rybakov

Here is another bow perspective from one of the better and more proportionally drawn plates of Le Album de Colbert:

As this drawing dates to the early 1670’s, it is interesting to me that the transverse headrail supporting timbers are drawn as concave.  This is in direct opposition to all of the 1672 VdV drawings that show them in the more Dutchy convex form.
 
I’m not really sure what to make of that, but I, personally, would side with the VdV’s, whose drawings were as close to a photographic record as possible for the times.

Have spent the last week looking at lots of beakhead drawings and making an equal number of templates. I didn't understand the value of French Curves before this!
 
I want the bow of this SR 1671 to be more "Dutchy" slung a little lower and longer. If I wanted it to look real "Dutchy", I would have made the cutwater almost straight with no upward curve, but... that really looks "Dutchy". I think I am 95% of the way there, as the head rail rosette and figurehead are going to have to creep several millimeters to get in perfect alignment... and that may be months down the road after the hull is painted and glued together. However, I am pretty confident I can start creating the beakhead and head railis from Evergreen styrene now... ohh  and the bowsprit steeve was increased to 37 degrees, as the kit is about 32 degrees
 

 
I will also be able to start "wasting away" the bulwark extensions... I made a rough curve in pencil just to see how it looks. I just laid a pencil on the head rail template and made a line... I am wondering if there is a technique where I can create a nice line on the bulwark as it curls away from the template? Maybe I could shine a very bright light at the head rail and trace the shadow?
 

 
Finally, I saw this gorgeous Soleil Royal figurehead, and wanted to emulate the open areas where the tail of the merhorse is, so I am cutting and filing away the kit knee that the figurehead wraps around. I will be much happier.
 

 

 
To sum up the last week... a lot has happened.. but you couldn't tell it by looking at the ship!

While working and measuring multiple times for the installation of the deck frames supports (3x5 mm), I have built the ladders used by the crew to reach the lower level:

 

 

 
These parts are funny to build, with a small triangular file. The crew must have been very agile to use this kind of ladder, that literally requires your two hands and two feet to get to the upper deck.
 
Yves

Been a couple of weeks, but I've been away at a conference for a week and last Monday I was working happily away when I accidentally (stupidly) cut straight through the jib stay, so most of the day was spent simply getting back to where things were when I came in! 🤢
 
Meanwhile, other work has been going on at home. Here is the foresail complete and rigged on its yard. It won't go onto the model for a while, but I plan on making and rigging all the square sails here at home and then taking them into the museum to fit on the model as required.
 
John
 

I’m afraid what Victory has now is the abysmal 1980’s reconstruction, they have none of the elegance of Trafalgar, or even the 1920’s reconstruction.
 
The image below is from Bugler’s 1966 as-reconstructed drawings.
 
The current quarter galleries are slab sided in my view and far too upright. Heller have them correct.
 
Gary
 
 

Hello Kevin, thank you for pointimg that out. To be honest, never realized too much of a difference ...
 
What I see is the usual discrepancies if parts are build without too much planning. OK Vasa was worse 😉
 
I know that she had a collision with HMS Goliath on 03.04.1797 that damaged the stern Galeries, lantherns and cutter.
 
1803 the stern was completely changed.
 
At Trafalgar the starboard gallery was crashed by the Redoutable.
 
Also there was a great makeover of the stern somewhere inbetween  1816/1820/1828/1860ies as first photographies show a different stern compared to the post Trafalgar drawings.
 
And in the 1920 there was the retrofit for Trafalgar state where the galleries changed appaerance again.
 
And McGowan shows a picture of about 1970-1980 with the larboard gallery dismanteled.
 
So one sees there were many opportunities to mess up with the design of the galleries 😉
 
They are far off the elegant look they had as build. 😞😞😞
 
XXXDAn

The rigols have also found their way onto the model. Here still in the stack ...



... and here already at the scene of the crime.




My favorite detail 🙂
But I saw afterwards that the wooden panel only covers the top panel, so I'll probably have to touch that up again.



The area of the hase bolsters has already been marked on the bow and the prison cell has also been given its bars ...



... and the windows under the poop also got their window frames.



