Jaager

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.

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.

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 used to obsess over rigging tables and scantlings and their relative time periods.  I still do up to a point.  But the baseline is that the physics of the forces of wind and water has never changed. 
The strengths of natural fibers and wood has not changed either.  So using Steele or a similar turn of the 19th century source will at least get you sizes for the various rigging components that would have worked and any minor variations from an earlier time or different nation would be outside our range of being able to discern them.  If it is known that an earlier time was prone to over engineering because their materials manufacturing was not up to spec, factor that in.

I used to obsess over rigging tables and scantlings and their relative time periods.  I still do up to a point.  But the baseline is that the physics of the forces of wind and water has never changed. 
The strengths of natural fibers and wood has not changed either.  So using Steele or a similar turn of the 19th century source will at least get you sizes for the various rigging components that would have worked and any minor variations from an earlier time or different nation would be outside our range of being able to discern them.  If it is known that an earlier time was prone to over engineering because their materials manufacturing was not up to spec, factor that in.

That species of wood - coarse grain and friable - looks unsuited to the job it is being asked to do.
A better species would take to having a cove scrapped on it and small bamboo dowels at the ends.

This was from vol. 3?   There is an "IF" phrase in your quoted phrase.   I was not able to find the original article on the CD.  Thus, I am not able to discover the context.
He is describing a way to build a strong deck on some model by laying it in two layers.  The under layer being laid at 45 degrees.  I am guessing that the beams are spaced too far apart to provide 90 degree strength.
 
There are some examples that I have seen in Paris? or similar with diagonal planking that was an attempt to resist hogging or sagging.   I read that one of the innovations with the original version of Constitution was a series of substantial riders that were diagonal and chevron in pattern.

I am also attracted to Saint-Philippe.  I have developed my own framing method.  It does not use the individual bend patterns that are in the monograph.  I use the outside shape from the Body plan only.  I have lofted S.Philippe for my method.  I have actually plowed this furrow, at least in part, three times.  ( I like the distinctive pattern of the English 17th century Navy Board models. It only uses five timbers per bend. The overlap requires very long timbers with each having much curvature. My scale is 1:60 and an exact replication would require stock that is wider than I wish and too much loss to waste.  I have found another way to get there, but it required at lot of repeat lofting to work out.)  This is a long way of getting to some problems that I have had with the lines plans as presented. 
 
I am going to list those problems - they were written in a recent post but are a bit edited here:
 
 Saint-Philippe is complicated.   The frames and stations are canted forward 1.2 degrees in the Profile Plan.  None of the usual baseline, keel, waterlines,etc. are any help in matching the stations from the profile to the frame outlines (to locate the position of the decks and wales and ports).  It dawned on me that the L.Fon and L.In1 will locate a station profile to its frame outline (sirmarks).   There is one aspect of SP that is diving me to distraction.  On the Profile plan, the station lines are sloped with the frames.  The Body plan seems to match what they would be at 1.2 degrees.  If they are viewed on the plan baseline, they would have to be compressed because the 1.2 degree line is longer ( hypotenuse of a right triangle). But the Body Plan seems to be the actual frame shape, It is the hypotenuse shape and not a foreshortened perpendicular to the keel parallax view.  As a check, I found that the Body plan at M matches the individual bend shape for M in the extracted frames plan.  It is not squished down. In your post #7, observe that the keel is flat to the baseline and the rabbet is horizontal.   So, if the Body plan is perpendicular to the viewer, but is the actual shape, why is the rabbet not sloped down aft?  To get the stations back up to 90 degrees the keel would have to slope 1.2 degrees aft.  The geometry is confusing me.
 
  It would have been more friendly to have drawn the keel with the slope.  However, Lemineur developed the individual bend patterns for the commonly used POF assembly methods and did not think thru just how much more difficult doing it at a 1.2 degree angle is.  It hurts my head to try to see how to use the routine methods to get a new baseline that gets the frames perpendicular, if you choose to mount the keel at an angle., instead of the frames.  The geometry is maddening. 
 
There is another factor that is unique to S.Philippe.  The stations  are not spaced all the same or a derivative of a common factor.  For every other ship that I have investigated, the stations involve some interval of a common frame sided dimension.  Usually, it is the same R&S, with the number of that factor being 4 or 3 or 2 of them per station interval.  The same thickness of framing stock is used for the whole hull.  The intervals for S.Philippe are in 4 different groupings.  They are 12x12.75", 48x15.4", 24x14.9", 43x 13.9" (Imperial inches). (By the way, this is 127 frames or  63 bends.)  It requires four separate thickness of framing stock and constant attention and awareness to where you are.  The tabled mortise joint within a bend is eccentric, but that is not something that I would replicate and is easily ignored.
 
