Jaager

It is irritating and misleading that unscrupulous marketers name any tropical species that is a bit chocolate in color as Walnut.  Almost none of them are any Juglans sp.
 
Epoxy would probably do your bonding.  Given the fight that it is putting up, going belt and suspenders would be wise.  The dowel should hold tight while the epoxy cures.

I have asked that question myself.  No answer yet.  Other than some compulsion against gaps between planks, I see no need for it either.
If there are hollows,  I think that scabbing actual wood veneer and paring that down would be better than any sort of Bondo or patching putty.
 
 

I have asked that question myself.  No answer yet.  Other than some compulsion against gaps between planks, I see no need for it either.
If there are hollows,  I think that scabbing actual wood veneer and paring that down would be better than any sort of Bondo or patching putty.
 
 

If you read  the top chapter in the New Member Introductions forum:  For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale
and take seriously the suggestions re:  beginner kits  you stand a good chance of achieving your goal and promise.
 
Wooden model shipbuilding is unlike other categories of scale modeling.  It has a unique nomenclature /language  that is not huge, but necessary to know.
The subjects represent the height and breadth of the technical and engineering achievements  of their civilization.
Wood requires familiarity with a range of tools - it is not assemble and paint.
Being overwhelmed, frustrated, loosing inspiration is very common - about a rule - almost a law - all is not lost when it hits,  you just wait it out and come back with batteries recharged.
If too complex a subject is a first subject - most often,that first negative wave kills any desire to return.

Various protein based adhesives were pretty much all that was available before WWI.  There are hide glues that are still commercially available.  They probably rate more consideration than we give them.
I wonder if shellac would serve as a rigging fixative?  The less extracted grades of flakes - dark auburn and amber   may even turn inappropriate bleached running rigging into a more accurate straw color.  They would be easy to apply and have an effective reverse gear.

A search of SD's previous content yields this  " I bought 3 kits the Syren, the Marseille (C. Mamoli 1/64 kit), and the HMS Victory cross section."
Based on posts, I am guessing that Syren was the first build.
I suggest not giving any priority to the planking ambition for a while.  Since your shortcut on acquiring experience did not lead to the result that you wished,  why not follow as tried and true a course as there is at present to get up to speed?
 
The Model Shipways Shipwright Series  has a fairly low entry fee.   The finished models are attractive, small,  would look good on library shelves (in their separate "glass houses") and being boats, would give you the chops to build the boats that every large vessel carried.
 
Your model of Syren is made of wood.  It would not be difficult to acquire the raw materials to either backup to the stage where things went bad,  Or duplicate the whole K&K from raw materials and build a Syren v.2 that has superior materials.

If you read  the top chapter in the New Member Introductions forum:  For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale
and take seriously the suggestions re:  beginner kits  you stand a good chance of achieving your goal and promise.
 
Wooden model shipbuilding is unlike other categories of scale modeling.  It has a unique nomenclature /language  that is not huge, but necessary to know.
The subjects represent the height and breadth of the technical and engineering achievements  of their civilization.
Wood requires familiarity with a range of tools - it is not assemble and paint.
Being overwhelmed, frustrated, loosing inspiration is very common - about a rule - almost a law - all is not lost when it hits,  you just wait it out and come back with batteries recharged.
If too complex a subject is a first subject - most often,that first negative wave kills any desire to return.

If you read  the top chapter in the New Member Introductions forum:  For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale
and take seriously the suggestions re:  beginner kits  you stand a good chance of achieving your goal and promise.
 
Wooden model shipbuilding is unlike other categories of scale modeling.  It has a unique nomenclature /language  that is not huge, but necessary to know.
The subjects represent the height and breadth of the technical and engineering achievements  of their civilization.
Wood requires familiarity with a range of tools - it is not assemble and paint.
Being overwhelmed, frustrated, loosing inspiration is very common - about a rule - almost a law - all is not lost when it hits,  you just wait it out and come back with batteries recharged.
If too complex a subject is a first subject - most often,that first negative wave kills any desire to return.

