Jaager

Check the plans for ship's boat drawn by Underhill at the Brown, Son and Ferguson web site.
I count 5 possibles -  about page 20-21
 
https://skipper.co.uk/catalogue/drawings-and-plans/page/20

I think it is Steele,  but even two hundred years later, the outer frames at both bow and stern were allowed to have a reduced sided dimension. This was under strict limits.  I imagine that at earlier times, things were more fluid. 
The length of the timbers probably had an irregular range, based on what was in the yard.  The frames themselves probably sported a large number of chocks in the spaces, rectangular,  irregular, and of a size to hold the frames as a unit, but small enough not to block air circulation.  At a certain point, there will be a clash of practical reality and economy with scale model esthetics and modeler's convention.  
 
The frame profile in Blom of the 7P - done at the time of the build - displays an irregular mess.
The Dutch used the three frame method to shape the hull on the ways.
The English used the three frame method to shape the hull on the drawing board. 
The cross section at each station was extracted from this shape.  This was the data used in the mold loft.
 
In England, I see something like this:
The plans that were from the architect were seen as optimistic suggestions by the mold loft and shipwright.
The molds and jigs from the loft were of the midline of the bends at each station.
The shipwright determined the shape of everything in between. 

Until I read the title I had not registered the significance of the 1570 date for Baker.  The broad outlines for his design methods are still in use 100 years later in Deane.
 
Were I from a naval architecture and an early modern period historian  and my ambition was to produce a temporarily definitive text for ship design of the period, I would explore the following assertions:   Unfortunately,  no matter how well it is done, such a text would only ever be unprovable supposition.
 
The first to develop this "new" design and construction method were the Dutch.
 
The Dutch were totally secretive within their own family clans as to what were the specifics of their methods.
 
The English imported Dutch shipbuilders to get their own industry started with these "modern" designs.
 
The Dutch had been using the three frame method to define the underwater body from the beginning.
 
What Baker is doing is trying to produce a systematic and reproducible explanation of what the Dutch were doing "on the back of an envelop that they carried in their shirt pocket".  The English wanted large ship plans - for the Royals - before any wood was committed to the ways.  A committee instead of a diva shipwright.
 
The Dutch had to deal with vast shallow water estuaries for hull forms.  This is a constraint that the English did not have.
Some of Baker may reflect general Dutch methods, but making changes to produce a deeper and more narrow hull.
Perhaps a synthesis of traditional Renaissance cross sections with "modern" design methods.

I think it is Steele,  but even two hundred years later, the outer frames at both bow and stern were allowed to have a reduced sided dimension. This was under strict limits.  I imagine that at earlier times, things were more fluid. 
The length of the timbers probably had an irregular range, based on what was in the yard.  The frames themselves probably sported a large number of chocks in the spaces, rectangular,  irregular, and of a size to hold the frames as a unit, but small enough not to block air circulation.  At a certain point, there will be a clash of practical reality and economy with scale model esthetics and modeler's convention.  
 
The frame profile in Blom of the 7P - done at the time of the build - displays an irregular mess.
The Dutch used the three frame method to shape the hull on the ways.
The English used the three frame method to shape the hull on the drawing board. 
The cross section at each station was extracted from this shape.  This was the data used in the mold loft.
 
In England, I see something like this:
The plans that were from the architect were seen as optimistic suggestions by the mold loft and shipwright.
The molds and jigs from the loft were of the midline of the bends at each station.
The shipwright determined the shape of everything in between. 

Until I read the title I had not registered the significance of the 1570 date for Baker.  The broad outlines for his design methods are still in use 100 years later in Deane.
 
Were I from a naval architecture and an early modern period historian  and my ambition was to produce a temporarily definitive text for ship design of the period, I would explore the following assertions:   Unfortunately,  no matter how well it is done, such a text would only ever be unprovable supposition.
 
The first to develop this "new" design and construction method were the Dutch.
 
