Jump to content

EdT

NRG Member
  • Posts

    2,209
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by EdT

  1. Hello Richard, I do believe that volume 2 is out of print, but cannot advise you how to get a copy. You might try writing to the published, Mike Ellison, (Mike@seawatchbooks.com) but I doubt there is any inventory. You might also try Amazon. I have seen a copy or two of my books show up there used. You might also, post requests on MSW. Perhaps someone may be able to sell you one. Sorry, I could not be more helpful. Ed
  2. Rick, You are testing my memory because I know longer have the model, but I am sure that one of the blog posts shows what I did. If there are hoops on the model, I am sure I had a reference basis. As far as the need or desirability of hoop on single tree masts, I would think that hoops would contribut strength and limit splitting in either case. I cannot offer advice on your model. What to do? I suggest research. I found many contemporary documents on line when reserching for YA. Reading through these can be difficult, sometimes frustrating and often inconclusive, but having done it you will be able to defend your choice with some confidence. Fincham is a good place to start. There are others. Ed
  3. I acually use a paper cutter depending on the thickness. Also, make sure to get uncoated material. Some craft sources sell coated material that does not tarnish, but also does not react to darkening. Ed
  4. When in doubt, Amazon. There's always Micromark. I got brass and copper wire, strips, plate, sheets etc from a variety of places - not one or even a few. A lot of hardware stores - like Ace - have K&S displays. The search for stuff is part of the fun. Ed
  5. Hi Randy, On the scuppers, I probably just followed Crothers. Any pictures posted here would be much appreciated. I do not know if my model is on dislay at Mystic, but if you find out, let me know. Ed
  6. Ah, thank you Randy. Much better. Looks lovely - and very familiar. Ed
  7. Randy, Thanks for the photos. I don't seem to have the software to open these. I will try to get it later. Ed
  8. I remember making the decision and definitely had a reference, but cannot recall it, specifically. Suggest you look in the Bilbliography. It should be in one of those references. It certainly would have been cheaper at that time to use copper-zinc, ie yellow brass, than copper. If you have doubts, you may have do some of your own research. If my recollection improves I will advise. Ed
  9. Randy, If you have a reasonable basis for the scuppers I would go for it. I can't recall how I decided on these. I don't know if the model is on display. Ed
  10. Hello Randy, Seems like I neglected to show these on Drawing 1. Apologies. If you look closely at drawing 5, you will find small circles representing scuppers through the waterway between frames D and E, and 16-17. The third pair are obscured on the drawing by other construction but should be located between frames 32 and 33. I no longer have the model, so I cannot double check that, but in any event, these were located fairly arbitrarily in the model design. I made these by drilling at a slight downward angle thru the waterway, then inserted small brass tubes shaped flush at both ends. I am sure we would all appreciate your sharing some photos of your model. Good luck. Ed
  11. Mr Bean, Please see Vol 1, p 46, para 4. Stopping the keel rabbet well forward of the sternpost seems to have been typical on these ships based on original drafts. The planking rests on the top of the keel (and bolts to the deadwood) aft of 28. I do not know the reason for this practice, but speculate that it was to avoid weakening the keel at the stern where the supporting deadwood was very small in cross-section. Ed
  12. Hello Mr Bean, Thank you for your interest in the model and for purchasing the books. The stem is 20" athwartship (that is breadth perpendicular to the ship centerline) at the top and tapers down to 13.5" to match the width of the keel at the bottom. The knee of the head is 13.5" at the join with the stem over its entire length. I would guess that the reason for that is that the knee of the head does not require the 20" thickness to serve its function of supporting the stem in the fore and aft direction. It also tapers to a narrower breadth going forward. At the upper end, the stem it will be wider than the knee of the head by about 3" on each side. For convenience. the frame section drawings used a common template that shows the keel widths at both midship (15") and at the ends (13.5", so the inner vertical lines on the keel represent the breadth at the ends and the outer lines the breadth at the center - on these pattern drawings. This was a drafting convenience to avoid me having to develop the actual keel width at every frame, which would have been more correct but not really useful, since the keel is not part of the frame. These lines on the frame drawings may be ignored - but do not neglect to taper the breadth of the keel from midship to the ends. Hope this helps. Thank you for posting your question here on the build log, so others may see it. Ed
  13. Thanks, Grant, for answering Randy's questions. I cannot add much more to what you have said, except to say the modeling projects of this complexity frequently involve solving problems like this one - as well as many others. While I tried very hard in writing the books to make explanations useful to modelers of all levels and thus help draw more people into this level of the craft, it has not been possible to cover every contingency or answer every question that may arise. Randy, I am sure a solution to this problem will emerge as you give it more thought. A very acceptable and simple solution is to use plain square posts, since there is no direct evidence that turned pillars were used in the actual ship. Alternatively, I am sure you could devise a homemade device on the Proxxon lathe, as I did to solve the problem on my equipment. The tool, itself, will not solve every problem. As far as advice on return/replacement of your purchases, I cannot advise on that, but I will say that while a more sophisticated tool will certainly be more capable (and more costly) , the learning curve will be greater and the need for devising solutions to problems like this will not likely be reduced. Ed
