19th Century Revenue Cutter by CharlieZardoz - Scale 1/64 - 31 ton as USRC Active based off Doughty plans and Bluejacket kit

[DocBlake]

I'm not sure how I missed this log, but I just pulled up a chair, Charlie. Most interesting. I may have to learn CAD to run with the crowd you've recently joined!

Edited November 23, 2016 by DocBlake

[CharlieZardoz]

Thanks Doc! Welcome aboard

So let's have a moment discuss names and color schemes of these ships. The nameing is somewhat easier than the color scheme but the information on Doughty's ships is somewhat vague. What I do know is that these ships were built to prevent piracy and replenish the coast guard after the war of 1812. Of the 3 classes, according to the coast guard website and Donald Canney's book which are the most recent and up to date source the Eagle and Crawford were very likely of the largest type. Of the mid sized type two ships Alabama and Louisiana are pretty much confirmed to be 51 ton ships, there is also confirmation via the site that Dallas and Surprise were of this type as well. This is in contrast to Irving King's Coast Guard Under Sail book and infor in Howard Chapelle's book which has Eagle and Crawford as the mid type and Dallas and Surprise as the larger however that book was dated from 1989 and the information within it looks out of date to modern sources. Alert while a larger type, also had 4 cannon ports per side so if she is a Doughty design she was significantly modified. So were Search and Detector which were an in between size about 65 ton?

The real issue is the 31 ton ship, I am not even sure if any were ever built. However I want to name her something and of that there sort of 2 options. One is Gallatin which was also the South Carolina probably renamed. This ship has no info from what I can tell and accomplished nothing historic so I could just utilize the name for the sake of it. The other is Active which is supposedly a purchased vessel, however it had one gun, was 38 tons (the smallest confirmed tonnage) so I could close one eye and just let it be. Chapelle states that this ship which he incorrectly called Alert could have very well been built from the Doughty design though King claims it wasn't. Meh ;P

So in conclusion the models will probably be 31 ton (Active or Gallatin) 51 ton (Dallas) and 79 ton (Eagle). I'm more inclined to use names rather than States seems more personable (less battleship-ish). How does that sound to all of you I'm open to thoughts

As for color schemes give me a few moments....

Edited November 23, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[CharlieZardoz]

Ok so lets look at our options. The coast guard site offers little help only that old ships were black with white interiors. Most of the models of these cutters I've seen are broken up into 2 categories, black hull with brown or yellow wale or brown (wood) hull with black wale. Then you have various red or yellow stripes. This design matches up closely to the mamoli kit color scheme and also makes the ship look much like privateers of the time.

Edited November 29, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[CharlieZardoz]

Next we have brown/wood hull with a black wale. This is similar to other models of the cutter I've seen and looks nice but I sort of feel that by 1818 so much bare wood wouldn't have been likely? PS that Dirk's gorgeous model of Alert there.

Edited November 23, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[CharlieZardoz]

Some contemporary drawings show ships with only 1 or 2 very thin strips among black hulls this could be a choice as well though I cant help but feel it's a tad dull?

[CharlieZardoz]

The next options get interesting, this would be black below the wale and the railing while the wale and below the railing is in wood with various colored stripe. This is very similar to the lumberyard's model of Lively and I also gave options for a black wale as well?  Feedback is welcomed.

Edited November 23, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[CharlieZardoz]

That last one looks like pb and j on toast lol

[mtaylor]

Food for thought, Charlie.   Would they have been painted to look like privateers?  A form of camouflage?   Given the choices, I'd pick the one's that please you.

[CharlieZardoz]

Well they mainly hunted pirates and were small but you make a good point. It was after the war so there was less need to be covert so for me im leaning towards the last few images similar to lively which also gives the best of both worlds as far as color scheme and planking skills/painting

Edited November 24, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[Cathead]

The yellow stripe is very British; were American ships ever painted following that pattern? It looks nice but I wonder if it's at all authentic?

 

Really nice rundown of color options and models.

