tkay11
-
Posts
1,802 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by tkay11
-
Thanks, Kester, for continuing to explain what you do, why, and how you do it -- great tips for the likes of myself, and a lovely build to boot. Tony -
Thanks, Kester, and good points. It's nice that putting your ship's boat above the main hatch also hides the other hatches to some extent, and because it is a lovely model in its own right distracts from pedantic probing (such as mine) as to the plans! If I were to place my own ship's boat in the same position it would, on the other hand, draw attention to its crude build. Ah well, stuff to ponder on -- along with all the other pondering I am up to at the same time concerning other aspects of the model. It's gradually coming together, though. Tony
- 6 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Sherbourne
- tiller
- (and 1 more)
-
Nice reply, Kester. I'd forgotten about the 'as fitted' plans, so maybe this is the way to go. I have been oscillating between doors of the companionway facing fore or aft. I've seen both on 18th Century cutter models that are on the web. It makes much more sense for them to face aft, but I was wondering about the interference of the entrance with the tiller. I agree about shifting both hatchways forward -- a practical solution. I look forward to my visit to the two Science Museum models of contemporary cutters in December to see what they have to offer. In thinking of refinement, that's my excuse for maintaining my glass-topped hatch just fore of the companionway -- otherwise I'd have to make another grated hatch, so subjective considerations apply, as always. Anyway, Kester, I very much respect the experience and pragmatism that goes into you replies. I'll just have to figure which cuts and changes I have to apply. Thanks again! Tony
- 6 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Sherbourne
- tiller
- (and 1 more)
-
Aaah! I'm really sorry, Kester, as I hadn't remembered your companionway (though I had remembered your deck treads) and forgot to look up your build when thinking about what to do with mine. Excellent advice, as usual, so thanks very much! I'd already made my tiller to the dimensions of the Alert, and slotted it into the rudder head, but unfortunately in my haste I've already cut it down -- so another one may well be in the making! Just two points further: Your companion way seems a bit lower in height than mine. Is it about the same height as the capping rails on the bulwarks? Mine is a bit higher than that and I'm thinking of cutting off 5mm to make it level with the rails. All the cutter models I've seen seem to show the housing at the same height and never above -- making me think that this would be important. Whatever decision made, the question remains as to why the plans are as they are. To my mind that companionway in the plans is still stuck right close to the stern, and doesn't leave much room for the tiller. So I'd be glad of your thoughts on this. Do you think I'm wrong about the companionway, or is it that the plans are wrong? If they are wrong, they are consistently wrong across all the views of the ship as well as the link in the plan to the captain's cabin below. Thanks again for the thoughtful reply. Im including a photo to show you the current situation (these aft two hatches are not yet fixed to the deck). The positioning follows the plans exactly -- or as I have interpreted the plans! Tony
-
Notice, not a piece of string. No, it's the tiller on my Sherbourne I'm questioning. The kit's tiller measures 35mm from the rudder top. That equates to 2.24 metres full size, or 88", or 7.3ft. The reason I ask is that I noticed on the original plans what seems to be a companionway at the very rear of the deck. Not so unusual you may say, and I have in fact just built one to the same dimensions. However, measuring the back of the companionway on the plan to the edge of the rudder gives 1.62 metres or 64" or 5'4". That means the rudder would have to be a foot shorter than the dimensions given in the kit to give the helmsman some freedom of movement. It is also shorter than the tiller on the Alert which seems to be 2.56 metres long, or over 8'. I note from the Cutter Trial at the NMM that the tiller on that seems very short from the photo. The actual question is how long a tiller would be on a cutter of this size to allow for freedom of movement as well as strength of leverage? I attach two drawings. The top is from the original plan, the lower is with my inked out tracing of what I take to be companionway and scuttle. If you think I'm wrong about the companionway and that it should just be a scuttle as others have interpreted it, then I'd be glad to be corrected as that leaves plenty of room for the tiller. Another possibility is that I make the scuttle go to the back and the companionway take the place of what I take to be a scuttle. Thanks again, everyone, for tolerating my questions, and I look forward to any answers except 'as long as a piece of string' -- although that may well be closer to the right answser! NOTE: IF YOU CLICK ON THE PHOTO IT WILL ENLARGE SO YOU CAN SEE THE DETAIL] Tony
-
rudder hinges
tkay11 replied to michael101's topic in Building, Framing, Planking and plating a ships hull and deck
