lehmann

At one time, not so far back, "calculator" was not a device, but a profession.

Take a trip to the local version of the Dollar Store:
Wooden clothes pins: regular size and small (<1 inch).  They work well as clamps and can be modified to whatever shape you need. Metal bull clips Elastic bands - for clamping Small C-clamps Dowels, other strips of wood.  Actually, pretty good quality.  If nothing else, they make good handles for custom tools. Tooth picks Wire and nails - not model quality, but good for making jigs, bending patterns, or as clamps Paints - Not sure if I'd use them on a model, but I'm using the cheap acrylic to practice air-brushing Paint brushes - good for cleaning up chips.  You may find some that are actually good for painting Pins, needles, threaders, crochet hooks, tweezers (probably need to file the points) Storage containers - all sorts for small parts and tools Card board and foam board for making templates and light duty jigs Alcohol, Q-tips and cotton swaps for wiping up  School geometry set - for protractor and 45 and 30/60 triangles. ( A GOOD set of dividers are useful for transferring sizes form drawings to parts )   Pliers/cutters - may work for you, but cheap enough that you can modify the ends if needed for other shapes. Glues - may find a brand name you can trust to last for the long life of a model.  Other stuff ok for jigs, etc. Tape  
There are also many things you can make:
Bench hook - could double as a shooting board (for plane or sanding block) Rigging tools (hooks, pushers, etc) V Block bench extension  (for scroll saw work) Since you WILL want more tools ( just admit it now, we understand), make a wish list and buy them when they come up on sale.  MicroMark and Model Shipways frequently have deep sales.  
 
For further items:
Soldering iron - for making metal fittings and for bending planks (it's heat that allows wood to bend easier, not moisture) Small bench vice - preferably with a rotating head.  (like Pana-vice, but there are much less expensive versions available) Third-hand with magnifier Dental picks  Looping pliers Jeweler's saw Lastly, a comfortable chair!

How did they balance all of these, in the absence of slide rules, spreadsheets and calculators?
 
Welcome to the risky world of engineering and architecture. The capabilties of theories and math only go so far and at some point judgement is needed. This still applies in the age of super-computers. Remember that with more knowledge we want to take advantage of it. It also means we soon realise there are more unknowns to deal with. However, decisions have to be made. Some universities teach "design" which try to systematize the process, but these methods usally come up short because the methods of weighting the various factors are too linear.
 
In reality, each design that gets built is an experiment. This point cannot be over-emphasized. Some succeed and some fail, but hopefully someting is always learned. The trick is to know how much the new theories can be "stretched" and still be valid in an untested condition, at which point the system breaks down and a new or modified theory is needed. Too many successes lead to over-confidence in the theory, which often leads to dramatic failures. If you're interested, an engineering professor named Henry Petrosky has documented this through a history of engineering failures. The basic truth is that we learn through failure, not success, because successes don't unusally get near the limits that define a theory. For example, Seppings wouldn't have created diagonal bracing unless previous builders hadn't pushed the limits of ship length to the point where premature hogging occured. Going further, Seppings' method would sooner later have reached its limits and failures would start to appear. However, builders switched to steel construction.....
 
Or, to tie this this back to where it started, judgement comes from experience- experience comes from poor judgement.

The estimation of load water line and tonnage (displacement or cargo capacity) is just that - an estimation to as a check on the designer's intention that the vessel could fulfill its role.  Nowadays, we understand the physics, the mathematics have been simplified (even without the aid of computers to do the repetitive number crunching), and we have accurate measurements to prove everything.   At the time there were many unknowns and uncertainties, but the the designer still needs some assurance he can be proud of the design, or at the least, not be sued.   These various formulas are nothing more than first approximations that included some basic factors that were easy to measure mixed with a few fudge factors that make the numbers fit with "experience" or a consensus of opinion.  The ease of measurement is important in that different people would get the same results and those who didn't have access to more sophisticated measurement tools were not left at a disadvantage.  
 
As an engineer, I still do a "back of the envelope" calculation like this as a reality check of a computer model analysis.   You may not realize that some rules in standards, such as the National Building Code, are still based on a consensus of experts when the theoretical and experimental data does not provide sufficient information.  
 
The fudge factors would, I assume, vary depending on region, or predominant ship design.  Factors that "work" for shallow draft coastal boats don't work for deep water clipper ships.  However, customs and insurance officials like to have a common formula that can be easily and uniformly applied by their inspectors.  The question arises, who chooses which rule to use?  Ship owners pick the lowest when charged for customs and insurance, and the highest when impressing a customer.  The same is done now in all aspects of business, even if standards organizations are tasked with choosing an evaluation method: there are always factions trying to influence the choice.   It also reminds me of the rating formulas for racing yachts, which resulted in some strange looking boats.   I recall reading somewhere that tonnage rules also produced some un-seaworthy distortions as owners found hull shapes that maximized actual cargo capacity relative to the rated tonnage.  As with all business performance measures, there will always be someone who "games" the formula, resulting in an unintended consequence.
 
