Bob Cleek

14 hours ago, Mark P said:

To advocate that Naval ship construction was carried out in any way otherwise, without use of a properly-drawn body plan or frame templates, can only be based on an (admitted) lack of knowledge. 

Who? Me?  I certainly did not intend to convey the impression that large ships of the relevant era, naval or otherwise, were build with steam-bent frames on battens and molds! My point was that heat-bent frames on battens and molds could be used in a model of a large ship if one wanted to avoid extensive lofting to achieve an unplanked, frames showing, "Admiralty style" model.

Close examination of Admiralty Board models seems to indicate that few have built-up sawn frames as some of today's master modelers have depicted in attempting to construct ever more accurate interpretations of the original vessels. (With the exception of Victory, which is extant, and those few which may have had lines and construction details recorded, a truly accurate portrayal of actual constructions details is impossible.) I would suspect the frames on many, if not most, Navy Board models may well have been heat-bent as I described. To get the curves required sawn out of a single piece of wood would result in grain run-out resulting in fatal structural weakness. None of those pictured below, collected from a casual internet search, appear to have sistered frames or separate futtocks, the frames all appearing to be single pieces of wood.

Mordaunt, Royal Museums, Greenwich 

Below: Bonaventure (ff. 1683) National Maritime Museum

Ship of 44 guns - unknown- Royal Museums Greenwich:

Navy Board model, Boston Museum of Fine Arts

On ‎4‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 4:28 PM, druxey said:

The older set is the lower one, judging by its style. The upper set, being complete, is the nicer.

 

With light surface corrosion of the steel, try a little penetrating oil on a Q-tip first. If that fails to move it, light buffing using Scotch-Brite radial bristle discs in a rotary tool at slow speed will work. I'd start with 400-grit and move into finer grades from there.

The Dietzgen set is their "second quality," their "Gem Union" line being their best. It is a very good professional set nonetheless. (As a Bentley is to a Rolls Royce!) The Reifler set is indeed older. The white handles (if they are white, and not just reflected light from the metal) are quite likely real ivory. The black ruling pen handles are almost certainly ebony. Riefler was a top end German manufacturer, still in business today. Most all quality drafting instruments sold by the US instrument companies were manufactured in Germany or Switzerland by a small number of companies and labeled by the US firms. Riefler was one of those manufacturers which also sold instruments under their own label. (Given the near-monopoly of instrument production by the Germans, there were extreme shortages of defense-essential drafting and navigational instruments during both World Wars. Keuffel and Esser brought out their own line during that time, called "Minusa," a contraction of "Made in USA." Dietzen had a similar US made line.)

Reifler was particularly famous for the innovation of instruments with rounded edges and round "legs," which were preferred by some as being more ergonomic than the sharp-edged square-bodied style instruments,  (See: http://www.mathsinstruments.me.uk/page47.html )Your two sets provide examples of both styles.

While divider points alone are sometimes steel, these instruments are generally made of "German silver," sometimes called "nickel silver," an alloy that was not silver at all, but rather an alloy of copper, nickel and zinc. It is favored for its rigidity and resistance to tarnishing. There are specific protocols for cleaning it. The least complicated is washing in dishwashing liquid and water. From there, electrolytic processes are used, such as laying the piece on tinfoil in salty water. Google is your friend here.  I'd be gentle with instruments. You don't want to ruin the fit and finish with rough abrasives.

12 hours ago, Mark P said:

The number of frames/ribs in an Admiralty Board Model is equal to the number of station lines used to set out the ship's body. Each station line represents the fore face of the frames heading aft, and the aft face of the frames heading forwards. Note, however, that draughts normally show only every third station line.

