Revenue Cutter 1817 by Eric W - FINISHED - BlueJacket Shipcrafters - 1:48 - first build

[Eric W]

Charlie and Richard, I reached out to Mr William Theisen with the USCG History office and he is looking into this. I'll let you know as soon as I hear back. Great posts. Half the fun of this build is getting into the history of these great ships and craft. Keep the posts coming! BTW I agree about Active as well

Closest reference I have found so far.

[Eric W]

The transom went on pretty well per the instructions. Here is a shot of it with the boom traveller dry fitted. I did quite a bit of fitting with 200 grain sandpaper to get the angle of the transom right. I also recommend using a small chisel and slightly gouge the hole for the tiller and dry fit the stern post prior to gluing on the transom. My transom had some overhang and I sanded it flush with 200 grain sandpaper.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Eric W

[Eric W]

Side view

[Eric W]

Bottom view

[Eric W]

Also, Mr. Bill Thiesen, the Atlantic area historian with the United States Coast Guard got back to me. There is very little documented on the early cutters in the 30 ton range. He thinks that if this type was built it was probably used as a revenue boat on the Great Lakes or within large harbours.

[Eric W]

So I heard back from Mr. Thiesen with the Atlantic area history office of the U.S. Coast Guard. There is very little published on the early 30 ton cutters. He thinks that if they were built, they were likely used as revenue boats on the Great Lakes and in large harbours.

[Eric W]

Slightly better shot of transom with boom traveller

[Elijah]

Very nice! The angle looks great! Also, not that it is a problem, you can make your update all one post. What's next?

[Guest]

Considering that list posted (nice one Richard) then I'd say go with Active, since it's the only cutter mentioned from the 1810-1820 period with a tonnage in the 30's. If you want to name her after a state then maybe South Carolina since there is no record of her tonnage.

 

So I went with a compromise on the deck fitting. To have the deck not overlap the hull would have put the mast holes way off. I am going to shave the deck slightly at the bow to make this work. I think the biggest issues are symmetry and the holes for the stanchions. I was concerned about this when I first got the kit. I set the deck template on the hull when it was right out of the box and had some overlap at the bow. I think re-drilling the mast holes will be more problematic vs a little bit of bow shaping. The angle of the masts are very important for this replica. Guy, let me know if you have a similar issue.

Hi Eric;

I just sent a note to Bluejacket as I have the same kit as you know (I am frustrated a bit with it being an engineer and wanting prints to match the wood in the kit).  

1. The prints do not match the wood provided in the kit.

     a. the hull does not match the drawings

     b. the templates as defined in the instructions if used with the prints will not work, especially at the stern.

     c.  The deck (nicely done) does not match the prints (the stern post hole is about 3/8" off toward the bow on the wood)  And seems to be too far forward on the wood given.  The prints seem more correct and if one looks at page 191 in "The History of American Sailing Ships, Chapelle" The Stern post is almost at the Transom.  On the wood it is way too forward.

2. At the bow of the wood hull given, using the deck wood, I would have to ADD wood to the hull, about an 1/8" each side, a painful operation and I was hoping to have a very smooth hull.. I am very careful never to remove too much wood.  As you noted, you would have to shave the deck down...

 

Being as this kit came from bluejacket and the amount paid... gosh I am more than a bit disapointed... I wished for a "real" set of prints and lines.. there were none.  I have written to bluejacket.

 

Perhaps a better option would have been the Lively... or?   This was to have been a "quicker" build for my brother and I hoped for something a bit more accurate (at least for prints that matched the wood... not necessarily historic)...

 

-Guy

[CharlieZardoz]

My advice with solid hull kits from my experience is that they aren't really an "engineers" kinda model. It's very freeform, you basically have a block of wood, some plans and fittings and the wood is generally in the shape it should be but adding is sometimes just as important as taking away with Sultana ive added a lot with wood putty in spaces which needed it to get the right shape.  Is it exact? Not really but it's closer to what it should be than when it came out of the box.  Solid hull modeling is almost like sculpting the templates are guides but best go by eye and if you aren't happy with the plans then just order printed copies of the originals from the national archives and make your own templates like I did.

[Guest]

My advice with solid hull kits from my experience is that they aren't really an "engineers" kinda model. It's very freeform, you basically have a block of wood, some plans and fittings and the wood is generally in the shape it should be but adding is sometimes just as important as taking away with Sultana ive added a lot with wood putty in spaces which needed it to get the right shape.  Is it exact? Not really but it's closer to what it should be than when it came out of the box.  Solid hull modeling is almost like sculpting the templates are guides but best go by eye and if you aren't happy with the plans then just order printed copies of the originals from the national archives and make your own templates like I did.

Charlie,  Yup.. And a lot cheaper to boot... next time!  At the least, Bluejack "could have left the hull a lot larger than they did .. sure would have saved a lot of head ache... and starting over.

Guy

PS.. Your Sultana is coming along great!

[MrBlueJacket]

Guy did email me and I answered him.  I'm surprised he didn't mention my answer here.

 

We were trying to get the hull form at the bow as close as possible for the novice, and it was overdone, it will be corrected.  Also, the deck holes do line up with the hull, but the print needs to be adjusted.

