EdT

The first thing to recognize, Randy - you may realize this already - is that the limber channel on this ship is actually outside of the frames, see p 189. The first strake inboard, next to the keelson is shown wider than the other common planking as may be seen in Fig 8-38. This was an arbitrary sizing on my part, perhaps consistent with what I had seen on some other drawings - can't remember. I would assume this last space would be covered with lengths of common plank of wider width. You can use your judgement on this. I believe the common method of clearing clogged channels was to have a chain in the channel - not shown on model - that could be used to clear debris and allow water to flow into the well. Keep in mind also, that bilge pumps used on this ship were of the suction type, allowing the pipes to be located right down on the outer planking bilge strake - unlike earlier chain pumps that could only reach the tops of the frames and therefore left standing water between the frames if no between frame fillers were used. In any event, most of this construction will not be visible on the finished model. Hope this answers your question. Ed

Great to hear from you, Remco, but not so great to hear of your recent trials. Hope all is well and things look up for you in the new year. 2020 has not been great for many of us, but hopefully we will all head back to normal next year. All the best. I look forward to seeing your work again on MSW. Ed

Ah! Now I understand your question. It is a good one. I did have to go back and reconstruct the reasoning I used in the design of the model. I should preface my answer by saying that not much is known about many of these structural details for any specific ship. If you refer to the cross-sections in Crothers book on clipper ship construction, you will see that a variety of methods were used to reinforce these long hulls against hogging. I based the Young America model design on the Crothers cross-section for YA which was based on better information available for Challenge, Webb's preceding design. Webb's design did not employ large section bilge keelsons used by some builders, but relied on bands of thick members (bilge ceiling) running from the underside of the lower deck clamps down to below the line of the floor timbers. These 8" square(?) timbers were scarfed and bolted to the frames and to each other. If you compare the midship frame drawing with the midship cross-section (both included on the cd) you will see that at midship the heavy band of bilge ceiling begins about 5 strakes below the line of the floor timbers. The strakes of these ceiling members then parallel the line of floor timber ends over the length of the ship, tapering down to end where the fore and aft tops of floor timbers intersect the lower deck clamps. Thus, the bilge ceiling does not extend all the way to either the deadwood aft or the stem. By running the bilge strakes on a different line (actually a hull diagonal) from the deck clamps, a sort of truss structure was created that would significantly stiffen the hull. This would provide increased strength over a design where all the planks ran parallel. While the extent of heavy bilge ceiling could be increased to take it all the way to the ends of the hull, this would involve more strakes of heavy timber below the floor heads - an expensive proposition offering small benefit at the ends of the ship where the hogging effect would be less and where the deadwood and stem structure provided their own stiffness. In summary, the strakes of bilge ceiling run parallel to the floor heads with the lower edge of the band five strakes below those heads. This interpretation may or may not be correct - who knows - but that was the model design basis. I attach the referenced frame and cross-section for those who may not have the book. Thanks for the question. Ed Midship a.pdf Cross-Section at Midship.pdf

Randy, I do not understand your question. Can you give me a reference - photo or drawing - that shows this not extending the full length? Are you looking at where it stops for the view port openings? Ed

You are welcome, Randy. Glad if I can help. I do know the effort involved to keep up an informative build log - almost as much time as spent on the model, especially when you consider photography. I probably went overboard posting pictures - around a dozen a week for a few years - and taking them for both the blog and the books - 200 to 300 per month four several years. It is a lot of work - to say nothing of constantly tripping over the tripod in the workspace. Again, good luck with your project. Ed

Hello again Randy, This seems to be the one photo I have of the clamps at the stern. Keep in mind that the clamps will be severely dubbed off level on the tops to provide a flat horizontal surface on which to bed the deck framing. This was done later, after this photo was taken and before the beams were fitted. It is important when fitting these clamps that the height of the clamps as shown on the drawings sets the clamp height at the frames. The inner upper corner will be dubbed off. Note that the stern deadwood is not high enough above the cutting down line to allow the clamps to be fayed into it, so the clamp ends are just squared off. The second picture shows this area after the deck hook and some of the lower deck framing was fitted. Hope this helps. Ed

Hello Randy, History has not decided whether Young America's strapping was internal or external, so one cannot argue for either with any certainty. I tried and failed to uncover this. I believe the structural implications are equivalent, but the difference in installation difficulty between the two is not. Slotting frames to fit the straps inside would have been much easier and faster than scaffolding and doing this on the outside of the frames. Much of the work would be overhead. Because time and money was driving the building of these ships, I chose the internal option in the absence of any definitive documentation. One could argue for either method. For some reason I cannot recollect, I began fitting the bilge ceiling before the entire lower deck clamps were installed, but in no case did I install this ceiling before the ends of the clamps were fixed. This is necessary so that the ends of the ceiling timbers can be tapered to fit neatly to the underside of the clamps. Installing the clamps completely before starting the ceiling is not only acceptable, but probably preferred. Go for it. If you are planning a build log, I would love to follow it. Ed

