Roger Pellett

Although Beagle was at the verge of explosive shells - which made their own splinters,  it was of the kinetic ball era.  Additional sources of wood splinters on deck - not all that wise.
The boats in the waist tended to be nested.  They were wood.  They probably required having their hull planking kept wet enough that they did not desiccate enough to open their seams. 
That is not a good storage environment for loose parts and equipment.   If Beagle's task was like that of the later U.S. Ex. Ex., the primary function of the larger boats was for mapping.  The smaller ones were probably better at getting onto and off of a beach - water, food,  getting investigators on to unknown shores.
 
 

There is clearly a (small) market for Transatlantic ships. Indeed, my wife and I are going to do the QM2 crossing from Southampton to NYC just before Christmas this year as a 60th birthday bucket list thing. But, as you say, it's pretty niche, and we had no trouble finding cabins. I get it's winter (well, we depart on Dec 14, so technically fall), but a 7 day voyage with a sheltered balcony was under $1500 (US) per person. Not exactly cheap, but not bad for transportation, room, and board for a week, and it doesn't suggest that high demand is pushing up the price. Nor would I imagine going on a second crossing, so it's niche without a lot of repeats.
 
The SS United States is pretty clearly past her sell by date. If an American (or other) firm wants to muscle into Cunard's market they might as well build a completely new ship. The population that is even aware of her existence is not increasing, and while her lines are pleasing, naval architecture has advanced in the last 73 years. And anyway, the hull of a ship is the cheapest part, there is no real savings to be had reusing it, and probably a major cost penalty to make modern equipment fit into spaces it wasn't designed for. 
 
Regards,
George

Not an exact answer to your question but the US Navy’s Ordinance Instructions include a detailed inventory of equipment to be carried aboard ships’ boats.  You can find copies on the internet.  The list is quite extensive and differs for different boat types.  It also depends on how you intend to display the boats on your model.  For example, the mid Nineteenth Century US Navy did not stow a lot of equipment in boats when aboard ship.  Spars were stowed in hammock boxes atop bulwarks and sails kept below decks.  The ordinance instructions also specify the various petty officers responsible for loading particular pieces of gear prior to the boat’s launch.
 
It was also US Navy practice to designate one boat as a “lifeboat,” usually a seaworthy type; a cutter or a whaleboat.  The purpose of this boat was to recover a man overboard.  This would have been hung in davits for quick launch and equipped differently than boats stowed on board.
 
It is a common misconception that the primary use for boats stowed on board was to save the ship’s crew in the event of shipwreck.  The reality is that these boats were workboats carried to assist the ship in restricted waters and/or to extend the ship’s mission.  Unless hung in davits, launching was a major shipboard evolution not done quickly.  There was ample time to bring items needed from elsewhere in the ship.
 
Roger

Well, in a very broad sense, she has always been effectively USS.  She was conceived by Gibbs in the 1920’s but it took another 25 years or so to get her built.  This required a huge amount of congressional lobbying and justification as a high speed troop transport in time of war.  This allowed her to receive large US Government construction and operating subsidies.  Each year while operating, her owners (United States Lines) prepared a cost analysis separating operating costs associated with her troop ship features.  Most of these involved her propulsion plant.  These were paid by the government.
 
Roger

These Art Girona figures are well done.  I like Indian Army subjects and would love their Mounted Corps of Guides figure.  Maybe someday.
 
I have a simple method for mounting 54mm figures to paint:  A small block of wood glued to the bottom of the base of the figure with Duco Cement.  when the figure is done an Xacto knife or palette knife slid between the figure base and wood block separates it easily.
 
Roger
 

Micha, et all:
 
Some thoughts from a modeler who doesn’t use CAD.  CAD is not necessary for building ship models.  There are 1000’s of lovely accurate ship models built before CAD.  
 
The basic scratch ship modeling drafting task is to convert archival information into patterns that define the shape of the hull.  This information comes from a drawing, a half model, or a table of offsets.  For Nineteenth Century vessels and ships built to about 1970 hulls were not designed using simple geometric shapes.  Curves are the result of two different drafting techniques; ships curves, and splines.  Splines work by the rules for deflection of beams; a cubic equation.  Ships curves are standardized drafting tools created using different mathematical functions.  How well a particular CAD program mimics these manual drafting tools well determine the accuracy of the model.  As a Naval Architecture student a long time ago, I watched a visiting Professor from a Major Japanese university test several hull forms modeled from simple trigonometric shapes, sines, cosines, parabolas, etc. in our large towing tank.  They looked nothing like real ships.
 
