| Model Ship Builder :: Forums :: Build Logs :: POF Build Logs |
|
<< Previous thread | Next thread >> |
| USF Essex POF 1:64 - Scratch | ||
| Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |
|
Moderators: Winston, aew, bikepunk
|
| Author | Post | ||
| Gary M |
| ||
 Registered Member #4198 Joined: Tue May 07 2013, 10:50pmPosts: 908 | Hi All, As I finish up the lofting of frames for the Eagle Practicum by Gene Bodnar and the rigging of the Rattlesnake (see my other forums), I am now interested in lofting frames for the USF Essex. I found a copy of the Anatomy of the Ship series at my local library used book store last night for just $15! I bought it and another of the same series. They must have been donated since they were in mint condiditon. I couldnt beleive my eyes when I saw them, just sitting there for the past month waiting to be plucked (I should play the lottery tonight). My question: I have read some forums from other sites about the plans in the book not being correct regarding the Essex. I have not blown them up yet, but wanted to see if any of you have insight on the subject. My plan is to loft the frames and build a "stylized" model of the Essex. While I am not a purist in the strict sense, I do want reasonable accuracy represented in my builds. My goal for this forum: Using the skill sets I learned through lofting the frames for the Eagle, I want to loft those of the Essex. I will share my insights on the process as I move along. I welcome your thoughts on the subject. Best, Gary [ Edited Fri Mar 14 2014, 04:57pm ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Gary M |
| ||
| Registered Member #4198 Joined: Tue May 07 2013, 10:50pmPosts: 908 | Hi All, PLAN SCALE CONVERSIONS: Initially, I was planning to do the model in 1:48, but when I enlarged the first set of plans, it was over four feet long! Thats a lot of wood and a lot of space, so I scaled it down to 1:64. The plans were pulled from the Anatomy of the Ship, 32-gun Frigate Essex book by Portia Takakjian. The primary plans that I will use to loft the initial frames are the Sheer and Half-Breadth on pages 32,33. They were at 1/144 scale. I simply used a conversion chart and enlarged them by 225% (alternatively, you can divide one dimension by the other, multiply by 100 and get the percent to enlarge). I first cut and carefully spliced the plans, since they were on two pages (small defects at this stage will be huge at 225% magnification). I then pulled the Body Plan from page 32 and enlarged it as well at 225%. I used the Longitundinal Member plan on page 36 as well, this plan will aid me in the keel, stern, stem, bearding line details as well as be used for the jig later on. The Midship Frame Plan on page 54 will allow me to obtain the proper width of each frame at a given point. This plan was at 1/96 scale, so I enlarged it by 150%. Once I had the plans to scale, I overlaid them and with the aid of a light box, was able to match up key points, ensuring that they are the same dimensionally. Attached is a photo of the plans.  In studying the plans, there appears to be a lot of "filler" pieces as well as single frames in the original. As mentioned earlier, while I want to be historically accurate, I will build this in a "stylized" fashion and most likely use double frames for stability and will space them apart equally for aesthetic reasons. I welcome any discussion on this. My next steps are to further check the water and buttock lines, develop some square frame templates and then decide the proper placement of the frames (this may take a little trial and error). Thanks, Gary | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Tim C |
| ||
 Registered Member #4126 Joined: Fri Feb 15 2013, 05:19amPosts: 1095 | Way to go on buying those books. Good Series. Good Luck with your plans and build. Later Tim | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| trippwj |
| ||
  Registered Member #2648 Joined: Fri May 25 2012, 08:14pmPosts: 256 | Gary - I think you are on the right path here. You may also want to consider acquiring the book The Frigate Essex Papers (Peabody Institute, 1974 - ISBN 978-0875770444). there is a wealth of detail concerning the as-built and as-repaired (1809) structures. My understanding is that the AOTS framing is likely more historically accurate than that used in Portia's earlier series of articles in Model Ship Builder magazine (1982). Look forward to following this build! | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Gary M |
| ||
| Registered Member #4198 Joined: Tue May 07 2013, 10:50pmPosts: 908 | Hi Wayne, Thanks for the heads up on the papers. I will get them! I'm still pretty new to lofting, so any further insights are most welcome. I love the drafting as much as the building... Tim - appreciate the comments and interest as well. Best, Gary | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| daves |
| ||
| Registered Member #105 Joined: Wed Jul 15 2009, 12:01pmPosts: 2622 | there are a few things I think are not correct on how Portia framed the Essex first on pages 40-43 it shows chocks to attach the frame futtocks. I do not think chocks were uses in American built ships that is an English shipyard practice only. She did this because she left a space between the two halves of the double frames, from what I can gather American ships were built with the double frame halves tight to one another like the Eagle and Jefferson. On page 47 I do not think that is the correct configuration for the bow timbers, again that is an, English style. Wayne is also correct in pointing out the way Portia framed the Essex in her early articles was incorrect again that was an English system that was not used in north America. In the book she changed the framing to double framing. On page 47 in the book again Portia frames the bow the way the English did in their shipyards a practice not used in north America. [ Edited Fri Mar 07 2014, 04:51pm ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Gary M |
