HMS Victory build

Just ordered about twenty packs of the Bluejacket blocks, should be enough to get me going,lol

I'm guessing that the plastic ones in the kit, are somewhat over sized in order to make then feasable, so I've reduced the size a little for the ones I ordered. Smallest being 3/32 singles.

Looking at the Heller ones, I can't see how they were going to be used anyway? they just would not look right at all.

With rare exceptions, blocks of the Victory's period were rope-stropped, so the "rope stropped" blocks from Bluejacket are the ones to buy.  I put the term in quotes because they don't have strops at all.  The modeler has to provide the rope.

On 1/100 scale most modelers don't try to fit blocks with individual rope strops.  They just seize (or otherwise attach) the rigging lines around the blocks.  If I were doing it I'd take a crack at putting genuine rope strops on the biggest blocks (the fore and main jeer blocks, for instance), but I wouldn't try to put separate strops on a block smaller than about 3/16". 

I'm having trouble figuring out the reference to a line coming out of the hull near the quarter gallery.  I imagine it's one end of either the main sheet or the main brace.  There are two possibilities.  If the part coming out of the hull is the standing end, what really ought to be happening is that there should be an eyebolt in the hull and the line should be secured to the eyebolt.  If the part of the line coming out of the hole is the hauling end, the hole must represent a sheave built into the hull.  The line, in real life, would lead through the sheave to a belaying point of some sort (probably a cleat or kevel) inside the bulwark.

My strong inclination in either case is to leave the line off for the time being.  I don't like stray pieces of thread dangling around in the relatively early stages of a project.  One way or another, I'd figure out how to rig those lines much later in the process.

The ship's boats don't need to be especially intimidating.  I haven't seen that kit in the flesh for many years, but my recollection is that the basic shapes of the boats' hulls were pretty good.  If I remember right, there are good, detailed drawings of the real things in the Longridge book and even better, more detailed ones in John McKay's Anatomy of the Ship:  The 100-Gun Ship Victory.  The missing interior details can be added made convincingly, and pretty simply, with plastic strip and sheet.  Give some thought to how the boats are stowed.  (If one of them has another sitting inside it, there's no point in putting lots of detail in the one on the bottom.)  Also, each boat probably would have its basic equipment (one or two masts with sails furled to them, a set of oars, a rudder, and a boat hook, at the minimum) lying on top of the thwarts - and blocking the observer's view of the interior.  The aftermarket companies sell oars.  (You can also make them yourself.  Get a piece of brass wire the diameter of the oar shaft.  Heat the wire over a candle to soften it, and mash one end of it in a vise.  Snip off both ends at the appropriate points.  The flattened part is the oar blade.  I can testify that this trick works quite well on 1/128 scale; I suspect you could just about get away with it on 1/100.) 

Here's a picture that should give an idea of what I'm talking about:  http://gallery.drydockmodels.com/album194/hancock_3

If I remember correctly, each of those boats took two or three days to build (from scratch).  Considering how prominent they are on the finished model, that doesn't seem like a lot of time.

Perhaps it's worth noting that C. Nepean Longridge, in his classic, scratchbuilt model on 1/48 scale (the one that's the subject of his book, The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships), omitted the boats altogether.  (That, at least, is my recollection.)  Some people argue - quite reasonably - that the boats detract attention from the ship.  Others (including me) find a well-detailed set of boats to be a highlight of a ship model.  One virtue they possess:  they can be done at any time in the model's construction.  When I was working on my little Hancock model I used the construction of its two boats as a sort of relief from working on the rigging.  It was refreshing, after a year or so of working with nothing but spars, sails, and thread, to spend some time on a completely different activity.

I agree about the lack of detail in the ship's boats. When I looked at the directions and saw that all there was added to the hull halves was the rudder and benches I started looking for facts to back my plan of putting a canvas cover over each. I don't think the boats were ever stored with covers on deck. I did think that if I did a waterline display I could have the boats towing behind, but then the details would need to be there.

As for the fittings from BlueJacket the prices I saw were for the dozen pieces in most cases. I figured the cost for all the fittings would be under $300 easy. I was wondering what they used for "rope" on the fittings that had stroppings to them. I even looked at some of their other ship parts to see if there were any other "upgrades" I could find. I wonder what they'd charge to make up a proper set of ship's boats for the Victory? I have heard several recommendations for BlueJacket. Your mention of them earlier in this thread did it for me. The ones at my local hobby store are very limited and FAR more expensive than BlueJacket's current prices. I think I saw wooden deadeyes that were $10 for a dozen. At that rate I had resigned to using the plastic fittings until I saw pricing online.

