Lady Nelson by vossiewulf - Amati/Victory Models - 1:64

[tkay11]

Very nice progress. I don't really think the over-engineering is the issue since the filler blocks play a useful function if you want to mimic the planking that would have been laid on frames. The bulkheads don't represent the frames, so what some people do is to fill  the spaces and then draw lines where the frames would have lain so that the planking can be laid according to the frame positions. That may be overkill rather than the over-engineering that might be seen from a structural perspective.

 

In relation to gouging out the deck below the hatches, I found that matt black paint couldn't be distinguished from matt black space with the hatches in place.

 

Tony

[vossiewulf]

Very nice progress. I don't really think the over-engineering is the issue since the filler blocks play a useful function if you want to mimic the planking that would have been laid on frames. The bulkheads don't represent the frames, so what some people do is to fill  the spaces and then draw lines where the frames would have lain so that the planking can be laid according to the frame positions. That may be overkill rather than the over-engineering that might be seen from a structural perspective.

 

In relation to gouging out the deck below the hatches, I found that matt black paint couldn't be distinguished from matt black space with the hatches in place.

 

Tony

 

I agree, I've been having to fight the urge to fill in the whole thing with balsa or if I had enough patience even better would be basswood to give it more strength, balsa is so easily crushable on the side grain. Maybe the best combo of time and strength would be to rotate the balsa blocks to present endgrain to the planking. Anyway, yes, I'm not sure how you can get correct lines between bulkheads without using a bender to just burn the whole length of the required curve in ahead of time and then just tack glue to buklheads.

[tkay11]

Sure. I would never use balsa again.

 

Tony

[popeye the sailor]

my camera takes pictures 2048 x 1536.......they can be anywhere from 900kb to 1.2 megs.   I just size them down by 30 % and that works good for me.  I've also read some folks were able to put up to eight pictures per post,  but I have been able to post more than 13,  with text in between.   I don't use hosting sites......never had good luck with them.  I keep 'em all on memory stick   I use the more reply option and add them to the post {lower left hand}  

 

off to a good start with your lady......I've never really used the balsa block method,  but it is a good one.  I did read though that you found faring the frame a bit odd.   even using the block method,  your doing it    faring the frame will give the planking a good solid foundation to lay on.  it also gives a smooth even transition from bulkhead to bulkhead and contours the hull.  without it,  a plank will lay on the sharp edges of the bulkheads and will develop a chunky look.

     that's some nice looking wood.....I've not heard of it before.   it should look very good in contrast to a freshly planked hull  

 

 

it appears that I've not read all of the progress you've made.

Edited January 26, 2017 by popeye the sailor

[popeye the sailor]

now that I've read the rest of your progress,   I can repeat what I said earlier...........very nice work     yea.....it's a bit of a coin toss,  whether or not to remove the material in the hold openings.  depending on the size and scale of the grating,  it can be a bummer looking into the grating later on,  and seeing the bottom in the mesh.  skylights are even more critical....glass panes are larger.   even though the area may be painted with matte black,  the sheen from a bit of tell-tale glue,  can quickly kill an effect.   this is one of the cases, where there is no right or wrong......

 

I notice you removed some material from the false keel in the next two openings.  are they to have gratings too?   if they are openings for stairways,  would adding a couple of planked panels,  to simulate a lower deck,  be a good idea?   the last opening did not get the baboon treatment.......is that to be a solid covered hold?

[vossiewulf]

Thanks Popeye. I have three gratings and a binnacle-looking thingy, no stairs. Which makes no sense how the hell do you get to the hold? I just looked at Chuck's Cheerful to see if that would explain and it doesn't, at least not within the time I have allowed to read right now. Only thing I can figure is that one or more of the grates are covering ladders down.

 

Rick, do you know where the hell the stairs are?

 

And next step is final fairing of the hull now that I have all the relevant pieces in place. I think I'm ok with it now, only confusion is that the turn between the second to last and the last bulkhead is so severe vertically that it looks like I would have to remove half of that last bulkheard fairing it at the angle it seems to want.

