New bloke throwing a curve ball - Scratch building an old classic w/ a modern twist

[F3ARED]

Hey fellas.

Have been lurking for a while now looking over every ones restorations, trying to get my head around the construction of fibreglass boats and preparing myself for sometime in the near future when I can hopefully get my hands on a boat to build up. Like most people, I'm on a budget and decently handy so it makes more economical sense in my particular situation to buy something needing work and get stuck into it, vs buying a "good" one and potentially having the same issues as a cheap boat anyway. I stumbled across build-your-own plans, and CNC kits before I eventually became aware of svensons free boat plans as printed from Popular Mechanics - in particular, the PM38. Which really set the brain ticking...

I apologize in advance if I am asking questions which may seem relatively stupid, have been covered before, or completely in the wrong section. My relatively large lack of knowledge in relation to boats means searching can be a bit hit and miss. Hopefully, Im in the right area. I have been looking over the PM38 plans [and a few of the others on svensons], again with the hope of getting my head around exactly what is involved. While I have some woodworking experience, for all purposes I am a complete beginner so preparation is important. Looking at the plans i couldnt help but think about the viability of producing the PM38 in its entirety out of plywood and fibreglass using a CNC. Whilst I dont have masses of wood working experience, I DO have a substantial amount of AutoCAD experience, a long with a few years of using a 3-axis CNC wood milling machine. As a nice side effect, it means I have access to cheap CNC programming and cutting time, and via suppliers that I deal with through work, potentially cheaper marine plywood.

My questions revolve primarily around any potential impact to strength using this construction method, how best to approach it and any pitfalls to avoid. Whilst I am quite capable of following the instructions and producing the PM38 as Popular Mechanics intended, doing it the modern way would save me a hell of a lot of time. For those not familiar with the PM38, see here for the plans [www.svensons.com/boat/?f=RunaboutsOutboard/pm38/pm38.pdf]

My intention is to reproduce the individual parts as shown on the PM plans accurate on CAD and cutting them on CNC. Parts that require thicknesses thicker than the plywood sheet [for eg, the keel] I intend to "laminate" [i believe thats the correct term?] out of multiple sheets of plywood until the piece is the correct thickness. Each part would then be covered in epoxy, assembled, fibreglassed over, before both inside and outside of the hull are fibreglassed in their entirety, which should hopefully give me a light, strong, and leak-proof boat.

-Are there any issues and or concerns in terms of the process I have described above, and if so, what?
-Would replacing a part such as the keel with a piece manufactured from glued and epoxied ply present any strength issues and or concerns?

Thats about all i can think of at the moment.

Cheers

Nick

 

[Scott Danforth]

welcome aboard

why not simply get the plans and start making the boat?

plenty of kits and plans out there

also, with wood and boats, using a CNC router is over-kill. more power to you. plenty of these boats built using simple hand tools.

I suggest you read the following two builds. one was just splashed, one is still in process

http://forums.iboats.com/forum/boat...ll-repair/9929872-glen-l-wb-power-skiff-build
http://forums.iboats.com/forum/boat...ir/10096946-popular-mechanics-1962-pm38-build

 

[alldodge]

My intention is to reproduce the individual parts as shown on the PM plans accurate on CAD and cutting them on CNC. Parts that require thicknesses thicker than the plywood sheet [for eg, the keel] I intend to "laminate" [i believe thats the correct term?] out of multiple sheets of plywood until the piece is the correct thickness. Each part would then be covered in epoxy, assembled, fibreglassed over, before both inside and outside of the hull are fibreglassed in their entirety, which should hopefully give me a light, strong, and leak-proof boat.

-Are there any issues and or concerns in terms of the process I have described above, and if so, what?
-Would replacing a part such as the keel with a piece manufactured from glued and epoxied ply present any strength issues and or concerns?

Howdy

Would be working from tried and true plans, so the actual design will work. Plywood is stronger then like a solid piece of wood and laminating them should be good. Taking the boat and covering with glass will increase the weight. The added weight will be the main impact I'm thinking.

 

[F3ARED]

welcome aboard

why not simply get the plans and start making the boat?

plenty of kits and plans out there

also, with wood and boats, using a CNC router is over-kill. more power to you. plenty of these boats built using simple hand tools.

