Bob Cleek

I don't know about Basset-Lowke models, but Vickers has had some problems building full-sized submarines. From their Wikipedia page: "In 1988, a mistake by senior management and changing shipbuilding methods meant that the Vickers shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness accidentally welded part of HMS Triumph (a nuclear submarine) in an upside-down position." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Shipbuilding_and_Engineering

Amazing as it sounds, today it is actually more cost-effective for them to throw the less expensive instruments out than to pay the labor-hours to wrap them up and put them in the autoclave for sterilization. And then there are the liability issues. From what I've heard lately, they aren't giving away unsterilized instruments anymore in many places because with HIV and other diseases in the environment, they consider anything that's been used "biohazardous material" and it goes into the "biowaste" trash. This is also why there is so much disposable medical equipment used these days. My mother was a surgical nurse, what is now called a "surgical assistant." We had all sorts of used surgical instruments in everyday use in our house when I was growing up, but that was in the days when they thought disposable scalpel blades were the greatest thing since sliced bread and surgical nurses spent a lot of their time washing, wrapping, sterilizing, and packing up surgical "trays." (And bedpans! Try as I might, I was never able to get my hands on one of the old fashioned stainless steel "ducks" they used to have, which I wanted for use on my boat. I had to settle for a plastic one.)

There are lots of alternatives. Here's a couple that come to mind: 1) Seal the hull well with a liberal coating of white (clear) shellac, which is one of the best moisture barriers known to man. Then use Interlux surfacing putty (a chandlery item: https://www.interlux.com/en/us/boat-paint/filler-and-epoxy/surfacing-putty ), which can be thinned to any consistency with acetone, and use it to fill and build up the uneven surface. It will crack when it shrinks as it dries if you put it on too thick, but another application will fill the cracks, so not to worry. It's better, however, to apply it in layers if the divots are deep. If they are more than 1/8" deep, I'd put it on in layers. When the worst of it is filled, then apply a thinned coat of it (like heavy cream consistency) and let it dry. (It dries very quickly, since the acetone is extremely volatile. Use in a well ventilated place, or better yet, outdoors.) Then sand your hull fair. Surfacing putty will sand like butter. Finish sand to 300 grit. Then apply a coat of thinned shellac over the surfacing putty. This will provide a good base for your finish paint coats. Interlux surfacing putty is made for marine applications. It will not act like a sponge, unlike many similar products like drywall "mud." Apply a base coat and finish coats on top of all that. If you take time to do the prep properly, and apply your finish coats properly, you should obtain a perfect finish. 2) If you don't mind working with serious VOCs, another approach is to use WEST System G/flex 650 epoxy resin and hardener (https://www.westsystem.com/specialty-epoxies/gflex-650-toughened-epoxy/) mixed with WEST's 410 Microlight filler (https://www.westsystem.com/filler-selection-guide/) (or the equivalent) in varying consistencies as circumstances dictate, as with the surfacing putty above. (i.e. fill the big divots with thicker material, then give it an all-over thin coating of the stuff. Microlight filler (similar to "micro-balloons" ) will produce a cured epoxy that also sands extremely easily and can be finished to a very smooth surface. It's designed for use on full-size boats and is waterproof. You can also use WEST System 105 resin and hardener, but G/flex resin is specifically designed to be more waterproof and more flexible when cured than the regular 105 resin. If your planks shrink over time, the G/flex will be much less likely to crack along the plank seams that cured regular 105 resin. After the surface has been faired and sanded down to 300 grit (or even finer, if you feel it needs it,) you can apply base and finish paint coats in the usual fashion. If it were my sailing model, I'd opt for the epoxy because the model will be in the water. The epoxy material are more expensive but you won't need much and epoxy resin, hardener, and fillers have decades-long shelf lives, so you can use it on later models. BTW, you can use the basic resin and hardener with any number of WEST fillers to create various properties and you can use this epoxy for a myriad of repairs requiring maximum strength adhesives. It's useful for a lot of modeling jobs. Downloadable WEST System manuals: https://www.westsystem.com/instruction-manuals/ and https://www.westsystem.com/the-gougeon-brothers-on-boat-construction/ The second URL above, The Gougeon Brothers on Boat Construction is "the Bible" of epoxy use in boatbuilding and all other uses, for that matter. It's treatment of surface glazing at page 158 should be helpful to you when finishing your hull. Those modelers who are considering "going over to the dark side" and scratch-building a model will also find Chapter 16 on lofting starting at page 165 of the book (179 of the free PDF) the best basic general treatment of the subject available for free anywhere.

