Dr PR

Roger, Good point! Kit anchors are rarely to scale - they are just what the manufacturer has on hand in an approximate size. Also, Steve's Dallas kit anchor is an iron shank type where the iron stock can be slipped through the hole in the shank and folded beside the shank. When did this type of anchor come into use? Mondfeld's Historic Ship Models (page 186) shows the Admiralty pattern from 1840 and Trotman's anchor from 1850. I looked in other references and could find no earlier references for this type anchor. The small revenue cutters were built early in the 1800s, probably before this type anchor was introduced. For small vessels the anchor was probably stowed on deck lashed to bitts or timberheads.

BB, You are quite correct. Sorry I misunderstood you. I do use a rail for what I would call extreme macro photography. This is a Nikon two rail bellows unit. It is very sturdy. The older manual 105 mm macro lens is attached to the front of the bellows unit and the camera body is attached to the rear - using an extension tube here because the hand hold projection on the digital camera body would otherwise contact the bellows unit frame (the modern digital camera body and ancient film camera bellows unit weren't designed to work together). Because there is no communication between the camera and lens a manual diaphragm control (between bellows frame and lens) and cable are necessary. The lens diaphragm is adjusted manually. The camera body is set to Manual mode (which I always use anyway). This assembly allows the compensating focus/ frame control you are talking about. But the primary use for the bellows is high magnification macro photography. As shown here it allows the distance between the camera and lens to be varied. The greater the distance the higher the magnification. The macro lens produces a 1:1 scale (life size) image on the photo element (most lenses create approximately 1:4 scale images, or 1/4 life size). This is called the reproduction ratio. With the bellows fully extended I have produced 5:1 scale images (5 times life size) on the photo element. It is useful for very tiny flowers (1/8 inch or 3 mm and smaller). However, such large magnifications aren't necessary for photographing ship models where the life size object is many times larger than the photo element. For whole model pictures I use a f 2.8 16 to 80 mm zoom lens (0.25 x reproduction ratio) that will focus to about 14 inches (350 mm) from the film plane (about 9 inches or 229 mm from the end of the lens). For smaller parts of the model I just use the newer automatic 105 mm macro lens (1:1 reproduction ratio) that will focus to 12 inches (314 mm) from the film plane (about 5.75 inches or 146 mm) in front of the lens). In both cases I just mount the camera on a sturdy tripod and adjust the focal point with the lens without moving the camera body. This is a lot easier and simpler than messing with the rails. The picture in my post above looking down the deck of the model was made this way.

I agree. We were told to not lean on the life lines (chains between stanchions). Life rails (pipes) were likewise not to be trusted. Both served to mark the edges of decks at night and provide something to hang on to when the deck was pitching and rolling. In the case of the revenue cutter model the stanchions appear to be oversized and probably strong enough to support the anchor under "normal" conditions. But I doubt that the anchor was attached to the real stanchions on these small vessels if they were going into any rough seas or high winds.

