jbshan

And, as they sail to this side, unlike the Bounty replica which was lost in a storm with a crew of 16, the crew will be some 150 strong, about as many as were needed originally to sail a ship, exclusive of those needed to man the guns. In other words, they will have enough personnel to deal with heavy weather should any be encountered.

Hermione as in Lafayette's frigate? No copper. Ships didn't begin to be coppered until a few years later, French ships later than English.

Or needle threader. It's a coin-sized disc with a tiny wire loop out one side. Slide the loop through a hole which collapses it, then it opens up once through. Put your line in the loop and pull back through.

Mustn't interfere with the mail carrier in the swift completion of his/her rounds. They have protected status you know. Obstructing or delaying the delivery of the mail constitutes mail tampering which is a violation of federal law and is punishable by a fine up to $5,000 and up to 5 years in federal prison. Probably not because of a rubber band, but if you assaulted the carrier to obtain the band....

If rubber bands glued to your tweezers doesn't do anything for the inner man/woman, try some small heat-shrink insulation tubing from Radio Shack or an Auto Parts store. Slide the tubing over the pointy parts of the tweezers and apply heat. A match might even be hot enough, or a hair dryer. There are many sizes and colors.

The illustration shown above has an almost exact match with one from 1885 in 'Capstans and Windlasses' by John Harland, so I suspect a bit too late for 1815. I think it would have a windlass. Click on 'Gallery' at the top of each of these pages and there are examples of Royal Navy cutters from the late 1700s, models in the collection of the NMM in Greenwich, UK. There might be something there. Failing that, I recently put up photos of one on my model of Lexington of 1775 that is based on another example from Harland's book. I think it is a fairly common version from that late 1700, early 1800 time frame. It's also fairly simple and could be built and/or repaired on board. http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/9953-lexington-by-jbshan-dlumberyard-164-from-the-seaways-practicum-by-clay-feldman/?view=findpost&p=295786 Dunno if that link will work. Maybe just click on my icon?

It might be a block used in a shipyard and not afloat. They had some pretty big tackles to raise frames and to install masts, as well as to careen ships. Victory's jeer blocks are 28 inches, according to John McKay. A 48" block of 'normal' proportions', which this is probably not, would have sheaves about 33" diameter to take a rope 6 inches diameter. That large, surely it would be a cablet at least? Some kind of sheer leg or ground tackle (tackle used on the ground, that is), perhaps? Whatever, perhaps we should stay on the original topic?

Chuck the little tyke back into the oven until it's done. Three more pints of the best should do it.

'Museum' or 'Competition' would entirely depend on the particular institution. Beyond that, I think it's unwise to pursue that particular category. The institution or sponsoring organization will let you know the rules or requirements. To continue the metaphor from above, 'that dog won't hunt'. druxey is pretty close to my thinking.

After you've done one 'box' model, or have read enough so that the 'box' no longer satisfies, you are probably going to be in some sort of 'modified kit' category. If you don't use any manufactured pieces from a 'box', but perhaps only use the wood that came with, then you are getting into a 'scratch' category. By that point you probably aren't using even the (it seems so often inadequate) plans. Some competitions allow rope, chain, maybe even blocks (if they are the correct size) to be purchased, so even there the line is blurred. That's 3 distinct categories which, for here, may be plenty.

Beautiful. Thank you for sharing. I had a less intense but equally positive experience with the NMM folks a few years ago, refuting the horror stories I had heard. I seem to see a few yards set on horses, but some not. Are any of these vessels set up with sliding bowsprits? I take particular note of the stay coming down to a deadeye in a loop, with the lower 'dead' sheaves drilled through the stem head. I've never seen that, but it might come in handy.

And apparently if the only thing you don't make is the keel and bulkheads it's semi-scratch. See my semi-build log of the semi-scratch Lexington. I gotta add some more to that one of these days. I see over 300 of you have checked it out so there is some interest. http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/9953-lexington-by-jbshan-dlumberyard-164-from-the-seaways-practicum-by-clay-feldman/ All you got were keel and bulkheads and a bunch of lumber. I have bought anchor castings and eventually gun barrels (not sure if I'll use the ones you could order).