XXXDAn

As indicated by the picture below (Session #2), I have installed three sets of the 2x5 planks. I am stopping there.
 

 
Now, the dreaded prospect of gluing the 3x5 mm planks is coming. There are really no clear indication on how to do that, besides a little tick mark on the frames, that comes somewhat in the middle of the deck beams. It is really not precise at all. In addition, securing the deck beams supports (3x5mm - Green) is not an easy task, because of the lack of access due to the constraining cradle.
 
Instead, I decided to move on and install the deck beams central support as well as possible, making sure that it lines up with the deck beams and from there, determine where the 3x5mm supports have to be installed. It is going to be tedious but that is the only way I see it possible.
 

 
Once this assembly is in place, I hope by positioning a few deck beams, to be able to trace the exact position of the 3x5 supports, on the frames. That central assembly (3F-1 to 3F-15) is super fragile and requires a lot of care.
 
It is first assembled flat on a bench:
 

 
Then, many dry-runs are made to position it in the best possible way. One of the vertical holders is ending right in the middle of the mast base, which is not good. I will adjust this later. The mast base is not glued yet and will be glued later, when some of the major deck beams have been installed. There is a lot of conflicting information between the Monograph, one of the CAF plans and the other CAF plan (!) Not easy to figure out exactly where the main mast should sit.
 

 

 
Finally, the central support is installed and the CA is drying....
 

 
Wish me luck.... I really have no idea if that is going to work.
 
Yves
 

Hi photo Anson cants frames.

I just finished installing the third (and last) set of inside planks. Even though the kit calls for 5 sets, I am limiting myself at that point as these are extremely difficult to set correctly, since you have to hold the planks with your fingers while the glue does its job. There is absolutely no room to fix the planks, with perhaps the exception of drilling a small hole and placing a few microscopic wood screws.
 

 

 

 
Again, all planks were tree nailed, with the tip of the nails protruding into the frames.
 
The next part of the assembly is very complex, poorly documented by CAF and very tricky. It will drive the rest of the assembly and I hope to not screw up royally on this one.
 
Yves

And because it was so beautiful, we went straight on.

Some of the ports have been planked up over the years. So that it still looks very well-fortified ...



... the missing windows were simply painted on. Honi soit qui mal y pense.





The artillery has also found its way to the dressed rehearsal. In front are the three signal cannons for the salute, above them short 12-pounders from dubious historical stocks ...



... and amidships the historic Trafalgar guns - or what they were considered to be at the time 😉



And before the questions come, yes, the barrels did indeed sit on the lower portframe back then. Improperly executed changes to the port dimensions and incorrect carriages ...

XXXDAn

The extant remains of the hull, presented in an otherwise very comprehensive and detailed monograph of the shipwreck (probably missing only an attempt to reconstruct the original design concept of the San Juan), are indeed not overly conclusive. This ambiguity also makes it possible to propose a slightly different, alternative master frame transformation for the fore half of the hull, different from the aft half. The difference is that in this alternative way, while rotating the master frame template, the boca points are not aligned to a single common horizontal line, as shown earlier, but to the corresponding 1st deck height, different for each individual frame.
 
This alternative method, firstly, seems to correspond even better to the archaeological material for the fore half of the hull; secondly, it makes it possible to pre-define (trace on the mould loft) practically all the frames up to the very extremity of the hull, while – importantly – maintaining the condition from the first point; thirdly and finally, it is compatible with written works of the period, such as Livro Primeiro de Arquitectura Naval, ca. 1610 by João Baptista Lavanha or Livro de Traças de Carpintaria, 1616 by Manoel Fernandes.
 
The thing is that both of these works describe and show master frame templates featuring integrated lugs determining the height of the decks (beam heights for one, two or even three decks, depending on the size of the vessel being designed). These integrated protrusions could only determine the height (or rather, in sequence, the rise) of the decks correctly if the boca points were aligned during the rotation of the master frame template to the height of the 1st deck (boca) line, the latter being at different height for each individual frame.
 
