Jaager

This is limited to English shipyard practice. A chronic shortage of timber required ( or at least was the excuse for) labor intensive methods, not replicated in countries with abundant timber. A close look at Steel shows that the sided dimension of frames was not uniform over the whole of the hull for even the square frames. The sided dimension of the floors was allowed to be reduced towards the ends. As the identity number was higher the sided dimension of each futtock was allowed to be reduced. What I mean is that F1 was not as wide as the floor. F2 was not as wide as F1. F3 was not as wide as F2 etc. The factor that changed was how much of the planking surface was space. R&S - room and space - room plus space - was defined by the Stations. R&S is some interval of the number of bends. (I have only observed one example of the Station interval not following its set Station intervals - Saint Philippe.) In the RN plans, the numbering of the Stations indicates the number of bends each defines. Things were often a bit different at "0". The bends were all identical here and the number could be increased at the last minute if a longer hull as ordered. The gap between 0 and A is often greater. Once the real numbering or lettering began, the pattern was there to follow. For example where it is D then H , 4 then 8 - the number of bends is "4" - The midline of D, then E, then F, then G, then the midline of H. The RN tended to use a fixed two bend interval for Stations. So it is B, D, F, H, J, ( It may be K. Some naval architects omitted "I" and "O" .Maybe they had had a problem with dyslexic yard workers?) There were often ( usually), for the RN usually more frames in the interval than just bends. There were singleton filling frames. At times, more filling frames than bends. These frames seemed to have no identity. On some framing plans, the actual bends may be difficult to tease out if the the bends were made with a significant air gap in the middle. There would have been a lot of ugly, irregularly shaped chocks in the gap. Every trunnel or bolt connecting the halves of a bend would go thru its own chock. The chocks would not be as wide as the full moulded dimension. Air communication along the whole length was important. There were also a lot of chocks connecting the filling frames to their next door bend or next door filling frame. An actual framed hull would not be all that attractive or as regular as the models that are supposed to represent one. My theory on cant framing: All bets were off where the cants were. The general sided dimension for the floors was used there, but the space was wedge shaped. The heels would touch and the intervening space would be whatever was needed to get the outside face as parallel with the run of the planking was possible. This way, the beveling on the face was greatly reduced. The beveling at the heel required much precision work to get the angle correct.

You could get a sort of contact cement type effect using Titebond in a particular way. This is just theory - from something that I read. I have not tried it. Apply a just wet layer of Titebond to both surfaces. Allow the glue to dry/polymerize. Place the plank in position and apply heat. The two surfaces will grab. I doubt that the bond is as strong as it would be using the normal technique. It probably would be if a coating of fresh Titebond as applied just before the two surfaces were joined. This may be a way to use PVA for hull planking where clamping is near impossible and like me, you are loath to have anything to do with using CA for anything. As Mark indicates, actual Dap type contact cement has no application on a ship model. It does hold sandpaper onto a wooden support. It is a chore to remove if the wooden support is one that you where will replace the abrasive. There probably is no true solvent for it, But Naphtha and Mineral Spirits will denature it.

If you intend to incline the keel and erect the frames at 90 degrees, this for POF, and you use an upper brace/ locator to align and support the tops pf the frames, it will help to add a line above the tallest frame as a sirmark/ locator for the frame extensions that is perpendicular to the stations/frames. That would be at a 1.2 degree angle to the present baseline/keel on the plans. If you are doing this POB (and all indicators point to this as being your intention) - it just means that the central spine has to have the 1.2 degree downward slope aft. When it comes time to position the depth of the molds on the spine, ..... I lofted for POF. I indicate the location of the decks, port sills, bottom of wales, rails on my frame shapes. I use the profile to provide these positions. The only reliable lines that I found that are on both of the Body plan and the Profile plan at each station that can match them up are L.Fon , L.In1 , ( and I guess, I only needed the two) L.In2 , L.For. Where they are at each station is where they are at each station outline. You will need to get these lines transferred across each mold and make sure they also where they need to be on the central spine if you find them as useful/ necessary as I did. And you should have bopped him upside his head for not having the keel at an incline on the original lines plans in the first place.