I'm stalled right now trying to figure out what exactly I need to do with the rigging that comes out of the hull near the quarter-galleries. I can't seem to figure out what they attach to and just how much length to leave on them. The 3mm guide seems pretty small. And what would be the best way to fix them, an eyebolt or just some CA on the knot inside the hole in the hull?

Regarding hammock nettings - the "jig" with which Heller tells you to make your own netting strikes me as pretty silly.  You might want to check out a fabric store.  See what it has to offer in the way of nylon netting.  Most of that stuff has a hexagonal mesh, which looks nothing like hammock netting.  If you look hard enough, though, you probably can find some with square mesh.  Also, take a look at some photos of the actual ship.  On more than one occasion I've made the mistake of making hammock nettings out of mesh that's too fine.  The real stuff was quite coarse.

You might also want to think seriously about replacing the plastic hammock netting stanchions with brass or steel wire.  Plastic is great stuff, but for some purposes it isn't the most suitable material.  Those hammock netting stanchions will be up for a long time, during which you're doing all sorts of other things to the model.  It would be nice if they didn't break every few minutes - as the plastic ones are likely to do.

For similar reasons, I'd recommend discarding all the plastic eyebolts that come with the kit.  They break if the lines secured to them are yanked with any enthusiasm.  But don't spend good money for pre-formed ones.  It's ludicrously easy to make your own eyebolts. 

A set of #60 to #80 drill bits makes a good set of mandrels.  Pick a bit based on the inside diameter of the eyebolt you want to make.  Get hold of some brass or copper wire of an appropriate (i.e., pretty fine) diameter (the larger the eye, the thicker the wire).  If it's brass wire, start by heating it for a minute over a candle to soften it.  Then loop it around the drill bit and twist the ends into a "pigtail."  Snip off the ends and glue the eyebolt into the deck (or whatever) with superglue.  You can produce a hundred eyebolts in half an hour - for $2.00 or $3.00.

The Heller kit is basically an excellent one, but it does have its weaknesses - one of which certainly is the lack of detail inside the boats.  They ought to have keelsons, floorboards, frames, knees, sternposts, etc. - to say nothing of the masts, sails, oars, rudders, and other equipment that normally would be stowed in them.  Extra work on those boats will pay off; they become focal points of the finished model.  It really seems like Heller could have done better in that department.

I'm a big fan of Bluejacket blocks, deadeyes, and other rigging fittings.  The ones supplied in the Heller kit are almost hopeless.  We shouldn't blame Heller too harshly for that.  Plastic isn't a good material for making blocks and deadeyes, because the injection-molding process requires a rigid mold - and a rigid mold, by definition, can't produce a casting with holes in it and a groove around it.  I suppose it would be possible to make the Heller parts work, by filing a groove around each and every one of them, but yikes what a job.  So little time is allotted us on the orb.  And the results wouldn't be as good as the Bluejacket products.  The cast metal fittings do require some cleaning up - especially the smaller ones.  (Cleaning up the grooves on the hundreds of 3/32" blocks on my little model of the frigate Hancock seemed initially like an awful challenge.  But, as usual, my fingers and my little file found the learning curve was steep but short.  By the time I was done I was working at the rate of about three blocks every two minutes.)

The bad news is that Bluejacket raised all its prices a couple of weeks ago.  (They'd been steady for several years; I'm sure the increase was appropriate - and made reluctantly.)  I imagine a full outfit of Bluejacket blocks and deadeyes for a 1/100 Victory would cost several hundred dollars.  But it wouldn't be necessary to buy all of them at once.  If I were doing it (heaven forbid) I'd order enough deadeyes for the lower masts, and get them in place before buying anything else.  Bluejacket gives good service; waiting for delivery won't slow you down much. 

Funny thing is I have the contraption to make rope but not at that scale. As I said I think I'm just going to bite the bullet and get proper rigging/fittings for everything. The line that came with the kit should still work well for all the hammock netting. I also plan on using line to support the gun port lids rather than the wire that comes with the kit, meaning I'll have to use a pin vise to bore every pair of holes for each port. I do plan on having a few of the after ports closed though to show off the chequer just a little.

