Jaager

Deck plank for USN between 1815-1860 is 40' Pine. By the 1690's ship building was probably well on its way into bureaucracy - Spain included. Unlike the 1500's when it was more father to son - we keep the rules secret - sort of thing. I would use 40 as the max - use 30" as average - and use 3 plank shift - not as busy looking and "more professional" in strength potential - full size. You might consider an e-mail about this to Thomas J. Oertling at Texas A&M - he wrote a chapter in The Philosophy of Shipbuilding on 15-16 C. Iberian wrecks. The Nautical Archaeology folks may have data.

I think this sort of tool is the most efficient for shaping frames. A tilting table is not helpful for sanding frames. The bevel is in constant change in angle. I have to do it in the air. A tilting table is a source for mis-adjustment. The table is OK for support for extreme outer shape and inside most mould line. The main use that I can see for the tilting table would be for cutting a bevel on a waterway. There are ways to do that. I wish to use stock sheet sandpaper instead of the pre-formed tubes - cost and to deal with my aversion to being beholden to a single source for disposable media. The spindle ossilating motion is not one I wish to use. I made my own, using a 1/3 HP reversible motor. The CW-CCW rotation option is helpful in sanding the top of frames. The open ends respond better to pull than push. The sleeveless drums I use all mount on the bare 1/2" motor shaft and I can mount cutting burrs and rotary shapers. They are of some help, but 60 -80 grit sandpaper does bulk removal at least as well. A drill press - the motor is in the way. If it could be rotated 180 degrees - it could do - if you can get 1700 RPM out of it.

Rather than use filler, why not scab it? Get a flat at the spot and PVA glue a piece of hardwood to it and shape that.

Some tips for the drawing program: Save often. Name every layer. Use the Group layers function where possible. Lock layers that are important -- distraction from which layer you are on is the rule rather than the exception. Work on duplicates of important layers. If the changes make the original redundant, then you can then delete it. If the programmers at Corel are the same for PSP as Painter -- if you get into a lot of backing and filling when scaling or rotating a layer - and then you try to delete or Cut something - the program will crash. You will wish you had saved. If the file is too large - and it is tempting to have one large file - Painter at least - gets squirrely - it inserts green blocks onto many if not most layers - the whole file gets useless. Break it up into smaller files. One or four Sections per file may keep the size in a practical range. Your color selector window is likely the ring with a triangle in the middle. The are three slides below that that are Red 0-255 Green 0-255 Blue 0-255 I cycle my color for each frame shape R -G - B - just slide all the way to 255 - saves having to choose a color the thousands possible. I start with the dead flat as red and green next forward and green next aft. When you come to sanding the bevel, you know that red is the mid facing with R-G, green mid facing with G-B, and blue mid facing with B-R. That way you do not have the floor timber on the wrong side of the bevel and have to remake the frame.

Are you resawing from a plank or cutting planking, deck beams, etc from a thin sheet so that one dimension is already at the desired thickness? If you are resawing, a Wood Slicer blade is about as thin as it gets and the set is slight so not as many passes thru a thickness sander. I recently got a catalog with Infinity rip blades that look identical to Wood Slicer - no better on price though. On rip cuts thru thick stock more teeth is the opposite of what is needed. Resawing using a table saw - is brute force, even a 12 inch saw may not be able to go 4" deep in one go, really wants to kick back the stock, and is waiting for your fingers. Resawing on a band saw is an art. A UTube video link here had one tip that seems key - the traditional advice for blade tracking is wrong. The way to limit blade wandering is to track the blade so that the actual teeth are at the crown of the top wheel. and are directly supported. For working stock from a thin sheet, the kerf on a 10-12 " table saw will cost you much material. A Byrnes 4" table saw a more efficient tool - there are blades with zero set so stock produced has a ready to use cut surface. Even with this, the TPI on a blade needs to match the thickness of the stock. With too fine a blade, the gullets fill too early and no longer can cut - just generate heat. My band saw is an old 3 wheel with a 3/4 HP motor, If I had a wayback machine, it would be a 14 inch two wheel 2 HP motor. I did not think to wire my garage for 220 V some that limits motor size.