 

As for the wood, I just stop by Woodcraft every couple of weekends and I almost never leave without buying a couple 2x2 or 1x1 turning blanks that are usually 12" long and maybe some pen blanks too, depending on what they have that week. They're like $10 to $20 and I make all sorts of stuff with them but a single 2 x 2 cocobolo piece will make lots and lots of ship parts, so I recommend doing the same if you have a Woodcraft local or a lumberyard that has a good stock of exotic turning blanks.

 

And I've honestly never seen a piece of non-pretty cocobolo, and as for workability, well, it's easier than ebony.

 

And thanks everyone for the tips and advice, all very helpful.

Edited January 26, 2017 by vossiewulf

[tkay11]

I don't know the Lady Nelson model and I haven't looked in detail at any of the other build logs for the Lady Nelson, but looking at the pictures it looks like the companionway is the aft-most structure on the deck.

 

Tony

[BANYAN]

Coming along very nicely Vossie.  All this attention to the bones of the model will pay dividends in the long run.

 

WRT entry spaces  etc, I have toyed with the idea of painting them a very pale grey/blue so that they reflect light a little better?

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Rick01]

Hi - Tony has it. The companionway is the boxy looking structure aft of the last grating. I re-made mine using planking as I personally think it looks better than slab sides. As for the gratings I fit a bit of matt black card into the grating  at the scale we're working at it does the job nicely.

 

Rick

[vossiewulf]

Thanks Tony and Rick And Rick I agree with you, slab sided doesn't make much sense. Also according to the fore and aft rigging book, it was also the location for the ship's bell and some other details that I don't think are in the model, will have to see what I can do improving that.

 

Pat, thanks. And yes I agree, extensive effort on infrastructure makes everything following easier. However I'm not sure what you mean by painting entry spaces pale gray/blue Can you explain?

[Rick01]

I also reversed the companionway so the doors are facing aft - seems to me that less water would be hitting it in heavy seas/storms than in its shown position of doors opening forward. The belfry seems to be an item that doesn't have any specific position on cutters, I've seen them built onto the companionway top and on the windlass so that item is open for you to decide.

 

Rick

[tkay11]

I posted pictures of my visit to the NMM at Chatham to see particular models of cutters. You can see these at

 

http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/10370-18th-and-early-19th-century-cutter-models/?p=310186

 

It's worth going through the build logs of cutters on this site as most of them will provide interesting discussions on a variety of historical details of cutters, including the positioning of the companionway doors, bells, and so on. There are also others who have posted pictures of contemporary models in American museums.

 

By the way, it's worth noting that even the books have mistakes -- Petersson, for example, has a couple that were discussed, so the discussions really are useful. It allows you to make your own informed decisions, since quite often there are multiple answers for the multiple configurations.

 

Tony

[Rick01]

One specific error in Petersson is the anchor cable on the windlass. The cable on one side is correctly led over the drum whilst the other one goes under. So turning the windlass will be lowering one anchor whilst raising the other ! This error has been replicated by the manufacturer of the model of HM Cutter Mermaid .

 

Rick

[vossiewulf]

I posted pictures of my visit to the NMM at Chatham to see particular models of cutters. You can see these at

 

http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/10370-18th-and-early-19th-century-cutter-models/?p=310186

 

It's worth going through the build logs of cutters on this site as most of them will provide interesting discussions on a variety of historical details of cutters, including the positioning of the companionway doors, bells, and so on. There are also others who have posted pictures of contemporary models in American museums.

 

By the way, it's worth noting that even the books have mistakes -- Petersson, for example, has a couple that were discussed, so the discussions really are useful. It allows you to make your own informed decisions, since quite often there are multiple answers for the multiple configurations.

 

Tony

 

First, thanks Tony, the pics are awesome and are bookmarked for reference.

