Good Morning

[Don Case]

My name is Don and I've decided to finally build a ship.  In 2000 I took up R/C sailboat racing (IOM's) and did that for 14 years. In that period I build about 6-7 design IOM designs so I have some experience with bulkhead and plank type builds. I also made a scale model of the "Cecily". A schooner that was built in about 1903 to go after the Olimpic medal. I will post pics if wanted after I figure out how🙂. I also made a gaff rigged clinker skiff. In that period I bought a copy of "The 50 Gun Ship". In 2013 I lost interest in IOM racing. ( I had to drive 200 miles every weekend to find people to race with) and took up archery. I made 80 or so wooden bows and then got tired of that last year. So here we are in 2021 and I'm looking for something to keep me busy. I'm 73, I live on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. I have a table saw of sorts, a metal lathe/milling machine, drill press and a band saw. I have made an attachment for the lathe that functions as a thickness sander. I also made a small 4" table saw from an old grinder and scrap aluminum channel for cutting planks. I think I have all the tools I need. I did a search on the "Leopard" and ended up on toms10's thread so I decided to sign up.

[ccoyle]

Welcome aboard! 

[JeffT]

Welcome to MSW 

[Don Case]

Thanks Guys

[Jim Lad]

Hello Don, and a warm welcome to the forum from 'Down Under'.

 

John

[mtaylor]

[ERS Rich]

Welcome!  Always available to answer a question.  Good luck and cheers!

[Edwardkenway]

welcome to MSW 

[Baker]

[allanyed]

Welcome Don,  Saw your post on Leopard and look forward to see your progress with your research and build.  As Leopard has been done by many others, there will be good information that may help you as well as the many drawings available as you mentioned you want to do a POF build.   You may want to consider one of her sister ships in the Portland class to have something unique here at MSW.  For example, there are a good number of drawings available from the RMG (NMM) for Bristol 1775 including lines and deck drawings.  There are similar drawings for Hannibal, Leander, and Adamant which also have an inboard profile drawing.  You may be able to find a contract for one or more of these at the National Archives in Kew which will give you scantlings specific to those ships.      Enjoy

Allan

[TBlack]

Hello Don,

Trying to make connections. Do you remember the Salmon Kings hockey team? My son-in-law used to play for them. Also, I'd love to know how you turn a lathe into a thickness sander; I'm having a hard time picturing the set-up.

Tom

[Don Case]

Believe it or not I'm a Canuck that doesn't care about hockey (or any other sports for that matter) but I do remember hearing of the Salmon Kings. When I set up the thickness planer again I'll take some pictures.

I picked the Leopard because I have the book. I would rather do the "Discovery", Capt George Vancouver's ship as It has been within a couple of miles of where I'm sitting when he explored the coast. I just don't know how to get the plans. I've searched with no luck. 

[allanyed]

Don, There are profile and deck plans for Discovery 1789 available from the National Maritime Museum.  https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections.html#!csearch;searchTerm=discovery  Unfortunately they do not seem to have a body plan so this would make it pretty much impossible to get the correct shape of the hull.  there are models of her out there but I have no idea on what they based the shape of the hull.

Allan

[Don Case]

I just found a few images of "Discovery 1789" on NMM.   Discovery (1789) - National Maritime Museum (rmg.co.uk) Are they enough to build the ship? There doesn't seem to be a drawing of the frames(I can't remember what it's called.)

Oh, is there a glossary on this site? There is a bit of a learning curve to navigate around here.

[Don Case]

Our posts must have crossed. I suppose that if there is no body plan available then I could use any body plan within reason and no one could call me wrong. As long as the deck plan and the outboard profile fit could I use the body plan from the Leopard and squint a bit. Maybe use another ship from the 1700's.

[Jaager]

This site is owned by the NRG which has this mission statement:

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

 

What you are suggesting is pretty much the opposite of the Guild's mission.

This does not preclude you from having a build log here that involves doing this. 

It is important that there be no self delusion about the historical validity and value of this sort of product.  Were you to do this, you would likely be in the majority as far as real historical integrity in your product.  Most mass market kits seem to only have a passing acquaintance with what their purported subject actually was. 

It comes down to your personal goals.  But it does seem to be a waste of the effort involved in a scratch build by starting from a totally false plan.

 

Bob Cleek pretty much nailed what doing something like this means yesterday in post #22 in the thread:

Shop Notes, Ship Modeling Tips, Techniques and Research
Looking for plans for USS Hamilton - War of 1812

post #22

I can't figure out how to do this as a link.

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Jaager

[Don Case]

I just found that the Vancouver(canada)Maritime Museum has some drawings. I have e-mailed them.

