| Model Ship Builder :: Forums :: Build Logs :: POF Build Logs |
|
<< Previous thread | Next thread >> |
| 1:96 HMS Victory Scratchbuild | ||
| Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |
|
Moderators: Winston, aew
|
| Author | Post | ||
| EdT |
| ||
 Registered Member #963 Joined: Wed Jun 09 2010, 05:30pmPosts: 61 | Gene, Yes, precision drilling is the key. Even with the Unimat small drills wander. You can see on the bottom they are not has well aligned, so drill from the top. EdT | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| EdT |
| ||
| Registered Member #963 Joined: Wed Jun 09 2010, 05:30pmPosts: 61 | HMS Victory 1:96 Sratchbuild Project Part 2  The bow scanned from the final Sheer Plan The first part of this series was introductory. The remaining parts will be much more hands on. As I said in the first part, this will not be a complete “how to scratch build Victory” practicum. Instead, it is my goal to provide a general overview of the stages of the work, but also to focus in-depth on specific work processes or solutions that may be interesting, solve a particular sticky problem, or in general, be helpful to modelers of different levels of expertise. These will be examples of how I solved various problems; there may be better ways. These solutions worked for me. Some I developed; some I simply used or adapted. This Part of the series is long and complicated, but I have included it because it addresses some key model drafting techniques. I have tried to make it clear and concise, but it is lengthy. Drafting Plans and Patterns This part of the series will focus on preparing for construction, specifically the drafting of model plans. For those already familiar with the techniques described here, I apologize. They are merely the application of basic drafting concepts to this Victory model. I hope others, new to making ship drawings, will find this helpful. As I said in Part 1, in 1976 there were limited resources for building a model of this type. I could only locate one set of plans and they were quite expensive, above what I wanted to pay at that time. Also, I had an itch to do the plans myself. It was the beginning of an idea I had that ship modeling would be most rewarding if it encompassed and followed as much of the whole historical process as possible – not just model construction. For me, this approach has been very rewarding. Having said that, you do not need to make your own drawings to scratchbuild, and therefore this part may not be of interest to some modelers. My primary source of information at the beginning of the project was the Longridge book, Anatomy of Nelson’s Ships, which I described in part one. The book includes many diagrams and a set of foldout drawings as well as a complete body plan. The Sailing Navy List, a reference book listing all sailing ships of the Royal Navy and the availability of archived plans for each, actually recommends the drawings in the book for modelers over actual available drafts. There are some drafts, archived in the National Maritime Museum in London, but they may be later restoration drafts, I m not sure and have not seen them. None of the drawings in the book were to the scale I wanted to build, 1:96 or 1/8” to the foot. In the pre-PC/CAD era I redrafted these plans manually, adding detail and patterns, as necessary. This involved several weeks of effort before modeling could begin and additional work after that. Making of dimensioned sketches for various parts and details continued until almost the end of the project.  My well worn copy of Longridge, my source for drawings, instruction and inspiration. The Sheer Plan Historically, the first drawing to be made was the Sheer Plan. In architectural drafting terms this would be called a side elevation. The term Sheer Plan probably comes from the historical term “sheer plane” which means the view of the plane that shows the sheer line of the ship. This plan, which is independent of the shape of the hull, can be and was done first, because this plan is where the basic requirements of the vessel are described. This plan is a good place for to start because it is a fairly straightforward task, a good place to develop some drafting skills, and a means to get very familiar with the subject ship. Some level of drafting skills are needed when scratch building, even if using purchased model plans. There are always some details to be sketched or some complicated view to decipher. The best way to develop some of these skills is to make drawings. An example of a sheer plan is shown below, a miniature version of my CAD sheer plan for the model I am currently building, 1:60 HMS Naiad, 1797. Sorry, but my scanner can’t handle the 30X40 sheets of my Victory drawings. A small part of that drawing is at the top of the page.  The sheer plan contains a lot of vital information for modeling that needs to be included on this plan or others that may be done to supplement this - as follows: 1. The basic reference lines upon which the drawing is made – the top of the keel, the fore and aft perpendiculars, the dead flat and the lines locating the frames. Laying these out is the first task in making the drawing. Another horizontal line is also very import. That is the bottom of the keel, actually the bottom of the false keel, because this corresponds to the base on which the model will be built, so many dimensions will be measured from this line. 2. The shape of the centerline structure of the ship – of the keel the sternpost assembly (and rudder), the stern counters, the stem, the knee of the head and the beakhead. 3. The curved sheer lines and the external components that follow those lines, the wales, the various rails, the channels and most of the topside of the ship. 4. The curved lines of the decks (which are flatter than the sheer lines), the lines of the ports and the line of the top of the quarterdeck rail (which is often straight.) 5. The location and size of gunports, deadeyes and chains, forecastle timberheads, quarter gallery details, head rails and decoration, catheads, chesstrees, fenders, steps, etc. 6. The centerlines of the masts and bowsprit.  A scan from one of the deck plans – beams under the forecastle were later revised to replicate the original. In addition to the sheer paln drawing I also drafted deck plans for those decks I intended to model, the lower, middle and upper gun decks, the quarterdeck, forecastle and poop deck. I also drafted plan and elevation views showing location and thickness of all the model frames. This was important to assure that the gun ports are in their correct locations, which in the real ship were between main frames. Making these drawings was a fairly straightforward duplication task and except for a couple of points, I will not go into detail. (I have been working on a document, now in draft form, which describes in detail, how to prepare a sheer plan for ships of this type, based on an Admiralty draft, a much more thorough process than I used for Victory. The process is based on a contemporary source published to assist aspiring 18th century naval architects. I may post this in a build log for my current project, HMS Naiad, 1797. However, if there are questions on drafting a sheer plan, I will try to answer them.) I have not mentioned drawings of masts and rigging. All the masts, yards and other spars were made from information and diagrams in books, specifically the McKay book in the Anatomy of Ships series and Steel’s Elements of Mastmaking, Sailmaking and Rigging. Rigging was done using these two books and Longridge’s very thorough step by step descriptions. So, no drawings were done for masting and rigging. One issue I will comment on is that of scaling the drawing from the original. Making these drawings involves taking measurements on the reference drawing and converting them to the appropriate scale. If you are working from, say, an Admiralty Draft, which is at a scale of ¼” to the foot, you could use an architects ¼” scale to measure feet and inches from the reference drawing then replicate them on your drawing using your scale. The source of error in this approach is limited to the reprographic error when prints were made and your measurement error. Both should be small. If you are using drawings in a book more care is needed. For whatever reason, I have found that these drawings are not always accurate to the stated scale. Check at least one known dimension on each book drawing, say for example, maximum hull breadth, to assure yourself the drawing has been printed accurately in the book. Below I will describe a graphical technique for the body plan, which will enable you to bypass this problem. This question of error is of concern to me because precision is one of my modeling goals. Life is easier if you do not worry too much about this – but only to a point. In my case no scale was given in the book, so my process was to pick off a dimension from the book with dividers, set it out on the scale at the bottom of the book plans, write down the full size dimension, then measure it off on my 1:96 drawing using the 1/8” scale on the architects rule. Recording these dimensions helps eliminate errors and facilitates later checking. Checking is an important part of the drafting process and should always be done before construction. By checking I mean a thorough, organized review of your drawings for errors, inconsistencies and/or mistakes. It is better to find problems before construction than during or after. Do not shortcut this step. I will also comment on one other issue - the drawing of curves. To draw a curve, say the sheer line, you would measure off vertical heights of the line on the reference drawing at a number of the frame lines, transfer those points to your drawing, then connect them with a smooth curve. I believe that the long sweeping curves of the sheer plan, if drawn manually, are best done using a spline or (what Dean calls) a bow. The spline is simply a thin hardwood batten, longer than your drawing, which you deflect to match the points of the curve you are drawing. The curve of the spline is held in place with weights, perhaps food cans filled with nails. If the curve is not of constant radius, this is the device to use. If the curve is of constant radius, that is, circular, the bow is the best solution. This is a batten with a cord fastened at the ends, which can be tightened to produce a constant radius curve in the batten, from which a line can be traced. Both these devices can be easily made. Be sure you use straight- grained wood, preferably hardwood, free of knots. One-eighth inch thickness or less will work for the spline. The bow could be thicker. If you are doing very detailed drawings of planking rails, etc. you might consider drawing the sheer line on a long flat piece of hardwood and then shaping the edge to that line to make a template. Mark the dead flat, the AP and the FP on the template then align those points on your drawing and trace lines as needed. This is a very good way to draw short segments that are parallel to the sheer line. These approaches are better than trying to use small French curves. The Body Plan The Body Plan is the drawing that shows the shape of the hull at each frame line and is therefore a critical modeling drawing. It is important to know that the body plan profiles show moulded breadth, that is, the breadth of the outside of the frames, not the outside of the planking. I will cover the body plan more thoroughly; describing the graphical solution I used to do this work, plus a couple other alternatives. First some alternatives: Lets say you have a book with a body plan you want to reproduce to your modeling scale. First, the easiest way, today at least is to put the book in the copier, dial up the scale conversion to resize it, print the copy and your done – maybe. Or put the book in your scanner, scan it, resize it in your graphics software and print it There are some issues with this approach. First, as mentioned above, printed book scales are sometimes inaccurate. Scanner distortion is very common, though this may be correctable by manipulating the image geometry with software. Verticality can also be a problem in scanning, but can sometimes be adjusted by rotating the scanned image. The drawing to your scale may be bigger than the page. Your graphics software may be able to handle this by printing on multiple sheets. Sometimes, particularly with small or older drawings the lines of the profile may not reproduce sharply. Pluses and minuses for these approaches could be discussed. Much is also dependent on your individual modeling goals. In 1976 none of these options were available, so I will stick to what I actually did. Rather than draw a typical body plan, where all the frames are shown – aft on one side forward on the other, I made a single view of both sides of each frame, which could be directly converted into patterns for bulkhead/frame assemblies. Below is an image scanned from one of my original drawings, resurrected from my basement archives, to illustrate the graphical method used to draft the frame profiles from the Longridge book body plan. The blue letters have been added to help with the explanation.  