Matrim

Well, I should have known that trick but DOHH! it makes a difference. Thanks.
The subject clearly has demanded the best forensic approaches by some very experienced members. For example, from about post#197 in this thread...
... some clear light is cast on the subject and I have looked at the source documents cited. Yet, the source is describing practice in English shipyards and is biased on larger ships. The rule(s) related there are difficult for me to imagine were appropriate for a schooner, but I am not able to point to an alternative rule. However, the guidelines for keel taper explained by Mark in post#2 in this thread make sense and  seem to be reflected in a drawing I have seen of a late 19th century Bermuda built yacht.
Thanks for the input, I appreciate the help.

It looks like Chuck is correct and it may be advisable to check what sort you have applied. For me it appeared second on the list
 

Nice to have you with us. Have you considered starting a build log? It can be very useful to get tips and advice and record your endeavours!!

Richard,
I hope you get better soon. Retrospectives are good as well. 

JeffT, RichardG,
 
Thanks for the kind words.
 
Yes Richard, I've read through your build a few times...very useful.
 
I'll have a think about the Dallas build log, or maybe a retrospective one since personal health issues (nothing that serious) are currently taking priority.
 
Best regards,
 
Richard
 
 

Welcome Richard.
 
I would definitely recommend a build log. Everyone here is very helpful and non-judgmental. I'm currently hacking my Dallas build. Like you I completed the hull and then came back to it many years later along with a move to the US.
 
I'm planning the the rigging at the moment, I made the brave foolish decision to completely change the rigging from the kit plans. I will be doing the masts in-situ. Although the yards will probably be done off the ship. Since this will be my first time for this, I cannot say if it's the right decision. Hopefully your progress will be faster than mine 😀.
 
Good luck and enjoy your builds
 
 

Welcome to MSW Richard.

Hi Martin,
 
I had thought about it but need to build up courage!
 
My Dallas hull was built 25 yrs ago and there may be a couple of pics of it somewhere, so that just leaves the masts and rigging. So not much to report on.
 
However, I will definitely consider doing a full build log of the Fifie,, with pics etc in a couple of months time.
 
Best regards,
 
Richard
 
 
 

Hello all,
 
What a great website. Been reading it for a few weeks - so much to absorb 🙂
 
I'm halfway through building my first ship (Artesani Latina Dallas 1815 Cutter), and about to commence the masts and rigging...gulp! 
 
I actually started the Dallas about 25 yrs ago but a job change etc got in the way so the mostly completed hull + box of parts was tucked away in a safe corner of my attic for a rainy day.
 
With the current quarantine/shielding situation the rainy day has arrived, and I restarted working on the Dallas a few weeks ago and found I really enjoyed it. So much so that I ordered Vanguard Models Fifie for my next project, and it arrived this morning.
 
My background is design engineering and business development.
 
Anyway, I thought I said 'hello', and congratulate the admin and members on one of the best hobbyist sites I've ever seen.
 
All the best,
 
Richard
 
 
 
 

Nice to have you with us. Have you considered starting a build log? It can be very useful to get tips and advice and record your endeavours!!

Good Afternoon Bruce;
 
This is a much-debated point. I did once see an explanation of where the taper began, but I cannot for the life of me remember where it was. 
 
However, to answer your question, but only in respect of the Royal Navy methods (however, merchant builders would almost certainly have followed a technique which allowed them to use thinner timbers at any part of a build, thereby saving money) the central section was parallel-sided. This extended some distance fore and aft, and seems to have taken up approximately half the keel length. However, that does not mean that a quarter of the length each end was tapered. As the keel at the bow was much less tapered than the stern, the length of the stern taper is much longer than the bow. if you split the remaining half of the keel into thirds, and allow two thirds at the stern, and one third at the bows, you will be about right. 
 
Another point is that the taper is not constant (judging from the body lines on draughts) but becomes sharper towards the extremities; so that the narrowing is actually slightly curved. 
 
I would be happy, though, to hear from other members who know anything more precise. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark 

Hi Henry
Miriam's dictionary is not a nautical dictionary so probably not really applicable.   Rounding or round up is the correct term for the curvature of the beams athwartships (when looking fore and aft.)  Look at the scantlings in the Establishments, Steel and the Shipbuilder's Repository and you will see that each deck for each size ship is described to "round up" or have a "rounding" a specific number of inches.  In addition, if you look at contemporary contracts, where this curvature is specified, it is referred to as rounding.  Camber is not a term used anywhere in these contemporary sources even though the definition does seem to fit.  
Allan

Oops, I honestly believed that this is the camber of the beams, analogous to the camber of a road profile with actually a similar purpose, namely shedding water more easily. Druxey is right, just checked in Paasch's 'From Keel to Truck', and there the transversal curve of the deck beams indeed it the rounding, while the curve in longitudinal profile of a keel is the camber, and that of the deck is the sheer ... good by to what I thought was a good piece of nautical knowledge.

'Camber' is the term used frequently and inaccurately today, which is due to etymological shifting. There are many other examples of this. We see the word 'careen' used in the news, when actually the correct term is 'career'. Careen, which most ship modellers know is the term to turn a beached vessel over on one side to clean the bottom, is often used to describe rapid, uncontrolled movement of a motor vehicle or train as in "The runaway bus careened down the street." Well, I suppose it might have ended up on its side!

Hello,
If it helps, in France in the first half of the 18th century, they used to give an extra (French) inch and a half (40 mm) of curvature in the middle to the gratings for better resistance.
GD
 
 

Good Morning Gentlemen;
 
One thing to keep in mind is that nautical terms often shifted meaning over the years. Sir Henry Manwayring's Seaman's Dictionary, written ca 1630, lists and defines quite a few words which later came to mean something different to his description.
 
