Jaager

Kiyoo,
 
Congratulations, you have developed a way for a computer to do do what I had hoped, in vain, 3D CAD would do - extract individual frame and bend shapes and - I assume this is coming - isolate them as freestanding layers.  An easier and much faster way to get patterns for scroll cutting.
 
The moulded shapes - how many patterns along the way are needed to get a proper inside shape?  
 
The computer controlled cutting is an entirely separate stage.   Finding a near automatic way to to convert the data to the necessary formulas is a big deal.  Is it something that can gain you  proprietary rights and royalties?
I am still skeptical about the practicality of a laser cutter for a one-off hull, or as something that is cost effective for an individual modeler.  For the manufacture of components for a kit, I see the laser cutter ( or plasma, or water jet, or whatever the eventual winner tech will be for CNC cutting )  as essentially imperative.  It looks as though you have discovered a way to significantly reduce the development time.  This is potentially a big deal, is my thinking.

Cutting too deeply into a plywood spine may not be all that good of a practice.  The bonding surface for the keel needs to have an adequate surface area.  If a supply of veneer of an appropriate species of wood can be obtained, a layer of veneer can be scabbed onto the outer surface of the keel on either side.  On models where the rabbet was done poorly, this could serve as a rescue.  Going out for a rabbet rather than chiseling in would appear as the same result.

The glue that they used is most likely a version of what is now termed glue pot hide glue.
 
In the several discussions here about CA, it was stated that the present formulations of CA have a longer life for an effective bond.  I still will not touch the stuff,  but you will not have any conflict if you use it unless you build something for a serious museum.  Given that the fad with museums is electronic flash, it will probably be another generational turnover before or  if there is a pendulum swing back to bunches of physical specimens on display.
 
I second Gregory on the physical attachment being used in addition to a chemical bond.

I would find this to be a rather pointless DIY exercise.   There are probably domestic suppliers, but these are available in abundance from AliExpress, from many shops under their umbrella. 
There are flat disc  in 1", 2", 3" diameters  With hook and loop mount or adhesive mount.  There are 1/8" shafts  and 1/4" shafts  available.
WoodCraft and MM offer inside bowl sanders types that have a foam layer just behind the abrasive attachment, but the foam is not hardy and the rotational force tends to tear it if you push down as hard as I am want to.  I think these are 1/4" shaft though.   As Bob says, bulk removal of hardwood needs a more powerful motor than a Dremel.
Now, what I would like is a flex shaft tool mount chuck with a 45 degree angle.  90 degree I have, it gets inside a hull, but 45 degree would be the sweet spot.
 
 
 
 
 

I would find this to be a rather pointless DIY exercise.   There are probably domestic suppliers, but these are available in abundance from AliExpress, from many shops under their umbrella. 
There are flat disc  in 1", 2", 3" diameters  With hook and loop mount or adhesive mount.  There are 1/8" shafts  and 1/4" shafts  available.
WoodCraft and MM offer inside bowl sanders types that have a foam layer just behind the abrasive attachment, but the foam is not hardy and the rotational force tends to tear it if you push down as hard as I am want to.  I think these are 1/4" shaft though.   As Bob says, bulk removal of hardwood needs a more powerful motor than a Dremel.
Now, what I would like is a flex shaft tool mount chuck with a 45 degree angle.  90 degree I have, it gets inside a hull, but 45 degree would be the sweet spot.
 
 
 
 
 

The glue that they used is most likely a version of what is now termed glue pot hide glue.
 
In the several discussions here about CA, it was stated that the present formulations of CA have a longer life for an effective bond.  I still will not touch the stuff,  but you will not have any conflict if you use it unless you build something for a serious museum.  Given that the fad with museums is electronic flash, it will probably be another generational turnover before or  if there is a pendulum swing back to bunches of physical specimens on display.
 
I second Gregory on the physical attachment being used in addition to a chemical bond.

I would find this to be a rather pointless DIY exercise.   There are probably domestic suppliers, but these are available in abundance from AliExpress, from many shops under their umbrella. 
There are flat disc  in 1", 2", 3" diameters  With hook and loop mount or adhesive mount.  There are 1/8" shafts  and 1/4" shafts  available.
WoodCraft and MM offer inside bowl sanders types that have a foam layer just behind the abrasive attachment, but the foam is not hardy and the rotational force tends to tear it if you push down as hard as I am want to.  I think these are 1/4" shaft though.   As Bob says, bulk removal of hardwood needs a more powerful motor than a Dremel.
Now, what I would like is a flex shaft tool mount chuck with a 45 degree angle.  90 degree I have, it gets inside a hull, but 45 degree would be the sweet spot.
 
