Jump to content

druxey

NRG Member
  • Posts

    12,517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by druxey

  1. Please, please don't use power tools when tired or distracted! I'm glad that the damage was only minor, Jason.
  2. According to Lyon, The Sailing Navy List, Licorne was initially armed with 26 12-pounders on the upper deck. These were reduced to 9-pounders on 2.11. 1778. This would imply that the forward port was used. Possibly the gun carriages here would need modification to fit a cannon.
  3. A 'small' (narrow) port forward was probably a bridle port, used for anchor handling rather than armament.
  4. I've card maquettes of Bristol Board and illustration board that are still fine after decades. They were assembled using white glue, sprayed with grey automotive primer and then painted with acrylics. I think that, as Ed points out, excluding air and direct light helps longevity.
  5. Yup, once you've spiled planking the proper way, you'll never go back to the frustration of trying to edge-bend, curve and twist a piece of wood again! Looking very good so far, Rusty.
  6. One can treenail a model subtly. It depends on the diameter of the material used and the specie. However, at any scale below 1:48 it would be very difficult to carry out subtly enough!
  7. Your question is an interesting one. Tony. I've never seen any reference to whether the lining was omitted from the hinged side of a sweep port. If the port was on a weather deck, I doubt if a lid would have been fitted. This needs further investigation, but my hunch would be that all sides of the port would have had thin linings.
  8. I wish I'd found that in my cupboard! Thanks for posting this lovely find, Alessandro.
  9. Actually, that is a very good 'teaser' for what we hope will come! Thank you for your history, both personal and that of the Museum. The web site is interesting and informative, but might I suggest proofreading the text?
  10. Lovely work, Albert! And a very nice workshop as well.
  11. What this means is that the line of the change in plank thickness is continuous, and doesn't jog up and down with the actual edge of the sheer strake. It's your 'other interpretation', Toni.
  12. Meillieurs souhaits a votre vernissage, Gaetan! (Congratulations on your exhibition, Gaetan). Looks terrific. I hope you had a good audience and turn-out to your show.
  13. I agree with Gary's assessment. Look at the rabbet as shown on the deck plan. It appears within the width of the stem, rather than at its aft edge. What is unusual is that the stem/apron joint line is shown as a dashed one on the sheer and profile. Usually joint lines are delineated as solid lines on these draughts. I think that is what threw us. I suppose it was the draftsman's way of demonstrating that the rabbet progressively moved forward of this joint as it moved up the stem.
  14. John: that's an interesting photo; the holes are on all faces, but offset from each other. As you say, later; but a nice example!
  15. Deck plans of Revenue cutters I've looked at show (where bar holes are indicated at all) that these are on every other face. If you think about it, it makes sense. Holes in every face would weaken the windlass when strain was placed against one side of the hole and there was little wood between it and the next hole. The few models where photos show the windlass: the same applies. However, it's your call, Chuck.
  16. Enjoy the movie, Dad: your optic receptors for pink and purple will probably burn out.... That is an ingenious solution to making a windlass. Well done! However, are the bar holes on all octagonal faces or should they be only on alternate ones?
  17. I'm not happy with the explanation, gentlemen. If the difference between the dashed line and inner rabbet line is the thickness of the frame - or bollard timber - one would expect the distance between those lines to increase the further down one goes, not have it taper out to nothing. This need further examination.
×
×
  • Create New...