EdT

Research continues.
 
I still cannot speak to the issues of the upper deck and continue to believe that its radius of curvature is constant over the length of the deck. The Bellone draft may well have errors. There were several in the Naiad drafts. But my opinion remains just that - an opinion.
 
However, I have continued to explore Steel with regard to the quarterdeck round up at the stern that does match the roundup of the top of the lights in the drawing attached to my last post. I believe I have found the answer in the voluminous treatise on mold loft processes (70+ pages). In this description the quarterdeck transom is lofted to the curvature of the upper counter rail - the curve of the lights. This complicated description is then followed by the sentence, in parentheses, "(The after beams of the quarterdeck must be gradually sprung to answer thereto.)". From this, I conclude that the qdeck beams were made to the specified round up. As the stern was approached they were then "gradually sprung" probably using the pillars, to match the round up of the slightly more curved qdeck transom. I know in later periods, springing beams this way to level out the deck was fairly common practice. This explanation makes enough sense to me to conclude what has become an obsessive search.
 
Hope this helps, Mark.
 
Ed

Mark,  you are probably getting a lot more help(?)  than you expected on this, but I am going to reluctantly add some more.  Further to Gaetan's point looking at the stern view, I looked at Plate I in Steel that shows a lines draft for his 80-gun example ship.  It includes the stern view that I attached below as a pdf.  It can be seen in this view that the curvature of the upper deck transom is less pronounced, and not parallel to the round up of the lower counter.  Nor is it parallel to the upper counter rail – the rail below the lights.  Although dificult to measure, this deck round up appears close to the midship round up specified based on the deck width ratio.  The line of the quarterdeck is, however, parallel to the line of the pedestal rail – the line above the lights and therefore matches the tops of the lights.  The deck round up at this point also appears to be greater than the specified round up at midship.
 
So, it would appear that the qdeck round up was set to match the stern lights, while the upper deck round up was not.  The quarter deck transom would apper to form the top of the lights.
 
I realize that this does not solve the mystery of the sheer plan side deck line height on your draft, but it may be helpful.
 
Steel 80-gun stern.pdf
 
Ed

I don't know why, Mark, but I read your note on the beam rounding again. I missed the bit about the deck round up ratio at the stern first time through. See the last sentence in the Steel paragraph. I can only assume that there were rules for the stern windows round up or that the round up of that structure was done on the drafts before and independently of the round-up of the deck beams - so they could be slightly different. Hence Steel's note.
 
In any event it looks like you are only differing by about .5" - (21.42/40.67)x 8.5 = 4.5" vs. 5" At your scale the difference is only 0.008". Thats only a few sandpaper swipes.
 
Ed

Sorry, just one more thought: Drawing the deck line at the sides as Steel describes is extremely inportant because in the tables of deimensions the heigth of the ports is given as a fixed height above that line - the deck line at the side - not the center. The line of the port sills (and for that matter all the inboard clamps, spirketing,waterways and planking ) is parallel to that line at each deck. This assures that gun barrels will be at the same correct height at every port - hence the attention Steel gives to this.
 
Enough from me. Cheers,
 
Ed

Let me just toss in a couple more thoughts. Having a constant radius of curvature for all the beams of one deck would be a major facilitator in the shipyard - one template for each deck for all its beams. In addition, this would assure that the tops of the beams would be in a fair line for planking. Consider he complexity of a different arc radius for every beam, requiring unique templates for each beam as breadth of the deck narrowed the ends.
 
These considerations will also apply to the model work.
 
In addition, as the ends of the ship are approached a constant arc radius assures the the slant of the deck will be relatively constant. Consider how drastically the slant of the deck and its height at the center would increase as the deck narrowed - especially at the bow.
 
