HMS Lyme (1748-1760) by Landlubber Mike - bash of Corel Unicorn - Scale 1:75 (CLOSED TO START SCRATCH BUILD)

[aliluke]

Hi Mike

I'm a bit perplexed about your desire for stains over paint. My thinking is that stains make the grain of the wood stand out to a degree that is out of scale. Paint covers the grain which is in scale. How to describe...the stains show the grain but at 1:75 virtually no wood grain would or should be visible. That's my thinking...and I am happy with paint. Anyway - up to you.

[Landlubber Mike]

Hi Alistair, very good question.  

 

I guess for me, I value the beauty of the natural wood -- oiled, stained, or otherwise -- and the character that comes with it, over keeping things in scale.  When I look at my Badger, I love the look of the walnut and tanganiyka that was oiled with tung oil.  I also like the masts that were from birch dowels that were treated with a walnut stain.  The painted sections on the other hand just dont look like they go well with the natural wood sections.  Those sections almost seem plastic or artificial compared to the unpainted sections.  The red ochre and black weren't bad, but the white really bothered me.

 

It's quite possible that maybe I would have a different opinion if I could paint like you, Chuck and the other excellent painters on here.    But, another reason I'm looking to avoid paint is that I prefer a darker overall hue to the model (the main reason I'm going with pear over boxwood for the bulk of the model), with a sort of "patina" (for lack of a better word) as you see with old models.  In those models, sections are not necessarily perfectly uniform in color, but you have highlights, lowlights, etc.  Stains can get you that look a lot easier I think than painting.  Plus, the woods I tested the stains on had a relatively tight grain, the stains didn't really make the grain stand out all that much.

 

It all comes down to your sense of aesthetics I suppose, and how you, as an artist, want to present your model.  

Edited July 23, 2014 by Landlubber Mike

[Landlubber Mike]

Hi Spyglass,

 

I definitely won't get red for sure, particularly on a dark wood like walnut.  Probably the closest I got to a red ochre color was using the Empire Red on the plywood and the pear.  I really don't want to go down the path of scratching the gun carriages out of a lighter material, so I think I'm stuck working with a darker wood for the rest of the reddish areas.  

 

I'm actually fine if I dont get the full red look - a "warm deep brown" with a hint of red would make me very happy.  I think either of these two stains get me there.

[Landlubber Mike]

While waiting for the Lyme plans to come from the NMM, I've been giving my color/wood choices for the build some more thought.  I've traded a few emails with Jeff at Hobbymill, who has been incredibly helpful and generous with his time.  Here is where I am at the moment:

 

-- my primary wood on the model will be pear.  The keel, rudder, stern post, and stem, as well as the hull planking, will be in pear.  The wales, black planking, black background on the transom, and spars will be ebonized pear.  Some of the deck fittings, like the hatch coamings and companionways, will also be in pear.

 

-- I plan on using boxwood for the deck planking, accent rails on the hull, and possibly some of the decorations and stern carvings.

 

-- for the bulwark planking, gun carriages and maybe some of the deck items like the bitts may be in red.  I was thinking of using red stains to achieve this, but after seeing Rusty's cross-section, redheart looks like it could be a real winner here (tight grain, and apparently relatively easy to work with).  That would mean scratching the gun carriages, but there are only 24 of them on this ship so maybe not such a big deal 

 

 

 

-- for the masts, I haven't figured that out.  Pear would be a nice contrast with the boxwood deck, and would tie in with the rest of the build.  Do folks think that pear would work?  Or would boxwood be better?

Edited July 27, 2014 by Landlubber Mike

[egkb]

Hey there Mike.. nip over to Nigel Brook's logs, he used Pear a lot in his builds and may be able to offer a good informed opinion, pear is a cracking good looking timber !