This is the profile for frame 3. I did all my drawings on large sheets then had large Diazo prints made from which patterns were cut out. Today I would do this on letter size if possible. I would also use CAD, and then make prints on my inkjet printer. This drawing shows the horizontal top of keel line, the TOK (A), the model keel section (B), the vertical centerline (C, sorry mislabeled A), the three rounded up decks (D), the location of the three wales at this frame (E), the planksheer section at topside (F) and the profile of the frame (G). There are also a lot of construction lines, which I will explain. First there are horizontal lines (H) numbered .5, 1 to 18, 22, 23. These are placed at these numbers of feet above the TOK (A). When I did the drawing I used a lined underlay for these instead of drawing them for each frame. On the body plan in the Longridge book I taped a sheet of tracing over the body plan and drew in these same lines at the scale of the book. Notice the angled lines (I) going down to the left at the bottom of the drawing and up to the left at the top. These are the key to this graphical solution. The breadth of the profile in the book is measured with dividers at each horizontal line and set off (J) on the slanted line from the intersection of the centerline (C) and the TOK (A), those below maximum breadth on the lower angled line and those above it on the upper, to avoid mistakes. Then perpendiculars (K) are drawn from the angled line for each point up to the TOK. Then vertical lines (L) are taken upward from each of these intersections to the appropriate horizontal line where a point is placed. This is done for the upper points as well. The points thus created describe the profile of the body at this frame. French curves are then used to join these points with a fair, that is, a smooth line. When manually fitting curves I find that a lot of points promotes accuracy, because minor discrepancies in placing points will be averaged out in drawing the curve, which may not touch every point, exactly. With CAD software, this may not always be the case and some strange curves sometimes result. That is for another discussion. For the opposite side profile, the breadths at each height on the left are set off on the right side and a curve drawn to complete the whole frame profile. Let me say at this point, that this method approximates the shape of timbers to an acceptable accuracy, especially for smaller scales. In historical practice, these profiles were a combination of circular arcs, called sweeps, not the variable radius of a French curve. At large scales, say ¼” per foot, the desired approach would be to draft the profiles using sweeps centered on rising lines and rising half breadths, with reconciling sweeps between them. This is a much more complicated process, requiring specific data, which I will save for some future discussion. The only question remaining in our solution is the most important one. How is the angle of the slanted lines (I) determined? There are two solutions, one involving a touch of trigonometry, the other graphical. First, the trig method. Measure the molded breadth in real inches in the book, then at your scale. The book scale measurement divided by the measurement at your scale is the cosine of the angle the line needs to be – in this case 42.6 degrees. This is the angle for all the conversions for all the frames. The measurements to determine it were actually done on the dead flat frame, not this one, not that that matters. If you don’t like cosines it can be done graphically. Set your compass to the half breadth width in the book. Using the intersection of the TOK (A) and centerline (C) as the center draw an arc in the left lower quadrant. Set a point on (A) at a distance equal to the maximum breadth at your scale. Place a straight edge on this point and move it until it is also at a tangent with the arc. Draw a line. Then use your triangles to find a perpendicular to this line that passes thru the intersection of the TOK (A) and Centerline (C). This line will be the correct angle. Once you have determined this angle it can be measured and replicated where needed using a protractor. The accuracy of this solution is almost wholly dependent on the care you take in drafting it. It is independent of stated book scale error and is not subject to the errors in the usual process of measurement, conversion and re-measurement or in the use of proportional dividers.  The above drawing shows part of a print from the above work. On the print I have drawn and shaded blue the frame with integral knees to be added to each side of a solid bulkhead formed by the underwater profile and the top of the lower deck beam. It also shows the beams for each deck. Longridge cut his frames including deck beams from one piece of high quality plywood. Then eventually slipped his decks in, in two halves, from the open stern. He modeled closed ports on the lower and middle decks. I wanted to model open ports with guns run out, so I adopted construction that would give open access to those decks. Each bulkhead was assembled with frames and beams to match this drawing before installing on the keel. The beams were pinned only, so they could be removed to allow working on the lower decks, then later they would be glued and pegged into place. The beams are cherry and were rounded up by steaming and bending, then sanded fair later after final installation before deck planking. One thing to remember if you try this approach is to label the beams! Finally, to the left in this drawing is a frame gauge, also made from this profile and cemented to 1/8” plywood. The bottom of this gauge is the bottom of keel line. Its purpose is to align and check frames when they are erected on the keel, setting off heights of wales, checking final faired hull, etc. Developing True View There were many cases in this project where it was necessary to have a true view of something in order to make a pattern or even to get a true measurement. I will use two examples from this project to illustrate how this problem was handled through drafting. The first example is a good one to illustrate the technique, but not an example of the best way to handle this particular case. So, there is an opportunity to discuss two things. First the technique: The problem is to develop a true view of the curvature of the two head rails (A) at the bow. These are in one plane vertically, from the cathead (not shown) to the beakhead, but are curved horizontally. The following scanned segment from a drawing illustrates the development of the true shape.  The lower part of the drawing is a view from directly forward of the head rail structure. Because the rail is angled forward in this view it is distorted horizontally. In the upper part of the drawing is a horizontal view of the head rail structure in which the head rails (A) are shown in true view, but from the top. These two views contain enough information to develop the true side view (T, which is needed to make a pattern. The true, or pattern, view is shown slanting down from the right of the upper plan view. The process is as follows: In the top plan view, a line is drawn (P) parallel to the head rail (actually to the outside face of the head rail), which will be a true view plane, and a series of spaced lines (B) are drawn perpendicular to it and down to the right for some distance. Where these points touch the face of the head rail, vertical lines (C) are dropped down to the head rail in the lower view. Then a horizontal line (H) is drawn in the bottom view at the height of the top of the rail. Lengths, for example (X) are picked off with dividers down to the top of the rail, then are used to place points along the slanted lines to the right below the first line drawn. These points describe the true curve of the top of the rail. Repeat this for the lower side of the rail and you have the true view of the rail. I will discuss in a later episode how this extreme curve was bent in European Boxwood. What is wrong with this approach? It actually worked very well in construction, but the lower view was derived from the sheer plan view of the head, so using this view was not optimum because 1) two derivations increase the error and 2) in this case the sheer plan view is larger horizontally and therefore less prone to error when used in this way. Not a big deal in this case. Below is a more complicated development of a true view, this time involving the stern galleries. The view below is a scanned pieced together view of part of one drawing, so please excuse any misalignment.  At the right side of this drawing is the view, V1, of the stern galleries from directly aft, a complicated array of curved rails, slanted balusters and canted windows. This is not a true view and therefore cannot be used to make patterns or to take accurate measurement for fabrication of parts. There are two reasons for this. The stern slants aft, shrinking vertical dimensions, and the stern is horizontally rounded aft, shrinking the horizontal dimensions, both of which will be too short if measured on the V1 view. The true vertical view, V3, is constructed first as follows: To the left of V2, draw a line (C2), parallel to the slant of the stern timbers, allowing enough room for this to be the centerline of the new view, V3. Each point on this new view can then be described by drawing a horizontal line from that point in V1, for examples line (X1), the top of the center window, across to the stern timber, then down to view 2 by means of a line (X2) perpendicular to that timber. The horizontal location of each point can be picked off V1 with dividers, and directly transferred to the V2, since horizontal dimensions will be the same in both views. The new view, V2, in this case a combination of structure and decoration, is drawn point by point by this method. The left view, labeled the “Developed View,” V4, is a slight horizontal expansion to correct the curvature distortion. Draw a line (P) parallel to the centerline in V3 at the outside edge of the lower gallery rail. Extend the centerline (C2) in V2 upward, then construct a centerline for view 3 (C3) perpendicular to the V2 centerline(C2). Now, from a plan view of the stern (not shown), measure the true length of the lower gallery rail around its curve using small divider increments, say 1 foot. It will be slightly larger than the V3 breadth. Set the true half breadth (D) off at the correct height on V4 and draw a line (E) from that point, parallel to C3 to intersect with the similar line from V2. The slanted transfer line (T) is then drawn between this intersection and the intersection of the centerlines. Horizontal measurements can then be taken from V3 to V3 using perpendiculars to the two centerlines. Vertical dimensions will be the same, i.e. true dimensions in both these views. This is a nice academic construct and illustrates an important technique. In the end, in the model construction, V3 was necessary but V4 was too useful because of the way I ultimately constructed the stern galleries and also because the round aft of this structure on Victory is slight. I hope Part 2 in this series has been helpful to some and not too exhausting. These are solutions that worked for me. There are alternatives. This is one way to do it. In the next part I will describe how the building board, or model shipway was built and the construction of the model framing. Cheers, Ed Tosti 2010 Copyright Edward J Tosti | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| EdT |
