druxey

A very nice trio indeed! Well done, Eric.

If you are trying to put a burr on a scraper, hold the scraper in a vise. Run the burnisher along at a slight angle, pressing hard, to turn the burr edge. Takes a few tries to master this, but you will get it! 
 
I've only just found this thread and you are doing a great job, Jacques. It's too bad that the plan set lacks some important detail, but you seem to be overcoming the problems well.

Tedious work, yes; but safer to fair as Pirate Adam suggests.

Tedious work, yes; but safer to fair as Pirate Adam suggests.

My main advice especially on this portion of the ship is to make sure to leave plenty of wood for fairing once the frames are in place. It isn’t all that much fun to remove later, but it is tons easier and will look nicer than if you need to add shims later. It is SO easy to accidentally take too much off when you cut the bevels off the model. 
 
Adam 

Looks great from here!

Philip Reed in card. 
So far, It’s looking pretty convincing.
 
Jan

What follows here is just an experiment.
 
Although the process of rigging a ship model becomes more and more a problem for me as a result of my fading eye-sight and shaky hands, my urge to keep on building models has not in the least disappeared. So I went looking for 17th century ship types where no or almost no rigging was involved. After several try-outs with one-masted vessels with comparatively simple riggings my eye fell on the glorious models with which the English shipbuilders tried to seduce the king to commission them to build the full-size ship, the so-called Admiralty or Navy Board dockyard models. These models were usually not rigged at all, but they were lavishly decorated and showed much of their interior and construction. As a result they belong to the most beautiful and intriguing models man has ever made.
 
In my bookcase Gilbert McArdle's book: Building a Navy Board Model of HMS Sussex 1693, (published by SeawatchBooks in 2010) holds a prominent place. 

The book was written during and after McArdle built a flawless copy of the third rate Sussex model in the collection of the US Naval Academy Museum in Anapolis, Maryland. The book contains, apart from the heavily illustrated building report, also a pile of excellent drawings of the original model, containing not only the body plan, elevation plan, top views with decks, sections and various bulkheads, but also every one of the 70 frames in the model has been drawn, both in 1/48 and in 1/96 scale.
 
Building a paper model of a Navy Board model that still shows some of the beauty of its original example surely is a first grade challenge. Not only the method of building, but also the choice of card is crucial. As a coincidence a colleague at the Rijksmuseum, who knew I am always on the look-out for suitable sorts of card for my shipbuilding activities, collected a pile of beautiful left-over cardboard sheets, used for making pass-partouts for drawings, prints, photographs and whatever belongs to the RM Prentencabinet's collection. I think it is called ivory card. It is made out of textile fibers, has a soft-white color and comes in various thicknesses. My collegue was kind enough to provide me with a lot of 0.5, 1.1, 1.8 and 2.4 mm thick material.
 
As we all know card has, like every material, apart from a large number of advantages, also some limitations, one of which is that it usually can not be sanded. It will become fluffy and all the sharp edges will disappear. But sanding is precisely what you need when building a dockyard model if you want to show all the open frames in a convincing way. So I made a test piece, consisting of 24 layers (12 midschip frames) of 1.8 mm card and exactly as expected, sanding appeared to be a necessity, even if the cutting was done as precise as possible. I sanded and filed the blok and it appeared that sanding the sides of the card was no problem as long as all layers were as closely pressed to each other as possible, thus avoiding the chance to mess up. 
 

 
Scanning my card stock I calculated that if I chose the 1.8 mm thickness ivory card for the frames, I would end up with a 30 cm long model, which was about the maximum size I wanted. The scale would then be about 1/200, for me a most unusual number, because all my paper models so far were on a 1/77 scale. As every frame consisted of two layers of card, no less than 140 frames had to be cut to shape the hull.
 
Now it was time to design a strategy. The block I made as a test clearly showed that at this scale making a hull out of complete card frames, like in full model size, was not possible because the tops of the frames would end up too narrow to supply any strength and rigidity to survive the rest of the build, leave alone the expectation of a reasonable life span. So I divided the hull into two horizontal parts, separated by the lower deck, which was, like the frames, cut from 1.8 mm card. Below the deck I vertically divided the hull into two parts, a left and a right one. In separate temporary mountings quarters of frames were to be fitted until both halves were filled with frames, only partly glued together. Indeed it appeared to be possible to sand and file these blocks into shape, almost as if they were made out of wood. 
 