 

Stay Well

 

Eamonn

[Landlubber Mike]

The Lyme plans from the NMM arrived!  Like the Pegasus plans that I ordered a few weeks ago, these plans are gorgeous and show a lot of detail.  I ended up ordering J8267 and J6152.  Each seemed to have very different details that would be helpful for the build, so I figured that I would buy both - and I'm glad I did.  Not the cheapest transaction, but well worth it for the detail, and I can frame J8267 after the build is completed as well  You can find both sets of plans at the following links (note:  I only found the second set of plans by scrolling through the NMM catalog for 18th century ships, you can't use the simple search function to locate them for some reason):

 

http://prints.rmg.co.uk/art/494855/Lyme_1748_alternative_spelling_Lime

 

http://prints.rmg.co.uk/art/533689/Lines_and_profile_plan_of_Lyme_1748

 

 

Here are some pictures in case folks are interested:

 

J8267:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J6152:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Landlubber Mike]

After spending a little time on the plans, I'm leaning heavily towards building this kit as the Lyme rather than the Unicorn.  I like the stern area a lot better.  The windows make a little more sense, as opposed to the Unicorn with what looks like cathedral type windows.  The transom decorations are a lot nicer to me as well, though I was hoping that human figures weren't part of the decorations    And, the quarterdeck portholes and railings make a lot more sense to me than the Unicorn's open portholes in the Chapman plans.

 

This means that I'll need a new figurehead, as the Lyme had a lion figurehead.  I might try carving or sculpting one, but I'll probably buy the figurehead for the Euromodel Mordaunt just as backup.  Ron's Ardent uses the same figurehead I believe, which I think is pretty nice:

 

http://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/gallery/image/8226-arbowdetail01lr/

 

I'll sleep on it a couple more days before making a decision on what ship to build.  Maybe wait for Ian to get back from his vacation so I can pick his brain as well 

Edited July 30, 2014 by Landlubber Mike

[ianmajor]

Mike,

 

It is exciting what these plans reveal.  The elevation plan of the stern shows the height and shape of the tiller nicely, along with the wheel behind the mizzen mast. Not to mention the companion way behind the capstan not in front as I did it. How I wish I had bought these plans last year.

 

Nice to see the position of the 12 swivel gun mountings and the position of timberheads.

 

There are several items that have me scratching my head so it is out with the magnifying glass and try to engage brain.

[Landlubber Mike]

So, I made the decision to build the ship as the HMS Lyme, the sister ship to the Unicorn of the Lyme Class (the Unicorn and the Lyme were the only two of the class).  Although I liked the idea of building a beakhead ship, I decided on the Lyme for a few reasons.  I liked the shape of the galleries of the Lyme, which have less of the cathedral look than the Unicorn (and I think they would be easier to scratch build), and I liked the transom decorations a little more.  The fact that I have the NMM plans also makes me more likely (hopefully!) to build a more accurate model.  Finally, building the Lyme with the full plans helps me to avoid some of the issues associated with the Corel kit - namely, the fact that the first bulkhead is too far back as Ian pointed out, and what to do on the quarterdeck rails, or lack thereof.  

 

Of course, another good reason is that I think I will have the only Lyme out there, and so my work won't be compared as easily to the really good work of Ian, John, ZyXuz, Olly, Peter, etc. - or at least I can always use the excuse that I'm building the Lyme and not the Unicorn 

[Landlubber Mike]

One other difference between the two ships is the figureheads - the Lyme's is a lion.  I might try scratching a figurehead, but in the event that I fail at producing a good enough one, I searched around for a suitable figurehead as a backup.  It was a bit hard to find one that was the appropriate size and style, but I ended up ordering the Mordaunt figurehead from Euromodel.  They were kind enough to let me order one even though I didn't meet the minimum order requirement on their website.  And to boot, I got to correspond with Peter on here who lives in Australia and helps out on customer service - a really nice fellow who has been kind enough to post his practicums on the Euromodel website.

