uss frolick

Sarasota, Florida to Searsport, Maine .... according to Google ... a 1,604 mile commute, taking 24 hours. Do you reimburse for gasoline? I ask because I have a V8 Mustang.

Sort of interesting news story.  Wreck was found in 1993 but archeologists are now taking a closer look.
 
50-gun frigate HMS Tyger
 
Now, get this quote from the article:
 
Really.

Sarasota, Florida to Searsport, Maine .... according to Google ... a 1,604 mile commute, taking 24 hours. Do you reimburse for gasoline? I ask because I have a V8 Mustang.

Sarasota, Florida to Searsport, Maine .... according to Google ... a 1,604 mile commute, taking 24 hours. Do you reimburse for gasoline? I ask because I have a V8 Mustang.

Sarasota, Florida to Searsport, Maine .... according to Google ... a 1,604 mile commute, taking 24 hours. Do you reimburse for gasoline? I ask because I have a V8 Mustang.

Sarasota, Florida to Searsport, Maine .... according to Google ... a 1,604 mile commute, taking 24 hours. Do you reimburse for gasoline? I ask because I have a V8 Mustang.

Sarasota, Florida to Searsport, Maine .... according to Google ... a 1,604 mile commute, taking 24 hours. Do you reimburse for gasoline? I ask because I have a V8 Mustang.

Chuck if I may offer another suggestion for coppering the cupola.
 

 
I used copper leaf  and put the part in a bag with some boiled egg to get the patina.  I don't doubt that you would get a finer finish than I did with this approach should you try it.
My patina is probably a bit harsh.

I found a possible answer to this puzzle:
 
This definition is given in Steele's The Elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship, page 87"
 
"HEADSTICK. A short round stick with a hole in each end, strongly sewed to the head of some triangular foresails and jibs, to prevent the head of the sail from twisting; the head-rope is thrust through the holes before it it sewed on the sail."
 
 
Here is a drawing (Plate 25, before page 129) of a "sloop's jib" from Steel showing the "head stick".
 
" ... the rope on the hoist put through the holes in the head-stick; then served with spunyarn, and spliced into the leech-rope. The head-stick is seized round the middle to the head of the sail, and a thimble seized in the bight of the rope."

Clare,
 
I have seen this method of strengthening the peak of sails a number of times. I think a short spar like this that is attached to the peak of a sail is called a "club" but I am not certain.
 
The Dutch used a very short spar like this at the peak/head of sails in the 1600s on small vessels (Sailing Ships, Bjorn Landstrom, Doubleday & Co., Garden City, New York, 1969, page 156). This later grew into the common gaff. So if it is on a sail rigged aft of a mast perhaps it should be called a gaff. If rigged before the mast as in your picture I guess it is just a "spar" or perhaps a "club."
 
Somewhere I have a reference that shows how to make these. The sail is laced to the club/spar. The halliard attaches to the spar. I don't know if it matters how, but in your picture it looks like the halliard block is riding on a line attached to the ends of the spar. It may be securely attached to the line at its center, or just sliding along the line. I can't tell from the picture. But I see no reason when the halliard couldn't be attached directly to the center of the spar.
 
Since this idea seems to date back many centuries it is possible it has been used in many rigs in many places. I am sure I have seen it in photos of modern vessels.
 
What is the name and period/date of the English yacht in the photo? The Dutch were using something like this on their yachts in the 1600s and 1700s. The English copied a lot of the Dutch ideas.
 
 

This instead is the front room where I stored all my lifelong models......
 

I finished with this little decorations:





 

OK, Plans and manuals for both Adder and Sherbourne are now at the printers, and I have been told they will be delivered to me by the end of next week.
 
So now I can open for pre orders.
 
Adder:
HM Gun Brig Adder – 1797 – VANGUARD MODELS
 
Sherbourne:
HM Armed Cutter Sherbourne – 1763 – VANGUARD MODELS
 

Mark,
 
That is a fantastic study, analysis and attempt at re-creating what could have been the stern of Bellona. Personally, I like the second and more modern interpretation and that is probably because it is what is provided with the CAF Model kit, that I recently (almost) completed. I hope you do not mind the picture below:
 

 
However, I have to say that I really like your drawing as it combines elements of both interpretations and may result in a fantastic and beautiful stern. And nobody will ever be able to contradict what you did, as we simply don't know.
 
Yves

The desire is there too, to build a Vic in a standard scale, like 1/64th. Model companies do come up with some oddball scales ...

Delayed another month, alas ... 😥

Why would anyone chose 1/86 as a scale these days? 

Why not build another Spanish three-decker like that, based on better sources and a modern reconstruction?  The Nuestra Señora de la Concepción y de las Ánimas! 
The reconstruction made it into the spanish naval museum, and Dusek (MSW partner) released a kit of it.
 

Why would anyone chose 1/86 as a scale these days? 

Why would anyone chose 1/86 as a scale these days? 

The HMS Shannon is indeed part of the collection, and is a fifth-rate 38, built in 1806. Asked any modeler to name a ship in the Rogers collection, and 95% will say, if they can, the Fair American, thanks to Modelshipways.
 
As for the Shannon, please ship to 54:20 of this Naval Academy video. That's the HMS Shannon model standing in for HMS Guerriere:
 
 
 
Note that he mentions the Minerva. That is in reference to another model shown earlier. He calls her "unidentified", but the catalog says "Shannon", and she was allegedly purchased from the estate of Shannon's captain, Phillip Broke. Hopefully, she is covered as an "unidentified frigate", circa 1812. I think she is the fir-built sister-class of the Shannon, the Eurotas Class of 1812, modified with a victory figurehead. The model has a square tuck stern.

Why would anyone chose 1/86 as a scale these days? 

I don't like to speak ill of any legitimate kit manufacturer, because I truly do appreciate the service they provide for modelers who can't scratch build or who otherwise just decide not to. But in this case I'm left wondering: Why? Why bring a kit to market that is neither a novel subject nor an improvement on an existing kit from a competitor? It makes little sense to me. Following on the heels of their equally unmoving Victory kit, this feels like two swings and two misses from the OcCre design department. But I'll leave it to the market to decide the fate of this new offering.

Why would anyone chose 1/86 as a scale these days?