I can't dispute your assertion about frame placement with respect to Admiralty Board Models offhand, as I don't know enough about them.  However, certainly in full-size construction, in later times, at least, there was necessarily no exact correlation between station lines and frame placement. The practice when drawing lines (and/or taking up offsets) was to divide the length between the extreme perpendiculars (bow and stern) into ten or sometimes twelve equal parts and the station lines were drawn to show the shape at each station, without any relationship to the frame placement, other than that the center frame was generally placed on the middle station line. The "frame and space," also described as the dimension of each frame and the space "between centers," that being the midline of the frame width (eg. 4" on 17" centers) will also vary, depending on the design. Some vessels carry frames of greater scantling ("molded" and/or "sided" dimensions) in areas where greater strength was desired, such as at the "chains," where shrouds are attached. That may involve simply greater scantlings, or closer spacing, or both. Also the frames which are not set on the keel, at the ends, are often spaced differently from the midships frames set on top of the keel. At the bow, especially, cant frames (which are not perpendicular to the vessel's centerline, but fan out to form the curve of the bow) end up evenly spaced as to themselves, but don't follow the "frame and space" or "on centers" designations anywhere along their length except at the sheer, or thereabouts.

It is not necessary, however, to build an unplanked "plank on frame" model, what we might call "the Admiralty Board Style" by laying up futtocks as in full-scale practice. Ed Tosti's current log on Young America is a tour 'd force of craftsmanship, depicting the actual construction techniques generally used on the wooden-framed American clipper ships, if not the prototype's actual construction itself, since I don't believe pre- or post-construction draughts were ever made of that vessel. (I believe Ed is relying on Crother's excellent book on the subject for his construction details, but I could be mistaken.) The same can be said for the Admiralty Board models, the actual vessels having been thereafter actually built at the master shipwright's discretion, at least as to "getting out" the timbers from the stock on hand in the yard at the time. The same "open frame" effect can be accomplished on models of full-sized ships by heat-bending the model frames, instead of getting out futtocks and making "built" frames.

I'd agree that sawn frames are set up on "frame lines" with the forward side on the frame line aft of the center station line and the aft side of the frame on the frame line forward of the center station line, but only when the rolling frame bevels are not lofted and cut prior to the frame being erected. If the bevels are accurately lofted and cut, there is no need to set up the frames to leave wood to be removed in fairing the bevels after the frame's erection.

If one wishes to build an "Admiralty Style" model showing frames and keel structure, all they need to define the shape of the hull is the keel, stem, and sternpost lines, the stern station lines, the middle station lines, and one or two station lines between the middle station line and the stern and between the middle station line and the stem. From these shapes, often readily available in plans as the station lines, molds or bulkheads can be cut and mounted on the keel. Battens are then sprung on the edges of these molds. Frames are then heated and bent and temporarily fastened inboard of the battens. Planking then proceeds, with battens removed as the planking progresses, and you got it done with little or no "lofting" at all. (Harold Underhill describes this technique in detail in his books on hull construction.)

Interesting point. And if you buy through Amazon Prime, you get free shipping. That pretty much prices out all the competition and everybody who doesn't sell through Amazon. I suppose it's time to start looking at Amazon a bit differently. Can you say, "anti-trust?"

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 5:02 AM, Chuck said:

Greg, I would love try a varnish but never did it before.  I would need to experiment.  I dont even know what a good brand would be for that to start with...but I will see.

I strongly suspect that the British Admiralty dockyard models were shellacked, not varnished. Shellac will outlast varnish by orders of magnitude. "Orange" shellac (natural colored,) will darken, and its gloss increase, with each successive coat. It's easily thinned with denatured alcohol. It's also easily removed with denatured alcohol. The darkening and gloss rate of increase will depend on how thick it is. This is referred to as the "cut," expressed in pounds, e.g. "two pound cut," which would be two pounds of shellac flakes to a gallon of alcohol. Most prepared canned shellac ("Bullseye" is a good brand found nearly everywhere) is sold in "two pound cut." Thinning it 50-50 yields "one pound cut," and so on. Multiple thinned coats are the best approach. Applied to thickly will fill in detail, as might paint.  It dries quickly, about as fast as the alcohol evaporates. Shellac on ship models has lasted for somewhere around 5,500 years, so far, if models found in the Egyptian tombs are any indication.

