Beef Wellington

Beautiful rigging Bob, looking very nice indeed.

Rigging the mizzen topmast yard is now close to complete with the yard sheets and the cluelines done.  While it has come out acceptably, getting the rigging correct while making sure the crossjack yard and the topmast yard both parallel and horizontal was not something I would like to do again.
 

 
Moreover, belaying the lines to the centre pinrail ran up against the same belaying problem that I found with the jeer bits; not enough room.  The holes  for the pins are either too close together or the pins are themselves too large.  Eventually I was successful, but it was rather frustrating.  I'm not sure how I will later put on rope coils.  The belaying shown below has been tied off, but the lines have not yet been glued or cut off.  (You never known when a further adjustment may be needed.)
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

I have not had a problem with drooping lines. I don't glue pins. I cinch the lines around the pins a couple times as you would securing a regular size vessel then glue with thinned white glue. I then coil a separate line,  place over the pin and glue again with thinned carpenters glue. 

Improving of head rails and cathead support
 
Before finishing rest of external hull details, I tried remaking of head rails and cathead support. When I firstly finished these areas, I was satisfied with the result.
 
https://modelshipworld.com/topic/2926-hms-bellerophon-1786-by-fake-johnbull-amativictory-models-172-vanguard-kit/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-81205
 
But later it became apparent that the curve of cathead support and ekeing rail is too acute than it should be by comparing my model with plan of Elephant. Elephant plas is shown in green line. Also mould on main head rail is simpler comparing with many beautiful models of past days.
 

 

 
These parts are one of most difficult items to form, so I have been reluctant to rework them. But I finally determined to do them before proceeding further steps. BTW, I don’t know exact place where cathead support and ekeing jointing together, but for convenience, I divide them at top edge of channel wale. I would call part running between top edge of channel wale and cathead “cathead support”, and curved rail connecting cathead support and head rail “ekeing”. My apology if my usage of term is incorrect.
 
I firstly prepared NMM Elephant plan and expanded its bow section horizontally so that distance between forepeak of middle head rail and cathead support matches to actual length. Then cut it at bottom edge of middle head rail to use it as template.
 

 
Next I remove old cathead support and ekeing. Old ekeing part are modified to gentler curve than before, and fitted to channel wale with help of template.
 

 
Cathead support is completely new one. I prepared pattern cut from Bristol board and test fit it to hull with help of Elephant plan template. Once satisfied with the shape of pattern, I transferred outline to 0.5 mm maple sheet and cut them. They form forward and rearward faces of cathead support and need two parts per one cathead.
 

 

 

 
2 mm walnut strip is cut to fill horizontal arm of cathead support between forward and rearward faces. It is cut slightly smaller than maple part to represent mould of cathead support. BTW cathead is projectiling diagonally forward. As a result each length of forward and rearward faces of cathead is different. When I made cathead support previously, I prepared patterns for each of forward and rearward faces because forward one is little smaller than the other to correspond this difference of length . But this time I prepared only one pattern and cut rearward one slightly larger and shaped both of forward and rearward ones at once with small electric router after fitted to hull.
 

 

 
Rest of void between forward and rearward faces are filled with 0.5 mm maple sheet cut into arc.
 

 
Yellow area is finished with yellow dye and Watco oil of natural colour. Blue area is painted with Humbrol No. 25.
 
Also more moulds are added to main rail.
 

 

 

 
Reworked cathead support and ekeing is still slightly out of Elephant plan, but I’m satisfied as a whole. It looks much preferable than before.
 

Wow... summer is... well.... over...
 
I have been picking away at my build over the last few months. Progress has been slow, too much nice outdoor weather to be stuck inside, but on the odd rainy day there has been some advancement. The interior is now largely finished, or at least done to a point where I no longer feel the need to dive any deeper down this particular rabbit hole! The remainder of the seats went together smoothly, but painting has been a tedious process. I ended up painting the seats a neutral light green, I felt contrasted nicely with the brown "wooden" interior. I painted the armrests black to provide a bit of contrasting detail. Most of this will be hard to see when the roof is on, so I'm not overly concerned how accurate the colour scheme is, just that someone looking in can see something.
 

 
Here's the completed interior. There are some sections still showing grey primer, these areas definitely will not be seen.
 

 
The women's lavatory.
 

 
The men's lavatory and smoking room.  The washbasin was located in the passageway (to the right of the smoking room in the above photo). If you look back at one of my early posts, you'll see it marked "toilet" on the plans. The sofas in the the smoking room were made by combining two seats together. The facilities for the lavatory were culled from a Walthers heavyweight car that I had kicking around (I've beat up a few, here and there, for various kit bashing projects in the past).
All that really remains is some small touchups and s coating of Dulcote to seal everything.
 

