Cathead

Looks nice Paul, good work!
 
As for your question, I installed the floor first, before adding the thwarts or squeezing the hull. It worked well and I had no trouble with the latter, as you're really only changing the shape of the upper-most portion of the hull. And installing the floor after the thwarts would be a real pain. I did, however, wait to install the quarterdeck until after I'd squeezed the hull, as it meets the hull much farther up the sides and I was concerned it would be affected by the reshaping.  So I didn't insert the second-to-last thwart (the one that covers part of the quarterdeck) until after I'd shaped the hull. It all worked out fine.

This may be a bad idea, but I've used a sharp knife before to initiate fairing in places where there's a lot of material to be taken off, like near the bow where it's a sharp angle. Using either burn marks or my own pencil line as a guide, I scrape the knife blade along to gently peel off the first wedge of material. With a steady hand it doesn't go too deep, and it saves a lot of initial sanding.
 
The other thing I like about this method is, I find it easier to get about the right initial angle with the knife than working down a sharp corner with sandpaper. There's less stress on the frame, and once the angle is roughly established, the sandpaper already flows across a somewhat smooth surface rather than grinding over a resisting sharp edge. But it's also riskier since you can take off to much with a slip of the hand. Just the two cents of a young amateur. Maybe try it on scrap wood first to see if you can control the knife to your satisfaction?
 
Finally, I found an adjustable stand really helpful. My hand is steadiest at certain angles, and such a stand meant I could position the model in whatever orientation let me hold my hand at its ideal orientation for cutting. I wouldn't want to try it with my wrist at an awkward angle to a static  model.

Here's another reason to be careful reposting pictures: those photos are still hosted on the original server. That means, whenever someone loads a MSW (or any internet) page with a linked photo, the computer goes and grabs it from the original server, creating traffic for that site. Sometimes, reposting a photo that a whole bunch of people see means really elevated traffic for the original site. Great, right? No. Because some sites, especially smaller or personal ones, have bandwidth restrictions based on what they pay for hosting. If a photo on that site suddenly starts getting a ton of traffic, it can bump that site out of its paid bandwidth, and either shut the site down for overuse, or cause the site's owner to get a bill from the hosting company for extra service provided. As someone who manages his own site for business purposes, and has a lot of photography there, this is a real potential problem.
 
The internet is often compared to a plumbing system. In this case reposting photos is a bit like tapping into someone's water line to taste their water. In small doses it often doesn't matter, but 1. it's still stealing, 2. if you add that straw and lots of other people start using it, you're really stealing and driving up their water bill, and 3. it doesn't benefit them because the other drinkers don't realize whose awesome water they're drinking.
 
We all do this from time to time, it's too easy not to. And sometimes it's from a site that really is public domain or otherwise not a problem. But thanks to Chuck for helping us all think about how and why we do it.

Here's another reason to be careful reposting pictures: those photos are still hosted on the original server. That means, whenever someone loads a MSW (or any internet) page with a linked photo, the computer goes and grabs it from the original server, creating traffic for that site. Sometimes, reposting a photo that a whole bunch of people see means really elevated traffic for the original site. Great, right? No. Because some sites, especially smaller or personal ones, have bandwidth restrictions based on what they pay for hosting. If a photo on that site suddenly starts getting a ton of traffic, it can bump that site out of its paid bandwidth, and either shut the site down for overuse, or cause the site's owner to get a bill from the hosting company for extra service provided. As someone who manages his own site for business purposes, and has a lot of photography there, this is a real potential problem.
 
The internet is often compared to a plumbing system. In this case reposting photos is a bit like tapping into someone's water line to taste their water. In small doses it often doesn't matter, but 1. it's still stealing, 2. if you add that straw and lots of other people start using it, you're really stealing and driving up their water bill, and 3. it doesn't benefit them because the other drinkers don't realize whose awesome water they're drinking.
 
We all do this from time to time, it's too easy not to. And sometimes it's from a site that really is public domain or otherwise not a problem. But thanks to Chuck for helping us all think about how and why we do it.

