Vivian Galad

So...forgive me if parts of this repeats from earlier posts.  But after the tweaking and experimenting I have started on the final prototype version of the Pegasus cross section.   In the end I abandoned experiments with that new wood.  The reason being, the cross grain was just not working.  Whenever I applied any finish to the end grain of pieces they just turned very very dark.  Almost black actually.  This was a deal breaker.  So although much more expensive, I will be using Alaskan Yellow cedar for the cross section and also in the end offering it in cherry as well.  This is my cedar version from start to finish....a quick photo to show them both side by side first.  
 
Cedar is a beautiful wood and the only reason why I didnt use it to begin with was its slightly more expensive cost and lack of a reliable supplier.  But that situation has now been solved.  So its a win-win all around.
 

 
 

First planking is slowly coming along.  I have seven or so strakes glued from the keel, and decided to switch and start from the gun deck down.  This is what Pete recommended in his helpful Euromodel notes, and was the approach Keith Julier took in his Period Ship Handbook 2 (which has a chapter on the kit).
 
This is my first time working on a multi-deck level warship.  To help ensure that I had a smooth guiding line for the gun ports, I decided to run the top of a planking strake along the top line of the gun deck template.  When checking for symmetry, however, I noticed that in some areas, the outer edge of the gun deck template between the bulkheads was at a different height from one side to the other.  I think what happened was that with all the dry fitting, the two pieces of the template ended up having a slight bend to them, and although generally symmetrical where they were glued at the bulkheads, the outer edge of the templates between the bulkheads ended up differently.  
 
I was a bit worried about this, as not only would I have asymmetry, but the cannons would be all over the place in terms of height it I cut the gun ports out along the proper line.
 
So, what I ended up doing was gluing spacer blocks between the templates and the bulkhead bracer blocks that I had installed before.  In some cases I used the blocks to raise the edge of the templates, in some to lower, and in some to help change the the sweep.  A real pain, but I'm glad I took the step.  Now, the gun deck has a smooth sweep from stem to stern, and is symmetrical on both sides.
 



 
I was thinking about selling this kit and moving directly to scratch building, but I'm glad I decided to stick with it.  Not only is it a beautiful model, but I've been learning a lot along the way.  Maybe some of these things matter less with scratch building (like the bowsprit housing and my recent gun deck alignment adventure), but I think the general lessons learned, especially how to think ahead, will come in handy.  The Euromodel kit is great too in that it gives plenty of optionality to detail the kit as much as you'd like, so I'm sure that will help if I should happen to want to scratch build in the future.

Thanks for everyone that offered thoughts on what to do with the last bulkhead.  I ended up adding two planking strips to it, then fairing the bulkhead back to the original line on the aft side.  Seems to have worked very well - I now have a firm, wider surface to glue the end of the planks to, while having a nice smooth transition to the stern.
 

Mike,
Maybe I'm late to the party on this... here's how Licorne's tail end in planked.   Pictures show it better than I can describe it.
 

 

Hi Hubac, thanks for looking in.  It's always harder to describe, but maybe this picture helps:
 

If you look at the circled area, you can see that the last bulkhead is not faired, with barely any area to glue the plank to.  To fair it will change the orientation of the planking considerably to a sharper upward angle.  I'll also likely have to fair the bulkhead or two immediately preceding it to ensure a continuous curve.  
 
Fairing the last bulkhead will also change the shape of the lower part of the counter shown in yellow below:
 

My guess is that highlighted area will flatten out a bit.  But maybe that's ok?  Looking again at the plans, seems like the same area is a bit flatter than what the lower part of the bulkhead is shaped like from the picture above:
 

Does that all make sense?  I guess I'm just trying to figure out whether to fair the bottom edge of that bulkhead - which will provide better support for the planking yet change the shape of the bottom edge of the bulkhead/counter -- or not fair it, but find some way of adding a better planking surface (for example, adding a thick strip to the bottom of the bulkhead and then fairing it to the aft line of the original bulkhead.
 
