russ
-
Posts
3,086 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by russ
-
RiverRat: That area of the red arrow is exactly where I was talking about. Thanks for the edited photograph. That should explain it well. Russ
-
Zev: I was referring to the area where the bottom planks will end at the transom. That is still quite full and will need some sanding. Dio not worry though. Right now, fuller is better. Russ
-
US Brig Syren by Gahm - Model Shipways
russ replied to Gahm's topic in - Kit build logs for subjects built from 1801 - 1850
Thomas: The ringbolts look good. I think the scale effect will be good. Nice work. Russ -
I am sold. That finish looks REALLY good. Excellent work. Russ
-
The Phantom kit comes with the adhesive copper tape. Russ
-
Given your situation with tools, you might be better off using wood filler with the pieces you have now and then sanding them down. I have used Elmer's wood filler with some success. I let it dry hard over night and then sand it out the next day. I would use coarse sand paper, probably 80 grit to start with, but do not use too much muscle. Let the paper do the work. Check with a plank often to test for fairness. From your pics, you have a good deal of sanding to do, especially at the cross seam which is the bottom of the upper stern block in your photos. The planks run up to that cross seam in a fairly gentle curve. Russ
-
That looks pretty good. The sails are neatly sewed and they hang okay. I cannot see the stain you mention so it cannot be that bad. Russ
-
Planking Bulkheads
russ replied to robert203's topic in Building, Framing, Planking and plating a ships hull and deck
The panels in the bulkheads would have the grain going vertically. You might want to check with the folks up at Baltimore who are in charge of the Constellation. They might be able to give you some more specific information. Russ -
David: You are using the term wales. Is that what the instructions call them? I would call them bulwarks. I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. Russ
-
Martin: Model Expo sells the Rattlesnake plans that come with the Model Shipways kit. Russ
-
I agree with Wayne: The "R" is for the underside of the rail. Russ
-
Martin: The bunt lines would be there, no doubt, with or without sails. They would have knots in the end to keep them from running out of their blocks while the sails are sent down. Hahn did not include them probably because he did not feel it necessary. Remember, his work is as much art as anything else. He created a rigging plan that would look good and include all the necessary lines to give the appearance of a full rigged ship. Antscherl is going for more historical accuracy in his work, and the Model Shipways plans included a lot of details as well. They are fairly well researched plans. American colonial ships would follow British rigging practices, generally speaking. If you use British proportions for spars and rigging you will be okay. Sometimes, the American ships might be over-sparred compared to British ships. I would go with the Model Shipways plan if I were building the model. Hahn used British sources in his research, but the Model Shipways plan also used British sources and probably have a bit more detail in certain areas. Russ
-
Congratulations on a great looking model. You have done a fine job rigging her. Russ
-
I echo Allan's recommendations. I will add a multipart article in Seaways Ships in Scale from 2002-03 by Michael S. Hohimer, called "British Naval Ordinance 1700-1815." Lots of good details in that article on cannon barrel sizes. Russ
-
Mike: The best work takes some time. Your paint job is really good. The yellow ochre looks spot on. Russ
-
Mike: Nice work. Glad to see you are still at it. Russ
-
Harvey: There is an AOTS book on a steamship from 1835? That is interesting. I did not know that there was a book on that subject. I would have thought that the cannon size would be drawn in the book. Is it not? Russ
-
Good point about drilling the holes. No sense taking a chance with the drill running off center. Good work. Russ
-
Jay: Gun barrel lengths varied a lot. We would need to know time period, nationality, ship type, was it a short pattern barrel, long pattern barrel, etc. Six pounders might be 6 ft long, 8 ft long, 9 ft long. They might have been an odd size or something smaller than 6 ft. Russ
-
Jay: A cannon barrel is so many calibers in length. What ship are you researching? Time period? Nation? Russ
-
Gary: I would go a bit smaller on the wire size. That will probably have a better scale effect. At your scale, I bet something like 22 gauge would be in the right neighborhood. Trust your eye on this one. Russ
-
I like the pics of the ship looking at the starboard bow. That gives a great impression of your work. Russ
-
That looks good. I think the angle is about right. Evertything seems taut enough. Nice work. Russ
-
Gary: I have never seen a listing for the sizes of hooks. That is something that was probably not dealt with back then since it was just so common. I would think you could use the specs for loops and bolts on the carriages and work it out from there. For what it is worth, I have seen hooks used on old blocks from about 100 years ago. The metal was about 1-1 1/2" in diameter. Is that the kind of thing you need to know? Russ
-
Gary: In the NRJ's Shipmodeler's Shopnotes, there is an article that you may have seen, "Gun Tackles and Breechings" by Edwin Newell Rich. It quotes two contemporary sources, Sea Gunner's Vade Mecum by Robert Simmons, 1812, saying that the tackles for the 32 pounders were 2 1/2" in circumference, and Naval Pocket Gunner by Atkinson & Clarke, 1814, they call for 3 inch circumference on 32 pounders. Both are British sources. You can use those circumferences to get to rope diameter and then sheave diameter and block length. Russ
Our Emblem ®
