Jump to content

jbshan

Gone, but not forgotten
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,222

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by jbshan

  1. jbshan
    Sorry, I think those would be pretty much valueless to me.
  2. jbshan
    I wouldn't swear to it, but I think if you take off that top level of the gun carriage it might be a good fit. Make a mockup to try it out for fit before you massacre all your carriages, but the distance seems about right. One of the jobs of the gunner and carpenter was to trim or otherwise readjust the carriages to fit the port openings. You're just repeating period practices.
  3. jbshan
    All I have is a few photos so can't give more than a rough guess on plank width. The heights really should be noted somewhere in plans or instructions. It's kind of important.
  4. jbshan
    The top of the wale in midships is 6 strakes down from the port sills, if you use the same width planks as the replica. Best I can do.
  5. jbshan
    The center of the bore should be about in the center of the opening so there is room for elevating the barrel.
  6. jbshan
    So the oil to prevent drying would probably make it useless at removing oils from the metal parts? Figures, as does the fact that a less-obnoxious type wouldn't work as well.
  7. jbshan
    Has anybody used fingernail polish remover? It's supposed to be lacquer thinner, and maybe isn't as bad as straight acetone.
  8. jbshan
    Just incorporate any sub deck structure (just really scraps of stripwood) supporting fittings into the bulkhead layout. I always build up under the decking so I can make hatch coamings, bitts, capstans etc. with pegs on the bottoms to help hold them into (not onto) the deck. You wouldn't merely glue a mast to the deck planking, right? Here's my Lexington model showng the deck blocking. I did individual plank so needed a place for the ends and edges of the plank.
  9. jbshan
    Here's a shot of the deck blocking for bitts, hatches, pumps and companionway to under the quarterdeck. I'm doing individual planks so need landing areas for the ends and edges of the plank.
  10. jbshan
    One would want to make sure, using house paint, that the layers didn't build up and hide any detail. Using it below the waterline, where tallow or other thick goo would have been used you should be all right.
  11. jbshan
    awasea link didn't work They don't look obviously bad but as you suggest may be reworked or generic. Without more information about the original it would be hard to make a judgement. I await more information about the original ships or the author. He seems to be more of a generalist than specifically a nautical historian.
  12. jbshan
    Well, to do it right you're probably going to have to make your own. They are all different lengths. Set up a mock mast and run a string from where the shrouds will be down across the channels where the deadeyes will be. You may have to adjust the positions to avoid gunports. Bring your string down, keeping it straight the whole length, to the height specified in plans, etc. Each one will be slightly different, both in length and in angle. There will probably be preventer links at the end, after the first bolted end and these may be more links or may be plates. These also should wind up being all different so all will land in a nice neat line on the hull. To make the links, use wire, make up the chain, solder into loops, and squeeze into the final shape. Once shaped and linked together you can use blackening stuff or paint. There is a detailed description in David Antscherl's 'The Fully Framed Model', beginning on p 262, Vol. 2.
  13. jbshan
    Most of it. :-)
  14. jbshan
    As to one or two tiers of galleries on United States, somewhere I have a report on an anecdote, A merchantman was stopped by one of the RN's two-tiered frigates. He came aboard, chatted a while and it wasn't until the Captain came on deck in full uniform that he realized he wasn't on United States, because he expected to see two tiers. If I come across that I'll put it in this thread. IGNORE!!! I found the story. I got it backwards. Please ignore.
  15. jbshan
    Correct in all respects, Charlie. A generic ship labeled as such is not a problem. A generic ship labeled as 'Blackbeard's Ship' or 'Columbus' Ship' is objectionable. Better would be 'Ship of 1700, as a Pirate Ship' or 'Ship of the Age of Exploration c. 1492'. Lexington will have to be labeled generically, probably with a copy of the painting as part of the presentation. A big bug bear is when a company puts forth a kit of Blackbeard or Columbus as accurate historically. There is one kit purporting to be a ship that fought at Trafalgar when not only was there no ship of that name at the battle, there was no ship of that name even in the navy at that time. There were over fifty ships of the line present; pick one of those and do a little homework to get the details somewhat right.
  16. jbshan
