Jaager

Based on my reading, The USN at the time had 3 classes for Sloop-of-War. From a functional aspect, the only important difference was in senior officer pay, place on the promotion list, and who was junior and who had the final say. Mostly a distinction with no significant difference. I think corvette may have some minor technical differentiation in the French navy and perhaps the RN, I am not sure. But mostly, I think it is because corvette is easier to type and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd class nonsense can be avoided. The "-" business is just silly.

Ceiling insulation. It is not likely that the back work room will ever used for heavy machines, so under the concrete pour having a layer of 2" or more of solid foam sheet insulation be between the ground and the cement. makes heating easier. probably a wash in summer since the 52 degree layer is a lot farther down. I would probably be happiest if all three outside walls had windows and the long one was more window than solid. For about six months of the year, having fresh air would make it less claustrophobic. It is not really living space so looks are irrelevant so at night - in winter - instead of Window Quilt barriers, a push fit of solid foam sheet pieces will save heat loss.

I second Bob's rec. of having 220V. It is expensive to retro fit. and again with Bob over engineer the amps. Any proper 14" bandsaw will need 220V. You being your own sawmill = big boy bandsaw.

You are missing a real opportunity in not taking full advantage of this separate room. Put your shop vac in there. Add a radio controlled On/Off. The 4" or 2.5" hole in the wall for the vac hose can also take the power cord for the vac. In place of the vac under the bench, put a Dust Deputy cyclone trap - or whatever brand or type you like. A vac with no noise is a luxury that most of us can only dream about. My only annoyance with the Dust Deputy is that the 5 gal bottom trap does not play nice if a kitchen 22 gal plastic trash bag is in it. Dumping a full 5 gal bucket into a plastic bag is messy - an outdoors job that gets flocculant mess everywhere - no matter how tightly closed the bag is during the dump.

If it just going to be for ship modeling, a bench top that is robust enough to stand up to a ball-pene hammer or need to use a full size hand saw is not likely to be necessary. Will you be always standing or sitting on a bar stool? If yes, then knee room is not a factor. Bench top depth is very helpful. Determine how far back you can comfortably reach and make it at least that deep. A 4"-6" high back splash helps stop loss over the back. 110V outlets that are above back splash height - and more of them than you think you will need. If you want to splurge, make each of them have their own individual ON/OFF rocker switch. Longer is better. Drop down - foot locking castors - 4 of them - the back ones - give a thought to how to get at them - if you do not have them, there will likely come a time when you wish that you did. A provision for shop vac hoses makes life easier. Life is easier if the machine in use is the only one on the bench top. Strong sliding out shelves under the bench is a handy place to store them. Being able to lift them straight down or up allows for easier storage. There is significant weight so the shelf support strength may make this impractical. But in any case, being able to easily park tools not in use under the bench is helpful For my Byrnes saw, I bought a wooden box from Michaels to store all of the wrenches, blades, etc. I PVAed a wooden block under the lid and drilled hole to hold all the the needed Allen wrenches. No digging for the often needed tools. Even though you may never have a need to hand plane the edge of a 6' -8' board, an under the bench top vise has uses. A quick release feature may be frivolous - but going economy leads to frustration. Poorly made one tend to rack when they are tightened. I bought a 2x12 plank and cut it up to be a series of bases for various full size tools that are usually fixed to the bench top. A grinder, a machinist's vise, a bare one for pounding on. an old B&D drill press that is actually powered by a hand drill motor - it is an inheritance. all are occasional tools. I used lag screws to attach a piece of 2x4 or 2x6 at a right angle under the front of the 12" deck so that the under the bench vise could hold everything as though it was directly bolted to the bench top. Under the top drawers - I used wire basket rectangles - for sandpaper sheets and big boxes holding small boxes of screws.

In reference to the last question in the title: Am I alone in this? While it works about as well as can be wished for iron and steel, plastic is |absolutely| unconvincing and inappropriate in representing wood. So the answer is: No.

Another old old suggestion (I do no remember the author) was to chisel a flap of wood, drill the hole under the flap, and when all was done, counter sink the pin and glue the flap back down. Wait! I think that was for Oak quarter round.

