Jump to content

rdsaplala

Members
  • Posts

    602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by rdsaplala

  1. Thanks Druxey, I re-checked the inner railing supporters and they indeed line up with the pillars between the lights.

    Thank you so much again for the help :)

     

    Thanks for sharing your diagram TJ, you've made a good choice in going with the blue width, you could use the Minerva picture above as reference on how the overall arrangement looks like at the front, it will be more or less like the drawing below:  :)

     

     

     

    post-256-0-03293300-1373179259.jpg

  2. Hi TJ,

     

    Thanks for the clarification, pardon me as I initially thought you were referring to the top-most rail above the stern frames (green line).

     

    post-256-0-41174700-1373183617.jpg

     

    I'm afraid the capping rail for the taffarel seems to be a bit more complicated to interpret.

    Based on page 287 of TFFM vol two, as well as majority of the contemporary models I've seen, the capping rail width should extend up to the stern timber (red line) making it more than 7mm at 1/48.

    On the other hand, based on the Triton draught, as well as the contemporary model of HMS Minerva in the picture below, it appears that the fore to aft width should be the blue line(4mm):

     

    post-256-0-73279300-1373183663_thumb.jpg

     

    To be sure, I made an inquiry at the research section:

     

    http://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/2796-tafferal-capping-rail-width-question/#entry76306

     

     

    Hopefully, some of our more experienced members can clarify this. Will let you know once I get a definitive answer.

     

     

     

  3. Hi Guys,

     

    I'm currently working on a 1773 English frigate plan and I'm having some difficulty in deciding if I should follow the red line or the blue line for the width of its taffarel capping rail (see picture below):

     

    post-256-0-25168600-1373178494_thumb.jpg

     

    Based on TFFM vol 2, the rail's fore-aft width should be the red line in the draught, reaching up to the forward border of the stern timber, as seen in the picture below:

     

    post-256-0-99198600-1373178973_thumb.jpg

     

    However, on the draught  it appears that the width is only the blue line, and does not extend beyond the aft edge of the stern timber (see picture below):

     

    post-256-0-03293300-1373179259_thumb.jpg

     

    Nearly all of the contemporary models I've seen support the first drawing (red line), but the contemporary model of HMS Minerva in the link below seems to support the second drawing (blue line):

     

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/magnoliasoft.imageweb/nmm/supersize/d4842_2.jpg

     

    As seen in the close up below, Minerva's taffarel capping rail does not seem to extend up to the stern timber:

     

    post-256-0-21642800-1373181458_thumb.jpg

     

     

    What do you think guys? Red or Blue? 

     

    Thanks very much in advance.

  4. Hi TJ,

     

    4mm at 1/48 scale seems just about right, based on my measurements from the 1/48 draught I'm working on (see links below):

     

    http://i1182.photobucket.com/albums/x452/rdsaplala/height_zps12abc8a0.jpg

     

     

    http://i1182.photobucket.com/albums/x452/rdsaplala/width_zps448a88b0.jpg

     

     

    As seen in the second picture, it appears that this particular rail should have just about the same fore-aft  width as the actual taffrail (green) and is just a fraction of a mm wider than the stern frame (blue).

     

    Steel probably gives the exact dimensions, unfortunately, I don't have a copy of this contemporary reference so I just rely on the draught corrected for vertical and horizontal distortion for my measurements  :blush:

     

     

     

     

  5. Hi TJ,

     

    You've done a marvelous job on your Triton, she's looking great. Regarding the dimensions of the rail atop the tafferal, one easy way is to take the measurements directly from the MSW outboard profile drawing, which is very close to the original draught based on my comparison.

     

    I'm afraid the dimensions provided in TFFM will not be applicable to Triton as she is a different ship altogether. If you want maximum accuracy, perhaps you could inquire in the research section if someone with access to Steel or Shipbuilders Repository could give the dimensions for this particular part on a 28 gun frigate, circa 1773. 

  6. Happy birthday, Mark! May you have many more happy birthdays to come, my friend  :champagne:  :champagne-2:

     

    Wow! Licorne sure has some lovely lines, a testament to your excellent work :)

    Thanks for sharing that interesting cross section, those 18th Century French Shipwrights sure have a thing for aesthetics, it seems that after the step caused by the black strake (?), all the strakes, including the wale blend so smoothly together, it seems to be quite a challenge, but I have no doubt you will pull it off beautifully  B)

  7. Hello Dave,

     

    Welcome to MSW as well as to the "Swan Class Builders' Club", there are plenty of Swan Class builders here to help you along the way  :)

     

    Very nice work so far, your bulkheads are coming along very nicely. Just a slight note: the bulkhead extensions at the forecastle and quarterdeck are a bit fragile and can snap especially during planking, you could protect them by temporarily taping their corresponding deck beams (see pic in the link below):

     

    http://s1182.photobucket.com/user/rdsaplala/media/MSW/msw031Medium.jpg.html?sort=3&o=40

  8. Hi Christian,

     

    I'm pleased to know that your NMM Plan will arrive very shortly, I've been examining my hard copy of the plans as well the smaller soft copy by using David Antscherl's articles on drafting as well as interpreting Admiralty plans and identifying/correcting distortions and it appears that both plans have very minimal horizontal distortion. I have yet to check them for vertical distortion, but what I did notice in both plans is that the baseline to top-timber distance of the sections in the body plan, do not match the top-timber heights of their counterpart sections in the sheer profile.

     

    As seen below, taking the foremost section as an example, it appears that the toptimber height of this section (red line) in the body plan is higher when compared to its top timber height in the sheer plan (don't mind the juxtaposed colored plan):

     

     

    post-256-0-21887500-1371994699_thumb.jpg

     

     

    post-256-0-21216800-1371994724_thumb.jpg

     

    Could you verify if this is also the case in your plan when it arrives?

     

    By the way, did I understand correctly that you will be drawing some Plank on Bulkhead (POB) plans?

    If yes, it would be great if you could share it here for the benefit of POB builders like me  ;)

×
×
  • Create New...