MAYFLOWER by Captain Al - Model Shipways

[RichieG]

Al, I was thinking more along the lines of put the bottom strip in place, and then put a 1/4" spacer on top in order to get the top strip to be exactly parallel to the bottom one. It might not fit exactly into the upper notch, but it will be the better choice, I think, to sacrifice the notch to gain two parallel strips.

[Captain Al]

OK, it took me awhile to see what you've been saying.  I think that would work.  Its too late for me now, I'm long done with gluing in those pieces.  The only thing is, now that I'm doing the fairing, a great deal of this wood is taken off.  In some places I've had to sand it down to maybe half its thickness.  So if they aren't sitting in the notches it could be a problem.  I say could be, not will be.  You just don't want these strips to sit so proud that you'd have to sand them to a sliver.  Perhaps in combo with your idea of a spacer, you can make small adjustments to the notches and make it all come together perfectly.  But quite honestly, I wouldn't go to a ton of work.  These all get planked over and its the port frames themselves that will make it visually OK.  I plan to make my frames the size of the smallest gun port that way they'll fit in all of the ports.  The outside part of the port lid has enough overhang to compensate for the larger openings.  Remember, I'm talking about a half mm of difference from the largest to the smallest.  Or, the ones that are not fitting well (if they all don't) can be the ones that are put on open.  BTW, I'm not particularly in love with the way the lids are made to be kept open.  Also not liking how a cannon is just stuck into a hole in that backing strip.  I'm thinking of how to put down a floor in the port and put the cannon on little carriages and put them on the floor.  But like Chuck says, this wasn't a warship and maybe the whole thing will look best with all the ports closed.

 

I'll be posting some pix of the fairing pretty soon.  I still have several days of this ahead.

[Tigersteve]

Yes, I saw those "dummy" cannons in the kit when I verified all contents. I would like to present my version of the Mayflower with gun ports open. The reality of construction could always change my plans though. Look forward to your photos. 

Steve

[RichieG]

sounds good, Al! Although I can't see going through the trouble to put a cannon carriage in there when in won't be seen. It's kind of like your putting a knight into the deck hatch instead of a wire eye hook. It's a lot more work, and no one but you will even know it's there. That being said, you're building this for yourself, so who cares what anyone else sees or thinks. But I'll look forward to seeing pictures of your fairing process. That is a tough thing for us novices to get the hang of, if seems.

[Captain Al]

Tell me about it.  Its just not fair!  We shouldn't be made to do such things.

 

Seriously though....Tiger man, do you have some ideas for these cannon that you're not sharing?  I'd like to see them if you do.  Only 'fair' that you share....

 

As for my idea Richie -- can't agree more that it is more work.  But they would be seen if you looked very closely into the open ports.  Maybe with a mag. glass?  I haven't really taken size into consideration yet.  As for the work, its the kind of modeling work I enjoy the most so that doesn't deter me.  I would probably just do one or two anyway and let the other ports remain closed and empty.

 

Now as for this fairing business.  Its very frustrating never knowing when enough is good enough.  Each time I look at it and put battens around it another high spot pops up.  But for me, its distinguishing between a high spot and a low spot.  This may sound dumb but when I sight down the barrel of a batten and all seems fine except for a bit low on one frame, its hard to know if that one frame should be shimmed or if the previous frame is a bit high.  Since I've been pretty careful not to be overly agressive and I'm usually using a sanding stick that spans several bulkheads, its usually safe to say the one is still a bit too high.

 

Clearly its the bow and stern that are hardest.  Its surprising how much wood needs to be taken off.  I have to keep referring to the on-line pix to assure myself to keep going.

 

I jumped a ahead of myself today and took out the bulwark templates even though I know I'm not nearly ready to pin them on and mark them etc. etc.  Revalation:  these make the best 'battens.'  At least for the upper structure.  You can see immediately where they aren't going to sit flat, and more importantly, how much it seems possible to curve them around the bow.  These are pretty delicate pieces of thin ply so unless the frames are well faired I think the template could snap in two if forced to make too sharp a bend around a frame.  This was my clue today that I had lots and lots more filing to do. 

