Naval Cutter Alert by AnobiumPuncatum - Scale 1/36 - POF

[AnobiumPunctatum]

Thanks very much for your offer Anthony. Surely you can post them, if you like. Is it possible to save the drawings in DXF-Format? This will make things much easier.

[AntonyUK]

Hi Christian.

Would not allow the DXF file.

Yes Illustrator will allow me to save it

Attached 1 PDF file.

Deck and Side.pdf

 

Regards Antony.

[AnobiumPunctatum]

It's time to show a short update of the frameing.

 

The frames and the fore cant frames are finished.

 

 

In the moment I work on the after cants. There I have a big problem, because I don't understand how the construction really works. All drawings I found do not show any details. Is it right, that the fashion piece has the same angle as the last cant frame? Perhaps someone can help me out, to understand this detail right.

 

[AntonyUK]

Hello Christian.

Sorry I have no idea. I have looked through all the books and drawings I have. Nothing

Very impressed with your frames drawing. Very nice curves.

 

Regards Antony.

[AnobiumPunctatum]

Antony,

 

thanks for searching. If I don't find another solution I will build this part with basswood first and than look how I can anrrange the frames. My frame design is stylized so I have different options.

 

But I hope that one of the more experiencend modeler can help.

[jaerschen]

Hi Christian,

 

I have sent you a PM about your problem. It's to difficult for me to write this in english. I hope I can help you.

[AntonyUK]

Hi Juergen.

It would be interesting if possible to share it here, as it has sent me on a quest to get the answer to this question.

 

Regards Antony.

[jaerschen]

Hi Antony

 

Ok, I would try to give a description of my opinion. I believe the lines at the sideview are showing the position of the frame at the outer edge and not at the keel.

The cant-frames are fixed at the keel a bit forward. I hope it's a bit understandable. 

Edited December 3, 2014 by jaerschen

[druxey]

Would this be of any assistance?

 

 

[jaerschen]

Much thanks druxey, that is showing what I meant.

Edited December 3, 2014 by jaerschen

[AnobiumPunctatum]

Thanks all for your help.

 

@Druxey.

I know the drawing. Dbut the drawing does not really help. Has the keel only a wing transom, or how is this part of the ship designed? How will the planks of the lower stern be fitted to the fashion piece?

[druxey]

There is a wing transom and fashion pieces. I don't have a picture of this framing on a cutter, but this picture shows something similar.

[AnobiumPunctatum]

Druxey, thank you very much.

 

This shows what I am searching. Now I have an idea how to continue.

[AnobiumPunctatum]

Druxey,

 

is it right that the fashion pieces and the transom would notched for the planks at the stern?

Edited December 4, 2014 by AnobiumPunctatum

[AnobiumPunctatum]

My stylised frame design is nearly finshed.

 

As written in JK Lees build log I will now try to design a possible framing for this cutter.

 

All cutter drawings which I know show only double frames.

The drawing of Cheerful 1806 and Racer 1809 show double frames with a spacing on both sides.

The drawing of Speedy 1818 shows normal double frames.

 

So I think that also the two cutters of the Rattlesnake class will also have only double frames.

 

First source for the dimensions of the frame timbers is Steel "The Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture, 1805":

(Thanks Druxey for the values)

 

Steel gives a Room and Space of 2ft 2in. The original drawing of Alert only show a Room and Space of 2ft 0in. My first try with this dimensions show that the spacing between the double frames is very small (3.75in).

 

Goodwin gives in his book "The construction and fitting of Sailing Man of War" a factor to calculate the sided dimensions of the frames. If I calculate the sided values with the keel width of 13in, which Steel gives in his book, I get the values of the above table.

 

The original drawing shows only a designed keel width of 10in. So I calculated the sided dimensions of the framing again.

With these values I get a spacing of 8,42in, which is perhaps a little much.

 

edit: I got the infos I searched. Thanks very much.

Edited December 22, 2014 by AnobiumPunctatum

[Trussben]

Hey AP,

 

I don't have a copy of SR, but I can recommend Allan Yeslinskys book available from Seawatch that has both Steel and SR comparison data.

In some places you will find data missing in either or even both, and many times there are differences but it is still the best reference work that I have that includes both sets of data.

 

Ben

[AnobiumPunctatum]

Ben, Allans book is on my wishlist for Christmas.

[AnobiumPunctatum]

Yesterday I experimented a little bit with 3D views of my line drawings. The result is not a real 3D model but very helpful for checking the reconstruction. The two pictures are only an impression, because on the PC I can rotate the model and have a closer look to the details.

 

 

[AntonyUK]

Hello Christian.

Not are you very skilled with wood But you are also skilled with CAD drawing.

This is turning out to be a very interesting project. The resurch takes a long time and then putting that into CAD then constructing the model. WOW

Been following this from the start and it gets more and more interesting the further you progress.

 

Regards Antony.

[AnobiumPunctatum]

Back to the framing dimensions.

 

I got the values of the SR, but there are mostly the same as in Steel. But both dimensions are for a 273 tons, 16 gun cutter which is much bigger than Alert.

I also got the values for Weazle, a 201 tons brigantine, which is nearly the same size as Alert and has the same room and space. (Thanks very much for the help) Unfortunately the framing dimensions do not really fit with the proportions of SR and Steel.

 

So I decided to go with two different options:

 

1. On the basis of Steel I calculated the relationship between 2'2'' and 2'0'' room and space and make my frames 92.3% of the dimensions of Steel.

