Young America 1853 by EdT - FINISHED - extreme clipper

[EdT]

As always, thanks for the generous comments and for the likes.  I'm a bit behind in the followups but I will respond to some of the comments.

 

Martin, your comments bring back memories.  I guess I can understand, at least on a logical level, the need of the Science Museum to focus on Science, even though the loss of that exhibit saddens me.  One question:  Who is NR?  I had understood that George Campbell did the text drawings and large drawings for Anatomy.  Was there another hand at work?

 

Alan, technology marches on.  I well understand the nostalgia for things past, but the engineer in me is drawn to new methods.   I did all the many drawings for my first model ( a picture above) with the instruments you describe and did the drawings for Naiad and Young America using two different CAD programs.  Both methods have their challenges, believe me.  While there is little question that the manual skills necessary to produce a good, much less perfect, drawing by hand are not essential to the use of CAD, there are other challenges.  As one example, for one who used a lot more eraser than lead, there are some obvious advantages in making corrections.  But to me the real advantage of CAD to the ship modeler is precision.  The ability to produce a one-pixel width pattern line with mathematical precision has great advantages in small scale work  This has yet to be widely appreciated where there is a pencil-dominated tradition, but the change will happen and the models will get better.

 

Bob, the model looks fantastic.  I am delighted to see your work.  You are right to be vigilant on alignment issues.  This is a long, gracefully shaped hull that will show imperfection.  Misalignment will also drive you crazy when you go to work on the decks.  You make an excellent point on the five minute epoxy.  Longer working time would be an advantage.  I have since moved to a 30-minute product for that reason.  As far as peening of copper wire epoxied bolts, I do not recall doing that and will need to look at the book.  I believe all I did on those was to clip off and file off the ends and excess glue.  Where copper wire was used a "nails" without glue, peening was definitely done as they were hammered in - for example on the iron strapping and on fastening of Naiad's iron knees.   I also would endorse your decision to get the deck clamps in early.

 

Like Mike Y, I would love to see you do a build log - as you already know.

 

Roger, I love your suggestion on the microwave.  Brilliant.

 

Ed

[tkay11]

There is no problem with seeing any of the models that were in the Science Museum. All you have to do is email them with a list of the models or model types that you would like to see and they will send a spreadsheet with the details of everything you asked for including the places where they are stored and their full provenance. You then send them an email specifying the places you'd like to visit and they will arrange an appointment for you to visit that place. I have now done that with their storage units in Blythe Road and at Chatham (as documented in several previous posts).

 

What's more, when you're there, the curators will spend the entire time with you should you wish to discuss the models. In general they give a 2 hour time slot but you can request more.

 

You are free to photograph as much as you like.

 

The huge benefit of this is that you can be as close to the model as you wish although they don't really like you touching the models. So there's no glass screens through which you have to photograph.

 

I find this an amazing service. What's more it's entirely free, and that includes free entry to Chatham should you find models stored there that you want to see.

 

Tony

[EdT]

Thank you very much, Tony, for this information.  I have visited the model store at Chatham and was aware of their service, but was not aware of a similar service for the Science Museum models.  I am sure this will be most helpful to modelers who may wish to visit.

 

Many thanks,

 

Ed

[MartinCJM]

Ed, double goof on my part: 1) NR should have been NL - Nepean Longridge, heaven alone knows how my brain rendered L as R, must be the onset of antiquity - and 2) I hadn't realised that it was George Campbell who did the drawings for Anatomy. A fine artist, witness his illustrations for China Tea Clippers. (Completely off-piste, China Tea Clippers features a magnificent Montagu Dawson painting on its cover, showing Taeping and Ariel hammering up the Channel at the end of their 'race' from Foochow in 1866. When I was growing up, a print of a different Dawson Painting, but featuring the same clippers, hung on our living room wall - another contributor to a lifelong interest. Curiously, unlike the vast majority of Dawson paintings, this one was not a straightforward ship portrait: the point of view was about twenty feet up in the leeward foremast shrouds (of Ariel, I think), looking down on frantic activity on the foredeck, with the other ship (Taeping, it would have to be) half a mile ahead and to windward, with furled royals and skysails and no stuns'ls. Must have been blowing a bit! Wonderfully atmospheric. The painting now hangs in my hallway.)

 

Tony, great to hear that the Science Museum collection is still accessible. I need to plan a trip to the Smoke!  

 

Bob, a most excellent rendition of YA - can we see more?

 

Martin

Edited February 1, 2017 by MartinCJM

[Capt.Bob]

Thank you all for your kind remarks.

