Jaager

The Atlantic Ocean is an interference for my direct knowledge of this, but I think that the English call several species of Pine: "fir".   I think their "fir built" brigs were actually built using Baltic obtained Pine species.
 
Here in North America,  there is a wide variety of properties from our many Pine species.  Eastern White Pine is very light colored, clear, soft, and a joy to work,  but I would not think it suitable for a full size vessel.
There once was a yellow Pine that could be hard enough to turn nails.  I think it was used for decking in the 19th century - and much else because it was loved to death. 
 
One possible scenario: In a war emergency,  when durability is not a goal, various species of Pine were probably readily available in large size, easy to mill, and maybe the sap could be anti fungal enough to make up for the lack of seasoning.  It would be a warship version of Kleenex with the additional advantage of being useless to the English if they captured one.

The ASA ( now ABS ) published their first set of rules in 1870.  They came into existence in 1862.  Their initial focus was the qualifications of ship captains.  I would be more than surprised if their rules were not a direct swipe from Lloyd's of London, who have been doing this since the middle of the 17th C. 
We do not have a problem with getting timber that is long enough.  Using planks that are longer than 40 feet - southern US coastal Pine was tall and straight - until they cut it all down  - and before 1775 the RN could use it also -  anyway - longer than 40 feet in scale is a more common mistake.  
Why not use 40 feet as the length, and a proper 4 strake pattern?  
It would be best practice for any country.  It would be what they did if they could or were not running a con.   The strength of wood when exposed to the force of the sea is not subject to a national fashion or the century.  When larger wooden hulls were first being developed,  they learned pretty quickly when they got it wrong.  The sea does not forgive foolish mistakes.

A picture of what part has been damaged would allow for more creative suggestions.
There is nothing magic about any wood.  We all have our favorite species, but most of us who do are scratch builders or kit builders who are painting with wood.
I was imagining the pseudo deck beam portion of a typical mold as being the part.  The hull shape being acceptable and the beam being abraded too much.  In that case, it would be covered by the deck, so how it looks would be irrelevant.
 
Even clear Pine would work.
For a one off plywood replacement, you could use what is about the best quality plywood available = aircraft plywood from a hobby store.  In bulk, it is expensive.  For spot work, the expense is not significant.   With a variety of thicknesses, a sum of what is available can get you where you want to be.
 
An advantage of wooden ship models is that all of the parts are easily replaced by other wood.  Unlike synthetic plastics,  it grows in trees.  The kit mfg is just supplying an easy path.  With a bit more work, any of it can be placed by material that is right at hand.  A beginner just lacks the tools and experience to do this.  Unless you reside on an asteroid, there is probably someone nearby who does have the tools and experience to help you with general woodworking.

Is it possible that sturdy hardwood planks be scabbed on either side of each plywood "beam"?

All you really need to know about shellac is that it is an organic resinous material that dries hard and is soluble in alcohol. It comes in a range of shades from clear ("white shellac,") which is bleached, and shades of orange through dark brown. It is most easily bought premixed in pint or quart cans. It can be thinned as needed. Mixed shellac is designated by the "cut" expressed in pounds, that being one pound of shellac flakes to one gallon of alcohol is a  '"one pound cut." It's safe and easy to use. Out of the can, it is the consistency of water and will soak into bare wood as water would and dry with a flat finish. Additional coats will build in thickness and yield a glossy finish which can be hand-rubbed down with fine sandpaper, steel wool, or a Scotch-brite pad to knock the gloss off.
 
Any alcohol-soluble dye, stain, or coloring can be added to shellac. Given that alcohol mixes well with water, I'd expect even water colors might work to color the alcohol. To give you an idea of how shellac behaves with coloring additives, India ink is simply thin shellac with lamp black or some other black pigment added. 
 
If I were you, I'd experiment before putting colored shellac on a finished model, of course, but I'd also consider applying a stain or dye to the bare wood first and then to apply clear shellac over it, rather than trying to get the color into the shellac first.
 

