Jaager

This is an unsolved problem for me, too. I need a bonding agent that will survive significant shear force and will readily release without affecting the PVA bonds next to it. Duco is a cellulose nitrate adhesive that releases with acetone. PVA is unaffected by acetone. But Duco as poor shear strength in my experience. Fish glue is a hide glue - they are protein based adhesives. The protein is totally denatured in the presence of ethanol and heat. It is a strong adhesive that has a long history of competence. The traditional form of hide glue is from a hot pot. This avoids needing a solvent, but is complex and time consuming. More work is needed than squeezing out a blob. I assume that the solvent in Seccotine is water. Franklin makes a liquid hide glue, but the water content is significant. Old Brown glue is supposed to be better quality, but still water. I use it for temporary timbers filling the spaces between or within frames. It is better to have a solid hull when shaping, faring, and sanding. No movement of timbers and the edges are crisp after it is done. I could not avoid using too much hide glue, so even the timbers of a pilot schooner were too thick to get a bond release without the heat gun cooking the Maple frame timbers. I suppose I should have used dots of glue. Also, if a layer of newspaper or similar loose fiber paper was a part of each layer, the ethanol would wick in more readily, but glue would be needed on each side of the paper and I want quick and dirty. I next tried Scotch perm double sided tape. Ethanol affects it. It has good enough shear strength most of the time. But to increase the strength, I burnished the first side. It increases the hold. Too much. It releases well enough, but the burnished side lease the adhesive behind. I can find no solvent for it, so it is a mechanical removal process, between frames. It is maybe 200 or more gaps. HMS Centurion is still waiting for me to recharge my initiative to tackle that tedium. My current thought is to use rubber cement. Apply a layer on each surface. Left it dry. Stick the two together. The solvent is N-heptane. It does not affect PVA bonds. I suppose that using it as a solvent instead the a rubber cement thinner wants it being done where there is excellent ventilation and no chance of ignition.

Draque, I have given answers to questions that you probably did not know you had to formulate. You already have as much information as is really needed or can be expected for most vessels that are unique. In my shop, I could build the hull, POF with what you have. I favor framing that is close to prototype as far as scantlings, yet with a style that is has artistic interest. My inspiration is from the Navy Board models. They are not an engineer's model. A troublesome problem for me is that the location and run of the wale has to be guessed. The wale is where I change from open framing to complete planking. You should probably totally plank the deck. A plan of a near contemporary vessel that has a deck beam layout will have to be found and a ratio and proportion adaptation made to get beam location and interval as well as hatches and other openings. Just be sure to label the model as a reconstruction instead of an exact representation. The difference would only make a difference to a handful of historians.

Benjamin, Playing the numbers, knowing nothing about your real situation, at 15 you are likely entering a time of brain development that will only be complete when age ~22 is reached. Your interests may change significantly as this proceeds. Making major capital outlays for tools now, based on a focus that may change significantly, may leave you with tools that you have no use for. Returns from the second hand tool market are decidedly in a buyers favor. If the buyer of your current model is family or pseudo family then you are assured of a return. If you intend to sell to a stranger, I believe that the experience with most who do is that the selling price is pretty close to what was paid for the kit. I think for most of us, getting a return that is equal to materials plus hours spent x $15 is an opium dream. Check some recent threads here about adapting an electric drill to act as a lathe. A corded electric drill is a tool that will be useful for your whole life. A cordless rechargeable drill is more convenient but the batteries have a shelf life and buying a replacement in the future - may be difficult due to tech changes or companies being companies, or cost more than it is worth.

