wefalck

I think we had this question here before. Below a 'resin' model on which the technique chj mentioned was applied: I begin with a sprayed on base-coat of acrylic paint, in this case 'Wood' from Vallejo; over this washes of burnt umber and black acrylic paint are applied; for a weathered look you may want to add a light wash of white too; depending on the kind of wood you want to simulate, you may use a more reddish or yellowish wash; you can also water-based wood stains as washes on flat acrylics - do not use alcohol- or solvent stains, as these may dissolve the acrylic paint. Base-coat applied with an airbrush With washes of burnt umber, black and white

Is there a (free or nearly free) software package like DelftShip that would run on an iPad pro ?

Well machined !

Well, actually, the varying colours of cotton vs. hemp sails were noted here already: https://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/15584-a-method-for-making-panelled-sails-using-paper/&tab=comments#comment-486775. Older sails also tend to be lighter in colour due to bleaching by chlorine radicals from the seawater and strong UV-irradiation. And here is how I made paper-sails from inndividual panels in 1/90 scale: https://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/68-zuiderzee-botter-by-wefalck-finished-artitec-resin/&do=findComment&comment=47886. I have used the same technique also with silkspan in 1/60 scale.

These needle threaders seem to be an obvious solution - but I realised early on in my carreer that they cannot really work on scale(!) blocks, because in addition to the double thickness of thread you have the double thickness of the wires - in reality, however, the clearance in the shell of the block is not more than about a quarter more than the diameter of the rope for which it is made. Enlarging holes in model-blocks to suit, blows the idea of scale out of the window. The only solution is to stiffen the end of threads. My personal choice for this is fast-drying lacquer, such as solvent-based nail-varnish - I keep the use of CA to the absolute minimum, I almost hate it. With the lacquer you can also twist the end between your fingers to tighten it up - not recommendable with CA

The steps will always remain an issue and the more so, if the printing plane is only slightly tipped with respect to one of the axes of the printer. This is inherent to the technology and will require some 'post-processing' for the foreseeable future on all filament printers at least. As noted before, I looked into this technology on and off for the past dozen of years or so, because I was attracted by the theoretical possibilities. Somehow I came to the conclusion that in our case it is probably best suited to print basic, but shapes with complex curvatures. Just as you would get raw pieces from a foundry and finish these using traditional machining techniques, such as turning, milling, or grinding. Generating complex surfaces using a digital technique, whether additive (3D printing) or substractive (CNC milling) will leave you at our scales always with the stepping issue, but will move the most difficult part to the computer.

Ed, you should actually put a scale figurine next to all the iron work in the photographs - it strikes me how massive these forged parts must have been on the original. I gather the yoke would have been something like 2 m (7') across ...

I have watched the development of the 3D-printing technology for consumers over the past 12 years or. While it is true that things have become a lot cheaper and more accessible, there are inherent physical limitations for each of the technologies (e.g. filament application, localised UV-curing, etc.) that are expensive to overcome, because of the precision required for the mechanical parts. I think the 'digitisation' effects on surfaces that intersect the axes of the printer will remain a problem for filament printing, simply because the filament has to have a finite diametre. Here the spatial resolution (and some other effects) of localised UV-curing will be the challenge. It is a bit of a Catch 22 for parts such as the funnel: we have the surface details, the rivets e.g., but cannot smooth the surface in between (easily) because of those details. For parts without surface details, this is less an issue, of course. Orienting the part to be printed so that the stepped surface becomes less obtrusive would be a good strategy. This made me think, whether anyone actually has tried a sort of hybrid process: adding surface structures and details on the printer onto a machined basic shape. In the case of the funnel one would need actually a 4th axis of movement in order to rotate the piece under the printer head. Or one could print the detail onto a suitable carrier foil and wrap this around a core for the funnel. I know that you can buy 'rivets' printed onto decal-sheets - something along these lines, but less fragile than decals. Just thinking aloud ...

