Jaager

I had one once.  But found out I could just as well on my modeling table saw.

Joe,
To increase your possible expenditures  
 
I have, but have not mounted a Penn State  Universal Duplicator  - for turning to a pattern - cannon and the like:

And for spars -  I bought a steady rest on Ebay  - with a theory that fixing a ball bearing race in it - with an ID  close to that of the spar and an OD to fit in the steady rest - would slove any length problem.

 
Long ago, I bought an extra Al bed - to cut and and center mount the post for to make a proper mill of it.  It is still whole.

An Introduction to Model Ship Building “Dockyard Style”
Adrian Sorolla
ANCRE – French Naval Archeology Collection, 2020
21X30 cm format, softback, 232 pages
Fully illustrated with color photographs and drawings on heavy gloss paper
46 Euros – Available in English, French, Spanish, Italian
ISBN: 979-10-96873-92-0
Available from ancre.fr

 
What’s inside (from the author):  
It is obvious that building a plank on frame model has always generated a certain amount of respect within the model ship building community: even from experienced builders.  Taking on the construction of a first planked on frame model from a set of plans seems daunting. No box of pre-cut pieces, no pre-milled to size lumber in required quantity, no pre-made parts: evidently, all this may seem somewhat intimidating.
 
If being already familiar in building from kits, the concept of building from plans may be considered as the next logical step.  Even if this work may bring us some apprehension, it should not scare us away, as we have already acquired knowledge in model ship building: this is knowledge we can apply through all phases of the construction.
 
This guide was written to help the modeler through the various stages of construction.  As the title indicates, “An introduction to planked on frame model ship building”, this guide will show us through the process of building our first framed model from plans.  A fairly easy model to build while having fun and being supported by the numerous photos and extensive captions provided to analyze and explain each step.  This guide will introduce the modeler to ship building from plans.
    
From the first look into the plans, to the completion of the model, which will be a remarkable piece in your collection, this guide covers all phases of the construction.
 
Although a fairly easy monograph was chosen, the information contained in this guide is such that the explanations can be applied to any other monograph by adapting the advice given and the dimension of the parts needed to whatever project you may take on.
 
The chapter sequence guides us through the logical construction stages.  The different steps are presented while taking into account the fact that not all modelers are equipped with the same tools to fabricate the parts: varying from hand to highly mechanized power tools.
 
The choice of lumber, the interpretation of the plans, the use of templates to cut parts, wood working techniques, the use of cutting tools, the choice and purpose of different material (brass, ebony, boxwood, lead, tin, etc.) including the steps to follows, everything to build your model is explained in this guide.
 
Table of Contents:
Ch. I Choosing the lumber – First look at the plans, axial timbers
Ch. II The frames
Ch. III Axial structure
Ch. IV Frame installation
Ch. V Closing the front and back
Ch. VI Planking the hold
Ch. VII Fitting the hold
Ch. VIII Deck construction -1
Ch. IX Deck construction -2
Ch. X Planking the hull -1, preparation
Ch. XI Planking the hull -2
Ch. XII Deck furnishings and building the forecastle deck
Ch. XIII The quarterdeck and stern
Ch. XIV Notes on masting, ropes and rigging
 
A few notes from the reviewer:
There are a few things that do need some explanation.  Some of the drawings/photos are in French such as “modelisme d’arsenal” translates literally to "Arsenal modelism" or Dockyard Style.  When  you run into that, a few minutes with Google Translate should give you the meaning.  You will also find he refers to things pretty generally except for examples but they’re not hard to follow and sort out how you want to do it for your specific set of plans.
 
The Review:
Since you’ve read this far, you know the philosophy and a bit of the contents.   It does fulfill everything it says it is.  This book is about as good as it gets on how-to build a ship using the ANCRE monographs.  I really can’t praise it enough.  I started reading it about an hour after it showed up and literally could not put it down.  It now resides in my workshop for handy reference.   I really wish this book had been around when I started my first POF ship which was French many years ago.
 
It will take you through selecting the wood, what to expect on the plans, to making and assembling almost everything from start to finish.  For starters, every page has 4 or 5 color photos accompanying the text to illustrate exactly what’s being done. To say it is more detailed than any build log I’ve seen is an understatement.  The written text is crisp and clear which makes understanding a given step easy.
 
