Jaager

Should you not be able to find ready made casks and have to fabricate them: Building them over a form would mean having to turn only one master core. A solid core form would not work - it cannot be removed. The stock to be turned could be a five piece Jenga type assembly - four outer pieces and a square center piece. The form can be turned at the end of a longer five piece stick. Dowels, pins, or finish nails used to keep everything in one piece. The turning may require gluing the five with a glue that can be reversed. PVA - Iso-OH or hide glue - hot ethanol or maybe Duco - acetone. Saran Wrap. After the staves are in place and bound by the hoops, the square center of the form can be pulled out. The two opposing outer sections that are the same width as the core, be moved into the center and pulled out. Then the last two popped lose and pulled out. The staves can be paper or 3x5 card material. A power drill makes for a low cost lathe, but they do not come with 4 jaw chucks, so holding the square stock would take some work.

Pierre, H.Hahn drew up plans for the class - Roebuck 1774 - they are 1:98 - they are available for sale. A Web search should bring up a link. Given the level of quality in an Aeropiccola kit - there should be more than enough additional detail - beyond what Aero plans provide. As for instructions - there are more than a few books covering POB kit construction. The kit build log forum here should provide any how-to possibly needed. Just guessing here, but I predict the following: The number of moulds provided by the kit will not be sufficient to build a proper hull. The wood will be brittle - this not being a result of the age of the kit - this is because poor quality wood was what the kit originally provided. You will probably need to add more moulds - or use fillers. All new and better quality wood purchase probably necessary. A 44 gun frigate is a complex and difficult subject. It has all of the difficulties of a 74 gun ship - the 74 just has 2-4 times more of it OR a 100 gun ship which has 4-8 times more. Kit builders who come from a plastic background often have an unrealistic expectation for what the provided instructions contain. The more recent kits from select companies are becoming more hand holding in nature. The older kits, especially the pioneers like Aeropiccola were a lot more -you're on your own -good luck! Instruction books and journals were much more necessary. A cutter, sloop, schooner, or brig would probably be a more friendly next step.

If you are only going to use it for wood, you might consider going with just good enough. My process requires a lot of holes. The holes have to be 90 degrees. Most all of them are #70. Top end is #50. I use the Otto Frei version of a Eurotool DRL 300.00. It has done what I have asked of it. The basic unit is an economy machine that is sold all over the place. It was $85 when I bought it. Most units seem to be ~ $120 now. I am surprised to see it for sale at Rio Grande for $70. I expect jewelry suppliers to stock the mfg output with the better QA and the bargain outfits to have the so-so units. It sounds too good to be true. I have been considering Rio Grande to be a quality outfit. A good X-Y table will cost about as much as the drill - you do not want an X-Y table with a lot of slop. A foot operated momentary switch will add to the total cost.

I doubt that these will work as well as is wished. Do a search on Amazon for non-sterile Penrose drains.

@druxey not on paper if you are correct. But, if you look at the Navy Board framing models, the top edge and bottom edge of the overlap band look to me like they would serve the same purpose.

My bias towards POF warped my view. I probably would not have guessed this. It does explain what is on display. Imagining how I would approach a model of this vessel, I cannot see trying to replicate the actual vessel's construction. Getting the outside done correctly would be challenge enough. I am totally dedicated to POF, but some hulls just look better fully planked.

The heel of the port F! would start a few feet on the stb. side of the keel. The stb. F! would butt against it and be shorter. The next frame would have the stb. F1 be the longer one. Ignoring the occasional exception, I see three options for the F1/F3 frame. 1 - cross chock over the keel - several variations - the French had some complicated joinery in some ships 2 - half floor - gets interesting at the ends if it is an actual ship - easier to use Cant frames. In a model, the opposite obtains. 3 - long arm/short arm. Using half floors really reduces the length of the F1 timbers.

Going by the instructions in Deane so at least up until 1670: The Body plan shape creation was only done three times during the design. The three were placed on the WL plan and battens used to define the run. The forward or aft cross sections could be moved to get the sort of entry and exit needed to theoretically favor speed or stability or capacity. Doing a mental extraction from the above premise: The complete Body plan was derived by plotting the points from the WL plan. The Diagonal plan was important to confirm that there were no problems in the run in the swimming body. I am suspecting that those who were writing an advocacy of math formulas over shipwright intuition did not gain control until about 1700. This being limited to English practice.

To guess, given the evidence above: drift = a free floating rod in a hole that does not go all the way thru either the keel / floor or the keelson / floor? a heavy duty locator pin? A bolt - which is also listed - would have a head at one end and threads for a nut on the other? For your F1 between floors: The floors are long - usually ~ 60% of the beam. It seems to be forbidden - since forever - for the heels of F1 port to meet F1 stb. in the middle of the keel. It could be F1 long arm/F1 short arm - alternating. My compulsion would be to use a half floor instead - a floor timber that is ~25-30% of the beam. Have the scarph (old definition = side to side) be the same length. So those F1 would be longer - but not as long as the long arm/short arm option.

