Jaager

Take the lamp off and use cable ties to fix the hose to the outer arm. A crevice tool at the end. gets it close to the action and it stays in place.

Keith, I agree. I did not notice what was checked for the $20 bit. $70 is a different category. Still, for someone who does not intend to turn metal to make tools, but still thinks that a lathe is important to have for wood model parts and does not have money to burn, this may scratch that itch enough to save them from spending big bucks on a precision lathe and finding out that it is little more than a paper weight.

River, this could be a worth while heads up. For $20, it is hard to go bad, even if it does not work out. Almost seems like the link should be to Harbor Freight. There is not all that much on a model that requires a lathe. This may do for windlass drums, capstan spindles. The following would probably not work out: Cannons would need to be wood, and belaying pins made of wood. ( Boy, wouldn't doing that about a hundred times be a load of fun?) There is no tool holder or micro adjustment. Rigging a duplicator looks impractical if wood is the choice. The sharp tools vs motor power is a clue that this is right at the edge of useful. I am betting that brass is right out.

As an indicator of the characteristics the term Cedar is all but useless. It includes several genus groups and may be more than one family. Being an aromatic conifer may be all it takes.

For at least one response - I have no actual experience with this species of wood. From the lack of reply, I guess that few have any experience either. The information that I read in the Wood Database points to it being a poor choice for any part of an actual ship model. It may make an interesting base. It may work for making jigs and other support components.

Allan, I have a bias and a reason for the omission , but unless this is for a cross section model, what is the reason for modeling butt chocks? With a full hull model, their presence would be all but invisible. In any case, they seem to be a critter pretty much limited to British construction. The same with singleton filler frames, also being almost exclusively British. I understand why they did it. They had more skilled labor than they had wood of the desired dimensions and an all but bottomless demand for the wood.

I use the big saws and a thickness sander to get to one final dimension. The Byrnes saw to get the other. For example, deck planks - band saw / sander a plank to the width. The Byrnes saw to slice off the thickness = individual deck planks. For hull planking - band saw to thickness and Byrnes saw to a width that just allows spilling. Similar methods for beams, deck furniture. It will do more of the job. It can do this. It is just not the most efficient way. Framing = thickness sander - precision is more important than accuracy for frame timbers. I scroll cut my timbers from 2" wide stock. I use a 9" bench top band saw - 1/8" blade with a Carter Stabilizer in place of a scroll saw. I do not use the small band saw for anything else. My 10" table saw is essentially just a table. Getting where you want to go is an individual thing. It is nigh on to impossible to avoid buying tools that will wind up gathering dust, because they do not fit your methods. No shortcuts for this learning curve, I fear. A Byrnes table saw is a high quality tool. If it turns out to be a dud for you, it will re-sell easily - provided you have taken care of it. Shame that you are far away - especially if you have surplus Apple. Too bad about losing to Tenn. But at any rate, go Cats!

