Matrim

Work is progressing nicely. I started to re-do the body plan station lines but rapidly something felt wrong. In this case when comparing the newly drawn lines with the originals I noticed that the station line was not bulging as deeply as the original. As at this point the station lines are in identical places bar the odd cm this should not be occurring. The purple lines are new and the green original. As you can see the anchor points on the pink Buttock lines and the waterlines. Initially it looked like the hull needed a few extra buttock lines to help assist in drawing the curve so I added one and redrew one of the station lines (browny orange on top of the existing) This seemed to correct the issue as the line now at least appears to be matching the expected curve more closely. On starting to re-do some of the earlier lines I was still not happy and decided some of the buttock lines were 'out' anyway. This could be due to many reasons but the most logical was a waterline misstep or including an 'uncertain' line when it should have been avoided. To test the theory I removed the buttock lines and added some new. I then re-started and the problems seemed to go away. The key is that if the buttock lines are built of the original station lines that also built the waterlines then they should match. If either seems to be pulling away from the other then something is wrong. So my (current) full approach is as follows. I color the current working station lines on vertical half breadth and profile yellow with all 'done' lines red. Then the buttock lines on the profile have their horizontal constructions added for the working 'yellow' line I then draw these in with a pink Polyline (so I can tell this apart from the waterlines which will overlap somewhat) The vertical construction lines for the lower waterlines are then drawn in with a random different color (I think this looks Khaki like) You'll notice how you can see how the buttock line polyline is in sync with the lower waterlines line. The upper waterlines and cap rail vertical constructions are then added. Also note (if you have good eyesight) the rapidly finishing cap rail (line on the left at this point). This is one reason I tried to make the new station lines match the original as presumably they were placed to avoid nasty locations. Though that could also be utter rubbish.. A better picture to show this is the cap rail height picture that I am taking from the underside of the cap rail (this could be wrong). Here you can also see the waist cap rail ending just past the station line. And the upper polyline added When drawing the bezier close attention was paid to whether the buttock lines and waterlines were working well together And finally a close up of some of the redone lines (purple) with the original traced body (green) matching a lot better. As I move further away from the center I expect these lines to separate slightly as my stations move slightly at either end of the ship compared to the originals but they should still follow a visibly similar shape..

Thank you Wayne, as an 'assist' the Prosepines Build book (sister ship and the only one I can access) stated The floor timbers are and lower futtocks So it looks like they increased the 'space' of the room and space for this class...As an added precaution I measured the frame sizes and space on the traced frame plan and the frames are usually slightly over 13 (since it is a trace that is well within copy error boundaries) and the space is usually 4.7ish dropping to 3.5 ish towards the front of the ship.

k, waterlines on the half breadth are now done, I also validated the 'curves' against the original traced waterlines as so (original in yellow) Remembering that my waterline locations don't match the originals (so they would not be 'on top' of each other) this allows the angles to be approximately validated to see if anything is drastically off. After this the Buttock Lines went in, this is a nice easy job. After the Buttock Lines the station lines were re-done. For the distance I measured the traced gaps as so (remembering one of the station line gaps is larger than the rest presumably to not include a station line that matches the central ones closely and to allow 'better' locations for some of the aft lines) Here the red dimension is the larger one. From this I settled at 62 inches for standard gaps and 75 for the larger. Here they are drawn in. I keep the central station line a different colour (green). You also get a good view of the Buttock Lines as well (Pink) Finally I compared locations to the originals. This has no relevance beyond showing how closely the body plan station lines will be close to the originals. As can be seen they are relatively close though some of the furthest aft lines are separating slightly so I can expect some line shadowing there. Next up re-drawing the station lines on the body plan.

