tkay11

Aaaah! Centre drills are just the thing I needed to think about as I have been having some trouble with a 1.5mm drill that refuses to go down the centre. Thank you so much, QA! Oh, and I like the blocks as well -- I might well order one! [Edit: Oops, $96 for one. Maybe I'll make my own] Tony

Yes, with a little thought, QA, I could do a wooden jig. I've been using angle iron (well, aluminium, actually) for this kind of thing. But your's is a really beautiful piece of work. Tony

Now something as beautiful as that fingerplate can't go un-noticed in the internet world. You don't happen to call yourself Arbalest as well do you? I'd love to be able to make something like that. Tony

There's a small guide to joggling at https://sites.google.com/site/shipwrightsfaq/smf-q072. The nibbing that I ended up doing I showed in my log at http://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/335-hmc-sherbourne-by-tkay11-–-caldercraft-–-scale-164-1763-a-novice’s-caldercraft-sherbourne/?p=3203. Tony

I agree with Kester. Almost every day (when I have a day to spare, that is) that I spend on ship modelling I have a moment when I say to myself "this is terrible, I'll never get the hang of this" and I put my tools down in disgust. Unfortunately for the ship which then has a nice little respite from the various attacks I make on it, it isn't long before I'm going over it all in my mind and saying "Hmm. Suppose I tackle it that way. Maybe that'll make it all work". So I go back to the desk and have another bash at it. Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I don't. I have learned not to spend too long at the desk staring under a glaring lamp at tiny little pieces. It is highly important to take a rest, just as you would from normal work. It may well be in the nature of this new job that first attempts don't work out. Look what happened to Mark who's just given up his first attempt at the Licorne after getting a long way into the framing. Now that's BIG TIME giving up to start again. I've just spent a couple of days figuring out how to make the axle trees for the cannon. I thought I really had it solved until, into my 8th axle, I found they all were 1mm too short, and, in addition, several of the axle stubs were not quite at right angles to the axle. My filing skills obviously need improvement. So I'll have to go back and have a very good re-think about how to do them. In other words, Jan, I can bet you'll be back on the job in very little time if you are interested in the hobby with its endless problems to solve and overcome, and it sounds like you are. Tony

Jan, I don't know if you have already done so, but if not, have a look at the deck planking tutorials on this site. You'll see them at http://modelshipworldforum.com/ship-model-framing-and-planking-articles.php. There's an excellent one by Ulises Victoria, and also a calculator in an Excel spreadsheet by AEW. You can see the two different types (joggling and nibbing) in the following picture from zu Mondfeld's book Historic Ship Models: Tony

Yes, QA, it does look flimsy, but it seems quite solid to me -- given that I don't expect the forces on it to be too great (and I'm not going to test it by clouting it with a 2lb hammer). I'm really pleased with the DB250. I had dithered for a while about getting a metal-turning lathe, but reasoned: (a) that I was just working with wood. ( that the level of accuracy with wood would be quite sufficient -- especially given that a lot of modellers on this site use the DB250 and have very good results (in addition to being pleased with it themselves). I have seen lovely small pieces made with the DB250, and in addition many say it is very handy for working with masts -- even more so should I bother to buy an extra bed to extend it. c) that a metal-turning lathe would be overkill for me. I can't see myself working with metal for quite a while. Furthermore, that although I could turn wood in the metal-working lathe, it would only be for work with small pieces, and work with masts would require me to return to my household drill. I am happy with shaping masts using my household drill setup, but have found the DB250 so much more convenient to set up and easier to use. (d) A metal-turning lathe and all its accessories would be expensive. I only have a small budget for such things. £500 would be way above anything I could afford. I read that the affordable micro-lathes would have to have a lot of setting up. And the slightly larger afordable mini-lathes that also require care in setting up but are less prone to issues with alignment would be out of my budget. Then I had a look at the cost of all the accessories and that really put me off. I can foresee that one day I'll be interested in a metal-working lathe, but that will depend a little on the outcome of the lottery. In the meantime I'll have a lovely time learning wood turning skills with the DB250. I've already learned to appreciate the 4-jaw independent chuck and learned how to turn 4mm wheels from square stock. Great fun! Tony

The runner is solid, so conceptually one could do the modification. However, I'm going to stick with the current setup for the while since it is doing the job and I still have a long way to go in learning the basic skills in using the lathe. It took me months before I was happy in using my table saw, so I expect the same learning curve for even such a simple lathe! Thanks, though, for all the ideas, Wefalck. Keep them coming -- they certainly spark the imagination! Tony

