Jump to content

georgeband

Members
  • Posts

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

976 profile views
  1. I like to add a couple of crew figures to any model for two reasons - to give a sense of the scale, and to humanize it so that it is not just a machine. In 1/64 scale we appear to be limited to Captain Amati and his crew. Andrew in #5 above gives his captain more detail in the eyes than I have managed with mine. Amati are nicely cast but pricey, and the metal is hard to file so that parts of the figure which require an undercut take a lot of work. The captain's telescope is one example where a fillet of metal has to be removed. I drill a hole into one foot of the figure and glue in a wire so there is something to hold while painting. There is more choice in 1/72 scale and at reasonable prices. HaT make a set of sailors and marines in plastic, and Newline Designs make white metal figures that have realistic proportions. A lot of the wargames figures follow a convention of big hands and big heads so check them before you buy. https://newlinedesigns.co.uk/product-category/newline-designs-20mm-ranges/newline-designs-20mm-ranges-napoleonics/newline-designs-20mm-ranges-napoleonics-naval/ I do not know about other scales such as 1/48. George
  2. More research on the original drawings for Haddock at Greenwich shows that the cooking range was (very probably) originally aft of the fore ladder way and was moved to the fore position during her refit. What looked like an extra hatch cover aft of the ladder way was (very probably) coamings around the chimney hole and steam vent. Thanks to Jason and Mark for helping with the interpretation. https://modelshipworld.com/topic/29209-hatch-over-a-ladderway/?tab=comments#elControls_846285_menu If you want to model one of the Fish class as they were in the first year of service then the chimney and vent should be aft of the ladder way. I assume that they all had the same refit and around 1806 the cooking range was moved forward. This is what I am doing with Whiting and it leaves the problem of what to do with the redundant chimney hole. The drawing of the deck shows nothing aft of the ladder way so it is unlikely that the coamings were left in place and the holes filled in. The more likely course of action would have been to remove these coamings and put in two new lengths of partner planks. These could run from the main hatch to the fore ladder way, or only over the patched holes. Any guesses? I could justify both options. My guess is that the new deck planks would only cover the old holes. They are (very probably) of the fir used in England for decking and will look different from the pink Bermuda cedar around them. I scored a join line across the partner planks, 13mm forward of the main hatch and 16mm aft of the ladder way, which is above a deck beam. I prepared myself to cut out the deck planks between the scored line and the ladder way and glue in new lengths of 'white' Tanganyika. Fortunately this was not necessary because some gentle scraping with a knife blade took off the pink, dyed layer and exposed the original wood. My deck now has two short lengths of fir among all the pink planks. A little pencil dust adds some emphasis to the joint. Deck between main hatch (left) and fore ladder way (right). Two partner planks in 'fir' cover the old chimney and vent holes
  3. Phil, Thanks for the two photos which show a well crafted original. They are not too late and serve as inspiration for the aft ladder way on Whiting which did have a large 'box' over it. I still don't know whether that one will be sliding or hinged on my model unless some letter or log book appears with a revelation. George
  4. Jason, Mark, Thank you for your comments. I must agree that you sound right with your interpretation of that part of the drawing, aft of the ladder way. However, there is also a mirror-image cooking range forward of the ladder way. One of these cooking ranges shows what it was like as-built, and the other after the refit modifications. My thoughts are that the original position was aft of the ladder way and the refit position forward. My reasons are The deck plans ZAZ6117 show a chimney hole above the forward location. There is not even a smudge for the aft location ZAZ6117 for the lower deck shows the base for the cooking range, labelled as 'fire place', forward of the ladder way and a scuttle for coals next to it The plans originally sent to Bermuda, ZAZ6114, have the cooking range in the aft position. The deck plan shows a square opening aft of the ladder way (steam vent?) and another one aft of that for the chimney, see below. (They also show a windlass which was not fitted to Haddock. Please see my build log for new evidence about this.) The drawing for Cuckoo, ZAZ6320, is dated January 1806, three months after the Haddock drawings. This drawing was used to build the Bird class in England. The copy I have is not very clear but it shows the cooking range and chimney in the forward position only. I cannot see the extra hatch or coaming aft of the ladder way but this might be because of the poor resolution on my drawing. I think in summary that everyone is right. Jason's and Mark's interpretations are backed up totally by the ZAZ6114 drawing (and other evidence no doubt) but Haddock went through a refit. My interpretation is that the cooking range and associated hatches started as in ZAZ6114 but were moved to a forward location during her refit. Which still leaves me with the problem of how to model the patched-over hatches aft of the ladder way. The pictures below are extracts from ZAZ6114, the drawings sent to Bermuda