I will be interested in seeing if any of this causes a problem for you and if so, seeing how you solve them.
 

How I approach this:
Most all rigging tables are for circumference.  We tend to use diameter.  Circumference divided by 3.14 = diameter.
Any size dowel - sand it really smooth, mark a 1 inch interval in the dowel, and give it a shellac coat. 
Wrap the line in a tightly packed coil around the dowl.  The number of revolution within the 1 inch interval is the diameter of the line.
 
From the appropriate rigging table,  find the line data.  Divide it by 3.14 and by what ever your scale is.  This is the number to match to   1 divided by the number of rotations.
 
In the Steele era, the tables have a huge variety of rope sixes, more than I can match using the limitations of linen yarn, I got yelled at, but given scale effects, I opt for the closest model line that is below the table number.
 

That species of wood - coarse grain and friable - looks unsuited to the job it is being asked to do.
A better species would take to having a cove scrapped on it and small bamboo dowels at the ends.

This was from vol. 3?   There is an "IF" phrase in your quoted phrase.   I was not able to find the original article on the CD.  Thus, I am not able to discover the context.
He is describing a way to build a strong deck on some model by laying it in two layers.  The under layer being laid at 45 degrees.  I am guessing that the beams are spaced too far apart to provide 90 degree strength.
 
There are some examples that I have seen in Paris? or similar with diagonal planking that was an attempt to resist hogging or sagging.   I read that one of the innovations with the original version of Constitution was a series of substantial riders that were diagonal and chevron in pattern.

I am also attracted to Saint-Philippe.  I have developed my own framing method.  It does not use the individual bend patterns that are in the monograph.  I use the outside shape from the Body plan only.  I have lofted S.Philippe for my method.  I have actually plowed this furrow, at least in part, three times.  ( I like the distinctive pattern of the English 17th century Navy Board models. It only uses five timbers per bend. The overlap requires very long timbers with each having much curvature. My scale is 1:60 and an exact replication would require stock that is wider than I wish and too much loss to waste.  I have found another way to get there, but it required at lot of repeat lofting to work out.)  This is a long way of getting to some problems that I have had with the lines plans as presented. 
 
I am going to list those problems - they were written in a recent post but are a bit edited here:
 
 Saint-Philippe is complicated.   The frames and stations are canted forward 1.2 degrees in the Profile Plan.  None of the usual baseline, keel, waterlines,etc. are any help in matching the stations from the profile to the frame outlines (to locate the position of the decks and wales and ports).  It dawned on me that the L.Fon and L.In1 will locate a station profile to its frame outline (sirmarks).   There is one aspect of SP that is diving me to distraction.  On the Profile plan, the station lines are sloped with the frames.  The Body plan seems to match what they would be at 1.2 degrees.  If they are viewed on the plan baseline, they would have to be compressed because the 1.2 degree line is longer ( hypotenuse of a right triangle). But the Body Plan seems to be the actual frame shape, It is the hypotenuse shape and not a foreshortened perpendicular to the keel parallax view.  As a check, I found that the Body plan at M matches the individual bend shape for M in the extracted frames plan.  It is not squished down. In your post #7, observe that the keel is flat to the baseline and the rabbet is horizontal.   So, if the Body plan is perpendicular to the viewer, but is the actual shape, why is the rabbet not sloped down aft?  To get the stations back up to 90 degrees the keel would have to slope 1.2 degrees aft.  The geometry is confusing me.
 
  It would have been more friendly to have drawn the keel with the slope.  However, Lemineur developed the individual bend patterns for the commonly used POF assembly methods and did not think thru just how much more difficult doing it at a 1.2 degree angle is.  It hurts my head to try to see how to use the routine methods to get a new baseline that gets the frames perpendicular, if you choose to mount the keel at an angle., instead of the frames.  The geometry is maddening. 
 
There is another factor that is unique to S.Philippe.  The stations  are not spaced all the same or a derivative of a common factor.  For every other ship that I have investigated, the stations involve some interval of a common frame sided dimension.  Usually, it is the same R&S, with the number of that factor being 4 or 3 or 2 of them per station interval.  The same thickness of framing stock is used for the whole hull.  The intervals for S.Philippe are in 4 different groupings.  They are 12x12.75", 48x15.4", 24x14.9", 43x 13.9" (Imperial inches). (By the way, this is 127 frames or  63 bends.)  It requires four separate thickness of framing stock and constant attention and awareness to where you are.  The tabled mortise joint within a bend is eccentric, but that is not something that I would replicate and is easily ignored.
 