 

As for reading build logs, I guess it's unavoidable with ships. When I'm doing something new I much prefer to learn the minimum required to be in the ballpark, and then figure out my own solutions for what I need to do. It's part of the fun. I find it also speeds understanding of why certain things are done in certain ways. My intent was to very much enjoy reading said logs AFTER I finished mine, would be very fun to be surprised at all the solutions and compare them to what I came up with. But there are just too many things I need to know and learning them also means learning how people do them.

[vossiewulf]

One specific error in Petersson is the anchor cable on the windlass. The cable on one side is correctly led over the drum whilst the other one goes under. So turning the windlass will be lowering one anchor whilst raising the other ! This error has been replicated by the manufacturer of the model of HM Cutter Mermaid .

 

Rick

 

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.

[tkay11]

You're absolutely right. It's unavoidable -- even if you didn't post a log. But it's also highly enjoyable.

 

One of the problems is that some decisions have to be made early on in the build as changes can't be made later. Belaying points, mainstay holes, windlass, pumps, gratings, cannon rigging, horses and transoms are among the many cases in point.

 

The other thing is that not only are you learning from a set of plans, but you also raise questions in your log to which answers are supplied by others and which you will probably find hard to ignore. You have already been driven to having a peek at what some books (e.g. Petersson) may have to say about aspects which are left very unclear in the plans. Then you'll probably find yourself unsatisfied with the rough look of particular aspects of the kit (e.g. the cannon, the pumps, the tiller, the rudder, the transom) and find out how they may have looked in reality.

 

All this information still allows you to do it 'your way' in terms of the decisions you make about which way you want to go given your skills, tools, and level of accuracy you wish to maintain, as well as which of the original varieties of cutter mods you wish to make.

 

You're finding out exactly what so many others have found (e.g. myself) when starting a kit -- notably that you don't want only to follow the kit instructions without further exploration and questioning. One reason why so many start a kit and then give up is that they don't think that questioning may help them through their build, and that is the beauty of this forum -- everybody wants to help each other, as well as to learn from each other. And this learning is part of the fun.

 

Tony

Edited January 27, 2017 by tkay11

[BANYAN]

Hi Vossie,

 

Under the skylights I painted the surface a very pale blue, so that when I used plastic, mica or even perspex to simulate the glass of the skylight, it gave the impression of depth and something open under there.  In the hatch entryways, I sometimes even used white on the vertical surfaces, so that when you looked through an open hatch there was an impression of some light - some people paint them black to hide the fact there is nothing in there, or even close the hatch completely,  but I tend to use veneer to enclose the hatchway entrance void  where the ladderway disappears into, to give the impression of a bulkhead etc, then paint a light colour to reflect a bit of light.  A couple of modellers even painted curtains and/or pale yellow (to simulate a lantern), on the clear material used to simulate glass, so that when looking through the window, again there is a sense of depth.

 

i hope this explains a little clearer.  Unfortunately the model i did this too is no longer in my possession and no photos sorry.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited January 27, 2017 by BANYAN

[vossiewulf]

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.

[Rick01]

Hi Vossiewulf. One question not directly associated with the model. Where are you located? Purely a matter of interest and no need to answer if you feel it a little personal.

 

Rick

[vossiewulf]

Hi Vossiewulf. One question not directly associated with the model. Where are you located? Purely a matter of interest and no need to answer if you feel it a little personal.

 

Rick

 

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.

[vossiewulf]

You're absolutely right. It's unavoidable -- even if you didn't post a log. But it's also highly enjoyable.

 

One of the problems is that some decisions have to be made early on in the build as changes can't be made later. Belaying points, mainstay holes, windlass, pumps, gratings, cannon rigging, horses and transoms are among the many cases in point.

 

The other thing is that not only are you learning from a set of plans, but you also raise questions in your log to which answers are supplied by others and which you will probably find hard to ignore. You have already been driven to having a peek at what some books (e.g. Petersson) may have to say about aspects which are left very unclear in the plans. Then you'll probably find yourself unsatisfied with the rough look of particular aspects of the kit (e.g. the cannon, the pumps, the tiller, the rudder, the transom) and find out how they may have looked in reality.