Starting from the basics, were I starting from scratch - You are acting as a sawyer as well as a mill. First is attention to harvesting and seasoning. Seal all cut ends - even branches as soon as possible. Debarking and cutting into billets speeds seasoning helps get you ahead of fungus and wood boring insects. Always sticker for air circulation. Getting a log into billets and billets into planks - framing and planking thickness planks - is best done using a band saw. A for real band saw- 14". Do not cut corners on HP - that is false economy. I have a 3 HP 220V Rikon and would not want a less powerful motor. ReSawing eats band saw blades. Steel blades do not last long enough to pay back their cost. A carbide resaw blade lasts a whole lot longer. Long enough to be economical even at the $200 each cost. But there is a more cost effective alternative - a Lenox Diemaster 2 bimetal blade. They are $50 but last at least half as long as a carbide blade if not longer. With the species that you are cutting, the resharpening option is likely an illusion - the steel will crack from the work. No other band saw blade types are even candidates for resharpening. Limited budget or not, this tool is fundamental for what you want to do. Next is precise dimensioning. A Byrnes thickness sander is enough better than the other choices that there really is no choice. Now, this is the stage for the Byrnes table saw. There is nothing else close in quality. The trick is to match the blade to the job. Unless you are doing a particular sort of work that needs it, the tilting table option is not going to pay back its cost. The sliding table is a Formula One sports car. If you budget is limited, it is easy to make your own from lost cost materials. I forget who posted the picture of his version - but he sized the table to allow keeping the fence in place when using it. If you are cross cutting long stock - make two versions of the sliding table. To be practical, the Byrnes saw may in theory cut close to 1 inch stock and it may do for AYC, Basswood, or Yellow Poplar, for the species you have, you do not want to cut much thicker than 1/4" stock. Let the band saw to the heavy work. For what it is good at, there is none better than the Byrnes saw, just to not ask it to do jobs it was not designed for. A 10" table saw can sorta maybe get you billets from logs. It is not the job it is best at. It does not treat blades like they are Kleenex - that is true. But the waste to kerf is awful. The depth of cut is limited - several passes are necessary for 3 or 4 inch deep cuts. Each pass means more work for the thickness sander. It wants to eat your fingers. If any tool is a true luxury for the job of milling stock - it is a full size table saw.

Hank, Yup, Norfolk. I am at the edge of Little Creek NAB (or joint something or other). the bark Eagle visits from time to time, Susan Constant was here once. Lots of good restaurants here. You seem to have missed the star over at Newport News: The Mariner's'Museum. A seminar over in the framing forum might be interesting. You are not too far from Hickory - once upon a time a center for quality furniture mfg. I would guess there are nearby hardwood mills. Not Boxwood, Pear or Holly - but a good price on Maple and Black Cherry and maybe Honey Locust?

After some thought, rather than going Hahn style with every other bend omitted, the spaces are a bit wide, something new may be worth a try. I am thinking that Naval timber framing style look attractive for this ship. From a distance, it would look like Navy Board framing. I think actual Navy Board framing is not appropriate for ships built after the 1719 Establishments were issued. Never mind that it is very wasteful of timber stock. The three main timbers are just too long and too curved not to be inefficient in the utilization of wood. The old boys apparently cut their frames from solid sheets. Nice that they could get Boxwood and Pear in those dimensions. The first on the right is solid, 2nd is 19th C. 2/3 room 1/3 space, 3rd is Naval timber framing . 4th is Navy Board.

The SI was impressed with Boston to use the lines on the cover of their warship plans catalog. Elegant lines. I bought the plans and worked the up for framing. R&S is 24.25" Using the scantling in Steele - the sided thickness of the frames leaves very little actual space - mostly enough for air circulation. As built, leaving off any planking to show the frames would display a solid wall of timber - with narrow gaps. This ship would work for frame display if every other bend was omitted and the frames were 12.125". Doing this saves on wood, too! I would use Steele as primary, and AOTS Conny and AOTS Essex to supplement. If there is no ship specific data and you make an informed guess, who has the bones to denigrate your choices? I would not let the lack of contract data stop me from building Boston. That there are many more ahead her in my queue, has her a low priority in my shipyard.

You might give some consideration to giving the "bolt heads" a pass. They were more like nails and are not seen from a distance that is not that far away. They are not proud, rather flush or a slight dent. Most of the hulls with bumps remind me of an old picture of a severe case of smallpox in someone with an incompetent immune system. Individual plates from a copper sheet? On a piece of safety glass - score with a very sharp #11 blade moving along a steel straight edge. Snap along the score. Attaching the copper can be a problem. Old Model Shipways technique called for using a candle to darken the copper and then using Weldwood contact cement. They did not say to scrub the glue side after flaming it. What happened is a layer of oxide on the surface that cases the cement bond to fail. Treating the copper sheet to a color change before scoring may either leave the other side unaffected or allow for easier process of cleaning it. I am a long way from actually doing this experiment, but I have it in mind to use archival paper with a smooth surface. Paint one side with Modern Masters ME205-06 Metallic Antique Copper, before I cut plates, wondering about a Guillotine Trimmer for the cutting, attach with bookbinders PVA, and use Modern Masters PA901-04 Aging Solution Green Patina in various places.