 
Finally an overhead view of the interior in place in the coach. Next on the agenda is the window glazing, and then final assembly. The end is drawing near!
 
Andy

Canons are painted and ready for de breach rope.
Also make the little furniture for the deck.
Gratings...stove and more of that funny stuff.
 
Sjors
 
 

Thanks Joe - a rather late thank you.
 Well the main mast and bowsprit rigging is finished.  Ship building has not been a high priority lately.  Here is the bowsprit.  After a few silly mistakes it has come out quite well.  I have used small alligator clips as weights extensively.  They keep lines taught while the rigging process goes on.  This also shows one of my mistakes (now corrected) - using black, or in my case, dark brown instead of natural for the lanyards.
 

 

 
 

 
Obviously the rigging is very crowded indeed.  For much of the rigging, 0.25mm thread is specified.  The Syren thread comes as either 0.2 or 0.3mm.  I chose 0.3mm.  This, I found, caused a problem with  the 3mm Syren blocks that I used.  When using CA to aid threading through the blocks, the thread did not want to go through.  My solution was to drill out the holes with a 0.6mm bit.  Doing it before a block was mounted was easy - doing it in situ was sometimes rather hair-raising.  Another problem is the lack of space between the belaying pins.  Once the various lines are belayed, rope coils have to be fitted.  This was far easier said ....  An extensive vocabulary helped.  The result is acceptable, though I now see that a bit of adjustment is needed.
 

 

 
I have included the following photo to illustrate  just how crowded and complicated the rigging is.
 

 
This is how things look - with the mizzen rigging still to be finished.
 

 
 
 
 

Here is progress, such as it is.  Since my last post we've had storm damage to our house on the coast south of Sydney which has disrupted all sorts of things. What with the fires, our floods, the pandemic and the recent storms, we're now waiting for the locusts.  The following photos are all a bit random.
 
Instead of wire to support the foot ropes, I have used thread which more nearly approximates the real thing.  To make them appear taught, dilute PVA has been applied and wire threaded though the holes for the ropes.  Alligator clips have then been hung off the wire while the glue dried.
 

 
Belaying ropes the appropriate points is often quite difficult.  Here are the' tools' I used for the main yard lifts which are belayed to kevels  - simply a piece of wire bent to be able to hook the thread and a bamboo stick with a notch cut in the end to push it.  Manipulating them across the deck works a treat with weights on the end of the thread to keep it taught.
 

 
 

 
This is the overall look at the moment.  Unfortunately the light for photography was not all that good and doesn't show much detail - will try harder next time.
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

Thank you Bob, I'm sure you will enjoy building Fifie🙂
 
Post 31

 
The completed model


 
So after around three months Fifie is completed.

 
Starting with some close-up shots.

6552
 

6555
 

6571
 

6549
 

6545
 

6572
 

6561
 

6562
 

6563
 

6566(2)
 

6540
 

6543(2)
 

6541(2)
 

6538(2)
 

6569(2)
 
Thoughts on the Fifie kit


 
I have thoroughly enjoyed building this kit, perfect for a novice build, but offering plenty of scope to enhance and add extra detail.


 
As with all of Chris’s kit offering it makes up into a very attractive model, and one that will be fairly easy to keep dust free without the need to cover.


 
On my model very little is glued down and it could be stripped back down to deck level in a short time, pretty much as on the real thing.


 
Being of fore/aft rigging the model takes up only a modest space and makes for a nice decorative feature in a domestic setting.


 
For the new builder, I would say go for it, a great introduction to ship modelling.


 
For the more experienced builder, it provides a short time interval build, a relaxing change from perhaps more involved projects.


 
 
B.E.


07/08/20


 

Post 29


 
A Basket for Fifie.


 
Still waiting for stuff to arrive to complete Fifie, so looking around for something to work on.


 
One of the additions that caught my eye when researching the subject is the large woven baskets used to lift the Herring catch out of the hold.


Landing the catch
There are called crans and have a specific and approved measure for holding a given quantity of herring.

Their size was regulated and standardized by government decree as a legal measure.

The 1832 Act set the cran at 30 inches high, the diameter at its widest 21.9 inches and at the base 18.9 inches –


 
I scoured the internet for something suitable to no avail, so I started to think about how I could reproduce these for display purposes at 1:64 scale.

 
The answer came in the form of an unlikely source – the centres out of the mast hoops supplied by Chuck for the Cheerful build.


