rybakov

Good morning and thanks to all, more photos....
I take this opportunity to wish everyone a Happy New Year.
Thanks Robert for the photo, very nice, in 1:72 scale it must have been quite a challenge.
 
 

 

 

 

 

 
Un saluto.

I started building artillery on this frigate. The first idea was to make a silicone rubber mold and pour a two-component resin into it, but it takes too long for each gun. So I decided to make them in lead alloy which has a very low melting temperature.
I made the two masters in brass:
 

 

 

 
In the meantime, I started building the carts for the 18-pound guns:

 

 

 

 

 
 

After casting the 8 lb guns I had to redo the silicone rubber mold for the 18 lb guns:
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay - so just looking back at what I did yesterday, I'm still getting confused myself... Here's what I did, using the mizzen mast as the example (the main mast is the same)
 
1. Mizzentopmast stay.
Goes to the block just below the mainmast top, then passes down to the deck where it is secured as shown.
 

 
2. Mizzentopmast preventer stay.
The same, but goes to the block above the mainmast top.
 

 
3. Mizzentopgallantmast stay.
Goes from the hounds of the topgallant to the block on the maintopmast just above the crosstrees, then passes down to the top where it is seized to an eyelet.
 

 
4. Mizzentop royal stay.
Goes from the tip of the topgallant to the block seized round the hounds of the maintopgallant mast, then down to be tied off on the mainmast main shroud behind the mast.
 

 

 
Then rinse and repeat for the main mast, tying off to the fore mast in the respective positions.
 
As always, hope this helps
 
Next post will be on the (somewhat confusing) array of backstays that can be fitted...
 
Happy building
 
Rob

More stays, a martingale, and some backstays...
 
Once the lower stays are in place, it's time to move onto the backstays. These are set up much like the lower stays, except that the foretopmast stay and the foretopgallant stay go through the holes in the bees on either side of the jib boom. They attach to eyelets in the bow on either side of the jib boom, where they're seized.
 

 

 

 
These photos are warts and all, but hopefully it allows you to see how I've gone ahead and done things.
 
I rigged the martingale next... This is the rope that goes from the tip of the jib boom, under the dolphin striker (that points down from the joint between the jib boom and bowsprit) and to the bow.
 

 

 

 
Foretopgallant stay
 
This goes from the hounds of the foretopgallant mast down to the block on the tip of the jibboom and then runs back along the jib boom to tie off on the starboard deadeye on the foremost ring of deadeyes on the bowsprit.
 

 

 

 
The main and mizzen topgallant stays and royal stays, go to the mast in front where they pass through blocks and down. The top gallant stays go to the deck where they are fixed with blocks... the royals, are tied off to the back of the main shroud. For some reason I didn't take pictures of this, so I'll try and get some and add a post.
 
All of this may not be entirely accurate to the period, but it's how I'd gone about it based on my understanding of the plans and Lennarth Petersson's book. Hope it's helpful.
 
Rob
 

Regarding the building I have started sawing out the frames.
 
To find the shape I use five cards and arrange them to find the angles.

 
Most of the frames only go up to the fifth strake. Then there will be a beam across and a knee that supports the sixth strake. The seventh strake is for most of its length not supported by any knee or frame, instead there are two stringers on the inside as reinforcement.
The first and last frames are more V-shaped and will not have a crossbeam. 
 

The fifth and fifteenth frame has two cross beams and has an additional knee which supports the seventh and eight strakes. The eight frame also has two crossbeams and sits just in front of the mast where there only are seven strakes.
 

 
Thus far I have eight (of seventeen) frames roughly sawed out. They are still to long and to thick, and will require adjustment to fit right.

 
 

Cäptn dafi´s log, addendum:
At the last stop in the Victory-Univers we were able to complete the crew. 
First we got the much needed cleaning team ...
 

 
... and then still came Cäptn dafis superior in form of the admirability herself.
 

 
Final spurt 🙂
 
XXXDAn
 

Thanks, Alan, you make me feel a little better!
 
I have worked periodically through the holiday, making more standards for the gundeck. Only 8 out of 22 to go.
 

