Chuck

Kevin....look a few posts back. It was already discussed. Thanks guys, I am glad you are enjoying the process. Yes ....this is the process. Usually any questions are bounced off a few guys and different research aspects are exchanged. I figured it was best to do it publicly so everyone can see the decision making process. Most of it is done. I have only a few things left to decide on.... Chuck

Yes Alistair...that is exactly what a buckler is. I have seen bucklers in many configurations. For example...sometimes a half lid was hinged on the bottom of the port opening and the buckler used only on the top half. In other instances the buckler was full size for the port. They are usually temporarily secured by ring bolts on the inboard side of the buckler and tied off to ring bolts on the bulwarks. Even the same ring bolts used for the breech line of the cannon or the gun tackles.

That absolutely works for me.....makes as much sense as any other theory I have thought of. That would mean Cheerful had no lids but probably had a rabbet so bucklers could be used in rough waters. Thats my story and I am sticking to it.

Also note the vertical planking on the square tuck in that drawing. This cutter has the same based on the original planking expansion. Normally you see the diagonal planking.

I absolutely agree and I thought the same thing. BUT....then I found these. All contemporary and from the same time period. I have dozens more with and without port lids. I guess we shall never know. I will add the rabbet......and have no lids. That is a safe bet I think. Chuck

As I am about to start framing the ports, I would like to have a bit of a discussion about the. Please feel free to chime in if this is something you are familiar with. I have seen cutters with and without port lids in paintings and drawings. I am talking about 1800-1830ish. My issue is that I have never or rarely seen a contemporary model or set of plans with port lids. I am already resolved not to show them on Cheerful. BUT, that leads to my question. On many contemporary models I can see the rabbet around the port opening. On others still there is no rabbet. I can only assume there wasnt and standard with this. Maybe some sort of buckler was used rather than a port lid. But then why some models without a rabbet. I have yet to decide if I should show this feature of a rabbet around the sides and bottom of the port openings. Cheerful in the rogers collection has them This contemporary model does not...except at the bottom maybe... All of the others from this period that I have seen have no rabbets. Any thoughts or research out there to help me in my decision? Thanks in advance.

Today I wanted to get the crappy part out of the way. What a mess. Fairing the outside of the hull before I start putting in the port sills. Lots of saw dust. You folks are very familiar with this. Even with a smaller hull it took the whole day. This is the single most important part of the project. Unfortunately because its such a pain its easy to understand why people rush through it only to have issues later on. At the bow is the usual "Bow filler piece" and a few horizontal pieces which is where the forward port will reside. Fairing the bow was challenging. Whenever you think its done...its really not. This is easy to spot using a batten. I dont angle my rabbet for the planking until this stage. And its important. Most folks angle the rabbet before gluing the bulkheads into the former. But I can never get the angles right. Its easier for me to visualize when fairing the bow and inserting battens every now and again to see how they fit. Before fairing After a good start at fairing the bow. Notice how the bulkhead former within the rabbet is faired to match the angle of the bow filler after its faired. If you dont do this then the plank wont fit nicely into the rabbet and defeats the purpose of having one to begin with. This is what takes lots of time. Small chisels nd sanding sticks...the usual suspects to do it. I am using the laser char on the bulkhead edges to check how the fairing is progressing as I work towards mid ship. Then I switch around and work from the stern to midship again to complete the fairing. Here are some battens added to check the run of the port sills. There are laser reference marks on each bulkhead as is usually the case. After some careful adjustments the top of the batten was marked off on each bulkhead edge to indicate the top of the port sills. Notice how the batten fits into the rabbet and because of how its faired, I didnt have to even pre bend this strip. It lays in there perfectly and no pins are used to hold it in the rabbet. That will make planking so much easier.....which would have been a fight if I didnt take my time with this fairing. I am gald its all done, but I can still see some spots... Tomorrow I will add the port sills and port framing before starting on the stern framing.

