1683 Urca Derfflinger by Robert Lamba - Dikar - Scale 1:62 -

[robert Lamba]

Compass box  and finished binnacle. Probably not historically accurate but as can't find anything definitive from the time period it'll do, better than what was in the kit. I put a brass finish on the side of the compass which was a waste of time as it's not visible once in it's gimbal box and tucked inside the cabinet.

 

I feel better for having done it, it wouldn't have taken much effort for Dikar to have done the same.

 

[robert Lamba]

Summer is here motorcycle season my other time consuming hobby. I'm very nearly done with everything hull related and then it's masts, yards and rigging. I'll cut back on ship hrs until October when I concentrate fully on the rigging. I may spend a few hours each week preparing for that.

 

I've found my dry dock for my build, the stand is flimsy I'll need to address that before it ends in a disaster.

 

 

[robert Lamba]

I had nice couple days away from my ship build, after a long cold winter it was time to enjoy the warm sunny weather with my motorcycles. Today it rained 😫so back to the ship.

 

Installed these " things" I forget what they're called, I think Pete called them "cross---". I've seen them on other builds and they didn't appear to serve any purpose purely decorative, on my plans they show a line fed through them from the lower main mast sail. I was leery of cutting through the wale to install them but with my new tool kit I found just the right blade and slow careful carving i got the job done. The hole for the line emerges 2mm above the deck fore of the staghorn which I assume is where it ties up. Most difficult part was removing a drill bit that broke off in the 2nd one, it took a half hour with a Dremel grinding away the backside before I reached the bit and could tap it out with a punch.

[robert Lamba]

Next project building gun platforms. Earlier in the thread I mentioned the problem of the grating interfering with the loading the guns, they couldn't be returned to be loaded as it is now. Even if I had eliminated the grate there would've been insufficient room. Lowering the grate flush wouldn't have solved my problem because it raises another issue, the grates were raised to keep water out. If I was concerned with accuracy doing that I would've replaced one defect with another and I'd be no further ahead. I could leave it as is and no one I know would be aware but it annoys me.

 

I know historically merchant ships have often been pressed in to service when needed and modifications were made to upgrade them to a higher battle capability. In doing so there were design configurations that made do with a bad situations. So I tried to think like a ships carpenter, "How do I add two cannons to space not large enough to accommodate them and still allow water to clear the deck". 

 

I had some material left in the kit that I can't identify and unless someone can here can tell me what it is it offers a solution for my gun platform.

3mm in width with a 1mm channel, it's height is conveniently the same as the grate. Laid side by side with channel facing down from the grate to railing it would allow the cannons space to retract and not hinder water clearing the deck.

.

 

I've searched the internet and I've found instances of raised gun platforms just not for this design of canon or time period, but is building a historically unverified platform a worse error than a cannon that can't be retracted, it's not as if I'd be using an unknown technology for the time period. I did find one other builder of this same ship that also saw the same issue, he/she also built a raised platform and from what I could see without allowing for water egress. The same Derfflinger but it's a Euromodel Kit mine is a Dikar, that builder partially covered the grates with the gun platform, I intend to butt into the side of the grates.

[piratepete007]

Robert, thinking laterally but not answering your question about the use of those slotted pieces, is there any reason why the obstructing grates could not be made flush with the deck surface ? That would then possibly allow the normal recoil of the cannons, albeit over the grates ? Interested to hear what others would say about that as I have only ever considered recoiling cannons moving over a solid deck surface.

 

Or ... is there enough of that channel material to make a solid platform between the grate and the rail for both sides ?

Pete

[robert Lamba]

The grates are firmly glued in place so reducing the height to flush to the deck is problematic. Again my conflict is I'd be trading one historical inaccuracy for another.

 

Perhaps a combination of the builders solution on the Euromodel kit with what I see on the VOC Batavia website. The Batavia has removable panels that can cover the grates converting them to a solid surface and can be stacked for ventilation and light when required.

 

I have sufficient U shaped material to create a platform beneath both cannons, perhaps a removable cover for the grate behind the cannon like  Batavia's? I would need to add some material to the grates to simulate the receiving frame for the covering panels.

 

[robert Lamba]

Still mulling over my cannon space issue so I proceeded to another challenge put to me by Pete, mast collars. There was no allowance in the kit for mast collars so I needed to build them from whatever I could find. Technically making tiny wooden donut is not something I've done before, if it were bigger a power drill, hole saw and bit would accomplish this in a couple minutes, a collar 3mm x 15mm is another matter.

 

My first attempt was to drill a hole slightly small that the mast  in solid 16mm stock then cut down the material around hole it to 15mm, that didn't end well.

Then I thought I'd laminate extra plywood parts in the kit. First attempt to drill a hole ripped the lamination apart.

Try again with stronger adhesive, plywood held together but drilling holes always resulted in splintering of the plywood.

 

 

So back to the solid material, I drilled my hole further along the material to avoid splitting the wood but the large bit would wander from centre.

 Next I drilled a very small pilot hole, then increased bit size in small three increments, reaming the opening to approximate size rather than drilling. Success!

 

After forming the hole I could then cut down the exterior dimensions approximately with a knife, a file to to remove rough edges and reach final dimensions. A rolled up piece of sandpaper to slowly enlarge interior to the mast diameter. The rings were by now very fragile, a very cautious sanding reduced it to final thickness  and a final camfering of the exterior.  