Here's another reason to be careful reposting pictures: those photos are still hosted on the original server. That means, whenever someone loads a MSW (or any internet) page with a linked photo, the computer goes and grabs it from the original server, creating traffic for that site. Sometimes, reposting a photo that a whole bunch of people see means really elevated traffic for the original site. Great, right? No. Because some sites, especially smaller or personal ones, have bandwidth restrictions based on what they pay for hosting. If a photo on that site suddenly starts getting a ton of traffic, it can bump that site out of its paid bandwidth, and either shut the site down for overuse, or cause the site's owner to get a bill from the hosting company for extra service provided. As someone who manages his own site for business purposes, and has a lot of photography there, this is a real potential problem.
 
The internet is often compared to a plumbing system. In this case reposting photos is a bit like tapping into someone's water line to taste their water. In small doses it often doesn't matter, but 1. it's still stealing, 2. if you add that straw and lots of other people start using it, you're really stealing and driving up their water bill, and 3. it doesn't benefit them because the other drinkers don't realize whose awesome water they're drinking.
 
We all do this from time to time, it's too easy not to. And sometimes it's from a site that really is public domain or otherwise not a problem. But thanks to Chuck for helping us all think about how and why we do it.

Here's another reason to be careful reposting pictures: those photos are still hosted on the original server. That means, whenever someone loads a MSW (or any internet) page with a linked photo, the computer goes and grabs it from the original server, creating traffic for that site. Sometimes, reposting a photo that a whole bunch of people see means really elevated traffic for the original site. Great, right? No. Because some sites, especially smaller or personal ones, have bandwidth restrictions based on what they pay for hosting. If a photo on that site suddenly starts getting a ton of traffic, it can bump that site out of its paid bandwidth, and either shut the site down for overuse, or cause the site's owner to get a bill from the hosting company for extra service provided. As someone who manages his own site for business purposes, and has a lot of photography there, this is a real potential problem.
 
The internet is often compared to a plumbing system. In this case reposting photos is a bit like tapping into someone's water line to taste their water. In small doses it often doesn't matter, but 1. it's still stealing, 2. if you add that straw and lots of other people start using it, you're really stealing and driving up their water bill, and 3. it doesn't benefit them because the other drinkers don't realize whose awesome water they're drinking.
 
We all do this from time to time, it's too easy not to. And sometimes it's from a site that really is public domain or otherwise not a problem. But thanks to Chuck for helping us all think about how and why we do it.

Here's another reason to be careful reposting pictures: those photos are still hosted on the original server. That means, whenever someone loads a MSW (or any internet) page with a linked photo, the computer goes and grabs it from the original server, creating traffic for that site. Sometimes, reposting a photo that a whole bunch of people see means really elevated traffic for the original site. Great, right? No. Because some sites, especially smaller or personal ones, have bandwidth restrictions based on what they pay for hosting. If a photo on that site suddenly starts getting a ton of traffic, it can bump that site out of its paid bandwidth, and either shut the site down for overuse, or cause the site's owner to get a bill from the hosting company for extra service provided. As someone who manages his own site for business purposes, and has a lot of photography there, this is a real potential problem.
 
The internet is often compared to a plumbing system. In this case reposting photos is a bit like tapping into someone's water line to taste their water. In small doses it often doesn't matter, but 1. it's still stealing, 2. if you add that straw and lots of other people start using it, you're really stealing and driving up their water bill, and 3. it doesn't benefit them because the other drinkers don't realize whose awesome water they're drinking.
 
We all do this from time to time, it's too easy not to. And sometimes it's from a site that really is public domain or otherwise not a problem. But thanks to Chuck for helping us all think about how and why we do it.

