Philip Reed style Navy Board models: are there any on MSW?

[bruce d]

Back in 2013 someone asked a similar question ... 

... and as far as I can see no-one at MSW had. I have searched to see what has popped up in the ten years since the question and still can't find a log for any ship built using his methods.

It is very possible I am missing something so I would be grateful if anyone can point me towards a log or discussion on the subject.

Bruce

 

[VTHokiEE]

I dream of doing this someday, every now and then I try to search some smaller scales. Would love to see one as well.

[druxey]

The nearest I know of is the Wespe log here by Wefalck. Not Navy Board era, but exquisite small-scale work.

[dvm27]

Well, when Chuck finishes the behemoth Speedwell he is currently working on he might very well consider working on such a project. I think it would be relatively easy to laser cut or CNC all the frames and build a model Reed (and McNarry) style. Of course with my crappy vision and decreasing manual dexterity executing the gilded carvings and fittings would be problematic but I would be happy with just a Navy Board version of one of his models. And, it would fit on a corner of my desk!

 

Now let's all bombard Chuck with requests for this. He'll be delighted! 

[Jaager]

I have set for myself, rigid requirements for Navy Board framing:

It should not be used for a model of any ship built after 1719.  The first seriously enforced Establishments seems to be the 1719.

Some here are disturbingly fast and loose about what is meant by Navy Board or even Admiralty.

Navy Board is the late 17th century stylized framing method.  Franklin wrote the definitive book exploring Navy Board and its variations.

When it came out, the St. Philippe monograph blew my socks off.  It is one of the few ships with reliable plans and is of the proper era.

As an aside,  I think that Navy Board framing was developed to provide three proof diagonals for a proposed design. Proof diagonals that were 3D and easily understood by the royals in charge but who were unschooled in the art. 

I did a series of station sandwich trials of various framing styles.  It did it 1:120 for speed and material economy.

 

The all bends with a narrow space between - no way would I entertain the insane table joints at the midline of a bend - back on point - is too timber wall like.

 

The Navy Board framing revealed two serious penalties with this style.   To get the solid belt at the turn of the bilge:

The floor - which is a formidable and expensive timber  with conventional framing -  becomes unreasonably large.  For there to be the solid belts, each end must turn up like the horns of a longhorn bull.  It is much longer and has two reverse curves.  The waste is almost as bad as with the Hahn method but the stock must be significantly wider than is used with Hahn.  I can't justify it.

Futtock 1 -  although it is actually F1 and F3 -  it goes from above the wale to well below the turn of the bilge.  It is long - really long - and it defines an arc of near 90 degrees.  It also needs wide stock and produces and lot of waste  - close packing of patterns is difficult to do.

 

I developed a compromise that has the solid belt and looks like Navy Board at first glace.  The difference is that the spaces are all in the F1 frame.   The floor is its normal 60% of beam length.  F2 butts against the floor.  It is longer than a normal F2, but it starts at the turn of the bilge so the arc is much less.  I place a piece of timber that overlaps (scarphs) the floor to F2 joint that is the width of the solid belt of Navy Board.

I named it Navall timber framing.   The original navall timber was a free floating timber that started about halfway up the floor and overlapped the lower half of F2.  It was between two floors but did not touch either one.  Times passes and the navall timber evolves to be F1.   In Navall timber framing as I have designed it, the timber is too long to be a chock but too short to be a futtock 1.  Naming it a navall timber works for me even though it does bond to the floor on either side.

 

I have framed a 1:60 hull of HMS Centurion 1732 using Navall Timber Framing.   I have the bow framed also.  I am well into the stern framing, but it is really a bear to do.  But right now, my Muse has been gone for a while.  It is another of my hulls in frame on the stocks.   But it is a successful proof of concept as far as the method is concerned.

There is one negative factor:  the solid belt at the bilge and the solid wall above the wale is prone to humidity stress.  Titebond II makes a strong bond, but in a few places, Mother Nature and expanding wood from internal water pressure has shown it self to be stronger than PVA.

