tkay11

On my plans scarf A and scarf B are exactly the same size. You could trace them to check or use dividers. I note that there is a fold going across the tip of scarf B, so is this where your measurement might be going wrong?
 
The other thing is that if you have used scans or photocopies to go to 1:24 there may well have been distortions in the scanning process.
 
Gérard is very precise in his drawings, and when there are errors in Ancre plans the ones I have found are always due to mistakes by the author.
 
Questions about the Rochefort have been pretty thoroughly examined in the Marine & Modélisme d'Arsenal forum, so you could also have a look there about issues that come up as you build.
 
Good luck with the answer!
 
Tony

Here is a contemporary piece of information to add to the discussions. Falconer's Universal Dictionary of the Marine (I have a scanned copy of the 1784 edition, readily available on the web) spells 'launch' as 'lanch' and has the following entry. 
 

 
We are all able to make our own interpretations of these words and I do not expect all to agree. My opinion follows the comments from Vaddoc and Jud above and simple engineering expediency - I would expect the frames to be built vertically, and the angle of the keel would be adjusted on the ground with blocks and wedges to enable this to happen. When it comes to launch the vessel, Falconer says that two slipways are laid and a cradle is built to support the ship. The supports for the keel are then knocked out and the vessel either moves immediately or is given a push to start her slide.
There are no definitive words here that the keel is parallel to the slipways in the vertical plane, so it is plausible that the keel is horizontal while the ship slides down an angled slipway while sitting in a cradle. This interpretation could resolve some of the discussions above. Bear in mind also that practice in different parts of the world may well have been different. 
 
George
 
 

George.
 
Before the current system of modular construction, ships were built in two phases.  Construction before launch, and Outfitting after launch.  Construction was done by shipwrights.  Outfitting was done by joiners.  Building ladders, cabin partitions deck furniture etc. was the job of joiners.  My guess is that you are correct.  In doing their job, the joiners would build their structures level and square to the ship afloat.
 
The disposition of frames is a different matter, as they determine the shape of the hull.   If the frames were not arranged parallel to the body plan sections on the draught,  the entire draught would have to be redrawn to shift the orientation of the body plan sections to match that of the frame orientation.  Otherwise the shape of the hull would change.

Hello,
It is probably a printing problem because the "exploded" part is drawn from the "assembled" part, there is no difference in the AutoCad file (I just checked).
It is possible that the printing method has deformed the print although it comes from a pdf file dimensionally reliable.
Sorry for this inconvenience that I hope is unique.
Gérard Delacroix

Revision to the beginning and name of build
 
I need to change the direction of the hull started in the first post and alter it to make the schooner the Ada Cliff. 
 
There were two similar schooners built in Boothbay in 1917. One in Boothbay Harbor and one in East Boothbay. Ada Cliff has been recorded to be 149 feet and the Priscilla Alden is apparently recorded at two different lengths.   The local records all show 142, but a Boston based reference suggests 154.  The Ada Cliff was a more standard schooner as per her pictures, built to spec for coal. She became the design basis of several four masted schooners built in the boom years that followed.  There is no remaining half model or drawings for Ada Cliff  that the late Jim Hunt was able to find in his research, but several photos for reference. More on that later
 
I started off using a generic hull form described in the first post below.  I then was able to find more references to the Priscilla Alden. Those references including surviving drawings showed a much sleeker hull.  I have decided to use the framing I made in the first post to build the Ada Cliff and will hold back and start a total new hull later on for Priscilla. That will also give me the opportunity to study more about the disparity in the length.
The following first post will lead  into Priscilla and the next post will bring us back to Ada
 
cheers
 
 
 
 
 
 
Post 1
 
The beginning
 
The beginning to a new project can often be a bit risky.   For me at least I am typically a little tentative.  Will this be small or large scale, plank on frames or bulkhead model or a diorama?  In this case, I want to build a three masted Boothbay built coasting Schooner.   What is interesting is that I rushed into it and started making sawdust before fully sorting out my research.    First of all, I wanted to explore this design because after studying the bigger schooners, and learning firsthand the poor sailing aspects of the “too long” form, I wanted to get to what seems to have been the most reasonable solution.  That is 3 may have been better than 4.
 
Three masted Schooners a quick summary
•       The first 3-masted schooners evolved in the Chesapeake region around 1790
•       The three masts were adjusted to be the same height around 1850
•       1840-1865 full rigged ships looking for speed evolved into clipperships 
•       As steamships took over for long hauls, coasting schooners, with less labor costs, took on coastal routes
•       1865-1880 coastal trade blossomed as the US government required US flag vessels for inter-city trade
•       The coastline favored long narrow fore and aft rigs (like clipper) with small crews
•       Coastal schooner construction grew quickly, and the 3-masted fleet competed with steam ships along the coast 
 
These beauties became prolific in the decades after the civil War.  Then, as human nature and business models dictated, they grew until the sails became too big.   Then the plans changed, and a fourth mast was added to improve the sail handling and keep the sizes growing.  As we know that cycle repeated itself across Maine until we ended up with nearly ten 6-masted schooners and one steel hulled 7-masted schooner by around 1910. Then, except for the World War I short termed boom, steam took over  .
 
