HM Bark Endeavour by dashi - Caldercraft - scale 1:64 - 1768-71 - bashed kit

[dashi]

Thanks Paul and Pat for the ideas and suggestions re those hinges. I'm still undecided as to how I will make my hatch lids but leaning toward hinged lids that slightly overlap the coamings. I might even do this for the quarterdeck hatch instead of the sliding lid provided in the kit as I havn't found any evidence for these yet. I'm considering modifying some open lid hinges which there seems to be an over abundance of on the brass sheet to keep things uniform.

 

Further: the waist fore hatch looks to be an important access way and longer so as to admit gunners and sailors carrying stores into and from the hold and for the kitchen. So I'm imagining this will hinge along its length on the forward side and tie off against the gallows. I will try and stay mindful to keep this clear from the ships boats which seem to hog this area according to the kit plan. As to those boats I get the impression from the logs that two of them were towed as part of a navy trial into the effects of different anti fowling and anti worm hull coatings. Any ideas?

[dashi]

Small update: Pumps and skylight or companion as it's called in the 1768 draught.

 

After several attempts with the kit pump I managed to file it down to a shape I can live with. I used a slightly larger dowl than the kit instructions so I could file it octagonally. I also filed the metal pieces into what I think is a closer shape to the photos I have researched. But I couldn't live with the kit handles so bashed some out of a nice length of 2x2mm walnut which I already had on hand.

 

With the the companion/skylight and quarterdeck hatch I had a moment of madness with the pigmented stain and surprised myself with the result. 

 

The companion windows next I tried different colours but settled on white. So after painting I removed them from the spru and filed them to fit snuggly into the roof. For the glass I ca glued them to a sheet of clear film I bought from the stationers. When it had dried cut them off around the frames using a new blade. After a slight filing I dry fitted them and touched up the white.

 

As part of the process of choosing the colour for the companion window frames I dry fitted two of the great cabin stern window frames which already I'd decided to paint yellow ochre. 

 

Now I'm completing the hatches and bashing hatch covers as it makes sense to finish the deck furniture before I finish the deck while I'm constantly dry fitting stuff incase I make any mistakes or have any accidents.

[Cabbie]

Splendid work dash that is a lot of finely detailed work,

all very neatly done.

[shipaholic]

Lovely work dashi, nice pumps and I like what you did with the tiller after all that debate. While we are talking about debate, I disagree with the skylight (companion) shape (see my log) I especially disagree with how it is depicted in the AOTS with the iron bars on it, it's like something out of the 19th century. The two remaining questions I have in my mind about Endeavour are the arrangement of the "platform over the tiller" and the much debated bumpkins. So I left both off my build.

Cheers

Steve

[dashi]

Thanks Chris.

 

Thanks Steve I am impressed with the quality of your build. I'm not sure about the CC kit companion either but I wanted to build it. Yes those iron bars don't make a lot of sense for their time as iron wasn't as strong as it is today and it would have been a lot of weight. As a compromise I've painted the brass surround walnut to represent the bars as black strapping in a wood frame but I havn't posted any pics of these yet. But I agree it could have been the same as the replica with a wood grating. From the deck draught it looks as if it slightly tapers towards it's aft as the deck rises. The only thing that I can think might cause this is a roof that has a level ridge line fitted directly to an angled deck. What do you make of the taper? Maybe another discussion topic so we can colate information?

 

Regarding the fore tack bumpkins. I mentioned in an earlier post that I have a working theory based on a scetch from the time and think they should be positioned closer to the bowsprit at around 36 deg from centre leaving room for the seats of easement whilst clearing the cathead tackle. In this position I think they can also be shortened but I won't be up to finalizing that until after the false rail is fitted.

 

Thanks Paul for the heads up about those pumps. I might try and hold off glueing them in position for as long as possible so I can move them out of the way for rigging.

[dashi]

Update: I don't know how accurate any of this is but here is my best guess based on what information I've managed to find or research.

 

Bashed hatchway covers. I used the extra open hatch hinges in the kit. I made the lids/covers out of 1x4mm walnut from the kit and some of my own 1x1mm walnut.

 

On the navel draughts there appears to be a breast hook on the upper deck of the forecastle. So I bashed this and trimmed the exposed stem inside the bulwarks to match the draught.

 

Under the fore gallows I've included a bolster for the anchor cables to run over and bashed the coaming to suit.

 

The companion/skylight: I've painted the metal grating surround walnut to represent wood with iron straps painted black. So black iron straps fitted in a wooden surround which I think might be more appropriate for the date.

