• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About dafi

  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Ludwigsburg Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

1,622 profile views
  1. Big thank you Paul! Many modelers already asked for them having illegible Heller copies and/or not being able to interpret them. XXXDAn
  2. Here is from Victory 1765, some half beams that in the side elevation do look strange. After McKay. XXXDAn
  3. Unbelievable that these nutshells could go that far without being swallowed by the elements! Thank you for the pictures! XXXDAn
  4. This one I found two weeks ago on the foot of the 7 Provinciens at the Batavia Warft in the Netherlands. Was this an omen that the build was meant to be put on ice?!? XXXDAn
  5. Wonderfully done!!! Congratulations. XXXDAn
  6. Very nicely done the curved planks! Marking the positions of the butts is the best way to do, but be aware, the frames of the kits are usually not in the right positions! You can see on the sketch, that the beams - and therefore the butts - go through the scuttles. Like this the cargo would go not downwards. The position of the beams are always in front and back of the scuttles, or better saying in real life the scuttles follow the beams underneath. [/img] XXXDAn
  7. Very tasty build and presentation :-) XXXDAn
  8. I am quite confident that the port existed, from Sovereign of the Seas onwards to the 1760ies 1780ies. It is shown in many plans, models, drawings and paintings. Around the mentioned time it suddenly diappeared from ALL the before mentioned contemporary sources. That was the time of Seven Years' War and America´s war of independence, both to deal with major Navy activities. Possibly that service necessities beat protocol for once ;-) The ports reappear in the plans of around 1800, but sometimes one port more aback. Good point with the carvings Mark. Another mystery that is not solved yet, in the start it appears that there was only a port on the port side. When did the use of two entry ports start? This feature is only to be seen on models so far. XXXDAn
  9. That is more easy: over the waist using the side steps and the rope. As there are strong evidences of there not being side entrance ports on the first two rates from the 1760ies to the 1805ies, even Nelson must have been using those steps, or better, having his handicap, using the bosum´s chair. But my question was serious: Are there contemporary sources about the use of this port? All sources that I know indicating them as to be for senior officers only, are dated much later! Knowing the serious business of protocol in those days, there should be a clear statement somewhere in the regulations. But the use of this port is so out of documentation, only plans, models and painting showing it, but no details about the use, the door and other details. Heretical question: Or was it originally only a port to throw out garbage and potty-contents during trips, when ports were to be shut?!? XXXDAn
  10. Was it really? Are there any contemporairy sources of the 1760ties to 1810ties reporting the use? Still looking for that. Still a big puzzle for this prominent feature :-) XXXDAn
  11. The one with the plank on the bottom is the older version as far as I know. I do not know when the switch models was done, neither how long the older one was still in use. Perhaps contact Mr Delacroix. XXXDAn
  12. Great pictures, thank you! Nice traces of decay like the rudder, the broken knees and so on ... XXXDAn
  13. Be cautious with the drawings of the planking at McKay´s and McGowan´s books! Both of them show just simplified "mock-"planking, not respecting the beams underneath. One can see butts on the level of then middle of coamings or companion ways. That is NOT correct, those ends would hang in mid air. I marked all possible positions for butts with green lines. All butts in between are incorrect. Only on the green lines there are beams underneath to nail onto. Also note the different distances of the beams, leading to different lengths of the planks. And with the correct spacing of the beams underneath the planks become much longer than shown in this picture. XXXDAn
  14. Much longer than the 6 meter Mondfeld states :-) As the butts need to respect the deck beams underneath - see their position in AOTS - and with a 3 butt-shift system one gets over 12 meter long planks in the middle of the deck! Also as the deck beams do NOT have the same distances, the length of the planks varies quit a bit! See here the lower deck of my Vic. #68 And if you wnt to be brave, do NOT use straight parallel planks as I did, use the curved ones as this is most possibly more contemporary. XXXDAn