While the book is based on the plans of Le Rochfort by Gerard Delacroix at 1:32 scale, where your model might a different scale or different plans, it’s not too hard to covert the information as the basics apply no matter the plans. 
One nice touch is that it’s pointed out that exotic tools aren’t needed.  For example, he shows a coping saw, a scroll saw and a band saw.  He continues the practice with such things as sanding tools, etc.  Also shown and described are the various building boards/jigs.  The setup and use of the basic tools for cutting and shaping the various pieces are there.  Even how to make trunnels simply and quickly with a model table saw.
 
While the audience is intended for French ships using ANCRE monographs, the information is useful for making a ship from plans of any other nation but there are major and minor differences in the way various countries did things so take that under consideration.  Also, if you’re using a POB set of frames such as those for La Belle Poule, once you have the backbone built up start with Chapter 4 but do read Chapters 1 through 3 as there is a lot of great information that applies.
 
I should add that not everything is covered in detail such as the many fittings and rigging details which are in the individual ship’s monograph. However, if you’re interested in building French ships, I recommend as an additional reference  Frolich’s “The Art of Shipmodeling” (also from ANCRE) which goes into the bits and pieces in more depth.  After all, we can’t have too many sources can we?  The more we have, the more we know.
 

My link:
https://www.aamm.fr/index.php/boutique/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=65&language=en&sort=20a&page=6
 
It used to go to the monographs , but now, the main page,  so    Boutique   and then   Monographies   it has an English translation option.

To the moderator of the NRG site:
 
Resources - Plans and Photos - The Maryland Silver Company  =  the site has not been continued after Duane left us.  His collection appears to have been taken in by Taubman.
                                                   The monographs by AAMM  deserve an entry
                - Publications   - Neptunia --  The Journal features their current quarterly?  contents in each issue. 
 
 

The unit is strength is only be as strong as your weakest bond. 
So even if you use a bonding agent that works on a nonporous surface (epoxy, CA) it will come down to how strong the bond is between your clear finish and the wood.
The deck can be masked using no residue tape, if you decide to remove the finish under the posts. 

I have two factors in mind:  Butting the waterway against the inside face of the stanchions and filling the gaps between with single pieces ( filling chocks ) looks like it would be less costly.  The down side is the additional seam to caulk.  The only easy way to secure the floating pieces would be from the outside plank.  The alternatives that I see are boring a hole thru each piece and into the waterway - for a trunnel.  And/or  a toe nailed trunnel into the stanchion.   Done above it is then another source of water incursion. Done from below, no fun at all to do.
A wide and notched waterway, while it  appears to be better for the ship,  the necessary extra width of the waterway and the waste from the notches rules against this.  The waterway is too thick to waste on a function that a thinner piece of wood would serve.
 
The 1903 Rules from the ABS have this to say:
WATER-WAYS
section 22 ------ Must be fitted on each tier of beams, theyshould be of logs of the greatest possible length, well fayed to the timbers and beams, and thoroughly fastened with a through bolt into each beam, and two horizontal bolts through frames and clinched, the butts must be close jointed, and scarphed vertically where practicable, and be placed between the scarphs in the clamps underneath.
LOCK or THICK STRAKES
section 23-------The lock-strakes adjoining the waterway should be scarphed and jogged over the beams.  These scarphs to shift with those in waterways.   These strakes should be fastened vertically, with two clinch-bolts through every beam, and horizontally, with one bolt through every second timber.  The stringers on the waterways should also be scarphed, and fastened with two bolts through every timber, and in vessels over 500 tons should be bolted edgewise.
 
I checked Desmond and Estep.   
Although not singled out,  all of the waterways butt against the inside face of the timber extensions.  The lock strakes are a second waterway,  The stringers are a second or inner clamp, below the beams.
They sort of show a covering board ( filling chock ) between the plank-sheer and the waterway.  The definition of plank-sheer = the pieces of plank laid horizontally over timber-heads of quarter deck and forecastle, for the purpose of covering the top of the side; hence sometimes called covering-boards.
 
NOW I remember - it is the outside plank that is notched if anything is.
 
 
For a model, if the waterway is to be painted, butting the waterway and using a lot of filling pieces, saves to nightmare of getting a lot of notches done with precision.  The pieces are easy if you have the tools.  The paint will obscure the method.   If clear finished wood, the plank above the plank-sheer would make it impossible to see if a notched plank or filling pieces are used.

