Cathead

The suggestions from Dicas make a lot of sense to me. I've used one-side files to great effect before.

Great photo, Len, certainly shows that you're right and Chaperon was laid out the way you showed. I was going to suggest that the doors on the corners were to avoid having to squeeze between the chimneys to get in, since the front cabin wall is so close there, but as the staircase from the main deck goes right there, and there appear to be two doors right in front as well (judging from the photos on M-E's site), I don't know.

Kurt would have the best idea of Chaperon's interior, however on earlier boats the "rooms" were actually quite narrow and small; much of the interior was taken up by a wider parlor, wide enough for dining tables and the like. So your proposed interior hallway would be quite a bit too narrow. But again I don't know how Chaperon was set up.

Len, that's not attached yet, right? Because it appears to be on backward at the moment. I really hope I haven't just ruined your day. It looks very nice otherwise!

No phone. I'm a holdout.

Dee Dee, I have photos I took while exploring the Yukon back in the late '90s, of several wrecks along the upper river. I climbed in, on, and around them and took some photos. Unfortunately they're print images and I don't have a scanner. Maybe I can try taking some new photos of the old photos! The climate up there has preserved the wood quite well, even though the boats themselves have mostly collapsed into piles of wood.The hulls were still solid enough to clamber into.

Bob, just imagine it before the poor river was mostly dammed up and had lots of the debris filtered out of her! Deperdussion, those are pretty unique, thanks for sharing. Where are those images from?

Although, any debris big enough to meaningfully swing the stern of a ~150-200' long steamboat is likely going to do some severe damage when it hits anyway...

Clarence, see my response to a similar question here. It's my understanding that anchors were rarely, if ever, used in riverboats. There really isn't a need for them, and it could often have been dangerous to do so as any anchor holding the boat against the river current would tend to make it heel, rather problematic when these often had only a few inches to a foot of freeboard. Boats were generally held in place against a bank or levee by running the boat up onto the bank itself, or by tying off a line to a tree or other onshore support. Keeping the paddle(s) turning slowly was another approach to holding position. I'd be happy to hear if anyone else has a different take.

Len, check out this photo from the Arabia Steamboat Museum in Kansas City. If you zoom in on it, you'll see that the paddles (often called buckets despite being flat) are held to the spokes by U-shaped bolts. This was a common practice in earlier eras, I don't specifically know about Chaperon's later era. There was also sometimes a separate squareish plank over the paddle/bucket where the bolts went through, to provide extra strength. That is roughly what Mike did, but without the bolts (which are awfully fiddly to add at these scales). You could do it by making a jig and bending lots of wire; wouldn't need to drill through the paddles if you could simulate the nuts on the other side.

After several weeks of work, the mainsail is rigged, and I have a confusing question about the standing rigging. First, the good stuff. Here's how she looks overall. I'm quite happy with my paper sail-making methods; the color and texture really seem to fit into the all-wood appearance. All the running rigging for the mainsail is in place, though no knots are glued down yet. I want the option to tighten and adjust for a little while longer, so there are lots of loose ends and a few lines look baggy. As I intend to display the port side, I'm planning to have both the main and fore sails trimmed to starboard, with the forecourse and foretopsail (the two square sails on the foremast) trimmed to starboard as well, as if she were on a broad reach. Here's a few closeup photos: I should have been taking progress photos this whole time, but haven't. I don't know if there's really anything to be learned from all this; the rigging is just a matter of thinking through steps carefully. The plans' rigging diagrams are good to follow once you understand their format, but their order of operations is terrible. Any given mast or sail's rigging is spread over multiple pages, and often something you'll want to do first is three pages later. I've spent so much time obsessively rereading the rigging plans to make sure I don't forget anything I'll regret later. So far, so good. My plan is to continue working from the inside-out: make and rig the foresail next, then the standing rigging on both masts, then the forecourse and foretopsail. Now for the question: looking ahead to the standing rigging, the plan of this model confuses me. It only calls for one lateral stay per mast, each leading down to a single set of deadeyes on a channel. Then there are two smaller lines that lead from the masthead, pass through the two arms of the crosstrees, and connect to blocks either on deck or on the channel. I can't understand this; here's a visual diagram that I hope makes sense: In this rigging setup, there can be no ratlines because there's only one stay. How would sailors get up to the crosstrees to handle the upper sails, effect repairs, or do anything else? And what's the point of the other two lines, which aren't listed as stays but don't do anything else? I've looked at a variety of images and plans for topsail schooners like this, and most show two stays and deadeyes on the foremast with ratlines, but even they only show one stay and deadeyes on the mainmast, which I don't understand. And none show the other two random lines. This is definitely an accurate rendition of the kit plans, but I don't understand how or why this would work in real life. I like to understand what I'm doing when I model, so I hope someone can either explain this to me, or offer advice for a more realistic setup. It seems to me that there should be two sets of deadeyes on each channel, with stays running up to the top of the lower mast at the crosstrees, so that each mast could have ratlines rigged. Anyone?

