Jaager

Donna is filling orders for accessories.  I have completed two successful transactions last month.
I bought replicates of the disposable or easily misplaced parts for my collection of Byrnes machines - in case she does go dark.
I bought a      22015                    DIABLO 4 3/8 X 36 ATB TRIM SAW FINISH  BLADE  D0436X                 1         $14.99     from Peachtree  even though I dislike the kerf it takes.
I bought the requisite bushing adapters that Jim made a couple of weeks ago.
 
I think it is has pretty much devolved to Malco for a producer of 3" and 4" blades for thin stock.  The part of their inventory that Model Machines provides is at a reasonable cost and as been filtered to meet our needs.  
If you do not have a few of the arbor bushing adapters for blades with 1" arbors already,  it would be wise to obtain them.
 
Thurston did not survive a generation change.    
Martindale used to be a source, but although I see blades in their site, there is no indication of any of them being in inventory.  I suspect that they are produced on demand - probably for more than we find reasonable.
I keep forgetting the name "Martindale"   so a search on line brought up MSC - a vendor - the the prices!!!!!

I do not think I could cut and apply planks in a way that would match an optimistic subdivision for each plank width for the whole area from the beginning.
 
If I was starting from scratch, I would start with two battens and define three zones.  I may just use one side for both.
It is tricky enough to lay the battens in a way that produces an elegant curve and divides the stem rabbet and stern rabbet with proper room for no drop planks being necessary.  Time spent here at the beginning can save a lot of work and heartache later.  If you were careful to have a symmetrical hull, trying to get the port batten to mirror the starboard batten may be unneeded.  I would pick one side and spot - not bother doing the other one.
 
The garboard would go on first.  The P&S garboard. 
Then I would start at the wale and plank the upper zone P&S - using the same pattern for each strake.
The planking fan is a convenient way subdivide.  Rather than try to make the location for each strake at the start, I would begin anew at each strake.
i.e.:  If the upper zone is 8 strakes, use the fan to define 1/8th for the first strake. Mount it P&S.
Measure the new gap and use the fan to define 1/7th, mount,  measure 1/6th, 1/5th, etc.
The last strake for upper zone could be where any difference P&S can be resolved, or go with matched pairs and fix it later.  It depends on just how different they were.
Next do the bottom zone next to the keel.
The middle zone is where P can be measured and used there and S measured and done there.  Either each strake or just the last one or two.
 
 

Too late, but a stress free and precise way to drill the holes:
For small subjects, temp bond the piece to a base, mark/start the holes with a very sharp awl
and drill the holes with a drill press.
It avoids the twitch problem with free hand drilling as well as doing the hole perpendicular.
I find that the bits want to dance on the surface, and the awl produced pit avoids that.

There is a blade that is used by carpet layers - single edge - about 4" long - a bit stiffer - starts out sharp.  Stripper blade.

Would cold cause the components to contract?
I have a vague memory of an aerosol something that acted like liquid Nitrogen.

It seems like most any tree-like gymnosperm that did not have needles was called Cedar for colloquial communication.
 
We all share have regret of - if I had only known then....    But processing and storing that much wood - let alone having the time to do it   -  at a time in your life when priorities were different. 
 
A recent one for me is the realization that Blue Mold infected Holly is probably more suited for our use than the snow white stock that is sold.   No wood actually used in ship building was white.  The infected wood looks like a sun bleached deck.

It is my postulation that it is that wood does not embrittle over time.  Rather, once it is seasoned and is in equilibrium with its ambient humidity, it is its basic nature that is expressed.
Cedar is just brittle.  It was old when it was cut, so sitting around as processed stock for a long time is not the problem.  Its structure will show the effects of it "breathing" water vapor.  
Wood will swell with 100% relative humidity and shrink in a Death Valley-like dry environment.  Lignin bonds may fail - over time.   It may crack along the grain as it moves under these stresses.
 
As an aside, AYC is not a cedar at all, it is a sort of Cypress.

Except that the waste is two layer "plywood" with some of the layers at 30-45 degrees to each other.  This is difficult to use for anything else.  It could be soaked in IsoOH to separate the layers I guess - but the scrap is irregular in shape and probably not worth in savings what it would take the rescue it.
 
I did not consider the waste per  scale aspect when I framed Kate Cory @1:48, back in 1973.  It is obvious, now that @druxey has pointed it out.  At the time, I would have used the Hahn method anyway.  The alternatives were very complicated.  I used Black Walnut and it was inexpensive and easy to get. 
 
