1/48 HMS Blandford

I

IainCleland

Joined
Oct 2, 2023
Messages
24
Points
48

Hi all,

I have started the above POF kit and have completed the keel and have started on frame #30. I have completed it (apart from the last two top parts as Seen in the attached picture) and I am slightly confused as the upper parts are 3mm thick but the last two top parts (which I have not glued in yet) are 4mm thick. Is this correct? I have checked and double checked and I have removed the correct #30 parts from each of the 15 planks that contain the frame parts. Please see my picture below.

Thanks,
Iain

IMG_3069.jpeg

IMG_3073.jpeg

IMG_3074.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Did you check it with f.e. @ken s building log?

HMS Blandford 1:48 POF Modelship Dockyard [COMPLETED BUILD]

beautiful work Ken, impressive progress! thanks for sharing your experience with us :)Thumbsup Hi Shota, Thanks, I’m enjoying it, being in the honeymoon period I can’t put it down, no doubt the build will slow down sometime soon. ken
shipsofscale.com

Seems there are some drawings in the kit which are describing it in detail

1723288257759.png
 
Uwek said:
Did you check it with f.e. @ken s building log?

HMS Blandford 1:48 POF Modelship Dockyard [COMPLETED BUILD]

beautiful work Ken, impressive progress! thanks for sharing your experience with us :)Thumbsup Hi Shota, Thanks, I’m enjoying it, being in the honeymoon period I can’t put it down, no doubt the build will slow down sometime soon. ken
shipsofscale.com

Seems there are some drawings in the kit which are describing it in detail

View attachment 463973
Click to expand...
Yes I saw those drawings which is why I am confused as the two top parts are 4mm thick and not 3mm.
 
Hi Iain,
Not sure you will find it important, but 3mm or 4mm are far too thick for the moulded (in and out) dimension for a 20 gun ship, 24 gun ship, or even a 30 gun for the first half of the 18th century. Assuming she is the Blandford 1720 she would have been built to the 1719 Establishment so the heads of the top timbers of the frames for a 20 gun ship would be moulded about 2.25" and for a 24 gun 2.5". If my math is correct this is about 1.23mm to 1.32 mm rather than 3mm or 4mm. If you are interested in all the scantlings, there is a copy of the 1719 Establishment at RMG, in an appendix in Goodwin's The Construction and Fitting of English Ships of War, and in The Scantlings of Royal Navy Ships.
Allan
 
AllanKP69 said:
Hi Iain,
Not sure you will find it important, but 3mm or 4mm are far too thick for the moulded (in and out) dimension for a 20 gun ship, 24 gun ship, or even a 30 gun for the first half of the 18th century. Assuming she is the Blandford 1720 she would have been built to the 1719 Establishment so the heads of the top timbers of the frames for a 20 gun ship would be moulded about 2.25" and for a 24 gun 2.5". If my math is correct this is about 1.23mm to 1.32 mm rather than 3mm or 4mm. If you are interested in all the scantlings, there is a copy of the 1719 Establishment at RMG, in an appendix in Goodwin's The Construction and Fitting of English Ships of War, and in The Scantlings of Royal Navy Ships.
Allan
Click to expand...
Dude, I understand your desire to promote scratch-build scale modeling, but... Dimensions of the frames, as well as other structural parts already established by the designer(see Uwe's post). Modifying the thicknesses may affect the assembly of all other parts, don't ya think?

For scratch-build lovers there is a set of videos, I mean exactly how some of the scratch builders love and promote, using old-school scale modeling (manual tools, 'eying' the pencil marks, etc.). He doesn't use CAD, and most all his work is done using manual tools. ;) Here are a few of them, but you can watch all of them on Oceanis TV channel.


 
Jimsky said:
I understand your desire to promote scratch-build scale modeling,
Click to expand...
Sorry Jim, but I was looking at this more as a kit bashing thing. In this case you may be right but I do not see how having the top timbers the proper thickness would affect anything else in a negative way. The sheer rail would be less wide, as it should be, otherwise I am not seeing how this would affect other assemblies. Again, I may be way off base and there would be consequences that I am just not seeing.
Thanks Jim, I really do appreciate and respect your input.
Allan
 
AllanKP69 said:
Sorry Jim, but I was looking at this more as a kit bashing thing. In this case you may be right but I do not see how having the top timbers the proper thickness would affect anything else in a negative way. The sheer rail would be less wide, as it should be, otherwise I am not seeing how this would affect other assemblies. Again, I may be way off base and there would be consequences that I am just not seeing.
Thanks Jim, I really do appreciate and respect your input.
Allan
Click to expand...
I love bashing the kits, but the member's question was not about modification and may confuse him even more. I guess, he just needs help to assemble the frames. :cool:
 
Jimsky said:
I love bashing the kits, but the member's question was not about modification and may confuse him even more. I guess, he just needs help to assemble the frames. :cool:
Click to expand...
Hi, I actually fully understand how to assemble the frame, I am just questioning why the last two upper timbers are 4mm thick instead of 3mm. I’m pretty sure that all the other parts of the assembled frame in the photo are in the correct place according to the drawing. I will ask the owner of the company as he is on this website.
 