 
Diagram from a work by João Baptista Lavanha, Livro Primeiro de Arquitectura Naval, ca. 1610,
showing the contours of the master frame template featuring integrated protrusions marking
the height of the decks for all subsequent traced frames:

 
 
Diagram, showing analogous protrusions, from the work Livro de Traças de Carpintaria, 1616 by Manoel Fernandes:

 
 
Such a way of aligning the boca points, to the rising 1st deck (boca) line, could in practice be very easily implemented immediately on the mould loft by employing one of the variants of the mezzaluna, preferably the best approximating the geometrically correct arc of the circle (for example, the graminho de beesta, as it is called by Fernando Oliveira), or by successively measuring the individual heights of the 1st deck (boca) line for each frame on the drawing.
 
Later in this presentation, when discussing perhaps the most interesting issue of hollowing/bottom curves, the lines of the hull body proper of the San Juan will follow both of these ways, that is, for the aft half of the hull the boca points will be aligned to the one common horizontal line, and for the fore half the boca points will be aligned to the rising 1st deck (boca) line, as shown in the diagram below.
 

 
 

Transforming the master frame – forming the hull body proper
 
To shape the hull body proper of the San Juan, a trivial, perhaps the simplest possible procedure of master frame modification was employed (and at the same time producing the desired results), the essence of which is shown in the diagram below. Apparently, it has not been recognised before and is not yet described in available works, including modern ones.
 
The master frame transformation, which was performed to obtain all the successive, predefined frames of the ship (i.e. almost all, except for the most extreme), was carried out in two separate steps on the mould loft: first, the master frame template was shifted according to the coordinates taken from the intersection of the relevant station lines with the line of the floor. In the second step, the master frame template was rotated in its entirety so that the centre of rotation was the centre point of the bilge sweep and, as a result of the rotation, the boca point was returned to the original level of the boca line, that is, aligning its level with that of the boca point on the master frame.
 
Basically, the method of transformation of the master frame was the same for the central and end segments, except that for the central segments, the shifting of the frames was done according to the geometrical devices of the mezzaluna type shown in the previous diagram, while for the end segments the shifting was done according to the coordinates measured on the ribbands already physically mounted or, alternatively, measured according to the lines in the draught, the latter being more likely in this very case.
 
 

 
 
 

Line of the floor (refers to diagram above)
 
This is the most important design line determining the character and properties of the vessel. In a manner very characteristic of the Mediterranean method, it consists of four geometrical segments, that is, two central and two end segments, including the three conceptual frames separating these segments (see diagram). This particular configuration is a relic and is closely related to the non-graphic moulding of the shape of the frames (that is, without drawing them on paper beforehand), immediately traced to actual scale on the mould loft.
 
The run of the central segments of this line, or more precisely the co-ordinates for the central frames, i.e. between the quarter frames, were the result of the use of the geometrical devices also shown in the diagram. For the shaping of the remaining frames, at both ends of the hull, the use on the mould loft of these geometrical devices (normally any of the numerous variants and sub-variants of the mezzaluna) was no longer possible, because these end segments were no longer tangent to the horizontal keel line, as is the case for the two central segments.
 
This particular inconvenience eventually led to the introduction of more and more complete plans drawn on paper, incorporating more and more design elements, such as the longitudinal design lines in their entirety, as well as 'all' frame contours. Nevertheless, until then, the role of the end segments of the longitudinal design lines, which were the guides for the erected frame timbers, was fulfilled by wooden battens or ribbands, yet this was only at the stage of the actual construction of the vessel. These physical ribbands had to be tangent to the elliptical lines thus extended from the central segments (of the mezzaluna type), and in addition, by natural bending, they were given the shape of circular arcs or curves very close to them. As a result, they can also be approximated quite well in this way on the reconstruction plan.
 
Apart from the above, the division of the longitudinal design lines into a larger number of geometrically simple segments (in this case four), gave more freedom or flexibility in shaping the run of the entire design line, actually even necessary for the correct implementation of the design intent.
 
* * *
 
In a rather surprising way, almost the entire length of the two central segments is below the top edge of the keel. This was arranged so that a longitudinal concavity with a profile corresponding to these segments, about two inches deep, was cut into the upper surface of the keel along this length. This procedure meant that for the central frames fitted into this concavity it was not necessary to add hollowing/bottom curves, as was already necessary for all the other frames, i.e. with the individual deadrise more or less distant from the keel.
 
