AON

Gil,
 
You are absolutely correct. We are our worst critics.
You have no choice but to make it right for yourself because of all people you know it is there!
 
I for one greatly appreciate your expertise and attention to details.
 
Me bored?  Not one iota!
 
Thank you
 
Alan

I figured out my rookie error last night and managed to get all my reference planes representing the shear, breadth, station body plans in place and labeled.
Had to abbreviate the labels as I could not read them.
I also changed the dimensional units to feet so it relates directly to my spreadsheet measurements.
 
Below is the extremely minor progress I made .... my day job seems to take the wind out of my sails at night and early morning didn't seem to be much better for me... might have to give up the day job so I can get this done 
 
On a good note I received notice yesterday that my inter-library loan book came in: “The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860" by James Lee.
Will be picking this up today.
 
We have a stat holiday Monday (Family Day in Ontario) so over the three day weekend I hope to do better in the transferring of points and lines to the planes / plans.

'Doreltomin':
 
Indeed they are the same book and same table!
Looking at your link to Wikipedia, it gives examples of the foot measurement having been standardized at even an earlier time (Henry III) and becoming 11/12ths of what it had been.
 
My understanding is the metric system nailed everything down and created a world wide standard where no one could be short changed.  After all a foot was originally the measurement of the length of a standard foot... I wear a size 11 so if I were to measure something I might get more of it than my very good friend and neighbour Pierre who wears a size 9-1/2
 
An inch was the width of the thumb.  If I hit my thumb with a hammer and it were to become swollen.... you get my point.
 
The Merchant I am sure would find a way to use the system to his advantage.
 
I believe the French established the standard to eliminate the confusion and did indeed find the average English foot to be what was reported, equal to 308 mm in their new and improved international system of measurement (SI units)  and then in there "right and might" of the time decided they would re-invent it to be 304.8 mm.   After all Napoleon did have very high aspirations!
 
Alan

Gil,
 
You are absolutely correct. We are our worst critics.
You have no choice but to make it right for yourself because of all people you know it is there!
 
I for one greatly appreciate your expertise and attention to details.
 
Me bored?  Not one iota!
 
Thank you
 
Alan

Thanks again!
Would you think it would be smart to set up the model build at an angle so the waterlines were horizontal for the build?
 
I got a wee bit of a second wind after supper and got a small start on the CAD side.
 
I should mention I am doing all at this time in construction lines not object lines.
I intend to copy the file as individual station numbers and then change the sketched lines to objects and build the 3D parts
Then I will create an Assembly file and put them together.
 
I may change this thinking as I progress ... have to see if it still makes sense.

What a learning experience this has been!
 
Found the "stretch" in the drawing while measuring and had to go back and double check everything I did in the Shear Plan.
I attribute it to the accuracy of a pencil plus the 250 years of storage.
Had to compromise on a ratio and accept the fact that it will not be exact.
Consoled myself with the fact the actual build likely was not exact either.
Reworked my spreadsheet (see partial image below).
 
I did some comparison to the Goliath plans and they seem very much the same although drawn by two very different draughtsmen.  There are differences to be seen between the plans with regards to the railing over gun ports and railing height at these gun positions. Elephant rails rise over the two gun ports on each side and Goliath flows level over one and is cut away at the other.  Possibly more to be found yet as I spend more time with them.
 
One other thing that played with my mind was that the waterlines in the shear and body plans are sloped.  I thought they'd be horizontal.
 
Going to start my CAD drawing next but not today... my head hurts.

Completed collecting data from HMS Elephant shear and half breadth plans. Need the waterline heights yet.
Will do same for HMS Goliath (tomorrow?) and compare just for the heck of it to see if there is much difference.
I should be able to start transferring the data to CAD soon.
 
I should also mention that in the PDF program settings I was able to lock the dimension tool to read perfectly horizontal or vertical so no math needed to be done!  

My build log... back dated to what I consider my actual date of commencement up to today events.
 