Here's another reason to be careful reposting pictures: those photos are still hosted on the original server. That means, whenever someone loads a MSW (or any internet) page with a linked photo, the computer goes and grabs it from the original server, creating traffic for that site. Sometimes, reposting a photo that a whole bunch of people see means really elevated traffic for the original site. Great, right? No. Because some sites, especially smaller or personal ones, have bandwidth restrictions based on what they pay for hosting. If a photo on that site suddenly starts getting a ton of traffic, it can bump that site out of its paid bandwidth, and either shut the site down for overuse, or cause the site's owner to get a bill from the hosting company for extra service provided. As someone who manages his own site for business purposes, and has a lot of photography there, this is a real potential problem.
 
The internet is often compared to a plumbing system. In this case reposting photos is a bit like tapping into someone's water line to taste their water. In small doses it often doesn't matter, but 1. it's still stealing, 2. if you add that straw and lots of other people start using it, you're really stealing and driving up their water bill, and 3. it doesn't benefit them because the other drinkers don't realize whose awesome water they're drinking.
 
We all do this from time to time, it's too easy not to. And sometimes it's from a site that really is public domain or otherwise not a problem. But thanks to Chuck for helping us all think about how and why we do it.

Here's another reason to be careful reposting pictures: those photos are still hosted on the original server. That means, whenever someone loads a MSW (or any internet) page with a linked photo, the computer goes and grabs it from the original server, creating traffic for that site. Sometimes, reposting a photo that a whole bunch of people see means really elevated traffic for the original site. Great, right? No. Because some sites, especially smaller or personal ones, have bandwidth restrictions based on what they pay for hosting. If a photo on that site suddenly starts getting a ton of traffic, it can bump that site out of its paid bandwidth, and either shut the site down for overuse, or cause the site's owner to get a bill from the hosting company for extra service provided. As someone who manages his own site for business purposes, and has a lot of photography there, this is a real potential problem.
 
The internet is often compared to a plumbing system. In this case reposting photos is a bit like tapping into someone's water line to taste their water. In small doses it often doesn't matter, but 1. it's still stealing, 2. if you add that straw and lots of other people start using it, you're really stealing and driving up their water bill, and 3. it doesn't benefit them because the other drinkers don't realize whose awesome water they're drinking.
 
We all do this from time to time, it's too easy not to. And sometimes it's from a site that really is public domain or otherwise not a problem. But thanks to Chuck for helping us all think about how and why we do it.

Here's another reason to be careful reposting pictures: those photos are still hosted on the original server. That means, whenever someone loads a MSW (or any internet) page with a linked photo, the computer goes and grabs it from the original server, creating traffic for that site. Sometimes, reposting a photo that a whole bunch of people see means really elevated traffic for the original site. Great, right? No. Because some sites, especially smaller or personal ones, have bandwidth restrictions based on what they pay for hosting. If a photo on that site suddenly starts getting a ton of traffic, it can bump that site out of its paid bandwidth, and either shut the site down for overuse, or cause the site's owner to get a bill from the hosting company for extra service provided. As someone who manages his own site for business purposes, and has a lot of photography there, this is a real potential problem.
 
The internet is often compared to a plumbing system. In this case reposting photos is a bit like tapping into someone's water line to taste their water. In small doses it often doesn't matter, but 1. it's still stealing, 2. if you add that straw and lots of other people start using it, you're really stealing and driving up their water bill, and 3. it doesn't benefit them because the other drinkers don't realize whose awesome water they're drinking.
 
We all do this from time to time, it's too easy not to. And sometimes it's from a site that really is public domain or otherwise not a problem. But thanks to Chuck for helping us all think about how and why we do it.

Here's another reason to be careful reposting pictures: those photos are still hosted on the original server. That means, whenever someone loads a MSW (or any internet) page with a linked photo, the computer goes and grabs it from the original server, creating traffic for that site. Sometimes, reposting a photo that a whole bunch of people see means really elevated traffic for the original site. Great, right? No. Because some sites, especially smaller or personal ones, have bandwidth restrictions based on what they pay for hosting. If a photo on that site suddenly starts getting a ton of traffic, it can bump that site out of its paid bandwidth, and either shut the site down for overuse, or cause the site's owner to get a bill from the hosting company for extra service provided. As someone who manages his own site for business purposes, and has a lot of photography there, this is a real potential problem.
 
