Revell Yacht America

Subscribed!

Indeed.  I'd love to see how this progresses....  And I wonder if there will ever be a scale 72 foot cat released by someone....

Looking good GM!  I am looking forward to your build.

Steve

Seventeen clamps!   I don't even own a clothes pin.

Speaking of clothspins, Model Expo sells miniature clothspins that are only slightly over an inch long.  They  are wooden, so I find it easy to taper the clamping end with a disk sander to make them easy to use for tight areas.  They are really nice for modeling. I think they were only a buck or two for about two dozen.

My drawings and booklet arrived from Blue Jacket Friday. These are just what I needed. Nicely drawn and very detailed.

Put together a nice little stand.

Measured out the sheer line from the drawings, making allowance for the thickness of the plastic sub deck and eventual wood planks. Glued in blocks to support the sub deck.

Then I figured out a way to set up the mast steps, since I am not using the plastic ones that stuck into sockets in the deck.

I am using the mast center lines as a basis for scaling. The model scales at about 1/64.

The quarterdeck break has a little crown (camber) cast into it but the deck is otherwise flat.

I roughly shaped a half-dozen deck beams that will give the rest of the (sub) deck the same shape.

Set up the waterway planks. I will sand them down from 1/32" to 1/50".

Set up the bulwark stanchions based on the frame lines which I marked out on the sub deck.

pic for waterways is a bit fuzzy. Wondering if you scarfed the pieces together or steamed them to get the bend.

Steamed them. A little small to scarf. I've decided to cut the cap rails out of wide stock...

You better not be messin' up Mizz G-Mo's kitchen counter, ya big galoot!

Waterways and timberheads complete. Installed the grub beam across the deck break, and the coamings for the hatches, companionway and bases for the capstan and forward skylight.

I see the grub beam there, but have a question; What is a grub beam for?

A grub beam is one that  is there for its shape not its structure.

In this case the schooner has a 6" break in the deck between the masts, creating a quarter deck. I can't really figure out why except that without it there would be no bulwark at all in the waist.

This boat would have been a nightmare to sail in the dark. A rail about a foot above the deck and that grub beam half way back. Maybe not a big deal in the Sound, but imagine halfway across the Atlantic tripping and going over.

It's no wonder the deck furniture and the lower parts of the masts were painted white.

I'd have a lanyard tied to me waist, arrgh!  

Made up the masts and bowsprit yesterday using the "octagon" shaving method with square stock.

The two masts are the same diameter and length.

Note that it helps to leave a 1/4" extra at the end because of the inevitable sanding taper. These get collar fittings however, so the amount to remove may be a little less after I carve the shoulders for the fittings.

GMorrison

This boat would have been a nightmare to sail in the dark. A rail about a foot above the deck and that grub beam half way back. Maybe not a big deal in the Sound, but imagine halfway across the Atlantic tripping and going over.

I want to remember reading, ages and ages ago about a racing crew sailing a similar vessel across the Atlantic. I want to remember that they rigged temporary lifelines for the crossing.

As mentioned above, these were austere vessels built for speed, not comfort.  The area under the cockpit would have a compartment mostly to secure the ship's papers in; perhaps a bare-bones cabin for the owner.  The rest of the space was open hold, with a platform or orlop over the bilges to stow the sails upon.

So, for the ocean crossing, a frame of cribbing was set up under one of the hatches , upon which the iron stove was lashed.  Some bins for fuel for the stove would be fit to the cribbing, too.  Had to be under a hatch as there is no Charlie Noble on these vessels.  Berthing was by way of hammocks from deck beams, or by flaking out on the bagged sails.

That grub beam probably had some structural merit; but, as noted above, probably existed as a social limit.  Only those of suitable station were allowed aft of it.

The model is shaping up a beauty, and we are the better for having seen it.

Thank for the generous words, Captain. We shall see and it's time to keep the crew in line. It seems that the crew had an accommodation up forward as you say, the owner and his son had a little stateroom each more like a locker on either side of the mast, and the hatches had a booby cover each fitted later while in England.

The drawings show a little galley with a stove pipe.

I had the misfortune to be the hash slinger on a 5 day sailboat race "Rund Sjelland" in 1978, around the Island of Sjelland on which Kobenhavn lies.

The only thing worse than feeding all the Knuts and Erics was tiller duty at night. You see these cross channel ferries coming, but cannot judge distance and track very well and tend to let the boat drift up the side of their path. At which point you truly lose your position until morning.

Any how off to the coppering yard.

GM - Looks terrific, I've pulled up a chair.

Gorgeous copperring.

Can't wait to see more of the spars.

The hull was towed back from the coppering yard and looks watertight.

The gold leaf guys have put on the garlands but need to come back tomorrow and brush off the excess. The idea is to get all of the hull details done before she goes in for the topside finishes.

The deck is started.

I have never quite got the sense of the word 'awesome' as it is made up of two words. Awe, which in its self denotes an overwhelmed response, but then followed by some, which seems to detract from the meaning. I am overwhelmed, but only some? Anyway.Kidding aside. Awesome! GM

I tried the gold leaf thing w/ my Connie, but just could not get it to work right. Leave it overnight before brushing off the excess?

Thank you Arnie. This has really turned out to be the best of several ways

to go,

The hull is correct and I get to scratch build everything from the deck up.

I've never built a plank-on-bulkhead ship so this is working out to be a good start towards that,

I have built quite a few solid hull wood models and have the Model Shipways "Elsie" on the way.

One thing; this model is really BIG! Highly recommended.

OK the Lief sisters came in to the yard and reworked the scrolls.

After they left, Leff Niepad and his rather stupid brother Wright showed up to plank the quarterdeck. They work silently, and I'm pleased with their progress.

Lookin' good, G-Mo.

Still wondering about the 'trick' to doing gold leaf GM. Gimmie a couple of pointers? Would appreciate it much. Thanks

Planking is a little tedious, but needs to be carefully done for good results.

Bumping this thread. She is back on the bench.

Thanks for the bump, she's looking good!

Mike

bump. Up front on the bench

I am sorry to say . At this time I am not following this thread any-more . Why ? Well first G-Mo you gets a model I have never owned , but wanted to and second your work so far is so good it gave me heartburn ! Gees ! guy she's gorgeous .Yes , I'm still stayin till the "Bitter " end .T.B. Just Kiddin about the rest

When considering the quality workmanship required for these [sailing ship] kits plus painting skills it is amazing they were originally intended for kids.  Young folk must have been so much smarter than now in the 50s,60s,70s Or were they?

GM

Glad you bumped this thread back up and started working on her again. I've always liked the America, and have the wood version of the kit, which has been setting around for years, at about the stage your at now. I am anxious to watch you continue on her. Keep it coming man.

Steve

The wood decks make a world of difference!

Well ;

     As I said , I am going to stay till the bitter end . G , That work is mighty fine . I think you are someone I would like to talk to about this stuff in person  .What a job ! T.B.

Looks beautiful Bill.

I'm quite happy to have the attention of you all. I need to learn as I go.

Sunday I cut out and assembled the cockpit. I don't have a picture, but I made the coaming (verticals) out of scribed basswood that I steamed. The circle cutting operation for the bench and cap went surprisingly well.

Next I made the cap rails for the deck. I can't bend wood for the life of me, so I usually do this by cutting the curved shapes out of wide pieces. The obvious negative is that the grain is off and I have to gauge the width, but I'm comfortable with it. An old trick from a Model Shipways kit way back when.

On to the bowsprit. If I didn't say so before, I'm working from the Blue Jacket plan set and instruction book, not scaling the kit parts.

BTW you can see the rails cut and installed so far, from the previous post.

Fantastic work GM!

I spent a couple of hours this morning with brass stock, drills and needle files, then a couple of hours this evening with the soldering iron, to put this together.

Thank you Blue Jacket Shipcrafters

Absolutely awe-inspiring work.  Such a pleasure going through the pages of this thread.

allan

Absolutely awe-inspiring work.  Such a pleasure going through the pages of this thread.

Agreed 

I've finished the installation of the bowsprit. Getting the bitts installed was fiddly, I'll take a different approach with the next schooner by mortising the spar BEFORE gluing it to the hull!

Spent some time doing a better job of finishing the opening for the cockpit, which is a separate assembly not shown here.

And stained the deck and installed the rails. Those need some final shaping refinishing and varnish. I am quite happy with the deck planking.

Thank you all for following along and for your comments.

I am learning a lot as I go, hopefully when I start the Elsie it will be a little smoother.

Beautiful work. Following closely as I too have Elsie in my stash. Just finished my Chesapeake Bay Flattie. Rigged it, but with no sails.

Nice job on the cap iron. I find making metal fittings very satisfying.

EJ

Thanks much.

Me too, it's a new thing. Kind of disappointed there aren't many more on this boat.

Got out the Elsie set last night. My there is a LOT of mechanical hardware.

Your Flattie is what inspired me to get this back out and finish it. Thank you!

These things have a way of piling up a milion "coulda/ shoulda" thoughts, but life moves forward. One thing is that Revell made the bulwarks about half as high as they should be, The bowsprit is scale from plans, but the cap rails should go across the top of it.

John Tilley often comments that it's probably easier to build a hull from scratch than to modify something in plastic, which he concluded I think after his Bounty. I'd have to agree, so I really look forward to Elsie.

Yup, I'm taking flattie to the local model contest (Pasta & Plastics) today. Will be posting the last of the build on the Flattie thread maybe tomorrow. I really had fun with it.

EJ

GM, what's the scale of the Revell kit?

Thomas Graham's history of Revell says 1/56. I'm not sure how much to trust that figure, but it seems about right.

Bluejacket sells two America kits, one on 1/96 scale and one on 1/48.

I don't want to insult anybody's intelligence, but did you rescale the BJ plans to match the scale of the model? I have to admit I'd been thinking that in the last several posts the bowsprit looked kind of heavy. Maybe the problem is, as you said, that Revell just plain botched the height of the bulwarks. But a 1/48 bowsprit on a 1/56 model would look just about like that. Again, I don't want to insult anybody's intelligence. But this is the sort of goof that can arise because a modeler is staring so intently at the model that the eye misses the obvious. I wouldn't want to try to count the number of times that's happened to me.

The decks look terrific. Did you wind up using holly for the planks, or are we looking at basswood?

The drawings in the old Model Shipways Elsie (which now, of course, is off the market) are, quite simply, the best I've seen in a ship model kit. (I know there are some equally good ones out there, but I haven't seen any better ones myself.) The fittings aren't bad (though the windlass is a stock fitting, and doesn't quite match the one on the plans).

