US Brig Oneida 1809 by rlb - The Lumberyard - 1:48 scale - POF - Lake Ontario Warship

[rlb]

Hi smotyka,

 

Thanks for your comment, and best of luck with your Oneida!  My experience with L u m b e r y a r d is that sometimes they are slow, but they come through.  I remember it taking a few months to get mine.

 

You'll find that once you get beyond the hull framing, you're kind of on your own.  There used to be a couple of Oneida's on MSW besides mine, but they may not have survived the website melt-down in 2013.  I made a lot of changes to the deck layout as shown on the drawings that come with the kit.

 

Don't be afraid to ask questions, and I would love to see you start a build log.

 

Ron  

Edited March 20, 2020 by rlb

[shipmodel]

Hi Ron - 

 

For cleaning out and smoothing miniature carvings, I have found nothing better than a good set of rifflers - curved needle files.

She is coming along very nicely.

 

Be well

 

Dan

[rlb]

Thanks Dan.  Ah, more tools to buy!  Does it ever end?

 

The head timbers have all been cut out, and shaped.  A handful that didn't make it are on the right.  I still have to carve the decorative panels on the lower faces.  That has been done on the smallest one, but you can't see it from this angle--

These have all been dry fit individually, and I would like to dry fit the whole assembly before I glue it all up, but I have no idea how to keep them all in place.  I may have to lightly glue, and then take them off and re-glue permanently when it's good to go.

 

Ron

 

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by rlb

[Martin W]

Hi Ron - When I was dry fitting my head timbers, I pinned them in place.  That gave me a modest success in judging how everything should come together, since pins slip and the pieces rotate around the pins.  But still I could get a general sense.  With your precision that might not be enough.

 

I'll be eager to see how you solve that problem.

 

Cheers,

 

Martin

[rlb]

Hi Martin,

 

Pins seem to be the preferred/recommended way to hold pieces, but when I have tried, as you said, the pieces slip and spin, or the pins fall out.  I do pin the aft end of the headrail in place quite often when I'm testing the fit of the timbers.   I have trouble getting the pin to stay in place without pushing it so hard that I'm afraid of breaking something.  I'm going to try small bits of PA glue on the timbers, that seems to work okay for me.

 

I made the difficult decision to remove the gammoning and bowsprit.  It really gets in the way.  I have also been thinking that my gammoning rope should have been just a little smaller diameter.  It was close to what I had researched it should be, maybe just a bit on the heavy side.  The next size I have is just a bit on the light side, but I think it will look more correct, and will also not crowd the head timbers as much.  My plan is to get the head timbers and rail to fit right, take them back off, reinstall the bowsprit and gammoning, and then permanently glue the rails and timbers.  We'll see how that goes.

 

So off comes the gammoning--

 

I optimistically carved the second timber with the decorative panels--

 

Glued the first two timbers, and the starboard half of the third--

 

And test fit the rail--

 

As you can see, I've got some problems.  It looks clear that the notch in the second timber is too low.  This may or not be so--it could be that the notch in the third is too high.  It had seemed that way when I was trying to do this before taking the gammoning and bowsprit off.   At this point I am not sure if it's worth using any of these timber pieces, or if they should all be redone.  More testing is in order.

 

Ron 

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by rlb

[rlb]

Work continues on the head timbers.

 

I've made the decision (at least for now) to omit the most forward tiny timber.  The second timber, which is one piece and straddles the stem is now my starting point.  Surprisingly, making some trims to the port headrail made the two headrails join more symmetrically than they had before, and there was no modification needed to that second (now the first) timber--

 

I worked on the remaining starboard timbers, and with some adjustments, I was able to keep them.  This is so much easier without the bowsprit in the way--

 

The port side is another matter entirely--

 

 

The last timber is way off, and the second may be close, but I'm going to redo it to have it close that gap between it and the starboard one.  The join won't be on the centerline, but it will be better than the current gap.  Another view showing the terrible unevenness of the port side timbers.  Here it looks like the second one is the worst offender, but the problems are pretty much shared between the second and third--

 

The second and third were redone, and it's getting close now--

 

Ron

 

Edited March 28, 2020 by rlb

[shipmodel]

Hi Ron - 

 

Just checked in and found you struggling with the headrails.  Don't worry, we have all been there.  But you may be making more work than needed. 

