BANYAN
-
Posts
5,591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by BANYAN
-
I don't know whether to praise or abuse your efforts Keith Your workmanship is always exceptional with very high quality finishes - so there is the praise; ..... but, it makes my efforts look so poor I could swear Very nice work as usual, I am continuously impressed with the jigs and process you develop to complete these fine details. cheers Pat -
While you're at it Stephen, better include a water cooler too - where else will they gather to trade yarns and scuttlebut (roumers)? cheers Pat
-
Carl, I thought that was your normal state of being 👅 Greg, that will look great; will you be training the turrets off to one side also? cheers Pat
-
That cutter is coming along very nicely BW, great to see the update. cheers Pat
-
Thank you again Jaager (Dean), Bruce and Derek, much appreciate the feedback. No matter the country, era etc, this has been very interesting and I am learning a lot from the discussion. Bruce is correct in identifying my particular period of interest being the mid-19th century, and by looking at the details within several of the posts I thinks the basics I have gleaned are that the butt shift and stagger pattern should : 1. be a three or four plank shift 2. the beam spacing (and to a lesser extent the length of the planks) govern the length of the overlap 3. adjacent planks should have at least a two beam (apart) stagger/overlap, which determines the stagger pattern 4. the more appropriate pattern for me (based on the Longridge diagram provided by Derek) would be 5-2-4-1-3 (if reading from plank 1 and downward), or 5-3-1-4-2 if reading from plank 6 working upward) This would ensure the greatest separation of the butts along the same beam but also ensure at least 2 beams length of plank between adjacent plank butts; providing the greatest strength in the planking along any beam. This is of course general in nature, as many plank lengths will have been interrupted by deck openings etc. Thanks again all Pat
-
That's looking great Steven, it will look superb with the deck houses added - and yes got the joke cheers Pat
-
Hi cricket, I am building a 1850's built ship model. The Contract specified iron bound blocks with bronze sheaves. However, in contemporary publications there appears a move towards more iron blocks (all iron) especially snatch blocks and the like, with the advent of steel wire rope rigging. have a look in Harold Underhill's 'Masting and Rigging The Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier'. The following is an example of the type of wooden iron bound blocks used in the latter half of the 19th centuryy - sorry, cannot remember where I sourced this. cheers Pat
-
Thanks for the great response and continued discussion. I am now more the wiser WRT to the stagger being applicable to the landings on the beams rather than length of plank overlap, and that there was a two beam overlap. I remain confused with the stagger pattern however; and, if I am not missing a basic point, may have differed for the English rules. What I am now trying to understand is whether there was an 'offical' or even 'rule-of-thumb' for the stagger sequence? I posted two stagger sequences ( 5-2-3-4-1 and 1-3-5-2-4) that I have seen in my initial post; can anyone provide better guidance on which was used (or if both). What confuses me most is the second of 5 butts in the sequences - at the moment I am simply assuming that 5 and 1 (in the first sequence) are butts landing on the same beam, which would be a 4 butt shift. However, the second sequence would not hold to this interpretation. The only thing I can put this down to is that perhaps, with time, as the width of the planks dimished as suitable timber became harder to source, that a 5 butt shift was needed to get adequate separation along the same beam? In 'Victoria' The maximum plank width was specified as 7" but measuring the planks visible in the two photographs showing deck planking, the average plank width was 4.75". cheers, and many thanks again for the great discussion. Pat
-
Hi folks, I am trying to determine the correct sequence of the butt shift for deck planking. I have done a search but find several references and cannot find a contemporary (1855) reference that gives the sequence. I am using a four butt shift, so what would be the correct sequence please? I have seen it expressed as 5-2-3-4-1 and 1-3-5-2-4 but what does this actually mean? I think the numbers are applicable to the plank no, rather than the butt number - have I got that right? What I am trying to get to grips with is how this translates into practice - that is, if I start with a central plank, say #1, and then the next plank would be set back (butt shifted) a distance in a particular pattern of stagger. In previous models I know I have got this wrong by just staggering them in a regular sequence rather than the above sequences. By standard or regular stagger I mean that if #1 is the start, and the stagger is 5 feet overlap, the next would be 5 feet back, then the next another 5 feet and the fourth another 5 feet, the the sequence starts again. I have read the former sequence(s) is supposed to provide greater strength/less chance of splitting along a common line, but wouldn't a standard/regular sequence provide the same if they all land on a deck beam? Seeking an education Can anyone please provide the correct terminology for this, and explain (in dummy's language) exactly how the stagger is supposed to be. Also, is it different between Service and Merchant ships? Many thanks Pat
