Flying Fish by Jared - Model Shipways - 1:96

[Rick310]

Well done!!

Rick

[rwiederrich]

Well, there you go Jared.  she's coming along nicely...good work.

 

Rob

[Jared]

Been actively working on the fore topgallant mast.  While the mast was off the ship I added the standing rigging lines to the topgallant section and the lift grommets for the  toppgallant,  and royal yards.  The grommet for the topsail yard was also made, but will be added later after the standing rigging lines for the royal mast have been applied.

 

I simplified how I made the lift grommets (photo 1&2) using superglue instead of solder to secure the wire to the brass thimble.  Once 2 of these were made it was very simple to make the lift grommet by twisting the free end of each wire around the adjacent piece (photo 3).  The upper futtock shrouds with small bullseyes were made in a similar manner (Photo. 4)

 

Photo 4&5 show the present state of the rigging with the fore  topgallant shrouds.

[ClipperFan]

On 10/19/2024 at 3:46 PM, Jared said:

Been actively working on the fore topgallant mast.  While the mast was off the ship I added the standing rigging lines to the topgallant section and the lift grommets for the  toppgallant,  and royal yards.  The grommet for the topsail yard was also made, but will be added later after the standing rigging lines for the royal mast have been applied.

 

I simplified how I made the lift grommets (photo 1&2) using superglue instead of solder to secure the wire to the brass thimble.  Once 2 of these were made it was very simple to make the lift grommet by twisting the free end of each wire around the adjacent piece (photo 3).  The upper futtock shrouds with small bullseyes were made in a similar manner (Photo. 4)

 

Photo 4&5 show the present state of the rigging with the fore  topgallant shrouds.

@Jared

Rigging is probably the most tedious, challenging and time consuming step in creating a beautiful sailing ship model. Yet, a well done rigging job is what I believe separates a museum quality replica from an ordinary one. I'm sure Rob would echo that sentiment too. 

[Jared]

I fully agree.  As each new line is added my model is beginning to look more and more like something special.   I expect to complete the standing rigging on the fore mast this week.  My biggest  regret so far is installing the lower yard on the fore mast before completing the standing rigging.  I have accidently hit it so many times 🤬.

 

Given that my that the lower main and mizzen masts are already glued in place, I would appreciate advice as to how to best proceed from this point.   My thinking is that once the standing rigging is complete on the fore mast I should finish off this mast with yards and halliards and lifts before moving on to rigging the main mast, and subsequently, rig the mizzen mast.   Installing the yard braces to be left to the end or there abouts.  

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick310]

Jared, my intent is to not glue the masts in place , rather wedge them.  That will allow me to remove the masts as I work from the mizzen, forward.  At least, that’s the plan.  I’m also planning to rig the lower masts first, shrouds, Spencer gaffs, ect before installing the topmast.  
The fly in the ointment is the topsail yard which has to be installed before the topmast cross trees can be installed off the model.  This will be an interference when installing the lower yard.and will be vulnerable to breakage!  I just don’t know any way around it!  I know that there will be plenty of other rigging dilemmas as we both move forward!

Keep up the good work!!

Rick

[Jared]

Thanks Rick.  I am sure every method if rigging will have its unique challenges.  With respect to the cross trees, GAK had a great idea for making then more robust by gluing a small brass strip underneath the fragile wooden spreaders.  I followed his method and am glad I did.

 

Looking forward to seeing your wonderful progress.

Edited October 23 by Jared

[ClipperFan]

@Jared

My best recommendation for an excellent how-to rigging resource from a nearly 50 year veteran of museum quality replicas is to review @rwiederrich build logs for his Great Republic and Glory of the Seas builds. My entire 2nd Nautical Research Journal submission covers Rob's highly systematic, eloquently creative and consistently thorough rigging process of his Glory of the Seas miniature. His results can be seen both on Model Ship World and Ships of Scale. Ed Tosti's Young America build is second to none. Rob on the other hand is more relatable to the everyman modeler. Good luck!

[Jared]

Thanks Clipperfan.   A detailed article describing Rob's technique will be extremely valuable to this community.  I have about 30 books on model ship building including a several of major well known works on rigging.  These  explain in great detail and with wonderful drawings how tall ships were rigged.  However when it comes to guidance for rigging model ships,  the suggested rigging sequence is covered in one or two paragraphs with little additional explanation.  I think your article will fill a real void!

