Jaager

There were two sailing ships in the US Navy with name Constellation. The first was a 36 gun frigate 1797. The second was a 24 gun corvette 1855. One was part of the first generation of seriously sized warships built by the US Navy. The second was the last pure sail warship built by the Navy. The corvette still exists. It is in Baltimore MD. The city obtained it and use it as an attraction. For budgetary reasons, the Navy pretended that the frigate was "repaired" into the corvette. It was not. The corvette was an entirely new vessel. Baltimore thought that pretending that it had a vessel from 1797 would make it into a better attraction and tried to turn corvette into the frigate. The corvette was 10 feet longer. It had one deck with guns. It had an elliptical stern. When the corvette was turned over to Baltimore, it had undergone several repairs and "improvements" to match whatever the prevailing fashion was in each instance. I would not be surprised if there was a spar deck for a while. The definition of "frigate" means that there is more than one deck with guns, even if it was just two additional guns on the quarter deck. The frigate had a flat stern. Now the frigate lived a long life, especially for something government built, built of wood, floating in salt water, and having been shot at. In the run up to the War of 1812, the Navy - a new generation from 1797, modernized the fleet. Check the thread here on the (mainly stern windows it seems) and which ship had how many and when it had them. Baltimore produced a hideous chimera when they tried to turn a much altered 1855 corvette into a 1797 frigate. I think they have tried to undo that recently, but I have no first hand information. The kit has and elliptical stern and a quarterdeck and a foredeck. It is just plain awful. Mark Taylor tried to make it into the 1855 corvette. H did a good job of it - see his gallery posting - but I suspect that he would not do it again. You can build it as presented and have a grotesque mismash. You can follow Mark's example and essentially scratch build the corvette using the basic hull. You can mostly scratch build the frigate by shortening the hull ad building a flat stern. The sane course would be to store the kit on a obscure shelf and forget that you ever bought it and begin a top quality kit of a ship that really was.

When the site screen is a display for the whole of it, there is a column of links on the lower right. One of them is for Sea Watch Books. I just clicked the link and the entire series is still available. I would not depend on that being a long term situation. As I wrote in a parallel thread. my reading of the tea leaves, of signs and portents suggests that if you ever want any of the book listed there, sooner rather than later would be when you should place your order. I generally would purchase each year's new editions as a single order, so a large order is not unheard of there.

I have every issue up until they went bankrupt. I reacted poorly to the "You are SOL" letter, and did not subscribe to the follow on version. It is a big hole in my library and it rankles that those issues are missing. But, they seem to be more steel than sail and the content very shallow. But boy howdy! The early editions were like going from a 25 Watt bulb to full sun as far as sail modeling possibilities. Then the NRJ had some editors who were determined to get a lot of rare and obscure or hard to get original information available to us. What with the addition of Conway books, it was a wonderful age.

Yup! I can't spell for beans. I was taught look/see method - no system, memorize each word separately. As it is, I can spell in German better than I can in English. They seem to have a rigid system for how their words are spelled. English seems to accumulate words from every other language in the planet and keep their spelling of it too. My word sort of sounds like an infectious condition. Using Southern and country pronunciation does not help either. One of the really annoying things here is while it tells you when it thinks a word is misspelled - it does not tell you what its correct spelling should be. I have to use Google to find the correct spelling and my hick pronunciation is so far off that it takes several tries. I say the word: pro-noun-see-ation and height = heigth It would also be nice if it would stop saying that words like futtock was a misspelling, though. I have read nothing about this, but so much of the Conway content involved John Gardiner, he seems to have been the driving force there. He seems to have poured his heart and soul into it. I think he deserves the equivalent of a statue. This field seems to dried up a bit with his departure.

