Advice needed on Bluenose POF build.

[RDN1954]

Dear Bluenose builders,

As some of you might know, I'm currently in the final stages of rebuilding a Billing Boats Bluenose model my father initially build.
During this process I came to realize, partly due to the visits I paid to this website, that I want to build a more authentic model of the Bluenose.
Of course my attention was drawn to the various POF build logs on this website and became impressed by the beauty of the YuangQing model.
But... My experience is limited to 2 POB models some 40 years ago (BB Lilla Dan and AL Scottish Maid). So I'm rather reluctant (or just having cold feet) to just go ahead and order and start building this model.
What really is bothering me is, that apparently some of you ran into issues with broken frames, because their construction is not rigid enough to handle "building" stresses. So, what's more lurking under the surface?

So what would your recommendations be? First built for instance a Model Shipways POB kit, prior to embarking on a POF build? Or just go ahead and embark on the POF journey? Bear in mind I'm at best an advanced beginner...

Thanks in advance for any thoughts you may have.

Johan

 

[Bryian]

The YuangQuing kit of Bluenose would be a good plank on frame kit to start with.

Our friend and moderator Heinrich and other members are here to help you though every stage of construction.

 

[PT-2]

Dear Bluenose builders,

As some of you might know, I'm currently in the final stages of rebuilding a Billing Boats Bluenose model my father initially build.
During this process I came to realize, partly due to the visits I paid to this website, that I want to build a more authentic model of the Bluenose.
Of course my attention was drawn to the various POF build logs on this website and became impressed by the beauty of the YuangQing model.
But... My experience is limited to 2 POB models some 40 years ago (BB Lilla Dan and AL Scottish Maid). So I'm rather reluctant (or just having cold feet) to just go ahead and order and start building this model.
What really is bothering me is, that apparently some of you ran into issues with broken frames, because their construction is not rigid enough to handle "building" stresses. So, what's more lurking under the surface?

So what would your recommendations be? First built for instance a Model Shipways POB kit, prior to embarking on a POF build? Or just go ahead and embark on the POF journey? Bear in mind I'm at best an advanced beginner...

Thanks in advance for any thoughts you may have.

Johan

An opinion of my own from the pier is that the YQ POF has taken a number of liberties in simplifying from the "authenticity" of the actual BN. Dean will be able to give you the best summary of what he found and departed from. The POB MS2130 has in my opinion far more detailed and accurate plans for a model which can mount sails at the 64 scale with cloth provided in the kit. Just a side thought. Rich (PT-2)

 

[Dean62]

The YQ POF kit is probably one of the easier POF kits to build, because the jig is very basic. But it serves it’s purpose. I classify it as an excellent first POF kit, due to ease of assembly. Not much harder than a POB kit, just more work!
The delicate nature of the frames is really a matter of how you handle them. They are made of multiple pieces, which is common with POF builds. So handling them is the same as any part on a ship model IMO, use common sense and be careful. If it breaks, it’s wood…glue it back together!
As far as accuracy, etc. I find the kit is an excellent foundation, at a great price, and thus you will need to make embellishments. But this is true of almost every Bluenose kit on the market. I added detail to the windlass, the deck furnishings, etc.
But the biggest short coming in my opinion, is the rigging plans and information, as it was mainly intended to be more of an admiralty presentation. So I used the MS plans and online build logs of the MS model to see how the masts, booms and gaffs should be built with bands, pulleys, fairleads, etc. which I had to scratch build. The YQ kit provides eyes, and shows you to terminate all lines to eyes. This is of course not how the ship was built. There were a few eyes of course, but there were a lot of bands with eyes. I made the bands with thin strips of brass. And the other components with brass rod. It’s not really that difficult if you have the proper plans. You can read thru my build log to see what I added to mine, like the turnbuckles for the bowsprit stays, which are not mentioned in the kit, but should be there.
Because I decided not to add sails, I left off the sail clew bands, sail mast hoops, and the halyards, down hauls and clew lines for the sails.
In conclusion, my finished build will be just one of many examples of what can be done with the kit. If you look at Peters build, he is going above and beyond on everything! He will have added so much detail by the time he is done, that it will be a museum quality ship when finished! So it’s really up to you the builder how far you want to take the kit, and how much research you are willing to do. If you just want to build the kit as is, no embellishments, then it’s down to what’s more important to you. Either historical accuracy or having a POF model. But the YQ can be both and then some.

