Bob Cleek

Ditto! Lovely as they are, we really have more than enough models of warships from the Age of Sail. For too long, modelers, and kit designers, have overlooked the rich history of and abundant information about inshore working craft as modeling subjects. I should think such boats would be a rich vein to mine for a model kit designer because they are of a size which permits the portrayal of rich detail at large scale while, at the same time, producing a model small enough to display in a home smaller than an English manor house. I anticipate this will be a valuable building log.

The material safety data sheet ("MSDS") is the first stop in checking out any material. This stuff is safe for kids to eat. Some of us learned this firsthand in kindergarten with the paste version. See: https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wc-prod-pim/Asset_Documents/Elmer's Clear Glue SDS.pdf I learned in early childhood that whatever made my mother yell, "That could put your eye out!" was probably was the most fun. I've always applied a corollary to this principle to materials in my workshop: if somebody says the material is hazardous or environmentally unfriendly, I assume it is the better choice for the job than the "safe and sane," "environmentally friendly," or "green" options that have been "dumbed down" for use by people who can't be trusted not to eat or drink the stuff. .

I've had similar success with Duco Cement. It's just a very basic nitrocellulose adhesive. The nitrocellulose is dissolved in acetone which evaporates quickly upon exposure to the air. See: 14445 TN.pdf (tedpella.com) and ANSIMSDS.RDL (onboces.org) The dried cement is primarily nitrocellulose, which is also known as "gun cotton." It can be highly flammable when exposed to enough heat. Duco Cement is sold in one ounce tubes for as much as ten or twelve bucks an ounce. On the other hand, ordinary PVC pipe cement, which is quite similar to Duco Cement, can be purchased in four ounce cans for as little a dollar an ounce, or one tenth the price of Duco Cement, so one may wish to experiment with plastic pipe cement and see how they like it. Another similar option is "sprue goo." Some plastic modelers use "sprue goo" as a plastic adhesive and filler material. "Sprue goo" is simply cut up pieces of plastic model sprues dissolved in acetone or a similar solvent. There are a number of how to make it online.

Where one requires strength, archival permanence, or both, I think that it is important to mechanically fasten model parts wherever possible. Sometimes such fasteners can be simple wooden pegs in the case of wood-to-wood bonds, and other times a metal peg is called for when a metal-to-wood bond is required. Metal-to-metal bonds generally require soldering. It should also be remembered that a part simply glued to any painted surface is bonded no more strongly than the strength of the paint film between the parts and that a paint film is generally not considered a particularly strong bond, especially when under sheer loading. (In other words, little parts glued to painted surfaces get knocked off very easily.)

No chimneys on my 9" Tung Woo running lights. I've never seen interior chimneys on ships' lanterns. They certainly make sense in the larger sizes. Nice polishing job! Maybe I'll tackle polishing mine.

Are you sure that water isn't coming in through your propeller shaft bearing?

The good news is that nobody knows what Columbus' ships looked like exactly. All we know is that they were a "type" of vessel and precious little is known of what those "types" actually looked like in any great detail. Your kit is only the kit designer's approximation of what he thinks it might have looked like, so you are free to do a bit of creative "approximating" yourself. If you wish, you can take a couple of thin rectangular strips of wood (about the thickness of a deck plank) and of a size suitable to cover the holes of the oversized eyebolts Mamoli provided and glue those over the "damage." You can make them so they fit right up against the side of the rail and transom and perhaps have rounded corners on the inboard corners. That will look like a "pad" commonly placed on decks to reinforce things like eyebolts (which may well have never been in use on any of Columbus' ships in the first place.) They will also give you more "meat" to drill into and glue your much smaller and correctly-scaled eyebolts. Your smaller eyebolts can easily be made by twisting some fine copper or brass wire around the shank of a suitably size drill bit. The twisted end will enable the glue to hold much better, too. When judging the scale of fittings, it's always helpful to use a "manikin" to judge size. It doesn't have to be fancy. At the most basic, just take the scale of the model and then draw a scale stick figure on a piece of card stock and glue it to a little block of wood so it stands up. Figure about five scale feet tall or a smidgen more. (People were smaller in those days.) You can then place your "little man" near where you are working and get an idea of whether the parts you are making "look right." Of course, a pair of calipers and a good rule will serve as well, but when estimating, I find the manikin is a helpful tool. If you do this, I expect you will see that the kit eyebolts are about the size of small automobile tires! When you drill your holes for the new eyebolts, take care to be sure your bolts are placed exactly as indicated on the plans. Don't trust yourself to "eyeball" placement. Measure and be exact. It may be helpful to make a small pattern out of paper or card stock and draw a straight line where you want your eyebolt holes and then mark equally spaced points on that line. You can then put the pattern over the deck where you want the eyebolts and mark the points where you want to drill by pushing a map pin or awl into the wood to make an indentation to start your drill bit. On your first effort, the eyebolts ended up here, there, and everywhere. You don't want to repeat that on the second try.

