bartley

Yes Glenn,  I agonized over these belaying pins. In the end I started with some tooth-picks like these
 

 
Chucked them into my hand held Proxxon
 

 
I then marked the vital transition points on a paper behind
 

 
and used files and sanding sticks too turn the shape

 
Initially I could not make two the same!  However, like most such endeavours, I improved with practice.  Even so I probably made 40 to produce the 20 or so required.  I think you have a lathe so it might be a little easier.
 
John
 

Thank you Glenn and Michael for your support and thank you to all the 'Likes'.
I glued the keel on the false keel.

 
I work on a glass plate in order to have a flat surface.
 

 

 
Finally I simulated the treenails using Minwax wood putty.
 

 
Next step : the bulkheads

Post 47: Mast Coat
 
This item was made on my friend's Proxxon mill.  I have mentioned before I do not own one of these but since I have taught him a thing or to about its operation and because I cut planks for him he is happy with the arrangement.  In my working life I have been involved with the contract hire of equipment and although there is no fee involved here it suffers from the some of similar problem in that one does not learn by exploration as one would with full ownership,
 
Anyway the technique was to glue a 1/8 inch square plate to a dowel and use a rotating head to cut the ring:
 

 
There are a couple of important point in setting up this head otherwise the item will be oval not round.
 
1. It must be a right angles to the table.  Use a set square to check this.
 
2, The mill head must be centered on the rotating head.  There are several ways to do this but I use a dial indicator mainly because I have one.  Using the shaft of the mill bit set the dial to just touch then rotate the bit 180 degrees and check the other side.  If there is a difference move the table until both sides are give the same reading .
 
Here is an example:
 

 
I am not completely happy with this profile but we are going to purchase some bits with different geometries and then I mighr have another go.
 
John

Post 48: Bowsprit step and Windlass
 
To complete the fore-deck paraphernalia there are two more nice little mini-kits from Chuck.
 
First up was the the bowsprit step:
 
This could be scratch built but the square holes might present problems.  So the kit looks like this:
 

 
The uprights are constructed in three parts
 

 
It is important to sand these well so that the joins are not visible after painting.
 
The  brackets are then added
 

 
I simulated the bolts with 24 gauge black wire.  After filing these flat the brass ends were chemically blackened with a selenium based product.  I find that there is no staining of painted timber using this technique but bare timber often does show some staining and more care is needed. 
 
The pawls were painted black and weathered with rusty brown powder as suggested by Chuck for all metal parts. These were pinned through. the uprights  and finally the uprights were joined with 1/16 inch square boxwood strips, left unglued for the moment.
 

 
Next up the windlass which would be a real challenge but thanks to another kit from Chuck I nice, though challenging job, can be made
 
First a set of " barrels" is constructed on hexagonal end pieces
 

 
These are threaded onto a square boxwood strip and the supports and end-pieces added before guleing the whole lot together.
 

 
The bowsprit itself was made some time ago and the hole in the bow widened to allow a tight fit of the bowsprit so the next task is to install the bowsprit permanently.
 
John

Post 48: Bowsprit step and Windlass
 
To complete the fore-deck paraphernalia there are two more nice little mini-kits from Chuck.
 
First up was the the bowsprit step:
 
This could be scratch built but the square holes might present problems.  So the kit looks like this:
 

 
The uprights are constructed in three parts
 

 
It is important to sand these well so that the joins are not visible after painting.
 
The  brackets are then added
 

 
I simulated the bolts with 24 gauge black wire.  After filing these flat the brass ends were chemically blackened with a selenium based product.  I find that there is no staining of painted timber using this technique but bare timber often does show some staining and more care is needed. 
 
The pawls were painted black and weathered with rusty brown powder as suggested by Chuck for all metal parts. These were pinned through. the uprights  and finally the uprights were joined with 1/16 inch square boxwood strips, left unglued for the moment.
 

 
Next up the windlass which would be a real challenge but thanks to another kit from Chuck I nice, though challenging job, can be made
 
First a set of " barrels" is constructed on hexagonal end pieces
 

 
These are threaded onto a square boxwood strip and the supports and end-pieces added before guleing the whole lot together.
 

 
The bowsprit itself was made some time ago and the hole in the bow widened to allow a tight fit of the bowsprit so the next task is to install the bowsprit permanently.
 
John

Post 48: Bowsprit step and Windlass
 
To complete the fore-deck paraphernalia there are two more nice little mini-kits from Chuck.
 