Or perhaps are you talking about the slings which were added as a precaution against falling after the yard was raised? They are not adjustable once rigged. When you have foreign language instructions, trying to translate the technical terms can cause great confusion.

You do have a point. I have yet to do a ship kit 'stock'. There are always improvements that can be made, especially when you consider the lifetime of a ship was a bit more likely to involve trips back to the yard for 'repairs' that could involve practically a different ship coming out at the end. Additionally, we seldom have the explicit detail information for a ship that can be found for a class of engine, for instance some of the Pennsy engines, so we're constantly having to interpret or go back to 'common practice' where that can be determined. Taking a coach body and mounting it atop the boiler of an engine to make an inspection car would be a RR kit bash. Adding better grab rails, replacing plastic parts with nice brass castings, and putting in feed water heaters or generators to an engine would be adding detail. If the detail added was part of the original it would be just that; an improved version of the kit. If you added to the point that it was no longer true to the original but became a different engine/car, etc. where does that leave you? It all seems a bit blurry past a certain point.

Cap'n, try one as the holes are and see what your clearances are, either to the actual mast or to a mockup, just to get the proper angle. If they're rubbing, you can do as advised and move them out. It ain't life and death you know.

When Kitty gets to the rigging you don't want any glue down in the mast hole, either.

Or you could try driving a dowel into the hole with a little glue. If you're worried about staining end grain, use the glue on top of a countersunk dowel. It'll all be behind your deadeyes and hardly visible, I would think.

Could it be shellac that got wet?

No, it's a real term, I have come across it before. Please note the source I cited in my first post. M. A. Edson is usually authoritative. The sizes of the parts of a 'normal' block are laid out as ratios of the size of the rope/line that is intended to reeve through it. That state of 'normal' is what the clump block is thicker or heavier than.

I make my own with stripwood and double stick tape. You can have whatever grit you want, whatever shape or size of stick. As the grit wears down, I use it as finer grit. I keep several going at one time.

I have found swiss pear to be a little easier to bend, but a little softer when trying to get a fine finish. After a few years the color is closer than when new.

After Googling: Deadeye- Clump block- This is different that the definition I found earlier, but both have the sheave offset to one end. Deadeyes and clump blocks are not interchangeable.

A deadeye is a circular fitting with (usually) three holes bored through the flat face. It is mostly used in pairs to provide mechanical advantage for belaying the shrouds, backstays, etc. A deadeye is 'dead' because it has no pulley (sheave). A clump block is a block, with sheave, developed after 1840, used for fore-and-aft sail sheets. (M. A. Edson, 1977, in NRG Shop Notes Vol I, p 166). The best I can describe this is it is more ball-shaped than most blocks. You don't say what your model is, but if it is before 1840 you could certainly use a normal block without fear of being inaccurate.

The formula lehmann gives is very close to the ancient formulas used for tonnage (cargo capacity).

Just a couple of notes to show the difficulty the old boys had: Records: One of the reasons for having plans instead of just specs was that 10 years later you had a good, duplicateable record of a ships form. You could then tweak it based on performance. Slade was a master of tweaking. A few times the British got caught when they had committed to a large number of ships so that subsequent vessels were being built before the first ones had a good trial. I'm talking over a couple of hundred years' time. Balance of rig to hull: USF Constitution had real problems keeping masts whole until they reduced the ballast and increased the size of the masts. The balancing out of the rolling motion (from too much ballast) the strength of the masts and the ability of the hull to carry sail took a while to work out. Use or purpose of a vessel: Nelson as a junior captain had the task of sailing a French prize to the West Indies. He had to water from a tender partway there because he didn't have enough stowage. If he had taken aboard enough water, the ship would have been too deep. The French design was for quick raids, not long voyages. You often see something like 'draft aft, draft forward with: 4 months' provision, home waters, foreign waters, 6 months' provision and 3 months' water; they were aware of most of these things but struggled to get the proper compromises in the design. Even up into the second half of the 1800s they hadn't quite got everything figured out. I think it was just a lack of maths or calculation capacity. Titanic was still mostly worked out by arithmetic. I use that example not because she sank, but because they looked very carefully into her construction so we have some records of the process.