 

All this information still allows you to do it 'your way' in terms of the decisions you make about which way you want to go given your skills, tools, and level of accuracy you wish to maintain, as well as which of the original varieties of cutter mods you wish to make.

 

You're finding out exactly what so many others have found (e.g. myself) when starting a kit -- notably that you don't want only to follow the kit instructions without further exploration and questioning. One reason why so many start a kit and then give up is that they don't think that questioning may help them through their build, and that is the beauty of this forum -- everybody wants to help each other, as well as to learn from each other. And this learning is part of the fun.

 

Tony

 

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.

[vossiewulf]

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.

Edited January 28, 2017 by vossiewulf

[Borborygm]

I'm aware of that, but I have a set of plans that say Lady Nelson, I'm not going to call it "generic cutter from the 1800s".

 

I am building the LN myself and have been pondering the name issue. The historically accurate "generic cutter from the 1800s" certainly lacks glamour and wouldn't fit well on the transom. In thinking about this, I concluded that if you asked Lord Nelson himself what name he would prefer, it would be Emma. At the risk of being irreverent, that is what I have named her. 

 

Sorry, Mrs. Hamilton, no disrespect intended.

 

[Borborygm]

Damn, I meant "Sorry, Mrs. Nelson...."

[vossiewulf]

I am building the LN myself and have been pondering the name issue. The historically accurate "generic cutter from the 1800s" certainly lacks glamour and wouldn't fit well on the transom. In thinking about this, I concluded that if you asked Lord Nelson himself what name he would prefer, it would be Emma. At the risk of being irreverent, that is what I have named her. 

 

Sorry, Mrs. Hamilton, no disrespect intended.

 

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.

[vossiewulf]

One specific error in Petersson is the anchor cable on the windlass. The cable on one side is correctly led over the drum whilst the other one goes under. So turning the windlass will be lowering one anchor whilst raising the other ! This error has been replicated by the manufacturer of the model of HM Cutter Mermaid .

 

Rick

 

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?"

[tkay11]

One thing you might consider for future builds is that quite a few don't put the stem, keel and sternpost on until the first (or even the second) planking is done (at least in this kind of double-planked kit). That way you avoid damaging those parts, the sanding of the bearding line is easier, and you can figure out the rabbet more easily. I too didn't learn that until after the fact!

 

I don't know the extent to which the Lady Nelson builds are similar to the Sherbournes, but the approaches to the transom on the Sherbournes was very variable. I'm not sure that the curvature needs to be the same across the whole width, but which ever way you do it bevelling is going to be part of it.

 

Tony

[Rick01]

I fitted the gunwales first then soaked and bent the transom into the approximate curve needed. Once I was satisfied with it I then started carefully shaving the "legs" until everything went together neatly. By the way the gunwales have a tendency to break at the bow gun ports if you're not super careful when fitting ( not that I'd expect anything other than care going on your build so far).

 

Rick

[Rick01]

Vossiewulf - there is another reason why a few of us don't really like the name on this cutter. There actually was a "Lady Nelson" used in the exploration of Australia but rigged as a brig rather than a cutter see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Lady_Nelson_(1798)wikipedia I know but in this instance basically accurate.

 

Rick

[vossiewulf]

One thing you might consider for future builds is that quite a few don't put the stem, keel and sternpost on until the first (or even the second) planking is done (at least in this kind of double-planked kit). That way you avoid damaging those parts, the sanding of the bearding line is easier, and you can figure out the rabbet more easily. I too didn't learn that until after the fact!

 

I don't know the extent to which the Lady Nelson builds are similar to the Sherbournes, but the approaches to the transom on the Sherbournes was very variable. I'm not sure that the curvature needs to be the same across the whole width, but which ever way you do it bevelling is going to be part of it.

 

Tony

 

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.