 

As for true miniature scale,  there are several here, bur none are Navy Board.   To me, a miniature is as much if not more about Art and artistry than straight forward ship modeling using wood.  I think 1/8th scale  1:96   is more than enough crazy making.  Going for an even smaller scale requires a special courage and inspiration.  It does have the advantage of being economical as far as the cost of the wood.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Jaager

[navarcus]

Do you have any desire to show pictures of these designs?

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

I did something about 30 years ago at 1/192 scale.

[Jaager]

2 hours ago, navarcus said:

Do you have any desire to show pictures of these designs?

 

From left to right:   1 a station sandwich for a solid hull   2  all bends with the narrow space (St.P monograph)  3  Navall Timber framing    4  Navy Board

 

I have to blink to see the difference between 3 & 4  but I am not objective about it.

 

In the 18th century the RN shops used a different stylized framing.  A single frame alternating with an equal space below the wale. It is a single timber in the region from the middle of the keel to enough above to keel to have a good bond.  It is a really long piece of wood that circumscribes 90 degrees.

I do not think I seen a photo of a model built using this method.  I ones that I have seen are faux painting on a solid hull.  

 

Editorial  (personal view):

The 18th century stylized framing looks like a comb.

The Hahn style (Davis) all bends with room = space looks like someone on a high sugar diet who never visits a dentist.

I use #2 for hulls built from 1780 to 1860.  The space width varies from ship to ship.  In 1780 +/-  the spaces tended to be only 1-2 inches.  Not very pretty.

#1 is quick and easy to do if I am going to completely plank the hull.

[Landlubber Mike]

@Gaetan Bordeleau, that model is amazing!

 

I have Phillip Reed's books and have always thought it would be fun to try and build a ship in such a small scale.  It certainly would economize on materials and display space.  It looks a bit daunting, but having worked on plastic models in 1/700 scale, I'm not as intimidated by working in wood in a small scale.

 

One thing to note is that he uses a lot of different materials in building his models - I believe he used a lot of plastic card.  Before going into plastic models, I was sort of a wood purist when it came to wooden ship models, but these days I've come around to using plastic and other materials besides wood.  And to the extent one does use wood, it's probably even more important to use wood with good modeling properties like boxwood.  If I remember correctly, he was using planed shavings of wood for planking!

 

I'd really love to build the Sussex 1693 in a small scale - need to get my skills up a bunch of notches though!

Edited April 1, 2023 by Landlubber Mike

[knightyo]

I have Reed's books as well and have always been very tempted to build the exact ship he did in the exact manner.   I know I'll never get around to doing it however, at the slow rate of speed of my other projects.  One thing I'd point out to anyone considering a small scale is that once you are used to working under magnification, it's not really any more difficult to build at a small scale than it is large, especially once you get used to "bracing" your hands/work.  I've grown very attached to a pretty low-quality, inexpensive magnifier I use to work on my Nina.  I tried the optivisors, but to me, they were almost more of an irritation than a help.  It's much easier to work under a "desk lamp-arm style" magnifier.

 

The only drawback to working in a small scale is your audience. If you build a ship that is a couple of feet long, your viewers will probably be far more impressed than they'd be by a tiny ship, which may have taken you just as much time to build.  They may also be more likely to label you as weird.   However, since we are really supposed to be enjoying this hobby for ourselves alone, neither factor should matter.   

 

Alan

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

54 minutes ago, knightyo said:

One thing I'd point out to anyone considering a small scale is that once you are used to working under magnification, it's not really any more difficult to build at a small scale than it is large, especially once you get used to "bracing" your hands/work.  I've grown very attached to a pretty low-quality, inexpensive magnifier I use to work on my Nina.  I tried the optivisors, but to me, they were almost more of an irritation than a help.  It's much easier to work under a "desk lamp-arm style" magnifier.

