Marcus.K.

I've been doing a bit of research about the material used to manufacture Spitfire IXc propellers so that the weathering could be represented realistically. and found this interesting thread...
https://archive.aeroscale.net/forums/88691/index.htm
It would seem that more than one manufacturing process could have been used

Spitfire MK IXc
Propeller: Rotol 4 blade constant speed, variable pitch type R3/4F5/2 (Dural) or R3/4F5/3 (Dural) or R5/4F5/4 (Jablo or Hydrulignum) or Type R12/4F5/4 (Jablo or hydrulignum) all 10ft 9ins dia..
I think the following is correct (I think!)
Dural is an aluminium alloyed with copper, Jablo was a manufacturer and also maybe the name for a process that used wood and Hydrulignunlm is also wood. The wooden propellors were covered in a metal gauze and the leading edge was brass.
So I think for weathering it could be either wood and brass that would show or aluminium depending on which propeller was in the plane.

So here's my take on some weathering... I've tried to make it look like it's been in use, dirtied up a bit, some chipping to the prop, wear where I thought the ground crew and pilot would walk on the wings etc. This is new terrority for me but I like the look of it. Not sure how well it comes out on the photos but you get the idea.

Next project quarter galleries. Lanterns back to the safe place.

Start of the Lantern brackets. I thought the 0.7 wire was a bit flimsy but the choice of bigger wire was forced on me anyway by breaking off the 0.7 drill bit right in the centre of the lantern base. I had to use the 1.5 wire as the 1mm has gone walking. Trying to get the trophy of arms looking reasonable. One of the Lance heads broke off but the sheet under my work bench caught it. 

Next we have the model built by Captain Percy Ashley at the Addison Gallery which looks to me like a very close approximation to the lithograph photo shown above if you take into account the placement of the gun ports etc.  Something I'd love to visit I wonder how it was built and if plans survive from the process.  

Greetings everyone! Been a bit quiet of late due to the fabulous summer but wanted to start a new post where those interested could gather information on the famous schooner/brig Enterprise.  While no plans of her exist, so much secondary information does that I cant help but feel an accurate model could easily be made of her.  Please feel free to add any docs/info to this thread though I'm trying to avoid the Constructo model which I've come to feel isn't a very accurate depiction of the ship.This is what I've come up with... enjoy
 
 
First below we have the half-hull model that exists in the Naval historical center which I'd love to get measurements of. This would be before her rebuilding and lengthening from 84.5' to 92'. I included some of the article from the Canney Sailing Warships book since it's a pretty interesting read.

Baker: thank you, Patrick.
 
I made another part of the decoration. And as I said it goes very slowly... but if I count correctly, there are more than 500 pieces of gilded parts on the ship already... and this is just one quarter....
 
Jan
 
 

Hope   you  might  find  these  useful  Craig  -  I took  them  myself  back in  2017.
 
OC.

The spar deck is slowly taking shape. The unpainted parts in the photos have not been glued into place yet. After making sure that all the parts are compatible with each other, they are painted and glued.

Just found in this great forum another hint for that "thick stuff" planks .. which - as it seems - are also known as King Plank.

You are absolutly right, Roger. And that´s part of the fun for me here. Its a bit like a "murder mistery" .. Cluedo in history. "who´s done it?" .. "who´s done what!?"
 
I am copying your remark to this thread - since I here think about the topic for my actual build.
 
 
We can only "guesstimate" about detail questions based on availble sources. The Lord drawings done in 1925-1930 are a reference for what they thought is right in that times. The section cut I showed here was prepared to show what his research result is indicating. But of course - it is also a lot of interpretation in that already. And as a matter of fact: he did his restoration based on modfied designs by the way - for which we also have section cuts.
 
 
I am about to re-think that thick stuff / king plank concept for my build. Until yesterday I intended to represent that step. But ..
 
There may be 2 reasons why Humphreys may not mention that "thick stuff":
 
1. he did not talk about it, since anyone would have known: this is how it had to be. That´s the tricky part with original sources: they often describe the "not-expected", the "unusal", the things worth to describe. Very often they don´t talk about things which are "common sense" / "common practice" for those in the time the paper was written. So "thick stuff" or "king planks" could have been a feature which every shipyard whould know how to do! Not worth talking about. As for example also the length or width of most of the deck planks.
 
2. he did not talk about it, since in his design it was not intended to be there.
That possiblity leaves us with two new options.
2a. there was no thick stuff in the early frigate
2b. there was thick stuff in the real ship: the shipyard did add in the best practical way - which is in a way the same as option 1. "common sense" / "common practice" - at least for them in Boston. .. Is there evidence for this? At least: I don´t have any.
Does anyone of you have evidence for the practice of "thick strakes" in Boston / Charlestown in that time period?
 
