Beef Wellington

Love the last photo with the yellow robe Nils with, he fits right in to the look of the ship.

Love the last photo with the yellow robe Nils with, he fits right in to the look of the ship.

Thanks all for the nice words, likes and continued interest.  Know its been a while, seems as if I hit some sort of 'modelers wall'.  Before I can really continue with the topsides, I needed to turn my attention to mounting the rudder.  This is something I've been putting off for quite a while, and proved to be a very frustrating experience.  I had initially delayed doing this to allow the copper to oxidize as much as possible just in case of any errant CA glue and prevent shiny spots.
 
The kit provides PE rudder and pintle straps, but for some reason I couldn't get comfortable with them.  On Snake, the staps come with holes and pins were inserted, but this was something that in retrospect look a little too clunky and out of scale.  Looking at pictures of period ships, the bolts/nails are quite a subtle feature similar to treenails in visibility.  I experimented with card and styrene strip  to make these from scratch, but in the end decided to go with the supplied PE parts.  I forgot to take a picture, but instead of premade holes, these have rather large circular indentations in them, I'm guessing to simulate the bolts.  To my eye they looked to far apart, and the holes too big.  I made a slight alteration to increase the number of bolts/nail heads by drilling additional indentations to simulate what was already there.  The rudder straps also needed to be shortened quite considerably to eliminate overhang at the rear of the rudder.  These were painted with "Admiralty copper" paint after experimenting with other similar Tamiya colours.
 
The main challenge I found was to attach these without marring the copper plates, and this proved to be quite the challenge as at first the CA glue wouldn't provide a good bond and needed to be reapplied.  Scratching the hull plates and inside surface of the PE seemed to get things strong enough. The rudder proved quite the challenge to mount as this had been made with a low (for me) level of tolerance following the AOTS plans which is documented earlier in the log.
 
Interestingly, the box artwork shows a spectacle plate, but there is nothing in the kit nor instructions.  This was simulated using painted card and eyebolts, but interestingly there is very little room for this, however this seems consistent with AOTS diagrams.  The ironwork on the lower counter ports used some PE parts from the "Badger" set which I had bought a number of years ago.  These looked a little more in keeping scale wise than what is provide in this kit.  I may add ring bolts and rings to these, but will likely not rig with line as I'm concerned this may be a visual distraction - personal preference of course.  Next up will be to attach the rudder chains which, nicely, are provided in the kit.
 

 

OC, Thomas, Eamonn, thanks for kind words.
 
@ BE - jury is out on a rudder coat, I've seen the great result you achieved, what I'm wrestling with the aesthetic and the quality of the result I might achieve.  In the event I don't, I did simulate the end of the tiller 
@ Carl - You reiterated my dilemma   1:64 is a scale where it seems sometimes that details are a question of compromise.  The downside of using raise pins is that to my eye, they appear more obvious and overscale - and also runs the risk that it would be hard to get these positioned accurately  Staying with the indentations, from typical viewing distance it is not obvious to the eye that the indents are in fact indentations rather than raised (think of the classic 'hollow face' optical illusion).  The rudder straps were unaltered and show how these parts came.
 
Anyway...I was very excited to finally receive my copy of the Diana plans from NMM.  WOW!  I've never had a chance to see these types of plans before and I'm very impressed, not only will it hopefully become a nice decorative piece, but its very informative.  Even though the plan indicates it's 'Diana' (non-contemporaneous pencil annotation), it appears to me that these should be considered to be more generic to the Artois class as a whole - there contemporary are annotations indicating that the foremast on 'Jason' and 'Diamond' were moved forward 6 1/4" - but, I'm not going to make any changes at this point as its quite subtle.
 
There are so many details that are much clearer than in the AOTS or kit plans, but few items just for starters...(the poor quality of my photos do not do justice to the print and colours didn't come out well.)
 