I will confess that I have zero interest in the internals. I consider the framing above the wale to be about as interesting as looking at 2x4 framing of a single family dwelling. My focus is the curves of the swimming body. Ignoring my bias and its non-support of your ambition, for a first effort at scratch POF, I suspect that not taking too big of a bite is prudent. Going with the outside only helps make a task that can be overwhelming easier to complete. Then, when you gain the confidence - you can worry about the internals. The biggest challenge with it is how to display it - otherwise, why bother? Even more challenging, how do you display it without making a hash of the outside? A practical way is to do a half hull. I see that structure as the planksheer. I would mark the top as being also the top of the waterway. That means that it is the line to use to define the run of the deck clamp, once waterway thickness and deck beam thickness is added to the gauge. To repeat what Druxey wrote. If you have the rabbet, then the lines are inside the planking. Ideal for POF. Where there is no internal planking, the stanchions may or may not be extensions of the frames, In any case, they are just addons. The serious part of the frames would end at the underside of the waterway. The original would be stronger if the heels of the stanchions were in the spaces. It is likely that the stanchion spacing was its own individual thing. It would be easier for you to make the waterway wider and extend it over the top of the frame heads. The stanchions can then sit on top of the waterway. No need to cut notches. After it is put together, it is almost impossible to tell which dimension has the break. A tight notch with no gaps is difficult to pull off - especially which as many replications as must be done. Also, since this will be a whole hull and not a section model, it is pointless to bother with butt chocks. They make frame assembly much more difficult, take much longer and would take a fiber optic scope to even see. I think most North American yards did a simple butt joint and depended on the partner timber side scarphed at the join to provide the strength. It is both stronger, less expensive, and less fiddly. For the real answer, I guess it comes down to whether the Australian builders went around Carter's barn like the English, or cut to the chase like the North Americans.😉

Find an Architectural Scale Ruler, Imperial not only is there a 1/4":1' scale, there is a 1/2":1' with an inch section. You can still do POF. It would be unfortunate if you let an unrealistic requirement drive out the GOOD. This is an excellent size vessel for a first POF. Concede that you are making a model and not a definitive demonstration of colonial shipbuilding practice in 1870. An attractive frame display should be the objective, not the actual vessel shrunken down. Given when and where this vessel was built, all bends is probable. No war, no critical timber shortage, reduced siding of the frame timbers is not probable. Being a schooner, the area of the framing between the keel and the wale is fairly small anyway. The physics of wood - the engineering strength of the material is a constant - time does not change that. I find a table of scantlings for a close enough time and fly with that. Your stations are at 3 bend intervals. That is 6 frames - in pairs with over laping timbers. A 100 tonnage vessel - American Bureau of Shipping 1870 - (a marine insurance standards) - floors sided 8" Measure the distance between the stations = D D - 8x6 = space x 3 If that number is in the 1" - 2" range - it may not be esthetic to bother showing the frames. During the 200-250 years of the golden age of wood and sail, the builders - especially merchantmen - seemed to keep cycling back to Frame = Frame = Space. So 8" would be my guess for the answer to the equation. The all bends and space = room is an invention of about 1900 on. The old guys who knew how to build large wooden vessels were long dead and school taught engineers had taken over. Some realistic scantlings (ABS 1870 - 1885 - 1903) For a 100 ton merchant vessel. Part sided moulded keel 10 11 keelson/riders 10 11 Stem/sternpost 9 11 Transom 10 10 Floor timbers 8 10 Top timbers plankshr 5 5 Bilgestrakes 3.5 Ceiling flat of floor 2 Ceiling above bilge strk 3 Clamps 4 11 Strakes below clamps 3 11 Main rail 5 11 Waterways 6 8 Garboard thick 4 Planks to wale 2.5 Wales 3 Topside planking 2.5 Planksheer 3 Deck planks 2.5 Rudder stock dia 12 rudder pintles 1.5 Deck Beams ln 8 ln 22 ft Floor timbers at midship = 60% of beam 18.5' x .6 = ~11' Half floors 5.5' Lap >= 1/8 Beam 18.5' / 8 = 2.3 ~ 2.5 so F1 should be 5' or more F2 also 5' For the other timbers, they will mostly be above the wale. Since they will be hidden their length does not matter. I fill the spaces above the wale with the same wood that I use for the frames. I do the same for the spaces between the keel and keelson. This makes for a strong hull and makes bend placement and orientation more less idiot proof. It also saves having to notch the keel and keelson.

