Dr PR

Dave, I recently planked a hull with nibs and caulking. I did some experiments on six different methods of "caulking" in the link below. I chose to use black construction paper. Post #25 shows the results. I was very happy with the results. I served on two ships with teak decks (a minesweeper and a cruiser). On both ships the decks were holystoned and bleached so the wood was very light and the grout was very black. But I have also seen older ships (in museums) where the grout stood proud of the surface a bit and was weathered gray and the wood was also weathered gray. On both ships I served on the grout was 3/8 inch wide. On the 1:48 scale model linked to above I chose a black craft paper that was 3/8" scale thick. However, the planks supplied with the kit were far too wide to be realistic (about 9.5 scale inches). After the deck was scraped to remove paper rising above the planks, sanded to even up plank height (the planks supplied with the kit were a consistent 5 mm wide but varied in thickness from 0.75 mm to 1.5 mm), polished with 0000 steel wool and finished with clear lacquer the grout lines were very narrow and the color was a dark gray. If you really want to get "realistic" grout you can do what I did on an earlier model. We reworked the decks on the minesweeper and I saved some of the tar that was used for the grout. Then on my next model I used the tar for the grout between the planks! Here is a picture of the deck from that model I made about 50 years ago.

Smaller topsail schooners (50-80 feet between perpendiculars) usually had one top sail. Longer schooners had a top sail and topgallant, or lower and upper top sails, depending upon the period. The fore yards were supported by slings attached to the fore top, and controlled with braces and lifts. The highest yards usually were supported only by halliards and controlled with braces and lifts, with no parrels or attachments to the mast. They were lowered to the deck for rigging the sails and lines, and then hoisted aloft. This way no one had to go aloft to raise the sails, and you often see drawings and plans with no rat lines on the stays. The gaff topsails were rigged in a similar manner, supported only by halliards and sheets, often with a top spar (gunter) that was hoisted in a similar manner to top sail and topgallant yards. Again, the sails could be rigged on deck and then hoisted aloft. Some of the largest schooners (greater than 100-110 feet in length) had rigs more like the full rigged clipper ships of the mid 1800s. Of course, these are just general "rules" and different masters and owners had their own variations. And in addition the standard sails they had means of hanging a lot of additional canvas in studding sails, water sails, ringtails, staysails, gunter sails, courses, bonnets and drabblers. Howard Chapelle's The Baltimore Clipper is the best reference for these ships. Lennarth Petersson's Rigging Period Fore-and-Aft Craft is an excellent reference for rigging small to medium topsail schooners - Baltimore clippers. Harold Underhill's Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship & Ocean Carrier is an excellent reference for mid to late 1800s clipper ships and coastal schooners, English style. But by then the design had evolved so everyone was building topsail schooners in more or less the same way. He provides very detailed drawings and descriptions for rigging these ships. I have a bunch of the other "standard" references for ship rigging, but most of what they say applies only to large square rigged vessels. Topsail schooners were a breed apart, with a rig that evolved for handling by very small crews. However, these references are handy for deciphering the nautical terminology. George W. Blunt's 1858 revision of Darcy Lever's 1808 The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor described the American way of rigging ships in the early to mid 1800s. Again, it is mostly about square rigged ships, but it does describe how the lines were rigged and has quite a bit that applies to fore and aft rigs.