It does not come down to any sort of comparative contest. About the only way to get a proper run of planking strakes on a hull is for them to have proper support that is also fared to the proper conformation. A support that is 50% room and 50% space is probably right at the bitter edge of being enough. A support that is a single edge of narrow plywood and with it being mostly weak end grain is potential disaster. This means filling between every mold. The common method of using supposedly easy to shape Basswood or (don't do it!) Balsa is easy to fit between the molds in a horizontal orientation- disc sander. But beyond this point it is seriously difficult the pare down and shape. You are working on the whole hull. It would probably be easier to have just done the hull as carved WL layers. Doing the filling with construction Pine in a vertical orientation is easier. It requires some basic lofting, but using existing lines. It is rough and near final shaped as individual units off the hull. Using pins as clamps when the support is end grain ply seems like a path of endless frustration. I question whether your base kit is of sufficient quality to earn the privilege of having a bare wood hull. It probably needs to be painted. 1:84 is too small a scale to even think about having visible trunnels. If you choose trunnels, it is all or none. Proper number per land in the proper orientation. All brass or all bamboo or a mixture has precedent with models from the past. Steel pins is a total disaster. We live on a water planet. Do the best you are able with the kit that you have, but it is best to consider it a learning exercise. sows ear - silk purse

The warped piece of plywood is telling you what shape it "wants" to take to be in equilibrium. It can be flattened but it will be recidivant. 1. -Punt. Replace it. Quick check Home Depot has 1/4" x 2' x2' Poplar faced or Maple faced for $9. A fret saw will allow you to free the new mold by hand. Doing this will demonstrate that you are more independent from the kit maker than you realize. 2. scab it with straight supports on either side. something like 1/4" x 1/4". two parallel rows - PVA - and using bamboo skewers as dowels. The tricky part is cutting the openings in the central spine for the supports and then gluing it all. What with the dowel insertion and the clamping, the repaired mold will have to be applied to the spine before the two or so molds on either side of it.

Take the following as unverified suspicion - not fact OcCre Polaris is probably a fantasy as far as representing an actual ship. The source of the lines may be a real vessel - but one without marketing value. My observation of various OcCre product build logs - and the frequency of the same wrong detail choices - leads me to believe that the company plays fast and loose when it comes to actual shipbuilding practice. If you start with OcCre and you later have an interest in being historically accurate, you may have to unlearn a series of bad habits and bad practices.

I also have one and it is the tool that best does the job of fairing the frames in the hold of the several tools that seem like they could. Would a lighter touch produce less wear on the gear? The tool will produce impressive volumes of dust and the job being done is a finesse sort that I prefer to do inside on a comfortable chair.

The TX is 1/3HP, has a speed range of 500-15,000 This offers more power and control in the low range. I do not think that 30,000 RPM is a wood thing. I have desk top because I want to have the cutter moving as it comes at the wood. I use a momentary foot switch with my drill press, because I want the drill bit to be on the drill site- (awl made starter hole) before I start the spin. There are two stage speed controllers - so that once you have a favorite speed - it is not lost when turning the motor off. Both of the main ones? StewMac has accessories that require a hand piece that they supply - course threads at the tip. Two style router tables - The high end one I mounted as a table to cut a rabbet. There is also a block with 90 degree and 45 degree hand piece holders - to vise mount the tool. I think it is the thinner hand piece, so that if you do not mind the threads for hand held work, the Foredom sold one is not needed. which ever one the hand pieces you buy require? get the bench mount- The bale does not cost much, so you can buy that just in case. I bought a fold down shelf bracket to hold the bale. If there is a wall close behind your bench, this works. There are hold along the support so there is adjustment. The brackets come in pairs, so if both are mounted, you will have L/R options. My problem with the 90 degree adapter is the it extends out too far. The main job that I was after is fairing the frames inside the hull. What I really want is a 45 degree tool mount and that seems to be a unicorn. I think that I will find a belt sander to be a "it seemed like a good idea at the time" tool that may not be engineered for our sort of loads. The drill press is surprisingly robust. I had the money to burn, but as long as my DRL 3000 holds on, it will be a backup. The hand pieces are designed for side loads, so the drill press could be a safe mill for the sort of wood milling that we do. But then, there would have to be an XY table and a vise and the back clearance is tight.

Chuck, When looking around the Wood Database it looks to me that the species of Holly readily available in Europe is not snow white. It is closer to Pine, which would make the European species sort of realistic as deck planking. As far as I can tell, there is no species of wood commercially available for full size decking that is even close to snow white. I wonder if a translation error is in play here. I made a similar error when I mistook what Underhill meant when he recommended Sycamore - which for him was a species of Maple that is about 80-90% of the way to Hard Maple. I thought he meant the American Sycamore species. It is similar in color to Maple, and it is hard enough but not as hard, but the grain is highly figured ( Lacewood), it stinks, the grain fibers want to roll. All in all sort of foul stuff.

