AnobiumPunctatum

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.

Hello everyone  
Below, I will continue with my introduction to the subject.   ... A short historical summary about the RS14 you will find in an article of the classic boot magazine, may 2012, Page 29-38: "Stavanger's thousand-mile farewell tour" by Nic Compton (see link).
 
http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1wcz6/ClassicBoatMay2012/resources/3.htm

For my part, the research and the creation of my own drawings about RS14 lasted months and even today still not completed. This investment was necessary, so that I could be trusted with "Stavanger". To do this, the Book Colin Archer and seaworthy double-ender by John Leather was one of my main sources.   Regards Mike   Below: - Book cover. - Original drawings of the Svolvear class 1901 (RS14 was the third boat of this series). - Some of my studies of RS14          

I agree with Druxey on option 1.
 
Ed

NEW YEAR’S UPDATE
 
It has been a busy year for my project, though, unfortunately, much of my work  hasn't translated into recent posts on Model Ship World. As most of you know, my project is really two in one: to create the first accurate scale model of HMS Terror as she appeared in 1845, and to produce the first accurate plans of the ship in her 1845 configuration. I spent much of the year on the latter, having decided early in the year to extend my plans to all decks and fittings of the ship. I completed a significant amount of this work, including the lower deck plans and details of accommodations (I’ve produced much more than has appeared here), and I am nearing completion of plans for the orlop deck and hold, as well as various cross sections. As always, creating these plans is not as simple as tracing the original Terror/Erebus plans, as each requires significant historical research to fill in the many missing gaps. 

The discovery of HMS Erebus by Parks Canada also had a significant impact on my project. My blog was inundated with thousands of views and I received many dozens of emails from interested readers, researchers, and other enthusiasts. Many came during the exciting few weeks between the time the ship was discovered and when it was eventually identified. I enjoyed these exchanges immensely and they led to a blog post about the structural differences between the ships, which received a very positive response from many readers. 

The discovery also led to several requests for consultation/information/plans from researchers involved in various media projects. I’m very excited by some of these new projects and while I can’t disclose them all yet, I’m sincerely gratified that my work will appear in formats other than my blog and posts on MSW. One of these has already come out; Canadian Geographic Magazine requested a modified version of my plans showing the most important ship systems. They did not utilize the entire plan, which included a cross section, so I have provided the entire image above. 

Despite all of this additional work, I haven’t forgotten about my model, and I’ve been working slowly away at it when I can find a chance. Below I outline my progress to date: 
 

Each scarph on the keel had 8 copper bolts, 1 and 1/8 inches in diameter (consistent with much larger 36 and
74 gun vessels). I simulated these using 20 gauge copper wire which accounts for a 1.5 inch rove.
 

Gluing the main keel and stem together. Alignment was critical, so the parts
were laid out over the plan and clamped/weighted down.
 

Checking the alignment before gluing. The unfinished profile piece can be seen in the background. 
 

Gluing the pieces in place. 
 

The completed keel/stem assembly with the false keel sections dry-fitted below. Each false keel section
was ca. 24 feet in length and 7 inches deep. I originally thought they were attached with staples,
but nails were more likely in this era. 
 

Gluing black velum to the false keel sections to simulate tarred flannel. 
 

Gluing the false keel to the keel assembly. Note the final shaping of the lower stem piece has not been completed.
 

The 1836 plans indicate that false keel thinned as it ran forward; here I've mark off its run prior to final sanding.
 

The completed piece. Unfortunately the fluorescent lights I'm using don't do the richness
of the Swiss Pear justice  - indeed they make the wood look quite dry and pale when it actually is not. 
 

A view of the simple false keel scarphs near the centre of the keel. The false keel was designed
to tear away in the case of a grounding and was essential on bomb, merchant, and exploration ships.
Note that this is the port side of the keel (fore is on the left). 
 

Profile piece and station bulkheads cut from 1/4 inch plywood (no matter what I do I cannot get this picture to display
correctly  - sorry!). 
 

Cutting the slots for the station bulkheads. 
 

Deburring with some wonderful scroll-saw sanding strips I purchased from Lee Valley.
 

The profile piece with all the bulkhead slots cut out. The fore and aft slots will be finished after the
keel is glued to the profile piece and the mast slots will be removed when the station bulkheads are all in place. 
 

The keel assembly and profile piece prior to gluing. 
 

The keel was pegged and glued to the profile section. 
 

The pegs continued up the stem. 
 

The keel assembly glued to the profile piece. Everything is square as far as I can tell - but the
clamping required was far too ugly to show here! The stern assembly will be fitted when the bolsters
for the propeller aperture are added and will need to be glued in the vertical position. 
 

Captain Crozier inspects the boxing.

