HMS Victory build

how do you post images i really cant get it ???please help me sumone.

You could just rig the standing rigging but that in my opinion would be a shame. It is usual even on ships without sails bent to show a fair amount of running rigging - braces, lifts, clues, tacks, etc.

I would suggest you obtain one or both of two books on the subject:-

The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships - C.N. Longridge

The 100 Gun Ship Victory - John MacKay.

I have started on Heller's HMS Victory but do not intend to rig it with sails.  So can I assume that standing rigging is all that I would need to worry about or should the running rigging be attached?  The instructions assume the plastic sheets will be used.

Where or what do you use for the ratlines? given that at this scale, I'm looking for a thread thats 0.1mm in Dia!

I know I could use thin wire for this, but I also want to produce lines in the 0.5mm range so need the fine thread for the ropewalk. (the electric shaver ropewalk is working so well, I can't believe it!)

So, 0.1mm thread, anyone?

Just added a thread in the tecniques section for a quick and dirty ropewalk:

http://www.finescale.com/FSM/CS/forums/571328/ShowPost.aspx

I personally think sailing ships models look more impressive with sails furled.   

My girlfriend got me the Longridge book for Christmas from a used book store. All the drawings are intact but I didn't want to keep folding them in and out as I needed them so I took it to work and copied the foldouts onto heavy paper. She also ordered the McKay "100-gun Ship Victory" from Amazon that I should be receiving shortly. Unfortunately I'm putting it up in dry-dock until spring since I can't do any airbrushing here in the winter. I'm still going through piece by piece to get anything painted by brush as I can. I'm feeling a lot more confident about the rigging with all the extremely detailed illustrations and text in the Longridge book. My only concern now lies with the sails and what to do with them. I'm thinking the vac-form ones may not look so bad once I airbrush them with a convincing canvas color. Ideally I'd like to only put out the tops'ls and t'gallants and have the main and courses furled as if for battle. I don't even know if I want to bother with stays.

I need to put forth my huge recommendation for the Longridge book. I don't think you'll find a more useful resource for building a model of the Victory, or any ship-rigged vessel, anywhere. The only thing better would be to live near Portsmouth and have the Longridge book. Even skimming through parts of it relevant to where I'm at with my model now made me feel much more at ease that I'm doing things right.

jtilley wrote:

Researchers have done a bit of rethinking in recent years about the red paint on British (and other) sailing warships. .....

The red color paint continues to be used for the cable tier of warships long after its use has been abandoned on other interior surface of warships.   It seem unlikely that the cable tier needed extra camoufalge against blood.   In anycase, deck is where most blood would end up, and there was no evidence that the deck was ever painted red.    I read somewhere that red of simply the natural color of the cheapest common water proof, hardwearing paint.  

jtilley wrote:

I don't read Japanese, but the photos are enough to establish that this is a beautiful model.  It's also enormous.  On the basis of the metric dimensions (165 cm long, minus the jibboom and flying jibboom), I figure it must be on 1/32 scale or thereabouts. It contains some really subtle details that elude most modelers of the ship.  This is the only Victory model I've encountered, for instance, that shows the distinction between the rows of windows in the transom.  (The windows in the top two rows have hinges.  Those in the bottom row have sliding sashes.)  The rigging is indeed beautiful.  The modelers notes that he found it easy to make the rope sag realistically, simply because it's so big.  He also says that the sheer overall size of the model is going to keep him from installing the rest of the spars.  That is indeed a shame.

 

Just found referance to scale, she built to 1/48, that's a big girl!

I don't read Japanese, but the photos are enough to establish that this is a beautiful model.  It's also enormous.  On the basis of the metric dimensions (165 cm long, minus the jibboom and flying jibboom), I figure it must be on 1/32 scale or thereabouts.

It contains some really subtle details that elude most modelers of the ship.  This is the only Victory model I've encountered, for instance, that shows the distinction between the rows of windows in the transom.  (The windows in the top two rows have hinges.  Those in the bottom row have sliding sashes.) 

The rigging is indeed beautiful.  The modelers notes that he found it easy to make the rope sag realistically, simply because it's so big.  He also says that the sheer overall size of the model is going to keep him from installing the rest of the spars.  That is indeed a shame.

This was posted on another site, and is not in English but it does have some great shots, anyone building this ship would do well to have a look over these as the level of detail is mind blowing.

JT in particular, I'd like to hear your comments on this one, the rigging to me looks simply stunning.

http://homepage3.nifty.com/shiphome/victory-page.htm

Just had a look over that site, there are some nice looking models in there, just makes mine look silly actualy

It's getting quite painfull everytime I view another victory as they all seem to be so much better built and painted.

Would be nice if I could view the images in greater size but I'm not sure if the site lets you do that, maybe just my firewall.

