Jump to content

Matrim

Members
  • Posts

    1,401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Matrim

  1. Stuff is still happening though my updates are not particularly good. I spent some time on the transom plans which can be seen in the thread here and those are now done (whether I have to re-draw when wood is cut remains to be seen - at the moment I'm waiting until next month when I can afford some more fixogum before starting some test pieces. In the meantime I switched back to frames which will need doing sometime. My frame structure will be staggered (at least that's the intention) so when building the individual frame plans I am putting a horizontal line at the furthest point of the frame then the individual futtock can be sized accordingly when cutting onto the model. I am also keeping both forward and reverse lines on all plans (red and blue with Waynes guide). On the mid frames there is bugger all difference but there is slight. I am also 'just' using one line to build the relevant thickness for the inside where I am less worried about the slight shape differences - this will change when moving away from amidships as having the inside bevel will help fairing. One other thing I did was to print one of the central frames out and stick it on cardboard and then just test fit on the keel to see if it 'looked' right. Seemed okay once I had counterbalanced the weird balancing of very thin cardboard
  2. Thanks all, with the extra waterlines I am happily drawing out the easier filler frames first before moving to the angles on the wing/deck
  3. Bleugh , nomenclature incorrect, it is new station lines I want... So I decided to do this so I could improve the curve. The gap between station lines on the sheer around this area of the plan is 62 inches so I added 4 new station lines beyond the last station and one more in front of it at 15.5inch gaps. (Following image shows 'new' station lines in pink with the top one highlighted in red with the vertical constructions at the waterline points made) I then pushed a construction line up from the relevant waterlines and connected on the body plan to get the correct representation higher up. First image shows the same line as above generated, the lower all the new stations on the body Now I have more lines of reference for generating the shape of the transoms on the sheer.
  4. It would be easier if I could add some extra waterlines the problem being how to draw on the sheer..
  5. Made my first attempt at the lowest filler transom using a combination of the master plan and inner post. It helped when someone pointed out that the inside line is not terribly important as its non viewable and as long as the shape is tracked anything which might use it can then be adjusted accordingly. With that said my approach was to throw constructions down to the sheer and do an entire waterline then to trim using the body to the correct size I could then use the inner post plan to add the correct chunk for the joint and then took an approximate size for the width If there is anything hideously wrong with the approach then please shriek! One curiosity Turbocad wise was that I found the control points curve was happier with this than the bezier. One thing done differently to the pictures above was that the width of the joint is slightly wider than the keel so I took the start point from there in the end. This piece still needs the scores for the vertical filler pieces on the bottom side (which will be done at the end). I won't start on the rest of the filler pieces until Tuesday and I think I will switch to drawing them all on the master plan mainly so I have a track of where they are (the master plan is quite large at the moment) but that keeps the parts in a consistent location.
  6. thanks both. That 'use the deck plan' for one of them (plus some extra for fairing) is a lovely idea. I can also then take that one and project back on the plan to see where the waterlines would be and then extrapolate the opposite for the others... Crag gets extra points for using the actual plans of the ship I am building in his response (that was a surprise - I looked and thought - hold on that's my ship, I must have mis-read)
  7. Evening all. Having just finished the stern post/inner post and attached to the keel I am not turning my attention to the wing transom/deck transom and 4 filling transoms. Now these appear to be complicated little beasties. From a plan perspective my plans have several cutaways of what I assume is the central spine of the transom and the frame plan has what I am guessing is possibly an end point (or middle end perhaps). I also have the fashion piece marked which is the end point. Is there a logical way to describe how to work out the correct size of one of these (once one is done the others would duplicate the approach). I am guessing construction lines projected but am unsure so looking for assistance from the plans masters out there. Once these are out of the way then the cant/full frames will fill my time for a year or 2 and Wayne Kempson's wonderful CAD drafting plan covers how to create those in details so I will be good cad wise after these are done. If anyone has any pointers on how to plan one of these out then I would be grateful. For those just interested but without knowledge here is a cad view of the area in question with the transoms in green and the fashion piece (I think) in pink and from the actual plans we have the body plan frame plan with a curious wing shape and the internal fittings plan
  8. thanks, though isn't that the knee of the head? I have must replaced my pc and my turbocad program is refusing to activate so once that is sorted I will add a direct plan of the part in question. Sorry for any confusion (though the knee information will be useful when i move to that section)
