wefalck

Keep in mind that this is only the hull, the whole ship will be something like 50% longer, taking into consideration the bowsprit etc. However, I think you put a tall order onto your plate, something that will keep you busy for the next ten years ...

There are data for the dimensions as well as a scale in metres for the small sail-plan. From this you can work out the scale for a hull of 4 ft. length. It seems that the hull was around 67 m long (= 220 ft., I didn't check where exactly this was measured), which means that at 4 ft. length we are talking of a scale of something like 1/55.

On a German forum the colleagues try to coerce him to approach e.g. ANCRE to write up the building-log as compendium to (French) rigging practices in the early 19th century and their implementation in models 😁 Of course, this is entirely up to him and I know a couple of other exemplary modellers, who say that they rather spent their time at the workbench than at the computer-desk (and I can't blame them for that).

The drawings posted here and on the linked Web-site come from the 'Atlas du Genie Maritime' that was collated from the middle of the 19th century on until about the 1880s, so contains information and plans from different periods. There is also special volume on rigging details that is a fantastic source (see archjofo's building log for LA CREOLE). The exact contents of this Atlas varies depending on the different copies preserved. It was meant as a sample book and teaching resource for naval engineering students. Unfortunately, there never seems to have been a textbook with explanations for the numerous plates. Not sure what scale you want to build in. At the beginning you wrote the model would be 4" long, which is probably wrong. Otherwise it would be a veritable miniature. If you envisage such miniature, have a look at the building log in 1/700 scale here: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=382477. The two body-plans are, indeed, puzzling. As the lower one seems to show one more frame station I would venture the guess that it may refer to a possible lengthening of the ship, when in 1851 she was converted into an auxiliary steamer. However, Wikipedia on her is quite spartanic and I did not have time to dive deeper into her history. Lengething old warships to make space for machinery was a common procedure at the time. Concerning the language challenges: if one dives into a project from another country, one should be prepared to learn at least the basic terminology in that other language. Today it is easy to find on-line all sorts of specialised and period dictionaries due to the libraries digitising their holdings. Take modern bilingual on-line dictionaries with a pinch of salt - they do not always get it right ... Here are some useful dictionaries that also can be found on-line: PAASCH, H. (1885/1901): From Keel to Truck.- 206 + CIV p., New York/Antwerp. ... that's a classic for English, French, Dutch, and German, later also in addition for Spanisch and Italian. BONNEFOUX, P.-M.-J. DE (1834 and later editions): Dictionnaire abrége de marine. Contenant la traduction des termes les plus usuels, en anglais et en espagnol.- 338 p., Paris/Havre (J.A. Dezauche/C.-B. Matenas). BONNEFOUX, P.-M.-J. DE (1848?): Dictionnaire de Marine à Voiles et à Vapeur. Marine à Vapeur.- 771 p., X pl., Paris (Arthus Bertrand, Éditeur).

Yep, phenolic resins are so much better, because harder, for many applications ... If you consider building a serving machine, you may also consider building yourself a rope-walk. Basically, you need the same kind of parts and materials, as for the serving machine. Ropes made from fly-tying threads or certain high-quality threads (e.g. Alterfil L 400, a German brand used now by various museums in Europe) will have a 'lay' and no fuzz.

Perhaps it has become merged in my memory over the decades, but I seem to remember also to have seen one of those helmet divers at work then, perhaps to inspect that the piles were set correctly. A small barge with a handpump and crew, a diver on the ladder into the water, etc. could be a nice complement, but would be a real challenge in 1/120 scale 😁

To be honest, I don't remember, as it is many decades ago since I last saw one like this in action in a harbour. I was a small boy or teenaber at best then. Modern sheet-pile drivers in civil construction seem to work at higher frequencies and sound very metallic.

I only ever experienced this standing at the quay ...

Strange, unless you expressely forbid this, you should get an automatic email notification that someone responded to a thread on which you posted before.

Yes, the 'weathering' makes all the difference! Once thing made me wonder though: normally, shingles are off-set by half the width of a shingle in each row, so that the row above covers the seam between two shingles in the row below. I gather your shingles came in laser-cut strips, with half-heigh notches between two shingles? So, when you lay out the rows, the row above should touch with its lower edge just the notches of the lower row and being off-set by half a shingle width. Perhaps you should try this arrangement, if you have any shingles left. Re. 'weathering': a bit of soot (black pastel) around the chimney would be good and slightly greenish tint (some mid-green pastel, if you have it) here and there to simulate algae/moss would not be amiss.

