Bob Cleek

5 hours ago, bigjimslade said:

Even the famous hyper-detailed 1:48 Missouri model at the US Navy Museum shows a smooth hull without plating. I figure that I can do the same at 1:192.

Yes. the Gibbs and Cox model shop which built so many fine models in its time did that model of Missouri. I believe it was built to Naval Sea Systems Command's specifications for USN ship models which prohibit "plank on frame" models of metal ships:

Hulls shall be built up in lifts of clear, first-grade mahogany or basswood; doweled and glued together with water-resistant glue. The wood shall be completely free of knots, checks, and sap pockets and shall be thoroughly seasoned. Models over 12 inches beam must be hollowed for reduction of weight The hull shall be composed of the least number of parts necessary to achieve the proper shape. An excessive number of glue joints shall be avoided. On models less than 12 inches beam, hull lifts shall be cut to the full body shape: lifts shall not be cut in halves, thereby creating a glue seam along the vertical centerline of the model. The lifts shall conform accurately to lines of the vessel as shown by the plans. A stable, durable, flexible body putty may be used in moderation to fill gaps.   Nautical Research Guild - Article - Specifications for Construction of Exhibition Models of U.S. Naval Vessels (thenrg.org)

As can be seen, metal hulls are made from carved solid blocks or "bread and butter" lifts with hollow centers. The USN specifications are worth studying and attempting to emulate. The Navy knows what it takes to build a ship model that will last. Their models travel frequently, relatively speaking, and they want them to "take a licking and keep on ticking." 

Sometimes it takes a lot to get a perfect finish.  

1 hour ago, bigjimslade said:

What I am wondering is how much of an offset should there be on the frames the hull thickness.

It might sound like a smart aleck response, but, seriously, the offset on the frames has to be the thickness of the planking or plating if the body section lines are drawn to the outside of the planking or plating. If the frames are drawn to the inside of the planking or plating, you just have to make sure your model's planking or plating isn't any thicker than the scale of the section lines. If your planking or plating has to be thicker than scale for "engineering" purposes, then that additional thickness has to be factored into the equation. It all depends first on the thickness of the planking or plating. On most models of iron and steel hulled ships, the model's planking will be much thicker than its true scale because that will be required for sufficient strength. On models of ships with wooden hulls, the deviation from scale may be less so, depending on the scale. 

When considering hull skin thickness, be it planking or plate, one must first consider whether the lines are drawn to the inside or the outside of the plank. This should be indicated on the plans, but plans for full scale construction may not indicate this by notation and the builder will have to determine that from comparing the construction and lines drawings. Details of the rabbet line may make it obvious. A section drawn to the inside of the frames should be obvious at the garboard seam where the deduction can be seen.  Plans drawn for modeling may differ from the full scale drawings of a given vessel as they are often simplified for modeling purposes. (This is frequently the case with solid carved block hulls and half-models which are usually drawn to the outside of the planking or plating.) 

In order to get the correct dimensions, a modeler has to 1) know whether the plans are drawn to the inside or outside of the planking or plating and 2) how thick (and likely out of scale) the planking or plating they will build is going to be. 

A modeler who has reached the level of accomplishment in their work to recognize the issue you have would find spending some time studying lofting practices a big help. There are many treatises on lofting. Alan Vaiteses' Lofting is one of the best.

Your question is addressed and explained at 5:25 in this video: 

1 hour ago, Roger Pellett said:

What I don’t understand is lubrication of the engine.  He mentions using the old drip lubrication pots but old engines using these old lubrication systems required constant monitoring.

Yikes!

9 hours ago, Riotvan88 said:

My concern is during all the priming, sanding, painting (done over months) I may have sanded through in some spots without realizing. Probably not but impossible to know now.

This is true and it's a very common mistake made by inexperienced finishers. This particularly problematic when one is working with a clear coating that is particularly susceptible to ultraviolet damage, such as varnish or epoxy resin. Frequently, the newbie will apply a coat of varnish, even varnish with UV inhibitors) and then, obeying the instructions to "sand between coats," sand off the coat they've last applied. When all is said and done, they think they have applied the required "eight coats of varnish" and can't figure out why their varnish job, which looked great when they were finished, started going to pot in a couple of months. Instead of eight coats of UV inhibitors, they had the equivalent of one coat! This isn't of much import when painting models, though. They don't have to withstand the continual exposure to direct sunlight. (We hope!)

However, the CPES should have soaked into the wood sufficiently deep to provide a decent sealing, later sanding notwithstanding. As others have noted, your subsequent coats of barrier coat and various other things should be more than adequate to prevent water damage for the use intended. Remember, though, that epoxy is not "waterproof."  It's moisture permeable to some extent, depending upon the length of exposure, of course. There's a big difference between "moisture" and "water," though. As long as you have any sort of paint on it, there's little chance of the hull getting waterlogged.  