The head timbers do not straddle the stem, but are separate pieces to each side.

Here is a page from zu Mondfeld's "Historic Ship Models".  You can see in the lower right that they are paired support pieces and do not connect to each other.

In this configuration you can make them separately to match what may be some slight variation in the headrails on either side.

I cut the head timbers to fit the headrails instead of trying to match the headrails to the head timbers.  I think this is an easier sequence.

That said, in this little area under the bowsprit they will be difficult for anyone to see, so you can keep the ones you have with little down side.

 

Hope that helps, and I apologize if it makes things worse.

 

Best of success.

 

Dan

[rlb]

Thanks Dan.  I appreciate you checking in and supplying help and information!  I'm sure I made the head rails and timbers harder to make than they should have been.  I did as you suggested, cut the timbers to match the rails.  Making the angled and sloped notches in the ends of the timbers was the hard part.  Getting those angles correct, at the right height to meet the headrail, and still making sure the other end of the timber was square and the right height on the stem was a challenge.  I think the version of timbers you posted would have been easier (except for the multiple rail aspect!)  I don't think I found the best technique in making mine this first time around.  Maybe I should have made card patterns, though being only two dimensional, they wouldn't have helped with all the devilish angles.  Or maybe I just need more practice at it.  As far as straddling the stem (or as I probably should be calling it, the knee of the head), It looks like some did and some didn't, depending on the various configurations, size of ships, time periods, etc.  David's FFM shows timbers that straddle for the Swan class, which are the ones I more or less tried to follow.

 

In any event, I have stuck a fork in them, and they are done.  Here they are removed, in order to reinstall the bowsprit--

 

They are in two pieces, with the timbers glued to the headrails, reminding me of chicken bones--

 

Here the bowsprit and gammoning have been re-attached, and the headrail assemblies glued.  I've scratched the finish under the cathead, for a support that needs to go there--

 

Fitting a card pattern--

 

The horizontal leg needed to be shortened, the pattern didn't account for the cat rope that threads through a hole inboard of the sheaves in the cathead--

 

Here it is installed.   What a relief to work on something not as frustrating as the head timbers!--

 

Here's a straight on bow shot--

 

Next order of business will be the channels and deadeyes, though at some point I should buckle down and work on the installation of the carronades.  The one I have done you see askew on the deck.

 

Ron

Edited April 2, 2020 by rlb

[shipmodel]

Ron - 

 

They came out beautifully.

Well done.

 

Dan

[Ebomba]

Ron, great work , learned a lot, another chapter in the book

 

Best,

 

Ed

[stuglo]

Silly question- how do you insert those t-shaped pins. I have them and even with drilled holes they dont lend themselves to a knock with a hammer or simple push

[rlb]

Thanks for the kind words, Dan and Ed, I really appreciate it.

 

Stuglo, I just hand push them.  At first I was using dressmakers pins which are thinner than the T-shaped pins (at least the ones I have).  They wouldn't stick in the holes very well.  Then, when I switched to the T-pins, since the holes I had drilled were smaller than the T-pins, they worked very well, at least for a while, maybe 5 or 6 "pushes".  When the hole gradually got enlarged by repeated use of the pin, I again had problems.  So what I learned was, drill your hole (at the receiving location, not the item you are pinning through) just smaller than the pin.

 

Ron

Edited March 29, 2020 by rlb

[Roger Pellett]

Beautiful work on a well documented c1812 Great Lakes Warship. You will have something to be proud of.

 

Roger

[rlb]

Thanks, Roger.  I feel more connected to this model than I might another, because the ship was built and sailed in my "neck of the woods".

