HIGH HOPES, WILD MEN AND THE DEVIL’S JAW - Willem Barentsz Kolderstok 1:50

Wow a lot to catch up on in only a few days, not sure where you get the time to build with all the documenting here, it's been great to see it unfold with your words, images and actions, great job.
Thank you for your kind words through out the year, have a great Christmas and best wishes for 2022.
 
Richie said:
Wow a lot to catch up on in only a few days, not sure where you get the time to build with all the documenting here, it's been great to see it unfold with your words, images and actions, great job.
Thank you for your kind words through out the year, have a great Christmas and best wishes for 2022.
Click to expand...
Hi Richie! Remember, I am "jobless" :D so I have the time to do both. Thank you very much for your more than kind words. May you and your family have a very blessed Christmas and a healthy 2022!
 
Heinrich,

You can fair the hull with sand paper glued on foam instead of using solid blocks.
I have shown this on my Alert blog, this should solve the issue as discussed.

Hms Alert by Maarten [COMPLETED BUILD]

Great Project, and amazing finish! Make sure to invite for dinner, once the pig will roast! Booz on me...
shipsofscale.com
 
Maarten said:
Heinrich,

You can fair the hull with sand paper glued on foam instead of using solid blocks.
I have shown this on my Alert blog, this should solve the issue as discussed.

Hms Alert by Maarten [COMPLETED BUILD]

Great Project, and amazing finish! Make sure to invite for dinner, once the pig will roast! Booz on me...
shipsofscale.com
Click to expand...
Thank you Maarten - that makes perfect sense! That way you cover a broader/wider area (not necessarily longer) and the foam is flexible enough to allow the sandpaper to get properly around the curves and not just the topsides. Thumbsup
 
Heinrich said:
Hello Maarten. The thing is - I did just that and it was perfect. However there is something else that needs to be considered. Please excuse my rudimentary sketch.

View attachment 277437

When you view the hull from the side (as in the pics I have posted) the planks look they follow the black curve. However, when you turn the ship on its side, the planks need to be applied in a curvature as indicated by the red line. This is obviously because of the very marked curvature of the hull - not only vertically, but also horizontally. Now when we fair bulkheads, we do that in a relatively straight line from bow to stern as is indicated by the green block. But because of the curvature of this hull, the plank is hitting the bulkheads at different sections which fall OUTSIDE the fairing line. So this hull should not be faired in a straight line, but in a line that will follow the curvature (zeeg) of the hull. Lesson learnt!
Click to expand...
Really good point made here Heinrich!! Fortunately I am one who can think and see 3d on 2d paper, but your point here is brilliant. I would not have thought of it. Thank you!
 
Daniel20 said:
Really good point made here Heinrich!! Fortunately I am one who can think and see 3d on 2d paper, but your point here is brilliant. I would not have thought of it. Thank you!
Click to expand...
I am very glad that my posting came across in a more or less understandable way and that you could see what I was trying to say. On my Batavia build for instance, I only had curves around the bow and the stern, but even so, those lines followed relatively (and I can't stress relatively enough, because obviously the lines are not completely straight), straight curves, so I could do my fairing in a linear way. Not so on the Willem Barentsz - everything curves - horizontally and laterally and at the different contact points on the bulkheads, you may find that some of the contact points are in a different curvature zone - hence that was the problem.

微信图片_20211209231452 - 副本.jpg
The yellow line represents the actual plank on the model. The green block indicates what I would call the fairing area of a sanding block for instance. I was taught to do fairing in a relatively straight line starting from bow to stern using a non-flexible sanding block and then moving up and down the hull in zones - but always working from the bow to the stern. But here you can see that on all the bulkheads marked with red lines, the plank falls out of the green block - so it is not in that particular fairing zone. And to make matters worse, on all those bulkheads the contact points are at a point where the bulkheads are considerably wider (more bulbous) than on the parts that fall in the green block.
 
Heinrich said:
I am very glad that my posting came across in a more or less understandable way and that you could see what I was trying to say. On my Batavia build for instance, I only had curves around the bow and the stern, but even so, those lines followed relatively (and I can't stress relatively enough, because obviously the lines are not completely straight), straight curves, so I could do my fairing in a linear way. Not so on the Willem Barentsz - everything curves - horizontally and laterally and at the different contact points on the bulkheads, you may find that some of the contact points are in a different curvature zone - hence that was the problem.

