machines which I have made, am making, or intend to make, and some other stuff. If you find this site interesting, please leave a comment. I read every comment and respond to most. n.b. There is a list of my first 800 posts in my post of 17 June 2021, titled "800 Posts"
The carriage wheels are at the front of the carriage. They do not actually contact the slides unless the rear of the carriage is levered up a few millimetres, to assist with rolling the gun down to the firing position.
They are constructed of bronze.
On my model, the gap between the wheels and the slide would be about 0.3mm.
Today I attached the wheel brackets to the carriage cheeks (the sides of the carriage).
I had deliberately made them with a slightly large diameter, knowing that I would need to reduce the diameters after they had been fitted.
This is how I reduced the diameters…..
…on a belt sander, holding the oiled shaft in my fingers and using my thumbnail to hold the wheels in position. After a few seconds sanding, and being careful not to sand my fingers, I tried the wheels on the carriage, rolling it up and down the slide. That was repeated multiple times until the wheels were just clear of the metal slides.
The single axle will be replaced by more authentic appearing separate axles with dome heads and pins. The brackets will be let into rebates in the carriage cheeks, and tapered in their upper halves.
Well, that heading is bit misleading. I had no pre-existing plans. I drew plans up myself, using the original cannon to measure, scale down and get my model dimensions.
In my posts over the past 18 months you have seen plenty of pictures of the original cannons, and the models.
I decided to model the particular cannon because I liked the shape, the degree of mechanical complexity with gear trains, riveting, etc, and because of the association of the town (Port Fairy) with my son in law. Also, because Port Fairy is within driving distance, if further dimensions and details should be required, which they were.
I thought that a model would look interesting and impressive. And it could be built in 3 distinct stages. Chassis-slide, carriage, and barrel.
So, in the order in which things happened……. (this info is all in older posts, so turn off now if the repetition is boring. I am writing this post for an overseas reader who wants to know how it was all done.)
I used a digital camera and iPhone to take photos of the entire cannon and its components. Close up, and from a distance showing the relations. The straight lateral, front and rear photos were particularly useful. In total, about 200 pictures. The photos were printed A4, and catalogued. As the model building progressed I realised that I had missed some components, and 2 further photo sessions were required. That was complicated by the Covid restrictions, but managed with some delay. The best photos were in overcast weather conditions, with and without flash.
I measured as many dimensions as possible, using a builder’s tape measure. The dimensions were recorded on hand drawn sketches in a note book, and a phone app (<My Measures Pro>. Very useful). On a later trip I used digital callipers for some small details. The barrel was measured using circumferences, and calculating diameters from those.
Using AutoCAD, I drew up a simple side profile plan. In that process I realised that many more measurements were required, and repeat visits were made. Actual components were later modelled using 3D CAD and saving as STL files. The STL’s were used to make 3d prints for casting, and in some cases just to see how the part would fit into the cannon assembly.
I searched the Internet for any references to the particular cannon. In that process I discovered that the particular cannon was unusual, and it appeared that all 26 examples from the Royal Gun Factory had been sent to colonial Victoria. Identical cannons were to be found in 2 other towns close to Port Fairy, and in 2-3 locations elsewhere in the state of Victoria. The design (of the 80pr original) was very close to a smaller capacity cannon (64pr) of which examples are still located in Hong Kong, Singapore, UK and probably elsewhere. It gradually dawned on me that the differences between the 64pr and 80pr related only to the construction method of the barrel, and not its appearance. Google, Google Images, Wikipedia all had information. I even discovered some images of simple plans with dimensions of the 64pr cannon, which corresponded very closely to the dimensions which I had obtained from the Port Fairy original.
As I posted progress of the model build on this blog, various readers offered further information, some of which was very useful. I have had some very satisfying subsequent correspondence with model cannon builders. In fact, the blog correspondence has led to some very useful experts who have been of immense help. One even supplied me with a copy of the original operating instructions for the Warrnambool 80pr cannons.
Searching for books on the subject of artillery in the 19th century has produced two which were published in 1877 and 1897. These are available free of charge as downloads, and bound reprints were purchased in addition. The cost of the bound books was very reasonable ($AUD20, and $AUD50). These have been thoroughly read, thumbed, dog eared, and used. So much so, that one of them is due for replacement.
