Bob Cleek

Agreed as to Syren and Vanguard from what I've seen and heard. While admittedly a "thread drift" here, I've always been fascinated by how it's possible for anybody to make a profit selling wooden ship model kits.  I have no idea where the relevant data might be found, but it would seem that after one does the research and development to design a kit, then factors in the cost of materials, which aren't particularly high, the difficulty of protecting one's intellectual property rights, the relatively small number of potential buyers, and the lack of retail outlets for what is often an impulse purchase, there really doesn't seem to be a lot of meat left on the bone, considering the work necessary to put a kit into the stream of commerce.

Bill,
 
If you read the posts on the forum by people who actually build these kits it is apparent that a chief complaint is the quality of the woods supplied, especially the substitution of species that don’t live up to marketing hype.  Two principal culprits being mystery woods marketed as  “Mahogany and walnut.”
 
I am in no way endorsing or otherwise promoting them but the exception seems to be kits offered by vanguard and Syren.  Both offer quality woods, sometimes as extra cost options.
 
Roger

Perhaps not so dodgy, but definitely a 'solution.'  -Acquired at a Portland estate sale. 

At least there should have been a shut-off valve just after the T-junction. Having the gas-pressure on the hose is not a good idea at all  ☠️  ... and nothing to prevent the flame from going back into the hose 🫣

When you do get around to handling it, expect it to get a lot of use. It's one of those "there and nowhere else" sort of reference works.
 

That should be the initial assumption, but working forward from there, the question arises, "Okay, what possible reason or reasons might they have had?"

I'll admit in hindsight that this was perhaps not the best example because I do know it was not due to any shortcoming of the model designer, but because the kit was based exactly upon a contemporary model. I was unaware of the existence of a contemporary draught showing the same and would love to study a copy of that.  However, the draught doesn't lend any strength to an argument that the arrangement is correct. There's really no way a boat could be sailed the way it's rigged.
 
In fact, there are ways to rig a double-ended mainsheet with blocks at the quarters that serve the same purpose of leaving the tiller clear to helm without resort to a sheet horse at all, but the only purpose of a sheet horse is to allow the lower sheet block to clear the tiller without fouling it and the prototype can have no other purpose for that sheet horse.
 
All I can say is that there is no way the boat can be sailed the way that tiller is set up. The boom will cross amidships taking the lower sheet block with it sliding along the sheet horse every time the boat is tacked or jibed and every time that happens, the helmsman will be unable to control the tiller to complete the evolution because the sheet will foul the tiller. I know of no boat anywhere, save these two NMM models which have been cited, that has ever had such an arrangement. Chuck and I have discussed this and I don't dispute his position that the Model Shipways kit is a "model of a contemporary model." That's indeed one way to look at it. I don't know that he has any other explanation for it except that that's the way it is on the contemporary models. He certainly didn't make a mistake when designing the kit on that basis.
 
I'm not a "naysayer." I'm a "give me one good reason why" sayer!
 
I'd be interested in knowing what the curators at the NMM would have to say about it, or perhaps Ab Hoving, who knows as much about such things in that period as anybody.

Yes, that is a good observation. However, there are many MSW forumites who are greatly lacking in nautical nomenclature fluency. The world of ships and the sea has its own language and it's different for every commonly spoken language in the world. Even when the spoken language is the same, the nautical nomenclature may differ in different areas, just as the words "bonnet" and "hood" refer to the same part of an automobile in Britain and the US respectively, while a "bonnet" and a "hood" don't both refer to the same item of headgear in both Britain and the US.  And this confusion is compounded when one tries to translate "nauticalese" from  an entirely foreign language, often making the understanding of instructions for the building of model kits imported from places where a different language is spoken quite a challenge, even for the fluent "nautical" speaker in his own language, let alone one who is not.
 
As one who had the benefit of growing up with maritime nomenclature "as a first language," being involved as both an amateur and a professional with ships and the sea all my life, having a father who worked in the industry as well, it is often apparent to me when forum posters "do not speak the language." Unfortunately, there's no "google translate" for nautical nomenclature, nor language school that teaches it, as far as I know. It can only be learned by "immersion," an apt metaphor for "sink or swim." I can't imagine the difficulty a new ship model builder from Kansas or Oklahoma who's never seen the ocean must have trying to build a sailing ship model! (Parenthetically, I've seen some highly skilled modelers who are distinguished by their careful research nevertheless make glaring errors in a model, particularly in things like rigging, because they obviously have no experience sailing vessels similar to the one they are modeling.*) To do so with that handicap is quite an accomplishment! I will say that any ship modeler who is contemplating investing in books related to the hobby would do well to make one of their initial library acquisitions a very good maritime dictionary and keep it at hand at all times. (My top recommendation in that regard would be The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea.) The use of such a dictionary will go a long way in making their forum posts more understandable and, thus, encourage more helpful responses.
 
