The frames do not show what's the big deal?
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2024
- Messages
- 290
- Points
- 158
Did you read my reply]?
Hmm, I got curious with all the back and forth comments on this part of the Oseberg build and cobbled together this part.
I was pleased to note that all the parts popped out of their respective flats without a problem.
I followed Pavel's video, glued the pieces "as is" without removing any char and then dry fitted them together with a half dozen little pegs. (BTW the pegs are on the little bitty flat #28 in the Photo).
I did not noticed any "Overlap" between the two pieces. I have to admit I'm still a "Novice" with no practical or technical knowledge so I was happy with my result. I look forward to building this kit.
Jan
I was pleased to note that all the parts popped out of their respective flats without a problem.
I followed Pavel's video, glued the pieces "as is" without removing any char and then dry fitted them together with a half dozen little pegs. (BTW the pegs are on the little bitty flat #28 in the Photo).
I did not noticed any "Overlap" between the two pieces. I have to admit I'm still a "Novice" with no practical or technical knowledge so I was happy with my result. I look forward to building this kit.
Jan
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2024
- Messages
- 290
- Points
- 158
I'm glad that it worked out for you. I should have looked ahead a little further ahead before I did mine and I would have realized that the enormous (to me) gaps that were created by the char taper really don't matter because the double layer gives it plenty of strength and the entire visible portion of the keel is covered by another layer anyway.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2024
- Messages
- 290
- Points
- 158
According to The Oseberg Ship book, the plank rivets were 10mm with round heads 25mm to 27mm. The roves were predominantly square, 25 x 25 mm.
The decks (floor boards) were fastened with 16mm treenails in most of the ship, except for a few "rooms" (spaces between frames or floor timbers). The floor timber where the mast was stepped was numbered 0. Note that the model erroneously has this as the central frame, when in fact, it was one frame forward of the central frame (I will address my fix for this in an upcoming post). The frames forward of 0 are numbered 1F through 7F. Aft frames were numbered 1A through 9A. Aside from the offset (frame 1A is the central frame), there is one more additional small frame at the very stern.
The rooms where the floor boards lay loose were 4A-5A (bailing), 1A-1F (either side of the mast for ballast) and 6F-8F (purpose undocumented).
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2024
- Messages
- 290
- Points
- 158
Moving the mast step
The covid cooties kept me down for a while and then the Admiral got it too, so we've spent the last couple of weeks taking care of one another with not much time (or energy) to visit the shipyard. Feeling better now, I thought I would attack the problem I mentioned in an earlier post.
The following photo from Unimus shows that unlike Pavel's kit where the mast is stepped to the central frame, it is actually stepped one frame forward of the central frame.
So the question becomes, "What to do about it?" At the risk of waxing philosophical, people build models for many different reasons. Many are happy to assemble a kit simply for the pleasure of it, with no real thought to accuracy. Let's face it, 99.9% of the people admiring one of these models will be amazed at the intricacy and the effort it took to build. None of these people will ever notice that some blocks were rigged backwards or the stern decorations are not correct. There is not a single thing wrong with this.
Others will spend months or years researching their subject, scratch building their model exactly the way it was originally built, even in areas that no one will ever see. They agonize over the correct crest for the cannons for the time period of their subject. Few people would recognize or even appreciate this effort, but the modeler will know. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach either. We all take what we need from this hobby.
Most of us, I think, fall somewhere in the middle. We want to impart accuracy as best we can, purchasing aftermarket parts to replace poor quality kit parts and doing the best we can to make as realistic a model as is practical - for a hobby.
For the vast majority of the models we build, we really cannot be certain exactly how our subjects looked. We rely on old, hard to read drawings, paintings and contracts to work out what they might have looked like. Even for some of the popular subject that still exist - Victory, Constitution, etc., what they look like today does not reflect how they looked during the period we've chosen to model. It's frequently just a guessing game.
Oseberg is a ship that we can visit today and see how she was actually built because it never underwent the sometimes numerous renovations that other existing ships have. (Well, we can't look at it for a couple of years, because the museum is closed until 2027 for renovations.) We can know almost exactly what the hull looked like when she was buried. I fall into the category of modelers who want to represent the model as accurately as is practical for the areas that are visible to the viewer. Because of this, I chose to move the mast step forward one frame as it is in the real ship. Had I discovered this earlier, it would have been significantly easier to build the change in. Hindsight is 20/20, so one can only move forward.
After musing about how I would do this for way more hours than I care to admit, I finally arrived at a solution. I would simply slice off the very top of the central frame and transplant it one frame forward.