Reviewing the 6 articles, you seem to have stepped into a controversy. 1- the Underhill plans are 1/5" : 1' or 1:60 -- his stern has a good chance of being incorrect. NRJ vol. 35 page 28+ 1990 by Marquardt is available here for download = $ 2.50 I would use the Marquardt plans - but buying 2nd copy is not reasonable - what is available is $160 - $260 each. There is a break at the seam so it should scan OK.

VWM, That PSP X9 deal sounds good. and that is the program. Another free option is GIMP - it may be too much in complexity for what is needed. I have not needed to use PaintShop Pro, but I have been aware of it since its JASCA days - pre Corel. You only need basic functions - but the program has to be able to handle large files. A program that I liked - but Corel bought and shelved was Picture Publisher - it needed to be coded for new Intel chips to run and it wasn't. When you scan, the profile and WL plans can be done in segments round each station line. The whole as a unit is too large and cumbersome to be directly useful anyway. The keel is all that you need it for as a whole. A background grid - centerline - baseline - waterlines - buttock lnes - and diagonals if used makes location easy. The profile station strip can be duplicated and moved to each grid point so that when you plot the curve, no points need to be placed first. If the pre- and post- station curves are also in the background, you can easily see anything going wrong. As I said, the line segment drawing tool will get you a fair enough curve. A curve drawing tool would be cumbersome and introduce artifacts by making its equation based curve instead of what you want. I do not see much of a facetted line effect in my product - and even if I wanted that, my drum sander would not let be get it anyway. I have found 4 references to Endeavour in MS thru '95 and 2 in NRJ in '76 and '90. The last is by Marquardt. I will see if any are of help re: the plans problem.

Take a look at PaintShop Pro - it is less than $50 US. You can do all this using a computer. I use a different draw/paint program (Painter ) but it is way more feature rich in paint and graphic alteration - all that is needed are basic functions: line draw, scale, rotate, layers, a polygonal selector tool, paint bucket fill. - lots of layers. Painter is too expensive for just this - still, it will crash if I do too much in a session. As i said, you will not be designing Endeavor, just reproducing it. CAD is by definition about design. Crisp lines and perfect curves are nice, but unnecessary to develop frame patterns. I have done it using the same method as you are intending. The computer is a faster and more accurate tool in my hands. You can also color the frame lines - it is easier to know which line to sand to when shaping and beveling the frames. You also only have to do half the frame - Copy - Flip Horizontal - line it up and you have a precise mirror and the full frame. The key preliminary steps: 1) Use a canvas/document size that your printer will not "adjust" when printing for me = 2197 x 1701 pixels 8 1/2 x 11 2796 x 1701 pixels 8 1/2 x 14 and deselect the "Fit to borders" option. 2) Determine how much scale distortion your scanner produces - I have to scale up by 102.5% to get identity with the original. 3) Get a clear plastic 15 cm ruler to scan and print out to make sure the print out is accurate. (I find metric easier to calculate a scale factor.) 4) I model at 1:60, but work in the computer at 1:48. The PrintableRuler site has a 1:48 ruler that is useful. -- I adjusted its scale in Painter until a printout of it matched my 1/4 inch architect's triangle ruler. 5) For the ruler and ship plans in the paint program - the magic wand tool is your friend. With tolerance ~100% and noncontinuous options , when the white background of a scan is selected and Cut - just the lines are on the layer - otherwise transparent. 6) The thinnest line I can get in Painter is 1 pixel wide. I did use TurboCAD 18 to make a thinner line to import for a base center line and baseline to line everything up. 7) Scanning - 200x200 pixels is usually sufficient - Your monitor is probably fixed at 72 pixels so scans with more pixel density just makes for larger files that you have to scale down. ( Unless the source is a small sized graphic and has poor resolution. Now you can scan in plans - from the book - or from Underhill and plot your points. Were I to use the book plans, since the Profile and Waterlines cross a seam, I would buy a 2nd used copy of the book and remove the pages to get a flat scan. And with Underhill - if your copy is like the Brig 12 gun 1840 is the faded blueprint that I scanner in a couple of weeks ago, a color scan instead B/W was necessary. Removing the background is more complicated.

