Cathead

In all fairness, many of us are able to build our models because the reverse is also true, even if husband doesn't rhyme with anything catchy. Happy spouse, happy house?

Absolutely! Happy wife, happy life. :D

The correctness of your decision on the planking is summed up beautifully in your statement: "Mrs Cathead likes it". What higher authority could there be?

She's really coming on nicely, Cathead.
 
John

Looking good, Cathead.  Your planking has me smiling....

After a week of cogitation, I decided to move forward on the hull planking using my best judgement and artistic license. Without absolute proof in any direction, I determined that THIS Bertrand's builders would do best to follow the natural line of the hull, making planking as simple as possible for the basic carpentry skills and simple raw materials available (both in real life and in this budget-constrained model).
 

 
I clamped a series of planking strips to the horizontal portion of the hull, to get spacing right, and then extended the fourth one up toward the bow in the most natural curve it would follow (above left). Marking this on the frames with a pencil, I then started cutting planks to length and installing them with wood glue and clamps. Above right, you see five strakes of planking installed. Sorry for the photo quality, this was indoors in evening. 
 

 
Here's the current bow, next to the best drawing I have from the archaeological documents (the latter flipped to match the photo's orientation). The lie of the planks clearly isn't the same, but I just couldn't figure out how to get the deck-parallel planking shown in the drawing with the geometry of the framing shown in other drawings. Not sure who's wrong; logically my bet's on me rather than the professionals, but who knows. Methods like stealers or aggressive spiling just didn't seem to match the likely approach and skill set of the folks actually building Bertrand, so I went with authentic approach if not result.
 
I actually like the sweeping curve on the model, at least from an aesthetic point of view. Also, as you'll notice, most of the bow is in fact covered by iron plating to help protect against river debris and snags, so relatively little of this will show anyway. I really appreciate all the folks who chimed in to discuss this question, and I hope my decision turns out acceptably to most viewers. Mrs. Cathead likes it, so there's that.
 
Finally, notice that on Bertrand, the planks have a scarf joint, not a butt joint. This I'm certain of, because there are photographs of it. So I did my planks the same way, although a bit simplified: Bertrand's planks have a fancy scarf with squared-off tips (look closely at the drawing), which I was not up for recreating at 1:87. So I just cut the angle all the way across and decided it was close enough. This is not, after all, an exquisite world-class museum model, just a farmer's hobby.
 
Clamping planks on this bow has been an interesting challenge. The guards, which I intentionally installed first in order to help guide planking, are also rather in the way of getting clamps down along the hull. The framing, being so close together, also makes it difficult to get clamps in. From a practical standpoint, I've been very happy with my decision to follow the easiest lie of planking, because the planks fit themselves, don't even need soaking, and require minimal clamping to stay put. This result certainly fits with the theme of building these boats the simplest way.
 

 
And here is the hull as of Saturday morning. I filled in the upper bow first, and am slowly working my way down and aft. I haven't done any filling or sanding, so any close-up look appears pretty rough. These planks are quite thin (1/32"), so I intend to do one sanding only when the whole thing is ready, and no more. But to my eyes at least, the pattern is pleasing and approximates authenticity.
 
Gonna be a busy weekend ahead, here's a fitting tune for this work: "Old Plank Road"
 

 
 
That depends on how the planking goes, but so far so good.

After a week of cogitation, I decided to move forward on the hull planking using my best judgement and artistic license. Without absolute proof in any direction, I determined that THIS Bertrand's builders would do best to follow the natural line of the hull, making planking as simple as possible for the basic carpentry skills and simple raw materials available (both in real life and in this budget-constrained model).
 

 
I clamped a series of planking strips to the horizontal portion of the hull, to get spacing right, and then extended the fourth one up toward the bow in the most natural curve it would follow (above left). Marking this on the frames with a pencil, I then started cutting planks to length and installing them with wood glue and clamps. Above right, you see five strakes of planking installed. Sorry for the photo quality, this was indoors in evening. 
 

 
Here's the current bow, next to the best drawing I have from the archaeological documents (the latter flipped to match the photo's orientation). The lie of the planks clearly isn't the same, but I just couldn't figure out how to get the deck-parallel planking shown in the drawing with the geometry of the framing shown in other drawings. Not sure who's wrong; logically my bet's on me rather than the professionals, but who knows. Methods like stealers or aggressive spiling just didn't seem to match the likely approach and skill set of the folks actually building Bertrand, so I went with authentic approach if not result.
 
I actually like the sweeping curve on the model, at least from an aesthetic point of view. Also, as you'll notice, most of the bow is in fact covered by iron plating to help protect against river debris and snags, so relatively little of this will show anyway. I really appreciate all the folks who chimed in to discuss this question, and I hope my decision turns out acceptably to most viewers. Mrs. Cathead likes it, so there's that.
 
