rcweir

I like your jig. I'm going to need something like that, too and it helps a lot to have these photos. Bob

In the pictures below you can see the two frames glued up on the keel. The keel was laser etched to help with alignment, and I was careful during the glue up to ensure the frames were perpendicular to the keel and level. When the glue dried I flipped the assembly over and ran the spider test again - i.e. made sure that all four futtocks were touching the glass. Then I glued in all of the other floor timbers. The kit comes with four spacing "combs" that are used to ensure that frames are spaced exactly right. With the combs, which can be used at any convenient point along the frames, installing the remaining floor timbers is a simple task. That brings this log up to date with the state of my build. I hope I get some time on it this weekend, but it's not looking too promising at the moment. Thanks for looking! Bob

After assembling the keel and stand, the next step is to assemble the floor timbers and lower futtocks for the forward and after frames. This is a critical step: the shape of the rest of the hull depends on the accuracy with which these two assemblies are made. The kit supplies a printed section of the hull and the instructions say to lay the three parts over their locations on the drawing, and glue it all up. There are no other assembly aids to ensure the positions are correct. To do this, I started with a piece of tempered glass to have a dead flat, perfectly smooth working surface. I taped the printed section onto the glass and then a sheet of mylar on top of it. The floor timber was stuck to the mylar with double-sided tape over its location on the drawing. On top of that timber I laid the two first futtocks and then carefully checked (with a small square) that each was in the right position over the drawing. Then I stuck a number of wood blocks to the mylar at strategic points to make a jig that would hold the three frame pieces in place during glue up and - most importantly - to ensure that the second assembly was identical to the first. After both frame sections were glued up, I temporarily clamped them to the keel and turned the structure upside down on the glass: the tops of all four futtocks touched the glass and there was no wobble at all. Comparing the two assemblies front to front showed that, within my ability to measure, they were identical. But, when I compared them front to back there was about 1-½ mm difference at the turn of the bilge. I thought about that for a while, but decided that it probably doesn't matter if the two sides differ slightly - the two sides are going to be constructed quite differently anyhow since one side is planked and the other just open frames. The deck beams, of course, might have a different opinion - we'll see. Bob

Chuck, you're at about the same place where I am. It may be too late for me to post my update today - work has kind of elbowed the model off to the sidelines for a bit. But I will get it in soon. Bob

Thanks, Chuck, for that suggestion. I hadn't thought of dye, and my past experience with dye is very limited. But it might be just the thing. I'll look into it immediately, before I take an irrevocable steps. I'm not very far along; I have been working on a post bringing things up to date which I will try to get in today. I'd love to see some pics of your model. Bob

While I was waiting for the kit to arrive, I spent time making some choices for my build. I quickly decided that it would be stained, but basswood can be blotchy and I didn't want that. Plus, I needed to pick a specific color. For a large scale like 1:50, treenails are certainly called for, so I had to decide about how to do them too (as well as bolts). These are my stain samples. The upper topmost is cabela boxwood, then Alaska yellow cedar, and basswood is the widest piece. (At the time, I was still considering the possibility of milling my own planks rather than using the kit-supplied basswood.) All samples were sanded (a little haphazardly) and then given a wash coat of 1/2 lb cut shellac. The lower half of each has a coat of satin WOP, and then each vertical panel has one of the stains that I was testing. After a lot of ruminating, I choose the bottom right: Minwax Golden Oak on top of a coat of WOP. The WOP makes the stain more of a glaze, which ought to minimize blotching, assuming I do a decent job of preparation. I intend this to define how I do all of the staining: sand to 320 before installation, wash coat of 1/2 lb shellac, then glue up. When I'm ready for the top coat, the WOP goes on followed by the stain. I'd do the poly before installation, too, but I'm afraid of compromising the glue joints. Next, I had to decide about treenails (which I have no prior experience with). The two questions were (a) size and (b) material. I had no desire to make them with a drawplate, so the material question quickly boiled down to a choice between bamboo and birch toothpicks. I tried both, and birch was an easy winner - the cell size of end grain bamboo is just too large to suit me. I did make a little sample using black poly fishing line, too, but that didn't go well - I don't know how to get it truly flush with the wood surface. I'm happy with birch - good birch toothpicks are easy to find, adapt to any size hole I want to use, take my finish well, and they're quite easy to install in volume. For size, I tried .8, .9 and 1.0mm, and I think I'll go with .8, at least for the interior planking. For bolts, I hoped to find little nails that were suitable, but all I could find were more than 2mm at the head, and I wanted something more like 1.5, max. What I've chosen, then, is to use solid 14 gauge copper house wire, which is about 1.6mm. You can see three of them, uncolored, near the middle of the top image above this note. I'll color them black for the model, of course. The other big consideration I had to resolve before starting was how to make the keel, because that impacts how the garboard strakes look. The kit provides for a two part keel made from two 4mm pieces of wood, with the rabbet formed at the junction of the two pieces. The middle image above is from the instructions. I think the angle between the garboard strake and the next plank to it is much too steep. The top image is an illustration from Witsen, where the angle between the planks is much shallower and that's the look I want for my model. So, what I did was to plane the top kit-supplied keel board to 3mm and replace the bottom keel piece with my own 5mm board. Thus, the finished keel size hasn't changed but the rabbet is, effectively about 1-1/2 mm higher. The bottom photo shows my keel (upside down) with a sample garboard strake temporarily positioned. About the only thing I'm not totally happy about with my change is that I wish my rabbet was more triangular in section. But in all other respects I think this change is going to be successful. That's all for now. Progress from now on will be pretty slow, I'm afraid. I still have a day job, and even without that excuse my progress is not speedy.