[Bob Cleek]

1 hour ago, Jaager said:

Bob Cleek pretty much nailed what doing something like this means yesterday in post #22 in the thread:

Shop Notes, Ship Modeling Tips, Techniques and Research
Looking for plans for USS Hamilton - War of 1812

post #22

 

Here you go:

 

(Quote:)

 

So being from Michigan I've been looking around and want to do a great lakes boat. The Hamilton is one of the ships I've looked at.  I have a  Pride of Baltimore kit. And its sounds like I can kitbash that and do the Hamilton ? 3ft different length 107 to 110, same beam. Both topsail Schooners. I am recently new to scale wood model ships. Took up my first build when the pandemic broke out last spring and looking advice

Well, you asked for it.    What's to "bash?" It sounds like you are basically contemplating building a Pride of Baltimore kit, adding a few different cannon, and sticking a Hamilton name on it. Why waste a perfectly good Pride of Baltimore kit? (Pride of Baltimore is a modernly designed Baltimore clipper style vessel. That type has no connection to the Great Lakes, as far as I know.)

 

What may be the case is that you can build a topsail schooner that is neither the Pride of Baltimore, nor the Hamilton, nor any other historically documented vessel. You could perhaps build a generic impression of a certain type of vessel, but that's about it. With apologies to the many modelers who have built attractive models of historic vessels about which we have no historically accurate information sufficient upon which to base a model, the result can never be anything much more than a decorator piece, no different than the untold numbers of imaginary Mayflowers, Ninas, Pintas, and Santa Marias.

 

Reasonable minds may differ, but in my opinion, modelers who make any pretense to modeling an historic vessel are obligated, as a matter of academic ethics, not to put a name on it unless there's some sound historical research behind their build.

 

I'd encourage you to consider doing some research on the contemporary vessels of the Great Lakes area and building an accurate model of one of those for which ample historically reliable data is available. Modern advances in underwater archaeology, particularly in the cold fresh waters of the Great Lakes which can preserve much of the original fabric of sunken wooden vessels, A well-researched accurate model can be a contribution to the historical record. Anything less can never be anything more than historical fiction.

 

****************************************************************************************************************

I actually wrote that post with a bit of trepidation that I might be hurting the feelings of some forumites or be seen as being "elitist" by those with an investment in "lowering the net." There are so many who, understandably enamored with building a ship model, look for the shortest distance between that concept and its completed reality and, to my way of thinking, miss the point completely. To build an historically accurate model of a ship requires a detailed intimate knowledge of what that ship looked like at a particular point in its lifespan as well as how it worked. Without that information, which is occasionally available in the written record, the modeler is faced, at best, with making unavoidable educated guesses. At worst, they drift off into flights of fancy which yield nothing of historical value, and worse, risk compounding errors which may become perpetuated. Academic researchers encounter this frequently with inaccurately constructed contemporary models that are very old. Such may obviously be incorrect depictions of the prototype and from that they have to extrapolate that which is likely historically accurate from that which is merely fanciful. (Biblical scholars have made careers of doing the same: "All of the stories in the Bible are true. Some of them may actually have happened.") To produce ship models, particularly technically well-constructed ship models which have the best chance of surviving for generations, which are historically inaccurate, only risks muddying the waters of the historical record. 

 

Rigorous historical research can be a fascinating aspect of the ship modeling hobby. For a true "scratch build" of a model of a ship that's never been modeled before, depending upon the availability of reliable historical documentation, background research can easily take several hours of study for every hour of "model building" once the information necessary to build an accurate model is collected. Indeed, model kits, which are designed to be "assembled" rather than "built," are no absolute guarantee of historical accuracy, either. The experienced serious ship modeler will research their kit model prototype to ensure its accuracy, or rely on reliable reviews by more experience modelers in forums such as this one. A bit of reading will soon make it obvious to the beginner which kit manufacturers adhere to the highest standards of historical accuracy and which are simply selling schlock to the unwitting consumer.

 

There are those who will say, "I do it for fun. It's my model and if I like it, that's good enough for me." For their purposes, I suppose that ends the discussion, but if one wants "to run with the big dogs," have their work judged by recognized academic standards, and perhaps have the time and money they've invested in modeling actually contribute something of value to a wider audience of knowledgeable people, they will endeavor to learn all they can about the subjects they model. Model Ship World and the Nautical Research Guild exist for those who pursue perfection in both historical accuracy and technical expertise. All are welcome, but there are standards if one wishes to be serious about their modeling.

