HMC Sherbourne 1763 by Hollander-jan - Caldercraft - 1/64

[amateur]

Going back on your traces ?!

 

I like the margingplank!

 

Working from the centreline outward is indeed the better idea,: as the planks aren't never absolutely straight, it is difficult to keep them perfectly paralellel to the ships centreline. Working from the centerline makes that the problem is on the sides, and not in the middle of the deck (were it is most easy to see...)

 

Jan

[tkay11]

Jan, I don't know if you have already done so, but if not, have a look at the deck planking tutorials on this site. You'll see them at http://modelshipworldforum.com/ship-model-framing-and-planking-articles.php. There's an excellent one by Ulises Victoria, and also a calculator in an Excel spreadsheet by AEW.

 

You can see the two different types (joggling and nibbing) in the following picture from zu Mondfeld's book Historic Ship Models:

 

 

Tony

Edited January 29, 2014 by tkay11

[Stockholm tar]

Hi Jan,

 

Ok. It sounds like a good idea to have a bit of a rest from it, and a rethink, rather than plodding on and perhaps worsening the situation. Believe me, I've been there too, as have most of us! Continuing when you're in this state of mind doesn't do either the model, or perhaps more importantly yourself, any good.

 

Planking the deck from the centre out is the better way to go, and you'll probably find that things fall into place more logically. I was going to suggest looking at the database for suggestions as to the mysteries of deck planking, but I see Tony has already done so. The deck plan, on page seven of the instruction book, supposedly showing the planking pattern, doesn't really illustrate the joggling as it should be done – and you'll note that there are some planks coming to a point!

 

Good luck!

[tkay11]

I agree with Kester. Almost every day (when I have a day to spare, that is) that I spend on ship modelling I have a moment when I say to myself "this is terrible, I'll never get the hang of this" and I put my tools down in disgust. Unfortunately for the ship which then has a nice little respite from the various attacks I make on it, it isn't long before I'm going over it all in my mind and saying "Hmm. Suppose I tackle it that way. Maybe that'll make it all work". So I go back to the desk and have another bash at it. Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I don't.

 

I have learned not to spend too long at the desk staring under a glaring lamp at tiny little pieces. It is highly important to take a rest, just as you would from normal work.

 

It may well be in the nature of this new job that first attempts don't work out. Look what happened to Mark who's just given up his first attempt at the Licorne after getting a long way into the framing. Now that's BIG TIME giving up to start again.

 

I've just spent a couple of days figuring out how to make the axle trees for the cannon. I thought I really had it solved until, into my 8th axle, I found they all were 1mm too short, and, in addition, several of the axle stubs were not quite at right angles to the axle. My filing skills obviously need improvement. So I'll have to go back and have a very good re-think about how to do them.

 

In other words, Jan, I can bet you'll be back on the job in very little time if you are interested in the hobby with its endless problems to solve and overcome, and it sounds like you are.

 

Tony

[Hollander-jan]

Thank you Tony, Jan and  Kester for the uplifting comments. I will definitely continue, did some experiments today. 

This support is more than welcome. Eventually it will work out. 

And then we look back in amazement. And we'll say it was difficult but the job is done.

 

Know now that from the center to the boards is better. Have some other work in the house to do but I'll be back be sure off that.

 

Jan

 

Tony succes with your axel trees!

[Stockholm tar]

And then we look back in amazement. And we'll say it was difficult but the job is done.

 

Jan,

 

That's the spirit. You can also add, we've also learnt something along the way too.

 

When you come back to do the deck, do take your time over it. You'll be glad you did as, even though parts of it will be covered by deck fittings, it will still be visible in places. Also, many who see your model won't even notice your deck planking, and certainly won't know whether you've laid it correctly – the kick though, is that you will know!

 

So read Ulises planking guide through first. I notice he doesn't go into joggling planks into the margin, or at least I didn't see anything, but it would probably be worth getting a good modelling book, such as Tony suggested, which covers it. I'm sure we can help too.

 

Meanwhile, you're not laying a floor in your house are you?