All ship hull lines drawings are “faired” at one time or another.  In other words, plotted points often do not line up to allow a fair curve to be passed through.  Manual drafting requires the draftsman to use his judgement to correct this.  CAD requires either manual intervention or a mathematical algorithm.  There is therefore, no definitive example of an old ship’s hull, only different interpretations.
 
To me CAD is just another ship modeling tool.  If you enjoy working with computers and are willing to spend the $$$ and especially time to learn the program that’s fine.  On the other hand, beautiful models can be built using manual drafting techniques, or purchased plans.
 
Roger

Not an exact answer to your question but the US Navy’s Ordinance Instructions include a detailed inventory of equipment to be carried aboard ships’ boats.  You can find copies on the internet.  The list is quite extensive and differs for different boat types.  It also depends on how you intend to display the boats on your model.  For example, the mid Nineteenth Century US Navy did not stow a lot of equipment in boats when aboard ship.  Spars were stowed in hammock boxes atop bulwarks and sails kept below decks.  The ordinance instructions also specify the various petty officers responsible for loading particular pieces of gear prior to the boat’s launch.
 
It was also US Navy practice to designate one boat as a “lifeboat,” usually a seaworthy type; a cutter or a whaleboat.  The purpose of this boat was to recover a man overboard.  This would have been hung in davits for quick launch and equipped differently than boats stowed on board.
 
It is a common misconception that the primary use for boats stowed on board was to save the ship’s crew in the event of shipwreck.  The reality is that these boats were workboats carried to assist the ship in restricted waters and/or to extend the ship’s mission.  Unless hung in davits, launching was a major shipboard evolution not done quickly.  There was ample time to bring items needed from elsewhere in the ship.
 
Roger

Not an exact answer to your question but the US Navy’s Ordinance Instructions include a detailed inventory of equipment to be carried aboard ships’ boats.  You can find copies on the internet.  The list is quite extensive and differs for different boat types.  It also depends on how you intend to display the boats on your model.  For example, the mid Nineteenth Century US Navy did not stow a lot of equipment in boats when aboard ship.  Spars were stowed in hammock boxes atop bulwarks and sails kept below decks.  The ordinance instructions also specify the various petty officers responsible for loading particular pieces of gear prior to the boat’s launch.
 
It was also US Navy practice to designate one boat as a “lifeboat,” usually a seaworthy type; a cutter or a whaleboat.  The purpose of this boat was to recover a man overboard.  This would have been hung in davits for quick launch and equipped differently than boats stowed on board.
 
It is a common misconception that the primary use for boats stowed on board was to save the ship’s crew in the event of shipwreck.  The reality is that these boats were workboats carried to assist the ship in restricted waters and/or to extend the ship’s mission.  Unless hung in davits, launching was a major shipboard evolution not done quickly.  There was ample time to bring items needed from elsewhere in the ship.
 
Roger

Not an exact answer to your question but the US Navy’s Ordinance Instructions include a detailed inventory of equipment to be carried aboard ships’ boats.  You can find copies on the internet.  The list is quite extensive and differs for different boat types.  It also depends on how you intend to display the boats on your model.  For example, the mid Nineteenth Century US Navy did not stow a lot of equipment in boats when aboard ship.  Spars were stowed in hammock boxes atop bulwarks and sails kept below decks.  The ordinance instructions also specify the various petty officers responsible for loading particular pieces of gear prior to the boat’s launch.
 
It was also US Navy practice to designate one boat as a “lifeboat,” usually a seaworthy type; a cutter or a whaleboat.  The purpose of this boat was to recover a man overboard.  This would have been hung in davits for quick launch and equipped differently than boats stowed on board.
 
