Jaager

From the book:
The Restoration of the Smack Emma C. Berry at Mystic Seaport, 1969-1971 Paperback – June 1, 1973
by Willits D. Ansel (Author)
 
out of print, Amazon only lists one copy - for $200 -
 
 
I hope that a single chapter fits within the fair use doctrine.


 

First, the old articles about the smack that I have listed in my database:
 
 
EMMA C BERRY  BUILDING STERLING MODELS'
KIFF.MARYPAT  
MODEL SHIP BUILDER
1982
18
4-8  
KIT SCHOONER POF
B

SCHOONER EMMA C BERRY ON R/C  
DULLY,FRANK E JR
MODEL SHIP BUILDER
1994
90
4-11
KIT SAIL R/C SCHOONER
A

SCHOONER EMMA C BERRY  PT.2   
DULLY,FRANK E JR
MODEL SHIP BUILDER
1994
91
24-29
SCHOONER 20TH KIT R/C
B
 

Jimmy,
 
The forum has the potential and demonstrated ability to help with your journey with this hobby as much as can be done, short of one-on-one in person mentoring.   Also, lots of opinions here - it helps if you develop a filter.
 
As I read your biography above, it reads as though the hook is not firmly set in you for all this.
Given that base, you should proceed with care with your choice of first few projects.
 
When I read Flying Fish,  I first thought of my vessel - an 1830's NY pilot schooner - but it is only possible to do it as a scratch build.
Model Shipways is an excellent kit manufacturer,  even after it evolved from a labor of love by a group of guys in Ft. Lee, NJ. to being bought by another company.  Their version of a pilot schooner is Phantom  (and Katy).   It used to be available at both 1:48 and 1:96 - but now it seems it is only 1:96.  It is solid hull and relatively simple - you could do much worse for a first project. 
But your Flying Fish is a 1:96 extreme clipper.  It is also POB.   A clipper - except for all the guns - is about as difficult and involved a choice for a first thru fourth project as would be a first - second - or third rate warship.  The learning curve can seem near vertical.  The complexity when seen as a whole can be overwhelming.    A large vessel at a small scale gets you into miniaturist level fabrication.   POB is an idiosyncratic and not an intuitive technique for building a hull skeleton.   Observation over years here has this combination of factors yielding the same probability of success as a first project as Picket's charge - even with someone who starts with addiction level enthusiasm.  
 
Spotting you Model Shipways - they have a new series  for beginners  (Shipwright Series)  that are a more kind way to accrete experience, skills, and confidence.  The second vessel in the series is from your region.  A down side is that at present, it seems to be loved too much.
 
There are many appropriate paths and projects for a beginning ship modeler.  I see the one that you have to hand as requiring a really extraordinary  degree of determination and dedication to be a successful first project.   These factors to a level that do not allow much room for fun and joy in the doing of it.  
 
 

Jimmy,
 
The forum has the potential and demonstrated ability to help with your journey with this hobby as much as can be done, short of one-on-one in person mentoring.   Also, lots of opinions here - it helps if you develop a filter.
 
As I read your biography above, it reads as though the hook is not firmly set in you for all this.
Given that base, you should proceed with care with your choice of first few projects.
 
When I read Flying Fish,  I first thought of my vessel - an 1830's NY pilot schooner - but it is only possible to do it as a scratch build.
Model Shipways is an excellent kit manufacturer,  even after it evolved from a labor of love by a group of guys in Ft. Lee, NJ. to being bought by another company.  Their version of a pilot schooner is Phantom  (and Katy).   It used to be available at both 1:48 and 1:96 - but now it seems it is only 1:96.  It is solid hull and relatively simple - you could do much worse for a first project. 
But your Flying Fish is a 1:96 extreme clipper.  It is also POB.   A clipper - except for all the guns - is about as difficult and involved a choice for a first thru fourth project as would be a first - second - or third rate warship.  The learning curve can seem near vertical.  The complexity when seen as a whole can be overwhelming.    A large vessel at a small scale gets you into miniaturist level fabrication.   POB is an idiosyncratic and not an intuitive technique for building a hull skeleton.   Observation over years here has this combination of factors yielding the same probability of success as a first project as Picket's charge - even with someone who starts with addiction level enthusiasm.  
 
