Soleil Royal by Hubac's Historian - Heller - An Extensive Modification and Partial Scratch-Build

[amateur]

Hi Dan,

 

the model of the Rex has been build by a rather famous shipbuilder. He knew what he was doing. As Dafi wrote: the slot in the upper deck has a cover (removable). The width of the slot is such that it remains just within the so-called schaarstokken: the heavy planks that are part of the main structure of the deck.

The length of the whipstaff coming through the upper deck is around 3 ft, too little to be handled from the top dedk, but exactly the length you need to pustthe whipstaff down to gain maximum rudder-angle.

 

and as both your and my drawings show: there is no need for a long slot: due to the fact that you push down the staff, the top of the staff goesunder the deck quite soon. Comparable, rather short slots can be seen on th epics of the HohenzollernModell and a model of a Dutch ship in Gent. They all suggest that the helmsman was not onthe uppereck, but one deck down. 

It was not unttil the inteoduction of the steering wheel that the helmsman got to the upper deck again.

 

Jan

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Jan, I think you have keyed-in on something fundamental to this discussion:  the schaarstokken, or as I think they are called in English - the King Planks(?).

 

These longitudinal stiffeners - because they are mortised into the deck beams - would compensate for the presence of the slot.

 

Nonetheless, Leminuer’s drawing shows the slot crossing both pairs of King Planks, but that does not, in itself, invalidate your argument.

Certainly, for all practical purposes, the slot must cross the first pair, closest to the centerline of the deck.  However, given the down and over mechanics of steering hard to either port or starboard - is it really necessary for the slot to be so wide that it crosses the second pair of King Planks?

 

Considering, also, that the guns would recoil into a slot this wide, and I think there is an argument to be made for a drawing error, in this instance.

[druxey]

Well, here is Vasa's whipstaff arrangement. No sign of any slot in the photo's frame...

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by druxey

[mtaylor]

I suspect that's error then, Marc.   That slot should not be that long as the decks do help tie the hull together.  And honestly, more than one source has questions Leminuer's plans.  Not just on this ship but some of the others he's done.  I will say, when he get's it right, it's great, but when there's an error, it's a big one.  

[dafi]

The length of the slot can be verified easily on the cross section drawing.

 

@druxey the slot we are taking about would be one deck above. In case of the Vasa, there is the whole part of the deck above elevated, so that no slot is needed.

 

On the Vasa one can see the enormous height of the staff, must be about 4 Meters above the swivel, if one takes the pilot on his elevated place as scale.

And yes, that is me, showing the direction to a fellow forums mate 🙂

XXXDAn

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by dafi

[Hubac's Historian]

Is that Chris from Berlin, by any chance?

[dafi]

No that´s Foxtrot from Augsburg.

 

Chris has more beard I believe 🙂

 

XXXDAn

[Chapman]

Hello!

 

From the Album Colbert the arrangement as it should have looked around 1660/70.
Funny & important detail, the fence around the slot.

[Hubac's Historian]

Chapman, this drawing from the Album, to my mind, definitively affirms the presence of the slot.

 

And, yet, there are a few curious things about the drawing.  First - although the rowle is shown on the deck plan view, it does not appear to be represented in the cut-away view.

 

Second - the slot railings would seem to eliminate the possibility that the pilot stands on the main deck, and in any case the whip-staff isn’t drawn as projecting high enough above the railing for anyone to work it.

 

So, that would seem to place the pilot on the lower deck, and facing a bulkhead that walls-off the mizzen mast - far from the action and command.

 

It is puzzling given that these drawings are supposed to be a literal representation of how a French ship was constructed in the 1680s.

 

Mark, you are right about the Lemineur plans.  The St. Philippe monograph is a stunning piece of work, but there are numerous inconsistencies and puzzling details that often don’t appear to make practical sense.

 

I joined the Ships of Scale site to watch one modeler, Nigel Brooke, build the S.P., according to the monograph.  It’s early yet, in his build, but he’s making a spectacular job of it.  His build-log is particularly insightful, concerning the vagaries of interpreting the plans, so that he can correctly loft his frames.  Nigel is exceedingly sharp, but he has had to do an incredible amount of mental gymnastics to get to where he is now with the build.

