Jaager

Experience with plastic is probably more of a negative than a help for a wooden kit. The painting is a help, but for wooden sail vessels, painting a minor part. The main negative is your expectation about what the instructions provide. For a wooden hull, especially the parts that you need specialized skills to master, most of it is common to most any vessel - especially with POB. It is boring and redundant to redo the same for every kit. The trap for a wooden kit is trying to start by building a vessel that is large enough to have a famous name. The complexity can overwhelm. The skill to build a boat is one that every larger vessel will have you doing. They all have boats. You may not need to do step two or step three in the Shipwright series. You will know when you finish the first one. I can't help you with POB. I was so repulsed by the first generation Italian kits that I walled them off. Even with the now third generation POB kits - even the ones with enough molds and laser prepped stock, I can't get past how ugly and distant from a real hull the support skeleton is.

When viewed from a wider focus, this can be understood as being a message and a warning. Parts that degrade in the box are really telling you that they are inappropriate to use - period. Use them as templates. Replicate them using materials that will last over time.

An additional step, and if done after every few cuts, can really delay a need to revisit the water stones is to strop on a medium like scrap leather charged with gold, green, or rouge compound.

You should probably give yourself a fair chance with your first venture into wooden kits. Right now, your best bet is to take a close look at Model Shipways Shipwright beginner series. There is an option to get some basic tools with the first one - if you do not already have the ones in the bundle. If you have unlimited funds and wish to accumulate tools just to have tools, go on a buying spree - most will probably just gather dust. Otherwise, when you get to a point where a tool looks like it could increase speed or efficiency just get that - opt for quality in your choice. If you also start your #2 plastic kit, you can work on it while waiting for UPS. About a Dremel - The all in one models rotate too fast for shaping - it wants to skip to where you don't want it -and have no power if you slow it down enough not to burn wood. 30,000 RPM is just too fast for #61-80 drill bits.

I am thinking that one of these is very much unlike any of the others. The Swift - I am guessing - is a second generation POB kit. As such, it is light years better than the early Italian POB kits with not enough moulds to shape a hull, but it will still involve a serious degree degree of scratch fabrication. The instructions will probably have been written with the expectation that you have previous POB experience or have a couple of the general how-to books available at the time the kit was introduced. The airwaves here and in the NRJ say that current kits involve much less scratch building - not that this is a particularly good thing as far as gaining the necessary skills and confidence to progress beyond the need for a kit. With an eye towards you completing your tasks, in your time interval, give a thought to saving Swift until all of the others are completed and before beginning , take a detour to something like the Shipwright series from Model Shipways. Wood is an entirely different critter and an old "you just should already know what to do" sort of kit can be quicksand or a ghost coast of wrecked ambitions.

It has been t least a decade since I messed with it, but a 3D graphics render of a wood texture. A flat rectangle would have a perfect map - no distortion from wrapping around a tube or sphere. There should be excellent free textures or take your own photo of wood. Print out the render - glue it to veneer or card stock - touch up with paint. This as an alternative if you do not think that you can do your own de novo wood texture just using artists oil pigments.

I am not worried about matching an outside chip. I am saying that once I have a mixture of pigments that I like, but have not prepared enough, it would be difficult to get an exact replication. I have found that even the eee tincyest bit of black can have a profound effect on the final color. I like pure colors, but I think that scale effect tends to grey pigments. It would probably be wiser to use a slight grey instead of going directly to black to dull. the effect is like this: On an lark - once in the lab, I setup a two burette - dilute HCL - dilute NaOH - large beaker of pure water and a pH meter probe - to see if I could titrate to a desired pH. It was essentially impossible without doing it in a buffered solution - pure acid vs pure base had the pH meter dial mimicking a windshield wiper on high. Doing that was a lesion that just reading could never impart as profoundly.

