allanyed
-
Posts
8,101 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by allanyed
-
THANK YOU!! -
Chris, years ago I thought there was a stop on the top as well, but looking at contemporary models, only one of many that I have seen has a top lining. Personally I would not rely on modern day Victory as a consistently reliable source of information. It is truly a treasure trove of information, but maybe not perfect after all the rebuilds. TFFM goes into the linings in detail and the contemporary models verify this. In the end, doubtless few folks would notice or care. Allan
-
For many of us that is one of the best reasons to choose a model to build!! Good for you!! Allan
-
Hi Chris Maybe not too late, and maybe not that important but there were no port lid stops/linings on the top of the ports, only the bottom and sides. The ports were made up with the sills top and bottom and frames on the sides. Linings (only about 1.5" thick) were then nailed to the frames and and bottom sill only. See photos from Preble Hall below. Don't forget that the thickness of the wales at the rabbet at the stem was reduced to the same thickness of the adjacent planking so it would seat properly in the rabbet. It looks like you did that on one wale, but hard to tell from the angle of the photos. Allan
-
Hi Vaddoc, This is intriguing so some questions, I hope you don't mind. What scale(s)? 1mm is the equivalent of 1.9 inches so at 1:48 would be great for the hull planks. What is your sequence? I can visualize holding one plank of a given strake in place and drilling the first hole then screwing into the frame. Then drill and screw subsequent holes in that plank into each frame. That should be about 24 for a 30 foot piece of planking. Next would be remove one screw at a time and insert a treenail. With about 100 frames and 100 strakes of planking you are talking about doing this 10,000 times. I like the idea though and would like to know more about how you perform this. TIA Allan
-
This is indeed an interesting thread. There are several charts of ranging shot from carronades in The History of English Sea Ordnance, Volume 2, including two that show the weight of the charge. The first includes only 68 pounders and the tests had various powder charges from 4 to 6 pounds. The ranges included shots at elevations from point blank to 2 degrees with each size powder charge. I was fascinated that each of the charts show at least the first graze and one shows three graze yardages as well as final distance. There is a note in one chart from the Lefroy Memorandum Book No. 20 in the R.A. Library about the tests taken in 1798 at Woolwich in which their data shows distance only to the first graze. They defined one charge as including the powder at 1/12 the weight of the shot plus the shot and the wad. I suspect the 1/12 the shot weight is what you were looking for. Allan
-
Caruana also gives charge sizes for carronades IF I remember correctly. I'll do some digging and post if it is there. Allan
-
Great stuff Daniel! Can you share the source of these pages? Thank you Allan
-
Period Scale Model Masting and Rigging Tables
allanyed replied to DaveBaxt's topic in Masting, rigging and sails
While the program saves a ton of time and is a great tool for the most part, keep in mind the Danny Vadas program is based on James Lees ratios EXCEPT for the period 1670-1710. It is completely wrong for this time period and really should not be used. The math that Lees uses for his period is extremely accurate but would have been difficult, maybe impossible, for Danny to duplicate in his program. Allan -
Tennfox As she was captured off Sandy Hook by the British, RMG might have some information as the British often took the lines of captures. Perhaps Mystic has some helpful information. Where were you able to find out about the number of lights (windows🙂) on the stern? Could that source lead to more information? Sounds like a fun research and build project!!! Allan
-
Hi Dave, If you referring to the Carronade from Caron and other private foundries I just read a good bit of the chapter in Volume 2 of The History of English Sea Ordnance on these guns and can find no charts discussing the breeching rope sizes. Sorry😕 There are a number of drawings that might be useful though. The problem is that most of the drawings, while contemporary, the caliber is not given so the size of the gun and the bore are unknown. A few do show the bore and the rope but I have no idea how accurate they are. The bore to rope diameter ratio is from about 4.4 to 2 in diameter to 3 to 1. The length appears to be sufficient to allow the slide come inboard such that the muzzle is about a foot inboard of the bulkhead. As to recoil, there were a lot of broken carriages in the early days and the slides were fiddled with, first to make them with less friction (defeating the purpose) and then going back to more friction, but not enough to cause wreckage on the recoil. The carriage itself of course did not move, just the barrel on the slide. There is an interesting section that describes non-recoil carriages which to me is a misnomer as the slides were inclined and the gun and slide rose up and inboard when fired. Wish I had more info for you. Allan
-
What have I done wrong
allanyed replied to Dindsy's topic in Building, Framing, Planking and plating a ships hull and deck
