Jaager

I did a search for shellac flakes in UK  and it came up on Amazon UK.  There is probably pre-mixed also.

The solvent is ethanol 95% (It has a strong bond with water. If you started with 100% ethanol, it will pull water vapour from the atmosphere until it is back to 95%.) old time = 100% methanol,  or 99% isopropanol.

For flakes, the lighter the flakes, the less soluble.  I read and had accepted that dewaxing removed a solubilizer, but I wonder if dewaxing actually just reduces the weight?  The part that is shellac may be just as soluble and the fraction that is something else just reduces the overall weight as it is removed?

Half saturated shellac is a near universal primer.  Wipes on, soaks in, dries fast and just about any follow on material - polymerizing oil, paint - acrylic or organic solvent based, varnish - water or mineral spirit,  will bond to it.

Add a bit of catalyzed linseed oil to the pad with the shellac and it is French polish.

6 hours ago, Tony28 said:

I need to oil the deck

Which is the product that you are naming "oil"?

For the deck furniture that is wood, PVA to bond.

For metal - two part epoxy.

For plastic - no idea.

PVA requires a porous or rough surface for its hyphae to get a grip. rough bare wood.

Epoxy will bond to which ever material it meets - except maybe plastics or if your "oil" is actual oil - like mineral oil or castor oil that stays liquid - no bond.

If it is a polymerizing oil  - Tung, Linseed, or various nut oils - the epoxy will bond to it and the strength of the oil bond to wood will be the strength of the fitting's bond.

Old style oil based vanish was often Linseed with a heavy metal catalyst to speed polymerization.

Polyurethane is straight up plastic.  If this is what you mean by varnish, I am with you in finding it unacceptable.

In any case, any fitting should bond to the bare wood.  Protect the footprint of the fitting with tape before you apply any clear finish.

You seem determined about the oil,  so suggesting half saturated shellac as a primer or solo and rhen full strength shellac if a clear layer is desired.

If you are serious about assuring that the fittings stay bonded, add a mechanical component.

This is tricky to do.  For metal or plastic,  a solid brass pin - fit into a hole in the middle of the fitting's footprint and into a hole in the deck. -epoxy both ends.

For a wood fixture - a bamboo "dowel" "trunnel" instead of brass.  PVA.  - This is really "old school".

Up date:

For my rough 8x4 - I now have a Craftsman benchtop planer.  It said to use a jointer, but it smoothed out the minor cupping -  I took 1/32" passes - several of them -  Still did not fix the horrible 2" faces, but the 6-8" faces are as clear as I wish - I am happy with it.  I have room to park it on my Ryobi BT3000 table.   I think that I can place it in the middle and plane stock where it is.  It is no fun to move.

I tried a 2" straight bit on an under the table Wen router, but the guide setup was beyond me so that was a mess. 

I plan to try mounting a 3" drum and doing multiple passes.  I have a speed control box - a rheostat I think - the question is - will the motor have any torque at the 1700 rpm range that the sanding drum requires?

One of the 2' Maple 8x4 stock had a branch root or something irregular and my bandsaw blade did a bit of wandering with the change in grain direction.  It will be touch and go to get 100% return to produce 0.25"  220grit stock from my initial thickness.

Now, moving on to my original thickness sander upgrade project.   I have new pillow blocks and shaft collars.  I have an 18" x 1/2" shaft with a key way.  And  the 4" x 11" Al cylinder is here.  Boy am I surprised at how heavy it is.   It worries me a bit about the work on the motor to move that thing.  But, it has to turn it, not lift it - there will be a lot more momentum.   I was just notified that the 6" wedges will be here on Monday, so everything needed is almost here.

The local fabrication shop says they will treat me fairly.  I think I will wait out the season before I do my visit.

Cutting a big hole on each side of the box was a really good idea.  The motor does not get too hot.  Now I wear out before the motor.  The old one had a thermal switch and it stopped after an hour or so.

I live in Norfolk,  I think I remember being shown a small building on the main here base that had woodworking tools that the living on base team members could use for hobby projects.  If your duty stations also have this,  get the specifics for the machines there and buy your own blades.  If they have a router with a table, you could also have your own bits to have trade mark molding profiles on your cases.

See what picture frame jigs are there.  Maybe base maintenance has a woodworking shop - if they have not outsourced even that?