My old Brother 3 in 1 died in May. Actually - the print heads became unreliable and needed frequent cleaning - the gotcha - planned obsolescence -was that the box with the sponge that collects the ink when cleaned became full and it required a visit to an authorized repair shop to replace - something probably more expensive than a new printer. The Brother was just barely adequate and ran thru ink carts without restraint. I replaced it with an Epson Eco-tank - one step up from basic - I use 8.5x14 because I can get more patterns per sheet. Boy howdy is it better than my old printer. Not having to replace the ink carts every couple of hulls is really good. My criticism is that the black tank should be a higher volume than the three color. The refill black does come separate, but still. I have not had to do a refill, but am fast coming up on it. Black at 25%, yellow at 40% , M and C at 50%. I probably would have used 10 replacement units on my Brother by now and the cost difference is close to a magnitude even with Epson brand vs generic for the Brother. No idea on longevity - but I can load 80 pages in the Epson print queue while the Brother would spit pages if I did more than 10. The Epson quiet mode IS quiet - slower - but quiet.

The only difficulty that I see with using artist's oils is if the final color used is a custom mix. If not enough was prepared with the first go, I foresee a superhuman effort plus luck required to get an exact match with a second go for spot repairs. It may be that I have only seen selected examples, but compared to organic solvent based pigments and binders, the water based acrylics look - flat - chalky - pastel-like and without the depth of enamels.

A Sloop-of-War (or corvette for an easier to type word) was a three masted vessel with one gun deck. Peacock II - the one that began as part of the U.S. Ex. Ex. was launched in 1828. It was wrecked on the Columbia river bar. Peacock I 1813 was also a corvette - 3 masts. It did not have a forecastle or a quarter deck, so no waist. It may have had a spar deck - I do not know when these were added to corvettes - but they were mostly sun shades over the main deck that could be walked on to handle the sails - too light for ordinance. The Dolphin that visited in 1826 was a schooner and not a frigate. It was the second of that name. The name Dolphin was reused in 1836 for a brigantine that was a sister to the Porpoise - brigantine - rerigged as a brig - that was one of the two vessels that completed the U.S.Ex.Ex. Peacock I and Dolphin II have plans done by HIC and are available from the S.I. The six vessels that began the U.S.Ex.Ex. also have plans at the S.I. although the Flying Fish is a substitute using Webb's John McKeon as a substitute. Which needs scale adjustments to match the size of the NY pilot schooner Independence (re christened Flying Fish by the Navy). The sailing model in the newspaper photo from 1924 is at best a chimera from the builder's imagination. The hull looks inspired by pre revolutionary merchant vessels and the rig late 19thC. The gun locations look to be inspired by post WWI German decorator models as does the hull itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartouche For this site, it is a tag that is part of the title, if the author has chosen to include one or more.

Wrong date - wrong forum - look in 1851-1900 - scroll down a bit and when you get to the latest log - click on the LGBD cartouche and everyone that has that cartouche will pop up.

The following is mostly accurate - it is easier to write in absolutes, yet almost nothing really is: Collecting ship model kits is mostly a total expense. An investment ain't in it. You may as well collect full Kleenex boxes. As an entry for wooden models of sailing ships, plastic kits are a negative preparation. Unrealistic expectations about what instructions will provide must be overcome. I have a sense that some have been so frustrated and indignant over the nature of especially older kit instructions that they have abandoned wooden ship modeling. An "I'll show them." response. They did not accept that learning esoteric and difficult new "language" and skills is necessary, It is the challenge of the thing that is a great appeal. It is not something that can be totally mastered. It is finite, but that number is much bigger than a lifetime. Plastic is mostly a really terrible to use to replicate a wooden vessel. If you care about wooden ships, use wood to model them. You sorta have to do it to understand the difference in feel. Plastic is much better than wood to replicate a steel vessel.

Blue Jacket has a selection of small craft at a larger scale. Model Expo has the Shipwright trio as well as several in Midwest line. Wye River Models has a series of Bay water craft - even if they are from Maryland. It reads like IACA is one of those situations where the spirit of the law should be honored, but an absolute adherence gets into a world of the absurd. What you do in your home and keep to yourself is of no concern to anyone but yourself. Just because the authors of the law were witless dullards .... In any case, if you make your grand daughter your co-author, your should be OK.

@Bob Cleek interesting essay, thanks, Using a hardwood instead of a grass to make chop sticks is foolish. While it is essentially trash as far as a forest product is concerned, the whole Cottonwood family is plenty useful while it is still on the hoof. If the whole equation for the effect of using Cottonwood instead of a grass for something this frivolous was run, the result would without doubt find that Cottonwood is by far the more expensive option. It is just that the planet on the whole is subsidizing the difference. Actually, a chop stick is not complex in shape and is easy to clean for reuse if the starting material is quality.

