druxey

Now about what you said about the working space between the guns. You are right, it is extremely important that they are mounted at a sufficient distance from each other. I absolutely agree with you. And that's why there was a discussion on these same pages a few months ago about where exactly to put an additional cannon. Putting the cannon in the outermost segment is the most convenient option and in terms of the issue you have raised. A cannon placed in the outermost section of the Bottle will not interfere with the “neighbors” in any way. 
However, I cannot agree with you on the most important point. There is a very big difference in exactly where you can put a cannon in a side gallery, and where you can't. And if the outermost segment is too close to the outermost cannon on the deck, I would never put a cannon in the middle of the side gallery. 
I've written quite a bit on this topic before. And believe there is no point in repeating myself. About the fact that there are mentions with cannons, I tried to be objective and point out that side too. 
But I can't call these examples worthy of serious attention. All images can be divided into two groups. These are drawings. Simple pencil drawings. Let's be frank - these are in no way suitable for a serious document. I just imagine that a few centuries later someone will find my childhood sketchbooks where I drew cars, airplanes or ships and will claim that this is exactly how it looked in the distant 21st century. Here's the proof. We will repeat exactly.
 

 

 
Parsing what in the old drawings was actually correctly depicted, and where the artist's imagination or lack of knowledge is a separate topic altogether. I think you'll agree with that.
We often argue about nuances not only when looking at fuzzy handwriting, but also drawings made as an exhibition project for a king. And even here we can debate what Beren meant by making the floor lines not parallel to each other? And here it should be a volumetric construction or a flat bas-relief? And we end up with models where there's no exact replication. Created after personal research work, private representations of a particular author. And you can either agree with it or not. Please, make your own version. The modeling world will only get better. And let our descendants go crazy, compare different variants and think why they are different? Which one is right and which one is wrong?
The second group is models in museums. And this is a much more serious argument. But what do we actually see on these models? I have already mentioned that some of these models are ships that were not built and do not reflect accurate data. But now let's put that argument aside.
---
Let's take another close look. 
 

 
You can see the standard cannon positions right next to it. And that's where the cannon barrels are. If the windows in the side locks are also cannon windows, then why did not they put cannons here? What prevented it? Or maybe it's just a window? And there shouldn't be a cannon in it? I willingly agree that from these windows it is possible to fire muskets, arquebuses or other kinds of hand-held light weapons. But not a cannon. 
And this is an example that I myself was interested in, and am now already using strictly in counter-evidence. 
 


The small size of the porthole already speaks volumes. Now look at this porthole. You can see perfectly well that it is much higher than the cannon windows next to it. There's no way this porthole could have been a gun emplacement. It's just an open little window for ventilation, that's all. The only thing that could have been fired from here was something portable.
I tried to find some documentary information and couldn't find any evidence to support the theory that a cannon could have been placed here. I looked at every book I could find. Spent a lot of time searching the internet. I couldn't find anything. I also managed to get in touch with Michael Bezverkhny. He's one of the masters who built Ambitionary. And his opinion deserves attention. Especially since he is also a man who is well acquainted with ship history and engineering. I asked him questions about Ambitious and about the possibility of placing artillery in side locks in general. And he too confirmed that it was technically impossible.
 
By the way, if you can find such information, I'd love to continue the discussion. I've become so interested in this that I'd even like to see some actual Legend Breakers style experiments. So that replicas of ship rooms could be built, in which cannons would be set up and demonstration shots would be fired. 
How can I finish what I'm saying? This model can accommodate an additional pair of cannons on its side (one on each side) so that these cannons are positioned in the side castle area. But ONLY in one place! In the outermost section. In this case, there will be no conflicts with the standard distance to neighboring cannons, nor with the impossibility of anchoring and firing. And this is the ONLY possible option on this ship.
 

I am trying, in this build log, to provide a practical dinghy-sailor's perspective, to help those future builders of the pram who do not have direct experience of such boats. As my last post included all of the belaying of the pram's (very limited) running rigging, maybe this is a good time for me to add something about belaying lines to either (horned) cleats or pins. As with anything else, there are right and wrong ways to do it, hence right and wrong ways to show a belay in a model.
 
There are other things that lines can be belayed to, such as timber heads or bitts, so the overall topic is large, but keeping things (relatively) simple, there are three "rules" for a belay to a pin or cleat. The first is absolute and should never be broken. It is that the line, on being brought to a pin, should pass cleanly to and around its top or bottom and never across the middle:

That's not some fetish. Done right, quite a light grip on the line (the short end in that diagram) will hold a considerable load (at least with high-friction hemp or manilla, maybe not with slippery, modern Dyneema or Spectra), yet a gentle easing will veer some line if you have pulled too far, while you can readily catch and then hold some slack, if your shipmate is sweating up the line.
 