The internet is often compared to a plumbing system. In this case reposting photos is a bit like tapping into someone's water line to taste their water. In small doses it often doesn't matter, but 1. it's still stealing, 2. if you add that straw and lots of other people start using it, you're really stealing and driving up their water bill, and 3. it doesn't benefit them because the other drinkers don't realize whose awesome water they're drinking.
 
We all do this from time to time, it's too easy not to. And sometimes it's from a site that really is public domain or otherwise not a problem. But thanks to Chuck for helping us all think about how and why we do it.

I did the first rough fairing of one half of the Cheerful hull.  There are a couple spots that need more work.  I'll touch those up when I do the final fairing after framing the gun ports.  It was quite an undertaking compared to fairing the much smaller longboat.  Sanding the 5-ply plywood that constitutes the bulkheads makes for some slow sanding!  After initial material removal with a 60 grit sanding block, I did wind up mainly using the 7" long flexible nail files that are 120 grit.  I also made a sanding block out of a 1" dowel with 150 grit sandpaper glued to it to sand the concave rear part of the hull.  The two curved sanding blocks I made I didn't wind up using.  The flexible nail files did a better job.  Now . . . on to the other side . . .
 

 

 

 

 
Erik

One good rule of thumb for members of MSW is, if it's not a photo you took yourself, post a link to the photo, rather than the photo itself.  While not as visually pleasing as clicking into a topic with the photos already there, as a viewer you're still only a click away from seeing the photo.  And it saves the hassle of potential copyright issues. 
 
Erik

I know copyright has been discussed ad-infinitum here but this dovetails into the post by Chuck the other day on pulling photos from the interned and posting them here.
 
There are companies that troll the internet on behalf of photo distributors searching for copyright protected photographs. Once they locate one, they contact the owner and strong arm the offender with threats and a high fee to resolve the grievance.  One of my employees saw a cute photo of a dog with a bandaged leg and put it on our website a while ago. I received a strongly worded e-mail to take it down immediatly and pay them $800 or the fee would continue to rise. I did some research to discover the photo distributor and am in the process of negotiating a settlement, thereby bypassing the heavy-handed third party. 
 
Our web posting protocol has now been heavily modified and, if Chuck seems paranoid about random photos and material, it's because there are people out there looking for such offences and wanting to profit from them. An expensive lesson for me

Hi Spy
 
Thanks for the generous information. Strange, setting the jib with a boom.
 
To streamline the discussion a bit, I try to summarize (summarise for those who have the happyness to be one of Her Majesties subject) what I have so far:
 
According to Marquardt there were mainly two traveller forms in use.
In the older (12 in the picture) the stay was lashed to the traveller and adjusted with a tackle in the top. An outhauler was led from the traveller to the pulley in the jib boom end and back to the bowsprit cap or bow. The visible hook is for the sail.
In the newer version (13) the stay itself was taken through the traveller, the pulley and back inboard and was adjusted with a tackle. This stay was attached in the masttop with an eye splice.

 
 
Now I assume that the traveller used to travel occasionally or frequently, I don't know. The reason could be a fine tuning of the balance of those fore and aft sails in order to minimise the use of the rudder (to avoid friction, turbulence and slowing down the ship). Especially in the newer traveller version you would need an in hauler because I think just pulling on the jib sail wouldn't do the trick properly and leave the newer traveller constantly trying to move outboard.
 
Spy, on your topmost picture I see two lines leading backward from the traveller, the right (sorry starboard) one perhaps not originating on the traveller but being probably a jib boom horse.  Then the line on the port side could be my in hauler.
 
Of course this are just assumptions of a mainly armchair, sailor trying to think logically, mixed with some aerodynamics. (However, I think that hydro- and aerodynamics are quite close cousins, sometimes even tempted to marry each other.)
 