Nick,
From the perspective of someone looking at the impressive attrition rate for kits in the build logs just here,  prudence would suggest a different ambition.
From the way that you ask this question, I think this is another yacht situation.  To be glib, if you have to ask, you are probably not ready to lose 5 or more years to HMS Victory 1765.
 
You do not state that the ships that you have been building over 25 years are models built of wood.  If they are plastic,  except for any rigging,  your experience may prove to be more of a hindrance than a help.  The instructions are unlikely to measure up to the micro management style of plastic kit instructions.  This lack of hand holding will offer you an excuse to bail when it gets frustrating.
 
If you have prior experience with wood based kits,  HMS Cruiser  or HMS Snake look to be a way to immerse yourself in ships of the Nelson era without all of the endless repetition that a 1st rate involves. 
Building yet another model of HMS Victory 1765 will be the polar opposite of doing something even vaguely unique.

Look up Dana Weger in the back issue CD's of the NRJ.  I believe that hollowing out the layers is actually a requirement for acquisition by a USN museum.
I view it as rather than "can"  the situation during the planning stage is more "I need to have a really good reason not to hollow every layer but the bottom one."
@Bob Cleek Champions at version of bread and butter that I had missed: Do the left and right sides as two pieces that meet at the midline. 
If I did not have an incurable case of POF disease, I think that I would have to do it this way. 
The pattern would be for one side.   Bond the port side layer to (on top of) the stb side using something easily reversible - shellac,  rubber cement,  Duco, ....
This is a two for one scroll cut process.
Bandsaw the outer lines - outside and inside - then debond - add the mirror pattern to the port side  piece and do the rough bevel.
At the core plan to pattern stage I would add alignment sites for pins or Bamboo skewer dowels - so that port side pattern has something other than the outside shape to site it.
These dowels can also be used to match layer 1 to layer 2,  layer 2 to layer3, etc.  in an idiot proof way. 
It is also probably good to have lines at and perpendicular to the midline at glue site.  Using a jig for hole depth,  dowels can be used to position port to stb and enforce the glue bond.
 
2nd question.  Where would I get plans and/or cast parts for a WW1 warship?
For reasons of sanity,  I have limited myself to 1660-1860 wood and sail (obviously this is still too broad) so I can only speculate.
Besides what I think is a lively steel group that hangs somewhere else -  for USN I would look to the NA.  For the RN,  the NMM probably has more than you could ever want,
For other European navies and Japan - you probably can find locals who would know.
The AAMM has
LE CHARLEMAGNE - first class battleship (1894-1920)
Scale of drawing : 1/200th
Le Hoche
Battleship (1886 -1913)
 
Taubman plans list at Loylhanna Dockyard looks like a possible source.
 
A WWI warship's topsides are a lot busier and more interesting than the WWII generation,  but the pre- Dreadnought  / Great White Fleet steel vessels can be really interesting.
 

In addition to the above, when a hull gets into the 2-4 foot in length size, a solid block of wood gets into a weight problem range as well as the block possibly splitting as it ages.
Bread and butter addresses those problems.  But bread and butter is not a kit friendly method.
 
@allanyedThe early Italian POB kits were really absurd in how few molds were used to support the first layer of planking.  It is feasible and within easy reach to ameliorate deficiencies,  it is wood after all,  but investing in the additional skills and knowledge, no matter how slight, seems to be a step too far for many.  @Chuck I think there are two distinctly different populations.
 
 
Comparing POB to POF is like comparing Paint By Numbers to an original Rembrandt.  To think that POB is a form of POF, no matter how good it makes someone doing POB feel, is self-deception. It is anything but that.

Maxx,
 
I have zero experience with RC,  so everything I write about this is a layman's theory.
I suspect that this is another Dennis Moore situation.
 
It seems that in every case - the physics / hydrodynamics of a floating model when under sail does not directly translate to how the actual vessel behaved on water ? 
Wind is also a sort of fluid in this situation and the safe range is more of a log function than a linear one? (The safe range is narrow?)
Much more ballast is needed?  
The degree of heeling allowed for a model of a larger vessel  before it will not recover is almost nil?
The hulls are either much deeper and way out of scale or there is wing below the keel. Either one tends to make a model sort of a pig when viewed on shore?  (A very personal judgement since esthetics is not something that fits a formula.)
 
