HMS Alert by DST

DST07 said:
It is 5mm at the top.
Click to expand...
Hi Dan,
Your framing continues to look terrific. Looking at Scantlings in Steel's Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture (folio VI) the tops of the top timbers were 4 inches (2.1mm to 2.8 mm at 1:48) in and out on 10 gun vessels, so with 5mm there is a lot of sanding. Would it be easier to size them closer to the final thickness before mounting them and then finish sanding them once all are in place?
Allan
 
AllanKP69 said:
Hi Dan,
Your framing continues to look terrific. Looking at Scantlings in Steel's Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture (folio VI) the tops of the top timbers were 4 inches (2.1mm to 2.8 mm at 1:48) in and out on 10 gun vessels, so with 5mm there is a lot of sanding. Would it be easier to size them closer to the final thickness before mounting them and then finish sanding them once all are in place?
Allan
Click to expand...

Probably not ,atvthat thickness would brake easily ,there is a reasonbthe kit was designed like that
 
Hi Zoly

They are indeed more susceptible to breakage but not as bad as one would think. On framed models down to 1:64 I have never once had a top timber break off. If they are made with the grain running the length of the top timber piece and there is a good scarph or chock joint to the next futtock down, it has not been a problem in my own experience. In the photo below (50 gun ship 1695) the frames taper in thickness to under 5" (less than 2 mm at 1:64 when final sanding was done) and there was not any breakage. Once the frames are up I like to add a temporary strake to add some strength until the planking is well along, just in case. I have had a framed hull roll off my lap onto the concrete floor and after the cursing and tears were done, I checked it out and it turned out there was barely any damage.

On the other hand, considering POB builds if low grade plywood is used, which is not the case in Dan;'s build here, I totally agree a lot of care must be taken. Due to my own bad experience with using typical lumber store plywood I like to use aircraft plywood if I am going with a POB model. Even then, getting a strake of planking or two near the top, even if temporary is a big help in protecting things.

The only reason I brought this up is that if the top timbers are left at double the thickness that they should be, after adding the quickwork, outboard planking and mouldings, the sheer rail is going to be excessively wide to cover all of these.

Allan
IMG_4857.JPG
 
AllanKP69 said:
Hi Dan,
Your framing continues to look terrific. Looking at Scantlings in Steel's Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture (folio VI) the tops of the top timbers were 4 inches (2.1mm to 2.8 mm at 1:48) in and out on 10 gun vessels, so with 5mm there is a lot of sanding. Would it be easier to size them closer to the final thickness before mounting them and then finish sanding them once all are in place?
Allan
Click to expand...
Hi, Allan. This particular kit was designed specifically as the first POF model. The designer accounted for possible trouble with framing and added additional thickness. Once all frames are in place, it is easy enough to bring it to the correct thickness.

Also, and I think, we already discussed this on another thread. Most of the kits are not designed based on Steel's and Dean's doctrines. Kit manufacturers have different goals while designing and producing kits.
 
Jimsky said:
Kit manufacturers have different goals while designing and producing kits.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,
Making a model is first and foremost something most builders do for fun and I understand what you are saying about the manufacturer's goals which I would think is to make a profit. Get both and it is win win. Any business is trying to make a profit but that does not necessarily mean they cannot provide materials and/or instructions for some things that would make for a more accurate model when the costs would not go up. In the specific case of properly sizing frames, or at least explaining the finishing work (dimension wise), this should not increase the costs or make the build more difficult.
Allan
 
AllanKP69 said:
Hi Jim,
Making a model is first and foremost something most builders do for fun and I understand what you are saying about the manufacturer's goals which I would think is to make a profit. Get both and it is win win. Any business is trying to make a profit but that does not necessarily mean they cannot provide materials and/or instructions for some things that would make for a more accurate model when the costs would not go up. In the specific case of properly sizing frames, or at least explaining the finishing work (dimension wise), this should not increase the costs or make the build more difficult.
Allan
Click to expand...
I don't see this design as a concession to profit or strength. These frames are largely un-fared and I believe our colleague will end up with something pretty close to the target dimensions once he begins shaping these frames. Speaking for myself - it is far easier to remove wood than correct the problem created by frames that end up too thin. While my experience is limited - it appears to me that he is in a very good place at this stage of construction. Or perhaps I am simply missing something...
 
dockattner said:
Or perhaps I am simply missing something...
Click to expand...
you don't miss anything, mon ami ;) It has been proven that it is much easier to remove extra wood than struggle with replacement of too thin. I am with you.
AllanKP69 said:
Get both and it is win win. Any business is trying to make a profit but that does not necessarily mean they cannot provide materials and/or instructions for some things that would make for a more accurate model when the costs would not go up. In the specific case of properly sizing frames, or at least explaining the finishing work (dimension wise), this should not increase the costs or make the build more difficult.
Click to expand...
I agree, it is up to the modeler to choose one kit or another. I am sure, if you don't like the kit and the ways it's made, you will not buy from this manufacturer again.
One way to improve those kits is to contact the manufacturer directly with your critiques\suggestions. Have you ever tried this?
 
