Jump to content

druxey

NRG Member
  • Posts

    12,935
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by druxey

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Yes, this kind of hull needs a lot of 'prep' before painting. Coming along nicely.
  4. Yes, those David White articles in Model Shipwright were excellent. I don't know why they were never completed.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. A nice idea of presentation! Hope it turns out the way you visualize it, Ron.
  9. Here are photos of a merchantman's hull, as derived by graphic methods, from the Newton manuscript. Comments?
  10. "...seems easy enough." Just wait a bit before you make such a rash statement, Alan! The other counter timbers have to converge just so, or the stern lights won't come out nice and evenly. But, so far, so good!
  11. Usually a number of them hold a flexible curve or batten in place on the drawing board. Sometimes they were referred to as 'whales', I believe.
  12. If the joints are close, even with different melting point solder, the ochre technique is insurance! And yes, it is regular yellow ochre powder. Just mix it into a slurry with a little water and paint it over the joint to be protected.
  13. I'm glad that you enjoy sanding, Alan, 'cos there is a lot of it! Getting the side counter timbers right is tricky. I don't know how they finessed it on the full size ship.
  14. Good for you not to be satisfied with "Well, it'll do"!
  15. Check: https://minitaps.com/brands/MiniTaps.html
  16. It is a building jig, as you say. Unless from a kit, these are custom made by the model builder.
  17. Haven't seen this draught before. The sections are interesting. Thanks for this, Martes.
  18. Sideways is always good, in case one forgets to back off or wishes to keep the same setting.
  19. Respectfully, Waldemar, I'm not sure that I agree with your suggestion that ships, as built, varied in shape from the draught other than by perhaps an inch or so. If one plots out proof diagonals, they usually produce a nice smooth, faired line. Here I'm talking about British draughts, as I've not extensively studied Continental ones.
×
×
  • Create New...