• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lmagna

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Everett Washington
  • Interests
    Modeling, hiking, camping, reading

Profile Fields

  • Full NRG Member?
    MSW Member

Recent Profile Visitors

174 profile views
  1. Gerhard Thanks for the link. Nicely done patrol boat. I like the jig system you made as well. I am wondering if it could be made to work without the use of a lathe. All I have for rotary work is a drill press. Lou
  2. Thank you for the video Gerhard. I will try and find the other videos on YouTube as well. Lou
  3. Gerhard You make me feel a little better when you say that you still use tracing paper and pencil! I was thinking that I was the only person left that had to resort to those means to create plans from available sources. i do need to look into Open office and other computer programs you mention as well I suppose just to keep from becoming a technology fossil. Lou
  4. Gerhard I did not know that it took so long to use a cad program on plans like this. Do you have a light table where you could draw new plans over the ones you have now? I have done that before with blown up plans where the lines had gotten too thick and on plans as straight forward as these it would only take a few hours. Not too many complex shapes or details on this model. Lou
  5. Gerhard WOW, you did a great job of creating usable plans from the magazine plans! I wish I knew how to do that. After years of looking I finally located and obtained builder hull lines for an obscure american schooner called the Lanakai but built in 1914 as the Hermes. Now I will need to enlarge them by hand to build the model. I will be looking for your build. Lou
  6. Gerhard That Springer will certainly get the job done. You said that you intend to build the boiler for the Cairo as scale. Were they fire tube boilers, and would they have enough surface area (Scaled down) to make steam fast enough to keep up with the engine you intend to use? kscadman I know the feeling. I need to get off my lazy rear and start the THIRD remake of the transom for my Constructro "Beginners kit." There is nothing like what seems like no progress. Lou
  7. "remove all doubts about our illness." My Admiral would say that there has been no doubt about MY illness for quite some time now! It would not be so bad if it was only ships, after all there are only so many kits available. My sickness extends, (As it appears yours does as well) to aircraft, spaceships, real and imagined, cars and who knows what else if you dig far enough! And then there are the research books and help books............ and the list goes on. "I regret that I have but one life to live" Lou
  8. CDW I am glad to see your stash. It is nice to know that I am not alone in my sickness, even though I am afraid that my closet is larger AND fuller! Lou
  9. Gehard I am so glad you were able to open and use the page. I have done things like that in the past except I do not have any drafting style computer programs so it was always by hand. Good luck on your Cairo, I looked at your build and it is really coming along nicely. I have done a little RC steam in years past and it can be a little hard, depending on the engine and boiler choice. But when they run right steam is a lot of fun and seems to draw many watchers. I always had to keep an electric powered recovery boat with me just in case! Lou
  10. Gerhard I am new at this but I copied the plans from page 4 into a Word docx file. I enlarged it to a full page size, (8.5" X 11") Hopefully you can open it. If not then possibly someone here can take it and make it into a PDF file. Sorry my skills at this are not better. It looks like it is of a good enough quality to be enlarged even more and still stay relatively useful. Lou Doc2.docx
  11. Gerhard Will this work for what you want? https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?1255615-General-Ekranoplan-Topic/page7 https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?1255615-General-Ekranoplan-Topic/page4 Hope it is useful to you. Lou
  12. I may have been one of the last people here to have "talked" to him when he was so kind to enter into a discussion with me about gun port sizes and such just seven days before he died. It was so kind of him to answer in such detail a question from a newbie. Even though I can not say I knew him well, I will always remember him for treating me with kindness and respect and doing his best to provide a high quality answer. I also offer my condolences to his family and friends in their loss. Lou
  13. John Thanks for looking in and providing another source of information. Of course it turns out that I do not have Hahn's 'Ships of the American Revolution'. I have, in fact I am presently reading, his 'Colonial Schooner 1763-1175 and I have his plans for the Rattlesnake. That means I am unable to read your reference and make any comment on Hahn's description of the Lexington. I also would prefer not to discount to much on the research of people far more versed on ships of this time than I am unless I was able to obtain some very convincing undisclosed information. I do not think I was questioning length and number of guns in dismissing the Lexington as a possible subject of this model. What I have done is take a kit that at best is kind of a representation of an early 1700s brigantine rigged ship with both a raised beaks head style forecastle and a fairly large great cabin and quarter deck. I think that the kit was designed that way so that they would not have to provide as many guns per kit because of the broken deck both fore and aft. All guns under the quarter deck and the forecastle are hidden. To me a small ship like a brigantine of less than 100' in the late 1700s would not have had an enclosed fore castle, merchant or purpose built warship. I know that there are ships that are an exception to this but I think they are uncommon. So I did not build the forecastle at all and shortened the quarter deck to what I thought was more proper for the time and type. I also extended the shear rail and enclosed the bow. By doing these things it turned out that the looks of the ship are considerably altered. I started looking to see if the new looks could lead to a real ship that would be close enough to use as a pattern. I ran across the the above described book by Davis who used the 'Lexington' as a basis for his model. The pictures in the book looked very close to what I was building so for a short time I kind of ran with it so to speak. I had some doubts on the model in the book but who am I to question someone who writes a book about his 'scale' model? Looking elsewhere though it became almost instantly clear that whatever ship Davis had built, it was not the Lexington, in my opinion for what it is worth possibly not even the right war! The Davis model is a fully open spar/gun deck ship with no quarterdeck or any cabin structure on the deck anywhere. It has more of the looks of a Cruzer class of Brigantine of the turn of the century as well as the brigantine Niagara of the war of 1812. Unfortunately this was not the period I wanted to do. I wanted the American Revolution, and I wanted to retain a ship with at least a quarterdeck. So for this reason I resigned myself to having to build somewhat of a fantasy ship that I have started to call the 'No Such'. Hopefully I am able to carry it off and it will at least look like a believable America brigantine of that period. I will now have to get Hahn's book and read your references! I think I am doing as much, possibly more reading than I am building. This whole thing started as #1, I already own it. #2 my wife bought it for me something like twenty years ago, so I probably should build it. And #3 I thought I would give it to a friend of mine as a birthday present later this year. He likes ships but is not a modeler so I was pretty sure he would not pick it apart to badly and be able to enjoy it. As it is, it has turned into a full kit bash where the only wood from the kit that I have used is the carved hull, and that's been heavily modified! I need to quit changing and get on with the build! {:^) I still would like to do it right though. Lou
