Model Shipways "Sultana" Group Build 2006

That's a perfectly legitimate - and traditional - way to bend wood.  It works even better if the can is full of hot water.

Another trick (which I haven't tried, but those who have tell me it works beautifully) is to soak the wood for an hour or so in ammonia.  That sometimes discolors the wood (the technique is best for parts that are destined to be painted), but the ammonia apparently relaxes the wood structure (temporarily) even more effectively than hot water.

Hmm... thanks jtilley. I do have a B&D Workmate and from your description it doesn't sound too risky to switch out baseboards at the end. Your tips about rigging are duly noted - I would not have thought about that. I am so glad to be surrounded by you experts during my maiden build. I think I will make a temporary baseboard like you suggest.

That's funny about you floating your Hancock model. Boy are you brave. You should have gotten someone to take a photo of you doing that. In fact can you point me to a site where you have photos of your Hancock? I'd love to see it.

Donnie, looks you are moving on with your planking. As I said before I'm going to skip planking on my maiden build. Put up some planking photos soon please?

This afternoon I made a start carving the bulwarks. Easier than I had imagined but still not something I plan on rushing. Photos once I am done.

I suspect a lot of Forum members are thoroughly sick of looking at my pictures, but here's a link to them (courtesy of our good friend Michel.vrtg, who was kind enough to post them on his site):  http://www.hmsvictoryscalemodels.be/johntilleygallery.htm  The Bounty is based on the old Revell 1/110-scale plastic kit; the Phantom is a somewhat modified version of the Model Shipways kit, which at that time was being sold with a cast resin hull. (The current version has a pre-carved solid wood hull, like the Sultana kit.)  The Hancock, on the scale of 3/32"=1', is scratchbuilt.

I've thought about taking a photo of the Hancock in the water, but it wouldn't look right.  The model apparently is a little heavy for the scale; it rides with the wales under water.  I like to claim, though, that it's got just about as many miles on it as the original ship did (prior to her capture by the British).  The model's hull crossed the Atlantic once - inside a cardboard box, inside a suitcase, in the baggage compartment of a TWA airliner.  That was in the halcyon days of the late seventies, when one-way tickets from New York to London were selling for $135 - and even a starving grad student could afford one.

The B&D Workmate is a really versatile ship modeling tool.  You can use those orange plastic clamping dogs to hold your model's baseboard.  Keep your feet on the Workmate and the model will, to all intents and purposes, be rigid.

You'll probably find you have all sorts of occasions to pick up the finished model without the baseboard.  When you (or your assistant) do so, it's worth remembering three basic rules that people in museums learn about handling artifacts:  1.  Always use both hands.  2. Never pick it up without figuring out in advance exactly where you're going to put it down.  3.  Don't carry it by hand over any distance if you can avoid it.

Those are all really nice models. Wow! I must admit rigging is beginning to frighten me :) Luckily I am up for the challenge. All in due course.

Thanks for sharing those. Where did you get all the sailors from? I think they really bring the models to life as if you modelled the scene in the process of getting uderway or whatever.

Many thanks.  Don't let the rigging of the Sultana scare you.  That ship has about a tenth as much of it as either the Hancock or the Bounty - and you're working on a scale that's twice as large.  That kit is just about the best one I can think of for introducing rigging.

The figures on the Bounty and Hancock models are came from plastic kits - sometimes with fairly extensive modifications.  The following oddly-assorted kits have figurest that are the right size:

Revell - Bounty, Santa Maria, and harbor tug Long Beach.  (The Continental Marine on the Hancock's forecastle started out as the soldier with the helmet and breastplate in the Santa Maria, and the captain of the tugboat is standing on the footrope under the spritsail yard.)

Airfix - Endeavour.

Aurora (ex-ITC) - Sea Witch.  (The figures in that kit are pretty obviously pirated from the aforementioned Revell kits, sometimes with their poses altered a little.)