The distance from the top of the deck to the top of the port sill was a defined distance. There was a formula - the caliber of the gun was the determining factor. The slope of the sill followed the slope of the deck under it. It was not horizontal at the ends of the ship. Rather than a rectangle a gunport was often a parallelogram with vertical sides.

Your sheets look wider than 2.5" . So you set the 10x4 face on the table? You know what your grain pattern will be doing that. I use 8x4 and the 2" face is against the fence. I do get an interesting variety of grain patterns with Hard Maple this way. I have a 3HP Rikon and my Resaw King broke. The tension is serious, so the bang was LOUD. I paid a tech from Wood Craft to set my saw up and he set the tension. It reads dead on for 1/2" on the gauge. Bent the blade so no rewelding. It was under warranty so Laguna replaced it. They required this picture. It was way back in the queue, but it got here. The finish and thin kerf with Wood Slicer is really nice. It just does not stand up to Maple for enough linear feet of cutting to pay its way with me.. I went thru the whole wider blade - less wander thing. I used an Emco BS3 3 wheel benchtop band saw for years. As the blade dulled, the wander became a problem. I have had no wander with the Rikon with a 1/2" blade. The internet video that advocated setting the teeth at the crown of the top wheel pretty much avoids wander for me. The Lenox Diemaster 2 bimetal blade seems to be an effective alternative to a carbide blade. It is about twice the cost of a Wood Slicer but may last 80-90% of the life of a carbide and about 10 times longer than a Wood Slicer. I do not work for Lenox, so I have no investment here. I am just offering what I think is an economical alternative. Given the propensity for any steel blade to break on me, I am thinking that the carbide resharpen option is more of a mirage. It softens the resistance to the $175 outlay.

Chuck, At $150 per blade, you seem to be buying a carbide tipped blade. I am guessing ReSawKing. The main alternative that I have found at Highland is about $25 more. I have a local shop that will weld a blade while I wait. The owner repaired a 10" carbide Freud tablesaw with a broken tooth -back to like new. Anyway, he put me onto Lenox Diemaster 2 bimetal blades. I use the 1/2", 3tpi, 0.035" and my saw is 142" so each is $ 57 . I checked Bandsaw Direct and they are $55. For my size a Wood Slicer is $44 and it dulls and a bimetal lasts maybe 10 times longer. The carbide will last longer than bimetal but nothing like 3 times longer. It is to cry when a carbide blade snaps. When I cost it out, I think the bimetal is a lot more cost effective. It will only cost you about $50 to do the test on your saw and see if the economy is there for you.

Wow, Bruce !! Boxwood! logs though - likely not too large- Unless it is possible to access a band saw 14" or large - processing it will involve frustration and agony - would not consider it for framing but grabbing a serious supply for use as blocks, catheads, davits, bitts , belfreys, is worth considering. The Pear though - if it is quality and is 4x4 or 8x4 and the price is reasonable - back up a truck and fill it. Matrim, I would score everything on your list as an excellent choice but the Red Cedar. I have no experience with it. Beech seems similar to Hard Maple but a tad darker. Hard Maple and Black Cherry are my choices for framing. They are domestic species for me and easy to get. Basswood is way too soft and iffy about holding a sharp edge to me. Lime is the same genus but a bit harder - enough harder, I seriously question. Yellow Poplar is similar in hardness, but it works as though it were a lot harder. It will hold a sharp edge. The stock that I have gotten is excellent for framing - if you totally plank over it. The color range in a single board can go from tan to green to a color that looks like creosote treated Pine - ugly brown. Good looks ain't its thing. POF uses a lot of wood. A frigate @ 1:48 - you are looking at maybe 10-20 BF. More if you cut your frames from stock that is glued into a "U" and cement the frame pattern to it, a lot more. The volume of wood used for everything but framing is reasonable enough to make using imported species worth considering. For framing, it makes for a more reasonable budget outlay the use species that are domestic where you live. While good Apple is king, it is a bear to obtain. Your Pear - Pyrus communis - steamed (Swiss) or not comes in a close second. I love Black Cherry, but Pear is better. The hard species of Maple domestic for you is Sycamore maple, European sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus. It is probably close enough in hardness to make not worth paying a premium for imported Acer saccharum. Because Underhill praised Sycamore Naple, but called it Sycamore, I bought a supply of our Sycamore - American Plane Platanus occidentalis . A more awful species would take work to find. well maybe Siberian Elm or Lombardy Poplar.