My conclusion is that tonnage rules are a different animal than displacement calculations for load waterline or trim.  The tonnage rules have a strong connection to politics and influence.   On the performance side, it may be possible with computational fluid dynamics programs to choose the best displacement and trim for best sailing qualities, but I doubt anyone has figured out the hull design that is the best compromise for all sea conditions, cargoes and sail trim: maybe the designers of the America's Cup boats get the closest to this ideal. Even with computer models, there are still several model ship testing basins used for experimental validation.  There is still a lot of evolution in ship design and that the key to evolution is survival - physical and economic.   The main difference between 2016 and 1816 is that designers have the tools to avoid the failures.  I'm not sure a modern designer, forced to work with wood and hemp, could design a better ship than their predecessors developed by trial and (lots of) error. 

How did they balance all of these, in the absence of slide rules, spreadsheets and calculators?
 
Welcome to the risky world of engineering and architecture. The capabilties of theories and math only go so far and at some point judgement is needed. This still applies in the age of super-computers. Remember that with more knowledge we want to take advantage of it. It also means we soon realise there are more unknowns to deal with. However, decisions have to be made. Some universities teach "design" which try to systematize the process, but these methods usally come up short because the methods of weighting the various factors are too linear.
 
In reality, each design that gets built is an experiment. This point cannot be over-emphasized. Some succeed and some fail, but hopefully someting is always learned. The trick is to know how much the new theories can be "stretched" and still be valid in an untested condition, at which point the system breaks down and a new or modified theory is needed. Too many successes lead to over-confidence in the theory, which often leads to dramatic failures. If you're interested, an engineering professor named Henry Petrosky has documented this through a history of engineering failures. The basic truth is that we learn through failure, not success, because successes don't unusally get near the limits that define a theory. For example, Seppings wouldn't have created diagonal bracing unless previous builders hadn't pushed the limits of ship length to the point where premature hogging occured. Going further, Seppings' method would sooner later have reached its limits and failures would start to appear. However, builders switched to steel construction.....
 
Or, to tie this this back to where it started, judgement comes from experience- experience comes from poor judgement.

How did they balance all of these, in the absence of slide rules, spreadsheets and calculators?
 
Welcome to the risky world of engineering and architecture. The capabilties of theories and math only go so far and at some point judgement is needed. This still applies in the age of super-computers. Remember that with more knowledge we want to take advantage of it. It also means we soon realise there are more unknowns to deal with. However, decisions have to be made. Some universities teach "design" which try to systematize the process, but these methods usally come up short because the methods of weighting the various factors are too linear.
 
In reality, each design that gets built is an experiment. This point cannot be over-emphasized. Some succeed and some fail, but hopefully someting is always learned. The trick is to know how much the new theories can be "stretched" and still be valid in an untested condition, at which point the system breaks down and a new or modified theory is needed. Too many successes lead to over-confidence in the theory, which often leads to dramatic failures. If you're interested, an engineering professor named Henry Petrosky has documented this through a history of engineering failures. The basic truth is that we learn through failure, not success, because successes don't unusally get near the limits that define a theory. For example, Seppings wouldn't have created diagonal bracing unless previous builders hadn't pushed the limits of ship length to the point where premature hogging occured. Going further, Seppings' method would sooner later have reached its limits and failures would start to appear. However, builders switched to steel construction.....
 
Or, to tie this this back to where it started, judgement comes from experience- experience comes from poor judgement.

How did they balance all of these, in the absence of slide rules, spreadsheets and calculators?
 
Welcome to the risky world of engineering and architecture. The capabilties of theories and math only go so far and at some point judgement is needed. This still applies in the age of super-computers. Remember that with more knowledge we want to take advantage of it. It also means we soon realise there are more unknowns to deal with. However, decisions have to be made. Some universities teach "design" which try to systematize the process, but these methods usally come up short because the methods of weighting the various factors are too linear.
 