I suggest you read the following two builds. one was just splashed, one is still in process

http://forums.iboats.com/forum/boat-...er-skiff-build
http://forums.iboats.com/forum/boat-...962-pm38-build

Hi Scott,

I have been pouring over the plans of the PM38 and have a bit of a head start in terms of actually transferring the components over onto CAD; figured its best I stop before i get too far ahead of myself and waste a lot of time on something that doesnt work! Whilst i appreciate that these boats are designed with the intention of being able to be put together with the barest minimum of hand tools and available skill, it still is quite an intensive and time consuming process. Conversely, I have both the equipment and materials available to me through work to do it in this method, particularly during down time or spare time at work - the most time consuming bit being the CAD. Time is precious, particularly with the birth of my first child so close, so the ability to save a few weekends in the future via not having to mark and cut panels out is priceless.

Was aware of pekstroms build, it was actually the boat that got my brain ticking. Hadnt seen the other though so thanks for that.

Howdy

Would be working from tried and true plans, so the actual design will work. Plywood is stronger then like a solid piece of wood and laminating them should be good. Taking the boat and covering with glass will increase the weight. The added weight will be the main impact I'm thinking.

Hey mate,

I was aware of the weight concern however what I am not aware of due to my inexperience with boats is how this increase will affect the boat itself - so if im well and truly off line with my thoughts, feel free to correct me as its why i posted here The additional weight of fibreglassing both sides of the boat was something I considered, and i assume its affects are similar to increasing weight on a car and its affect on performance and handling. My understanding is adding the fibreglass will increase the strength of the hull, along with completely sealing the wood from water from both a leak-into-hull and leaks-causing-rot perspective. Weight wise I have no idea what to expect, but id image that given the whole hull reportedly weighs 200lb finished, that fibreglassing it inside and out shouldnt increase the weight by more than 110lb. Am I on the right track or way off the mark? Id rather guess conservatively so as to cover my bases.

From a performance perspective its obviously a relatively easy thing to counteract - bump the hp of the motor up and away you go. However, if your concerns are flotation then it may be a slightly more difficult issue to resolve. I did consider this and the solution would be to run a thin layer of foam along the bottom battens of the plan [which i had wrong in my initial post - see here http://www.svensons.com/boat/?p=RunaboutsOutboard/pm38 ]. The problem would then be the need to run a floor on top of the foam, which in turn would increase the weight again....if im right about expecting the weight to go up by 100 odd lbs then the simpler solution would be to carry one less passenger LOL

On the subject of outboards [well, performance rather], the design is stated as being suitable for a MAX of 45hp. What determines this? Is this calculated off the weight of the boat or the strength of the hull, or a combination of both? Is the actual design or shape of the hull the issue? Ideally id like to use something in the vicinity of 60 to 85hp, due to the relatively easier availability of period correct looking outboards available down here. No point building a classic looking hull only to ruin it with a modern lump on the back!

My plan is to "proof" the design by cutting it in 1:4 scale on 3mm MDF and build it in model form first, hopefully identifying any issues there before spending some money on plywood and screwing that up.

Appreciate the replies. Im from an automotive background so I have a fair bit of learning/catching up to do!

N-

 

[Scott Danforth]

max hp is calculated by the transom width, the wetted hull length, the transom height and the type of controls

it is based on IMO international maritime organization law. in the US CFR 33 183.53 is the federal law.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2002-title33-vol2/xml/CFR-2002-title33-vol2-sec183-53.xml

using the calculation from CFR 33 183 ss53

L X W x.5 -15 = HP limit

take your length in feet multiply by the transom width in feet. example... 18*4.5 x.5 -15 = 25hp limit. (remote steering and a taller 20" transom would be rated at a higher value)

 

[alldodge]

I see you have done your research. My weight increase comment was from buoyancy consideration and how it will preform. As before I have not looked into to design, just a quick glance so have no actual numbers. Increase the weight and the boat goes slower with the same HP, so might be leave someone on the bank

You can determine the max load of the boat based on the buoyancy formula calculation.