31 Dec 2013
Found information on HMS Bellerophon on the internet which rekindled a spark.
 
My interest in the Billy Ruffian stems from my joining #141 Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps Bellerophon of Welland Ontario Canada in 1967 at 12 and a wee bit years of age.  I have not been involved in the cadet movement for over a quarter century now but those great memories haven't died away.
 
04 Jan 2014
Stumbled onto modelshipworld.com and after skulking about for an hour decided to join the group; intend to actually scratch build the first Bellerophon
Looking at various Arrogant class build logs (Vanguard & Bellerophon kits) Looking at Victory and Bellona build logs Looking at tools, build methods and little tricks used Overwhelmed with the work done by others and information available; realize how little I know; determined to do my homework. My last (and only) scratch build was a 27 ft whaler.  I was quite familiar with them (and the 30 ft. cutters) as I worked at the boat shed at HMCS Quadra for two summers. Found literature on rigging details on another site; looking for info on mast size details.
 
Got info for plans from forum to order from NMM. Found four plans:
HMS Arrogant (too early; they made changes to the design later) HMS Edgar (ordered well before but launched after Bellerophon) HMS Goliath (ordered after Edgar, launched before Bellerophon; should record the changes made from Edgar on) HMS Elephant (built same time as Bellerophon so may be the best plan). £60 each = $107 CDN ... pretty steep. E-mailed NMM to see if there was a “buy in bulk” price discount.  These plans are about 3 ft x 7 feet each. Not sure where I can lay them out to use and NMM insists they cannot be copied (to make a working set and keep these clean).  This presents a problem. I decided not to look at HMS Vanguard as it was the last of the ships built... well after the Bellerophon... and so might possibly have other changes.
 
11 Jan 2014
Realize if I download build photos and reference documents into folders from the FORUM and other sites and build my own reference library I will retain more of what I see in my memory (works for me as I am “hands on” type of learner).  This has kept me busy!
 
15 Jan 2014
My ex CPO (a modeller by night and Mechanical Engineer in the Pulp and Paper industry by day) recommended “The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860 by James Lee; Found on Amazon and Abesbooks.com, pretty pricey at $100+
 
Found on inter-library loan (Gateneau, Quebec, Government Library, 3 week duration, 3 renewals, no charge); this will allow me to decide (for free) if I should buy the book.
 
Found Rigging Model Ships – A Practicum by Robert E. Hunt 2013 on forum  www.lauckstreetshipyard.com at $119 … once again quite steep
 
16 Jan 2014
Discovered there are two different figureheads for the Bellerophon; Downloaded photographs to my reference library. The first has only the neck and head remaining but is said to have been a full body. The second was torso and head. I intend to recreate the first using the second for inspiration!
 
30 Jan 2014
Received a collection of modelling reference books purchased from a member of this site.  Most turn out to be exactly what this sorrowful example of a modeler needs. Talk about an idiot`s luck!
 
08 Feb 2014
After some confusion (mostly on my part) I finally ordered and downloaded the TIFF ships plans from NMM.  Decided on the TIFF image as it is the clearest possible and I do not have the room to layout 7 foot long plans.
HMS Goliath, one image - lines HMS Elephant, two images - lines and deck plans  
It cost me £150 for the set of three (3) images. They gave me the three JPEG images (quoted at £50 a set) for free.  There is a considerable difference in detail between the two types of files.  I am not disappointed.
TIFF images are 729Mb, 722Mb and 905Mb JPEG images are quite small (1Kb or less) at 300 DPI  
My PDF program (from which I can measure) will not open the TIFF images because they are too large for it and the JPEG images are too grainy.
 
Converted the TIFFs to PDFs at 1200 x 1200 (Largest the program would allow) and they are very clear!
 
Now I intend to get my measurements off the electronic images and redraw in Solidworks to be able to create templates.  I will start my posting of images from here. Might be a while as I have to figure out quite a bit and the first step is always the hardest.  Once I have the plans partially redrawn I can make a final decision regarding the scale of the scratch build and degree of finish or completeness as I will also have to decide where the final display resting place might be.
 