Yes indeed it will Lou. Thanks for the kind words. Yes I plan on using National balsa when the time comes. I have used them a lot in the past and they are my go to source. The last batch of ply I got from them was awful though so I will have to call them first and make sure I get the good stuff. It is so great see you back on the site. I am literally working on her as we speak. Chuck

Its a great start and dont hesitate to ask me any questions. The Mayflower II was a fun project to build. Chuck

That looks very good. Well done.

I received my copy and read through the entire book. Its a just a great book and I have already picked up a few tricks from it. There are quite a few nice techniques described in this book that will help you as a model builder construct fittings and ship's details that would be part of any Eighteenth Century vessel. I highly recommend it. Well worth a look!! even if you dont plan on building the Comet. Chuck

You are the second person to ask me that.... The problem is that it would only be an estimate. I wont know for sure until I actually build it. I usually keep track of what I use and then add just a bit more to make the materials list. So far I only have one 48" x 48" sheet of ply that is 1/4" thick and one 3" wide sheet of boxwood or whatever you prefer to use for teh keel and stem and rudder. It should be 7/32" thick. Other than that I haveent got a clue. I would be afraid that after examining the plans carefully I might forget something....so keeping track as I work is usually foolproof. But maybe I will give it a try this weekend. But like I said...I may overlook something. It will be real close though. Thanks for the interest in the project. If all goes according to plan the 3 sheets will be released around the new year but February at the latest. I basically just want to plank it outboard to prove the hull design. I also want to write the first few chapters so folks will have a guide. Chuck

Just as Druxey mentioned. It takes practice but after doing a few it will get easier. Chuck

No it actually removed material. If you use a soft wood it will not. A soft wood will crush into shape. But a hard wood actually scrapes bits from the strip. You can sharpen the scraper edge carefully by filing on an angle. This helps to remove wood as it scrapes.

yes...i usually just use my cheap a small files because the edge will end up getting ruined over time. I also use a small razor saw sometimes. I prefer NOT to use the dremel. This is what works for me but maybe others have different idea. That file in the photo is the one I actually used. The tip is quite small in diameter. Careful slow deliberate strokes. It takes a while. Chuck

You can unfortunately not buy the beaded molding any longer. That was a long time ago that I bought those. Basically you need to create a profile in a piece of sheet brass.or a straight razor. See below...its pretty clear. There are many ways to create the profile...needle files, dremel cut off wheel etc. I am sure others will chime in here. Chuck

Just sand the heck out of it. The wood is thick enough and can take it. Start with 220 grit and then follow up with some really fine stuff. I see this all the time in my local club. For whatever reason they are scared and nervous about it. They dont think 1/32" or even 1/16' thick strips can take sanding. Usually I just ask the model builder if I can grab the hull and show them. Its a very easy thing to do and there is no danger at all. Most of the glue will not have soaked well below the surface at all. Surface prep is key to getting a good finish. Sanding with a fine grit will leave a super smooth surface free of glue stains and show no blotches.. If you are still nervous about it...plank a dummy piece of wood and leave similar stains and blotches...test it out to see how far you can go and what it will look like after you are done. Chuck

New article "Modeling small figures for Ship Models" placed in the database and is ready for download. Thank you Dave Fellingham for the article submission. Very well done. I enjoyed reading it and I am sure most of our members will also. Click Here to download article Chuck Remember if you wish to submit an article to the database or for consideration in the Nautical Research Journal...please contact me. We welcome all submissions!

Windlass 2.0 The final version....no photoshop this time

Seeing as I have to make another windlass anyway...I will alter the plans to show the bar holes on every other face. Its an easy fix. I can see that it would make sense...or to alternate their position should they appear on every face like shown on John;'s example he posted above. Dont y0u wish making changes in real life was as easy as having Photoshop. Heres what she looks like with every other...piece of cake...

