Jump to content
MSW Spring Donation Drive

iMustBeCrazy

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    840

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by iMustBeCrazy

  1. iMustBeCrazy
    Thanks Keith, I'm sure it's right but it's easy to be sure about your own ideas, even when they're wrong On to the binnacles, this is harder as there appears to be no hard evidence. So, one question at a time. Why wouldn't the binnacles be if front of the helmsman where they belong? Can anybody suggest a reason this is not possible? (that's one question rephrased) Answers must include a stamped self addressed envelope.
  2. iMustBeCrazy
    Why do you think I chose my username? The following is not intended to be condescending in any way, it's just me trying to put into words what I see. My logic. First, the azimuth compass is used to take bearings of objects (hills for example), you need to get your eye right up against the sights (somebody used the right word above but I can't find it) so the compass should be at about eye level. You also need to be able to take bearings in any direction, even behind you. That rules out taking bearings from the bridge. Now lets look at the drawings: The height of the' table' is about two foot three inches, so to take bearings using a compass on the 'table' would mean getting down on your knees also the 'table' is below the height of the bulwarks so you couldn't see anything anyway. The top of the post is about seven foot five inches above the deck which rules out standing on the deck and using a compass on the top of the post. From the top of the 'table' to the top of the post is about five foot one inch which would allow you to stand on the 'table' and take bearings with a compass on the top of the post which is how I assume it was used. You could have a post either side of the 'table' and move the compass from one to the other (or have two compasses) but I can't think of a good reason for that. Also the drawing clearly depicts a square something in the middle of the 'table'. And from Starling 1829:
  3. iMustBeCrazy
    Ok, a different version, a little closer perhaps:
  4. iMustBeCrazy
    Well, it seems I have been rather lacking, I have been limiting myself to those lovely high resolution scans from wiki commons and ignoring the low res ones at the RMG. Specifically ZAZ5672 of which there are two versions, the first shows the bridge details in red the second in black which leads me to think it depicts section A-A (or thereabouts) below.
  5. iMustBeCrazy
    Kieth, first thing to remember is it's an artists impression, useful for things like curved davits, the face the bridge existed and some details like the halliards. But the davits are shown as inside the bulwarks when we're pretty sure they were outside and the davits are way out of proportion, the skid beams and post don't seem to be shown but perhaps two support posts for the bridge are? Perhaps they removed the skids and used the to operate the davits? I agree with iron stanchions with rope handrails (that's what I tried to depict above) but how many to provide support, you could tension the rope better if you had a diagonal support at the outer posts which would need less stanchions. Anyway, here's an enlargement of the drawing:
  6. iMustBeCrazy
    I've also been playing with the bridge, it doesn't really work but I thought I'd open it up for discussion.
  7. iMustBeCrazy
    It seems to be more an issue with the kit, for it all to fit as drawn the aft side of the skid beam should almost touch the mast. I'm not sure what exactly the cause is, perhaps slightly oversize deadeyes? I would probably shave off a few half millimeters where I could, notch the davit post so the skid beam fits flush, shave half millimeter off the skid beam, notch the skid beam another half millimeter where it meets the davit post, shave a bit more off the bridge, make the compass post a half millimeter smaller etc. The profile plan shows about a 15 inch gap between the bridge and compass post to get your head up to take a site at 1:75 call it 5mm. Up to you but I would say the original was most likely about 42 feet.
  8. iMustBeCrazy
    And the more you think about it: It answers the question as to why the bridge didn't use it as a support, it answers the question as to why a post would be put in the middle of the 'chart table', it even answers the question as to why the post was rounded. Part of the problem we had was thinking that the table was a chart table, but would they really have taken such valuable charts on deck? Far more likely they made notes and sketches in a notebook and used those to update the charts in the cabin out of the wind and weather.
  9. iMustBeCrazy