 

[Heinrich]

This is a difficult for one me to call as I am probably biased. To me the essence of any model is the purpose for which it was designed. The YQ build was designed as a POF model which is built in the Admiralty style - exactly like @Dean62 said. As such the model was never intended to be built with sails and a full set of rigging - therefore I think it is unfair of @PT-2 Rich to focus on the supposedly superior rigging of the MS kit - the YQ kit was never intended to be a fully-rigged, displayed with sails model.

On the other hand, if your focus is on the actual construction accuracy of the Bluenose, then the YQ model blows the MS kit out of the water. @Peter Voogt Peter is doing things with his build that would NEVER be possible with the MS kit - not because the MS kit is a bad kit ... no, it was just not intended for that purpose. As to the supposed "fragility" of the frames, I echo @Dean62 Dean's sentiments - it's entirely up to the individual modeler and the care taken during construction. There is no more robust model available on the market than my Kolderstok Batavia/Haarlem which is a plank-on-bulkhead model ... and even so, the tops of the bulkheads protruding above the deck are fragile and care has to be taken.

So the choice boils down to this: If you want a fully rigged-displayed-with-sails model, go MS. If you want to focus on the hull construction where one side is left unplanked so that you can have visible cues as to the actual workings of the hull, choose the YQ.

If you DO choose the YQ model, I am here to help you and assist you with the purchasing process. All you need to do is to send me a PM. If you choose the MS model, Peter will still add you to the Group Build where general information can be shared. The choice is yours.

 

[PT-2]

This is a difficult for one me to call as I am probably biased. To me the essence of any model is the purpose for which it was designed. The YQ build was designed as a POF model which is built in the Admiralty style - exactly like @Dean62 said. As such the model was never intended to be built with sails and a full set of rigging - therefore I think it is unfair of @PT-2 Rich to focus on the supposedly superior rigging of the MS kit - the YQ kit was never intended to be a fully-rigged, displayed with sails model.

On the other hand, if your focus is on the actual construction accuracy of the Bluenose, then the YQ model blows the MS kit out of the water. @Peter Voogt Peter is doing things with his build that would NEVER be possible with the MS kit - not because the MS kit is a bad kit ... no, it was just not intended for that purpose. As to the supposed "fragility" of the frames, I echo @Dean62 Dean's sentiments - it's entirely up to the individual modeler and the care taken during construction. There is no more robust model available on the market than my Kolderstok Batavia/Haarlem which is a plank-on-bulkhead model ... and even so, the tops of the bulkheads protruding above the deck are fragile and care has to be taken.

So the choice boils down to this: If you want a fully rigged-displayed-with-sails model, go MS. If you want to focus on the hull construction where one side is left unplanked so that you can have visible cues as to the actual workings of the hull, choose the YQ.

If you DO choose the YQ model, I am here to help you and assist you with the purchasing process. All you need to do is to send me a PM. If you choose the MS model, Peter will still add you to the Group Build where general information can be shared. The choice is yours.

I don't see it as "Unfair" as I though that I was only commenting on the differences. A kit is what it is and the builder, and I can accept that. How the builder wants to proceed is in their own mind and hands. In any event they should enjoy their decision and build. Rich

 

[Dean62]

This is a difficult for one me to call as I am probably biased. To me the essence of any model is the purpose for which it was designed. The YQ build was designed as a POF model which is built in the Admiralty style - exactly like @Dean62 said. As such the model was never intended to be built with sails and a full set of rigging - therefore I think it is unfair of @PT-2 Rich to focus on the supposedly superior rigging of the MS kit - the YQ kit was never intended to be a fully-rigged, displayed with sails model.

On the other hand, if your focus is on the actual construction accuracy of the Bluenose, then the YQ model blows the MS kit out of the water. @Peter Voogt Peter is doing things with his build that would NEVER be possible with the MS kit - not because the MS kit is a bad kit ... no, it was just not intended for that purpose. As to the supposed "fragility" of the frames, I echo @Dean62 Dean's sentiments - it's entirely up to the individual modeler and the care taken during construction. There is no more robust model available on the market than my Kolderstok Batavia/Haarlem which is a plank-on-bulkhead model ... and even so, the tops of the bulkheads protruding above the deck are fragile and care has to be taken.

So the choice boils down to this: If you want a fully rigged-displayed-with-sails model, go MS. If you want to focus on the hull construction where one side is left unplanked so that you can have visible cues as to the actual workings of the hull, choose the YQ.

If you DO choose the YQ model, I am here to help you and assist you with the purchasing process. All you need to do is to send me a PM. If you choose the MS model, Peter will still add you to the Group Build where general information can be shared. The choice is yours.

My closing statement is that the YQ can be both, and then some!
If you so chose, you can fully rig and add sails. It just requires some research and diligence. And of course some scratch building.
But like you and me both said, you can take it further, and add all of the below deck furnishings, like Peter.
So I feel like the YQ kit offers more flexibility.

