DocBlake

HMS Triton Cross Section by DocBlake - 1/24 scale

34 posts in this topic

After completing my Battle Station model in 1/24 scale, I was anxious to do another project at that large scale.  An entire ship at 1/24 would require an addition to our house, so I settled on a cross section.  I have plans for the HMS Granado in 1/24, but decided to launch a Triton cross section instead.  As soon as I enlarged the keel plans to 200% I realized a potential problem.  The lines on the plans themselves are 1/32" wide at that size!  I'm going to have to be very careful in sizing parts for this build.

 

I started with a piece of boxwood , dimensioned it on my table saw and thickness sander and cut a shallow kerf on each side for the rabbet.  I enlarged the kerf to a "V" groove with wood carving tools and square edged sanding blocks.  I made the false keel out of rosewood, and the keelson out of swiss pear.  I've posted some photos of my progress.

 

I'm requesting access to the Triton download area so I can continue this build.

 

Dave

post-3900-0-36067300-1452876889_thumb.jpg

post-3900-0-87360000-1452876932_thumb.jpg

post-3900-0-28314400-1452876952_thumb.jpg

post-3900-0-59526900-1452876977_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the group. Looks like it will be an interesting build. At this scale do you plan on adding extra details to the cross section. Looking forward to more!!!!!!

Canute, donrobinson and mtaylor like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking at options for a building jig for the cross section.  I came across this post:

 

"Scott:
Please have a look at this frame assembly jig I posted a while back. This will solve all the problems of assembly the frames and getting the pieces properly aligned. Please give this a try before you go much further. This is what I intended everyone to use.

The only change I made from that photo was to add a section of keel in the notch where the frame will fit. I cut that keel piece off an extra long section of off cut from my keel so I know that it will be the exact same cross section as the keel. This ensures the keel mortise in the frames will fit perfectly on the real keel every time.

Russ "

 

It comes from a moderator's repost of the log "Scottacus Triton" on page 1 of that reposted log:    http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/1454-scottacus-triton-repost-by-mod/   

 

  Does the frame assembly jig mentioned, that was posted "a while back" still exist somewhere?  Does anyone have access to the jig plans?  My guess is that "Russ" could help me out, but I don't know who  he is!  Any help appreciated.  Thanks

 

Dave

Canute, zoly99sask and mtaylor like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm restarting this build.  Mike Shanks and I have been planning on doing a joint projet:  POF "Hannah" in 1/24 scale...the whole ship.  Not sure about rigging yet.  I think the Triton cross section will be good practice for that build.  I cut out and surfaced the blanks of hard maple I'll use for the frames.  The maple is 3/8" thick, giving a final double frame thickness of 3/4".  The footprint of the cross section at this scale is huge:  9-7/8" X 14-1/2"!  The photo shows the plans for frame 2 compared to a midship's frame of "Fair American" at 1/48 scale.  I'm also planning a building jig.  The jig in the photo is one of the popular "2 level" jigs used for the cross section, but it takes into account that the plan view profile of the model is not a rectangle.  The bulwarks curve slightly.  The profile of the sides of the jig (marked by the arrows are clearly curved.  Does anyone have a good way to lay out this curve accurately?  There is no plan view of the framing in the plans.

Triton plans.jpg

maple blanks.jpg

jig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I laid out the futtocks for frame #1 on the billets.  There are 11 parts per double frame and 9 frames in all.  I'll glue up frame #1 today and cut out frame #2 also.

billet1.jpg

frames1.jpg

Canute, G.L., Geoff Matson and 7 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2017 at 8:16 AM, DocBlake said:

 The footprint of the cross section at this scale is huge:  9-7/8" X 14-1/2"!  

 

 

I think you made a typo or a mistake with your calculations here Dave, as it doesn't seem possible for the footprint to have smaller dimensions than the beam.  Also based on the above picture, if that frame is only 14-1/2" across then you are a twig of a man with only an 11" or so wide torso! :)

 

Great fun watching this progress, it's going to be a really big cross section.

 

mtaylor, DocBlake, Canute and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right Brian!  When I measured the footprint I measured between the top timbers.  The tumblehome gave the smaller measurement.  The beam is really 16-3/4".  It will be a big model!  The Admiral would probably not agree about me being a "twig". :D

Nirvana, G.L., GuntherMT and 4 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've glued up 5 of the 9 frames and I'm noticing some "tolerance creep".  When I enlarge the frame parts to 200%, the lines outlining the parts get some real thickness to them:  1/32" - 3/64").  This is especially a problem where the frames butt each other.  They need to be accurate or the frame doesn't match the plans, and things like gun port lintels and sills are thrown off.  I've already noticed some slight inconsistencies as I glue up the frames.  They are not matching 100% and on both sides of the frame. The errors are small...in the range of 1/32", but they are there.   Hopefully I can figure out a fix when the time comes.  Very thin shims will likely be the answer for any frame component too short at the top timbers, with trimming if they are slightly long.  This problem is a function of the large scale of the model (1/24).  Has anyone else encountered this problem?

