Jump to content

Welcome to Model Ship World
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Triton cross section by Anguirel -1:48


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#21
Anguirel

Anguirel
  • Members
  • 26 posts
Hi,

Another day of ups and downs. I cut the flat futtocks and used the scroll saw to cut the guides for the keel and keelson slots
Attached File  IMG_3702.JPG   220.26KB   0 downloads

Then used a flat carving knife to cut the excess and prepare the pieces for the mill so I have nice squared, flat surfaces

Attached File  IMG_3703.JPG   207.98KB   0 downloads

And after the mill

Attached File  IMG_3731.JPG   147.77KB   0 downloads

Next phase was the chocks, I cut the edges for the first two of the "C" frame

Attached File  IMG_3732.JPG   187.2KB   0 downloads

But was can be seen the one on the left suffered a fatal accident. I was cutting the angled face with a x-acto blade and because I was cutting parallel to the wood grain it just cut the egde off. Basic mistake...

Attached File  IMG_3733.JPG   138.78KB   0 downloads

I still used the other edge to make the other chock

Attached File  IMG_3734.JPG   136.04KB   0 downloads

It came out better then I was expecting for the first one

Attached File  IMG_3735.JPG   154.33KB   0 downloads

Now to redo the flat futtock...

Edited by Anguirel, 30 December 2016 - 05:00 AM.

  • Pete38, mtaylor, amateur and 4 others like this

#22
Anguirel

Anguirel
  • Members
  • 26 posts
Hi,

Today was a better day. My first half frame with chocks is ready...

Attached File  IMG_3736.JPG   199.58KB   0 downloads

Tomorrow for the other half.

Thanks for all the likes.
  • davec, Pete38, mtaylor and 4 others like this

#23
GabeK

GabeK
  • Members
  • 202 posts
  • LocationWinnipeg, Canada
Hello there Anguirel,
I decided to put in chocks on frames 5 and C, which would be visible in the final model:
http://modelshipworl...k-196/?p=218064
http://modelshipworl...k-196/?p=221134
I also had the problem of not finding a formula and ended up just picking between two reference sources I had and scaling down.

Good luck in your build! Looking forward to reading more.
Clear skies,
Gabe
  • mtaylor and Canute like this

Current builds:
Harvey, Baltimore Clipper - Artesania Latina
HMS Triton Cross Section, 18th Century Frigate - online scratch build
Santa Maria, Caravel - Artesania Latina

Completed:
Swift - Artesania Latina --- Build log --- Gallery

Skeeter, Ship-in-Bottle - Ships a Sailin' kit --- Build log


#24
Anguirel

Anguirel
  • Members
  • 26 posts
Hi,

GabeK, thanks. I did see your log during my research but like.you said it's difficult to find the formula for the chocks dimensions. I did find one on the TFFM book but I'm missing one of the variables. I ended up simplifying the formula.

I cut all the frames peices, still can't control the scroll saw properly so some are closer to the line then others.

Attached File  IMG_3754.JPG   189.85KB   0 downloads

In the mean time finished the "C" double frame. The second pair has 2 chocks and 2 scarphs. With the mill the scarphs where much easier to make. Still there is a lot of fine sanding with the micro files...

Attached File  IMG_3753.JPG   211.13KB   0 downloads

Now to glue everything, sand and then treenails...
  • Pete38, mtaylor, tkay11 and 4 others like this

#25
Anguirel

Anguirel
  • Members
  • 26 posts
Hi,

One question about frame construction. The Triton's keel was layed down in 1771 and according to Peter Goodwin between 1750-1811 the 1st futtocks ended in a scarph against the keel and a cross chock as used to fasten the two and the assembly to the keel. On the plans the two 1st futtocks are actually very similar to two half floors. In this case (again according to Peter Goodwin) they would be fastened to each other and to the keel by coaks, this was the method of construction between 1811-1850. So the question is: where the plans simplified so "first times" like me could actually build the cross section and I'm over complicating or is there and alternate method of construction? I'm sure Peter Goodwin's word is not the only one and it's not final.

Thanks
  • mtaylor, tkay11, Canute and 1 other like this

#26
tkay11

tkay11
  • Members
  • 1,134 posts
  • LocationKentish Town, London, UK

There are quite a few references in the build logs that were rescued from the crash to the fact that the cross-section was designed to give beginners a feel for planking and framing. Amongst these there are a number of differences from the full build in order to make it all simpler. There are some specific statements about the changes, but I've forgotten what they are. I am sure you'll be getting specific information from others pretty shortly!

 

As for me, I've been making my cross-section even simpler by following the existing plans in the most basic way, not making the limber strakes accurately, leaving out treenails, not rounding off the top of the hatch etc., but I really admire people such as yourself who try to make this project as interesting as possible, and as perfect as possible -- I learn a lot from such builds.

