Jaager

PVA will hold it - Gorilla wood glue is PVA - if it is not visible - scab one one or both sides.

Gorilla glue is about the worst brand name that you could present as far as determining exactly what type of glue is being discussed. Given the wide range of products with the name Gorilla, and the probable toxic and hazardous chemical synthesis involved, my guess is that most of their stuff is from core chemical companies - packaged and sold under various brand names - Gorilla being one of them. The original Gorilla glue - the foaming polyurethane is something to be absolutely avoided for a wood model. I see three types of Gorilla brand PVA - white -probably the same as Elmer's - and maybe Weldbond (really imaginative and enthusiastic ad copy writers) dries clear yellow wood glue - looks like Titebond II water resistant dries amber yellow wood glue ultimate - looks like Titebond III yellow - water proof dries amber the original Titebond III is brown and dries darker They sell various flavors of CA. I do not use any type of CA - but from from discussions here - quality of the brand is probably very important - economy or generic CA is a way to get a poor result and a lot of waste. There seems to be two camps here as far as CA as using an adhesive. 1. Avoid at all costs - old school toxic, perverse, very poor shelf life after opening ---- wood to wood: PVA wood to metal: two part epoxy natural fiber rigging: bookbinders pH7 PVA 2. Greatest thing available. Then there is always one of the hide glues especially the hot pot flakes - if you wish to replicate 17th-19th century practice.

Here is what I have thru 1995 - my database program became obsolete and life changed - so nothing after 1995: A METHOD OF TAKING THE LINES OFF SMALL BOATS MACKEAN,RAY MODEL SHIPWRIGHT 1990 74 40-44 NA BOAT TECHNIQUE TAKING OFF LINES RUBIN,NORMAN N NAUTICAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 1971 18 16-18 TIP NA A METHOD FOR TAKING THE LINES OFF A HALF-MODEL SCHOCK,EDSON NAUTICAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 1971 18 225-228 TECHNIQUE NA AN EXPERIMENT IN TAKING OFF LINES WEGNER,DANA M NAUTICAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 1974 20 149-155 TIP TECHNIQUE NA TAKING OFF HULL LINES NEVARD,LANCE SHIPS IN SCALE 1984 8 29-31 NA TECHNIQUE TAKING OFF BOAT LINES HANCOCK,CLIFFORD H NAUTICAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 1981 27 195-203 NA BOAT TAKING LINES OFF AN EXISTING MODELS - A MEDIUM TECH SOLUTION PARISER,DANIEL NAUTICAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 1995 40 128-131 17TH YACHT NA TIP TECHNIQUE

You wrote "scanner". Since you are only doing this the one time, I am suggesting that low tech and more time consuming may be a more practical option. Now that I re-read what I wrote - maybe "L" shape is more accurate. The boat gets in the way of the inside leg of a "U". Maybe just high enough to butt against the keel. Look at a set of lines for any vessel. Profile, Plane (WL), Body . Now, for traditional POF - the Body plan is almost irrelevant. The most important is WL. The profile has the buttock lines - which are only really useful at the ends. The Body plan is the cross section at each station. * The stations are the midline of a bend. (A bend is a pair of frames with overlapping butts.) A Hahn style framing (plot the outside shape of every other bend) does not need the shape at the midline. A loft every frame method can use a station shape - but there are 200-400 shapes and maybe 24 station shapes - so only a little helpful. For a boat, built using a mold plug, The Body plan is 90% of what is needed. You need to replicate the Body plan - using as many station intervals as you think that you will need. You need a jig to measure the cross section at every station. A wooden X-Y graph. Like a piece of graph paper- but 3D. And able to move along the Z axis. The keel is X=0 Y=0. You need to measure X at Y=1', Y=2' , Y=3'...... maybe at 6" intervals is you are compulsive. You need a fixed, known distance Y outside the widest part of the hull - so that the graph will fit. The longer than a yard stick (with a line level bubble) sits at Y=1' and how far it is from the keel is the X value there. You could drive a fence post at every station interval, but a movable jig seems more practical. * The mold loft used the Body plan. They expanded the 1:48 drawing to a 1:1 chalk line on the floor of a barn sized room. Made patterns from that shape and added marks for the lines of the frames between the stations. 200 patterns - one for each frame - would have been insane. Besides, the shipwrights that actually shaped the frames would not have been pleased about being told how to do their jobs by the mold loft gang. Now, when frames became iron and then steel, an adz does not work so well. (I use a method that mimics the mold loft.)