6370(2)
The centres form the base with a series of holes drilled around the circumference, 0.5mm ø brass wire is used for the frames.

 

6371(2)
0.1mm line is used for the weave.

 

6375(2)
The brass rods are metal primed.

 

6379(2)
The finished basket.

The completed item measures 12mm high x 10mm diameter at the top. This equates to a size of 30” x 25”.

 

6386

6393

6389(2)
I’m not sure that my crans would pass muster by the Scottish Fishing Authorities, but they are pretty close for scale.


 
 
B.E

 
29/07/20

 

Post 28

 
Raising canvas


 
With the reef points completed the sails can now be raised and the sheets, tacks, halyards, and Burton pendents attached.

6257(2)

6258(2)
Rigging the Fifie, basic as it appears, is an interesting exercise not least because I am unfamiliar with the arrangements on these small commercial vessels, and my researches have revealed details not reflected on the kit plans.


 
I am rigging the model by reference to a combination of reference books, Edgar March, primarily.
I have used the plans of Underhill relating to the Zulu Muirneag, and of the Fifie’s Reaper and True Vine. Various photos, both old and of the current Reaper, were also of great assistance.


 
There is an indication on the plans of Reaper that the tyes were of wire rather than rope (not a modern substitution)


 
I did think about using wire, a scale diameter of 0.25mm would be required. This was fairly easy to reproduce from thin twisted  copper wire, but I couldn’t get the colour right, so I let it pass.


 
I am using Syren 0.45mm ø line for the Tye, and 0.20mm for the tackle.



6284
The tackle consists of a pendent and two large triple blocks.

I am using Syren 6mm blocks.

 
The strops represent iron and wire formed from silver soldered brass wire.



6282
A similar arrangement is used for the Mizen Tye and Halyard with smaller 3/16th double blocks (4.7mm).


 
Mizen Tack.

 

6295
A chain necklace was used to secure the Mizen tack which I have sought to replicate. The Scots called it a tuckle chain.


6288
A more interesting feature clearly shown on an old photo of the Zulu Muirneag.


 
The Fore tack

This is attached to a hook shackled to the eyebolt atop the stem. Often large hooks (horns) were attached to the port and starboard sides of the stem for this purpose.


6248
An alternative attachment point for the Fore tack is set in the deck a few feet aft of the stem.
 


This is as far as I can go with rigging at present, I am awaiting receipt of fresh rigging supplies from Chuck.


 
 
In the meantime I have been fiddling around with deck fittings.


 
These boats were also equipped with a set of sweeps for rowing. Mine are a scale 23’ overall.

 
There are also two ‘wands’ or hefty push sticks some 36’ long used to fend off and assist movement in harbour situations.


 
A 14’ boat hook completes the set.


6270
In this shot on the near side are the set of six sweeps, on the far side the Boat hook and wands.

The alternative hook for the Fore tack can be seen on the foredeck.



6272
Another shot of the sweeps and a glimpse into the hold containing the nets and floats.

 

6250(2)

6253(2)
Not far from completion but I still have the sheets and Burton Pendents to complete, the block sets have been assembled in readiness.


 

 
B.E

23/07/20

 


 

HI Mark,
 
No other blocks, it goes straight to the steering wheel.
On the second deck, the ropes pass through some kind of wardrobe, or should we say a wardrope.
On a more serious note, the biggest difference between a French an English  74 gun ship for the steering wheel; is the location:
the French installed it behind the mast, the English installed it in front of the mast, needing a much longer rope this way.

Some update.
Added one little detail to guns. Probably will not do tackle that is fixed to deck.
Small double blocks from Cornwall ordered.
Will take weeks until guns are done.
After that to chainplates and then to shrouds and ratlines.
 

Thank you all very much for your opinions and suggestions - this type of feedback is exactly what I needed.  Your comments reinforce what I have been reading, or more to the point what I could not find in the reading.  Kipping, Fincham, Crothers, Underhill and Harland are all silent on these particular matters.
 
Based on these comments, I agree re use of iron fids, they were the go by this period.  Unless I find better information I will retain the fid hole as cut with sides parallel with the masts heel sides (square to the heel) and perhaps add, as Druxey suggests, a beveled bottom so that the fid is flat along the bottom relative to the mast's rake.  There was a iron plate set on or into (the authors differ) the upper face of the trestle trees to carry the iron fid, so that would take the weight - but Rob's advice re rounded fids intrigues me.  I have seen, in Underhill I think, that a round bar preventer fid was fitted, but these did not bear the weight unless the lower (main) fid failed.  Just for interest I may have a go at the diagram of forces acting on the fid suggested by Eberhard (at some point).   Ed's point about readjust the rake would also impact any bevel on the fid hole iand fid is also relevant....
 
