druxey

Very informative text and beautiful work, as always. Your next to the last photo made me cringe just a bit though. Notice the position of your sweater relative to the stern timbers. I once took out  a counter timber and associated fillers with my long sleeve shirt. That's why I only wear short sleeves in my workshop, no matter how cold it is!

I agree with Dan. Most of the stresses on the capstan spindle would be in a forward direction. This is where the 'meat' of the wood is. It saves weight and is less of a foot hazard than the rectangular style partners. It also demonstrates the variations that are present in different ships of the same class 'as built'.

I agree with Dan. Most of the stresses on the capstan spindle would be in a forward direction. This is where the 'meat' of the wood is. It saves weight and is less of a foot hazard than the rectangular style partners. It also demonstrates the variations that are present in different ships of the same class 'as built'.

Hi all, back from my holidays again .
 
Channels
 
I've made the Foremast Channels and the Stools that are fitted just aft of them. They are tapered outboard from 4 1/2" to 2 3/4" (real size) on their bottom face. There are two swivelling ringbolts in each channel - they fit through a small plate on the underside which I made from thin brass shim material and blackened :
 

 

 

 

 
I've cut into the Sheer Strake for added support on the inboard edge. This is only a dry fit so far :
 

 

 
To align the slots for the Shrouds I rigged up a dummy mast and used a piece of thread to ensure they wouldn't foul the gunports and sweep ports. A molding will be added to cover the shrouds after they are fitted. The dummy mast is vertical, not on the angle it seems in the pic (the ship itself is tilted a bit ) :
 

 
  Danny

Beautiful workmanship and symmetry, as usual! Thanks for the bit of history in the prelude as well - always learning something here.

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 39 – Aft Cant Frames
 
Clipper Ship Note:  The longitudinal hull lines on the American clippers introduced some new terms and redefined some old ones.  Furthermore, the names of some these lines differed between builders.  Young America’s table of offsets was generally similar to most of the breed.  It included the following longitudinal lines.
 
The wale delineated the top of the band of thick planking also called the wale.  As in earlier ships, the curve of this line defined the sweeping fore and aft sheer of the ship.  In clippers, unlike RN 18C ships, the line was higher forward and lower at the stern.  In Young America’s case the band of heavy wale planking extended downward about ten feet almost to the turn of the bilge.  The wale line was high - usually two feet or so below the line above – the planksheer.
 
The planksheer defined the underside of the rail that capped and sealed off the main inboard and outboard planking.  It was essentially parallel and at the level of the top of the main weatherdeck waterway.  The planksheer rail was penetrated by toptimbers of the frames that ran up to a higher level at the tops of the sides.
 
The main rail line defined the underside of the main rail.  It was about three feet above the planksheer and about 18 inches below the rail that capped the tops of the toptimbers.
 
This last line was called, in the case of Young America, the fancy rail.  In other ships it was known as the monkey rail.  It defined the top of the side from stem to stern.  Young America’s fancy rail is at the level of the poop deck aft and slightly higher than the topgallant forecastle deck at the bow. 
 
Another open rail was constructed above the fancy rail along the poop deck to help keep the crew out of the drink.  On Young America this was a wood rail on turned brass stanchions.
 
All of these rail lines were, for the most part, parallel curves.  Below is a body plan with the lines marked.
 

 
So, back to the model.
 
The first picture shows cant frames 48 forward to 45 installed.   The square is positioned for checking the cant of frame 45 on the port side – from the base drawing.
 

 
The next picture shows a different view of the assembly at the same stage. 
 

 
The “feet” of the cant frames were left a bit on the heavy side and will be sanded back fair to the bearding line later – probably before bolting.  Otherwise the frames are pretty well beveled to their final shapes.  Two more pairs to go.
 
In the next picture the template has been placed over the tops of the frames at this stage to check position.
 

 
The next picture is a view from under the stern at the same stage.
 

 
The space between the two central stern timbers will later be fitted with a chock shaped to the helm port.  In the next picture, frame 44 on the port side is being held in place during fitting.
 

 
In the next picture this frame has been installed and frame 43 on the starboard side is being glued in place.
 

 
The last picture shows all of the aft cant frames installed before the clamps on the last were removed.
 

 
The 12 aft half-frames - 42 to 31 - will now be made and installed to complete the frame installation.
 
 Ed

All hands on deck.............................he i said aaaalllllll haaaaands
 
After I make the many hooks, eyes and blocks (for the guns) have already spots before the eyes, was a small relaxation törn due for the eyes
 
Therefore, I once make another figure from the bulwark ornament.

The images come in the series of steps.
 
After the figure was transferred to paper and glued to the bone support, it was sawn on the contours.
 
And now have fun with the pictures:
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Have fun

Adding to what Druxey said about unshipping the half lids, the arrangement I theorized about could also unship in heavy seas and thus defeat the purpose of using port lids in the first place!  Gotta be objective and look neutrally at all the possibilities...I guess it's a good habit gained from my work (but taking two sides to an issue can be irritating to some).  In the meantime I'm going to just keep pluggin' away at getting some plans drafted...that's enough challenge and then some for now!    
 