Easy access to the bilge after a session is  important?
It is probably a really good thing for the bulk of the water proofing to be on the inside of the hull?
POB is probably about the least efficient and most troublesome method to use to fabricate a floating hull.
( My solo bias is that POF with zero spaces is probably the user friendly fabrication method for an age of sail hull that is intended to take to the water. ) (A hollowed out loaf of sliced bread.)
 
As with modern full size replicas, if you intend much time on the water with it, an electric version of a Volvo Penta would make control and recovery less frustrating.
 
If this is more than a whim,    a topsail schooner  as a first ( you probably already have sloop down pat )  and then a brig, before wrestling with a three master (4 with the bow spars). 
 
 

I have set for myself, rigid requirements for Navy Board framing:
It should not be used for a model of any ship built after 1719.  The first seriously enforced Establishments seems to be the 1719.
Some here are disturbingly fast and loose about what is meant by Navy Board or even Admiralty.
Navy Board is the late 17th century stylized framing method.  Franklin wrote the definitive book exploring Navy Board and its variations.
When it came out, the St. Philippe monograph blew my socks off.  It is one of the few ships with reliable plans and is of the proper era.
As an aside,  I think that Navy Board framing was developed to provide three proof diagonals for a proposed design. Proof diagonals that were 3D and easily understood by the royals in charge but who were unschooled in the art. 
I did a series of station sandwich trials of various framing styles.  It did it 1:120 for speed and material economy.
 
The all bends with a narrow space between - no way would I entertain the insane table joints at the midline of a bend - back on point - is too timber wall like.
 
The Navy Board framing revealed two serious penalties with this style.   To get the solid belt at the turn of the bilge:
The floor - which is a formidable and expensive timber  with conventional framing -  becomes unreasonably large.  For there to be the solid belts, each end must turn up like the horns of a longhorn bull.  It is much longer and has two reverse curves.  The waste is almost as bad as with the Hahn method but the stock must be significantly wider than is used with Hahn.  I can't justify it.
Futtock 1 -  although it is actually F1 and F3 -  it goes from above the wale to well below the turn of the bilge.  It is long - really long - and it defines an arc of near 90 degrees.  It also needs wide stock and produces and lot of waste  - close packing of patterns is difficult to do.
 
I developed a compromise that has the solid belt and looks like Navy Board at first glace.  The difference is that the spaces are all in the F1 frame.   The floor is its normal 60% of beam length.  F2 butts against the floor.  It is longer than a normal F2, but it starts at the turn of the bilge so the arc is much less.  I place a piece of timber that overlaps (scarphs) the floor to F2 joint that is the width of the solid belt of Navy Board.
I named it Navall timber framing.   The original navall timber was a free floating timber that started about halfway up the floor and overlapped the lower half of F2.  It was between two floors but did not touch either one.  Times passes and the navall timber evolves to be F1.   In Navall timber framing as I have designed it, the timber is too long to be a chock but too short to be a futtock 1.  Naming it a navall timber works for me even though it does bond to the floor on either side.
 
I have framed a 1:60 hull of HMS Centurion 1732 using Navall Timber Framing.   I have the bow framed also.  I am well into the stern framing, but it is really a bear to do.  But right now, my Muse has been gone for a while.  It is another of my hulls in frame on the stocks.   But it is a successful proof of concept as far as the method is concerned.
There is one negative factor:  the solid belt at the bilge and the solid wall above the wale is prone to humidity stress.  Titebond II makes a strong bond, but in a few places, Mother Nature and expanding wood from internal water pressure has shown it self to be stronger than PVA.
 
As for true miniature scale,  there are several here, bur none are Navy Board.   To me, a miniature is as much if not more about Art and artistry than straight forward ship modeling using wood.  I think 1/8th scale  1:96   is more than enough crazy making.  Going for an even smaller scale requires a special courage and inspiration.  It does have the advantage of being economical as far as the cost of the wood.

There is a shop note - I have not saved the author's name or journal reference - but he got a much longer life from his disks by coating one side with epoxy glue - I think the watery clear flavor epoxy.

