Jump to content

druxey

NRG Member
  • Posts

    12,403
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by druxey

  1. Nice progress, Mark. One can always 'cheat' a little by scribing the diagonal seam rather than dubbing down the thicker strake flush to the thinner one.
  2. The rule seems to have been that if the plank above or below a port was cut into by more than half its width, the plank adjacent was widened to form the port edge. Of course, the run of the wale's edge would be preserved by differential thinning as required.
  3. Larger ships with lots of open rails and timberheads would not require belaying pins, as your photos demonstrate. As rails were closed in and timberheads reduced, then more pins and pin racks were introduced.
  4. Well put, Mark. I agree that the journey is both interesting and fascinating, as well as the challenge of acquiring knowledge and new skills. For me, the problem solving aspect is also very rewarding. Footnote: my first serious and large project, a 64, took 30 years start to finish, unrigged. Glad I started young!
  5. Alan: If you are looking at model hulls, you may not see belaying pins. For instance, the contemporary rigged model of Speedwell, 1752 has pin racks - but they are lashed across the lower shrouds and would be absent on a 'hull only' model.
  6. Look at photos of the beakhead of Vasa, 1630 and you will see pins there as well.
  7. No cant frames were used in English shipbuilding in the 1630's, Ed. Modern 'replicas' are usually not exactly that; usually headroom is increased, modern nav equipment, flushing heads, small auxiliary diesel engines and a prop fitted, etc. Also modern safety regulations apply! One silly example recently was Bluenose II. She was being restored (the ship is a replica of the original Bluenose) and re-fitted. Current regulations insisted on a steel rudder so, at great expense, one was made and fitted. She proved unmanageable due to the weight so the wooden rudder had to reinstalled.
  8. Depends on the country of build. Very early 1700's for English shipbuilding.
  9. I found a piece of brass tube whose outside diameter fitted the dust port (I had to flare the end out slightly for a tight fit) and the other end fits the hose of my shop vacuum. Works well.
  10. Brilliant, Gary! That hose is draped so naturally and your weathering is first rate, as usual.
  11. So, Rob; in short, you've been a slacker this summer. At least you've admitted it. Seriously, the renovation looks great. Do you have a 'before' photo?
  12. I'll ask them, the next time I see them ;). Perhaps while this stylized framing method demonstrated the run of the joint lines, it saved time and materials in constructing the model.
  13. But why would contemporary model-makers bother to show complex joints there if a simple scarph was actually used? I'd put my money on a boxing joint, Allan!
  14. Franklin, Navy Board Ship Models, 1650-1750, shows boxing joints on a 4th rate of 1690 (figure 13, page 15), Bredah, 1692 (page 16) and a medley of boxing joint variations on page 18. Definitely a boxing joint is a reasonable assumption!
  15. My first serious power tool was a scroll saw (DeWalt) nearly 20 years ago. It was an expensive purchase, but one I've never regretted. As for cleanness of cut, it depends on the thickness of stock and fineness of blade. Rule of thumb? at least three teeth in the thickness of the stock being cut at any moment.
  16. You might want to look at planking techniques articles on MSW that are 'pinned': look in the section https://modelshipworld.com/forum/14-building-framing-planking-and-plating-a-ships-hull-and-deck/
×
×
  • Create New...