Ryland Craze

Usernames are, for me, like passwords - I always struggle to come up with something and kevin-the-lubber was a very off-the-cuff choice. It's fine for forum use but if I do manage to open a little 3D parts shop it's not a great label, is it! Anyway, I'm still pondering on it so we'll see.

Thanks for all the kind words!
 
The trajinera, with all its chairs, table, and decorations, really built my confidence with scratch-building, and I wanted to apply that to the dory. So, I made a lobster trap.

 
This does entail a choice to build this less as a dory used on the grand banks, where they were mostly targeting fish, but rather a dory used for inshore fishing.
 
I based the design on photos from a number of other builds (shout-out to posts by users Keithbrad80, ThirdCoast, John Ruy, and Mr. Bluejacket), as well as on images and descriptions at these sites: https://www.fao.org/3/x2590e/x2590e07.htm
https://scarboroughhistoricalsociety.org/2016/11/lobster-traps/
 
The trap is mostly constructed of slats of basswood, 1mm thick (more or less) that I stripped from a 1/16th inch thick board (so, they're 1/16th of an inch wide). I would have made them thinner, 1/32 inch, but I had a hard time stripping the wood very precisely with just my exacto knife and a straightedge. I consoled myself with the knowledge that lobster traps were often built by hand by fishermen, and usually looked a bit rough, and pressed on. I drew a template to follow for the outer pieces, and then added the slats across the bottom, using a piece of scrap wood as a spacer.


For the curved frames, I soaked three slats in hot water and bent them around plastic bottle caps that were the correct size. I had some minor issues with the slats kinking rather than following  smooth curve--perhaps the wood was a little thick for such a tight curve--but I was able to use hairpins to clamp those parts down into more of a curve.


I was happy with how the curved frames and base turned out.


Attaching the frames was tricky, as there was very little surface area to attach them and they had opened up slightly after taking them from the mold. First I tried to use super glue to add a bottom piece--essentially making a "D" shape with the frames--but this did not work at all. The glue ran everywhere, and the frame stuck only to my fingers! After peeling it off and scrubbing my hands for far too long, I decided on a different approach. I added a slat running across both ends of the frames. Once that assembly dried, I then was able to attach all three frames at once to the base.

 


After attaching them, I noticed that the angle was a bit off. The top left part (in the photo below) didn't worry me as I was going to cut that part of the slat off anyway to make the entrance, but the bottom left and center frames were cut off and reglued, which resolved the problem.

 
One of the frames at this point developed a slight kink again. I tried to pin it down a little by attaching a support slat and clamping, which helped a bit but not fully. Later, with the trap mostly complete, I simply sanded a bit off the slats at that point, which brought them into a smooth curve with the rest of the trap.


Before attaching the funnels, I gave the whole assembly a light black wash to add some character. I wanted to do this now so that the trap interior wouldn't be unpainted.

Making the funnels was very difficult! I used a thin tulle for the netting,  dying it in the black wash so it was less white. Interestingly the surface tension is enough that the tulle just sits on top of the water untill you really force it in. I decided to do the interior funnel first, as it would be less visible if I messed up. My first plan to make the funnel was to attach straight strips of tulle inside the frame, which I would slit and glue into more of a conical shape. This did not work at all. Tulle is very hard to glue, for the simple reason that it's more holes than solid. When glued to itself, it prefers to stick to anything but itself, especially whatever is used (fingers, tweezers, etc) to push the tulle pieces together. With the first funnel a disaster, I cut it out and went back to the drawing board.


In the meantime, I made the funnel entrance rings. I soaked sone brown thread in the black wash to make it darker, then wrapped it around a cylindrical plastic brush cover and soaked it in glue, trimming the edges once it dried.

 
I decided the funnels themselves would have to be made as funnels before being attached to the frames, so I cut larger strips of tulle, rolled them into funnels, and glued. This was still extremely difficult, given the above-mentioned problem of gluing tule, but making it a single area to be glued instead of multiple was somewhat manageable (although this still left some of the "net" clogged with glue--at least it dried clear, and I picked out some with a needle). That said, the interior funnel was still much too wide. I decided to try two different methods of making the funnels. For the interior funnel, I figured the ring would be most visible on its exterior, so I placed the ring over the edge and slid it down to hold it into a better shape. I then glued the funnel to the frame, as seen. For the exterior funnel, which ended up much closer to the correct size, I figured the ring would be most visible looking in from the trap entrance, so I glued the ring to the funnel interior, as seen. I waited to attach the exterior funnel until later.