| ||
| Registered Member #963 Joined: Wed Jun 09 2010, 05:30pmPosts: 61 | HMS Victory 1:96 Scratchbuild Part 3 In Part 2 we discussed some useful drafting techniques in some detail. I hope this long complex discussion has not been too tiresome. Starting with this part we will focus on a more popular topic, the actual building of the model, but first I want to spend a short paragraph on the construction of what turned out to be a very key tool throughout the process – the building board, or, as I prefer, the model shipway. Below is an undimensioned outline drawing of the shipway I built for the Victory model.  A large, 20” x 44” piece of ¾”Douglas fir exterior plywood, sanded one side, was used for the base platform. The length and width were made sufficient to clear the entire model including the bowsprit, driver boom and main yard (with studding sail booms). Dry, clear pieces of white pine, ¾” X about 2 ½”, were planed true on one edge and screwed securely to each other and to the plywood top, as shown in the sketch. When this was done a long straightedge was placed on the top across different sections to check for flatness. Where a slight distortion in the top was found, some of the screws were loosed and thin shims inserted to bring the top perfectly flat. After thirty-four years of abuse, standing on its end sometimes for years in my basement, the board was as flat on the day I cut it up for fireplace kindling as it was when it was built. During use the board was securely clamped on my workbench. On the top surface I placed three straight grained ¾” X ¾” oak rails, the first in the center on the line of the keel and the other two outside the maximum half breadth of the hull. The centerline of the keel and all the frame lines were scribed into these rails. To aid in frame alignment, checking of locations, especially within the hull, a carefully squared “gantry” device was built to slide on the outside rails. This could be aligned with the scribed lines on the rails or any point in between and was secured with bolts on either side (not shown) that would squeeze the triangular gussets tight to the rails to hold it in position. This device was carefully squared both longitudinally and athwartships and was marked with a scribed centerline in the top horizontal rail. A datum line to match the top of the gantry rail was put on the drawings as a basis for vertical measurements. This device was indispensable for marking out and checking dimensions inside the hull. A combination square could be run along this top rail to set heights and breadths easily. The picture below, taken in 1996, is one of the few I have that shows the board well. Please excuse the bench clutter.  In this picture there are two squared up end strong end posts which could be used to stretch a piano wire along the centerline as another way to check the scribed centerline on the “gantry” and to initially center frames on the keel. These were removed when no longer needed. Also shown are felt lined cradles that were added after the lower hull was finished. Before then the hull was squared up by means of doubled copper wire from two lower gun ports on each side attached at their ends by small screwed eyebolts, one end into the board the other into a small piece of hardwood inserted into the gun ports. The wire was then twisted tight on each side until the ship was in proper alignment. The model was held in longitudinal alignment by a block on the middle rail at the back of the sternpost. Finally, when rigging started, a temporary case, made from pine and foam board was fitted to the base to completely enclose the model to keep it free of dust. The sides of this or the whole could be removed easily to gain construction access. The top was made from clear acrylic sheet, so overhead ceiling lights could keep the work well lit. The case was fastened to the outside edges of the board. This worked well in what was often a very dusty woodworking shop. Keel Assembly The first item to be made was the keel/sternpost/stem/head assembly. All were made from maple. If I were doing this again they would be cherry to match the other visible wood. The keel section is not like the original. It is deeper to take the bulkhead/frame assemblies. The rabbet on the keel was cut using a small shaped scaper as shown in the following sketch.  I used a lot of these little scrapers for various tasks. Mine were made from 1/16” stainless steel only because I had that and it files easily. Old hacksaw blades will work as well. If they are hardened, heat them until red, then allow to cool. File the shape, then (optionally) heat to red again and quench to harden. For the keel rabbet the scraper was simply drawn along the keel with the side marked “bottom of keel” held to the bottom until the full depth was reached. At the ends and along the sternpost and stem this device could not be used so the rabbet was cut with a small chisel. The assembled keel, sternpost, stem, head assembly was then set up on the board and fixed into a vertical position on the centerline. Frames Unlike Longridge (see part 2), I made my frames to allow access to the lower decks by assembling them with removable deck beams. Each frame assembly consisted of a single solid bulkhead, filling the space between the bottom profile and the top of the lower deck beam. A drawing of this is shown in part 2. Topside frames with knees to support the beams were cut out in one piece and fitted to each side on the pattern sheet along with the beams. Side frames were glued and pegged, beams were pinned only, from the outside. Bulkheads and frames were cut out of 3/16” lauan, a medium soft wood that would accept pins and copper nails easily. Beams were cherry, rounded up to the correct level at their centers. This was done taking a wide, say 2”, piece of cherry ripped to 3/16” thickness, cutting it to the length of the midship frame deck beam, marking the centerline, then steaming it and clamping it over a form cut to the shape of the round up from a 2X4. Actually the round up was exaggerated slightly on the form to allow for some spring back when the beam stock dried. This can be judged by trial and error. When dry, the beams were ripped to their correct width, cut to length maintaining the correct centerline, fit into their frames and pinned through locating holes drilled through the frame. Each frame was then set up on the keel and held in place by gluing to blocks cut from a board ripped to the thickness of the space between frames. The picture below, taken later, shows these frames. Also visible in this picture is the piano wire running along the centerline, which was used to square up the frames when gluing them to the blocks between the lower bulkheads. This work all went quite rapidly.  This picture was taken after some additional work was done. Cant frames were added to round out the bow framing. These were patterned by rotating forward sectional profiles to the true view angle by the technique described in Part 2, then cut out and glued to the stem/keel and also to an internal horizontal rounded support which is not visible. None of this framing is at all historically accurate except for the outer profiles. Also visible in the above picture are white pine filler pieces glued between all of the frames. These were installed for three reasons. First I needed thickness to be able to securely fasten external hull fittings and to simulate the planked interior, which though not visible, was desirable. Second, since I wanted the external planking to be cut to realistic lengths, especially the anchor stock planking of the wales, I needed something between frames on which to fasten that planking. And finally, I needed filler between frames to accurately locate gun ports. The pine provided this. Later the ports were lined with thin cherry before planking. In the picture the hull has also been faired to final shape and two battens have been pinned on in the shape of the sheer line at the bottom of the main wale and the top of the upper wale. These would provide guides for the planking. Lower Body Planking The picture below shows the lower body planking in progress. No filler pieces were needed here because planking, which would later be covered with copper, was put on in long lengths. All the lower body planking was cherry, just less than 1/16” thick and 1/8” inch wide. Planking was fastened using Titebond wood glue and small copper nails on each frame.  Titebond, an aliphatic resin, water based wood glue, was used for all wood-to-wood joints throughout the project. It produces a bond at least as strong as the wood itself, has sufficient work time to allow parts to be precisely positioned, holds parts together in an hour or so and completely sets in several hours. Excess can be wiped or washed away with water, or scraped off later. Clamping or pinning is needed at least until the preliminary set. Copper nails were made by cutting a long piece, say 24”, of 20 gauge wire, clamping one end in a vice and pulling the other end until the wire broke, thus stress hardening the wire so it could be used for nails. The wire was then cut at ¼” intervals with one end snipped off square and the other at an angle. Pilot holes through the plank were drilled for these nails at each frame. The size of the hole was made slightly smaller the drawn copper. After applying glue and positioning, the copper nails were simply hammered into the soft framing, so no clamping was needed. The lower body planking began at the keel and worked upwards to the lower line of the main wale in such a way that the last planks leading up to this line were parallel to it along their whole length. Of course, all the planking had to be applied in fair lines, that is, smoothly curved lines. This raises one issue, which deserves some discussion. If you measure the width of the planked surface at the stern, in midships, and forward, you will see that the width to be planked is smaller at the ends, meaning fewer planks are needed at the fore and aft ends of the lower hull. Once you get up to the main wale the remaining planking is mostly parallel, so this is an issue for the lower body. In historical practice, on this type of ship, a process called stealing was used to handle this. It is best shown with a diagram:  To facilitate this method I made a paper strip with the planking widths marked out and numbered along the strip. Then using this strip I measured down from the bottom of the main wale, at several points, to determine the number