Jump to content

druxey

NRG Member
  • Posts

    12,375
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by druxey

  1. The drawing provided by Heinrich (post #854) is interesting in that the two mermen seem to be transposed from those in the image above it. Check the poses of their arms. Your theory of the re-purposed 'dark' carvings seems a reasonable one.
  2. The gaff was loose footed at that period (no driver boom), so the only control lines were the vangs - no redundancy. One needs one each side to move the gaff to port or starboard.
  3. Two earlier sources are Steel, Rigging and Seamanship, 1794, Volume I, p. 207 ("Brace-pendents are stopt to the yard four feet within the cleats at the yard-arm") and Lever, A Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor, 1808, 1853, p.37, figure 242 ("As the Braces lead across (see page 49) the Bight of the Pendent close to the Block, is seized down to the Yard at (d), by which means they lead much clearer. Instead of the Pendent, some have an iron Strap around the Yard with a Block at (g).")
  4. I. too, was surprised at the fact six years have passed by since you began, Ed. Amazing and spectacular work! As a footnote, mizen yard braces were taken inboard on the yard to clear other lines on 18th century ship-rigged vessels, so this was well established practice.
  5. Silly question, perhaps, but would the spur be sheathed on top to fire-proof it, in case the Greek fire dripped down on it? It would be ironic to set your own vessel alight.
  6. Oh, my! It seems (and this may be total heresy) easier to start a scratch built hull than wrestle the plastic kit to the ground! My sympathy at your dilemma, HH.
  7. Nice going, Dan. The cargo boom with the dot distinguishes it beautifully, until you wonder, "Did I mark it on the port one, or the starboard...?" I personally prefer 'S' or 'P'!
  8. But you have to admit, a dual set of models would be novel and intriguing. Besides, in the 'finished' version you could omit a ton of internal detail that shows so nicely in the 'wreck' version. Just sayin'.
  9. That tafferel with its compound changing angled upper and lower surfaces is a real challenge. You've accomplished this superbly!
  10. The largest results look massively oversparred! I suspect about half-way between the two extremes the truth may lie.
  11. I'm now a little confused. The 'normal' way mast length is measured is inclusive of the head. The length of head is then marked, down from the top of the mast. However, the table you show states that the measurement is 'heel to hounds', so you need to add the length of the head to that. Not knowing the extreme breadth you are working from, I can't say whether you arriving correctly at 86' 0" or 78' 6"!
  12. Usually the mast length is specified as overall length. This is from step above the keel to the top of the tenon for its cap. The hounds, however, are at point 'C' on your example. Re-drawn plans (as above) or reconstructed plans can be misleading, though.
  13. Huge differences! Let's take some of them: Price: boxwood is far more expensive. Hardness: basswood is soft and tends to be fuzzy when carved, boxwood is hard and takes crisp and tiny details Color: Basswood is pale in color, boxwood is a warm yellow. Note: In the U.K. limewood is more easily found. While similar to basswood, it is a little harder and carves far better.
×
×
  • Create New...