So far as Max HP for folks on this side of the pond, we would use the USCG code of regulations, and the link below provides some insight
http://newboatbuilders.com/pages/hp.html

This is for the regular pleasure boats. When you get into high performance boats race style boats, all best are off

 

[F3ARED]

The interesting part of the formula you both have listed is inputting the dimensions of the PM38 in gives a result less than what is listed in the plans as maximum horsepower! In any event, now knowing that such a thing exists means I know where to look. Apparently in Australia we use Australian Standards AS 1799 for calculating horsepower. Formula of that is as follows:

(Boat Length X Waterline beam width at transom X 16) - 67 X 1.34 = maximum HP

Formula is calculated in meters. Given that I dont know the waterline beam width [and you wouldnt know it unless you had a completed boat sitting in the water in front of you] I had to do input a rough value going off images ive seen of completed boats sitting in water. Got the following result:

(13'9" x approx 57" x 16) - 67 x 1.34 = HP
(4.2m x 1.45m x 16) - 67 x 1.34 = HP
(97.45 - 67) x 1.34 = 40.8HP

This tells me two things:

1. either standards have changed or someone calculated what this hulls HP rating was incorrectly
2. There are a ****load of ski boats getting around Aus that are way, way, wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy overpowered according to these guidelines :lol:

I think ill need to do some more digging into this one. There is apparently a way to get the boats HP capacity tested using a rather rudimentary RH turn at full noise or something, or I could just plead ignorance and strap something up to 60hp on the back and hope no one cottons on :lol::facepalm:

N-

 

[Scott Danforth]

look at the tables, the type of steering depends on the calculations.

the AS 1799 follows the same IMO requirements as CFR 33 185.53

as for over-powered boats, yes, you will find many boats that are over-powered per the calculation. however they went thru the quick-turn testing referenced on a specific course and its documented.

for home-built boats, either you hire a surveyor to witness your testing and have your hull documented, or you follow the calculations




Note:
The use of the following special equipment should be considered because of the potential for exceeding the capabilities of the boat while performing the test:
Racing Type Personal Flotation Device
Helmet.


(3) Test conditions. Testing must be conducted on smooth, calm water with the wind speed below 10 knots. The test must be conducted with no load other than a driver who must weigh no more than 200 pounds. The motor trim angle must be adjusted to provide maximum full throttle speed short of excessive porpoising or propeller ventilation or “cavitation”, so that there is no loss of directional control.
(4) Quick turn test procedure. Set throttle at a low maneuvering speed and steer the boat straight ahead. Turn the steering wheel 180? in the direction of least resistance in 1/2 second or less and hold it at that position without changing the throttle or trim settings during or after the wheel change. The boat completes the maneuver successfully if it is capable of completing a 90? turn without the driver losing control of the boat or reducing the throttle setting. Gradually increase the boat's turn entry speed incrementally until the boat does not complete the Quick Turn Test successfully or successfully completes it at maximum throttle.


Note:
It is recognized that operator skill and familiarity with a particular boat and motor combination will affect the test results. It is permissible to make a number of practice runs through the quick turn test at any throttle setting.


(5) Test course method. Set throttle for 30 miles per hour boat speed and run the test course set up in accordance with Figure 183.53, passing outside the designated avoidance marker for 35 to 37.5 miles per hour without contacting any of the course markers. If the boat successfully completes this run of the test course, increase the throttle setting to 35 to 37.5 miles per hour boat speed and run the course passing outside the designated avoidance marker for that speed without contacting any of the course markers. If the boat successfully completes this run of the test course and the motor was not at full throttle, increase the throttle setting to 37.5 to 42.5 miles per hour boat speed and run the course passing outside the designated avoidance marker for that speed without contacting any of the course markers. If the boat successfully completes this run of the test course and the motor was not at full throttle, increase the throttle setting to 42.5 miles per hour or more and run the course passing outside the designated avoidance marker for that speed without contacting any of the course markers. If the boat successfully completes this run of the test course and the motor was not at full throttle, continue to increase the throttle setting and run the test course passing outside the designated avoidance marker for 42.5 miles per hour or more until the boat fails to complete the test successfully or the boat completes the test course maneuvers successfully at full throttle. The boat successfully completes the test course if the driver is able to maneuver it between the designated avoidance markers without striking the markers and without losing control of the boat or reducing the throttle setting. There must be no change in position of any equipment on board and there must be no change of position of personnel in order to influence the test results. There must be no instability evidenced by oscillating motion in the roll or yaw axes exhibited while negotiating the course.


Note:
It is recognized that operator skill and familiarity with a particular boat and motor combination will affect the test results. It is therefore considered permissible to make a number of practice runs through the test course at any throttle setting.