 
01a   Looking at the local Boothbay market, we learned that through this period schooners built here were prolific in the two masted fishing arenas. From 1873 to 1903, nine bigger schooners built. In East Boothbay, four masted Schooners were launched from the Adam’s yard in 1890 and 1903.  Jim Stevens, one of the area gurus, put together a story listing 21 3 and 4 masted schooners built on the peninsula. There was a complete void until in 1917, when  it all came back in a roar.
'
01b  In the main harbor in the year 1917 the Ada Cliff was being built at the I R Reed yard.  That year the Mayor of Sommerville, Mr Cliff himself, and lots of investors came, bought that yard, and built four 4-masted schooners over the next few years.   They took the partially built Schooner Ida Cliff lines and simply stretched them 40 feet in the middle and then added a fourth mast.  Anyway, someday I hope to build a diorama of all that stuff. It is not for this build.  What is of interest is that in 1917 the IDA Cliff was a 149 foot long three masted schooner and that was pretty much as big as they got. Just beyond the big roof in the phot, on the other side of the harbor, the Atlantic Company was set up and they built 6 more 4-masted schooners before then end of the era in about 1921.   More on that when I get back my next 4-masted build. 
 
I am now focused on East Boothbay.  I have selected a 1918 Schooner, the Priscilla Alden.  I chose after searching all the names on the list I had and found at Maine Maritime Museum an authentic copy of her sail plan to use as a basis. Their list advised the schooner to be.... Length 142.8’. Traced from Charles Sayle original by George S. Parker, 1982.
 
In that late year she was built at the end of the era of three masted schooners.   Those built later would have been an exception.  Fishing schooners continued to be launched into the 1930’s but three and four masted pretty much stopped in the early 1920’s in the post war era of steam.  The Priscilla Alden comes up in a few publications.  The late Jim Stevens of Boothbay wrote an informative article, Boothbay Schooners in Downeast Magazine published in Sept 1968.  At the end he listed Priscilla to be 142 feet.   I suspect with his working often with the Maine Maritime Museum that they shared sources and that is why they agreed.  It is the length I plan to build. 
 
A challenge was to find a hull plan big enough to use in cad to match up with the sail plan.   Here some artistic license in needed.  I found in the Maine Maritime Archive the hull lines for several three masted schooners.  One, the Kate Hilton  was built in Bath and had remarkably similar characteristics. She was 140 feet, so I chose her and down loaded the drawing.  
 
Maybe a False Start I thought that this data was enough information to go go go
 
 A month in and the local Historical Society has reopened for us hobbyist to come in and do research.  I signed up right away and this week went down to spend time going through several files.  Most important however was photocopied pages out of a book.   The book John Alden and His Yacht Designs written by Robert Carrick and Richard Henderson.  On pages 86-88 there is a set of plans that include, sail plan, lines, deck arrangement, cross section bow to stern as well as an amid ship cross section.    There is enough information here to build anything.   Unfortunately to scan the line drawings, approximately one inch square, and to blow them up in cad got a bit fuzzy mess.  I found the book on Amazon and await a better original for scanning. The problem I discovered however is they declare the schooner to have been much bigger.  WHAT???   We’ll see
 
So let’s start off with the steps I took to rough out and make bulkheads for a good start.
 
Design
 
02a here is the sail plan published by the Maine Maritime Museum.   There are dimensions on all the sails. There is a little variance[ between 1-2%] between vertical and horizontal found while measuring the image with CAD.   
02b   here is the source as printed on the drawing. Key word for me is blueprint.  
03   here is the selected hull plan for Maine built schooner in the same size.   I made offsets from both the sail plan and the bull plan and in scale the difference was the sail plan forward shear line rises about 1/8th inch higher than the hull plan.  That is close enough for me.  Maybe when I get there, I add that 1/8 inch in…we’ll see  
04   here is the source of the kate hilton hull lines  
05   here is the Jim Stevens chart from the 1968 article in Down East magazine.  It clearly shows Priscilla to be 142 feet.  Of more interest is the low tonnage.   IDA Cliff at 149 feet built the same year in the main Harbor was 25% heavier [ volume that is] as she was made for maximum coal transport.  Priscilla was lighter and most likely a faster sailor.       More on this argument later  
06   here I have laid out the cross sections the rectangle that will be used to support the bulkheads to the building board, making the waterline 4.4 inches above the board.   That will come in handy at the time of marking the water line.  
07   here all the layers are turned on for the forward sections.   
08   here is what the pattern looks like for one of the bulkheads.  The keel/keelson slot is important to the assembly. I did not sit for a while and add the extra cut line for the planking thickness. It takes me much longer that striking a line by eye .    
09   the patterns are all glued to a simple Luan plywood from Lowe’s.  They are ready for cutting out . I will adjust later for the thickness of the planks.    
All for now
 [jd1]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Yea.. I've been below in tight head-space compartments and can only guess at the discomfort involved in conducting day to day life in such spaces .. and that for the crew .... 80 slaves doesn't bear thinking about.. Jeez !! 
 