[tkay11]

There's a small guide to joggling at https://sites.google.com/site/shipwrightsfaq/smf-q072. The nibbing that I ended up doing I showed in my log at http://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/335-hmc-sherbourne-by-tkay11-–-caldercraft-–-scale-164-1763-a-novice’s-caldercraft-sherbourne/?p=3203.

 

Tony

[Hollander-jan]

The deck is on the boat. It is far from perfect. In the end, and after this exercise, I can say, "It 

looks like a deck in my opinion". At the moment I can not do any better than this.

To show this product on the site Of MSW gives me the feeling that altough every thing is not perfect.

But let me tel you I am proud of it.

iff you will give me comments than that's OK. I enjoy What I am doing with the 

skills I now have. This was one of the hardest things I have ever done with wood believe me. 

(and I have done something with wood, altough it always was bigger than this deck)

It was a learnig proces all the way, I hope to do better next time. 

 

 

 

And like Kester said only we know how hard it is and where the imperfections are.

 

picture of deck.

 

 

More difficult things to come, we are making a model boat, improving our skills, and doing this

to the best of our abbilitys. 

 

 

 

Cheers 

Jan

Edited February 4, 2014 by Hollander-jan

[Hollander-jan]

After all the planking of hull and deck something completely different. I thougt lets make 

an contribution to the kit bashing idea.

 

So I have done some construction work on a companion way. Here are some pictures of the making off.

 

 

pictures

 

1 paper version

 

2 half way

 

after making it less wide this the final version.

 

 

 

 

In the end it was a bit wide. I disided to make it smaller it was not a complete rebuild but more 

a cut away of the sides what was verry well  to do.

 

 

study on the rudder. That is a challenge but it is comming to my mind how to do it.

 

Jan

Edited February 7, 2014 by Hollander-jan

[michaelpsutton2]

Is it just me or is the Batavia cannon  carriage a little higher than nomal. Aren't most of em mounted a little neare to the deck? Is it just the difference between the Dutch & the English?

[Stockholm tar]

Jan,

 

Your deck looks great, well done! I'm not too sure about the curve to the companion roof, although that might just be me.

 

I'd also agree with Michael, there seems to be something out with the cannon. Is it one of the guns from the kit, or another one? Either way, the barrel looks to be depressed, indicating that the top of the gunport might be too low, and therefore that the gunport strips are as well. If this is so dont worry overmuch, as many of us have come across this problem – but managed to rectify it. (In my case the port strip was slightly too low at the aft end, but I corrected it as much as I could, by drastically modifying the gun! Even now however, the two aftermost guns brush the top of their ports, which of course they shouldn't really do.)

 

In another log, comparison with the plans of the original Sherbourne show that the top of the ports actually extended up to the rail. Therefore if you wanted to, I think you could file a little more from above the ports, enabling the guns to fit properly with the barrels level. If you wanted to do that, it would probably be best to do it now at this early stage and with the deck in place, trying the levelled gun at each port.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Stockholm tar

[Hollander-jan]

Thank you Kester, as always very fundamental remarks and suggestions I like that. There are several things not ok. The deckhouse will be redone in an other fashion  I like this one because I worked so hard on it but it is not right so it will be discarded. Replaced by something else. 

The cannons are a problem, like you say the do not fit the ports. In the Alert book I saw what you say about the ports that they go to just under the rail so that is what I was intending to do just before the rail goes on. Have to look at it carefully.

I am studying the rudder and thinking about how to do it. Must practise  soldering  for that one and find out how the pins and gudgeon's will go together.

Will read what the site has to say about metal work and so on. 

Struggling a bit with what to do next. And thinking of buying ready made guns and carriages in Polen.  

So enough thinking and work to do.

 

greetings  Jan

[Hollander-jan]

Yes Michael you are right they do not fit. The ports are not high enough. Like I remarked to Kester I have to look in to that. It shall be all right in due course.

Thank you for your remarks its all much appreciated.