I think you've achieved that nicely. The weathered, alternating-stain wood on your build effectively tones down any "newness" and gives it a lot of visual interest.

Len, I can't tell you how many times knowing that I have an audience has kept me going, or pushed me to do a better job on something. Glad it's working that way for you.

Mike, this looks like a fun project to follow. As I'm also working through my own problematic kit with bad instructions and limited materials, I'm quite empathetic to the challenge, though it also creates some fun opportunities for learning and customization. Plus, I love Nordic ships of this period and something along these lines is definitely on my life list. Can't wait to learn from your experiences.

They seem a bit tall to me, but I'm no expert. Nicely made, certainly.

I'm not sure about Chaperon, but a lot of boats had a water pump system behind the boiler (sometimes called the "doctor"). I guess if the plans don't show it, it maybe wasn't there, but there's not a lot of room between the boiler and that bulkhead for any kind of access. Although from a functional point of view, you can't push such a bulkhead any further aft without cutting off lateral access to the rest of the area, which is maybe why it wasn't there. Since you're customizing this build anyway, I'd say it falls under builder discretion. Kurt, how did Chaperon draw its boiler water? I don't know as much about these later boats. Was a different system in use by this time that didn't require a steam feed pump behind the boiler?

You're a sick, sick man, and we love you for it. Working bilge pumps. I quit.

PM Kurt to ask about the interior walls: he's the real Chaperon expert around here. Personally I'd say white is a good bet, possibly unpainted.

Ooh, yeah, oil pastels are NOT a good idea. Sorry, it didn't even occur to me to warn you about that! I've also used a finger to apply pastel dust; something in the skin oil seems to do a good job of helping the powder stick to wood.

Very nice.

As another method, I'm quite fond of using cotton swabs (Q-tips) for applying gentle color using pastels. Rubbing the swab's head on the pastel and then gently on the model gives a really nice gentle wash of color. It won't necessarily create thin streaks, but it's great for applying tone in a variety of settings.

That's a big, complicated project, even if it seems cheaper. Why not build a small, open wooden boat? You can do that with a good kit for under $100 and you don't need any tools beyond really basic stuff like hobby knife, wood glue, and clamps (like clothespins). You'll learn and experience most of the essential skills to tackle a larger craft, too. If you're ultimately interested in learning about modelling in wood, building in plastic won't get you very far, the skill set is very different. It's worthwhile project on its own terms, but it won't get you much closer to learning whether you like wood projects.

My condolences on your dad's passing; it is a difficult time to work through such decisions. Have you considered contacting various public entities, such as libraries or government offices, who might want to have something attractive on display? Placed in a nice case, a beautiful model can inspire and engage people passing by every day, even if the office isn't directly related to anything nautical. Perhaps even a retirement home or other care facility might have a corner where patients might enjoy the sight of such a visually interesting piece of artwork. In other words, I'd say cast a wide net for public facilities that might be "spruced up" by one of your dad's models. Even a local restaurant, law office, or other business might be willing to include one in their decor somewhere; it can't hurt to ask, especially as you are not looking to sell them. Best of luck to you. Models are tough, as most of their inherent value is to the builder and their immediate relations. I hope you can find a way to help your dad's work live on and inspire others.

Vossiewulf, are you British (or Australian)? I work in both British and American English; "notice" would be the more common construction in American English, while "note" would be preferred in British English. Let's not veer Mark's thread too far into the linguistic abyss, though (I know, I started it).

Mark, don't feel bad: I'm an editor and so tend to notice (and enjoy) quirks of language.