That might work iff the camera was mounted on a rail and could be moved in a perfectly straight line to and from the desired image center. However, I can't see any advantage to doing that over just keeping the camera in a fixed position and changing the focus point of the lens. If you change the distance of the camera to the object being focused the image of the object will change size in the images relative to other objects. Also, the relative angles from the focal plane to objects will change. Either effect will cause problems with focus stacking. Any slight side to side or up and down motion (camera or object) will play havoc with the stacking software - I speak from lots of experience shooting photos of wildflowers where wind can change the relative position of the flower in successive photos. It changes the view angle, so objects that are hidden by closer objects in one photo will be "unhidden" in subsequent photos. Even if these things are out of focus they will appear in the photo because there is no matching in focus image in other pictures. If the camera moves all bets are off what the software will do, but most often artifact I see are multiple images side by side of the same object. If this problem isn't too bad it can be corrected by editing the picture. But you really have to want the photo to spend that much time on it! Here is a recent focus stacked image made from twelve pictures. The camera was fixed on a tripod and the lens was focused successively from the closest object to the more distant. Each image was 6000x4000 pixels, but successive photos captured slightly larger or smaller areas of the model due to changing the distance to the focus point. The images were first aligned, which stretches "smaller" images or shrinks "larger" images so the images of individual objects are the same size in all photos. Then the images were stacked. The image was slightly cropped to remove the blurry edges that result when one image area is larger than another and there are no matching in focus objects in the surrounding part of the larger images. The main problem I see is a result of the way the software decides what is in focus and what is not. An example is the prominent vertical fish tackle rope in the foreground. It is in focus in closer images, but the edge of the deck house in the background was out of focus in those images. The deck house was sharply focused in the distant images where the fish tackle was out of focus. When the images were stacked the deck house edge was out of focus for a short distance on either side of the rope. The software chose the blurry edges near the rope instead of the sharp edges of the deck house. I cleaned this up by editing the image. If the camera had moved vertically or horizontally (or both) there would be multiple edges for every object running from near to far in the picture. It would be a real mass to try to clean up with editing.

Jim, I have that book and I am sure that is where I saw the mechanisms for releasing the stopper to drop the anchor. However, I suspect that mechanism came into use in the later part of the 1800s or early 1900s. Most of the books I have read about late 1700s and early 1800s ships just say the loose end of the stopper was "secured to a cleat." But if the weight of the anchor was pulling on the stopper it would not have been easy to get the rope off of the cleat! I think I have seen a sketch of a stopper with an eye spliced into the loose end, and the eye was hooked over a pin on the bulwark or cathead. To drop the anchor the pin was pulled out. However, I have no idea where (or if) I saw that.

Steve, I think that would not work in heavy seas or when the ship heeled over in strong winds. The anchor can rotate around the single attachment point and could easily fall overboard. The ring at the top of the anchor could be secured to the first stanchion and the junction of the shank and arms (crown at the bottom) lashed to the second stanchion. These small revenue cutters were designed to operate close to shore and didn't spend a lot of time out at sea. If a storm came up they would head back into harbor. Still, it would be bad if the anchor slipped over the side when you weren't expecting it, so securing it with two ropes (the stopper on the ring and shank painter on the crown) would be cheap insurance. If the vessel was just going out on a short one day mission they would have left the anchor cable secured to the anchor. But I have seen several references that said the anchors on some schooners were hauled back and stowed below the main hatch. Probably on ocean-going vessels that would be at sea for many days. Because the ship doesn't have catheads the anchor would be raised and lowered with the fore mast tackle - the strong cargo handling tackle.

George, Lees describes the method I have shown for the main anchors, but he also says the other anchors were brought in with the mast tackle. Lever describes several ways to haul in an anchor, including hooking the fish tackle to the block on the mast tackle. Maybe I did take liberty calling the short rope a "messenger" but I didn't know what else to call it. It serves the same function as a messenger. The term messenger usually refers to a rope loop that runs around a capstan and through a block on the bow. The anchor cable is attached to it with nippers or a jigger (Lever page 109). Druxy, I have seen it depicted several ways. I think it was Chapelle who said the fish hook was first hooked to the anchor ring when it broke the surface and the mast tackle was used to lift the anchor ring up to the cat stopper. But I think this was on vessels (fishing schooners) that had a cathead but no cat tackle. Then the fish hook was taken from the anchor ring and hooked around something at the crown end to raise the crown. Lees (Masting and Rigging English Ships of War, page 128) shows it hooked to the flukes. Chapelle (The American Fishing Schooner, page 321 Anchor Gear (notes)) says the hook was used to catch an anchor fluke. A problem with just getting the hook around the shank of the anchor when it is hanging vertically under the cathead is that the hook can slide along the entire length of the shank to the top. They needed to get the hook around an arm in order to raise the lower part of the anchor (crown) up so the shank was more or less horizontal. If the hook was around an arm it would slide up until it caught on the fluke. At least that is the way I imagine it. I find these discussions about how things were (might have been) done to be as interesting as building the model itself. It took me 14 years to create my CAD model of the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 because most of that time was spent digging up tech manuals, data sheets, blueprints, etc., and discussing things with other sailors who served on the ship. I have been working on the Albatross deck fittings for four years this month! Good thing I am not in a hurry. Or as I saw on a postcard back in the '70s: Maybe it is a good thing I am moving slowly because I might be going in the wrong direction! John, Thanks! As I have said many times, there is a lot of guesswork in figuring out how things were done centuries ago. Back then there were a lot of details that weren't written down because everyone already knew them!