 

[Tigersteve]

Sorry, Captain- not even close to starting this kit. Chuck's pinnace first. I have to guess though that the cannons were included to give us the option of how to display the ports (open v. closed). I don't know if I would spend the time on the cannons if the ports were to be closed.

Steve

[Captain Al]

Here's a few snapshots of work in process.  For whatever they're worth.  This is one instance where a picture does not tell 1000 words. 

[Captain Al]

I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this dilemma which is giving me fits.   From  the three pix above that show me holding the bulwark template up against the frames, you can probably tell that the shape of the last couple frames on the bow and stern (not so much on the stern) goes from concave to convex.  The pix don't show though how it seems to be necessary to press the template (made of 1/32 ply) into the convex part of the frame in order to maintain that 'flowing' shape to the hull.  The template is pretty flexible at 1/32" but later on the instructions tell us to plank the insides before permanently gluing to the frames.  I'm wondering how all this should be done.  First of all I'm wondering if I'm correct and the convex shape of the frames should be maintained -- or should it be 'faired' away?  I have to believe it stays as convex; no way to fair it flat.  So I'm wondering if the planking on the template will make it too thick and inflexible to press into the space?  The planks of course run laterally so they will give some.  And the outside planking won't be put on until the template is securely in place, so those planks aren't an issue.  Just seems that a lot of thumb pressure is already needed to push the template into the right shape, so how will that pressure be maintained until glue dries?  Is this a spot where pinning would be useful?  The pins would have to be taken out or their head's filed down before the final planking would lie flat.  I haven't found a clamp that would work well.  Pressure needs to be spread around a wide area while a clamp usually is pretty focused.

 

Any suggestions will be appreciated.  This is the first time I've come up against a problem like this.  On my other build I planked the convex areas with narrow width strips (the usual sort) and that was what made it possible to do the inside curves.  That's easier than getting a piece of ply to sit down and stay down on an inside curve.

[RichieG]

Hi Al,

I'm looking at your last picture, and it looks to me like you 'faired' bulkheads 4 and 5 (I think that's the numbers) opposite directions, creating the concave shape. If you had left both of them more square, it might have fit the bulwark better. What would it look like if you put the bulwark on the other side, which it looks like  you haven't faired yet? Because if it fits better there, I'd shim back up the last two bulkheads and refair them so as to be more like the shape that the bulwark wants to take. (That being said, you definitely can use nails to 'clamp' the bulwark in place; I prefer to put the nails in about halfway, so they're easy to pull out, and any holes that are left will be planked over, so it's not a cosmetic problem. Sometimes it's a good idea to predrill holes in the plank or bulwark, so that it won't have a tendency to split.)

[maturin52]

Al, I'm looking forward to following this log. Your Bounty build was of great assistance to me, and has immensely improved to outcome of my own Bounty build. I'm still working on the Bounty, but I'm within a week or two of the end. I have just received my next kit. Like you, I decided to go with a Model Shipways kit; in my case, the USS Constitution. I've been aboard the Connie in Boston several times, and she has a special place in the nautical area of my heart. (I took a woman there on a first date, once - long story). Anyway, I am fed up with AL's lousy instructions, but with what was included in the Constitution box and the addition of the Anatomy of the Ship book that the Admiral gave me for Christmas, I think I'll be good. I hope to close out my Bounty log soon and open a new one for Old Ironsides. The Artesania Latina instructions for the Bounty's rigging are a joke. I've had to be very creative, and I'm sure very inaccurate in my work, but I'm determined.

[Captain Al]

Hi Maturin52.  Thanks for popping in and I'm glad to have been of some help in your Bounty build.  As you know then  from the end result, being creative and inaccurate in my mind does not detract that much from the end result (at least for those who aren't concerned with historic and technical details).  This kit, from MS, is like night and day from AL's and I would recommend it to you for some time in the future.  It sounds like you are jumping from the frying pan into the fire, but I can understand the reasons.

