Dr PR

Esap, With the thin planks you are working with it will be very difficult to get much curvature across the thick dimension. It is like trying to bend a strip of paper - it will fold before it bends. There just isn't enough thickness in your 0.6 mm planks to allow much bending. I built several plank on bulkhead models years ago before the Internet and without books telling me how to do it "right." I didn't know anything about soaking, heating and bending wood. For these I just tapered the planks. After one plank was glued in place I placed another against it and marked it at each bulkhead the amount needed to be removed. Then I trimmed the plank edge with a hobby knife and sandpaper. It took two or three passes to get a good fit all along the length. I did end up with very narrow pointed planks at the bow - less that 1/3 the original plank width in some places. Where the gap between planks opened up I just cut triangular stealers to fill the gaps. I wouldn't say the results were beautiful, but I was planning to seal the wood and paint the hulls anyway. Perhaps the most important step comes with the shaping of the garboard plank - the first plank outboard the keel. If this is tapered to a point at the bow where the stem just starts curving upward you won't have to trim as much from the subsequent planks. A more elegant technique would be to trim the planks similar to what is shown in this picture from zu Mondfeld's "Historic Ship Models." I understand what you say about the planks not being wide enough to do the "hooking" as shown on the right where the hook is wider than the rest of the plank. But maybe you don't have to make it any wider than the plank and cut the notch behind the hook only half the thickness of the plank. Just taper the garboard plank to the place where the plank is half the width of the original plank width and attach it to the hull. Then taper the next plank the same way then notch it to fit over the end of the garboard plank, and so on. I confess I haven't tried this, but it seems to me it should work with either the "pointed" version (English) on the left in the picture or the "hooked" version (Dutch) on the right. And if you want to leave the wood unpainted it would be a bit more elegant than the extreme tapering i mentioned above.

Jim, The hull construction of the Cleveland class cruisers of the late 1930s and 1940s had the same complicated plating you described. Basically, the plating thickness (pounds per square foot) was thinnest high on the hull at the main deck and thickest at the keel, and thinner at bow and stern and thickest midships. To make it more interesting the bow had five vertical strakes! The plates were welded at bow and stern and riveted midships. And the overlapping pattern for strakes was very irregular. One difference is that the armor belts were bolted outside the hull plating. I think you have answered your question already. At 1:192 the thickness differences between adjacent plates is insignificant. so I wouldn't worry about it. Your design should just start with the Table of Offsets dimensions for the "molded breadth" for the inside of the plating. Then, if you have the plating blueprints that show plating weight (thickness) add this to the frame dimensions to get the external hull dimensions. This is your starting point. Now you have to make a decision. What material and thickness will be used for the actual hull exterior surface (plating)? For simplicity in model building use the same material thickness over the entire hull. With this value, just generate a parallel line to the exterior frame/section lines and cut the bulkheads to these dimensions. That way, after the hull plating is added the hull will be the correct dimensions. Because the differences in plating thickness between plates within strakes is insignificant as scale don't worry about it. A you said, where the thicknesses vary the edges of the thicker plates were ground down or beveled to reduce drag. If you want to show plating overlaps between strakes on the model there is a very simple but effective way to do this. First just make the model hull with smooth surfaces (no plating). Then use masking tape to mask off the inside plates (yes this can be quite complex). Then spray a thick coat of primer over the hull. After it has dried remove the tape. This leaves very subtle thin edges between the outer and inner strakes that is good enough for modelling purposes. Where a strake may be overlapped on one edge and then overlap the opposite adjacent strake you may have to retape at the overlapped edge and apply another coat of primer. I hope you can follow what I said, but it seems you are very familiar with the blueprints so it should make sense. Here is a link to an exquisite model of a plated hull using this technique - start at post #72: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19333-cruiser-varyag-1901-by-valeriy-v-scale-175/page/3/#comment-595525 Then go to the end of this thread to see some of the best modeling work you will ever see! I ran into one major problem when trying to create my CAD model of the USS Oklahoma City hull. The plating blueprints show a "flat" pattern for the plating overlap pattern, but do not show the elevation on the curved hull surface for the strake edges. After reading through hundreds of blueprints I came across the Table of Sight Edges in 81 blueprint pages titled "Mold Loft Offsets." These were the surveying instructions for locating the vertical position of hull plates in the framing of the ways. And the frames were added after the strakes were laid down. To see how I used this information to model the plating look here https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19321-uss-oklahoma-city-clg-5-1971-3d-cad-model/#comment-590610 or here: https://www.okieboat.com/CAD hull.html