Spotting you Model Shipways - they have a new series  for beginners  (Shipwright Series)  that are a more kind way to accrete experience, skills, and confidence.  The second vessel in the series is from your region.  A down side is that at present, it seems to be loved too much.
 
There are many appropriate paths and projects for a beginning ship modeler.  I see the one that you have to hand as requiring a really extraordinary  degree of determination and dedication to be a successful first project.   These factors to a level that do not allow much room for fun and joy in the doing of it.  
 
 

The Amazon product:  a sucker bet, a complete waste of money,  likely to cause near infinite frustration.
 
As for a metal lathe - or a mill -  experience and observation about the value to you should you pull either of those triggers is that:
If you have to ask, then you very likely do not need one.
 
Doing a reference chase on books about miniature lathes and mills should serve you well.  No one book is likely to provide the complete answer and the mixture, filtration and synthesis of more than one to guide your decision is to your advantage.

It is sobering to see the sorts of tools that were available back then.  I am sure that many of the specific choices were determined by the magazine's advertising department.  I began this about ten years later and it helps make clear why I made some of the choices that I did.  Choices that my retrospectascope shows were far less than ideal.  
 
I remember that a Shopsmith was considered a big deal by some back then.  I have never seen one in person, but I worked for someone who had one.  My impression from back then is that it did a fairly wide variety of jobs.  None all that well, and the time necessary to reconfigure it was significant as well as being a source of frustration.   I suspect that one of its gifts was as an inspiration for later designers of single purpose machines with a reasonable footprint.  
 
A three wheel bandsaw is an awful, awful design,  I wonder if their existence was because the two wheel models of the time were huge and expensive monsters? 
 
One machine that we do not have at a modeler's scale size is a crosscut with horizontal rather than chop blade movement.  When needed, it would be handy to have.  But the reality is that the few times that it would be needed could never justify either the money spent for it or the bench space it would take up.
 
In photo #22 - the philosophy behind the function of the Belsaw machine is just as valid today.  It is to be grateful that we have better ways to do it now.

Jimmy,
 
The forum has the potential and demonstrated ability to help with your journey with this hobby as much as can be done, short of one-on-one in person mentoring.   Also, lots of opinions here - it helps if you develop a filter.
 
As I read your biography above, it reads as though the hook is not firmly set in you for all this.
Given that base, you should proceed with care with your choice of first few projects.
 
When I read Flying Fish,  I first thought of my vessel - an 1830's NY pilot schooner - but it is only possible to do it as a scratch build.
Model Shipways is an excellent kit manufacturer,  even after it evolved from a labor of love by a group of guys in Ft. Lee, NJ. to being bought by another company.  Their version of a pilot schooner is Phantom  (and Katy).   It used to be available at both 1:48 and 1:96 - but now it seems it is only 1:96.  It is solid hull and relatively simple - you could do much worse for a first project. 
But your Flying Fish is a 1:96 extreme clipper.  It is also POB.   A clipper - except for all the guns - is about as difficult and involved a choice for a first thru fourth project as would be a first - second - or third rate warship.  The learning curve can seem near vertical.  The complexity when seen as a whole can be overwhelming.    A large vessel at a small scale gets you into miniaturist level fabrication.   POB is an idiosyncratic and not an intuitive technique for building a hull skeleton.   Observation over years here has this combination of factors yielding the same probability of success as a first project as Picket's charge - even with someone who starts with addiction level enthusiasm.  
 
Spotting you Model Shipways - they have a new series  for beginners  (Shipwright Series)  that are a more kind way to accrete experience, skills, and confidence.  The second vessel in the series is from your region.  A down side is that at present, it seems to be loved too much.
 
There are many appropriate paths and projects for a beginning ship modeler.  I see the one that you have to hand as requiring a really extraordinary  degree of determination and dedication to be a successful first project.   These factors to a level that do not allow much room for fun and joy in the doing of it.  
 
 

Jimmy,
 
The forum has the potential and demonstrated ability to help with your journey with this hobby as much as can be done, short of one-on-one in person mentoring.   Also, lots of opinions here - it helps if you develop a filter.
 
