rwiederrich

Thanks everyone.  My wife reminds me that this is the time we will never have again and we must take full advantage of having our grand babies with us so intimately.  They are not moving far away...and we generally see them once a week or so.  We had a big fire in the pit last night...enjoying *smores*.  It was nice..untill the boys began to rough house....dad had to shut that down fast.   Boys will be boys...they say......  The girls weren't far behind them.

I can only see my model room through memory......    I still have my advice and opinions though......

Rob

Sorry for the laps in activity.
I began to lay planking by getting everything ready and a situation arose. My daughter is buying a new home....however that is upon the contingency of selling her own home first. that means she and her family will be staying with me for around a month. I had to use my work shop as a temp storage space to make room for her and her 6 kids stuff.
Needless to say, I have no access to my shop at this juncture. It is on the other side of the spare bedroom, she and her family are using. I've had to put my build on temp hold for the time being.

We have been quite busy around here making room and decluttering the house for her family. She has 6 kids...from age 10 on down to 2. So I have lots of stuff to put away and protect.

She's getting a much bigger house...if everything goes as planned. So hopefully in a month from now...I'll have some progress to post, when I put my world back together again.

46 minutes ago, druxey said:

Hopefully the bulkhead bracing will keep the hull straight.

There is no reason to think otherwise.  I plan on planking both sides beginning with the planksheer up to the monkey rail first...to prevent any forced bending of the hull.

Rob

I'm going to be using a completely unorthodox way to plank this hull.  Many,,many years ago, when I was young, I worked at DuraCraft.  A manufacturer of wooden doll houses...in Newberg Oregon.

I collected a very impressive stash of milled pine,  and hardwood veneers.  I will be planking with 2" wide, by 1.5 32nds think planks.  They nicely bend around just about any curve.  In many instances I will not plank horizontal to follow the form of the bulkheads.  I use CA to initially glue the planks in place and then follow up with a good wood glue.  I pin the planks down first.   If you followed my Great Republic build...you will see the process.  

I will be making some modifications to this process, (Lessons learned).   I intend to use some wood filler..to make transitions smooth and I hope this planking process will go quickly and smoothly.

As normal...I will be carving the stern transom...and transitioning the planking to it.

The planksheer  will be my foundation, for establishing the sheer of the main and monkey rails and the top Moulding of the naval hood....by transferring its dimensions 

Lots of landmarks to consider at the same time.

Rob

54 minutes ago, Rick310 said:

Beautiful hull Rob, seems to have quite the narrow beam.  Wonder how stable she was in rough weather?

Rick

That has always been the question.  McKay quickly flattened out the dead rise of subsequent designs....some with less than 8deg deadrise.  Flat bottom boats handled better.  but Staghound had an extreme entry/exit along with a 40" deadrise.  I've read no reports that she handled poorly.

Rob

Now I’ll let it dry and tomorrow I’ll begin chamfering them.   
 

I also drew out the cut water by transferring the stem to a piece of maple.    I will work on the plank sheet height for the naval hood at that time.  
 

Rob

Then I added bulkhead braces.  
 

Now the bulkheads are glued in.   On a straight keel.  
 

Spent some time in the shop.  I disassembled the hull, because it had a warp in the keel 

So I drilled and pinned it to the desk.  I aligned the pins so they were straight.    
 

I then pressed the keel down and there you go

Now for some gluing 

Rob

56 minutes ago, FriedClams said:

Very nice progress, Rob.  Hope you're feeling better soon.

 

Gary

Thanks Gary.   In a couple more days I think I’ll get to work.  
 

Rob

I'm sorry for any delays my friends...but I have been under the weather for the last 3 days....just now getting my strength back.  fighting a tough cough.  My annual Bronchitis battle.  I hope to get going in a couple of days.

I first have to trace the stem so I can make the cutwater and root for the naval hood.  Rich...we decided she had a 3ft keel is that correct.  I'll be reinforcing her bulkheads as well....similar to that of Glory of the Seas.

Measuring her frames...it is true she was a narrow thing.  She'll widen up after I plank her.  Still 24ft at the skylight/companionway on her poop is pretty narrow.  Almost makes her deck furniture seam too large..

First things first.

Rob

8 hours ago, hof00 said:

Thanks Rob,

Many thanks for the Heads-Up!!

Would you have any links to the info?

 

To date, I am using Scott Branders plans as reference.

 

Cheers and Regards,

 

Harry.

 

Pm Clipperfan and he’ll lay it all out for you.  Fascinating stuff.  
 

Rob

8 hours ago, hof00 said:

Thanks Rob,

Many thanks for the Heads-Up!!

Would you have any links to the info?

 

To date, I am using Scott Branders plans as reference.

 

Cheers and Regards,

 

Harry.

 

Pm Clipperfan and he’ll lay it all out for you.  Fascinating stuff.  
 

Rob

Dry fitting the bulkheads. 
 

Rob

Gluing the two keel pieces together.   I won't fiddle with this till it is full dry.   
 

I’ll separate the bulkheads and put them in order.   She a lot smaller then Glory of the Seas for sure.  
 

Rob

Test fit the keel.  Nice clean aligned fit.  
 