The figures on the Phantom are HO railroad people from the excellent range made by Preiser, of Germany.  Preiser figures come in two forms:  small sets (five to eight people each), prepainted (not very well, but quite expensive), and large sets, unpainted (terrific bargains).  These particular guys came from a big box of nineteenth-century railroad people.  (As a matter of fact the figurehead of the Hancock is also a Preiser figure. On the real ship he was larger than life size.  By pure coincidence, putting the model on 3/32"=1' made an HO person just the right size.  He's got a new hat, new legs, and new jacket, from sheet styrene.)  The cat looking down the after hatch of the Phantom is from a set of cats and dogs made by Woodland Scenics, painted in the markings of my landlord, Willie II.  The checkerboard is also from a Woodland Scenics set; the checkers themselves are slices of plastic rod.

HO scale is1/87, which obviously is a little bigger than the Phantom's 1/96.  The people who sculpted the masters for HO figure sets, however, seem to have different ideas about how tall adult human beings are.  In a given Preiser box some of the people are going to be conspicuously too big; others are right about six feet tall.  If you're looking for a crew for a 1/96-scale ship, it's worth looking through the stock in the railroad department of a good hobby shop.  Quite a few companies make figures that can be pressed into service.

It should also be remembered that the big Revell sailing ship kits, the Cutty Sark, Constitution, and Kearsarge (and their clones), contain beautifully-sculpted figures on 1/96 scale.  So does the company's so-called "Spanish Galleon," which otherwise doesn't deserve to be labeled a scale model.  So does the little Revell Golden Hind. 

I've never wrestled with the problem of finding people on the Sultana's scale, 3/16"=1' (or 1/64).  Such individuals should be about 1 1/8" tall (or a little shorter).  I don't know of any commercially-available figures that meet that description - though I think Model Expo may offer some cast metal ones. 

It might be worth looking at some of the many sets wargamers' figures on 1/72 scale.  A six-foot person on 1/72 scale would be 1" tall; he or she would be 5'4" on the Sultana's scale.  That's not an unreasonable height - especially in the eighteenth century.  (We've all heard that people were shorter in those days.  The difference is often exaggerated in the popular imagination, but there's some truth to it.  And some individuals are still 5'4" tall.  I happen to be one of them, as a matter of fact.)  Most of the 1/72 sets I've seen are molded in soft plastic, which makes it tough for paint to stick to them when they're handled.  But on a model in a glass or plexiglas case that's not a problem.

I agree completely that figures add a great deal to a ship model.  One of my heroes is Harold Hahn, who carves his own exquisite figures out of wood.  His "Colonial Shipyard" diorama in the Mariners' Museum, where I used to work, is a masterpiece - and includes a wonderful model of the Sultana. 

Wow, that's a lot of effort to go to to get a crew, but it's worth every bit of it. It looks great.

My first pass at carving the bulwarks and steps is done. Subject to further sanding and more TLC, here's what I have so far. OK, so I'm not the most accurate carver in the world, but it's my maiden build so I'm allowed leeway, right? ;-) Luckily the deck planking will cover a lot of my sins.

Fippy,
it looks like you are well on your way to some great progress there. Keep up the good work - looking good!

Donnie
I hope that I can do some pics tonight of my upper planking.

Fippy,

That looks like it is coming along well.  I have been busy with other projects for past couple of weeks but I can now get back to this one and I am looking forward to stirring up some more dust.  Looks like you are really blazing a fine trail Donnie.

Keep those photos coming so I know what I'm heading for.

Bruce

Some progress - had to do some major carving sanding again after I started laying the planks down. The planks don't lie - gotta have a trued hull.









enjoy
Donnie

Donnie,

I think it looks great.  That was why I used such thick planking.  Afterwards you have some extra thickness so you can sand it to shape further.  It does look nice.  Your planks look to be about 1/16"  thick.  Are they?   After a final sanding you will be very pleased.  If I remember correctly you were planning on using thinner planks on the inside of the bulwarks.  I would recommend using thicker planks.  With the planking process underway you can see why that is best.  What type of wood are your planks?  It looks like bass wood.

I cant wait to see pictures after it is sanded and stained.  Will you be using tree nails?  Are you happy with the results?  As a technique, planking above the wales and creating a stepped hull?  I am just curious.