 
The waste of 1:48 is 4 times Hahn @ 1:96
@Gaetan Bordeleau @ 1:24 has 4 times the waste of 1:48   as well as starting with thickness of framing  stock that is 2x 1:48 and 4x Hahn
 
When Hahn introduced his method, it was easier than the methods used then.   The upside down aspect is a choice.  It works just as well if not rotated 180 degrees.   The plywood jig that holds the extension of the tops is easier to mount and is less likely to bow or twist when secured to the baseboard.  The jig wants extensive and precise bracing when hanging in the air.
 

There is a model of Centurion 1732 at the NMM that is also a solid hull that was painted as though it was Navy Board.  
It seems to me that the peak of actual Navy Board was ~1670.  The builders of the +/_ 1740  simulated Navy Board would likely have been 2 or 3 generations after the actual built up style was de rigueur.   The actual shops that built them were long gone?   The actual way to do it lost?   The sponsor was not willing to pay for the additional cost for the built up version?   The suppliers or supplies of the wood stock needed no longer existed?
 
In their Hay Day the framing style of Navy Board models probably reflected an artistic version of then then dominant (or a past and going out of style) of the actual framing of the ships they represented.   By the mid 18th century,  it was replaced by "modern" and "scientific" framing style of bends and filling frames ( with many variations on the theme ) that more or less continued until it was replaced by iron frames. 
Perhaps enough time had passed using the new framing for there to be allowed to develop a sense of nostalgia for the old and long defeated framing style?

As far as RN framing is concerned,  you could always "eat the mushrooms!" and use one of many stylized framing alternatives.  To my eye the actual RN framing  has almost zero artistic merit.  It was purely functional, based on necessity, was not intended to be seen and looks it.
 
The French and North Americans tended to frame using all bends and a minimal number of cant frames if any. 
 
Be very careful with Hermoine.  Especially if you use the individual bend/frame patterns in the monograph.  The author of that monograph often folds in problems in his lines and lofting work.   Fixed with a little or a lot of work - depending on the ship - Hermoine = minor   St. Philippe = major.   There are more attractive French frigates in the ANCRE inventory. 

I am not going to confirm this, but I am reasonably sure that a search of the scratch build forum using the proper key word will turn up several demonstrations in various logs.
 
The price for the shop notes is reasonable and helps support the guild and probably this site,

His presentation in the NRJ is reprinted in:
Ship Modeler's Shop Notes, Vol. I
$3500

Thomas,
Navy Board is a particular style of framing,  It is not what you built.  It is the framing with spaces in line with the timbers and in alternating frames depending on altitude above the keel.   Almost no one builds using this style.  It was dissected and explained in early issues of Model Shipwright and by Robert Bruckshaw -there is a PDF of his out there somewhere. ( Later, there was of course NAVY BOARD SHIP MODELS by John Franklin. )  I explored using it the frame St.Philippe.  The method requires that the floor and F1  be much longer than the actual timbers would have been.  The round up is so much that a wide plank is needed - worse than Hahn.  The very significant waste is not acceptable to me.   The original models had their frames sawn out of large thin boards.  It must have been nice to have Pear and Boxwood stock that was that large.  My guess is that it came from luxury carriage makers.  
 
I did my first framing using Black Walnut also.  I also would not use it again.  The pores are just not right.  I  built it in the attic of a poorly AC house during a Kentucky Summer.  The fingers were continuously stained purple.   It is a beautiful wood to be sure, but it not suited to our needs.
 
Your hull looks spectacular.   Since the term  has no exact meaning, you might as well call it Admiralty style.  Are you going to use full planking above the wale?
 
Personally, I enjoy the curves of open framing below the wale.  I also think the framing above the wale is too ugly to show.   The French ships are not as ugly, because they did not narrow the top timber widths very much if at all.  The narrowing and jogging of RN ship top timbers have all the visual appeal of showing the 2x4 framing of a house.

I guess that what I am sort of  suggesting is that it may prove helpful if
:
Admiralty style had a definitive and commonly agreed upon meaning.
 
The sub section of POF where the hidden internal parts - hooks, riders, knees, temporary rooms, magazines etc. are modeled had a specific name.