Kenna (and Ron), I envy you! Your first build is always exciting and challenging. And I commend you for wanting to scratch build. When I was your age I didn't have the money for a wooden model kit, and the hobby shops in my home town didn't carry them anyway. This was decades before the Internet so scratch building was my only choice. I built a two foot long model of a Chris-Craft cabin cruiser, like a 40 foot real boat a friend of the family owned. I occasionally got to drive the real one, and loved the lines. I had no plans so I just winged it, and the model came out OK. It had a complete interior and even had motors (but no radio control) - I just swam along and turned it by hand. It wasn't very "accurate" but it was a lot of fun to build! Nothing like the quality of the scratch built beauties you see on the Forum, but I thought it was great, and that's what counts. Then I got bold and tried to model a schooner like I saw on a favorite TV show. Unfortunately, I knew nothing about sailing ship designs. I had built a bunch of plastic ship models, so my "schooner" hull was far too narrow, more the shape of a destroyer hull. The masts were too tall, and when I put it in the water it immediately capsized - "turned turtle." That was a disappointment! Eventually I hung a heavy weight from the keel but that acted as a sea anchor so it didn't "skim over the waves" like the schooner on TV. And it still floated with a sharp list to one side or the other. I gave up on the floating model and just sat it on a desk to look at. As a working model it was a failure, but I thought it was pretty. I tell you this because no one's first model, kit or scratch build, will be their best. But just building the kit you will learn the skills you need to do a better job. I have built several models from kits and from scratch since then, and I am much better now at researching the designs before I start. But I still have fond memories of those first scratch built attempts at wooden ship modeling. So I encourage you to dive in, and don't be too critical of your own work - even though you may be your own worst critic. What ever you build, be it a beauty or a beast, you will always remember it. And you will have the satisfaction of having built something! So remember to laugh at your mistakes and enjoy the experience. If you do, your next build will be much more enjoyable. And if you post your build here on the forum, other members will be a source of encouragement and advice.

Very nice work! You said you thought this wasn't a good kit for a first build, but in your case I think that is wrong. You have stuck with it and are doing a great job. And you are learning the frustrations of kit building and ways to work around the problems. That is good experience for a first time builder. When you are finished you will have the satisfaction of having overcome the limitations of the kit to build a nice model. Your next build will be easier as a result.

Jim, I have been building wooden ship models for at least 60 years and I still find times I need lots of advice! They are right about keeping the keel straight. Be cautioned that even though your new one is straight now, it can still warp while you are working on the bulkheads and such. You have a good building clamp but it holds the keel in only two places - allowing it to bend between the clamps. One thing you might try is getting a piece of aluminum "L" - either 3/8" or 1/2" - and clamping pieces a bit longer than the keel in the vice on either side of the keel. That will keep it straight along the full length. After you have installed the bulkheads, spacers between bulkheads, wales and deck the structure will be rigid enough that you can dispense with the "L" pieces. This might be overkill, but it is cheap insurance!

You can find punches with concave or "dimpled" ends - for leather working. They are usually knurled for a good grip, and the hollow end won't slip off the head of the pins. For really snug fits you can use a small hammer to tap the end of the punch to encourage the pin to enter the wood. I have inserted very small pins without drilling, but drilling a slightly undersize hole first makes life a lot less frustrating!

Generally, the standing rigging had to take larger loads than the running rigging, so it was larger diameter. It was also usually tarred to treated to withstand rot. The running rigging was smaller diameter, but the multiple strands running through the blocks gave the overall assembly much more strength than the single rope it was made from. Running rigging was not tarred and usually natural hemp color. The exception was the anchor cable. It was sometimes the largest diameter rope, and not tarred. But it isn't normally considered "running rigging." The actual rigging on ships was determined by formula or a table of rigging sizes based upon the size and sail rig of the ship. Generally each line of standing rigging is given relative to the diameter of the stays (often the main stay), and they are based upon the diameters of the masts. If you are really into the nitty gritty details there are several books that give guidance on rope diameters: Historic Ship Models, Wolfram zu Mondfeld, Sterling Publishing, New York, 1989. General modeling information and rope size tables. The Art of Rigging, George Biddlecombe, Echo Point Books & Media, 1825. Reprint of an 1848 guide to rigging sailing vessels in the US. The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, James Lee, Naval Institute Press, 1979. Very detailed rigging sizes for English ships. Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship & Ocean Carrier, Harold A. Underhill, Brown, Son and Ferguson, Ltd., Glasgow, 1946. Excellent for clipper ships. Many model rigging books don't mention rope diameters.

John, Are you talking about the "wire" diameter of the rod the chain is formed from? The length certainly isn't six times the width.

The Floating Drydock carries some very nice 3D printed stud-link anchor chains and ordinary metal chains in various sizes: http://www.floatingdrydock.com/ Smaller vessels like schooners often used cables (heavy rope) instead of chains, especially prior to the 20th century. Cable/chain size depended upon the weight of the anchor, and that depended upon the size (tonnage) of the ship. Zu Mondfeld's Historic Ship Models (page 240) has a table of stud-link chain sizes for various ship tonnages. Sailing ships often carried two or three different sizes of anchors, each with its own cable size. For more modern vessels you can just look on line for anchor and chain suppliers to get the proper sizes.