From left to right:   1 a station sandwich for a solid hull   2  all bends with the narrow space (St.P monograph)  3  Navall Timber framing    4  Navy Board
 
I have to blink to see the difference between 3 & 4  but I am not objective about it.
 
In the 18th century the RN shops used a different stylized framing.  A single frame alternating with an equal space below the wale. It is a single timber in the region from the middle of the keel to enough above to keel to have a good bond.  It is a really long piece of wood that circumscribes 90 degrees.
I do not think I seen a photo of a model built using this method.  I ones that I have seen are faux painting on a solid hull.  
 
Editorial  (personal view):
The 18th century stylized framing looks like a comb.
The Hahn style (Davis) all bends with room = space looks like someone on a high sugar diet who never visits a dentist.
I use #2 for hulls built from 1780 to 1860.  The space width varies from ship to ship.  In 1780 +/-  the spaces tended to be only 1-2 inches.  Not very pretty.
#1 is quick and easy to do if I am going to completely plank the hull.

From left to right:   1 a station sandwich for a solid hull   2  all bends with the narrow space (St.P monograph)  3  Navall Timber framing    4  Navy Board
 
I have to blink to see the difference between 3 & 4  but I am not objective about it.
 
In the 18th century the RN shops used a different stylized framing.  A single frame alternating with an equal space below the wale. It is a single timber in the region from the middle of the keel to enough above to keel to have a good bond.  It is a really long piece of wood that circumscribes 90 degrees.
I do not think I seen a photo of a model built using this method.  I ones that I have seen are faux painting on a solid hull.  
 
Editorial  (personal view):
The 18th century stylized framing looks like a comb.
The Hahn style (Davis) all bends with room = space looks like someone on a high sugar diet who never visits a dentist.
I use #2 for hulls built from 1780 to 1860.  The space width varies from ship to ship.  In 1780 +/-  the spaces tended to be only 1-2 inches.  Not very pretty.
#1 is quick and easy to do if I am going to completely plank the hull.

I have the old Dremel 1"/5" combo that is what preceded all of these others
I have not really found a use for it.  If you find you need a disc sander, one of the Byrens machines will serve you well.
A belt sander seems to be aggressive.  You are POB?  I think you will really regret using one to bevel the moulds.  It will eat more than you want it to, faster than you want it to.
If you intend to use it to spill planks, there are much safer ways.  A miniature hand plane can remove fine curls until you get to the sanding block stage.
 
It has been a couple of lifetimes since I built a kit and none was POB.  With that, I am having a difficult time visualizing a job for a belt sander with a POB build.  Certainly no job that a hand tool would not do at a much lower cost and be easier to migrate with.
 
I do use a 4"x36" el cheepo HF belt sander.  It is excellent at doing bulk beveling of a 1"-2" thick plywood made of 12 layers of Hard Maple and Pine.  But if you do that, you need to live alone.  The cloud of saw dust makes Pigpen look pristine and a 1950's South Carolina cotton mill look like an operating room.

I have set for myself, rigid requirements for Navy Board framing:
It should not be used for a model of any ship built after 1719.  The first seriously enforced Establishments seems to be the 1719.
Some here are disturbingly fast and loose about what is meant by Navy Board or even Admiralty.
Navy Board is the late 17th century stylized framing method.  Franklin wrote the definitive book exploring Navy Board and its variations.
When it came out, the St. Philippe monograph blew my socks off.  It is one of the few ships with reliable plans and is of the proper era.
As an aside,  I think that Navy Board framing was developed to provide three proof diagonals for a proposed design. Proof diagonals that were 3D and easily understood by the royals in charge but who were unschooled in the art. 
I did a series of station sandwich trials of various framing styles.  It did it 1:120 for speed and material economy.
 
The all bends with a narrow space between - no way would I entertain the insane table joints at the midline of a bend - back on point - is too timber wall like.
 