The Dutch were totally secretive within their own family clans as to what were the specifics of their methods.
 
The English imported Dutch shipbuilders to get their own industry started with these "modern" designs.
 
The Dutch had been using the three frame method to define the underwater body from the beginning.
 
What Baker is doing is trying to produce a systematic and reproducible explanation of what the Dutch were doing "on the back of an envelop that they carried in their shirt pocket".  The English wanted large ship plans - for the Royals - before any wood was committed to the ways.  A committee instead of a diva shipwright.
 
The Dutch had to deal with vast shallow water estuaries for hull forms.  This is a constraint that the English did not have.
Some of Baker may reflect general Dutch methods, but making changes to produce a deeper and more narrow hull.
Perhaps a synthesis of traditional Renaissance cross sections with "modern" design methods.

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.

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

It hurts my brain to even think about how to run the numbers, but 1:36  may be 2-3 times the volume of 1:48.  If you are going to feature any vessels of significant size, your lumber needs will be significant.
I would not give any thought to setting up my lumber stock to be "just in time".   I would have enough for 3 vessels on hand and replace that PRN.   It is probably a sign of me aging,  but rolling the bones tells me that we are at an inflection point and among other things, lumber cost and availability will be more difficult than just an extrapolation of past behavior.  Do not depend on what is available today to be there tomorrow.
 
This is an interesting opportunity to exercise fantasy and imagination:
 
You already have experience with small mills and if if your use so far has you wanting to upgrade, this is probably not a frivolous exercise for you.  In your place, I would probably bite the bullet and make sure that what I bought was a serious machine.  One that is sturdy, precise, and accurate.  A machine that did not use proprietary  accessories.  I checked Little Machine Shop and found that the micro mill that I kept the link for, has been discontinued.  At this stage I would investigate what the professionals use and avoid anything that is mass market.
 
The present inventory seems to be:
 
"SIEG SX1P"  HiTorque Micro Mill, 2MT Spindle   $1000  120 lb
SIEG X2D Mini Mill    $800   180 lb
HiTorque Mini Mill    $1400   180 lb
HiTorque Mini Mill, Deluxe   $2100   190 lb
 
The practical factor is maybe that these machines are for milling iron or steel or blocks of Al.  For wood, the quality of the cutters and their edge is probably the key factor.
 
I expect that the ceiling rail tracks and the electric chain hoist needed to lift and move these machines will add to the overall cost.

It hurts my brain to even think about how to run the numbers, but 1:36  may be 2-3 times the volume of 1:48.  If you are going to feature any vessels of significant size, your lumber needs will be significant.
I would not give any thought to setting up my lumber stock to be "just in time".   I would have enough for 3 vessels on hand and replace that PRN.   It is probably a sign of me aging,  but rolling the bones tells me that we are at an inflection point and among other things, lumber cost and availability will be more difficult than just an extrapolation of past behavior.  Do not depend on what is available today to be there tomorrow.
 
This is an interesting opportunity to exercise fantasy and imagination:
 
You already have experience with small mills and if if your use so far has you wanting to upgrade, this is probably not a frivolous exercise for you.  In your place, I would probably bite the bullet and make sure that what I bought was a serious machine.  One that is sturdy, precise, and accurate.  A machine that did not use proprietary  accessories.  I checked Little Machine Shop and found that the micro mill that I kept the link for, has been discontinued.  At this stage I would investigate what the professionals use and avoid anything that is mass market.
 
The present inventory seems to be:
 
"SIEG SX1P"  HiTorque Micro Mill, 2MT Spindle   $1000  120 lb
SIEG X2D Mini Mill    $800   180 lb
HiTorque Mini Mill    $1400   180 lb
HiTorque Mini Mill, Deluxe   $2100   190 lb
 
The practical factor is maybe that these machines are for milling iron or steel or blocks of Al.  For wood, the quality of the cutters and their edge is probably the key factor.
 