If spars are missing, or too damaged to repair, fix that. Do it in a way that matches. I totally agree with Bob, refinishing is not the wise choice. If this model was ever intended to sail in an actual pond, it is not probable that shellac was used as a clear finish final coat anywhere on it. Shellac loves water. It loves it so much that it grabs it and turns white. In the 1930's a water proof clear finish would be vanish. Traditional varnish - boiled linseed oil cooked with shellac in mineral spirits or terp. Carefully remove any dirt and muck condensed on it from the its environment - look up restoration cleaning methods. Give it a home that protects it from dust and temporary gaseous goo like tobacco smoke and frying oils. If something bright and shiny for you to sail is your original goal, I suggest that you leave the old girl in her retirement and build a new one yourself.

This is not exactly the lay of the land. My view of it is that there are more than 3 types. I do not use 2 of the 3 that you have listed. Contact glue/cement - here Weldwood is the common brand - has zero place on an actual ship model. I use it to fix sanding media (cloth backed) to the Maple drum of my homemade thickness sander - difficult and messy to remove. CA - do not use it - probably a generational thing - but when I did try it, I never got much use from a bottle before it dried up. Depending on brand and conditions, if want a model to last a hundred or more years and not just 20 or so, the long term stability is open to question. PVA - comes four main flavors - white - OK, but I do not favor it, yellow - carpenter's glue I use the water resistant Titebond II brand, brownish - fully water proof = Titebond III (really acidic), archival white - bookbinders neutral pH - safe for rigging lines made from natural fibers ie. linen or cotton. Epoxy - many types - the bond for metal to wood Hide glue - really traditional - not used much - the liquid variety is in disfavor because of its high water content (probably). The glue pot type is messy and time consuming. Fully archival. Before it sets, PVA squeeze out is easy to remove - scrape it or damp paper towel - once set a very sharp edge - it is a plastic. Undoing a bond - near 100% isopropyl alcohol and a heat gun. Are you sure it was not wood that had been dyed? A wood dye penetrates wood and does not affect its pores or surface. A stain is really semi transparent paint and it is pointless and bit mad to use PVA on a painted or stained surface. Wood bending? The tools to do it? You pays your money and you takes your chances, Whatever works for you. The most important factor here is your choice of wood species to try to bend to begin with. A few bend well, most sorta do, and some resist bending to a degree that makes it not worth even trying.

Does resistance soldering work for this sort of work?

Jim, what is done under the term "kit bashing" here is hardly bashing. It is far more like kit improvement or kit augmentation. What it really is = partially scratch building a kit model. There was a time when this was the primary path towards full on scratch building. It was years ago that I first encountered kit bashing - it was plastic models and it was things like adding P51 wings to the model of a "56 Chevy. In our world it would be mounting a 5 inch gun turret in the waist of Drake's Revenge and replacing the swivels with M2. You might think that it could be further bashed by adding a Volvo Penta and a prop, but that has already been done for real on a replica of a near contemporary of Revenge, the Susan Constant which is over here at Jamestown.

If what you have is Lovoa trichilioides - what the Wood Database lists as African Walnut, trying to get a serious bend is fighting against the basic structure of the wood. The grain is likely interlocked. This offers resistance to the fiber bundles sliding along side each other to produce a staggered formation. It might be more productive to substitute with a species that allows bending. Then spend the additional effort find a mixture of wood dyes that color the substitute to match the Walnut that you have used.

