Swan-Class Sloop by Stuglo - FINISHED - 1:48

[stuglo]

Perfectly clear. Thank you.

I have vols 1,2 and 4- so I'll have to complete the set.

[stuglo]

13 hours ago, druxey said:

You need to study a copy of a framing plan to fully understand what you need to do.

My framing plan is printed up from the digital copy-Not crystal clear. Another casualty of covid

[stuglo]

Square frames.

 

If not the heart and soul, then the “body” of the fully framed ship.

The drawings become simple when understood!

Each pattern shares a pair of frames- one side represents the fore and the other, the aft. The secret is to keep these separate by overdrawing so as not to get lost.

Remembering that at amidships, the direction is reversed.

Starting with aft set- the aft one of the pair is “floored”- the joint above the keel. 

The fore has a chock (separating the two wings) that sits on the keel.

This may be obvious to some but I needed a mental effort to implant this in my brain.

Cut out card pattern to see if fits to aft cants-OK 

It is suggested that the futtocks can be graded in width: 5.3mm,5.04mmand 4.77mm -instead of all one size.

The 14 aft  is relatively thin so I decided for this one to make a scarf joint rather than a chock.

I don’t know if mixing was “allowed”-but it's my model!

Made the first like this (14 aft) and made the mistake of tapering to blend the joint widths- ended up with too thin a timbertop.

Asked advice on forum (thank you) and tried the step method-step is only 0.13mm either side.

Next attempt-forgot my intentions and layed out all parts on the 5.3 blank!

Used milling to reduce and realised that difference to my eye was minimal

.Checked my framing plan (rather blurred) -the frames vary in width side to side but barely noticeable  between futtocks.

I’m sticking to uniformity- that is the 5.3 blanks.

Stick the cutouts to another copy of the plan, with generous extra width to allow matching with the neighbouring aft cant. 

Clamp (watch for slippage) and attach a stabilizing bar across top and mark its centre point.

Reference is made to a Greek letter designating the wood to be removed where the bridge of the 2 halves of the frame sit on the sling deadwood. I was lost, so I used a coarse file angled by eye and by trial and error made a rough fit so it could sit at a right angle to the board, and parallel to the cants.

The angle of the feet where it sits on the curved bearding line is sanded- but feet left long for present.

The height that frame sits is determined by the height of 2nd futtock head.

This has to be plotted, as it is not shown on the plans. TFFM explains how -in straightforward fashion, transferring points from aft body plan to the sheer plan. This is compared to actual height .Mine comes out at measured 9.35mm.

 Perhaps by good luck, #14 needs no further attention and can be glued into place, using the upright board of the building slip to check alignment and hold in place.

#14 fore:

The partner with a chock (shaped like short-handled pliers) forming a base between a pair of “wings” each with lower and upper futtocks(1 and2).

As these parts are thicker, I used chocks instead of scarf joints. 

The space between the aft and fore frames measures approx. 3.15 mm on my framing plan. Small spacer laid on deadwood to site the fore piece.

The “seat” on the deadwood was fashioned as before, the feet trimmed, and spacers glued to top of futtocks.

The piece glued to the deadwood with the “dry” spacer temporarily left in place.

Last picture is new measure/marker-very useful

 

 

 

[druxey]

I think you've got the idea now!

[stuglo]

#13 square frames.

Similar to #14 but with a narrower gap with separation  pieces at right angles between the ribs.

The gap is 2.3mm, the pieces 3.71wide. The are set above (3.71) and below(4.7)joint line,with an extra one further up the 2 futtock at14.4mm

After filing the angle and depth of the “seat”, checking the height of the futtock head against the line previously drawn on the sheer plan.

The separation pieces were glued to the (fore aspect) of aft rib, whose seat was then glued to the deadwood.

Remember that the fore piece has the extra height -timberhead.

The chocks are made with a large “tail” for ease of handling. (later removed by spindle sander before fixing the rib to its place.

Filing seat, checking height and symmetry-The front of the seat just covers the end of the deadwood step.  

Small dabs of glue on spacers (extra one at level of deadwood NOT glued to either side).

Several clamps on each side of the pair of ribs to ensure good fit.

Looks good- very satisfying

[stuglo]

#12 square frame

The aft one of the pair is again “cast forward”by 1.06mm-a dogleg that will form an upright for a port.