 
As I approach the end of this,  I am thinking ahead to another challenge, explained in Rob Napier's Legacy of a Ship Model book as the "Chinese Puzzle Effect". You have to do A before B, but A cannot be done until B is completed.
 
I am getting to the point where the guns have to be installed, before I can eventually proceed to the upper decks. But the cannon barrels sticking out are clearly going to get in the way of further outboard work, including planking to the top and painting the wales and friezes. The outer work needs to be done first. Also, cutting all of the mortises in the clamps for the upper decks will make a mess of dust falling into the cannon on the gundeck. So these need to be cut before installing the cannon.
 
Indeed, just about everything following is in danger of knocking about or dislodging altogether any cannon sticking out of a gunport. I am beginning to wonder if I should install the carriages now, and only towards the end of the project slide the gun barrels in through the ports and then fasten them down. I can't imagine how I bolt the carriage capsquares down onto the barrel trunnions, when I no longer have access from the inside; working entirely through the gunport. And the breech ropes would have been installed along with the carriages (because the rope goes through a ring on the carriage) long before I try to slide a barrel through a gunport; how would I get that rope to fit nicely onto the barrel cascabels, working from outside and not from within?
 
By the way, I have decided not to plank the outboard edges of the gundeck as a platform for the guns. I really like seeing the lodging knees. So I will make a little 4" base under each gun, which will allow me to pin from underneath into the trucks of the carriage, and then pin the platform down to the beams. I am worried about these coming adrift over time, especially with the vulnerability of the barrels sticking out. So some major anchoring is needed.
 
Hmmmm......complex problems, these ship models!
 

 

 

 
 
 

Balcony railing work underway. Pilasters are set but the top rail is still loose. The white blanks are plastic will be carved and painted then set in place. There is also a decorative wreath that will be carved and set in the center. The upper balcony will be of similar design. 
 
I have also done some more work around the stern gun ports and counter. 

I had to pause and think for a bit here... I tend not to follow the instructions very closely. I'll read them through, then look at the other build logs, think about how I've done it before in other similar builds (i.e. Royal Yacht Caroline in this case) and then gingerly pick my way through. So, it was onto the standing rigging.
 
I proceeded in the following order:
Add shroud cleats to every fore shroud and the rear two mizzen shrouds, 12mm above the deadeyes. Add shroud cleats to the front two main and front two mizzen shrouds, directly above the deadeyes. Mizzen mast stay Main mast preventer stay Main mast stay Fore mast preventer stay Main mast stay Bobstays. And that's as far as I've got so far. Now, it wasn't clear on the plans, but I feel I may have got the hearts muddled up... I've used the two larger on the main mast, and the two smaller on the fore, but I suspect it should actually be larger for the main stays and smaller for the preventer stays? I don't know for sure, but it's done now, and I'm going to live with it.
 
The mouse on each stay was made by tying .25mm thread round the rope, and then wrapping it around to effectively seize the rope back and fore, then carefully tying a couple of reef knots to secure. I used pva to help as I went.
 
Here are some photos of the work done.
 
Shroud cleats:
I found that tying a knot round the shroud cleat in the upper notch first, then tying this round the shroud, and then tying another knot round the lower notch provided a reasonable amount of stability. This worked better on the main and fore shrouds where the shroud is thicker. PVA helped to secure.
 

 
Attaching the mizzen stay to the main mast:
The deadeye was attached to the mast by first attaching the deadeye to a length of 1.25mm rope, then looping that round the mast and seizing it in the same fashion... Careful handling meant it turned out reasonable. I made the mistake of simply knotting this to the mast on Royal Yacht Caroline, and I'm much happer with this result.
 

 
Attaching the stays to the tops... 
A loop has to be made, by putting the rope through a loop at it's own end... the mouse stops the loop from tightening right up to the mast... Here are the loop (a simply seized loop on the end of the rope) and the mouse close-up.

 

 
And here are a few photos of the stay in situ...
 

 

 

 

 
And an overall shot of progress (just before I tightened up the fore shroud. I hadn't fitted the bobstay at this point.)
 

 
Hopefully this may be some help to others who find themselves rigging a frigate
 
Rob

Thanks Louie, it feels like a big step.
 