Yes of course: Picture doesn't necesserily mean photograph ... there were other media in these pre-smart-phone-selfie-era

This seems to apply to the industrial nations and the Nordic countries and N-America only. It also depends apparently strongly on the amount of manual labour and nutrition, hence on social class. The working classes seems to have been shorter at all times than the higher echelons of society. As the navies recruted themselves more likely from middle to lower echelons, they were likely to be shorter on average. I am 1.80 m (5'9") and it was a rather interesting experience to walk the streets of say La Paz in Bolivia, where most people seem to be +/- 1.60 m (5'3") ...

Until the general adoption of the metric system, which began to radiate from France in the second quarter of the 19th century, every country had its own definition of inch, foot, mile, pound, ton, etc. It seems tha Napoleon I was about 1.69 m, which was not very tall and smaller than a lot of the people, who surrounded him, judging by pictures. He was also of a more stocky built, which gave probably the impression to be smaller than he really was.

In German we have a saying: moving house three times is as bad as burning down once ...

I found that some of the professional movers are not so professional. There may be a considerable difference between what their sales rep promises you (and charges) and what their workmen actually do. Their appreciation of your spiritual and monetary valuables may vary quite a bit and their sense of convenience may override their sense of care for your possessions. I had very good and very bad experiences - during my last move from the Netherlands to France almost every piece of furniture was somehow dented - in spite of the promised 'export wrapping'. I could tell you wild stories of how they handled my stuff. On another occassion, I went with foreman of the gang through all the special objects, including the glass-cases for my models, and discussed with him their special needs for wrapping and handling - the standard reply is "don't worry" (which usually makes me worry ...); later that morning I was able to prevent by a second the apprentice from loading a large glass-case (boxed-up and marked with 'upright' arrows) onto a sack-trolley and going down the stairs with it ... Therefore, I would also recommend to take a delivery-trip in a car. There are two things to consider, when transporting models in a car: a) to prevent the load from shifting around in the car, e.g. when breaking, and b ) to prevent the model from touching anything. I always secure models on a base-plate, so no loose stands. This base-plate then can be fastened to a board that is larger than the model by say a couple of centimetres on all sides. Around this board you can construct a light-weight box or crate from e.g. plywood (more expensive) or high-density fibre-board. The box should have a bottom as well, so that you can slide in and out the board on which the model is fastened down. Depending on the size of the model, you may need to provide some handles for carrying the crate. This is a safe, albeit perhaps somewhat expensive method. If you don't want to construct a crate, I would at least mount the model on the board as described above, because this allows you to attach fastening straps etc. for securing the model in the car. Keep in mind that a sailing-ship model is quite top-heavy, so it may break off its stand that is securely fastened, say to the back-seat, during a serious breaking manoeuvre.

Makes me itchy to begin with a project I have had in the back of mind for years, one of those steam gun-boats of the 1860s of the Prussian/German Navy ...

I took some pictures of the yards of HMS GANNET (1878) in Chatham and of the frigate DON FERNANDO II E GLÒRIA (1843) in Lisbon while being refitted. In the first case the jack-stay was threaded and a hexagonal nut was screwed on, while in the second case they simply electro-welded(!) it to one of the stanchions. The thread-and-nut would have been a technical possibility in mid-19th century, but the welding is clearly a 'preservation' short-cut. The spars, to my knowledge, in both cases are reconstructions, so we are not absolutely sure what the actual practice in these cases at the time would have been. I would rather think that a hole was drilled across the jack-stay and a split cotter-pin inserted, the end of which where bend around to prevent it from falling out. It doesn't need to take up a lot of force, but just to prevent the jack-stay from slipping out, when the ship is rolling. I also seem to have read somewhere that turc's head knots where set onto the jack-stay and then painted over. One could also drill a hole through the stanchions and the jack-stay for a cotter-pin, but this would be more work and weakens the stanchion.

The little tool for making block-straps gives me ideas ...

Just some thoughts on the future construction of a mast-/spar-lathe: - enclosed 12V DC motors of sufficient torque are becoming quite cheap (say 20 to 30 €) - watch out for scooter motors - electronic transformers with controllable voltage output of adequate Wattage can be had for 10 to 15 € - collet-chucks for ER11 or ER16 collets cost around 4 €, collets are as cheap as 1 € and clamp over a 1 mm range - use an extruded aluminium-profile or a strong wooden board as backbone; in the latter case a curtain-rail would serve to align spindle, tailstock and any steady. I gather for under 100 € you can build a lathe that suits your size requirements.