The Navy Board framing revealed two serious penalties with this style.   To get the solid belt at the turn of the bilge:
The floor - which is a formidable and expensive timber  with conventional framing -  becomes unreasonably large.  For there to be the solid belts, each end must turn up like the horns of a longhorn bull.  It is much longer and has two reverse curves.  The waste is almost as bad as with the Hahn method but the stock must be significantly wider than is used with Hahn.  I can't justify it.
Futtock 1 -  although it is actually F1 and F3 -  it goes from above the wale to well below the turn of the bilge.  It is long - really long - and it defines an arc of near 90 degrees.  It also needs wide stock and produces and lot of waste  - close packing of patterns is difficult to do.
 
I developed a compromise that has the solid belt and looks like Navy Board at first glace.  The difference is that the spaces are all in the F1 frame.   The floor is its normal 60% of beam length.  F2 butts against the floor.  It is longer than a normal F2, but it starts at the turn of the bilge so the arc is much less.  I place a piece of timber that overlaps (scarphs) the floor to F2 joint that is the width of the solid belt of Navy Board.
I named it Navall timber framing.   The original navall timber was a free floating timber that started about halfway up the floor and overlapped the lower half of F2.  It was between two floors but did not touch either one.  Times passes and the navall timber evolves to be F1.   In Navall timber framing as I have designed it, the timber is too long to be a chock but too short to be a futtock 1.  Naming it a navall timber works for me even though it does bond to the floor on either side.
 
I have framed a 1:60 hull of HMS Centurion 1732 using Navall Timber Framing.   I have the bow framed also.  I am well into the stern framing, but it is really a bear to do.  But right now, my Muse has been gone for a while.  It is another of my hulls in frame on the stocks.   But it is a successful proof of concept as far as the method is concerned.
There is one negative factor:  the solid belt at the bilge and the solid wall above the wale is prone to humidity stress.  Titebond II makes a strong bond, but in a few places, Mother Nature and expanding wood from internal water pressure has shown it self to be stronger than PVA.
 
As for true miniature scale,  there are several here, bur none are Navy Board.   To me, a miniature is as much if not more about Art and artistry than straight forward ship modeling using wood.  I think 1/8th scale  1:96   is more than enough crazy making.  Going for an even smaller scale requires a special courage and inspiration.  It does have the advantage of being economical as far as the cost of the wood.

I have set for myself, rigid requirements for Navy Board framing:
It should not be used for a model of any ship built after 1719.  The first seriously enforced Establishments seems to be the 1719.
Some here are disturbingly fast and loose about what is meant by Navy Board or even Admiralty.
Navy Board is the late 17th century stylized framing method.  Franklin wrote the definitive book exploring Navy Board and its variations.
When it came out, the St. Philippe monograph blew my socks off.  It is one of the few ships with reliable plans and is of the proper era.
As an aside,  I think that Navy Board framing was developed to provide three proof diagonals for a proposed design. Proof diagonals that were 3D and easily understood by the royals in charge but who were unschooled in the art. 
I did a series of station sandwich trials of various framing styles.  It did it 1:120 for speed and material economy.
 
The all bends with a narrow space between - no way would I entertain the insane table joints at the midline of a bend - back on point - is too timber wall like.
 
The Navy Board framing revealed two serious penalties with this style.   To get the solid belt at the turn of the bilge:
The floor - which is a formidable and expensive timber  with conventional framing -  becomes unreasonably large.  For there to be the solid belts, each end must turn up like the horns of a longhorn bull.  It is much longer and has two reverse curves.  The waste is almost as bad as with the Hahn method but the stock must be significantly wider than is used with Hahn.  I can't justify it.
Futtock 1 -  although it is actually F1 and F3 -  it goes from above the wale to well below the turn of the bilge.  It is long - really long - and it defines an arc of near 90 degrees.  It also needs wide stock and produces and lot of waste  - close packing of patterns is difficult to do.
 
I developed a compromise that has the solid belt and looks like Navy Board at first glace.  The difference is that the spaces are all in the F1 frame.   The floor is its normal 60% of beam length.  F2 butts against the floor.  It is longer than a normal F2, but it starts at the turn of the bilge so the arc is much less.  I place a piece of timber that overlaps (scarphs) the floor to F2 joint that is the width of the solid belt of Navy Board.
I named it Navall timber framing.   The original navall timber was a free floating timber that started about halfway up the floor and overlapped the lower half of F2.  It was between two floors but did not touch either one.  Times passes and the navall timber evolves to be F1.   In Navall timber framing as I have designed it, the timber is too long to be a chock but too short to be a futtock 1.  Naming it a navall timber works for me even though it does bond to the floor on either side.
 
