Jump to content
HOLIDAY DONATION DRIVE - SUPPORT MSW - DO YOUR PART TO KEEP THIS GREAT FORUM GOING! (Only 13 donations so far - C'mon guys!) ×

tkay11

NRG Member
  • Posts

    1,827
  • Joined

  • Last visited

8 Followers

About tkay11

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Kentish Town, London, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

6,466 profile views
  1. Yes, I too have left them uncoloured, as I couldn't think of anything better to do. It just does leave them a little out of accord with the few wooden blocks I had already rigged. In my case, I'm not too bothered about that, as my Jacinthe is only for my pleasure and no one else's! Thanks for the analysis and description of your experiments - very useful as always! Tony
  2. Are you painting or varnishing the Seahorse 2mm blocks? My ones are a really odd colour that don't quite look like wood. Forgive me if you've already said somewhere that you have painted them! Tony
  3. I love your build and learn from it. Just to add a slightly unnecessary or rather silly note, your interpretation is of course correct, but just to give the 'nautical' terms in translation this is "The frames are composed of futtocks having 88 moulded thickness and 122 sided". Moulded being the measure across the outer surface of a timber which is shaped to fit the overall hull shape, as determined by the moulds. Sided is the measure across the sides of timber at right angles to the outer or moulded surface. Tony
  4. I continue to admire the way you open the world of card modelling to others. Thanks. Tony
  5. Thanks @JacquesCousteau, for the clarification. I had read your original post too quickly and thought you were referring to the Ancre translation! I had been so shocked by the translation you found that clearly I couldn't believe it. The English version provided by ANCRE reads as follows: "The rectilinear sternpost is fitted by a tenon into a mortice cut on the upper rear face of the keel, a small knee acting as the angular link between them." I have both French and English versions of the monograph and to my mind the English translation is fine. (The capitals for sternpost, by the way, are in the English version). I could never use an online translator for such technical work about boats of the age of sail. I agree they are next to useless other than in modern narrative passages where even there they just provide a guide to literal meaning. If you can't read the French it's definitely worth forking out for the ANCRE translation for the background history which I find most interesting, although as you're a craftsman you would easily get by just by using the lovely plan set. Sorry again for my confusion. Tony
  6. Could you let me know where in the book you found these sentences? I have not found them in mine. Nor could I find "Let's move on to the description of the hull of the boat with various drawings". The photo you show at the start of the book cover is the ANCRE French original. The cover of the book I have has the words: "A Lanvéoc Boat, Small boats of the 17th - 18th Centuries, Surviving from the Middle Ages" followed by the author's names. Thanks Tony
  7. I'd agree with Phil. Do whatever you think best serves the ship you are building. Your logic is good. Have a good holiday! Tony
  8. I am sure that the more knowledgeable in the forum will have lots to say about this, but I thought I'd throw in Boudriot's instructions for the shrouds on the Jacinthe schooner of 1825. It does seem to say that all the shrouds were served as far as the catharpins. The measurements are in mm for the scale of the model at 1:48. "After fitting the softwood bolsters to the trestletrees the shrouds are got overhead in the following order for the foremast. The first eye has two short legs forming the fore winding-tackle pendants . The second has two legs , and forms the aftermost shrouds to port and tarboard. The third forms the remaining two shroud on the port ide. and the fourth the last two to starboard. In the case of the mainmast the order is as follows: first pair, pendants of the main winding-tackles; second pair, starboard hroud ; third pair, shrouds on the port side. The Ø of the deadeye is 270 (10") , Ø of the laniards 22. Winding tackle: fall Ø22 , blocks (upper blocks treble, lower blocks* double) 217 long (8"). The eyes of the shrouds and tackle-pendants are served with spun-yarn down as far as the catharpins. Ratlings Ø 8." Tony
  9. I bought a refurbished Proxxon MF70 from Axminster at a great price and used it with aProxxon x-y table I had bought for a Proxxon MB140 drill stand. Although people have said that the mill is inefficient at drilling, I have found it so good at drilling that I now use it exclusively for drilling as well as milling. It is just a little slower, but that doesn't bother me. It is very accurate with the correct adjustments. My tungsten carbide drill bits have never broken with it when I use it as a drill. I had to adjust the MB140 to mill accurately with a finer height adjustment (see here on MSW) but could only use it as a mill with great care, which led me to the MF70. It's a great tool, much loved by European and other ship modellers with wonderful results. It is also much modded to include CNC, change of motor etc. I won't go that far as it is entirely satisfactory for my use. In fact I am such a poor modeller compared to the masters who use it that I will never use it to its full capabilities. I will never blame my tools for shoddy workmanship! It is certainly much less costly than the bigger mills and has lasted me several years so far. Anyway, everyone has their own requirements and I just thought to slip in my experience. Enjoy and master whatever your choice! Tony
  10. Wonderful and beautiful. Lovely to see such beauty and craftmanship combined. Thanks Tony
  11. This is a really nice technique, Wefalck. Could easily be applied to wooden bases, but I'm intrigued by the machining of the acrylic. Thanks very much. Tony
  12. Very nice and neat, George. I love those Seahorse blocks, and have switched to using them. Excellent for 1:96. Tony
  13. I remember the discussions about the windlass for the Sherbourne. In its case the drawings did show a windlass. But that of course was much earlier (1763) than yours. Tony
×
×
  • Create New...