* * *
 
The width of the line of the floor (at the master frame) is very large. It amounts to as much as 2/3 of the width of the base design deck (boca), well beyond the range categorically recommended, for example, by Fernando Oliveira (ca. 1570–1580), that is, of 1/3 to 1/2 (alternatively, the width of the line of the floor in the San Juan can also be equal to 3/5 of the maximum breadth of the hull, which gives practically the same value as 2/3 of the width of the boca). In doing so, Oliveira specifies that different values in this range are appropriate for different types of ship. On the other hand, the author of the so-called Salisbury Manuscript (ca. 1620–1625) is content merely to state that the optimum width of the line of the floor is half the breadth of the hull, without further explanation.
 
It is this large width of the line of the floor that makes the San Juan have such an unusually sharp entry and run, especially in the lowest parts of the hull. Reducing this width would result in increasingly full hull ends (with the same shape of the transformed base master frame).
 
 

A very good test of the validity of the readings and findings of the design method employed, and presented so far, including both the specific proportions and the absolute dimensions applied in the design of San Juan, is to compare the values of the two largest breadths of flat stern panel: the first measured in the actual wreck and the second obtained in the manner shown above.
 
The point is that, firstly, this particular dimension could have been precisely measured on a very well-preserved, undeformed fragment of the shipwreck's stern, so the measurement effected under these conditions is the most authoritative for comparisons, and secondly, it is at the same time a resultant dimension, in one way or another dependent on virtually all other proportions, linear dimensions or radius values found and shown so far. To put it differently, any change in even one of these design parameters, whether relative or absolute, would inevitably have an impact on the breadth of the stern panel ultimately resulting from the reconstruction carried out.
 
This verification falls favourably: the monograph gives a measured value of 394 cm for this dimension, while the reconstruction of the ship’s design presented above results in a value of 394.8 cm (for the cubit length of 0.5746 m given in the monograph). Or, four millimetres per side, which is virtually nothing for such relatively large sizes, and well within both the manufacturing and archaeological/measuring tolerances. This is also shown in the diagram below (including drawing and photo from the monograph).
 
 

 
 

Master frame
 
The formation of the master frame shapes at this stage of design is primarily necessary to make a (single) set of wooden templates, used in turn to cut the actual frame timbers, and this for almost the entire length of the hull. This second process, of a non-graphical nature, is perhaps best described in the earliest English shipbuilding manuals of the first decades of the 17th century — the so-called Salisbury manuscript ca. 1620–1625 and the so-called Newton manuscript of the second quarter of the century, which describe still essentially Mediterranean methods, employing a single set of wooden templates, featuring fixed radii of the individual sweeps groups, to obtain the shapes of most of the frames needed.
 
The following sequence of master frame design for the San Juan is proposed:
 
— the breadth of the master frame (inside the planking) was set at exactly 1/3 of the hull length between the rabbets (39 1/2 cubits x 1/3 = 13 1/6 cubits, or 26 1/3 feet),
— the heights of the various design elements, such as the height of the maximum breadth of the hull and the maximum draught, depend directly on the predetermined heights of the decks, and so: the draught level was set at 2.5 feet below the second deck, and the height of the maximum breadth at one and a half feet above the draught line (the latter figure is very important for the hydrostatic properties of the ships, and more specifically their lateral stability). Also, by the way, if this had been a warship or at least an armed one, this would have resulted in about four and half feet of gun port height above the water,
— sweeps:
first a breadth sweep was drawn with a radius equal to half the maximum breadth of the hull, then a vertical line was drawn from the intersection of the boca line (1st deck) with the inner edge of the frame timbers (inner because the deck is inside the frame timbers), the intersection of this line with the breadth sweep giving point A (see diagram); in passing, it may also be added that it was the breadth at the level of the boca that was often given as the principal or only breadth of the ships in this period and in this method. Thus, the breadth of the San Juan would have been given in the sources as 23 feet 8 inches or (nearly) 12 cubits, the futtock sweep was then traced, tangent at point A to the breadth sweep and running to a point on the base line located at a distance of 2/5 from the axis of symmetry (see diagram); the radius of this sweep is not predetermined and is consequential (the diagram also shows with dashed lines an easy and well known way to find the centre of this sweep), next, a ‘softening’ bilge sweep was added with a radius equal to 2/3 of the height of the maximum breadth (13.5 feet x 2/3 = 9 feet); in addition to just softening the contour of the frames, this sweep is also of fundamental conceptual importance, as it is used for subsequent master frame transformations to obtain all the other predefined frames, finally, a toptimber sweep with a radius smaller than the breadth sweep, i.e. equal to 1/3 of the maximum breadth, has been added.  
The radii of the individual sweeps have been selected so that their proportions relative to each other ensure the correct shape of the hull along almost its entire length. For example, the reduction of the toptimber sweep radius in relation to the breadth sweep radius avoids the formation of upperworks that are too voluminous and too high, which becomes particularly obvious with the later transformations of the main frame, i.e. approaching the ends of the hull.
 