Finally, notice that on Bertrand, the planks have a scarf joint, not a butt joint. This I'm certain of, because there are photographs of it. So I did my planks the same way, although a bit simplified: Bertrand's planks have a fancy scarf with squared-off tips (look closely at the drawing), which I was not up for recreating at 1:87. So I just cut the angle all the way across and decided it was close enough. This is not, after all, an exquisite world-class museum model, just a farmer's hobby.
 
Clamping planks on this bow has been an interesting challenge. The guards, which I intentionally installed first in order to help guide planking, are also rather in the way of getting clamps down along the hull. The framing, being so close together, also makes it difficult to get clamps in. From a practical standpoint, I've been very happy with my decision to follow the easiest lie of planking, because the planks fit themselves, don't even need soaking, and require minimal clamping to stay put. This result certainly fits with the theme of building these boats the simplest way.
 

 
And here is the hull as of Saturday morning. I filled in the upper bow first, and am slowly working my way down and aft. I haven't done any filling or sanding, so any close-up look appears pretty rough. These planks are quite thin (1/32"), so I intend to do one sanding only when the whole thing is ready, and no more. But to my eyes at least, the pattern is pleasing and approximates authenticity.
 
Gonna be a busy weekend ahead, here's a fitting tune for this work: "Old Plank Road"
 

 
 
That depends on how the planking goes, but so far so good.

After a week of cogitation, I decided to move forward on the hull planking using my best judgement and artistic license. Without absolute proof in any direction, I determined that THIS Bertrand's builders would do best to follow the natural line of the hull, making planking as simple as possible for the basic carpentry skills and simple raw materials available (both in real life and in this budget-constrained model).
 

 
I clamped a series of planking strips to the horizontal portion of the hull, to get spacing right, and then extended the fourth one up toward the bow in the most natural curve it would follow (above left). Marking this on the frames with a pencil, I then started cutting planks to length and installing them with wood glue and clamps. Above right, you see five strakes of planking installed. Sorry for the photo quality, this was indoors in evening. 
 

 
Here's the current bow, next to the best drawing I have from the archaeological documents (the latter flipped to match the photo's orientation). The lie of the planks clearly isn't the same, but I just couldn't figure out how to get the deck-parallel planking shown in the drawing with the geometry of the framing shown in other drawings. Not sure who's wrong; logically my bet's on me rather than the professionals, but who knows. Methods like stealers or aggressive spiling just didn't seem to match the likely approach and skill set of the folks actually building Bertrand, so I went with authentic approach if not result.
 
I actually like the sweeping curve on the model, at least from an aesthetic point of view. Also, as you'll notice, most of the bow is in fact covered by iron plating to help protect against river debris and snags, so relatively little of this will show anyway. I really appreciate all the folks who chimed in to discuss this question, and I hope my decision turns out acceptably to most viewers. Mrs. Cathead likes it, so there's that.
 
Finally, notice that on Bertrand, the planks have a scarf joint, not a butt joint. This I'm certain of, because there are photographs of it. So I did my planks the same way, although a bit simplified: Bertrand's planks have a fancy scarf with squared-off tips (look closely at the drawing), which I was not up for recreating at 1:87. So I just cut the angle all the way across and decided it was close enough. This is not, after all, an exquisite world-class museum model, just a farmer's hobby.
 
Clamping planks on this bow has been an interesting challenge. The guards, which I intentionally installed first in order to help guide planking, are also rather in the way of getting clamps down along the hull. The framing, being so close together, also makes it difficult to get clamps in. From a practical standpoint, I've been very happy with my decision to follow the easiest lie of planking, because the planks fit themselves, don't even need soaking, and require minimal clamping to stay put. This result certainly fits with the theme of building these boats the simplest way.
 

 
And here is the hull as of Saturday morning. I filled in the upper bow first, and am slowly working my way down and aft. I haven't done any filling or sanding, so any close-up look appears pretty rough. These planks are quite thin (1/32"), so I intend to do one sanding only when the whole thing is ready, and no more. But to my eyes at least, the pattern is pleasing and approximates authenticity.
 
Gonna be a busy weekend ahead, here's a fitting tune for this work: "Old Plank Road"
 

 
 
That depends on how the planking goes, but so far so good.

Mark, thanks for the input and hope I'm not seeming argumentative. I'm going to keep thinking it over. The obsessive part of me is actually considering building a false bow with similar configuration to test out how each approach would actually look. In the meantime, I can let it simmer while I work on the decking.
 
Speaking of which, here's another update after the weekend's work:
 
While I think about planking, I've worked on filling in structure. The deck was mildly cambered, with deck beams resting on one longitudinal bulkhead running along the keelson. So the first step was to figure out how high I wanted this bulkhead (and thus the camber), and how to keep it fairly consistent along the run of the hull, rising with the sheer of the stem and stern from the flat central portion of the hull. I wanted the camber to last all the way to the stern, but naturally peter out into a smooth surface at the stempost. This appears to be accurate based on my sources.
 
