georgeband

Druxey, Thank you for your quick reply, appreciated as always. I did not explain my problem properly and have now added a sketch to illustrate the point. I should have done this at the start to make it clearer. The sketch is not an accurate depiction of a hooked scarf but represents the choices I have to make. For the waterway I will be joining an edge-bent plank (aft) to a spiled section (forward) and there is sufficient overlap between the pieces to make either option, A or B. If I choose on aesthetics alone then A looks better to me (at the moment). The join on the binding strake will be handed in the same way as the the one on the waterway just because it looks neater. I enjoy the research on these issues but it is possible to get so engrossed in a search to ensure accuracy that a model does not get finished. Perhaps the only model which can be perfect in all respects is one of a subject which still exists, and the model represents her as she is now. Victory, Cutty Sark and others form a small band but the vast majority of ship models are reconstructions based on best available evidence. Sometimes we rely on informed guesses. (I have just found and enjoyed the thread you started about research.) George

Many drawings and references show scarph (scarf) joints on the deck planking for the stronger, more important planks. The waterway by the bulwark is one, the binding strake outboard of the hatches is another. The shape of a hooked scarf joint is well known and the proportions for the lengths of different sides can vary. A paper by Karolak et al describes many of the variations on scarf joints Karolak scarf joints.pdf. Current use in boat building are described in a short article by Souppez https://www.woodenboat.com/strength-scarf-joints. I guess that around 1800 in the Royal Navy or elsewhere there was a conventional way to draw and cut the joint so that it is not too long or too short. Does anyone have a contemporary description of the relative sizes? I think back to learning how to make a mortise and tenon joint at school where the join is one third of the width of the wood. There must have been something similar, though more complicated, for a scarf joint. My second question is about left-handed or right-handed joints. Drawings in three books I have all show that the aft timber extends farther forward on its outboard edge; the fore timber that goes into the joint extends farther aft on its inboard edge. Was there a conventional way to align the scarfs or was it the choice of the shipwright? I have not yet found any contemporary evidence. I will continue my searches on Google and ask for advice from the wise people who have looked at this before. If there is no evidence anywhere then I will simply choose a joint shape that looks good. George

It all depends on what you mean by 'best'. Other similar discussions approach the subject from an aesthetic or artisan direction where the aim is to show your skills to advantage. There is nothing wrong with this and it can lead you to any number of hard woods that have a fine grain. It becomes a matter of personal preference as to how much grain you want to see; for me I like to see a boundary between parallel planks but not a huge difference. These woods also hold a corner so that when you want a sharp edge it can be achieved by cutting or sanding and you don't get rounded edges. The colour is also a matter of personal preference and there are some fine models with yellow or red or white tints to parts of the hull. An alternative aspect of 'best' is realistic. A model at a viewing distance of one foot is equivalent in some ways to a real vessel at 48 feet or 64 feet or more, depending on your scale. At this distance the grain becomes invisible and a painted finish could (whisper it) be just as 'good'. But the convention for ship modellers is to have a wood finish and we would only paint a surface to look like wood if the model was made of plastic. So what does a real, wood surface look like? I came to this issue and found this thread when considering the deck on a Bermuda built schooner from 1805. The deck would be holystoned every day so the surface would be fresh, sanded wood. On most Royal Navy ships the deck was, I think, fir or a similar softwood (help me here Allan or someone else). Even if it was oak the surface would be pale and a 'white' wood would be suitable on a model. Jotika in their kits supply Tankanyika for the deck or you could use obechi or lime/ bass or holly. The schooner I am making was built from the local wood in Bermuda which is variously called cedar or juniper. It is now rare from over exploitation but Eastern Red Cedar from the USA is meant to be very similar. Some might call me obsessive, but I have now bought some of this wood and the shipping and import costs equal the cost of the wood itself. (I will use the wood to make the base for a display cabinet.) It is pink. In the photo below it is resting on some white paper. It is most definitely pink with white sapwood. The deck on my model schooner will be pink. My plan is to use the Tanganyika planks from the kit and stain them with a pink dye. Leaving the deck we come to the rest of the hull which was not sanded every day and the wood would age with time and sun and salty water. Old wood in my garden or elsewhere tends to be grey unless it is varnished or treated. It does not seem to matter what variety of wood it is, it goes grey with age. The next photo shows four pieces of oak which have been in the open for three years. I would guess that a typical, oak built ship would be a similar colour unless you want to portray it as being wet in which case it would be much darker. I do not know how the Eastern Red Cedar will age but I have already built the hull in walnut which is a bit darker than this oak sample. A question for other modellers or sailors. Do you have photos of a real, untreated wooden hull that we can use as examples? George