What do we have to consider than to find the best assumption here?
 
1. Humphreys degree of details in his specifications
Humphreys mentions the detail of width of his "thick strakes", the "sheer strake" beside the hatches - and also that there should be an additional one "half way" between this "classical" sheer strake and the sides.
He specified the type of wood (stronger white oak for areas with high stress and "cheaper" yellow pine everywhere else) he wants to have in different area of the deck.
He did NOT mention any "thick stuff" or "king plank" in between the hatches.
 
2. common practice?
It seems to me that the practice of thicker kingplank - or "thick stuff" as Lord is calling this - was not used in ALL ships ALL the time. Yes, it seems to be a practice in ship building before Old Ironsides was launched - and it seems to be practice up to today.
But there are ships and models (weaker arguement !!) without them.

In Chapmans "Architectural Navals" he shows ships WITH and WITHOUT a that step. If he does show in one drawing - why would he miss it in drawings of other ships? My conclusion: it must have been in some - and wasn´t in others.
 
3. need to strengthen the ship
The argument it would strengthen the ship in longitundinal direction is not fully true - since the hatches interrupt that strengthening "stripe".
I would understand if that thick stuff is used in area the decks are under higher load during working on the hatches, storing stuff below the decks, You may have to put there a barrel or a box .. Those area around the hatches may even experience falling stuff.. So yes, in that sense thick planks would strengthen the deck.
 
4. personal bias
I loved that idea of having a deck planking which "differs" from what one ususally sees in forums like here. Of course I would love to show you all something new, never seen before but having good arguments to convince you all. I guess everyone posting information here does it, because it pleases to show to a community something entertaining or educational. It was a thrilling idea having here a detail, which wasn´t well understood before. But.. 
 
 
Thinking about all that without emotion and just rationally I would judge like
Pro:
thicker king plank was a well known and appearing feature in some ships and models before and after thick stuff would improve the robustness of the "logistical" area around the hatches thick stuff is shown in John Lords "investigation"-section cut. Seems he saw some evidence for it. Contra:
Humphreys tried to describe the important features he wanted to have  he described the material to be used - and where. he described the thickness and in one occation (for deckplanking) the width of the material he wants to be used. he did no where describe "thick stuff" / king planks There is no evidence for "thick stuff" before the 1926 section cut drawing of John Lord. king plank as a feature is sometimes visible - but wasn´t exisiting in all vessels of that type Summary
I guess I will not show white oak nor a step in between the hatches.. and deviate from John Lords 1926 interpretation.
Of course there may have been a step and white oak planks in the real ship from the beginning - but .. for today I guess I stick with what I read from Humphreys.

Folks
 
I've got the port side bulwarks mostly complete - I'll add a ledge/shelf strip across the top and a few touch ups with a file are needed, but otherwise I'm pleased with the progress:
 

 

 

 

 
The candle in the background is not to set the mood... The dog managed to find a dead fish on the shoreline tonight and reeked to high heaven...  x20x    After a thorough bath in the garage washtub (the DOG, not me!), I needed to light the scented candle (orange flavored, I think) to overlay on the stench before proceeding to my project.
 
Thanks for looking

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your appreciation !
 
**********************************************************

Installing the ship’s boats 3
 
The installation was movd further to completion by tidying up the loose ends and producing the bunts for runners of the boat tackles. The runners are about five times the distance between the head of the davits and the waterline long, plus some extra for handling. However, as the rope is slightly overscale the runners were cut a bit on the short side in order to make the bunts not too bulky. The actual runners were cut above the cleats and the bunts were formed over two clothes pins driven into a piece of wood and have a loop pulled out with which they can be hung over their respective cleat. 

Note that the runners for the ‘ready’ boat are not arranged in bunts but in coils, ready to be thrown loose so as to allow the boat being lowered quickly e.g. in a case of man-over-board.

Again, working from the inside out, the next items to go on were the stays for the davits. Luckily, the stays are drawn in the lithographs so that their points of fixation are known. I had to deviate a bit from those drawings, as they pertain to the longer, turning davits for the boats stored on rack, which belong to a slightly later period. The stays are supposed to keep the davits aligned, rather than helping to swing them around.
 
It was a bit of a trial-and-error procedure, before I came up with a protocol for making miniature fake chains of exactly the right length and with loops at both ends. The chains would have been shackled into ring-bolts at the head of the davit. No way of making shackles in this scale, so I just tied the fake chains to ring-bolts with fly-tying thread.