  14. Joel I do have the book on the Irene, along with the plans that were included in some of the editions. And yes I also could see that Davis's Lexington looked more related to that class of brigantine and others built for the Barbary war, 1812 war, and Napoleonic wars. That was why I changed my mind as to why my 'kit' could not be done as the Lexington just by leaving the forecastle but keeping the quarterdeck. I would need to remove the quarterdeck as well and do a few more hull alterations to make the bash believable as a Cruzer or similar era vessel but it would be possible. But I was looking for a Colonial Brigantine not a turn of the century ship. So the search continued and after the elimination of the Feldman Lexington I decided that this kit at least would have to be more generic and to try to be fair to the time period rather than a particular ship. Lou
  15. Hello Joel Doesn't take all that long to type up a short conversation here. Back when I was a gainfully employed contributor to society, I spent more time commuting to work! Now that I am retarded, my commute consists of getting up, showering and dressing taking the dog for her walk and then the rest of the day is mine, subject to the whims of the Admiral and resident crew. I suppose one could say that all modeling attempts are a product of material on the real vessel available to the builder at the time of the attempted model build, combined with the interpretation of that material and how much you want to believe the interpretation of other researchers who provides the material in the first place. This seems to be especially true of the vessels we are choosing to build from this time period. It seems that for every person who states that the material presented is a true representation of the vessel in question, someone else says that there is something wrong with the research. I think I may agree with you on Davis's Lexington, that his model was 'close enough' in his eyes to be represented as the Lexington. Heck, if he had been right I may have done the same thing and used his rendition as a basis for my rendition and of course added my own misconceptions and short comings in ability and kit limitations to the build. If I wrote a book or was famous as a reliable source in some other way then my kit could also assist in passing along the 'look' of this type of Brigantine as being the Lexington and others would possibly accept it. I this case the Davis model seems to have been overthrown in favor of the Feldman model seems to be primarily based on a painting, (Which of course is another interpretation by yet another artist who obtained his information either personally from a hurriedly produced sketch that was taken back to a studio and rendered into a more completely detailed detailed painting or drawing. Or the painting could have been based on a sketch or description provided by a third party! Don't get me wrong I personally believe that the Feldman model is by far the more accurate or believable of the two, and will be the standard for years to come, if not indefinitely. But who is to say that sometime down the road some other material may show up, or someone researching the Lexington will present a better argument and the look will change yet again. You can be pretty sure it will not be me! I am within limits perfectly willing to let people who have better training, better access to sources, and more time do the research for me and all I need to do is agree with them that their take on the resources if correct, or that they are full of it. Or it could be like in many cases somewhere in the middle. I have only done primary research on a couple of vessels, and only one of them was to the detail we are discussing. I have been researching the schooner Lanikai off and on for probably twenty years and while I have enough to build her now in probably could be considered a stand off scale, (Standing WAY off) I would not be happy or proud of the results enough to say that what I built was 'the Lanikai'. Hope that makes some sense to you. In any case the information has been so scarce and the need for interpretation so great on a twenty first century vessel that I have both narrative and pictures of, I can only guess how hard it is for people dealing with small vessels from almost two hundred and fifty years ago. I do not envy them, especially when there are people like me lined up twenty deep looking to see just how accurate their work is based on how they, (The viewer) feel! Here I go again rambling on and on! trippwj While in essence I agree with you, I am not so sure that it is quite so black and white. Merchant ships were built to a different purpose true, and this influenced many things like the shape of the hull, rigging design, and deck layout, but were they so much different? It seems like time and time again ships of almost any given size short of a ship-of-the-line were purchased from civilian use and weaponized so to speak. I cannot say that I can find many discrepancies in the one or two masted smaller vessels of the time being better or worse armed depending on the vessels original use. It seems like how much the owners were willing to spend and what gunnery was available was far more an issue than construction. In fact I think that there were cases where after capturing an American converted Privateer the British cut down on the number of guns, size of guns, or both, and it is clear that their resources were far greater than the original owners and they could do pretty much as they desired. It is obvious that I am nowhere near as well read as yourself and I could be completely full of it, but I can not help but think of ships like the Lexington who were able to hold their own against their naval built counterparts even though if possible in most cases they preferred to avoid personal damage by evasion. This can be seen even almost two hundred years later with the Graff Spee who's job was raiding merchant shipping of the enemy in 1939. When she engaged three British cruisers that on paper could have at least held their own. The Graf Spee almost sank the HMS Exeter and severally damaged the Ajax in a battle that lasted about an hour!. Most historical accounts I have read say that the Graf Spee handled with a different frame of mind would have had little trouble finishing off all three ships. There is some controversy about the few shells that did hit the Graf Spee and what possible damage they caused, but the result was the same in that the Captain decided he could no longer escape the British with the inevitable result of the loss of the ship. Didn't the Bon Homme Richard get pierced for something like forty two or forty four guns on three decks? And she was worn out by the time John Paul Jones commanded her. Thanks for the list of references. If possible I will be looking into at least some of them. It is always interesting what books other modelers find usefull. Lou