Elia

Robin, I usually do not let the camera lens wander above my wrists, but for you I make an exception - per your request....
 

 
Please excuse the typical clutter.
 
All the best,
 
Ed
 
ps. should have an update posting shortly.

It's been a little over a month, and I've made some progress.
 
Bulkhead Extensions
 
I trimmed the bulkhead extensions back to make them fit the size of the stanchions.  This went fairly quickly as I built a little jig to aid in cutting the extensions at the right depth.
 

 
The sternpost got installed pretty easily.
 
Bulkheads
 
Next up was gluing in the bulkheads.  This too went pretty easily with the aid of a variety of clamps, machinists squares, and angle braces to hold everything while the glue set.
 

 
I decided to go ahead and add support struts between the bulkheads.  Being my first POB build, I didn't trust myself to be delicate while fairing, so I wanted the extra support.  I had some 1" x 1/4" wood lying around, so I used that.  I measured the exact space between each bulkhead and cut individual pieces to fit each spot.  This took a couple days.   I made a bit of a mess with the glue, but all this will be hidden by hull and deck planking so I'm going to spend time cleaning it up. 
 
When I finished, I realized that my process (do one side first, then the other) had caused a problem.  I had introduced a bend into the keel because the first side I did was a little too snug, and the second side was cut later (so it locked in the bend).  If I had done both sides at once for each bulkhead, i could have avoided this.
 
Since all the supports were firmly glued in, I fixed the problem by cutting the supports between 2 bulkheads on each side.  Since cutting removes a bit of wood (due to the thickness of the blade), this gave me some squish room to relieve the pressure causing the bend.  I got the keel back in alignment, and re-glued the struts one side.   The other side (which now has struts with a gap in the middle) will just be filled in with wood putty so I don't have to keep looking at a reminder of my mistake.   It looked messy, but the keel is straight and the struts are solid.
 

 
Next up I faired the bulkheads.  I thought it went fine, but I later realized I didn't do a very good job.
 
Great Beam and Waterways
 
The practicum I'm loosely following suggests installing the outermost waterway to use as a guide for positioning the first plank.  This makes sense, but the practicum skips over installing the 'great beam' - it never installs it at all.  The deck planking (and waterways) would need to be on top of the 'ledge' created when you install the great beam.  So I deviated a little and installed the great beam, followed by the waterways.  I went ahead and installed all three waterway planks on the fore deck.  The quarter deck only has one waterway strip - between the stanchions - and I wasn't sure I'd get a smooth curve with all those little pieces.  So I went ahead and installed what will become the nibbling strake, then put in the actual waterway, matched to the curve of the nibbling strake.
 

 
Finally I moved on to planking.
 
Planking the Hull
 
One of the reasons I chose the Bluenose was that the plank layout is fairly simple and doesn't require some of the complex techniques required by other ships.  Also, the hull will be painted - so I can fix any mistakes with filler.
 
I started at the deck and worked my way about halfway down.  Then I put in the garboard strake and worked my way up from the keel.  I did both sides at the same time (install a strake on one side, then the matching strake on the other side) so that I could keep both sides uniform.  I also decided to use individually cut planks, per the instructions, rather than using full-length strips as the practicum suggests.  I did this only so I could get some practice with cutting and installing individual planks and maintaining a consistent pattern with the joints.
 

 
I'm satisfied with how it turned out, but I discovered my fairing was pretty poor.  There were some planks that didn't butt up nicely because the bevel on the bulkhead wasn't straight enough.  I had some trouble with the curves near the stern around the top of the sternpost.  Good thing this hull will be painted.  Filler to the rescue.
 
With both sides planked, I went through a few sanding rounds then generously applied wood filler as recommended in the practicum.  The practicum (and some build logs I've seen around the internet) show a LOT of filler being applied, then sanded away.  So, I did that.  Fortunately I only did one side of the hull (I wanted to see how it went before I did the other side).  I don't need anywhere near that much filler.  I ended up removing 95% of the filler.  It took days and I went through a TON of sandpaper.  On the other side, I'll use considerably less wood filler, which should make sanding it back down go a lot faster.
 
I've now got one side of the hull filled and sanded.  There are some touch-ups needed, but I'll come back and do those after I fill and sand the other side.
 