of planks needed to fill the space at each of those points. From this I could determine the number of stealers needed both fore and aft. There are several at each end. The question is, where to put them. Planking is started from the bottom. Using the paper strip, I measured down at midships and marked off the plank joints on the midship frame. Then I moved the strip forward, always perpendicular to the wale until I reached a point where exactly one less whole plank was needed. This would be the position of the stealer joint. This was repeated aft and the first plank was tapered to half its widths at these points. The next plank was notched out to match the taper in the first plank. This was done for each strake of planking until eventually the same number of planks were needed at each point up to the lower side of the main wale. If inserting a stealer rigidly to this scheme disturbed the fairness of the lines of planking, I would simply not put it in and look at it again on the next plank up. This may seem like a lot of trouble for a bottom that would be coppered but I wanted to do it right and I am not sure this process is any more difficult than tapering planks. Also, this would be good practice for the time when I had to plank the ships boats. I did not use sandpaper on the bottom planking or on any of the planking for that matter. Planking was leveled with small flat files. With sandpaper there is greater risk of rounding off edges that want to be sharp. Fine cut files also leave a cleaner surface on very hard woods, like boxwood, which was used for topside planking. They also do a better job leveling off the copper nails and tree nails which would be used topside. I had a couple files on which the handles were bent to allow them to lie flat on the wood surface. This was done by heating the handle with a torch, then bending and quenching. Coppering the Lower Hull From the beginning of the project I was concerned about the copper plating on the hull, especially about how to represent the copper nails used to hold the plates in place. I wanted these to be proportionally correct. This was a goal I had for all the detailed items on the ship. I knew I could not duplicate the Longridge process of using actual copper nails, because to look credible they would have to be too small. I finally settled on an embossing process, which is described in detail in a reply I posted to this log earlier. The following photo is not great but is one of few I have that shows coppering up close. The coppering is about 20 years old in this picture. I believe the objective of producing proportionately sized nails was met. This turned out to be an easy efficient process once a tool was made. The use of individual plates also allowed the lines of planking to duplicate the original.  The one issue I had (and still have) with the coppering process was the attachment of the plates. It was done with contact cement, which seemed to be the accepted approach at the time, and maybe still is. I found it less than satisfactory, even after spending a lot of time getting the parameters of the process right, like drying time before applying the plates, thickness of application, cleaning off excess, etc. All of these caused difficulty with the ¼” X 1/2’ X .003” plates, especially the cleanup of excess, which had to be done with solvent that often loosed the bond. Over the years, probably less than 5% of the plates have come loose of the original 3700, but that is over 100 plates. Replacement plates contrast with the weathering of the older plates. Perhaps they will blend in time. So, I am not pleased with this outcome and wish a better solution were available. The last photo, taken much later in the project, shows the run of planking and coppering up to the stern transom. Some of the effects of excess adhesive can still be seen on the back of the rudder. By the way, I confess that the chain was a purchased part.  In part four I will cover the construction of the stern galleries and the planking of the topsides. Please stay tuned. Cheers, Ed Tosti 2010 Copyright Edward J. Tosti | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Gene Bodnar |
| ||
  Registered Member #126 Joined: Tue Jul 21 2009, 11:20amPosts: 1782 | Ed, You have described several very interesting techniques here. Your "shipway" is quite different from the building jigs in most general use. From your description, it sounds like it would be easier to make more accurate measurements. Very interesting post. Thanks for sharing. Gene | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| EdT |
| ||
| Registered Member #963 Joined: Wed Jun 09 2010, 05:30pmPosts: 61 | HMS Victory 1:96 Scratchbuild Project Part 4 - The Stern Galleries and Lower Decks The progress of the model during the 1980’s is a memory test for me. Although a fair amount of work was done between 1980 and 1986, no pictures were taken. For the next few years, the model was in storage while we were out of the country. However, a lot of work was done in the early 80’s including the construction of the stern, the planking and fitting out of the lower and middle decks, making the guns for those decks and a lot of the topside planking and rails. The Stern Although some planking was done before the stern, the stern with its detailing was done very early because it was almost completely prefabricated on the bench before being installed and neither planking nor the lower decks could be completed without it being in place, so I will start with that part of the work.  This picture was taken in 1997, long after the stern was installed. The above picture shows the detail of the stern galleries and the counters, the 27 slanted windows with 9 panes each, the two rows of 69 slanted carved balusters, the carvings, the fluted moldings, etc. The carved boxwood letters of the name were a little extravagance not based on the prototype, but I liked the idea, especially since I wasn’t going to paint. Its one of the few departures I allowed myself. All this detail was done very early so it could be done on the bench on a flat surface with good light. I thought this worked out extremely well and so I will describe the process in some detail. First, of course, the wing transom had to be in position. This was not described previously, but was put on in when the basic framing was done. This timber is curved on its aft face and on its top. The aft curve is quite slight which gives the stern an almost flat appearance. Being higher in the middle, the wing transom sets the pattern for the curve of the counters and the horizontal gallery lines, which parallel the round up of the decks. At the same time the eight “vertical” stern timbers, with their curved feet, slant both inward and markedly aft. All this required some careful patternmaking and measurement during installation. Patterns for the individual stern timbers were developed using techniques described in part 2. They were then cut out in maple and pinned in position across the wing transom. The outer two were actually screwed down temporarily with tiny wood screws. Angles aft and inward plus the aft curvature were measured very carefully using templates that could also hold the timbers temporarily in place. I am sorry I have no pictures of this. Once the timbers were in their correct position, the curved interior deck transoms and the main exterior counter rails were attached permanently to the stern timbers. Then, filling pieces of flat maple were glued between the timbers except for the window openings. This gave the whole assembly rigidity and provided bedding for the exterior planking. The assembly was then removed from the ship and taken to the bench for completion of the detailing. The following picture taken years after permanent installation shows the maple inserts between stern timbers and window openings. It also shows the internal horizontal deck transoms and the external rails which had not yet been trimmed.  This picture was taken in 1995 several years after the stern as installed and after completion most of the topside planking. The hexagonal table covering the rudder head and the wide seat of the middle deck ward room are also visible.. Once moved to the convenience of the bench, the first step was to finalize the shape of the gallery structure and add the missing panels at the sides. Frequent fittings on the ship were made to assure all this was correctly sized and shaped. When this was done the other horizontal rails and the window lintels were put on in boxwood. Then the remaining exterior planking was put on over the whole gallery surface and below on the two counters. This was done in 3” (1/32”) cherry which was attached with glue and boxwood tree nails. I will describe the making of these tree nails later. Thousands were used on the model. In the above picture the holes for the tree nails can be seen on the inside of the stern timbers. The following picture is a close up illustrating the results of some of the next steps.  I did not want to paint the model, but I did want to contrast the woodwork in a way similar to the painted original (except for the lines of the gun ports which I will discuss later). This was done throughout the model using the pale yellow European boxwood on the darker reddish cherry. This contrast shows well in the above picture. After the planking was installed the columns between the windows were made and installed. This was done as follows. Two thin sheets of boxwood were glued on opposite sides of a cherry core, a strip maybe ½” wide, with the total lamination thickness equaling the width of the columns between the windows. The column facades were then sliced off of this on the circular saw, cut to length and glued to the aft side of the stern timbers, matching their widths. The next step was the dreaded balusters, two rows of 69 each slanting progressively inward, carved square (not turned). The following picture shows how ornate these are on the real Victory.  The balusters on my model are about 1/32” square and about ¼” long. I could not hope to duplicate the above patterns at this size, so I decided to retain the square shape but simplify the pattern. The result is proportionately correct, but of course lacks complete detail. To assure uniformity and alignment the balusters were carved after being glued to the façade. Once the were secure, a very sharp knife was used to scribe the lines of the pediments and heads of the columns (top and bottom). Then the aft part of the curved shape was cut with a small chisel across the whole row. This approach assured alignment top and bottom square sections. When the aft faces of the balusters were done, the side shapes were cut with a small chisel and surgical scalpel. Next the 1/64” by 1/32”window frames were installed, a pretty straightforward task. They are inset just below the surface of the column facades and are actually glued to the stern timbers. The window mullions themselves are the same depth and thickness as the frames. To make them, a wide (1”) sheet of boxwood, 1/32” thick, was scored, twice only, with a .015” circular saw blade, 1/64’ deep at the pane width spacing. The mullions were then ripped off in 1/64” slices and assembled by locking the notches together. There was just enough movement in these to slant them to the desired degree. Then they were then trimmed to size, touched with a bit of glue and push fit into the frames. No glass was installed. They have been secure and I have not managed to stick a tool or a finger through a single one of them. The only remaining work to be done was the fluted rails and the carved figures and stacked arms above the top windows. The figures and arms were cutout from a thin sheet of boxwood with a fine toothed jeweler’s saw, glued in place, then relief carved with very small chisels. The ropelike rails were done with a needle file on the edge of a wider piece then ripped off on the saw. The fluted rail may have been done in a similar way using a rotary tool. I cannot remember. The stern galleries were then permanently attached to the wing transom and secured structurally with additional members and knees, completing this major piece of work. The Lower, Middle and Upper Gun Decks The Lower and Middle gun decks would only be visible in the finished model by peering into the gun ports or through hatchways, so I did not want to overdo the detail. The beams for the Lower, Middle and the Upper decks do not attempt to replicate the original. However, the simplified beam structure provided by the frame assemblies needed to be modified and supplemented at every level to accommodate hatches, mast partners, etc. The following picture shows some of the simplified beam structure of the Upper deck and also some of the detailing of the decks below.  