[rwiederrich]

One simple rule I try to always follow:  Always pre-rig all your blocks on the mast (that means some homework),  rig your mast off model(If you can), work from stern to stem(this allows you room to work all around the mast without bumping the next mast,  work  from  bottom up( this permits you the freedom from not having to work within a hole of rigging...you have room above),  work from inside-out (nothing is worse then when you have to go inside the rigging envelope to add something deep within, that you missed),  You must always be  thinking 4th dimensional.  Height, depth, breadth, time.  Of course, you can never forget the component that binds it all together, and that is, how much detail are you going for?   Now, one item I modify, and that is, the bottom -up issue.  I never add the main yards until I have completed the shrouds.  They're just in the way.  I actually add them last on my mast builds.  One last thought....building your masts off hull works the best because you can simply rotate the mast to work on it from all sides, adding blocks...rigging, and such, then when all your individual yard and sail lifting/control lines are in place...you can glue the mast directly in...and then begin to belay all your lines.

 

I treat each mast as a single unit...it makes for better organization, and it created each mast job into its own little project...breaking up the whole thing into smaller pieces.  Which is good for the psyche' .   Treating each mast as its own project, helps the entire project move along nicer. IMHV.

 

Rob

[Jared]

Thanks Rob.   I really appreciate your clear explanation of the well thought out approach you follow when rigging.  It will be very helpful as I work through the rigging challenges ahead and try to adapt your recommendations to my present state of build.  Thanks again.

[Rick310]

Totally agree Rob!  Great advise!

[ClipperFan]

21 hours ago, Jared said:

Thanks Clipperfan.   A detailed article describing Rob's technique will be extremely valuable to this community.  I have about 30 books on model ship building including a several of major well known works on rigging.  These  explain in great detail and with wonderful drawings how tall ships were rigged.  However when it comes to guidance for rigging model ships,  the suggested rigging sequence is covered in one or two paragraphs with little additional explanation.  I think your article will fill a real void!

@Jared

advanced copies of my lengthy artice were sent to @rwiederrich Michael Mjelde and @Vladimir_Wairoa as a courtesy and to elicit any feedback they offered. The only correction recommendations came from Michael and had to do with revising a few references. I can say without exaggeration that this article is the most in-depth recitation of Rob's systematic, piece by piece rigging process including scratch building masts, yardarms, pre-rigging sub-builds off the ship and even inventive creation of the most authentic tightly furled sails I've ever seen on a model ship. I just can't say when the article will be published. A third installment, devoted to Vladimir's patient, perfectionist build is in process to meet a January 1st 2025 submission deadline.

Edited October 25 by ClipperFan
grammar correction

[Jared]

I have completed the standing rigging on the foremast.  The forestays have been secured to the bowsprit and jib-boom, but not yet to the hull.  It has been a learning curve for sure.  Slow exacting work with a few  difficult challenges thrown in to make things more interesting.  

 

Thanks for your interest and encouragement.

 

 

Edited October 26 by Jared

[Jared]

Completed securing the fore mast stays to the hull and martingale.  Footropes still need to be added.

[rwiederrich]

And so it begins....  Rigging stays, backstays and headgear.  Standing rigging is the strength of the framework that holds the masting, to which the sails are energized.  A world, all in of itself....

 

Good job!

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

19 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

And so it begins....  Rigging stays, backstays and headgear.  Standing rigging is the strength of the framework that holds the masting, to which the sails are energized.  A world, all in of itself....

 

Good job!

 

Rob

@rwiederrich

@Jared is doing an excellent job rigging his model. However, he's being hampered by inaccurate instructions, making his work more tough than it should be. He shared a section of his commercially produced bowsprit-jibboom plans for his Flying Fish model. Quite frankly, I am appalled at irresponsibility of designers to saddle would-be ship modelers with such badly illustrated spars!

When compared to actual ships, this is just so misguided! To be fair, this is no critique of Jared or any other person constructing a Flying Fish model. They're carefully following instructions. Which are dead wrong! There is no lower tapering of the bowsprit, it remains consistent in diameter. Just before it enters the bow, it squares out to prevent any chance of rotation. The jibboom also remains consistent in diameter until the very tip, as seen in these scenes of Glory of the Seas docked at San Francisco. Then there's an image of the bowsprit in 1869 while she's on the ways. Another of her prow in 1913. It does narrow but from the top down and it too becomes rectangular as it enters the monkey rail at the bow. Finally, I've included my scale accurate bow sketch to show how these spars really appeared. I hope this helps anyone building this kit recognize a stark difference between reality and just poorly conceived and drawn plans. There's nautical logic to each design and build of every aspect of these magnificent clipper ships which just seems to escape designers of these poorly executed plans. Crafting your models after the truth will result in more realistic and durable replicas.