As for the fit lines in the ship's boats it is a little noticeable. The extra coat of paint I put on the interior hid it a little more but in my opinion there should still be a noticeable line there on the inside. A lot of those old boats' ribs actually came to a peak there for the keel. Some were planked over but a lot weren't.

I like your spray booth. Something like that may be a requirement here since winter gets so darn cold I can't do any painting at my workbench in the garage. However my basement is fully finished so I don't have a proper spot there either. Instead I've been taking parts with me to work where I have a lot of room and proper ventilation to paint inside, but then I can only do so much at a time bringing it with me like that.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0870210777/103-3052226-6311815?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance

 

You won't go far wrong with this book for the rigging, Jtilley suggested it way back, and I am not dissappointed at all.

You mentioned the canons and the flash lines, if I may say one thing that stuck out to me? was the life boats/dingys, the join line in the bottom. I'm in no way a master moddeler,lol, so take it with a pinch of salt if you will, but it did kinda stick out.

As for the fit, I have so far found it to be horrible on my kit. I have used almost a full tube of filler so far, some items I have had to create totaly from filler,lol as they plastic was so badly warped. I put it down to the fact that it's such an old kit that I got hold of.

As for the pics,

http://pclincs.com/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=7   it contains all the pics so far, even ones that are no longer as they appear,lol, there has been several dry dock refits shall we say <sigh>.

I'm looking around at the moment for gears to start building a ropewalk, if enough people are interested, perhapit could be made as a joint effort and then shared, as I have no need for a ropewalk in general,lol and the bought rigging line is too expensive, I priced it up and it will be close to $120.00 for the line alone, then you have blocks etc on top of that. With the little one on the way, there is no way I'll be doing that.

Did you have a site for your pics? I guess I must have missed the link. I also fixed my gallery so that you can now see the comments I put on each picture when you're viewing the sized versions.

You can't see the full size pics of the galleries but I actually went the difficult route with them. In one of the first (dark) pics you can see I primered them with black. The acrylics I'm using lay down so heavy that three coats of my ochre (I'm so proud of my yellow ochre mix) over black look like three layers of ochre over any other color. If you were able to look closely at them you can see the rough edges where the yellow didn't completely encompass the raised object it was supposed to cover. I basically hand-painted all the yellow and all the finery at the top of the stern. I tried masking over the black spots between windows but it didn't work with Micro Mask. I still had some Parafilm around though so that ended up working the best. The black between the "posts" below the windows had to be touched up with my favorite 20/0 golden fox brush. I don't think I'm a steady hand with a brush at all but even I was suprised at how well I did with it. My bow brace scrollwork was done with that same brush. I did use Kristal Klear for the panes though, the glazing was just awful-looking and I'm a huge fan of Kristal Klear for panes.

I always test fit pieces ahead of time. Heller is usually pretty good about fitment (not as good as Tamiya on average) so I wasn't worried about too much not fitting. The hulls were far easier to work with in halves so that's how I did them. I guess after working with bullet-proof enamels before I was cocky about not marring the paintwork I had done, and the acrylics I've used have held up superbly. I also did three Dullcote overcoats after it was glued, and of course the galleries so that I won't have to redo them!

The only thing I really regret is getting too excited and metalizing my brass long guns before sanding off the sprue marks. What a TERRIBLE rookie mistake and of course the ones I painted had to be the ones with the sprue marks on the top of the gun. Terrible, I don't know what I was thinking.

Did you see the shot of my cable? I love it. I got it in the discount bin at my hobby shop for a quarter but it looks fantastic with the bowers. I am strongly considering using scale supplies (like from BlueJacket) for the rigging hardware (deadeyes, blocks, etc) since they add so much to the rigging, probably the most important part of the model to me. Which reminds me, I need to pick up a good book on rigging to get intimately familiar with it.

Thanks for post rallynavvie, looking at your pics, I see you've done the stern, how was it? which way did you go with it? looks very good.

4 weeks to go before the baby arrives, so time on the kit is limited. But I have been cracking on, I desperately need to get some pics up on my site and link to them to show the progress. I have started on the stern gallery build, the wood paneling is taking some time to paint, and I had a few issues with installing the top deck, it took lumps out of the hull sides and my fingers trying to get it into place.