WRT to the stops, the overwhelming advice appears to cut them square to the mast.  The point about the wire opening up with increased bending was my main concern, but It appears I may be overly concerned
 
WRT to the mast cap, still very early days - ED, I agree these would have been square to the mast.  In this case, an iron forged cap with circular openings/mortices.
 
WRT the tops; well that is another story now - more on this later.  Suffice to say, that no matter what type, the issue I am having WRT holding/securing the topmast heel remains extant.  Rob, that is a great photo and shows that the gaps athwartship were of little concern as there is a reasonable gap shown in your photo.  If you have any more photos of clippers or ships of this era that confirm these gaps, I would be most interested in the confirmation of the following.
 
Fincham and Kipping advise a 1 inch allowance for play (but Fincham also says 1/4 inch elsewhere.....confusing) .  This is well within the athwartship tolerance of Victoria's topmast heels - possibly of little concern as the shrouds would essentially keep it upright.  The fore and aft securing though still leaves me a little confused with masts at extreme rake.  Again the stays may have kept it centred once set-up; but, .... I am concerned that the rake and a flat fid would tend to try and make the mast 'skate' forward?    I have also found guidance, as has been suggested by Ed, that any filling pieces are payed onto the masts and not the trees.
 
All that said, in doing another close inspection of the imagery I now have concerns on the actual framing of these tops.  I will post separately about these but the top was still set parallel to the waterline, but closer inspection shows that perhaps most of the top was made of iron.  Underhill advises that this was increasingly the practice in merchant ships during this era.
 
Many thanks again
 
Pat

Hi again folks.
 
Not much work done on the model in the past few weeks as I am getting into research of the spars and rigging, which is taking far more time than I thought.  I am making progress though, and I need to do this before progressing as it affects the positiong, type and configuration of other equipment in the ship.  
 
As usual I have run into a few issues the more experienced may be able to assist me with?  Pleeeaase!
Some of these do not effect the model as such as the scale woill mask the problem, but I wish to get it righ for the drawings I am doing.  Rather than flood the log with all questions at once I will 'batch' them, getting the results before moving on I hope
 
The first batch are related and all are caused by the extreme rake in Victoria's masts (5, 10 and 15 degrees for the Fore, Main and Mizen masts respectively.)  The problems listed below all relate to the various contemporary and more recent authors discussing the masts as if the stand vertical.  That is, the stops, tops etc asre all cut or placed as if the mast is not raked and no guidance is offered for what to do when they are raked aft (except for the tops which we know are placed horizontal or parallel to the waterline.)
Please see attached drawings where I have tried to illustrate the issues.  Cross hatch is ironwork including a 1 inch fid plate fitted on top of the trestle trees.  The diagonal hatch represents the ends of timbers.  Please look closely as the drawing of the top as gaps are small but evident as is the misaligned fit of the heel (slanted) into the squared hole for the heeling.  The small unhatched piece is a 'small cross-piece' that sits behind the rim.  Again the guidance infers to make this square on its after face. I can move the rim forward a bit which fixes the overlap at the forefoot of the topmast heel; but opens the gap.  The larger gap abaft the crosstree is there by design, as the Kipping and Fincham adise a 1" allowance was made here (assumed to allow the upper mast (long pole) to pass through due to the rake of these masts.

Q1.    Should the stops (no hounds) for the upper mast be cut horizontal also?  If not, as the standing rigging (wire rope) have eyes seized to fit snug/tight on the stop, the backstays would, and perhaps the shrouds may, lead fair, BUT the forestays would have a large kink induced as , say for the main mast, they would point 10 degrees into the sky (vertical) before bending down.  My gut feel is they should also be parallel to the waterline but cannot find any guidance on this.

 
Q2.    AS the top, and therefore the crosstrees are fitted parallel to the waterline, but the upper mast is set-up at an angle corresponding the the relevant mast's rake, it would not sit up-and-down in the hole framed between the trestletrees and crosstrees. 
 