Thomas,
 
First, now ANCRE is providing plans with an exposition of the frames at 1:48 and 1:72 of the Sane 74.
At first when I looked at your photo, I was guessing that  your model was a click larger than 1:48 - since your hull is  larger than my framed hull of Commerce de Marseille -  then I remembered that I build at 1:60  and that yours is about twice the 3D size - so 1:48?  Fully masted and in a case - it will be interesting in how much habitat volume it occupies.
 
We seem to have a definition confusion here.   There is no definitive meaning for what is meant by Admiralty.
I used to think it referred  to POF - open frame - 17th century style framing.  But now I use Navy Board framing to define that style.
Then - from use here on the forum - I thought it meant a POF, open frame with no masts or short stubs for them.
With you calling your hull Admiralty,  well - your framing looks to be all bends with ~20% space,  which would match how these 74 were actually built.  But you intend to fully mast it? 
 
I cannot recall a definitive name for the current style of leaving the decks mostly open and most of the usually hidden guts present and most of the upper works outside and inside planking left off.  What was once a virtuoso exercise in fully following a monograph inside as well as outside  seems to have become a sort of standard.   Why that is, has me banging my head to get the water out of my ears.  I wonder if the additional complexity of adding more to a POF than what would be seen if it was a fully planked above the wale  and decked model of a vessel as it actually sailed might frighten off some who would otherwise build POF?

I built Kate Cory using the method.  The scantlings are a minor detail. 
 
Davis used all bends and room= space because that was how large wooden hulls from around 1900 were built and that was where he came from.   It had nothing to do with how wooden hulls were framed before
iron and steel took over and the old ways were lost.  The last 50 years has been a long and difficult rediscovery of the older methods - at least as it applies to ship modeling.
Hahn stood on Davis' shoulders, but he was focused on a narrow slice of time in his subjects to model.  For the ships in his era of interest =If the station intervals are combined with the then current published scantlings - there is very little space between the floors and F1 timbers.  If a hull is framed as built, it would be a solid wall of timber with 1"-2" air gaps between them.  A display of this sort of framing would not be visually interesting and to my eye sort of ugly and pointless.  When compared to early Navy Board style framing the esthetic differences are stark.  Hahn solved this by using Davis style framing - all bends and room= space.  It is just wrong for the period and the over large spaces look like poor dental hygiene.  But that is just my opinion and it counts for nothing.
My point is that the nature of the frame timbers and the spaces is independent of Hahn's upside down method.  The framing came be anything.  I will point out that singleton frames, which rely solely on end grain to end grain bonds are a nightmare as opposed to a bend which is really strong.
 
Now with the Hahn method you are going to waste a lot of expensive wood.  You willing to spot that.  If you PVA bond deadwood at the keel between every frame, the hull will be stronger.  If you intend to plank over everything from the main wale on up, you can PVA bond wood where the space would be and it will be really strong.  If you use a temporary and easily reversible adhesive, wood can be used to fill the spaces.  This makes the hull a solid and it self protects against aggressive  shaping and faring - until the space fillers are removed.
 
Take a look at my Renommee build for an alternative way of frame assembly.  It is about as efficient in wood as it gets. Needs no baseboard or any other sort of support.  Is about 10 times faster to loft if you must do that.  I did not have open framing on Renommee because my purpose with it was to show an alternative to the awful looking POB with all all filling between the molds.  You have to use your imagination to see how spaces would be included.  If and when I post my Centurion log, open framing will be shown as well as a more complete explanation  of the lofting method used.

The max length of a single fiber is the length of the stem of the flax plant that it came from. 
For cotton, it is much much shorter.  But a cotton fiber is much much thinner than a flax fiber.  It is so much smaller than the combed flax fibers - that after being twisted into yarn and then the yarn twisted into thread - is still finer than linen yarn.  Well most of what we can find now is.  But cotton does not usually last a human lifetime.  For its job of protecting a seed, it does not need to last all that long.
 
About some of the other natural fibers could be investigated:
I do not know what the negative factors are with wool.  It is never mentioned as far as I can remember.  It is maybe more labile?  Maybe too thick?  Is it kinked, or spiral? 
Silk is short lived.  Even a hint of chlorine will disintegrate the beta sheet structure.   Thinking of it -  the cocoon that is its job only needs to last for a short time and it does not need to hold anything up.  It mostly needs lateral strength as a shield - not longitudinal strength.  The beta sheet has more lateral flex than an alpha helix?
If I remember correctly - both wool and silk are proteins?  Animals do not synthesize cellulose?  Animals polymerize proteins and plants polymerize sugars?
 
