Jaager

I have an old Model Boats #2 catalog - English  and from 1970 or earlier.   It features plans for pond boats and other adaptations of sailing  ships for actual use in water.  The point and take home lesson from it is that the physics and physical properties of water do not scale.   In order to sail and not turn turtle,  the hulls have to be adapted to a different shape.  It looks like the hulls are much deeper below the waterline and may also have more beam, than the prototype.   It does not look like the adaptations are much like a scaled down version of the original below the waterline.   I suspect that there is serious engineering design, rules, and principles involved in this sort of adaptation.
 
I well may be wrong about this,  but there may be more to this than simply scaling the hull of a scale model.

The only way I can see that there can be 5 numbers in a four butt shift is if the four refers to the number of planks between two planks having their butt on the same beam.  The repeating sequence actually involves five planks.
The first picture above,  numbering from the top down =  Beam 1 - beam 3 -  beam 5 - beam 2 - beam 4
 
The second, top down =  beam 1 - beam 4 - beam 2 - beam 3
 
 The American "Lloyds"  ASA 1870   " No butts of adjoining plank should be nearer each other than the space of two beams ( when a stake intervenes the distance of one beam will be allowed).  No butts should meet on the same beam unless there be three stakes between them."
The second picture fails that rule.

A light colored vinyl tile flooring, that is peel and stick should be quick, easy for rolling stools and machine stands,  and give a better chance of recovering dropped or jumping parts,  as well as helping with the lighting.  Wet swabbing or a ruff leak - a blue million seams would not be good for the subfloor.
By using Liquid Nails, it seems that you do not share Moriarty's philosophy  of having a reverse gear faster than the forward gears.

strakes #3 and #4 butts are on adjacent beams.

The only way I can see that there can be 5 numbers in a four butt shift is if the four refers to the number of planks between two planks having their butt on the same beam.  The repeating sequence actually involves five planks.
The first picture above,  numbering from the top down =  Beam 1 - beam 3 -  beam 5 - beam 2 - beam 4
 
The second, top down =  beam 1 - beam 4 - beam 2 - beam 3
 
 The American "Lloyds"  ASA 1870   " No butts of adjoining plank should be nearer each other than the space of two beams ( when a stake intervenes the distance of one beam will be allowed).  No butts should meet on the same beam unless there be three stakes between them."
The second picture fails that rule.

The satin finish or matte is because of scale effect.  What is gloss in RL, is not when viewed 50-100 times farther away.
Pore filling implies that the wood supplied actually has pores.  The ideal species of wood used for a ship model should have pores that are too small to be noticed.
Varnish is a verb as well as a noun and a specific type of product.  As a verb it covers any sort of clear finish. 
If you did not have to deal with pesky pores, the traditional, most forgiving, most compatible with other coatings or paints, has the least problem with out of scale buildup, not at all toxic  -  is shellac.  It comes premixed or as flakes.  The flakes offer near water clear to garnet, depending on the type chosen.
Mask any areas where deck houses, bitts, hatch coaming  (the spell checker here - a database with nautical words, and suggestions would be helpful).
A sand n' sealer would fill the pores, but it is also way out of scale thick when dry.
Check for fine finishing on up scale furniture methods,  but maybe mixing plaster of paris with half strength shellac, scraping the surface when dry, and applying full size shellac over that.
 
A significant segment here subscribes to the better living thru chemistry and "modern" synthetics and plastic polymer products.  Some of us are dinosaurs, who prefer more traditional materials.
 

The satin finish or matte is because of scale effect.  What is gloss in RL, is not when viewed 50-100 times farther away.
Pore filling implies that the wood supplied actually has pores.  The ideal species of wood used for a ship model should have pores that are too small to be noticed.
Varnish is a verb as well as a noun and a specific type of product.  As a verb it covers any sort of clear finish. 
If you did not have to deal with pesky pores, the traditional, most forgiving, most compatible with other coatings or paints, has the least problem with out of scale buildup, not at all toxic  -  is shellac.  It comes premixed or as flakes.  The flakes offer near water clear to garnet, depending on the type chosen.
Mask any areas where deck houses, bitts, hatch coaming  (the spell checker here - a database with nautical words, and suggestions would be helpful).
A sand n' sealer would fill the pores, but it is also way out of scale thick when dry.
Check for fine finishing on up scale furniture methods,  but maybe mixing plaster of paris with half strength shellac, scraping the surface when dry, and applying full size shellac over that.
 