Maybe just my kit, but the mast holes would also have been an issue, had I not checked them before installing the top deck, nothing a 1/2" twist bit did not fix, but something to check for.

What made you do the hull in halves? I'd be worried about damaging the finish when trying to put it together.

I purchased my Heller kit just before the anniversary of Trafalgar this year and have been slowly working on it in my free time. I am in no way as meticulous as some of you who are also building this kit and posting here even though I am a bit of a perfectionist. I guess there are two reasons why: some of the work I know will look just fine to those who will be looking at it (only I will really know all the mistakes I've made on it) and the other reason would be despair of having to do a part over again.

I put together a gallery of my build at my website:
http://gallery.4wheelracing.com

There aren't many photos there since I didn't get a good digital camera until recently. I annotated every picture with some thoughts on my work. I didn't enable anonymous comments on the gallery so if you have any let me know here. I've been using mostly Tamiya flat acrylics and I really like them. I've only ever used Model Master enamels before. I may use some pro artist oils (finer pigments) for the decking just to get a little variance in the wood over the top of whatever base acrylic I use. Though some of the decking detailing I've seen here and other sites is neat to look at I just think it looks too exaggerated for a scale of 1/100.

I would be interested to see how the author of this thread is doing on his model. Or perhaps good news about his child!

Hi guys I am building the Victory also, Finding the instructions difficult to follow which seems to be a common problem . Have requested and received a clearer copy from Airfix, but that only fixed the graphics. Interesting to read your comments all of which I agree with. Thanks for the hint about painting the stern.

Michel - Thanks for posting the pictures. They confirm my impression: converting a Victory kit from 1805 to 1765 configuration would involve virtually rebuilding the bow and stern. Even the number of windows in the transom is different. The stern galleries appear to have carved fretwork rather than ballustrades for railings, but the design in the pictures would be just about as challenging to reproduce.

I remember spending some time looking at those contemporary two models (1765 and 1802) in the National Maritime Museum. At first glance it was hard to believe they represented the same ship. It's a little jarring at first to think of her without those black-and-yellow stripes, but in my personal opinion she was a better-looking vessel in her original configuration. (I can count on the fingers of one hand the ships that, to my eye, have come out of major refits and modifications looking better than they did originally.)

Chuck Fan's original query dealt with the ship's configuration as of 1797. Off the top of my head I don't know how much she'd been modified between 1765 and that date; I suspect some noticeable changes had taken place, but I don't know what they were. The McGowen/McKay book probably has something to say about that point; I'll try and remember to check.

A few years ago Donald McNarry built a "Board Room"-style model, on 1/192 scale, of the Victory in her "as-built" configuration. He wrote an article for Model Shipwright magazine about it. Like everything else Mr. McNarry has ever done, the model is a masterpiece. Very much worthy of careful study by anybody thinking about a pre-1802 Victory.

QUOTE: Originally posted by vapochilled Well here's a pic of the rear stern port side. Some touch up to do but no where near as bad as the Stb side. looks like I may have a finished hull before the daughter is born

Could make a nice cradle.

Hmmm, I hope this works,
I had found pictures of the 1765 stern and stem.

Michel

Well here's a pic of the rear stern port side.
Some touch up to do but no where near as bad as the Stb side. looks like I may have a finished hull before the daughter is born

yeh, it's taken me best part of two hours spraying to do the hull side! great finish, but I had to unclog the AB twice.

David-I always use rattle cans for large areas-unless you have a commercial grade air gun. You also get more consistent colour, and it's faster. It's also good for metallics and white which gum up the AB.

Well I just puled the masking tape from the other side after spraying, and...it's a lot better, thanks for all the suggestions, I think I implimented most of them,lol
A few touch up areas but all in all, not a bad job.
I'll some pics up over the weekend.
I think if I were to do it again, I'd use rattle cans for the hull, it's just too big of an area for the little AB.

The book I'm using is History of the American Sailing Navy, references from Mr. Martin's book, and also information from the Polk County website which concure, has a lot of details.

McNarry has been a long time favorite of mine. I got my copy of Ship Models in Miniture when I was a teenager and do like to "attempt" to replicate some of his techniques.

So far, these seem good references without spending a 1/2 lifetime just doing research.