In reality, each design that gets built is an experiment. This point cannot be over-emphasized. Some succeed and some fail, but hopefully someting is always learned. The trick is to know how much the new theories can be "stretched" and still be valid in an untested condition, at which point the system breaks down and a new or modified theory is needed. Too many successes lead to over-confidence in the theory, which often leads to dramatic failures. If you're interested, an engineering professor named Henry Petrosky has documented this through a history of engineering failures. The basic truth is that we learn through failure, not success, because successes don't unusally get near the limits that define a theory. For example, Seppings wouldn't have created diagonal bracing unless previous builders hadn't pushed the limits of ship length to the point where premature hogging occured. Going further, Seppings' method would sooner later have reached its limits and failures would start to appear. However, builders switched to steel construction.....
 
Or, to tie this this back to where it started, judgement comes from experience- experience comes from poor judgement.

A little heat will increase the drying rate.  A few (incandescent) light bulbs will do.  Lean your table top against the wall to form a tent and put a lamp or two inside.
 
By the way, apply a coat to the bottom of the table top to limit moisture getting in or out to fast that could cause the plank to warp.  
 
I'll throw in the classic concoction I use for work bench tops and furniture that will see some use.  1:1:1 mix of linseed oil, mineral spirits and varnish.   I suspect you can substitute tung oil for the linseed oil.  It penetrates deep, is somewhat hard, but the surface is not smooth or glossy.   It does create a slight amber tint though.  Since oil-based varnishes are getting hard to find, I tried a water based version for my last batch.  It worked well and doesn't seem to separate in the can.

The estimation of load water line and tonnage (displacement or cargo capacity) is just that - an estimation to as a check on the designer's intention that the vessel could fulfill its role.  Nowadays, we understand the physics, the mathematics have been simplified (even without the aid of computers to do the repetitive number crunching), and we have accurate measurements to prove everything.   At the time there were many unknowns and uncertainties, but the the designer still needs some assurance he can be proud of the design, or at the least, not be sued.   These various formulas are nothing more than first approximations that included some basic factors that were easy to measure mixed with a few fudge factors that make the numbers fit with "experience" or a consensus of opinion.  The ease of measurement is important in that different people would get the same results and those who didn't have access to more sophisticated measurement tools were not left at a disadvantage.  
 
As an engineer, I still do a "back of the envelope" calculation like this as a reality check of a computer model analysis.   You may not realize that some rules in standards, such as the National Building Code, are still based on a consensus of experts when the theoretical and experimental data does not provide sufficient information.  
 
The fudge factors would, I assume, vary depending on region, or predominant ship design.  Factors that "work" for shallow draft coastal boats don't work for deep water clipper ships.  However, customs and insurance officials like to have a common formula that can be easily and uniformly applied by their inspectors.  The question arises, who chooses which rule to use?  Ship owners pick the lowest when charged for customs and insurance, and the highest when impressing a customer.  The same is done now in all aspects of business, even if standards organizations are tasked with choosing an evaluation method: there are always factions trying to influence the choice.   It also reminds me of the rating formulas for racing yachts, which resulted in some strange looking boats.   I recall reading somewhere that tonnage rules also produced some un-seaworthy distortions as owners found hull shapes that maximized actual cargo capacity relative to the rated tonnage.  As with all business performance measures, there will always be someone who "games" the formula, resulting in an unintended consequence.
 
My conclusion is that tonnage rules are a different animal than displacement calculations for load waterline or trim.  The tonnage rules have a strong connection to politics and influence.   On the performance side, it may be possible with computational fluid dynamics programs to choose the best displacement and trim for best sailing qualities, but I doubt anyone has figured out the hull design that is the best compromise for all sea conditions, cargoes and sail trim: maybe the designers of the America's Cup boats get the closest to this ideal. Even with computer models, there are still several model ship testing basins used for experimental validation.  There is still a lot of evolution in ship design and that the key to evolution is survival - physical and economic.   The main difference between 2016 and 1816 is that designers have the tools to avoid the failures.  I'm not sure a modern designer, forced to work with wood and hemp, could design a better ship than their predecessors developed by trial and (lots of) error. 

A little heat will increase the drying rate.  A few (incandescent) light bulbs will do.  Lean your table top against the wall to form a tent and put a lamp or two inside.
 
By the way, apply a coat to the bottom of the table top to limit moisture getting in or out to fast that could cause the plank to warp.  
 
I'll throw in the classic concoction I use for work bench tops and furniture that will see some use.  1:1:1 mix of linseed oil, mineral spirits and varnish.   I suspect you can substitute tung oil for the linseed oil.  It penetrates deep, is somewhat hard, but the surface is not smooth or glossy.   It does create a slight amber tint though.  Since oil-based varnishes are getting hard to find, I tried a water based version for my last batch.  It worked well and doesn't seem to separate in the can.

