Jaager

Allan, I have read that 220 grit is about the limit for the surface smoothness for components that will be joined using PVA. 400 grit may leave a surface with not enough tooth for the polymers to attach to efficiently. Like you, I progress - bulk 80 grit, dress the 80 scarring with 120-150 grit - 1-2 passes. Finish with 220 grit. On my old 11" drum, I had all three.

Roger, Jim uses a 1/3 HP motor for many of his machines that is heavy enough that tipping over is an unlikely problem. It is probably a good idea to set the distance between the table and the drum to remove a minimum layer of wood. The force from the hand feeding the stock should be fairly low. Most of it is resisting kickback. The push should not be enough to tip over a much lighter unit. The pull from the vac hose should be minimized. A sky hook with a bungee or it being a horse shoe, with down stream on the bench surface. The only problem I have experienced is a weak spring holding the depth dial. It only wants the open, so I fit a 2" C-clamp to it and have it butt the table. The media is easy to mount - not like me having to glue it to a Maple drum on my old NRJ plans homemade unit. Get spare screws. A plank fixed to the motor base floor with holes to hold the Allen wrenches and a contact lens type container with a lid to hold screws will keep everything to hand and keep bits from going away while doing a media change has been good for me.

I completely agree. The main problems are obtaining it in useful sizes and getting it dry before it checks or fungus gets to it. When I see it cut into chunks to flavor meat, it is to cry. If I had it to do over, I would make a effort to harvest as much Apple as I could. I would also actively seek: Hophornbeam and Washington Hawthorn. And explore Honey Locust.

The reduced plans in the book were drawn for Mystic. The originals are 1/2":1' Mystic sells plans. It may be worth the effort to check them out. I have tried to order plans for the clipper David Crockett which is in their inventory, but I cannot determine how many sheets are involved or if they are lines plans complete enough for my lofting method from their web site and I can get no information from them 1:1 email on what is needed to place an order. The data in Howe and Matthews pointed to David Crockett as being a significant vessel, but listed any plans as having been lost in a fire at the yard of the builder. It seemed fortunate that Mystic has them, but I guess it is an illusion.

to add to what Wayne has provided, the book has: 94 pages with two fold out plans plans by T.W.Dunn & R.C.Callyn original 1/2" to foot in the book ~ 3/32":1' Lines Profile and Sail plan There are almost as many drawings as pages - close up detail for many As for knees, iron or otherwise, this component seems to be altogether absent. I checked SM - I found no listing for this vessel there.

In my imagination Speed and cargo capacity would be the primary objectives. Guns are heavy, expensive, and are in the way until needed. They are a negative price point. I see no percentage in shooting it out with the RN or revenue service. Who would they need the guns for and what would be the minimum needed to discourage that opponent. Once these questions are answered, then the equipment should match.

A close reading of the information supplied by the link indicates that this is a genus whose wood would not be all that useful for scale model work. The required effort, I would spend on harvesting fruit wood. The various citrus species possibly available should yield much better stock. If the desert allows for, any of the street side ornamental Pear species produce worthwhile wood stock. If small parts such as blocks are a target, Briar and Boxwood and Hawthorn repay any effort spent on their harvest.

Roger, Jim sells custom made bushings that allow arbors larger than 1/2" to fit. With one of them, I can use the 1" key way slitting blades that I bought long ago. You just have to arrange the specs with him.

The negative reviews in regards to the Byrnes saw attachment are not a reflection on its function or how well it does it. For the most part, they are in response to questions about which attachments to buy. These questions generally come from relative beginners, who do not have bottomless sources of funds. They are seeking to economize and find shipment costs more favorable when everything is all in a single shipment. The need for an angle cut for components of a scratch ship model is not one that presents very often. It is therefore a "yacht" type situation. That is, if you do not know for sure that you will have a serious need for angled cut stock, then you probably will not use it enough to warrant the expense. Or, if you have to ask, then you probably do not need it. The ironic aspect is that it is pretty much the only accessory that is not in the "must have" category. The sliding table is too exquisite to bye pass, although self fabrication of a more simple version is easy enough. The oversize top is a specialist's part. I do wish there was a digital electronic depth of cut gauge; old eyes having the need. Also, super handy would be a version of the sliding table with a short enough right side that it would allow the fence to remain in place.

For the numbered bits, there are gauges sold under the General company name #61-80 and #60 - #1(?) . These are handy for to identify loose bits. As Roger writes - the circular holder - a Roger's style holder is a handy dispenser. A block of dense foam will hold any frequently used bits- just write the number next to the hole in the foam. As for when bits go bad - they pretty much tell you by breaking or bending. My most common use is for trunnels - these are limited to 1" - 2" in scale so for most common modeling scales this is in the #70 and higher (smaller) range. For dowels that join two pieces of wood -I usually go with #50 +/-.

The RN was kind of unique and particular as well as as being more difficult to replicate. The frames were sided in the lower hull (floors and futtock 1/crosspiece/half floor) being almost all wood. The sided dimensions of fut2 / fut 3/ etc. were diminished. The higher they were, the less thick their sided dimension was. It was a step function. The moulded dimension also decreased, but that was a smooth curve. Modeler's conventions help - uniform frame sided dimension until the LWL/main wale. Plank everything above this and the interior and the frame sides are hidden. Their actual thickness does not matter.