"Several coats of satin lacquer" will just add that much more protection to the wood, but it's probably not necessary. It's a matter of personal preference, I suppose, but I'm not much of a fan of "satin lacquer," or "satin" anything, for that matter, except in situations where a protective coating is required on finely detailed surfaces that can't be rubbed. "Canned satin" finishes are simply paint with "dirt" added to dull the finish. On a nice smooth hull, I opt for applying the finish coats without "satin" added, and, if they need flattening down, I hand-rub them with rottenstone and pumice the old-school way, yielding a much finer finish than "paint-on satin."

I don't expect you should have any problem if you coated with G-Flex. The absence of a glass cloth matrix can result in cracking of a rigid polyester resin coating when (and if) the wood expands. However, G-Flex is just that, flexible. This feature is intended to compensate for the expansion of the wood structure. Your use of CPES as a primer should provide an excellent base for the G-Flex. Do make sure your wood below the waterline is well coated. If so, I'd say "splash her when the paint's dry!"

Using the router bit is a trick to be filed away for future use! Brilliant indeed.

But... for that shape I'd be tempted to make it freehand with a file or sandpaper on a stick.

I'd suggest the following trick: Take a piece of wood a little bit thicker than the thickness of the "ring" you want and with a sharp hand plane off a few nice, curly shavings. wrap these shavings around the spar at the place you want the "ring," laminating the wrapped shaving with wood glue. Add enough turns to make the glued on "ring" higher than the finished one you want to make. When the glue on the laminated "rings" is hardened, turn the spar in the lathe and turn the "rings" to the width, height, and shape you want with small wood turning chisels or jewelers' files. The laminated rings will be solidly part of the spar and adding them on, rather than trying to turn a much larger spar blank to size, should be a big time and work saver. Also, if for some reason you botch it up, all you need do is remove the glued "ring" by turning it off (or soaking it in alcohol if you used PVA glue) and apply another laminated "ring" and have another go at it.

This is also the way I make wooden mast hoops. I wrap a suitably sized wooden mandrel with plastic wrap to prevent the glue from sticking to the mandrel and laminate "hoops" the width of my plane shavings. Then I sand them down to the desired scale thickness and part them on the mandrel with a hobby knife or jeweler's saw (depending upon the thickness of the hoops,) and slide them off the mandrel.

Turning small shapes like you've illustrated above is quite easily done using a sanding stick and/or turning knife. It's much easier than making a dedicated cutter tool to do it, unless, of course, you need to make many of the same shape, e.g. belaying pints.

22 hours ago, Capella said:

While testing my lathe with a 20" (or so) dowel, I came to realize that sanding the middl of such a long dowel would be difficult at best. It sounds like you're addressing such a problem, but I'm just not able to picture what you're describing.

I don't think it should be difficult. Pushing the sandpaper against one side of a long piece will cause deflection that can cause difficulties, including breaking the piece. However, if you fold your sandpaper in half and place the folded sandpaper over the piece and apply pressure with your thumb on one side and forefinger on the other (pinching the sandpaper,) you can easily apply sufficient pressure to the sandpaper against the piece on opposing sides and thus avoid any deflection. This technique also allows you to do twice the sanding in any given amount of time.

An alternate technique is to glue a piece of sandpaper to a flat stick the same length as the workpiece and apply pressure against the workpiece starting at the side you want to end up being the thinner end. As the sanding progresses, apply pressure to the entire piece as the thinner side becomes smaller in diameter. The flat stick will ensure that the taper is even the entire length of the workpiece and the even pressure from the flat of the stick against the workpiece will also negate deflection otherwise caused by pressing on the middle of the workpiece alone.

I expect most anybody with a lathe grinds their own cutting tools at one point or another. I don't see why brass couldn't be used for turning wood in a pinch, but why would you want to go to the trouble of grinding the tool in brass when a HSS tool would be no more difficult to make from a standard blank on the grinding wheel than the brass one and would be far easier to sharpen to an edge that would last much better than the brass one. (Lathe tools are ground, not milled, at least as far as my experience with them goes.) For custom shapes to turn wood, a custom-shaped cutter blade can be rather easily made from any scrap metal such as an old disposable utility knife blade or even a heavy single edge razor blade using a Dremel tool for grinding and shaping the edge you want for turning out belaying pins and the like. (When I do this, I put the blade in a small long-nosed pair of vise-grip pliers and rest the pliers on the turning tool rest.) Gerald Wingrove's book, The Techniques of Ship Modeling, covers this technique in depth. 

Most any of the many lathe operation manuals available for free download online, such as the excellent U.S. military training manuals. South Bend's How to Run a Lathe, and Atlas Machine Tools Manual of Lathe Operation, will have chapters on the proper grinding procedure for various types of cutting tools.

