Jump to content

Bob Cleek

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Recent Profile Visitors

3,696 profile views
  1. Spectacular model! Simply beautiful! Thanks for sharing it. The photography is superb!
  2. You should find that information in any good book on wooden ship and boat building. There are several well-known "scantling rules" which lay out standards for construction. I'm sure the warship modelers can tell you exactly when such particular rules were laid down by the British Admiralty and which were in effect at different times. (Called "Establishments" and designated by date, e.g. The 1706 Establishment or the 1716 Establishment, these rules set the "ratings" for the various sizes of Royal Navy ships, together with minimum standards for their construction and quality of materials, e.g. h
  3. On the other hand, if they do a lot of business supplying the professional model making companies, as I believe they do, it may be that they can't be bothered dealing with "the riff raff" and really aren't looking to be selling to the same hobbyist market segment as, say, MicroMark or ModelExpo. I believe they have a well-established customer base with outfits like those that build architectural models and things like that. It's still a mystery how they survive in this day and age.
  4. I've heard of PSME for decades. They supposedly have "the mother of all catalogs" for all things related to modeling. That said, they've got a single page website and no online catalog. Their website doesn't even mention their catalog. Like most, I expect, I've never felt like paying $12 for a mail order catalog. I can't for the life of me understand why a mail order company wouldn't at least have an online catalog in this day and age. It seems like a self-destructive business model!
  5. Actually, not exactly. This is why it is important for modelers to learn how the ships they model were rigged and how that rigging worked. Details such as belaying locations commonly varied from ship to ship and time to time on a given ship. The maxim, "Different ships, different long splices." applied. Given that, there are conventional rigging arrangements applicable to different historical periods and using these arrangements is entirely accurate if the correct period rigging is modeled. Given what may be available for HMS Discovery, I might be tempted to extrapolate from th
  6. On some designs, a motor on both sides can be useful, but isn't essential. I suggest you take a look at Syren Ship Model Company's "Rope Rocket." This elegantly designed ropewalk system is powered by any reversible electric hand drill. There are videos on their website that demonstrate the system's use. It's very well made (unlike some cheap copies) and is relatively inexpensive. If your time is worth anything at all, you'd be money ahead to buy this rope maker and not bother with trying to chase down the bits and pieces to make your own. It was designed by forum member Chuck Passaro. See: ht
  7. Correct. They are all quite different vessels. HMS Endeavour was a converted collier, a bulk cargo ship designed to carry coal. I doubt that accurate lines exist for her as she was originally a commercial vessel which was only later bought into the Royal Navy for Cook's voyage of exploration and later used as a troop transport and prison hulk. She was chosen for Cook's voyage due to her carrying capacity and was not designed as, nor built as, a fighting ship. She was scuttled when the British sought to blockade Narragansett Bay in 1778 and may possibly have been located about a year ago. https
  8. Here you go: Well, you asked for it. What's to "bash?" It sounds like you are basically contemplating building a Pride of Baltimore kit, adding a few different cannon, and sticking a Hamilton name on it. Why waste a perfectly good Pride of Baltimore kit? (Pride of Baltimore is a modernly designed Baltimore clipper style vessel. That type has no connection to the Great Lakes, as far as I know.) What may be the case is that you can build a topsail schooner that is neither the Pride of Baltimore, nor the Hamilton, nor any other historically documented vesse
  9. I ran into that phenomenon once when I mistakenly thinned a paint (brand forgotten) with acetone (like lacquer thinner) which was supposed to be thinned with alcohol. It wasn't a "blistering," which is when air or gasses expand beneath the drying paint coating. In my case, it seemed that the acetone caused the binder in the paint to "ball up" or "coagulate" when it hit the surface and when the acetone quickly evaporated and the coat "laid down," I was left with that that rough surface. In my experience, at least, was made up of solids, rather than being "bubbles" as with true blistering. Thoro
  10. Ain't that the truth! Maybe it's a generational thing, and I certainly can embrace many of the benefits of "the digitization of everything" (without which this forum wouldn't exist,) but I do think we do a disservice to the art of ship modeling by an inordinate focus on CAD and CNC machine tool applications at the expense of a sound grounding in how the vessels we seek to model were actually built in real life. I know I'm a Luddite, and old enough now that it doesn't matter, but as far as I know, nobody's yet invented a CAD program that can strike a fair curve as quickly, easily, accurately, a
  11. Then that's it! I'm not "CAD literate," but as an old time pen and ink draftsman, I'm certain that trusting your "eye" to judge fit and fairness of the build is the surest guarantee of a good outcome. I've never seen a wooden boat builder who didn't follow the maxim, "build to the boat and not to the plans." There are so many curves and variables to the parts of a vessel and opportunities for compounding errors of measurement, it's a very difficult thing to reduce them all to dimensions having the accuracy tolerances that mimic the "interchangeable parts" processes of modern mass production. I
  12. I should check my copy of Chapelle's Boatbuilding to answer my own question, I suppose, but how was the transom shape presented in the book? If the actual shape of the face of the transom was what you used as a pattern, it should have come out fitting perfectly. If, on the other hand, you used the projected shape of the transom edge from the station drawing, what would be there would have less height by just about the amount your frames were "pushing the keel up" because in the body plan it's shown as it would look at its angle of rake. This may explain the difficulties your encountered. Look
  13. To make a living selling milled dimensioned modeling wood, yes, but that's only because the consumers are hung up on three or four now-exotic (over-harvested) species that were once plentiful and commonly used. To become a self-sufficient modeler, all you really need is a good (i.e. a Byrnes) micro-table saw and perhaps a (Byrnes) thickness sander. Heavier machinery which saves much labor in reducing larger stock to modeling-sized billets can usually be begged or borrowed when that task occasionally arises. There are many great species for modeling that routinely end up in the chipper because
  14. When you do get around to handling it, expect it to get a lot of use. It's one of those "there and nowhere else" sort of reference works.
  15. After reading your post and the tasks you anticipate doing, I would say that a table saw is the tool you will use the most in those applications. This is especially true if you anticipate fabricating deck gratings, window frames, and such. However, it must be a highly accurate and sufficiently powerful mini-table saw. (It's got to be able to zip through rock-hard wood, not just balsa and basswood!) Accuracy is really critical. You'll also want a saw with a good precision cross-sawing sled. "If you take milling/planking your own timber out of the equation would a Byrnes table saw or
  • Create New...