Edited Thursday at 01:08 PM by ClipperFan
additional information

[rwiederrich]

Rich....I completely agree with your assessment.  We have talked these issues through plenty of times before.  It is difficult when builders have simply followed their models plans, and we come along.

 

No disrespect to any builder...for sure, but it is nice to lead builders in the right direction when these issues are found out early....before the damage is done.  I praise Jared and others on their builds...not on the poor drawings they have followed.

 

It boils down to research.  I pray we can encourage others to notice the errors and correct them before they get too far along.  On the other hand...they are doing good with what they got.

 

Just trying to help...as you are.

 

Rob

[Jared]

This month has been a real eye opener for me on the many inaccuracies in the plans of the entire bow section of the Flying Fish that have recently and not so recently come to light.  For the benefit of future readers, some of this is discussed here, some in the FF build log of @Rick310 and some in the completed FF build log of @gak1965.  Thanks @ClipperFan, @rwiederrich and @Vladimir_Wairoa for sharing your discoveries.

[ClipperFan]

27 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich....I completely agree with your assessment.  We have talked these issues through plenty of times before.  It is difficult when builders have simply followed their models plans, and we come along.

 

No disrespect to any builder...for sure, but it is nice to lead builders in the right direction when these issues are found out early....before the damage is done.  I praise Jared and others on their builds...not on the poor drawings they have followed.

 

It boils down to research.  I pray we can encourage others to notice the errors and correct them before they get too far along.  On the other hand...they are doing good with what they got.

 

Just trying to help...as you are.

 

Rob

Rob,

I cannot exaggerate how appalled I am at the complete irresponsibility of these plan designers. It just handicaps modelers desiring to create beautiful replicas. I already see another exposé for Nautical Research Journal as an overview of all these inaccuracies in order to offer correctly accurate details. 

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

I cannot exaggerate how appalled I am at the complete irresponsibility of these plan designers. It just handicaps modelers desiring to create beautiful replicas. I already see another exposé for Nautical Research Journal as an overview of all these inaccuracies in order to offer correctly accurate details. 

I all fairness.  Modelers who undergo one of these kits....are putting great trust in the research the model designers have done.  The designers are putting a great amount of trust in the hopes that the modelers are not historians and will not be aware their kits are full of inaccuracies.    Buyer beware....or in this case modeler.

 

It's really an easy fix for modelers....but it requires foreknowledge.  Its easy for manufacturers....it only takes a little retooling and redrawing.   Accuracy requires effort.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, Jared said:

This month has been a real eye opener for me on the many inaccuracies in the plans of the entire bow section of the Flying Fish that have recently and not so recently come to light.  For the benefit of future readers, some of this is discussed here, some in the FF build log of @Rick310 and some in the completed FF build log of @gak1965.  Thanks @ClipperFan, @rwiederrich and @Vladimir_Wairoa for sharing your discoveries.

We do not wish for any builder of these kits to feel belittled or criticized in any way.  These discoveries came to Rich and myself many years ago and we were just as surprised as many of these kit builders are, when we discovered them.  But as you say,.....we wish to help and correct these issues for others who are making this journey.    Rich is creating a plan to make these revelations known to the general modeling public and to manufacturers of said kits.

 

But currently....all we can do is intercept builders as they build their models and if possible, reveal our findings, so they can self correct their own models.

 

Rob

[Jared]

Unfortunately that is not so easy.  Many (perhaps most) craftsman kit builders come from very different non-nautical backgrounds and believe when spending a fair bit on money on our kits that they are historically correct.   When I bought my Flying Fish kit in 2006, I had just completed the CW Morgan whaler by Artesinia Latina.  Half way through that build I learned the model was very inaccurate and I used scratch building to fix as much as I could.  For my next build I wanted a kit with quality historically correct plans and was attracted to the Model Shipways Flying Fish based on positive comments at the time about the accuracy of the Langford plans that were part of the kit.

[rwiederrich]

24 minutes ago, Jared said:

Unfortunately that is not so easy.  Many (perhaps most) craftsman kit builders come from very different non-nautical backgrounds and believe when spending a fair bit on money on our kits that they are historically correct.   When I bought my Flying Fish kit in 2006, I had just completed the CW Morgan whaler by Artesinia Latina.  Half way through that build I learned the model was very inaccurate and I used scratch building to fix as much as I could.  For my next build I wanted a kit with quality historically correct plans and was attracted to the Model Shipways Flying Fish based on positive comments at the time about the accuracy of the Langford plans that were part of the kit.