The imagery shows that the foremost crosstree passed between the lower masthead and heel of the upper mast (combined pole including top, topgallant and royal masts).  This would mean this crosstree would sit square (true up-and-down) having been let into the trestletrees, whereas the masthead and heel would be raked.  This results in only a part of the crosstree fore and after faces providing support (sides are not an issue).  The contemporary practice was to use a shaped chock here (instead of a crosstree) but that was for a standard top (larger and fully made with a platform, battens etc)  The tops in Victoria are unlike in any other ship I have seen, and, in form, were more like the tops used at the topmast hounds where loose masts were fitted.  Even here, the guidance shows squared crosstrees.  Simply fitting a wedge would not work.  My only solution might be to fit/fay a shaped filling piece on the fore side of the masthead, and after face of the heel to square the resulting gaps (hope that makes sense) The issue there though is that increases the distance between the crosstrees much more than what is shown in the imagery. Such filling pieces were used to remove excessive 'play' of the heel but were usually evenly  sized in section (not sloping/wedge shaped).  Any ideas?
 

 
Q3.    Similar to the issue with the stops, it would appear to be sensible to adjust the fid holes tosuch that the fid  would sit flush on the trestletree.  Again all auther say this is cut in parallel to mast sides, but does not make sense for mastes that are raked.  Do I agjust these to up-and-down?  Would this weaken the fid or holding power as the centre of force (weight) is now not acting direct through the fid.

Any help, suggestions, pointers etc most welcomed.
 
cheers
 
Pat

Hi Tony, thanks for looking in.
 
To clarify, if it wasn't for the extreme rake of the masts (15 degrees for the Mizen mast) the options 1 through three would not be an issue at all as the masts are fairly upright.  Therefore when checking in to fit the hounds (single piece in steam vessels of this era) the upper edge would provide a 'natural' flat/horizontal length onto which to fit the trestletrees.
 
Unfortunately, as you rake the mast backward you are changing the angle and taking out much more of the mast when checking in for the hounds.  Similarly, you have to adjust the heel of the mast such that it fits snug and parallel along its length against the keel/mast footing to allow a tight fit for the heel tenon.  When the mast is up and down the hounded and headed lengths are IAW the dimensions of the masts given in the Specification.  This allows easy application of the rules for shaping the mast as given by Kipping and Fincham.  However, as you lay the mast backward more what is the hounded length?  Is it from the partners  to the stop (where the head starts) along the mast centre line (CL) or is it a true perpendicular/vertical height? 
 
I am assuming it is the first option, and therefore by adjusting the heel and how much of the stop is taken away will influence/impact of the hounded length (only a bit but still....)  I am trying to stay within the rules and the given dimensions for shaping the mast by minimising the amount the heel and the stop is adjust to allow the skeletal tops to be fitted parallel to the waterline.
 
If you look closely, option 1 has the after part of the hounds sitting proud of the stop as the tops is axis is centred on the CL crossing with the mast.  Option two, which minimises the amount checked out of the stop, creates an even larger area abaft the leading edge of the mast that is not conformal/level with the stop's shoulder.  Option 3, and my selected way ahead, checks more out of the mast but provides maximum support.
 
The issue is though where is the hounded length measured, from the CL or from the point where you have checked in for the hounds creating a new lowest point for the shoulder.  In reality, I don't think this would make much of a difference and the rules are given as the starting point for shaping the mast, but then adjusted to fit the ship/need?  As such I created the masts (in my CAD drawing) to be slightly longer, such that after shaping the hounded length is measured along the CL of the mast between the partners and the centre/mid point of the hounding stop's shoulder.
 
I hope this clarifies what I was trying to elicit?  Simply, having to write it out and the reassurance of the responses helped me settle on a solution.
 
cheers
 
Pat

You are getting really into the specifics there ... can't give founded advice on the hounds, but wondered, whether the difference between the options would be discerneable on the model ? OK, this is our old plague, that we want to get it right, even if no one would notice the difference.

You clearly  have become THE "go-to expert" for everything which is related to the Victory! 🙂
 
Thomas

Got the foremast topsail sheet and clew done this afternoon. Hard to see the "cloverleaf block" under the foreyard, but the chain is belayed to the pinrail, then through the cloverleaf block, the out to the sheave at the end of the yard (remember when I put those in?) and then to a single block, which receives a line from the topmast near the center, then down to the pinrail. The sheet tackle is .015, while the clew is .010. This is because the sheet carries a lot of force when he sail is deployed, but the clew only pulls up the sail itself.
 

So here's the mizzen topyard halyard - with these all done, next is the topsail sheet and clew lines. Chain with blocks on each end.

So now I have put all 3 top yards on and attached their lifts. Now this project goes on hold while I build a New Bedford Whaleboat for a customer.

Congratulations Kevin, you should be very proud of her and your fine craftsmanship.

Congratulations Kevin, you should be very proud of her and your fine craftsmanship.

Congratulations Kevin, you should be very proud of her and your fine craftsmanship.

congratulations to this excellent Model Kevin,
lovely work !
Nils