Bob Cleek

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.

Excellent point! Generally speaking, by "just eyeballing it," a hull the size of the one he's contemplating ought to carry a steam plant, although I'm not so sure about a steam plant and the R/C gear, particularly the rechargeable battery packs. The only way to tell, of course, is to calculate the displacement of the hull and compare that with the total weight of the intended steam plant and R/C gear. Calculating the displacement is most easily done using a compensating polar planimeter, although close estimates can also be obtained using a "grid" measurement system. Fortunately, manual mechanical planimeters are another fun toy that have become reasonably priced thanks to the shift over from manual drafting to CAD technology. Planimeters are highly accurate instruments which mechanically measure the area of irregular planes. The best is Keuffel and Esser's Paragon model number 620015, which will provide readings in the widest range and flexibility of scales and measurement systems, both metric and Imperial. They come available on eBay fairly frequently. See: Keuffel Esser compensating polar planimeter 620015 great condition serial 25838 | eBay (Instruction manual PDF available online.) Impress your friends with your command of naval architecture and engineering by leaving one of these laying around your workshop. A well-built planked hull with sufficient internal structural reinforcement should handle the stresses of an similarly-scaled steam plant, but a hollowed "bread and butter" hull definitely will handle such stress loads and with much less work in the building than the plank on frame hull. Another excellent point! Pressure vessel regulations vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction with an additional layer of insurance company requirements on top of that. The criteria are based on the volume of the pressure vessel and the working pressure. In many cases, the regulations don't apply to hobby applications, but at that point insurance regulations often still apply. Besides, even if the law permits you to risk life and limb on a hobby, ignoring "best engineering practices" is foolhardy when messing about with live steam. Even if one has the skill to machine a miniature steam engine, making the boiler for it is an adventure probably best left to the professionals, at least until one becomes very proficient in miniature steam technology. (Remember the boiler and engine must be matched to operate properly.) Fortunately, for a price, matched engine and boiler combination steam plants can be purchased from specialty manufacturers. See: Steam engines, Boilers & Boats | Welcome to SAITO’s Web Site | SAITO SEISAKUSHO CO., LTD. (saito-mfg.com) Saito makes miniature steam engines and boilers and assorted "jewelry" for scale steamboat models. They also sell model live steam kits for a variety of vessel types, including steam launches. United States' distributor: Ages of Sail, Buy Wooden Ship Kits & Wood Model Ship Kits | Ages of Sail ; an MSW sponsor. Saito steam launch kit: New Star, Open Steam Launch (Saito) - Ship and Boat Kits - Saito (Live Steam) (agesofsail.com)

Wefalck's above explanation of how to develop waterlines from a set of bulkhead outlines is about as clear and concise as I've ever seen. Don't be intimidated by lofting. It's easy to pick up the basics, but it's a subject best learned by doing it. Get yourself a drawing board, a tee-square, a triangle, and a compass and a pair of dividers, flexible batten, ,a set of french curves and a decent ruler (the triangular architect's scale rules are handy because you can use the scales and not have to convert to scale in your head or on a calculator.) Then just practice drawing boat plans on paper. You'll pick it up fast and be converting two-dimensional drawings to three-dimensional boats in your head in no time. There's a good tutorial to get you started in the forum's "Articles Database" (along with lots of other valuable basic information) : Nautical Research Guild - Article - Interpreting Line Drawings for Ship Modelling (thenrg.org) Once you get the hang of lofting, there's no limit to the number and variety of boats you can build from scratch to plans you've developed yourself. This, along with milling your own wood, will enable you to build models of boats which have never been modeled before and will save you huge amounts of money over buying kits to build. One word of warning, though. Ship modeling can become quite addictive, and expensive no matter how you cut it. Kit builders can spend thousands on kits they intend to build some day, while scratch-builders can spend thousands on tools they plan to use some day! Happy lofting!