Thru the 17 C. the shape of the key frame stations was defined using a formula based on the arc. For small craft at least - this became a process = whole moulding. I am not sure how far into the 18 C this continued for ships. The shape produced is distinctive and to my eye, Endeavor does not show those characteristics - so even if an equation for the arc system could be found, it is unlikely to apply to Endeavor. Her shape at mid ship fairly close to being a rectangle - with rounded lower corners. It is probably efficient for maximizing cargo capacity - when speed is not at a premium. Since the shape is already defined - ( not doing a new design ) - the points of the curve are predetermined - Even if the key Station curves are defined by some formula, the intermediate bends that transition between them do not. I had guessed for a long time that a spline would connect the points with the least introduction of artifact. The curves were probably originally drawn at the Stations using actual wooden splines. The traditional method for lofting a POF model involves two or three curves for each paired frame (bend). There are as you say about 50 bends in the average ship - or about 150 complex curves with essentially no two being identical. If you do the final shaping on a glued up pair then you are down to 100 curves. This makes the published Station curves as being of no help for bend shaping. By using a program with layers the bends can be stacked and outlaying points be seen and corrected. With the station lines are part of the data, they can be used as a guide to see where errors are being introduced. ( The Stations are generally every other bend in a small ship but are often every third or fourth in the middle of a larger ships and I have seen as many as eight .) With enough points you can get by using a straight line connect the points tool. Any slight faceted effect on the frame pattern will not survive the sanding anyway. Use a drawing program with the ability to handle a lot of layers and large files... Scan in the Body plan, Profile, Waterlines, and Buttock lines. Use them as a background layer to define the points. This removes a source of error when the points are measured and transferred.

Charles G. Davis - The Built-Up Ship Model Provides a rule - but as usual he did not footnote it, so exactly when it applied = ? " gun ports are spaced apart, center to center, 25 times the diameter of the shot. The gun port's length, fore and aft, should be 6.5 diameters; the height, 6 diameters; and the sill or lower edge of the port should be 3.5 diameters above the deck Davis points out that the location of the backstays should be considered. I think it was Deane ( not gonna look it up ) who essentially suggested that it is unwise to locate ports even with the masts. This was a time when all guns were on rolling trucks. Perhaps carronades were less of a problem. A windlass would favor a smaller crew. A lighter weight anchor would less force to recover it.

If you were to fabricate the multi layer bulwark complex and then bend it: If the glue joints survived the stress - which is not likely. If the interior components did not break due the the compression force - depending on the species of wood, also unlikely The interior components would be applying force to reverse the bend. If you pre bend each layer and then assemble it, the interior components will help hold the bent shape.

It is the nature of most wooden ship model kits that inferior stock lumber can be easily replaced with better species of wood provided by vendors whose links are here. The additional expense is not consequential when measured against the joy of working with quality materials. The fittings can be similarly replaced - or self fabricated. The skills and practice involved can become a major step in not needed to depend on kits as a vessel choice.

