I have already processed the stern, but the bow has not yet been processed because some accessories have not been designed yet, so due to size issues, I will not process it for the time being.
This is great to see as many kits have this far too thick. According to the original contract for Artois and her class, including the Diana 1794, (see original contract segment below) the moulded (in and out) dimension was 5.5 inches to 6 inches (2.9 to 3.1mm at 1:48) so yours is much closer than we see from a number of other kit makers.The thickness of B is about 3.5MM
Gorgeous model! The treenails are very subtle and look really nice. I love that you tapered the knee of the head so nicely both from the stem to the seat of the figurehead and down from the top to match the breadth of the keel.I added the details of the nails to satisfy my own aesthetic taste.
There will be gaps after the upper part of the wood is pried open and polished. Fill them with wood powder of this black wood, and the effect is very good.Gorgeous model! The treenails are very subtle and look really nice. I love that you tapered the knee of the head so nicely both from the stem to the seat of the figurehead and down from the top to match the breadth of the keel.
This is a new one for me -what is the strip of wood below the wales marked in the picture below?
It is hard to tell from the photo, but did you taper the thickness of the wales and the thickstuff upon the wales so they seat properly in the rabbet like the other hull planking? Thank you
Allan
View attachment 455671
I think there may be two reasons. The first reason is that the order of the Admiralty was not implemented. The second reason is that the decoration of the model is made according to the builder's own aesthetic taste and may not be completely in line with the decoration of the real ship.This is a great piece of information!! I had never seen the top row of plates with a cover board and never noticed it on this model. I wonder if this was commonly done?
I realize the Bellona (1760) model is somewhat of an anomaly. For example, the Burkett and Thompson model from circa 1760/1770 at RMG carries her name on the stern which was never allowed by the Admiralty for security reasons on any ships in the age of sail except between 1781 and 1790.
No matter, the band of wood gives us another option. Both the band and name can be seen on this view of the model.
Allan
View attachment 455974
I think my cat might be the supervisor. It needs a whip to whip me so that I can speed up the production process.I am now in love with your cat ........ She is the admiral and you are the shipwright
BTW: Great details and accuracy
Beautiful!This is the current progress. I have made the toilet at the stern and will soon make the copper sheet.View attachment 456958View attachment 456959
Of course I welcome your questions. I think this is one of the meanings of making this post. As for this gun, I'm sorry I don't have more information. This is a blind spot in my knowledge. I only know the information of the ship, the origin of the gun, especially the manufacturer, is not clear.Hi fj Your workmanship continues to be beautiful. I have a question regarding your cannon, hope you don't mind.
What cannon pattern are you using? It looks like a combination of an Armstrong-Frederick and Blomefield rather than one or the other thus my confusion. See below for comparison.
Thanks FJ
Allan
View attachment 457092