Gary, That's a good point about a 'steam scuttle' which is a new term for me. I had not included the full drawings of Haddock and the cooking range or stove is forward of the ladder way; the chimney hole is next to the fore mast. The additional structure aft of the ladder way is, I would guess, just to support a sliding hatch. The deck drawing does not show ventilation holes there, or anything else for that matter, so we are back to speculation. I imagine that the cook would want to keep the hatch at least partly open to let out the steam and to provide light so he could see what he was doing. George

Thank you Pat and Druxey for your comments and sharing your knowledge. The photo of Harriet shows a fine example of a sliding hatch which will certainly influence the design I eventually recreate on Whiting. I had hoped that the extensive drawings of Haddock, and her sister Cuckoo, and the precursors of the class would help with my build of Whiting. They do, but they also leave open other questions where I have to doubt the accuracy of the draughtsman. The companionway 'box' over the main ladder is another example where the drawing shows something that does not appear to be sensible: on the drawing the sides are perpendicular to the keel, which puts them at an angle to the waterline and deck. As I said in another thread, I do not like to assume that a drawing is wrong simply because it does not agree with my interpretation of what should be done. In the case of the cover over the fore ladder way my conclusion now is that the drawing does show a sliding cover and my previous engineering assessment was flawed and too cautious. Thanks again for your help. If anyone has more photos or drawings of sliding hatch covers I would be delighted to see them. George

I am now doing some detailed planning for the deck and hatches. I want to keep this topic as a build log and move wider discussions out of the way so I have opened a new topic about hatch covers over ladder ways. What an exciting life I lead! https://modelshipworld.com/topic/29209-hatch-over-a-ladderway/ George

I am modelling HM schooner Whiting which was built in 1805. The Admiralty drawings for the sister ship Haddock show some features around the fore ladderway which I find tricky to interpret and would appreciate comments and advice. The first picture is an extract from the plan view and shows the main hatch, fore ladderway. chimney hole, and fore mast. It all looks fairly conventional. The second picture is a side view that includes the ladderway and the area aft (to the left) of it. The hatch has a lid as we would expect but there is what looks like another, lower hatch that extends aft from it. This does not appear on the plan view and might just be some light structure or even something in the bulwarks. Marquardt in 'The Global Schooner' states that a hatch cover over a ladderway would usually be hinged so that it can be opened with one hand. He is usually very good at giving references but this time it appears to be a reasoned assertion and the drawing he provides looks reasonable. The extra structure on the Admiralty drawing could be a support for the lid to keep it off the deck when it is open. I have added a copy of Marquardt's drawing here. (Buy the book if you are building a schooner!). Goodwin in 'The Naval Cutter Alert' has drawings for a sliding hatch. In the extract below (5) is the sliding cover and (3) is a fixed cover, (13) is a rail for the sliding cover. This looks like a better match for the Admiralty drawing for Haddock and I would guess that it is based on other Admiralty drawings. (Buy this book too if you are making a small vessel from late 1700s to early 1800s!) My inclination is to use the sliding hatch but I have a couple of reservations. One is that a sliding cover jams easily if the force is not even on both sides. The other is that the fixed cover just goes over bare deck and does not serve a useful purpose. It has the appearance of a shallow box that cannot be opened. It could be to stop the crew tripping over the slide rails, but then it has to be strong enough for them to stand on it while working. It looks like a lot of effort to support the rails. Does anyone have information about sliding or hinged hatch covers? George

