Jaager

First, just to be contrary: If Marquardt's presentation is the correct one. If Endeavour was built in a private yard, it serves to harden my cynical view of the procedure as done in the English government yards. It would mean that not only did the North American and French yards - but also the English private yards did not build using the eccentric, labor intensive, in inefficient style of topside framing that the RN yards used. Now, on Navy Board framing and R&S Based on Deane - even though very few have survived, plans were probably used at least in the last half of the 17th century. The interval of the stations on the plans is a hard data point as far as framing. I am also convinced that the actual Body plan station shapes were essentially all that was used in both the shipyard mould loft and the model shop mould loft to prepare the frame timber patterns for both the ship and a model of it. The station interval was usually every three, sometimes four, maybe two at the ends, - bends. A bend is two frames with the timbers of one overlapping the butts of its partner. The table of scantlings decreed the thickness of the timbers. If the station interval is three, then it is six frames. Using HMS Prince George 1723 90 R&S = 2' 7" (31") Station interval = 8' (96") 3 bends or 6 frames per station Floors sided = 14" For the ship: 31" - 14" -14" = 3" space per bend 31" x 3 = 93" so each bend would need another 1" of space. Designer ego is my thought about the discrepancy. I am fairly sure that even in the last half of the 17th century the frames would be all wood. The space would be between. For a Navy Board model, the space is within a frame. The timbers must be wider. Stations 96" - 6 frames per station = 16" width for each timber. I think that the 17th century modelers rough shaped their frames in stack of six layers - using the station lines as their patterns. The stock was wide sheets - maybe -each frame was one sheet. - The waste would have even the Hahn technique in a different league. All of the layers put together for hull shaping. Then the spaces were cut out using a chisel - the space zone would not have been glue coated to begin with. Maybe thin paper was used to make it easy to find for removal. As I wrote a few days ago, I think the Navy Board style framing served two purposes. It is a strong hull and no battens or clamps are needed. The overlap - the solid band at the turn of the bilge - is an easy visualization of two proof diagonals. My recent reading has turned up that Navy Board framing was used for special model well into the 18th century. It is an elegant and artistic style of framing. I am happy that I have precedent of using it for ships built right up to 1780. After 1780 the warships design started to become purely functional war machines that do not deserve an artistic framing style.

Allan, I get my answer for this from the contract for the corvettes Warren and Falmouth included in the appendix of HASN. i.e. heart Pine, max 10" width, 2.5" thick, 40' long. American as a separate entity was late to the game. Before 1783 the RN was us. I have read about there being lots of trees in the North American colonies having a brand with the king's symbol - which I think meant - you may own the the land, but this tree belongs to the RN. The Baltic gets the press as the source for Pine and Pine tar in books published after 1783, but before this, I think Georgia and Carolinas were the main source for a while. There was a species of Pine that was loved into near extinction in the early 20th century. It was a large tree, very tall and straight. The grain was distinct, yellow and red, the red was as hard as a rock. It could turn nails. I think it would depend on when a "repair" of Constitution was done for them to use it. The later, the less likely that it was still available.

The following is speculation - I have no specific references, just years of reading: The decking - the probability is high that it was a southern yellow Pine. Working ships tended to have their decks subject to frequent sanding - actual sand under a moving heavy flat rock. No clear finish of any kind. Bare feet react poorly to splinters. These same feet tended to track tar, as well as it dripping from the rigging, so a captain who wished to keep his command and or wished for promotion would keep the decks clean. A varnished deck - more often wet than not - would be too slippery - they did not have TopSiders. Consider a dose of 50% diluted clear shellac - and when dry, wait a few days and rub the surface with a ScotchBrite pad. The wood Hard Maple, Birch, Beech - To my eye the premium snow white Holly tends to be too white and I don't think any species of wood that gets large enough to build anything with is near that white. But - I chanced upon some #1 common Holly at Advantage Lumber that was only $6.00.BF. It is not white, the yield of usable product would likely be 50% at best. But it what could be isolated would have the same wonderful Holly working characteristics.

Hans, I tried to phrase what I wrote as supposition. It was not intended to be seen as fact. It was more in the nature of chum. It is unfortunate for the historical knowledge that so much of what they did and how they did it was hidden and secret in an understandable effort to protect their "rice bowl". Perhaps if it had been government and bureaucratic the archives would be more complete. I do not apologize for suggesting that money, power and politics often shape decisions that should be strictly based on logic and science.

Wonderful! You have rescued the whole line... Although, I am an antimatter analog to popular culture, not an author or draftsman, I have been thinking of subjects for new title lines. The 200th anniversary of the U.S. Ex.Ex. is fast approaching. Six vessels that represent the actual working vessels of the Antebellum USN. There are plans for the others ships that were out there with them: Astrolabe/Zelee. Maybe the AOTS HMS Beagle can be rescued and actual physical plans be added. Ships of the 1719 Establishment - I found working plans for 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, 20 gun ships. The HMS Prince - that was in the Science Museum for years - can be returned to the spotlight and a full monograph done.

