Bateau de Lanvéoc by JacquesCousteau - Scale 1:32 - From Ancre Plans

[JacquesCousteau]

Thanks, Keith! I'll definitely do a test to see how it handles sanding--the interior bottom isn't faired yet and some frames need a good bit of sanding, so I'd hate to add the wire pin and find that it impedes fairing.

 

I know I must sound like a broken record at this point, but the cant frames continue to give me a lot of trouble. As mentioned above, the D frames stuck out way too much, forming a bulge that would be impossible to fair without sanding nearly through the frames. In fact, trying to bend my thinnest batten around this point cracked the wood! I was going to shift the frames a little higher on the deadwood, but before doing so, I checked the height if the top frame end above the bottom of the keel against the plans, and found that the frames were already a good bit higher than they should have been. After some consideration, I ended up trimming material off the bottom, which lowers them slightly and brings the frames in a bit, getting rid of the problematic bulge in the hull. The issue now is that the frames are technically cut shorter at the bottom end than they are shown on the plans, even considering the width of the deadwood. That said, I then realized that the width of the deadwood on the cant frames would have to measured not across the beam, but at the same diagonal as the cant frames. Considering this, they're closer to what's given in the plans. In any case, they seem to be a lot fairer now based on running battens around them, although it's all a little hard to tell given how much fairing is needed. I guess I'll have to see how it goes when I get to fairing, and at worst will have to just cut them out again and make new ones.

 

I've also started on cant frame C at the bow--just the port frame so far--and similarly am having a lot of trouble with it. I'm constantly shaping it slightly, offering it up to the hull and checking with battens inside and out, and trimming it again, while keeping an eye on the height of its tip. I'm not quite their yet, but, while I've trimmed a surprising amount off the bottom, it seems from the battens like it will fair up well?

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm still enjoying the build, but as I've already mentioned quite a few times, I really wish the plan set had more accurately depicted how the cant frames intersect the keel/deadwood/stem, as this is really causing a lot of stressful confusion that could have been avoided.

[JacquesCousteau]

A bit more work, and I finished the cant frames at the stern. Once again, this took quite a bit of adjusting the fit bit by bit until they lined up. There's quite a curve around them to meet the sternpost, but fairing should smooth that out a bit and there don't seem to be any bulges or anything. This will be a very challenging stern to plank, though!

 

 

 

 

Next up will be the bow cant frames. As I've mentioned before, the frame drawings for cant frames A and B, which run partway down the stem, don't really show their ends:

 

So, as I'll have to do a lot of trial and error to fit these in, I decided to add a batten to help get the rough fit right. It was a lot easier to glue this in with the hull removed from the jig. They're just glued temporarily to some frames and have been left unglued at the bow, where I can use a clamp to fit them into place.

[Paul Le Wol]

Beautiful framework Jacques!

[JacquesCousteau]

Thanks, Paul!

 

I've found the time to make a bit more progress on this build. 

 

First, the keelson. This is just a long strip of wood, slightly tapered at both extremes. I'm making mine slightly longer than given on the plans to better cover the messy joints of cant frames C. Each end was also angled on the underside to better fit against the frames there. 

 

 

After a good bit of fairing, it fits smoothly across the frames, except for at frame 2 near the bow. I'm not sure if I cut the floor too thin here or what, but the keelson can't really be bent to fit onto this frame. I'm going to continue fairing frame 1, which I think is still too thick--the keelson is supposed to sweep up a bit at the ends, but maybe not quite this much--but I may have to add a support piece here.

 

Second, cant frames B. As I've mentioned many, many times, the plans don't show the bottom ends of these. I had to trial-and-error my way into fitting them against the stem. One challenge is that the frames need to be on the aft side of the rabbet, but the frames are thicker than the relatively narrow ledge of the stem behind the rabbet. Checking photo logs of this model, I found that other builders have shaped these frames to fit onto the back of the stem--e.g., ending the frame in a notched joint rather than just a straight cut. I did one side first, constantly checking for fit and adjusting. It was a tricky cut to get right!

