tkay11

Biddlecombe, in his tables of measurements of 30, 60 and 90-ton cutters in his 'Art of Rigging', has a section on the 'Cross-Jack Yard'. I understand he is writing this in 1838, a long time after the Sherbourne, but I would be grateful if anyone could explain his use of the term, especially as he provides no measurements for the other yards (topsail, squaresail, spreadsail). I understand from Falconer that the Cross-Jack Yard is a term mostly used for mizzen masts, or that the term can be used for a rigged as a Cross-Jack. However, that would mean that the yard in question carried no sail if I understand correctly. Of course, I am very likely not to have understood correctly, so any and all explanations are welcome, together with why Biddlecombe should not give measurements for the other yards -- unless one of these is the Cross-Jack yard. Sorry, as usual for my ignorance -- which arises from trying to cross-check the various dimensions I have found for the rigging of cutters of the period. Tony

I forgot the link for SAT Berlin in case you're interested. It's at http://www.satberlin.de/en/PROXXON-machines/Table-top-tools/PROXXON-Table-saw-FET-NO-27070. Tony

I use their FET table saw which I find excellent. I can cut strips to an accuracy of 0.1mm or even 0.05mm without much of a problem (although I do use a set of feeler gauges to be absolutely certain), and I cut strips of 1mm width or less. On this model the blade can be angled which allows me to make jigs for octagons etc. If you look at the Russian, French and German ship forums as well as miniature furniture making forums you'll find most people use Proxxon without complaint. You can find the FET saw at SAT Berlin for €269.68 which works out at £199.95 today. Shipping comes at €14.90 or £11.06. As it's from Germany you pay no import duty or VAT so it's much cheaper than buying over here in the UK -- though you do have to put up with the continental plug! I think the FKS/E is the older version of the FET. Tony

I forgot to add... there are some big advantages in being slower than everyone else. 1. You can watch what the others do with your particular model. 2. You can spend more time reading up about ships of the period, techniques, and dreaming about tools you might buy one day. 3. You can spend more time reading various logs on MSW to pick up invaluable hints and tips. 4. You can spend more time thinking whether you're satisfied with the kit offering, or the part you have just made, and decide whether to have another bash at the part in question. 5. You can spend time with repetitive tasks such as making blocks. 6. You spend less time with noise from electric tools from which the rest of the household suffers whilst you continue in happy oblivion. 7. You can spend more time planning for that miraculous next build which will be so much better. At the same time, it'll be longer before you get to your next model and spend yet more money on that. I am sure there are others, and others who will be able to provide advantages of their own. As to disadvantages, well ... Tony

No, no. Let me be slower than anyone else. I bought my kit of the Sherbourne in April 2012 and I'm only just starting to work on the rigging. I've finished the bowsprit, so am making the blocks and their hooks. I then move on to serving the ropes I've made so that I can finally put the bowsprit assembly together. I can only spend a couple of hours at a time on the occasional day that presents itself. All this by way of saying it's not a race, there's no one holding you to account, and every moment I have with the build remains pleasurable. We are all as patient in watching other people's builds knowing just how long it can take to move to the next stage. Tony

Or lofting heights? I was very impressed by Harold Underhill's frequent assertions that building from plans is within most people's competence. Perhaps it just takes a bit longer and maybe we'd make more mistakes to learn from. Anyway, just a thought. There are quite a few experts on this forum who prefer kit-bashing, and that seems just as demanding. I look forward to your next build whatever it is. Tony

How about entering the world of scratch building? I've thought that it would be good to try one of the cross-sections on this forum, such as the Triton or Echo. It would probably be vastly more satisfying than a kit, especially since the materials are under your own control. When you think about it, the only real advantage to kits is that you have the bulkheads laser-cut. For a scratch build you just have to print out the sections, stick them to wood and then cut them out yourself with a jeweller's saw or fretsaw. Tony

Congratulations! Very nicely done! Must be a very satisfying feeling. Tony

There are a few furniture creams already made up of beeswax and turpentine, e.g. Stephenson's Olde English Furniture Cream (although that particular brand is no longer made, I have a couple of jars of it from my mother who used it for her antique furniture). See http://www.johngrahamhardware.co.uk/stephensons_old_english.html. Tony

I did some 3D with TurboCAD in developing the ship's boat for my Sherbourne, but really it was only to get an idea of the shape and checking whether I was going in the right direction with the keel and frames. In reality for me 2D is quite enough, as Harvey and Wayne have intimated. I did look into the idea of going with 3D further, but it seemed I would have to invest so much time in it without it being much/any use to the modelling that I gave up. I have found that visualising 2D plans has become easier as I have come to grips with constructing pieces from them. There are some issues with rendering in TurboCAD, but as you can see from the examples they're small. As to the building of objects, as long as lines meet (which you do by working with the Snap function) I think you can just select the whole object and then extrude most of the time. I found getting the curves right on the 3D rendering took quite a bit of time, but that may well be because I didn't invest time in understanding how to do them properly. As I said, I am a real novice as far as the complex areas of TurboCAD are concerned. Tony

Other owners of the Proxxon suggest that as it is a planer rather than a sander there is much less dust. I also have heard that one of the problems is that shavings get trapped inside the casing sometimes, so you do need to clean it out periodically. It's very popular amongst European model makers -- as are most of the tools made by Proxxon. That goes for miniature furniture makers as well as model ship builders. It's far too expensive to import Byrnes machines here. So it's a bit hard to compare them. If I lived in the US, I might well be going for Byrnes machines. I'm very happy indeed with my Proxxon saw, sander, wood lathe and small drill -- but I am just a beginner and I have yet to test the limits of these machines. Tony