Kiyoo, Congratulations, you have developed a way for a computer to do do what I had hoped, in vain, 3D CAD would do - extract individual frame and bend shapes and - I assume this is coming - isolate them as freestanding layers. An easier and much faster way to get patterns for scroll cutting. The moulded shapes - how many patterns along the way are needed to get a proper inside shape? The computer controlled cutting is an entirely separate stage. Finding a near automatic way to to convert the data to the necessary formulas is a big deal. Is it something that can gain you proprietary rights and royalties? I am still skeptical about the practicality of a laser cutter for a one-off hull, or as something that is cost effective for an individual modeler. For the manufacture of components for a kit, I see the laser cutter ( or plasma, or water jet, or whatever the eventual winner tech will be for CNC cutting ) as essentially imperative. It looks as though you have discovered a way to significantly reduce the development time. This is potentially a big deal, is my thinking.

I would develop a ratio and proportion using the example. What is the depth of the chock in proportion to the total moulded dimension. Looks to be about 1/2 to me, but I have never measured it. The angle of the wedge would be constant. The depth of the flat part of the ends would be constant ( no need for it to vary with larger chocks - verify this supposition), This would have the length be the variable.

PVA needs a porous and secure surface to produce a strong bond. The color does not matter. If it is a layer of loose carbon, the joint needs to be abraded down to a firm layer. If it is just color on a firm layer it does not. It is probably good practice to use a sharp single edge razor blade to scrape the surface. Scraping means that the edge is dragged over the surface ~10-15 degrees ? and not pushed like a chisel. In a tight slot - a #11 blade may be what fits.

I used to obsess over rigging tables and scantlings and their relative time periods. I still do up to a point. But the baseline is that the physics of the forces of wind and water has never changed. The strengths of natural fibers and wood has not changed either. So using Steele or a similar turn of the 19th century source will at least get you sizes for the various rigging components that would have worked and any minor variations from an earlier time or different nation would be outside our range of being able to discern them. If it is known that an earlier time was prone to over engineering because their materials manufacturing was not up to spec, factor that in.

I am also attracted to Saint-Philippe. I have developed my own framing method. It does not use the individual bend patterns that are in the monograph. I use the outside shape from the Body plan only. I have lofted S.Philippe for my method. I have actually plowed this furrow, at least in part, three times. ( I like the distinctive pattern of the English 17th century Navy Board models. It only uses five timbers per bend. The overlap requires very long timbers with each having much curvature. My scale is 1:60 and an exact replication would require stock that is wider than I wish and too much loss to waste. I have found another way to get there, but it required at lot of repeat lofting to work out.) This is a long way of getting to some problems that I have had with the lines plans as presented. I am going to list those problems - they were written in a recent post but are a bit edited here: Saint-Philippe is complicated. The frames and stations are canted forward 1.2 degrees in the Profile Plan. None of the usual baseline, keel, waterlines,etc. are any help in matching the stations from the profile to the frame outlines (to locate the position of the decks and wales and ports). It dawned on me that the L.Fon and L.In1 will locate a station profile to its frame outline (sirmarks). There is one aspect of SP that is diving me to distraction. On the Profile plan, the station lines are sloped with the frames. The Body plan seems to match what they would be at 1.2 degrees. If they are viewed on the plan baseline, they would have to be compressed because the 1.2 degree line is longer ( hypotenuse of a right triangle). But the Body Plan seems to be the actual frame shape, It is the hypotenuse shape and not a foreshortened perpendicular to the keel parallax view. As a check, I found that the Body plan at M matches the individual bend shape for M in the extracted frames plan. It is not squished down. In your post #7, observe that the keel is flat to the baseline and the rabbet is horizontal. So, if the Body plan is perpendicular to the viewer, but is the actual shape, why is the rabbet not sloped down aft? To get the stations back up to 90 degrees the keel would have to slope 1.2 degrees aft. The geometry is confusing me. It would have been more friendly to have drawn the keel with the slope. However, Lemineur developed the individual bend patterns for the commonly used POF assembly methods and did not think thru just how much more difficult doing it at a 1.2 degree angle is. It hurts my head to try to see how to use the routine methods to get a new baseline that gets the frames perpendicular, if you choose to mount the keel at an angle., instead of the frames. The geometry is maddening. There is another factor that is unique to S.Philippe. The stations are not spaced all the same or a derivative of a common factor. For every other ship that I have investigated, the stations involve some interval of a common frame sided dimension. Usually, it is the same R&S, with the number of that factor being 4 or 3 or 2 of them per station interval. The same thickness of framing stock is used for the whole hull. The intervals for S.Philippe are in 4 different groupings. They are 12x12.75", 48x15.4", 24x14.9", 43x 13.9" (Imperial inches). (By the way, this is 127 frames or 63 bends.) It requires four separate thickness of framing stock and constant attention and awareness to where you are. The tabled mortise joint within a bend is eccentric, but that is not something that I would replicate and is easily ignored. I will be interested in seeing if any of this causes a problem for you and if so, seeing how you solve them.