Just a mention in passing: ModelExpo doesn't appear to sell stud-link anchor chain at all. They only sell scale common chain. Following its invention and British patenting in 1819 stud-link chain quickly replaced common chain for anchoring chain in vessels over about 75 feet long or so. It was stronger than common chain of the same size, was less prone to jamming or jumping a wildcat, and stowed without "clumping" or kinking, always running free when the anchor was dropped. I would expect stud-link chain to be used by any of the American (including Canadian) fishing schooners. BBC - A History of the World - Object : Ships anchor cable chain link with stud. Most all of this stud-link anchor chain was initially and for a long time thereafter manufactured by Brown Lenox in England (suppliers to the Admiralty,) and, presumably, exported to North America. Since 1960, at least, Lister Chain and Forge in Blaine, WA has been supplying it to the United States Navy and civilian market. Scale stud-link chain used to be near-unobtainable and had to be fabricated by the modeler. Jewelry wholesalers offer stud-link chain in smaller sizes, known to that trade as "marine chain," but this is generally made of precious metals and cost-prohibitive for modeling purposes. About ten years ago, Mathews Model Marine was offering 3D-printed plastic stud-link chain in a range of sizes designed for 1:200 scale naval vessel models (which requires delicate hand-working to clean and separate the links,) but I don't know if this is still available. See: Ship review (modelwarships.com) Fortunately, Caldercraft and a couple of others presently offer brass stud-link chain in a wider variety of sizes on eBay. See: stud-link anchor chain for sale | eBay For the more adventurous types, there's an excellent instructional piece on crafting stud-link chain from scratch in this forum's Articles Database: HowToMakeStudLinkChain.pdf (thenrg.org)

The wood decomposed in the dirt and left the earth a darker color where the wood had been. They excavated carefully until they reached the dark dirt and knew that was where the ship had been and were from that able to recreate the lines of the ship. You can see the darkened earth defining the shape of the ship in the photo Louie posted above.

There are many books on rigging and some are even reprints of contemporary instruction manuals. The Articles Database in this forum contains two contemporary rigging manuals. Nautical Research Guild - Articles and How Tos (thenrg.org) You may also wish to obtain a copy of John Leather's Gaff Rig, (Gaff Rig: Leather, John: 9780877420231: Amazon.com: Books) or The Gaff Rig Handbook (The Gaff Rig Handbook: John Leather: 9781408114407: Amazon.com: Books) which treat the gaff rigged schooner in detail. Lennarth Petersen's Rigging Period Fore-and-Aft Craft and Rigging Period Ship Models, while not without some shortcomings, are good basic treatments of the subject. Rigging Period Fore-and-Aft Craft by Lennarth Petersson | Goodreads As for the "classics," every ship modeler's library should have copies of Charles Davis' Ship Models and How to Build Them (Ship Models: How to Build Them: Davis, Charles G.: 9798395212047: Amazon.com: Books) and The Built-up Ship Model (The Built-Up Ship Model (Dover Woodworking): Davis, Charles G.: 9780486261744: Amazon.com: Books). Another "classic" author is Harold Underhill. His basic modeling manuals, although, like Davis', somewhat dated today, are invaluable primers that do not presume the modeler requires thousands of dollars invested in expensive power tools. Grab copies of Underhill's Plank on Frame Models and Scale Masting and Rigging, Volumes I and II. There are lots of these available on the used market. Gerald Wingrove's Techniques of Ship Modeling is a great how-to-do-it book and widely available on eBay and other used book selling sites. The Techniques of Ship Modelling: Wingrove, Gerald A: 9780852423660: Amazon.com: Books Last, but not least, The NRG's Ship Modeler's Shop Notes, Volumes I and II are treasure troves of "tricks of the trade" and reference works you'll find yourself going back to time and again. (Available used from "the usual suspects" online and new from the NRG Store at this website. Of course, you'll find many valuable bits and pieces of information in the many build logs here, as well. The above books are just some that I think you would find useful as a new ship modeler starting off with the build you've chosen. There is a wealth of other more specialized books (often at much greater prices) that you will probably find yourself lusting after once you've collected the ones mentioned above. One thing that those new to ship modeling often overlook is that research is as much a part of the hobby as anything else. Kit manufacturers often attempt to provide a detour around this "speed bump on the learning curve" by providing parts, plans, and insructions of varying degrees of quality, but taking that route often costs in terms of the ease, enjoyment, and quality of the build. You won't find a serious ship modeler anywhere who doesn't have a research library of some kind and you won't find a scratch modeler anywhere who doesn't' have a substantial one. Good books are a decent investment. As with anything else, there is a fair number of mediocre books out there, but the classics are easily identified and often available on the online used book market at rather reasonable prices. A nice library is not a difficult thing to acquire if one budgets for it and keeps a sharp eye out for used book bargains. A budget of twenty-five to fifty bucks a month, more than some spend at their neighborhood bar in a week, applied judiciously to acquiring good modeling books, will build a good library in no time.

