Jaager

LED version of fluorescent 4' light - evenly spaced. Cover the bottom and sides of the box with aluminum foil - heavy duty probably plays nicer - 3M spray adhesive might work to bond it Suspended above the LED's = Kyped from Home Depot $16 each: OPTIX 23.75 in. x 47.75 in. White Acrylic Light Panel Acrylic lighting panels offer good light transmission Prismatic surface helps diffuse light from a fluorescent bulb Lightweight structure makes it easy to place and move Acrylic lighting panels are an economical, lightweight and easy to use solution for all your fluorescent lighting cover needs. Standard sizes fit most drop-in ceiling systems as well as many standard fluorescent lighting fixtures. They can be cut fairly easily using standard handheld plastic sheet cutters to fit custom lighting fixtures. Available in multiple finishes and colors, these panels are ready for use in a variety of both commercial and residential locations including kitchen and bath fixtures, basements, office buildings, schools, garages and recreation rooms. Soften any fluorescent light fixture to create a professional looking presentation today with these acrylic light panel covers. Made of white, non-yellowing acrylic Commercial-grade suspended-ceiling light panel Approximately 8 sq. ft. coverage area per piece Prismatic surface disperses light evenly Working surface should probably be tempered glass Glass Tops Direct. 48" x 96" Rectangle Glass Top 1/2" Thick - 1" Bevel Edge With 1" Radius Corners Save 50% Original price $1,689.90 Current price $844.95

An excellent job so far - on one of the more difficult ships to model.

In Deane's Doctrine the main wale is defined by itself. It has no relation to the sheer of the main deck. There was an effort/ hope that the gunports do not totally cut thru the wale - which negates its purpose. The Doctrine is between the time of the 18th century models and the actual galleons. The Doctrine still has aspects of a system of formulas - adjusted over time - but reflective earlier design methods. Models of Santa Maria are based modern design creations. Just some naval architect from our time exercising his imagination of what he thought the ship probably looked like. It is all a fantasy. However you did it, there is no documented proof that it was not that way. Next time for hull planking - the main wale goes first - all of the outer skin is a reflection of it. Next is the garboard. Its upper edge wants to look like it comes from a diagonal. A wavy edge - not good for the rest of the planking run.

Galapagos finches?

The Continental shipbuilders were English shipbuilders until they decided not to be. They used the same books and same Establishments. The properties of wood is a constant. The ratio of the size of the timbering to the size of the ship is not a national value. The species of wood used can be. There are tables that have different sizes for timbers depending of the species of wood used. Try not to obsess about being exact. Close enough is good enough. It was wood. They did not have sophisticated electronic rulers. I use Yedlinsky . Find the ship's class and look up the scantlings. I find that the Admiralty plans for captured ships are often fairly useless for determining R&S. The stations are often arbitrary in location and distance. Some of them are at variable locations. With as designed plans, The tables give floor thickness. The lettering and numbering of the stations reflect the number of frames between each station. The difference is the width of the space. As for the moulded dimension, tables from this era give minimal data for in and out. You have to look closely. Use what data there is and use an artist's eye to get the shape. I translate cutting down to be the thickness (deep) at the outer edge of the keel/keelson. When I used a drawing board, I used a compass to draw a half circle with the origin in the frame line. A line that hits these arcs at a tangent is the moulded dimension. Tedious at best. Painter is easier. Now I have a file with the range of frame moulded values - each value is a yellow filled circle that is the diameter - a faint black circumference helps - on its own layer. Just kiss the frame line and connect the tangents on the inside. I use as many as I need to get a line that looks good. Layers are easy to duplicate. It is quick after some practice.

It is mostly used for old school doped paper covered flying models. I do not know the magic search terms needed to find their suppliers in EU. a Google search turned up and article in a 2019 Ropewalk that said that @MrBlueJacket sourced a similar product from a European supplier - perhaps he may provide you a link?

This is obviously opinion and not from any book of laws: This is for any visitors attracted to your title. It is not really what you are after. "There is a problem - an unavoidable barrier - with any kit supplied sails. The numbers are huge against any materiel that a kit manufacturer can afford to supply being anywhere close to the canvas being in scale. If this is important to you, but you wish to display sails - a fabric like paper - SilkSpan for example - will get you much closer to realistic. This is a scratch project - but one requiring almost no additional expenditure on tools. Being paper, you can practice and discard as much as is needed. Instructions abound here and in a SeaWatch publication." You started with linen - actual flax? As I understand it - the hierarchy is fibers -> yarn -> thread -> rope Linen yarn at its smallest is about where cotton thread is at its smallest. Cotton - made with expensive long fiber starting will be the finest and may be as close to scale draping behavior as any actual cloth gets - it has a special name that I have lost. Even this may be too translucent for your specifications. Thought experiment: How about using SilkSpan - the thickest of the three choices (This is flying aircraft models centric materials so their vendors may be a place to look.) Bookbinders pH neutral PVA will bond paper and dry clear. You can glue up layers of paper to get the patched effect that you want. If it is too translucant, high quality smallest grain oil paint - Rembrandt, Grumbacher, or something similar - oil because water base will affect the paper - thin ( turp or minieral spirits. Do not know if linseed oil needs to be a part but having it will probably speed drying/polymerization) start with a white base and tint with whatever color gets to aging effect desired. Add layers of paint until it is opaque enough.