 

[RDN1954]

An opinion of my own from the pier is that the YQ POF has taken a number of liberties in simplifying from the "authenticity" of the actual BN. Dean will be able to give you the best summary of what he found and departed from. The POB MS2130 has in my opinion far more detailed and accurate plans for a model which can mount sails at the 64 scale with cloth provided in the kit. Just a side thought. Rich (PT-2)

Rich,
Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. Both Heinrich and Dean also responded, quite extensively, I might add.
Personally I'm in favor of, what you may call, a "balanced" authenticity model with mounted sails. To the modellers, superdetailing their builds, see Peter's build log as an example, may see this at "cursing in church", as an old Dutch saying goes, but the way I see it, if you build an aircraft model, you wouldn't be able to put all rivets in either. I also saw some build logs of the MS kit and I must say, some of them look suberb.
More food for thought tough...

 

[RDN1954]

Dear Ritch, Dean and Heinrich,

You really went all out in advising me on the subject which way to go; effectively it still boils down to either go with Model Shipways POB kit, less accurate hull build but with, as Rich pointed out, "more detailed and accurate plans for a model which can mount sails" or to pickup the gauntlet and go for the YQ kit, but with customizations. I know it involves quite some research, as Dean pointed out in his reply, however I think it's worth the effort.
To me, a model with sails mounted matters. The Bluenose is a beautiful ship, probably the most beautiful schooner ever build, but without it's sails mounted, it is not complete; in that case it is lacking it's allure, at least that's how I think about it. And when building the BN, I want to show the beauty of this ship.
Pulling @Peter Voogt into the discussion is highly unfair, IMHO; his approach and execution of his build is somewhere at a level mere mortals can only dream about. As an example what can be accomplished, great, but when I'm going through Peter's blog, I'm impressed, really impressed. (Even the Admiral is in awe, whenever I show her some pictures and she's hard to impress.) No offense, Peter...
Back to topic, I most definitely appreciate your thoughts on this matter, they made me re-evaluate my initial ideas I had on the subject.
First on my agenda is to have a closer look at both models and to see how, for example, I can go for mounted sails on the YQ kit and what's needed in terms of customization and authenticity. That means a.o. I'll be following Dean's build log with quite some interest.
Right now I'm leaning towards the YQ kit, but Rich's words are still echoing through my mind.
Again, thanks for your time and your advice, I'll keep you posted.

Kind regards,

Johan

 

[Peter Voogt]

Hi Johan.
For a moment, no ‘cursing in church’
My experience is also 2 POB models, 40 years ago. The Zwarte Zee and Le Mirage. And then dived in at the deep end with The Lee. And to be honest, I really didn't know what I was getting into. I thought it was a beautiful ship and I could get drawings. After a few years it stopped due to various circumstances. And also because I was already thinking about ditails that I didn't know how to make.
Well, finished anyway.
There was also an old-fashion America's Cup yacht in the back of my mind. Then the YQ-BN passed by on this forum.
The BN is also my 1st POF. I found a half open model quite attractive.
That's what I started with, just following the manual. And I started to delve into history. Just because I think that's "normal". I did it also by The Lee, Mirage and Zwarte Zee.
And then you go from one thing to another.
The YQ kit is a great package and very buildable. But ....... you have to have some perseverance for the 55 frames, keel, keelson ....... The laser charcoal ........
I now consider the YQ kit to be a nicely detailed and material package for my build.
And the detailing of The Lee and The Duc has given me pleasure.
But my build should in no way be an obstacle for the other builders.
At first I also thought, that BN should get all sails. Just ‘Full Monty’.
I am sure you can ad all the rigging to the YQ-BN, but you have to build it scratch.
But I'm not sure anymore. Even with just the rigging it can get a nice look. Dean shows that excellent!
The YQ-BN is very good for taking different construction paths.
And I am also looking at the drawing of MS for the mast-details and rigging.
But ...... with a POB you have to plank the whole hull on both sides, ......
Regards, Peter

 

[Peter Voogt]

Oo ...... by me 2 frames where broken during the build. Just handle them with care, like ...... You say it yourself.
And PS: I know, the BN is not a America’s Cup yacht. But also beautifull lined with a huge amount of sails.
Regards, Peter

 

[Henk Liebre]

Hi Johan
I am a builder with little experience, and started building.