I recently have recently ordered and received the second and final Speedwell volume. This completes my acquisition of the available inventory of stick and string at Sea Watch Books. The apparent aversion to email conformation and hand holding is idiosyncratic and anxiety producing but they have always been reliable and customer friendly when it counts. My reading of the tea leaves tells me that if a modeler has any volumes sold by Sea Watch on a wish list or maybe list, they might oughta consider ordering them soon. But, of late when it comes to Pen and Sword and getting an order across the Atlantic, I intend to use Amazon instead of ordering direct. In addition, they need to find someone as obcessed as John Gardiner was to head up the Conway division instead of letting it languish.

T bought a Harbor Freight one drum tumbler some time ago. With the $20 off coupon it was economical. Still in its box and stored on a shelf. I have it in mind to find a way to add a dowel thru the central axis and that does not turn and has four flaps of sand paper. It would be fixed flappers and moving perimeter, My usual armchair experiment mode has me wondering just vertical or near vertical flappers should be the thing. The end sections would need trauma to fit the dowel. I wonder if something like an empty can of Dole's not from concentrate Pineapple juice would fit as a drum? (The from concentrate stuff is vile.)

Thus far this is an extraordinary effort and represents what must be a significant number of hours. Looking at the three completed members of the lost fleet, it became clear to me that a great gift was given to the US Navy with their loss. The liners and the frigates were obsolete. They were too large and slow to be of real use for the functions needed for next four years The crew and supplies would have been far more costly than any benefit they could provide. The Germantown, Plymouth, and Dolphin were a real loss. This way , instead of Congress being negative about paying for replacements because the Navy have to scrap them, they got sympathy. The Merrimack by having a engine was something of a loss, but her size versus the job - blockade and chasing smugglers was a bit too large.

I am always on the look out for books that are within my era of interest and focus on the ships - the humans, not so much. In that light I have the following questions: I found this on Amazon is it the same book as above, but the original Italian edition? Navi Veneziane: Catalogo Illustrato dei Piani di Costruzione = Venetian Ships: An Illustrated Catalogue of Draughts. (Italian) Hardcover – January 1, 2000 by Gilberto Penzo (Author) And does this book offer any value from a naval architecture focus? Venetian Ships and Shipbuilders of the Renaissance (Softshell Books) Paperback – Illustrated, September 1, 1992 by Frederic Lane (Author) 4.8 out of 5 stars 6 ratings

Would it be possible that the link be provided?

There is a video about blade tracking. I am pretty sure that the link is here - somewhere. The old school directions had the crown of the top wheel just behind the gullet. This guy have the teeth at the crown. I have had no wandering problems once I started tracking his way. Well, at least no problem until the blade started getting dull. I found that I may as well mount a new blade at that point and save wood because the blade is due to break. An unfortunate factor with benchtop bandsaws is the limited choice in available blades, If you have a choice, fewer teeth per inch is the way to go. With the big saws I can get 3 or 4 TPI. Resawing stock of any significant thickness will fill fine teeth quickly when the blade is not cutting but is burnishing - mostly bad things happen. With no choice and too fine a blade, a slooooow feed is a way to get the teeth out of the stock before they fill completely. About the Orange farmer - I have a theory that I would try were I in a position to utilize it. There are county ag. agents. They may know most if not all of the farmers in their zone. They may know who and where older non productive or recently downed trees can be found. I would try to find old Apple trees that way. Tree service companies may also be a source.

I doubt that it has any relevance for lower Florida, but if I was back in central Kentucky, younger, and had the tools I have now, I would see about trying to accumulate a warehouse size supply of Apple billets. Anthony, That Castello is dear in both price and the vanishing prospect of obtaining more. A thought - you might consider reserving it for making blocks and deck furniture - . I suggest getting some Hard Maple to get practice on ripping. It is as close as you are likely to come to being as hard as Castello, you can get as much as you want and the cost is reasonable. Get lots of practice using the Maple. And who knows, you may come to like it. Save the rare expensive wood for a magnum opus .