There's a ton of different tweezers out there, as you've no doubt noticed. I got a new Micro-Mark catalog yesterday and they've got a lot of a new line of tweezers in pretty colors for a lot of money. The colors didn't do it for me. I've found that tweezers can often be found at the lowest prices in beauty supply shops and medical instrument supply houses. (Check eBay for the lowest priced stuff from Asia.) No matter which tweezer style you buy, you'll eventually pick up more and will find one that ends up being your favorite "go to" for whatever reason. You just have to try a few and see. Like clamps, you can never have too many "grabbers." One thing I can share from experience is that I tend to use the longest tweezers the most because they provide the greatest flexibility when rigging. Short tweezers are fine for rigging until you need to get inboard, then the long ones really come into their own. I'm talking six, eight, and ten inchers. Another instrument, which isn't particularly cheap as tweezers go, is an ear polypus, but worth the price (unless you buy one from Micro Mark!) You'll find them extremely handy for rigging. Like ordinary tweezers, the longer the better. https://www.pjtool.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=ear+polypus&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=ear polypus&utm_content=Ear Polypus&utm_campaign=Hemostats %26 Surgical&msclkid=f849c4255c0b1adc582ba4f7e196379e There's lots of them on eBay as well.

Aside from what is available in the literature, I'd mention that sometimes bead stores will have very small beads that can work, although that's purely a matter of chance. Also, you might consider making a mold and casting them out of some white metal or even FIMO (plasticine clay that can be baked hard.)

A lovely piece and a very nice presentation. Your ability to remain faithful to the relatively small scale in all aspects of the model masterfully communicates the essential lightness of this launch. Thanks for sharing your build!

And bar counter tops and cheap hardwood floors.

You're correct. I misspoke. I meant to say "satin walnut," which is also known as redgum, sweetgum, and liquidambar. The sapwood can be quite nearly white.

The method of application isn't really the critical factor. There is much more to a successful finish than learning to use a paintbrush or an airbrush alone. What most of those who haven't been taught by professional painters don't understand is the art of conditioning their paint, as pros call it. "Thinning" is only one conditioning factor. Flow control is essential. Flow is basically "drying time." Drying time is a function of both simple evaporation of the water, alcohol, or hydrocarbon solvents that hold the pigment (solids) and binder (oil or acrylic) in suspension so they can be applied. Brush stokes can be minimized if the brushing is done well and if the paint is thinned, but it really takes conditioning the paint to eliminate brush strokes completely. Retarders slow the polymerization of the binder so that the binder and pigment "lay down" evenly on the painted surface. When your paint is properly conditioned, you don't have to worry about brush strokes because they will "lay down" and disappear of their own accord if you give the paint time enough to "lay down" before the carrier evaporates and the binder stiffens. Check out manufacturer's instructions (reading the labels on the bottles does help!) for conditioning and search YouTube for instructional videos. Once you get the hang of conditioning your paint, that is, balancing the amount of carrier and its evaporation rate to the speed of the binder's hardening using the materials for your type of coating, be it traditional oil paint or modern acrylics, you will be surprised how easy it is to get a great finish. I'm sorry, but it isn't something that lends itself to text instruction. You have to be shown, or experiment yourself until you get the hang of it. Part of that has to do with the other variable in the equation, the environmental factors. The ambient temperature and humidity will effect the drying and curing times, as well, so getting it right is an exercise in rubbing your stomach and patting your head at the same time. I'm not a big fan of acrylics, although they do seem to be getting better over time. One tip I can share which may work for others is that when I do use them, I use an acrylic coating that is soluble in alcohol, not water. There are two reasons for this. 1) Water will raise the grain on bare wood, while alcohol (and solvents when using oil based coatings) does not, and 2) alcohol evaporates much faster than water. A "hot" (fast evaporating) thinner will almost always produce a better finish. (This is why the old Floquil paints were so loved by those old enough to remember them. Their Dio-Sol proprietary solvent was extremely "hot.") So, if you feel the need to thin your acrylic and it's soluble in alcohol or water, try using alcohol and see how you like it. Similarly, when airbrushing oil paints, I will sometimes use acetone to thin oil paint because of its high rate of evaporation.