This picture taken in 1995 shows the middle deck planking and gun carriages plus the simplified planking of the Upper deck. The planking of the lower and middle decks was done in maple, 1/8” wide, with no attempt to replicate plank length or stagger pattern. The dark caulking between planks was simulated by gluing black construction paper to the sheets of 1/8” thick maple before ripping off the planks. This left no paper sticking above the planks and could be scraped down smooth without difficulty. I will say at this point that all decks were scraped smooth, using a ½” square ended chip carving knife that had been squared off, honed and had a scraper curl added with a burnishing tool. This eliminated the need for sanding. The lower and middle deck gun carriages were also simply made in maple. After positioning, with their barrels in place, they were then pinned and glued to the deck. Barrels would be installed through the ports many years later. Waterways, hatch coamings, gratings, stairs, partitions and other miscellaneous basic items were installed on these lower decks without too much attention to their perfection. The hawsers for the anchors had to be installed at this time. This forced an early entry into the art of rope making, including worming, both of which I will go into later. The anchor cables are huge, 27” circumference, hawser laid ropes that are wormed over their length. They pass upwards from the cable tiers on the orlop deck (not modeled) through guides and the corner of a lower deck hatch, along the deck forward, out the hawse holes in the bow and are secured to a bower anchor lashed on each side of the forward hull. These ropes, at this time, were attached below the lower deck, coiled on the deck so they could easily be pulled out later, with their ends just protruding through the unfinished hawse holes. These protruding ropes would get in the way of work for years to come.  The protruding anchor cables, with safety lines, still protruding in 1995 – and still in the way. In Part 5 I will discuss making the gun barrels and get into the topside planking. Stay tuned, Ed Tosti 2010 Copyright Edward J Tosti | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| EdT |
| ||
| Registered Member #963 Joined: Wed Jun 09 2010, 05:30pmPosts: 61 | HMS Victory 1:96 Scratchbuild Project Part 5 – Gun Barrels and Topside Planking In this part I will focus on the modeling of the gun barrels. These needed to be made for the lower and middle decks so the carriages could be correctly positioned before installing the beams and planking for the decks above, after which, they would be inaccessible. I will also start in on the topside exterior planking in this part. The Gun Barrels  One of the extra middle deck 24 pounder barrels, blackened after machining. All of the 102 gun barrels were individually turned in brass on a miniature machine lathe, a Unimat SL, which I was fortunate to purchase used, in mint condition, at a very good price in the late 70’s. I spent as much again on accessory parts, including the circular saw attachment and the indexing head among others. It has been durable, easy to use and capable of a number of precision operations – turning, drilling, milling, circular sawing, precision grinding, etc. The Unimat went out of production some years ago, so I was glad to have bought the accessories when they were available. Later they would become indispensable for a number of operations, which I will describe in their proper place. Unimat tools and accessories are still traded on eBay. Later, I purchased the Preac circular saw and a Sherline milling machine. These would make the aging Unimat less essential. Both are excellent tools. I still use the Unimat regularly, however, for all manner of tasks. I wanted the guns to have a recognizable metallic sheen for aesthetic purposes. The clean metallic finish highlights the detail on the guns very well as opposed to paint. This effect was obtained with a blackening agent, which was used for this purpose and for virtually all the brass “ironwork” on the ship, from the anchors to the small hooks attaching the futtock shrouds to their deadeye chains. The drawing below was done on a piece of file folder, knowing it would have to put up with a lot of wear and tear on the bench. On this, a dimensioned drawing of each type of gun was made at scale size. Also noted are the drill sizes for the different bores. It was very convenient having all the necessary information on one card and all machining was done from this drawing.  The guns were turned from brass rod. Although machined individually, uniformity and efficiency were achieved by doing one operation at a time on all the barrels of a given size. To do this efficiently, work pieces had to be in and out of the machine constantly. To facilitate this, the pieces were held on the muzzle end only in a Jacobs chuck, making change out fast and easy. This meant barrels would be drilled last without the benefit of centering in the lathe, but that disadvantage was accepted. Below are a pair of rejects of the process from my scrap bin that show the way these were chucked – on the stubs at the left.  First the outer diameter of the ring at the breech was turned. Then the pommel and breech end were cut in one operation with a special cutter (see below). Then the headstock of the lathe was rotated slightly to allow the taper of the barrel to be turned between the breech ring and the ring behind the muzzle. The raised rings were then located and the correct barrel diameter between them was turned. . The setup for this tapered turning is shown in the picture below. Keep in mind that each of these steps was done on all the similar barrels before moving on to the next step.  The Unimat is (was?) a very versatile machine. Mine is permanently mounted on a plywood base. Under the base a piece of foam carpet mat can be seen. This holds small machines like this in position while permitting easy movement out of the way when not in use or to different orientations on the bench. The white bench top is laminate coated particle board, bright, durable and easy to keep clean. After all the tapered machining was done, the headstock was returned to normal for the finishing of the muzzle end. Special cutters were ground to facilitate and standardize the machining of the muzzle flare and the pommel at the breech end. The picture below shows these cutters.  The ¼” square Unimat bits were ground to the shapes of the muzzle and breech.] When all of this machining was done, the barrels were polished in the machine with crocus cloth and fine steel wool. Then the barrels were parted off the stubs and the muzzle ends filed smooth. Drilling the bores was then done very carefully to assure centering. They were drilled to their correct size held vertically in the Unimat vise with the machine set up as a drill press. Only a few barrels had any visible bore misalignment. The worst of these were rejected. Fortunately several extras were made for each type. The last step before blackening was the drilling for the trunnions. The fact that these are below the bore centerline adds a slight complication. A jig was made to hold the barrel under the drill press so that the trunnion bore would be offset below the centerline. The bore location was given a center punch mark to help avoid the drill slipping off the curved barrel. After drilling, the trunnions were slipped in and held in place by a slight hammer tap on the bottom of the barrel. This avoided soldering with its potential blackening issues. Finally, the blackening. It is best to blacken right after machining. Getting good results from blackening solutions may be a science, but it feels more like an art form. The problems experienced included: spotty blackening, blackening that rubs off, sooty like buildup, and flaking off, etc. The ways I battled these problems included, assuring very clean polished brass before dipping, degreasing with acetone, thinning the solution with water to slow the process, swabbing parts with Q-tips while immersed, allowing to dry before buffing, frequent changes of solution, multiple partial dips, plus others I am sure. I wish I could say that any one of these was consistently successful. Blackening silver soldered joints or overheated small parts was often troublesome and in some cases parts had to be re-dipped because of wear, after which some would not blacken at all and a few (very few) had to be painted, or touched up. This was not required on any of the guns and after blackening they were buffed up with a soft rag and put away for future installation.  The three tiers of guns below the waist.on the port side. Topside Planking Overview The workmanship on the topside planking makes or breaks an unpainted hull model. I wanted crisp lines, sharp edges, tight joints and cleanly cut moldings and rails. Most of all I wanted to highlight the beautiful sweeping curve of the ship’s sheer line. Note I do not mean the line of the gun ports, which follows the line of the decks, which is a much flatter curve than the line of the sheer. The “Nelson Stripes” painted between the gun ports may have suited his fancy, but, unlike the painting of earlier years, it did nothing for the beauty of the ship. This treatment gave these ships an awkward flatiron look, which I did not want. What I did want was to accentuate the gracefully curves lines of the sheer. To do this I decided to plank the three wales in the darker cherry and the rest of the planking and the rails in the pale yellow European Boxwood. Both are hard, flexible woods, capable of taking a fine polish without finish. In the end, I gave them a rub of very dilute Tung oil wiped dry, then a thin solution beeswax dissolved in turpentine, buffed. This was done mainly to prevent staining during the later stages of the work. This even allowed CA drips to be flaked off when they occurred. Of course, no further gluing to the surface was possible after this treatment. Tree Nails Before describing the planking process itself, I need to discuss treenails (or trennals, or trunnels, etc). These were used extensively throughout the model, both for appearance and for added strength. Glue alone was only used where treenails or others types of fastener was not practical, usually because of scale. For example, the wriggles above the gun ports in the above picture are glued only. Because of the 1:96 scale, proportionately sized fastenings are not practical, so there was a compromise of fewer and larger tree nails vs. the original. These were made from Boxwood, although some were made from Bamboo. The round diameter of the treenail was made with a drawplate, a thin metal plate with an array of holes of decreasing size down to the desired nail diameter. In practice, getting a diameter below .030” (2 ¾” at 1:96) was hit or miss, so .030 became the standard minimum size. Larger diameters were used in structural applications, for example on beams. Below is a picture of some tree nails and the simple drawplate I made from hard brass sheet, which was used to make all the nails used on the ship.  