To put a finer point on it, "... there was simply very little need for sailors to go aloft in the ordinary operation of the ship." There would be occasional need to go aloft for maintenance tasks, usually performed when the vessel wasn't sailing, although somewhat rarely there would be a need to go aloft to repair a block or untangle a fouled bit of running rigging at sea. In such instances, some vessels such as Polaris might have wooden slats lashed to the two shrouds instead of ratlines, or even ratlines lashed simply to the two shrouds, but this would be perhaps more for sending a lookout aloft than anything else and wouldn't be seen on any vessel that didn't have a need for that, as would, for example, some fishing vessels and pilot boats. It was far more common of vessels of Polaris' type and size for sailors to climb the masts using the mast hoops as hand and foot hold, a practice a skilled sailor could accomplish with as much, if not more, ease as climbing ratlines. I mention this primarily because I checked this model on line, being unfamiliar with the kit, and I noted that the Occre Polaris model pictured shows mast hoops which are excessively separated (the distance between them being far too great.) They should be about a foot apart. The TurboSquid Polaris 3D model more correctly spaced mast hoops, although perhaps even these are a bit widely spaced. Occre Polaris: (https://occre.com/en-us/products/polaris-starter-pack) TurboSquid Polaris: (See: https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/polaris-ship-model-1766063 for more pictures.) Note that the two wooden horned cleats fastened to the deck of the Occre version are apparently incorrect. Horned cleats are for taking stresses horizontal to their fastenings, not in line with the fastenings. A deck cleat as shown would be for belaying sheets or the like, not a line running straight up. The TurboSquid Polaris shows what is in my experience an unusual (if not entirely fanciful) shroud rigging method. They show deadeyes and lanyards to which is attached a length of chain with a tackle hooked to the chain and running aloft to a pendant from the upper mast band block hooked to the chain. It's impossible to see for certain where the fall of the tackle is belayed, but it would seem the falls were belayed to cavel cleats port and starboard of the masts. The deadeyes and lanyards and the tackle serve the same purpose of tensioning the shrouds, so it's beyond me why they would rig both on the same shroud. Though less common than deadeyes and lanyards, shrouds with a tackle in line to provide a purchase weren't unheard of in smaller vessels and certainly the arrangement was standard for "running" backstays. (Obviously, such a tackle on the shrouds would preclude any sort of ratline or climbing battens on the "running" shrouds.) The incorrectly portrayed cavel cleats inboard of the chains (for halyards) and the quarters (for mooring lines) shown on the TurboSquid picture are correct for the period of this vessel, but they have improperly shown a bar fastened between the rail framing instead of a length of wood attached to the inboard face of the frames and extending beyond the frames to form a horn to which line could be belayed. Note also that the rail fraiming on the TurboSquid example appears incorrect. I would think there should be far more frames forward. The Occre Polaris shows more correct frame spacing, although, off the top of my head, I can't say whether the Occre example is entirely correct, either. Eyebolts set in the deck would not be expected, as horn cleats or belaying pins in a mast band would be more proper. (The foot of each mast is an frequently used working area and the less underfoot to trip the seamen, the better.) So, what I'd say is that if you are of a mind to start "kit bashing," which I consider an option with nearly every kit, there is much to improve upon with the Occre Polaris. I'd encourage you to do some research and rig her as contemporary authorities would indicate was common practice for the period. At the very least, toss the shiny brass rings pictured in both examples in your "slop chest" and make your own wooden mast hoops. There's instructions for making them easily here in the forum in a recent post. Metal mast hoops are not used because they would create serious chaffing damage to the mast and the only brass on a working boat of this period would be bell and the skipper's keys! All other metal would be wrought iron painted black. Moreover, with respect to the TurboSquid example, I doubt copper oxide antifouling paint was even invented at the time of this ship. All of these details are easily researched and that task can be every bit as satisfying as building the model itself. You can easily greatly improve upon what the kit manufacturer has provided and produce a first-rate model of a very interesting vessel type.

Yes, but if accuracy still matters at such small scales, "tear drop" shaped thimbles are made for use with wire rope, not fiber rope. The round thimbles are for fiber rope.

Can you be more specific about what you mean by a "grommet?" A rope grommet is a circle of three-strand line made by unlaying a single strand of three-strand of sufficient length and then re-laying the single strand in a circle with a whipping at the point where the two ends meet. Metal grommets are pressed together to be set in the hems and corners of canvaswork, frequently tarps, to reinforce connection points. Or are you asking about bronze (or brass) rope thimbles? Line is spliced around these thimbles to prevent chafing when the line is shackled to something, such as when connecting a block to a pendant. My guess is that the above are the thimbles you are asking about. Having had the dubious pleasure of sourcing real old-fashioned bronze rope thimbles for full-scale rigging jobs myself, I feel relatively secure in saying there's nobody making them today with an inner diameter of 1/32". You will almost certainly have to make them yourself. This is done by obtaining a length of brass tubing, 1/32" inside diameter in your case, annealing the end of the tube and cutting a suitable length of tubing off the tube to provide sufficient stock for forming the rims of a grommet. The rims are "rolled" by sandwiching the tubing section between two suitably-sized ball bearings and lightly hammering the ball bearings together on a hard surface to roll the edges of the tubing section. The same can be accomplished if one has a pair of pliers, preferably vise-grips, which have or can be modified to have round points on the jaws which could be used to compress the ends of the tubing and roll the rims of the grommet that way. Alternately, of course, they can be machined on a lathe from a length of rod stock of suitable diameter. You might also send a message to Keith Aug of this forum. Keith is a master miniature metalsmith. If anybody knows another way to make thimbles, it would be Keith. See: KeithAug - Model Ship World™

