druxey

The Saw Stop may be very effective. However it would, I think, encourage the user to be somewhat cavalier in the use of the saw. Vigilance is a far better way - and cheaper, too!

Tony: the 'single' port lid is, as mentioned by Jay, a 'one stands for all' convention. On other ships' plans I've seen similar 'shorthand'. In the instance of the fireship I'm currently building, there is only one port lid detailed. This is because it hinges downward, not upward. However, all the ports were fitted in the same manner.

Thank you, Jay for your well reasoned arguments and conclusions. There are many time-hallowed 'facts' that are repeated as gospel truth in this, as in other fields of endeavour.
 
As for side opening ports, top opening ones are not feasible as there is insufficient ship's fabric to support and bolt them to. There is only a sheer rail above the ports.

Mark: after your investment of time and money, that is a brave decision you'll not regret.
 
My first serious scratch build, many years ago, ran into many of exactly the same problems as you describe. I, too, decided to junk her. On my next model I was able to avoid all the pitfalls I'd fallen into the first time around. I ended up - some years later - with an award-winning model. May this be your experience also!

Have been down sick for a spell; now that I'm starting to feel human again, it's been fun catching up on all the great club Sherbourne posts that everyone has made recently--great work and excellent reading!
 
I've enjoyed reading through the discussion here, and figured I'd throw in my 2 cents worth. 
 
First I’ll chime in on the sweep ports and gun port lids.  Druxey is 100% accurate in what he stated about the Sherbourne.  I’m working off all 3 draughts that he cited:  two draughts are her as-built and the 3rd is of her as-designed. 
 
In all plans, 4 sweep ports are present. 
 
In both her as-built draughts, a port lid is present on the 4th port (going from aft forward).  Of the several other draughts of the Sherbourne’s period that I have looked at, none showed port lids.  Why is only one port lid depicted in the Sherbourne’s plans?  I conjecture that only one port lid was drawn in for the same reason that a half breadth plan is only a half view or that a body plan is on one side an aft body view and on the other side a fore body view of the ship:  why be redundant?  In other words, including lids on all the plan ports would have been redundant where depicting just one port lid suffices to convey meaningful, relevant information.
 
After diving pretty deeply into how draughts were created and etc. these past several months, I conjecture that the port lid was not a fanciful addition by the individual(s) that drafted the Sherbourne’s 2 as-built draughts.  From Deane through Steel, the art of creating a draught is anything but fanciful:  The methods laid out are fairly strict and somewhat rigid, which makes sense given that Royal Navy ships had to be built to reasonably survive both the sea and its weather as well as combat.  Sticking in port lids out of fancy doesn’t seem consistent with the discipline.  Likewise, seeing fanciful inclusions in two separate as-built draughts doesn’t seem consistent.  Lastly as an overall organization, the Royal Navy during that period was one that was pragmatic and frugal…fanciful license in draughts doesn’t seem consistent with that culture. 
 
To the contrary, the port lids may be a bonus detail of the ship that may have been omitted from her contemporaries’ as-built plans.  In fact, the Sherbourne is a remarkably well-documented ship in comparison to her contemporaries or at least more of her plans are extant than others.  When I first looked at the port lids some months back, their side-opening feature didn’t seem practical.  As I’ve worked on her over these past several months, I’ve come around on that opinion.  I’ve been curious about if the port hinges allowed for removing the ports—very easily done with side-hinge port lids.  Once I begin getting further into her details, perhaps more information about her port lids will surface.  With that said, at this point I am more inclined to include them in a build than I am to omit them. 
 
Next I’m going to talk at length about the AOS Alert.
 
While I've obliquely mentioned it here and there in the past, I'm going to be explicit here about Goodwin and AOS Alert.  To be quite blunt, I strongly believe that large swaths of Goodwin's material should be viewed with healthy skepticism and here's why.
 