Fashion frame
 
According to the advice or insights of authors of the period, such as João Baptista Lavanha or Manoel Fernandes, the contour of the fashion frame of the San Juan was indeed created using an inverted futtock template obtained from the previously defined shape of the master frame. It has to be said that, on the one hand, the position and size of the fashion frame was defined somewhat arbitrarily or independently, yet, in order to obtain the fairest possible, deformation-free hull shapes in this region, an effort was made to synchronise this contour sufficiently well with all the other frames obtained in the ‘regular’ way (by means of a harmonious, controlled transformation of the master frame).
 
Apart from the (inverted) futtock template itself, the defining points of the fashion frame shape are the two points, marked in the diagram as B and C. Point B is defined by the height of tuck, itself located halfway up the load waterline. Point C lies on the waterline and its distance from the sternpost is equal to half the length of the floor (see diagram). The futtock template passes through these two points so that the junction of the radii of the two sweeps of this template coincides with point C.
 
In fact, all other dimensions of the fashion frame, such as its greatest breadth or the length of the wing transom, located somewhat above, are already only consequential.
 
It may also be added that an attempt to raise the tuck height, although clearly advantageous for hydrodynamic reasons, would at the same time be very difficult with this method of design and construction (one fixed-length template for ‘all’ frames!), and at the same time with these proportions, without generating even more onerous inconveniences, such as insufficient underwater hull volume in this area, too high upperworks, or too high the greatest breadth of the hull aft, unfavourable for the proper carrying of sails.
 
 

 
 

Conceptual frames
 
The longitudinal position of the structural group of pre-assembled frames defined at the same time the position of the three main conceptual frames — master frame, fore quarter frame and aft quarter frame. In this way, that the position of the master frame fell in the middle of this group and both quarter frames at its extremities (see diagram). As a result, the position of the master frame is correspondingly set back from the pre-determined position of the actual middle line of the entire length of the hull. For perfect geometry, the run of the decks must also be adjusted accordingly, bringing it into line with the new position of the ‘middle’ of the hull.
 
In passing, it may also be added that the length of the structural keel (without the vertical scarfs connecting it to the adjacent components of the keel assembly) has already been determined symmetrically to the new position of the ‘middle’ of the hull, i.e. to the position of the conceptual master frame. The structural keel, relative to the design keel, is shorter at its aft end by the length of the heel piece and, in contrast, slightly longer at its fore end, by encompassing the stem post in its design/geometric sense (see diagram).
 