From my boatyard days, I've always been a big fan of Interlux surfacing putty. It is thinned with acetone and you can vary the consistency of the putty from thick cream you can brush on like gesso to stiff "cake icing" consistency. It's applied with a putty knife. Store it capped tightly with a tablespoon of acetone added and the can left upside down overnight and in the morning, the putty will be ready for use without any dried clumps in it. the bad news is that the acetone solvent evaporates very quickly and if the lid is left off the can, there can be annoying "skinning" of the exposed putty. (You have to develop the ability to hold the can and lid in one hand and the putty knife in the other, closing the lid immediately after accessing the putty in the can.) The good news is that the acetone solvent evaporates very quickly, which makes it easy to use because there's a very short drying time wait and successive layers can be built up if need be. It sands "like butter" and is compatible with all paints. It's the perfect thing for filling small dings, scratches, and other surface imperfections. Rather than sanding forever to remove a small imperfection, which only tends to create an unfair surface overall, it is far better to add a swipe of surfacing putty and then just sand that fair without having to remove a lot of material surrounding the imperfection. It's also a lot faster than sanding out similar imperfections without putty. See: Surfacing Putty Boat Filler | Interlux Sold online and in marine chandleries.

Eberhard's answer is the best of the bunch offered above. There are waterlines and there are boot stripes. Naval and commercial ships generally only have a waterline, the theoretical line of demarcation between the water and air which is generally struck a bit above the actual line of demarcation when the vessel is fully loaded to provide antifouling protection in the "splash zone" above the actual waterline. These waterlines are generally flat. The boot stripe is a stripe of a contrasting dark color painted between the bottom paint and the topsides paint on yachts and highly-finished commercial vessels. The purpose of a boot stripe (sometimes called a "boot top,") is to disguise the waterborne dirt and oil that would otherwise stain a vessel's white (or other colored) topsides when it splashed and collected at the waterline. In part for reasons Eberhard explained, and also 1) because the sides of most vessels curve inwards towards the centerline at their ends, which place the ends line farther away from the viewer viewing from the beam, which causes the line to appear narrower, from the viewer, and 2) because the sides of a vessel above the waterline may not be perpendicular to the waterline, but rather curve inward, as is common at the stern, thereby "twisiting" a boot stripe, making it appear thinner that it was to a viewer viewing from the side, a boot stripe that was equally wide over its entire length would appear to "droop" and would not be pleasing to the eye, particularly in a vessel with a contrasting sweeping sheer. Also as mentioned, a slight graceful curve upward in the upper edge of the boot stripe provides and illusion of grace and speed, as well. Therefore, boot stripes generally were horizontal at their bottom edges and gradually curved at their top edges, more so at the bow and less so, if at all, at the stern. It takes a considerable "eye" for a fair curve to lay out a proper boot stripe using a suitable batten and a poorly done job can cause considerable deteriment to the appearance of an otherwise good looking yacht. Below is an apparently colorized photograph of Titanic immediately prior to launch. One can draw their own conclusions as to whether or not her waterline was "curved upward" or not. If a good job was done striking curves which compensated for the optical illusions, you shouldn't be able to tell from looking. I expect if the surface of the hull were projected to a flat plane, a slight upward curve towards the bow would be apparent. Note that the waterline is not parallel to the plating schedule.

It looks to me like it all would be a good candidate for display in a "box" coffee table with a clear glass top.

What are you using to drill with? With small bits, a Dremel or other powered drill may be overkill. Try using a pin vise to hold the small bit. Create a "starting hole" by gently pushing a pin into the wood slightly to create a center punch hole for your drill bit. Use a new bit that you know is sharp. Twist gently and let the drill do the work of removing the wood from the hole. Don't press down with any more force than is necessary to get the bit to eat into the wood. That should do the trick for you. If you don't have a pin vise, read up on them here:

I can see how it could be difficult to keep small parts in place when pressing them with a soldering iron. I have been using a Tiny Torch for all my soldering for some time and the torch doesn't have to touch the pieces, which is why I didn't have any of the complaints in that regard.

