Pegasus by hdrinker - 1:48 - POF Swan practicum

[hdrinker]

I’ve been scratch building POF models since about 1995, having retired 7 years ago as an orthopedic surgeon. So my projects have been drawn out quite a bit until more recently. I started with the USS ESSEX, following the Practicum of the late Portia Tachajian, followed by the Delacroix “LE GROS VENDRE”. David Antscherl’s Practicum on the Swan Class intrigued me as it represents the methods used by the English in the 18th century, as compared to that of the French of the same period. I also met David at the NRG annual in New Bedford last year and was drawn in both by his personal appeal as well as his amazing attention to detail and methodology. 
 

So, I’ve kicked this project off, sticking to the Antscherl Practicum in 1/48 of the Pegasus, and have progressed as far as completing the bow and stern framing and beginning the full frames. The bow and stern are roughly fared and sanded. I’m fitting chicks between Cutty is and have decided to keep the sided dimension of full frames equal from floor up instead of dIminishing.

 

I admit to being a little confused about full frame spacing and sided dimensions. Perhaps the reader could enlighten me. The text seems to indicate the use of spacers on either side of each futtuck joint, and seems to say that the spacers are as thick (sided) as the frame, at least at the floor level, and indicates the frames to be cut from 10” stock. I assume there to be similar spacers between each frame pair as well as between each frame half. Adding all that material up at those dimensions, and locating the station lines on the elevation plan as defined in the text as being mid way between the two frame halves, I understand, perhaps mistakenly, the space between each set of station lines to extend from midway through the first frame pair spacer, through a whole frame pair , to mid way through the next frame pair spacer, or the equivalent of two full frames. Using the dimensions above, the space occupied by all that exceeds the length between stations on the elevation plan by a considerable amount. So something is wrong with my interpretation of the text, I fear. 
HD

[ccoyle]

Welcome! Great choice of subject and source material.

 

8 minutes ago, hdrinker said:

drawn in both by his personal appeal as well as his amazing attention to detail and methodology

Yes, I can personally attest to both!

[dvm27]

Have you laid out the station lines on your building board?  On the sheer plan each floor/lower futtock is inked in. Make sure all these lines are transferred to the building board. Only at each station line only will you be adding the fillers. They may vary in width as the sided dimension of the futtocks also varies.  Sided means seen from the side (or lateral view in your medical parlance).  The spacers are generally 3" sided at the keel and narrower higher up. There is one triple frame at the dead flat. So in the photo below all the spacers are at the station lines and are easily seen as they are holly (in contrast to the boxwood frames). In addition, there are fillers between the floors/first futtocks). It may be convenient to fit them before raising the frames. I did no do this but it would have been easier. Feel free to PM  me if this is not clear.

 

[Jim Lad]

Looks like a nice start you've made on that model, HD.

 

John

[hdrinker]

On 6/24/2020 at 1:39 PM, hdrinker said:

I’ve been scratch building POF models since about 1995, having retired 7 years ago as an orthopedic surgeon. So my projects have been drawn out quite a bit until more recently. I started with the USS ESSEX, following the Practicum of the late Portia Tachajian, followed by the Delacroix “LE GROS VENDRE”. David Antscherl’s Practicum on the Swan Class intrigued me as it represents the methods used by the English in the 18th century, as compared to that of the French of the same period. I also met David at the NRG annual in New Bedford last year and was drawn in both by his personal appeal as well as his amazing attention to detail and methodology. 
 

So, I’ve kicked this project off, sticking to the Antscherl Practicum in 1/48 of the Pegasus, and have progressed as far as completing the bow and stern framing and beginning the full frames. The bow and stern are roughly fared and sanded. I’m fitting chicks between Cutty is and have decided to keep the sided dimension of full frames equal from floor up instead of dIminishing.

 

I admit to being a little confused about full frame spacing and sided dimensions. Perhaps the reader could enlighten me. The text seems to indicate the use of spacers on either side of each futtuck joint, and seems to say that the spacers are as thick (sided) as the frame, at least at the floor level, and indicates the frames to be cut from 10” stock. I assume there to be similar spacers between each frame pair as well as between each frame half. Adding all that material up at those dimensions, and locating the station lines on the elevation plan as defined in the text as being mid way between the two frame halves, I understand, perhaps mistakenly, the space between each set of station lines to extend from midway through the first frame pair spacer, through a whole frame pair , to mid way through the next frame pair spacer, or the equivalent of two full frames. Using the dimensions above, the space occupied by all that exceeds the length between stations on the elevation plan by a considerable amount. So something is wrong with my interpretation of the text, I fear. 
HD

 

[hdrinker]

I’ve now completed the hull framing and find it less than satisfactory from a visual point of view but structurally fine. I would be embarrassed to leave it unplanked! The two biggest issues were#1: an undulating top timber line and #2: port alignment not true to sheer. As a result, I’ve revised the ports and have had to add and subtract considerable material to create a smooth top timber line. Wish I’d completed the framing before cutting in the ports. A template of the sheer could then have been used to insure proper port alignment. I’m tempted to begin again, having some idea for how to avoid these mistakes now. I’m more interested at this point in my skill development in the process than the final product.

[hdrinker]

Note the undulating top timber line. I should have remade the offending cant frames at that point but was unsure of the eventual top timber contour, and so I decided to make corrections at the end. 