One of the things I really liked about WordPerfect  was how easy it was to set up a macro.
Pre-computer, I was taught by my dissertation director to set up a 3x5 card with keywords, for the photocopies of research articles,  so that what was wanted could be found again.
There was an old sharewear database program,  comma delimited, very straight forward, and easy to use.  I used it to do a database for stick and string articles in  NRJ, MB,  SIS, MSB, and MSW.     Windows killed it and I could find no low cost and easy replacement. 
The data was a txt file,  so I can search it using EditPad,  but with no macro,  it took forever to reformat into something that looked good.  Instead of one long line with commas for each entry.                  
I lost heart - just typing was not as much fun as filling in a form - so I can find nothing published after 1995.

The unit is strength is only be as strong as your weakest bond. 
So even if you use a bonding agent that works on a nonporous surface (epoxy, CA) it will come down to how strong the bond is between your clear finish and the wood.
The deck can be masked using no residue tape, if you decide to remove the finish under the posts. 

An alternative to a metal pin is a bamboo treenail.  Using pieces of a good bamboo BBQ skewer, a Dremel and fine sand paper I can get a trunnel down to .5MM.  That and an 80 micro drill bit will work with really small parts.  You can go thicker with the larger parts.  I like bamboo because you can get very fine, yet it maintains strength due to it's fiberousity.

Jarrod,
Do yourself a favor,  saving yourself pointless stress and buy a copy of both books.  If 17th C. Dutch is a focus, then you will want both anyway.
You are lucky if you can still buy a copy of The Ships of Abel Tasman.  The time window is not as long as you imagine it to be.

Setting aside the reliability of a particular contemporary artist as to detail,  I vote that there were two "rules".
 
1.  The chains or straps holding the deadeye would continue the exact line/ angle of the shroud it anchors.  ( So the mast first and then, if not the shroud, then a stand in for it to determine the angle. )  ( Wait a tick!  Altering the rake of the mast by a new captain must have fudged that rule. )
 
2.  If there was any danger of a shroud chaffing against the side of the ship,  there would have been a channel.   ( Ignoring the unnecessary ware on the shroud if there was chaffing, I just was imagining the resulting horror, if a crewman had a limb get between a too close shroud and the side of the ship when wind and sea conditions were violently active. ) 
 

A progression from here is to forego all of the pre-made parts and scratch build.  Your possibilities increase by a couple or three magnitudes.  The limits here are the available plans.  And if your devotion to historical accuracy has flexible limits, it will be limited by your skill either at a drawing board or a CAD program.  And with a lot of the legacy plans for notorious vessels, the origins and specifics only wink the reality of what they purport to represent.  But, to be fair,  at the time most were produced,  there was not much else available.  Of course,  more than a few kits share this same tenuous attachment to reality.

Looking at a hammock from the side, I can see where that phrase would come to mind as a generally understood description.  They were a lot more familiar with hammocks.

If the rule for this is not set in the texts that we have, it was likely a situation with fairly loose limits.
For warships, I would take the start of the deadwood as being where I could start a tapper.
The ASA 1870 allows that frames can be farther apart and the space 10% wider for the final 1/5 at either end. This may be a clue as to how the strength requirements for a hull were viewed.   The internal rise of the frames do not allow for as much cargo weight at the final 1/5, fore or aft, so the keel may have been allowed less mass starting there.  The lengths of the keel pieces and the length of the scarphs may hold a clue.  Begin a tapper - after the scarph of the last piece at either end.
 
Unless rich and building an America's Cup racer, I could not imagine expending money on the additional labor cost that a continuous taper would require. It would far exceed any savings on lumber for the keel.

It is on sale at the Pen and Sword web site., right now.

It is on sale at the Pen and Sword web site., right now.

Looking at a hammock from the side, I can see where that phrase would come to mind as a generally understood description.  They were a lot more familiar with hammocks.

There are reducers for the hoses.
I saved a lot of time and bother dealing with clogged shopvac filters by using an in-line cyclone trap.  The thickness sander generates impressive volumes of dust.  I use it and the tablesaw in the garage.
The work done on the disk sander is more finesse than volume so I use small portable hand vac  (stairs, corners, furniture, type) - a visible chamber for collection rather than a bag.

If the rule for this is not set in the texts that we have, it was likely a situation with fairly loose limits.
For warships, I would take the start of the deadwood as being where I could start a tapper.
The ASA 1870 allows that frames can be farther apart and the space 10% wider for the final 1/5 at either end. This may be a clue as to how the strength requirements for a hull were viewed.   The internal rise of the frames do not allow for as much cargo weight at the final 1/5, fore or aft, so the keel may have been allowed less mass starting there.  The lengths of the keel pieces and the length of the scarphs may hold a clue.  Begin a tapper - after the scarph of the last piece at either end.
 