I accomplished this the way I do many projects, by careful dead reckoning. I figured out the proper bulkhead height at the center of the hull, by test-fitting various stanchion lengths with deck beams resting on top until I got something that looked right. Then I cut a stringer the length of the hull, to act as the top of the bulkhead, and began gluing it onto stanchions of equal height along the flat center portion of the hull, letting both ends float free. Once that was dry, I began carefully cutting individual stanchions to increasing lengths, inserting them under the stringer one by one while test-fitting deck beams to ensure a smooth curve. The photos above show the stern end completed; if you look carefully down the hull, you can see the bow end still floating free. Then I did the same for the bow. This center bulkhead was finished with planking on the real Bertrand, dividing the hull into separate halves, but I'm omitting that for viewing clarity.
 

 
At some point I decided I was getting tired of having the hull loose on my work bench, so spot-glued a thick beam to the bottom of the hull, where my clamp can get a good grip. Big improvement; I can now swivel the hull to any orientation I need.
 

 
With the longitudinal bulkhead properly finished, and all support stanchions glued in, I began attaching deck beams, a repetitive but fairly easy process. Below is the final result, after a lot of sanding to produce smooth curves all the way around. Interestingly, the guards (which I intended to be level) ended up a bit gull-winged in places, angling inward slightly toward the deck camber. This annoyed me, until I happened to read in one of my sources that some period boats actually did have inward-sloping guards, though it's believed Bertrand didn't. It's barely noticeable, and at least it's authentic to the period if not the exact prototype.
 

 
After I was happy with the deck beams, I moved on to preparing a few more details. I framed in the five hatches (one at left stern, and two pairs centered about 40' from the stern and just aft of the bow). I intend to leave all these open. 
 

 
I have now reached the point that I have to make a decision on how to finish the model, no more waffling. I am sticking with my original goal, despite various forays into conjecture, of finishing the port side completely, and leaving the starboard side as open-framed as possible to allow views of the internal structure. I want to be able to photograph the model from certain angles and have it look realistically complete, but have in-person viewers be able to turn it around and look inside. Thus I will have to add much, but not all, of the decking (I may use piles of cargo to hide missing decking for photography in some places).
 
With this in mind, I added one more set of details. The deck beams and guards, as installed so far, are actually half as numerous as on the real boat. I decided to leave the deck beams as-is to facilitate interior views, but to fill in the guard supports on the starboard side for more realism. This accounts for the different you may already have noticed, but which is very clear in this overhead photo. Looking closely, you can also see the framed-in deck hatches, and the doubled-up deck beams which support the boiler, about 1/3 of the length from the bow.
 

 
The boat is nearly read for some decking, and is ready for planking on the port side once I decide how I want to do it. In the meantime, here's Alison Krauss & Union Station with the feelings of all Missouri after the last two months: "Rain, Please Go Away"!
 

Kurt
 
The deck/guard extensions are, at their outer edge, vertical. The frame below any given extension is not vertical, it's angled inward at something like 45 degrees. The plank on the outside of the guards bends mostly in two directions. It does not twist inward, only around the bow's curve (horizontal) and up with the sheer (gentle longitudinal). Whereas the hull itself has a sharp inward angle toward the center of the hull, which makes the bend of the sheer plank more complex. It's the same longitudinal curve, and the same curve around the bow, but the guard plank stays vertical while the hull plank also has to make a sharp bend inward around the narrowing of the hull. Does that make sense?
 
 
I'm using thin basswood planks, which are quite flexible. I have tried soaking and bending the planks, and they do not take the curve, they still bulge outward. I realize I may not be presenting this question clearly, especially if experts feel I shouldn't be having this problem, and will try to take better photos to illustrate the exact situation. 

Kurt
 
The deck/guard extensions are, at their outer edge, vertical. The frame below any given extension is not vertical, it's angled inward at something like 45 degrees. The plank on the outside of the guards bends mostly in two directions. It does not twist inward, only around the bow's curve (horizontal) and up with the sheer (gentle longitudinal). Whereas the hull itself has a sharp inward angle toward the center of the hull, which makes the bend of the sheer plank more complex. It's the same longitudinal curve, and the same curve around the bow, but the guard plank stays vertical while the hull plank also has to make a sharp bend inward around the narrowing of the hull. Does that make sense?
 
 
I'm using thin basswood planks, which are quite flexible. I have tried soaking and bending the planks, and they do not take the curve, they still bulge outward. I realize I may not be presenting this question clearly, especially if experts feel I shouldn't be having this problem, and will try to take better photos to illustrate the exact situation. 

Mark, thanks for the input and hope I'm not seeming argumentative. I'm going to keep thinking it over. The obsessive part of me is actually considering building a false bow with similar configuration to test out how each approach would actually look. In the meantime, I can let it simmer while I work on the decking.
 
