Jump to content

druxey

NRG Member
  • Posts

    13,004
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by druxey

  1. Superb, as always, Doris. But how do you not get breakage of those fine relief details?
  2. Bragging rights here: I own a now very dilapidated first edition copy - dust jacket long gone - which I purchased in 1955 with a book token won in a Model Engineer math competition. I was all of ten years old at the time! I read it cover to cover many times over. It's still a great classic.
  3. Well solved, Gerald! Victorian engineering was impressive; the railway engines and items such as Babbage's test portion of his Difference Engine. Then the Holtzapfel engraving machines as well.
  4. Very nicely done, Marsalv. They are tricky little beasts.
  5. Now, isn't that better? Looks great, Michael.
  6. Interesting arrangement, Michael. However, would the sharp turns of the laniard through the perforated plate (even though eased) lead to wear and premature failure?
  7. Very impressive detail, Javier: too bad most of it is hidden in the final model!
  8. I eagerly went to this topic, only to be disappointed. Where are the chromed exhaust pipes, Alan? Seriously, the zero clearance insert that is flush to the table is an excellent idea. Nice adaptation for a vernier gauge as well.
  9. Regardless of edition, it is unlikely the plates in Falconer would have been re-engraved. It was an expensive investment, and only if major changes had occured would a plate be altered or re-engraved. For some of those profiles, a left and a right hand tool are required. Otherwise, you'd have to refine the turnings by hand!
  10. Apparently the Caruana drawing was from an actual example of cast cannon, not the theoretical drawing. I mention that for what it's worth.
  11. What quality are you looking for? If you want a tool that performs well, you have the budget for it and one that will last, consider a Proxxon. Note that you will need their 12V transformer as well.
  12. Interesting technique, Valeriy. The result looks very nice.
  13. I agree with Michael; that is very impressive work - and at such small scale.
  14. Ouch! That was a little self-harsh, wasn't it? Every model is a learning process and none of us have reached perfection yet. Yes, there will be mistakes, but they are usually all fixable. Go for it, Tony.
  15. I thought that the mizen monkey gaff was a toothpick, simply for comparison.
  16. Redshirt: Plan sheet 1 contains profile, deck plan, sheer plan, building board plan, cross-section and various timber patterns. Plan sheet 2 contains all spar plans, standing and running rigging plans and belaying plan. Plan sheet 3 contains complete lofted frame drawings, transoms, hawse pieces and elevations of bow and stern cant framing. All drawings are presented at 1:48 scale, except the standing and running rigging and belaying plans, which are at 1:96 scale. These are pretty complete. As for quality; you be the judge! If you've seen any other SeaWatchBooks books, you will know what quality to expect.
  17. Usually smaller coastal vessels such as cutters were clinker-built. It's unlikely that a 22-gun brig was clinker built. Also, the St Petersburg model's headwork looks very un-British in style. The Mercury figure was also used on British ships such as Fly, Speedwell and others, not just ships named Mercury!
  18. Ah! The dreaded 'cumulative error' factor! It's good to be constantly aware of that possibility. The framing so far look great, Ben.
  19. Looking interesting, Dan. I hope that the tape you've used comes off easily without taking the printed surface with it!
  20. Good save of the topmast in re-orienting the sheave! 'Seizing' was perhaps the word that escaped you? Nice ropework.
×
×
  • Create New...