You already speak "wood", which puts you ahead, but wooden vessels involve learning an entirely new language. The rate of attrition is very high with enthusiastic beginners. To gift yourself with an optimistic chance of sticking with it, level 1 is still the path to do it. If you are US based, something like a Bluejacket beginner's kit is worth consideration. Small open boats are not as sexy as a large vessel with multiple masts, but they are elegant in their own way and their brothers are a part of the big boys, so the skills translate as well as does the language. Steel - if that is what is meant by Navy battleship - involves a whole lot of different skills and a different focus. Even here, because of size a BB has a ton more of repetitive detail that a YTB or a YMS or even a DE.

Amazon for a wide variety of options. I found a Hobby King site - US and OZ - selling covering irons - something that may better suit. Wood is not water soluble. The lignin binder that holds wood fibers together is not water soluble either. Heat does loosen lignin bonding. Water plus heat = steam ( which transfers heat more efficiently than air ) is useful if the wood needing bending is so thick that the surface begins to char before the interior heats up enough. For planks, most are probably thin enough not to need a steam assist, dry heat should be sufficient. If it is edge bending, give serious thought to spilling instead.

For jobs where the surface being worked is 90 degrees - like the easy way to do deck beams or a stem - a table is good to have. For sanding a group of 6-8 frames between any two stations - a table just gets in the way. Where wanting to go slower than 1700 RPM may be an impulse, I find using a finer grit works better.

I emailed him with the suggestion several years ago. There was no response. His stock 1/3 HP CW/CCW motor was my inspiration for my contraption. A steady 1700 RPM is probably all that we need. The portable has a few downsides from my perspective. The motor looks to be a bit under powered. I would bet on a burn up if worked hard and frequent stalling if the job is significant. The media is sleeves - which is more monopoly as far as source and a limited choice of grit. The mount is proprietary. A significant length of the media surface is sequestered. You can flip the sleeve, but in any case, the length available is less than the whole. A 3" diameter drum is my favorite. The 6" length surface unit works best for larger scale and big vessels. As far as the dust collection setup, I would expect more dust will be thrown than will drop.

A good quality hand fret or coping saw with one of those gangplank "V" opening base would not take up much room. For the first time, the slow and up close and personal aspect is fun. I prefer using my 9" bench top bandsaw for scroll cutting. With the Carter products blade guide, it will twist and turn as much as I need. Eats thru 1/4" Hard Maple quickly - just as long as I keep small scrap from jamming the blade. The blades have too much set to get more than sorta close to the line. My purpose built scroll saw is junk and the up-down chatter was too irritating. Backing up and redoing - it allows you the opportunity to see just how close full on scratch building is. Doing the step into scratch opens up a magnitude larger world of possibilities. The intimidating virtuoso projects in our scratch forum are the exceptions. They are way more complex than it needs to be. I wonder if Jean Boudriot had any idea what he was unleashing with the publication of his 74 gun series?

OK, if you have not started, go back to this initial step it replace these components with something that is waterproof. I would skip any plywood replacement and go straight to hardwood. For the price and ease of cutting Yellow Poplar is difficult to better. You can even use thicker material for the molds and center spine. The outside keel can be a separate timber if the spine is thicker than the actual keel. Valente Lumber in Averill Park looks to have what you would need, and probably can or knows who can do the necessary resawing. It looks like there is a possible valuable resource there. There is probably a local woodworkers club in your region and those guys are good at being helpful - especially to a weird duck like a ship model builder. I suspect that Roger's suggestions bear very close attention.

Looking at the Minwax website, I count seven different lines of different base formulations. My guess is that within any one type of the seven, mixing is possible. Mixing between base formulations would probably lead to a crash. Given what you are doing, and the fact that you are not worrying about a match with something pre-existing, why would you want to mix? The spectrum of shades is adequate to your needs. Doing it would double you cost and produce something that you would not be able to reproduce - should you ever need to. This all comes from whole cloth. The color of the original is unknown. From a definitive historical perspective, pretty much everything is unknown. I advise looking at the product pallet and selecting one that appeals to you. Given the wood species provided by most kits, the oil base semitransparent line looks like a good way to go. The oil will not raise the grain, so a prep step needed with a water base can be avoided. You will not be muddying up an expensive and elegant hardwood species grain.

