Thistle17

Chuck I understand your doubt. I share it. I did forget to mention that I am tapering the upper stern frame fillers as the on line instructions relate and I am using the guides (1 through 5) to help in the contouring. As I proceed I am taking the partial assembly to the model and testing the fit. So far with one of the 'B' frames correcctly postioned it fits and fits comfortably. As we have discussed my start up has been unconventional and I am paying for that. It was a hard lesson learned that will not be repeated. My escape will have to be some level of do over if it is a disaster.
Joe

Let me lead in with the following statement before I get into the methodology I have adopted for the stern framing. " In no way am I making any disparaging comments as to the fidelity of the Syren kit parts in my comments herein. I have always found the parts to be well designed and manufactured."
 
Having said that I think many of you might agree that the Winchelsea transom is a bit tricky to assemble and fit correctly. Simply put, it takes quite a bit of care and trial fitting to get it to come out correctly. Not withstanding it all has to take place in mid air!
 
Well it was a bit more of a struggle for me under my circumstances. The problem is unique to my "framing construction" and would not affect others. I only share it for some of you that may be having trouble with "in air" assembly.
 
After a number of attempts to fit the transom frames and fillers in place while all elements were stepwise fit together on the frame. I had to abandon that approach. Before I get further into it I should also say that sanding, chiseling and filing the stern frame slots on #28 and #29 bulkhead resulted in some loose fitting slots. That made the "in air" assembly yet more awkward.
 
So I resorted to an "on the bench" approach. I copied and cut out the stern layout drawing on page 1 of the drawing set. I began with stern frame(s) 'A" and the associated filler for these frames and overlayed them on the drawing cutout. There is no filler tapering required on the filler but to have the frames correctly align I did have to trim the mid filler a bit. Now before going on one has to realize that this is a 2D drawing of a slightly curved transom and has not been adjusted for the concave effects ( I believe this, as the "port holes" in the frieze or the transom covering line up quite well).
 
Successively I am working my way outward and at each step checking by fitting on the stern and with the transom cutout. Note in the picture that the port side filler has yet to be trimmed to fit.
 
I have my fingers crossed that all will come out in the end. Else I may have to repurchase some parts. That will be humbling!
 
Joe 
 

As I continue the fairing of the hull I spent some time on the bow on the starbaord side and was pleasantly surprised at how it turned out. Methodology was the key for me and the batten trials has served me well. I did extend my bow filler layout method to the port side in the following manner.
 
Before I permantly glued in the starbaord elements I ensured that the taper on both the exposed and backside profile of the port side matched the starboard elements. I then extended the perpendiculars I had inscribed on the starbaord topside element to bulkhead 'W' on the port side. Then using the ;story pole' shown clamped to the strabaord side I marked the taper that would 'dial me in' on port side and made the tick marks shown. In theory this will give me a near identical bow geometry to plank.
 
To my way of thinking this simple method nudges me away from the 'eye balling' I have done in the past that has not always turned out for me.
 
Joe

The best alignment tool is that pattern cut out of the plans with everything cut but the frames, then double-side tape to middle two and use that to space the frames. then the window sills which in addition to length have a beveled angle to sort out. It’s a fun challenge. 

As I continue the fairing of the hull I spent some time on the bow on the starbaord side and was pleasantly surprised at how it turned out. Methodology was the key for me and the batten trials has served me well. I did extend my bow filler layout method to the port side in the following manner.
 
Before I permantly glued in the starbaord elements I ensured that the taper on both the exposed and backside profile of the port side matched the starboard elements. I then extended the perpendiculars I had inscribed on the starbaord topside element to bulkhead 'W' on the port side. Then using the ;story pole' shown clamped to the strabaord side I marked the taper that would 'dial me in' on port side and made the tick marks shown. In theory this will give me a near identical bow geometry to plank.
 
To my way of thinking this simple method nudges me away from the 'eye balling' I have done in the past that has not always turned out for me.
 
Joe

Let me lead in with the following statement before I get into the methodology I have adopted for the stern framing. " In no way am I making any disparaging comments as to the fidelity of the Syren kit parts in my comments herein. I have always found the parts to be well designed and manufactured."
 