A feat of endurance no doubt, Adam. Thank you for your interest. I hope you found something useful. Cheers, Ed

Now I am not so certain, Tony. On closer inspection and comparison with the drawings, the lower rail along the side appears very low. Also, the main and fore shrouds seem to be anchored inside the hull. That, along with the rounded poop - which could have been added - raises questions. Otherwise she seems a dead-ringer. I wish the picture of the stern below the poop were clearer. Ed

Hello everyone, Maury S recently referred me to a site featuring photos from San Francisco history and this previously unknown - at least to me - picture of Young America was in the collection. Although the built up and rounded stern was something new to me, the rest of the picture leaves no doubt that this is indeed Young America - late in her career for sure. The rounded stern modification suggests to me that the entire poop deck was raised, including the helm, perhaps to increase head room in the cabins below, or to raise the cabin deck level to the height of the main deck - note portholes. More stowage capacity? The original cabin deck was a "mezzanine" between the main and lower decks. Very curious. Ed

Pat, I can offer opinions on your questions, but they are just that, based on the conclusions I reached in interpreting the various sources while constructing Young America. The questions relate to very small details. You may be overthinking this. However, Q1. I would say no, the extreme rake of the masts notwithstanding. I do not believe it would be practical or important to angle the stops to avoid additional bend in the stay at the eye splice (or seizing) due to rake. I have seen no details of angled stops in any spar drawings. Q2. My guess is that, in general, major structural elements. like crosstree assemblies, would not be constructed with bevels in the members and that where necessary wedges or shims would be used, Again, I have seen no references showing bevelling of furniture framing. I notice that you show the cap in two different ways - horizontal and right-angled to the mast. Based on Fincham's construction specifiation for caps, at least, the right-angled (not horizontal) configuration would be correct, in spite of the fact that many diagrammatic spar plans of the period show these horizontal. I cannot explain these differences, but would go with Fincham based on the difficulty of shaping angled mortises - square and round - when making the caps. Q3. I would go with square fid holes. I assume the fids would be standard iron bar stock and would rest on iron plate and believe this would be OK. Again, have never seen reference to angling fid holes in any reference. In general, I believe mast rake could be adjusted. While not likely to be done very frequently, if at all, this would obviously upset any precise bevelling features that were built in to either the spars or furniture. Hope this helps. Ed

Randy, I just use ordinary high speed steel drill bits. I believe the size of the holes is about 1/8"? Should be able to drill through most metals with that, certainly brass. Bits should be sharp, not old and dull, of course. Important to center punch as always. Let the drill do the work and do not use too much pressure. Medium speed. Should work without problem. Ed

Randy, After center marking, I would clamp it down against a fence to keep it from spinning, then drill with the press or by hand if necessary. Holding it down is important. A spinning strip can be dangerous to your fingers. Ed

Hi Randy, I do not believe you can go wrong with the Sherline tools. I have found them to be excellent, with an excellent array of additional accessories - all of high quality. So I do not hesitate to recommend. Greg's suggestion sounds like it would be very useful, though I have not seen the videos. I also found the book, Tabletop Machining, by Joe Martin, the late owner of Sherline, to be very good and written for people like us. The manuals that come with the tools are also very good. In the Naiad and Young America books, I did my best to describe machining steps in some detail, recognizing that, like myself, most modelers are not trained machinists. There is a learning curve. As with all good tools, the Sherline machines plus the necessary accessories, will be costly. I suggest buying them progressively, rather than all at once, adding accessories as they are needed. I believe in YA Volume I, I discussed which would likely to be needed first for a model of that type. You might want to have a look at that. All the best, Ed

Lots of frames, Alberto! Beautiful work as usual.

The model is looking fantastic, Pat. You might be splitting hairs on your questions, Pat, but I understand how wanting to get this detail right works on our brains. I suspect much of this detail was left in the hands of the shipwrights, so it maybe hard to go wrong. Cheers, Ed

Nice work as usual, Gary. Making that functioning steering gear was one of the tasks I enjoyed most in building Naiad. Trying to remember how I joined those loose ends at the wheel spindle - time flies. Ed

Hi Randy, Thank you for remembering that the List Of Dimensions takes priority. I assume you are referring to the aft frames 43a, 44a, 45a, which indeed show 2nd futtocks at 12" in conflict with the LOD that specifies these at 11" - a good example of why dimensions should be shown in only one place. I probably could not resist putting sizes on the pattern sheets for clarity and ready reference. A trap. Because the LOD was created directly from my sources before making any drawings, using those dimensions is probably best - in this case and in general. The difference on these pieces is slight ( 1" = .013") and I believe they will be planked over. I cannot recall what I used, but would not be surprised to find it was the drawing dimension. Thanks for raising this point. Keeps me honest. Ed

I will take a look later this morning, Randy. Stay tuned.

