Cathead

Yeah, Way's is a lot of fun to browse, though a bit mind-blowing in its diversity and complexity. Once you've read through the logs Kurt suggested, I'd also suggest Glenn Grieco's Heroine and, humbly, my Bertrand (see link in signature).

Over lunch I skimmed through all my riverboat references and could not find a single reference to caulking or any other treatment of the seams between deck planking on American riverboats. Even the archeological report on the Bertrand didn't say anything about this, and they documented the location and dimensions of every single plank on the main deck.
 
It's an interesting question. As Kurt notes, the only real threat would be rain, and most of the main and boiler deck areas were covered by higher decks eventually capped with tarpaper, such that the only real deck area clearly exposed to the weather without tarpaper or other covering would be the bow area and the outer edges of the main deck. The guards (if present) certainly wouldn't need caulking as they didn't cover any hull area. So my guess would be that caulking either wasn't used or was done only in the bow area of the main deck.
 
On the other hand, given the potential intensity of rainstorms in the Mississippi Basin, a riverboat deck could easily be awash in minutes from driving, blowing rain, and many boats had open cargo areas on the main deck with minimal superstructure to block wind-driven rain. So it's not hard to imagine a thunderstorm dropping multiple inches of rain in short order that could blow/leak down into the hold, causing potential problems for cargo stored there. But my guess that this just wasn't enough of a problem to warrant caulking; a competent crew would simply not store any water-sensitive cargo far forward in the hull (the only place really potentially prone to meaningful leaks from above) or use basic tarpaulins as necessary. I'm interested to know what Kurt finds out from his sources.

Where can I downvote Corel on all counts?

Planking along slowly but surely, just a great deal of cutting, fitting, forming and gluing. I worked both on the outer hull and while waiting for glue to set I cut and fit the rear interior sections. I decided that I will finish as much of the interior before adding the solid walls that define the holds. My son-in-law shared that these solid walls compartmentalize flooding and that the ship could still float with any two holds completely flooded.
First I added the bottom flat piece based upon the tangents of the curves. Next I added the 1/16" thick planking starting at the top and working down from side to side. 

 
I also added gluing surfaces for the front bow section joint area. The gap will be short transition planks that will be filled in once the bow section is added after the hull is primed and sanded. 
 

 
Here I have added the rear portion of the holds interior walls. I am using the 1/32" plywood for the interior walls which really stiffen the hull once the glue is set.
 

 
Once the forward planking was complete I started adding the interior surfaces starting with the flooring and then working up the sides using steel blocks as weights to maintain flatness until the glue set. I am cutting away the braces a bay at a time as I move forward to maintain the structural integrity and strength. I also am staggering the internal and external joints again for strength and not creating a bending point.
The solid hold walls will add even more strength.  
 
 
 
Now back to cutting and fitting. 
 
 

Oops, you're right. I searched for O scale figures and didn't double-check that Google returned the right scale. HO is actually about half the size (hence Half-O scale), at 1:87, so those would actually be midgets. But here's an example that should work. Overall, your best best is still to search for model railroad figures with a western, old-time, or steam-era theme, making sure they're American or at least not blatantly European. The company I linked to there, Walthers, is about the biggest retailer of model railroad products in the US and a good starting point for a search. I have no idea if/how they ship overseas, but their catalogue will at least give you a sense of what's out there.

Chris,
 
1:50 is very close to the model railroad O scale (1:48), for which there are a variety of figures available. If you like for "old-time" or "western" style figures, you'll be in roughly the right time period (mid-late 1800s). Here's one example I found with a quick search. Just be careful about European brands like Preiser, their prototypes tend to be European and you could get some very strange uniforms and styles for a riverboat on the American frontier.
 
As for color, I definitely feel that white is the correct choice. It was by far the most common color and thus will "feel" authentic. As you suggest, shoot for a thin coat of paint that lets the planking show through; it would have been visible on the real thing. You really can't go wrong with a white hull and superstructure, dull red/brown main deck and wheel(s), and dark grey/black tarpaper covering on the exposed upper decks.

Yeah, Way's is a lot of fun to browse, though a bit mind-blowing in its diversity and complexity. Once you've read through the logs Kurt suggested, I'd also suggest Glenn Grieco's Heroine and, humbly, my Bertrand (see link in signature).

Eric:
I went over the Bertrand info too with the same results.  Also checked info on the the Arabia and the original data on the Heroine - but as Glenn Greico explained several times in his build log Kevin Crissman was routinely digging up facts as Glenn built the model.  I also checked Glenn's build log and there is no evidence that he simulated caulking anyplace on the model and his models contain all the known details.  I will be surprised if any info comes back showing that caulking was used.
Kurt

Over lunch I skimmed through all my riverboat references and could not find a single reference to caulking or any other treatment of the seams between deck planking on American riverboats. Even the archeological report on the Bertrand didn't say anything about this, and they documented the location and dimensions of every single plank on the main deck.
 
