wefalck

Do you mean deck-houses by 'deck-furniture' ? Deck-houses were normally built using carpentry 'tongue-and-feather' techniques, which make caulking unnecessary. This building technique is possible, because the differential movement of the parts is limited, so that no seams will open. Decks could be laid in the same way, but it is not (normally) done, because it would make it virtually impossible to replace single planks without ripping out the whole deck. This is not an issue for deck-houses.

I have a box full of them in all sizes and shapes. However, as I am working a lot with steel, I have always some swarf and filings flying around that seems to collect on these magnets ...

"The message seems to be that, if one is attempting to model a ship of this period, it shouldn't look too tidy." This opens another can of worms ... shoddy workmanship of the modeller vs. representing shoddy workmanship on the prototype. One has to work carefully untidy ...

We tend to think too much in terms of (building) rules, regulations and standards - because they have become so prevalent and institutionalised since the early 19th century. We also tend to think that any material could be 'ordered' at any time. However, wood is a natural material with limited supplies of the qualities and dimensions the builders may have wanted. So in practice, they may have had to make do with whatever was available in a particular yard. (Hard)wood supplies tend to follow an annual cycle, with wood being cut during the winter, transported to the rivers for rafting during the high-waters in spring. You couldn't just place an order for a particular kind of timber, when you ran out of it ... So one should expect a lot of variations dictated by these boundary conditions.

Excellent wood-work ! For those, who read French, there is a nice and comprehensive article on the 'cure molles' by Patrice Descencière in NEPTUNIA No. 264: http://www.aamm.fr/boutique/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=67&products_id=428

Indeed, one cannot generalise (easily) from individual ships. However, our physical evidence across the centuries is rather limited, we have to use what we have. Comparing 16th century and early 19th century practices may also be problematic. Production techniques for planks were different, as was timber availability. I didn't read up on CHEERFUL, but where did Chuck get this 'real' planking expansion from ? I gather it is reconstructed ? From which sources ?

Interesting reading, thanks for the link. This actually opens another front, namely whether we talk about shell-first or frames-first construction, or a hybrid of both. It seems that in fact the latter has been quite wide-spread in Northern European shipbuilding and the dhows of East Africa also belong into this category, as the first few planks are put into place before the inside timbers are errected. Shell-first construction would require horizontal scarfs with backing pieces in order to make a continuous plank. This would typically avoided, if at all possible, for garboard and floor-planks in smaller vessels. However, we slowly deviate from the original question. This should actually be rephrased in the sense that planks were taken as long as available. If shorter ones had to be used, then in areas of the hull of less structural importance, i.e. in general higher up.

I gather the question of butt-joints or scarfs depends on how close the frames are spaced and how wide the frames are. If you have double-frames, just a few centimetres apart, you can put a butt-joint just between them without fear that the hull-movement would open the joint or a spike too close to the plank end would split it. If you have wider spaced frames - in my example above they are about 30 to 40 cm apart, you have to make the seam longer and more in line with the run of the planing, i.e. make a scarf, in order to accomodate differential movements of the planks without allowing gaping seams. The scarfs are placed with both ends on frames and no doubling behind is used, at least on Zanzibar. The frames would be too narrow to drive two spikes through next to each other and at a distance that would be safe for the plank ends. Butt-joint would be structurally unsound in this case. It all is a question of the size of the available materials vs. the size of the boat/ship.

I should add to the above that the joints between hull-planks would be scarfed, not butted as on the deck. This requires extra length. Below you can see two images of modern-day dhow-building on Zanzibar. Certainly not the most sophisticated builders, but it illustrates nicely how it was done for centuries: Fitting the scarf between two frames: The faired and smoothed scarf: More details here: http://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/tanzania/tanzania.html

Wooden ships don't have 'structural' bulkheads. In wooden ships bulkheads are only more or less temporary, relatively light-weight constructions to keep e.g. loads or stores in their place. The idea of bulkheads as structural parts may arise in shipmodellers, as often the model hull is constructed around solid bulkheads - this has nothing to do with a real ship. I think a plank has to cross at least thread (double) frames in order to be properly framed. If it crosses only two frames wave action or the like can push the plank inwards with the ends rising and the caulking falling out. However, such short planks would generally be avoided, if at all possible.

A 'story-board' is always a good proposition for justifying, why certain features are shown. It makes sure that the different aspects, e.g. of how the sails are set, match throughout the ship. Basic facts to consider would be the direction and strength of the wind relative to the ship and what kind of sea it is encountering.

Better yards indeed built under a shed, if physically possible. Wood is not 'weathered', that is exposed to the elements on purpose, but rather 'seasoned' in a shed, as noted above. Leaving a ship in frames outside was rather a necessity (lack of funds, workmen, etc.) then a deliberate choice.

Not in metres or feet - one has to think in terms of where it can/needs to be fastened. I don't think a plank shorter than then distance between three frames (or deck beams) would be feasible due to alingment and caulking problems.

Didn't say they aren't used. They are not essential, when close-hauled. One has to balance usefulness against detriments.