Having said that I think many of you might agree that the Winchelsea transom is a bit tricky to assemble and fit correctly. Simply put, it takes quite a bit of care and trial fitting to get it to come out correctly. Not withstanding it all has to take place in mid air!
 
Well it was a bit more of a struggle for me under my circumstances. The problem is unique to my "framing construction" and would not affect others. I only share it for some of you that may be having trouble with "in air" assembly.
 
After a number of attempts to fit the transom frames and fillers in place while all elements were stepwise fit together on the frame. I had to abandon that approach. Before I get further into it I should also say that sanding, chiseling and filing the stern frame slots on #28 and #29 bulkhead resulted in some loose fitting slots. That made the "in air" assembly yet more awkward.
 
So I resorted to an "on the bench" approach. I copied and cut out the stern layout drawing on page 1 of the drawing set. I began with stern frame(s) 'A" and the associated filler for these frames and overlayed them on the drawing cutout. There is no filler tapering required on the filler but to have the frames correctly align I did have to trim the mid filler a bit. Now before going on one has to realize that this is a 2D drawing of a slightly curved transom and has not been adjusted for the concave effects ( I believe this, as the "port holes" in the frieze or the transom covering line up quite well).
 
Successively I am working my way outward and at each step checking by fitting on the stern and with the transom cutout. Note in the picture that the port side filler has yet to be trimmed to fit.
 
I have my fingers crossed that all will come out in the end. Else I may have to repurchase some parts. That will be humbling!
 
Joe 
 

As I continue the fairing of the hull I spent some time on the bow on the starbaord side and was pleasantly surprised at how it turned out. Methodology was the key for me and the batten trials has served me well. I did extend my bow filler layout method to the port side in the following manner.
 
Before I permantly glued in the starbaord elements I ensured that the taper on both the exposed and backside profile of the port side matched the starboard elements. I then extended the perpendiculars I had inscribed on the starbaord topside element to bulkhead 'W' on the port side. Then using the ;story pole' shown clamped to the strabaord side I marked the taper that would 'dial me in' on port side and made the tick marks shown. In theory this will give me a near identical bow geometry to plank.
 
To my way of thinking this simple method nudges me away from the 'eye balling' I have done in the past that has not always turned out for me.
 
Joe

I am just catching up to this build and find it fascinating and your execution is superb! When Druxey asked the above question I recalled Mowll's work in Ship In Scale;  (Nov/Dec 2014, p12-25) using the same method. Your answer now clinches my thoughts about this method. Given that you can apply laser machining to the keel halves it, further makes sense to me. This as you show enables the bulkheads to be linearly and perpendicularly placed accurately. If indeed the keel half's are twisted from their plane datum one can compensate for the problem by selecting wood orientation. Oh to have access to such a technology!
Joe

Hmmm! I didn't read the monograph thoroughly enough or should i say I did not spend enough time on line where at times more detail can be found.
Of course that explains it. Another lesson in more deliberate execution. Not an excuse but at this time I can only spend an hour at best at this and the on again, off again approach does not lend itself to the build. Thank you.
Joe

Ron et al I am not at all critical of your works as a matter of fact I marvel at your bringing the "sciences" into the realm of model building. What have we wrought in just the last few years and maybe more importantly where is it all going?
 
And the other sense I gather is that 3D printing may be more complicated than say CNC or laser machining. Your discussions sugest that in these cases the material brought to the machine is lessof an issue in some respects. But in 3D printing the material is somewhat "one with the machine" if you get my drift. Am I wrong?
Joe

Back to fairing the hull after my stumbles with the transom frame(s) alignment. I went back to concentrating on the bow bulkheads and fillers. I find this area particularily fussy to work as one is trying to shape the bow mostly through an itterative trial fit process. The battens come in handy for this stage so they must not be neglected in the shaping effort. Observing how the batten lays against the fillers and the first two bulkheads is always a clue to the trueness of shaping.
 