Rule 2, to be followed any time that it won't force a violation of the Rule 1, is that the first pass of the line behind the top of the pin should be from left to right:

OK, that is partly just a fetish but the idea is that, on a dark night, someone releasing the line gets a bit of a tactile warning that it is close to coming free, hence to be ready to take whatever load is on the line.
 
Rule 3, to be followed when possible without violating Rules 1 & 2, is that the first turn around the pin should be a round turn, with no crosses (as shown above). If the rigger who set up the boat (or ship) did their job properly, all three rules should be followed, and should fall into place easily, in most cases. However, that cannot always be done, whatever the skill and care of the rigger. The clew outhaul on my pram, as I have it rigged, cannot be belayed according to Rule 3 if Rules 1 & 2 are obeyed. It could have been if the sailor was left-handed and the cleat on the port side of the boom. A right-handed sailor, pulling the clew towards the end of the boom, will naturally want the cleat on the starboard side. It has to be on the boom, of course, hence necessarily below the level of the clew -- and that orientation prevents all three rules being followed simultaneously. There is no such compulsion with the halliard or tack downhaul, which can be belayed following all three rules.
 
Next, after getting to the point shown above, the line should be taken diagonally across the pin:

then behind the pin and diagonally the other way:

and repeat so that there are two diagonal passes in each direction. And that's it. No need to build on layer after layer of turns around the pin -- unless you're working with Dyneema (or, in a model, the lousy, slippery cordage that Model Shipways provide!). Though, if the tail of line is long enough to trail on the deck but not long enough to coil, you could take an extra couple of turns to use up the length neatly. 
 
The end result looks something like:

Note that bringing lines down from the masthead to pins both port and starboard means that Rule 3 has to be ignored on the starboard side. Ditto for the tack downhaul, with its cleat displaced to the starboard side of the mast (and note also that that is placed at a slight angle, to make fulfilling Rules 1 & 2 more natural for the sailor's fingers).
 
If you are working with the sizes of rope usually found on a sailing ship, even those on my 22 footer, there is literally nothing more to be done (aside from coiling -- which is a whole other topic). In a small boat like our pram, however, you can't rely on gravity to hold the loose end of the line in place. Besides, you may get a lot of water on board and that can wash a line off its cleat. So it can be a good idea to create a locking turn by passing the end of the line under the last diagonal turn -- as with the gantline on the pin next to the mast on its port side in that photo. (That has both ends of the gantline on the same pin, hence the double appearance.) At full-size, there's no need to tuck the long end of a halliard, say, under the diagonal. Rather, the last pass around the top of the pin is given a twist and dropped over the pin, leaving the locking turn.
 
And that's all there is to it ... aside from working with forceps to pass miniature lines around model belaying pins, then repeating the process a hundred times for those who aspire to build full-rigged clippers 😀
 
 
Trevor

Progressing nicely!

What joint? Oh - there it is!

Thanks, gentlemen, for your continuing encouragement and the many 'likes'
 
*****************************************************************************
 

Fitting the deck
 
The deck is made from 0.4 mm thick Bakelite-paper. I find it easier to engrave the deck-seams consistently into this harder material with my tools, then into the softer styrene sheet. Perhaps I should get some day one of those hooked engraving tools the plastic modellers use (I have the suspicion these are the same tools as dentists use to scrape of ‘plaque’ – I have one of those and perhaps should have tried).
 
I first printed out the deck-drawing, cut out the shape and fitted it to the ship. Using the paper template, the shape was cut from the Bakelite with a small margin. This then was fitted very carefully in an evening’s session. Fitting started from the stern working forward, taking off material with a diamond nail-file while checking the fit after a couple of strokes.
 
A tight fit is important, as the whole idea is to paint the deck off-ship to avoid a complex masking exercise. Also, the painting process (as described in the build-log for SMS WESPE) would be difficult to exercise within the constraints of the bulwark.
Tools used for engraving the deck seams
 
The fitted deck was taped to a printout of the deck with the planks marked as guidance for engraving. A heavy steel ruler ensured straight lines. First, the plank seam was marked with a scalpel to provide some ‘tooth’ for the graver. Then a narrow engraver’s graver was run twice along the ‘seam’ to clean out the shallow groove. Once the engraving was completed, the whole deck was thoroughly brushed with a rotary bristle-brush to remove burrs.
 