  9. Sorry for the probably bad nomenclature.. I am looking now at shaping my stem/apron. From the front it seems logical - all books I have have a shape to the follow so I can print a template and stick it to the front. What is confusing me somewhat is whether or not the depth tapers as well or is the side size the same across its length...The Swam books have a dual taper (so 14'' top to 10'' at keel) and 12'' keel to 10'' at boxing - though this looks to me more like the default keel tapering and not a taper impacting the rest of the apron? My guess is that the side width is stable and the front width tapers around to plan. But if someone could confirm either way then that would be great.. (It's with regard to me 32 gun Amphion in case that's relevant - the sizes will obviously be larger than the Swan)
  10. Couple of plan shots while I work on the middle and upper apron. First up I am gradually refining my technique when creating build templates. My new structure is to extend the edges of joints with blue lines (the joints themselves being a burnt red), these lines are then used as a cut check when milling so I can start on the extension line and move inwards. I am also adding a lot of opposing green lines (I may even double these up in future). I use these as table saw cut lines that allow me place the wood at these points and know that (hopefully..) the actual cut line being milled will then be horizontal. Example for middle apron - it looks complex (which is why I simplified the colours) but does help when cutting. The next plan (just done now) is a combined view of the forward keel, apron stem and some other. I plan to use this to ensure the eventual combined apron and stem is accurate.
  11. Tidied up the sides of the piece and gap dry fitted to the pieces above and below. Leaving the 'extra' below the shelf (which will eventually by angled to allow the planks to sit) as I have generally read its better to leave 'meat' there..
  12. Time for an update. I have been working on the rear deadwood plans (with a question elsewhere on site) while I waited for some thicker wood stock to arrive for the lower apron. I also have had some interesting thoughts on plan accuracy. It suddenly occurred to me that I might be obsessing overly about 'correct' sizes when the reality is that as long as I use the master plan as the target for every step then any inconsistency in lower steps will be counteracted. That's not to say that being accurate isn't good it's just that it's cope able if the process is correct. So as an example lets say I misunderstood Steel (very very possible) and I made my rising wood 1mm to high! As long as when I seat my frames I use the model height of the rising wood (say 9mm (random numbers) versus the should have been 8mm) and thus make the floor depth say 29mm instead of 30mm then the problem gets ironed out. An issue would only occur should I just use plan measurements for the next piece. Hopefully that makes sense to someone. Anyway onto the next piece which is the lower apron (wood having arrived). It's not 'done' yet as this is my practice piece which I only use if by a miracle its perfect and this wasn't but only due to the last cut. For the plans I did my usual job of adding lots of helper lines, the usual orange ones indicating parallel to cut lines and the green were sighting lines to try and help line up both plans. You will notice this also needs a mirrored plan due to the ledge. This is a cut out of the full sheet which includes the other two apron pieces. One of the things I found very helpful when cutting this piece is ensuring all four sides of the blank were square (and not just two L sides which is what I usually do). This is due to the key fact that the bottom left of the apron is horizontal and flat and the three vertical lines are all at right angles to that line. Therefore I can cut my pattern and place it on the bottom of the wood blank and know I can use the sides of the blanks in the mill to allow me to accurately cut the inner of the right hand vertical cuts.. Anyway the process I ended up with was as follows. Overly detailed perhaps as ever.. 1 - Cut blanks oversize 2 - Thickness blanks to target width with thicknesser 3 - use table saw to make certain all 4 sides were both flat and at right angles to each other 4 - Add pattern to one side using the bottom left vertical and horizontal lines as the line up points 5 - Use the left vertical side as the mill base and cut out the inner of the right two vertical joints (in this practice piece I actually did this the other way round with 6 and 7 which made things harder so this is how it will happen next time) 6 - Use the table saw to cut along the big orange line (which is parallel to the face of the joint) 7 - Use the step 6 cut as the base inside the mill to allow me to mill the face of the joint 8 - Use the sc roll saw to cut along the upper edge of the apron. (Plus rough fit with fore deadwood above) 9 - Add the reverse pattern to the other side of the plan using the upper cut, and left two straights to help align. 10 - Use a scalpel to cut out the upper section of the paper pattern (above the red line) which marks the ledge position. 11 - Use the mill to cut out the depth required for the cut. Not exact here but the best procedure seemed to be to start on the right and move to the left (best sight line) and basically cut outside the line a little then slowly move it into the line. You end up with lots of tiny humps which will need smoothing out later but the key is that this gives an accurate side of the shelf. 12 - Use the scalpel to repeat step 10 but on the other side of the piece 13 - Repeat step 11 for the other side of the piece. For 11 and 13 I hit a problem with how I was holding the piece and in the test cut changing this half way through (as the clamp started interfering with the mill) adjusted the depth of cut slightly causing the last 20mm of one side to be .1-.5 mm deeper than it should be 14 - Tidy the ledge curve with a scalpel 15 - Sand the end to the correct size 16 - Dry fit with surrounding pieces to see if continuing is possible. With the test piece it dry fitted nicely on the stem and with the upper deadwood above - all three needed some tidying but nothing major from the looks of things which was a relief. So the pictures are actually with a slightly different order than above but it gives the general idea. Thanks for reading.