It depends upon the material. If the wood grain is visible it will look pretty hokey, in my opinion - all the boards having a continuous grain pattern and color. Natural wood boards have different grain patterns and different colors. However, if the deck is bleached and holystoned all the boards will be about the same color, and lighter than many natural woods. I enjoy the challenge and satisfaction of planking the deck. Even if the kit had a printed/etched deck I would still use individual planks.

Wefalck, You forgot to mention one other use for nitrocellulose. It is also called guncotton, and the highly nitrated version is a powder charge used to propel projectiles from guns. It burns extremely rapidly, what is sometimes called a low order or Class B explosive, but it doesn't explode like TNT. The low nitrated version that was used for commercial products is not considered an explosive but it still burns rapidly. So if you do work with nitrocellulose treat it gently. Just don't heat it too much. It has a flash point (temperature where it vaporizes to produce a flammable gas) at 4.4C (39.9F) and ignites at 170C (338F). That is lower than the ignition temperature of paper. And it is toxic so don't breathe the fumes.

In response to Caleb's question about the topsail schooner rig, I have been investigating schooner rigs for a while now. There was a lot of experimentation in the early 1800s with different rigs. I have found mention (and drawings/paintings) of a few vessels that had simple fore/aft rigs at one time and topsail rigs at another. Some just had the topsail, and some had topgallants, and some had lower and upper topsails. Some of the larger schooners had royals. Although the "typical" topsail schooner had square sails on the fore mast only, some carried spars for a topsail, topgallant and/or royal on the main mast. Ships designed for square sails on the fore mast only typically - but not always - had a foremast that was larger diameter than the main mast. Gaff topsails were common on the main (aftermost) mast, but not always raised - it depended upon the winds and seas. Some had a gaff topsail on the fore mast and some had staysails between the masts. And there were bonnets, drubblers, studding sails and ringtails that were occasionally hung on to "standard" rigs. To further complicate things, the "typical" topsail schooners often carried a main sail that was only rigged when conditions were right - as in the painting in post #766. The same is true for topsail schooners with square sails on the main mast. So, if a two mast topsail schooner was carrying a full square sail rig on both masts, why wasn't it a brig? And if a brig wasn't flying the fore-course and main-course square sails was it a topsail schooner? So the same hull might show quite different sail rigs from time to time, depending upon the whim of the captain/master/owner, the job to be done, and the size and abilities of the crew. I haven't yet figured out exactly what defined the "types" of these chameleon ships, other than what the original sail/spar rig was when the ships were built.

Schaye, The tops of the bulkheads must align with the sheer (fore/aft curvature) of the deck. If they do not your deck will have waves in it. You may end up having to sand the tops of some of the bulkheads, or maybe add strips to the top to bring a bulkhead up to deck height. This isn't uncommon in kits. You can use a strip of wood laid down lengthwise to the ship on the tops of the bulkheads to detect any that are high or low. You will also have to sand the outer edges of the bulkheads to get the correct bevel for the planking. Again, attaching thin strips of wood or plastic to the bulkheads along the length of the hull will reveal if any are too wide or too narrow, side to side (port to starboard). Look down the length of the strips and if you see any "waves" along the length a bulkhead is either too wide or too thin. You must get these things right before proceeding to hull or deck planking. Also, be sure that you do not create any curvature in the false keel as you fasten the bulkheads to the keel. Check to be sure the keel is straight as you add each bulkhead.

Jolene, Hope you and yours are doing well. I know that France has been hit pretty hard by the corona virus. Nice work on your new build. Now we have plenty of time for ship modeling!

No one's first kit is his best effort (or second, third ...). There is a learning curve, so don't worry too much. If something doesn't come out to your satisfaction you can always tear it out and start again. You first build is a learning experience so don't expect perfection. No matter what you do it should help prepare you for your next build. The important point is to take it easy, don't sweat the small stuff, and enjoy the build.