Allan, I posit something that is probably very unpopular, but likely the case: The several wooden Old Timers and all of the modern replicas are absolutely dependent on the interest of tourists and the general public. It is Show Time or Death for them. The look of the decking - the width and color of the caulking and obvious trunnels probably has more to do with what the public expects to see and what the most economical commercial products present than actual practice 200-400 years ago. From the various photos posted here, most look too wide and too constrasty. @Bob Cleek Since there are a lot of species of Bamboo - that is likely the case. But we have no control over what is on grocery store endcaps. I also suspect that the skewer manufacturers get a different species with every lot. For it to be predictable - they would probably have to tree-farm their own supply. It is a grass, so it would be easier than Oak or even Pine.

CA is nasty and toxic. Its speed is handy, but not necessary. Life would probably be simpler of you eschew it altogether. Between PVA and two part epoxy most all our needs are covered. Heat activated PVA can replace the instant bond in the few instances where that is absolutely necessary. StewMac has a premixed Fish glue that might be fun to explore. There are fads of silicon based dry lubricants for belt sanders and bandsaw blades that should be banned from your shop - bullseye in a clear finish.

You could consider building small vessels at a larger scale. I am thinking boats. Tell a story about their evolution - which will work better if all are the same scale. Mystic and its fellows have a multitude of mostly ignored small craft plans to choose from. I was recently bitten by a bug to explore the various classes of 18thC RN Establishments liners. The NA is my focus so the guns would just be a time consuming distraction. So I will omit them. If you tackle a multi masted subject, go for stub masts

Actually, I am potentially quite the fan - under one condition. That is if the trunnels are used to actually secure the planks - they go thru the plank and into the frame or beam. (But they do make a hash of the frame or beam integrity.) Hitch chocks on lills take care of any needed clamping. However, the cost has become too high for me now. I have moved from 1:48 to 1:60 - so the diameter is a problem. Even the finest brass pins become too large. Bamboo does not draw all that efficiently in the #76-#80 range and I do not have any pins that small anyway. (The procedure is to use pins with hitch chocks to fix the planks, then pull the pins, use a broach in the hole and then drive in the Bamboo.) Finishing out the proper pattern requires a lot of attention and a lot of time. I have been considering using copper wire instead of brass pins along with Bamboo - since for at least one time period, half wood and half metal was used. But I find that the copper offers too much resistance to being drawn by me. The contemporary French model have examples of brass trunnels. I think that there is at least one old model where iron was once used - except that now it is a hole with an iron oxide stain in a broad ring in the wood around the hole. No insult is intended to the fans of trunnels, but it seems seems absurd to me to go to all the work if drilling shallow holes and filling them with faux trunnels. It might be worth the effort if the trunnels are actually doing a job. For just looks that are essentially anti-historical - naw.

It depends on objective and the type of model that you are building. On the real ship, the deck fasteners were essentially invisible. They were counter sunk, given a dose of sticky water resistant material and sealed over with a plug of the same species as the decking, not end grain, but grain oriented to run parallel with the deck grain. If you got on your hands and knees, and looked closely, the outer circle would be visible. If it is a fad based modelers convention look, anything goes. A curiously popular look with no basis in reality is plank butts on the same beam in every other strake and fake trunnels at just the butts. It probably should include rhinestones, balloons, and glitter. On the contemporary models with hull planking trunnels, the trunnels were likely real fasteners. I like the idea of mechanical fasteners, but because of the material physical limitations, the trunnels are over scale. Plus, it is really tedious to draw thousands of strings of fine bamboo. On a real ship, the slush or paint would hide the trunnels and spikes.

Cyanoacrylate - Super Glue - it is an 11 footer for us crusty traditionalists. The stuff is toxic when in a gas phase. The stock bottle does not like its content being exposed to the atmosphere. Water is the catalyst - even water vapor. It reacts quickly. The bond is strong against perpendicular forces and weak against horizontal (sheer) forces. I found that PVA dried quickly enough to stiffen the end of a line. Shellac works quickly.

My beams will be decked. The area where the beam sits on the clamp will be hidden. No way am I going to notch the clamp or the end of the beam. I intend to forgo knees. Certainly no lodging knees - no point - however - the gap between each beam is a neato location for a chock that is as wide as the clamp and high enough to just avoid interfering with the deck planking. It should lock the beam and be yet another location of tension in the hull as it equilibrates with Temp and humidity changes.