  13. Update time. Once the vertical cuts were dealt with I briefly used some of the 'wrong' pieces to test how easy it would be to accurately cut the side cuts and rapidly decided the game wasn't worth the candle (nice old phrase that, apparently way back when prior to electricity candles were expensive so gamblers had to decide if the potential prize through playing was worth the cost of the candle (or not)to have light to play by - causing that phrase to move into the language). Anyway though I could have worked round it I decided it wasn't worth it so essentially wiped the side cuts and just cut to all the pieces to width. I then needed to cut the end butt joints and ensure they fitted well with the adjourining pieces. For this I generated 'joining templates' which consisted of the majority of a rising wood piece and the next two joints to either side. That way I could put pieces together and ensure they matched. As you can see the blue indicated the 'live' piece and the black either side adjourning pieces. One sheet was produced for each section. I also cut out the side templates (roughly) and stuck them to the pieces. This was to roughly check alignment but also so I could see from the side potentially issues as well. Things seemed good so I rapidly hit another problem (and one that Mark P had noticed when my fish plan was produced) and that was that I had not included every line I might have needed on my base plan and specifically in this case the forward mark where the keel stops. Now the rear section lies very close to the Aft Perpendicular but as its angled I was less trusting of this. So after some failed attempts to measure on the master and then use a ruler to set the keel at the correct location (never working) I then produced another throw away plan by drawing vertical lines on the master plan for all the forward keel boxing joint lines, the fore perpendicular (which was on the fish plan), the forward rising wood joints (in red) . This could then be placed on the fish plan with the fore perpendicular being the join between the two and then allowed me to place the keel exactly. I need to insert some temporary battens to hold the keel at some point soon as well. Anyway this was obviously important as the keel is the fulcrum of the entire build and the rising wood needs to be exact otherwise it would throw everything off Next up 'wood' wise I am going to glue and bolt the stem. Plans wise I am moving to the lower/upper apron and the fore deadwood.