The almost worn out brass drawplate with some .030” tree nails. The usable holes in this plate, the first 7 from the left, range in size from .039” down to .031”, that is number 61 to 68 drill size. The process of making these nails was as follows: Strips of boxwood maybe 12” long were sized down to 1/32” square (.03125”) or slightly larger. One end the strip was tapered so when pushed into the largest hole, enough emerged to grab with a pair of pliers. The strip was then pulled through each successively smaller hole with even pressure. Final diameters of 030” were consistently achievable. The strips were then cut with a sharp chisel to length, first on a slant then square, then on a slant again, etc. to yield small nails with a square top and a pointed bottom. Thousands of these were made.  Above is a picture of three drawplates. The top plate is a purchased item (Cost on sale $25). Holes range from 1/16” down to .037” (No. 63 drill). This is made of steel, which may be hardened, and the holes are countersunk on the “pull out” side. You want only a small amount of metal to pull through. The cutting should be done on the back face of the hole. You do not want to squeeze the wood into the hole, but rather scrape off its surface on the way in. The middle one is my brass plate (Cost about $0) with holes from .039” down to the usable .030” and several sizes below, at which strips begin to break. The bottom plate is one I have recently made from 1/8” thick steel, which I intend to use on my new project. The middle plate will get a well-deserved retirement. The new plate begins where the upper plate leaves off and then goes down to a final .030” hole size. I will briefly describe how to make this plate since it seems to work very well, is easy to make, could easily be made to handle the full range up to 1/16”, and, very importantly, is inexpensive. First I bought a 1/8” by 1 ¼” by 36” (the only length they had) strip of galvanized steel for $5. Galvanizing isn’t necessary. The plate should be wide enough to leave some room below the holes when clamped in your vice. After cutting the plate to length, countersink holes were drilled using a 1/8” drill, to just above the bottom of the plate, that is, almost but not quite all the way through. I would guess maybe 1/64” of metal was left. Then using small drills, smaller holes were drilled in the center of the larger holes, from the same side. Burrs were filed off both sides to complete the drawplate. I do not intend to harden the plate based on the longevity I got from the much softer brass plate, but if you want your great grand children to use it, you might wish to harden it. I also learned that Brynes Tools sells what appears to be a very nice drawplate with holes down to .016” for $25. In the next episode, I will discuss how matching “anchor stock” and “top and butt” planks for the wales were made, how different rail moldings were made, and how planks were bent, clamped and fastened to the hull. Cheers, Ed Tosti 2010 Copyright Edward J Tosti | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| EdT |
| ||
| Registered Member #963 Joined: Wed Jun 09 2010, 05:30pmPosts: 61 | HMS Victory 1:96 Scratchbuild Project Part 6 – The Topside Planking In Part 5, we started working up to the task of topside planking by discussing the objectives I had for the final appearance. I like to set these objectives up front for each major stage to use as a quality yardstick when deciding how far to go with each aspect of the work or when to scrap some unsatisfactory work. In this Part, I will cover some aspects of the planking that may be of interest. I will also discuss the making of treenails, a vital ingredient in the planking task, and also making the rails and the “wriggles” over the ports.  Planking from the lower wale up to the waist rail. The Lower Wale, or Main Wale The main wale is a band of thick structurally important planking that runs from just above the waterline at midships up to the bottom sill of most of the ports of the lower gun deck. Because the line of the lower wale, and almost all of the topside planking for that matter, parallels the sheer line, and because that line has more curvature than the line of the decks, several of the after gun ports on the lower deck actually cut into the lower wale, the aftermost one being almost entirely within the wale. So, before doing any planking of the lower wale, the gun port framing had to be dealt with. Because the gun port sides, tops and bottoms were formed by the ships structure, a collection of Lauan frames and pine filler pieces, the ports needed to be re framed to improve their appearance. This was done by enlarging the port openings and framing their insides with strips of 1/32” cherry. This also provided an opportunity to check the final location of the ports and make any necessary adjustments. Once all the lower deck ports were lined, the planking could begin. Because the lower wale was expected to contribute longitudinal stiffness to the hull structure, its lower four strakes had planks in the shape of anchor stocks, that is, of increasing width from the ends to a point in the center of the plank. The lowest row had the peaks on the top and the second on the bottom and then a repeat for the next two strakes. This provided an interlocking structure which would help resist bending stresses on the hull, specifically “hogging,” the tendency for the ends of the ships to bend downwards as a wave lifted the center of the ship. The picture below describes this along with the slightly different configuration for the middle wale, known as “top and butt”. The picture above shows how this looked on the model.  These special shaped planks had to be made accurately or they would not fit together seamlessly, which was quite important to the final appearance. Special devices were made to cut these and the slightly different shapes for the middle wale, in which the highpoint is off center. The tools shown below were used to cut these planks all to the same size.  These two slightly different cutting guides, were made by filing steel plates to the correct profile of the pyramidal edge of the planks, making sure their top edges were smooth and accurate. Then they were fitted into wood forms, which set their height correctly and also the length of the plank. Spacing was set to just over the plank thickness for easy removal. The guide at the top right was for main wale planks and the one at the lower left for the middle wale top and butt planks. For use these were secured in a vise. Planks of the final thickness were cut to the correct length and just over correct width, allowing the guides to set the final width. These blanks were each placed between the steel rails and pared down with a sharp chisel flush with the top of the guides. This produced uniform planks with sharp square edges, which fit together well when installed. Planking Procedure All the planking was cut from 8/4 (2”) by roughly 6” wide stock. European Boxwood of this size was hard to come by even in the 1970’s, but I was fortunate to be able to acquire two pieces in this size about 3 ft long. Cherry was not a problem, but it needed to be selected for straight grain from pieces I had. The wide stock was then cut to about 12” lengths, ripped down to the plank width, using a very thin kerf 10” circular saw blade, and then if necessary, cleaned up with a cabinet scraper to assure a very smooth edge on the planks. Planks were then ripped to thickness on the Unimat circular saw, using a relieved fine tooth metal working blade that produced a glasslike finish on the surface of the planks. As I mentioned in Part 5, wales were done in cherry and the rest in European Boxwood. Anchor stock and top and butt were worked in paired rows to make sure pieces fit each other as the rows progressed. To assure tight joints the back corners of each plank was very slightly chamfered with a file to assure that the front faces would touch. Titebond glue was applied to the back and bottom edges – also to the appropriate end if the plank was butting another installed plank. Since the framing and filler on which the planks bedded was solid, clamping was done using short pieces of soft pine about 1/8” thick through which stiff pins were hammered into the frame. Friction between the pin and the pine held the plank down and in until the glue had a chance to set. Below is a diagram illustrating this clamping technique.  Excess glue was then brushed off using a wet artists brush kept nearby in a jar of water. This eliminated the need for later sanding or scraping to get the glue off. After 30 years, none of these glue joints has failed and all the planking is still tight. Finally, holes were drilled to receive the treenails. This was done later, when enough planking was complete to draw in pencil the lines of the nails. Holes were then pricked with a center punch to assure that lines of nails would be straight. A drill size just below the diameter of the treenail was used to assure a tight nailed fit. The sharp end of the nail was dipped in the glue, held in the hole using tweezers or small pliers, and tapped in with a small hammer. Excess glue was brushed off and when dry, the surface of the plank was leveled off with a small file. Using a file here assures that the nail head will be flush. Sanding may leave a bump with the hard end grain of the nail. It also tends to ruin nearby sharp edges. Toward the ends of the hull, planks needed to be curved to fit. This was done by cutting the plank to size, steaming it in an old teapot until pliable, then fitting and clamping it in place – without glue. As the plank dries, it will shrink, and if glued, will leave gaps. When the plank was completely dried it was glued in place. Boiling water sometimes discolored the surface of the planks, but I found this could be removed with the file. There are other good ways to bend wood, but this was the method I used. The areas between and above the wales was done in straight boxwood planks using the same procedure as above. This planking was thinner than the wales, so care had to be taken to avoid sanding or filing off the raised edges of the wales. These were given a very slight rounding during the final polishing of the hull exterior. As each strake of planking was completed, a dimensional check was made, by measuring up to the sheer line to make sure the height was correct along the hull. Discrepancies when found were very small and could be corrected easily with a file or small scraper. Doing this at each strake avoided a potentially nasty surprise when the planking ultimately reached the sheer line. Finally, before beginning the next strake, a triangular file or scraper was used to remove any fillet of glue left between the top of the planks and the frame to assure next strake would seat neatly. Where planks ended at a gun port, they were left slightly long, then filed flush with the frame later. Where a gun port sill or lintel cut into the edge of a plank this was also filed out later. This assured a nice sharp corner to the port openings. Rails The picture below shows the three rails the run the length of the hull above the upper wale. The lowest is the waist rail, which in this picture is cut by the line of the upper deck 12 pounders. Above that is the sheer rail, which is cut by the fore, main and mizzen channels, and above that is the planksheer rail, which runs under the planksheer at the waist. There are additional “drift” rails aft and forward.  