Scott

The Chapelle drawings of the Constitution class "as built" aren't bad, but they're mighty old. They first appeared, I believe, in his History of the American Sailing Navy, which was published in 1949. Essentially, they're tracings of the original Humphrey's draft. Quite a bit of research on the ship's changing configuration has been done since then.

Here's an interesting site related to the Constitution: www.polkcounty.org/timonier . I'm not quite clear on why a North Carolina county's website happens to have such material on it, but this is the site presided over by Capt. Tyrone Martin (ret.). He was the CO of the Constitution during the mid-seventies, when she was undergoing a major restoration; his book, A Most Fortunate Ship, is one of the best histories of her in print.

One (actually two - see below) of my favorite Constitution models is the "as-built" version on 1/192 scale by Donald McNarry. I don't like to talk in such terms normally, but if I had to cast a vote for the title "world's best ship modeler" McNarry probably would get it. He has in fact built several Constitutions, two of which I've seen - one at Annapolis and one at the Smithsonian. The detail, accuracy, and overall character of his models are simply breathtaking. Anybody interested in the subject ought to acquire a copy of McNarry's book, Ship Models in Miniature. On second thought, maybe you shouldn't. I make it a point never to look at a photo of a McNarry model when I've been in the workshop. To be reminded of how good it's possible for a small-scale ship model to be can be a depressing experience.

In regards to the Constitution, I have 1/96 hull on my workbench where I cut it down to the gundeck and had rebuilt the upper bulwarks and beakhead with basewood, brass, and styrene. I was about 98% complete with this phase when my basement flooded and all my work was destoyed. However, it is not an hard undertaking with someone who is familiar with scratchbuilding. The ship in it's configuration at lauching just looked cleaner and not so "industrial", plus, I wanted to build the Revell kit so it didn't look so "common".

I am using the Chappell drawings, although I'm not sure if they are the most accurate? Also, the hardest effort is to make a stern with the carvings from the pre-1812 period. I'm thinking of making a resin cast if I live that long.

Scott

I don't know if anybody has done a really thorough study of the Victory's precise configuration at dates before 1805. As I understand it, the people in charge of the ship currently are in the midst of an intensive effort to establish her Trafalgar configuration - and are discovering some interesting things. Whether they've investigated earlier documents with such determination I don't know.

On the basis of the materials I've seen, the differences Chuck Fan has noted are the big ones. The changes he's described would produce a model quite similar to the "as launched" version in the National Maritime Museum. Whether she looked exactly like that in 1797 I don't know, but I suspect the differences were minimal.

Those changes, though, would require a very substantial amount of work and skill. The NMM also has a model - apparently made as an advance study by the carver - of the Victory's original figurehead. "Statue" is a good word for it. It must have been enormous, and carving a replica of it on 1/100 to Heller's standards would be quite an undertaking. The open stern galleries also would be challenging. The individual balustrades of such a gallery are subtle pieces of turning and carving. They taper, they lean inward (a trick the shipwrights apparently learned from the Greeks and Romans), and they have quite a bit of detail on them. And even small mistakes or inconsistencies in that sort of work stick out like sore thumbs - especially if the rest of the model is detailed with the subtlety of that Heller kit.

I'm not sure shaving down the quarterdeck and poop bulwarks would solve the problems there - though it might. That's another area where, I suspect, further research may turn up something interesting.

I'm about 90% certain that the "as launched" model at Greenwich does have the much-discussed ornamented entry ports on the middle deck - which Heller (with some justification, in my opinion) omitted from its representation of the ship's 1805 configuration. It sticks in my mind that the entry ports on the old model may, in fact, be more elaborate than the ones currently on the ship. I may be wrong about that one, though.

Frankly, if I wanted to build a model of the Victory in pre-1805 configuration I'd start from scratch. I'm not at all sure I could make all those parts in such a way that the difference between them and the Heller components wouldn't be obvious. Furthermore, though I am (as I hope has become obvious) a big believer in the "legitimacy" of kit-built ship models, if I were to put that much effort and skill into such a project I think I'd want to go all the way and scratch build it.

A similar, somewhat less ambitious project that's occurred to me several times would be to convert the Revell 1/96-scale Constitution to represent the ship as she appeared at some other period. If the various contemporary paintings and recent reconstructions are to be believed, she was an extraordinarily beautiful ship when she was launched. (She's always been a beautiful ship, I hasten to add, but to my eye looked even better when freshly built.) The big jobs in that conversion would be to lower the bulwarks, and to change the figurehead, transom ornamentation, and armament - quite a job, but not as demanding as a Victory conversion. I don't think I'll get around to it during this lifetime, but it's kind of fun to think about.