Cheers
peter

To take a break from knotting ratlines (fortunately there are not so many on this little ship) I turned to the outer jib stay.
I distrust the setup according to the kit via that eyebolt near the end of the jib boom and think this is only an approximation of a traveller. A better traveller was made from some 0.7 and 0.5 mm brass wire and painted black. The stay will run under the travellers reel and the hook will be used for the forward corner of the sail.
 
 
?????
There remains a problem however: I think that the traveller needs an 'inhauler' to fix it in position and to move it inboard when desired. Moving outboard should be possible by tightening the stay itself. But I don't find any information about that. Unless somebody knows more, I will have to make up an 'inhauler' with a short tackle and will fix its standing end with a ringbolt on the bowsprit cap, similar to the stay itself.
?????
 
 

The future skipper inspects the new traveller
 

Provisionally placed on the jib boom

This may be a bad idea, but I've used a sharp knife before to initiate fairing in places where there's a lot of material to be taken off, like near the bow where it's a sharp angle. Using either burn marks or my own pencil line as a guide, I scrape the knife blade along to gently peel off the first wedge of material. With a steady hand it doesn't go too deep, and it saves a lot of initial sanding.
 
The other thing I like about this method is, I find it easier to get about the right initial angle with the knife than working down a sharp corner with sandpaper. There's less stress on the frame, and once the angle is roughly established, the sandpaper already flows across a somewhat smooth surface rather than grinding over a resisting sharp edge. But it's also riskier since you can take off to much with a slip of the hand. Just the two cents of a young amateur. Maybe try it on scrap wood first to see if you can control the knife to your satisfaction?
 
Finally, I found an adjustable stand really helpful. My hand is steadiest at certain angles, and such a stand meant I could position the model in whatever orientation let me hold my hand at its ideal orientation for cutting. I wouldn't want to try it with my wrist at an awkward angle to a static  model.

This may be a bad idea, but I've used a sharp knife before to initiate fairing in places where there's a lot of material to be taken off, like near the bow where it's a sharp angle. Using either burn marks or my own pencil line as a guide, I scrape the knife blade along to gently peel off the first wedge of material. With a steady hand it doesn't go too deep, and it saves a lot of initial sanding.
 
The other thing I like about this method is, I find it easier to get about the right initial angle with the knife than working down a sharp corner with sandpaper. There's less stress on the frame, and once the angle is roughly established, the sandpaper already flows across a somewhat smooth surface rather than grinding over a resisting sharp edge. But it's also riskier since you can take off to much with a slip of the hand. Just the two cents of a young amateur. Maybe try it on scrap wood first to see if you can control the knife to your satisfaction?
 
Finally, I found an adjustable stand really helpful. My hand is steadiest at certain angles, and such a stand meant I could position the model in whatever orientation let me hold my hand at its ideal orientation for cutting. I wouldn't want to try it with my wrist at an awkward angle to a static  model.

This may be a bad idea, but I've used a sharp knife before to initiate fairing in places where there's a lot of material to be taken off, like near the bow where it's a sharp angle. Using either burn marks or my own pencil line as a guide, I scrape the knife blade along to gently peel off the first wedge of material. With a steady hand it doesn't go too deep, and it saves a lot of initial sanding.
 
The other thing I like about this method is, I find it easier to get about the right initial angle with the knife than working down a sharp corner with sandpaper. There's less stress on the frame, and once the angle is roughly established, the sandpaper already flows across a somewhat smooth surface rather than grinding over a resisting sharp edge. But it's also riskier since you can take off to much with a slip of the hand. Just the two cents of a young amateur. Maybe try it on scrap wood first to see if you can control the knife to your satisfaction?
 
Finally, I found an adjustable stand really helpful. My hand is steadiest at certain angles, and such a stand meant I could position the model in whatever orientation let me hold my hand at its ideal orientation for cutting. I wouldn't want to try it with my wrist at an awkward angle to a static  model.

Glorious!

Glorious!

Glorious!