 

Binnacle: As you can see from the photo the kit supplied binnacle stands 6 foot tall and not only blocks the view of the helmsman but also the some of the skylight. So I will bash a much smaller binnacle based on pictures and plans I've managed to find as it was the compass housing and would have had a lamp and flu in the top to light up the compass at night which was housed in the base with a viewing shoot for the helmsman. It probably stood only around 3 foot tall and 18" square.

[clogger]

Just a quick note to say how much I admire your build log.  Excellent detail followed by excellent photos. Very inspiring, and sets a very high standard.

[DaveRow]

Hi Mr Dash,

Deck fit-out coming along very well indeed.

Particularly like your hatch covers.

 

Dave R

[dashi]

Thanks for the likes and comments.

 

Deck: With most of the deck furniture complete I was now happy with the location of the beams so proceeded to paint in the trennels and butts using artists Indian Ink permanent markers using the replica hull as a guide. After completing that I discovered that the ink was smudging when I came to erase the pencil lines and the only way to remedy the situation was to wipe the decks down with methylated spirit to remove all the ink.

 

Oh well that didn't work. The best plans are only as solid as if written on water. So back to the tried and true 2B pencil. Fortunately the ink had very faintly penetrated the deck where I had marked the trennels and butts otherwise I would have lost my beam lines. All I had to do was mark over them where I had before using the pencil and then seal it all with it's second coat of matt poly.

 

Wiping off the ink seemed to create a slight yet unintentional weathered look which I'm happy with so it all worked out in the end.

 

Next is the bulwark capping or false rail as it can be called and the anchor linings which I might do first. All the deck furniture is only dry fitted so it will be removed to a tray for safe keeping.

Edited May 16, 2016 by dashicat

[Cabbie]

HI Dash

More top work again

You are certainly moving at a good pace and getting it done.

 

Are you putting a knightshead on it. I have been looking at AOTS and it

doesn't seem to show a clear drawing. Do you know if aots and

the replica are done the same way.

Thanks Chris

[dashi]

Thanks for the likes.

 

Thanks Chris. Yes I will be bashing the knightheads, out of the old windlass standards that I replaced, because the kit ones are too small. In the AOTS book page 33 the larboard bow sketch by Parkinson which depicts the bumpkins also has the knightheads with a cap over the bowsprit. This appears to be how they have it on the replica. The next pages to look at are 53, 58, 75 and 90.

 

Page 75 shows how the tack bumpkins pass over the bow but I don't know how accurate this depiction is. I have my tack bumpkins at 36 degs off the sides of the bowsprit so they will pass over the bow closer to the knightheads and look as close as I can get to Parkinsons sketch on page 33 of the AOTS book. Also in this position their stays should be clear of the cathead or anchor tackle and the anchor cable can hang under them if it's attached.

[Cabbie]

Thanks Dash

I will go and have look at the pages

and work it out.

Chris

[dashi]

Almost ready to fit the bulwark capping rail, but have been sidetracked by the channels. I might need to check the channels into the top of the shear strake in which case I will hold off on fitting the foreward capping rails as these could get in the way and possibly damaged. I can make up the channels and dry fit them with pins then leave them off until I'm ready to fit the chain plates.

 

looking at the channels I discover some discrepancies with their sizes on the kit plans and laser parts especially the mizen channels. Further research revels that the kit and AOTS book have for some unfathomable reason fitted the Earl of Pembroke mizen channels which are smaller and start further abaft of the mizen compared to the 1768 as fitted draughts. So I will need to bash some replacement mizen channels and will fit them according to the 1768 draught. There is also a discrepancie with the forward channels and deadeye's so will attempt to follow the as fitted draughts for these also, kit parts permitting.

 

I know there is controversy over the correct hight of the mizen which I don't wish to re-hash, so at this stage will err on the side of reason and go with the longer measurement as suggested in the AOTS book which puts it's hight at 36'6" above deck. This is considerably taller than the kit has so to check this against the 1768 as fitted draught, I approximated the hight of the mizen by taking a line of the angle from the chain plates to where it would intersect the mast projecting at the angle drawn leaving the deck and the AOTS hight seems to be a very close match.

Edited May 18, 2016 by dashicat

[dashi]

Anchor linings:

 

Because the laser cut linings were too short I needed to bash some replacements. As I couldn't find how to do this else where I decided to document it and if it worked then post what I've done here. I decided to use some decking off cuts as this is soft and would bend easier around the shape of the bow. So first I marked out the shapes on some tracing paper (lunch wrap) and then glued the decking pieces to it with white glue. When dry I carefully cut around the shapes and sanded both to be an even match. Using 1x1mm walnut I made the edging and used contact adhesive (shoe glue) to bond these to the linings. I also used contact adhesive to then glue the linings to the hull. This was the part I was dreading and my fears were justified when the corners of the linings wanted to try and lift so I carefully inserted some ca glue in the crack and applied pressure by hand until it had grabbed. 