 

 
 

The diagram shown above is almost self explanatory and in principle does not require any extensive comments. It contains the basic design assumptions necessary for the subsequent stages of the ship's hull design. At this first stage, the design sequence for this vessel would look more or less like this:
 
— the length of the hull (between the posts) was set at 40 cubits, or their equivalent of 80 feet,
— this length was then divided into eight equal parts of 5 cubits (10 feet) each,
— the sum of the two rakes, fore and aft, was set to 3/8 of the length of the hull, in a mutual ratio of 2 : 1, leaving 5/8 of the length of the hull for the keel,
— the position of the master frame is half the length of the hull, just behind the middle line (see diagram),
— the group of so-called pre-assembled frames includes a total of 14 sub assemblies, for which 1/4 of the length of the hull was provided, asymmetrically in respect to the middle line (see diagram),
— the garboard strakes, integrated into the keel, occupy 4/5 of the keel length, starting from the beginning of the keel,
— the number, height and rise of the decks, fairly standard for the era, have a direct effect on the height of the two posts, as well as on the angle of the sternpost (the length of the latter will eventually be shortened to allow the tiller to enter the hull below the third deck).
 
 
 

You bet it's an extremely sleek and elegant hull form!
 
It may not seem evident today, but during the15th century the Basques were the most advanced in terms of hull design and navigation onto the unfamiliar (for other Europeans) waters of the Atlantic, and one of their most advanced boats was called a "txalupa" - that's precisely from where our name "shallop" comes in all languages!
 
Also trying to answer your question about "a small carrack". I have been long been puzzled by this name, which sounds so distinct of any common European language, be it of Romance or Saxon origin. It was only later when I accidentally stumbled upon the name of a Crusaders' stronghold that I came to guess the origin of the word. The place was  called "Krak des chevaliers" and was given in 1142 to the Knights Hospitaller by Raymond II, Count of Tripoli and it fell in 1271 to the Mamluk Sultanate after a 36-days long siege. The name "krak" itself comes from the Syriac language (Has nothing to do with today's Syria except of the geographic area; it comes straight from the language used by the old Phoenicians and, while called "Aramaic" it was precisely the language used by Jesus and all his disciples).
 
So in this Syriac language the word "krak" means a fortress ready to withstand a siege therefore my own theory is that after the fall of the said fortress into the Muslim hands, which actually ended any dream of European domination in the area, instead of calling krak a fortified city, they slowly started to call krak a fortified ship, prepared for war. Remember at the time the distinction between warships and merchants was muddled and probably if need arose, they could have taken any merchant available and prepare her for battle.
 
So in some respects, to my eyes a krak/carracca/carraque/carrack is what we would call today a warship and not specifically a type of ship, as the ships at the time were called nao/nau/nave/navire (all coming from the Latin navis) in the Mediterranean area. So what we have here, being a Basque whaler, I would daresay would not be properly called a carrack as it is not intended to go to war.     
 
Waldemar, sorry for my digression, but I felt it had to be told! Now bringing it back to our sheep, that is going to be another VERY interesting journey which I will follow with much interest!

Although the extremely important wreck of a mid-16th century seagoing ship built in the Basque region of Spain has already been studied in great detail and presented to the public in the comprehensive, multi-volume monograph The Underwater Archaeology Red Bay. Basque Shipbuilding and Whaling in the 16th Century, published by Parcs Canada in 2007, nevertheless, the following presentation will not be a repetition of the material contained therein, but rather to complement certain omissions or even a different interpretation of this archaeological find. In a nutshell, the aim of this exercise is to recreate and present the method of designing a ship in terms of its geometrical conception, an issue that is fundamental to naval architecture and yet so little understood today for the early modern period.
 
Somewhat retrospectively, it can already be said that the Red Bay Vessel is an example of the then classic proportion as, dos, tres (breadth : keel length : total length = 1 : 2 : 3), recommended by authors of numerous works of the period, and applied in this particular case in a very literal, astonishingly precise manner.
 
Apart from the main proportions of the ship, no less important from the point of view of the history of naval architecture is the method used to form the shape of the hull, and taking into account its specific details. In this ship, one of the widespread Mediterranean methods of hull forming was used, which, nota bene, was also adopted at about this time in England, and was still used there in its generic form in the first decades of the 17th century, before being creatively developed into the more sophisticated ways generally referred to today as English moulding.
 
 

Archaeological model of the wreck of San Juan, the Basque whaling ship, scale 1:10 (Parcs Canada)
 
 
 
Shapes of the ship's hull reproduced by applying the found method of designing the vessel:
 

 

 

 
 
In addition to the monograph of the wreck itself, which may be not available to everyone, much interesting material regarding the hull structure of the shipwreck can also be found in the provided below publication by Robert Grenier, The Basque whaling ship from Red Bay, 2001 (public domain).
 
