vossiewulf

Another one, grab this wax, it's advertised as what the British Museum uses to protect its collection. I use it constantly as it's as easy to use as paste wax, but has no silicone like most paste waxes that can contaminate your woodworking area and ruin every finish you do for the rest of your life. I use it to protect steel, for plane bottoms and anything else that needs to be slippery, and both over finishes and as the sole finish. I've been totally happy with every application. Only downside is strong thinner smell, so you need ventilation if you're covering big areas. Renaissance Wax.

We have a good discussion of what red ochre is and where it comes from, not so clear the OP's original question was answered clearly. I have a similar issue in that I have two Admiralty Paints, crimson and red ochre. Allegedly the crimson is right for RN gunport sills and inner bulwarks, but it is an insanely bright and saturated red to my eye. I find it hard to believe they could make that red at the time, and if they could, whether it wouldn't have faded almost immediately. I mean a modern paint manufacturer would hem and haw if you wanted to paint your house this color and have it remain color stable. So I am considering using the red ochre, this is going to be one of the few painted surfaces on the model, most of the rest is going to be stained/clear. In the end since I'm already violating correct color by not painting some of the surfaces, I'll use the color I want but like the OP I'm wondering what the color was that they really used and what it looked like 3 months after it was last painted.

My question would be why, when you can have any color under the rainbow and have them be safe and stable long term by mixing alcohol-based aniline dyes? Best part is they're not pigment based, the color is molecular, so they don't occlude the underlying wood at all unless you go really dark If Gibson uses these every day to stain $4k Les Pauls in a thousand colors, it should be a good choice for ship modelers. I'm new to ships but not making things, example of the trust I put in them was a so-called luthier ruined the neck on my 1994 Strat by stripping the truss rod, so I made a replacement neck and had to match the 20 year old yellowed Fender clear. I also think they're very easy to use, best thing is to mix at 50% or 33% intended color so you can control better by putting a few coats on, and you also control color by how long you wait before wiping. With alcohol-based you can do coats about every two minutes since it dries immediately.

I just got a shipment from Chuck, I got one each of most of his rigging sizes and boxwood blocks and deadeyes in (I hope)the right sizes. I'll ask him.

I'm sorry I missed this yesterday, thanks for pointing to that. Considering the number of especially new people working on LN, we should put together a list of the oopses/WTFs?

BTW, why is that a boom and not a bowsprit, and why would they want to sometimes pull it partway in, which is the reason I've seen cited for it being mounted this way?

The thing about deadeyes is the circle is turned so we get side grain looking at that circle, and I've never tried to turn anything in that orientation, not sure how you keep the pieces from exploding all over in the process of working them down to your circle diameter. Especially as that sounded like haha! You're screwed now you need to make the dreaded 5 HOLE DEADEYE!

Tom, might want to try one of these (they even have one finer if this isn't fine enough) when doing the masts on the lathe. I haven't used them for specifically this purpose, but I have a different Iwasaki file and have used it very successfully for similar things. Unlike normal files, these teeth are milled with some kind of fly cutter in a circle the center point of which is maybe a foot beyond the handle of the file. So the teeth are also curved forward, and this file properly used will take shavings instead of dust and I'm guessing a fine or extra fine might leave a polished-looking surface much better than sandpaper unless you go out to like 2500 grit. Iwasaki 8" Extra Fine Side Float

I'm not seeing anything one could complain about, looks very good.