[CharlieZardoz]

The yellow or light wood whatever you want to call it strikes me as something similar to clipper ships and pilot boats of the time. I think it was too early for the white strip that Corel's Ranger suggests, however I'm taking it off a model of Dallas from shipmodel.net also images of Dapper Tom model that I've seen. But I'm uncertain so any sources others may be aware of could be helpful in my understanding. I know the bulwarks were white and the bottom likely coppered so it's what's in between which I'm considering my options and also I'd like each boat to be a bit different. Maybe Dallas will have a green strip, Active a red strip and Eagle a yellow strip or somesuch

[CharlieZardoz]

So a little more investigation on this matter via a discussion with Dave at Lumberyard the general consensus is that the ships were painted using black, white and green with copper bottoms. The builders contract gives at least that, as for the breakdown of colors well it'd have to be some combination of that, though I'm leaning against the idea now that there was any exposed wood, though I may still do so for aesthetic effect at least. Note the color patterns in Lively (which I think is a model based off the 30 ton 1829 ship from Chapelle's book) and a beautiful model of Alabama a 51 ton ship.

Edited November 24, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[trippwj]

Very nice work, sir. Are the models you show contemporary (1820-ish) or modern? Contemporary models are excellent historical references. Modern are at best interpretive, some based on research, others on artistic vision.

I wouldn't be quite so dismissive of Chapelle. More recent publications on USCG vessels rely heavily on his early to mid 1900's work (as I recall, he died around 1975).

I like the contract resource - always a good authority. Where did you find that one?

Edited November 25, 2016 by trippwj

[trippwj]

I pulled some information on the various names you suggested from other parts of the USCG Historian website (see attached).

 

US Coast Guard History Extracts.pdf

 

As far as the "tonnage" (or, as listed on the USCG information sheets for each vessel, "displacement"), I would not get too focused on that as a precise measure - close is close enough from that time period.  Of interest is that the Dallas (1816) is listed as precisely the Doughty tonnage - that is probably drawn from Canney (who relied on Chapelle).  The US had a mish mash of tunnage laws and regulations at this time - and much variance between ports. Here are but a couple of examples:

 

1789  U.S. Stat. L, vol. I, p. 55. United States Tonnage Law, passed 1st September 1789. Known as 'Custom House Measurement'.
The length was measured from the fore part of the main stem, to the after part of the sternpost, above the upper deck. From this, 3/5 of the beam was deducted in order to obtain the Length for Tonnage (LT). The breadth ( B ) was measured at the broadest part above the main wales. The depth (D) varied. In single decked vessels the depth was measured from the underside of the deck plank to the ceiling in the hold. In ships with two or more decks, the depth was taken to be half the breadth. In all vessels, the formula used was (LT x B x D)/95

 

1793 Joshua Humphreys, War Department Papers  TNB06 describes how the tunnage of his frigate designs was determined.

 

In the first place to find the length of straight rabbet forward you take 3/5 of the beam as usual from that point to the after part of the stern post allowing its width for measurement not to exceed 1/12 of the beam. That length being determined you then multiply it by the length of beam & that product by the height of the gundeck beam amidship on the top of the beam added to half of her waste amids which last product divide by 95 which will give the number of ton required.

 

Humphreys also offers the following:

 

Rules for the measurement of ships & vessels to be built in Philadelphia as agreed on by the Shipwright Society January 3rd, 1811

 

For all plain built ships with two decks - allow 3/5 of the extreme breadth for the rake of the stem beginning to measure twelve inches before the rabbit at the middle of the rale with should determine the point of straight rabbit forward; from that point to the after part of the stern post allowing one twelfth of the extream breadth for its width clear of the rabbit shall determine the length of the keel for tonnage. The breadth for tonnage shall be ascertained from the inside of one rale to the outside of the other in the widest part of the vessel. The depth of hold from the top of ceiling next the keelson (allowing the strake next the keelson the same thickness as the running plank) to the top of after beam amidships & the height between deck from plank to plank amidships then multiply the length of keel by the extream breadth & that product by the
depth of hold added to half the length between decks which last product divided by 95 shall give the number of tons required.

Single decked vessels on the double deck plan with about 12 inches waist, when depth does not exceed half the extream breadth, measure & multiply length & breadth as above & that product is the depth but when the depth exceeds half the extreme breadth then add that difference to half the extreme breadth for the multiplier for measurement & divide as aforesaid.

Single deck vessels primed out on the wales measure & multiply length, breath & depth & divide as above.

 

Frigate built with two flush decks long quarter decks & forecastle with a tier of ports - multiply the length by breadth & make product by the height of the gun deck from the ceiling, as aforesaid added to half of the height of the waist amidships which last product divide as above.