To make things just a bit more complicated the 'W' bulkhead has a mild serpentine curve at its base so that the fillers have to mimic that ever so slightly. To give myself a better chance that all will come out in the end I do not glue the fillers (BF 1 - 3) in as they are so awkward to shape whilst on the model. I start with the bulkhead shaping first ( W and U ). I shape them closely to thier prpoper bevel. In preparation for the next step. I glue fillers, BF 3 & 2 together making sure they align correctly. I then clamp that assembly to the strong back and trace the bottom  and rear face of the assembly against the bevel edge of bulkhead 'W". Iteratively I sand via a Dremel with a fine drum sander attached until I get close to the desired surface contours. The process is repeated until I feel I have achieved the desired shaping. I compare my results to some of the helpful photos of Chuck's build as shown in the attachment. In that photo you may notice that I drew in a contour line on the fillers just to get an idea of the shaping trajectory. Ultimately the assembled elements are finished sanded with blocked up linear sanding.
 
This next step is something I learned the hard way in planking Cheerful. On the semi finished starboard filler on the right I drew perpendicular lines as replication markers for its port mate. On the starboard element I drew in a similar contour line as shown on the photo. Using the perpendicular intersects of the starboard side I marked off the port side and drew in the contour shape with a french curve. This produces a very symmetrical bow framing for planking.
 
Now the photo fillers appear a bit wider at the waist area. So as a sanity check I measured Chuck's photo dimensions of the photo filler waist to the distance of bulkhead 'W" from the strong back to its tapered edge and compared it to my contoured filler. I came up with a simple ratio of filler waist width to bulkhead waist width. They turn out to be almost dead on. I am thinking that the appearance difference is the angle and optics of the photo taken.
 
At this point I am second guessing myself and if I am not happy with the results I can always make more fillers and restart the process!!!!!!!!!
 
Joe

Back to fairing the hull after my stumbles with the transom frame(s) alignment. I went back to concentrating on the bow bulkheads and fillers. I find this area particularily fussy to work as one is trying to shape the bow mostly through an itterative trial fit process. The battens come in handy for this stage so they must not be neglected in the shaping effort. Observing how the batten lays against the fillers and the first two bulkheads is always a clue to the trueness of shaping.
 
To make things just a bit more complicated the 'W' bulkhead has a mild serpentine curve at its base so that the fillers have to mimic that ever so slightly. To give myself a better chance that all will come out in the end I do not glue the fillers (BF 1 - 3) in as they are so awkward to shape whilst on the model. I start with the bulkhead shaping first ( W and U ). I shape them closely to thier prpoper bevel. In preparation for the next step. I glue fillers, BF 3 & 2 together making sure they align correctly. I then clamp that assembly to the strong back and trace the bottom  and rear face of the assembly against the bevel edge of bulkhead 'W". Iteratively I sand via a Dremel with a fine drum sander attached until I get close to the desired surface contours. The process is repeated until I feel I have achieved the desired shaping. I compare my results to some of the helpful photos of Chuck's build as shown in the attachment. In that photo you may notice that I drew in a contour line on the fillers just to get an idea of the shaping trajectory. Ultimately the assembled elements are finished sanded with blocked up linear sanding.
 
This next step is something I learned the hard way in planking Cheerful. On the semi finished starboard filler on the right I drew perpendicular lines as replication markers for its port mate. On the starboard element I drew in a similar contour line as shown on the photo. Using the perpendicular intersects of the starboard side I marked off the port side and drew in the contour shape with a french curve. This produces a very symmetrical bow framing for planking.
 
Now the photo fillers appear a bit wider at the waist area. So as a sanity check I measured Chuck's photo dimensions of the photo filler waist to the distance of bulkhead 'W" from the strong back to its tapered edge and compared it to my contoured filler. I came up with a simple ratio of filler waist width to bulkhead waist width. They turn out to be almost dead on. I am thinking that the appearance difference is the angle and optics of the photo taken.
 
At this point I am second guessing myself and if I am not happy with the results I can always make more fillers and restart the process!!!!!!!!!
 
Joe

Back to fairing the hull after my stumbles with the transom frame(s) alignment. I went back to concentrating on the bow bulkheads and fillers. I find this area particularily fussy to work as one is trying to shape the bow mostly through an itterative trial fit process. The battens come in handy for this stage so they must not be neglected in the shaping effort. Observing how the batten lays against the fillers and the first two bulkheads is always a clue to the trueness of shaping.
 