It is a common misconception that the primary use for boats stowed on board was to save the ship’s crew in the event of shipwreck.  The reality is that these boats were workboats carried to assist the ship in restricted waters and/or to extend the ship’s mission.  Unless hung in davits, launching was a major shipboard evolution not done quickly.  There was ample time to bring items needed from elsewhere in the ship.
 
Roger

Thank you, Mark
 
 
 Thank you, Phil
 
 I spent a large part of yesterday at the worktable. I spent way too much time for what I got accomplished due to having to reteach myself all the 1:120 tricks necessary to get the shrouds done. At the end of the day I had a whopping two shrouds in place and started on the third. Be it ever so small, it is progress.  

Work has finally started on cleaning, restoring and completing our model of the 'Duchess'. Unfortunately, the cleaning process has revealed some damage on the model - it looks like an object has been dropped across the well deck, with the gangway and the boat skids damaged (both removed at the moment) and damage to the topgallant railing on both sides - a bit of extra work I don't really need! Cleaning has also revealed some unfinished areas on the deck - holes where fittings have been removed and the holes left unplugged. I'll simply fill those as I work my way along the model completing it.  She also has all four lower masts fixed. I would have preferred them loose, as the lower fore stays of the after three masts secure to the deck right bedside the masts ahead of them, so it will be pretty tight getting the stays secured when i get that far.
 The images below show the model as she is now, except that by the time I left this afternoon more cleaning had been done.  I hope to complete the cleaning next time i'm at the museum and acrually start some work on her.
 
John
 
The model on her work table secured inside her display case - sorry about all the reflections, but there are large picture windows to the right.

 
The 'Duchess' out of her case and ready to work on.

 
Looking down on the decks. At this stage I'd finished cleaning the forecastle; down all but one cleaning run on the well deck and swept the dust off the poop.
 
 

 
 

I sliced up a substantial holly log about 30 years ago. The log was 9 inches in diameter and I cut it into 1 inch thick planks. I sealed the ends with aluminium yacht primer (because I had a tin lying around...) and stacked the planks separated with 1" pine stock for drying. The planks did distort a bit during the drying process and a mould did develop over the surface during the first year (while the sap was still wet). I also remember getting quite worried that my lovely wood would be wrecked! However, as far as I remember, once it had dried I was able to brush the dead mould off the planks. 30 years later the holly is a lovely creamy white throughout. So Im sure yours will be fine in a few months time.
 
I still have most of it left, awaiting a suitable project. The photo below shows one of the plank with a chunk taken out to make some of the finer bits of my trireme model (e.g. the Trierarchs chair https://modelshipworld.com/topic/21958-trireme-olympias-by-richard-braithwaite/page/4/ ) , where something harder and more precise than lime was needed.
Holly is just about my favorite wood for model boat making. I think the grain does a passable imitation of oak in miniature and it can be carved as fine as paper if needed.
 

These Art Girona figures are well done.  I like Indian Army subjects and would love their Mounted Corps of Guides figure.  Maybe someday.
 
I have a simple method for mounting 54mm figures to paint:  A small block of wood glued to the bottom of the base of the figure with Duco Cement.  when the figure is done an Xacto knife or palette knife slid between the figure base and wood block separates it easily.
 
Roger
 

These Art Girona figures are well done.  I like Indian Army subjects and would love their Mounted Corps of Guides figure.  Maybe someday.
 
I have a simple method for mounting 54mm figures to paint:  A small block of wood glued to the bottom of the base of the figure with Duco Cement.  when the figure is done an Xacto knife or palette knife slid between the figure base and wood block separates it easily.
 
Roger
 

These Art Girona figures are well done.  I like Indian Army subjects and would love their Mounted Corps of Guides figure.  Maybe someday.
 
I have a simple method for mounting 54mm figures to paint:  A small block of wood glued to the bottom of the base of the figure with Duco Cement.  when the figure is done an Xacto knife or palette knife slid between the figure base and wood block separates it easily.
 
Roger
 

These Art Girona figures are well done.  I like Indian Army subjects and would love their Mounted Corps of Guides figure.  Maybe someday.
 
I have a simple method for mounting 54mm figures to paint:  A small block of wood glued to the bottom of the base of the figure with Duco Cement.  when the figure is done an Xacto knife or palette knife slid between the figure base and wood block separates it easily.
 