From early in the 20th century, there was also Boucher (later Boucher-Lewis and then BlueJacket) who apparently provided kits as well as being a high quality model shop that may have inspired what A.J.Fisher provided in their kits. The quality described suggests that the price may have also been quality.

Any chance of getting ghost writer or co-author to complete the series that Grant Walker bailed out of on the 3rd volume?

This vessel was 1872. Drake's first well was ~1860. So it is entirely possible that petrol based tar was in use, so actual black for standing rigging may be appropriate. The running rigging -a dark straw - likely hemp. This was a privately owned two master, so I doubt that steel was even considered. But as Gregory says: you can do much better for the line that you rig with.

What happens if you use a dimmer switch or router speed control with the AL unit?

The Lady of Shallot Wasn't this pretty much Dark Ages or Medieval? As I see it, even the Saxon Sutton Ho boat was Scandinavian clinker. They were pretty much it in northern Europe for a long span of centuries. A kit of a Viking craft (even a smaller scale longboat) may pass as a larger scale wherry with adjustments to the stem and stern. If you lose the bow dragon and lower the sheer it should be close enough for government work.

Vinod, If you are just dipping your toe into all of this, then paying for expensive imports may be the way your have to go. If this is a long term prospect. If you are considering scratch POF and working at the higher range of scale =>1:72, then becoming self sufficient may be the more economically practical option. The initial investment in tools is a bit daunting, but the savings over time will fairly quickly get you into the black. If you do this, then perhaps YOU could become the supplier in India. Tools: A quality and powerful 14" band saw - with bimetal or carbide blades - the all steel dull and break too quickly and the low cost ones have too much set and really chew up the face of the cut. A thickness sander - you can make your own from a 1/3-1/2 HP motor, but a Byrnes is the gold standard. Something with an edger function if you sell to others. And for turning resawn and sanded stock into strips and miniature timber A Byrnes table saw. unfortunately for those outside the US, there is really no real substitute. As for wood - I am highly biased toward using species that are domestic for you. In light of this, in your place, I would seriously investigate the following species: Ailanthus altissima - Ailanthus, tree of heaven, Chinese sumac if it is as open pore as is suggested - its use would be where it is hidden, or sealed and painted. Alstonia scholaris - Indian pulai, white cheesewood, milky pine, blackboard tree Aglaia cucullata - Pacific maple, aglaia, bekak, amoora, tasua Acer pseudoplatanus - Sycamore maple, European sycamore and maybe the star that we wish we could get: Chloroxylon swietenia - East Indian Satinwood, Ceylon Satinwood

@*Hans* " a convex, pear-shaped hull with a strongly concave top and narrow decks – can plausibly be assumed to be the result of a succession of small developments that started at the end of the 16th century." I read along time ago - no reference- sorry - that the reason that Dutch vessels tended to have very narrow upper decks was because of how the taxes and customs duties were calculated. The formula obviously used the breadth of the top deck to determine the cargo volume. It would have been easy to use a more realistic formula, once the trick was obvious, but I am guessing that the shipping interests must have gained control of at least that part of the government. They must have become the ones with the money and thus the power. I have developed an historical narrative about ship model kits that goes as follows: The kits from the 1930's and 1940's were primitive - mostly a solid block or slightly carved one, some sticks, string and lead castings. Then after WWII a lot of pattern following lathes became available as surplus when millions of M1 rifle stocks were no longer needed. MS, BlueJacket, and I think another New England company that I think BlueJacket bought started providing more carefully carved hulls and better materials and using real plans for a new generation of kits. Meanwhile, in Europe, I think first in Italy - around 1960 Aeropicola (sp) and Constructo (sp) and maybe others - not having access to cheap pattern chasing lathes , evolved a hull construction method for ships based on how boats have been built for a long time - planking over molds. Except that with boats, the molds are not a part of the final hull. With boats the molds are at close enough intervals that the physics of the wood fibers do not allow for hollows. Based on what I see in Lusci (1970) and Conte (3rd ed n.d.) these early kits used plans of questionable accuracy and subjects likely to be popular even if their actual plans were a fantasy. The molds were spaced at ridiculously wide intervals. Two layers of planking was required to avoid a serpentine hull conformation. The swimming body seems to have been given as little attention as possible. A follow-on company - Mamoli - seems to have used the same hull shape for at least three vessels - Bounty - Endeavour - Beagle. With so few molds, I am wondering if thin plywood was expensive in Italy at the time. I find it bemusing and a bit ironic that features that were cheap short cuts of guys just trying to make a living (POB to begin with) and double planking for it - because it was cheaper than having enough molds to support a proper hull have flipped and are seen as some sort of standard.