Given I'm building roughly 'as designed', I will need to reconsider a few things:
The position of the mizzen channels, these are placed lower than the kit plans and AOTS which reflect the 'as built' higher position.  Looking at the classic Diana models, I now see this is indeed where they are positioned.  The structure of the chains is also very different to what is provided in the kit.  This view also shows evolutionary changes to the positions of the cannon and carronade ports.  
To hopefully resolve a discussion/dilemma experience by Diana builders...my opinion estimating from these plans (and assuming plans to be correct scale) is that the kit stern frame are too wide at the top of the rearmost bulkhead by about 5mm.  Not too significant, but enough to cause the misalignment with the stern fascia and light positions experienced by all builders it seems.  Correction of this and other bulkheads would not be hard when starting out on the kit, but would need to be done prior to planking.
 

 
The main channels are shown positioned below the sheer rail 'as designed'.  Unfortunately I've been working to have these in line with the sheer rail (as built it appears), but am not going to make changes as the difference is quite subtle.   The built up bulwarks are also clearly shown, the kit provides for, and reference made in AOTS to Diana having a more decorative style consistent with the open bulkhead profile - the plans show these as the more standard, utilitarian square profile that later became standard.
 

 
The bow sections shows a number of interesting aspects:
Changes to positions of timberheads to accommodate evolving cannon/carronade compliment Inclusion of a forward port (as built) which I suspect would have been for access to the cathead/anchor rather than including a cannon.  This would have been a nice feature to add, but would require significant rework earlier in the build (more than I did) to allow this as it aligns with the foremost bulkhead Also seems that there was some variations on the profile of the stem, and position of the cathead
 

Thanks all for the nice words, likes and continued interest.  Know its been a while, seems as if I hit some sort of 'modelers wall'.  Before I can really continue with the topsides, I needed to turn my attention to mounting the rudder.  This is something I've been putting off for quite a while, and proved to be a very frustrating experience.  I had initially delayed doing this to allow the copper to oxidize as much as possible just in case of any errant CA glue and prevent shiny spots.
 
The kit provides PE rudder and pintle straps, but for some reason I couldn't get comfortable with them.  On Snake, the staps come with holes and pins were inserted, but this was something that in retrospect look a little too clunky and out of scale.  Looking at pictures of period ships, the bolts/nails are quite a subtle feature similar to treenails in visibility.  I experimented with card and styrene strip  to make these from scratch, but in the end decided to go with the supplied PE parts.  I forgot to take a picture, but instead of premade holes, these have rather large circular indentations in them, I'm guessing to simulate the bolts.  To my eye they looked to far apart, and the holes too big.  I made a slight alteration to increase the number of bolts/nail heads by drilling additional indentations to simulate what was already there.  The rudder straps also needed to be shortened quite considerably to eliminate overhang at the rear of the rudder.  These were painted with "Admiralty copper" paint after experimenting with other similar Tamiya colours.
 
The main challenge I found was to attach these without marring the copper plates, and this proved to be quite the challenge as at first the CA glue wouldn't provide a good bond and needed to be reapplied.  Scratching the hull plates and inside surface of the PE seemed to get things strong enough. The rudder proved quite the challenge to mount as this had been made with a low (for me) level of tolerance following the AOTS plans which is documented earlier in the log.
 
Interestingly, the box artwork shows a spectacle plate, but there is nothing in the kit nor instructions.  This was simulated using painted card and eyebolts, but interestingly there is very little room for this, however this seems consistent with AOTS diagrams.  The ironwork on the lower counter ports used some PE parts from the "Badger" set which I had bought a number of years ago.  These looked a little more in keeping scale wise than what is provide in this kit.  I may add ring bolts and rings to these, but will likely not rig with line as I'm concerned this may be a visual distraction - personal preference of course.  Next up will be to attach the rudder chains which, nicely, are provided in the kit.
 

 

Love the last photo with the yellow robe Nils with, he fits right in to the look of the ship.

A little teaser... more to follow but I need some sleep first...
 