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[Don Case]

Good post. I like the sentiment that if it's not accurate don't put a name on it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't most ships members of a "class". If that is the case how close can you get by choosing the lines of another ship from the same class. I see on this page Vancouver Maritime Museum : File : HMS <i>Discovery</i> [VMM50.14.02] (vmmcollections.com) that the Bounty, Discovery and Endeavour are sort of listed together. Am I reading this wrong or are these from the same class. If the ships were built in the same shipyard from the same plans then I would assume that the hull lines would be the same. Maybe the deck layout would be different but I know I can get deck plans and profile drawings. I obviously I don't know what I'm talking about but I can see a small opportunity here.

 

I've since discovered that the Bounty and Discovery were not related at all so this part of this post is moot.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Don Case
correction of my foolishness

[Mike from Aus]

Welcome to this group

[Bob Cleek]

10 hours ago, Don Case said:

Good post. I like the sentiment that if it's not accurate don't put a name on it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't most ships members of a "class". If that is the case how close can you get by choosing the lines of another ship from the same class. I see on this page Vancouver Maritime Museum : File : HMS <i>Discovery</i> [VMM50.14.02] (vmmcollections.com) that the Bounty, Discovery and Endeavour are sort of listed together. Am I reading this wrong or are these from the same class. If the ships were built in the same shipyard from the same plans then I would assume that the hull lines would be the same. Maybe the deck layout would be different but I know I can get deck plans and profile drawings. I obviously I don't know what I'm talking about but I can see a small opportunity here.

 

I've since discovered that the Bounty and Discovery were not related at all so this part of this post is moot.

 

Correct. They are all quite different vessels. HMS Endeavour was a converted collier, a bulk cargo ship designed to carry coal. I doubt that accurate lines exist for her as she was originally a commercial vessel which was only later bought into the Royal Navy for Cook's voyage of exploration and later used as a troop transport and prison hulk. She was chosen for Cook's voyage due to her carrying capacity and was not designed as, nor built as, a fighting ship. She was scuttled when the British sought to blockade Narragansett Bay in 1778 and may possibly have been located about a year ago. https://www.livescience.com/captain-cook-endeavour-shipwreck-possibly-discovered.html#:~:text=Captain Cook's 'Endeavour' Shipwreck Possibly Discovered Off Rhode Island,-By Tom Metcalfe&text=One of the most famous,Newport Harbor in Rhode Island. Archaeological research is continuing and, if the vessel's identity can be confirmed, we may have some accurate construction details from that.

 

The are a few warship "classes" in which sisterships were built, but there was usually some variation among them as designs evolved as each was constructed. If original draughts exist, further research is required to confirm their accuracy as a basis for a model of a sistership. Simply building to the draughts of one sister and calling it a model of the other adds nothing to the historical record.

 

The plans described in the museum catalog are drawings done for the purpose of building models of the various vessels done between 1946 and 1999. Harold A. Underhill and John W. McKay are respected modelers and authorities on modeling. (Underhill's books are classics which belong in any modeler's library, especially his two volume set, Plank-on-Frame Models) That said, these plans are "secondary sources" and not, without further confirmation, accurate plans of the identified vessels, although some may be. That said, standards for the research of modeled ships have become increasingly more stringent over the years and much has been learned, often by the research of avocational historians for modeling purposes, so it is not unusual for even nicely drawn plans by the earlier "masters" to contain inaccuracies and so can't be taken at face value.  What the museum has, given what we know from their catalog, are modern model plans of the three ships drawn by these two modelers, rather than the actual contemporary draughts from which the ships were built. If such plans were used, they should properly be identified as built to the plans drawn by the modern modelers and should be considered their interpretation of the prototypes, depending upon the accuracy of their research. It bears noting that serious modelers of fine original works will make provision for retaining their research materials with the finished model, often incorporating a drawer in the bottom of the model's case to hold a copy of their research and build log. In this fashion, later generations might have all the data, rather than having to guess at the model's accuracy.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[allanyed]

Don, You are free to do as you wish no matter what anyone says, but I agree with Bob's sentiment for my own builds and I really don't think I am being an elitist for TRYING to get things done accurately.   (Can't say I always succeed though in the accuracy department :>))  You said that no one could call you wrong for using the wrong body plans.  I disagree as the body plan is a sine qua non for a reasonably accurate hull shape.    Just as a little side note the body plan is not really a framing plan as these are station lines and do not represent any actual frames unless a frame coincidentally lies right on the station line, which some do. 

Allan   

[Don Case]

I can understand all your concerns and agree with them BUT🙂. If you can only accurately build ship of which you have the original plans it limits what you can build. Take the Discovery for example. I can get print of the original deck plan and the side view(can't remember what that's called) so I could build a model that would be a fair representation of the original. There must already be hundreds of them. How would you label the model to indicate that it was approximate? Just as an aside when I was building the Cecily I was looking for a rigging drawing and was told that they didn't include rigging in the original plans because "everyone knew how to rig a ship". I have no idea how true this is but if it is then all the model ships out there have guesswork rigging. Just thinking out loud here.🙂

[Bob Cleek]

6 hours ago, Don Case said:

Just as an aside when I was building the Cecily I was looking for a rigging drawing and was told that they didn't include rigging in the original plans because "everyone knew how to rig a ship". I have no idea how true this is but if it is then all the model ships out there have guesswork rigging. Just thinking out loud here.