Speaking of which, here's another update after the weekend's work:
 
While I think about planking, I've worked on filling in structure. The deck was mildly cambered, with deck beams resting on one longitudinal bulkhead running along the keelson. So the first step was to figure out how high I wanted this bulkhead (and thus the camber), and how to keep it fairly consistent along the run of the hull, rising with the sheer of the stem and stern from the flat central portion of the hull. I wanted the camber to last all the way to the stern, but naturally peter out into a smooth surface at the stempost. This appears to be accurate based on my sources.
 
I accomplished this the way I do many projects, by careful dead reckoning. I figured out the proper bulkhead height at the center of the hull, by test-fitting various stanchion lengths with deck beams resting on top until I got something that looked right. Then I cut a stringer the length of the hull, to act as the top of the bulkhead, and began gluing it onto stanchions of equal height along the flat center portion of the hull, letting both ends float free. Once that was dry, I began carefully cutting individual stanchions to increasing lengths, inserting them under the stringer one by one while test-fitting deck beams to ensure a smooth curve. The photos above show the stern end completed; if you look carefully down the hull, you can see the bow end still floating free. Then I did the same for the bow. This center bulkhead was finished with planking on the real Bertrand, dividing the hull into separate halves, but I'm omitting that for viewing clarity.
 

 
At some point I decided I was getting tired of having the hull loose on my work bench, so spot-glued a thick beam to the bottom of the hull, where my clamp can get a good grip. Big improvement; I can now swivel the hull to any orientation I need.
 

 
With the longitudinal bulkhead properly finished, and all support stanchions glued in, I began attaching deck beams, a repetitive but fairly easy process. Below is the final result, after a lot of sanding to produce smooth curves all the way around. Interestingly, the guards (which I intended to be level) ended up a bit gull-winged in places, angling inward slightly toward the deck camber. This annoyed me, until I happened to read in one of my sources that some period boats actually did have inward-sloping guards, though it's believed Bertrand didn't. It's barely noticeable, and at least it's authentic to the period if not the exact prototype.
 

 
After I was happy with the deck beams, I moved on to preparing a few more details. I framed in the five hatches (one at left stern, and two pairs centered about 40' from the stern and just aft of the bow). I intend to leave all these open. 
 

 
I have now reached the point that I have to make a decision on how to finish the model, no more waffling. I am sticking with my original goal, despite various forays into conjecture, of finishing the port side completely, and leaving the starboard side as open-framed as possible to allow views of the internal structure. I want to be able to photograph the model from certain angles and have it look realistically complete, but have in-person viewers be able to turn it around and look inside. Thus I will have to add much, but not all, of the decking (I may use piles of cargo to hide missing decking for photography in some places).
 
With this in mind, I added one more set of details. The deck beams and guards, as installed so far, are actually half as numerous as on the real boat. I decided to leave the deck beams as-is to facilitate interior views, but to fill in the guard supports on the starboard side for more realism. This accounts for the different you may already have noticed, but which is very clear in this overhead photo. Looking closely, you can also see the framed-in deck hatches, and the doubled-up deck beams which support the boiler, about 1/3 of the length from the bow.
 

 
The boat is nearly read for some decking, and is ready for planking on the port side once I decide how I want to do it. In the meantime, here's Alison Krauss & Union Station with the feelings of all Missouri after the last two months: "Rain, Please Go Away"!
 

Cathead,
I had to look twice at the framing... and then at the Chaperon.   There is a big difference, isn't there.  Would you get less buckling using narrower planks?   (Yep.. tossing stuff on the wall...  ) Or would you need to do drop planks???  

When I look at the bow's shape, I would sooner think about stealers and half stealers ... though it doesn't sound logical ...

Cathead:
You have attached the plank on the outer edge of the deck extensions at the bow - a compound curve, the same as the shear plank would need to follow - if I am not mistaken.  Why can't the planking start at the shear down and be clamped in place?  How was the plank on the extensions fit to the curves?  I think that Basswood planks would follow the shear and curve of the bow if wet and bent into place.  Maybe I am missing something but it looks like you can clamp the wet plank in place with everything being open - it will take an edge bend if not too wide.  Steam bent planks are edge bent on full size craft all the time as well as spiled.
Kurt

Kurt, thanks so much for considering this! A few questions, after reviewing your photo and the instructions you linked to.
 
It appears Chaperon has little or no sheer at the bow? Bertrand has a fairly significant bow sheer, which seems to complicate the planking pattern. The deck at the stempost is almost twice as high as the deck at midships, while the hull's bottom remains flat along virtually its entire length. My understanding is, early builders mimicked ocean-going vessels in building a lot of sheer into the hull, which gradually vanished as they realized it wasn't necessary to river conditions. Bertrand is an 1864 boat, in the middle of this transition, while Chaperon is 1884.
 