Mike, I have no problem at all with you disagreeing about this. You are offering an alternative to becoming a solo sawmill for Europe. I have the hope that by waving the home sawmill red flag, a similar alternative for North America will make an appearance and refute me. This is an often asked question, here. I do not recall reading an easy answer to it. I am expressing what I feel is a realistic view of what is involved with scratch POF - at least here in North America. I totally support the ambition for scratch POF. I wish the that the barrier into it was a low one. I find the wiederholen Sie das , (or singing Kathlene over the ship's intercom) aspect of kits to be ....wearing. The whole solo sawmill option is really a distraction from our primary goal. The advantages are an increase in the number of species of wood that can be used and that after several hulls, the investment in tools is recovered - as long as you leave your man hours expended out of the equation. It also offers some comfort to those of us who are driven to be as self sufficient as is possible. But, it is impossible to be compensated at an hourly rate that is commensurate with that for the necessary skill level to do this. Including that factor would probably keep any recouping of expenditure impossible. But, since the alternative use of that time would not likely be a money making activity, it probably should be excluded. You have access to one of the first line species and in a form that is readily usable. From some build logs it seems that Pear is not difficult to source in Europe. I trust that you appreciate your good fortune with that. And also value those who do the work to mill it for you. In North America, it is fast becoming a situation where it is rare to source any milled stock other than the totally awful Balsa or the merely terrible Basswood. Its cousin Linden/Lime is about 100% better, but that is not really available here. Pear in any form is difficult to find and the price is prohibitive.

That is not an economical choice. POF in scales 1:72 or larger will require stock of species that are almost never available precut. The degree of waste is relatively high and thus expensive. The required thicknesses are often several or many different. If you are doing it Hahn style - gluing up the frame stock, fixing the frame pattern to that and cutting a complete frame from that, the waste will exceed the fraction actually used. The practical way is to be your own mill. A quick search of your area found this example Wood-Chip Marine Lumber & Supplies They advertise three appropriate species Black Cherry 4/4 and 8/4 Hard Maple 4/4 and 8/4 and for hidden or painted parts Yellow Poplar 4/4 and 8/4. This is rough cut, so the yield is higher than finish planed. You will need a Byrnes Thickness Sander (or equivalent). Getting from rough to something that the sander can use requires a saw. A 14" bandsaw is much much better, safer and more efficient than a tablesaw - If you do not have a big boy bandsaw, look for a cabinet shop, trade school, or local wood worker that has one and work a deal. If it is a civilian, bring your own blades of the required size. Lenox Diemaster 2 bimetal 1/2" 3 TPI are the sweet spot for blade life and quality of cut surface. If you are doing miniature scales, unless you luck into an affordable supply of Castillo or Pear, you probably have to harvest your own stock. Fortunately you are in citrus country. Orange and probably Lemon should work well as also should Loquot.

I think all of the mechanical ratline tools get a "useless junk" rating. Better is a thick paper background with the line spacing on it. Also a square cross section batten that is the dimension of the spacing and has a bubble level is a sort of idiot proof method of keeping spacing across uniform. Jumping around - up/down/middle will help counter the inevitable accumulative/ creeping error if you work from the bottom up or top down.

Bob, I remember reading a negative review of the Franklin (Titebond) Liquid Hide Glue here. A different product Old Brown Glue got higher marks. A problem with a premixed hide glue is the relatively high water concentration. I used the Franklin product as a temporary bonding agent, but it did not do what I wished. It was mostly because of the way I applied it. I was too through with the application. It held too well. Spot application probably would have held. I totally covered both surfaces with a thin layer - the same as I do with PVA. A wicking spacer of newspaper to allow the ethanol debonder to penetrate the frame thickness probably would have helped. Charles, Hot hide glue is probably the wise choice for an archival case. PVA is very acidic. I think it is a strong acetic acid solution. The acid concentration is higher in the water resistant bond product. It is high still in the waterproof bond product. The agent forming the bond is poly vinyl acetate. When the polymer bond forms, acetic acid is released. As the water evaporates, liquid acetic acid is left behind. It has a degree of volatility at room temp, it is just much less than water. The polymerization reaction probably continues over time - possibly years. That is probably part of the source of its continuous outgassing of acetic acid. I think this means that the bond gets marginally stronger over time but it also probably becomes more rigid as the degree of crosslinking increases. This means that a properly made ship model case needs adequate ventilation to evacuate the acetic acid gas as well keeping it from becoming an oven. It also means that castings with any lead content are doomed with a PVA bonded model.