I have framed a 1:60 hull of HMS Centurion 1732 using Navall Timber Framing.   I have the bow framed also.  I am well into the stern framing, but it is really a bear to do.  But right now, my Muse has been gone for a while.  It is another of my hulls in frame on the stocks.   But it is a successful proof of concept as far as the method is concerned.
There is one negative factor:  the solid belt at the bilge and the solid wall above the wale is prone to humidity stress.  Titebond II makes a strong bond, but in a few places, Mother Nature and expanding wood from internal water pressure has shown it self to be stronger than PVA.
 
As for true miniature scale,  there are several here, bur none are Navy Board.   To me, a miniature is as much if not more about Art and artistry than straight forward ship modeling using wood.  I think 1/8th scale  1:96   is more than enough crazy making.  Going for an even smaller scale requires a special courage and inspiration.  It does have the advantage of being economical as far as the cost of the wood.

I have set for myself, rigid requirements for Navy Board framing:
It should not be used for a model of any ship built after 1719.  The first seriously enforced Establishments seems to be the 1719.
Some here are disturbingly fast and loose about what is meant by Navy Board or even Admiralty.
Navy Board is the late 17th century stylized framing method.  Franklin wrote the definitive book exploring Navy Board and its variations.
When it came out, the St. Philippe monograph blew my socks off.  It is one of the few ships with reliable plans and is of the proper era.
As an aside,  I think that Navy Board framing was developed to provide three proof diagonals for a proposed design. Proof diagonals that were 3D and easily understood by the royals in charge but who were unschooled in the art. 
I did a series of station sandwich trials of various framing styles.  It did it 1:120 for speed and material economy.
 
The all bends with a narrow space between - no way would I entertain the insane table joints at the midline of a bend - back on point - is too timber wall like.
 
The Navy Board framing revealed two serious penalties with this style.   To get the solid belt at the turn of the bilge:
The floor - which is a formidable and expensive timber  with conventional framing -  becomes unreasonably large.  For there to be the solid belts, each end must turn up like the horns of a longhorn bull.  It is much longer and has two reverse curves.  The waste is almost as bad as with the Hahn method but the stock must be significantly wider than is used with Hahn.  I can't justify it.
Futtock 1 -  although it is actually F1 and F3 -  it goes from above the wale to well below the turn of the bilge.  It is long - really long - and it defines an arc of near 90 degrees.  It also needs wide stock and produces and lot of waste  - close packing of patterns is difficult to do.
 
I developed a compromise that has the solid belt and looks like Navy Board at first glace.  The difference is that the spaces are all in the F1 frame.   The floor is its normal 60% of beam length.  F2 butts against the floor.  It is longer than a normal F2, but it starts at the turn of the bilge so the arc is much less.  I place a piece of timber that overlaps (scarphs) the floor to F2 joint that is the width of the solid belt of Navy Board.
I named it Navall timber framing.   The original navall timber was a free floating timber that started about halfway up the floor and overlapped the lower half of F2.  It was between two floors but did not touch either one.  Times passes and the navall timber evolves to be F1.   In Navall timber framing as I have designed it, the timber is too long to be a chock but too short to be a futtock 1.  Naming it a navall timber works for me even though it does bond to the floor on either side.
 
I have framed a 1:60 hull of HMS Centurion 1732 using Navall Timber Framing.   I have the bow framed also.  I am well into the stern framing, but it is really a bear to do.  But right now, my Muse has been gone for a while.  It is another of my hulls in frame on the stocks.   But it is a successful proof of concept as far as the method is concerned.
There is one negative factor:  the solid belt at the bilge and the solid wall above the wale is prone to humidity stress.  Titebond II makes a strong bond, but in a few places, Mother Nature and expanding wood from internal water pressure has shown it self to be stronger than PVA.
 