(6) Maximum horsepower capacity. (i) For boats capable of less than 35 miles per hour, the maximum horsepower capacity must be the maximum horsepower with which the boat was able to successfully complete the Quick Turn Test Procedure in ? 183.53(b)(4) at full throttle or the maximum horsepower determined under the calculations in ? 183.53(a) of this section.
(ii) For boats capable of 35 miles per hour or more, the maximum horsepower capacity must be the maximum horsepower with which the boat was able to successfully complete both the Quick Turn Test Procedure in ? 183.53(b)(4) and the Test Course Method in ? 183.53(b)(5) at full throttle or the calculations in ? 183.53(a) of this section.
(iii) The maximum horsepower capacity determined in accordance with ? 183.53(b) must not exceed 40 horsepower.

 

[Old Ironmaker]

I didn't think building a wooden boat is rocket science but it sure is close. It makes ancient boat building that more amazing, especially Viking vessels. A small draught boat that could take on ocean storms.

scott Danforth, is the formula you provided for wood boats only? It doesn't work out for my aluminum. 18'6" X 6' beam is rated at 150 HP max. 18.5 x 6 x .5 -15 = 40.5 I have a 115 on her and want 150 of course.

@F3ARAD You lost me at "when the baby is due." You had better get a movin' before the baby is born. The next time you may have some spare time is about 20 years after she or he is born. Congratulations by the way.

Great thread, as I said just yesterday go on iboats.com and learn something new every day, or more to be precise. I never considered a home made boat would need to be water tested to get a registration but it is logical. Who takes the boat out to test? I am interested to know what happens if it fails the 180 degree test at WOT, flip the boat maybe? No testing here in Ontario for a home made trailer or Motorcycle, that I am positive of. Not so long ago we built a Frankenbike, took a photo and got a plate and registration.

I just Googled images of the PM38. What a neat little speedster. Too bad you aren't in Canada we have a windshield at the shop almost identical. All I know is that the weigh of the water displaced by the volume the vessel is must be more than what the boat weighs. You would have to take into consideration the weight of everything on board above the gross weight of the boat itself, including outboard, fuel, interior and most importantly the weight of persons onboard. Add the cooler full of that good Aussie Ale as well, don't forget the ice for the Foster's. If I had the tools to make the job go easier rather than all hand tools I would go with the CAD and CNC myself. You are lucky to have access to them, plus all that spare time at work. Spare time at work no longer exists around here these days. If you have spare time one eats lunch. So I'm told by my wife who is actually at work at 11 PM. I'm a retired Steelworker.

As far as horse power just slap on a 150 2 stroke and work your way down from there (mod's I'm kidding it's a poor attempt at humour, humour with a "U".) F3ARAD just kidding, just looking at it a 50 will make her fly and is most likely close to maximum.

Do you plan on painting it or varnishing the wood? I looked at a number of them and even over straight plywood varnishing or whatever they used came out very nicely. I personally would spar varnish it. The more coats the darker it will get. She will sure be a head turner no matter how you finish it.

 

[JimS123]

My first boat was a plywood 16' runabout that I built when I was a freshman in the University. Awesome experience. The whole family helped. My Grandpa was a retired carpenter so it was as much a joy for him as it was for me. I wouldn't trade the experience for anything. The first date I had with my wife was in that boat.

OTOH, the performance wasn't all that good and having a wooden boat was a chore in upkeep. My second boat, a fiberglass runabout, served my young family much better for many years afterward.

It sure did save me money, and got a poor college kid on the water quicker, but having the boat for the long haul was not in the cards...

 

[Scott Danforth]

scott Danforth, is the formula you provided for wood boats only? It doesn't work out for my aluminum. 18'6" X 6' beam is rated at 150 HP max. 18.5 x 6 x .5 -15 = 40.5 I have a 115 on her and want 150 of course.

.

its federal law for all outboard powered boats. the capacity tag is the limit. the capacity tag is based on the formula (and the tables....ya gotta look at the tables) the only way a capacity tag has a higher rating is if they have done the testing.

 

[Old Ironmaker]

scott Danforth, that's quite a difference between 150 and 40 HP. If you use the formula does that preclude a water test. And if a water test is needed who goes there from the authorities to ensure the test was done and it passes all the required tests? I hope this isn't too off topic F3ARED.