I'm currently working on a "personalized" version of it. Mine is going to be an exact scale model of the schooner G.L. Tilley, named after my father. (No such ship ever existed, of course, but I'm not going to let that intimidate me in the least.) I do recommend getting rid of the wood blocks that come with the kit; they're pretty crude. (The deadeyes are much better.) Superior blocks can be had from Bluejacket, or from Syren Ship Model Company. Syren's wood blocks are superb; Bluejacket's are cast metal, and the "iron stropped" ones look right for an early-twentieth-century schooner.

I've been snapping in-progress photos of this one, but I'm not going to start posting them till I'm more confident that I'm not going to screw up something important. At the moment I'm working on the quarterdeck planking which is tricky because the planks, instead of running parallel to the centerline, run parallel to the sides of the deckhouse.

Good luck.

Two posts in reply.

First, no umbrage taken whatsoever. In fact I had the pleasure of driving to the seashore today with Ms. Morrison, to go on an historic home tour. Architect of 35 years- it never grows old. One by Wright, one by an apprentice, one by Julia Morgan, and among several others one by the eccentric ship parts collector Allen Knight. Ok, a third post...

Two hours each way on the road gave me a chance to clear out some cobwebs and reconsider the bowsprit situation.

I didn't exactly bungle the scale, althought there's some truth in that. When I set out to do this build, I bought the 1/48 scale plans from Blue Jacket, their instruction book, and some 1/16" strip basswood deck material. The drawings are good, attributed to consultation from Chappelle. Sketchy fuzzy a little. The book is for a POF build, but it's a pretty good primer on the subject.

Determining Revell's scale was idiosyncratic, i.e. peculiar to the subject. Waist, waterline overall beam, take your pick. I gave it some thought and decided that what mattered and what probably would be the most apparent thing would be to match the only two parallel lines on the boat (decking excluded)- the mast centerlines. I find a sidetrip into metric measurements (why, why why don't we?) is useful for scaling. Something my calculator can understand. BJ drawings 195mm. Revell 143mm. Which gave me a conversion factor, applied to 1/48, for a resultant scale of 1/65 (actually slightly smaller, at 65.33 but let's not mix decimals into fractions and go completely insane.

Architects and boatbuilders in the English system rejoice! A fine scale of 1/64. Somewhere Frank is smiling...

Now to the matter at hand. The spars on this boat are curiously big. I can't say why, although half a dozen explanations come to mind. But I would like to learn.

The replica is of course just that, and it's different in a lot of ways, but it does seem to match up with the BJ drawings in regards to the masts pretty well. At the deck, BJ tells us that the diameter is 21". Learned a new term too- "bury". That part of the mast from the deck down to the step. Tapers too.

They are thick. The bowsprit spar is 18" square at its bitt end. BJ says buy a piece of 3/8" square wood. So after some consideration, I bought a piece of 5/16" square, the next choice being 1/4". In other words, the choice was 20" or 16". Of small things like that, problems compound. That's my scale error. Lesson learned and summary conclusion #1 made. I will post all of those presently, if anyone is still reading.

When I made the plan to plank the deck with wood strips, I took some effort to lower the mounting lugs in the hull for the deck, by the thickness of the added wood. In addition I scraped off all of the inside bulwark detail in preparation for new timber heads and a waterway. But, my mistake- I should have set those mounting lugs from the BJ bulwarks drawings and scaled the dimension, which is 24" at the peak. Revell gave us 16", which I faithfully replicated. Which leads me to summary conclusion #2. Anyone not yet asleep?

And last, at installation time, I neglected to test fit the spar, which is meant to be flush to the deck, and it had a slight upward rake relative to the deck caused by the notch in the peak being even shallower than 16" top to bottom. I will not share a potential summary conclusion #3 as it's embarrassing.

Having sorted through all that, it gives me a plan for a solution. Even with all of that fancy looking doweling, it snapped off pretty quickly the moment I walked in the door, fed the dog and put down the mail. Onward!

I would not be posting this if I didn't expect and want observations and help. It looked wrong to me too.

America was also known for having a stumpy 'sprit, too.  Recall she was originally fit with a jib boom, which was carried away during an Atlantic crossing.  Rhe rig was found handy enough and kept.

(That fore staysail boom still gives me the willies, though.(

Oh listen, I'm currently sticking pad eyes all over the deck including those that are to lash down the boats.

The willies? Lash me to the mast.

I do plan to include the jib boom. The foremast staysail boom I don't think is in the BJ drawings.

Summary conclusions.

#1 I really need a good little table saw. Any suggestions gladly accepted. I like my fingers, so I need a good sharp accurate easy to use one.

Bosch? DeWalt? Dremel? As I say I will gladly spend $ 500 if it keeps my moneymakers attached to my arms.

#2 I am never ever going to convert a plastic model again. This was a good one, but even then to do it right I should have gone over it with the BJ drawings in detail. But really why? From plans from now on.

#3 It seems sometimes that there's never time to do it right, but I always manage to find time to do it over.... Lesson learned.

And regards the Elsie. The drawings really are works of art. Done with a Rapidograph I am sure. I love a good drawing, one that is thoughtfully composed with the idea of conveying the nature of the object to the reader.

I was fortunate to get a kit in the old yellow box, with the complete set of newer and addendum drawings included. I think I only got two dories- that's a problem except that the other six don't have innards so there's a chance I can build a stack (two stacks).

Dr. Tilley I really look forward to your G.L.T. I had looked at the planking plans for the kit and understand the issues. Are you using the scribed sheet material?

Check the MicroMark catalog, they have two table-top t/s, one spendy, one less so.  Like most t/s, the expense is in the blades and accessories.

If you examine the BJ detail you posted here, it koted the gooseneck for the jibsaill boom.

These are evil beasts/. The weight limits how far over the tack of the staysail can go.  Being a boom, they need a topping lift--as if the foremast need any more tackle to bring to the deck.  If you luf the staysail, that boom heaves about willy-nillu uncaring as to whose legs it hazards.  Ok, so, you get the benefit of hands-free tacking.  But at all those other costs.  That, and the limit that the staysaill triangle cannot overlap the foremast as all.

The replica has one, buy only  on the staysail proper, and not the jib.

I'm most definitely not a math whiz. I learned the hard way, a long time ago, that the fewer math problems I had to work when working on a model, the better.

When I'm starting a new model, the first thing I do is to get my hands onto a complete copy of the plans, reduced or enlarged to the scale of the model. (I did the same thing in the days when I was making ship drawings.) Two reasons: one, it eliminates all sorts of opportunities for errors, and two, I find it much easier to visualize what I'm doing if I have a picture of everything at model size.

When I started my little model of the frigate Hancock, back in 1977, I ordered a set of the Chapelle drawings from the Smithsonian. They were huge things, on 1/4"=1' scale. I'd decided the model would be on 3/32"=i'. So, after getting advice from my old man, the architecture professor, I took them to an architectural blueprinting firm. Those folks took photos of the drawings with a humongous camera, and made blueprints for me on 3/32"=1' scale. Now I had a nice set of plans from which I could take measurements directly.

I had the blueprint guys make me thirty copies or so. When it came time to carve the hull, I stuck sections of those prints to cardstock and cut them out to make templates. And whenever I wanted to use a drawing from some other source, I'd get a copy of it to the model scale as well.

As I remember, that whole print job (including the blueprints from the Smithsonian) cost about seventy bucks - a very significant sum for a starving grad student. Nowadays it's much simpler and cheaper. The architectural supply places (the term "blueprint" is almost obsolete now) have photocopy machines that can make prints at any scale you like in a few minutes, for small change. My guess is that an architectural print shop could make a copy of the Bluejacket plans at any scale you want for less than $5.00 - while you wait. (Just don't ask the dealer to sell you a rapidograph. He won't know what the word means.)

Once I've got at least one copy on the scale of the model, I make lots of copies of selected parts of it on that wonderful, miraculous gadget, the home printer. The Epson one I've got can make prints at any ration from 25% to 200% - and the reproduction will be proportionally right. (In the early days of Xerox, that wasn't the case. I found that out the hard way.) For my current project, I hardly touch the plans that came from the kit; I work almost entirely from 8 1/2" x 11" copies made on the printer. (Lots of Ronnberg's scrap views are on a larger scale. I can reduce them to 1/8"=1' in a few seconds. I'm lucky in one respect: my model building desk is in the same room as the computer and printer.

If you've got a set of plans on the model's scale, all sorts of problems just disappear. (Never mind what the actual and scale dimensions of the bowsprit are; just use dividers to take them from the plans.) But I do have a calculator that works in feet, inches, and fractions, and can do metric/English conversions. I got it at Lowe's for about $15.00. That eliminates some more sources of potential error.

I'm planking the decks of my little schooner with 1/32" x 1/16" basswood strips. (I'd use holly, but I don't have access to the saw to make narrow strips at the moment.) I'm not a fan of scribed sheets; the grooves are just too big. For the quarterdeck of the G.L. Tilley, some of the planks have to be tapered, and a few of the outboard ones need to be nibbed into the waterway strakes. The Ronnberg drawings show the basic principle - but I'm not following them slavishly because I'm not building the Elsie. The G.L. Tilley was different from the Elsie in lots off respects.

I've tried both Micromark table saws. I strongly recommend the more expensive one, if you can handle the finances. (Your Significant Other is likely to have something to say about that.) The little, cheaper one just isn't as precise, or as powerful. And the speed isn't adjustable, and the arbor doesn't tilt, and the fence is almost useless. The bigger saw now comes with digital readout, which makes it even better. And at the moment it's on sale: http://www.micromark.com/microlux-digital-table-saw,11530.html .

It's worth noting that a lot of serious modelers use the "Byrnes Table Saw": http://www.byrnesmodelmachines.com/tablesaw.html . It unquestionably gives excellent results, but I can't see that it offers any big advantages over the larger Micromark version.

I believe the America set a "club-footed" fore staysail - like the Elsie (and like the America replica in the picture). I'm sure the rigging was a little different, but the principle is the same. If Bluejacket says it wasn't there, though, I'll take that as fact. I was working at the Mariners' Museum when BJ was working on that kit. I remember digging through the museum's various plans of her - including a sail plan drawn by none other than Donald McKay (when she was in his yard for a refit). The MM has lots of neat stuff related to that ship, including the quarterdeck skylight and a half model that was presented by George Steers to Queen Victoria.

Following this with interest.  

GMorrison

Summary conclusions.

#1 I really need a good little table saw. Any suggestions gladly accepted. I like my fingers, so I need a good sharp accurate easy to use one.

Bosch? DeWalt? Dremel? As I say I will gladly spend $ 500 if it keeps my moneymakers attached to my arms.

