Lindberg Jolly Roger float test.

A bit more progress.   

put on the rails and constructed the bowsprit.Concerned that the thin plastic may bend under the pressure of the rigging,I replaced the first 21/2 inches of the sprit with a brass tube.The sprit will be epoxied and reinforced with thread.    

Ya Know what ?

     Years ago I used to float REVELL'S large Constitution in the waters where I lived .( the California River Delta . confluence of the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers ) . I built a fake bottom to hide the iron keel and used foam that comprised that fake bottom . She floated at the waterline depicted on the model .

     I had to do at least five bouyancy tests before I got it right . With this one I would not float her anymore .She's not built for it . By the time you add all the masts and rigging she will float too deep and without a false keel she WILL roll over .

Darned good looking model though  .Ask Dr.Tilley why she resembles a French ship . The answer will surprise ( sic ) you . The English did it for a reason . Funny their ship yards never caught on , now did they ?  Tanker - Builder

Yes I have been warned that after she is finished she may not float so well/.I guess I will find out but she sure is pretty!

Tanks you make very curious statements at times...

I'll defer to Tilley but I thought she WAS a French ship.

Aha ! Yes she was .

Most folks assume the Surprise and others were English built ships . She was French built . Of course that's the point of my question .Why would the Royal Navy take pains not to sink French vessels , but , instead dismast and take as prizes ? The secret is right before your eyes .

Why?

Well I have no idea in this case, but usually the prize money was a primary motivation.

The French ships were known for fine build quality and nice sailing characteristics.

Yeah, and full of French guys so inviting targets for the Royal Navy. Seriously though, prize money would be the motivation for not sinking a ship on the spot. And I don't think it was a matter of taking pains, more likely a bit of luck following action.

In fact Dr. Tilley's Hancock was such a prize, although I don't know what/ if she was sold and for how much.

I learned in a recent read that the Bismark, being in operation as a commerce raider; had on board several hundred men as prize crews. Quite a few journalists, too. Those prize crews were among the most experienced deckhands in the Kriegsmarine, and were lost when the ship was destroyed.

Following this build with interest!

Cool!I did not know about the Bismark's crew.Very interesting!

The big reason for capturing an enemy warship is simple: it's cheaper, and a great deal quicker - to take one from somebody else than to build a new one.

Prize money was also a big motivator, though.

The Hancock never got sold. She was captured twice during the Revolution - first by the British and then by the French. She ended her days as a French powder hulk; the British blew her up when they evacuated Toulon early in the Wars of the French Revolution.

Hey ?

    Proff , aren't you gonna tell the viewers why the French ships were preferred by others  ?  Besides the prize money , If the ADMIRALTY was proud of the capturing ships officers and crew .. I think Patrick O'Brian pointed it out clearly in his books more than once . And historically this was true ! Gees , I hate Politics , then and now .

Mounted up the fore mast.Failed to account for the ballast so the kit supplied lower ratlines are too short.I will have to make my own.I have done so before but it is not fun or quick.  

On the other hand the mast looks really too tall. I'd suggest shortening it.

When you took that last photo, was the mast shoved all the way down? It looks like we may be seeing the part of it that's supposed to be below the forecastle deck.

On the other hand, photographs can be deceptive. Maybe what we're seeing is distortion due to the angle of the picture.

I have to confess I don't quite understand the connection between the kit-supplied "shroud and ratline assemblies" and ballast. Just about everybody else who's built one of those kits has complained that the kit parts are too long, and impossible to get taut. In any case, I don't think I've seen a finished one whose builder made the kit parts look decent.

A thought: is the ballast getting in the way of the mast, and stopping it from going all the way into the hole?

I've always thought Lindberg was onto something with the idea of the flexible plastic shrouds and ratlines. The other sailing ship from that period, the Wappen von Hamburg (aka "Captain Kidd") has the same feature. But the designers made two goofs in the concept. They didn't measure the masts carefully enough, and they didn't make the ratlines skinnier than the shrouds. So far as I know, those two kits are the only ones ever produced that handle the shrouds, ratlines, and deadeyes that way.

Probably my mistake but I should be able to make it work!certainly an interesting build!

That mast is definitely way too tall. If you don't fix it, you'll be in for a great deal of trouble later. I suspect the mainmast would turn out to be shorter than the foremast.

Can you yank the foremast out of the hole, figure out what's blocking it, and put it back - to the right depth?

Good luck. it looked like the model was proceeding well up to this glitch.

I will see!

These things have a way of snowballing.

I recently ran into a very similar problem.

I'm building a stretch version of the Lindberg "Q" ship model, and had to relocate the mounting peg locations.

In a moment of sheer stupidity I though wouldn't it be nice to have the two pegs line up with the masts?

So i solidly glued in a couple of short lengths of aluminum tubing in the hull that receive the pegs, slides on and off nicely.

But wouldn't you know the top of the tubes are about 1/4" below the deck, and they AREN'T moving now without a lot of destruction.

So my masts can't go down and lock to the top of the keel as is my usual practice- they basically sit on the deck.

Because she's a steamer, there isn't much in the way of standing rigging to support them, live and learn.

I tell you what!I am going to leave the foremast in place and see how it plays out.I used epoxy and the violence to remove the mast might cause extensive destruction that I dont want to deal with so I will rig the shrouds and tie the ratlines.

Now that is a tall foremast. If you intend to leave it like that you should also leave the main and mizzen masts taller than they should - otherwise it will look even stranger...

But if it was my model I would try everything under my sleeve to re-fit that mast. Maybe just cut it flush with the deck, remove the extra length and epoxy it in place. Epoxy is really tough, I doubt it will come loose later. Maybe reinforce the joint with piano wire.

Yeah I will use a brass tube to heighten the main mast if necessary.

Another thing you need to worry about, I'm afraid, is the lengths of the yards. If you use the ones from the kit, there will be a huge space under each of the lower yards. And the lower yards will look extremely short in proportion to the masts. If you use the kit's vac-formed sails (which I don't recommend), the fore- and mainsails will have a lot of space under them.

French sail plans did tend to be larger than British ones. The sail plan of that kit (which, I think, matches that of the old "Kennedy" model) is enormous by British standards. But that foremast, as it stands now, is...well, let's just say way too tall.

Another option would be to saw a section of it out, and use a metal pin Mr. Diaz is right: piano wire works fine) to join the remaining two parts. But have you tried just yanking it out of the hole?

I'm not sure, but I think the lowest ring molded around it is designed to be in contact with the forecastle deck. You can see what a huge difference that would make.

Good luck.

Yeah the vac sails do look fake.

Mast height is not too bad!  

Maybe the camera angle is fooling my eyes. In any case, if the modeler is happy with it, that's what matters more than anything else.

They look right w/ all three in place. I guess if they are all "wrong" by the same amount...does it matter?

Must be the camera angle. looks sort of all even here.

Another problem the kit has, has been solved- the topmasts aren't longer than the lower masts now.