Sailor1234567890

Interesting that there's a helm on the bridge. I've never seen that in a sub. Ours have a radio and a voice pipe down to the helmsman in the control room. Of course we check and double check that the hull and back up valves to both the voice pipe and the voice pipe drain pipe are all shut before we dive.

My understanding is that her masts were called, in order from forward aft, Fore, Main, Mizzen, Jigger, Driver, Spanker, and Pusher. I tend to think this more plausible than the days of the week or numbers because sailors are such sticklers for terminology. Why change the name of the fore, main and mizzen? Big four posters had a jigger mast. That is, I believe, one of the only pictures of her and she's in ballast. As such, she is showing way more freeboard than when loaded. She would have settled much deeper in the water and that would improve her looks remarkably. A low freeboard always looks better than a tall wall sided ship. It wouldn't however improve her sailing qualities and she likely was a very unhandy ship. The fact that no other was built with 7 masts likely tells something of how good a sailer she was or how sucessful a business venture.

I firmly believe that with both castles and ships there can be a balance struck so you have the essence and feel yet still have some of the modern comfort and convenience of it. I would not want to live in a draughty old castle either but if you were to properly insulate, seal things up tight, heat it, provide power, Air conditioning, internet connectivity etc. (properly hidden in the walls), as well as things like running water, hot and cold, modern cooking appliances, refrigeration...... etc etc etc, then yes a real stone castle would be cool to live in. As far as driving Cutty Sark at 17.5 knot today.... I have no idea if there is anybody skilled enough to do what she did back then, however we have things like weather routing and GPS feeds that would allow us to cheat a little bit on that. Modern sail cloth and rigging lines as well as building methods would allow her to be a much stronger ship than she was. LIkely faster. That 17.5 knots is a top speed, average speeds were closer to 14 and I see no reason why with modern technologies to help, an average of 14 knots could not be sustained. There are plenty of young sailing ship sailors today in the training ship world who would jump at the chance to drive a ship like that as fast as they dare. I know I would given the opportunity. Imagine this: Cold moulded hull. Carbon fiber lower spars, hollow wooden upper spars. You've saved weight aloft making her a bit stiffer. Remove her elm keel and false keel and replace it with external lead. It has been shown (and used effectively by naval architects) that lead has about the strength of white oak when used in the same size. That means her external keel could be replaced with a lead keel giving her increased stability by increasing her GM. More efficient blocks with nearly frictionless bearings would make working her easier but we don't want to take away from the actual act of sailing her by connecting everything to electric winches. We still want to sail her now don't we? Crew accomodations can be fit into her holds with a modicum of comfort and convenience items. Hot and cold running water, proper heating and air conditioning etc. Modern Navigation suits with radar, radio, GPS etc would be required by law and we'd be delinquent in our responsibilities not to include them even if they weren't required. Given the fact that the weight of accomodation spaces in a ship are significantly less than that of a load of tea or wool, she'd have a need for more internal ballast, likely in the form of lead trimming ballast, fresh water tankage, fuel (for she'd need auxiliary propulsion and machinery) and stores. I suspect built like this, she would sail higher out of the water, possibly even higher than her days in the tea trade yet still be a stiffer ship. Modern high strength lines in the standing rigging would reduce weight and windage aloft while the lead keel would improve her stiffness (Stability wise, not so much structurally in a longitudinal manner). Stronger sailcloth and rigging would mean she could likely stand up to a stiffer breeze than the original without being laid on her beam ends. I think one could expect over 19 knots of this hypothetical ship. All this and she'd look to the casual observer, like Cutty Sark did back in her prime. The only obstacle I can see to this is money. Nobody with money is interested in doing this and those that do have it choose to build massive white wedding cake type motor yachts with helipads on them. They do however build castles and live in them. Massive stone homes of 10 000 + square feet with towers, turrets, gates, 20 foot tall wooden entry doors and all the other things you'd expect of a castle. They include Wifi, air conditioning, 10 car underground garages, swimming pools, tennis courts, home theaters, home gyms and just about anything else you can imagine. Too bad they have no taste when it comes to things nautical. By the way, if anybody wants to foot the bill, I'd be happy to spend your money to build this "hypothetical ship" (Sorry for the thread hijack Nenad, I'll let you get back to showing us your progress now).

Beautiful. Nice job. Love to see that.

It's interesting to me how we as a species can lose a technology that we had once mastered. Trying to replicate something like a ship that was built 200 + years ago should be easy. We did it before. How hard could it be to build one now? We have power tools, we have computer softward to do the design work, yet even with all this extra "help" to get the job done, we would be hard pressed to build a large vessel like this. Pyramids.... forget it. Yet, relatively small groups of enthusiasts like us will labour for years to figure out something and keep pushing to "get it right". I love that.