Basically for the best results you'll need to silver solder using a combination of brass plate, brass tube and brass rod. There are lots of examples on this forum if you want to do the research on this, and most use the same kind of approach. To cut strips of brass it is best to glue brass sheet (which you can buy as shim sheet or from a hobby shop) to wood so that the brass does not curl up as you cut. However it is fairly easy to cut thin brass sheet with heavy scissors or kitchen scissors. One good example is by Dan Vadas. He shows his way of making the pintles in his build of the Vulture at http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/230-hms-vulture-by-dan-vadas-1776-148-scale-16-gun-swan-class-sloop-from-tffm-plans/?p=47181. His gudgeons are at http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/230-hms-vulture-by-dan-vadas-1776-148-scale-16-gun-swan-class-sloop-from-tffm-plans/?p=49802. I hope this helps. Tony -
Thanks a lot, Chuck, that's very helpful for my thinking about placing a crutch on my build. I'm very much looking forward to the complete Cheerful! Tony
-
After all that discussion, while looking at my pictures of the Trial at the NMM, I noticed that it had this very boom crutch, which seems fairly centrally placed. Another interesting point is the rail for the boom tackle along the top of the transom. This is more as an interesting add-on to the conversation, rather than to stimulate more discussion. Tony
-
Aaaah! So it was a Pint Rail after all. These spelling errors in plans cause no amount of confusion. Must have been written in Scouse, as in "Pin' rail, lad, get te i'." Now, a pint pewter pot at 1/64 scale is about 2.3mm. Maybe I'll fashion a few for the crew out of aluminium tube and leave them hanging on the rail as something that future generations will have to figure out. As for the deadeye strops, I've already put the kit ones in on the starboard channel, so that's an area of the dark side I won't be visiting. At least, not for the moment ... or once I've the topsail sheet belaying points and hot horses out of my mind. Tony
-
OK, here's another question. One of the reasons for the crowding before the mast is the fact that we have a rail, a flue and a hatch to go between the mast and the bowsprit bitt assembly. In the Alert plans there is no rail in front of the mast, and now that we have all these belaying points along the sides and in front of the windlass (which replaced the smaller belaying racks) I'd like to ask if there is a strong reason to keep that rail in place. If there is no strong reason, the flue could then fit fine between the hatch and the mast. I'm looking forward to the lesson about the importance of that rail as this is another demonstration of ignorance! Tony
-
Kester, I really love your build -- it's not only beautiful but full of interesting insights and discussion, so provides a very useful education for me. I'm glad to see the horses rearing their heads again (I'm remembering the discussion in Gregor's build at http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/2288-hmc-sherbourne-by-gregor-–-caldercraft-–-scale-164-1763/?p=187068) and that you've finally placed your bet on your favourite. I don't have anything to say about that, but very interesting for me is the placement of the chimney, or galley flue. I've been puzzling over that as in most builds of other cutters that I've seen, and in the Alert drawings, the flue comes well away from the hatch and is placed centrally. This would be logical as the galley and stove are also well away from the hatch and the central location leaves room for the galley. However, as you point out, the area fore of the mast is very crowded, so makes this difficult. So I'd be interested in your thoughts as to your decision on the placement of the stove and its flue. I can see that there's a separation as a result of the shot rack, but would the galley have fitted into the space remaining? As usual, not an opinion, but a question out of ignorance! Tony
-
I bought mine at Warco. There are a few types. I bought one with a base, but the one with LED lights and a clamp is at http://www.warco.co.uk/lights/302938-led-lighting-work-lights-magnifying.html You can do a search for the other types by typing in 'magnifier' to their search function. It's the cheapest place to buy these lights and their delivery and service was excellent. Warco's based in the UK, but you may find an Irish supplier. I hope that helps Tony
- 1,039 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- ballahoo
- caldercraft
- (and 2 more)
-
Thanks, Chuck. So I guess it's up to me as to whether I fit one or not. At least it sounds as though there won't be too many complaints if I don't fit one. Tony
-
Actually I'm glad you disagree. I was half suspecting I mistook it as a jib outhaul so it's good you can put me to rights. Anyway, it looks like your theory as to the dates may well be correct. Thanks for the input, and, as usual, it's great that we can ask these silly questions on this forum without being torn apart for ignorance! Tony
- 17 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Sherbourne
- bobstay
- (and 2 more)
-