More optical fibres I have now fitted optical fibres through the front stand. I glued the cooking range in position then used the same methods as for the rear stand. Four fibres illuminate the area below the fore ladder way, between frames D and O. In the photos, two of them point upwards and will be bent down by the main deck when that is fitted. Three fibres are routed further aft and are angled up to shine through the grating over the main hatch. Fibres that enter through the forward stand illuminate two areas The photos also show where light leaks out of the sides of the fibres. In the cooking range this simulates a fire and I will leave it as it is, though I have considered putting black tape around the fibres to hide them. Fibres coming up through the cooking range George

This has been a lively discussion and I apologise unreservedly to James H and others who achieve wonders with an airbrush. As mentioned by Kurt it is not the airbrush itself which is the problem but the skill and ability of the user, and James's Typhoon shows what can be achieved. Unfortunately pictures like this give some people the idea that all they need is an airbrush and everything will become good, whereas it requires practice and experimenting and sound advice and an aptitude to get to that high level. There is a saying "all the gear but no idea" which applies to so many hobbies. Personally I enjoy painting with a hairy stick and occasionally I use a rattle-can of car paint for some jobs such as a 'silver' aircraft model. I realise that a feathered edge is much simpler with an airbrush, as is a graded dusting of dirt, but they are rare on the models I make. Perhaps I choose models which suit my style of work. I do enjoy adding fine details with a steady hand and shy away from masking which is a different skill that does not attract me. Each to his own, be happy with what you can achieve and make the next one better. George

Dry fitting before gluing is for me an essential step to make sure that the bits fit before they get sticky. However, I do not use the brass pins from the kit because they will cause splits unless you drill holes for them, in which case you will have holes to fill later. I use map pins which are thinner than the kit brass pins and have a head that you can grip easily. Push them in enough so that they do not fall out, and do it near the edge on the underside of the capping rail. The pins will now stop the rail from sliding to the side while you check the fit. When gluing I use large elastic bands to hold down the rail to the top of the bulwark while the PVA glue sets. Pull out the pins when the joint is secure and you are left with small holes where they cannot be seen. Other builders have their own preferred methods which you can sometimes see in build logs. The capping rail here is not the plywood kit part but strip wood that was bent to shape George

Phil, Bruce, The thesis makes many references to an article by Munday in "Ingrid and other studies" from 1978. Two websites claim to have pdf versions but a search suggests that the sites are scams and should be avoided. There are a few copies in Abebooks and various second-hand or charity shops for £15 - £20 but I do not have enough interest to increase my book collection on a minor topic. Do any of you have access to a copy? George

The Admiralty drawings for Haddock (1805) show two large cupboards at the stern, either side of the rudder. They are about 5 feet high, 2 feet wide and 2 feet front-to-back at the deck, more at the top. The one to starboard is labelled as a pantry while the one to port is called the 'necessary'. In the UK we now call the 'necessary' the toilet and in USA it is often called the bathroom. The drawing shows a door that opens forward so there was some privacy unlike the seats of ease in the heads. I have attached a pdf copy of a Masters thesis by Joe John Simmons about seats of ease. He wrote it in 1985 and it has plenty of detail for those who want to know including line drawingsSeats of Ease Simmons-MA1985.pdf. It's a good read while you are sitting at your leisure... George

Sziggy, The PVA glue works with wood and paper and I would not use it for metal unless it is just to seal over a mechanical joint. The CA glues are much better for fixing pins into holes though they are not very good at filling gaps, so a pin should be a snug fit in the hole. If the pintles on your rudder do not fit into the eyelets then it could be that the wire is too thick, or that the pins and eyes are not properly aligned. Try a length of unused wire and see if that fits into an eyelet; if it does then the problem is alignment. A solution in this case is to leave one of the eyelets (or pintles) loose in its mounting hole and fit the rudder to the hull. You will need tweezers or fine pliers to get all the joints to couple but it can be done. When the rudder is hanging happily apply a drop of CA glue to the unglued pin (or eyelet) and the alignment is all sorted. If the wire does not fit into an eyelet then trying to reduce its thickness is possible. However, it is usually easier to find a replacement wire which does not have to be brass. Look in electrical cable, staples, paperclips, and so on and find a wire that does fit into the eyelet. George