The estimation of load water line and tonnage (displacement or cargo capacity) is just that - an estimation to as a check on the designer's intention that the vessel could fulfill its role.  Nowadays, we understand the physics, the mathematics have been simplified (even without the aid of computers to do the repetitive number crunching), and we have accurate measurements to prove everything.   At the time there were many unknowns and uncertainties, but the the designer still needs some assurance he can be proud of the design, or at the least, not be sued.   These various formulas are nothing more than first approximations that included some basic factors that were easy to measure mixed with a few fudge factors that make the numbers fit with "experience" or a consensus of opinion.  The ease of measurement is important in that different people would get the same results and those who didn't have access to more sophisticated measurement tools were not left at a disadvantage.  
 
As an engineer, I still do a "back of the envelope" calculation like this as a reality check of a computer model analysis.   You may not realize that some rules in standards, such as the National Building Code, are still based on a consensus of experts when the theoretical and experimental data does not provide sufficient information.  
 
The fudge factors would, I assume, vary depending on region, or predominant ship design.  Factors that "work" for shallow draft coastal boats don't work for deep water clipper ships.  However, customs and insurance officials like to have a common formula that can be easily and uniformly applied by their inspectors.  The question arises, who chooses which rule to use?  Ship owners pick the lowest when charged for customs and insurance, and the highest when impressing a customer.  The same is done now in all aspects of business, even if standards organizations are tasked with choosing an evaluation method: there are always factions trying to influence the choice.   It also reminds me of the rating formulas for racing yachts, which resulted in some strange looking boats.   I recall reading somewhere that tonnage rules also produced some un-seaworthy distortions as owners found hull shapes that maximized actual cargo capacity relative to the rated tonnage.  As with all business performance measures, there will always be someone who "games" the formula, resulting in an unintended consequence.
 
My conclusion is that tonnage rules are a different animal than displacement calculations for load waterline or trim.  The tonnage rules have a strong connection to politics and influence.   On the performance side, it may be possible with computational fluid dynamics programs to choose the best displacement and trim for best sailing qualities, but I doubt anyone has figured out the hull design that is the best compromise for all sea conditions, cargoes and sail trim: maybe the designers of the America's Cup boats get the closest to this ideal. Even with computer models, there are still several model ship testing basins used for experimental validation.  There is still a lot of evolution in ship design and that the key to evolution is survival - physical and economic.   The main difference between 2016 and 1816 is that designers have the tools to avoid the failures.  I'm not sure a modern designer, forced to work with wood and hemp, could design a better ship than their predecessors developed by trial and (lots of) error. 

A little heat will increase the drying rate.  A few (incandescent) light bulbs will do.  Lean your table top against the wall to form a tent and put a lamp or two inside.
 
By the way, apply a coat to the bottom of the table top to limit moisture getting in or out to fast that could cause the plank to warp.  
 
I'll throw in the classic concoction I use for work bench tops and furniture that will see some use.  1:1:1 mix of linseed oil, mineral spirits and varnish.   I suspect you can substitute tung oil for the linseed oil.  It penetrates deep, is somewhat hard, but the surface is not smooth or glossy.   It does create a slight amber tint though.  Since oil-based varnishes are getting hard to find, I tried a water based version for my last batch.  It worked well and doesn't seem to separate in the can.

If I may summarize Bourne's method: take the lines of the hull and build a scale model, in this case, 1/48 scale, measure the volume of water displaced by the model then multiply by 48 cubed and the density of water.
 
Do you have any indication this method was used? I suppose it is one use of half hull models.
 
I recall reading that this method is somewhat error prone, with the main problem being that the wooden model absorbs water.
 
It reminds me of another way to measure measure area: trace the shape onto paper on cardboard and weigh it. Also weigh a piece with a known area. Area of the irregular shape calculated by simple ratio.

Take a trip to the local version of the Dollar Store:
Wooden clothes pins: regular size and small (<1 inch).  They work well as clamps and can be modified to whatever shape you need. Metal bull clips Elastic bands - for clamping Small C-clamps Dowels, other strips of wood.  Actually, pretty good quality.  If nothing else, they make good handles for custom tools. Tooth picks Wire and nails - not model quality, but good for making jigs, bending patterns, or as clamps Paints - Not sure if I'd use them on a model, but I'm using the cheap acrylic to practice air-brushing Paint brushes - good for cleaning up chips.  You may find some that are actually good for painting Pins, needles, threaders, crochet hooks, tweezers (probably need to file the points) Storage containers - all sorts for small parts and tools Card board and foam board for making templates and light duty jigs Alcohol, Q-tips and cotton swaps for wiping up  School geometry set - for protractor and 45 and 30/60 triangles. ( A GOOD set of dividers are useful for transferring sizes form drawings to parts )   Pliers/cutters - may work for you, but cheap enough that you can modify the ends if needed for other shapes. Glues - may find a brand name you can trust to last for the long life of a model.  Other stuff ok for jigs, etc. Tape  
There are also many things you can make:
Bench hook - could double as a shooting board (for plane or sanding block) Rigging tools (hooks, pushers, etc) V Block bench extension  (for scroll saw work) Since you WILL want more tools ( just admit it now, we understand), make a wish list and buy them when they come up on sale.  MicroMark and Model Shipways frequently have deep sales.  
 