All my frames I've finished and I haven't broken any, and I'm not afraid that will happen later in the further build, now grown in confidence

It's what Dean already mentioned, it's about how you deal with it

Being there a few things in the kit, which I want to adjust and do differently, the kit lends itself perfectly to that, but that is of course different for each individual

I think in terms of price and quality the QY kit far above other kits out rises

Your "cold feet" are warmed up quickly here, with all the support

 

[Finn]

I am in the middle of building the QY Bluenose.
It is my first ship model, and I was hesitant to tackle it, but the beauty of the ship and the exposed frames convinced me to give it a try.
I never had a problem with broken frames, and as has been stated, they can be glued.
I am after the visual aspect of the ship, more than the historical accuracy. So I am pleased to look at the now completed hull.
I did a few modifications. Just 6 tiers of planking on both sides. Eliminated the partial decking on the port side.
Now on to the rigging.
So overall, a beginner like me can get plenty of enjoyment out of this kit.
And I appreciate the accuracy of the plans and the laser cut parts. I put my trusty Dremel to good use de-carbonizing!
I never felt frustrated, and this forum has been a BIG help. You will not feel alone. Just take your time and enjoy the voyage.

 

[RDN1954]

I am in the middle of building the QY Bluenose.
It is my first ship model, and I was hesitant to tackle it, but the beauty of the ship and the exposed frames convinced me to give it a try.
I never had a problem with broken frames, and as has been stated, they can be glued.
I am after the visual aspect of the ship, more than the historical accuracy. So I am pleased to look at the now completed hull.
I did a few modifications. Just 6 tiers of planking on both sides. Eliminated the partial decking on the port side.
Now on to the rigging.
So overall, a beginner like me can get plenty of enjoyment out of this kit.
And I appreciate the accuracy of the plans and the laser cut parts. I put my trusty Dremel to good use de-carbonizing!
I never felt frustrated, and this forum has been a BIG help. You will not feel alone. Just take your time and enjoy the voyage.

Hello Finn,

Good to read that the building of the model pleases you ánd that, even when new to the game, the build doesn't seem to be too much for your capabilities.
I'm with you on the beauty of the exposed frames and beams!
If I decide to leap, I definitely want to have the sails mounted. In terms of authenticity, I'm not aiming for perfection, but it should, at least at first sight, be a realistic representation of the Bluenose.

Kind regards,

Johan

 

[PT-2]

Hello Finn,

Good to read that the building of the model pleases you ánd that, even when new to the game, the build doesn't seem to be too much for your capabilities.
I'm with you on the beauty of the exposed frames and beams!
If I decide to leap, I definitely want to have the sails mounted. In terms of authenticity, I'm not aiming for perfection, but it should, at least at first sight, be a realistic representation of the Bluenose.

Kind regards,

Johan

Just to pass along a few considerations:
you decide to bend sails on the YQ I think that there is some running rigging associated with those that you may consider not to include at the 72 scale. For example there are downhaul lines through clews and eyes around the edges of some sails with the turning blocks at the corners are quite small even in my 64 scale. Sails can be done with care and consideration of how you want to present those, furled, full wind filled, up but straight in place, etc. . . . Those definitely make the rigging a bit more complex as they form barriers to reaching around them. I have to do a lot of turning the hull around side to side which becomes more of a challenge to keep an even tension or threading blocks. Think it out very carefully before you take the step as I have lead some falls to the wrong belaying pins or crossing the falls by grasping the wrong line or in the wrong way. I'll be interested to see how you proceed. Dean decided to keep it clean with gaffs up as though there were sails bent which gives a very good view with the obstruction of the sails. Enjoy the voyage. RIch (PT-2)

 

[RDN1954]

Just to pass along a few considerations:
you decide to bend sails on the YQ I think that there is some running rigging associated with those that you may consider not to include at the 72 scale. For example there are downhaul lines through clews and eyes around the edges of some sails with the turning blocks at the corners are quite small even in my 64 scale. Sails can be done with care and consideration of how you want to present those, furled, full wind filled, up but straight in place, etc. . . . Those definitely make the rigging a bit more complex as they form barriers to reaching around them. I have to do a lot of turning the hull around side to side which becomes more of a challenge to keep an even tension or threading blocks. Think it out very carefully before you take the step as I have lead some falls to the wrong belaying pins or crossing the falls by grasping the wrong line or in the wrong way. I'll be interested to see how you proceed. Dean decided to keep it clean with gaffs up as though there were sails bent which gives a very good view with the obstruction of the sails. Enjoy the voyage. RIch (PT-2)

To share my feelings (there's no real ratio behind it) about "hoisting the sails" on the Bluenose, or basically any ship for that matter.
There's every possible configuration for every ship built and, first of all, I don't think any of the configurations applied is wrong or bad; it's in the eye of the builder, as you already expressed in one of your posts.
Having said that, to me, a sailing ship comes to life, only after the sails are set. In port, it's "just" a hull, some masts, booms and gaffes and a lot of rigging.
While the rigging of a (model) ship shows the ingenuity and craftsmanship of the designers and builders, model builders included, the vast majority and complexity of the standing and running rigging often overload my visual receptors and can't distinguish the forest from the trees. Still I can see reason why Dean decided to go for the "no sail" option; it is impressive, to say the least.
So apart from the beauty of having sails set, for me the sails sort of "soften" the overall picture. Again there's no good or bad in having or not having sails installed.