AllanKP69 said:
Hi Iain,
Not sure you will find it important, but 3mm or 4mm are far too thick for the moulded (in and out) dimension for a 20 gun ship, 24 gun ship, or even a 30 gun for the first half of the 18th century. Assuming she is the Blandford 1720 she would have been built to the 1719 Establishment so the heads of the top timbers of the frames for a 20 gun ship would be moulded about 2.25" and for a 24 gun 2.5". If my math is correct this is about 1.23mm to 1.32 mm rather than 3mm or 4mm. If you are interested in all the scantlings, there is a copy of the 1719 Establishment at RMG, in an appendix in Goodwin's The Construction and Fitting of English Ships of War, and in The Scantlings of Royal Navy Ships.
Allan
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info but the kit is what it is and whether or not the frame parts are of the correct thickness compared to the real life ship is beyond the scope of this topic.
 
Last edited:
IainCleland said:
Hi, I actually fully understand how to assemble the frame, I am just questioning why the last two upper timbers are 4mm thick instead of 3mm. I’m pretty sure that all the other parts of the assemble range are on the correct place according to the drawing. I will ask the owner of the company as he is on this website.
Click to expand...
yeah, ModelDrydoc is a member of our forum @wuxiaomeng can you clarify?
 
AllanKP69 said:
Sorry Jim, but I was looking at this more as a kit bashing thing. In this case you may be right but I do not see how having the top timbers the proper thickness would affect anything else in a negative way. The sheer rail would be less wide, as it should be, otherwise I am not seeing how this would affect other assemblies. Again, I may be way off base and there would be consequences that I am just not seeing.
Thanks Jim, I really do appreciate and respect your input.
Allan
Click to expand...
2.25 inches, approximately equal to 5.715cm, I don't think the rib thickness of a warship would even be thinner than the anti-theft door at home, which would lower the defense capability of the ship's side
 
wuxiaomeng said:
.25 inches, approximately equal to 5.715cm, I don't think the rib thickness of a warship would even be thinner than the anti-theft door at home
Click to expand...
I understand the kit is what it is and the model builder can do whatever they choose, it is theirs to decide, and that is as it should be. I was just offering up an alternative based on the actual dimensions. Wuxiamomeng, I agree it sounds light, but those are the dimensions given in historical sources regardless of what we think might be too small. If you look at the 1719 Establishment and you will see that the thickness is indeed 2.25 inches. Contemporary contracts for the period confirm this. The section of the first contract below is for Lark 1702 and you can see the top timbers, even on this 40 gun ship, have an in and out dimension is 2.5 inches at the top (aloft) It is actually written in the old style as 2 -4/8" .

The second contract below is for the 20 gun Perseus, and is dated 3 September 1775, You can see at the bottom of the page that the moulded (in and out) dimension had grown to be a little thicker. It states "moulded at the top timber head 3.5 inches" (1.85mm at 1:48.) It is actually written in the old style as
3 4/8" .

Allan

Lark (40) 1702 top timbers.JPG
1723315884904.png
 
Last edited:
in fact, are there any production examples of 1.85mm thick ancient models in NMM's collection?
 
wuxiaomeng said:
are there any production examples of 1.85mm thick ancient models in NMM's collection?
Click to expand...

Hi Wuxiaomeng
I have no way of knowing without measuring them but you could try to contact them for some help. The open framed 1715 model of a 50 gun at RMG (NMM) could be measured to check that dimension. As that particular model is 50 gun circa 1715 she would have a moulded dimension of about 3.25" It is my understanding from discussions with staff that I have met in the past while doing some of my own research that the models at NMM and the collections at Preble Hall and AGO were built to scale in all respects. It has been a few years since I communicated with them, but you may want to contact one of the curator team members at RMG, AGO or the model curator at Preble Hall in Annapolis, Mr. Grant Walker, who has access to the models there and can possibly give you some help. You could also join the Preble Hall Podcast the next time they meet and ask if someone there can help you. https://www.usna.edu/Museum/PrebleHall/index.php
Allan
 
Last edited:
IainCleland said:
Hi, I actually fully understand how to assemble the frame, I am just questioning why the last two upper timbers are 4mm thick instead of 3mm. I’m pretty sure that all the other parts of the assembled frame in the photo are in the correct place according to the drawing. I will ask the owner of the company as he is on this website.
Click to expand...
I would check, if the 4mm top timber parts are maybe by accident lasered in a 4 mm wooden sheet.
Maybe it is a mistake in the production - than you would have several other parts cut in a 4mm sheet
 
Last edited:
Good luck with your build
I also made the same mistake
Keep asking questions there are several of us Blandford builders on here willing to help
 
maltbyguy said:
Good luck with your build
I also made the same mistake
Keep asking questions there are several of us Blandford builders on here willing to help
Click to expand...
Thanks, it takes me about 40min to complete a frame, probably half of that time is sanding off the laser burn from both the in and out sides of the 15 parts of the frame. Will take a bit longer when I come to the frames closer to the bow and stern to sand the curvature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top