 

Tony


  • mtaylor, AnobiumPunctatum, Canute and 1 other like this

===
First build: Caldercraft HM Cutter Sherbourne 1763 FINISHED

2nd and current build: Triton cross-section


#27
Anguirel

Anguirel
  • Members
  • 26 posts
Thank for the kind words Tony. It just makes me nervous knowing that there is a "righter" way to do it. Don't get me wrong I'm very appreciative of the free work that was put in making the planes and I understand the need for simplicity in this kind of projects but I feel wrong if I don't go the extra mile. So with that in mind here's my attempt at the cross chock

Attached File  IMG_3755.JPG   178.8KB   0 downloads

Attached File  IMG_3757.JPG   233.75KB   0 downloads

Only 8 to go...

Edited by Anguirel, 06 January 2017 - 03:08 PM.

  • mtaylor, tkay11, GuntherMT and 1 other like this

#28
tkay11

tkay11
  • Members
  • 1,134 posts
  • LocationKentish Town, London, UK

and very nice it is too! That must have been very satisfying to make.

 

Tony


  • mtaylor and Canute like this

===
First build: Caldercraft HM Cutter Sherbourne 1763 FINISHED

2nd and current build: Triton cross-section


#29
AnobiumPunctatum

AnobiumPunctatum
  • Members
  • 859 posts
  • LocationDuisburg, Germany

Aguriel,

 

if you build the frames original,why don't you use the original frames design? You can use the pattern of the Group Build for this, if you let a little bit timber outside of the lines. It would be very interesting to see the 3 thick frames at station 0.

 

Attached Files


  • mtaylor, tkay11 and Canute like this

Regards Christian
 

In the shipyard: HM Sloop Fly, 1776 - Scale 1/32;

On the drawing board: Naval Cutter Rattlesnake, 1777 - Scale 1/32


#30
Anguirel

Anguirel
  • Members
  • 26 posts
Hi,

Anobium what a wonderful idea... when you say 3 thick frames at station 0 are you referring to the changes in thickness as we go up? The first biggest problem about this idea is that I still can't understand everything in those kind of plans. But I will try.

As for the frame I was building I used black paper to simulate the pitch and tar that was used. This introduced a extra high to the floors, futtocks and top timbers that I was not successful at compensating and one side of one of the halfs is bigger then the other. I also had to compensate the size of the chock and scarphs. Because of this (and Anobium's idea) this frame is now garbage.
I still used this frame to do some testing and to see the final result of using the black paper

One half...
Attached File  IMG_3758.JPG   143.66KB   0 downloads

The other half...
Attached File  IMG_3759.JPG   141.85KB   0 downloads

And the inside...
Attached File  IMG_3760.JPG   169.95KB   0 downloads
Attached File  IMG_3761.JPG   184.02KB   0 downloads

Now for the treenails. I will try boxwood (same wood as frames) for the treenails and copper wires for the nails. Let's see how it looks

Edited by Anguirel, 07 January 2017 - 01:13 PM.

  • mtaylor, tkay11, AnobiumPunctatum and 4 others like this

#31
AnobiumPunctatum

AnobiumPunctatum
  • Members
  • 859 posts
  • LocationDuisburg, Germany

Your frame is looking really good. The joints a very clean. Have you used a black pecil for showing them? I would only use a light brown pencil.

 

If you don't understand the drawing, please ask. I am happy if I can help you. I hope the following information help you to understand the drawing a little bit better.

 

The drawing is a part of the originial Disposition of Frames Drawing for HMS Triton. It shows the arrangement of the frames. The small numbers and letters at the bottom indentify the station lines. The midship frame is at station 0. It is a single frame with a thickness which is not common for ships of this period. Therefore the shipbuildes have given the dimensions of the different timbers. The next frame is a double frame. From the second futtock to the top you see a double line, because there is air between the frames. To connect the frames spacers (small timber blocks) are necessary. Under the gun ports are two single frames which have the regular dimensions. Allan Yedlinskys book is a fantastic reference for finding the correct dimensions. The next frame is a double frame, also with air ventilation.

 

If you need further information, please let me know.


Edited by AnobiumPunctatum, 07 January 2017 - 05:14 PM.

  • mtaylor, tkay11 and Canute like this

Regards Christian
 

In the shipyard: HM Sloop Fly, 1776 - Scale 1/32;

On the drawing board: Naval Cutter Rattlesnake, 1777 - Scale 1/32


#32
Mike Y

Mike Y
  • Members
  • 987 posts
  • LocationStockholm, Sweden
Black paper to accentuate the frame joints is an interesting idea. Looks very sharp!
Was it hard to align all the frame pieces with paper in the middle?
  • mtaylor and Canute like this

#33
amateur

amateur
  • Members
  • 1,895 posts
  • LocationNetherlands
The joints are looking very sharp .
Make sure the paint of the paper doesn't bleed out as a result of the finish you are going to use.

