AnobiumPunctatum

I have proclaimed the lower hull planking finished!  In the end I applied three coats of sanding sealer and one coat of flat finish.  This was sanded to 1200 grit.  The finish coat adds luster without shine and is a harder finish than the sanding sealer.  The upper planking will be finished with Watco's to match the rest of the Costello after the channels, moldings, etc. have been installed.  I repainted the wale and put her back in the cradle.  
 

 

 

 

 

Maury,
 
nice frameing. I am happy that you reposted your log.

@Mike
thanks for looking in. I use Autocad for the  drawings.
 
@Nils
the frames are perpendicular to the keel and have an angle to the waterline.
Have a look at the NMM drawings of Cheerful 1806, Racer 1809 or one of the 1818 cutters. All drawings show this frame arrangement.

@Mike
thanks for looking in. I use Autocad for the  drawings.
 
@Nils
the frames are perpendicular to the keel and have an angle to the waterline.
Have a look at the NMM drawings of Cheerful 1806, Racer 1809 or one of the 1818 cutters. All drawings show this frame arrangement.

@Mike
thanks for looking in. I use Autocad for the  drawings.
 
@Nils
the frames are perpendicular to the keel and have an angle to the waterline.
Have a look at the NMM drawings of Cheerful 1806, Racer 1809 or one of the 1818 cutters. All drawings show this frame arrangement.

Almost without exception (in English built ships) the frames are always at right angles to the keel. They are completely independent of the waterline. In some ships the keel is parallel to the waterline, so this is not apparent. In others, such as this cutter, the ship is designed with 'drag'; that is to say, the stern is much deeper in the water than the bow.

Hi Christian

I am delighted by your precise planning work, and analyses. I also struggle with varying informations on the RS14 "Stavanger" - i share your sorrows ...   What CAD do you use?   Regards Mike

The design of the parallel frames is finished. I tried to follow the original drawing as close as possible without one change.
 
If you have a closer look at the gun port position of the original drawing you will see a pencil note, which indicates that there was added a 5th deadeye, which is not common for cutters. I did not know any other cutter drawing with more than 4 deadeyes.
 

 
So I decided that I like to show this update of the original design - the Marshall drawing also shows 5 deadeyes. For this change I modified the gun port position and the top timber heads in this area.
 

 
My biggest problem during the design was, that the gun ports and top timber heads did not match the position of the double frames. I could not solve this problem with using another design, so I decided to shift the futtocks as I've seen in some contemporary drawings.
 
If you compare this design with the known design of the Aots-book (I don't like adding a scan to avoid problems with Copyright issues) you will see that this design is much more rugged. The gunports ar not put on top of the framing as Goodwin did.
 
I don't know but I hope that it's a little bit closer to the original framing. If you think that I can optimize the position of some frames, please let me know. Next I start with the fore cant frames.
 

Hello Christian,
 
your Cutter "Alert" Project is very inspiring and I follow with great interest
 
I have a question though,.......
the construction waterline (upper green line) in the enclosed Picture is not shown horizontal,   well that is not the Problem, but if it were horizontal, the Frames would not be perpentdicular to the waterline, so to say in the normal Floating Position of the ship.
 
Does this mean that the actual ship has all Frames at an angle to the waterline, whereby the Frames are rather perpendicular to the keel ?
The keel of course is at an angle, due to the deeper draft at the stern
Normaly I construct models with the Frames perpendicular to the waterline and regardless to the keel-line
 
Nils

Happy New Year
 
 
It's time for another short update. The design takes more time than expected. I notice that I don't have any experience in doing this. I reconstructed the square frames from station line H to station line 4 for both options.
 
I don't know which one could be right.
 
Both options have their advantages and disadvantages
 
Option 1:
+ The real double frames are more common than the design in option 2
+  The relationship of room and space is more common comparing with other (bigger) ships of that time
-  The width of the floor timber given through the two station lines for station 0 does not fit.
 
Option 2:
+  The width of the floor timber fits two the station lines at station 0.
+  The frame design allows a better ventilation between the frames
+  The frame design is very light which is positive for a fast sailing ship
-   The relationship of room and space is very uncommon
 

 
In my opinion the given historical dimensions for framing a cutter are not very helpful for a cutter of the Alert-Class
The shipbuilders repsoitory is from 1788 and Steel from 1805. There was a very important change in the armament of ships between the design of Alert and the two documents: the introduction of the carronades.
In the older repositories the cutters would not mentioned.
 
What do you think, which is the solution you would prefer?

Thanks very much Bob, Mark, Sjors, Dave, Jeff and Aldo, and also to all of the "likes".  It's been a while since my last post, but only because I was doing more testing, thinking, testing, thinking............
 
Completing the Double Frames
 
Okay, so I decided that I wasn’t entirely happy with my scarph joints, and also that I was over-thinking the Chocks.  Time to revisit methodologies (again).
 
I decided to try Mobbsie’s method of creating the scarph joints, by using a file and the top edge of a vice as a reference plane/stop.  Only problem was, I first had to go out and buy a new vice with a flat top surface on the jaws. The method is really simple.  Having cut roughly to shape on the scroll saw, simply line up the template pattern line with the top of the vice jaws and and file until you feel metal instead of wood.
 

