Jaager

To the moderator of the NRG site: Resources - Plans and Photos - The Maryland Silver Company = the site has not been continued after Duane left us. His collection appears to have been taken in by Taubman. The monographs by AAMM deserve an entry - Publications - Neptunia -- The Journal features their current quarterly? contents in each issue.

I have two factors in mind: Butting the waterway against the inside face of the stanchions and filling the gaps between with single pieces ( filling chocks ) looks like it would be less costly. The down side is the additional seam to caulk. The only easy way to secure the floating pieces would be from the outside plank. The alternatives that I see are boring a hole thru each piece and into the waterway - for a trunnel. And/or a toe nailed trunnel into the stanchion. Done above it is then another source of water incursion. Done from below, no fun at all to do. A wide and notched waterway, while it appears to be better for the ship, the necessary extra width of the waterway and the waste from the notches rules against this. The waterway is too thick to waste on a function that a thinner piece of wood would serve. The 1903 Rules from the ABS have this to say: WATER-WAYS section 22 ------ Must be fitted on each tier of beams, theyshould be of logs of the greatest possible length, well fayed to the timbers and beams, and thoroughly fastened with a through bolt into each beam, and two horizontal bolts through frames and clinched, the butts must be close jointed, and scarphed vertically where practicable, and be placed between the scarphs in the clamps underneath. LOCK or THICK STRAKES section 23-------The lock-strakes adjoining the waterway should be scarphed and jogged over the beams. These scarphs to shift with those in waterways. These strakes should be fastened vertically, with two clinch-bolts through every beam, and horizontally, with one bolt through every second timber. The stringers on the waterways should also be scarphed, and fastened with two bolts through every timber, and in vessels over 500 tons should be bolted edgewise. I checked Desmond and Estep. Although not singled out, all of the waterways butt against the inside face of the timber extensions. The lock strakes are a second waterway, The stringers are a second or inner clamp, below the beams. They sort of show a covering board ( filling chock ) between the plank-sheer and the waterway. The definition of plank-sheer = the pieces of plank laid horizontally over timber-heads of quarter deck and forecastle, for the purpose of covering the top of the side; hence sometimes called covering-boards. NOW I remember - it is the outside plank that is notched if anything is. For a model, if the waterway is to be painted, butting the waterway and using a lot of filling pieces, saves to nightmare of getting a lot of notches done with precision. The pieces are easy if you have the tools. The paint will obscure the method. If clear finished wood, the plank above the plank-sheer would make it impossible to see if a notched plank or filling pieces are used.

The unit is strength is only be as strong as your weakest bond. So even if you use a bonding agent that works on a nonporous surface (epoxy, CA) it will come down to how strong the bond is between your clear finish and the wood. The deck can be masked using no residue tape, if you decide to remove the finish under the posts.

Kim, Linen is confusing. The old unit was Lea but I recently Nm and NeC have become more common Lea yds/lb / 300 Nm # 1000m/kg NeC # 840yd/lb The key is + the larger the value the thinner the yarn The smallest I have found is 65 Lea - it is yarn - plant fibers twisted into a line - it breaks easily during twist up. There is 100/3 Lea linen thread - it is 3 yarns of 100 Lea each twisted into a single thread - so it is sort of the diameter of 50 Lea single yarn -but already scale rope. 40/2 Lea linen is two 40 Lea yarns - so a no joy if the hope was that it could be unwound and yield 80 Lea - even if yarn that fine would withstand the process. One thought = natural linen yarn is close the scale color of hemp that is not treated with tar - half bleached and bleached would both want to be dye treated but all are easily converted to standing rigging with a dose of dark walnut dye. A diluted ( a lot) dark walnut gets running rigging color. It is my experience that supplies of natural, half bleached, and bleached are more likely to be available. The Baltic linen yarn that I have sourced could stand better quality control. There are bits of poorly crushed and not combed out plant fiber in places that break under twisting stress.