Continuing rapidly along. Next up came the deck which was pinned inexpertedly with a hammer - at least until I remembered I had a pin pusher - which was far more efficient.. The first plank went on using the handy rabbett like slot at the bow For planking, along with an assortment of tiny clamps, I tend to use the following a lot So we have a vase (to soak planks, a steel ruler, lots of pins, a file for bevelling, a very sharp scalpel for cutting and those tweezer things I always forget the name of for removing pins, a pin pusher, glue and a pencil.. I tend to use a combination of clamps and pins to try and avoid vast overlap Not that it matter so much with double plank construction as the first layer is just to make a 'skin' for the actual visible planks to sit on so errors can be corrected. The worst crime is to have a plank that sticks out a full plank width from the next and this can occur whilst it is drying (so you look the following day and think 'oh dear') and most commonly at the bow when the taper is correct. As I am soaking the planks they can also lose shape when drying especially if under an extreme bend. I have already noticed a couple of tiny places where I will probably need to reinforce to avoid sanding a plank out of existence but not so much as some of my previous kits. I also noticed the wood 'moving' on drying so as long as the plank is pinned nicely started using those lovely small clamps to ensure the unsupported plank sections stayed close enough to their neighbor to allow the glue to take effect. I tend to only remove pins after the third plank has arrived - this is just to support the first. When 'adding' a second pressure can be placed on the plank above and I think the pins help prevent the plank detaching. Once another is down below then the pins serve no further useful purpose. Anyway first planking will continue.

Thanks for that Wayne - it makes sense and adds a tiny improvement to the plans as well so I will re-do using that approach.

The 'Joys of fairing' (repeatedly). Joking side I do like fairing though the ancient rule of 'if it feels wrong then it is wrong' usually applies and I have already re-done several. I am also taking some liberties with the process which are probably not correct but in the big scheme of things I don't think it will hurt that much. To run through the process I adjust the line colours from the layer colour as I move. On the body and profile lines that are completed are light green (as is the central station line). The current 'active' waterline is yellow. On the half breadth O also tend to use Light Grey to colour out my uncertain lines and to remind me to 'miss' them - not forgetting that left hand side 'bad' station lines should be repeated on the right otherwise you could select that line where the polyline crosses and get a slightly out of sync line. Anyway as that probably made no sense except to four people in the universe here are some 'action' shots. So below you can see 'done' light green lines and the current active yellow Here are some 'bad' station lines that I have coloured yellow just to make them more obvious. Note the bottom one covers both the left and right halves. I take the start point from the rabbett on the bow. And the same on the stern Once the construction lines are dropped I am starting (and this may be heretical) from an adjusted keel line. Since the keel tapers at bow and stern I have aplied the taper - as I will apply it on the model (so not gradually over the entire keel) and am starting from there. On the original plan the waterlines start much deeper so I suspect they are copying the rabbett depth so this may be a bad idea (if any of the 4 has an opinion on this please say) Once the two marker lines are done the left is mirrored onto the right section and a bezier joins them together - not forgetting to 'miss' the dodgy grey lines and all done. I then always change my current work lines to green (for completed) but do not set up the next line as I have forgotten (in the past) whether that was a line I had completed but forgot to change colour or a line ready to be done. I found it easier to leave it in a stable state which prevented mental stress when re-starting. If anyone disagrees vociferously with me using those two rabbett lines as the start point then also please say. I vaguely recollect being told to use those years ago but as that was on MSW1 and around six years ago have utterly forgotten.

There are always people around with more skill...especially on this site so I bow to your knowledge. Quick update. I have repeated the procedure with the frames and as can be seen below they match the primary plan quite well (most notable on the gunports) Now I will start re-doing the key lines as per instructions.

Thanks both for the comments. Wayne, you appear to be moving to 'full shipwright' status. Have you considered a book on plans. Might be a possibility when you are happy with your approach.... Mark I tend to colour the water lines and have not had particular problems with the stations mainly because I switch the colour of the one I am working on to bright yellow and the ones done to a different colour so I don't tend to get confused. Then again I have probably entirely misunderstood the point..