Optical fibres I have fitted optical fibres through the aft stand (brass tube) and coaxed them into position. Basic geometry shows that seven 1mm diameter fibres should fit through a 3mm internal diameter tube but it all depends on manufacturing tolerances. My fallback position was to fit only five fibres if they were too tight. Fortunately all seven were a comfortable fit and slide without scraping bits of the sides. Initially there was a tree of fibres that poked up through the brass tube I have used as a stand. I allowed a 20cm / 8 inch tail from the bottom of the tube so that the ends of the fibres will be accessible when Whiting is on her display stand. I wrapped insulating tape around the fibres at both ends of the brass tube to stop the bundle from sliding. I will experiment with a few glues before I fully fix the fibres because I do not know how the plastic will react to the solvents. Tree of optical fibres fed in through the hollow stand The fibres were then routed through the holes I had pre-drilled in the bulkheads. The fibres will bend with a radius of about 2.5cm / 1 inch and there is little risk of them breaking. The bigger problem with tight bends is that light spills out of the sides of the fibres. I cut the ends of the fibres with a knife or scissors; a precise cut is not needed because I want the light to spread out in a broad pattern. The next photo shows the fibres in position and lit. Two at the aft end of the cabin shine near the candles, two point directly up and their light will reflect down off the ceiling, three are fed into the entrance lobby. Optical fibres in place and lit I used an amber LED to provide the light because it gives a colour that resembles candle light. A 'warm white' LED is too white for my taste though I might fit some to the display case to back light the sails. A 3mm diameter LED is a standard size and a short length of brass tube at the lower tail of the fibres is an easy way to make the connection. The power for the LED came from a simple constant current source (two transistors and two resistors) that I have to hand, but for the display model I will probably use a 5V USB supply and a simple resistor to limit the current. This gives plenty of options for mains electric supplies or battery power banks. I have now added some foil to the fore corners of the entrance lobby to better reflect the light back. I will also glue some foil to the underside of the main deck to illuminate the floor of the cabin. Next job is to fit the fibres in the fore stand. George

I'm not sure what you mean by PVC glue. PVA glue is the white stuff to fix wood and it usually takes an hour or so to set and turn clear. When my PVA glue gets too thick I just add a little water. A (plastic) bottle lasts me several years unless I have a big DIY project. Superglue or cyanoacrylate or CA glue is the one that grabs and sets instantly and will glue your fingers together if you take liberties with it. It also comes in thick and thin varieties. I find that it builds up around the nozzle which gives two problems: it will not dispense properly and the cap will not close properly. I chip away the dried glue with an old knife blade. A small plastic bottle of CA glue typically lasts about 3 to 6 months for me before it gets too thick and sets. The little foil tubes of glue are good for one application and, in my experience, go solid or empty after that. George

Sziggy, I was wondering if I had been too harsh and you had given up with the build, but the photos show that your planking is now something that you can look at with pride. The double-plank method is good for beginners because it lets you hide earlier mistakes as your technique improves. Keep at it! With regard to your question about drilling, I use a pin chuck and twist it with simple finger power. I slip a drawing pin into the end so that I can apply pressure from my palm to the end of the pin chuck without it making a hole in my skin. There are plenty of low cost mini-drills available and Dremel is probably the brand leader. Personally I don't like the high pitched whine they make and accept that hand tools are slower. George