Henry, I too have read something about a quick release for the anchor stopper for dropping the anchor. And I cannot remember where either!

See this link for a model implementation of this anchor retrieval method: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=1015509

And now for something entirely different ... Some time back there was a discussion on the Forum about anchor handling on small ships that did not have a capstan or windless. https://modelshipworld.com/topic/27410-small-ship-anchor-handling/?do=findComment&comment=787942 You don't see fishing the anchor depicted on many models (bringing the anchor up to the rail when retrieving it is called "fishing" the anchor), so I decided to try to implement the strategy on this model. Remember that some of this is speculative, but it does follow what several references say was done. First there is the anchor itself. I assembled this piece back in the 1980s when I started this build. The metal part appears to be a lead casting, and it had prominent mold seams. I filed it down to eliminate the seams, and it was shiny lead color. Now 35 years later it has developed a nice dull metallic look. The stock and ring are what came with the kit. The anchor cable is attached to the ring with a fisherman's bend which Marquardt says was used with smaller anchors. While this one was relatively large, a vessel this size would have a "smaller" anchor. Whether the fisherman's bend was correct for this one I am not sure, but that's what I used. The next part of this anchor retrieval method was the "nipper." Lever says the anchor cable was lashed to a messenger cable with nippers. The picture shows how this was done - the nipper is the small line that loops around both messenger and cable. The messenger is the part that was actually hauled upon, pulling the larger anchor cable with it to lift the anchor. On ships with capstans or winches the messenger was pulled by these. But when a vessel had neither a tackle was used to pull the messenger. In this case the messenger was just a short piece of rope with an eye spliced in one end for the hook of a block to fasten to. For this job I used my "Quad Hands" mechanism. I bought this a year or two ago after seeing one in another post on the Forum. It looked like it would come in handy when there were a lot of loose ends to manage. I have been using a simple two arm unit mostly, but here I had to pull the anchor cable taut while wrapping the nipper line around the cable first, then the cable and messenger, and finally the messenger only (six ends). I keep a bottle cap with a drop of white glue handy, and occasionally apply a small drop of glue on the windings with a needle point to prevent everything from unwinding. And the tweezers are essential tools for this kind of work. Here is the anchor and cable with two messengers and nippers in place. The next part of the puzzle is the fish boom and fish tackle. The boom is a small portable pole with a sheave in the outboard end and a hook on the inboard end. The hook catches an eye bolt in the deck to secure that end. The fish tackle runs over the sheave. The fish tackle is a rope with the fish hook spliced into one end and an eye in the other. The real thing would have a thimble in the eye, but fashioning a 0.020 inch (0.5 mm) thimble is just a bit too much of a challenge (I used white glue to stiffen it). Here you see the fish tackle in use. The hook catches on the flukes of the anchor while it is hanging from the anchor cable. The eye on the fish tackle is hooked onto the fore tackle. This heavy lifting cargo rig is used to raise the anchor. The fish boom guides the crown end of the anchor outboard of the hull. Here the head of the anchor has been "catted" up to the cathead with the cat tackle, but the tackle is still attached. After the anchor is hauled up a stopper rope or chain (not shown) is looped through the anchor ring to support the head end and the cat tackle is unhooked from the ring. In this model two retrieving or in-haul tackles made of double sheave blocks are used to haul on the messengers. One is hooked to a ring bolt just aft of the hatch (normally used to rotate the pivot gun). It has been drawn back to pull the nipper almost to the hatch. The second tackle hooks to a runner line with an eye in one end and a hook on the other that is attached to another ring bolt in the deck (or any other secure hold). The second tackle is run out to the forward messenger. While it is being hauled in the first tackle will be unhooked and run out again, and the messenger will be untied from the cable and moved forward again to receive the first tackle, and so on. Here is a view from the bow showing all of the parts of this anchor retrieval rig. Note that the falls for the cat tackle and retrieval tackles are secured to whatever stout attachments that are handy. This is a temporary setup so the ropes are not belayed in a more secure fashion. Since the anchor is hanging from the cat tackle the strain is relieved from the in-haul tackle. A "shank painter" rope or chain would be looped around the crown of the anchor and secured to timber heads or cleats on the bulwark. Then the fish tackle would be unhooked and it and the fish boom would be stowed. The stopper would be attached to the anchor ring to take the weight of the anchor head and the cat tackle would be unhooked. The anchor was stowed to the rail as shown in earlier photos of the starboard side anchor. https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=1011922 Normally on long voyages the anchor cable would be detached from the anchor and the cable would be stowed in the cable tier below the main hatch. All of the parts shown here are documented in period publications like Darcy Lever's "The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor" (1808). Marquardt's "The Global Schooner" shows similar rigs for schooners. But the places I have shown the retrieval tackle and falls to be belayed is just speculation. I think this may be the last "deck work" that has to be done before starting the rigging of the mast and sails. But I still need to build the ship's boat and hang it from the davits on the stern. That is a separate modelling project in itself!