#2 I am never ever going to convert a plastic model again. This was a good one, but even then to do it right I should have gone over it with the BJ drawings in detail. But really why? From plans from now on.

#3 It seems sometimes that there's never time to do it right, but I always manage to find time to do it over.... Lesson learned.

Amen to all of the above. A common thought for me is "Man, I really should have ----"

I own two contractors table saws, both of which are over 40 years old and have been used and used in my business for all those years. I also have all my digits, all of which are over 73 years old. The primary thing with these full sized saws is - safety - safety - safety. Always be aware of what you are doing and never place yourself in a position of being distracted. I am able to cut woods as small as 3/32" square by using various fixtures made for the purpose of controlling the work piece and keeping my hand away from the blade. The small modelers saws are nicer to store and waste less wood because the kerf is thinner, but though smaller, can cause serious injuries. You don't have to cut very deep to sever tendons or bone. Fingers don't have much meat (although mine rather look like fat sausages, complicating rigging procedures). Injuries occur mostly when it seems to be expedient to make a cut without first taking the time to fixture the job correctly. Most of the wood sizes I use seem to be pretty standard, so I only have to build a particular fixture once, then mark it and save it for next time. There is always the option to jig up for a specially sized piece that is unavailable commercially. Another fixture is one for my drill press, making it a very efficient thickness sander. Works great for making that oversized standard size down to the custom size I want, or, to just make planking nice and smooth and of consistent thickness with no saw marks. All this gives me the ability to make my own lumber, when I want it, as I need it, the way I want it, from chunks of wood that are in my wood stash or readily available - black walnut, mahogany, cherry, pine, basswood, poplar, chunks of exotic hardwoods from flooring etc.

Thanks for posting your build.

EJ

I see two on the MM site. One for $ 190 on sale for $ 126, and a "digital" one for $ 375. But I gather the $ 190 one is suggested (?).

As for joggling and nibbing, I'll save that for the Heller Victory.

OK, that was a joke.

I see in the Elsie plans that the after part of the deck (quarter deck?) is drawn with the planking parallel to the deckhouse as you said. Therefore their suggesting to cant the scribed sheets and bookmatch them. But I couldn't agree more, laying the planking was really satisfying, and getting the plank end pattern to work gave me an education in why the ends are where they are (deck beams of course), why the deck beams are where they are (ribs and hence the exposed timber heads around the bulwarks. I know this stuff but it's fun to be able to actually recreate it.

One day I'll probably be faced with planking a model deck "yacht style" i.e. parallel (if that's an accurate term) to the waterways. That would be pretty.

My first table saw was an 8" bench top model - the cheapest one Sears made, and about the only such tool an assistant professor's salary could handle. I quickly discovered that it could produce surprisingly good results if equipped with a good blade. Sears made a "satin finish plywood veneer blade" that could make cuts that didn't need sanding. I set up my cheap little saw with a crude homemade adjustable fence (wood, carriage bolts, and wing nuts for adjustment) and a zero-clearance insert with a splitter plate. With that modification, that saw could make boxwood strips 1/32" square.

The drawbacks of that tool were that it was tricky to adjust (repeating dimensions was almost impossible) and it turned most of the stock into sawdust. And it made a lot of noise (not good in a low-rent apartment). And I always felt like it was lurking in the corner waiting for the chance to slice off my fingers. (I've known a couple of guys who've run their hands through table saws. It's no fun.

That Micromark saw has a good, precisely adjustable fence (now with digital readout, and is reasonably quiet. And the blades are really skinny. And I THINK it would jam before it cut through a bone. I treat it with respect, though.)

I'll take the Mcromark version any time. One other tip, though: if you buy it, pick up a few different blades, a package of zero-clearance inserts, and a miter sled. [Later edit: and the set of featherboards, too.]

GM, I can't recommend that $126 Micromark saw very strongly unless it's the only one you can afford - in which case it may well be the best option in that price range. But, as I mentioned earlier, it just doesn't have the flexibility and precision that the $375 one has. On the cheaper one, you can't even adjust the height of the blade.

The next big challenge on the GLT is going to be all those little scupper slots in the bulwarks. Making a small, rectangular hole that begins at precise locations is tricky - and it has to be done 40+ times. I've got some ingenious ideas, but my ingenious ideas frequently don't work.

So which of these two:

www.micromark.com/microlux-digital-table-saw,11530.html

or

www.micromark.com/microlux-miniature-table-saw,6936.html

I'm guessing the former.

I've owned or had access to some really lousy tablesaws. The kind that bounce around on the floor.

Back in the day when public high schools actually had a vocational program and taught "shop", yes and "home economics" for the girls, which would have been much more relevant for me in hindsight- we couldn't use the table saw. Welders, lathe, bandsaw, sure. I've always heard the most dangerous tool in the shop is the radial arm saw.

Nice work and a really interesting project ! 

Yeah - the first one.  If you can afford it.

Yes, Ms. Morrison was recently discussing the need for a set of smooth jawed needle nose pliers for her jewelry making. May need to add to that order for free shipping...

Thank you for the advice. It will be put on the financial plan.

I bought the cheaper Micromark saw (which at the time cost less than $100) while I was still an apartment-dweller. The better one came out of summer school money.

$379 is a big chunk of change, but a good small circular sa opens up a whole new level in the hobby. You an certainly do without it for the MS Elsie, though.

I am putting it on my wish list for later. Right I can survive until then no problem, But I am not going to spend money on anything less, I'd rather wait a while.

GM, that $400 saw is more than the equal of the next nearest competitor, the Unimat  table saw..

Check around your town for a cultured marble (or similar synthetic counter tops) place and ask about  their scraps/cast offs.  A nice 18" x 24" chunk of reject counter top makes a great base for the saw.

I have a Unimat SL lathe/drill press that I bought in 1975. At one time it had an accessory that turned it into a table saw; that attachment had a mediocre reputation among modelers. The SL was followed a few years later (in the late seventies, I think) by the more solid Unimat 3. I don't recall ever seeing a Unimat product that was specifically built as a table saw. When I Googled "Unimat table saw," all I got were some references to the old lathe accessories.

My recollection is that Unimat's parent company, Emcolux, quit making serious machine tools about twenty years ago. For awhile a much cheaper (mostly plastic) tool called a Unimat was on the market, but it was marketed mainly as a semi-toy for kids. I haven't seen one for at least ten years.

Cap'n Mac, if you have some more up-to-date information on Unimats, I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear about it. Can you post a link?

I'm aware of only four other small table saws that have competed seriously with the $379 Micromark one. The aforementioned Byrnes Table Saw looks like a beauty; it's a little more expensive than the MM one, but if you happened to find one on sale somewhere it looks like it would be a tossup between the two. Dremel made a table saw a long time ago, but it's been off the market for years. The Preac table saw used to be popular among ship modelers, but the owner of the company died, and the company shut down, some years ago. (When I googled "preac tools" I found a post from Model Expo saying that company was negotiating to start production of the saw again. Unfortunately that post was dated 2012.) Proxxon makes a miniature table saw, but it's quite obviously the same thing as the Micromark one.

So far as I can tell, the new version of the larger Micromark version is the only one with digital readout. Believe me, that feature is worth the extra cost. I'm thinking (probably unrealistically) of buying one myself.

Does anybody on the Forum know of any others?

I have to admit I don't quite follow the idea of mounting a saw on a marble slab. I screwed mine down to my bench - with thick rubber washers to deaden the sound and vibration. It works fine. Cap'n Mac, could you explain a little further? Is the idea to make the saw more portable, maybe?

Well, Supreme Command has endorsed the purchase.

I am interested in the use of it to also cut plastic and metal.

One big thing will be the ability to produce strip wood in any species that I can find stock of.

Well ;

Good for you , G .  Years ago Schreibner made a table saw . Took 6" blades .Weighed about forty pounds and had no vibration or chatter . Sold mine because I couldn't find blades for it that fit the shaft core .

    Now I use an old Dremel  and hope for the best  . Nah ! ! LOL.LOL.I do have a zero clearance foot plate on my big Craftsman table saw and use extra fine Cabinet blades .Works great . Just had to be inventive with jigs and fences .

Hi , Guys ;

Hey Proff .I have a copy of an old oil of the " America " and in it she does have the club-footed fore - staysail ! The drawing , oops , the print is marked 1955 ! and it looks like an old Currier and Ives job  the detail is so tight .Yet you can see brush -strokes in the picture !

    Sorry , I am not going to handle it to take a picture .It's too heavy . I got it and three steamboat pictures from an older lady in Tennessee years ago . The boats are the J.M. White , The Montenyard and the Island Supplier .Not fancy names , But the J.M.Whites ( there were eight ) were the true palaces of the Mississippi !

    The Island Supplier looks like a converted " Snag " Boat , The Montenyard like a floating , well , you know . That kind of place !

  This is a family site . T.B.

Could be. I've got some books, never looked that closely. Hull was white, hull was gray, hull was black.

She had a pair of boats on davits too.

I've managed to solve the bowsprit problem through a series of mods and some small compromises. It looks pretty good now.

I've got a question for the sailors, or anyone. The various sheets are secured to cleats scattered around the cockpit. Being a big boat with a lot of sail and no pepper grinders, these are pretty long lines. They get doubled up through blocks too.

Say the boat is close hauled on a tack and the sheet is hauled in tight. There might be twenty or thirty feet of rope laying around until the next tack. What do they do with it? When the sails are down and the booms are centered, it sounds like it would get bundled up and tossed in open cages.

Very true. And for a square-rigged, three-masted ship, the problem is about ten times worse.

Out of curiosity (and to while away an hour or so waiting for my clothes at the laundramat) I once took a calculator and added up the lengths given in Steel's Elements of Masting, Rigging, and Seamanship for the standing and running rigging of a 32-gun frigate. The figure I got was about fourteen miles. For my 1/128 Hancock, that would have translated into about 580 feet. No, I didn't do it.

Photographs of sailing ships confirm that tremendous amounts of rope were lying around all over the place - in coils and bundles that a sailor could grab quickly with no tangles. I remember seeing one photo of - I think - the Constitution in her latter days. All over the spar deck were just the sort of "cages" GM described.

I don't think I've ever seen a model that looked like the amount of rope on it was authentic. This is just one of several features of sailing ships that modelers over the centuries have just agreed to ignore. Another one: tautness of rigging. In a real ship, only a few of the running rigging lines, and even fewer of the standing rigging, are ever really tight. Donald McNarry, Phillip Reed, and a few other small-scale virtuosi have gotten brilliant results by using fine wire for the rigging. But thread just doesn't sag like full-size rope. Personally, I get too much pleasure out of running thread through blocks and deadeyes to forsake it in favor of wire.