I am not disappointed by this purchase at all. It is more of an addition to my historical archives than for a direct model application. This provides necessary but not sufficient information to model a ship from the Navy of Louis XVI.

Plan 40 - La Surveillante 1778 12lb frigate Stern, aft profile above LWL akmost no useful information - essentially a place holder Plan 41 - L'Alcmene 1774 , L'Aimable 1776 8lb frigate Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 plus internal detail, channels quarter gallery, figurehead No stern These are RN dockyard plans of a capture done 1781 There is more detail. . Plan 42 - La Danae 1763 8lb frigate Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 plus internal detail, channels quarter gallery, figurehead, stern These are RN dockyard plans of a capture done 1779 There is more detail. . Plan 43 - La Gracieuse 1749 8lb frigate Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 44 - La Migonne 1767 8lb frigate Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 45 - La Pleyade 1754 8lb frigate Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1

Plan 30 - L'Amphion 1748 50 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 31 - Le Fier 1745 50 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 32 - La Charmante 1777 , La Junon 1777 12lb frigate Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 but zero bow data Plan 33 - La Concorde 1783 12lb frigate Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 plus stern, internal detail, channels Plan 34 - L'Engageante 1765 12lb frigate Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 35 - La Magicienne 1777 12lb frigate Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 plus figurehead and quarter gallery Plan 36 - La Nymphe 1780 12lb frigate Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 plus stern, internal detail, channels Plan 37 - L'Oiseau 1772 12lb frigate Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 plus stern, internal detail, channels These are RN dockyard plans of a capture done 1772 There is more detail. The interior works and the stern. Overall, the plans for this ship are much more complete. Plan 38 - La Renommee 1767 12lb frigate Waterlines, Profile Plans same data as Plan 1, but no Body Plan The hull could be built using current methods. I could not frame using just this information. Plan 39 - La Sultane 1765 12lb frigate Waterlines, Profile Plans same data as Plan 1, but no Body Plan Internal data, figurehead, quarter gallery The hull could be built using current methods. I could not frame using just this information.

Plan 20 - Le Caton 1770 64 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 21 - Le Fantasque 1756 64 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 22 - Le Jason 1777 64 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 23 - Le Lion 1749 64 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 24 - Le Prothee 1772 64 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan These are RN dockyard plans of a capture done 1781 There is more detail. The interior work sand the stern. The Body Plan has the additional technical data of English plans from this time. Overall, the plans for this ship are much more complete. Plan 25 - Le Provence 1762 64 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 26 - Le Brillant 1774 , Le Reflechi 1773 , Le Solitaire 1772 64 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 27 - Le Triton 1745 64 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 28 - Le Vaillant 1752 64 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 29 - Le Vengeur 1765 64 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1. There is interior detail. The channels and deadeyes are present.

Plan 10 - Le Cesar 1767, LedEstin 1777 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 11 - Le Fendant 1772 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 12 - L'Hector 1751 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 13 - L'Intrepide 1747 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines Plan 14 - Le Neptune 1777 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 15 - Le Sceptre 1778 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 16 - Le Souverain 1755 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 17 - La Victoire 1781 74 guns Waterlines, Profile Plan Deck locations - the same status as Plan 6 Plan 18 - Le Zele 1762 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 19 - Le dauphin Royal 1735 70 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1

This appears to be a snapshot of the major vessels of the French Navy from 1775-1793. It is a compilation of the official plans with the addition of a few plans from the RN archives of captured vessels. I suspect that there are more vessels that could have been included if their plans had survived. This volume is similar to ANM in how useful its direct application is for a ship modeler. I think this volume is a drafting of plans from the French Navy archives to a standard 1:72 format. These are a bit different from the plans in the RN archives in the NNM. There is less detail. They seem to focus on the interests of the naval architects. The swimming body and the run of the lines are complete. The overall appearance of the vessels for historical preservation does not seem to be of much interest. The construction details are not present. The following is my evaluation of each from the perspective of a POF scratch builder. Plan 1 - La Bretagne 1762 110 guns 1:72 Body Plan, Waterlines Plan, Profile The wales, rails, gunports, headrails , mast locations at toprail. Nothing on the stern, quarter galleries, figurehead or carvings. There is enough information to frame and plank the hull. Everything else would be generic or spec. Plan 2 - Generic 3 decker and 74 1:144 Spars, sails, rigging side view quarter galleries and side view of figurehead Plan 3 - 64 gun ship (Artsien) and 12lb frigate (Hermione) 1:144 Spars, sails, rigging both are smaller scale copies of what is in their respective individual monographs available from ANCRE Plan 4 - Le Ville de Paris 1757 100 guns Body Plan only This is the same as the information that I received from G. Delacroix when I asked about what was available for this ship. It was the flagship of Rear Admiral Francois Joseph Paul, the Comte de Grasse. Not enough information to model except to get the correct hull shape. Plan 5 - Le Duc de Bourhogne 1748 80 guns 1:72 Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile has rails, gunports, deck locations, no wales, stern, or bow Plan 6 - Le Languedoc 1762 80 guns Waterlines, Profile Plans same data as Plan 1, but no Body Plan The hull could be built using current methods. I could not frame using just this information. Plan 7 - Le Tonnant 1742 80 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 with some carving detail Plan 8 - Le Bien Aime 1767 - La Victoire 1768 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 9 - Le Bourgogne 1762 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1

Update. A box with 45 plans was on my doorstep this afternoon. I have no French and have not done an on-line translation of any of the blurb on the package. I will provide a brief description of each plan when I complete my review.