I have a little more progress to report. I have been checking for "last minute" details to finish before I dive into rigging the masts. Every time I check again I find some other small detail that will be easier to install before the masts are rigged. If you have been modeling long you will appreciate the messy details. First I installed the boom sheet tackle blocks on the boom. Each block is stropped and secured to the boom separately. No problems here. Then I installed the foot ropes (also called "horses" in some books) on the outboard end of the boom. It was a simple task, but I had problems getting the knots on the two ropes to line up closely. One knot was a bit out of position, and I needed a needle to open it so I could move it. I went to the cabinet to get my sewing kit, and it wasn't there. After searching the house for the misplaced kit for thirty minutes, I found it where I left it after getting a spool of thread to use on the model! All I wanted to do was finish a simple modeling task and it turned into an annoying delay! Here is a photo showing how the thumb cleats on the boom are used. The two on top hold the boom sheet tackle in place. The two on the sides secure the inboard end of the foot ropes. The books show these foot ropes but don't say much about them. This is how these ropes are rigged on the Lady Washington. I am assuming (unjustifiably) not much has changed in the last two centuries to justify this configuration. This picture also shows the temporary lashing to hold the end of the ringtail boom in place when the sail isn't rigged. I don't plan to fly the sail on the model. I am still fiddling with the foot ropes to try to get them to hang "naturally." Another last minute detail was the rudder pendant chains. The books don't say what size chains were used, but from the drawings in the books and photos of the Lady Washington I guessed that the width of the links was 1/3 to 1/4 as wide as the rudder. I picked what looked like a piece of brass chain from my parts stash, cut it to length and blackened it. It did blacken nicely. Trying to make shackles 0.050" (1.27 mm) wide would be a bit too tedious work, so I decided to just open the links at the end of the chains, hook them over the ring bolts on the rudder and transom, and close them again. “The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft a-gley.” Robert Burns Things started going a-gley almost immediately. The chain must be brass plated iron, because every time I tried to pick up an end link the chain leapt up and stuck to the (magnetized) tweezers! I tried and tried again but I just couldn't pick up the open links without getting other links that were always (of course) in the way! Frustration was building. Most of the metal work on the model is with brass, so the magnetism the tools picked up over the years had gone unnoticed. Now they had to be demagnetized. I tried a little Husky brand "Magnetize/Demagnetize" tool that had been around for years. It was worthless. I think the "demagnetizer" just magnetized things worse. Than I remembered I have an old 120 VAC soldering gun with large induction coils. I turned it on, brought the tools close and they vibrated in the alternating magnetic field. I moved them back and forth a few times, then pulled them away slowly before releasing the trigger to turn it off. Voila! It worked perfectly and the tools were demagnetized. Even so, those links are tiny, and they have a way of turning the wrong way, slipping off the chain, refusing to go over the ring bolts, and so on. Murphy was right! It must have taken an hour to secure the four ends of the chains to the ring bolts! I write this in case there are any new modelers reading this thread. This was just a normal modeling day! Burns and Murphy must have been ship modelers!