I have stepped through to the dark side … no going back now, eh?
 
Following photos are clips taken from my PDF program showing how I intend to get my measurements.
 
I will use the scale provided on the drawings to convert my small measurements to full size.
It is difficult to get a perfectly vertical or horizontal measurement so I will need to use some old fashion trig calcs to make corrections like the straw man said in the wizard of oz; record all data in excel and then transfer the info to Solidworks.

Gil,
My "engineering skills" may be the biggest hurdle as I find I am likely being far too anal (strict) in my thinking of my build.  I intend to do a scratch build of the first HMS Bellerophon (which happens to be the ships badge you can't recognize... but it is for the last Bellerophon... the image is a Gryphon). Presently I am in my "planning stage", attempting to purchase the plans of HMS Goliath and Elephant as they are exactly the time of the Bellerophon and record the changes from the earlier versions. This I intend to redraw in 2D/3D and make my templates.  Your assembled tutorial of the Victory will be an invaluable aid along with those kits of the Bellerophon (Vanguard) found on this site.
 
Regarding ships served on... I have a very impressive list, that is until you stop and think about it: HMCS Cornwallis, HMCS Naden, HMCS Haida, HMCS Quadra. All "stone frigates" except for the most distinquished of all which is now a floating museum.  I served (using the term extremely loosely) as a Sea Cadet (13 to 19 years old) then joined the Sea (Naval) Reserve on the Cadet Instructors List and later served as CO of #141 Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps Bellerophon, then the oldest corps in Canada by virtue of her Charter date (1917) having began as a Boys Naval Brigade.  She was "decommissioned" a few years ago to the displeasure of many of the old crew.
 
Politics.
 
I now seem to be rambling (as old folks do) and so once again say thank you so very much for such a wonderful diversion from my daily headaches.  It is so beautiful and fills my dreams at night.
 
Alan

I just acquired a slew of invaluable reference books from a member and while looking through one book (Historic Ship Models by Wolfram zu Mondfeld, pg 66)  I stumbled onto a chart of historical units of measure.
 
The unit of measure was standardized across the board with the introduction and acceptance of the metric system in 1799. (no surprise to me)
 
Many countries were using the foot (and inch) as their unit of measure but the actual distance that comprised a foot differed between various countries. (again no surprise to me)
 
What surprised me was to learn that the English foot (12 inches) was established to have been (on average?) 308.0 millimetres prior to this date.
 
Today (as of the standardization made in 1799) it is 304.8 mm ............... a difference of 3.2 mm shorter than earlier dates.
 
This doesn't seem like much but a ship measuring 168 feet long in 1786 might be 168 x 3.2 = 537.6 mm = 21 (and a wee bit) inches longer today using the measuring stick of that day!
 
One of them hemmm moments.
 
Here I thought the change from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calender in 1582 might have mixed up a few historical dates.
 
Alan
 

I just acquired a slew of invaluable reference books from a member and while looking through one book (Historic Ship Models by Wolfram zu Mondfeld, pg 66)  I stumbled onto a chart of historical units of measure.
 
The unit of measure was standardized across the board with the introduction and acceptance of the metric system in 1799. (no surprise to me)
 
Many countries were using the foot (and inch) as their unit of measure but the actual distance that comprised a foot differed between various countries. (again no surprise to me)
 
What surprised me was to learn that the English foot (12 inches) was established to have been (on average?) 308.0 millimetres prior to this date.
 
Today (as of the standardization made in 1799) it is 304.8 mm ............... a difference of 3.2 mm shorter than earlier dates.
 
This doesn't seem like much but a ship measuring 168 feet long in 1786 might be 168 x 3.2 = 537.6 mm = 21 (and a wee bit) inches longer today using the measuring stick of that day!
 
One of them hemmm moments.
 