 
 
 
 

You have some wiggle room on the scantling specifics.  Your ship was built by a private yard on spec.  They were not restricted by Navy Establishments.  They were probably restricted by the rules that Lloyds required.  Anyone buying it would also want the insurance. Also, a sloop built for warship duties would probably have scantlings that were more beefy than a merchant vessel of the same size.  The merchantmen that I have observed had more space.  The timbers may be the same dimensions but the wood part would be a lower percentage of the whole.   For warships from the 1770's thru the 1780's, at least at the level of the floors, the space was 1-3" of the whole R&S.  A model with the frames on view would pretty much show as a wall of wood.  This is most likely the reason that Harold Hahn omitted every other bend with his plans for Revolutionary War era ships.  There is not much point in showing the framing if it would look about the same as a hull built by carving a solid block or carving lifts.   The function of a merchantman was not to withstand cannon fire.  It was not required to spend years on blockade duty.  I am not sure that the additional weight of wood made a difference as far  as cargo, since they all needed ballast to get their swimming body low enough.  It would have made the ship less expensive to build.
 
 

There is nothing wrong with upside down.  I framed Kate Cory using that method. The experience gave me a compulsion to find an easier way to loft and build a POF hull.   I was just suggesting his framing convention without meaning to endorse  the whole of his method.  The all bend,  room = space convention was also from Davis, so it predated Hahn by decades.  As near as I can tell, the more authentic framing started with our exposure to Model Shipwright and soon after, Boudriot's ground breaking books about the building of a Sane designed 74 gun warship.  It only took them about 40 years to offer the unbound plans for sale.  Those books are still the deep way to understand wooden ship building.  I think that the build logs here showing a complete POF replication of various ANCRE monographs or the Swan series may be offering a distorted view of how complicated a proper POF hull needs to be.

To just use the term frame for everything there can get a bit convoluted.
Frame is a series of timbers that are all in the same plane. 
It may be Floor + futtock 2 (F2) on either side + f4 on either side + a half top on either side  ( multi deck ship )
It may be  a half floor or cross piece or cross chock  +  F1 on eiyher side  + F3 on either side  + a top timber on either side
Both are frames. Where the floor butts against F2 is in the middle of F1.
 
A bend is one of each of these frames, joined side to side (the original meaning of scarph) - The butts of each frame has an overlap support from the partner.
 
Bend is not a universal term, but it easier to type than 'paired frames'.
 
These are the parts of a bend:
 

OK, beam 28'     SR has floors sided 11"    Meade  about 100 years later also has ~11" for a ship of this size.
25.5 - 22 =  3.5"  of space.   A bend would be a pair of 11" frames.   
Prediction:
If filling frames are present and the stations at 51"  The stations would be the midline of a bend. There would be 7" of space  and two filling frames with 3 space gaps.  The spaces would be 2.33" each.   If the stations are at 3 R&S intervals - 76.5" intervals, the mix of bends and filling frames can be a bit more creative.
Most RN plans would have the stations at 51" intervals.  With an American ship the plans would have a high probability of the middle 1/3 of the hull having  with stations at 102" intervals with that changing to 51" intervals as the slope of the bevel becomes greater at each end. 
 
I suggest that with this being your first effort at POF, go simple.  Just frame using all bends. 
 
Even more approachable would be Hahn style -  make the frames sided 12.75"  use all bends and omit every other bend.  This has a more interesting visual presentation.  Framing it per scantlings would only have ~14% as space.  Close to being a wall of wood.  The Hahn style saves time and wood.  --  I am not suggesting that you use his upside down fabrication method. 

Allan,
 
I was being a bit snarky there.  I suspect that there was a weight reduction factor involved as well as economy and conservation.  Unless someone from the time wrote an explanation , we can probably only speculate about their reasoning.  Today, it would make for a paper or series of papers in a professional journal. 
 
It is not that S-Philippe has no no correlation between Station position and R&S.  It does.  The complicating factor is that there are 4 different sets of intervals.  The R&S matches each of the intervals.  There are just 4 different sets of R&S,  There are 4 different stocks thicknesses of framing timbers required.  It is a complicating factor for anyone building this ship POF.
 