It appears that Witsen had  more reasons than being an interested academic (either of his books would be more than adequate to serve as a dissertation).
 
I propose that there is a basic problem with the validity of the product.  In the actual shell first construction, the species of wood used for the bottom and the dimensions probably made a difference in the conformation.   A model built using the same methods would be about 1-2% of the size.  The species of wood would affect the possibilities.  I suspect that the shapes that the wood will allow does not scale.  I propose that at model scale, the planking will be stiffer and more rigid.  The properties of the materials being used probably preclude any possibility of success.
 
The model builders are not doing a new design.  They are trying to replicate a published plan.  I think that their approach has at least one too many variables.  It is probably an either/or situation.  It would probably require the use of a special material for the scale planking.  It may then be possible to use the original method at scale to derive a valid scale replication of the original design.   It would probably not be something that makes for a good show on a final model.   
 
 
To get the desired predetermined shape, I see two paths.   Loft frames from the plans and fix the planking to them -  POF =  Plank ON Frame.
Carve an inner plug with the shape of the frames.  Plank over the plug.  Remove it and then add the frame timbers inside. 
The plug can have a Jenga style structure.  It can be pieces that make a solid until a key piece is withdrawn.  It would match the buttock lines - long and vertical.   If the design is for the middle to come out first and the sides moved to the middle and then out, a hull with significant tumble home can be planked.  I would not trust only wax and/or shellac/varnish to keep glue seepage from bonding the planking to the plug.  A Saran Wrap layer would be safer. 
 
 
 
 
 

Just as long as you understand that the application of water to wood will probably raise the grain and will require at least one additional step to get back to a smooth surface.
 
Pre-treatment with just water or water with ~10% PVA followed by sanding or scraping, done once or twice may negate subsequent swelling.
 
If it is planking that has been bent by soaking in water or heavy steam and that was then sanded or scraped, perhaps any subsequent swelling will not be obvious.
There could be a curious looking surface if only some the the planking needed bending  and was exposed to water.

Just as long as you understand that the application of water to wood will probably raise the grain and will require at least one additional step to get back to a smooth surface.
 
Pre-treatment with just water or water with ~10% PVA followed by sanding or scraping, done once or twice may negate subsequent swelling.
 
If it is planking that has been bent by soaking in water or heavy steam and that was then sanded or scraped, perhaps any subsequent swelling will not be obvious.
There could be a curious looking surface if only some the the planking needed bending  and was exposed to water.

Just as long as you understand that the application of water to wood will probably raise the grain and will require at least one additional step to get back to a smooth surface.
 
Pre-treatment with just water or water with ~10% PVA followed by sanding or scraping, done once or twice may negate subsequent swelling.
 
If it is planking that has been bent by soaking in water or heavy steam and that was then sanded or scraped, perhaps any subsequent swelling will not be obvious.
There could be a curious looking surface if only some the the planking needed bending  and was exposed to water.

Bruce,
We discussed this, but seeing what you are doing, I have a solution to your cross grain problem.  It will require some do over though.
You are framing using the classic Navy Board style?   An over size floor timber?  A F1 that is actually F1 +F3?
This is all bends with any spaces within each frame and no spaces between the bends.
Frame 1 is the floor and the top.
Frame 2 is F1.   
If you continue actual wood in F1 on above the overlap at the wale up to the rail,  the hull will be a wall of wood topside. 
This is much stronger, but must be planked over if an elegant look is the objective.
Cutting the ports is trickier with a solid wall.
 
Right now, you appear to be framing the stb side and the port side as separate units.
I am suggesting that this be done as the whole frame/bends/section of bends - or as I have termed it: sandwich.
I suggest that you continue frame 2 as you are doing it - as two mirrored pieces.  
Make frame 1 be two or even three pieces.
Frame 1 below the wale - a piece with horizontal grain - the grain running along the length of the floor. The piece will be as wide as the beam of the ship.
Above the wale - a separate piece of wood with the grain vertical - perpendicular to the bottom floor half - grain oriented along the length of the top.
The miser in me says that since the actual top is such a small portion, that section can be three parts. two outer pieces of Pear and a middle piece of junk wood.
This means that you will be shaping a complete section of bends as the whole.  -a horseshoe instead of a quarter circle- Getting at the inside will be more difficult in several ways.
 
