SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

HMS Victory build

27773 views
167 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, September 23, 2005 3:12 PM
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.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: 37deg 40.13' N 95deg 29.10'W
Posted by scottrc on Friday, September 23, 2005 3:41 PM
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

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 24, 2005 5:01 PM
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.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 24, 2005 5:21 PM
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.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 24, 2005 5:33 PM
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.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 24, 2005 8:26 PM
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 bornBig Smile [:D]
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 25, 2005 4:20 AM
Shy [8)] Hmmm, I hope this works,
I had found pictures of the 1765 stern and stem.

Michel
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 25, 2005 5:10 AM
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 bornBig Smile [:D]



Could make a nice cradle. Smile [:)]
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, September 25, 2005 8:38 AM
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.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Australia
Posted by adouglas on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:27 PM
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.
  • Member since
    November 2005
HMS Victory build
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 9:21 PM
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!

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 10:21 PM

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.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 10:56 PM
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.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:25 PM

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.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:20 AM
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.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:23 AM

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. 

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:49 PM
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?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, December 1, 2005 1:25 AM

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.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 1, 2005 3:36 PM

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.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 1, 2005 8:34 PM
I'll be getting my rigging parts from them when I get to that point sometime next spring. I feel fortunate to have a pretty rudimentary knowledge of a tall ship's standing rigging. The running rigging scares me a little though.

I do agree about the ship's boats being a nice addition to a model. I like the "clutter" shown in that picture you posted. That's how it should look really. Do you have any pictures of the real thing (or mock-ups of the real thing) anywhere? Some good reference photos is all I'd need to get started.

It's too bad I'm not a far more gifted modeller. I was down at my favorite pub (as opposed to the many "bars" we have in Minnesota) talking to one of the owners who is from north of Portsmouth. He's a huge fan of square-rigged ships so I was talking to him about my build. He wanted to buy it off me, or at least rent it for display for some time as part of the ambience at the place. I have to admit it would make a wonderful addition behind the bar but I told him I just wasn't so confident of my skills to have it put on display. This is far more challenging than the USS Wisconsin I was comissioned to build. He said to have him over when it's finished anyway just to get his opinion. I still don't think I'd want to give it up once it's finished, but perhaps if I can get free beer while it's on display there...

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, December 1, 2005 9:46 PM

I don't have any postable photos of the Victory's boats.  You might try the ship's website, which is listed somewhere or other earlier in this thread.  I'm not sure whether she currently has a full boat complement stowed on board, but there might be something useful on that site.

I can't emphasize enough the importance of getting some good books in a project like this - especially in view of how awful the Heller instructions are.  The Victory, fortunately, has been the subject of several - and has inspired several sets of excellent drawings.  In addition to the Longridge and McKay books mentioned above, an extremely valuable one is H.M.S. Victory:  Construction, Career and Restoration, by Alan McGowen and John McKay.  That one is a big, oversized "coffee table book," full of photos of the real ship and paintings of her from many periods.  Mr. McKay recycled some of his drawings from his Anatomy of the Ship book for this one, and added some new ones.  (The McGown/McKay book actually has more drawings than the Anatomy one.  The biggest difference is in the coverage of the rigging.)  Any of those three books should provide enough information about the boats to build nice models of them.  Unfortunately all three are pretty expensive, but I suspect used copies of all of them can be found  on the web.

For anybody confronting the job of rigging a model of the ship, though, I think the book I'd recommend starting with is Longridge's Anatomy of Nelson's Ships.  The drawings in it, by George Campbell, are perhaps not quite as comprehensive as Mr. McKay's, but they're beautiful pieces of the drafting art in their own right.  And Longridge's text is geared specifically toward model builders.  The McKay drawings of the rigging include just about all the information imaginable, but they can be pretty intimidating.  (The isometric drawings of the individual masts, for instance, are mind-blowing in terms of the artistry and geometry that went into them, but rarely do both ends of a line get shown in the same drawing.)  Campbell provides a big, fold-out drawing of all the rigging on one sheet, and Longridge's text describes the lead of each line verbally.  You can literally follow his written instructions as you rig each line.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 2, 2005 10:00 PM
Well lacking anything productive to do with the ship (waiting to decide what to do about all those loops that hang out of the hull still) I went over the fittings to get a list of parts in preparation for the day I order them from BlueJacket. For others' reference (and please check my math if you will):

340 1/8" single blocks
48 3/16" double blocks
40 3/16" single blocks
20 5/16" double block
8 1/4" double blocks
8 5/16" single blocks

