Jaager

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".

Of late, there has been some interest in the history of the first ship model kits. Yours may be from a kit or scratch from McCann's plans, but it is probably one of the first sizable generation (or close to it) of ship models built by someone not a professional model maker or an actual ship builder or a seaman. It probably has value as an historical example. It looks well done in any instance. When it is back to its prime condition, if you do not have one already, it will want to live in a protective case.

This is my own biased opinion. I have no experience with restoration or with anything like The Antiques Road Show - except watching it. What you have there is decorator kitsch. It is not a ship model in any meaningful definition of the term. It is something that sorta looks like a ship - from a distance, in dark light, thru a gauze curtain, if you squint. That said, it probably has value as its own thing. I doubt that the value involves much money, but as time passes, what was once one of many copies will become more unique. If collecting kitsch as kitsch ever becomes a thing, who knows? If you are wealthy and have too much money, you may find someone willing to restore it. It does not need to be anyone with experience with actual ship models, just with restoration in general. What you pay will be lost money. If you restore it yourself, it will be time donated. Consider it time spent doing something for fun. You will want to return it to what it was. There are no "improvements" to make it more ship-like that will not destroy any value it may have. Clean what you can and replace any rotted fiber (lines and sails) with something that is close to what was the original material. The goal is to make it as close to what it was as you can. If you want an actual ship model, there is a thread at the top of this forum - For beginners - a Cautionary Tale that will help with how to build your own.

Graham, Oh fun, a chance to fantasize! and remember, I would find it difficult not to over engineer (a thick layer of) sheet Styrofoam insulation and Tyvek. In the past, I learned that you have to be VERY careful with: if and where a vapor barrier is placed. Do it wrong and you have a condensation trap and liquid water in closed spaces. What works for a house, with a conditioned interior, does not work in a garage that is not heated or cooled. Your structure could be both if you only heat or cool when in use. I have a cousin who likes the sound of rain hitting a metal roof. He built his house with one. He discovered that a sheet steel roof will rust, with one side at the outside and one side at a conditioned space. I am thinking that if both sides are under outside conditions, no condensation - less propensity to rust. The metal would essentially have to float above the structure with freedom for underside air circulation. But, I guess with the nature of your structure, the fixed life span of asphalt shingles is not a problem. The structure will probably go first. For a sky light, if your budget is unlimited take a look at what Kalwall has available.

A Google chase seems to lead to the following: Pyro -> Life-Like -> Walthers My guess is that the copyrights went along with the sale of the companies. Walthers has some HO, N, O scale diorama style ship models. Even though nothing like the Gertrude is in their current inventory, they may not be in favor of you giving away total information that is not yours to give. For what you have questions about, the isolated relevant sections should fall into fair use category. Posting just those parts should be a benefit. A whole set of plastic model plans would only be of value to those who have the kit and they should already have them. Otherwise it is just esoteric and a waste of bandwidth. I do not think that this web site is setup to store large size files of ship plans - unless it is part of a group project. The Gertrude is one of the subjects in H.I.C.'s American Fishing Schooners. The two plans in the book are available from The S.I. for $10 each and are large scale. The book also has a section that features extensive details for the schooners.

The reason for mentioning the ethanol:water azeotrope is to point out that it is essentially impossible to have ethanol that is stronger than 95%. Even if you started with an expensive lab reagent bottle of 100% ethanol, unless you used it in a sealed chamber with an atmosphere free of water vapor, the 100% ethanol would quickly return to 95% by extracting water from its atmosphere. In the US, there is a significant Federal tax on drinking alcohol ( not as significant as it once was, because it is a fixed amount instead of a percentage of the alcohol value ). If a poison is added to the ethanol to make it unsuited to ingest, there is no tax. The common term for this is 'denatured' and its whole purpose is to avoid the tax. Long ago, I think methanol was the additive. Now I think the additive is an emetic agent. There used to be methanol available. It is available as 100%. The danger in using it is probably not worth any advantage. The vapors can be inhaled and while ethanol is metabolized to acetaldehyde and then acetic acid, methanol goes to formaldehyde and formic acid - you don't want it. Methanol also evaporates more quickly than ethanol. This is not an advantage during application of shellac. I had an idea that ~100% isopropanol (which is available, but is expensive) would have a longer application time and not have the 5% water. I do not think that the length of any additional time is practically significant. The 5% water in ethanol is as the azeotrope. That is a special state of water. Whatever straight water might do to shellac, the water in the azeotrope is not able to do it. That water is owned by the ethanol.

The openings at port and starboard aft are to the quarter galleries. They were small and mostly were officers' latrines. Where the captain's cabin was the width of a whole deck, I wonder why he would need two privies?

That was my first thought, but a comment here has me questioning that. If shellac in flake form is subject to oxidation, then a shellac finish that is 200 years old should also be subject to it? I would think adsorbing water into the flakes could be it, but then there is still the situation of why a shellac finish does not also adsorb water. Or perhaps it does but the concentration of atmospheric water is too low to affect a flat surface. Maybe the flakes have a higher surface to volume ratio? Maybe the flakes can absorb water? As for ethanol : water the description of azeotrope for that mixture should explain why it is a very specific situation.

It is a table saw. It works the same way as an 8" or 10" saw. For functional use and safety skills, an instruction manual for table saws in general is pretty important to read. In general, with the smaller modeler's scale saws, the damage that it can do to human parts going where they should not is less, but you still do not want it. As for the saw itself, I do not know if the company itself is in business. Even if you can get an illustrated parts list (IPL) it may not be of value if there is no manufacturer to supply them by a parts number. I would guess that any parts subject to wear can be had from tool parts vendors.