FRIVOLITY!!!!!!!! In THIS forum!!!!!!? What is the (model ship) world coming to? Tony

And don't be frightened of asking here too. There's enough TurboCAD users on the forum to give it a bash as a first try, and at least you'll know they're all using it for ship modelling! I found the following key learning points: 1. Importing jpgs. You can't just plonk them down. You need to follow the instructions on the bottom left of the screen. It'll tell you to place the first point of a corner first, then the second. That will give the dimensions on the page, which you will then have to re-size to suit your purposes. 2. It's handy to get to grips with how to measure things. Use the orthogonal icon. 3. You may well be confused at first by the layers. These work just as they do in Photoshop (in case you know how that works!). It is highly important to check that you are working in an 'active' layer as otherwise you won't see anything happening when you try to draw lines etc. I generally place a drawing in the bottom layer and use other layers to trace, to get dimensions, to place other aspects of the model. Tony

Thanks a lot, Phil. Very useful. My ignorance! Tony

Why not take a deep breath and do it by yourself? Just take it a step at a time and ask the right questions of the online help as well as searching for the answers in the TurboCAD forum as Harvey suggests. I did this and whilst I can't claim to know every aspect of TurboCAD I now get along with it just fine -- from tracing out jpgs of plans to drawing up plans for deck furniture. The ordinary version doesn't handle pdfs, so you'll have to watch out for that one. But it's not too hard to convert pdfs to jpgs. Otherwise, after the initial shock of having to come to terms with a whole complex new world of thinking, it becomes very straightforward. It's like a lot of software in that respect -- don't be overwhelmed by complexity. After all, we all learn very complex procedures by exploring how to achieve each particular step. It just takes an investment of time. I'd say it took about 3 months of sporadic fiddling with the programme to become comfortable -- but it was very sporadic as I only had a few hours each week to spend on it. Tony

I noticed they also passed stuff through several times, and I seem to remember (not sure) that someone said that the finish was very smooth. Have to check. Tony

Keep trying, Kester, I'm sure you'll get there! NMM itself says there were numerous variants on the spelling. How about Cher born in ref to the beloved newly born son of the ship builder married to the French wife? I've never been to Poole. Sounds like a nice place. But maybe this is even further from Gregor's topic and I'm watching out for a well-earned telling off from him as we're not really answering his question. Still, having this kind of chat is a darned sight better than watching the telly. Tony

Wasn't Sultana a two-master with a fixed rather than running bowsprit? Or am I looking at the wrong Sultana? Tony

There's the Dorset town of Sherborne in North Dorset. Has Sir Walter Raleigh's castle, bit far from the sea, though. Tony

Slightly off topic, but I hadn't bothered to read thoroughly the Wikipedia entry before. Interesting that it says the armament was only 6 3-pounders. If I'd known, it would have saved me building 8! I'll now make sure I fit only 8 of the swivel guns now. Tony

I posted the full set of links at http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/5592-model-ship-building-secrets-dvd/?p=272804 Tony

A pity there were no replies as I was looking forward to some thoughts! Tony

Welcome to the forum! I too found George Bandurek's book very helpful. He posts on the forum from time to time, so he may well pop in to comment. I'll be interested to see whether you follow his method of making the guns. You'll see plans for a 3-pounder in the general database of the forum. I just scaled down the drawings of the 4-pounder in the Anatomy of the Ship book on the Alert and followed the barrel dimensions for 3-pounders given in his book. I found that Goodwin's barrel dimensions differ slightly from those for the Armstrong 3-pounder plans, but I don't know which would have been the more correct. However, the difference is small enough not to be noticeable. You'll have a very helpful audience, I'm sure, with all the Cutter followers here! Tony

I too thought I'd build the kit 'as is' just to learn the basic skills and have a rough idea of how it all fitted together. However it wasn't long before I was tinkering away because of how it looked or how others on the forum were doing their models or because of what I'd read -- and at each step I thought to myself "That's it, no more tinkering, I'll just get on with the rest of the kit." So it'll be interesting to see how strong your resolve is! You don't really have to think about mounting the model beyond considering whether you want to do more than place it on the kit stand -- which is fine. I just decided to put bolts in more for the learning experience. I have no illusions whatsoever that when/if I finish I won't have something of great perfection and I'll probably give it away to the local barber's shop or library -- should they even want something like that. As to instructions, many complain about the lack of instructions in almost all kits. However, there are a few which give more detailed instructions than others, but they also tend to be more expensive. I wouldn't blame the manufacturers too much, though. From their point of view the majority of kits are unfinished, and amongst those that finish the manufacturers might think that if they do they'll have been tinkering for themselves. They are also aware that there are many ways to approach building -- the planking is a good example. Jotika are reckoned amongst the better of the manufacturers. However, don't worry too much. Even if you do stick rigourously to the kit parts, you should be fine now that you know you can look at other builds and ask questions when you come across a problem. Even the most expert builders on this forum started somewhere. They often point to their own learning mistakes and are very happy to answer questions whilst saying there is no such thing as a dumb question when it comes to modelling ships. Dan Vadas (Danvad) even started a thread on how people fix their own boo-boos. Tony

I forgot to add that Chuck's build of the cutter Cheerful is being followed by many of us as a great example of craftmanship and thinking. You can find it at http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/8131-hm-cutter-cheerful-1806-148-scale-by-chuck/. His latest posts on planking (which includes two videos) are really worth looking at. Tony