I figured out that it meant .6mm. No idea how, but I did. Anyway that stem piece took way longer than I thought it would, but it's done. And for some reason took lots of photos so you get to see every step. First I said in the previous update that I'd used lots of filler to get a reasonable shape at the stern, but forgot to show what I mean - as you see for me at least, the edges of that bulkhead were completely covered and as I said that bulkhead needs to be at least 1/8" talleer for it to be correctly faired where planks would touch the entire edge. And another miscellaneous thing, this stuff is great. Advertised as the product the British Museum uses to preserve its collection. I use it constantly. It's what I use on all my tools, both handles and to preserve the steel and for plane bottoms. I've also used it over wood finishes or as the only finish on wood and I always like the results. Unlike most paste waxes it has no silicone so you can use it in your wood shop without silicone contamination screwing up every finish you do for the rest of your life. Ok so the little walnut bit is what we need to replace along with another piece going where the mitre-looking edge is, so I grabbed one of the other cocobolo strips I planed down other day. I cut a piece from that strip long enough to make the all of the pieces I need. Here is another reason it's good to have sharp full-sized planes around, they make it trivial and quick to get a perfectly square and straight and clean edge. First two pieces, marked to get drilled for carbon fiber pins. Before I could glue them together though, had to drill the five holes (thanks for pointing that out Rick) holes for the deadeye connected to the forestay. I then took a 90 degree stone-setting bur and beveled the holes as I assume the real ones were, no way they'd run an important standing rigging element over a sharp corner. I just held the bur in my hands, it's a good quality jeweler's bur so it's sharp and just a little pressure and a few spins is enough. Now with 500% more holes. Glued. Unfortunately we have a problem, wood blew out between upper right two holes on this side. Which is annoying since it was drilled with another cocobolo piece backing it. Have to fix it, too obvious. Step 1 curl a little shaving up off another piece. Cut it off, grab our fine tweezers with the carbon coating that makes them very grippy. Use tweezers to place on glue and hold down. Sand down, all fixed. Here I've made the third piece and am test fitting it with the upper bulkhead strip that has to fit into this piece. You can see I have to trim the inside a bit, groove still not wide enough. Once that was fit, put my CF pins in and glued and cleaned up the third piece. Now we have to fit this to the ship and the stem ending that is at an angle, marking for the rough cut. We have a good fit. The big gap between it and hull is intentional, it was easier to make it this way and glue a piece on than trying to cut a big notch in a cocobolo piece. After I added the little extra piece I needed, I flushed it with the other piece on the disc sander. Fit looks good now. Test fit with bulkhead strip. And now glued and cleaned up.

I understand, same thing happens with Kiwi and Hoser history too, gets overrun by British history. Thanks for the confirmation on the plan. And yeah, another idea is to say screw these thicknesses and redo much thinner, .6mm would be about right. One wildcard is that I haven't received my crown timber order yet that includes boxwood outer planking so I don't know how thick it is.

Forgot to say thanks on the counter explanation, I'll plow ahead then. Also, wow the Amazon Silk browser does not play well with this site, the reply text box even on the full reply UI is one line long and three words wide. Using my tablet from the workshop.

The plankling is really confusing me at the stern in that I can't understand how the kit instructions are supposed to work out correctly. You're supposed to put two layers of planking on each side of the deadwood going into the rudder post, which = 4 x .047" fitting flush with a piece that's .115" wide. Not only would you have to remove the entire deadwood you'd be running planks from one side against planks from the other. My plan, and in the spirit of trying not to solve every problem myself, please tell me if I am smoking crack. is that I will have two bearding lines and two rabbets at that end. The first bearding line is basically what I have now, and I'm going to make the rabbet for the first run to stop as far short of the rudder post as possible and I'm going to fair the first layer into the current false keel surface. Then we'll work from that second bearding line to cut a .040" or so deep second rabbet up against the rudder post. I'm not seeing any major issues on the rest of the hull, except that the width of the keel at the very top of the stem becomes really narrow with two layers of planking eating up the available space. And also the twist that needs to be put in the wales planks are about 70 degrees, which should be interesting. I also need to stop on the planking to remake the top piece of the stem in cocobolo and I'm making it in three parts so it will be much much stronger. Hopefully that will give enough time for you guys to report back on my crack-smoking status.

Yep, I was aware of that ship too but not that people wanted to defend its honor

That was my original plan, but the kit calls for the keel to be installed since it has that weird U-shaped piece up front that is needed to retain the upper bulkhead strip that is the first piece (according to the kit) to be installed in the planking process, and they want you to work down from the top. Even so, if I had it to do again I'd probably figure out a way to make a temporary piece to hold the bulkhead strips and leave the keel off until the end.

I was laughing thinking about that, it would be perfect for a sailing comic - show ship from outside with that happening and a text bubble above with "uh, Captain?"

Well that's an amusing way to solve the naming issue, I was thinking also that that seemed to be a name that wouldn't exactly thrill the one-armed guy.