  14. Currently cutting the top cuts with the mill and like a lot of ship building things it is proving that old quote of 'think three times, measure twice, cut once' is usually true. I rapidly hit issues due to having to do maths in my head when cutting. So let's say the horizontal axis was at 0.48 and I needed to make a cut 3.68 then ... anyway the waste of electricity and chance of mistakes were huge so after some thought I decided on a more reasoned approach. I split the stages of cuts into 4 so we have drop cut/cut/release and setup and decided the horizontal axis would be sacrosanct so at least one axis would have minimal risk of backlash. I then split the cuts into three simplified unique types - Forward to zero, Forward 1 full turn and forward by a specific amount indicated on a cut list in this way F0+0.43 1FT 1FT +0.55 would be forward to zero for 0.43, two separate full turns (so 2.43 cut so far) then forward to 0.55 (so 2.99 for that cut). For the cut and release cuts these would always use the positive axis and move forward. The vertical axis though had the drop cut moving forward and the release cut moving up (so had back to zero 1BT for 1 back turn and -0.44) . That way I could split the cut into recognisable steps that can, more importantly, be tracked. Now that is is also a lot of maths so I wrote a simple program to do the maths and produce the individual steps for me. (screen shot below, that particular cut list is for the fourth rising wood, you will note I also colour the release step in bold red as that's the point an error is more likely to occur). The program not also calculated the individual steps it also printed the end drill point on the sherline axis counters so i could also mentally evaluate the step as I was cutting it. Finally I also added incremental counters so I could show on screen the horizontal and vertical cut list so I could validate that the amounts the program thought it was cutting matched the input I wanted it to cut. The nice thing about this approach is that it simplified the methodology. I would start on a piece, go to turbo cad with a handy sheet of A4. Write D/C/R/S and then measure off the plan each cut directly. Once done transfer the totals into the application adding the expected start wood depth and the start height and run the app. Once finished I would validate the horizontal and vertical cuts were as expected then print them off. Now the actual cutting. I used a 4mm end mill - I tried the 6mm as the largest mill to fit the gaps but found this had a tendency to damage the wood or at least cause excess weird shavings... The 4mm seemed a good compromise between cutting and not being so thin as to be influenced by the wood it was cutting into. When cutting I carried out each step in the cut chart and then crossed it out with a pencil before carrying out another. I also restricted any cut to 2mm max (so a 2.16 cut would be a single cut of 2 followed by a cut of 0.16). This was protection in the larger cuts of wood damage or losing alignment. I also found the end mill mush preferred cutting into the wood from the direction closest to me as opposed to scooping it out from the end closest to the mill base ( logical really when it approaches from 'my' side the drill cuts a relatively even amount of material, when from the other side it starts with a very light cut the gets progressively deeper - whether that's true or not I don't know but I found cutting this way made for cleaner cuts with less mill complaining). This meant I had to carry out a cut then return the mill to its start point as I set up the next. Usually I also pulled the mill away from the wood to set up the next cut with one important exception which was the drop cuts which I tried to setup half on and half off the wood. This is because the drop cuts usually occur after the tiny 'steps' and this way reduced the risk of those steps (some as small as 1.36mm wide) being damaged.. Anyway apart from the cut list no nice pictures here and only a technical description. I am almost done with these top cuts then have to think about the best way to do the sides...
  15. Thanks for the comments all.. Now for a brief digression onto rising wood planning. For some reason I am using the turbocad structure better to simplify the plans. As an example looking at my existing rising wood plan I would have previously put the measurements on each section making it somewhat confusing to read. After trying (taking my piece 1 as an example, the rear piece) copied it 5 times and then split the measurements over those 5 colour coding to differentiate better between vertical and horizontal as can be seen below. I then started on my cut plan and realised even that was excessive and I could just concentrate on those measurements which would need cutting. I could then change the print scale to 2.5:1 so it was much bigger and get all the relevant measurements in two copies. Piece 1 is the smallest piece and I have enough wood to start producing some testing pieces to work out how I want to cut it. You can also see I am retaining my plan to simplify the piece by removing the horizontal angle and replacing with a straight edge.
