Jaager

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.

Probably better if it did not tilt. Once the piece is freed from the stock, another tool could be used to get a bevel and probably do a better job of it. The end grain of plywood is messy to work with. A scroll saw blade has an unfortunate up/down action. The blade up can lift the work. The only use that I have for my 9" bench bandsaw is to do scroll cutting. No up action. I use a 1/4" blade - it lasts much longer than a 1/8" at only a slight loss in arc. A back and fill cut works as well as a continuous one. The blade has significant set - the kerf is more - the cut face is ragged - so not too close to the line. ( a sanding drum does a better job of finishing anyway) The mold could be 1/4" ply or 1/4" solid wood as it is no problem for a bandsaw to cut A thicker mold => better planking support I replaced the guides with a Carter Stabilizer - the blade swings like a hinged door I bet that 1/4" Pine would work well as mold material.

Could they be misinterpretations or hallucinations of an artist who does not understand what he is seeing?

It also may be a typo - maybe turned up was intended? Indicating that the plates were to be attached to the keel?

To focus on the part of this that I find to be worth real interest - How much of it is good for building a serious model? .... So Sutton Ho is from between 400 and 800 - given the burial mound bit - probably closer to the 400 part? There are no definitive lines. Any plans available from the current operation would be a guess? Yet another replica aimed at tourists and not advertising that it is just a likely to have as much wrong as correct? The construction technology is invaluable from an academic perspective.

I am guessing that you will be doing this POB? If so, then what you are naming "the frames" are named "bulkheads" in the POB world. What they actually are = moulds or molds. Laser cutting makes sense if you are setting up to make 100 identical kits and want a convenient and economical way to get multiple identical parts. Unless you are doing the laser programing for computer reasons instead of just tool to get model parts, the time spent is difficult to justify to make one copy. If you do not have a motorized scroll saw, for one model and a hull that is not likely to have a lot of moulds, a hand operated fret saw or coping saw will do an excellent job of freeing the moulds from a sheet of wood or plywood. Sanding blocks will get you to the line. You can also use thicker stock than a laser will want to vaporize. Get the patterns by tracing what is on the plans if 1:1 or use a scanner - If the scale is to be different, there are Xerox machines that reduce or enlarge - or scan the plans of the moulds into your computer and use a drawing program to change to scale and print the patterns out. PS in the cloud has a <one month free trial if you do not own the necessary program.

Phil, I was pretty sure that it is a labor intensive exercise - but the process being described above does not sound like it is fire and forget either. I liked WordPerfect. (I also liked PicturePublisher.) I have found MSWord to be more complex than I care to deal with. WordPad is fairly basic and does as much as I need - when I mix text with pictures. For just text, EditPad is enough. WordPad does not have many options when it comes to save formats. I doubt any of them offer any sort of compression. My log's .RTF file is 190 Meg. I did not consider that MSWord could save as PDF, but I am not surprised. I did not even install MSOffice. But then, I still only have a land line. Who knew my fate was to go from cutting edge to dinosaur? Wow! I just used CloudConvert and it turned a 190 Meg .rtf into a 4Meg .pdf.

If it is your own log that you want a copy of, I have a copy of mine by doing this: Use WordPad to compose the log. The .TXT from it can be Copy Pasted from WordPad to this site. A file of JPEG can be used as the source for what gets Saved in the WordPad document and a place marker in the TXT file can mark which and where the JPEG go for the site log. I just checked and the TXT here can be Copy Pasted into a WordPad document and the images can be also. The from you to the site part would not take very much more effort than composing and formatting directly on the site. The from the site to you copying of another author's work will be a tad tedious, but it does offer the choice of omitting 3rd party comments and anything else that is unwanted. A WordPad file with images tends to be a large one. I wonder if a .RTF file can be converted to a .PDF file using one of the free Web sites that offer this?