As I read your biography above, it reads as though the hook is not firmly set in you for all this.
Given that base, you should proceed with care with your choice of first few projects.
 
When I read Flying Fish,  I first thought of my vessel - an 1830's NY pilot schooner - but it is only possible to do it as a scratch build.
Model Shipways is an excellent kit manufacturer,  even after it evolved from a labor of love by a group of guys in Ft. Lee, NJ. to being bought by another company.  Their version of a pilot schooner is Phantom  (and Katy).   It used to be available at both 1:48 and 1:96 - but now it seems it is only 1:96.  It is solid hull and relatively simple - you could do much worse for a first project. 
But your Flying Fish is a 1:96 extreme clipper.  It is also POB.   A clipper - except for all the guns - is about as difficult and involved a choice for a first thru fourth project as would be a first - second - or third rate warship.  The learning curve can seem near vertical.  The complexity when seen as a whole can be overwhelming.    A large vessel at a small scale gets you into miniaturist level fabrication.   POB is an idiosyncratic and not an intuitive technique for building a hull skeleton.   Observation over years here has this combination of factors yielding the same probability of success as a first project as Picket's charge - even with someone who starts with addiction level enthusiasm.  
 
Spotting you Model Shipways - they have a new series  for beginners  (Shipwright Series)  that are a more kind way to accrete experience, skills, and confidence.  The second vessel in the series is from your region.  A down side is that at present, it seems to be loved too much.
 
There are many appropriate paths and projects for a beginning ship modeler.  I see the one that you have to hand as requiring a really extraordinary  degree of determination and dedication to be a successful first project.   These factors to a level that do not allow much room for fun and joy in the doing of it.  
 
 

Being at that same point,  I see two conflicting factors in play.  It is much easier to fare the bow without the stem.  Rather than having a notch where the stemson would be, I opted for a stemson that is flush with the bow timbers. But with it being all that is there, the danger and likely outcome is the stemson will be rounded over and not provide a sufficient landing for the stem.  Thinking on it, the wise choice is to attach a temporary sacrificial piece of wood where the stem will be.  Let it take all of the abuse.  I think a bent thicker ribbon of wood may do the trick.
 
I am not being able to resolve a dowel - not dowel  conflict as regards how to attach the stem assembly.   I do not see a need to fix the stem until I am ready to attach the wale, so I can put it off.

I think it is in Underhill, that after planking the hull, he 'flooded the bilges with varnish'.   I am fairly sure that at the time it was written, varnish was generally taken to be essentially "boiled" linseed oil in mineral spirits.  It was probably a 'one off, seems like a good idea' choice.  Not at all an experiment with controls.   At the time, most of those writing how-to books were few in number, in isolation as far as consensus about what were optimal practices for stability over time.  The closest to that I have seen to objective procedure  are the USN museum standards for models that they would purchase.    I am not sure that any finish will be 100% successful at preventing the hull wood from equilibration with the temperature, O2, and water vapor of its environment. 
 
Clear coating a closed interior may or may not have any practical benefit.  But one definite negative would be if you coat a place where a subsequent wood to wood bond would be.  PVA bonds by intercalating its synthetic hyphae onto a microscopically rough surface and into micro pores that all wood has. Filling the pores and smoothing the surface with a clear finish, or sanding finer than 220 tends to defeat the bonding process.  
 
Coming at this from a POF - with no windows cut into the hull - point of view - if you intend to shellac an interior space before it is closed - I recommend  that any site where a PVA bond is yet to be  have a masking material there before the shellac is applied.  A really tedious and no fun at all sort of prep work and worse, clean up after.  Then, if your OCD about this is intense enough: what to do about the sides and bottoms of the deck beams and the underside of the deck planking between the beams?  It would take the skill of a fiber optic surgeon to get at it after assembly.  If done prior, this adds significant time and work to assembly.
 
To be logical,  worry about  failing due to environmental forces demands  another factor.  Certainly if it is a properly precise wood to wood bond that was clamped with enough pressure to yield a close surface to surface distance.  The polymer chain length should not too long, for a strong bond to form.    This other factor is what I call a belt and suspenders bond.   That is, the bond be both chemical and physical.  The physical part is a dowel at every bond.  The dowel, if visible, should have an in scale diameter.   Pulling bamboo thru a draw plate - especially in the high #70's range is difficult and the yield is low.   It is grad school level - 15% finish  - rather than med school level - >95% - if you get in you will finish unless you work at failing.
 
