garyshipwright

Top and Butt (Anchor Stock) Deck Planking
 
Same as Lower Deck Planking - I'll let the pics tell the story :
 
 

 

 

 

 

Capstan Step
 
The Capstan Step is made from three pieces of timber with faked "dovetail" joints :
 
 

 
 
Another notable variation from the "norm" for Vulture - on most other "Swan class" ships it is a rectangle with a rounded fore edge. The NMM plans show it quite differently :
 
 

 
 
The top of the Step is horizontal to the waterline in both fore-aft and athwartships directions as the ship has Capstans on both the Upper Deck and the Quarterdeck, so a common base plane is needed to connect the two. The Step is about 2" thicker on the fore edge compared to the aft edge to allow for the slope of the deck from the vertical.
 
 

 

 

 
 
The Aft Ladderway Coaming has been fitted :
 
 

Upper Deck Hatch Coamings
 
Similar in construction to those of the Lower Deck.
 
 

 

Mizzen and Foremast Partners
 
The Mizzen Mast Partners are of a simple type - made from two 17" wide planks dovetail jointed together :
 
 

 

 
 
The Foremast Partner is a "normal" rectangular version of the Main Mast Partner. All the steps and rebates were done using the Byrnes saw :
 
 

 

 

 

 

Aft Beam Arms, Carlings and Ledges
 
There are four Beam Arms on the Upper Deck - two each side of the beam separating the Main Hatch from the Main Mast Partners :
 
 

 

 

 

 

Main Mast Partners
 
HMS Vulture has a very different style of Main Mast Partner on the Upper Deck to most other ships. Whether this was an experiment that was not used again because there was no benefit is unknown. However, the NMM plans clearly show this method of use (2nd pic). The more "normal" type of main mast partner is shown in the TFFM plan in pic 1. I had to do my own interpretation of how the various components of the partner would have fitted together :
 
 

 

 

 
 
The two main pieces of the partner were rebated together - I used a fillet as the final join looks the same :
 
 

 

 

 

 

Mast Wedges
 
Masts were not bolted to any part of the hull or deck framing - this would have put far too much pressure on individual components, not to mention weakening the mast itself. Instead, Wedges were used around the mast at each Partner to hold it in position.
 
Rather than attempt to make individual wedges, which would be impossible to fit on a model for the lower decks, I turned up wedge "rings" on the lathe. The individual wedges are simulated with an Xacto blade and are enhanced with a pencil :
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
Note that the "mast" in these pics is only a dummy for alignment purposes - I haven't made the "real things" yet.

Upper Deck Planking
 
The same construction methods used in the Lower Deck Planking apply to the Upper Deck :
 
 

 

 

 
 
Note the small "hook" in the planking near the capstan step :
 
 

 
 
Another hook where the line of the Aft Ladderway is narrower than the Aft Hatch :
 
 

 

 
 
The planking cut out for the port Riding Bitts Standard :
 
 

All hands on deck.............................he i said aaaalllllll haaaaands
 
After I make the many hooks, eyes and blocks (for the guns) have already spots before the eyes, was a small relaxation törn due for the eyes
 
Therefore, I once make another figure from the bulwark ornament.

The images come in the series of steps.
 
After the figure was transferred to paper and glued to the bone support, it was sawn on the contours.
 
And now have fun with the pictures:
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Have fun

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 39 – Aft Cant Frames
 
Clipper Ship Note:  The longitudinal hull lines on the American clippers introduced some new terms and redefined some old ones.  Furthermore, the names of some these lines differed between builders.  Young America’s table of offsets was generally similar to most of the breed.  It included the following longitudinal lines.
 
The wale delineated the top of the band of thick planking also called the wale.  As in earlier ships, the curve of this line defined the sweeping fore and aft sheer of the ship.  In clippers, unlike RN 18C ships, the line was higher forward and lower at the stern.  In Young America’s case the band of heavy wale planking extended downward about ten feet almost to the turn of the bilge.  The wale line was high - usually two feet or so below the line above – the planksheer.
 
The planksheer defined the underside of the rail that capped and sealed off the main inboard and outboard planking.  It was essentially parallel and at the level of the top of the main weatherdeck waterway.  The planksheer rail was penetrated by toptimbers of the frames that ran up to a higher level at the tops of the sides.
 