I am perplexed about Litchfield.  Unlike how we modelers traditionally loft frames on a drawing board by measuring waterlines and buttock lines to plot the shape for every bevel of every frame, an actual mould loft only expanded the Stations to full size on the floor make make the patterns.  Richard Endsor goes into detail in Master Shipwright's Secrets - although I am still not sure the patterns they made also had the sirmarks for the frames between the stations.  The guys with the adz could have faked it using the ribbands.  Perhaps it was done both ways depending of the yard doing it.
 
At the beginning of my framing method research, I was using Marquardt's HMS Beagle monograph.  I messed with designing for futtock sided reduction and filling frames. I figured out an idiot proof way to do it.  But, most of the reduction is above the main wale and the extra attention and time was just not worth it.  I also go with square frames all the way - no cants.  At the bow, I come in perpendicular - parallel with the stem.  Aft, I do square up to the fashion timber.  I do not bother with: sided reduction either fore and aft or towards the top timbers.  The framing above the main wale looks more like house carpentry to me, with no real curves,  so I hide it under the planking.  Because I hide it, I do something even worse and make it a solid wall above the main wale with no spaces.  It really fixes the frames in place, I also make the deadwood go from keel to keelson in the spaces.  This locks the bottom.  I see indications that at least some actual ships did this part way.  They left a gap at the bottom for bilge water flow, but that only needed a few inches.  Display models do not have to worry about bilge water, so I go all the way with wood.   

This is limited to English shipyard practice.  A chronic shortage of timber required ( or at least was the excuse for) labor intensive methods, not replicated in countries with abundant timber.
 
A close look at Steel shows that the sided dimension of frames was not uniform over the whole of the hull for even the square frames.
The sided dimension of the floors was allowed to be reduced towards the ends.  As the identity number was higher the sided dimension of each futtock was allowed to be reduced.
What I mean is that F1 was not as wide as the floor. F2 was not as wide as F1.  F3 was not as wide as F2 etc. 
The factor that changed was how much of the planking surface was space.
 
R&S - room and space  - room plus space -  was defined by the Stations.  R&S is some interval of the number of bends.  (I have only observed one example of the Station interval not following its set Station intervals - Saint Philippe.)   In the RN plans, the numbering of the Stations indicates the number of bends each defines.  Things were often a bit different at "0".  The bends were all identical here and the number could be increased at the last minute if a longer hull as ordered.  The gap between 0 and A is often greater.   Once the real numbering or lettering began, the pattern was there to follow.  For example where it is D then H , 4 then 8  - the number of bends is "4" -  The midline of D,  then E, then F, then G, then the midline of H.   The RN tended to use a fixed two bend interval for Stations. So it is B, D, F, H, J,  ( It may be K.  Some naval architects omitted "I" and "O" .Maybe they had had a problem with dyslexic yard workers?)  There were often ( usually), for the RN usually more frames in the interval than just bends.  There were singleton filling frames.   At times, more filling frames than bends.  These frames seemed to have no identity.  On some framing plans, the actual bends may be difficult to tease out if the the bends were made with a significant air gap in the middle. There would have been a lot of ugly, irregularly shaped chocks in the gap.  Every trunnel or bolt connecting the halves of a bend would go thru its own chock.  The chocks would not be as wide as the full moulded dimension.  Air communication along the whole length was important.  There were also a lot of chocks connecting the filling frames to their next door bend or next door filling frame.  An actual framed hull would not be all that attractive or as regular as the models that are supposed to represent one.
 
My theory on cant framing:
All bets were off where the cants were.  The general sided dimension for the floors was used there, but the space was wedge shaped.  The heels would touch  and the intervening space would be whatever was needed to get the outside face as parallel with the run of the planking was possible.  This way, the beveling on the face was greatly reduced.  The beveling at the heel required much precision work to get the angle correct.