The NRG saw jig is a small device that sits in a slot on the saw table. Its function is to allow you use the side of the blade opposite the fence as the area where the finished slices are generated. The small slices do not get bound between the blade and the fence and turned into a missile shot back at you - kickback. The downside is that the fence has to be moved toward the blade after every slice. Bob Cleek suggests using the eraser end of an old style wooden pencil as a push stick. It does have a better friction hold. I do say that a metal push stick is a very bad ideal. I had to pay to have a carbide tooth welded back on to a Freud blade because I used one. As for a bandsaw, - turning a large piece of lumber or a log section into rough stock thickness slices is termed 'resawing'. Any 9" or 10" bench top bandsaw will be too under powered to be a serious resawing machine. It takes a big boy floor model saw. Going low end is false economy. A machine that has enough power to drive the blade thru a thick piece of wood and engineered to keep the blade from moving while doing the work you ask of it is what is wanted. If you have such a machine and the blade starts wandering or canting, it is likely because the blade has become dull. AP - after perpendicular FP fore perpenducular These define the part of the hull that contains the frames. Short hand naval architecture terms. Scratch POF pretty much requires serious knowledge of basic naval architecture. Serious scratch POF uses a lot of wood for the frames. It is much less expensive than kits if you do more than a few hulls and you have the machinery to be your own saw mill. It helps to be young, but harvesting your own lumber from near by trees really cuts down on the cost of wood. It also gives access to wood species that are not commercially available like Apple - the king. The bleeding from a table saw accident is probably the least of it. The parts that have been amputated is worse. I don't think we have access to a Niven autodoc to fix that.

The cross chock that this plan uses is one of roughly four methods of dealing with the butt of F1 port and F1 stb over the keel. The French often used a more complicated chock system. A half floor is strong and is easy. It is more timber expensive. A long arm F1 meeting a short arm F1 was used on later 19th century merchantmen. Which was the long arm alternated bend to bend. The butting of F1 to F1 over the keel was almost universally forbidden. It would be interesting to know how far back that this was discovered to be a very bad practice and how long it took to figure it out. Your disc sander will be useful for the timber butts. It will be difficult to impossible for a lot of the outside bevels. It will be essentially useless for the inside bevels. A sanding drum is the tool. There are sleeve drums. The drums are rubber. The sleeves are fitted by squishing the rubber. The outward expansion is not always uniform, There is often an out of round situation. The sleeves have to be bought and are not low cost. The grit choices are limited. Sleeveless drums use standard 9x11 sandpaper sheets with a range of grits. There is a 3inch diameter drum that is 6 inches long. There are a variety of 3 inch long drum diameters - 3 inch down to 1/2" (if the pad layer is removed. This helps with inside bevels. For POF a table for the drum is mostly in the way. Almost none of it is 90 degrees. The machine needed is a 1/3HP or 1/2HP motor with a 1/2" shaft. The amount of dust generated is impressive. An open motor runs the risk of becoming dust filled and burning up. A low cost standard drill press will work. It would be especially useful if the motor will rotate 180 degrees. Working with nothing but the stock above the drum is most convenient. The line being sanded to is easier to illuminate and see. A piece of 12" x 12" Masonite with a 1/2" hole in the middle that is placed on the motor shaft right where it exits the motor keeps dust from the motor. I made mine using a 1/3 HP TEFC 1700 RPM motor. For sanding wood, 1700 RPM is about as fast as is functional. Used steel braces and brackets from Home Depot as an Erector Set type motor mount. Most of my effort was spent adding a table that has not been needed. A used motor would be a cost efficient way to gain this tool, but a quality new motor would probably cost more than a mass market spindle sander. A major negative to a spindle sander is that the motors seem to come with proprietary shaft mounts . There are a wide variety of cutting, grinding and sanding tools that use a standard 1.2" shaft attachment, Dust collection and not breathing it will be a challenge and you will want a stage 4 hazmat suit and no matter what you do, your environment will drip with sawdust. Even in my garage, if I lived with a female, I would face summary execution for the amount and area of dust spread. Looking at my La Renommee build log may help show what I an describing. It was intended to be a basic methods demonstration. It is a pseudo carved hull but it is POF without the spaces. Dealing with the spaces about doubles the work. This project was about quick and dirty.