 

The model is absolutely worth the look:

 

https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/threads/saint-philippe-1693-pof-to-the-monograph-by-jean-claude-lemineur-by-nmbrook-1-36.3066/

Edited April 21, 2020 by Hubac's Historian

[Hubac's Historian]

I just took a look at the expanded view because I couldn’t remember if this conjectural ship from the Album was drawn as a true three-decker of a two-decker.  It’s a three-decker.  That would place the pilot on the middle deck, actually, and the slot in the main deck.

[Chapman]

Or look at this unknown french Premier Rank .

Edited April 21, 2020 by Chapman

[druxey]

Point well taken, Dafi, although in the scale model of Vasa the top of the whipstaff appears to be about 3 m above the deck. If one takes the path of the whipstaff's tip, it would roughly describe a bell curve. So, if a slot above were needed, it would not have to be a very long one.

[shipmodel]

Thanks to all who contributed to this interesting discussion of the whipstaff.  I thought I was pretty well versed in its intricacies, but even so I have learned a lot.

At the end, I have to agree with Druxey and Dafi that any slot in an upper deck, if needed, would be fairly short.  It could be covered, railed, or even with a hood.

The one reasonable certainty seems to be that a long slot, as drawn by  Leminuer or Budriot, would not be needed.

 

As far as contemporary cutaway drawings go, they are so varied and all over the place that only very general conclusions can be drawn.  For example, below is one which my notes identify only as "Phillips - 1690s"  It has a very short staff that does not pierce the upper deck at all.  Others show the mizzen mast being stepped on the deck above, with the tiller passing under it and extending forward to meet the whipstaff.  In that case the pilot's view and communication would not be hampered as much, but the mast might not be as stable.  As with many of these issues, I think that shipwrights experimented with various solutions in different ships, so there is probably no one clear 'right' answer.

 

Of course, I could also be completely wrong.  😕

 

Thanks again, and stay healthy.

 

Dan

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Well, since my return to work, the pace of work has slowed, but I have still managed to make good progress.

 

This evening, I completed the lower gun deck.  Typical of my approach to this build -  because I want it to remain fully intact over the next six or seven construction years (hopefully shorter😉) - I have over-engineered everything.

 

Once all of the dummy carriage blocks were in place, I decided to add backing blocks for a little extra connection/insurance, so that when I glue in the gun barrels, at the end of the project, I won’t loosen the dummy carriage blocks:

It’s total overkill considering the grip this particular cyano seems to have, but it makes me feel better.

 

Likewise the fore and mizzen mast steps, which raise each mast 1/2” respectively, are over-engineered to insure that if the mechanical cyano bond fails, then the welded plastic collar will keep the mast footing in place.

Once all of that was settled, I could fit and secure the middle deck “beams”:

I faired their top surfaces, this morning, which enables me to begin the whole process all over again, with the middle deck.  Interestingly, though, I discovered just how much the hull flattened out, when I cut away the bottom, below the waterline.

 

Roughly, along the waist, there’s a good 8”, or so, where the scribe is tight:

Splitting the difference, fore and aft though, it’s a different story:

These gaps are too much to scribe without foreshortening the waist depth (of these dummy carriage platforms) so much, that I have to create all kinds of additional carriage support.

 

I think my better bet is to make these carriage platforms from scratch, out of 1/16” white styrene.  This way, I can still use the kit center deck sections, while adding back some of the gap space to the carriage platforms.  This will enable me to place the carriages so that they don’t necessarily require as much out-rigger/backstop support.

 

Thanks to my good friend and mentor, Dan Pariser, I now have anchor cable, which I seized this morning:

I’m waiting for the grey acrylic I applied to the inside of the hawse holes to really cure before threading the hawsers.  Thank you so much, Dan!  These cables look really great and they are just the right scale.

 

Here’s a broadside view with all of my tapetags pulled through the ports, so that it will be easier to retrieve the port-lid laniards:

 

In other works, I made up the stock kit mizzen mast, which I reinforced with a straightened piece of wire coat-hanger.  I did also try to turn a wooden mizzen in the chuck of my drill, but the first attempt was not satisfactory.  I’ll have to learn how better to do this because all masts and spars above this level will be made from wood.