Another possibility:  for each base, do whatever passes these days for wanted pages with base personnel, and get with someone who already owns the machines that you will need.  Get their data and buy your own blades and bits to fit their machines.  I would be much more likely to lone out use of my machines, if the borrower brought his own gear that will dull, or break.

You really do not want to haul full size machines from base to base - or at least I would not care to do it.

Real world - a finished kit model would probably sell for about what the original kit costs.  For this one that is ~$300.

If you are building this for income instead of pure enjoyment, you would make much more money per hour doing a job that requires wearing a paper hat.

For the model in question, you should either stub the masts and repair the deck/hull yourself or give it a Viking funeral.

If you were to consider repairing it yourself, your time would be better spent building a different ship.  You have checked Endeavour off your list.

If I were to place a bet on the situation, my money is on you having to write the whole thing off and concede the victory to your Ex.

The only one likely to profit from pursuing this is your lawyer.

15 hours ago, Bob Cleek said:

Bridge City offers a chopstick tapered planing jig that uses the HP-8 plane called the "Chopstick Master."

I have in mind the concept that spars were not exactly a straight line taper.   Is it not a curve with a slope that increases - with most of the increase in the outer quarter?  A very shallow ellipse?

Now that I visualize it. A jig with parallel sides and a shim that slides under the spar.  The shim would allow for an elliptical profile.

I think the process would be significantly faster than a lathe.  Planing along the grain would mimic the action of an adz and not leave a surface that is a series of concentric rings - which is what a lathe does. 

2 hours ago, Intasiabox said:

the wood gets too dried out and splits and cracks, making it unusable.

I have no doubt that this is a frequent occurrence with the older POB kits from some companies.

I do question the explanation.  Wood is fairly to significantly old before it is even harvested.

Once felled, the wood will then have its original water content reduced to ambient humidity (seasoning).

How long this takes involves a number of factors - thickness being a major one.  From then on wood will

change its concentration of water to be in balance with the humidity of its surrounding air.

I propose that the major problem with these older kits lies with the choice of wood species selected for inclusion in the kit.

From day one with these kits it is GIGO as far as how the wood behaves.  Using glue, finishing agents, paint, etc.  will alter how it responds over time.

However you factor this out,  our dominant investment by far is: TIME.

We never get it back. 

We will never be compensated at any hourly rate commensurate with that of professionals doing similar skill level jobs.

Quality wood does not fight you at ever step.  Its presentation is more appropriate.

Your time would be better spent building quality kits.  The intangible feeling is more pleasurable.

If you are determined to proceed with this,  your experience will be more rewarding if you were to replace every wooden part with a quality wood.  Use the original wood as patterns where this is worth doing.  If the cost of the second hand kit does not make this economical to do, you would be spending too much.

You might get a more informed response at Renderosity or DAZ.

I think that Poser and DAZ Studio have better tools than Blender for dealing with biologicals - humans and animals.

I have been out of that world for about 10 years.

On 12/4/2023 at 2:40 PM, allanyed said:

I have seen the white bottoms planked with holly rather than using paint and it is a truly beautiful thing but invariably seems to follow the sheer of the wales, not the waterline. 

I have done the thought experiment of how to place a strake - that looks like a strake - made up of two different species of wood and have them butt at the waterline and have all of the other strakes that cross the waterline - when seen together - have that waterline appear to be a straight line.  There are at least two variables in play with this.   I think juggling one ball at a time is enough for me.   Just running the bottom planking as is normal starting below the wale as a single species - seems to be the best way to keep sane.

7 hours ago, Dr PR said:

I have spent quite a bit of time trying to find reliable period references for the colors on ships - with little luck.

The early ANCRE volumes came with a sheet of color chips.

I have a vague recollection that EAR Jr.  had early 19th century color chips in the journal - As long as they were based on mineral paints, they should be valid as likely shades possible  - for thousands, if not millions of years.

Moran tugs have an ongoing presence here in the lower Bay.

There is a Dumas kit for Carol Moran

Plans for Moran tugs do not jump out at you.

If you want a Revolutionary War vessel - There are NMM plans for the frigate Roebuck -  a first generation sister was Charon - who's  coppered lower hull is still on the bottom of the York right at where your daughter lives (I think). 

Any of the NMM plans for Revolution War era British sailing merchantmen could stand for the ones sunk during the Yorktown campaign.

I searched for plans for the tug Dorothy 1891 - Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock hull #1

DOROTHY: HULL NUMBER ONE COMES HOME
FOX,WM A
NAUTICAL RESEARCH JOURNAL
1976
22
183-202  
STEAM BOAT NA 19TH
A
DOROTHY

This article contains a full set of plans -  The CD ....