 
Some of the frames require cutouts for gunports/sweeps etc, and these are cut into the frames prior to assembly.  To achieve this, I used a neat razor saw to make some initial cuts before removing the waste with a chisel, and then finishing using the file/vice method.
 

 

 
Time to re-think the Chocks, again……..
 
Here’s the latest method, and this really seems to work well.  First up, getting a good, neat butt join between adjacent futtocks is essential, along with scarph joints that meet evenly at the butt join.  This is achieved using the file/vice method and test fitting, filing, test fitting until satisfied. Once happy with the butt/scarph joints, I used double sided tape to hold the lower central futtock in place over the pattern, placed more double sided tape over the locations for the remaining futtocks, and then placed some glue on the mating face of the next futtock before placing it in position hard up against the first futtock, where it is held in place by the double sided tape until the glue dries.  This process is repeated with the remaining futtocks until the frame (minus chocks) is complete.
 

 
The chocks were then made by cutting a piece of stock to roughly the width of the chock space and then finessing with the Disc Sander until a neat fit in to the chock opening was achieved.  Note the “handles” on the inboard side of the chocks.
 

 
The chock ends were then shaped on the Disc Sander until a neat fit was obtained, at which point the chocks were glued in place.  Because of the neat fit, and the frames being held in place on the tape, no clamps were required. This had been problematic previously as clamps tended to throw everything out of alignment as they were tightened.  Once the glue had dried, the frames were removed from the templates, the chock “handles” trimmed close on the scroll saw, and then finished off on the spindle sander.  Here’s what a completed frame looks like, with almost invisible joints….
 

 
Once the method was worked out, completing the remaining double frames went very smoothly.  All five double frame pairs have now been completed.  Here are a few progress shots:
 

 

 

 
That's it for now.  Off to Sydney to visit family for a couple of days and then it's on with the single frames, which should be relatively easy (famous last words)......

Really nice progress, Lee.
Your build log is a big motivation, to work on the drawings for my build.

Really nice progress, Lee.
Your build log is a big motivation, to work on the drawings for my build.

I'm very happy to hear that Christian. Your work is also very helpful to me.
 
Lee

Really nice progress, Lee.
Your build log is a big motivation, to work on the drawings for my build.

So some more framing has been installed, 7 frames left.
 
Ben

Hi everyone,
 
Well, after a number of rejects, I finally made a master 32 pound cannon for casting. A few details. First, I decided to use the Sherline angle cutting device for the angled cuts, since the angle to the hind of the second reinforce is different from the angle ahead of the reinforce. I used some very handy angle gauges to set the device to the 1 degree and then 1 1/2 degree parts. This was infinitely easier than calculating the tangents of the angles,  and then trial and error setting the angles. The second photo shows setup using the 1 and 1/2 degree gauges.
 
I have a digital readout on my lathe, but this does not work on the angle device. So I had to count turns for distances. To facilitate this, I adapted an old Sherline hand wheel that can reset to 0, turning it down to fit the angle device. This helped enormously with incremental counts down the length of the cannon.
 
And then I drew up a recipe (fourth photo), converting actual scale lengths to numbers of full turns of the hand wheel plus numbers of increments in part of a turn. You can see this in the photo as, for example, 9T 38, which means nine full turns plus 38 increments. Each horizontal and then vertical cut is color coded the same so I could keep track of where I was.
 
Inspired by Michael Mott's machining, I used a center bit in the mill as seen in the first photo, for drilling the hole for the trunnion. This helped keep the hole accurately located while drilling into a curved surface (the trunnion is off center by half its diameter). It worked perfectly. Thanks, Michael!
 
I intend to cast these, so the muzzle mouth has a dowel on it, onto which I will attach a funnel head for making the mold.
 
At last, I can think about making molds!
 
All for now,
 
Mark

The design of the parallel frames is finished. I tried to follow the original drawing as close as possible without one change.
 
If you have a closer look at the gun port position of the original drawing you will see a pencil note, which indicates that there was added a 5th deadeye, which is not common for cutters. I did not know any other cutter drawing with more than 4 deadeyes.
 

 
So I decided that I like to show this update of the original design - the Marshall drawing also shows 5 deadeyes. For this change I modified the gun port position and the top timber heads in this area.
 

 
My biggest problem during the design was, that the gun ports and top timber heads did not match the position of the double frames. I could not solve this problem with using another design, so I decided to shift the futtocks as I've seen in some contemporary drawings.
 
If you compare this design with the known design of the Aots-book (I don't like adding a scan to avoid problems with Copyright issues) you will see that this design is much more rugged. The gunports ar not put on top of the framing as Goodwin did.
 
I don't know but I hope that it's a little bit closer to the original framing. If you think that I can optimize the position of some frames, please let me know. Next I start with the fore cant frames.
 

The design of the parallel frames is finished. I tried to follow the original drawing as close as possible without one change.
 
If you have a closer look at the gun port position of the original drawing you will see a pencil note, which indicates that there was added a 5th deadeye, which is not common for cutters. I did not know any other cutter drawing with more than 4 deadeyes.
 