 

I also got busy, as a small-work project, making the sprit-mast, foremast, and mizzen tops.  Here are the sprit and mizzen tops, which are the same size; I have yet to attach the top banding:

As a frame of reference, I found that Lemineur’s masting and rigging plan of the St. Philippe  in 1:96 is an excellent corollary to what I am trying to achieve, proportionally.  Going forward, as I did with the new top diameters, this will be my guide for proportioning the topmasts and t’gallants.

 

Here’s a shot of the side work, in process:

You can really get a sense of the increased scale of the new tops, here.

 

Lastly, I’ve begun preparing stock for the lower half of the quarter galleries:

These are ready for my next shop opportunity to profile them on the bandsaw.  I still am not sure what the material is.  At one of our club meetings, Dan was divesting himself of various odds and ends in his shop, when he gave me this stick of wood.

 

It has virtually no grain, a light yellow color (which I thought was oxidation, but remained so after milling), is lightweight, but fairly hard.  I think/hope it will shape well and hold fine detail.  We will see.

 

I will save any advanced description of my process for making the quarter galleries, until I am actually doing it.  Suffice it to say for now, though, that these carved lifts will be sandwiched between moulding strakes of white styrene, that will define the shape and projection of the QGs at each level.  The moulding strakes are highlighted, here, in red:

As ever - thank you for your interest and for looking in.  Stay safe, sane and healthy, everyone!

 

[shipmodel]

Hi Marc - 

 

Happy to be of some small help.

The wood is, if I remember, apple.

 

I used to use a handheld drill as a lathe before I got the benchtop drill press.

I set up a piece of wood with a conic depression in it to steady the free end of the dowel as it turned.

This does require that either the drill or the wood, or both, need to be clamped in place.

Or you will need three hands.

 

Dan

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Work on the middle deck is coming along nicely.

 

As mentioned, earlier, I found it much simpler to re-make the dummy carriage platforms from scratch, in order to achieve a close scribe without sacrificing platform depth.  I used this simple scribing method to arrive at a faithful pattern for each side:

You can see the relative flattening of the ship’s sides, here, with the new pattern mapped-out on white styrene:

Once I had achieved a close scribe for each side platform, and before gluing them in place, I checked for the ideal positioning of the dummy carriage blocks, along the whole broadside.  On the lower deck, my blocks all follow a uniform line, as they all butt-up against a raised lip at the back edge of the platforms.

The middle deck presents a somewhat different reality, as the outward re-curve of the hull, in the area of the anchor lining, would make the barrel projection seem too short, if I were to simply place all of the dummy carriages at a uniform distance from the port opening.  How’s that for a run-on sentence?!

 

So, testing the depth from port to port, I discovered that the forward 5 dummy gun carriages needed to be staggered closer to the port openings in increments up to 1/16”.  Splitting hairs?  Yes.  The result, though, will be a finished projection like this, relative to the lower battery:

The added benefit of remaking the side platforms is that they are deep enough to adequately support the carriage blocks without any supplemental blocking.

 

With all of that settled, I glued-in the side platforms and center deck sections, as before - taking care to consider the next step of raking the masts.
 

Again - because the masts have been raised, their tapered lower diameter no longer corresponds with the openings at each center deck section level.  My solution is to make mast plates that will enable me to align each mast on the ship centerline, while also establishing the rake.

 

With Lemineur’s masting plan of the St. Philippe at hand, I set the rake for the foremast as nearly perpendicular to the waterline as eye and square could ascertain.  I will still have some wiggle room to adjust the foremast, if necessary, at the main deck level; the foremast step is not even an inch below this first mast plate, and the fit is deliberately just a hair slack.

 

The main mast is raked aft so that the main top is sensibly level to the waterline, while also accounting for the upward trajectory of the top and t’gallant masts.

 

Here are the relative layout of mast rakes and top heights from a variety of angles:

Without the upper deck and bulwarks in place to complete the picture, these mast heights may appear exaggerated, but I am confident that this impression will trend favorably as the model continues to take shape.

 

In other works, the sprit, fore, main and mizzen tops are now complete, and I have made up all of the middle-deck dummy carriages - complete with shims for height, and lid lanyards.  I will wait to set the dummy carriages until after I have made the gusset supports for the main deck beams.