[Captain Al]

Looks that way Richie but like I said, pix don't tell the whole story.  Deceiving for some reason.  I saw that as soon as I posted the pic.  So if you look at the pic again you'll see that the char remains on both 4 and 5 on the left side.  Meaning, wood was taken off both edges on the same side.  You should also note that this is the top edge of 4 and 5, the edge that the poop deck will sit on.  It is not the side edge, which is the edge I am referring to in the post on which the bulwark template rests.  Kind of an apples to cherries comparison.  But your observation has made me go back and look more closely at the fairing so far and what I found, and what I think causes this optical illusion, is that I haven't faired frame 5's edge at all up high where the bulwark template will press against it.  So this needs to be done and then, I believe if I took the same picture it would capture the fairing going the right way for both the top and side edges.

 

I consulted with Chuck and he thinks it'll be easier than I think.  I believe he's right and when this edge is faired some more it'll fall into place just enough better to eleviate my worries.  But just in case I am thinking about filler blocks here and there and various clamping methods.  Chuck suggests maybe rubber bands which always work well in wierd places.  And of course there is no reason not to use pins while the glue dries.  In a pinch, there's alway CA glue in strategic places as a substitute for a clamp. 

[Captain Al]

So the fairing continues and is probably reaching its last day or so.  With Chuck's guidance and encouragement the issue of how flexible the bulwark templates will be and how to hold them tight against the frames has pretty much been put to rest, and to the test.  I did some practicing with scrap ply (from used templates) to see how easy or hard it would be to pin those templates down.  I like to know going in what size pin and what size pilot holes to use.  I also realized I would have to stabilize the ship so I would have two free hands.  After several iterations I found that a .5mm pin with 5 mm length would do the job.  The pins that the kit supplies are 10 mm in length and wiggle too much when held in pliers to push in.  (has anyone bought those pin inserting push pliers?  Worth it???).  I've got lots of 5mm pins on hand but if not I'd just snip some 10s down to 5mm.

 

After some more sanding here and there I got the ship anchored down so I could tape the bulkhead template in place.  Irony of ironies, I'm pretty sure that for this first application (putting the templates on temporarily for the purpose of drawing reference lines for the first line of planking) I won't even have to pin them.  You can see in the pix below that this first one sits pretty tight and I can use tape to secure it long enough to get the lines drawn.  When doing this step, make sure that the lines drawn under the template are drawn when the template is being pushed into the convex shape.  If you don't there will be about a .5mm difference when you put the template back on permanently and do push it in flush to the convex frame.  Doesn't sound like much, and probably you could overhang the lowest plank on the template by that much to meet the top line of planking already on the hull, but why not be aware of this?

 

So here's the evidence of progress:

[RichieG]

Al, it looks like it's working! Agreed, the photos can be misleading, but this latest batch shows a good mating of the bulwark template to most of the frames. Good work!

[Captain Al]

Yes, I must say things are falling into place quite well.  Probably due more to Chuck's design and attention to detail than to my skills.  The one big difference in fairing Mayflower v. Bounty is the solid bulkheads v. Bounty's open framing.  Not only am I able to sand and file with more confidence of not breaking one of these bulkheads off, but the visualizing and use of battens seems to be so much more precise.

 

Anyway, I got to the point this morning where I was satisfied and willing to call it quits with fairing -- at least until I was actually planking and maybe would have to make some minor adjustments.  So I moved on to the gluing on of the 4 deck templates.  The first two went on without a thought.  The only issue was how to hold down the slight concave shape to them.  It is so slight and the template ply is so thin that masking take is sufficient.