For further items:
Soldering iron - for making metal fittings and for bending planks (it's heat that allows wood to bend easier, not moisture) Small bench vice - preferably with a rotating head.  (like Pana-vice, but there are much less expensive versions available) Third-hand with magnifier Dental picks  Looping pliers Jeweler's saw Lastly, a comfortable chair!

Take a trip to the local version of the Dollar Store:
Wooden clothes pins: regular size and small (<1 inch).  They work well as clamps and can be modified to whatever shape you need. Metal bull clips Elastic bands - for clamping Small C-clamps Dowels, other strips of wood.  Actually, pretty good quality.  If nothing else, they make good handles for custom tools. Tooth picks Wire and nails - not model quality, but good for making jigs, bending patterns, or as clamps Paints - Not sure if I'd use them on a model, but I'm using the cheap acrylic to practice air-brushing Paint brushes - good for cleaning up chips.  You may find some that are actually good for painting Pins, needles, threaders, crochet hooks, tweezers (probably need to file the points) Storage containers - all sorts for small parts and tools Card board and foam board for making templates and light duty jigs Alcohol, Q-tips and cotton swaps for wiping up  School geometry set - for protractor and 45 and 30/60 triangles. ( A GOOD set of dividers are useful for transferring sizes form drawings to parts )   Pliers/cutters - may work for you, but cheap enough that you can modify the ends if needed for other shapes. Glues - may find a brand name you can trust to last for the long life of a model.  Other stuff ok for jigs, etc. Tape  
There are also many things you can make:
Bench hook - could double as a shooting board (for plane or sanding block) Rigging tools (hooks, pushers, etc) V Block bench extension  (for scroll saw work) Since you WILL want more tools ( just admit it now, we understand), make a wish list and buy them when they come up on sale.  MicroMark and Model Shipways frequently have deep sales.  
 
For further items:
Soldering iron - for making metal fittings and for bending planks (it's heat that allows wood to bend easier, not moisture) Small bench vice - preferably with a rotating head.  (like Pana-vice, but there are much less expensive versions available) Third-hand with magnifier Dental picks  Looping pliers Jeweler's saw Lastly, a comfortable chair!

Take a trip to the local version of the Dollar Store:
Wooden clothes pins: regular size and small (<1 inch).  They work well as clamps and can be modified to whatever shape you need. Metal bull clips Elastic bands - for clamping Small C-clamps Dowels, other strips of wood.  Actually, pretty good quality.  If nothing else, they make good handles for custom tools. Tooth picks Wire and nails - not model quality, but good for making jigs, bending patterns, or as clamps Paints - Not sure if I'd use them on a model, but I'm using the cheap acrylic to practice air-brushing Paint brushes - good for cleaning up chips.  You may find some that are actually good for painting Pins, needles, threaders, crochet hooks, tweezers (probably need to file the points) Storage containers - all sorts for small parts and tools Card board and foam board for making templates and light duty jigs Alcohol, Q-tips and cotton swaps for wiping up  School geometry set - for protractor and 45 and 30/60 triangles. ( A GOOD set of dividers are useful for transferring sizes form drawings to parts )   Pliers/cutters - may work for you, but cheap enough that you can modify the ends if needed for other shapes. Glues - may find a brand name you can trust to last for the long life of a model.  Other stuff ok for jigs, etc. Tape  
There are also many things you can make:
Bench hook - could double as a shooting board (for plane or sanding block) Rigging tools (hooks, pushers, etc) V Block bench extension  (for scroll saw work) Since you WILL want more tools ( just admit it now, we understand), make a wish list and buy them when they come up on sale.  MicroMark and Model Shipways frequently have deep sales.  
 
For further items:
Soldering iron - for making metal fittings and for bending planks (it's heat that allows wood to bend easier, not moisture) Small bench vice - preferably with a rotating head.  (like Pana-vice, but there are much less expensive versions available) Third-hand with magnifier Dental picks  Looping pliers Jeweler's saw Lastly, a comfortable chair!