I've looked a few contemporary plans (Inc Ballahoo's) where the ladder sides are parallel to the Frames, but the treads are parallel to the Deck .. this of course will tilt the ladder sides when Ballahoo sits to her marks but the threads become 'more' level.. (not fully level) not really an issue to a sailor on a rolling boat though.
There are a lot of plans which also show the 'lift/taper' of the keel as it runs aft (some are even very gently curved upwards)
 
Eamonn

Eamonn,
Thanks for your comments. The captain's quarters are luxury compared to the nearly 20 crew who shared the main hold between the masts. Headroom for them was a little over 4 feet, less below the deck beams. Whiting had a brief career as a slaver after her time in the Royal Navy and there are records which show that more than 80 slaves survived the passage. I don't know how people could endure that, or inflict that. 
The map looks good and a large print would be a fine backdrop to a model. Shrink it down to 1cm though and we get a grey area with little contrast. That's why I drew something which would show through a skylight even though the features are far too coarse. Sometimes modelling preferences outweigh true scale sizes and that is why some people put a lot of effort into trenails which are pretty much invisible. Do you remember the giant rivets that used to adorn Airfix kits of aircraft? 
 
Roger,
I have put ruler and set square to the Admiralty drawing for Haddock and there are several features worthy of comment. 
The keel has a small taper. The height/thickness is 6mm at the bow and 4.5mm at the stern (at 1/48 on the drawing, the keel is about 300mm long).  The upper edge of the keel is parallel to the ruled datum line below it.  The lower edge of the keel is not parallel to the ruled datum line. The stern is higher by about 0.5 in 100 which is another way of saying that the keel tapers.  The frames are perpendicular to the keel. I cannot tell if there is a better alignment with the upper or the lower edge of the keel or something in between.  One other snippet of qualitative information comes from James' Naval History of Great Britain. He says (and I am quoting from memory...) that three or four of these schooners were built across a slip. 
 
So what does it all mean? I believe our surveyor when he drew the frames perpendicular to the keel. I suspect that he used the upper edge of the keel as his datum, if only because it is dry, and then adjusted the thickness on the lower edge. Were these schooners built this way, or was the lower edge of the keel tipped slightly on the stocks? We will probably never know but I look forward to hearing your opinion. 
 
George
 
 

I hate buying new paints! Of course, that's probably because I remember Floquil paints and finishes.  
 
I learned how to paint growing up with cousins who ran a large painting and decorating company. That was a long while ago and I've been painting and varnishing full size boats and furniture for much of my life, together with ship models. I have to say I'm an unabashed Luddite. I believe much of the traditional techniques and materials remain the best option. While I strongly support environmental values, I'm dismayed that regulatory agencies so often "pick the low-hanging fruit" and restrict things like VOC's in paints and solvents, which contribute relatively little to envioronmental air pollution, while ignoring other widespread corporate industrial carbon omissions, often for no reason other than that they have a more powerful lobby. Thus we end up with paints and varnishes, or "coatings" as the industry now calls them, which last a third as long and probably have three times the carbon footprint to manufacture than do the old oil-based materials.
 
Living in California, I can't go to the paint store and buy real turpentine or paint thinner because their sale has been banned (except in very small bottles sold in art supply stores.) Luckly, I can still buy acetone, they tell me because it's sold as a "cleaner" and not a "coating," and I can buy Rustoleum oil paint because it's a "rust inhibitor, and not a "paint." (Surprisingly, the hardware stores sell five gallon drums of acetone! Who needs five gallons of acetone from a hardware store? Ask your local meth cook!) Oil paint can also be purchased in marine chandleries because "marine paint" is exempt from the prohibitions. Rattle cans can still be purchased, but like booze, you have to be over 18 to buy them. It's getting pretty crazy and I've had to devise work-arounds, but it's doable. (It's not against the law to possess paint thinner. It's just a crime to sell it.)
 
I use Zinsser white shellac for sealing bare wood (and also for sealing rigging knots.) It's thinned with denatured alcohol.
I use Interlux marine sanding base coat or an equivalent for fairing surfaces, such as topsides.
I use Interlux surfacing putty or an equivalent for heavier fairing of surfaces and such.
I use quality artists' oils in basic colors to paint models, together with the appropriate additives to condtion them to taste for brushing or spraying at the  degree of drying time and the level of gloss or matt I desire.
 