Jan
  • mtaylor and Canute like this

#34
Anguirel

Anguirel
  • Members
  • 26 posts

Hi,

 

"and very nice it is too! That must have been very satisfying to make.

 

Tony"

 

Thanks Tony, it was indeed very satisfying...

 

Mike, align the pieces wasn’t difficult, just used the plan as a template. What was difficult was sanding the individual half frames and putting the two half’s together.

The frame pieces, chocks and futtocks were sanded and aligned before and everything was perfect. Once I put the paper on this added an extra length (the thickness of the paper) to all components and everything had to be re-sanded and the chocks had to be re-dimensioned. Next time this can be avoided by taking this in consideration from the beginning. Another problem was that the glue doesn’t form a solid joint across the paper so it’s very easy to pull the pieces apart (this happened three times during sanding) leaving paper on both sides. This doesn’t happen once the two half’s are together.

 

Now what I don’t know how to do is how to put the two half together. This time I did it with the two half fully assembled. There is a post called “Assembling Frames” pinned to the top of the cross section section that shows how to do this adding piece by piece of the two half at the frame time. First the floor futtock, then the 1st futtock, then the 2nd and so forth... now my question is how do you align them if all the pieces have extra wood on the side, how do you align the red and blue line if they are not always at the same distance from the edge of the different pieces (when I did mine, I cheated, I sand it first so the lines where at the edges).

 

Christian, your help is most welcome and needed.

Some questions and observation from the image you posted

 

1.    The frame at station 0 is not double

2.    The double frames at station 1 and (A) are not symmetrical, the half’s closest to frame 0 are thicker

3.    Frames at station 3, 5, 7, A, C and E are symmetrical

4.    The frames at stations 7, 5, 3, 1, (A), A, C and E there is a space between them from the 1st futtock up while the frames at stations 6, 4, 2, ? (what is the name of the station between (A) and A?), B and D there is a space between them all the way from the keel

5.    What are the units of the thickness values written in the image?

6.    When you say all other frames have normal thickness is that the thickness used in the plans here at the forum? If that is the case I can use the pieces I have already cut and just sand then to the correct thickness (assuming they have the thickness of the floor futtock all the way up). Only have to redo the frame 0 and the two half frames from station 1 and (A)

7.    The frames at stations 7, 5, 3, 1, (A), A, C and E at the connection of the different pieces there are 4 horizontal lines (two at the 2nd-3rd futtock joint) in the space between the half frames, are those the location of the frames spacers? or just the location of the copper bolts?

8.    How do I determine the size of the space between the frames, they don’t seem to be always the same

9.    The frames at station 6, 4, 2, ?, B, D there seems to only be a reduction in thickness from the floor futtock to the 2nd futtock and from the 1st futtock to the 3rd futtock. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th futtocks and the top timber have the same thickness

 

Jan, I already used this paper in the same way in one of my kits and it didn’t bleed to the wood but I will test this on the frame I’m doing now

 

Just a small update on the frame I’m doing… the treenails are in place as well as the copper wires. Once everything is sanded I will post picture

 

Thanks everyone for the likes, comments and help…


  • tkay11 and Canute like this

#35
Anguirel

Anguirel
  • Members
  • 26 posts
Hi,

So I finished my first double frame. This was done mainly for testing since the frame is wrong some time now... I think the treenails and copper nails came out alright, the copper nails more then the treenails.

One half
Attached File  IMG_3763.JPG   118.51KB   0 downloads

The other half
Attached File  IMG_3764.JPG   144.94KB   0 downloads

The treenails
Attached File  IMG_3765.JPG   93.86KB   0 downloads

And the treenails on the scarph
Attached File  IMG_3766.JPG   57.48KB   0 downloads

I realised now that the treenails on the scarph should had gone through to the other side. But should the same thing be done on the chock?

For the finish I was planning on using Danish oil but I must admit it let the wood darker then I was expecting...

One half
Attached File  IMG_3767.JPG   129.03KB   0 downloads

The other half
Attached File  IMG_3768.JPG   145.46KB   0 downloads

The treenails
Attached File  IMG_3769.JPG   92.13KB   0 downloads

While I was putting the treenails I used a pencil to "paint" the treenails black but most of it came off during the process of applying the treenails to the frame. At the time I was worried that the black wouldn't show but I guess I was wrong.