I ended up doing this three times, as in the first two attempts I lost count and cut a skewed seam. This is unrepairable, so I had to start all over again. However, the first fitted deck provided a good template, speeding up the fitting process: after scoring the material with a scalpel around the edges of the template, one can break the new deck out of the bakelite sheet. Only comparatively little fitting was required then.
 
In fact, scoring the bakelite-paper with a scalpel twice and then breaking along the line is a quick and clean way of getting straight cuts that just require a bit of sanding with a diamond file.
 
The next step would be to cut out the openings for the companionways and hatches. However, these have to be tight fits to them and it will be easier to first build those and then file out the openings – back to the drawing-board for some time.
 
To be continued …

Next was the fitting the lower deck beams.
Fairly straightforward and the alignment "jig" helped, though awkward to use (need to clamp its parts in a specific sequence, I dropped parts of the contraption into the hull many times, etc).

Of course my deck clamps were not perfectly level to begin with, so some notches needed to be cut deeper than necessary to ensure a level deck.
A curved Vallorbe file came in really handy to tune the depth of some notches!

Once all beams were horizontal - the run of the deck was already quite fair, with only a minor adjustments to be done for a couple of beams.

I was worried it would be a never ending process of alignment (fixing one dimension just to re-align the other), but it was not that bad.
End result. Note the tiny gaps on the right side, I do not want beams to push into the frames on both ends to prevent any buckling or tilting due to the seasonal wood movement. The gap would be hidden by the inner planking on the right side, while allowing the hull to "breathe" a bit. 

My mind got carried away with plans for the deck structure, all the carlings and ledges, thinking how I would approach the construction. Marking up in situ? Making some paper template? Add temporary spacers to lift the deck in one "piece"? Use some rubber bands to firmly fix beams in position without drilling pin holes? 
Oh, right, that comes much later, I only did them to install pillars...  
I then remarked the true centerline using a string and placed these two test pillars under a beam.
To my horror the beams standing on the keelson looked clearly off-center! The centerline string was already removed by that point, so I pulled two strings for a quick illustration.

After careful checks the reason was found - the keelson is not perfectly level and is glued slightly tilted, resulting in a skewed pillar if you just place it on top. No big deal, can be easily compensated for. Luckily there is no issue with an off-center keelson or an incorrect hull shape. Always a bit scared of finding some critical mistake done 10 years ago... 🫣 

It's your model - your decision. It should reflect your own taste, not ours!

Progressing nicely!

Been a few days but I've got some progress done! (In the middle of selling and looking for a new home).
 
Got steps 23-32 done. (29 and 30 are non-existent). And part of 34 done; the first 34 of the two 🤣
 
23: Chain Plate Slots
     Drilled a hole with a bit about 1" and used a xacto blade saw to make it square (ish). Had to modify the saw blade a bit to get it to fit in the hole but afterwords it came out ok. I'm thinking it'll look fine with the chain plates installed.
 
24: Rudder Gudgeon Pad
     Not much to say here. Very straightforwards and simply. The laser marked slot on the transom was not the center of my boat so I had to just slide it over.
 
25: Rowlock Pads
     I cut a few 3/4" strips and marked every 1/4" and used a regular xacto blade to shape these. Ended up making 5 because one (my first one) did not come out how I liked. The instructions only mention that they should be 1' 6" aft of the forward thwart frames but later pictures show 4 total so I just measured the 1.5" behind the bottom frames 2 and 3.... now that I'm writing this I see that they say 1.5" behind the thwart frames and not bottom rails... whoopsies. My boat is just custom 😁
 
26: Rub Rails
     Since I used the strips intended for this for the floor board cleats and removed them, I got some new pieces from Hobby Lobby. They didn't have 3/64"x1/8" but they did have 1/16"x1/8" so I used that and sanded it a little extra to get closer to 3/64". Pre-bending them helped a lot and I welcome the opportunity for more bending practice as I have lots more to do in my future! I got them pretty flat with the inwale and sheer plank so I was happy about that.
 
27: Dagger Board
     Pretty straight forward. I started sanding this thinking I would only bevel one side of the dagger board but mid sanding i saw that it did say to bevel both sides so I did. Thankfully I wasn't too far in and it came out mostly symmetrical. The instructions do not say to do this but I rounded the front edge as it didn't seem very aerodynamic with a flat edge. I made the stop at the top as the instructions say with 2 long strips along the top with a small piece in between at the ends. Sanded it all level and rounded everything and it looks good!
 