But when you throw them in the trash, they just dump them in the landfill and then when it rains they leach into the groundwater too. They really should be preserved for all posterity and never discarded if one is really serious about being responsible for their environment. Vegetable oils are nothing like petrochemical oils and are relatively benign in the ecosystem. They come out of trees and they decompose like trees. They don't dilute in water and won't cause any significant environmental harm. On the other hand, human feces can contain many seriously damaging chemicals, particularly the by-products of digested pharmaceuticals like antibiotics. For this reason, people who are taking any sort of medication should never flush the toilet under any circumstances because this can pollute the rivers and oceans and cause serious harm to aquatic species. In some cases, such chemicals can cause mutations than can disrupt entire ecosystems. (Sorry, but they don't seem to have an emoji for "extreme sarcasm.")

Tung oil is just another vegetable oil, like linseed oil. It's use was primarily the result of marketing by the Homer Formby paint company and its use is something of a recurring fad. It dries very slowly, so I don't really see the point of using tung oil instead of "boiled" linseed oil (which is raw linseed oil with driers added to speed its polymerization.) Tung oil is used in some varnishes, being thinned with turpentine or mineral spirits and with some Japan drier added. Tung, like any oil, will tend to produce a glossy finish if coats are built up. "Teak oil" is nothing more than any oil that some manufacturer puts the name "teak" on and sells for a higher price to uninformed consumers. Any oil will bring out the figuring of a piece of wood if that is the desired result. It very rarely is in modeling because the grain of the wood, unless it is very, very tight, or practically invisible, will be so wildly out of scale that it detracts from the appearance of the model. This is particularly true of open grained woods like the walnuts and mahoganies that kit manufacturers provide to suggest their kit is "high quality." These woods are acceptable for models if their grain is filled and they are painted over, although there are many other species which are far more suitable, and at a much lower price. Walnut and mahogany are great for furniture and such. Not so much for ship models. The one exception would be half models, which portray the shape of a hull alone without significant detail and aren't intended to portray a detailed model of the entire prototype. So, to answer your question, yes. Finishing walnut on a model hull bright destroys the reality of the model and does indeed make it look like a piece of furniture, cheap furniture at that. That said, people build kits for lots of reasons and if you like the look, nobody's stopping you. There are lots of decorative models with oiled and varnished hulls of all sorts of different woods which give their builders pleasure to look at. If you think it looks good, you can put anything you want on it. For serious modelers who may be building in the style of many of the Admiralty Board models seen in museums, which frequently show a lot of unpainted wood, the species of choice are never walnut or mahogany. They will use woods like pearwood, cherry, boxwood, costello, ebony, Alaskan yellow cedar, maple, birch, blonde walnut sapwood (which is not a walnut at all) and the like. These species are far too expensive for any but the best kit manufacturers to provide and those kits are priced accordingly, but you get what you pay for and a lot more bang for your buck from those brands (e.g. Syren and Vanguard.)

Actually, the diagonally layered planking such as in this boat had a layer of muslin or calico set in thick shellac or white lead between the planking layers. This created a sort of early cold-molded hull which resisted opening up when stored above a ship better than standard carvel planking did. This reduced, if not eliminated the need to launch and tow ("stream") the ship's boats regularly to keep them from leaking when dried out. It was very common on ship's launches and lifeboats and lifesaving boats stored ashore in this period.