    I'm not lumping Roux and Baugean with Bevan, far from it. I would put them in the class with the van de Velds pére et fils. Bevan lived 1852-1940, so had no access to the original subject matter. Besides sailing ships he painted WWI warships in battle. I don't necessarily require 100% historical accuracy, but we should do our best, and if plans are absent we have to go to other sources. Even plans can mislead; if you find that your example was a bit of a misfit in one of more features from the available plans it would not be unusual. Even ships of a 'class' had small differences. Your research is to identify those small changes so you can stay faithful to your particular example. The other option is 'Captain's choice' or 'good enough', the end of that particular scale being folk art. I don't want to do folk art either out of ignorance or laziness.
  17. jbshan
    Very close, Charlie. 24" with jibboom, add two inches if you use a boom for the gaff mainsail. I'm still up in the air about that, it could go either way, though Clay uses a boom, and the sail could be loose or laced to the boom or loose with no boom. Rigs were in flux at this time.
  18. jbshan
    Thanks, Charlie. I added a few more pics to my Lexington thread: http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/9953-lexington-by-jbshan-dlumberyard-164-from-the-seaways-practicum-by-clay-feldman/?p=348185 The model is based on a sketch/painting done after her capture and Clay's basic good sense as a designer. Parts I have deliberately made big changes from Clay's design are the mast heights, the quarter lights and the companionway to the stern cabin. Smaller changes are a fore deck to work the swivel guns, I changed the windlass/bitts and probably did the framing differently in way of the ports. This is an example where you have some basic information, the painting, put that with a high degree of 'shippy' knowledge and proceed with an eye on practicality and what was normal and customary combined with some period information. It probably would come under the 'should not' category, but it's a nice looking hull I'm trying to finish off in an attractive manner as a 'generic' ship resembling the painting.
  19. jbshan
    A couple of pics of details: The binnacle with the tin captain: A view of the aft of the deck with tiller, binnacle, companionway, quarterdeck and waist ladders and the elm tree pumps: The bows with bowsprit, jibboom, spritsail yard and anchors with cables;
  20. jbshan
    If you're looking for something to hang on the wall, 'sort of what she looked like' is probably good enough. If you're intending to build a scratch model (and this thread is 'no plans or records'), you'll need a bit more than 'sort of'. The NRG had and maybe still has an article on their website, 'Ship Models that Should Never be Built' or similar. Required reading.
  21. jbshan
    While one hesitates to say 'always', almost 'always' it is better to rely on contemporary, primary sources than on secondary or tertiary sources. Baugean or Antoine Roux, also painting around 1800, are primary sources; Bevan, painting in the 20th century with no access to his subjects, is not. Even Chapelle is not totally reliable as he 'reconstructed' his drawings and we do not know what he reconstructed nor what his justifications were for them. Artists, however, have been known to use 'stock' images in their paintings, so, even though Baugean and Roux painted very believable ships, there may be inaccuracies which we will never be able to refute. It's just one of those things we have to deal with when trying to research these vessels.
  22. jbshan
    It was thought that keeping the shot closer to the centerline would make for greater stability, so the bulwarks storage was probably earlier. As bulwarks became planked up, which was the tendency, I wonder if they wouldn't have used racks there instead of chests. And please, nobody mention brass monkeys. That old tale has been exploded.
  23. jbshan
    Very nice clean work, Sir. Those severe angles forward were a reason to redesign how the cant frames met the other frames so they could be cut from less wasteful shapes of timber. Basically the forwardmost cant frames and hawse pieces came down onto other frames and were more square to the side of the ship than to the keel. This is in the late 1700s as large compass timber became less accessible and more expensive in England. No doubt the practice began here somewhat later.
  24. jbshan
    Heat it and quench it again to soften it. The only way for a normal person to harden it again is to work harden it. I wrote a short piece about this which is here: http://uvsmgshipmodelguild.wikispaces.com/Copper+Tempering
  25. jbshan
    Here are a couple of pics which you could use but there was no prescribed uniform for enlisted during the 1812 unpleasantness. The white duck trousers could be navy blue wool to match the short jacket, the white introduced for warmer waters. If you put Marines on your model, you're in a totally different ball game. Marines are a special breed.

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

Model Ship World ® and the MSW logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,929,264 & No. 6,929,274, registered Dec. 20, 2022)

Helpful Links

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem ®

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

Nautical Research Guild ® and the NRG logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,999,236 & No. 6,999,237, registered March 14, 2023)

×
×
  • Create New...