Once you have the timbers scroll cut and rough shaped, the problem is how it assemble them to get the accurate shape. The POF literature has several methods that attempt to solve this problem Long quilters pins are useful for this. Where to place the pins? The pattern needs to get into a computer graphics program. Adjustment of the scale of the printed output is a necessary task. A raster based program will work well enough. All that is needed is very basic tools, PS in the cloud is quick and dirty, but potentially expensive. Inside the timbers does not work for many of them when the bevel gets interesting. There is no inside that is common at either outside face. The holes need repair. Dowels are difficult and are fragile at scale. I solved this by placing the pin locations outside the shape of the bends. I use 4 for each timber. At each corner but not too far. Sanding the butts will remove sites that are too far. Close to the pattern lines but not too close. The holes can mar the sides of the frames. Rather than guess each site, I made a jig. It is a 7point Ariel Black "o" merged with a 4 point Ariel Black "o". The lower case letter o is mostly round. The inside of the 4 pt is small enough to leave no guessing and the outside of the 7 pt is far enough out if it just kisses the pattern line. The timbers are a bit wider. The additional waste is only interesting at the last 2 or 3 stations at either end. An additional advantage is that there can be an identical pattern on either face of the bend. This means that all 4 lines are available instead of 3 and guessing the 4th. You are using plans that already have the bends patterns extrapolated. I use lines plans and derive my own timber patterns. I found that extracting three outside and three inside patterns for 60 - 100 bends was beyond tedious and took a long time. I only use the existing station lines for the outside and made a jig in Painter to quickly draw the inside moulded shape. I shape each station section of bends as a unit. It is way way quicker. A part that needs practice is the timber to timber butt join. If I try to sand to the middle of the line - that is usually too much. There is a gap. I use a 1.5 or 2 pixel line. I just kiss the line - no white. This usually produces a tight joint. It will take practice.

Your patterns indicate where the timbers are for each of the pair of frames. This means that with multiple short segments, you do not need frame stock that is all that wide. The way you are proposing to do this is probably not sustainable. It just will not work for bends at the midship. This is most of the bends. When it is broken down into timbers, the stock width problem is solved. I prefer 1:60. It is close to museum scale which allows for detail. It is 0.8 less in any one dimension, but the product of the three yields a hull that has 50% of the volume. Stock that is 2" wide works for any hull for me - even a first rate. I find that 2 foot long stock is my sweet stock for bench top handling. I hate cants. I will not use them. I use full bends all the way to the FP and AP. The bevel gets really interesting at the ends. The keystone shape of the floor timber - being very deep and sometimes wider that 2" of a large hull means that for some liner hulls 4" stock is necessary. This is inconvenient. After years of experimenting, I have found that the optimal method is to use a 14" bandsaw to slice the 2" wide stock from my piece of lumber. How much extra to set the slice thickness is a continuous challenge.. Too thick and there is waste and tedious extra passes thru the thickness sander. Too little and the bandsaw blade scars are not removed. It becomes stock for the next smaller hull. A poor quality bandsaw can produce cuts with blade deviation. Wedge shaped slices are difficult to rescue and are never going to work for this hull. The efficiency of a bandsaw for this makes renting time on one from someone who has one worth it. I have addressed which type blade more economical in other posts.

I wrote this before you wrote that this was not a serious beginning of a scratch hull using POF. I will start this photo by photo. Photo 1 and 2: Get a digital caliper. Precision is more important than accuracy. You only need to be internally consistent and reproducible. A steel ruler is only really good for length and eyeball estimate. Photo 3 and 4: The NRG saw jig will be a big help. Use a push stick and or covering board. The Byrens saw will not bit as deeply as a 10 inch saw but a mistake can ruin your whole day. The primary job of a table saw is to eat your fingers if you give it a chance. The rest of the photos: The patterns are for bends A bend is a pair of frames that each side strengthen the butt joins of its partner.. A major advantage of POF is that frames are built up using timbers. The timbers are intended to be as straight a section as possible. In full size, there are limitations on the size of the stock that a tree can provide. Timbers tended to be 5-8 feet long. The tops where the moulded dimension not wide and were not as heavy could sustain a much longer piece. The butts of the timbers of one frame meet in the middle of its partner frame timber. The overlap makes for a strong join. Your frame should two layers. Your stock is twice as thick as it should be. You do not even have the most important timber = the floor timber. Photo 19: The wood where the floor timber and F1 would be as well as the (twice as wide as it should be) cross chock all have cross grain. Cross grain is just wrong.