 
The part above the lower deck was easy to cut. Both the ship's sides were made out of 0,5 mm card, copied from the side view on McArdles draught. I cut the port holes, shaped the sides by hand into an S-shaped curve as much as possible, provided them with wales, channels and stairs, laid the basic provisions for the decorations, planked them with latex strips and painted them. 
 

 
Though the lower deck was draughted in the book, the upper deck could not precisely be copied from the drawings. I'm afraid I made it too wide, which had a clear effect on the width of the ship between the bulwarks. The model is too wide on top.
It belongs to this style of modeling to show open decks like can be seen in the original model, but the lower deck of my model will be closed, because I need the strength of the 2.4 thick lower deck for the overall rigidity of the model. Besides, practically nothing of it will be visible in the end result.
The deck clamps on the inside of the ship's sides were glued in to fit both the decks on the correct height. The masts could provide sufficient orientation and enough stability to get everything temporarily in place. 

 
Then keel, stem and stern were cut from 1.8 mm card and the whole upper works could carefully be glued together.
 

 
In the mean time the frames-block below deck were completed, and sanded into shape. After precisely marking the locations of the interruptions between the frame parts, all frames were separated to cut the inside to shape, taking care that the horizontal top sides were maintained to be glued to the underside of the lower deck in order to get everything back in place. 
 
Even the sanded block had to be sanded again after all frames were glued in place, but no real problems showed up. It went better than I expected. The next problem to be solved was the lining of the openings between the frames. However precise I tried to be, small deviations from the markings showed up and had to be filed to keep the lines fair. Therefore I modified an old lock file in a way that the thickness was diminished to 1.5 mm and the narrow sides still held their filing profile. A drop of AC glue brought the necessary sharpness back to the joints.
 

 
A real problem is painting the model. I like to build models of ships that are, lets say, halfway or at the end of their career, so wear and tear show up. Therefore I use plastic strips with wood imprint (c-d-fix) for planking and treat it with Humbrol 63 and Van Dijks brown, which produces a nice 'used' look. But a dockyard model does not represent an old ship. On the contrary, the model should look like an ornament, a thing of beauty, adorned with as much golden carvings as possible. I had to invent another way of painting.
 
On top of that I was stupid enough to forget to spray the plastic planking with primer before I hastily painted it, which caused the paint to wear off as soon as it is touched. I had to remove the paint as much as possible and invent another color to meet the demands.
 
Special attention had to be given to the stand of the model. Normally I make a very simple card stand, because it serves no other function than to keep the model up right. In this case the model was presented to the king as a thing of beauty and the stand had to meet the same purpose. So I kneaded some dolphins supporting the lower hull with their tails on both sides and gilded them. Inside was a brass tube and a fitting piece of brass wire made the connection. The first couple I made appeared to be too big, so I made a second pair, with a slightly better result. 
 

 
We'll see where this ends. I'll keep you posted.

Time to make them pretty - starting with chamfers  
Here is my setup and an opportunity to play with the miniature Veritas worksurface. Being able to position the vacuum hose is the main feature  The gentle air draft away from my face is catching all the fine dust.

I started with a bit too many tools, but after a couple of pillars simplified it to a round dowel with 320 and 400 Mirka sandpaper, and a blade for a final scraping pass to flatten the edge. The dowel diameter also helps to ensure symmetrical shape of the chamfer end transition.

Sanding dust highlights the shape of the edge, allowing to eyeball the chamfer shape. The result is quite straight even with magnification, so hopefully almost perfect to the naked eye.
 
