Jaager

I have had excellent results using rubber cement.  I use a high quality brand - BestTest.  I apply a healthy coat to both surfaces - let it dry for ~15 min - then apply.  This is an instant grab- no adjustment version.  It will hold for a long time.  It just takes rubbing with your thumb to completely remove it.   I have a bottle of n-heptane - the solvent.   adding it to the cement bottle when it gets too thick to brush easily.
 
Plain paper can be a bit of work to get started to curl up - it will tear - the edge is a challenge to get under.  To make my patterns easier to remove, mostly immune from the effects of humidity, and protected from dirt and smudges - I brush a thick layer of brushing lacquer on the sheets. 
The solvent is fierce enough when brushed outside, I would never consider any spray version.  I overlap all four edges with 1/4" crepe masking tape because if the lacquer sneaks under the pattern and dries the patterns stick to the butcher paper they are taped onto.

Many thanks, Jaager. From your description it appears that you build your Navy Board style models as shown in Fig. 5 below, except your models are solid-framed in the upper parts of the hull (this is a diagram from the book on Navy Board models by Franklin, perhaps the most enlightening work on the subject).  

And in general, I see that we all interpret (meaning: simplify) the actual construction, more or less. To make things easier, faster, more regular, better looking, less wasteful etc. For several reasons it is simply not possible to make a true copy of a real ship.
 
 

Further to the post by Jaager, a few minutes research will turn up plans of framing dispostions and scantlings from which you will find the R&S for different ships and eras.   You can find a number of framing distribution drawings that may be similar or possibly the same as Endeavour at the RMG Collections site. Two pages to try are  https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/search/5th rate framing plan and https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/search/6th rate framing plan     For scantlings that also give the R&S, look at the 1750 Establishment or  Shipbuilder's Repository scantling folios where the R&S scantlings are similar for a fifth and sixth rate, 27" .  You can find all the scantlings from the Establishments, the SR, and Steel in the folios in Scantlings of Royal Navy Ships from Seawatch Books. In addition to the R&S, the floor and futtock sidings are also given in the scantlngs so you can determine the siding of the wood and the spaces between to match the R&S.  
 
Allan 
 
 

Allan,
I get my answer for this from the contract for the corvettes Warren and Falmouth  included in the appendix of HASN.
i.e.  heart Pine, max 10" width, 2.5" thick, 40' long.
 
American as a separate entity was late to the game.  Before 1783 the RN was us.  I have read about there being lots of trees in the North American colonies having a brand with the king's symbol - which I think meant  - you may own the the land, but this tree belongs to the RN.  The Baltic gets the press as the source for Pine and Pine tar in books published after 1783, but before this, I think Georgia and Carolinas were the main source for a while.
There was a species of Pine that was loved into near extinction in the early 20th century.  It was a large tree, very tall and straight.  The grain was distinct, yellow and red,  the red was as hard as a rock.  It could turn nails. I think it would depend on when a "repair" of Constitution was done for them to use it.  The later, the less likely that it was still available.   
 

First,  just to be contrary:
If Marquardt's presentation is the correct one.  If Endeavour was built in a private yard,  it serves to harden my cynical view of the procedure as done in the English government yards.  It would mean that not only did the North American and French yards  - but also the English private yards did not build using the eccentric, labor intensive, in inefficient style of topside framing that the RN yards used.
 
Now, on Navy Board framing and R&S
Based on Deane -  even though  very few have survived, plans were probably used at least in the last half of the 17th century.
The interval of the stations on the plans is a hard data point as far as framing.  I am also convinced that the actual Body plan station shapes were essentially all that was used in both the shipyard mould loft and the model shop mould loft to prepare the frame timber patterns for both the ship and a model of it.  
The station interval was usually every three,  sometimes four, maybe two at the ends, - bends.   A bend is two frames with the timbers of one overlapping the butts of its partner.
The table of scantlings decreed the thickness of the timbers.   If the station interval is three,  then it is six frames.  
Using HMS Prince George 1723 90   
R&S = 2' 7"  (31")  
Station interval = 8' (96")  3 bends or 6 frames per station
Floors sided = 14"
For the ship:    31" - 14" -14" = 3" space per bend   31" x 3 = 93"   so each bend would need another 1" of space.  Designer ego is my thought about the discrepancy.   I am fairly sure that even in the last half of the 17th century the frames would be all wood.  The space would be between.
 
For a Navy Board model, the space is within a frame.  The timbers must be wider. 
Stations 96"   - 6 frames per station = 16" width for each timber.
I think that the 17th century modelers rough shaped their frames in stack of six layers - using the station lines as their patterns.  The stock was wide sheets - maybe -each frame was one sheet. - The waste would have even the Hahn technique in a different league.  All of the layers put together for hull shaping.  Then the spaces were cut out using a chisel - the space zone would not have been glue coated to begin with.  Maybe thin paper was used to make it easy to find for removal.
 