In my opinion, most of today's modeling-specific paints and other finishes are extremely expensive and not particularly easy to use. Their chemistry is complex and there are often incompatibilities between the different brands. The manufacturers take advantage of the fact that their customers don't know how to condition paint or mix colors, hence, we see varieties sold "for brushing" and others "for spraying!" I will concede that where exact color matching is essential, as with modern naval and armor models, pre-mixed paints may offer an advantage in mixing colors (if you trust the paint company's version of "olive drab" and "field gray" as of a certain date during WWII !) That notwithstanding, while I've obtained good results with acrylics, they aren't near the quality of traditional oil-based paints, which also will not raise the grain on bare wood. I've found the pigment size on quality artist's oils is entirely suitable for modeling detail. They are easy to condition for whatever application method one desires. They thin with common solvents and flow control is a function of how much linseed oil one wishes to add. Drying time can be accelerated using Japan drier and the finish controlled to the user's taste with flattening additives or clear matt overcoating. Many pigments can be quite expensive and the quality one is looking for will be reflected in tubed artists' oils, but with oils you aren't paying for packaging in minute amounts, nor is there any need to buy dozens of seven or eight dollar one ounce bottles of different colors. Six or eight tubes of basic primary and secondary colors should enable the ship modeler to pretty much mix any color they'd wish and tubed artists' oils have far less tendency to "dry up" in the tube. How many times have barely used bottled model paints been thrown out because they went bad or dried up in the bottle, no matter how much care was exercised in replacing the screw caps?
 
Interestingly, the "gaming figure" modelers who employ a wide range of colors seem to be the first of the modeling fraternity who have discovered this fact and are going over to artists' oils in increasing numbers if their YouTube posts are any indication. I encourage anybody to try artist's oils (using them correctly) and see if they don't find them a better alternative. It's a matter of taste and opinion, but, as the saying goes, "Try it. You may like it."
 
 

Thank you for your encouraging words, Joe. Replicating these details is a challenge that I set myself as the prototype is still extant.
 
The cleats and stretchers are now installed.
 
 

Thank you, Maury.
 
The two floor boards have been made and installed. Then blessing (and curse!) of having the prototype to refer to is that one sees all kinds of detail not shown on the usual plans. The photographs show a delicate beaded molding along the edges of these boards so, of course, I had to try adding these. 
 
First the planks were spiled and cut out. They are a scale 7" wide and 3/4" thick. The moldings were then carefully run. (I had this profile available from a previous open boat model.) the planks have considerable twist at both ends, They were hot water soaked and clipped in place to dry, then glued in permanently.
 

David,  Beautiful workmanship!!!   I agree that scraping is a great method to use compared to sanding.   I also use chisels, but at times I like to snap off the tip of a used up scalpel blade and grind a sharp edge on the end.  Any hardened steel blade does the trick.  This is much more precise  in the tight spots as well as on bigger flat surfaces compared to just sanding where dried glue might be hiding.  It is very easy to see if any glue spots are missed by just lightly wetting the suspect area.
 

The first five half-floors for the fore body have been cut and fitted. A nice smooth line for the floor heads is needed as can be seen on the plan view. 
 
I'm often asked how my work looks so clean. The answer is time and labor intensive: I dampen surfaces with a wet brush and scrape any last remnants of glue off very carefully using miniature chisels or dental tools. However, for a natural, unpainted surface this is necessary.
 

Ships launched on slipways were NOT constructed with the keel blocks on a level plane.  The declivity had to be sufficient to allow gravity to do its job.  Eric Ronnberg, a highly regarded model builder and historian of New England maritime history has written that declivity was 3%.
 
When the ship was ready to be launched, the slipways were laid down and heavily greased with tallow.   Cradles sitting on the slipways were erected bow and stern under the hull.  On launch day 100’s of wedges were driven into a space in the cradles left for that purpose.  These lifted the hull very slightly to allow the weight to be transferred from the keel blocks to the cradles.  There was some sort of trigger mechanism built into the one of the cradles and when this was released, hopefully gravity would do its job.
 
While it would be theoretically possible to build the vessel on level keel blocks and then launch it on an inclined slipway erected for the purpose, practically this would be  impossible to do with the technology available.  If the vessel had a keel length of 100ft, the bow would have to be raised by 3ft, the stern lowered by 3ft or a combination of the two.  
 
Roger

The captain's cabin now has some furniture in it. I made a hammock with a blanket over it, some storage chests and a table and chair. These will only be visible through the skylight when Whiting is finished so I made these bits so they look good from the available viewing angles; at the back there are blocks and blobs which hold them together. I know some modellers who are of the school where even the hidden bits must be right, but for me there are other priorities in life. Each to his own and have joy in the way you prefer to work. 
A few photos here of some of the furniture and the completed cabin. 
 