 

Chuck

I am using 1/32 thick planks by 3/32 wide. I cut my own planks out of a sheet of 1/32" thick Basswood. I used the stripper that I made. I don't think that the advertised 1/32" thick was exact. I think it was just a tad thicker. I think like you and using the same for inside the bulwarks. The rest I am not sure of. I must asked a question: what is a stepped hull? 
I think that I am going to take a pin vise and imitate the nails. I am sure that you will cringe, but I plan to paint the hull and not stain it. So far, I am happy with what is going on here - has been alot of work, but all in all, it has been worth the extra effort. I think that Fippy is carving his hull - and as a matter of fact, he is really doing a great job of carving his hull. He has alot of determination and patience. This is what is good about the SGB, it is that each person can do what they want - again - thanks Chuck for your incouragement.

Donnie

The "stepped hull" just refers to the carved 1/16" receesed area that you carved around the hull to accept the planks.  It is coming along great.  Painting the hull sounds fine.  What I enjoy most about this hobby is the ability to take a kit and make it my own.  I should have the two masts completed this weekend along with the shrouds and stays.  Again a question arises.  Should I create a mouse for the stays or not?  How about a mouse for the fore stay and not the main stay?  Or none at all?  The so-called experts continue to debate this point.  I know this is jumping ahead for most of you, but I thought I would mention it.  Does it really matter.  As long as you build the model neatly and with first-rate craftsmanship it becomes a personal preference.  Like Harold Hahn,  I will probably show the fore stay with a mouse and the main stay without one.  Having fun as always.

 

Chuck

Donnie, that planking looks great! Wow, I doubt I could have done a job as good as that, at least not without practice - it looks fiddly. I agree with Chuck that when you have finished it should look awesome. I notice that you have less planking than Chuck, but again personal preference - I like both ways.

I also agree with what  Chuck said about just doing things the way you want to even if it deviates from either the plans or the experts. At the end of the day we all have to look at our finished models all-day so they have to be what we like. It's fun to see how everyone in the SGB does things differently. I'm learning a heap of stuff even if I am not applying it yet.

Donnie, I think your planks will look ok painted too. Which brings me to colours. I notice that Chuck went with stained planks and red trim with a white hull below the wale. I've seen another Sultana model on the web that used blue trim. I've decided to paint my lower hull white, and yellow above the wale. I contemplated painting the trim blue, i.e. on the inner bulwarks, around the transom etc., but am not sure if yellow and blue will look wrong. I might just do it all yellow. Then black for the usual stuff. What colours are you using Donnie? And anyone else?

Right now I'm contemplating changing my wood filler. I'm not at my worktable, but I believe it is MMC White Putty for modellers, though it is actually a grey-blue colour. It dispenses very dry and seems to crumble easily on outside edges, although it does fill holes and cracks nicely. Is this typical. Reading other forums it seems that many people have had this problem with Elmers Filler and other types too.

Fippy,

 

Elmers is great stuff.  It is water based.  Just add a few drops of wate and stir.  You will like the consistancy.  Just dont water it down to much.  Add a little at a time until you have the consistancy you want.

I have also seen a dark green color paint for the inside bulwarks.  It didnt appeal to me.  I tried to use the color scheme as shown on the replica in MD.

Chuck

Hmm.. here's something that annoyed me tonight. I have a couple of blunt blades now after copious carving, so I bought a sharpening stone. I feel totally idiotic but I can't seem to get a sharp edge on my blades. I've tried scraping it at all angles in all directions. Oddly I didn't find much advice on the web either, other than "for x-acto blades, sharpen at 18 degrees." To vertical or horizintal? Do I need to oil the stone or not? Some say yes, others no. I obviously have no idea what I am doing here, he he. Does anyone know how to use a sharpening stone? Does anyone bother? Buying hundreds of blades is a little more expensive and wasteful than I really wanted to do. Thanks :)

http://www.ruthannzaroff.com/carving/toolcare.htm

try this link. I have never thought about sharpening xacto blades, I just bought a pack of them.

Donnie

First the easy part.  The "sharpening angle" (in this case 18 degrees) is the angle formed by the two faces of the blade, when viewed from the side.  So for sharpening purposes, the angle between the stone and the blade needs to be 18 degrees.