28: Rudder
     Nothing too tricky here either. I left the char on the curved side of the rudder to help me keep track of my bevel job to make sure I didn't over-do it at any point. Rounded the front at the bottom and cut out the small notches for the pintles.
 
31: Thwarts and Stern Sheets
     I'm not sure if it matters but for the stern sheets, I glued a strip of scrab to the bottom to hold them together so I kept my spacing. It also allowed me to sand the edges and make sure they will line up in the end. 
     The forethwart was very simple. I had to trim the thwart knees a little to make sure they were level and flush with thwart. I had to do quite a bit of trimming to the thwart so that it would fit especially in the slot for the thwart frame. The slots were not deep enough to fit.
     The midship thwart was a very different situation... the knees required significant trimming so that the thwart was at the same level as the dagger board case. So much, that the thwart knees could not reach the inwale... I trimmed them so there is no notch for the inwale and attached them to the sheer plank. Once I go these made, I put a tiny bit of glue on the bottom and glued them to the thwart and let it dry. Afterwards, I slid the thwart into position and glued the knees to the plank. Once that glue dried I was able to easily break the bond and slide out the thwart.
 
33: Painting the Hull
     I just got done with priming everything and letting it dry. Will sand it and paint it tomorrow!
 
34-1: Floor Boards
     I really liked how the stern sheets come out when using the extra strip of wood glued to the bottom so I decided to do that with the floor boards. Once all boards were glued together, I roughed out the shape of the bottom of the boat and started making sawdust. I did this for both sets of floor boards but on the ones that go around the dagger board case, I only glued the long strips together. Once I get them glued in, I will do my best getting the smaller boards in and symmetrical.
 
Had a random issue where the tip of the bow transom knee broke off - above the hole for the stay plate. I "fixed" it with wood filler... I spent way too much time sanding it to make it look half decent and then put some thin CA glue into the wood to make sure it doesn't break again. It's "high performance" wood filler but I don't trust it haha. What's everyone's opinion on where pictures are in these posts? Right after the section talking about the relevant parts? Or all dumped at the end of the post like I usually do.
 

 
 

Thank you for the "wow", King Derelict! Not sure that is deserved but it's welcome all the same!
 
 
Today: Setting the sail:
 
There was one point in the kit instructions' suggestions for the mast that I had skipped over: There is to be some "copper" applied where the boom jaws bear against the mast. I hadn't forgotten that but other build logs have reported trouble when the "copper" was applied while building the mast and the boom later rested higher or lower. So I wanted the boom in place first.
 
The instructions suggest representing the "copper" with painted paper. I know that some model builders have used real copper, beaten thin then glued on. I opted for the simpler alternative of using a tiny piece of adhesive-backed copper tape. In the end, it hardly matters as the piece can barely be seen around the mast jaws.
 
With that done, I could set the sail properly. The instructions talk about belaying the tack downhaul first, then the halliard. That's a bit of a reversal, as the halliard has much more scope for adjustment,  so you need to fix that first, thus setting the height of the sail up the mast, then do the tack downhaul. (At full size, hauling on the halliard is a fight against gravity and friction, so best not done when also fighting tension in the rig. In contrast, it is easy to throw your body weight onto the boom, get as much tension as you wish in the luff, then belay the downhaul.) There was really no difficulty with either in the model, except that even my larger mast cleats were too small for the material I had chosen for the halliard. I had to glue turns onto the cleat before adding more turns. 
 
Full-size, the downhaul needs no more length than needed to belay on the cleat, so that one can get clipped off short. The halliard has to be long enough to the drop sail and yard into the boat, of course, so there's a whole lot of extra length around. I will have the "fun" of coiling the excess later. In the meanwhile, all looks quite nice:

I fastened one end of the sheet to the "becket" on its lower block by the same CA-glue and sail-twine whipping approach (masquerading as a served splice) that I had used on the standing rigging. This time, I worked with the sheet loose in my hand and put on a common whipping (rather than a westcountry) to see whether that would be less lumpy. Then I passed the rope horse through the traveller block and put the ends through the holes in the stern quarter knees (which had to be re-drilled first), tying figure-of-eight stopper knots in the hidden ends. I made the horse much longer than I had expected to as I wanted to be sure that it would always clear the tiller. Maybe I will shorten it later. That will be easy to do, if necessary.
 