That species of wood - coarse grain and friable - looks unsuited to the job it is being asked to do. A better species would take to having a cove scrapped on it and small bamboo dowels at the ends.

This was from vol. 3? There is an "IF" phrase in your quoted phrase. I was not able to find the original article on the CD. Thus, I am not able to discover the context. He is describing a way to build a strong deck on some model by laying it in two layers. The under layer being laid at 45 degrees. I am guessing that the beams are spaced too far apart to provide 90 degree strength. There are some examples that I have seen in Paris? or similar with diagonal planking that was an attempt to resist hogging or sagging. I read that one of the innovations with the original version of Constitution was a series of substantial riders that were diagonal and chevron in pattern.

How I approach this: Most all rigging tables are for circumference. We tend to use diameter. Circumference divided by 3.14 = diameter. Any size dowel - sand it really smooth, mark a 1 inch interval in the dowel, and give it a shellac coat. Wrap the line in a tightly packed coil around the dowl. The number of revolution within the 1 inch interval is the diameter of the line. From the appropriate rigging table, find the line data. Divide it by 3.14 and by what ever your scale is. This is the number to match to 1 divided by the number of rotations. In the Steele era, the tables have a huge variety of rope sixes, more than I can match using the limitations of linen yarn, I got yelled at, but given scale effects, I opt for the closest model line that is below the table number.

The judgment was about the original model, Nothing that Henry was doing was the target of criticism, except his choice to spend an extraordinary amount of time on an object that is not worthy of the effort. GIGO is a rule that is difficult to break. This subject is very unlikely to break it. The grim color of the wood deck.... - but an "S" shape on the rail runs counter to every esthetic for the proper shape for a vessel hull that I have observed. The time would be better expended on a new build. A build with a subject that has a pedigree that is real and not originating in fantasy. I am grateful to Ab for defining a series of books, which I own, as total nonsense and are to be avoided. SeaWatch Books has an on going deal for a proper Dutch Yacht with plans and an illustrated building guide. I had been wondering why yachts seemed to be so prominent in the low countries, then it came to me that they had water that went everywhere and roads that did not A better transport all around if you had the wealth to afford it.

There is one aspect of SP that is diving me to distraction. On the Profile plan, the station lines are sloped with the frames. The Body plan seems to be the actual frame shape, and not a foreshortened perpendicular to the keel parallax view. The Body plan at M matches the extract bend shape for M. It is not squished down. So, why, if the Body plan is perpendicular to the viewer, is the rabbet not sloped down aft? The geometry is confusing me.

I am not so sure that the plans are in error. I think that Lemineur became so involved in the contemporary method that he lost sight of the real purpose of his monograph. It is all well and good to document what was actually done. Reproducing an eccentric building method does add a serious complication and an unnecessary one at that. It would have been more friendly to have drawn the keel with the slope. However, he developed the individual bend patterns for the commonly used POF assembly methods and did not think thru just how much more difficult doing it at an angle is. It hurts my head to try to see how to use the routine methods to get a new baseline that gets the frames perpendicular. The geometry is maddening. I guess when viewed by the needs of most, this is an error, or at least an ill adivised decision. I just have not seen any technical errors in the actual lines. I wish you smooth sailing on the project. Ambitieux is a big horse.

If this is for a deck house, why not build it using framing and planks?

https://gregdorrance.com/product-category/carving-wood-tupelo-bass-bird-duck-kits-rough-outs-cut-outs-plates-cottonwood-bark-eggs/wood-for-carving/basswood-carving-blocks-1-2-thick/ Getting hung up on your term "block" I went hunting in decoy carving supplies. There is one there 1/2" x 4" x12" for<$5.00 Trying to imagine what part this is?