Roger
 

Micha, et all:
 
Some thoughts from a modeler who doesn’t use CAD.  CAD is not necessary for building ship models.  There are 1000’s of lovely accurate ship models built before CAD.  
 
The basic scratch ship modeling drafting task is to convert archival information into patterns that define the shape of the hull.  This information comes from a drawing, a half model, or a table of offsets.  For Nineteenth Century vessels and ships built to about 1970 hulls were not designed using simple geometric shapes.  Curves are the result of two different drafting techniques; ships curves, and splines.  Splines work by the rules for deflection of beams; a cubic equation.  Ships curves are standardized drafting tools created using different mathematical functions.  How well a particular CAD program mimics these manual drafting tools well determine the accuracy of the model.  As a Naval Architecture student a long time ago, I watched a visiting Professor from a Major Japanese university test several hull forms modeled from simple trigonometric shapes, sines, cosines, parabolas, etc. in our large towing tank.  They looked nothing like real ships.
 
All ship hull lines drawings are “faired” at one time or another.  In other words, plotted points often do not line up to allow a fair curve to be passed through.  Manual drafting requires the draftsman to use his judgement to correct this.  CAD requires either manual intervention or a mathematical algorithm.  There is therefore, no definitive example of an old ship’s hull, only different interpretations.
 
To me CAD is just another ship modeling tool.  If you enjoy working with computers and are willing to spend the $$$ and especially time to learn the program that’s fine.  On the other hand, beautiful models can be built using manual drafting techniques, or purchased plans.
 
Roger

I have commisioned a second figure of Nelson using a new carver with more accurate facial features:
 
These are a work in progress with a little more tweaking required. The render showing Nelson on the plinth was the first. I asked, based on previous feedback, to have dowels on the bottom of the feet and holes to take the dowels in the plinth, if people want to display the figure either on the plinth, or on the deck directly.

Micha, et all:
 
Some thoughts from a modeler who doesn’t use CAD.  CAD is not necessary for building ship models.  There are 1000’s of lovely accurate ship models built before CAD.  
 
The basic scratch ship modeling drafting task is to convert archival information into patterns that define the shape of the hull.  This information comes from a drawing, a half model, or a table of offsets.  For Nineteenth Century vessels and ships built to about 1970 hulls were not designed using simple geometric shapes.  Curves are the result of two different drafting techniques; ships curves, and splines.  Splines work by the rules for deflection of beams; a cubic equation.  Ships curves are standardized drafting tools created using different mathematical functions.  How well a particular CAD program mimics these manual drafting tools well determine the accuracy of the model.  As a Naval Architecture student a long time ago, I watched a visiting Professor from a Major Japanese university test several hull forms modeled from simple trigonometric shapes, sines, cosines, parabolas, etc. in our large towing tank.  They looked nothing like real ships.
 
All ship hull lines drawings are “faired” at one time or another.  In other words, plotted points often do not line up to allow a fair curve to be passed through.  Manual drafting requires the draftsman to use his judgement to correct this.  CAD requires either manual intervention or a mathematical algorithm.  There is therefore, no definitive example of an old ship’s hull, only different interpretations.
 
To me CAD is just another ship modeling tool.  If you enjoy working with computers and are willing to spend the $$$ and especially time to learn the program that’s fine.  On the other hand, beautiful models can be built using manual drafting techniques, or purchased plans.
 
Roger

Hello Frank.
 
After working with various 3D CAD programs for nearly two decades, I think that you should first decide what the ultimate purpose and scope of using this approach will be for your projects.
 
Are you primarily intending to reconstruct and fair existing plans?
 
Is your intent to 3D print the entire hull structure and superstructure?
 
Or are you mainly interested in printing the smaller parts and otherwise creating the ship's structure out of conventional materials?
 
For validating and fairing existing ship's plans, especially those from the 19th century and earlier, I recommend the DELFTship Free software. It is a for-the-purpose naval architectural program that defaults to three standard views, provides infinitely customizable stations, waterlines, buttocks, and diagonals, and has reasonably easy-to-use modeling tools such as Gaussian and developable visualization of hull surfaces. All these features are built-in and appropriate for ship design and modeling. This is the go-to program for developing smooth, fair hull surfaces. The poor documentation for the hobbyist and nautical research modeler is its main drawback, in my opinion. Search this forum using the term "DELFTship" to take a look at some of the results by several modelers/researchers (myself included) using this program. 
 