Micha, Ask Rassy for a table of offsets. - it is not an America's Cup candidate. High tech is not necessary. A jig made from 2x4's - A "U" shape (without the rounded corners) to site the keel and be perp. and a sliding yard stick. Get the NRJ CD's and find the older articles on taking off lines from a half hull model. Except getting a pantograph tracing of the cross section curve would be too large (unless you figure a way to make an actual reducing pantograph of it). Or, or . do they make laser line levels that measure the distance? Then it is just a matter of writing down some numbers show on a screen - like the stick version without the interpolation. In your place, I would just go to school on all this - making sure my bites were not too ambitious and then when I felt confident enough to scratch build a modern luxury yacht model, pick one that does have available lines. Then show Magnus Rassy the celebration of his design that he missed. If you have not caught an entirely different bug - after you have gotten a deeper view of the possibilities in all this.

Where did the 3D model come from? Can you contact the one in possession of it? You want about 12 X-Y cross sections at known positions. 0 rotation You want 1 X-Z 0 rotation If you chose the more sane option of a plane view lift model You want Y-Z slices at about 1/4" intervals at your model's scale. If you go with a mold plug, the 12 (or more) cross sections can be the exact plug shapes. Hold the plug sections in place using Bamboo dowels and each can be removed individually when their job is done. If you use a new cotton pillow case and Titebond III in multi layers as the hull - Saran Wrap over the plug will void the sticking problem,

I checked on Amazon. AM Arrowmax offers a small spectrum of variations, none of which intersect with my needs. Mostly it is mutually exclusive for the 50-80 wire gauge drill bit function. Speeds and tool attachment are discordant. The models with a chuck that allows infinite diameter bits do not have the speeds that I require. The ones with the speed have a fixed size insert. There is even one with 10,000 to 30,000 RPM if burning a hole instead of drilling one is an aim. The drill bit sets with a fixed size base are usually carbide - not HSS. Most of what we do involves the possibility of "Parkinson-like" twitches. HSS has flex, carbide does not. Reading the reviews - red flags - lots of red flags - the quality of the materials and the gauges of the wires - I fear planned obsolescence and short term obsolescence at that.

@tom q vaxy Do you have a power saw? If so, why not use Pine? 2x4's are less expensive. Home improvement and builder's supplies outlets have 1.5x3.5 studs (2x4) and 0.75x3.5 (1x4) furring strips. At Home Depot it could be Pine or Spruce or Fir - go for Pine, no sap, minimum knots Pine does not roll, crush, or tear like Balsa

Sweet Cherry Prunus avium is more dense than Black Cherry Prunus serotina. Only birds eat the fruit of Black Cherry as far as I know. It is mostly the stone, so eating it would be more work than it is worth. It is used to make wild cherry syrup - an old vehicle for compounded Rx liquids - mainly pediatric. The syrup is made from the bark, not the fruit. I do not consider Black Cherry wood to be significantly hard. It is easy to work and serious sanding can get you into trouble much more quickly than with Hard Maple. Black Cherry is not very far up my list of wood species for fine detail carving.

I followed your wonderlandmodels link - clicked models and kits - so much junk! - then checked the Billings isolating factor on the left and Torborg is top row at the right column. It also looks clinker - the point is that it is an open boat. - Rowing or single mast, a boat is the best chance for completion. The attrition rate for those attempting a first time wooden vessel and even going the extra step of doing it with a log is so high here that I have the conclusion - it is almost impossible to start with a kit that is too simple. Most - probably pretty much all of us - start with plastic. I blame a large portion of the high abandonment rate as involving those who were serious about plastic and tried wood thinking that it is the same process with a different material. The whole process is so different that it is like a whole other planet. The unrealistic expectations about what help the instructions will provide and it being fabrication rather than the simple straight forward assembly of plastic leading to frustration and anger. I have seen no exit interviews to support this proposition. A wooden ship model is not one single process. It is a series of subunits, each of which is a model unto itself. For all of us, our muse and our inspiration comes and goes. The larger, the more complex the model, the higher the probability is that the builder will not be there when the muse returns. This is more likely with freshmen rather than seniors and grad students. Nobody ever graduates.