Revenue cutters were fast because of the great spread of canvas they could carry, not because they were lightly built. They were rugged and robustly built, not lightly framed. I suspect 'double' framing was most likely. The dead flat distance might include part of the space as well as siding of the floor timber. I vote for your Option 1, for what it's worth.

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?

Yesterday I experimented a little bit with 3D views of my line drawings. The result is not a real 3D model but very helpful for checking the reconstruction. The two pictures are only an impression, because on the PC I can rotate the model and have a closer look to the details.
 

 

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?

@Antony
Thanks for the info.
 
@Daniel
I've scanned the NMM-drawing and work with the digital copy in Autocad. There I can take the measurements of all lines much easier than by hand. Also it's possible to get the information of the radii of the different curves. Be aware that the original drawing has some distortion which you have to calculate out.
The diagonal and horizontal lines in the half breath except the breath extreme line are the result of the construction work in the body plan. There I use splines. All curves in the body plan are arcs with tagential transition.
 
I will try to describe what I did, but it's not so easy to do in English. So please give me bit of time.

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?

Thank you Druxey
I'll have a look at some photos from forum builds and books and then play with it some more.
 
Meanwhile I had extruded my keel and post sketch to the maximum thickness of 1-1/2 feet.
 
You can see the hull shape at the stern disappears into it prematurely.  This is because the stern post is not a constant thickness but notched away and tapered.  Same thing at the stem post but not as dramatic.
 
I included a couple snap shots with the keel and posts made a bit transparent so you can see where the hull disappeared to.

The refit of the schooner Charlie is complete.
I finished my workroom (installed the missing door trims) on Monday
Planed down an extra door jamb and ripped to size to make the trims for my modelling table edges.  They are installed (glued, pinned and clamped at the moment) but not complete.
They will need sanding and the table requires painting in the next few days to be complete.
So I finally find I am back on my Bellerophon.
I am looking forward to beginning the actual scratch build of this ship but must finish my plans first.... completing my 3D model to create and print my cutting templates.
 
After careful study and measurements off the ship's plans I have decided how I might complete this area.
 
I created yet one more plane on the sheer plane to layout the transom outline as measured.  The lower transom has an arc or radius to it.  You can see in my layout I simply drew a line between the two outer points, offset the line 4" (as measured) and drew a three point arc.
 
When looking down from above the upper transom has a 12" deep arc from sheer line (center line) to the outside (as measured).
Next I will complete the profile of the upper transom and then attempt to create the lofted feature and add it to the rest of the 3D model.
 
As the sun has risen well above the yard arm ... and this is the end of 2014...  I will slowly make my way to the wardroom to commence celebrations and so I wish everyone a Happy New Year!

Continuation.
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
The beginning of the relationship is available at this address:
 
 
http://5500.forumact...ndre-1-24#66516
 
Regards, Paul

With the frames roughed out it was time to think about how to make the Hahn style jig.  I had success previously with the full hull but had lessons learned for my building style (read accuracy and capability).  So I came up with the following:
 

 
First off, I did copy the base pattern off of the plans but did not go and cut it all out at once.  Lots of small errors compound to very noticeable ones.  So after cutting out the center portion I picked the first frame, centered it over its location then cut out notches for it to fit snugly.  I also fit out pillars that insured the keel was at the exact height and centered over the jig.  So the frame is inserted into its groove, the pseudo keel is put into position and then the frame is pulled up into position perpendicular to the board. 
 
For the next frame I inserted a 1/8" board spacer to define the start point of the frame, then measured as above off of this starting position.  Very close to the plans but tweeked here and there.  So everything is based off of the first frame.
 
Nothing is glued yet (still have to scrape off the remaining templates).  After everything is verified, the frames will be glued and then the real keel will be fashioned.
 
Also need to detail out the face frames of the first and last exposed frames.
 
Stay Building My Friends,
Mark

Really wonderful pictures Ed. I will also by a copy of this book. I like the Tea Clippers and your model will be a fantastic possibility to build one in the future

Thanks all for helping me to sort this out. 
 
Jan, 0,5 mm copper rod scored with a sharp blade made the screw head.
 
Sorry Grant, no way I can make working screws on this scale
 
So that said, the gudgeons are made, again from brass strip and bar silver soldered together and formed to follow the hull curvature. I'll probably use some castello shims to compensate for the missing hull planking. Some adjustments are still needed before I can bolt the gudgeons permanently to the hull. Somehow gudgeon #5 ended up under the transom planking
 
 

 

 
Remco

Today I finished working on the gunner. I have completed the thresholds and lintels.

 

 

 
 
This is the window of the cabin of the Captain

 

 

 

 

I finished the keelson, and then I started laying dormant bridge