Jump to content
Supplies of the Ship Modeler's Handbook are running out. Get your copy NOW before they are gone! Click on photo to order. ×

druxey

NRG Member
  • Posts

    13,130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by druxey

  1. Hearty congratulations on the recognition that you've received. Well done! It must be nice to have your opinions now backed by authoritative evidence.
  2. I think that 1784 is way too early for royals in the Navy, despite Lees' assertion that they were introduced 1779. I suspect close to the turn of the century would be realistic. Phoebe, 1795 (NMM SLR0585) has royals, as has Impregnable c.1800 (SLR0610). However, a frigate of 1805 (SLR0346) does not carry royals, showing that royals were not yet adopted universally.
  3. Nice to see that you are attempting an authentic square stern with both side and transom plank ends protected.
  4. Nicely presented, Paul. Thank you for sharing this!
  5. I don't have a definitive answer, but your sketch 2 seems more likely.
  6. Bulkheads and sides were most likely whitewashed below the gun deck. The deck furniture, such as bitts were red and the hatch coamings black.
  7. I suspect the real ship had wavy top timbers as well! Beautiful, nevertheless, Gaetan.
  8. I think your problem is trying to drill round stock. It's all too easy for the bit to skid off the copper wire. Might I suggest starting with square stock, drilling it, then turning it to round?
  9. A further note on gesso: treat it as a sealer and surface filler. When fully dry it may be fine sanded.
  10. Frieze background colors vary. Blue is common, but I've seen black as well as red. The painting by Marshall in 1775 of King Fisher (sic) shows quite a vivid blue! (Science Museum collection, Kensington.) Your choice, Ms. shipwright.
  11. Shellac - aka french polish - will whiten if you get a spot of water on it, won't it?
  12. There it is! The black lines are external planking and the red the internal. It's hard to sort them out at such a small size, but much easier to distinguish at 1:48 scale. This drawing was actually done in the shipyard as the ship was being built!
  13. The one in April is a one-day affair in New London, near to Mystic, run by the joint North-West Ship Model Societies. The NRG Conference is a three day(?) one in October.
  14. I think the widest marks were placed with the letters tight against each other, as the example from the NMM. These were from the wreck of the Royal George, sunk in 1782.
  15. That is great news that the Hornet planking scheme is once more available! It is truly authentic.
  16. That certainly looks much more like other cutter draughts I've seen, Christian. Just make sure that the joints in the keelson alternate with the joint in the keel (at about C and 9). They need to be as far apart from each other for strength.
  17. Welcome back, Alan! It must be good to see sawdust flying, I'm sure. Our success rate improves with experience, so don't be discouraged. Enjoy your new disc sander.
  18. That Cheerful draught is unusual: if it was drawn that way, it must have been done like that. However, I'd say that was most unusual. The strength of the joints would be compromised and more bolts would need removing to replace the forefoot or gripe piece. The attached image is rather small, but demonstrates my point. (If you click on it, it will enlarge.) Note the keel joint at around station 6, aft.
  19. Some ships' draught marks were made of sheet lead: some have been recovered from wrecks.
  20. Well, the Holman painting certainly muddies the waters! However, I think there is another clue on contemporary plans. If there is only a rail above the port opening, there is no 'meat' to fix port hooks. Therefore no lids. However, if there is at least one strake of plank above the port, then that would provide material for the hooks and hinges. Look at the Holman painting again: one strake of plank over the ports with lids. Cheerful/Surly fall into the first category. Conclusion: no port lids. I rest my case, m'lud.
×
×
  • Create New...