Give a thought to something about the size of of Billings' Torborg. With no experience with Billings as far as quality, a search for a log that might provide the desired data came up empty. A log by you would cut new ground. A schooner is not a boat. A boat can be quick and dirty, and if done using quality materials : A finished small subject using one of the larger scales and the completed model living in a case on a shelf near you => confidence and inspiration. The more you bounce around here, the more background gained about what is of interest - and how involved a specific kit really is. As far as real quality wood materials that are a joy to work rather than a fight, options are fairly limited - for example Syren, Vanguard, 3rd party sawmill sourced substitution, you being your own sawmill.

It drys to a hard shell. It is used to protect steel tables and tools from humidity produced rusting. So it will not be a sticky dust magnet. It also does not contain trace amounts of insect digestive enzymes or anything to allow hydrogen ions for to be acidic. Plastic polymer line IS a shell. There is nothing about it that needs a wax coating of any kind.

Centurion was a "modified" 1719 Establishment 60 gun. The "modification" was to increase the breadth by 1 foot. The NMM has the original Allin design for sale as a print 1:48 ZAZ1688 - it is pretty beat up. There is also a redrawn plan by I think Fredrik Henrik af Chapman the first naval architect that is cleaner and has more detail (stern) ZAZ 1689 also a print 1:48

I do, but I have no hands-on experience with any of them. I started with a solid hull Balsa Scientific kit - a clipper - not a good beginner's choice - but it was so simplified - not much more than a decorator model really - that I was able to finish it. I then started with a yellow box Model Shipways solid hull topsail schooner. Those old style solid hull kits were so basic that going over to scratch and POF was a short step. The lofting for POF was and is a deep dive into a complex world and a serious time sink if the subject is a vessel of some size. So going by a swift current here, the Model Shipways sponsored Shipwright Series appears to be a successful way to enter into this. The old yellow box kits have become extinct. The parent company Model Expo shows problems with ethics from time to time. BlueJacket has beginner small craft that will also probably ease you into this. Both are domestic to western hemisphere colony interests and subjects as well as import duty complexities. I did not offer an initial suggestion because I suspected that there would be suggestions about kits from British source companies. I do not know if there are any starter kits that are as hand holding as the Shipwright Series. However you appear to be starting a bit farther down the road than our usual complete tyro so perhaps something a bit more sophisticated would work for you. But - start with a boat in any case. Even if you wish to replicated Nelson's fleet or in my case Allin's (booo, booo) and Anson's (yeah) fleets, all of these ships carried multiple boats. Learning how to build them first is anything but a waste of time.

Find a post of the person of interest. Placing the cursor over the name or the cartouche opens a window. In the window is a link: Find Content. Click that a scroll the list. On the entries where the person is the author of the post, check to see if it is a build log. Not efficient, but it is through.

From my perspective - wood - scratch - POF - if your near term goal is to scratch build a yacht using wood, any time spent building a plastic model is time wasted. There is very little overlap in the skills required. The rigging on a large scale version of a modern yacht will have very little in common with the rigging of Nelson Era first rate man of war. You may even choose to paint with wood rather than pigment in a binder, so the only other overlap is not relevant if you do. The surface prep on plastic does not relate to that of wood either. A small craft starter kit of a wooden model would be a more productive time investment. It will probably want a couple more incrementally complex kits to get there. Meanwhile - read. Chapelle's Boatbuilding, Books covering small craft and yacht construction, lofting. As a background alert, I see plastic as being an absolutely terrible material to simulate wood. It is close to essential as a material to simulate steel. But, it requires really special skills to use it as a raw material and be shaped to match a one-off plan.

It is also possible that knowledge and lessons learned give you the power and determination to persevere , when not having that chip would have lead to the easy path. If you did it twice, that would be troubling. At least you are not a song writer who signed over the rights to a song whose royalties could have supported you for the rest of your life.