A significant segment here subscribes to the better living thru chemistry and "modern" synthetics and plastic polymer products.  Some of us are dinosaurs, who prefer more traditional materials.
 

Paul,
Answering this quick and dirty:
 

Paul,
Answering this quick and dirty:
 

The satin finish or matte is because of scale effect.  What is gloss in RL, is not when viewed 50-100 times farther away.
Pore filling implies that the wood supplied actually has pores.  The ideal species of wood used for a ship model should have pores that are too small to be noticed.
Varnish is a verb as well as a noun and a specific type of product.  As a verb it covers any sort of clear finish. 
If you did not have to deal with pesky pores, the traditional, most forgiving, most compatible with other coatings or paints, has the least problem with out of scale buildup, not at all toxic  -  is shellac.  It comes premixed or as flakes.  The flakes offer near water clear to garnet, depending on the type chosen.
Mask any areas where deck houses, bitts, hatch coaming  (the spell checker here - a database with nautical words, and suggestions would be helpful).
A sand n' sealer would fill the pores, but it is also way out of scale thick when dry.
Check for fine finishing on up scale furniture methods,  but maybe mixing plaster of paris with half strength shellac, scraping the surface when dry, and applying full size shellac over that.
 
A significant segment here subscribes to the better living thru chemistry and "modern" synthetics and plastic polymer products.  Some of us are dinosaurs, who prefer more traditional materials.
 

Paul,
Answering this quick and dirty:
 

In a word, "No." 
 
I'm sure the last thing anyone would ever want to do on this forum is dampen the enthusiasm of a beginning modeler. Unfortunately, it sometimes happens that in an effort to avoid doing so, beginners are misled. This is particularly so when their hearts are set on building a gold leaf encrusted gingerbread confection from the Seventeenth Century that an experienced modeler would consider a significant challenge. The responses to their ambitions usually include circumspect advice such as, "You may want to start with a less complicated kit." (Let alone a less complicated scratch-build!) Thereafter, they taper off, leaving the beginning modeler to run hard aground upon the rocky shores of Reality and their enthusiasm for modeling drowned for all eternity. It's not my intention to rain on your parade, but I do believe you deserve some honest and direct answers to your question.
 
1.     San Felipe is a very complex model to build from a kit. Building such a model from scratch is exponentially more complex. What you are contemplating involves years of dedicated craftsmanship of the highest caliber. You may well be capable of that, but it will take you quite some time to acquire those skills and much practice, not to mention money, which may or may not be a consideration for you. The kit costs in the neighborhood of $600 and that's just for the wooden parts. The metal castings set costs an additional $350 or so. If you plan to scratch-build the model, you will have to mill much of your own wood. You will have to turn those hundreds of balusters for the railings on a lathe, each identical to the other. You will have to hand-carve all the intricate carvings that are all over this model. You will have to make the patterns and molds to cast all of the metal castings and you will have to fabricate all the other metal parts from bits of wire and sheet metal silver soldered together and then "blackened" with chemicals. You will have to make your own rigging line in several different scale sizes. If you want the model to actually be capable of sailing in water, you will have to sew your own scale sails, design your own radio control system, and engineer the model to be properly balanced (probably with an auxiliary ballast keel) and decide how to make it watertight and impervious to water damage. (A working model must be much more robustly built than a static model.)
 
