Corel HMS Victory Cross Section, 1805, 1:98 Scale

[tmj]

While taking a needful 'constitution', away from my actual USS Constitution hull drawing project... I've gone back to working on a Corel cross section kit that I am 'bashing'. I cut all of the pieces, for all four of the riders, (16 small pieces total), a couple weeks ago, while taking my first break from the re-construction process of Humphrey's 1794 drawings of the Connie (lots of breaks will 'surely' be required during the course of 'that' project). I've only filed and fitted the pieces for the one single rider shown below (3 small pieces). I won't mess with filing and fitting the remaining 13 pieces required to complete the other three riders until I get past a newly discovered dilemma, of sorts. As you all know, Corel's kit is quite lacking in historically accurate details. That's where my desires for 'bashing' come in. I followed the kit instructions, 'blindly', prior to purchasing Longridge's book. Luckily, I did not go so far into the building process as to totally build it wrong and turn it into nothing but a nice looking shelf ornament. There's still a bit of hope for it, at this stage. While I can't make it 'proper'... I 'CAN' make it much better than it 'would-have' otherwise turned out had I simply built the kit as instructed! That being said. The internal planking "is what it is', to this point. I can't take that back, however. I 'CAN' proceed in a more historically accurate manner. That's what I am doing, however. I'm running into problems, already, with the riders. If I stick to historical accuracy and build it properly, the riders going up to the 'Gun-Deck' will obscure the visible profile of the shorter riders that stop just below the Orlop deck! "Hmm, what to do?" In order to show the craftsmanship of 'both' riders construction... I'd need to whittle the girth of the gun-deck rider down a bit in order to also show the profile of the lower riders... unless I wanted to swap positions of those two riders, which would be even more inaccurate than simply thinning down one of those riders, for viewing purposes. I can't see putting a lot of time into making precise pieces, and tight joints, that will not be seen without the use of a mirror and a flashlight. I'm also not too thrilled with intentionally deviating from true reality simply for the purpose of aesthetics and presentation. This is truly a dilemma. I'll need to weigh things in the ol' balance and decide which procedure will ultimately become deemed the 'lesser' of these two evils. In the mean time... I'm cutting exterior planks from Ebony to mimic the black paint on the outside of the hull, cutting white holly to mimic white paint on the interior planking, supports, etc., ... and waiting on some yellow-heart wood to arrive to thus mimic the yellow paint used between the black painted stripes on the exterior of the hull. I don't want to paint anything. I want to use natural wood colors that can somewhat 'simulate' the true colors to a respectable degree. Painting beautiful wood is a major sin in 'my' book... kinda like cooking chili with beans and sugar and then trying to pass it off as authentic TEXAS chili. I might actually be able to get away with simulating various colors of wood, via natural wood colors/shades, however. Cooking authentic Texas chili with beans and sugar also included in the pot?  "That's a mandatory 'HANGING OFFENSE', for 'dang' sure!" 😧

Edited December 15, 2019 by tmj

[mtaylor]

One way that many do on a cross-section is fully plank one side, inside and out.  The other side isn't planked.  Quite a few Triton cross-sections were done this way and many other still are.   

[tmj]

 Hey Mark! It's really funny that you mention that. I actually considered doing 'exactly' what you described, however. The manner in which this kitted model's 'framing' takes its form is a bit problematic, as you can see in the photo below. I'd have to either do some seriously precise band-sawing, routing, etc. to achieve the 'appearance' of 'frames', on the non-planked side of the hull. Could I pull such a thing off? Yeah, probably, 'maybe'... 'BUT' (you know what 'but' means, LOL). I didn't think that the required time to do such a tedious thing would justify the end result of an already questionable model. I also didn't want to risk an "Ah Slip" and potentially ruin a lot of precision, tedious cutting, with one little mishap towards the very end (Murphey's Law). What can I say? I 'chickened-out' and chose to simply follow the path of least resistance... and decided to plank the darned thing, entirely. I do like the way that you think! You'll see such 'like' thoughts, in work, in the near future! 😉 

 

            

[mtaylor]

I see the problem... and yes, Murphy always waits for us.

[tmj]

On 12/16/2019 at 9:35 PM, mtaylor said:

I see the problem... and yes, Murphy always waits for us.

With all due respect, I disagree. Murphy does not 'wait' for us... he 'STALKS' us! 😧