I can almost hear the poff-poff from the ram ... Yes, pastels pull everything together and make models looking less clean and toy-like. I use a variety of old soft brushes and cotton-sticks to apply them and rubbing them in. Grime (unless oily) and rust are usually dead matt and that comes across very well with the pastels. Another thing one can do is to set highlights with a soft black pencil, say on the edges of the water reservoir, on pipes etc.

Lacquer is (at least in my understanding) a generic term, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacquer. Different materials and appropriate solvents can be used to prepare lacquers for application, such nitrocellulose in different types organic solvents or shellac in alcohol. Thus, shellac can be used to make sanding filler when 'filled' with some suitable powder or as lacquer, when applied neat. Depending what type of resinous substance (see above Wikipedia article) is used, the lacquer can be more brittle (e.g. shellac) or more elastic (e.g. acrylics, mastic). More brittle lacquer is more amenable to sanding obviously. Conversely, it can make rigging break, when used to soak thread in it (note: a drop of shellac on a knot or splicing doesn't do much harm).

Would you mind showing the whole painting? This may give more clues ...

Not sure why someone would say that shellac is not suitable for ship models. It has been used for centuries on all sorts of fine woodwork, including ship models. In carpentry, shellac was used to build up what is called 'French polish': the wood was rubbed down with a pumice stone, dedusted and then thin shellac applied with a brush. It was then rubbed down with the pumice stone again, dedusted and somewhat thicker shellac applied. This procedure was repeated several times, but the shellac was applied with a tampon, a lint-free rag-bag filled with wool, stroke by stroke and very quickly. It results in a very glossy, glass-like finish, when done properly. The effect of the pumice is double, it has a sanding effect and the abraded pumice fills the pores of the wood, which then is solidified with the shellac. To make things simpler and quicker, today sanding-sealer are sold, which are basically a suspension of pumice or other fine-grained filler in a lacquer, which could be shellac or the cheaper nitrocellulose lacquer. To your last question: after staining you probably need to rub down the wood lightly, but don't use steel-wool at this point, as the swarf would get locked into the wood pores. Light sanding. Then comes the same procedure as if you were preparing for painting, but of course the last application of varnish (e.g. shellac) is not rubbed down anymore. As shellac dries very fast, it cannot really applied with a brush as last coat, which is why a tampon is used.

Sorry, but what 'sitter' are you talking about? Is the ship part of a larger picture that you didn't show?

I think the sail already looks rather good! My first thought was that two layers of filter paper would make it too thick for furling and give it too much volume. Perhaps you could indeed use only one layer. I don't know what kind of filters you have down Mexico-way, but ours here tend to be quite thick. The wet ripping resistance that has been built into filter papers is definitely an advantage. In case you feel like experimenting further, you could watch out for some screen-printing silk, which is essentially the same as silk-span. There may be a print-shop in your area that may be willing to give/sell you some rests. Anyway, at your scale you seem to be on the right track with the filter-paper.

Polyurethane is a totally different animal ...

My nitrocellulose-based sanding-sealer dries in a couple of hours or so, but it also depends on how much of it soaked into the wood. It dries faster on hardwood, than on softwood. Normally, the sanding-sealer is the primer. A primer is used, when painting on certain metals or plastics, where some paints do not adhere to very well. Acrylics adhere well to sanding-sealers. So in your case no primer needed. The only preparation you can do on wood to be stained is to wet and sand it a couple of times before applying the stain. The stain may raise the grain again though. Staining softwood, such as basswood, is difficult, because the grain may keep rising. This then can lead to a mottled appearance after sanding it again. Hardwoods are easier to stain. BTW, I usually do not sand after the second application of sanding-sealer, but rub the surface down with fine (0000) steel-wool. This results in a satin and very smooth surface and reduces the risk of sanding through to the bare wood. Make sure to remove all swarf from the steel-wool or it may rust under your acrylic paint. I use an old clothes brush or a magnet for this.