Look up Enterprise in whatever tables of masting and rigging are closest to its year and list them by spar and line. Look up Surprise and do the same. If they are the same: Mic the spars in the kit and tightly coil each type the rigging line around a dowel and count the number of coils in a 1 inch distance. The number of coils divided into 1 yields the diameter. The tables are probably line circumference, so the table numbers divided by pi are your values for comparison. If the kit numbers match the chart you made up for Enterprise then -- well the spar and line stock has to come from somewhere, so why not. But the research of Enterprise masting and rigging scatlings needs to be done first. I forgot the blocks - do the same with them. Block size is determined by the size of its line. On an actual ship there is a variety of line diameter. In scale a lot of that diameter is too close to differentiate. It simplifies things a bit. Unless a ship is one of the rare ones with individual masting and rigging data, A kit mfg would or should have done the same lookup. It is then a matter of you being able to accept the compromises made for the material in the kit.

Were this Japan, Jim would qualify as a national treasure. His skill, craftsmanship, precision, and material selection has no competition. His determination to do it right harkens back to a lost era and was rare even then. Would that he had trained up a group of apprentices. His passing will leave an immense hole.

Re. the picture in post #43: I don't see it as Hahn style so much as I see it as derisive parody of POF. It could be trying to be a kitsch decorator simulacrum of a ship model or a cynical attempt to destroy the reputation of all POF. Whatever it is, that is not POF.

There is a problem - an unavoidable barrier - with any kit supplied sails. The numbers are huge against any materiel that a kit manufacturer can afford to supply being anywhere close to the canvas being in scale. If this is important to you, but you wish to display sails - a fabric like paper - SilkSpan for example - will get you much closer to realistic. This is a scratch project - but one requiring almost no additional expenditure on tools. Being paper, you can practice and discard as much as is needed. Instructions abound here and in a SeaWatch publication. This means that the presence or absence of sails should be a non-factor in your choice of kit. A cost is that each sail comes with its own additional set of lines to mount and run. It makes rigging significantly more in factors of time and complexity. Galleons - race galleons - were a lot more popular in the early days of ship modeling. The second hand books with these 1920's 30's 40's adventures could be fun to explore for things to do with the kit. and this book: THE GALLEON PETER KIRSCH US NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS ANNAPOLIS, MD 1990 is excellent - if you can find it.

My first given was incorrect. There are red lines. I missed that. Struck out! Drift: I can't think of any use that I would have for the shear line?

Given that there is not all of the interior drawn in red, that the line shows no reference to the outside rails and mouldings, that it is all on the same level, and that it is at the correct distance above the gunports - I believe that it is the underside of the deck at the side.

Karl, I agree about the size of the Proxxon. I agree with your evaluation of the machine. I am always on the watch for something better and am fortunate to be able to afford the search. Your presentation did refocus my attention. I did another search for an a grinder with an angle between 0 degrees and 90 degrees. If only Foredom Flex had that attachment! All I found was a series of air driven tools for automotive use. There was one on sale at Harbor Freight - electric - acute angle - not enough acute and pretty fat. I thought about it, but after sleeping on it - I have decided to give it a pass. Remembering fighting with the chuck and the length of the 1",2",3" Chinese disks on the Kaleas angle grinder ( MM is their agent in the US - rebranded ) I reevaluated my preconception about how large the cutting surface on the disk should be. I think I can use the larger disk that comes with it and use fine touch and finesse to get almost everywhere inside the hull. The machine does a trick (works well) on shaping the outside - quickly. I have an advantage over your method as far as shaping without damaging the edges of the frames. I have Pine fillers where the spaces are. They have an easily reversible bond - to punch them out when the hull is final. (I am still working on finding the perfect glue to temporarily hold them and let go and disappear.) Centurion is on the stocks because the disappear part using Scotch double sided tape did not work out all that well. I got frustrated with that fiddly bit. It is tight in there between the frames! I wonder if years down the road, you will wish you had chosen the complete hull 1:60 option - my HMS Centurion 60 1732 is 1:60 and I like the size. 50% of the volume of the 1:48.