No time like the present (as they say). So I have forged on gallantly noting that it has taken a day to go way past what I managed with my scratch build in 6 months.. First up I glued the stem, keel and stern post. These fitted nicely though the plans slowed a slightly different set up. The only issue was that the stern post stuck out slightly so I adjusted this to match the keel. Once done the next job was to fit the bulkheads. I used my little drill thingy for most of the laborious beveling along with a strip of wood to test the angles were correct. I only noticed three issues with the kit wood. Two of the bulkheads had been cut too deeply on one side. So I added strips of wood to allow the hull shape to match. The final issue was one of the bulkheads was sitting a little low so I used a filler piece to get the height to match that of the others. Next up getting the deck template fitted and allowing the bulkheads plenty of time to dry..

So my 'filler' model will by Caldercraft's Bounty. Whilst I redo the plans for my Bounty I wanted a less mentally challenging kit to keep my modelling going. I expect to replace largish sections so will use different outer planks, deck planks and I may also replace the hatches/ladders/guns with my own. I also am unlikely to use the kit thread preferring to use third party choices though this time I might purchase a Rope maker myself and see what I can do on my own. Anyway obligatory box shot.... All contents And bulkheads for the first section well marked with their frame number in ink Hopefully this will be better updated than most of my stuff but you never know...

Initial tracing of the profile, half-breadth and body has been completed. It is fairly routine except perhaps to comment that I prefer to always make the lines to long and shorten as opposed to being to short and having to lengthen then shorten. I also trace the half-breadth and body and keep the traces (in a separate layer) so that I can compare the results of my plan fairing to the originals. What I want to cover today is setting up the other two trace plans. Before starting you will have (obviously…) worked out which plan was the most 'accurate' to use as the 'written in stone' plan. In my case I did this years ago with the profile and frame plan being very similar whereas the inboard works is all over the place warping wise. Therefore my next trace was to be the inboard works because I like a challenge. Now some will not even bother to trace this but I like having it on the master trace because it gives extra build details and it is useful to get this normalized with your master plan early. Anyway the process I used is as follows. I added the bitmap file to a new turbocad document and straightened as before. Once this was done I resized to 'full' size using the two perpendiculars and the supplied length (in the Amphion's case 144 feet). This does not guarantee it will match so I then copied the majority of my primary profile plan (leaving out decoration and external stuff) so I could size this plan according to the master without any worries about upsetting the master. Now the width should be very close to the existing trace but the height can be more problematic. In this case I picked a common point on both plans (the top of the stern post) and added horizontal and vertical lines to the trace the inboard works picture. This allowed me to see the difference in height and then to resize just the vertical dimension on the picture so it was the same. I then dragged the entire trace master over the picture using the front keel boxing joint as my starter and looked for problems. I did find some. Height was good and the front of the ship matched slightly better than the rear. Nothing that was not workable. If lines were 'off' vertically slightly I would trace the original and then move the trace to match the correct deck line. The end result will be inboard works brought into line with the preferred master. When finished I copied just the layer with my new trace over into a new master where it matched exactly (as intended). It was then locked and hidden in case I need it. As an aside I also added the extra mast and rudder data to the original master as it seems more relevant to group it together than to split. For those who had an un-natural interest in my file system here is a less than exciting shot of my one-note tracker document listing what I have so far.