When it came time to install the pillars The Inspector have spotted a whoopsie - one pillar intersects the aft platform beam 🫣
That is to be expected when the Master Shipwright was working on his design in the late hours, and in my view even adds realism to the build - surely the quality standards of the average Revolutionary Era shipyard were far from perfect, especially in the "out of sight - out of mind" areas deep in the hold. 
"Good enough", said the shipwright and notched the pillar into the beam   

But if you take a peek through the gunport - you can still see his mistake clearly:

I like how the hull is slowly filling with a spiderweb of timbers and framing! It is the next phase of "it looks like a ship" feeling I had when building frames, and now "hmm, it looks like an elaborate house for hamsters!"

Pillars were finished on the lathe. Or maybe "in the lathe"? 🤓
Anyway, they were technically in the lathe while being finished, great way to hold them and avoid smearing oil all over (it is important to avoid contaminating the bottom tenon, it would be a tiny and critical glue interface)

A surprisingly difficult problem is "how do I keep track of pillar numbers and orientations when the finish is applied?" There is no place for a pencil mark, and it is too easy to smear pencil from a tiny endgrain tenon.
Tamiya masking tape is strong enough to hold it by the tenon edge, even though the contact surface is tiny. 
Here is the first batch hanging in the dark and drying  

As a backup I measured each beam with a micrometer and can later identify them by length, they are all unique assuming a precise enough measurement tool.
 
The installation plan is questionable - to glue them into the keelson, but leave the top mortise dry and just pop the deck on and off. The top tenons are chamfered to locate the beam mortise easier.
I hope that if installing one-two pillars at a time I will be able to achieve a glue joint than would hold the pillar angle precisely enough. Though the geometry and the glue joint dimensions are definitely not working in my favour...
Stay tuned for the next chapter to find out if that plan would fail (or, rather - "how would fail, exactly?" )

To Mr. Delacroix - thank you for the explanation.
To Willi - I'm sorry, you were right.
Since after covering it with the deck, it will be virtually impossible to see whether the door is complete or whether a threshold is present, I decided to leave it as it is .            

Hello, I didn't draw this door because, indeed, if it leads to the deck, it can't open.
There's a sort of small partition missing, a threshold that starts on the deck and goes up to the start of the partition. It was forgotten.
Apologies for this small anomaly, which has the advantage of highlighting this oversight. But it's really a small detail that can be easily rectified and doesn't detract from the quality of Marsalv's construction.
 
GD

Extra picture. 
 
Rob

Rob,
I never checked to see if you received your copy of the original 1851 Cornelius McKay Staghound drawing which accompanied his famous model. If you did, then look closely at the small sail plan depiction in the lower right corner. You'll see that her bowsprit, jibboom, flying jibboom is immensely long. Much longer than any other McKay clipper. I've attached an excerpt of his handwritten specs which confirm accuracy of the sail plan with her incredibly long one-piece jib-flying jibboom. Her bowsprit was 24' to the cap, outboard of the cap, jibboom was 18', plus 15' with 5' end and an additional flying jibboom was even 18' beyond that with 4' end. This was a single very long spar. Totaling all specs give us 60' outboard of the cap added to 24' bowsprit with 18" cap puts this out 85'6"! FYI: this is also the source of the fact that her bowsprit steeve was 4.2" not 4.5" and her mainmast was 166' high from deck to truck, incidentally 8' higher than that of the Flying Cloud.

Stunning work Marc! A masterful job.

Thank you, Gentlemen.  I’m going to go ahead and modify the capstan.  Over the course of this build, you guys have made a number of really good suggestions.  I don’t always follow-through on them, but here is an instance where I can bring a detail more in-line with historic reality, without having to scrap the truly labor-intensive aspect of the part.  I value all of your input, and Waldemar is quite right to point this out.
 
I am also happy to report that I have  arrived at my f’ocsle breast-rail design.  My idea with the breast-rail will be to adapt an exterior detail - in this case, the bow trailboard - and bring it in-board.  For a reminder of the particular framing of the trailboard:

The trailboard is, itself, an adaptation of the original design.  Where the “X’s” are, there should be shells in the top and bottom negative spaces.  At the time that I made this part, that was just too small and fiddly for me to make a good job of, so I chose to leave those spaces open.
 
For this breast-rail, though, I could show alternating shells and fleurs within the same lattice framework:

The beauty of this process is that I only have to draw one of each panel.  The spacing remains the same for all six openings, so I merely have to make a mirror photocopy for the starboard side.  It will be fleur/shell/fleur, which picks up on the alternating design of the bulwark frieze.
 