Some people may think now that’s it, but in fact there still is quite a long to-do list for little details:
 
- davit for the stern-anchor
- flag-poles and flags
- for the gun: tampon, wiper, rammer, and two gun-sights
- and the … crew!
 
To be continued ....
 

Of course, Constitution has had a very long life during which she has been rebuilt and repaired several times.  For a considerable part of this time she sailed as an active unit of the US Navy so until recent times, her refits did not necessarily involve ensuring historical accuracy.  Even today, she is a hodgepodge of different periods.
 
Constitution underwent a major repair in the 1920’s.  There are photos of her during this repair in drydock with all exterior planking removed.  Apparently, during this repair a series of as built drawings were prepared.  In the 1990’s these drawings, on a DVD disc, were offered to the public.  I believe that the drawing that you have posted is one from the 1920’s.  To be useful to the level that you want you would have to be able to determine when different structural elements were added during which historic period.   
 
Roger

Next question to think about:
 
Humphreys did specify the thickness of the deck planks .. I am right now on the gun deck:
also the thick strakes are described like that:
John Lord did collect all that in one of his section cuts.

I did ask you already what you think about that step between the deck and the decks mid section - in between the hatches - in which the drawing indicates a thickness of 6".
That step would be
On Berth Deck this drawing shows also another dimension: it says " White Stuff 6" x 10" ". From optical point of view I would guess that this dimensions would also fit to the thick stuff on Gun Deck level.
 
That is interesting because: if you take the width of the hutches in the Waldo Deck Plan of 1819 and divide it by 7 planks as Lord seems to indicate here - then each planks width is 10.28". Bingo!
 
That would lead me to believe that those planks in between the hatches - and in between the two inner "thick strakes" (also of at least 10" width) had the same width - while the yellow pine planks - and maybe also the outer white oak planks below the guns (for a widht of 6 feet from the hull inwards) may have had a slightly smaller width. 
 
The length now.. ? 
Modern restorations seem to work with 40 feet long planks - as this paper indicates:
Materials on USS Constitution in 1992 - 1995 Restoration
 
But even older Material found on the USS Constitution Museums blog helps us:

This paper from Peter Guillet’s Timber Merchant’s Guide. [USS Constitution Museum Collection, 1742.1] allows planks between 35 and up to 60 feet.
Thats between 10 and 18 m!
 
Since the end of the planks would need to be exactly on the center of a decks beam the span of 10 m would cover - depending on the position - about 6 to 7 deck beams. And with a bit more length even more beams can be covered with one plank - providing more stability.
 
Here a picture of how the Waldo Deck beams would be postitioned in our Revell hull:

6 beams per plank - thats reminds me on this picture:

Coming from HERE (thanks Gentlemen).
 
Of course that pattern will be possible only beside the hatches - since in the center of the deck there is always interuptions - like the hatches or the masts etc.
 
But in general I think I can work with about 10 - 15 m (in my case then 10 - 15 cm) long planks - and trying to match the deck beams by that pattern.

Ladies, Sirs, mates and pals,
 
I need your advice.
 
I just found something strange in John Lords Section Cut drawing 35208 where he is showing his research results from Humphrey-Papers concering Old Ironsides original layout. I guess it is to be viewed with a certain .. "sceptsism" since Lord did not have Internet or fellow forum colleauges to get advice from. And: it may be a drawing of a set of drawings- in which here missing information may be shown. What I for example noticed as missing information here: Lord refered to the demand of white oak planks 6 feet from the side for the Gun Deck - but did not advice the 5 feed white oak on upper deck - which Humphrey clearly did.
 
But my question for you experts: do you know any evindence for a raised mid section of the decks - in between the hatches - as Lord is showing here? This "white oak" which seem to run in between the hatches - and having a visible step vs. the white oak planks (interlocked?) "beside the hatches" ). It seems to be 6" while that "third straks" along the hatch seems to be described as 5 1/2" - but lowered into the beams.. and the yellow pine planks have a thickness of about 3 1/2" .. making that step 2 1/2" thick. That´s more than 6 cm !
 
I would think that stronger planks along the mid of a ships deck would help to increase stiffness in general - if there weren´t those hatches, which do "cut" the strengthening feature along the ships lengthwise axis. We know that Humphreys designed "interlocked thick strakes" .. and Lord shows them - one on Gun Deck and at least one in Berthdeck. There are white oak strakes along the hatches - which could be interlocked strakes too - but that is not shown explicitly in the drawing.
Source of this section cut: Alexander Mahoun´s "USS Constitution and other historic ships" - but also being part of John Lords 1926-31 restauration plans.
 