From the images, it looks like Chaperon's hull/deck is much flatter, like a later boat should be, implying a lot less 3-D curvature to the sheer strake. On my hull, trying to keep the sheer strake parallel to the deck produces one heck of a bulge outward from the frames, because the strake has to sweep significantly upward while also twisting inward. On other hulls I've planked with a sheer rise like this, the frames are more convex outward rather than straight diagonal, accommodating the necessary twist to the plank. 
 
The Chaperon images look like the sheer strake is just bending in two dimensions, and the instructions also imply that the plank should lie naturally along the sheer. That is just not the case with this hull, whether it's how Bertrand was actually built or whether I somehow framed the bow in wrong. I don't think it's the latter; looking at Chaperon's bulkheads it has the same basic straight diagonal framing as Bertrand, it's just that the latter has so much more sheer to complicate the situation. But as it's my first try at a hull like this, anything's possible. Regardless, I ain't startin' over!
 
I agree that the stern won't be a problem, I've already test-fitted planks there without concern. The sheer is less severe and there's way less of an inward curve. Also, I won't be planking the underside of the hull, to increase interior visibility, so it's just the port side I have to get right.
 
So the question remains, was Chaperon's hull as flat as it seems, and was that why the planking was simpler? I've also looked at a really nice build of the USS Cairo, a river gunboat from the same period, which suggested earlier in this build and which appears to have the same diagonal framing. However, that build log doesn't show ANY photos of the hull planking, and it also appears to have very little bow sheer.
 
I really wish I could show a few of you this in person, it's really hard to describe in words and I wonder if I'm explaining it properly? 

Mark, thanks for the input and hope I'm not seeming argumentative. I'm going to keep thinking it over. The obsessive part of me is actually considering building a false bow with similar configuration to test out how each approach would actually look. In the meantime, I can let it simmer while I work on the decking.
 
Speaking of which, here's another update after the weekend's work:
 
While I think about planking, I've worked on filling in structure. The deck was mildly cambered, with deck beams resting on one longitudinal bulkhead running along the keelson. So the first step was to figure out how high I wanted this bulkhead (and thus the camber), and how to keep it fairly consistent along the run of the hull, rising with the sheer of the stem and stern from the flat central portion of the hull. I wanted the camber to last all the way to the stern, but naturally peter out into a smooth surface at the stempost. This appears to be accurate based on my sources.
 
I accomplished this the way I do many projects, by careful dead reckoning. I figured out the proper bulkhead height at the center of the hull, by test-fitting various stanchion lengths with deck beams resting on top until I got something that looked right. Then I cut a stringer the length of the hull, to act as the top of the bulkhead, and began gluing it onto stanchions of equal height along the flat center portion of the hull, letting both ends float free. Once that was dry, I began carefully cutting individual stanchions to increasing lengths, inserting them under the stringer one by one while test-fitting deck beams to ensure a smooth curve. The photos above show the stern end completed; if you look carefully down the hull, you can see the bow end still floating free. Then I did the same for the bow. This center bulkhead was finished with planking on the real Bertrand, dividing the hull into separate halves, but I'm omitting that for viewing clarity.
 

 
At some point I decided I was getting tired of having the hull loose on my work bench, so spot-glued a thick beam to the bottom of the hull, where my clamp can get a good grip. Big improvement; I can now swivel the hull to any orientation I need.
 

 
With the longitudinal bulkhead properly finished, and all support stanchions glued in, I began attaching deck beams, a repetitive but fairly easy process. Below is the final result, after a lot of sanding to produce smooth curves all the way around. Interestingly, the guards (which I intended to be level) ended up a bit gull-winged in places, angling inward slightly toward the deck camber. This annoyed me, until I happened to read in one of my sources that some period boats actually did have inward-sloping guards, though it's believed Bertrand didn't. It's barely noticeable, and at least it's authentic to the period if not the exact prototype.
 

 
After I was happy with the deck beams, I moved on to preparing a few more details. I framed in the five hatches (one at left stern, and two pairs centered about 40' from the stern and just aft of the bow). I intend to leave all these open. 
 

 
I have now reached the point that I have to make a decision on how to finish the model, no more waffling. I am sticking with my original goal, despite various forays into conjecture, of finishing the port side completely, and leaving the starboard side as open-framed as possible to allow views of the internal structure. I want to be able to photograph the model from certain angles and have it look realistically complete, but have in-person viewers be able to turn it around and look inside. Thus I will have to add much, but not all, of the decking (I may use piles of cargo to hide missing decking for photography in some places).
 
With this in mind, I added one more set of details. The deck beams and guards, as installed so far, are actually half as numerous as on the real boat. I decided to leave the deck beams as-is to facilitate interior views, but to fill in the guard supports on the starboard side for more realism. This accounts for the different you may already have noticed, but which is very clear in this overhead photo. Looking closely, you can also see the framed-in deck hatches, and the doubled-up deck beams which support the boiler, about 1/3 of the length from the bow.
 