The main rail line defined the underside of the main rail.  It was about three feet above the planksheer and about 18 inches below the rail that capped the tops of the toptimbers.
 
This last line was called, in the case of Young America, the fancy rail.  In other ships it was known as the monkey rail.  It defined the top of the side from stem to stern.  Young America’s fancy rail is at the level of the poop deck aft and slightly higher than the topgallant forecastle deck at the bow. 
 
Another open rail was constructed above the fancy rail along the poop deck to help keep the crew out of the drink.  On Young America this was a wood rail on turned brass stanchions.
 
All of these rail lines were, for the most part, parallel curves.  Below is a body plan with the lines marked.
 

 
So, back to the model.
 
The first picture shows cant frames 48 forward to 45 installed.   The square is positioned for checking the cant of frame 45 on the port side – from the base drawing.
 

 
The next picture shows a different view of the assembly at the same stage. 
 

 
The “feet” of the cant frames were left a bit on the heavy side and will be sanded back fair to the bearding line later – probably before bolting.  Otherwise the frames are pretty well beveled to their final shapes.  Two more pairs to go.
 
In the next picture the template has been placed over the tops of the frames at this stage to check position.
 

 
The next picture is a view from under the stern at the same stage.
 

 
The space between the two central stern timbers will later be fitted with a chock shaped to the helm port.  In the next picture, frame 44 on the port side is being held in place during fitting.
 

 
In the next picture this frame has been installed and frame 43 on the starboard side is being glued in place.
 

 
The last picture shows all of the aft cant frames installed before the clamps on the last were removed.
 

 
The 12 aft half-frames - 42 to 31 - will now be made and installed to complete the frame installation.
 
 Ed

The next deck fitting that I made was the quarterdeck companionway.  On Budriot’s plans for Le Mercure it is a raised structure with hinged doors (#24) forward of the mizzen mast (#25) and aft of the watchkeeper's bench (#23).  It houses the stairway that leads down to the gun deck and the captain’s cabin.  As will be discussed later, I have followed the NMM plans of the Advice Prize for the overall structure rather than Le Mercure.  This raises the captain’s cabin to the quarterdeck  and eliminates the chicken coop (#27), the whipstaff slot (#26) and the cabinets (#28 and #29). 
 

 
With the changed layout there is some question if the large companionway would still have been on deck if the captain would not be using it, or would it have been more of a simple open hatchway, perhaps with an open railing?  The answer is unclear, but since there is some justification for retaining it, I am doing so.
 
Here are Budriot’s  plans.  I have followed them, except that the strap hinges on the roof have been modified a little to make them stronger. 
 

 
Construction was pretty straightforward.  A coaming was built with lap jointed corners in the same way that the hatch coamings were made.  Three sides were fashioned with birch planks over a solid sheet to fit inside the coaming.  Internal corners were strengthened with square stock and the external corners were dressed up with cherry veneer.  A crosspiece was fitted and glued at the top edge of the structure to keep it all square.  This is the stage of construction on the right.
 
On the left the two planked sections of the roof and the front doors have been added and the piece is complete, except for a final stain and finish.  The bottom of the coaming has been left square unstill it is installed on the slanted and cambered quarterdeck.
 

 
Here is it from an oblique viewpoint so you can see all the details.
 

 
The construction techniques are fairly simple and incorporate a number that have been discussed in dealing with prior fittings and structures.  The only new technique is for the hinges.  I started with 1/16” brass strip (2” wide in scale) and bent one end around on itself using a needle-nosed wire bending pliers.  You can get these from dental supply houses, or from your child’s orthodontist. 
 

 
Once it is bent around on itself, it is tightened up as much as possible.  Using this strip the smallest eye that I could form was about 0.028” i.d.  I decided that this was acceptable in this scale.
 


 
The hinge strap was pre-drilled for 0.020” iron pins that will secure it to the wood.  Here I have marked out the locations of the holes and the strap length for the door hinges. 
 

 
After drilling, the hinge was parted off from the strip and chemically blackened.  Here it is installed on the door.  You can see the iron pins that go through the door and were clipped off short.  The hinge sits on an “L” shaped piece of wire that goes into the doorpost.
 