[mtaylor]

The beauty of wooden ship building like this is simple.... It's wood, it can be fixed.  Most mistakes like this will covered up with planking.  Keep a small log or notebook and list the "oops" as you realize them.  Next build, you'll know what to watch out for.  There is is learning curve and sometimes it goes down really hard and really fast.  Just a part of building.  

[hdrinker]

Thanks for that advise. But why settle? I don’t have room in the house, as my wife likes to remind me, for more ship models. I kept a log of my ‘Gros Ventre” and didn’t seem to have avoided the same issues this time. As you will appreciate from the photo of that POF, the issues for me have not been what happens after the framing. I’d like to feel I got it right....

[dvm27]

Well, if you do decide to start over you’re in good company. I abandoned my first effort at about the point where you are and the second version worked out fine. I paid much closer attention to maximum height of breadth and distance between cant top timbers athwartships when gluing them in place.

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

Did you know that the most difficult part of the framing is this area:

[hdrinker]

That’s wonderful to hear and very encouraging. I’m going back over the plans, the tutorial and my framed version recording in a journal where the errors probably occurred and plan to spend much more attention to detail next time. Even though it’s a bit foreboding to begin again, that’s the plan. I’m learning a lot. Not by any means is the first run waisted!

[gjdale]

It’s a tough decision to start something over, but you’ll be glad you did. Don’t ask me how I know......

 

I’ll follow along with interest.  A Swan class is somewhere on my bucket list.

[hdrinker]

I did start again. Added a digital height gauge and digital angle gauge to my gadget box. Those have made certain things more accurate. Payed much more attention to height of breath this time as well as the top timber alignment, and as a result, some of my earlier alignment issues have not been repeated. Now that the cant  frames are in place fore and aft, I’ll focus on getting the right sheer of the ports.  I put the foremost and after most ports in by measurement and have made a template of the port sheer line as a check going forward.

[Kevin Kenny]

Looks great. You are making good headway.

[hdrinker]

Making progress on my second iteration. So far I’ve followed the posts of Kevin Kenny and Stuglo with great appreciation  and admiration. Your skill level is way beyond my own. I find myself spending hours on improving my hinges, trying to make them smaller and smaller. The key has been perfecting my silver soldering technique. The stronger the joint, the more I can file them down to the desired size without the joint failing. 
I’ve not yet made a decision on how, and whether to display the interior in the final product. So for now, I’m doggedly applying all the interior detail. If nothing else, it’s a fun process and serves to improve my methods. After all, Isn’t that what it’s all about!  
It’s a cold morning in eastern Massachusetts. Great weather for making progress in the model shipyard.

[Kevin Kenny]

Just for the record, i too stopped the build of the Thorn when the skill required was beyond me, but started back only to find that the improve skill comes with making mistakes and remaking the pieces. Today there is no project i would not try knowing that it may require me to make a piece three or four times before i get it right. After all its only wood. What helped me greatly was that i was able to find an excellent source of wood here locally so wastage or cost was no longer a problem. Today i have a wonderful collection of modeling woods in the shop. 
best regards.

 

kevin

[hdrinker]

[hdrinker]

[hdrinker]

Very hard to scale real hinges down. So far, all are too big. Just received tubing .0126 “ iD. We’ll see if I can work these down to 1/48… When I started this build, I had the plans for framing and spars provided with the 1st volume of David and Craig’s series. But they don’t provide framing for the decks or deck furniture. Where are those available?

[hdrinker]

[mtaylor]

1 hour ago, hdrinker said:

Very hard to scale real hinges down. So far, all are too big. Just received tubing .0126 “ iD. We’ll see if I can work these down to 1/48… When I started this build, I had the plans for framing and spars provided with the 1st volume of David and Craig’s series. But they don’t provide framing for the decks or deck furniture. Where are those available?

There's 3 more books in the series for the Fully Framed Model.  Been I awhile since I looked at them but I believe you need the other books.

[Kevin Kenny]

I think there are just fine. I assume you are i=using solder paste?

[hdrinker]

Hi Kevin,

I am using a soft silver solder paste, yes.

[hdrinker]

I appreciate the recommendation of construction of the riding bits as one frames the fore part of the lower deck. However, I’m wondering where the height of the pins is specified. 
 

Henry 

[tlevine]

This sheer plan is for Atalanta but they were of the same class, with very little difference between them.  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atalanta_(1775)_RMG_J4428.png  Even with volumes I and II of TFFM, without a set of plans, you will not be successful in building Pegasus.

[hdrinker]

Thanks t Levine. I have emailed the RMG FOR the plans I don’t have. Meanwhile x, I’ll continue with my crude attempts to follow the book. Many errors but managing to get around most of them. One I just discovered relates to the location of the riding bit pins. The platform cut outs are about 1/2” aft of beam #5. So, having installed the platforms and beams, I am in the process of advancing the cut outs forward using a #11 blade and handle inserted below deck. It seems to answer well. In other regards, the decking seems to be going well. Had to remove one ledge for access.

[druxey]

Bitt pins that pass through more than one deck will vary in length to fit your particular model. Unless you can build with micrometer precision, every model will vary slightly from the ideal.

[hdrinker]

Kevin has provided the number that I needed, of 53” from upper deck to pin top. That dimension should be constant, regardless of which model one is talking about. Now I can apply that number to my own model’s dimensions and arrive at a total pin length and have a pretty good idea of where to place the cross piece in advance. We’ll see. Maybe I’ll have to remake the assembly later, but I’m hoping not to. Anyway, it’s been a good lesson in planning ahead. I appreciate all the feed back.

Henry

[hdrinker]