Setting aside the reliability of a particular contemporary artist as to detail, I vote that there were two "rules". 1. The chains or straps holding the deadeye would continue the exact line/ angle of the shroud it anchors. ( So the mast first and then, if not the shroud, then a stand in for it to determine the angle. ) ( Wait a tick! Altering the rake of the mast by a new captain must have fudged that rule. ) 2. If there was any danger of a shroud chaffing against the side of the ship, there would have been a channel. ( Ignoring the unnecessary ware on the shroud if there was chaffing, I just was imagining the resulting horror, if a crewman had a limb get between a too close shroud and the side of the ship when wind and sea conditions were violently active. )

Trying to make sense of the mechanics of this system: T"gal 23, 24 are the clue? 17, 18 are the sheets? Top 21, 22 are the clue? 15, 16 are the sheets? Main 19. 20 are the clue? the mainsail is heavy enough and prone to awkward folding enough to need a basket when it is hauled up? There is no sheet displayed - which conflicts with my expectation for symmetry and consistency in a presentation. Whenever I read about the rigging of sails, this comes to mind. In NIXON IN CHINA - John Adams 1987 there is this line: “The rats begin to chew the sheets”. When I first heard it, I guessed it would go over the heads of most, who must wonder why Nixon cares about bedding, and is singing about it in an opera. Confirmed by this quote from a review: { I’m sure there’s an explanation for why Nixon says, about his plane trip, “The rats begin to chew the sheets,” but it just doesn’t work, doesn’t play, in the way that similar lines do in, say, Pelléas et Mélisande. } Makes perfect sense, when you know what a sheet is, and that Nixon ( a Navy vet.) would be concerned with his effort being undermined. Purposefully throwing his sheets to the wind.

It is on sale at the Pen and Sword web site., right now.

Looking at a hammock from the side, I can see where that phrase would come to mind as a generally understood description. They were a lot more familiar with hammocks.

If the rule for this is not set in the texts that we have, it was likely a situation with fairly loose limits. For warships, I would take the start of the deadwood as being where I could start a tapper. The ASA 1870 allows that frames can be farther apart and the space 10% wider for the final 1/5 at either end. This may be a clue as to how the strength requirements for a hull were viewed. The internal rise of the frames do not allow for as much cargo weight at the final 1/5, fore or aft, so the keel may have been allowed less mass starting there. The lengths of the keel pieces and the length of the scarphs may hold a clue. Begin a tapper - after the scarph of the last piece at either end. Unless rich and building an America's Cup racer, I could not imagine expending money on the additional labor cost that a continuous taper would require. It would far exceed any savings on lumber for the keel.

A progression from here is to forego all of the pre-made parts and scratch build. Your possibilities increase by a couple or three magnitudes. The limits here are the available plans. And if your devotion to historical accuracy has flexible limits, it will be limited by your skill either at a drawing board or a CAD program. And with a lot of the legacy plans for notorious vessels, the origins and specifics only wink the reality of what they purport to represent. But, to be fair, at the time most were produced, there was not much else available. Of course, more than a few kits share this same tenuous attachment to reality.

There seems to be a problem with the definition of a few key words. Admiralty "style" - I used to think this referred to the framing used for late 17 c. RN warship models, here it seems to mean hull only, no or stub masts. Navy Board - is the 17 c. contemporary or older somewhat stylized framing - with the frames showing. POF - plank on frame - is the hull fabrication method that mimics the way ships were built. It can be stylized (e.g. Hahn) thru a wide range to an obsessively exact replica of the original. Some degree of stylization helps in making this method approachable. POB - plank on bulkhead is a popular hull fabrication method for both scratch and kits. The "bulkheads" are actually moulds. They are often spaced far apart and require two layers of planking. They are in no way "frames", although some unscrupulous kit companies will use that term in misleading advertising. The looks of the underlaying structure requires that it be totally hidden by planking. I have little expectation that there will be any kits of the quality and nature that you seek. The species and quantity of the wood necessary for the frames and the very high degree of waste and the labor are such that the cost will probably always be impossibly high. Tom at Cafmodel is working up a first attempt at a POF kit. The framing style seems to be uniquely French for cutter sized vessels. Your goal is ambitious. POF will probably be strictly a scratch build method for any foreseeable future. There are plans and monographs with lofted frame patterns. These will save considerable time as there can be more than 100 frames to plot. At 1:48 a liner's hull can easily be 4-5 feet long.

