wefalck

The hardened paper and plastic surface was then sanded down and filled with humbrol filler. After sanding this down again, it was coated with an enamel spray paint to seal it and protect that layer. Then I did this again a second time making the whole model look and feel like it was made out of smooth plastic. I encased the keel with polystyrene  plastic as well. I have various thickness sheets of it, but for this scale it was mostly 0.3 and 0.5 mm thick.

Afterwards I "planked" the hull with thick paper, which was in turn soaked in cyanoacrylate to harden solid. Added the keel, and after this point, I switched to polystyrene plastic sheets to build the rest of the model, following the frame lines to finish the gunports to the level of the main rail. This is similar method I used on Mahmudiye, but this time with much harder material, plastic and balsa instead of paper and foamcore. 

I use very thin (1mm-2mm) balsa pieces so I can cut them with the exacto knife, the scale is very small. I reinforced the balsa for the keel and hull frames by glueing thick paper on both sides before cuting the shapes, and then soaking the outside edges with cyanoacrylate glue. The filled the frames with balsa stripes and then sanded it down. Even at a stage as late as this, I had to make corrections to the hull lines, and go back to the pc to update my last drawings. That below is the full extent of my use of balsa on the model.

Ares is possibly the most famous ship of the Greek revolution, but unlike the rest on the list, there are no plans of her. She actually survived till 1920s and many photos and paintings of her exist. Yet, with the exception of the dimensions and the number of guns, no more information survives. The models that apear in the various museums seem to be rather different from each other and are rather crude. There is also a wooden kit of her from "Navarino Models". After inspecting it, I was not satisfied, her lines bear little resemblance to the visual evidence, at least as far as I see it. A few years ago I found out about a project from National Technical Univercity of Athens, funded by Laskaridis foundation, to make a model of Ares and test it on a water tank. I saw the presentation, and in my disappointment, their design is also a conjecture. In fact, it was wildly off, both in shape and propotions, more so than the Navarino kit, which at least had an early 19th century brig design in mind. All I had were photos and paintings, books like "The history of the American Sailing navy" etc and some french brig designs (Ares was build in Venice, so not very helpful). With little experience in drawing plans, I drew lines on the pictures and paintings in layers, printed them, hand drew them again, assempled test hulls in paper, cut and sanded them, went back to the computer to drew the modifications etc. Rather brute force approach, with only the dimensions and number of guns as a known element, while for the rest it was matching the lines with the photos by eye. Even that was a problem, as 1890s Ares was significantly altered from her 1820s appearance, and the Roux painting of her was of limited use. I knew that she was a rather rounded brig, high sided, as she was a cargo vessel. Long story short, I ended up with a design that satisfied me, which was enough. It came out much different than other models of her, so in that sense, I feel it was worth the effort. This design will be properly published after I finish with the model, but hopefully in a more organized way. 

Good evening all! I have not posted for quite a while, not because of a lack of projects and modeling, but due to other issues, like moving house etc. That said, the new place has enabled me to set up a proper permament workshop. Although several plastic kits and some scratchbuilts are still unfinished, I decided to embark on a more holistic and focused project, after my experiences with the scratchbuilt Mahmudiye, that I finished back in 2022. The idea is to make a series of scratchbuilt models of Greek revolutionary ships and beyond (all dated between 1821-1899). These projects will all be at the same scale, that of 12 feet to the inch (1/144), a traditional scale, which felt comfortable to me, starting with:  
The brig Ares (1819)
The frigate Hellas (1826)
The steam sloop Karteria (1826)
The ship of the line Emmanuil (1824)
The corvette Loudovikos (1838)
Almost all these are at least at an initial stage of construction, Hellas being quite advanced, but I decided to finish the smaller Ares first. I'll post threads about all of them eventually, and have changed the links on the signature. 
 

thank you for comments and likes
 
day 3
all the lower gun ports now have backing plates
port side first planked
another quirk on this kit the transom and bow are made up on completion of first planking

That's kind of strange, that the the bulkheads are behind the gun-ports. Normally, such laser-cut kits are well-engineered ... I gather you will have to show the lids closed in this case, at least the ones in front of bulkheads.