Would be interesting to see how the guys on the replica handle it.

Ut's a reason racing boats use clubbed sails and boomed forestay sails and jibs..  Once the  jib is set to where the tack ought to be, the boom keeps there.  The remaining sheet can be coiled off and triced up.  On the opposite tack, the boom brings the sail across, and the lee sheet can also be triced up as well.  All is good until the wind shifts or the mark is rounded.

Which was good enough in the days before racers were built to classes, and it was the best trimmed rig over the most amount of course won.

Oh, and never discount the number of uses for marline and similar "small stuff."  Flake a sheet out near it's cleat and pass a yarn or two around  the bights, and then to the rail stanchions or the like, and the line is miinded in a way that will break free when needed.

This model will be main sail down but stowed on the main boom. Fore main sail and all other cotton stowed away. The sets of sheets all seem to have served loops at their joins, those probably lay on the deck.

In an effort to find what the cleats on the decks looked like, all eight of them, I spent the afternoon looking at sites that sell "vintage" sailboat hardware. Cover myself in shame. I've settled on big teak ones. In any case it doesn't much matter and they'll be wrapped in rope anyways.

Next plan of attack is to get the deck hardware esp. all of the padeyes in, then flip her over and finish leafing and painting the transom, set the rudder and generally spruce up the hull. I thought I would set the chainplates and deadeyes, but I won't until I get WAY down the road and set the shrouds, therefore getting the angles right.

Right Capn. In fact I was looking at some museum models of same yacht, and the tails on those sheets are probably more like 100 feet, bundled in ten foot long coils and trussed like sausages.

Dr. Tilley, did you include the gun tackle in your calculation? Easily another 32 feet (on the model).

I jest, but it brings up a thought I always have when a modeler poses the question;

"What do I need to buy to rig my Revell Constitution?"

A lot of time, a considerable amount of money, and an approach in steps.

No, that figure of 14 miles doesn't include the gun rigging. I only put the breachings and side train tackles on the guns that are visible on the finished model - but they do add up.

GM, it's none of my business, but I hope you'll think some more about the sail configuration. The one you've described - mainsail furled and all the others missing - wouldn't be likely in real life (though not impossible, I guess).

One style that lots of modelers use for ships like this: no sails, but the gaffs raised and light lines rigged to form the outlines of the sails.on the other hand, this is a large-scale model of a ship with simple rigging, and only eight or nine sails. If you have any interest in furled sails, this would be a great model for a first attempt.

Done!

No sails!

Only one less than I figured to have to make.

So the sheets which have a fairlead block on either side for each sail- and on the mainsail a running and trimming sheet and block each- lay on the deck and are going to be ready for sailing on my model. Morning before the race.

CapnMac is shagged out on the foresail bag down in the bilges as he was on trim duty last light. There was the little incident with the whale oil lamp, but lets let that go.

That is some fine work there.

Could a band saw make a decent substitute for a circular saw?

It depends. The table saw is best for making long, straight cuts, like deck planks. The bandsaw can make curved cuts.

If you put a precisely adjustable fence on your band saw you may, depending on the width of the blade and the precision of the guides, be able to make acceptably straight planks. But a table saw will be easier and more accurate.

The band saw will let you make curved cuts, which a table saw just can't handle.

So I was looking at yacht models online in an effort to make some decisions about deck fittings, and came across a build log from a number of years ago of that same America that was in the magazine recently. It went on and on for pages, no one mentioned the base mounting goof. Sharp eyes, Dr. T.

I am thinking about setting mine in V notched blocks rather than permanently on pedestals. It's really nice to pick up and kind of look at.

GM, I occasionally must love the 'adult' part of my life, which rudely interferes with my ability to gab on fora.

Question:  How did you handle the molded-on mast hoops on the two masts?

The rings, unless bent  to a sail wind up in an untidy heap at the foot of the foremast.  (When the rings are bent to a traveler--to keep them toughly even with the eye/hanks in the sail, you get an untidy collection of rings, and traveler line, unless the traveler is bent to the gaff jaws.)  The main rings pile upon the boom jaws.

Probably the best method for making rings is to get a dowel the I.D. of the rings.  Then coat some paper with glue or spray adhesive.  Then  wrap the paper around the dowel and upon itself until the scale thickness is achieved.  Use a new blade rolled perpendicular to the axis of the dowl to part off rings in parallel cuts.  Why paper?  Because you can snip the paper ring to split it around the assembled and rigged mast and the round shape will not deform as much as wire might.  the cut ends can be mended with a dab of CA.  (Or, a clove hitch of fine thread to represent where the ring lashes to the sail.

Since you need some more fiddly work to do, note that a racing rig like this would have crutches for the booms (and probably the fore gaff),  Smart sailors will rig those as to be a good height to rig sun awnings over.  The boom especially gets a crutch, its weight never sits entirely on the topping lift alone.

The crutches will be in an inverted T or a inverted V shape, likely braced between deck eyebolts.

To catch up and answer Professor T,

No links, what I have are recollections of too many tool catalogs from too long ago.  But, I have rather a firm memory that, about the time of the Unimat 3, a table saw was coming out.  Either by Unimat, or branded thereby (as some of the tools coming out of the then Warsaw Pact was being marketed in the west).

Using cultured marble for a base is handy for those who do not have a stout bench to bolt tools upon.  The stone not only adds mass, but it  also offers a planar surface to associate the table to.  the man-made surface can be worked (if slowly) with woodworking tools in case a body wanted rig up in-feed and out-feed devices and jugs.

I am replacing the masts with wood ones. The plastic ones are too small, have those rings, and also that ghastly Revell detail of a pair of molded rings into which the boom jaws can snap so the whole thing can swing. Sanding off the seam in between each ring would be enough to reach for the Scotch.

There seems to be some debate internal to the BJ drawings about whether the mainsail boom had jaws or a gooseneck. I'll worry about that when I get there.

As for the rings, I think your idea is a good one. I'm increasingly getting used to the idea of paper for some of the details. It's just thin wood, right? BJ says to make them 25% larger than the diameter of the masts, which are equal in size. They suggest finding wood shaving and cutting them much as you describe. I like that idea, if I pass a door and window shop I'll try it out. Where the real things were riveted together glue will probably do. I think a stack of rings sitting on the main boom jaws, or the spider around the fore mast, is a beautiful thing.

Crutches. Another good idea. I think I've actually seen that on this boat, maybe on the replica, braced against the sides of the cockpit.

Right now I'm building companionways and skylights. It sort of seems up to the modeler to pick a color scheme. I'm leaning towards all varnished wood, except for the main box being white. That's what BJ says to do- then they put a photo of a finished model on the cover of the booklet that looks to have them in solid varnished mahogany.

If you want mast rings , do this .

    You can make them out of wood ( I think they were ). How ? Get a dowel the O.D. of the rings on the mast .Then chuck it in the bench vice ( Gently ) . Now find a very sharp wood drill bit .The size of the mast . Okay steady now . Drill out about three inches of the dowel.

    Then cut carefully into the rings you need .carefully soak the wood in resin or C.A to strengthen them and ther you are .Another way is find a person who does jewelry for a hobby and have them show you how to make " Jump " rings . This way you can make a bunch for you And ,  your friend that wants to build a model like yours !

      The crutch is actually quite easily made . Study the plastic part and duplicate in wood ( basswood preferably ) for strength . I like that deck G !

You would be best to fudge wherever you could for your sanity !

Junior Morrison has a guy friend who works in a wood working company next door to her job. She'll bring home some curly shavings.

We took up the subject of mast hoops a couple of years ago, in a different thread: cs.finescale.com/.../1699372.aspx .

I personally like the paper approach. I've always used yellow envelopes; Chuck Passaro has suggested manila file folders. I'll give that one a try.

The fiber-tipped wood stain pens sold by Minwax and Rustoleum are handy for tinting the mast hoops. A set of those pens in fact comes in handy for all sorts of stuff.

It's most important to keep them thin - in both height and thickness. Laser-cut wood mast hoops are available, but the ones I've seen are too thick.

Ah yes I remember. Well I did get out of the older discussion that the paper hoops would be stained. Of course. That sounds like the plan.

The nice part is they are light in construction  .But , G. You could get a strip of basswood and a small plane and make your own curlies !

From a long-ago Nautical Research Guild discussion, you have to watch one thing using wood shavings to laminate hoops.  The shavings have a taper, and can give a lop-sided look if not careful.

At ;larger scales (perhaps larger than America) the Britannia hoops by Blue Jacket are quite nice.  But yo need a fid or similar conical object to ensure that they are circular.

Of course the old guard at NRG would have spiral brass wire around a carefully-selected dowel.  Then a razor saw would be used along the length of the dowel to split the rings off the spiral.  The cut ends would then be mashed with pliers, and teeny-tiny holes drilled in the now flattened ends.  A lashing or a rivet would then join the ring,  Which would then be either chemically blackened or browned.  Just reading about those guys can wear me right out.

Here's a picture of a cod (?) schooner. I wish it was better- it's provenance is that I took a picture of a reprinted photo behind glass with my iPhone in a fish restaurant.

If you can see, there's a second hoop on each of the bottom two on the fore mast. Plus a lot of other junk and things going on.

I need to make a sorta correction to what I wrote earlier about the Unimat. After considerable web searching I learned that an Austrian company still makes two machines called Unimats - the "Unimat I Basic," which is intended for kids, and the "Unimat 1 Classic," which is designed for modelers and other machinists. On the basis of several websites, the "Classic" version deserves to be taken seriously. It can be set up as a wood lathe, metal lathe, drill press, horizontal milling machine, vertical milling machine, and jig saw - all with the parts that come in the box. It's got a lot of plastic in it (one reviewer gave it 2 1/2 stars out of 5), but it looks like, used with care, it could be a good tool for modelers.

Bad news: 1. No table saw conversion.  2. The best American price I could find was over $700.

I don't think the ship in GM's latest post is a fishing vessel. Its bulwarks are too high ( a fisherman had low bulwarks, so the fish in the dory alongside could be forked over them), there are no fish visible (there almost always are in deck shots of fishing schooners), and I've never heard of a fishing schooner with a big deckhouse like that. I think we're looking at a small to mid-sized coasting schooner - maybe something like Bluejacket's Fannie A. Gorham:  http://www.bluejacketinc.com/kits/fannie.htm . But for mast hoop details, it's a great shot.