Hi Scott Are you speaking about the line of the hull planking? If so the decks of galleons and even later vessels normally did not follow the lines of the hull. You can see the deck line on the plan below as well as the line of the hull planking via the wales. The inboard profile below is from circa 1695 so a bit later than the San Francisco, but is hopefully a good example. The deck lines are highlighted in red and follow the deck beams which can be seen on the plan while the hull planking is on a different line. For the purposes of the cross section model, any curvature fore and aft midships would be barely noticeable at our scales. Allan
-
Seems they follow a theme in this regard. The other offerings you mention have shown these problems are not without solutions. Allan
-
Dave, I doubt anyone will notice, but as a rule, many builders feel it is better to err by being a little too small rather than too large. 1/2" is about 0.2mm and the human eye can see the difference of about 0.1mm (if next to each other) Diameter/Caliber - I believe the Artois class carried 18 pounders and 9 pounders so the bore diameters would be about 5.25" and 4.25" The chart on the following site might be a little help for diameter of the shot. It shows shot diameter and bore diameter. https://www.arc.id.au/Cannonballs.html Length of the bore - For argument sake maybe go from the touch hole to the muzzle. At 1:64 it will be really close. What I did not find is whether the length of the breech rope is from the bulkhead ring to bulkhead ring or does that include the loop of rope through those two rings and the ends that are seized. There is also the following chart, but I forget where it came from or the era. It might be from Simmons' Vade Mecum which came out in 1812. There is a second chart below that I put together a while back but it only gives barrel lengths at various scales. If you do not have Excel I can send as a PDF. Length chart.xlsx
-
Hi Gregory That was my thought as well but then I looked at drawings in The Galleon by Peter Kirsch. I have no idea if his drawings are correct but he identifies the bitt pins at the fore and main masts as knight heads. It could be because these old ships often had carved knight's heads on top of the bitt pins. I cannot find this term in any other source but would be interested to know if this was a common term for the bitt pins in the days of the galleons. Richard Endsor identifies them in The Master Shipwright's Secrets on the later galleons of the 17th century as bitts,, same as in later years, not knight heads. Maybe the terms were interchangeable at some point. Allan
-
Bill, Are you looking for which lines go through and belay to the various knightheads? There is scant information on belaying points on later ships in the days of sail, so finding information based on contemporary sources for older vessels such as galleons could be difficult. There is some good rigging information in Richard Endsor's books but they are English not Spanish. Lees gives good details, but again it is for English ships and only from 1625 on. Allan
-
The breech rope is sometimes too short on the models we see. There is scarce information on this but Caruana gives a little. For a 9 foot 18 pounder for example the breech rope was gun was 27 feet long (5 inches at 1:64). This is also consistent with the figure of 3 X length of bore that Dr. Phil wrote in AJohnson's topic above. Interestingly, the breech rope, while made of the best available hemp would stretch as much as 15% after only a short period. The gun tackle was 6 times the length of the bore and from 2" to 3" circumference depending on the caliber. The chart below for breech rope may be helpful. It is from Adrian Caruana's, The History of English Sea Ordnance Volume II page 385 Allan
-
Love the looks of your kit. I have great admiration for Vanguard bringing out models that are quite different than the few choices available for so many years before Vanguard. The passion that goes into designing these is quite evident. Allan
-
What kind of wax? There is some discussion on wax here at MSW. One thread can be found at https://modelshipworld.com/topic/34942-black-rigging-wax/#comment-1027227 According to the American Bee Journal, bees wax has a pH of 7 so is neutral thus a safe choice. Others have stated that it is below 7 thus acidic. https://americanbeejournal.com/beeswax/ Paraffin is on the alkaline side of neutral with a pH of 9 to 10 so maybe not a great choice. There are proponents and detractors of using wax. It will waterproof the rope but if you use poly rope I am not sure there is any benefit. Allan
-
Had to do more than checking off just a "like" ....... truly fabulous build Daniel. Allan
- 486 replies
-
- 7
-
-
-
- vanguard models
- alert
- (and 1 more)
-
Hi Marek Regardless of the kit instructions, did Spanish ships have wooden hoops on top and bottom of the wooldings so they would not slip on the mast? This was always done on British ships so I thought this might have been the case for other nations as they would have had the same problem without them. Allan
-
This alternative might help. https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-86227 The painting you posted appears to have a similar offset sprit that lies next to the stem not on top of it. Allan
-
ECK, Thank you for the compliment but I owe it all to others, and especially one in particular. I do not remember 90% of this stuff and it gets worse with age, but I do have a decent library that I have built up over the years that I use daily. I had only a few books back in the day then had the fantastic opportunity to visit with David Antscherl and saw his library of books. The light bulb went on and I started the accumulation of useful books lo these many years. For me, the research is as enjoyable as the build itself. Allan
-
Glad to see you signing on board with this motley crew!!! Allan
Our Emblem ®