Much more likely to have been me mis-understanding though

I might as well start at the beginning, please note I use TurboCad for the draft plans so these posts will be heavily turbo cad specific.. I hit an unexpected early snag when I 'upgraded' to TurboCad2016 from TurboCad20 which was a few years old now. On adding the profile picture to be traced I eventually noticed that it did not seem to be coping very well with drilling into the image and it rapidly lost both definition and focus. Confused I tried saving various versions including png, bmp, 24 bit bmp, jpg but none of them seemed to avoid the issue. I did wonder if I was being overly sensitive so I tried the same action in TurboCad20 and it did not happen. This indicated either a settings issue or a bug in the newer release and eventually I found the issue was the first. Later version of turbo cad have a fancy new image manipulator called Redsdk this was trying to do something fancy and failing. Switching this off and returning to default gdi allowed excellent clarity on drilling down. Once I could drill down the next job is to make sure the image is horizontal. The guide 'Wayne.K's excellent walkthrough available on MSW') says to use the keel line it being the bottom line of the rabbett but I found this too thick on my plan to accurately get an indication of how the image needs adjusting so instead used the upper edge of the rabbett which has the added advantage of providing a semi-end start point here From this point I drew a long line that ended at the opposite end of the keel (approximately in the middle of the same start line). I then drew a second line from an identical start (hit v for vertex and then when dragging the line hold shift down which ensures you get an exact horizontal line). I then 'disappeared' the image, added a vertical construction line (use this to avoid mismatches when the angle is worked out) and then used the angle measurer to indicate the difference between the two The picture is then returned and selected and this value is entered into the rotation field. If you are 'rotating the wrong way' then either roll it back or move a negative distance in the other direction. After the image is rotated I then carry out the same exercise and allowing the rotation is correct the lines should be identical. Just for safeties sake I also drew out horizontal lines on the keel line, the base of the false keel and the top of the false keel. Allowing the plan is not warped they should all be level and within the original line markings. In this case they were so I can now start tracing which is always rather fun. Thanks for reading.

As noted elsewhere I am re-starting (for the second time) my Amphion plans, explantions elsewhere. This does have some advantages. First up I am much more competent with Turbo cad so it should be an easier process along with the fact that I seem to need to do things multiple times to understand what I am doing. Secondly the first plan set was documented on the original MSW (back in 2012 if I remember correctly). This meant that a lot of the early donkey work was lost which will hopefully not happen again. I will leave both superceded research and build threads open until this is (re) done and then mark them as deprecated. To start I am going to lay down some ground rules for the project to avoid the mess I got into last time. This will be incredibly boring to anyone who is not ocd so i recommend most stop reading here, at least until I get to something more interesting draft wise. Drafting Style Guide To better control the validity and understanding of what a file actually occurs the following guide will be followed. Folder Structure Past experience says that large amounts of files will be generated in the drafting process. The folder structure can be used to ensure a files location indicates its relevance. Files will be held locally on a pc and auto backed up to a one drive folder. Source Scans: Contains the scanned version of any source plans. Will not change once added Plans: Parent plan folder. Will only contain other folders. Structural: (Or source). This will contain master plans that will be used in the building process to generate the actual working plans. As an example the sheer and framing plans will appear in here Build: This will contain plans intending to be built off of. Individual frames, keel sub plans etc Presentation: This is for helper plans that show, usually styalised versions to assist in building. Examples include the ‘fish’ plan and subsections showing how parts go together or what they are called Each of the three main working folders (listed above as Structural, Build and Presentation) will contain a sub folder called ‘[Primary Folder Name] Approved’. When a plan is regarded as complete it will be moved to the relevant Approved folder and its file name adjusted. Each of the three Approved folders will have a sub-folder named ‘[Primary Folder Name]-Revisions’. When an approved file is changed the old version will be moved here and only the new version will reside in the approved folder. This means that there should only be single files in the approved folder but both the working folders and revision folders could contain multiple files. Change logA change log will be generated and held in a one note page for each primary folder. This will list the file name, the added date, the superseded date and either a ‘current’ indicator or a description of what was changed and why. I.e File Naming Conventions TCW Files AM-[Zone]-[Friendly Name]-V[number].tcw ‘AM’ is the project name (in this case short for ‘Amphion’) Zone indicates which working folder the file is intended for. Currently ST for Structural, BU for Build and PR for Presentation. Friendly Name will be an appropriate name for the file in question i.e Sheer or Keel etc V[number] is the version So a sheer plan may be called AM-ST-SheetMaster-V5.tcw Indicating the 5th version of the Structural ‘Sheer’ Master plan for the Amphion project ApprovalWhen a plan is ‘Approved’ (as hopefully complete) a copy will be moved to the approved folder and its name will change to AM-[Zone]A-[Friendly Name]-RC[number].tcw RC is a software development short hand for ‘Release Candidate’. Therefore there are two visual indicators that a plan is complete - the ‘RC’ version and the ‘A’ after the zone. So if the above sheer plan is regarded as complete then the copies name would ne AM-STA-SheerMaster-RC1.tcw Copies will be made to prevent accidental adjustments of originals. Paper Space Naming conventionsThis will be different to the file name and is intended for printed versions of complete plans as opposed to draft versions. This naming convention will be AM-[Zone][Plan Number][Plan Subset]-V[Version] Only approved plans will have paper space so the above sheer master might have a print name of AM-STA-5-V1 So version 1 of approved structural plan 5. All printed plans will also have a name describing the plan and a separate title. So allowing I stick to the above if I down tools for a year or two and return then I should be able to at least ensure I can access and find the correct current plans.