Canute, Nirvana, mtaylor and 3 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like transferring plans to CAD and then working from the drawings that result. This allows for easy checking of consistency on the plans as well as easy changing of the scale. But this habit made me highly aware of the problem you raise.

 

When working from the printed plans, I've seen that all builders have worked to the outside edge of the line, and this is what I do when tracing with CAD. The lines on the plans are (I seem to remember) about 0.3mm thick, which, at 1:48, means .59" or 14.9mm at full size -- so there's plenty of room for error creep if even larger scales are used. At 1:48 the errors are within a scalpel cut of each other, or a swipe of a file, so mostly not that noticeable.

 

As you say, though, there are lots of ways to fix the errors or just ignore them as they occur. It's been pointed out to me several times that a key question is whether you can see or notice the difference. If the errors are consistent, you might end up with a longer or shorter model than expected, but as long as you compensate and use the same amount of error for the other parts, then you just end up with a model with a slightly different scale to the one you expected.

 

I don't think that answers your question but at least you know someone else has grappled with the problem!

 

Tony

 

Nirvana, mtaylor, Canute and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,

What Tony said... it's a normal problem and just about every scratch model builder runs into the problem of tolerance build-up.  Back during the early days of this project, the rule was "cut thick and sand thin".  

tkay11, donrobinson, Canute and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I'd learned CAD!  Thanks, guys.  I think I can muddle through.  I'm not too worried about the thickness of the frames but rather the height of the top timbers where a little shimming may be needed before fitting the rails.

donrobinson, Canute and Nirvana like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I continue cutting out and gluing up futtocks I'm thinking ahead.  Should I use simulated bolts (historically accurate) to hold the frames together, or treenails, which may be esthetically more pleasing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finished gluing up the last of the 9 frames.  I used Weldbond so I'll give the most recently completed frames a couple of days to dry before rough handling.  The frames will require minimal trimming and shimming in a few spots to conform to the plans.  Once that's done, I'll rough sand the frames to match the plans and start to glue and dowel then to the keel. It took one week to enlarge the plans, glue up the individual futtock on to the billets, cut them out and glue them together.  I used double sided tape to hold the appropriate futtocks to the plans and glued the second layer to the first. taped down layer.  I put a piece of plywood weighted with big food cans to weight down the plywood until they dried.   The beer is to celebrate!  It's a Hofbrau Maibock.

tritonframes done1.jpg

tritonframes done2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If those frames are still in the rough with no fairing (sanding) yet...you have done an excellent job. From the looks there will be minimal sanding required. Great Job   :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Pete!  The frames are rough, glued up after the parts were cut on the scroll saw.  No sanding yet!  I need to make a building jig next.   As I mentioned earlier, the top timbers do not form a rectangle in plan view but rather taper on slightly both for and aft.  Any tricks as to how to lay that out?

 

Second question:  Should the futtocks be fastened with treenails or historically more accurate simulated bolts?

zoly99sask, Nirvana, Canute and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as getting the taper, no trick that I know of just checking while sanding by eye.  The futtock...treenail or simulated bolts?  Comes down to how you want to do it yourself. Either way would look good and with yours being such a big scale the simulated bolts would look really nice, be much easier at this scale, but your choice.

donrobinson, zoly99sask and Nirvana like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After thinking about at work last night, you could make a template from some stiff paper(card) and get the desired taper by sanding and fitting, much the same way some people do on a solid hull...just a thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This model is being built in 1/24 scale:  a scale that introduces a lot of problems in terms of scaling.  For example, the layout lines for the parts and the profile views etc. are about 1/32" thick, leading to a lot of potential error especially in terms of room and space layout of the frames on the keel.  What I'm wondering is if anyone can help me out with some pointers on building the jig to construct the model.  How do I size the upper portion, with the cutouts for the frames, given that the frames are curved?  How do I account for the slight curvature of the frames moving aft in the plan view?  How do I keep consistent space bewtween fromes, given the thickness of the layout lines?

 

I'm almost thinking of not using the 2 tiered jig as many have employed. Instead, after screwing the keel/false keel assembly to the building board,  I'd set the first frame on the keel, use a standard precut spacer for the space between it and the second frame, then set the second frame.  Using the standard spacer again, I'd set the third frame and so on.  I would need to make a right angle jig to keep the frames square to the keel and their tops level, but I could avoid the upper tier of the jig.  What do you think?  Any advice or tips?  Thanks so much for any help you all can lend!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,

 

Take a look at the build log of the Dunbrody by Mahuna in the scratch-build section.  He built a considerably larger cross section (in number of frames, not scale) and did not use a jig at all.

tkay11, mtaylor, zoly99sask and 3 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.