Problem with Kit Planking Stock Dimensions

[Borborygm]

Now that I am largely retired, I have the time and inclination to get back to my long-neglected in-progress models.  I am working on the Victory Models' Lady Nelson. I am nearly done fairing the hull but have encounterd a problem I could use some advice on.

 

The LN is double-planked and the kit includes 1 mm X 4 mm limewood strips for the first layer and 1 mm X 4 mm walnut  strips for the second. I am at the point in the fairing for drawing a bearding line at the stern and tapering the false keel to create a rebate (correct term?) for the plank ends to rest in. The problem is that the false keel and the sternpost are both 3 mm thick, but the thickness of two layers of planking is 2 mm on each side. Obviously, 2 mm of rebate on both sides is not possible. The sketch shown below illustrates the problem.

 

I'm a bit stymied on what to do. I do intend to replace the kit's 2nd plank walnut strips with boxwood which I wll cut myself. One possible solution would be to replace both the limewood and walnut with thinner strips, say 0.5 mm. That would allow me to carve a proper rebate and still leave 1 mm of thickness in the false keep (and have the added benefit of making the strips easier to bend). My concern with this is, would losing 1 mm of planking thickness on each side of the hull degrade the accuracy of the hull shape? (Assuming the kit was designed with such accuracy.)

 

 

Has anyone else encountered this problem?  Suggested solutions for addressing it would be most welcome.

[Altduck]

One possible solution:

 

As you have drawn it, the first plank would be fully into the false keel about 4mm short of the stern post.

Stop it and it's bevel there.  Don't go all the way to the stern post.

Second plank and it's bevel go to the stern post, but the bevel only starts ~4mm from the stern post, and only takes 1mm out of the false keel on each side.

The final result is a "stepped" bevel or whatever you might call it.

 

Richard

[Borborygm]

One possible solution:

 

As you have drawn it, the first plank would be fully into the false keel about 4mm short of the stern post.

Stop it and it's bevel there.  Don't go all the way to the stern post.

Second plank and it's bevel go to the stern post, but the bevel only starts ~4mm from the stern post, and only takes 1mm out of the false keel on each side.

The final result is a "stepped" bevel or whatever you might call it.

 

Richard

 

Perfect, and so easy. Thanks, Richard.

 

I think that my modeling problem-solving skills have gotten rusty.

[Rick01]

Given that the Lady Nelson is only a "representative" cutter not modelled on a specific ship you would also be safe using the .05 strips. You would need to bulk up the bulwarks however as the capping rail assumes the full 2mm timber will be used.

 

Rick

[allanyed]

Gas man 

 

What scale is the model?   If 1/8" to the foot, 3mm false keel would be about 11" thick which is probably reasonably accurate. (3.175mm=1foot) , 2mm thick planking is the equivalent of 7.5 inches which is way too thick.   It should be about  half that if single planked.  

 

If it is 1/4" scale, the keel seems too narrow but the 2mm planking is probably pretty accurate.  This of course would be for a single layer of planking.   Double planking means the layers should each be half that thickness.  

 

Allan

Edited November 27, 2016 by allanyed

[Borborygm]

The model is 3/16" to the foot. 2 mm thick planking would equate to 5 inches, which is not realistic. This doesn't really matter though; the issue is whether to change the outer hull dimensions or not. Going with 1 mm planking on each side would reduce the maximum beam of the model from 100 to 98 mm (equivalent to going from 21 ft to 20 ft 7 full size), a slight difference. As Rick pointed out, this model is not based on a real cutter so there is no accuracy to adhere to.

 

At this point, I am leaning toward using the thinner planking stock instead of trying to carve a stepped bevel. 

 

Thanks for the input, everyone.

 

Cy