The hammock has representative stringing at one end only. The other end gets glued to a wall, out of sight. The blanket is cut from a paper napkin and the hammock itself is paper kitchen towel that has been folded over several times. 

 
The table and chair can only be seen from above. The map is in pencil and has a couple of weights to stop it from rolling up and some calipers from brass wire. The wood blocks underneath the table and chair will not be visible. 

 
View of the cabin from above. The skylight is above the table and allows slant views of most of the cabin. The two small circles above the table are candles on little shelves and now have white paint in them. 

 
Angled view of the cabin. The hole in the floor for optical fibres is shielded by the chair

 
I am now thinking about the ladder in the entrance lobby. The Admiralty drawings show many features such as the ladder as perpendicular to the keel when I would expect them to be perpendicular to the sea when Whiting is afloat. There is something wrong here and I suspect that our Admiralty draughtsman took a short cut or two and followed the lines of the frames for everything which is 'vertical'. There is another thread where this is being discussed. 
 
 
I am still undecided about how to proceed with these 'verticals' but will likely choose the approach which looks better to my eyes. It is a slippery path when we choose to think that the Admiralty drawings are wrong because they do not show what we want or expect to see, so I will be cautious. 
 
George
 

The experiments continued with finishing the colored planking on the second hull. The keel, stem and stern posts were added and covered with the copper colored card stock as well. The entire hull was then coated several times with thinned varnish. The following photos show the hull as it stands now.

 
            The majority of my time has been spent making the yards for the masts. It was found that laminating black construction paper worked out the best for their construction. Using liberal amounts of CA glue to laminate the paper, including soaking the outside of the layered pieces. From that point the laminated parts were treated much as I would making yards out of wood. I first sanded them into a square cross section as thick as the center of the yard, then slightly tapered the pieces on either end. Then sanded the yard into a hexagonal cross section throughout. Finally sanding the yard blank round in cross section. As with most of the other paper/card construction, it was necessary occasionally to apply a bit more CA glue when an unsaturated area was encountered. I also noticed that the laminated construction paper was a bit more brittle than most woods, so care was taken.
            All the upper yards used a simple fitting glued to them in order to attach them to the masts with a bit of fine thread. The crossjack and course yards were attached using a hanging bracket arrangement which was as close as I could get, at the scale and using the material, to what was shown on the plans. I also used two tiny pieces of brass wire in making the brackets, which allow those yards to swing partway around the masts.
            The final pieces to these yard hangers was fake chain, which was made from 8/0 fly tying thread. The fake chain was made by tying double overhand knot in the center of a length of thread around a #80 drill bit, which was fitted shank side down into a length of wood. The drill bit was then pulled up and removed from the thread loop. A length of the same thread was then tied through the loop and extended down the length of the wood, where it was held mildly tightly with a rubber band wrapped around both wood and length of thread. The thread was then pulled away from the reinserted drill bit, to keep the loop directly opposite the bit while tying a second double overhand knot. It was impossible to keep tying these knots exactly opposite each other, so the fake chain looks a bit "squiggly" when just laying there. It does look fairly realistic when pulled tightly.
            The fake chain was tied, with a small piece of thread through the first loop, to a small wire eye bolt. The eye bolt was made by twisting a piece of extremely thin wire around a #80 drill bit, using a forceps to twist until the wire broke. This eye bolt was glued into a hole drilled just below the mast top. The thread chain was then wrapped around the center of the yard, and a second small thread piece was inserted through loops in the chain twice. It took a bit of practice to choose the right loops to pass this thread through so that when a knot was tied into the thread it pulled to chain tightly around the yard center. The knots in the two threads were glued and the excess thread cut and removed. The following photos show the pieces and results of this portion of my experimenting.







 
Anchor's A Weigh!
John Fox III
 

This topic has been quiet for a couple of weeks so I will risk extending it at a slight tangent. I am building a British schooner using the Haddock drawings that Druxey mentions above on #3. The Admiralty drawings clearly show that the frames are perpendicular to the keel and this is not surprising given that plumb bobs are and were a readily available technology. What I am surprised by is that structures on the deck and below deck follow these same vertical lines when perpendicular to the water line would be the natural solution. 
 
This snippet from the Admiralty drawing shows the officer's cabin and an entrance lobby with ladder, just aft of the main mast. The waterline is the blue-green line that slopes across the centre of the picture. 

 
I can accept that the end walls of the cabin were built using the frames. However, the ladder has steps that are nearly parallel to the waterline but its sides are perpendicular to the keel. This can be built and a carpenter might scoff at the design but still finish the job. The companionway box above the ladder looks like a dog's dinner. If it has hinged doors facing one bulwark then the shapes of those doors will be compromised by the angle between the sides of the companionway and the deck. Even the skylight above the cabin has sloping ends. 
 