| ||
| Registered Member #4198 Joined: Tue May 07 2013, 10:50pmPosts: 908 | Thanks Dave! This is really helpful information and I greatly appreciate your research to the actual pages! I just completed the lofting of the frames for the Eagle, so I'm quite familiar with the process. I will plan to double frame the Essex in the same manner. Now for spacing... More to come. Best, Gary [ Edited Sat Mar 08 2014, 06:29am ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| daves |
| ||
| Registered Member #105 Joined: Wed Jul 15 2009, 12:01pmPosts: 2622 | i personally knew Portia back in the early days, we would correspond back and forth and always meet every year at the NRG conferences along with Portia, Harold Hahn, Bob Bruckshaw and Milt Roth and a fellow named Jeffery Phillips were the stars in model ship building. It was Bob who introduced the "admiralty" style of model ship building and Harold was in his prime building years. The English admiralty models were all the rage back then and the English style of ship building was introduced to the American ship modeling community. Back then there was very little information on American built ships and few model builders built them. On the other hand a flood of ship building information and admiralty plans were introduced to the community through the NRG. Simple logic dictated here is how war ship were built by the English and these are English colonies thus this is how ALL ships were built. Back 25 to 30 years ago Jeff Phillips was publishing a magazine Model Ship Builder and a majority of the articles were by people like Portia, Hahn and Bruckshaw who had no formal educations in maritime archaeology same with the Nautical Research Journal much of the articles were written by the members with limited knowledge and little prime research, what was published became truth. But these publications were not academic nor meant to be for the academic community they were intended for the hobbyist in model ship building. If i were to build a model of any american warship i would build it with double frames 24 to 28 inches sided with 5 to 6 inches of space between frames. Hahn knew american ships were built as almost a massive solid wall of timbering so he cut down a few inches on the frames and made a wider space so the framing stood out and the hull had a lighter look. | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Gary M |
| ||
| Registered Member #4198 Joined: Tue May 07 2013, 10:50pmPosts: 908 | Hi Dave, This is really, really great information and it answers a lot of questions for me. I am working the calculations for "room and space", wanting to have as few filler pieces when it comes to gun port framing. I have seen a few Essex models, each with their own unique look when it comes to the framing. From the AOTS book alone, the framing in the photos differ widely. Your insight on Hahn wanting a lighter look makes perfect sense to me. From the plans, it does look like one massive wood structure. I will work out your recommendations on room and space and share my findings. Thanks again! Gary [ Edited Sat Mar 08 2014, 06:29am ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| daves |
| ||
| Registered Member #105 Joined: Wed Jul 15 2009, 12:01pmPosts: 2622 | In 1807 the Essex underwent a major survey to determine her condition and if she was worth repairing or should the ship be broken apart and replaced. In that report Fox suggested the top timbers should be altered because there was to much of a tumble home. Fox wrote as the top timbers would have to be removed now was the time to make the improvement. The report stated the top timbers were rotted in many places, the filling pieces used between the ports were also defective. This suggests the space between the frame timbers were filled in with timber making the upper part of the hull a solid wall of timber. This was also done on the Jefferson so the practice of filling between the frames was done. Portia's framing shows a narrow space between the two halves of the double frames, question is why would the builders go through all the effort to build frames with a space between the halves then fill in the space with filling timbers? this does not make sense. Another clue is Fox reported much of the frame pieces were rotted and needed to be replaced. The reason for the space was so the timbers did not touch one another which prevented or slowed down the rotting. I see this if i stack boards on top of one another they rot real fast but if i put a one inch spacer between the boards for an air space the stack can set there for years without rotting. The Essex rotted fast suggesting the double frames were touching and there was no space between timbers. Like i said back in the day building american warships did not have the appeal as the British ships, there was little carvings and the hulls were almost solid. British hulls had all these exotic framing styles that "looked good" as a model so that is why Portia and early builders used British framing systems on American ships. [ Edited Fri Mar 07 2014, 04:55pm ] | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |
Powered by e107 Forum System