Rats, I put this in the wrong section. Which makes me cross, of course! I hope a friendly admin can move it to the 1501-1750 kit section!

This is a new kit by Kolderstok, a Dutch company that specializes in a category especially appealing to me: 17th Dutch vessels. "Pinas" is a ship type, and the prime reference for modelers is a lengthy treatise on Dutch shipbuilding practices, written in 1671 by Nicolaes Witsen, in which he uses the pinas as his example for all aspects of construction. Fortunately, Ab Hoving has given us a new version of Witsen, organized coherently, heavily annotated, and in English, in his Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age, College Station: Texas A&M Press, 2012. This model was designed by Matthias Noback (it's the first Kolderstok kit not designed by Hans van Nieuwkoop), and you can find a blog of his design effort elsewhere on the web. Additionally, while there are no other build logs for this kit on MSW yet, there are a few others out there which have been a great help to me (and thank goodness for Google translate!) My kit arrived on 12 April, in good order, after a lengthy journey through the Dutch and US postal systems. It was carefully packed, and everything on the inventory list was in the box, and in excellent condition. All of the wood, except for the dowels, is basswood. That includes all the laser cut sheets - there is no plywood. The accessories appear to me to be all high quality - the blocks look great and the brass cannon are beautiful. Along with the kit I ordered a full set of Kolderstok paints. I didn't get the premium "luxury rope" rigging line, figuring that my existing stash of line would cover my needs. That's all for this post. The next one might also happen today, and will cover some pre-build decisions and samples.

Interesting looking chisel. Is it Japanese?

I share the enthusiasm, in spades! Toni's half hull project came at a perfect time for me and this project does, too. I can hardly wait.

I've just finished reading Learmont's Master in Sail, and since I didn't find any mention of Capt. Learmont on MSW, I thought it was worth adding a note about his book. It's an autobiography of a Scottish merchant captain who sailed deep sea ships from 1887-1910. Learmont is a no-nonsense writer, but his accounts of his voyages are rivetting. I think anyone who's read and enjoyed The Last Grain Race or Two Years Before the Mast will find Learmont's book is a great companion to them. His details of navigation, sailing, handling cargos and owners, all are fascinating. My edition is, I think, the first one dated 1950 and published by Percival Marshall. It's not illustrated, but the book is easily findable on bookfinder.com and some editions do have photos. I also note that Alan Villiers mentions Learmont in several places in The Way of a Ship. It's clear that Villiers thinks highly of Learmont, and one of his comments about how to be successful sailing around the Horn is almost a direct quote from Learmont. All in all, I found it a wonderful account.

Dunno. What you want, I think, is something that's dimensionally consistent in its reaction to the environment and is reasonable to sand to give a good gluing surface for your planks.

I'd use baltic birch plywood for the bulkheads and clear white pine for the hull planking and most everything else. I once made a 17' kayak, with 1/4" strips for the hull (red cedar & white pine) covered in plexiglass, and that project has some similarities to your hull. For the strongback longitudinal I carefully chose a long, straight, clear piece of structural grade Douglas fir. The strongback was the most expensive piece of wood in the project, but it ensured the resulting boat was straight.

I was taught to use 1/2 lb cut as a wash coat and sealer. It raises the hairs so they can be lightly sanded off, and it's thin enough that you can use any topcoat over it.