Here I thought the change from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calender in 1582 might have mixed up a few historical dates.
 
Alan
 

I just acquired a slew of invaluable reference books from a member and while looking through one book (Historic Ship Models by Wolfram zu Mondfeld, pg 66)  I stumbled onto a chart of historical units of measure.
 
The unit of measure was standardized across the board with the introduction and acceptance of the metric system in 1799. (no surprise to me)
 
Many countries were using the foot (and inch) as their unit of measure but the actual distance that comprised a foot differed between various countries. (again no surprise to me)
 
What surprised me was to learn that the English foot (12 inches) was established to have been (on average?) 308.0 millimetres prior to this date.
 
Today (as of the standardization made in 1799) it is 304.8 mm ............... a difference of 3.2 mm shorter than earlier dates.
 
This doesn't seem like much but a ship measuring 168 feet long in 1786 might be 168 x 3.2 = 537.6 mm = 21 (and a wee bit) inches longer today using the measuring stick of that day!
 
One of them hemmm moments.
 
Here I thought the change from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calender in 1582 might have mixed up a few historical dates.
 
Alan
 

The NRG has now started publishing book reviews online in addition to in the Nautical Research Journal.
 
 
 
 
 
https://thenrg.org/resource/books
 
 
 
 
 
If you have a moment,  please check it out.   It may be of interest to all of you.
 
 
 
 
 
Chuck
 

Hello Don9of11 (That's a funny nick you have there!)
 
Thanks for posting your mosaic photo support, it illustrates perfectly what I wanted to say; which is, you don't need to put all the support picture under your vectorial plan at a time, you can put only the relevant part and draw it, then close and put in the next etc.
 
It's easier to do that if you intend to draw all the plan in vectorial, because the bitmap image plan actually uses a lot of resources for the drawing, has to 'map" every point of the image, while the vectorial only uses the coordinates of the start and the end points of a certain (straight) line. 
 
This way you will have a full plan free of any distorsions which you can later print and use for your modelling purposes. 
 
Best wishes,

Harvey, it sounds like you are encountering all the problems associated with the NMM plans.  You are right to press ahead.
 
Good new, though.  You won't be using the half breadth lines anyway so it is only for practice.
 
Maybe you can think of it this way.  The top of the keel is a straight line of known length which you draw (not trace) on top of the NMM plan.  The perpendiculars are at now places and a known distance apart so you draw (not trace) those as well.  You have already noticed that a perpendicular on the plan is not, well, perpendicular but is off for the reasons already described regarding the aging of the paper.  Now you have the three most important lines from the profile plan.  The same thing is done for the body plan for the center, top of keel and breadth lines (none of which are straight or perpendicular on the plan, but you draw them so as best you can).  Again, these have known dimensions that you reproduce.  At this point you place vertical perpendiculars on top of the station lines on the profile plan as best you can.  At this point you have almost all the lines needed for making a set of waterlines.  Just add the stem and stern by tracing along with the rabbet, and draw you own waterlines on the profile (but your new lines can be parallel to the keel and uniformly distanced). To the body plan add the traced body lines.  From this you make a set of waterlines that may look just awful.  But you fair up the water lines.  Then you get rid of the original station lines on both the profile and body plan.  Place your own set of station lines (more accurately placed) on the profile plan and then use the faired waterlines and the profile station lines to make new body lines.  At this point the body lines look a bit off so you fair them as best you can.  Now you get rid of the water lines so you can draw up an new set of waterlines that are in harmony with the body lines.  These you fair again with the body lines until you are happy with your results.  As you can see this is hardly "tracing" the plan anymore.
 
You might try to draw the body lines as per the old draughtsmen, but I think you will find that every bit as disheartening as the above and, at the extremes of the hull, a bit daunting.
 
The suggestion about putting the NMM plan on a separate layer is a good one.  This is especially helpful when you stop using the plan and are working only with your own lines.  This point comes a lot sooner than most people think.
 