 
Next step is to fill and sand the other side and do another pass to clean up any remaining issues with the planking.
 
 
 

Last fall I began tinkering with making a dory for my schooner with the idea of casting them in resin. The reasoning for casting them was that I didn’t think my build precision and tolerances could yield a stack of dories (5-6) in which the nested dories would resemble real stacks of dories which pack together fairly tightly.

I used a plan for a 15 foot (measured along the bottom of the dory) version. This is representative of the dories used during Arethusa’s era, and the length of dory used for halibut, cod, and other larger dory trawling fishing.

The first photo shows the plans I used.
The second photo shows the bulkheads aligned on a small build board. The transom and stem were extended to the build board and glued in place. Later on they were judiciously cut off the build board once the planking was complete.


The third photo shows the strakes used on the sides of the hull. The largest width strakes could have been left straight; I chose to pre-cut the lower edge to aid in alignment with the bottom plank. Take note that the upper strakes are purely straight planks with no in-plane spiling. This was very common.


The fourth photo shows the bottom surface glued and secured in place. The bottom has a slight rocker or camber (fore-aft) to it.


The fifth photo shows the second strake glued in place. The lap strake assembly method presented slight challenges to me. I tried applying the very small bevel to the mating surfaces of the adjoining strakes. When assembling it was difficult to get the strakes to stay in the correct spot as the bevels and the clamps (applying force - to the beveled surfaces) resulted in the upper strake/plank moving.


The sixth photo shows the dory with planking complete and cut off the build board. You can see the extended stem and transom in this photo.


The seventh photo shows the dory upside down.


I’ve done a little clean up on the dory, having trimmed down the stem and transom and will add the rail strips. I received a starter resin casting set for my birthday and my casting attempts will follow shortly.

Cheers,

Elia

continued...

The build log reconstruction begins...
 