Thanks Michael and Kester. It seems clear that a counter-force is required, and I really like Kester's suggestion that this might be provided by the combination of the martingales and the traveller outhaul when the earlier cutters had less sail. I note from Jim Lad's build of the Stag that he didn't put a bobstay in either -- at least that is what I presume from the level of detail in the pictures at http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/137-stag-by-jim-lad-scale-196-english-revenue-cutter-of-1827/?p=112117. As to the busyness at the bowsprit, I was beginning to get very worried about the amount going on there already, so the lack of a bobstay would please me greatly! Tony
- 17 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Sherbourne
- bobstay
- (and 2 more)
-
Thanks, Michael. So do you think leaving it out of plans is just because it is expected to be there, or might some small ships such as cutters have been without a bobstay? Tony
-
Sorry, everyone, but now that we've had the discussion about backstays, I've traced my puzzlement about the rigging of the bowsprit on the Sherbourne and would like to check that I have it right. My conclusion so far is that there was no need for a bobstay (or that it would hamper things) for the bowsprit on the Sherbourne because of the need to move the bowsprit in or out. Petersson shows no bobstay on his cutter, and Goodwin neither shows nor discusses a bobstay in the AOTS book of the Alert. The kit plans for the Sherbourne show no bobstay. The only reason I ask is because my pictures from NMM of the cutter Trial of 1790, seem to show a bobstay as well as the jib outhaul. But then it doesn't show any holes on the bowsprit to suggest that it could be moved. Could it be that a running bowsprit doesn't have/need a bobstay as that would have hampered its being moved? Thanks for your patience with my ignorance! Tony
-
That's a really informative reply, Kester (as usual!). I was just about to go to the AOTS Alert book to see what it said there, but you have saved me the trouble -- although now I will go and look and read up more about the rigging now that I am learning the terms and in a very few cases actually remembering and understanding them. Anyway, I am pleased in that it seems there is one less job to do! I look forward to any comments you might have on the oddity of the method of hoisting, as I am sure that other Sherbourne builders as much as myself would benefit from your wisdom. I have also been trying to square the kit plans for the bowsprit rigging with Petersson's outlines, and still find it rather confusing -- but I know that with perseverance I shall get there in the end. I wrote to the Science Museum in May and they sent me a list of all the cutters in their collection and where they were stored. It looks as though the model Petersson drew from is in Blythe House in West Kensington (where I used to live), so I might pop over there and see if I can check that out as well as the other contemporary cutter models they have there. Thanks again for the trouble you take in general to lay straight the record. Tony
-
Aah! Thanks, Chuck! I now understand. Very clear and very logical! Tony
-
I am working on the belaying plan for the Caldercraft model of HMS Sherbourne, cutter, and can't figure out how the ropes holding the topmast shrouds are fixed. There is no indication of those particular shrouds in the kit's plans for the standing rigging. Petersson's book on Rigging Period Fore and Aft Craft shows them being fixed via pulleys hooked to the channels, but the pulleys are shown with the pulling rope merely wound round the top of the upper block of the two that are hooked to the channel. Would the loose end of that rope have been fixed to the main shrouds with a cleat, or would it have been placed on a belaying pin on the rack by the channels? I hope this makes sense -- having had no sailing experience I am doing this all from a theoretical viewpoint! Tony
-
How to sew sails on your wifes sewing machine
tkay11 replied to Mirabell61's topic in Masting, rigging and sails
Thanks for the repost -- I was wondering what had happened. Tony -
Nice to see you back on the case, Gregor. Fabulous work! Tony
-
Lovely to see the progress, Gregor. I've had a very intensive three months, and just this week can think of picking up where I left off. I too was working at the seizings, trying smaller and smaller lines, and I agree about the tube-like effect which I am unhappy with. I was thinking that was down to the method I'm using of making the seizings first by wrapping them round small drill bits and then fitting them to the line. I'm now down to fly-fishing thread and will start experimenting with that, and maybe trying to make the seizings as they are in reality. Tony
-
Great to see another build in our cutters' shipyard on this forum. I'll be following this with much interest. Tony
-
There are furniture creams made up of beeswax and turpentine -- a recipe for furniture polish that goes back centuries. The mix seems to be exactly the same as Chuck's recipe. I have a couple of bottles of Stephenson's Olde English Furniture Cream made of this, but that brand is no longer made. However there are plenty of others such as Lochinvar at http://www.johngrahamhardware.co.uk/stephensons_old_english.html) and also Stone's furniture cream made up in the same way. There are probably lots of others if you do a search on furniture creams. Tony
Our Emblem ®
