Chuck

After cleaning up the shipyard a bit, here goes....   New framing wood has been ordered but due to Jeff at Hobbymill's schedule it won't be here until late (very late) April.  I'm planning on using up my existing stock of swiss pear, ebony, pear, silver maple, and cherry and maybe some boxwood if I see fit. 
 
At this stage, I'm poring over the plans and notating such things as wale, gunport, and deck clamp locations on the individual frame drawings as I'm planning on putting some reference points on the frames physically as I cut them.  This should solve some of my previous issues..  With 60 frames, this is going to take a bit.
 
I have a new build board laid out and prepped but not cut.  The frame reference board is ready to go.
 
I'm still making a final decision on whether to stick with cherry or go with boxwood for the keel, stem, and stern items.   Version 1.0 sits forlornly in another part of the shipyard waiting for various bits and pieces to be cannibalized.  I'll be re-using my old fabricated measuring tools and making some new ones.
 
Hopefully, by the time the framing stock arrives, all the plans will be annotated and scanned, all the bits and pieces from V 1.0 will be cannibalized, and bunches of new bits will be fabricated and then ready and waiting. 
 
It's time to do this beast right and proper... and to have some fun doing it.
 
Footnotes to the build:  I'm adding to this as I discover things.
The Hahn plans lack a lot of details so additional sources will be needed.
    a) Hahn's "Ships of the American Revolution" is a must to understand the building method.
    b)  I also recommend the "La Belle Poule" monograph from ANCRE.  This has period bits and pieces along with the proper rigging as Hahn used La Venus which has pointed out to me as being from a later period.
 
 

I have seen contemporary models with lids on every port.  These tended to be earlier.  When I designed Cheerful though there was no indication of port lids at all.  I will leave those off.   The older cutters seemed to have some meat above the ports to bolt them in place.  On the later cutters like cheerful this wasnt the case.  Yes it is true they could be side hinged.  But unless you see it on the draft for that particular cutter or any of its sisters I wouldnt paint with a broad brush.   I probably would have included the side hinged ports on Sherourne.  Only because its such an interesting feature.  Who could argue that its wrong since it was clearly shown on  the draft.  Not being the case on many other contemporary models and plans though...its just safer to just leave them off.   Case in point.  Here is a photo of an early cutter with port lids.   And another of Cheerful.  
 
If Cheerful (1803) didnt have any port lids....why the rabbet shown around each port opening.  Why not have the planking end flush against the port  framing.  These questions will drive you nuts.  There comes a time when you must decide whether you want a conservative approach or if you want to take a leap of faith based on thin assumptions.  In the end...whatever you decide it certainly wont be the end of the world if you are wrong.  I imagine it would pretty darn tough for anyone to prove that with certainty anyway, unless of course they are just being unreasonably self indulgent and full of themselves.  Absolutes are pretty tough when considering these details.
 
Oh and I realize that Cheerful was designed after 1800,  but it was clearly carvel planked in my opinion.   The outboard and inboard planking expansions are available.   The outboard expansion shows a drop plank under the wales and an interesting shape of the rabbet that leads me to believe that it was clinker planked.  I have never seen a clinker planked hull with drop planks at the bow.   Does this mean I am absolutely correct.  Not at all.  But its just my opinion...and that is all any of this is.  Even if it is based on primary sources such is the case with my planking example.  I am sure someone will run across a model or a planking plan prior to 1800 that shows the same.  So painting with such road strokes is dangerous.  Yet I see it all the time.  After examining so many plans you will see exceptions all the time.  You will also see weird experimental features that may be unique to a particular ship.
 
Check out the somewhat unique head facilities on the Niger class drafts.   I dont think they were built but could have been on one of the many in her class.  Who knows.
 

 

 

I have seen contemporary models with lids on every port.  These tended to be earlier.  When I designed Cheerful though there was no indication of port lids at all.  I will leave those off.   The older cutters seemed to have some meat above the ports to bolt them in place.  On the later cutters like cheerful this wasnt the case.  Yes it is true they could be side hinged.  But unless you see it on the draft for that particular cutter or any of its sisters I wouldnt paint with a broad brush.   I probably would have included the side hinged ports on Sherourne.  Only because its such an interesting feature.  Who could argue that its wrong since it was clearly shown on  the draft.  Not being the case on many other contemporary models and plans though...its just safer to just leave them off.   Case in point.  Here is a photo of an early cutter with port lids.   And another of Cheerful.  
 