I only wish they had sent her back to sea after her latest refit instead of condemning her to a dock in that most unatural suspended structure. Look what the Australians did with James Craig. I look forward to seeing what they do with City of Adelaid. I'm sure she'll be stunning as well. The Australians seem to know how to rejuvenate an old beauty like this. Cutty Sark is about the toughtest out there I think. Her longevity demonstrates this. One day someone will replicate her and do her justice.

And a wider shot of the whold ship. She's looking great at this point.

It's that bluff, plumb bow that just screams "Laker" to me.

Phenomenal. This is beautiful craftsmanship at it's finest.

Any progress?

.07" is "Heavy timbers"? WOW, I thought the 1x1/4" bead and coves I used on my canoe were thin and flimsy. I've never planked a model yet though so I guess I have much to learn. She's going to be a beauty though. That hull is gorgeous.

Unbelieveable. Beautiful detail work.

That last shot brings back memories of my time in Algomarine.

Seems time bends meanings and changes definitions. Another complexity to it is that often times a word had a certain meaning somwhere and a different meaning in another geographic area. Not only that but a certain part or action may have a certain name in one place but be called something completely different in another place. Rigs and their differences are an area that this comes up in very often. (Brigantine vs. Hermaphrodite brig comes to mind). The etymology of it all is still interesting to learn about.

Trying to picture an 8 year old building that and I can't. Maybe a 10 or 12 year old. Are there instructions that say for 8 and up or something? Looks much more detailed than I can envision my 6 year old building in 2 years, or my girlfriend's 7 year old next year even..... It does look like a pretty neat vessel though

Incredible carving skills. Any updates? Beautiful work.

Very nice work. She's really taking shape now.

Tease.

Agreed. That weathered look is really cool.

A well furled sail should be smooth, not creased and wrinkled. The reason for this is that a smooth sail sheds rainwater while creases in it will hold rainwater. This is damaging to the sail. A well furled sail should not be seen from below and abaft the yard in question. As to sails being furled "down and in front" of the yard, this has to do with where the clews are triced up to. Older ships would normally have the clews brought to the bunt of the sail (middle or belly of the sail so middle of the yard, by the mast). More modern ships (roughly the clipper ship era and later) they started to bring the clew up to the end of the yard when furling. This made a difference in how the mass of the sail was seen. An older ship would have a larger bundle of sail cloth to furl in the middle because the clew brought the lower corners of the sail up to the middle of the yard. With the clews furled to the outboard ends of the yard the sail could be furled much neater and give that cleaner appearance. That being said, there were some "radical" designs such as for roller furling topsl's that rolled the sail on a jackyard of sorts or "curtain" style sails that were drawn together at the mast like curtains. These obviously worked completely differently and my previous comments no longer apply. Hope this helps guys. Cheers, Daniel

Exactly the store I mean. I have heard rumours of another store in town but nobody can tell me where. I guess I should ask at Maritime Hobbies...

Did you pick that kit up at the hobby shop across the street from the courthouse? I picked up all their 3/32 size blocks just before the holidays. It's the only store in town I think. Unless you know of another one? I have two of those three books and look forward to seeing the build log. Cheers, Daniel

I would hope to not be the poor unfortunate sailor who took a line off the pin rail and accidentally droped it in the head.

Anchor cables are chain? Must be an upgrade that nobody knew about. I can't imagine her rudder was even looked at before designing this kit. Her sternchasers are as crooked as the price they are asking for this model. Everything about it is off.

Ed, "Abaft" is actually nautical speak for "behind" more so than "closer to the stern". As in, the mizzen mast is abaft the mainmast. Be default this will put the mizzen closer to the stern but I don't think that is the intent of the word. Petty nuances I know. A ship is not abaft another ship however, it is (as we all know) astern of her. The admiralty and indeed any sailor of the day (today as well) would refer to this roundup as "Camber". I have not read Steel however it sounds like he is using incorrect terminology and his incorrect terminology is throwing everyone off. Unless I am missunderstanding the use of the term "round up". Round up would mean to anyone in Nelson's navy or today's sailors to come up into the wind. A vessel will round up into the wind before dropping her anchor. I'm a bit of a stickler for terminology as it's so important to us at sea to use the correct terminology for everything. It avoids mistakes and ensures we're all refering to the same thing. Makes things challenging when "floors" are not something you walk on and "ladders" look like staircases. I have seen this a few times and hope this clears things up a bit for many. Love your build as well as this one. Truly you are both masters of your craft, Cheers, Daniel