I constantly use the term "bend" in framing because otherwise "frame" for everything that is wood becomes ambiguous - unless you use modifying adjectives. A bend is a pair of frames. The timbers of one overlap the timber butts of its partner. Efficient shipbuilders and POF modelers who do not wish to endure constant frustration (fighting nature) build their framing as bends. I sense in post #41 you are using "frame" to describe a bend. I have no intuition when it comes to metric for something like this, but I will try. Station = 1680mm A station is "always" the middle of a bend. Room and Space = 560mm For POF - with frames on display: Now, at this point there are some decisions to be made: Absolute prototype replication or an attractive model 560mm / 3 = 186.7mm (7.3") so a 2/3 room 1/3 space - which looks good, but has the individual frame a bit thin. An 8" frame = ~ 200mm 560mm - 200mm -200mm = 160mm (6.3") space. Close enough to be attractive Hahn style: all bends, frames wider such that for an individual R&S there is no space - every other bend is omitted. Faster to build - significant savings on lumber - except that his method of fabrication is to lay up the timbers as wide planks, bond two of these "U" shapes as a bend. ( This is a big piece of 2 ply - strong). Place the pattern on this and free the the bend shape - the waste is horrendous and the moulded shape of the middle most frame is not defined. With one pattern on one side and 4 lines to cut to, only 3 of them can be used. The appearance is a bit snaggle toothed to me. My favorite now is Navall framing. It is similar in appearance to Navy Board but I see actual Navy Board as inappropriate after 1718. 560mm R&S All of the space is in the F1 frame. 560mm / 2 = 280mm (11") so the timbers are 280mm wide. Floor - F2 - short Top is all wood and 280mm wide Deadwood - F1 - long Top is also 280mm Deadwood - F1 has a space F1 - long Top has a space. I fill the two spaces with Pine that is bonded with a different agent than the PVA I use. I am still looking for the perfect strong hold + easy release agent to do this. Fabricating the hull as a solid and shaping and faring as a solid is easier because the hull is really strong. The edges of the frames are protected from being rounded off, because they are not exposed until after all the planing and sanding is done. Small vessel I would Have F1 be 6' long +/- 1 foot The heel of the long Top would be at the bottom of the wale. The result looks like the model framing in post #35 - except the model has two belts of outside planking to support the frames. With Navall there is one belt that IS the framing. It is between where that model's planking is. It is seriously strong in the lower hull and from the wale up it is a solid wall ( unless you leave off the upper part of the short Top. If the inside of the bulwarks are not planked and there are visible stanchions - what you leave between the waterway and the rail is more work than a simple planked over wall.

Harbor Freight has an electric 14" for $50. I do not see a current generic 20% off coupon but if they have one soon, it is $40. No idea about how long one would last, but I did use one to bisect a Bradford Pear butt after a wind storm a couple of years ago. Two feet is my preferred length. A bisecting cut would be easier if the bole is attached to the inground roots. Significant loss the kerf, but much easier to manipulate on a bandsaw table. Doing it free hand is an Evel Knievel sort of operation with the possible kickback. Slow and light pressure.

Melaleuca quinquenervia - I had not come across this species until you mentioned it above. If the pores are small, you may be golden. Another species local to you is loquot - Eriobotrya japonica - which is in the Rosaceae family - as are Apple, Pear, Plum, Peach, and as a wood good for miniature carving Hawthorne. The tree is also listed as Japanese Plum. Holly is about the only wood that is as white as it is. It does not grow nearly large enough to be used for deck planks on a real ship. Some of the species used were Pine and Oak. The model scale appropriate wood that comes close in color are the above mentioned Birch and Beech - as well as Maple. It looks to me although the price for white Holly has started to enter the realm of the absurd. The Holly species in Europe are not snow white. They are closer to Birch and Beech (I believe). As with my adventure with Sycamore, I think there was a translation misunderstanding between British publications and US readers as to which sort of Holly is an accurate decking. There are varieties of Holly here that are not white and Holly that is infected with Blue mold is usually a grey color. These would be a better color for decking. The mold effect on the wood is only cosmetic, so that wood is still perfect for most any of our uses. Unfortunately, they seem to be treated as being trash. Now, a white Holly deck on a model is generally seen as being an ideal and something special. If that is your view, "Never mind".