As I wrote a few days ago, I think the Navy Board style framing served two purposes.  It is a strong hull and no battens or clamps are needed.   The overlap - the solid band at the turn of the bilge - is an easy visualization of two proof diagonals.
 
My recent reading has turned up that Navy Board framing was used for special model well into the 18th century.  It is an elegant and artistic style of framing.  I am happy that I have precedent of using it for ships built right up to 1780.  
After 1780 the warships design started to become purely functional war machines that do not deserve an artistic framing style.

I have had excellent results using rubber cement.  I use a high quality brand - BestTest.  I apply a healthy coat to both surfaces - let it dry for ~15 min - then apply.  This is an instant grab- no adjustment version.  It will hold for a long time.  It just takes rubbing with your thumb to completely remove it.   I have a bottle of n-heptane - the solvent.   adding it to the cement bottle when it gets too thick to brush easily.
 
Plain paper can be a bit of work to get started to curl up - it will tear - the edge is a challenge to get under.  To make my patterns easier to remove, mostly immune from the effects of humidity, and protected from dirt and smudges - I brush a thick layer of brushing lacquer on the sheets. 
The solvent is fierce enough when brushed outside, I would never consider any spray version.  I overlap all four edges with 1/4" crepe masking tape because if the lacquer sneaks under the pattern and dries the patterns stick to the butcher paper they are taped onto.

Kevin,
Same idea for the same reason:
I opted for the long gooseneck LED - with an  ON/OFF magnetic base.  It is not low cost, but it is bright, the magnet is a strong one, and it can get close but  not in the way.

First,  just to be contrary:
If Marquardt's presentation is the correct one.  If Endeavour was built in a private yard,  it serves to harden my cynical view of the procedure as done in the English government yards.  It would mean that not only did the North American and French yards  - but also the English private yards did not build using the eccentric, labor intensive, in inefficient style of topside framing that the RN yards used.
 
Now, on Navy Board framing and R&S
Based on Deane -  even though  very few have survived, plans were probably used at least in the last half of the 17th century.
The interval of the stations on the plans is a hard data point as far as framing.  I am also convinced that the actual Body plan station shapes were essentially all that was used in both the shipyard mould loft and the model shop mould loft to prepare the frame timber patterns for both the ship and a model of it.  
The station interval was usually every three,  sometimes four, maybe two at the ends, - bends.   A bend is two frames with the timbers of one overlapping the butts of its partner.
The table of scantlings decreed the thickness of the timbers.   If the station interval is three,  then it is six frames.  
Using HMS Prince George 1723 90   
R&S = 2' 7"  (31")  
Station interval = 8' (96")  3 bends or 6 frames per station
Floors sided = 14"
For the ship:    31" - 14" -14" = 3" space per bend   31" x 3 = 93"   so each bend would need another 1" of space.  Designer ego is my thought about the discrepancy.   I am fairly sure that even in the last half of the 17th century the frames would be all wood.  The space would be between.
 
For a Navy Board model, the space is within a frame.  The timbers must be wider. 
Stations 96"   - 6 frames per station = 16" width for each timber.
I think that the 17th century modelers rough shaped their frames in stack of six layers - using the station lines as their patterns.  The stock was wide sheets - maybe -each frame was one sheet. - The waste would have even the Hahn technique in a different league.  All of the layers put together for hull shaping.  Then the spaces were cut out using a chisel - the space zone would not have been glue coated to begin with.  Maybe thin paper was used to make it easy to find for removal.
 
As I wrote a few days ago, I think the Navy Board style framing served two purposes.  It is a strong hull and no battens or clamps are needed.   The overlap - the solid band at the turn of the bilge - is an easy visualization of two proof diagonals.
 
My recent reading has turned up that Navy Board framing was used for special model well into the 18th century.  It is an elegant and artistic style of framing.  I am happy that I have precedent of using it for ships built right up to 1780.  
After 1780 the warships design started to become purely functional war machines that do not deserve an artistic framing style.

Allan,
I get my answer for this from the contract for the corvettes Warren and Falmouth  included in the appendix of HASN.
i.e.  heart Pine, max 10" width, 2.5" thick, 40' long.
 
American as a separate entity was late to the game.  Before 1783 the RN was us.  I have read about there being lots of trees in the North American colonies having a brand with the king's symbol - which I think meant  - you may own the the land, but this tree belongs to the RN.  The Baltic gets the press as the source for Pine and Pine tar in books published after 1783, but before this, I think Georgia and Carolinas were the main source for a while.
There was a species of Pine that was loved into near extinction in the early 20th century.  It was a large tree, very tall and straight.  The grain was distinct, yellow and red,  the red was as hard as a rock.  It could turn nails. I think it would depend on when a "repair" of Constitution was done for them to use it.  The later, the less likely that it was still available.   
 