It's an interesting question. As Kurt notes, the only real threat would be rain, and most of the main and boiler deck areas were covered by higher decks eventually capped with tarpaper, such that the only real deck area clearly exposed to the weather without tarpaper or other covering would be the bow area and the outer edges of the main deck. The guards (if present) certainly wouldn't need caulking as they didn't cover any hull area. So my guess would be that caulking either wasn't used or was done only in the bow area of the main deck.
 
On the other hand, given the potential intensity of rainstorms in the Mississippi Basin, a riverboat deck could easily be awash in minutes from driving, blowing rain, and many boats had open cargo areas on the main deck with minimal superstructure to block wind-driven rain. So it's not hard to imagine a thunderstorm dropping multiple inches of rain in short order that could blow/leak down into the hold, causing potential problems for cargo stored there. But my guess that this just wasn't enough of a problem to warrant caulking; a competent crew would simply not store any water-sensitive cargo far forward in the hull (the only place really potentially prone to meaningful leaks from above) or use basic tarpaulins as necessary. I'm interested to know what Kurt finds out from his sources.

And last image for the weekend (got a busy work week ahead! ).  I drilled in the mast holes (slightly smaller than they will be but showed me where they will be placed in relation to the deck fittings.  The way I positioned them was to take a cutout of the plans put a piece of wood behind it and line them up. The front mast leans about 85 degrees while the main mast about 80 degrees. Next ahead is building the larger grating, placing the garboard plank ooooh and a surprise! Stay tuned!  

Ok so wanted to do a research update. Bottom line is I've decided that the 3 Doughty cutters will be named Active-31, Monroe-52 and Vigilant-79. My decision for this is based off a passage on page 76 of Irving King's book "The coast guard under sail" which states that the 3 of them sailed together on the Cheaspeake Bay. It also states that in 1824 Active was replaced by Vigillant a ship twice her size, this imagery got me stoked for how I want to portray these ships. The year is 1824 and the Active after years of noble service sails the Chesapeake for the last time joined by Monroe and Vigilant to be decommissioned. I might be taking a bit of creative license but hey I like the idea of the small model with a bit of wear and tear (even though she was fully renovated in 1819) while the bigger ships can show a level of transition to their designs giving me a lot to work with as far as model building I can work with different style bulwarks, alternate detailing's rather than just build the same boat in 3 sizes. 
 
I also did my best to make a chart of the various revenue cutter built around the time of Doughty's design 1815-1830 before the Morris/Taney class took over. I wanted to do my best guess regarding what ships were what tonnages since info is sketchy at best. What I am seeing is that they pretty much were in charge of defending piracy in several areas the Chesapeake Bay Maryland/Virginia, the St Mary's Savannah Georgia, the Charleston South Carolina, the New Orleans area and then Northern ports of Maine, Rhode Island, New Haven and New York. There were about 15 names recorded.
 
The northern ships while based off the doughty design, they all had odd measurements slightly larger than the official draughts. The Alert, Search, Detector and Eagle, were all used in northern waters so these names were crossed off my list for what I could name my model's since their dimensions suggest they were their own variation on the class. Also I may one day build more famous ships named Eagle so wanted something more unique.
 
Next were the ships furthest south. The Louisiana, Alabama and Florida. We know the first 2 were the 52 ton design and Florida likely the 79 ton however I just didn't like the idea of naming ships after states and wanted names very unique to the revenue cutter service.
 
That leaves 7 names to choose from. The Surprise and Dallas both 52 tons according to the official records anyway (could maybe be 79 tons). Surprise's draught was apparently too deep for the Charleston and was transferred to Chesapeake Bay but sounds like she wasn't used and sold after 2 uneventful years. The Dallas had a much more eventful history fighting pirates and was stationed in the St Mary's along with Crawford a 79 tonner. That said both ships wouldn't have served long together since Dallas's career ended in 1821 same year Crawford started.
 
I have Gallatin marked as a 31 ton ship. This is guesswork however if the Surprise was too heavy for her station at Charleston and if the records of her being 52 tons is accurate then I'm simply assuming Gallatin was a smaller ship than Surprise. Y'all still with me?
 
