allanyed
-
Posts
8,149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by allanyed
-
I agree with Eberhard. I have what I consider one of my best efforts from 15 years ago and over all very happy with it , BUT, every time I see her name on the stern made of wooden letters I want to tear them off and paint the name on as it should have been done in 1776. Maybe a nice little side project 😀 (note: No names should be on the stern before 1771 or after about 1782 - one of the mistakes, in the movie Master and Commander. Allan -
For three or four pounders they would likely have been 4 feet 6 inches long after about 1743 so at 1:64 about 0.84" long. The bore, which looks quite large on your photos would be between 3.1 and 2.8 inches in diameter depending on if these were four pounders or three pounders, thus about 0.05" diameter or 0.044" diameter. The four pounder minion diameter had a bigger ratio to its length compared to a three pounder brass minion given both at 4 feet 6 inches long. As to the scale of the carriage, they do appear to be much too large as others have already pointed out. The trunnions in your photo look to be about 3 times too long, but this might be to accommodate the oversized carriages. Model Expo has barrels 20mm long with wooden carriages if you cannot make your own. I have no idea if these are appropriate for 1799 but may be an acceptable alternative compared to those that were included in your LN kit. Allan
-
Overall, the right grating looks much better than the left and much better than many kit gratings. Great start!! There is really no need to make a jig. Errors in the spacings in the jig will be transferred to the grating as can be seen with the variation of the widths of the grating ledges and a few of the grating battens in your example on the right. Allan
-
What kerf do you plan to use? For 1:48, I used a 0.045 which gives just over two inch squares. My blade is a three inch diameter blade with about 200 teeth for the circumference of the blade and is a jewelers' slotting blade. As you are cutting wood, a good quality blade is suggested but it does not have to be a super expensive blade. The key is making the board with the slot for the blade and guide. The guide has to be about 0.043 wide and should be 0.045" from the edge of the guide and the edge of the blade. Note that the guide should be a couple thousandths smaller than the width of the slot. A metal guide is ideal, but I used boxwood with no difficulties. It should also be waxed to prevent the piece being slotted from binding and yawing. Pics were recently posted in the Charles Galley build log on June 1 if you want to follow this method which follows actual practice, but you can also opt for the cross hatch type found in most kits. I have never had success with the latter method, but I think other members have so you may want to give it a try as well. Allan
-
I have been following Druxey's build log on the 28 foot American cutter (which a fantastic log with lots of details) and he shows a faux burl finish on what will be the display base board for the model. He recommended a specific book which I will likely get, but I found the following website video that gives step by step instructions on creating a burl finish on a plain piece of wood. Nothing exotic or expensive is needed. https://www.google.com/search?q=How+to+make+Faux+burl+finish+on+plywood&oq=How+to+make+Faux+burl+finish+on+plywood&aqs=edge..69i57.7636j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#kpvalbx=_LT3HYOiwI_CD_Qbap5HoCg15 Allan
-
Creating the faux burl finish fascinated me so did a little research and found the following. I have no idea if it is a similar process to what Druxey is using, but it explains at least one method in detail. https://www.google.com/search?q=How+to+make+Faux+burl+finish+on+plywood&oq=How+to+make+Faux+burl+finish+on+plywood&aqs=edge..69i57.7636j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#kpvalbx=_LT3HYOiwI_CD_Qbap5HoCg15 Allan
- 433 replies
-
- 5
-
-
-
- open boat
- small boat
- (and 1 more)
-
Rick, I have tried piano wire but I can not easily solder or blacken it in my experience. Plus, it is carbon steel so will rust if not blackened or otherwise treated. How do you blacken it and solder/weld the ends and keep it from rusting? Maybe worth another try. Thanks Allan
-
I LOVE McMaster Carr, have also used it for decades at work and home. I used to live 10 minutes from their DC in NJ and would go pick up orders the same day or next day. The only thing I have not used then for is copper wire as I found smaller quantities at a better price on line. Overall though they cannot be beat in quality, service and price compared to hobby shops and even hardware stores in most cases. Grainger is another good source and they are worth a look as well. Allan
-