Thanks guys... Druxey...Like you, I thought that was true. Holes on every other face of the windlass. However, I kept seeing more and more of these that showed them on all sides. I may switch it later...but I am torn. Do you have have any info on these that would clarify. Other than contemporary models....few even show the holes at all, I could only find secondary sources. For example, The AOS for the Cutter Alert has an almost identical windlass with holes on all eight faces of the windless. Go figure. Its easy enough to change, just need to find something definitive. Any help would be appreciated. You can see that Roger Cole also added the holes on every face of his windlass on his model of Alert below. Chuck

Thank you gentlemen... I took a break from framing because I wanted to work on the windlass. Its 3 1/2" long. I have had the design concept in my brain for over a year and I wanted to see if it would work. I think it came out really well. The design is much like the lantern. You build the windlass drum in sections and slide them onto a 1/16" x 1/16" strip. There are 65 pieces in this windlass. All laser cut. Its a perfect match to the plans. The hardest part (which isnt very hard at all) is to bevel the edges of each face of the drum. This is so they fit tightly together. Once you get the angle down, it goes quickly and without incident. You have to bevel the edges without over doing it because you will lose the original shape of each precision cut piece. The laser char on the edge actually help out a lot. You need to bevel the edge until the laser char is all gone and resist beveling further. I was worried about this ever since I saw the model in the Rogers collection. Yes, you could shape the windless drum from one piece and carve the sprockets by hand...but that is a real challenge. I have seen what David Antscherl did for his Comet model and it scared me to death ever since. Knowing that others will ultimately build this model I needed to put my kit designer hat on. This windlass is a MAJOR deck fitting and can make or break a model of a cutter if it isnt done well enough. Ultimately, this windlass will be painted all red but I am not sure yet. Its usually shown that way on contemporary models. If I decide to leave it natural boxwood I will paint the ends of the drum so you cant see the construction method. If its painted carefully to look like wood, it will look like a solid piece. This is still not glued together. The individual segments are just slid onto the stick. I just have to snip the ends of teh stick off and sand them down after the segments are glued together. Silly me, I got so into making it, that I didnt take any construction photos. That means I will have to build another one at some point. Lucky me. Now to take my daughter to the movies and sit with her and about 7 other 14 year old noisy girls. Lucky me again!!!

I think the fore most shroud would do the most damage. Its a mystery. There are other cutters I have examined and its usually both the fore shroud and the aft shroud or none of them. I have never seen just the aft one served. The way the stay is rigged with two deadeyes....plain with three holes is also a curious detail I have not seen before. I am going with the more tradition rig. Based on the Surly in the other museum. Chuck

I also wanted to post some photos of the Rogers collection model. I should have done so earlier on in this log. It is identified as Cheerful but after much scrutiny it is not. At least in my opinion. The measurements on deck match but thats about it. There are too many stunning discrepancies when compared to the original drafts. But its very close. It is a cutter of the same period and for research its very valuable. The rigging is quite odd as well. Nothing I have ever seen on a cutter of this period. It is interesting to note that until recently this model was identified as an unknown cutter circa 1770's. I am not sure who actually mis-identified it as Cheerful but it has changed at least three times in literature that refers to the Rogers collection. Its a great model non-the-less. What I was glad to see was it is not Clinker planked. One of the reasons I chose this subject. I also have many photos of the square tuck...note the vertical planking back there as opposed to the usual diagonal. This is a detail that is also shown on the original draft. Also note the gunnades on deck. These are the carronades on carriages rather than sleds. This model does not have long twelves at the bow which Cheerful did have. Instead it has more gunnades. Also note such peculiar things such as the aft most shroud being served but the fore shroud is not. Go figure. Any question and I would be glad to try and answer them. I have tons of photos. I also have some photos of the only sister....in this class, Surly. This is another contemporary model in a Canadian museum. It shows this class after a major refit. One that Cheerful never had because it had such a short life. Chuck

Since there is nothing on the tube tonight I went ahead and glued the bulkheads into position. This was something I wanted to do quickly so I get get a sense of the overall shape of this cutter. I will start framing the gunports tomorrow. You will notice the 2nd bulkhead at the bow has no extensions. They wont be needed because the forward-most port will be framed there. No warping which is great....straight as an arrow.