  5. I visited the plans section of the National Maritime Museum yesterday and had a look at the original drawings taken from Haddock. A closer look at a photo when I got home reveals some extra clues about the 'hatch cover' that extends aft from the fore ladder way. Aft of the ladder way, below deck, we can see the cooking range with its chimney rising up through the deck. The top of the chimney is level with the keyhole shaped hole for the sweep port in the bulwark. The coaming that runs back from the ladder way encloses the base of the chimney. I expect that the cover for the ladder way was hinged at its aft end and rested against the chimney when it was open; it could not slide back with a chimney in the way. I had seen but not previously recognised this cooking range, guided in part by the chimney hole on the deck plan. The drawing shows 'changes as dotted lines' and forward of the ladder way, below deck, there is a mirror image of the cooking range. The top of the chimney appears as a crown above the shocked face which is the middle deadeye! The chimney aligns with the 'chimney hole' that is marked on the plan for the deck and my interpretation is that the cooking range was moved forward as part of the refit. (Some of the drawings for precursors of the Fish class before they finalised the design show the range in this aft position. I cannot check at the moment.) The picture above shows a small coaming around the chimney in its forward position. So what happened to the old chimney hole and its coaming? A closer look shows more dotted lines between the chimney and the aft end of the original coaming; these could be the rear edge of a new, smaller cover over the old chimney hole. Some of the deck planks are shaded where there are, or were, openings in the deck but I do not know what this tells me. Would the partner planks that hold the aft mast be patched, or would they be replaced over their length from hatch to hatch? I doubt if a hinged hatch cover over the fore ladder way would be replaced by a sliding one, if only because it is a lot of work. There might be a light weight structure to stop it falling right back when it is open. My inclination now is to model Whiting this way Chimney in the forward position as originally planned Hatch cover hinged on its aft edge, with a frame to hold it at an angle when it is open A circle of wood in the deck where the chimney had been, possibly disguised or strengthened by the support for the open hatch cover So what do you all think? I will happily read what you have say and might change my mind yet. There are a couple of other discoveries that I have put on my build log. George
  6. Anchor aweigh and breasthook Yesterday I visited the plans section at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich and had a look at the original drawings for Haddock. (No touching allowed!) The site is 2 miles from the main NMM buildings and quite forbidding, but the staff were very helpful and friendly. ZAZ6118 is the drawing with scantlings and a cross section of the hull, and an intriguing note about an attached letter that has not been digitised. Two comments in the letter are particularly useful: '... she had one Breasthook above the Bowspreet'. This tells me that I should join the bulwarks together above the bowsprit with a hooked timber and not some combination of iron straps. '... and the Anchors were weighed by a Tackle.' This closes the discussion from 2015 at the head of this thread about whether Haddock should have a windlass and the drawings have an omission. No windlass. A block and tackle would have been used to raise the anchors. The joy of research and discoveries like this is a great source of pleasure for me. We don't have to rely on drawings or contemporary models alone and the hand-written word can be just as valuable. George
  7. Deck planking finished The fore section of the deck is the largest area and the more complicated one for deck planking. I followed the sequence of waterways with scarf joints, partners down the centre, and binding strakes with false scarf joints. The gaps between them were then filled with other planks. Waterways I made these in two parts. The aft section is almost straight and I spiled it from 6mm wide Obechi to achieve a width of 4.5mm. The fore section at the bow needed a 12mm wide piece of Obechi for spiling. The hooked scarf joint between the two pieces was time consuming and I cut the joint in the aft piece first then marked it on the fore piece and trimmed until they slotted together. It was easier for the second one when I glued ordinary paper under the wood which strengthened it enough to stop accidental splitting. The paper sanded off easily after the joint was complete. Hooked scarf joint in waterway (and a repaired split in the aft piece of wood) The partners and binding strakes were from 4mm wide Tanganyika. The hooked scarf joints in the binding strakes are false and are grooves cut in with a knife point and then filled with pencil dust. The gaps between the partners and binding strakes were filled with 3mm wide planks. The gaps between the binding strakes and waterways needed two straight planks and four planks that were curved and tapered. Three of them had a 'hook' at the fore end so that the adjoining plank would not taper to a sharp point; I did not want to have 'joggling' in the waterway on this model. The joints in the deck planks are over deck beams. When the planks were secured and trimmed and sanded I gave them all a coat of pink wood dye. This changes the image of the schooner somewhat and is quite distinctive. I have bought some Eastern Red Cedar so that I can see the colour of the wood when it is freshly sanded and the next photo shows the deck and the actual wood either side. I think that the pink dye is a close match. Deck stained pink and some real wood of the right species For completeness here is a final photo with a closer view of the deck at the bow. It shows the joints and the 'hooks'. The deck took a long while to complete. My next job will be to copper the hull but I will have a break before then. George