 
 
*Example:
 
This Model Shipways 18th Century Longboat kit is built in complete conformance with the kit's instructions and, I have it on good authority, is an exact "model of a contemporary model" in the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich, England.
 
Who can spot what's wrong with it first? 
 
(Hint: It's something that should be immediately obvious to any sailor.)
 
     

Let's call a spade a spade. The search engine feature of the MSW forum platform is inadequate to address the complexity of the forum's content as well as one would expect based on experience with much more sophisticated search engines like Google, etc. (The development of these "AI-heavy" search engines is driven by their great profitability as "data mining" platforms.) This is true of most every forum search engine I've ever used.
 
There is a "hack" for this problem, however. The trick is to search the MSW forum using a more powerful search engine than the MSW one.
 
The problem:
 
For example, "drifter steam capstan," using the quotations marks to indicate the full phrase, entered in the MSW search engine yields "There were no results for your search."  Entering drifter steam capstan as separate words in the MSW search engine gets you the same "no results" response. Entering "steam capstan" will get you a fair number of results for the use of the term in the forum. Entering steam capstan as separate words rather than a phrase yields three pages of results for steam, steamer, steamboat, and capstan.
 
The hack:
 
Go to a search engine like Google and enter a search for your terms occurring in the MSW forum in the following manner:
 
"drifter steam capstan" + Modelshipworld
 
Google will tell you that there's no result found for the phrase drifter steam capstan in MSW, but it will alternately provide you with "results for drifter steam capstan + Modelshiipworld" (no quotation marks.) You can review those results and, by reading their website sources, see a much more focused set of results than the MSW forum search engine provides. 
 
The first result is:
The next is:
From all indications, these two results are as close as one can get and quickly accessible without wading through useless results
 
 

Excellent point! It addresses a shortcoming of internet forums: Everybody has a soapbox, but some have a lot more to say than others do.  Forums are like good restaurants: Once they are discovered, they often tend to begin to decline in quality. The reason there are so many highly accomplished and experienced modelers on this forum, aside from its association with the Nautical Research Guild, is because they seek out each other and the rest of us are lucky to be able to look over their shoulders. They are here and make MSW what it is because this is where they can continue to learn from those who are playing the game at their level.  When a forum becomes inundated with "newbies," the "level of play" naturally drops and the "high achievers" find it increasingly less worth their while and drift off.
 
Learning is an exercise best done with the eyes open and the mouth closed, (although in my case clearly more so of the former than the latter.) The most useful learning tool of all it the search engine. Notwithstanding that most of the forum platform software packaged search engines are disappointing in the performance when compared with stand-alone search engines such as Google and Bing, they still remain the best way to look up something specific within a given forum. Given the size and age of MSW forum, there is a very high likelihood that most any question one might encounter in the course of building a ship model, excepting really esoteric historical minutia, will have been addressed, often at length, before. It's poor internet forum manners to ask others to answer a question before having exhausted your own efforts to find the answer on your own. Don't expect others to become your "information codependents." Everybody soon tires of a forum that requires hours of wasted time "separating the fly poop from the pepper" (like that other ship modeling forum we all know.) The very basic questions "newbies" ask over and over again have all been asked before. While I encourage and welcome beginners, I must confess that I rarely am moved to devote my time to answering a question they could have found themselves using the search engine.
 
To the original poster who bemoaned the lack of responses to his build log, and to the management of the forum which encourages "build logging" and "newbies" to the hobby (and we all should,) I express my sympathy. On the one hand, build logs are a valuable feature of the forum, if not its heart and soul, but on the other hand, the "build logger" has to understand that he is competing with all the other build logs for attention and it's a jungle out there. If you are new to the hobby and are posting the seventeenth active build log of a popular kit model, your build log isn't going to generate the same amount of interest as the scratch-built masterpiece of one of the published "Superstars of Ship Modeling." I'm not knocking kits by a long shot, but they are ship modeling's "gateway drug." There is an inevitable progression, at rates varying as to the individual, from building kits to "The Dark Side" of scratch-building. No two ways about it, there is far more to learn from following the scratch-build of a never-before- modeled prototype. Don't feel discouraged starting out. Learning to crawl is just as much an accomplishment as learning to walk. 