    I did a search on 19th Century Azimuth compasses yesterday and most had sights for taking bearings. The post is too tall to take bearings while standing on the deck and too low for taking bearings from the bridge so I hypothesise (one of those 'middle of the night' thoughts) that the table is actually a platform to stand on while taking bearings, giving 360° views with a higher line of sight. It also explains why the post comes through the middle of the table. It would be impractical for it to be used by the helmsman so I think that puzzle remains.
  10. iMustBeCrazy
    Thanks for the confirmation, that's pretty much what I envisioned. The deck plan shows a single post coming up through the middle of the table, the profile shows it squared at that point then round or fluted then squared again at the top. While the beams are crowned, the bridge is depicted somewhere about midships and the same height as it would be if supported by the outboard post so I suspect it wasn't crowned. Crowned would give it more strength at midships but I think it would be bouncer at the ends (not sure). I agree, that's what it shows. Even though four inches thick, three or four supports feels better to me. As it stands even with supports outboard of the bulwarks you would be standing seven to eight feet from the last support. But that was probably OK in calm conditions. I tend to think of Black as viable (unless dashed) so mostly outboard but note the masts are Black, Red is nominally a midships section but does show other inboard details, Red is also used for alterations but there is usually a notation about the alteration somewhere on the plan (but it still gets confusing). They needed more ink colours.
  11. iMustBeCrazy
    Can be a wonderful thing, but all to often disappointing If only I had bought Bitcoin when it first came out.
  12. iMustBeCrazy
    Hmmm, I'm not sure if that's a relief or not, we have three Craig's in the family (two by marriage). I finally looked at the earlier drawing (ZAZ5674 1837) which shows a support outboard bolted(?) under an extended skid and reaching to (my) outboard post. No other supports are shown but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Perhaps one between the skid and the 'compass post'? This will be problematic for you as you have moved the davits forward to clear the shrouds. You could perhaps put the davit outboard of the support post ??? If you choose to put outboard supports in.
  13. iMustBeCrazy
    First off, do I need to change my name to Keith? Did I? Well the support piece(?) under the bridge would allow that, I guess that's what you mean. Any more than that and it would hit the compass post(?) (can't really be called a binnacle can it). Sorry about all the question marks in both the text and the drawing but there are so many questions. I assume the were detailed drawings of the bridge but all we have are those telling the shipyard where to put it. Why the step in height between the skid beam and the bridge? As that section of the drawing is at midships it probably depicts the difference of the cambered skid beam and the flat bridge. A tripping hazard for sure. We seem to have an outboard support post to support the forward side of the bridge, what supports the rear side? Is it a support post at all? Is it part of the original drawing? The top is about six feet above the deck. I also realise I've been very lax in not complementing you on the work you have done, she looks great!!!
  14. iMustBeCrazy
    Logic is good, I certainly don't know how it actually was, I'm guessing too. Perhaps cross pieces under the bridge (there is such a piece on the drawing but it's function is unclear) with the stanchions outboard of the bridge itself, perhaps with a lookout either end access didn't have to be great just adequate. As drawn it probably wasn't intended to have people continuously crossing while still providing better access than crossing the deck. It probably wasn't intended to be used in bad weather, who in their right mind would be sailing near to ice in bad weather, I expect the regular lookouts would be used to provide sufficient warning to steer well clear of ice in most conditions. I think the bridge was intended for use when sailing in close or very close proximity to ice when the ships ability to maneuver might be limited to feet or yards and communication to the helm needed to be quick and accurate. I think the length depicted, extending well outside the hull, probably with a rope 'rail' on three sides outside the bulwarks is probably what was intended. What was built, who knows. Again, everything above is just guesses using the drawing as a guide. My guesses may indeed be wrong.
  15. iMustBeCrazy
    For what it's worth, I agree. However the devils advocate in me asks why have a shorter bridge if standing on the channel or the shrouds would provide the same view? I think your stanchions look right.
  16. iMustBeCrazy
    Two feet with a handrail either side would give more security than three, but we don't know if there was a handrail either side so....... I just feel that you have to have a very good reason to go against period documentation, but I certainly can't say you're wrong.
  17. iMustBeCrazy
