wefalck

I wouldn't buy these old-fashioned plates with many different thread-sizes on them. They are ok for cleaning up threads on used screws, but what do you do, when some of the more frequently used sizes get dull ? These drill-tap combinations are meant for on-site fitting jobs involving short through-holes. For sort of engineering applications they are not really useful. Down to about M1.0 or the Imperial equivalents one distinguishes between hand-taps and machine-taps. Hand-taps have a longer tip with partial threads to provide a better guidance when cutting free-hand. Hand-taps also normally come in sets of two or three with differing depth of the thread, so that one doesn't cut the full depth of the thread in one go - this improves the quality of the thread and reduces the risk of tap-breakage. Machine-taps also come in versions for through-holes and as so-called 'bottom-taps' for blind holes. The latter have a very short tapering of only two threads or so. The best taps (in my opinion) are the ones that have spiral flutes, not straight ones as most taps have. They only seem to be available down to M2.0. The spiral flute seems to leave more 'meat' in the core, hence, they are stronger. They also jam less, as the swarf is moved upwards like for a spiral drill. Industry offers dozens of varieties of taps that are optimised for different types of materials, but these are generally only available from M1.0 or even M3.0 upwards and tend to be very expensive. In both the metric and the Imperial thread systems each tap has a related drill size. However, I tend to make the holes 0.1 mm larger than required in hard or tough materials, if the screw does not need particular holding power. This reduces the likelihood of tap breakage. BTW, jewelers thread sizes are a matter of their own, they don't fit into neither the metric nor the Imperial system, and date back into those dark pre-norm ages. When tapping, I tend to start the tap manually in a machine in order to ensure that it is started concentric to the hole, but finish the tapping by hand, holding the tap in a drill-chuck or pin-vise. It is also a good idea to work the lathe by hand, when tapping or doing external thread-cutting. Most small machines are not strong enough for this and don't have propper stops or clutches to disengage the tap when a certain torque is exceeded. I fitted my lathe spindle with a hand-crank for this purpose. Unless you really buy a well-known brand, there is no guarantee these days that you get quality. As someone noted above, Asian manufacturers flood the market and European/US American dealers buy from them the same stuff that small Asian traders near the factories sell through ebay. So I am getting my needs from these sources now. I don't have that many threads to cut, so that the expense of a branded tool would not be economic. Sure, you may feel the difference, but is it worth paying five or ten times the price for a hobby application ?

In the mean-time I had a go at it and experimented with various papers. While it is easy to get the toner to stick to the brass, getting the paper off is another matter. We don't seem to have here in Paris the kind of advertising papers, so I experimented with other other types of papers from my stock. I tried a heavily sized paper that took on the toner well and resulted in crisp print-outs, but desintegrated poorly, so that I could not get off the paper. I then tried very thin silk paper (as used, for instance, for wrapping china for removal packaging) that seemed to disintegrate better, but found that it still sticks heavily to the areas with the toner and does not come off cleanly. Did you actually use parts of your advertising paper that was printed on or only clean parts ?

It seems that the proportions between lower mast and pole where changed, lowering the point where the shrouds/stay attaches. I gather there may be at least two stops on the pole, namely one where normally the lower topmast would end and then another one near the top to provide a rest for the respective stays and backstays. I didn't around to do this, but I wanted to sift through my literature a bit more to see, whether one can find some more data on this kind of masting. It was very common to mast steamships as two- or three-masted topsail schooners, or as barques that had fore- and main-mast with poles.

This discussion actually concerns an interesting paradigm (shift) in shipbuilding that occurred twice during the 19th century in commercial shiipping, namely the function of the hull and where it actually ends. As a lay-person one would instinctively think that the hull should end with the top of the bulwark. However, when one carefully looks at the way how ships were constructed, the hull as a structural element ends at the upper deck and the deck itself is not merely something dropped in, but is a structural element in itself. It seems that shipbuilders conceived the hull of commercial ships in the 19th century as a closed and (almost) watertight space. In consequence, anything above deck-level did not contribute significantly to the buouancy and seaworthiness of the ship and could be (and was at occasions) knocked away. Raising the frames above deck-level, which was done frequently in smaller and coastal vessels is a change in construction philosophy. In a way it also exposes the upper part of the frames to the forces of overcoming seas, which could structurally weaken the hull. Of course, the pre-19th century ships, particularly naval vessels, did not have this sort of sealed volume of buoancy the flush-decked commercial vessels had. With iron- and steel-ships that were subdivided with water-tight bulkheads this construction philosophy disappeared again.

Ilhan, for the moment I don't see any solid bulwark that may require stanchions. Much of the deck seems to be surrounded by rails. Only the forward area seems to have some sort of half-high bulwark. The cross-section drawing seems to indicate that frames are lead up to the raised after-deck level. As the level of that deck coincides with the top of the half-high bulwark, I would conclude that the frames are actually forming the bulwark stanchions (perhaps not all frames, but only every second or third). So there would be no need for stanchions to support the bulwark.

I kind of thought that a solid, shaped piece of mahagony would look nice too.

Nice soldering work ! Did you make a jig for this complex part ?

Very pleasing run of the planks 👍

I didn't read the caption on the drawing carefully and didn't realise that this is actually a drawing after an etching by Baugean. Baugean's etchings have been published over the last few decades several times and an annoted edition (which is on my bookshelves) is this one: HARLAND, J. (2000): Ships & Seamanship - The Maritime Prints of J.J. Baugean.- 208 p., London (Chatham Publishing). I quickly looked through the book and found several instances where such gaff was depicted, namely images no. 18 (A French Frigate with yards-a-cockbill - in mourning), 24 (American Frigate), 38 (An American Armed Schooner), 112 (A Dutch? Galiot), and 171 (A French? Brig). In all cases it is clear that sails are bent and not flags. Harland refers to them simply as 'gaff top-sails'. And then I dived into the resources on my own Web-site and found the following two images of models in the Altona Museum in Hamburg: Ship JAVA (1852) Medium clipper TRITON (1858) It must be noted, however, that these models are not from the time, but were built by shipwrights/sailmakers around 1890 on the basis of drawings and paintings in the museum.