I admire your passion for the subject, turning over every stone and sharing with us.  I wonder if its possible to reconcile some of the visual elements to other sources to get a sense for how these reconcile and the reliability of the artists eye portraying what was there - for example using sources for masting dimensions for the period (if any?) to get a gut check.  I always think of a classic painting by Turner - clearly impressionistic to highlight the majesty of the ships, containing a lot of detail that could arguably be relied upon based on his familiarity with ships of his day.  However, the proportions and scale of the figures, ports and small boats are incredibly misleading.  Looking at the masts, he has made them too short in proportion to he height of the hull which is greatly exaggerated, this seems to be a trend in all his works.  Just food for thought.
 

I admire your passion for the subject, turning over every stone and sharing with us.  I wonder if its possible to reconcile some of the visual elements to other sources to get a sense for how these reconcile and the reliability of the artists eye portraying what was there - for example using sources for masting dimensions for the period (if any?) to get a gut check.  I always think of a classic painting by Turner - clearly impressionistic to highlight the majesty of the ships, containing a lot of detail that could arguably be relied upon based on his familiarity with ships of his day.  However, the proportions and scale of the figures, ports and small boats are incredibly misleading.  Looking at the masts, he has made them too short in proportion to he height of the hull which is greatly exaggerated, this seems to be a trend in all his works.  Just food for thought.
 

Catching up Pat, great progress.  I'm similarly pondering the rudder chains so will be interested to see what you uncover.  I wonder how much history there is of rudders becoming unshipped, intuitively it just seems very improbable considering the length of pintles and the fact that the motion would need to be perfectly in line with the hinge line.  The photo of the chains with multiple attachments is very interesting, way more than I've seen on most ships.  Is it to minimise drag caused by the chain being in the water?

Love the last photo with the yellow robe Nils with, he fits right in to the look of the ship.

Corvette HMS STARWORT and Trawler HMS POLLOCK probably on the Mersey again.
Watercolour 14" X 10"
Jim

2nd Escort group 
Liverpool, HMS Starling leads the way with HMS Wild Goose following with a Seaward Defence Launch in attendance.
Watercolour 15" X 11" 
Jim

Based on Blakley Saw Mills Near Seatle On Puget Sound
acrylic 30 X 11 inches.
jim

Love the last photo with the yellow robe Nils with, he fits right in to the look of the ship.

I admire your passion for the subject, turning over every stone and sharing with us.  I wonder if its possible to reconcile some of the visual elements to other sources to get a sense for how these reconcile and the reliability of the artists eye portraying what was there - for example using sources for masting dimensions for the period (if any?) to get a gut check.  I always think of a classic painting by Turner - clearly impressionistic to highlight the majesty of the ships, containing a lot of detail that could arguably be relied upon based on his familiarity with ships of his day.  However, the proportions and scale of the figures, ports and small boats are incredibly misleading.  Looking at the masts, he has made them too short in proportion to he height of the hull which is greatly exaggerated, this seems to be a trend in all his works.  Just food for thought.
 

Post 10
Stern ports
The prospect of doing these was quite daunting and I trawled all available logs for photo's and approaches before I started.
My approach was as follows.
I firstly cut the strips for the sills to fit snugly between the frames.

4676
Allowing for a small exterior over hang to take account of the transom curve, I marked the width taken from the plan, and cut it to size. I worked on the basis that the inner line was square to the frames and that the sill was level to the waterline.
I fitted one and checked it against the plan. With the pva semi set on the first sill I added the second sill, and matched it to the first again using the plan as a guide.

4677
Checking the level of the sills.

4680
A section of 'port' sized wood was formed to get the position for the Lintels. This was done once the sills had set.
The lintels were then cut to size and glued into place using the top of the port  'jig' as a guide.

4736
Both sills and lintels were then sanded to conform to the stern frames.

4820
The moment of truth, will the plan template fit.
Not really a shot in the dark, I used several copies of the template to check progress as work progressed.

