el cid

William,
 
Good to hear from you.
 
I don't know where I will go with the project either. My intent was to create a complete set of 2D drawings that modelers could use. This turned out to be a massive undertaking - a side profile drawing takes 5-6 days to generate from the 3D model (on a 4.7GHz i7 machine with 32 Gbytes of the fastest RAM I could buy, running 24/7)! Then it will take a week or two to clean up the drawings and scale them for plotting.
 
I wanted to build a 1:96 scale model, and the hull is partially completed. 3D printing has come a long way since I started the project in 2004, and I am considering converting many of the files to printing files. But there will be a pretty good learning curve and I don't know when I will start that. First I must build a workshop to house the tools and the model. Who knows when/if that will happen!
 
Converting the 1 Gbyte of files to a new format for Flight Simulator is not something i am interested in doing.

Moving Right Along, 117 hours
 

Here is everything stacked up so far. It seemed like this was going pretty fast but then I looked at how many white metal pieces are left ...
 

And here's my dog Loki admiring my work.

The crew’s mess was all the way forward. On the early Flowers, before the focsle deck was extended back to the pilot house and enclosed below, the only access to this berthing/messing compartment was via the exposed foredeck. I seem to recall Nicholas Monserrat (sp?) touching on this “inconvenience” in “The Cruel Sea” or “Three Corvettes,” both highly recommended if you haven’t already read.
 
Cheers,
 
Keith

George,
 
This is a little late, but I will post it for your information. Here are photos of a sliding hatch on the Lady Washington. This type hatchway was/is very common. The part under where the hatch slides back isn't wasted space - it is headroom as you descend the ladder.
 

 

 
 
The top is not always sloping. On some vessels it is parallel to the deck.
 
 

The crew’s mess was all the way forward. On the early Flowers, before the focsle deck was extended back to the pilot house and enclosed below, the only access to this berthing/messing compartment was via the exposed foredeck. I seem to recall Nicholas Monserrat (sp?) touching on this “inconvenience” in “The Cruel Sea” or “Three Corvettes,” both highly recommended if you haven’t already read.
 
Cheers,
 
Keith

The crew’s mess was all the way forward. On the early Flowers, before the focsle deck was extended back to the pilot house and enclosed below, the only access to this berthing/messing compartment was via the exposed foredeck. I seem to recall Nicholas Monserrat (sp?) touching on this “inconvenience” in “The Cruel Sea” or “Three Corvettes,” both highly recommended if you haven’t already read.
 
Cheers,
 
Keith

The crew’s mess was all the way forward. On the early Flowers, before the focsle deck was extended back to the pilot house and enclosed below, the only access to this berthing/messing compartment was via the exposed foredeck. I seem to recall Nicholas Monserrat (sp?) touching on this “inconvenience” in “The Cruel Sea” or “Three Corvettes,” both highly recommended if you haven’t already read.
 
Cheers,
 
Keith

The crew’s mess was all the way forward. On the early Flowers, before the focsle deck was extended back to the pilot house and enclosed below, the only access to this berthing/messing compartment was via the exposed foredeck. I seem to recall Nicholas Monserrat (sp?) touching on this “inconvenience” in “The Cruel Sea” or “Three Corvettes,” both highly recommended if you haven’t already read.
 
Cheers,
 
Keith

The crew’s mess was all the way forward. On the early Flowers, before the focsle deck was extended back to the pilot house and enclosed below, the only access to this berthing/messing compartment was via the exposed foredeck. I seem to recall Nicholas Monserrat (sp?) touching on this “inconvenience” in “The Cruel Sea” or “Three Corvettes,” both highly recommended if you haven’t already read.
 
Cheers,
 
Keith

Imagna,
 
Thank you for pointing this suggestion. It made me look into it and I realized that in fact, this little cabin is the "Galley" !!! The long and bent pipe exiting from it, is the Galley funnel, which supposedly had multiple access to remove the soot due to the cooking. I am modifying my previous post to reflect this change.
 
Yves

well i finished it
 
an enjoyable build
kit quality 10/10
my effort 3/10
paints rattle can
glue was pva and medium C/A
sort furnishings by the wife, thank you
 
thank you for following, i have another ready to go on the build table

A quick update on the hull and decks: 
 

 
Hull has been puttied and primed. There will be more sanding, before the first coat of paint.
 

 

 
Also working on the printing of the deck sections. Following are a few excerpts from the instructions manual: 
 

 

 

 

 
And the printed parts:  
 

 

 

 
Yves

In modern US ships the number of treads in a ladder (vertical or angled) depends upon the vertical length. This is divided to give a number of equal spaces between the treads (top of treads) somewhere around a foot (12 inches). This can vary between about 10" to 13" between treads, with the bottom tread on vertical ladders as much as 18" above the deck. Angled ladders tend to have the same spacing from the deck to the top of the lowest tread as the rest of the treads. Blueprints usually don't actually give the spacing, but just give the height of the bottom step from the deck and the distance from the top step to the deck above, and show some number of treads and say "Equal Spacing." The rest is left up to the shipyard.
 