Thank you Jim
I think pretty much all manufacturers have improved their manufacturing techniques with the advent of laser cutting and 3D printing but none of the three that I have actually contacted have shown any interest in communications on things that may have room for improvement. In fact, one responded and intimated that they are not interested in suggestions, but, within a year, their instructions were edited to include one of things that was suggested. I guess it is normal that human nature and its inherent ego can get in the way for the makers as well as us as builders.

For builders I think all of us look to improve on our work but often forget to let folks know we welcome constructive criticism. Getting off track here.................... Sorry Dan :(
Allan
 
AllanKP69 said:
Thank you Jim
I think pretty much all manufacturers have improved their manufacturing techniques with the advent of laser cutting and 3D printing but none of the three that I have actually contacted have shown any interest in communications on things that may have room for improvement. In fact, one responded and intimated that they are not interested in suggestions, but, within a year, their instructions were edited to include one of things that was suggested. I guess it is normal that human nature and its inherent ego can get in the way for the makers as well as us as builders.

For builders I think all of us look to improve on our work but often forget to let folks know we welcome constructive criticism. Getting off track here.................... Sorry Dan :(
Allan
Click to expand...

You can find all Trident Alert logs and topics here

 
AllanKP69 said:
Thank you Jim
I think pretty much all manufacturers have improved their manufacturing techniques with the advent of laser cutting and 3D printing but none of the three that I have actually contacted have shown any interest in communications on things that may have room for improvement. In fact, one responded and intimated that they are not interested in suggestions, but, within a year, their instructions were edited to include one of things that was suggested. I guess it is normal that human nature and its inherent ego can get in the way for the makers as well as us as builders.

For builders I think all of us look to improve on our work but often forget to let folks know we welcome constructive criticism. Getting off track here.................... Sorry Dan :(
Allan
Click to expand...
Oh...no... be careful to open another can of worms, we already have a thread about constructive criticism. The golden rule is: don't criticize unless someone specifically asks. ;)
 
Interesting discussion about the frames' final dimensions. Honestly, I didn't even think that far, I'm happy to finish the framing . I will pay attention to that as soon as I start fairing.
As for the quality of the kit I can just say that I'm positively surprised I encountered no more problems thus far (see the undercut stem or keel part at the beginning of my log).
I prefer the cnc cutting over the messy lasercut, even if that means You have to manually cut all the inside corners as the radius of the cutter will always cut round inside corners. I would cut the parts through and leave holding tabs though. I think I saw somewhere that Trident now does this with the new kits?!

At the moment I am still glueing up frames and slowly fitting the frames to the keel and berth. They are still in a rough shape and have to be cleaned up on the inside before glueing.

20240613_225218.jpg

20240613_225211.jpg
 
Just thought a bit more about the toptimbers and I realised that in this kit the frames are "stylized" to represent the framing. The real framing was done with thinner futtocks, in the Trident kit they are all the same width.

On my cross section model I followed the plans in the AOTS book. Here I cut the futtocks and toptimbers more closely to their final dimensions:

02.jpeg20220315_073127.jpg

As soon as I reach this step I will check what the instruction says and "cheat" a little by spying through the other build logs
 
Your joinery is really good! I cannot see from the photos, but are the cuts for the chocks already laser cut or do you use chisels or some other method to make the scarfs and chock joints?
Allan
 
AllanKP69 said:
Your joinery is really good! I cannot see from the photos, but are the cuts for the chocks already laser cut or do you use chisels or some other method to make the scarfs and chock joints?
Allan
Click to expand...
I use some #11 blades in my Alert build to adjust the chocks' placements.
 
AllanKP69 said:
Your joinery is really good! I cannot see from the photos, but are the cuts for the chocks already laser cut or do you use chisels or some other method to make the scarfs and chock joints?
Allan
Click to expand...

Thank You. The chocks are cnc cut as already pointed out by Zoly.

I found it easier to use a flat chisel to clean up the inside edge of the scarph coutouts.
 
Hi Dan,
I understood about the CNC cutting in general, sorry, but was not sure if that was the case for these difficult joints. Sure makes frame assembly easier in my mind!
My thanks to you Zoly, and Jim.
Allan
 
AllanKP69 said:
Hi Dan,
I understood about the CNC cutting in general, sorry, but was not sure if that was the case for these difficult joints. Sure makes frame assembly easier in my mind!
My thanks to you Zoly, and Jim.
Allan
Click to expand...
Hi, All. As Zoly mentioned, most of the parts are CNC-processed. It probably would be easier to understand if you looked for the kit support forum, you will see all the necessary bits including the kit review and build logs.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top