The curve in the decks, as seen from the side, was also sometimes referred to as the 'Hanging of the deck'. 
 
With reference to Hamilton's question, as Druxey says above, the curvature of the hatches (referred to as the 'round up') varied. In the absence of any verifiable information, though, the best approach is probably to give them a curvature somewhat greater than the deck, as this seems to have been the most usual.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P 

Hi Hamilton,
 
Just to make life more interesting, the HMS Bellona 1760 has serpentine shaped hatches and gratings, as seen here in the contemporary model.
 
Mark
 
 

The round up (not camber*) of hatches varied. At certain eras and nationalities, the round up could be considerably more than that of the deck. Do you have a specific time and nationality in mind?
 
* The word camber, very often seen in reference to the round up of decks or deck beams is actually incorrect! In marine dictionaries the word refers to a downward curve of a deck as seen from the side. Normally decks curve up towards the end of a ship, but in some cases the forward end of a deck curves down to allow the cables to come in above the deck when the hawse holes are low. This condition is camber!

Well I waited for my wood delivery to arrive and arrive it did. Just as we hit lockdown and I had to turn my modelling workspace into a home office (which it still is and will be for two-three months). This has caused a fairly natural hiatus in any worthwhile progress. A couple of weeks back I did take down my youngest sons wardrobe and as I did so I moved to the garage some of the nicer bits of wood and especially paid attention to the solid wood door and some of the support pieces. By flipping it on its back and drilling the support pieces underneath I just so happened to make a nice building board saving a few bob.

Here is it temporarily shifting my monitor/keyboard out of the way
 

 


It is sitting on the only space space my workshop currently has so on top of the router table..
 


Next steps are to mark the correct measurements (max breadth and keel lengths so I can make sure the 6 A4 sheets that make out the base plan are correctly placed)  and then add the plans. All of which I can do so over the remainder of the 'forced work from home'.

I've spent the last portion of the week musing on scale. My last attempt was at 1:60 i(if I remember correctly) but I would prefer to work at a larger scale as it makes things less fiddly. That naturally introduces space considerations though these are lessened just because it is a 32 Gun ship so is slightly smaller than other same period frigates.
 
The ships body lengths could be taken off the plans but unless built as hull only are not the main factor and it was only after several MSW members helped me to try and translate a sail plan (leading to Mark P linking a contemporary mast dimension plan for a 32) that I could get slightly more accurate figures.
 
The key two needed were the bowsprit and jiboom and driver. The sail plan listed the point the spirit sail 'started' and that allowed me to approximately place the jiboom and the plan provided the correct angle.
 

Give or take a cm or two this should give me a relatively accurate length. Width was dependant on the main yard width with some additional allowance for the stunsail booms and then reduced by 10% (I am having the yards angled to reduce space and already tested this on my Bounty allowing me to measure the space 'saved') . Height was less important so though I had the correct mast sizes calculating the correct height was left and I instead extrapolated the main mast height from my Diana model (38) above the deck and then reduced it by 94% which appears the average size reduction from a 38 to a 32. Height will also be impacted by how it will be displayed and as that has not been decided yet it becomes still less important.
 
I then through up a horrifically badly drawn sketch to mark these down at the correct scale
 

 
 
The measurements against the ship are in millimetres
 
It is certainly going to be 'big'. It is always useful to find something to compare the model end size to and I think I succeeded in that the dresser this computer is sitting on is almost the same size. The model will be 8-9 cm longer and the same wider so the width and length are very close (admittedly most of the length and width will be rigging and yards). Height wise it will end up being around half the height again.
 

 
Pluses are that it will fit through doors with slight care - a 38 at 1:48 would fit through my doors with around a cm spare so with 'extreme' care. It will also therefore sit on a wider dresser than the one shown (or a table). I suspect my wife wont let it in the house so it will potentially decorate my work room when done but as I stated earlier ship modelling is more the journey than the result.
 
If I put it in a glass case then that will also be huge.
 
Next I have to think more on materials. At least for the frame at this point.

Hi I’m from Essex in the UK, I’ve not done any modelling for a number of years, a model I just bought is a JSC card model of the German surface raider Atlantis.
I’ve never done a card model before and look for some tips to help me, later on I would like to try some of the bigger ones so just learning on this one. 
Thanks Wayne. 

You should have i think your keel and stem timbers already shaped in the kit.
Maybe you can use them to check the shape of the bow or find a scrap bit of ply to mark the shape on
and cut it out to use as a template.

Mine was done this way as well, but it was mostly flat. Hard to say what is needed until you start to fair the hull.
What you could do is screw it on dry and then see if there is enough material available for you to sand it flat.
If not, then  glue it on and fill with car filling bog or builders bog. it was placed centrally and flush with the bulkheads at the top.
 
Cheers Chris
 

Thanks Matrim. As I mentioned the bow filler was markedly convex on both sides. This was mostly on the upper half of the piece and I would have sanded that back by at least 3mm to create a flat surface that can be glued. If I sand more off more it will start to reduce the width of the piece at the top. So far I have sanded back without effecting the width at all.

Nice start and the bulkheads look nice and solid. That filler piece certainly looks 'unusually shaped' which makes me wonder..
 
It 'might' be that intend to allow you to sand back to fit. But that seems like to much effort for a kit so must be wrong. From what I can see the piece looks the right size to fit on the front but where then would the bow of the ship go?? Do the instructions have any shape/positioning comments? On most kits I have seen (not AL admittedly) the bow is a part of the backbone structure of the ship and there are two filler pieces that go either side.
 
Hopefully another Artenesia builder can make a comment as that does not seem right. Though it might be a peculiarity of the ship itself.