If all you want to do is turn a "small round over edge" and a "very narrow groove," in wood, I'd suggest you try cutting the groove with a jeweler's saw or similar saw or a suitably sized file and shape the rounded edge freehand with a flat jeweler's file or sanding stick. Grooves are easily made with a parting tool of the required thickness if you have one or a parting tool can be made of a piece of metal of the desired thickness with a corner sharpened.

Easy Off oven cleaner sprayed on aluminum and then washed off should result in a patina that approximates the appearance of galvanizing. Experiment to see if that works for you. If not, paint is probably the best solution. 

Cute and handy little plane if you're right-handed. I'd be inclined to pass on the $25+S&H shooting board, though. It wouldn't take much to throw one together from shop scraps. 

52 minutes ago, KeithAug said:

Hmmmm! Best not to upset the admiral.

Most decidely!  

23 hours ago, KeithAug said:

It was easy, she just flipped over the pan.

It was at that point that she discovered it was a casserole, not a pie. What can i say, it looked like a pie to me when I took it out of the freezer! So I said, "Don't blame me. Who bakes a pie at 120 degrees anyway?' And it went downhill from there...  

4 hours ago, KeithAug said:

Hi Bob, yes i had seen that video - quite alarming really. I'm not really too sure why it happened.

I believe the starboard railway cradle supports collapsed! She survived the event without damage, though. 

1 hour ago, KeithAug said:

Keith - yes I have looked at Ena but I am also looking at this:-https://www.sandemanyachtcompany.co.uk/yacht/618/pusey-and-jones-126-ft-steam-yacht-19012009. As yet i haven't found the hull lines anywhere.

 

 

I had a passing familiarity with Cangarda. She was restored by Jeff Rutherford's shop in Richmond, CA, in my neck of the woods. A buddy of mine attended to her relaunching and very nearly "dumped" her in that exercise.

I'd think Jeff Rutherford would know how you could locate whatever lines and plans drawings may be available for her. See: Rutherford's Boatshop (rutherfordboats.com)

3 hours ago, KeithAug said:

I must be missing something because I have never used a keel clamp. I just tend to knock up a support cradle from scrap wood and have never felt the need for anything better. As far as the Stanley vice is concerned I have one and wouldn’t recommend it for anything but the very smallest boats - nothing more than a few inches long.

My practice is the same as yours. I often use styrofoam packing boxes and blocks with the hull shape cut out of them for work stands. When I have occasion to want to hold a hull at an odd angle to work on it my own weapon of choice is my Zyliss vise with its patternmaker's vise clamping features. The Zyliss has four inch jaws, as I recall. The Stanley multi-angle hobby vise has three inch jaws. I'd expect that would be sufficient to hold a hull with a 12 or even an 18 inch keel adequately. 

The OP asked for comment on whether there was "a more affordable alternative to the Keel Klamper." Hence my recommendation of the Stanley unit, based upon ability to do the job, value for the money, and price point. 

4 hours ago, Jaager said:

I very much resist using aerosol anything.  The process turns materials that would not otherwise be available to breathe into particles that gain easy access to our alveoli.  It increases the concentration of volatiles  that are able to get there.

My practice is to do any spraying outdoors with a large shop fan to send an airstream away from me. I don't use spray booths because I don't want to concentrate volatile fumes in hoses where they might ignite. 

1 hour ago, Roger Pellett said:

I am, therefore, rather insensitive to smelly paints and varnishes in my shop, particularly in the small quantities that we use.

I love the smell of automotive lacquer in the morning. It smells like... like victory!  

7 hours ago, glbarlow said:

It’s ok to use shellac, if that is your choice. Just because it is your choice is no reason to denigrate any product other than that.

 

i also don’t accept the equally silly comment that WOP is used by the unskilled. In fact just slathering  it on with a rag is not how it’s properly done. Let’s  compare my WOP models against your shellacked ones. 

This isn't any sort of contest between polyurethane and shellac. I'm not denigrating any particular finishing option, as I thought I made quite clear in my post.  It was my intent to simply outline the differences between the two. I have no investment the choices anybody makes when finishing a model. As I said, "It's all just a matter of taste." I am sorry that I apparently touched a nerve of some sort. That was neither intended nor expected.

7 hours ago, Jaager said:

It does take on a white color in patches, so it may well be water and not oxygen. 

To speculate, if it is water, then it is a physical mixture instead of chemical reaction.  If so, then if the flakes could be dehydrated, then the flakes would be restored.  I wonder if a low heat oven would drive off the water without degrading the shellac?

Hardened shellac supposedly melts around the boiling temperature of water, so care should be exercised in heating it. If it were to melt, though, it need only be ground up to dissolve in alcohol again. 

I've no idea if shellac flakes will even absorb moisture, though. Dried shellac is one of the best moisture barriers around, so it wouldn't seem like it would be prone to absorbing moisture. Dunno.  