 

Bruce,
We discussed this, but seeing what you are doing, I have a solution to your cross grain problem.  It will require some do over though.
You are framing using the classic Navy Board style?   An over size floor timber?  A F1 that is actually F1 +F3?
This is all bends with any spaces within each frame and no spaces between the bends.
Frame 1 is the floor and the top.
Frame 2 is F1.   
If you continue actual wood in F1 on above the overlap at the wale up to the rail,  the hull will be a wall of wood topside. 
This is much stronger, but must be planked over if an elegant look is the objective.
Cutting the ports is trickier with a solid wall.
 
Right now, you appear to be framing the stb side and the port side as separate units.
I am suggesting that this be done as the whole frame/bends/section of bends - or as I have termed it: sandwich.
I suggest that you continue frame 2 as you are doing it - as two mirrored pieces.  
Make frame 1 be two or even three pieces.
Frame 1 below the wale - a piece with horizontal grain - the grain running along the length of the floor. The piece will be as wide as the beam of the ship.
Above the wale - a separate piece of wood with the grain vertical - perpendicular to the bottom floor half - grain oriented along the length of the top.
The miser in me says that since the actual top is such a small portion, that section can be three parts. two outer pieces of Pear and a middle piece of junk wood.
This means that you will be shaping a complete section of bends as the whole.  -a horseshoe instead of a quarter circle- Getting at the inside will be more difficult in several ways.
 
 

I wonder if the answer is relatively straight forward?
Except for the deck, it would pay to protect the wood surfaces exposed to the elements and a budget priced pigment have appeal.
On the exposed decks, there might have been a problem with glare if the pigment was white?
If it was white, then blood spatter, or dirt, or soot, or day to day abuse would require a new coat more often than red?
Iron oxide is already oxidized, so it will not breakdown.  Red is a team color and the pigment is probably as economical as it got.
Red is heat.  If we see a color, that means that it is being reflected, instead of being adsorbed.  Perhaps iron oxide is also good at reflecting IR?  If so, then the wood would not get as hot as a color that soaks up IR?
 
On the lower decks, what with their being caves,  I would think that some form of whitewash would be universal.  It reflects all wave lengths of light.  Except for mirror-like surfaces, white would be as efficient as practical allowing the crew to see.
 
It is probably me, but it appears to me that the intensity of the red used on many models is greater than scale effect would have it be?
Would the remedy be to add grey  or  make it more translucent - dilute it a bit?
 
 

I wonder if the answer is relatively straight forward?
Except for the deck, it would pay to protect the wood surfaces exposed to the elements and a budget priced pigment have appeal.
On the exposed decks, there might have been a problem with glare if the pigment was white?
If it was white, then blood spatter, or dirt, or soot, or day to day abuse would require a new coat more often than red?
Iron oxide is already oxidized, so it will not breakdown.  Red is a team color and the pigment is probably as economical as it got.
Red is heat.  If we see a color, that means that it is being reflected, instead of being adsorbed.  Perhaps iron oxide is also good at reflecting IR?  If so, then the wood would not get as hot as a color that soaks up IR?
 
On the lower decks, what with their being caves,  I would think that some form of whitewash would be universal.  It reflects all wave lengths of light.  Except for mirror-like surfaces, white would be as efficient as practical allowing the crew to see.
 
It is probably me, but it appears to me that the intensity of the red used on many models is greater than scale effect would have it be?
Would the remedy be to add grey  or  make it more translucent - dilute it a bit?
 