Ed

OK, this topic keeps coming up.  The answer lies in Steel - and it is consistent to my earlier response and the comments of druxey and Gaetan.  I quote from the instructions on preparing the Sheer draft.:
 
“All the decks having been drawn in, representing their heights at the middle, we must now proceed to draw their heights at the side.  To do which correctly, take the round up of the beam of its respective deck from the table of dimensions, and set it up in the middle of a line drawn at pleasure: then on each side of the middle of this line, set off the half breadth at deadflat, or the broadest place, taken at the height of the deck.  Then raise an arc, that shall intersect the round up set off at the middle, with the spots at the breadth, and the round up of the deck will be described at any part of its breadth (my underline).  Thus, take the half breadth at the height the deck at any timber, in the body plan, and set it off equally from the middle of the round up till it intersects the curve; whence draw a line parallel to that first drawn, and the distance from the line last drawn to the round up curve in the middle, is what the beam rounds at that place.  Thus may the round up be taken at as many timbers as may be found necessary, and set below the underside of the deck at its respective timber in the sheer plan;  then a curve passing through those spots will represent the deck at the side:  but observe, that the decks are to have a sufficient round abaft, to correspond to the round up of the stern above the lights.”
 
Simple language: 1) construct an arc above a horizontal line that is the width of the deck at deadflat with a height at the center equal to the round up of the beam at midship.  2) At any timber along the deck take the half breadth and set it out from the center of the arc drawn, and drop a line to the arc on each side.  3) draw a line parallel to the first horizontal line through these interseection points on the arc. 4) the height from this line to the center of the arc is the height below the deck centerline at that timber.
 
Note that there is only one arc for each deck - common to all the beams.  And for this reason, in the sheer plan, the lines representing the center of the deck and the lines for the sides converge - completely at the bow and partially at the stern.
 
Ed  

Mark, the round up of the beams is a constant radius over he length of the deck. That is why the deck lines at the center and those at the side converge going forward and aft of midship coming together at the bow and almost together at the tern..
 
Ed

Hello Alan,

Thanks for responding to my post. Please do not feel that you need to respond to these comments. I made my peace with all these issues long ago and only offer comments that I think may be helpful.  I am glad to do that - for what they are worth.

I suggest you give some thought to the frame bevelling before lofting patterns. I believe many modelers leave the bevels to the sandpaper, but keep in mind that the frames need to be bevelled inside and out. Patterns need to account for this. Patterns from reliable draftsman do that in a way to enable the bevels to be sanded inside and out with enough wood left to meet the molded thickness requirements of the frame when your finished sanding. Also, keep in mind that at the forward and aft ends, bevels become quite extreme and require installation of very thick frames if unbevelled.  Cant frame bevels are a story in themselves.
 
Some modelers partially pre-bevel - if the patterns show the bevels. I did this for Naiad where all four profiles for every frame were lofted. On Young America patterns also included all four profiles and with the assembly process used - enabled by the CAD lofting method  - left patterns on both fore and aft faces of every frame pair after assembly. This enabled the frames to be completely bevelled before erection - as was done in he shipyard. I am not sure if anyone is doing this besides me but I would not go back.
 
Why do this pre-bevelling? Sanding/paring inside the hull is a pain. Erection of bevelled frames is much easier. It is also more accurate.  You can check the hull fairness as the frames are erected. There are many ways to skin this cat.  I only offer this as food for thought.  I'm not in the persuasion business.
 
Have fun - and good luch with the project.
 
Ed

Alan,
 
I think you will find the Vade Mecum very helpful.  It may take some time to digest, but it will be well spent.  It took me some weeks and some things did not sink in for months.  I would draw your attention to some specifics:
 
p 144 begins the section on making drafts.  p 162 begins the specifics of drawing the sheer plan - which should be done first - in 2D at least - I can't comment on 3D - as with the original guys, I don't use it.  P 195 explains the diagonals.  You have not mentioned these.  They are quite important - for setting frame joints, fairing lines and drawing the body lines. p.255 begins the section on tables for forming the bodies and describes important lines that are used to make the draft.  Scantlings begin on p 266.  The glossary is also very useful and sometimes very import points are mentioned only there.
 