 
So I decided that I like to show this update of the original design - the Marshall drawing also shows 5 deadeyes. For this change I modified the gun port position and the top timber heads in this area.
 

 
My biggest problem during the design was, that the gun ports and top timber heads did not match the position of the double frames. I could not solve this problem with using another design, so I decided to shift the futtocks as I've seen in some contemporary drawings.
 
If you compare this design with the known design of the Aots-book (I don't like adding a scan to avoid problems with Copyright issues) you will see that this design is much more rugged. The gunports ar not put on top of the framing as Goodwin did.
 
I don't know but I hope that it's a little bit closer to the original framing. If you think that I can optimize the position of some frames, please let me know. Next I start with the fore cant frames.
 

The design of the parallel frames is finished. I tried to follow the original drawing as close as possible without one change.
 
If you have a closer look at the gun port position of the original drawing you will see a pencil note, which indicates that there was added a 5th deadeye, which is not common for cutters. I did not know any other cutter drawing with more than 4 deadeyes.
 

 
So I decided that I like to show this update of the original design - the Marshall drawing also shows 5 deadeyes. For this change I modified the gun port position and the top timber heads in this area.
 

 
My biggest problem during the design was, that the gun ports and top timber heads did not match the position of the double frames. I could not solve this problem with using another design, so I decided to shift the futtocks as I've seen in some contemporary drawings.
 
If you compare this design with the known design of the Aots-book (I don't like adding a scan to avoid problems with Copyright issues) you will see that this design is much more rugged. The gunports ar not put on top of the framing as Goodwin did.
 
I don't know but I hope that it's a little bit closer to the original framing. If you think that I can optimize the position of some frames, please let me know. Next I start with the fore cant frames.
 

The design of the parallel frames is finished. I tried to follow the original drawing as close as possible without one change.
 
If you have a closer look at the gun port position of the original drawing you will see a pencil note, which indicates that there was added a 5th deadeye, which is not common for cutters. I did not know any other cutter drawing with more than 4 deadeyes.
 

 
So I decided that I like to show this update of the original design - the Marshall drawing also shows 5 deadeyes. For this change I modified the gun port position and the top timber heads in this area.
 

 
My biggest problem during the design was, that the gun ports and top timber heads did not match the position of the double frames. I could not solve this problem with using another design, so I decided to shift the futtocks as I've seen in some contemporary drawings.
 
If you compare this design with the known design of the Aots-book (I don't like adding a scan to avoid problems with Copyright issues) you will see that this design is much more rugged. The gunports ar not put on top of the framing as Goodwin did.
 
I don't know but I hope that it's a little bit closer to the original framing. If you think that I can optimize the position of some frames, please let me know. Next I start with the fore cant frames.
 

The design of the parallel frames is finished. I tried to follow the original drawing as close as possible without one change.
 
If you have a closer look at the gun port position of the original drawing you will see a pencil note, which indicates that there was added a 5th deadeye, which is not common for cutters. I did not know any other cutter drawing with more than 4 deadeyes.
 

 
So I decided that I like to show this update of the original design - the Marshall drawing also shows 5 deadeyes. For this change I modified the gun port position and the top timber heads in this area.
 

 
My biggest problem during the design was, that the gun ports and top timber heads did not match the position of the double frames. I could not solve this problem with using another design, so I decided to shift the futtocks as I've seen in some contemporary drawings.
 
If you compare this design with the known design of the Aots-book (I don't like adding a scan to avoid problems with Copyright issues) you will see that this design is much more rugged. The gunports ar not put on top of the framing as Goodwin did.
 
I don't know but I hope that it's a little bit closer to the original framing. If you think that I can optimize the position of some frames, please let me know. Next I start with the fore cant frames.
 

Thanks all for your help.
 
@Druxey.
I know the drawing. Dbut the drawing does not really help. Has the keel only a wing transom, or how is this part of the ship designed? How will the planks of the lower stern be fitted to the fashion piece?

The design of the parallel frames is finished. I tried to follow the original drawing as close as possible without one change.
 
If you have a closer look at the gun port position of the original drawing you will see a pencil note, which indicates that there was added a 5th deadeye, which is not common for cutters. I did not know any other cutter drawing with more than 4 deadeyes.
 

 
So I decided that I like to show this update of the original design - the Marshall drawing also shows 5 deadeyes. For this change I modified the gun port position and the top timber heads in this area.
 

 
My biggest problem during the design was, that the gun ports and top timber heads did not match the position of the double frames. I could not solve this problem with using another design, so I decided to shift the futtocks as I've seen in some contemporary drawings.
 
If you compare this design with the known design of the Aots-book (I don't like adding a scan to avoid problems with Copyright issues) you will see that this design is much more rugged. The gunports ar not put on top of the framing as Goodwin did.
 
I don't know but I hope that it's a little bit closer to the original framing. If you think that I can optimize the position of some frames, please let me know. Next I start with the fore cant frames.
 

Thanks very much for your reply, Druxey. I will follow your advice and finish option 1. You confirmed what my gut instinct said.