HMS Victory by Bill97 - FINISHED - Heller - 1/100 - PLASTIC

[Ian_Grant]

3 hours ago, Bill97 said:

I have no idea how such a thing could be manufactured, or how big it would be, but I have often thought a printed version of these build logs with a topic index would be a crazy valuable reference source. 

If we could enter a descriptive caption for pictures we add to logs, and others could search for caption keywords, it would be much easier to make use of other peoples' long logs.

 

Moderators? Is it possible?

[Bill97]

The beak head bulkhead is finished and dry fitted!

[Ian_Grant]

The grass does not grow under your feet, Bill...😀

[Bill97]

After the fact I think the doors and hatch look a little too thick but I am going to live with it!

[bosco72]

Loving this build so far. You have done some great work, and I respect that you do what you want and you are realistic about what you can and want to achieve.

[Kevin-the-lubber]

Fresh back from a visit, I can shed a little light on the position of the doors and hatches, see picture below. There's a big difference in height between the upper gun deck and the small deck section in front of the bulwark. Makes sense, bearing in mind the guns here would be quite elevated. Obviously this isn't the case on the model. Unfortunately the main mast has been completely removed and that area is covered over so no photos of how they dealt with the line going through gratings etc. I'll talk more about todays trip over on my log.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bill97]

Thanks Bosco. 
Thanks Kevin. It looks like I am close on the hatches. Maybe could have been a little higher. My doors are definitely not high enough. Did not know there were stairs on the inside. Thought it was just a step over door sill. Oh well only you guys will know there are off a little. I will anxiously wait to see more of your photos and hear about your tour. 
Got Daniel’s binnacle constructed and installed on the Quarter deck along with the ship’s wheel and Daniel’s stanchion faceing. 

[Kevin-the-lubber]

From the outside I think it would just be a little lip, but the difference in deck heights must be around 2 feet. I really wouldn’t worry about it, to make the model true to the ship you’d have to lower the entire gun deck by about 1/4”, and yours is as good a compromise as any other. 
 

All of my photos apart from one or two are detail shots, 99% from the outside or on the quarter or poop deck. I just went around a couple of times letting detail catch my eye and then shot it, for reference as I go along. Interior shots were tricky as you can’t use flash or a tripod, but if there’s an exterior detail you need, I might have a photo! I’ll be going back sooner or later, it’s only 50 miles away. It’s just a shame that I’ll have probably finished the model before they ever re-rig her.

[Bill97]

Glad you got to see her even minus major rigging. A little jealous maybe. 😊

[Ian_Grant]

So I'm puzzled; how is it that the Heller model has the gun deck level with the head gratings or whatever it's called? Presumably the gunports are in the "right" hull locations and the guns are not 1/4" off vertically; if so how can the headrails be in the correct position vertically? I can't understand how this 2 ft scale difference is absorbed...........🤔😒

 

ps: Kevin are you certain you will finish before they do? 😁

pps: Amazing fusion360 stern you've made. I hadn't looked at your log in a while until today.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Ian_Grant

[Kevin-the-lubber]

I wouldn’t be so sure that the Heller model is totally accurate in this respect. From earlier work on the Admirals entrance I know the fore-to-aft positioning of the middle (I think) gunports is a little wrong. Likewise, from various photos and reinforced by yesterday’s ‘inspection’, Hellers’ laterally flat decks means the curvature of the stern windows is probably a bit less than in real life. Every deck has a very noticeable lateral curve, to let water run out, especially the lower gun deck as, apparently, Victory sat much lower in the water than was expected and shipped tons of water through the gun ports when in battle. The wales are very different on the real thing and barely protrude. I’d guess that the head rails absorb the difference, that their vertical dimensioning is fitted to the gunports so it all looks right despite being technically inaccurate. None of which is meant as a criticism of Hellers’ modellers, but a 1/16 here, a 1/32 there, all adds up without detracting from the overall look. 

 

Who’ll finish first? Well, I did only say ‘probably’!

[dafi]

Both the plans as build and from 1788 shoe no difference in height from the deck to the platform of the beakhead bulkhead 🙂 So Heller is good there. This platform was a later introduction in the 3rd rate+. The step in P. was introduced in 1920 when the bow was complöetely reconstructed, eliminating the round bow of 1816.

