Captain Al

Well I guess I'll have to interpret "progressive offset" any way that looks logical.  Usually that takes me a couple days of looking at pictures, plans and trying to dry fit the next in line parts.  Nice pictures of your interior Mike.  What is the little electric tool over on the side?  Maybe you or Fifthace can answer this re bending the planks.  Many posts and articles discuss the technique of soaking the planks (sometimes as much as overnight) and then using heat (soldering iron, bending iron, clothes iron, all sorts of heat producing tools), bend the plank gradually into shape.  What I don't get is how to know what that shape is unless you either have built a replica of the framing itself (a jig more or less), or you bend the plank right on the model itself.  And then, where to you let this plank dry? You can't glue it on until it is dry.  I can come up with only one technique that takes all this into account; please tell me if I'm on the right track:  You soak the wood til its very bendable.  Then you bend it onto the frame wet, using the heat to encourage the bending.  You pin it in place and let it dry.  Then you remove the plank and start again, this time applying glue and pinning and clamping as you proceed.  Then you wait til that glue dries and do another plank.
 
Dom, thanks for the facts about the hawse pipes (and other metal fittings).  I thought they would have been bronze (not brass of course) and would acquire a greenish patina.  You're saying they were iron and turned black.  I hear what you're saying regarding the hawse pipes being in the bulwark.  I think they will be as well.  I just haven't reached that point.  But where the chain comes out of the deck they come from these two little brass button like fittings with the insey bitsey hole in them.

It goes without saying Mike that now I'm hating you. You're making great progress. The filler looks nice and like fifthace said, it should help a lot. You've got all your decks laid and even had time for a launch. I barely have time for a lunch. This morning I finished sanding the lower deck and putting a second coat of urethane on it. That's that for this deck. I'm working on the stern structure. I have 3 questions for you...
1. You mentioned that you broke a piece a couple times. Was it the wood for the bow bulwark? Did you have to make that piece from one long strip and bend it to fit? Mine comes in two pre cut pieces that butt up at the front. My real question on this is: my instructions and pictures note to "leave a progressive offset." I don't know if this means overlap the end of the deck or leave a bit of deck showing (for some purpose later, perhaps stanchions). Did you have to deal with this progressive offset?
2. Your filler I know is balsa. What size did you use? Did you fill the cavity entirely, and did you use some scientific method (as described for example in one of the planking articles) to measure and cut the layers to size so they'd fit in there snugly? I've been thinking about filler but can't get my head around the techniques of doing it. Thought maybe there is a simple way of gluing in material, then just sanding the protruding amount to the hull shape.
3. I forget what the third Q is, but here's one. I still have no answer to if the hawse pipes should remain shiny brass or get weathered somehow to look like bronze with a patina. Would soaking in vinegar do anything?
 
Keep up the good work. I'll post some progress soon. Seems I have more questions than answers.

I assume you mean you cut them with a little saw. That would solve my issue. Don't know why I never adopted that. I bought this nipper type tool which uses a razor blade (its on one of my pics) and it cuts really cleanly but like I said, hard to get a true right angle.
 
I went and checked the slope of the three masts. Dom was correct 66.7% of the time. At least what I could glean from my plans and a triangle, the foremast and main are perpendicular to the keel. It does look like the mizzen has about a 4 degree rake aft. I'm not worried about this. My thinking is this: it either doesn't matter at all or whatever rake needs to be put in can be done with rigging. On many sailboats nowadays (mine included, when I still owned her) you have an adjustable backstay which you tighten up when sailing upwind (unless your a lazy sailor like we were often times). This puts a slight rake aft into the main mast. I think this could apply to a mizzen mast as well, and from what I'm seeing on my model, the mast is tall enough to bend 4 degrees with no problem given tension on the backstay. All this assuming there is a backstay which may not be the case.
 
The "twist" I referred to is simply the mast being able to rotate in the hole. Your's is probably a nice tight fit that won't. Mine, I was afraid, would end up too loose (since I always seem to take off more material than necessary) and would do the twist. I would then have had to call the ship the "Chubby Checker."

I like your sense of humor. It will serve you well I think in the days and weeks to come. My wife and I were just poring over the pictures and plans that come with the kit and its very weird. The pictures on the huge box that it all comes it has something down there, whether or not its a deck or not is hard to tell. But the instructional photos show nothing more than a fwd/aft running beam that is fixed to the inner side of frames 8 and 9 (just forward of the holding well box. The picture shows a lot of barrels and bales heaped inside, resting only on the hull planking. I suppose this beam is to hold these barrels in (but they'll be glued). And in reality, I don't think these heavy barrels would have been allowed to sit just on the planking. But the plans show nothing; neither a deck or a beam. So just like you said, why make things more complicated than they already are. I'm going to move on with the work that I have in front of me and follow the plans/instructions as they've been written. Maybe someone with more naval history can provide an answer re the ballast cause I am still curious about that. And if they actually used something like stones (which they did), it would be easy enough to throw some pebbles in there.