 

Work now commences on the channels.  I marked the rough sizes on some wood stock--

 

I cut the overall piece out, and sanded it to approximate maximum thickness of about 5".  It will eventually need to be 4.5" on the sides that meet the hull, but I like to give myself some leeway initially.  I re-marked the center line, which will be the hull side when the individual channel pieces are cut out, and scribbled on each side of the centerline.  These areas need to taper down to about 2 1/2" at the edges.  I sand them on a piece of sandpaper laid flat on the table, using finger pressure to create the bevel.  The centerline marking and scribble help make sure I am not sanding the center--

 

 

Here is progress on one side, a little more to go--

 

I think in hindsight it would have been better to make a single long strip, so to only have to sand one bevel.  Next time.

 

In order to correctly angle the chainplates, I need the masts in place to run a "dummy" shroud down to the channels and use it to successively mark the angle of each chainplate and notch in the channel.  Here are the masts temporarily fitted--

 

I haven't measured the exact rake angle, this is just by eye, looking at the sail plan.  I will be sure to do that before marking the chainplates--

 

Ron

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by rlb

[smotyka]

Ron,

 

You certainly are the consummate perfectionist.  The model looks so flawless and clean.

 

I received my Oneida last week and was informed by the L u m b e r Y a r d that this is the last shipment from them until the things open up.  With that, I now feel compelled to begin myself, especially since you have provided such an excellent log to be used as a reference.

 

Question: How beneficial was having the Smithsonian 1/4" scale plans?  I have Chapelle's American Sailing Navy book that has the Oneida drawings.  I'll send away for them anyhow although I doubt that they're open for business right now.

 

Thanks,

 

Steve

[rlb]

Thanks, Steve.   I try to set a high bar for myself, but I am far from a perfectionist.  I am pleased that the model comes across well.  The willingness to do things over (at least some of the time and to a point) is something you have to have in this hobby.  To think that you'll get everything right the first time is unrealistic.   

 

Great that you received your Oneida, and I hope you are planning to start a build log.  I would love to watch (and help when I can) another version of this ship take shape.  There are a few out there and they are all different.

 

The 1/4" Chapelle plans are beneficial.  How much so depends on how far you want to take the model beyond Dave's kit.  Rigging for example--if you're not rigging it you obviously don't need the sail plan.  If you are going for the fine points, I think the hull plan helps a lot.  Dave was very faithful to Chapelle's plan, but there are small differences, and some details left out.  I think this was to make a slightly simpler model, that worked with what the kit supplied, as is the case with most kits.  The 1/4" drawings are just nice to have also, though being simple B&W copies, they aren't as visually rich as the British museum plans of those ships!

 

Good luck!

Ron

 

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by rlb

[smotyka]

Again, thanks to you.  Yes, once I get myself organized, I will drum up the courage and log my Oneida adventure. 

 

I noted in your log, you were able to get the Pear for the frames.  When I ordered, that option wasn't there but I will say that the maple has a nice creamy tone to it, so it should work out fine.

 

I sent an email to the Smithsonian to see if their mail order operation was available - I didn't get a reply so I will assume no.  Hopefully, the detail needed from the large plans won't be needed until I get the hull framed. 

 

Thanks in advance for your willingness to answer questions! 

[rlb]

Steve,

 

Yes, you won't need the detail from the Chapelle plans for a while.  Hopefully by then we'll all be back to normal!

 

My frames are actually Cherry, as are the deck beams and knees.  The keel, stem, sternpost, and hull planking are Pear.  The decks are Maple, and there is Castello Boxwood here and there.

 

I think your Maple frames will be nice!  What other woods did you get?  I love that all the Oneida's are different.   

 

Ron

Edited April 2, 2020 by rlb

[smotyka]

Yipes - I must've had Pear on my mind when I wrote that.

 

With that, here's the wood list from this shipment:

 

LumberYardMaterials.pdf

[rlb]

That will look pretty similar to the photos on Dave's website.  Nice!

