Cathead

I was quite a lot busy with my garden in the last two weekends and unfortunately didn't build much on my Polaris. Happily today I've managed to plank at least the stern.
 

 
    I decided to use contact cement for this area, but I'm still hesitant if this is the best solution for the rest of the hull or PVA will be much better. My personal opinion is that for this particular kit contact cement is preferable for the second layer, because the planks are too thin (0.5mm) and the water from the PVA maybe will warp them somehow. But on the other hand you have only one try with the contact cement, it's much difficult to make any adjustments. For that reason I'm still thinking, if I decide to use contact cement for the whole hull, how I will taper the planks?
    In the meantime I spent some time reading about the second layer and came to the conclusion that the main principles here will be the same as in the first layer. Again I will use Chuck Passaro's lining and planking approach. The differences will be that this time I won't use an iron for bending and maybe I will use contact cement instead of PVA.
    I just want to check in one more place before moving on. This is my secret weapon (my birthday present) 😁:
 

 
    Very well written book I think, with a really good pictures and very useful nautical terms glossary. I started reading the book before couple of days and hopefully soon will get to the chapter about the second layer.

Congratulations on a worthy choice! I hope it's a success for everyone involved.

Captains Log: Although I'm at peace with cheating on the rigging and the generally poorly attempts thusfar, I cannot do so with the sails. Indeed one does not work without the other, but in Valkyrja's model ship world no one is losing sleep over the lack of proper knots. But a ship without sails is just ridiculous. I think I'd rather see burlap sack sails than none at all....But let's hope it doesn't come to that. 
I've decided on what I feel to be a happy medium between realism and scale, a trade-off for my aesthetic, and I'm going to be implementing some (perhaps) unconventional techniques so that I can achieve this. I'm also going to repeat some of what I've already said but I want all my sources together. 
 
So I started with the 1976 Revell Model Kit, which although plastic, I find to be very fine in detail and realism, something I don't see ever in today's age. The rigging was brutal so don't look too close, but I'm going to pull the "it's my first model ship build" card.


I don't know what I was thinking but I ended up putting the upper masts at the wrong location and have since amended that. 

The Revell Kit comes with these plastic sheet sails that I scoffed at in distaste, but as I have now researched and experimented till my eyes bled, I can easily say I understand why they went that route...someone obviously had the foresight to want at least a few of their models completed...

I still don't like them, and after all the blood sweat and tears that went into that stupid rigging, how could I not give her the sails she deserves?
 
I am using the 1927 restoration sail plans by the Boston Navy Yard and generously offered for our use by the U.S.S. Constitution Museum, who also provided most of the information I was looking for under Modeler Resources. The plans differ slightly from the Revell Kit, but are more accurate for the look I wanted to represent.
Much invaluable help can be found in sail details, verbiage and actual use provided by the Historic Naval Ships Association textbook of seamanship manual, it's very much worth the read.
 
I printed the sail plans not thinking of printer scale and had to rescale all the templates, which may seem like more work than necessary (and it was), but I found it a good revisit of scaling math. In the interest of humor I will admit that I was extremely rusty and originally converted all the measurements to metric before I decided to use an engineers ruler....like I said...unnecessary work- here's a snap of my hot mess that makes sense probably to myself only.
I used an engineers ruler because I hate fractions and it provides much more precision than a standard ruler (architects rulers are, I believe, what most real modelers use).


The fabric I decided on after all my experiments was the Blackout canvas. It's true that it's heavier than scale and true to form, doesn't allow for any light, but I really liked the look and way it stretches and holds form. If anyone decides to try it out remember to mirror your studding sails as blackout fabric is canvas on one side and flat on the other.
The added benefit given by the nature of its construction, allowed me to score the seam lines instead of painting or sewing them on.  

I'm at another decision point on whether I want to add any color, My Constitution has organically (or maybe subliminally) ended up as she was upon maiden launch, I'll be adding the Hercules figurehead and original rendition of the Greco-Roman gallery decoration. I've had a hell of a time finding an actual reliable rendering of these. But after painstakingly searching and sifting through The National Maritime Historical Society magazine archives, I'm using the Hercules as envisioned here and here as my "inspiration" lol. I could not find anything on the gallery aside from this ONE rendering which I find perfect, but I have no idea who posted it as there is no alluding to the maker or what their source was...so mysterious. 

