stuglo

Square frames #10to-#6 #10-straightforward Just remember that floor is aft and maintain position to the horizontal line as marked on the breadth plan. #9-spacers and fore with timberhead As these are “simpler” I made them with less “spare” and used as a more accurate guide to fairing. Double check that the frames are “vertical”-90deg to the building board. #8- Aft with timberhead and forward shift. Forgot to mill mortises and only noticed after fitting the next set of frames- maybe for the best and decide to leave to later. #7 - a bend pair (with spacers) The frame spacing on the breadth plan and framing plan needs to accommodate this spacing as well as the port gap between aft#8 and fore#7. I narrow spacers to 2mm Perhaps if I had made the frames with diminishing thickness, this would be less of a problem. (If and when I repeat this build, this is what I will do) #6- the aft must accommodate the sweep port. It has a shift foreward low at 1st futtock. Again, spacing on keel needs reassessing with each placement. Some delay since last post -work and family restrict building time-conflict of priorities!! I post a picture of a younger member of the family- dressed up as “Woody” From Toy Story. The name justifies the connection to the hobby

I have the book- it is lacking full plans, breadth, profile, frame etc.

Has anyone a set of HMS Fubbs (Royal yacht) for sale?

# J Decided to go ahead and “shift” so gap between frames is more balanced. I think it looks better and more realistic. Read ahead on vol2 TFFM - realised I must double estimated for time to completion.

NB Just noticed that #g aft is seated 1.5mm too high.

Fairing frames #G to #L I’m having more trouble with these than the numbered aft frames. Is it my DYSLEXIA? With the frames viewed as a group, it is obvious that J fore too thin-removed and remade. The group still looks mal-aligned after some initial sanding. It appears that the depth of the seating notch are not accurate enough , so the curves are out. Decided to remove all, as the problem seems to start with #L. Fortunately they are glued to the keel with PVA -alcohol does the job. Each frame rechecked against the plans Remake #k and #L (it was mistakenly misplaced with #H and overly faired) Second futtock and port heights double checked. Fairing inside is difficult and the curves require various techniques, and less opportunity to use electrical tools. Reduced tendency for upper spacers to separate by using a cut rubber band to brace them. I am leaving final faring and finish until all frames are in place. *** Unhappy with the appearance of frames fore and aft of the sweep port. The distance between #J and #H is 4.24mm. This means the space between the pair of J’s is narrowed to 1.5mm.The space after is fixed as it is a bend pair.It looks weird. I’m thinking of making #J aft with a forward shift. Opinions and advice please.

? Where did you obtain them

Thanks for you interest. The sweep ports as shown appear rectangular, not square. Is this possible or likely? If only square acceptable, I have 2 options:- I. the 8ins as mentioned in TFFM 2. smaller i.e. my width squared. The problem with the 8 ins. means spacing between other frames will be narrowed significantly. The other "varient" is the difference in height of port openings- while the width seems similar-? artifact or real.

#G Fore of pair -scarph joint-will be shortened to be under the port. Aft-with toptimber-also shifted foreward and with motises for sill foreward and mortises for sweep ports aft. Not worked on ship for a couple of days and when rechecking height of sills, some discrepancy between port and starboard is noted. Frames J and H tilted and reset Further confusion. On my (not so clear) framing plan, there seems to be a variation in size of ports (by height) and the sweep ports do not measure as square-3.5mmwide and 4.2 high. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP AND CLARIFY THIS.

If I remember correctly, the work foreman wore a brown "lab" coat and hat- flat cap or bowler to differentiate himself from the simple worker

# J square frames. Reviewing Kevin Kenny’s video, using the 5 min. Epoxy for its greater strength, non-adhesive clear paper (greaseproof) to reduce mess and pining the parts to the board through the wood, for fixation while assembling and drying. I’ve had issues with movement and breakages despite trying to ensure a good fit at the joints. Can I blame the weather ?- from winter to spring and back again every few days-10c+rain then 25c+. #H and #J are “connected” so may assemble off keel first. #J- no timberheads. 2nd futtock height 8.7mm There are mortises on aft aspect of aft rib of the pair-for the sweep port sills. The given measurements in TFFM (scale metric) -2mm thick sills forming a port of 4.24mm square. My framing plans have blurred lines, but these ports look rectangular. Until now have postponed making these mortises, having tried and failed on practice pieces. To make this after attaching the frames looked even more difficult. I milled the mortise calculating the height of the lower edge from the sheer plan-10.4mm from base. Although square, I think I can fake the “angle” appearance later. I don’t know if intentional, but the 5in horizontal line on frame plan is the same distance from the seat as my keel is high (0.95mm) Therefore by putting the frame on its plan, it was easily marked. # H Another bend pair - spacers separating the pair as before. The fore aspect has the matching mortises for the sweep ports. The aft aspect of same frame has a mortise for a port-starting at same height but allowing for sill of thickness of 2.65mm (marked by placing on #J frame plan) The height of the port is 14.1mm with an upper mortise of 6.3mm. Assembling these frames on the keel, the frames are too aft on the keel. Revised my decision, and recut sills to form a sweep port width of 3.5mm (equivalent to 6.6in not the 8in) The aft of #H is still 2mm aft of its line. Need to compensate, The picture is pre-fairing and shows excessive “spare” The bird is an Egyptian Goose and chicks seen on walk at local pond yesterday.