Building a ship of that period at the scale of 1:120 to 1:135 would be quite a daunting task for most of us. It is a "miniature model" scale. As I'm sure you know, models of that period are most frequently built to a scale of 1:48 or 1:96, 1 inch equals 4 feet or eight feet, respectively. Such modeling is generally the province of a handful of master miniaturists. The only master modelers working in such scales, and even smaller, today of whom I am aware are Phillip Reed in England and Lloyd McCaffery in the United States. Two other Twentieth Century masters of miniature ship models are also well-recognized, Donald McNarry and Norman Ough, but they are now deceased. All of these masters have written books on the subject of miniature ship modeling. The below volumes specifically address the techniques employed to build miniature scale ship models which, in some respects, are different from building in larger scales and all are quite good. I would urge anyone who was interesting in working at miniature scales to obtain and study these reference works on the subject: Philip Reed, Building Miniature Navy Board Ship Models: Reed, Philip: 9781848320178: Amazon.com: Books Lloyd McCaffery SHIPS IN MINIATURE: The Classic Manual for Modelmakers: McCaffery, Lloyd: 9780851774855: Amazon.com: Books Donald McNarry Shipbuilding in Miniature: McNarry, Donald: 9780668058001: Amazon.com: Books Philip Reed also has an excellent series of YouTube videos on his work. See: Philip Reed - YouTube

Ditto here. I love mine. Sorry to hear you tossed the arms to yours. I'd have gladly taken them off of your hands. I don't know what would cause these adjustable arms to spring-back. That's definitely not a good thing for such a device.

Not to worry. There doesn't appear to be any skullduggery afoot. In fact, the 53,000 acre oak forest (to be exact) is located entirely on the reservation of Naval Support Activity Crane, which is about 110 square miles in size, the third largest naval base in the world and entirely under the ownership, management, and control of the U.S. Navy which acquired the land and built the base in 1941. There's no indication that the Navy decided it needed 53,000 acres to keep one ship in repair. Rather, when they realized they were having a hard time sourcing White Oak and realized they already had a whole forest of it at NSA Crane, they decided to establish the entire forest as a naval tree farm reservation, harvesting from it on an as-needed basis. See: The "Wooden Walls" of USS Constitution - USS Constitution Museum: "At Naval Support Activity Crane, near Bloomington, Indiana, the U.S. Navy maintains "Constitution Grove," where a forest of white oaks are grown for the sole purpose of restoring and refitting the USS Constitution, the oldest commissioned vessel still sailing (the UK's HMS Victory is older than the Constitution, but remains in drydock). NSA Crane is the third largest naval base in the world, and Constitution Grove is not only protected for the white oak trees, but also the biological diversity an oak forest provides, including the wildlife that live there. Three Navy civilian foresters help maintain the wood and ensure that no tree removed from the ecosystem will have an adverse effect on the grove's biodiversity." See also: Why the US Navy Manages Its Own Private Forest | Military.com From what I have read, Brett Franklin is the owner of Tri-State Lumber, LLC, a logging company that won the most recent bid for the Navy contract to harvest the Navy's white oak for the Constitution's repairs. Neither Franklin nor Tri-State Lumber, LLC, own the Navy's White Oak Reservation. See: Ironsides of Indiana Oak - Indiana Connection: Fortuitously for the venerable vessel, the Navy has in its back pocket 53,000 acres of prime forestland growing all the white oak timber the Constitution should ever need. That novel natural nursery is the Crane naval support center in the Hoosier hills and hollows of mostly northern Martin County. “To be a part of something that was touched — literally — by those who founded the country is pretty cool,” said Trent Osmon, the forester at Crane who manages the white oak trees. “I feel great knowing we’ll be supporting something that’s so important to the Navy and, in a larger sense, the country.” Situated midway between Indianapolis and Evansville, Naval Support Activity (NSA) Crane specializes in developing advanced electronic systems. But beyond the large Navy and civilian workforce employed at Crane, few Hoosiers are probably aware of the exclusive and proud role Indiana has played for the past quarter century in keeping Old Ironsides, designated “America’s Ship of State,” shipshape. “I have run into very few people outside of Crane who have any clue what Crane does for the ship,” Osmon noted. “Other than the folks directly in Boston, or perhaps their superiors, it is not widely known [even in the Navy].” The timber for the restoration was harvested at Crane last February and March. Crane foresters oversaw the felling of 35 mature white oaks set aside for the historic ship. The trees, 110-120 years old and about 40 inches in diameter, were then moved to a covered storage area at Crane, fumigated and covered in plastic. Tri-State Timber, LLC., based in Spencer, cut the trees for Crane. Brett Franklin, an owner of the family company, said knowing the job was for the Constitution made it a bid they wanted to win.“ We just thought it was a proud moment to be a part of history,” he said. “It’s patriotic; everybody wanted to get involved.” When work begins on the ship, Tri-State will also begin hauling the logs as needed to Boston for the milling and shaping to replace deteriorated hull planking and supporting structures called “knees.” Speaking of knees, the relatively recently established NSA Crane isn't the first or only U.S. Navy oak forest resource. Historically, one of the first things the fledgling United States Government did was to snap up all the Southern Live Oak it could for shipbuilding. In 1825, President John Quincy Adams created the Naval Live Oak Reservation program which acquired a virtual monopoly on all the Live Oak forests in the nation. The first such reservation was on Pensacola Bay. White Oak (Quercus Alba) has long straight trunks. Live Oak (quercus virginiana) grows outward with thick curved branches. White Oak was valued for planking, keels, and other straight beams. Live Oak was prized as the highest strength "compass timbers," meaning curved stock from which frames, futtocks, and knees are cut. Constitution's knees and frames are Live Oak, while her keel and planking are White Oak. When the Navy started building iron ships, they had little need for their Live Oak Reservations and in the early 1900's sold or repurposed them for other government use. The Deer Point Naval Live Oaks Reservation in Gulf Breeze, Florida, founded in 1828 as the nation's first naval tree farm, is now preserved as part of the Gulf Islands National Seashore in Florida and Mississippi. While no longer under the auspices of the Navy, the National Park Service provides Live Oak from the former Deer Point Naval Live Oaks Reservation and other NPS lands for the replacement of Live Oak parts on Constitution on an as-needed basis. See: Naval Live Oaks Reservation - Wikipedia and The Live Oak Tree: A Naval Icon - Gulf Islands National Seashore (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)