Sorry for the confusing question.  Hope this makes sense.

For folks building the kit, the cast metal pieces are pretty close to the Chapman plans (the kit plans shown below are exact replicas from Chapman).  There are some differences though, which people should be aware of.  For example, the upper tier of lights is the right dimension, but the kit is simplified in having a rectangular row, rather than slight curves as in the plans.  The gallery balcony railing is pretty close.  The quarter gallery lights are pretty much spot on.
 
What is a little off is the lower tier of lights/upper counter area, the wrap around section that goes to the quarter galleries, and the tafferel - all of which are smaller than the plans suggest:




 
They aren't off by much, but it's something to be on the lookout for.  My guess is that the tafferal can be bent outwards to widen it a bit at the sides.  What is tougher is the fact that the lower lights section of the stern is not as wide or tall as the plans.  I'm not sure the reason, but maybe it was intended to simplify things for the builder a bit.  It looks like builders have taken all types of approaches to make the cast parts work, since the plans and parts don't match up precisely.
 
In particular, I think that the lower half of the quarter gallery should extend further out as in the picture below.  I think you could use the cast part, but my guess from the Chapman plans is that one would need to add some filler under the cast metal piece to accomplish this.
 

So, I think I'm going to try scratch building the stern as much as possible.  It's complicated, and has taken me a lot of time to work through, but I think in the end I'll be a little happier.  Plus, I won't have to try to fill in caps between the cast metal pieces, open up the window panes, etc.

Some more progress - got the first seven strakes of first planking on, starting from the keel up.  

I also finished the upper stem blocks.  These took a little time because I wanted to make sure that not only would they provide support for the planking, but that they would also help keep the bowsprit in alignment.  Because the false keel is about 5.5mm in thickness but the bowsprit is around 8.5mm, I added some spacers to the blocks (hard to see in the pictures), with the correct bowsprit angle built in.  So, everything now fits like a glove and I won't have to worry about the bowsprit alignment.
 

Slowly making some progress.  Finally got the bulkheads and filler blocks faired and started with the first planking.  First three planks starting from the keel are in:
 


 
So far so good.  Lots of curves on this ship.  There's a lot going on with the stern, so I spent quite a bit of time going over the plans and how the cast metal parts are supposed to fit together.  The interesting thing about the Euromodel plans is that they will be true to the Chapman plans in some drawings and simplified (e.g., straight, less curvatures) in others - sometimes on the same sheet.  So, you have to be mindful of that when building.  The cast metal pieces for the stern are pretty good, but in some cases like the row of stern windows fronting the balcony, follow the more simplified square approach, whereas the Chapman plans show more curves intended that follow the curvatures of the decks and balcony.  As is often said with respect to these Euromodel kits, they are quasi scratch kits that are intended allow a builder plenty of latitude to build the model as simple or as detailed as one would like.
 
I think I'm going to challenge myself and scratch build some or all of the cast metal pieces for the stern.  I'd like to follow the Chapman plans as much as possible, and I think the cast metal parts deviate in certain respects.  For example, there are windows at the lower drop area of the quarter galleries and between the balcony and counter/chase ports - but the cast metal parts have these filled in.  Building them from scratch would probably take close to the same amount of time as opening these and other windows up.  Along with potentially not doing a clean job opening the windows up, I worry that the seams where the cast metal and wood parts meet would need to be filled, which sometimes could be a hard thing to do.  Then of course, there is the need to paint the cast metal parts, and I'm not that great when it comes to detailed painting.  I just think that I can achieve a crisper finish scratching these items than I can from working with the cast metal parts.  The good news is that the parts and plans give a very good model for me to base my work on.  I'll try to detail some of the changes from the kit in future posts.
 
