Jump to content

HMS Fly 1776 by Milos-1971 - Victory Models - Scale 1:64 - First wooden ship build

Recommended Posts

Well friends here is my HMS Fly wooden build log. As I started some 20 days ago and didn’t thought that I will make the log. Looking for the help on line I come to MSW and us it as the guide line for my build. For those who don’t know me I’m building this model while serving on board the ship during my contract. I was thinking it will be a good time killer. Tools are not an issue but except the material in the kit no other resources available till next time when return to ship so I have to be very precise not overspending. Only material I brought with me is blocks of balsa wood. I chose this model as it was highly rated among modellers and drawing are quite precise and money wise it is not so expensive.

So far I was able to complete basic skeleton of the ship , as well as planked decks , now I moving to planking for which i think it will be a quite challenge. Brought couple of books on the topic which was quite helpful but majority of things I pick up from various modellers at the MSW.


I would much appreciate your comments and suggestion, as this whole project will be a quite interesting and adventures  755417334_ModelTime.thumb.jpg.2529bc39b0b2e30d3abce0500bc0e192.jpg890104621_HMSFlyProgress1.thumb.jpg.5ee4aa5028af31b882119d14fac409aa.jpg


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continuing with Bulwarks. Prior montage soaked in water for 30 min and let it dry on the model to get shape. Afterwards was easy for assembling.

Curved only longitudinal lateral will do once bulwarks is on place hoping for the best 


HMS Fly Progress 2.jpg

Mixture of the sawdust and glue for filling up gap between fore and aft  Bulwarks ( no wood putty on board the ship :( ). I hope that bond should be good enough till second planking

HMS Fly Progress 3.jpg

HMS Fly Progress 4.jpg

Edited by Milos-1971
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Result after usage of electrical bender after soaking with wet paper. It don’t not looks nice but bend  , but is good as first plank match it very well.

HMS Fly Progress 7.jpg

Cross over from the Bulwarks to planks doesn’t  not looks pretty , but later sanding should give me a good base for second planking . Fingers cross   

HMS Fly Progress 7 a.jpg

First Plank :) so fare so good :) 

HMS Fly Progress 8.jpg

HMS Fly Progress 9 a.jpg

Edited by Milos-1971
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats fine - every thing seems to be coming along well and in a very short space of time.

Your gunport strip curves seem great !

The only teeny comment I would make is that you have the "jigsaw joint" back a few mm from where I ( and i think most) put it for both Fly and the almost identical Pegasus . Which was already a couple of mm further back than the plans

That has given you a nicer fit at the fore joint , but I see quite a few mm extra at the stern of the gunport strips beyond the aft supports .

So check carefully things like your channels and rigging positions  - should be OK but worth a check.  Sight through teh gunports and check against the plans



Edited by SpyGlass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi SpyGlass, Thanks, much appreciate your advice .Sorry for asking but  is the "jigsaw joint"  connection of the Bulwarks at ship bow ?

When I was assembling the Bulwarks ,couldn’t find the measure distance from top of the Bulwarks to adjunct ships ribs. I was looking through forum pictures and approximatively adjusted the high of the Bulwarks toward ships ribs. I couldn’t find any measurement on the drawings and also on Fly assembly manuals is not stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Spyglass means that where the two parts of the gun port strips join is further back than on other builds. I am not sure as not built this but it seems crazy that this would not be designed to occur at a bulkhead position. His reference to the bows is in regard to the fact that if the joint was further forward then it would affect the termination of the gun port strip at the bow. However, your termination of the strips at the bow looks perfect. This means either:

  1. The gun port strips are some how too long
  2. Design of kit is poor and that join of the strips does not occur at a bulkhead position.
  3. Your forward bulkheads have been sanded too much giving a much sharper run in to the bow and hence less length of gun port strip required. However, doubt this as you would of noticed when fitting the false deck.

Looking at your work, I would think number 2 above but anyway it is looking great so I would just carry on as you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First quicky on bulwark height versus ships ribs (Bulkheads or BHs)


They should fit "spot on level" tops of both - in theory -  I have found that tehre is a bit of variation especially if you are "jiggling" the strips backward and have not got the jigsaw joint dead straight.