Some top end woodworking catalogs sell shellac in "flake" form, which is the crushed excretions of the female lac bug. You have to add your own alcohol. Mixed shellac supposedly has a "shelf life," and hence the sale of the crushed flakes alone. I've never had any problem with the premixed canned shellac going bad on the shelf over a period of years, though. Other's mileage may vary, but I've never found the higher price, shipping cost, and hassle of ordering flakes by mail and mixing my own worth the trouble and I've used a lot of it over the years. It's a stock item in my paint locker.

Varnish is more difficult to work with, primarily because of extended drying time and the need to resort to chemical strippers, heat guns, or scrapers and sandpaper to remove "goofs." Thinned shellac has the consistency of water and will penetrate bare wood easily. Not so much so varnish. If too much shellac is applied, it won't have brush strokes, runs, and sags ("curtains" in the trade). it tends to soak into the wood and dries quickly. Too much varnish and you end up with brush strokes, runs and sags, much like enamel paint. This is less of a problem with thinned varnish for "model scales," but varnish is finicky. Sometimes the gloss is dulled when it's thinned too much, especially if mineral spirits are mistakenly used instead of pure spirits of gum turpentine, and other times, it can refuse to dry and remains sticky. A capful of Flood's "Penetrol" in a quart of varnish will improve its ability to "lay down" and a teaspoon of Japan drier will improve drying ability. Like oil paint, varnish does require something of a "learning curve" to master the art of conditioning it as required to get a perfect "Steinway piano" finish. (Steinways are actually French polished, I believe... with shellac!) Most quality marine varnishes are adequate, Z-Spar brand "Captain's" varnish is a good one, as is the European and pricier Epiphanes brand (which requires the use of their proprietary thinner.)

17 hours ago, tkay11 said:

It might be construed as a dangerous weapon.

Yes, it seems they ban carrying onto a plane anything a creative mind can possibly imagine could be used as a deadly weapon. For some strange reason, though, since those restrictions went into effect, I've never had any problem at all boarding a flight with my Dearly Beloved . If they only knew!

I certainly wouldn't advise "smuggling," or anything illegal, but I wonder if a passenger flying in brought a Byrnes saw over as his "carry-on" or passenger luggage on a trip they were taking anyway, could one get around the exorbitant shipping expenses? People are always shipping cars, too. You could get a lot of Byrnes Model Machines inside a car that was being shipped as container cargo. Somebody could develop a profitable little sideline importing them.

I recall somewhere somebody mentioning a Byrnes saw with an extended table. I'm not sure if the extended table was a one-off "Jim Special," he did for somebody, or not. NO extended table is available as an option at present., AFAIK.

43 minutes ago, CDR_Ret said:

It would seem that seaworthiness certifications and insurance companies would have something to say about such an act.

 

You betcha!

"Raising the load line," is simply "overloading the ship" and painting a new load line that hides the fact. There are no free lunches at sea. Overloading a ship places excess stress on the entire hull structure. Something's always got to give.

:

Everybody picks their own poison. I prefer Interlux "surfacing compound," also called "glazing compound." Interlux is a brand of quality marine paint. This is a material with the consistency of thin, creamy peanut butter that is thinned with acetone. The acetone evaporates quickly, leaving a plaster-like hardened material which sands "like butter." It can also be worked, as with dried plaster.  It is not highly porus, like drywall paste, so it can be painted without problem. Tools clean up with acetone easily. A pint can lasts forever when modeling.  A tablespoon of acetone added to the can and left to sit overnight will return it to its consistence if it thickens some. (Do not leave the top off the can while working with it. That will cause surface drying in the can.)