I will be interested in seeing if any of this causes a problem for you and if so, seeing how you solve them.
 

This was from vol. 3?   There is an "IF" phrase in your quoted phrase.   I was not able to find the original article on the CD.  Thus, I am not able to discover the context.
He is describing a way to build a strong deck on some model by laying it in two layers.  The under layer being laid at 45 degrees.  I am guessing that the beams are spaced too far apart to provide 90 degree strength.
 
There are some examples that I have seen in Paris? or similar with diagonal planking that was an attempt to resist hogging or sagging.   I read that one of the innovations with the original version of Constitution was a series of substantial riders that were diagonal and chevron in pattern.

This was from vol. 3?   There is an "IF" phrase in your quoted phrase.   I was not able to find the original article on the CD.  Thus, I am not able to discover the context.
He is describing a way to build a strong deck on some model by laying it in two layers.  The under layer being laid at 45 degrees.  I am guessing that the beams are spaced too far apart to provide 90 degree strength.
 
There are some examples that I have seen in Paris? or similar with diagonal planking that was an attempt to resist hogging or sagging.   I read that one of the innovations with the original version of Constitution was a series of substantial riders that were diagonal and chevron in pattern.

How I approach this:
Most all rigging tables are for circumference.  We tend to use diameter.  Circumference divided by 3.14 = diameter.
Any size dowel - sand it really smooth, mark a 1 inch interval in the dowel, and give it a shellac coat. 
Wrap the line in a tightly packed coil around the dowl.  The number of revolution within the 1 inch interval is the diameter of the line.
 
From the appropriate rigging table,  find the line data.  Divide it by 3.14 and by what ever your scale is.  This is the number to match to   1 divided by the number of rotations.
 
In the Steele era, the tables have a huge variety of rope sixes, more than I can match using the limitations of linen yarn, I got yelled at, but given scale effects, I opt for the closest model line that is below the table number.
 

That species of wood - coarse grain and friable - looks unsuited to the job it is being asked to do.
A better species would take to having a cove scrapped on it and small bamboo dowels at the ends.

How I approach this:
Most all rigging tables are for circumference.  We tend to use diameter.  Circumference divided by 3.14 = diameter.
Any size dowel - sand it really smooth, mark a 1 inch interval in the dowel, and give it a shellac coat. 
Wrap the line in a tightly packed coil around the dowl.  The number of revolution within the 1 inch interval is the diameter of the line.
 
From the appropriate rigging table,  find the line data.  Divide it by 3.14 and by what ever your scale is.  This is the number to match to   1 divided by the number of rotations.
 
In the Steele era, the tables have a huge variety of rope sixes, more than I can match using the limitations of linen yarn, I got yelled at, but given scale effects, I opt for the closest model line that is below the table number.
 

How I approach this:
Most all rigging tables are for circumference.  We tend to use diameter.  Circumference divided by 3.14 = diameter.
Any size dowel - sand it really smooth, mark a 1 inch interval in the dowel, and give it a shellac coat. 
Wrap the line in a tightly packed coil around the dowl.  The number of revolution within the 1 inch interval is the diameter of the line.
 
From the appropriate rigging table,  find the line data.  Divide it by 3.14 and by what ever your scale is.  This is the number to match to   1 divided by the number of rotations.
 
In the Steele era, the tables have a huge variety of rope sixes, more than I can match using the limitations of linen yarn, I got yelled at, but given scale effects, I opt for the closest model line that is below the table number.
 

The judgment was about the original model, Nothing that Henry was doing was the target of criticism, except his choice to spend an extraordinary amount of time on an object that is not worthy of the effort.  GIGO is a rule that is difficult to break.  This subject is very unlikely to break it.  The grim color of the wood deck.... - but an "S" shape on the rail runs counter to every esthetic for the proper shape for a vessel hull that I have observed.   The time would be better expended on a new build.  A build with a subject that has a pedigree that is real and not originating in fantasy. 
I am grateful to Ab for defining a series of books, which I own, as total nonsense and are to be avoided. 
SeaWatch Books has an on going deal for a proper Dutch Yacht with plans and an illustrated building guide.
I had been wondering why yachts seemed to be so prominent in the low countries, then it came to me that they had water that went everywhere and roads that did not  A better transport all around if you had the wealth to afford it.

I didn't find anything objectionable about your posts, Ab. I understood you completely. Others were apparently looking for some other response. I share your graciously stated perspective: "... models like this one may look interesting to a layman, but in fact they are simply rubbish. But ...  you can have a lot of fun  playing around with it." I don't see much value in spending an inordinate amount of bandwidth on such models in what is essentially an academic-level forum about serious ship modeling and related maritime history. 
 