What you've done so far makes it clear that you are indeed able to scratch-build. You just need to study some of the standard reference materials to learn the proper procedures and techniques. I strongly agree with Wefalck that building a kit isn't very different from scratch-building at all. The kit really is just a set of "training wheels" that provides materials and instructions. You have demonstrated that you already have the tools and skills to mill your own wood for a model and that is the major difference between assembling a kit of pre-cut parts and scratch-building. It seems that your weaknesses at the moment are in the area of plans and the understanding of working with them and in the sequence of construction. Those topics are easily learned. Lofting is nothing more than basic geometry and mechanical drawing, really. It's easy to understand once you know the meaning of the "language" of drafting. Don't give up the ship. Read some of the better build logs. That will give you as much information as building kits yourself. Get a book on lofting. Get some basic books on ship modeling (not those that only address "how to build a kit, though.) And unless you already have a familiarity with live steam, you'll need to read up on that (a lot) because it's a technology that is no longer in common usage for propulsion systems (unless you are a marine nuclear engineer!) Fortunately, it continues as a hobby for some and the knowledge has been preserved and a few specialty manufacturers do sell scale steam plant fittings, engines, and boilers. R/C live steam is a real challenge, though. You'll need multiple channels to control not only the steering and transmission of the model, but also to control the steam plant itself. There are live steam R/C ship model hobbyists online. Look over their shoulders. One good resource for connecting with marine live steam hobbyists is the San Francisco Model Yacht Club. SFMYC – San Francisco Model Yacht Club