The same phenomenon is useful (to a degree) when moored on the starboard side and leaving a berth. You want the stern to swing to the port (bow to starboard) because typically there is another vessel moored behind that you must avoid. However, on the little single screw minesweeper I was on the spring lines played a far greater role in swinging the stern out than the rudder or propeller rotation. But these arguments apply only to single screw ships. With twin (or quad) screws you can run one side forward and the other astern to "twist ship" more or less however you wish. On the cruiser (four screws) we always preferred docking starboard side to the pier. But my experience has been that you only have a choice of berth that the harbor master assigns, and you may have to dock on either side.

John, I did the same "last minute" review of deck fittings and belaying points prior to starting rigging - and like you I found a bunch of things I overlooked! And I found an error in my belaying plan that just happened to use the last two unused belaying pins on the fore mast fife rail. Still, I'm pretty sure I will discover yet another missing belaying point before I am done! I have had spotty results with Brass Black also. I wash with soapy (dish soap) water and rinse after soldering to remove water soluble flux. Then I wash with acetone to remove any resin flux, oils, etc. After that I clean/etch with white vinegar (dilute acetic acid) for a while, then wash again to remove the vinegar. Still I have had spots that just didn't blacken. However, a good scrubbing with the wire brush seems to improve the blackening. I suspect the irregular results may be varying hardness due to annealing the brass while working it and heating with soldering. This might cause the different parts of the metal to react at different rates to the Brass Black. Brushing cleans oxides off and removes excess solder and whatever else is on the metal surface, and it gives the surface a but of "tooth." I also use flat black enamel paint to touch up spots (Model Master Flat Black FS37038).

When did these horseshoe plates come into use?

True Oil is a "purified" linseed oil that is used on gun stocks. It has no color and dries into a hard clear finish that does not yellow with time. I think it may also have some other oil additives. I have used it and the finish is as good today as when I applied it over 60 years ago. It might be a good oil to mix with oil paints. I haven't tried it.

Valeriy, I tried to access the German marine modelbuilders web site and did get to see the opening page. But I wasn't able to open any of the topics - just ads and cookie setting pages. The German to English translator worked OK. I do not have an account/password for the site. Wasserkasten translates into English as "water box." You are correct that if the opening is a water intake there would be some type of grating over it. Discharges sometimes do not have a grating. But is it a water intake or discharge? How large is the opening? If it is very large it probably is cooling water for the condensers. One clue might be another roughly equal sized opening forward or aft of this one. The leading opening might be the intake of cooling water to the condenser, and the aft opening would be the discharge. The condenser openings probably would have been on the bottom of the hull. If there is no matching hole it is probably just a water intake for distillation, fire fighting water or such. Or a discharge. I suspect the area around the opening with the diagonal lines is a backing plate to strengthen the hull plating around the opening. I think the German "Uberlappungauf BB der Platten 8a" means overlapping on plate 8a. Possibly inside the hull, but I have seen examples where the backing plate was on the outside of the hull plating. It has been over 60 years since I studied German so take my translations with caution!