 

After a family vacation and being busy with work the past few weeks, I haven't had as much time on the build.  I did make some progress, including gluing down the gun deck templates and making a little more headway on the hull fairing.  As a break, I also glued up the grating strips to begin making the hatches and other grating items.
 


Yes, a messy shipyard!
 
At this stage I've been working on fairing the bulkheads and filler blocks.  This stage takes a long longer than one would think, but I've learned that it's better to take time now, rather than have to later do a lot of filling and sanding.  I had a slight wave in my false keel, which was largely straightened after attaching the stem and keel.  Unfortunately, the top of the false keel lists slightly by about 1-2mm to the port side between bulkheads 8 and 11.  I'm a bit annoyed because I spent a lot of time dry fitting, using square blocks, spacers, etc. to make sure that the bulkheads were square and perpendicular, but it looks like I couldn't fully get the keel fully straightened at that section.  This resulted in the tops of bulkheads 8-11 listing slightly over to port, which in turn required a bit of opening up the gun deck template slots and the port template being slightly askew at the stern (still scratching my head on that one).
 
These are all small deviations which I am fixing by adding extra material on the starboard bulkheads, and will sand a bit off the port bulkheads.  In the end, I'm expecting these end up being non issues, especially after two layers of hull planking, etc.  I keep thinking back to my Pegasus build, where Amati used MDF that was perfectly flat and everything fit like a glove.  

Aldo!  Thanks for looking in my friend.  It's a really beautiful subject, and Euromodel makes a nice kit.  Plenty of complexity and optionality from Euromodel to help me learn new skills.  It, along with the other two models I'm working on should get me to the point where I can start trying scratch builds.  I see you mothballed your Pegasus, are you going to take it up again?  I'm at the point where I am going to start scratch building some of the decorative elements of the ship.  I wanted a little more experience before doing so, and started the Charles Morgan.  Then I needed a break from the Morgan so started the Renommee.  I ran into stages of burnout with the Badger (some lasting six months) that I found bouncing between builds helps keep my interest going.
 
Nils, thanks very much and thank you for looking in.  It's a beautiful subject, and Euromodel makes a very nice kit that allows you to add as many details as you would like, so it's been fun to work on.  I was originally thinking of selling it last year to move to scratch building, but I've already gained valuable experience with this kit that I'm glad I'm building it.

Figurehead
 
In my hull prep work, I cut out a portion of the first bulkhead and a bit of the false keel and filler blocks on either side to help seat the bowsprit.  I figure that rather than having the bowsprit sit on the gun deck, it would be a little more secure if it went through the gun deck and then the gun deck and planking could serve as a sort of anchor just like mast slot blocking on for the masts.  In doing so, I decided to test fit the figurehead and discovered a few problems.  
 



 
As you can see, the figurehead doesn't sit squarely on the stem.  Even if I squared the figurehead's, uh, bottom, a bit (or filed down the stem) so that it would sit flush, the problem is that the figurehead still will sit too high on the stem for the bowsprit.  In the second picture, you can see the problem, even with the figurehead sitting at the front edge of the bowsprit.  I went back to the plans to see if perhaps the rake of the bowsprit as set by the false keel and stem (two parts of which matched perfectly) was off, but the rake was in the range of both the plans (oddly, plan 7 specifically says 29 degrees from the waterline when plan 17 shows 32 degrees) and Chapman's Architectura (which was about 31 degrees).  The false keel is around 31 degrees, so the problem is not with the false keel.
 
So given that the rake of the bowsprit as set by the false keel is correct, the figurehead needs to sit much lower, as the bowsprit should clear the top of the figurehead by around 6mm.  As you can see in Chapman's Architectura, the figurehead pretty much sits way back on the stem against the curly piece of the stem, and the line of the curly piece to the top of the figurehead is roughly parallel to the line of the bowsprit.
 