Once the glue dried, I moved the interior funnel ring into the correct position and glued it, then cut off the excess tulle once it dried. As the funnel was too big, it looked very messy, but 1) it was still a net funnel! and 2) it was going to be mostly boxed in anyway.

 


At this point, I also started making a buoy. I laminated two pieces of scrap 1/8th inch basswood and whittled and sanded for the body, and used my pin vice to make a joint to better attach the stick part (I have no clue what the correct terminology is). Growing up, my family had an old buoy as decoration, so I based my design on that one. Hence why the stick part (I'm sure there's a better word but this post is already long and I am tired) is cut off at an angle--the tip had broken off around a knot on our buoy. I also drilled out a hole for the rope, which almost split the tip.

 

 
Then to the exterior funnel. I added a pre-painted slat at the correct height to make the entrance. I decided that gluing tulle was too much of a pain, so instead I wanted to sew it in place. Surely, I thought, this would be easier?


I was mostly wrong. Sewing the tulle was a real pain in the neck. It had a real tendency to simply follow along with the thread instead of staying in place. After multiple failed tries, I ultimately had to glue down the four corners. This helped, but it was still difficult and every non-glued part pulled moved a lot, at least until it was halfway sewn on to the trap. The tulle moved so much that it partially ripped off from the ring, which had to be re-glued. The thread also had a tendency  to stick to itself. Finally, though, I finished and tied it off. It was sloppy, but at least it worked.


I noticed my spacing was a bit off on the left side, so I filled in the gap by tying a bit of string there. This helped a lot with reducing the irregularity, and isn't very noticeable. I also started attaching the pre-painted slats.


After finishing off the slats--some of which had to be carefully placed between the loops of the line holding in the netting--I finally added three small "buttons" used to close off the trap lid on top. With that, the trap was finished!


Overall, I'm happy with how it turned out, and I think it looks good in the dory, although I still need to finish the buoy and line. Would a lobster trap's line be more likely to be coiled in a line tub/bucket, or just left more loosely coiled on the thwart?

 

 


A few thoughts on what I've learned:
 
On pre-painting the slats with a black wash: after initially painting each slat separately after they were cut to size, a slow process, for the side slats I simply painted the entire strip before cutting to size, later adding a bit of wash at the ends. This ended up making the ends a bit too dark as  the pigment in the wash was concentrated there, and I think it would look more consistent to paint the whole slat after cutting to size.
 
I probably should have used a thread the same color as the tulle, but I don't think the black looks horribly put of place.
 
In hindsight, I think it would have worked better to make the funnels mostly by sewing the tulle into shape, given how difficult it was to use the glue. The rings also probably should have been sewn instead of glued on. That said, tiny pieces of tulle are tricky enough to sew that this would still be frustrating.
 
I wish I had gotten the frames more square to the base, but I think it looks good enough for something that a fisherman would have made himself.

Next up: possibly a few more fishing tools, plus something else a bit larger.

Adding these details takes a kit to the next level.  Good job. 

good evening everyone
thank you for comments and likes, very much appreciated 
day 133 
i have decided to start working aft to fwd on the outside of the hull so the galleries are getting some attention,
 

the tiles were not treated in any way, straight off the roll, but with a week interval, one side is more tarnished than the other, i have now listened to @James H and have now rubbed with fine wire wool, and coated with a water based varnish, the shineyness has gone

Bonjour,
 
The Granado is my second wooden ship build these year.  This follows the ship Endurance which you can follow the link to in the MSW gallery.
 
Before to start I learned many things with the forum. Thank You Timmo, Joe, Kevin, Brian, Vane...
 
I was a little bit disappointed when I opened the box because 3 sheets missing. Thanks to Glenn (Cornwall) the problem was rapidly solve.
 
Like everybody the fitted of the gunport pattern is not easy. At the end Ithe gunport cutouts of each pattern (port and starboard) were not fully aligned (1-2mm) !
 
 

Incredible work!

At first I wanted to carve it in its entirety, but it seemed to me difficult and I made it in two parts. Front and back. Then glued.

Made a Roman for the stern.

The railing for the stairs was made of copper wire. He flattened it with a hammer, then bent the details of the stairs out of it. Then inked and painted with gold paint. Then I wiped off the gold paint in some places with a rag.

