Louie da fly
-
Posts
7,973 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Louie da fly
-
I got into building design after the change to metric. But there were still plenty of house plans at 1:96 (8 feet to the inch) which had to be converted to 1:100 - an almost insignificant difference - but not quite! And then you'd find a site plan where the lengths of the boundaries were in links (100 links=1 chain=66 feet - the length of a cricket pitch - because there are 100 links to a surveyor's chain) which had to be converted to metric = 201.168 mm. Close to 0.2 metres - but not close enough! The area of a house is still quoted in squares by salesmen = 100 square feet. But when you are drawing it, you convert to square metres - 9.54 square metres to the square. This one I have by heart, just like a foot is 304.8 mm. Hours of fun! Steven
-
Well, some of us use metric. My previous model was 1:50, and now my current (restoration) is 1:200. Finished size of the model has to come into it - if the model is too big for the place it's to be displayed you should be looking at a smaller scale. On the other hand if it's too small to see, maybe you need it to be bigger. Stellar exceptions to this are Javier Baron's tiny models of Mediterranean sailing vessels, and some amazing battleships at 1:1500 scale by Joe100. Steven
-
Beautiful pieces - they'll add a very good air of reality to the whole thing. -
I like the logical and systematic way you're approaching this. I think making a model is always a bit of a tension between accuracy and practicality, and when you're "bashing' a kit to make it more historically accurate there's always the question of how far to go. And really, it's your choice - whatever seems right to you. This isn't going into a museum to be scrutinised by academics, it's your relaxation and enjoyment. I've hit the same problem with my Great Harry because I built it before the Mary Rose was recovered, so it's full of details which later turned out to be inaccurate. So I'm always up against the issue of how far to change it from my original concept. My idea in restoring it was to just return it to the way it would have been had I finished it at the time, but I've been very inconsistent, changing some things in line with what I know now and leaving others as they were when I first built her. Like I said - your decision - do what you think is right for you. And maybe one day you will revisit and build another one more in line with what you know now. Steven
-
Convergent evolution, I'm sure. The guy's wearing what's called a "barrel helm" or "great helm" - at about 1215 this is quite an early one - they were in vogue for a couple of centuries. Despite appearances, the visibility through the eyeholes is pretty good, and you'll note the many breathing holes in the lower half - very important when you're exerting yourself. Steven Steven
- 740 replies
-
- 6
-
-
- Tudor
- restoration
- (and 4 more)
-
Kit bashing is a very loose term. The common factor is starting with a kit. The "bashing" can mean adding details the kit doesn't provide because of cost factors, correcting inaccuracies in the kit, changing the way it's presented (say with the sails partly furled rather than all on display), or with (say) battle damage (rare) or weathering, or as you're intending, turning it into a different ship. Bulkheads shouldn't warp after assembly unless you leave it for awhile before adding the planking, decking etc, which adds stiffness and support. If they do warp - or they're already warped when you take them out of the box, contact the manufacturer - the ethical ones will replace the warped parts. If that doesn't work, you can make your own - one of the advantages of working in wood. Steven
-
Well the original Matthew Paris did do some pictures of ships . . .
- 740 replies
-
- 6
-
-
- Tudor
- restoration
- (and 4 more)
-
First I know of is Matthew Paris (Oops!) Baker "Fragments of Ancient Shipwrightry" 1586 - about 40 years later, but I'm sure the principle had been known for a long time. (Matthew Paris was a completely different dude - a chronicler and artist in the 13th century.) Steven
- 740 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- Tudor
- restoration
- (and 4 more)
-
Aha! Well, having seen the cross-section, the plank does seem to be in the right orientation after all. I wouldn't sand it - if that's the way it's supposed to be, leave it as it is. It does look strange, though, doesn't it?