I agree with what Ben says. I usually paint with acrylics and have used up to 6 thin coats for a large area. The drying time for acrylics is short so the method does not add a huge amount of delay. The other suggestion I would make is to use a larger brush. The typical small modelling brush is fine for little things like cannon but does not provide enough coverage for a larger area such as a hull bottom. Go to an artists' supplies shop and buy something there. People at a modelling club near me (mostly aircraft and tanks) split between those who use an airbrush and those who prefer a hairy stick. The airbrush users seem to spend much of their time masking which is a different skill. Personally I do not much like an airbrush finish which to me looks speckled and toy-like, but an airbrush can achieve things which a brush cannot, and vice versa. George

Interior details below the fore hatch. There was a cooking range just aft of the fore mast and its front face is visible through the hatch. Peter Goodwin in his book on Alert has detailed drawings but his range is too big for Whiting. I used his drawings as inspiration to create my own range, and took the liberty of moving it aft by 4mm in comparison to the Admiralty drawing. The reason for the shift in location is so that the optical fibres will be hidden inside the range. I built the range from scrap materials - 1mm thick wood, paper and wire. The photo below shows the basic structure with a grate at the bottom, an open space above it, and then a tapered area that leads to the chimney. There is also a swinging arm that carried a cooking pot which I made from bamboo and wire. The base below the range is painted burnt umber to represent brick and has a contrasting wood lip around it. There is a slot in the base that fits around the optical fibres and the spine which projects aft of frame D. Cooking range. Unpainted except for the brick floor beneath it. I painted the inside of the range black and the outside in dark grey with flecks of silver along exposed edges. I also painted frame D in black behind the range. Cooking range, painted and with the cooking pot in place The third photo shows the range in position though it has not been glued yet. I want to bring the optical fibres into the hold and secure them before fixing the range. The angle of the photo gives a view similar to what I will have on the finished model. The hatch is right over frame B which I have cut back. Cooking range in position The second (and final) item for the fore hatch is a ladder. The Admiralty drawing labels the hatch as a ladder way but there is no drawing of a ladder. I assume that the ladder was easily demountable since its feet rested on hatch covers in the lower deck. I made mine using the same template as for the ladder in the entrance lobby though of much lighter construction: the sides and treads are 0.5x2mm tanganyika which I split down from the deck planks in the kit. As with the main ladder, this one will be trimmed and fitted after the deck has been laid. I intend to provide hooks at the top of the ladder to stop it from sliding and falling but will position them when the lip around the ladder way is finished. I might yet paint or stain the little ladder because its wood is a bit bright for me and not right for Bermudan cedar. I could claim it is newly made from fir during Whiting's refit at Portsmouth. Both ladders. The pointy ends to the left are the tops I think that optical fibres will come next and feel that I am delaying starting this job. If the weather clears then I prefer to be outside while it is possible. If it stays wet and miserable then I might have to find my soldering iron (for the LEDs and wiring, not to melt the fibres). George

Eamonn, Thank you for your kind comments. I have made models where later research shows that I followed a convention or made a mistake and got something wrong. My Sherbourne is one example where I would now do some things differently. I now look at Sherbourne with more critical eyes but family and visitors are still impressed by the look of her with sails set and activity on the deck. One thing I have learned over the years is that kit manufacturers are not omniscient and they make mistakes. It is a leap of faith for a newcomer to trust their own research when it contradicts the kit instructions. My Sherbourne and, I think, your Ballahoo are examples where we have built a kit and added details and features to enhance it. I (we?) assumed that the kit was basically correct and that some simplified areas could be improved. It is disappointing to learn afterwards that elements of the kit are wrong and we did not correct them. But, we still have a fine model and should focus on what went well and the overall look. There is a similar issue with DIY projects such as wallpapering; my eyes are drawn to a mistake I made where the edges do not meet properly but others see the big picture and like the pattern/ colour/ smoothness. The workmanship on your Ballahoo is outstanding and displays your skill as a model maker. So a few bits are in the wrong place but who apart from you (and people on this forum...) will ever know? Visitors to your house will be amazed by your model so keep quiet about what you found in later research. And don't invite anyone who has an intimate knowledge of the Haddock drawings. George