 
Interestingly, in the few pictures I've found of others working on the kit, it seems as if the builders chose to increase the rake of the bowsprit to accommodate the figurehead.  I think I'm going to stick with the current rake, and instead figure out what to do with the figurehead itself and the stem.  For this stage of the build, I just needed to ensure that the rake of the bowsprit and seating was set up correctly, so I don't have to make any decisions at this point.  My guess is that I will at some point have to lower the seat on the stem.  It might come down to carving a new figurehead too if I can't modify the kit figurehead to sit squarely on the stem.  

I made some good progress over the last week or so.  Nothing particularly interesting, but I've installed all bulkheads except for the last, added blocking for the masts, and added some filler blocks at the stem.  I also epoxied in some nuts into the keel to take the screws for the pedestals when I finish this build in 10 years   I forgot how long all this prep work takes!
 

 

 
So far so good.  I did have to open up the slots in the deck pieces a bit to accommodate the bulkhead tops.  When I had dry fitted the bulkheads and decks as a test early on, everything seemed to fit ok.  I think after squaring up the bulkheads, adding the stem and keel, etc., that things shifted a bit and so the deck slots needed slight adjustments.  Things probably fit on the dry fitting because there was a little flex with the parts.  When glued however, particularly with the bracers in between the bulkheads, things were locked in.  Some people have seen issues with the slots not lining up with the plans, and in some cases, being misaligned between the starboard and port sides.  Others have thought that some of the bulkheads were not properly shaped.
 
I also had a very slight wave in the keel around bulkheads 8-10 which probably didn't help (part of the reason I wanted to install the stem and keel at this stage).  The upper part of the false keel around affected bulkheads leans about 1mm over to the port side.  I think this should be fine because at the stem and stern, and along the bottom of the keel, the keel is perfectly straight.  I'll just need to be mindful when fairing and planking the hull in that section.

Some progress while home for the holidays with unseasonably cold temperatures - lots of hull work, and still lots more to do.  For the first time, I built a basic frame board to help square things up.  Usually I've just eyeballed things and built the hull in my lap, but I think using a frame should help.  At this stage of the build, I also decided to do attached the keel and stem to the false keel.  I know that some wait until after the first planking, but I like adding it now to help ensure that everything is square.  I also install nuts in the false keel to take the machine screw which will run through the pedestals, so it's better to drill the hole one through the keel and false keel than have to do it later.
 
For the stem, I used a scalpel to initially scribe the various part definitions as per the plans.  Will likely need to deepen them, and possibly use stain or pencil, to further define the lines -- especially after I taper the front of the stem per the plans:

 
After attaching the stem and keel, installing the pedestal nuts and running a few brass rods to help pin the keel to the false keel to the hull for stability, I started installing the bulkheads and am about halfway through -- using my kids' legos to keep everything square:
 



As I mentioned in the first post, when I got the kit (secondhand), the false keel was really warped.  The really nice folks at Euromodel sent me a new one for free which was much better.  It still had a slight wave to it, but after adding the stem and false keel, and the bracing blocks as seen in the pictures above, everything is pretty straight and should only get straighter after the two decks are added.
 
I should say that the fit between all the parts is very nice and snug and pretty much perfect.  Nice, particularly after my experience with the MS Charles Morgan where I needed to do quite a bit of work to get everything to fit correctly and adjust for issues in the shapes of the bulkheads.
 

I've been focused on my Morgan build the past few months and haven't turned back to my LAR.  In part I'm still considering what kind of color scheme, and whether and to what extent I will use paints or try to paint with wood.  Given the castings and the quality of the materials, I'm considering just building the kit as is, with maybe some minor replacement of the wood with better modeling woods.  I might actually try using weathering techniques, not necessarily to make the ship looked aged and beaten up, but to add highlights and lowlights, etc. to approximate more of a patina'd look.  
 