I caught up with your log late, but just a few observations:
 
I note that you are taking dimensions from the bottom of the keel.  It was/is normal practice to use the top of the keel as the primary dimensional reference line.  Some dimensions in tables will be on that basis, but it is otherwise just a matter of convention.
 
You have not mentioned "room and space".  This is the distance between frame lines.  2X room and space is the distance beweeen "stations" - main frame lines on the draft.  Room and space allows room for two frames plus air space between the floors.  There are then 4 frames for every station.  Room and space also sets the gunport width since the ports are framed main timbers. 
 
If you are planning to loft individual frames you should consider how these will be defined.  You may find, as I did, that at least the intermediate frame profiles are needed and perhaps some in between to accurately define frame bevels - the ones Allan mentioned. 
 
You mentioned dimensional error between views on the drafts but did not say how much.  I checked the original Naiad drafts - before using them - for accuracy using the scale at the bottom and some other points on the drawing and found them to be 99.8 to 99.9% accurate.  These were paper copies.  From my experience scanning often induces distortion and I would not be surpised to find digitized versions to be less accurate.  However, what is important is to decide what tolerances you will set for your drawings and then decide whether dimensional variation on the drafts is material or not based on that.  For example if the moulded half-breadth of your ship is 20', how much deviation would you accept on the model - 1/32"?  1/64"?  at 1:48 these equate to .63% and .31% respectively - for dimensions like that.  For timber thickness, if you work to say .005"  on a 12" timber (at 1:48) that equates to a tolerance of about 2% on dimensions of that type.  From this you can determine acceptable drawing error.  I think 1 to 2% is generally quite reasonable for model work.
 
Waterlines on these ships are not often keel-parallel and  - as druxey says - you must build on a surface parallel to the keel to be able to set frames vertically.  Actually, except for fairing, waterlines on these ships were not very useful.  Diagonals were much more useful even for fairing - and certainly more accurate for plotting hull profiles.  I found it convenient to define separate keel-parallel waterlines and draw those from the body plan on the half-breadth.  I then used those for whatever purpose needed - for example templates to check the hull - those are best set up parallel to the board surface.
 
There are a lot of lines on the original drafts and some may be mysterious.  All are important.  I would make sure to understand what each one is.  The Vade Mecum will help with that.
 
I hope these few points will be helpful.
 
You are just beginning a major and very complex effort.  All the best with it.
 
Ed

Hello Richard,
I do believe that volume 2 is out of print, but cannot advise you how to get a copy.  You might try writing to the published, Mike Ellison, (Mike@seawatchbooks.com) but I doubt there is any inventory.  You might also try Amazon.  I have seen a copy or two of my books show up there used.  You might also, post requests on MSW.  Perhaps someone may be able to sell you one.
 
Sorry, I could not be more helpful.
 
Ed

Hello Richard,
I do believe that volume 2 is out of print, but cannot advise you how to get a copy.  You might try writing to the published, Mike Ellison, (Mike@seawatchbooks.com) but I doubt there is any inventory.  You might also try Amazon.  I have seen a copy or two of my books show up there used.  You might also, post requests on MSW.  Perhaps someone may be able to sell you one.
 
Sorry, I could not be more helpful.
 
Ed

Hello Richard,
I do believe that volume 2 is out of print, but cannot advise you how to get a copy.  You might try writing to the published, Mike Ellison, (Mike@seawatchbooks.com) but I doubt there is any inventory.  You might also try Amazon.  I have seen a copy or two of my books show up there used.  You might also, post requests on MSW.  Perhaps someone may be able to sell you one.
 
Sorry, I could not be more helpful.
 
Ed

Rich...I concur with Ed.  Research...research.  flying Fish was constructed in 1851...and by then large *sticks* were not as available on the East coast.  Glory of the Seas was built with, *built* lower masts....on all three masts in 1869.  However, by the mid 1880's she had several masts refit with large single *sticks*, while she was on the West Coast...where such large trees where abundant.   Research the time frame of the said paintings....you may discover that if Flying fish was painted with bands on her mizzen...that was probably how she was rigged...during her construction...since most times good quality paintings were commissioned shortly after the ship was launched.....or after a new captain had made significant alterations.
 
