HM Sloop Fly, 1776 - scale 1/36 by own reconstruction and the books from David Antscherl

Before I continue with the my build log, let's take a look back to some preparations which I executed in the last few months:
After milling the components, they have to be removed from the boards. As the boards are subjected to mechanical stress during milling, the holding bars are significantly larger than with laser-cut components. To do this, I use a pin block into which a fretsaw blade is clamped. The remains of the bars are then sanded away. I have milled some “sanding blocks” from lime wood for this purpose. I stuck 120-grit sandpaper to these with double-sided adhesive tape.
Fly-032.jpg

The last preparatory step was to cut some recesses in the various components for fitting and drilling holes for later mounting the model on its stand.
Fly-033.jpg

The last picture shows all the prepared components of the backbone of my sloop.
Fly-034.jpg
 
Last edited:
AnobiumPunctatum said:
Before I continue with the my build log, let's take a look back to some preparations which I executed in the last few months:
After milling the components, they have to be removed from the boards. As the boards are subjected to mechanical stress during milling, the holding bars are significantly larger than with laser-cut components. To do this, I use a pin block into which a fretsaw blade is clamped. The remains of the bars are then sanded away. I have milled some “sanding blocks” from lime wood for this purpose. I stuck 120-grit sandpaper to these with double-sided adhesive tape.
View attachment 488875

The last preparatory step was to cut some recesses in the various components for fitting and drilling holes for later mounting the model on its stand.
View attachment 488876

The last picture shows all the prepared components of the backbone of my sloop.
View attachment 488877
Click to expand...
Your preparations are well thought out. And the result is accordingly, Christian. A pleasure for the eyes.
Regards, Peter
 
Thanks Tobias,

You need a little bit of patience until I can show the first frames. I have a new computer for the design (now a Mac). My old Windows computer will replace my really old PC for the CNC. I am afraid that the update need more time than I expect now.
 
Neatly done work Christian! It is hard to tell from the photos, but does the keel breadth taper at the area of the boxing joint and stern post as described in TFFM or will you be doing this after the stern post and stem are assembled to the keel?
Again, really neat work, I look forward to future posts.
Allan
 
AnobiumPunctatum said:
Thanks Tobias,

You need a little bit of patience until I can show the first frames. I have a new computer for the design (now a Mac). My old Windows computer will replace my really old PC for the CNC. I am afraid that the update need more time than I expect now.
Click to expand...
Good choice, the Mac is great. You'll have to get used to it a bit, a few keys are different, but after a few uses you'll get the hang of it.
 
AnobiumPunctatum said:
Thanks Tobias,

You need a little bit of patience until I can show the first frames. I have a new computer for the design (now a Mac). My old Windows computer will replace my really old PC for the CNC. I am afraid that the update need more time than I expect now.
Click to expand...
Tobias said:
Good choice, the Mac is great. You'll have to get used to it a bit, a few keys are different, but after a few uses you'll get the hang of it.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with Tobias. For design and photography a iMac is ideal to work with. I am working with them for many years.
I wish you many years of fun!
Regards, Peter
 
AllanKP69 said:
Neatly done work Christian! It is hard to tell from the photos, but does the keel breadth taper at the area of the boxing joint and stern post as described in TFFM or will you be doing this after the stern post and stem are assembled to the keel?
Click to expand...

@AllanKP69
You have really good eye. You're right that the taper is missing. I have planned to do the taper after I have glued the keel and the stem together. The stern taper I will do seperatly.
 
AnobiumPunctatum said:
Eight years ago, I reconstructed the line plan of the Fly based on the original plans and drew a disposition of frames plan adapted to my model. Inspired by the build logs from dockattner and Giampy65, I started to check and revise my old drawingss at the beginning of November last year. When editing in CAD, I set the scale to 1 inch = 1 drawing unit.

I was able to complete this revision at the end of 2023.

As an example, I show you the disposition of frames plan and my control drawing for the derived frames.
View attachment 418314

View attachment 418317

I then drew the backbone of the ship. As the arrangement of the components has not been handed down, I used the information provided by David Antscherl as a guide.

View attachment 418316

The components are now derived from the last drawing.
Click to expand...
Hello Christian,

Merry Christmas!

My advise is to study ZAZ4691and others carefully before doing something with CAD.

By the way, you can check the draugths using the same CAD system.

For example:
- the square frame Laft is not vertical frame. the angle Laft (toptimber) with vertical is 0.68°.
- the square frame Gaft is not vertical frame. the angle Gaft (toptimber) with vertical is 0.73°.
- the square frame Caft is not vertical frame. the angle Caft (toptimber) with vertical is 0.86°.
- the fore cant frame #1 is not 34.5° with diametral plane. (see ZAZ4667 half-breadth for more details).
- the hawse holes ZAZ4691 do not correspond to draughts done by David Antscherl and Greg Herbert.
- furthermore, the hawse holes ZAZ4691(Cygnet) do not correspond to the draught ZAZ4690 (Cygnet too).
- the profiles of hawse pieces done in ZAZ4691 does not correspond to the lines drawing done in ZAZ4667.
and so on...

It would be interesting to know what you're going to do about such inconsistencies?

Regards,
___
Peter
 
Hello Peter,

I have used ZAZ4691 for my frame design and tried to follow it as far as possible. There are some inconsistencies with the as-built drawing of the chosen sloop Fly. I decided to use the as-built drawing ZAZ4667 as main source for my reconstruction.
- the square frame Laft is not vertical frame. the angle Laft (toptimber) with vertical is 0.68°.
- the square frame Gaft is not vertical frame. the angle Gaft (toptimber) with vertical is 0.73°.
- the square frame Caft is not vertical frame. the angle Caft (toptimber) with vertical is 0.86°.
Click to expand...
I've seen this and adopted this on my reconstruction.

For the can't frames I used the positions and angles given in the as-built drawing of my sloop.

I own the books from David and Greg, but if I have primary sources I will use this for my work.
 
AnobiumPunctatum said:
Hello Peter,

I have used ZAZ4691 for my frame design and tried to follow it as far as possible. There are some inconsistencies with the as-built drawing of the chosen sloop Fly. I decided to use the as-built drawing ZAZ4667 as main source for my reconstruction.

I've seen this and adopted this on my reconstruction.

For the can't frames I used the positions and angles given in the as-built drawing of my sloop.

I own the books from David and Greg, but if I have primary sources I will use this for my work.
Click to expand...
I agre with you. It is only right way to use the source draught, to preserve authenticity as much as possible.
 
AnobiumPunctatum said:
I have used ZAZ4691 for my frame design and tried to follow it as far as possible. There are some inconsistencies with the as-built drawing of the chosen sloop Fly. I decided to use the as-built drawing ZAZ4667 as main source for my reconstruction.
Click to expand...
Your research is truly impressive! As-builts are always the best choice if looking for accuracy of how the ship was built, and comparing the 1773 framing disposition with the later profile plan had to take a good amount of work to find the differences. Kudos
Allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top