So I managed to get my hands on the Ancre monograph of La Belle Poule (1765) for a good price on eBay.  The monographs have so much detail they are fun to look through.  Flipping through it today, I noticed a reference to a La Renommee of 1767 and the Chapman 'Architectura.'  The version I have is in French, and not speaking French I need to use Google translate which does a pretty good job.  Here is the translation of the discussion which is summarized above regarding the provenance of the ship.  The monograph has plans for the 1767 La Renommee, which don't look like they match up with the kit/Chapman plate.  Anyway, here it is.
 
The Fame 1767.
Among the hundred frigates of 12 of our navy, there are two that will be (pierced to fifteen) being designed by the engineer Nicolas Groignard man of great reputation, notably author of the three-point ship Brittany.
 
These frigates, by their great length and strength, are special cases. The Renommee had been preceded by the Terpsichore, built at Nantes in 1757, we do not possess the plans of this frigate.
 
The Fame, was theoretically pierced on each side of fifteen ports, but on the number two were not open being masks by the curling and the linings. It was only planned to open them in the event of hostilities.
 
The plans of the Fame are preserved in the Danish archives and there exists at the Museum of the navy in Paris, a fairly complete numerical estimate of this frigate.
 
The Fame, presented the singularity for a French frigate to have the big bitts on the false bridge, the hawks being pierced between the jottereaux.
 
In the methodical Encyclopedia Vial du Clairbois (see Monograph of Dawn, page 18, footnote 1), the model of a Swedish frigate, directly borrowed from the The great work of Fr. DE CHAPMAN: ARCHITECTURA NAVALIS MERCATORIA ... In his text Vial du Clairbois warns the reader of the foreign model of his example and indicates that only the frigate Fame, has big bits on the false bridge and consequently the Lower capstan bell is at this level.
 
Admiral Paris, in his (Preserved Naval Memories), took again the plate of the Methodical Encyclopedia, but without taking notice of the text, and presented this frigate (born Swedish) as being Renown; But this is only to be found in detail in the considerable mass of information gathered by Admiral Paris.

Friends, I'm a bit stuck in terms of a color scheme for the hull.  I was originally going to go with  a similar approach that Kenji Nakajima's build took (first picture at the top of my log) and go with mostly black and either walnut or pear for the brown areas, with boxwood accents.  But, after seeing Chapman's plans for the Venus and the two builds for the Göta Lejon, I'm thinking of trying something different.  In particular, I'm really taken by the color scheme on this model:
 

 
 
If I went that route, does the blue strip running across the full hull look odd?  Does it look odd to have the dark brown areas just above that blue stripe?  I haven't seen too many ships with this color scheme, but it seems like these Swedish ships might have had a slightly different color scheme from other European ships.
  An alternative is Chapman's color plan of the Venus, which is similar, except it looks like a black stripe runs across the top of the hull, but there is a red stripe at the top near the quarterdeck:
 

 
 
Alternatively, I could go with something like this color plan, where it's mostly black and pear around the gunports, with blue at the top of the hull at the quarterdeck and forecastle:
 

 
 
Any suggestions or preferences would be greatly appreciated as I try to figure things out.  To avoid the use of paint, I'd do the hull below the waterline in holly, wales in black, and that middle band around the gunport likely in pear (I think box might be a little light for my tastes).  It's just what to do with the other areas of the upper hull that I can't decide on  Thanks!

Thanks guys, really appreciate the support.  Jason, I'll have to do a little more research
 
I spent some time with the kit the last few days.  First I test fit the bulkheads with the keel, and was happy to see that there was a nice snug fit without the need for much opening of the slots.  So, a good start on things.
 
Then I read Pete's build notes - a very nice resource for Euromodel builds.  He correctly pointed out that the mast slots in the keel are incorrectly positioned.  Not only are the slots positioned too far back, but the main mast and mizzen masts are at the wrong rake.  Pete did say that the foremast needed to be repositioned another 3mm, but at least with my keel, it seemed like the foremast slot was maybe off only 1mm or so, if at all, and was at the correct rake.  Interestingly, the keel matches Plan Sheet 17, but not Plan Sheet 3.  My guess is that Plan Sheet 3 is correct, after looking at other plan sheets in the kit and taking a look at Chapman's Plate XXXI.  So, I redid the slots for the main and mizzen masts, which included adding some scrap plywood so that the masts would fit snug in the slots.  Thankfully Pete pointed this out, as it was an easy fix at this stage.  
 