First up was the the bowsprit step:
 
This could be scratch built but the square holes might present problems.  So the kit looks like this:
 

 
The uprights are constructed in three parts
 

 
It is important to sand these well so that the joins are not visible after painting.
 
The  brackets are then added
 

 
I simulated the bolts with 24 gauge black wire.  After filing these flat the brass ends were chemically blackened with a selenium based product.  I find that there is no staining of painted timber using this technique but bare timber often does show some staining and more care is needed. 
 
The pawls were painted black and weathered with rusty brown powder as suggested by Chuck for all metal parts. These were pinned through. the uprights  and finally the uprights were joined with 1/16 inch square boxwood strips, left unglued for the moment.
 

 
Next up the windlass which would be a real challenge but thanks to another kit from Chuck I nice, though challenging job, can be made
 
First a set of " barrels" is constructed on hexagonal end pieces
 

 
These are threaded onto a square boxwood strip and the supports and end-pieces added before guleing the whole lot together.
 

 
The bowsprit itself was made some time ago and the hole in the bow widened to allow a tight fit of the bowsprit so the next task is to install the bowsprit permanently.
 
John

Post 48: Bowsprit step and Windlass
 
To complete the fore-deck paraphernalia there are two more nice little mini-kits from Chuck.
 
First up was the the bowsprit step:
 
This could be scratch built but the square holes might present problems.  So the kit looks like this:
 

 
The uprights are constructed in three parts
 

 
It is important to sand these well so that the joins are not visible after painting.
 
The  brackets are then added
 

 
I simulated the bolts with 24 gauge black wire.  After filing these flat the brass ends were chemically blackened with a selenium based product.  I find that there is no staining of painted timber using this technique but bare timber often does show some staining and more care is needed. 
 
The pawls were painted black and weathered with rusty brown powder as suggested by Chuck for all metal parts. These were pinned through. the uprights  and finally the uprights were joined with 1/16 inch square boxwood strips, left unglued for the moment.
 

 
Next up the windlass which would be a real challenge but thanks to another kit from Chuck I nice, though challenging job, can be made
 
First a set of " barrels" is constructed on hexagonal end pieces
 

 
These are threaded onto a square boxwood strip and the supports and end-pieces added before guleing the whole lot together.
 

 
The bowsprit itself was made some time ago and the hole in the bow widened to allow a tight fit of the bowsprit so the next task is to install the bowsprit permanently.
 
John

Mast Coat Revisited
 
As Chuck points out in his monograph, the version of the mast coat he presents is somewhat stylized.  In reality a circular set of wedges were driven in around the mast and these were covered wit canvas.   In view of this I produced a more "authentic" version.  The two versions are shown below:
 

 

 
In fact in, keeping with the style of this model, I think that Chuck's stylized version looks better. 
 
What do you think. Guys?
 
John

Mast Coat Revisited
 
As Chuck points out in his monograph, the version of the mast coat he presents is somewhat stylized.  In reality a circular set of wedges were driven in around the mast and these were covered wit canvas.   In view of this I produced a more "authentic" version.  The two versions are shown below:
 

 

 
In fact in, keeping with the style of this model, I think that Chuck's stylized version looks better. 
 
What do you think. Guys?
 
John

Mast Coat Revisited
 
As Chuck points out in his monograph, the version of the mast coat he presents is somewhat stylized.  In reality a circular set of wedges were driven in around the mast and these were covered wit canvas.   In view of this I produced a more "authentic" version.  The two versions are shown below:
 

 

 
In fact in, keeping with the style of this model, I think that Chuck's stylized version looks better. 
 
What do you think. Guys?
 
John

This may not be the proper place to talk about machine accuracy but since it has cropped up here I thought that I would add some comments. 
 
First and foremost this machine is in my opinion certainly accurate enough for our purposes.  Derek says that the accuracy is 0.01 (based on the scale markings) but this is only an estimate and is in fact the maximum possible.  The only way to determine the accuracy is to do an experiment.  Also, as with any scientific measurement,  we need to distinguish between "accuracy" and "precision".  For example lets imagine I throw ten darts at a board aiming at the bulls eye.  All darts miss the bull by 100mm but all are grouped in an area of only 10 mm.  So the precision (repeatability} is good but the accuracy is poor. So accuracy is how close a measurement is to the expected value and precision is repeatability  of that measurement.
 
So, my friend and I have measured these parameters on his Proxxon mill.  We used a new sharp bit and cut two grooves nominally 10 mm apart (10 rotations) into a boxwood sheet.  The measured distance between them was around 10.08  so the accuracy is + 0.08 in 10. Sounds bad but this is only 0.8% - actually pretty good. However, when we did this 10 times the measurements varied from 10.06 to 10.10.  Thus the precision is +- 0.02 - very good and way beyond what the eye can see on a model.
 