Ships with 3 decks & a tier of ports multiply the length & breadth as aforesaid & that product by the height of the middle deck from the ceiling as aforesaid added to half the height between decks which product divide as above.

Single decked vessels with a long quarter deck & forecastle deep ^& light waist with a tier of ports multiply the length with the extream breadth & that product by the depth from the ceiling as aforesaid to the top of the beam amidships added to half the height of the wait amidships which last product divide by the common divisor as above

 

Lastly, this extract from Williams, Commander George. 1834. The Nautical Magazine: A Journal of Papers on Subjects Connected with Maritime Affairs Vol. III. Brown, Son and Ferguson.

 

 

There are also, in other records, examples where various ports of the period used divisors ranging from 92 to 110. 

 

I think you are on the right track names wise, for the most part, although I doubt the Alert and Active were Doughty designs.  Going with Dallas or Surprise for the mid-size cutters would be very reasonable, as would either of Alabama or Louisiana.  Eagle for the largest class would be reasonable, although there is so little known about this one.

Edited November 25, 2016 by trippwj

[CharlieZardoz]

Hi Wayne! The source is Dave S from Lumbreyard. As far as contemporary models I know of none. All I really have is this image from Chapelle's book (see below) which shows dark hull with a light stripe. These ships served such a limited function I am unaware of their likeness being recorded anywhere except the plans. What Canney and Chapelle state is that the plans were ultimately modified subsequent to these ships going into service, while Dallas, Surprise, Alabama and Louisiana were 51 tonners, the Search and Detector were a variation of some sort for northern waters. Also the Alert which is quite possibly based off the largest of the plans had cannon ports and probably looked like this model I posted below (the middle image).

 

Chapelle called Dallas and Surprise 79 ton ships, which seems to have been disproved by Canney who is certain they were 51 ton ships, but I have no idea what research was done to come to any sort of conclusion. I'd honestly like it more if Dallas was the largest but the history seems conclusive. They both state that Crawford and Eagle was probably of the bigger tonnages, Monroe, Wasp as well. Gallatin has no info except that she might have been South Carolina renamed. Chapelle does state that while Active (which he calls Alert) in History of American sailing ships page 194 was called a purchase there is no reason to believe the ship wasn't of the smaller type and it did have one pivot gun. Obviously Mamoli and Artesania Latina used Chapelle as a source when naming their models since that was the only info available at the time and while Alert was now proven to be something different entirely, I could make an argument that Active was a 31 ton Doughty cutter. At the very least when it comes to modeling it's the most logical name with which to choose since it's not like any plan of Active exists to prove otherwise and the ship actually led a reasonably busy career fighting pirates so I can live with that lol. Both Active and Dallas actually had busy careers so there is some personal interest in building models of them. Regarding the larger ships Eagle is the only one which has a confirmed tonnage on record and while yes that could be the work of Canney it's all I really have to work with plus someone built a model of Eagle which looks nice and I can use that as a guide of some sorts. There was one Eagle which was famous but that was the prior ship a beautiful looking brig and I think the Captain Frederick Lee commanded both ships, must have felt like a bit of a downgrade hehehe  

Edited November 25, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[trippwj]

Tracking down these Doughty Cutters has been an on again off again project for me over the past few years.  Have you looked into what you can learn about the following in the Coll. 52, Daniel S. Gregory Ships Plans Library, Mystic Seaport Museum, Inc.  http://research.mysticseaport.org/coll/spcoll052/

 

52.33  UNIDENTIFIED; 60 ft. U. S. revenue cutter  Designer, Willliam Doughty; Builder unknown; 1825
52.34  UNIDENTIFIED; U. S. revenue cutter  Designer, Willliam Doughty; Builder unknown; 1815
52.36  UNIDENTIFIED; U. S. revenue cutter  Designer, Willliam Doughty; Builder unknown; 1815

 

The photo below is from Prologue | Fall 2014, available at https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2014/fall/cutters.pdf

 

(NOTE - this would be the follow-on to the 1815 Gallatin - somewhat larger at about 80' and 112 tons). The apparent color scheme may aid in your estimation of what was the common practice in the early to mid 19th century.

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by trippwj

[CharlieZardoz]

Wayne are those plates a series of illustrations or plans? Sounds interesting thank you!

Edited November 25, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[trippwj]

Wayne are those plates a series of illustrations or plans? Sounds interesting thank you!

 

The Mystic items are listed as ships plans - but that is all the info I have on them.