Hemp - I have never encountered hemp yarn.  I suspect that the fibers could be 6-8 times longer than flax fibers.  The plants are about that much different in height.  Getting the fibers isolated, oriented, and processed may be more work than it is worth.  I wonder if its lignin is more resistant to being fermented, or rotted than the lignin glue in flax?
 

I am going to guess out loud as to what those with experience are going to suggest:
 
Bowsprit:  I can see no way that the heel of the spar could securely rest on the deck.  Cutting the long acute angle would be difficult, but mainly the forces on it would drive it aft along the deck.
It probably would butt against a substantial vertical timber below the deck beams or a horizontal timber that was fixed to two vertical timbers.  There would have to be caulking at the decking to avoid having the space under the forecastle be a near constant shower room.  
 
Red stripe - at first i thought that the red should be first.  Then, I suspect that white over color would be more difficult than color over white, so I see white first. Mask and paint red. Then mask and paint green. If you were starting from scratch. 
 

The max length of a single fiber is the length of the stem of the flax plant that it came from. 
For cotton, it is much much shorter.  But a cotton fiber is much much thinner than a flax fiber.  It is so much smaller than the combed flax fibers - that after being twisted into yarn and then the yarn twisted into thread - is still finer than linen yarn.  Well most of what we can find now is.  But cotton does not usually last a human lifetime.  For its job of protecting a seed, it does not need to last all that long.
 
About some of the other natural fibers could be investigated:
I do not know what the negative factors are with wool.  It is never mentioned as far as I can remember.  It is maybe more labile?  Maybe too thick?  Is it kinked, or spiral? 
Silk is short lived.  Even a hint of chlorine will disintegrate the beta sheet structure.   Thinking of it -  the cocoon that is its job only needs to last for a short time and it does not need to hold anything up.  It mostly needs lateral strength as a shield - not longitudinal strength.  The beta sheet has more lateral flex than an alpha helix?
If I remember correctly - both wool and silk are proteins?  Animals do not synthesize cellulose?  Animals polymerize proteins and plants polymerize sugars?
 
Hemp - I have never encountered hemp yarn.  I suspect that the fibers could be 6-8 times longer than flax fibers.  The plants are about that much different in height.  Getting the fibers isolated, oriented, and processed may be more work than it is worth.  I wonder if its lignin is more resistant to being fermented, or rotted than the lignin glue in flax?
 

Just to kabitz about personal philosophy:
 
Since you are not using linen,  I think that any starting material that you can source will be a thread.
The prototype rope was turned up using a single thread  for each of the 3 or 4 lines being twisted
At scale, using more than one will not produce something that looks like scale rope.  It will be twine - sorta ugly.
 
Over a short range, a variety of diameters can be had by using thicker starting thread.
Linen comes as  (picking a number to make it easier to write - I have 10 Lea to 62 Lea so I could pick any number.)   40   and 40/2 .   The 40 is one 40 Lea yarn.  The 40/2 is two 40 Lea yarns twisted together.  The twist is tight enough to make it look like a single line.
Your photo #2  pair would need to be twist into a single before it is strung like that.
Your photo #3  trios  would need to be actual 3 strand scale rope before you strung it.
Your photo #4 quartets would need to be 4 strand scale rope as starting material .
 
The twist of the starting material determines the rotation for the rope being made.  Use the wrong rotation and the starting material unravels.
 
I have no suggestion for a machine.  I wanted a mile long stock, so I bought a Byrnes rope walk.  I have not (well back when I was practicing) figured out the correct angles to get the scale twist of an actual rope.  It also generates forces that break the linen yarns that are really fine - usually where a stem inclusion gets past the comb during its twist up.  The Baltic stuff is even less well combed.
 
Anything synthetic is against my personal rules, but my rules are only for me.

Just to kabitz about personal philosophy:
 
Since you are not using linen,  I think that any starting material that you can source will be a thread.
The prototype rope was turned up using a single thread  for each of the 3 or 4 lines being twisted
At scale, using more than one will not produce something that looks like scale rope.  It will be twine - sorta ugly.
 