4819
Seems to fit fairly well.

4825

4827

4828

4829
Moving onto the Square tuck piece next, then back to a little more fairing and fine sanding.
 
B.E.
31/01/2018
 

Post 9
Thinking about stern frames
Before I started on the stern frames I added short bracing sections of Walnut square stuff between those bulkheads not braced by the Port sills.

4655
The hull is now very stable without any flex in the bulkheads.

4648
getting the levels right for the outer frames

4650
attaching the outer frame sections.
These frames are beautifully cut and fit together perfectly.

4654
Marking the approximate fairing line on the outer stern frames. This method of attaching a pencil stub to a wood strip I copied from Rustyj's Cheerful log, thanks Rusty, it worked a treat.

4657
More fairing of the outer frames still required, but at this point I added the four internal frames.

4668
I used a copy of the stern plan to check the set up, not exactly a perfect fit but it did align with frames 'Y' so I took those as the reference points to mark the height of the port frames.

4672
At this point I think I will fit the port sills and lintels which will add a little stability to the quite fine inner frames.
B.E.
28/01/2018

Hey BW!  Thanks for stopping in and sharing your thoughts.
 
In fact, you have very much hit the nail on the head.  A reconcilliation of primary, secondary and tertiary sources is exactly what I am up to.  There are the primary sources that involve the ship, herself;  these are the Berain drawings, the VDV, Monamy, and Bakhuizen portraits of her.  The secondary sources include contemporary portraiture of other French ships that were contemporaries of SR - those by the VDVs are the best and most detailed.  Tertiary sources include portraits of other nation’s great ships that were contemporaries of SR, as well as other people’s modern models of her, and all that I can find that has been written of her history.  At best, and considering all of these fragments, looking at the first SR as she might have been after her re-fit, is sort of like trying to discern the shape and magnificence of her through a dense fog;  there’s something quite majestic there, glinting with gold and bristling with arttllery, but the picture is just so slightly out of focus.
 
This is why the painting of SR (port quarter view) facing off against Britannia, at Barfleur, is so captivating.  There is something truly meaningfull, there, to be gleaned - if I could only just find the current whereabouts of the painting for a better look:

The height of her rig; the breadth of her hull; the configuration of her stern and quarters with all of Berain’s allegorical intent; it’s all, there.  I can just make out the outline of it.  Almost...
 
But, as I said in an earlier post, it is an effort to strike a balance between artistic interpretation and what is actually known and recorded about this early period in pre-plans naval architecture.  And, to do all of that within, and to some degree to stretch, the apparent limitations of the Heller kit.  Opinions are just that, but in mine SR was a ship that was so far beyond any of her contemporaries, in terms of her grandeur, and the epic performance of Tourville and his crew at Barfleur.  The subject never bores me.

I admire your passion for the subject, turning over every stone and sharing with us.  I wonder if its possible to reconcile some of the visual elements to other sources to get a sense for how these reconcile and the reliability of the artists eye portraying what was there - for example using sources for masting dimensions for the period (if any?) to get a gut check.  I always think of a classic painting by Turner - clearly impressionistic to highlight the majesty of the ships, containing a lot of detail that could arguably be relied upon based on his familiarity with ships of his day.  However, the proportions and scale of the figures, ports and small boats are incredibly misleading.  Looking at the masts, he has made them too short in proportion to he height of the hull which is greatly exaggerated, this seems to be a trend in all his works.  Just food for thought.
 

OC, Thomas, Eamonn, thanks for kind words.
 
@ BE - jury is out on a rudder coat, I've seen the great result you achieved, what I'm wrestling with the aesthetic and the quality of the result I might achieve.  In the event I don't, I did simulate the end of the tiller 
@ Carl - You reiterated my dilemma   1:64 is a scale where it seems sometimes that details are a question of compromise.  The downside of using raise pins is that to my eye, they appear more obvious and overscale - and also runs the risk that it would be hard to get these positioned accurately  Staying with the indentations, from typical viewing distance it is not obvious to the eye that the indents are in fact indentations rather than raised (think of the classic 'hollow face' optical illusion).  The rudder straps were unaltered and show how these parts came.
 