  16. Thanks Pat.. I have to start looking at the rising wood next which will involve validating the plans (and getting some more wood supplies delivered). In the meantime I thought I would move to the rabbet. This I do admit, makes me nervous mainly because it reduces my ability to use power tools and when I start wielding tools be hand the chances of damaging something beyond repair rocket. I did try some experiments with a previous demo keel angling the keel piece and using a mill to cut the joint but that had various issues. I also considered, briefly, using the scrape technique again but that had failed me last time so in the end I went for the hand approach with several refinements to try and reduce the muck up potential. I also considered doing this after the rising wood was done and attached but by adding that I would not be able to lay the keel flat so that introduced complications I wanted to avoid. If cut now I could at least keep it flat and would aim for 'most' of the cut to be done with it being easier to tidy and expand later if I had a decent start now. First up I printed some more paper templates and added them to both sides before using the scalpel to remove the paper from where the rabbet would go. This was firstly to provide a reference for the cut and secondly I had some hopes that the pope might prevent any deep scarring of wood that should not be touched should a cut get away from me. I then pinned the keel very securely to the desk with a nice blank below it and my previous false keel above it. On the other side I had a thin blank that I then used a smaller clamp to keep the 3 pieces together. One nice though was that the rising wood actually provides the upper edge of the rabbet to if I did damage the upper edge at this point (without the rising wood attached in some areas of the keel this would make a very sharp angle which wood normally does not appreciate) then the rising wood would hide that in the completed model. (the two joints were simply because I just wanted the line and didn't care about matching pieces to the relevant keel sections) My approach was to simply sharpen a hobbyist chisel and then push into the lower edge of the rabbet (at an L shape at the ends and slightly more at an upwards angle elsewhere). Then (not near the upper edge) but about half way down I cut an angle towards the first cut which usually generated a sliver of wood that due to the grain was easy to pop out. I could then cut again slightly higher (and near the upper edge) to increase the rabbet size. Once that was done I would have a semi reasonable v ish shape that I could then drag the corner of a chisel along to both clean the cut and enhance. It had to be done in sections as I wanted the keel to be firmly supported (especially at the top) to minimize potential damage to the upper side of the keel.
  17. Woo hoo building again. Just about coping with shifting the office into the house so can build again. Returned to the stem with some approach adjustments. What I'm doing now is to try to use extra lines outside the object to support the cutting of the joints. If I make the joint parallel to the cut box then I don't have to concern myself with more than one angle and it makes my mill very useful as that gives me a solid angle to ensure right angles and thus the correct angle. The other change is that I am now using the scroll saw for the curved lines but attempting to cut at the line. It's proving easier than I thought which again keeps things 'to shape' So starting with my cut plan for the middle stem I cut a blank of wood with the table saw and thickness it to size ensuring I have 2 right angled edges. I then align the bottom and right (or top left etc) to the good edges and then use a set square to make sure the eventual target cut line is correct. I then trim of excess wood to the cut line as I dont want the mill to dig in/overwork or cut our chunks Since the middle step has 2 joints I used the straight bottom (already) for joint 1 (which can be seen to the left). I then cut along the blue line to get a second straight edge allowing me to mill the second joint. In this case using the lower stem to roughly validate the joint. Finally the sides are cut with the scroll saw. Great. Now I am going to re-do the lower stem as I'm not happy with the box joint (there's a larger gap than I'm happy with) but will re-use the same methodology that only started working well with the piece above. Above is the new cut template. You will notice the right joint is following the parallel plan, the extended blue lines are because this piece needs two templates (the other reversed) as the under section needs milling and the blue lines allow me to validate that the two templates align. After that I have to consider how to taper these as it looks like it has a taper fore and aft and up and down which looks a bit of a bugger to do..
  18. Good grief time flies... I'm still workshop less so looking with fondness at my on hold plans for making sawdust.. Anyway I just wanted to note, as it's relevant to the Amphion, that one of the most famous portraits of Sir William Hoste is now thought not to be him but a Captain John Walter Roberts instead. After finding this out it does make sense as there is other portraits of Hosts as a midshipman and captain and both those portraits show recognisably the same person. This particular mis-represented portrait would sit in between the two and shows someone that does not match (so much) the other two. This being the internet there are still hundred of hits of the wrong portrait being Hoste though especially as it was the best painted (and is also slapped on the front cover of Hoste's best biography 'Remember Nelson' by Tom Pocock. For those interested the Greenwich text is as follows (copied in case link disappears but link is also at bottom so you can go to the original) rmg Roberts painting