 

Well, the figurehead arrived today and looks like it will work perfectly!  I will likely need to tweak the stem a bit and maybe the figurehead a tad as the lion is holding something between its paws that I might consider removing (and a crown as well, that I might think about removing), but overall, it looks like it will work out very nicely.  Most importantly, the figurehead comes with a cut out in the back and bottom to slot it onto the stem.  The cut out is 5mm wide, so it fits my 5mm stem perfectly.  The problem with the Unicorn figurehead is that in some areas, the figurehead is 5mm or less in width, making it harder, if not impossible, to cut a slot to fit it onto the stem.  So, the kit's instructions have you simply glue it to the front end of the stem, which is not really correct as figureheads sat on or straddled the stem.

 

It's rare that things work out so nicely like that, so I'm very happy right now.    Here are some pictures showing the details of the figurehead relative to the Unicorn's figurehead (minus half a horn!), and also a test fit on the stem.  The figurehead should actually sit a little lower, but the thing between the lion's paws is preventing it from moving further down.  But, this gives a good idea of what the figurehead will look like.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2014 by Landlubber Mike

[Landlubber Mike]

I've been playing around with the upper deck template, and put together a cannon just so that I can make sure that the upper deck sits correctly.  On this kit, the bulkhead extensions have notches in them to mark the upper and lower edge of the cannon ports.  While dry fitting, the upper deck template seems to be at the right height at the front and rear of the ship as the gun fits right through the middle of the framed section, but the middle seems a bit too high.  I have to figure out whether this means that I need to file down the middle bulkheads so the deck template sits lower, or whether I need to run the frames at a different height from the bulkhead notches.  I think this will depend on whether the bulkheads are at the right height or not.  It could all just be a matter of filing the edges of the deck template so that it fits a little flatter.

 

Unlike the vast majority of the kit that I am scratching, I have been planning on using the kit's cannon carriages as they are in one solid piece (so not as much construction) and seem to be very clean parts.  I plan on using red stain on them as in my earlier pictures, and using walnut for the the bulwarks and similarly staining them.  In taking a look at the test cannon, it seems like the cascable sits a bit more forward on the carriage than I would have thought.  I took a look at the guns on my Badger, and the cannon cascabels are pretty much in the same location.  But, in looking at other pictures, the cascabel is at the very end of the carriage or even extends beyond it.  Here are some pictures:

 

 

 

I'm curious if others have a strong reaction on the accuracy of the cannons. In some respects I'm not too concerned as most of the cannons will be hidden, even at the waist when I add the small boats.  I'm also not planning on adding the 9-pounders to the quarterdeck, as the ship originally started out with 24 9-pounder guns on the upper deck, and only later (in 1756) were the four 3-pounders added to the quarterdeck.  Instead, I will add the tiller and maybe some swivel guns to the quarterdeck.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Landlubber Mike

[JohnB40]

Hi Mike,

 

I think this is a great project you have started. You will be constructing a very unique example of a historically accurate frigate....I look forward to your progress in your log.

 

The casabel is indeed forward on the carriage than on most guns that I have seen,usually it just over hangs the carriage,but at 1:75 scale,hidden as they are,It isn't noticeable.

 

John

[ianmajor]

Go for it Mike!

 

On the quarter deck guns it might be worth reconsidering.     The WikiPedia entry (as far as WikiPedia can be trusted) says:

 

At link

 

"Two nominally 24-gun ships - the Lyme and Unicorn - were built in 1747-1749 with twenty-four 9-pounders on the upper deck but also carried four smaller guns on the quarter deck; the pair were designated as 24-gun ships (disregarding the smaller guns) until 1756, when they were re-classed as 28-gun frigates."

 

Following the Lyme link:

 

 

"Originally ordered as a 24 gun ship........They were actually completed with 28 guns including the four smaller weapons" (3-pounder guns) "on the quarterdeck, but the latter were not included in the ship's official establishment until 22 September 1756."

 

The plans you have show the 12 swivel gun mountings very clearly, which is very useful. The stunted version of the forecastle bulwarks as per the Corel plan makes it difficult to squeeze these in along with everything else.