Rob

Looky. What I got today.   
 

Rob

1 hour ago, Jared said:

Given how many design errors you have all discovered in the fore section of the plan, I am apprehensive to find out the accuracy of the rest of the model's build plans 😳.  Hopefully they are not going to be an issue.

 

On the positive side this kit has been an excellent educational tool, both for honing fine boat building scratch-building skills and making me really appreciate how the art of tall ship building evolved.  

 

 

Ships are balanced....thus we must look at them balanced.  If something looks wrong, stop and evaluate...educate yourself on the trueness of the design.  Don't just go for it....not unless you don't care.

Taking into consideration how long it takes to build one of these guys....it's best, to take the extra step and make sure, or you will suffer the agony of having to look at your incorrect model for the rest of your life and continually telling/reminding yourself, *I should have just fixed it when it was easier*.    You've already taken the first step of admission.  No need to beat yourself up over it.  She is still something to be proud of... indeed.

Rob

54 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@rwiederrich knowing how much additional work my mistake cost you and @Vladimir_Wairoa I was mortified to discover it was just a matter of not carefully reading everything thoroughly the first time. Now, to me "measure twice" means to be sure nothing's been missed.

Rich...it was just as much my mistake as it was yours.  I knew visually the Forecastle looked too low...coupled with the original main rail issue.....I just looked at it incorrectly.  And that, in of itself, is part of the problem.  Knowing better but allowing your own bias or laziness to get in the way.   I know, now, what pitfalls to avoid...since we cut our teeth on Glory of the Seas.  In these adventures, I expect you to be clear and honest...throw a rock at me, if need be, to get my attention, If you think something is out of place historically.   We can always discuss it....as we have done in the past.

Rob

2 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

It drives home the importance of the sage saying "Measure twice, cut once!"

Sometimes, stumbling across knew data, that was in plain sight counts as *measuring* twice.......

Rob

Rich..check this out....

11 minutes ago, Jared said:

I think you are all doing an important service to the hobby so I was I was happy to join NRG this week to support what you are all doing.   When one thinks about the many hours us modellers spend perfecting our models, it goes without saying that we want them to be as accurate as possible.

 

The state of my build is too advanced for me to redo the revealed bow corrections.  They would require a major effort and skills beyond where I think I am.  However I don't think anyone starting to build the model would have any real difficulty incorporating the plan changes through scratch building. 

Jared...I feel ya.  Once we have built a significant part of our vessel...to tear it all out is a gut wrenching notion.  I crossed that same threshold myself....but because I was part of a group trying to realize the true structures of a McKay clipper....I was compelled to make the untimely correction....if I had any hope of staying the course of producing the most accurate McKay vessel thus far.   It just had to be done...and it surely wasn't beyond my ability.

It became a matter of the will.

24 minutes ago, Jared said:

Unfortunately that is not so easy.  Many (perhaps most) craftsman kit builders come from very different non-nautical backgrounds and believe when spending a fair bit on money on our kits that they are historically correct.   When I bought my Flying Fish kit in 2006, I had just completed the CW Morgan whaler by Artesinia Latina.  Half way through that build I learned the model was very inaccurate and I used scratch building to fix as much as I could.  For my next build I wanted a kit with quality historically correct plans and was attracted to the Model Shipways Flying Fish based on positive comments at the time about the accuracy of the Langford plans that were part of the kit.

Indeed, and that is the plight of so many.  They are told....but that is usually by someone who doesn't know themselves.  No Criticism is intended.....we are telling people now...when we come across them.

The ultimate desire is to get manufacturers to make the changes....so as not to lead builders astray.  That is the hardest task at hand.

Rob

2 hours ago, Jared said:

This month has been a real eye opener for me on the many inaccuracies in the plans of the entire bow section of the Flying Fish that have recently and not so recently come to light.  For the benefit of future readers, some of this is discussed here, some in the FF build log of @Rick310 and some in the completed FF build log of @gak1965.  Thanks @ClipperFan, @rwiederrich and @Vladimir_Wairoa for sharing your discoveries.

We do not wish for any builder of these kits to feel belittled or criticized in any way.  These discoveries came to Rich and myself many years ago and we were just as surprised as many of these kit builders are, when we discovered them.  But as you say,.....we wish to help and correct these issues for others who are making this journey.    Rich is creating a plan to make these revelations known to the general modeling public and to manufacturers of said kits.

But currently....all we can do is intercept builders as they build their models and if possible, reveal our findings, so they can self correct their own models.

Rob

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

I cannot exaggerate how appalled I am at the complete irresponsibility of these plan designers. It just handicaps modelers desiring to create beautiful replicas. I already see another exposé for Nautical Research Journal as an overview of all these inaccuracies in order to offer correctly accurate details. 

I all fairness.  Modelers who undergo one of these kits....are putting great trust in the research the model designers have done.  The designers are putting a great amount of trust in the hopes that the modelers are not historians and will not be aware their kits are full of inaccuracies.    Buyer beware....or in this case modeler.

It's really an easy fix for modelers....but it requires foreknowledge.  Its easy for manufacturers....it only takes a little retooling and redrawing.   Accuracy requires effort.

Rob