I also debating whether I want/need anything on the sails. In her beginning her sails would not have been so weathered as I've seen in other models but I may add some light weathering/shading for depth and realism. It's also unnecessary to do anything other than stretch the fabric to form it, but I can't believe that will withstand gravity for very long, and the non canvas side is very slightly "flocked" which I fear will end up looking fuzzy after manipulating it.
 
So the next decision is what to treat it with. I'm really leaning toward "RSG" or rabbit skin glue, since I won't be fully painting them with acrylic. RSG if you are unfamiliar is an archival glue that back in the old old days sculptors used in part to make "compo" or composition ornament for decorative picture frames, and was the standard ingredient in traditional gesso for priming and sizing painters canvases.
I am an oil painter and past conservator, so I have it (it's really cheap), and it's amazing stuff, with all kinds of uses. When used as a size, it's transparent, sealed, and tightens and stiffens fabric. Adjusting the ratio of water, adjusts the temperament and strength. Nevermind, I'm totally using it lol.

The bow strip was a challenge. 


I soaked the walnut piece for 30-45 minutes.   My plan was to do two soakings, one to set the general arc, the other to set the final contour.   I was wondering how I could clamp it in place.  I managed to get the clamp to sort of trap the piece in position.  I let the half circle dry overnight.  I used the plywood scrap from where the deck was removed as a template for the second soak. 
 


 
I had a hard time gluing the piece to the front of the deck.  Between trying to get the clamp to work on a non-flat surface and the wet glue causing the piece to move around. Once the glue got tacky I could set it in place and use the palms of my hands to clamp the piece in place (for about 3-4 songs).  I drilled the holes with a 2 mm bit, then with a 2.5 mm bit. 
 


 
I realized I glued the piece in crooked. I debated about trying to unglue it, but I don’t have a lot of experience un-gluing stuff (mixed results) and I was concerned I’d loosen other pieces or break the piece.  I chose to let it be. 
 

The riding bitt standards have been smoothed out with a sanding drum so they are ready for the edges to be beveled and other details. I finished the stove base and used some black and rust weathering powder to make it look more like metal. I am not sure I achieved that but at least it is more interesting to look at now. The color in the images is too brown for what it looks like in real life, which is more grey.
 

 
 

I have started working on the riding bitts, which I am making out of a big chunk of boxwood I had. I first sliced off a piece big enough for both standards using the band saw. The cut was very uneven as the blade was wandering a lot. I managed to get it sliced off but it was too thick over most of it. In fact, it was too thick to fit into the Byrnes thickness sander so I used the mill with a big end mill bit to reduce it so it would bit in the thickness sander and sanded it to the correct thickness. I then used the Byrnes Saw and band saw to rough out the standards. I also used the Byrnes Saw to cut out the bitt pins and cross piece.
 

 
I was able to square up the aft edge, bottom, and the straight part of the top of the standards on the Byrnes Saw, then removed more material in the curved part on the band saw. I will finish up the curves using a sanding drum in the drill press.
 

 
I am also working on the base for the stove. I have the base plate painted and the beams that go underneath it are glued to it. I just need to touch up the paint and it will be ready to go. I am waiting for some pear billets I ordered to arrive to start on the beams.

Hi everyone!
 
I wanted to hold off on posting until I’d fully finished the first layer of planking, but MAN this takes a lot of sanding and I’m excited with the progress so here’s a quick update. She’s got her first layer of planking mostly done (barring some sanding)!
 
First layer of planking is glued/nailed down and I have to say it truly is a science with how precise  all the fitting and tapering has to be. I’m satisfied with my decision to take on a double planked model because I did a pretty rough job of it and I’m going to be happy to cover it up because it’s not pretty. However, the shape is established and I was able to successfully sand over the nails and it’s very satisfying to feel a (semi) smooth hull forming. I also glued in the bow blocks and those are taking a while to shave down, but I’m in no rush.
 