The other thing to remember is that there will be backlash so that for best results you should always approach a setting from the same side.  I always set by turning the dial clockwise so if you need to get to a mark with an anticlockwise turn go past the mark and come back clockwise.
 
Hope this helps.
 
John

Glenn,
 
This mast coat is superb, as is the rest of your work!  I made mine the same way (and I thought I discovered the method!)
 
I was going to have another go to try for a better profile than the one I  showed in my log but I am having second thoughts.  I know this is what Chuck shows in his log but, with all respect to him, I think he has used a bit of poetic license.  I understand that in practice a set of wedges was used around the mast and these were covered with tarred canvas.  Maybe I will try to model this.
 
John

This may not be the proper place to talk about machine accuracy but since it has cropped up here I thought that I would add some comments. 
 
First and foremost this machine is in my opinion certainly accurate enough for our purposes.  Derek says that the accuracy is 0.01 (based on the scale markings) but this is only an estimate and is in fact the maximum possible.  The only way to determine the accuracy is to do an experiment.  Also, as with any scientific measurement,  we need to distinguish between "accuracy" and "precision".  For example lets imagine I throw ten darts at a board aiming at the bulls eye.  All darts miss the bull by 100mm but all are grouped in an area of only 10 mm.  So the precision (repeatability} is good but the accuracy is poor. So accuracy is how close a measurement is to the expected value and precision is repeatability  of that measurement.
 
So, my friend and I have measured these parameters on his Proxxon mill.  We used a new sharp bit and cut two grooves nominally 10 mm apart (10 rotations) into a boxwood sheet.  The measured distance between them was around 10.08  so the accuracy is + 0.08 in 10. Sounds bad but this is only 0.8% - actually pretty good. However, when we did this 10 times the measurements varied from 10.06 to 10.10.  Thus the precision is +- 0.02 - very good and way beyond what the eye can see on a model.
 
The other thing to remember is that there will be backlash so that for best results you should always approach a setting from the same side.  I always set by turning the dial clockwise so if you need to get to a mark with an anticlockwise turn go past the mark and come back clockwise.
 
Hope this helps.
 
John

This may not be the proper place to talk about machine accuracy but since it has cropped up here I thought that I would add some comments. 
 
First and foremost this machine is in my opinion certainly accurate enough for our purposes.  Derek says that the accuracy is 0.01 (based on the scale markings) but this is only an estimate and is in fact the maximum possible.  The only way to determine the accuracy is to do an experiment.  Also, as with any scientific measurement,  we need to distinguish between "accuracy" and "precision".  For example lets imagine I throw ten darts at a board aiming at the bulls eye.  All darts miss the bull by 100mm but all are grouped in an area of only 10 mm.  So the precision (repeatability} is good but the accuracy is poor. So accuracy is how close a measurement is to the expected value and precision is repeatability  of that measurement.
 
So, my friend and I have measured these parameters on his Proxxon mill.  We used a new sharp bit and cut two grooves nominally 10 mm apart (10 rotations) into a boxwood sheet.  The measured distance between them was around 10.08  so the accuracy is + 0.08 in 10. Sounds bad but this is only 0.8% - actually pretty good. However, when we did this 10 times the measurements varied from 10.06 to 10.10.  Thus the precision is +- 0.02 - very good and way beyond what the eye can see on a model.
 
The other thing to remember is that there will be backlash so that for best results you should always approach a setting from the same side.  I always set by turning the dial clockwise so if you need to get to a mark with an anticlockwise turn go past the mark and come back clockwise.
 
Hope this helps.
 
John

Post 39: The Catheads
 
As suggested by Chuck these are made in two parts from 3/16 square stock which was cut on my Byrnes.
 
The first step was to cut slots into the caprail - always a scary business,  cutting holes in nicely fabricated parts.
 

 
The inboard part was made first and notched to fit the spirketing and the waterway:
 

 
 Slots were cut for the sheaves using a micro mill.  I do not own one of these but i have access to one via a colleague whom i cut planks for.  However, as always with this kind of arrangement, I am not very competent because I never  learn by experimenting.
 

 
Finally the inboard end was round to fit.  The idea is that it should look like one piece - which as it presumably was.  Cut from the elbow of a tree I presume.
 