I suspect ladders have always been made this way. You have a space to fill with steps and you want them spaced in a reasonably familiar way. The fact that the spacing differs from ladder to ladder doesn't matter. Take my word for it - I climbed all over ships at sea with varying tread spacing and never had a problem missing steps. But it is important for the spacing to be equal on a given ladder. Also, the lowest tread should not be too close to the deck - that can cause tripping. And the top tread should be about the same spacing below the upper deck as the tread spacing in the ladder, but often is shorter if necessary to get appropriate spacing between the other treads.  You don't have trouble finding the deck above the ladder when climbing - it is wherever your foot lands. - again, I speak from experience!
 
Well, if you are climbing a ladder in the bow while the ship is pitching in high seas you may find yourself catapulted into the air just as you reach the top step with the ship dropping out from under you and then have momentary difficulty finding the deck, but gravity quickly remedies that!

I have been looking for more information about the historical use of the jib stay traveller. Every book I have looked at mentions the traveller, but most stop there.
 
Darcy Lever's 1808 "The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor" is an excellent period source about rigging and sailing.
 
In the ship handling part of the book in Section 84 "Taking in the Jib, &c." lever describes lowering the jib to the bowsprit to reduce wind effect on the bow that is making it difficult to keep the ship on course. "... when it is close down on the Boom, if the wind be likely to encrease, the Stay or Out-hauler ... is let go: it [the sail on the traveller] is hauled in close to the Bowsprit Cap and stowed away ..."
 
So the traveller was used to bring the jib tack back to the bowsprit cap when the sail was to be stowed.
 
However, there are also references implying that the traveller may not always have been positioned all the way forward, perhaps as Ian Grant said, to change the effect of the wind force on the sail. Lever discusses the effects of wind force on sails forward and aft of the center of gravity that cause the ship to change course into the wind (griping), and methods to reduce these forces to allow the ship to be steered without using the rudder (which increases drag when it is turned off midships). However, he does not mention reducing the fore sails for this purpose, but does describe raising and lowering them when turning the ship to allow the fore sails or mizzen sails to bring the ship about.
 
In Section 60 "JIB, &c." Lever discusses the inner martingale stay that is attached to the traveller to generate a downward force to counter the lifting force of the jib stay. "Many vessels have only the outer Maringale-Stay; but the inner one is very serviceable when the Jib is a third, or half in, as it acts immediately under the Stay." [my emphasis]
 
George Biddlecombe's 1925 "The Art of Rigging" (page 99) also describes hauling the traveller back to the bowsprit cap to raise the sail.
 
"The Jib being ready to bend, haul the jib stay and traveller close in to the bowsprit cap; ... reeve the stay through the hanks (which are already seized to the head of the sail) ... haul it out to the traveller; hook the stay [to the traveller]  ... then haul the traveller out to the jib-boom end (if required), and set the stay up." [my emphasis]
 
So both authors imply that the traveller may be positioned at places other than full forward or full aft. But neither actually describes doing this to moderate the forces acting on the ship.
 
So historically the traveller was used when setting or reefing the jib.
 
But I still don't know how common the use of a traveller was, and especially on topsail schooners.

If you ever find yourself near Savannah, GA, there is an 8th Air Force museum just off I-95. They have a B-47 visible from the Interstate as a marker. They have a number of a/c in the museum building and a few out side, too. The B-17G is open to peek into a bit and you see how tiny this mainstay heavy bomber of that war actually was. My old F-4 carried a heavier bomb load at times than the old Fortress. And the a/c skin still is all that protects the crew. No armor plate, except in the A-10, that I can think of.
And they reconstructed an English parish church on the grounds, bell tower and all. Nicely done.

There seems to be a dearth of information on binnacle cabinets.  This is a replica of a 17th century cabinet from the vessel Nonsuch (found at the Manitoba Museum website).
 

I love the WW2 Russian fighters. For whatever reasons, I never recall seeing many photos or reading about Russian WW2 aircraft until more recent times. Growing up in the 50's and 60's, all we ever saw were American, British, Japanese, and German aircraft. Never French, Italian, Russian, Polish, etc.

Also beware the difference between “tung oil finish,” the stuff you find at the big box and hardware stores, and “pure tung oil,” the real stuff. I think the first is more like a polyurethane and just uses the words “tung oil” for marketing. Pure tung oil is harder to find and takes more effort and time to apply, but eventually hardens and oxidizes to a beautiful, natural, water resistant finish…for gun stocks, furniture, and other knick knacks.

Also beware the difference between “tung oil finish,” the stuff you find at the big box and hardware stores, and “pure tung oil,” the real stuff. I think the first is more like a polyurethane and just uses the words “tung oil” for marketing. Pure tung oil is harder to find and takes more effort and time to apply, but eventually hardens and oxidizes to a beautiful, natural, water resistant finish…for gun stocks, furniture, and other knick knacks.