Caution: See the note at the end of this post about an error in the spacing of the ringtail boom irons. More work on the main boom. Here it is being lifted by a temporary line to the top. When fully rigged the end of the boom will be raised by the main boom topping lifts. I examined a number of drawings and texts and found that the booms for the mainsails on schooners and drivers on square riggers were positioned 5 to 9 feet (1.5 to 2.7 meters) above the deck - high enough in most cases that the helmsman could stand upright below them. Here there is about 7 feet (2.1 meters) clearance. Several ring bolts, cleats and thumb cleats had to be added, and the boom irons for the ringtail boom had to be fabricated. Ringbolts at the jaws were added for the main sail tack (top) and the main sail outhaul tackle (bottom). Aft of that are cleats on either side of the boom where the outhaul tackle fall will belay. Farther aft (right hand photo), at the widest part of the boom, are two thumb cleats on top for the boom sheet tackle necklace. Forward of these (left in the photo) are cleats where the ringtail halliard (port) and the flag halliard (starboard) belay. The two thumb cleats on the boom sides are where the inboard ends of the foot ropes belay. Aft of this are cleats where the ringtail tack (port) and ringtail outhaul (starboard) belay. The ringtail boom irons were a bit of a challenge. The two small rings in the left photo below are cuts from stock 0.125 inch (3.2 mm) diameter brass tube. The inside diameter is a bit larger than the ringtail boom (0.085 inch, 2.2 mm) and just right for the irons. And the diameter of the end of the boom where the aft iron is fitted was 0.125 inch (3.2 mm) and the standard 0.155 inch (3.9 mm) brass tube fits perfectly, so a corresponding section of that tube was used. A small strip of 0.015 inch (0.38 mm) brass strip was doubled and served as the connector between the two rings. But the place where the forward iron fit around the boom was 0.165 inch (4.2 mm) and none of the stock brass tubes is close to this size. I wanted to use brass the same thickness as the stock tubes (0.015 inch, 0.38 mm), so I decided to cut off a ring from a larger brass tube (0.25 inch, 6.3 mm), cut the ring, and reform the metal around a drill bit into an appropriate sized ring to fit on the boom and tabs to serve as the connecting piece between it and the 0.125 inch (3.2 mm) ring for the ringtail boom. All of these pieces are shown in the left photo. Lining up all of these pieces for soldering was tricky. I used three arms on my Quad-Hands tool to hold them in position while I soldered. The results are shown in the right hand photo above. Not perfect, but good enough. After blackening the brass and reshaping the boom end a bit the ringtail boom irons were installed on the boom. The boom topping lifts will attach to the groove just forward (right in the picture) of the boom iron on the end, and the foot ropes will be just forward in that groove. The mainsail outhaul will run through the sheave in the boom. Looks like I got a bit of the straw color paint on the sheave - something to clean up. There is also a small single block to be added at the outboard end of the ringtail boom for the ringtail outhaul. I should say that the positioning of the ringtail boom irons is speculative. I have them above the boom and rotated 45 degrees to the port side. This is similar to how studding sail booms were rigged on warships in the early 1800s. But I have seem modern schooners with the ringtail boom slung directly under the main boom. I chose the current configuration to minimize interference with other lines. The foot ropes hang directly below the boom, and even if the ringtail boom was below to one side it would be in the way of anyone trying to use the foot ropes on that side. Directly above the boom are the boom topping lifts and the sail. So above and to the side seemed the best choice. Ringtail boom iron spacing is in accordance with what Marquardt says in The Global Schooner - 1/6 to 1/8 the length of the ringtail boom. In this case the boom is 4.7 inches (119 mm) long, and the spacing between the irons is 0.75 inches (19 mm). NOTE: I have been trying to find the reference in Marquardt for the ringtail boom iron spacing - with no luck (the index contains no useful information about such things). However, on page 167 he discusses studding sail booms, and says the boom iron spacing is 1/3 the studding sail boom length. Zu Mondfeld's "Historic Ship Models" (page 232) says studding sail boom irons were spaced "1/8 to 1/6 of the yard's length" apart. However, he is referring to the square sail yard's length, and not to the studding sail boom's length. I obviously got these things mixed up. So the ringtail boom iron spacing shown in the photos is too close together - it should be about twice what I show. Well, another learning experience!