I found the MDS the solvent seems to be: Section 3 - Composition / Information On IngredientsChemical NameCASRN Wt% Toluene 108-88- 3 15-40 Acetone 67-64-1 15-40 Light aliphatic solvent naphtha 64742-89-8 7-13 n-Heptane 142-82- 5 5-10 Methylcyclohexane 108-87- 2 0.5-1.5 They do not even have a fixed ratio, just a range It is a proprietary mixture (?) so no off the shelf solvent. Reads like some nasty stuff to breathe. The adhesive is a rubber derivative I have a home made thickness sander from very old NRJ plans - 11" Maple drum and used this stuff to fix the 11x9 sheet of abrasive medium. It is a job the remove and clean. Naphtha will cause it to unstick and roll into balls but still a lot of work to remove. Mineral spirits will loosen it -- eventually. No solvent have I found. My Byrnes replacement, although 6" instead of 11", is magnitudes faster and easier to replace the media on. If you must use it, it looks to me as though you are limited to buying the smallest size container and pitching it when it evaporates too much carrier solvent. With straight up Best Test or Elmer's rubber cement, you can buy Bestine - n-Heptane - in pints or quarts - but this stuff looks no go.

I do not do POB hull assembly, but if the gaps are between the planks of the first layer, why fill them at all? The hull is not meant to float. If there are flats and hollows, PVA bond thin pieces of wood or veneer to build it out and abrade that down to a fair run. PVA bonds by assembling chains and tendrils that invade the pores and rough surfaces of wood - as well as twisting around each other. A surface finished to 100-120 grit seems to be optimal for a good bond. I break my own suggestion because I came to favor 220 grit before I knew better.

There are reducers for the hoses. I saved a lot of time and bother dealing with clogged shopvac filters by using an in-line cyclone trap. The thickness sander generates impressive volumes of dust. I use it and the tablesaw in the garage. The work done on the disk sander is more finesse than volume so I use small portable hand vac (stairs, corners, furniture, type) - a visible chamber for collection rather than a bag.

Perhaps exploring these will give you some idea of the tools available for this range of work. I bought this under a Swedish company's brand name: King Arthur's© Guinevere© Flexible Shaft Heavy duty and definitely not cordless Although the 1/3 HP motor that I use to drive it is CW/CCW - this tool is not engineered for reverse rotation. There are a variety of disks 1" 2" 3" It also works with my preferred drums Peachtree Woodworking Supply Inc Sleeveless Sanding Drums This sanding drum design eliminates the need to buy replacement sanding sleeves for your drum sander. Cut and fold any type of sheet sandpaper to size for the particular drum size you're using. A single sheet of sandpaper and instructions are included with each individual drum. 3/4" - 1" - 2" - 3" 2.5" @ Woodcraft if the rubber pad is removed the 3/4" becomes 1/2" there is a 3" that is 6" high (the 4.5" high one is a waste) I made a sanding table to mount these drums ( no oscillating, but everything I use it on has a continuously changing bevel, so I move the work. ) I dislike using sleeves. Micro-Mark has a line of a German company's DC - corded small hand tools Micro-Make™ / MicroLux® Heavy-Duty Right Angle Disk Sander / Drill Works well inside a larger scale hull. pretty powerful, has a chuck that can replace the disk for more tool options. Micro-Make™ / MicroLux® Palm-Size Belt Sander It did a job for me very quickly that would have otherwise been slow and difficult. I had to hold it with a piece of wood to stop it throwing the belt. It is a very aggressive tool. Micro-Make™ / MicroLux® Orbital Sander Now with Hook and Loop System Sandpaper! I have it, but have not used it yet. I think I prefer hand sanding for the jobs it would do. Micro-Make™ 3D Contour Sander The sander version of a Norelco Triple Header shaver - I did not buy this, I think my uses are too delicate to risk using it.

Do yourself a favor and do a site search for: "topics" and "content titles only" using the single word: Constellation Read a bit about what this singularly unique kit involves.

From Meade 1869 "compiled from various standard authorities" Beam 15' 20' 25' Floor timbers sided, at least 4.75" 6" 7.25" Top timbers sided 4" 4.75" 6" Moulded at cutting down (outer edge of keel/keelson) 6 - 6.25" 7.75-8" 9.25-9.75" " at middle between keel and waterline 4.5 - 5" 5.5-6" 6.25-7.5" " at LWL 3.25 - 3.75" 4.25-4.75" 5.5-6" " at main deck 3 - 3.25" 4-4.25" 5-5.5" This gives you an idea of what proper scantlings should be. Looking for room and space - the ASA 1885 rules are 2/3 rds room 1/3 rd space They allow that the final 1/5 of frames at either end can increase the space by 10%. I would na do this. It will not save you any money and it just confuses things, to no good purpose.

