Bob Cleek

Interesting historical footnote. I'm no expert, either, but I can't seem to come up with a reason the Royal George's carpenter or bosun didn't simply didn't send somebody overboard to knock a temporary plug into the hole outboard. It was only three feet below the waterline on an even keel. That would have made it possible to accomplish the same thing as heeling the ship with far, far less work or risk. I ought to have been the first solution that occurred to any competent ship's carpenter or bosun's mate. Better yet, I'm wondering whether or not that fact ever occurred to the Board of Inquiry!

For sure! They definitely are going to change the way I solder. After listening to Solder Smarter for about fifteen minutes last night, I put it on "pause" and went and got a pen and paper and started taking notes.

"Channel surfing" last night, I stumbled upon a gold mine of professionally produced instructional videos on a wide range of topics including woodworking and jewelry making. These are being offered on an apparently new "craft network" called Bluprint TV. Because of the Covid-19 "lockdowns," my cable provider (Comcast Xfinity X1) and probably others, are offering free premium pay channels for a limited time (at present, at least until 40-9-20. )(I found Bluprint by saying "free to me" into my voice-controlled remote control.) On Bluprint, I found a "jewelry" subsection and in there I found two really good streaming video series on soldering jewelry. They are directly applicable to soldering ship model parts, of course. One, Solder Smarter: Strategies for Better Results featuring a jewelry maker named Joanna Gollberg, runs perhaps two hours (I didn't keep track) and begins with an complete instruction on the use of the Smith Little Torch and all the basic techniques of soldering. I'd considered myself a fairly competent solderer after doing it for well over fifty years, but I found myself continuously learning one new thing after another in this online course. These Bluprint instructional courses are head and shoulders above anything on YouTube, as far as "how-to-do-it" videos go. These are real professional level courses with competent teachers and high production values. Bluprint also has other more advanced courses on soldering, jewelers' metalworking, and even on the proper uses of flex-shaft tools. I figure I'll be spending the next few evenings going through them while I "shelter in place." They are also currently available free as streaming videos at https://shop.mybluprint.com/jewelry/classes/solder-smarter-strategies-for-better-results/40550 . https://shop.mybluprint.com/jewelry/classes/soldering-success-in-every-scenario/58346 https://shop.mybluprint.com/jewelry/classes/metalsmithing-at-home/35434 https://shop.mybluprint.com/jewelry/classes/getting-started-with-the-flex-shaft/40629

The Smith Little Torch runs on oxygen and propane, acetylene, or MAPP gas. (I believe they also run on natural gas, which is about the same as propane.) I don't know of any small propane-only torches. Propane-only torches seem to start with the regular "plumber's torch" sizes which are too large for small modeling work. (These aspirate air into an integral combustion chamber.) Small non-oxygen torches seem to be limited to the small butane torches. Running straight propane through the Little Torch will get you a flame, but it won't be hot enough to be of any use. Think "butane cigarette lighter." It's the oxygen that causes the intense heat. I don't think you can go too far wrong with the Smith Little torch with oxygen and propane for modeling work. The disposable Bernzomatic oxygen bottles are priced comparably to the Bernzomatic disposable propane, acetylene, and MAPP gas bottles. These sizes last for a long time doing small work and are compact and easy to store. If you are a gas cutter and welder, you can use large oxygen tanks, of course, but the Bernzomatic disposable bottles are the least expensive way to go if you aren't already "cookin' with gas."

Druxey is correct about the metal recycling programs in Britain during the War. (And, later, in the U.S.) However, if the period depicted in the model is "circa 1940," it has to be remembered that the War in Europe began in September, 1939, and British "metal drives" began in July of 1940. It seems highly unlikely that serviceable cargo vessels, equivalent to today's tractor-trailer trucks, would have been cannibalized for their metal at that point in the conflict. Moreover, Britain's famous "iron railing" scrap iron drive, and pretty much all others in Britain and the U.S., are generally recognized by historians to have been more a propaganda effort to galvanize civilian support and participation in the war effort than anything else. They focused primarily on the large amount of Victorian-era iron fence and gate work that, at that time, was deemed "expendable." It certainly was good propaganda. Nobody wanted to be the only "unpatriotic" one on their block with iron fencing and gates still standing in front of their house! In fact, it appears only a small fraction of the ornamental ironwork contributed to the war effort ever was used for wartime production and, while some made its way into the post-war recycling chain, an awful lot of it seems to have simply been dumped. (Reportedly, wartime Thames Estuary pilots complained that so much ornamental ironwork was being dumped in the Thames Estuary that it was throwing off their ships' compasses!) Curiously, after the War, the records of what was done with the more than a million tons of valuable British hand-wrought ornamental ironwork was discovered to have been mysteriously shredded. Ever since, there's been quite a bit of resentment over the loss of what was a signature piece of British architectural heritage that was destroyed for political reasons rather than wartime necessity. See: https://www.londongardenstrust.org/features/railings3.htm https://mashable.com/2016/02/03/wwii-scrap-metal/