 

Roger:  It is a neat trick for quick results.  I have used it on occasion in the past with softer woods like balsa.  Rather than boiling water, I would tightly wrap the pieces in a paper towel saturated with water.  The towel provided a sufficient supply of moisture and enough pressure to help force steam into the material. Hard woods may not be quite as easy.  I can tell you that without sufficient moisture you can set the piece on fire.  I'd rather not explain how I know this.

 

I ran several build threads on RC Universe while building large RC airplanes.  I would build one project a year, which usually took 6-8 months.  Progress on airplanes can be quite dramatic and very conducive to photo essays rather than dialogue.  The YA project, at least for me, is a very long term affair.  I have no illusions about ever completing it.  I not sure that I have enough years left.  However, it has become one of the most rewarding projects I have ever attempted.  It is truly the journey and not the destination that is of the most value.  In the meantime I have my books, music, woodshop, and time spent in the country club bar with friends lying about my golf game.  Honestly, I couldn't be happier than to sit and the feet of the Master and enjoy the beauty of his work.  With Ed's indulgence I will be happy to inject a brief update now and then.

 

For the Master: After resolving approximately 150 data points I have come to the conclusion that the correct dimension between the top surface of the three deck clamps is 84". Please confirm.   I have attributed any significant data variation to print distortion and measurement error.  As a means of eliminating as much error as possible I am designing a jig to set the middle and lower deck clamps using the main deck clamp as a datum.  These feature are so fundamental that it deserves extra effort.

 

I'm a little surprised that I appear to be the only one enjoying the build of such a great vessel.  Also, what man can pass up an excuse to buy more tools.  Just for prospective I've attached a photo of where the ship was born.  12 bdf of 8/4 Swiss pear.

 

Later,  Bob

 

 

[Roger Pellett]

Bob, I used the microwav to bend a piece of 1/8 x 2/16in pear the other day. It worked fine. I also have a wooden steam box powered by a "Wagner Power (wallpaper) Steamer) that I built for steaming canoe ribs and planking but it is a hassle to set it up for a little model part.

 

By the way, if you can build a model like YA the way you are doing it, you don't need to lie about your golf game!

 

Roger

[rwiederrich]

Extremely done.......fantastic work.

 

Rob

[EdT]

Hi Bob,

 

If by the master you mistakenly mean me, I will try to answer.

 

 Unfortunately, the heights of decks were not included on the original builders offsets.  Crothers used a height of about 7'9" from top of beam to top of beam on the centerline.  I adopted his dimensions, measured from his 1:96 drawing.  The comparable heights at the side will vary due to the constant round up radius of the deck beams and the varying width of the hull.  The red lines on Drawing 5 define the heights at the side with reasonable accuracy.  I believe I recommended using these lines to measure deck heights at the side.  Due to drawing issues in creating long fair lines in bezier curves where there are many points, the fairness of the deck lines at the side (or on the centerline) is not perfect, but close enough for the purpose.  Using battens and a few points along the side will yield fair lines well within acceptable accuracy.  The heights should then be made equal on the opposite side.  A constant differential in deck lines at the side would have saved me many hours of drafting work and might help you as well, but alas, it would be incorrect - at least given the assumptions on the centerline heights.

 

If you want to do an exercise, measure heights at the side from cross-section drawings where the beam round up is shown.  You might want to verify heights at the center before using these.  Hopefully they should match the red lines on Drawing 5.  I do not recall doing this level of checking.  Maybe I'll try a few.

 

Ed

[EdT]

An additional comment, Bob.  I should have mentioned, that the line of the main deck at the side is the most important to have correct.  This line runs parallel to the planksheer, which is defined on the builder's offsets. This line defines the underside of the planksheer rail and the upper face of the main deck waterway that rests on it.  You will see from the list of dimensions that the main deck waterway is 11" deep.  Since this waterway rests on the 12" deep main deck beams at the side, the top of the main deck clamps should be 23" (11+12) below the planksheer.  This relationship holds over most of the length, but forward of about  Frame line T the depth of the waterway begins to reduce to about 9" at the stem.  The red line on drawing 5 reflects this relationship with the planksheer line that is shown on drawings 3 and 4.  Its a nasty little complication that you need to keep in mind.  This change in waterway depth is referenced on pp160-61 and p 185.  You will see that installing the planksheer rail later, as a practical matter, its height will be set by the waterway installed earlier.

 

If this is too confusing, let me know.  My best advice is to set the deck clamps to the red lines on drawing 5, as indicated in the book.

 

Martin, I again passed over your note.  Bob's questions always get my juices flowing.  I am familiar with Dawson's painting of Taeping and Ariel as well as others, including the one from above the deck that you mention.  When I was working in the West end in 1969-71, the painting was on display in a the Bond Street Gallery that carried his work.  I had two prints hanging in our home for years, Constituion and Java and one of an unnamed (or forgotten) Spanish ship.  I've always loved his work.