Thanks for the Likes
Thanks Jason. I can't imagine you having any problem with this little kit! The wick is just a length of the wire supplied in the kit, glued into a hole drilled in the top of the candle and then snipped down to a sensible height.

Hi
I am going very slow...Next little thing to make was the stern lantern using the Syren Model 1/64 version. A truly brilliant mini kit but very tricky to build. To call this small is very much an understatement - it is tiny and some parts ridiculously so. The macro photography takes you way beyond beyond what you can see. For absurd detail, I added a wick to the candle. The only panic was popping a glazing panel inwards during handling after fixing the top on. I drilled a hole through the door and gently pushed it back into place with a wire. First rule when modelling at this size and breaking something - don't panic and find the fix. Only departure from the kit is the crank - basswood in the kit but I replaced with 1mm diameter solid brass rod which is fitted into a hole drilled into the base parts. It feels much more solid than a bit of wood glued to the base.
 


 
The lantern catches the setting sun as HMS Fly sails out of Dusky Sound, Fiordland, New Zealand - the background photo is taken by me in Dusky Sound and is my computer wallpaper (it is not is not blurry in reality!)

 

Absolutely. An America kit would have either a frame set labeled A-B-C... or 1-2-3... as we still do today. The keel is labeled A 1 B 2 C 3 etc.

Absolutely, but this speaks more to the quality of the manufacturer/kit than to the style of the kit. You'll get a more accurate hull from a manufacturer who produces a well designed/produced POB or solid-hull kit, and you'll get a less accurate hull from a manufacturer who produces a sloppy version of either. And in either case the modeler can always improve a sloppy kit with enough work.
 
Everyone's personal experience is certainly valid. Mine has been that I find POB easier, more intuitive, more enjoyable, and more educational than solid-hull.

If I remember correctly, part of the genius of Art Montgomery's POF America
was that the company got two kits from one loaf of bread. Every other slice
of the carved hull was in one kit and vice versa. Lovely kit to build.

"Hulls shall be built up in lifts of clear, first-grade mahogany or basswood; doweled and glued together with water-resistant glue. The wood shall be completely free of knots, checks, and sap pockets and shall be thoroughly seasoned. Models over 12 inches beam must be hollowed for reduction of weight The hull shall be composed of the least number of parts necessary to achieve the proper shape. An excessive number of glue joints shall be avoided. On models less than 12 inches beam, hull lifts shall be cut to the full body shape: lifts shall not be cut in halves, thereby creating a glue seam along the vertical centerline of the model. The lifts shall conform accurately to lines of the vessel as shown by the plans. A stable, durable, flexible body putty may be used in moderation to fill gaps."
 
Specifications for Construction of Exhibition Models of U.S. Naval Vessels, Curator of Models, U.S. Navy
 
Nautical Research Guild - Article - Specifications for Construction of Exhibition Models of U.S. Naval Vessels (thenrg.org)
 
Perhaps so, but I expect their primary concern is plank movement and the development of paint cracking along the plank seams.

I never had that experience. It musta been my clean livin' that done it for me.  

PEric,
 
 You will get an  accurate hull from a POB kit provided the manufacturer provides enough bulkheads to force the planking to assume the required shape.
 
I assume that museum’s policies of limiting acquisition of models to solid wood hulls is because they are unsure of the longevity of the planking.  This may change if POB models prove to be durable.
 
Roger
 
 

Actually I have had a few solid hull kits that looked like the hull had been hacked out of a billet of wood with a hatchet.  Some of the old Model Shipways yellow box kits were that way and some of the older kit from other manufactures required a lot of work to shape.

Everybody's mileage differs, I suppose. Having built hulls using both methods, I've found shaping a "bread and butter" built hull, let alone a pre-shaped solid hull, is far easier than POF or POB. You are correct that "the natural curve of the planking" is helpful in "getting every inch of the hull shape right. So also does a suitably sized batten with sandpaper glued to it spring into a fair curve in exactly the same way planking strip wood does. Moreover, after one has done anything but a perfect planking job on frames or bulkheads, the hull must be slathered with some sort of plaster or filler putty and then sanded fair in exactly the same manner as a solid wood hull anyhow. As for scratchbuilding, one can take station or waterlines off a plan, cut them to shape, and stack them up to form the stepped shape of the hull which then requires only "knocking the steps off" to achieve a perfectly shaped hull identical to the drawn lines. Just sayin'.
 