From what you have said, it sounds to me like you are on the right track.  Just don't think the NMM plan can be traced all that much.  It is very much the guide to drawing, not tracing.  Somewhere there may be a bit more information on the process I have tried to describe briefly.
 
I just took a minute to rotate lines in TC v.14 and had no trouble with a rotation of .01 degrees.  I'm not sure why you are having a problem with that.
 
Wayne

Hello Harvey,
 
Digital scans of large scale plans are made with a machine which carries the format of the paper back and forth between two rollers while an optical head reads the plan in continuous rows and puts them together. This only works well if the paper is perfectly straight, flat and and of the same thickness all over. Old plans are just the opposite of that. Due to being stored, often rolled, for long times, they are full of wrinkles, creases and irregularities. Besides, this "roller" system often gives an overall dimensional distortion over its lenght because it is calculated for an "average" thickness and it may be that the plan is much different of that.  Last, but not least, paper is a material sensible to moisture. It lengthens or shrinks depending of the air humidity. So while it may have been drawn in perfect scale, as the general level of humidity increased or decreased, so did the plan. Even worse, because the material itself is far for being uniform in its mass, certain parts of the drawing shrinked more, the others less.  All this cause unwanted, but sometimes heavy distorsions of the scanned image. It is precisely what you see in your plan. 
 
My suggestion is either that before importing the scanned image into TurboCAD you have to make it as clear and straight as possible. There are even unexpensive image softwares like the "Paint" which comes as a pack with Windows which you can use for that. You can even cut the plan into several slices and put them manually to fit the vertical.
 
Another option is that you can work with your TurboCAD (I haven't worked with that, but I know how to use AutoCAD, it may be fairly similar) and put your drawing on a working layer on top with a number of vertical guidelines at proper angles and distances, with the scanned drawing on another layer as a background and then as your drawing goes on, move the background slightly for each part to make the drawing in correct shape and dimensions. 
 
Hope I made myself understood, good luck with your drawing and show us what you did! 
Best wishes,

After the drawing works it was time to make sawdust.
 
First part is the keel, which is a little bit tricky. The keel has a light curvature and the joints are perpendicular to the base line.
I cut some small stripes with my cirular saw, make the joints and glue the parts together. Next I added the parts for the stem.
The picture shows the step on the building board. I use Tamiya Tape to avoid that the keel glues on the paper during the build.

 
The next pictures show the complete assembled backbone for the small vessel,

 
the stem with with the changed layout of the parts,

 
the keel and the rising wood,

 
and the stern post with the after deadwood.

 
The next steps are cutting the rabbet, the keelson and the building board. Then I can start with the frames.
 

I was really suprised that I did not find a build log about the Naval Cutter Alert on MSW 2.0. I know that there exist some pictures of a model on the old MSW
 
The first source for building a model of this small vessel are Peter Goodwins book "The Naval Cutter Alert, 1777", published by PhoenixPublications Inc. 1991 and the two original drawing of her sister Rattlesnake (1776) which you will find on the homepage of the NMM.
There also exist two paintings of Joseph Marshall of the ship, which are exhibited in the Science Museum, London.
I found also an Sheer and Profile drawing of Alert which was published by the NRG.
 
The sheer and profile of the NRG and Goodwin differ from the original drawing. They show the maximum width of the ship not at frame 0. Perhaps my Engish is to bad, but I could not find any reason for this. So I decide to draw my own lines. which were based on Goodwin and the original drawing.

 
The drawing is not finished, because I decided only to draw what I need for my build.
 
Next step was the keel. Goodwin shows for the pass between keel and lower apron a solution which I could not find on any original cutter drawings.