 

Placing those beams will require a little thoughtful layout, as they must accurately frame the openings for the main deck hatches and gangway.  The beams around the gangway will have to be realistically sided, as they will be partially visible.

 

So, onward and upward we will go.  Thank you for the likes, your interest and for looking in!

Edited May 15, 2020 by Hubac's Historian

[SJSoane]

It is looking great, Marc. Masts give a hull an entirely new perspective on just how big these ships were!

 

Mark

[amateur]

Hi Marc,

 

making masts and spars from wooden dowels can also be done by hand.

gives you far more control on the resulting profile than using a machine.

There are quite a few threads in the 'wooden' buildlogs showing you the prces to get from square to octagonal to round.

 

I don't know how that was done in French ships, but for dutch ships of that period, the taper of masts and spars was not a 'straight' one: in profile, the masts and spars were kind of rounded, the thickest part not being at the bottom.

starting with a square dowel and doing the rounding by hand does give you the possibility to scribe the profile exactly on the wood, and make sure that it fits the regulations.

 

Jan

[Hubac's Historian]

Thanks for the reminder, Jan.  Yes, I am also considering this approach - particularly with the top and t’gallant masts because you automatically have the squared foot that the masts require.  It also enables me to mill perfectly straight stock, initially, rather than having to weed through any number of dowels, searching for straight examples.

 

I’ve always wanted a mini violin maker’s plane, and this would be a great excuse to go out and buy one.

[Hubac's Historian]

So, last night, I ordered a pair of small, brass micro-planes.  The quality appears decent, on EBAY, and they weren’t terribly expensive.  What I like about them is that the sole is flat for the middle third, but there’s an entry and exit relief that should facilitate light, fairing passes.  We’ll see what comes of that.

 

I needed a good small-work project, so I have decided to tackle the low-relief Mer-Angels that flank the upper finishing of the quarter galleries.  I’m carving these in 1/16” white styrene, and I will begin with the aft-most pair:

It’s good to carve like-figures in tandem, for the sake of consistency.  The forward pair require a little re-drafting, so that they don’t interfere with my aft-most octagonal port.

 

Anyway, this should be a fun little bit of carving.

[Hubac's Historian]

On the Ships of Scale site, a few members have expressed interest in my carving process.  I’m still up in the air about creating a YouTube account for posting video content.  I thought, though, that these Mer-Angels were a good opportunity to discuss my approach and technique in depth.  The major benefit of what I do is that it doesn’t require a ton of specialized carving tools.

 

Continue, below, for parts one and two of this series
______
 

I thought, perhaps, to demystify my carving process, that I would do short  updates, as the carvings take shape.

 

The first thing, whether you are working from a pre-established ornamental plan, or drawing the ornaments yourself - you are going to want to make sure that the ornamentation is appropriately scaled and detailed in the appropriate style of the nation and time period you are working from.  Ultimately, the quality of all relief carving boils down to the quality of the design and layout.

 

One aspect of model ship-building that begs for a good reference library is ship ornamentation.  The single best book in my actual library, for this purpose, is Andy Peters’s book Ship Decoration 1630-1740.  He covers each national style with sufficient depth to see the evolution of styles across this fairly long time period.

 

I also have numerous books filled with pictures of contemporary models and period portraits by respected artists. What really helps me out, though, is curating several very large databases of period ship imagery on Pinterest.

 

At the end of the day, the more you study the best examples of the shipcarvers’ art, the more fluent you will become with their oeuvre, and the better equipped you will be to draw it.  My operating philosophy is that The point at which I can see something clearly enough in my mind to draw it, is also the point at which it becomes possible for me to make it.

 

Because good carving is so time consuming, it is well-worth the extra time it takes to make extra copies of the ornamental plan so that you can edit directly to the plan, if you don’t like the direction, or slope of a line, for example, or if you find specific aspects of an ornament to be exaggerated.  Once satisfied with your edits, you can make fresh photocopies, and this becomes your new pattern.

 

Once I have a workable pattern, I paste it directly to my stock with a craft glue stick. It should be noted that almost everything I will say about carving these styrene ornaments applies equally to wood. The techniques involved in figure carving, though, are a little more involved.