 
The hinges for the roof were made in the same way, except that the straps are longer.  Two matching hinges were installed facing each other and a pin was epoxied into the outer one with the inner one allowed to rotate freely.
 

 
Here is the completed companionway with Pirate Pete inspecting its quality.
 

 
And here it is with the doors ajar, ready for Pete to descend the stairs.
 

 
It was probably not necessary to make the doors operable, but it is one of those little details that keeps up my interest.  I will know that it is there, even if the doors never move after it is displayed in the museum.
 
Be well
 
Dan

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.
 

 

Bitts are re-done.  Sheaves line up on same axis.  This time I drilled and cut the sheaves in the bitt after I installed the cheeks.  Cheeks are 3"+ above the top of the deck beam notch to allow for the planking.
Maury

Have been down sick for a spell; now that I'm starting to feel human again, it's been fun catching up on all the great club Sherbourne posts that everyone has made recently--great work and excellent reading!
 
I've enjoyed reading through the discussion here, and figured I'd throw in my 2 cents worth. 
 
First I’ll chime in on the sweep ports and gun port lids.  Druxey is 100% accurate in what he stated about the Sherbourne.  I’m working off all 3 draughts that he cited:  two draughts are her as-built and the 3rd is of her as-designed. 
 
In all plans, 4 sweep ports are present. 
 
In both her as-built draughts, a port lid is present on the 4th port (going from aft forward).  Of the several other draughts of the Sherbourne’s period that I have looked at, none showed port lids.  Why is only one port lid depicted in the Sherbourne’s plans?  I conjecture that only one port lid was drawn in for the same reason that a half breadth plan is only a half view or that a body plan is on one side an aft body view and on the other side a fore body view of the ship:  why be redundant?  In other words, including lids on all the plan ports would have been redundant where depicting just one port lid suffices to convey meaningful, relevant information.
 
After diving pretty deeply into how draughts were created and etc. these past several months, I conjecture that the port lid was not a fanciful addition by the individual(s) that drafted the Sherbourne’s 2 as-built draughts.  From Deane through Steel, the art of creating a draught is anything but fanciful:  The methods laid out are fairly strict and somewhat rigid, which makes sense given that Royal Navy ships had to be built to reasonably survive both the sea and its weather as well as combat.  Sticking in port lids out of fancy doesn’t seem consistent with the discipline.  Likewise, seeing fanciful inclusions in two separate as-built draughts doesn’t seem consistent.  Lastly as an overall organization, the Royal Navy during that period was one that was pragmatic and frugal…fanciful license in draughts doesn’t seem consistent with that culture. 
 
To the contrary, the port lids may be a bonus detail of the ship that may have been omitted from her contemporaries’ as-built plans.  In fact, the Sherbourne is a remarkably well-documented ship in comparison to her contemporaries or at least more of her plans are extant than others.  When I first looked at the port lids some months back, their side-opening feature didn’t seem practical.  As I’ve worked on her over these past several months, I’ve come around on that opinion.  I’ve been curious about if the port hinges allowed for removing the ports—very easily done with side-hinge port lids.  Once I begin getting further into her details, perhaps more information about her port lids will surface.  With that said, at this point I am more inclined to include them in a build than I am to omit them. 
 
Next I’m going to talk at length about the AOS Alert.
 
While I've obliquely mentioned it here and there in the past, I'm going to be explicit here about Goodwin and AOS Alert.  To be quite blunt, I strongly believe that large swaths of Goodwin's material should be viewed with healthy skepticism and here's why.
 
Let me first begin by providing some of my background.  By profession I am a researcher.  Essentially all that I do is evidence based upon source documentation, verifiable numbers, and etc.  In my written work, all is supported by underlying, verifiable documentation.  When inferences are drawn from a wealth of evidence, a statement to that effect is made.  Before any of my written work goes public, it is peer reviewed.  All statements and assertions I make are reviewed by independent reviewers to ensure everything is fully supported with verifiable evidence.  Our process is very similar to academia in particular:  Peer review of scholarly published writing is a cornerstone of that material and thus its veracity.
 