Belatedly realising that my scratch build might take much longer than my originally planned 10 years I have decided to get a kit to do at the same time. I was thinking of trying something different to my normal warships so want to build the Bounty. The question I would like advice on is which of the two listed manufacturers is better for accuracy. I can kit bash quite happily so components are less an issue and have built two caldercraft kits before ( Snake and Diana ) so instructions issues are less of a problem. What I dont like is out-seized metal/other fittings or scale issues with the base model. Anyway and advice would be welcome..

I thought it would probably be something along those lines. Thanks for the explanation both!

Reading through the excellent Swan books I noticed that 5 bolts are indicated for the joint in the stem with a specific pattern. Looking at my copy of Steel he states 6 for all classes for the stem so I was wondering whether this was Swan specific (or an earlier standard than the practices described in Steel) or is Steel incorrect. I will probably stick with the six on my model but was essentially curious as the reason for the difference.

Next up the rising wood itself. Now this process has proved interesting as it allows me to retrospectively 'understand' some of the decisions other designers have utilised in making their own plans. Plans are always a compromise, when working at a smaller scale, between realism and achievability but this is the first location where I have seen excellent examples of this in practice. It is nice to understand what was done and why as it helps me in my own choices though I wont cover what those differences were in case I am – wrong or – distressing (i.e stating one method is more ‘historical’ might put peoples backs up) so I wont. Anyway for mine I decided to attempt the notches so followed the Euryalus approach. Part of my reasoning is that fitting frames is a delicate operation and I need all the help I can get plus allowing the notches are mill cut correctly then they should be both in the correct location and perfectly sized/horizontal. This should really help support correct frame placement later on in the build. The weakness is that the notches, due to their size, are still weak and will not provide much 'support' or be very resistant to pressure so could easily break. I will not find out until later in the build whether this was a good or bad choice.. Mill Setup Since I am cutting the notches I have to be extremely careful about accuracy and my initial plan of operations was as follows 1 cut blanks, go 2mm oversize on height and width to all a small amount of correction post join 2 join together blanks in five pieces 3 thickness to correct height and width 4 Cut to length then stick the pattern on the side 5 start endmilling top notches 6 start end milling port side notches 7 start end milling starboard side notches 1-4 are being done first so that I don’t cut the notches then joint the pieces only to discover the glue thickness has knocked all the frames out. Is also allows consistent horizontal cuts to be made across the entire rising wood length. This would not be guaranteed if each was cut separately. Well that was the plan but after several (read ' a lot ' of wasted wood) I was unpleasantly reminded of Einsteins comment that 'madness consists of carrying out the same action repetitively and expecting a different result'. Top notches cut I hit a lot of little problems all of which forced me to repeatedly start again. The problem was once I had worked out a solution (or methodology) to reduce one of the problems I then hit the next. Roughly speaking the problems were - I started using spare wood to prop up the piece being worked on in the vice, rather stupidly these were not always as flat as I would like causing the mill to cut deeper/lighter as I went along - The vice was small so I used random wood to prop up either end of the cut piece but again these were not always the correct size - I would get distracted and instead of turning the sidewise wheel would instead move the vertical axis wheel and make a much bigger cut than required - I would misread the cut list and move to far cutting too far - Sometimes I miscounted when turning the wheel. 'Short' cuts were correctable, long was not. - Getting the axis to zero so the cut was the correct depth was difficult especially so on the side cuts. - The notches are so small that 'breakaway' of chips would sometimes occur. Using frame sized blanks to check slot width Fiddly is not the word for it though as a plus I have learnt useful lessons on utilising the mill in this fashion and my basic premise of not accepting work that is just 'good enough' meant I managed to control my temper as piece after piece was thrown away. The process corrections made were as follows - I stopped using spare wood to prop up the piece and instead always positioned it at the base of the vice. - Related to the above since I now knew the base height I cut some wood on the table saw to exactly match the vice height allowing the supporting pieces to be consistent and always 'supporting' - Attention errors just required more attention. I had two solutions for this. An early helper method was to 'draw' the cut prior to moving the wheels so I knew its placements. The second was to walk away if I was getting to tired/easily distracted - The depth of cut issues were perhaps the hardest and in the end I started to run comparison cuts on dead wood. I would cut, remove and compare to the existing. This was fine for the top cut but not so easy for the side cuts. For these I eventually decided to duplicate cut on both sides so I could compare the wood that remained against the keel itself. Since the base of the vice was a fixed point this meant I could reset and cut in confidence that the depth would not be too deep. Something I could not do when comparing to other pieces. - The breakaway problem may have been the cherry or more likely cut speed combined with increasing bluntness of the mill. I countered by building up a larger section of straight scrap to support the target piece securely and ensuring first cut was on at least one edge and not the centre. For the angle end pieces I cut to the max height of the slot and then used a chisel to slowly introduce the relevant angle. The only major difference was the first piece which had to have its side slot cut first as when the angle was introduced I could not secure the piece in the mill properly.​