  19. Meh. Just when you start working another lockdown appears to slow you up. I've admittedly not stopped as I had to redo the keel after a process mistake. The Mark III keel went fine though so this post is to cover the nails/sizing and false keel stages. Once I had the joint on piece 6 done (and the process mistake was here. I had to remove the extra 'meat' so it was exact size top to bottom as otherwise when I attach to the rest of the keel it is too large). Anyway on the Mark III version I adjusted the plans so I cut it out at the correct height. This was then joined to the rest of the keel in the fashion described above and I then started on the bolts. I probably mentioned earlier that I went the bamboo path this time - after firstly this will not be visible and secondly it allows me to thickness post bolt addition. To simplify matters I generated a bolt plan in turbo cad and then copied and pasted until I had twenty or so on a sheet. I could then print this, cut off the template (which showed the rabbett so could be the correct way up) and pasted it to the relevant joints (making very certain that the rabbett was at the correct side). As so Now I did not need to bother with exact movements of the mill and could just drill through with a microsd board drill at the correct size (I went for 1mm which is actually far larger than the correct diameter of the scale bolts BUTTTTTT these bolts were clenched by hammering each end so would expand making them larger visually, this also allowed a thicker bamboo treenail so more lateral strength in the joints. Also (again) no one will see there.) The drill was not quite large enough to make it through so I then switched to a pin drill to finish the last 2-3mm - at that point the rest of the hole provided a decent guide so it would be hard for the bit to wander. Not bad. Next up I wanted the keel on BEFORE I thicknessed the sides to length OR the actual length for that matter. Thicknessers can cause a 'bump' at each end of a piece of wood worked on (if unlucky and your attention wanders) so if this happened it would be later removed when thicknessed to length. The other advantage is that the false keel and keel get side thicknessed simultaneously so wont end up with even marginal differences. This is also where cutting the false keel to the same start width as the actual helps as you don't have to worry about overlap. Here is me attempting to ensure false keel pieces do not have their joints at the keels joints and here is a standard clamp shot. I did two false keel pieces a day (one before work and one after) as the risk of them sliding due to the blackened glue is high and I have made mistakes in the past trying to do all such types of work at the same time. After the keel was on I could thickness to the sides. Here I was very careful to move the thicknesser two notches then thickness then move two notches and to repeat on the other side mainly so my piece 6 boxing joint would not be heavily out of place. After this I used the disc sander to thickness the front 'ledge' to the correct size before using a very long ruler (two metres?) to get the rear end of the keel to the correct size. To get the angle I went back to the plans which had this marked already (see the left size of piece one) I could then cut this out (marking the correct side with the angle first so I didn't accidentally use the sissored side.. The angle was done on the disc sander but I did use a scroll saw to remove some of the excess as sanding produces more dust than I like even with a decent extractor and mask on. It's not easy to see but you can see the line of the false keel running all the way through. So happily the keel/false keel unit is done. I used cherry for the false keel (as opposed to the apple I am using elsewhere) for no particular reason (false keels in real life were a different wood to the main frame). Now I have this done and I am happy with it it should provide a stable foundation for the rest of the ship. If something goes wrong (which it will) with a later piece then I wont have to restart from scratch. Here is an unexciting shot of the keel in place. and finally here is a close up of the correct sized keel/false keel showing both the bolts and a false keel joint. Next up I will probably start on the stem. Only because it is easier to fit without the next section of the keel in place. Thanks for reading this far and happy modelling!
  20. I use two types myself. Tiny brass nails that I attach using a push stick (the nail fits in the end of the tool and you place it against the plank and push and it both holds and pushes the nail in). This is only for the under later of planking (usually soft limewood of similar). The pusher isn't neccessary but it hurts much less pushing them in. Since a picture speaks more than a thousand words here is the first layer of planking going on the Bounty (these pins come with the kit and can be bought separately from Caldercraft. For the outside planking I tend to use slightly larger nails with those large plastic colourful sections to hold on to. These do not (ever) get pushed into the planks but get pushed into the underlayer of planking with the plastic top pushed into the plank I am trying to hold. And another picture to show better what is being said..
  21. Thanks guys. It is nice how you learn more the capabilities of the tools you are using with experimentation. I also like the Sherline because I am totally in control and I dont feel at risk (I always feel at risk when using the table saw which is a much scarier tool)
  22. Thanks all, I have just finished gluing parts 1 to 5 of the keel together with slightly coloured glue and then thicknessed the top and bottom to the correct target size. Keel joint shot with an extreme close up That will do nicely.. Next up I am starting tomorrow on drilling the keel joint bolts. As ever I have changed my process for that slightly to hopefully reduce my chances of destroying all the work I have done so far..
