Jaager

If the object being held can stand the pressure,  Kelly clamps become No Mar holders if a piece of used IV tubing is slipped over the teeth.
What with the close tolerance there is pressure even with thin wall Tygon.

If the object being held can stand the pressure,  Kelly clamps become No Mar holders if a piece of used IV tubing is slipped over the teeth.
What with the close tolerance there is pressure even with thin wall Tygon.

I do not know what helping hands cost now,  but recommendations have been made here for fly tying vises.  Some at the site of this link are not expensive:
 
J.Stockard Fly Fishing

I do not know what helping hands cost now,  but recommendations have been made here for fly tying vises.  Some at the site of this link are not expensive:
 
J.Stockard Fly Fishing

I do not know what helping hands cost now,  but recommendations have been made here for fly tying vises.  Some at the site of this link are not expensive:
 
J.Stockard Fly Fishing

I do not know what helping hands cost now,  but recommendations have been made here for fly tying vises.  Some at the site of this link are not expensive:
 
J.Stockard Fly Fishing

It is a terrible choice.  It has a relatively short life. It becomes brittle and releases its bond. 
It is thick and does not allow positioning.  There is no easy way to reverse it.
 
Attach Lino to a plywood sheet for something intended to last 10 years or so - go for it.
 
PVA plus heat can become a contract cement of sorts.  A dry even coat on both meeting surfaces plus heat activates a bond.  The outside layer has to be thin enough to allow heat transfer at a temp that does not char or cook the outer layer.

Tanganika  does not bring up any result on the Wood Database.
It appears to be a advertising catchall name for whichever wood the African wood supplier could provide that day.
Walnut is a wood with a similarly misleading name.  It is about the color, definitely not actual tree.  one of many African Mahogany-like species.
If the pattern holds, the Maple may be Obeche - especially if it is soft.
All are probably coarse grain, brittle/friable, open pore,
 
I predict that none of it will be rewarding to work.  That it will fight you all of the way.
 
Ideal is a variety of low cost readily available domestic species that are hard to very hard, straight grain, fine texture, no pores.  
For POB, the lower volume of wood needed allows some leeway on affordable prices for substitutes.  For POF, volume for framing stock is significant.

Tanganika  does not bring up any result on the Wood Database.
It appears to be a advertising catchall name for whichever wood the African wood supplier could provide that day.
Walnut is a wood with a similarly misleading name.  It is about the color, definitely not actual tree.  one of many African Mahogany-like species.
If the pattern holds, the Maple may be Obeche - especially if it is soft.
All are probably coarse grain, brittle/friable, open pore,
 
I predict that none of it will be rewarding to work.  That it will fight you all of the way.
 
Ideal is a variety of low cost readily available domestic species that are hard to very hard, straight grain, fine texture, no pores.  
For POB, the lower volume of wood needed allows some leeway on affordable prices for substitutes.  For POF, volume for framing stock is significant.

Tanganika  does not bring up any result on the Wood Database.
It appears to be a advertising catchall name for whichever wood the African wood supplier could provide that day.
Walnut is a wood with a similarly misleading name.  It is about the color, definitely not actual tree.  one of many African Mahogany-like species.
If the pattern holds, the Maple may be Obeche - especially if it is soft.
All are probably coarse grain, brittle/friable, open pore,
 
I predict that none of it will be rewarding to work.  That it will fight you all of the way.
 
Ideal is a variety of low cost readily available domestic species that are hard to very hard, straight grain, fine texture, no pores.  
For POB, the lower volume of wood needed allows some leeway on affordable prices for substitutes.  For POF, volume for framing stock is significant.

Tanganika  does not bring up any result on the Wood Database.
It appears to be a advertising catchall name for whichever wood the African wood supplier could provide that day.
Walnut is a wood with a similarly misleading name.  It is about the color, definitely not actual tree.  one of many African Mahogany-like species.
If the pattern holds, the Maple may be Obeche - especially if it is soft.
All are probably coarse grain, brittle/friable, open pore,
 
I predict that none of it will be rewarding to work.  That it will fight you all of the way.
 
Ideal is a variety of low cost readily available domestic species that are hard to very hard, straight grain, fine texture, no pores.  
For POB, the lower volume of wood needed allows some leeway on affordable prices for substitutes.  For POF, volume for framing stock is significant.

Shellac using a piece of a worn out tee shirt.  One coat for a flat Age of Sail deck.  More coats, more gloss.

It is the scanner that alters.   The printer replicates what the file saved is.  Just as long as the "fit to frame" box is not checked  in the print command window. Just as long as the page/canvas in the graphics program document file in use is exactly the size of the paper that the printer is set for.
 