The following is speculation - I have no specific references, just years of reading:
 
The decking  - the probability is high that it was a southern yellow Pine.  
Working ships tended to have their decks subject to frequent sanding -  actual sand under a moving heavy flat rock.
No clear finish of any kind.  Bare feet react poorly to splinters.  These same feet tended to track tar, as well as it dripping from the rigging,  so a captain who wished to keep his command and or wished for promotion would keep the decks clean.
A varnished deck - more often wet than not - would be too slippery - they did not have TopSiders.
 
Consider a dose of 50% diluted clear shellac - and when dry, wait a few days and rub the surface with a ScotchBrite pad.
 
 
The wood Hard Maple, Birch, Beech -  To my eye the premium snow white Holly tends to be too white and I don't think any species of wood that gets large enough to build anything with is near that white.   But - I chanced upon some #1 common Holly at Advantage Lumber that was only $6.00.BF.  It is not white, the yield of usable product would likely be 50% at best.  But it what could be isolated would have the same wonderful Holly working characteristics.

Hans,
I tried to phrase what I wrote as supposition.  It was not intended to be seen as fact.  It was more in the nature of chum.
 
It is unfortunate for the historical knowledge that so much of what they did and how they did it was hidden and secret in an understandable effort to protect their "rice bowl".  Perhaps if it had been government and bureaucratic the archives would be more complete.
 
I do not apologize for suggesting that money, power and politics often shape decisions that should be strictly based on logic and science.

Hans,
I tried to phrase what I wrote as supposition.  It was not intended to be seen as fact.  It was more in the nature of chum.
 
It is unfortunate for the historical knowledge that so much of what they did and how they did it was hidden and secret in an understandable effort to protect their "rice bowl".  Perhaps if it had been government and bureaucratic the archives would be more complete.
 
I do not apologize for suggesting that money, power and politics often shape decisions that should be strictly based on logic and science.

Wonderful!  You have rescued the whole line...
 
Although, I am an antimatter analog to popular culture, not an author or draftsman,  I have been thinking of subjects for new title lines.
The 200th anniversary of the U.S. Ex.Ex.  is fast approaching.  Six vessels that represent the actual working vessels of the Antebellum USN.
There are plans for the others ships that were out there with them:  Astrolabe/Zelee.
Maybe the AOTS HMS Beagle can be rescued and actual physical plans be added.
Ships of the 1719 Establishment -  I found working plans for  100, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, 20 gun ships.
The HMS Prince - that was in the Science Museum for years - can be returned to the spotlight and a full monograph done.
 

From early in the 20th century, there was also Boucher (later Boucher-Lewis and then BlueJacket) who apparently provided kits as well as being a high quality model shop that may have inspired what A.J.Fisher provided in their kits.  The quality described suggests that the price may have also been quality.  

From early in the 20th century, there was also Boucher (later Boucher-Lewis and then BlueJacket) who apparently provided kits as well as being a high quality model shop that may have inspired what A.J.Fisher provided in their kits.  The quality described suggests that the price may have also been quality.  

IMHO Jagger’s post and Bob Cleek’s response is right on.  I do have one historical quibble.  In the 1930’s and 40’s A.J. Fisher located in a suburb of Detroit, Michigan did produce high quality kits based on, for the time, accurate historical information; much from HAMMS drawings.  Hulls were solid wood. I don’t know if they were machine carved or perhaps they furnished band sawed lifts to be laminated.  
 
Fittings were very high quality, mostly machined brass, to scale, and looking like real ship fittings; no bowling pin belaying pins.  Other fittings like ladders and rigging blocks were fabricated from tiny pieces of real boxwood.  Even the white metal castings have aged well without lead disease.  The two models built by my father are almost 80 years old.
 
 
Roger
 
 

@*Hans*  " a convex, pear-shaped hull with a strongly concave top and narrow decks – can plausibly be assumed to be the result of a succession of small developments that started at the end of the 16th century."
I read along time ago - no reference- sorry -  that the reason that Dutch vessels tended to have very narrow upper decks was because of how the taxes and customs duties were calculated.  The formula obviously used the breadth of the top deck to determine the cargo volume.  It would have been easy to use a more realistic formula, once the trick was obvious,  but I am guessing that the shipping interests must have gained control of at least that part of the government.  They must have become the ones with the money and thus the power.
 