Not if one has properly spiled their planks and mastered the techniques of heat-bending the planks to fit before fastening them. The difficulty of planking a "bluff" or "apple-bowed" kit hull is in large part dependent upon the design of the kit model. The plank ends of a sharp-bowed kit hull are frequently set into a rabbet in the stem, or finished flush with the inner stem and covered by a false stem on top of the inner stem and plank ends. As I understand it, never having encountered the problem myself, some bluff-bowed kit hulls simply butt the ends of the bent planks against the side of the stem, which creates a poor glue joint faying surface due to the planks' end grain and little to fasten to mechanically. Your mileage may differ, of course.

http://www.byrnesmodelmachines.com/
 
Their ad is still on the forum homepage. 

There seems to be two sources. One, the original, in the British National Archives at Kew and the other, the same captured code book, in copy form from the Dreadnaught Project website. (Apparently, you have to sign up for that forum to get access to it.)
 
Signal code book (Signalbuch der Kaiserlichen Marine (SKM) copy no 151) captured from... | The National Archives
 
Imperial German Navy Code Books - The Dreadnought Project
 
Hope this helps. 

I think it depends on nation and era that interests you as well as ship type.   

http://www.byrnesmodelmachines.com/
 
Their ad is still on the forum homepage. 

Not if one has properly spiled their planks and mastered the techniques of heat-bending the planks to fit before fastening them. The difficulty of planking a "bluff" or "apple-bowed" kit hull is in large part dependent upon the design of the kit model. The plank ends of a sharp-bowed kit hull are frequently set into a rabbet in the stem, or finished flush with the inner stem and covered by a false stem on top of the inner stem and plank ends. As I understand it, never having encountered the problem myself, some bluff-bowed kit hulls simply butt the ends of the bent planks against the side of the stem, which creates a poor glue joint faying surface due to the planks' end grain and little to fasten to mechanically. Your mileage may differ, of course.

The wood furnished for planking the hull is also important.  When wood is bent the outside fibers are pulled in tension and the inside fibers are compressed.  If the fibers, aka the grain, run parallel to the longitudinal axis of the plane chances are the wood will bend if properly softened by heat.  If however, the grain runs diagonally to the axis of the plank it is much more likely to separate (fail).
 
Roger

Hi all,
 
A couple of final pics to close off the build thread.
 
I've added the Governor mechanism, lagged the cylinder and attached copper (Inlet and Exhaust) pipe work.  But still in the process of setting the timing etc.
 

 
The Governor build went reasonably well, although with hindsight I may have built some of the parts differently from the Drawings...next time!
 
The Governor connects, via a linkage, to the Inlet at the front of the Cylinder and controls flow by a throttle type flap. There is some debate as to whether these governors actually work properly at model level, and even at full size level where they may in fact only be a safety feature in case the belt drive snaps.... any thoughts welcome.
 
The cladding, like the fluting on the column, IMO adds that bit extra to the build. I used spare wood from one of my model ships and brass banding from a UK supplier.

 
If anyone fancies building one of these steam engines feel free to ask me any questions here. And/or visit https://www.model-engineer.co.uk/forums/, https://www.modelenginemaker.com/  etc for great examples on top notch steam engine builds.
 
I'm not sure what my next build will be - steam engine, model ship or HMS Flirt 😉 ...time will tell.
 
See you all soon,
 
Richard
 
[Edit: Timing is sorted so the Beam Engine now runs very smoothly and peacefully ;-).
I've also bought the Stuart Engineering Lathe model as my next project.... watch this space]

Bluff bows-  Blame them on Henry VIII.  During his reign, a principal import into the UK was wine.  It was imported from Spain in large standardized barrels called Tuns.  To finance his reign, Henry imposed a tax on each Tun of wine imported.  The easiest way to do this was to rate each ship by the number of Tuns that it could carry.  Note:  This is a measure of VOLUME not Weight.
 