On wood to wood, I use a complete just wet covering of PVA of both surfaces, no puddles. I think it is unlikely that wood would stand up to a clamping pressure that would starve the joint with out damaging the wood itself. A small version of a sponge stick or an economy artist's brush spreads to PVA. PVA bonds by a chemical reactions growing long chains that intertwine and grow into the irregularities on the wood surface. This why having too smooth a surface is unwise. The closer the two wood surfaces, the less of a zone of just plastic tendrils intertwining with each other there is. Completely reacted PVA is flexible rather than rigid, so too thick a joint may have slight movement? Metal to metal, I can see being able to squeeze out most all of a glue. Maybe with a 400 grit or 600 grit or finer finish, too much PVA could be forced out. I favor hitch chocks for planking, but that involves follow up trunneling with bamboo to fill the holes, or nipping off the brass pins, if you favor that look.

Looking at Kevin's picture: I have always had a mistrust of being able to get the holes to exactly match up with the dowels. I just thought of a way to do it. Use a third piece of wood. One that is as wide as the channel is thick. Make it thick enough that a drill bit has to go in perpendicular. Site the dowel locations as holes in it. Use it as the gauge to drill the holes in the hull and in the channel.. I beg forgiveness of this is standard practice already. I just solves a long standing how-to-do-it for me.

Both of these are magnificent. They are also fiercely difficult. I have been thinking that Ambitieux is a bit sparse on decoration detail, but a closer look shows that the stern and head are both well detailed. Saint-Philippe is the more complicated of the two, The frames and stations are canted forward a little over 1 degree. None of the usual baseline, keel, waterlines,etc. are any help in matching the stations from the profile to the frame outlines (to locate the position of the decks and wales and ports). It dawned on me that the L.Fon and L.In1 will locate a station profile to its frame outline. There is another factor that is unique to S.Philippe. The stations are not spaced all the same or a derivative of a common factor. For every other ship that I have investigated, the stations involve some interval of a common frame sided dimension. Usually, it is the same R&S, with the number of that factor being 4 or 3 or 2 0f them per station interval. The same thickness of framing stock is used for the whole hull. The intervals for S.Philippe are in 4 different groupings. They are 12x12.75", 48x15.4", 24x14.9", 43x 13.9" (Imperial inches). It requires four separate thickness of framing stock and constant attention and awareness. No system or rhythm is possible. It is a mine field and bayonet as you go. The tabled mortise joint within a bend is eccentric, but that is not something that I would replicate and is easily ingnored. If these 17th century liners are a bit new to you, a close look at Fracois 1683 may be worthwhile. It has all of the style of the two big ships, but is a lot less imposing. In lofting the plans, I realized that this ship is even smaller than it appears to be, given that it is a two decker. The two big ones are going to be a LONG journey.

Dollburger, First, I expect that you have read the post: For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale in New Member Introductions. A brig is definitely more approachable than the frigates or liners that are the usual advertising lures. But, HMS Beagle is still a complicated subject. 1:60 allows for a lot of detail. The book by Marguardt supplies a lot of detail. The OcCre kit as presented involves a lot of errors and poor practices that only experience and immersion in arcane details illuminates. Your first couple of models are likely to include things that will make you cringe when you look back with some experience under your belt. Do you want HMS Beagle to be something that you will feel that way about? If good enough is OK with you, then plunge ahead. If HMS Beagle is important enough that you want it to shine, then perhaps you should start with something smaller and less sexy. Among the companies that cater to the needs of a beginner, Model Shipways is unlikely to lead you astray in their advice on the first two kits to cut your teeth on.

17th century? ears perk up: Deane's Doctrine of Naval Architecture 1670 Conway 1981 Seventeenth Century Rigging by R.C.Anderson MAP 1955 The Seaman's Speculum or Compleat Schoolmaster 1711 by John Davis NRG 1985 The Ship-Builders Assistant 1711 by William Sutherland ANCRE 1989 The Boatswain's Art or Complete Boatswain 1670 by Henry Bond The Shellback's Library(?) much after: The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor 1819 Darcy Lever Sweetman n.d. Elements of Mastmaking, Sailmaking and Rigging 1794 by David Steel Sweetman