To the extent space allows, a suitably flexible batten with sandpaper attached will permit sanding across a number of frame faces while maintaining a fair curve to the shape of the hull.

Many thanks for the tip, Ab! I just scored a copy for $43! Not an inexpensive volume, but I got lucky. I'm looking forward to it. As one good turn deserves another, let me offer my highest recommendation for your great book, Message in a Model, which I purchased recently from Seawatch Books here in the USA. (https://www.seawatchbooks.com/ItemDisplay.php?sku=113004) It's a beautifully illustrated collection of "model porn" and chock full of fascinating information. It's a great read. One of the great disappointments of my life was arriving in Amsterdam only to find that the Rijksmuseum's ship model collection had been taken down during the renovation in the late nineties. The wonders of the Scheepvaartmuseum came close to making up for it, though, and Message in a Model went a long way to making up for what I missed at the Rijksmuseum. (I did get to see the Rembrandts and van de Veldes, though, so I can't complain!) Keep well!

I'm curious how the yoke control line would be run. The short yoke provides very little leverage and the rudder has a fair amount of area. Short as it is, for the yoke to function short of Herculean effort, the yoke sheets would have to be run as near to right angles to the yoke ends as possible. Might they be run through turning blocks attached to the back of the stern sheets backrest and from there to the sides of the hull inboard and thence through turning blocks inboard to another set in line with with the front of the after-most oarsman? Or with a shorter run so the control sheets were in front of a coxswain sitting in the stern sheets? Will the model include a sailing rig, set up or stowed aboard?

Sounds like you're good to go. I'd suggest you do some research (or ask the MSW forumites) and see if you can get some good plans for the Swift you are already building. Then build to those plans, using what's useful in the kit (which may be little) and toss the rest. You'll learn as you go. I may be dating myself in saying that I learned manual drafting in high school fifty years ago and stayed with it throughout my lifetime and, while I'm "computer literate," I've decided that CNC laser-cutting is much more suited for kit manufacturers making dozens or hundreds of the same model, than for one-off building, but, in the power tool department, with the "Byrnes Trifecta" (Byrnes saw, thickness sander, and disk sander,) a decent small drill press, a decent scroll saw, and a small 7X14 lathe with a milling attachment, you'll be equipped to do just about anything you'll see anybody doing in here in wood or metal. You can pretty much do it all with the "Trifecta," and some sharp quality hand tools, along with the knowledge of how to use them, but the other stuff makes it a lot easier. What nobody can buy, though, and what really "separates the men from the boys" is the knowledge and understanding of how real ships and boats are built and how they work. Precisely, that's what knowing "what it is in the underlying structure that makes it in that form." Nowhere more so than in naval architecture does "form follow function." The wind and the sea and the engineering limitations of wood, metal, and cordage, are the constants that define it all. Techniques and practices evolve over time, of course, and, when building period ship models, it's important to keep the specific practices of the period in mind, but, generally speaking, it's all very similar over the centuries because the wind and the sea and the wood, metal and cordage used to build ships don't change. There are many books on "how to build wooden ships and boats" and "how to build ship models" and many have "pearls of wisdom" not found in the others, but most aren't really worth the money because they simply repeat information published previously. That said, for good reason Chapelle's Boatbuilding is still in print after eighty years and covers the entire process from drafting plans and lofting patterns to launching, most all of which is applicable to scale modeling as well. Harold A. Underhill's two volume set, Plank on Frame Models and Scale Masting and Rigging, Vol. 1. and Vol. 2. also still in print after over sixty years, in conjunction with Chapelle's Boatbuilding, will cover just about anything you'd need in a very basic reference library. All of these books are available used online inexpensively. If you get hooked on a particular vessel or period, Nineteenth Century British Admiralty ships, for example, there are many period-specific books such as C. Nepean Longridge's The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships, but you can collect those as the need arises. If you just learn what's in Chapelle and Underhill, you'll be light years ahead of the pack. Study Druxey's just-about-finished build log 28 foot American cutter by Druxey - 1:48 scale at https://modelshipworld.com/topic/28379-28-foot-american-cutter-by-druxey-148-scale/ for inspiration. Druxey's log illustrates what can be accomplished when somebody who instinctively knows how a boat is built scratch-builds a model, in this instance a very small and highly detailed one, keeping in mind that he's not following a set of instructions written for model builders. He's working from the same plans a boat builder would use to build the full-size prototype, albeit with some techniques tailored to modeling. Druxey shows how it's done.