More work on the interior to report, this time on the entrance lobby. I added a 'skirting board' along the aft face of the entrance lobby and continued it across the door to the captain's cabin which opens away from the lobby. My thinking here is that when water comes down the ladderway it will not get into the cabin. The side cabins have doors that open into the lobby and I would assume they have a similar board inside the cabin. Rear face of the entrance lobby with a 'skirting board'. The tops of the pump pipes are visible at the fore end The pumps are just aft of the main mast and the pump pipes are in the fore end of the entrance lobby. (The kit places the pumps midships which is quite wrong but fills a space on deck.) I made the pipes from bamboo barbeque skewers which are 4mm diameter. Entrance lobby looking forward. The pump pipes stand on the step The ladder width and the gap between treads is shown on the Admiralty drawing for Haddock, but it does not show the slope or whether it is to port or starboard. I think that the lower end is to port and the upper end to starboard; the photo above shows that the entrance lobby extends further to port which would make it easier to scend the ladder. (Scend is a word I have found in contemporary books and it combines both ascending and descending.) Access to three doors also has a simpler route, and a scuttle in the deck is not directly at the foot of the ladder. All in all, it looks like the companionway cover should open to starboard, opposite to what Caldercraft suggest. Marquardt in 'The Global Schooner' says that starboard opening was the more normal choice. I made the ladder in a conventional way which I am sure lots of people have invented independently. I drew a template, pinned down the sides and glued on tread supports. When the glue had set the sides were cut free and trimmed and then the treads were glued in. Construction of the sides of the ladder I placed the treads perpendicular to the sides which will not be parallel to the frames. After all the agonizing about what should be right, in practice it is pretty much invisible on the model. I left gluing the ladder in place until after I have laid the deck. Now I am working on the cooking range. George

Here is a contemporary piece of information to add to the discussions. Falconer's Universal Dictionary of the Marine (I have a scanned copy of the 1784 edition, readily available on the web) spells 'launch' as 'lanch' and has the following entry. We are all able to make our own interpretations of these words and I do not expect all to agree. My opinion follows the comments from Vaddoc and Jud above and simple engineering expediency - I would expect the frames to be built vertically, and the angle of the keel would be adjusted on the ground with blocks and wedges to enable this to happen. When it comes to launch the vessel, Falconer says that two slipways are laid and a cradle is built to support the ship. The supports for the keel are then knocked out and the vessel either moves immediately or is given a push to start her slide. There are no definitive words here that the keel is parallel to the slipways in the vertical plane, so it is plausible that the keel is horizontal while the ship slides down an angled slipway while sitting in a cradle. This interpretation could resolve some of the discussions above. Bear in mind also that practice in different parts of the world may well have been different. George

Eamonn, Thanks for your comments. The captain's quarters are luxury compared to the nearly 20 crew who shared the main hold between the masts. Headroom for them was a little over 4 feet, less below the deck beams. Whiting had a brief career as a slaver after her time in the Royal Navy and there are records which show that more than 80 slaves survived the passage. I don't know how people could endure that, or inflict that. The map looks good and a large print would be a fine backdrop to a model. Shrink it down to 1cm though and we get a grey area with little contrast. That's why I drew something which would show through a skylight even though the features are far too coarse. Sometimes modelling preferences outweigh true scale sizes and that is why some people put a lot of effort into trenails which are pretty much invisible. Do you remember the giant rivets that used to adorn Airfix kits of aircraft? Roger, I have put ruler and set square to the Admiralty drawing for Haddock and there are several features worthy of comment. The keel has a small taper. The height/thickness is 6mm at the bow and 4.5mm at the stern (at 1/48 on the drawing, the keel is about 300mm long). The upper edge of the keel is parallel to the ruled datum line below it. The lower edge of the keel is not parallel to the ruled datum line. The stern is higher by about 0.5 in 100 which is another way of saying that the keel tapers. The frames are perpendicular to the keel. I cannot tell if there is a better alignment with the upper or the lower edge of the keel or something in between. One other snippet of qualitative information comes from James' Naval History of Great Britain. He says (and I am quoting from memory...) that three or four of these schooners were built across a slip. So what does it all mean? I believe our surveyor when he drew the frames perpendicular to the keel. I suspect that he used the upper edge of the keel as his datum, if only because it is dry, and then adjusted the thickness on the lower edge. Were these schooners built this way, or was the lower edge of the keel tipped slightly on the stocks? We will probably never know but I look forward to hearing your opinion. George