-
White is the way to go then . You should be able to thin the Admiralty white with water if I recall, several thin coats would be preferable so as not to clog up the chain links? cheers Pat
-
What a great model Eric, she turned out a thing of beauty. cheers Pat
- 599 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- sidewheeler
- arabia
- (and 4 more)
-
Keith, great process and another excellent outcome! That whole assembly looks great, and with the 'rope softening' will look very realistic; another idea to store away. cheers Pat
-
Hi OC, long time.... Are the scales of the chain the same and period correct (if you are looking for authenticity that is)? I don't know when it started, but a lot of anchor chain cables were painted white, but as suggested, yes the 'dib dabs' (as we 'seamen' branch were called by the stokers, greenies [electricians] and store keepers/box packers [supply branch] - we would dib and dab a bit of paint here and there. We would try to keep the cables nice and prettied up but that went by the wayside during operational times, especially if working the anchor a lot. cheers Pat
-
So YA was keeping up with fewer of her sails set? Interesting painting, who painted it please Rob? cheers Pat
-
Looking good Greg, that PE seems very well scaled re thickness - the doors looks excellent. cheers Pat
-
That sectiopn of deck looks great Mark; look forward to seeing more of her. cheers Pat
-
Hi Steven, I found using a very thin strip (both width and thickness) as a batten to be very helpful, as the batten if not forced to bend in the up/down dimension, has the natural tendency to lay in the natural path of the sheer when laid upon the hull at various points. By moving these to various positions, and adjusting the 'lay', this better defines where to place the band separating lines. You can use them temporarily and replace with string after marking the appropriate points along the batten. I think David Antscherl and other authors also recommend this. cheers Pat
- 739 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Tudor
- restoration
- (and 4 more)
-
That's a good process you have developed Steven; I have noted/logged this as one never knows, I may be tempted myself one day cheers Pat
-
Ditto, great tip Keith. The crutch assembly is looking great. You may have covered this, and I am being lazy not checking back through the log, but is your saw mounted in a mill with a chuck on the x table, or is it in a lathe with overhead milling attachment? I like the process of cross cutting to hold smaller parts. cheers Pat
-
HMCSS Victoria 1855 by BANYAN - 1:72
BANYAN replied to BANYAN's topic in - Build logs for subjects built 1851 - 1900
Hi all, very many thanks for the input re the gun. I went back through my references and the screw elevating rod and base plate were made of 'gunmetal' - being a type of bronze – an alloy of copper, tin, and zinc. I am not sure there would be a dissimilar metal corrosion (electrochemical issues) with the iron, but I know in my day (while in the navy) we had to treat the interfacing surfaces with barium chromate - I wonder if close attention and the frequent application of grease will have sufficed? cheers Pat- 993 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- gun dispatch vessel
- victoria
- (and 2 more)
-
Sorry for not getting back earlier HYW; distracted with other matters. I think Tony and Wefalck have answered the questions you had. As there is not a lot of material on the subject, your model, representing a smaller vessel, may indeed had standard link cable only. Either way, you are doing a wonderful job with the build. cheers Pat
-
Thanks Rob, much appreciate the photos. I only have the slow speed micro-motor version; the air driven looks very interesting. I have found jewellery suppliers have 2.35 shank drill bits and some burs (but there is not a great range) so I still have to rely on the Dremel for some tasks. I have found some great 'separating disks (carbon fibre) which are very expensive, but very good - You have to remain very alert when using them as one small slip and kiss your digit good bye - they cut through soft-metals easy! You get different types to cut different media, ceramic, steel etc . I just cannot find a wide range of bits etc for the contra-angle head. There seems to be plenty of burrs and cylinder style cutting bits (like micro-mill cutters) but nothing in the way of drill bits. The following is the style of separating disc I mean - I have a different brand; these are just to show the type. I find that the dental micro-motors are much better for small jobs; any serious torque need well.... for small jobs though they are so much easier to control and get into tight places. cheers Pat
-
Great news, look forward to seeing the new crew members, less work for the few already 'on the books' cheers Pat
-
HYW, I am very impressed with the quality of your work and the model, but in this instance I feel that you are reducing the overall quality of the model in not using 'studded" or stud-link chain for your cable. After making that excellent swivel link, I think the cable deserves to be studded? This chain can be sourced reasonably cheaply, but with your skills I think you can make it? The more 'learned' here may be able to offer better advice, but I think English and French (pretty much all) ships were using stud-link cable at this point? Please accept this as a very MINOR criticism/suggestion and I remain an avid onlooker of your very fine work. regards Pat
Our Emblem ®