So when I use the term skepticism it here does not imply looking at things as falsehoods, it simply means being as objective as possible--neutral--and drawing conclusions based on verifiable evidence and or on reproducible results (by this latter, I mean that if you are told 2 + 2 = 4, you can use those facts and reproduce the same results).
 
I next want to mention the fallacy of authority.  This logic error results when someone in a position of authority makes an alleged fact-based statement and we in-turn believe that statement to be true on the basis of the person’s position rather than the material they are giving and the authenticity of its underlying facts.  We can encounter this fallacy with published material:  It has been published, therefore it must be true.  Similarly if a person is an expert in their field, what they tell us about their field of expertise must be true.  In both cases, it ain’t necessarily so, and this is where skepticism comes into play:  Rather than look at the book or the individual, one must weigh the material that is presented.  Is it supported with verifiable evidence?, do conclusions reasonably follow from evidence?, and so forth.
 
Goodwin presents a lot of interesting material in AOS Alert.  However, note that much of his textual material is not directly cited.  Yes, Goodwin provides a bibliography, but that is far different than providing in-text citations!  At one time, it was acceptable practice to include a source in one’s bibliography if the book was consulted though material from it was not directly used to materially support one’s written work (when used excessively, it's called "bib. padding").  Here's an excellent example of what I mean about the lack of citations:  Goodwin asserts, “Prior to the turn of the eighteenth century all cutters were clinker-built.”  Skepticism dictates that we neither believe that claim is true nor is false.  However, skepticism further propels us to ask the question, “Upon what evidence?”  “All” is a powerful assertion and this evidence Goodwin does not provide:  Upon what factual supporting documentation is he supporting this claim with?  Where and what is the evidence that we can also go to, read, and say, "Yep, that's true!  Every single bloomin' cutter ever built prior to the 18th century was clinker planked."  On the other hand, if we were to find just one instance of a cutter being carvel planked prior to the turn of the 18th century, then his entire assertion is false (“all cutters”).
 
Note that in the scantlings Goodwin provides for Alert he does not cite a source.  Did he obtain his scantlings from the Rattlesnake’s draught, or are they from The Shipbuilder’s Repository (SBR), which he cites on page 12 but fails to list in his bibliography, or a combination of both?  Where does this scantling information come from? 
 
I spot checked some of Goodwin’s scantlings against the SBR and this perhaps is partially his source.  For example, the SBR lists for a cutter a 2’-2” room and space, 18 as the number of rooms in the after body, and 13 as the number of rooms in the fore body (SBR, 258).  Those numbers are identical to the ones given by Goodwin in his room and space section (Alert, 24).  On the other hand, the room and space for the Rattlesnake (Alert, 46-47) and the Sprightly (Alert, 48-49) measure at 2’-0” using their respective scales—perhaps reproduction errors?…  It's also worth noting that those SBR numbers are for a keel length (i.e. by the keel for tonnage) of 58'-6" (SBR, 234) whereas for the Alert that measurement is 52' (Alert, 23)…we're looking at a 6'-6" difference but the same room and space!  The question remains:  From where did Goodwin source his information?
 
After his room and space scantlings, Goodwin provides frame bolt scantlings.  The verbiage Goodwin uses here (Alert, 24) is clearly and obviously directly lifted from the SBR (SBR, 258-260):  Although plagiarism was a relatively acceptable practice in 18th century, it certainly was not in the 20th or in the 21st!!  But back to frame bolts:  Although the number of bolts is the same—2—between Goodwin and the SBR, the bolt diameters are not.  Goodwin states a 1/2" diameter while the SBR states a 3/4" diameter.  What’s the big deal there?  Where did Goodwin get 1/2" from—what is his source?  In both the SBR (260-261) and in Steel (Naval, Folio V), the smallest bolt diameter given is 3/4."  Indeed, Steel cites a 3/4" diameter bolt for his smallest ship listed:  a 60 ton sloop (Naval, Folio V).  I’d like to point out that in his The Construction and Fitting of the Sailing Man of War 1650 – 1850, Goodwin provides on page 14 a visual description of room and space that is inconsistent with that given in most other sources (for instance see Steel’s Naval Architecture pages 57 and 191).  
 