 

 
 
I had heard of people having issues with the plans not matching up, and that does seem to be the case unfortunately.  Interestingly, the stem matches Plan Sheet 17 (first picture below), but not Plan Sheet 3 (second and third pictures).  You can even see how the bulkhead slots on the plans don't match up with the slots in the keel:
 

 

 

 
 
The stem is pretty close, but this brought back painful memories of the Corel Unicorn kit, which I abandoned in frustration because the plans were all over the place, and on top of that, did not match the Chapman plans in the Architectura in having a hull that was too tall by a factor of something like 20mm.  So, I spent some time taking various measurements (gunports to waterline, waterline to bottom of keel, etc.) against Chapman's Plate XXXI.  In my edition of the Architectura, Plate XXXI is smaller than the Euromodel plans by a factor of approximately 2.3.  I am very happy to say that the Euromodel plans appear spot on with the Chapman plans in terms of hull dimensions!     
 
I do want to say that I don't want to come across as overly critical of the kit or anything.  Just wanted to point these items out so that others that might be following this log might avoid any confusion with their kits.  Aside from a few inconsistencies, the plans seem very true to Chapman's Plate XXI which is a big relief.
 
Next I started work on determining where to install the mounting screws for the pedestals.  I've been using #6-32 zinc plated machine screws with a nut epoxied into the keel.  They seem to fit nicely through the pedestals I bought from Model Expo, and I can get the screws in 3" lengths.  The stern is a bit lower than the stem, so I started by marking the waterline, and then positioned the pedestals approximately 25% of the way from both the aft end and fore end of the keel.  This worked nicely in that the pedestals were safely between bulkheads.  I'm still considering color schemes, so I'll drill the holes for the screws/nuts once I figure out the wood to be used for the keel.  Here's a quick photo I snapped, with some bonus artwork in the background from the real artists in the family
 

I haven't been able to find much on Swedish frigates on the period.  One ship I did come across is the Göta Lejon from 1746.  I found plans as well as two beautiful models.  It's obviously a bigger ship (I think a Third Rate), but it shares a lot of the design characteristics seen in Chapman's Plates XXXI and XXXII of his Architectura.  This, along with the Venus pictured a few posts ago (and the closed waist), make me lean towards thinking that the ship in the plates is a Swedish vessel.  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

Provenance of Kit
 
There has been a lot of discussion on what ship this kit is supposed to represent.  What is clear is that the kit is based on Plates XXXI and XXXII of Chapman's Architectura, with the only details being that these plates are included in the section of "Privateers":
 

 

 
 
Euromodel states it's a French vessel that was launched in 1747.  However, it appears that the ship at the following links is likely the "true" La Renommee for that period:
 
http://ancre.fr/en/monographies-en/20-monographie-de-la-renommee-fregate-de-8-1744.html
 
http://maquettes-marine.pagesperso-orange.fr/renommee/renommee.html
http://www.shipmodels.com.ua/eng/models/elite/renomme/index.htm
 
From what I've read on a Russian ship model forum, in Boudriot's research, Admiral Paris, a Frenchman, in his Souvenirs de la Marine (which was published in 1879), was copying over plans from Chapman's Architectura and mistakenly labeled it the Le Renommee, when he was intending to say something about the anchors or stern or something being similar to the Le Renommee. That mistake has been passed down, and may have been passed down into this kit.
 
Then there is Keith Julier, in The Period Ship Handbook 2, who believed that the kit represents a frigate of the same name that was built in 1793.  That vessel only had 32 guns, while the kit supplies 40.  It clearly can't be that ship because the Architectura was published in 1768.
 