But important things to me are matching the points where the aft and quarter decks start. BHs 4 and 8 I think .

There are important bits of deck and things there so I usually put in teh deck beams and ply plus a strip of the decking and make sure that those line up with the change in bulwark height  ( Usual note BE CAREFUL WITH DECK BEAM AT 8 the "lugs" break very easily and its quite difficult to get on and off - slid in sidways from front !



But the gunport strips length .This is an unfortunate "feature" of the Fly and Pegasus kits.  The length of the two gunport strips either side poses a bit of a problem - they are a bit overlength!

 It would seen obvious that the joint between fore and aft sections of the gunport strips should lie on a bulkhead.

But if one does that the fore strip is way too long forrard . They overlap and close off the bowsprit hole. How much too long depends a bit on how harshly you  sand the forrad bulheads but it always is too long.

SO i think most have found with me that pulling the joint back a few mm - juuuust putting the forrad tongue of the rear strip by about 1mm on to the bulk head pulls it about right

Though I have found that with my sanding of the forrad BH I still have an overlap of the strip at the bow and have to trim back and recut the bowsprit hole. The stern strip obvious need a few mm trim too with this move


You however have moved the joint back even further back so the bow fits correctly and you are left with a bigger  overlap at the stern.


Now that all looks nice on yours so there may be a NO problem  BUT ALL THE CHANNELS AND HENCE THE RIGGING are dictated by the gunport positions so since yours have gone backwards furterh than my experience i am suggesting you check that!

On sheet 5 there is a view of the positions of the masts and the gunports.

With the position I used those actually matched quite well - I am suggesting you put in a temporary mast dowel and cross check that plan view with your build.

but you are doing great so far  - keep on




I have built  a couple of both of these plus a "broken at hull stage"Fly .

You have probably seen this


but I have afew more pics which show the issues


1 Still overlength EVEN THOUGH THE JOINT HAS BEEN MOVED BACK  I had already trimmed the fore strip a bit and this removed part of the bowspirt hole - just a bit more needed.


2. The forrard port ALWAYS clashes with that BH  somehow with my little adjustment - your larger adjustment has got over that is seems



"MY" joint position



4 Overall view when fitted


You can see the BH tops match the top edge of the gunport strips strips reasonably closely. This has had the tops of the middle bulkheads taken off to deck level already - but before removal i tend to use these middle ones as guides for the first positioning of teh strips and actually pin though them since they will be taken off

Edited by SpyGlass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks , Thunder , and SpyGlass , yes I can see that error which I made by not sending forjoijnt and my all gun port BH is moved by 2.75 mm aft. I was wandering how is so much left at the stern Facia of BH ? :( I just sand excess wood so the aft facia can fir accordingly.

As  SpyGlass pointed i will most probably had issue later in the build with rigging of the masts , as main rigs will be slightly moved astern .I hope that this 2.75 mm will not expand how the build is progressing.

Definitely I have to be more carful, but as I don’t have much of work while on board the ship most of the day I spend building. Seems I become addicted.

This is work progress since yesterday. First planking going well even better as I was expected. I’m using PWA glue and most probably due to dry atmosphere on board the ship my glue is drying very fast so moving forward is good. Hope not to make more mistake. To be quite honest I still didn’t figure it out how to do planking and how to reduce width of the planks


One more time thanks Thunder , and SpyGlass specially on photos as wise man say one photos speak thousand words . I apology for not uploading more pictures as internet on board is not quite good as at home  

HMS Fly Progress 11.jpg

HMS Fly Progress 10.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

 I too began the HMS Fly. My ship was begun 30 December 2019. The only other ship I have completed prior to HMS Fly was the 1812 Virginia Pilot Boat. This Amati kit is much more complex, but I am confident I can do it justice. I attach my photos of my project up to the present 10 July 2020. I admit construction errors may be present and I welcome constructive criticism. -Bruce 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...