 

Channels:

 

Due to the chainplates not matching their respect positions in the channels from the 1768 as fitted draught I decided to plane the edges down and file some new chainplate slots. Also using the spree that the channels came from I managed to bash another set of mizen channels because as I mentioned earlier the kit laser cut ones look like they were from the 1768 Earl of Pembroke draught and not the 'as fitted' Endeavour draught. The replacements are considerably longer at 10' and slightly wider. Next is to briefly soak and shape each channel to match the curve of the sheer strake and then decide whether to butt them on the sheer strake of check them into it?

Edited May 19, 2016 by dashicat

[S.Coleman]

The old tracing paper (Lunch wrap) has a million uses! I've used it several times now. That's a neat job you have made of the Anchor linings.

[DaveRow]

Dashi,

You mentioned "Next is to briefly soak and shape each channel to match the curve of the sheer strake and then decide whether to butt them on the sheer strake of check them into it?"

I made a set of wider channels with new chain plate positions as well.

I also built a a rebate into the sheer stake to let the channels in, much stronger than butting.

Since you have already "thinned" them down, you may not want to reduce further as the stays may not be far enough out from the side to miss the top rail.

Decisions ?

 

Coming together well in your shipyard.

 

Dave R

[dashi]

Thanks Scott.

 

Dave thanks for pointing that out and it was at the back of my mind also. I've trimmed about 1mm off and if I rebate then I could lose some more so last night decided to butt them against the sheer strake as each channel has standards on it's upper which I'm thinking will help to support them. To do this I held some 180 grit sand paper over the sheer strake while I sanded the inner edge of each channel to fit the curve and angle. Next I think I might need to fit the standards so I can sand these against the wale for a nice fit and to get the correct angle before pinning because my eyesight seems to be getting worse and I'm having trouble getting the pins and pin holes in straight.

[dashi]

Just a minor update.

 

The channels are made to the as fitted draught of 1768 with the exception of some finishing and cutting out of the section in the main channel for the light port lid which I can just make out in the draught. I have pinned and dry fitted them plus managed to some how dry fit a quarter badge after cutting out the section of shear plank for it. Going off the draught I measured back from the edge of the stern 7',6" using my scale rule to the quarter badge which moved it aft a little ways compared to the kit plans.

 

Moving the quarterdeck cannon posts to match the same draught on the bulwark capping rail.

 

I have just seen a draught which could explain the origins of the Caldercraft kit and why it is different from the as fitted draught of 1768. It looks to be between the proposed refit draught with the red dots and the as fitted draught Steve and I are following but who knows for sure. So in hindsight with this new information I could quite of easily stayed with the kit cannon post, channel and chainplate arrangement also?

Edited May 25, 2016 by dashicat

[shipaholic]

Hi Dashi

 

One of the reasons I am following the "as fitted" draught is that the arrangement of the quarter deck rail stanchions and the swivel gun posts concurr with Parkinson's sketch. The gunpost next to the stern transom is upright in Parkinson's sketch just like draught 3814 and 3814b, whereas 3814a has the stern gunpost angled back. The number of rail stanchions in Parkinson's sketch matches 3814 and 3814b but not 3814a.

 

For clarity;

 

3814 is the April 1768 as fitted draught

3814b is the Earl of Pembroke with proposed changes

3814a is the draught which has the date July 1768 but this date was written on it later in different ink and writing, the original date is unreadable

3814c is that linen one which is a composite reproduction believed to have been done much later

 

Cheers

[dashi]

Thanks for the likes and thank you Steve your explaination is really helpful. Yes I hadn't really noticed the positions of those stanchions until I came to move the cannon stanchions. I'm going to have to think about it and decide whether I can live with the stanchions in their current positions or if I can move them.

 

Cheers mate

Edited May 25, 2016 by dashicat

[BANYAN]

Your build is looking great Dashi, very clean work.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[dashi]

Cheers Pat.

 

Steve I'm still puzzling over the stanchion positions. Looking at the rail stanchion positions on the proposed fitted draught 3814b, I can see that the as fitted plan 3814 is a match as you point out and which I'm also trying to follow. The Earl of Pembroke looks to have only iron stanchions originally and the quarter deck and bulwarks have been raised and altered as part of the 1768 refit.