Books are available that are devoted entirely to sharpening.  Traditionally, it's an acquired skill.  In recent years various companies have designed a number of interesting jigs that hold the tool at precisely the right angle as it's being dragged over the stone (or stones).  (I'm not aware of any that would hold a tiny Xacto blade firmly enough, though.)  To sharpen a dull blade usually requires several stones, and the variety of stones on the market is mind-boggling.  There are India stones, Arkansas stones, ceramic stones, diamond stones, Japanese water stones, Chinese water stones, and probably quite a few I don't remember at the moment.  Whether or not to use oil or water as a lubricant depends on the type of stone.  Some free thinkers swear by abrasive papers stuck down to sheets of glass; others use jigs to hold their tools against stones rotating on electric grinders.

Watching an old-time wood carver who really knows how to sharpen is quite an experience.  In the goode olde dayes, butchers and barbers were experts at it.  Part of the routine of getting a haircut used to be watching the barber strop his razor, using a big strip of leather that hung down from the back of the chair.  He could get a - literally - razor-sharp edge in a few seconds.)  And the butcher had to learn to sharpen his knives and cleavers several times a day.  The one in our neighborhood would sharpen customers' cutlery for 25 cents a blade.

A few years ago I decided to give traditional sharpening a try.  I'm still learning, and it takes me a while to sharpen anything, but I'm proud to say I can sharpen a chisel or a Swiss Army knife well enough that I can usd it to shave the hair off my forearm without mutilating myself.  I normally use three stones:  a coarse black India (with oil), a fine red India (with oil), and an extra-fine grey Arkansas (with oil).  As the final step, I hone the edge on a wood-backed leather strop charged with a yellow honing compound stick.  All that is kind of fun and relaxing; I try to make myself hone my chisels, planes, and carving tools before I put them away at the end of a session.  And I sharpen my pocket knife once a month or so. 

Frankly, I've never bothered to sharpen an Xacto blade.  The steel they're made of isn't very good.  That means they don't hold an edge long.  It also means they don't cost much to replace.  A couple of years ago I bought a big supply of them in various shapes when Model Expo was selling them at bargain prices in a summer sale.  I haven't come close to using all of them up yet.

One trick I picked up from a friend:  Have two Xacto handles of different colors - say black and red.  When you get out a new blade, put it in the black handle, and transfer the old, dull one to the red handle.  If you need to use the knife for some brutal, crude job, like scraping paint or whacking a piece of hardwood roughly to shape, pick up the red handle.  For fine work, use the black one.  That will make your blades last longer.

Sorry about the lousy image. Battery running down on Camera -

Donnie

Whoa Nelly! Fuzzy or not, that is looking spectacular! 

Very nice Donnie.  "I love it when a plan comes together".  looking good.

Chuck Passaro

Yeah very very nice. Good job! Can't wait to see a non-fuzzy photo ;-)

Thanks everyone for the sharpening advice. It sounds like an artform I probably won't develop in a hurry, so I bought new blades and I'll practice sharpening the old ones every now and then.

I've made some good progress I think. My keel, stem and sternpost are cut and shaped. I snapped the tricky pieces of the stem twice, but super glue saved the day. I also put the camber on my decks, carved out the hole for the ladder and drilled the mast holes. I'm trying to get the serious deck preparation done before I attach the keel, paint and mount on the pedestals; then I shall put as little pressure on the pedestals as possible, I hope.

Which brings me to a question. It is hard from the plans and photos to decide which mast stands higher, foremast or mainmast. Opinions? Does it matter? Should they be equal height?

Here's how my masts look so far. (I know the masts converge but I have some play in them so I can accurately position them before glueing.



I think my rake looks about right too?

Normally in an eighteenth-century vessel the mainmast would be noticeably taller than the foremast.  The dimensions of all the spars, however, should be indicated quite clearly on the spar/sail plan that came with the kit.  The Model Shipways Sultana that I bought was one of the old, original ones, with plans by Howard I. Chapelle; as I understand it, the current issue comes with a different - and more detailed - set of plans.  But if they don't show the spar dimensions, my advice is to (a) throw them in the garbage can, and (b) see your attorney about filing suit against Model Shipways for selling such a thing.  Any wood kit that doesn't include spar dimensions has no business being on the market.