When installing the rigging on my rebuild I ran in similar pitfalls with respect to crossing lines, wrong belaying pins, etc, etc. Read the manuals twice, study the drawings twice and still...
But like you stated, one should enjoy the journey (it's not just about arriving in port).
Happy sailing!

Johan

PS I came across the SOS website not too long ago and recently decided to sign up.
I'm impressed with how fellow builders treat one another, invariably with patience and respect, there's always someone willing to share his experience or pointing out where to get information or whatever is needed.

 

[Dean62]

To share my feelings (there's no real ratio behind it) about "hoisting the sails" on the Bluenose, or basically any ship for that matter.
There's every possible configuration for every ship built and, first of all, I don't think any of the configurations applied is wrong or bad; it's in the eye of the builder, as you already expressed in one of your posts.
Having said that, to me, a sailing ship comes to life, only after the sails are set. In port, it's "just" a hull, some masts, booms and gaffes and a lot of rigging.
While the rigging of a (model) ship shows the ingenuity and craftsmanship of the designers and builders, model builders included, the vast majority and complexity of the standing and running rigging often overload my visual receptors and can't distinguish the forest from the trees. Still I can see reason why Dean decided to go for the "no sail" option; it is impressive, to say the least.
So apart from the beauty of having sails set, for me the sails sort of "soften" the overall picture. Again there's no good or bad in having or not having sails installed.

When installing the rigging on my rebuild I ran in similar pitfalls with respect to crossing lines, wrong belaying pins, etc, etc. Read the manuals twice, study the drawings twice and still...
But like you stated, one should enjoy the journey (it's not just about arriving in port).
Happy sailing!

Johan

PS I came across the SOS website not too long ago and recently decided to sign up.
I'm impressed with how fellow builders treat one another, invariably with patience and respect, there's always someone willing to share his experience or pointing out where to get information or whatever is needed.

I had originally planned to add sails, and make them myself, with the help of the admiral of course.
But once I started making the masts, booms and gaffs, and adding all of the standing rigging (shrouds, stays. etc.), I realized that there was going to be a lot of rigging! And at 1/72 scale, it was soon going to become very busy, and even cluttered.
So in my opinion, it was going to start taking away from the ship and all of the deck furnishings, etc. by blocking your view, and becoming a distraction and or obstruction. So I eventually made the decision to leave all of that off, and let the beauty of the hull, deck furnishings and masts, etc. show without obstruction. It's a case of less is more!
Of course this is all subjective, and we all have in mind what we would like to see or show on our model. I also believe that sails do add to the beauty of a ship, but it's a double edged sword because sometimes adding sails and all of the running rigging to raise and lower them (halyards, downhauls, clew lines, mast hoops, etc.) are so overbearing that it ends up looking too busy. I have built ships both ways, with and without sails. And more all the time I am leaning towards no sails, for the aforementioned reasons.
So the final presentation can be many ways. You can present with full sails and give an appearance of the ship being on the sea sailing. Or you can present with some sails furled, still sailing...or all sails furled, in port...and finally with no sails, being in port under maintenance of sails or replacement of sails, or even a new build with sails not put on yet.
In conclusion, each presentation would be an accurate account of how the ship could look at any given point in time. So all of them would be correct historically.

 

[RDN1954]

In conclusion, each presentation would be an accurate account of how the ship could look at any given point in time. So all of them would be correct historically.

Absolutely no argument there!

 

[Dean62]

One final consideration for no sails. I decided to show the gaffs raised, because I did not like the look of the rope falls going to the boom lowered, as it looks cluttered (see below). But once again that is personal preference!

 

[RDN1954]

One final consideration for no sails. I decided to show the gaffs raised, because I did not like the look of the rope falls going to the boom lowered, as it looks cluttered (see below). But once again that is personal preference!
View attachment 255517

I can see why you want the gaffs raised, there's definitely some clutter by there.
Quite a while back, I tried to imagine how it would look, if I would fabricate the sails from a see-through material... Never went there.