 

By the time I had it right, the frame was a lot shorter than shown on the plans, as can be seen below (the parts were cut overlength, but the ends given by the plans are marked in pencil).

 

Eventually I got both cut to shape.

 

And I glued them in place. The joint with the stem didn't turn out quite perfect, but it should be stable enough and will be covered by the foredeck.

 

 

Finally, I decided to pin the frames to the keel with a bit of copper wire and super glue, in order to strengthen the small butt joint there. It was tricky to push the wire all the way down into the holes because it easily bent and it was hard to get a grip to push it down, although it got easier once I started bending the wire at 90 degrees just above the length of the pin so that I could push down on the bend instead.

 

 

Once all the pins were in, I was able to file them flush. I finally got to use the riffler file set I bought a while ago for this.

 

Here's the current state of the build:

 

Next, I need to add the last frames, cant frames A (which are basically hawse timbers or knightheads on either side of the stem). Given the highly acute angle where they meet the stem, these will be another challenge to shape.

Edited September 28 by JacquesCousteau

[Keith Black]

 Pretty work, Jacques.

[Paul Le Wol]

Hi Jacques, that’s a great tip about bending the wire to make it easier to insert 👍

[wefalck]

Although I don't know anything about the construction of these boats, I could imagine, that the keelson sweeps up to the cant-frames to provide for them a sort of rabbet, keeping them down.

 

A small pin-vise is also useful for pushing wires into holes.

 

And so-called 'cutting-tweezers', as used by watchmakers are excellent tools for cutting wires flush on parts.

 

Edited September 29 by wefalck

[JacquesCousteau]

Thanks, @wefalck. I'll have to check out the watchmaking/repair shop here again. They seemed to have some interesting stuff. Unfortunately like many small shops here, their setup was not very amenable to browsing--I got the impression that you have to already know what to ask for when you go.

 

I may have to redo some parts. Cant frames A turned out more challenging than I thought (I'll spare everyone my now-habitual complaining about the plans). Due to their position right alongside the keel, it was hard to test fit them until they were already shaped. Shaping them took a while, as they needed very long notches, curved to match the stem curve.

 

I then glued them in position.

 

Unfortunately, there ended up being quite a gap where they meet the stem. The starboard side is especially bad, the port side better but still not great. 

 

 

The aftmost part of the joint with the stem is also off, with the tips floating a bit above it. Apparently I added too much of a curve to the notch (after initially being unable to properly fit it because there wasn't enough of a curve).

 

I'm debating whether or not to remake these frames, or at least the starboard one. Part of the problem is that I'm having a really hard time conceptualizing what the notch should even look like. I think that, at a certain point, it should be something like the drawing below showing a cross section of the frame piece, but the exact position would need to change along the length of the piece to match the angle of the frame-stem joint and the curve of the stem. I'm also not sure if the angle of the notch relative to the frame piece is really close to correct.

 

So, on one hand, it would be better to have better-fitting frames here. On the other hand, I'm not at all confident in my ability to do a better job, given that I can't really figure out what shape the notch should be, and the jig makes it difficult to trial fit until you're already fairly close (but you also need the jig to trial fit in the first place). It's also worth noting that the second frame piece I made, not the first, is the one that turned out worse. I'm also not sure when I'll get the chance to go to the carpentry workshop again and would be able to cut new pieces--things are so busy with work that I really haven't been able to go, and have only been able to spend an hour here or there on modeling at home. 

 

Anyways, if anyone has any suggestions about the frame, I'd be happy to hear them!

[wefalck]

2 minutes ago, JacquesCousteau said:

I got the impression that you have to already know what to ask for when you go

It may be worthwhile browsing some on-line tool sellers and then go to this shop with the knowledge gathered. Naming the tools in Spanish though is another story. Perhaps you can take screen-shots and show this to the staff.  

 

I admire the shipwrights (of old) for their capability to shape such complex non-Carthesian objects. I know from my own experience that this even more difficult in small scales.