If you don't want to soak the wood with CA (I am swooning just thinking about the foul fumes) try using a different wood such as castello or true boxwood (if you can find the latter).  You can buy small blocks of castello for a reasonable price at Gilmer Woods.   Swiss Pear will work as well if you want a reddish color.
Allan

You have some wiggle room on the scantling specifics.  Your ship was built by a private yard on spec.  They were not restricted by Navy Establishments.  They were probably restricted by the rules that Lloyds required.  Anyone buying it would also want the insurance. Also, a sloop built for warship duties would probably have scantlings that were more beefy than a merchant vessel of the same size.  The merchantmen that I have observed had more space.  The timbers may be the same dimensions but the wood part would be a lower percentage of the whole.   For warships from the 1770's thru the 1780's, at least at the level of the floors, the space was 1-3" of the whole R&S.  A model with the frames on view would pretty much show as a wall of wood.  This is most likely the reason that Harold Hahn omitted every other bend with his plans for Revolutionary War era ships.  There is not much point in showing the framing if it would look about the same as a hull built by carving a solid block or carving lifts.   The function of a merchantman was not to withstand cannon fire.  It was not required to spend years on blockade duty.  I am not sure that the additional weight of wood made a difference as far  as cargo, since they all needed ballast to get their swimming body low enough.  It would have made the ship less expensive to build.
 
 

This is limited to English shipyard practice.  A chronic shortage of timber required ( or at least was the excuse for) labor intensive methods, not replicated in countries with abundant timber.
 
A close look at Steel shows that the sided dimension of frames was not uniform over the whole of the hull for even the square frames.
The sided dimension of the floors was allowed to be reduced towards the ends.  As the identity number was higher the sided dimension of each futtock was allowed to be reduced.
What I mean is that F1 was not as wide as the floor. F2 was not as wide as F1.  F3 was not as wide as F2 etc. 
The factor that changed was how much of the planking surface was space.
 
R&S - room and space  - room plus space -  was defined by the Stations.  R&S is some interval of the number of bends.  (I have only observed one example of the Station interval not following its set Station intervals - Saint Philippe.)   In the RN plans, the numbering of the Stations indicates the number of bends each defines.  Things were often a bit different at "0".  The bends were all identical here and the number could be increased at the last minute if a longer hull as ordered.  The gap between 0 and A is often greater.   Once the real numbering or lettering began, the pattern was there to follow.  For example where it is D then H , 4 then 8  - the number of bends is "4" -  The midline of D,  then E, then F, then G, then the midline of H.   The RN tended to use a fixed two bend interval for Stations. So it is B, D, F, H, J,  ( It may be K.  Some naval architects omitted "I" and "O" .Maybe they had had a problem with dyslexic yard workers?)  There were often ( usually), for the RN usually more frames in the interval than just bends.  There were singleton filling frames.   At times, more filling frames than bends.  These frames seemed to have no identity.  On some framing plans, the actual bends may be difficult to tease out if the the bends were made with a significant air gap in the middle. There would have been a lot of ugly, irregularly shaped chocks in the gap.  Every trunnel or bolt connecting the halves of a bend would go thru its own chock.  The chocks would not be as wide as the full moulded dimension.  Air communication along the whole length was important.  There were also a lot of chocks connecting the filling frames to their next door bend or next door filling frame.  An actual framed hull would not be all that attractive or as regular as the models that are supposed to represent one.
 
My theory on cant framing:
All bets were off where the cants were.  The general sided dimension for the floors was used there, but the space was wedge shaped.  The heels would touch  and the intervening space would be whatever was needed to get the outside face as parallel with the run of the planking was possible.  This way, the beveling on the face was greatly reduced.  The beveling at the heel required much precision work to get the angle correct.

You could get a sort of contact cement type effect using Titebond in a particular way.
This is just theory - from something that I read.  I have not tried it. 
Apply a just wet layer of Titebond to both surfaces.  Allow the glue to dry/polymerize.  Place the plank in position and apply heat.  The two surfaces will grab.  I doubt that the bond is as strong as it would be using the normal technique.  It probably would be if a coating of fresh Titebond as applied just before the two surfaces were joined.
This may be a way to use PVA for hull planking where clamping is near impossible and like me, you are loath to have anything to do with using CA for anything. 
 
As Mark indicates, actual Dap type contact cement has no application on a ship model.  It does hold sandpaper onto a wooden support.  It is a chore to remove if the wooden support is one that you where will replace the abrasive.  There probably is no true solvent for it, But Naphtha  and Mineral Spirits will denature it.

If you intend to incline the keel and erect  the frames at 90 degrees, this for POF, and you use an upper brace/  locator to align and support the tops pf the frames, it will help to add a line above the tallest frame as a sirmark/ locator for the frame extensions that is perpendicular to the stations/frames.  That would be at a 1.2 degree angle to the present baseline/keel on the plans.
 