I looked again -  and brick is a bit small   

4"x11"   6"x9    pick a size and hope it matches your need .

I also made a smaller "table"  with a 1" foam top.  I made holes in it to hold my carving chisels - the height set to keep the tips hanging suspended, but the base is a layer of foam "just in case" it is not high enough.  The suspension keeps the blades in view so I can see which is which - side slots hold my scrapers - you want a set of small size luthier's scrapers -  shop - boy is there a wide range of prices  for a set like this:

Peachtree's $25 does not seem that bad.

19 minutes ago, Dr PR said:

there is one in my neighbor's yard that I would happily cut down to see

So far, I have found that the wood of closely related species has many if not most of the characteristics that we desire in the species on our list.

The color will probably be different, but the basic structure seems to hold.

If carving is of interest or perhaps bitts, catheads, belfry, etc.  It would probably be worth investigation.  

I am guessing that your neighbor wants to keep it and you would rather the situation was otherwise.

If you can get at it - all together now:  debark, seal the cut ends, and sticker - out of the weather😉.

Yup, I was discussing Pyracantha - the name was in deep memory and did not come in readily- painful to prune.  I had an even worse small thorny bush - the numerous thorns had a constriction just behind the tip, so that it would break off and stay in skin - really sharp so it went deep with little force. No wood with that one. Too small. 

10 minutes ago, grsjax said:

Hawthorn seems to be a fairly common tree in the Northwest. 

I believe that August Crabtree started his project while living in Oregon or Washington - he called it fire thorn.

That it is common there would explain his using it.

Here, fire thorn is a hedge - foundation plating - it is in the rose family and is plenty hard, but it only gets to stick diameter. 

I question if something that  ..... fixed .... specifically organized..?  would serve very well  with ship modeling - which has many varied stages - each with different tools.

I have had good luck   using project Styrofoam.

2 inches thick - about the size of a brick --  Home Depot sells smaller sheets of 1" project Styrofoam 

It is porous -so PVA will bond two cut to size pieces  which is then glued to a 1/2" plywood base with a lip/porch on all 4 sides - a longer porch on one side makes for a handy stage for in-use tools.

Punch holes in the top of the foam using the tool handles and they standup - fixed - visible and ready to grab -  there can be a different brick for each type of work. Easy to move and store.

PVA will not melt it - most plastic glues will - a hot glue gun was a disaster -  PVA does not work with most plastic but most plastic is not full of tiny holes.

Drilling down the center for the axle.

I propose to use a 1/2" steel rod with a key way already cut into it for the axle.

The drum would need two matching key way slots - one at either end to mate with the axle slot.  ?A 1/2" or so deep slot - enough for an off the shelf key?

I do not think a glue bond would be wise and I understand that Al to Fe welds do not work.

Then the drum would need to be trued and polished a bit.

Then a slot milled on the long axis  to match the wedges on the Byrnes sander and four tapped holes.

I guess truing the ends too.

Something like six separate operations -

1 hour ago, Roger Pellett said:

 Capacity about 1in.  Cost $500 +-.

My stock is 2 in.    But serious food for thought.  Looking on-line 12"  is more than wide enough,  most seem to accept 6" thick and 3" is the most that I will need. 

1 hour ago, Roger Pellett said:

The question is cost.  I doubt if any custom machine s hop can machine the shaft and drum for anything close to the $500 spent on a small portable planer.

If I am reading you correctly,  the Aluminum milling will be too expensive?

It is beginning to look like there is more to this than appears at first glance,

I have a Ryobi 10" tables saw system - it will mount a router under the table - extra surface on either side of the blade- it is on wheels -  The table saw works  but I would rather not use it - I like having 10 fingers - plus the blade kerf and limited depth of cut per pass does not compare to my bandsaw for milling.  Right now, it is a table that holds my scroll saw and parks my sander off my work bench.  Now that I think on it,  I guess that I could park a CRAFTSMAN 12.25-in W 15-Amp Benchtop Planer ( favorable review and is $350 at SLowes -  65 lb)  on it and play musical chairs with the other tools.    Move it out to my driveway for use. 

30 minutes ago, bruce d said:

Have you considered aluminium thick wall tubing?  That will keep the mass down.

Then there is a new problem - getting a 1/2" steel shaft fixed dead center in the long axis.