 

[JacquesCousteau]

Thanks for the suggestion, that would probably be the easiest way to get things.

 

Yeah, hats off to anyone who can conceptualize these complex shapes intuitively (or through long experience). I suppose I could simplify it by not running the frames over the back of the stem and just cutting them at the right angle to butt-joint against the sides of the stem.

[Bryan Woods]

It all looks great Jacques, you’re way out of my league to offer any suggestions. But the frame reminds me of John Smith’s shallop. It had jigs to build the frames and a jig to set the frames. And I wondered through out that part of the build if I would ever get passed it:-) I can’t imagine doing it by scratch. 

[JacquesCousteau]

3 hours ago, Bryan Woods said:

It all looks great Jacques, you’re way out of my league to offer any suggestions. But the frame reminds me of John Smith’s shallop. It had jigs to build the frames and a jig to set the frames. And I wondered through out that part of the build if I would ever get passed it:-) I can’t imagine doing it by scratch. 

Thanks, Bryan, your shallop build looks great! For the most part, going the POF scratch-build route has been a lot of fun. Cutting out all the frames was more tedious than difficult, and I don't think it's beyond the skill of anyone with a bit of experience and lots of patience. The cant frames have really been by far the most challenging part of this, though, and here the problem is at least in part just due to a lack of clear info in the plan set about what to do. Something like David Antscherl's Hayling Hoy monograph seems from the build logs I've seen to have clearer directions (although it's also a much more complex vessel). That said, I have yet to fair and plank this hull, and it's entirely possible that I'll find that I screwed up in a major way on the frames due to a lack of precision somewhere.

Edited October 1 by JacquesCousteau

[Keith Black]

 Jacques, thinking a bit outside the box.

 

 I know this isn't standard practice by any stretch but, would it be possible to use air-dry modeling clay and sculpt the cant frames in situ, let dry and then use as a patterns? 

[Waldemar]

 

Hi Jacques,

I've been following your thread and I can see that lately it's been an unnecessary road through frustration leading to disappointment . 

If I may suggest, shape the surfaces of both ends of the hull in the same way as the original builders did.

 

Start by removing the cant frames (although one pair at the stern may still prove useful, choose one of them in this case). Prepare and attach 5 or 6 ribbands/battens per side. Keep an eye on symmetry, especially at the ends of the hull, but a slight asymmetry will not be the end of the world, just as it was not in real vessels. Only then shape and secure the cant frames, guided by the battens, preferably using temporary paper templates.

Alternatively, instead of battens, you can try normally planking the hull right away, and only then shape and attach the cant frames, already more to reinforce the structure than to shape the surface.

 

What do you think?

 

 

[JacquesCousteau]

13 hours ago, Keith Black said:

 Jacques, thinking a bit outside the box.

 

 I know this isn't standard practice by any stretch but, would it be possible to use air-dry modeling clay and sculpt the cant frames in situ, let dry and then use as a patterns? 

That's a very intriguing suggestion,  thanks! I think I would have to pre-shape the notch to some degree before fitting it to the stem, as there would be a lot of excess material distorting things if I just squished an unnotched frame against the stem. I haven't seen such clay but haven't been looking, I'll have to keep an eye out next time I'm in an art supply store.

 

I ended up removing the starboard cant frame and cutting a replacement one from some scrap with a knife.

 

Shaping it was a slow process, trying to adjust everything so it would fit better than the first one. I realized that the line of the cut across the outer face (which should join the stem) needed to be a curved line that, when the piece was positioned as it would be on the model, would appear straight when viewed from ahead (as can be kind of seen below).

 

 

After a lot of slow, careful shaping and fitting, I ended up with a piece that looks very slightly better than the original.

 

I think I can live with it, it more or less matches the port cant frame at least (minus some chipping that occurred).