This means that the upper futtock an extra 1.06mm thick.-total 6.36mm.

The frame also has a timberhead.

Make note of height of sill as the cast must end below this.(11.3cm)

Again postponed making the sill mortise-although easier off model, measurement is too critical.

I started the shift 10mm above the futtock head.The mill was used to remove the necessary wood and a transition slope ,sanded.

Before fixing in place,a critical problem (for me at least) needed to be solved.

The position of frames #12 and #11 are determined by the width of the port opening-the fore #11 forms the second port frame.

This is given in TFFM as 15.1mm-This will mean the frames will need to be somewhat crowded- the usual spacing not working.

My framing pattern does show use of narrower timbers, and less gaps, but also a port opening of 16.3mm. The other ports are however 15.1mm, so I decided for symmetry and same thickness timbers. Fore #12 and aft #11 will be short, supporting the sill, and a narrow gap between them.

Additionally, the #11 pair are again separated by spacers.

Here I found another problem. The rising wood finishes between the pair.I assumed a faint vertical line marked the spot on my sheer pattern.This appears to be too short.

There is a difference in width and I decided to simply narrow the notch of the aft frame.

(If this leads to a problem later on please let me know.)

Also, to ensure my measuring of port gap was correct, I glued together  the #11 pair with their spacers, off the model, and then confirmed my estimate and only then, glued the pair to their seats on the keel.

[tlevine]

I can't answer your question but looking at the pictures it appears that the fourth frame in is tilted starboard.

[stuglo]

4 hours ago, tlevine said:

I can't answer your question but looking at the pictures it appears that the fourth frame in is tilted starboard.

I rechecked- it appears that it is cut "on line" of plan, and its neighbour has extra meat. This emphasizes the advantage of fairing  at stages, so faults and their repair/replacement can be made. 

I THANK YOU AND OTHERS FOR CARING AND CONTRIBUTING

[stuglo]

5 hours ago, stuglo said:

I rechecked- it appears that it is cut "on line" of plan, and its neighbour has extra meat. This emphasizes the advantage of fairing  at stages, so faults and their repair/replacement can be made. 

I THANK YOU AND OTHERS FOR CARING AND CONTRIBUTING

No, I was wrong. With the fairing, the port half was angled incorrectly at the floor. Part removed and remade. Thanks again

[stuglo]

Fairing:

Should be straight forward,using a cutout of the foremost frame as a guide.

Extra strength with the cross spells and a supporting hand did not prevent a complete break through a couple chocks.

Where possible, as a contrast, the chocks were cut cross grain. These were a point of weakness and a mistake. Of course I have been heavy handed with the 80 or 100 sandpaper.

I had to remove the squares and remake the chocks.

Also the spacers at the top of the futtocks kept separating- should have reinforced with trunnels.

When building from scratch, there is much to think about. Even with the wonderful TFFM, something , even basics, is forgotten. 

I’m often learning something new, but forgetting something old-is this intellectual equilibrium or senility?

 

[dvm27]

Its not unusual for the spacers to come apart while fairing, especially with 80 grit paper. Just keep regluing them. I use a softer wood for the spacers (like holly). It's best to use flexible sanding boards while fairing to cover a larger area. Use a light touch at first and constantly reapply pencil lines until all disappear.

Edited January 27, 2021 by dvm27

[stuglo]

Advice appreciated

[stuglo]

#L-fore square frame

Moving to the front of the ship, the FLOOR is now FORE and the aft has the chock.

This fore has a forward facing dog leg.

The gap between its companion is for a sill-thus 15.11mm.

Firstly, as for aft frames,plot 2nd futtock height on the sheer plan.#L=9.2mm.

This fore part also has the timberhead.

Lookin at my framing plan, it seems that the start of the dog leg is lower -as are the others not yet built.

The card pattern seemed OK but when I made the actual piece, there was a misalignment with the fore cants. Rechecking, these seemed to be 1 or 2 mm out.I think that when the spacers separated when fairing, I stuck them back as individuals to its neighbour without checking the whole run.

With a mdf profile, I unglued and re-stuck in the corrected position.

It is important to ensure that the angle of the cants remains at 90deg vertical while following the angle to the keel. Some of mine needed improvement -I altered the thickness of some of the spacers as required.