  8. Deck planking I have now completed the planking of the mid section, above the captain's cabin, and the aft section by the transom. The fore section is currently work in progress. The mid section was quite easy and I did it first. I used the 4x0.5mm Tanganyika planks from the kit to lay down the partners either side of the centre line and binding strakes which are further outboard. I set the gap between the binding strakes at 20mm which is the width of the opening for the main hatch. I split some Tanganyika and Obechi to make narrower planks which fit between the partners and binding strakes. A gentle rub with a pencil along the edges of the planks simulates the caulking. There are no joins in the planks because they are not needed. Why add joints when the timbers are long enough? The waterways are a gentle exercise in spiling and I used 6x0.5mm Obechi. The outboard edges were trimmed to fit against the bulwarks and then I used dividers to mark a constant width of 4.5mm. Centre planks, binding strakes and waterways, with narrow planks filling the middle gaps I used tapered planks for the gaps between the binding strakes and waterways. They are 3.5mm wide tapering down to 2.5mm (approx.) and only the outer one has a curve to match the waterway. I decided that the shipwright in Bermuda took the easier option to make them straight and tapered rather than curved and tapered. Trimming the ends and light sanding and scraping finished the job. The aft section was tackled in a similar way. I laid down the partners, binding strakes and waterways (all in 4mm Tanganyika) then filled the gaps with a blend of straight and tapered planks. The aft ends are hidden in the pantry or necessary, or under a plank that runs along the bottom of the transom. This final plank, in two parts, did need some careful cutting to make it fit because the joins cannot be disguised. I could not sand the deck planks because my fingers are too big and used a knife blade instead to scrape them until the deck felt smooth to the touch. Aft section of the deck with the main planks fitted Aft section of decking complete George
  9. Ian, You are off to a great start here with Sherbourne which is a good first kit. The plywood deck layer that you will be fitting soon comes as a single sheet in the kit but it needs to bend up fore-and-aft and bend down at the sides. This is simply not achievable by bending and stretching the plywood. One solution is to make narrow saw cuts that run above the bulkheads and which allow these double curves to be made. (I recently did this on my 'Ballahoo'.) The extra caution if you do this is to have pins ready to hold down the sides by the bulwarks and some arrangement to press down the centre of the ply piece while the glue sets. Small blocks of wood and elastic bands do the trick. George
  10. Bob, Richard, You make excellent points and your timing is superb: I intend to 'copper' the hull of my 1/64 schooner in the coming months and have been thinking about this for some time. I am trying to make the model 'accurate' rather than conforming to model making conventions and this has faced me with some awkward decisions. A model is a representation of reality and will always have some compromises. Some are close to that reality, for example the thickness of a rigging line or the width of a plank. Some are conventions that we accept, for example a ship is stationary in a case and is not actually sailing. The many choices in between these extremes are a balance between accuracy, artisan skill, and art. All of these characteristics are subjective to some extent. Accuracy: In theory we follow Admiralty drawings or information from contemporary models, but we overlay this with our own imagination and desire to represent features that might not actually be visible at a scale distance. There are nails and dents on the edges and face of a copper plate and I would like to nod towards them rather than ignore them. Similarly, I include a few figures on my models to give an indication of scale and I paint the brass buttons on a jacket. Artisan skill: Many models are made to demonstrate the maker's skill and there is nothing wrong with this. It does affect the choice of wood and other materials and sometimes the result looks good but is far from simulating oak planks. Art: I put a few sails on a ship because I like the look, as does my wife. They are out of scale but in my mind the model is bare without them. We all make our own choices because we have different preferences. I have a pack of Amati etched copper plates and might still use them. Or I might make plates from paper in the way that Bob describes. Accuracy is important for me but is it the accuracy of a hull in the water (and the model is definitely dry) or a hull freshly coppered, or in dry dock... Do I want to include weed and barnacles or is that a step too far, for me? A diorama would be treated differently. This model making is something I do for relaxation so I will make my decision at some time soon, and I will not criticize others for their decisions if they happen to be different. George
  11. Tony, Thanks for your reply. I think that you have identified a separate question which is about where along a strake you have the scarf joints. The issue of right or left handed, or A or B from my sketch, still remains. For the straight binding strake the position of a scarf is largely dictated by the length of the available wood but the direction of the joint could be at the whim or habit of the shipwright. I imagine that the shipwright would want to minimise the number of joints and so the positions were set by the available wood. If he has suitable compass timber to curve around the bow then he does not need scarf joints between shorter pieces. This results in a stronger structure and less work. For the waterway on my model of Whiting I plan to have a spiled piece around the bow, one scarf joint, and then a relatively straight piece back as far as the step in the deck. The binding strake will have one joint but I have more flexibility about where it goes. I have tried to put myself in the place of the shipwright who has access to local Bermudan cedar and is using his skill and experience to build a schooner. I know that my knowledge is meagre in comparison to the un-named shipwright but wood and engineering principles have not changed. I can claim that what I have is 'reasonable' even though there is little real evidence to justify it. Sod's law says that something will turn up after I have glued the wood down! George