These rails add interest and accentuate the lines of the hull. The upper two have a similar profile. The waist rail is different. These rails were shaped in Boxwood, using a profile scraper which was drawn along the edge of a strip of wood with thickness equal to the width of the wale, but much wider so it could be secured in a vice while being shaped. After shaping the rail was sliced off on the circular saw. These rails were bedded on the framing, not on top of planking, so they replaced a row of planks. Actual practice may have differed, but this seemed a logical approach on the model. A picture of the profile scraper used for some of these different shapes is shown below.  These profile cutters are easy to make and do a nice job making moldings. The above cutter was used for the sheer rail, the steps up the side and the cap rails on the channels. Cutters like this were also used for things like the fenders shown in the picture below and for making rigging blocks, which I will discuss later.  Teh picture, above, shows some of the other detail that was added after completion of the topside planking – the molded steps up the side, the elaborate middle deck entranceway, the two vertical fenders to protect the hull when loading barrels, the “wriggles” over ports to divert water and the sheave set into side which would later take the mainsail sheet into the waist. The scrolls at the ends of the drift rails were made by turning grooves on the end of a boxwood dowel. This was a compromise I have regretted. They needed to be carved as a scroll with decreasing radius to the center, but I gave up on this too quickly and took the easy way out. I have never been happy with this decision. The wriggles over the ports presented an interesting problem. There are two types. On the lower deck ports they are straight across the top and on the middle deck they curve up into a point at the middle. The undersides are concave curves. The challenge was to make them proportionately correct and to have them uniform. Both were made starting with a strip of boxwood the thickness of the horizontal thickness of the wriggles and maybe 3/8” wide. The inside concave shape was cut along the face of the boxwood strip near its edge with a small ball end mill to make a rounded slot of the correct length and depth for the interior curve. The depth of this milling cut left about 1/64” of wood at the bottom. Several slots were cut along this line on the strip. The circular saw was then used to slice off enough so that only the top half of the slots remained on the edge of the strip. Then the inside lower 1/64” edge was trimmed back to its profile with a knife. Then the strip of “wriggles” was sliced off above the slot leaving a strip with quarter concave slots on one edge. The wriggles were cut off to length and the outside curve at the ends shaped with a chisel. The middle ports wriggles were done the same way, except before slicing off the strip the upward interior concave pointy shape was cut with a small gouge. The strip was parted off, the pieces were cut to length and the top curvature carved manually. The picture below, of some leftover work-in-progress pieces I found, should help clarify this explanation. In this picture, initial milling of the some middle deck wriggles has been done and the bottom half of the slot sliced off. The next step would be to shape the interior curves with a small gouge, then trim the lower edge inside the curve to match that shape. Next, the strip would be sliced off and the pieces cut to length. Then the top edge would be shaped to match the curvature of the inside.  In Part 7, I will address what I felt was some of the most difficult woodworking in the ship, the complex curved rails and supports at the head and also the detailing of the head back to the forecastle bulkhead, which was easier and more fun. Cheers, Ed Tosti 2010 Copyright Edward J Tosti [ Edited Fri Jul 23 2010, 09:07pm ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Gene Bodnar |
| ||
| Registered Member #126 Joined: Tue Jul 21 2009, 11:20amPosts: 1782 | Ed, Great narrative. Very interesting techniques. Thanks for sharing. Gene | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| EdT |
| ||
| Registered Member #963 Joined: Wed Jun 09 2010, 05:30pmPosts: 61 | HMS Victory 1:96 Scratchbuild Project Part 7 – The Bow Structure The bow structure is one of the most interesting assemblies of woodwork in the ship, and perhaps one of the most challenging to model. In the picture below, taken later in construction, the various parts of the bow structure can be seen. The topmost of the curved horizontal rails is the “main rail”, which provides a bulwark for the fore face of the cathead, but more importantly is a critical triangular brace for the beakhead. The main rail is supported along it length by four Y-shaped “head timbers” which rest on the gammoning knee (barely visible), which acts as a brace between the stem and the beakhead. The head timbers are faced with a decorative beaded facing. The bottom feet of the head timbers also rest on the “upper cheek”, which fays to the lower plank of the middle wale, then curves inward, forward and upward to fay against the aft side of the beakhead right behind the figurehead. The “lower cheek” is of a similar pattern running from the top plank of the main wale up along the beakhead, ending just at the base of the figurehead. Both these timbers act as horizontal knees for the beakhead. Between the cheeks are heavy planking overlays, surrounding both the hawse holes and the gammoning slots. There is also a curved knee supporting the underside of the cathead and then curving forward along the hull to end just behind one of two lighter weight rails which are supported in notches cut into the head timbers. Finally, we have the figurehead and some leafy scrollwork that trails aft between the cheeks.  In addition to the timber structure and figurehead, there is other interesting detail visible in the above picture, including the forecastle timberheads, the decorative arches along the face of the forecastle bulkhead, the “marines walk” with its two vertical supports curved around the bowsprit, the knightheads, pierced for the lower end of the mainstay collar, and, of course, the huge wormed anchor cables, patiently waiting many years for their anchors. The following picture shows a top view of bow structure.  This picture, taken much later in the process, shows a different view of some of the details mentioned above. It provides a better picture of the decoration on the forecastle bulkhead and also clearly shows the toilet accommodation for men and the rounded enclosed stalls for the junior officers, all of which derive their name from their location at the “head” of the ship. The top of the marines walk is also interesting with its rectangular openings to takes the collars of the mainstay and preventer. As I said above, I found this whole array of detail to be one of the most interesting parts of the ship. Before any modeling of the bow structure could be done, a lot of work was needed to complete the framing of the fore end of the forecastle. My drawings were sadly lacking in details of this and a lot of time was spent looking for better sources of information and translating that into some sketches to base this on. The small, decked area in the above picture is actually at a level above the upper deck in the forecastle and the heavy cat beam across the top of the forecastle bulkhead actually is higher than the forecastle deck. This seemed quite unusual and confusing. The picture below, taken later shows some of this internal structural work.  Once this work was done and the basic dimensional information established, the first task was to fashion and install the Y-shaped head timbers mounted on the gammoning knee. These were fairly straightforward except that the notches for the light rails and the points of connection with the main rails had to be carefully laid out. Once that was done the making of the main rails had to be faced. In part 2 I described how to loft the true shape of these rails. Now with the correct pattern in hand the rails needed bending to that shape in European Boxwood. First attempts to get this degree of curvature on this large timber failed – several times. I did not want to cut the rails against a weak cross grain because I wanted the full strength and also did not want to show weak cross grain in the final model. This problem would also have to be faced in forming the two cheeks, which although having a gentler curve had the additional complication of a wide horizontal triangular shape. The picture below shows these three rails on the port side shortly after their installation.  This problem was solved by using laminations of very thin boxwood. First a six inch piece of 2X4 lumber was cut into two pieces along a line conforming to the curve of the rail with a small blade on a band saw. This would act as the form which would press the wood to the shape the rail. Then boxwood was ripped into very thin strips between 1/32” and 1/64”. In the case of the triangular cheeks these strips were 1½” wide sheets. Then the thin strips were steamed until very pliable. One side of the 2X4 “mold” was clamped in the vise. Strips of wood were then removed from the steaming and immediately given a liberal coating of Titebond glue and layered onto the mold in the vise. The mating part of the mold was then fitted on top and with large clamps the two parts of the mold were pulled together forcing the strips into the shape of the rail. After drying for 2 days, they were released. Below is a picture of a leftover lamination for an upper cheek showing how the cheek was then cut from it. With laminates there is no spring back, so the mold shape will be retained exactly.  For some reason this piece was not used, but the lamination is very good, with little evidence of it being a laminate. Once these pieces were scored down with a beaded molding cutter, joints would really be imperceptible. This picture also illustrates the amount of expensive boxwood waste suffered in this process. This cheek, because of its triangular knee shape, required a wide laminate. Below is a picture of a failed delaminated main rail attempt, the result of not enough glue.  Once these curved rails were conquered, the work on the bow became easier and I will only describe it briefly since it was pretty straightforward modeling work. The figurehead was carved out of a solid block of boxwood, using a rotary tool with small burrs for roughing out, supplemented with some small gouges and chisels to finish the shape. A picture of the finished carving is shown below. The stance of the two figures took some time and a few failures to work out. Final polishing was done with fine steel wool. If I were to do this again, I would make a mockup first using something like epoxy putty to help fully understand the shapes before diving into the boxwood.  The picture below shows the gratings over the bow timbers and in the marines walk. I will describe how these gratings, and many more to follow, were made, I will also discuss the issue of correctly locating the openings in the Marines walk grating for the main stay collars. This picture also shows the areas of straight beam grating, which for some reason was used in part of the surface. This picture also shows the safety netting and some hammock netting, which I will discuss in a later chapter.  