Anyway...I was very excited to finally receive my copy of the Diana plans from NMM.  WOW!  I've never had a chance to see these types of plans before and I'm very impressed, not only will it hopefully become a nice decorative piece, but its very informative.  Even though the plan indicates it's 'Diana' (non-contemporaneous pencil annotation), it appears to me that these should be considered to be more generic to the Artois class as a whole - there contemporary are annotations indicating that the foremast on 'Jason' and 'Diamond' were moved forward 6 1/4" - but, I'm not going to make any changes at this point as its quite subtle.
 
There are so many details that are much clearer than in the AOTS or kit plans, but few items just for starters...(the poor quality of my photos do not do justice to the print and colours didn't come out well.)
 
Given I'm building roughly 'as designed', I will need to reconsider a few things:
The position of the mizzen channels, these are placed lower than the kit plans and AOTS which reflect the 'as built' higher position.  Looking at the classic Diana models, I now see this is indeed where they are positioned.  The structure of the chains is also very different to what is provided in the kit.  This view also shows evolutionary changes to the positions of the cannon and carronade ports.  
To hopefully resolve a discussion/dilemma experience by Diana builders...my opinion estimating from these plans (and assuming plans to be correct scale) is that the kit stern frame are too wide at the top of the rearmost bulkhead by about 5mm.  Not too significant, but enough to cause the misalignment with the stern fascia and light positions experienced by all builders it seems.  Correction of this and other bulkheads would not be hard when starting out on the kit, but would need to be done prior to planking.
 

 
The main channels are shown positioned below the sheer rail 'as designed'.  Unfortunately I've been working to have these in line with the sheer rail (as built it appears), but am not going to make changes as the difference is quite subtle.   The built up bulwarks are also clearly shown, the kit provides for, and reference made in AOTS to Diana having a more decorative style consistent with the open bulkhead profile - the plans show these as the more standard, utilitarian square profile that later became standard.
 

 
The bow sections shows a number of interesting aspects:
Changes to positions of timberheads to accommodate evolving cannon/carronade compliment Inclusion of a forward port (as built) which I suspect would have been for access to the cathead/anchor rather than including a cannon.  This would have been a nice feature to add, but would require significant rework earlier in the build (more than I did) to allow this as it aligns with the foremost bulkhead Also seems that there was some variations on the profile of the stem, and position of the cathead
 

OC, Thomas, Eamonn, thanks for kind words.
 
@ BE - jury is out on a rudder coat, I've seen the great result you achieved, what I'm wrestling with the aesthetic and the quality of the result I might achieve.  In the event I don't, I did simulate the end of the tiller 
@ Carl - You reiterated my dilemma   1:64 is a scale where it seems sometimes that details are a question of compromise.  The downside of using raise pins is that to my eye, they appear more obvious and overscale - and also runs the risk that it would be hard to get these positioned accurately  Staying with the indentations, from typical viewing distance it is not obvious to the eye that the indents are in fact indentations rather than raised (think of the classic 'hollow face' optical illusion).  The rudder straps were unaltered and show how these parts came.
 
Anyway...I was very excited to finally receive my copy of the Diana plans from NMM.  WOW!  I've never had a chance to see these types of plans before and I'm very impressed, not only will it hopefully become a nice decorative piece, but its very informative.  Even though the plan indicates it's 'Diana' (non-contemporaneous pencil annotation), it appears to me that these should be considered to be more generic to the Artois class as a whole - there contemporary are annotations indicating that the foremast on 'Jason' and 'Diamond' were moved forward 6 1/4" - but, I'm not going to make any changes at this point as its quite subtle.
 
There are so many details that are much clearer than in the AOTS or kit plans, but few items just for starters...(the poor quality of my photos do not do justice to the print and colours didn't come out well.)
 