Some years ago, I considered making a model of her based on the Heller plastic kit, which is based on the plans published by the Association des Amis du Musèe de la Marine (as presumably the OCCRE-kit is). The project was abandoned due to the extensive changes that would have needed to be made to the plastic kit. However, in this context I took a number of photographs of the model in the museum in Paris (which, together with other sources preserved in the museum's archives, formed the basis of the plans of the AAMM). The model is in the 1839 livery, when she was painted black on the occasion of bringing back the remains of Napoleon I from St. Helena.
You can have a look at the pictures here: https://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/models/bellepoule/bellepoule.html. The model is not on display currently, after the refurbishment of the museum
 
BTW, Odin is a Germanic god, not a Greek one 🫣

The problem will be exacerbated when you work from scanned original drawings. Every line that is not absolutely aligned to the axis of the scanner will become a fuzzy, jagged something.
 
There are a few strategies to overcome the problems discussed above:
 
- never ever use chain measurement. By way of example, it you have a row of identical boxes fitted to each other, don't measure each individual box, but measure the overall length and divide it by the number of boxes to give you their dimensions. 
 
- Similarly, when drawing plans for a ship, do not start from the details, but from the overall dimensions and fit the parts in. The percentage lengths mentioned by Dr PR above go this way.
 
- Think about the practicalities of building: what materials and what tools do I have available or can obtain; dimension parts accordingly, if the deviation would not really by visible.
 
- Think also which part would the easiest to make fit to other parts; say you have to make a flange for a pipe, in which case you may fit the inner diameter of the flange to the available wire/round stock; the inverse, could be also the case for bigger parts, where it may be easier to turn the pipe to the diameter of a flange for which you had a drill for the whole; etc.
 
- Unless I would make a drawing for publication, I tend to make no real drawings for parts, but rather (computer) sketches to which I add the measured/calculated dimensions; I then work from the numbers, rather than taking off another set of measurements from a drawing.
 
- Work from parts with well-known dimensions; say, you need to construct a shell-locker, then start with the dimensions of the shell, which typically are very well documented in the literature of the time, etc.
 

Well, in old days I had small pocket calculator on the bench. Now, that the iPhone is always near me, I use its calculator - that's the simplest and fastest option. For converting imperial into metric measures or vice versa, you just need to remember that 1" = 25,4 mm. Converting metric measures into fractions of an inch is not straightforward on normal calculators, while the opposite is easy.

I have been away travelling almost every second week for the past couple of months or so and barely could follow what was going on here. It seems that you are making steady progress in spite of the family health issues  👍🏻
 
For years I have been using magnifying (only x3) safety glasses, but together with my myopy it should give a total magnification of around x7. If I need more I use an optivisor, but found it not so comfortable for longer work, also because one has to come close to the object.

It also depends on for what kind of work you intend to use it: if you are working with machine-tools, hand-held drill/grinder or lathe etc., it would be advisable to use safety-glasses that enclose your eyes and protect them from flying swarf etc. Reading glasses are good, but do not enclose the eyes sufficiently. To my knowledge, however, the safety-glasses are only available with a x3 magnification.
 
I have got a cheap version of the loupes dentist use these days, but they are designed to be standing over the patient and cannot focus close enough - we like to be with our nose closer to work, when sitting at the workbench. So, I don't really use them.
 
For lathe- or milling machine-work I also have a binocular microscope that can be screwed to the bench. The depth of field is very short, so that it is not really useful for bench-work, but it is really excellent for observing close-up what a minute drill or milling cutter does.

The problem will be exacerbated when you work from scanned original drawings. Every line that is not absolutely aligned to the axis of the scanner will become a fuzzy, jagged something.
 
There are a few strategies to overcome the problems discussed above:
 
- never ever use chain measurement. By way of example, it you have a row of identical boxes fitted to each other, don't measure each individual box, but measure the overall length and divide it by the number of boxes to give you their dimensions. 
 