A little care with terminology is in order. A mast band is a permanent, tight-fitting piece of ironwork, usually with one or more eyebolts in it, by which various pieces of rigging are secured to the mast. Bluejacket makes cast britannia mast bands with eyes cast integrally.

A mast hoop is a wood hoop that's used to connect a sail to a mast. Bluejacket's mast hoops are laser-cut from very thin plywood. They're very well done, but there's just no way a piece of plywood can be cut, even by a laser, as thin as a plane shaving or a piece of paper. If I were building a model on a really big scale (say, 1'4"=1'), I'd use Bluejacket hoops. But not for anything smaller.

Now, about boom crutches. Last night I stumbled across a couple of photos of the America relatively early in her career. Here's a link: http://www.sandemanyachtcompany.co.uk/blog/america-an-appreciation . The author of the article, David Matzenik (whom I know nothing about, but he seems quite knowledgeable), says he thinks the shots were made during the Civil War, when the ship was onlyabout 15 years old.

In both shots she's apparently at anchor off Annapolis. In the first shot, all her sails are furled. The main gaff is lying on top of the boom, with the sail between them. The fore gaff is fixed at the lower masthead, and the foresail is furled against the mast and gaff. There's no boom on the foresail.

The second shot is even more interesting. The ship seems to be in the process of getting under weigh.The photo clearly shows the configuration of the sails when they're being unfurled. (Or maybe I've got it backwards; maybe the ship is coming to anchor, and the sails are being furled.)

The author of the article notes astutely that the main sheet is draped over the boom. You can get at least an impression of how long that line is.

That author also makes some interesting remarks on the way her rig got changed over the years.

Boom crutches (sometimes rendered "crotches") were in use by 1851, all right. The Elsie has two - one for each boom. (The Elsie has a hoisting gaff, and therefore a fore boom.) I can't find a trace of a crutch - even one for the main boom - in any contemporary picture of the America. That boom is huge - and, with the sail and gaff on top of it, mighty heavy. The crutch would have to be a really sturdy fixture.

The shots of the currently-sailing replica don't show a boom crutch either. I did, however, find a couple of shots on the web where her fore gaff has been lowered on top of the furled sail. To my eye it looks a little weird.

If I were building a model of the America, I'd probably build her as Mr. Matzenik suggests she looked at the time of The Race: fixed fore gaff, hoisting main gaff, jibboom, and jib club, no fore topmast - or boom crutches. But that's just me - and I don't pretend to be an expert on this subject. To each his/her own.

Here are a few more interesting pix I stumbled across. The first one shows her being towed out of Boston Harbor by a Navy subchaser in about 1930:  https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:3t946q72v .The second apparently right after she got to ... well, wherever she was going: https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:3t946q74d . Lots of deck details are visible, including the beautiful skylight that's now at the Mariners' Museum. But no crutches.

Thank you John, those are great. I'll add a few thoughts. I haven't seen the photos before, either the Sandeman ones or the DC ones. A huge fan of that second site; I've used it for my Evelyn. Their big 4x5 glass plate negatives have absolutely incredible detail and resolution.

The first Sandeman photo is like one on page 49 of John Rousmaniere; The Low Black Schooner: Yacht America 1851- 1945. There are little differences, it's not the same day but must have been around the same time. In the book the photo is noted as taken at the Boston Navy Yard (much more built up background) in 1863 on the Naval Academy cruise. I'd expect the Sandeman photo shows her in the same cruise, some years later at most. Where the author notes her as in her original rig, he no doubt means before the drastic changes in 1875 and 1885 when her sails and rig were altered by McKay, and when General Butler stepped her masts vertical. What's not original is the fore topmast, and I am certain, the jib boom (in this case the spar doubled up on the bowsprit, and double jib arrangement. There's only the usual old oil paintings and engravings and so forth of race day, but the fore topmast is not there as you also note in your preferred rig. I also don't ever note a jib boom. The juries a little out on the jib club in fairness, some art has it others don't. Blue Jacket does and they called it a jib boom, it's hinged at the outboard end of the bowsprit, so that's my plan.

They also show a hoisting fore gaff, with a halyard. I guess I'll do that.

The second photo shows a very fine looking monitor at anchor!

As for crutches, no it was a fun idea, but I don't see any either.

As for the unimat, too pricey. I remember my maternal grandfather had one in his shop, he did all kinds of stuff with it. It was also advertised heavily in Model Railroader magazine back in the 60's, when people actually made their own "aftermarket" parts. I'm saving up for my Microlux. I would have used it today making stripwood for the trim on my companionways. I'm slicing basswoood with a straight edge and a razor blade. Not a big problem as I only need several feet of it. But, oh to be making precise strips out of mahogany...

Seeing that Unimat reminded me of the old Mattel Power Shop I used as a child during the 1960s :

http://www.samstoybox.com/toys/PowerShop.html

Motor speed was for cutting wood and a bit too high for plastic, but I used it to sand and cut plastic anyway; can't imagine it being sold to any child these days as the company would have been sued out of business.

I still have it but now use standard power tools.

Best of luck on obtaining the tooling you need to complete the project.

I'm finding the discussion very interesting.

Mattel vacuforms? Love to have one of those.

Heck, my sisters had those little cookie ovens.

Any gaff has to have a halyard. (Actually two - one at the throat and one at the peak.) The question is whether the gaff got lowered when the sail was furled. Those photos show tha, at least on those particular occasions, it wasn't.  But I don't' think there's any difference in the rigging between the two methods.

It seems entirely possible that the jib club/boom was portable, and was used or stowed depending on the sailing conditions.

To clarify, the BJ drawings have two, one at the throat and one at the peak that zig zags down the spar back and forth through a triple block up at the mast head. I was thinking that I'm easier to follow than I actually am.

Why would a hoisting gaff need a foresail boom, or did I misunderstand the comment regarding Elsie?

One reason might be that without one, when the gaff was lowered the sail would make an ungodly mess on the deck? Can't be that simple.

The jib boom club comes off with a pin, so it certainly could lay on the deck. That would be the case with a really large jib like a Genoa.

Hah! This from Rousmaniere, page 16:

"The sails themselves were cut at the loft of Rubin H. Wilson, who made the sails for most of New York's racing yachts. Steers made a rough sketch of the sail plan on heavy brown paper (ed: printed in the book), and eighty years later it was still in the possession of Wilson's son Robert N. Wilson, an awning maker in Port Jefferson, New York. In a letter to the Stevens Institute of Technology in 1932, Wilson said that although Steers drew a gaff topsail to fit over the mainsail, it was not made. The only three sails that America carried in New York were a large boomed mainsail, a boomless foresail, and a single boomless jib (the boomed jib shown in most paintings was not installed until after she reached England, and the boom broke about halfway through the race around the Isle of Wight)."

All sorts of factors play into th design of a ship's rig. Steers apparently wanted a really big foresail, which was sheeted aft of the mainmast. A boom on such a sail would bash into the mainmast when the ship came about.

I've seen a few photos of furled sails with hoisting gaffs. The sails did make messy piles on the decks. Another thought: hoisting a gaff isn't easy. It's a big job for several people. Brailing a loose-footed sail up to a mast would be relatively quick and easy. Later edit: my so-called spell checker changed "brailing" to "braiding." I've changed it back.

I think the practice of hoisting the gaff every time the sail was set was relatively rare, though not unheard of. And to my eye a lowered gaff withe no boom just doesn't look right.

Sprue-ce Goose

Seeing that Unimat reminded me of the old Mattel Power Shop I used as a child during the 1960s :

http://www.samstoybox.com/toys/PowerShop.html

Motor speed was for cutting wood and a bit too high for plastic, but I used it to sand and cut plastic anyway; can't imagine it being sold to any child these days as the company would have been sued out of business.

I still have it but now use standard power tools.

Best of luck on obtaining the tooling you need to complete the project.

I'm finding the discussion very interesting.

Thanks for the insight. My model has developed a rig through suggestion of yourself and others.

A single bowsprit.

A jib boom attached to the end of the bowsprit. Supported by a topping lift to the fore mast masthead.

A gaff on the fore mast, with parrels (plural?) in the raised position no sail. There's a vang from it's peak back to the main masthead. A pair of halyards support it.

A gaff and a boom on the main mast, with parrels at the gaff and either that or a goose neck at the boom.

Pair of halyards support the gaff, boom supported by a topping lift to the masthead.

Both booms sheeted on both sides, so everything should be relatively stable, although the sheets will be loose.

BigJim

Sprue-ce Goose

Seeing that Unimat reminded me of the old Mattel Power Shop I used as a child during the 1960s :

http://www.samstoybox.com/toys/PowerShop.html

Motor speed was for cutting wood and a bit too high for plastic, but I used it to sand and cut plastic anyway; can't imagine it being sold to any child these days as the company would have been sued out of business.

I still have it but now use standard power tools.

Best of luck on obtaining the tooling you need to complete the project.

I'm finding the discussion very interesting.

I still have my Mattel Power Shop.

COOL !

I'd still use my jig saw blades but the blade retainer wore and needs a replacement; perhaps another good reason for learning to do 3D CADD so a new replacement part could be fashioned.

WELL NOW THIS IS SOMETHING SPECIAL.

But no, saving money for the Microlux. I have an aversion to one-tool-does-it-all. Swiss Army knife sort of, but only sort of, gets a pass. One thing those things do not do well is cut stuff.

Here's a table saw story. In 8th grade electrical shop (here I'll pause to set the date- we sat all day and listened to the live radio feed of Apollo 13's return trip, over the PA), Mr. Costarella had a big table saw in the corner. The project was to make a hot plate, using a long coil of NiChrome wire snaked up-and down through a pattern of asbestos board battens all bolted to a base plate on legs.

We boys were allowed to use the drill press to make the holes to bolt the whole thing together, but only Mr. C could use the saw, where he made 1/4" thick 1" x 12" pieces of board all afternoon, with a cigarette hanging out of the corner of his mouth.

The poor guy did die, of lung cancer, at the age of 62.

My only question about that rigging scheme concerns the phrase, "There's a vang from it's [the foresail gaff's] peak back to the main masthead." I've never seen an arrangement like that, and it doesn't seem  like it would work. A vang normally is a tackle running from the peak of the boom to the deck - one vang on each side of the ship. ("Vang," incidentally, is also a wonderful Scrabble word - if you want to get a Scrabble board bashed over your head.)

I'd suggest another look at the plan. Is it possible that the line in question is in fact the mainstay? In a schooner rig like this the mainstay can't lead from the masthead to the deck (because it would foul the foot of the foresail). So they made do with a heavy piece of standing rigging between the mastheads.

