Supplies of the Ship Modeler's Handbook are running out. Get your copy NOW before they are gone! Click on photo to order.
×
allanyed
-
Posts
8,149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation Activity
-
-
allanyed reacted to bruce d in HMS Berwick 1775 by bruce d - 1/192nd scale - Navy Board style
Hello Pat,
Good points. I considered a T track system but stuck with the spine & straight edge design.
I was naively expecting to make the whole building board in minutes when I decided to tackle Berwick. The written words by Reed and McNarry just brush past this part and the more I looked at it the more I saw it as a 'make or break' part of the model.
We'll see if I chose right!
Cheers,
Bruce
-
-
allanyed got a reaction from AJohnson in HMS Diana 1794 by DaveBaxt - Caldercraft - 1:64
Sorry Dave but do you mean the 84" (I know it is hard to see on the small drawing attachment) which in THIS case is from the aft edge of the aft most gun port to the aft perpendicular which I believe is the aft side of the rudder post at the load water line.
Cheers
Allan
-
allanyed got a reaction from dunnock in HMS Diana 1794 by DaveBaxt - Caldercraft - 1:64
I scaled the drawing to 1:64 and get 17mm. IF the contemporary drawing is correct, it could be the kit got it wrong. I was curious to know what the AOTS book showed dimensionally so downloaded their drawing and compared. (Forgot I had that book 😕) There is a 10" difference between the AOTS and the drawing from 1774. Note that the widest part of the quarter gallery is the same on the original drawing and the AOTS drawing.
Allan
-
allanyed got a reaction from dunnock in HMS Diana 1794 by DaveBaxt - Caldercraft - 1:64
I got curious and inserted your photo into the drawing as well. The gun ports per the drawing should be 35.5" fore and aft. I sized your photo to match the gun port width of the drawing. Given that port dimension on your model is correct, the dimension I gave above of 128.5" looks to be closer to 144" on your model. The openings for the lights are 22" and the space between 17" compared to the 26" and 7" on the drawing. I am probably not making any sense, but maybe the below will help. I realize this is not accounting for the slight curve in the z axis, but should be pretty close IF the dimensions I am guessing at on the model photo are close. Sorry for the full size dimensions, but it is easier on the CAD drawing for me.
Allan
-
allanyed got a reaction from oakheart in HMS Diana 1794 by DaveBaxt - Caldercraft - 1:64
Sorry Dave but do you mean the 84" (I know it is hard to see on the small drawing attachment) which in THIS case is from the aft edge of the aft most gun port to the aft perpendicular which I believe is the aft side of the rudder post at the load water line.
Cheers
Allan
-
allanyed got a reaction from CODY in HMS Diana 1794 by DaveBaxt - Caldercraft - 1:64
I scaled the drawing to 1:64 and get 17mm. IF the contemporary drawing is correct, it could be the kit got it wrong. I was curious to know what the AOTS book showed dimensionally so downloaded their drawing and compared. (Forgot I had that book 😕) There is a 10" difference between the AOTS and the drawing from 1774. Note that the widest part of the quarter gallery is the same on the original drawing and the AOTS drawing.
Allan
-
allanyed reacted to Nunnehi (Don) in Model Master Paints
I’ve got one bottle of 5-O ocean gray MM # 2157 that may be useable that I’ll be happy to send to you. PM me with your address.
I will die mad about what MM did!
Don
-
allanyed got a reaction from CODY in HMS Diana 1794 by DaveBaxt - Caldercraft - 1:64
I got curious and inserted your photo into the drawing as well. The gun ports per the drawing should be 35.5" fore and aft. I sized your photo to match the gun port width of the drawing. Given that port dimension on your model is correct, the dimension I gave above of 128.5" looks to be closer to 144" on your model. The openings for the lights are 22" and the space between 17" compared to the 26" and 7" on the drawing. I am probably not making any sense, but maybe the below will help. I realize this is not accounting for the slight curve in the z axis, but should be pretty close IF the dimensions I am guessing at on the model photo are close. Sorry for the full size dimensions, but it is easier on the CAD drawing for me.
Allan
-
allanyed got a reaction from AJohnson in HMS Diana 1794 by DaveBaxt - Caldercraft - 1:64
Hi Dave
FWIW, the scantlings in The Shipbuilder's Repository shows these ports for a 38 at 35" fore and aft and Steel's Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture gives them at 34" Further they both give the distance from the aft side of the after most port as being 7 feet 0 inches forward of the aft perpendicular. Even with these scantlings I would compare them to a contemporary as-built drawing or at least a contemporary design drawing or a contract. I would not rely on modern drawings without first comparing them to contemporary based drawings and/or scantlings. Once bitten, twice shy.
Allan
-
allanyed got a reaction from Bob Legge in Technical drawings & Dutch shell first
Best quote of the day!!
-
allanyed got a reaction from flying_dutchman2 in Technical drawings & Dutch shell first
I hope you do not mind a disagreement on this as I think it is good to have a discussion like this. 😁. I have no idea what you mean by "normal" ship model drawings. Many of us use contemporary drawings, contracts when available and scantlings from the Establishments and elsewhere when appropriate. There are many small boat drawings showing the thwarts and tholes properly located including several below.
Cheers
Allan
-
allanyed got a reaction from flying_dutchman2 in Technical drawings & Dutch shell first
I just now read this topic and it is indeed interesting, thank you very much for sharing.