I was thinking that also acting as an overseas distributor might help, but about the only other publisher in English is Sea Forth. A long paging thru NIP shows that they still are a US agent for them - slight as their output is now. It sort of only leaves ANCRE as a possible partner. Anyway, it is a great service that you have taken on - keeping the SeaWatch titles available. Now, if only NMM would find someone better than DHL to get their plans across the Atlantic.

Siggi, I am going to face a similar construction - if I can re-gain the motivation. You have the top inner support as a molded half circle. Once the whole is assembled, is there any reason not to use a solid half circle instead? I know that the original vessel would have been as you built it, but if it is hidden no one would know but the builder.

I have a DustDeputy in-line - so except for some really fine particles the filter is clear and bin is empty. Besides, it started life with me having a short on cycle. I figure that a sensor is faulty. I used to be big on using IPL and ordering and replacing faulty and worn out parts. Either living alone or getting beyond retirement age has greatly dampened my enthusiasm or I guess it could be my black dog. I am betting that replacement sensors and the trouble involved with taking things apart and reassembled would match the cost of the Rigid, now that I think on it. It annoyed me that the instructions said not to use a cyclone trap. There is no constricting aperture involved with the trap, so what possible effect could it have? Trap or no trap, remote control on/off or straight to 110V wall outlet - none of it affected the short cycle unreliable nature of the Festool - so I am more than a little displeased with it.

I do not know. I think they were for defecation - so with glass there would be protection from the wind - a welcome thing is some seasons - without glass there would be ventilation. Maybe there was a solid cover on a hinge or hook to allow either option. I do not see that the diet was sufficient in fiber, so perhaps the job done there required a bit of study?😉

I cannot keep the Festool running - the overheat switch or whatever keeps tripping - the Rigid that I bought said it was quiet. It is quiet enough not to need ear muffs, but not quiet enough for Mozart to be heard.

Some random thoughts on your project: in 1799 three super frigates were built using the same plans as the starting point: United States, President, Constitution. The United States started life with a round house. The first captain of each ship had some say about how their new command would be built. It was a wild hare of an idea and the resulting poor sailing quality caused the addition to be removed. A round house is a tall deck at the stern - in the 17th century it was were the poop deck would be but a round house is a lot longer. The United States lasted until the US Navy's base here in Norfolk was captured by Confederate forces. The ship would have likely undergone topside cosmetic changes about every 20 years as the then current fad changed. I would not be surprised if United States did not gain an elliptical stern at some point. Since it is a sister, the AOTS monograph for Constitution may help with masting and rigging and deck details if the era of your model is the same as the monograph's. Plastic masts and yards at 1:96 might prove to be a bit bendy or fragile. You might give a thought to replacing them with wood. And also a thought to upgrading the kit supplied line, @rwiederrich has some 1:96 clippers with exquisite masting and rigging - to give you something to shoot for. USS was not part of the official name for US Navy vessels until TR decreed it early in the 20th century.

I take it that you are soliciting feedback by writing this: "Mill" If you are going to work metal, an actual mill is needed If it is just wood that will be worked - a rebranded EuroTool small drill press - sharp cutters - and a quality XY table will probably suffice. "Table saw (I like the Byrnes machine) (I have a full size machine for rough cuts already)" Nothing else approaches this. "Thickness planer (I also like the Byrnes for this)" Nothing else approaches this. "Band saw (cheapo WEN)" not really a wise choice. All bandsaws are squirrely to fine tune. Even benchtop models need to be quality. Quality is important. Your entry here says that no serious resaw of boards is an objective. For effective resawing, a floor model 14" at least will save on frustration Even for a benchtop paying a bit extra for something like a Rikon 10" for scroll cutting will save you on heartache. "Reciprocating spindle sander (cheapo WEN)" Not wishing to deal with sandpaper tubes that are expensive, and have limited suppliers, and compressed drums to hold them at can be made out of round. I opted for sleeveless - which meant that I supply the motor and mount it vertical. "Disk and belt sander combo (cheapo WEN)" I have an old Dremel combo - the disk part is not accurate and I could not get much use from a 1" belt. The 5" Byrnes disk sander is about as good as it gets. The only downside is if you plan to sand styrene or other sheet plastic - the Byrnes can not be set to have a reduced speed. For a belt - a HF 4"x36" - it is low cost and shows it - I did not even mount the disk part - the housing on the back is thin - my shopVac pulled it into the backside of the belt. A steel angle brace keeps it away from the belt. A belt sander does not really need to be precision to do rough bulk wood removal. Using the rounded end for getting at inside curves works, but keeping the environment from being a dense cloud of sawdust is beyond most any vac. "Lathe (though I think this will be purchased somewhat down the road - BTW, those vintage Unimat machines look the BUSINESS. They seem to scream quality!)". I have a Unimat SL 1000 and yes - it is both precise and accurate. It was a real loss when the company went out of business. A lathe is mostly an important machine if you intend to work metal. Most anything it can do to wood can be faked using much less expensive machines - except maybe using a duplicator attachment for multiple copies of cannon and such. Something that I bit on because my budget allowed for it is a Foredom TX flex shaft - It is a high quality and versatile machine. Besides the obvious rotary function - there are attachments for a small belt sander, angle grinder - drill, attachments to make it into a miniature router, and sturdy drill press. So far for me it is a tool looking for a job, but it is anything but junk. The TX model is about power and torque, not blindingly fast rotary speed.