I possible but time consuming answer: Most any size brass or copper wire and a draw plate. If you can get it to work, any diameter is obtainable. A punch type devise can shape the nail heads. I am imagining that copper might make for interesting hull planking trunnels. Once, I was able to take a piece of thicker copper wire and draw it into a long piece of thin. It did not take a lot of force. Recently, I tried it and the wire fought back. I think copper/brass react in a strange way. Heating it makes it softer? Working it makes it stiffer? Once a wire is drawn to the gauge that is desired, is there a way to make it hard enough to drive? How did they make the now apparently extinct "brass lills" that MS sold in the '70's rigid enough to drive? Amazon sells copper and brass beadsmith head pins 21 and 24 gauge. I measure the 24 gauge as needing a #76 wire gauge bit. I have #12 brass sequin pins 0.75" that gauge for a #73 wire bit. The head is flat. (Darice Craft Designer - www.darice.com - China - seems to be out of stock at present on a quick look.)

I have been thinking that the 230V was intended for countries where 230V was standard house current. If you are US based, 120V is sufficient. It is a 3/4 HP motor. The 18" table is more than I would need for any billet that I would use it to cut. The main advantage if you are not cutting wide boards would be that the sliding table can be used without having to remove the fence. It looks like the 6" Luthier drum has a smaller diameter. The standard is much more suited to my needs. $8 for a 6" wedge covers any need for getting it to mount 6" wide sanding material. As for $100 - that is only about one and a piece of a board 8x4 by 8" by 8 feet of Hard Maple. 10-12 bf.

In this case, I believe the term is short hand slang rather than a reference to a specific product. Lacquer itself is very thick and is intended to leave a significant layer with every coat. I am hard pressed to imagine any use for Lacquer on a ship model. I use it for the thickness feature as a coating on my frame patterns in an attempt to give them a Mylar like nature. I like the additional stiffness and humidity protection, but it still does not make the patterns brittle enough not to fuzz when sanding and obscuring the line. One of the species that is in the kit is probably something that OcCre is calling Walnut, actually a type of brown Mahogany grown in Africa. It is an open pore species. If you intend to paint it, a Sand and Sealer is a product developed to do this. If you intend to leave it natural, Tung oil is an excellent clear finish. There are gotcha involved. The Tung oil polymerizes on exposure to air after application (or in the bottle if air is not kept out). It wants a thin layer. Too thick or past its use-by date and it may not polymerize completely. The first coat should be a 50% dilution. Tung oil may not fill the pores completely when used as a primer. The pore filling product does it with a solid mineral ingredient that may not look all that good under a clear coat. For a clear finish, consider ignoring the pore filling part of preparation. If the pores will bother you, cut to the chase and substitute the Walnut with a species with scale friendly grain characteristics.

A 12" digital caliper is a friend here. They show mm - inch as fractions - inch as decimals An electronic calculator and inch as decimals - never have to deal with how many x/32" or x/64" anything is. The Byrnes saw has a mechanical caliper with x/1000 based increments. Now if only there was a digital version for old eyes..... Use sticks of known thickness as a gauge to set a fence on a saw with a ruler gauge on the slider. Use the digital calipers to measure the thickness of the product. What that ruler says is fine for full size furniture, but is totally inadequate for our needs. Also, precision is more important than accuracy. Whatever thickness comes off a table saw ( for framing stock, this is a wasteful tool. ) a bandsaw ( less loss to kerf, much thicker stock can be cut in one pass ) or a thickness sander - it must all be identical or you will go crazy. Reproducible results are vital. On a bandsaw, even if it is a Wood Slicer blade, the surface will need refining to 120 or 220 grit smoothness. A table saw with a hollow ground planer blade will also need refining. In most any situation, a final planing function is necessary. An on going task for me is to find the necessary thickness from the bandsaw. How many 1/1000 ths of an inch will have to be planed on both plank surfaces to remove the blade scares and yield a smooth surface? The ideal is to set the fence just that much thicker. A little buffer is probably wise, too much buffer and it is several more passes thru a sander. Not enough buffer, and you have stock for the frames of a smaller vessel future project. Oh yes, it will make a BIG difference. For Navy Board framing - where all the frames are bonded in sequence, even the thickness of the glue layer is a factor. The general range for the number of frames is between 60 and 120. Any error is additive. 0.04 x 60 = 2.4" 2.4 x 48 = 115 inches - almost 10 feet. on a liner that would be 20 feet.