For 3D printing large components such as the hull, deck cabins, boats, etc., you may want to check out some of the software mentioned above. I have no experience with that application.
 
For small details and relative ease of modeling, I would go with the free, open-source, full-feature Blender program. However this program has a notoriously steep learning curve. Take a look at the Blender tutorial series by BornCG on YouTube if you want to consider this route. The instructor is an excellent teacher who doesn't assume you know what the buttons do and how the multitude of program features work.
 
Sadly, most of the competent 3D programs do have that steep learning curve, so plan on spending some time figuring out ship design within the program you choose. Some of the standard 3D CAD programs are pretty clunky when attempting to create a continuously varying surface in 3-space that must conform to an existing set of plans. I can assist with DELFTship. @3DShipWright and @Martes may provide assistance with Blender. Take a look at their models, which are both accurate and very aesthetic. They are going more for illustrative results than 3D printing.
 
Terry

I have a Sherline Lathe with a milling column.  It is a well made machine. I am glad that I bought it.  The milling column fitted with Sherline’s sensitive drilling attachment is by far the best way to drill small holes with wire sized drills.  Sherline seems to have learned from the old Lionel electric train company as they also sell an endless variety of accessories.
 
Sherline lathes have one feature that I don’t like.  The usual way to turn a taper is by offsetting the tail stock, and then turning the part between centers.  The Sherline tail stock cannot be offset.  Sherline overcomes this problem by advising users to rotate the headstock.  In normal usage, the headstock is rigidly keyed to to the lathe’s bed with a spline.  With the headstock rotated, the spline must be removed and the headstock/bed joint relies on friction alone.  I have found that this is not sufficient to accept the side forces from taper turning. Sherline does offer an accessory cross slide that will supposedly turn tapers.
 
Roger

Showed your model to my wife who correctly identified it as Paddle to the Sea.  She used this book in teaching 5th grade in Southeastern Ohio many years ago.
 
Up here on Lake Superior there has been at least one classroom attempt to duplicate Paddle’s voyage with the students each launching their home built model in the Lake.  A couple were found on local beaches.  No messages yet from the St Lawrence River!
 
Roger

Thank you John / Gary.
 
It is time to start what I anticipate to be a long planking job.
 
I am starting at the bulwark. I plan to plank the hull with mahogany planks of .062" thickness by nominally .220" wide. The plank widths will obviously vary to conform with the hull shape as progress is made. The bulwark will be made from a nominally 1" wide by  .032" thick birch ply which will be clad with .032" mahogany planks as per the attached sketch.

The bitch ply cannot follow the line of the bulwark exactly without shaping so it is being put on to sit slightly above the line of the capping rail. It will be cut back to the capping rail shape later in the build.
 
I started by glueing bits of scrap wood to the frames. These position / support the plywood during gluing. Each one cut back to  conform with the shape the plywood strip wants to take.

At this stage I also did the final sanding of the hull.

Then followed the slow process of fitting the plywood strakes. They were glued in position with a ample layer of PVA wood glue.
The strakes were held in place with plenty of notice board pins and elastic bands while the glue dried.

The plywood sheet wasn't long enough to extend the full length of the hull and the stern needed separate strips.


I didn't get one to the frames right and this was revealed "too late" by the application of the bulwark strakes. I will need to correct this before I plank the bulwarks. Stupidly having noticed the mistake I the repeated it on the other side. There is no fool like an old fool.

Applying the bulwark strake to the stern was quite challenging due to the extreme curvature.

Before attaching the ply to the stern I slotted it with a series of horizontal cuts.

With a bit of fiddling this enabled it to wrap around the stern.

A bit of sanding produced an acceptable shape for subsequent planking.

That all for now folks!
 

Great work up to your usual standards, Gary!  
 
My son, his family, and a close friend all live directly in the Eclipse’s path in Indiana.  All had reactions similar to yours..
 
Roger

Just stumbled on to this.  A beautiful example of an interesting subject.
 
Roger