wefalck

I like these small, local craft ... BTW, as I am collecting books on such small local boats, I did a quick search on the Web and it may be that the above book is still available: https://batdok.com/produkt/batar-i-bohuslan-del-1/ There is also information on similar (or the same ?) boats here: https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024268188/bat Not sure what the generic term is in Swedish, but in German such clinker-built boats with a small transom forward and no keel, but a bottom plank would be called 'prahm'.

My German sources indicate no through-bolting, but just wood-screws. The screws were supposed to be 6" apart. Whether the rails can move depends on how hard the wood is underneath and how well supported the deck planks are.

" ... he suddenly had the "umbrella handle" in his hand" - I seem to vaguely remember that this happened to someone I know too. My sister also had a R4 for a while, but I don't think it was her - her's lost a front wing while driving

It has perhaps also something to do with patience. I myself am very patient, when I can be reasonably sure of the satisfactory outcome of an operation, but become rather impatient, when I am not sure - rather counterproductive, I know. If I had to shape spars by hand, I would be rather unsure that I get it right the first time, which surely leads to scrap. If I do it with the aid of a machine tool, I know that my own, uncontrolled movements are eliminated and success only depends on how cautiously I turn cranks and plan the machine movements.

Machines are for clumsy people like me ... I would indeed start with round stock and mill on squares with my milling machine and the dividing head. I also think that, when you are working on more modern ships, where machines were used to make them, you need some form of machine tools to reproduce the exact shapes required. This is not to say, that there aren't some gifted individuals who are able to produce geometrically exact shapes (round or other) just with hand-tools. For most other people the difference will be visible.

A filing rest basically consists of two (normally hardened) rollers that can adjusted in height. Opinions diverge, as to whether the roller should be placed outside the workpiece or the workpiece in between them. I think both ways work. Here is a more or less random example from the WWW: Here a guy makes such a filing rest for his Taig-lathe: http://www.deansphotographica.com/machining/projects/filingrest/filingrest.html The design probably could be simplified and adapted to the Unimat. You either need a bridge between the two bars or make it as an attachment for the cross-slide. There is one available commercially for the Sherline, but the price is indiscently exaggerated. The height is adjusted by a nut and a locking nut: You then also need a kind of brake or stop for the headstock spindle. There are many different ways for doing this ...

Don't know what lathe you have, but having/making some sort of dividing stops at the spindle will be a very valuable modification to the lathe. The watchmakers have what is called a filing rest as attachment for their lathes, which allow to do exactly what you want to do, namely filing square flats onto round stock. If you are interested, I can provide more details.

If it's cast iron, judging by what looks like rust, it could be the knob for a door of an oven or stove.

We tend to be too 'bookie' about how things were done on the boats or how they should be done. Much of that probably is due to navy traditions that are perpetrated also by yachts people. If one looks over photographs of working craft, one quickly realises that not everything is 'ship-shape and Bristol-fashion' and done by the book. Rigging and other things are arranged to the convenience or fancy of the seaman or the skipper. There is a lot of clutter around too. I think there is room for a lot artistic licence, as long as it makes practical sense ... In this sense, you really capture the spirit of this vessel.

Doesn't the NMM in Greenwich have some cutter models (from the time) on which one can see how it might have been done, so that one can see how to fake it ? Somehow, I have my doubts that these small cutters had bulwarks that were planked on the inside. A very quick search with 'revenue cutter' turned this up: Source: https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/86219.html (National Maritime Museum, Greenwich) Source: https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/86220.html And this, but from 1822: Source: https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/86297.html With some more search, one probably can find more details.

I don't know much about LADY NELSON, but believe that she is a rather small ship ? There are many different ways for arranging the timberwork, depending of period, region and size of the ship. In large ships, bulwark stanchions are pieces separate from the frames. Essentially, the hull ends at upper deck level with which it forms a closed, water-tight spaces (except for the hatches). The arrangements discussed above largely pertain to larger ships. In small(er) ships, every other or every third frame is carried up to rail level and thus forms the bulwark stanchion. In general there is then no interior planking of the bulwark (and therefore no spirketting). In such cases there is a 'covering board' over the waterway that is notched or pierced for the stanchions. Sometimes, there aren't even separate covering boards and waterways, but just one massive plank. In such cases often the bulwark planking leaves a space of an inch or so above the covering board for effective drainage of the deck. Not sure what is known about LADY NELSON, but it would be worthwhile to first check the sources on her and not to rely too much on the building instructions.

I am always somewhat amazed at the rough utilitarian look of industrial machinery (including ships and related) in the USA ... you captured that look well, I think.

