oops, posted something on the wrong forum. And delete is not possible
-
SUBSCRIBE TO SHIPS IN SCALE TODAY!
The beloved Ships in Scale Magazine is back and charting a new course for 2026!
Discover new skills, new techniques, and new inspirations in every issue.
NOTE THAT OUR NEXT ISSUE WILL BE July/August 2026 -
Win a Free Custom Engraved Brass Coin!!!
As a way to introduce our brass coins to the community, we will raffle off a free coin during the month of August. Follow link ABOVE for instructions for entering.
Golden Hind 1/72 by Aifix with added rigging and details
- Thread starter johnlattanzio
- Start date
- Watchers 13
-
- Tags
- airfix golden hind
A trick I got from Harry Houdini videos. Easy and works well. I still like using oils, but this is quicker
So now I have a new problem!
I was going to lash my fish davit to the side of the waist, tied to the railings. Then I realized that this would interfere with the deck guns.
So perhaps I need to make a gallows to store the davit. But I hardly ever see a gallows on any of the models. Why is that?
Is it more authentic to have one or to not have one?
I was going to lash my fish davit to the side of the waist, tied to the railings. Then I realized that this would interfere with the deck guns.
So perhaps I need to make a gallows to store the davit. But I hardly ever see a gallows on any of the models. Why is that?
Is it more authentic to have one or to not have one?
After consulting various books, I may be wrong in saying I rarely see them on models. The first gallows picture I saw looked like a substantial frame, and I rarely (if ever) see those. But further reading reveals that often they were just a couple of vertical spars above the bitts/knight in front of the main mast. This picture is from Lavery's book "Arming and Fitting..."
So I can add three spars (two vertical, one horizontal) on top of the bitts in the kit, like this:
Then according to various references, spare spars (and the fish davit!) were laid with one end on the gallows and one end on the rear of the forecastle, like this (I assume):
For realism I would add a couple of planks or something as well...
Advice or comments?
So I can add three spars (two vertical, one horizontal) on top of the bitts in the kit, like this:
Then according to various references, spare spars (and the fish davit!) were laid with one end on the gallows and one end on the rear of the forecastle, like this (I assume):
For realism I would add a couple of planks or something as well...
Advice or comments?
Indeed, following your build I cannot imagine where it goes in the next step! 
As it was mentioned above, the model is yours and you can do anything - even the gallows, even mutineers hanging from them!
In my opinion, the idea above is a complete fake, but the decision is yours. I would say the main problem is that you try to put a much later/bigger ship's fish davit on the Golden Hind while you should not. This makes you bring more and more stuff from later periods and make something that never existed. It is just my opinion and I might be wrong and it is up to you to decide.
As it was mentioned above, the model is yours and you can do anything - even the gallows, even mutineers hanging from them!
In my opinion, the idea above is a complete fake, but the decision is yours. I would say the main problem is that you try to put a much later/bigger ship's fish davit on the Golden Hind while you should not. This makes you bring more and more stuff from later periods and make something that never existed. It is just my opinion and I might be wrong and it is up to you to decide.
But there was a davit?Indeed, following your build I cannot imagine where it goes in the next step!
As it was mentioned above, the model is yours and you can do anything - even the gallows, even mutineers hanging from them!
What would you do?
I want to learn what was most likely, and then decide.
My latest plan, subject to advice and comments from others, is to lie the davit next to the grating on the waist and next to the ship's boat. Something like this dry fit...
I would say there was no davit as such a small ship don't need it. If there was a davit, it would be 98% of time useless, so it would rest somewhere, where it does not make any trouble: with the other reserve spars (picture from Lavery's book is for later age ships, when there were reserve yards and top-gallants and the boat above them). I would put it under the deck (with other spars), on the deck as you did above or on rails, for instance. Or, maybe, since you already did it, I would show it in use - in the process of fishing an anchor
Last edited:
Hi Boatman (and others)
You may well be right! I keep forgetting how small the GH was. And the anchors were also correspondingly smaller so I think you could be right. It may have had no davit as such. Normal stay tackles or load tackles would probabaly have done the job just fine!
The closest comparison I can find is the Susan Constant. Same period and similar size. It did have a single movable davit, which is basically where I took my design from. Here is an excerpt from Lavery's Anatomy of the Susan Constant:
The diagrams in that book show sheaves in the davit, but I went with a tackle attached to the end, as shown in some other references.
I think that, given I have made a davit, then I will use it. I had also thought of putting it in place, actually fishing an anchor. It might look good! But there are two things that made me decide against that:
So in the end, I will lash it to the eyebolts that are also holding the ship's boat in place (as shown in an earleir post). This is a reasonable compromise I think. And the davit looks OK so it will add visual interest to the model.
Philosophical Thoughts
Boatman made the very fair comment, often heard in the model world: "the model is yours and you can do anything". I agree 100%. And yet... even the most casual modeller wants to do something "realistic". I don't know anyone who puts machine guns or radars on these ships. So how far do we go in accepting the constraints of historical fact? And given that older ships are less known, we have much more freedom. I also often hear "No-one can prove that is wrong." So I come to the question: What am I trying to achieve?
I think we all need to answer this question for ourselves, even if we have not formally asked ourselves. It is in the back of our mind, even if not articulated.