Dear Mr Vapochilled and his HMS Victory modelling friends.

Could I please bring to your attention to my website: http://www.hms-victory-build.co.uk which I named before seeing this forum!!

 This is my website forum address: http://www.chumster.co.uk/forum/index.php?mforum=bobbie 
I would love you all to stop by for a visit and a chat..............

My very best regards,
Pete Coleman.
England.

In my opinion, this is a good red (red ochre) :

http://www.ancre.fr/ModHist/ModHist_2.htm

Michel

 

See now I was not at all happy with the way they turned out the first time, so I stripped and resprayed, still not happy. But what I think happened was by accident, the first attempt stuck between the planks and has given it a better look,lol

All by accident, but still not perfect.

Vapochilled- took a peek at some of your website pics....pretty awesome. I was wondering- how did you make that deck look so  darn good? Did you use any oils, etc?

Danke Sehr! 

Researchers have done a bit of rethinking in recent years about the red paint on British (and other) sailing warships.  Old legend had it that the red paint was intended to camouflage blood stains.  Modern thinking is that the stuff was simply a good, durable color that was used to protect surfaces (accept those that were to be walked on, or painted another color for some other specific reason) from the weather. 

Most of the old contemporary models I've seen use a bright, bang-on-the-back-of-your-eyeballs red.  It's possible, though, that those modelers were using artists' colors rather than the paints that were used on the real ships. 

The Victory' s website uses the term "dull, matt red ochre."  "Dull" in this case may just refer to the finish  ("dull" as opposed to "glossy").  But if the photos on the website are any guide, "dull" is a good way to describe the color as well.  It appears to be a medium, somewhat brownish red - not bright at all.

As I mentioned earlier, there were no official rules about paint colors in those days.  Even if the original paint was pretty bright, red paint fades faster than any other color.  Combine the effects of age, light, rain, and saltwater, and you can justify just about any shade of red you like.  For what little it's worth, I've built several warship models over the past thirty years on which I used bright red for the internal works, but if I were doing one today I'd use a much toned-down, brownish red.  My suggestion is:  if you don't like the red you've got, feel free to change it.

I'll give out my secret for my yellow ochre if you want to get the "sad, yellow colour" that describes the color in its day. I started with a large jar (23ml) of Tamiya dark yellow (XF-60) and added about one pipette full up to the bulb of Tamiya flat yellow (XF-3). I thought the dark yellow color just a bit too brown when I first started using it. Now it's more of a barely-yellowish tan. That's just my taste though, I think the straight yellows (or "sunflower" yellow) are just too darn bright.

I did use the Tamiya gold leaf for the gold leaf work. I think the small jar will last me the ship since it only takes two brush coats to get good cover over any color.

The one color that I wasn't too confident about was red ochre. It calls for bright red and even the paint comparison chart pointed to a bright red Tamiya which just seems too bright and cheery in contrast to my sad yellow. Who knows, maybe red ochre (being one of the cheapest of paints in the day) was that bright. Fortunately on the interior of the ship I put down a layer of very diluted black with the airbrush so that the red (and greenish white) interior has some variance and it came out rather well. I'm going to have to use the same method to go over the gun decks themselves as that bright red on the white plastic is nigh luminescent.

Lufberry - That's one of the more ingenious ideas I've seen in a long time.  Dr. Feldman knows what he's doing; his Lexington practicum will, I hope, strip back a great deal of the nonsense that's been written about that interesting ship over the years.

On the other hand, I have to say that actually rigging 32 gun tackles doesn't really take long - if you do it in one, systematic batch.  My guess is that, once you've got the blocks ready to go, you can do at least that many in one evening.  As usual, the first one will take at least five times as long as the last, but once you get in the groove the job goes pretty fast.

Modelbauer 14 - The real Victory actually has remarkably little gold paint on her.  (When she was built she presumably had a great deal more, but by 1805 - the configuration the Heller kit represents - gold leaf was almost out of fashion.)  Some of the details on the figurehead and the heraldic carvings at the top of the transom are gold.  (If I remember right, that includes the heads of the arrows, the bands around the relief-carved cannon barrels, and maybe some of the details on the Prince of Wales' feathers.  That's about it.)  So are some of the carvings under the canopies of the entry ports, which Heller omitted.  (I'm inclined to think Heller was right - but let's not get into that one again.)  The window frames, pilasters, human figures, and other carvings on the transom and quarter galleries are in fact yellow on a black background. 

Here's a link to the ship's website, which describes the color scheme:

www.hms-victory.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id-41&Itemid=44

If you click on that link you may initially be told you don't have access to the page.  Click on "Model Makers" on the left side of the page, under "Main Menu," and the page for modelers will come up.  Click on "Colour Scheme."