You could check The Wood Database. The factor that is pertinent is: shrinkage. Ambient air changes in moisture content are probably only a small fraction of what the moisture concentration would need to be to match what green wood would have to be. For the most part, change in length is too small to be significant. A house framing involves intermittent timbers with nothing to push against. Any plywood or OSB sheathing has any length or width changes subject to being cancelled out because of the alternate orientation of layers. The thickness does probably change with the environment. As for planking in a model, I am thinking that planking size changes would be subject to some restraint if any tangential increase due to increased moisture was met by a resistance force that was greater than the force that internal water can exert. Side by side planks pushing against each other may keep a limit on how much water could enter. It may not move as a unit. In POF, the frames that the planks are bonded to are longitudinal to the direction that the planks "want" to move. This would resist any movement. Edge glue between planks may be subject to being squeezing, but a tight bond would have very little glue to be squeezed. It was a material used well before my time, but would hot pot hide glue not be an even more archival favorable bonding material than even PVA? I suspect that it is way more trouble to use than any advantages it would offer. It is easily reversible by exposing the bond to hot ethanol. The protein that forms the bond is it not dissolved. It is completely denatured, forming small balls that are easily removed. I consider CA to be a completely no go material because along with its chemically toxic vapor, questionable half life, and weakness at resisting sheer forces - in my very limited experience with it, I found that once opened, a bottle quickly dried out. I am also somewhat dismayed by the apparent popularity and enthusiasm for wipe-on poly. To my eye, it is too plastic looking as well as tending to produce a layer that is too thick.

Pear is indeed an attractive wood. It usually is somewhat expensive. Covering it up seems self defeating. The conundrum of planking, frames, or copper is more intense with scratch POF. The model will involve a series of complex and complicated surfaces. Not protecting it by mounting it in a case, invites a relatively short life for it. A case will limit how it can be handled and viewed. One solution to the hull finish question is to do one side finished and the other with all wood on display. In any case, to my way of thinking, you really made the choice to go with an all wood display by going with Pear to begin with. The representing a real ship: First, by beginning with a kit, with most mass market offerings, you are on broken and floating ice as far as any obsession with historical accuracy is concerned. There have been compromises made that would not be necessary with a scratch build. So, the realistic option is to do the best with what you have and not obsess over a standard that was given up with the initial choice of subject. Eugenio, you are doing quite well working within the limits that the kit allows you. You are pretty far beyond many of the barriers that defeat a beginner who is building a very complex vessel. If the individual who suggests that you punt is a also a kit builder, consider his suggestion GIGO. Your work has a strong flavor of Art to it, and that is not a bad thing. An absolutely accurate representation of HMS Victory is not really all that beautiful. While not as homely as mid 19th century warships that were purely functional, it was getting there. Now as for coppering in general. Pretty much any kit supplied method kicks you right out of any pretense to accuracy or historical integrity. Getting a material that thin enough but works is difficult at best. A coppering job that involves the new penny shine and or out of scale bumps that resemble nothing so much as an old photo of a case of severe Smallpox, is far into the realm of modeler's convention. The overall look is mostly hideous to my eye.

There are definitive threads here covering sail making in scale. Also about the fabric or paper that have been found to simulate sails as well as is possible - given the limitations in scaling the material both in weave and in thickness. As far as furling the sails. The consensus seems to be that the depth of the sail should be 1/3 - to avoid a bulky look. The material should be as light as possible. It is just my feeling, but white sails are probably a conceit of painters. I doubt that the canvas was bleached. Tabling and attachment of bolt ropes and rigging are also discussed. Polyester, ugh!