Discussion with several experts has provided further great information, and resolved some of my questions. I had been mislead by some inaccurate restorations of the cannons at Warrnambool and Portland, and my suspicions about the restored details were confirmed in those discussions. The cannons at Port Fairy have had no restoration, which has resulted in severe rusting, but at least the remains are original and genuine.
Steps 1,2 and 3 occupied me on and off for about 5 days. 4,5,6 and 7 occurred progressively over the following 12-18 months during the model construction.
Regarding the accuracy of my scale models compared with the originals, I make the following observations.
As far as possible the linear dimensions are at a scale of 1:10. That was the scale of the first cannon I modelled, and I have stuck with that 1:10 for consistency, comparison between different cannon models, and simplicity of conversion. Of course that means that surface areas are 1:100, and volumes and weights are 1:1000. I have made some compromises to enable use of standard fasteners, shafts, and bevel gears, but have kept the compromises as small as possible consistent with the visual appearance.
Materials. The original cannon was constructed of wrought iron, cast iron, bronze/brass and wood. Steel was used only for the top surface of the slide. I used mild steel for the slide, the chassis, the carriage and the barrel. I used bronze or brass where the original had bronze. The wheel assemblies were cast iron on the original. I was restricted to cast aluminium and later cast bronze, but since these components were painted, the exact metal is not detectable, and probably irrelevant. The original wooden chassis/slide was made in the UK. The later iron chassis/slide was ,made in the UK but modified in Melbourne. That is the slide which I modelled. I imagine the original wood components to have been oak, but with no certainty. Scaling wood is difficult, due to the problems of scaling the figuring. I have some European oak offcuts, but decided to use Australian jarrah, because of its fine grain and attractive reddish colour.
Colours. I could find no reference anywhere regarding original colours. The experts had no hard information about colours and neither of the books mentioned colours. Some opinions were that black was most likely, and for cooler climates that seems reasonable. But in a hot Australian summer, black iron objects can be too hot to touch. I therefore suspect that white or at least a lighter colour would have been most likely used. But, you know what? SWMBO offered the most sensible advice. She said that if the model is to be on display it has to look attractive. She recommended painting the boring bits flat black (carriage sides, recoil tube, wheel assemblies), and leave the remaining metal uncoloured. Even the copper rivets, which would have been iron in the original. And to polish the bronze and brass components. So that is what I have done.
The base. A lot of thought went into this. The original ran on circular iron tracks which were set into concrete slabs. I rejected a circular track on the grounds that the model would have been too wide for convenient storage and display. I also rejected concrete or model concrete in favour of the eventual choice. That decision, (incidentally, not “set in concrete”…. might be changed at a later stage), was for a single piece of 12mm thick gloss black cast acrylic Lexan, sandwiched to a piece of thick plywood which is painted flat black. It looks good IMO, is hard wearing, and reflects the internal components so they can be seen. The first model Armstrong which I made was set on a wooden base with oil polished top and black painted sides. That also looks quite good. (IMO).
I might add to this list if further memories surface of the various processes used in the planning stages.
Just one picture for those readers who never read the text….
2 days in the workshop, and not much to show…. just one photo.
The curved brass bar is a protractor for measuring degrees of elevation of the barrel. I used High School trigonometry to work out the distance from the pivot point at the centre of the trunnion, to the pivot centre at the fitting under the barrel.
Then cut out the shape from 2mm brass with the CNC mill. That was the easy bit. Although it did takes 3 goes to get the radius of the curve correct.
Today, although feeling depressed after the Cats loss last night, I made the cross bar with the rectangular cutout, then spent a couple of hours bolting it into place. It all works smoothly. The rectangular cutout is 2.2mm wide and 7mm long. I chain drilled with a 2mm carbide milling bit, then milled the slot sides, then filed the corners square. It is stainless steel. Slow work.
I have not worked out how to engrave the protractor marks, which are at 0.25º intervals for elevation, and whole degrees for depression. I could ask Stuart T to engrave it for me. The design and actual lasering would be straight forward, and I am sure that Stuart would help if requested. The problem would be to align the part on the laser machine, so that the engraving occurred exactly at the correct location. Actually, as I type this, I think that I have the solution. Watch this space.
I need to make a pointer next, and to determine the 0º position. The carriage sits on the chassis which is at a 4º slope. Not rocket science, or brain surgery. Just need to get it right!