Also I’m fairly satisfied with how the modifications to the stern turned out. Earlier in the build, when I had to commit to leaving it as is or reshaping the bulkheads I was feeling pretty anxious over the decision, but from referencing Matthew Betts’ build I think it looks alright.
 
Anyway, now that I’ve established that I can at least take some laser-precise, pre-cut wood and make it vaguely ship-shaped, I’m looking forward to the rest of the build and have some questions. First up, did the real Terror have a studded anchor chain? Been trying to find out online and I’m having trouble. I did see that studded anchor chains were patented in 1819 so I suppose it’s possible she got a new studded chain when she was fitted for arctic voyages, but I don’t know for sure. Also any suggestions on the places to get reference information/images of the ship? I feel myself slipping down the rabbit hole…

Some more progress.

Interesting question. I also suspect there are differing views in membership on whether they'd prefer to watch a video or view still photos. If nothing else, video results in further demands on members, whether on their internet quality (my rural American internet sometimes struggles to load large photos on MSW, much less play video, and I'd bet that's true for some international members as well) or their personal space (does having a video play out loud or having to find earbuds cause problems?).
 
I think my instinct would be to avoid using video alone unless it's a really relevant way to show something; text and photos are a much more accessible default.

Here's an outside-the-box suggestion on lettering: have you considered getting a lettering stencil/template 3D-printed? On my steamboat Arabia, I designed the lettering I wanted, then paid a friend's teenager to make it on his home-built 3D printer. If you don't have access to such a teenager, there are numerous websites where you can submit a design and they'll make and ship you the print.
 

 

Looks like a neat project. I'm not familiar with this source, so what a great chance to learn about their kits!

I think this ties back into a discussion ongoing elsewhere on MSW about what models are for. If the intention is a high-end museum-quality professional presentation, then I agree with you. But there are other goals and perspectives. For example, on my fictional revenue cutter that is the foundation of this thread, I'm quite aware that the sail-sewing is out of scale. But to non-specialists it's also visually engaging and representative of the real thing. A viewer here in land-locked Missouri isn't likely to know (or care) about the proper scale of bolt ropes, they're far more likely to think "Oh, so that's how sails were made" or ask "what's that stitching for?". Leaving that detail out may be more accurate, but it also eliminates the chance to learn because it'll never occur to the viewer to ask the question about a detail they "shouldn't" see.
 
For most of my models, my goal isn't to be 100% accurate, but rather to be representative and engaging. This comes from my perspective as an educator, where sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. Models are both engineering AND art, and some artistic license should be allowed for most of us without being disparaged by the idea that the only good model is a perfect replica. There's a balance to be found between reasonable accuracy and bean-counting, and it'll be different for different modelers and models depending on context.

Toni, that's inspirational job you have done. Beautiful as well, best part - once finished it will be easy to display without taking up a lot of space.

I made the gallows and installed it onto the bitt pins.  To keep it secure, I drilled the pins and the gallows for a brass rod, which was inserted.  The inner bulwark planking and the bolts and rings for the gun were installed.  The breast beam was made up of three pieces.  The beam itself was made, using the pattern found in the practicum.  A rounded-over piece of wood extended forward from the beam.  This provided a step for the deck planking to rest against.  Quarter-round was glued under the rounded-over piece.  Rings were inserted through the rail and the bolts can be seen on the aft side of the breast beam.



The quarter deck railing was next.  The rail assembly consists of five stanchions, an upper and a lower rail.  The stanchions are morticed to allow them to be bolted to the aft side of the breast beam.  These were made up on a lathe.  A sheave was located below the lower rail.  I simulated the sheave by drilling and squaring off the sheave slot and painting the area between black.  The centerline stanchion was glued and pinned first.  In these pictures you can see the rebate for the deck planking on the beam.