The situation is probably even worse. The veneer has a high probability of being rotary cut. Think of a blade producing a continuous sheet of wood that resembles paper towels coming off of a roll. The wood came from a curved environment and will always "want" to go back to that cupped conformation. Wetting, pressing, ironing will just be a futile fight against Mother Nature. Even at a distance, that hideous yellow stuff looks like crap. It will likely not be the joy to work that an appropriate species is. It appears that the ZHL episode was not the aberration that I was hoping it was.

It is a terrible choice. It has a relatively short life. It becomes brittle and releases its bond. It is thick and does not allow positioning. There is no easy way to reverse it. Attach Lino to a plywood sheet for something intended to last 10 years or so - go for it. PVA plus heat can become a contract cement of sorts. A dry even coat on both meeting surfaces plus heat activates a bond. The outside layer has to be thin enough to allow heat transfer at a temp that does not char or cook the outer layer.

I offer another ship that you might give some consideration as a subject : Namure 90 1756 it underwent a bit of a metamorphosis for the Nelson Era but as launched is my choice. There is a bit of fame attached to it now.

The choices Linen seems to be lost into the past. Cotton - limited lifespan - smaller fibers -smaller fuzz Poly - seems to be winning the race. As long as the model itself is plastic, any resistance to using man-made materials is moot. Poly already is what a wax would provide. Wax seems to me to be pointless. If it is beeswax on it - I would question it ever case hardening to become NOT a dust magnet. Paraffin would change its phase with changes in room temp. The semi liquid phase would also hold dust. Renaissance wax will case harden as its organic solvent evaporates. It is probably more positive than negative for linen and cotton. It would offer no advantage with poly.

Northeast US, There are many low cost species that will work. Looking at species that are favored for scratch clear finish wooden sailing vessels is not a productive or economical path for your needs. Pear - Swiss Pear ( is a steam oxidized European wood ) It is expensive here. It is difficult to source here. Basswood is favored for architect's models because it is available precut and does not rival platinum in price. It is also soft and fuzzy. Your economical choice is construction Pine (not Fir). The endcap loss leader at Home Depot. Pick clear with no sap. Yellow Poplar is low cost and would do exactly what you want. Hard Maple, Black Cherry are over kill, but like the above two also have closed pore, so save a finish step. Nut wood species would work - Oak, Ash, Hickory, Willow - they just need a pore filling step Sand-n-Sealer. Your problem is getting lumber into 1:12 scale 2x4 and 2x6 and 1x8 -1x12 clapboard. If you do not have a bandsaw and a thickness sander and a modelers table saw, you can make do with a full size table saw. Just mount a hollow ground rip blade. Borrow the use from someone who has one and bring your own blade. Try to avoid feeding your fingers to the saw or getting impaled by a kickback. If you use Pine, the extra loss to kerf is something that you can stand. Prime any wood with half strength Zinsser shellac - Scotch Brite- follow on with full strength - Scotch Brite and tack rag. Then any paint will bond.

I would use a filler at the stem and paint the hull. or remove the planking and buy a replacement from a site vendor or visit your local WoodCraft store and get a veneer that is better - sawn not rotary cut if possible. Veneer just needs a steel straight edge and a keenly sharp knife. Strop often. The color of the planking is way darker than any species that I believe was used for an actual ship. To my eye, it looks brittle, course, open pore. - not even close to a 1:75 scaled down version of real wood that was used. A Wayback machine view of this: Taper the stem to about half its thickness at the outer char. Cut a rabbet - a proper rabbet = the correct width in the stem. Small chisel. Practice a lot on scrap first. Start the planking at the rabbet and add bonding as it fits aft. Apply the same plank P&S - not all one side and then the other. Planking width 6" -8" in scale with the the garboard maybe a bit wider.

The War of Jenkins Ear. The bureaucracy managing this war for England were incompetent amateurs. Really a lazy effort on the part of the scribbler. Obviously zero understanding. HMS Tiger 1722 was old and obsolete - it was actually a pre 1719 Establishments design. Definitely NOT a frigate. In that era, even a 40 gun would not have been a frigate. With two full gun decks, they were slow slugs that were definitely top heavy. Often not able to use the guns on their main gun deck, because much wave action would flood thru the open ports.

Might this tool help with getting a uniform thickness? https://bridgecitytools.com/products/hp-8-mini-block-plane