 

The first objective for one of these low-relief ornaments is to separate the ornament from the bulk of the waste.  I find it easiest to drill a series of closely spaced holes all around the  carving with a micro bit.  Afterwards, it’s short work to connect the dots with a sharp utility knife.

The next step is to set in all of your lines.  In large, full-size relief carving, one would use a V-tool and mallet to do this.  For something this small, I use my #11 Exacto, which I keep razor sharp.

 

The difficulty, in this step, is that the design is full of many short radiuses, and pulling the blade through them can sometimes be quite difficult to stay on line.

 

Having watched engravers, on YouTube, I have discovered a trick that works quite well, enabling me to scribe even the finest curved lines.

 

Engravers use a swivel-vise to turn the work into the path of the graver, so that they only have to make minimal micro adjustments of direction, with their graver hand, while maintaining consistent pressure.

 

What I do is very similar, with the exception that my hand holding the work (on a firm flat surface) pulls and turns the work AWAY FROM the blade tip, which my blade hand is holding with even pressure.  With this technique, it is only necessary to make the smallest adjustments to blade direction, as you go.  This all may sound difficult, but it becomes surprisingly easy with just a little practice.

 

Just as one would practice cutting-in lines on a scrap piece of wood, take a small scrap of your material and draw a series of curved lines, so that you can practice the technique.  Try it both ways; pulling material through and away from the blade, as well as, pulling the blade through the material.

 

I think you will find that it is exceedingly difficult to pull the blade through the work (while holding the work stationary), and stay on-line.  Almost invariably, the tension created by trying to control the large muscle groups in your blade arm, will cause you to lurch off track.  In this scale, millimeters are everything, so even small distortions of line render the design illegible, once the paper is removed.

 

Initially, I like to keep the paper on, while I fair to my lines, around the perimeter. I might begin by using a small Dremel drum sander to take away as much excess as possible. Sometimes the paper begins to delaminate and you are better off removing it. You can, at this point, soak the carving in running water to remove the paper (fine with plastic, but you will want to have used spray adhesive and solvent removal for wood).

 

Once the paper is out of the way, I find it exceedingly helpful to darken (really darken) the whole surface in graphite.  You want the pencil lead to get into your scribe lines.  I then use my thumb to smudge the graphite into the lines.  Doing so also lightens the field enough to see the lines more clearly.

 

Once that’s settled, you work very carefully with a decent set of needle files to get as close to the lines as you can, all the way around the carving.  Don’t worry, just now, about the fine corners and crevasses you can’t get to with the files.  We’ll tackle that in the next installment.

[Hubac's Historian]

In this second installment, I’ll discuss the initial planning and approach that goes into modeling the carving, while introducing the tools that I use the most, and discussing the techniques that have given me good results.

 

At the stage pictured, below, I’ve invested about four hours cleaning to my outlines on each carving. I’ve used the smallest diameter drill bit I have - roughly 1/64” - to get in-between the head, wings and arms. Doing so, even to this minimal degree will greatly ease the cutting-in later. The carving blanks have good symmetry. I made one small drilling error in the bell-flower garland, near the hand, on the left blank. In the end, this small mistake won’t be noticeable, and certainly it does not necessitate a redo of the blank.

Below are the primary tools that I used, today, to begin carving the tail. With the exception of a few Dremel burrs that I use to do some of the initial wasting, most of the cutting-in and sculpting I do happens with my EXACTO (for deepening lines of demarcation), and my hooked BEEBE knife for paring, digging and scraping.

 

This hooked knife, in particular, is invaluable throughout the sculpting process because its versatility enables you to achieve fine results without an arsenal of carving tools.

 

The occasional drill bit also comes in handy when you need to define a small radius within the work - as, here, along the flowing hem of the figure’s blousy skirt.

So - even though, at this point, I have made a number of similar sculptures for this project, every carving is unique and demands that you think your approach through before you begin.

 

While not a fully rounded figure, this carving is, nonetheless, fairly involved, with the area around the head and wings providing the greatest challenge.

 

Personally, I like to begin a carving in an area that is a little less daunting until I find my confidence, again, and the resulting momentum allows me to work through the carving by increasing degrees of difficulty.

