allanyed

So one would use rubber cement to remove rubber cement. Sounds too easy, but I will give it a try. Thanks

Probably a bit late, but do you have the following photo from RMG? https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66464 Allan

Tim, My files are over 40MB and I do not have them on a website or some such. The site itself has both high and low res drawings, just takes some getting used to with the searching. There are a few pages in alphbetical order, then a lot more pages starting in alphabetical order again with different ships. The pixel numbers are under each drawing. When you open a file of a high resolution plan, it can be opened in several resolutions so you can choose which you want. Take the very first one for example, Africa (1761). Click on the words below the plan and it shows Size of this preview: 800 × 262 pixels. Other resolutions: 320 × 105 pixels | 640 × 209 pixels | 1,024 × 335 pixels | 1,280 × 419 pixels | 2,560 × 838 pixels | 19,291 × 6,314 pixels. If you click on the plan itself it automatically opens in the highest res. There are several thousand plans, but only about 800 in high resolution which are extremely clear when enlarging. I usually load it onto a CAD page then use the scale on the plan to enlarge to full size, Once my drawing is done, it can then be reduced to whatever scale I want. You probably know all that, but that was more for those that do not. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ship_plans_of_the_Royal_Museums_Greenwich Allan

Thanks Druxey. Next stop at Home Depot or Amazon. How do you clean the cement. With PVA I use IPA but will give the rubber cement a try. The contracts are courtesy of fellow member Mark P. I have put together all the high res plans on the Wiki Commons site by size of ship, boats, et al and including contracts where they are appropriate for the category. HOPEFULLY, MSW will set up an article with all of these and where additional HIGH RES plans and contracts and such can be added by a mod as they become available. It was discussed over a year ago but other priorities come into play which I totally get. Happy New Year to you and everyone!!

You could not have a better way to start into the hobby. Learn from these and the experiences can be applied to other kits that are more complex but may not be as well designed as these. Another plus is that these tricks of the trade will apply to many aspects of scratch builds if that is the road you will be taking. Welcome to MSW! Allan

Going back a step are making the gunwales. To make them perfectly symmetrical I laminated two pieces of wood of the proper thickness then used the planked boat to trace the outline of the gunwale. They are glued together near, but not on where the gunwales will be cut. When cutting them out they are exactly the same. This will cover any MINOR discrepancies between the shape of the port and starboard side. The below are the gunwales before finish sanding and the laminate from which they were cut. Note: The drawing on which they rest is an earlier version before the platform beams and proper steps were drawn. Allan

There are also contracts for boats available from RMG and the NA in Kew. An original for a 30 long boat of 1691 and a transcribed contract for yawls in 1690 follow. It may not be possible to find a contract for the same type, size and era of boat one wishes to build, but there are a lot of details to be gleaned from many of these contracts right down to the number of bolts in the fixed thwart knees as one example. Spelling in the below is as found in the original contract Contract for two Yawles Contracted this 24th July 90 with the Honoble Thomas Willshaw, Esqre one of the Principall Officers & Commrs of their Majties Navy, for & behalf of their Maj ties, by me Robert Smith of Langstone Shipwrts and doe hereby oblidge myselfe to build & deliver into their Majties Stores at Portso : free of all charge by the latter and on Augst next ensueing the two Yawles undermentioned of the Dimensions and Scantlins & each fitted with the particulars folling (viz) Long Broad Deepe Yawles of 23ft: ----- 5ft: 7:ins ------ 2ft: 5ins ------- Two Railes of the upper streakes to be made out of the wholewood up and downe Gunnels stuck, 3 Thwarts bound with Iron Knees and ye Transome wth two Iron Knees, the Stateroom stuck an O:G. & planshier for the Gunnwales with two pannells on each side of the backboard, a locker under the after bench and lynings under the bench, Keel, thwart ships 4: ins. up and down 4½ ins. & 4 ins. Keelson 6: ins. broade of 1½ inch plank, timbers of 1½ inch wth 13 ins room and Space, & 10: in. Scarphs to the floor, timberheads to naile to the lower Edge of the binding Strake with bottome boards & Scarr Boards Keelbands & Iron bolts & Rings for Stem and Sterne to row wth 6: oars each to be grav’d and primed to the Waterline and pid in stuff in the inside to the rising at ye rate of 12 s per foot I doe oblidge myself that these boats shall be wrought wth good dry well seasoned oak board of ynch thick in workmanlike manner for wch I am to be paid readdy money at Portsmouth when a bill is made out and signed by the Officers at ye yard as useable.

When scaling both drawings to full size actually the keelson in ZAZ 5814 is exactly 3.4" and it is 3.1" thick on 7356. Go figure! The draftsmen were really good at what they did, but the keelsons MAY not be based on scantlings. Is nothing straight forward in this hobby of ours?? Allan

Planking, gunwales, risers, keelson, steps and footwaling in place. While I tried to have the fraing and subsequent planking port and starboard perfectly symmetrical it was close, but not perfect. To overcome this I laminated two pieces of wood 3 1/4" thick, inverted the boat onto the lamination and traced on side. I then but out the pair of gunwales knowing they were exactly the same. Once sanded they were glue in place knowing they were exactly the same. I used the design from ZAZ5814 for the aft mast step. This absolutely would not work for the fore mast which comes on top of the stemson. The keelson on this boat is too thin and would have to ride up on the stemson if used as a step so I made a step that is more akin to those used on the ships. There is some trimming and sanding still needed and two frames need to be repaired where a piece broke off at the top on the starboard side. Where information is available all the parts so far are based on the dimensions in the scantlings in post #1. Allan