I have a canvas as a stock document that I always use. It is as close to being exactly 8.5x14 as I could make it.  For everyone else, I guess 8.5x11.  I lacquer coat my patterns, doing this is not being a fun thing, I aim for fewer pages, thus the larger page,  an expensive choice.  There is a huge difference in price per ream.
The numbers that I came up with:  8.5x11   2197 pixels x 1701 pixels  and   8.5x14   2796 pixels x 1701 pixels.
I added a scan of a 15cm clear ruler.  Metric is easier for the scale adjustment math.    I selected the background and CUT, so that the layer is transparent except for the scale hash marks.   I scaled it in my graphics program (Painter - because I already had it) until a printout was identical to the original.  For a long time, I included the 15cm ruler bar at a horizontal edge and a vertical edge of every page as a check. 
 
For a home scan, the first thing to scan is a clear background ruler.   Once you determine the scale factor adjustment of your scanner, it will be a constant for that machine.
For outside scans, there must be a known distance on the page. 
I do all of my lofting at 1/4" : 1' .    I found a 1/4" scale on the Web.  I made it its own layer.  I selected the background and CUT, so that the layer is transparent except for the scale hash marks.
I had to adjust the scale of the layer until a printout was identical to the 1/4" scale on my triangular architects ruler.
So, every outside scan is has its known distance compared with my 1/4" layer.  When my scale adjustment has it match what I want it to be, every print has bee accurate.
When you adjust a scan, ALWAYS do it on a duplicate layer. Do not risk the original.  Chain adjustments can get out of control very rapidly.  If the first factor is not enough or too much, delete the duplicate layer.  Make a new duplicate and adjust that.  Write down every new number of scrap paper,  your memory will fail you. 

Shellac using a piece of a worn out tee shirt.  One coat for a flat Age of Sail deck.  More coats, more gloss.

It is the scanner that alters.   The printer replicates what the file saved is.  Just as long as the "fit to frame" box is not checked  in the print command window. Just as long as the page/canvas in the graphics program document file in use is exactly the size of the paper that the printer is set for.
 
I have a canvas as a stock document that I always use. It is as close to being exactly 8.5x14 as I could make it.  For everyone else, I guess 8.5x11.  I lacquer coat my patterns, doing this is not being a fun thing, I aim for fewer pages, thus the larger page,  an expensive choice.  There is a huge difference in price per ream.
The numbers that I came up with:  8.5x11   2197 pixels x 1701 pixels  and   8.5x14   2796 pixels x 1701 pixels.
I added a scan of a 15cm clear ruler.  Metric is easier for the scale adjustment math.    I selected the background and CUT, so that the layer is transparent except for the scale hash marks.   I scaled it in my graphics program (Painter - because I already had it) until a printout was identical to the original.  For a long time, I included the 15cm ruler bar at a horizontal edge and a vertical edge of every page as a check. 
 
For a home scan, the first thing to scan is a clear background ruler.   Once you determine the scale factor adjustment of your scanner, it will be a constant for that machine.
For outside scans, there must be a known distance on the page. 
I do all of my lofting at 1/4" : 1' .    I found a 1/4" scale on the Web.  I made it its own layer.  I selected the background and CUT, so that the layer is transparent except for the scale hash marks.
I had to adjust the scale of the layer until a printout was identical to the 1/4" scale on my triangular architects ruler.
So, every outside scan is has its known distance compared with my 1/4" layer.  When my scale adjustment has it match what I want it to be, every print has bee accurate.
When you adjust a scan, ALWAYS do it on a duplicate layer. Do not risk the original.  Chain adjustments can get out of control very rapidly.  If the first factor is not enough or too much, delete the duplicate layer.  Make a new duplicate and adjust that.  Write down every new number of scrap paper,  your memory will fail you. 

It is the scanner that alters.   The printer replicates what the file saved is.  Just as long as the "fit to frame" box is not checked  in the print command window. Just as long as the page/canvas in the graphics program document file in use is exactly the size of the paper that the printer is set for.
 
I have a canvas as a stock document that I always use. It is as close to being exactly 8.5x14 as I could make it.  For everyone else, I guess 8.5x11.  I lacquer coat my patterns, doing this is not being a fun thing, I aim for fewer pages, thus the larger page,  an expensive choice.  There is a huge difference in price per ream.
The numbers that I came up with:  8.5x11   2197 pixels x 1701 pixels  and   8.5x14   2796 pixels x 1701 pixels.
I added a scan of a 15cm clear ruler.  Metric is easier for the scale adjustment math.    I selected the background and CUT, so that the layer is transparent except for the scale hash marks.   I scaled it in my graphics program (Painter - because I already had it) until a printout was identical to the original.  For a long time, I included the 15cm ruler bar at a horizontal edge and a vertical edge of every page as a check. 
 