 

If the cant frames are tricky but ultimately maybe liveable, I've found another issue that may require a frame replacement, but I'm curious what others think. Running a batten along the hull, I'm generally very happy with how fair things are at this point. Without any external fairing, things are lining up pretty well (although the stern will be quite a pain in the neck to plank), much more so than on the plank and bulkhead models I've made so far. There's one part, though, that's not fair. As can be seen below, frame 8 seems to stick out quite a bit around the turn of the bilge, enough so that a 1/32‐inch/0.8mm strip can be slid between the batten and the frame to the right of it. There's a similar, though less extreme, problem on the other side of the frame.

 

Would this be considered a big enough deviation from fair that I should try to remake the frame? It may be possible to just redo the floor, perhaps adding a tiny bit more height where it meets the keel so as to raise the turn of the bilge by a hair, and keep the original futtocks. (Although if so, I wish I had noticed this before I pinned the floor in place!) If I don't replace it, I think I would have to remove about 1/32 of an inch from the exterior of the hull here, and sand down the interior of the other frames by a similar amount to fair the interior.

 

Looking at the monograph, I found the following about frame dimensions on page 41:

"La membrure est compossée d'allonges ayant 88 [mm] d'épaisseur sur le tour et 122 de largeur sur le droit." 

Which google translates as:

"The frame is made up of extensions having a thickness of 88 [mm] on the circumference and a width of 122 on the right."

So I think the 122 is referring to the dimension of the frames from fore face to aft face, the frames are supposed to be 88mm thick (from exterior to interior side), at full scale, which translates to 2.75mm at 1/32‐scale. This comports with the frame drawings. My frames, including frame 8, are about 3.75-4mm thick right now depending on where they're measured. This suggests I could theoretically remove the 0.8mm or so needed to fair the exterior without dropping below the thickness given in the plans.

 

So, replace or fair it out? If the former, I'd have to be careful to slightly adjust the floor from the drawings in order to not repeat the issue. If the latter, it does sound like a lot of sanding, but I suppose I need to do a lot of sanding anyway given that I cut the frames a bit wide of the plans. Any suggestions are welcome!

 

[JacquesCousteau]

33 minutes ago, Waldemar said:

 

Hi Jacques,

I've been following your thread and I can see that lately it's been an unnecessary road through frustration leading to disappointment . 

If I may suggest, shape the surfaces of both ends of the hull in the same way as the original builders did.

 

Start by removing the cant frames (although one pair at the stern may still prove useful, choose one of them in this case). Prepare and attach 5 or 6 ribbands/battens per side. Keep an eye on symmetry, especially at the ends of the hull, but a slight asymmetry will not be the end of the world, just as it was not in real vessels. Only then shape and secure the cant frames, guided by the battens, preferably using temporary paper templates.

Alternatively, instead of battens, you can try normally planking the hull right away, and only then shape and attach the cant frames, already more to reinforce the structure than to shape the surface.

 

What do you think?

 

 

Thanks, Waldemar, for the suggestion! I started writing my earlier post before you posted this, so I didn't see it until now. That would definitely work for the external side of the frame, but that's the part that's been giving me the least trouble. The cant frame is so close to the stem that its alignment with the rabbet is pretty easy to eyeball. The joint with the stem is the part that's really been giving me trouble. Although I suppose a series of battens along the exterior would reduce the amount of play in test-fitting the joint. I'll keep this in mind if I decide to redo those cant frames. I'd like to have them in place before planking as otherwise there's very little gluing surface at the stem.

[Waldemar]

 

Either way, from what you have just shown, there is still a lot of dubbing to be done on normal frames. Just like in real-scale construction! 

 

 

[Some Idea]

Lovely work - looking at your last picture running a batton;  I think that if you faired the outer frames the batton would lay just about right.  Fantastic build keep the updates coming.

[tkay11]

17 hours ago, JacquesCousteau said:

Looking at the monograph, I found the following about frame dimensions on page 41:

"La membrure est compossée d'allonges ayant 88 [mm] d'épaisseur sur le tour et 122 de largeur sur le droit." 

Which google translates as:

"The frame is made up of extensions having a thickness of 88 [mm] on the circumference and a width of 122 on the right."

