Thistle17

Doris you have a rare gift that most can not approach in kind. Simply stunning! Joe

Buongiorno from upstate New York along Lake Ontario. Picard, you will find the membership and work of this site a most pleasurable journey. Do start a log. It is a way to seek guidance and engage new people all over this world. Joe

You wax poetically chief. Great job. I may have missed it are you donating the model for public viewing? Joe

I have never heard of this Polybak material so will have to inquire further locally. I used to work in engineering at Raytheon in Portsmouth RI on the sonar systems to track these beasts of the deep. Such an impressive vessel. Was in the James River and saw one of these boats come in from the sea with only the conning tower showing, plowing a giant bow bubble. I was just awed by its presence and what a true beast it was. Lovely work and your skill set is impressive. Joe

Continue to work on preparatory tasks to make the museum assembly proceed without episode. In this vein I dry assembled a gun deck cannon to make sure of its height in relation to the gun ports. With wheels mounted it measures 12mm from floor to top of the carriage of the cannon. The reason for this exercise was to see if the dotted line on sheet 1 of the drawing's gun port framing view, when interpreted as the top of the former and bulkheads, would allow the cannon to clear the gun port sill when the false deck/decking were added. It is indeed the reference I assumed. Now that I have satisfied myself that this is a good datum(that dotted line) I will mark off the sills of the gun ports on the bulkheads in readiness for former install of the gun port elements. Onto the monotonous and dirty task of sanding each bulkhead to remove the char. Since there are 22 bulkheads I opted to use the Dremel tool outfitted with a drum sanding head. At slow speed this is quite effective at the char removal albeit I broke 2 of the upper frame uprights. More work is needed as these frames still fall into the rabbet area. Joe

As your Florida neighbor asks "do you ever sleep". You are a prolific and masterful modeler that makes kit modeling come alive. I am amazed at your and others productivity that seem to produce at "warp speed". In that light we have one group member that starts at about 10:00 at night when the house is quiet. If I started at that time I would likely nod off and hurt myself. Wished I lived closer so I could look over your shoulder to understand your work process. Joe

In your glory I would imagine Rusty! Outstanding work. How did you maintain any semblance of placement of the holes even with the ribs back illuminated? Joe

As I said moving on I am preparing for the upcoming January demo/display at the museum. I will be assembling the hull at the museum. In preparation, I have modified my hull building jig (which I had submitted to the MSW site but seems to have disappeared). I will restate this gantry style jig was a borrowed idea from, I believe Ed Tosti, who came up with the design. It is quite effective in holding the former/keel and ensuring the bulkhead perpendicularity can be easily maintained. The one improvement I have made to mine, since its last use, was to add a registration guide to achieve a guaranteed centering of the gantry cross member '0' mark of the center finding ruler that is attached. The gantry lock down was a sloppy fit in the 'T' track making it easy to go astray as it was moved down the length of the platform. Adding a foot to the inboard member of the gantry that rides nicely in the 'T' track slot ensures center registration. It is hard to see in the picture attached as it rides inside the 'T' track afixed to the shoe of the gantry. Only one is needed if it is a good fit. Joe

Sam I should have been more discreet in my last entry here. I had no intention of entangling you in this. I just didn't know how many drawing revisions went out in 2015 with the kit. I do indeed have a query into the manufacturer as I feel that is where the dissonance lies, not in your work. If I don't hear from them I will follow the trail with Crane. Nonetheless I am moving off this sub category of the build and onto more of the build. Joe

Imagine in the midst of all the craziness that is swirling around us here in the US I find myself obsessing over the accuracy of body plans for a period ship model. I may need to seek therapy soon! In any event I am offering this as my final input and direction forward. I make no claim as to this being the definitive word because what I have decided is based on correlation of/within two sources rather than anything more comprehensive. The two sources are the 2015 release of the Cassano drawing within the kit of the same date and the source mentioned in the Model Ship Builder posting. As I understand it both individuals have designs based on reconstruction of the Hackett plans. Which I further understand that for at least one designer admits his design has some limits. Here is what I did. I replicated the body plan from the Model Ship Builder source. It was of a 1:64 scale. I enlarged it to match the Cassano body plan (1:76.8) and then overlaid the two. They do not match 100% but do show reasonable correlation. The beam is off a bit but that could be magnification errors from web image to screen image to magnification to obtain scale and then to print. The bow stations have decent correlation. Some of the difference might be accounted for by the difference in assigned station lines. The stern section is not quite as much of a match but is somewhat close (see above). Now here is the strange part which I cannot explain. If I use the bow bulkhead from the kit and overlay it on the Cassano body plan it is a very good fit. If I do the similar thing with the stern bulkhead it too is a match. This is what threw me off; placing those same bulkheads on the Cassano sheet that contains each bulkhead shows the deviation earlier noted. Also noted is that the height of the bulkheads seems to be in agreement. In summary I will stay the course with the kit supplied bulkheads and build out from there using not only the Cassano detail drawing but Portia's as well. I apologize if I have whipped interested parties to and fro in this pursuit. And to round out the responses ME got back to me today and further emphasized that sheet 2 of the drawing pack is for reference only and does not reflect the machined parts precisely as the drawing so indicates. So why is that drawing in the set??? Blissfully I move on with all this in the rear view mirror. (12/26/18) Joe