You'll be happier with the end product though otherwise you would always 'see' that even if everyone else doesn't. I'm currently remaking rising wood sections around 20 times each piece and no one will even see those. Bet ship modellers would like hair vests as we seem to like self punishment..

Ok, though I have now started the build here http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/12161-hbms-amphion-1798-by-matrim-joss-164-32-gun-18pdr-english-frigate/ for those who have deliberately missed it. I will still be returning to the research thread every now and then to update on plans. This post is with regard to something I had difficulty with earlier on in this thread even though several people made valiant attempts to explain things. So here is the new center line plan. The keenly observant, or those with too much time on their hands, will actually notice this is almost the same plan as done on around page three of this thread. Since that point I had re-done all the plans (page 3-4) plus had managed to lose the original (everything had been redone so that was probably lucky). Anyway once I had completed the keel and started to look at 'what next' the lack of that plan suddenly caused a burst of CAD work. The issue I had had earlier was with the rising wood (page 3). In the end I managed to work out what to do by a combination of Steel, the Naiad books draft notes and de-constructing the Naiad, Euryalus and Swan plans. The key to it (for me) was that I had not realised the rising wood was a fixed height above the keel that moulds into the Deadwood line. Steel gives the measurements for both this height above the keel and for the width of the line to add to the body plan to allow the deadwood to be marked on the Sheer. Since I rely heavily on our three research streams (Naiad, Swan, Euryalus) it was interesting to see how each interpreted that line in their plans (once I knew what was going on) as each took very different approaches to solve the same problem. Mainly involving variants of ease of construction as none of this will be even remotely visible. The Naiad takes the simplest engineering approach and for the majority of the keel has a couple of long and flat rising wood pieces with a slight jump when the deadwood needs to curve at stem and stern. It also avoids the notching for the frames. This makes it easier to build and to more accurately place the frames horizontally. The Swan takes a slightly different approach by having the stem and stern line merged into the eventual straight section of the rising wood but also avoids the notching and has only a few pieces. The Eurylaus takes perhaps the most historical approach as it not only has the stem and stern line merging into the straight section but also includes both the notching and has the full five pieces of rising wood. This is a good example of how plan makers need to make their own decisions on how best to replicate in their plans playing a balancing act between historical accuracy ease of building. For my own I like the notches - though difficult to construct IF they are accurate and at right angles then they will settle the frames nicely in place with less need for complicated jigs later on. I also like the stem and stern line merging into the straight section - it would keep the structure stronger as there would be less jump between pure deadwood and keel supports though the frames themselves would supply a lot of support that is not directly visible on the plan. What I did do though was to introduce one adjustment to simplify construction which was to make the rising wood straight over the curved section so it is easier to cut than the otherwise slight angle. It makes little difference to the strength of the piece but will make it much easier when working on the frames in the same area. This all does mean that I will have to adjust the seats of all the (already drawn) frame plans but that will not be too onerous a task when I eventually get around to the frames. Once I had this in place (and copied over to the master sheer plan) I could then start on the center structure plan seen above. I will also produce exploded views for rising wood, stem and stern.