Good idea! (Why didn't I think of that?) I have bunches of these left over from my electronics design days.

Roger, That is a clever idea! Officers' gigs and barges in the 1970s had mahogany decks with white grout (see image below). It is also common on civilian yachts. I have often wondered how to model that.

Chapelle (The Baltimore Clipper, Edward W. Sweetman Company, New York, 1968, page 4), in speculation on the origin of the Baltimore clipper, describes an earlier 1770s French lugger Le Coureur. "The lines show a powerful and fast craft with ... great deadrise and rather sharp waterlines." The faster ships being built at the end of the 1700s had very sharp lines below the waterline with hollow "cheeks" and a great deal of deadrise amidships. By "sharp lines" I mean small angles between the lines at the bow and stern relative to the ship centerline, and waterlines that were concave (curving inward) forward and aft, and convex (curving outward) midships. This is in contrast to the "bluff bow" that was common on larger merchant and warships of the 1600s and 1700s where the waterlines were convex from the bow. The bluff bow designs had waterlines that began at the stem almost perpendicular to the centerline. This created a lot of drag, but it was a necessary feature to keep the bow afloat. Buoyancy (the forces that keep the ship afloat) is proportional the amount of water displaced. These forces are greatest amidships where the beam is widest and the greatest amount of water is displaced. But at the bow and stern the forces are less because less water is displaced. This is the major factor causing "hogging" of a ship, where the bow and stern sag lower than amidships because the forces lifting them are weaker. With the weaker structural designs in early ships the bluff bow and square sterns were necessary to support these parts of the ships. By the late 1700s ship designers were learning how to build very strong hulls. Think of the diagonal members in the Constitution's hull, and the diagonal metal straps used in the later clipper ships. This allowed the "sharp entry" into the water, both bow and stern. Another factor was the deadrise. This is the angle of the cross section lines to the horizontal. Most large ships of the 1600s and 1700 had nearly flat bottoms amidships to maximize cargo space. But this created a large cross section area, and that meant high drag. The French lugger Chapelle mentions was unusual because it had fairly high deadrise - the bottom formed a "V" rather than a "U". This had two effects. It reduced drag, but it also reduced buoyancy amidships. The combination of sharp lines fore and aft and high deadrise amidships evened out the differences in buoyancy along the length of the ship, creating less strain and hogging. This made for lightweight and very fast ships with smaller cargo capacity - sort of the FeDex of the day. It is these features that come to mind when I see references to a "sharp" ship. I would add one more thing here. These effects of deadrise and sharp lines were not unique to older ships. Modern steel hulled ships suffer from the same hogging effects, and some designs were especially at fault. American cruisers of the late 1930s and 1940s were prone to structural failures because of extremely sharp and long hulls with relatively broad midships cross sections and very little deadrise. This had the effect of magnifying the hogging stresses. Several of them lost their bows in heavy seas, and many were scrapped after the war because of structural failures instead of being mothballed for future use.

I have a friend who has been making HO scale kits for decades. He taught me how to cast the low temperature metals. He uses some home made centrifugal rigs to spin the mold while he is pouring to be sure the metal flows to the ends of the cavities and to expel air from small cavities. A centrifuge isn't essential, but if you will be doing a lot of castings it might be worthwhile. I have an ancient laboratory centrifuge that was used in school chemistry and medical blood test labs. It has a nice shield around it in case the hot metal leaks from the mold. You can pick these things up pretty cheap and replace the centrifuge head with a plate to hold the mold. It has a variable speed motor control and a lid. The molds are flat, with the poring funnel in the center and the mold cavities arranged around it. Here is an example, with the brass originals below on the left and the cast pieces on the right. Note that some of the pieces are cast with an angled tab on one end. Notice that there are no vents for simple pieces like these. The mold halves are not clamped very tightly so the air escapes easily. A bit of flash might exist on some pieces but it is easily removed. A trick he uses is to dissolve hand soap (he used Ivory soap) in water and paint this on the mold surfaces. It reduces surface tension and sticking to the RTV, and it washes off with water.