The history of Admiralty's consumption of white oak is a fascinating subject, particularly as it influenced Britain's attitudes towards its American colonies and the way that influenced our own U.S. history. As for how many acres of forest were consumed to ensure that "Britannia ruled the waives," the devil is in the details. Even in a virgin forest during the age of wooden ships, I doubt they'd find more than a half dozen mature oaks of sufficient quality for shipbuilding on the average acre of virgin oak forest. They required the largest lumber that could be milled from prime clear timber free of defects. "Wild" white oak is notoriously variable in those respects. The number of oak trees per acre varies depending upon the species of oak and the growing conditions. To that has to be added the factor of accessibility. They could only harvest trees that they could fell. drag out of the forest and transport to the shipyards and they didn't have the logging technology we have today to accomplish that. Some internet sites do indeed recommend planting between 100 and 400 trees per acre for plantation-grown white oak, but this number presumes that the initial planting will be thinned, either by modern forestry practices or natural attrition, over the 100 to 400 years before harvest of mature timber. Other sites say an acre of land will support far fewer white oak trees per acre and recommend planting "between 10 and 20 white oak trees per acre. https://mast-producing-trees.org/how-many-oak-trees-per-acre-should-you-plant/ "... it takes at least 80 years for a white oak to begin reaching a harvestable point. “That doesn’t mean it has hit its value point yet,” he adds. These trees can live up to 400 years, and many of the white oaks being harvested today are 150 to 200 years old." https://www.forestfoundation.org/why-we-do-it/family-forest-blog/managing-white-oaks-during-the-bourbon-boom/ As the linked articles above discuss, forest managers have become concerned about the sustainability of quality white oak due to the increased consumption of oak barrels by the wine and whiskey industries. Living where I do in the Northern California "Wine Country," where wine is aged in white oak barrels and there is a large ancillary cooperage industry, I see a lot of white oak barrels. White oak wine barrels impart a flavor to the wine they contain, but after a few uses become "flavor neutral," all the flavor having been leached out of the oak. Whiskey barrels, on the other hand, are charred on the inside and only used once. After that, the barrels are useless for those purposes and are cut in half and recycled as planter boxes, ground up in the chipper for barbeque smoker flavoring, or sometimes repurposed into trinkets for the local tourist trade. Any way you look at it, I think this seems a wasteful way to consume prime lumber that would last centuries if put to a more noble use. (Although the wine and whiskey connoisseurs see it differently, I'm sure, I've always been more interested in the proof than the flavor! ) I'd say the the old Admiralty loggers would be lucky to find more than five harvestable white oaks from an acre of virgin forest back in the days of wooden ships and iron men. The problem wasn't that the demands of the Admiralty exceeded the number of acres of oak trees they had, but rather that they exceeded the number of harvestable oak trees suitable for shipbuilding they had. After they had cut all the 200+ year old quality white oaks they could get to, the oak forests remained, but the size and quality of oaks didn't, and wouldn't, until what was left had another 200+ years to mature. In the days of old, the harvesting pressures were obviously greatest in the closest proximity of human habitation and industry, but a fair amount of the forest remained and, until logging technology overwhelmed the resource, it maintained some degree of sustainability. Ultimately, however, man's ability to harvest the timber faster than it could grow began to negatively impact the forest itself, but "running out of timber" is a relative term meaning "running out of timber of sufficient quality,' not necessarily "running out of trees entirely." (Although, "clear cutting" to produce agricultural land did, and still does, destroy large swaths of forest as well.) So, harvesting the 2,000 trees to build a ship of the line didn't take "much of a forest," but just the best shipbuilding trees in a whole lot of forest. It didn't take long for the unavailability of prime white oak to affect the shipbuilding practices of the time. Timbers had to be assembled of increasingly smaller pieces as the "big stuff" was consumed. It should be noted that the oak and pitch pine forests of America's East Coast and the fir forests of British Columbia were invaluable war material resources for the Admiralty at a time when England and the rest of Europe had consumed all their own resources of ship building oak, "Oregon pine" spars and deck planking, and pine tar. England's opposition to American independence was more about retaining timber resources than collecting a tax on tea. So how many acres of oak did it take to find enough timber to get out a ship of the line? The answer is "It depended." However, what we do know is that the U.S. Navy maintains a pristine 50,000 acre natural forest of white oak trees solely for the purpose of repairing U.S.S. Constitution! "The ship completed a two year drydocking and restoration program in 2017. During the restoration 35 trees from the grove were selected to be harvested to replace rotting hull planks." https://www.oldsaltblog.com/2020/11/constitution-grove-the-navys-white-oak-forest-on-a-high-tech-base/ That should provide some idea of how many acres it took to produce enough white oak to build an entire ship like her.