 
The boat is nearly read for some decking, and is ready for planking on the port side once I decide how I want to do it. In the meantime, here's Alison Krauss & Union Station with the feelings of all Missouri after the last two months: "Rain, Please Go Away"!
 

Mark, thanks for the input and hope I'm not seeming argumentative. I'm going to keep thinking it over. The obsessive part of me is actually considering building a false bow with similar configuration to test out how each approach would actually look. In the meantime, I can let it simmer while I work on the decking.
 
Speaking of which, here's another update after the weekend's work:
 
While I think about planking, I've worked on filling in structure. The deck was mildly cambered, with deck beams resting on one longitudinal bulkhead running along the keelson. So the first step was to figure out how high I wanted this bulkhead (and thus the camber), and how to keep it fairly consistent along the run of the hull, rising with the sheer of the stem and stern from the flat central portion of the hull. I wanted the camber to last all the way to the stern, but naturally peter out into a smooth surface at the stempost. This appears to be accurate based on my sources.
 
I accomplished this the way I do many projects, by careful dead reckoning. I figured out the proper bulkhead height at the center of the hull, by test-fitting various stanchion lengths with deck beams resting on top until I got something that looked right. Then I cut a stringer the length of the hull, to act as the top of the bulkhead, and began gluing it onto stanchions of equal height along the flat center portion of the hull, letting both ends float free. Once that was dry, I began carefully cutting individual stanchions to increasing lengths, inserting them under the stringer one by one while test-fitting deck beams to ensure a smooth curve. The photos above show the stern end completed; if you look carefully down the hull, you can see the bow end still floating free. Then I did the same for the bow. This center bulkhead was finished with planking on the real Bertrand, dividing the hull into separate halves, but I'm omitting that for viewing clarity.
 

 
At some point I decided I was getting tired of having the hull loose on my work bench, so spot-glued a thick beam to the bottom of the hull, where my clamp can get a good grip. Big improvement; I can now swivel the hull to any orientation I need.
 

 
With the longitudinal bulkhead properly finished, and all support stanchions glued in, I began attaching deck beams, a repetitive but fairly easy process. Below is the final result, after a lot of sanding to produce smooth curves all the way around. Interestingly, the guards (which I intended to be level) ended up a bit gull-winged in places, angling inward slightly toward the deck camber. This annoyed me, until I happened to read in one of my sources that some period boats actually did have inward-sloping guards, though it's believed Bertrand didn't. It's barely noticeable, and at least it's authentic to the period if not the exact prototype.
 

 
After I was happy with the deck beams, I moved on to preparing a few more details. I framed in the five hatches (one at left stern, and two pairs centered about 40' from the stern and just aft of the bow). I intend to leave all these open. 
 

 
I have now reached the point that I have to make a decision on how to finish the model, no more waffling. I am sticking with my original goal, despite various forays into conjecture, of finishing the port side completely, and leaving the starboard side as open-framed as possible to allow views of the internal structure. I want to be able to photograph the model from certain angles and have it look realistically complete, but have in-person viewers be able to turn it around and look inside. Thus I will have to add much, but not all, of the decking (I may use piles of cargo to hide missing decking for photography in some places).
 
With this in mind, I added one more set of details. The deck beams and guards, as installed so far, are actually half as numerous as on the real boat. I decided to leave the deck beams as-is to facilitate interior views, but to fill in the guard supports on the starboard side for more realism. This accounts for the different you may already have noticed, but which is very clear in this overhead photo. Looking closely, you can also see the framed-in deck hatches, and the doubled-up deck beams which support the boiler, about 1/3 of the length from the bow.
 

 
The boat is nearly read for some decking, and is ready for planking on the port side once I decide how I want to do it. In the meantime, here's Alison Krauss & Union Station with the feelings of all Missouri after the last two months: "Rain, Please Go Away"!
 

Kurt, thanks so much for considering this! A few questions, after reviewing your photo and the instructions you linked to.
 
It appears Chaperon has little or no sheer at the bow? Bertrand has a fairly significant bow sheer, which seems to complicate the planking pattern. The deck at the stempost is almost twice as high as the deck at midships, while the hull's bottom remains flat along virtually its entire length. My understanding is, early builders mimicked ocean-going vessels in building a lot of sheer into the hull, which gradually vanished as they realized it wasn't necessary to river conditions. Bertrand is an 1864 boat, in the middle of this transition, while Chaperon is 1884.
 
From the images, it looks like Chaperon's hull/deck is much flatter, like a later boat should be, implying a lot less 3-D curvature to the sheer strake. On my hull, trying to keep the sheer strake parallel to the deck produces one heck of a bulge outward from the frames, because the strake has to sweep significantly upward while also twisting inward. On other hulls I've planked with a sheer rise like this, the frames are more convex outward rather than straight diagonal, accommodating the necessary twist to the plank. 
 