I think that Mother Nature limits the width possible - except for CA Redwood size timber, so I have not made much note of the width - believing 10"-12" to be the outside limit. No reference to footnote. It was the thickness. It was from the 1840-1860 large commercial carrier - speed = money period that my memory wants to assign this. I was thinking when I saw it - they really could have used a laminar flow test tank to see the effect of sharp irregular edges of the step down planking.

Hello Tarheel, I grew up in the city that is the third "R" of your three r's.😉 Where you be? The I 40 corridor? I remember the Beaufort museum from when it was one floor of an old house, few if any ship models, and a flat sandbox under a table containing a very large stuffed Eastern Diamondback placed so as to scare to 'ell out you when walked around its corner. Reading your intention, you reaaaaly ought to read this post at the top of this forum: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/13703-for-beginners-a-cautionary-tale/ If plastic kits are your prior experience, be prepared to have your expectations disappointed by the instructions that come with most wooden kits. With plastic, the molds have already formed the WHAT your are assembling. The plans show HOW they go together. With wood, the plans show WHAT to fabricate. Except for purpose designed beginners kits, you are already supposed to know HOW to fabricate what is shown.

Maybe try to leave the top edge of the garboard strake straight? The bottom edge straight where the keel rabbet is parallel with the baseline? Only trim the bottom edge where the stem rabbet is rising and to fit the sternpost rabbet? Save the width adjustment for the rest of the planks between the garboard and the wale? I have seen a few ships where the garboard was twice the thickness of the rest of the bottom planking. There may have been enough differential movement stress between what the keel wanted to do and the garboard wanted to do that making the garboard less than robust was a bad idea.

https://americanhistory.si.edu/about/departments/work-and-industry/ship-plans The two catalogs will list some of what is available. The transition period from 1860 to WWI is not really a popular period and not a lot of books cover it. My library: OCEANOGRAPHIC SHIPS FORE AND AFT NELSON,STEWART B U S GPO WASHINGTON 1971 BALTIMORE CLIPPER, THE 1930 CHAPELLE,H I EDWARD W SWEETMAN NEW YORK 1968 COAST GUARD UNDER SAIL ,THE KING,IRVING H US NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS ANNAPOLIS, MD 1989 OLD STEAM NAVY ,THE VOL.1 CANNEY,DONALD L US NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS ANNAPOLIS, MD 1990 OLD STEAM NAVY ,THE VOL.2 CANNEY,DONALD L CONWAY MARITIME PRESS LONDON 1993 HISTORY OF THE SHIP - STEAM, STEEL AND SHELLFIRE GARDINER,ROBERT ED CONWAY MARITIME PRESS LONDON 1992 The Mariners' Museum used to have plans for sale on their website, but there seems to have been a redesign. They have/had many models from the transition period - most are strange ducks - I think they have materials from Newport News Shipbuilding and they are from 1891 on. Try Mystic - who knows?

You probably ought to understand that I am more from a minority party segment in all of this; in no way set any rules, and have an academic ( with lose rules ) bent. I am not always good at phrasing suggestions as suggestions. I meant it as a "you might not want to walk in that mine field, but go ahead if you wish" sort of comment. If you are exploring the possibilities you might wish for suggestions for survey books for each of the many eras and technologies. Our build log forum has a breakdown into several broad areas. Spending time there may offer a sample of what is available from kits and in the scratch half, what is available using monographs. Builds that start with just a sheet of plans are not as common as the shear number of possibilities possible from doing that. Specializing is not at all a requirement. Covering an area that goes from rafts and hollowed out logs in prehistory to nuclear powered vessels tends to be a bit overwhelming for one lifetime. Becoming focused on at least a general segment of that range is one way to cope. You found two books that are significant and fundamental to me. They are mostly about the end portion of the Age of Sail and are America centric. Getting a volume with foldout plans is an excellent find. My Bonanza reprints do not have that feature. A problem with scaling up photo copies is that the line thickness also increases and things can get imprecise. It would probably be more efficient for me if I could follow my own advise and stay focused. I am prone to distraction which makes finishing a project a rare thing. But, I have managed to keep a wall at 1860.