 

Ron

[captain_hook]

This is a nice model, I like the way you managed to do the headrails.

 

Andreas

[rlb]

Thank you, Andreas.  

 

I have a few things going at once, having finished the bow work.

 

I'm still sanding the Channel pieces into form, and also cutting out 20 Chainplate Preventer Plates from a strip of brass.  I did one, to test, and will now mark and drill the holes for all twenty, and try to do them more or less all at once--

 

I am also beginning preparations for making the anchors.   Oneida was to carry five: 1500lbs, 1300lbs, 1200lbs, 800 lbs, and 400 lbs.  I think I will be making 4, though not sure which ones yet.  As this was a transitional period for wooden stock vs. iron stock, and angled arm vs. round arm, I am thinking of two of the larger ones as traditional angle arm, wooden stock anchors, and the two small ones as round arm, iron stock.   It seems there is some evidence that the smaller anchors were more likely to introduce the iron stocks.  I'm going to try and cast them, which is something I have never done before, so we'll see how that goes.  Since I'll have the wooden forms for the casting, if the casting doesn't pan out I can paint the forms and use those.

 

Here is a page from Petrejus's book Modelling the Brig of War "Irene" showing both traditional and iron stock anchors, and Charles G. Davis' book The Built-Up Ship Model showing a round arm anchor (though with a wood stock), and my notebook with calculations for the sizes.  I used the formula Charles G. Davis gives in his book.  I calculated just the shank size, and will  Xerox copy the illustrations to multiple sizes so that the shanks match my calculations.  That will give me scaled  paper patterns to cut out the wood forms with--

 

I also adjusted Davis' formula to check it against a table of anchor sizes in Lavery's The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War, and got results that corresponded reasonably well to that table, so I am somewhat confident that my anchors will be close to the right size.

 

Ron 

Edited April 3, 2020 by rlb

[rlb]

Here are the copies of the anchors.  The two round-arm, iron-stock anchors need two patterns--one with the stock, and one with the arms--

 

I've decided to do the 1500#, 1200#, 800#, and 400# anchors.  Here are the patterns glued to some pear stock.  Wasting more wood than I would like, but I couldn't really figure out a more efficient way to lay them out without going diagonal.  I thought I should keep the grain parallel to the shank, though that does make the arms susceptible to breaking--

 

The holes have been drilled and I'm filing away at the brass strip of preventer plates--

 

Varying stages of progress--

 

Four preventer plates parted off--they look a bit chunky, so more work is needed on them to slim them down a little.  And the anchors in various stages of being cut out, sanded and filed--

 

Ron

Edited April 4, 2020 by rlb

[rlb]

In between conference calls for work, I try to take a few swipes at the anchors.

 

Here was yesterday's state of affairs--

 

And now today--

 

The outlines are basically there.  There is more tapering to do, and chamfering of the shanks and angle arms, plus small additions on the shanks (as you can see on the smallest) for either the eye of the iron stocks, or the ridge for the wood stocks.  Then come the palms, which will complete them, as far as being ready for casting.

 

What is supposed to be the 800 pound anchor , second from the right, looks even heftier than the 1200 pounder to it's left.  The shank is appropriately shorter, but it's width is too much I think.  There is a discrepancy between the shank width as drawn by Davis and Petrejus.  You can see this in the previous post where the drawings are side by side.  Here is the 800 pound anchor with the Davis pattern on the wood (in order to shape the arms), and the Petrejus drawing next to it (which unfortunately doesn't draw the profile of the arms).  They may look close, but there is a discernable difference--

 

I will thin down the shanks of the two round arm anchors, and I think they will look more proportionately lighter.

 

Ron

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by rlb

[rlb]

The anchors are roughed out.  From left to right: 400 lb round-arm, iron-stock; 800 lb round-arm, iron-stock; 1200 lb angle-arm, wood-stock; 1500 lb angle arm, wood stock--

 

That 800 pounder still looks heavier than the 1200 pounder.  There is some discrepancy between the Davis proportions (or drawings, since I didn't compute every proportional dimension) for the round arm, and the Lavery drawings for the angle arms, that don't jive, or maybe (uh, probably) I haven't delved deeply enough into them.