 

Here is the guidance on purchasing copies:

 

For Builders & Modelmakers

Full size black-and-white copies of plans in the collections are available for the non-profit use of owners, builders, restorers, modelmakers, researchers and others. These prints are produced from digital scans of the original plans.

Prices

Sets of plans from the Ships Plans Store are priced as marked. [note - the Doughty plans are not listed with a price.  May be able to contact them for more information]

Limitations

These copies are sold as historical documents, and Mystic Seaport makes no warranty as to the accuracy of the plans or their usefulness for a specific purpose. They are not certified by Mystic Seaport for construction. Plans are sold for research, boat or model building only. For commercial use of any kind and for reproduction in any form you must contact the Ships Plans office in advance at 860-572-5367.

 

If you are interested in more than what you find in our Ships Plans Store https://store.mysticseaport.org/ships-plans/ , visit the site for the Daniel S. Gregory Ships Plans Library at Mystic Seaport. The Library contains 100,000+ naval architectural drawings from 1827-2004, grouped into collections based on their source. Many of the collections within the library have an online finding aid that lists all of the vessels and sets of plans in that collection.

 

https://store.mysticseaport.org/ships-plans/contacts

[Omega1234]

Hi Charlie

 

I'm just catching up with your Build Log and it's really impressive so far; especially your commitment to accurately shaping the hulls.

 

Nice!!!

 

Cheers

 

Patrick

[uss frolick]

There was one revenue cutter called the Nonsuch, who briefly sailed with the USS Enterprise off Charleston, SC in 1812-13. She reportedly fought one of two British Privateers that had sailed out of Bermuda in company with the Frigate Aeolus on a cruise. Nonsuch had brought her, a shattered prize, into Charleston late one night and dropped anchor next to the Enterprise. These two privateers were reportedly manned by runaway slaves who had raided many coastal plantations, causing quite a panic amongst the landed gentry.

 

Is there any information on the gallant Cutter Nonsuch?

[trippwj]

There was one revenue cutter called the Nonsuch, who briefly sailed with the USS Enterprise off Charleston, SC in 1812-13. She reportedly fought one of two British Privateers that had sailed out of Bermuda in company with the Frigate Aeolus on a cruise. Nonsuch had brought her, a shattered prize, into Charleston late one night and dropped anchor next to the Enterprise. These two privateers were reportedly manned by runaway slaves who had raided many coastal plantations, causing quite a panic amongst the landed gentry.

 

Is there any information on the gallant Cutter Nonsuch?

 

While I am still looking, a cursory search shows that the Nonsuch was actually not a Revenue Cutter.  She appears to be a privately built schooner initially issued a letter of margue as a privateer before purchase into the Navy.  Her exploits are covered in Dudley, William S., ed. 1992. The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History; Volume II. 1813. Vol. II. IV vols. Government Printing Office. http://ibiblio.org/anrs/1812.html 

 

Fortunately, there is a good index available where entries for each ship (and many Captains, for that matter) are listed.

[Roger Pellett]

Charlie,

 

If you have not already done so, before deciding on a color scheme for these models I would obtain a copy of Eric Ronnberg's excellent article on period correct paints from the Nautical Research Guild. It is from Volume 36, issue 4 downloadable from their web site.

 

Roger

[CharlieZardoz]

Very interesting stuff guys thank you. I do have the NRG arcticle as well as the Ship Model Shop Notes II which both discuss the color schemes of period ships. Thing is I want to make a point that color scheme's from 1812-15 are a bit different than 1815-1825 and then 1825 onward (basically all black and white). The period right after the war is a weird time since it was the beginning of the standardization of colors to the 2 tone but wasn't quite there yet, ships that survived the war entered dock for refits so that by 1825 the navy was pretty much standard. Anywhoo I spoke more with Dave from Lumbreyard and we had a discussion again about what was most likely the color patterns on these types of ships. So I've modified my color patterns a bit what I am seeing is that the inside bulwarks were probably green, the outside black with either a white or green striping maybe red as well. Dave mentions Mahogany (reddish color) could have been used for trim work and that the cap railings might have been in bright natural wood so with that in mind, here are some layouts of what I'm thinking I may wind up doing based on new information. Feedback is most welcomed

Edited November 26, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[trippwj]

I suspect the green inner bulwarks was not done with these beasties.  The Revenue Marine (which preceded the Navy by a few years) was a much more subdued branch - their duties, specifically assigned to the cutters and their crews as legislated by Congress and expounded by Hamilton included:

    Boarding incoming and outgoing vessels and checking their papers (ownership, registration, admeasurement, manifests, etc.);
    Ensuring that all cargoes were properly documented;
    Sealing the cargo holds of incoming vessels;
    Seizing those vessels in violation of the law.