Given I'm building roughly 'as designed', I will need to reconsider a few things:
The position of the mizzen channels, these are placed lower than the kit plans and AOTS which reflect the 'as built' higher position.  Looking at the classic Diana models, I now see this is indeed where they are positioned.  The structure of the chains is also very different to what is provided in the kit.  This view also shows evolutionary changes to the positions of the cannon and carronade ports.  
To hopefully resolve a discussion/dilemma experience by Diana builders...my opinion estimating from these plans (and assuming plans to be correct scale) is that the kit stern frame are too wide at the top of the rearmost bulkhead by about 5mm.  Not too significant, but enough to cause the misalignment with the stern fascia and light positions experienced by all builders it seems.  Correction of this and other bulkheads would not be hard when starting out on the kit, but would need to be done prior to planking.
 

 
The main channels are shown positioned below the sheer rail 'as designed'.  Unfortunately I've been working to have these in line with the sheer rail (as built it appears), but am not going to make changes as the difference is quite subtle.   The built up bulwarks are also clearly shown, the kit provides for, and reference made in AOTS to Diana having a more decorative style consistent with the open bulkhead profile - the plans show these as the more standard, utilitarian square profile that later became standard.
 

 
The bow sections shows a number of interesting aspects:
Changes to positions of timberheads to accommodate evolving cannon/carronade compliment Inclusion of a forward port (as built) which I suspect would have been for access to the cathead/anchor rather than including a cannon.  This would have been a nice feature to add, but would require significant rework earlier in the build (more than I did) to allow this as it aligns with the foremost bulkhead Also seems that there was some variations on the profile of the stem, and position of the cathead
 

Love the last photo with the yellow robe Nils with, he fits right in to the look of the ship.

OC, Thomas, Eamonn, thanks for kind words.
 
@ BE - jury is out on a rudder coat, I've seen the great result you achieved, what I'm wrestling with the aesthetic and the quality of the result I might achieve.  In the event I don't, I did simulate the end of the tiller 
@ Carl - You reiterated my dilemma   1:64 is a scale where it seems sometimes that details are a question of compromise.  The downside of using raise pins is that to my eye, they appear more obvious and overscale - and also runs the risk that it would be hard to get these positioned accurately  Staying with the indentations, from typical viewing distance it is not obvious to the eye that the indents are in fact indentations rather than raised (think of the classic 'hollow face' optical illusion).  The rudder straps were unaltered and show how these parts came.
 
Anyway...I was very excited to finally receive my copy of the Diana plans from NMM.  WOW!  I've never had a chance to see these types of plans before and I'm very impressed, not only will it hopefully become a nice decorative piece, but its very informative.  Even though the plan indicates it's 'Diana' (non-contemporaneous pencil annotation), it appears to me that these should be considered to be more generic to the Artois class as a whole - there contemporary are annotations indicating that the foremast on 'Jason' and 'Diamond' were moved forward 6 1/4" - but, I'm not going to make any changes at this point as its quite subtle.
 
There are so many details that are much clearer than in the AOTS or kit plans, but few items just for starters...(the poor quality of my photos do not do justice to the print and colours didn't come out well.)
 
Given I'm building roughly 'as designed', I will need to reconsider a few things:
The position of the mizzen channels, these are placed lower than the kit plans and AOTS which reflect the 'as built' higher position.  Looking at the classic Diana models, I now see this is indeed where they are positioned.  The structure of the chains is also very different to what is provided in the kit.  This view also shows evolutionary changes to the positions of the cannon and carronade ports.  
To hopefully resolve a discussion/dilemma experience by Diana builders...my opinion estimating from these plans (and assuming plans to be correct scale) is that the kit stern frame are too wide at the top of the rearmost bulkhead by about 5mm.  Not too significant, but enough to cause the misalignment with the stern fascia and light positions experienced by all builders it seems.  Correction of this and other bulkheads would not be hard when starting out on the kit, but would need to be done prior to planking.
 