 

So I get to the poop deck and that's when it got interesting.  Laying the template down on the top edge of the bulkheads I was surprised to see that it fit fine onto #5 and stern frame XX.  But, and you can see this in the picture, frame 4 (or maybe 4b) is significantly wider than the deck template.  I took a bunch of measurements off the plans and convinced myself that the ply template is correct.  Its 50mm wide.  The bulkhead though is more like 53 (off measurements and before fairing).  I'm still giving this some thought and will proceed after lunch, but for now my conclusion is that the bulkhead simply needs to be faired a lot more.  Normally the fairing process has just changed the contour or angle of the bulkhead edge.  Usually either the fore or aft edge of the bulkhead remains as it came off the template while the other gets cut away to the proper angle.  But in this case it seems like not only will the angle be put into the edge but the width of the bulkhead from side to side will have to be reduced from the  53mm to 50.  1.5mm on each side doesn't sound like much but when all the other bulkheads were the exact width of the deck template that goes on top, it has given me pause.  But what else is there to do but get out the file and start rubbing away the wood?   My last check or concern was (is) what this will do to the shape overall of the bulwarks back at the aft end.  The interesting thing is that it seems like it will reduce the angle from bulkhead 4 to the XX frame, making the lay of the ply template easier, but it will also reduce the amount of convexness (is that a word?) to frame 4 and that will also make the gluing up process easier.

 

Do you see any other solution but to go back and continue fairing bulkhead 4 until it matches the deck?

[RichieG]

Al, the best I can do is confirm that you are correct: the plans have the poop deck at 50mm wide at its widest, and bulkhead 4B is 53mm wide at that point. I'd hesitate to shave off the difference, although you may be correct that it's the right thing to do. I did look over some of the other plans to see if there was some reason why the bulkhead should be wider, and I couldn't find anything. I'm loathe to bother Chuck with every little thing, but this seems like a legitimate question.

[Captain Al]

Yeah, I've been PMing him several times this past couple weeks and his answers, while great, have been short and sweet.  I don't know what he does during the day but he is very attentive.  This becomes a moot point though cause I went ahead and did the shaving of about 1.5mm on each side of 4b and then faired a bit more.  I did the same thing as you did before I want ahead and did it; I poured over the instructions and plans and just couldn't find any words or drawings that would lead me to the opposite conclusion.  In fact, if I recall correctly (duh, it was all of 3 or 4 hours ago) there is a drawing from above of the ship which, when measured shows it at 50 mm -- and nothing outboard of the bulwarks and planking that might require this additional mm or so.  My conclusion, til told otherwise or til I discover I really messed it up, is that a lot of fairing is required there.  Why?  Only Chuck would know.  After gluing down this poop deck my feelings have been reenforced.  It all follows a nice curve to the stern and the bulwarks will fit snugly up against the deck edge.  Not much pushing and pinning of the bulwarks will be needed.  So I think its good.  Thank you for taking the time to look ahead and semi confirm my thoughts.  I ought to pose these questions late in the day or evening so I don't grow impatient and begin the day's work without an answer.

 

 

[Captain Al]

Today I plan to 1st plank the counter.  But before getting to it I thought I'd bring the log up to the minute.  After much contemplation I went ahead and faired fram 4b all the way to the width of the forward edge of the poop deck.  It just didn't make any sense not to.  There was no reason why these bulkheads should extend out 1.5mm on each side.  The fairing took awhile but came out smooth.  And as I suspected, it allows the bulwark template to go on with less of a curve or angle back to bulkhead 5.

 

I filled in some gaps between bulkheads and BF with Durhams water putty.  I love this stuff.  A powder that can be made to any consistency needed.  Dries fairly quickly and quite hard and can be sanded.  As I was doing this I looked closely at the space between bulkheads D & E (I could have the letters wrong) up at the bow and recalled how it was impossible on Bounty to plank around the curved bow without putting in some filler for gluing surface.  So I started fiddling with what balsa I have on hand and ultimately got into the zen of wood carving.  So now I have a filler block on one side and I think I will do the same on the other.

 

 

[jbshan]

Cap, you may well want to do the same thing with the portion forward of that as well.  It'll help the planks keep aligned with each other with less chance of 'wrinkles'.

[Captain Al]

Been thinking the same thing.  Also looking at the stern where filler may be even more critical.  Thanks for keeping an eye on my build.

