Cathead

Yeah, I'm drooling. Thanks so much for taking the extra time to share this process with us. I'll certainly pay you back when this hits the market.

Good question. Yes, sidewheelers generally had one center rudder, because their hulls were more ship-like (tapering at the stern) so water flowed properly past a single rudder; they were also more maneuverable due to the ability to back each engine separately. Sternwheelers commonly had two to four rudders, often linked into a single system. My understanding is that their more barge-like square sterns didn't funnel water past rudders as efficiently, so they needed more rudders spaced across the stern to compensate. For example, here are the rudders on my model of Bertrand: These were built in two paired assemblies; the inner two were connected to the actual steering gear, and the outer two were slaved to their partners. Also note that each rudder fits into an extension that runs forward into the curve of the hull; my understanding is that this helped direct water properly onto each rudder. The hull was shaped this way on sternwheelers (wide and square like a barge rather than tapered like a ship) because that design provided the extra buoyancy needed to support the massive, heavy sternwheel. In comparison, here is the salvaged stern of the Arabia: Note how the hull naturally tapers to the single rudder, which it can do because the wheels and engines are placed much more forward on a sidewheeler, so the stern can be shaped "normally", allowing for more efficient water flow to the rudder. If this still isn't clear, I can try to take comparative photos of the two models to better illustrate the difference.

To the best of my knowledge, hulls were always painted (usually white).

Watching the winter Olympics has both slowed and helped my work. Slowed, because it's been an evening time sink watching so many events I enjoy. Helped, because I moved into the final parts of hull planking that required more careful shaping and manual gluing, so it gave me something to do while messing with individual planks. I've been planking from the outside in, and once I got too near the centerline, my normal binder-clip clamps (black, below) wouldn't fit anymore. So I started using reversed and halved clothespins instead, whose angled shapes work quite well as wedges (also below). Their clamping parts aren't doing anything, but wedging them into the narrow gaps between plank and the center bulkhead worked really well, at least for straight areas. For curved areas, I mostly did this manually and watched Olympics. But I was really pleased with this method. Then I made a frustrating mistake, managing to snap off a big chunk of the curve bow guard extension. It actually wasn't hard to repair, I just cut away most of the bow's curve on both sides, and bend and inserted a new piece that fully swept around that curve. It's not quite as nice as the original because the new joint was harder to hide, but when the model is finished it won't really show. I was still very annoyed with myself because I've been so careful in handling. So here's the planked hull. Note that in this photo I've begun inserting the extra guard timbers at the stern, but not yet at the bow, to bring them up to the right density. If I had decided to plank over the underside of the guards, I wouldn't have needed to do this, so hadn't until the decision was made. But there's abundant evidence that leaving the guards open underneath is the right approach, so in go the rest of the guards. As you may be able to tell above, I also used some wood filler to match a few less-than-ideal gaps in planking, mostly in the complicated stern area. Above, I've applied it to the starboard (lower) side but not yet the port (upper side), and haven't yet sanded it down. Below is a closer look at the stern, with one side filled and one side not. In this photo, it has been sanded. It's definitely smoother now but the planking lines still show through. I'm pleased with how this came out overall, though I did struggles to get the run of planking right and could probably have done it better. Those odd extensions at the very stern are on the real thing, I'll come back to that soon when I show the building of the rudder. And here she is with all the guard timbers installed, right side up with my machinery templates laid out for reference. If you look closely at the starboard wheel area, you'll see a little vertical wooden thing that doesn't resolve well in the photo. That's my rough person for scale, he's about 5'8", shorter than me but about right for the period. The wheel is in about the right vertical place and orientation. The plain white rectangle represents the boilers. So that's where Arabia stands post-Olympics. Next up, I need to cut way too many short strips of hull planking to fill in the last strake between all the guard timbers, then do any final hull finishing necessary. I'll paint the hull next before proceeding to planking the deck, and also will finish the rudder, though I probably won't install it until the very end to keep if from being knocked off. Then, finally, I'll move toward deck planking. Thanks as always for following along. Hopefully this starts to get more interesting soon as we turn her right side up and the machinery and superstructure get underway.

If you want to be realistic, I believe that the aftermost part of the cabin was often reserved as the ladies' parlor. The mens' "gambling parlor" would probably have been further forward, to keep their cigar smoke etc. from bothering the ladies. Of course, any given boat could do it however they liked. I see you're watching Olympics too. They're slowing me down by distracting me, but helping by entertaining me while holding down fiddly glued bits. Glad to see you're making progress!