 

In this instance, I have decided that the tail is the best starting point because, while contoured, it is a shape that I fully understand, right now.  Unfortunately, the line of demarcation, here, is the blousy skirt that has a somewhat involved hemline that one must clearly define, first.

 

Bear in mind that the blank, in this case, starts out as 1/16” thick.  As a general rule, I will reduce to 1/2 thickness along lines of demarcation, in order to convey a sense of depth.  In this case, that means that the skirt steps down, roughly, 1/32” to the tail.

 

In order to begin cutting in this line of demarcation (on the tail side of the line) I like to take the smallest round burr I have and run it in the Dremel at the next to lowest speed; because this is plastic, you don’t want to generate too much heat, thus making a molten mess of your waste.

 

The absolute key to “relief” carving is to relieve an area for the waste to pare away easily, without having to apply too much pressure on the blade. To facilitate this, I run my Dremel burr along the line, but not on it.  You want to get to within 1/32”, or so, of your line so that you can gently pare to the line with your knives.  For the most part, I like to use my EXACTO to pare to lines, and the BEEBE to pare and scrape the surface down smoothly.

 

Although it isn’t so evident in the picture below, I’m plunging the tail lower at the sides, than in the middle because, ultimately, I want the tail to take on a domed appearance.  In the finished carving, it is this very slight rounding of a surface that creates the play of light and shadow that gives the carving a sense of depth.

The other thing to be aware of is that, as you sculpt down through some of your reference lines, you will occasionally need to pencil-in a few guidelines as a reminder of where you are going. In the example below, I’ve penciled-in a crease line that ever so slightly favors one side of the tail, towards the top, but centers at the bottom, where it meets the foliate flipper.

 

I have found that, sometimes, working just off-center enhances the dynamic “movement” of a carving. Also - however subtle they may be, hard crease lines define shadow and light in a way that benefits the finished carving. Developing a sense for this is simply in the doing of it, but it is useful to at least be aware of that, as you begin sculpting.

Another design trick for creating a greater sense of movement and vitality is to create undulations or “waves” of varying depth.  Some examples of where I have previously done this on this model are the motto banner and the rudder dolphin’s tail.

 

Initially, it’s just a simple matter of using a Dremel side cutting, straight burr to create these waves:

Note that the angle at which you introduce these undulations matters; it can either affirm natural movement or run contrary to our intuitive expectations of how tails behave.

Once that’s established, you can begin really contouring the tail.  Usually, I’ll begin a rough paring with the BEEBE.  Then, I’ll smooth the surface and try to define my crease with the triangular And round needle files - so far as I can without cutting into adjacent sections of the work.  Finally, I will scrape micro-facets with the BEEBE - particularly around the perimeter.  This helps me achieve the soft rounding.

The foliate tail “flipper” represents a small increase In degree of difficulty.  Before I begin sculpting the leafy tail fronds, I want to achieve a sloping taper from the head of the flipper to its tip.  This is easily achieved with an emory board.

 

Next, I want to introduce a similar sense of movement with waving undulations, just as we did before with the tail body:

Sculpting of the flipper fronds, themselves, begins by re-scoring the outline of each frond with your EXACTO blade.  I like to “draw” a very light line with the blade, on the first pass.  Then, I’ll make a few deeper, scoring cuts along this line.

 

Finally, I’ll flip the blade and drag it through my score cut, with the spine of the blade leading the direction of the cut. In this fashion, the blade tip essentially engraves a successively deeper line into the plastic. As described, this same technique works essentially the same way on wood - particularly, across the grain.  The more parallel your cut runs with wood grain, the more you will have to alternate your direction of cut

 

Any time I’m trying to sculpt something small and leafy like this, I basically try to scrape two facets along a centerline, for each frond.  Mainly, I use the BEEBE for this.

 

I also like, where appropriate, to introduce concave hollows around round openings.  There’s a small shallow gouge that I use for this, but I didn’t have that with me today.  I’ll be discussing that more in the next installment.

Basically, these few techniques will enable you to methodically work your way through any carving.  I probably won’t do detailed updates of every step in the process, but I likely will discuss the bell-flower garland, as well as the head and wings, in some depth.