 

The following is more likely the reason.   Deck furniture, bulwarks, etc, were red ochre. This was discussed in an earlier post here at MSW in 2021 and it was mentioned that this was for protection from the weather and ochre (earth) colors were inexpensive.  In addition, after long sea voyages and during repairs it was also refreshed. The idea that it would hide blood was coincidental, not the reason it was most often red.  There are a number of contemporary models where much of the inboard works were painted black.  I have no idea if this was original or done at some later time.  The Navy Board stated 18 July 1715 that painting (presumably outboard and inboard) was "not to refresh oftener than once a year or two and the inboard works that are from the weather."  There is no mention of a particular color or hiding blood.  The actual usefulness in protecting the wood from rot and the cost would probably be a bigger concern to the navy than the mental state of the sailors in the age of sail.    If you are next to a man that has had some part of his body ripped off, I doubt hiding the blood on a bulwark would make it any easier to avoid fear, panic  or the onset PTSD. 
Allan

From an outsider and theoretical perspective:
What is the need to fill the gaps between planking with anything for the first layer of a two layer POB hull?  The entirety is covered by the second layer.
If the problem is hollows between the molds - PVA glue a scab layer of wood veneer at the hollow.
Pine or Basswood should be soft enough not to resist paring more than the actual first layer.
For really shallow dips, a curl of Pine made using a plane should be a proper thickness.

Building a ship of that period at the scale of 1:120 to 1:135 would be quite a daunting task for most of us. It is a "miniature model" scale. As I'm sure you know, models of that period are most frequently built to a scale of 1:48 or 1:96, 1 inch equals 4 feet or eight feet, respectively. Such modeling is generally the province of a handful of master miniaturists. The only master modelers working in such scales, and even smaller, today of whom I am aware are Phillip Reed in England and Lloyd McCaffery in the United States. Two other Twentieth Century masters of miniature ship models are also well-recognized, Donald McNarry and Norman Ough, but they are now deceased. 
 
All of these masters have written books on the subject of miniature ship modeling. The below volumes specifically address the techniques employed to build miniature scale ship models which, in some respects, are different from building in larger scales and all are quite good. I would urge anyone who was interesting in working at miniature scales to obtain and study these reference works on the subject:
 
Philip Reed, Building Miniature Navy Board Ship Models: Reed, Philip: 9781848320178: Amazon.com: Books
Lloyd McCaffery SHIPS IN MINIATURE: The Classic Manual for Modelmakers: McCaffery, Lloyd: 9780851774855: Amazon.com: Books
Donald McNarry  Shipbuilding in Miniature: McNarry, Donald: 9780668058001: Amazon.com: Books
 
Philip Reed also has an excellent series of YouTube videos on his work. See: Philip Reed - YouTube
 
 
 

If it doesn't exist, I'll just have to make it myself.  Doesn't mean I'm not gonna complain about it.
 
Daniel
You said it, not me.   Maybe time to have a go at a scratch build??  I would be happy to send you a full set of drawings for POF or POB for a fifty gun British ship of 1695. in whatever scale you want.   I have an appropriate contemporary contract and full set of scantlings as well.   PM me with your contact information if you are interested.
Two of the 20+ pages are below, including some of the bulkheads for a POB build, to give you an idea of the plans.
Allan
 

 

This is straight out of my head, so no pictures.
Most table saws that can do a rip cut that is other than 90 degree vertical - tilt the blade.
The Byrnes saw holds the blade vertical and tilts the table - the right of the blade part of the table.
Kurt and No Idea suggest that because of gravity and friction,  the wood can move away from the blade -because it  mostly rests on an angled surface.
They mimic the standard table saw by tilting the blade, and making the accessory table horizontal.  The rest of the saw goes with the blade.
The saw comes on its own base.  A heavy one.  They place wedges  under the base to angle it up.  I would want a stop at the right side edge to keep the saw from sliding.
 
My suggestion is more elaborate and only makes sense if a whole lot of beveled ripping is going to be done,  and if several angles are involved.
My picture:
Lay a book flat on a table. Turn it so that the top of the book is facing you and the spine is on your right.  Lift the front cover.
Imagine a small version of the saw sitting on the top cover.   The cover is lifted until the right side saw table accessory is horizontal.
 