 So this brings us to Active, Monroe and Vigillant. We know Active was 38 tons. We also know she was purchased in Baltimore and while Irving states she wasn't based off of Doughty's design, Chapelle makes the argument they she very well may have (he calls her the Alert but he mentions a 38 ton ship so I think he just confused the names or the official record changed). At any rate I'm going to assume that a small 1 gun Baltimore clipper style ship built in those days probably looked so similar that the design will work fine as the Active. As the ship had a very busy life (vs the Surprise or Gallatin which did nothing noteworthy), I like the idea of building a model with an interesting history. As Vigilant was reportedly twice the size her being a 79 ton design seems logical. Monroe has very little information but seeming that 52 ton ships were the most common built I imagine she was a mid sized design. So there it is hope that sounds exciting. More updates shortly!  

Well said, Imagna, it's not about laziness but about efficiency. Yes, if you only need one calculation, it's quite easy to do the math. But at the scale of a full build, there's nothing wrong with setting up a more efficient way to do the work. Or should we all hand-cut every bit of railing rather than using a stopper to automate the cuts?
 

As I mentioned earlier, I went ahead and wrote up a tutorial on using spreadsheets to calculate model conversions. This is exactly the kind of tool that would let you quickly figure out various measurements at 1/60 (such as a person's height) without having to remember and set up equations each time or search for the right online conversion tool. I mention it here at the risk of self-promotion because it seems pretty relevant.

As I mentioned earlier, I went ahead and wrote up a tutorial on using spreadsheets to calculate model conversions. This is exactly the kind of tool that would let you quickly figure out various measurements at 1/60 (such as a person's height) without having to remember and set up equations each time or search for the right online conversion tool. I mention it here at the risk of self-promotion because it seems pretty relevant.

Hard to say for sure what's "accurate", but I agree that a sloped skylight set back from the edge a bit makes logical sense.

I've learned to do it by hand (i.e. no power tools), either by taper square stock with a knife then sanding, or just sanding down a dowel. In fairness, the largest ship I've built is a topsail schooner, but doing it by hand makes sure I don't overdo it. I just put on an audio book or baseball game and work away.

I agree. Ultimately I feel these old kits tend to have alot of historical details wrong some are educated guesses but we know so much more now via the internet sharing of information. Also and I will get to this in another post but im realizing that these doughty cutters were highly modifiable. They probably started out in 1815 looking pretty much like the builder plans however by 1825 they likely had changed quite a bit looking closely like the Morris/Taney class with built up bulwarks and increased armament. I have a chart on this I will post tomorrow. 
 
BTW this is what I did tonight. Made a boxwood grating using Chucks Syren kit. Discovered using a glass nail filer to remove the burned part from the laser. It worked amazing check it out!

I've learned to do it by hand (i.e. no power tools), either by taper square stock with a knife then sanding, or just sanding down a dowel. In fairness, the largest ship I've built is a topsail schooner, but doing it by hand makes sure I don't overdo it. I just put on an audio book or baseball game and work away.

Hard to say for sure what's "accurate", but I agree that a sloped skylight set back from the edge a bit makes logical sense.

I've learned to do it by hand (i.e. no power tools), either by taper square stock with a knife then sanding, or just sanding down a dowel. In fairness, the largest ship I've built is a topsail schooner, but doing it by hand makes sure I don't overdo it. I just put on an audio book or baseball game and work away.

This is really cool; I love builds that help me learn about the ship itself. And I really appreciate the captioned photos that clearly document your steps. I'm going to try that angled plank end approach, too, seems obvious now that it's pointed out.

I've learned to do it by hand (i.e. no power tools), either by taper square stock with a knife then sanding, or just sanding down a dowel. In fairness, the largest ship I've built is a topsail schooner, but doing it by hand makes sure I don't overdo it. I just put on an audio book or baseball game and work away.

Then we have the cabin itself. The finished piece will have a thinner cover. You can see I took the shape directly out of the old Italian kit plans, that said I am wondering if the back should be widened a bit? Maybe a bit less triangular?  Also might move the top skylight window back a bit feels close to the edge? Also I'm not liking the flat skylight I'm thinking the sloped roof was probably how it was done? Also wondering how the edge of the cabin roof should be finished. I imagine historically it would have a frame. The top is supposed to be planked like the deck so itll have holly planks, maybe a cherry frame boarder? If that's the case then widening won't be necessary. Any thoughts or opinions, comments are always appreciated.

Here's a neat pic of the rudder.  The top will eventually be rounded and the edge tapered.
 
Added the beak which is a separate piece now.

Hi everyone! So going to add a few updates over the course of this weekend regarding a few different topics but first I thought I'd show more close ups of the laser parts I made. Nothing is glued together yet just fitted on the hull to see what worked and what didn't. In these pics you can see the keel and cabin are still basswood so I could gauge how they fit together and will be replaced after planking. Overall I am very happy with the margin plank in holly and the waterway in cherry also the cannon carriage parts they really worked out amazing!  The stern (again just laying on the deck flat for now) looks pretty good too I am wondering if those cleats are too thick though?