If Cheerful (1803) didnt have any port lids....why the rabbet shown around each port opening.  Why not have the planking end flush against the port  framing.  These questions will drive you nuts.  There comes a time when you must decide whether you want a conservative approach or if you want to take a leap of faith based on thin assumptions.  In the end...whatever you decide it certainly wont be the end of the world if you are wrong.  I imagine it would pretty darn tough for anyone to prove that with certainty anyway, unless of course they are just being unreasonably self indulgent and full of themselves.  Absolutes are pretty tough when considering these details.
 
Oh and I realize that Cheerful was designed after 1800,  but it was clearly carvel planked in my opinion.   The outboard and inboard planking expansions are available.   The outboard expansion shows a drop plank under the wales and an interesting shape of the rabbet that leads me to believe that it was clinker planked.  I have never seen a clinker planked hull with drop planks at the bow.   Does this mean I am absolutely correct.  Not at all.  But its just my opinion...and that is all any of this is.  Even if it is based on primary sources such is the case with my planking example.  I am sure someone will run across a model or a planking plan prior to 1800 that shows the same.  So painting with such road strokes is dangerous.  Yet I see it all the time.  After examining so many plans you will see exceptions all the time.  You will also see weird experimental features that may be unique to a particular ship.
 
Check out the somewhat unique head facilities on the Niger class drafts.   I dont think they were built but could have been on one of the many in her class.  Who knows.
 

 

 

Looks great so far.     I am so glad you are enjoying the kit.   Please dont hesitate to ask me any questions.  I have all of my prototype pictures and they are larger and in color.  If you need to see any I would gladly post here.
 
Chuck

I have seen contemporary models with lids on every port.  These tended to be earlier.  When I designed Cheerful though there was no indication of port lids at all.  I will leave those off.   The older cutters seemed to have some meat above the ports to bolt them in place.  On the later cutters like cheerful this wasnt the case.  Yes it is true they could be side hinged.  But unless you see it on the draft for that particular cutter or any of its sisters I wouldnt paint with a broad brush.   I probably would have included the side hinged ports on Sherourne.  Only because its such an interesting feature.  Who could argue that its wrong since it was clearly shown on  the draft.  Not being the case on many other contemporary models and plans though...its just safer to just leave them off.   Case in point.  Here is a photo of an early cutter with port lids.   And another of Cheerful.  
 
If Cheerful (1803) didnt have any port lids....why the rabbet shown around each port opening.  Why not have the planking end flush against the port  framing.  These questions will drive you nuts.  There comes a time when you must decide whether you want a conservative approach or if you want to take a leap of faith based on thin assumptions.  In the end...whatever you decide it certainly wont be the end of the world if you are wrong.  I imagine it would pretty darn tough for anyone to prove that with certainty anyway, unless of course they are just being unreasonably self indulgent and full of themselves.  Absolutes are pretty tough when considering these details.
 
Oh and I realize that Cheerful was designed after 1800,  but it was clearly carvel planked in my opinion.   The outboard and inboard planking expansions are available.   The outboard expansion shows a drop plank under the wales and an interesting shape of the rabbet that leads me to believe that it was clinker planked.  I have never seen a clinker planked hull with drop planks at the bow.   Does this mean I am absolutely correct.  Not at all.  But its just my opinion...and that is all any of this is.  Even if it is based on primary sources such is the case with my planking example.  I am sure someone will run across a model or a planking plan prior to 1800 that shows the same.  So painting with such road strokes is dangerous.  Yet I see it all the time.  After examining so many plans you will see exceptions all the time.  You will also see weird experimental features that may be unique to a particular ship.
 
Check out the somewhat unique head facilities on the Niger class drafts.   I dont think they were built but could have been on one of the many in her class.  Who knows.
 