As the years passed, Governments wrestled with the way to “count the tuns” that a given vessel could carry.  The concept was so important that many shipbuilding contacts specified that the vessel to be built must measure xxx tons.  (Spelling change intentional).  The concept was also important enough that many operating expenses such a dock fees, port fees, pilotage fees, were based on tonnage.  By the 1700’s British law specified that tonnage would be determined by Length x Beam x Depth with the product divided by 100.  While measurement of each of these dimensions was defined legally, the actual shape of the vessel was not part of the calculation.  As the determination of tonnage did not depend on the actual amount of cargo carried, ship designers (Naval Architects) ever since have tried to “beat the system” by designing ships that could carry far more cargo that their rated tonnage.
 
By the 1700’s the principal cargo by volume landed into the Port of London was coal.  Coal is a relatively bulky cargo.  It fills a ship up more than it weights it down.  It was shipped in specialized sailing vessels that brought coal down from the Northern coal fields, returning in ballast.  Since many operating expenses were based on tonnage, ships built for this trade were intended to carry maximum volume of cargo on a hull built to minimum overall dimensions.  This required a full lined hull- bluff bow and short run aft.
 
James Cook’s early sailing experience was in the coal trade.  He was not a gentleman RN Officer. He was, therefore, familiar with the sturdy vessels used, so in purchasing a vessel for his expedition he selected a Collier.
 
The concept of tonnage is still used today.  Generally speaking when merchant ships are mentioned as “The 1500ton MV Rust Bucket arrived in port today.” The 1500tons refers to volumetric tons of 100cu ft not weight, and international shipping rates are quoted in “weight or measured tons” with the measured ton being the metric equivalent of 100 cu ft.
 
Roger

Many gave up trying long ago and "went over to the dark side" and became scratch-builders! (Not to mention that the cost scratch-building is nothing compared to the price of quality kits!)    
 
There are many build logs and discussions of the various Endeavour kits, including OcCre's version. I've been out of the kit arena for some time now, but a quick glance may indicate that the Caldercraft kit is the more historically accurate version. More reading assignments for you at: Searched for 'Endeavour' in All Content (modelshipworld.com)

As a life-long woodworker, you are well on your way to success, but be forewarned, aside from rigging and painting, there's very little similarity between plastic and wood kits. One assembles a plastic kit, but one must build a wooden kit. Wooden kits require far more time, and skill, to complete than plastic kits. If you "go big from the start," and if you are like most wooden ship kit builders, you can expect to spend as much as a year, or more building a wooden "tall ship" model from a kit. It can quickly become a daunting task that no longer is much fun. Then the enterprise is abandoned, and you become another novice who's bit the dust. 
 
Not to be pedantic, and certainly not wishing to dampen your enthusiasm for building a wooden kit model one bit, I must say, if you haven't already, you would do well to read the following thread before doing anything impulsive in buying a wooden model ship kit.:
After that, I'd urge you to read the following detailed building instructions ("practicums") by Chuck Passaro, a master modeler and forum member, in order to get a good idea of what is involved in building a rather simple, but not "dumbed down" kit of an 18th Century pinnace, and an intermediate difficulty level model of an American Colonial square rigged schooner:
 
BuildingAn18thCenturyPinnace.pdf (thenrg.org)
 
ColonialSchoonerSultana.pdf (thenrg.org)
 
If you're not thoroughly intimidated at that point, read the following general article on what to expect in a wooden ship model kit:
 
Nautical Research Guild - Article - Model Ship Kits (thenrg.org)
 
Thereafter, you may wish to read any number of the instructional articles in the "Articles" drop-down menu in the forum's caption:
 
Nautical Research Guild - Articles and How Tos (thenrg.org)
 
As will most any experienced wooden ship modeler, I will repeat the suggestion that you "start small" and do not let your "ego overrule your brain when the time comes to purchase my first wood model." Your first (or second and third) kit doesn't necessarily need to be a "beginner's model," but you should beware of letting yourself get ahead of the necessary learning curve before dropping a grand on a poor quality HMS Victory kit. A relatively simple model doesn't not need to be crude. If done well, even a model of an 18th Century ship's boat can be a thing of great beauty and pride of accomplishment. Because you do have your skills from plastic kit modeling and extensive woodworking experience, may I suggest you consider for your first venture into modeling ships in wood and bits of string and metal, Syren Ship Models' kit of the HMS Medway's longboat of 1742. See: Medway Longboat (1742) (syrenshipmodelcompany.com) This isn't a "beginner's model," but rather an intermediate to advanced level challenge, so your ego will not be compromised in the least, The instructions for building this plank on frame model are on the linked page as well, so you will be able to see the magnitude of the work involved and the challenges that may be encountered in building this really elegant model. Not only does Syren Ship Models offer some of the best model kits around, but more importantly, in my opinion, at least, Syren offers the best building instructions around which I think is often the most important feature to consider when selecting a kit. (And, believe me, some of the kit model instructions are real nightmares!) I believe there are also some "build logs" of this model on the forum.
 