[Captain Al]

Taking the sage advice of jbshan I've gone ahead and started building fillers for the space between bulkheads C and D.  Using a completely different technique and generating a whole lot less sawdust.  I'm using two pieces of 3/8 th inch balsa laminated together.  Fits perfectly into the space needed to fill.  Cut square to about an half inch greater than the widest part of the larger of the two bulkheads.  Then, with this rectangular piece fitted into the space, I traced the outline of the larger bulkhead (C) onto the wood.  Then I took the piece to the Dremel scroll saw and cut that outline.  This leaves me just a little to sand and fair.  Important to cut scroll it the the larger bulkhead.  If you mistakenly trace the outline of D (smaller) and scroll to that, its all wasted cause there will be no wood up against the upper edge of C to fair down to D.

 

Anyway, it worked well on one and I've got the second lamination drying.  Tomorrow is another day.

 

Both of the bow fillers are taped on.  I think they look pretty symmetrical and "fair."  Any opinions? 

 

 

[jbshan]

Errrmm...  What I was thinking of was from 'E' forward to the stem.  The plank will have to have almost a ball-like form there and the tendency to edge set may cause a 'wrinkle' in the plank which may well differ in location from plank to plank and look really weird.  Blocking behind there will at least tell you when one edge of a plank is lifting.

Is there anything in your instructions helping with the theory or concept of planking?

[Captain Al]

Not much.  Just a couple generalizations and a 'not to worry' cause it'll be painted anyway down below.

 

Actually I guess great minds think alike.  I have always been planning to fill those small areas between E and the stem.  I've just been trying to take care of the big ones first.

[Captain Al]

This morning I glued in the six balsa filler blocks I spent the last two days sculpting.  I hope the pix do justice to them.  I'm more than pleased with the smoothness of the curves all the way to the stem.  I'm debating whether to fill in the small gaps with putty.  Considering that this is a foundation for a planking, and not a final surface for painting, I think maybe filling those small gaps is an exercise in overkill.  Obviously I've put in 95% more gluing surface than I had before, so what difference do the small indents make?  If I fill them I just need to sand them.  Considering this is balsa, even light sanding on an area that I now consider finished could create a small indent there.  I think I will not fill any gaps unless maybe those that are likely to be at the far end of a plank.

 

Its hard to tell in the pix, but the batten I'm holding against the filler really sits nicely.  I'm thinking that the first planking should go pretty smoothly.  As for the stern; not going to do any filler blocks.  Unless, JB, you can convince me otherwise.

 

[RichieG]

I think it looks pretty good, although, as you know, the pictures can be deceiving. In the last picture, it looks like there's a gap above bulkhead E, but other than that, it looks like you did a good job. I wouldn't worry about filling in the small gaps; 'exercise in overkill' seems to describe that endeavor pretty accurately

[jbshan]

The square stern makes it less likely you will need any blocking, but check things out there before you get a bunch of plank on.  If there's a really big gap between bulkheads and/or transoms, you might consider some.

I just looked at the photos in the destructions and it looks well-supported there.

[Captain Al]

I knew someone would remark about that gap between D and E.  So here's the thing....when all I had was faired bulkheads I thought the slope from D to E was pretty "fair."  It seemed fine; battens lay flat on both.  Then I put in the balsa filler.  When I began to fair it to its final shape it left this indent on D.  I looked at it for a long time.  I laid longer battens across C, D and E and even all the way back to A and B.  They lay down really well except for this indent along bulkhead D.  I concluded that D had earlier been faired too much.  It didn't seem like a good solution to try to fair down the balsa block to match the slope of the narrow bulkhead.  This would have resulted in a radical dip that would have had to be carried onto the smaller block between D and E and also more fairing of bulkhead E.  So maybe, like I mentioned in an earlier post, the problem wasn't that bulkhead D was too low, but maybe C and E were still too high??  You gotta pick one or the other.  I decided to go with bulkhead D was too low and to leave it alone (also decided not to even fill it in with putty since I have all the rest of the blocks as surface).  The worst the can result is that my bow is a little fatter than someone else's. 

 

Joel, as far as the stern is concerned.... have you ever considered just widening a bulkhead by gluing on a curved strip (precut on scroll saw) to just say the outer half inch of the bulkhead?  This seems doable and sure would reduce the amount of labor involved in adding filler.

