The Gimps Chimp

Looks like you could do with more filler. Be careful you don't sand too much and break through the wood. Chimp

I would say that's looking good! When it comes to sanding just be careful and don't be too aggressive. Chimp

I think the one I would try and follow is this one: http://modelshipworldforum.com/resources/Framing_and_Planking/plankingprojectbeginners.pdf To be honest, if you mess up the first planking it's not too much of an issue, as long as you can fill and sand to a smooth finish. However, it would make sense to try and master the skill if you can. The second planking in this kit is very thin and forgiving so as long as you can cut it to shape, it will fit and look okay. Again it would be better to try and master the skill but I think with this kit you can't go far wrong. Chimp.

How about mixing a new colour from those you have? When I did mine I went with a dark blue/green. I think I should have gone a little lighter though. Chimp

Build is looking good. Looking forward to following your progress Chimp

Hi Stauf, This is a difficult one to answer as everyone will have a different opinion. All models will differ from the actual ship they portray to some degree. Looking at the model from a distance I would say it's a reasonable representation of the real ship. The closer you get and the more detail you study it becomes clear there are inaccuracies. Some of these will be down to cost and some will be down to practicalities of modelling. One of the first items you come across in the build are the brass etched doors, which look okay but some people choose to make them more accurately from wood. The deck parts again are generally okay but maybe don't have the precision of detail. As already mentioned, the rigging of the cannons is massively oversimplified. Again these issues can be rectified during the build if you wish. I think the most inaccurate area are the masts and rigging which have again been over simplified. To be honest I can see why that is. Looking at the AOTS the rigging is very complex and I for one wouldn't have been able to finish the build if it was accurately modelled. In the AOTS there are many chains used whereas in the kit rope is used for everything. Here is a good example from my build: I'm not sure giving the accuracy of the model a percentage is meaningful but if pushed I would give it 90% to 95%. You also need to think about the marketing aspects of the supplier. I would say these kits are not at the high end of quality and are intended mainly for people to make and have an impressive model to display. If you want high accuracy you can spend the time and improve the 'Out of the box' product, or maybe even scratch build. I for one, used the kit as a learning experience and was happy that many aspects had been simplified, otherwise I would never have finished it. Having completed my build I was motivated to improve the quality of my workmanship on my next build. Had it been unfinished I wouldn't have considered tackling another ship. Chimp

Hi JFMJr, Not sure I fully understand your question when you say the brass wire is a poor fit. I presume you are referring to the 1.5mm brass pin (H5) which acts as a hinge pin for the rudder to rotate. When I fitted mine I crimped the metal band a little so the wire was a close fit. I also added a drop of CA to ensure it remained in place and didn't drop out. I'm struggling to see why/how it could be a poor fit. I guess you could make these pins from wood but I think that would be much harder and I can't see why or how they would be a better fit. If you are referring to fixing the metal band to the rudder then this is done using the metal pins (A). Chimp

Good to see you decided to start a build log. Looking at what you've done so far you shouldn't have too many problems with completing this build. I'm sure you'll get plenty of advice and support from everyone here. Regarding the nails, I don't think you'll need them from here. Looking forward to the rest of the build Chimp

Hi Sparkov, looking forward to seeing your progress Chimp

Hi Capella, Looking back at my build it looks like the keel was recessed at the bow but was then level (or even slightly proud) along the bottom. See photos: To be honest, I don't think it really matters as long as the keel is firmly attached to the false keel and the second planking is fitted up to it. The important issue is that the hull is smooth along it's length. So where I said about extending the first planking or using filler where it steps (where you circled), this needs to be smooth. You could build up the shorter planks with wood or filler, just a single piece of scrap wood is required: Or you could smooth down the longer planks to match the shorter ones. It doesn't really matter which way you choose Remember, the first planking is just a base for the second planking. It doesn't need to look nice but it's shape and profile is important. Chimp

Hi Capella, when I fitted my keel I can remember it was recessed into the planking at the bow. Looking at where you've circled the photo above you may need to extend the first planking a little (or use filler). Chimp

Hi Capella, It's great to see you back working on the Beagle. Your photos in your last post look very similar to my build. At this point I was worried that it didn't look very good and was concerned as to how well the second planking would sit and how it would look. As it turned out I had nothing to worry about, once it's filled and sanded it's all good. Just be careful when sanding you don't go too far and sand through to the inside . Patrick B has some useful advice above and I too had the intention of doing the second planking 'properly' However, I ended up not following any advice and just did my own thing and it ended up looking okay. This is a link to that stage in my build log: Have a look at posts #55 and #61 My intension is that on my next build (HMS Granado) I'll do the second planking 'properly' and follow the technique detailed in this document: plankingprojectbeginners.pdf Looking forward to seeing your build progress Chimp