For a home scan, the first thing to scan is a clear background ruler.   Once you determine the scale factor adjustment of your scanner, it will be a constant for that machine.
For outside scans, there must be a known distance on the page. 
I do all of my lofting at 1/4" : 1' .    I found a 1/4" scale on the Web.  I made it its own layer.  I selected the background and CUT, so that the layer is transparent except for the scale hash marks.
I had to adjust the scale of the layer until a printout was identical to the 1/4" scale on my triangular architects ruler.
So, every outside scan is has its known distance compared with my 1/4" layer.  When my scale adjustment has it match what I want it to be, every print has bee accurate.
When you adjust a scan, ALWAYS do it on a duplicate layer. Do not risk the original.  Chain adjustments can get out of control very rapidly.  If the first factor is not enough or too much, delete the duplicate layer.  Make a new duplicate and adjust that.  Write down every new number of scrap paper,  your memory will fail you. 

Shellac using a piece of a worn out tee shirt.  One coat for a flat Age of Sail deck.  More coats, more gloss.

It is the scanner that alters.   The printer replicates what the file saved is.  Just as long as the "fit to frame" box is not checked  in the print command window. Just as long as the page/canvas in the graphics program document file in use is exactly the size of the paper that the printer is set for.
 
I have a canvas as a stock document that I always use. It is as close to being exactly 8.5x14 as I could make it.  For everyone else, I guess 8.5x11.  I lacquer coat my patterns, doing this is not being a fun thing, I aim for fewer pages, thus the larger page,  an expensive choice.  There is a huge difference in price per ream.
The numbers that I came up with:  8.5x11   2197 pixels x 1701 pixels  and   8.5x14   2796 pixels x 1701 pixels.
I added a scan of a 15cm clear ruler.  Metric is easier for the scale adjustment math.    I selected the background and CUT, so that the layer is transparent except for the scale hash marks.   I scaled it in my graphics program (Painter - because I already had it) until a printout was identical to the original.  For a long time, I included the 15cm ruler bar at a horizontal edge and a vertical edge of every page as a check. 
 
For a home scan, the first thing to scan is a clear background ruler.   Once you determine the scale factor adjustment of your scanner, it will be a constant for that machine.
For outside scans, there must be a known distance on the page. 
I do all of my lofting at 1/4" : 1' .    I found a 1/4" scale on the Web.  I made it its own layer.  I selected the background and CUT, so that the layer is transparent except for the scale hash marks.
I had to adjust the scale of the layer until a printout was identical to the 1/4" scale on my triangular architects ruler.
So, every outside scan is has its known distance compared with my 1/4" layer.  When my scale adjustment has it match what I want it to be, every print has bee accurate.
When you adjust a scan, ALWAYS do it on a duplicate layer. Do not risk the original.  Chain adjustments can get out of control very rapidly.  If the first factor is not enough or too much, delete the duplicate layer.  Make a new duplicate and adjust that.  Write down every new number of scrap paper,  your memory will fail you. 

It is the scanner that alters.   The printer replicates what the file saved is.  Just as long as the "fit to frame" box is not checked  in the print command window. Just as long as the page/canvas in the graphics program document file in use is exactly the size of the paper that the printer is set for.
 
I have a canvas as a stock document that I always use. It is as close to being exactly 8.5x14 as I could make it.  For everyone else, I guess 8.5x11.  I lacquer coat my patterns, doing this is not being a fun thing, I aim for fewer pages, thus the larger page,  an expensive choice.  There is a huge difference in price per ream.
The numbers that I came up with:  8.5x11   2197 pixels x 1701 pixels  and   8.5x14   2796 pixels x 1701 pixels.
I added a scan of a 15cm clear ruler.  Metric is easier for the scale adjustment math.    I selected the background and CUT, so that the layer is transparent except for the scale hash marks.   I scaled it in my graphics program (Painter - because I already had it) until a printout was identical to the original.  For a long time, I included the 15cm ruler bar at a horizontal edge and a vertical edge of every page as a check. 
 
For a home scan, the first thing to scan is a clear background ruler.   Once you determine the scale factor adjustment of your scanner, it will be a constant for that machine.
For outside scans, there must be a known distance on the page. 
I do all of my lofting at 1/4" : 1' .    I found a 1/4" scale on the Web.  I made it its own layer.  I selected the background and CUT, so that the layer is transparent except for the scale hash marks.
I had to adjust the scale of the layer until a printout was identical to the 1/4" scale on my triangular architects ruler.
So, every outside scan is has its known distance compared with my 1/4" layer.  When my scale adjustment has it match what I want it to be, every print has bee accurate.
When you adjust a scan, ALWAYS do it on a duplicate layer. Do not risk the original.  Chain adjustments can get out of control very rapidly.  If the first factor is not enough or too much, delete the duplicate layer.  Make a new duplicate and adjust that.  Write down every new number of scrap paper,  your memory will fail you. 