That looks like a very nice project, Wefalck, but I think I'd need to come over to Paris to see your workshop and learn a bit more from you before taking such a job on! I suppose the file would be needed to make the sliding mechanism with runner and grooves. What would defeat me, I think, is filing with that precision. Or maybe it's like ship modelling -- just start and learn by doing. Tony

Excellent suggestions, Wefalck, and highly doable! I like the idea of the spring washer, as well, as I was thinking about the play round the nut. Thanks very much Tony

Well, I have fiddled with adding brass shims, and I am totally surprised that a 0.05mm shim has fixed the problem. I managed to squeeze it in on one side of the tailstock holder as shown in the photo, and this has not only reduced the play to almost nothing, but I am now hitting dead centre. I might now exchange the paper shim underneath the holder for a brass shim of the same size (0.1mm) but possibly I'll wait a bit before doing this as I try to hold to the motto 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. My estimate of 0.2 must have resulted from the distance of the holder from the end of the drill point -- thus increasing any angle of deviance. Tony

Thanks, Welfalck. You are quite right about the construction. I attach a photo as requested. When I say that there is slight play of tailstock and chuck, this is even after the holding screw is tightened. I don't have a pillar drill, but I have an ordinary drill stand for the standard electric drill. The stand is not of the highest accuracy, but once I have a drill bit positioned on a piece it at least drills vertically. Other than the paper I have been using as a shim, I have brass shim sheets of .001", .002", .003" and .005". I could see if one would fit on one side of the tailstock holder. Thanks for the link about the scraper! Tony

That's as I expected, Wefalck -- and thanks for the usual thoughtful reply that you give to such questions. I was saying to myself that I shouldn't expect that sort of accurate work on the wood lathe. All the same, I like challenges, and so I was trying to think of various tricks around the problem. I have at least got the accuracy down to about 0.1mm of dead centre (by pressing on the chuck with my hand and only allowing the drill bit to go in about 6mm at a time), but it remains possible to notice that the hole is not quite centred if it is looked at carefully. By the way, what is meant by 'scraping-in'? I figure 'filing' means filing down the edge of the tailstock base. I had thought of that, but then thought I might well make the problem worse if I didn't have an accurate enough set-up to file it down accurately and totally parallel with the holding groove in the bed. Tony

Thanks, QA. I'll look into it. Tony

They're 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10mm with my Proxxon DB250 wood lathe. The only problem I've had with it so far, is that the tailstock is about 0.2mm away from dead centre. I'm trying to fix it with some shims. So far a paper shim has worked to fix the vertical discrepancy, but there's still a lateral discrepancy I'm trying to fix. Unfortunately it would mean shaving a bit off the tailstock sliding base and I can't think of another way round it yet. Part of the problem is that the way the tailstock is made means that there is some freedom of movement either of the tailstock or of the drill chuck, so the combination means that drilling an accurate 0.5mm or 1mm hole in a rod with diameter of 3.7mm is next to impossible for me at the moment. Tony

Here's another thought. If the Sherbourne did have gun port lids, then they would have to be side-opening, wouldn't they? My reasoning is based on the drawings showing the gunports right up to the rail, which might mean there was no way of fitting them unless the rail was considered strong enough. Ignore at will if this is not logical! Tony

I had no idea I was touching on actuality! Don't worry -- I realise the terrible potential of blast. At a much smaller scale, I remember the kick-back and the deafening noise just of a .303 rifle when I was in the army cadet force as a teenager at school. It put me off going near guns for the rest of my life -- let alone tamper with one of these 3 pounder beasties. Tony

I can't answer your question about the colour of the margin planks, I might suggest that if that is all the wood you have, then, as long as the difference is consistent, it might even look quite nice. As to whether they should be there, it is probably more accurate to have them. It looks as though you are on the path to shaping the margins nicely so it would be a shame to do away with the idea altogether. You then have to decide whether you joggle (indent) the planks into the margin, or nib the planks so that they do not indent the margin. There are rules to follow for both nibbing and joggling so that the ends of the planks do not come to a point. It looks as though you have not yet glued the planks to the deck, so you have plenty of flexibility left. Tony

OK, just to throw in a couple of spurious questions: 1. When the lids are closed, the guns have to be rolled back and held tight by their ropes since the muzzles could not be raised and held fast against the rail. Would there be enough room for this on a cutter of this width without interfering with the day-to-day sailing? 2. Re muzzles clearing the half-lids, I am tempted to suggest that side-hinged lids are an ingenious method of preparing for firing very rapidly, without the bother of locking the lids open. When the guns are rolled out for firing, wouldn't the muzzle length would keep the doors open if they are side opening? (The side lids would be shorter than a top lid), Though this might mean the noise of their flapping against the muzzle would irritate the crew. I suppose if the worst came to the worst and they started firing a bit too rapidly, the cannon ball leaving the gun would ensure the lids would part, albeit with a little bit of damage here and there as well as a few injuries with splinters. OK, the second question was not truly serious. I am loathe to use smileys to indicate a poor joke. But I'm interested in answers to the first question. Tony