I have a copy of McKee and he says 9 inches. He terms it chasing, where a sloping rabbet is cut into the top edge of the strake below the one being installed. At this point he's talking specifically about his 10' example boat. I haven't found anywhere that he gives more general guidance on chasing, though he does mention that there are other ways than a sloping rabbet to get the plank end down so it can fit into the stem or stern rabbet. I don't think I have the terminology completely figured out, but the 9" measurement is definite for his 10' boat. The McKee is a pretty neat little publication. It includes a card half-hull model of his 10' example boat.

Navy coffee, on the other hand, was for connoisseurs! We made port visits in Australia a few many years ago and a cup of the wardroom java was a must-have for visitors. (I highly recommend choosing a service where you can take your diningroom and bedroom on every trip.)

Well, there's a silver lining: I now know about Alexandros Models and have just made an order - perfect gifts for history enthusiasts!

Ditto on the mini-saw recommendation - I have long wanted a tiny keyhole-type saw like this one! Glenn, your progress on the model is impressive! It's part of my daily routine to check how the Indy models are progressing - they're quite an inspiration to me. The opportunity to watch four different, skillful modelers work their ways through the same build, in parallel is unique. Thanks for sharing!

Thanks Mark, That's very helpful. I'm moving ahead on the "round above" principle. I'm also continuing to study those photos of Mayflower II's mast; there are subtleties in the transitions from round to flatish to round and back to flat that my eyes couldn't pick out so easily, initially. I don't think it will make any difference in what I produce in the model, but it's still very interesting. Bob

I have finally started on the rigging of my (Model Shipways) Mayflower, and this weekend's task is to start working on the mastheads, i.e. the area from the hounds to the cap. I've got three reputable authorities to look at for how to do it and I'd appreciate some opinions as to which is preferred. The first example is how the kit instructions show that area. As you can see below, Chuck (our Chuck Passaro is the kit designer), has flats for the cheeks and then a tenon for the cap. Otherwise the mast is round. This is a straightforward way of dealing with a mast that started out as a round dowel. The next photo is from Brian Lavery's AOS on the Susan Constant, a ship 2/3 the tonnage of Mayflower, but nearly identical dates. (And note that Lavery is creating his design 30 years after Baker's Mayflower II.) Lavery's mastheads are square from the hounds to the tippity top. Looks entirely sensible to me, but the practical problem is that the sides of the square area are about the same width as the mast diameter and I don't have the meat on my dowels to do this. So I'd have to build it up. For that reason, I don't think I'll do it the Lavery way. The third example is from the real Mayflower II. Here's one of the mastheads on the pier during its recent major overhaul. (I wish I'd taken measurements with these pics.) It looks like the flat area for the cheeks and trestletree is slightly less than the diameter of the mast. Above that the mast is round again, and is finished with a tenon for the cap. I think this construction is basically the same Chuck's, except that he's simplified the details a bit for the kit builder. I think I'm going to do something as close to the Mayflower II form as I can. But, regardless of what I do for this model, I'd like to know whether one or the other is more correct. And I'd also like to know how others tackle the problem of large square sections on masts that start out as kit dowels.

FWIW, here is some work laminating HMS Victory's planking in the summer of '71.

I don't know if there's an official way to ask that question, but I'd consider these things: 1. Post the question in the ModelWarships.com forum in the USS Nimitz topic area, http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=4705. 2. Search on the internet for photos of the Nimitz in the dates you think she might have been on the transit. 3. Ditto, if you know some of her stops along the way, look for press coverage of the visit: the escorts might happen to show up. 4. Write a letter or send email to the PAO (Public Affairs Officer) on the Nimitz. It's possible that there are reasonably convenient records they could check (they probably won't be able or willing to root through the deck logs). 5. Look through this: https://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cvn68-86/001.htm It appears to be her cruise book for the period that includes the move.

The photography, too, is superb. It will be fun following this one.

What a great project! I've gotten my Speedwell books and will join the group project as soon as it appears, even if I have to have two projects going at the same time. I love the large scale and the size of the finished model (though I probably won't rig mine). A question about finish: if the frames are going to be exposed, shouldn't poly (or whatever) be going on the frame sides as they're assembled?

In William Baker's The New Mayflower Her Design and Construction, Barre Gazette, 1958, he talks at length about how he arrived at his design. It looks to me that he's done a thorough job researching what he ultimately produced and he gives sources for anyone who wants to follow in his steps. I don't recall that he discussed the possibility that the ship wasn't built in England. (But he does consider the possibility it was clinker-built!) I'll also mention that the book includes a very nice set of plans for his conception of the original Mayflower: the plans have none of Mayflower II's concessions for the modern era. And besides the plans, the book contains much specific detail that is useful for modelers.