To make things just a bit more complicated the 'W' bulkhead has a mild serpentine curve at its base so that the fillers have to mimic that ever so slightly. To give myself a better chance that all will come out in the end I do not glue the fillers (BF 1 - 3) in as they are so awkward to shape whilst on the model. I start with the bulkhead shaping first ( W and U ). I shape them closely to thier prpoper bevel. In preparation for the next step. I glue fillers, BF 3 & 2 together making sure they align correctly. I then clamp that assembly to the strong back and trace the bottom  and rear face of the assembly against the bevel edge of bulkhead 'W". Iteratively I sand via a Dremel with a fine drum sander attached until I get close to the desired surface contours. The process is repeated until I feel I have achieved the desired shaping. I compare my results to some of the helpful photos of Chuck's build as shown in the attachment. In that photo you may notice that I drew in a contour line on the fillers just to get an idea of the shaping trajectory. Ultimately the assembled elements are finished sanded with blocked up linear sanding.
 
This next step is something I learned the hard way in planking Cheerful. On the semi finished starboard filler on the right I drew perpendicular lines as replication markers for its port mate. On the starboard element I drew in a similar contour line as shown on the photo. Using the perpendicular intersects of the starboard side I marked off the port side and drew in the contour shape with a french curve. This produces a very symmetrical bow framing for planking.
 
Now the photo fillers appear a bit wider at the waist area. So as a sanity check I measured Chuck's photo dimensions of the photo filler waist to the distance of bulkhead 'W" from the strong back to its tapered edge and compared it to my contoured filler. I came up with a simple ratio of filler waist width to bulkhead waist width. They turn out to be almost dead on. I am thinking that the appearance difference is the angle and optics of the photo taken.
 
At this point I am second guessing myself and if I am not happy with the results I can always make more fillers and restart the process!!!!!!!!!
 
Joe

Back to fairing the hull after my stumbles with the transom frame(s) alignment. I went back to concentrating on the bow bulkheads and fillers. I find this area particularily fussy to work as one is trying to shape the bow mostly through an itterative trial fit process. The battens come in handy for this stage so they must not be neglected in the shaping effort. Observing how the batten lays against the fillers and the first two bulkheads is always a clue to the trueness of shaping.
 
To make things just a bit more complicated the 'W' bulkhead has a mild serpentine curve at its base so that the fillers have to mimic that ever so slightly. To give myself a better chance that all will come out in the end I do not glue the fillers (BF 1 - 3) in as they are so awkward to shape whilst on the model. I start with the bulkhead shaping first ( W and U ). I shape them closely to thier prpoper bevel. In preparation for the next step. I glue fillers, BF 3 & 2 together making sure they align correctly. I then clamp that assembly to the strong back and trace the bottom  and rear face of the assembly against the bevel edge of bulkhead 'W". Iteratively I sand via a Dremel with a fine drum sander attached until I get close to the desired surface contours. The process is repeated until I feel I have achieved the desired shaping. I compare my results to some of the helpful photos of Chuck's build as shown in the attachment. In that photo you may notice that I drew in a contour line on the fillers just to get an idea of the shaping trajectory. Ultimately the assembled elements are finished sanded with blocked up linear sanding.
 
This next step is something I learned the hard way in planking Cheerful. On the semi finished starboard filler on the right I drew perpendicular lines as replication markers for its port mate. On the starboard element I drew in a similar contour line as shown on the photo. Using the perpendicular intersects of the starboard side I marked off the port side and drew in the contour shape with a french curve. This produces a very symmetrical bow framing for planking.
 
Now the photo fillers appear a bit wider at the waist area. So as a sanity check I measured Chuck's photo dimensions of the photo filler waist to the distance of bulkhead 'W" from the strong back to its tapered edge and compared it to my contoured filler. I came up with a simple ratio of filler waist width to bulkhead waist width. They turn out to be almost dead on. I am thinking that the appearance difference is the angle and optics of the photo taken.
 
At this point I am second guessing myself and if I am not happy with the results I can always make more fillers and restart the process!!!!!!!!!
 