 
For the after deadwood he does not offer any possible solution

 
I decide to follow the original drawing of Cheerful 1806 for the pass between keel and lower apron. The flat joint at the foremost keel part is shown on original drawings of this period (for example on HMS Triton). For the after deadwood I decided to use a bearing line. I am not sure if this is common for ships of this period.
The next picture shows my completed keel drawing:

 
Goodwin uses for his design the common frameing pattern of double and single frames. I am not sure that this design was used for the original ship. For the Swan class sloops only single frames were used. This you will also find on the drawing of Cheerful and other cutters. Also the wide of the frame parts are not clear. In his drawing he uses much smaller futtocks than he descibed in the text part of the book. In his "Construction and Fitting of Sailing Man of War" he gives a third solution.
What now? Alert is a practice model for me to get the experience to continue my HMS Fly build. Marshall shows on his paintings an simplified frameing design, so I decided to use this. Every frame is 8'' width followed by 8'' space. For the port side I like to show the clinker planking.
On my drawing the final design for the last frame and the hawse pieces is missing in the moment.

 
The drawings for every 31frames and 21cant frames are finished.

 
I am not sure in the moment if I will use the original practice with chocks or the simplified method of Harold Hahn for my build.
 
It will be very nice if you have further information about the cutters of this time. I found the Marmaduke Stalkartt on Google-books, but they didn't scan the plates. Perhaps one of the MSW user can help me to confirm my decisions.

This is my first attempt at scratch building, having kit-bashed a number of models. I work as a Museum Guide at Plimoth Plantation, which includes Mayflower II. During the off-season, I work in the Marine shop, doing routine yearly maintenance. As such, I have access to the Mayflower as well as her shallop. I will be using plans by William Baker, the original Naval Architect of the Mayflower II in 1955. The scale is 1/24.
 
The vessel was a 33 foot work boat that could be rowed or sailed and was common in the17th century. The Pilgrims cut the vessel into four pieces and stowed them on the orlop deck, where the passengers lived. Upon arrival in Provincetown, the shallop was re-assembled and used to explore the inner arm of Cape Cod, eventually landing in Plimoth.
 
The pics show the plans and a building board. In the background is the almost finished mast.
 
At this point I'm waiting on wood from HobbyMill, due at the end of the month, so, that's all for now!

Grant
I just download that excellent paper by Wayne you provided the link to above.
Thank you
(now I have even more homework)

Grant
I just download that excellent paper by Wayne you provided the link to above.
Thank you
(now I have even more homework)

1:60 HMS Naiad 1797
Part 6 – Stern and Stem Construction
Original post 10/18/10
 
Stern Deadwood
 
After the timbers of the aft deadwood had been fayed and glued together, the next step was to reduce the deadwood above the bearding line to the final width of 14 ½ inches. This width is equal to the full breadth of the deadwood, 18 ½ inches, minus the 4 inches required for the two 2 inch ledges to support the cant frames. These ledges follow a curve on each side of the hull called the bearding line. On Naiad, this was a continuous curve, not stepped.
 
The bearding line needs to be located accurately so that when the hull is faired the feet of the cant frames remain at roughly their 2 inch thickness (.033” at 1:60) and do not get faired down to less or, in the worst case, nothing. The bearding line can be copied from the original draft and put on the CAD version, but I think it is preferable to develop this line directly from the CAD body plan profiles, which are being used for all the other lofting.
 
The bearding line passes through all the points on the hull at which the moulded breadth of the hull is equal to the deadwood thickness - 18 ½ inches. Placing a vertical line on the body plan at half this breadth from the middle line, allows heights to be taken off at each frame line to plot the bearding line in the sheer plane. This was the approach used to plot the forward and aft bearding lines on the Naiad CAD drawings. The bearding line was a bit of a mystery to me until I visualized it in this way.
 
With a pattern for the aft bearding line in hand, the line was then marked out on the stern timber assembly, which was then set up in the milling machine as shown below.
 

 
The next picture shows a closer view of this setup.
 

 
I will not walk through all the steps of this milling process, but only touch on a few points. First, the work, of course, must be horizontal when milling both faces, so the assembly, which when finished will be narrower at the bottom, was not tapered until after this process was complete. Second, the machining was only carried up to within, say 1/16 inch of the bearding line, leaving the final cutting to be done with hand chisels. Finally, with the top deadwood machined to its final width, the centerline of the assembly was then determined from this and marked on all edges of the piece.
 