So I think the 122 is referring to the dimension of the frames from fore face to aft face, the frames are supposed to be 88mm thick (from exterior to interior side), at full scale

I love your build and learn from it.

 

Just to add a slightly unnecessary or rather silly note, your interpretation is of course correct, but just to give the 'nautical' terms in translation this is "The frames are composed of futtocks having 88 moulded thickness and 122 sided". Moulded being the measure across the outer surface of a timber which is shaped to fit the overall hull shape, as determined by the moulds. Sided is the measure across the sides of timber at right angles to the outer or moulded surface.

 

Tony

[JacquesCousteau]

Thanks, all! @tkay11, I knew one of those dimensions had to be molded and one sided, but I wasn't sure which, so thank you very much for clarifying!

 

I decided to go ahead with fairing. If the frame needs to be redone in the end, there's no harm in trying to fair it into shape first. I tend to fair pretty slowly over the course of days if not weeks, both because it's tedious work, and because taking my time makes me less likely to take too much off and more likely to really get things right instead of deciding that it's close enough. I noticed that the hull was quite flexible, so I added a bunch of supports across the top. They're as haphazard and ugly as the supports between frames, but thanks to the power of triangles, the hull is now pretty resistant to flexing and twisting.

[wefalck]

I think such cross-braces were also used sometimes in full-scale practice ...

 

Looking at the above photograph, I have the feeling that the cant-frames are too much in and also may not be full enough. Could be a question of perspective though. Did you check against the rail- and deck-profile? It would also be useful to run a batten along the frames to the stem-post, horizontally and diagonal - it would indicate kinks and forced runs.

 

 

[JacquesCousteau]

5 hours ago, wefalck said:

Looking at the above photograph, I have the feeling that the cant-frames are too much in and also may not be full enough. Could be a question of perspective though. Did you check against the rail- and deck-profile? It would also be useful to run a batten along the frames to the stem-post, horizontally and diagonal - it would indicate kinks and forced runs.

 

 

Thanks for the heads-up! I actually had the same thought when I saw the photo. Checking with a batten shows that things line up fairly well--cant frame C is a little in at points, but not by much, and fairing the frames on either side should bring everything in line. At least, that's the hope.

 

I'm more worried about the stern, as there's quite a turn the planking will have to take around part of the aftmost cant frame. That said, I can take a good bit of material off the frames as I cut them oversize.

[JacquesCousteau]

Although I started a new build (the NRG Capstan) since my last post, the Bateau de Lanvéoc hasn't been forgotten. I've been doing a little fairing at a time, as it's pretty tedious and I don't want to take too much off by accident. I'm tempted to say that I cut the frames too wide of the lines, as there's a lot of material to remove to get them down close to the thickness given in monograph, but if I had cut them closer, I would have had less ability to fair things up. So far I've only been working on the port side. Fairing has been going well, overall. The bow needed a good deal of sanding, but I think it's nearly there. I can run a batten pretty smoothly over it. A few frames stood a little proud amidships, but I've gotten those sorted out, for the most part. The stern is tricky due to the extremely rounded shape. While things look fair running to the aftermost frame, I keep breaking battens trying to then check how they run into the sternpost. I may need to just make a pre-bent batten, as I don't see any other way to check the fairness there.

 

Unfortunately fairing does not lend itself to particularly interesting photos of work in progress, it's just a lot of sanding and checking with a batten.

 

One challenge I've faced is that, early on, I faired several areas with a fore-and-aft sanding motion as there was a lot of material to be removed across several frames. I discovered that this actually broke the glue joints between several frames and the keel, although they stayed in place thanks to the pins I added. I've worked watered-down white glue into all of those joints to strengthen them. It would have been a lot stronger to have added the keelson before fairing, but I was concerned that I wouldn't be able to get it fair in a way that held up once the exterior was faired.