Ed's YA was built with a banded mizzen
Rob

Very nice coppering job, Jerry.  The eraser is a good way to clean up the work and I used it some years ago on Victory's 3700 plates - doesn't leave anything behind like steel wool threads or skin.
 
I assume the copper is self-adhesive.  Do you know the thickness?  Can you recommend a source?
 
Thanks,
 
Ed 

I acually use a paper cutter depending on the thickness.  Also, make sure to get uncoated material.  Some craft sources sell coated material that does not tarnish, but also does not react to darkening.
 
Ed

I acually use a paper cutter depending on the thickness.  Also, make sure to get uncoated material.  Some craft sources sell coated material that does not tarnish, but also does not react to darkening.
 
Ed

McMaster Carr for lots of stuff from high quality drill bits to copper and brass sheets and rods.  https://www.mcmaster.com/
Allan

For brass strips I use a guillotine (like the one used for photography). I cut them from a larger brass sheet, I obtained earlier for photoetching, and have some left over.

When in doubt, Amazon.  There's always Micromark.  I got brass and copper wire, strips, plate, sheets etc from a variety of places - not one or even a few.  A lot of hardware stores - like Ace - have K&S displays.  The search for stuff is part of the fun.
 
Ed

When in doubt, Amazon.  There's always Micromark.  I got brass and copper wire, strips, plate, sheets etc from a variety of places - not one or even a few.  A lot of hardware stores - like Ace - have K&S displays.  The search for stuff is part of the fun.
 
Ed

Randy, this is a lovely build and deserving of a log. You don't have to post any more than you want. It really is easy and when you have milling questions we'll be able to better help later in your own log.

Hi Randy,
 
On the scuppers, I probably just followed Crothers.  Any pictures posted here would be much appreciated.  I do not know if my model is on dislay at Mystic, but if you find out, let me know.
 
Ed

Hi Randy,
 
On the scuppers, I probably just followed Crothers.  Any pictures posted here would be much appreciated.  I do not know if my model is on dislay at Mystic, but if you find out, let me know.
 
Ed

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 197 – Topmast Shroud Deadeyes
 
The last post showed the forward futtock shrouds installed, but was mainly concerned changes to rigging sizes, so I skipped over the work on the shrouds.  This work started with making straps for the deadeyes from copper wire.
 
The first picture shows wire wrapped around a dowel to make consistent-sized rings that will be formed into straps.
 

 
After some testing of ring size, a ¼" dowel was determined to be the right size for this – conveniently.  I was hoping to avoid turning a special size.  After wrapping tightly, the rings were parted as shown below.
 

 
The razor blade shown above makes a clean cut in the 22 gauge wire used for these – but only one or two at a time.  The next picture shows some rings before soldering as well as the test assembly fitted into the top.
 

 
The next picture shows the top with its six deadeyes fitted through slots in the iron reinforcing strip and the wood rim below.
 

 
A variety of futtock shroud materials and methods of fastening were used during the period.  Iron bars were coming into use.  Where rope was used, connections might be shackles, hooks or lashings.  Mast connections varied.  I decided on rope with hooks at the top and lashings at the mast eyes, typical of the early clipper years.  The next step was to make the hooked-thimbles.  Some are shown in the next picture.
 

 
These thimbles were cut from 1.5mm brass tube then flared by tapping with a shaped punch.  The thimbles shown happened to be blackened first – not necessary.  The eyes in the hooks must be large enough to pass the served shroud.  To ensure this, the brass rod shown was used as a gauge when forming the hooks.  In the last picture the hooked thimbles have been blackened and are shown suspended from the straps, awaiting connection of the shrouds,
 

 
Making the shrouds will be described in the next part.
 
Ed

Lovely clean framing, Montanes.
 
Ed