There's some room for interpretation and taste regarding the "dull yellow ochre."  The general consensus seems to be that it was an extremely dull, slightly brownish, medium yellow.  The Tamiya shade probably is, if anything, a bit on the bright side.  But there were no official rules regarding paint in those days.  If you play around with the ship's website a little you'll find lots of photos.  My suggestion is to give them a look as sources of inspiration, and combine that with your own judgment.

In any case, I suspect those little spots of gold won't be much of a distraction on the finished model - regardless of the brand of gold paint.

Hope this helps a little.

I'm having a bit of a dilema regarding the painting of the stern gallery-the tamiya  gold-leaf acrylic which I am using is far from the actual color of this part of the ship in real life. This particular color gives off too much "sparkle". Which manufacturer do you think makes the best paint for the job? Also, would using tamiya flat yellow and black be too dull for the ship's main paint scheme on the sides, or does it really matter?

-Thanks a lot!

jtilley wrote:

It would indeed be unusual for the side tackles to be unrigged.  But lots of models - including contemporary ones - don't include them.  The breeching lines, on the other hand, are almost always present.  They're also considerably easier to rig than train tackles.  My suggestion would be to include the breechings if at all possible; the guns look dangerous in their absence.  As to the train tackles - well, I think that (like everything else) is best left up to the individual modeler.

What you describe is exactly what Clay Feldman suggests for the cannons on the Brig Lexington model for which he's leading a practicum. Details on the cannon rigging can be found here:

http://www.briglex.org/ChapterSix/Ch6ConstTips.htm

Regards,

More footage:

http://www.hmsvictory.ngfl.gov.uk/victory/index.cfm?p=gallery&s=y&type=&kw=Search%20the%20Gallery&start=29

(some are more or less boring)

Here's a link to HMS Victory footage, just in case you're interested.

http://www.hmsvictory.ngfl.gov.uk/victory/index.cfm?p=activity&la=3&id=715

It would indeed be unusual for the side tackles to be unrigged.  But lots of models - including contemporary ones - don't include them.  The breeching lines, on the other hand, are almost always present.  They're also considerably easier to rig than train tackles.  My suggestion would be to include the breechings if at all possible; the guns look dangerous in their absence.  As to the train tackles - well, I think that (like everything else) is best left up to the individual modeler.  I certainly wouldn't bother with them on guns that aren't in exposed positions.

jtilley wrote:

The breeching was a permanent fixture; in its absence the gun was a dangerous thing.  The tackles weren't necessarily kept set up all the time - particularly the ones hooked to the back end of the carriage.

Actually, side (training) tackles are always set up.   Otherwise the gun would still be able to coast freely between the port sill and the limit of the breaching.    In fact, the hooks on the side tackles are normally stopped with a mouse hitch to prevent their easy removal.   If a model depicts a ship with breeching rope but no side tackles, it would be an omission, not a representation of any real-life configuration.

The only exception would be some guns situated in smaller cabins that would normally be boused sideways, their barrels parallel to the axis of the ship, to save space when not in use.  When those guns are stowed, their training tackles are removed.

So on the victory, all the guns would would have their side tackles mounted all the time whether the guns are run in, run out, or boused up.   The only exception are the 2 quarter deck guns that normally occupy the master's and the secretary's cabins are either side of the wheel, and perhaps a few aftermost guns on the middle deck, which occupies Lieutenant's cabins.  Those guns would be bound  against the ship's side and be turned around to face the front when not in use.  They would not have training tackles when not in use.



    

jtilley wrote:

I suspect all Victory builders will discover sooner or later that rigging lines have an amazing ability to get hung up on protruding gun muzzles and, when yanked vigorously, to dismount guns entirely.  It's relatively easy to slide a barrel back through a port and into its place on its carriage, but not so easy to glue a carriage back down onto the lower deck.  Moral:  be sure the carriages of the lower deck gus are firmly - and I mean firmly - stuck to the decks.  They won't be visible on the finished model; epoxy, superglue, bolts and nuts, rivets, or any other fixing devices will be appropriate.  Don't be so determined to fasten the barrels irrevocably to the carriages.  If you do snag one of them on an errant rigging line, better for the barrel to come loose than for it to break.

 

Too late, too late the fair maiden cried!

I have now stuck, or should I say re-stuck about seven guns! I'll know next time

I can't imagine what Heller was talking about regarding yellow stripes on gun barrels.  I've never heard of such a thing.

I'm not sure about the bow ports, but I think the openings in question may be bridle ports - for handling anchor gear, rather than guns.  It would be a good idea to take a look at a good set of plans for the area of the deck in question.  Heller - quite understandably - didn't include many of the fixtures on the lower decks.  There may or may not have been room behind those ports to handle guns.