While I have may missed it during this quick re-skim of Alert, I do not believe Goodwin gives a burthen in tons for the Alert.  The as-built burthen given for the Rattlesnake is 184 54/94 tons (Alert, 47) and the Sprightly’s is listed as 150 6/94 tons (Alert, 49).  Compare those numbers to the 273 ton cutter in the SBR (which incidentally is listed as a vessel with 16 carriage guns and 22 swivel guns (SBR, 226)).  Now think of scantlings between those sizes of ship and ask the question, “Are we looking at apples to apples or at apples to oranges if Goodwin selectively used SBR scantlings for the Alert?
 
Am I saying that all of AOS Alert is wrong?  No! I am saying that too much of the book’s material in not adequately supported to sources and there are too many unexplained inconsistencies.  Furthermore when I see obviously plagiarized material, I am immediately extremely doubtful about an author and about the validity of their scholarly material with which I am being presented.  To be very blunt, Goodwin’s AOS Alert would not pass a peer review as it is written (its un-cited, plagiarized material alone is an immediate fail).  Compare AOS Alert work to May’s The Boats of Men-of-War (which Goodwin cites in his bib.):  May provides nearly 200 citations to his sources in his 122 (as shown in my copy) page book.
 
While Goodwin’s AOS Alert has its merits, I would be very hesitant to use his material to base essential areas of a build on or from which to make claims upon without additional, independent verification.
 
Cheers,
Jay
 

The frames are now set to be erected.  A temporary cross member is glued across the top edge of the frame with marks lined up with the edge of the rising wood.  Several squares are used to align with the building board and my Incra rule provides a plumb line from the rising wood to the mark on the cross member.  Once the first (DF) frame is in place and the glue dry, I can procede with DF1, 1Fore and 1aft. I cut the notches for the sweep ports on DF1 and after it was in place, I dry-fitted 1fore and marked the tops and bottoms of the notches.  THe frame was then removed, notches cut and replaced on the keel.  Specially-sized spacers are inserted between frames while the glue dries.
Greg, on the framing plan, there is a horizontal line above the scupper-support "boxes".  Does this define the inboard top of the scupper support?  It's a pretty big angle so I want to be sure before I notch the next frame.
Maury

Here are some of the early pics.  Just getting used to the new system...Boy I miss the lost files!
Maury

Sure, will post how it works soon Christian.. 
 
Actually orginal photos of the idea are these.. 
 
          So, here are the progress. After this, all steps are for good looking and fantasy  
    I saw this technique in Remco's HMS Kingfisher's log. Just wanted to give it a try. And the result is awesome. Especially, on irregular surfaces.      Will add some mahogany as a frame..       Scratched sides for frame.     Last view..        And this was fun.. Added some brass to the pointer. Just fantasy

Well, not much to the finish.. 

From now things are getting complicated.. Used varnish for table.. 

 
And use PVA for assembling sides and table.. 

 
Started to make holder for the rail car. Plywood has nice pattern, so made sandwich from 4mm Plywood.
 

 
I always say that I like sanding.. But this one forced even me. 

 

 
Ps. Image sizes are better this way I guess.. Isn't it ? 

Thanks to everyone who have visited my shipyard and looking at my progress, it's much appreciated.
 
Today I braved the cold again in the garage but managed to finish the gun deck railing 
I started out by making the hardware for the for the forward railing where the gun bun lid has to fold open.  I made two eye pins that are to slide inside the most forward stanchions.  These are made from 1 mm brass tubes.  Then a hook so we can unhook the chain when needed.  This hardware is made from 0.5 mm brass rod.  I had to make the hook four times, goes to show yuns that things sometimes just don't work out right away   One time I lost the hook when trying to attach it to the chain.  I had it in tweezers and it just popped out and went flying somewhere.  Good luck finding it so it was quicker to make a new one.  So what is another 10 minutes of work - - -  pfffffffffffff  
 
I then soldered these into place and started on the railing caps that I made from 0.8 mm brass rod.  They had to be bend in places to follow the contour of the decks as shown on the photos I have.  I had to remake the forward starboard cap because I didn't like the first one.
When I was happy with them they were then soldered to the tops of the stanchions.  After filing most of the excess solder off and cleaning the railings with MEK I could paint them.
 
When I looked at the pics I made previously I noticed that the top antenna brace was not level, it was a little higher on the port side.  So, I had to desolder this end and file quite a bit off the vertical post and re-solder it back in place.
 
