Jump to content

druxey

NRG Member
  • Posts

    12,671
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by druxey

  1. A very neat solution, David! Well done and a happy Canadian Hanksgiving to you also.
  2. Well, hearty congratulations at the end of a long trail, Chuck. This is a lovely prototype of your kit. Hopefully it will spark more interest in the 18th century aesthetic that these ships represent and inspire other model makers. Well done indeed.
  3. Well, I can see why you might not be entirely satisfied - if that boat was at 1:48 scale. But at the small scale you are working at, it is quite remarkable!
  4. Now you've finished its replacement, the lost yard is sure to resurface.... Sorry to read of your frustrating experience. Hopefully smooth sailing from here on.
  5. An interesting post - in more ways than one. It seems that you've had many vicissitudes and am glad you are past them now. Hopefully the family stays healthy now! Glad you are back to the model: it can be a healing activity.
  6. I understand that layers of paint, etc, will change the appearance, but the folds of drapery around her left leg look very different. If the original figure, there must have been repairs carried out, not just overpainting.
  7. Is this actually the original figure reworked? There are other differences, such as the gap between the left wrist and breast and very different folds in the cloak and dress.
  8. The application all depends on the proportions of the c-c curve. They are related to the principal dimensions of the hull. Once the appropriate c-c curve is made, it will apply all the way along the hull below the (single) conoid. In my opinion, the solution is simpler and more elegant than Sutherland's. And that's all I have to add to this conversation. Yes, Wayne, that's Dr. Wallis' contribution via the Royal Society.
  9. Very nicely done. SHJ. Congrats on completing the model. Your comments on 'rigging' the oars is interesting as well.
  10. Did you line out the run of planking before you started? That could also be a factor in the planks not lying nicely on the frames or bulkheads.
  11. You find the most interesting items, Bruce! Dudman was in operation until 1812, so this piece must ante-date that. From the handwriting style, I would guess the date of this to be around 1790 to 1810.
  12. Yes, those David White articles in Model Shipwright were excellent. I don't know why they were never completed.
  13. No, I think you misunderstood my statement: the joint lines run along junctions of the different arcs. There is no period work (that has yet been uncovered) describing the application of the cono-cuneus curve in the lower part of the hull. Pett was recorded as going to write about this, but he died before he could reveal his 'shipwright's secrets'. These were recently rediscovered by reverse engineering from the 3D scans of a contemporary model.
  14. No, conoidal hulls were not a novelty by 1600, but in the 1660's the cono-cuneus curve used to develop the lower hull below the conoid was. And, I can assure you, I used the Newton ms to develop the draught that I posted.
  15. Yes, Waldemar, The draught for a 180 ton merchant vessel was first constructed at 1:96 using the 'Propositions'. You can see the first iteration of the draught. This was based on a 60' 0" keel to the touch, 27' 0" breadth and 10' 6" depth of hold. The model was built at 1:48. The midships floor has no deadrise, but is flat. Changes in radii were later adjusted to occur at the joint lines.
×
×
  • Create New...