2 hours ago, Jaager said:

In my hands, the flake form of super blonde shellac has a shelf life.  When it is too old, it does not easily dissolve.  The flakes fuse together and the lot that almost instantly dissolves when new. It will still be a gel at the bottom of the alcohol container after a week,  if you have had the flakes for a few years.  The flakes are sold in plastic bags, which does not exclude oxygen very well.  

 

Might it be that the flakes absorb some ambient moisture over time and that causes the problems with dissolving completely? Just a guess. 

4 hours ago, hollowneck said:

Fun fact: Shellac is made from the carcasses of beetles

Actually, shellac is a ground-up resin that is secreted by female lac beetles to build self-protective tubes (sort of like termites) from which they suck the sap from the trees upon which they live. Shellac is collected by scraping the tubes from the trees, then heating them to liquify the shellac, and straining the liquid shellac to remove impurities. Modelers who use shellac can reassure animal rights activists by labeling their models: "No beetles were harmed during the making of this model."  

Shellac is also edible! They use it to put a shine on apples and citrus fruit for the supermarkets and to make jelly beans shiny.

4 hours ago, glbarlow said:

I’m quite comfortable with wipe-on Poly and get a chuckle from those that oppose it for what consider the silliest of reasons. I have 20 year old models that look the same as the day after I applied it. straight up Polyurethane I’m sure is a whole different thing I’d imagine.   
 

Never tried shellac. 

Wipe-on polyurethane is simply full-strength polyurethane thinned down with solvent ("paint thinner"). Solvent is a lot cheaper than the base polyurethane coating, so you are paying a lot of extra money for half the polyurethane canned in a "wipe-on" pre-thinned consistency. It's far higher in VOCs than alcohol, so you've got the toxic fumes and environmental downside to consider and its solvent-required clean up can be somewhat of pain, however small those considerations may be in scale model amounts. (Polymerizing polyurethane produces an amalgam of toxic compounds that can be extremely toxic when released as fumes into the indoor air.)  This "value added for DIY marketing" seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon. I've heard that Minwax doesn't export their "wipe-on" product in Europe because the apparently more sophisticated European market realizes thinning the product yields the same result at lower cost. 

That said, polyurethane is a great finish. It is highly abrasion-resistant and impervious to liquids, particularly alcohol, which absolutely makes it the best choice for things like hardwood floors, table and bar tops, and the like. When thinned, It yields a nice finish on any bare wood and can be applied by unskilled finishers by simply wiping it on with a rag.  

Shellac is dissolved in alcohol and is easier to clean up without any toxic risks. It doesn't have the abrasion-resistance of polyurethane, and spilling an alcoholic beverage on it will require restoring the finish as the alcohol will dissolve the shellacked finish. However, this characteristic is an advantage in modeling, particularly when shellac is used to stiffen catenaries in rigging line, to secure rigging knots, and as an adhesive. Shellac can be used in a thick suspension as an adhesive and thinned as desired for a variety of finish effects. Obviously, polyurethane's abrasion-resistance and imperviousness to alcohol is unnecessary in modeling applications so shellac's lack thereof is of no moment.

About the only reasons I would consider sound for favoring shellac over polyurethane for modeling applications are 1) the uncertainty of polyurethane's long-term archival qualities, although for the relatively short period polyurethane has been around, it's not exhibited any tendency to deteriorate. 2) Shellac and its alcohol solvent is less expensive than wipe-on polyurethane, though not by much. 3) Shellac apparently has a better shelf life than polyurethane coatings and won't start polymerizing upon exposure to air and "go bad in the can." 4) Shellac can be easily removed with alcohol at any time after it "dries" by the alcohol's evaporation. Polyurethane cannot be easily removed with solvent once it polymerizes. Very aggressive strippers or mechanical removal is required once it's "cured."

I don't think the any of the reasons for or against both polyurethane finishes and shellac are "silly," they're just a matter of taste. As the saying goes, "Ya gotta dance with the girl ya brought" and it's bad form to judge another guy's date harshly. It's all just a matter of taste.

In fact, both of the above observations are obviously accurate to one degree or another, but more often not likely a seaman's first choice. While I can't provide a citation to the historical record, I believe that in the Age of Sail, as often still today, the common response to nature's call for "number one" for the men aboard, nature having equipped them conveniently with the means, was simply aiming to leeward at the rail in fair weather and to a convenient corner below in foul weather. I read somewhere once upon a time, where I can't remember, that, particularly in heavy weather, the bilges served as the first choice of refuge when nature called for "number two."  Consequently, "mucking out the bilges" at refitting time was an especially disagreeable task! Those keen on absolute accuracy might be well advised to include the latter detail when "weaathering" their fully-framed half-planked models.