My approach is: I love these ships. They are a magnificent combination of sheer beauty and practical function. And I am in constant awe of the ingenuity of people to overcome enormous challenges with nothing but human muscle power to control the ships. So what I want is
So I allow my self some flexibility with the rivet counting But not too much!
Thanks to all for the valuabe information and the continual inspiration I get from this forum! I value these new friends very much.
John L
You may well be right! I keep forgetting how small the GH was. And the anchors were also correspondingly smaller so I think you could be right. It may have had no davit as such. Normal stay tackles or load tackles would probabaly have done the job just fine!
The closest comparison I can find is the Susan Constant. Same period and similar size. It did have a single movable davit, which is basically where I took my design from. Here is an excerpt from Lavery's Anatomy of the Susan Constant:
The diagrams in that book show sheaves in the davit, but I went with a tackle attached to the end, as shown in some other references.
I think that, given I have made a davit, then I will use it. I had also thought of putting it in place, actually fishing an anchor. It might look good! But there are two things that made me decide against that:
- I think it then needs a couple of figures to give scale and show that it is "in action". But getting figures in the correct pose might be hard, and painting figures is not my strength, and I think that a badly painted figure spoils the whole thing...
- My davit is too long! I followed the general rule of making it about the width of the ship's waist. But I note that Lavery, in the Susan Constant book, says "about the width of the forecastle' which would have worked better. I put the spanshackle in the middle of the deck (as on the Susan Constant) and if the davit is held there, then my davit extends too far over the edge. So I would need to make it shorter, which is also probably more realistic.
So in the end, I will lash it to the eyebolts that are also holding the ship's boat in place (as shown in an earleir post). This is a reasonable compromise I think. And the davit looks OK so it will add visual interest to the model.
Philosophical Thoughts
Boatman made the very fair comment, often heard in the model world: "the model is yours and you can do anything". I agree 100%. And yet... even the most casual modeller wants to do something "realistic". I don't know anyone who puts machine guns or radars on these ships. So how far do we go in accepting the constraints of historical fact? And given that older ships are less known, we have much more freedom. I also often hear "No-one can prove that is wrong." So I come to the question: What am I trying to achieve?
I think we all need to answer this question for ourselves, even if we have not formally asked ourselves. It is in the back of our mind, even if not articulated.
My approach is: I love these ships. They are a magnificent combination of sheer beauty and practical function. And I am in constant awe of the ingenuity of people to overcome enormous challenges with nothing but human muscle power to control the ships. So what I want is
- Something that looks good
- Something that conveys the beauty and the mechanics of the vessel
- Something that respects the people who created and operated these great machines
- And in doing this, I want to learn more about how they were built and operated
So I allow my self some flexibility with the rivet counting
But not too much!Thanks to all for the valuabe information and the continual inspiration I get from this forum! I value these new friends very much.
John L
The next step for the GH seems to be the installation of the deck guns. I think they should go in before I add the ship's boat. It is going to get crowded inthere and the ship is relatively easy to add.
So I will be reading the Susan Constant book section on rigging the guns. It looks nasty! Does anyone know of a good reference I can go to?
So I will be reading the Susan Constant book section on rigging the guns. It looks nasty! Does anyone know of a good reference I can go to?
Probably yes, but will take a time time searching
Batavia replica
Some info
Some info
Thanks for that. The rigging there is more complex than I saw on Petr's Golden Hind. He has a section on rigging the guns but I still could not follow the details!
That looks like I might actually understand it, with a bit of thought
MANY THANKS!
This helped a lot! Many thanks.
Fromlooking at Petr's rigging it seems he has basically the same rigging as this picture, with two changes
- no inhaul tackle
- the outhaul tackle and the breech line seem to go through the one eyebolt
MANY THANKS!
What is the source of the image?
My job for today is to read about the guns on the Susan Constant and perhaps Mayflower - contemporary boats of similar size toGH
I think you're right about Petr's version. Glad, if I could help!
It was a BIG help!
It is strange that sometimes one diagram, or one sentence, suddenly makes the difference! I have also read through the Mondfeld section on guns, and the Susan Constant book, and even Lees' rigging book has some interesting notes. I will collate these and prepare a set of notes for myself! Many thanks!
(I need to see how far back the guns can recoil before they hit something! The Susan Constant book says that recoil was not permitted (!) and the inhaul was used, because there was so little space, especially on the forecastle.)
I have continued fooling around with my AI Agent. I got it to write two programs (in python).
Here is some sample output from the Ship Facts program:
And here is a Ship Dictionary example
I have attached the two codes (in one zip file) in case anyone is interested in using them. It is trivial to install python on Wndows, if you do not have it already. And any AI should be able to help you set it up; let me know if you have any problems. I just made a shortcut to the .py file and said to open it with python and it works fine. You can edit the .py file with notepad.
- Ship Facts: It has a list of facts and randomly shows one whenever you run the program
- Ship Dictionary: It gives you a word and then you ask for the definition, to check if you had it right. It has 203 words at the moment. (Many from Falconer's Dictionary I suspect; and we can add more if we need!)
Here is some sample output from the Ship Facts program:
And here is a Ship Dictionary example
I have attached the two codes (in one zip file) in case anyone is interested in using them. It is trivial to install python on Wndows, if you do not have it already. And any AI should be able to help you set it up; let me know if you have any problems. I just made a shortcut to the .py file and said to open it with python and it works fine. You can edit the .py file with notepad.