Let me first begin by providing some of my background.  By profession I am a researcher.  Essentially all that I do is evidence based upon source documentation, verifiable numbers, and etc.  In my written work, all is supported by underlying, verifiable documentation.  When inferences are drawn from a wealth of evidence, a statement to that effect is made.  Before any of my written work goes public, it is peer reviewed.  All statements and assertions I make are reviewed by independent reviewers to ensure everything is fully supported with verifiable evidence.  Our process is very similar to academia in particular:  Peer review of scholarly published writing is a cornerstone of that material and thus its veracity.
 
So when I use the term skepticism it here does not imply looking at things as falsehoods, it simply means being as objective as possible--neutral--and drawing conclusions based on verifiable evidence and or on reproducible results (by this latter, I mean that if you are told 2 + 2 = 4, you can use those facts and reproduce the same results).
 
I next want to mention the fallacy of authority.  This logic error results when someone in a position of authority makes an alleged fact-based statement and we in-turn believe that statement to be true on the basis of the person’s position rather than the material they are giving and the authenticity of its underlying facts.  We can encounter this fallacy with published material:  It has been published, therefore it must be true.  Similarly if a person is an expert in their field, what they tell us about their field of expertise must be true.  In both cases, it ain’t necessarily so, and this is where skepticism comes into play:  Rather than look at the book or the individual, one must weigh the material that is presented.  Is it supported with verifiable evidence?, do conclusions reasonably follow from evidence?, and so forth.
 
Goodwin presents a lot of interesting material in AOS Alert.  However, note that much of his textual material is not directly cited.  Yes, Goodwin provides a bibliography, but that is far different than providing in-text citations!  At one time, it was acceptable practice to include a source in one’s bibliography if the book was consulted though material from it was not directly used to materially support one’s written work (when used excessively, it's called "bib. padding").  Here's an excellent example of what I mean about the lack of citations:  Goodwin asserts, “Prior to the turn of the eighteenth century all cutters were clinker-built.”  Skepticism dictates that we neither believe that claim is true nor is false.  However, skepticism further propels us to ask the question, “Upon what evidence?”  “All” is a powerful assertion and this evidence Goodwin does not provide:  Upon what factual supporting documentation is he supporting this claim with?  Where and what is the evidence that we can also go to, read, and say, "Yep, that's true!  Every single bloomin' cutter ever built prior to the 18th century was clinker planked."  On the other hand, if we were to find just one instance of a cutter being carvel planked prior to the turn of the 18th century, then his entire assertion is false (“all cutters”).
 
Note that in the scantlings Goodwin provides for Alert he does not cite a source.  Did he obtain his scantlings from the Rattlesnake’s draught, or are they from The Shipbuilder’s Repository (SBR), which he cites on page 12 but fails to list in his bibliography, or a combination of both?  Where does this scantling information come from? 
 
I spot checked some of Goodwin’s scantlings against the SBR and this perhaps is partially his source.  For example, the SBR lists for a cutter a 2’-2” room and space, 18 as the number of rooms in the after body, and 13 as the number of rooms in the fore body (SBR, 258).  Those numbers are identical to the ones given by Goodwin in his room and space section (Alert, 24).  On the other hand, the room and space for the Rattlesnake (Alert, 46-47) and the Sprightly (Alert, 48-49) measure at 2’-0” using their respective scales—perhaps reproduction errors?…  It's also worth noting that those SBR numbers are for a keel length (i.e. by the keel for tonnage) of 58'-6" (SBR, 234) whereas for the Alert that measurement is 52' (Alert, 23)…we're looking at a 6'-6" difference but the same room and space!  The question remains:  From where did Goodwin source his information?
 
After his room and space scantlings, Goodwin provides frame bolt scantlings.  The verbiage Goodwin uses here (Alert, 24) is clearly and obviously directly lifted from the SBR (SBR, 258-260):  Although plagiarism was a relatively acceptable practice in 18th century, it certainly was not in the 20th or in the 21st!!  But back to frame bolts:  Although the number of bolts is the same—2—between Goodwin and the SBR, the bolt diameters are not.  Goodwin states a 1/2" diameter while the SBR states a 3/4" diameter.  What’s the big deal there?  Where did Goodwin get 1/2" from—what is his source?  In both the SBR (260-261) and in Steel (Naval, Folio V), the smallest bolt diameter given is 3/4."  Indeed, Steel cites a 3/4" diameter bolt for his smallest ship listed:  a 60 ton sloop (Naval, Folio V).  I’d like to point out that in his The Construction and Fitting of the Sailing Man of War 1650 – 1850, Goodwin provides on page 14 a visual description of room and space that is inconsistent with that given in most other sources (for instance see Steel’s Naval Architecture pages 57 and 191).  
 