- 48 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- dusek
- viking knarr
- (and 1 more)
-
The second-last plank in the second photo seems to be at an unusual angle - but this may just be a fault of the photo. Certainly, clinker planking can be very difficult to get exactly right. It's probably best to just leave it as it is rather than try to change it. Overall, looking very good. Steven
- 48 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- dusek
- viking knarr
- (and 1 more)
-
Though the Gokstad ship's shields didn't have them, there's a fair bit of evidence that shields of the period also had the face covered with leather, which added strength and rigidity. Then the leather rim was sewn on through holes in the circumference of the shield-board. But I just can't see it being likely they would have put them in place if they were going to encounter any kind of weather (or waves, for that matter). Steven
-
BSI insta-cure glue - that's CA or cyanoacetate (super-glue), yes? A couple of problems with that stuff (apart from its toxic fumes) - first it's not very forgiving - once you put the pieces together you have very little time to make sure you've got it correctly aligned. Second, there are doubts about its longevity. Do a search in the "Search" function (top right of the page) on CA glue - there are several discussions about it. Some people swear by it, but for a newbie it might be better to use PVA (white) glue. I very rarely use CA, I find PVA is best for about 95% of the gluing I do. And when I make a mistake (as we all do), often I can pull it apart and remedy it before the glue has dried. You only need to put glue on the surfaces where the joins between pieces are - I'd be putting a thin layer of glue in both the slots of the false keel and the slots of the frames - if I put glue on only one surface it seems to get soaked up by the other surface and the joint doesn't "make" properly. But that's with PVA - not sure about how it goes with CA. Good to hear you've resolved the problem with the frames fitting properly. Steven
-
Looking good. Regarding the problem with the over-short plank at the bow, you might consider removing it and making a new one. If you're using PVA (white) glue, rubbing alcohol (isopropyl alcohol or isopropanol) will dissolve it. And it's probably better to do it early rather than later, when it might get in the way of other things. Those pegs for the rails look good, but they can break if you accidentally brush against the railing (don't ask me how I know). Metal pins might be better, but if the wooden ones are thick enough you might be ok. Steven
-
That whipstaff assembly for the rudder/tiller looks really good. And the planking on the deck, as well. Do you use an automatic translator? Sometimes your posts say "deck" and sometimes "bridge". I suspect they are the same word in Italian. But only "deck" is correct here, because the bridge is a completely different part of a ship; it's the structure at the top of a modern vessel where the captain works. I am very impressed by your lighting - electronics are a mystery to me, but I can appreciate the excellence of the work of others. Steven
-
Thanks, mate. Your planking regimen sounds like a good one. It's better to take more time and get it right than to hurry and get it almost right. I'm sure your model will look very good when it's finished. Steven
-
Connie looks very good, Andrew. I once saw a tv programme where some paeontologists built a full scale model of a pterodactyl and tried to get it to fly (as a glider). It kept on flipping backwards (stalling, I suppose) - at the end of the programme they were going back to the drawing board, and I never found out whether they got it working properly. But its shape was very reminiscent of Connie, with no tail to speak of. Maybe you could have given them lessons. Steven
-
That's looking very good, John. A nice methodical start to your planking. Steven
- 48 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- dusek
- viking knarr
- (and 1 more)
-
Welcome to the ranks of galley-builders, Nicholas. Can't answer your question, but I'm sure someone here will be able to help. Are there notches in the false keel that correspond with those two bulkheads, so the slot in the bulkhead slides over the slot in the false keel, as in a halving joint? It's not unusual to have to "bash" a kit to get it right, but gather as much information as you can before you commit yourself to something you might have to repair later . Good luck with it! Steven
-
Here are a couple more photos - Waterways added to the aftercastle deck (absolutely vital - to cover up gaps at the edge of the decking which you can see through down to the gunports below). masts and bowsprit dry fitted. Still sanding the underwater planking.
- 740 replies
-
- 10
-
-
- Tudor
- restoration
- (and 4 more)
-
Ah, but he's a king. How do you know he's a king? Because he hasn't got sh*t all over him (Monty Python and the holy Grail).
- 740 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- Tudor
- restoration
- (and 4 more)
-
Thanks Andrew and Jeff. I think I need to tone down the whiteness of his shoes (even though the Breugel Holbein painting shows them that colour) - it makes his pedal extremities look colossal (his feet's too big) Steven
- 740 replies
-
- 5
-
-
-
- Tudor
- restoration
- (and 4 more)
-
Thanks for the link, Larry. However, I'm afraid much of this article is fairly shallow, and a fair bit of it is wrong. (That it uses footage from the horribly inaccurate TV show "The Vikings" is also a point against it. That really isn't what Vikings looked like and the author should know it.) The quote from the link "Special fastening points were developed that allowed the shields to be fixed along the boat’s edges." - no problem with that part. But "This protected the crew from any projectile weapons from the shores, but also made for an efficient wind and wave break." is speculation with no real proof. There's no evidence that the shields were used to protect against archery from the shores (though it's an interesting idea and by no means impossible - absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence). I'd also take issue with the idea that shields would act as a wind or wave break - in my opinion they'd be quite likely to be dislodged by any sort of a decent sea. I haven't studied the pavesade (shield rack) on Viking ships in any detail, so I can't say this with any great confidence, but that's the way it seems to me. Round shields are pretty open to acting like a sail and they'd have to be tied on pretty securely not to be blown away or swept away by waves. It would be interesting to find out whether anybody's ever tried it out in heavy seas with a replica Viking ship - there are enough of them around. I spent 20 years as a Viking period re-enactor and got heavily into the historical basis for this stuff. The Viking weapons, except perhaps the two-handed axe, were no different from those of the cultures they warred against. Their main advantages were surprise and mobility, appearing out of nowhere and attacking before a proper defence could be assembled. In set-piece battles - one army against another - against, say, the Anglo-Saxons, they lost about as often as they won. Steven
-
That's amazing work, Kris. I've never tried Rhino - just AutoCad, Sketchup and Revit. None of them are capable of this kind of thing. Steven
Our Emblem ®
