of PVA: pH neutral (pH7) bookbinders - good for cotton or linen rigging white - dries clear yellow - wood workers - dries amber - is acidic Titebond II - yellow - water resistant - dries amber - is more acidic Titebond III - brown - water proof - dries brown - is a lot more acidic white or yellow is probably sufficient Titebond II if you are compulsive Titebond III if the model is to be aquatic - otherwise probably not worth the negatives I doubt that there are that many companies that synthesize the base chemicals so most name brands are probably different names on containers of the same stuff.

Then there was the diet pills that contained live tape worm segments. Well, they did work.

Go to the RMG site. enter ZAZ1357 You will see that your ? is the top of the main wale. The red lines are internal structures - if 3 red lines are tracking close together they are bottom of deck at side - bottom of deck at midline - top of deck at midline - often there are cross sections of beams. When I loft frames, I only locate the bottom of the wales and other raised decorative strakes. It would not matter where I drew the top. The width of the wales that I apply will determine the top. Drawing it is wishful thinking.

I have not checked any references so these are open targets for those with more data. I think that some of the rules are: maximum single plank width - 10" with maybe 12" for exceptions like the garboard minimum single plank width - no less than 50% of the max. Large ships can survive with 10" planks - small ships probably want ~6" A gore of 6 to at most 10 strakes is about right. At the stem rabbet and sternpost rabbet the run should be near horizontal The overall run should be sweet. It is about juggling all of these factors

As a gauge for how relentless this accumulation can be, do you have a serious shop vac pulling in the sawdust whenever the saw is running?

It is the circular stern that I am placing at the 1860 +/- and dismissing as being outside my focus era. I also kinda put circular in the merchant ship bucket. From the beginning, I have found the thought of iron and steel hulls, iron masts and yards , chain and steel cable rigging to be too intimidating to model.

I do not know how to write this so that it comes across in the way that I intend it. I mean this as one way to look at it. It may well be incorrect. But it is a vulnerable flank if you disagree I do not place much value in using the survivors from 1765 1799 1800-on as sources of information for how these vessels looked when launched. Especially "officers country" in the stern. They were "improved" - remodeled - rebuilt - about every 20 years. This was done by sequential generations who were hostile to the past and ashamed of and embarrassed by older practices. They were aggressively "modern" in their outlook. A new "modern" every 20 years at a time of profound tech change. Then, when GB or the US became wealthy enough to have surplus to preserve some of the past - it was done by strong personalities who were more driven by preconceived visions in their imaginations than what was left of actual past documentation. For the most part absolutist historians have been left with hodgepodge monsters too substantially altered to rescue back to their original iterations. They are probably more valuable remaining as what they are. But what that is - is far from representing their as launched versions. Zealous PR people tend to exaggerate if not outright lie about what they are selling. Almost everything in your examples are post 1860. I have to draw a line for the sake of my sanity. It is still far to broad, but 1860 is a hard limit for me.

Here goes a stream of consciousness tangent: I have the idea that an elliptical stern was considered as a significant improvement for frigates and corvettes starting early in the 19th century. I have been thinking that a circular stern happened around 1860 or later - and my focus ends at 1860. There was a famous - here - 1 to 1 frigate dual between HMS Shannon and Chesapeake. ( I thought it was fought off the Virginia capes where I live.) (Turns out it was off Boston.) (The Chesapeake captain was an amateur poseur idiot and got himself and a significant portion of his crew killed. The Shannon captain was a gifted professional.) I got Chesapeake plans from S.I. I had to dig for Shannon. HMS Shannon was a Leda class frigate. There were a lot of frigates in that class. They used the same plans: HMS Leda - probably traced - over and over - for every one of them. They even drew the improved "ellipicical stern" in different colored ink on the original 18th century flat stern Leda plan (as well as a more "modern" forecastle). The plan was so over used that there is a low contrast between the lines and the dark background. The NMM offered different sized prints when I bought it. I made the mistake of buying a reduced scale copy. It was easier to place on my home scanner - which is why I chose it. This was before I learned that commercial shops could scan a 4'x3' plan and give me a PDF copy on a USB stick. It was touch and go for picking out the lines from the background.

I was not thinking about being too "old fashioned" - anachronism from the past - because I mostly consider anachronism as referring to adding things that had not been invented yet. I am not sure if "anachronism" even fits as a definition for using outdated tech. If you want to include 17th century tech on an 18th century ship, you could always say that the captain was sentimental and it was there to honor his grandfather who was also a captain in his time. This is silly, but it is also possible. A 5 inch revolving gun is not possible. To be contrary and controversial - adding a 5 inch gun mount or wings from a DC3 to an 18th century warship was the sort of thing that "kit bashing" was originally meant to describe. I do not see how "to bash" can ever fit with the process of improving or augmenting parts that come with a kit. "semi-scratch" seems to be a more appropriated term - if you fabricate the additions yourself.

I did. and as I said, I have no answer. I just do not know. I think some speculation around the subject could be fun though. If there is no surviving data, then whatever you decide should stand. (as long as it does not involve something like an electric winch and a Honda generator 😉) I apologize if absurdist humor and exaggeration does not translate.

All of this looks to me like something that a team of ship's carpenters could alter on their own in an afternoon or two. I do not think that obsessing about there being a single "answer to it" would have a definitive solution. I see it as a moving target. Anything contemporary could be and probably is correct. Just avoid anachronism. It may be an artifact from the photography, but the holes for the pins look to have about twice the probable diameter.