[Landlubber Mike]

Thanks John and Ian!

 

I'm not sure what I want to do with the quarterdeck guns.  I haven't found much info on the 3-pounder guns - I assume they are just smaller versions of cannons on carriages?  I bought from CMB some smaller Caldercraft cannons and carriages, along with smaller versions of the Corel cannons, which might work.  With the tiller on the quarterdeck, I imagine that the 3-pounders would be placed somewhere along the first three or four portholes.  The fourth porthole might be a bit dicey with the mizzen mast almost in the line of the portholes.

[Landlubber Mike]

Thanks SpyGlass.  The barrels do seem a bit on the shorter side.  

 

The test carriages that I stained didn't take the stain too well.  I might try a sanding sealer (I think that's what it's called) for better results.

[Beef Wellington]

Hi Mike, just catching up. The Lion figurehead will look great, is there any reason you are not considering adjusting the stem? Seams that could be an easier option, and I'm not sure that whatever is held between the lion's paws is necessary wrong. Just a thought. Your stem looks fantastic!

[Landlubber Mike]

Hey Jason, thanks very much.  I definitely could adjust the stem by lowering the seat a bit for the figurehead.  I need to take a closer look at it, but it might be a crest or shield or insignia or some type.  It might be a bit tricky to lower the seat, but I think it could work.  Or, I could just build another stem 

[Landlubber Mike]

In my quest to avoid using paint, I spent a little time experimenting with some black stains and dye stains that I had samples of - Varathane 'Ebony', General Finishes 'Black" stain, and General Finishes 'Ebony' dye stain.  I also have a small amount of Fieblings Leather dye, though we all know that works well to dye pear so I didn't test it.  It's always hard to accurately get the full effect of color on a digital picture, but here is a picture of the test - the big board is plywood, the small pieces are scrap pear, the longer dowel is from the Corel Unicorn kit (I think beech) and the smaller dowel is from the Pegasus kit (ramin).  I didn't bother to test the Varathane on the smaller dowel as it didnt have as much penetration as you can see.

 

 

The results of just trying one coat are interesting.  The GF black stain worked the best - very deep black that looked like the wood had been painted.  The Varathane and the GF dye stain were more like your typical stain effect, where it mostly highlighted the grain.  I would have thought that the GF dye stain would be the best, as GF markets the dye stains as having deeper penetration.  Maybe I needed to mix it more, I'm not sure.

 

I really like the GF black stain - you end up with a deep painted look, yet the wood texture is not hidden under a layer of paint.  Just the look I'm after.  

 

In any event, I thought I would share in case others are interested in a black look without using paint.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Landlubber Mike

[flyer]

Hi Mike

 

That’s great, how you are going to build a good model out of an average kit. I especially like the way you do your own research digging into the treasure easily available at NMM.

This should be motivation for all of us to look a bit deeper into what additional information might be available when starting a new kit – even when buying from an excellent provider like CC or Victory.

 

Keep up the good work

Peter

[Martin W]

Hi Mike, I just peeked in to check out your other build.  This is a terrific log, with lots of thinking involved, and good research.  It's great to follow your process in resolving the endless series of questions that make modelling so captivating.  Oh, and your work looks good too!

 

cheers,

 

Martin

[egkb]

Just dropping by to wish you a happy birthday Mike.. Hope ye have a blast mate

 

Eamonn

Edited August 17, 2014 by egkb

[riverboat]

Happy Birthday Mike..... have a good one!!

 

Frank

[Stockholm tar]

Rather belated, but Happy Birthday Mike.    I hope you had a good day.

 

I can only echo Martin's post, great research and thinking ahead! I'm sure she'll turn out to be a superb model.

[Landlubber Mike]

Thanks very much my friends, I really appreciate the kind words.  This hobby is amazing, but equally amazing is the meeting of many nice friends all over the world.  I feel very fortunate to have stumbled into the world of ship modeling

[jwvolz]

Happy Birthday Mike!