 

They were also tasked with a number of other duties that were not related to protecting the revenue. These included:

    Enforcing quarantine restrictions established by the federal, state or local governments;
    Charting the local coastline;
    Enforcing the neutrality and embargo acts;
    Carrying official (and unofficial) passengers;
    Carrying supplies to lighthouse stations;
    Other duties as assigned by the collector.

 

Their primary purpose, however, was to protect the revenue of the United States by deterring smuggling.

 

The funding for these cutters was tiny - around $1,000 each for the original 10 cutters; while there is sparse detail, without digging into legislative records, that is, the available information indicates that in the 1816-1825 period when these were built, the cost was less than $3,000 each (actually, the Active (1816) shows a cost of $1,390, while the bill for the Detector and Search totaled $12,500.)  The mission post- Second War with Britain expanded to include anti piracy, but retained the former anit-smuggling and revenue protection missions.  They were still extremely active in the anti-smuggling role during this period.  The area where I live, Moose Island and Eastport, was the last US Territory occupied by the British following the war and was not returned to the US until 1818 (Statehood followed in 1820). Smuggling was a way of life before the war, and following the departure of those pesky British it resumed once more.  There are many tales from this region of the hatred felt toward the Cutter Detector by those in the Machias Bay area.   The office of Collector of Customs in Eastport was a rather Dangerous position.  Unfortunately, most of the older records from the Customs House were either captured by the British in 1814 or burnt in one of the 2 great fires of the late 19th century.

 

My point, though, is that the overall cost was low to build and equip these vessels - they would not waste much money on expensive paint schemes.  Basing the color of a cutter on Naval paint schemes is, for this period, probably not accurate.  The cutter role required stealth - they needed to remain nearly invisible to the smuggler to intercept them at night.  Often they would lay-up in small coves or bays to wait for the smuggler.  The anit-piracy role required similar actions, hence an incentive for more subdued colors.  As to the green inner bulwark, another probably not.  Even the Constitution historians (including experts such as Tyrone Martin) debate how accurate the green is for the early 19th century. 

 

I think you would be fairly accurate to go with tarred or black for the outer hull above the waterline, probably coppered below.  Perhaps a narrow white or yellow ochre stripe along the hull, inner bulwarks either natural or whitewashed.  Not much decoration, very utilitarian to match the role.

[CharlieZardoz]

Thank you for that interesting bit of history Wayne. See I agree the inner bulwarks were probably not green like a military vessel, maybe white which Ive seen in alot of cutter models but Dave has a different opinion and also doesnt feel ochre or yellow was used as it was British but its interesting I respect his thoughts as well. The green on that one image i did could be excessive maybe just a strip or two but it looks like we are narrowing down the options quite nicely. I am curious about that white between the waterline and wale, the Chapelle image suggests this so does Corel's Ranger however maybe it should be all black, the reasoning for color in that section is due to that model of Alabama which was all green but I'd like the coloring broken up a bit. 

Edited November 26, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[CharlieZardoz]

Greetings all! So on another note let's discuss planking and hopefully this doesn't come off confusing. As someone who's still a bit new at this I realize that different ships have different size plank width's etc. and that planks generally were 8-10" wide. So at 1/64th scale (3/16" =1') an 8" plank is 1/8" and a 10" plank is 5/32"  For the most part kits of this scale seem to have material in this size range. Now looking at models of the Doughty revenue cutters that exist I see one of two things the krick and bluejacket kits seem to have deck planks that when converted to 1/64 scale measure to 9/64" (as does the Dallas plan all images in the center), while the Mamoli and Corel plans show deck planking at something closer to 1/8" (the images on the far left and right) which I am assuming the whole model is planked with the same. Now I kind of like the idea that the deck planks were wider than the hull planks but was that a common practice on ships or were the width of planking on deck always the same as the hull? Also the small 31 ton cutter that I built is no higher than 2" (see image) so the hull planks would have to me 1/8" max any bigger and that would not look right.