There are more than 20 low resolution contemporary plans of Diana 1794 at RMG Collections as well as a contemporary model. You may want to download these and compare to the AOTS book to look for any differences that might be there. https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/search/Diana plans 1794 Seven of these plans can be found in high resolution on the Wiki Commons site and are downloadable for free. I think they are on pages 4 and 5 and labeled as Artois. These are more than likely applicable to any of the Artois class 38 gun ship, including Diana 1794 as pointed out on the RMG site which lists eight of the nine the ships of the class on each plan description. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ship_plans_of_the_Royal_Museums_Greenwich You might also find it a good idea to use these contemporary plans as you can have them printed at any scale you want on single large sheets. Allan

Hi Patrick Very neatly done. It seems odd to me to see a two butt shift pattern, rather 3 or 4. Is this a kit convention or were you able to find this in a contemporary source? Thanks for sharing your build with us. Allan

Welcome to MSW J Please post a little intro in the new member section. You might get a few more responses to your query as well. Not sure what you mean on this. Could you post a photo with arrows or some such pointing out your concern? Looking at the photos of other build logs that Chris noted in his post there does not seem to be any problem. The keel piece does extend high up but the tops of the frames which look to represent top timbers that will have the bulwark planking looks right to me although the moulded dimension appears to be much to large. The top of the top timbers would be in the neighborhood of 2", perhaps, 3" (~0.04" at 1:60 scale) Allan

Druxey, this seems to be the case on drawing ZAZ5814 above, or are you thinking of something else? Thanks! Allan

Thanks Craig, The keelson in this 34 foot launch measures about 3" thick, where as the 23 foot boat would have had about a 2" thick keelson if May is correct. A two inch keelson seems awfully fragile to support the mast, especially in a stiff wind. As mentioned above, we have choices and evidence to support each method of seating the masts. Allan

Ahhh, now we have choices!!! Gotta love it! Do you have this in high res? Thanks Craig.

One item that was difficult for me to finalize was the mast step for each mast. I found a drawing in the Wiki Commons site (ZAZ5814) from 1801 that shows a step and I have revised the inboard profile to reflect this step design for both masts. Note that it rests on top of the keelson. In order to do that for the forward mast the keelson has been extended forward. There may be other variations, but this is the only contemporary design I could find so far. The replica built at the NMMCornwall shows a hole for the step in the keelson itself which makes no sense to me. To me the hole weakens the keelson and puts a lot of stress on it when under sail thus jeopordizes the entire purpose of the keelson. Hopefully they found additional contemporary evidence that the keelson had holes cut in them to step the masts and used that as their design basis.

Regarding boats, there are several new build logs here in the scratch build forum for building a 23 foot launch (from the Bounty archives). The methods can be used for any boat, just need to use different plans to start which can be found at RMG Collections. I big array of power tools is not required, and actually can be done with small tools, either power or hand tools. I am guessing, but based on May's book on boats, Beagle likely carried at least three boats, maybe four or even five, including a 26 foot launch, 23 foot pinnace and two cutters, probably a 24 foot and 18 foot. These can be fun projects in themselves. Allan

Very good advice and maybe this should be carried even further. Check everything against contemporary plans and models of the Beagle or other similar brigs of the same era if they are available to see what the kit provides and what you might want to change to something more realistic. I am not talking about historical accuracy as everyone seems to have a different opinion of its relative importance, but little things like bowling pins used as belaying pins, realistic sails, realistic boats, et al. The AOTS book on the Beagle by Karl Marquardt should be a great help as well. Allan

A critique includes postives and negatives and many folks do not take kindly to the negatives so a lot of the more experienced builders avoid saying anything to avoid repercussions. Allan

A belated welcome to MSW. It would be a nice thing if you posted an introduction about yourself in the new member forum and definitely mention your current build. It may lead more members to your build log. Look at the bottom of the main page as it shows the number of members as well as the number that are on the site at any given time. There are usually several hundred and as many as 2000 or more. Also, look at the number of views your log has had which is shown next to your build log name in the build log forum. You have already had 125 views of your build log. It may just be that no one had an answer at that moment, and as pointed out by Druxey, the holidays find many members with higher priorities such as family activities. Remember that patience is perhaps the most important personal characteristics one requires to be a successful ship model builder. That said we all have our moments 😀 Again, welcome to MSW Allan

Did they use the scantings given in the legend on drawing ZAZ7361? Thanks Allan

Got it, thanks! What confused me was that rather than round house or poop you mentioned "upper deck" which cannot be seen in that photo. Just another case of terminology confusion, not a biggie. Thanks again Allan

Welcome to our motley crew Andy. Hope to see you start a build log. As a POF newbie you are in a great place to learn from others' trials and tribulations in this endeavor. Allan

If you pre-shape the plank by spiling or heat and edge bending, finger pressure and PVA (or CA if you choose) for less than a minute is all you need MOST of the time. Clamps certainly come into play at times, but if the plank is shaped beforehand, pins and clamps are not usually needed. Scale matters as well. If you are building at 1:48, the pin hole should be the same as a trennal, about 0.03". At 1:96 it would be 0.015. Trennals would then fill the hole, but at scales smaller than 1:64, they are extremely difficullt to make to scale, even using bamboo. Allan

As mentioned above the species will dictate the amount of time needed to saturate the wood, not to mention how thick the piece is. If I am not spiling a plank I use room temp water then form ala Chuck Passaro method or right on the framing with clamps. A hot air gun works much better for me than an iron. A minute or two is sufficient, then remove the plank from the framing or formers and let it sit for a while to be sure it is thoroughly dry as it will have expanded while wet and will shrink again when dry. Hot air guns are cheap and get plenty hot (compared to the admiral's hair dryer) Spiling eliminates a lot of this if you want to go that route, especially for harder species. Allan