wefalck

When looking at the little cropped image, I would toss the coin onto the metal side. To me it looks like a piece of cast iron, to spidery for wood, as it has to carry the presumably pretty heavy bell.

I noticed this as well, but thought that it was boiler.

When looking at the little cropped image, I would toss the coin onto the metal side. To me it looks like a piece of cast iron, to spidery for wood, as it has to carry the presumably pretty heavy bell.

Good morning.

It is for American English native speakers probably more difficult than for British English native speakers (I am actually neither ...).
 
To my knowledge it is still current parlance in British English to speak of converting timber into construction parts with the implied meaning of being resource efficient.
 
It seems that in American English the noun 'disposition' in recent years has became a verb ('to disposition'), replacing the original verb 'to dispose' (in the sense of arranging something, such as troops or in this case planks) or the phrase 'to make dispositions', while the meaning of 'to dispose' has narrowed to 'making arrangements for the mangement of waste'.

It was probably to conserve wood and not make things weaker by not using sapwood, where planks needed to be endfastened and caulked.

Sapwood is of inferior quality and prone to rot. The term 'English' seems to refer to the origin of the wood. Other source were typically tropical hardwood (not much used in the UK themselves) and Baltic 'deals'. In both cases the sapwood would have probably been removed in a saw mill before shipping, as such woods otherwise may have fetched lower prices.
I would interpret Steel in this way: In order avoid sapwood butting against other planks (as was done, when hulls had a rather rounded midship section, but fairer ends) or into the rabbet, the plank was tapered on the upper edge, cutting away the sapwood. 

Mark, I was recently pointed towards this building log: 
The guy explains his strategy when carving styrene, but he also does quite good wood-carvings, so he knows what he is doing. I scrolled through all 53 pages of the log and there are some interesting ideas in it. Begin at the end, because the carving doesn't start until page 40 or so.
 

Pedestrian progress ? Compared to that I am a snail that turns around itself  😁

Not all boats were built with removable thwarts or with all thwarts removable. Particurly those light ones with bent frames have the tendency to spread and need the thwarts (or other members) as ties. The nesting ones used on warships probably had sawn frames.
 
Not that many people go to the detail as e.g. in this example (and David probably): https://www.arbeitskreis-historischer-schiffbau.de/mitglieder/modelle/kutter-kl-1/
 
I think not all boats had footrests. It depended on their purpose. The naval cutters were meant to be rowed from the ship to the land and back, for 'amphibian operations', and the likes, where long distances had to be covered efficiently. To the contrary some fishing boats needed a relatively uncluttered space a working platform between the thwarts ... 
 
Incidently, Eric McKee has nice chapter on rowing ergonomics in his book on Working Boats of Britain.

Mark, I was recently pointed towards this building log: 
The guy explains his strategy when carving styrene, but he also does quite good wood-carvings, so he knows what he is doing. I scrolled through all 53 pages of the log and there are some interesting ideas in it. Begin at the end, because the carving doesn't start until page 40 or so.
 

More finishing details at the stern; a step and a hoop for an ensign staff. The photo I have of this area shows more metalwork, but it looks as if this was added later by the museum for the anti-hogging arrangement.
 

Mark, I was recently pointed towards this building log: 
The guy explains his strategy when carving styrene, but he also does quite good wood-carvings, so he knows what he is doing. I scrolled through all 53 pages of the log and there are some interesting ideas in it. Begin at the end, because the carving doesn't start until page 40 or so.
 

Mark, I was recently pointed towards this building log: 
The guy explains his strategy when carving styrene, but he also does quite good wood-carvings, so he knows what he is doing. I scrolled through all 53 pages of the log and there are some interesting ideas in it. Begin at the end, because the carving doesn't start until page 40 or so.
 

Hi Steven, remembering, like you (but not as small as yours) I am working at 1:72, so these will be quite small.
 
The imagery I have of the belfry infers that it is a timber rather than a metal frame, however, a valid argument could be made for either.  The belfry appears to be fitted on top of another structure otherwise it would not be visible above the roughtree rails.  It is therefore possible that it forms part of the gallows structure (only place the gallows could be based on other equipment etc).
 
HMCSS Victoria Lithograph (Crop) - original from State Library of Victoria (SLA)

 
If the belfry was constructed with a metal frame, these were usually a single-arch (as shown below), and a relatively thin structure.   However, the profile of the curves for such a frame conforms much tighter to the shape of the bell as depicted in the lithograph, and it is much thinner than what is shown by the artist.  The version shown below sat on the riser timbers and would have been more conically depicted by the artisist if this type was used?
     
Typical Metal Frame Belfry as fitted to MV Coho
 
David Steel, ‘The Elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship’, Volume 1, 1794, - Folio XXXIV – for a wood structure, informs that for a Sloop of War, the belfry should stand 2’ 5” above the beams.   This ties in well with the scaled version of the lithograph when underlain with the CAD plan and use the gallows end boards in lieu of the deck beams (i.e. 2' 5" above the top of the end boards).  
 