 

Jan 

[Hollander-jan]

Kester I forgot to thank you for your remarks about the deck you know how I struggled with it. The realy bad thing about it is that when it was done I discovered just the right planks for the margings in my desk drawer. (5 mm wide and 1 mm thick) It was a bit of a blow after the work I had was the margins that I used, but anyway it is on and its not to bad. Like you said we know what's wrong and after all " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ".

 

Jan 

[Hollander-jan]

Did some metal work today. It worked not out the way I hoped. Almost there, and  it broke on one off the holes. We will do it again.

 

gudgeon sample

 

An other thing is, I glued on the transom. In some way it had to go on like the picture shows.

 

transom

 

I managed to revise the cannon and the ports all fits well now.  Drilled trough the cannon and replaced the trunions with copper tube of 1.6 mm brass tube, looks good.

 

cannon rivesed.

 

Jan

Edited February 9, 2014 by Hollander-jan

[amateur]

Nice repair. Not many people will notice.

 

With respect to the Batavia-gun: yes the guncarriage is rather high.

It is a solution to a problem the Dutch (and probably some others too) created.

In early shipbuilding decks followed the sheer of the whales, (leading to gunports all around the same distance above the deck, but quite sloping decks)

Then they startted to reduce the slope of the deck, but they didn't dare to cut the gunports thtough the main wales, resulting i an uneven distance of the gunports to the deck.

Finally, they started to cut through the wales, leading to rather flat decks, and a more or less equal distance between gunport sills and the deck.

 

The reconstruction of Batavia is build with almost flat decks, and a very heavy sheer of the wales. (perhaps even overdoing both too much, who knows)

Therefore, the guns towards the aft part of the ship (which you are looking at here)  need relatively high carriages.

 

Jan

[Stockholm tar]

Jan,

 

No problem, only to glad to help.

 

Your guns now look much better, I think you agree!

[Hollander-jan]

The first of the three rudder pintles is ready and dry fitted on the rudder. Because of diferend materials soldering was not an option, not to say a disaster.

 

So I glued it on after a trial glue with metal, used ca it holds good. If the others go as good as this one I am one happy rudder maker.  

 

 

 

 

cheers , skol, proost, bottems up!

 

Jan

Edited February 10, 2014 by Hollander-jan

[tkay11]

Looks very neat. Well done, Jan

 

Tony

[Hollander-jan]

I have a question for anyone who knows. I do not understand how to fix the rail. There are two sorts of holes square ones and other ones. Has it to be fit by nails ore is glue enough. I know that one of the holes is for the hand cannon, is the other hole for belaying things? 

Can anyone help me out on this?

[tkay11]

The holes are for the swivel gun posts (part 33 on the 3mm walnut strip) and the timberheads (part 36 on the 2mm walnut strip). Page 4 of the manual (Deck fittings) tells you to look at Plan Sheet 2 for reference. You'll find that the timberheads and gun posts have slightly different bases which helps you identify which piece goes into which hole.

 

In terms of fixing the rail, it probably helps to pin as well as glue. I think I pinned mine, but can't remember.

 

Tony

Edited February 11, 2014 by tkay11

[Hollander-jan]

Thank you Tony, I had looked at the plan already but the main thing was nail and glue or just glue. You answered that one, I think a nail ore two will help the glue.

 

Thank you for reacting so swift.

 

Jan

 

PS By the way how are you doing with the ship and the mill?

Edited February 11, 2014 by Hollander-jan

[Gregor]

Before gluing gun posts and timberheads, you might have a look at the original plan. If you want to add a ladder, you should probably change the position of some of them (see my log, or better still, Dirk's log - his gun posts are better placed than mine, for a gunner to serve the aftermost swivels). I filled some of the holes with spare wood and made new ones where necessary.

Take your time deciding where you want to place swivels and ladder (see also Kester's and Tony's log).

Gregor

[Stockholm tar]

Hi Jan,

 

Regarding the holes in the rail, they are as Tony says, but Gregor has a good point. I put all the posts and timber heads in, but just opted to leave off one of the swivels aft. Take your time and think of all the options and what you might do later.