The bottom line - for a PVA wood to wood bond - always have it raw wood to raw wood.  If you use an agent that allows smooth surface to smooth surface adhesion ( epoxy (?) or CA ("the horror, the horror") )  the worry goes up stream.  The weak point is the clear finish to wood bond.  And no finish ever flakes off?
 
addendum:   In the shower just now, I remembered another option:
For a clear coat for a part of the hull that will never been seen again - give a thought to brushing lacquer.  
It is visibly thick, drys in 2 hours, has been around long enough to show that it lasts.
Too shiny to use where it can be seen.  It is out of scale thick, also.
No spray version - small enough to spray is small enough to breathe - any mitigation will never be as good as never making it airborne to begin with.

It is sobering to see the sorts of tools that were available back then.  I am sure that many of the specific choices were determined by the magazine's advertising department.  I began this about ten years later and it helps make clear why I made some of the choices that I did.  Choices that my retrospectascope shows were far less than ideal.  
 
I remember that a Shopsmith was considered a big deal by some back then.  I have never seen one in person, but I worked for someone who had one.  My impression from back then is that it did a fairly wide variety of jobs.  None all that well, and the time necessary to reconfigure it was significant as well as being a source of frustration.   I suspect that one of its gifts was as an inspiration for later designers of single purpose machines with a reasonable footprint.  
 
A three wheel bandsaw is an awful, awful design,  I wonder if their existence was because the two wheel models of the time were huge and expensive monsters? 
 
One machine that we do not have at a modeler's scale size is a crosscut with horizontal rather than chop blade movement.  When needed, it would be handy to have.  But the reality is that the few times that it would be needed could never justify either the money spent for it or the bench space it would take up.
 
In photo #22 - the philosophy behind the function of the Belsaw machine is just as valid today.  It is to be grateful that we have better ways to do it now.

I vote for the block plane.
Turn a square into an octagon, lean into it a bit to make the taper, and so on until it's round and tapered enough. Goes quickly. Finish with sanding or scrapers.
 

The Amazon product:  a sucker bet, a complete waste of money,  likely to cause near infinite frustration.
 
As for a metal lathe - or a mill -  experience and observation about the value to you should you pull either of those triggers is that:
If you have to ask, then you very likely do not need one.
 
Doing a reference chase on books about miniature lathes and mills should serve you well.  No one book is likely to provide the complete answer and the mixture, filtration and synthesis of more than one to guide your decision is to your advantage.

It is sobering to see the sorts of tools that were available back then.  I am sure that many of the specific choices were determined by the magazine's advertising department.  I began this about ten years later and it helps make clear why I made some of the choices that I did.  Choices that my retrospectascope shows were far less than ideal.  
 
I remember that a Shopsmith was considered a big deal by some back then.  I have never seen one in person, but I worked for someone who had one.  My impression from back then is that it did a fairly wide variety of jobs.  None all that well, and the time necessary to reconfigure it was significant as well as being a source of frustration.   I suspect that one of its gifts was as an inspiration for later designers of single purpose machines with a reasonable footprint.  
 
A three wheel bandsaw is an awful, awful design,  I wonder if their existence was because the two wheel models of the time were huge and expensive monsters? 
 
One machine that we do not have at a modeler's scale size is a crosscut with horizontal rather than chop blade movement.  When needed, it would be handy to have.  But the reality is that the few times that it would be needed could never justify either the money spent for it or the bench space it would take up.
 
In photo #22 - the philosophy behind the function of the Belsaw machine is just as valid today.  It is to be grateful that we have better ways to do it now.

The Amazon product:  a sucker bet, a complete waste of money,  likely to cause near infinite frustration.
 
As for a metal lathe - or a mill -  experience and observation about the value to you should you pull either of those triggers is that:
If you have to ask, then you very likely do not need one.
 
Doing a reference chase on books about miniature lathes and mills should serve you well.  No one book is likely to provide the complete answer and the mixture, filtration and synthesis of more than one to guide your decision is to your advantage.