First, I made some stop-cuts in the bitis to keep my blade from wandering.
Then, using a sharp utility knife, I pared away as much of the biti where the mast step would be moved to as I could. Then I followed up with a sharp chisel to flatten it out.
I have a half-circle blade for my Fein oscillating tool and this gave me a ledge to support the back of the blade as I sliced the mast step biti off the top of the central frame right at the floorboard ledge.
I cleaned up with a sanding stick to smooth and level the frames.
After cleaning up the bottom of the central frame, I glued a piece of cherry veneer on to make up for the material removed by the saw.
Using scrap from the leftover "sprues", I made a new extended floorboard ledge and a new biti for the central frame. I just left the original extended floor ledge in place. It will be covered by the floorboards and I didn't want to risk damaging anything trying to cut it out. Finally, I drilled holes in the central knees to match the other frames. The first backstay goes into the knee directly behind the mast step, so it was easier to drill this before the planking was finished. I say "easy", but the drill bit alone just barely fit between the frames, so to get a straight hole, I had to spin the drill bit between my fingers. Four cramps later, I had a couple of holes.
So after all that, no one but me or those I tell will ever know about this change. But I will know.
The covid cooties kept me down for a while and then the Admiral got it too, so we've spent the last couple of weeks taking care of one another with not much time (or energy) to visit the shipyard. Feeling better now, I thought I would attack the problem I mentioned in an earlier post.
The following photo from Unimus shows that unlike Pavel's kit where the mast is stepped to the central frame, it is actually stepped one frame forward of the central frame.
So the question becomes, "What to do about it?" At the risk of waxing philosophical, people build models for many different reasons. Many are happy to assemble a kit simply for the pleasure of it, with no real thought to accuracy. Let's face it, 99.9% of the people admiring one of these models will be amazed at the intricacy and the effort it took to build. None of these people will ever notice that some blocks were rigged backwards or the stern decorations are not correct. There is not a single thing wrong with this.
Others will spend months or years researching their subject, scratch building their model exactly the way it was originally built, even in areas that no one will ever see. They agonize over the correct crest for the cannons for the time period of their subject. Few people would recognize or even appreciate this effort, but the modeler will know. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach either. We all take what we need from this hobby.
Most of us, I think, fall somewhere in the middle. We want to impart accuracy as best we can, purchasing aftermarket parts to replace poor quality kit parts and doing the best we can to make as realistic a model as is practical - for a hobby.
For the vast majority of the models we build, we really cannot be certain exactly how our subjects looked. We rely on old, hard to read drawings, paintings and contracts to work out what they might have looked like. Even for some of the popular subject that still exist - Victory, Constitution, etc., what they look like today does not reflect how they looked during the period we've chosen to model. It's frequently just a guessing game.
Oseberg is a ship that we can visit today and see how she was actually built because it never underwent the sometimes numerous renovations that other existing ships have. (Well, we can't look at it for a couple of years, because the museum is closed until 2027 for renovations.) We can know almost exactly what the hull looked like when she was buried. I fall into the category of modelers who want to represent the model as accurately as is practical for the areas that are visible to the viewer. Because of this, I chose to move the mast step forward one frame as it is in the real ship. Had I discovered this earlier, it would have been significantly easier to build the change in. Hindsight is 20/20, so one can only move forward.
After musing about how I would do this for way more hours than I care to admit, I finally arrived at a solution. I would simply slice off the very top of the central frame and transplant it one frame forward.
First, I made some stop-cuts in the bitis to keep my blade from wandering.
Then, using a sharp utility knife, I pared away as much of the biti where the mast step would be moved to as I could. Then I followed up with a sharp chisel to flatten it out.
I have a half-circle blade for my Fein oscillating tool and this gave me a ledge to support the back of the blade as I sliced the mast step biti off the top of the central frame right at the floorboard ledge.
I cleaned up with a sanding stick to smooth and level the frames.
After cleaning up the bottom of the central frame, I glued a piece of cherry veneer on to make up for the material removed by the saw.
Using scrap from the leftover "sprues", I made a new extended floorboard ledge and a new biti for the central frame. I just left the original extended floor ledge in place. It will be covered by the floorboards and I didn't want to risk damaging anything trying to cut it out. Finally, I drilled holes in the central knees to match the other frames. The first backstay goes into the knee directly behind the mast step, so it was easier to drill this before the planking was finished. I say "easy", but the drill bit alone just barely fit between the frames, so to get a straight hole, I had to spin the drill bit between my fingers. Four cramps later, I had a couple of holes.
So after all that, no one but me or those I tell will ever know about this change. But I will know.
