el cid

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.

You should definitely check your library - they might have online access to the journal for patrons. It amazes me all the online resources my library has - every thing from language lessons to newspaper archives to obscure movie services, there's a chance yours will have access to this one.

Sorry, as a former newspaper employee who has seen what "free" information has done to outlets, I can't agree. I now work for a company that charges a bundle for the information we provide. I'm better paid, have better benefits and our customers seem happy, since our profits are rising. Meanwhile, take a look at your local newspaper and compare it to the size and amount of news that had been provided 20 or 30 years ago. That's the impact of everyone wanting everything for free. Gathering and publishing credible information costs money. There is an amazing amount of free information available on the Web, we are extraordinarily lucky to have access to it. But generating information isn't free.
I think I should be able to walk into my local Mercedes dealership and drive off with what I want, but unfortunately, Mercedes won't let me. Information is just as valuable. 
You're lucky - even though the Post & Courier has cut back a bit, it still has high aspirations and a good amount of content.  

Despite what is expected by a large number of people, information is not free.  Academic journals and most professional journals require a paid subscription to access published information.  In fact, I would not trust the content of any free access journal.  Those journals are called throwaways for a reason.  

I suspect institutions -- libraries, universities, etc. -- pay for access for their members, so if you can demonstrate that you're associated with one, you can get in.  I suspect, if you contacted the publisher, they would either sell you the article you're interested in or direct you to an institution that would loan it to you.
 
Particularly on technical subjects, I expect to pay for good information.  We subscribe to a data service at work that costs a fortune.  Every year I have to answer questions about how much value we get from it and every year we renew that subscription.  The people who run that service earn every penny of it.
 
 
Dan

Update
 
1. Gun deck completed.
 
Karl
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

Making some good progress on the Calypso lately!
 
I started building the bridge and the upper cabins. Let me start by saying the stairs up to the bridge according to the kit instructions was supposed to be just a single piece of wood glued from the bottom of the stairs up to the landing. Boooo! I took that piece of wood and created two stair treads following the angle formed by the upper and lower formers. Wasn't too hard to make but I can tell I'll need to paint these black or a dark color to distract from the fact the stair tread is a tad too thick!
 
The forming of the stairway wall wasn't as hard as I thought it would be! What I did was steam the piece and bent it around a Tamiya paint bottle. Took about 3 steaming sessions before it created a good curve but patience is a virtue so they say!
 
I next super glued the part of the stairway wall where it attaches to the bridge and added more super glue on the formers. Clamped that portion down then added super glue to the remainder of the former and clamped the stairway wall from one side to the other. I think it came out great!
 
Now about the multi-faceted bridge windows...
 
I loosely tapped the edges where the panels line up to each other using paint masking tape. Then with the bridge assembly upside down I slowly tacked each piece to the styrene former making sure the top (now on the bottom) of each window frame was on the cutting matt and the edges lined up with the adjacent window frame. It took about 20 minutes to get the shape and look that I wanted... along with a few choice words thrown in there for effect!
 
I'll paint the upper structure tonight and pray that it comes out looking right.
 
More to come!
 
Fuji

Mersey Return
 
Two Flowers and an HDML

W/C 14" X 10"

Today's trip. HMCS Prince Rupert river class

Another little 'un an early Flower in Convoy 
w/c 6" X 4"

The sheave on deck permits a gang of seamen to haul on the line as it extends across the deck. Obviously, only one or two men at a time can pull a line down without a sheave because there isn't room for more to get a hold on the line. 
 
When the line is hauled through a deck sheave or turning block, the line is brought up to the front of pin rail and a half-twist is made in the line and cast over the pin and pulled tight. The remaining bitter end is coiled with the coil held in the left hand. When coiled, the right hand reaches through the middle of the coil and grasps the bitter end of the line where it comes off the pin and a a suitable length of line being made between the coil and the right hand, that length is pulled through the center of the coil and a half-twist made in it, which is thrown over the pin so that the coil is hung neatly from the pin. 
 
When line is let go, it is a simple matter to lift the hitch off the top of the pin and lay the coil on deck, then cast off the first half hitch on the pin, and the line will pay out neatly from the without kinking or fouling.
 