In point of fact, the old "pre-carved" solid hull models weren't all that "rough-cut." I can't remember ever seeing one that wasn't shaped to the point where all it really required was finish sanding to smooth without any serious shaping other than sometimes carving rails or stems, etc. thinner because they were left thick so as not to be damaged in shipping. Bottom line, finish sanding the old "pre-carved" hulls really wasn't any more work that sanding a planked hull covered with filler to hide a multitude of sins.
 
Even where one is interested in "showing the planking," whether it be finished "bright" or painted, it is far easier to glue very thin "planks" made of wood shavings from a plane or pieces of paper or card stock to a solid hull than to attempt to shape the much thicker scale plank stock to form a hull "the way the real ship was built." 
 
Additionally, with the exception of fully-framed "Admiralty Board style" models and those intended to depict the subject vessel's interior, as with open boats, most all museums and major collections limit their acquisitions to solid hull ship models.
 
I do believe Mr. BlueJacket's explanation that POB and POF kits have come to predominate on the kit market is simply because they are a lot cheaper to produce, particularly with modern laser-cutting technology. The tradeoff is that they are a lot more work to construct and that's passed on the to the consumer.

Speaking just for myself, and for the sake of argument, I'd generally rather plank a bulkhead hull than deal with a rough-cut solid hull. To me, if the bulkheads are reasonably accurate, the natural run of the planks creates a reasonable hull shape. If the planking isn't meant to be seen, then it doesn't have to be perfect and is easy to finish using filler. In comparison, getting a solid hull right means manually getting every inch of the hull shape right, which the natural curve of planking does for you on a bulkhead model. It also strikes me as easer for scratchbuilding, since you can take station lines off a plan and, again, let the planks do the rest, rather than trying to manage every square inch of a solid wood surface.
 
And while rough planking isn't the same as "how the real thing was built", it's a lot closer than sanding down a block of wood! Even my earliest attempts at planking taught me quite a bit about the geometry and physics of bending wood, inspiring an interest to know more. Whereas shaping a solid hull feels more like making a Dutch shoe.
 
I can easily see how things might be different for more modern vessels with, as Roger says, complex hull shapes that don't have the simple lines of a traditional wooden sailing vessel.
 
Interesting economic perspective from Mr. BlueJacket, thank you.

One of the most relevant reasons for the loss of solid hulls is that they are labor intensive and expensive to produce, compared with POB laser cutting. The cost of the basswood boards is also more than the cost of the sheets required to produce bulkheads.
 
Our POF models of the America and Jefferson Davis start out as solid hulls which we then slice like a loaf of bread. that technique was invented and patented by Art Montgomery. who owned BlueJacket in the 1980's.  It is very expensive, since you have the cost of a solid hull and the cost of slicing it.

The next BJ kit, a 1/192 scale NS SAVANNAH (which I have already started) will also be a solid hull.  The bulk of the superstructure will comprise lifts, so essentially it will be solid, as well.

Some idle speculation regarding Bob’s question.
 
The old standbys; AJ Fisher, Model Shipways, etc. offered solid hull kits of subjects based on solid research, particularly the availability of accurate hull lines.  With solid hulls a skilled craftsman was not constrained by the way planks wanted to bend around widely spaced bulkheads. This allowed accurate reproduction of subtle hull shapes.  These kits could and did produce beautiful models of mostly American subjects.
 
In the 1970’s we were invaded by a host of awful POB model kits usually of European manufacture.  This is not just my opinion.  The then Editor of the Nautical Research Journal published a lengthy article titled Piracy on the High C’s decrying the poor quality of these imported kits.  These kits were supported by a first class marketing program.  The subjects, often fictitious, were more exciting than the staid offerings offered by the old American Companies as they often offered  “hook” to a recognized Nautical event.  Why are there so many Titanic kits and so few if any SS United States kits?  The kits also made the nonsensical claim that constructing a POB hull was just like building the real thing.  These kits have improved over the years and several new companies now offer POB kits that build into beautiful, accurate models expanding the appeal of the hobby.  Unfortunately several of the old companies did not improve their offerings and have lost market appeal.
 
A notable exception would appear to be Bluejacket.  They offer POB kits, the POF kits that Bob mentioned, and Solid Hull kits.  Their new USS Olympia kit is Solid hull and they presently have a Solid hull Coast Guard vessel under development.
 
And last, a recent photo of an AJ Fisher kit completed over 80 years by my father.  A solid hill kit; 1:96 scale.