garyshipwright

Thanks Mark but she just may not go for it. We will see. Gary

Thanks guys your comments mean a lot to me and to all the likes to. Gives one the small slightly push to keep going , that is untill the misses says go cut the yard sweetheart,its getting a little tall. ;o) Gary

Thanks Mark. Hopfully it won't take me as long to get another update. Gary

Hi guys. Been awhile since my last update and after retiring I seem to be spending more time in the shop, that is until the honey do's come calling. Here is a small up date on her Hope you enjoy the photo's. Gary

Hi Mark As far as the curved beam in front of the rudder in post 1589 of your log, that will work just fine, its behind the rudder head that causes the headache. I believe mine is similar to yours and comes from the Hector upper deck plan. As soon as my camera gets a full battery I take a picture or two of it. I do believe that they would have done something like what Rekon 54 show on his Le Feuron. Another way that would of worked and probably was used, was to installed half beams with rabbets on the leading edge on each side of the rudder head. Information or the French way can be found in Boudriot 74 gun ship. Now you say, well this is a english ship but the first true 74's came from the French so I don't think am to far out in left field. Beside I have not found a better more accurate way and if there is am all ears. You will find Rekon log on page 7 and the photos are on page 12 of his build. The post that show the batten I was talking about is the 3rd photo in post 347, 10 photo in post 358, and photo 6 in post 359. Let me know please what you think good sir. Mark I got a couple of photo's for you. This part is still a work in progress so forgive me if every thing is not square. Gary

Hi Mark . Think I found some thing researched wise on the stern that I thought you may be interested in. For the last week maybe longer I have been researching the upper deck transom to install one in Alfred at beam level for landing the end of the planks on. After trying for a few days to using the measurment from Steel and the Repository and a few others like NMM plans, I had to cut out a good section of the middle of the transom which didn't make sense. Also to make it fit height wise for the planks to lay level in the rabbit along the front edge, lots of wood had to be trimed away. Steel says it was post to be I believe 13 inchs in the middle. Well lets just say that didn't work to good. Your photo of the original model doesn't shows a transom behind the rudder as you show in post 1597 and 1599. The photo of the original model doesn't show a solid transom going all the way across the stern timbers, at deck level, going behind the rudder untill you get higher up which I believe is the bench transom. I have been trying to figure out why the space from the last beam on most plans don't show any thing beam wise after the last beam , like a transom against the stern timbers like you did. I believe that the space behind the rudder was to tight to fit a transom, and after you trim off the wood to make it fit for landing the end of the planks you would have cut most of you strength away. Also when you look at the Plan 's in the NMM , one thing you will noticed is that when they drew out those plans every beam and deck transom was shown on the plan 90 percent of the time. So the question kept coming up, were is that transom. Most plans don't show a upper deck transom behind the rudder because there wasn't one, which is why there is such a empty space from the last beam in front of the rudder till you get to the stern timbers. Alfred showed me that one could not be fitted. I have seen plans showing a beam/transom that wraped around the rudder from the front that was attached to the stern timbers if you want to see it. Now you ask, what did they land the deck planks on past that last beam. I believe what they did was install a batton or half beams one per side with a rabbit in the fwd edge, across the stern timbers for the ends of the planks. Not quite as hefty as a transom but do believe that this was hefty enough to do the trick. There really wasn't any weight back here but they may of reinforced the planks with carling's and ledges underneith it. The only plan that I have seen with a transom behind the rudder was in Steel and that is a 80 gun ship. Maybe by the time of Steel who knows, maybe they increased the space to be able to fit a transom

Hi John. Nice job sir. She is looking outstanding. Gary

Thanks druxey. It would be nice if somebody wrote a book on building one. Know any body by chance. ;o)

Hi Mark thinking that I miss something back here. After looking at your drawing some of the items make sense such as the curved deck beam in front of the rudder. On Alfred upper deck plan does not show this beam so I did a little digging and Steel and other's say the upper deck had 28 beams but Alfred plan on shows 27 with a some what big gap from the front of rudder to the back of the last beam. Seems to me I found my missing 28 beam. This curve beam does't show up on the sheer plan but shows up nicely on the deck plan of the Hecter. Any way need to do some more research and a little deconstruction on a couple of item if need be Thank you sir. Gary.