[JacquesCousteau]

While I'm (slowly) fairing the hull, I also have worked on making some simple clamps for when I get to planking. I realized that the binder clips and clothespins I already had weren't going to work very well. So, I made some simple ones by drilling holes through scrap wood, adding cross-braces to prevent splitting, and running a small nut-bolt combo through it. They're pretty rough around the edges and way less refined than some of the beautiful homemade clamps I've seen in other build logs, but they should be helpful when it comes time to plank

 

 

After making my first three, I wondered whether it would be a good idea to secure the nut in place so that I wouldn't have to hold both nut and bolt to tighten the clamp. So, as can be seen above, I used super glue, bracing, and some white glue to secure the nut on one clamp. I then tested the three with a scrap plank on the hull, below. I found it much easier to tighten the clamp with the secured nut.

 

So, I modified the others to also secure the nut in place. I also beveled down some of the cross-bracing near the bolt head, shown below, as it was making it difficult to tighten by hand.

 

For the rest of the clamps, I got rid of the multiple cross-braces, in favor of just gluing a piece of basswood across most of the surface of the clamp with the grain running perpendicular to the main piece. At this point, I now have eight clamps, which should be enough, especially as each can clamp on two adjacent frames at once, and they're not hard to make if I need more.

 

It's a very minor update, I know, but I thought it might be useful to see how simple a homemade clamp can be to make.

Edited Wednesday at 04:44 AM by JacquesCousteau

[JacquesCousteau]

By this point, I think I'm nearly done with fairing... the port side, that is.

 

It's taken a while, but at this point battens seem to run smoothly all along the hull. The main exception is at the stern, where the required bend is so sharp that I can't run battens without them cracking. I had to soak a piece of thin basswood for the photo below, which suggests I have some fine-tuning to do.

 

It's a ridiculously sharp turn, but looking at the plan drawings of the hull lines and the planking runs at the stern, I think it's supposed to be like that?

 

Part of me almost wants to detach the sternmost cant frames and re-glue them slightly higher on the deadwood, but 1) I don't think that would make that much of a difference, and 2) they're already positioned higher than they're supposed to be according to what I can understand from the plans. Trimming a bit off the bottom where they join the deadwood might provide a slightly easier run into the sternpost, but I think this is just a tricky stern to plank regardless.

[wefalck]

I think in some building processes, such cant-frames were actually fitted after the planking is on. Much like it is done in clinker building. This allows for a natural run of the planks, without forcing them around the cant-frames.

 

However, doing it on the prototype, where the run of the planks is determined by tradition and the builder's experience is different from trying reproduce an actual run on a model.

 

[JacquesCousteau]

6 hours ago, wefalck said:

However, doing it on the prototype, where the run of the planks is determined by tradition and the builder's experience is different from trying reproduce an actual run on a model.

I think that's the trickiest part, I'm still developing an eye for planking and hull shapes and this particular hull form is a bit tricky for me to visualize. It would be an interesting experience to add the cant frames later, either fitting it to the planking or to a run of battens, but I don't think I'll be able to get the sharp bend shown on the plans without a frame in place.

 

I think that I'll try measuring the dimensions of some of the waterlines and comparing them with some of the same points on the model hull to see how well the current frame position matches the plans.

[wefalck]

This boat has, indeed, rather full ends. I went back to the first page of the log and looked at the side elevation and one thing one notes that the planks rise at the ends - which is their natural tendency with full shape, particular for planks that are below the turn of the bilge.

 

Could you perhaps mark on stem and stern the position where individul planks should land? A slight rise would actually take out some of the sharp bends - which is difficult to visualise and explain.

 

I didn't go again through your research, are there any photographs of beached boats of this type (assuming that they have survived into the age of photography).

 

[JacquesCousteau]

@wefalck, you're right that the planking runs are easier with a slight rise at the ends. The plans show fairly limited rise, but definitely some:

 

Although I didn't find any photos of the type, drawings in the monograph show a bit more than given by the plans. Maybe it's artistic license, but definitely suggestive.

 

 

 

In any case, angling the plank (in this case some scrap) a bit leads to a much better run across the frames.

 

[Keith Black]

 Much better, looks good, Jacques.