 

Ed

[Capt.Bob]

Ed,

Thanks for the explanation.  I still have some confusion. The height at Sta 28 from the keel to the "Top of Wale" & "Red Line" on dqgs 4 & 5 respectively in the same. On dwg 4 from the Wale to the planksheer is 30", but on dwg 5 the planksheer is only 23".  What am I missing??

 

I couldn't find any 24 awg wire in my vast pile of stuff, so while ordering some other things I ordered a roll.  I didn't realize it at the time, but its a roll of just over 800' of wire.  That should be enough.  Also, I have never been pleased with epoxy bonds to metal, especially quick curing ones. Its hard to keep wire really clean when constantly handling small pieces. This new roll has a .001" plastic coating of some sort and it seems to bond well.  I did some pull test with the coated and bear wire. The bare wire bond failed adhesively, but the coated wire failed cohesively. I have some West One epoxy left over from the days when my garage was a boat shop.  It has a 12 hour cure time and if I spread a small puddle on a piece of wax paper I can extend the working time to over an hour.

 

I've started pining the main deck clamp.  I hope everything is in the right place.

Its 2:30AM, time to quite.

 

Thanks for all the help,

 

Bob

Edited February 3, 2017 by Capt.Bob

[EdT]

Hi Bob,

 

I did not include the thickness of the planksheer rail in the calculation because the line of the planksheer is taken at the underside of the rail, so everything is measured downward from there.  The planksheer is 6" deep.  I hope I have not mentioned 7" anywhere that would cause confusion.  Both the text and the List of Dimensions show 6".

 

Metal to wood joints can be an issue.  I have found that working the epoxy into the bolt hole helps, but the normal adhesion issues still apply.  Slower curing epoxies may be better.  Perhaps application early in the cure cycle improves adhesion. I haven't a clue.  In any case, longer cure times is a benefit for the other reasons mentioned above. I use only uncoated wire so when it is used for fittings or in other exposed applications it may be blackened - also for soldering.

 

If you are functioning at 230 am, you have my admiration.  My effectiveness - at just about anything - ceases after dinner at 7.

 

Ed

[Capt.Bob]

Ed,

Its now 5:30AM and I'm up worrying.  I checked the cross section view at sta 25 and recognized the thickness of the rail.  My measurements were al little off.  6" makes everything come out right.

 

I'm going back to bed!!

 

Bob

[EdT]

Although the drawings are pretty accurate, always refer to the List.  Sleep tight.

 

Ed

[EdT]

Bob, in looking at your earlier note I see that you edited the text.  I cannot understand the altered question relating to wale height etc.  Was this question superseded by your last note?  Are we good, or do you need some further clarification?  There is no wale line on Drawing 5, which is an internal view.  The 23" distance from the planksheer to the wale is consistent on Drawings 1, 3, and 4.  All appears correct to me, but... if you have questions....

 

Ed

[Capt.Bob]

We're good.

Bob

[EdT]

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 193 – First Rigging Work

 

It has been quite a long time, relatively speaking, since the last posted update.  I have been very busy, but with little progress that is visible on the model.  Decisions and documentation for the rigging have been major, time consuming efforts.  Because rigging was undergoing a transition at the time – from rope to wire or chain, to the use of iron fittings like shackles, and many other things, there are choices to be made.  Some require a modeling solution before they can be adopted.  The idea of arbitrary choices may seem odd, but I am using more than half a dozen sources, old and new, they all differ and few are date based or specific as to merchant vs. navy.

 

It may seem surprising, but the first rigging to be done will be the topmast futtock shrouds.  I plan to install these on the masts after the tops have been fixed and before the masts are stepped.  I have sidelined that work pending resolution of the futtock shroud design.

 

I number of issues have to be decided.  The first was rope vs. iron bar.  I have decided on rope.  Then there is material – linen vs. cotton.  I would like to use linen on the standing rigging that will be modeled taut.  I have been making a lot of sample rope using the six sizes of thread in my inventory to decide how to make each size.  Then there are questions on fastenings: hooks, shackles or lashed eyes.  I have tentatively decided on hooks with thimbles at the deadeye straps and lashed eyes at the mast eyebolts.

 

I have just a few pictures illustrating some of the test work.  None of this is finished product.  The first picture shows a blackened hook and thimble, an unblackened thimble made from thin-wall, 1mm, brass tube, and the tool used to shape the thimble flares.