Although there is no joy in using filling frames from our perspective, what with their strength being dependent on the weakest of glue joints - end grain to end grain, in the actual vessels liberal use of connecting chocks was probably the practice. Some removed after the horizontal planks and some partial chocks possibly remained. In some instances, even the bends had a gap above the floor timbers - which points to chocks being necessary. The resulting structure was probably a lot stronger by itself than we would suppose. Ugly but strong. Mark, with R & S being 21.75 inches and the room published as 20 inches, I would feel some pain as to how it would look in an exposed state. I like the look of the space being 30-35% of the total. For the look, I would want 7.5 x 7.5 x 6.75 . MY OC tendency would fight me on this. Of late, I have been exploring various USN Sloop-of-War and lofting them. The framing is anything but consistent when Chapelle's R&S is matched with scantling tables (Meade mostly) or the contract in HASN. name R&S framing choice Germantown 30" 10 x 10 x 10 Vincennes 26" 10 x 10 x 6 Peacock II 25.5 10 x 10 x 5.5 Jamestown 31" 11 x 11 x 9 Warren 23.31 10.5 x 10.5 x 2.31 (contract) A curious part of Warren = The space between the frames was filled with Fir or similar between the keel and the riders at the head of the floors so that no ceiling was used - but it was still solid for stowage.

Get a closet hanger dowel from a local hardware store. The smaller dowels are often too dogleggy - or get that way - to use as spars.

If you intend to pursue this into many more vessels: consider obtaining various sizes of micro chisels they come with either palm or straight handles which one is based on your comfort. Flexcut , U.J.Ramelson , Mastercarver are some manufacturers of chisels and gouges in a variety of smaller widths. They tend to be $25 +/_ $10 each - thus not a frivolous expenditure. For a one off or occasional use. Xacto and similar have disposable micro blades that can do the job. The gouge sizes are limited as a disposable item and they are probably to be preferred for safe removal of wood volume. In every instance, but especially with Basswood - keep the edges very sharp. Unless you nick the edge, frequent use of a honing stone is not necessary - if at all. It is usually sufficient to strop after every few cuts on a piece of scrap leather that is charged with a fine compound like red rouge - green Al oxide - Flexcut Gold. They come as sticks and are used like a crayon on the leather. Wrist rotation should do for stropping a gouge on a flat leather surface, since it is a pull motion.

I have seen the alternating futtock 1 arrangement in a book or two, but with Beagle, the filling frames had either a floor timber or a crossing piece over the keel - depending on how they fell. Because there is a odd number of frames, the bends alternate floors as the member on the fore side. The floors and F1 always alternate. I just spent too much time at NMM site looks at framing patterns for the first 1000 or so plans. The bend- then two filling pattern seems to be the rule as it is also presented in Steel and Rees. But often, the floors/F1 are almost solid at the keel. Some times the bend pair stays together and other examples show about as much separation as the filling frames. In all cases the sided volume that is open is a small proportion of the total - even at the sheer. Marquardt's graphic shows more open area than any plan I saw at NMM. To my eye, a model with framing showing that exactly follows the NMM plans would not be attractive at all. Below the wale, it be close to a solid wall. That said, the Davis convention of all paired with timber = space looks a bit sparce. The NMM plans - what few came up in the first 1000 - F1 - bottom half butts deadwood ( even mid ship) and the top half is a substantial chock. No data on long arm/ short arm F1 over the keel. As an aside, in Commerce de Marseille, ( all paired frames) Delacroix doubles the incidence of floor timbers at mid ship so that the floor timber always faces the center of the ship in every pair.

In the AOTS volume covering Caroline, Bellabarba and Osculati have 2 paired frames then two filling frames with a significant space volume between them. The also show a chock connecting ends of the first futtocks over the keel. Looking again - in another deck view, they show all paired frames with a space that is equal to half of the sided dimension of the paired frame. I have not seen any framing patterns from English sources that have as many filling frames as you have proposed in your first paragraph. The q3 frames is not a commonly used presentation, at least in warships - which Caroline is not. The usual pattern is q2 to q4 stations per frame. Towards the middle of the 19C. the USN draftsmen seem to have gotten lazy and in the mid ship region used q6 and then q8. The ideal would be to have the upper works framing as light as practical and with a yacht more of this could be done. Some proposals: In warships, the topside framing would provide some protection from gun fire, so more would be used. In the AOTS of HMS Beagle, Marquardt has one filling frame for every two paired frame sets. The English tended to have narrow frame spaces. In thinking about your question I think I may have a reason for the filling frames: The thicker the framing timbers the longer it takes for the stock to season, With filling frames, the sided dimension of the true frames could be reduced by an inch or two and save a couple of years of seasoning = +/- 20% in the rule-of-thumb dimensions - probably a reasonable trade off. There is an additional pattern with the first futtocks: I think it more frequently used in France and North America = half floors or cross pieces. These were about half the length of the floors. Marquardt shows this with HMS Beagle, so it seems that the English used it. I see two advantages: a reduction in the length of the timber saving resources and moving a potential weak point with hogging stress from the midline to a more lateral location.