I started to make the template for the snorkel exhaust guard but it was now 1730 hours and time to quit, my legs were getting tired and eyes started to water and burn.
 
I also performed the test with putting polly urethane on a piece of dyed deck slat and then glueing it to a freshly painted piece of wood with TiteBond.  At quitting time I tried to dislodge it and it was holding quite nicely without any dye weeping through.  Thanks Remco for the suggestion, it seems to work.
 
Okay, time for a few pics of today's progress.
 

This shows the individual parts for the removable chain in the forward part of the front gun deck.  A fixed rail cap would prevent the gun bun lid from opening all the way.  The lid should rest on the deck. I found some small chain in my Thermopylae plastic kit I still have on the shelf.
 

This shows all the parts assembled, the eye pins soldered in the stanchions and the hook attached to the chain and hooked to the port side eye pin.  And yes, it is removable   
 

This shows the forward gun deck railing stanchions with the chain installed.  Here you can clearly see that the cross beam of the antenna brace is a little too high on the port side.  That beam is where the ship's bell hangs on.  That'll be fixed a little later.
 

Here is a view with both the front and rear gun deck railings completed and painted.  At this point I have also lowered the port side crossbar of the antenna support  bracket.  Much more better   
 

Another view of the completed gun deck railings.
 

Completed gun deck railings looking forward.
 

Top view of the conning tower with completed gun deck railings.
 
Cheers, 

Thanks, Keith, and Martin, for your comments--you're right, the admiration and inspiration we get (not to mention knowledge gained) from those who work at the highest level is often what drives us to do more, and better, than we ever could on our own.
 
 
Today's minor update:
 
As much as I've rhapsodized about the joys of my little cutter, I'm also feeling a little burnt out!   I didn't spend very much time on it today.
 
But I did decide that it would be better to do the gunwales before the thwarts, just in case I need "elbow room" while gluing the gunwales on, without the thwarts in the way.  (I do try, at least sometimes, to think ahead!)  In anticipation of that work, I also determined that the apron at the stem needed to be cut down from where I initially had it-- 
 

 
 
The gunwales need to be 1 1/2 inches thick, by two inches wide.  Using my rotary tool "thickness sander" I roughly sanded some stock down to approximately 1/16th inch square (about 3" x 3" in scale), wet and heated it, to set the curve. The piece on the left I have started sanding down to final thickness--
 

 
 
The next photo shows the difference between the rough form, and final thickness.   There's also a pretty significant kink in the curve of the un-sanded piece, but I think it will disappear by the time it gets down to its final dimensions.  In the background you can see I also had to re-glue the starboard rising piece.  It had come loose on some of the frames.  This is not a good thing--some earlier varnishing of the interior may have compromised the gluing integrity on the frames-- 
 
  
 
 
I think I am going to stain the gunwale black.  I'll do this before I glue them on.   The other pieces that attach to the gunwale--the breasthook, and a piece and some angles at the transom-- willI also be stained, but not the washboard.   The port gunwale has been sanded to the correct thickness, but not yet the width.  The starboard is still rough--
 

 
 
And that's it for now.
 
Ron

Yes it's amazing and humbling to see what the "professionals" can do.  It's an awfully high bar to measure up to, and just a little depressing to think one is not likely to ever achieve that level. 
 
On the other hand, the other night I think I spent about an hour just turning this little boat over in my hand, running my thumb along the frames on the interior; enjoying the feeling of having turned some small pieces of wood (have you ever stopped to think about how many pieces!?), into such an intricate, beautiful little form.  That's a wonderful thing, even if it's not perfect!
 
Little was done today, though.
 
The temporary spacers were glued to the hull--
 

 
 
The rising pieces were glued to the frames--
 

 

 
 
Then the spacers were removed--
 

 
 
Ron

Thanks, Russ, Keith, and the Likes.
 
Keith, regarding your question, the short answer is: I don't know. 
 
Long answer:  I'm still confused on the nomenclature of all these boats (barge, launch, pinnace, longboat, cutter, deal cutter, gig, jollyboat, shallop, yawl, wherry).  If I took some more time on research I might be able to learn more, but I've concentrated on just finding a suitable "cutter" to pattern mine on, and running with it.  Even under the generic name cutter, I've seen some with gratings for the platform, some with "solid" platforms, some with spaced boards.  With the forward platform, there are also many variations in configuration.
 
