YQ Bluenose Ted R

I just noticed that the notches in 126-56 are not centered. They are off enough that the slot would be visible if I try to average them out
What did you guys do with this? I don't remember any thing about this in the build logs
Puzzled,
Ted17169227377181411022798364436928.jpg17169227689598681291566321215361.jpgI'm
 
With all the help I'm getting you gentlemen are almost doing a second Bluenose.
That would be Bluenose ll.
Hehe
 
I just noticed that the notches in 126-56 are not centered. They are off enough that the slot would be visible if I try to average them out
What did you guys do with this? I don't remember any thing about this in the build logs
Puzzled,
TedView attachment 450041View attachment 450042I'm

I'm afraid you mixed up a few parts; these notched beams are drawn and opposite parts. So somewhere you either have a part floating in your shipyard, or you incorrectly located one of the parts. Part 56 is used in three locations; both mast feet and the wheelhouse, so you should have three dwn and opposite parts.
 
I intend to sand it all flush before installing. On checking found deck beams 3 and 4 slightly high on starboard side. I'll remove the sand flush and reinstall. I've been checking them the same way I checked the frames on the hull for fairing.
I have the lower fore and main mast handy to check how the fit through these openings when glueing.
Would it be better to use the finish deck parts to do that checking instead of a planking strake?
I'm trying to learn proper nautical terminology so I would appreciate correction when I get it wrong.
Ted
 
I'm thinking that the finished deck part goes back tight to where part 103 sits over part 102. Is this correct?
Hopefully,
Ted

View attachment 450648
Again, I am not qualified to answer your question however I would think the deck openings lining up with the various frame openings and deck penetrations would take precedence. You would need to have all your deck beams and carlings installed to know this though.
 
I found a huge mistake made earlier. When placing the lower deck beams I started one frame aft of the correct position by not understanding how the glued multi part at the bow cut off point height worked with these lower beams. This resulted in the foremast step being one frame aft of its correct position. I was not able to detect this error until testing how the mast fitted through the finish deck part. Now have to remove the upper deck beams. Cutoff the glued bow parts to correct height. Remove the lower deck beams and move them all forward one frame.
I was really in well over my head when I started this project but didn't realize how much. Despite a second major setback I'm feeling more confident and feel my abilities have grown immensely. (Maybe that's hopeful thinking.). At any rate the use of water soluble glue in most locations is helpful.
I have been getting a hint that things weren't quite right for about the last ten upper deck beams but thought the sawing and chopping I had to do to remove all the frames from the keel has resulted in the slight misalignment I was seeing.
I am a little disheartened and little sadder bit wiser.
If not for the excellent work I've seen on this site i might be tempted to find a work around solution but believe it is the catching and correcting of these major blunders that are the tuition that lead to the results I want.
Humbly,
Ted1717197508674526855983254310852.jpg1717197523803925591096161359978.jpg17171975845237921148091334029152.jpg
 
Upon checking again I'm not sure the mistake isn't just right on the finished deck beam placement. I'm putting it down until tomorrow after a cu if coffee. What a wild ride this model is.
Ted
 
Again, I am not qualified to answer your question however I would think the deck openings lining up with the various frame openings and deck penetrations would take precedence. You would need to have all your deck beams and carlings installed to know this though.
Plus a quick conversation with the drawings could be very enlightening…
 
Back
Top