wrkempson

Members
  • Content count

    203
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About wrkempson

  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

192 profile views
  1. I may have used the term half beam incorrectly. I should have said beam arm. Nonetheless, thanks much for responses as I think the problem now has a workable solution. Goodwin in his reconstruction of Blandford 20 guns 1720 (AOTS p. 47) shows the mizzen partners "scrunched" together with a close in beam. I may go with that. I just about never consult AOTS but the McKay drawing reminded me to do so. Wayne
  2. I can't think of an example of a mid-beam dog leg. Maybe I'll just insert a half beam, but I can't remember seeing one this far aft; usually I associate half beams with the main mast and the main hatch beams. On this particular drawing, inboard items at the side are drawn in red with dotted lines. Does anyone know what these spaces are? I have seen photos of model 50's with gratings and (what I think is) a sky light. Since the wheel is nowhere to be seen I thought the artist may have left off deck items on these decks. He has half breadth arrangements of the upper and lower decks on the same plan so maybe those are the only decks he develops on the sheer plan. Again, the forecastle lacks gratings of any kind which clues me he has left items off (i.e., there has to be some kind of grating for the stove). Would a quarterdeck sky light be found on a ship of 1730? This plan has all the details one normally expects, save for the weather decks. Thanks for the response. Wayne
  3. Here is a detail from the NMM/RMG plan of Litchfield 1730, 50 guns. Letter A shows how the mizzen mast is crowded by a beam. Letter B shows the mizzen again crowded by a beam. It is unclear to me how the partners would be laid out. Also, at B the mast seems to crash through a partition. This is not as troublesome, but still a little bit of a bother. Observations on how to deal with the crowding of the beam would be appreciated. To date I have moved the upper deck beam a bit aft and left the lower deck beam as is. Still, there is no room for framing out the partners. I would have thought about a half beam, but the plan does not call for it. Bonus question: the area bracketed by C shows nothing on the quarter deck. I suspect at the least a grating over the area below; I would even accept a skylight of some kind. Would that be accurate? I am pretty sure the wheel belongs abaft the mizzen mast just over the end of the tiller (this I get from Windfield's The 50-Gun Ship). The forecastle shows nothing on that deck either, so that too may need some addition to the plan. I am over two years into this project and am drawing up the deck framing. Observations on what to do with this small confusion is appreciated. Wayne
  4. The lines you asked about on the other forum are sweep lines. The upper ones define the lower breadth sweeps and determine the shape of the hull below the lower breath line. The bottom set of lines define the floor sweeps and determine (sort of) the shape of the hull at the floor. They are used by the draughtsman and the loftsman to draw the shape of the hull along with several other lines (including especially the diagonals). For your purposes, if you follow the "textbook" process of tracing the station lines with beziers you will not need the sweep lines. These two videos give a brief albeit incomplete explanation of how the various lines were used to loft out the frames lines. and As I mentioned, this demonstration is not complete but may help you understand how things were done in the old lofts. I tried to register with the other forum without success (my fault) so I though I would send a long a reply here. Wayne
  5. I am interested to know if you have taken the scarph arrangements from your plans. In a brief review last night, it seems that the scarphs were not usually drawn in. For Euryalus they were drawn in. I am attaching the keelson pieces from Euryalus that indicates the orientation of the scarphs. I could never make a great deal of sense out of it. The only thing I could come up with was that the keelson pieces were installed in the order 4,5,6,1,2,3. This would allow two gangs to fit the pieces in situ (4&1, 2&5, 6&3 being done simultaneously). Your arrangement, of course, would install 1,2,3,4,5,6. This is no big deal, but I thought I would mention it in passing. Wayne
  6. My observation is as follows, but my data is limited. Romero used the term because he was writing instructions for his local club. A practicum usually means a study (or course) in which the student is given guidance during actual "hands on" experience. I was familiar with the term more in the field of education. Anyway, Romero was guiding people who were learning by doing. Then he made his instructions generally available, but because they had been generated for a true practicum the term adhered to his written instructions. His writings in and of themselves are not truly a practicum since they lack the personal guidance element. Once Romero's books were called practicums, we then began to see any detailed set of instructions referred to as practicums. Now we are stuck with this inaccurate use of the word. From time to time it is pointed out that we are misusing the term, but some thirty years later it is rather pedantic to insist on a correction. Wayne
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. "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
  12. Yes, according to http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Crothers
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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