Grenier Robert - The basque whaling ship from Red Bay - 2001.pdf
 
 
 

Thankl you No Idea for the reply.
Christmas holidays are over, so I'm back to work. I'm continuing with the production and installation of the main mast step.            

When it rolls, it rolls, or the victory of impatience over model-building caution.

Once I was this far along, I naturally wanted to see the whole thing in paint. This was a risk because the paper planking is quite sensitive and I still had to do the whole other side. But, but, but: it just had to be done.

I had slightly oversized the separating battens, so I sanded the thicker one even thinner and broke the edges. It did the whole thing good.
I used the masking tape to protect the paper planks. This worked really well.



After the first round of white spray over everything, a beveled skewer was ideal for removing grains and impurities.



Then I generously covered the white strip with masking tape and used the profile battens to cut it into shape with a scalpel, which went really quickly. Then black spray and removed the masking and simply: JOY! It worked.



The first size sample of the rigols hung up.



Very striking on the contemporary hull are the many additions, here the downpipes, probably plumbing.





But with a little paint, they blend into the overall work of art in such a way that one thinks they have always been there ;-)





Enjoy, DAniel

Well, and the little fat one with the stripes is still stuck in the camper van since Evian. Nevertheless, there is always enough Victory for me to do.

I really missed the 1910 model at the last two exhibitions, as I like to show the developments on the ship. Time to take another look at my victorian black and white beauty. The first construction phase was January to March 2022, so that's already 2 years ago.

A brief look back: After sanding down and fattening up the entire side of the ship to get a level surface, she looked all tattered at first.

But the grace of the paint brought back some decency and dignity.


But in this state I realized one thing: A lot of glue and car filler had caused the hull halves to warp outwards quite a bit, 2 mm on the port side and 6 mm on the starboard side :-0

Then I was initially frustrated, but also realized that I should let the material work out in peace and see if it would still turn out any good.

And I think it's going to become something in the end. The good girl was released from her slumber and thoroughly checked. Deformation no had longer increased. However, it will take a lot of bending force, but I think the decks can manage this, with a little internal help if necessary. But that will only come when the time comes. Why?

I can only insert the decks once the window panes have been inserted. I can only insert the window panes once the outside has been painted. And I can't paint the outside until the planks are in place. So I had to take care of the planks.

In the past, I liked to use 0.2 mm ABS sheet, but the plastic glue tended to leave fingerprints. Wood was too thick for me and too time-consuming to procure. That's why I went exploring in my model maker friends' circles and found what I was looking for: 250 gram paper/cardboard.

Initial tests were quite inspiring.


In the original, there were wooden battens nailed on in two thicknesses to separate the colors. I made these from Evergreen, although I made them slightly thicker for handling reasons.
So planks cut on the guillotine shears ...

... and opened the glue pot.

First planks are slapped on ...
... and even that didn't put me off any further :-)

And at some point the port half was planked, deliberately disregarding all planking schemes.


And in case anyone thinks that the entrance gate visible today is original, no, the gate that can be seen today is from this state of construction and was installed in the ship between 1820 and 1828. One gate further back than as build. And these port parts were simply reinstalled one port further forward in 1920 and declared as Trafalgar state. Honi soit qui mal y pense.



Fortunately, I've had the parts in my supply kit for a long time, so I just had to grab them.

For me as a plastic person, the tight planking around the stern was of course something new. I'll have to clean it up a bit, then it'll fit.



And I don't know why I remembered some well-known lines in the next picture ...



"Beneath us, visible to all, lay a huge spaceship, one hundred and fifty meters long, shaped like a smooth sneaker, snow-white and maddeningly beautiful. At its heart was a small golden box containing the most sophisticated invention ever made, an invention that made this spaceship something unique in the history of the galaxy, an invention that gave the spaceship its name - 'Heart of Gold'."
- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Chapter 4

But what still looks like this ...



... should develop into this :-)


Cheers, DAniel