You make use of forums like this, and elsewhere, to research kits and manufacturers. There is a wealth of personal experience and testimony about the subject, here alone much less on the internet at large. You look for build logs for that kit, and read what experience builders had. You then contact those builders and ask their further opinion. You post a general question, if it hasn't already been asked, about a given manufacturer and kit. It's why MSW has this section:
 
   
 
Particularly if you aren't experienced with kits, actually handling the kit may or may not teach you much (for example, misunderstanding the laser burn marks as a defect), whereas crowd-sourcing opinions and reviews from many builders will given you a better understanding of the kit or company overall. 
 
I've purchased three kits, each of which I researched in this way, and each of them as been as I expected when I opened the box because I did my homework online. 
 
In an ideal world, we could all also go to a nice local hobby store with floor-to-ceiling kit boxes to peruse, but almost none of this live in that world. The next best stage is learning from our peers, and I've found that I can trust the folks here to provide useful and accurate information. 

You make use of forums like this, and elsewhere, to research kits and manufacturers. There is a wealth of personal experience and testimony about the subject, here alone much less on the internet at large. You look for build logs for that kit, and read what experience builders had. You then contact those builders and ask their further opinion. You post a general question, if it hasn't already been asked, about a given manufacturer and kit. It's why MSW has this section:
 
   
 
Particularly if you aren't experienced with kits, actually handling the kit may or may not teach you much (for example, misunderstanding the laser burn marks as a defect), whereas crowd-sourcing opinions and reviews from many builders will given you a better understanding of the kit or company overall. 
 
I've purchased three kits, each of which I researched in this way, and each of them as been as I expected when I opened the box because I did my homework online. 
 
In an ideal world, we could all also go to a nice local hobby store with floor-to-ceiling kit boxes to peruse, but almost none of this live in that world. The next best stage is learning from our peers, and I've found that I can trust the folks here to provide useful and accurate information. 

The value is partly intellectual property. What do you value a professional's time at? OK, consider all the hours you would put into figuring out how to scratchbuild a given model, add on more hours to figure out how to represent that process to customers, add on more hours to figure out how to design kit pieces to be easily/cost-effectively manufactured and useful to the customer, add on more hours for drafting accurate plans, and so on. That all has to be in the price of a kit. Most hobby builders (most hobbyists in general) ignore the intellectual cost of what they do, but any good businessperson can't afford to do that.
 
An example from my own experience. I'm a vegetable farmer, among other things. It drives me berserk when someone comes up to a farmers market stand and challenges me as to why X produce is so expensive at Y $/lb, when they easily grow it in their garden or neighbor Bob gives it to them from his garden. Well, those people are hobbyists. They aren't charging themselves a living wage for every hour they spend in the garden, they aren't counting the intellectual time it takes to plan out a full-scale farm, they aren't trying to support a family and health insurance and retirement savings from their fun little garden. It's not a fair comparison. 
 
As for contents, those dowels may well be standard hardware store dowels. But the point of a kit, at least most kits, is that it's self-contained. People who buy kits don't necessarily want to open it, and see the instructions start with "now go buy these other things or you can't build the kit". Would you buy a lawnmower that didn't come with sparkplugs, even though they're easy to get at a different store?
 
Of course there's a markup. There's a markup on everything you buy. Pretty much any retail product has a markup of 30-50% from wholesale, because the retailer is an independent business that has to pay for everything involved in modern life from the profits of the business. Then there's a markup over cost to reach the wholesale price, because the manufacturer has to pay for everything involved in modern life, plus the cost of developing the product in the first place. So, yeah, of course the "value" of the kit's contents don't add up to $350 in terms of what's physically there. But only someone who doesn't value others' professional time would think it would.
 
None of which is to say there aren't better and worse kits out there. I know nothing about the kit mentioned above. But, boy, a great way to get under a businessperson's skin is to complain that you could do it cheaper and better yourself. Fine, go do so, and be proud of yourself. I'm in awe of good scratchbuilders. But most of them realize they're paying themselves pennies per hour, whereas everyone involved in designing, producing, and selling a kit is trying to make a living doing it.