Mike, looks like you're making good progress and approaching each step with proper caution. I am working on a similar build (AL's Bounty) and have reached the point of installing the second deck. In the process of planking it I noticed that there is a square cutout just aft of the foremast. This cutout sits directly on top of a beam. It is for the windlass stanchion which (in my model) extends through the main deck and into this cutout on the second deck and rests on the beam. Problem though is that the pictures that come with the instructions do not show this cutout, leading me to think that the stanchion should just rest on the deck. But why then the cutout in the false deck? Looking at the plans (if I read them correctly) that is what they would have me do. Looks like the stanchion sits on the deck and does not insert into the planking, false deck and sit on the beam. Since I have already cutout the planking and have the hole in the deck I began to worry that the stanchion would sit too low and throw off the alignment of the pawl into the windlass. I thought I might fill the hole. But after measuring the length of the stanchion and the position of the pawl I have come to the conclusion that the cutout is proper and should be there (it will certainly add strength to the fixing of the stanchion) and that it is AL's problem in not updating their pictures and plans to include it (my kit is probably 10 years old). Now, in looking at your main deck I see that your's does not have a cutout just aft of the foremast for this stanchion. Kits are different, but I believe for authenticity they would both have the windlass in the same place. What is in store for your windlass/stanchion? Will it just sit atop the main deck?
 
I am facing a lot of fairing issues and the process of planking the hull is keeping me up at night. But I'm determined which is half the battle. I will post some more pics on my build log soon. Meanwhile, I hope I haven't injected an unneeded issue into your thinking. Keep up the good work.

Mikr, I also wonder about the sufficiency of the wood provided, so I am careful to take a good inventory before I start using any particular type and size.  I've gone through the Parts List and categorized each as to how many pieces and lengths will be needed for each part or process.  Its a painstaking job but it gives me confidence to use the wood as needed and familiarizes me with what is coming up.  I have found that so far AL seems to provide more than enough.  I can't of course speak for your kit.  I take a very conservative approach to using it up anyway.  For example, AL's instructions and parts list show it takes 26 pieces of .6 x 5mm Ramin to complete the lower deck.  They mean 26 pieces which are 700 mm in length.  But I've laid out a planking scheme which makes use of smaller runs (eg 170 mm, 3 times rather than a full 510 mm run) offset so the breaks are staggered, and along with the holes for grates and ladders I believe I will only use 14 strips of this Ramin v. their 26.  I don't know what they expect you to do with all the scrap they'd have you produce, but I prefer to leave as many 700 mm strips intact rather than have a lot of small pieces.  Besides, the reality is that no ship of 140 or so feet was ever planked with one continuous plank of that length. 
 
I've been remiss in getting some of my own build onto the log but I will try.

Mike, welcome to the forum (I sound like an oldtimer which I am not). Your kit looks similar to my Bounty in that it has mostly open framing. Your's has a few solid bulkheads in the bow and stern which mine does not. So with these (flexible) open frames you will probably encounter similar challenges. However careful I thought I was being, still various alignment problems came up. I was naïve in thinking that if the rebates (notches) connecting the frames to the false keel were tight that the alignment of the frame fore and aft had to be square. Not. I have several that for some reason did not square up, even though at the keel they are perfect. This could be cause of warpage (my kit sat in a garage for 6 years before it was given to me). I've also found that the knees for the decks are not perfectly level (hold platform and lower deck) and I've had to add shims to some. Anyway, my big takeaway from it so far is that you can't trust the kits to be perfect and its a good idea to read the plans as well as the instructions. I look forward to following your progress, and hope you take a look at mine. I've not posted much to my build log lately, but I plan to catch up this weekend.

I can find those kind of Gutterman rolls in my local hobby store (Joannes in case anyone else has that store) but they aren't marked with the size of the thread.  Are your's?  How do you tell a .8mm from a .5mm?

Thought I'd throw in a couple pix that I took on the American Eagle out of Rocklin, Maine.  Though these are not mizzen masts the issue is the same: how to keep it from falling into the cockpit when the sail is down.  These two pix employ the topping lift solution. 

Thought I'd throw in a couple pix that I took on the American Eagle out of Rocklin, Maine.  Though these are not mizzen masts the issue is the same: how to keep it from falling into the cockpit when the sail is down.  These two pix employ the topping lift solution. 