It has been a long time since I’ve started a new sailing ship build, with my sailing ship model (Oneida) taking about 4 years to complete.  Ever since building Smuggler, an 1870’s mackerel seiner from Gloucester, I’ve been smitten by 19th and 20th century American fishing schooners.  There are a number builds, both in progress and completed, that have been inspiring to me – Bluenose builds, a couple of Ben Lathams, a scratch build of Columbia, and even a few of the “yachty” Americas.  Jim Lefever, who’s impressive Benjamin Latham build was a great inspiration for me, provided me with a list of great reading references on American fishing schooners.  After receiving a number of them as gifts, and reading through them, I knew my next build would have to be another fishing schooner.  I have to admit right up front that Arethusa, an early 1900s fishing schooner and the topic of this build, was never called the “Goddess of Gloucester”.  She was a goddess in Greek mythology.  The schooner was named after one of Thomas McManus's daughters.  I just thought that 'Goddess of Gloucester' fit to her will and made for a catchy name for this log.  Arethusa, the schooner, was big, beautiful, and had a colorful history – sounds interesting to me.  Enough about my motivations and ramblings….let’s get on with the ship.     Arethusa was designed by Thomas F. McManus in 1907 and built by James and Tarr in Essex, Massachusetts, in 1909.  She was what is termed a knockabout schooner.  Unlike traditional schooners, with bowsprits (and jibbooms, and flying jibbooms), knockabout schooners had an extended bow and no bowsprit.  The extended bow essentially placed the fore topmast stay at the same position as on a traditional schooner.  With that configuration of stay location the crew wouldn’t be required to climb out on the typically poorly maintained footropes aside the bowsprit in order to perform tasks involving the sails and rigging.  This was a Thomas McManus innovation, based on his observations and discussions with fisherman and owners, and was meant to reduce sailing crew injuries and deaths.   I am using Howard I. Chapelle’s lines drawing and sail plan of Arethusa from his “American Fishing Schooners”, plate 120 and figure 30.  “American Fishing Schooners” (AFS) has a great deal of detail in it’s appendix on most of the features of late 19th century and early 20th century schooners, and it is these I will use to build the details of the model.  If anyone knows of more details about Arethusa I would be most grateful to learn of them.  I have contacted Mystic Seaport Museum about their collection but found that while Arethusa is listed in their collection they don’t have any more information than that (little) which is shown in AFS.   Following are some excerpts from “Thomas F. McManus and the American Fishing Schooners”, by W.M.P. Dunne, on Arethusa: James and Tarr “...completed her on 25 September 1907.  Fifteen feet longer than the Pontiac, the Arethusa was, nevertheless, a deep, short ended knockabout, with the typically knuckled straight run of the keel (although with less drag), that Tom favored in this class, and more tumblehome.  Once again he experimented with the rig.  He stepped the foremast farther forward with the masts further apart.  Right from the start, the big fisherman earned a reputation as a speedster.  Captain Clayton Morrisey, the Arethusa’s first skipper waxed poetic: “She’s the slickest bit of wood that ever went down to Bay of Islands.  Nothing can touch her and an eight-year-old girl’s little finger is stout enough to spin the wheel no matter how fresh it breezes.”  “Can she sail?” exclaimed Captain Morrisey, opening his eyes as if he didn’t quite believe his ears.  “Why, when we were coming up from the herring grounds she cut out her 13 knots an hour for six consecutive hours.”     “We’d see a blotch of smoke away ahead on the horizon and in a little while would make out a tramp steamer bound our way.  Pretty soon the Arethusa was kiting alongside the tramp and then we’d lose sight of her astern.  She did that trick a number of times.”     In fact, with Clayt Morrissey at the helm in 1912, the Arethusa would easily outrun the Canadian Dominion fisheries’ patrol steamer Fiona, “whose commander opined the Arethusa was violating the three-mile limit.”           “At the beginning of 1921, soon after the new [prohibition] law was in place, Captain William F. “Bill” McCoy, a sometime Daytona Beach, Florida, boatbuilder, guided his fully-laden McManus schooner, the Henry L. Marshall, past the Tybee Lighthouse and up the river to Savannah, where, in the dark of the night, he discharged not fish, but 1,500 cases of illicit liquor.  With the proceeds, McCoy replaced himself with a new skipper on board the Marshall and went to Gloucester in search of the boat of his dreams, Tom’s speedy Arethusa.  Although McCoy had fished the Marshall legitimately until after the Eighteenth Amendment dried out the country, he had always thirsted for Arethusa.  With Gloucester feeling the effect of postwar economic contraction, the owners of the fourteen-year-old schooner…..sold her to McCoy in April 1921.  The Arethusa became a rum runner, a fast freighter of bootleg spirits.  McCoy renamed her Tomoka, added a bowsprit so she could carry two jibs, jumbo and jib topsail-and a lot of liquor (she had the capacity of 6,000 cases of illegal alcohol).     He brought the Tomoka to anchor just outside the then three mile limit of United States waters, but well within site of the beach.  He soon began a thriving business with New York and New Jersey bootleggers…. “  [this is where the term ‘the real McCoy’ came from]   Arethusa later returned to fishing, and was lost off Halifax in November 1929.  Her particulars are:   Designer                Thomas F. McManus Builder                    Tarr and James Launch date                25 September 1907 Gross tonnage                157 tons Molded length at caprail of        127’ – 3”     Molded beam                25’ – 0” Molded depth                13’ – 2” Registered dimensions        114.0’ x 25.6’ x 12.5’

Hi John,
 
I think I understand your question. I would determine the length of the entire 'Smuggler_Gloucester' (all on one line or gentle arc) assuming some gap distance between each of the letters and also the larger space between the words, find the mid-point of it, and center that midpoint on the centerline of the transom or monkeyrail. If you choose to do the alternate you may find one of the words, likely Gloucester, wrapping around the rail or transom pretty far. I attempted the former on my schooner and it worked out Ok.
 
Hi Lawrence,
 
Thank you! I did get a few Ship modeling goodies... I haven't tried them yet as I'm at the beginning of a kitchen 'minor project' which will keep me busy for a little while.
 
Cheers,
 
Elia

Hi John,
 
I think I understand your question. I would determine the length of the entire 'Smuggler_Gloucester' (all on one line or gentle arc) assuming some gap distance between each of the letters and also the larger space between the words, find the mid-point of it, and center that midpoint on the centerline of the transom or monkeyrail. If you choose to do the alternate you may find one of the words, likely Gloucester, wrapping around the rail or transom pretty far. I attempted the former on my schooner and it worked out Ok.
 
