Elia

I am making steady progress on the wales. My old clamps are proving quite serviceable for this; I have started to run them through gunports as I get further astern and they no longer reach from below. The last photo shows why Gary's idea of a batten is such a good one. There are numerous little pieces around the pierced gunports, and I can see they will easily go astray without a constant guide from stem to stern including going over the gunports.
 
Mark

Thank you, Marc, for your words of encouragement, and I enjoyed your tag line of "we are all works in progress, all of the time." Applies to us and our models.
 
Once I rounded the bows and began placing planks further aft, I realized that the wale dips below the lower gundeck at midships; and therefore, my clamps from above would no longer work. So I rummaged through my box of old tools, and recovered the clamps I had made almost 20 years ago to clamp up the growing sandwich of frames in the admiralty framing system.
 
I ran these through the open frames athwartships, and they worked perfectly to clamp from below. I just have to be very careful not to nick the frames when I pass the threaded rod through. I wrapped them in tape to help avoid the worst damage.
 
Mark
 
 

The first planks of the wales are on, so far, so good. They are a little oversize in thickness to allow for leveling later, but the hooked joints are tight. These were the most challenging pieces I have installed so far on this project, with compound curves and tight tolerances on the hooked joints.

Mark
 

After recalibrating my gantry for measuring off the sheer drawing, I decided it would be prudent to re-plot the wales, just in case things went astray during the move.
While I was at it, I re-thought how to attach the batten above the wale, for more accuracy. I had previously plotted points the thickness of the batten above the wale, so I could see the points from above while attaching the batten (too hard to look for points under the batten, in the shadow). But this proved to be inaccurate; the batten itself was not completely the same width along its length, and I had now plotted more points against other points, allowing errors to creep in.
 
So, instead, I drilled holes at the plotted points at the top of the wales, which I could see clearly without the battens in the way. And I then put small nails into the holes, using these as stops against which I could very accurately hold the batten while drilling and fastening it.
 
This was a reminder to me that--at least for me--registering one piece against another is going to be more reliable than free-handing.
 
Mark

Mark I think your reference could be a bad reference because it is a partial planking. A fully planked model is a better reference.
 
Here is what I think the modeler did with this model. He took the highway of the facility. He did represent 3 rows of a wale only. The 3 rows are made  full width planks. If he would have continued his work without tapering extremities of the planks he would face some planks tapering to 0 and this we do not want for the simple reason that we cannot put a nail at the end of a plank finishing at 0 inch.
 
Tapering the end of a plank means thatthe end of the next plank will come higher taking a part of the space of the upper plank.
 
It is very difficult to start to the first plank at the good angle with the good curvature. It is also difficult to photograph  the direction of the plank. Following your work, I returned to mine, observing that I did even worst.
 
I think a good way to verify the regularity of the curve is to take 3 pictures : 1 front, 1 at 90  degrees of the middle of the strake and 1 side. I did repeat the process 3 times and corrected the end each time. The lower line was before, the upper is now which seems to look better. Still needs some adjustments but I think that if the results  is smooth on the 3 photos, then the result can be good. Also I think that taking pictures after doing the work has the same result as usual, The camera has no pity of our work.
 

Good morning Mark,
 
it's good to see you back at the work bench. In the question of the double curve of the wales I think that there is no double curve. Also, if you want to see, at the Bellona model. Look also at the upper wales. Here some pictures I made last year in Greenwich and Chatham.
 
First the Centurion of 1732, Model made 1745
 

 
then a 60 gunner of 1745
 

 
and Balchen's Victory
 

 
and two pictures from the NMM website, the Victory and Thunderer
 

 

Thanks, druxey, you were right, the point at the stem had crept up. Here is the batten with the corrected curve.
Gary's recommendation of a batten against which to set the wales is really proving to be a great idea. I was able to use it to accurately spile the topmost, foremost plank, and this showed me that there was greater curve on the upper surface than I had previously drawn (my CAD drawing had assumed, I realize in hindsight, that the surface was completely vertical, and this is not the case). The last photo shows how much the upper plank curves.
 
It just goes to show that there is no shortcut to reliable techniques. Set a batten, and spile the planks, set a batten and spile the planks, repeat until this lesson is never forgotten! 
 
Mark

Here is a different angle view...

Thank you, aviaamator, the opinions of all of you really help keep me focused.
 
Following the good advice of Gary on his Alfred build, I am installing a temporary batten at the top of the wale, against which I can fit the upper strakes for a smooth curve.
 
Not quite sure yet if the pre-cut and then bent strake is going to fit tightly here. It needs some "encouragement" to lie flat against the compound curving surface, and I can't see yet if this will cause unreasonable stress. I am learning much at this critical place in the build; critical because it is so obvious if the wale lies correctly or not, and at the head where the viewer's attention will naturally be drawn when the ship is completed.
 