Roger, Thanks for your comments and advice. Ultimately I will make a judgment call about what I think is right or wrong on an Admiralty drawing and it eases my conscience when I hear opinions such as yours. George

The captain's cabin now has some furniture in it. I made a hammock with a blanket over it, some storage chests and a table and chair. These will only be visible through the skylight when Whiting is finished so I made these bits so they look good from the available viewing angles; at the back there are blocks and blobs which hold them together. I know some modellers who are of the school where even the hidden bits must be right, but for me there are other priorities in life. Each to his own and have joy in the way you prefer to work. A few photos here of some of the furniture and the completed cabin. The hammock has representative stringing at one end only. The other end gets glued to a wall, out of sight. The blanket is cut from a paper napkin and the hammock itself is paper kitchen towel that has been folded over several times. The table and chair can only be seen from above. The map is in pencil and has a couple of weights to stop it from rolling up and some calipers from brass wire. The wood blocks underneath the table and chair will not be visible. View of the cabin from above. The skylight is above the table and allows slant views of most of the cabin. The two small circles above the table are candles on little shelves and now have white paint in them. Angled view of the cabin. The hole in the floor for optical fibres is shielded by the chair I am now thinking about the ladder in the entrance lobby. The Admiralty drawings show many features such as the ladder as perpendicular to the keel when I would expect them to be perpendicular to the sea when Whiting is afloat. There is something wrong here and I suspect that our Admiralty draughtsman took a short cut or two and followed the lines of the frames for everything which is 'vertical'. There is another thread where this is being discussed. I am still undecided about how to proceed with these 'verticals' but will likely choose the approach which looks better to my eyes. It is a slippery path when we choose to think that the Admiralty drawings are wrong because they do not show what we want or expect to see, so I will be cautious. George

This topic has been quiet for a couple of weeks so I will risk extending it at a slight tangent. I am building a British schooner using the Haddock drawings that Druxey mentions above on #3. The Admiralty drawings clearly show that the frames are perpendicular to the keel and this is not surprising given that plumb bobs are and were a readily available technology. What I am surprised by is that structures on the deck and below deck follow these same vertical lines when perpendicular to the water line would be the natural solution. This snippet from the Admiralty drawing shows the officer's cabin and an entrance lobby with ladder, just aft of the main mast. The waterline is the blue-green line that slopes across the centre of the picture. I can accept that the end walls of the cabin were built using the frames. However, the ladder has steps that are nearly parallel to the waterline but its sides are perpendicular to the keel. This can be built and a carpenter might scoff at the design but still finish the job. The companionway box above the ladder looks like a dog's dinner. If it has hinged doors facing one bulwark then the shapes of those doors will be compromised by the angle between the sides of the companionway and the deck. Even the skylight above the cabin has sloping ends. My guess is that the carpenters who built the deck fittings did their jobs after launch and used their own plumb bobs. The walls that they built would be vertical compared to sea level and not the keel. (The sides of the gunports are at 90deg to the deck.) If this is the case then the lines taken from Haddock at Portsmouth might not be correct and the draughtsman simply extended the frame lines by mistake or for expediency. I do not like this conclusion because it throws doubt on the drawings that we use for our models. I do not want to say that the Admiralty drawings are mistaken because it opens a plethora of excuses where we say that drawings are wrong if they do not match our expectations. But I do not want to build a companionway cover that leans back. George