Over a short range, a variety of diameters can be had by using thicker starting thread.
Linen comes as  (picking a number to make it easier to write - I have 10 Lea to 62 Lea so I could pick any number.)   40   and 40/2 .   The 40 is one 40 Lea yarn.  The 40/2 is two 40 Lea yarns twisted together.  The twist is tight enough to make it look like a single line.
Your photo #2  pair would need to be twist into a single before it is strung like that.
Your photo #3  trios  would need to be actual 3 strand scale rope before you strung it.
Your photo #4 quartets would need to be 4 strand scale rope as starting material .
 
The twist of the starting material determines the rotation for the rope being made.  Use the wrong rotation and the starting material unravels.
 
I have no suggestion for a machine.  I wanted a mile long stock, so I bought a Byrnes rope walk.  I have not (well back when I was practicing) figured out the correct angles to get the scale twist of an actual rope.  It also generates forces that break the linen yarns that are really fine - usually where a stem inclusion gets past the comb during its twist up.  The Baltic stuff is even less well combed.
 
Anything synthetic is against my personal rules, but my rules are only for me.

Just to kabitz about personal philosophy:
 
Since you are not using linen,  I think that any starting material that you can source will be a thread.
The prototype rope was turned up using a single thread  for each of the 3 or 4 lines being twisted
At scale, using more than one will not produce something that looks like scale rope.  It will be twine - sorta ugly.
 
Over a short range, a variety of diameters can be had by using thicker starting thread.
Linen comes as  (picking a number to make it easier to write - I have 10 Lea to 62 Lea so I could pick any number.)   40   and 40/2 .   The 40 is one 40 Lea yarn.  The 40/2 is two 40 Lea yarns twisted together.  The twist is tight enough to make it look like a single line.
Your photo #2  pair would need to be twist into a single before it is strung like that.
Your photo #3  trios  would need to be actual 3 strand scale rope before you strung it.
Your photo #4 quartets would need to be 4 strand scale rope as starting material .
 
The twist of the starting material determines the rotation for the rope being made.  Use the wrong rotation and the starting material unravels.
 
I have no suggestion for a machine.  I wanted a mile long stock, so I bought a Byrnes rope walk.  I have not (well back when I was practicing) figured out the correct angles to get the scale twist of an actual rope.  It also generates forces that break the linen yarns that are really fine - usually where a stem inclusion gets past the comb during its twist up.  The Baltic stuff is even less well combed.
 
Anything synthetic is against my personal rules, but my rules are only for me.

Just to kabitz about personal philosophy:
 
Since you are not using linen,  I think that any starting material that you can source will be a thread.
The prototype rope was turned up using a single thread  for each of the 3 or 4 lines being twisted
At scale, using more than one will not produce something that looks like scale rope.  It will be twine - sorta ugly.
 
Over a short range, a variety of diameters can be had by using thicker starting thread.
Linen comes as  (picking a number to make it easier to write - I have 10 Lea to 62 Lea so I could pick any number.)   40   and 40/2 .   The 40 is one 40 Lea yarn.  The 40/2 is two 40 Lea yarns twisted together.  The twist is tight enough to make it look like a single line.
Your photo #2  pair would need to be twist into a single before it is strung like that.
Your photo #3  trios  would need to be actual 3 strand scale rope before you strung it.
Your photo #4 quartets would need to be 4 strand scale rope as starting material .
 
The twist of the starting material determines the rotation for the rope being made.  Use the wrong rotation and the starting material unravels.
 
I have no suggestion for a machine.  I wanted a mile long stock, so I bought a Byrnes rope walk.  I have not (well back when I was practicing) figured out the correct angles to get the scale twist of an actual rope.  It also generates forces that break the linen yarns that are really fine - usually where a stem inclusion gets past the comb during its twist up.  The Baltic stuff is even less well combed.
 
Anything synthetic is against my personal rules, but my rules are only for me.

I am going to guess out loud as to what those with experience are going to suggest:
 
Bowsprit:  I can see no way that the heel of the spar could securely rest on the deck.  Cutting the long acute angle would be difficult, but mainly the forces on it would drive it aft along the deck.
It probably would butt against a substantial vertical timber below the deck beams or a horizontal timber that was fixed to two vertical timbers.  There would have to be caulking at the decking to avoid having the space under the forecastle be a near constant shower room.  
 
Red stripe - at first i thought that the red should be first.  Then, I suspect that white over color would be more difficult than color over white, so I see white first. Mask and paint red. Then mask and paint green. If you were starting from scratch. 
 

Would cold cause the components to contract?
I have a vague memory of an aerosol something that acted like liquid Nitrogen.