The Ernestina is also recorded by HAER. There are tons of photos and plans begin here: https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ma1719.sheet.00001a/ (Hit "next" from the menu above the picture to run through the drawings.

Depending upon which Swift kit you are building, there may be more detailed plans available than the ones the kit manufacturer provided. As Allanyed mentioned above, there is a ton of information available on some of the Swifts. If yours isn't one of those, you will have to exercise some judgment based on independent research and extrapolate using some "artistic licence" to add detail to your kit model. (This is the first sign of infection with the "scratch-building virus." It is highly contagious and fast moving. There is no known cure.) Your structural drawing above is basically correct. Either horizontal or vertical tongue and groove planking is correct, depending upon the builder's taste. Lower cabin structures tend to favor vertical planking. Taller cabin structures seem to favor horizontal planking. Corner posts are necessary, of course. The corner trim will vary according to taste as well. Check out the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) of the Library of Congress on line. There are many extremely detailed historically recorded plans and photographs of various historic vessels. Unfortunately, the best way to search is by the name of the vessel. Their index and search engine isn't so good. If you know what you are looking for, though, you'll find a gold mine of plans and construction drawings. The one vessel with wooden deck houses that I can think of off hand which has a very good series of drawings for the aft cabin and forward deckhouse is their report on the lumber schooner C.A. Thayer, which can be found starting at https://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/hhh.ca1506.sheet.00016a/ HAER documents are also available in "high definition" TIFF format (click on the option above the picture or drawing) which can be enlarged on your computer without degradation of the smaller drawing. Very convenient for model makers. The C.A. Thayer is a larger and later ship and her aft cabin is rather fancy. Her forward deckhouse, while larger than anything on Swift, is more "rustic" and you should be able to extrapolate construction details from that. If you want to spend hours searching HAER, you may find a vessel closer to Swift in age and appearance. You will find construction details for sliding hatches in Howard I. Chapelle's Boatbuilding and Yacht Design books, and in many other wooden boat building and design books. Again, to enlarge the below drawings, click on the link to get to the Library of Congress HAER site, then click on the "TIFF" format option above the picture. You can then enlarge the picture greatly by holding your "ctrl" key down and rolling your mouse wheel up or down. The TIFF format has a much higher pixel rate than the PDF format, which will blur the lines quickly as they are enlarged. https://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/hhh.ca1506.sheet.00016a/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00017a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00018a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00019a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00019a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00021a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00022a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00023a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00024a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00025a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00026a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00027a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00028a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00029a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00030a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00031a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00032a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00033a/resource/ / https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00034a/resource/ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00035a/resource/ HAER cabin drawings of the San Francisco scow schooner Alma, a smaller vessel about Swift's size: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=alma scow schooner