Tony, this isn't a definitive answer to your 1st question but I think there would be enough room with the cannons ran in.  Lavery gives a length of 4'-6" (~1.4m) for a post 1743 7cwt 3 pounder (Arming, 103).  Eventually I'll drill down into researching cannon and carriage lengths in-depth, but using Lavery's numbers as a quick guide, it looks like there'd be room everywhere except in the bow (won't comment much on whether or not cannon were even regularly placed in the bow--looks pretty tight once the bowsprit is factored in, plus I'm guessing it'd be a serious chore hoisting a darn gun into position up there...I think a 7cwt cannon weighs in at close to 785 lbs / 356 kg). 
 
Cheers,
Jay

My plans are not from the Rijksmuseum or by Dik, but I use the recent plans from the replica in Lelystad. They are quite different from the plans Dik made.
 
Here you see the checking/correcting some drawings.
 
Dražen

... than, before iI start with my build, i post few photos from the ship my friend Mile Bijelić made. Well, I hope to be not to far from the quality of the model, but, let's see...
 
(Mile is the guy in blue shirt, I am on the left - the ship is the HMS Prince 1670, 1:70, won gold last year on World championship)
 
Dražen
 

Interesting theory about shippable port half-lids. In other draughts that show lid hinges, the pintles always oppose each other, so the lid could not accidentally unship. I see no reason to unship the half-lid, as long as it could open far enough to clear the muzzle of the cannon. 

Bitts are re-done.  Sheaves line up on same axis.  This time I drilled and cut the sheaves in the bitt after I installed the cheeks.  Cheeks are 3"+ above the top of the deck beam notch to allow for the planking.
Maury

The next deck fitting that I made was the quarterdeck companionway.  On Budriot’s plans for Le Mercure it is a raised structure with hinged doors (#24) forward of the mizzen mast (#25) and aft of the watchkeeper's bench (#23).  It houses the stairway that leads down to the gun deck and the captain’s cabin.  As will be discussed later, I have followed the NMM plans of the Advice Prize for the overall structure rather than Le Mercure.  This raises the captain’s cabin to the quarterdeck  and eliminates the chicken coop (#27), the whipstaff slot (#26) and the cabinets (#28 and #29). 
 

 
With the changed layout there is some question if the large companionway would still have been on deck if the captain would not be using it, or would it have been more of a simple open hatchway, perhaps with an open railing?  The answer is unclear, but since there is some justification for retaining it, I am doing so.
 
Here are Budriot’s  plans.  I have followed them, except that the strap hinges on the roof have been modified a little to make them stronger. 
 

 
Construction was pretty straightforward.  A coaming was built with lap jointed corners in the same way that the hatch coamings were made.  Three sides were fashioned with birch planks over a solid sheet to fit inside the coaming.  Internal corners were strengthened with square stock and the external corners were dressed up with cherry veneer.  A crosspiece was fitted and glued at the top edge of the structure to keep it all square.  This is the stage of construction on the right.
 
On the left the two planked sections of the roof and the front doors have been added and the piece is complete, except for a final stain and finish.  The bottom of the coaming has been left square unstill it is installed on the slanted and cambered quarterdeck.
 

 
Here is it from an oblique viewpoint so you can see all the details.
 

 
The construction techniques are fairly simple and incorporate a number that have been discussed in dealing with prior fittings and structures.  The only new technique is for the hinges.  I started with 1/16” brass strip (2” wide in scale) and bent one end around on itself using a needle-nosed wire bending pliers.  You can get these from dental supply houses, or from your child’s orthodontist. 
 

 
Once it is bent around on itself, it is tightened up as much as possible.  Using this strip the smallest eye that I could form was about 0.028” i.d.  I decided that this was acceptable in this scale.
 


 
The hinge strap was pre-drilled for 0.020” iron pins that will secure it to the wood.  Here I have marked out the locations of the holes and the strap length for the door hinges. 
 

 
After drilling, the hinge was parted off from the strip and chemically blackened.  Here it is installed on the door.  You can see the iron pins that go through the door and were clipped off short.  The hinge sits on an “L” shaped piece of wire that goes into the doorpost.
 

 
The hinges for the roof were made in the same way, except that the straps are longer.  Two matching hinges were installed facing each other and a pin was epoxied into the outer one with the inner one allowed to rotate freely.
 

 
Here is the completed companionway with Pirate Pete inspecting its quality.
 

 
And here it is with the doors ajar, ready for Pete to descend the stairs.
 

 
It was probably not necessary to make the doors operable, but it is one of those little details that keeps up my interest.  I will know that it is there, even if the doors never move after it is displayed in the museum.
 
Be well
 
Dan

You will find that the point of your knife will wander less working in one direction that the other, depending on the grain pattern. Go in the direction that works. Also, a really, really sharp blade, light pressure and several passes work better than trying to cut through in one.

The Saw Stop is quite different to a splitter. The former keeps the kerf (slot) made by the blade open beyond the blade. The Saw Stop (Google this to see it demonstrated) is an electronically controlled brake that instantly stops the blade spinning should it touch anything soft and conductive. It can only be fitted to full-size saws, not a Byrnes saw.

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.