For large fairing jobs, I also find epoxy resin thinned with microballoons or fairing additive works very well, although curing takes longer than fairing compound. My go-to epoxy flavor is WEST Systems products.

I'm not a fan of mixing sawdust into epoxy or PVA. Some are.  I've found PVA is "rubbery" and sands poorly, gumming up abrasive sheets.  Your mileage may differ.

Well, the blade can bite you once it passes through the cut in any event!

I don't see any reason not to, other than the possibility of a minor difference ruining the cut. I've done it often on full-size table saws where the piece was too large to cut in one pass, or to reduce the resistance in thicker pieces.

Keeping the blade just a bit higher than the piece is thick is proper and in that instance, there's very little of the blade exposed, during the cut, at least. Always, always use push sticks and, where necessary, featherboards.  Never, ever, reach over the blade for any reason. Keep your hands behind where the blade is exposed.  Always use a sled or miter gauge when making cross-cuts. Always use an outfeed table if the piece needs support to prevent it from dropping over the back edge of the saw table. Never stand in line with the blade. Sometimes that takes a bit of extra time to set up and can be a bit like patting your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, but it's the easiest way to keep all your fingers.

6 hours ago, Charter33 said:

To achieve a good finish can take up to 40 coats of french polish, but the biggest difference between shellac polish and other varnishes is the way each layer dissolves into the previously applied layers rather than lying on top.

That and the fact that you'll want to kill any person who spills an alcoholic drink on it!  

Pumice and rottenstone powder is readily available in paint and hardware stores in the US, at least. (Or used to be. We never know when a tried and true traditional product will be outlawed for some environmental safety reason!) It's not expensive. It really does produce a wonderful finish. It's best applied with some sort of vibrating pad, if one's available. Doing it by hand, while very effective, is a lot of work on a less than perfectly coated surface, as it removes material very slowly because it is so fine.

18 hours ago, David Lester said:

Not sure if this lengthy epistle helps or hinders!

It' helps! Thanks for taking the time to explain it. It was as I thought. They probably used what they had whenever a block was replaced.

5 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Yes Bob...Briefly, back on post #403. 

Thanks for the reference! Open boats are always such a challenge in smaller scales. They are a detail that often first catches the viewer's eye and so require a lot of care and attention.

Have you got a URL for their website?

Do you know whether the internally stropped blocks were original to the Morgan or were added later in her long career. I've got an old Marin Models Morgan kit that I've been thinking of building one of these days. It's plans are from the 1930's and show her as she was launched carrying a ship rig. I suspect that her 1840 rigging was renewed over time with newer blocks, but I'm not sure when internally stropped and externally iron-stropped blocks came into common usage. I suppose there may be some information somewhere on her original rigging, but I thought I'd ask since you've been doing such a great job on her.

I missed those two boats in the davits port and starboard until now. Beautiful details! Did you cover building them in this log?

Interesting exercise!

However, you will probably find that your topmasts and topsails, as well as additional headsails, are going to overpower the sailing model and, with the additional weight aloft, cause her to be very "tender." In other words, a gust of wind would cause her to turn turtle. It's a matter of balance. In light air, it's not so much of a problem, but the "weight" of the air doesn't scale down proportionately. (This is why you have that long fin ballast keel on her.) You will require greater ballast, most likely. Keep in mind that you are adding a lot of sail area up high and that is going to significantly increase the overall center of effort of the entire sail plan. The higher the center of effort, the greater the leverage of the masts and the more the vessel is going to heel in the wind. It's really a lot more complicated exercise than just adding some topmasts to an existing rig. Everything has to be balanced. If you change one thing, there's usually three others that have to be changed to keep it all in balance.