 
I am sure Mr. Hoving has forgotten more about ship models and maritime history than I'll ever know after spending my entire life being interested in those subjects, but I do sometimes find myself compelled to comment when I see things posted which I know to be simply wrong. The endeavor of ship modeling is an exercise in the pursuit of excellence, if nothing else. Historical accuracy and technical craftsmanship and artistry are the metrics that define the efforts of serious modelers. This forum has distinguished itself in those respects. It's "where the big dogs run." One problem with social media is its inclusiveness. "Everybody's welcome" and the number of members is, for many, a measure of the quality of a site's content, which isn't necessarily true, except from the perspective of sponsors and advertisers who are primarilyi interested in the extent of their own exposure. Nevertheless, forums with high content do draw participants and there tends to be a "dumbing down" or dilution of the quality of the content as more and more less knowledgeable and experienced participants jump on the bandwagon. It seems that high quality forums tend to suffer from this phenomenon and sophisticated and experienced participants tend to drift off when they find that the time it takes them to read posts of diminishing quality and interest becomes less and less well spent. This degradation is exacerbated by the tendency of social media to increasingly attract those seeking attention and affirmation as well as those those seeking to learn and to contribute something worthwhile when they are able. 
 
So, when someone "comes into someone's log and lecture(s) them about the futility of their efforts based on... superior knowledge," they aren't doing anything "unbecoming," they're just trying to contribute something of value. In large measure, constructive criticism serves to maintain the quality of a forum's content. The post which has been criticized in actuality provided a precise and complete response to the original query, albeit not what the poster was hoping to hear: the nature of the vessel, the source and quality of the plans upon which it was based, and a candid opinion as to the historic value of the model, plus encouragement to the original poster to continue to pursue working on it if they found doing so enjoyable. I learned something of value from Ab's post and I thank him for it. I now know something more about a particular book and am now able to avoid wasting money and shelf space on a worthless volume. I can't say the same of the other posts in this thread.  
 
For those who are seeking affirmation and pats on the back, there's another well-known ship modeling forum on the internet that operates on the Special Olympics "Everybody Gets a Prize" model. The best part of social media is that there's something for everyone on the internet. If, on the other hand, one wishes to learn from teachers who know more than  they do, they have to expect that their papers are going to be graded.

Really Henry X, nobody put me up to do anything. I simply recognized the stupid design of this model, based on the book I mentioned. Of course the kit maker based his product on the  drawings in the book.
I never accused you of thinking the model was worth of anything, I just wanted to show you that models like this one may look interesting to a layman, but in fact they are simply rubbish. But as I told you, you can have a lot of fun  playing around with it. 
All I want is that the remains of the book I mentioned will disappear as soon as possible, because they create a false image of the sort of ships I love. This model is a bad example of how people can turn beautiful ships into lousy objects.
I refuse to believe that you really think I approached your thread with other intentions than doing right to history, whatever anyone else thinks about it. I did not.
Ab

If this is for a deck house, why not build it using framing and planks?

There is one aspect of SP that is diving me to distraction.
On the Profile plan, the station lines are sloped with the frames.
The Body plan seems to be the actual frame shape, and not a foreshortened perpendicular to the keel parallax view.
The Body plan at M matches the extract bend shape for M.  It is not squished down.
So, why, if the Body plan is perpendicular to the viewer, is the rabbet not sloped down aft?
The geometry is confusing me.

I am not so sure that the plans are in error.  I think that Lemineur became so involved in the contemporary method that he lost sight of the real purpose of his monograph.  It is all well and good to document what was actually done.  Reproducing an eccentric building method does add a serious complication and an unnecessary one at that.  It would have been more friendly to have drawn the keel with the slope.  However, he developed the individual bend patterns for the commonly used POF assembly methods and did not think thru just how much more difficult doing it at an angle is.  It hurts my head to try to see how to use the routine methods to get a new baseline that gets the frames perpendicular.  The geometry is maddening.   I guess when viewed by the needs of most, this is an error, or at least an ill adivised decision.   I just have not seen any technical errors in the actual lines.    
 
I wish you smooth sailing on the project.  Ambitieux is a big horse. 

Looking at Kevin's picture:  I have always had a mistrust of being able to get the holes to exactly match up with the dowels.  I just thought of a way to do it.  Use a third piece of wood.  One that is as wide as the channel is thick.  Make it thick enough that a drill bit has to go in perpendicular. Site the dowel locations as holes in it.  Use it as the gauge to drill the holes in the hull and in the channel..  I beg forgiveness of this is standard practice already.  I just solves a long standing  how-to-do-it for me.