[Martin W]

Happy Birthday, Mike (more accurately, happy day after) 

 

Martin

[texxn5]

Hi Mike, somehow I missed your log here. Looks good hope you get back to the shipyard soon.

[rdsaplala]

Hi Mike,

 

Just catching up, that is some intense bashing you're doing there my friend, excellent modifications all throughout!

[Landlubber Mike]

Thanks very much Aldo.  I've put this kit aside for the time being while I learn and get more experience working on the Pegasus.  I've sorta gone a bit crazy in thinking that I can not only improve the accuracy of the kit, but also to convert it to its rounded-bow sister.  Once I get through the first planking and the stern construction on the Pegasus, I should be able to turn back to this build and rejoin Ian and my other Lyme class brothers.

[Landlubber Mike]

After a little burn out from planking my Pegasus, I decided to switch models and give the Pegasus a rest for a bit.  I was going to start a ship-in-bottle scratch build, but a few conversations with my friend Ian on his Unicorn build made me decide to give my Lyme another look.

 

As I mentioned earlier in the log, I got really frustrated with this kit because the various plans did not match up with one another.  I'm perfectly fine with historical inaccuracies, but when you move from one plan to another, you would think that the plans should match up.  In any event, working on the Pegasus was worthwhile, as I got a little better with my woodworking and modeling skills, and working on the hull of the Pegasus gave me a lot of insight into how to possibly modify the Lyme to improve on the accuracy of the model.

 

So, I took a fresh look at where I was, and with the benefit of the Lyme plans.  Having earlier worked using the small scale plans for the Unicorn in the Chapman book, I was a bit off on the width of the keel and stem post (too big).  Looking back at my work, and in particular looking at the stem that I scratch built, I'm not as pleased with the work and will just re-do it.  It will be a pain, but I don't want to kick myself down the road for not improving on it.

 

The more interesting exercise was trying to figure out the stern of the Lyme and how to modify the kit to accommodate those modifications.  The kit is really off in a lot of ways when it comes to the stern - no stern post, stern galleries are way too far aft from the last gunport, wrong angles of the stern, wrong angles of the decks leading to the stern, square tuck stern as opposed to a rounded tuck stern, etc.  To get an idea of how wrong I think the kit is, take a look at the following picture:

 

 

This picture is from the kit plans.  The two horizontal blue lines represent a rough estimate of the what the lines of the upper deck and quarterdeck should be (as opposed to the sharply upward sloping lines representing the decks on the plans).  The red line is the line that should mark the fore end of the stern post.  The red line in the picture is set at 105 degrees, which is what the Lyme plans show.  The Chapman plans for the Unicorn may be closer to 103 degrees.  Regardless, you can see how far in the false keel would have to be taken in.  The green outlined picture is that of the stern galleries - this is where I roughly think the stern galleries should actually be - much closer to gunport 13, a bit lower, and sitting over the stern post.  Looking at the picture, I'm almost wondering if the windows in the galleries are too tall, and should be reduced by one row of panes.

 

Now for my Lyme build - here is a picture on how these changes will impact the build:

 

 

The red line indicates the 105 degree line for the stern post mentioned earlier (it's actually a few millimeters aft where it should be, but bulkhead 15 is in the way).  You can see how much of the keel needs to be removed.  It's also apparent that the last bulkhead, bulkhead 15, is not shaped correctly and it calls into question the accuracy of bulkheads 16 and 17, which I have not added yet.  After correcting bulkhead 15, I think I'll add one more  bulkhead to form the lower edge of the stern counter, and to hold stern frames to attach the transom, etc.  

 

So a lot of work to do, but I don't think as bad as one might fear.  I still have to figure out how to modify the bow to change the ship from the Unicorn's beakhead bow to the more conventional rounded bow of the Lyme, but that's fun for another night

 

Thanks for looking in!

Edited January 16, 2016 by Landlubber Mike