- Similarly, when drawing plans for a ship, do not start from the details, but from the overall dimensions and fit the parts in. The percentage lengths mentioned by Dr PR above go this way.
 
- Think about the practicalities of building: what materials and what tools do I have available or can obtain; dimension parts accordingly, if the deviation would not really by visible.
 
- Think also which part would the easiest to make fit to other parts; say you have to make a flange for a pipe, in which case you may fit the inner diameter of the flange to the available wire/round stock; the inverse, could be also the case for bigger parts, where it may be easier to turn the pipe to the diameter of a flange for which you had a drill for the whole; etc.
 
- Unless I would make a drawing for publication, I tend to make no real drawings for parts, but rather (computer) sketches to which I add the measured/calculated dimensions; I then work from the numbers, rather than taking off another set of measurements from a drawing.
 
- Work from parts with well-known dimensions; say, you need to construct a shell-locker, then start with the dimensions of the shell, which typically are very well documented in the literature of the time, etc.
 

The problem will be exacerbated when you work from scanned original drawings. Every line that is not absolutely aligned to the axis of the scanner will become a fuzzy, jagged something.
 
There are a few strategies to overcome the problems discussed above:
 
- never ever use chain measurement. By way of example, it you have a row of identical boxes fitted to each other, don't measure each individual box, but measure the overall length and divide it by the number of boxes to give you their dimensions. 
 
- Similarly, when drawing plans for a ship, do not start from the details, but from the overall dimensions and fit the parts in. The percentage lengths mentioned by Dr PR above go this way.
 
- Think about the practicalities of building: what materials and what tools do I have available or can obtain; dimension parts accordingly, if the deviation would not really by visible.
 
- Think also which part would the easiest to make fit to other parts; say you have to make a flange for a pipe, in which case you may fit the inner diameter of the flange to the available wire/round stock; the inverse, could be also the case for bigger parts, where it may be easier to turn the pipe to the diameter of a flange for which you had a drill for the whole; etc.
 
- Unless I would make a drawing for publication, I tend to make no real drawings for parts, but rather (computer) sketches to which I add the measured/calculated dimensions; I then work from the numbers, rather than taking off another set of measurements from a drawing.
 
- Work from parts with well-known dimensions; say, you need to construct a shell-locker, then start with the dimensions of the shell, which typically are very well documented in the literature of the time, etc.
 

"I think good lighting helps more than magnifyers." ... Unfortunately, there comes a time, when this doesn't help anymore 🥲

It also depends on for what kind of work you intend to use it: if you are working with machine-tools, hand-held drill/grinder or lathe etc., it would be advisable to use safety-glasses that enclose your eyes and protect them from flying swarf etc. Reading glasses are good, but do not enclose the eyes sufficiently. To my knowledge, however, the safety-glasses are only available with a x3 magnification.
 
I have got a cheap version of the loupes dentist use these days, but they are designed to be standing over the patient and cannot focus close enough - we like to be with our nose closer to work, when sitting at the workbench. So, I don't really use them.
 
For lathe- or milling machine-work I also have a binocular microscope that can be screwed to the bench. The depth of field is very short, so that it is not really useful for bench-work, but it is really excellent for observing close-up what a minute drill or milling cutter does.

The problem will be exacerbated when you work from scanned original drawings. Every line that is not absolutely aligned to the axis of the scanner will become a fuzzy, jagged something.
 
There are a few strategies to overcome the problems discussed above:
 
- never ever use chain measurement. By way of example, it you have a row of identical boxes fitted to each other, don't measure each individual box, but measure the overall length and divide it by the number of boxes to give you their dimensions. 
 
- Similarly, when drawing plans for a ship, do not start from the details, but from the overall dimensions and fit the parts in. The percentage lengths mentioned by Dr PR above go this way.
 
- Think about the practicalities of building: what materials and what tools do I have available or can obtain; dimension parts accordingly, if the deviation would not really by visible.
 