I got a PM back from Chuck with a photo showing that the ports are well above the water line.  And yet the white paint still covers them and goes up the transom pretty high.  I'm still weighing whether to make this model authentic or visually appealing.

I like seeing you back at work and I like what you've done.  Lots of char left indicating lots of fairing to go.  I can't offer any advice on this except what I've already noted on my log: don't be surprised at how much wood needs to come off from various bulkheads; especially toward the stern and bow (and particularly #5).  And take it slow and keep going back to areas you may have thought were already done.  Use those bulwark templates as battens as well.
 
I'd suggest that you put in the eyebolt now before you put a lid over the hole.  I wish I'd painted all at once.  I used the only black paint I have which is Rust-o-leum.  Its a cleanup pain much worse than any acrylic.  I have to start thinking about paint and brushes and all that sometime soon.
 
I see ZZ on there.  Looks pretty square.  Is it perfect?  Did you use spacers to glue them on or just eyeball it?  The 'graceful curve' looks very nice; shouldn't give you any planking problems.  I would not accentuate the camber of xx, yy and zz any more than necessary.  The more curve there is the more issues with the planking later. 

Typo, typo.  I meant to say, I am NOW jealous of your plant life.

Masterful job.  I hereby promote you from lieutenant to first lieutenant even though I have no authority to do so.  There is a lot more interior detail than you even told me about doing.  I'm not jealous that I did not put greenery into my pots.  I thought we both agreed that our Bountys would be outward bound models.  Everything about the build is fantastic.  Thanks for sharing it all with me for the past year. 

I should have added that if I can be of any help, don't hesitate to ask.  I also have McKay's book but I will not send it to you.  Did your kit provide enough wood?  Cause of what I've read on this site, I'm beginning to worry that I may run out.  It seems that A.L. can be overly conservative.

Nice to know you're still working on Bounty.  So am I, but I'm still bogged down in the planking phase.  You've done fantastic in all phases of your build.  What would you say was the hardest part so far?  Its great that you can get such good support here on MSW.  I don't post to my log any more cause it seems no-one is watching.  But I do get answers to questions if I post them in other forums.  BTW, just a rough count but it looks like you must have 1112 knots just to complete the ratlines.  That doesn't include attachment points or any other lines.

I'm not very clever but my thought would be, tight enough to be taut but not so tight as to put any real tension on them and the masts themselves.  I think the idea is that they look more taut than running rigging, but since this is a model, they're not really holding up the mast.  And also remember, depending on the point of sail (which direction the wind is coming from) the windward side's shrouds are tighter than the lee side.  Not knowing how delicate things up top are, I would not risk putting any more tension than is needed to look good.  I wonder, will the thread you use have much stretch over time?

I believe here in the colonies they would have used Sitka spruce.  Oak is not straight enough.

Let me be first to congratulate you.  Masterful job!!  I may not be eligible though for the modification prizes as I believe I may have some insider information.

Great work Mike.  I am jealous.  I hope mine comes out half as good.  Capt Fisher, I have the same kit as you so I'm interested in your comments.  I know what you are saying, but I don't see that that is much different from Mike's.  Maybe he went down a plank or two lower with the "pale" basswood, but otherwise, it is what I thought our's will be.  Except, I now notice the transom superstructure is pale whereas our's I believe call for mahogany or walnut.

Boyd, are you also building a Bounty?  And you are referring to a second planking, correct?  I have been using your method of coating both parts for awhile now and it does work well.  I'm needing to put added material onto my frames, so I am veneering them using this method.  The key is to get the second part glued and placed just when the first is tacked up.

Definitely see what you mean there.  Enough to make you seasick!  Just kidding you Mike.  You know I'm impressed with your work.

Dom and Mike, what do you guys mean by the "up down effect?"

No, they are not. My "picture" isn't totally accurate. They don't end up single file in one lane, they end up shoulder to shoulder in what amounts to maybe two or three lanes. If the lanes are 4 feet wide, then at the start they are taking up 40 feet of the track width. After they've bunched up they take up 10 x the shoulder width of a skinny long distance runner, maybe 2.5 feet x 10 or 25 feet. So just like the fan narrows at the bow, so does the amount of track needed to accommodate these ten runners.

Here's a weird analogy.  Picture ten runners running a 1500 meter race.  They start in individual lanes and run a couple hundred meters.  Then they're allowed to cut into the center lane and they all bunch up there.  So now there are 10 runners in one lane (more or less).  If you were to trace the path of all of the runners, you would have a tapering into the narrow one lane from the wide ten individual lanes.  There's still 10 runners but they are taking up much less space on the track.  Weird, I know.