Hi Lawrence,
 
Thank you! I did get a few Ship modeling goodies... I haven't tried them yet as I'm at the beginning of a kitchen 'minor project' which will keep me busy for a little while.
 
Cheers,
 
Elia

Welcome to my newest build log my friends. I picked the Benjamin W Latham because it's the largest model I have. It a 1:48 scale so I should have ample room for details.
 
With my Ranger bash there was virtually nothing left of the original model. With this bash I'm going to build most of everything, but leave it the same ship. I'm also going to take this one as far as I can with the details, adding any/everything that was on this fishing schooner. I like the look of real wood so I'll be staining, not painting, this model.
 
Launched on Oct 30, 1902, she was designed by Thomas F McManus(Boston) and built in the shipyard of Tarr & James(Essex, Massachusetts) for Captain Henry Langworth(Noank, Connecticut). She was built as a sailship and fitted with a 48-horsepower engine sometime during her 2nd or 3rd season. A 72 ton mackerel seiner, she had in tow one seine boat and accommodations for a crew of 15. As with most fishing vessels, most of her career was undocumented, finally lost off San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1943.
 
So take a seat and buckle up, we're going on a journey. I will attempt to make this build an intriguing one. Thank to everyone for all the help and encouragement I received on my previous builds, I welcome you all back again.

Sideliner -
 
Good progress there.  You figured out the main rail / transom relationship and interface - good stuff.
 
Cheers,
 
Elia

Sideliner,
 
I've just popped in to your new build - nice progress!  On your question of the main rail and the transom: yes the main rail sits on top of the transom.  In your picture it is sitting on the transom but tilted down to the deck level.  The main rail, which will run along the tips of those bulkhead 'stanchion' extensions, will join into that precut transom piece in one tangent, continuous feature.  So it won't be canted at the angle in the picture.  The upper edge of the transom may need some sanding so that that main rail aft piece sits flush to it.  The way the transoms on these schooners were shaped is pretty extreme - from the hull planks at the counter flowing over the lower edge of the transom, the sides , and the main rail running aft and over the transom - and all of these planks overlapping a transom edge surface.
 
Cheers,
 
Elia

Here is a look at the completed windlass. Still needs a bit of touch paint here and there, but considering scale and skills, not that bad. I am off to give the last make up exams and the final exam tonight. Later.
 
Russ

Here is the spreader with the bands on the ends and the holes drilled for the topmast shroud. Everything will be painted white once I am done sanding and cleaning up the piece. Still just a tad rough. The spreader is not yet attached to the mast. It is just in place for fitting purposes.
 
Russ

Russ,
 
Very nicely done decals!
 
Elia

Russ,
 
Very nicely done decals!
 
Elia

Jack next time I am in the city i will check out what the Michaels has. there is also a hobby shop close as well.
 
Deon I will give the canopy glue a look.
 
Thanks for all the likes
 
While waiting for the other boat to dry I had one of those moments where I fitted the skylight to the low raised cabin roof. I kept looking at the junction between the two halves of the original cabin, and picked up a chisel and a razor saw.....
 
The went out to the shop to the big bandsaw...
 
before
 

 
after
 

 

 

 
I will need to rework the hatch area but I like the overall design better, it feel a little more elegant and less boxy.
 
Michael
 
 
 

Denis, Piet, belated thanks.
 
while waiting for wood to dry on the Herreshoff, I cut up a CD case and this is the way that I will do all the lights.
 

 

 
I will need to use a tiny bead of something to seal them in.
 
Michael
 
 

Very good comments on precision and scale, Micheal.  Thanks for giving me an excuse to continue with the subject.  You are quite right and I agree that 1/8 at 1:72 scale - an actual .0017" - has little meaning on the model - a mere swipe of sandpaper or two.  When one considers that the original offsets table was created by taking physical measurements from a 1:48 scale half hull model where 1/8" = .0026", the idea of this precision becomes even foggier.  
 