My guess is that the carpenters who built the deck fittings did their jobs after launch and used their own plumb bobs. The walls that they built would be vertical compared to sea level and not the keel. (The sides of the gunports are at 90deg to the deck.) If this is the case then the lines taken from Haddock at Portsmouth might not be correct and the draughtsman simply extended the frame lines by mistake or for expediency. I do not like this conclusion because it throws doubt on the drawings that we use for our models. I do not want to say that the Admiralty drawings are mistaken because it opens a plethora of excuses where we say that drawings are wrong if they do not match our expectations. But I do not want to build a companionway cover that leans back. 
 
George

The current issue of WoodenBoat Magazine includes an interesting column about this subject.
 
The column’s author, Tom Jackson notes that 40 of Howard Chapelle’s drawings in his American Small Sailing Craft Book of boats with drag are drawn with the keel level and with body plan sections perpendicular to the keel.  He argues that these drawings would better describe the true shape of the hull if drawn with the waterlines level.
 
He then includes a number of reasons why Chapelle might have drawn these the way that he did:
 
For many of the boat’s that he measured (and half models too) the keel was the only fixed reference as there was no waterline visible.
 
The load waterline would vary depending on ballast, cargo, etc.  
 
Builders back then were much less concerned with the concept of “load waterline” than they are today
 
The easiest way to build a boat is with the moulds and frames set square to the keel.
 
He also has discovered that Nathaniel Herreshoff who did not draw lines drawings but took measurements directly from a half model built boats upside down with frames and moulds set square to a construction reference line that approximated the slant of the sheer.  This allowed the hull to be at the lowest possible working level during construction.  Permanent hull frames would not be perpendicular to either the keel or the waterlines.
 
Roger
 
 
 

With the completion of my Shipyard card model of the Bremen cog, I'm ready to get back to my Woody Joe Kitamaebune model.
 
First, here are some update photos of my Tonegawa Takasebune...
 

 

 

 

 
There's still a little more rigging to go, plus it not quite full of cargo. But, it's very close.
 
Meanwhile, I'm hoping to apply what I've learned about making the sail for this model to the Kitamaebune. Unfortunately, I'm about to start yet another attempt at making the Kitamaebune's sails. I've lost count of how many attempts this has been. This is the fourth, I think. The last set probably would have been okay, but I discovered I'd made the sail panels too narrow. Not sure how that happened, as I thought I had everything measure out.
 
To quote the famous Bullwinkle J. Moose "This time, for sure!"
 

A little update. Some filler and sanding of the first planking. Hopefully this is good enough. I bought a razor saw and cut the stern post off with minimal issue. Made sanding SO much easier.  I don’t know if the Elmers filler is like this too, but this Minwax stuff is a mess to use. 
 

 

 
While I was waiting for filler to dry I did some sorting of the deck planking. It has quite a bit of graining that I am not sure I like. I just ran a wet finger over top to help bring out the color and grain and sorted them so I don’t have any random plank colors. I don’t know if this is a typical trick, but it is something that I picked up years ago building model houses for a friends train layout.  You can see how some of the planks are darker and some have a completely different grain pattern.  None of it is really that good looking to be honest. 
 

 

 
After reading some more on other cutter builds, I started to mock up mine. I noticed that there is not a consist line through the gun ports. It really makes me twitch. The plans are the same way. All the other cutter pictures I can find have a consistent thickness on the bulwark planks. (Distance between deck and gun port opening). I also wanted to make sure my modified cannons would line up well.  I plan to move all of the gun ports and sweep ports to be parallel with the deck using the pattern I made.      
 


The bottom plank has two layers of card stock glued behind it to make it sit proud of the other bulwark planks. This will all be painted red, so I didn’t care that it was different wood. 
 

 

 
honestly, the first hull planking wood would make better deck planking than the stuff I am supposed to use. If anyone has a suggestion on where to buy better wood, I am all ears!
 
The kit cannons are way to small to be 4 pounders. I drew my own up in cad based on some info from the web and 3D printed a prototype. The one in the picture doesn’t have the end on it yet.  I think I will still use the kit carriages, but they might be a bit small. 

Here it is, May 1st, and the Hanse Kogge von Bremen is done!
 
The ship was officially launched first thing this morning after a final rigging session that took place yesterday, after I discovered a couple lines I'd left off. The last step was for me to repair and reinstall the rudder, which has been knocked off so many times that I've lost count. 
 
This morning, she set sail and I took the opportunity to take plenty of photos. I'll post some of them here, but the majority will be in the gallery in a little bit.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
And so closes this chapter in ship modeling. 
 
This was my first card model that featured all laser-cut parts. My first card model was Shipyard's paper model of HMS Alert, which I thoroughly enjoyed, and was amazed at how it turned out. This model, I'm not so amazed by, but only because I now know what is possible from a card model. I'm very pleased with how it turned out, and impressed by this kit, which required no shaping of parts by me. 
 