As for tacking the topsails, in a simple rig, there are two topsail sheets. They pass over the gaff boom and whatever other top hamper is necessary, with the leeward sheet run down to belay at the foot of the mast, while the windward sheet is loose running over the top hamper. When tacking, the leeward sheet is cast free and the windward sheet is hauled down, pulling the tack of the topsail over the top hamper. The top hamper, primarily the gaff boom topping lift rigging, has to be simplified to accommodate this. If there are triatic stays between the mast tops, then a similar arrangement of lines have to be rigged so that the topsail clew can be brailed during the tack and hauled out again to the leeward side of the top mast stays.

It's complicated! That's why you don't see a lot of RC sailboat models with complicated rigs.

3 hours ago, mtaylor said:

For those not on Facebook... there's this site:  https://www.animatedknots.com/

Thanks! I edited my post to include the URL you provided. I spent way too much time trying to find the non-Facebook URL, with no success.

For those not on Facebook... don't bother!   It's a huge waste of time, unless you want to be kept apprised of what some kid you went to grammar school with cooked for dinner last night. (It's also somewhat useful for occasionally looking up old girlfriends and feeling a whole lot better about "the one that got away" that you ever imagined!  )

3 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

Anyhow, it was not possible to judge how much material to use and the stuff expanded beyond expectations resulting in a mess.

That's an understatement. I've seen more than one full-sized boat's plywood skin and internal parts blown apart by somebody trying to fill an enclosed bow or stern flotation chamber with that stuff. It's like one of those 1950's science fiction "B" movies: The Killer Foam From Hell. It just keeps spreading and spreading until it's done and there's very little way to predict when it's going to stop. It produces a lot of force if it's contained in any way.

I came across this interesting video today. It shows the many knots useful in tying fishing rigs. Many were familiar to me and I expect would be to others, but it occurred to me that many of them are also useful for tying model rigging as well. The knots are designed for using slippery plastic fishing line, but can be tied with any sort of thread or line. Many of the knots yield a "served" appearance with the fall wraped around the standing part. Particularly in smaller scales, some of these knots will appear as a respectable representation of a served eye splice. I thought they might be of interest to some.

 https://www.animatedknots.com/

On ‎3‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 5:05 AM, Chuck said:

In fact, all of my pre spiled planks for the longboat were done without a computer at all.  I used the method described in my build log for it.  They were spiled the old fashioned way.  Then it was scanned and traced into a vector program. Then i tweaked each one as described above.

Whew! That was welcome news and not at all surprising. I'm only theoretically conversant with CAD. I know how it works and what it's limitations are, but I don't use it for a variety of reasons, not least of which are exactly the reasons Chuck mentions. I do my drafting "on the board" and I hang plank "on the boat" as in full-size practice. For my purposes, (okay, at my age...) I find that faster (and less expensive) than buying the really good software necessary and taking the classes to learn how to use it. (As chance has it, Autodesk's world headquarters are just down the road from my office.)

On ‎3‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 2:29 PM, wefalck said:

On the other hand, I tend to buy 'professional' stuff from workshop clearance sales on ebay - needs patience, but when the opportunity arises, I stock up.

Excellent suggestion! I always keep an eye out for what some of us here in the US call "old 'arn." Tools were simply much better made before about 1950. This is especially so with metalworking tools and woodworking hand tools. The iron in them was higher quality and the tolerances seem to be better. There were "second grade" tools back then, too, but they haven't lasted. If I see an old tool that I expect I'll find useful at a garage sale or an online auction site that is reasonably priced, I grab it.

10 hours ago, stm said:

American Linden (basswood) would be a better alternative to use when painting. Keeping in mind not to sand the planking down to fine so as not to prevent the individual planks from being seen.

I would question whether in most smaller scales (1:24 and below) carvel plank seams should be visible at all. In most all instances, they certainly would not be visible at scale viewing distances on a prototype. There seems to be a determined fetish of showing exaggerated plank seams these days (and its corollary, "riveted" copper sheathing,) even when they are wildly out of scale. Perhaps after modelers go to the trouble of hanging plank to form a hull. they feel the need to make it clear that they did. I dunno, but it doesn't make sense to me.