Siggi, I have no idea. But if I was the noncom in charge of this operation, I would think seriously about having a dolly or truck at the inboard end of the davit and using my team to move the beam in/out/arc/aft as needed. I would also have rope handles at file intervals along the beam. A beam like that would be a bear to manhandle without some accessories. notches in the beam and hollow Mickey Mouse hat rope loops with rope handles instead of ears.

As I was doing yet another of my denken experimenten (slang from my German American major professor) about this I am seeing that something more involved than just loosing the end of a rope was involved in setting an anchor. I can see that the fluke could rip a chunk out the the channel or even the wale unless the anchor was swung out before letting gravity take control. A fish davit could have a two way function.

You may have better luck if the English word is spelled correctly not david but davit. I think that a rough definition using "fish" as a verb is: a fish davit would be a line with a hook on the distant end attached to the outer end of a pole to fish means hooking something in the water and pulling it up. a cathead crane can get a heavy anchor up and out of the water but it will hang like a bell to tie it down means rotating it ~ 90 degrees and securing it to the side of the ship so that it is not a wrecking ball. Given the weight of the anchor on a liner fishing and rotating the fluke end was probably a non-trivial chore. I wonder if the tool used to do it - the fish davit - could not be loose - a disposable item - not really a permanent part of the hull?

Ah, the place where an RN admiral was executed on his quarter deck for being too timid. A 22 gun is essentially a corvette (Sloop-of-War) not as bad as a frigate but it is still a formidable subject as a first wooden model - coming from plastic or coming in cold. I imagine it is a difficult read in translation, but you could read the "For Beginners-" post at the top of this forum If you do start with the 22 gun and it becomes too much - the beginners topic may show you a way to recover your ambition by taking a smaller bite and succeeding at it. Plastic is probably more of a negative stepping stone into wood and sail - assembly instructions (plastic) and fabrication plans (wood) are different things.

It all depends on just which products you are calling a stain. If it is a commercial product in the US and it is labeled as being a Stain - think surface product - a wood shade pigment in a binder that is thin enough to let some grain show thru. It may also include a dye component, but a commercial product = Stain - is intended to be used on a 1:1 scale object. This is not an especially favorable product to have in the way of a bonding surface. If it is a true solution. a pigment - in alcohol or water - or a dry powder that you get into solution - and a solution does not need mixing or shaking - it is a single unit that requires a physical action to separate - it goes into the wood - it becomes part of the wood - it does not affect a glue bond. We need to be on the same page as far as the definition of the terms. Chuck : a commercial STAIN - would probably have an unfavorable outcome if that is used before bonding. A dye has very little surface tension. it runs everywhere. if you have adjacent planks with different colors dying after bonding and avoiding bleed over would be difficult. OllieS : if the UK terms a dye as being a stain - you are correct - but noun stain and verb stain are causing confusion. Chuck : An oil finish - does leave layer on a primed surface. A primer can be a coat of half saturated shellac or half saturated oil. It fills the pores and voids in the wood. follow on coats stay on the surface. Unless the coat is too thick or the oil has deteriorated - it then polymerizes and is a layer - one big single unit. How thick the layer is depends - on the volume applied - which oil it is - I think the thickest is polyurethane - but then polyurethane is a true synthetic plastic - it might as well be polyethylene - polyvinyl - polypropylene - etc a better living thru chemistry sort of thing

You may wish you had done a test first. Take some scrap pieces of the same wood to the stain shop. Color the part that will be so treated on the model, dry. bond. After a time, test the bond strength as compared to a control of bare wood to bare wood. A strength over time test could be done but it is not worth the trouble - i.e. a chemical reaction rate doubles with every 10 degree C rise in temp. a low temp oven -

"Stain" can have more than one meaning as it is commonly used. it is often used to describe any product that colors wood. This comes from turning the verb "to stain", meaning anything that colors, into a noun. In general two different agents are used. An actual "stain" is a semi transparent paint. If you use this on wood before using PVA, there is a possibility of the pores and fiber irregularities being filled. A weak PVA bond is possible. If CA is used - it will bond to the paint layer. Its strength will be the strength of the paint to the wood. Some stain products advertise as being "penetrating". This probably means that there is a mixture of paint and dye in the product. A dye soaks into the wood. It is a clear solution of dye molecules in the solvent base, It does not affect the surface or the pores. There are two types of dye - water based and alcohol based. The water based dye soaks in more deeply. On a piece of furniture, this can make a difference in the quality of the look. At model scales, the surface is too small for a deeper color to be visible. Water base will cause wood to swell with the first application or two - sanding and or scraping is needed to fix this. Just water can be used first, sanded and then dyed - it may save a second dye application to hide what the sanding did to the color. Alcohol based dye saves all that. The wood does not swell and it dries more quickly. A stain product makes its living by turning cheap and poor quality wood into something that looks better - to partially hide boring grain - often on open pore wood species that need a thick pore filler. A dye is meant for high quality wood, where the grain wants being accentuated instead of being hidden.

In my head, I am seeing the wales as being Holly dyed black. All sides. So, I would have to plane the back to get the taper. Reducing the outside would be a routine process, but having to soak in more dye and keep it on just the wale. I am over seeing aqueous dyes as having any advantage at model scale, so by using alcohol as the solvent - there is no swelling of the grain. But the lower viscosity(?) of alcohol - more lateral spread - makes keeping just where it is wanted is more of a challenge. I do have a backup plan using steel wool dissolved in vinegar on tannic acid treated wood to get the black - from a traditional Tarheel furniture maker on PBS. It looks like knowing about the taper is another on of those art of the process things learned on the job.