Jump to content

druxey

NRG Member
  • Posts

    12,517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by druxey

  1. Do check out the planking primer by D. Antscherl on this site. Following it should solve all your problems.
  2. It can be done without a lathe at all, just like the full-sized spars are shaped. There are numerous references online you can check out, whee the spar is made four-sided, then octagonal and finally rounded. (The last step can be done in the workshop with a strip of sandpaper.)
  3. Mockup looks great, Ben. Just be sure to slope the 'verticals' of the lettering to match the angles of the counter timbers as well. A subtle but nice refinement!
  4. I would not necessarily rely on build logs here; many models are painted to 'captain's fancy'. Go to sites like https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects#!cbrowse to see contemporary models and paintings of the time period; these will give you a more accurate picture of what ships actually looked like.
  5. Welcome aboard, fellow Ontarian! Must be full-on winter up your way....
  6. Nicely done, Ben. And Greg has a good point - it has happened to me as well!
  7. In the past, at 1:48, I've put together several pieces to form those compound curves. The rail also curves in plan view AND is sloped as seen from the side!)
  8. You assume a distance of the stern post overhang using an estimated overall 85' 0", or a measured 6' 9". The ratio of 6' 9" to 18' 0" is very close to 1:2.5 which is what I suspect Baker used in his construction. That angle produced by that ratio is 22 degrees. See how that fits, Waldemar.
  9. You may find that the angle 20.5 degrees is actually a slope with a ratio of x inches in y inches (or feet).
  10. Nice wiggly tafferel rail, but the number of cross-grain sections will be difficult to work with....
  11. Belated happy anniversary and birthday, Alan! A for (repeated) effort! Hopefully all goes well this time around.
  12. It appears that the fairing over the sixth bulkhead from the bow needs further beveling. There should not be an angle to the garboard in the area where you have cut it. Check it out.
  13. Thanks, Waldemar. I did understand that the limber channel drawings were representative, based on findings. Also I appreciate the clarification on the figures written on the cross section. Is the difference between the number and actual radius perhaps due to distortion over time?
  14. I've never seen a larger, clearer version of the plan that you are overlaying on, Waldemar. That figure written on the plan; does it read 5.2634? If so, what does this signify? I've been pondering your illustration of deadrise/limber channels. It begs the question as to when (in naval ships) the channels were moved to run above the floor timbers. The variants you show are fascinating, especially version E that runs centrally above the keel.
  15. I note some other near ratios on your latest iteration, Waldemar! Might they be exact, but for distortion over time and reproduction, I wonder? That 11.5 is sooo close to 12, for instance, as is 24.3 close to twice 12!
×
×
  • Create New...