I expect that the ceiling rail tracks and the electric chain hoist needed to lift and move these machines will add to the overall cost.

The books covering "how to" for ship modeling from before 1970 list Lancewood as one of the preferred species for spars.  Another species is Degame.   I do not recall Buxus simpervirens (Boxwood) being listed as being especially favored for spars.   For Lancewood and Degame,  splitting spar stock out of the plank along the grain would be the way to help prevent any bending or dog leg crooks over time. 
 
For any part of a hull, any of the three would be a superior species,  if POF is the method under discussion.  The problem being that all three have been all but impossible to obtain for about 70 years or so.   I suspect that even if Lancewood was available as 4x4 or 8x4 stock, the cost for 10-20 BF needed for frames, clamps, hooks, and beams would be a bit prohibitive.   But, I wonder if this new post Covid economy is going to affect most other species to drive the price up?  Now may be similarly seen as a golden age of missed opportunity for even our more limited choices when viewed from a time not all that far into the future?
 
 

Hans,
 
It is probably prudent if the chamber holding a model not be tightly sealed.  
Consider making provision for the chamber to "breathe"  yet sort of sequester any dust floating in the air.
Glass wool may help as well as discouraging any small spiders from entering.
PVA and I think some species of wood outgas acetic acid.

The books covering "how to" for ship modeling from before 1970 list Lancewood as one of the preferred species for spars.  Another species is Degame.   I do not recall Buxus simpervirens (Boxwood) being listed as being especially favored for spars.   For Lancewood and Degame,  splitting spar stock out of the plank along the grain would be the way to help prevent any bending or dog leg crooks over time. 
 
For any part of a hull, any of the three would be a superior species,  if POF is the method under discussion.  The problem being that all three have been all but impossible to obtain for about 70 years or so.   I suspect that even if Lancewood was available as 4x4 or 8x4 stock, the cost for 10-20 BF needed for frames, clamps, hooks, and beams would be a bit prohibitive.   But, I wonder if this new post Covid economy is going to affect most other species to drive the price up?  Now may be similarly seen as a golden age of missed opportunity for even our more limited choices when viewed from a time not all that far into the future?
 
 

I was going under the impression that the unit in question would be a UK only deal.
Bob, cut thru my knot and jumped on the most simple answer - just save the head and attach it to a regular soldering iron handle.
That would make the plug on the sale unit not relevant.  It would also open it up to the US.
 
I was looking at  Romex at Home Depot, since a recent post was about how expensive a coil has become.  The 220V is  4 wire.  The plug on Ebay is two prong and round.  I was trying to get my head around a match up of 4 wire Romex with that plug.  I also wonder if a kid who stuck a metal object on into a 220V plug would have a more interesting experience than a US kid who did it with a 110V?

I was going under the impression that the unit in question would be a UK only deal.
Bob, cut thru my knot and jumped on the most simple answer - just save the head and attach it to a regular soldering iron handle.
That would make the plug on the sale unit not relevant.  It would also open it up to the US.
 
I was looking at  Romex at Home Depot, since a recent post was about how expensive a coil has become.  The 220V is  4 wire.  The plug on Ebay is two prong and round.  I was trying to get my head around a match up of 4 wire Romex with that plug.  I also wonder if a kid who stuck a metal object on into a 220V plug would have a more interesting experience than a US kid who did it with a 110V?

Do yourself a favor and read this ASAP:        https://modelshipworld.com/topic/13703-for-beginners-a-cautionary-tale/
 
In the spirit of a scientific thought experiment, I propose the following:
 
It is true that more than a few have begun with a Victory kit (or SotS or Constitution) and managed a successful completion.  But I seriously doubt that any one of them would have felt the need to ask the question that you did.   The self assured arrogance or whatever personality traits that are required to carry them past the initial intimidating barrier and all the many subsequent ones on to a finish are the mental tools that would also keep them from even considering asking anyone else about the wisdom of their choice.
 