I do question the knowledge of his father in at least one instance. In the below drawing ----the boat is wide enough to be double banked so it makes sense that there are openings in the gunnels for the oars to sit port and starboard. But, assuming the rowers were pulling oars as was normal they would be seated facing aft, how could they possibly row with the varying distances between oar placement and seating placement? Add to this that the aft most thwart has no openings in the gunnel at all. Maybe this was just an extra thwart for passengers. The distance varies from about 30" (a long reach for a rower) to 14", so no room to maneuver an oar at all without hitting the rower in front of him in the back. This is exaggerated in the aft most position as the openings are even with the thwart. It might just be me but this design makes no sense at all. Hope someone can explain things if I am missing something.
Allan
-
allanyed got a reaction from KentM in HMS SUSSEX by KarenM - FINISHED - 1:48
This is one of the finiest builds here at MSW, thank you very much for sharing with us. I have a question regarding the lights on the stern and the quarter galleries, there seem to be an inordinate amount of panes, 30 on each stern light, 25 on the quarter gallery lights. Was this actually done in this time period and if so, was it common? I cannot find any contemporary models or plans for the late 17th century showing more than three panes across or up and down. Photo of the contemporary model of Boyne (80) 1692 is below
Thanks
Allan
-
allanyed got a reaction from mtaylor in HMS Sophie by TBlack - kit-bashing Jack Aubrey's first command from the Vanguard Models HMS Speedy
Yes, but originally the sketch was meant to also show open edges on one which is not correct, Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for pointing this out😀
-
allanyed got a reaction from Knocklouder in HMS Sophie by TBlack - kit-bashing Jack Aubrey's first command from the Vanguard Models HMS Speedy
The gratings look nice but for future consideration keep in mind that the battens run fore and aft rather than athwartships.. Probably not a big deal to most folks, and they do look more realistic than metal etched. Enjoy your voyage to Maine!!
Allan
-
allanyed got a reaction from Saburo in HMS SUSSEX by KarenM - FINISHED - 1:48
Thank you Karen, I wonder if the style on the museum model is atypical rather than a more common design. I can understand how the drawings were done by McArdle if he based them on the contemporary model.
Again, your workmanship is outstanding.
Allan
-
allanyed got a reaction from botra288 in HMS SUSSEX by KarenM - FINISHED - 1:48
This is one of the finiest builds here at MSW, thank you very much for sharing with us. I have a question regarding the lights on the stern and the quarter galleries, there seem to be an inordinate amount of panes, 30 on each stern light, 25 on the quarter gallery lights. Was this actually done in this time period and if so, was it common? I cannot find any contemporary models or plans for the late 17th century showing more than three panes across or up and down. Photo of the contemporary model of Boyne (80) 1692 is below
Thanks
Allan
-
allanyed got a reaction from GrandpaPhil in HMS Badger by Meriadoc Brandybuck - WAK - 1:100 - CARD - serenely taking in sails
It is so good to see such a well executed card model. After following Doris' build in years past, and now your build it is great to know card models are an alternative way to create a masterpiece.
What is the material of the sails in the first photo?
Thanks
Allan
-
allanyed reacted to Thukydides in HMS Sophie by TBlack - kit-bashing Jack Aubrey's first command from the Vanguard Models HMS Speedy
They both show fore and aft as opposed to what was done on the model. The image is designed to correct the problem of the holes right by the coming. In other words the image is designed to illustrate a different problem, but in this case it also shows how they should run fore and aft.
In any case the model is looking great 😃.
-
allanyed got a reaction from mtaylor in HMS Sophie by TBlack - kit-bashing Jack Aubrey's first command from the Vanguard Models HMS Speedy
The gratings look nice but for future consideration keep in mind that the battens run fore and aft rather than athwartships.. Probably not a big deal to most folks, and they do look more realistic than metal etched. Enjoy your voyage to Maine!!
Allan
-
allanyed got a reaction from AJohnson in HMS Diana 1794 by DaveBaxt - Caldercraft - 1:64
I got curious and inserted your photo into the drawing as well. The gun ports per the drawing should be 35.5" fore and aft. I sized your photo to match the gun port width of the drawing. Given that port dimension on your model is correct, the dimension I gave above of 128.5" looks to be closer to 144" on your model. The openings for the lights are 22" and the space between 17" compared to the 26" and 7" on the drawing. I am probably not making any sense, but maybe the below will help. I realize this is not accounting for the slight curve in the z axis, but should be pretty close IF the dimensions I am guessing at on the model photo are close. Sorry for the full size dimensions, but it is easier on the CAD drawing for me.
Allan
-
allanyed got a reaction from davyboy in HMS Indefatigable 1794 by Glenn-UK - FINISHED - Vanguardodel Ms - 1:64
A wise decision!!!
-
allanyed got a reaction from Hubac's Historian in HMS SUSSEX by KarenM - FINISHED - 1:48
This is one of the finiest builds here at MSW, thank you very much for sharing with us. I have a question regarding the lights on the stern and the quarter galleries, there seem to be an inordinate amount of panes, 30 on each stern light, 25 on the quarter gallery lights. Was this actually done in this time period and if so, was it common? I cannot find any contemporary models or plans for the late 17th century showing more than three panes across or up and down. Photo of the contemporary model of Boyne (80) 1692 is below
Thanks
Allan
Our Emblem ®