Use plywood to make the two book covers.  Use a full size piano hinge as the book spine.   There are holes in each corner of the saw base.
Fix the saw base to the top piece of plywood.  As heavy as the saw is, I think two pieces of 1/2" ply will be needed.  The bottom needs to be wider than the top - enough beyond the hinge the the whole assembly does not flip sideways.
The threaded rod and nut are not needed actually.  A block of wood, square even will hold the top cover at the angle.  A way to fix it in place would probably be a good idea.  
 

If the object is to be able to get a precise and reproducible  saw tilt and this will be done frequently with multiple possible angles being cut:
 
Fix the machine to a two plywood sheet base.
Lower is a 1/2" - 3/4"  sheet.  width 3" or more wider than saw base on each side.
Upper is  1/4" sheet
The right edge of upper sheet is at the right side of the saw base.
The upper sheet is attached to the lower using a full size piano hinge.
The left side is as far beyond the base of the saw as is needed to fix a a threaded rod and thumb screw or wingnut to raise that edge.
There would probably need to be spacer pieces at the hinge and outer edges of the upper sheet that are a tad thicker than the thumb screw/wingnut.
 
Someone really OCD could fix the angle gauge from a adjustable miter -  or a stick with marks  at the front right at the hinge.
 
The down side is that it adds weight to an already hefty machine.
A 1" rubber stopper fixed under each corner of the base will provide space for fingers to lift the machine, if it just rents bench space and lives on a shelf.

A Google chase seems to lead to the following:   Pyro -> Life-Like -> Walthers
 
My guess is that the copyrights went along with the sale of the companies.  Walthers has some HO, N, O scale diorama style ship models.  Even though nothing like the Gertrude is in their current inventory, they may not be in favor of you giving away total information that is not yours to give.  For what you have questions about,  the isolated relevant sections should fall into fair use category.  Posting just those parts should be a benefit.  A whole set of plastic model plans  would only be of value to those who have the kit and they should already have them.   Otherwise it is just esoteric and a waste of bandwidth.  I do not think that this web site is setup to store large size files of ship plans - unless it is part of a group project.
 
 
The Gertrude is one of the subjects in H.I.C.'s American Fishing Schooners.   The two plans in the book are available from The S.I. for $10 each and are large scale.  The book also has a section that features extensive details for the schooners.

If a member sets up an album with their photos, is the member able to edit and delete any photos in their album?

While any repair is going on:
Are we sure that a 3D digital model fits the definition of scratch built?

Well that explains why common nautical words - like futtock always get marked as being misspelled.
I have been thinking that this site had selected the wrong dictionary.

Phil,
I was pretty sure that it is a labor intensive exercise - but the process being described above does not sound like it is fire and forget either.   I liked WordPerfect. (I also liked PicturePublisher.)    I have found MSWord to be more complex than I care to deal with.  WordPad is fairly basic  and does as much as I need - when I mix text with pictures.  For just text, EditPad is enough.   WordPad does not have many options when it comes to save formats.  I doubt any of them offer any sort of compression.   My log's .RTF file is 190 Meg.   I  did not consider that MSWord could save as PDF,  but I am not surprised.  I did not even install MSOffice.  But then, I still only have a land line.  Who knew my fate was to go from cutting edge to dinosaur?
 
Wow!  I just used CloudConvert and it turned a 190 Meg .rtf  into a 4Meg .pdf.
 

If it is your own log that you want a copy of,  I have a copy of mine by doing this:
Use WordPad to compose the log.   The .TXT   from it can be Copy Pasted from WordPad to this site.
A file of JPEG can be used as the source for what gets Saved in the WordPad document and a place marker in the TXT file can mark which and where the JPEG go for the site log.
 
I just checked and the TXT here can be Copy Pasted into a WordPad document and the images can be also.
The  from you to the site part would not take very much more effort than composing and formatting directly on the site.
The  from the site to you  copying of another author's work will be a tad tedious,  but it does offer the choice of omitting 3rd party comments and anything else that is unwanted.
 
A WordPad file with images tends to be a large one.  I wonder if a .RTF file can be converted to a .PDF file using one of the free Web sites that offer this?