2.     The Panart plans are drawn to 1:75 scale, which is itself a somewhat unusual scale here in the States. You propose to double the size of the model, which would mean building to the scale of 1:34.5 scale, which is even more unusual. I'd hazard the guess that there are no fittings or blocks sold anywhere in that exact scale. Your enlarged double-size plans will not contain the details which were impossible to include at the smaller scale. (Sort of like a painting by a near-sighted artist!) You will have to research, identify, and add those details yourself. At the scale you contemplate, you will indeed be doing a total scratch-build because you won't be able to buy ready-made parts in your scale. This means, for instance, that you will have to fabricate some 100 or so cannon. If you want them made of metal, you will have to do that on a metal lathe, or make patterns and molds and cast them yourself. Keep in mind as well that, generally, even the best plans require a considerable amount of knowledge about shipbuilding and rigging to interpret, as so many of the posts in this forum indicate. You will have the forum as a resource, but you must expect that you will encounter errors and omissions in any set of plans that you will have to recognize, correct, and supplement. As for enlarging plans using grid paper, don't even go there. Accurate scale enlargements can be done with specialized engineering drawing copy machines. Otherwise, you will have to redraw the plans yourself, or at least parts of them, using either the skills and instruments of manual drafting or one of the more sophisticated CAD drawing programs... after you've learned to use them. (A skill I've not yet mastered. I'm an old fashioned drawing board jockey.)
 
3.     The model you contemplate will require a huge amount of space to display. Certainly more than the average home can afford. If your model is twice the size of the Panart plans, it will be about 76" long. For a model that size, allow three or four inches all around for "space in the case." (It will require a case for display if it is to survive for any length of time without damage. More than one great model has come to grief from the family cat or the cleaning lady's feather duster!) That comes to a case that's seven feet long. I'm unsure of the other dimensions, but lets estimate those at five feet high and three feet wide. Now take some sticks and a hot glue stick gun and throw together a framed box that's 7'x5'x3' and see how much room it will take up, wherever you plan to put it. Make sure, too, that you are able to even get it inside of a normal room! If you plan to put it in the water, you will have to come up with some sort of trailer to tow and launch it, as well. See where I'm going with this? I could have said, "Gee, that sounds neat!" and gone on to the next post, but would that have been at all helpful to you, really?
 
4.    You will need to invest considerable money into specialized tools. There are those who will point out that many of the great models in museums were made with little more than sailors' pen knives and to a certain extent that is true. In reality, though, if one intends to scratch-build with any degree of accuracy and efficiency, they must acquire a collection of sometimes expensive tools. You will need a micro-table saw, a good quality scroll saw and some sort of mini-lathe. You'll need jewelers' metal working tools. A rope making machine. A rotary tool ("Dermel") and perhaps a drill press. You'll almost certainly have a lot of use for a stationary disk sander and will probably end up wanting a thickness sander, as well. Of course, you'll have to add some tools you've made for yourself along the way because they can't be bought anywhere, and a lot of hand tools. Most of us started with a few tools and buy more as we go along when the need arises. It can add up to a fair bit of change. Even a modest fully-equipped workshop for the sort of serious scratch-building you contemplate will set you back three or four thousand dollars. On the other hand, scratch-building costs relatively little in materials and three or four scratch-built models quickly make up the cost of tools in savings over kits costing hundreds of dollars and quality tools always have a decent resale value if you ever decide you don't need them anymore.
 
So, this is why you hear experienced modelers suggesting you "consider a smaller, simpler model for your first build." My guess would be that maybe one out of ten ship model kits ever get finished because the builders are overwhelmed by them. The pictures on the boxes look great, but they don't tell you how much hard effort lies ahead when you buy the box!
 
Now, most of the modelers on this forum are crusty old curmudgeons of the male persuasion. Modeling takes a lot of time and many defer it until retirement allows them to time to really concentrate on it. Women ship modelers are rather rare, but, perhaps not surprisingly, some of the best of the best were and are women, a phenomenon that may inure to your benefit. There are two women modelers active in this forum whose work you really should study thoroughly and who you should endeavor to connect with and perhaps even convince to mentor you. 
 
One is "newbuilder 101," an understatement to be sure! Sherry is an accomplished miniaturist modeling in many subjects, not only ships. About seven years ago, she began her build log for her first scratch-built ship, that being the same San Felipe that has caught your eye. She also is using the Panart plans you've mentioned and she scaled those plans down to 1:96 (1/4"=1') so she could display the finished model in her home. In her case, tackling a complex model like this for her first scratch-built ship model was well within her skill set, since she had been scratch-building models of all sorts of other subjects for many years. Her work is "finestkind." Sherry is still working on her San Felipe now seven years later, although, as do many modelers, she's taken a break from it now and again for a change of pace, such as building a violin for her daughter! Check out her build log at 
Read Sherry's log carefully to get a sense of what is involved in exactly the same build you are thinking about, albeit at a bit smaller scale. You will learn much. I'm sure if you send her a PM through the forum, she will be happy to answer any questions you have and get you started in the right direction. That probably won't be building a six foot long sailing model right off the bat, but if you listen and learn, I'll bet whatever you do build will be much better for it.
 