I ordered wood from The Lumberyard and from Hobby Mill, although the are the same wood type (boxwood) there are not the same...
Attached File  IMG_3771.JPG   141.32KB   0 downloads

For last... next time have to be more careful to maintain the frame square when doing the holes for the treenails. This is a stupid way to ruin a frame almost at the end

Attached File  IMG_3772.JPG   189.74KB   0 downloads

Edited by Anguirel, 08 January 2017 - 06:26 AM.

  • mtaylor, tkay11, AnobiumPunctatum and 3 others like this

#36
AnobiumPunctatum

AnobiumPunctatum
  • Members
  • 859 posts
  • LocationDuisburg, Germany

Aguriel,

 

if you have Antscherls TFFM have a look in volume 1, page 88. There is a description for the correct position of the treenails in the chocks.

 

To your observations and questions:

  1. correct
  2. correct
  3. correct
  4. Yes, only the floor timbers and first futtocks are glued together. The timbers for the other frames are thinner and there the double frames will be connected with spacers. B and D are single frames. The change of double and single frames is common for English ships of this period.
  5. Frame 0: floor timber 1ft 4in, second futtock 1ft 3in, fourth futtock 1ft 1in; Frame 1 and (A): first futtock 1ft 4in, third futtock 1ft, 2in, top timber 1ft 1in
  6. That's a question of what you want. In the group build all timbers ofthe frames have the same size. In the original ship the timbers will become thinner. In my opinion and if this is your first try I would follow this simplification. If you like to know the correct sizes I will have a look in my book.
  7. Yes, there are the spacers. If you follow the dimensions in the books the top timbers are 1/4in smaller. I think that this is negligible in 1/48.
  8. The position of the gun ports gives the position of the frames The sizes of the timbers and the tolerances define the space. I would start to build the double frames and position them correct. Then I would add the filling frames (single frames) regular between them.
  9. See answer 6

Edited by AnobiumPunctatum, 08 January 2017 - 08:32 AM.

  • mtaylor, tkay11 and Canute like this

Regards Christian
 

In the shipyard: HM Sloop Fly, 1776 - Scale 1/32;

On the drawing board: Naval Cutter Rattlesnake, 1777 - Scale 1/32


#37
Anguirel

Anguirel
  • Members
  • 26 posts
Hi

Christian, thanks for the info. I think it's too late to go with simplification... if it's not too much trouble for you can you send me the correct sizes?
  • mtaylor, AnobiumPunctatum and Canute like this

#38
AnobiumPunctatum

AnobiumPunctatum
  • Members
  • 859 posts
  • LocationDuisburg, Germany

No problem, here are the values for the regular frames from Elements of Naval Architecture (Steel):

 

floor timber: 12 1/2''

1st futtock: 13''

2nd futtock: 11''

3rd futtock: 10 1/2''

4th futtock: 10 1/4''

top timber: 10''

 

Source: Allan Yedlinsky: Scantlings of Royal navy Ships 1719-1805, SeaWatchBooks LLC, 2014


  • mtaylor, tkay11 and Canute like this

Regards Christian
 

In the shipyard: HM Sloop Fly, 1776 - Scale 1/32;

On the drawing board: Naval Cutter Rattlesnake, 1777 - Scale 1/32


#39
mtaylor

mtaylor

    Bilge Rat

  • SPECIAL CONTRIBUTOR
  • 14,221 posts
  • LocationMedford, OR

Looking really good.   On the paper problem.... punch numerous (the more, the better) holes in the paper with a pin.  Right now you have wood, glue, paper bond.  The holes should help some.   You might try, if you can find it, is some wood glue that tinted or get some artists pigment (powder) and tint your own glue to the color and shade you want. 


  • tkay11 and Canute like this

Mark

"The shipwright is slow, but the wood is patient." - me


Current Build:

Licorne - 1755 from Hahn Plans (Scratch) Version 2.0

Past Builds:
Triton Cross-Section
USS Constellaton (kit bashed to 1854 Sloop of War (Gallery) Build Log
Wasa (Gallery)


Member of the Nautical Research Guild


#40
Anguirel

Anguirel
  • Members
  • 26 posts

Hi

 

Thanks for the measurements Christian. Just one question, did you switch the floor timber and the 1st futtock? the floor timber should be thicker right?

 

As for the position of the gun ports I'm assuming I can use the plans of the forum for that. Do you have a way to confirm that?

 

Mark I will try the holes thing and next time I'm in Hobby Lobby I will ask if they have the artist pigment... (the only immediate problem I see is the excess glue witch I tend to apply)


  • mtaylor and Canute like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Welcome GUEST to the Model Ship World Community.
Please LOGIN or REGISTER to use all of our feautures.