#L-fore square frame Moving to the front of the ship, the FLOOR is now FORE and the aft has the chock. This fore has a forward facing dog leg. The gap between its companion is for a sill-thus 15.11mm. Firstly, as for aft frames,plot 2nd futtock height on the sheer plan.#L=9.2mm. This fore part also has the timberhead. Lookin at my framing plan, it seems that the start of the dog leg is lower -as are the others not yet built. The card pattern seemed OK but when I made the actual piece, there was a misalignment with the fore cants. Rechecking, these seemed to be 1 or 2 mm out.I think that when the spacers separated when fairing, I stuck them back as individuals to its neighbour without checking the whole run. With a mdf profile, I unglued and re-stuck in the corrected position. It is important to ensure that the angle of the cants remains at 90deg vertical while following the angle to the keel. Some of mine needed improvement -I altered the thickness of some of the spacers as required. The inner aspect of the #L was now slightly too narrow, so I remade it with more spare than usual. Allowance for angle of cant means that the seat of #L is less than the 15.1mm distance of the sill .Used a sizing block. #K frame Referred to as a frame bend- separated by a number of spacers- as #13-above and below the joint lines. The fore of the pair has the timberhead. The aft sits on a wider part of the keel and needs to be adapted as not shown on the plan. The “legs” astride the keel are shorter so for extra stability I put a slightly thicker (0.8mm) bamboo trunnel at this stage. The futtock head height is 8.9mm as I measured it.

A modern light box. (for copying plans-especially reversed or flip). Only $20 incl. delivery to door in 12 days (Banggood site) It actually works well, and is easier to use than my home-made effort.

Advice appreciated

Fairing: Should be straight forward,using a cutout of the foremost frame as a guide. Extra strength with the cross spells and a supporting hand did not prevent a complete break through a couple chocks. Where possible, as a contrast, the chocks were cut cross grain. These were a point of weakness and a mistake. Of course I have been heavy handed with the 80 or 100 sandpaper. I had to remove the squares and remake the chocks. Also the spacers at the top of the futtocks kept separating- should have reinforced with trunnels. When building from scratch, there is much to think about. Even with the wonderful TFFM, something , even basics, is forgotten. I’m often learning something new, but forgetting something old-is this intellectual equilibrium or senility?

You continue to inspire

No, I was wrong. With the fairing, the port half was angled incorrectly at the floor. Part removed and remade. Thanks again

I rechecked- it appears that it is cut "on line" of plan, and its neighbour has extra meat. This emphasizes the advantage of fairing at stages, so faults and their repair/replacement can be made. I THANK YOU AND OTHERS FOR CARING AND CONTRIBUTING

#12 square frame The aft one of the pair is again “cast forward”by 1.06mm-a dogleg that will form an upright for a port. This means that the upper futtock an extra 1.06mm thick.-total 6.36mm. The frame also has a timberhead. Make note of height of sill as the cast must end below this.(11.3cm) Again postponed making the sill mortise-although easier off model, measurement is too critical. I started the shift 10mm above the futtock head.The mill was used to remove the necessary wood and a transition slope ,sanded. Before fixing in place,a critical problem (for me at least) needed to be solved. The position of frames #12 and #11 are determined by the width of the port opening-the fore #11 forms the second port frame. This is given in TFFM as 15.1mm-This will mean the frames will need to be somewhat crowded- the usual spacing not working. My framing pattern does show use of narrower timbers, and less gaps, but also a port opening of 16.3mm. The other ports are however 15.1mm, so I decided for symmetry and same thickness timbers. Fore #12 and aft #11 will be short, supporting the sill, and a narrow gap between them. Additionally, the #11 pair are again separated by spacers. Here I found another problem. The rising wood finishes between the pair.I assumed a faint vertical line marked the spot on my sheer pattern.This appears to be too short. There is a difference in width and I decided to simply narrow the notch of the aft frame. (If this leads to a problem later on please let me know.) Also, to ensure my measuring of port gap was correct, I glued together the #11 pair with their spacers, off the model, and then confirmed my estimate and only then, glued the pair to their seats on the keel.