Great solution, very well executed ! Everyone following your build will now place the mast where it is meant to be.
Congrats.
Alex R
Congrats.
Alex R
Does moving the mast step forward one section change any of the rigging points??
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2024
- Messages
- 290
- Points
- 158
Yes, all of the backstays will move forward one frame. That's the reason I had to drill holes in the knees of the center frame because it will accept the most forward of the backstays. Pavel pre-drilled holes in the 4 knees aft of the center one as well as the 4 forward of it because he used the same program to cut both ends of the ship. The 4 forward holes will not be used, and technically shouldn't be there. I will probably plug mine.
I don't think anything else will change much other that some slightly longer or shorter lines.
Like I said in an earlier post, your attention to detail isMoving the mast step
The covid cooties kept me down for a while and then the Admiral got it too, so we've spent the last couple of weeks taking care of one another with not much time (or energy) to visit the shipyard. Feeling better now, I thought I would attack the problem I mentioned in an earlier post.
The following photo from Unimus shows that unlike Pavel's kit where the mast is stepped to the central frame, it is actually stepped one frame forward of the central frame.
View attachment 504218
So the question becomes, "What to do about it?" At the risk of waxing philosophical, people build models for many different reasons. Many are happy to assemble a kit simply for the pleasure of it, with no real thought to accuracy. Let's face it, 99.9% of the people admiring one of these models will be amazed at the intricacy and the effort it took to build. None of these people will ever notice that some blocks were rigged backwards or the stern decorations are not correct. There is not a single thing wrong with this.
Others will spend months or years researching their subject, scratch building their model exactly the way it was originally built, even in areas that no one will ever see. They agonize over the correct crest for the cannons for the time period of their subject. Few people would recognize or even appreciate this effort, but the modeler will know. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach either. We all take what we need from this hobby.
Most of us, I think, fall somewhere in the middle. We want to impart accuracy as best we can, purchasing aftermarket parts to replace poor quality kit parts and doing the best we can to make as realistic a model as is practical - for a hobby.
For the vast majority of the models we build, we really cannot be certain exactly how our subjects looked. We rely on old, hard to read drawings, paintings and contracts to work out what they might have looked like. Even for some of the popular subject that still exist - Victory, Constitution, etc., what they look like today does not reflect how they looked during the period we've chosen to model. It's frequently just a guessing game.
Oseberg is a ship that we can visit today and see how she was actually built because it never underwent the sometimes numerous renovations that other existing ships have. (Well, we can't look at it for a couple of years, because the museum is closed until 2027 for renovations.) We can know almost exactly what the hull looked like when she was buried. I fall into the category of modelers who want to represent the model as accurately as is practical for the areas that are visible to the viewer. Because of this, I chose to move the mast step forward one frame as it is in the real ship. Had I discovered this earlier, it would have been significantly easier to build the change in. Hindsight is 20/20, so one can only move forward.
After musing about how I would do this for way more hours than I care to admit, I finally arrived at a solution. I would simply slice off the very top of the central frame and transplant it one frame forward.
First, I made some stop-cuts in the bitis to keep my blade from wandering.
View attachment 504219
Then, using a sharp utility knife, I pared away as much of the biti where the mast step would be moved to as I could. Then I followed up with a sharp chisel to flatten it out.
View attachment 504220
I have a half-circle blade for my Fein oscillating tool and this gave me a ledge to support the back of the blade as I sliced the mast step biti off the top of the central frame right at the floorboard ledge.
View attachment 504221
I cleaned up with a sanding stick to smooth and level the frames.
View attachment 504222
After cleaning up the bottom of the central frame, I glued a piece of cherry veneer on to make up for the material removed by the saw.
View attachment 504223
Using scrap from the leftover "sprues", I made a new extended floorboard ledge and a new biti for the central frame. I just left the original extended floor ledge in place. It will be covered by the floorboards and I didn't want to risk damaging anything trying to cut it out. Finally, I drilled holes in the central knees to match the other frames. The first backstay goes into the knee directly behind the mast step, so it was easier to drill this before the planking was finished. I say "easy", but the drill bit alone just barely fit between the frames, so to get a straight hole, I had to spin the drill bit between my fingers. Four cramps later, I had a couple of holes.
View attachment 504224
View attachment 504225
View attachment 504226
So after all that, no one but me or those I tell will ever know about this change. But I will know.