The spar plan may actually indicate the overal length of each spar (i.e., each mast, yard, gaff, and boom, plus the bowsprit) in numerical form.  If so, you need to pay heed to the fact that the overall lengths of the masts include the portion below the weather deck.  I suspect it's more likely that the spar/sail plan is just a full-size drawing of all the spars.  In that case, you need to measure the length of the mast from the deck to the masthead, and add the depth of the hole you drilled in the hull.

I frankly think you're worrying too much about putting pressure on the mounting pedestals.  If you use the wood screws that come with them, they'll be the sturdiest components of the model.  If you're worried about cracking something by making the model lean over to one side, you can shove an appropriately-sized piece of scrap wood under each bilge to take the strain.  If I were you I'd drill those holes in the bottom as soon as possible.  The danger of breaking something on the deck when the hull is upside down and you're drilling those holes is far greater than the chance of damaging the pedestals by putting pressure on them.

Good luck.

Fippy

Great progress.  The main mast is noticably taller than the fore mast.  I suspect you may be missing one of the plan sheets.  You should have two large rolled sheets of plans.  One with the hull construction details and the other with the rigging plan.  The rigging plan shows every mast and spar drawn to scale.  Do you have that plan?  Anyway, I havent glued my masts into the deck permanently yet.  I still have to attach some blocks and eye bolts.  I dry fit them so the angles may not be correct but both masts rake significantly towards the stern.  As you can see the main mast is taller.  You have some time before you will need them, but looking at the lower masts in your photo I see that they are almost identical in length.  The next chapter of my guide should be available soon and will document the mast construction in detail.  Keep the sawdust flying.

Chuck

I'm still confused about the masts. On your pic above Chuck, does the main mast end at the lowest black piece (Don't know the terminology sorry) or the upper black piece, i.e. at the bottom of where the "mast extension" joins or the top?

I have a 2nd set of plans with rigging but it does not mention the height of the masts. In my diagram, the main mast is only marginally taller than the foremast, less than half the difference on your model, Chuck. Though the plan says it is to scale, I would have to shorten the dowels considerably, which the instructions do not say. If I lay my dowel on the plans, it goes about 3 inches into the hull. That can't be right? So am I supposed the shorten the dowels? My guess is that the mast dowel extends to the 2nd black flat thing. (What IS that thing? :) A mast cap?), so I should shorten the dowel accordingly?

 My 2nd plan looks to be useful for rigging, stays, spars etc. but not much help on the mast itself, unless I am being really thick and missing something, which is possible. ;-)

I also notice that the rake of my masts is greater than yours Chuck. Yours seems more in line with the plans, but I followed the little rake template given in the instructions. I like yours better.

jtilley, thanks for your advice. I have never seen a set of mounting pedestals so I have been assuming they are less sturdy than they obviously are. How far does the screw go into the hull I wonder? Thanks for reassuring me.

Fippy,

Each mast is actually an assembly of two masts.  To be consistant with the kit terminology they are the lower masts and topmasts.  These are assembled together with the caps (upper black piece) and trestletrees (lower black piece).   The trestle trees are supported by the bibs directly under them.  If you have the same kit version that I do, look under the hull on the rigging diagram.  The bottom right hand corner should contain the information for all of these.  Including the cap, trestle trees and bibs.  The lower masts protrude through the trestle trees and into the cap.  I small square tennon needs to be carved into the end of the lower mast which fits into a corresponding square hole in the mast cap.  The top mast slides through another hole in this cap on the forward side (round hole).  It rests on top of the trestle trees with the help of a fid.  The fid prevents the top mast from falling through the trestle trees.  It is a small length of wood that is pushed through the heel of the top mast. If you locate the drawings for the masts in the lower right hand corner you will see that the hole for the fid is shown through the heel of the top mast.   Here is a close up image of the trestle trees and cap assembly for both masts.

The rake of the masts on my model are slightly more angled than shown in that photo I posted earlier.  I hadn't yet glued them onto the model so the correct angles were not established.  The angle isnt too far off but they will be raked even more.  The main mast will have a greater angle than the fore mast.  This is not shown on the kit supplied plans well.  It is shown more clearly on the plans drawn by Porti Takakjian that I am cross referencing.