Has anyone tried to convert the Heller Victory to represent her apparent during Battle of Cape St. Vincent or earlier?

My understanding is the basic hull didn't change. Only some relatively superficial changes are needed:

1. The forward bridle ports need to be blanked off

2. The twin Cherub figurehead is to be replaced by a larger, more elborate statue

3. The angular top of poop and quarter deck bulwurks are to be shaved down to the level of the scroll work on the outside

4. The center portion of the stern window needs to be removed and a convex set of open galleries added.

5. Add scroll work the stern around the rear windows

6. Replace the kit lower masts with slightly fatter masts to represent the original pole mast. (Move the fore mast slightly backwards and main masts slightly forwards).

7. Replace the mizzen gaff booms with a lanteen yard.

Did I miss anything major.?

Here in the upper Midwest, the term 'chinking' is used when building
a log house. It is a cement-like material 'stuffed' in the gaps between
the logs, to keep the wind out, etc...

I have also seen it used in 'prairie' sod homes, built by the early settlers.

<Gleason>

Originally posted by jtilley Trowlfazz - You may be right. I can't recall having encountered that term "chinking" in a nautical context, but the American Heritage Dictionary (which happens to be beside my computer) defines the verb "chink" as "to fill small openings in." I wonder if it may be a carpenter's term. Reply Anonymous Member since November 2005 Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:22 PM I got the boat before I got the forum,lol. So I'm kinda stuck with her for the next, oh, 2 years! Reply Edit jtilley Member since May 2003 From: Greenville, NC Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:18 PM Trowlfazz - You may be right. I can't recall having encountered that term "chinking" in a nautical context, but the American Heritage Dictionary (which happens to be beside my computer) defines the verb "chink" as "to fill small openings in." I wonder if it may be a carpenter's term. I agree completely with your other point: somewhere one has to draw the line. I certainly don't suggest that every technique ever conceived by every ship modeler be applied on anybody's first effort. Incidentally, this discussion illustrates one of the big reasons why, when newcomers ask me for recommendations on how to get into ship modeling, I always suggest starting with a small ship on a large scale. Such a kit can produce a beautiful finished product in a few weeks, leaving the modeler with an arsenal of skills and knowledge ready to be applied to something more advanced. Unfortunately that advice doesn't work well at the moment - at least in the realm of plastic sailing ships. So few kits are in production that it's almost impossible to find a small ship in a large scale. That's one reason why the announcement of the Zvezda medieval cog kit interests me. The price is high, but if the kit is any good it will be a fine one for introducing people to the hobby. Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery. Reply Anonymous Member since November 2005 Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:01 PM JT-was that called 'chinking' as well? Also, guys, remember the line has to be drawn somewhere-there's modeling and then there's self-abuse. Reply Edit jtilley Member since May 2003 From: Greenville, NC Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 4:41 PM One more point about all this. In a well-constructed wooden vessel of the eighteenth or nineteenth century (I have no idea about the Santa Maria) there actually would be gaps between the deck and hull planks - sort of. Shipwrights and naval architects discovered fairly early that it was almost impossible to fit the planks of a big ship together in such a way that they didn't leak - especially when the ship was working in a seaway. The bending and twisting forces in such circumstances are tremendous, and even the most careful shaping of the boards can't compensate for them entirely. Hence the development of caulking. In typical, high-quality work the shipwright would plane off the outside (or, in the case of deck planking top) corners of each plank, either at a slight angle or with a rabbet plane. The result was that a gap, probably somewhere between half and inch and an inch wide, was left on the surface when the planks were spiked into place. The caulker (a member of a separate, specialist trade) then did his thing. He pounded strands of caulking (usually old rope soaked in hot tar or pitch) tightly into the gap using his caulking irons. (While he was at it, he also stuffed caulk into the counterbored holes over the spikes or treenails that held the planks in place. The counterbores were then filled with wood plugs, which were cut out of the face grain of a board of the same species of wood as the plank.) The caulking expanded and contracted with changes in the weather; on a hot day it would project a little above the plank, and in cool, dry weather it would be, in plastic modeling terms, countersunk. I haven't been on board the Victory in quite a few years, but I know she's been replanked several times since 1805. (As I recall, only a few of her original components are left.) I suspect that, in view of the price of labor and the fact that she's never going to go to sea, the modern restorers took some short cuts regarding the planking. (They made