 

Syren Ship Model Company|Boxwood ship model rigging blocks|Ship Model rigging rope |turned brass cannon| Chuck Passaro

Many gave up trying long ago and "went over to the dark side" and became scratch-builders! (Not to mention that the cost scratch-building is nothing compared to the price of quality kits!)    
 
There are many build logs and discussions of the various Endeavour kits, including OcCre's version. I've been out of the kit arena for some time now, but a quick glance may indicate that the Caldercraft kit is the more historically accurate version. More reading assignments for you at: Searched for 'Endeavour' in All Content (modelshipworld.com)

Many gave up trying long ago and "went over to the dark side" and became scratch-builders! (Not to mention that the cost scratch-building is nothing compared to the price of quality kits!)    
 
There are many build logs and discussions of the various Endeavour kits, including OcCre's version. I've been out of the kit arena for some time now, but a quick glance may indicate that the Caldercraft kit is the more historically accurate version. More reading assignments for you at: Searched for 'Endeavour' in All Content (modelshipworld.com)

As a life-long woodworker, you are well on your way to success, but be forewarned, aside from rigging and painting, there's very little similarity between plastic and wood kits. One assembles a plastic kit, but one must build a wooden kit. Wooden kits require far more time, and skill, to complete than plastic kits. If you "go big from the start," and if you are like most wooden ship kit builders, you can expect to spend as much as a year, or more building a wooden "tall ship" model from a kit. It can quickly become a daunting task that no longer is much fun. Then the enterprise is abandoned, and you become another novice who's bit the dust. 
 
Not to be pedantic, and certainly not wishing to dampen your enthusiasm for building a wooden kit model one bit, I must say, if you haven't already, you would do well to read the following thread before doing anything impulsive in buying a wooden model ship kit.:
After that, I'd urge you to read the following detailed building instructions ("practicums") by Chuck Passaro, a master modeler and forum member, in order to get a good idea of what is involved in building a rather simple, but not "dumbed down" kit of an 18th Century pinnace, and an intermediate difficulty level model of an American Colonial square rigged schooner:
 
BuildingAn18thCenturyPinnace.pdf (thenrg.org)
 
ColonialSchoonerSultana.pdf (thenrg.org)
 
If you're not thoroughly intimidated at that point, read the following general article on what to expect in a wooden ship model kit:
 
Nautical Research Guild - Article - Model Ship Kits (thenrg.org)
 
Thereafter, you may wish to read any number of the instructional articles in the "Articles" drop-down menu in the forum's caption:
 
Nautical Research Guild - Articles and How Tos (thenrg.org)
 
As will most any experienced wooden ship modeler, I will repeat the suggestion that you "start small" and do not let your "ego overrule your brain when the time comes to purchase my first wood model." Your first (or second and third) kit doesn't necessarily need to be a "beginner's model," but you should beware of letting yourself get ahead of the necessary learning curve before dropping a grand on a poor quality HMS Victory kit. A relatively simple model doesn't not need to be crude. If done well, even a model of an 18th Century ship's boat can be a thing of great beauty and pride of accomplishment. Because you do have your skills from plastic kit modeling and extensive woodworking experience, may I suggest you consider for your first venture into modeling ships in wood and bits of string and metal, Syren Ship Models' kit of the HMS Medway's longboat of 1742. See: Medway Longboat (1742) (syrenshipmodelcompany.com) This isn't a "beginner's model," but rather an intermediate to advanced level challenge, so your ego will not be compromised in the least, The instructions for building this plank on frame model are on the linked page as well, so you will be able to see the magnitude of the work involved and the challenges that may be encountered in building this really elegant model. Not only does Syren Ship Models offer some of the best model kits around, but more importantly, in my opinion, at least, Syren offers the best building instructions around which I think is often the most important feature to consider when selecting a kit. (And, believe me, some of the kit model instructions are real nightmares!) I believe there are also some "build logs" of this model on the forum.
 
 

Syren Ship Model Company|Boxwood ship model rigging blocks|Ship Model rigging rope |turned brass cannon| Chuck Passaro

He who dies with the most tools wins!