Shipyard's technique for simulating wood by painting the white card stock work out quite well, though I couldn't follow their method exactly. You certainly learn with every model you build, and I learned or re-learned quite a bit with this project.
 
I could see myself taking on another card model in the future. But, for now, I have some wood projects to get back to, include a couple subjects from my incomplete build logs here on MSW. So, I'm going to work on finishing up my Japanese northern port coastal transport next, among other things.
 
Thanks everyone for your support on my Bremen Cog build!
 
 
 
 

two small decorations:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you all!
Another forestay knob:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whenever I look over at the log of @giampieroricci in his build log of La Venus at a scale of 1:96, I shudder at the thought of presenting my own build of a much simpler vessel at about the same scale. It shows me just how far I have to go in terms of skill and workmanship. However, as I’ve said before, I have to learn before I can do; and this log is definitely aimed at others who like myself are just starting model making, and who may like to follow the detailed steps of my learning.
 
 
The main issues for me are the shaping of very small pieces, and, as you will now find out, my need to improve on rope-making and finish at this scale. ROPE
The shrouds, at least, have for most of their construction, a rope diameter of 0.5mm at this scale, making it easy to produce shroud-laid rope with existing threads. However the smaller ropes required rope of 0.2‑0.3mm and so for that I went with ordinary cotton thread for the 0.3 size, and DMC Cordonnet 100 Off‑White thread for the 0.2. For the smaller seizings I used Uni‑Thread 6/0 Waxed Fly Tying Thread. Walnut crystals dissolved in water with a dilution of 1:30 were used to dye the thread.
 
What I didn’t do, and should have done, was to ensure that the fluff of the cotton thread was removed. I only noticed this too late when photographing the rigging in close-up. I console myself by saying that at standard viewing distance it is not really noticeable, especially when the rest of the build is not exactly perfect. Perhaps I should try polyester threads in future.
SARTIS
I was puzzled by the use of the word ‘sartis’ in the monograph when referring to the shrouds, as may some others when reading the monograph. So, just in case anyone is interested, I did a bit of research. The word derives from the Italian ‘sarte’ or ‘sartia’ which means ‘shrouds’, from the verb sartiare, meaning ‘to rig’. As the monograph is a French translation of the original Italian, this is not surprising.

However according to the Glossaire Nautique Répertoire Polyglotte De Termes De Marine Anciens Et Modernes, by A Jal (1868), it was also a word used in a number of ways to define the rigging of a lateen sail in 19th century France, mostly in Provence. This could refer just to the pendants hanging from the calcet, the pulleys at the base of the pendant, the falls of the pulleys, the strops at the base of the shrouds, or the entire length of the shrouds. The particular usage that applies here is not clear in the monograph, as on the diagrams it is used variously, I’ll just refer to the shrouds.
 
SHROUDS
Back to the model. The layout of the shrouds is shown in the monograph as follows:
 

 
The key thing to notice is that the top pendants hang from a ring of rope on the lower step around the calcet, rather than going round the mast. Fiddle blocks are used to tighten the shrouds, and these are fixed to the deck by straps going through ring hooks in the deck. The fall of the tackle goes to the bars on the inside walls of the bulwarks.
 
Another thing to note is that the top pendant blocks are attached to the pendants by simple wooden toggles, as are the straps to the bottom fiddle blocks.
 
I thus spent a lot of time making these different components – the time being taken because I made many mistakes with the order of the rigging and so had to un-do then re-do several times. The sequence I finally made is as shown in the narrative below.
 
First were the top pendants. These have to have a loop at either end: one for the rope ring round the calcet, the other for the toggle from the pendant block. The top loop has to have a minimum diameter of 5mm, the lower a maximum of 1.2mm (to receive the loop and toggle of the block).
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
I forgot totally to take pictures of the bottom straps holding the fiddle blocks to the deck, but you’ll see them in the photos at the end of this posting.
WINDING TACKLE
 
The winding tackle pendant is fixed round the top step of the calcet, seized, then attached to a double block which then forms a tackle with another block. The fall is attached with a hook to a ring bolt on the deck. The complete setup is shown in the monograph as follows:
 

 
FITTING THE HALLIARD RAMSHEAD BLOCK
 
Before completing the fitting of the mast, it is important to fit the ramshead 4‑sheave block and its accompanying halliard block, as the ramshead block has to attached to the boards on the hatch covering with a strap.
 

 
COMPLETING THE MAIN MAST FITTING
One of the details I had missed in the plans was the need for a small hole in the calcet protruding rim on either side to hold the halliard in place. I also placed the calcet in the wrong orientation, as the sheave should in fact run along the axis of the ship and not across. I decided not to try to undo all the rigging and kept this orientation. However, I did cut two notches for the halliard in the calcet, and these are at least functional!
 

 

 

 

 

 
The blue foam holder I use while rigging is taken from some old packaging material.
 