View attachment 277556
The yellow line represents the actual plank on the model. The green block indicates what I would call the fairing area of a sanding block for instance. I was taught to do fairing in a relatively straight line starting from bow to stern using a non-flexible sanding block and then moving up and down the hull in zones - but always working from the bow to the stern. But here you can see that on all the bulkheads marked with red lines, the plank falls out of the green block - so it is not in that particular fairing zone. And to make matters worse, on all those bulkheads the contact points are at a point where the bulkheads are considerably wider (more bulbous) than on the parts that fall in the green block.
Click to expand...
Heinrich,

This is very educational for all builders. It shows painfully that Murphy does not distinguish rookie from greybeard. From your explanation I understand your thought process which is, given the rather extreme curvature in both directions, quite logical. That doesn't really explain the discrete kink at bulkhead 6, nor why it seems you only have the fairing issue on the starboard side, while the port side seems to be close to spec. Especially when one takes into account that the compound curvature exists on both sides of the hull and the fairing process more or less consistent on both sides...

I hope you enjoyed your coffee and lunch and wish you good luck with your repairs.

Johan
 
RDN1954 said:
That's how the real professionals work... Okay
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for the complimentary words, Johan! I have no idea about "a real professional", but I am trying to do my best and share the things that I learn as I travel on the path. @Dean62 Dean, for instance described a great way of how he fairs a hull - it was something completely new to me and something I learnt along the way.
 
RDN1954 said:
Heinrich,

This is very educational for all builders. It shows painfully that Murphy does not distinguish rookie from greybeard. From your explanation I understand your thought process which is, given the rather extreme curvature in both directions, quite logical. That doesn't really explain the discrete kink at bulkhead 6, nor why it seems you only have the fairing issue on the starboard side, while the port side seems to be close to spec. Especially when one takes into account that the compound curvature exists on both sides of the hull and the fairing process more or less consistent on both sides...

I hope you enjoyed your coffee and lunch and wish you good luck with your repairs.

Johan
Click to expand...
Great great comments Johan. The kink at bulkhead 6 above the deck is within specs - so no problem there. On the pictures it may come across as a "kink" when it is nothing more than just a sharp curve. The plank makes full contact with the full width of the frame so it follows the line that it is supposed to follow.

Have a look at the pics below:

Frame 6 1.jpg
Port Side: Frame 6 is in full contact with the plank.

Frame 6 2.jpg
Starboard Side: Once again the plank is in full contact with the frame across the whole width of the bulkhead.

微信图片_20211223212901.jpg
Taken directly from the top of the area around bulkheads #4 to #9, the planking line is nice and smooth with no kinks.

微信图片_20211223212829.jpg
And this picture probably shows best the hull shape. The side marked in red is the starboard side where I have already replaced all three planks I removed yesterday. No sanding or finishing of any kind has yet been done to this side.

BUT Look at the yellow line which is the last plank that I finished laying down today on the port side. Almost every single bulkhead fall into different fairing zones!

Johan - about why I only seemed to have encountered this problem on the starboard side - this really bothered me too. So far, the best suggestion I can come up with is that I inadvertently faired that side better - I got lucky. :) Unscientific I know, but the best answer I can offer at this point.
 
This is a fascinating discussion Heinrich. It occurs to me that the smaller size of this ship paired with the fantastic curviness has amplified the issue. On a larger ship the vertical movement of individual strakes would be far less so the customary methods of fairing the hull satisfy the need. Still, it is a good lesson for all of us that we should be fairing for the run of the strakes not parallel to the waterline (or decking, or whatever).
 
dockattner said:
This is a fascinating discussion Heinrich. It occurs to me that the smaller size of this ship paired with the fantastic curviness has amplified the issue. On a larger ship the vertical movement of individual strakes would be far less so the customary methods of fairing the hull satisfy the need. Still, it is a good lesson for all of us that we should be fairing for the run of the strakes not parallel to the waterline (or decking, or whatever).
Click to expand...
Paul I am very glad that you are finding the discussion useful. Ithink you have nailed the issue on all fronts. The small size of the ship certainly compounds the issue - on a larger ship these same curves would have been much more gradual. And yes, we have to fair along the strake line not in a straight line.

So there are a number of solutions to this:

1. @Dean62 DXean's method of fairing in an upwards rolling motion from keel to bow would automatically more fairing zones.
2. @Maarten Maarten's foam blocks will largely have the same effect as they are more flexible and also cover a wider area.
3. @Dematosdg But I still like Daniel's suggestion of a fully blocked hull best. If I had done that from the outset, this issue would not even have been an issue.

And lastly when checking your fairing. Also do that also in the line that the strake will follow.
 
Heinrich said:
Great great comments Johan. The kink at bulkhead 6 above the deck is within specs - so no problem there. On the pictures it may come across as a "kink" when it is nothing more than just a sharp curve. The plank makes full contact with the full width of the frame so it follows the line that it is supposed to follow.

Have a look at the pics below:

View attachment 277558
Port Side: Frame 6 is in full contact with the plank.