Live steam models are a favorite of mine. I had the pleasure of restoring a near-century old live steam model about five feet long years ago. It's on public static display now and I can't get to it to record the details photographically. Perhaps they will send it back for servicing at some point and I will get the chance. Back before digital photography and cell phone cameras, we just didn't take as many photos as we do today. Would you be up for starting over a fifth time? I'm sorry I didn't catch this build log earlier. The approaches you've taken, considering the challenges of the plans you have in hand, would be difficult to overcome for any builder without redrawing the plans in a form suitable for modeling purposes, which, it seems, you're discovering require development of a suitable number of frames. Building an "as built" fully-framed hull is always a daunting task and I expect you will admit that your attempts haven't been all that rewarding so far. To obtain a fairly planked hull requires a suitable number of frames which are perfectly shaped if the desired result is to be obtained. Frankly, the "plank on bulkhead and plank on frame construction methods now popular with ship model kit manufacturers are the result of market driven pressures. Some want to build fully-framed models with structures identical to the prototype or with unplanked hulls below the waterline showing stylized framing for aesthetic reasons, but primarily, we see the plank on bulkhead and plank on frame kit models because it is a lot easier and less expensive for manufacturers to pack and instruction booklet, some fittings, a bunch of stripwood, and some laser-cut sheets of thin plywood into a flat box with an instruction manual than to provide a solid hull roughed out from a big heavy block of wood. It's the "IKEA method" of "knocked down" hull construction. Consequently, we don't hear about solid hull construction so much anymore when it's really the quickest way to get the job done (and even if a "planked" varnished hull is desired, since the bread and butter hull can easily be planked with thin planking stock of high quality wood.) It's your model and you are free to build it as you wish, but since you asked for input, I will offer it. The steam launch hull at the height of its development is a rather generic shape. You can find many examples of lines drawings for steam launches published in easily accessible books and perhaps even online. It's easy enough to scale a hull drawing up or down to the size desired using copying technology. (Large scale architectural copy machines available from copy stores are the best option.) If you can't get a complete lines drawing of this particular launch, it should be very easy to find a set for another launch hull that will be so close in appearance that nobody will be the wiser if another set you find is used. You will, however, find it of great value to learn something of lofting and drawing so you can make minor adjustments if you wish. Alan Vaiteses' book, Lofting,' is an excellent resource in this regard. If you haven't obtained a copy already, I strongly recommend Weston Farmer's From My Old Boatshop, available from Elliot Bay Steam Launch Co. (From My Old Boat Shop — Elliott Bay Steam Launch: New Website Under Construction) This book has an extensive treatment of steam launch hull form design and over fifty lines drawings with tables of offsets for building, or modeling, steam launches. Elliot Bay is one of the leading providers of steam launch hulls and steam plants in the U.S. The construction of a hull for a live steam launch is a thing that cries out for a "bread and butter" stacked hull construction. To describe this very briefly, since the technique is explained in any number of modeling books, (see the article linked below) the hull is built by cutting out from plank stock an inch or so thick the shapes of the waterlines of the hull. (The waterlines are easily developed from the lines drawings and drawn full size using a sprung batten and weights.) These are cut in halves sawn simultaneously, with two planks stacked on top of each other, such that one complete waterline-edged shape for each waterline is yielded by flipping one of the two halves cut together over and butting it up against its twin. The halves are also cut out inboard of the waterline so the center of the waterline shape is thereby made hollow. The stack of hollowed waterline shapes are glued together and the resulting shape is a hollowed hull with "stepped" sides in the shape of the successive waterline shapes in the stack. The "steps" are shaved off with a drawknife or chisel or with a shaping rasp bit on a Dremel tool or the like and, using a negative pattern of the station body shapes as a pattern to check as the shaping is done, and with final fairing sanding, a perfectly fair and correctly shaped hollow hull is created. If interior framing must be shown, the interior of the hull can be shaped in similar fashion and the frames glued in place to appear from an inboard view as if the hull is fully framed and planked. In the end, what you have is a completely watertight monocoque hull which needs only sealing (penetrating epoxy sealer is recommended) and painting (a good enamel paint is recommended.) There is no need to fiddle with the mess of plastic resin sheathing and months of tedious framing and planking which, at present, at least, isn't going well and doesn't promise to get any easier. There is nothing to be gained by a framed and planked hull. It isn't a static model that will be displayed without planking below the waterline ("Admiralty board style") so what's the point of planking on bulkheads or frames, anyway? This "bread and butter" hull construction method is what has been predominantly employed in all of the finest models which do not have open framing below the waterline. There's just no need to make yourself crazy building what will be a less-suitable hull that is far more complicated to build. Unless you already have very accurate plans for your steam plant, and radio control system, I would urge you to start by finding some that identify the exact size of all of those elements. There are many variables, beginning with the type of fuel you will be using and how you will provide for the operation of the steam plant via RC actuators. You will have to plan the layout of the steam plant and the radio control equipment inside the hull and this has to be done before anything else to ensure that you don't end up without enough room for everything inside the hull. RC battery packs, gas or liquid fuel tanks, your boiler, and water tanks will take up a fair amount of space and you will have to provide access to all of it by designing removeable deck sections. I realize you've envisioned building a planked hull in a number of ways, and I'm suggesting you throw all that out and start over in a way that you may not have considered before (or you did consider and discarded for reasons of your own,) but I'm looking a you "doing it the hard way" and creating a tremendous amount of unnecessary work for yourself building a hull that may well not satisfy your ambitions in the end. Just sayin.' I in no way want to dissuade you from building this fascinating project and I encourage you to go for it. I'm just offering a suggestion that, from all indications, will save you a huge amount of work and give you a stronger and more suitable hull in the end. Here is an excellent reprint from Model Shipwright explaining all anybody would need to know to build a bread and butter hull. Building a Bread-and-Butter Solid Hull Ship Model – The Model Shipwright

And for additional points in the game of nautical Trivial Pursuit, the "nips" of small line tying the messenger and cable together were progressively untied and moved as the cable was hauled aboard by the messenger. This menial task was assigned to the ship's boys, hence the common usage of the term "little nippers" to affectionately describe young boys.

And for some of us, the passion is the hobby!

I'm watching this thread. I can't imagine using anything other than clear gloss, if that. I'd love to see photos of what folks have done to portray "wet." At scale viewing distances, the difference between wet and dry isn't particularly noticeable in my experience. I've spent a lot of time on the water in small craft sailing in relatively close proximity to ships sailing in the shipping lanes on San Francisco Bay and I can't ever remember noticing that some of the hull was particularly shiny because it was wet at the bows or wherever in contrast to higher up on the topsides.