I have now added the last planks in the fore and aft, and have started to construct a new build slip.

I still have need for the old mold a while longer while I drill the holes for the rivets. It's tedious work, but nothing compared to what it will be to actually install the rivets...

 
 

Good morning and thanks to all, I take this opportunity to wish all the modelers of the forum Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Yes Robert, do you have any pictures of your xebec?
More photos.
 
 

 

 

 

 

 
Un Saluto.

🎄 The shipwright (thats me) and the crew wish you all a merry Christmas, a happy new year and stay sound in this complicated time. 🎄

Hello,
the bits and gallows for the main mast are ready. I changed also the sprouts of the elm tree pumps. 
 

 

 

 

 
And here some pictures from the gun deck

 

 

 
 

Good morning and thank you all for the likes, more photos....
 
 

 

 


 

 

 
Un Saluto.

Hello again!
 
I was surprised to discover that my initial fairing to the shape of the hull, for these lower finishing pieces, was only approximate.
 
I was sanding them along the curving arc of the lower main wales, but not accounting for their actual rake in the horizontal plane.  It was also only possible, initially, to guess at what the connecting angle would be with the transitional moulding above.
 
When I first offered these up to the hull, after securing the section above, I found that there was significant daylight in the middle of the piece, and the top angle was all wrong.
 
It took a fair amount of careful contour sanding and re-checking, but eventually I got the pieces flush up to the hull, fore and aft, and a closed joint at top.
 
Here you can see the changing tumblehome as reflected upon these inner surfaces:

One mistake I made was painting these before final fitting.  All of that handling burnished through much of the gold.  I also found that, while ordinarily sure-handed, I kept dropping these delicate pointed things on the floor.  Lots of swearing!  My kids wrote a song in my honor for dad’s hobby-time: “Oh EFF!!, I dropped my model... Oh EFF!!, the paint is scuffed!”
 
Anyway, after fitting and retouching, I was finally able to secure them in place:





Now, while I could not be happier with how this is progressing, I do sometimes think it is important to talk about some of the things this model IS NOT, even though it aspires to be them.
 
While I’m pretty sure that I have an accurate read on the shaping of the active seats of ease, I am less certain about the lower finishing.
 
In this port quarter drawing of La Royal Therese, one can see the seats of ease section pretty clearly:

There isn’t really a lower finishing beneath, so it fairs back pretty closely to the hull.  Nevertheless, I think I’ve captured the shape and weight of this section pretty well.
 
Here is another example in Le Terrible:

 
I do wonder, though, whether I’ve left the aft end of the lower finishing as too full.  While I think I have the general contours correct, a part of me thinks that the aft end should probably round back more closely to the hull.  I am not going to change it, but it is something to keep in mind for anyone else attempting to model these early QGs from pictures, alone.
 
The other issue to note is the exaggerated overhang of my stern counter:

As I’ve discussed before, this is a byproduct of my approach for including the round-up of the transom; in a tapering arc, I pared back the transom edge of the hull, towards the waterline, so that my stern post would not be positioned too far aft into the stern counter.  This is a difficult thing to explain, and my whole line of reasoning may have been flawed, there, but it was an educated guess, at the time.
 
The result was a very rakish stern counter, which I find aesthetically pleasing, but it is not strictly accurate for the period.
 
One look at Tanneron’s models of Le Brillant and L’Agreable confirm a flatter, more vertical counter:



Lemineur’s monograph for the SP re-enforces this notion.  It is notable, also, how Le Brillant’s lower finishing is relatively less bombastic than mine, and fairs much more closely with the hull.
 
Anyway, making this model in the manner in which I am is sometimes a guessing game.  One particular benefit of this QG is that it extends beyond the line of the transom, and obscures the exaggeration.  I will have to make a pair of wrapping corbels that finish this detail of the model.  Here are the pattern tracings I have made for this purpose:

 
Anyway, EFFIT! as this moderately old man is wont to say.  Taken in its entirety, these small architectural variances should not be too glaring:


So, I’m just finishing up the low finial of the lower finishing.  I will wait to paint these until after final fitting:


 
Once those are in place, I can concentrate on making the window section above.
 