 
The main channels are shown positioned below the sheer rail 'as designed'.  Unfortunately I've been working to have these in line with the sheer rail (as built it appears), but am not going to make changes as the difference is quite subtle.   The built up bulwarks are also clearly shown, the kit provides for, and reference made in AOTS to Diana having a more decorative style consistent with the open bulkhead profile - the plans show these as the more standard, utilitarian square profile that later became standard.
 

 
The bow sections shows a number of interesting aspects:
Changes to positions of timberheads to accommodate evolving cannon/carronade compliment Inclusion of a forward port (as built) which I suspect would have been for access to the cathead/anchor rather than including a cannon.  This would have been a nice feature to add, but would require significant rework earlier in the build (more than I did) to allow this as it aligns with the foremost bulkhead Also seems that there was some variations on the profile of the stem, and position of the cathead
 

OC, Thomas, Eamonn, thanks for kind words.
 
@ BE - jury is out on a rudder coat, I've seen the great result you achieved, what I'm wrestling with the aesthetic and the quality of the result I might achieve.  In the event I don't, I did simulate the end of the tiller 
@ Carl - You reiterated my dilemma   1:64 is a scale where it seems sometimes that details are a question of compromise.  The downside of using raise pins is that to my eye, they appear more obvious and overscale - and also runs the risk that it would be hard to get these positioned accurately  Staying with the indentations, from typical viewing distance it is not obvious to the eye that the indents are in fact indentations rather than raised (think of the classic 'hollow face' optical illusion).  The rudder straps were unaltered and show how these parts came.
 
Anyway...I was very excited to finally receive my copy of the Diana plans from NMM.  WOW!  I've never had a chance to see these types of plans before and I'm very impressed, not only will it hopefully become a nice decorative piece, but its very informative.  Even though the plan indicates it's 'Diana' (non-contemporaneous pencil annotation), it appears to me that these should be considered to be more generic to the Artois class as a whole - there contemporary are annotations indicating that the foremast on 'Jason' and 'Diamond' were moved forward 6 1/4" - but, I'm not going to make any changes at this point as its quite subtle.
 
There are so many details that are much clearer than in the AOTS or kit plans, but few items just for starters...(the poor quality of my photos do not do justice to the print and colours didn't come out well.)
 
Given I'm building roughly 'as designed', I will need to reconsider a few things:
The position of the mizzen channels, these are placed lower than the kit plans and AOTS which reflect the 'as built' higher position.  Looking at the classic Diana models, I now see this is indeed where they are positioned.  The structure of the chains is also very different to what is provided in the kit.  This view also shows evolutionary changes to the positions of the cannon and carronade ports.  
To hopefully resolve a discussion/dilemma experience by Diana builders...my opinion estimating from these plans (and assuming plans to be correct scale) is that the kit stern frame are too wide at the top of the rearmost bulkhead by about 5mm.  Not too significant, but enough to cause the misalignment with the stern fascia and light positions experienced by all builders it seems.  Correction of this and other bulkheads would not be hard when starting out on the kit, but would need to be done prior to planking.
 

 
The main channels are shown positioned below the sheer rail 'as designed'.  Unfortunately I've been working to have these in line with the sheer rail (as built it appears), but am not going to make changes as the difference is quite subtle.   The built up bulwarks are also clearly shown, the kit provides for, and reference made in AOTS to Diana having a more decorative style consistent with the open bulkhead profile - the plans show these as the more standard, utilitarian square profile that later became standard.
 

 
The bow sections shows a number of interesting aspects:
Changes to positions of timberheads to accommodate evolving cannon/carronade compliment Inclusion of a forward port (as built) which I suspect would have been for access to the cathead/anchor rather than including a cannon.  This would have been a nice feature to add, but would require significant rework earlier in the build (more than I did) to allow this as it aligns with the foremost bulkhead Also seems that there was some variations on the profile of the stem, and position of the cathead