Back when wooden hulls were used as waterborne trucks and commercial cargo was involved, there was standardized insurance and insurance mandated scantlings. After WWI, that blip was a panic driven aberration, perhaps, wooden hulls seem to have gone individual customer and wild west as far as universal scantlings. My guess anyway. The addition of man made components such as plywood, metal framing(?) fiberglass, Each vessel is probably its own world as far as looking up scantlings is concerned. That said, the physics of wood did not change after WWI. You do not provide any basic data for this vessel, or I missed it. So, from Meade 1869 Frame moulded dimensions for a vessel with a moulded breadth of 15 feet (The next column is 20 feet.) Floor timbers sided, at least 4.75" Top timbers sided 4" Moulded at cutting down (outer edge of keel/keelson) 6 - 6.25" " at middle between keel and waterline 4.5 - 5" " at LWL 3.25 - 3.75" " at main deck 3 - 3.25" I use a raster based drawing program to loft and use disks that are scale diameter of the moulded scantlings at each data point. I have intermediate sizes of those diameters to shape a transition that is strong where needed and has a curve that is pleasing to the eye. A line that meets each of those circles at a tangent provides the inside moulded dimension. Being a two finger typist, I took me longer to type this than actually develop a moulded curve when lofting. I do all lofting at 1/4" : 1' so I only had to make one set of disks and keep it in a base starter file. I have a picture or two on my Renommee build.

I do not know if this has been addressed, but I verified with AotS Bellona, the quarter galleries are incorrect. The sides do not extend to shield the sides of the balcony. It is not a motel balcony where the rooms need visual isolation. Perhaps some 16th c. and 17th c. had a square ended balcony. When seen from above, it was likely an arc by the 18th c. And no roof either. The quarter galleries were mostly the senior officer crappers. I seems that way to be anyway.

Roger, OK. Not knowing what the practicum involves, I was thinking about the actual wood pieces.

If I remember chem lab correctly, potassium permanganate was good for staining your fingers red. Na2S = sodium sulfate? all three "S" are SO4? Back to your framing, have you considered doing what the shipbuilders probably did, and add chocks at the floor timber/futtock 1 overlap? They would have likely used square space fillers that less than the molded dimension - air circulation. For a model, a short piece that matched the molded dimension and formed a continuous band when viewed from the side would add interest and a lot of strength. Additional strength would be provided by continuous deadwood between the floor timbers. I mean filling the space between the keel and keelson with a piece that is the width of the keel/keelson. We do not have to worry about bilge water not being able to flow from side to side in a model. A lesson that I have learned, do not use these space fillers to determine the frame spacing. Add them after the position is set. Although the lesson learned was because I used a temporary filler beside it. That filler was bonded using double sided tape, which is thicker than a simple PVA bond gap.

I would do it 64/76 = 0.84 but for what you want, it is the way that I would approach it. Remember that this is 3D so it is l x 0.84 and w x 0.84 and d x 0.84. With a digital caliper, it should be no problem doing measurements. It sure beats vernier or going blind using a 1/64" graduated ruler. Now, the trick is getting stock to match. Hello Jim Byrnes and if you do that, it is hello dark side (scratch).

The government shipyards would have been their own world, but with a contract I was thinking private yard. In this situation, I considered that perhaps every component may not have been covered. As time progressed, I suspect that the list grew longer as some less than ethical private builders worked to contract instead of using artful assembly. If I were of a mind to replicate the internal components that are hidden by decking, gratings, and planking, going that far in role playing, I would try to follow artful practice in my shipyard. ..... Expletive!! I guess this means I talked myself into using the elaborate joinery for the main wale used in later era RN ships. Another reason to stay with countries with better timber supplies.

From empirical observation, the time and effort involved in fabricating this more expensive join was limited to those parts that were for lateral enforcement and/or vertical load carrying. The strength parts and not the coverage parts. I am thinking wales, clamps, riders (?), beams, spirketting (?). If the strake carried a load, it may have required a scarph instead of a simple butt. When I first read the title I thought you were aiming at a wider time period coverage. The original meaning described two timbers meeting side to side. The meeting of the first futtock with the floor and second futtock, for example. The description being necessary because in earlier time, these timbers floated between each other. When the framing method changed and made this definition all but moot, the mating of butt ends in the same strake took over the word, it seems.

It was over a year ago, but I bought some from here: https://www.snowgooselace.com/product-category/threads/dmc-cordonnet/