 

I pulled the pre-cut pieces off the formers this morning, and they bent very nicely to the hull. After pondering the not insignificant program of shaping a curved blank, I think I will have more success with the original plan of bending pre-cut pieces. This allows me to shape tight fitting joinery while pieces are still flat, then bend.
 
There was a little more spring-back on the these pieces that I had previously boiled, compared to the blank I bent the other day that had not been steamed or boiled before. So the boiling did seem to affect the wood before the steaming. Only steaming from now on..
 
Mark

Thanks, Michael. I always appreciate your keen eye and ideas for tooling.
 
Now I have successfully bent a piece, I need to think how I am going to shape it. I am thinking about attaching it to a backing piece that would allow me to clamp it in a vise, as shown in the drawing. Unless someone has a simpler idea.
 
Just for fun, I steamed the original pre-cut pieces that I previously boiled and could not get to the right curvature. They appear to have bent to the former after steaming, as seen in the last photo, and we will see how much spring-back I get tomorrow morning.
 
This is an impromptu experiment in the advantages and disadvantages of cutting and then bending, or vise versa...
 
Mark

Santa did not bring a soldering iron or heat gun for me this year, so I turned again to the steam box parts that I had purchased a few years ago. I built a new box out of PVC pipe, scaled down to the sizes of wood I need to bend. I tried one former that was not sharp enough bend to allow for the springback, and then modified the bend more sharply to compensate (see sketch below). The final bend came out just right. I am in business!
 
Mark

Hmm, my nemesis, bending 9/64" thick wood...
I cut the former with a greater curve to accommodate spring-back, boiled the pieces for 1 ½ hours, and then clamped them overnight. But as the first photo shows, the spring-back was much more significant than I had planned.
So there are three variables here: 1) the curvature of the former; 2) the time boiling; and 3) the time clamped in the former. 
Before I start experimenting with different curvatures of the former, does my boiling time and bending time seem about right?
 
The good news is that the two strakes I bent at the same time came out with the same curvature, even though one was much longer than the other, and the joints fit well.
 
Best wishes,
 
Mark
 

Mark when I did mine at the bow I fitted the first top one pinned  in place with out any glue. As you said I made up a piece of wood the had the curve of the bow and after soaking the piece, it was clamp up in the form and left over night  and fitted the next day.  You might also want to put just a little bit more of a curve in the form making sure you have enough curve in the piece. After that make up a file template of the next one using the shape of the first one on the ship it self. Cut out the template, lay on the wood you making the pieces out of, cut to  shape, soak, steam and after a little be of dry fitting pin it to the hull, replace the pins with trunnels/treenails and your done. As far as putting glue on the plank, I just put glue on the trunnel and after you have 75% of the tunnels in place that plank isn't going any where. I don't like gluing the plank to the frames because if you make a boo boo then its a lot harder to get the plank off. With just the trunnel  glued its just a matter of prying up the plank fix the mistake and keep going. Had to replace a few planks on account of mistake, which am sure most of us have a box full. Then you do the next set and then the next set untill you have you wale the length of the hull. I did enjoy putting Alfred's on  and was like putting a jig saw puzzle together.  Of course am not worth a hoot when it comes to putting them together. Gary

John, Greg, thanks for the comments. It is great to be going again.
 
I planned to bend wood today, but it took most of the day to refine the joints and plank widths and thicknesses at the bow.
 
Dumb question; if I glued together the two planks shown, would they separate after boiling them for bending? I can see some value in bending these together, to keep the joint tight. I may also try making a caul shaped to the bow, and use this to ensure uniform bending if I have to do these separately.
 
Mark

Thanks, druxey, Michael and Albert. I am constantly fighting my natural tendency to "bodge" through things, rather than being more methodical. Methodical is more satisfying for me.
After playing around with various ways of cutting the hooked scarphs, I settled for now on using the Sherline mill to trim the inner flats, the disk sander to trim the outer flats, and the curved sanding blocks for the outer edges. I decided to keep the outer edges a little fat so I can trim these once on the hull.
 
three parts fitted, 53 to go...
 
Mark

Yesterday I managed to cut out all of the wales parts. To refine the curved edges, I cut a sanding template to the radius of the wales in sheer in the center, and I am using this with my shooting board. The shooting board has a sloped ramp for the sanding template, which means a wider surface of sanding paper is presented to the piece as it slides back and forth, using the sandpaper more efficiently and avoiding grooves in the piece.
 