The sheet has to be long, as it must span twice from the horse to the boom end, when the boom is freed off against a shroud, with yet more length to bring its end to the hand of someone sitting amidships. All of that length had to be rove through the boom-end block, then through the one "shackled" to the horse and everything pulled gently taut:
 
 
There's tidying up still to be done (with the end of the clew outhaul, in particular) but I'm happy with how it's going. And that crazy forward rake of the mast doesn't look so crazy now, with the limited space between boom and hull.
 
 
Trevor
 
 

The unbreakable rule for the arrangement of guns has always been (since Colbert) a minimum (and constant) distance to be respected between two guns side by side, so that their two crews do not jostle each other during combat.  It should be noted that Frölich's model has a defect in the 2nd battery equipped with 18-pounder guns. Frölich model has 13 portholes, whereas historical references give 14 or even 15 portholes.  Precisely speaking, the Ambitieux should have had 14 gun ports (as per historic references), while the Fulminant should have had 14 or even 15 gun ports (historic references are somehow controversial about 14 or15) !
 
You therefore should try to add an extra porthole to the 2nd deck in order to point out this (slight) difference between Ambitieux and Fulminant.
 
Moreover, it's clearly stated that Fulminant is described to be over gunned v/s Ambitieux.
 
Instead of asking yourself the question : should this supplementary 14th gun port be situated through the door leading to the officers' toilets (or not?), it could maybe clever to calculate :
 
If I respect the "pitch" minimal obligatory distance (standardised at the time of Colbert) between the gun portholes of the 2nd battery, where should I pierce my new 14th porthole ?
 
We have seen (on several models) that the rear castles can be pierced to create an additional gunport and we also observe that in the 18th century, the main room (the counsel or dinner room) accepted cannons that were rolled and positioned only at the time of combats.
 
You should now calculate, from bow to stern, by incrementing by one new interval (pitch) to see where the 14th gun's port's position could be ... and how this can be arranged either into or outside the decorated rear castle.
 
I hope it helps.  
 

Congratulations on launching your new project, Eberhard. Lovely subject!

I will follow your log with great interest. I have visited the boat a few times in Schloss Gottorf in Schleswig. It‘s a really interesting vessel. In your scale you can build the model with all the fine details 

Ah, good! The wood chips are flying!
 
John

I have roughed out the keel plank as well as the stem and stern posts out of lacy she-oak.
The shaping of these members will be the most difficult part of the build because of the complex 3-D shape. I will endeavour to include some rocker to the keel plank.

Cheers
Dick

Thanks Siggi52 for the info and useful discussion by private message. He suggested that acquiring and using the most recent plans made by the National Museum in Copenhagen may produce a more upto date model.  A recent replica was made from these plans. An excellent model would be made from these plans were they available from the museum.
IHowever
However, I have proceeded too far along a particular line namely the Akerlund plans to go back to scratch. In addition, Akerlund is the only reconstruction to show a practicable solution to the problem of hogging and twisting of the hull and hopefully I can test his concept in a model. The Nydam Tveir replica shows no evidence of a hogging solution.
 
The next step, having started the building board, is to carve the keel plank , stem and stern post.
At the end of the day , if I finish it, the model will be my modification of Akerlund's concept. I do not pretend it will be a "replica" of the original boat as I don't think that can be done.
Cheers
Dick

Thanks, John. The Hjortspring vessel was reconstructed with and without a hogging truss and the crew said it handled much better with the truss.
Also this Nydam replca seems to have some sort of anti-hogging device rigged.

Cheers
Dick

Very interesting, Dick. I'm certainly no expert on this era or of the development of early Scandinavian craft but given the relative proximity of the discovery of the Hjortspring vessels to the Nydam finds, it would seem reasonable to suppose that the hogging truss technology was handed down until a better sollution was found.
 
John

I have now received the monograph of Harald Akerlund 1963

It is in swedish but does have a useful english abstract and the plans are well printed.  I have looked at the original reconstruction by the excavator Engelbrecht 1863 and by Shetelig and Johannesen 1929 and it is my opinion that Akerlund's reconstruction is the most likely to approximate the true shape of the hull. He also cogently argues that the present display of the hull is inaccurate as the stern has been displayed as the stem and vice versa. He concludes that the rudder was installed on the port side.  The retrieved rudder seems to support this as well as some holes in the sternpost (as he calls it) which may well be supports for the rudder. I am not convinced of this as I think he may have put the aerofoil rudder back to front. Nonetheless, the rudder side need not be starboard as in the later viking vessels. Indeed, there evidence from stone carving from Gotland of both a quarter rudder at the rear and another one at the fore quarter.
 
