• LUCZORAMA SHIPWRECK SCAVENGER HUNT GIVEAWAY. 4 Weeks of Fun • 1 Legendary Prize ((OcCre’s Fram Ship)) • Global Crew Welcome!
    **VIEW THREAD HERE**

Corsair H.M.S. Enterprize Build Log

AllanKP69 said:
Probably just me but I am getting confused and not sure what parts you are referring to and it is probably just a terminology thing. :) If it is the transoms, that may not have always been the case. There is at least one contemporary model that had the filler transoms in two pieces. Richard Endsor kindly sent me the photo below with filler transoms in two halves. The second photo is only to be sure what parts you are being discussed and to rid my confusion. Sorry to drag this on, but found this to be an interesting discussion.
Allan

View attachment 516702
View attachment 516705
Click to expand...
If you look at post #149 from Alex, you can see that are 2 pieces making a sandwich top and bottom. Not port and starboard as in your image. Yes, per your image for identification, we are talking about the same pieces.

However, if you go to his build thread where he has pictures of his build with the transom installed, its not easy to tell they are made of 2 pieces. :)
 
AllanKP69 said:
Probably just me but I am getting confused and not sure what parts you are referring to and it is probably just a terminology thing. :) If it is the transoms, that may not have always been the case. There is at least one contemporary model that had the filler transoms in two pieces. Richard Endsor kindly sent me the photo below with filler transoms in two halves. The second photo is only to be sure what parts you are being discussed and to rid my confusion. Sorry to drag this on, but found this to be an interesting discussion.
Allan

View attachment 516702
View attachment 516705
Click to expand...
Alan, if I may, in this case the transoms are laminated…2 pieces, not side to side.
In my case I scratched them because my pear had enough contrast to make the seam stand out and, pretty easy to cut new ones given I had nice wood and only had to run it through thickness sander.

Tim
 
Thanks Tim.
I can see why you would replace the transoms if they are laminated if the seam is that prominent. As some transoms had different thicknesses as mentioned above there is the chance to match the contract and original drawings if desired when making your own. By the same token, I can see why it would be a pain in the neck and costly for the kit maker to make them the three different thicknesses called out in the contract. The variation in thickness is from 11.5" for the wing transom to 10" for the transom below the deck transom so less than a mm at 1:48. But, I do not understand why they have to be laminated. If the siding (thickness) is all the same, why not just cut them from a solid board? In the end I think it would cost less for the kit maker.
Allan
 
Last edited:
Hi Paul,
From what I have read, 1/4" (6.4mm) hardwood is the practical limit with a single pass of the laser and minimal char. Higher wattage machines can cut deeper but maybe a there is a problem with char, etc. The wing transom was the thickest at 11.5" (0.24", 6mm, at 1:48) so within that limit. There are members that have experience so hopefully they can give better information based on their own experience.
Allan
 
Gentlemen, for those that have wood and wish to scratch build the transoms, that project is about as easy as you can get, I simple traced the kit pieces onto new wood, you need not get them exact with the exception of the notches . You remove so much wood by the time you’re done not super critical where you start. Toughest part of the deal was running stock through thickness sander.

Tim
 
ok, frames 6, 7 & 8 are now put together with the chocks trimmed and the halves are glued together. I put the templates for 9, 10 & 11 on the bench, have all the parts for them on the bench and have removed the char on the areas where they will be glued together. :)
 
A question for any or all. Thinking well ahead but regarding captains quarters, other spaces below deck, any definitive information on colors ? Most of what I have researched seems to be natural stained, or white but interested in other feedback.
Thanks in advance,
Tim
 
Last edited:
Another thought. i mentioned earlier that I cut angled frame for top sill on one of the mid ship’s gun ports and I began to think about this.
It struck me that while proper methodology the potential for error is there in regard to proper vertical dimension of the port….the bottoms are set in stone since exterior planking locates on them.
If you notice on Victor’s photos, he has done those sills like the bottoms. i thinks it gives benefit of precise dimension and frankly, they all get planked over and hidden, so I think I’m going that route and for newish ( is that a word) builders, far less potential to screw up.
Maybe end up with period correct approach but, that’s the plan.

Transom all glued, rough sanded, everything from #37 back now glued in and 1/2 dozen forward frames beveled, glued…no big surprises so far.
After initial shaping, dry fitting, I took all right down to interior/ exterior lines and virtually all fit snugly into jig with zero requirement for rubber bands, etc.
Biggest challenge has been to get angles proper for fitment of frame bottoms mating up to keel….setting angle of table on Byrnes disc sander has become invaluable in this regard.
 
TRS7139 said:
the bottoms are set in stone since exterior planking locates on them.
Click to expand...
Sorry TRS, but I am not sure what you mean by locates on them. The sills are indeed set in stone as they are related to the sheer of the deck which is usually, but not always, different than the sheer of the outboard planking. Some examples follow that show there is not always a relationship between the location of the outboard planking and the gun ports.
Allan

For the Enterprise the sheer line of the deck is the same as the sills of the gun ports but is different than the sheer of the planking.

1746405397549.png

74 gun ship. The sheer of the ports and planking are very different.
1746406119543.jpeg

18 gun ship. The planking sheer matches the deck and gun port sheer line.
1746406247433.jpeg
TRS7139 said:
the potential for error is there in regard to proper vertical dimension of the port
Click to expand...

The port dimensions are given in various places including the Establishments, Shipbuilder's Repository, Steel's The Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture and in the contracts for each deck with no regard to the planking location. The sills are given a location in relation in the contracts as well. From the contract for the Artois class of which Diana is a part.
Ports deep 2 ft 3 ½ ins, fore & aft 2 ft 3 ½ ins, Height of the upper side of the lower port sill from the upper side of the plank of the upper deck 1 ft 9 ins.
 
