wrkempson

Members
  • Content count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About wrkempson

  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

137 profile views
  1. I look forward to your progress. It looks like an exciting project. One very small thing. The box shows two pins at the ends of the spokes set into the felloes. I don't believe these are at all right. There are no pins or fasteners in the wheel. Everything was held together by the iron tyre (rim). If you consult photographs you should see there are no such pins. I feel like I am being more dogmatic than I should, so I am open to correction and reproof. Thanks for letting us look over your shoulder while building. Wayne
  2. Goodwin and Lavery are entirely different books. Goodwin is the resource for building the ship. Lavery tells you what to put in it. Both books are necessary resources. Add to them Lees' book on Masting and Rigging and you will have a nice trilogy for building these ships. Wayne
  3. Beautiful work. One word of caution: the thin gasket material works well for the braces. But later on it is used to cover the luggage rack and to close in the storage space beneath the driver's seat. On my coach the thin gasket material has dried out over time resulting in annoying curls. By now it is too brittle to work back into place. It is not impossible but I would look for a different material to use when coming to that part of the build. If I can I'll edit in a photo later. Wayne
  4. Dan, when you first purchased your Stage Coach I followed suit. I even spent time on the Scale Horse Drawn Vehicle web site (which makes me enjoy this forum all the more). I have now built ME's Stage Coach, Conestoga, Doctor's Buggy and Chuck Wagon. The carriage works shown by Mike seems to be the common method of supporting all kinds of wagons. If I were to put a New England whale boat on wheels, that is the arrangement to be used. I posted a few videos on YouTube on building the Conestoga that can be found by searching for "Building the Conestoga Wagon." I append one photo just for fun. I love what you are doing on the Stage Coach. Wayne
  5. "I've always hoped someone would design a square ringed ship simulator" http://www.pdavis.nl/ Is graphically crude, but the elements of handling a square rigger are there. It's old by now, but you can get a feel for how the various sails affect the movement and handling of the ship. Wayne
  6. Yes, according to http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Crothers
  7. The boats on Lagoda have the oars, paddles, mast, sail, harpoons etc., and line tubs. This photo is not terribly clear, but indicates the contents. In that this model at half scale was built by men who had personal experience with whaling, I would give this arrangement serious weight. Wayne
  8. In the contract for Curacoa and Astrea (36 guns, 1808) the "Plank of the Bottom" is described in detail. It indicates to me that this region of planking was of uniform thickness beginning five strakes (of "thickstuff") below the wales. See Euryalus, vol 1, page 123. There is no doubt that a gauger taking the Extreme Breadth would not measure at a place where this bottom plank was used. Nonetheless, using the called out Extreme Breadth in the formula for Burthen yields Steel's numbers (as long as one discards the extraneous inches when taking the height of the wing transom). As the owner of the vessel, I would protest that using a measured Extreme Breadth would not accurately reflect the underwater body since the major part of the hull was of the thickness of the bottom plank, not the thickness of the thickstuff or wales. And while the gauger is at it, how would he measure the height of the wing transom above the top of the keel? Wouldn't he have to take that number from the plans? For that matter, how would he measure the length from the stern post at the height of the wing transom to the stem at the height of the hawse holes? Wouldn't he have to take that number from the plans as well? I guess I am wondering how the measuring could be done to supply all the numbers needed. The outside breadth seems easy enough, but the other measurements are also internal to the vessel and would thus suffer from the same limitation mentioned (partitions and other obstructions). I read the quote from Steel as referring to the thickness of the bottom [planking] and not to the thickness of whatever planking happens to lie on the frame where a measurement is taken. Just my less-than-informed opinion. Wayne
  9. When I look at Steel, I see scantlings for both the extreme and moulded breadths. The difference (for Steel) is always twice the thickness of the bottom plank. The actual thickness of the planking (eg, wales) is not noticed. For the Repository, the difference is normally twice the thickness of the bottom plank, but not always. Does this indicate that the extreme breadth was a convention (moulded breadth plus the thickness of the bottom plank) and not an actual measurement (moulded breadth plus whatever planking lay at the height of breadth of the dead flat)? A big thank you to Allan Yedlinsky again for his work in making the scantlings for 1719, 1745, Steel and the Repository available in a convenient format. Wayne
  10. The long line between the lips of the scarph is actually an arc, I suspect. Several years ago there was a discussion of the shape of the "flat" of the scarph of the stem pieces at http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/4080-scantling-questions/page-17#entry289479 If that discussion is accurate, and I suspect it is, then perhaps the scarph of the break water is also curved. The "flat" arc passes through a point halfway between the lips and at the mid point for the thickness of the timber. Attached shows this for the scarph in question. I think this makes a much more serviceable joint. Wayne
  11. Addictive, indeed.
  12. I should have observed that my above comments assume the station lines were drawn correctly at the heel (keel rabbet). That is, the station lines when draughted terminate at the inner point of the rabbet "triangle," but when lofted terminate at a point tangent to (to the "back" of) the upper arc of the rabbet. I think I understand your drawing. Are you agreeing that the top of the rising wood needs to be significantly higher than you have it? I would divorce the line of the rising wood from the fore and aft bearding lines entirely for the reason already mentioned. Wayne
  13. Oddly, or so it seems to me, the top of the rising wood reflects a particular buttock line. Here is how. Draw the buttock line that is in the vertical plane of the side of the keel. This buttock line will almost touch the top of the keel for much of the area of the square frames, but in fact it will probably not touch the top of the keel at all. Amidships this buttock line will probably be in the order of less than a tenth of an inch above the top of the keel (real world). This line will rise at the bow and stern as the floors rise. It represents the level of the bottom of the floor timbers. Now draw a line above this buttock line offset by six inches (the depth of the score into the floor timbers). This second line is the line of the top of the rising wood. If we remember that the floors rest on the rising wood, then our purpose is to determine the height of the floors (the first buttock line) or of the scores set into the floors (the offset line). Thus I suggest the above process. The bearding lines fore and aft are taken from a different buttock line. The bearding lines show the line upon which the cant frames are set. Since the cants rest on a shelf of 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 inches, the bearding lines are the buttock line set the width of the shelf from the side of the keel. If you look at the framing plan for Euryalus you will see that the bottom of the frames are not drawn as if resting on the keel (as is the conventional practice). This is because the frames in fact do no rest on the keel at all, they rest on the rising wood. Just my take on things. Wayne
  14. His Britannic Majesty's or His British Majesty's Generally, such initials were not used in reference to ships of the Royal Navy prior to 1825, although the fully written out form is easily found. As a technicality, "HMS" would not be used of a ship prior to the nineteenth century, but "His Majesty's Ship" would. For the sake of convenience, HMS is used for eighteenth century ships and the Royal Museum has no problem with doing so. This information comes to me via Allan Yedlinski on the basis of his correspondence with David Antscherl and John Harland. I will say I found "H.M.S. Theseus" in Nelson's Journal of 1797. Wayne
  15. Regarding the pump placement: The ship sits 1' 6" lower at the stern so that the pumps are actually situated over the lowest part of the bilge before the angle of the floors becomes too acute to accommodate the end of the pump (ie, station 10 or 11). Congratulations on finding the plan. Wayne