  12. Deck - first layer A little bit of progress to report on the deck for Whiting. I have now fitted the ply first layer which has been fairly straightforward though there were a few unexpected issues to deal with. I printed the Admiralty drawing (ZAZ6117), cut out the main deck plan and separated it into three sections. I glued these to the ply part from Caldercraft. The hatch openings all had to be adjusted. One surprise was that the rear mast did not align with the ply part and after a lot of measuring and rising worry I realised that ZAZ6117 (top view) does not entirely agree with ZAZ6116 (side view) and there are inconsistencies around the rear mast and entrance lobby. Who can you trust? My model so far is based on the side view so I chose to ignore the marked position of the rear mast on the deck plan. I cut slots in the fore section of the deck so that it could curve from side to side (rounding) to follow the top edges of the bulkheads and curve from fore to aft to follow the sheer on the spine. I don't see how the kit can allow any rounding. I stuck it down with wood glue and used pins in the sides and a block with elastic bands to hold it down. It needed more pressure between the two hatches and my thumb grew weary while I waited for the wood glue to grab and hold. One other issue is that the kit is designed for 6mm dowels for the masts, but they supplied quarter-inch 6.3mm dowel which does not fit. This and the similar issue with the spine and bulkheads suggests that someone at Caldercraft thinks that 6mm and 3mm are equivalent to quarter and eighth inch. Close but not the same. The mid and aft sections did not need saw cuts and were held down with pins while the glue set. I continue to ponder about the deck planking and have started another thread about scarf joints. Any help would be much appreciated. George
  13. I am with Allan on the home made sanding tools. I have glued sandpaper to the handles of wooden cutlery and then trimmed the overlap. This gives an edge which can get into a corner and a flat area for flattening or reducing bumps. For concave surfaces I have a short length of plastic pipe with two grades of sandpaper stuck to it with double sided tape. It is excellent for work on a hull near the transom. One other tool is at the end of your arm! I do enjoy sanding a hull by hand and feeling the bumps and the force needed to cut through them and any irregularities that you can't quite see. George
  14. Druxey, Thank you for your quick reply, appreciated as always. I did not explain my problem properly and have now added a sketch to illustrate the point. I should have done this at the start to make it clearer. The sketch is not an accurate depiction of a hooked scarf but represents the choices I have to make. For the waterway I will be joining an edge-bent plank (aft) to a spiled section (forward) and there is sufficient overlap between the pieces to make either option, A or B. If I choose on aesthetics alone then A looks better to me (at the moment). The join on the binding strake will be handed in the same way as the the one on the waterway just because it looks neater. I enjoy the research on these issues but it is possible to get so engrossed in a search to ensure accuracy that a model does not get finished. Perhaps the only model which can be perfect in all respects is one of a subject which still exists, and the model represents her as she is now. Victory, Cutty Sark and others form a small band but the vast majority of ship models are reconstructions based on best available evidence. Sometimes we rely on informed guesses. (I have just found and enjoyed the thread you started about research.) George
  15. Many drawings and references show scarph (scarf) joints on the deck planking for the stronger, more important planks. The waterway by the bulwark is one, the binding strake outboard of the hatches is another. The shape of a hooked scarf joint is well known and the proportions for the lengths of different sides can vary. A paper by Karolak et al describes many of the variations on scarf joints Karolak scarf joints.pdf. Current use in boat building are described in a short article by Souppez https://www.woodenboat.com/strength-scarf-joints. I guess that around 1800 in the Royal Navy or elsewhere there was a conventional way to draw and cut the joint so that it is not too long or too short. Does anyone have a contemporary description of the relative sizes? I think back to learning how to make a mortise and tenon joint at school where the join is one third of the width of the wood. There must have been something similar, though more complicated, for a scarf joint. My second question is about left-handed or right-handed joints. Drawings in three books I have all show that the aft timber extends farther forward on its outboard edge; the fore timber that goes into the joint extends farther aft on its inboard edge. Was there a conventional way to align the scarfs or was it the choice of the shipwright? I have not yet found any contemporary evidence. I will continue my searches on Google and ask for advice from the wise people who have looked at this before. If there is no evidence anywhere then I will simply choose a joint shape that looks good. George
×
×
  • Create New...