 

Even though Heller orientated the model on the appearance of 1920-1960 they got this detail and the missing side entrance right! Oh my God they got bashed for that when I started building this kit 😉

 

XXXDAn

[Kevin-the-lubber]

Mystery solved!

[Bill97]

Daniel I am reading over the instructions for your plate #3. You have the section where you advise to widen the fore channels to the same width of the main channels so the shrouds don’t collide with the hammock cranes. The process you show to do this is to add 3 pieces of 1x1mm evergreen to the front edge and then cover the top and bottom with a thin evergreen sheet. I have a couple questions if you have an opportunity to respond. 

 

Would it it be easier to just add the evergreen pieces to the back side of the channel where it will be attached to the hull so I would not need tomake new holes for the irons?  Or did you try this and found it not to be satisfactory?

 

It looks in the plate 3 pictures that you added evergreen to all the channels, not just the fore channels. Is this correct?  If so, how much wider did you make the main and mizzen channels, or did you make all 6 channels the same width?

 

Last question.  You show adding a sheet of thin evergreen to the top and bottom of each channel. What thickness of evergreen sheet did you use for this. It appears to be pretty thin. 

[dafi]

"Would it it be easier to just add the evergreen pieces to the back side of the channel where it will be attached to the hull so I would not need tomake new holes for the irons?  Or did you try this and found it not to be satisfactory?"

Of course you can 🙂 I felt more confident to use the original pins of the boards to fix them on the hull and also as the curve towards the hull is just right. But it works both ways.

 

"It looks in the plate 3 pictures that you added evergreen to all the channels, not just the fore channels. Is this correct?  If so, how much wider did you make the main and mizzen channels, or did you make all 6 channels the same width?"

Tricky question, omg, what did I do that days ...
i had a look at the instructions and I do strongly believe that only the fore chains need to be enlarged. You possibly refer to page 12. This is an attempt to build the chains a bit more correct by giving them more thickness and also to place the slots more on the edge and to cover them then in the correct way with a batten.

 

"Last question.  You show adding a sheet of thin evergreen to the top and bottom of each channel. What thickness of evergreen sheet did you use for this. It appears to be pretty thin. "

Its described in the assembly instruction of plate 2, one line of 1 mm x 0,4 mm Evergreen on top and three of that kind underneath.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by dafi

[Bill97]

Thanks Daniel. I appreciate it. I was actually looking at pages 13 and 16. In both of those, especially 16, it looked as if you added evergreen to all of the channels. That may be just to get uniformity in vertical thickness 

[Bill97]

Worked on a few different things over the last few days. Got the ship’s bell and the chimney like thing put in with Daniel’s enhancements. Accidentally destroyed the railing around the steps that down from the Quarter deck to the Upper deck 😩 so I had to fabricate a new one. Got a number of the pieces in that go along the inside edge of the hull that have pins for future rigging and the cannon ball racks. And started working on making the fore channels wider as Daniel recommends. 

[Ian_Grant]

Looks good Bill.  FYI the belfry roof is copper clad I believe.

 

Also you can get replacement parts from Heller; go to glow2b.de click on "service" then "spare part form". I had no luck emailing them this form but got an immediate response (and the part) when I FAX'ed it over to the given number.

[Bill97]

Thanks Ian. The replacement part source is good to know. I found the Heller rail and post to be pretty fragile anyway so I just made something a bit stronger once I paint it black no one will know. Unfortunately a section of the original rail and post is down on the Upper deck somewhere as it fell in the opening never to be retrieved! 🤨

That is a curiosity I have and have so far been fortunate enough to be able to get out. I have a few times now bumped a cannon barrel hard enough to dislodge it from the carriage and have it go into the ship. Since I have not glued the stern in place yet I have been able to get to it. Once I put the stern on and close the decks up anything knocked loose will be forever lost if below the upper deck. I guess in that case you just close the hatch. 
 

Ian there are 3 places I painted to look like an old metal (lead color roof). The belfry, the roofs of the quarter galleries, and the 2 side sections of the bulkhead. Since you say they should be copper clad I think I am going to try adding the copper to them that I put on the hull. Should make for an interesting look. Will let you know. 