I understand what you are saying, but there's a whole lot of difference between "imagining building a model boat" and actually doing it if you've never done it before. When working to scale, there are some things that just get too small to be possible to depict in the scale model. Study the building process illustrated in the Gartside link I provided above. Gartside's building process in that case is not a traditional construction process. I provided it as an illustration of the framing for a fantail stern. What Gartside did was to epoxy laminate a double planked monocoque skin on top of a "frame" plug to which he'd bent very light frames, certainly more for appearances' sake than for structural value. It's primarily a "cold-molded" hull with light framing which makes for a strong, light hull. Although the planks are glued together, they all must be spiled (essentially lofted in place to create a custom pattern for every plank,) and that done twice because it's double-planked. It's really a beautiful boat. Now let's think about building a model of it just as the prototype was constructed. Gartside's boat is 22 feet long and your prototype is 42 feet long, so "for government work" let's say your prototype is twice the size of Gartside's. Gartside's boat's frames, which are bent over an upside down "plug" of transverse section mold patterns and battens, are 1" X 5/8". While the scantlings aren't directly proportional, for our purposes let's say that in your prototype at twice the size, the frames are 2" X 1.25". Now, you are going to build a model at a scale of one inch equals one foot, so we do the math and the frames in your 42" model will have to be .167" X .104". The double planking in a model you are contemplating, given that Gartside's were 1/4" for the inner layer and 1/2" for the outer layer would be .021" thick for the inner layer and .042" thick for the outer layer of planking. Those are the same thicknesses of about five and ten sheets of copy paper, respectively. Where can one find strip wood in those sizes? (Hint: Start saving to by a Byrnes saw. https://byrnesmodelmachines.com/tablesaw5.html) So, when you "imagine" how to build this model boat, how thick do you "imagine" a tenth of an inch thick frame is and how do you "imagine" you will be able to fasten planking onto frame stock that is a tenth of an inch by half again as much in size? What wood would you use that had the strength, the fineness and straightness of grain, and the "bendabilty" to be bent to those shapes (and made to stay that way) without crumbling to bits? It never ceases to amaze me what feats of miniaturization members of this forum can achieve, but they're far better men than I, Gunga Din! I'm not saying this to "beat you up" or make fun of you. Not by a long shot. I'm just trying to illustrate that modeling is often an art of "creating the illusion of reality," as Tom Lauria calls it. It's like a painting that is meant to be appreciated from a "viewing distance" in which the eye is tricked into seeing "reality" when actually, viewed up close, it's all just a lot of brush strokes, or in modern terms "pixels." The art of modeling is in tricking the viewer's eye to see a real vessel viewed from several hundred feet away in, say, quarter inch scale, and that magic is increasingly difficult as the scale decreases in size. In twelve inch scale, more detail can be replicated in miniature, but still there's a point where the mechanics of the thing in miniature can't be expected to serve their purpose and we have to structure it differently if the model is to be built at all, and particularly so if that model is intended to actually sail! An experienced master modeler who wished to depict such light framing in an open boat would most likely build the hull first and apply faux framing afterwards by gluing it to the inside of the completed hull shell, or, similar to what Gartside did in full size, laminate the hull on top of a plug that supported the non-structural faux frames all in one go. I'm sure it can be done, but for most of us, the men in the white coats would be wheeling us away before we got half-way finished gluing all those microscopic wooden slivers into all those fastener holes! Never underestimate your skills until you've tried to develop them! If our skill levels determined the limits of our abilities, we'd never develop any skills at all. The late "Pete" Culler, a famous boat designer who, incidentally, designed some beautiful steam launches, once wrote when encouraging his inexperienced readers not to underestimate their abilities, "Experience begins when you start." There actually isn't a lot of what I'd call "freehand carving" in building a "bread and butter" hull. (It's also called the "lift method," referring to the "lifts" or cut planks stacked up to form the shape of the hull.) The edges of each "lift" define the shape to "carve." It's really only a process of planing off the "pointy edges" until you reach the inner corners and you've got your shape right there. A batten (flat stick) with sandpaper glued onto it like a big nail file, is bent to the curves as you go along and the stiff batten's bent curved shape defines the curve it's sanding right down to where the joints of the lifts indicate is "far enough." I know from my own experience that it is much easier and less work than plank on frame construction. The interior of the bread and butter hull is a bit more tedious to finish because you have to work inside the hull, but you only have to perfectly fair the areas that will show in an open boat. Once that's done, it's a fairly easy task to glue on the faux frames to the inside of the hull where they show. I've attached three somewhat dated and perhaps silly videos of old Brits "carving" a bread and butter hulls. A picture is worth a thousand words and a video is even better. I share these thoughts not to discourage you, but rather to encourage you, because I think you've got a great idea and are "imagining" what could be a great model. I've seen enough to know you can do it. I'm only hoping to offer some suggestions that will promote your success and avoid the frustration than causes so many unfinished models. Get the books. Read and study them. Start another thread asking for suggestions on the best books for aspiring scratch-builders to acquire. (Building a library of related books and publications is usually an essential part of most serious modeler's hobby.) The more you learn about modeling, the more you will "imagine!"