The Amazon product:  a sucker bet, a complete waste of money,  likely to cause near infinite frustration.
 
As for a metal lathe - or a mill -  experience and observation about the value to you should you pull either of those triggers is that:
If you have to ask, then you very likely do not need one.
 
Doing a reference chase on books about miniature lathes and mills should serve you well.  No one book is likely to provide the complete answer and the mixture, filtration and synthesis of more than one to guide your decision is to your advantage.

And then there's the electric drill lathe which you probably already own. 

It is sobering to see the sorts of tools that were available back then.  I am sure that many of the specific choices were determined by the magazine's advertising department.  I began this about ten years later and it helps make clear why I made some of the choices that I did.  Choices that my retrospectascope shows were far less than ideal.  
 
I remember that a Shopsmith was considered a big deal by some back then.  I have never seen one in person, but I worked for someone who had one.  My impression from back then is that it did a fairly wide variety of jobs.  None all that well, and the time necessary to reconfigure it was significant as well as being a source of frustration.   I suspect that one of its gifts was as an inspiration for later designers of single purpose machines with a reasonable footprint.  
 
A three wheel bandsaw is an awful, awful design,  I wonder if their existence was because the two wheel models of the time were huge and expensive monsters? 
 
One machine that we do not have at a modeler's scale size is a crosscut with horizontal rather than chop blade movement.  When needed, it would be handy to have.  But the reality is that the few times that it would be needed could never justify either the money spent for it or the bench space it would take up.
 
In photo #22 - the philosophy behind the function of the Belsaw machine is just as valid today.  It is to be grateful that we have better ways to do it now.

Being at that same point,  I see two conflicting factors in play.  It is much easier to fare the bow without the stem.  Rather than having a notch where the stemson would be, I opted for a stemson that is flush with the bow timbers. But with it being all that is there, the danger and likely outcome is the stemson will be rounded over and not provide a sufficient landing for the stem.  Thinking on it, the wise choice is to attach a temporary sacrificial piece of wood where the stem will be.  Let it take all of the abuse.  I think a bent thicker ribbon of wood may do the trick.
 
I am not being able to resolve a dowel - not dowel  conflict as regards how to attach the stem assembly.   I do not see a need to fix the stem until I am ready to attach the wale, so I can put it off.

Depending on the kit, things might go way south into never-never land.   I'd suggest you take the bow bits and make a temporatry bow out of scrap.  Keeping in the proper plance might be a mental exercise but it should be doable.  After fairing, replace the bow with the kit parts.

It is sobering to see the sorts of tools that were available back then.  I am sure that many of the specific choices were determined by the magazine's advertising department.  I began this about ten years later and it helps make clear why I made some of the choices that I did.  Choices that my retrospectascope shows were far less than ideal.  
 
I remember that a Shopsmith was considered a big deal by some back then.  I have never seen one in person, but I worked for someone who had one.  My impression from back then is that it did a fairly wide variety of jobs.  None all that well, and the time necessary to reconfigure it was significant as well as being a source of frustration.   I suspect that one of its gifts was as an inspiration for later designers of single purpose machines with a reasonable footprint.  
 
A three wheel bandsaw is an awful, awful design,  I wonder if their existence was because the two wheel models of the time were huge and expensive monsters? 
 
One machine that we do not have at a modeler's scale size is a crosscut with horizontal rather than chop blade movement.  When needed, it would be handy to have.  But the reality is that the few times that it would be needed could never justify either the money spent for it or the bench space it would take up.
 
In photo #22 - the philosophy behind the function of the Belsaw machine is just as valid today.  It is to be grateful that we have better ways to do it now.

MPJA.com  sells a DC selectable power supply   $20
AliExpress has a wide selection of small DC motors  some with Jacobs chucks and probably some with collet chucks  for $20 or less
 
Even the old loss leader small DC drill that Harbor Freight used to sell - that was hopeless with the supplied DC transformer - actually does some work with the selectable power supply.
 
Worse comes to worse, even a General pin vise with the heel swivel and 4 sizes of collets (2 double ended) would probably be better than any small pus pull drill.  We has a long round table discussion about pin vises here, not that long ago.  It may be work a read.