I did and still have hold over using a very similar method. A problem with it is gravity. The sticks bend. Flat is better. For my framing stock I use this: They used to be 24" long - my preferred stock length - easier to handle than the 8' length it is in the lumber yard. ~ $2 each. I use old school chalk to mark each stick with its thickness. Blue chalk is persistent. These can be handy for 12" or less - the long dividers are fixed, but the cross dividers are temporary.

Just some random comments: If you think the 64 gun hull is large, you should try the 118 gun Commerce de Marseille? Even at 1:60 it is a contest for who will get the work room! You are very fortunate in being able to source Sorbus torminalis. The wood looks excellent, I have tried many tools in a search for a way to shape the inside of the framing. The angle grinder that you show is one that works fairly well for me. I wish I could find a slim electric grinder that is 45/120 degrees as it would make getting inside easier - but I only find compressed air tools with that feature.. The one that I find to be more useful is this one: https://www.kaleas.de/en/modeling-tinker/minitool/140/minitool-right-angle-grinder The disk that comes with it is a bit wide. There is a chuck accessory that allows for disks with smaller diameters. The problem is that it extends the cutting surface out from the motor. The motor itself is about the size of my hand, so if I can get my hand inside, I can get the grinder inside. I do not know the metric equivalents but I am quite pleased to have a drum sander to shape the frames. A quality 1/3 HP TEFC motor with a 1/2 inch shaft and ~1700 rpm is key . To mount it so that the shaft is vertical, all that is needed is a firm base with big rubber sound/vibration absorbing feet and a sort of Erector Set type steel angle pieces with holes for threaded bolts. A box or table is not needed. Almost nothing on a frame is 90 degrees, so a table just gets in the way. I have two problems with commercial oscillating spindle sanders: 1) The drum mounts are usually proprietary - you can only use their drums 2) The mounts are not a simple 1/2 inch rod. With a simple 1/2 inch rod, other things can be mounted - a chuck that can hold burrs and cutters - any other cutting tool that has a 1/2 inch mount, buffing pads, grinding wheels. It is easy to get drums with a variety of diameters that will fit directly on a 1/2 inch shaft. I prefer sleeveless drums, It is easy to replace the cutting material using sandpaper sheets. I worry about the tightening to secure a sanding sleeve to a rubber drum getting the drum out of round. I also have a drum that is 3 inches diameter and 6 inches tall. The extra height is useful for large frames. TEFC - the drums generate much sawdust. An enclosed motor with its own cooling fan protects the motor. I also have a large piece of cardboard with a 1/2" hole in its center sitting on the motor where the shaft comes out - It directs the sawdust away from the motor. It is important to have a lot of air flow around the motor. If used for very long, it gets hot. My motor is CW/CCW. I wired a drum switch so that the rotation can be reversed at will. I had to have a tech person at the motor manufacturer email me the wiring diagram - It is a lot more complicated than connecting 3 wires.

I may totally misunderstand the situation, but my understanding is that a 3 jaw chuck is for round stock and as such a self centering action makes sense. A 4 jaw chuck is for irregular stock. It would be pure luck for 4 sided stock to be absolutely square. It is logical for each of the jaws to be independent. Round is almost always symmetrical. It takes serious effort to make it anything else. Four or more sided stock is almost always the opposite as far as having symmetry.

I favor hull form and a ship's ectoderm. I see the artillery as being an unnecessary distraction and see no compelling reason to include it.

Looking for dry pigment - Amazon has Mica dry pigments advertised as being designed for use in epoxy.

Is the clear epoxy in an organic solvent? If so, it may be possible that you could buy a small tube of artist's oil based pigment - a quality fine pigment brand - of the color or colors you favor - and mix your own compatible top coat(s). Epoxy is two part? Not sure which of the two would get the pigment - I would guess the thinnest one?

Wherever you read that is probably a site where mendacity is a dominant factor - or passed on by an individual who got his information such a site.