For what it is worth, on the WWII era Cleveland class cruisers the deck planks were 4 inches (102 mm) wide and 2 inches (50.8 mm) thick. The upper vertical edges of the planks were beveled 3/32 inch (2.4 mm) at the top, tapering down 1 inch (25.4 mm). The lower 1 inch was vertical. When the planks were butted together the lower faces touched, leaving a 3/16" gap (4.76 mm) at the upper surface. The "V" shaped gap was caulked with oakum down to a depth of 1/2" (12.7 mm) from the top surface. The remaining gap was then filled with "an approved black marine glue." If we assume that this was a typical traditional method for caulking deck planks, a 3/16 inch (0.1875 inch, 4.8 mm) gap will be: 1:24 0.008 inch 0.2 mm 1:35 0.005 inch 0.14 mm 1:48 0.004 inch 0.1 mm 1:64 0.003 inch 0.07 mm 1:96 0.002 inch 0.05 mm 1:200 0.0009 inch 0.02 mm 1:350 0.0005 inch 0.01 mm I used this idea to caulk the seams of the deck on my 1:48 build using 0.003 inch (0.07 mm) black construction paper. This worked nicely in my opinion. But it is an opinion - that well caulked decks do look good on some models. But I think the exaggerated caulking and planking on 1:200 and 1:350 models looks pretty strange. I served on three ships with wooden (teak) decks while in the Navy, including two flagships. The decks were holystoned and bleached, and maintained in excellent condition. The deck seams were quite visible, even in shipyard photos taken from hundreds of feet away. The trenails or plugs over the deck bolts were barely visible when standing on the deck, and totally invisible in photos. I plan someday to build a 1:96 model of a cruiser with wooden decks that I served on. The planks will be 0.04 inch (1.05 mm) wide, and the caulking should be about 0.002 inch (0.05 mm) wide (thinner than a sheet of ordinary printer paper). I think I will hate that planking job! **** I would be cautious about trying to use fishing line or thin plastic sheets between planks for caulking. I experimented with using a strip of black plastic garbage bag between planks for caulking with poor results. It was 0.0005 inch (0.127 mm) thick. The glue I used didn't hold the plastic to the wood. When I scraped/sanded the deck after caulking the plastic pulled out of the gap between planks. I'm sure the same thing would happen with fishing line.

I had a problem with cured epoxy getting softer when heated. I have a 6 foot long fiberglass hull with 1/2 inch thick Plexiglas frames spaced about every 6 inches. These are glued to the hull with epoxy. Between the frames are stringers at the main deck level that the deck rests on. These are also epoxied into the hull. All bonded surfaces of the Plexiglas were dimpled and these were filled with epoxy to ensure good adhesion. All of these joints were cured for several weeks and the epoxy was very hard. It was difficult to scratch and drilled/machined well. I was fairing the hull with Bondo auto body filler to correct a defect in the original fiberglass hull. After applying the Bondo I left the hull outside in the hot summer sun to speed the cure (and keep the odor out of my work space). The fiberglass had white gellcoat but the Bondo was gray and absorbed the heat (and it was also releasing heat as it cured). The whole hull heated up quite a bit. If you have worked with plastic much you will know that it has a relatively large thermal coefficient of expansion - a lot greater than fiberglass! The Plexiglas frames and stringers were machined to a tight slip fit. As they heated up they expanded faster than the hull and a lot of stress built up. The heat also softened the cured epoxy so it became soft like putty. Suddenly one end of a stringer popped out of position, relieving the stresses on the whole thing. But then when it cooled the epoxy hardened again holding the piece way out of line. I had to cut it out, clean up the mess, and put another stringer back in place. And I learned to not heat the hull too much! From this experience I guess that cured epoxy is like a type of plastic (long polymer molecules). Apparently the type I was using has a relatively low melting point.