Once this was secure, the lower rail was inserted over the stanchion; this acted as a template for the locations of the remaining stanchions.  They were inserted through the lower rail and spacers were used to keep the rail at a constant distance from the beam.  The stanchions were then glued and pinned.  After they were completely dry, the lower rail was glued onto them.  The upper rail was installed.  Because some of my tenons were not exactly the size of the openings in the upper rail, I shortened them so they did not extend all the way through the rail.  Dummy tenons were inserted and the top of the rail sanded smooth.  Finally, short segments of deck planking were installed.




 

Cathead,
You of course are totally correct.  This is a hobby to bring enjoyment, and if art rather than realism is the goal, that is a great thing.    Whatever gives joy is what counts, and there is probably as much variation in what brings that joy as there are members here.   
 
Regarding a goal for accuracy, mine is for 100% but I know full well that will never happen.   But, the challenge and of course the frustration that comes with such an unreachable goal remains until I will have to hang it up one of these days.   
 
Cheers,
Allan

I think this ties back into a discussion ongoing elsewhere on MSW about what models are for. If the intention is a high-end museum-quality professional presentation, then I agree with you. But there are other goals and perspectives. For example, on my fictional revenue cutter that is the foundation of this thread, I'm quite aware that the sail-sewing is out of scale. But to non-specialists it's also visually engaging and representative of the real thing. A viewer here in land-locked Missouri isn't likely to know (or care) about the proper scale of bolt ropes, they're far more likely to think "Oh, so that's how sails were made" or ask "what's that stitching for?". Leaving that detail out may be more accurate, but it also eliminates the chance to learn because it'll never occur to the viewer to ask the question about a detail they "shouldn't" see.
 
For most of my models, my goal isn't to be 100% accurate, but rather to be representative and engaging. This comes from my perspective as an educator, where sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. Models are both engineering AND art, and some artistic license should be allowed for most of us without being disparaged by the idea that the only good model is a perfect replica. There's a balance to be found between reasonable accuracy and bean-counting, and it'll be different for different modelers and models depending on context.

I think this ties back into a discussion ongoing elsewhere on MSW about what models are for. If the intention is a high-end museum-quality professional presentation, then I agree with you. But there are other goals and perspectives. For example, on my fictional revenue cutter that is the foundation of this thread, I'm quite aware that the sail-sewing is out of scale. But to non-specialists it's also visually engaging and representative of the real thing. A viewer here in land-locked Missouri isn't likely to know (or care) about the proper scale of bolt ropes, they're far more likely to think "Oh, so that's how sails were made" or ask "what's that stitching for?". Leaving that detail out may be more accurate, but it also eliminates the chance to learn because it'll never occur to the viewer to ask the question about a detail they "shouldn't" see.
 
For most of my models, my goal isn't to be 100% accurate, but rather to be representative and engaging. This comes from my perspective as an educator, where sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. Models are both engineering AND art, and some artistic license should be allowed for most of us without being disparaged by the idea that the only good model is a perfect replica. There's a balance to be found between reasonable accuracy and bean-counting, and it'll be different for different modelers and models depending on context.

I think this ties back into a discussion ongoing elsewhere on MSW about what models are for. If the intention is a high-end museum-quality professional presentation, then I agree with you. But there are other goals and perspectives. For example, on my fictional revenue cutter that is the foundation of this thread, I'm quite aware that the sail-sewing is out of scale. But to non-specialists it's also visually engaging and representative of the real thing. A viewer here in land-locked Missouri isn't likely to know (or care) about the proper scale of bolt ropes, they're far more likely to think "Oh, so that's how sails were made" or ask "what's that stitching for?". Leaving that detail out may be more accurate, but it also eliminates the chance to learn because it'll never occur to the viewer to ask the question about a detail they "shouldn't" see.
 
For most of my models, my goal isn't to be 100% accurate, but rather to be representative and engaging. This comes from my perspective as an educator, where sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. Models are both engineering AND art, and some artistic license should be allowed for most of us without being disparaged by the idea that the only good model is a perfect replica. There's a balance to be found between reasonable accuracy and bean-counting, and it'll be different for different modelers and models depending on context.