50 1/8" top deadeyes
44 3/16" top deadeyes
44 3/16" stropped bottom deadeyes
32 1/8" bottom deadeyes
18 1/8" stropped bottom deadeyes
12 5/32" top deadeyes
12 5/32" stropped bottom deadeyes

I have never ordered from BlueJacket so I'm curious as to what material/color they use for these parts. Also what is the difference between their standard blocks (grooved for strops) and those that are "iron stropped". The ones with the Heller kit look like the former, "standard" blocks on the site. I like the look of the scored deadeyes thus the "top" and "bottom" designation in my list. You could just as easily add the top and bottoms of like sizes and get non-scored deadeyes too. However the "stropped" deadeyes look like they may be the equivalent of those in the kit, or are those chainplates they're supposed to be attached to? I really need to pick up the Longridge book, I know :(

Any other parts I should plan on getting from them? The above list came out to $165 and change and since they come in dozens it leaves for some extras in places. Eyebolts I can make from brass wire like you mentioned. I was interested in their guns. If they look a lot nicer than the botched brass long guns I made up I'd most certainly purchase some 1 1/4" ones to replace the six long guns, and two 1" for the short guns. Of course real brass that small might be a pain to buff up. What material/color are their guns?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, December 3, 2005 9:28 AM

Bluejacket casts fittings in a material called britannia metal, which is a mixture of tin, copper, and antimony.  It's a light silver color, almost exactly like the old lead alloy that model companies used to use. Britannia, however, is far more durable.  Whether it will last forever is hard to say, but it won't flower and disintegrate like lead does.  (It also costs about ten times as much as lead. That's one big reason why Bluejacket fittings are on the expensive side.)

As I understand it, lead has just about disappeared from the hobby world these days.  Model Shipways uses britannia too, and I think most military miniatures are cast from something similar.

I can't figure out how many blocks it will take to rig a model of the Victory, because the number depends on how much rigging you put on it.  The real ship, with sails ready to set, had well over a thousand blocks in her rigging.  I don't recommend, though, that anybody breaking into the hobby start out determined to include every single line in the rigging of a ship-of-the-line.  My normal suggestion is to figure on including all the standing rigging and those portions of the running rigging that hold the yards in position and make them move.  That means the halyards, jeers, lifts, and braces, plus the basic gear for the spanker (topping lifts, peak and throat halyards, boom sheets, and vangs) and perhaps the basic gear for the jibs and staysails (halyards, downhaulers, and jib outhaulers).  Most people find that's plenty.  When you've reached that point, sit back, take a good look at the model, imbibe liberally of the liquid refreshment of your choice, and ask yourself whether you really want to spend an additional year or so on this particular model or go onto other things. 

There's no need to order a complete outfit of blocks at once.  My normal practice is to order what I figure will last me for a month or so, and when the stock starts looking depleted order some more. 

The number of deadeyes is fairly easy to count accurately.  The numbers on your list sound reasonable.  Again, though, it isn't necessary to buy all of them at once.  If you work at the speed I do, it will take you a month or two to set up the rigging (shrouds, stays, and ratlines) of the lower masts.  (If you've never rigged deadeyes before, be aware that there's a steep but fairly short learning curve.  The first pair is likely to drive you crazy.  By the time you get done with the foremast, you and your fingers will wonder what the fuss was about.) 

If I were building that kit (heaven forbid), one of the big problems I'd have to figure out would be how to represent the chainplates.  I don't remember much about the kit, but if I recall correctly Heller tells you to make the chainplates out of loops of thread.  (I think those loops of thread hanging out of the hull may be the lower links of the chainplates.)  I'm inclined to regard that as marginally acceptable on that scale.  Making them out of wire links would be quite a project - since every chainplate (on one side of the ship) is a different length.  I honestly don't know how I'd do it.  In any case, you need to decide how you're going to represent the chainplates before you order the deadeyes.  I'm not sure the style with the strops cast integrally would work.  The strops may not be long enough to project below the channels. 

You might want to order a dozen of each fitting and take a good look at them, before you lay out the cash for the whole outfit.

Bluejacket's "rope-stropped" blocks have grooves around them (which, in practice, need to be cleaned out with a file before they'll work).  The "iron-stropped" blocks represent fittings from a later period.  They have the strops cast integrally with them.  Generally speaking, they aren't appropriate for 1805.

The new Bluejacket catalog shows only one size of turned brass gun:  1 1/2" long, at $2.75 apiece.  There are seven different sizes of Britannia metal long guns, ranging in length from 1/2" to 1 7/8" and in price from $1.35 to $2.80 apiece.  I've never actually used any Bluejacket guns, but on the basis of the catalog pictures I don't think they're nearly as well detailed or proportioned as the Heller ones.  And I don't think the Bluejacket ones are available in all the necessary sizes.  And the muzzles would have to be drilled out. 