"Thread drift" is an inherent danger is any forum discussion. It's just as well to head it off at the pass. Back to the subject of hull construction: You are certainly free to build your hull however you wish and, regardless of the construction method you choose, you will have to do some drawing to generate additional transverse body sections, as Wefalck has described so well. That said, I would urge you to carefully study the shape of the classic steam launch hull in which "form follows function." The shape has been developed with speed and the high-torque low-RPM steam engine's power in mind. (One determining factor being the necessity of the larger diameter higher pitched steam propeller.) Framing and planking the elegant shape of the steam launch's elliptical fan tail counter stern is, in my experience, the most complex and difficult framing and planking job of all stern shapes. Contrasted with the ordinary transom stern where the planks run fairly flat to a relatively vertical sternpost and are "sawed off" at the transom, the fantail launch stern with its long shallow run aft, requires that the planks take a significant twist between the point of maximum beam and the sternpost rabbet, which transitions from relatively vertical at the keel to relatively horizontal at the deck. Therefore, I strongly urge you to seriously consider employing the "lift" or "bread and butter" construction method for such a model hull. The relative difficulties between the alternative construction methods in this instance are at opposite ends of the difficulty spectrum. See: https://www.gartsideboats.com/custom-boatbuilding/22-foot-steam-launch-design-123.html for a sequential photographic demonstration of the construction of a plank on frame steam launch hull. (Plan and photos below from Paul Gartside's website.) https://www.gartsideboats.com/custom-boatbuilding/22-foot-steam-launch-design-123.html

Pretty good looking mast hoops! I was probably the one whose description of this technique inspired you to try it. I'm glad it was helpful. It was a trick I picked up from Gerald Wingrove's book, Techniques of Ship Modeling, if memory serves. It was a long time ago and I've been making them like this ever since. I'd suggest in the future that you consider doing it a bit differently, assuming you have a lathe, or can chuck your mandrel in a drill chuck and hold the drill in a vise. Instead of using narrow shavings, use wider shavings taken from the edge of a one inch plank or even larger if you have a good sized plane (a No. 5 or 7, even.) Take as long a shaving as you can, aiming to get long, uniform curled shavings. (A sharp iron is a necessity for that.) Sand one end of a shaving to a tapered end on the flat, as you did here. Wrap your mandrel with a couple of layers of waxed paper, holding the waxed paper tightly around the mandrel with a rubber band at each end so the glue will not stick to the mandrel when the shaving is wrapped around the mandrel. Laminate the shaving around the mandrel a bit thicker than you want your hoops to be. The purpose of the waxed paper is to prevent the glue from sticking to the waxed paper and/or the mandrel.) Use a small rubber band to hold the shaving tightly around the mandrel while the glue dries. (I use Titebond, but the glue type really doesn't matter. Then repeat the process with another shaving, wrapping it around the mandrel next to the first one and continue until you have more than enough laminated wide shavings to yield the number of hoops you may need. (You will break a few hoops, no doubt.) Let the glue dry well, like overnight. Then chuck your mandrel with the shavings wrapped around it into your lathe or drill chuck. Then, with the mandril spinning, slowly is better if you can control the speed, sand the shaving bands down to the finished thickness you want your hoops to be while they are on the mandrel. Then part off the individual hoops as wide as you want them to be by spinning the mandrel and cutting them with a fine jeweler's saw, a sharp hobby knife, or whatever suits your fancy. (With wider shavings, you'll find it easier to wrap them around the mandrel and hold in place with a rubber band while they dry. You'll be able to get several hoops out of each wrapped shaving when they are wider and you don't have to fiddle with the wrapping to make sure the edges are perfectly in line. If they aren't, just discard those edges after the parting is done, keeping only the hoops with good even edges. When your hoops are all parted, slide them off the mandrel. The waxed paper should slide off the mandrel fairly easily and you will end up with a bunch of perfectly sized hoops. Then remove the waxed paper from the inner face of the hoops. It should come off easily since the glue shouldn't stick to it. This method yields perfectly uniform mast hoops of any size desired. Their edges will be "sharp," (not rounded,) but if you wish, you can sand the edges slightly to knock the corners off them. (A block tumbler would probably round them well, but I've never had occasion to try that.) This "mass production" method should cut your production time down from two days to about an hour, not counting time for the glue to dry.