Then there are others that think it's actually a Swedish ship named the "Jupiter" because of the figurehead and certain stern details.  On page 106 of Wolfram zu Mondfeld's  "Historic Ship Models" is the exact picture of the stern which is labeled as the Swedish privateer from 1760. The German site below, as well as a Russian model ship forum I came across, also think it's a Swedish ship. I can't find anything on a Swedish ship named the Jupiter though, and a query to the Digitalt Museum in Sweden came up empty.
 
http://www.line-of-b...regatte-jupiter
 
 
I'm by no means a naval historian at all, but all this is very interesting.  One thing I was thinking was whether there were particular features of this ship that are uniquely French, Swedish, Danish or other.  I would surmise that you could look to plainly visible things like the figurehead, ornamentation, flags, etc.  Then there are structural items such as how the stern is constructed, height between the decks (for example, I learned in researching the Unicorn and Lyme that they were based off of French frigates, which had a lower height between the decks than seen in the typical English ship of that time, as well as had shorter railing, etc. on the quarterdecks).  I thought maybe the open stern would provide a clue, but Plate III shows a very similar but smaller (and unfortunately, unknown) ship, and Plate LI shows another with a similar open stern that is of an English East Indiaman.
 
One clue might be the waist.  I've done a lot of research on the waist of ships because the Corel Unicorn clearly uses the wrong waist for a British frigate of that time.  From the Gardiner books on frigates, the waist of ships in the 18th century was generally open during the early to middle part of the century, and gradually started closing up as the 19th century approached.  I think this principle clearly applied to British ships, and likely French ships as well (I don't have any books on French frigates, but flipping through the Ancre monographs for ships at the time, all seemed to have similar open-waisted ships to the British).  Gardiner seems to have essentially limited his studies to British frigates, as his last book, the "Sailing Frigate," uses pictures from the NMM.  In that book, he shows the development of the filling in of the waist, and shows a similar closed waist with row of light gratings similar to Plate XXXII with the Lacedaemonian (SLR0674 from the NMM), a ship that was circa 1812: 
 
http://collections.r...ects/66635.html
 
 
What's curious is that Plate XXXII shows a very closed waist which wasn't used by the British until the beginning of the 19th century.  So, I don't think Chapman copied it from the British.  Then take a look at the Venus, an actual Swedish frigate that was designed by Chapman and built in 1783 (it was captured by the Russians in 1789):
 

 
 
A smaller ship for sure, and obviously post-dates the Architectura.  But look at the general design with the gunport rows, small windows at the quarterdeck, the name badge just under the row of windows on the stern, and in particular, the waist and main deck with the rows of gratings (again, not seen in British frigates until the beginning of the 19th century).  It looks like the little younger sister to Plate XXXI!
 
All this is not at all meant to disparage Euromodel.  The kit is clearly based on, and true to, Chapman's plans.  As we know, actual ships sometimes differed from the plans, ships were captured and converted, etc.  In any event, whether Chapman himself designed the ship in Plates XXXI and XXXII or copied it from elsewhere is anyone's guess, but I would lean towards this being a Chapman design given the early adoption of the closed waist and line of gratings.  Now, whether the ship in Plates XXXI and XXXII was in fact built or not is also anyone's guess.  And does this make this a Swedish ship?  
 
In the grand scheme of things, does any of this matter?  The kit makes for a very nice model of a mid-18th century frigate with really beautiful lines that I will have a lot of fun building - regardless of whether I put a French or Swedish flag on her in the end

Wow! That's an interesting project to follow! Will take a seat too! Can I?
 