I'm about 99 percent sure that all the Victory's guns were iron.  (The British navy had virtually abandoned the bronze/brass gun by the end of the American Revolution.)  So the barrels would be black.  My recommendation would be to clean up the joints on the Heller guns and paint them black.

You're right:  the Longridge book (or one of the McKay ones) is just about essential for this project.

Hope this helps a little.  Good luck.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, December 3, 2005 2:39 PM

Hey Rallynavvie, what you would not give to have JT live next doorWink [;)]

Actually, as good as that book is, most of the info I needed and lots of info I did not know I needed, has come from these forums.

Oh Jtilley, you keep knocking the old girl "heller victory"  why not come down of that pearch and build one,lol, don't worry about the difficult parts, we're all here to help youWink [;)]Smile [:)]

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, December 3, 2005 3:13 PM
The list I put together there was simply the verbatim count of fittings that the Heller kit comes with, nothing more. Once I get my hands on some more detailed literature on rigging I'll get a better idea of what I'm getting into. I plan on using that list to start off with since it's not likely I'll use less fittings than that and the $165 price tag isn't so terrible in my mind. If I need more than that load I'll order more, but with the pricing at it is for such parts the hit you're taking is more on postage than in the parts themselves so I prefer to buy in lump sums.

Now for the actual rigging materials I saw they have some lines and stuff. I'm sure I can use the two diameters that came with the Heller kit for plenty of the rigging, and I've already found wonderful show cordage for the cables, but the stays should probably be of weightier material. The tip in the Heller instructions to dye the line with strong coffee actually works well for a medium-dark color, but what are folks using for dark pitch? I also have a cake of homemade beeswax if I need it, a gift from my beekeeper uncle.

Just want to get some of these future details hammered out before I get there in a panic.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, December 3, 2005 5:27 PM
I found the heller stuff to be too stretchy for most of the rigging, as far as colour, I used black ink jet ink, it gives that "pitched" look, without being rigid.
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, December 4, 2005 12:49 AM

The Heller Victory I reviewed for Model Shipwright (longer ago than I care to think about) came with some awful, hairy thread that was dyed a peculiar shade of green.  I have no idea what the firm is supplying with its kits nowadays, but I've never seen any thread packed with a plastic kit that was worthy of anything other than the wastebasket.  Maybe Heller is supplying some decent stuff now, but I'm inclined to doubt it.

I'm a little surprised (though I guess I shouldn't be) that Heller is advising people to dye thread with coffee.  Serious ship modelers found out a long, long time ago that coffee and tea (both of which used to be popular for dying purposes) contain acids that literally eat thread. 

A few years ago I had the unpleasant job of restoring a nineteenth-century ship model whose linen sails (at least I think they were linen) had been died with tea or coffee (probably the former, though I'm not sure).  The sails were literally falling to pieces.  In search of advice I phone a friend who was in charge of fabric conservation at Colonial Williamsburg.  He explained to me that what I was looking at was the phenomenon of "fabric breakage" (as opposed to tearing).  The tea (or whatever) had actually caused the individual fibers in the fabric to rupture.  It had also turned the sails an extremely dark, reddish brown - presumably nothing like what the modeler had intended.  

I normally don't like to condemn materials or techniques; my usual attitude is "to each his own."  But I make three exceptions:  lead fittings, and coffee and tea for dying thread or sailcloth.  (Actually there's a fourth one on my personal list of banned substances:  balsa wood, for any purpose.  But some people seem to be emotionally attached to it.)

Plenty of better substances for changing the color of thread are available.  (I have no idea what inkjet ink does to fiber.  Presumably it's quite durable, but whether it eventually has some unpleasant reaction to the fiber itself I don't know.)  I've had pretty good success with fabric dyes from the arts and crafts store - including the kind that comes in fiber-tipped pens.  But the best solution, in my opinion, is to buy thread that's the right color to begin with.

Ship modelers argue endlessly about the best material for rigging line.  Everybody agrees that, in terms of durability, linen is good.  Unfortunately it's also hard to come by - especially in good colors - and nowadays most of it has "slubs" (nasty little lumps) in it.  Bluejacket sells some pretty good linen line, but only in white - and the smallest diameter is .01".  (Actually that's probably small enough for most lines on a 1/100 Victory.)  