I will digress a bit before I start. These two kits are Amati POB kits and they are Italian as the primary plans language, even if translated. POB and POF are two entirely different methods of hull construction. Once a POB hull is planked and decked - there is essentially no difference from POF in what you do after. Unless fillers are used between every mold, the POB hull, before it is planked, is about as attractive as a mud fence. Even the most basic POF hull tends to be elegant. Pegasus is a 6th rate, a 3 masted man of war. It may appear small and easy but it is not. Vanguard is a 3rd rate, a 74. This is a formidable beast. A 120 gun 1st rate at first seems twice as large, but it is generally just more tedious. There are more decks and more guns - but that is just more repetition of the same thing - over and over. Prior experience with plastic kits is probably more of a hindrance than a help for building a wooden ship model kit. The primary reason is that it tends to lead to unrealistic expectations are far as what the kit instructions provide. Pegasus will come at you with expectation that you have an in depth background in the basic skills and techniques. The instructions for large vessels tend to start from this point. You may well be one of the ~5% exceptions who finish when starting at a very advanced project. But with every project, even the most experienced of us hit patches where we get frustrated, weary, lose inspiration, and take a break. Those who find themselves in deeper water than they had imagined when enthusiasm was dominant, tend not to come back when they hit this patch. You might should consider delaying these two projects. Give a thought to "going to school" on the basics. While not the only way by any means, the MS Model Shipwright series is a safer way to gain experience. There will be plenty of help here.

The general way that you did this is OK for a cant frame - because a cant frame is usually a single isolated frame that meets the deadwood at less than 90 degrees. The port side frame is separate from the starboard. I suggest that you give serious consideration to a species that is a lot harder than Basswood. The only positive characteristics are that it has no visible grain and has no pores. The fibers are easy to crush. They tend to roll. It is difficult to keep a crisp edge. I strongly advise that you use a domestic species that is commercially available. I am unfamiliar with which domestic species are sold on your continent. Using the positive characteristics of Basswood grain and pore, try to find something that is as close as possible. The "no visible pores" is the most important characteristic. A darker color is probably going to be impossible to avoid. Climate change is probably going to have an adverse effect on availability and cost. This along with inflation will probably make anyone's imports from anywhere to anywhere economically painful. I did this with my first POF scratch build. There is a much easier way. The water in the PVA can affect the paper. It takes a day to dry. The pattern will certainly stand up to any abuse while scroll cutting, drum sanding, and fairing. But boy is it a lot of work to remove. Doing it also has an affect on the final thickness of the frames. I find that rubber cement does an adequate job. I use a quality brand. One 4oz bottle with a brush applicator in the cap and a Pint or quart stock bottle to keep it filled. A stock bottle of the solvent -n-heptane and a bulb pipette to add the ~5ml / 120 ml needed to keep a proper consistency is pretty much necessary. Apply a serious layer to both the pattern and the wood stock. When dry (5-15 min) place the pattern. be careful because no adjustment is possible. Burnish. I use a single edge razor blade to get under the pattern to remove it. The residual on the wood will roll up under your thumb. A scraper gets it really clean. Another single edge is a good enough tool for this. If you are interested, I will address the problems that I see with your frame fabrication in a subsequent post.

It is in the Wood Database. It is not yet an endangered species but may be getting close. It comes from the Congo region. Only an estimate of its hardness puts it about equal to Hard Maple. The photo does not show that it has open pores, or obvious grain. My read of it Probably meets our requirements It is likely to be a one off situation as far as being able to depend on continuing to source it, if you like it. It sort of puts one in a dilemma. Buy one plank and immediately process it for look at scale. Then hope it is still available for a larger order. Gamble with a ~> 100 BF first order and hope that is not something that you only use for hidden areas, jigs. Get enough for a project or two, then in a few years not be able to get any more. My perspective on how much is needed per hull is for POF -framing stock - at near museum scale - 10-20 BF per hull - a lot going to sawdust or scroll cut waste.