 

My main rail was just fixed with glue. I don't think you need nails, as it is quite strong, but of course you can add these later if you wish. However, you'd have to be very careful that the tips don't come through the bulwarks, either inboard or outside. A bit tricky in my opinion, and they'd have to be quite short so they don't 'wander'.

 

I also found it a bit tricky to put on the main rails – in one long piece.  A good tip here, and one that several people including myself have followed, is to glue them on in sections with a short scarf joint between them. I had initial problems in placing the whole length with any precision, especially around the bow, and whilst I was concentrating on this area the other was liberally spreading glue all over the after end of the bulwark! I then thought of cutting the rail into three, bow, centre, and aft sections, and I found that I could then concentrate on just that part. Of course you'd have to make sure all three lined up, but I didn't find that much of a problem. As I said I found the bow the most difficult to glue, and it's probably best to do that section first – that's if you want to do it that way!

 

Hope this helps. Nice work on the rudder by the way.

 

Edited February 11, 2014 by Stockholm tar

[Hollander-jan]

Kester, Gregor and Tony, thanks for these very helpful tips. It is indeed a tricky part. Good tip to probably cut it in to sections Kester.

I will take good care and thinking of ladders and swivel guns before taking this job on.

 

I am still working on the rudder and other metal parts. There is one a sort of horse shoe in wood, I make it in copper, do not know what the name is. I see it on other ships as well as the sort of x shaped thing on the aft. 

 

Where would I be without all your help

 

Jan

[Hollander-jan]

The question is. Is the gap acceptable ore not as you see it is 2 mm.

 

Edited February 11, 2014 by Hollander-jan

[Stockholm tar]

Jan,

 

I think that's a little too much, indicating your rudder is too far from the post. My rudder is only about 1mm. I believe the idea was that the cut-outs in the rudder fitted over the gudgeons on the rudder post, so there was a close fit. In practice, any large gap would probably have hindered the smooth flow of water past the hull and over the rudder.

 

Btw, the bottom of the rudder should be level with the keel.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Stockholm tar

[michaelpsutton2]

I see a good many draughts which have the rudder a tad higher than the bottome of the keel. The idea was to avoid damaging the rudder if the ship grounded. Sometimes the difference was just the thickness of the false keel or shoe. Sometimes the foot of the rudder sloped up as it went aft.

 

I call your attention to the model of the cutter #SLR0519 in the National Maritime Museum or the draughts ZAZ6490 unamed cutter, ZAZ6425 Racer, ZAZ6274 Curlew, and ZAZ6343 the Pitt of 1763 all have the rudder offset from the keel.

 

The Berwick a storeship of 1781 (ZAZ5405) has a rudder that slopes up as it runs aft

 

On the other hand ZAZ6344 Fly, Zaz6498 and others show the rudder even with the bottom of the keel.

 

So in the absence of any definitive info on the Sherbourne you could have it either way

 

I would whole heartedly agree with Stockholm tar that the gap at the post is too large and would create drag

 

Keep the pic's coming! It's looking better and better

[michaelpsutton2]

Thanks for the insight into the Batavia cannon issue. I knew that some Dutch ships had a step in the deck because of their rather generous sheer, but had never thought about the gun carriages. I gues it was a problem to shift from one gunport to another if the carriages were custom fits.

[Hollander-jan]

Kester I think you'r right it is to wide. The problem is the construction of my pintels and gudgeons that is to say in two ways. Material choice made soldering impossible so I had to glue. Thickness of the holder and the tube, the receiver of the pintel, made the total construction to thick, resulting in comming not close enough to the ship with the rudder..

 

I have reconstructed it, to solve this, by cutting in the rudder. The cutouts are made so that the fit is more towards the ship. It is now, with the first pintel and gudgeon on 1 mm (see picture) BTW it drives me nuts to get it so close to the ship.

But you are quit right,  To  much space between rudder and ship is a major flaw. I am happy to be able to do the changes. 

 

Jan