Hull is now fully prepped as far as I can tell, all I need to do is cut the rabbet for the first layer of planking and then add the upper bulkhead strips and start bending wood. This is someplace I have to go back and read Mr. Underhill I think, but as far as I can tell I'll need separate rabbets for the first and second layer of planking, the first stopping well short of the rudder post. It would pretty much have to since two layers of that planking are .090" when the whole rudder post that started as .125" and is now about .115" after level sanding (I was fine with that, only lose .002 final sanding). And 2 x .090" > .115" if I remember my arthimetic. Or not cut a rabbet at all for the first layer and just bevel the ends but I don't see how that doesn't result in planks popping out in the long run. Anyway, I had left hull in the just short of done state. In particular upper bulkhead stanchion things have hardly been hit. And here we are after rough sanding. Checking tops of stanchion things to verify symmetry. Bow and stern bulkhead symmetry. . I then hit it with Famo Wood filler for the last gaps, this was really needed on the stern just short of the counter... no it's not the counter it has some other name I can't remember, last frame before the overhanging stern part starts. Anyway the vertical turn there is severe and that bulkhead should be much taller to allow contouring the full edge surface, I only got to about halfway before I decided I wasn't taking that bulkhead down any farther as it was looking plenty small already. Even here the turn from the builkheads to the hull planking seems very severe. Here are bow and stern both sides after final sanding. Overall I'm ok with it as long as I can figure out the rabbet correctly. One other concern is this, these pieces are aligned correctly and are aligned with each other in the front (slight curve from this angle), but the stern ends seem to need much more curvature for full-width bevel than the kit pics show, and only way to reduce it will be to remove material from the center ones. And since I need to think on two things (rabbet and stern) I called it an evening there.

I agree Tony, like I said it's just a thing I prefer to do, but it's not a requirement worthy of risking a project, so I'll read what I need to. But I'm also still sure that you'll understand something that you figure out on your own much better than you'll understand what you're doing and why when following someone else's recommended steps. A good analogy is Western vs. Japanese woodworking education, here we sit people down and pour knowledge into their heads and then tell them to go try that. There, traditionally apprentices would not only not have that explanation, they wouldn't be allowed to ask questions. They had to sit and watch the master until they themselves had the light bulb go off over their heads as to why the master does it that way. As a result they understand why something is done a certain way as close to figuring it out from first principles as possible. IMO the western method gets people operational faster, but also significantly delays deep understanding, and lots of people taught this way will never have a deep understanding, they just know this is how you do it and they repeat it until they get good at it. I enjoy the experience of trying to solve issues from first principles so I try to do things that way when I can. But I know when I can't and unfortunately this is (tragically because there are some seriously fun challenges here) not one of them.

I think it says up in my introduction, but I'm in Silicon Valley on the peninsula side. I work at the Visa HQ in Foster City.

Ah ok, now I understand. And yes that's not a bad idea either, but as you mention you have to decide that ahead and build anticipating that solution, you're basically using what 3d modelers call global illumination or more specifically radiosity, which are ways of simulating how light reflects off surfaces and indirectly lights other surfaces. I've worked professionally as a modeler/animator and keep up with it as a hobby, I tend to think of all lighting issues in those terms. The important thing you need for that as you mention is 1) space for the light to go into and 2) strategically placed high albedo surfaces that reflect a goodly portion of the light that hits them diffusely to other surfaces.

Remember the Oberursel UR.II is a license-built copy of the Le Rhone 9J. Until you get the book, google those and you'll find some good photos.

He's Swedish and an airline pilot for one of the major carriers as I recall. You should look him up, he's based someplace in Sweden and has a D.VIIF now along with a series of other aircraft he's built.

Get this version of that book. Getting a bit pricey as it looks like both are out of print, so don't delay. There's a similar book on the D.VII that you should also get if you intend to try a DVII. You should also be able to find copies of them at Abe Books. Also, the best WWI aircraft plans are from Jim Kiger who lives over near me, I bought his entire WWI Aero collection plus I have a complete set of his plans in 1/16th scale for future use. They are so detailed that you can and several people have built full-sized accurate repros from thiem. Jim is also shutting his business down soon as he's in his 80s, so it's also time to buy these if you have an interest. Edit, sigh, first link I put in was wrong, amending.

Thanks Rick, also noted for future reference. I'm going to tell Chuck that I think he's missing out on a lot of sales, if he offered all those detail goodies for the Cheerful at 1/64, most of the 27 guys currently building would probably buy them all.