Starting with a monster and finishing it is a infrequent occurrence.   For these most popular of ship model kit subjects, the number that have been barely or even never been started vastly,vastly out number the number taken to completion. 
 
If you have no background in miniature wood working,  if plastic kits are your only experience, then you would do well to spend time and imagination reading a lot of kit build logs.   Plastic is a separate skill set for skills beyond research and painting.
 
This is a new world.  It is broad enough to engage several lifetimes, but not impossibly open ended.  Nothing else will expose you to the technology - the entire technology - of the time period of a chosen subject.  
 
 

After nearly 8 years of occassional search in various archives and libraries for a digital copy, I have finally been able to locate a PDF version of the subject treatise from about 1685 by Edward Battine.  For those interested in the evolution of ship building and design this would be a nice addition to the collection.
 
Battine, Edward. 1685. The Method of Building, Rigging, Apparelling, & Furnishing His Majesties Ships of Warr, According to Their Rates. https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/17268860.   At 60mb the document is a bit too large for me to upload here.   Enjoy!  
 
 

Do yourself a favor and read this ASAP:        https://modelshipworld.com/topic/13703-for-beginners-a-cautionary-tale/
 
In the spirit of a scientific thought experiment, I propose the following:
 
It is true that more than a few have begun with a Victory kit (or SotS or Constitution) and managed a successful completion.  But I seriously doubt that any one of them would have felt the need to ask the question that you did.   The self assured arrogance or whatever personality traits that are required to carry them past the initial intimidating barrier and all the many subsequent ones on to a finish are the mental tools that would also keep them from even considering asking anyone else about the wisdom of their choice.
 
Starting with a monster and finishing it is a infrequent occurrence.   For these most popular of ship model kit subjects, the number that have been barely or even never been started vastly,vastly out number the number taken to completion. 
 
If you have no background in miniature wood working,  if plastic kits are your only experience, then you would do well to spend time and imagination reading a lot of kit build logs.   Plastic is a separate skill set for skills beyond research and painting.
 
This is a new world.  It is broad enough to engage several lifetimes, but not impossibly open ended.  Nothing else will expose you to the technology - the entire technology - of the time period of a chosen subject.  
 
 

Enamel paints use organic solvents that are not misable with water.    If you are spraying enamel paint,  the condensed water vapor that increased pressure produced would probably make a mess of your paint application. 
 
The most common class of model paint now is acrylic  which uses water as a solvent.  A slug of water may dilute pigment concentration,  but it may be easier to just  direct the nozzle to a piece of scrap cardboard until the water clears - if it appears.  The existing trap would probably cover you anyway.

Phantom may be worth a reevaluation for what it is, instead of what it is not.
 
Phantom has an elegant hull.  The curves are appealing.  The vessel itself is spare but the overall presentation has a beauty to it.  
I remember it as coming as a carved hull in both 1/4" and 1/8" scale.   If it has a copper bottom,  using actual metal at either scale would probably ruin the elegance.  Tissue paper or just paint  or  - a planking over the solid using a veneer of an appropriate species of wood?
A small vessel at 1/8th scale is more an expression of a skill at miniature scale. A lot of the materials that we use at larger scales begin to lose translation ability at 1/8th and artful faking begins to be needed. 

Phantom may be worth a reevaluation for what it is, instead of what it is not.
 
Phantom has an elegant hull.  The curves are appealing.  The vessel itself is spare but the overall presentation has a beauty to it.  
I remember it as coming as a carved hull in both 1/4" and 1/8" scale.   If it has a copper bottom,  using actual metal at either scale would probably ruin the elegance.  Tissue paper or just paint  or  - a planking over the solid using a veneer of an appropriate species of wood?
A small vessel at 1/8th scale is more an expression of a skill at miniature scale. A lot of the materials that we use at larger scales begin to lose translation ability at 1/8th and artful faking begins to be needed. 