The Chaperon images look like the sheer strake is just bending in two dimensions, and the instructions also imply that the plank should lie naturally along the sheer. That is just not the case with this hull, whether it's how Bertrand was actually built or whether I somehow framed the bow in wrong. I don't think it's the latter; looking at Chaperon's bulkheads it has the same basic straight diagonal framing as Bertrand, it's just that the latter has so much more sheer to complicate the situation. But as it's my first try at a hull like this, anything's possible. Regardless, I ain't startin' over!
 
I agree that the stern won't be a problem, I've already test-fitted planks there without concern. The sheer is less severe and there's way less of an inward curve. Also, I won't be planking the underside of the hull, to increase interior visibility, so it's just the port side I have to get right.
 
So the question remains, was Chaperon's hull as flat as it seems, and was that why the planking was simpler? I've also looked at a really nice build of the USS Cairo, a river gunboat from the same period, which suggested earlier in this build and which appears to have the same diagonal framing. However, that build log doesn't show ANY photos of the hull planking, and it also appears to have very little bow sheer.
 
I really wish I could show a few of you this in person, it's really hard to describe in words and I wonder if I'm explaining it properly? 

The frameing looks really impressive, very nice work

Good work on the hull, it looks like there are more pieces of wood in this hull than there are in most complete boats.
 
Bob

Cathead:
I don't have the time to consult my historic photographs of steamboat hulls under construction - actually if they were more accessible I could make the time - It's digging them out of storage that is the problem - but I don't think you have a problem.
 
I built the Chaperon kit from Model Shipways some time ago and the planking was very straight forward with very little spiling needed.  I have attached a photo of the Chaperon under construction.
 
Starting at the shear, wet the plank and clamp it in place to dry and then follow the shear down to the turn of the bilge as I did.  The kit provided wide planks for the bottom and I used them as the model is mounted w/o the underside being visible.
 
I didn't take photos of the stern area but it was just as easy - like somebody here said, these guys were not master shipwrights - so they did things the easy way.
 
Check the instructions for the Chaperon from Model Expo's web site - page 6 has color photos of the entire planking process.
http://www.modelexpo-online.com/images/docs/MS2190/MS2190-Chaperon-Intructions-WEB.pdf
 
I hope this helps,
Kurt
 

Mark, thanks for the input and hope I'm not seeming argumentative. I'm going to keep thinking it over. The obsessive part of me is actually considering building a false bow with similar configuration to test out how each approach would actually look. In the meantime, I can let it simmer while I work on the decking.
 
Speaking of which, here's another update after the weekend's work:
 
While I think about planking, I've worked on filling in structure. The deck was mildly cambered, with deck beams resting on one longitudinal bulkhead running along the keelson. So the first step was to figure out how high I wanted this bulkhead (and thus the camber), and how to keep it fairly consistent along the run of the hull, rising with the sheer of the stem and stern from the flat central portion of the hull. I wanted the camber to last all the way to the stern, but naturally peter out into a smooth surface at the stempost. This appears to be accurate based on my sources.
 
I accomplished this the way I do many projects, by careful dead reckoning. I figured out the proper bulkhead height at the center of the hull, by test-fitting various stanchion lengths with deck beams resting on top until I got something that looked right. Then I cut a stringer the length of the hull, to act as the top of the bulkhead, and began gluing it onto stanchions of equal height along the flat center portion of the hull, letting both ends float free. Once that was dry, I began carefully cutting individual stanchions to increasing lengths, inserting them under the stringer one by one while test-fitting deck beams to ensure a smooth curve. The photos above show the stern end completed; if you look carefully down the hull, you can see the bow end still floating free. Then I did the same for the bow. This center bulkhead was finished with planking on the real Bertrand, dividing the hull into separate halves, but I'm omitting that for viewing clarity.
 

 
At some point I decided I was getting tired of having the hull loose on my work bench, so spot-glued a thick beam to the bottom of the hull, where my clamp can get a good grip. Big improvement; I can now swivel the hull to any orientation I need.
 

 
With the longitudinal bulkhead properly finished, and all support stanchions glued in, I began attaching deck beams, a repetitive but fairly easy process. Below is the final result, after a lot of sanding to produce smooth curves all the way around. Interestingly, the guards (which I intended to be level) ended up a bit gull-winged in places, angling inward slightly toward the deck camber. This annoyed me, until I happened to read in one of my sources that some period boats actually did have inward-sloping guards, though it's believed Bertrand didn't. It's barely noticeable, and at least it's authentic to the period if not the exact prototype.
 

 
After I was happy with the deck beams, I moved on to preparing a few more details. I framed in the five hatches (one at left stern, and two pairs centered about 40' from the stern and just aft of the bow). I intend to leave all these open. 
 