Bill, Thanks for checking in. The build log is titled "Ranger" because that's the name of the kit, making it easier for other builders to find it; I know there was no such real vessel. I always intended this to be a fictional "representative" build, and if you look closely you'll see I named her "Ocracoke", on the alternate-timeline assumption that she was stationed near my favorite part of the US coastline. As for the Coast Guard drawing, I had hoped it was accurate coming as it did from a USCG historian, but I knew I wasn't going to get all the details right anyway given how screwy the original kit was and my overall lack of sufficient knowledge. I read a few books on the history of pilot schooners and revenue cutters and did my best to capture the essence of these fascinating craft. Luckily for me, here in the rural Midwest, there are very few people who can or will notice my mistakes!

It's amazing how obsessed people get with cheapness at the expense of all rationality. Sorry you have to deal with that crap. Try to keep in mind that you don't hear from all the people who do respect your work and think your prices are fair; it's just not in the human nature to send random emails or phone calls saying "attaboy" even when it's deserved. When's the last time any of us took the time to write/call a restaurant we really enjoyed, even though we'd be far more likely to write/call to complain about a problem?

So cool. There's going to be a massive group build on MSW when this sucker hits the market. So...many...build logs!

That certainly supports the "no planking under the guards" decision. Wish I could see the true underside of the hull. Thanks, Kurt!

I was most fortunate to visit this model in person earlier this week while visiting St. Louis for a conference. My heartfelt thanks to Bill and Howie for taking several hours to show me this and other models and talk through their research and development process. It really is a very impressive piece of work in person, and I can't wait for it to go on display where the public can enjoy it.

Personally, I'd sand a bit first to reduce the amount of filler you need to apply and then remove; no need to fill in uneven areas unnecessarily. But I'm just an amateur. I've only used walnut once and agree that it's brittle. It really likes to splinter away from the curve if you force it.

I may be from Missouri, but I vote for the Hornet anyway. Now, if you promise to model the former with the full surrender ceremony in place with accurate figures, maybe I'd reconsider.

Oh, I agree, they look fine with the model for the reasons you state. The difference isn't enough to matter, I was just curious. As for the horses, do you mean height at the withers (top of the front shoulder) or at the top of the head or ears? If the latter, it may not be that far off; I'm 6' and I've stood next to horses that dwarfed me. Wikipedia states that a big draft horse can easily exceed 6' at the withers and one record horse exceeded 7', so a big stallion with its head erect could at least approximate 10' in total. See this Clydesdale next to a 5' 3" human, not far off a reasonable human height for the 1800s. Just figure that your boat is carrying some valuable breeding stock.

Not just generational. I'm 38 with no cell of any kind (wife, neither). But I suppose we're hardly representative.

I'm curious. You say that the 38 mm figures are too small for 1:50, but if I did the math right (38*.039*50), that's about 6' 2", far higher than the period's likely average of around 5' 7" or even less. So if anything they're a bit too big. What's the scale height of those doors, for comparison?

Hah! You're right, I never noticed that, I was so focused on the hull itself. Maybe the problem isn't historic photography, but the observer. I overall think it makes sense not to plank the undersides; although doing so might protect against a certain amount of damage (from water or debris), it's a lot of extra material and weight.

Hull planking is progressing steadily. This isn't the most interesting part of most builds for readers, so thanks for bearing with me. This will start to get fun once I flip her over and begin working on machinery and superstructure. Overall hull status, almost caught up on the starboard side. Notice the solid strips inserted between the bulkheads in places, evenly spaced from the stern and bow. These are meant to provide support for the future display stand; I can screw pedestals or other supports into the hull this way. I filled the whole area to ensure that I have flexibility in deciding what will look good later. Two shots of the stern, with the camera catching every flaw. Some of these planks are less than ideal, with some gaps or other oddities. I think that judicious filler and careful sanding will improve things considerably. And the bow for good measure, which is much easier to plank than the stern: Trying to show the curved chine area, but it's hard to focus on. I'm tempted to build a few mini frame replicas to show the different chine styles used on different boats. Closeup of how I've decided to fill in the rest of the hull's bottom. It makes more sense to lay straight planks with angled edges than to bend every plank from here on. I don't know how it was done on the real thing and have never found a clear description of steamboat planking in this regard, so I'm going with this. If something like this was done, I suspect the builders may have notched each plank end into the wraparound plank rather than terminating at such fine points, but I can't prove that's right and don't want to do that much work for something that's pure guesswork and won't hardly ever be seen anyway. The planking will soon get easier and faster as I move toward finishing the flat bottom. Then it's time for filling, sanding, and finish work before she's flipped over. I do have one question for anyone knowledgeable: Were the undersides of the guards typically planked or left open? Photographs never show this angle. If I'm going to plank them, I'll need to do that next. If not, I'll need to fill in the guards with the rest of the beams (they'd be at a much tighter spacing than my basic structure above). But for this model it's one or the other (planked guards not requiring all beams, or unplanked requiring all beams), so I need to decide what's right. As always, thanks for reading, and I hope to move on from the interminable planking stage soon.