Shellac using a piece of a worn out tee shirt.  One coat for a flat Age of Sail deck.  More coats, more gloss.

Shellac using a piece of a worn out tee shirt.  One coat for a flat Age of Sail deck.  More coats, more gloss.

Underhill's books appear to be still available from the original publisher's web site in the UK  Brown, Son and Ferguson
His plans are also there - almost all are later 19th and early 20th century subjects
 
https://www.skipper.co.uk/catalogue/books/page
https://www.skipper.co.uk/catalogue/item/masting-and-rigging  L 22
https://www.skipper.co.uk/catalogue/item/plank-on-frame-models-and-scale-masting-rigging-volume-1  L 25
https://www.skipper.co.uk/catalogue/item/plank-on-frame-models-and-scale-masting-rigging-volume-2  L 20
https://www.skipper.co.uk/catalogue/item/deep-water-sail L 30
https://www.skipper.co.uk/catalogue/item/sailing-ship-rigs-and-rigging L 16
 
 
Both ANCRE books are " available" 
as written, the shipping is so high that I will no longer consider any purchase.
They need a US agent, and not one focused on avarice  - cough NIP cough
 
https://ancre.fr/en/14-basic-books
 
AN INTRODUCTION TO PLANKED ON FRAME SCALE MODEL SHIP BUILDING
AN INTRODUCTION TO PLANKED ON FRAME SCALE MODEL SHIP BUILDING “DOCKYARD STYLE”
An introduction to Planked on frame model ship building through more than 200 pages illustrated by approximately 500 colour photographs and captions.
 This guide includes explanations on all the techniques used during the construction of a model.
EAN : 9791096873920
Model MODELA
En stock
    Print
Author : Adrian SOROLLA translation by GILLES KORENT
49 Euro
 
The Art of Shipmodeling - Bernard Frolich
The Art of Shipmodeling describes the author's experience and methods in 300 pages abundantly illustrated with numerous drawings, sketchs and more than 600 commentated photos.
Model LART
En stock
    Print
Author : Bernard Frölich
89 Euro
 
 

Using either to do the job of a plane will probably not be a rewarding experience.  A plane is designed to limit the depth of cut.
 
The hounds region is usually smaller than the round.   Use the mast required square as the chucked section and after the rounding, work the square section down to the correct square/ rectangular cross section.  
I would probably use the top of my vise jaws as my depth stop.
 
As for your "Would that work?" question:  i.e.  hand planing to octagonal ( or whatever a 16 sided polygon is named) and then sanding  vs starting with a square and using a sanding function to do all of the cutting,
(putting on my professor hat) =  start with two identical sticks - make your mast using a plane on one and use the drill as a lathe and use a sanding stick as a very shallow cutting turning chisel on the other and give us the result of your experiment.    My imagination tells me that using a sanding stick (lots of sanding sticks probably) will take significantly longer?

I checked on Amazon.   AM Arrowmax  offers a small spectrum  of variations,  none of which intersect with my needs. Mostly it is mutually exclusive for the 50-80 wire gauge drill bit function.  Speeds and tool attachment are discordant. The models with a chuck that allows infinite diameter bits do not have the speeds that I require.  The ones with the speed have a fixed size insert.  There is even one with 10,000 to 30,000 RPM if burning a hole instead of drilling one is an aim.
 
The drill bit sets with a fixed size base are usually carbide - not HSS.  Most of what we do involves the possibility of "Parkinson-like" twitches.  HSS has flex, carbide does not.
 
Reading the reviews - red flags - lots of red flags - the quality of the materials and the gauges of the wires - I fear planned obsolescence and short term obsolescence at that.
 
 

I  checked my copy and there was no plan for Thermopylae.   The period covered falls a decade short of Thermopylae.
 
A different book does
TEA CLIPPERS ,THE                                                
MACGREGOR,DAVID R    CONWAY MARITIME PRESS  LONDON 1983
 
3 sheets  lines,   deck,   spars
There are also photos of the ship - probably of it at an older point in its existence.
The plans are small  - too small.
 
If there are plans in a book by David MacGregor  then the full size 1/4"  are probably in his collection.
I did a key word search and the plans are now owned by an entity that does not seem inclined to provide copies.
 
I think David MacGregor sold plans for a while.  I am not sure if this ship was included but probably so since a pirate site lists a copy that seems to be the three sheets from the book on a single page. 
For these monster size ships, the 1/4" scale plans range about 5' to 6'  long.