Thanks, Druxey. I understood that and the convention. I think Franklin said something like that as well in his book. I was just musing in case there was another way of looking at it. Sorry not to have made that clear. Tony

I really appreciate Jay's excellent critical analysis, and druxey's equally thoughtful direction to the detail of the plans, along with Dirk's initial prompting to look at the lids and Kester's stimulation to look at this in more detail. Many of us come from academic, nautical, professional or analytic backgrounds, and it's great to be reminded of the care needed should we aim at historical accuracy. In addition it's great fun to have something like this for the analytic mind to chew on. However, this made me think a bit. Why was it that I went to the AOTS Alert book in order to inform the build of the Sherbourne kit? Well, the simple answer is that I was desperate for information of any kind over and above what the kit offered. Not having had any sailing experience, modelling experience, or any knowledge whatsoever of the construction of ships, it was certainly attractive to have a source that was relatively easily available which gave measurements and drawings of the construction of a vessel of the same type and roughly the same period. I had read remarks by a number of commentators that Goodwin wasn't to be relied on for everything, but I didn't mind that too much as long as I could get a hang of what it might mean to build a cutter of that period. I also went to the National Maritime Museum (a short tube ride from my house) to see how the models there would look, and I bought Franklin's 'Navy Board Ship Models' to see how the modellers at that time would approach their work. It does seem that there is and was a huge variety of approaches and the set of reasons for building a contemporary model were as wide then as they are now -- with the resulting wide set of levels of detail or accuracy that were and are provided. That said, I am left unclear as to how to approach this question of the lids. The sweep ports seem to be there in the NMM model I pictured earlier, so I am happy with leaving them as is. But should I aim to fit the Sherbourne with gun port lids? The evidence so far is mixed, with one lid being shown on one port in three sets of plans. Jay and Druxey are clear here. Kester makes the suggestion that the gun ports at the bow may have had gun port lids for the reason that this is where the waves mostly would come in. Could it be that the single port lid should have been at the bow? Kester also says that none of the paintings or photographs he has seen show lids. Similarly, the model I have shown from the NMM does not have lids, and the other cutters and brigs that are modelled nowadays (e.g. Lady Nelson) do not have gun port lids. The modellers of all these clearly did their own research. It was Chris Watton who designed the Sherbourne kit, and as we know he is a thorough researcher, it might be a good idea to ask him about this question. I would feel confident that he had reasons for leaving off the lids -- even though the answer might be that they would have been too much for a beginner's model. The final aspect that I noticed from the plans provided by Dirk was that the gun ports were cut right up to the rail. I don't know if that makes it any the easier to lean over and open any lids to lock them on to some outside ringbolt, but given that the sweep ports were open, and there is almost no difference in height over the Alert's sides where there is no rail and there are no lids shown, is there any real function for the ports, other than at the bow? As I was writing this Kester's most recent post came in. I am with him for the moment. I'll leave the lids off. Besides, I am so inexperienced it is hard enough for me to make the rest of the kit properly! Thanks for tolerating this rather rambling reply and it in no way detracts from a more thorough understanding that may or may not throw up more evidence either way! Tony

It was a great ride while it lasted. I'm sure the next will be even better. Thanks very much for an excellent log and a logical termination, or final point. Tony

Yes, it was from an original draught, but it appears to be for only one of the ports. The discussion hinged (sorry, we're talking about lids after all) on whether it was easy enough to open them and whether this was just something fanciful on the part of the draughtsman. Are there other examples of side-opening gun port lids? Thanks, Dirk, for the detailed plan. It is terrific to see that much detail. In particular it is interesting to note the gun ports are cut right up to the rail. Tony

Thanks, Druxey. Valuable info. In relation to the side-opening gun port lids, we had a discussion a while back about the feasibility of this. The easily-available plans show one of the ports with lids only, and these were indeed side-opening. The questions were how they would be held to the side and whether they would interfere with the channels. So it's interesting that the more detailed plans do indeed show side-opening lids. By the way, did you build a Sherbourne? Tony

Are you thinking of the AOTS book on the Alert, Kester? The Alarm I don't know. Anyway, your points are interesting. Without sweep ports it would be much easire to fit longer shot racks in my build! The following shot is of the model of the cutter 'Trial' of 1790 at the NMM in Greenwich. It shows sweep ports. Tony