2. I use the given distance between the station lines for frame 0 (8'') and calculate all other timbers in relationship to Steel.

 

The first design I will do with option 2 and the frame layout of Cheerful and Racer. These drawings are around 30 years younger but the oldest which I found with framing information.

If the design don't work, I will give the first option a try with real double frames.

 

What do you think, could both options a possible solution for the framing of the small vessel? Which option would you prefer?

[Mirabell61]

Hello Christian,

 

I had a look at your very nice planing for the "Alert" in 1:32, which I find is a beautiful representant of the british naval cutters of that Age. After I started gathering Information and studying Cole`s "Alert" Version on the web with the clinker planking, my Hand already started itching to begin a build of a cutter like this.

Your skill of utilizing CAD for lines and Frame planing is amazing, unfortunately I never had the opertunity to learn CAD design during my active career

 

I shall watch your Progress with high interest. and thak you very much for sharing this with us. I wish you a good success and a happy new year

 

Nils

[rdsaplala]

Hi Christian,

 

I just finished browsing through your log, you're doing some excellent work both in CAD and in wood Sir, your Alert is looking great! 

 

I've been lucky to have have copies of David Antscherl's " Understanding Eighteenth-Century Admiralty Drafts" and "Drawing Techniques for the Modeleller" thanks to druxey, and I am amazed at his techniques of correcting distortions and drawing the various sweeps and curves using the provided radii/centres by hand. I am equally amazed at how you are extending these mind-blowing techniques to CAD

[AnobiumPunctatum]

Happy New Year

 

 

It's time for another short update. The design takes more time than expected. I notice that I don't have any experience in doing this. I reconstructed the square frames from station line H to station line 4 for both options.

 

I don't know which one could be right.

 

Both options have their advantages and disadvantages

 

Option 1:

+ The real double frames are more common than the design in option 2

+  The relationship of room and space is more common comparing with other (bigger) ships of that time

-  The width of the floor timber given through the two station lines for station 0 does not fit.

 

Option 2:

+  The width of the floor timber fits two the station lines at station 0.

+  The frame design allows a better ventilation between the frames

+  The frame design is very light which is positive for a fast sailing ship

-   The relationship of room and space is very uncommon

 

 

In my opinion the given historical dimensions for framing a cutter are not very helpful for a cutter of the Alert-Class

The shipbuilders repsoitory is from 1788 and Steel from 1805. There was a very important change in the armament of ships between the design of Alert and the two documents: the introduction of the carronades.

In the older repositories the cutters would not mentioned.

 

What do you think, which is the solution you would prefer?

[druxey]

Revenue cutters were fast because of the great spread of canvas they could carry, not because they were lightly built. They were rugged and robustly built, not lightly framed. I suspect 'double' framing was most likely. The dead flat distance might include part of the space as well as siding of the floor timber. I vote for your Option 1, for what it's worth.

[AnobiumPunctatum]

Thanks very much for your reply, Druxey. I will follow your advice and finish option 1. You confirmed what my gut instinct said.

[EdT]

I agree with Druxey on option 1.

 

Ed

[AnobiumPunctatum]

The design of the parallel frames is finished. I tried to follow the original drawing as close as possible without one change.

 

If you have a closer look at the gun port position of the original drawing you will see a pencil note, which indicates that there was added a 5th deadeye, which is not common for cutters. I did not know any other cutter drawing with more than 4 deadeyes.

 

 

So I decided that I like to show this update of the original design - the Marshall drawing also shows 5 deadeyes. For this change I modified the gun port position and the top timber heads in this area.

 

 

My biggest problem during the design was, that the gun ports and top timber heads did not match the position of the double frames. I could not solve this problem with using another design, so I decided to shift the futtocks as I've seen in some contemporary drawings.

 

If you compare this design with the known design of the Aots-book (I don't like adding a scan to avoid problems with Copyright issues) you will see that this design is much more rugged. The gunports ar not put on top of the framing as Goodwin did.

 

I don't know but I hope that it's a little bit closer to the original framing. If you think that I can optimize the position of some frames, please let me know. Next I start with the fore cant frames.

 

[mikegerber]

Hi Christian

I am delighted by your precise planning work, and analyses.

I also struggle with varying informations on the RS14 "Stavanger" - i share your sorrows ...

 

What CAD do you use?

 

Regards

Mike

[Mirabell61]

Hello Christian,

 

your Cutter "Alert" Project is very inspiring and I follow with great interest

 

I have a question though,.......

the construction waterline (upper green line) in the enclosed Picture is not shown horizontal,   well that is not the Problem, but if it were horizontal, the Frames would not be perpentdicular to the waterline, so to say in the normal Floating Position of the ship.

 

Does this mean that the actual ship has all Frames at an angle to the waterline, whereby the Frames are rather perpendicular to the keel ?

The keel of course is at an angle, due to the deeper draft at the stern

Normaly I construct models with the Frames perpendicular to the waterline and regardless to the keel-line

 

Nils

Edited January 5, 2015 by Mirabell61

[AnobiumPunctatum]

@Mike

thanks for looking in. I use Autocad for the  drawings.

 

@Nils

the frames are perpendicular to the keel and have an angle to the waterline.

Have a look at the NMM drawings of Cheerful 1806, Racer 1809 or one of the 1818 cutters. All drawings show this frame arrangement.