Like I said in a previous post, your attention to detail is awesome. I will be following your lead on moving the mast 1 frame forward...when I get there LOL. I'm also impressed with the way you fix a problem when you come across it, I'm anxiously waiting to see how you fix the strakes being short on the stems.Moving the mast step
The covid cooties kept me down for a while and then the Admiral got it too, so we've spent the last couple of weeks taking care of one another with not much time (or energy) to visit the shipyard. Feeling better now, I thought I would attack the problem I mentioned in an earlier post.
The following photo from Unimus shows that unlike Pavel's kit where the mast is stepped to the central frame, it is actually stepped one frame forward of the central frame.
View attachment 504218
So the question becomes, "What to do about it?" At the risk of waxing philosophical, people build models for many different reasons. Many are happy to assemble a kit simply for the pleasure of it, with no real thought to accuracy. Let's face it, 99.9% of the people admiring one of these models will be amazed at the intricacy and the effort it took to build. None of these people will ever notice that some blocks were rigged backwards or the stern decorations are not correct. There is not a single thing wrong with this.
Others will spend months or years researching their subject, scratch building their model exactly the way it was originally built, even in areas that no one will ever see. They agonize over the correct crest for the cannons for the time period of their subject. Few people would recognize or even appreciate this effort, but the modeler will know. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach either. We all take what we need from this hobby.
Most of us, I think, fall somewhere in the middle. We want to impart accuracy as best we can, purchasing aftermarket parts to replace poor quality kit parts and doing the best we can to make as realistic a model as is practical - for a hobby.
For the vast majority of the models we build, we really cannot be certain exactly how our subjects looked. We rely on old, hard to read drawings, paintings and contracts to work out what they might have looked like. Even for some of the popular subject that still exist - Victory, Constitution, etc., what they look like today does not reflect how they looked during the period we've chosen to model. It's frequently just a guessing game.
Oseberg is a ship that we can visit today and see how she was actually built because it never underwent the sometimes numerous renovations that other existing ships have. (Well, we can't look at it for a couple of years, because the museum is closed until 2027 for renovations.) We can know almost exactly what the hull looked like when she was buried. I fall into the category of modelers who want to represent the model as accurately as is practical for the areas that are visible to the viewer. Because of this, I chose to move the mast step forward one frame as it is in the real ship. Had I discovered this earlier, it would have been significantly easier to build the change in. Hindsight is 20/20, so one can only move forward.
After musing about how I would do this for way more hours than I care to admit, I finally arrived at a solution. I would simply slice off the very top of the central frame and transplant it one frame forward.
First, I made some stop-cuts in the bitis to keep my blade from wandering.
View attachment 504219
Then, using a sharp utility knife, I pared away as much of the biti where the mast step would be moved to as I could. Then I followed up with a sharp chisel to flatten it out.
View attachment 504220
I have a half-circle blade for my Fein oscillating tool and this gave me a ledge to support the back of the blade as I sliced the mast step biti off the top of the central frame right at the floorboard ledge.
View attachment 504221
I cleaned up with a sanding stick to smooth and level the frames.
View attachment 504222
After cleaning up the bottom of the central frame, I glued a piece of cherry veneer on to make up for the material removed by the saw.
View attachment 504223
Using scrap from the leftover "sprues", I made a new extended floorboard ledge and a new biti for the central frame. I just left the original extended floor ledge in place. It will be covered by the floorboards and I didn't want to risk damaging anything trying to cut it out. Finally, I drilled holes in the central knees to match the other frames. The first backstay goes into the knee directly behind the mast step, so it was easier to drill this before the planking was finished. I say "easy", but the drill bit alone just barely fit between the frames, so to get a straight hole, I had to spin the drill bit between my fingers. Four cramps later, I had a couple of holes.
View attachment 504224
View attachment 504225
View attachment 504226
So after all that, no one but me or those I tell will ever know about this change. But I will know.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2024
- Messages
- 290
- Points
- 158
Thanks for the kind words Steve. What happens at the stems will be determined by the fit of the simulated carved pieces. I'm not too concerned, because once you get above the strakes, the rest of the stem is just poking up in the air, so I can basically shape it as needed - nothing else has to fit up to it.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2024
- Messages
- 290
- Points
- 158
You could carefully sand the biti for frame 0 so that it fits into frame 1. The biti for frame 1, however, probably can't be stretched to fit frame 0, so I would find a piece of scrap from the residual wood and fashion a piece as long as biti 0, but flat on top like biti 1 and carefully fit it to frame 0. You may find, however, that it is a close enough fit, that just some minor shaping and the addition of some thin slivers of wood at the end joint is all you need. The joint where the biti meets the frame (except for the very end) is not visible, so it doesn't need to be that clean. Hope this makes sense.