Jaager

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.

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.

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.
 

I'm sure someone has, but why would they want to? That would require drilling the holes, applying the putty, and then sanding the area and cleaning up. If one were so inclined, I'd suggest they use refinisher's crayons for the purpose. They "wipe on and wipe off," leaving the hole filled with a colored wax. No sanding necessary. See: https://www.amazon.com/Furniture-Repair-Crayon-Restore-Scratch/dp/B08FLZXKBZ/ref=sr_1_7?keywords=furniture+crayons&qid=1680053733&sr=8-7
 
If one wishes to indicate where the fasteners were placed in a deck or elsewhere, a technical pen can be used to draw dots of the desired diameter with indelible ink. ( India ink was used to good effect on many builders' models produced around the turn of the last century for indicating doors and windows and other details of deck furniture. Seal the raw wood with thin shellac before doing so to prevent the ink from soaking into the wood and spreading.)
 
If one is interested in an accurate portrayal rather than a "modeling convention," at scale viewing distances, trunnels are invisible and in most instances are basically the same color as the planking, not a dark contrasting color. (However, locust was commonly used for trunnels on the US Eastern Seaboard and it can be slightly darker that many planking species, but not so much that one would notice it, particularly on a weathered deck.) I really don't know why so many want to depict them, but they do. If it's done, though, the fasteners must be placed accurately where they would have been placed on the prototype. The biggest eyesore in this respect are highly visible deck and planking fasteners which are not accurately placed, especially where only one fastener is showing in a plank end.
 
 
 
 
 
 

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.

This is a complicated and a "it depends" goal.
If you want the popular version, use actual copper sheets or foil,  to go deeply into decorator kitsch - use the material with soup bowl sized bumps.  Neither will be realistic.
 
A thin archival paper painted with a material containing metallic copper particles will be closer to scale.  There are reactive follow on solutions to get as much or as little green or blue if and as desired.
Being paper, PVA can be used to bond the plates.  Coating the hull with PVA and letting dry at the start,  coating the plates with PVA and letting it dry,  allows for an iron with temp control to fix the plate to the hull -near instantly.  
An experiment to try: 
coat a sheet with PVA.
paint the other side with copper.
I am thinking that mineral spirits or terp based enamel (redundant?) would be better than water based paint - which probably does not like metallic copper anyway - as well as leaving a flat icky finish when dry.
Then use the guillotine to get individual plates.
This may not be kosher,  but each sheet could be painted with a slightly different shade of copper - very slightly different -too show off the plates as being individuals.
 
Questions:
What is the effect of the paint on polymerized PVA on the other side of a sheet of paper?
Would painting first and then coating with PVA on the other side produce a surface incompatible with PVA bonding to it?
If it does not, that means that a wet coat of PVA on the other side of a painted plate could be used to bond the plate to a bare wood hull.  With a 15 min open time, I am guessing that the wet to dry method could be complicated and slower to get a tight bond. 
 
 
I looked at your outside carved boat hull at this stage - and thought: 'what a wonderful mould!'
Shellac the hull, Fix it upside down on a block.  Mount the stem, keel, and stern.  Saran Wrap or paraffin wax.   Then use thick paper or thin cardboard as scale appropriate planking.
It would be thin, so the rail  need not be as wide. 
You could make as many replicates of the hull as you could possibly want.  As well as not having to be perfect on your first try.
For the ribs -  use a wood that tolerates bending - dry heat bend - increment bend until it fits - being dry, PVA will be the bonding agent.
 
 

PVA bonds are mechanical /physical bonds.  While the words dry and cure are used for the bonding process, what is happening is the "poly" part.
A catalyzed chemical reaction is occurring.  The acrylamide units are bonding into long chains.  These chains intrude into the irregular and porous surfaces of the two surfaces being bonded.
It is a physical grip by PVA chains that makes the bond. 
Metals and plastics have smooth surfaces and have no pores.  There is nothing for the PVA chains intrude into. 
For wood to wood, PVA is an excellent choice.   For wood to metal or wood to plastic, you are wasting your effort.  It ain't gonna bond.
 
CA might work, but you are bonding a large surface area and the CA on a lot of it - the earliest applied - has probably finished its chemical reaction before the entire surface has been treated.  It is just newly added bumps keeping the two surfaces from even touching.
 
Epoxy is good for wood to metal.  There are watery clear two part epoxy that have a long enough open time - if epoxy is compatible with polystyrene.
 
There are a lot of kits with inadequate instructions,  but for a kit that is using materials that are almost never used together,  materials that probably should not be used together,  materials that require a unique bonding agent,  it is unconscionable not make suggestions for an agent suitable to bond them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.