I have developed an historical narrative about ship model kits that goes as follows:
The kits from the 1930's and 1940's were primitive - mostly a solid block or slightly carved one, some sticks, string and lead castings.  Then  after WWII   a lot of pattern following lathes became available as surplus when millions of M1 rifle stocks were no longer needed.  MS, BlueJacket, and I think another New England company that I think BlueJacket bought started providing more carefully carved hulls and better materials and using real plans for a new generation of kits.   Meanwhile, in Europe, I think first in Italy - around 1960 Aeropicola (sp) and Constructo (sp) and maybe others - not having access to cheap pattern chasing lathes , evolved a hull construction method for ships  based on how boats have been built for a long time - planking over molds.  Except that with boats, the molds are not a part of the final hull.  With boats the molds are at close enough intervals that the physics of the wood fibers do not allow for hollows. 
Based on what I see in Lusci (1970) and Conte (3rd ed n.d.) these early kits used plans of questionable accuracy and subjects likely to be popular even if their actual plans were a fantasy.   The molds were spaced at ridiculously wide intervals.  Two layers of planking was required to avoid a serpentine hull conformation.  The swimming body seems to have been given as little attention as possible.  A follow-on company - Mamoli - seems to have used the same hull shape for at least three vessels - Bounty - Endeavour - Beagle.  With so few molds, I am wondering if thin plywood was expensive in Italy at the time.
 
I find it bemusing and a bit ironic that features that were cheap short cuts of guys just trying to make a living (POB to begin with) and double planking for it - because it was cheaper than having enough molds to support a proper hull have flipped and are seen as some sort of standard.
 

Any chance of getting ghost writer or co-author to complete the series that Grant Walker bailed out of on the 3rd volume?

Any chance of getting ghost writer or co-author to complete the series that Grant Walker bailed out of on the 3rd volume?

Any chance of getting ghost writer or co-author to complete the series that Grant Walker bailed out of on the 3rd volume?

Painting is not something that have much experience with, but I have been thinking that the reason to sand any layer of paint is to provide tooth for the next layer.  I would think that nothing good would come from abrading the final coat,  I am guessing that a smooth finish would either require that the consistency of a brushed coat be relatively thin or that an airbrush be used to apply it.

This vessel was 1872.   Drake's first well was ~1860.  So it is entirely possible that petrol based tar was in use, so actual black for standing rigging may be appropriate.  The running rigging -a dark straw - likely hemp.  This was a privately owned two master, so I doubt that steel was even considered.
But as Gregory says:  you can do much better for the line that you rig with.

What happens if you use a dimmer switch or router speed control with the AL unit?

This vessel was 1872.   Drake's first well was ~1860.  So it is entirely possible that petrol based tar was in use, so actual black for standing rigging may be appropriate.  The running rigging -a dark straw - likely hemp.  This was a privately owned two master, so I doubt that steel was even considered.
But as Gregory says:  you can do much better for the line that you rig with.

@*Hans*  " a convex, pear-shaped hull with a strongly concave top and narrow decks – can plausibly be assumed to be the result of a succession of small developments that started at the end of the 16th century."
I read along time ago - no reference- sorry -  that the reason that Dutch vessels tended to have very narrow upper decks was because of how the taxes and customs duties were calculated.  The formula obviously used the breadth of the top deck to determine the cargo volume.  It would have been easy to use a more realistic formula, once the trick was obvious,  but I am guessing that the shipping interests must have gained control of at least that part of the government.  They must have become the ones with the money and thus the power.
 
I have developed an historical narrative about ship model kits that goes as follows:
The kits from the 1930's and 1940's were primitive - mostly a solid block or slightly carved one, some sticks, string and lead castings.  Then  after WWII   a lot of pattern following lathes became available as surplus when millions of M1 rifle stocks were no longer needed.  MS, BlueJacket, and I think another New England company that I think BlueJacket bought started providing more carefully carved hulls and better materials and using real plans for a new generation of kits.   Meanwhile, in Europe, I think first in Italy - around 1960 Aeropicola (sp) and Constructo (sp) and maybe others - not having access to cheap pattern chasing lathes , evolved a hull construction method for ships  based on how boats have been built for a long time - planking over molds.  Except that with boats, the molds are not a part of the final hull.  With boats the molds are at close enough intervals that the physics of the wood fibers do not allow for hollows. 
Based on what I see in Lusci (1970) and Conte (3rd ed n.d.) these early kits used plans of questionable accuracy and subjects likely to be popular even if their actual plans were a fantasy.   The molds were spaced at ridiculously wide intervals.  Two layers of planking was required to avoid a serpentine hull conformation.  The swimming body seems to have been given as little attention as possible.  A follow-on company - Mamoli - seems to have used the same hull shape for at least three vessels - Bounty - Endeavour - Beagle.  With so few molds, I am wondering if thin plywood was expensive in Italy at the time.
 
I find it bemusing and a bit ironic that features that were cheap short cuts of guys just trying to make a living (POB to begin with) and double planking for it - because it was cheaper than having enough molds to support a proper hull have flipped and are seen as some sort of standard.