Cutting a scroll end to that shape is quite easy if done with a jeweler's saw. Carving the inside scroll relief is not difficult. all it takes is removing some wood to create the relief. You'll probably screw up the first three or four attempts on the first go-round and then get the hang of it. It's not hard. Cut the lines straight down with a razor knife and then remove the wood between the cut defining lines. Also, leave a "tail" or handle on your workpiece from which it can be held when you are working on it. Then you can put it in a vise or otherwise clamp it down and still have two hands free to carve. When the carved piece is finished, cut it from the tail and glue it to the molded strip.

From looking at the photo, it appears this molded brass bar stock wasn't intended for use with a scroll attached, so you'll have to do some scratch modification to use it as hull trim. I don't know how you would carve a scroll in the end of the brass section because it doesn't' look like there's enough "meat" on it to carve the scroll, which is wider and of a different section than the brass stock you have. I suppose you could silver solder a piece of brass stock of sufficient size to accommodate the scroll shape to the molded brass bar stock, and then cut the scroll shape with a jeweler's saw and then shape the relief of the scroll using jeweler's files and suitably-shaped burrs in a flex-shaft or rotary grinder. Your other option is to carve wooden scroll ends and then glue them adjacent to the squared off end of the molded brass bar stock, or, better yet, join with a lap joint. The wood would be much easier to carve, but probably tedious to fair into the milled brass bar stock. It may be that the bigger challenge if you intend to use the molded brass stock as hull trim will be attaching it to the hull. Your hull will be finished with some coating, so whatever you use to glue it to the hull is never going to hold any better than the finish coating without mechanical fasteners. I'd suggest drilling holes in the back of the molded bar (being careful not to break through to the face of it) and silver solder brass lill pins with the heads removed into the holes. Those pins would then be inserted into corresponding holes on the hull and glued in with epoxy on the brass lill pins. On balance, I think it would be easier to shape a piece of fine-grained hardwood strip of sufficient size to accommodate the scrolls you want and glue wooden pieces at the ends from which to carve the scrolls. These can be secured to the hull with fine wooden or bamboo pegs set in holes in the hull in the same manner as the lill pins mentioned above. I'd strongly advise using mechanical fastenings like pegs or pins because this sort of curved trim is very prone to springing loose over time, since gluing anything under tension to a painted or varnished surface is not going to be very strongly attached. Even if you are attaching it "bare wood to bare wood," where the adhesive would hold much better, you'd have quite a challenge holding it in place while the glue dries. If you want to paint these trim pieces a contrasting color from the hull, it's much easier to paint them before installation and then attach them after the hull is painted or varnished than trying to mask and get perfect separation lines top and bottom because it's very difficult to get a perfectly masked line at the "inside right angle" point of attachment between the trim piece and the hull. Attaching the trim piece requires a perfect fit on the faying surfaces in order to avoid the trim piece appearing as if it were glued on, which would spoil the illusion of reality necessary in a good model. Trim pieces are one of those details to which a viewer's eye is particularly drawn and a neat job is required. If you fabricate your own wooden trim pieces, it's well worth getting a set of Artisania Latina Micro-Shapers instead of fabricating your own at these scales. These scrapers are drawn repeatedly over a suitably sized piece of strip wood until the desired depth of cut is obtained. There are at least two different sets of three scraping plates, each of which has many different shapes cut into the edges. The shapes can be used singly, or in combinations, to yield just about any shape one could want. Each scraper has a different size range of shapes. I suggest you buy them from Artisania Latina directly, as they seem to be the least expensive source these days. (MicroMark wants twice the price for them!) Micro Shapers A for Models & Miniatures by Artesanía Latina (artesanialatina.net)

Agreed as to Syren and Vanguard from what I've seen and heard. While admittedly a "thread drift" here, I've always been fascinated by how it's possible for anybody to make a profit selling wooden ship model kits. I have no idea where the relevant data might be found, but it would seem that after one does the research and development to design a kit, then factors in the cost of materials, which aren't particularly high, the difficulty of protecting one's intellectual property rights, the relatively small number of potential buyers, and the lack of retail outlets for what is often an impulse purchase, there really doesn't seem to be a lot of meat left on the bone, considering the work necessary to put a kit into the stream of commerce.