It's a lot like sex: Everyone shares your initial reaction the first time they see it, but most quickly figure out on their own that "Just viewing" can't hold a candle to actually doing it. The biggest differences between a kit and a scratch built model are that 1) Scratch built models are unique and 2) people react to them the way you just have. (And, of course, if it matters to one, they're generally worth a lot more money than assembled kits.) Beyond that, the challenges and skills required are really no different than building a high-quality kit. Experience starts when you begin. Start small and work up to the more complex stuff. Start with a less challenging, but high-quality kit or three. The only difference between assembling a kit and building a model from scratch is starting with plans instead of starting with plans and an expensive box of unsuitable wood, useless string, and poorly cast parts. (Except, of course, for the exceptional modern laser-cut kits offered by some of the advertisers on this forum like Syren Ship Models and Vanguard Models. See: MSW's Ship Model Kit Database for what's available: http://mswshipkits.ampitcher.com/) Don't let the pros intimidate you. A lot of the builders posting great stuff on MSW have forty or fifty years of doing it under their belts and it shows. You don't need to play like Arnold Palmer to enjoy golf. Most MSW members posting incredibly good work started back in the pre-internet days when it was really hard to even learn the basics of ship modeling. Now, with a resource like MSW, the learning curve has accelerated immensely and the beginning modeler can learn in a few years what it took the older generation decades to acquire. You can do it, too.

I am deeply honored!

Yep. It sure does beat memorizing sports statistics, doesn't it?

Sheesh! 8"X10"X10' is a nice bit of timber, if it's straight grained and clear of knots and pitch pockets, which AYC frequently is. Note that there are various grades of AYC. For modeling, you want "clear, vertical grained, appearance grade." (Which, of course, is the most expensive.) AYC can be knotty, so you should decide whether your timber is suitable for modeling stock before worrying about how you are going to cut it up. Unless you live close to where AYC is harvested (Yes, some of us are that lucky. It's not hard to find in the Northern Pacific Coast,) just shipping it someplace is going to add a lot to the value of it anywhere else. Two four foot pieces are going to cost less than one eight foot piece. Given your question, I expect you aren't aware that timber that size is probably a lot more valuable than a bunch of two foot long billets. Guys that mill thin sheets of wood from timbers that size to use for laser cutting many parts on a sheet, like kit manufacturers do, suffer the cost of the wasted wood in milling and scrap and have to pass that on to their customers. If you aren't in that league, I think milling large sized quality wood into sheets is wasteful. Keep in mind the scale you are working in and what the scale-size of the trees would be if they were to the same scale as the model. The end result is that for model building you really don't need wood in larger pieces at all. (Save perhaps masts, as Chuck noted.) Fact is, somebody would likely pay a lot more for that timber in one piece than you'd ever save cutting it up into scrap wood sizes. If it's clear grade, it's perfect for a keel timber for a small boat, for example. I'd check around and see if you can swap it with a local specialty lumberyard for some "small stuff" at a lower price. You'd probably make more money on the deal than you'd save cutting it up yourself and you wouldn't have to do the heavy duty milling yourself, either. Ripping a timber that size will take a good size bandsaw and some experienced help and a saw up to the task. It's not a one-man job. Modelers should keep their eyes out for large construction jobs using AYC. Often, off-cuts from the job site dumpster can be had for free. These guys are selling clear AYC 1.5" X 1.5" X 1' S4S "deck pickets" for twenty-five cents a piece. It may cause you to find a higher and better use for that big long beam of yours. https://www.lowpricedcedar.com/product/alaskan-yellow-cedar-clear-smooth-2x2-1/ Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary, of course.

I envy your having Standard Designs for Boats of the United States Navy. I have a large format copy of Bill Durham's 1963 "Shellback's Library" selected excerpts from it. Hitchborn's edition is a 2008 reprint of the original 1900 GPO edition. I can't seem to find a copy of Hitchborn for less than around $250, which seems odd for a book published so recently. (Martino Publishing. Out of business? Limited edition?) The original GPO edition, when one comes on the market, runs about $1,000. Would you consider leaving yours to me when you die?

Seal with shellac, then fill in grain with surfacing putty, sand fair, prime with a base coat and apply finish coats. Surfacing putty thins with acetone. Add a tablespoon of acetone to the can after each use, close the lid and store upside down. The putty will stay creamy for ages that way. https://www.amazon.com/Interlux-Y257-PT-Surfacing-Putty/dp/B0000AY85D

I would consider that to be too short. The planker has to lay out his planking to avoid situations like that, if at all possible.