But again my main question: are there any other sources or evidence for a step on decks in that mid section - in the area of hatches? Isn´t that an obstacle for the crew - if you have to move a gun from one to the other side - if you have to run across the decks? Or is this just was Lord was thinking it should be?
What do you think?
 
And .. since you are looking: what does he show here in the center of the ship in Berth deck level: that "thick stuff" 6" ?? 10"? .. is this a 6" x 10"? What would that be? There is a dotted line - but what would that be??

My first jog
 

 
 
4 zones done.  12 to go.
 

 

 
crud, I just noted the lack of symmetry!  Gotta fix that with the next strake..

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Completed the decking on the starboard half of the lower deck. Plan to stain the two halves a weathered gray. OcCre instructions have the planks at 65mm in length and alternating planks for the butt joints. AOTS shows a length that the scale would be better around 140mm and a 3 or 4 alternating board butt. Used the lower deck to get experience since not much of it will be seen. Will change the layout on the upper decks. 

So I gather from my research and reading that it is absolutely imperative at the onset of this build that the two sections of the false keel be perfectly straight when glued together. Even off by a millimeter would result in further problems in the build. After glueing the two sections together and adding the reinforcement pieces I pressed the keel up against a metal ruler to insure it is perfectly straight. Knowing how important this is I am not rushing this step. After gluing it up I am letting it set overnight for the wood glue to dry. The next step will be to add the 10 frame pieces. In preparation I have cut these pieces loose, sanded them, and numbered them in order. 

I have considered Daniel’s chains, T_C.  Unfortunately, I don’t think their length will cover the span that I need to reach the middle band of wales.  It’s okay, though, making my own is a worthwhile learning experience.
 
So far, I’ve made the 5MM, fore and main deadeye strops.  I just completed the 3.5MM backstay deadeye strops.

Below are the rough strops before filing away excess solder.  Above are the cleaned-up strops.  I have adopted a method described by R.C. Anderson, where the join overlaps and is concealed beneath the channels.  I’m reasonably satisfied with these.  Now that I have a new pair of nippers, I will get busy making the other links, although I still need to make 4MM deadeye strops for the mizzen chains.
 
I wanted to do something more familiar and fun, so I’ve started re-locating the trunnions for the main deck battery.  To the left is the stock trunnion location, and you can see that the cascabel overhangs the carriage end to an excessive degree.  To the right, I’ve shifted the barrel forward to where it should be:

This process begins by shaving away the existing trunnions, and making a simple marking gauge to locate the new trunnion position:

I use an awl to make a starting depression for the drill, otherwise the bit will just skate across the rounded surface.  First, I chuck the bit in a pin vise to get a better bite on both locations.  Then, I can chuck the bit in the Dremmel and drill though one side at a time:

A short length of .035 styrene rod is fed through the barrel, and a spot of liquid plastic cement, on the underside of each join, secures it.  On my marking gauge, I inscribed a line indicating the projection of the trunnions from the barrel side.  A pencil mark on the overlong trunnions gives me a reference to nip to.  I clean the ends with a file, and voila:


Corrected trunnions!
 
Ultimately, I will add either paper or foil cap squares to the visible, detailed guns.
 
Thanks for stopping by and looking in at This Old Project!

Flag installed.

This completes the model (!!!!!!).

Now my attention turns to finalizing the display starting with the cradle.  I would like to do this in mahogany to match the base board.  Let's see how it comes out.  Worst case scenario- I am unable to improve on what I have, in which case, I will paint the current cradle black.  We shall see.  More posts to come.

The first component for the backbone of the Alert is the Fore Deadwood. This was milled from a piece of boxwood.
Even though I am very happy with the finished part, I will use a different technique for the aft deadwood. Before I could hold the finished part in my hands, I had a few failed attempts. With a much more complicated component, this method is unlikely to work satisfactorily.

The yacht Mary is ready.

I have no pictures of the process  from the start . Sorry!
Here is an example of my work. The Tudor Rose for my Sovereign of the Seas with the template and the tools for making it.
 
Gruß Hubert

Hello friends 
 
In almost all my ships, I made the carvings from pear wood with a dental machine (K11). 
This photo shows the decorations of the Royal Caroline on the side walls.
The ornaments were milled from 2.5mm thick wood. The book was used as a template  "Anatomy of the Ships", "The Royal Yacht Caroline 1749" of Sergio Bellabarba & Giorgio Osculati.
Practice creates masters!!!!
 
Greetings Hubert