Thistle17

Michael:
Your model of this vessel is outstanding! It brings back memories as i lived in Portsmouth R.I. in the 1960's just across Narragansett Bay from Bristol R.I. where the Herreshoff boat yard used to be. I could look out our windows at all the boats sailing out of Bristol. I would image many were this craft. It is a beautiful subject.
Today there stands a terrific boat museum, just outside of the main thoroughfare in Bristol, featuring many of thier craft. It is a tribute to the brothers. I wonder if you have ever had the chance to visit being so far away.

My other passion is woodworking, mostly furniture. I have been eyeing the Byrnes Table Saw and was interested in the titling table option. However my hesitancy is the actual use for I do not see how one avoids the problem of trapping the work piece between the saw blade and the fence or whatever one uses to guide the material through the cut. I have a right tilting full size table saw and it is absolutely a "no-no" to trap the  material between the blade and rip fence. Bad cuts or worse yet bad things can happen when one tries this. I have to move my fence to the left of the blade to avoid the trap. So can someone explain the Byrnes saw operation as shown in photos?

Thanks Mike for the great feedback and reference model web site. I will have to study the images provided on that web site and also take into account the points you have made. I will be back as I progress with comments. And as I said i will build this model albeit with a bit of caution and reserve when I speak to its authenticity.

Thank you all for your replies. This dialog helps me understand and decision a direction to take. Since this kit did not include small boats I am more than likely headed in the direction to open the waist a bit and include the boat stack properly in that area.  I do find the research aspect of modeling as fascinating as the actual build. I always feel I am working from a more informed "datum" when I interact with you all. I must remind myself of the evolutionary nature of the real vessels from keel laid to launch to repair and retrofit can and did change these vessels even over their short lives and of course their successors. No different in today's Navies.

Thank you all for your replies. This dialog helps me understand and decision a direction to take. Since this kit did not include small boats I am more than likely headed in the direction to open the waist a bit and include the boat stack properly in that area.  I do find the research aspect of modeling as fascinating as the actual build. I always feel I am working from a more informed "datum" when I interact with you all. I must remind myself of the evolutionary nature of the real vessels from keel laid to launch to repair and retrofit can and did change these vessels even over their short lives and of course their successors. No different in today's Navies.

Thank you all for your replies. This dialog helps me understand and decision a direction to take. Since this kit did not include small boats I am more than likely headed in the direction to open the waist a bit and include the boat stack properly in that area.  I do find the research aspect of modeling as fascinating as the actual build. I always feel I am working from a more informed "datum" when I interact with you all. I must remind myself of the evolutionary nature of the real vessels from keel laid to launch to repair and retrofit can and did change these vessels even over their short lives and of course their successors. No different in today's Navies.

Mike, there is one question I do wish to ask immediately, as some of the other discrepancies I can either live with or even ignore. The opening of the waist is puzzling to me for the following reasons/observations. Some have opened it up completely such as the reference you provided in your prior response. Others have opened it up somewhat. I have seen in the Chapman plates it depicted as in the kit. I have a pamphlet from a French museum of "The Venus", 1782 with the waist also as it is in the kit. What is the origin of all of the interpretation I am seeing? In observation I would think that completely cutting the spar/quarter deck in 2 with the exposed upper deck had to be inefficient to crew when trying to get from one end of the vessel to the other, not to mention soaking wet gun crews. Why would they have done this?

Thanks Mike for the great feedback and reference model web site. I will have to study the images provided on that web site and also take into account the points you have made. I will be back as I progress with comments. And as I said i will build this model albeit with a bit of caution and reserve when I speak to its authenticity.

I am relatively new to MSW but have a longtime love of ship modeling. Unfortunately life's needs took me in other directions so I have been an "armchair" modeler for some 25 years, I relate that as I bought a Corel kit of the HMS Unicorn somewhere back in the 80's but never pursued the build for reasons related. Recently we formed a model ship forum/club in Rochester NY and I joined. It is an august group of active modelers so I had to "up my game". I pulled out the HMS Unicorn and began critically looking at the model. The Unicorn threads on this web site was a good place to start.  I down loaded the Chapman plate that may have been the genesis for the Corel kit. Using witness marks, that appear to be the waterline reference, I had the digital image magnified to the same dimensions of the HMS Unicorn drawing at a professional imaging/printing house. I then overlaid the false keel of the kit onto the resultant drawing. I traced the bulkhead positions, the mast positions and the gun port locations onto the enlarged Chapman plate. The magnified plate and the false keel have a reasonable similarity save the following: the false keel stern has a slightly sharper rise from "skeg" to the stern counter, the false keel stem area does not match the reference, the gun ports are not in agreement with the reference and finally the mast spacing do not match. The reference mast spacing compared to the kit are as follows; fore to main 31 mm difference, main to mizzen 11 mm difference. Dimensional differences indicate wider spacing on the reference drawing.
 
Finally using reference marks drawn on the false keel I overlaid select bulkheads onto the contour portion of the reference drawing to compare the profiles. I did take into account the station differences of the reference to the false keel bulkheads as best as possible. The traces do not match up well I am sorry to say. I think I read somewhere else that the beam of the reference was wider and it doesn't seem to be that far off when one accounts that there is no planking on the bulkheads at this time. The contours amid ship seem pretty close.  However the bow and stern contours do not match up well. For the bow between the 1st and 3rd station and between the 14th and 16th bulkheads of the stern (kit bulkhead numbers) the contours are off above the waterline for the bow and below the waterline at the stern..
 
Regarding the gun port placement I have to assume that the differences in general are related to the designers preference to position the kit gun ports dead center between bulkheads.  In general they are mostly askew main mast to stern and slightly askew main mast forward. One notable difference is that the reference drawing has a gun port at the turn of the bow considerably forward of the fore mast. The kit does not.
 
Other differences have been duly noted by others so need to retrace those comments. The figure head on the reference plate is above the stem while the kit depicts the figurehead below. I only offer this input to add to the comments, corrections and modifications offered by others. Admittedly my kit is an older version of the model but as I look closely at what others have shown I suspect little has changed since my vintage of the kit.
 
I think my investigative approach has been sound and while empirical methodology can introduce error I think what I offer does not add "noise" to what others have submitted. I would like to hear back from others as i will build this model "finally" ! I still think it is a worthy subject. Yet, I will not submit to anyone that it is a replica!

My other passion is woodworking, mostly furniture. I have been eyeing the Byrnes Table Saw and was interested in the titling table option. However my hesitancy is the actual use for I do not see how one avoids the problem of trapping the work piece between the saw blade and the fence or whatever one uses to guide the material through the cut. I have a right tilting full size table saw and it is absolutely a "no-no" to trap the  material between the blade and rip fence. Bad cuts or worse yet bad things can happen when one tries this. I have to move my fence to the left of the blade to avoid the trap. So can someone explain the Byrnes saw operation as shown in photos?