 

 

The flaring tool was turned from a bit of drill rod, then hardened.  It will probably be replaced with a better shape.  I may or may not pre-fabricate the hooks and thimbles.  

 

Thimbles at this time were becoming more heart shaped and open at the throat.  Although Longridge describes a method, I could not do it at this size.  Also, thimbles were not black – another issue.  I also have to decide how far down in rope size to use thimbles.

 

 There are some advantages, to pre-fabbing the hooked thimbles but more test work is needed.  The next picture shows an alternate approach where the eye is formed first, the thimble inserted, flared in place, the area over the splice served and the serving used to tighten the throat.

 

 

The picture shows two sizes of thimble 1mm and 1.5mm – another decision.  A length of rope, ~6" in this case, was served first. 

 

The eye splice was made by looping the served line and gluing it below the throat.  When dry, the excess was trimmed off the splice and the thimble inserted.  The splice was then served with thinned glue to strengthen the joint and tighten the throat.  The hooks were then formed in the eye.

 

The last picture shows a closer view.

 

 

I like this method but the metal parts will need to be blackened first and that raises issues in forming the hooks.  The shapes of the splices will get better.  These test pieces were made in the space of about an hour, so I had to be careful with the unhardened glue joints.

 

And so it goes…

 

Ed

[Mahuna]

Hi Ed:

 

I've been doing some experimenting with rigging for a future Skipjack build, and have a few thoughts to contribute:

 

Wire shrouds can be made from nichrome wire, which comes in very small sizes.  I've made cable using 32 gauge wire, and the cable measures out at .015", which is slightly smaller than 1/2" at the 1:32 scale I'll be working at.  The final cable is somewhat shiny but does give the impression of a steel cable.  I was able to tone down the shine by using some ebony Rub'n'Buff.

 

As for thimbles that won't be blackened, I was able to find some very small tubing made from aluminum - this may work for you.

 

I've read (in Ken Foran's book on Model Building with Brass) that copper can be electroplated  to a nickel finish - this may work for hooks, etc that should not be blackened.

[EdT]

Thanks for the input, Frank.  I will look into the Aluminum tubing.  There is a small amount of wire cable on the model, but it is a long way off and I have not begun to play with that yet.  I think the hooks will be OK black.

 

Ed 

[Mahuna]

Here's a link to Special Shapes - aluminum tubing is available down to 1/16 OD.

 

http://www.specialshapes.com/rdalum014.html

[wefalck]

I believe a lot of the standard iron-work, such as thimbles, shackles etc., that would have been factory-made would have been zinc-plated at that time already, rather than painted black. If you use brass for the parts, they can be chucked into self-tinning solution, which looks quite convincing like zinc afterwards. If you desire such look, you can slightly 'weather' it by rubbing a soft lead-pencil over it.

 

I gather brass tubing is available down to 0.3 mm I.D. with a wall thickness of 0.1 mm. You may need to anneal the tubing before forming the thimble. Bernard Fröhlich shows in his book a tool similar to the one you are using, but with a punch and an anvil. One can use this on a pillar-drill with a depth stop, or the best choice would be a so-called jeweling-press as watchmakers use it:

 

They have a micro-meter depth-stop and are quite cheap to obtain, when they don't have the tooling with it anymore. In our case, we would make the tooling ourselves anyway.

[lagrayjr]

Ed,have you considered using the photo-etching process to make the hooks and or thimbles? The thimbles could be made out of thicker material and heart shaped. Laman

[EdT]

Thank you all for the comments and likes - and for the suggestions.

 

Frank, I have ordered Aluminum tube in sizes from .4 to 1 mm diameter and I will give it a try.  I have some concern about galvanic corrosion with the brass hooks.  The anodic differential between these materials is borderline with a controlled environment and in the danger zone with "normal" conditions.  My preference is to stay with brass pieces.  I may be able to "grey" them with heat.

 

Wefalck, that is an impressive device.  An alternative I have considered is the use the milling machine as a press and I expect to try that.  I am not excited about tinning pieces of this size, but I will give Frolich's book a look.  I had not thought to look at it for this.  Also, I must look into the galvanizing - or zinc coating - of these parts in the 1850s.  I believe the thimbles were straight zinc and the hooks would be iron.  Thanks for the tips.

 

Laman, I did a fair amount of photo-etching on Naiad, on the plate knees, capstan rings and on parts of the stove.  I do not see it as a means to make thimbles since they are not flat.  On the hooks, these need to be threaded through the thimbles so would have to be made with a break.  Also they are rounded in shape and rather thick for photo-etching.  As far as the photo-etch process itself, while very useful for some things, it is not something I am anxious to return to, but thanks for the suggestion.