Unless rich and building an America's Cup racer, I could not imagine expending money on the additional labor cost that a continuous taper would require. It would far exceed any savings on lumber for the keel.

EARLY SHIPS AND SEAFARING - European Water Transport
Author: Professor Sean McGrail
Year: 2014
Publisher: Sword and Pen Books Ltd, Barnsley UK
ISBN: 978 1 78159 392 9
Pages: 183 pages plus index
 
An interesting book which traces the evolution of vessels from the most primitive to the Middle Ages. It takes a particularly archaeological viewpoint, with an emphasis on construction techniques which though very interesting, is of limited use to the ship modeller (except those really into it - to whom I doff my hat) when what we want to know is what did they look like? What were their lines? How did the rig work? Where were the belaying points? (All right, maybe that's asking a bit much . . .)
 
It covers maritime theory at some length - flotation, propulsion - a little offputting so early in the book, but worthy of careful study. 
 
The author deals with two separate regions - the Mediterranean, and Northern Europe - both in the descriptions of the vessels of the time and - very interestingly - the sailing conditions; coastal configuration, weather patterns, currents, prevailing winds etc - which affected both the design of the ships and how they operated - for example why the sailing routes in the Mediterranean tended to be among the islands and coast of the north - they would avoid North Africa because it was a lee shore and almost devoid of landmarks to locate one's position.
 
Pictures are black and white, and one could wish for more of them.
 
Though the book deals very comprehensively with Northern Europe from earliest times to the late 14th century, despite foreshadowing it in the Foreword it doesn't do the same for the Mediterranean. It stops short in Late Roman times and though it covers a few wrecks, misses opportunities it should have taken. Where are the Byzantine period ships? The book was published in 2014 but makes no mention at all of the exciting Byzantine finds from Yenikapi of 2006. Not even the Serce Limani "Glass Wreck" discovered in the 1970s. And no 14th century Mediterranean ships such as the Contarina wreck.
 
It also gives very little attention to the pictorial record - it's very much an archaeological approach, as I mentioned above. I think in this it misses some good opportunities for theoretical reconstructions.
 
All in all, a bit of a "curate's egg" - some parts of it are excellent. Worth a read and it certainly contained information I'm glad of. But it could have been so much better. 
 
 

A progression from here is to forego all of the pre-made parts and scratch build.  Your possibilities increase by a couple or three magnitudes.  The limits here are the available plans.  And if your devotion to historical accuracy has flexible limits, it will be limited by your skill either at a drawing board or a CAD program.  And with a lot of the legacy plans for notorious vessels, the origins and specifics only wink the reality of what they purport to represent.  But, to be fair,  at the time most were produced,  there was not much else available.  Of course,  more than a few kits share this same tenuous attachment to reality.

A progression from here is to forego all of the pre-made parts and scratch build.  Your possibilities increase by a couple or three magnitudes.  The limits here are the available plans.  And if your devotion to historical accuracy has flexible limits, it will be limited by your skill either at a drawing board or a CAD program.  And with a lot of the legacy plans for notorious vessels, the origins and specifics only wink the reality of what they purport to represent.  But, to be fair,  at the time most were produced,  there was not much else available.  Of course,  more than a few kits share this same tenuous attachment to reality.

A progression from here is to forego all of the pre-made parts and scratch build.  Your possibilities increase by a couple or three magnitudes.  The limits here are the available plans.  And if your devotion to historical accuracy has flexible limits, it will be limited by your skill either at a drawing board or a CAD program.  And with a lot of the legacy plans for notorious vessels, the origins and specifics only wink the reality of what they purport to represent.  But, to be fair,  at the time most were produced,  there was not much else available.  Of course,  more than a few kits share this same tenuous attachment to reality.

A progression from here is to forego all of the pre-made parts and scratch build.  Your possibilities increase by a couple or three magnitudes.  The limits here are the available plans.  And if your devotion to historical accuracy has flexible limits, it will be limited by your skill either at a drawing board or a CAD program.  And with a lot of the legacy plans for notorious vessels, the origins and specifics only wink the reality of what they purport to represent.  But, to be fair,  at the time most were produced,  there was not much else available.  Of course,  more than a few kits share this same tenuous attachment to reality.