Many books and manuals will depict a method of taking multiple turns around a belaying pin before hitching the line to the pin. While there is a method of taking an initial turn before hitching in cases where it is feared the weight of the load may make it difficult to cast off a single hitch on the pin, in practice, it's not a problem that's often encountered, as a horizontal pull of the fall, (called "sweating the line") will make losening the single hitch easy enough if the size of the line and the size of the pin are properly matched. Unnecessary turns around pins, cleat, cavels, and posts are the hallmarks of sloppy seamanship. All belaying should be done in a uniform fashion, as well, since one crewmember may tie off and another let go. In a blow and a heavy sea in the middle of the night is no place to be trying to untie "black" knots tied by some lubber!

Actually, when it comes to butt joints, even with butt blocks, it's proper to install them in a spacing which keeps them all as far apart from each other as is possible. The butts are inherently weak points which are better spread as far apart as possible and there are various classic "butt shift schedules" which you will find in any wooden boat or ship building text.  I have seen in many modeling books the practice of butting planks on a frame. However, in full size construction practice and its related literature, I've never seen planks butted on a frame to be a recommended practice. The butt block is a far stronger and better construction method. Modernly, of course, epoxy adhesives have made face-scarfing plank stock a viable alternative, eliminating the plank butt issue entirely. In all my years mucking about boatyards, I've only encountered one vessel, a 63' staysail schooner, which, oddly to everyone's eyes, had her planks butted on her frames. She was originally launched as the Mavoureen Mary and was renamed Landfall a few years later. She was designed by Edson Schock for the actress Maureen O'Hara and her husband. and launched in the early 'thirties. She's had a good long life and is still around, last I heard. When I last saw her in the mid-seventies, the was undergoing frame and planking repairs which were occasioned, according to the yard crew, by the fact that her planks were butted on her sawn frames. They attributed this oddity to the fact that, for some reason, she was built by the Boeing Aircraft Company! Boeing of Canada did build yachts early on, an offshoot of their seaplane manufacturing subsidiary.  
 
Gotcha! In fact, the Venetian gondolas are intentionally built with an asymmetrical hull. They do move to one side if left to their own devices. The purpose of this oddity is that it compensates for the opposite tendency when the gondolier sculls with his oar on only one side of the boat. This design feature is unique to gondolas.

Thanks, I enjoy doing them.
The Chase 
This afternoon's adventure . The Chase from my imagination W/C 6” X 4”

Try out for a book cover, although the only bit used would be the U boat and Corvette. It illustrates a passage in the book.
I don’t like the back ground . I'll do another, just the ‘portrait' bit this time.

'Royal Yaucht' Gothic passing the Needles
watercolour 14" X 10"

Or reduce the amount of material used - don't try to furl a full sail, but cut the sail to 1/3 to 1/2 the size and furl that instead.  I had a tutorial somewhere on here where I showed my technique.
 
Otherwise, I think your sails look great!  To me, these are sailing ships and if you want to show them with sails, go for it!  I did furled sails on my Badger, but will go for full sails (or a mixture of furled and full) on my next builds.  Personally, I think sails bring these beauties to life.

It is a proper look for whenever a tank is traveling under it's own power in unpaved conditions just as any other off road vehicle. BUT you can be certain that as soon as they return to base the crew will be all over the exterior cleaning dirt, dust, and mud from everywhere they can reach. The ideal is if they have a convenient shallow river close by where they can just drive in and give it a good scrub down. It seemed to me that every time I saw an armored unit they were either going somewhere getting dirty or sitting still getting cleaned. 

This from page 42; it seems closing the gun ports between shots was situational, perhaps as a ship rolls or comes about in heavy seas?
 

Dave
Have you looked at the mast, spar, and rope sizes on the spread sheet here at MSW?  It is based on the formulas from Lees' Masting and Rigging English Ships of War book and is quite useful except for the period from 1670 to 1711.  An incorrect formula was used on the length of the main mast for this time span so every thing else that follows is wrong.   But, from 1640 to 1670 and from 1711 to 1860 all the numbers appear to be correct.  Go to "More" on the ribbon at the top of the MSW  page, then click on Articles Data Base, then scroll down to Masting and Rigging Spread sheet and click on it and the spread sheet will appear.   Danny Vadas did a great service in creating this.  I wish someone had Danny's original so the one time period between 1670 and 1711 could be corrected.
 
 

Like a lot of people on this site I love the beauty and history of these ships.  I am also a constant student of history so I am very much drawn to the why, what, where, when and how ships function. 
One thing I learned early on is that I will never be done learning.
 
Best wishes for a rewarding and successful journey of knowledge.
 
Regards,