Very nice planking!

Good work soldering John. That will take the strain! For cleaning up excess solder I use a soft steel wire brush on a rotary tool. This removes the excess solder fairly quickly - keep at it too long and it might remove too much and compromise the joint. It also polishes the brass nicely, removing oxides and giving it a bit of "tooth" to hold paint or blacken. I am also working on the mast rigging for my revenue cutter, but according to the books they weren't using many metal fittings in 1815. The rigging is attached to the masts with eyes in the ropes, supported by wooden cleats or reduced diameter steps in the mast circumference. So I don't get to do much brasswork.

bigcreekdad, Is there any model builder who has never run into this problem? I am finishing a model I started in the 1980s and lost enthusiasm for back when. But now I am enjoying it immensely (while another partly finished model gathers dust)! If you are frustrated you should ask yourself if ship modeling is really something you want to do. If you are still enthusiastic about modelling you should work on other parts of the model while thinking of the planking problem as a challenge. Study it, and look at what others have done. One of these days you will have a "satori moment," and the solution will be obvious.

Oh come on John, you have been doing great brass/solder work. That ring is nearly 1/8" diameter, how hard could it be to solder just a few tiny pieces together? Just kidding! I have been looking in on this build for some time, and it looks really nice. I'm not too sure about the super glue on brass parts. It works OK for gluing larger surfaces together, but it has poor sheer strength. Don't pull on those shackles too hard. **** I just looked through your entire build and I has inspired me a bit. I have been wondering what I would do after finishing my topsail schooner build (if I ever finish it) and was planning a scratch build inshore minesweeper - a really obscure vessel (a model of it would please Howard Chapelle). But I love the lines of the New England fishing schooners (Captains Courageous is a favorite movie) and Chapelle's The American Fishing Schooners has such a huge amount of details for these vessels that I have been tempted several times to build a model of one. Decades ago I inherited a Billings 1:75 Bluenose kit. The fellow had started it and another kit, but didn't finish either. Very little was done on the Bluenose, and what was done is pretty lame, so I would be starting over. But since he didn't get too far the wooden parts kit and fitting kit contents are all there. Some plastic parts (blocks, mast hoops) I would want to replace with wood, and the windlass doesn't look much like the Bluenose photos, but it should be good enough for the model. I love doing brass work and soldering, and there is a lot more on the 20th century boats than my early 1800s schooner. So maybe I will dig out that kit and start on it next - perhaps while I am researching the minesweeper. Your build and others will be a great source of information, and I will look into the Bluenose museum photos. I don't know if I will build the kit as the Bluenose, but it will be some fishing schooner (perhaps the Were Here if I can see enough details in the movie).

Another interesting build Valeriy! When you "soaked" the hull with liquid epoxy, did you cover the inside and outside of the planking, or just the outside? I have used liquid epoxy "paint" on the inside of the planking. It soaks into the cracks between planks, and between the planks and bulkheads. The result is a very solid hull that will not develop cracks between the planks.

Roger hit on an important point. High speed is not always a good thing. High torque is - it is torque that forces the bit through the material being drilled. Most motors controlled by a simple variable duty cycle speed control loose torque as they slow down. I have an ancient (1970s) Dremel and the ancient Dremel variable duty cycle speed control, and at low speeds the drill binds and stops cutting in brass. Many motor tools run at tens of thousands of RPM. This produces heat in the motor and in the drill bit. Heat is not good for the bit, and it will burn wood. The optimum speed for drilling softer metals like brass and aluminum is much slower. Look for a drill that has high torque at lower speeds (1000-5000 RPM).