Not a recommendation, just a comment: My background is in the Biological Sciences, and HMS Beagle has a role similar to an icon. Beagle had been a will-o'-the-wisp as a subject for a model until 1997. Then it became my first choice to build after retirement because Karl Heinz Marquardt authored an Anatomy Of The Ship volume covering HMS Beagle. I scratch build and have been able to loft the framing for this ship, using the information and plans in the book. I even have the necessary stock of framing wood. I have long been diverted from building Beagle. I have decided to use 1:60 as the scale for all of the ships that I model. I have a "rule" against modeling a ship that is available as a kit. Sort of like the on going mission of the Starship Enterprise: "to go where....". This new OcCre kit - at 1:60 - has provided me with a bit of a dilemma. Being POF it would not be mistaken for the kit, but still... OK, enough irrelevant rambling! The AOTS volume - while possibly difficult to buy - is probably also the basis of the kit. It also provides information that allows for an extraordinary level of detail - if you so choose. In addition the information and level of detail for the spars, rigging and sails is extensive and is matched by only a few other vessels. If the rigging gives you pause, the kit plus the book provides enough information that an y impediment will be at the level of your effort and not due to a lack of information.

Unless the case has good ventilation, it could turn into an oven. I think the effect is = visible light passes thru the glass, upon striking a surface inside it loses energy. The lower energy is IR and it reflects from the glass and bounces around inside or increases the temp of any material that it hits. Man made fibers are catalyzed cross linked polymers. UV can act as a catalyst to produce additional cross linking. The more cross linking, the more rigid it becomes. Rigid is brittle, until under any stress, even a change in temp, it shatters. The location that you have chosen increases the rate at which organic materials follow Nature's imperative to return to CO2 and H2O.

Afonso, My suggestion was that you build completely from just plans and materials that you directly obtain. I based this on you being on a mission and seriously focused on it. I see now that you are coming in to this with less of a view of this landscape than I thought. Before the internet, when starting this, it was a local club - if you were extremely lucky, otherwise it was books and magazines or journals dedicated to ship modeling and books about building the original ships, some of the books were reprints of books written at the time of the ships. The best of the books and best of the journal articles demonstrated and encouraged building from scratch. Unless your previous experience involved woodworking at the cabinet maker or fine furniture maker level, the learning curve was/is steep. It pretty much requires owning or having access to some fairly expensive tools, especially at the milling your own stock from lumber stage. When you have the materials - mainly wood stock with the proper dimensions - expensive tools are not necessary, but they make things go faster and easier. But you still will not be able to mimic Graham Chapman and build a model in bed, at night in the dark. (Monty Python) A ship, especially a warship, involved/involves the most advanced technology of the culture building it. It is a serious endeavor. Should you wish to build a model of one, a model that is reasonably close to the original and that, in your imagination, could grace a museum, building it from scratch is still the way. This is especially true if your subject is unique or has been rarely modeled. Kits are primarily about making money for the mfg. They require being economical with the component materials, using methods that as many as possible can execute, and subjects with broad appeal and are supplied in large numbers. At the extreme, it is about selling a fantasy, an expensive fantasy that is more often than not beyond the existing skills of the buyer. At that level, the skill involved in the overall process is in the advertising, not in craftsmanship.

You could maybe buy some wider stock that is the thickness of the planking so that it can be spilled. Before you segment the planking area, two planks need to be in place and correct: The lower wale and the garboard. For the garboard, only one edge should be spilled and that is the edge that meets the keel. Mark's lower red line is the garboard and his length is how long it is. It does not chase the rabbet up the stem. In the era of your model, I don't think the ends of the wale strakes tapered at the ends. Get some thick hard pressed cardboard and fully plank with it. When you get that correct, the pieces can be used as patterns for the wood. But the more wood strakes are applied, the less reliable will be the cardboard patterns. But new ones that fit the smaller space would be better.