That looks really good!

I'm no expert but it sure makes more sense to me to have the keel, etc. in place. One thought, are they assuming that you can use the stem and sternpost to hide the ends of the planking? If you add them first, you have to get the planks perfectly butted up against them (especially at the stem), whereas without them you in theory can be a bit sloppy and fit the stem over the ends to hide the imperfections. Personally I think I'd fit them first and just do the planking job right. My preferred planking method is to soak the plank, fit it in place on the model, use a hairdryer on high to heat and dry it, adjust as needed by sanding or shaping, then attach. A hull shape like that, I think you're likely to need some serious tapering and probably some drop planks to avoid too much edge bending. Again, no expert, but I've done a few hulls of different shapes and you're better off not trying to force too much lateral curvature in planks. I'm looking forward to following this build, as I wish more manufacturers would do "interior" kits like this that are more interesting and educational than just the hull.

On that one picture, where that one plank is notched into the overlying strake even though the others aren't, I'd guess it's because of the sharp point at the end of that plank. All the others can have a pretty broad joint butting up against the overlying strake at a mostly perpendicular angle, but the curvature of the hull means that last one suddenly comes to a point. So rather than wedge a thin point into the full joint between all the planks, they notched it into the overlying strake, such that the plank's end doesn't come to a complete sharp point, making the joint stronger. Those are neat photos, they definitely show that some real builders did stuff that model-building resources say you should never do!

Based on my experience, Popeye's advice is good so far. The type of wood can matter, too. Something relatively soft like basswood will take a lateral bend a lot easier than some of the harder woods, which won't and thus exacerbates the clinkering. I'm not quite sure what you mean by your last question? You're certainly going to want to taper as you go forward for any plank. You might try taking a really flexible piece of very thin wood, or even plastic, and using that to "practice" laying out the remaining planks so you get a sense of how the planks will want to lie naturally. You can even mark what that test strip "wants" to do for future reference.

Very nice and a great resource for future builders.

You're right, cameras are the worst critics in the world! Your workmanship looks plenty crisp to me. The main deck of these boats was both the cargo and engineering space (boilers, engines, forge, etc. take up a lot of room); genteel passengers were generally discouraged from using most of it except for boarding and disembarking, particularly on fancier boats like this kit is meant to represent. However, I'd bet that any slaves or lower-class passengers would be confined to this deck unless specifically serving an individual in the cabins above. Certainly, on lower-end boats, and particularly on those heading west up the Missouri, foreign immigrants were often packed into whatever space could be found on the main deck along with the livestock and cargo. Kinda like the immigrant trains that packed all those Swedes, Czechs, etc. into livestock cars heading for the plains because they weren't wanted in the coaches. The boiler deck and above are for the upper-class set. This all meant that the all-too-common boiler explosions often hit the poor/immigrant classes harder because they were closer to the source and/or more likely to be trapped by debris or fire.

That looks fantastic. What is that platform for; it appears to lead to nowhere?

Steamschooner, that's precisely the question I'm asking. My leaning is to follow the same approach as Kurt's Chaperon, the last photo shown above, and run the rest of the planks parallel to the "keel" (although these boats had no proper keel). This seems more logical and straightforward for the builders. As for the chines, there were multiple shapes and approaches that have been documented. Adam Kane's book has excellent drawings of the different variants. In short, it seems to have been more common to use an angular chine, but he says that Arabia used a rounded chine made with compass timber on each frame. This would have been more expensive and complicated, so not as common. To simulate this, I rounded the corners of each bulkhead and shaped the planks to at least somewhat curve around this bend. If the chines were angular, there'd be two sharp 45 degree angles from bottom to side rather than the smooth curve I've been shooting for. I think you can see this in the photos above, but I'll try to take a more specific photo.