If you are doing this POB (and all indicators point to this as being your intention) - it just means that the central spine has to have the 1.2 degree downward slope aft.
When it comes time to position the depth of the molds on the spine, ..... 
I lofted for POF.  I indicate the location of the decks, port sills, bottom of wales, rails on my frame shapes.  I use the profile to provide these positions.  The only reliable lines that I found  that are on both of the Body plan and the Profile plan at each station that can match them up are L.Fon , L.In1 , ( and I guess, I only needed the two) L.In2 , L.For. 
Where they are at each station is where they are at each station outline.  You will need to get these lines transferred across each mold and make sure they also where they need to be on the central spine if you find them as useful/ necessary as I did.
 
And you should have bopped him upside his head for not having the keel at an incline on the original lines plans in the first place.

[ And you should have bopped him upside his head for not having the keel at an incline on the original lines plans in the first place ]  wrote Jagger
 
That's was done...  I cannot repeat here the entire discussion   😋

Kiyoo,
 
Congratulations, you have developed a way for a computer to do do what I had hoped, in vain, 3D CAD would do - extract individual frame and bend shapes and - I assume this is coming - isolate them as freestanding layers.  An easier and much faster way to get patterns for scroll cutting.
 
The moulded shapes - how many patterns along the way are needed to get a proper inside shape?  
 
The computer controlled cutting is an entirely separate stage.   Finding a near automatic way to to convert the data to the necessary formulas is a big deal.  Is it something that can gain you  proprietary rights and royalties?
I am still skeptical about the practicality of a laser cutter for a one-off hull, or as something that is cost effective for an individual modeler.  For the manufacture of components for a kit, I see the laser cutter ( or plasma, or water jet, or whatever the eventual winner tech will be for CNC cutting )  as essentially imperative.  It looks as though you have discovered a way to significantly reduce the development time.  This is potentially a big deal, is my thinking.

PVA needs a porous and secure surface to produce a strong bond.  The color does not matter.  If it is a layer of loose carbon, the joint needs to be abraded down to a firm layer. If it is just color on a firm layer it does not.
It is probably good practice to use a sharp single edge razor blade to scrape the surface.  Scraping means that the edge is dragged over the surface ~10-15 degrees ? and not pushed like a chisel. In a tight slot - a #11 blade may be what fits.

I would develop a ratio and proportion  using the example.
What is the depth of the chock in proportion to the total moulded dimension.  Looks to be about 1/2 to me, but I have never measured it.
The angle of the wedge would be constant.  The depth of the flat part of the ends would be constant ( no need for it to vary with larger chocks - verify this supposition), This would have the length be the variable. 

Since Degame is impossible to source,  3/4" plank of planed unfigured Hard Maple and a froe - stock for spars.
I have a plank of Hard Pine -  it was old when I got it from Grampa in 1972.  Straight grain - the Spring wood is blond, the Summer wood is red and rock hard. 
For a mast,  the spacing looks like it is a made mast.

I suspect that that at the time there was money, rank, and prestige involved with the classifications.  Time makes that irrelevant.  For our purposes, I think "lumper" is by far the more useful course.
 
My focus is on hulls.  One particular vessel that I have spent time on is Porpoise II 1836.  It was one of two vessels that completed the U.S. Ex. Ex.
 It was originally rigged as a brigantine, and converted to brig while on the mission.  But regardless of the rig, when I look at the lines, it positively screams that it was designed to be a schooner.   There are many hulls that say "I am a schooner" no matter how the sticks are arranged.

This may be something that I have assembled in my own imagination when mentally organizing all this.
I am wondering about something in post #1.
The square sails:
I have been thinking that if the yard at the foot of sail #10 only supported the lower corners of the topsail it would be a topsail schooner.
If there was a sail hanging from it and it was on the foremast, then it was a brigantine.
If both masts had a sail #9 then it would be a brig.
If either mast had a main course, then there would either need to be a Spencer mast for the gaff boom or there would be no upper boom or it would float and in either of the latter cases no mast rings? 
If the main yards had a sail, it could not be lowered to the deck with boom parrels  and rings in the way.  Or the booms lowered first?
But then, I am trying to remember if I have ever seen a main yard lowered to the deck? 
 
Or maybe, if a lower boom is present on all fore and aft sails, it is a schooner?  If the fore mast had no lower boom, it is not a schooner?
 
And a non sequitur = it seems to me that the Antebellum USN took any and every opportunity to re-rig a schooner over to being a brig.  I wonder why?
And merchantmen seemed to do the exact opposite?