 

Looking at the AOTS book page 46 and it shows the refitted rail stanchions as passing up through the hull from the depth of the orlop deck and doubling as cannon ports on the quarterdeck and waist which in the positions indicated on plan 3814a. And on the deck plan of 1771 it looks like they have drawn these cannon port stanchions in the hull on the quarterdeck and waist which line up exactly with the gunport stanchions on the AOTS plan and draught 3814a on which Steve points out that the original date is smudged and 1768 written over top of it.

 

Hmmmm (puzzled expression) Could it be possible that draught 3814a is the sheer plan that goes with the 1771 deck plan and is part of the Woolwich yard refit. Or maybe the 1771 draught hull and other parts that weren't part of that refit could have been exactly copied from a 1768 draught which is now lost and was part of a set with 3814a draughted in 1768. Either way or another, the evidence suggests to me that these two draughts are uniquely connected via the cannon port stanchions when compared to all the other draughts that I know of except the later silk compilation 3814c.

 

The silk compilation which includes in it's title '1768 as fitted' is interesting because it consists of draught 3814a, along with an exact copy dated and marked as 1771 of the Woolwich spar measurements, and an exact scaled down copy of a draught 3819b marked 'Deptford Yard 11 July 1768 as copy' deck plan which does not have the cannon port stanchions in the hull along with other missing detail. I think the facts speak for themselves because this silk copy having the Woolwich yard spar measurements dated 1771 on it has to date it to being drawn not earlier than 1771 if not much later to when draughting silk was used (according to one source which I can't recall sorry) even though it's title date might lead us to believe otherwise.

 

What all this means I don't know so I will have to sleep on it and hope someone else might have a better idea than me?

 

Along with this there is the position of the timber heads on the bulwark rails to consider and move also should I decide to alter the positions of the rail stanchions. There might not be much of the kit rail left by the time I'm finished with it so I might have to consider a compromise or try and replace the rail altogether which I don't really want to do.

Edited May 26, 2016 by dashicat

[shipaholic]

Hi Dashi

 

Yes I have long suspected that 3814a might have actually been drawn for the refit after Cooks voyage at the same time as the October 1771 deck plans

However the 3819 deck plans (October 1771) are signed by William Gray, but the 3814a Draught is signed by Darren Hayes.

I remember reading somewhere that Darren Hayes worked at Deptford.

 

Anyway, I have just been studying all the draughts and both those signatures appear to have been added later - they are written in different ink and the writing style does not match the writing on the draughts. Interestingly both 3814 and 3814b do not have signatures and they are the two draughts that appear to be authentic and agree with each other. Nor do the deck plans dated July 1768 have signatures.

 

And yes it's very interesting why 3814a only has those marks showing where the mast steps for the mizzenmast yet 3814 is missing the marks only for the mizzenmast.

 

I just had another look at the AOTS and the references to the original draughts are wrong (much like a lot of other things in that book)

 

Oh and your build is looking really good Dash, I was wondering why all the deck fittings are gone in the last photos, were they just sitting in place in the previous pics?

Are those quarter window badges the ones supplied with the kit? They look great.

Edited May 26, 2016 by shipaholic

[dashi]

Cheers Steve. Yes and looking at the AOTS book there is a minor mistake in the Woolwich foremast measurements which according to the original draught of 1771 is 21 yards and 28 inches as opposed to 21 yards and 26 inches. I wonder if this mistake also occurs on the silk compilation?

As you point out and what I find really misleading also is the AOTS book under sources on page 23. The description for draught 3814c (the later silk compilation) overlooks the fact that it contains the 1771 Woolwich Yard measurements. Here the AOTS book obviously confuses the title of the copied draught of 3814a for the title of the compilation and even then as we have discovered 3814a is not marked 'as fitted'.

Unless I'm mistaken and like you indicate, this leaves only draught 3814 as the original 'HMB Endeavour as fitted in 1768'. Along with Parkinson's drawings on pages 32 and 33 of the AOTS which agree with it as you have pointed out along with a taller mizzen which the AOTS does point out to it's credit. I don't understand why the AOTS didn't pay more attention to Parkinson because they did have the draughts we have access to today as listed under sources page 23? That's the way of research I guess as it comes under scrutiny through the process of review.

 

Re the deck fittings. I'm pegging and dry fitting as much as I can and won't glue anything until the last possible moment. Each stage goes into it's own small tray until it's ready for a final glue and fit, so things don't get mixed up or lost or broken. And yes the quarter badge is kit supplied and to their credit some of the things in the kit are actually quite good with some exception of some poor quality wood, draughting and scale anomalies. There is a huge knot in the middle of my mainmast so I can't use it and it will have to be replaced.