I think the most common problem folks have in transitioning from 2D drawings to a 3D model is they re still thinking in 2D drafting table terms. 2D CAD programs are designed to replicate the 2D drafting table operations, creating a 2D image, but with an extensive set of tools to make the job easier. But for 3D drawing you have to forget what you learned for 2D work and learn to visualize the 3D structure of the object. You aren't creating a "drawing" in 3D, you are creating a virtual 3D object, and many (most?) of the tools in 3D CAD are different from 2D.. You need to understand 3D geometry. For me 3D design is more like working with a milling machine or lathe than with a pen and paper. However, in the end you may need to generate 2D drawings in the proper projections. Unless your 3D design is going directly to a CNC (computer controlled machine) you will need 2D images for the machinists. The programs I have used produce top, side and front hidden line images, and they allow you to rotate the object at any angles/perspectives and generate a hidden line drawing or a shaded image.

I have wondered about the vertical rail with pins. I suppose you could belay lines that don't get changed often to the lower pins, and more frequently used lines to the upper pins. But it does look like things could get tangled. He is supposed to have made the drawings from a period model. I do not recall having seen this arrangement anywhere else. The horizontal circular pin necklace around the main mast has a couple of issues. It could be above or below the boom, but if above it would interfere with the mast hoops if they are used. Below the boom the after most pins could not be used to belay lines coming from above. I am thinking of using a necklace near the base of the fore mast to belay some of the tackle. This would free up some pins on the fife rail. I have not decided whether it has pins or cleats.

George, Thanks for posting your spreadsheet. I had completed a preliminary belaying plan for my topsail schooner, but I am not happy with the crowding around the base of the fore mast. I will study your plan and try to come up with something better than I have now. Maybe a mast band with either pins or cleats would help.

Kieth, I really admire your work. Germania Nova is beautiful! I see you are thinking of modeling a steam yacht, and it sounds like you haven't decided on what to build. Below is a link to a modeling project for the very interesting steam yacht SS Delphine owned by Horace Dodge (Dodge Motor Company). I thought you might be interested. It is very well documented. http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=349671&start=120

Here is a link to a 1.1" quad 3D print project: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=374129 Hank might send you the files or print them for you if you ask nicely.

Valeriy, Those things look dangerous! Do you have a license to carry them?

I have seen Sparex No.2 recommended as a pre-treatment to clean non-ferrous metals, especially brass and copper, before blackening. Does this also etch the surface to give it tooth?

I don't know when the practice of raising and lowering the topmost yards and sails became common, but nearly all references I have seen talk about topsail schooners, and then only the uppermost yards and sails. Schooners had small crews and it took just a few men to raise and lower the yard and sail. Only one man was needed aloft to unfurl a square sail. Gaff sails and spar gaff sails are regularly raised and lowered from the deck with no one going aloft. To help with controlling the yard as it was raised and lowered a line (horse? Sorry I don't recall the name right now) was attached to the forward side of the mast near the top and at the base of the mast on deck. The yard was secured to the line with an eye that rode on the line and kept the yard under control. This is mentioned in several references I have. I have thought about this a lot and the yard needed only a halliard and sheets as the angle of the upper topsail/topgallant/royal (whichever was highest) was controlled by the braces of the yard below it. But still the sheets had to be run through and over all the other lines below and it must have taken an experienced crew to manage this. It is possible that the sails didn't have sheets. After the spar and furled sail were raised to just above the lower spar the clews could be rigged to the lower yard arm. Then the sail could be unfurled and the yard hauled up with the halliard. As far as square riggers are concerned, I have seen videos on YouTube showing royals being hauled to the top and being set in this method on three masted ships. As Popeye said, only light yards and sails could be handled this way.

Ian, I sympathize! Back in the early '80s another fellow and I were writing a C compiler for a new computer we were making. When I was testing the code I found something that just wasn't working right. It included some of the code the other fellow (a very experienced programmer) had written and I came to a single line with many statements concatenated using just about every operator in the language. Every time I read it I came to a different conclusion about what it was doing. So I took it to the other fellow and asked how it worked. He looked at it a while and said he had no idea what it did! After that I broke everything down into simple statements on separate lines. It made the printouts longer but was easy to understand and significantly reduced debugging time.