 

 

I have seen contemporary models with lids on every port.  These tended to be earlier.  When I designed Cheerful though there was no indication of port lids at all.  I will leave those off.   The older cutters seemed to have some meat above the ports to bolt them in place.  On the later cutters like cheerful this wasnt the case.  Yes it is true they could be side hinged.  But unless you see it on the draft for that particular cutter or any of its sisters I wouldnt paint with a broad brush.   I probably would have included the side hinged ports on Sherourne.  Only because its such an interesting feature.  Who could argue that its wrong since it was clearly shown on  the draft.  Not being the case on many other contemporary models and plans though...its just safer to just leave them off.   Case in point.  Here is a photo of an early cutter with port lids.   And another of Cheerful.  
 
If Cheerful (1803) didnt have any port lids....why the rabbet shown around each port opening.  Why not have the planking end flush against the port  framing.  These questions will drive you nuts.  There comes a time when you must decide whether you want a conservative approach or if you want to take a leap of faith based on thin assumptions.  In the end...whatever you decide it certainly wont be the end of the world if you are wrong.  I imagine it would pretty darn tough for anyone to prove that with certainty anyway, unless of course they are just being unreasonably self indulgent and full of themselves.  Absolutes are pretty tough when considering these details.
 
Oh and I realize that Cheerful was designed after 1800,  but it was clearly carvel planked in my opinion.   The outboard and inboard planking expansions are available.   The outboard expansion shows a drop plank under the wales and an interesting shape of the rabbet that leads me to believe that it was clinker planked.  I have never seen a clinker planked hull with drop planks at the bow.   Does this mean I am absolutely correct.  Not at all.  But its just my opinion...and that is all any of this is.  Even if it is based on primary sources such is the case with my planking example.  I am sure someone will run across a model or a planking plan prior to 1800 that shows the same.  So painting with such road strokes is dangerous.  Yet I see it all the time.  After examining so many plans you will see exceptions all the time.  You will also see weird experimental features that may be unique to a particular ship.
 
Check out the somewhat unique head facilities on the Niger class drafts.   I dont think they were built but could have been on one of the many in her class.  Who knows.
 

 

 

I have seen contemporary models with lids on every port.  These tended to be earlier.  When I designed Cheerful though there was no indication of port lids at all.  I will leave those off.   The older cutters seemed to have some meat above the ports to bolt them in place.  On the later cutters like cheerful this wasnt the case.  Yes it is true they could be side hinged.  But unless you see it on the draft for that particular cutter or any of its sisters I wouldnt paint with a broad brush.   I probably would have included the side hinged ports on Sherourne.  Only because its such an interesting feature.  Who could argue that its wrong since it was clearly shown on  the draft.  Not being the case on many other contemporary models and plans though...its just safer to just leave them off.   Case in point.  Here is a photo of an early cutter with port lids.   And another of Cheerful.  
 
If Cheerful (1803) didnt have any port lids....why the rabbet shown around each port opening.  Why not have the planking end flush against the port  framing.  These questions will drive you nuts.  There comes a time when you must decide whether you want a conservative approach or if you want to take a leap of faith based on thin assumptions.  In the end...whatever you decide it certainly wont be the end of the world if you are wrong.  I imagine it would pretty darn tough for anyone to prove that with certainty anyway, unless of course they are just being unreasonably self indulgent and full of themselves.  Absolutes are pretty tough when considering these details.
 
Oh and I realize that Cheerful was designed after 1800,  but it was clearly carvel planked in my opinion.   The outboard and inboard planking expansions are available.   The outboard expansion shows a drop plank under the wales and an interesting shape of the rabbet that leads me to believe that it was clinker planked.  I have never seen a clinker planked hull with drop planks at the bow.   Does this mean I am absolutely correct.  Not at all.  But its just my opinion...and that is all any of this is.  Even if it is based on primary sources such is the case with my planking example.  I am sure someone will run across a model or a planking plan prior to 1800 that shows the same.  So painting with such road strokes is dangerous.  Yet I see it all the time.  After examining so many plans you will see exceptions all the time.  You will also see weird experimental features that may be unique to a particular ship.
 