It may be worthwhile to reflect on the function of the (topping-)lifts. They are there to steady the yard, not to 'lift' the yard, which is done with the halliard. So, when the topsail(s) is/are set, there is no immediate need for the lifts, as the yard is also stabilised by the braces. One can probably let go the lift(s) when close-hauled and the problem is solved.

If you use an acid, such as cooking-grade flavoured vinegar, the coloured compounds will be probably some iron-organic acid complex. If you filter this, there will be no particles. You should end up with a dye. However, big chemical companies can control processes much better and I would also go for commercial dyes. At the amount we need them, the cost will not kill you. Incidentally, the (cast-)iron guns of old were 'browned' by repeatedly wetting them with vinegar. Finally, the rust and iron-organic compounds were solidified by applying lineseed-oil. Kind of in situ oil-paint production.

Did you mean that they are bevelled ? If that, I would make a sanding jig for this, so that you can hold them at a 45° (or any other appropriate) angle. That jig also should have stop, so that you can offer all sides of the bits etc. at the same distance to the sanding block in order have the bevel equal. I you have a milling machine, of course, you can also make a jig for use on that one.

Fröhlich's tool is hand-held. That's why he needs a female part, to guide the male part ... If you are using the tool in a lathe (or in a press like the one shown above) the machine does the centering and you get away with two - easier to make - male parts. I would use a piece of silver-steel (drill-rod for the North Americans) and turn on in the middle a somewhat elongated circular groove with approximately the radius of the radius of the rope for which the thimble is to be made. The material that is left standing in the groove will have to have the interior diameter of the thimble. You then cut the rod in the middle of the groove, harden it and, voilá, you have your forming tools. Hardening may not even be necessary, as you not going to bang the tool, but just gently push it with the tailstock. You will probably have to experiment a bit with the diameter of the rod and the length of the tube section to arrive at a good shape for the thimbles. Incidentally, many years ago, when I had no sophisticated tools at all, I made thimbles from very thin cored soldering wire that can be easily flared out. I think I used a rotary burr for the purpose.

Even without spinning, the lathe might be a good idea for forming the thimbles, as the dies can be held in the headstock and tailstock respectively. Pressure then can be applied using the tailstock handwheel, which also has micro-meter ...

What lathe do you actually have ?

Shouldn't it be fairly easy to knock-up an insert like this for an ordinary soldering iron ? The best thing would be to use a regulated one, but one can also run the iron from a dimmer.

I believe a lot of the standard iron-work, such as thimbles, shackles etc., that would have been factory-made would have been zinc-plated at that time already, rather than painted black. If you use brass for the parts, they can be chucked into self-tinning solution, which looks quite convincing like zinc afterwards. If you desire such look, you can slightly 'weather' it by rubbing a soft lead-pencil over it. I gather brass tubing is available down to 0.3 mm I.D. with a wall thickness of 0.1 mm. You may need to anneal the tubing before forming the thimble. Bernard Fröhlich shows in his book a tool similar to the one you are using, but with a punch and an anvil. One can use this on a pillar-drill with a depth stop, or the best choice would be a so-called jeweling-press as watchmakers use it: They have a micro-meter depth-stop and are quite cheap to obtain, when they don't have the tooling with it anymore. In our case, we would make the tooling ourselves anyway.

I made a rough-'n'-ready sketch of what I meant: I have made a set of speciality collets myself from blanks purchased from Schaublin some 15 years ago. The difficult step is the slotting one, as you have to hold the collet at its very end and concentric with its axis of rotation. For round collets this is not so terribly critical, as it is mainly the bore that centres the material. However, that is different for the square collets, where the cuts have been absolutely parallel to the axis of rotation.

Actually, making collets with four slots, instead of the usual three for high-quality ones, was one of the easier routes for holding square stock or parts I have been thinking about. The other possibility with more holding power would be to make four slots that off-centre by the thickness of the targeted stock minus the thickness of the saw blade. The challenge for both variants is to have the slots absolutely symmetric, otherwise the collet runs off-centre.

I think Michael uses the right strategy. Starting with slightly oversize stock and working towards the collet keeps the flexing and vibrations to a minimum. The type of brass is also important. I found most fine brass wires not very suitable for turning and use brass nails instead. Even, if sold as 'half-hard' they are usuall too soft. The reason is that copper and its alloys do not harden by heat, but only by 'working' them. Brass nails/pins are sort of stamped from wire and harden by the process. It sounds attractive to first drill the holes, while the stock is still thick, but you will have two problems then: a) the interrupted cut, where the holes are, while turning will result in chatter and unclean surfaces, the stock is weakend, where the holes are. Starting with square stock again sounds attractive, but you run into the above two problems, plus the fact that at this dimension and for the type of lathe we use, you will not find square collets. The four-jaw-chuck will not be precise enough for the purpose. This problem has actually been nagging me for years. The only square collets you can get a reasonable price are the 5C-type ones - way to big for my lathes. I have talked even to manufacturers for B8-collets (which is what I need), as with EDM and other modern manufacturing techniques, it could be possible to make some, but too expensive. I am still thinking of making some myself ... but this is digressing from the thread.