View attachment 277559
Starboard Side: Once again the plank is in full contact with the frame across the whole width of the bulkhead.

View attachment 277560
Taken directly from the top of the area around bulkheads #4 to #9, the planking line is nice and smooth with no kinks.

View attachment 277562
And this picture probably shows best the hull shape. The side marked in red is the starboard side where I have already replaced all three planks I removed yesterday. No sanding or finishing of any kind has yet been done to this side.

BUT Look at the yellow line which is the last plank that I finished laying down today on the port side. Almost every single bulkhead fall into different fairing zones!

Johan - about why I only seemed to have encountered this problem on the starboard side - this really bothered me too. So far, the best suggestion I can come up with is that I inadvertently faired that side better - I got lucky. :) Unscientific I know, but the best answer I can offer at this point.
Click to expand...
Yep, your latest set of pictures show a near-perfect curvature at Bkhd 6. It's the drawback of having to communicate with pictures, instead of being able to show the hull from all angles.

Dean's fairing process seems like a good alternative, but is something you need to experience yourself. Thinking about it makes me wonder whether an in between approach would yield better results, so instead of top/down or fore/aft diagonally top/down from bow to slightly aft of midships and top/down from stern to slightly front of midships. No experience with this, just a thought.

The starboard side issue still worries me, especially when there's no real plausible explanation. But if the repair turns out to be passable...
 
@RDN1954 Johan about the starboard side - and for that matter the fairing up to this point - the problem is that I will only be able to know for sure as the planking progresses. Tomorrow I have one more plank to lay on the starboard side which will close up the transom and then I start with garboard strakes and planking from the keel upwards.
 
One other observation about hull fairing. I suspect if you had 3 identical hulls to fair up (using the exact same techniques) that they each would be different enough for you to see by simple inspection. The relative stiffness of the planks will produce slightly different curves between each bulkhead.
 
Daniel20 said:
Just wondering Heinrich if bulkhead # 6 was truly symmetrical about the keel line?
Click to expand...
Hi Daniel. This is certainly a good point which raises two possible issues:

1. Was the plank manufactured a-symmetrically?
2. Did I mount it a-symmetrically?

With regards to point #1 I can tell you unequivocally that is not the case. Kolderstok simply does not make mistakes like that - I will stand and fall by that.
With regards to point #2, it is certainly possible that I made a mistake BUT again, if I did make a mistake there, the deck would not have fit as perfectly as it did.

(In fact, let me tell you something about these models. You can apply glue to all the keel slots, slide in the bulkheads on the keel, apply glue to the deck and fit it. When that deck locks into position over the bulkheads they are as square and symmetrical as can be.)

But something was a-symmetrical and the only plausible solution for that, was my fairing.
 
Daniel20 said:
One other observation about hull fairing. I suspect if you had 3 identical hulls to fair up (using the exact same techniques) that they each would be different enough for you to see by simple inspection. The relative stiffness of the planks will produce slightly different curves between each bulkhead.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY Daniel Thumbsup- especially when you are working with a hull that is as accurate as these models are. Working with very fine tolerances, a small variable suddenly becomes a big issue.
 
Interesting and informative discussion regarding fairing techniques. I use something similar to what Maarten uses.
I use a 1" wide (actually I have several pieces with different widths and lengths) flexible metal strip with sandpaper adhered to one side. it's flexible enough that it forms easily to the curves but stiff enough that keeps my finger from deflecting the strip between bulkheads. It is a little more difficult to hold than the foam but so far, the results are good. Normally I hold the strip at the ends which have a small tab bent up and let the grit do its thing without putting excessive pressure on the strip. I've never used just a flat block of wood for sanding anything other than a flat piece. As they say, "Different strokes for different folks".:rolleyes:
 
RDN1954 said:
Yep, your latest set of pictures show a near-perfect curvature at Bkhd 6. It's the drawback of having to communicate with pictures, instead of being able to show the hull from all angles.

Dean's fairing process seems like a good alternative, but is something you need to experience yourself. Thinking about it makes me wonder whether an in between approach would yield better results, so instead of top/down or fore/aft diagonally top/down from bow to slightly aft of midships and top/down from stern to slightly front of midships. No experience with this, just a thought.

The starboard side issue still worries me, especially when there's no real plausible explanation. But if the repair turns out to be passable...
Click to expand...
I should probably elaborate on the technique I learned, by using a sweeping motion. What I should have attempted to explain, is that while you roll down the frames from keel to deck, you also push towards the center of the ship some. So it’s an arcing motion, which I described as sweeping motion. So you are not going straight down from keel to deck, and not going straight from bow to stern, but rather a combination of both in one sweeping motion. So I should have said a sweeping motion in an arc. I think this helps the planks sit properly at any angle. I hope that makes sense? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top