Take a trip to the local version of the Dollar Store:
Wooden clothes pins: regular size and small (<1 inch).  They work well as clamps and can be modified to whatever shape you need. Metal bull clips Elastic bands - for clamping Small C-clamps Dowels, other strips of wood.  Actually, pretty good quality.  If nothing else, they make good handles for custom tools. Tooth picks Wire and nails - not model quality, but good for making jigs, bending patterns, or as clamps Paints - Not sure if I'd use them on a model, but I'm using the cheap acrylic to practice air-brushing Paint brushes - good for cleaning up chips.  You may find some that are actually good for painting Pins, needles, threaders, crochet hooks, tweezers (probably need to file the points) Storage containers - all sorts for small parts and tools Card board and foam board for making templates and light duty jigs Alcohol, Q-tips and cotton swaps for wiping up  School geometry set - for protractor and 45 and 30/60 triangles. ( A GOOD set of dividers are useful for transferring sizes form drawings to parts )   Pliers/cutters - may work for you, but cheap enough that you can modify the ends if needed for other shapes. Glues - may find a brand name you can trust to last for the long life of a model.  Other stuff ok for jigs, etc. Tape  
There are also many things you can make:
Bench hook - could double as a shooting board (for plane or sanding block) Rigging tools (hooks, pushers, etc) V Block bench extension  (for scroll saw work) Since you WILL want more tools ( just admit it now, we understand), make a wish list and buy them when they come up on sale.  MicroMark and Model Shipways frequently have deep sales.  
 
For further items:
Soldering iron - for making metal fittings and for bending planks (it's heat that allows wood to bend easier, not moisture) Small bench vice - preferably with a rotating head.  (like Pana-vice, but there are much less expensive versions available) Third-hand with magnifier Dental picks  Looping pliers Jeweler's saw Lastly, a comfortable chair!

Take a trip to the local version of the Dollar Store:
Wooden clothes pins: regular size and small (<1 inch).  They work well as clamps and can be modified to whatever shape you need. Metal bull clips Elastic bands - for clamping Small C-clamps Dowels, other strips of wood.  Actually, pretty good quality.  If nothing else, they make good handles for custom tools. Tooth picks Wire and nails - not model quality, but good for making jigs, bending patterns, or as clamps Paints - Not sure if I'd use them on a model, but I'm using the cheap acrylic to practice air-brushing Paint brushes - good for cleaning up chips.  You may find some that are actually good for painting Pins, needles, threaders, crochet hooks, tweezers (probably need to file the points) Storage containers - all sorts for small parts and tools Card board and foam board for making templates and light duty jigs Alcohol, Q-tips and cotton swaps for wiping up  School geometry set - for protractor and 45 and 30/60 triangles. ( A GOOD set of dividers are useful for transferring sizes form drawings to parts )   Pliers/cutters - may work for you, but cheap enough that you can modify the ends if needed for other shapes. Glues - may find a brand name you can trust to last for the long life of a model.  Other stuff ok for jigs, etc. Tape  
There are also many things you can make:
Bench hook - could double as a shooting board (for plane or sanding block) Rigging tools (hooks, pushers, etc) V Block bench extension  (for scroll saw work) Since you WILL want more tools ( just admit it now, we understand), make a wish list and buy them when they come up on sale.  MicroMark and Model Shipways frequently have deep sales.  
 
For further items:
Soldering iron - for making metal fittings and for bending planks (it's heat that allows wood to bend easier, not moisture) Small bench vice - preferably with a rotating head.  (like Pana-vice, but there are much less expensive versions available) Third-hand with magnifier Dental picks  Looping pliers Jeweler's saw Lastly, a comfortable chair!

Take a trip to the local version of the Dollar Store:
Wooden clothes pins: regular size and small (<1 inch).  They work well as clamps and can be modified to whatever shape you need. Metal bull clips Elastic bands - for clamping Small C-clamps Dowels, other strips of wood.  Actually, pretty good quality.  If nothing else, they make good handles for custom tools. Tooth picks Wire and nails - not model quality, but good for making jigs, bending patterns, or as clamps Paints - Not sure if I'd use them on a model, but I'm using the cheap acrylic to practice air-brushing Paint brushes - good for cleaning up chips.  You may find some that are actually good for painting Pins, needles, threaders, crochet hooks, tweezers (probably need to file the points) Storage containers - all sorts for small parts and tools Card board and foam board for making templates and light duty jigs Alcohol, Q-tips and cotton swaps for wiping up  School geometry set - for protractor and 45 and 30/60 triangles. ( A GOOD set of dividers are useful for transferring sizes form drawings to parts )   Pliers/cutters - may work for you, but cheap enough that you can modify the ends if needed for other shapes. Glues - may find a brand name you can trust to last for the long life of a model.  Other stuff ok for jigs, etc. Tape  
There are also many things you can make:
Bench hook - could double as a shooting board (for plane or sanding block) Rigging tools (hooks, pushers, etc) V Block bench extension  (for scroll saw work) Since you WILL want more tools ( just admit it now, we understand), make a wish list and buy them when they come up on sale.  MicroMark and Model Shipways frequently have deep sales.  
 