I regret that my intent was misunderstood. I two finger type and tend to leave out a lot of explanation, assuming that my mind can be read. For the record, if I have a negative view about something in logs or technical forums - I keep it to myself. I do not see a "be careful, you might be walking into a minefield" comment as being negative. I would want to know. I guess spending months on an experiment and almost presenting a paper on something that was really artifact, not recognized because of poor controls, has made me too careful about trusting assumptions. Wood identification is plenty difficult and regional differences abound. I was trying to suggest that while the silica inclusions and significant tool dulling correlates with your report, the hardness that you find in your stock does not seem to match that reported for the Anigre supplied with some kits? I have not personally used the species and have no investment either way. In your place, I would see the hardness factor as a potential red flag when ordering more. Maybe a PM would have been a better choice to give a warning. I am not telling you what you should use, in the way that you took it. I see shipping costs as becoming a significant problem. Wood has weight and volume. There is a cachet around a few species of wood that seems to affect choices. In the US, we are at a cost disadvantage for Pyrus communis ( Pear, Swiss Pear ) it is not a domestic species here - I am guessing that it is almost a weed in certain areas of Europe. The premium that we pay places it as being difficult to justify for high volume use. Boxwood (Buxus sempervirens) would be expensive, but it cannot be had for ready money. The commonly selected substitute Castelo is seeing an imbalance in demand vesus supply. The cost is becoming usurious here. I am focused exclusively on POF at a larger scale. The volume of wood needed for a single hull is in the 10's of board feet. I cannot justify paying import prices for framing stock. There are readily available species that will substitute. They are not a perfect match, but are "close enough for government work". For Boxwood - Hard Maple, for Pear - Black Cherry. Birch and certain species of Beech work as well as Hard Maple. Right now, they are ~$9 / BF. So, a "I want to make sure I have enough" 50 BF is $450. Keep in mind, that WELL OVER 50% is going to be sawdust and scroll cut discards. I find it a bit ....ironic?.. when build logs that celebrate finding that Maple and Cherry work and turnout as well as they do - given that they are a forced substitute - are taken as recommendations for their use in regions of the world where they are expensive imports. In Europe, where this most often appears, there are much better and lower cost domestic lumber species. Australia is a bit of a major player here. Most everything used in North America and Europe is an import there. I am guessing that the prices are a bit onerous. What I was trying to do: it was meant as bait to produce a discussion - or better, locally informed suggestions for species, domestic for Australia. Species that can be your substitutes and not pay the significant import costs. I was thinking that economy and saving money is a GOOD thing. The bait was for you to jump on the chance to recommend locally harvested lumber that your fellow countrymen can use as reasonably priced and easy to obtain substitutes. I was thinking that you might know ways to avoid enriching Maersk et al. and still get suitable lumber.

You may wish to verify the identity of the wood that you are calling Anigre. My only purpose for questioning this, is if you order a resupply from a different vendor, what is supplied could be an unpleasant surprise. What leads me to question your identification is: The Wood Database gives Anigre a Janka rating of 990 Pear 1660 Obeche 440 Basswood 410 Lime 700 Castelo 1810 For scratch builds using POF - I think the economical and practical choice is to use a domestic species with scale appropriate grain and closed pores. The only local lumber there - based on the US based Wood Database appears to be Tasmanian Myrtle ( Myrtle Beech, Silver Beech ) Janka 1310. Of course any immigrant fruitwood species is likely to be ideal.

I follow those Apple choices too. The Hearne is expensive and does not look clear enough to use for framing stock - which is what I would use a large volume for. Framing uses an unbelievable wood volume - even at 1:60. A yellow variety of Holly is a weed on the family plantation in Caroline county but not as much as the Sweet Gum. I do not remember seeing much of it in central Kentucky. The Apple would probably be easier to find the Eastern mountains.

Back when I was doing all that, I had 5 acres in Delaney Woods, Jessamine Co. I worked at Cooper Drive VAMC (It was 400 beds then). Red Maple ain't Sugar Maple (Hard - Rock) Acer saccharum . I use Hard Maple exclusively from the Acer family. Probably not in business anymore, but I bought a supply of Hard Maple and Black Cherry from Homer Gregeory in Morehead. I also bought too much Sycamore - back before I learned that Underhill was taking about a European Maple species - not the American Plantus occidentalis junk that I bought. They were a whole sale country sawmill then. Rough ricks in the weather - it was all well seasoned - I got 4x4 - today I would get 8x4. If I were young and where you are, I would make friends with the county extension network and try to find farmers with healthy but past production full size Apple trees. Work a deal to get some logs . Who knows, maybe you could get some Holly, Dogwood, or Hornbeam that way? It is a big regret that I did not try that when I could. Too much grafted to easy pick size now. For Holly it is a fight to beat the Blue Mold before it is seasoned. I now realize that for us, even the worst Blue Mold infected wood is perfectly OK for our use. It is just as sound. It is just grey. That is a more perfect deck color than the commercial snow white Holly. No species of wood used for decks is white and the grey mimics the effect of sun and seawater. The white has become ridiculously expensive and the stuff that is perfect of us is probably being burned.