The choice of primer will also depend on what paint you are going to use later. The two should be compatible.

If it's just for scale, this is also the scale of the old-time flat tin-soldiers.

In a different context I just looked over my (xerox) copy of an atlas on the Prussian Navy's artillery material, published in 1861. Although still in a nascent stage at that time, it was technologically quite advanced, being kitted out with the latest Krupp breechloading guns. This atlas has drawings for every single part of the guns, their carriages and accessories. The Prussian Navy at that time had as heaviests guns 68-pounder smooth bores and 24-pounder rifled breechloading guns. Both could be mounted in slide carriages of the same type. There is a drawing also for the tracks and these were 9" wide and 1/4" thick to be screwed down onto the deck with countersunk screws, the head of which had about 3/4" diameter. The screws were set 1" from the edge and 13" apart, being offset by half the distance on each side. I only have a b/w copy of the atlas, but in the original the materials were colour-coded in light washes of water colour. As the track appears basically white in the copy, I assume it was light yellow in the original, indicating brass/bronze (or gun-metal) as material for the tracks.

Completing the upper carriage 3 Progress in homeopathic doses: I realised that I forgot the the two steps at the end of the upper carriage. So, the parts for the frame were laser-cut, pieces of tea-bag mesh inserted and the assembly attached to the carriage with lacquer. Steps for the gun-layer I realised now that I had assembled so many tiny parts for the gun, that it became difficult to not loose them and to remember what they were for. Some of the parts indeed had been made years ago. Therefore, I will proceed now to paint the parts and to assemble the gun, which then will be placed as a whole into the barbette, once the model is getting close to be finished. Preparations for painting While the paint scheme overall is quite clear, as it had been laid down in an ordinance of 1874, a few details have caused and still do cause some head-scratching. One of them is the exact hue of the ‘yellow’ for the funnel and the two boiler-room ventilators. Unfortunately, no colour recipes seem to have survived, if there had been any. I undertook some research by proxy, reviewing what other navies at the same time might have done. The paint scheme of the French navy of that time is very different, but that of the Royal Navy is quite similar (or perhaps the other way around). For instance, HMS GANNET, preserved and restored in Chatham, is from the same period. Due to the Corona-crisis the reponse from Chatham to an enquiry is still incomplete. I wanted to know what paint was used in her restoration. Looking through artistic representations of the time, one has the feeling that the yellow was paler and more like buff, than the one used later by the Imperial German Navy. It is notoriously difficult to judge hues on computer screens and on printed colour cards. To begin with, I selected a range of possible colours from my stock and also went through the colour cards of Schmincke, Vallejo, and Prince August (the French trade name for Vallejo). These candidates I tried out on pieces of the material to painted. Colour samples The hull will be black outside and white inside, the deckhouse and the inside of the barbette will be also white. The decks, where not wood, will be a dark grey, as they had been painted in tar with sand mixed in to make them less slippery. The gun carriage will be painted green, as evidenced by some contemporary builders’ models and a somewhat later instruction manual. The hue of the green is another issue. It was probably based on chrome oxide green. The barrel of these breech-loading guns was scraped clean, then wiped with vinegar until a brownish oxide layer developed. The process was repeated several times and any loose ‘rust’ wiped off. Finally, the barrel was rub down with lineseed oil, effectively producing in situ a paint with ferric oxihyroxide and ferric acetate as pigment. The resulting colour would be something like caput mortuum. This is the way the barrel of the demonstration model in Copenhagen seems to have been treated. Moving parts and mechanically relevant surfaces were keept clean carefully, of course. I will, therefore, lightly spray the barrel in Schmincke caput mortuum. To be continued ...

Did you really silver-plate it or is it tinned ?

The probably most difficult strake mastered !

Guns were cast frome bronze and the rollers for the guns too ... bronze is elastic and wear resistant. The tracks were screwed onto the deck.

Are the sides etched or sawn out ? Looking good anyway !

I think they were rather gunmetal (a kind of bronze) or bronze. Although there were surely enough guys to keep them bright on top, they would still rust underneath and begin to discolour the deck planks (kind of chromatography effect). Painting them doesn't make much sense, as the rollers of the guns would peel the paint off quite quickly. I seem to remember that the tracks on HMS WARRIOR were some kind of bronce.

I think that at least since the middle of the 18th century they were made from forged iron.