Slackwater, I believe the text is quite clear on this. The futtocks should not be sided until after assembly if you are using this method. To quote from Ch 5: Although frame components diminish in siding from bottom to top, all of the pieces should be cut from stock that is the thickness of the lowest parts, the floors or the lower futtocks. This will allow the frames to lie directly on the pin board without spacers under the upper parts during assembly. It will also provide an accurate basis for beveling. The sidings are smaller toward the ends of the hull, so check the List of Dimensions. The upper futtocks will be cut back to their correct sidings after beveling and removal of the patterns. The initial toptimber sidings are an exception. On the finished model, they will be prominently lined up along the main deck where any small difference in size will be very noticeable. You will recall the quality criteria relating to uniformity of similar parts. All of these toptimbers, two on the forward frame of each pair, should be cut out from 9” thick stock to ensure their identical width. These will be attached after the other parts of the frame are assembled. Ed

My preference would be to have you post questions here on the build log so that others may benefit as well - and offer answers and comments as well. I keep an eye on this daily. Ed

Isopropanol is very quick and effective loosening pva glued knots - and very fast. Ed

Hello Bob, Thanks for your comments. The splice shown in the first photo is one of many hundred used to lash one end of the ratline to an end shroud. the other end is made the same way but has to be made in place. I described this is the YA build log and in more detail in the book. In this case the loop is made by passing a needle through the rope then pulling it tight over a pin as shown in the picture. On these there is no wrapping below the joint. The contact between threads, plus the glue is sufficient. To finish the splice the short end is clipped off very close to - right at - the main part. On larger joints of this type some of the short end may be slightly wrapped and pinched to the main leg so when cut it shows some splice width. But in all cases of this type the glue is doing the work. I use normal yellow glue for hemp and darkened glue that dries almost black for tarred standing rigging. Because I wanted to lash the ends of the ratlines to the shrouds in a realistic manner, a method to make many small eyesplices was needed and that led to this. It worked well enough to be used on larger ropes for the many splices in the running rigging where there is more stress on the lines. The ratline fixture shown in the picture puts tension on both legs, avoiding any kinks at the splice. The method works very well in place where an eyesplice fits over an eyebolt or other point on the model. I usually pull the long end through in this case. I thin this adds some strength. This type of splice is used on small rope, sizes 40 to 100 of the crochetting thread that I use. This right-handed thread simulates rope very well. For larger sizes, usually made rope, a different process is used. I think all this is described in the build log and certainly in the book. Ed

I had some doubts about using emulsion glue (PVA), or matte medium (acrylic) to secure rigging when I started the rigging job on Young America. At 1:72 or 1:96, glue of some sort is essential. These doubts were completely dispelled, rescuing me from the ordeal of using CA for anything except stiffening rope ends to thread through small holes. Making strong eyesplices (perhaps a thousand or so) in the smallest thread sizes was a daunting prospect. The pictures below show the method used and to my mind represent an acid test for the Titebond wood glue that I used. The only connection on these splices is the passing of the rope through itself, so there is no knot and the strength of the joint is due primarily to the glue. I can think of only a few failures of these splices in the entire model. The first picture shows the forming of a splice in size 80 cotton thread by passing a needle through the rope to form the splice, in this case the rope passes through a shackled eyebolt. The next picture shows such a splice in place in the rigging - under some tension. The next picture shows a splice of this type being glued in a special fixture used for making the 100's of ratline splices. I have not tested the strength of glue vs. matte medium, but I used glue. Both are aqueous polymer emulsions and can be diluted with water. The acrylic medium is formulated to modify coatings, mainly artist acrylics, or to act as a coating itself. PVA is a glue. While I expect that either could be used to seal knots, I believe that the PVA, Titebond in this case, will be stronger where the glue provides primary strength, as it does in these splices. Also, I believe in these cases, less dilution is more appropriate than in cases where the role of the emulsion is merely to prevent knot loosening. I would also add that these materials will be most effective on natural fibers - cotton or linen, and less so if at all on synthetics like poly ester. So, except for stiffening rope ends to pass through small holes, I believe CA is unnecessary in rigging. A welcome conclusion for those of us, like me, who hate using it. Ed

Thank you for posting these, Steve. Having converted the posts relevant to the masting and rigging that were included in Volume 3, I know what a job this is. I hope YA 1:96 modelers - and potential modelers - will find these a useful supplement to the book. Good job. Ed