Joe

Back to fairing the hull after my stumbles with the transom frame(s) alignment. I went back to concentrating on the bow bulkheads and fillers. I find this area particularily fussy to work as one is trying to shape the bow mostly through an itterative trial fit process. The battens come in handy for this stage so they must not be neglected in the shaping effort. Observing how the batten lays against the fillers and the first two bulkheads is always a clue to the trueness of shaping.
 
To make things just a bit more complicated the 'W' bulkhead has a mild serpentine curve at its base so that the fillers have to mimic that ever so slightly. To give myself a better chance that all will come out in the end I do not glue the fillers (BF 1 - 3) in as they are so awkward to shape whilst on the model. I start with the bulkhead shaping first ( W and U ). I shape them closely to thier prpoper bevel. In preparation for the next step. I glue fillers, BF 3 & 2 together making sure they align correctly. I then clamp that assembly to the strong back and trace the bottom  and rear face of the assembly against the bevel edge of bulkhead 'W". Iteratively I sand via a Dremel with a fine drum sander attached until I get close to the desired surface contours. The process is repeated until I feel I have achieved the desired shaping. I compare my results to some of the helpful photos of Chuck's build as shown in the attachment. In that photo you may notice that I drew in a contour line on the fillers just to get an idea of the shaping trajectory. Ultimately the assembled elements are finished sanded with blocked up linear sanding.
 
This next step is something I learned the hard way in planking Cheerful. On the semi finished starboard filler on the right I drew perpendicular lines as replication markers for its port mate. On the starboard element I drew in a similar contour line as shown on the photo. Using the perpendicular intersects of the starboard side I marked off the port side and drew in the contour shape with a french curve. This produces a very symmetrical bow framing for planking.
 
Now the photo fillers appear a bit wider at the waist area. So as a sanity check I measured Chuck's photo dimensions of the photo filler waist to the distance of bulkhead 'W" from the strong back to its tapered edge and compared it to my contoured filler. I came up with a simple ratio of filler waist width to bulkhead waist width. They turn out to be almost dead on. I am thinking that the appearance difference is the angle and optics of the photo taken.
 
At this point I am second guessing myself and if I am not happy with the results I can always make more fillers and restart the process!!!!!!!!!
 
Joe

Nice work harlequin! My Unicorn, a 1980's kit is sitting in a container maybe never to finish as the materials then were quite second rate by some standards. Maybe, just maybe you can inspire a restart for me with your good works.
Joe

Thanks for sticking with me on this. After reviewing your posts on your build and studying the process from #101 on it seems so clear now. No need for an elaborate jig. I am so thankful for your help.
Joe

The pressure has finally built to the point where I cannot ignore this model any longer. I took it down to start some of the rudimetary work such as fairing the hull. Although I treated the prior work with respect I did have a number of the mid section uprights crack since last year. I have repaired those but i still find those upper elements quite weak and are sure to break during fairing.
 
One advantage of a late start is one gets to see how others have worked through their encounters. I hitch hiked on Stunt Flyer's method albeit with my own rendition shown below. I was careful not to force any of the bulkhead uprights out of their rest position as I expected they would spring back when the 1/16 X 1/8 strapping was removed later on. If needed I added a suitable scrap to keep them in their natural position. The end result is a pretty strudy upper frame area that should take sanding well. The bow and stern areas will have to be dealt with in a similar manner but the scrap build out will be a bit more elaborate.
 
 

A vice I will admit to is tools. I find myself asking "do I really need another tool" and often the answer is yes "I guess". Anyway for what it is worth I bought this Woodpeckers pocket square which is primarily intended to gauge the trueness of the business end of woodworking chisels. Obviously it is one of those tools one uses in the workshop less than often so it has wandered into my modeling tool chest. I have found it to be just the right size for a number of build applications. Here is another I found. I am installing the bulkheads from the middle out to stem and stern so it just requires the removal of the nearest neighbor to fit. The reliefs in each arm of the square allow me to use some of the clamps with lesser throat and it does wonders to square up the bulkhead while glue dries. Albeit a bit pricey it seems to do the job.
Joe

Another milestone of sorts (at least for me given all the other things swirling around in my life). All of the bulkheads have been dry fitted on the former. It did take more fine tuning of the bulkhead slots as they were a bit undersized and I was looking for a slip fit. As I have learned in the past if this fit is not deliberate the bulkheads tend to twist about the keel center line which in turn leads to further difficulties when installing the gun port timbers.
 