While I have may missed it during this quick re-skim of Alert, I do not believe Goodwin gives a burthen in tons for the Alert.  The as-built burthen given for the Rattlesnake is 184 54/94 tons (Alert, 47) and the Sprightly’s is listed as 150 6/94 tons (Alert, 49).  Compare those numbers to the 273 ton cutter in the SBR (which incidentally is listed as a vessel with 16 carriage guns and 22 swivel guns (SBR, 226)).  Now think of scantlings between those sizes of ship and ask the question, “Are we looking at apples to apples or at apples to oranges if Goodwin selectively used SBR scantlings for the Alert?
 
Am I saying that all of AOS Alert is wrong?  No! I am saying that too much of the book’s material in not adequately supported to sources and there are too many unexplained inconsistencies.  Furthermore when I see obviously plagiarized material, I am immediately extremely doubtful about an author and about the validity of their scholarly material with which I am being presented.  To be very blunt, Goodwin’s AOS Alert would not pass a peer review as it is written (its un-cited, plagiarized material alone is an immediate fail).  Compare AOS Alert work to May’s The Boats of Men-of-War (which Goodwin cites in his bib.):  May provides nearly 200 citations to his sources in his 122 (as shown in my copy) page book.
 
While Goodwin’s AOS Alert has its merits, I would be very hesitant to use his material to base essential areas of a build on or from which to make claims upon without additional, independent verification.
 
Cheers,
Jay
 

Dirk: that is from an original draught in your first example. The lids would be useful in heavy weather, as the ship could roll quite a bit and freeboard was limited.

No, but I have access to a set of her plans, Tony. One half-lid on each side of the channel would only be able to open to a right-angle, but would be sufficient to clear the cannon.

The original draughts of the Sherbourne (CHN1012 or CHN0224), unfortunately not available on the NMM 'Collections' site, show a sweep port between each gun port and aft of the aftermost one. Also indicated are port lids. These are two-part lids, hinged at the sides.
 
If you are interested in extreme detail, you might wish to invest in one of those two drawings (the other is a copy of the same drawing). Both plans also include all the spar dimensions. The deck plans for Sherbourne are on sheet ZAZ6382.

Hey Mark,
 
Sorry to hear but totally get it.  Like Gaetan mentioned - maybe consider an Ancre Monograph or a Swan ?  I just think the plans are so much better as they are newer.  Whatever you decide to build - look forward to following your log.
Chris

Sad day!! I guess it's ultimately a good decision.  I know you wouldn't have been able to live with this one had you continued.  The second one will be all the better for it.  We're routing for you Mark.  

Like Druxey, my first plank on frame model was scrapped after a year because it was not up to spec. Your second version will no doubt be built on a better foundation and I guarantee you won't regret starting over.

Not much to report on the model building front. Unseasonably warm weather, and a less than perfect insulating job on the roof of the shop has resulted in some serious Ice dam flooding.
 
Water came down at the window where my lath was and the water splashed over the tools on the window ledge resulting in a major reorganization of where things are situated. I had to take the time to dry off all the small stands of drills reamers and mill bit along with some custom tools, this really was a pain.
 

 
The silver lining is that this event has forced me to rethink the entire layout of the shop and the equipment, tool and material Storage. So instead of rushing this work I am taking my time to reset these things, building new racks and drawers for tools and materials. It is also a good opportunity to de-clutter the workplace.
 

 
When the shop was laid out originally i was more focused on model engineering and steam work, now that I have found my true calling (model boats) I am organizing so that the various elements work in better harmony and flow. And now of course I have Gaetan and Mark's workshops as examples of great organization to guide my thinking.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Now that I have all the metal work sorted I can start on the wood storage and the tools for it.
 