For carvel, I have seen a snake-like spilling pattern on a wide board. For clinker I am thinking that only the edge that is overlapped is spilled?

An older way Use a screw plate or sharp angle needle file to cut spiral grooves into the long arm rotate it in using 2 part epoxy as the chemical bonding agent. - I think now there are clear versions of epoxy. It should be thick and viscous enough to stick after the long arm is dripped. A pin can be used to poke some epoxy into the hole. the hole should be a tad smaller than the diameter of the long arm before it is cut for mechanical grab as well as chemical. Do not leave any wet epoxy on an open surface. when set it is difficult to remove. It does not soak in and effect subsequent clear finishes like CA does. You might wish to place a small piece of masking tape- the old crepe paper type as surgical drape. Epoxy is sneaky about spreading.

Using an aniline wood DYE does not affect a PA bond since the surface is unchanged. A wood STAIN is a surface coat that blocks the teeth of a wood surface. PVA has nothing to intercalate its polymer chains with = no effective bond. Agents using surface bonding will bond with a stain layer. Then the bond strength is probably most likely dependent on the strength of the paint to wood bond. We 'know' that paint "never" flakes off?

An advantage of a machine carved hull is that it can be easily planked using a thin veneer of a scale appropriate species. The thin veneer can be spilled using a sharp knife, a steel straight edge, and a sanding block. It looks to me as though the original Mamoli sold kits for Bounty, Endeavour, and Beagle that used the same lines for all 3, so a careful check of the hull shape using the S.I. plans would prudent. It is also possible that the planking material provided is all various species of some open pore African Mahogany relative As far as a look, I doubt that even an impecunious merchant owner would send a vessel with raw wood to sea. Lamp black in a paint carrier would be less expensive than frequently replacing planks.

lets see if we can get this going. I am writing in theory here - so perhaps someone who actually knows will help. If you did not loft the molds yourself, it may be that you are placing too much trust in their being accurate. Is not the sheer strake the plank that is just under and up against a rail? The rail location is the more important component. If you can fix the hull to a base - and have it midline (stem and sternpost) vertical - jigs can be made that measure the height of the rail at every mold. The molds can be trimmed or shimmed as required. The sheer strake can be spilled to fit the space. It will be up to you whether to do the rail first or place the rail on top of the sheer. If the space is not a perfect fit - many ships had a small decorative under the rail strip. It was not as far out as the rail. It would sit on the sheer strake. These are NMM multi decker plans and they appear as though the rails were super thick. I think a more reasonable construction would be two parts. The under piece would be like crown molding. There is no reason that a boat could not have this.

I checked the Minwax web site to see if your product was also a dye and they are fairly explicit in stating that their pre-stain step is important. They also write to "Test Test Test". Because of the uneven result and it being more extreme where glue was used - this points to this product being a combination of a stain and a dye. In your situation sort of the worst of both worlds. A dye is a solution of pigment molecules in water or alcohol. When done, it lives inside the wood and not on the surface. Back to the beginning, the planks could have been dye treated before they were assembled on the model. They would have bonded using PVA as if they were bare wood. If you had done this and if the result was satisfactory - you would be golden. As Roger wrote, a stain is a type of paint. It is a suspension of dye particles and when complete = a surface critter. Not compatible with PVA bonding - because the pores and surface irregularities it needs for attachment are sealed over by the paint. If the product that you used was strictly a stain - it would probably not be any more uneven than if you had used a paint. Most paints work better if the surface is first given a primer coat of half strength shellac. Your hull would probably be OK if you had done this instead of the Minwax primer. The verb: to stain describes what both a dye and a translucent paint does. The noun: stain should refer to to the translucent paint only, But it obviously does not. Popular use confuses them and it appears that commercial products also do this. To keep the work reasonable, you can probably treat the inside with shellac that is diluted 1:1 with shellac thinner (ethanol). Scotch Brite it a bit - carefully so as not to round the wood edges - and either paint it or give it coat of full strength shellac and then paint it. If you are wed to a raw wood look inside, the kit is economical enough that you can buy another one and be more careful with it.