I'd guess the normal blocks on the Eagle would be about 8 inch to 12 inch, or 0.032 inch or 0.048 inch at 1:250 scale. You could try cutting short lengths of small diameter hypodermic tubing and flattening them with pliers (with a length of wire in the opening to keep a hole for the line to pass through. This should give a fairly uniform size. You could then lead the running line through the hole and tie the standing part around the block. You would need to experiment with tube diameter to get the "right" size after it is flattened. Aluminum tubing should flatten easily around a steel wire and still leave a hole the diameter of the wire. You might look through jewelry supplies - they sometimes have bags of 50 to 100 pieces of short small diameter tube spacers. They don't call them spacers but have a jewelry name for the, but they are spacers anyway. I have never tried this so you are on your own. **** If you do come up with a clever way to make tiny uniform sized blacks be sure to post a thread telling us how you did it!

I have glued black paper strips to the edges of deck planks. The paper strips were a bit wider than the planks, and were trimmed on the bottom side before gluing the planks down. After the planks were glued in place the deck was scraped to remove the high edges of the paper, and then sanded with coarse grit sandpaper because the planks that came with the kit were not all the same thickness. Then the deck was sealed with clear lacquer and sanded again with a fine grit to remove scratches from the coarser grit. The final finish was with 0000 steel wool. There was no fuzzing. I used an organic solvent based wood glue (Duco) and that soaked into the paper and wood. After it dried the paper was pretty hard. You can choose a paper thickness equal to the scale thickness of the grout on the ship you are modeling. I used a full scale 3/8 inch grout width. At 1:48 this was about 0.008 inch, and I found a black paper about that thick. Nothing fancy, just ordinary craft paper. For a 1:96 scale project I will need a 0.004 inch thick paper, and that is about the thickness of ordinary 24 pound printer paper. 20 pound paper is about 0.003 inch thick.

I have a large 100+ Watt solder gun, and small Weller 25 Watt soldering "pencil" and a 250 Watt American Beauty resistance soldering unit. I have the pen and cable set and the tongs for the resistance unit. For most things I use the soldering pencil. But the resistance unit is really good for quick spot soldering on large pieces. It works by flowing current through one of the pieces to be soldered, through the flux/solder and then through the second piece to be soldered. You place the probes on opposite sides of the joint so the resistance is lowest at the point to be soldered. Because the resistance is greater through any other path, even if the two pieces have been soldered together at other points, the current flows through the least resistance path and generates heat in the solder at the joint. As long as you allow the parts to cool between joints you don't need heat sinks. The power can be adjusted from 0% to 100% of the output to meet the needs of the job. If you want a really fast operation crank it up to 250 Watts and the joint is formed almost instantly - however, you can generate too much heat and actually melt very thin metals. However, I find it very frustrating to use because the tips are brittle carbon that breaks extremely easily. I go trough them almost as fast as the solder. It takes a while to learn how to use the resistance unit effectively. If anyone knows of any other more durable tips I would appreciate learning about them. I bought the thing after I learned that they are used on those very nice HO and O scale brass locomotives that sell for an arm and a leg. By using the right flux, a small amount of solder and the proper technique you can create complex brass assemblies with absolutely no solder showing. **** I used to do a lot of micro electronics soldering while designing and assembling prototype electronics assemblies. For that I used the pencil iron with a very tiny tip for solder joints on ICs with 0.01 inch (0.25 mm) wide pins with 0.01 inch spacing. We soon learned that the best flux is the aquatic citrus based flux. It smells like orange juice! It is a liquid and you can paint it on with a small brush. It flows readily between the two pieces to be soldered and draws the solder in for an excellent joint. It flows into extremely tiny holes and cracks. Then, being water based, it is easy to wash off the residue. It works for any type soldering. It is my go-to flux for everything except very high heat soldering with a torch.

I think maybe you enjoy building the tools more than the models? That's a clever idea building the caliper into the tool. That is a lot cheaper than some of the digital readouts that are for sale.

Where in Oregon?

Here is an example of a binnacle on a modern (1895) schooner C. A. Thayer. The companionway is offset to one side and the binnacle (the thing with the curved top) is tied down to the roof of the cabin on the ship's centerline, forward and below the boom rest.