Considering that even in the presence of measurement error from the 1:48 model to the offsets table, shipwrights still lofted patterns using these table dimensions.  So, we can take some confidence that the table is fairly representative of the constructed ship.  From the modeler's perspective, precise drawings based on the table can - in a way - be considered to have "zero" ( i.e. < .0017") error, since the precision of the CAD drawing is set at 1/8" real world. (When drawing a part - say a deadeye - and displaying it at say half the size of the screen, a 1/8" (actual) change in a dimension is easily detectable.)
 
 With this in mind the modeler can proceed confidently with construction, comfortable that the drawings and patterns do not already contain an accumulation of error from measurements, tracing, setting out, pencil width, and the like.  This accumulation of error - when added to construction error - can have noticeable effects.  I have seen this evidenced at various times in postings on this site as modelers wrestle with the issue - to say nothing of the accepted practice of heavy sanding/paring to fair hull framing.
 
Don't get me wrong.  I would not for a moment represent that my modeling achieves anything like this high level of precision, nor would I suggest that anyone set such a standard as a goal.  However, it is of comfort to me that I have only to deal with my own modeling error and not error built into the drawings.  So, to me, that is the value of all this.  I can accept the drawings and deal with or accept my own inability to duplicate them in wood.  
 
The other value of this somewhat arcane but useful discussion is that understanding error and precision can only be helpful in improving one's work. 
 
In reading all the above comments, I trust everyone recognizes the distinction between the concept of error and the entirely separate issue of drawing mistakes.  If not, I will be happy to try and explain.
 
Comments welcome!
 
Ed
 
Almost forgot, Micheal.  On the 6" deadeyes, the largest source of drilling error: flexing of the drill bit.  The only remedy: keeping the bit projection very short.

Ed your thoughts about precision are well taken. Working at such small scales requires a level of it in my view. To come close to replicating something that is often 50 to 100 times larger we forget that small measurements expand into enormous ones. We speak of the table of offsets being accurate to 1/8th which seems practical in full size lofting. We forget that that 1/8 reduced to the scale we work at as being of little consequence in some cases, it all being relative as you say. That said I personally find great satisfaction in being able to work by the numbers in most cases. This always for me brings to mind the precision of watch and clock making, which do not function properly without it.
 
Your work on the 6 inch dead eyes is akin to that sort of precision in my view. drilling three holes in a piece of wood that is .083 inch in diameter was no doubt challenging. I take my hat off to you now thinking about threading all those lines to set the shrouds at a future date.
 
Michael

Thank you for this note, Bob.  Using the approach described I became fully confident in the ability to bevel frames completely before erection, leaving only final finish sanding necessary on the framed hull.  I trust you will have the same experience with your frames.  The primary enabler for this and for the pin-indexed frame fabrication process is, as I am sure you realize, the precision of the pin placements on partner frames and also the precision of the three profiles drafted on the patterns for each frame pair.  This is my best example of a holistic modeling process that begins with drafting methods specifically tailored to support the modeling steps.  In his build log for the Irish famine ship, Frank (mahuna) adopted (and enhanced) this method of drafting and is using it in his framing as another example - an excellent one at that.
 
The key to this method is CAD drafting technology, and specifically the use of it's precision in taking and setting measurements.  While CAD can certainly be used to trace over imported images, this is much like using a Ferrari to do grocery shopping.  This method has error implications that may be more or less serious, depending on the modelers expectations for accuracy.   In the case of Young America, the original builder's table of offsets (accurate to 1/8" actual) was used to precisely draw waterlines.  With the fore and aft edges of every frame drawn over this plan, the precise dimension to every point on every profile could be measured and transferred to a body plan view to accurately draw each required profile.  Duplicate pin placement on paired frames was an easy next step.
 
Having an original table of offsets is not a prerequisite to use this method.  Rather than tracing frame profiles or even half-breadth lines from an imported image, measurements of waterlines and ribband lines can be taken from the print and used to create a derived table of offsets.  These dimensions can then be used as described above to create a half breadth plan for the model.  This method requires fairness checking of the half breadth plan to account for potential manual measurement errors and/or distortion in the print used.  This can be done by inspection of the half-breadth lines themselves and by drafting and checking some representative frame profiles from this plan.  When the half breadth lines have been checked to satisfaction, the dimension capabilities of CAD can be used to take and set profile dimensions. Using snap-to-intersection capability and keying in of dimensions to set points assures precision.
 