As for true miniature scale,  there are several here, bur none are Navy Board.   To me, a miniature is as much if not more about Art and artistry than straight forward ship modeling using wood.  I think 1/8th scale  1:96   is more than enough crazy making.  Going for an even smaller scale requires a special courage and inspiration.  It does have the advantage of being economical as far as the cost of the wood.

I have set for myself, rigid requirements for Navy Board framing:
It should not be used for a model of any ship built after 1719.  The first seriously enforced Establishments seems to be the 1719.
Some here are disturbingly fast and loose about what is meant by Navy Board or even Admiralty.
Navy Board is the late 17th century stylized framing method.  Franklin wrote the definitive book exploring Navy Board and its variations.
When it came out, the St. Philippe monograph blew my socks off.  It is one of the few ships with reliable plans and is of the proper era.
As an aside,  I think that Navy Board framing was developed to provide three proof diagonals for a proposed design. Proof diagonals that were 3D and easily understood by the royals in charge but who were unschooled in the art. 
I did a series of station sandwich trials of various framing styles.  It did it 1:120 for speed and material economy.
 
The all bends with a narrow space between - no way would I entertain the insane table joints at the midline of a bend - back on point - is too timber wall like.
 
The Navy Board framing revealed two serious penalties with this style.   To get the solid belt at the turn of the bilge:
The floor - which is a formidable and expensive timber  with conventional framing -  becomes unreasonably large.  For there to be the solid belts, each end must turn up like the horns of a longhorn bull.  It is much longer and has two reverse curves.  The waste is almost as bad as with the Hahn method but the stock must be significantly wider than is used with Hahn.  I can't justify it.
Futtock 1 -  although it is actually F1 and F3 -  it goes from above the wale to well below the turn of the bilge.  It is long - really long - and it defines an arc of near 90 degrees.  It also needs wide stock and produces and lot of waste  - close packing of patterns is difficult to do.
 
I developed a compromise that has the solid belt and looks like Navy Board at first glace.  The difference is that the spaces are all in the F1 frame.   The floor is its normal 60% of beam length.  F2 butts against the floor.  It is longer than a normal F2, but it starts at the turn of the bilge so the arc is much less.  I place a piece of timber that overlaps (scarphs) the floor to F2 joint that is the width of the solid belt of Navy Board.
I named it Navall timber framing.   The original navall timber was a free floating timber that started about halfway up the floor and overlapped the lower half of F2.  It was between two floors but did not touch either one.  Times passes and the navall timber evolves to be F1.   In Navall timber framing as I have designed it, the timber is too long to be a chock but too short to be a futtock 1.  Naming it a navall timber works for me even though it does bond to the floor on either side.
 
I have framed a 1:60 hull of HMS Centurion 1732 using Navall Timber Framing.   I have the bow framed also.  I am well into the stern framing, but it is really a bear to do.  But right now, my Muse has been gone for a while.  It is another of my hulls in frame on the stocks.   But it is a successful proof of concept as far as the method is concerned.
There is one negative factor:  the solid belt at the bilge and the solid wall above the wale is prone to humidity stress.  Titebond II makes a strong bond, but in a few places, Mother Nature and expanding wood from internal water pressure has shown it self to be stronger than PVA.
 
As for true miniature scale,  there are several here, bur none are Navy Board.   To me, a miniature is as much if not more about Art and artistry than straight forward ship modeling using wood.  I think 1/8th scale  1:96   is more than enough crazy making.  Going for an even smaller scale requires a special courage and inspiration.  It does have the advantage of being economical as far as the cost of the wood.

I have set for myself, rigid requirements for Navy Board framing:
It should not be used for a model of any ship built after 1719.  The first seriously enforced Establishments seems to be the 1719.
Some here are disturbingly fast and loose about what is meant by Navy Board or even Admiralty.
Navy Board is the late 17th century stylized framing method.  Franklin wrote the definitive book exploring Navy Board and its variations.
When it came out, the St. Philippe monograph blew my socks off.  It is one of the few ships with reliable plans and is of the proper era.
As an aside,  I think that Navy Board framing was developed to provide three proof diagonals for a proposed design. Proof diagonals that were 3D and easily understood by the royals in charge but who were unschooled in the art. 
I did a series of station sandwich trials of various framing styles.  It did it 1:120 for speed and material economy.
 