The other woman modeler you really ought to "go to school on" is Doris, a school teacher from the Czech Republic. Like Sherry, for the last seven or eight years, Doris has been chronicling her work on her model of the Royal Catherine in 1:40 scale, another "gingerbread fantasy" from the Eighteenth Century. Doris' work is beyond description. She is probably one of the foremost card stock scratch-modelers of ornate period ships in the world today. Doris builds "card stock" models of cardboard and paper, a medium more popular in Eastern Europe than in Western Europe and the Americas and only now becoming more popular here. Notably, this medium requires a lot less in terms of tools and a workshop, but different skills. She creates the carvings for her intricately decorated models from plastic clay (what we call Femo) and achieves amazing realism with this material. Her build log is most entertaining and she gives great explanations of her techniques. (I suppose that's because she's a teacher by profession!) You can find her build log at: 
 
Royal Catherine is a similar model to San Felipe in terms of its ornate decoration and general design, although not a "galleon" and built fifty years after San Felipe. Also unlike San Felipe, whose very existence is a matter of some historical controversy, Great Catherine came at a time for which we have much better historical records and we have a much more extensive documentation of her actual appearance and details. Whether or not you find any interest in working in "card" and Femo, you'll certainly learn a lot from Doris' posts and get a good understanding of what it takes to build a highly decorated model from scratch. Doris' is fluent in English and she always seems open to responding to inquiries about her work, although she is so popular and followed by so many throughout the world that she sometimes has to turn off her computer to get any modeling work done! I'm sure you will find her a delightful inspiration as have so many others.
 
One thing that's not mentioned much, particularly by kit manufacturers trying to sell their wares, is that building a model takes as much time doing the research as it does doing the building. A kit provides you with the research already done, such as it may be. Some kits are well-researched and accurate. Some are not. Whether it be a kit or a scratch-built model, all good modelers "build the model in their heads," sometimes several times over, often keeping journals and sketch books, before they ever "lay the keel." This is a very satisfying activity in itself, but it also makes the construction of the model much more efficient and trouble free. You can very easily "paint yourself into a corner" building a model if you don't have it all well planned out ahead of time. Working on your Golden Hind will give you good experience in how and why things are done the way they are. Don't be too eager to start building before you've "done your homework." Read every build log on the forum by people who have built the Golden Hind. Learn from their mistakes and problems solved. You'll be glad you did.
 
So, that's all I have to say in response to your question, "Does this sound like a good approach?" Good luck with your build! And remember, when the going gets tough, "Don't give up the ship!"

Paul,
Answering this quick and dirty:
 

Way back when an IBM XT was cutting edge, there was an excellent program = Word Perfect  that could search a document for all instances of a selected word.  This sort of program has become more sophisticated and capable and OCR has also.  In the posts where old school draftsmen are discussing a lost job type,  I am musing that there may have been specialists, no longer needed,  who assembled the index for technical books and articles.  Were I an author, I am pretty sure it would be a deal breaker if I was required to formulate an index for my own work pre computer.

Paul,
Answering this quick and dirty:
 

My personal bias:
Contact cement is really terrible for anything on a ship model.  It tends to oxidize and fail in a decades time line.  You get one shot at placement, no fine adjustment possible.
Duco is not a good choice and fails any serious strength test.
Hide glue I have not tried it, but really old school is hide glue flakes melted in a glue pot.  Messy and time consuming, but it should last a couple hundred years.  I tried Franklin liquid hide glue as a reversible wood to wood bond - it held too strongly for my purposes.  Old Brown Glue is said to be a better choice,  but this type is probably too aqueous to play nice with wood.  The pot type has a lot less water.
CA,  some love it and a lot of us moldy figs really hate it and do not touch it.
Epoxy,  the thing to use for metal to wood,  but too messy and ugly for wood to wood.
PVA  - the go to for wood to wood.  The closer the two surfaces, the stronger the bond.  It comes white (dries clear), yellow ( aliphatic ) dries amber and has partial to complete water resistance -depending on the formula used.  It also comes white pH7 - bookbinders strictly for rigging done using natural fibers.   If you coat both surfaces with PVA, let it dry, put the two surfaces together and iron it, the heat allows a bond.  It is a contact cement of sorts. I doubt that the strength is anything like a wet PVA bond.  A proper PVA bond is stronger than the lignin that holds the wood fibers together.
Foaming type would be awful to mess with.
Resorcinol glue is the thing if you are building a full size PT boat,  not worth the trouble on a model.
 