 

There is still some fine tuning to do--gaps to fill around some of the palms (flutes), thinning down some of the palms, shaping the snapes (the pointy ends on the angle arm anchors)--

 

I will also give that 800 pounder a general thinning down.  I am very curious; I wish I had a scale that could accurately measure these, and then I would know the true relative differences.  I had a kitchen scale which might have worked, but I haven't been able to find it since I moved.

 

Ron

Edited April 9, 2020 by rlb

[rlb]

Thank you to all the "likers"!

 

Here I have nearly completed the 20 Preventer Chainplate Links.  Though much of the filing took place while they were still attached to each other on the strip of brass, I still had to finish them individually and my fingers are sore from holding these while filing.  I think I will be drilling the holes larger, as the brass nails that I was planning on using don't fit.  I was able to score a line down the middle of each before making the bend (you can see it on some of the right side up pieces), denoting the fact that in reality these were actually loops made of bar stock.  They are not deep scores, and I wonder if they will even be visible when blackened.  These will be stored away until all the chainplate loops are made and ready for blackening--

 

And now the anchor casting adventure begins.   I am showing this as I go--so the failures and mistakes you will see.   And I have a strong feeling that there will be plenty.  First, nowhere did I see corrugated cardboard recommended as a box material.  I know I have some illustration board around somewhere, but I have so many Amazon boxes!--

 

And the clay I have is not the special kind that Micro-mark sells.  I forget to get that when I ordered the casting materials.  So I am going to try regular modeling clay--

 

I put chunks in, and smoothed it out--

 

Then, because the clay is rather hard, and I was afraid I would break the palms off if I pushed it into the clay, I cut a depression for the anchor, so there would be less pushing--

 

Even so, I broke a palm, and had to re-glue it and wait.  (I finished the preventer links during this interval.)  After the glue set, I reinserted the anchor, and smoothed the clay around it--

 

Then, using electrical wire which seemed about the right diameter--though with my luck the plastic insulation will be incompatible with something, I made the air vents, and I made the register pockets with the end of a paintbrush.  I formed a pouring head out of clay (there's an obvious issue with that, which I now realize)--

 

I painted on the mold release (which had the disconcerting effect of dissolving the clay a bit--maybe a hint of disaster), mixed up the rubber and poured--

 

So we will see together what becomes of this.

 

Ron 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by rlb

[Ebomba]

This is quite the adventure, looking forward to the results, sure they will turn out excellent

 

Best,

Ed

[rlb]

Okay, here is the first unboxing--

 

 

 

Fail!!   The rubber at the clay surface (though also around the wood and wire) was goopy and unhardened.   My suspicion is that the clay I used was the cause.  So, I will send away for the special casting clay.

 

Ron

Edited April 12, 2020 by rlb

[Dowmer]

Ron, I'd use a RTV and fill the box half full. The anchor should probably float in the mixture or use the vent wire to hold it.  Let cure, use mold release if needed and pour the other half.  I'd avoid the clay if possible.

 

I've also seen them pour the box full, then suspend the part into the RTV held by the pouring spout cone of the part. When cured, they use a razor to cut into the RTV to get the part out, then push it back together to pour another part.

 

A lot of guys use this technique in other hobby areas such as RC scale planes and trains.

Edited April 12, 2020 by Dowmer

[rlb]

Thanks for the advice, Dowmer.  

 

I've seen the option of suspending the pattern, and filling up to it with RTV, thereby bypassing the clay step.  The difficulty there is making sure the pattern is exactly flat and level, and that the RTV pour is exactly halfway up the pattern, which seems difficult given the thinness of the anchor.  I'm not sure I can do that.  But I'll either give it a try while waiting for the new clay (already ordered), or if I still have trouble with the clay.

 

Ron