The all bends with a narrow space between - no way would I entertain the insane table joints at the midline of a bend - back on point - is too timber wall like.
 
The Navy Board framing revealed two serious penalties with this style.   To get the solid belt at the turn of the bilge:
The floor - which is a formidable and expensive timber  with conventional framing -  becomes unreasonably large.  For there to be the solid belts, each end must turn up like the horns of a longhorn bull.  It is much longer and has two reverse curves.  The waste is almost as bad as with the Hahn method but the stock must be significantly wider than is used with Hahn.  I can't justify it.
Futtock 1 -  although it is actually F1 and F3 -  it goes from above the wale to well below the turn of the bilge.  It is long - really long - and it defines an arc of near 90 degrees.  It also needs wide stock and produces and lot of waste  - close packing of patterns is difficult to do.
 
I developed a compromise that has the solid belt and looks like Navy Board at first glace.  The difference is that the spaces are all in the F1 frame.   The floor is its normal 60% of beam length.  F2 butts against the floor.  It is longer than a normal F2, but it starts at the turn of the bilge so the arc is much less.  I place a piece of timber that overlaps (scarphs) the floor to F2 joint that is the width of the solid belt of Navy Board.
I named it Navall timber framing.   The original navall timber was a free floating timber that started about halfway up the floor and overlapped the lower half of F2.  It was between two floors but did not touch either one.  Times passes and the navall timber evolves to be F1.   In Navall timber framing as I have designed it, the timber is too long to be a chock but too short to be a futtock 1.  Naming it a navall timber works for me even though it does bond to the floor on either side.
 
I have framed a 1:60 hull of HMS Centurion 1732 using Navall Timber Framing.   I have the bow framed also.  I am well into the stern framing, but it is really a bear to do.  But right now, my Muse has been gone for a while.  It is another of my hulls in frame on the stocks.   But it is a successful proof of concept as far as the method is concerned.
There is one negative factor:  the solid belt at the bilge and the solid wall above the wale is prone to humidity stress.  Titebond II makes a strong bond, but in a few places, Mother Nature and expanding wood from internal water pressure has shown it self to be stronger than PVA.
 
As for true miniature scale,  there are several here, bur none are Navy Board.   To me, a miniature is as much if not more about Art and artistry than straight forward ship modeling using wood.  I think 1/8th scale  1:96   is more than enough crazy making.  Going for an even smaller scale requires a special courage and inspiration.  It does have the advantage of being economical as far as the cost of the wood.

Not exactly - will not work - more that it may be a lot more complicated than it first appears to be.
I have a Model Boats catalog of plans from about 1970.  It has a lot of plans for pond boats and competition craft.
About every one had an under water body that was unattractive.  I suspect that there is a serious reason that such designs were done.
 
While it may not be felicitous for first contact to be a warning that you may be in a mine field, it does not change the situation concerning the mines.   I took it that by posting photos - you were inviting comments.
Often, when I make comments like in the post above, others, who were much more informed and experienced jump in and clarify the situation.  The result of the scrum is usually a lot of helpful information.
 
My intention was to meet the first lesson in The Parable of the Frozen Russian Bird.

If I remember it correctly, the Baltic has a relatively low salinity,  its depths have a very low oxygen concentration, it is dark,  it is cold.  Increased pressure lowers the freezing point of water, so the temp can be well below 0 degrees C.    An environment where there is little to breakdown organic molecules.  
I suspect that re-exposure to normal atmosphere and temp will have the forces for natural recycling on afterburners.

If I remember it correctly, the Baltic has a relatively low salinity,  its depths have a very low oxygen concentration, it is dark,  it is cold.  Increased pressure lowers the freezing point of water, so the temp can be well below 0 degrees C.    An environment where there is little to breakdown organic molecules.  
I suspect that re-exposure to normal atmosphere and temp will have the forces for natural recycling on afterburners.