In addition I would comment on the building board. I was intrigued by a group members approach to the build platform. I adopted Rusty J's method of the build board as I felt it served my needs better. I rebuilt the right angle supports a bit longer so that they could be clamped with my clamp stock. These supports are only used on the starboard side and the clamps ensure the assembly verticality (they needed some shim build out to achieve this). Thanks for the tip Rusty!
 
As I glue these in, starting amid ships, I will turn my attention back to Cheerful inboard/deck detail while the glue dries. This model has had little attention since the Spring and is begging for forward movement.
 
I will now proceed to where many of you have already gone. You all are an inspiration to me.
Joe

Finally I am have been able to start this project with the focus and attention it is going to need. If you follow the scratch build forums I am also involved in building the Viet Nam era River Patrol Boat for the museum where we hold meetings. That project even with good drawings and photos has no guidance other than our combined sense of how to build it. I liken it to building "in the air" as one might build a tree house. In contrast this project is exacting and so well documented that one has to respect each and every step of the build. I did not purchase the bulkhead sub kit but started from the raw Lite ply. I assembled the former sections on a 1/2 plate glass that is longer than the former full length to ensure I got the truest assembly. Because of the quality of the ply it still had a slight cup. The bow section even had a bit of cup at its upper reach hence the "strong-back" temporarily clamped  across the body. This turned out to be a convenient location to add a clamp across the midsection of the stem which was sanded to conform as best as I could get it. Still I could perceive a very slight separation once fitted to the former. And as most of you know PVA glue is strongest when the wood surfaces are in good contact.
 
Joe

Thanks scrubbyj427. It seems to be a buzzing in my head that won't go away and after thinking about it that is the direction I am heading in (I think at this point) with a jig I had built some time ago which I will adapt for the solution. I am sure people are asking themselves "why is he making this so complicated". The simple answer is it is in my DNA. I used to build homes while I worked for Habitat for Humanity. It was imparative that the foundation diagonals were never more than 1/4" off square. And then that error was made up by the foundation top plates. I carry that sense of things in my cabinetry and furniture building as well. If not, one was always be making up for it for much of the rest of the build. If my method works I will soon share it. 
Joe

Thanks scrubbyj427. It seems to be a buzzing in my head that won't go away and after thinking about it that is the direction I am heading in (I think at this point) with a jig I had built some time ago which I will adapt for the solution. I am sure people are asking themselves "why is he making this so complicated". The simple answer is it is in my DNA. I used to build homes while I worked for Habitat for Humanity. It was imparative that the foundation diagonals were never more than 1/4" off square. And then that error was made up by the foundation top plates. I carry that sense of things in my cabinetry and furniture building as well. If not, one was always be making up for it for much of the rest of the build. If my method works I will soon share it. 
Joe

Thanks scrubbyj427. It seems to be a buzzing in my head that won't go away and after thinking about it that is the direction I am heading in (I think at this point) with a jig I had built some time ago which I will adapt for the solution. I am sure people are asking themselves "why is he making this so complicated". The simple answer is it is in my DNA. I used to build homes while I worked for Habitat for Humanity. It was imparative that the foundation diagonals were never more than 1/4" off square. And then that error was made up by the foundation top plates. I carry that sense of things in my cabinetry and furniture building as well. If not, one was always be making up for it for much of the rest of the build. If my method works I will soon share it. 
Joe

Frank I am past the child rearing and career pursuit but I still remember those times. Family was always first. I used to steal away after the house was quite at night and try to work on models for a time. It was not the best time for me to do so. The joy in retirement is there is indeed more time but not as much as one would think. Life for us all has changed. All things equal we are more active and involved than our parents.
 
I may get in at most 2 hours a day during the fair months but no more. And given the standards set by the most accomplished modelers of this community I will either halt my work if running aground until I can find a way to resolve an issue. I actually find the problem solving enjoyable. Such as last night I think I came up with a way to solve the transom alignment problem that will work for me. I will experiment with it and post my results.
 
Joe