Jonathan, The best that you can probably do is a reconstruction. Seaways did a 2 sheet 4 plan of a Manila galleon of about 1575. It would be a hundred year later off spring but it would carry echos. If you look carefully, the heavy footprint of Roman merchant bulk carriers can be seen in Medieval seagoing vessels. We have had several threads going here on this period. Do a search for Louie da fly for a view of what we know. The series of volumes covering the Red Bay wreck gets close. There is the AOTS volume doing a guess about Columbus' vessels. Texas AM has some data. Get to know what is in the Subjects built Up to and including 1500 AD forum. What you seek will not be a simple one off fire and forget. It will involve serious academic immersion in speculative and arcane subjects. It will involve drafting and lofting. It will involve scratch building - tools and wood. It will be a whole world of its own to do correctly. You will do the work that would earn you an advanced academic degree in most other fields, but there will be no robes, diploma, or accolades for the effort.

Since GOOGLE search brings them up as a spam ad superimposition on the page., and they are either a full blown scam or have crashed - with a full mailbox and no live contact, perhaps a rough wave washed the whole crew out to sea - GOOGLE should be notified that they are enabling a criminal enterprise. The way GOOGLE handles it will indicate whether GOOGLE too is a scam at base or legit.

Allen, Your kit is POB. What you are faring are generally termed bulkheads. I believe the first POB kits were Italian. Whoever did the first naming and translation of the first kits was obviously not at all academically inclined. The evidence for this is the use of the term bulkhead to begin with. (Unless the first kit was a submarine.) Since only Chinese wooden ships had actual bulkheads, what they actually are; moulds. To rif a bit about POB: Some sort of outboard support between the moulds will make them less prone to movement or displacement while being abraded. The mass market POB kits tend to have an inadequate number of moulds. This makes for problems with dips and hollows in the first layer of planking. But enough about the problems with moulds. The point I wish to make is that moulds/bulkheads are not frames. Their only resemblance to frames is that they reside where a few of the actual frames of the ship would be. Misuse of terminology can lead to confusion. Should you progress on into scratch POF hull fabrication, you would understand why moulds should never be confused with actual frames.

The top support is way over engineered. Cutting a hole for the Vac intake will involve a lot of work. The back vertical face will want a piece of material - cardboard will do - that comes down for a distance of about to the middle of the drum - to make an enclosure for the drum thrown wood flour. The volume of dust generated by a drum sander needs to be seen to be believed. Because of my thickness sander as well as my drum sander table, I had a supply of N-95 masks when this current disaster washed over us. A shop vac (serious volume) and an inline cyclone trap ( a serious sanding session will fill a 16 gal vac container in less time than would be expected as well as filling a vac filter in an all too short time).

1700 rpm is about the max for any of this sort of sanding machine. I have not done the experiment, but I suspect that mush faster will produce a well charred surface. If the rotation is in the direction of the feed, you will have an electric motor driven version of a medieval or Roman era projectile throwing weapon war machine. Even at your slower 4500 rpm, any stock will probably deeply penetrate drywall. Mere human flesh would not stand a chance. I suggest dropping back 10 yards and buying a Byrnes Sander. I have experience with making my own - from way before there was any commercial machine - and the ease of use and precision with the Byrnes makes any homemade machine an exercise in pointless frustration.

Given the source of your posted link, it would serve you to read some of the posts here concerning pirated model kits and the sites that promote this practice - as short sighted and self defeating as pirating is. Understand that such a stand requires a want of moral and ethical integrity. That lack of ethics is a broad based one and not limited to just pirating. Be careful of anything that involves trust and always CYA there. I took your original inquiry for a single reference to be a literal and sincere request and came as close to matching it I could. As you are now beginning a sweeping arc on this subject, some time spent chasing the numerous posts here about the volumes available on this subject. The reality of it is that it takes a library to cover the subject. There was a blooming of available references in the 70's-90's. Most of those volumes are out of print or rapidly approaching that status. The years have taught me to view new books as skeet. Your window of opportunity to acquire them is often fleeting.

I am a total outsider - just observing as far as POB for method, but is not the second (surface) layer of planking not in in essence a filler for the first layer? What practical purpose does filling the cracks in the first layer with putty serve? If the moulds are so widely placed that the first layer requires hollows to be filled so as to get a smooth sweet running surface for the outside planking, significant hollows = scab a thin layer of wood veneer using PVA. minor dips = an easily sanded, porous material with a PVA strength binding agent.