Chuck

Basically the planking....<ost folks will buy the kit because its not expensive and small and that alone doe not make it a beginner kit.  But often times they think that.   Planking a small boat hull like that is much harder than planking a larger hull.  The bends and angles required make spiling and shaping the planking a must.  This is something that beginner builders can not fudge.  Yes the hull is painted but you will see see the run of the planks inboard and using such thin planking material it doesnt leave much room for sanding out errors.   Filling any gaps may also be seen inboard.
 
Basically it is the proper planking expertise that makes it an advanced kit.  Especially at the small 1/4" scale.  That being said.  Its a great teaching tool to learn proper planking and with only a few strakes per side they can be ripped off and done over many times.  For example,  My local club is building the Pinnace kit and we are using it to teach more advanced planking techniques.  Some of our members have ripped off the planks three and four times.   
 
You will learn how to properly shape a garboard strake and where to place its forward end.  Dont let it scare you.  Give it a try but if you have never planked a small boat like this before,  you should expect some new things to pop up while doing so.
 
Again...read all of the logs on this site as suggested.
 
Chuck

The cleats on the rail that are really squarish looking were made just as the plans have them drawn.
They are listed as a kevel cleat. I'm unsure if I will leave them looking new and unused or I will pop
them off and give them some sanding.
 
Thanks Christian. Playing with different woods  was one of the most fun parts.
 
Ok the hatch covers have been completed, sanded and one coat of wipe on poly applied.
She's now ready for the open sea! That would be if there was cannon aboard.
 

 

Thanks, Toni.  I puttered around with the model last night and made the decision to stop puttering around with the waterline.  It looks better than it did and, like you say, if I keep raising it, I'm going to have a problem with the rudder.
 
Thanks, too, for the compliment on The Fife Rail.  Our meetings start at 7:30 PM, which is about Francesco's bedtime.  He toughed it out as long as he could, but eventually...
 

 
Both he and Nicolas had a good time, but it was a late night for them.  They were both asleep in the backseat before we were out of Westmont.
 
 
Dan

Slowpoke detected, it is me!
I was sure that MS pinnace is the same as MS longboat, but without masts. MS website promise that lengtth is equal. But, no! I had a growing suspicion, hey, longboats in other build logs looks shorter then mine, thy is it soooooo long?
 
It looks like Pinnace is a stretched longboat, 24 frames instead of 16.
 
Which gives me around thousand treenails, if i use "two treenails per frame per plank" pattern. That is a hell lot of toothpics! But looks like I have no choice.
 
Sanding cant fix all planking mistakes, if you dont want to have a holes in the hull:

 
Wide stealer plank is better then two thin straler planks, but worse then a properly precalculated evenly sized 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

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.
 

 

 

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!!!