"Annual SOS Donation Drive Underway"
Please consider making a Donation to SOS to support our growth and developement.
Please check and read your email subject [Donations] from email@example.com for more details.
Hi Eric: I have dead-eyes that I bought of 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 13. I have blocks that I bought of 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 mm. These are available in single, double and triple from various manufactures.<br/>
My time includes dry fitting and adjustments since that is what it takes to get the pieces on the model. It does include measuring for exact location of the part I am trying to put on the model. It does not contain research, studying plans or figuring out what the instructions might be trying to tell you, since this is not really working on the model. Since thinking time and determining what instructions are trying to say, etc varies by experience and individuality and some things can take little and others may take an hour or more to figure out. I do not include any of this since no actual modeling is being done.<br/>
Thanks Edmay and Eric for your comments.
<t>Nice build sir! Lots of parts! <br/>
I have a question though. It's not about your particular model, but on the ship itself.<br/>
I have seen other pics of this model, by other builders. They all have the same quirk that I must realize, must have been on the actual ship.<br/>
Why would they build a ship, that have cannon pointing inboard from two directions, toward each other? <br/>
As in the midship pic with the capstan and bilge pumps, above. <br/>
Perhaps just for the pure opulence of it all? <br/>
Curious in Seattle</t>
Just a side note, I love the Amati photo-etched dead-eye holders for the bottom part that goes through the extension racks along the sides and for the bottom of the higher dead-eyes that take the futtock rigging. Amati 4408-01 are 3 mm and hold the 3 mm, 2.5,mm and 2 mm dead-eyes. Their 4408-02 are 5 mm and hold the 4, 4.5, 5 mm dead-eyes. Their 4408-03 are 7 mm and hold the 6 and 7 mm dead-eyes.
Putting the dead-eyes on the side of the ship is the first step in the rigging process. The Mantua rigging plans and dimension are grossly in error and very typical of this manufacture. This is the redesigned version and they revised it by including more errors such as showing the center of the yard being 8 sided. This did not come about until after 1730, long after the ship was destroyed.
The kit represents the ship before its refit in 1651 when the forecastle height was reduced, the walk extension on the quarter gallery side was remove, the poop deck was removed and the head was shortened.
Several artist have depicted her over time but contain errors like J. Payne etching which does not show the lower dead-eye attachments, F. Cadwell and W. Davis etching shows the missen dead-eyes being at the roof level of the top level gallery. This could be possible after one of her several refits.
Throughout the 17th century the missen dead-eye side extension was associated with the wales with very few exceptions. These exceptions seemed to be done only top avoid breaking gold patterns with the Prince of 1670 being an example.
The kit has 7 mm dead-eye and 5 mm dead-eye only. Thus, since the main mast is 12 mm, the 7 mm are to big for the main mast and 6 mm dead-eye were used. There are 11 shrouds on the foremast, 12 on the main mast and 7 on the missen. Mantua shows on 10, 10 and 5. After 34 years of making the model wrong, their revision in 2008 is still wrong. Also, for the missen they use one strap and one connecting link. For the other two mast they show using three connecting links. However they only send enough for one which is what is right since the bottom strap should go to the wale as the plans show and not below it as per the instructions.
I have added the extra dead-eyes. At this stage, I have about 550 construction hours and 2,600 parts.
that is a stunning amount of work and detail you have invested in your build. Truly outstanding I must say. I know that a guy with your level of understanding about ships really surpasses the ship manufactures details and the products most of them put out. I still would not know if a ship kit is up to par or not on the historical accuracy. All I know is if the kit is missing parts or if the rigging plans are misprinted. <E>:roll:</E> <br/>
Thanks a lot Donnie. It does take a lot of studying and knowing where to look which comes a lot of reading and a good library. Also, being somewhat of a perfectionist that goes beyond being an A type a personality is what I am stuck with. Fortunately, there are people that have spent years gathering this information and publishing books on the subjects. The problem now is that with a large library and years of several magazines that are on DVD's (6 of them), I keep saying, I know I saw that somewhere, but where?
At this stage, there are over 3,100 parts and 600 hours involved in the building process.
The first problem is that the instructions say to make the cannon port doors using three pieces. The top piece, the pieces saved when cutting out the ports and the bottom piece. This will create a door three thickness deep. I used the top piece only. You can see that using something three times as thick would be totally wrong and interfere with the guns under the channels. Also, if they were that thick, they would be very heavy and extremely hard to open when preparing the cannons for action. Finally, they would be very hard to close and seal from inside the ship.
The model I had was based upon the 1974 Mantua version. The gun spacing was very hard to get right. Additionally, modern technology could be used to make the parts more precise. Thus, Mantua revised the kit in 2008. To go along with the new kit, they completely revised the instructions. This significantly helps build the model and are very well written with pictures of each step. There are several errors which I have addressed previously but most can be resolved by using the plans to figure out what is wrong, The people on various modeling sites convinced me that the new version was better and was worth upgrading. To use the instructions, you have to upgrade the wood parts since some parts have been revised, update and had number changes. Thus, I got the plans for the newer version and order the wooden parts that had been updated. Several sheets had not been changes such as the cannon carriages, the mast top platforms, etc. Most of the revisions and problems have been discussed already such as the deck gratings still being too large. Several of the changes do help make it look more professional, especially the precise mitered corners simulated using laser technology. I do not know if the metal castings have been revised to adapt to the new spacing of the cannon during this 2008 revision. If they have, I believe I would have been better off to have just ordered the new version entirely.