So onto the actual work. After a lot of test cuts I secured my keel as follows with a piece underneath and two on either side (to allow the drill close access otherwise the vice jaws would interfere). The drilling pattern was as follows Centralise on left joint and upper false keel. Move up 1.42 mm Move right 6.41mm Drill the first hole Reset the mill to Zero. Move right 6.41mm Drill Move right to 9.22mm Drill Move left to 0 and keep going slightly so I move over the first hole and then back onto it (to sort out the mill backtrack) Test hole location Move up 1.42mm Drill Move right 4.61mm Drill Move right to 9.22mm Drill Rinse and repeat for all the holes. I am happy with the results which I feel can be improved on for more visible joints later on. One fortunate fact of the early keel work is that most of it (and the frames) will be hidden so practice can be perfected before hitting stuff that can be seen. Anyhow. Once I was happy with the joints it was time to add the copper wire. These were inserted in one way with glue, removed, glue removed from the wood and then inserted in the other. I may have to find a better way as glue still managed to escape so a better process will be needed later. Once glues the copper was then snipped low (note the glue that still got out) before one side was carefully filed to close to flat. I then used a quick jig to tidy up. I chiseled a small square out of a flat piece of wood (the size of the joint and bolts) and the placed the joint I was working on over this hole. Two pieces of the same size as the keel then surrounded my keel and were secured. If my filing then became to aggressive or off center then the surrounding pieces would get damaged and the keel should be okay. Results were 'shiny'. Next up I have to decide whether to A - Add the deadwood where I can B - Add the lower stem (and equivelant rear) then taper the keel and stem and rear C - Add the lower and upper stem (and so on) and THEN taper the keel. All I am certain is that I dont want to cut the rabbett until the deadwood is on but the deadwood needs the lower stem at least which would argue for B. But lots of people seem to do the entire stem and then taper....Not at all certain so any advice would be welcome. Thanks for reading.