Phantom may be worth a reevaluation for what it is, instead of what it is not.
 
Phantom has an elegant hull.  The curves are appealing.  The vessel itself is spare but the overall presentation has a beauty to it.  
I remember it as coming as a carved hull in both 1/4" and 1/8" scale.   If it has a copper bottom,  using actual metal at either scale would probably ruin the elegance.  Tissue paper or just paint  or  - a planking over the solid using a veneer of an appropriate species of wood?
A small vessel at 1/8th scale is more an expression of a skill at miniature scale. A lot of the materials that we use at larger scales begin to lose translation ability at 1/8th and artful faking begins to be needed. 

Do yourself a favor and read this ASAP:        https://modelshipworld.com/topic/13703-for-beginners-a-cautionary-tale/
 
In the spirit of a scientific thought experiment, I propose the following:
 
It is true that more than a few have begun with a Victory kit (or SotS or Constitution) and managed a successful completion.  But I seriously doubt that any one of them would have felt the need to ask the question that you did.   The self assured arrogance or whatever personality traits that are required to carry them past the initial intimidating barrier and all the many subsequent ones on to a finish are the mental tools that would also keep them from even considering asking anyone else about the wisdom of their choice.
 
Starting with a monster and finishing it is a infrequent occurrence.   For these most popular of ship model kit subjects, the number that have been barely or even never been started vastly,vastly out number the number taken to completion. 
 
If you have no background in miniature wood working,  if plastic kits are your only experience, then you would do well to spend time and imagination reading a lot of kit build logs.   Plastic is a separate skill set for skills beyond research and painting.
 
This is a new world.  It is broad enough to engage several lifetimes, but not impossibly open ended.  Nothing else will expose you to the technology - the entire technology - of the time period of a chosen subject.  
 
 

In reference to the last question in the title:  Am I alone in this?
While it works about as well as can be wished for iron and steel,  plastic is |absolutely| unconvincing and inappropriate in representing wood. 
So the answer is: No.

There is also a Chinese copy of the Chopper - for half its price - less well made - and probably not a licensed version, but the original may not have been an original enough construct to gain legal protection.   
 
For the same lower price, there is a HF powered version.  This machine does the job, except that the safety ON trigger wants to be jammed ON for it to work in a practical way,  The table to the right of the blade is not really there and needs to be added - scrap acrylic sheet - a 3/4" plywood base, screws and spacers.  The blade is a raw amputation device waiting to happen - the housing for the handle makes dealing with the cutoff pieces all but impossible and the spinning blade throws the freed product into the air behind the machine or into the vertical support for the hinge.  
 
Sometimes a miter box and saw or the frustrating Dobson seems a better way.  
 
We do not really want to use Basswood for such small parts.  The cutter is essentially a razor blade. Getting a fixed blade thru hardwood of any real thickness without a hydraulic press force and needing to sharpen  the edge every few cuts to avoid crush of fibers are compromises inherent to the design.

There is also a Chinese copy of the Chopper - for half its price - less well made - and probably not a licensed version, but the original may not have been an original enough construct to gain legal protection.   
 
For the same lower price, there is a HF powered version.  This machine does the job, except that the safety ON trigger wants to be jammed ON for it to work in a practical way,  The table to the right of the blade is not really there and needs to be added - scrap acrylic sheet - a 3/4" plywood base, screws and spacers.  The blade is a raw amputation device waiting to happen - the housing for the handle makes dealing with the cutoff pieces all but impossible and the spinning blade throws the freed product into the air behind the machine or into the vertical support for the hinge.  
 
Sometimes a miter box and saw or the frustrating Dobson seems a better way.  
 
We do not really want to use Basswood for such small parts.  The cutter is essentially a razor blade. Getting a fixed blade thru hardwood of any real thickness without a hydraulic press force and needing to sharpen  the edge every few cuts to avoid crush of fibers are compromises inherent to the design.