- Think also which part would the easiest to make fit to other parts; say you have to make a flange for a pipe, in which case you may fit the inner diameter of the flange to the available wire/round stock; the inverse, could be also the case for bigger parts, where it may be easier to turn the pipe to the diameter of a flange for which you had a drill for the whole; etc.
 
- Unless I would make a drawing for publication, I tend to make no real drawings for parts, but rather (computer) sketches to which I add the measured/calculated dimensions; I then work from the numbers, rather than taking off another set of measurements from a drawing.
 
- Work from parts with well-known dimensions; say, you need to construct a shell-locker, then start with the dimensions of the shell, which typically are very well documented in the literature of the time, etc.
 

"I think good lighting helps more than magnifyers." ... Unfortunately, there comes a time, when this doesn't help anymore 🥲

The problem will be exacerbated when you work from scanned original drawings. Every line that is not absolutely aligned to the axis of the scanner will become a fuzzy, jagged something.
 
There are a few strategies to overcome the problems discussed above:
 
- never ever use chain measurement. By way of example, it you have a row of identical boxes fitted to each other, don't measure each individual box, but measure the overall length and divide it by the number of boxes to give you their dimensions. 
 
- Similarly, when drawing plans for a ship, do not start from the details, but from the overall dimensions and fit the parts in. The percentage lengths mentioned by Dr PR above go this way.
 
- Think about the practicalities of building: what materials and what tools do I have available or can obtain; dimension parts accordingly, if the deviation would not really by visible.
 
- Think also which part would the easiest to make fit to other parts; say you have to make a flange for a pipe, in which case you may fit the inner diameter of the flange to the available wire/round stock; the inverse, could be also the case for bigger parts, where it may be easier to turn the pipe to the diameter of a flange for which you had a drill for the whole; etc.
 
- Unless I would make a drawing for publication, I tend to make no real drawings for parts, but rather (computer) sketches to which I add the measured/calculated dimensions; I then work from the numbers, rather than taking off another set of measurements from a drawing.
 
- Work from parts with well-known dimensions; say, you need to construct a shell-locker, then start with the dimensions of the shell, which typically are very well documented in the literature of the time, etc.
 

Thanks for your words Uwe,
all the coming items are being built from pictures as good as I can
I found a solution for finding the "lost" anchor cable in the closed hull, and to secure it. I`m currently trying my luck with the wheel- and nav house from 0,8 mm ply, I´ll try to do the square windowframes like already done once for the "Ergenstrasse", which has the same scale. Its a bit more tricky and fragile here in order to bring 8 windows over the limited wheelhouse breadth
 
Nils

a hole was drilled into the forecastle bulkhead, the "lost" achorcable of the hall anchor fished through this hole and secured with a wooden stopper. This lays between bulkhead and its cover item.
Paint touchups pending later on

the arrangement for the waistdeck fastenings of the mooring cable
 


made a little framework for the wheelhouse sides. A wooden spacebar provides for the right height afterwards

there are panama fairleads to prevent dammage to the railing

the framework is fastend to the boats deck with screws so that it follows the decks sheer

a card template for making the front window front, the other sidewalls will be done likewise

the windowframes will be made from brass square tube, the glassing done later with square extruded semitransparent silicone bar
 

That's kind of strange, that the the bulkheads are behind the gun-ports. Normally, such laser-cut kits are well-engineered ... I gather you will have to show the lids closed in this case, at least the ones in front of bulkheads.

Gentlemen, (and maybe some ladies in the forum), may I present :
The condensate return system.

And the Boiler feed water system.

Canute, thanks for the recommendation. I would definitely try it. Its a shame that you loose all sense of depth with the flat or gloss black.
And to my followers I say, many, many thanks for your support and advice.
 
TO BE CONTINUED 
 

"I think good lighting helps more than magnifyers." ... Unfortunately, there comes a time, when this doesn't help anymore 🥲

I suppose that's how 'builder's models' in the old days often were treated.

That's kind of strange, that the the bulkheads are behind the gun-ports. Normally, such laser-cut kits are well-engineered ... I gather you will have to show the lids closed in this case, at least the ones in front of bulkheads.