  23. I'd like to put up a post with some work on something that isn't the keel. But this won't be it. Perhaps I should rename the log to ' Scratch building the Amphion's Keel..a lot' As I said in my last update I was considering another try as I was not quite happy with the process and how close to actual size the pieces were. What follows will move to heights of detail to challenge even the most interested reader. So if you've had enough of the Keel then I recommend you await a future post (though there is a little historical paragraph at the very bottom). One of my favourite sayings concerning WW2 and design was that English craftmanship consisted of making a round peg fit a square hole. German craftmanship consisted in making 30 different shaped pegs fit 30 identically different shaped holes perfectly and American craftmanship consisted of making a square peg fit a square hole 300 times a minute. It was used somewhere to describe the issues the various combatant states had with their design processes and vehicles in particular. With regard to this build I would prefer it to move closer to the American method so refined my 'process' to remove as many issue sources as possible. Step 1 - Cut list 10 pieces to eventually represent keel parts 1-5 9.6*9.6mm, 4 pieces to eventually represent piece 6 9.6mm * 50mm - I like to cut extra as I always lose something to a mistake and this way you don't have to recut with the large risk of not getting the size the same - something you can do if you are running the same batch through the thickness sander at the same time. Step 2 - thickness the 10 pieces to 9mm * 9mm and the 4 larger pieces to 9mm depth only. - At this point I check the edges of all cut pieces against a straight edge and mark them as A, B or C. A quality is the best B is useable and C is not. Step 3 - In the previous post I had 'also' cut extra and had two pieces left over of the larger width. I cut the angle for the joint into one and then used that as the base for the angles into the next. I then scribbled some green and red ink over these two pieces which would function as my bases. - this allows me to get an identical cut each time and whereas the previous method used 3 pieces of wood to get the cut piece high enough in the vice this just needed one thus increasing ease of use, stability, accuracy and reduced error possibility. My two lovely blanks red and green Step 4 - Using some of the scrap (2 pieces from Step 2 were found to be C class) I tried to cut the depth in the table saw and then used the pieces from Step 3 to cut the joints. If they did not match I re-adjusted the table saw blade height and repeated (cutting of the dodgy end) until I was happy. - At this point you want the table saw height locked. Under no circumstances would you want to adjust the blade height or the distance to the cut guide. If you did then Step 4 would need to be replicated and you may not have enough wood and get that height wrong and the joints are cut wrong and you have to start again.... Step 5 - I used the table saw to cut the joint corner depth on one side of all the pieces (including the 50mm thick ones). Step 6 - I then started with piece 1 and used the green blank to cut the joint on the mill. Once complete I wrote on the joint 1RG standing for piece 1 Right joint and Green blank - I then took the next piece and cut it on the red blank, marked it 2LR for 2 Left Red after I had checked the fit was good. I then repeated this for one joint for all the 1-5 pieces. - The reason only 1 side was done was that if a mistake was made and the joint did not fit then the other end can be cut down and restarted to match so it is a safety valve.. An action shot! of writing! Step 7 - Not wanting to adjust the table saw setup I used the disc sander which also can keep cuts exactly at 90 degrees and shortened the next piece accordingly. I could then use the table saw to cut the opposing sides joint depth and then repeat the exercise for the opposing side joints. Step 8 - I gummed a cut out section from my plans onto the piece. Now please remember this is the opposite side to the left joint table saw cut. Step 9 - Now it was time to start on the much more complex piece 6. For this I started by cutting the upper side of the piece with the table saw being very careful to not go near the rising section (the saw naturally cuts deeper lower so you can accidentally cut into wood that should not be touched. Step 10 - I used a scalpel to cut out the paper that covered the joint and then used the mill as before to cut the majority of the joint out to a depth of 4.5mm (one reason for the 9mm size is to make this cut easier) As long as the vice is set up properly you can also do the parallel section of the joint on the line. Step 11 - Mills are wonderful things and I now loosened my vice and moved it about so I could do the same cut to the rising angle and the 2 other angles on the floor of the joint. When adjusting the vice I would just move the mill out of the way so I did not adjust its height (and thus get into potential issues when resetting). Step 12 - The piece came out of the mill vice I used the scroll saw to cut the upper line (not close to the line itself - around 2mm off) Step 13 - The