 
I have now reached the point that I have to make a decision on how to finish the model, no more waffling. I am sticking with my original goal, despite various forays into conjecture, of finishing the port side completely, and leaving the starboard side as open-framed as possible to allow views of the internal structure. I want to be able to photograph the model from certain angles and have it look realistically complete, but have in-person viewers be able to turn it around and look inside. Thus I will have to add much, but not all, of the decking (I may use piles of cargo to hide missing decking for photography in some places).
 
With this in mind, I added one more set of details. The deck beams and guards, as installed so far, are actually half as numerous as on the real boat. I decided to leave the deck beams as-is to facilitate interior views, but to fill in the guard supports on the starboard side for more realism. This accounts for the different you may already have noticed, but which is very clear in this overhead photo. Looking closely, you can also see the framed-in deck hatches, and the doubled-up deck beams which support the boiler, about 1/3 of the length from the bow.
 

 
The boat is nearly read for some decking, and is ready for planking on the port side once I decide how I want to do it. In the meantime, here's Alison Krauss & Union Station with the feelings of all Missouri after the last two months: "Rain, Please Go Away"!
 

Mark, thanks for the input and hope I'm not seeming argumentative. I'm going to keep thinking it over. The obsessive part of me is actually considering building a false bow with similar configuration to test out how each approach would actually look. In the meantime, I can let it simmer while I work on the decking.
 
Speaking of which, here's another update after the weekend's work:
 
While I think about planking, I've worked on filling in structure. The deck was mildly cambered, with deck beams resting on one longitudinal bulkhead running along the keelson. So the first step was to figure out how high I wanted this bulkhead (and thus the camber), and how to keep it fairly consistent along the run of the hull, rising with the sheer of the stem and stern from the flat central portion of the hull. I wanted the camber to last all the way to the stern, but naturally peter out into a smooth surface at the stempost. This appears to be accurate based on my sources.
 
I accomplished this the way I do many projects, by careful dead reckoning. I figured out the proper bulkhead height at the center of the hull, by test-fitting various stanchion lengths with deck beams resting on top until I got something that looked right. Then I cut a stringer the length of the hull, to act as the top of the bulkhead, and began gluing it onto stanchions of equal height along the flat center portion of the hull, letting both ends float free. Once that was dry, I began carefully cutting individual stanchions to increasing lengths, inserting them under the stringer one by one while test-fitting deck beams to ensure a smooth curve. The photos above show the stern end completed; if you look carefully down the hull, you can see the bow end still floating free. Then I did the same for the bow. This center bulkhead was finished with planking on the real Bertrand, dividing the hull into separate halves, but I'm omitting that for viewing clarity.
 

 
At some point I decided I was getting tired of having the hull loose on my work bench, so spot-glued a thick beam to the bottom of the hull, where my clamp can get a good grip. Big improvement; I can now swivel the hull to any orientation I need.
 

 
With the longitudinal bulkhead properly finished, and all support stanchions glued in, I began attaching deck beams, a repetitive but fairly easy process. Below is the final result, after a lot of sanding to produce smooth curves all the way around. Interestingly, the guards (which I intended to be level) ended up a bit gull-winged in places, angling inward slightly toward the deck camber. This annoyed me, until I happened to read in one of my sources that some period boats actually did have inward-sloping guards, though it's believed Bertrand didn't. It's barely noticeable, and at least it's authentic to the period if not the exact prototype.
 

 
After I was happy with the deck beams, I moved on to preparing a few more details. I framed in the five hatches (one at left stern, and two pairs centered about 40' from the stern and just aft of the bow). I intend to leave all these open. 
 

 
I have now reached the point that I have to make a decision on how to finish the model, no more waffling. I am sticking with my original goal, despite various forays into conjecture, of finishing the port side completely, and leaving the starboard side as open-framed as possible to allow views of the internal structure. I want to be able to photograph the model from certain angles and have it look realistically complete, but have in-person viewers be able to turn it around and look inside. Thus I will have to add much, but not all, of the decking (I may use piles of cargo to hide missing decking for photography in some places).
 
With this in mind, I added one more set of details. The deck beams and guards, as installed so far, are actually half as numerous as on the real boat. I decided to leave the deck beams as-is to facilitate interior views, but to fill in the guard supports on the starboard side for more realism. This accounts for the different you may already have noticed, but which is very clear in this overhead photo. Looking closely, you can also see the framed-in deck hatches, and the doubled-up deck beams which support the boiler, about 1/3 of the length from the bow.
 

 
The boat is nearly read for some decking, and is ready for planking on the port side once I decide how I want to do it. In the meantime, here's Alison Krauss & Union Station with the feelings of all Missouri after the last two months: "Rain, Please Go Away"!
 

Verrrrry nice indeed, Cathead!
 
John