An old wood finishing book had instructions for French polish. The instructions were to use a cloth pad that had a small quantity of Linseed oil in the middle which was then soaked with shellac. The pad was to be rubbed on the wood surface with constant movement and a jet takeoff removal. Otherwise the cloth will leave its weave pattern on the finish - which was to be only a wet layer. I took this to mean that French polish is primarily shellac with a small admixture of polymerizing oil. It seems to me that Tung oil could be used instead of Linseed oil.

Hakan, I got that the Balsa comment was meant in jest. I apologize if my response came across as an insult. I took it as an opportunity to broadcast another shot at that terrible species of wood out to the world. In my mind, I imagine that inside shaping frames that are widely spaced apart is a totally unfun procedure. I fill all of the spaces with Pine that is temporarily bonded. The solid hull keeps the edges of the frames crisp and it is more difficult to remove too much while shaping and faring. As I said in another thread, I am still looking for an easy to remove temporary bonding agent that can stand up to the sheer forces of shaping and does not leave a tedious to remove residue, when I kill the bond after the fillers have done their job and I punch them out. I will offer another shot. Using Balsa as a filler for POB is probably one of those things that appear to be a useful idea, but later prove to be a bad one. It is probably just as likely to crush as it is to cut, plane, or rasp. The feel of working it is a bit creepy. Construction Pine is probably much more efficient to work and less expensive. Pine is a joy to plane. The worst dust producer for me is the rounded end of a 4x36 bench belt sander (80 grit) removing the inside of a sandwich of 6 or 8 frames at the stern or bow. The bevel is significant so there is a lot of wood to remove. That angle grinder disk can produce a cloud that no vac can totally collect.

Callery Pear - a group of ornamental Pear trees whose wood is also excellent for our use. The color is darker. The Web says that Pyrus calleryana is a native of China and Vietnam. Masa, looks like you have found a wonderful timber. My impulse would be to be greedy and hoard as much as I could.

Balsa is about the absolute worst species of wood for our uses. Apple is about the best. Almost impossible to find in quantity here. The moulded dimension is what is seen on the cross section view (Body plan). Thickest at the keelson and thinnest at the rail. All of the removal - but the shouting - should be done on the individual frame before adding it to the hull. (Unless you are into self torture and frustration, you want all of frames to be as bends. Bend = a pair of frames with timbers that overlap each butt joint of its partner. - A raw end grain to end grain joint is a very weak bond. As in: no bond at all.) Sanding - grit matters. Fast = course. But then it must be walked down to smooth using ever finer grits. A machine is faster. For inside a hull - about the best machine that I have found is this: https://www.kaleas.de//kaleas.cgi?action=show&sessionID=53362980167228376253362980&lang=en&page=shop-produktliste.html&cat=32&subcat=3230&catname=grinding, planing&arcode=x But choose the Right Angle grinder. Use very light force, someone here had a part in the drive chain wear out. There is a chuck attachment for the right angle unit for bits and burrs. The belt sander ( comes up with the link) will REALLY eat wood fast - too fast if you are not careful - and it will quickly throw the belt - I hold it with a piece of flat scrap wood extending over the top part of the belt to keep it on. https://www.kaleas.de//kaleas.cgi?action=show&sessionID=53362980167228376253362980&lang=en&page=shop-produktliste.html&cat=32&subcat=3280&catname=power supply&arcode=x The DC power supply works with a variety of tools, but I am not sure very many are worth it when up against their single purpose competitors.

We had one in the bathroom in the 1950's. The heat source for the house was an on oil burning furnace under a grating in the hall. More than one kid at the time 1"x1" or so grid pattern burns from falling on a red hot grate. That was a step up from a coal burning furnace that required blackgang work from an inhabitant.

Dave, Unless you intend to build for an academic audience and for a contest where the reward is the model becoming a museum exhibit, except for maybe some very specific details, you should consider the AOTS series to be close enough. For long lived ships, a specific version is selected. It may not be the version that you wish to model, so keep that in mind. Some of the vessels are complete reconstructions. Nothing definitive is known about their actual lines. For those vessels, as with kits purporting to be their models, what those AOTS volumes represent are models of the reconstruction. e.g. Susan Constant, Mary Rose, the Columbus trio, ... not AOTS but would probably sell if they were: Revenge, Mayflower, Half Moon, Magellan's five We even have models of ships that are only creations of the mind of a fiction writer. There is a range here of what is acceptable - from pure fantasy to completely documented using contemporary sources. I see nothing wrong with making educated guesses that are not anachronisms, but you would probably do the future a favor by inserting a bond paper -india ink script- document listing your guesses (- along with your name and the date) inside the hull. It is just a matter of defining your personal limits and being aware of that.

Jim sells bushings. They are excellent at adapting 1" arbors to fit a 4" table saw. One more difference with using a table saw for milling lumber: It really wants the stock it cuts to have at least one face surfaced and one side edged. 4x4 lumber that is S2S is actually 13/16" thick - about 1/4" is lost to the planer - but you pay for the full 1". A band saw is more forgiving. I use rough lumber. The first cut of a rough edge riding the face of the fence is usually scrap, but sometimes the thickness sander is able to salvage something. A 4x4 board produces a 1" wide slice. I have to watch for checks. Any ripping of the slice wants the face that against the fence to be edged. For frame timbers, the condition of the edge does not matter ( except for deep checks ). I prefer 8x4 stock. I can get less waste by having a 2" wide surface to arrange my patterns. ( At 1:60 the floors for most ships need 3" and a first rate needs 4" for the frames close to the bow and stern. I do not use cant frames. Since it can't be seen, I now make those floors be two pieces. I have the cut at the edge of the keel and alternate the side in the sequence. )