Your bonding - PVA and clamping or weight.  East coast US,  what with the humidity, I prefer Titebond II.

A vessel with the name Flying Fish is the subject of at least two kits.  Since you name 3 masts, it is likely that you have the Model Shipways clipper, 1/96 scale.  The other is a Grand Banks two masted fishing schooner.  Another, but not a kit is USS Flying Fish, a NY pilot schooner,  a tender for the U.S. Ex. Ex. squadron, sold at Hong Kong as rotten, repaired, renamed (Spec) and was a notorious opium smuggler, that out sailed most everything that chased her.
 
For the clipper:

The data

from which has a copy at Amazon -right now - it has all of the particulars needed for the spars
 
 

My personal bias:
Contact cement is really terrible for anything on a ship model.  It tends to oxidize and fail in a decades time line.  You get one shot at placement, no fine adjustment possible.
Duco is not a good choice and fails any serious strength test.
Hide glue I have not tried it, but really old school is hide glue flakes melted in a glue pot.  Messy and time consuming, but it should last a couple hundred years.  I tried Franklin liquid hide glue as a reversible wood to wood bond - it held too strongly for my purposes.  Old Brown Glue is said to be a better choice,  but this type is probably too aqueous to play nice with wood.  The pot type has a lot less water.
CA,  some love it and a lot of us moldy figs really hate it and do not touch it.
Epoxy,  the thing to use for metal to wood,  but too messy and ugly for wood to wood.
PVA  - the go to for wood to wood.  The closer the two surfaces, the stronger the bond.  It comes white (dries clear), yellow ( aliphatic ) dries amber and has partial to complete water resistance -depending on the formula used.  It also comes white pH7 - bookbinders strictly for rigging done using natural fibers.   If you coat both surfaces with PVA, let it dry, put the two surfaces together and iron it, the heat allows a bond.  It is a contact cement of sorts. I doubt that the strength is anything like a wet PVA bond.  A proper PVA bond is stronger than the lignin that holds the wood fibers together.
Foaming type would be awful to mess with.
Resorcinol glue is the thing if you are building a full size PT boat,  not worth the trouble on a model.
 
Your bonding - PVA and clamping or weight.  East coast US,  what with the humidity, I prefer Titebond II.

Also,  search the name rwiederrich   in the scratch build forum.  Excellent exposition of 1/96 masting and rigging on 1850's clippers at 1:96 - a scale that gets into miniature territory, where art competes with technical.
 

I am not sure that Holly has a pith that is a bother.  I am guessing that it is as hard as the rest of the wood, or it will pop up as you do your final slices and you can discard it then.
With your thinner billets, I am guessing that the physics of drying will have any checking go in the thin direction.   But a disaster if it is otherwise.
If you took a quarter sawn slice that is the diameter of the log, with the pith in the center and in the middle, your ambition to have a wide board may be thwarted if it cups as it drys.
No definitive answer here. You pays your money and takes your chances.