 

Actually, not exactly. This is why it is important for modelers to learn how the ships they model were rigged and how that rigging worked. Details such as belaying locations commonly varied from ship to ship and time to time on a given ship. The maxim, "Different ships, different long splices." applied. Given that, there are conventional rigging arrangements applicable to different historical periods and using these arrangements is entirely accurate if the correct period rigging is modeled. 

6 hours ago, Don Case said:

How would you label the model to indicate that it was approximate?

 

Given what may be available for HMS Discovery, I might be tempted to extrapolate from the available data and note in the building log and research materials I kept with the model that the lines were "based upon partial draughts and contemporary illustrations." I'd then be comfortable labeling the model as "HMS Discovery (1789)" Conversely, if I were modeling a ship from the actual builder's draughts, (assuming I was comfortable knowing she was built to the draughts and not altered in the stocks,) I'd say, "HMS Xyz based on original draughts from the Royal Museums, Greenwich." Not that it's often important to list the year of launch with a ship's name because the same names tend to be used for a number of ships serially. In the case of the name, "Discovery," there is an HMS Discovery (1774) which sailed with Captain Cooks' third expedition to the South Pacific and an HMS Discovery (1789) that Vancouver sailed to the American Pacific Northwest, as well as an HMS Discovery (1874) used in the British Arctic Expedition of 1875-1876 and an RRS Discovery (1901) of the British National Antarctic Expedition of 1901-1904 ! 

 

Contemporary drawing of HMS Discovery 1789) from which hull shape and other details might be partially extrapolated:

 

 

See also:  

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/87625.html

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/263918.html

 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[Jaager]

As far as the standardization of rigging, I see the following as factors:

Ship's crew could often be from a wide range of countries.

The skill level would vary. 

Some may have a marginal intelligence.

Middle of the night, very dark, wet and pitching deck, a bad storm right on you.

Guessing which rope does what seems like a very bad idea to me.

[Don Case]

It's the 1789 I'm interested in. There's also a few paintings out there.

[Moltinmark]

Thank you Bob for a further explanation of building ships to standards in relation to our quoted conversation.  It's been really interesting and I think it should be a regular thread  for newbies . Are there other standards where you just build from a kit and must use just the kit ? Also I'm curious and would like to ask how often is it that a historical ship's new information is found ( when nearly nothing was previously known) in that a new historical model can be built ? Plans are found or a wreck is found well-preserved and maybe laser scanned

[Moltinmark]

And if I'm going to understand this thread of conversation should I be removing the name sea witch off my current build as nothing is known about that ship other than a couple of paintings as I understand  from my research. 

[Jaager]

52 minutes ago, Moltinmark said:

should I be removing the name sea witch off my current build as nothing is known about that ship other than a couple of paintings as I understand  from my research. 

The supposition that nothing is known about Sea Witch is totally false.

These ships were not subjects for mass production and keeping secrete a new and successful design was not done.  John W. Griffiths was all about reputation and accolades about his skill as a naval architect. To quote Chapelle  in SSUS:

"Sea Witch is the only named clipper ship whose offsets he published, and her lines and sail plan are one of three designs of his clippers that he retained.  These are now in the Museum of History and Technology...."

HIC drafted these plans for publication. Copies of these plan are available for purchase from S.I.   The Mariner's also sells plans from a different draftsman that are not near as good.

There is a serious question about the location of the bowsprit relative to the foredeck.  There is a paper that explores this in the NRJ.  No citation, and I am not sure whether it is CD 1 or CD 2.  Anyone serious about this field, should either own both CDs or have the physical volumes.  I go with the new ideas presented in the paper.

 

The facts about what constitutes a valid historically important model as opposed to being decoration are inconvenient and uncomfortable.  For most kits, being the former is not realistic.  But when scratch building a subject that does not otherwise exist, it is important not to mislead posterity. It should be clear where speculation, reconstruction and fantasy are used.  Specious hyperbole will not refute this.

[LyleK1]

Interesting posts.

I too, am very interested in building the 1789 version of the Discovery and the HMS Chatham. Both of were involved in the exploration of the PNW waters.

I am in the middle of building the HMS Bounty right now but am starting to look into the next build... a scratch build is in my future. My first attempt. So, obviously, research and access to good materials may be an issue when picking the next build.