As far as Underhill, Davis, Petrejus, Longridge, Frolich are concerned as regards POB, the great danger is that you will be seduced over to the dark side = scratch building. But once POB reaches a first layer being planked stage, everything from there on - the actual hull planking, decks, furniture, etc - it is all the same irrespective of what the underlying hull structure is. The goal of books that focus on scratch building is excellence and historical accuracy. It is better to learn from the best. I am pretty sure that the build logs here in the POB kit forum have in total way more useful instruction than can be found in books that focus on POB. Why I think this is inherent in how and why POB books come to be, is probably best left not expressed.

Although he was probably being somewhat glib, Nader said that the compulsion for a drawing to be perfect would make finishing one next to impossible, He would keep doing it over until it was perfect. What startled me about what he said was that it seems to me that a brain capable of success in science or engineering would go absolutely starkers if trying to seriously deal with something as mushy as Law or related fields.There is no reliable foundation. It is all too silly and arbitrary. As for CAD, it is one thing to use it to generate something new. That is its purpose. It is something else to use it to replicate something that already exists. It seems to want to do its own thing, its own way. With a board and battens, you can massage the data.

Tim, In school, we were tracked. Mechanical Drawing and Shop were not even options for my group. They were skills that could have used. I still can't draw a neat straight line, being self taught. A smooth curve is right out. I have always been a Gordian Knot solution sort, so the neat imperative on a school drawing would have blown my GPA. Ralph Nader said he was too OCD neat freak to stay with engineering drawing and went into Law, where that sort of OCD was pointless. My OCD is there, but neat or clean is not involved. I could have also used a typing class, but that too would have wrecked my GPA. Taught myself what I needed to know to be able to loft Kate Cory from Eric Ronnberg's 1/4" plans for POF framing. Boy was that a time consuming and no fun experience! The take home lesson was to try to find a better method. I also went a fair ways into designing HMS Royal Charles 1673 following Anthony Deane's directions. I used the drawing board and it worked for it. I lost him with the Body plan. The directions were not clear. I mistakenly thought that each of the stations was individually designed. Trying to find a way to avoid the sort of extracted point plotting that was so awful in traditional lofting could be avoided. I now understand that only about 3 Stations are designed. The waterline are drawn using those few points. Battens are used to get the curves. The stations for the Body plan being back extracted. There are many proof curves needed to assure that the waterlines are proper. This leading to no joy as far as avoiding the plotting tedium, I switched to a computer based solution. It was early DOS. Still, I was having a hope that 3D CAD was a shortcut. My explorations have lead to the following conclusions - CAD is for design. It is not an easy or pleasant tool for POF lofting of existing plans. It would be useful for design using Deane's directions - except - the tools in TurboCAD - I could find no way to do an arc by inputting the center and the radius. And some of Deane's arc centers are on Mars. So a drawing board seems to be it for anyone insane enough to try to design a 17th century 1st rate. Now I can do what I need for lofting frame timbers from existing plans using a raster based drawing program. The way I do it saves at least 80% of the work and time. So, I can't reinforce your affinity for a drawing board. I suspect that your rant on the loss of skills as generations progress, has always been expressed. It probably started at least when the skill of chipping flint into sharp projectile tips was lost. So, I understand where you are coming from

Clicking the focus to a lens with a wider angle, it would probably serve you well - to read the cautionary tale post pinned to the top of the new members forum. Although, not as overwhelming as a first rate, a super frigate is still a major opus.

I keep a fine edge by stropping. I am using FlexCut Gold on my leather, but green is probably just as effective. Strop after every few cuts and a visit to a stone should be a sometime thing.

I own several and they do the job. I think the company went thru a major generation change. Not that long ago, they offered a wide variety of widths and L/R options on an individual tool level. Last time I looked, there was no longer that wide of a variety of choices. They are a useful size for ship timber shaping in the 1:48-1;72 range.

Before you jump to a mass market sort of mill, you may wish to visit littlemachineshop.com and at least look at the $800 Sieg. A wider view of the field can be useful. Also, expenditure on accessories may be greater than that of the original machine.