Hydrogen peroxide is available in several concentrations: 3% is available in pharmacies - wound care and such 6% - 9% - 12% ( 20 vol - 30 vol - 40 vol ) is used for hair care 85-96% is used as a propellant for rockets, torpedo , etc. readily decomposes to steam and oxygen - violent and dangerous in the extreme. I wonder if 3% would have much effect at all? My guess is that 40 volume will have the best chance of success but will also damage the structure of the wood it contacts.

https://www.woodcraft.com/products/mixol-tint-oxide-white-20-ml?via=573621f469702d06760016d0%2C5764234669702d6593003339 Rather than using a destructive chemical reaction - bleaching - why not cheat ? For $6 you could experiment with a dilute tint. Try it in 91% Isopropyl rubbing alcohol. Dries fast -does not raise the grain. Given scale effect - less intense is better - something a bit more than a hint of white. Hard Maple or Holly should do well as the substrate.

As a general rule, to get Holly that has not been infected with Blue Mold, it must be harvested in Winter and immediately billeted and moved to a kiln. Depending on the tree, the wood would then be near white or yellow. The mold infected wood is light blue or grey. If the color is not a problem, the wood is otherwise sound and fine to use. This is not the situation with Apple. While far less invasive, Apple that has been attacked by fungus is mealy and crumbles. It runs in streaks and is a much lighter color. I am thinking that for a working vessel as opposed to a showcase flagship, a grey Holly may be more realistic that the white Holly or Soft Maple, which is close to white.

It has been year ago, but the sanding sealer that I used was thick and produced a significant layer. For furniture - especially on open pore wood like Oak or Walnut or non-Birch plywood it is a useful prep. It could have out of scale effect on a model. I favor the traditional: 1) super blonde shellac flakes 5% solution in denatured alcohol or 100% isopropyl alcohol * 2) pure Tung oil 1:1 with mineral spirits as a primer. The first coat is ragged on and wiped off after a few minutes. It soaks into the wood instead of leaving a surface layer. * Normal super blonde shellac is 10% soln. The off the shelf garnet shellac is ~20% - the waxes increase its solubility.

Micro Mark still has it online for $140. Is that an inflated price?

Sounds like one of them is fudging. Perhaps the scale of the available fittings dictated the published scale. As I have said before, there is a potential error with 17C. vessel plans - the published hull length was based on "touch" of the keel. The arc of the stem and aft slope of the sternpost added additional length if the LBP at the gun deck is the length desired. Some kit draftsmen have confused the two and produced a foreshortened hull. In your example, I do not think that the difference in length is large enough for this confusion to be the cause.

As Dave suggests - the acid reaction sounds like a salt forming reaction. Going longer than recommended could result in the formation of enough salt that its weight could cause it to flake off. Removing the reactants in running water should halt the reaction. Treating it with a basic solution could cause either an alternate and undesirable reaction or reverse the one desired.

Yes. Maple would be an excellent choice. Hard Maple, you should be familiar with- as far as color. If you wish a more white deck, see if Soft Maple is available. It is not my choice for anything else, but it is as suitable as Basswood/Linden/Lime (all are Tilia sp.) maybe a bit harder. Another choice: Yellow Poplar - it is not expensive either - although you may need a larger supply to avoid the green bits. If you want a weathered deck, the green may be just the ticket.