  14. Randy, the width of common planking is not specified, at least to my knowledge. I believe common available widths would have been used. possibly in the 10-14" range. Others may wish to comment on this. I have searched (briefly I admit) for a simpler vise that could be used on the mill and have purchased a couple that have not really fit the bill. My need has not been pressing enough to do more than that, so I generally live with the Sherline vise. The others I have could no doubt be adapted - more of a mounting task than anything else. The fact that I have the vise permanently mounted on the rotating base, has seemed to compound the adjusting problems, but as I say, this is all more of an annoyance than an impediment. By the way, thanks everyone for the likes and comments. Ed
  15. You can create a stop point on the Sherline Mill by setting the Z-Axis height to the end of travel on the bit in the sensitive drilling attachment. For example, raise the head using the Z-axis wheel with the drilling attachment fully extended so the tip of the bit rests on the surface to be drilled, then lower the precise depth required on the Z-axis. Sorry if I,m beginning to sound like a Sherline shareholder.
  16. Richard, I would urge you to look at the Sherline sensitive drilling attachment to make drilling with the mill easier. If this is the "jiggly" attachment you refer to, I am surprised. It is by far the most used device on my mill, allowing me to lower the drill by hand in a controlled, but still precise way. Drilling using the Z-axis wheel is not a good idea. Drilling pressure is difficult to control in this way. It puts heavy force on the drill bit that often results in breakage of small drills. The hand-controlled method is much better. If you do not have the drilling attachment, the link below shows it. https://www.sherline.com/product/1012-532-sensitive-drilling-attachment/ Ed
  17. Hi Randy, My Unimat is an ancient Unimat SL that I purchased used in 1978. It is not the item now offered by Micromark. I cannot comment on that product. I have a Sherline mill and can recommend it highly. Whatever tools you buy will require additional accessories to do most things. They can be expensive. If I recall correctly, the most complex milling job in the book was making the pump wheels with their 5 s-curved spokes. This required a rotary table, specific milling cutters, and of course, tools for measuring and centering of the rotary table. For these pieces I would refer you to the detailed descriptions in the book. This is a pretty complex bit of work and you may wish to forgo that complexity and the accessory cost and go with something simpler in design. Recognizing that not many of us are machinists (me included), I tried to provide very complete instructions on machining tasks. I would recommend reading those and deciding what you wish to tackle. This goes for most of the tasks where the machine tools were used. Combination tools offer advantages and have some disadvantages. Cost and perhaps space requirements are obvious advantages, but most of these tools have a small footprint on the workbench. Cost benefits include initial machine costs plus savings on any accessories that can be used in different ways on the same machine. The primary disadvantage is setup time. For many years I used the Unimat as a lathe, a mill, a circular saw, grinder and drill press. I gradually tired of the setup time required for the changeouts, sometimes multiple changes for a single piece, and eventually added single purpose tools, first a circular saw, then the Sherline mill. The Sherline mill is a very versatile tool for tasks ranging from simple drilling to complex precision tasks. In reading the books I am sure you noted that the range of uses is wide. I find that the most useful Sherline mill accessory is the sensitive drilling attachment. A rotating base for the milling vise is a useful everyday substitute for the expensive rotary table. The list of Sherline accessories is long and bank account threatening. The only gripe I have with Sherline is that the milling vise often makes me want to scream out loud. I understand its design as a rigid platform for machining, but I often wish they had a simple screw vise to use for ordinary tasks like drilling and even some light machining. I have been unsuccessful in finding something like this on the market. Tool companies seem to avoid making accessories usable on other brands. At the end of the day, you will need to evaluate your needs, your tolerance for the learning curve involved in the use of tools like this and the price tag of the initial tool and the accessories that will be needed. You may find the chapter (YA Vol I) on tools and which ones to purchase first to be helpful, if you have not yet read it. Its all part of the work process, Good luck. Ed
  18. Hi Randy, The first recommendation is to keep out debris as much as possible to begin with. Of course this is more of a nice goal rather that a practical solution. I have used a shop vac from outside the hull to suck or blow stuff out, but also used compressed air spray cans with long tubes. These are pretty effective at removing dust and getting into tight spaces. The open framing at the bottom is, of course, a big help when blowing out dust. Ed
×
×
  • Create New...