Check out the somewhat unique head facilities on the Niger class drafts.   I dont think they were built but could have been on one of the many in her class.  Who knows.
 

 

 

Installing final planks. Gaps for remaining plank have a bit different width, so on one side I will have two thin planks based on regular strips, and one other side - one plank made from a wider strip.
Shaped that strip, bit after soaking it obviously become larger and do not fit into the gap anymore. Another illustration why one shoild never glue soaked planks :

Sorry Peter...but we have been taken to the cleaners before.  This is not what the project was created for.  No reason to redraft the plans.  Then the arguments begin about who owns the redrafted plans....it just gets ugly.   Folks seeing the parts take shape and asking you privately to sell them the pieces.   Putting you and the site in an awkward position.  It happens all the time.   We already have other sites distributing the plans to its members after they signed up here for them and the funny thing is they arent continuing the logs here.  Instead they continue them on other european sites along with others who now have the plans.
 
Its just not right and this is an unusual request beyond the scope of what the project was intended for.  The project was started to allow folks to learn how to make the parts by hand using various means.   Not have them laser cut or milled  and the plans redrawn.
 
Sorry,   we mean no ill-will but as others have said.  Simply get a set of plans from the NMM and make something  electronically.  I am actually doing the same as well.  You will learn a lot more about lofting frames and such rather than just copy what is already drafted by someone else.  In addition the plans are only given to folks who have shown they have built the keel and other parts initially.  Just redrawing them doesnt count.  Chris only has two posts on the site and none since attempting to get the plans.  That is also a red flag.  No interest shown in the other logs or other areas of the site or our members.  Look at it from our perspective.   We dont know you at all.
 
 
 
Chuck

Sorry Peter...but we have been taken to the cleaners before.  This is not what the project was created for.  No reason to redraft the plans.  Then the arguments begin about who owns the redrafted plans....it just gets ugly.   Folks seeing the parts take shape and asking you privately to sell them the pieces.   Putting you and the site in an awkward position.  It happens all the time.   We already have other sites distributing the plans to its members after they signed up here for them and the funny thing is they arent continuing the logs here.  Instead they continue them on other european sites along with others who now have the plans.
 
Its just not right and this is an unusual request beyond the scope of what the project was intended for.  The project was started to allow folks to learn how to make the parts by hand using various means.   Not have them laser cut or milled  and the plans redrawn.
 
Sorry,   we mean no ill-will but as others have said.  Simply get a set of plans from the NMM and make something  electronically.  I am actually doing the same as well.  You will learn a lot more about lofting frames and such rather than just copy what is already drafted by someone else.  In addition the plans are only given to folks who have shown they have built the keel and other parts initially.  Just redrawing them doesnt count.  Chris only has two posts on the site and none since attempting to get the plans.  That is also a red flag.  No interest shown in the other logs or other areas of the site or our members.  Look at it from our perspective.   We dont know you at all.
 
 
 
Chuck

Just a quick update.  The first belt of planking below the wales has been completed P/S. 
 

 

 
Not bad so far and hopefully sanding will bring everything in line.  There will be a molding running across where the counter meets the planks in the stern.  Open framework amidships is starting to look nice!
 
Moving on now to the lower most belt starting with the garboard plank and heading up.  Holding off on stealers and drop planks until the final belt.   Will be trying some 3/16" planks, tapered, for the stern (everything else is 1/8).
 
 

Sorry Peter...but we have been taken to the cleaners before.  This is not what the project was created for.  No reason to redraft the plans.  Then the arguments begin about who owns the redrafted plans....it just gets ugly.   Folks seeing the parts take shape and asking you privately to sell them the pieces.   Putting you and the site in an awkward position.  It happens all the time.   We already have other sites distributing the plans to its members after they signed up here for them and the funny thing is they arent continuing the logs here.  Instead they continue them on other european sites along with others who now have the plans.
 
Its just not right and this is an unusual request beyond the scope of what the project was intended for.  The project was started to allow folks to learn how to make the parts by hand using various means.   Not have them laser cut or milled  and the plans redrawn.
 