 

So, thanks for these comments - got me thinking and doing some followup.

 

Ed

[Roger Pellett]

Ed,

 

I experimented with spinning these on a lathe using a male die and pressure from the tailstock. It formed a nice flare on the tube.

 

Roger

[wefalck]

Even without spinning, the lathe might be a good idea for forming the thimbles, as the dies can be held in the headstock and tailstock respectively. Pressure then can be applied using the tailstock handwheel, which also has micro-meter ...

[EdT]

I checked out the tool Frolisch describes for making thimbles.  It is a two part die with each piece shaped to form a flare.  One part has a spindle to fit the hole in the thimble blank, the other a hole to fit the spindle.  with the thimble place on the spindle  flares on both sides are formed when the die is closed under pressure.  The "female" part of the die must have a very fine edge at the end.  Presumably separate dies would be needed for different sizes.  

 

Yes, the lathe could also be used, with the added benefit of being permanently centered if a two part die is used.  The mill would have to be centered in this case, unless a flat surface is used to do one side at a time.

 

Ed

[wefalck]

Fröhlich's tool is hand-held. That's why he needs a female part, to guide the male part ... If you are using the tool in a lathe (or in a press like the one shown above) the machine does the centering and you get away with two - easier to make - male parts. I would use a piece of silver-steel (drill-rod for the North Americans) and turn on in the middle a somewhat elongated circular groove with approximately the radius of the radius of the rope for which the thimble is to be made. The material that is left standing in the groove will have to have the interior diameter of the thimble. You then cut the rod in the middle of the groove, harden it and, voilá, you have your forming tools. Hardening may not even be necessary, as you not going to bang the tool, but just gently push it with the tailstock. You will probably have to experiment a bit with the diameter of the rod and the length of the tube section to arrive at a good shape for the thimbles.

 

Incidentally, many years ago, when I had no sophisticated tools at all, I made thimbles from very thin cored soldering wire that can be easily flared out. I think I used a rotary burr for the purpose.

[EdT]

Thanks for all the ideas for making the thimbles and hooks.  I spent some time yesterday making and testing the steel male/female punch set that Frolich describes.  For those without his book, the punch is in two parts, a female piece with a hole bored and a rounded cusp formed on the top around the hole.  The second, male part, has a rod turned to fit the hole with a rounded fillet at its base.  The thimble ring is slipped on the rod , the rod slipped into the hole and the piece tapped with a hammer to shape the flare.  Also, he turns a groove into the perimeter before forming.  His thimbles are made from 2mm diameter tube - according to the book.  If I read correctly, he does not use thimbles with hooks - only a rope eye.  He does not mention smaller thimbles.  I think this is very reasonable, considering that at the smaller sizes the thimbles will be almost invisible.

 

For the two sizes of thimbles that I expect to use ( 1mm and 1.5mm tube), the extended rods on the male parts of the die are very small - .5mm and .8mm, making this piece extremely fragile for use as a punch.  Frolich's rod is larger at 1.2mm, which is a much more practical size for this method.  The other problem with the device at this size is the feather edge on the female die.  It wears quickly and when rounded imparts a recess in the thimble where a smooth flare should be.  

 

In retrospect, when I ask myself what problem I am trying to solve, I feel quite happy with my simple punch where the biggest problem is the very small pieces falling off the anvil, bouncing on to the floor and becoming lost.  Actually, handling the small parts is the only real issue.  I think a larger steel plate - maybe I'll work at the cast iron table on my full size circular saw -  will solve the one problem I am having with these.

 

So, it never hurts to explore new ideas.  Today i expect to get back to my masts - while the snow piles up outside.

 

Ed

[druxey]

I don't know whether this will work at your scale, but I cut short lengths of tube, just a little wider than the thickness of the thimble, and flare each end with a centerpunch (light spring setting!) on a steel surface.

Edited February 9, 2017 by druxey

[EdT]

Thanks, Druxey.  That is pretty much what I am doing, except I tap it lightly.  Works fine.  Made a couple dozen 1.5mm size in an hour yesterday.  Not a major issue.

 

I still have to decide how far down in size to go with this.  I'd like to be able to get down to about 5 1/4" rope (.025") to be able to do the standing lifts on the 6 topsail yards, but have not tried that size yet.  There will definitely be a break point.

 

On Frank.s (mahuna) suggestion, I ordered some small (1mm, .8mm, .6mm!, .4mm!!)Aluminum tube, which I will test, but I may not be able to get comfortable with the dissimilar metals issue.

 

Anyway, there has been no shortage of suggestions.  Thanks everyone.

 

Ed

[druxey]

I suggested the centerpunch for consistency of 'strike'.