Ad Q1: my gut feeling is that the stops would be perpendicular to the masts. It will always be a compromise and if you look at it from the front, you may see and equal bent for the shrouds and backstays. There are (at least today) rules for minimum radii through which wire rope should be bent, so that it does not split open and loose strength. The parcelling and worming would to some degree counteracting the splitting of the rope. Ad Q2/3: Perhaps one should draw a parallelogram of the (static) forces that act on the different parts. That gives you some idea for where the strenght needs to be and where there is a risk of splitting the wood. When the downward force of the topmast pushes at an angle against the cross-pieces on which the fid is resting, this means that the force that would tend to push forward the heel of the topmast needs to be counteracted somehow. Either there needs to be a notch in the member on which the fid rests, or there needs to be some kind of wedge between the heel and the forward cross-piece. If the fid had a round bottom, rather being square, and the trestletree had a corresponding round notch, this would make it probably less likely that the upper part of the trestletree splits away, compared to the a square bottom and square notch.

Pat, I out something together on these tools: Staking and jewel-setting tools In watch- and clockmaking connections between parts are frequently effected by processes that broadly fall into the category of rivetting, i.e. the mechanical deformation of a part in order to effect its locking with one or more other parts. Watchmakers use for this process a tool that is called staking or rivetting tool. It consists of a body shaped a bit like a pillar drill. It has the purpose of guiding the rivetting punches or stakes absolutely perpendicular to the plane of the anvil underneath it. This tool can be used for all sorts of rivetting, punching, pushing-in, pushing-out and similar operations. To this end a set is equipped with a wide variety of flat, domed, concave, hollow and other, specialised punches. There are also varies types of anvils, flat, domed, with notches for watchwheels and –hands, etc. The anvils fit into a rotating plate and can be centred with a pointed punch under the guiding bore for the punches. The rotating plate has also a set of holes (or dies) that are mainly used to support wheels, while the arbors are being pushed out. There were/are various manufacturers for these tools in Europe and the USA (and I guess now also in China and India). Notable brands are Boley and K&D. The sets were made with different ranges of punches and anvils. Mine shown in the picture is one of the bigger sets. About 25 years ago it set me back the equivalent of 250€, if I remember correctly. Related to the staking tool is the jewel-setting tool. In fact, some manufacturers offered jewel-setting attachments for their staking tools, but these are rare today and to tend to fetch high prices on the second-hand market. In order to reduce friction the hardened steel axels in a watch are set into bearings made from hard semi-precious minerals, the ‘stone’, ‘rubies’ or ’jewels’. The jewels in turn are set into the watchplate and locked into place by friction only or by a light rivetting, i.e. closing-in the metal around the jewel with a pointed hollow punch. Incidentally, the same technique is used to lock watch wheels and pinions onto their axles. The ‘jewels’ are made by specialised companies to standard sizes and tools to make the respective holes in the watchplate are made to the required tolerances. The ‘setting’ of jewels has to be done with great care to ensure that their axes are exactly perpendicular to the watchplate. They are rather brittle, so one has to make sure that no pressure is applied to them once they reached the bottom of the hole into which they are set. To achieve this the jewelling or stone-setting tool was developed. Like the staking tool, this comprises a guide for the punch and a seat for anvils. However, the runner for the punches is fitted with an micrometer stop, preventing the punches from being pushed down too far. The punches in this case are actually inserts for the runner. The body is usually die-cast zinc, rather than steel, as not much force needs to be applied during the jewelling operation. Perhaps the best-know manufacturer is Seitz. Normally, complete jewelling tools with punches, reamers for the holes, anvils etc. are rather expensive. Some years ago I acquired cheaply just the basic body of a Seitz tool with the runner, but without all the attachments. The idea was to use it as a light press to allow e.g. squashing wire to a predetermined thickness with the help of the micrometer stop. The target thickness can be set with the help of feeler-gauges or pieces of wire. Over the years I made various punches and anvils for particular forming purposes. When making the brake-handles above, I should have used this tool, but was too lazy to turn up a 0.8 mm insert punch. Overall, I think these are quite useful tools for the modeller, although I have been using so far only a small number of the many punches provided in the staking set, but one never knows what task comes along.

Thanks to all for your kind words ! @mtaylor, I probably could have made the gear really working, after all, it is about the size of a ladies' wristwatch, but making the propper gear-cutters would have been very time consuming @Bedford, I am not sure, I understand what you describe there. I think, there was a reduction gear-train on the inside of the upper carriage with a ratio that made the indicator disc do perhaps one revolution for the elevating range of about -5° to +20°. It was fed somehow by the elevating mechanism. The disc would have had engraved the different ranges with different charges for the different elevations and different projectiles (solid armour-piercing shot and granates), being some sort of simple circular calculator.