Tim, I understand (but do not have in my library so cannot confirm) that Rif Winfield's book British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793–1817 has information on Swift and/or her sister ships. WARNING: Studies have shown that scratch building has side effects that are difficult to overcome. One in particular is that you may become addicted to buying books. My library is small compared to some with 47 books from Steel to Antscherl, Franklin to Endsor. I have seen others that put mine to shame but I continue to work on getting more. Allan
-
Hi Jon, Your upside down build board set up for a schooner makes a ton of sense compared to using cradles and lifting the model when putting in the lower planking. Super idea. Allan
-
Hi Tim Which Swift? There were/are 17 HMS Swifts between 1697 and the last built in 1984 so the structure of the cabins obviously changed over this time period. Brian Lavery gives a lot of information in The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War including permanent cabins and moveable cabin structures. A lot depends on whether you are asking about the captain, officers, and other members of the crew that warranted their own space. If you are building the Swan Class HMS Swift 1777, David Antscherl's four volume set of books for building a Swan class ship has a ton of information that may be of help overall. Allan
-
Yes Henry your are correct, but contemporary to 1805, maybe not to 1780 (Ontario) or 1788 (Victory). My question is when did the seizing move to below the bolster, 1600, 1700, 1800? There is some definitive contemporary information, if only on models, before 1805 to double check, but unfortunately I do not have any close by since heading south. I have always trusted Steel for about 1800 and beyond unless I have the contract and/or drawings of the ship I am researching. Look at the scantlings he lists and those of the Shipbuilder's Repository in 1788. There are a lot of differences in that span of 17 years which is why I wonder about the rigging practices. We know the sizes of masts, spars, and lines changed many times between the early 17th century and the 19th century, the last one of significance being in 1794 so it may be that the methods of rigging the lines changed with the times as well. Maybe not, but I would not rely on Steel for ships built before 1794 without confirmation from other contemporary sources. I hope some member here has some close up photos of these bights on contemporary models before 1794. I have reached out to Preble Hall asking for feedback on ships from the 17th and 19th century and hopefully they will reply. Allan
-
You can also use 26 gage (0.0159" Ø) copper wire and blacken it with liver of sulfur in situ as it will not stain the wood should it touch it. It is very easy to soft solder where as brass is sometimes (not always) best done with silver solder for strength. Be sure you get uncoated, be it brass or copper. You can get a 30 yard spool on line for under $3. Allan
-
Henry, Steel was 1805 but the Ontario was in 1780, so MAYBE these seizings were done differently in these two periods of time. It is interesting though that this change was made at all. Steel did not make up these things on his own, so it appears the practice described was in place by 1805, but and I wonder why. It would be interesting to know how Longridge came up with his version unless it was done differently when Victory was launched in 1778. If Longridge has it wrong, there are a lot of models out there that are wrong as well. I searched for clear photos of the tops of Victory today but none of them are clear as to where the bights as seized. This is definitely an interesting thread. Wish I was closer to Preble Hall to get a close look at some of the contemporary models. Perhaps a member with copies of the Rogers Collection books can spot something. Allan
-
Spoke with Adam yesterday along with some other folks and he said that he has had about 500 more folks signing up since posting about the project here. Great start, hope to see that number times 10 over the next few months!!! Allan
-
Nicely done planking! Glad to see you are not putting in treenails at this scale which so many (including me in the distant past) have tried without success as they are near impossible to do at scale, especially the deck planks. Allan
-
Henry, are you sure the seizings were below the bolsters? The bight was served about eight feet on each side from the middle. Perhaps Longridge was wrong but he shows the seizing then goes on every pair above the bolster, tight against the mast. (Fold out on page 212 in the Anatomy of Nelson's Ships) I looked at a few dozen photos of contemporary models but cannot find any closeups that show this clearly one way or the other, but the way the shrouds are tight against each other at the bight, it seems they are seized high and tight. Hope someone has some clear photos of this area on some contemporary models. Allan
-
HMS Euryalus 1803 by rlb - 1:48 scale
allanyed replied to rlb's topic in - Build logs for subjects built 1801 - 1850