In any case, I will go with Akerlunds lines and orientation although I may put the rudder to starboard. He also justifies the presence of a sophisticated central strengtheing frame and hogging truss. Otherwise the extreme thinness of the hull planking would lead to failure of the hull, I think his reconstruction of this is good and explains the profusion of unexplained carved wood pieces found with the hull. I will include the hogging truss as I did with my mycenaean galley.

Dick

The earliest vessels which have yet been excavated in Scandinavia and Northern Europe are not the Viking sailing ships we all know but are rowed vessels without the capacity to sail. Apart from small paddled boats known from grave burials, the earliest major excavated vessel is the Hjortspring vessel which dates from the 4th century BCE and is a sewn vessel propelled by paddles and having a keel plank.

The use of sail is thought to have occurred late in this region and the reasons for this late adoption are far from clear. The earliest accepted archaeological evidence for sail in Scandinavia and northern Europe comes from picture stones dated to the 6th century CE at the earliest. The earliest excavated sailing ship is the well known and frequently modelled Oseberg vessel of the early 9th century CE.
Before the Viking era, large vessels for transport of men or goods seem to have been rowed vessels lacking a true keel and a mast. It is not till the Kvalsund boat, a rowed vessel of the late 8th century, was found do we see a true keel and it is from this vessel that the viking age is said to begin.

The famous longships of the viking age were often ship burials but in the pre-viking era the boat finds are sometimes found to be bog sacrifices. These vessels were deliberately sunk or broken up in bogs together with weapons and armour similarly broken, which suggests a deliberate sacrifice to a beneficent god to celebrate a victory or as part of religious rites. No human remains have been found with the vessels.
The most important bog finds were the Nydam boats. These were excavated in 1863 and, of the three vessels found, only one has been preserved. This is the Nydam B boat, a rowed vessel 23 metres in length with only a keel plank and no mast step. There were 15 thwarts and probably 28 or 30 rowers. A quarter rudder was found with the boat. The boat was constructed from oak and a large part of the vessel has been preserved.
There are similarities of Nydam B with the Sutton Hoo saxon ship burial and suggestion has been made that the Nydam B boat may have been the type of vessel that the Frisians, Saxons and Jutes used to reach southern England. However, the Nydam boat is built for coastal or riverine travel and would have had great difficulty with the open ocean so exactly how this crossing was made remains unclear.
The lack of a true keel and the construction of the hull make it likely that hogging of the hull would have been a problem. Found in association with Nydam B were many staves and wooden devices which have been interpreted (Akerlund 1963) as being remnant of the mechanism of a hogging truss. This has been questioned by other authorities and remains a possibility.
I plan to attempt a model of the Nydam B boat at 1:20 scale using the dimensions estimated by Akerlund who has allowed for 14% wood shrinkage over the century since excavation. I am still considering whether to include the hogging truss in the reconstruction.
 
I cannot start yet as I am awaiting receipt of a publication from Germany on the boat
Cheers
Dick
 

Good morning. 
Just a little insight into how the drawings are created.
I use Fusion360 Hobby Home version. 
The plans were imported and scaled to the correct length at the waterline.  Then there positions were adjusted to match together so that when you rotate the drawings it looks and reacts as it should in 3D.
All the Components then have Drawing plane's on all X Y and Z planes added(Just a habit encase I need them latter on)  
Each part has its own drawing so that I can use Origin Shaper add-in to export the SVG files in the next stage.
The parts are drawn one at a time in the correct order so I can see them to check on the fairings and assembly alignment. 
A few screenshots.

The Keel is made using a bread and butter construction. This gives me a true shape and is easy to fare when it comes to the sanding. Used dowels to get the alignment spot on. The layers are 4.2mm in thickness. and the bottom one is 6mm thick.

Sternpost is made up using 4 parts and and I used 16mm thick timber. All the parts were marked with a laser and also marked the rabbet line at the same time. parts were cut with correct grain direction.
Final fitting with file and chisel to get the fit.

The stem was done using the same method as the Sternpost. Using 14mm thick timber and the mast step was 21mm timber. 

The assembly matched together. 

Assembly with Frame drawings. Showing the lines very nicely. 
The frame drawing were put onto a sketch which is the size of my laser. this made it easy to manipulate the parts ready for Shaper to do its magic. 

The inverted building Base. 
 
That's it for now.
 
Regards AntonyUK. 
 

Glad to see that you snugged up the rudder, Clare!

Glad to see that you snugged up the rudder, Clare!

Glad to see that you snugged up the rudder, Clare!