 

Now my main question is about the hull planking I could use 1/8" plank strips for the hull on all 3 models (and 9/64" for the decks on all 3 models). Or I could try a different approach and have them get gradually wider. The smallest ship 3/32" for hull planking the middle 1/8" the largest 5/32"  Same with the decking but this sort of doesn't sound right to me. I assume if these ships were built around the same time in the same or similar docks they would have been using the same material on hand so I'd assume they'd all have the same width planks regardless of 31 ton or 80 ton.

 

So I am open to thoughts should I use 1/8" strips on all the hulls or vary them. 3/32" would give me more to work on with the smallest boat but that would make those planks 6" in real width and would the docks use planks that thin? Also is varying the deck and hull width appropriate? I know there isn't a 100% correct answer ship planks could be quite random, more like logically what is more likely. Of course I am about to order materials hence why I need to know what sizes to pick

Edited November 29, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[dgbot]

I think I would go with 1/8 "  It is easier to find this size and why complicate things when you do not have to.

David B

[allanyed]

Charlie,

  I know this subject comes up continually here, but if you study David Antscherls tutorial here at MSW on planking, and look at the fine finish on the planking that is achieved, you may wind up buying sheets and cutting the planks from the sheet stock.   It is sure a lot easier than forcing  straight planks of a single size into position by edge setting, (based on my own experience.)  You can see from a planking expansion drawing that straight strips are not really used. A picture of the planking expansion for the HMS Squirrel follows and the schooner Ernestina planking expansion is attached as a TIFF file.  The Ernestina drawing can be downloaded from the Library of Congress for free in several different formats and are extremely clear to show the plank shapes for that particular hull.   I realize some planks can be tapered and then easily forced into position without too much trouble with edge setting, but depending on the hull shape and the hardness of the wood you are using, a lot of them want to buckle. 

 

Allan  

Planking expansion port side.tiff

Edited November 30, 2016 by allanyed

[CharlieZardoz]

Hey guys! Well I did a bit more research to try and understand the nature of the planking of this type of ship and from what I see the model kits follow the graduated method. I spoke with Cathead regarding his Corel Ranger build and said the planks came in 3-4mm strips while Dallas has 5mm strips. But it's more than that he also said that the planks closest to the wales are thinner 3mm while the ones closer to the keel are 4mm. Look at the collage I posted of Dirk's gorgeous model and you can see how he laid out the planks (the scarfs were later covered by the wale) with thinner planks towards the deck. That said I feel that the krick model overdoes it with the thinness of planks they would probably be like 5" wide in real life. Look at the image of the cutter I posted and added 1/8" notches where planking would go. They seem a bit too big (these would be 8" planks in real life), so I think for this model having the average plank size of 7" (7/64") should be sufficient with the larger two models increasing to 1/8" (8" planks) and then 9/64" (9" planks) all having a few larger and smaller planks where needed. The decks will all be 9/64" no change there. That's the plan anyways well see what happens

 

So here is what I am going to do. I already have a stash of veneer cherry at 1/8" on hand which will be used for the widest planks in the center and towards the stern, then Ill order a bunch that are 7/64" in for the main planking and last a few at 3/32" for those closest to the deck curve. See Allan you are of course correct the answer is spilling. It's always spilling and in the future when I have a Byrnes table saw of my own I will no doubt work using that method but for now with these simple models I think having a couple of plank sizes and then curving/tapering the larger ones to fit is a stepping stone to spilling for me. I also plan on doing this for Sultana and this model(s) is already helping me understand how they will interrelate. It's having an inventory of plank sizes and using what is needed which in turn makes the idea of eventually milling my own very appealing! The idea of doing this on some major model like Confederacy seems like a distant dream at this point, I think I've developed a bit of planking phobia lol

Edited November 30, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[allanyed]

Charley

First, thank you for sharing.  The planking style you posted is a first for me as I had never noticed this kind of layout before now.  What I have always seen are the ends of the planks always end at the rabbet at going up the stem, not hook scarfed at the sheer strakes.  Look at Chuck Passaro's Cutter Cheerful drawings and model and you will see what I mean.   I may be wrong but I don't think that planking is close to being correct. I realize the drawing you posted shows this, but is the drawing correct?   I am more than open to be corrected myself, but in reality I think it would be a very weak hull structure.  I am always ready to live and learn and this one has me fascinated.

 

Allan