I purchased them from seawatch- post from USA is expensive but considering overall cost for a POF scratch- worth every penny

#13 square frames. Similar to #14 but with a narrower gap with separation pieces at right angles between the ribs. The gap is 2.3mm, the pieces 3.71wide. The are set above (3.71) and below(4.7)joint line,with an extra one further up the 2 futtock at14.4mm After filing the angle and depth of the “seat”, checking the height of the futtock head against the line previously drawn on the sheer plan. The separation pieces were glued to the (fore aspect) of aft rib, whose seat was then glued to the deadwood. Remember that the fore piece has the extra height -timberhead. The chocks are made with a large “tail” for ease of handling. (later removed by spindle sander before fixing the rib to its place. Filing seat, checking height and symmetry-The front of the seat just covers the end of the deadwood step. Small dabs of glue on spacers (extra one at level of deadwood NOT glued to either side). Several clamps on each side of the pair of ribs to ensure good fit. Looks good- very satisfying

changes or extras changes and extras :-

I have found it very useful, but recommend some modification and additions. The parallel keel holder obscures a breadthplan that often needs fixing to board, and makes use of alignment tools difficult. I made 3 rectangular blanks from the excess mdf. The markings are broad, but these are easily supplemented. There could be vertical lines -especially midlines- on the upright squaring board but a plan or grid is easily attached. The squaring board cannot approach stem or stern if their holders are in place. I made an additional board with feet outside the main horizontal board itself. Overall it is very useful and flexible , and removes need to construct a new building board with each model. The price is fair and quality of finish good

Square frames. If not the heart and soul, then the “body” of the fully framed ship. The drawings become simple when understood! Each pattern shares a pair of frames- one side represents the fore and the other, the aft. The secret is to keep these separate by overdrawing so as not to get lost. Remembering that at amidships, the direction is reversed. Starting with aft set- the aft one of the pair is “floored”- the joint above the keel. The fore has a chock (separating the two wings) that sits on the keel. This may be obvious to some but I needed a mental effort to implant this in my brain. Cut out card pattern to see if fits to aft cants-OK It is suggested that the futtocks can be graded in width: 5.3mm,5.04mmand 4.77mm -instead of all one size. The 14 aft is relatively thin so I decided for this one to make a scarf joint rather than a chock. I don’t know if mixing was “allowed”-but it's my model! Made the first like this (14 aft) and made the mistake of tapering to blend the joint widths- ended up with too thin a timbertop. Asked advice on forum (thank you) and tried the step method-step is only 0.13mm either side. Next attempt-forgot my intentions and layed out all parts on the 5.3 blank! Used milling to reduce and realised that difference to my eye was minimal .Checked my framing plan (rather blurred) -the frames vary in width side to side but barely noticeable between futtocks. I’m sticking to uniformity- that is the 5.3 blanks. Stick the cutouts to another copy of the plan, with generous extra width to allow matching with the neighbouring aft cant. Clamp (watch for slippage) and attach a stabilizing bar across top and mark its centre point. Reference is made to a Greek letter designating the wood to be removed where the bridge of the 2 halves of the frame sit on the sling deadwood. I was lost, so I used a coarse file angled by eye and by trial and error made a rough fit so it could sit at a right angle to the board, and parallel to the cants. The angle of the feet where it sits on the curved bearding line is sanded- but feet left long for present. The height that frame sits is determined by the height of 2nd futtock head. This has to be plotted, as it is not shown on the plans. TFFM explains how -in straightforward fashion, transferring points from aft body plan to the sheer plan. This is compared to actual height .Mine comes out at measured 9.35mm. Perhaps by good luck, #14 needs no further attention and can be glued into place, using the upright board of the building slip to check alignment and hold in place. #14 fore: The partner with a chock (shaped like short-handled pliers) forming a base between a pair of “wings” each with lower and upper futtocks(1 and2). As these parts are thicker, I used chocks instead of scarf joints. The space between the aft and fore frames measures approx. 3.15 mm on my framing plan. Small spacer laid on deadwood to site the fore piece. The “seat” on the deadwood was fashioned as before, the feet trimmed, and spacers glued to top of futtocks. The piece glued to the deadwood with the “dry” spacer temporarily left in place. Last picture is new measure/marker-very useful

My framing plan is printed up from the digital copy-Not crystal clear. Another casualty of covid