 

 

Fippy,

I think you may be getting a little mixed up by the photos of Chuck's excellent model.  It's surprising how much such things as the relative heights and rakes of masts can be distorted due to such things as camera angles and the changing focal length of a zoom lens. 

My suggestion is:  trust your plans.  They've been worked over by several generations of good designers.  That rigging plan is, in fact, a full-size drawing of all the spars in the ship.  Take your measurements from the drawing.

The dowels that come in the kit are just raw materials for making the masts.  They have to be cut to length.  You need to figure out how deep the hole you drilled in the hull for the mast is.  (Just how deep doesn't matter, as long as (a) it's deep enough to make the mast sturdy, and (b) you know how deep it is.)  Measure from the plan the length of the lower mast, from the deck to the lower masthead.  Add the depth of the hole in the hull to that figure, and you have the length to which the dowel needs to be cut. 

I imagine the masts also need to have their taper added.  You can take the measurements for that from the rigging plan too.  (Don't try to convince yourself that the masts don't need to be tapered.  If they aren't, they won't look right.)  As I imagine the instruction book explains, the easiest way to taper a spar is with an electric drill.  It's easiest to do before you cut the dowel to length.  Clamp your drill in a vise (or Workmate, or some other means of holding it steady).  Chuck the lower end of the dowel that's going to be the mast into the drill.  To keep the dowel from flying around and breaking, hold the other end in your left hand (assuming you're right handed), with a thick, soft rag to keep yourself from getting burned.  Then turn on the drill go to work with a sheet of medium-grade sandpaper.  Fold the sandpaper into a pad, and keep it moving up and down the length of the dowel.  It may take a little practice (and maybe a trip to the hardware store to buy a replacement dowel or two), but you'll quickly pick up the trick and you'll find that tapering a mast is quite simple - and quick.

If I remember correctly (as I may well not be doing), the yards, gaffs, and boom have some taper already turned in them - though they may need to be touched up a little.  Again, you can take the dimensions of them from the rigging plan.  Maybe it's worth noting that the draftsmen who draw such plans almost always employ a convention that's slightly at odds with reality.  The draftsman draws the yards as though they were swung around parallel to the ship's centerline.  In the real ship that couldn't be done; the standing rigging would get in the way.  But drawing them that way makes it easy to take their dimensions from the rigging plan.

Hope that helps a little.  Good luck.

Thanks jtilley, all good common sense as always.
You confirmed what I was suspecting about having to shorten the dowels, and absolutely I agree about the taper. Ironically, just last night I was reading about a very similar tapering method in Mastini's book for beginners, except he uses a file/rasp instead of sandpaper. Either way sounds good and I have a variable speed drill.
I haven't returned to the rigging plans to study them in greater detail. I was working on glueing my stem/keel/sternpost to the hull.
With the help of all you fine experts I'll figure it all out by the time I am done. :)

that is usually how things work when you are building something. About the time you are finished with it, you say to yourself - oh, so that is how that is done!

Sorry guys, I have been out of pocket for the past week, I am getting geared up again hopefully tonight for another phase of building.

Donnie

I have been busy with work and its been a few weeks, but I have made some progress though I am having trouble getting the stern to look just right.  My first try looked good but I used too thin of material and it broke,  I fixed that problem and shoud be done  with it soon.  I painted  my hull the Model Shipways Talow and the wale black.  I have also painted above the waterline with the tan color recomended by model shipways and I think it looks good, I will post pictures for that.  Following Chucks advice I recreated the hatch coverings and it is definitely worth it.  They look astronomically better than the cast metal pieces supplied with the kit.  I was able to salvage the gratings from left over pieces of boxwood that I had from a previous ship.  Trimmed in red it looks great.  I also decided to use .5 x 3mm tangynka for the deck planking with black pinstripe tape on the edges to simulate the caulking.  For the inside of the bulwarks I like the look of the red and will go with that   On the box for the Sultana it shows the ship outfitted with it looks like 4 brass caronades as well as the swivel guns.  I like the way it looks though I am not sure how authentice it is.  Anybody else have any thoughts on that.  Not sure in this scale if there will be enough room on the deck to properly rig the carronades.