Charles Green

Thanks for the leads. All I've found is mention that cylinder powder contained charcoal that was charred in special ovens/cylinders. Apparently, the powder was then corned like the preceding type. This "cylinder charcoal" made all the difference in the power released upon ignition. Not much to be found on what was a landmark improvement in ballistics.

In Caruana's The History of English Sea Ordnance, cylinder power's ballistic properties are compared with earlier types but unlike the earlier types, he never describes how cylinder powder was made. There is no mention of it in Tucker's Arming the Fleet. Lavery describes cylinder charcoal as being charred in ovens/cylinders and goes on to say, briefly, cylinder powder was made that way. Did the method of drying make the difference between cylinder and corned powder?

In comparison to the Byrne's saw, I can't point you to a decent, inexpensive new one. Beware of sneaking up, at wasteful expense, on lesser machines only to wind up buying the one you wanted in the first place. It's hard to toss a machine, even after its been replaced - You'll wind up with a saw collection taking up space in your shop. Byrnes is a good guy. I wanted a steel top for mine and he made it. One saw that hasn't been mentioned is the PREAC. It's decidedly small, but is a very precise, smooth-running little machine. They are no longer made but show up used on eBay etc. An after-market, larger motor kit was available for it. Avoid ones with this modification. The after-market drive-belt as a lump in it and turns the PREAC into a lumpy running little machine. For blade-height adjustment, PREAC offered a screw-jack like gadget but I found it difficult to use. Vol. 1 of Romero's "Warrior" practicum shows a blade-height adjuster I submitted. It works very well.

Workers in the refrigeration trade use "silver bearing solder"; ordinary lead solder with enough silver added to prevent lead corrosion. It comes coiled in a roll like ordinary solder and melts with a soldering iron. It has good gap-filling properties and it stays bright. It just occurred to me that "Stay Bright", the solder Kurt referred to (above) is the silver bearing solder I'm referring to.

Gerard: I was unaware of Leavitt's handbook. Now I've got a new trail to follow! Charles

Dear Gerard: This is my third attempt to reply to your question. I don't know where the other replies went to , but I'm trying again. First off, I can't refer you to a commercial supplier of Leavitt's plans. And by the way, those plans appeared in Mechanix Illustrated magazine. I never saw the 1947 MI issue but while in high school (the mid 1960's) I came across a MI special edition from the early 1950's; a compilation of modeling articles from preceding years. Leavitt's article was in that special edition along with a notice to send $3.00 for plan #428. I did - cash - and by golly, they sent me the plans. I began work on the model soon after and quickly realized I was in over my head and put the project off. I never lost interest in the Lexington though and was content to wait until my modeling skills matured. In 1978, I came across Charles Davis' The Built-Up Ship Model. Davis' book was first published in 1933, preceding Leavitt's article by quite a margin. As time went on, I acquired other plans for the Lexington; George Parker's, published in 1976; Rolf Hoeckel's, published in 1985 and in the early 2000's, Clay Feldaman's Lexington practicum. In 1994, I acquired the Nautical Research Guild's Ship Modelers Shop Notes. Beginning on page one is Howard Chapelle's article "The Ship Model That Should Not Be Built". The Lexington is among those ships he admonished modelers to avoid and his article speaks to your question of validity. No historical plans for the Lexington exist. I was shocked and confused. At that point in time I had four sets of plans for the Lexington! (A nagging question remained though - above the water-line, Parker's plans did not resemble the others). I was in correspondence with Harold Hahn at that time over questions about another model and asked him about the veracity of the various Lexington plans. Here is his reply: "Most authorities believe that the popular design for the Lexington that Charles Davis dreamed up would be more correct for a ship built in the early 1800's. Actually, I have a plan for the Lexington that Davis had drawn earlier which is quite different. The early references you have including Clyde Leavitt were simply copies of Davis' design. That is also true of the Crabtree model...I don't know of any authentic plans for a Continental Navy brig." I will add that Feldman's version conforms to Davis' design. Faced with the facts from Chapelle and Hahn, I decided to shelve my Lexington project. If, after all this you are still interested in building the Lexington, I would be glad to send you full-size copies of Leavitt's plans taken from my originals. The copies show wear present on the originals but are completely usable. As far as I know, all that is known about the Lexington is that is was a commercial vessel, the Black Duck, converted for naval use. Its beam and length-on-deck are known and that it sank in the Caribbean. Sincerely, Charles Green, Boise, ID