Jaager

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.

To enforce what Siggi answered and be emphatic in world of interest where there is very little to be emphatic about:  Pins are not nails. They seldom tolerate being used as nails.  Holes should always be drilled first.  If you wish to remove them later, the hole diameter needs to be at least the same as the pin diameter. To save on frustration,  the hole should be a done using a #drill bit that is a notch or two larger.   I can think of no place, no job, with a ship model where a nail would be appropriate. Nowhere - where it would not be destructive.   Most of the wood species that are scale appropriate have grain that is too tight and too dense to tolerate much compression.  The force gets passed along as a split between the fibers.
 
Superb work there Siggi!

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.

To enforce what Siggi answered and be emphatic in world of interest where there is very little to be emphatic about:  Pins are not nails. They seldom tolerate being used as nails.  Holes should always be drilled first.  If you wish to remove them later, the hole diameter needs to be at least the same as the pin diameter. To save on frustration,  the hole should be a done using a #drill bit that is a notch or two larger.   I can think of no place, no job, with a ship model where a nail would be appropriate. Nowhere - where it would not be destructive.   Most of the wood species that are scale appropriate have grain that is too tight and too dense to tolerate much compression.  The force gets passed along as a split between the fibers.
 
Superb work there Siggi!

To enforce what Siggi answered and be emphatic in world of interest where there is very little to be emphatic about:  Pins are not nails. They seldom tolerate being used as nails.  Holes should always be drilled first.  If you wish to remove them later, the hole diameter needs to be at least the same as the pin diameter. To save on frustration,  the hole should be a done using a #drill bit that is a notch or two larger.   I can think of no place, no job, with a ship model where a nail would be appropriate. Nowhere - where it would not be destructive.   Most of the wood species that are scale appropriate have grain that is too tight and too dense to tolerate much compression.  The force gets passed along as a split between the fibers.
 
Superb work there Siggi!

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.
 

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.

In my experience, at least, the irony is that shaping a solid hull (or stacking up a hollow "bread and butter" hull) takes a whole lot less time and work than building a POB or POF hull. Having cut my teeth on the old Model Shipways "yellow boxes," and Blue Jacket, and Marine Models solid hull kits, I couldn't agree more that they would almost be seen as 'scratch-builds" today! As the story goes, the manufacturers picked up some of the government surplus gunstock duplicating carving machines after the War and used those to shape their kit model hulls on a mass production basis. Those machines did a pretty accurate job. There wasn't a lot of need for checking shapes with a template if you had an eye for a fair shape. All many needed was just a surface sanding without the need for carved shaping, other than the stem, keel, and bulwarks which were left thick (to prevent damage in shipping, I suppose.)
 
I surely agree that there was little difference between the old pre-carved "kits" and scratch-building. All they provided that was not "scratch" were the cast metal fittings and the machine carved hull. Everything else, e.g. rigging thread, dowels, strip wood, that came in the old kits were just materials scratch-builders today buy piecemeal. What you were really paying for in the old kits were the plans and instructions and the perhaps exaggerated implied promise that anybody could build a model as good as the prototype in the photograph pasted on the end of the box.  Back in the day, it was assumed (although not disclosed in the advertising) that someone building a ship model knew a fair amount about their subject matter and in order to build a good model that knowledge was a prerequisite. The level of detail in the old plans and instructions presumed the modeler's knowledge of basic seamanship and nomenclature. Other than Underhill and Davis, available from specialty mail order houses, modeling tutorials were hard to source and the internet was decades in the future.
 
I think those of us who straddle the ship modeling kit generation gap will agree that the biggest difference modernly is that the level of general competence in the ordinary manual arts has dropped to the bottom of the barrel. Wood and metal "shop" and "mechanical drawing" aren't taught in high schools like they used to be. Relatively few younger people have woodworking skills beyond those required to assemble something out of an IKEA box. (Speaking of which, I expect today's kit manufacturers also appreciate the "knock-down" characteristics of POF and POB technology of POF which minimize shipping and warehousing costs.) Moreover, the power tool industry has convinced us all that their expensive machines are essential to produce high quality work all at the expense of the acquisition of skill in the use of hand tools which can usually do the same job at a much lower cost when employed by a skilled user. 
 
The spectacular open-framed "as built" and "Navy Board style" models certainly have their place, but for the modelers who have yet to attain the highly refined level of skill necessary to build them, solid hull models, or "laid up" "bread and butter" hulls should not be overlooked as an option in building a fine model. Kits have their place, if for no other reason than to serve as the "gateway drug" for the modeling hobby, but it's a quantuum leap from LEGO to building a fine traditional ship model, and it should be. Not everything should be "dumbed down" for consumption by the masses.

Common construction pine would be my choice for this application.  Here in the USA construction quality lumber is graded SPF- Spruce, Pine, Fir.  I would dig through the pile to select a piece of pine.  Spruce is white, soft, and has a distinct and unpleasant smell.  Fir has a distinctive grain.  Pine has a nice tight, not particularly prominent grain and a light color.  An 8’ 1”x4” should be plenty unless you are building a model of the Great Eastern or Titanic.  You don’t need select grade as you can scrap areas with knots.
 
Before fiberglass, pine was the choice of the professional model builders that built the ship hull models to be towed in experimental test tanks.  
 
Roger
 
 

Yes indeed.  It is not so much a disagreement as me using the wrong phrase.   I think 'not invisible' is more appropriate than 'stands out'.
There are many species of Bamboo, and some have darker end grain.  Some cooperate with a draw plate peeling and some fight you all the way.
The vision in my mind is of the photos of a contemporary model at NMM that has obvious and over scale hull planking trunnels.  I have outwitted myself in where I filed my copies, so I can't name it, because I can't find them.  I think it was the model of HMS Centurion that Siggi is using as a reference for his HMS Tiger.   I have a feeling that something other than Bamboo was used in the 17th and 18th centuries in English ship model shops.  Chinese food, woks, and fondue was probably not that big a thing back then.
 
Your Inflexible is about as ideal as it gets.   For the diameter to match scale, I am guessing 1:48?  
I picked 1:60 across the board, thinking that one half the size of museum scale would be something that I can live with.  Going 1:120 would have been more practical, but I am not wired to build at miniature scale.
 

An especially obnoxious convention is two dark trunnels at each plank end and only the ends and the ends being placed at the same beam for every other strake.
 
Using trunnels at all only makes sense if they are used as real mechanical fasteners.  Then, the Bamboo end grain stands out even when that is unwanted.
I think pulling enough Bamboo slivers for a deck or worse hull planking  thru a #70 - #72 final size kills brain cells or at least gives them lactic acid poisoning.

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.