My personal bias:
Contact cement is really terrible for anything on a ship model.  It tends to oxidize and fail in a decades time line.  You get one shot at placement, no fine adjustment possible.
Duco is not a good choice and fails any serious strength test.
Hide glue I have not tried it, but really old school is hide glue flakes melted in a glue pot.  Messy and time consuming, but it should last a couple hundred years.  I tried Franklin liquid hide glue as a reversible wood to wood bond - it held too strongly for my purposes.  Old Brown Glue is said to be a better choice,  but this type is probably too aqueous to play nice with wood.  The pot type has a lot less water.
CA,  some love it and a lot of us moldy figs really hate it and do not touch it.
Epoxy,  the thing to use for metal to wood,  but too messy and ugly for wood to wood.
PVA  - the go to for wood to wood.  The closer the two surfaces, the stronger the bond.  It comes white (dries clear), yellow ( aliphatic ) dries amber and has partial to complete water resistance -depending on the formula used.  It also comes white pH7 - bookbinders strictly for rigging done using natural fibers.   If you coat both surfaces with PVA, let it dry, put the two surfaces together and iron it, the heat allows a bond.  It is a contact cement of sorts. I doubt that the strength is anything like a wet PVA bond.  A proper PVA bond is stronger than the lignin that holds the wood fibers together.
Foaming type would be awful to mess with.
Resorcinol glue is the thing if you are building a full size PT boat,  not worth the trouble on a model.
 
Your bonding - PVA and clamping or weight.  East coast US,  what with the humidity, I prefer Titebond II.

My personal bias:
Contact cement is really terrible for anything on a ship model.  It tends to oxidize and fail in a decades time line.  You get one shot at placement, no fine adjustment possible.
Duco is not a good choice and fails any serious strength test.
Hide glue I have not tried it, but really old school is hide glue flakes melted in a glue pot.  Messy and time consuming, but it should last a couple hundred years.  I tried Franklin liquid hide glue as a reversible wood to wood bond - it held too strongly for my purposes.  Old Brown Glue is said to be a better choice,  but this type is probably too aqueous to play nice with wood.  The pot type has a lot less water.
CA,  some love it and a lot of us moldy figs really hate it and do not touch it.
Epoxy,  the thing to use for metal to wood,  but too messy and ugly for wood to wood.
PVA  - the go to for wood to wood.  The closer the two surfaces, the stronger the bond.  It comes white (dries clear), yellow ( aliphatic ) dries amber and has partial to complete water resistance -depending on the formula used.  It also comes white pH7 - bookbinders strictly for rigging done using natural fibers.   If you coat both surfaces with PVA, let it dry, put the two surfaces together and iron it, the heat allows a bond.  It is a contact cement of sorts. I doubt that the strength is anything like a wet PVA bond.  A proper PVA bond is stronger than the lignin that holds the wood fibers together.
Foaming type would be awful to mess with.
Resorcinol glue is the thing if you are building a full size PT boat,  not worth the trouble on a model.
 
Your bonding - PVA and clamping or weight.  East coast US,  what with the humidity, I prefer Titebond II.

A vessel with the name Flying Fish is the subject of at least two kits.  Since you name 3 masts, it is likely that you have the Model Shipways clipper, 1/96 scale.  The other is a Grand Banks two masted fishing schooner.  Another, but not a kit is USS Flying Fish, a NY pilot schooner,  a tender for the U.S. Ex. Ex. squadron, sold at Hong Kong as rotten, repaired, renamed (Spec) and was a notorious opium smuggler, that out sailed most everything that chased her.
 
For the clipper:

The data

from which has a copy at Amazon -right now - it has all of the particulars needed for the spars
 
 

A vessel with the name Flying Fish is the subject of at least two kits.  Since you name 3 masts, it is likely that you have the Model Shipways clipper, 1/96 scale.  The other is a Grand Banks two masted fishing schooner.  Another, but not a kit is USS Flying Fish, a NY pilot schooner,  a tender for the U.S. Ex. Ex. squadron, sold at Hong Kong as rotten, repaired, renamed (Spec) and was a notorious opium smuggler, that out sailed most everything that chased her.
 
For the clipper:

The data

from which has a copy at Amazon -right now - it has all of the particulars needed for the spars
 
 

A vessel with the name Flying Fish is the subject of at least two kits.  Since you name 3 masts, it is likely that you have the Model Shipways clipper, 1/96 scale.  The other is a Grand Banks two masted fishing schooner.  Another, but not a kit is USS Flying Fish, a NY pilot schooner,  a tender for the U.S. Ex. Ex. squadron, sold at Hong Kong as rotten, repaired, renamed (Spec) and was a notorious opium smuggler, that out sailed most everything that chased her.
 
For the clipper:

The data

from which has a copy at Amazon -right now - it has all of the particulars needed for the spars