Hi Mark. Just to let you know sir, druxey is a big help in getting us through the in's and out's of the stern and every thing that goes to build this part. Will be watching your progress as we go. On a different not back a couple you talked about the chocks and other items aroun the rudder head and may use this in Alfred, with you permission that is. Being there really isn't any real evidence to show other wise on her. That and a little artistic licensing that is. ;o). Keep up the good work. Gary

Hi Joe, Ron and Zhuying and thank you for your thoughts about this and may take me some time to figure this out. Am very much a newbe at this and has given me a lot to think about. Might take me a little time but seems I have a little of that now. Thank you good sirs. Gary

Thanks Mark

Hi Mark and thank you. That was one of the items that I was most concerned about, taken away the capability of the hand wheels and its manually use. Am not sure about other ones but you can still use the hand wheels by just unpluging the steeper motor from the drive box and now you don't have a feed back ,in to the drive box unlocking the handwheels for manually turning. Some say if your not going to use it for cnc why have it. Seems one now has a choice to use either manually or cnc. I also found that you can reuse your dro and handwheels to keep track of where things are out so you don't have to count turn's, which suck when its a long or deep part. Being able to still use the DRO with out the computer hooked up gives you all the capabilitys you had before adding steeper's. Because learning how to use cnc takes a bit, its nice to still have the manually part. Gary

Hello everyone. I am planning on changing my Sherline manual mill over to a CNC mill and looking for the good and bad in doing this. Its a little on the costly side I know but would like your insight in to what you guys think and what you guys did or didn't do. Of course I might just be tired of turn the hand wheel. ;o) Thanks. Gary

Thanks Bob. Will give that a shot. Gary

Hello guys. Can anyone tell me where I can get belts that are the same type that came with the Preac saw? Maybe some time in the very very near future I probably get the upgrade on the Preac saw but at the moment I figure it is time to find a new belt for her. Thanks folks . Gary

Hello folks . Just to let you know I have a couple of books for sell. Seems I purchased a couple extra ones, L'Aurore corvette and the armed gunboat Chaloupe. Don't believe that I need two of these and would like to find a new home for them. If your interested in buying them let me know and am sure we can come to a good price on them plus shipping. Thank you . Gary

Hi Kevin. Like you said it takes a lot longer to set the band saw up and about 30 seconds to cut the material. What I want to do is set up a small band saw as a dedicated saw for cutting metal copper, brass and others down to workable sizes, when it is a little on the thick side, so I don't have to spend ten minutes changing the tool over to do a 30 second cut. I also think doing this will keep the cut metal more square for working. The motor on the Preac runs, its just really under powered and has a hard time cutting anything. Figure that the upgrade will at least make it able to cut 3/32 thick materal and will be a dedicated saw for doing grating. My Byrnes saw is the real work horse and cut's most of the ship wood with the inca and Grizzly cutting down the larger pieces for the Byrnes . Gary

With the new upgrade on the Preac, will it be able to cut 1/8 thick brass? Am looking for a good saw for cutting copper and brass and the upgrade may be just what am looking for. I know, you ask why not just use a jeweler's saw. Its a little slow and am not getting any younger. Thanks. Gary

Your very very welcome good sir. Gary

Hi druxey. You are total right sir and models do show the bolsters sitting back from the edge a inch or two which I believe was done to make the models look good. I also think it was done with most model's, guess you could say the model builders used what we call today a little artistic freedom. ; o) At least that is what I have seen when I look at most of them. Which to me looks a lot better then having it stuck out over the cheek it self. On a different note, with it sticking out a inch or two over the edge, seem's it would help the anchor rope with the bending and protect the cheek it self from being rubbed away and weaking it. Any way thats my way of looking at it. I did find the infomation on this in a contract of 1782, which was also used to build the Bellerophon of 1805 and the book Scantlings of the Royal Navy ships page 224. The contract and the book both say that the bolsters should come up at least two thirds and to project the cheeks 3/4 of a inch contract, and the book gives it 1 3/4. Any way thats my story and am probably stick to doing them with a little artistic freedom, looks better. ;o) I added a photo of the Warrior If any one is interested in seeing it. Gary

Thanks Johann and Mark. Coming from you guys, your word's just made my day a whole lot better. Gary

Mark so far I have not found any specification for it. What I did find is one on the bolsters. It says that it is to go up to the middle of the Hawse hole, and go I believe it was either a inch/ inch and half over the edge of the lower cheek. Figure that it couldn't be to thin, the bolsters that is, so figure that maybe 5 or 6 inches thick on that and what ever is left over would be the liner,which would be 6 inches. Not set in stone good sir that is untill some one figures it out. I set the bolster there but still have to thin it down a bit from the top of it to the edge of the cheek. Gary

I do believe that they make a laser for it but don't think it is very powerful. gary

Thanks Mark. Do believe what am going to get is the Carbide 3d Shapeoko xxl robust cnc router. It should be interesting and fun using it and making thing with it. From what i see on the internet seems that you are 100 percent right about it the Glowforge that is. Gary