Sorry,   we mean no ill-will but as others have said.  Simply get a set of plans from the NMM and make something  electronically.  I am actually doing the same as well.  You will learn a lot more about lofting frames and such rather than just copy what is already drafted by someone else.  In addition the plans are only given to folks who have shown they have built the keel and other parts initially.  Just redrawing them doesnt count.  Chris only has two posts on the site and none since attempting to get the plans.  That is also a red flag.  No interest shown in the other logs or other areas of the site or our members.  Look at it from our perspective.   We dont know you at all.
 
 
 
Chuck

Unfortunately we will not be able to give you access to the drawings.  This is one of the stipulations of the original drafters and the admin agrees.   There is really no need to redraw them as they are already drawn electronically and made available to model builders.   I dont understand why you would simply copy them in CAD since they are already done.
 
Sorry,  but we can not allow.   The only reason I can think of would be to have all parts available to laser cut or fabricate.  Something the original project was not intended for.  Plus there are no controls to ensure the parts are not sold or reused for other purposes.  It would not be fair to the folks who worked for years researching and drafting the electronic plans we already have.
 
Chuck 
Admin.

All the pieces are already drawn, if you want to go to a larger scale just enlarge the plans. You could use almost any set of plans from the MMM to create your own set of plans and draw out and mill the pieces. Fantastic go I hope you can find something to work with.

Looks simply beautiful.  Well done. 

If you are going to make a mold and cast the others.  Why not buy just one each of the proper sizes.  That wont be costly and you could castthe rest from those masters.
 
Chuck

Unfortunately we will not be able to give you access to the drawings.  This is one of the stipulations of the original drafters and the admin agrees.   There is really no need to redraw them as they are already drawn electronically and made available to model builders.   I dont understand why you would simply copy them in CAD since they are already done.
 
Sorry,  but we can not allow.   The only reason I can think of would be to have all parts available to laser cut or fabricate.  Something the original project was not intended for.  Plus there are no controls to ensure the parts are not sold or reused for other purposes.  It would not be fair to the folks who worked for years researching and drafting the electronic plans we already have.
 
Chuck 
Admin.

Because its a special project exclusively created for MSW.  We developed the plans and offer them to folks at no charge.  This forum was created to start a group that is working on them so ll logs and questions about its construction can be kept in one area.   This will help all participating members to compare notes and find information.
 
Chuck

Wonderful Work Alex!!!

The NRG has now started publishing book reviews online in addition to in the Nautical Research Journal.
 
 
 
 
 
https://thenrg.org/resource/books
 
 
 
 
 
If you have a moment,  please check it out.   It may be of interest to all of you.
 
 
 
 
 
Chuck
 

After having a meltdown about kit plywood being garbage, I purchased some Aircraft Birch plywood, MUCH better, but still not good for possible replacement. I searched around on the net and its seems all plywood over the past several years is crap. The main source is Chinese import which have increased by 1000% recently. The quality is very poor, central plys more air than wood, and often other things like box cutter blades and other forms of metal (great for power tools). The glues are toxic. A large quantity shipped to the Katrina area for reconstruction could not be used due to formaldehyde fumes. Warehouses have refused entire shipments for the same reason. None of it is near dimensional size (for every 19 full sheets, they can get an extra one by the reduced size. Finland one of the main birch sources is seeing its source running out. Maybe we, especially the kit suppliers, should look into an alternative, maybe MDF (suppose to laser cut well) or something. Darn, Ain't nothing like it usta be (including me)!
 
Still I know there are those much hated (by me), gifted artists, who manage to continually come up with such amazing pieces of craftsmanship made out of nothing and spit. I guess I'll have to experiment and maybe hunt down some of those gifted ones too.

Hello everyone,
 
This is my very first model ship build and I am very happy to be posting it on MSW. I'm finding out that model ship builds are quite unique and challenging. You don't have to try it first to know that. Just reading the build logs on MSW is enough. There is a lot to learn for sure. I chose the Longboat because it seemed like a good place to start as a first build. I have read every build log for this boat and I just want to say what a great job everyone has done. I have learned a lot and I would appreciate any help or suggestions that you might have as I move ahead.
 