Now that I know the North East Joint Clubs meeting is slated for October, I will try to get a certain amount of work done.  I would like to get the upper bulwarks up and painted, the structure of the upper stern framed and planked, the quarter deck installed, and perhaps make a start on the galley stove.
 
Given my pace, so far, this is ambitious, but not altogether impossible.  When I last showed the thing, two years ago, it was merely a collection of un-assembled parts.  However far I get, it will be a vast improvement.
 
As ever, thank you for stopping by, and for your likes and comments.  Happy Holidays!

Hello, 
after a short break, I'm continuing with the ratlines on the port side of the foremast shrouds.

 

The Christmas tree I built to my wife's design....

 
Now on to the real stuff. I started on the standards on the gun deck, which I remember Gary saying was really tedious. Now I know why.
 
It was a full week, making the patterns of individual pieces taped together--thanks Greg and druxey, I think this was your idea originally. Then siding and rough cutting the blanks, then measuring the angles of the deck sheer and the curving in of the hull side at each point.
 
And finally, shaping the first standard. It only took me about 4 hours, and just 21 still to go! I am sure it will get faster--won't it?
 
I was thinking about leaving them and the breasthook natural wood rather than staining red, but now I am not so sure. I will put in a few more, along with the gun carriages, to see the overall effect.
 
Mark
 
 
 
 

 
 

Good morning and thank you all for the likes and messages,, some photos of the cannon hatches
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Un Saluto.

Thanks Eric, you are welcome to tag along.
 
Now I have reach the state when the shell of the hull is almost complete.

There is one partial strake to add in the fore and aft. In the mid section the rowers will sit, so the sides cannot be as high. Initially I thought that I should add those planks after I had put the frames in. But now I realize that they will be easier to get in place with the correct angle while I can still use the mold. But in order to do that I need to modify the mold slightly. So I lifted the hull from the mold and took the opportunity to scrape some glue away.

 

 
 
 
 

In the 18th century, I thought they also had Red Ochre or a red oxide paint.  I’m sure it was much cheaper than true vermillion which I doubt they would use due to the expense. The naval service could be known to be frugal when it came to paint.  Of course, there was a reddish brown paint called Spanish Brown that was red clay in linseed oil was also used on ships found in 18th century contracts. But mostly in the merchant service. 

Hi again folks, as advised in my earlier post,I now having to rethink the framing of the tops in HMCSS Victoria.  Based on the issues I have raised, I went back and reread most of the authors discussions about tops, and had a closer inspection of the lithographs.
 
Having drawn up the masts IAW with the rules provided by Fincham and Kipping for forming a stick into a mast, the resulting mast when superimposed over the correctly scaled imagery (2 x lithographs and a profile photo of the ship), is an almost identical fit.  The lithographers of these days were very accurate it seems.  If we accept this premise, their depiction of tops must also be accurate.  
 
The tops shown in the two lithographs are both skeletal form with no gratings fitted despite the Contract (Specification) calling for them.  Fincham, however, explains that the gratings were supported by metal plated fitted to the undersides of the crosstree such that they can be easily fitted or removed.  Perhaps the gratings were only fitted on as required basis?
 
More importantly, as can be seen from the attached crop of the foretop (first and mainyop, from one of these lithographs, there are two trestletrees, and based on their sizes alone, there appears to be only one full crosstree, a rim (forward), and the after two crosstrees appear to be  iron rods (spreaders).  The size of these latter crosstrees are not much bigger than the sizes of the topmast/futtock wire rope shrouds.  Note that the trestle trees do extend aft to support these rather than battens fitted ('V' like to their tops.
 
 
 
Underhill also explains that the use of iron in the tops, with some ships having complete iron tops, was growing more common in this era.  Additionally, inspection of the image shows that in form, these tops were more akin to those fitted to the topmast than lower masts; but they still complied with the overall descriptions for the skeletal forms discussed by Kipping and Fincham as those fitted to the mastheads of steamers.
 