French belfries tend to be rather plain, in comparison with their English counterpoints.  There’s enough ornamental work going on below, so I decided to pick-up the reverse cyma curves of the tafferal for the belfry’s coronation.
 
When I get to the quarter deck rail, I will again draw inspiration from an exterior detail.  In this instance, I will adapt the framing and monogramed cartouches of the middle balcony rail:

At the poop breast rail, I will adapt the quarter deck level of the gallery, with it’s series of X’s:

The Arms of France will also appear at this level.
 
The breast rail of the poop-royal deck will adapt the simple sheer rail “linked circles” of L’ambiteaux:

(photo courtesy of Marc Yeu)

Thanks.
My contract specifies hook and butt does does not mention length.
Looking at 30ft. Presently

Late arriving to this party. That is lovely work, Paul!

As always Beautiful work Marsalv!

Hi Willi, thanks for your comment. It is quite possible that you are right. But I was based on drawing 16-F. The door is not drawn here, but the bulkhead ends with the door border and the threshold is not drawn here. That is why I chose the solution I presented. Considering the fact that the author of the plans, Mr. Delacroix, is following the construction on the French forum and he had no comments, this is probably not a serious mistake.
The last parts for the rear space have been made - the light well and the fireproof bulkhead.

Hello Vladimir 
My name is Willi and I'm new here at MSW and this is actually my first post here. One of the reasons I signed up is your report on the construction of l'Amarante.
 
I'm currently building l'Anémone using the same plans, but only in 1:48 scale and not in the outstanding quality you've shown here. It's a constant inspiration for my own build.
It's precisely this quality that makes it almost seems like a sacrileg for me to point out a possible construction flaw.
 
In #112, you show a superbly constructed door with very fine hinges. However, this door can't be opened in this form because its lower part blocks it against the side walls. The lower part would have to be a threshold and thus part of the bulkhead. The door itself only begins where yours reaches its greatest width when viewed from below. I'll try to post a few pictures that hopefully clarify what I mean.
 
I hope you don't mind my objection, but I didn't want to keep my opinion to myself, because I believe that the perfection you demonstrate is based on the desire to build the model as beautifully and as flawlessly as possible.
 
Herzliche Grüße
Willi
 
 

Hello Eberhard,
I was a little surprised when I read that you also cited F. A. Coste as a source.
But, as always, excellent research.

Nice research work! 

Thank you very much for the continued interest in this project 👍🏻
 
**********************************
 
Developing the Rigging Warrant
 
It may seem strange to talk about the rigging warrant at this stage, but as much of the supporting fittings have to be reconstructed from sources and certain fittings, such as pin-rails or cleats, have to be put into place before painting, now is the time to develop at least an outline for it.

Spar-dimensions as per table on original drawing by Möller
 
The original drawings comprise a sail-plan and a spar-list with dimensions, which is a good start. However, as this is the builder’s and not a modeller’s plan, there are no details on the actual execution of the rig. These have to be reconstructed from sources from around the middle of the 19th century, notably
 
BIDDLECOMBE, G. (1848): The Art of Rigging.- 155 p., Salem, Ma. (Reprint 1990 by Dover Publication, New York).
 
BOBRIK, E. (1848): Handbuch der praktischen Seefahrtskunde, Schiffgebäudekunde, Zurüstungskunde, Manövrierkunde, Ankerkunde, Tafeln zur Schifferkunde.- 604 p. + plates, Leipzig (reprint 1978 by Horst Hamecher, Kassel).
 
Costé, F.-A. (1829): Manuel de Gréement ou l’art d’équiper les vaisseaux et autres batimens de mer, de tout ce qui est nécessaire a leurs mouvements.-  282 p., tables, Paris (Dezauche).
 
Jaÿ, . (1860): Études sur le Greément d’après les réglement du 25 avril 1857, révisé en 1858.- Atlas du Génie Maritime, 2éme Serie, Annexe No. 1: 55 pl., Paris (Ministère de la Marine et des Colonies).
 