After this machining, the sternpost and inner post assembly was attached and the whole fastened to the keel. In the following picture this assembly is shown shored up by one of the clamped squares discussed in Part 4.
 

 
Again, at this stage I was taking few pictures. Cutting out and shaping the sternpost assembly was fairly straightforward. Heights and sizes of the mortises for the transoms were taken from the large Centerline Structures drawing.
 
 
The stem, apron and forward deadwood assembly was made and attached to the keel in much the same way as its aft counterpart. Here is an image of the pattern sheet for the forward structure.
 
 

 
There are more complicated components here, but the process is essentially the same. A separate pattern sheet was made for the knee-of- the-head parts. When all these parts were assembled and attached to the keel, the entire assembly was set up as shown below.
 

 
Permanent supports for the beakhead and sternpost were added later to replace the temporary clamped squares shown in this picture holding the ends vertical. The keel was maintained on center with the small wood blocks screwed into the base with another placed just behind the sternpost.
 

 
In the above closer side view, the bearding line still needs a little trimming and the stem rabbet has only been cut at the top, leaving the section down to the keel rabbet still to be done. The “rising wood,” that is, the deadwood in the center section of the hull is also visible in these pictures.
 

 
This picture shows the details of the beakhead assembly with the gammoning knee in place and also the initial fitting up of the bollard timbers. The picture below shows another view of this.
 

 
In the following picture the bollard timbers have been installed, the knightheads shaped and the bowsprit chock installed. Also the first forward cant frames on the port side are being positioned, but I will save the cant frame discussion for later.
 

 
The bollard timbers have a complex shape. The inside faces are curved to match the curvature of the sides of the stem, which expands in breadth as it rises from the keel. The fore surface matches up to the curved rabbet of the stem, then curves aft matching the hull profile. The aft (inside) surfaces are curved to maintain the correct molded breadth at each height. The aft foot is beveled 34.5 degrees vertically with its edge fitting into a relief cut at the same angle in the apron piece above the bearding line. The outside edge, which is thankfully flat, is cut back about 1 inch over most of its length to give an air space when the first hawse timber gets butted up against it. Finally, there is a complicated bit of fancy joinery needed to get the bowsprit retaining chock to fit neatly between the upper parts, called the knightheads, which get their own little bit of shaping. The next picture is a closer view of all this.
 

 
These bollard timbers turned out to be simple forerunners of what was to come with the modeling of their neighbors, the hawse timbers, which will be covered in the next part.
 
Hold Down Bolts
 
At this stage it was necessary to bolt the keel down securely to the building board, and it was a relief to turn to some work I could get my mind around. For the hold down bolts, special threaded studs were machined in brass as shown below.
 

 
Three of these were made and were spaced out on the keel. Eventually they will be the permanent mounting bolts for the model. The idea behind this design is that the smaller diameter threaded part of this (4-40) will come up through the keel. The shoulder of the larger diameter will be stopped at the bottom of the false keel. Three small (4-40) nuts from above and three larger nuts from below will hold the keel down, initially. Eventually a small nut will be embedded just below the keelson. With the shoulder screwed up against the keel bottom, the top of the small section will be cut off flush with the top of the nut. This will prevent the keelson from being popped off by over-tightening this bolt from below later. The larger size nut under the building board or the base of the case will then hold the model down.
 
All this work was completed by the end of February 2010.
 
Ed Tosti
 
 
]2013 Copyright Edward J Tosti

Thanks guys. Here is my story in pictures of how I built up Montagu hawse timbers. If you have any question please ask. To give one some ideal, the were attach to each other and also to the first cant frame and knight head and then as a assembly was taken off of her stem and sanded down to shape, on the outside and inside. Made it a whole lot easier  when it came to sanding the inside, thats for sure. Gary