I think all of us are enjoying this conversation. I find it satisfying to be talking about the physics and the configuration of something fairly understandable. because i can't pretend to really now how the rigging of a large sailing ship makes it go, any more than I can explain what makes my Toyota go, in any but the most general terms. Speaking of myself.

I highly recommend a sailboat model, a small schooner or the like to any and all as a sort of return to the basics.

I've taken note from many of you, John, Don and most recently  EJ with the little flattie, that a small subject at a larger scale is an essential entry into wood boat models.

Dr. Tilley, here's two details from the BJ plans. Folks at BJ: I hope you will excuse these partial reprints on line; I don't think anyone could put together a model from them and I also hope they advertise the excellence of your product.

From top down- main topmast stay, spring stay, vang/ topping lift.

My little 1:1 cat boat had a vang. It was a line that ran from about midpoint on the boom, to the base of the mast.It's purpose was to keep the boom from angling up when sailing downwind, as the sail otherwise would pillow out. I suspect the function here was similar for the gaff- without a boom on the foresail and a means to really crank the foot of the sail down, the whole affair could billow upwards.

Very interesting. I respect Arthur Montgomery, who drew the Bluejacket plans (and owned the company at the time). He called the Mariners' Museum a couple of times when he was working on the kit design. I'm not in any position to say that drawing is wrong. But this is the only place I've seen this detail.

I wonder if Mr. Montgomery was assuming she had a hoisting foresail gaff. In that case running a "topping lift" from the end of the gaff to the head of the mainmast would make the gaff easier to hoist. Such a line would have a better mechanical advantage than the peak halyard running to the head of the foremast. On the other hand, that "vang/peak halyard" would have to droop a great deal when the ship was running before the wind - and the gaff swung way over to one side.

I guess it would work, but I'm used to a vang (yes, phone, I meant VANG) leading from the gaff peak to the deck (like the mainsail vangs in the drawing). I haven't noticed this "vang/topping lift" arrangement in other pictures of the ship. But it may be right.

Well I've gotten very wet on a lot of sailboats, but haven't had the experience of sailing a gaff schooner except at the wheel. The usual Marconi rig is all about managing the boom and the clew on the jib sails. The latter more than one would think. That's when the boat really gets up and goes.

By the way, John- if the foresail was lashed up to the gaff and the mast, how?

Put a sailor up on a halyard?

I've lost the rudder. Indicative of a really bad year of moving, selling houses and finding a rental. Good thing I have the drawing. Sheesh!!

arnie60

Still wondering about the 'trick' to doing gold leaf GM. Gimmie a couple of pointers? Would appreciate it much. Thanks

Interesting question about the gaff rig. There are a couple of possible answers - and probably a lot more that I don't know about.

One possibility is that they did indeed send somebody aloft to furl the sail. That person wouldn't necessarily have to go out on the gaff (which might break if he did). Notice that, in those two photos that show the sails furled there seems to be no gasket bundling up the middle of the foresail to the gaff.

She may have had two or three brails on the foresail. A brail is a light line that runs from the edge of the sail to a block on either the gaff jaws or a mast hoop, and thence to the deck. In those pictures in appears that the foresail is secured to the mast in two or three places below the gaff. Those spots could be brail blocks on the mast hoops. Haul in the brails while casting loose the sheets, and the sail gets furled.

If the brails are in those photos, I sure can't see them. The more I look at the evidence, the more I'm inclined to think the gear was all handled by people aloft. Somebody had to pass at least one gasket around the foremast.

How somebody got up there is another question. I've never seen any evidence that the America had ratlines. I guess the sailors either shinnied up the rigging or got hauled up in a bosun's chair.

All this demonstrates that the hoisting gaff rig, with a boom, was a lot more practical.

I urge anybody building a schooner model to watch the grand old, 1935 movie "Captains Courageous." Among other things, it lets you watch what happens when a big two-masted schooner furls her sails. In the movie, it takes about ten seconds for the sails to come down. (And, of course, a few minutes to pass the gaskets.)

I'd like to get my hands on a set of the plans for the old Model Shipways America kit, which were drawn by George Campbell. He could always be relied on to provide good, reliable information to the modeler.

Great movie, although I thought Spencer Tracy didn't seem very Portuguese. I will watch it again.

No, no ratlines but I have noticed that over the years, particularly after 1885, that the number of shrouds on each side of each mast increased from two to four. Sending someone up on a halyard is pretty easy, I did it once. Really lets you know the meaning of your life in someone else's hands.

I don't think Spencer Tracy looked - or sounded - the least bit Portuguese. But he won his first Oscar for that role.

Actually that character (Manuel, the Portuguese fisherman) was almost entirely fabricated by the movie makers. In the Kipling book he's a really minor character, barely mentioned. The movie in fact doesn't have much to do with the book. This, in my opinion, is a rare case of a movie being better than the book on which it's based. The novel really didn't do much for me.

With mast hoops, you don't much need ratlines.

I've sailed with a loose-footed gaff--it's an experience.  With a Bermuda rig (marconi referring more to spreader-rigged masts). the leech of the sail--the curved area beyond the hypotenuse is stiffened with battens.  Withe Bermuda rig, you haul in with the main sheet, and control the boom angle with a vang,

Under that gaff, if you haul in the sheet, the gaff stays out in the wind, the sheet just flattens the foot.  So, you need a way to haul the gaff around, which is best dine with windward and lee vangs,.  That, or you bend a mutton chop topsail to the gaff.  This gives you a bermuda-like rug where the sheet is now pulling down from the top of the topmast; any vangs used cab be slacked right off, (there are parts of a reach where you need the windward vang is needed with no boom).  Downside to that top sail needs to be "tacked" to keep iys tail out of the gaff haliyards.

Now, whether you could use that vang rigged back to the min mast, I do not know.

Would not surprise me if the original's foresail was loosr-fit, and was on an outhaul to the gaff,  To furl, a hand would go up the hoops,  They;d haul in thee head o the sail to the base of the gaff,  the sail would the get gaskets passed every other hoop or so.  Or, if a light racing sail, simply passed down to the deck.

Go up the hoops? Like a monkey?

Imagine that!

" G "

    Hi there ! Hey , if you want one you should haunt Flea Markets  .I got one two years ago in our Flea Market in Shertz , Texas . It was still in the box and all the parts were there too . It looked like it had Never been played with ! Price $ 20.00 .

     You can occassionaly find one at model show vendors , but condition is always an issue . A vendor at one of our I.P.M.S. shows had one without the flip platen for the heated plastic sheet ! His price , $ 350.00- ! !

    Needless to say he didn't make a sale on that !

Re vacuform machines - Micromark offers a modern version; it's on sale right now for $135.00. I don't have one, but on the basis of the pictures, video, and instructions it looks like a nice piece of equipment. Here's the link: www.micromark.com/compact-vacuum-forming-machine,11244.html .

Saving up for my table saw. maybe there's an attachment...

Photos of a section of plans is not a problem. Reproducing and selling plans is a problem.

Thank you. Really great set of plans and instruction book.

jtilley

Re vacuform machines - Micromark offers a modern version; it's on sale right now for $135.00. I don't have one, but on the basis of the pictures, video, and instructions it looks like a nice piece of equipment. Here's the link: www.micromark.com/compact-vacuum-forming-machine,11244.html .

Wow! Doesn't look anything like the old Mattell unit from my youth, thanks for the link, John.

GMorrison

I've lost the rudder. Indicative of a really bad year of moving, selling houses and finding a rental. Good thing I have the drawing. Sheesh!!

i think i still have my now wrecked one from my youth. i have a new kit too but, if you need the rudder, i will see if i have it on the wreck.

Thanks Wayne, I may take you up on the offer.

Just the other day I got an eBay alert:

"Revell Yacht America new $49.99 plus shipping."

If nothing else I was going to post the link for you all.

Sadly, the item is the Revell Beagle and the Scientific Yacht America.

Here's the latest progress. I've just about finished the deck furniture. The only real remaining detail there are bars over the glass of the saloon skylight. They are little wood dowels, five per light. I just can't pull that off- they are 1/4" long and a no. 70 in diameter. Thinking little bits of brass wire would look shipshape.

That's really starting to look like a boat now. I'm excited to see her all decked out and rigged.

That skylight is the one that's now in the Mariners' Museum.

I had the job of finding replacements for some missing hinges on it. Had to have them made in a machine shop.

As I remember, the whole structure was made out of beautiful, varnished mahogany. I don't remember about the bars, but it sticks in my mind that they may have been brass. (That certainly wouldn't have been unusual.)

I'm confident that the skylight I worked on had been removed from the America. I can't claim to be sure that it was the original skylight. I wouldn't be the least surprised to find that ours was a replacement.

From the Mariners' Museum as John described.

This is identical to the one shown in a photograph on pg. 59 of Rousmaniere listed as "America at U.S. Naval Academy, June 1928", Mystic Seaport Museum 46.190.3.

It varies in small details from the Bluejacket drawings by Montgomery.

Speaking of Arthur Montgomery, the BJ plans indicate that all of the blocks are white.

I just finished buying Britannia blocks from BJ to round out the supply I needed. Next project I'll try some of the other sources you all suggest, except of course Elsie has hers in her box already.

White, surprises me. I have no problem with that. I guess it would help to know the practice of the day.

Biil,

She looks beautiful! Thanks for posting the progress, I am enjoying this immensely.

Steve

Your project is really turning out nice !! 

It does indeed look terrific. I'll be interested to follow it to completion.

White-painted blocks actually seem to have been fairly common in non-naval vessels. The Cutty Sark has white blocks, and if I'm not mistaken the Charles W. Morgan does (or did on at least one of my visits.) The instructions for the MS Elsie say her blocks were originally varnished, but got painted white in the early twenties.

I'm not a fan of Model Shipways blocks. MS gets them from one of the HECEPOB companies. They're often sloppily cut and drilled. (On the other hand, MS deadeyes are quite nice.) My choice is Bluejacket for metal stropped blocks, Syren (i.e., Mr. Passaro) for unstropped blocks, and MS for deadeyes.

That photo from the Mariners' Museum does bring back memories. The half-model hanging on the wall in the background is interesting too. One of the engraved silver plates on it reads "Presented to Her Majesty Queen Victoria by George Steers."

Thank you for the encouragement, gents.

I looked into the Elsie box, and concur on all points Dr. T.

The deadeyes are little beauties. They aren't stropped like my BJ ones which may be a good thing.

The blocks are not good, they are those little pearwood or ?? square chunks with a hole drilled through them that we are all used to.