piece then went back in the mill with some flat scrap under it and the mill was lowered over 9mm so I could do the same to the upper edge. Step 14 - It was removed from the mill for the last time and the table saw was used to cut off the end piece Step 15 - The disc sander handled the forward diagonal edge. Step 15 - the piece was now placed back in the now straightened vice so its left most joint can be cut using the red blank from step 3. What's nice about this approach is that you can move the mill sideways and fit the other side whilst it is still in the vice to test the fit if you are nervous about it.... Below you can see piece 6 pre tidy up. It looks messier than it actual is but that, I suppose, is the power of cameras these days. Step 16 - the corners and places were angles change all needed work with chisels to correct. So there we have it. I like this approach as the mill is a huge amount of fun to use and it helps guarantee those right angle and exact depth cuts and thus helps counter my own lack of craftsman skills. Next up I will be looking at gluing them together (I have the pieces from the previous post to be my test guinea pigs) and then once that is done thicknessing the top/bottom to size before blueing. The sides might wait until after the bolts are done - I plan on using wood as opposed to metal this time and am undecided on the order to do this currently. If I do it prior to thicknessing then the thicknessing will flatten - which I like the thought of... Pieces almost ready to be glued the only piece that still needs cutting down is piece 1 which is still oversized so it can be cut to the correct key length once all pieces are glued and any incremental sizing errors in either direction make themselves known. (Pieces are not exactly over their drawing prints in case anyone was wondering) Finally, she is indeed a lovely ship Frolick. It may interest any trivia followers out there that in the Aubrey Maturin book 'Treasons Harbour' O'Brian has some minor criticism of Hoste (I don't entirely disagree though I think my own opinion of him is more rooted in opportunity than O'Brian's and his has a ring of some of the complaints about Nelson in it). He then goes on to describe how a Lt Charles Fielding has escaped from French prison and hid all over Europe and had finally managed to get out on the Adriatic in a small boat which is then found by the Nymphe (one of his old ships). This is interesting because the actual officer was Donat Henchy O'Brien and the ship that found him, and the one in which he used to be on the roster of, was none other than my Amphion. He covers it in detail in his memoirs 'My Adventures during the late war'. Just another example of Mr O'Brians skill at continually re-purposing actual historical events to provide realism in his stories. You may find it curious why he did not attribute it accordingly and I think (guessing naturally) that Hoste was one of the minor sources for some of Aubrey's actions and as this book specifically mentions one of the re-purposed activities- when Hoste (then in the Bacchante) took Cattaro in 1813 - even involving a helpful Archbishop. This was detailed in an earlier Aubrey book ('The Ionian Mission' - here O'Brian even mentions Cattaro but as another location and shifts some of his combatant nationalities but not most of the events themselves) but in the current one O'Brian has Aubrey going to his fictional town version and meeting up with his fictional Pope/archbishop so I personally think he didn't want to draw so much direct attention to the Hoste and the Amphion which was best known under his command. Tying the actual O'Brien to the espionage and a wife was probably a major factor as well. Anyway thanks for reading for anyone that got this far.
  24. Just paid a little more attention to the rest of this thread (as opposed to the message) so some people have noted potential issue with boom and jib. So beyond the extra measurements mine just really adds the horrible sketch no doubt explaining why I went into IT. It's a lovely kit either way and a pleasure to build.
  25. The bowsprit is apparently 35 ft and 4 inches to be exact which is 168.275 at scale. Also the Admiralty has 2 sets of plans for the Bounty and they differ in size slightly. The McKay book indicates he believes the second to be more accurate. You also have a 3rd set of plans which is the size when the adjustments were completed. They 'should' match the second but Bligh did make further changes. Not to impact the length admittedly. Kit length also includes the Driver Boom sticking out the back which needs to include the connection piece to the mast not measured with the boom itself as when saying how big a kit is you have to tell how long it will be for literal space purposes ( you cant say its 3 ft long when extra masts etc make it 5 ft) Aaaaannnndd kit length also includes the Jiboom which is not only attached to the Bowsprit but is also partially attached to it (so its length can be adjusted) - the Jiboom was 27ft 1 inch apparently. As a practical example here is a (horribly bad) sketch I did when trying to estimate how big my Amphion would be at size and due to the angles it would be an overestimate in this case.
×
×
  • Create New...