Not if one has properly spiled their planks and mastered the techniques of heat-bending the planks to fit before fastening them. The difficulty of planking a "bluff" or "apple-bowed" kit hull is in large part dependent upon the design of the kit model. The plank ends of a sharp-bowed kit hull are frequently set into a rabbet in the stem, or finished flush with the inner stem and covered by a false stem on top of the inner stem and plank ends. As I understand it, never having encountered the problem myself, some bluff-bowed kit hulls simply butt the ends of the bent planks against the side of the stem, which creates a poor glue joint faying surface due to the planks' end grain and little to fasten to mechanically. Your mileage may differ, of course.

http://www.byrnesmodelmachines.com/ Their ad is still on the forum homepage.

Many gave up trying long ago and "went over to the dark side" and became scratch-builders! (Not to mention that the cost scratch-building is nothing compared to the price of quality kits!) There are many build logs and discussions of the various Endeavour kits, including OcCre's version. I've been out of the kit arena for some time now, but a quick glance may indicate that the Caldercraft kit is the more historically accurate version. More reading assignments for you at: Searched for 'Endeavour' in All Content (modelshipworld.com)

As a life-long woodworker, you are well on your way to success, but be forewarned, aside from rigging and painting, there's very little similarity between plastic and wood kits. One assembles a plastic kit, but one must build a wooden kit. Wooden kits require far more time, and skill, to complete than plastic kits. If you "go big from the start," and if you are like most wooden ship kit builders, you can expect to spend as much as a year, or more building a wooden "tall ship" model from a kit. It can quickly become a daunting task that no longer is much fun. Then the enterprise is abandoned, and you become another novice who's bit the dust. Not to be pedantic, and certainly not wishing to dampen your enthusiasm for building a wooden kit model one bit, I must say, if you haven't already, you would do well to read the following thread before doing anything impulsive in buying a wooden model ship kit.: After that, I'd urge you to read the following detailed building instructions ("practicums") by Chuck Passaro, a master modeler and forum member, in order to get a good idea of what is involved in building a rather simple, but not "dumbed down" kit of an 18th Century pinnace, and an intermediate difficulty level model of an American Colonial square rigged schooner: BuildingAn18thCenturyPinnace.pdf (thenrg.org) ColonialSchoonerSultana.pdf (thenrg.org) If you're not thoroughly intimidated at that point, read the following general article on what to expect in a wooden ship model kit: Nautical Research Guild - Article - Model Ship Kits (thenrg.org) Thereafter, you may wish to read any number of the instructional articles in the "Articles" drop-down menu in the forum's caption: Nautical Research Guild - Articles and How Tos (thenrg.org) As will most any experienced wooden ship modeler, I will repeat the suggestion that you "start small" and do not let your "ego overrule your brain when the time comes to purchase my first wood model." Your first (or second and third) kit doesn't necessarily need to be a "beginner's model," but you should beware of letting yourself get ahead of the necessary learning curve before dropping a grand on a poor quality HMS Victory kit. A relatively simple model doesn't not need to be crude. If done well, even a model of an 18th Century ship's boat can be a thing of great beauty and pride of accomplishment. Because you do have your skills from plastic kit modeling and extensive woodworking experience, may I suggest you consider for your first venture into modeling ships in wood and bits of string and metal, Syren Ship Models' kit of the HMS Medway's longboat of 1742. See: Medway Longboat (1742) (syrenshipmodelcompany.com) This isn't a "beginner's model," but rather an intermediate to advanced level challenge, so your ego will not be compromised in the least, The instructions for building this plank on frame model are on the linked page as well, so you will be able to see the magnitude of the work involved and the challenges that may be encountered in building this really elegant model. Not only does Syren Ship Models offer some of the best model kits around, but more importantly, in my opinion, at least, Syren offers the best building instructions around which I think is often the most important feature to consider when selecting a kit. (And, believe me, some of the kit model instructions are real nightmares!) I believe there are also some "build logs" of this model on the forum. Syren Ship Model Company|Boxwood ship model rigging blocks|Ship Model rigging rope |turned brass cannon| Chuck Passaro