Ron, running up and down the stairs is good exercise, plus running away from anyone else in the house because they are after you due to the sawdust and wood chips you are creating could make it like a cross country race! I am looking forward to following this build. Allan- 122 replies
-
- 5
-
-
- Euryalus
- Plank-on-frame
- (and 4 more)
-
I saw a model from this manufacturer some years ago and it had the same problems as many other kits, out of scale parts. Overall it was OK, but unless the new kits have improved it will need some bashing. Plan on making your own belaying pins, gun port rigols , and blocks. The rope was oversized quite a bit for the shrouds and stays and the rope in general looked more like string than rope. Again, hopefully they have improved on these new additions. They appear to be more into making toys such as doll houses rather than ship models so I would be wary. Allan
-
You're welcome John The post shows nice looking coamings but the joints are simple lap joints and not appropriate for that ship. I say that because the head ledges and coamings are pretty high which indicates the era when the dovetail type lap joint was being used. Still, they are very neat and look really good. I don't recall seeing that much beveling along the tops of the coamings but it may be appropriate for that ship and others. You can easily add a slight and very even bevel with a home made sanding stick. You mentioned earlier about placing them on the deck. Keep in mind they do not go on the deck planks, they rest on the beams and carlings which is why the corners are kept square until the planking is done. At the point you can cut a small vertical bevel on each corner with a chisel or scalpel then round the bevel with sand paper. Also, the pics at SOS do not show the shelves on which the gratings themselves rest. Maybe he just did not get that far in his photos, but putting these in the proper place makes sure the gratings are at the proper level within the coamings. Looking forward to seeing your finished piece!!! Allan
-
I love the caveat that the model is not for children under 36 months old. It could be OK for them though if mom or dad buys it for them and realizes she/he will have to build it for their child! 😁 Like that was not their plan to begin with, hmmmmm Allan
-
HMS Diana by ECK - Caldercraft - 1:64
allanyed replied to ECK's topic in - Kit build logs for subjects built from 1751 - 1800
I agree with Jason, the wales look to be much too wide. With the seven strakes and dimensions you give, the width is about 26mm, or 65 inches full scale. Diana 1794 would have likely had no more than four strakes of anchor stock or top and butt planking as straight strakes of wale planking were not used after about 1720. Compare with the main wales on a third rate which had a total width of 50 to 51 inches full scale and the main wales on a 98 was 56". You can see what they look like on photos of contemporary models of Diana at NMM. Couple pics are below. I would go with the models at NMM as being more accurate than the kit instructions. For a 38 gun 5th rate scantlings in both the Shipbuilder's Repository 1788 and Steel's Elements of Naval Architecture show that there were four strakes of planking for the main wales with a total width of 45 inches and a thickness of 6". There were seven diminishing strakes of thickstuff below the wales and two above. Those touching the wales were 5" thick. Hope this helps on Diana or in your future builds. 😃 Allan -
The painting on the sails is super!!! Bet it would look great on silk span sails and a lot easier without that large weave on the cloth sails. It is fun following your build as there are so few that go back to the 16th century and at such a small scale. Kudos! Allan
- 740 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- Tudor
- restoration
- (and 4 more)
-
I lived about 4 miles from the battle grounds for over 30 years and the terrain is really not bad compared to Pennsylvania and New York as there are only small hills and valleys so this seems unusual unless this was a habitual problem at that time regardless of the terrain. Then again, the roads meander with no straight lines even today so it was probably worse back then getting around with whatever roads and paths that existed. There are a few streams but no rivers and such to use as land marks which could have added to the difficulty. Could you direct us to where we can find this account? Right next to the battle grounds is what is now called the Molly Pitcher creek, the nickname for Mary Ludwig Hays who reputedly brought water to the colonial soldiers, including her husband. Allan
-
Hi Bill, If you would be so kind please post some photos of the barrels. It sounds like you have a different kit than Iseaz as the ones he shows don't look remotely close to any cannons from the 17th century or later centuries for that matter. It would great to see decent quality, accurately made, cannons in a kit. TIA Allan
Our Emblem ®
