Jump to content

AON

NRG Member
  • Posts

    2,561
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About AON

  • Birthday November 15

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    modelshipwrightsofniagara.weebly.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    Spin and fly fishing;
    Violin and fiddle (you need to understand the difference to get this);
    Wood carving;
    Reading historical/fiction;
    Use to do a lot of sailing and hunting when I was much younger.

Recent Profile Visitors

4,766 profile views
  1. I honestly do not know. How quickly did people receive the information and actually implement it?
  2. Dave You are going to chase your tail on this one. These are rules of thumb they worked to in that age... but they weren't chiselled in stone if you get my drift. Also, getting it dead nuts on seems really important right now, it took me about two years to get comfortable with working to a reduced scale and the "close enough" concept. The difference between the two calculations at 1:64 scale is indistinguishable to look at and absolutely no one is going to take a vernier to you model but you. If you can actually make your mast exactly to scale your better than me. It is akin to a ship build contract stating what length and breadth the vessel was to be built to... and when done they wrote in the actual dimensions on the drawing.
  3. Dave I had a quick look at your sheet. If I look at the data for the main mast in cell C13 that reads 48.94 feet the formula for that cell is =AG136 Cell AG136 is hidden. If I scroll to where it should be (down to line 136 and across to row AG and unhide it I see all the calculation cells. Cell AF103 hasn't populated the length of the deck properly. It populated the beam so the formula should be (Beam + Deck Length)/2= main mast length but the cell is telling it to add (Beam + Beam)/2
  4. I looked in The Fully Framed Model vol.4 by David Antscherl, The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships by C Nepean Longridge, The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor by Darcy Lever, The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860 by James Lee, and the back chapters of Rees's Naval Architecture. Though difficult to tell by looking at some of the images, some straps/strops were definitely served. Like the Jeer and Quarter blocks. Others on smaller blocks on the yards don't seem to be served. Long strops seemed to be served whereas short strops on blocks forming a becket (eye) don't seem to be served. At this moment it is all very confusing to me. Possibly someone more experienced could offer guidance.
  5. I have to say I am amazed at your splicing at this scale! You are serving the entire strop but the image does not depict the strop to be served. Is that extra work for you, or did the image simple not show it?
  6. This sheet has cannon barrel lengths. Nothing to do with masts. Try this spread sheet (attached) by Danny Vadas It will take a moment to open so be patient. At the upper left side of your screen may be a Security Warning saying some content has been disabled. Pick Options, pick Enable the content, then pick OK. enter your build scale in the box at the bottom and then pick Enter Data at the top. scroll down to the year (1794) and across from 5th rate 40 guns enter your Beam (39.29) and Length (146.25) info. At the top pick View Results Now pick Masts and Tops- view results in Inches Main mast 92.770 feet long and 2.354 feet diameter or 17.39" long and 0.44" diameter at 1:64 scale MastingandRiggingSpreadsheet.xlsm
  7. What you explained seems correct. If we could see the "ridiculous numbers" and how they come up it might help. You also have to calculate the mast dimensions for the quarter lengths as it tapers some above and below a specific point in its length.
  8. I have a CHARVOZ cutting base (made in Japan) size 12" x 18" Bigger is always better in this case. I use it to cut my card stock templates for some of my ship model pieces... presently orlop deck knees, otherwise they would never fit properly. Bought it about a thousand years ago when I was working as a junior draughtsman in an engineering office making small table top cardboard mockups of industrial quench tanks. In this age they would just make a 3D model and maybe even a 3D print! Now, being retired, it has proven to be quite handy in the home shop
  9. regardless how I cut my pieces, I always cut them a bit long and then sneak up on them with the table top disk sander to get the finished length
  10. Rather then continue work on my standard knees, grating, decking or the last of the three stairways to the hold, I decided it was time to tackle the thing I've been avoiding... the hawse holes. The contract states they are 15" diameter, 15/64" at scale. I first double checked my heights then drilled my pilot holes at 5/64". Next, with a new sharp bit, I drilled one inboard hawse hole very carefully and slowly with a backing board held on the inside. Success! That was easy. Drilled the outboard hole and it happened. She split and flew off. That was unexpected. I setup the other side with clamps to help hold her together. The outboard face of each of those holes have tear out chips in them! So, I did the only thing left to do. Glued the broken piece back on, clamped it up and left the room. I won't be back working on her until Monday afternoon. Good night world. 😉
  11. Who needs a ropewalk when you can use a marlinespike.
  12. It has been an interesting week. Lots to report! I installed all the beams and hadn't really notice "it" yet. Just in the zone happily moving along with things. Started putting in the carlings and as I approached midships it became obvious. What shall I do about it? Installing the orlop deck was meant to be a learning experience to prepare me for those above. The orlop deck was decidedly too deep for anything to be readily noticeable, so lets just move on. Installed all the carlings and it was still there taunting me... "what?" you ask... the hump!! The aft and fore are high and the deck does a gentle slope downwards towards the midships... or at least that what it looks like on the plans. Mine has a noticeable rise or camel hump in it. I just won't look at it... but it is still there. I decided to work on the ledgers and needed to make card templates as seen above. I installed them low, down on top of the deck clamp as their thickness plus the grating thickness equalled the beam height. This made sense to me. I could find no photos to suggest I was right. I woke up this morning having made a determined decision in my sleep. I should have dealt with it, the hump, when I first noticed it. I hope this time I've finally learnt that lesson! I measured the damage... about half a deck clamp in height. How it happened is of no importance, besides, I don't know the answer. Possibly my deck clamps slipped under the wooden clamps used to hold it in place when glued. I determined which deck beams needed to come out. Cut the smaller carlings with my snips and used my flat nosed parallel pliers to persuade the larger ones to come out... almost like pulling teeth. Used the same pliers to remove the deck beams. Marked the deck clamps and chiselled out the material to, at best, make the hump flat with the lowest points either side of it as seen above. Reinstalled the beams and checked for flatness. Success! Glued and weighted them down until the glue sets up. I feel much better about it now. When all is said and done I'll be thinking of how I corrected it, not how it is still hidden down there.
×
×
  • Create New...