The purchase of blocks for America has been a little adventure. There's a parts list in the back of the instruction book I have for the 1/48 scale model. One size of triple blocks several sizes of doubles and a number of sizes of singles. My working scale is 1/64. Easy enough to size down the parts required and that served to combine several categories of the smaller ones into one size.

The drawings don't show all of the blocks, nor would I expect them to, so I did end up buying blocks in two flights- one several years ago and another just last week.

By the way Bluejacket has EXCELLENT customer service.

Currently I'm trying to figure out where all the single sizes break. Triples no question, doubles I think I know.

Bill,

Beautiful work. Is that the skylight form the kit with some brass rods added or did you scratch it?

Steve

Thanks, Steve. I scratchbuilt all of the deck furniture, except for the little octagonal forward skylight, and sort of modified the capstan.

If you look at the first post I put up, there's a picture that shows the plastic deck with the furnture sawn off. It's pretty basic stuff and it's been worth replacing.

I did reuse the kit tiller too. It's pretty decent looking

It was definitely worth it after seeing the kit skylight. As I said, very cool and very well done.

Steve

Pretty work, GM.

Wow, what a great model, GM. I could not stop reading this building report which I just recognized. Its very inspiring.

I was lucky enough to get a Revell kit America from ebay and while waiting for the box I was starting for any information I can get. Have got the Book you mentioned "the low black schooner yacht America" more or less by accident years ago and when I saw that there is such a big Revell kit existing maybe 6 months ago I started to look for it systematicly. Now I got it.

Your skylight is beatiful but I wondered: since you know the real one which looks quite a bit difference (2 parted per side instead of 3-parted, the finish without paint) why you do not try to have it closer to the original?

Anyway: the model is a masterpiece and I am looking forward to your rigging work

Really enjoying your work so far on this Kit......Cheers Mark

Thanks for posting this, it's superbly done and im learning loads from it.

This project is looking fantastic, its going to be hard press to tell its was concieved from the Revell kit. 

Thank you for the nice comments.

It's time to get her out again, the next steps are the bowsprit rigging.

Marcus, to answer your question, she had at least two different skylights. The one in the Museum that John referred to and that I posted a picture of, was the last one.

The one I built, which pretty much matches the one in the kit, and the BJ drawings, was the race day one, as far as I know.

In between, she was sunk once, totally rebuilt once and re-rigged several times, as well as had a number of owners. If I had to guess, and maybe Dr. Tilley knows, that last one might be from the rebuild in 1875 by Donald McKay.

What would be a good source of information for this yacht? I believe the kit is worth doing better research in different periods. There seem to be alot of photos of her later life?

The black low schooner I got already.

Which plans might be best / most accurate?

The Model Shipways kit has drawings by George Campbell. That has to be pretty reliable. The drawings with the BJ kit, which I have (the drawings not the kit) are by Arthur Montgomery and are very good. No sections or lines though.

Photos onboard are just about non existent, as far as I can tell, and paintings of course are all portraits.

Try finding a rear quarter view photo of a steam locomotive not attached to a train. Same problem, folks weren't thinking of us.

You are working according to the BlueJacket plans, wright? Does someone know about the differences versus the Shipway plans? .. and : where would one be able to get the Shipway plans alone?

GM, would you be able to post a photo of a section of the plans so that its visible which quality especially the deck planking or other details do have.

I am very much interested into the deck planks pattern.

Did you "copy" the lines of the waterways by the plans? .. or did you copy from the models sample??

Does any of the plans refere to the later changes? I am thinking about showing the ship as visible on photos from about 187x ff. She was in private hand, used as racing yacht, completly in a white hull and with a much larger amount on sails ...

And a final question: does anyone have information about that person George f. Campbell? That guy has a very high influence on modelship building. It seems to me he did plans of nearly each famous ship with sails ... How do we know where he got all his info from ... in "pre-internet"-times???

First, I would have started from the Model Shipways or Blue Jacket kit, rather that remodel the Revell kit, if I were to know then what I know now.

But all in all it will be ok.

The planking of the deck is tough to discern. I used the width shown by BJ, but the spacing of the joints was my decision. I went 4/4, ie every fourth beam, every fourth plank.

As she was a very big boat, there wasn't whats called Yacht planking, where the planks follow the curve of the bulwarks and meet in the middle. John Tilley and I face a version of that in our Glouster schooners, I will be glad to follow his lead.

Buy the book The Low Black Schooner. Buy the BJ book and drawings.

As for Campbell, well Tilley can expand. The little I could add is that he measured actual ships and then drew them. That is a very hard thing to do and relies on an ability to be able to understand the logic under which an object was designed, in order to sort of fill in the blanks.

As for your plan, yes that's a very beautiful sailing boat. All kinds of sails that didn't exist on her when built. Steers showed a main topsail but she didn't have one in the race.

And about twenty seven feet ( maybe less) were added to her length which made her pretty much a new hull. I have never seen plans about that.

But imagine being at the helm in your magnificent photo. What power! You can see it in the picture.

Oh yes.. that must be an extreeeeeeeem cooooool feeling. Your limit is far behind the horizon! And you are the master of fate of the ship and its crew!

You mean, the length of the ship we see here is not about 101 feet (30,1 m), but something about 127 feet (38 m)? .. That should be measurable in this photo maybe... with what would I best compare .. a mans average size maybe? Or the distance of the masts (if they did not change in between??) .. Do you have the distance available .. or any other distance I could measure here for comparision?

Edit: Just checked: the distance of the masts on deck level is about (very close) 1/3 from lenght in water line! .. does that give us any idea?

The replica of Yacht America is 139 foot (42 m) .. even longer ...

http://sdmaritime.org/visit/the-ships/america/ 

The book I got .. maybe I should also read it By galloping through the book I did not see any hint on the planking .. or more detailed plans. For the change in lenght I must look for. The idea of repesenting the Revell Kit as a 1887 yacht popped up, when I recently found those pictures .. but to increase the length would be something tooooo much for my beginner skills, I am affraid.

With BJ I tried to contact - but I am affraid they do not answer my mail right now.. Living in Germany seems to make issues with delievery and payment.. Hope it will be possible in our modern global world.

Concerning Campbell: ".. in order to fill in the blanks" .. that is what worries me.

I of course am far from and do not dare to really "judge" Mr. Campbells very extensive and beautiful works .. but what I learned the last years with ships from the age of sail: be careful with trusting experts because they are experts. ... being humans even they make mistakes. After all: even they haven´t been there.

And the bad thing: because of their expert-status its hard to argue or to question. So I am always interested in sources .. and try to compare my own observations with what someone presents to me.

I just wondered which ship Campbell seemed NOT to be interprating ;-) .. maybe so many kits are based on his work .. Revell´s Constitution, the Yacht America, the Cutty Sark .. each of them have Campbell plans available .. Did they maybe cooperate?

Heller in comparison seem to have their "models" from the AAMM .. maybe that´s the way to gain the plans for moulds for plastic (and wooden??) kits. To cooperate with capable institutions as the Smithonian (wasn´t Campbell working there?) or the AAMM?

EDIT 2:

I just did try to "measure" the lenght of this pictures ship (1887) in the water line - and used the height of that standing man in the bow of the ship. It seems that the water line is about 18 times the height of that man.. I assumed his foot to be in the level of the cross between anchor and the black line below the rail...

With this as reference .. assuming that the ship is 89 feet, the measurment of the man would be about 1,5 m .. a bit too small?

If I add 27 foot to the 89 my measurment: the man would be about 1,97 m (6 foot 49) .. which seems much closer to an average size of an adult american of about 1,8 m / 5 foot 10 inch. .. so you may be right: this ship is differing a lot from the original hull .. which should be represented by the Revell Kit ...

Of course my simple measuring with MS Powerpoint is of a limited presicion .. but for me it seems at least to be a good indicator for your statement.

Marcus, I don't think you need to worry about drawings by George Campbell.

He was a naval architect by training, an excellent draftsman, and a conscientious researcher. As I remember, he drew the plans for the Model Shipways Newsboy, Phantom, Rattlesnake, America - and probably a couple of others that I've forgotten. He also wrote books of his own (China Tea Clippers and The Neophyte Shipmodeler's Jackstay are the best known), and dabbled in marine painting. (This link may be of interest: http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/artists/george-f-campbell .) I never met him, but I can remember when he was in his prime. He was widely known as an immensely knowledgable man and a first-rate, congenial gentleman.

His most famous set of plans may be the ones for HMS Victory, for C. Nepean Longridge's book The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships. (Mr. Campbell also did all the superb sketches and drawings in the book itself.

When Smithsonian Institution decided to commission a big model of the Constitution, it commissioned Mr. Campbell to draw the plans. (At that time Howard I. Chapelle was in charge of such projects at the Smithsonian; I imagine he was the one who picked Mr. Campbell.) Those drawings, of course, became the basis of the Revell 1/96 kit.

He was the naval architect in charge of the Cutty Sark restoration project in the early 1960s, and his plans of her are still available (one of the biggest bargains in ship modeling). Those drawings were published, if I remember right, in 1962 or thereabouts. The Revell 1/96 kit had been released in 1959. I don't think Mr. Campbell had anything to do with it - but I could be mistaken.

Historical research is an ongoing process; every year historians turn up new information about something. Mr. Campbell's Victory plans don't show the raised forecastle bulwarks, the third cheek knee, or various other details that are now thought to have been on the ship at Trafalgar. There seems to be a small industry of scholars and modelers dedicated to figuring out exactly what the Constitution looked like in 1812, and they've dredged up some interesting little details that Mr. Campbell's drawings don't show. From what I can gather, though, none of those revelations has been particularly dramatic. (Maybe the most visible one is the fact that she didn't have hinged gunport lids.) Mr. Campbell's drawings - and the Revell kit - look darned good to me in terms of accuracy. And I'm sure the recent (post-fire) restoration of the Cutty Sark has revealed some discrepancies with the Campbell drawings. But I'd be surprised if they amounted to much.

Any sensible researcher knows that the next generation of researchers is likely to come up with some material that he/she missed. That's how the field works. (If I were - heaven forbid - to build another model of the frigate Hancock, I'd use a different shade of red paint, leave off the bulwark pinrails, and...oh, never mind.)

The last time I saw Mr. Campbell's plans for the Model Shipways America was more than thirty years ago. I do remember studying them for some time, and finding them fascinating. I particularly remember a note about how the ship's sheer had changed over the years. I think you'd be quite safe in basing a model of the ship on those plans.

Finding them is another matter. I googled "Yacht America Plans," and came up with quite a few images (including what I'm sure is an illegal copy of the Bluejacked plans and instruction book). But all I could find about the Model Shipways kit was a few photos of the box contents and a finished model (which looked excellent).