Using very thin plastic tape which goes around curves easily, I was able to sand away without going past the bearding line. A few strokes after removing the tape finishes the work. I used 1/4" tape but somehow I lost the package. See below for the same product but a different width.
 
         

 
A simple way to line up the bulkheads square to the false keel. The bulkhead tops were aligned by eye after the first one was squared in both directions. I found that using Elmers Carpenters Wood Glue gave me approximately 5 minutes to check things over both ways before the glue started to set. Since it is water based I sanded a tad more clearance between the bulkheads and false keel to allow for swelling.
 

 
I will use this sticky back sandpaper and a "T" sanding block made from 1/8" balsa to fair the hull. I Left the transom off for now.

 
I found that close pins worked fine here without any worry of creating dents.
 

 
Made this template from balsa to mark location of the shear line which turned out to be inaccurate. One strake ended up slightly lower than the other. At the time I went with it anyway.
 

 
Shear strakes in place.

 
Garboard planks installed
 

 
Lesson learned. . .never try and build when you are sick, coughing and medicated. After ten days and 75% of the planking completed I started to realize that the front end was not going to close up properly with the last plank. The first mistake was tapering the garboard plank too abruptly. Not only were all subsequent planks a nightmare to edge bend at such an extreme curve but doing so prevented each plank from going forward enough to fill in the bow area, I think. Also, Chuck pointed out that I tapered the second plank down from the shear line to nearly a point at 1/64" when I should have only removed 1/64" to produce a very slight taper instead. Really dumb as I misread the instructions.
 

 
Frustrated and wanting to kick myself, but not one to give up easily, I carefully removed all the planks as well as the keel and stem. The kit provides an extra set of these. To be honest I didn't know that I would be successful tearing everything down but it all worked out fine. I'm glad I used Elmers Carpenters glue and not CA.
 
Here you can see the new garboard plank with a much more gradual taper. As described in Bob F's log, http://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/1465-18th-century-longboat-by-bobf-ms-148-tri-club/page-2, I transferred a tick mark to each bulkhead.


 
Shear strake and following strake installed. This time I tapered the second strake just a bit as per Chuck's instructions. Shot was taken at and angle giving a distorted few of the other side of the boat.
 

 
Thanks again to Bob F. and Chuck for all your help!
 
Finally! for what seemed like forever, the planking is finished and 95% sanded. Prior to sanding I used these. . http://www.woodcraft.com/Product/2020022/19046/Curved-Scraper-Set-of-4.aspx. . which I found very useful. They allow the removal of just the high spots thus saving as much plank thickness as possible. I suggest that anyone doing the Longboat should read Bob F's log. . . http://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/1465-18th-century-longboat-by-bobf-ms-148-tri-club/?hl=%2018th%20%20century%20%20longboat. . . which contains very useful tips and how to's on planking the longboat from both his initial comments as well as his comments from the dialog he and I had on page 8. I did the planking with 11 strakes which worked out well. I had thought that I would have to taper the strakes at the stem to almost 1/16" but that turned out not to be the case. The most I had to reduce each plank by was no more than around .030. I found the last plank on each side to be the most difficult to make since it had to fit between 2 planks. I tried spiling them but the angles and curves made it difficult to do. Perhaps there is an article on MSW on the best way to do this.

If you are going to make a mold and cast the others.  Why not buy just one each of the proper sizes.  That wont be costly and you could castthe rest from those masters.
 
Chuck

Thats exactly how I do it.  Wonderful explanation.   The one thing I might add is that the twisting can be put into the plank ahead of time as well.   I usually dip the plank in some water for about 5 seconds.   Then clamp the bow end of the plank to the table.   Twist the plank carefully as to not change or remove the edge bending.   Heat it up with a hair dryer on the hottest setting.  This will lock in the twist.   You can shape the plank so it will fit perfectly without any coaxing required to put it into place.
 
Chuck
 
Well done Augie.

If you are going to make a mold and cast the others.  Why not buy just one each of the proper sizes.  That wont be costly and you could castthe rest from those masters.
 
Chuck