    I'm not so sure. Yes, it's going to interfere with the boats, no way around that, but it would be over the top of a boat suspended from the davits. But two foot wide is what the drawings show, sure it may not have been built that way but we don't know that. It does look a bit off but was it functional? Two foot wide was certainly wide enough to walk along safely, did it need to be any wider? How did they mount the stanchions shown in the sketches? How was it supported, it's drawn about 4 inches deep so it's pretty strong, what is the function of the outboard post just forward of it? How was it manned? One officer crossing backwards and forwards or a crewman either side with an officer in the middle interpreting the observation and instructing the helmsman? I suspect the latter. How far out from the hull? I don't know, wider would be better but there are limits. It was probably intended to be stowed when not in use but from the sketches it looks like that may not have been very often, perhaps a favorite spot for the officer on watch? Just some points to muse on.
  18. iMustBeCrazy
    Looks like sometime in 42 with the Roo added in the 50's. I suspect that was six cases for each of the five crew. I think I remember one picking up six downed aircrew once. This site has some shots: https://www.grubbyfingersshop.com/walkaround_galleries/Supermarine_Walrus_HD-874_RAAF Museum_walkaround/content/index.html
  19. iMustBeCrazy
    Now, I may be really out out line but: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=rmg+erebus&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image&fileres=>1000
  20. iMustBeCrazy
    A zoomable copy: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-138503762/view And one dated May 30th 1845: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-138503618/view Hope they help.
  21. iMustBeCrazy
    A common Australian saying attitude is, No problem. But on the selfish side, if I didn't get something out of it I wouldn't do it. As an aside, there used to be a Walrus at the local airport when I was very little ( along with a DC3 and three P51Ds ) I probably wasn't any taller than the Walrus wheels and certainly shorter than the DC3 wheels. I have a very vague recollection of a darker light grey but I can't say I actually remember the Walrus. I think the Walrus had been owned by an aerial survey company, it would have been pretty good at that. This was long after the war.
  22. iMustBeCrazy
    Aircraft aboard in 1942 (from http://www.adf-serials.com.au/2a2.htm ) L2327 Jan-Feb A2-19 Mar A2-8 Mar-Jun W2783 Jun W2761 Jul-Oct X9510 Nov X9516 Nov-Jan43 More images of Australia II ( click on 'available online' and image opens in new tab ) http://search.slv.vic.gov.au/primo-explore/search?query=any,contains,australia ii&tab=default_tab&search_scope=Pictures&vid=MAIN&offset=0 Aircraft colour varies between the pale grey of the ship and a darker 'light grey'.
  23. iMustBeCrazy
    Point Cook has a restored Walrus, I think it's in Rescue Yellow, but they will have other info. This should give you an idea as to colour: Other images at the State Library of Victoria: https://viewer.slv.vic.gov.au/?entity=IE1249952&mode=browse https://viewer.slv.vic.gov.au/?entity=IE672315&mode=browse https://viewer.slv.vic.gov.au/?entity=IE20305811&mode=browse https://viewer.slv.vic.gov.au/?entity=IE815403&mode=browse
  24. iMustBeCrazy
    I don't think anybody is going to prove you wrong whichever way you do it. Two points to consider however: Glass in America at the time wasn't cheap. Glass in doors would be far more likely to break. That said, perhaps small panes in heavy frames would be the way to go.
  25. iMustBeCrazy
    ZAZ6429 (June 1817) and ZAZ6430 (12th March 1817) both have the notation "A copy was sent to Plym. Yards 26th June 1817 for the Fancy and Kite and another (copy) to Pembroke (Yard) the same day for the Racer and Sprightly." The pencil notation on ZAZ6430 is for another two at each yard but is undated and I don't know if they were built, I haven't see anything to prove they were. Lapwing was launched sometime before 25th Jan 1817 when she was reported as having run aground. Where and when she was launched in unknown to me. Edit, a list of ships built at Pembroke http://www.gwpda.org/naval/images/pembroke_app_a.pdf gives Racer and Sprightly (1818) and also Skylark (ZAZ6377) and Swift (ZAZ6378) (1820) which were built 'on the enlarged lines of the Lapwing' (ZAZ6347) so that might explain the pencil notation.

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

Model Ship World ® and the MSW logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,929,264 & No. 6,929,274, registered Dec. 20, 2022)

Helpful Links

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem ®

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

Nautical Research Guild ® and the NRG logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,999,236 & No. 6,999,237, registered March 14, 2023)

×
×
  • Create New...