I will be back to work on the cutter hopefully within the next week or so.
 
Michael

Mark: after your investment of time and money, that is a brave decision you'll not regret.
 
My first serious scratch build, many years ago, ran into many of exactly the same problems as you describe. I, too, decided to junk her. On my next model I was able to avoid all the pitfalls I'd fallen into the first time around. I ended up - some years later - with an award-winning model. May this be your experience also!

Mark: after your investment of time and money, that is a brave decision you'll not regret.
 
My first serious scratch build, many years ago, ran into many of exactly the same problems as you describe. I, too, decided to junk her. On my next model I was able to avoid all the pitfalls I'd fallen into the first time around. I ended up - some years later - with an award-winning model. May this be your experience also!

Mark: after your investment of time and money, that is a brave decision you'll not regret.
 
My first serious scratch build, many years ago, ran into many of exactly the same problems as you describe. I, too, decided to junk her. On my next model I was able to avoid all the pitfalls I'd fallen into the first time around. I ended up - some years later - with an award-winning model. May this be your experience also!

Mark: after your investment of time and money, that is a brave decision you'll not regret.
 
My first serious scratch build, many years ago, ran into many of exactly the same problems as you describe. I, too, decided to junk her. On my next model I was able to avoid all the pitfalls I'd fallen into the first time around. I ended up - some years later - with an award-winning model. May this be your experience also!

Joe, Colin and Antony,  Thanks for the kind words!
 
Mark
 
 
That would be the start of a "really bad day".  
 
Here is the framing for the canopy. In the first picture you can see how it
sets into the slots cut into the bulkhead.
 

 

Hello
I had trouble with health and work has been suspended but is ok and the wrapper is already completed.
And so now presents, and so is working as you can see in the movies. In my country sells quite well.
Total length 600 mm.
 
 

 

 
 
 
Regards
 
Romanov
 

Thanks, Vic.  Nicely stated, not understated at all.  Thanks too for the likes.
   
This week I got some work done on the hull despite the snow. 
 

 
The wooden plates of the upper hull have been cut and bent to the required shapes.  The portion from the stern to the end of the waist is fairly flat, with a consistent 13 degree tumblehome.  It was cut, fitted to the rabbet cut into the solid lower hull, and screwed in place.  Temporary support blocks were fitted to the inside face which also support the dummy quarterdeck that you can see in the photos. The transom piece has been cut and temporarily fitted in place as well. 
 
The bow section is much more complex.   In place of the open bow deck with a flat beakhead bulkhead, the ship had a closed bow.   At the waist it has the 13 degree tumblehome, but at the cathead it actually has an outward flare as if it were still open.  Then when it comes around to the stem it is vertical.  To accommodate these requirements, the foredeck corners are bumped out, making it less rounded and the deck overhangs the lower hull.
 
I derived the shape of the quarterdeck from the plans and cut a dummy deck.  This was mounted at the correct height on a sturdy block and screwed into the solid lower hull on the centerline.  Rough patterns were cut from cardstock and transferred to ¼” basswood, which was cut oversize at the top.  Multiple dados 3/16” deep were cut across the pieces, closer together at the tight bend at the corner.  The pieces were wet for an hour in a bucket of water, then forced into shape in the hull rabbet and against the dummy foredeck.  They were screwed in place and the top line marked out above the foredeck.  The pieces were removed and trimmed, then reinstalled and left to dry. 
 
This is where you see it in the photos, with a dummy stem piece in place.  Although I have never used this method of both kerf and wet bending together in a model hull, it seems to be working out pretty well.
 



 
Meanwhile, I continued with some of the deck pieces that will be needed.  Here is the bench that sits on the quarterdeck for the captain’s convenience.  I’ve never seen this before, but Budriot has it on the plans.  If anyone has seen such a fitting, I would be very interested.
 
Here are his drawings.
 

 
And here is how the completed bench looks, with some of the components.  The primary wood is birch, with cherry veneer for the accent work and arms.
 