Ad 4: Sanding acrylic paint is difficult and can only be done really successfully after several weeks of drying. When you apply the acrylic paint, the acrylic molecule begin to form an interlinked network that actually traps some water, this is the reason, why acrylics stay a bit rubbery for a long time, which makes sanding so difficult. When sanding painted surfaces, it is easy to sand right through the paint. Don't use paint as a filler, but rather prepare the surface carefully. And yes, the purpose of the wood-filler is to prevent other things from penetrating. Hence, wood has to be stained first. However, it is not so easy to sand stained three-dimensional surfaces without sanding through the stained part of the wood. As to wetting or not, it really depends on the wood. Some woods barely react to water, while others really swell. It also depends on the direction of how the wood is cut. The use of gesso (Italian for plaster of Paris) is a traditional method of preparing wood sculptures, picture frames and the likes for painting or gilding. It was used, however, mainly in order to add additional features, such als mouldings to picture frames or to save time in preparing complex wood surfaces, such as those on sculptures. Real gesso is quite brittle and breaks off easily. Today, acrylics-based 'gesso' is sold by arts and craft suppliers, which is more robust, being essentially 'filled' acryl gel. For a 'technical' project, such as a boat, where the shape is well defined, I would not use gesso.

Druxey is absolutely right! Another aspect to consider is, whether you want to replicate a period model or a period ship. On models, due to their representational value and often intended as expensive gifts, more expensive materials and pigments were used, which give us today a false impression of the ships of the time. So, when replicating a real ship, the duller earth pigments should be used. Ochre is an interesting pigment, as it can vary in hue from almost blue to quite bright yellow, depending on the chemical composition (which depends on the source) and impurities. For this reason, it is very difficult to determine with any certainty the actual colour for a given ship or period. Also, the ochre often was mixed with the even cheaper chalk, which brightens it and makes it lighter in colour. The lineseed oil as binder in turn makes the paint darker thant the original pigment. I gather any 'average' yellow ochre will be close to reality and no one can prove you wrong with a good justification ...

Water-based paints, such as acrylics, will raise the fibres of particularly soft woods like basswood. For this reason the wood must be 'sealed' before applying them. Wood-sealer is a functional term and various concoctions may go by it. Tradtionally, wood-sealers or sanding-sealers were either nitrocellulose-lacquer or shellac 'filled' with pumice. The pumice settled in the pores and the hard lacquer made for easy sanding. Today, also acrylic-based wood-sealers are sold in order to phase out organic solvent-based materials, but they don't penetrate as well. So look for some solvent-based sealer. The typical procedure is to sand the wood, wet it to raise the fibres and sand again, when dry. Then apply the sealer and when hard sand again. If needed, repeat the last step. Then you are ready for painting. There is absolutely no problem applying acrylic paint over nitrocellulose or shellac sealers, they don't react with each other. Depending on what surface (sheen) you want, there is no need to put any additional varnish or crystalline wax-solution ('Minwax') over the paint. In fact, I would not mix two paint systems. If you want to make the acrylic paint dull matt, use a matt acrylic varnish. Likewise for high gloss.

👍🏻👍🏻

Before you modify the guns: what ship and period are they supposed to belong to? Their shape is quite strange and look almost like early Paixhans-type guns. Some guns of the 1830s or so seems to have rings for the brook, rather and the ealier cascabels. It may be worthwhile to confirm the exact shape of the gun needed first. The carronade seems to be generally ok.

I gather two sources of information will be needed, something on generic rigging practices and the other on how this particular type of boat was rigged. I don't know from which period this boat actually is. This would determine the generic rigging practices, which quite significantly changed over the last quarter of the 19th century to the first quarter of the 20th century, which I believe brackets the period of this boat. In particular (galvanised) iron- and then steel wire-rope began to replace the tradtional hemp. With it the practice of what ropes would (need to) be served changed. At 1:24 scale you have to change to almost completely replicate full-scale practice. Having said that, unfortunately, I cannot point you to more specific sources.

There are a couple of old-time wisdom for wanting-to-be machinists: - Think about the maximum size (length/diameter) of piece you want to make and then buy a lathe with twice the capacity - you will most certainly underestimate the space you need for mounting etc. - Tooling and accessories you will need/want will double the price of the basic lathe. The good news is that you don't need everything immediately. You can buy tooling and accessories, when the need arises. You can turn wood and plastics on a metal lathe, but turning metal on a wood lathe is difficult to impossible (depending on what you try to do, of course). I would go for a metal lathe. Look for a lathe that can be equipped with collets and not only three- or four-jaw-chucks - much safer to operate, when working on small parts.