Now, here is a collection of ship's boats that puts my clumsy (in comparison) work to shame:
 

 
 
These are the boats for the 74 gun ship Rivoli, modeled by Doctor Michael.  (and Keith, I'm pretty sure that's ebony ).    Link to the source of the picture- http://forum.modelsworld.ru/topic8019.html  where you can see more photos of the boats, and the whole stunning ship.
 
My cutter will end up looking (in configuration only!) most like the middle one in the row of five, and the second one in on the left, which looks about the same, just bigger.   Those two appear to have a similar hull shape to mine, though my boat is smaller, and my oars will be single banked instead of double banked.  Mine will also be stepped for one mast instead of two.
 
One point I saw interesting--these all have posts under the thwarts, which I'm not used to seeing.  Maybe being double banked (with two crew per thwart) the posts were necessary, but on smaller single banked boats they were not? 
 
Ron

Thank you all very much for your comments!
 
Snow and bitter cold in upstate New York today.   So I stayed home from work. 
 
Most of the morning I spent researching; trying to come to grips with many details of the cutter.  Chapelle's plan gave me the hull shape, but little else.  I looked at some ships' boat models on the Russian forum, which were very helpful; and I went through the plans available on the NMM.  I came back to an 1808  22' cutter that had very similar lines to (though significantly broader, and a little longer than) mine.   There was a lot of detail on this plan to fill in the blanks, and I think it will adapt fairly easily to my somewhat shorter hull.
 
I made the keelson, glued that in place, then started with the foot boards.  I figured I could end these just past where the aft platform will be, but I wasn't sure how far forward to take them.  Some boats on the Russian forum took them all the way to the stem, so I copied this.  I glued some temporary spacers, and a dab of glue on each frame--
 

 
 
First pair of foot boards in place.   On top of the plug I sketched the plan of the thwart locations.  The bow area is still a little unresolved, but this will be the general scheme of things.  I had assumed there needed to be an even number of oars (if single banked), but the NMM draft for the 22 foot cutter showed 5 single banked oars.   I guess the three rowers on the starboard side don't need to work as hard!
 
 
 
 
 
Another pair of footboards, and the footwaling is done--
 

 
 
Taking a break now to post this, and plan the next steps.
 
Ron

Cherry ready for the bandsaw
 

 
The cherry cut and ready to be milled.
 

 
It was worth the time and effort.
 
Tulip on the left and Cherry on the right
 

 
Start of the new build in cherry.
In the back ground is the one made from tulip.
 

Wow, it's really been a long time since I last updated.  Holidays, vacations, illness (a really bad cold) have all prevented my progress.  But, I'm getting back to it.
 
First, I noticed that I had forgotten to put in the deck supports for the 2nd deck, and when I test fitted them, the barrels I had so carefully glued in were in the way.  So, I learned how to de-bond my PVA (Titebond) with a little isopropyl alcohol, I was able to remove enough barrels to get them installed.
 
Next, was the deck planking.  The center is planked with 6 2x4 (mm) walnut planks and another mast hole needs to be created.  I did it half-by-half, carefully laying the first plank to make sure it's centered and orthogonal, then using that as a guide for the other.
 


After the first half circle was carved out and mast test fitted, just repeat on the other side.
 

 
The rest of the planks are then added.  Unlike the lower deck, I wanted to add the "butt joints", but like I said in my earlier post, I was concerned about doing it exactly on the framing pieces as they didn't line up and I didn't want to have a joint over open space.
 
So, I merely used pencil to mark the lines after deciding on the spacing pattern.  I also chose to not do treenails after some debate (with myself anyway).  I don't have a small enough drill bit, so I skipped that for now.
 


 
Next up, I'm planking the bulwarks and I added the mast ring supports.  Those were a soft metal that I blackened.  If you remember (and who would?), I had issues with flaking on my last blackening attempt, so this time I diluted the solution (1 part water, 1 part solution) and took more care cleaning the rings.  It worked out so much better - no flaking in solution, and a nice even black color.