[RichieG]

Al, I understand. Instead of filler, I'd probably just glue some thin strips onto the edge of the bulkhead. But you are correct, you have plenty of surface area to glue to and to use for contouring.

and as far as your question to Joel, I actually have done exactly that on another ship. I used the very sheet that the bulkhead was cut from, and just cut about a half inch wide piece along the original piece's edge and glued it on to the matching bulkhead. It needed a lot of filing and sanding, but it gave me more surface area, and worked fine.

[Captain Al]

Interesting day in the shop.  First layer of planking the counter was not as simple as I thought it was going to be.  Three issues came up.  First I had to decide whether to work right side up or upside down.  Note the slight convex shape of the top edge of piece ZZ.  Its humped in the middle when the ship is right side up.  If that were going to be the first plank laid I would have to be super careful to get it perfectly level on each side; i.e. balance perfectly on the hump.  There are only three small spots to glue to.  If I turned the ship upside down and did the last piece first it would lie flat along the edge of piece YY.  Even though YY is also contoured slightly, the plank would be length bending along its contour.  Easily done.  As the plank going on to ZZ would have to be edge bent (or balanced as I said) I chose to do the ship upside down.

 

So all's going well.  Cutting strips and gluing on.  On the first one that had the convex curve I used a spot of CA to glue down the center and used pva for all the other glue points.  After this first plank I applied glue to the edge surfaces that made contact with each other.  I know, I know; overkill again.  This is only a first planking.  Gaps can be filled.  But I did it anyway.

 

I knew that when I got to the last plank it would just barely fit in.  I expected that I'd shape it a bit to conform to the contour of YY.  I started playing with the plank and here's where I discovered issues two and three.  So the second issue is most critical;  make darn sure when putting transom piece ZZ on that it is perfectly aligned at 90 degrees to the BF across its full width.  If not (and you guessed it, mine was not) the last plank will not lay flush to ZZ and there will be problems laying down the second layer of planking.   To make the plank lie flush, I put a shim on the stern frame to bring the plank out about a mm.  The opposite side was not a problem cause it could be sanded flush.  I would suggest that when putting on these xx, yy and zz pieces, that spacers are used to assure they're perpendicular to BF.  I was off by 1mm and it made a difference.

 

The last issue I played with was that as I worked my way up the counter (actually down the counter but I'm still working upside down) the planks get wider.  The top plank is about 10 mm wider than the bottom one.  But the stern frames do not get wider.  So when I got to the top one and centered it over the 3 frames, the outboard ends seemed very flexible to me.  So I glued in two little backing pieces on the previous plank out at the ends.  Once again, I opted for strength when appearance is not at issue.  This gave this last plank 5 glue points instead of 3 and now it rests firmly with no flex at the ends.

 

Still needs to be sanded smooth to the nice contour shape of the counter and perhaps a bit of putty put in up at that last curved plank.  After all the futzing with it a gap remains at the outboard ends of the plank where the planks original width (1/8th inch) was just not enough to cover the frames.  The second layer of planking is going to use thinner wood strips which should edge bend around this contour shape.  But to make that work I'll need to use 7 planks 1/8th inch wide and shave a little bit off of one or two of them.  That's for another day.  My thoughts have now turned to cutting the hole through this first planking for the rudder.

 

Hope these pix do justice to the way I went about solving the problems.

[jbshan]

The 'trench' at the bow: as long as the shape is fair, in other words the plank lies smoothly against the blocking, indeed the bulkhead may have been taken too far and you should be OK, just, as you say, you have a fatter curve than another builder might have done.

You should be gluing the plank edges to each other.  It makes the several planks into basically a panel so they support each other.

If you didn't already solve the problem, I would suggest you shape that last plank to the curve, which will make it fairly thin in the middle, then insert another plank above it to meet the parallel plank coming down the transom.  It will be almost impossible to bend that one, so cut it to shape.

When you do the second layer, you can perhaps cut two or three planks to shallower versions of the curve and approach it gradually.