What you will see is the poop deck and the deck forward of it have side rails with the proper gap under the walls. The others were built using the vertical supports from the older kit. By the way they were cut, the lower part was easy to break and several were broke as I built the side rails. Thus, I had to order the new sheet of these supports. The laser parts had been revised and the way to release them did not cause breakage and made them a little taller. Thus, people building the new version should have the rail with the proper gap and look better than my version.
Another error involves the cannons with the fancy gold surrounds on the upper decks. Mantua shows that the surrounds should be put on the inside of the rail also. This is not done on any other ships of the era and would not have been done on this ship. These areas are tight enough without future restricting movement. It would have made the cannons set back to far and limit aiming these close range weapons. Also, all the walls were painted red so that it would hide the blood of injured crew. Again, depending on where the sun was, the reflective property of gold would work against the gun crew and blood would really show up well on its surface.
<r>The build is coming along very nicely <E>:greetings-clapyellow:</E> I wonder how the different kit manufacturers manage to come up with the same vessel looking and built so differently?<br/>
I know your build is by Mantua and mine is by Artesania Latina released as a partwork by Deagostini! I notice that the cannon barrels look very similar in both builds and most of the carriages seem to match each other, the rest of the build could be mistaken for a different vessel altogether though? even down to the differing gunport linings. I cant help but see how you have bright red external framework on show and mine has recessed red ochre linings, I realise that a lot of this hobby is down to the builders discretion and interpretation of how the ship would look and of course unless you're a rivet counter minor discrepancies will occur between any two builders constructing the same kit.<br/>
I do prefer the "just" brass decorations of the Mantua kit in comparison to my Deagostini painted white metal castings that my kit comes with and on reflection I would have preferred this build as a complete kit as the sequence of parts has been rather strange at times!! I was very close to getting the full Mantua kit at the time of the release of the Deagostini version and was just swayed by the chance to pay monthly rather than pay out a large chunk of cash in one hit, having said that I had to re-join Modelspace under a different name to try and sort out some issue problems which never got sorted and eventually I cancelled the direct subscription and finished the series by collecting my issues from a local newsagent. I have kept the membership live but only use that account now to PM a few members over there that help me out with my plastic kit builds!!<br/>
I was also wondering if you intend to rig the deck cannons or not? I am just finishing off the construction of the last few cannons for my build and then it will be a long old haul attaching all the rigging to mine, blocks and eyes were provided with my kit but are at an enormous scale and have been replaced with smaller ones in a more realistic scale but still quite oversized, although I will use the provided rigging thread as that's seems to be quite good quality and a good colour.<br/>
I look forward to your next update.<br/>
I am using the book Sovereign of the Seas by James Sephton, ISBN 978-1-4456-0168-7. We know that the king insisted on black as the only color and the red is only used on the inside from where the cannon would be are fired so that the gunners and crew would not be distracted by the site of blood. The decorations are very incorrect but Sephton states that the Mantua version is the closes any kit comes and is based somewhat on Culver's 1921 model. Most of the corrections I will make is on the stern.
The rigging errors of Mantua actually start with the way they show to rig the cannons. The method shown was not in used until after this ship was burned. They actually used the same incorrect rigging on the Le Soleil Royal and the French used a different method than the British.
The cannons will be rigged according to how they were done by the British in this era and is pictured and describe in the great book by by Wolfram Zu Mondfeld called Historic Ship Models, ISBN 0-8069-5733-6. I have used his book to calculate the lines require on my Le Soleil Royal and used 19 different sizes of rigging line on it. I have calculated the same for this ship and will post it after I finish the cannons and stern decorations. This is all that is left prior to starting my rigging.
The best way in this era to calculate the size of blocks required is to take the diameter of the rigging line and multiply it by 12. Thus, if i will be using 0.25 mm line, my block would be 3 mm.
I am working on the cannons now. They will be done according to the time period and they way the British did it in the 17th century. This is very tedious work and each cannon will have 35 parts required to build and rig them in place. I am using 3 mm single and double blocks and .25 mm line to rig the running lines and .75 mm rope for the breaching line. Hopefully it will turn out nice but it is really a tight space to try and get things right.
After building and rigging in the cannons, I now have 635 construction hours and over 3,450 parts. Everything above the cannon decks, including mast and yards lengths and sizes plus most of the rigging is incorrect and will require major modifications. I will start addressing these issues after finishing the stern area.
<t>Beautiful work Gary. I wish we could all see your model at the upcoming meet-up, but I know it's at a stage that's beyond transporting. I'm rigging the cannon on my colonial schooner now, which is not nearly as challenging, being that I'm working at about 1:48 scale and with shorter bulwarks and all.<br/>