Yet a bit more crazy making regarding the accuracy of the kit Essex lines. This morning I remembered this thread on another web site that was done by a Gary M who arduously reconstructed the Essex lines from the AOTS by Portia. His reconstruction to 1:64 scale makes my analysis look primitive albeit the results closely align to what we collectively have been saying herein. I am now wondering if the bulkheads within the kit were a lift of his at the 5/32 scale. Here is the site: http://www.modelshipbuilder.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?16273.30

Bob I guess I could have saved myself from a lot of grief had I read your complete log to that point. I will indeed do so from here on in. So in summary there is discrepancy between supplied drawings, manufactured parts and Portia's AOTS book even in the 2015 release. There is some correlation between the 2015 kit drawings and the AOTS reference. So where am I going with the build? Not abandoning it for sure and after some gnashing of teeth will likely do as you have done. I will hold off on gluing in the bow and stern area bulkheads until I have seen what the fairing process yields however. Joe

In speaking with the original designer of the kit I am not much further ahead in getting resolution. So while waiting for a response from ME I was prompted by the kit designer to look at Portia's Anatomy of the Ship Essex. On page 34 is a body plan (reconstructed it was claimed from the Hackett drawing). It is not of the same scale but with a 1.87 enlargement I was able to come very close to the kit scale. In addition station 33 on her drawings corresponds very closely to bulkhead 22 in the kit. An overlay of the kit bulkhead 22 (the red outline) shows approximately the same deviation that is shown in the kit drawings of that bulkhead in my last post. Pushing on in pursuit of a satisfactory answer I overlaid the AOS copy onto the kit drawing and there is much more correspondence between them than the part. A bit of crazy making here I know (and my grand kids will never know) but I will. Stay tuned. Joe

I am not sure yet Jim. I have an e-mail into the designer and waiting for a reply. And I just thought I would send the text above to Model Expo to ask what they know. Here is a picture of what I think is the worst deviation. Joe

At this point all bulkheads have been adjusted for the slot discrepancy and are a slip fit onto the former. In thinking ahead I thought it a good idea to add witness marks on each bulkhead for the gun port sills and headers. I am using the former topside height (basis of the gun deck) as a datum. Also observing that the bulkheads are flat (no camber) across the beam I could pull the vertical measurements off the profile in sheet 1 of the drawings and transfer them to each bulkhead image on the ensuing drawing sheets. Then overlaying each physical bulkhead I could transfer the vertical dimensions accurately to each bulkhead. Maybe a bit anal you say. Well maybe so but in so doing I stumbled onto a conundrum. The forward and aft most bulkheads do not match the drawing profiles. In the stern area the profile is quite a bit off (wider than the drawing in the area from wales upward). In the case of the bow the profile is slightly off but the bulkhead is taller than the drawing. Amid ships they seem to conform much better. Something got lost in translation here. To me the design drawings are the reference! Not knowing how the bulkhead profiles were translated to machining instructions I can not understand how this deviation has happened. If the drawing profiles were scanned in and "curve/segment" adjusted to achieve conformance such as in Corel Draw I might expect some small difference but certainly not what I observed. If the drawings were produced via a "CAD" system then the machining output files certainly would not create such an obvious difference. Has anybody out there observed this problem? Is there yet another revision of this kit produced post 1Q 2015? Joe

You have a passion for this work don't you? You do such justice to this pursuit so much so that your work can be said to be artful! Joe

Jim I saw you were lucky enough to get in the Medway release. I tried nd will now have to be patient until I am as lucky. In the mean time Cheerful and this build will be my focus. Joe

There just might be a Wood Duck in here after all. Today we added more bow skin on both port and starboard. This area was broken into 2 segments as the chine area goes from dead flat aft the terminating bulkhead to a twisted contour forward. It was reasoned that this would be easier to gain conformance. The remaining, dead flat, chine area will be infilled after we turn the hull over and add some backing braces. In contemplation of a finish surface today I explored our local hobby shop and priced out fiberglass and resin. The cost is to run about $50 but may be the right direction given the skin weakness. There is enough material to do the entire shell, deck included.