[Kevin-the-lubber]

Out of interest, Ian, did you have to provide proof of purchase on the spare part request?

 

I like the idea of copper instead of lead, it may not be true to history but it'll look nicer.

[Bill Morrison]

Stunning work!

Bill

[Ian_Grant]

1/4 galleries aren't copper, just the belfry. I guess it is considered an important part of the ship to be taken pride in - just look at the fancy woodwork!

 

No I didn't provide proof of purchase.

[Kevin-the-lubber]

Agreed, they're lead, same on the top of the stern, but personally I still quite like the thought of copper instead. Though I hasten to add I haven't yet tried this.

[Bill97]

Ok gentlemen right, wrong, or indifferent I put copper and nail “holes” on the belfry, quarter galleries, and beak head. I think it looks pretty cool and matches the copper hull. Zooming in I can tell I need to add some additional nail heads. Also have my new rail around the stair case opening. 

[Hubac's Historian]

I’ve been pre-occupied with numerous things lately, Bill, but I am floored by your tremendous progress.  She’s really rounding into form now!

[Bill97]

Thanks Marc. As an old retired guy I have the luxury of spending some time every day if I want. 

[Ian_Grant]

I have to admit, the 1/4 galleries do look good with copper. Great job painting the balusters! Or are they etch?

[Bill97]

No Ian they are Daniel’s etched balusters. 

[Bill97]

I am still a long way from mast and rigging but I am curious for discussion purposes which method you guys prefer during your builds reference masts and their standing rigging?  I see on MSW that builders use various sequences to complete this task. Do you prefer to work your way up gradually from the deck by installing the bottom portion of the mast and then the shrouds for that section, and then the middle section of each mast, and so on?  Do you build the complete mast off the ship, then install it followed by all the rigging? Or do you build the complete mast on the ship and then start all the rigging? I am wondering with the need to add Daniel’s etched parts for the mast if it is better/easier to build the mast off the ship but then I consider how much easier it is to loop the shrouds around the top of the bottom section before adding the middle section. This same curiosity includes the installation of the yards on the mast. When do you prefer to do it?  I am going to attempt making those rigging pieces used to hold the yards to the mast (I forget what they are called) since Heller does not provide an anchor point for the yards. Is this better to do all the yards on the mast with the mast not on the ship or one at a time working my way up with mast on the ship?  And final thought now (definitely not final thought on the subject, just right now😊), are the yards raked off perpendicular to the hull, and if so about what degree? I am guessing this is personal preference and if the ship is with or without sails, and furled or not. I am considering furling all the sails to enable seeing all the rigging and internal delicate work. Not sure yet. I would then guess if I am going to rake the yards it would have to be once mast is installed on the ship in order to get uniform angle. Like I said, a lot of mast, yard, and rigging curiosity for opinion and discussion on a Fall Saturday morning. 😊

[Ian_Grant]

Bill, since no one has answered (perhaps because it could turn into a very long dissertation) here is how I started.

 

I looped my shroud pairs over the lower masts first then attached the jeer cleats and topmasts. All was pre-painted and then masts were glued in. Left shrouds dangling loose while attaching lower yards and their slings, jeers, and trusses, figuring they would not be affected by any mast positioning tweaks by standing rigging later and I had better access with loose shrouds. Rigged lifts but left loose.

 

Once these ropes that run down alongside the mast were done, I rigged the shrouds then the stays, working my way upward and from bow to stern. Topgallant masts were attached once topmast shrouds were looped round topmast head, and then sort of repeat the above process.

 

Of course, yards had all their blocks attached before adding to masts.

 

My chief concern was access for belaying at deck pins because I have big hands and did not want to be reaching in with tools I don't have to try to tie things off. In fact, I attached many many lines (for example mizzen stays) to deck even before inserting masts, and rigged "in reverse" because there's better access up high. I attached threads of sufficient length to many deck pins and rigged in reverse too. It's a mess of coils at times but I'd rather do it that way.

 

That's a brief indication of my thought process.

Edited October 16, 2021 by Ian_Grant