I would say that the main difference working small vs larger is the concentration level is very much more demanding, especially in carving to control your hands moves which are much more smaller.

The magnifier style you use is a personal choice. I like to work  with Optivisor and for smaller scale I like to use a surgical loupe and occasionally for quality control a microscope.

[knightyo]

33 minutes ago, Gaetan Bordeleau said:

 

The magnifier style you use is a personal choice. I like to work  with Optivisor and for smaller scale I like to use a surgical loupe and occasionally for quality control a microscope.

 

This is very true.  What I use works for me based upon my physical characteristics and preferences, but might not work as well for others, or even the majority.

 

Alan

 

[Landlubber Mike]

1 hour ago, Gaetan Bordeleau said:

I would say that the main difference working small vs larger is the concentration level is very much more demanding, especially in carving to control your hands moves which are much more smaller.

They have hand stabilizer tools out there that can help.  I recently bought this one from Dspiae though haven't had a need to use it yet.  Looks good to have, especially if I've had too much coffee before modeling!

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2023 by Landlubber Mike

[Bob Cleek]

 

It looks like they have much "hihger" demands for their modeling than they do for proofreading their advertising copy!  

 

An interesting line of modeling tools, DSPIAE, appears to be a subsidiary of Meng, a relatively new Chinese plastic model kit company. See:; DSPIAE. 

Edited April 1, 2023 by Bob Cleek

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

there is the same thing  in art painting and it is called painter mahl stick

[navarcus]

Thank you for the framed hull pictures; and wow aren't they something!

The Franklin book is really great and I like how page 91 illustrates simple cannon carriages.

 

Makes me think I don't have to do coils on my next Nonsuch, just focus on the goldleaf stuff.

Aeropiccola did such a good job with their waffle-like wood-dust cookies for the mermaids and its fully formed stern.

They are light, feel like wood, are easy to glue and thermoplastic to boot -- what was not to like?

 

[shipman]

I made myself one of these (I'll photograph it tomorrow).

Making your own gives the scope to taylor to your need. Both hands free.

https://www.cousinsuk.com/product/bench-armrest-device-bergeon-swiss

Edited April 1, 2023 by shipman
new paragraph

[Bob Cleek]

6 hours ago, Gaetan Bordeleau said:

there is the same thing  in art painting and it is called painter mahl stick

Mahl sticks are routinely used by sign painters. A skilled sign painter uses his mahl stick not only as a secure rest for the painter's hand, but also as a guide for the brush. By resting the heel of the brush hand on the mahl stick and moving the end of the stick in an arc, a true curve can be quickly and very accurately made. Similarly, the stick can be held in position and the brush in hand, or resting on the stick, can be moved across the painting using the mahl stick to yield a perfectly straight line.

 

Actually, I've never seen a mahl stick used such that it rested on the painted surface of the piece. The padded end of the stick could smear the work unless one waited weeks, if not months, for the oil paint to solidify. I've only ever seen the padded end of the stick placed on the working surface at the edge or margin of the work surface. (Some mahl sticks have a "hook" at one end so it can be hooked over the top edge or side edge of the canvas.) On a larger painting, the sticks can get pretty long to accomplish their use without placing the end in wet paint. Some fancy ones are even telescoping for ease of storage.

 

 

 

[shipman]

As promised, here's the arm rest I made.

 

It can be clipped to table top etc. Each side rotates and can be angle adjusted using different wooden wedges.

 

The 'pads' could indeed be lined or padded.

I thought about recessing the two fasteners, but in practice I felt none of the above were required.

 

Very useful.

Edited April 2, 2023 by shipman
new paragraph

[bruce d]

4 hours ago, shipman said:

Very useful.

 

It certainly looks useful. Food for thought, thanks.

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

Jewelry is a good source of inspiration for tools, Here is an example of the classical workbench 100 years apart.

Electric height adjustable desk is probably the best tool we can use for many reasons.

I have seen many declinations of armrest, the first one I remember  was a felt donut recovered with leather for the elbow.