Indeed, and that is the plight of so many.  They are told....but that is usually by someone who doesn't know themselves.  No Criticism is intended.....we are telling people now...when we come across them.

The ultimate desire is to get manufacturers to make the changes....so as not to lead builders astray.  That is the hardest task at hand.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

35 minutes ago, Jared said:

Unfortunately that is not so easy.  Many (perhaps most) craftsman kit builders come from very different non-nautical backgrounds and believe when spending a fair bit on money on our kits that they are historically correct.   When I bought my Flying Fish kit in 2006, I had just completed the CW Morgan whaler by Artesinia Latina.  Half way through that build I learned the model was very inaccurate and I used scratch building to fix as much as I could.  For my next build I wanted a kit with quality historically correct plans and was attracted to the Model Shipways Flying Fish based on positive comments at the time about the accuracy of the Langford plans that were part of the kit.

@Jared as Rob said, it's not our intention to belittle efforts of anyone building this Model Shipways kit, which builds into a beautiful model. We're just trying to improve accuracy for anybody wanting to build this beautiful ship. It's just that as I see increasing inaccuracies, the more critical I become of plans as compared to the actual vessels themselves. Then again, in all fairness to Ben Lankford, I have no idea what resources he used to create his plans. It does appear more and more likely that he relied quite heavily on the layout of Cutty Sark then anything else.

As I consistantly state, the single best resource for accuracy remains Duncan McLean's November 4th, 1851 Boston Daily Atlas article. He recites precise details obviously supplied to him by Donald McKay's shipyard itself. I encourage you to compare specs from this article to the commercially supplied plans. Where they differ, I would definitely rely on McLean's since they come directly from McKay himself. This is not to suggest you tear down anything you've already done but for future reference in what hasn't been constructed yet.

 

http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/News/BDA/BDA(1851-11-04).html

[Jared]

I think you are all doing an important service to the hobby so I was I was happy to join NRG this week to support what you are all doing.   When one thinks about the many hours us modellers spend perfecting our models, it goes without saying that we want them to be as accurate as possible.

 

The state of my build is too advanced for me to redo the revealed bow corrections.  They would require a major effort and skills beyond where I think I am.  However I don't think anyone starting to build the model would have any real difficulty incorporating the plan changes through scratch building. 

Edited Thursday at 05:29 PM by Jared

[rwiederrich]

11 minutes ago, Jared said:

I think you are all doing an important service to the hobby so I was I was happy to join NRG this week to support what you are all doing.   When one thinks about the many hours us modellers spend perfecting our models, it goes without saying that we want them to be as accurate as possible.

 

The state of my build is too advanced for me to redo the revealed bow corrections.  They would require a major effort and skills beyond where I think I am.  However I don't think anyone starting to build the model would have any real difficulty incorporating the plan changes through scratch building. 

Jared...I feel ya.  Once we have built a significant part of our vessel...to tear it all out is a gut wrenching notion.  I crossed that same threshold myself....but because I was part of a group trying to realize the true structures of a McKay clipper....I was compelled to make the untimely correction....if I had any hope of staying the course of producing the most accurate McKay vessel thus far.   It just had to be done...and it surely wasn't beyond my ability.

It became a matter of the will.

 

[rwiederrich]

Rich..check this out....

 

[ClipperFan]

3 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Jared...I feel ya.  Once we have built a significant part of our vessel...to tear it all out is a gut wrenching notion.  I crossed that same threshold myself....but because I was part of a group trying to realize the true structures of a McKay clipper....I was compelled to make the untimely correction....if I had any hope of staying the course of producing the most accurate McKay vessel thus far.   It just had to be done...and it surely wasn't beyond my ability.

It became a matter of the will.

 

@rwiederrich and @Vladimir_Wairoa both were inadvertent victims of a missed line in Duncan McLean's in-depth article. Years after they both courageously tore down and rebuilt their respective forecastles to achieve correct 6' height, I literally stumbled on the truth. While researching correct topgallant forecastle height for Stag Hound I reviewed specs of this same section for Glory of the Seas and there it was all along. 6' high was the correct spec in the article and I just missed it. That's even though I was the one who shared it with our group. It drives home the importance of the sage saying "Measure twice, cut once!"

[rwiederrich]

2 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

It drives home the importance of the sage saying "Measure twice, cut once!"

Sometimes, stumbling across knew data, that was in plain sight counts as *measuring* twice.......

 

Rob