 

[F3ARED]

look at the tables, the type of steering depends on the calculations.

the AS 1799 follows the same IMO requirements as CFR 33 185.53

as for over-powered boats, yes, you will find many boats that are over-powered per the calculation. however they went thru the quick-turn testing referenced on a specific course and its documented.

for home-built boats, either you hire a surveyor to witness your testing and have your hull documented, or you follow the calculations

Scott, appreciate you taking the time to go over this and I hope you don’t feel like you are talking to a plank of wood – I can be a bit thick sometimes. The discussion is helping me understand this whole boat thing a bit better as to what can and cant be done. I wonder how different our regulations are down here in Oz in regards to registering the boat and if the testing procedure is the same or similar as the one you have described. Despite both AS 1799 and CFR 33 185.53 both being based on the same IMO requirement, the method used in calculation gives different results so I wonder if there aren’t other differences in what is OK and what is not.

In relation to being over powered, I meant more in terms of people re-registering older 70s and 80s ski boat hulls with newer engines. There is a fair bit of that going around down here and some of the ones for sale at the moment aren’t massively different to the little PM38 in dimension and yet they are regularly seen with modern 130-150hp motors hanging off the back of the transom. Im wondering how, or how much, it is being enforced and I appreciate that things may be a bit different in your neck of the woods in regards to this. Either way my intention in terms of motor isn’t death by disintergrating/flipping boat at 100mph because overpowered just in case anyone was wondering. :lol:

Engine choice is being dictated by what is available cheaply; as there is a large market of motors in the 60 to 85hp range for sale down this way, it would be awesome [and not to mention cost effective] if I could legally hang one of these on the back. Given that this is likely to become my first boat, I think it would be a bit more sensible if, regardless of HP, boat speed was limited to around 35mph. Should be plenty to have fun and pull a wake boarder or something around id have thought?

Correct me if I am calculating this wrong as regardless of how many times I do it using the CFR 33 185.53 standard I get a result substantially less than the 45hp motor recommended in the plans. Given that they state OBC ratings were used to gain the 45hp max, it leads me to conclude that the hull wasn’t tested in the manner in which you described, leaving only calculation error for the discrepancy.

Anyway. Calcs are as follows:

Factor = Boat length x transom width, in feet.
Factor = 13’' 9" x 62"
Factor = 13.75 x (62 / 12 )
Factor = 13.75 x 5.2*
Factor = 71.5

*[actually 5.166666666666666 so rounded up to .2]

If the Factor is over 52.5 and the boat has :
	Remote Steering and at least 20" Transom Height	HP =	(2 x Factor) -90
	No remote steering or less than 20" transom Height
		For flat bottom hard chine boats	HP =	(0.5 x Factor) -15

As the factor is over 52.5, has remote steering but a transom height of less than 20”, that means the formula to use is the (.5 x Factor) – 15 which is what you said earlier on. So with the above:

HP = (.5 x 71.5) – 15
HP = 35.75 – 15
HP = 20.75

Did I miss a step? Because this is substantially lower than the 45HP that the plans state as the maximum. Compared to the AS 1799 formula I used which gave 40.8HP, which is much closer to the 45HP recommended. Apologies in advance if I sound dense, trying to get my head around this.

old Ironmaker – trust me, everyone has told me to get moving on EVERYTHING before the baby is due, but given that its only 3 to 4 weeks away Im well and truly out of time! Im fortunate to have an understanding wife who is entirely on board [pardon the pun] with my harebrained ideas and projects and this is a way in which hopefully in the future, we can enjoy family time. In a country where its possible to take a boat out in winter [and I live in the cold part!], its almost a shame to not have a boat.

Never ever joke with an aussie about over-powering something…we are notoriously bad at this! To give you an idea of how bad we are, my “toy” is a Gemini Sedan [GM T-Car] which previously made 220rwhp which ive since removed the turbo engine from, put on a diet, and am currently in the process of building the Group A homologated 4cyl DOHC in heavily tuned naturally aspirated form with the aim of making 240hp. Yep, Im broken….although its probably best I remain a bit sensible with this. Ive grown up driving cars, the whole boat thing is a new frontier.

Not too far off topic no, don’t stress. Whilst some of the testing and or regulations may or may not be applicable, the general theory behind it will be – anything that helps me understand the dynamics behind this will be of benefit.