 

In a way, all these resting tools offers the same thing: allowing to rest a part of the arm to have a better control of the hand.

[wefalck]

Porcelain-painters use similar arm-rests, but only one for the arm with the brush. Watchmakers use high benches with those arm-rests and their nose almost on the bench, because of the close working distance of their loupes, particularly, when assembling watches.

 

The idea of the arm-rest is good, but I don't use them, because they are so many varied movements of the arms and they would get in my way all the time. Sometimes I just my arm on the vice that is screwed to my bench. When doing prolonged work of the same kind, such as painting figures, I have used just a solid cardboard-box on the bench.

 

Perhaps this Chinese guy in the advertisement for the hand-steady could do away with it, if he dumped the glove - no way to work with such gloves, no feel whatsoever.

 

Coming back to the original subject, miniatures: what 'knightyo' said about about the impression on 'lay' audience a larger model makes is so true ...

[Chuck]

Greg must have a sixth sense.  I started building a mini Speedwell just for fun alongside the big one.  How could I not after seeing Phillip Reed’s 1/16” scale Speedwell.  
 

its not 1/16” scale.  Mine will be 3/32” scale.  I had no intention of selling it as a kit but as I just mentioned in my log…I will if there is enough interest.  
 

Here are some pics of the stem and figurehead.  I havent started the framing yet because I am waiting to finish the framing on the full size version.  
 

 

The hull will be 7 7/8” long and 1.75” wide unrigged.  All the parts on that are laser cut including the figurehead.

 

If there is enough interest I will start another log and detail my journey with it.  Working this tiny certainly has its challenges.  Its not easy.  
 

But it is fun.

 

[Ryland Craze]

11 minutes ago, Chuck said:

If there is enough interest I will start another log and detail my journey with it.  Working this tiny certainly has its challenges.  Its not easy.

Please start a build log on this smaller scale Speedwell.  I know it will turn out to be a fantastic model and I look forward to see what you do in such a small scale.

[druxey]

Only 3/32"? Pity. Just kidding, Chuck. It looks excellent.

[VTHokiEE]

1 hour ago, Chuck said:

If there is enough interest I will start another log and detail my journey with it.

I am very interested as well, I hope you start a log even if you don’t end up selling it as a kit - would be a great learning experience I think. I plan on building your larger version when it’s available… but I have no idea where to put it when it’s done.

[knightyo]

2 hours ago, Chuck said:

 

The hull will be 7 7/8” long and 1.75” wide unrigged.  All the parts on that are laser cut including the figurehead.

 

If there is enough interest I will start another log and detail my journey with it.  Working this tiny certainly has its challenges.  Its not easy.  
 

 

 

I'd love to see the log of that!!

 

[mtaylor]

Go for it, Chuck. Start a build log.  Might start a bit of trend here for "smaller" models.

[wefalck]

I am not into kits, but that sounds interesting!

 

The biggest challenge will be the rigging of such small models (ok Navy Board-style models were not normally rigged in the first place), in particular the blocks. They would need to be down to 1 mm length or even smaller. I am still trying to find a convincing and workable solution for rope-rigging.

 

Or one goes for wire rigging, as does McCaffery, and build the blocks up from layers of paper discs. 

 

McCaffery makes himself oval punches. Laser-cutting may be the way to go today. However, you would have to have a really good mechanically resolution to avoid frayed edges that are difficult to remove at such small parts.

 

The wood-purists will frown upon that, but 3D-printing may be the way to go, though keeping say 0.1 mm bores open still is a challenge for this technology today.

[Chuck]

I will start a log after I finish framing the larger 3/8” version.  This way I can just reduce the plans and parts by 75% and make adjustments.  
 

No promises on a kit because this is all new to me…POF and building miniature models so small.  I have no idea what challenges lie ahead or if I can even do it. 
 

Yes rigging will be a huge issue.  I will cross that bridge when I get to it.

 

Chuck