I have always just painted with flat black paint. This has the advantage that you can work on a few brass pieces at a time and put them in place on the wood before painting. You can't do this with blackening chemicals because they stain the wood. Paint also works equally well on bare metals of all types and on solder joints. It has the disadvantage that the paint chips off on areas that get wear (like when you are attaching rigging). I do have brass blackening chemicals and want to give it a try. I think it produces a better (and thinner) black coat and is resistant to chipping. However, if you use solder on brass parts the blackening chemicals will not blacken the solder, leaving a shiny joint that will need painting. Another disadvantage is that you need different chemicals to blacken different metals. If you produce a large number of metal parts all at the same time blackening them before installing in place is overall faster than painting the individual parts one at a time. Your title is addressed to "speedy builders" and I am not one of them. I can find time for only small modeling jobs, and I do not have everything planned in advance and all the materials prepared for mass production. So I end up making a few pieces each time, and blackening is not handy for this because of the chemical mixing, metal cleaning, etching and blackening process times. Paint is faster and easier. But if you have everything planned, all the materials on hand, and the time for mass producing all of the metal parts in advance I would recommend blackening.

Allan, In some cases instead of sending crew aloft to furl a sail high on the mast the yard is lowered to the deck to take down the sail. This can be done faster and with fewer crew, and it reduces topside weight. This was common with topgallants (or upper topsails) on topsail schooners and royals on larger square rigged ships. As I understand it the sail was bent to the spar and furled to it with ropes (gaskets) while on deck. The spar was hoisted aloft (on the lee side) by one end (vertically) and then the lower end of the spar was raised so the spar was horizontal. All the lines (lifts, braces and clues) were handled on deck. Then the gaskets were removed and the sail unfurled. This could be done by one person aloft. Also the gaff topsails on schooners were often raised and lowered on yards instead of trying to furl them aloft. Again, it required a smaller crew. The ability to lower topsails quickly was especially important on vessels with extreme sail area aloft when the wind suddenly changed. I have read several accounts of vessels capsizing when sudden squalls caught them abeam with a lot of canvas high on the masts.

There is also the question of how much rigging do you want to do, and how accurate it will be. Sailing vessels have two types of rigging, standing and running. The standing rigging is fixed in place, and rarely adjusted. It takes the forces on the masts and transfers them to the hull. It is usually dark brown or black because it is tarred to protect the ropes from the weather. Running rigging is used primarily to adjust the sails. It is light brown or tan, and runs through blocks and sheaves. Much of the running rigging is attached to the sails, so if you have no sails much/most of this rigging is not in place. Consequently the rigging can look pretty sparse. So if you intend to fully rig the model you pretty much need the sails. However some of the running rigging can be installed and belayed as if in preparation for hoisting the sails. Whether the sails are furled or not is your decision. Sailing ships rarely set every inch of canvas. Often they ran with only a few sails set. It depended upon the wind and weather. Topsails were set with light wind, but hauled in if the winds were really strong to avoid capsizing in sudden gusts. And in battle the courses (lowest and largest sails) were furled or brailed (hoisted to the yards but not tied to the yards) to clear for action. So what do you want to do?

Bill, I have read many places that you should heat the parts to be soldered and not the solder. I have always ignored this. You need to transfer heat from the soldering iron to the work, and just placing the soldering iron tip against metal will result in a relatively slow heat transfer. With brass and copper the heat will flow away from the point of contact, heating the solder area slowly and allowing the heat to spread through the metal to more distant places. This may result in unsoldering other existing solder joints. You can use heat sinks (metal clips, forecepts, wet paper towel, etc.) to protect existing joints. You want to transfer the heat rapidly. For this the tip of the soldering iron should be wet with a small drop of molten solder. This will transfer heat quickly. I usually put a small amount of solder on the tip and solder flux on the joint to be soldered (I prefer the liquid citric acid flux). Then I touch the joint with the tip and the solder flows into the joint. The liquid flux draws the solder into the joint as it evaporates. The flux dissolves metal oxides that would prevent a good solder joint. Depending upon the area to be soldered you may need to feed more solder as you move the tip along the joint. Practice will teach you how to do this. Once the solder has flowed you can pull it along the seam just by dragging the soldering iron tip along the seam. One other thing to remember - the tin in solder dissolves into brass and copper. It doesn't just flow onto the surface. Some metal flows from the brass into the solder. As a consequence, you cannot remove excess solder without leaving a solder "stain" on the metal. So plan your work carefully and apply the soldering iron to the inside of the work when possible, so any excess solder will not be visible. Use as little solder as necessary to secure the joint. If you are going to paint the part the stain doesn't matter. But it will prevent blackening the stained area with metal blackening agents.