You’ll note that the tiller is loose. This is because I removed the rudder after damaging the gudgeons several times when it was knocked by careless handling.
 

 
Now, with all that done, and after several un-doings and re-doings, I’ll start working on the lateen yard.
 
Thanks again for all the comments and likes!
 
Tony

Whenever I look over at the log of @giampieroricci in his build log of La Venus at a scale of 1:96, I shudder at the thought of presenting my own build of a much simpler vessel at about the same scale. It shows me just how far I have to go in terms of skill and workmanship. However, as I’ve said before, I have to learn before I can do; and this log is definitely aimed at others who like myself are just starting model making, and who may like to follow the detailed steps of my learning.
 
 
The main issues for me are the shaping of very small pieces, and, as you will now find out, my need to improve on rope-making and finish at this scale. ROPE
The shrouds, at least, have for most of their construction, a rope diameter of 0.5mm at this scale, making it easy to produce shroud-laid rope with existing threads. However the smaller ropes required rope of 0.2‑0.3mm and so for that I went with ordinary cotton thread for the 0.3 size, and DMC Cordonnet 100 Off‑White thread for the 0.2. For the smaller seizings I used Uni‑Thread 6/0 Waxed Fly Tying Thread. Walnut crystals dissolved in water with a dilution of 1:30 were used to dye the thread.
 
What I didn’t do, and should have done, was to ensure that the fluff of the cotton thread was removed. I only noticed this too late when photographing the rigging in close-up. I console myself by saying that at standard viewing distance it is not really noticeable, especially when the rest of the build is not exactly perfect. Perhaps I should try polyester threads in future.
SARTIS
I was puzzled by the use of the word ‘sartis’ in the monograph when referring to the shrouds, as may some others when reading the monograph. So, just in case anyone is interested, I did a bit of research. The word derives from the Italian ‘sarte’ or ‘sartia’ which means ‘shrouds’, from the verb sartiare, meaning ‘to rig’. As the monograph is a French translation of the original Italian, this is not surprising.

However according to the Glossaire Nautique Répertoire Polyglotte De Termes De Marine Anciens Et Modernes, by A Jal (1868), it was also a word used in a number of ways to define the rigging of a lateen sail in 19th century France, mostly in Provence. This could refer just to the pendants hanging from the calcet, the pulleys at the base of the pendant, the falls of the pulleys, the strops at the base of the shrouds, or the entire length of the shrouds. The particular usage that applies here is not clear in the monograph, as on the diagrams it is used variously, I’ll just refer to the shrouds.
 
SHROUDS
Back to the model. The layout of the shrouds is shown in the monograph as follows:
 

 
The key thing to notice is that the top pendants hang from a ring of rope on the lower step around the calcet, rather than going round the mast. Fiddle blocks are used to tighten the shrouds, and these are fixed to the deck by straps going through ring hooks in the deck. The fall of the tackle goes to the bars on the inside walls of the bulwarks.
 
Another thing to note is that the top pendant blocks are attached to the pendants by simple wooden toggles, as are the straps to the bottom fiddle blocks.
 
I thus spent a lot of time making these different components – the time being taken because I made many mistakes with the order of the rigging and so had to un-do then re-do several times. The sequence I finally made is as shown in the narrative below.
 
First were the top pendants. These have to have a loop at either end: one for the rope ring round the calcet, the other for the toggle from the pendant block. The top loop has to have a minimum diameter of 5mm, the lower a maximum of 1.2mm (to receive the loop and toggle of the block).
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
I forgot totally to take pictures of the bottom straps holding the fiddle blocks to the deck, but you’ll see them in the photos at the end of this posting.
WINDING TACKLE
 
The winding tackle pendant is fixed round the top step of the calcet, seized, then attached to a double block which then forms a tackle with another block. The fall is attached with a hook to a ring bolt on the deck. The complete setup is shown in the monograph as follows:
 

 
FITTING THE HALLIARD RAMSHEAD BLOCK
 
Before completing the fitting of the mast, it is important to fit the ramshead 4‑sheave block and its accompanying halliard block, as the ramshead block has to attached to the boards on the hatch covering with a strap.
 

 
COMPLETING THE MAIN MAST FITTING
One of the details I had missed in the plans was the need for a small hole in the calcet protruding rim on either side to hold the halliard in place. I also placed the calcet in the wrong orientation, as the sheave should in fact run along the axis of the ship and not across. I decided not to try to undo all the rigging and kept this orientation. However, I did cut two notches for the halliard in the calcet, and these are at least functional!
 

 

 

 

 

 
The blue foam holder I use while rigging is taken from some old packaging material.
 
You’ll note that the tiller is loose. This is because I removed the rudder after damaging the gudgeons several times when it was knocked by careless handling.
 

 
Now, with all that done, and after several un-doings and re-doings, I’ll start working on the lateen yard.
 
Thanks again for all the comments and likes!
 
Tony