... or it will split

Baugean's drawing in the first post clearly shows sails on both gaffs on both masts. You can see the rope with which the sails are bent to the mast. Looks weird indeed.

A yard is suspended at some point along its length, while booms or a gaffs are suspended/pivoting at one end. So the item in the above image is not a yard.

True, but Beaugean shows actually sails bent to them ...

My preference is nitrocellulose lacquer or its 'filled' version, sanding sealer. The solvent is also a solvent for the wood rosins so penetration is good. One coat may be sufficient. I rub it down with steel-wool, which gives a nice satin finish. A treatment like this does not add any appreciable thickness, it is more in the surface, rather than on it. If you prefer something a bit more glossy, you can polish the surface with a soft rag - on a model you can do this also with cotton sticks all-over or just at places that would become polished by hard use. Different grades of shine create some interest in a surface and also look more realistic.

I don't think that Biddlecombe will be of much help. In neither of the plates such gaff is shown. I have seen it on some 'clipper' ship depictions of around the middle of the 19th century. If the drawing above wasn't by Beaugean, I would have thought that draughtsperson misinterpreted a square gaff top-sail. Incidentally, it was something specific to the late German deep-water barques, particularly the flying-P-liners, that they had a double gaff with a triangular gaff top-sail. The surviving KRUSZENSTERN ex PADUA, the PASSAT, the PEKING, and the German sail training vessels GORCH FOCK I and II are still rigged in that way. However, I don't know, whether the second gaff has any specific name.

What do you mean by "the size is 1/8" ? The volume of the part ? 1/96 and 1/100 are close enough, there is only a 4% difference in length, however, the difference between 1/100 and 1/76 is 24% ! In other words, piece of 100 cm length would be in 1/100 scale 1 cm long, in 1/96 scale 1.04 cm, but in 1/76 scale 1.32 cm

Why would you ?

In 1:1 scale the process looks quite similar:

So you got hold of a copy of the book on the history of her builders, good !

As said, this technique is very versatile for many small parts. Here the sequence of creating a ventilator from round brass stock using some fancy machine tools and accessories: Turning the shaft of the ventilator in an excentric 2-jaw-chuck. The future cowl is to the left. One could have this done in an ordinary 3-jaw-chuck or collet, but would have needed round stock of about twice the diameter and needed to remove a lot more material. After parting off the ventilator it is transferred to the upright dividing head in my micro-mill, where the back of the cowl is round-milled. The dividing head is driven by the worm-drive for this milling operation. Then the inside was milled out in the same set-up. The back of the cowl is shaped on the micro-grinding machine using a diamond disc. The back is closed with some copper shim soldered on and then hand-shaped. Collection of ventilators produced from round brass stock in this way. The height of the head of the smallest is 3 mm and the shaft has a diamater of 1.2 mm. Using this technique I have produced a variety of parts for my current project (SMS WESPE 1876), including rectangular bollards, chain stoppers of various kinds, etc. Another application was milling the outside shape of 2 mm-blocks in brass and Plexiglas: In the same set-up they were then drilled and slotted, or rather the sheaves were part-milled by turning the blocks in the dividing head over the predetermined angle. For all the machining operations I made myself a table in which I calculated how much the mill had to be fed in what position of the set of future blocks held in the dividing head. This is a powerful technique, particularly when you can transfer parts from the lathe to the mill and vice versa without loosing concentricity and, hence, the reference point. Paul is right in saying that it requires a good kit-out and some practice in machining, but it is quite do-able with a bit of patience and I am entirely self-taught.

Just to say: I had a look at a couple of German textbooks on rigging, one of 1869 and one of 1903. As expected, the latter only talk about steel masts, but the former does not mention this kind of masts at all. There are, however, proportional dimensions for different steps on the mast from which one perhaps can deduct the information you need.

Has there ever been a video recorded, showing you sculpting ? I am particularly intrigued by the repetive accuracy. Getting one ornament right is one thing, but getting them all looking the same is quite another thing. I know, you are using a proprietary Czech sculpting material, but would you have any experience with a brand available in other parts of Europe and you could recommend ? It seems that your material becomes rather smooth and translucent after baking, which is good for the following gilding. I am not aware of another sculpting material that reacts like this.

Nice work, indeed. I gather the real challenge is still to come, as the shape becomes more complex and as this is going to be the part that you are planning to leave unpainted.

To get back to the original topic: this technique is also useful for producing flat identical parts of complex shape. The outside shape is milled as per the video and then you saw off the parts of the desired thickness with a circular saw. In order save material, you may start with some rectangular stock to which a stem or spigot is hard-soldered. If you have a independt 4-jaw-chuck for your lathe, you can also turn the stem onto the rectangular stock, which may be the method for materials that cannot be soldered. Talking about parts for polystyrene models: I would probably make those from Plexiglas stock, as this can be glued (or better 'welded') to polystyrene with either the usual liquid cement or with methylene chloride.

The material Doris uses are plastic foils, I exchanged with her on this years ago. These foils have been popular in the 1960s and 1970s in Western Europe as a quick-n-dirty fix for cheap furniture or interior decoration. In Germany there is a brand called d-c-fix (https://www.d-c-fix.com/). Over the decades the material degrades due to its high content of plasticisers. While Doris does nice things with them, I would be very much concerned about the longevity.