Edited May 26, 2016 by dashicat

[DaveRow]

Dash,

You made a good choice with a Caldercraft Kit.

The Corel Kit I bought(novice choice) had no badges, figures, carvings. Wood is good, about all that was good actually.

 

Dave R

[dashi]

Thanks Dave. Yeah I think I got one of the first kits out of the yard going by it's serial number. Going by the comments of Paul who recently completed his build it sounds like they have improved the quality and quantity of the wood. I know I moan about the kit sometimes but I'm really enjoying this build and learning so much as it is challenging me on many levels. I'm giving it my best and it's giving it's best back, so yes at the end of the day I think I'm getting my money's worth.

 

A minor update:

 

After Steve drew my attention to the Parkinson drawing and its connection with the as fitted draught I started to really appreciate the historical value of those sketches. So while I ponder what to do with the rail stanchions I thought I'd start my next kit mod using based on those sketches, the adding of the beading which runs 1' beneath the quarterdeck bulwark capping rail and which the swivel gun posts sit above. The only thing I could do was split a 1x4mm walnut plank to give me the 1x2mm beading. Easier said than done and after 3 breakages I finally got a set which I've soaked and shaping on the hull in position. I used a drawing compass set at 1' according to my scale rule to get the line. Tomorrow I will pre paint them, then glue if I have time. These needed to go on before the bulwark capping so now is the time to do it.

 

And here are the trays containing parts in various stages of completion along with a materials tray.

[dashi]

Update: Thanks for looking in on my build and the likes.

 

The beading I'm adding according to Sydney Parkinson's sketch has been pre-painted and glued after scraping the paint away along the hull in the area for it so the white glue will hold. I then had to trim the main channel brackets and remove a small curve for the quarter badge for these to fit under it.

 

Then standing back I reassessed the stern timber work and decided I needed to bash that into line as much as I could from the as fitted 1768 draught and the stern view by Sydney Parkinson. Doing this was a little fiddly but on this build I've learnt that a little filler and paint can cover a multitude of sins once I've got the timber work as good as I can get it. I haven't quite got the stern side vertical edge quite parallel because I'd previously shaped to fit the figurine which hides this. I also had to fill out the forward outer side of the taff rail with some 1x4mm walnut so the taff rail is the same thickenss. Another reason for refitting the stern timbers is the kit has the lower counter decoration under the counter where as Parkinson's sketch clearly shows it around on the hull as does the replica which is where I will be fitting it. 

 

Next is the bulwark capping which will need a lot of altering to move the rail stanchion positions from their kit positions to the positions drawn on the 1768 proposed refit NMM zaz6588 and the 'as fitted' draught NMM zaz7844. It looks like the rail stanchions replace the timber heads as belay points where there is a rail, so will need to be well attached.

Edited May 31, 2016 by dashicat

[DaveRow]

Dash,

Never a dull moment in the shipyard, designing, building, deciding(maybe not), alterations, maybe no alterations, changing ones mind when something comes along. !

What we do for glory !

 

The black, you know where, looks a lot better.

 

Dave R

Edited May 31, 2016 by DaveRow

[dashi]

Cheers Dave and thanks everyone for the likes. It is everyones good works that inspire me to give this project my best. That missing woodwork on the stern had been bugging me from the start.

 

 

In this watercolour from Parkinson if I zoom in I can just make out the blue on the taff rail. http://acms.sl.nsw.gov.au/album/ItemViewer.aspx?itemid=897249&suppress=N&imgindex=26

Edited May 31, 2016 by dashicat

[dashi]

Stern facia:

 

Thought it would be easier to do the facia with the hull upside down so decided I needed to get this done before those bulwark cappings. I'm putting them off for as long as possible to give my brain a chance to work out the best approach for the retro-fit which I think I might now have.

 

Although a friend and I really liked the all blue facia, I must confess to a moment of dread after I first painted it all blue. Plus I'd glued the upper window ledge along the wrong side of my pencil marks making it too tight for the lids, so after seeing that water colour by Sydney Parkinson with the blue taffrail with what looks to be natural beneath and going by the only draught of the stern I have found which does not have the upper window ledge I decided a slight retro-makeover was needed.

 

Holding my breath I dived in and after a couple of days had removed the upper ledge and sanded off the paint. I then applied my pigmented stain and am happy with the result. One rooky mistake I made was to fit the windows before drilling the holes for the window lid hinges because some of the fine sawdust stuck itself to the inside of the glass, not that it's too noticeable.The window lids were also stained with the same pigmented stain and are dry fitted so can be put aside until much later.

Edited June 2, 2016 by dashicat