Well that explains why common nautical words - like futtock always get marked as being misspelled. I have been thinking that this site had selected the wrong dictionary.

I was thinking that the burl would make any concern about grain orientation relative to part orientation = moot. But what is there would be a large enough figure that it would appear to be uniform - that is - no obvious grain - certainly no end grain. If the primary wood gatherer was known, I wonder if a mutually beneficial deal was possible? The source could get income from otherwise useless sticks, and we could get stock at a bargain price.

No experimental data, but for natural fibers: linen and cotton - an alcohol dye solution should work as well as an aqueous dye. It should be as dyed as it is going to be - just as soon as it has soaked in - that is fairly close to immediately. A continuous pulley set up - feed spool - down to a pulley in the alcohol solution - back up to a take up reel - would probably work for a long rope. For man-made synthetic polymer line, my guess is that it might not take at all.

In post #35 you show a piece of Briar. I have it in mind that this would be excellent for deadeyes and blocks. Since you have the wood, what do you find? My understanding is that the part that is used for pipe bodies comes from root burls. My speculation is that there is a trunk that probably has straight grain, but is just as hard as the root wood. I wonder if the trunk is discarded? If so, being trash, it should have a low purchase price. The plant is a shrub, so the trunk should not be all that thick. For deadeyes and blocks it does not have to be very large.

If a member sets up an album with their photos, is the member able to edit and delete any photos in their album?

Would something like this do what you wish and be economical? http://www.hobbylinc.com/innovative-ez-chrome-finishing-adhesive-backed-foil-6x10-slot-car-part-1:32-scale-1900?source=froogle&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsN7Wo77U_AIVg9zICh3UOQYXEAQYBSABEgIvzvD_BwE

Now that Johnny has mentioned color: Lee Valley can provide flakes in 1/4 lb bags for less than $12.00 in three tints https://www.leevalley.com/en-us/shop/tools/supplies/finishing/finishes/76311-shellacs?item=56Z4028 light yellow and amber both come from Zinsser in small tins that are in solution. This is probably the more convenient option. Should you wish to reversibly darken the bottom, using the dark amber (garnet?) flakes may provide a richer looking option. An advantage is that should you decide that it is too dark, it can be made to go away using an alcohol soaked rag. Actually, it is water that leaves a white ring. Condensation outside a cold glass of anything will do it. Shellac is probably not the best choice for furniture that can have stuff sitting on it.

As a literalist, a sealer is used on open pore wood species to fill the pores to produce a smooth finish - on furniture. For a ship model, it is to do a self favor if open pore wood species are avoided altogether for components that are not hidden. Shellac is an excellent primer as well as a finish. The first coat - the primer coat - should be diluted 1:1 with shellac thinner. Shellac can produce a deep gloss finish if a serious number of thin coats are applied. We do not usually want that. A couple of finish coats is probably enough. A fine abrasive - like a Scotch Brite pad can dull the sheen. If it is too scratched, just apply another layer of shellac. It is easy enough to do and pieces of old worn out T-shirts are free.

Is there a profile plan? The numbering is the key to placing the stations. Aft the stations are at two bend intervals. I cannot discern if the last is 22-23 or 22-24. The Fore is a bit fast and loose: 0 -F = 6 bends F-H = 2 bends H-K = 2 bends (often I was dropped - too similar to 1) K-M = 2 bends M-O = 2 bends O-P = 1 bend P-Q = 1 bend Q-R - 1 bend R-S S-T Now all you need is R&S. This ship would definitely qualify for Navy Board framing. There is no space between the bends. The timbers are sided wider than the prototype. My problem with using it = The floor is significantly longer than than its usual ~60% - the head is above the turn of the bilge. The area of stock required and the loss to waste makes this expensive. F1 is also long and involves a serious arc. It works for miniature scales. I could easily reproduce a fully framed hull just from what you have above. For me, no reconstruct of Body/cross section is necessary. It is all there. The mould loft did not need anymore than this to get timber patterns for the shipwrights. They did not need every line of every frame. The Stations alone were sufficient. They could fake the transitions and so can I. I would not know any of the important details that a profile provides though: Deck locations Port locations Wales Rails Channels

Try 91% isopropyl alcohol to remove the PVA. Then use Lineco Neutral pH Adhesive, Acid-Free PVA Formula or other bookbinders PVA. Or white PVA - very acidic, but dries clear.

While any repair is going on: Are we sure that a 3D digital model fits the definition of scratch built?

Painting the whole sheet of paper and then using a guillotine type cutter looks to be as mistake proof and quick and dirty as it gets. A knife and steel straight edge is less expensive, but introduces more chances of Parkinson's type twitches during a cut. Paper - thin but not flimsy is my thinking - acid free - I do not see any utility in putting paper over paint. I have read of modelers who directly painted a hull doing plate sized patches - which sounds like as much fun as hammering a nail thru my foot. As for this whole thin painted paper process- It is my thinking Old Son, that you would be pretty much cutting the trail on this whole thing. Others have probably done it, but for this site you would likely be the first. What we theoreticians are proposing is something that sounds likely to work and that solves the problems that the presently used methods struggle with. A chance for fame - as it were.