plenty of compromises elsewhere. Most of her current spars are made of steel, and her masts are no longer stepped on her keel. They're steel tubes, and steel rods welded alongside them poke through the bottom of the hull to be embedded in the concrete of the drydock.) On many models the gaps between the planks are out of scale. One trick that I like, when building a deck from individual wood planks on small scales, is to run a soft pencil around each plank before I install it. The pencil line (which runs all the way through the deck, and will survive any sanding or other brutalization) looks pretty convincingly like a caulked seam. Again, I'd have to take a good look at that Heller kit before forming an opinion on how best to deal with that particular problem. I'm inclined to think, though, that filling the gaps almost - but not quite- flush with some substance might give just about the right effect. Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery. Reply Anonymous Member since November 2005 Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 2:24 PM It's certainly a note worthy point, but given the painfully slow progress I need to either srap this or just go with what there is. The amount of research I've allready done is mind numbing, for what was supposed to be "something to do of an evening!) Don't get me wrong, having all this info is of great value, because I don't think this will be my last Victory, but I need to start making some headway into this kit and the hobby in general. This is the first model since childhood(yes,yes I know<sigh>). It's my first time out with an airbrush, first time with rigging, and on and on and on! The knowledge you guys are giving is fantastic, and it will serve to make this a far better model that it would have been had I not joined these forums. I must admit, I'd not even thought about gap plank scale, never crossed my mind. Reply Edit scottrc Member since December 2003 From: 37deg 40.13' N 95deg 29.10'W Posted by scottrc on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:01 PM That is another issue about Heller, that the molded in planks are out of scale in some places. On my Heller Santa Maria, the gaps in the deck and sidewall planks are wide enough to swallow a small dog so I ended up putting a layer of thinned Spot Glaze filler over the deck and rescribing the seams. Scott Reply jtilley Member since May 2003 From: Greenville, NC Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:56 AM There's no doubt whatever that the gaps between the planks on the Heller kit are too deep - and too wide. If that much space existed between the planks of a real ship, said ship would leak so badly that it would sink. What this amounts to is what the aircraft modelers call "surface detail." It's customary these days for high-quality aircraft kits to have countersunk lines (i.e., grooves) delineating the panels of the fuselage, wings, and other components. Everybody knows that there are no grooves between the panels of a real airplane; the panels butt up against each other. Countersunk detailing is a modeling convention, designed to create an illusion that the model is actually made up of individual components like the real thing. Countersunk detailing is a relatively recent innovation in plastic modeling. (Actually it's been around since the fifties, but it only became fairly common in the late seventies or thereabouts.) For a long time plastic airplane kits represented the joints between panels with raised lines, and rivets with raised dots the size of scale watermelons. The typical 21st-century airplane kit, with its barely-visible countersunk panel lines, is far better than that. Ship kit designers have wrestled with the same problem, with varying degrees of success. To my eye the Heller Victory is one of the better examples. (For one of the worst, take a look at the Heller French ship-of-the-line Superbe. Its hull has "wood grain" engraved it it - but no planking seams. Apparently we're supposed to believe that the entire hull of the ship was hacked from a single, Brobdingnagian log.) Heller researched the complex layout and shapes of the planking pretty thoroughly. The "anchor stock" pattern of the wales is especially noteworthy. None of those hideously expensive continental European wood kits bothers with it. If (gawd forbid) I were building the Heller kit I'm not sure what I'd do about the surface detail. I think my inclination would be to sand down the "wood grain" texture a bit; it's really too prominent. As for the "seams" between the planks, I wouldn't want to offer a suggestion without doing some experimenting. I don't think I'd want to fill them and sand them till they disappeared, but I might try filling them partially in order to make them less prominent. This is yet another instance where personal taste has a role to play in this kind of modeling. I want my models to look like they're made of individual planks - but I don't especially want them to look like they leak. Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery. Reply 123456 JOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login Register SEARCH FORUMS FREE NEWSLETTER SIGN UP By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy. FORUMS PRODUCT REVIEWS READER GALLERY HOW TO VIDEOS SHOP ABOUT US FREE MONTHLY NEWSLETTER SIGN UP By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy. More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy