Jaager

Sounds like a fun project. To repeat a current theme in parallel posts: your project will proceed more smoothly and with a more enjoyable feedback if you use a species of wood with characteristics that scale appropriately and is properly hard and crisp. Unfortunately, the Fates are conspiring against convenient acquisition of the proper species at an increasing rate. The mass market species are generally poor candidates. In North America, Wood Craft offers two or three veneers of species that would fill the need, but the range of thicknesses is limited.

Roger, I get a continuous/ daily stream of email missives from these guys, but they do have some useful stuff= Woodworkers's Supply. I did a search for casters, and this product might could solve your mobility problem for ~ $40. https://woodworker.com/2-12-diameter-total-locking-casters-mssu-166-751.asp

I am more than confident that what you say is true. In the lab, we had a rule on rinsing the soap off of just washed glassware. The first rinse removes 95%. The next rinse removes 95% of remaining 5%. Each subsequent rinse does the same. It will never be 100% removed. Like we had to decide when we had done enough rinses, for precision on wood stock, we need to decide when it is precise enough. I would not be surprised if there was not a rule to the effect that the cost for each increment that increases precision: that much more, has an inverse cost to the additional fraction towards absolute precision that it provides. We need to decide for ourselves when close enough is good enough. For me, a hand feed Byrnes machine is close enough.

1) Are you flushing out dips between the moulds? 2) Are you filling gaps between the planks of the first layer? If it is the first, a yellow PVA glued piece of wood veneer that is then sanded to a smooth run would be a sure way to go. If it is the second, why bother? It will all be hidden by the outer planking layer. I can't imagine that it is going to float, so what is the problem with there being gaps? For the real planking, a mistake or two is fixed using wood flour from the actual planking species mixed with PVA. In this case, white PVA cures clear and not the amber of yellow, so if maybe being a tad darker is a problem, use white PVA.

Roger, My question: how will you secure the wood stock to the constant feed? I see a lip at the bottom as pushing it, but i suspect that the stock will want to cant and if the angle becomes a critical one, it will come flying back at you. My bandsaw leaves an unsmooth surface on my stock. I have to sand both sides. It takes several passes to get to spec. Finding the sweet spot for bandsaw slice thickness is an ongoing challenge. Thick enough that the final product is 220 smooth on both sides, but that not many extra passes at 80 grit are needed. I flip and/or rotate my feed. I do that as I get it thru the drum. An auto feed I see as dropping over the back cliff. There is no way to do a proper flip/rotate. I use Best Test rubber cement to hold paper backed medium to my disk sander - double coat. It holds well enough, is easy to peal off, and cleans just using my thumb. The no skid backing on 10X Norton is chemically incompatible with rubber cement, so big volume big box store stuff I cannot use. I have a similar home made thickness sander. It is a box and I made the mistake of enclosing the lower motor chamber - it becomes a right oven so I can't lock on and run for a long session. I use cloth backed Klingspor - long rolls - direct from the company. But, I did not find the courage to try rubber cement for it. I still used contact cement - double layer - it holds well enough - boy does it hold - I can use naphtha to clean it up, but it does not dissolve it, just denatures it and not all that quickly either. I did break down and purchase a Byrnes machine. The media is much easier to change. It does not overheat. My old machine has clean media and is ready to go, but the Byrnes is so much easier that it staying in storage. My suggestion - go with the Byrnes. Alternative - fix casters on your old units and pull it out into your shop floor and give the feed improvement experiment a pass. Oh, the 12" disk sander will still be there. I have a 10" on my old and retired 3 wheel Emco Meyer band saw, but I have never mounted it. I also bought a disk that fits the arbor of my 10" tablesaw - an on sale thing - that makes it a disk sander - still in the box. If my 5" Byrnes will not do it, the Harbor Freight 4x36 belt sander will.

And, if you can pull this off, in your place, after looking back at missed opportunities, situations that I thought would always be there but were really a one time chance, I would be greedy. I would be very, very greedy.

It might help if you visited this link: For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale Kurt Van Dahm reviewed the following two kits as a relatively painless way to begin this business of building wooden ship models in the current issue of the Journal: New Model Shipways Shipwrights Series! Model Shipways Lowell Grand Banks Dory Model Wooden Model Ship Kit 1:24 Scale Your Price: $29.99 Model Shipways Norwegian Sailing Pram 1:12 Scale Your Price: $49.99 All of this is quite a bit different from building a plastic kit model. Balsa is a species of wood that is of little or no use in what we do. A multi deck ship of the line involves highest technological abilities of the civilization that built it. It also was a significant outlay from a treasury. The investment in time and skill to build a model of one is also of a similar degree when compared to the smaller and more numerous vessels of its time. I suspect that kits of these vessels defeat most of the beginners who attempt them . It takes more hard won skill and experience than is at first imagined.

I have just skimmed this log. I am going with the thought that you are still trying to do this using Basswood and or plywood, since I did not see different information. You are making this much more difficult and unrewarding by using a species (Basswood) that is no joy to work and lacks the characteristics that you need. Plywood makes for a stable base for a tool or a baseboard on which to assemble a hull. It is just ugly as an actual part of a hull, and no fun to work either. If I am correct about the species of wood, it is fighting you and makes for a serious handicap from the start. It does not need to be this difficult. I see no location for you, so I have no clue as to the species of suitable wood near to you. Using an appropriate species makes the job easier and the right wood is a joy to shape and assemble. A frustrating factor is that it is becoming increasingly difficult for those who are not their own sawmill to obtain the proper wood species.

The following is what I have learned over the several years that I have been involved with model ship building. It is just easier to write using the emphatic verb tense Reqardless of how it reads, I know "it ain't necessarily so." Looking at what functions a mill performs, I see very few that are of a direct use for fabricating the components of a wooden ship hull. It could cut a rabbet - but that is not one long notch that is the same for its entire length. It can cut mortises for the lands of carlings, knees, and ledges. A sharp chisel will also do this for a lot less money. A mill can also double as a drill press. But a drill press can be had for much less. I have had more than enough duty from a EuroTools DRL 300 clone to pay for itself. Although the quill bearings are not designed for lateral stress, I am thinking that it will serve to cut a notch in wood, if a sharp cutter is used and the cuts are light. To my way of thinking, a mill is primarily used for working metal. If you are not intending to fabricate your own metal tools, then a mill and a lathe will prove to be a frivolous expenditure. If you get to a point where you really need either, you will know that you do. You will know the specs that either should have. As a corollary to the Yacht Rule: if you have to ask, you do not need either a mill or a lathe. (If you are building a liner - a ship with a lot of guns, I can see using a mill to shape a block to the shape of the truck sides and using the saw to slice each one off. The necessity of grain being in the correct orientation will limit the width of the block. The kerf from each slice will be about the thickness of the truck side, so the waste is significant. Unless you are building a fleet of liners, this is not worth what a mill will cost.) For what you list: A source of wood stock that is precisely the necessary thickness is needed. My answer is a 14" bandsaw and a Byrnes Thickness Sander. I buy 8x4 rough lumber and have it cross cut to 2 foot lengths. That is 120 feet at my scale. This is cost effective if you are POF and building at a scale of 1:72 or larger. A Byrnes table saw and thickness sander will do if your bulk stock is 3/4" thick or less. You will want planed stock (4/4 (1") rough is 3/4" after it is planed). For planks, Saw with the big fence - for the smaller stuff, the sliding cross cut table. I also like the Byrnes disk sander. It does the butt joints of my frame timbers quite well and is very powerful. It has no speed control. so it is not meant for plastic.

I understand, but for a couple of pieces of Aluminum angle - ~ 1/4" x 1/4" all that is needed is a hacksaw to size it and a 3/8" or 1/2" power drill and a bit that fits the size bolts that seem right. If you explore the tool section of this site and stumble across the threads discussing the merits and usefulness of a lathe for the wood part of model ship building, I am pretty sure that a 1/2" power drill securely mounted in a frame that holds it horizontal will work well enough to shape any spars. So keep that to mind - read the site postings - if you have to decide on a power drill purchase. As far as a lathe, unless you know from experience that you really need one, then it is very likely that it you do not need it. It will be a very expensive door stop.

The battens could be made of angle Al. That would not bend. It would need holes. Being metal, it would require using epoxy to bond it to the spine. If you fancy doing an experiment in public, I can write you a way to build the hull in way that will remove the need for the first layer of planking. If you do a bit of fudging, and you intend to copper the bottom, no planking will be necessary at all. It is a different way of filling between the moulds. It will require additional wood, a proper drawing program and power tools.

This is why I offered the battens as a solution. A stout stick -that is straight - on either side of the central spine - glued to it - ( and I would use bamboo skewers as thru dowels for mechanical hold) -should pull/push the plywood back to flat. Maybe two rows of them. Now, if this is done before the moulds are fixed into place, they block the moulds from sliding down their slots in the spine. This means that the moulds are first to fix in place. Now the moulds block the battens. Holes are needed in each mould exactly where the battens go, so that they can be slud ( Dizzy Dean ) in place. All this will be hidden. The holes in the moulds can be larger than necessary. The spine needs to already be straight before the moulds are fixed. The baseboard is meant to do this. Once the spine is placed in the slot in the center of the baseboard, it should not be removed until the moulds are placed, the battens are placed and the first layer of planking is completed. In my mind, I see the following: Planning is necessary in where the battens are placed. later trouble with where masts go or any later parts should be taken into count. There is a reduction mating surface for the moulds at the spine - what with the holes for the battens, so corner blocks to reinforce the join with the spine are more important. The battens mean that those blocks are two or three pieces instead of one. With wood, an end grain bond is many times weaker then a side grain to side grain bond. Plywood end grain is flat out awful when compared solid wood. Even without the disruption produced by adding battens, the bond of a mould with the spine is not a strong bond. I see the corner blocks as being prudent.

We crossed paths in the dark there. The sequence in your picture ... too busy And, I had not seen a 5 strake repeating sequence before that post. A 4 strake is enough. And at least 2 beams for adjacent strakes. My shipyard would have a better planking timber supplier with longer planking and I would have 3 beams between adjacent butts If you are going to color the caulking seams, give serious thought to walnut instead of black. And I think it was Bob Cleek who wrote that there is no caulking between butts. The length does not change - not matter the conditions, just the thickness, which does no matter, and the width which does.

No, there is no link attached to that comment. I was being lazy about that. I did a quick forum search using: deck butt shift and among the many results is ... lets see if this works .... Looking for the Correct Sequence and Terminology forDeck PlankButt Shift OK, I am not sure if this will work as a link, but if it does not, do a search for this title in the Building, framing, Planking ... forum good luck, it gets kind of twisty.

POB is not my thing, but I offer the following: The curved spine is seeking its equilibrium shape. A quick fix reshaping is essentially pointless. After whatever reshaping you do, it will try to go back the where it is now. The trick is to make that impossible, by using a mechanical repair. That is add wood to the spine that will not let it bend. A 1/2" or better 3/4" plywood (AA hardwood Birch) base board is a good start. Make a centerline that is straight. Place blocks on either side of the line that are a tight fit for the spine and will hold it straight. As long as the spine is in the slot, it will be straight. When the moulds (bulkheads) are fitted, four square sticks - one at each corner where the mould and spine meet, will hold each square and 90 degrees. I would cut out a hole in each side of each mould to allow a strong stick (batten) to run the length of the spine on either side of it - to keep it from bending. But this does not seem to meet with much favor and if done well, the first layer of planking will probably supply all of the necessary resistance to the spine regaining its curve anyway. I am belt and suspenders and tend to over engineer. Now, about this kit - there is one thing that is really awful: the supplied deck. I do not know where they got the unrealistic deck butt pattern, the way too dark seams and chalking, and silly choice of which trunnels to show and which to leave off. You should consider either laying a new deck using individual planks - Maple is good - or using the supplied plywood piece and adding an individual planking of very thin veneer - again Maple is cost effective. Read here about butt shift rules and if you wish to show deck trunnels ( I like them, but know that it is a modeler's conceit - and not realistic). Be a lot more understated in the color contrast. This kit really is based on a Cherokee class 10 gun brig. It is close to the Marquardt book. It is a good choice.

There were two sailing ships in the US Navy with name Constellation. The first was a 36 gun frigate 1797. The second was a 24 gun corvette 1855. One was part of the first generation of seriously sized warships built by the US Navy. The second was the last pure sail warship built by the Navy. The corvette still exists. It is in Baltimore MD. The city obtained it and use it as an attraction. For budgetary reasons, the Navy pretended that the frigate was "repaired" into the corvette. It was not. The corvette was an entirely new vessel. Baltimore thought that pretending that it had a vessel from 1797 would make it into a better attraction and tried to turn corvette into the frigate. The corvette was 10 feet longer. It had one deck with guns. It had an elliptical stern. When the corvette was turned over to Baltimore, it had undergone several repairs and "improvements" to match whatever the prevailing fashion was in each instance. I would not be surprised if there was a spar deck for a while. The definition of "frigate" means that there is more than one deck with guns, even if it was just two additional guns on the quarter deck. The frigate had a flat stern. Now the frigate lived a long life, especially for something government built, built of wood, floating in salt water, and having been shot at. In the run up to the War of 1812, the Navy - a new generation from 1797, modernized the fleet. Check the thread here on the (mainly stern windows it seems) and which ship had how many and when it had them. Baltimore produced a hideous chimera when they tried to turn a much altered 1855 corvette into a 1797 frigate. I think they have tried to undo that recently, but I have no first hand information. The kit has and elliptical stern and a quarterdeck and a foredeck. It is just plain awful. Mark Taylor tried to make it into the 1855 corvette. H did a good job of it - see his gallery posting - but I suspect that he would not do it again. You can build it as presented and have a grotesque mismash. You can follow Mark's example and essentially scratch build the corvette using the basic hull. You can mostly scratch build the frigate by shortening the hull ad building a flat stern. The sane course would be to store the kit on a obscure shelf and forget that you ever bought it and begin a top quality kit of a ship that really was.

When the site screen is a display for the whole of it, there is a column of links on the lower right. One of them is for Sea Watch Books. I just clicked the link and the entire series is still available. I would not depend on that being a long term situation. As I wrote in a parallel thread. my reading of the tea leaves, of signs and portents suggests that if you ever want any of the book listed there, sooner rather than later would be when you should place your order. I generally would purchase each year's new editions as a single order, so a large order is not unheard of there.

I have every issue up until they went bankrupt. I reacted poorly to the "You are SOL" letter, and did not subscribe to the follow on version. It is a big hole in my library and it rankles that those issues are missing. But, they seem to be more steel than sail and the content very shallow. But boy howdy! The early editions were like going from a 25 Watt bulb to full sun as far as sail modeling possibilities. Then the NRJ had some editors who were determined to get a lot of rare and obscure or hard to get original information available to us. What with the addition of Conway books, it was a wonderful age.

Yup! I can't spell for beans. I was taught look/see method - no system, memorize each word separately. As it is, I can spell in German better than I can in English. They seem to have a rigid system for how their words are spelled. English seems to accumulate words from every other language in the planet and keep their spelling of it too. My word sort of sounds like an infectious condition. Using Southern and country pronunciation does not help either. One of the really annoying things here is while it tells you when it thinks a word is misspelled - it does not tell you what its correct spelling should be. I have to use Google to find the correct spelling and my hick pronunciation is so far off that it takes several tries. I say the word: pro-noun-see-ation and height = heigth It would also be nice if it would stop saying that words like futtock was a misspelling, though. I have read nothing about this, but so much of the Conway content involved John Gardiner, he seems to have been the driving force there. He seems to have poured his heart and soul into it. I think he deserves the equivalent of a statue. This field seems to dried up a bit with his departure.

I recently have recently ordered and received the second and final Speedwell volume. This completes my acquisition of the available inventory of stick and string at Sea Watch Books. The apparent aversion to email conformation and hand holding is idiosyncratic and anxiety producing but they have always been reliable and customer friendly when it counts. My reading of the tea leaves tells me that if a modeler has any volumes sold by Sea Watch on a wish list or maybe list, they might oughta consider ordering them soon. But, of late when it comes to Pen and Sword and getting an order across the Atlantic, I intend to use Amazon instead of ordering direct. In addition, they need to find someone as obcessed as John Gardiner was to head up the Conway division instead of letting it languish.

T bought a Harbor Freight one drum tumbler some time ago. With the $20 off coupon it was economical. Still in its box and stored on a shelf. I have it in mind to find a way to add a dowel thru the central axis and that does not turn and has four flaps of sand paper. It would be fixed flappers and moving perimeter, My usual armchair experiment mode has me wondering just vertical or near vertical flappers should be the thing. The end sections would need trauma to fit the dowel. I wonder if something like an empty can of Dole's not from concentrate Pineapple juice would fit as a drum? (The from concentrate stuff is vile.)

Thus far this is an extraordinary effort and represents what must be a significant number of hours. Looking at the three completed members of the lost fleet, it became clear to me that a great gift was given to the US Navy with their loss. The liners and the frigates were obsolete. They were too large and slow to be of real use for the functions needed for next four years The crew and supplies would have been far more costly than any benefit they could provide. The Germantown, Plymouth, and Dolphin were a real loss. This way , instead of Congress being negative about paying for replacements because the Navy have to scrap them, they got sympathy. The Merrimack by having a engine was something of a loss, but her size versus the job - blockade and chasing smugglers was a bit too large.

I am always on the look out for books that are within my era of interest and focus on the ships - the humans, not so much. In that light I have the following questions: I found this on Amazon is it the same book as above, but the original Italian edition? Navi Veneziane: Catalogo Illustrato dei Piani di Costruzione = Venetian Ships: An Illustrated Catalogue of Draughts. (Italian) Hardcover – January 1, 2000 by Gilberto Penzo (Author) And does this book offer any value from a naval architecture focus? Venetian Ships and Shipbuilders of the Renaissance (Softshell Books) Paperback – Illustrated, September 1, 1992 by Frederic Lane (Author) 4.8 out of 5 stars 6 ratings

Would it be possible that the link be provided?

There is a video about blade tracking. I am pretty sure that the link is here - somewhere. The old school directions had the crown of the top wheel just behind the gullet. This guy have the teeth at the crown. I have had no wandering problems once I started tracking his way. Well, at least no problem until the blade started getting dull. I found that I may as well mount a new blade at that point and save wood because the blade is due to break. An unfortunate factor with benchtop bandsaws is the limited choice in available blades, If you have a choice, fewer teeth per inch is the way to go. With the big saws I can get 3 or 4 TPI. Resawing stock of any significant thickness will fill fine teeth quickly when the blade is not cutting but is burnishing - mostly bad things happen. With no choice and too fine a blade, a slooooow feed is a way to get the teeth out of the stock before they fill completely. About the Orange farmer - I have a theory that I would try were I in a position to utilize it. There are county ag. agents. They may know most if not all of the farmers in their zone. They may know who and where older non productive or recently downed trees can be found. I would try to find old Apple trees that way. Tree service companies may also be a source.