Jump to content

druxey

NRG Member
  • Posts

    13,004
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by druxey

  1. I use 1000 and 4000. If an edge should get a nick, I might use something coarser to get the worst ground off. If you sharpen properly with a micro-bevel on the edge, all you need to do is a few strokes on the 4000 grit to get the tool back to A1 shape.
  2. Uh...sure, Jud! Usually the height of the crosspiece above the deck (plank) was in the order of 19" to 20"(mizen) 21" (main) to the underside. The height of the bitt pins above deck: 2' 11" (mizen), 3' 7" (main). Hope this is a helpful guide.
  3. Ya gotta keep them tools well sharpened, Maurys! You'll regret it when they are blunt, so you push hard and the tool slips....
  4. Unfortunately the images, as interesting as they are, do not solve the issue.
  5. My (limited) understanding is that, as the paddlewheel turns, it creates some pressure in the paddlebox. The large space provided inside the box would ameliorate this effect, as did the later fancy perforated boxes seen on side paddle steamers. Can someone confirm or correct me?
  6. Post script: The book on this model and making other open boats, both clinker and carvel, is now on the press! Look for an announcement from SeaWatchBooks soon. Thank you again everyone, for your encouragement and support on this log.
  7. If you continue to be as meticulous in your cross-measurements as you have been, all should work out well, Maurys. I find re-measurung and checking constantly the only way to avoid reaching for the isopropanol!
  8. Exquisite work, Gerald. Is the multi-arm soldering station your own creation or a commercially available unit?
  9. Drilling with a pin chuck is very time consuming - been there, done that! I hope you can mini-mechanize the process. Look forward to seeing your home-made drill for small spaces.
  10. I've just discovered your log: what fascinating 'inside-out' way to construct a model! I've never seen this done before and it looks like an excellent method. However, it would require a lot of very careful planning and extremely accurate craftsmanship. Obviously you possess both skills, Amalio.
  11. If you have more time on your hands, Chuck, why not put in the rest of the 'nails'? Seriously, that looks very nice indeed.
  12. The swivel mounts (generally) were vertical, or nearly so. The portion of hull forward above the knuckle should be vertical, so that the mount ought to automatically be positioned this way. Hope this helps.
  13. Those bluff bows make life interesting, don't they? Looks like you've mastered it, Maurys.
  14. Slow and steady wins, you know! Looking good, Dave.
  15. Lovely, Toni. However, has that top piece of moulding been knocked out of line? Should be an easy fix.
  16. Coming along a treat, Gary! That is some 'bench' you have the frame components laid out on!
  17. Welcome back, Adam! I've just come across your log. Those are pretty impressive freehand curves but, as someone else mentioned, a flexible curve may ease your job.
  18. Thanks for your thoughtful rebuttal of my argument, Mark. I agree that the shell carving over the quarter badge is less than sophisticated, but I was looking at the framework of the lights. Also, I absolutely agree that some of the deck furniture looked paint-chipped and knocked about: I mentioned the examples of windlass and capstan, but the quarter deck breastwork also falls into that category. My 'take' is that more than one hand worked on the model and one was far more skilled than the other(s). Still, unless another example of ship with chequerboard deck coverings turns up, I remain a little sceptical! Regardless, this is - to me - a fascinating thread.
  19. The latest post by Doreltomin made me go back and look at the photographs again. On more careful inspection there are too many anomalies that are making me suspicious. I've no doubt that the hull is genuine and old. Look at the condition of the paintwork and surfaces. Now look at the various rails along the topsides. Nice, unchipped and with unmarked paint. Check the quality of the quarter badge. Now compare the quality of work with that of the stern ornamentation. No comparison. Also, doesn't that chequerboard look just a little too neat and clean? Now, convince me that all that weather deck work is the same vintage as the hull. (OK, some of the deck fittings such as the capstan and windlass look 'right', but....)
  20. Looks good, Mark. What do you mean by 'the stern looks different on the drawing than it does looking into the hull'?
  21. The sailmaking article is strikingly similar to that published in TFFM, Volume IV, or the separate article from SeaWatchBooks, apart from the use of the printer.
×
×
  • Create New...