For further items:
Soldering iron - for making metal fittings and for bending planks (it's heat that allows wood to bend easier, not moisture) Small bench vice - preferably with a rotating head.  (like Pana-vice, but there are much less expensive versions available) Third-hand with magnifier Dental picks  Looping pliers Jeweler's saw Lastly, a comfortable chair!

Copper and copper alloys, such as brass, can only be hardened by work hardening.  This is usually done by running a sheet between rollers, or it can be done by drawing (pulling a wire through a hole smaller than the diameter of the wire).  Hardening can also be done by beating with a hammer, but the results will be uneven, to say nothing of the resulting uneven thickness.  At some point the material becomes brittle, which may limit the amount of bending possible for your part.  In a rolling plant, the sheets get hard after a few rolls, and so, they need to be heated (tempered) to soften them so the thickness can be reduced some more.
 
Iron, is also hardenable by working, but the amount is limited.  Hardening cannot be achieved by heating and quenching (rapid cooling) unless the carbon content is greater than 0.12%.  This limit basically defines the difference between iron and steel.  To go beyond this, other elements are added, creating alloys.  On the topic of alloys, brass is an alloy of copper and zinc;  bronze, is an alloy of copper with tin, phosphorus, aluminum, nickle or silicon.  
 
Aluminum can also be hardened, but this is mostly done by precipitation or solution hardening, where the material is kept at a certain temperature for period of time.   The hardness is designated by a "T" code, as in 6061-T4, which is the most common grade of aluminum.  
 
We work in brass and copper in models because they are easy to work, easy to solder or braze, and are corrosion resistant.  We could use stainless steels (there are many grades), but they tend to be quite hard, as anyone who has tried to drill and tap a 4-40 thread in stainless knows.  Aluminum has some of the same properties of brass, but it's very hard to join, although I've seen some aluminum "solders'.   Although aluminum is corrosion resistant, it does form a soft oxide layer that comes off easily. 
 
Probably more than you wanted to know, but now that it's been emptied from my brain, I have room to learn something else....

Here's another point for your time history of the Wasp.  I found this in an excerpt of "Naval Adventures During 35 Years Service"   by Lt. W. Bowers, RN. ,Vol1. 1, pp 272-302, 1833, reprinted in "Every Man  will do his Duty",  by Dean King, Henry Holt & Co. 1997.  Pg 397
 
and the original can be found at:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=raZCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=Naval+Adventures+During+35+Years+Service&source=bl&ots=u18CL6y2pd&sig=_OMrHxcsRwkRG8NEG1lNLOifHIE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj83aDc98_LAhUP8GMKHXdmC78Q6AEIHjAB#v=onepage&q=Naval%20Adventures%20During%2035%20Years%20Service&f=false
 
Wm Bowers, serving on the HMS Helicon on station off the Scilly Isles.   "About the beginning of July [1814] we received orders to proceed to the longitude of 12 deg West, to join our old consort the Reindeer; .... Approaching our ground, we fell in with the Achates, Captain Langhorn, and the following day discovered the wreck of a vessel's mast and rigging floating in the water.  ...on sending a boat to examine the wreck, the evidence afforded by the grape shot sticking in the mast, the marks and dimensions of the main cap, the sails and rigging, left no doubt of the Reindeer's fate.  The main mast appeared to been burnt off by the copper in the wake of the main boom.  Everything denoted that the strife had been sanguinary, and the catastrophe recent; whoever had been the antagonist, he had found tough work. ...At the end of the week, we returned to the spot, where we discovered the wreck of the fore-mast."
 
A footnote is provided:  
The following are the particulars of the action received from one of the survivors: "The enemy, (the Wasp, American corvette) was discovered on our lee bow about 10 AM [on June 28, 1814] standing toward us...."
 
The foot note continues to discuss the battle, the death of Capt. Manners and wounding most of the other officers.  Overall, 70 of 109 crew killed or wounded.  The "brig a perfect wreck, so as to be unmanageable, we were compelled to strike."
 
After reading the history of the Wasp on Wikipedia, I wonder how much damage accumulated during so many battles in a short time without the ability to to do a major refit.  The Wasp was larger than any of its opponents, but it is unlikely to get away unmarked.   For instance, the battle with Reindeer was against carronades at short range, so there must have been damage to the hull and perhaps the spars.  Could structural weakness have contributed to loose in a storm?