 

Until then, be well and enjoy this extended American weekend!

[Hubac's Historian]

You absolutely can do it, Stephen.  The primary requirements are time, commitment to a standard, and the willingness to just keep at it.

 

I designed and made my first carved piece in 2003.  It was a decent sized inlay for a piece of furniture -approximately 12” X 6”.  I worked very hard at it, and it turned out okay.  Mostly, because I took my time.  Over the years, I learned how to work smaller and smaller - although, never really faster.

 

If it interests you, I would suggest doing a basic relief carving, in wood, and at a reasonable size, just to get your feet wet.  There are plenty of ready—made designs in books, and of course, YouTube.

 

And, to this day, I watch carving process videos on YouTube.  I am particularly interested in the early American long-rifles of Pennsylvania.  Today’s master-makers are experts at the art of low-relief carving.  Many of these guys have videos, online, that take you step-by-step through their relief process.

 

This guy, Jim Kibler, is particularly instructive in his method:
 

 

Really, the techniques employed  are applicable to any kind of carving, at any scale.  His focus and attention to detail are very high.

 

Once you get a feel for it, anything is possible.

[mtaylor]

Thanks for the tutorial,  Marc.  I've read several tutorials by others, but yours seems to be clearer in the steps and methods.

[shipmodel]

Thanks, Marc -

 

This is a really useful tutorial on miniature carving and should improve the work of everyone who reads it.

Looking forward to seeing how all your many intricate carvings come out.

 

Dan

[druxey]

You make a number of very good observations in  your carving tutorial, Marc. You are absolutely correct in that you can't make something unless you can draw it (or have a drawing of it).  Two small points one might add: one, directional light to cast shadows and show highlights while carving. Two, make a maquette in modeling clay to work out the piece in 3D first.

[Kurt Johnson]

Marc, 

 

The pictures of the hull in post 1218 looks like pool noodles were part of the main armament. I guess for close engagements.

 

Kurt

[Hubac's Historian]

Excellent additional insights, Druxey, and thank you Dan and Mark.  A video would be better, but hopefully what I’m trying to describe is sensible enough.

 

And, Kurt, I think we can all attest the the devastation wrought with pool noodles by covert kids who want to spray is off out comfortable floatie!😉

[Hubac's Historian]

Work on the middle deck is now complete.  All of the main deck gussets are in place, now, and I have begun fitting the cambered main deck beams.

 

These first two, are just aft of the main mast, and bookend the aft hatches.

Now that I’m dealing, once again, with aspects of the model that are going to be seen - I am taking extra care to check and re-check measurements and maintain my centerline.

 

Because of the necessity of framing around fixed openings in the deck, I have had to position shorter gussets over gun port openings, at times, and this has made for some interesting cutting-in of the beams.  Generally, I only manage one beam a night before I am too tired to focus.

 

As mentioned in a prior post, though, there are interesting a-symmetries creeping into the build;  specifically, the measurement from center to the starboard upper bulwark base, in the waist, is as much as 3/32” less than that from center to port.  This discrepancy diminishes toward the bow and stern, but it is still present.

 

When you sight along the top of the bulwark base, your eye can read that the starboard hull is a bit flatter than to port.  My only real concern, here, is that it will affect my plank layout, as the eye moves from center to the deck margins.

 

I tried to figure out where I had gone wrong here, after cutting away the lower hull, at the start of the build.  When laying out the plinth base, I had set the waterline at the widest point of the hull, 3 1/8” to each side of the centerline.   I forget the exact transom measurement, but it was whatever I needed to ensure the space necessary for six windows, above the stern counter level.  Here, the hull halves are taped in position so that I could do an interior and exterior tracing of their required positioning.

I then glued in bow, center and transom doublings of the plinth base to ensure that I had firm indexing points, all along the hull length for the glue-up:

The objective was to create a glue-up that didn’t require excess clamping or downward pressure.  I am certain that - at least along the waterline - the hull halves are equidistant from the centerline.

 

My only real conclusion, here, is that cutting away the lower hull released tension, unequally, from one hull half to the other, thus flattening one side more than the other.