[Guest]

Guy did email me and I answered him.  I'm surprised he didn't mention my answer here.

 

We were trying to get the hull form at the bow as close as possible for the novice, and it was overdone, it will be corrected.  Also, the deck holes do line up with the hull, but the print needs to be adjusted.

Nic, I just have not had a chance.  I posted before you answered.  I am going to try to build as best I can.  I am still going to try to add wood to the bow and work it into a smooth shape.  Apologies if I came across the wrong way.  Models are just that .. models.. not EXACT replicas.  Thanks for the reply.

Guy

Eric, I am not going to try to re-drill the masting holes. I am going to adapt the existing.  This will make the ship a bit shorter but who actuallly measures a completed model?  Except of course the builder who prides himself/herself in a job well done and the joy in the journey. :-)

 

Guy

[Eric W]

Charlie, you hit the nail on the head. So I just set the stem, stern post and keel today, and to make it work, I had to trim a quarter inch off the aft end of the keel. I did a lot of additional hull sanding with 200 grain paper (sand, fit, sand etc.). One thing that helped me is I glued the stem to the keel and then worked the fit. I held my keel to the hull with rubber bands, but this caused me to come slightly off centerline, so I will have to adjust that. As you can see, I also will need a bit of filler at the bow where the keel and stem meet.

[MrBlueJacket]

We have added some meat to the hull master, and I will be glad to send a n/c replacement hull to anyone who has purchased a Revenue Cutter from us.

[Eric W]

Nic, good idea moving forward, but I am far enough along, that I think I can make it work. It is great to see the support that Bluejacket is willing to give though.

[MrBlueJacket]

As a modeler myself, I know how I would like to be treated, and make my decisions accordingly.

[Guest]

We have added some meat to the hull master, and I will be glad to send a n/c replacement hull to anyone who has purchased a Revenue Cutter from us.

Hi Nic,

I am not too far in shaping the hull.  It would be nice to have a hull with a bit more meat at the front end if you are willing!  I had stopped trying to shape the hull trying to figure a way around not using bondo or filler...

I'll send you an email!

 

brg

Guy

[Eric W]

I put the wales on last night and this morning. A lot of rubber bands and patience, I recommend sticking with a #55 drill bit to set the channels. The instructions say to use a #67, but I found that too small.

[Eric W]

So far this kit has gone well with the instructions and plans. My point of total frustration was this afternoon. I have been trying to trace the waterline on the hull, and cannot get clean lines at all. The kit supplies a farcical "jig template" that consits of too pieces of basswood you glue together and then you measure the waterline from the plans from aft and bow, then mark that measurement on the verticle piece of the jig. At that point you are supposed to glue a pencil at the mark, then move this prcision instrument around the hull. After about three attempts with lines going everywhere, my jig is now in about a dozen pieces, and I am at square one. I also wonder if anyone can suggest some good striping tape?

Edited February 28, 2016 by Eric W

[Eric W]

Considering that list posted (nice one Richard) then I'd say go with Active, since it's the only cutter mentioned from the 1810-1820 period with a tonnage in the 30's. If you want to name her after a state then maybe South Carolina since there is no record of her tonnage.

[Eric W]

Charlie, I was thinking of Active as well, but unfortunately, accordong to Irving King's book, Active was a 38 ton cutter that was not a Doughty design.

[Eric W]

So, surfing through MSW blogs, I ran across a great idea for waterline tracing. I took measurements at about four points on the hull, then took a thin piece of scrap basswood from the wales template and used it as a "plank". I then traced along the plank from point to point.

[Eric W]

The instructions say to paint the topside black, then trace the waterline. I went with just primer, as I thought it would be easier to see my tracing. Also, strongly recommend sanding and painting the hull, then place the channels. They are very fragile and I broke two of them.

[Eric W]

This is with two coats of gloss black paint for the hull above the waterline. I want to give a "plug" for the included paint kit that bluejacket provides as an option. The brushes are better than the average hobby store brushes and the model master paint spreads well. The black takes quite a while to dry on the basswood, though. I haveen giving it a day between coats.

[Elijah]

I have noticed your glue in the background. Beware, that stuff dissolves in water. Also, nice painting!

[Eric W]

Great point Elijah. I plan for this to only sail on the mantel!

[Eric W]

Finished the painting of the hull using a plank from scrap basswood to trace the waterline. When paintingbthe rudder, I recommend sanding it with 200 grain paper and fit it prior to painting. Trace the waterline and leave the post a natural wood clor. The instructions say to paint the rudder black early on and one might mistakenly paint the post. Bluejacket left a lot of room on the pintle and gudgeon straps. I found this very useful as I began to trim and fit each piece to the rudder and hull. This is very dependent on individual sanding, so it will not be a uniform, but more custom sort of fit. Bluejacket gives you plenty of room to work with. It took quite a bit of dry fitting and I had to bore the holes a little bit wider in the gudgeon with a #67 drill as well as trim the pintles with a chisel.

[Elijah]

Looks good! The lowest one that attaches to the hull appears not to be fully attached. Was this a dry fit? Again, nice painting!

[Eric W]

No Elijah, that was a rookie mistake. The bottom pintle shifted and I missed it. It is very solid though. The pintles and gudgeons were a very tight fit.