Some will say, "Is all this precision necessary?"  The answer is, of course, no.  While, it is true that imprecision in drafting model plans can lead to construction problems, nth degree precision is not needed to avoid that.  Each modeler's goals are different - as they should be.  Not everyone is bitten by the structural precision bug.  If you are, the above comments may prove helpful.  
 
Ed

Hi Ed,
 
While you're out doing spring cleanup, I thought I'd pass along my appreciation of your pin alignment system. I'm just finishing up the forward half & cant frames.  After hand finishing them individually, I decided to double check each as a matched pair. I've gotten much better at sanding to the profile lines, but didn't want to risk a mismatch between port & strb.  The pin holes are 0.024" and I used 0,026" pins for a nice tight fit.  I am very pleased with the results.  Each frame pair fits perfectly without further finishing.  I am really impressed with the capability of your alignment system.  It even makes old guys like me look good.  Setup and installation is going to be my next hurdle.
 
Always look forward to your next post.  Now I have to get after my spring yard work.
 
Bob

Thanks, everyone.  
 
Druxey, I think you are right about the wax.  Its almost too simple a solution, especially for one (me) who uses wax finish on virtually everything else.  I've been staying away from the wax solution since reaching the open decks because there are still lots of glued attachments to make, but the deadeyes could clearly be waxed without compromising that - probably applied after blackening the deadeye/chain assembly and before installing - will give it some thought.  Thanks.
 
Ed.

Nice progress, Ed. BTW, I've successfully used Clapham's paste wax on my blocks and deadeyes to give a low luster shine.

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 160 –Deadeye Chains continued
 
Making the channel deadeyes went like lightning compared to making and installing the chains, but finally the fore and main channels on the starboard side were completed.  The first picture shows the fore starboard channels after painting the cap rails.
 

 
The completed main channel on the same side is shown below.
 

 
The photo highlights the need for some more liver of sulfur on some of the chains.  The deadeyes in all these pictures show very little luster – less than I would like. Repeated doses of Tung oil and buffing have left them flat and lifeless.  Obviously all of the oil has been sucked into the end grain faces of the deadeyes.  To remedy this I am now treating them over the oil coats with my old wood finishing standby, Wipe-on polyurethane.  I have also learned that all this finishing needs to be completed before fitting the deadeyes to the straps – unless they are perfectly aligned beforehand – not impossible but difficult.  In trying to rotate one after some post-application of oil, I broke the strap joint.  You may recall in the last post that I sized the slots in the channels to pass the lower eyes of the chains in case this happened and one had to be replaced.  That was a good idea.
 
The next pictures show work on the fore port channels.  In the first picture the first two deadeye/chain/chain cleat assemblies are installed and a shaped piece for the third is being fitted for cutting off.
 

 
In the next picture it has been cut to size and the top end crimped for the strap joint.
 

 
The size is being rechecked before fitting the strap.  Work continues in the next picture.
 

 
The fit on these is again checked after soldering the straps.  The next picture shows all six shroud chains fitted – minus deadeyes and blacking at this point..
 

 
This picture shows the next (7th) chain.  This simply has an eye at the top to take the standing end of the fore upper topsail halyard. 
 
As a side note, I must say that taking these pictures and writing the text for this blog is often very helpful in finding and avoiding mistakes.  In the above picture you will notice notches cut into the channels between the 5th and 6th shroud chains, supposedly for the halyard standing end chain.  Seeing this located in that position in an earlier photo - when writing its caption - caused me to wonder about that location which indeed turned out to be incorrect – a drafting error.  The incorrect placement of the chain for line 240 can be seen in the first photo of the previous post (159).  The drawing was corrected and the chain was relocated as shown above, aft of the shrouds where it will be free of interference.  The companion chain for the halyard tackle on the other side also had to be removed and relocated – again making use of the increased slot width described above. 
 
There is still quite a bit of this work to do and it is going slowly as I am diverted by the usual list of springtime chores.
 
Ed

Here is the completed name and hailing port on the stern. Not perfect by any means, but I think it will work. Next time will be better.
 
Russ

For the name of this schooner, I made up some decals. This was my first experience making water slide decals, and it was interesting and educational. The only thing to be added is the "of" between the name and the hailing port on the stern.