"The History of the American Sailing Navy" H.I.C. As tempting as it is to use the plans directly from the books, better results can be had by using copies of the originals. They are available from The S.I. ships' plans department. The cost is reasonable. Use the books as a catalog. There are too many degrees of freedom with a bait that is that general. Isolate a specialty segment and ask about that. The more tightly focused is the subject area, the more useful will be any replies. A popularity contest will give direction if your object is to build a huge library. That ambition is better achieved if you are your sole financial manager.

This is not a proper test of the saw. A new blade would make for a fair test. It is probably worth less than you pay for it, but HF has a 4"x1/2"arbor 24 tooth carbide blade for $6.00. It will probably cut better than a blade resharpened by a non-professional. First off, in comparison to a Byrnes saw, the Dremel is junk. It will cut. The engineering design choices produced a cheesy machine from the start. Just remember that the blade has to match the job it is asked to do. Ideal is 3-4 teeth in the thickness of the wood. More teeth = a filled gullet - no cutting, just friction. A thin blade has more teeth - is called a slitting blade for a reason. Wanting less waste to kerf is a universal goal. Unfortunately, the physics will not support this as far as blade thickness to tooth count. Someday, a blade material that is paper thin, is really stiff, and is affordable may be discovered. You want less loss to kerf with thick stock? A bandsaw - a big (14") bandsaw - is the tool for the job. The cost is that all bandsaw blades have a set. Some have more than others, but none are hollow ground. There will be additional loss when sanding off the blade scars.

Next, it might be worth considering giving this layer some protection. I use white butcher paper, but a roll of 3 x1000 foot has become a bit dear. Home Depot or Slowes have small rolls of contractors paper (the stuff that you walk on in a model home). For a direct working surface, a 18"x12" x 1/4" piece of tempered glass - edge beveled - is a good glue and cut surface and is dead flat for glue ups. A bit of a drift from being a "dodgy solution" unless you drop or use the glass as a hammering surface. A source of worry if you move a lot.

For a while, an important resource for ship modeling supplies was based in your city: Coker Craft, by P.C. Coker There seemed to be a major focus in your area of interest in the content of an expired quarterly journal - Model Shipwright. Back issues are available in several second hand dealer inventories.

I believe the active ingredient in Sparex is hydrosulfuric acid. It is classified as a weak mineral acid. This means that its pH (an inverse measure of hydrogen ion concentration) in water is higher than that of a strong mineral acid ( sulfuric, hydrochloric, nitric, hydrofluoric, hydrobromic acids). All will dissolve metals. The strong acids just do it more quickly. It is wise to treat it with respect, pay close attention to the recommended exposure times, and take care with how it is discarded (totally neutralize). M.E.K. is still available from hardware retailers according to a search. It is very dangerous to breath, possibly fatal if the body inhaling it is also metabolizing certain other toxic substances at the same time. For our uses, acetone is a much less toxic and is an effective substitute.

It seems that the original YMS hulls were wood framed and planked because if they were steel, they would probably only sweep one mine. It makes sense that when civilian, steel would replace the wood planking. I predict that: Unless you wish to represent the WWII BYMS-26 version, wooden planking would not be "authentic" at all. You will find that mixing plastic with wood will prove to be way more trouble than it is worth. I suggest that you build the kit as designed. A primary focus with plastic is in the finish. The finish is mostly an afterthought with a wood based model of a vessel older than 1860. If your previous experience is with plastic kits, you may find that you have an unrealistic expectation for what wooden kits instructions provide as far as HOW to do the job. They are obligated to supply the WHAT to do information. If you have a hankering for working with wood, a wise entryway is one of the Bluejacket beginner kits or the 3 vessel beginner series from Model Shipways - except that the ME owner has chosen to have an affair with skunks and has a major stink at present.

If you can wait a few minutes for it to stiffen, PVA will also form a point on line.

I am not going to look it up, but I seem to recall reading a message from Jim that said that he was taking significant "family time" over the holiday season and that a backlog was likely. I have been involved with the NRG since 1972. I have seen many tools and books (and lumber) that at the time, seemed like it would be available forever, only to disappear. If there is something that you want and it is a budget problem, the take home lesion is that the back burner has an expiration date and it is likely closer than is wished.