If you go with paper and paint: depending on how you choose to do it, the plates can be painted as individuals or several sheets used and different shades of copper used - a tint added differently to each of multiple batches - a mild checkerboard. The blue or green should probably be used on the hull after the plates cover it. If you follow @Bob Cleek's suggestion of shellac as an adhesive - ethyl alcohol is a easy reverse gear and no residue - probably the way to go. If you use PVA because you are OCD (like a lot of us) isopropyl alcohol is the reverse- but if the planking is bonded using PVA ( as it probably should be - CA is really ugly and a PITA as well ) the iso application done carefully. Air brush - theory only here - if used - no brush marks There are two flavors of brush units single action - one button - on-off - air pressure controlled up stream -straight forward action - probably does as much as we need - less expensive - probably easier to clean - double action - button effects the sort of spray - complicated - more practice necessary - the quality and thereby the expense is probably much more critical - if want to also take up detailing vans or other artwork, this may be what you want.

For something that is potentially the best of both worlds This system seems to offer the ability to turn paper (something archival) into actual copper and a chemically reactive material to allow customized areas of verdigris. Reactive Metallic Paints Metal Effects Reactive Metallic Paints are water base and contain real metal particles. These paints will tarnish naturally over time and when exposed to the elements. Metal Effects Patina Aging Solutions & Activators will speed up the oxidation process to create beautiful, authentic Patina, Baroque and Rusted Iron finishes on any paintable surface. Reactive Metallic Paints can be applied using a brush, roller or spray equipment and is suitable for interior/exterior surfaces. Modern Masters AM203-04 Metal Effects Primer , 4-Ounce , White $9.50 ($2.38/Fl Oz) Modern Masters ME149-06 Reactive Metallic Copper, 6-Ounce $19.99 ($3.33/Fl Oz) Modern Masters PA901-04 Aging Solution Green Patina, 4-Ounce $9.99 ($2.50/Fl Oz) Modern Masters PA902-04 Aging Solution Blue Patina, 4-Ounce $9.99 ($2.50/Fl Oz) (Amazon) An additional advantage is that by using paper, not only will the plates not pop off after a few years, it will be almost impossible to make the bottom look like it has contracted a severe case of Small Pox.

With a table saw or bandsaw, it is important to match the number of teeth with the stock thickness. If there are too many teeth the gullets fill with sawdust before they exit. Once the gullets are full the cutting edge becomes a rubbing edge. From that point on there is mostly heat and perhaps a dulling that is greater than if the blade was removing wood the whole way. A dull hot blade on a bandsaw snaps. For a table saw blade it is 3-4 teeth in the cut. For a bandsaw - a resaw blade is 3-4 TPI, Bandsaw blades have a deeper gullet - I think. Given that some saws advertise a depth of cut of 13" or more, the greater volume of gullet makes sense. To make an extrapolation: a scroll saw blade may be subject to rules. Fine blades do not seem to have much gullet at all. If a scroll cut seems to take too long or the blades break more quickly than they ought, going with a more coarse blade ? Now really crap and poor quality plywood may have significant voids. This would reduce the functional thickness of the stock. A finer tooth blade may work better than the equation predicts. But, an additional effect of using a POB mold cut from low density ply with visible air spaces is that the first layer of planking has an even worse bond and the already poor bond provided by end grain. The whole process may go better if end grain and any voids were first treated with an injection of PVA, but the PVA not allowed to pool on the surface (wiped smooth), and allowed to polymerize (set) (cure). If CA is used to bond the first layer of planking, a test will be wanted to determine if CA plays nice with PVA.

OcCre HMS Beagle is 1:60. Cotton is not a fiber that can come close to scale sails as a fabric at 60 times smaller. No cloth fabric that is a practical choice will fit to scale. You have to be willfully delusional to see the OcCre sails as scale realistic, if academic and historically accurate is your standard, but that is not the majority standard. The paper that is used as covering on aircraft models - one brand is SilkSpan - is more realistic. For a kit model, this is best done as a scratch addition. It is not easily done well as an assembly line product. The cost of materials probably comes closer to $5 per model, when spread over the number of projects that the minimum size of each component will serve. Of course, the cost of your labor will exceed $50, even if minimum wage is the basis. For most ship models, if you do manage to sell it, the return would probably barely cover the cost of materials - if that. It requires real artistic skill, an outside reputation, and ruthless efficiency plus economy to get any return on your labor. Plastic models are far more focused on fine details and an exacting finish than with a model made of wood. Because it is wood, if the original subject was also wood, doing much more than what is minimally sufficient for a finish is lost to view and overpowered by the natural material.