 
The arms were built up of four layers of veneer stacked vertically.  The outer layers of the horizontal pieces for the arm are sandwiched around two vertical pieces for the post.  On the right is the arm piece shaped oversize to the desired curve.  On the left it has been trimmed to shape.
 

 
Here is the first one completed from another angle.
 

 
And here are the finished pair with my scale figures for comparison.
 

 
I also set up for the four ladders which will connect the gun deck at the waist with the gangways between the quarterdeck and foredeck.  They have only four treads but are wider at the base than at the top.
 
As you can see in the photo, my ladder technique is to make a long box from which separate ladders can be parted off individually.  Two matching rectangular pieces for the stringers have dados cut across the grain.  A web of veneer sheet woods are fit into these slots for the treads.  The grain runs across from stringer to stringer.
 

 
Sorry, this enlargement did not come out too well, but you can see how the dados are cut halfway through the stringer material.
 

 
The ladder block was set up so everything was square or, rather, symmetrical until the glue hardened.  A ladder was parted off on the band saw at the calculated angle, cleaned up, and finished.  This angle might not be right, so I only made one to test.  Whatever the ultimate angle, the rest of the block should be enough for at least the four needed for the first model. 
 

 
I will need a pair of longer ladders from the quarterdeck up to the poop deck on top of the captain’s cabin, and a wider one from the quarterdeck companionway down to the gun deck.  They will be made in much the same way.
 
The companionway itself will be next.
 
Be well
 
Dan
 

When the plans for Euryalus first came out, I was asked privately if I would supply a set of plans on large sheets, rolled and not folded.  I was happy to do so.  But by the time I had the plans printed, the mailing tube purchased, the postage paid (and not to mention the time, travel, etc. involved), I had almost as much invested in the new set of plans as the cost of buying another book!  I was happy to supply the plans gratis, but at the same time I cannot afford to do so in general.  No one who produces one of these works does so for the money, but there are others who rely in some way upon the ongoing sale of the books (i.e., the publisher who fronts all the development funding and takes all the financial risk).  I can also say that if one divides the amount of money received from the sale of the books and plans by the number of hours worked the outcome is something under slave wages.  
 
I think Ed has given a good review of the question and has offered two reasonable solutions.  
 
Wayne

Gary, I appreciate your purchase of the books and your plan to build a Naiad model.  I am also flattered that you would want to maintain a “pristine” copy of the material.  I have given some thought to your request, and since others may have similar desires, I would like to answer with some explanation.
 
Like many who contribute to MSW, I have a pretty strong interest in freely supporting the craft of model shipbuilding and ship modelers.  I hope this is evident from my other postings on this site and especially in the authorship of the two Naiad books.  Books of this type that serve a very small market are very far from being profit-making propositions.  Books like Naiad, Euryalus and others, that include drawings and other media attachments are expensive to create and produce.  They cannot be priced based on their true cost.  Publication would not be possible without authors working essentially for free – plus bearing the costs of producing the materials – cameras, software, computer supplies and the like.  I am sure you know that many books, including some mass market books, do not include drawings and some sell these separately – at prices well above the cost of books.  For these reasons, Seawatch books like Naiad, if I may say so, are an extraordinary bargain.  They will, in fact, turn out to be a minor cost in the overall model project. 
 
Given all this, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to provide release to any copyright restrictions.  I would hope that copy services and fellow modelers that purchase these and other books would appreciate and honor the copyrights.  It seems a small thing to ask.
 
I would be remiss if I were not to acknowledge the contribution of Seawatch books in this note.  The service these books provide to model shipbuilding is enormous and involves substantial commitment and work.  For the reasons cited above the financial gains are small.  Bob and Cathy deserve our thanks and support.
 
This does not solve your problem.  I can offer some suggestions. 
 
One option is to put the cost of copying drawings toward purchase of a second book.  I know of modelers who have purchased second books to retain as “library” copies, using a separate copy in the workshop.  This is one option. 
 
Another less expensive approach is to provide for drawing protection in the workshop.  I found that attaching drawings to plywood sheets that hang from the wall allow easy taking of measurements and minimum damage to the drawings.  If you wish to use drawings on the workbench, as I often do, I would suggest covering them with a sheet of thin clear plastic. 
 