Gratings were made using the setup shown in the picture below. First, an auxiliary saw table was made from a sheet of 1/8” clear Plexiglas to fit over the Unimat saw table. Then a groove was dadoed into the top surface with a .030” saw blade. A strip of boxwood of the same thickness was force fit into this groove, then trimmed down so that the top of the strip was 1/64th” above the top of the Plexiglas. A slot to take the .030” Unimat blade was cut through the Plexiglas and the table was clamped to the saw table in such a way that the blade projected just 1/64” above the Plexiglas. The table was then adjusted horizontally to give a spacing of exactly .030” between the blade and the strip of wood.  A 1” wide blank of 1/32” boxwood was then dadoed with 1/64” deep cuts across its width. First the blank was held against the strip of wood to make the first cut. Then, succeeding cuts were made by placing the previous cut over the strip and making another cut. This was repeated across the length of the strip. A small sample with a few cuts is pictured above. Then, 1/32’ strips were ripped from this piece. To avoid tear out a very high speed and very slow feed should be used with a sharp fine toothed blade. The strips were then interlocked together to form grating. On the real ship grating was not interlocked but merely had cross pieces set in grooves in the support members. Interlocking simplified accurate spacing and also allowed me to avoid using glue. The unglued grating looks crisp and clean and none has ever come apart. A setup like this could be done on any small circular saw, or the grooves could be cut on a milling machine, a process I used later for the flag lockers. I used an angle cut with different spacing to make ladder sides and a similar setup to cut notches in window mullions. The last point I will address in this part was the location of the three rectangular holes in the grating of the marines walk. These openings take the collars of the main stay and the main preventer stay. They must be located very accurately so that when tension is put on these stays no stress is placed on the grating, which would then break under the strain from these very large lines. These openings can be seen in the earlier pictures. The grating in this area is in the shape of a trapezoid and is 3” thick. To locate these holes a dummy mainmast was setup and temporary stays run from the correct height do to their connections under the bow. Using 1/32” stock, a pattern was developed showing spaces needed for the stay collars These hole locations were set out on an enlarged piece of grating to assure that the openings would clear the stays and also that openings would be bounded by grating bars on all sides. The grating shape was then cut and fit into the opening. The goal here was to avoid having to cut the grating in a haphazard way later. The last picture shows how this worked out on the final model. The stay collars, with their hearts and lashings, actually bend down over the forecastle fife rail. This could not have been foreseen without a mockup.  In the next part I will begin to discuss planking and detailing of the upper decks. I have not tried to cover everything in this log but only items I felt would be interesting to a range of modelers. Most of all I would like to reach those less experienced in scratch building, who may well be facing the same dilemmas I faced with Victory. To some, more experienced builders, there may be few revelations here, but if I have glossed over something too lightly, where there may be interest in a better explanation, please let me know and I will try to address it in a future chapter or separately. Cheers, Ed Tosti 2010 Copyright Edward J Tosti [ Edited Fri Jul 23 2010, 09:25pm ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| EdT |
| ||
| Registered Member #963 Joined: Wed Jun 09 2010, 05:30pmPosts: 61 | HMS Victory 1:96 Scratchbuild Project Part 8 – Deck Details 1 In the next three parts I will describe, in general, the construction of the upper decks and their detailing, taking the narrative up to the completion of the hull. I have selected a few parts of this work to describe in some detail, but will not cover every point. As always, I welcome any questions. If there is some aspect where more detail is desired, let me know and I will be glad to describe it. The picture below shows the status of the model by the end of 1996. The exterior and most of the interior of the hull and the upper gun deck has been planked. The partition, which bars the way to the Admiral’s cabins is in place and framing of the quarter deck is about to begin.  The extent of detailing on the upper deck was limited to what would be visible, so no more of the interior aft partitions or decoration was done beyond what is shown in this picture. Details visible through the hatches were modeled, for example the capstans, one of which is visible below the main hatch. The planking of the upper deck, the quarterdeck the poop deck and forecastle was done in European Boxwood using a four butt shift pattern as per the original ship. All the planks were glued and pegged with boxwood treenails. These were described in an earlier chapter. The 12” wide planks were ripped from 1/8” thick by about 1 ½” wide Boxwood strips using the Unimat circular saw. The black caulking between planks was simulated using black construction paper, which was glued to the strips before ripping them into planks. This saved a lot of messy gluing of individual strips between planks. It also eliminated the need for scraping off excess glue and paper. Only the ends of the planks had to be fitted with paper strips. After gluing and tree nailing, the tops of the nails were cut off, the ends filed down flush and the decks scaped to a smooth finish with a 1/2” scraper. The picture below shows some of the finished decking, as well as some of the final deck detailing.  However, quite a bit of work had to be done before getting to this stage. Back at the stage of the first picture, the next task, to be done before framing the quarterdeck, was the installation of the thirty long 12 pounder upper deck guns. On the finished model, some of these would be totally visible in the waist, and to some degree under the forecastle and quarterdeck, so these had to be well detailed. The gun carriages of the lower and middle decks were roughed out in maple and not rigged. The visible guns of the upper decks, all long or short 12 pounders, were modeled more completely and precisely, with full rigging. The carriages of these guns were made in boxwood, based on large-scale drawings. The barrels were described earlier. The picture below shows a collection of leftover or reject parts, which will help describe the carriage construction.  The items in the above picture are laid out in a circular progression of the various steps. Starting at about ten o’clock is a piece of boxwood, which has been milled to the dimensions of the carriage sides, actually two sides facing away from each other. The sides were then ripped off of this on the circular saw and trimmed to size. The axles were made from rectangular pieces, which were drilled to accept the round parts which were inserted in each end. The wheels were turned to size, bored, scored around their circumference and parted off in the lathe. The larger assembly of wood at 3 o’clock is an assembly jig, into which the pieces were inserted for gluing, yielding the assembly at 4 oclock. Finally, an iron bar was inserted between the sides to hold the elevating wedge platform. Eyebolts were then added, the guns were pinned to the deck and rigged. Below is a picture of a finished quarterdeck short 12 pounder.  The rigging of each gun includes the heavy breeching, which was lashed to large ringbolts in the side, and two training tackles, eachconsisting each of a double and single block attached by hooks to eyebolts on the carriage and in the side. These were coiled up for storage. Ringbolts were also installed in the deck behind each gun. All the eyebolts and rings were made from brass wire. Rings were made by tightly wrapping brass wire around a rod of the correct diameter. The coil of rings was then sawed through along the axis of the rod, producing many open rings. The ends of each of these was then silver soldered to form a strong ring. All the brass parts were blackened chemically. I elected not to model the breeching rings on the pommels or the brackets over the trunnions. The scoring around the middle of the wheels was to simulate the two pieces of wood bolted together crosswise to make the wheels. The above picture also shows what I believe are the only purchased parts in the model – the belaying pins and the cannon balls. The pins were too short and a constant headache during rigging. The balls were perfectly sized and held in place with cyanoacrylate. With the upper deck guns in place, the quarterdeck framing could proceed. Some of this is shown below. It is semi authentic and certainly not completely represented. The upper deck guns are visible in this picture. Notice only those forward of the partition (and visible) are rigged. The first plank, the king plank, in the center of the deck has been laid.  In the following picture the quarterdeck and forecastle planking has been installed from the center out to the inside line of the gangways. The waist beams have been temporarily setup to fit the notched gangway facings, which line the waist opening, and also to fit the turned posts, which support these beams. The beams themselves are 50 feet long and so are scarfed together with a long vertical scarf, which can just barely be made out in this picture. When all these parts fit correctly they were glued and treenailed into pace. All the remaining planking at this level was then installed.  The next picture shows the model with all the decking and most of the deck detail finished. This picture shows the extent of the hammock netting. I will describe how these nettings were made in part 9.  The remainder of this part consists of some pictures of other deck detail, which I will describe only briefly, but will be glad to discuss further if someone is interested in more detail.  The above picture shows the belfry, the vent stack from the stove and low profile, rounded up coamings and gratings of the forecastle. On either side of the belfry is a row of timberheads with knees. These will carry buntlines, leechlines and braces for some of the forward sails. On the waist beams are the shaped supports for the ships boats. I will cover the modeling of these tiny, planked boats in a later chapter. All of this woodwork is cherry. The two boxwood posts at the rail on each side are kevels. There are several more about the deck. These two will take the fore topsail tyes through their sheaves and belay them around the timberhead top of the kevel.  The starboard 68 pounder carronade is shown here before its breeching was installed. Four of its large diameter balls are in the shot garland along the catbeam. The timberheads along the forward fife rail have simulated sheaves and timberheads and will eventually be almost completely covered with the many lines that belay here. The topsail sheet bits, shown partly in the upper left corner have brass sheaves, which will take topsail sheets later.  The above picture shows ringbolts in the deck for the guns, some of the shorter hammock netting, the large wooden staghorn for the port main sheet, and more of those purchased belaying pins. The penny was not part of the real ship.  This last picture shows the flag lockers, which held the dozens of different signal flags. These were made, “egg crate style” by a method like that used for gratings which was discussed earlier. The stern lanterns are prominent in this view. I will discuss how these were made in part 9. Cheers, Ed Tosti 2010 Copyright Edward J Tosti | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |
Powered by e107 Forum System