I am of the thought that 7x not very heavy is still not very heavy - at least  as far as a 1/2HP motor is concerned.

4 hours ago, Rik Thistle said:

I know you are tight for space, but I would avoid tempting Fate at all costs

I will still have the old parts.  I can recover what I now have.

I will do search for commercial drum sanders.  My prejudice/supposition going in is that there are model size sanders -  and then there are commercial shop size.  I am guessing that the middle belongs to bench top cutting planers.  I will explore.

58 minutes ago, bruce d said:

Out of curiosity, why change to aluminium?

Mostly for the ability to clamp the sandpaper instead of using glue.

Plus - the Maple is no longer a uniform diameter -  not a serious problem when its job is to get bandsaw slices to 80 grit surfaced stock that is close to final thickness to finish using my Byrnes unit for 150 and 220. 

The cooling  - new motor - now TEFC - and wide open cross ventilation because I cut away the two sides of the box.

The 1/2 HP is powerful enough I think. 

The old pillow bearings may not stand up to twice the RPM.  I will watch.  And probably opt for a new belt and keep the 4" drum pulley if I decide to increase the axle height. 

Same UCP pillow block  =  $10 vs $17 vs $23 on line -  the serious ones have grease fittings - and I left my grease gun back in KY with my John Deere.

A small gun for 3oz cart not too expensive

This is getting more and more involved - 

1 hour ago, Rik Thistle said:

A 4" dia piece of Aluminium rotating at a possibly higher rpm will contain a lot more energy than the previous (lighter) wooden block.

I had been thinking that Maple was fairly dense,  but my back of the envelope calculations 

s.g.  Map 0.71   Al  2.7

3" = 1.5 squared   4" =  2 squared   pi and length cancel -   2.25x0.71  vs 4x2.7 =  1.6 vs 10.8  = 6.75 times heavier  WOW

Every time I approach building a new hull, I forget just how much time and work are involved in getting enough framing stock.

At 1:60 scale  I am estimating that I will need  60 x 2' x 2"  for a 3rd rate    and 100 x 2' x 2"  for a 1st rate for framing stock

The wood needed for everything else is trivial in comparison.

I don't think scratch POF is feasible if you are not your own sawmill.

1 hour ago, Altduck said:

This would increases the surface speed from about 2,700 to about 5560 Ft/minute; will heat be a problem?

That is the factor that concerns me.  I see a balance  between the friction and the contact time being half and the longer trip around the drum allowing for more cooling.  

If the fabricator can and will do it, and does not want a king's ransom I guess I will just try it and see.   If heat is a problem, I can fit a larger pulley on the drum and take the machine to a local belt supplier and get the correct new belt.

I see a challenge feeding a two foot plank that is 2" thick and 7-8" wide.  It weighs a lot more than a 1/3" slice.

Bandsaw observation:

The 2x4 framing timber slices are a lot straighter than a fuzzy cupped hardwood plank allows.   

The blade seems to cut straighter if the convex side is on the table.

I have a drum sander made using plans from the guild - probably from the 1970's

I use it now for 60-80 grit  to get two clear smooth surfaces -  my bandsaw slices need ~0.045" planed on each surface for scar and wander removal.

The old motor - a 1/3 HP cap. start finally died - I was a bad daddy = poor vent closed box - did not see the ocean of saw dust that was haft way up the motor.

I have replaced it with a new Granger  1/2 HP 1700 rpm TEFC GP no cap. and I cut large holes in each side for air flow.  It works really well.

The new 1/2HP has a 5/8" shaft instead of a 1/2".  I bought a new 4: x 5/8" pulley that got here the same day as the new motor.

I do not have room for an actual planer -  It would be that or my car in the garage.  The constant salt air - not good for a car.

Now I want to tempt Fate.

The drum is 3" x 11"  Hard Maple -  it is showing cracks -  way back when 9x11 paper was it and this drum fits that exactly.

I use Weldwood Contact cement to hold the medium.  Even though I now use cloth backed medium, it is still a chore to replace - nothing that I have tried will dissolve the contact cement.  Mineral spirits and Naptha will kill it and turn it into sticky balls, but it is work to clean.

I can get an Aluminum rod - custom cut to 11" -  3"  but I thick I want to get a 4" diameter.

The increase in diameter will increase the area per unit time of sandpaper at a given RPM.  Should be OK for the new motor I think.

If I leave the pillow blocks where they are - I will lose 1/2" of stock thickness.

