.jpg.f4fa790b1fa2f0e00e3d149ed7bdd37c.jpg)
shipaholic
-
Posts
532 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by shipaholic
-
Thanks BE, yes I agree when the sag happens realistically you know the tension is right. On my previous models I left the horizontal running rigging such as braces a bit loose then soak with water using a wet paint brush which makes the rigging sag realistically and then it stays that way once it dries out -
Its 37 degrees Celsius here today and my ship in the garage is suffering the sags, the mainstay especially and the shrouds are loose. I brought it inside and placed it on the bookcase in my study (my indoor mancave) where my Victory normally sits. Looks okay there, my Vic might be looking for a new home when I finish the Endeavour.
-
I put some yards in place to see how they look. Iphone lens makes them look a bit thicker at the near end
-
Hi Rexy Nobody knows for sure about the colour scheme for the Endeavour. At the time it was customary to paint a lot of the deck fittings, bulwarks and cannons red ochre, the ships sides were usually painted with varnish of pine or tar (not black tar but sort of like varnish colour), wales were blackened. So very much like the Replica. However the replica has white below the water line because a lot of ships from that time were painted with white lead below the water line, this may be not correct for Endeavour because historical records suggest Endeavour's hull below the water line was coated in what was called "brown stuff". I have done a lot of research and studied many paintings and ship models from that era. I think the replica vessel is probably right except for the white. However I suspect that the blue along the sides could have been blue and red, or even blue white and red, as was customary on British naval vessels at the time. I was almost tempted to paint the sides of my model blue and red, just to be different to the plethora of Endeavour clone models out there Cheers Steve
-
Most of the weekend spent making the yards, all done by hand, just lots of sanding. Something not clear on the AOTS drawings is the fact that the yards that are eight square in the centre section had battens nailed onto the flat sections. The battens were 1" thick so at 1:51 scale thats 0.5mm - the deck planking material is 0.5mm so I used some of the left over planks for the battens. Its terrible open wood so hard to keep edges straight. SIx done six to go. Pics are of the main yard.
-
After a long absence from the shipyard I have started making the yards. Started with the gaff
-
Welcome back Mike, I have been only doing drips and drabs too lately. I am up to exactly the same thing on my build, just finished the gaff and working on the yards Cheers Steve
-
Nice work Dave Regarding the stays, the AOTS is wrong I think, those mizzen stay arrangements are from a later period. The mizzen stay and mizzen top mast stay were set up using dead eyes according to Lees (the replica also has this arrangement) Mizzen preventer stays were not used at the time of Cooks voyage. The main stay, topmost stay and topmost preventer stay are correct in the AOTS Cheers Steve
-
Hi Dave Looking Good You should leave the hoops off the masts like I did. According to Lees' Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War the hoops were seldom seen on models before 1800. Steve
-
Michael, May I answer your question. If your masts are the correct dimensions the topmost hounds should be no larger than the rounded part of the topmost near its base. That way it can raised up through the cap and when in place the cap hole is still a snug fit around the mast Cheers Steve
-
Thanks Michael In relation to your question about caps on Dave Rowe's build, here is an explanation; The cap has a square hole to fit on the top of the lower mast which is squared off Here is the lower mast cap in place. It has a round hole for the topmast. The round hole must be a slightly larger diameter than the thickest part of the rounded section of the topmast As Dave mentioned the topmast is raised through the hole in the cap, once in place the fid is put in place to stop the topmast from sliding back down. In the third pic shows the base of the topmast and the fid. The base of the topmast is squared off and wider than the rounded part so its not able to be slid down through the hole in the cap, that why the topmast must be slid up through the cap. The square part of the topmast base is just smaller than the square hole in the top so it can fit through The topmast cap is the same deal, a square hole for the top of the mast and a round hole for the topgallant mast to slide up through. For model building purposes you can just slide the cap down onto the topmast or topgallant mast from the top It all fits together nicely without glue if all the dimensions are right Cheers Steve
-
Hi Dave and Michael I will post some pics on my build log showing how the masts and caps work Cheers Steve
-
Hi Dave Good pic of the replica top. Shows how the battens have a curvature, a point missed by many plans etc
-
Hi Dave I used this mesh it came in a pack of 10 of these circles that are 30cm diam, it was long time ago that I bought it, can't remember where I got them, it was either Spotlight of Lincraft. If you can't find something similar I could post you some. I still have 9 unused ones Cheers Steve
-
I have got all the masts done and painted now. Spent today making the Jeer blocks. I am using single blocks for both the upper and lower jeers, like the replica has
-
Nice work Dashi, those bumpkins look exactly right, they are the same angle as the ones in Parkinsons sketch, you might have convinced me now about the existence of bumpkins. But I think the knightheads are little too tall for my eye. Cheers Steve
-
Spent a couple of hours today finishing off the topmast trestle trees and making the caps
-
Hi Dash Wow, I haven't seen that watercolour by Parkinson before, it definitely shows the blue only on the top part of the stern. Nice work on your stern too, looks good.
-
Thanks Dash and thanks for the likes Pat, Slog, Greg and Ron This pic shows how the Endeavour with the taller mizzen and with all the lines and dimensions right looks like a normal 1770's sailing ship
-
Hi Dashi Yes I have long suspected that 3814a might have actually been drawn for the refit after Cooks voyage at the same time as the October 1771 deck plans However the 3819 deck plans (October 1771) are signed by William Gray, but the 3814a Draught is signed by Darren Hayes. I remember reading somewhere that Darren Hayes worked at Deptford. Anyway, I have just been studying all the draughts and both those signatures appear to have been added later - they are written in different ink and the writing style does not match the writing on the draughts. Interestingly both 3814 and 3814b do not have signatures and they are the two draughts that appear to be authentic and agree with each other. Nor do the deck plans dated July 1768 have signatures. And yes it's very interesting why 3814a only has those marks showing where the mast steps for the mizzenmast yet 3814 is missing the marks only for the mizzenmast. I just had another look at the AOTS and the references to the original draughts are wrong (much like a lot of other things in that book) Oh and your build is looking really good Dash, I was wondering why all the deck fittings are gone in the last photos, were they just sitting in place in the previous pics? Are those quarter window badges the ones supplied with the kit? They look great.
-
Hi Dashi One of the reasons I am following the "as fitted" draught is that the arrangement of the quarter deck rail stanchions and the swivel gun posts concurr with Parkinson's sketch. The gunpost next to the stern transom is upright in Parkinson's sketch just like draught 3814 and 3814b, whereas 3814a has the stern gunpost angled back. The number of rail stanchions in Parkinson's sketch matches 3814 and 3814b but not 3814a. For clarity; 3814 is the April 1768 as fitted draught 3814b is the Earl of Pembroke with proposed changes 3814a is the draught which has the date July 1768 but this date was written on it later in different ink and writing, the original date is unreadable 3814c is that linen one which is a composite reproduction believed to have been done much later Cheers
Our Emblem ®