My current interpretation is that the rim (elliptical crosstree) and foremost crosstree were wood, as perhaps were both trestle trees.  As wooden upper masts were fitted, the usse of wood for the framing around the masthead and topmast heel will have been required to minimise damage to the timbers.  Underhill also provides evidence of iron plates fitted either side of the trestletrees with a hinged iron plate across the front to support the heel of the combined top, topgallant and royal mast.  
He provides no guidance of how the after face of the mast head was supported, but as there was a wood fixed block fitted here between the trestletrees, for the throat halliards, that a short wood cross-pice was fitted, perhaps supported with an iron strap fitted beneath.  The two after cross trees may have been simple iron rods.
 
All that said, another option is the complete assembly was iron with wood payed to the iner surfaces of the masthead and heeling holes.  My current leaning is to go with the former, but the dimensions, particularly the depth, of the trestletrees shown in the lithograph appear very small. When overlain on the lithograph it was about three to four times bigger than depicted in the lithograph.  I think, in this instance, I am just going to have to wing it by drawing up the framing to conform with the lithograph.
Unfortunately, Underhill (or Fincham or Kipping) does not provide any dimensioning details for iron clad, iron or any combination) thereof, and the lithograpgh shows the trestlees and crosstrees were not very large - certainly a lot smaller than the dimensions I had calculated, and drawn up, based on Kipping and Finchams' rules.  
 
I would very much welcome any further comments for or against my observations.  Many thanks again for your time in looking through and commenting on this topic.
 
cheers
 
Pat

Thank you all very much for your opinions and suggestions - this type of feedback is exactly what I needed.  Your comments reinforce what I have been reading, or more to the point what I could not find in the reading.  Kipping, Fincham, Crothers, Underhill and Harland are all silent on these particular matters.
 
Based on these comments, I agree re use of iron fids, they were the go by this period.  Unless I find better information I will retain the fid hole as cut with sides parallel with the masts heel sides (square to the heel) and perhaps add, as Druxey suggests, a beveled bottom so that the fid is flat along the bottom relative to the mast's rake.  There was a iron plate set on or into (the authors differ) the upper face of the trestle trees to carry the iron fid, so that would take the weight - but Rob's advice re rounded fids intrigues me.  I have seen, in Underhill I think, that a round bar preventer fid was fitted, but these did not bear the weight unless the lower (main) fid failed.  Just for interest I may have a go at the diagram of forces acting on the fid suggested by Eberhard (at some point).   Ed's point about readjust the rake would also impact any bevel on the fid hole iand fid is also relevant....
 
WRT to the stops, the overwhelming advice appears to cut them square to the mast.  The point about the wire opening up with increased bending was my main concern, but It appears I may be overly concerned
 
WRT to the mast cap, still very early days - ED, I agree these would have been square to the mast.  In this case, an iron forged cap with circular openings/mortices.
 
WRT the tops; well that is another story now - more on this later.  Suffice to say, that no matter what type, the issue I am having WRT holding/securing the topmast heel remains extant.  Rob, that is a great photo and shows that the gaps athwartship were of little concern as there is a reasonable gap shown in your photo.  If you have any more photos of clippers or ships of this era that confirm these gaps, I would be most interested in the confirmation of the following.
 
Fincham and Kipping advise a 1 inch allowance for play (but Fincham also says 1/4 inch elsewhere.....confusing) .  This is well within the athwartship tolerance of Victoria's topmast heels - possibly of little concern as the shrouds would essentially keep it upright.  The fore and aft securing though still leaves me a little confused with masts at extreme rake.  Again the stays may have kept it centred once set-up; but, .... I am concerned that the rake and a flat fid would tend to try and make the mast 'skate' forward?    I have also found guidance, as has been suggested by Ed, that any filling pieces are payed onto the masts and not the trees.
 
All that said, in doing another close inspection of the imagery I now have concerns on the actual framing of these tops.  I will post separately about these but the top was still set parallel to the waterline, but closer inspection shows that perhaps most of the top was made of iron.  Underhill advises that this was increasingly the practice in merchant ships during this era.
 