 
So finally the two parts were glued in position:
 
 
 
John
 
 

Post 38:  The Carronades
 
This is a first for me (my previous build had no guns)  so I am enjoying the process but it is quite a slow business for me .  I quite like the look of black trucks but being mindful of the discussion on this point  from Druxey and others it seems that the consensus is "any colour but black" so I have gone with red.  I placed a few on deck to see how they would look. Just as on the chain plate straps, I used chuck's  method for the blackening of the cannons (painting followed by weathing powder).
 

 
The rigging of the guns is next.  The breech rope is quite straight forward using the method described by Chuck but I am finding fabricating the in-haul tackle much more of a problem.  I am exploring a few methods at the moment n order to find one that is quick enough to make the 40 or so blocks with hooks yet produces an acceptable appearance.
 
John

Post 47: Mast Coat
 
This item was made on my friend's Proxxon mill.  I have mentioned before I do not own one of these but since I have taught him a thing or to about its operation and because I cut planks for him he is happy with the arrangement.  In my working life I have been involved with the contract hire of equipment and although there is no fee involved here it suffers from the some of similar problem in that one does not learn by exploration as one would with full ownership,
 
Anyway the technique was to glue a 1/8 inch square plate to a dowel and use a rotating head to cut the ring:
 

 
There are a couple of important point in setting up this head otherwise the item will be oval not round.
 
1. It must be a right angles to the table.  Use a set square to check this.
 
2, The mill head must be centered on the rotating head.  There are several ways to do this but I use a dial indicator mainly because I have one.  Using the shaft of the mill bit set the dial to just touch then rotate the bit 180 degrees and check the other side.  If there is a difference move the table until both sides are give the same reading .
 
Here is an example:
 

 
I am not completely happy with this profile but we are going to purchase some bits with different geometries and then I mighr have another go.
 
John

This may not be the proper place to talk about machine accuracy but since it has cropped up here I thought that I would add some comments. 
 
First and foremost this machine is in my opinion certainly accurate enough for our purposes.  Derek says that the accuracy is 0.01 (based on the scale markings) but this is only an estimate and is in fact the maximum possible.  The only way to determine the accuracy is to do an experiment.  Also, as with any scientific measurement,  we need to distinguish between "accuracy" and "precision".  For example lets imagine I throw ten darts at a board aiming at the bulls eye.  All darts miss the bull by 100mm but all are grouped in an area of only 10 mm.  So the precision (repeatability} is good but the accuracy is poor. So accuracy is how close a measurement is to the expected value and precision is repeatability  of that measurement.
 
So, my friend and I have measured these parameters on his Proxxon mill.  We used a new sharp bit and cut two grooves nominally 10 mm apart (10 rotations) into a boxwood sheet.  The measured distance between them was around 10.08  so the accuracy is + 0.08 in 10. Sounds bad but this is only 0.8% - actually pretty good. However, when we did this 10 times the measurements varied from 10.06 to 10.10.  Thus the precision is +- 0.02 - very good and way beyond what the eye can see on a model.
 
The other thing to remember is that there will be backlash so that for best results you should always approach a setting from the same side.  I always set by turning the dial clockwise so if you need to get to a mark with an anticlockwise turn go past the mark and come back clockwise.
 
Hope this helps.
 
John

This may not be the proper place to talk about machine accuracy but since it has cropped up here I thought that I would add some comments. 
 
First and foremost this machine is in my opinion certainly accurate enough for our purposes.  Derek says that the accuracy is 0.01 (based on the scale markings) but this is only an estimate and is in fact the maximum possible.  The only way to determine the accuracy is to do an experiment.  Also, as with any scientific measurement,  we need to distinguish between "accuracy" and "precision".  For example lets imagine I throw ten darts at a board aiming at the bulls eye.  All darts miss the bull by 100mm but all are grouped in an area of only 10 mm.  So the precision (repeatability} is good but the accuracy is poor. So accuracy is how close a measurement is to the expected value and precision is repeatability  of that measurement.
 
So, my friend and I have measured these parameters on his Proxxon mill.  We used a new sharp bit and cut two grooves nominally 10 mm apart (10 rotations) into a boxwood sheet.  The measured distance between them was around 10.08  so the accuracy is + 0.08 in 10. Sounds bad but this is only 0.8% - actually pretty good. However, when we did this 10 times the measurements varied from 10.06 to 10.10.  Thus the precision is +- 0.02 - very good and way beyond what the eye can see on a model.
 
The other thing to remember is that there will be backlash so that for best results you should always approach a setting from the same side.  I always set by turning the dial clockwise so if you need to get to a mark with an anticlockwise turn go past the mark and come back clockwise.
 