Also beware the difference between “tung oil finish,” the stuff you find at the big box and hardware stores, and “pure tung oil,” the real stuff. I think the first is more like a polyurethane and just uses the words “tung oil” for marketing. Pure tung oil is harder to find and takes more effort and time to apply, but eventually hardens and oxidizes to a beautiful, natural, water resistant finish…for gun stocks, furniture, and other knick knacks.

ah100m is correct about the circumference error in Mondfeld's tables on rigging size. Everything is based upon the mast diameter, but the resulting rope sizes often are given in circumference! The relationship is the main stay circumference is 0.166 the diameter of the mast at the partners (at the deck). I am sure this confuses all novice modelers - it had me going in circles for a while!
 
CORRECTION: It certainly is confusing, and tripped me up again! Mondfeld says the thickness of the stay is 0.166 (or 16.6%) of the mast diameter. Corrections below are in bold type.
 
Rope circumferences are then given as percentages of the main stay circumference ( or the fore stay for two masted fore topsail schooners). This is common in every text I have seen, going back into the 1700s. But you must use the same units of measure (inches, centimeters, etc.). So if the mast diameter is in inches the circumference will be in inches. And if you really want to get picky, remember English feet were not the same as French, Dutch or Swedish feet (before they changed to the metric system). The differences are small and can be ignored for model rigging diameters/circumferences.
 
However, for wire rope that began appearing in the last half of the 1800s the formulas are different - basically about 33% of the rope circumference as Mondfeld says. But this is just an approximation.
 
Circumference = pi x diameter, or C = 3.14159 x d. So the diameter of the stay is the stay circumference divided by pi (3.14159):
 
Mondfeld says mast diameter x 0.166 = stay circumference thickness (diameter)
 
stay circumference = stay diameter x pi.
 
stay diameter = (mast diameter x 0.166)/3.14159 = mast diameter x 0.0528
 
So the stay diameter is about 16.6% of the mast diameter. For a 24 inch diameter mast the stay will be about 4 inch diameter.
 
Since model rope and thread sizes are usually given in diameters it is best to calculate the stay diameter and work from that.
 
After you get the stay diameter the percentage ratios in Mondfeld's tables apply to all other rigging diameters. However, there are other rules that give slightly different results, depending upon nationality and period. And almost none of these rules apply to schooners and other fore and aft rigged vessels.
 
****
 
I don't know that there are any outright errors in what Mondfeld says. He gives general rules for different periods and nationalities that I am certain were right for some vessels. But if there is anything I have learned it is that no rule applies all of the time for any period or nationality. A great deal of leeway was given to ship builders, owners and Captains for how a ship was constructed and  rigged, and it could change with time. It is certain that some vessels were built and rigged differently from what Mondfeld shows, but since no two vessels were ever exactly alike, this is not Mondfeld's error. Just take what he says with a grain of salt, and if you cannot find accurate period plans for the ship you are building, Mondfeld's "rules" are as good as any other.
 
I have compiled just about all the rules I can find in the spreadsheet in the discussion in this link about topsail schooner rigging (post #57). The spreadsheet compares the different rules and shows the slight differences. Most of the rules are for full rigged ships but there are some for schooners. Then a separate section calculates the sizes of ropes for schooner rigging based upon a mast size you provide.
 
The thread also gives definitions of sail and rigging terminology, and the basis for calculating many of the dimensions of ships.

Thanks so much for the water colour, exactly what I wanted, from mine and my late father's favorite novel by Douglas Reeman "A Prayer for the Ship"
Regards
Guy

HMS Codrington at Dunkirk. Done this afternoon, Commission for a guy who's father was evacuated aboard her w/c A4

Well said, Eric.  In the past as tech writer I did my share of re-writing and editing research papers on a free-lance basis.  Also did tech research papers for various companies involved in research.  Luckily, I didn't have to review, just incorporate new data, etc.  You're right about no such thing as a free-lunch. If it really is free, it's usually worth what you paid for it.

I work as an editor helping non-native-speaking scientists improve their scientific writing and get their research published in international journals, most of which are in English these days. I've helped papers get published in over 100 peer-reviewed journals from major publishing houses, so have a fair amount of experience with this aspect of the publishing world.
 
It can cost thousands of dollars for a scientist to get a research paper published, whether or not the journal is open-access. And if it isn't, it can still cost the public a quite high fee to access that research unless they have a subscription, which usually means they're part of a major research institution themselves as the cost is way above what individuals are likely to pay. Which usually means that journalists and the public are mostly locked out of what's actually happening in science. I find this extremely problematic.
 
That being said, it also really does cost money to publish a journal. Journals get inundated with submissions, all of which have to be reviewed and responded to. Much of this gets sloughed off onto unpaid peer reviewers (another abuse in the system) but there's still a lot of in-house work. Expecting anything to be free requires defining where you expect the money to come from, because there is no such thing as free. If it's not publishing and subscription fees, then where? Donations or sponsorships? That puts you in conflict-of-interest territory. Government funding? Kind of the same thing. There's no one clear answer in a world where people increasingly expect information to be free online but either aren't willing to pay for it or haven't figured out the right model for paying for it.
 
I do tend toward thinking the current journal publishing model is on the scam side of the spectrum, especially where some of the big corporate publishers are involved, but it's a very complex system overall without easy answers.