KIPPING, R. (1853): Rudimentary Treatise on Masting, Mast-Making, and Rigging of Ships.- 150 p., London (John Weale).
 
MIDDENDORF, F.L. (1903): Bemastung und Takelung der Schiffe.- 401 p., Kassel (reprint 1977 by Horst Hamecher). – this is a bit late, but has useful tables with dimensions of parts
 
While these works contain many useful tables and sometimes beautiful detailed drawings, I realised that they are of limited use for this project as they mainly deal with larger ships. Only occasionally they give information on rigging practice for single-masted vessels. In some cases information on the foremast and bowsprit/jibboom of topsail-schooner was useful, as their rigging layout is similar.  
 
The popular secondary literature on, e.g. British or French naval cutters, that have at a first glance a similar sail-plan, also is only of limited value, as they typically have a running bowsprit, and not a fixed one with jib-boom.
 
So, much had to be interpolated, also from secondary sources covering earlier or later periods.
 
I also studied numerous images of German, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian sloops operating in the Baltic with respect to the arrangement of stays, shrouds, backstays, topmast-shrouds, -stays, -backstays, and the bowsprit/jibboom. A considerable variability in layouts was observed.
 
Although the models of sloops and topsail-schooners in the Altona Museum (Hamburg) were built and rigged at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, the model builders included older professional riggers, who presumably were aware of the earlier practices. These models give a good overview of the variability of rigging layouts and the supporting structures at the hull and on the deck.
 
With this information it has been possible to develop a draft warrant for the standing and (part of) the running that will help to dimension and locate the necessary pin-rails, rigging cleats, bollards, etc.

Reconstructed dimensions for the standing rigging

Reconstructed dimensions for (part of) the running rigging
 
To be continued …

The shipyard had been closed for much of August, only the drawing office stayed open to prepare work for autumn ...
 
********************
 

Anchor-winch 4
 
The remaining item for the winch is the pawl-bit against which also the bowsprit rests. It is surprisingly thin, only 240 mm square, according to the original drawing, which conveniently translates to 1.5 mm on the model.
 
A strip a tad wider than 2 mm was cut from a scrap of 1.5 mm thick acrylic glass. Care was taken to cut it parallel to a manufacturing edge, which is clean and square. In this way, only one edge needed to be machined and the manufactured edge provided a good datum for this.
 
The pawl rest in a cast-iron U-shaped frame that is bolted to the front of the post (updating the design a bit from the older style wooden pawls drawn in the original drawing). Rather than adding this part to the post, I decided to mill it from the solid. Hence the 2 mm strip.
 
Originally, I intended to drill 0.15 mm holes for the axes of the pawls, but my drills turned out to be too short for that. This would not be really necessary at this scale anyway, but would have later, once a wire was inserted, facilitated the positioning of the pawls. I have to eyeball it now.

Milling the groove into the ‘cast-iron’ frame
 
The post was milled to size, letting material for the frame for the pawls standing. The shape of the frame was then milled out and the ends rounded with a safe-edge file. In the final machining step, the groove was cut.

Shaping the head of the pawl-bit
 
I don’t have square collets (I plan to make one day a set of square insert collets for precisely holding square stock), so a round one had to make do for the next operation, namely shaping the head of the pawl-bit with different burrs. Because of the relatively soft acrylic glass and with light cuts, this is not a problem.
 
Shaping the head of the pawl-bit
 
The pawls will be short lengths of 0.2 mm x 1 mm styrene strips, but will be made only later, when everything comes together so as not to lose those tiny bits.
 
To be continued …
 

I probably wouldn't buy-in someone elses parts, I was thinking of kitting myself out to do 3D-printing - or at least do the designs myself. On the other hand, as for my laser-cutting, parts usually do not turn out right at first shot. As @dafi knows well, there are usually several runs necessary to get the dimensions right for printing - unlike for substractive machining, where one in most cases ends up with the correct part.
 
However, I love this late 19th to mid-20th century manual technology of substractive machining and those old machines. In addition, I am already spending a good deal of my wake hours in front of a computer, so manual workshop work is a pleasant diversion.