My interpretation so far is shown below which shows the 100 gallon freshwater tank which will be braced by the gallows end boards (and two rails - I have yet to completely draw/finish the gallows structure ) - the front timbers go down to/through the deck and will fasten to the deck beams in similar fashion to the bitts.  I know the lithograph shows them more slanted, but the artist's perspective used had the ship on a slight bow on aspect, which may have influenced/skewed his depiction (well that is my current story  )

 
cheers
 
Pat

Sorry for the long delays and spasmodic posting of updates, but I have been somewhat distracted from the build by research.  I am at the point I cannot progress until I finalise the rigging and belaying plans, and noting the unique rigging arrangements, this is taking a lot longer than I anticipated.  Progress is good and I and in the final stages of that which has allowed me to make some small progress on the build.  I have completed the lower spars  and adding the fittings now.  I will post some photos of them soon.
In the meantime I have progressed the sheet bitts as shown below.  I must thank Mike Shanks for his assistance in CNC cutting these for me.  I drew up the plans for these and for the PE.  Even at 0.2mm the PE looks slightly oversized, but the best I could get done locally.  For reference, the brass strips along the cross-piece is only 1mm wide and I tried to simulate the screwheads (not that successful though).
 
The single bitts are placed , one each side abaft the mizen, while the two sets with cross-pieces are placed before the fore and main masts.
   
 

 

 

cheers
 
Pat

Not all boats were built with removable thwarts or with all thwarts removable. Particurly those light ones with bent frames have the tendency to spread and need the thwarts (or other members) as ties. The nesting ones used on warships probably had sawn frames.
 
Not that many people go to the detail as e.g. in this example (and David probably): https://www.arbeitskreis-historischer-schiffbau.de/mitglieder/modelle/kutter-kl-1/
 
I think not all boats had footrests. It depended on their purpose. The naval cutters were meant to be rowed from the ship to the land and back, for 'amphibian operations', and the likes, where long distances had to be covered efficiently. To the contrary some fishing boats needed a relatively uncluttered space a working platform between the thwarts ... 
 
Incidently, Eric McKee has nice chapter on rowing ergonomics in his book on Working Boats of Britain.

Somehow I missed the brackets. Of course, no stays needed with these.

Yep, turnbuckles at that scale are a challenge ... just wondering, whether shoulnd't be any stays forward too ?

Not all boats were built with removable thwarts or with all thwarts removable. Particurly those light ones with bent frames have the tendency to spread and need the thwarts (or other members) as ties. The nesting ones used on warships probably had sawn frames.
 
Not that many people go to the detail as e.g. in this example (and David probably): https://www.arbeitskreis-historischer-schiffbau.de/mitglieder/modelle/kutter-kl-1/
 
I think not all boats had footrests. It depended on their purpose. The naval cutters were meant to be rowed from the ship to the land and back, for 'amphibian operations', and the likes, where long distances had to be covered efficiently. To the contrary some fishing boats needed a relatively uncluttered space a working platform between the thwarts ... 
 
Incidently, Eric McKee has nice chapter on rowing ergonomics in his book on Working Boats of Britain.

Not all boats were built with removable thwarts or with all thwarts removable. Particurly those light ones with bent frames have the tendency to spread and need the thwarts (or other members) as ties. The nesting ones used on warships probably had sawn frames.
 
Not that many people go to the detail as e.g. in this example (and David probably): https://www.arbeitskreis-historischer-schiffbau.de/mitglieder/modelle/kutter-kl-1/
 
I think not all boats had footrests. It depended on their purpose. The naval cutters were meant to be rowed from the ship to the land and back, for 'amphibian operations', and the likes, where long distances had to be covered efficiently. To the contrary some fishing boats needed a relatively uncluttered space a working platform between the thwarts ... 
 
Incidently, Eric McKee has nice chapter on rowing ergonomics in his book on Working Boats of Britain.

Yep, turnbuckles at that scale are a challenge ... just wondering, whether shoulnd't be any stays forward too ?

Somehow I missed the brackets. Of course, no stays needed with these.

This not 'my' period at all, so I never looked at the build log before. But someone pointed me towards your work with styrene and I scrolled through all 53 pages of it. I must say, I am rather impressed ! 

Not all boats were built with removable thwarts or with all thwarts removable. Particurly those light ones with bent frames have the tendency to spread and need the thwarts (or other members) as ties. The nesting ones used on warships probably had sawn frames.
 
Not that many people go to the detail as e.g. in this example (and David probably): https://www.arbeitskreis-historischer-schiffbau.de/mitglieder/modelle/kutter-kl-1/
 
I think not all boats had footrests. It depended on their purpose. The naval cutters were meant to be rowed from the ship to the land and back, for 'amphibian operations', and the likes, where long distances had to be covered efficiently. To the contrary some fishing boats needed a relatively uncluttered space a working platform between the thwarts ... 
 
Incidently, Eric McKee has nice chapter on rowing ergonomics in his book on Working Boats of Britain.