For what it is worth, block sizes were determined by the size of the lines running through them. So if you know what size lines you are using you can figure the proper block size. When looking at historic information on line sizes remember that the dimension given is the circumference of the rope. However some more modern books, especially ship modelling books, refer to the diameter of the line. Zu Mondfeld's "Historic Ship Models" has a table of block sizes based upon line diameter on page 242. You can probably find the same information somewhere on line.

I have made additional bulkheads by tracing the two bulkheads on either side of the gap, one on top of the other, and then just sketching in lines for a new bulkhead between the to trace lines. This is just an approximation so I allow a little extra width that will be sanded away during fairing. Or you could just copy the wider bulkhead and remove the excess material during fairing. Use the technique of holding (I use rubber bands) a wood strip (like a hull plank) along the length of the hull and noting places that it is "proud" (sticks up too high). Sand these high places until the wood strip curves over the new bulkhead without a high spot - a smooth curve along the hull.

I am modelling a small schooner and I was wondering what "necessaries" they might have had. Most deck plans leave off the heads and other deck furniture, so the lack of heads doesn't mean the ship didn't have them. I think in most cases we will never know for sure unless we find an accurate model that shows the features. I did start a thread about schooner heads that has a bit more discussion if you are interested: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/29060-schooner-heads-1700s-through-1800s/?do=findComment&comment=829120

ZB, Thanks for the information about tacking the gaff topsails. I was wondering how it was done. There as been some discussion and different ideas on other threads, but the videos you posted show the process nicely.

Bob, Thanks for the comments about shellac's shelf life. I have wondered if this was just rumor. I have seen other posts from folks who have used containers of shellac that have been around for many years. Like you said, I suspect that solvent evaporation is the most serious problem, and that is easily solved by adding more ethanol. And cheap ethanol is easy to find. It is sold as 95% denatured alcohol fuel for stoves, with 5% methanol to discourage it from being ingested.

Looking great, as always! That Jackyard topsail is huge! I read in John Leather's Gaff Rig Handbook that the jackyard evolved as a means of getting around some type rules for racing. It allowed the area of the spar gaff topsail to be expanded greatly without violating the rules as written. He said some jackyard topsails had greater area than the main sail! You would have to be quick handling those things if a sudden squall blew up. It is a beautiful model!

There are other threads on the forum discussion seats of ease. Someone posted a link to the attached thesis on the subject. Seats of Ease Simmons-MA1985.pdf

I have started experimenting with shellac and I like working with it. I have both a spray can (wasteful) and flakes, both clear and dewaxed. It seals the wood nicely with a mat or satin finish that I like, and it doesn't stink. I have also painted over it with acrylics with good success. One caution about shellac. After it is mixed it has a limited shelf life of only a few months. That is why many modellers get the flakes and mix them in alcohol (95% ethanol, available cheap as a fuel) when needed. Allow a day or two for the flakes to dissolve completely. There are extensive discussions about shellac and how to mix and use it on the Forum.

I have used lead bearing solders for at least 60 years, with no "toxic" effects. Lead is toxic if you eat it - as with the early lead soldered metal food containers. And it is toxic if you drink it - as with water delivered in lead pipes or copper pipes with lead solder joints. But you have to eat or drink a lot of it. Just momentarily handling lead solders is not hazardous. Soldering does not produce hazardous lead vapors. Maybe if you handled lead or soldered for hours daily for years you might suffer toxic effects. But occasional hobby work is not going to cause problems. I do like to have adequate ventilation to remove the smoke and fumes from the fluxes used with soldering. They are probably more "dangerous" than the lead. And it is a good idea to wash your hands with soap after handling soldered pieces because brass, copper, tin and lead are all metals with possible toxic side effects. The problem with lead solders is that objects carrying lead soldered parts (electronics circuit boards, etc.) are/were being disposed of in city dumps where the lead can leach out into the water table. This is why lead bearing solders have been banned, not because they pose a direct hazard to people using them to solder things.

I have a 15 star/15 stripe flag (replica) that I was presented as part of a War of 1812 celebration at the Buffalo and Erie County Naval and Military Park in Buffalo, NY. A note that came with it said the flag was used May 1, 1795, through July 3, 1818. This would have been on Lake Erie and that area. The flag was 3x5 (actually 60 x 34 inches).