TRS7139 said:
Another thought. i mentioned earlier that I cut angled frame for top sill on one of the mid ship’s gun ports and I began to think about this.
It struck me that while proper methodology the potential for error is there in regard to proper vertical dimension of the port….the bottoms are set in stone since exterior planking locates on them.
If you notice on Victor’s photos, he has done those sills like the bottoms. i thinks it gives benefit of precise dimension and frankly, they all get planked over and hidden, so I think I’m going that route and for newish ( is that a word) builders, far less potential to screw up.
Maybe end up with period correct approach but, that’s the plan.

Transom all glued, rough sanded, everything from #37 back now glued in and 1/2 dozen forward frames beveled, glued…no big surprises so far.
After initial shaping, dry fitting, I took all right down to interior/ exterior lines and virtually all fit snugly into jig with zero requirement for rubber bands, etc.
Biggest challenge has been to get angles proper for fitment of frame bottoms mating up to keel….setting angle of table on Byrnes disc sander has become invaluable in this regard.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I'm not quite understanding what you are saying about the gun port creation. Can you be a little more "step by step" for one?

Sorry I'm so stupid. :)

Thanks,
 
Corsair said:
I'm sorry, I'm not quite understanding what you are saying about the gun port creation. Can you be a little more "step by step" for one?

Sorry I'm so stupid. :)

Thanks,
Click to expand...
What I do not understand why do we need these NMM drawings when the kit was designed based on these drawings and has a much more detailed drawings included in the kit and most likely enough to build the model just my 2 cents
 
zoly99sask said:
What I do not understand why do we need these NMM drawings when the kit was designed based on these drawings and has a much more detailed drawings included in the kit and most likely enough to build the model just my 2 cents
Click to expand...
because not everyone has the drawings from the kit and/or they don't want to fully trust the drawings.
Nothing wrong with a verification. :)
 
AllanKP69 said:
Sorry TRS, but I am not sure what you mean by locates on them. The sills are indeed set in stone as they are related to the sheer of the deck which is usually, but not always, different than the sheer of the outboard planking. Some examples follow that show there is not always a relationship between the location of the outboard planking and the gun ports.
Allan

For the Enterprise the sheer line of the deck is the same as the sills of the gun ports but is different than the sheer of the planking.

View attachment 517783

74 gun ship. The sheer of the ports and planking are very different.
View attachment 517785

18 gun ship. The planking sheer matches the deck and gun port sheer line.
View attachment 517786


The port dimensions are given in various places including the Establishments, Shipbuilder's Repository, Steel's The Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture and in the contracts for each deck with no regard to the planking location. The sills are given a location in relation in the contracts as well. From the contract for the Artois class of which Diana is a part.
Ports deep 2 ft 3 ½ ins, fore & aft 2 ft 3 ½ ins, Height of the upper side of the lower port sill from the upper side of the plank of the upper deck 1 ft 9 ins.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand all that. In this particular case not particularly relevant.
This because, as stated in step #98 for this particular build, I would assume to aid in construction, the initial planks are indexed directly from the bottom sills of the gun ports. If you check that step in the PDF instruction, becomes instantly clear. Everything above and below follows laying those initial planks.
Fairly ingenuous IMO since it virtually eliminates measurement error.
 
Last edited:
Corsair said:
I'm sorry, I'm not quite understanding what you are saying about the gun port creation. Can you be a little more "step by step" for one?

Sorry I'm so stupid. :)

Thanks,
Click to expand...
Jeff,
Not stupid at all, I’ll try and articulate better.
Remember, I’m only talking about the middle ports.
With, others, the bottom sills is fixed more or less from the tops of the short frames. The top sills are set where you need them for proper port height…..lots of variability here.
With the mid ship ports, the frames need to be trimmed at precise angles, both sides to properly fit the top sills. A trickier operation. Since the sills are planked over, I plan to do those tops exactly like the bottoms allowing for easier location.
Look at Victors images in the 18 page “ new kit” thread. Apoarantly that’s what he did.

Tim
 
TRS7139 said:
Yes, I understand all that. In this particular case not particularly relevant.
This because, as stated in step #98 for this particular build, I would assume to aid in construction, the initial planks are indexed directly from the bottom sills of the gun ports. If you check that step in the PDF instruction, becomes instantly clear. Everything above and below follows laying those initial planks.
Fairly ingenuous IMO since it virtually eliminates measurement error.
Click to expand...
When I review that step, it appears that they maybe index the planking using the bottoms of the gun ports, but they don't all line up perfectly.
 
TRS7139 said:
Jeff,
Not stupid at all, I’ll try and articulate better.
Remember, I’m only talking about the middle ports.
With, others, the bottom sills is fixed more or less from the tops of the short frames. The top sills are set where you need them for proper port height…..lots of variability here.
With the mid ship ports, the frames need to be trimmed at precise angles, both sides to properly fit the top sills. A trickier operation. Since the sills are planked over, I plan to do those tops exactly like the bottoms allowing for easier location.
Look at Victors images in the 18 page “ new kit” thread. Apoarantly that’s what he did.

Tim
Click to expand...
so, you are saying not to trim the frame diagonally until you are ready to install the port frame?
 
zoly99sask said:
What I do not understand why do we need these NMM drawings when the kit was designed based on these drawings and has a much more detailed drawings included in the kit and most likely enough to build the model just my 2 cents
Click to expand...
Also, "based on" does not mean exact copy. And some builders wish their build to replicate as perfectly as possible the real ship. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top