On my last warship model, the frigate Hancock, I only put the side tackles on the guns that were visible on the finished model - i.e., those on the quarterdeck, on the forecastle, and in the waist. I omitted all the rear tackles; they'd trip anybody trying to transit the deck, and I thought the model was sufficiently cluttered without them.  For the maindeck guns under the quarterdeck and forecastle I didn't even bother putting wheels on the carriages.  The barrels sit on simplified styrene "carriages" that look fine through the gunports, but otherwise serve just to hold the barrels in the right places.

I suspect all Victory builders will discover sooner or later that rigging lines have an amazing ability to get hung up on protruding gun muzzles and, when yanked vigorously, to dismount guns entirely.  It's relatively easy to slide a barrel back through a port and into its place on its carriage, but not so easy to glue a carriage back down onto the lower deck.  Moral:  be sure the carriages of the lower deck gus are firmly - and I mean firmly - stuck to the decks.  They won't be visible on the finished model; epoxy, superglue, bolts and nuts, rivets, or any other fixing devices will be appropriate.  Don't be so determined to fasten the barrels irrevocably to the carriages.  If you do snag one of them on an errant rigging line, better for the barrel to come loose than for it to break.

Not to mention that in the Heller instruction the bands around the base of the barrel were supposed to be painted yellow ochre. After little though that was right out. I don't think I could handle painting those two bands x104 without going insane. As for painting the muzzles red I think it's going to be one of those debates like the entry ports.

I had been planning on rigging the breeching for all the upper gun deck guns. I don't think I'll go as far as rigging the blocks on the hull for running the gun out though. I plan on putting at least two guns on the weather deck somewhere and I may very likely rig those fully to the best of my ability.

I had also toyed with cutting open the two bow chaser ports and putting a pair of 24s up there. I love chasers, be them bow or stern. The only thing keeping me from doing so is proper skill at cutting out something like that. Once cut out I could sand off the "hinges" that are on there and make new ones from sheet stock easily enough. Would you just use a fine pin vise bit in the four corners and then use some sort of coarse wire to cut between them, or do you gradually score it right through?

Re gun muzzle colors - There's certainly room for a little variety here; I'm sure not all ships painted their guns identically.  But there's plenty of evidence, in the form of contemporary paintings and models, that red muzzles were quite common.  Some old models, in fact, show red paint on the whole barrel back as far as the first molding.  The Victory currently has red muzzles.  The people in charge of her probably had good reason to paint them that way; those folks know what they're doing.  But I'm not aware of any evidence that black muzzles would actually be wrong.

Re gun rigging - the rigging of a typical long gun (the carronade is a little different) falls into two categories.  The breeching line was an extremely heavy rope that ran either around the cascabel (the ball at the breech end of the barrel) or through a heavy iron ring cast on top of the cascabel.  The ends of the breeching were seized to heavy eyebolts in the ship's side.  The purpose of the breeching was to stop the gun from recoiling through the other side of the ship, and more generally to keep it in position.  (Without the breeching the notorious "loose cannon on the gundeck" phenomenon would take place.)

The other category of gun rigging consisted of the block and tackle used to run the gun in and out, and to train it horizontally. Generally there were three such tackles:  one on the right side, one on the left, and one behind the gun.  They ran from eyebolts in the carriage to eyebolts in the bulwarks (for the side tackles) or the deck inboard of the gun.  Each tackle consisted of two blocks (either two singles or a single and a double, depending on the size of the gun).

The breeching was a permanent fixture; in its absence the gun was a dangerous thing.  The tackles weren't necessarily kept set up all the time - particularly the ones hooked to the back end of the carriage.  (They'd be a menace to anybody walking along the length of the deck.)  Lots of modelers omit the tackles; others install the side ones but not the rear ones.  I wouldn't bother with the guns that can only be viewed through the ports, but the ones whose carriages are visible can benefit quite a bit from having at least their breechings rigged.

For a model on this scale those Bluejacket 3/32" blocks would be about right for this job.  The easiest way to install such pieces of gear is to rig them off the model.  Drill the holes for the various eyebolts (any of the reference books we've discussed in this thread will show where they go).  Make the eyebolts out of wire (we've discussed that trick earlier too), and set up a simple jig consisting of headless pins that are the right distance apart, stuck in a piece of wood.  Slip the eyebolts over the pins, and rig the breeching or tackle between them.  Then glue the eyebolts into the holes in the model.  It's kind of time consuming, but makes quite a difference to the finished model's appearance.  And, like so many other aspects of this hobby, the job has a steep but short learning curve.  You'll find that rigging the first set of tackles may take half an hour, but the tenth one will take ten minutes.

Hope this helps a little.  Good luck.