The inner aspect of the #L was now slightly too narrow, so I remade it with more spare than usual.

Allowance for angle of cant means that the seat of #L is less than the 15.1mm distance of the sill .Used a sizing block.

 

#K frame

Referred to as a frame bend- separated by a number of spacers- as #13-above and below the joint lines. 

The fore of the pair has the timberhead.

The aft sits on a wider part of the keel and needs to be adapted as not shown on the plan. 

The “legs” astride the keel are shorter so for extra stability I put a slightly thicker (0.8mm) bamboo trunnel at this stage.

The futtock head height is 8.9mm as I measured it.

 

[stuglo]

# J square frames.

Reviewing Kevin Kenny’s video, using the 5 min. Epoxy for its greater strength, non-adhesive clear paper (greaseproof) to reduce mess and pining the parts to the board through the wood, for fixation while assembling and drying. 

I’ve had issues with movement and breakages despite trying to ensure a good fit at the joints.

Can I blame the weather ?- from winter to spring and back again every few days-10c+rain then 25c+.

#H and #J are “connected” so may assemble off keel first.

#J- no timberheads.

2nd futtock height 8.7mm

There are mortises on aft aspect of aft rib of the pair-for the sweep port sills.

The given measurements in TFFM (scale metric) -2mm thick sills forming a port of 4.24mm square.

My framing plans have blurred lines, but these ports look rectangular.

Until now have postponed making these mortises, having tried and failed on practice pieces.

To make this after attaching the frames looked even more difficult.

I milled the mortise calculating the height of the lower edge from the sheer plan-10.4mm from base. Although square, I think I can fake the “angle”  appearance later.

I don’t know if intentional, but the 5in horizontal line on frame plan is the same distance from the seat as my keel is high (0.95mm)

Therefore by putting the frame on its plan, it was easily marked.

# H

Another bend pair - spacers separating the pair as before.

The fore aspect has the matching mortises for the sweep ports.

The aft aspect of same frame has a mortise for a port-starting at same height but allowing for sill of thickness of 2.65mm (marked by placing on #J frame plan)

The height of the port is 14.1mm with an upper mortise of 6.3mm.

Assembling these frames on the keel, the frames are too aft on the keel.

Revised my decision, and recut sills to form a sweep port width of 3.5mm (equivalent to 6.6in not the 8in)

The aft of #H is still 2mm aft of its line. Need to compensate,

The picture is pre-fairing and shows excessive “spare”

The bird is an Egyptian Goose and chicks seen on walk at local pond yesterday.

 

[stuglo]

#G

Fore of pair -scarph joint-will be shortened to be under the port.

Aft-with toptimber-also shifted foreward and with motises for sill foreward and mortises for sweep ports aft.

Not worked on ship for a couple of days and when rechecking height of sills, some discrepancy between port and starboard is noted. Frames J and H tilted and reset

Further confusion. On my (not so clear) framing plan, there seems to be a variation in size of ports (by height) and the sweep ports do not measure as  square-3.5mmwide and 4.2 high.  

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP AND CLARIFY THIS.

 

[dvm27]

The framing plan is a rough indication of where things are located but use the sheer plan lofted by David Antscherl for actual locations and heights. All gun and sweep ports, as created by installing the sills, should run in a fair line from fore to aft. Maybe use a thin batten to insure they are all in a fair line.

[stuglo]

Thanks for you interest.

The sweep ports as shown appear rectangular, not square. Is this possible or likely?

If only square acceptable, I have 2 options:- 

I. the 8ins as mentioned in TFFM

2. smaller i.e. my width squared.

The problem with the 8 ins. means spacing between other frames will be narrowed significantly.

        The other "varient" is the difference in height of port openings- while the width seems similar-? artifact or real. 

[stuglo]

Fairing frames #G to #L

I’m having more trouble with these  than the numbered aft frames.

Is it my DYSLEXIA?

With the frames viewed as a group, it is obvious that J fore too thin-removed and remade.

The group still looks mal-aligned after some initial sanding. It appears that the depth of the seating notch are not accurate enough , so the curves are out.

Decided to remove all, as the problem seems to start with #L. Fortunately they are glued to the keel with PVA -alcohol does the job.

Each frame rechecked against the plans

Remake #k and #L (it was mistakenly misplaced with #H and overly faired)

Second futtock and port heights double checked.