Also, you willl note that drawing 2B, which is virtually identical to Drawing 2, was an extra provided as a base board drawing to preserve drawing 2.
 
Others may offer good suggestions as well.
 
Thank you again for your interest in Naiad and the books.
 
Ed

5 years? That sounds about right. We'll keep cheering you on, Toni.

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 38 – Stern Timbering 2
 
After setting the eight stern timbers, chocks were installed between them in scores at the “knuckle” where the timbers change direction upwards.
 

 
This knuckle gradually smoothes out into a curve in the cant frames section.  The assembly has not been sanded at this stage.  Some sanding has been done in the next picture, which shows all of chocks installed.
 

 
With this work complete, the cant framing was continued forward.  The next picture shows the method used for final beveling the frames before setting.
 

 
The first step in this process was to rough shape the frames on the disk and spindle sander.  Fine cut rasps and a #0 cut half round file were used to trim the frames right back to the lines on each face of the patterns on each side.  All this work could be done by hand, but the power tools save time.
 
In the next picture frame 47 has been installed on the starboard side and its port counterpart is being fitted on the port side using a template.
 

 
These templates were very easy to make by creating a view of the three profiles on the CAD worksheet for the cant frame.  They were then printed on heavy presentation paper and cut out with a knife.  This eliminated pasting to heavier stock and cutting on the scroll saw.  That was the method I had used previously.
 
The next picture shows the gluing up of the above frame.
 

 
The stern template and two clamps hold the frame in position.  In the next picture the next frame, #46 is clamped and glued on the starboard side. 
 

 
The next picture shows a closeup of the foot of the frame and the clamping.
 

 
The wet areas on the wood are from washing off the excess glue. 
 
In the next picture a knuckle chock has been installed between frames 48 and 47 on the starboard side and its counterpart is being glued in on the port side.
 

 
And so it goes.
 
 Ed

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 37 – Stern Timbering 1
 
I have been looking forward to the stern timbering for some time – in fact since first deciding on the subject ship.  At first glance it looks a bit daunting, but the plan view template and accurately lofted patterns turned the assembly into a pretty easy task.  Most of the work was in the lofting, so I included a picture of the pattern sheet for the eight timbers.
 

 
The pattern lofting was a bit complex.  The timbers are angled off of the last cant frame, which is itself at an angle.  Some mental gymnastics were needed to find enough points on the drawings to plot the four curves for each timber.  I did one for a trial and its fit encouraged me to go on and add the scores for the horizontal chocks to the patterns.  Those chocks will be added in Part 38.
 
In the next picture a new version of one of the central timbers shown earlier is set temporarily in place and the bevel against the aft cant frame is being marked.
 

 
The pattern is still on at this stage.  In the next picture, after installing the one shown above, its opposite counterpart is being glued on.  These were made before I decided to loft the scores on the patterns so these will be cut later, in place. The two timbers will later be bolted through the sternpost.
 

 
In the above picture, the vertical scores for the stern timbers can be seen on the cant frames.  The next picture was taken at this stage but from above.
 

 
In the next picture, the first of the angled timbers has been fit into place.  Note the horizontal scores for the filling chocks at the knuckle.
 

 
In the next picture its opposite counterpart is being fit.
 

 
The joint face angles for all these were measured from the plan drawing, printed on the pattern sheet and faced off on the disk sander with the table set at an angle.  Only slight trimming of the sides of the scores was needed and all fit very well as can be seen in the last picture.
 

 
Following this work, the template was removed to allow a final check of the heights of each timber at the top – the “fancy rail” height – before going on to the filling chocks between the timbers.
 
Ed

My holidays are over so the progress is much slower than before.
 
I did the keelson before building the frames. So it is in my opinion much easier to adjust it with the fore and after deadwood.

 
Before glueing the keelson on the backbone It take a long time. All frames have to be installed first.
 
Today I worked on my first frame. It took quite long to find my way to build the frame. The result is not perfect, but I think doing the next frames will be much easier and faster. If it's interesting for someone I will do a step by step description from building one of the next frames.