allanyed
-
Posts
8,149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by allanyed
-
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
-
Works for me!!! Allan
-
Great point David. The height is actually a little over four feet on the Charles Galley. Even I could get up four feet (some years ago, that is) But that brings up the point that there was no head room under the forecastle. I know people were shorter 300 years ago, but that is a bit much, no? Then again, I know of an original door in an old house (600 years old) in Tuscany that is only 4 feet 6 inches high and has cause my friend the owner more than one laceration and contusion. 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
-
I have come across an item that had me in a bit of a quandry. On the Charles Galley I find no evidence of ladders from the upper deck in the waist area up to the forecastle which I had previously assumed were always there. Looking at contemporary models at Preble Hall, there are simple ladders on one model from the 17th century, but none are present on the models of the Mourdant 1681 nor the St. Albans 1687 and Boyne at the National Maritime Museum A painting by Richard Endsor of Tyger 1681 shows a ladder coming up through a hatch forward of the foremast. Drawings by Van de Velde of the Charles Galley are inconclusive. As there may or may not have been ladders port and starboard from the upper deck to the aft end of the forecastle I am opting to have a ladder through a hatch forward of the foremast, but if anyone has better information than I have been able find, I would appreciate any input. Regardless, I found this to be an interesting point. Allan St. Albans Mourdant Sorry for the poor clarity on this one, it is a photo of a photo.
-
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
- 739 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
-
Do let us know what they do to help you. It would be a shame to be stuck with those guns if the rest of the model is a good one!! Allan
-
Hate to say it but given the rest of the model is faithful to the Prince, maybe consider replacing the cannon. The rings are out of scale and there are seven instead of five which would be appropriate for the 17th century. The trunnions are in the wrong place and they are the wrong shape (they should be tapered) for the 17th century and far too long, there is no taper to the barrel and so forth. If you can, make your own or send STL drawings of cannon for the 17th century in the dimensions for each of the calibers that you need to a 3D printer and get some resin printed pieces. Most, not all, brass and cast cannon from suppliers will be the wrong shape and size as very few offer guns for the late 17th century. The following drawings found in Lavery' s Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War, pages 100&102 show the difference between what the kit gave you and what they actually looked like. Allan
-
You do not need any power tools to make the joints, after all, the beautiful contemporary models we see were made with hand tools. A set of well honed chisels and back saw is about all you need to make the corner joints. Lady Nelson was built in 1798 so she would not have lap joints per se. The type of joint you need for this era can be seen in the following pics. You can see more detail on this type of joint in the Euryalus books and the TFFM series. The first pic with dimensions happens to be for the Euryalus, so you may need to adjust for Lady Nelson or other vessels. Allan
-
Minimum plank length
allanyed replied to Don Case's topic in Building, Framing, Planking and plating a ships hull and deck
That is odd. I am PMing you to see if it goes through. Allan
Our Emblem ®