My next mini-project was to look at the keel bolts. This essentially comprises two rather distinct topics. Firstly we have what occurred historically and how we wish/not wish to represent this on the model and secondly how we can carry execute a plan to actually carry it out. This post will delve into my slightly obsessive look into what actually occurred. The base facts are quite simple. A ship of this size would have utilised six copper bolts of 1 1/8 inch diameter over each of the keel scarph joints. The only other specific restriction is that the bolts should avoid getting in the way of the currently uncut rabbet. This seems simple enough and I calculated the locations by the simple expedient of splitting the area into sections and assigning a bolt to each. Using our scale this relates to a bolt of 0.44648 diameter which relates to 24 gauge copper wire - perhaps slightly drawn (using Ed.Ts stretching method). But this does cause me some issues technically and historically. My historical problem is that the bolts were 'clenched' which basically means they were hammered over a ring to hold them in place and tighten them. This might or might not have been counter sunk. Now there is not a lot of pictorial evidence as to which especially as the remaining example of ships of that era have had their own copper bolts replaced with more effective bolts and screws (clenching's main weakness was that the woods own movement could loosen the joint making it much less effective). I did find a few pictures of an earlier repair of the Victory which shows clenched bolts. This leads to some interesting and not entirely unexpected observations. Firstly the bolts are slightly proud of the hull, so not counter sunk in this example, secondly accuracy does not appear to have been a major factor in their placement. As modellers we perhaps make things a little too perfect compared to actual reality as why would it matter in real life if the bolts are not perfectly placed in a horizontal/vertical grid? Finally look at the state of the wood….ouch Anyway this leads me down several avenues. I am keeping the regimented order of the lines as I can and it looks nicer. But I do want to do something for the bolts appearance. The clenched bolt would spread by a fair amount so would automatically be wider than the invisible interior of the bolt. Therefore I should use a larger gauge. I will try and use 22 gauge which is 0.644mm at scale assuming an increase of over 20% in outside diameter. This is probably still to small but is more 'realistic' than the initial size. It has one further advantage in that the drill bit for the holes can be larger and thus is more sturdy and less inclined to be pulled of track by the woods grain. Experimentation showed that firstly drill bits of this size are really delicate (I knew this already but after breaking three without noticing 're-knew' this) and secondly that the 7mm drill was better than the 8mm drill in that the bolt looked tighter and the 8mm showed a minute gap on one size and due to the copper being soft actual clenched slightly into a slightly less circular shape. Anyway the prominence of the clenched bolt is another knotty problem. Hopefully we have better represented the diameter of the bolt visually but if we clench ourselves and leave proud then the vertical height of the bolt is likely to be drastically out of scale. Therefore I will keep the bolt filed flat to the keel. I am also intending to copper plate the hull and in this case having the keel flat will be helpful. This makes much of this discussion superfluous as why worry about the size of something unseen? I 'might' leave one side uncoppered so that will be my excuse for spending so much time and effort on this. So here are some working diagrams showing measurements. For cutting my test pieces I used my earlier keel attempt (and in the end lots of blanks). I am using my Sherline mill but hit several problems with technique and usage. These can be listed as follows 1 - The free size chuck was not capable of holding micro drills perfectly vertical which could generate slight but visible differences in hole locations. I could relate this to the ' they were not that exact so this is fine historically' but addressed this by increasing the drill size (helped by the increase in diameter caused by clenching) , used a drill bit with a larger shank, and finally decided against using the chuck and switched to a collet instead. The collet was the perfect correction and the holes drilled post-collet use were perfectly vertical. 2 - There is some backplay on the wheels of the mill. This is actually expected but it does mean that I should keep the mill moving in one direction only as that way the back play does not marginally adjust each measurement as it occurs. It cannot be avoided entirely but by re-setting prior to moving Westwards on the upper row the backlash should be minimised. Making a drill plan to minimise 'returning' in the opposite direction as much as possible will also help. 3 - The weight of the keel could cause minute sagging which might affect the angle of the cut. Here I ensured both ends were supported and not just the section being cut in the vice 4 - The vice needs to be exactly horizontal and vertical to the x and y axis. Prior to each cut I addressed this by moving the drill along the joint line and the false keel line to ensure it stayed close to the line and did not deviate. ​

Thank you, so using a slightly thicker copper rod in the first place could be argued to represent a rod that has been clenched and countersunk (for the visible portion). To be honest at the sizes involved a difference of a tenth of a mm would take a highly practiced eye to recognize..

Quick question. In the old ships copper bolts in the keel were 'clenched' via the ends being walloped with a mallet (hammer) so the ends spread causing the end joint to tighten. Does this mean that the heads would protrude slightly and spread? I have looked at some photos of the Victory and really cannot tell (plus its using a lot of more modern iron fastenings) I am considering doing this on the model as opposed to filing the bolts flush with the surface of the keel but wanted to check how authentic a process/result this would actually be. Looking at measurements at my scale(1:64) the 1 1/8 bolt would be 0.4464 mm wide I am using 24 gauge which is 0.511 undrawn (0.46ish drawn) but may keep the undrawn width as if clenching does spread the end then the bolt ends would have a larger diameter than the initial starting diameter. It all depends on how far the bolt spread. if a little then I may just use the slightly wider bolt and file down and if more so then try clenching myself. Cheers for any pointers (am I getting a little anal about accuracy on this model, perhaps..)

K, tidied up the digression into the 'copier return' as it was not on topic and the op removed their original post (perhaps for obvious reasons).