Hope this helps.
 
John

This may not be the proper place to talk about machine accuracy but since it has cropped up here I thought that I would add some comments. 
 
First and foremost this machine is in my opinion certainly accurate enough for our purposes.  Derek says that the accuracy is 0.01 (based on the scale markings) but this is only an estimate and is in fact the maximum possible.  The only way to determine the accuracy is to do an experiment.  Also, as with any scientific measurement,  we need to distinguish between "accuracy" and "precision".  For example lets imagine I throw ten darts at a board aiming at the bulls eye.  All darts miss the bull by 100mm but all are grouped in an area of only 10 mm.  So the precision (repeatability} is good but the accuracy is poor. So accuracy is how close a measurement is to the expected value and precision is repeatability  of that measurement.
 
So, my friend and I have measured these parameters on his Proxxon mill.  We used a new sharp bit and cut two grooves nominally 10 mm apart (10 rotations) into a boxwood sheet.  The measured distance between them was around 10.08  so the accuracy is + 0.08 in 10. Sounds bad but this is only 0.8% - actually pretty good. However, when we did this 10 times the measurements varied from 10.06 to 10.10.  Thus the precision is +- 0.02 - very good and way beyond what the eye can see on a model.
 
The other thing to remember is that there will be backlash so that for best results you should always approach a setting from the same side.  I always set by turning the dial clockwise so if you need to get to a mark with an anticlockwise turn go past the mark and come back clockwise.
 
Hope this helps.
 
John

This may not be the proper place to talk about machine accuracy but since it has cropped up here I thought that I would add some comments. 
 
First and foremost this machine is in my opinion certainly accurate enough for our purposes.  Derek says that the accuracy is 0.01 (based on the scale markings) but this is only an estimate and is in fact the maximum possible.  The only way to determine the accuracy is to do an experiment.  Also, as with any scientific measurement,  we need to distinguish between "accuracy" and "precision".  For example lets imagine I throw ten darts at a board aiming at the bulls eye.  All darts miss the bull by 100mm but all are grouped in an area of only 10 mm.  So the precision (repeatability} is good but the accuracy is poor. So accuracy is how close a measurement is to the expected value and precision is repeatability  of that measurement.
 
So, my friend and I have measured these parameters on his Proxxon mill.  We used a new sharp bit and cut two grooves nominally 10 mm apart (10 rotations) into a boxwood sheet.  The measured distance between them was around 10.08  so the accuracy is + 0.08 in 10. Sounds bad but this is only 0.8% - actually pretty good. However, when we did this 10 times the measurements varied from 10.06 to 10.10.  Thus the precision is +- 0.02 - very good and way beyond what the eye can see on a model.
 
The other thing to remember is that there will be backlash so that for best results you should always approach a setting from the same side.  I always set by turning the dial clockwise so if you need to get to a mark with an anticlockwise turn go past the mark and come back clockwise.
 
Hope this helps.
 
John

Warthog,
 
The main issue on deck planking was to avoid "pointed" planks because these would certainly leak. so methods were developed to produce a more right angled cut.  Prior to about 1850 the method was to curve the planks so that only a few on the outer edge needed any kind of special treatment.  The method was to used hooked scaph joints against the waterway as Glenn describes. 

 
When I look at these I feel there is still a degree of "pointiness".  A later method was  to use nibbing, where planks were parallel and cut into the waterway. 

This method was probably superior.
 
John

Good work Glenn.
 
I found this almost the trickiest part of the whole build and much of my precious supply of boxwood ended up in the bin!
 
Incidentally, I notice that you use No. 11 blades.  For what its worth, coming from a beginner, I have given up on these in favour of Swann-Morton scalpel blades.  I found the No 11's lost their edge pretty quickly.  The scalpel blades seem to last longer and are cheap.  I also find their hobby handles very comfortable.
 
You are catching up to me fast.  I am enjoying the build but am a bit slow and bumbly.
 
John
 
 

Post 46: Chase guns
 
The two 6 pound chase guns on the fore-deck were constructed the in same way as the carronades except that I made the breech rope a little longer since the barrels are longer.  Using the rule of thumb of 3X the barrel length gives about 110 mm.  This seemed a little long and 90 mm would seem to clear the bulwark on recoil so this was the length that I used.
 

 
John
 

Post 45 Installation of the winch.
 
The actual winch was constructed some time ago (in Post 32) as a little scratch build:
 

 
  Here it is mounted on the deck
 

 
John