I also think the Bluejacket plans are excellent. (I won't dignify the website by listing it here. Nic - I don't blame you for being irritated that such a thing is on the web.) I'd be interested to know how much difference there is between the Bluejacket and Model Shipways plans. My guess: scarcely any.

I think you're perfectly safe with either of those sets of drawings.

Markus- the photo you posted most recently is a problem for a subject as a model. See where the rake of the masts have been eliminated.

As I mentioned earlier though, my BJ plans have neither sections nor lines, so building a model from those would not work. They were afler all part of a kit.

Gentlemen,

thanks a lot for your answers... and sorry for kind of hijacking your thread. Your build is so inspiring.

concerning Mr. Campbell: he is getting more and more interesting. Thanks for your hints and explainations. Here - as everywherer else in this world - it is of great help to have a more precise picture of the facts. I love to dive into such details - even if the are of indirect connection to the ships themself.

GM you are absolutly right. The ship in 1887 will be quite a challange. Looking at the longer stern I fear it will be very tricky to try to change the Revell plastic hull in a way to hide the seam... But with the information in the beautiful book (rhe low black schooner) I now found, it seems the change in length was done with chages of bow and stern only, so her lines did maybe not change too much. But since the additional length in deck added 1875 by McKay (ups - here comes history again - the famous successful creator of world class clippers!) was about 12 foot (which would - compared with the measurement of my compare-man on deck of the photo - result in about 1,8 m... quite possible... and then there is also the inaccurancy of my "measurement") I think a reconstruction of her in this stage should be possible..

She also got a new keel so she could have ballast lower down to allow the more sails we see.. The details? Unknown.

I am again thinking about trying to learn how to reconstruct a ship with the help of CAD tools.. I believe this ship, together with those excellent photos could be a good starting point. I will try to get the BJ plans .. got answer by them already. Oh I am looking forward to get them.

The lines of the hull I would be able to get via Revells hull. Here in my hometown is a company which offers a 3D laserscan service. O.k. that is a strange basis for "real" reconstruction, but as a starter At least above the waterline a reconstruction seems thinkable.

At the other side: the ships most famous time of course is the time of THE race - and its very special design in this time... while her 1887 times she was not the same ship any more ... becoming more a "toy" of a rich guy, who used her in a very special way ... Again on the other side: HE took care of her.

GM, I love what you do with the model!

I just placed an order tonight with Syren for the line I will need. I am laying out he BJ blocks and deadeyes for painting. There will be some progress this wekend,

GM - the wood decking you did really makes this model 'pop'. You mentioned the wood strips used came from Blue Jacket. Do remember what dimensions the strips were? Your attention to details on this kit are very well done! Thanks for sharing this post to me. ;)

GM said:

"There will be some progress this wekend,"

That was some time ago - I wonder, GM, how things have progressed since then?

Way off topic :

Looking back in this thread to some very interesting commentary by professor Tilley I noticed the use of the phrase "under weigh" (See page 4 of this thread for the full discourse). The specific paragraph is:

"The second shot is even more interesting. The ship seems to be in the process of getting under weigh*.The photo clearly shows the configuration of the sails when they're being unfurled. (Or maybe I've got it backwards; maybe the ship is coming to anchor, and the sails are being furled.)"

*Note: My Italics, underscoring, and bold lettering. 1943Mike

That got me wondering about its meaning and whether or not the raising up of an anchor is associated with the phrase. At any rate, since I've nothing much to do until I head to the gym in a short time, I made some cursory explorations into the terminology. Here's what I found:

http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2015/12/under-weigh.html

1943mike - Great post! As a longtime admirer of the OED, I'll yield to its expertise and quit typing "under weigh."

John, I hope you know that what I wrote was strickly an etymological discursion and nothing more. As far as I'm concerned the phrases in question are now considered - by lexographers - as variants in spelling and you should go on writing whichever form seems apropos at that moment.

I've always enjoyed your comments and erudition on things nautical and on the craft of model making and I know that this site would be so much poorer without your knowledgable, helpful voice. It's your wealth of information on the subjects about which many of us are interested and your ability to write clearly on them that I for one (of many I'm sure) am profoundly grateful.

Mr. Morrison,

I’m about to start  the Revell America— any chance you can fix some of those broken photobucket links in this thread?  (I know what a PITA this is— I had to fix a bunch of links in my build threads over in the scale boats forum on regroups.com....)

-Bill

Sure, I'd be happy to.

Shave stanchions from inside of bulwarks. They are too few and too flat.

Sand down grain and copper detail on hull.

Remove deck furniture for planking.

This is a little hard to explain. Pair of strips in the bilge are to step the masts. It doesn't set fore-aft but it sets side-to-side.

Also removed ledge cast for deck so it can be lowered a little on new supports, to allow for wood thickness.

Glue curved pieces on underside of deck to give it some camber.

New waterways around edge of installed deck. New stanchions. rough copings for deck houses, which will overlap. Mark locations of deck plank ends, which match frames, and stanchions. Start to lay deck, working back from grub beam at deck break. Base for skylight. New grating in bottom of cockpit.

Make cap rails by rubbing pattern on trace, which I use to cut curved pieces out of thin wood panel.

Bowsprit.

And copper.

Last of all, a new skylight.

And masts.

Now I'm motivated to finish!

Thanks for sharing these pics!

Did I understand correctly that you used gold leaf on the raised detail?  That sounds like a great idea— Any tips on doing that?

-Bill

Also, you mentioned way back at the start that you didn’t use the soft sails from your old edition of the kit.  Do you still have them?  If yes, would you be interested in selling them? (I’d use them on another RC conversion build.....)

Hi Bill,

I think the sails are history at this point, but I'll look around.

The gold leaf was roundly critiqued by Tilley, and it was so-so.

I am pretty familiar with it. Blick sells a kit, it's not gold. I happen to have a supply of real leaf. You apply size, which is like white glue, with a brush wherever you want leaf to be.

Then you apply little pieces of leaf on the end of a Q tip or such. When it's all dry, brush it and the non-adhered parts come off.

Bill

So GM, can we expect more WIP text and images from you on this build?

I, for one, am very interested in your continuing to work on her. She's such a beautiful ship and to model her well, as I know you can and will, is a delight to watch. It's also a thread from which, if my skills are up to it, I may use some of your techniques and building know how. In other words, I selfishly want you to continue the project so I might learn a bit more about how a skilled modeler builds a model of a gorgeous sailing vessel.

Fright- It's 1/16" x 1/16' from Blue Jacket. Thats 4" at 1/64 scale. Small for a ship but as far as I can tell, correct for this yacht. There aren't really good drawings of the deck itself.

I have a micro table saw that can make small sections, but making that kind of thing is just too laborous.

So my wife put you up to this, didn't she? I had to get the model down from the SoD and it's now on the bench...

GM - LOL in a way that's a good thing - she is pretty to look at! Thanks for your reply. I guessed the BJ referred to Blue Jacket and my guestament on the strips was round 1/16" x 1/32". Close but no cigar  Thanks again and say hello to that City by the Bay - Cheers!

Actually, I think you are right! I don't have easy access to my wood storage, but I looked at the rough opening where the masts insert, and it does look to be 1/32" x 1/16". Good call.

The most important thing is to mark where the ends of the planks occur on the sub deck. Those are over deck beams, and this allowed them to be lined up with the bulwark stanchions which are attached to the ends of the frames. All of this looks better when it's organized.

I don't know anything about how wood deck planking was laid on steel decks..

I'm interested to see your project.

Bill

GMorrison

about how wood deck planking was laid on steel decks

If US capital ships are any guide, the metal deck plates are overlaid with "Z" or "C" channels arranged to drain to the scuppers.  The sleepers have gaps in their lines, which are staggered in alternating rows--again, to allow for drainage.

Typically, the sleepers (which are circa 1.5" to 2.5"/30-50mm tall) are set with threaded studs.  The wooden planks are then drilled to fit over the studs, with a counter-bore for the washer and nut, over which a bung is truck to hide the fastener.

Some of the early ships used sleepers which were bored, then tapped, so threaded bolts could be passed through the planking.

US ships used planks of about 3.5 x 3.5" (88-99mm square) often as long as 24' (7.3m) laid with a 1:4 stagger (each plank started a frame/sleeper aft of the first until the fourth, then the butt end moved forward even with the first).

There's a whole subcategory for that stagger. According to Longridge, Nelson stagger had start/ 1 back/ 2 forward/ 3 back.

I stagger one step forward and two steps back after a couple of shots of Shackelton. Good whiskey BTW.

I did a little reading after I posed the ?. What you describe is what would make sense, esp. over an armored deck which certainly isn't something anyone could drill holes through. Those "hat" channels could be welded to the deck.

Ships in the composite era had iron deck beams which included a wide top flange that had pre-drilled holes. Those were a guide through which the bolt hole was drilled from below, and countersunk on top for the washer/ nut and the plug.

The woodie builders attach an underlayment like 3/4" plywood over the beams and screw the planks to that.

And one article described how Titanic had clear yellow pine for the passenger decks, pitch pine for the heavy traffic areas and teak on the anchor deck.

My understanding is that the USN screwed down steel plates over the wood planking on the Essex ships, covered that with non-skid; when the jets came. Full circle.

CapnMac82

US ships used planks of about 3.5 x 3.5" (88-99mm square) often as long as 24' (7.3m) laid with a 1:4 stagger (each plank started a frame/sleeper aft of the first until the fourth, then the butt end moved forward even with the first).

 

GMorrison

I stagger one step forward and two steps back after a couple of shots of Shackelton. Good whiskey BTW. 

GM:   

+1 on the Shackleton!  I really like it.

Hey ;

 Watch it ! I do have a small sliver from the wood underlayment on the Hornet though . 

GMorrison

 

Tanker Builder has his piece from the Maine, he was an OPO.

 

I have a piece from the ESSEX that was saved when she was being cut up. An association member that lived in New Jersey noticed her being cut at the breakers yard and made arrangements to obtain some of the flight deck planking. He also took progressive pictures of her as she was being cut up. I have copies of those too. She was decommissioned 4 years after I served on her and was cut up a couple years later. We made displays of them and issued them to shipmates at our reunions.

 I had trouble photographing this as it's mounted in a glass case. The plank piece is a rectangle shape, about 3/4 in thick, mounted on a decorative piece with the cutout routed corners.

I'm very glad to have it.

EJ

GMorrison - the work that you are doing on this kit is to be admired. Great job and look forward to future posts on your build. Thanks for posting!

gmorrison only just caught up with this build , really nice work , your a talented scratch builder , keep the pic's coming please .

steve5