Allan. I place a windlass in a disposable category. Being on the deck, it would not be all that difficult to add, remove, or replace. Is it possible that its presence on construction plans would mean that the yard was expected to provide it? For as built, if the captain had to pay for it, when missing, it may suggest that the current captain cared more for his purse than his crew. If a windlass is missing on the contemporary data and it was not a subject of comment, I would think that for a modeler to add one of leave it off either choice would be correct provided that the style was correct for the era. Most POB fillers that I have seen use horizontal pieces of wood. Doing it that way allows for an easy fitting of the pieces between the molds. It is easy to do with a Byrens saw or a disk sander. I see that as false economy. Getting the contour when fixed between the molds is a lot of work - especially from a balk state. Think vertical layers between the molds- a loaf of sliced bread, You already have the shape. It is the stations. Two consecutive stations on the same pattern. Because the station interval also includes a mold thickness, a temporary sacrificial layer that is the thickness of a mold is needed for off the hull shaping. I would use a white Pine construction timber as the filler. I would make the thickest Pine stock be ~1/4". Use however many slices are needed to fill the interval. The yellow Pine that you use as topside fillers would work if it is not sappy. The white Pine family is just sweet to work. The moulded dimension of the filler just needs to be wide enough that bamboo skewers (two or three) can keep the filler layers aligned - so a hollow can be as much as you wish. If your stock layers come up a bit short on the sum needed to fill the gap, a piece of poster board would work, if you are not up for a lot of custom thickness sander work. Most all of the contour shaping can be done off the hull using a sanding drum. Leave just enough for final fairing using the molds in place. If you had planed for vertical fillers before the first mold was placed, the alignment holes could be a part of and drilled into the molds so that the fitting would be idiot-proof. It looks like your central spine and the molds define the top of the rabbet. I think that I would find it a nightmare to place the garboard and plank ends on the hull and the try to slip a keel with a rabbet into the gap. I would want the keel and stem and sternpost in place before I started planking. As for planking, wale first. then garboard. Probably two gores outer strakes working in. use the planking fan for each strake. If a gore is 6 strakes, pre planing for all 6 strakes at the beginning - at all goes out the window after the first strake.

Ron, You might give a look at this recent discussion - it veered into bench top ( DRL3000 ) fairly quickly. The solutions involving Dremel machines you should discount if any of them are not already dismissed out of hand. I have Foredom flex with the 1/3 HP motor - lower speed high torque motor and bought the drill press accessory - it is surprisingly sturdy - so if you have a Foredom, it is worth a look although I have not tried it yet - my DRL3000 has worked well enough and my framing method requires 100's if not 1000's of holes that must be exact and 100% perpendicular. https://modelshipworld.com/topic/32788-does-anybody-have-experience-with-vanda-lay-industries-tools-for-the-dremel/

This being my first exposure to the term "impact glue", I did a quick search and it cross referenced contact cement. Contact cement has no use in or on a wooden ship model. I would use their factor of suggesting the use of contact cement to be an absolute indicator that the author is someone to avoid and totally ignore. We have an on going disagreement between two camps on the use of CA - a sort of near instant quick grab. A very rough distinction is scratch/historian focus = CA-never and kit centric = CA is the new sliced bread. A close approximation for something that is a sort of contact cement = heat activated PVA. Yellow PVA - apply a wet coverage on both meeting surfaces- 100% wet but no blobs - let both surfaces dry/polymerize - when dry - joint and use an iron to reactivate to PVA for an instant grab. The wood layer being ironed must be thin enough for the heat to reach the PVA and the iron must be below the char the wood temp. Old school - three bonding agents are enough: PVA - yellow - wood to wood - the smaller the gap, the stronger the bond - starving a joint with too much pressure is not possible epoxy - metal to wood - tooth on the metal in the join is a good practice. PVA white bookbinder's pH7 neutral for rigging that is natural fiber - linen and cotton - Someone else will have to supply the bonding agent for line made from man-made synthetic fibers - a forbidden material for me.

I checked my copy and there was no plan for Thermopylae. The period covered falls a decade short of Thermopylae. A different book does TEA CLIPPERS ,THE MACGREGOR,DAVID R CONWAY MARITIME PRESS LONDON 1983 3 sheets lines, deck, spars There are also photos of the ship - probably of it at an older point in its existence. The plans are small - too small. If there are plans in a book by David MacGregor then the full size 1/4" are probably in his collection. I did a key word search and the plans are now owned by an entity that does not seem inclined to provide copies. I think David MacGregor sold plans for a while. I am not sure if this ship was included but probably so since a pirate site lists a copy that seems to be the three sheets from the book on a single page. For these monster size ships, the 1/4" scale plans range about 5' to 6' long.