Minor update that includes some frustrations, using the kit supplied planks; I thought that I would try also using Pinstripe tape to simulate the caulking.
Initially I liked it. Labor intensive, because each strip needs to be located exactly at the upper edge of plank on both sides.
Then after a few of those realized that running tape all the way aft was a waste. This area will be filled with rocks, barrels, and poss. adding a shelf on the side to add spare timber and ropes.
Ok: then after installing a few basswood planks – did not like the look of the much too white wood. Yes I could stain it…
 
Then looking at the profile grrr –these kit supplied planks look way too thin – and out of scale?, especially with the weight of the ballast rocks that these planks need to support.
 
SO, looked through my wood supply, will pull these basswood planks off, and replace them with some hardwoods. I do believe, however that oak was probably the correct planks that should be installed – not these darker woods, hmmm
 
And I just drilled small holes for the treenail look – not happy with that either.
I have looked at other logs that do an excellent job with real treenails –need to improve my skills in this area – and for this area it only requires the first row to be done.
 
Lastly that pinstripe tape looks much too “perfect”.  Went to Blicks today and per Denis’ recommendation for his riverboat will use a Faber Castell artist pen. Tried it, looks much more "unevenly realistic". (Had used a Sharpie but too wet..)
Will update when this area is resolved. As always thanks for your support, suggestions, help, likes and just dropping by.
 

Wow! That's an interesting project to follow! Will take a seat too! Can I?
 

Wow! That's an interesting project to follow! Will take a seat too! Can I?
 

Welcome aboard, thibaultron, amateur and Jack. 
 
Jan: no interior, waterscrew or wheel. For my first garden windmill that is way over my head and the plans don't call for that. Will be looking for something like that in my next mill.
Thank you for the pictures of the different windmills. 
 
I plan to add the cloth on the frames. Joanne sewing store has nice heavy brown cloth. I saw that when I bought the sail cloth for the Utrecht.
This or next week I will get the 'outdoor' plywood in several thicknesses. I have created all the templates on heavy cardboard, so it is time to start it. 
 
I completed the two windows and doors and casements for the items. Still needs to be primed, painted and several coats of lacquer.  
 
The acrylic colors I am using are: titanium white, van Dyk green, medium cadmium red, dark cadmium red, cobalt blue, Mars black, yellow ochre, and orange. (some of the colors are the same as the Utrecht).  The instructions also call for chocolate brown powder. 
Once I get to the items that need painting, I will mention the color I am using. 
 
This project will be slow going as I am also building a Boyer, another scratch boat and spring, summer and fall I spent a lot of time outside. 
Marcus 
 

Besides building ships, I build windmills as well. This eight sided drainage windmill is a replica of one that is still in existence. When my father retired from the Dutch foreign service he worked in this mill as an accounting manager and gave me the plans of this garden windmill. 
 
Dimensions:
Roof height 28-1/2"
Max. Height 48-1/2
 
The plans, dimensions and how to build it are all in Dutch. So first I took all the measurements and recalculated them in inches so I know how much wood to purchase. Once I have all the wood I can go back to mm. 
The axel and other metal parts for the vanes I searched on Google, got a picture and recognized what it was so I know what to ask for in the store and I know my plumbing lingo. 
This goes for some of the wood as well. 
In Dutch M18, stands for multiplex watervast and the 18 is the thickness of the wood in mm. So in English the M is plywood for outdoors and 18 is about 3/4" thick. Did this with all the M's. Other wood involved is 1/8" Baltic birch and hardwood (any type). The outdoor plywood I can get at a big box store. I have plenty of hardwood in all sizes. 
Other parts are copper and aluminum tubing,  outdoor glue, tile glue to imitate the straw sides, glossy paint, primer, acrylic paints, etc. Waterproofing I am also using a spray can with that foam in it and lots of lacquer. 
 
Xeroxed two copies of the plans and started gluing templates on stiff cardboard and cut them out. 
 
Also cut out the 2 doors and 2 windows. Instead of using glass for the windows I'll use plexiglass. These will be painted van Dyk green. 
 
Marcus 

Good morning.