 

The Bowsprit collar required a completely different approach but the learning curve had been established with the other collars, the mast entering at the junction of deck and bulkhead required a two piece collar.

Now I await the next fabrication challenge Pete is going to suggest.

 

 

 

[robert Lamba]

After a lot of research and consult with Pete we reached the consensus Fluyts most likely never had cannons on the quarterdecks. So the decision whether to build an unknown gun platform or not to work around the quarterdeck grates was rendered irrelevant,  I removed them completely.

 

 

 

 

[robert Lamba]

After eliminating the quarterdeck cannon the cannon ports in the quarterdeck cabin became an issue. It was extremely improbable for two cannons to placed in such a small space. With no grate above or ports it would've been a cabin devoid of natural light. Using the Batavia as my guide I decided to convert the ports to windows, the only difficulty being their size which was considerably larger than a window and my reluctance to remove considerable amount of clinker to reduce the window size.

 

I had two decorative pieces that were initially meant for the hull which were conveniently the same size as the ports. With a little red paint to the now window shutter and gilding to the now decorative window frame they're acceptable representation of windows. Not ideal but I think it works.

 

[Fray Pi]

Dear everyone, I am an absolute (totally absolute) newbie in naval modeling, but I am hooked on this topic, which I am passionate about.
Excuse me if I say some nonsense, but one question arose (among thousands of others I have).
I have seen in the Euromodel photo gallery...

... that in the mast of 'sobrecebadera' [español] (in English I think is called 'sprit topmast'), all ropes including shrouds and even the forestay of the ratchet mast, ends in an 'unknown area' where a big mess of strings must be made. I am also very surprised that the forestay of the ratchet mast is tied with so little security to a pole as thin as the sprit topmast, without there being any crossbar-shaped support to collaborate with the shrouds for its fastening.
However, also in EuroModel, but in the Construction Manual, another photo appears (of another model, I think) in which it clearly shows what seems logical, that is: a crosshead in conditions to provide support.

I would not worry about the above, because I would put the crosshead directly on my model, but I am afraid that in the 1:62 drawings you use of the Dikar model there is no crosshead either. I haven't seen those Dikar Model plans, but I do have some Art amb Fusta plans, at 1:52 scale, (which I think are older than Dikar's and therefore would be the original ones), in which neither the crosshead is nowhere to be seen.
Well this is the question. I would very much like to hear yours opinions on the subject. I am especially interested in knowing in detail how the shrouds, forestay and other ends should be tied in the Gordian knot that should form there if there is no crosspiece or similar.

 

Apologize for my english

Greetings from my cell.

[piratepete007]

Fray, 

I know exactly what you are talking about but so as not to clutter Robert's post, if you like I will send you a 'PM' (private message) and we can discuss the matters you raise. 

Pete

[robert Lamba]

On 6/12/2020 at 3:05 AM, Fray Pi said:

Dear everyone, I am an absolute (totally absolute) newbie in naval modeling, but I am hooked on this topic, which I am passionate about.
Excuse me if I say some nonsense, but one question arose (among thousands of others I have).
I have seen in the Euromodel photo gallery...

... that in the mast of 'sobrecebadera' [español] (in English I think is called 'sprit topmast'), all ropes including shrouds and even the forestay of the ratchet mast, ends in an 'unknown area' where a big mess of strings must be made. I am also very surprised that the forestay of the ratchet mast is tied with so little security to a pole as thin as the sprit topmast, without there being any crossbar-shaped support to collaborate with the shrouds for its fastening.
However, also in EuroModel, but in the Construction Manual, another photo appears (of another model, I think) in which it clearly shows what seems logical, that is: a crosshead in conditions to provide support.

I would not worry about the above, because I would put the crosshead directly on my model, but I am afraid that in the 1:62 drawings you use of the Dikar model there is no crosshead either. I haven't seen those Dikar Model plans, but I do have some Art amb Fusta plans, at 1:52 scale, (which I think are older than Dikar's and therefore would be the original ones), in which neither the crosshead is nowhere to be seen.
Well this is the question. I would very much like to hear yours opinions on the subject. I am especially interested in knowing in detail how the shrouds, forestay and other ends should be tied in the Gordian knot that should form there if there is no crosspiece or similar.

 

Apologize for my english

Greetings from my cell.

Kit manufacturers may make alterations to the plans but from my understanding all DerFflinger plans originated with the same person, I've come across his name in the forum. My Dikar plans are about 40-50 yrs old. As Pete and I have progressed through my build we've found some of details in the plan had to be incorrect.

 

As no one has actually seen an actual Fluyt the best reference we have is the full size reproduction VOC Batavia in the Netherlands. Even in that example no doubt built with the best historical resources available there are errors and deviations. Add to that the various shipbuilders of the day would've built to their own specifications and not to a fixed design, modifications and innovation would be routine.

 

VOC Batavia

[robert Lamba]

On 6/12/2020 at 3:53 AM, piratepete007 said:

Fray, 

I know exactly what you are talking about but so as not to clutter Robert's post, if you like I will send you a 'PM' (private message) and we can discuss the matters you raise. 

Pete

No problem Pete, clutter away. Each build should be an aid to the entire community any information or discussion here contributes to the knowledge base.