Hi Tom, I'm sure that cradle will serve you well for this and future builds. I would love to take credit for the design of the cradle but have to admit I got the idea from the late Hubert Sicard and his website "Wooden Ship Modelling for Dummies". Chimp

Here are some notes and thoughts about my build and the OcCre Beagle kit. After I had finished my previous kit HMS Ballahoo (Caldercraft), which was my first ship build, I started looking around at what to build next. To some extent I was overwhelmed by the choice available on the market. It therefore needed to be narrowed down to something which was within my capabilities. Despite feeling very confident after completing Ballahoo I was conscious that I didn't want to make too big a leap forward and over-stretch myself. Therefore, I restricted myself to looking within a certain price range, which was still toward the lower end (max £150/$185). I considered many kits but eventually settled on the Beagle for a number of reasons. First of all HMS Beagle was a very historically significant ship and this would be a good way of finding out more about her. OcCre appeared to offer good value for money as a supplier and there were also good resources to help the build, OcCre's 130 videos of the entire build plus the AOTS book. After ordering and receiving the kit I checked the parts and discovered the flags were missing. I contacted OcCre about this and they immediately dispatched the missing parts without any issue. This would indicate that their after-sales service is very good. Unfortunately, after I received the missing parts I found the original parts within the kit placed under other parts. The build has taken me nearly 3 years to complete so I'm not a fast builder, but as someone rightly commented "It's not a race". Generally, the quality of the kit is good/reasonable. Along the way I have had some issues with the kit, luckily nothing major. The main issue was the instructions on how to mount the fore channels, which supports the dead eyes for the fore mast. The instructions show the channels mounted the wrong way around (3 dead eyes followed by 2 as opposed to 2 followed by 3). Luckily this has been picked up in other build logs so I was alerted to it before I also made the mistake. It would be good if OcCre would amend their instructions or maybe just add an addendum note in the kit. The kit material quality and quantity were generally fine. Timber for first and second planking, I had enough to build two models. Other timber and some brass wire I would have run short of if I hadn't been very careful. My biggest gripe was the supplied thread for the rigging. In my opinion I would say it was hopeless and I refused to use it. The thread was 'hairy' and in my opinion would ruin the model. In a way this was a blessing for me as I then acquired a ropewalk and made my own rope using Gutermann thread, which was far superior. This will now carry forward onto future models. I've not been aware of others complaining about the supplied thread so it might be that I had a particularly bad batch or maybe OcCre have improved their supply. (or maybe I'm just too fussy). The instructions for the kit were frustrating at times as there are multiple A3 sheets covering different areas, part identification, hull assembly, mast assembly, and rigging. I don't have much space where I build my models and I always had problems finding the right page on the right set of instructions and ended up have to flick between different sheets time and time again. Then I would jump over to the video instructions on YouTube and check with the AOTS for the Beagle. There did seem to be much cross referencing between different parts of the instructions. By the time I had finished the build I knew where the different information was and it became a lot easier. I know it sounds like a minor point and a failing on my part but when you're struggling with a particular part of the build the last thing you want is to be sent on a wild goose chase to find a piece of information. I would say the scaling of some parts and accuracy of others (e.g. belaying pins, mast metalwork) may not be as accurately modelled as they could be but I guess this is a compromise for many reasons. In hindsight I don't think I should have chosen the Beagle as my second build mainly because there is a lot of rigging, being a three masted ship and this was something which could have been too overwhelming. Luckily my attitude of "As I had paid for it then I was going to build it" saw me through. I'm sure this amount of rigging wouldn't be a problem for others. Generally, I was happy with the kit and how the build progressed. Yes, the kit quality could have been better but it's very good value for money. I've used the build as a learning process to try and improve my skills and in some way, not having perfect parts has made me think about how things could be improved. The supplied thread/rope and my adventure into making my own rope is a good case in point. My final comment is about this build log. At first I was very apprehensive about writing a build log, thinking that my skills weren't good enough to showcase and it would be embarrassing to demonstrate my lack of skill. Clearly I had no need to worry as nobody is judgmental here and everyone is immensely supportive and encouraging, which is a great motivator. It's also good to get other peoples opinions which broadens your outlook and future approach to issues and can often trigger further research into subjects. I would fully encourage anyone starting out in this hobby to start a build log, you will find it so rewarding. I will definitely be writing a build log for my next build. And finally, to anyone who has bothered to read this far, many thanks for your help and support during the build and I hope to see you on the next one . Best regards Chimp