My drum has a 6" pulley

My motor has a 4" pulley

This means that the drum is rotating 66%  of the motor.

If I get a 4" Al drum - custom cut to 11"  from MetalsDepot,

I found a 1/2" steel  keyed rotary shaft at M-C ,

If I get two 6" wedges from MM  -  with a wedge mechanical paper hold like Jim's design - paper change will be easy.

If I raise the pillow blocks to be able to sand thicker stock,  I can keep my present belt if I replace the 6" drum pulley with the 4" pulley from my old motor.

I will get an additional 1.75" of possible stock thickness

I just need a local shop to dill a 1/2" hole down the center of the AL rod.  Mill a key way into the inside hole to connect the shaft to the drum - partway at one or either end should do the trick?  Mill a wedge slot and tap for 4 holes.  I figure that trimming 1/4" from each end of the two 6" wedges should be no problem?

Now the question:

Will increasing the drum circumference from 9.4" to 12.5" and increasing the RPM of the drum from 1100 RPM to 1700 RPM  -  thus increasing the area of sanding medium per unit time cause a problem?

If it does, I guess I can get a larger diameter drum pulley and try to find a new belt that fits.

I am of a hope that I will find out Tuesday if I can find a local shop to mill the Aluminum and if the cost is acceptable.

I really would like to surface my rough 8x4 by 2 foot Maple and Cherry to play nicer with my bandsaw,

A license and inspection is not needed for home built furniture, but if you use a simple plate glass and some sort of accident happens and the glass breaks into obsidian sharp spear points you might wish that you had been required to use a tempered glass that shatters into harmless balls. 

1 hour ago, DanBArt said:

It is mostly my sampler to try out a planked hull as the old viking boat is a solid hull. 

It is not necessarily an  either-or situation.   Do a final shaping on the outside of the solid hull.  Fix it to a base upside down and use it as a mould for planking.  Study the planking run using serious sources. I don't think the serious up curve at each end is what it appears to be.  It is carving in large chunks of wood I think - not my area.

39 minutes ago, allanyed said:

Sorry for the miscommunication.  I was not suggesting anyone must follow the construction, I was asking about the correct interpretation of the drawing.

No miscommunication.  I just took the opportunity for a riff.   After we got our hands waked for venturing out our area....  Your interpretation looks accurate to me.  And you certainly have enough experience to essay as much of the structural fine points as you can tolerate.  You know what is involved.  It is a cost-benefit situation.  I am thinking that by sticking to only the necessary, two and maybe three ships could be built for the time and effort required by a fully detailed model.  But what do I know?  I am still stuck in my framing rut.

It has been a while, but I was channeling the occasional tyro who bangs in with too much enthusiasm and a mistaken certainty that a fully detailed first rate from scratch is not really a problem and manageable. 

Allan,

Touching base, but I have nothing to offer on this point.

I do have one "wonder" about this sort of detail on a design plan.

I have the impression that prior to Anson's control of shipbuilding,  that the individual masters at each yard were very protective of their "prerogatives".  Allin's exercise of this lead to a disastrous  result for Victory 1737.  Would they pay any attention to construction detail like scarphs ?

Since we do not have a seminar room for scratch builders,  jumping on any opportunity for general discourse seems worthwhile.

I am a bit of heretic on this sort of detail. 

I am purely superficial about otherwise hidden detail. 

I prefer fully planked decks, so I opt for simple one piece beams - since they are hidden. This saves on carlings, ledges, and all sort of knees.

I know that many of the contemporary English shipyard models feature minimally planked decks.  No definitive information would be added by speculating on the reasons behind it, but after years of observation, my determination is that once I have seen one, I have seen enough.  Too busy and unfinished looking for my eye.

I do not intend to be negative about this, I am suggesting that rather than mechanically following a formula for an acceptable look, take a wide angle view and determine what sort of final look will fit your esthetic.  I wonder just how many derelict scratch build logs would have reached finished status if the author had not become overwhelmed by the complex internal detail?  A shallow and superficial epidermis only works just as well for everyone but the cognoscenti.

To offer a comment about decks that I did not see commented on, since I am suggesting fully planking the decks:

A recent photo of the deck of Tennessee showed the deck.  Tennessee was a later era and another country, but I saw no evidence of any trunnels - plus I saw no butts on any of the strakes.  To my eye, the deck was clear of any of the faddish detail distractions so popular now.

Dean