Fairing inside is difficult and the curves require various techniques, and less opportunity to use electrical tools.

Reduced tendency for upper spacers to separate by using a cut rubber band to brace them.

I am leaving final faring and finish until all frames are in place.

 

*** Unhappy with the appearance of frames fore and aft of the sweep port. The distance between #J and #H is 4.24mm. This means the space between the pair of J’s is narrowed to 1.5mm.The space after is fixed as it is a bend pair.It looks weird.

I’m thinking of making #J aft with a forward shift.

Opinions and advice please.

 

[stuglo]

NB

Just noticed that #g aft is seated 1.5mm too high.

[stuglo]

# J

Decided to go ahead and “shift” so gap between frames is more balanced. 

I think it looks better and more realistic.

Read ahead on vol2 TFFM - realised I must double estimated for time to completion. 

[stuglo]

Square frames #10to-#6

#10-straightforward

Just remember that floor is aft and maintain position to the horizontal line  as marked on the breadth plan.

#9-spacers and fore with timberhead

As these are “simpler” I made them with less “spare” and used as a more accurate guide to fairing.

Double check that the frames are “vertical”-90deg to the building board.

#8- Aft with timberhead and forward shift.

Forgot to mill mortises and only noticed after fitting the next set of frames- maybe for the best and decide to leave to later.

#7 - a bend pair (with spacers)

The frame spacing on the breadth  plan and framing plan needs to accommodate this spacing as well as the port gap between aft#8 and fore#7.

I narrow spacers to 2mm

Perhaps if I had made the frames with diminishing thickness, this would be less of a problem. (If and when I repeat this build, this is what I will do)

#6- the aft must accommodate the sweep port. It has a shift foreward low at 1st futtock.

Again, spacing on keel needs reassessing with each placement.

 

Some delay since last post -work and family restrict building time-conflict of priorities!!

I post a picture of a younger member of the family- dressed up  as “Woody”

From Toy Story. The name justifies the connection to the hobby

[stuglo]

Return to lettered frames.

#F- my framing plan seems to show a thinned fore face of the fore upper futtock to allow for sweep port. 

Decided again to postpone mortesses until framing completed to avoid height issues.( Although using the mill before fitting, mistakes may necessitate remaking frame.

#E- no shift mentioned, but will need one aft to accommodate another sweep port. 

#D-  In order to allow sweep port foreward and gun port aft ,fore D is straight ie without shift, a wider 3mm space needed between seats of #E aft and #D foreward.

   #D is also a bend pair-spacers required.

#C-aft has forward shift for port . The distance between these frame determined by port width and therefore between #Cfore and #Daft, only 1mm.Between #C’s, 2mm

NOTICED MAJOR ERROR. The earlier shifts were cast i.e.dog leg. This was employed incorrectly on some frames such as #G. I think I can correct this with a file while frame attached- I don’t particularly want to remove and rebuild. 

#B- spacers On framing plan, more and different pattern, but same plan doesn’t show anything special either side of the central #0, which is clear on individual frame plans of TFFM. Will therefore continue pairs of spacers as before.

 

Return to numbered frames. 

ANOTHER MISTAKE.

My reference mark on frame/plan is now obscured, and some movement seems to have occurred. Premarking frame placing is difficult as this is determined as the build develops.

Using the aft point of keel and joints near the stem, gives some discrepancy. I can’t understand why. I've checked multiple times. Difficult to blame expansion or contraction of wood.

The difference is only couple of mm, but I will have to treat the remaining frames as a group, so as to maintain consistent gaps while maintaining rules for port widths.

 

#5- Aft timberhead. Fore foreward shift ? to avoid too large a gap when the aft#4 also shifts.

#4- aft has a foreward cast (dogleg) . I now remember the difference.

       Fore- simple 

#3 Bend pair- spacers

#2 Aft shifted forward.for sweep port

 

I’ve mentioned problems with spacing to allow for these sweep ports. In truth, lost sleep over this. Caught up with Kevin’s video, where he mentions thousand confirms the solution I had been toying with only as I was unsure if “acceptable”.He points out the plan actually show the opening into the frame itself one one side. Now I can SEE the solution for myself once my attention is drawn to it.