My personal favorite is silk.  Some modelers claim it isn't durable enough, but I've got two silk-rigged models that are more than twenty years old and look good as new.  When I was working at the museum I had the chance to work on quite a few old models that were rigged with a variety of materials.  I wasn't able to see any consistent pattern of deterioration.  We had some silk-rigged models from the 1930s that looked fine, and some linen-rigged ones from the '40s that were starting to deteriorate.  Not being among those who expect their models to last a thousand years, I'm satisfied with silk.  Unfortunately, though it used to be commonly available in a wide variety of colors, it's hard to find nowadays.  (I found some places on the web that sell it, but I haven't tried any of them.)

There is, of course, some inevitable debate about modern synthetic threads in ship modeling.  Harold Hahn, one of the best, uses nylon exclusively in his models and they look great.  Some people worry that nylon will fall apart eventually due to atmospheric polution, but I've never heard of it actually happening.  I have a bigger problem with most of the nylon I've seen, though:  it's slippery, it's hard to tie in a knot, and it just doesn't behave like miniature rope.

Model Shipways (via Model Expo:  www.modelexpoonline.com ) sells some stuff it calls "cotton-poly mix" that (so far) I really like.  It comes in the requisite colors and a wide variety of diameters, seems to handle well, and has a nice lay that actually looks like rope.  If I were doing a project like this I'd lean in that direction.  I rigged my little model of the pilot boat Phantom with this stuff and I'm happy with the results.

Two golden rules in ship model rigging:  1.  If in doubt as to diameter, err on the small side.  2.  If in doubt as to color, err on the dark side. 

As for my building a Heller Victory - no way.  I actually have a very high opinion of the kit; in my opinion (caveat:  I haven't seen all the competition by any means) it's one of the three best renditions of the ship in kit form.  (The other two are the 1/72-scale wood one from Caldercraft, which costs over $1,000, and the cast metal 1/700 one from Skytrex.  Both are British firms.  The Italian and Spanish wood kits I've seen don't meet most reasonable definitions of the term "scale model.")  If I were looking for a major plastic ship modeling project, this is probably the kit I'd pick.  But I built my first model of the Victory when I was about twelve years old (from the old Revell kit - a very good one for its size and age), and by the time I got out of college I'd built at least eight.  By the standards of this forum they undoubtedly were pretty laughable efforts, but no more Victories for me in this lifetime.  Besides, if I did build a 1/100 ship-of-the-line I don't know where I'd put it.  My wife and I (with ridiculous optimism) have picked out a place for my current big project, but I can't think of another place in the house for a three-foot-plus model.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: vernon hills illinois
Posted by sumpter250 on Sunday, December 4, 2005 1:26 PM

  I haven't used silk for running rigging, but I do use surgical silk for standing rigging. This can be purchased in bulk from Deknatel, online.

   My oldest, surviving ship model is a wood kit "America". built in 1968, I used waxed cotton for the running rigging, and it is still in great shape.

Pete

P.S. I will be using some fly tying silk on a 1:87 friendship sloop.

PJ

Lead me not into temptation ..................I can find it myself

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, December 4, 2005 3:44 PM
Waxing should be a great method of preservation in theory. I don't understand why people wouldn't think of silk as durable, it's one of the best fibers out there.

However I just had an epiphany with all this talk about different kinds of line: I have hundreds of different weights and colors of braided fishing line. I used to fish a LOT and never really used any monofilament lines, only braided lines like Spectra and the like. The problem with these lines so often was the color, which is white by manufacture, which fisherman said was too noticeable to the fish. So out came many many different colors/hues of braided line in varying weights. I have several different kinds as my sponsor used to supply me with them for free. They should be durable as anything on the market (as their selling point of retaining strength even when grit from the water got into the braid). The only drawback I can see in them would be the lack of texture on most, but at scale I don't think it matters for the rigging.

And once I'm done with the model it will go right into a Lexan case like my other ship models. I think this may be the first model that has cost me more than the case though. I also looked into getting some of the "licensed" oak from the Victory herself. The price isn't terrible for a plank the size I'd need and it would certainly add some more character to the display. I think the oak comes from any of the several refittings they do to her to keep her in good condition, obviously not original oak that has seen the blood of sailors ;)

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Greenville,Michigan
Posted by millard on Sunday, December 4, 2005 7:00 PM

For dying rope you might try what I use. I like my running rigging to look a liitle used.I put about 20 drops of India ink in a pill bottle fill up with denatured alcohol.Shake well.Put the rope in for about 15 seconds pull out let dry on paper towel. Than I run it through bees wax seems to work well.I only use Model Expo rope seems to hold up .

Rod

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
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.