... but beware that, if the trigger works on an electronic speed-control (pulse width modulation) as well, the dimmer will not work or only erratically. I have such a dimmer fitted to my work-bench and plug into it all sorts of machines that do not have originally a speed-control. Works also as temperature control for soldering irons btw.

If your power-drill does not have a speed-control, you can hook it up to a plug-type dimmer, which can be bought quite cheaply. Make sure that the dimmer is rated sufficiently. I think most dimmers are rated at 300W. Wall-type dimmers can be obtained at much higher rating, but you would need to construct a box for it. It seems to be all a lot of effort for a make-shift tool, when you can buy a small wood-lathe (such as the PROXXON DB250), which is much more precise and versatile, for around 200€ new and perhaps less used.

Unfortunately, milling operations with the dividing-head in the upright position leads to the accumulation of swarf between the spindle-head and the dust-sleeve made earlier. Swarf accumulation between spindel of dividing head and dust-sleeve It was also felt useful to have some kind of indication of the angular position of the spindle when using the indirect dividing gear, particularly for round-milling. In order to overcome both problems, a graduated dial was manufactured, that has a friction-fit to the spindle-head. It was made in the same way, as the dials described above and marked in 5° steps. With its round-knurled ring it can be zeroed. Because of its tight fit to the spindle and its shape, it sheds the swarf away from the spindle. Graduated sleeve on the spindle of the dividing head

Pat, the maritime heritage hasn't changed since the mid-1980s, but the way how it is being presented a lot, and not always for the better (re. the NMM). On the other hand new things opened, such as Chatham. There has been a major shift in the way all this financed, as since the last Thatcher-government public funding for museums has been cut back dramatically. This one reason, why a lot of places convert into theme-parks and tourist traps. Not sure that Bucklers Hard is now a real tourist trap. I believe there is not just the row houses of house to see, but they have now some workshops and the likes to visit. Also they have recreated a slip, I think, but haven't checked. You can take a train from London-St. Pancras to Chatham and from the station there runs a bus past the Dockyard. Otherwise it is about a 30 mins walk, but you may want to preserve your legs for the dockyard itself Make sure to get out at the second stop, in front of the large car-park, and not at the old Main Gate, because the ticket-office is there. Entrance fees are quite high, but allows you to come back any time over the next 12 months - a farce for overseas visitors. There is no photography in the 'Smithy', were the NMM models are now on display, but I gather in the age of smart-phones this is difficult to enforce. To water your mouth a bit: http://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/chatham/chatham.html There are, of course, trains running down from London to Portsmouth, but the last two times I have been there, I had the car with me, so I don't remember, how one gets from the station to the Dock.

Good places to visit and a bit of diversion for senior officers around it as well Visited SS GREAT BRITAIN in the late 1980s, Bucklers Hard in 1994 or so, I think before it really became developed as a tourist attraction, and in more recent years (re-)visited Portsmouth and Chatham a couple of times. Both are easy to access from London, even if you don't have a car.

Beware that most of these figures may be actually in the so-called 54 mm scale, which is officially 1:32. The 1:35 scale started off, I believe, as a proprietary scale in the early 1970s(?) of the company Tamiya that specialised in military models originally. If you put a 1:35 and a 1:32 scale figure next to each other the difference is usually noticeable, but it depends on the manufacturer as well.

As the size of their feet would have been approximately the same as today, the physiological-technical challenge is the same. Any hole much bigger than about half the width(!) of a foot would not be safe to walk on (even considering that the ideas of safety where somewhat different in the 17th century). Then the battens have to be strong enough to support one or more men not just resting but perhaps jumping up and down on it. So, this frames to some extend the physical possibilities. It could also be a question of the location of the grating, i.e. whether if covers a space needed for working the sails or guns or ... or whether it is in a location with normally no traffic.

Looks like the right track, but holding the 'fixed steady' with a third hand seems to be a bit shaky option. Something more solid and unmoveable may be better ...