Here's another point for your time history of the Wasp.  I found this in an excerpt of "Naval Adventures During 35 Years Service"   by Lt. W. Bowers, RN. ,Vol1. 1, pp 272-302, 1833, reprinted in "Every Man  will do his Duty",  by Dean King, Henry Holt & Co. 1997.  Pg 397
 
and the original can be found at:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=raZCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=Naval+Adventures+During+35+Years+Service&source=bl&ots=u18CL6y2pd&sig=_OMrHxcsRwkRG8NEG1lNLOifHIE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj83aDc98_LAhUP8GMKHXdmC78Q6AEIHjAB#v=onepage&q=Naval%20Adventures%20During%2035%20Years%20Service&f=false
 
Wm Bowers, serving on the HMS Helicon on station off the Scilly Isles.   "About the beginning of July [1814] we received orders to proceed to the longitude of 12 deg West, to join our old consort the Reindeer; .... Approaching our ground, we fell in with the Achates, Captain Langhorn, and the following day discovered the wreck of a vessel's mast and rigging floating in the water.  ...on sending a boat to examine the wreck, the evidence afforded by the grape shot sticking in the mast, the marks and dimensions of the main cap, the sails and rigging, left no doubt of the Reindeer's fate.  The main mast appeared to been burnt off by the copper in the wake of the main boom.  Everything denoted that the strife had been sanguinary, and the catastrophe recent; whoever had been the antagonist, he had found tough work. ...At the end of the week, we returned to the spot, where we discovered the wreck of the fore-mast."
 
A footnote is provided:  
The following are the particulars of the action received from one of the survivors: "The enemy, (the Wasp, American corvette) was discovered on our lee bow about 10 AM [on June 28, 1814] standing toward us...."
 
The foot note continues to discuss the battle, the death of Capt. Manners and wounding most of the other officers.  Overall, 70 of 109 crew killed or wounded.  The "brig a perfect wreck, so as to be unmanageable, we were compelled to strike."
 
After reading the history of the Wasp on Wikipedia, I wonder how much damage accumulated during so many battles in a short time without the ability to to do a major refit.  The Wasp was larger than any of its opponents, but it is unlikely to get away unmarked.   For instance, the battle with Reindeer was against carronades at short range, so there must have been damage to the hull and perhaps the spars.  Could structural weakness have contributed to loose in a storm?

In general, all files work for metal or wood.  However, very coarse files, such as rasps, are not useful for metal because if the bit at all they would require a lot of force to push.  Rasps, are used for removing a lot of wood fast, but the surface will be rough, as in relatively deep gouges, or badly torn up is cutting across the grain.  
 
Very fine toothed files tend to clog up when cutting soft metals such as brass and aluminum: an old trick is to rub some chalk into the file before working.  It also helps to reduce friction.
 
For filing small metal parts, you'll need a fine tooth file, otherwise it will "catch" if there are only one or two teeth cutting.  I find that the diamond coated files work well for these situations - they are more like sandpaper than files.  Inexpensive sets can be found that will last long time unless you want to work in hard metals.

In general, all files work for metal or wood.  However, very coarse files, such as rasps, are not useful for metal because if the bit at all they would require a lot of force to push.  Rasps, are used for removing a lot of wood fast, but the surface will be rough, as in relatively deep gouges, or badly torn up is cutting across the grain.  
 
Very fine toothed files tend to clog up when cutting soft metals such as brass and aluminum: an old trick is to rub some chalk into the file before working.  It also helps to reduce friction.
 
For filing small metal parts, you'll need a fine tooth file, otherwise it will "catch" if there are only one or two teeth cutting.  I find that the diamond coated files work well for these situations - they are more like sandpaper than files.  Inexpensive sets can be found that will last long time unless you want to work in hard metals.

In general, all files work for metal or wood.  However, very coarse files, such as rasps, are not useful for metal because if the bit at all they would require a lot of force to push.  Rasps, are used for removing a lot of wood fast, but the surface will be rough, as in relatively deep gouges, or badly torn up is cutting across the grain.  
 
Very fine toothed files tend to clog up when cutting soft metals such as brass and aluminum: an old trick is to rub some chalk into the file before working.  It also helps to reduce friction.
 
For filing small metal parts, you'll need a fine tooth file, otherwise it will "catch" if there are only one or two teeth cutting.  I find that the diamond coated files work well for these situations - they are more like sandpaper than files.  Inexpensive sets can be found that will last long time unless you want to work in hard metals.