Many thanks again
 
Pat

Pat...I concur with Ed.  The fids from what I gather were of iron....they were required to hold large loads.  My study shows that some fids had rounded bottoms to compensate for rake.  This is not concrete, however.
Here is an image of the Charles W Morgan during a turn of the century refit.  You can clearly see the fid through the mast foot.  I wouldn't expect them to be made of wood, unless the application was not extreme.
 
Rob

Hi again folks.
 
Not much work done on the model in the past few weeks as I am getting into research of the spars and rigging, which is taking far more time than I thought.  I am making progress though, and I need to do this before progressing as it affects the positiong, type and configuration of other equipment in the ship.  
 
As usual I have run into a few issues the more experienced may be able to assist me with?  Pleeeaase!
Some of these do not effect the model as such as the scale woill mask the problem, but I wish to get it righ for the drawings I am doing.  Rather than flood the log with all questions at once I will 'batch' them, getting the results before moving on I hope
 
The first batch are related and all are caused by the extreme rake in Victoria's masts (5, 10 and 15 degrees for the Fore, Main and Mizen masts respectively.)  The problems listed below all relate to the various contemporary and more recent authors discussing the masts as if the stand vertical.  That is, the stops, tops etc asre all cut or placed as if the mast is not raked and no guidance is offered for what to do when they are raked aft (except for the tops which we know are placed horizontal or parallel to the waterline.)
Please see attached drawings where I have tried to illustrate the issues.  Cross hatch is ironwork including a 1 inch fid plate fitted on top of the trestle trees.  The diagonal hatch represents the ends of timbers.  Please look closely as the drawing of the top as gaps are small but evident as is the misaligned fit of the heel (slanted) into the squared hole for the heeling.  The small unhatched piece is a 'small cross-piece' that sits behind the rim.  Again the guidance infers to make this square on its after face. I can move the rim forward a bit which fixes the overlap at the forefoot of the topmast heel; but opens the gap.  The larger gap abaft the crosstree is there by design, as the Kipping and Fincham adise a 1" allowance was made here (assumed to allow the upper mast (long pole) to pass through due to the rake of these masts.

Q1.    Should the stops (no hounds) for the upper mast be cut horizontal also?  If not, as the standing rigging (wire rope) have eyes seized to fit snug/tight on the stop, the backstays would, and perhaps the shrouds may, lead fair, BUT the forestays would have a large kink induced as , say for the main mast, they would point 10 degrees into the sky (vertical) before bending down.  My gut feel is they should also be parallel to the waterline but cannot find any guidance on this.

 
Q2.    AS the top, and therefore the crosstrees are fitted parallel to the waterline, but the upper mast is set-up at an angle corresponding the the relevant mast's rake, it would not sit up-and-down in the hole framed between the trestletrees and crosstrees. 
 
The imagery shows that the foremost crosstree passed between the lower masthead and heel of the upper mast (combined pole including top, topgallant and royal masts).  This would mean this crosstree would sit square (true up-and-down) having been let into the trestletrees, whereas the masthead and heel would be raked.  This results in only a part of the crosstree fore and after faces providing support (sides are not an issue).  The contemporary practice was to use a shaped chock here (instead of a crosstree) but that was for a standard top (larger and fully made with a platform, battens etc)  The tops in Victoria are unlike in any other ship I have seen, and, in form, were more like the tops used at the topmast hounds where loose masts were fitted.  Even here, the guidance shows squared crosstrees.  Simply fitting a wedge would not work.  My only solution might be to fit/fay a shaped filling piece on the fore side of the masthead, and after face of the heel to square the resulting gaps (hope that makes sense) The issue there though is that increases the distance between the crosstrees much more than what is shown in the imagery. Such filling pieces were used to remove excessive 'play' of the heel but were usually evenly  sized in section (not sloping/wedge shaped).  Any ideas?
 

 
Q3.    Similar to the issue with the stops, it would appear to be sensible to adjust the fid holes tosuch that the fid  would sit flush on the trestletree.  Again all auther say this is cut in parallel to mast sides, but does not make sense for mastes that are raked.  Do I agjust these to up-and-down?  Would this weaken the fid or holding power as the centre of force (weight) is now not acting direct through the fid.

Any help, suggestions, pointers etc most welcomed.
 
cheers
 
Pat