(How often in life is something obvious once it has been highlighted- in medicine we often see cases after a certain syndrome or sign is reported , as if it previously didn’t exist)

[stuglo]

#B

A pair of bend frames, but they are shown on framing plan with a larger number of spacers (but the but where this should happen is not so marked) I assume this is a mistake. Spacing foreward must allow for a sweep port.

The narrowing gap between this pair and #2 is important so as to allow remaining frames to be placed with appropriate spacing.

Measured and calculated several times, the gap on the keel seems  barely to be enough

.

#A fore-regular

     Aft a shift forward which at its upper futtock, widens to close gap to neighbouring fore#1.

This is to accommodate a pulley block above the sweep port (to be inserted later). I used a wider (7.3mm)blank and milled the aft  part for the shift and lower fore part so the upper part remaining closed the gap to the next frame.

 

# The remaining frames :

 Some confusion with the order/numbering.

With various hints and referral to the framing plan, it seems the order is (going forward) :-

Pair #1 (bend), #1B, #1A, #1O,#O (center) #AO, #A1

 

#1B - shift aftward and sweep port recessed more so gap to next frame is narrower than usual

 

# O- thinner frame -4.77mm-and each joint is framed by spacers on either side (also narrower than usual). The frame plans suggest fixing the first to the frames fore and aft (#O1 and #OA) but I felt easier to match by fixing the to both sides of #O.

Note these three all have cross chocks as bases.

 

Spaces between these frames are also narrower and as I seemed to be running out of space on the keel, made them at 1.60mm.

Nevertheless, when I dry fitted the last few frames I lacked 4mm. Not much, but the crowding was unacceptable.

 

One cause was the extra width allowed for the sweep ports until I learned that they were “countersunk” or recessed.

Anyway, some of the frames were not very good and I’d already made some other gaps too narrow.

Most of the problems were among the lettered frames ( that dyslexia again).

I removed most of the frames (alcohol) and remade completely 3 (#J,#H,#F)

Changed the casts to shifts where I had earlier made mistakes.

After a couple of days of remedial modelling, all fit with the appropriate spacing.

 

8 months of work -frustrating and satisfying- much progress in understanding and craft, but a landmark. Still to make ports, fairing etc and still on ch 3 vol 1 (of 3), but a landmark nevertheless. 

IF I CAN DO IT, SO CAN YOU!!

[druxey]

If you only took eight months to get this far on a hobby-time basis with a young family as well as work, I'm impressed! That's a major achievement for a first fully framed hull. The pay-off will be as you sand everything to a fair surface.

[stuglo]

8 hours ago, druxey said:

If you only took eight months to get this far on a hobby-time basis with a young family as well as work, I'm impressed! That's a major achievement for a first fully framed hull. The pay-off will be as you sand everything to a fair surface.

You flatter me. I'm 72 and work part time

[druxey]

OK, I'll take that back, then!

[stuglo]

Fairing the hull

 

This is THE most frustrating and boring task in POF model building. 

With POB, only need to do the outside of the hull, which is much easier. 

This is my 3rd POF so I knew what to expect. 

For those who complain about ratlines, believe me that tying those knots are an erotic experience when compared to fairing the inner hull.

A more accurate forming of the frames could reduce this, but with so many variables, more mistakes and consequent rebuild would be necessary.

The whole structure is unstable, anchored only at keel and top of upper futtock

.The spacers between the upper futtocks still occasionally separate despite reinforcing the glue with treenails.

Starting with the outer shell -easier access and less curves, and allowing the strengthening cross stays to remain in place.

Immediately, the center O frame broke and was remade.

I placed a baton (temporarily) about the upper hull for added rigidity. Fitting this with some brass nails seemed the easiest solution.

Referring to the half-breadth line, reduces worries about removing too much.

The inner hull has various curves which demand a variety of solutions for sanding, but mainly short, curved and narrow  sanding blocks, and loops of sandpaper strips wrapped around the knuckles.

 

As I said, boring and frustrating.

[dvm27]

Boring, frustrating but ultimately satisfying. I usually start with 80 grit paper.

[druxey]

I find flexible wood sanding sticks with a small handle helpful for inner fairing, other than at the extreme ends of the hull. Starting to look good inside, Stuglo!

[WalrusGuy]

2 minutes ago, stuglo said:

boring and frustrating

But once done it looks so good! It's very satisfying seeing the smooth curves! 🙂