There is a recent thread here about mast making. A search should bring it up - and probably similar older ones. A lathe is a cool tool and many here are stretching credibility in search of an excuse to buy one. The cold blooded bottom line is that if it for use on wood, a lathe is overkill and unless you make a concerted effort to use it for jobs that can just as easily be do using simple tools, it will be an expensive door stop. What a lathe is useful for is for making other tools - turning ferrous metals. I bring this up, because a lathe seems like it should be an easy way to shape spars. That impulse is a specious idea. Using a dowel as starting stock for spars is the commercial choice - because it is both inexpensive and expected - and the common choice for individuals. The problem is in how dowels are made. Essentially, a cork borer eats thru a board starting at the end grain. The grain of the board can and usually does go every which way. Once the dowel is free from the board, it is wanting to follow the grain and forms a dog leg or something. It is foolish to try to fight Mother Nature. It is best to start with a board that has straight grain to begin with. Split out a square stick along the grain. That way the spar is already the way it "wants" to be. Square - to octagon - to whatever a 16 sided polygon is named. A really good quality miniature hand plane, and or a file, a chisel if you are brave, scrappers, sandpaper. Simple hand tools. You have the joy of getting the round - or oval - straight for ways, then tapering spar that the vessel needs. As for the wood, a lot of the species named are tropical - loved to near or total extinction - If you are US based, Hard Maple, Birch will get you there.

I do not see that these tools would be of much use. I advise giving them a pass. Tools and investment are two words that do not belong together. If you could get a Jim tablesaw with all of its accessories into England, you could probably sell it for what you paid for it. Consider most any other tool an expense. A GOOD quality set of ~5" tweezers (Dumont?) - straight and curved - the cheap ones do not grip and hold all that well. A needle threader. A set of 5-6" forceps ( hemostats - Kelly clamps ) good quality - straight and curved may be a help. If you are using natural fiber rigging line - bookbinders pH 7 PVA glue. Plastic is about the worst possible choice for spars ( masts, booms, yards ) Time and temp alone can have them droop from their own weight. Split out and hand shaped fine grain, straight grain, high density wood should be substituted for masts and large yards. According to the museum standards that we have, small brass rod should be shaped to be the small yards. If you stick with the polystyrene - Rather than use tension between tie points to keep a line straight, use glue or shellac to make the line itself stiff.

Alan, I would not use anything that small but McM-Carr has threaded rod that is #80 gauge. From a shipyard practical position, my money is on the smallest gap being 1", with the siding of the timber being adjusted to allow that. I think that 1/4" would be inadequate for air circulation. I speculate that when a ship framed in England sailed south and the hull equilibrated with tropical temp the frames would probably expand more than a 1/4" gap. What was going on was allowing for an air gap for further seasoning of the frame timbers. It was a race between inward migration of wood eating fungii and outward migration of the water in the wood when the tree was felled. The minimum seasoning time of 18 months in the contracts was probably the time it took for there to be deep enough dry depth to give the timber an edge in the fungus in and water vapor out race. It is a powerful reason to use a framing that is stylized. The dominant alternative is the Hahn style - which is all bends ( paired frames with each supporting the butt joins of its partner ) with every other bend being omitted. To my eye, this produces spaces that are too wide. Hahn focused on the era of the American Revolution - during which time the RN seemed to feature spaces that were ~1". More often than not an actual bend had a 1" space between partners - it was actually a three layer unit with the middle unit being a rectangular chock at every location where there was a thru bolt joining the pair. It was small enough to allow air circulation around it. What I think that Hahn actually did was to omit the singleton single filling frames. I think that the late 17thC. Navy Board framing is particularly attractive. The negative for it is the loss to waste in framing stock. The floors are longer than an actual floor would be. Each end turns up. The F1 that overlaps it is much longer and describes a significant arc. What this means is that there are two sets of very long timbers with significant curvature. Close packing on framing stock is almost impossible. The old guys had the advantage of having sufficient old growth timber - which they probably used up - and a government subsidy to pay for it. Navall timber framing style splits the difference. It looks like Navy Board from a distance and has timbers that are short enough to allow close packing on framing stock.