Thank you Bob your kind offer it is very much appreciated. More on the build: Having freed the former, bulkheads, stem, stern and keel from the pre-cut sheets I trial fitted the bulkheads and found that the bulkhead slots were over machined in comparison to the former. The slots were some 40 thousands wider than the former thickness. To correct this I had some furniture veneer that I applied to each side of all the bulkhead slots. This made for an uncomfortable interference fit so I monotonously sanded to a slip fit. This to my ire took about 5 hours of sanding and fitting. I also discovered that a number of the bulkheads did not seat flush with the top of the former so these bulkhead slot were filed to achieve a flush fit. Unfortunately they now reach into the rabbet area so further trimming is required. In applying the stem, keel and stern post I discovered that I am shy the rabbet strip thickness (on the stern) such that the stern and keel interlock along the former. Looking ahead since there will be a copper bottom applied to the hull I will just cut the stern piece and add a longer keel member. Let me reiterate. My title for this log has the word "bashing" in it. That did not mean I was bashing the designer or the manufacturer. I am just responding to the events of this build journey.

INTRO As I open this log I find myself a bit conflicted as to what I could possibly add to curious or future builders of this admiralty model from Model Shipways. The kit was delivered in January of 2015 and as I understand it, this vintage addressed many of the early kit anomalies from the 2013 introduction. I had seen the designer's prototype version and had an opportunity to be mentored by him on his research sources and the construction. As further impetus for the project I used Essex as a research subject for a group presentation. At the outset I thought I had ample sources of reference for it's build, however as I delved deeper the dissonance I discovered over a number of sources almost caused me to rethink a build. The topic and my findings are covered on our web site www.modelshipwrightguildwny.org under Topics Of Interest. I opened this kit recently as I needed a subject for a January 2018 display/demo for the Strong Museum here in Rochester, N.Y. On January 12th and 13th they are engaging families with a pirate theme and one of our members, with publicity in mind, approached them to determine interest. They responded with an invite. I chose this subject for the event as Essex in some ways was a "pirate" in her last days marauding English whalers and merchant men in the southern Pacific before meeting her capture. I plan to display/demo the build from the former on up on my rendition of Ed Tosti's building jig. THE BUILD I will not spend time in reviewing the kit contents as others have done a very good job on that score but I will comment on certain aspects of the kit as I journey down this build.

Bob I walk a fine line here. Sam is a good friend and very helpful. He has taken some shots over his bow in regard to this kit and anything I say is basically a comment related to manufacturing and control of process. He spoke to our group in early 2016 on kit development and proofing. That is why I think Chuck Passaro is so smart to have trusted people perform beta builds. Chuck's big advantage as well is that he is designer and manufacturer. Sam as you so aptly communicated did not have this control. My early 2015 version of this kit has started slow as the former and bulkheads do not match up well. All bulkheads had to be adjusted so as to fit nicely to the former by adding veneer to the bulkhead slots. In comparison the bulkhead slots are .21 while the former is 0.168 thick. I have spent about 5 hours adjusting those slots for a slip fit. Undaunted I move ahead. BTW this 2015 version does not provide the access below gun deck for further detailing either. Not sure I will move in that direction as of this time. Thank you for your kind offer of help. It is always easier when someone has plowed ahead of you. I will consider your suggestion and not muddy up your log with my woes but if allowed seek your guidance as I move ahead. Joe

Well I said I was finished, but not quite as I forgot to add the foremast flag. Of course it has to be the Irish flag as she was re-christened 'Herself". I found a nice, slightly fluttering, Irish flag that I was able to reduce and flip about the flag pole and fold over. It is quite acceptable but now I am having to find a suitable paper (weight) to copy it on that will pass through the printer. Joe

We haven't gone down a "rat hole" on this project it just has been a slow and somewhat frustrating process to get the hull skinned. We have as of today come to a point where the bow is skinned above the chines. I must say I am hesitant to post this picture because it looks pretty ugly. Using 1/16 Basswood has yielded mixed results. In retrospect strip planking of some nominal width may have been a better strategy than 3 inch sheets. Adjacent sheets where one lies atop the other tend to not lie in the same plane in part due to the relatively large spacing of bulkheads. We can fix this by gluing in stiffeners on the inside of the hull once we turn it over. We are still optimistic that we can make this ugly duckling look much more acceptable by applying a surface application of an automotive body glazing to fix any imperfections. I stopped at an auto body supply house nearby and I was delighted that the owner was willing to work with us to this end. He is also willing to work with us to get the right color of the hull. That was great news. We are also mulling over use of a model weight fiberglass cloth and resin to skin the hull. It is pretty messy but may give the hull a rigidity we may need. Joe (The open area is the chine area to fill in. It does disappear between the 2nd and 3rd bulkhead so there will be some hull contouring there. The light blue compound in the bow area is Rage, filler. It sets up too fast even with a minimum of hardener so it is not suitable for any external hull finish coating.))

I just read your que comment and want to offer in some small way to your desire to build Caroline. I just became aware of this site which offers her carvings you may wish to consider. https://www.ebay.com/itm/HMY-Royal-Caroline-1749-Scale-1-50-33-Pear-wood-Carving-pieces-Wood-Ship-kit/253177119950?hash=item3af28844ce:g:2VMAAOSwaSZaFEcj:rk:158:pf:0 One of our members is building her and is considering this product. Joe

Here is the link for this publication: https://smallboatsmonthly.com/ Joe