I think this ties back into a discussion ongoing elsewhere on MSW about what models are for. If the intention is a high-end museum-quality professional presentation, then I agree with you. But there are other goals and perspectives. For example, on my fictional revenue cutter that is the foundation of this thread, I'm quite aware that the sail-sewing is out of scale. But to non-specialists it's also visually engaging and representative of the real thing. A viewer here in land-locked Missouri isn't likely to know (or care) about the proper scale of bolt ropes, they're far more likely to think "Oh, so that's how sails were made" or ask "what's that stitching for?". Leaving that detail out may be more accurate, but it also eliminates the chance to learn because it'll never occur to the viewer to ask the question about a detail they "shouldn't" see.
 
For most of my models, my goal isn't to be 100% accurate, but rather to be representative and engaging. This comes from my perspective as an educator, where sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. Models are both engineering AND art, and some artistic license should be allowed for most of us without being disparaged by the idea that the only good model is a perfect replica. There's a balance to be found between reasonable accuracy and bean-counting, and it'll be different for different modelers and models depending on context.

I think this ties back into a discussion ongoing elsewhere on MSW about what models are for. If the intention is a high-end museum-quality professional presentation, then I agree with you. But there are other goals and perspectives. For example, on my fictional revenue cutter that is the foundation of this thread, I'm quite aware that the sail-sewing is out of scale. But to non-specialists it's also visually engaging and representative of the real thing. A viewer here in land-locked Missouri isn't likely to know (or care) about the proper scale of bolt ropes, they're far more likely to think "Oh, so that's how sails were made" or ask "what's that stitching for?". Leaving that detail out may be more accurate, but it also eliminates the chance to learn because it'll never occur to the viewer to ask the question about a detail they "shouldn't" see.
 
For most of my models, my goal isn't to be 100% accurate, but rather to be representative and engaging. This comes from my perspective as an educator, where sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. Models are both engineering AND art, and some artistic license should be allowed for most of us without being disparaged by the idea that the only good model is a perfect replica. There's a balance to be found between reasonable accuracy and bean-counting, and it'll be different for different modelers and models depending on context.

I think this ties back into a discussion ongoing elsewhere on MSW about what models are for. If the intention is a high-end museum-quality professional presentation, then I agree with you. But there are other goals and perspectives. For example, on my fictional revenue cutter that is the foundation of this thread, I'm quite aware that the sail-sewing is out of scale. But to non-specialists it's also visually engaging and representative of the real thing. A viewer here in land-locked Missouri isn't likely to know (or care) about the proper scale of bolt ropes, they're far more likely to think "Oh, so that's how sails were made" or ask "what's that stitching for?". Leaving that detail out may be more accurate, but it also eliminates the chance to learn because it'll never occur to the viewer to ask the question about a detail they "shouldn't" see.
 
For most of my models, my goal isn't to be 100% accurate, but rather to be representative and engaging. This comes from my perspective as an educator, where sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. Models are both engineering AND art, and some artistic license should be allowed for most of us without being disparaged by the idea that the only good model is a perfect replica. There's a balance to be found between reasonable accuracy and bean-counting, and it'll be different for different modelers and models depending on context.

Interesting question. I also suspect there are differing views in membership on whether they'd prefer to watch a video or view still photos. If nothing else, video results in further demands on members, whether on their internet quality (my rural American internet sometimes struggles to load large photos on MSW, much less play video, and I'd bet that's true for some international members as well) or their personal space (does having a video play out loud or having to find earbuds cause problems?).
 
I think my instinct would be to avoid using video alone unless it's a really relevant way to show something; text and photos are a much more accessible default.

John,
 
Glad to see you are under way with your Chaperon build, and great start so far! I finished mine a couple of years ago and have to tell you, this is a fantastic kit. There are a few minor things that you may need to tweak or add as you go, but nothing that will prevent you from completing a beautiful build, and as a bonus, there are plenty of steamboat knowledgeable people here on MSW to help you out along the way should you get stuck on something.
 
Really looking forward to following along on your journey.
 
-Brian

State Room walls…
 

 
Framing progress… I have a plan now 😆
 

 

 
Boiler Deck Stern State Rooms completed. 
 
Cheers 🍻