 

Another factor is likely the fact that my stem is slightly out of plumb, healing ever so slightly to port; in an effort to get the stems to mate perfectly, while the hull halves were on a dead-flat surface, I did some addition and subtraction of plastic along the bottom, forward edges of each hull half.  This was an effort to compensate for my un-even, initial sanding of the waterline, when I cut away the lower hull with the bandsaw.  While the stern post remains truly perpendicular, perhaps the pulling to port, at the stem, has contributed to a flattening of the hull on the starboard side.

 

Anyway, despite these un-anticipated consequences, I have decided not to worry about it. What’s done is done.  The masts are in-line with each other, and any relative discrepancies in their relationship to the ship sides will not be readily apparent.

 

As for my deck layout, I have decided that, visually, the regular intervals of gun carriages, along with all of their accoutrements, will obscure whatever net difference there may be along the margin plank.  While I may be able to adjust the plank layout a bit, to compensate, I’m not going to get too bent out of shape over the whole thing.

 

I only mention it all as a cautionary tale for anyone else who may decide to take-on the madness of this sort of project.

 

In other work, the figure carving proceeds nicely.  I’ll have an update on that soon. Thank you all for the likes, comments and for looking in.

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Alright, so it took me a moment to finish the tail on the port side figure, and then work the starboard side to the same point.  The tails differ in small ways, but working the carvings in tandem helps ensure a degree of consistency from one side to the other.  It is also helpful and faster, carving the second piece because all of the process you just worked through for the problems of that section are still fresh in your mind.

The next section I concerned myself with is the flowing, billowy skirt, up to the lower edge of the bellflower garland.

 

The process begins the same way, by cutting in the next line of demarcation, which is the bottom edge of the garland.

 

In order to achieve this cutting-in, I begin with my smallest round Dremel burr, as before.  This time, though, the particular shape of the bellflower lends itself well to stab-in cuts with my small, shallow sweep gouge:

This single tool is incredibly versatile for small work, such as this.  I can creep up to a line with a series of stabbing cuts, and the thumbnail edge allows me to roll into tight corners.  I also use this tool for both concave and convex modeling, with either paring cuts or a scraping action.  Next to the hooked BEEBE, this is the knife that I use the most.

 

So after cleaning around the bellflower, this is what we have:

I’ve smoothed over and slightly rounded over the surface of the skirt by paring and scraping with the Beebe, but really, I’ve only removed enough material to ease the transition into the line of demarcation, which is the bellflower.

 

In the next picture, you can see that I completed the skirt modeling, to the right, but I’ve marked in the reference lines on the left skirt, to remind me how the folds and hollows need to be cut in:

This process begins by using the smallest veiner I have to begin cutting-in the troughs of the hollows as far up as I can, before the tool interferes with the garland.  Here is my veiner:

If my small gouge is an 1/8”, across the sweep, this veiner cuts a 1/16” line.

 

Once I have the basic direction of the trough cut-in with the veiner, I use my smallest ball-burr to deepen the troughs, and extend them up to the garland.  These are just very light, controlled passes in the Dremel, on the lowest setting, until you are satisfied with the depth and overall shape of the trough.  Oddly, I find this near-finish use of the Dremel much more difficult to control than using knives.

 

The next to last step is to smooth the transition from trough into fold by using the gouge to scrape smooth micro-facets until you have a smooth natural-looking fold.  I also like to use the edge of the BEEBE knife to take skewed, paring scrapes to further deepen the trough and smooth into the folds - especially near the garland, where the tip of the BEEBE can ride right along the line of demarcation.

 

As Druxey noted, this final finishing of the modeling is best achieved in a raking light, so that you can best gauge the depth of your modeling and the smoothness of your transitions.

 

The final step, on this particular carving exercise, was to undercut the hem of the skirt, just beneath the largest folds, and to both sides of the tail.  This is achieved quite easily by scraping the tip of the BEEBE into the highest portion of the raised-fold edge.  You won’t have to work this very deep or hard, in order to achieve the desired effect.

When the carvings are complete, I’ll use a stiff-bristle toothbrush to break away any remaining fuzzies.

 

The next section to tackle will be the upper torso and arms, followed by the garland, and finishing with the head, neck and wings - hardest for last.

 

As always, thanks for looking in!