Mark

I had to put the wales on hold for a while, waiting for the delivery of replacement thrust bearings for my bandsaw (shame on me, I discovered while tuning my bandsaw after my move that the bearings had completely frozen up). Keeping busy, I continued with the conversion of my drawings from hand-drafted to CAD, working on the upper deck plan. I came across an unusual arrangement, which raises a question. The Bellona has two curved beams in the bows, one fore and one aft of the foremast partners. These form unusual spaces that need to be filled with ledges no closer than 9" or greater than 12" apart. As I have drawn this below, just aft of beam 1, one ledge is landing on the head of the hanging knee, which I have not seen in any contemporary drawings. Has anyone seen this, or is there another arrangement for this? Also notice the space fore of beam 1 , with a lodging knee at an acute angle. I am thinking this knee would have to be scarphed together from two pieces, but I have not seen this in a contemporary drawing either. And a ledge is likely to land on the two arms of the knee. No problem with that as I can think, but very unusual.
 
Thrust bearings arrived yesterday, hope to be making sawdust again soon.
 
Best wishes,
 
Mark

Those trees come from a mysterious place.
 
A nice by product of expanding the wales in CAD is that I was able to create a very efficient template for cutting out both port and starboard pieces. These are laid out on the actual size of my blank, and the green line below shows where I have to cut down the middle to fit my thickness sander.
 
Mark

Mark, Gary, druxey, it makes all the sense in the world that the individual planks would vary in length to suit the wood available, and to ensure landing on a frame. Andy by extension, ideal proportions of 1/3 to 2/3 on top-and-butt, and 50/50 on anchor, could be adjusted by a foot or two to suit similar real circumstances in actual construction. So perhaps the Bellona model is showing reality more than an idealized model. I keep thinking that the starboard side of the model is demonstrating an unusual framing idea, compared to the conventional system on the port side. Perhaps the wales (which are only on the port side) are showing a conventional, practical system as well.
 
druxey, I like your simplification of the upper strake. My drawing shows perhaps too large a piece for too little additional strength.
 
Mark

Well spotted, Mark, I never noticed the backwards hook! The lesson I will take from this is to draw each piece ahead of time, so I don't get distracted and cut one of mine backwards. I am wondering about my apprentice theory...
 
I printed out the wales from the CAD drawing and taped it to the hull. I was off in length by 1/8th of an inch (too short in the drawing), so I adjusted by marking the actual station lines on the paper and readjusting the station lines back in CAD. All is now good to go, except for wondering if the aft-most gunport would be allowed to cut into the second strake down as shown in the second image without adjustment.
 
Best wishes,
 
Mark

Hi Mark and thanks for asking. Seems that life has been keeping me busy, some times good sometimes not so good. I am keeping a eye on you and the other good folks here and must say you are doing a outstanding job. At the moment am building a hobby bench to replace what I am using at the moment which is a make shift desk. If you get the magazine Woodsmith, on the cover, it shows the hobby bench, vol 37/ no 219. Should look real nice when I get it finshed. On a different not, on the wale there is a plan that shows the wale on, I believe a 74 and gives the shape and size of the wale pieces. I have to find the plan and get you a number for it and I will see if I can at least post up one of the photos of it. Hope it helps you. Excuse the plan of the Lyon can't seem to get rid of it.  Gary

Thanks, Ed, druxey, Alan and Mark, for the ideas and comments. We had visitors today, and spent most of the day driving to Glacier National Park in northern Montana. But in the early morning and late afternoon, I managed to finish up the drawing.
 
Using a combination of CAD and a version of druxey's shuffle around the corner, I think I got a fairly accurate expansion.
 
Mark, thanks for the note on the hooked joints. I have guessed from proportionally measuring the photos of the Bellona model that the hooks are 2 1/2" long, and incline 30 degrees to the line drawn between the two ends. Let me know if you have a different understanding. This should be very interesting to construct!
 
Best wishes,
 
Mark
 

Ed, that sounds like good advice. I measured the physical length of the wale between two station lines in plan, and plotted this on the true length line. It doesn't measure the true length along the slight curve between the station lines, but probably close enough. I only need this for templates for cutting rough blanks, and the finished parts can be refined on installation.
 
Mark
 

With so many individual wale pieces with many different dimensions, I decided to draw an expanded elevation of the wales, from which I could make accurate cut templates.
 
However, my architectural background did not prepare me for how to do an expansion of a curved surface. In the drawing below, how are the station lines in plan projected to the true length line? Do you draw a perpendicular from the wale in plan at each station line, to the true length line, as I am showing in the circled detail? It seems it would make the wale way too long right at the rabbet in the stem, since a perpendicular there would be almost parallel to the true length line...
 
Best wishes,
 
Mark