JimS123 that’s a nice looking boat and Im hoping that building this with Dad [we’ve built plenty of cars together so this should be fun] plus its eventual use gives plenty of family memories to come.

Cheers

N-

Edit - not sure why the formula table came out that strange but it reminded me of something [dont ask how] in relation to the test method Scott outlined. Effectively, it could be "cheated" quite easily. Given that the test is essentially the maximum speed at which the hull can negotiate the RH turn being equal to the maximum speed at which the motor can propel the hull, it would be as simple as using a smaller prop to limit the maximum speed possible and as such the maximum speed for the RH turn. Im not suggesting someone do this...but it immediately came to mind. The result would then be that effectively, the higher HP rating motor wouldnt necessarily be any different to a smaller HP motor with a different prop capable of the same speeds....

 

[Old Ironmaker]

Many get around an increase in horse power above and beyond the Transport Canada placard here is simply by exchanging the cowls that read less HP. For example a 90HP Mariner cowl will fit on my 115 Mariner. Many 90 HP engines can take a 70 of the same or close to model year. The same holds true for many outboards not just Mariner. My 15 HP Mariner is the exact same size as the 9.9 and will take a cowl for a 9.9.

 

[alldodge]

The 45 HP may have come from others thru trial and error, no calculations. Our regs are not yours so go by yours. I would suggest staying with a 2 cycle motor over 4 stroke for weight savings. Some folks had their boat sunk/swamped going from same HP 2 stroke to 4 stroke

 

[Scott Danforth]

Never ever joke with an aussie about over-powering something…we are notoriously bad at this! To give you an idea of how bad we are, my “toy” is a Gemini Sedan [GM T-Car] which previously made 220rwhp which ive since removed the turbo engine from, put on a diet, and am currently in the process of building the Group A homologated 4cyl DOHC in heavily tuned naturally aspirated form with the aim of making 240hp. Yep, Im broken….although its probably best I remain a bit sensible with this. Ive grown up driving cars, the whole boat thing is a new frontier.

..

I usually take out little 4-bangers and shoe-horn in V8's that are 3-4x the displacement......and sometimes bolt on a bottle for a 150hp shot

my last project that I just sold was a supercharged northstar V8 powered opel GT.... to make room for a cobra replica

as far as the regs go, use your local regs like AD said. your in OZ, us the OZ regs which puts you at 40hp. the local CG here uses the formulas if there is no data tag. and yes, at one of the ramps, they did check the capacity tag on my little fishing boat

also, concur to use a 2-stroke primarily for the weight, however also for the power curve. Also suggest post 1985 when they switched from flywheel rating to prop rating

one thing to note, a PWC jet power plant would be fun in a PM38.... and since I/O and Jets dont have to abide by the OB rules, you could technically drop in a 90hp 2-stroke jet

 

[F3ARED]

Old Ironmaker - cheeky, but i like it!

AllDodge - yep ill keep that in mind. I think most stuff available second hand here is generally 2 stroke anyway; boats were a bit like dirt bikes in that everyone ragged on 4 strokes until the last 5-10yrs or so.

Scott Danforth Ive never met a horsepower I didnt like - my daily is actually a modified L98 / T56 Commodore SS Ute and the family car is a 2015 WRX 6spd. We dont do autos and we dont do slow in my household The Gemini has been my little ongoing R&D project. I got my first one at 15 and ive had this particular car for 10yrs. Its an ongoing project and this is the final iteration with the heavily worked on Group A motor - im hoping to be able to just drive it hard and not make changes this time, but we know how that works out :lol: The build ethos is basically a circuit/rally car for the road.

Did consider the Jet Ski power plant and ive actually seen photos of a build [think it may have been a Glen L design] where the outboard was turfed and the Jet Ski engine was put in. Was fairly involved, he had to graft the lower half of the jetski in which makes things a bit tricky. From memory it also had low speed handling issues - nothing that cant be overcome mind you. The biggest issue down here is availability of crashed/damaged skis - hard to find, and most down here get treated like absolute **** so finding a good one is harder still. Having said that though, small, lightweight, powerful motor is mega-appealing....

Thanks for all the advice. Progressing along ok...at this rate i may get to cut the parts in 1:4 scale by years end!

N-