Surely somebody from the UK can confirm this. My exposure to Thames barges is limited to checking out a couple of them twenty-five years ago. Generally speaking, if she were built of steel in 1925, I'd say she almost certainly would have wire cable stays and shrouds. If she had turnbuckles, the shrouds and stays would definitely have been wire. By 1940, I'd be surprised if any Thames barge had cordage standing rigging. Wire was pretty much in universal use at that point. (Although today's synthetic cordage is now replacing weaker metal standing rigging, so it's all coming full circle!) If she had deadeyes and lanyards, she could have had wire cable nonetheless, but I can't imagine why anybody would put deadeyes and lanyards on a working cargo vessel in 1925. Earlier barges could have had fiber shrouds and stays and deadeyes and lanyards and later have been fitted with wire shrouds and stays and they kept the deadeyes and lanyards, or the deadeyes and lanyards could even have replaced turnbuckles in recent times if the vessel was "restored" to look like an older one. Keep in mind that in the pre-stainless steel rigging era, particularly on a larger vessel, odds are good that the wire cable would likely have been wormed, parcelled and served to prevent rust. From a modeling standpoint, that would make it indistinguishable from served cordage, save for the terminal details. Cordage would be bent around the deadeye in the usual manner. Wire would have likely had a Liverpool splice worked around the deadeye, or a terminal on the end which would attach to a metal shackle-like yoke around the deadeye (see photo below,) or to the turnbuckle (or bottle screw.) This sort of "shackle" can be used on an upper turnbuckle and a wire terminal fastened through the eyes.

Looks great!

Okay. If you can't kill the anxiety with your intellect, down some "liquid courage" and just go for it! (Just kidding about the "liquid courage" part.) "Experience begins when you start.," as the saying goes. Just start and things will fall in place. Nobody will see you if you do a messy job at first. It's not an inherently hazardous task, so it's not likely you'll be courting some disaster. Just start fiddling with it and, soon enough, you'll be doing fine. The first ring you make probably isn't going to satisfy you. Neither will the second. Along around the third or fifth, depending on how quick you pick it up, you should be doing fine. If you run into a problem you can't figure out, you know where to come to ask Kurt. His posts on soldering are gems.

Really, really great job! I particularly like the presentation of the model on the launching ways. (Don''t neglect getting a case for her, if you haven't already. )

You da man when it comes to solder, Kurt!

Applying shellac to the foot rope works well. The shellac soaks into the thread readily. As the alcohol solvent evaporates, the shellac begins to harden. Before it becomes completely hard, it can be shaped as one desires. When it hardens, the string will stay where you had put it. For smaller scales, however, blackened fine wire is easier to work with.

Probably nothing good, no doubt. But it shows you're thinking. In theory, yes, if the oven is hot enough, the solder ought to melt. The question is whether it would flow into the joint. I'm not entirely sure whether the flux you would use would do its job, though, depending upon the type you were using. The biggest problem you'd have would be getting the solder to flow into the joint because, in an oven, everything would heat up at the same temperature at the same time, and probably relatively slowly, causing your flux to burn off and the metal to oxidize before your solder melts and flows. And, if it does work, you may find all your rings soldered to your wife's cookie sheet at the end of the exercise! The way soldering is supposed to work, solder is drawn towards the heat. You put a chip of silver solder on top of the fluxed joint and apply heat beneath it and, if all goes well and the moon is in the correct phase, the little chip melts and is magically sucked down into the microscopically tight space between the two surfaces and they are invisibly brazed together. If everything heats up at the same rate, there's no "hotter area" for the solder to be drawn to and your molten solder probably just spreads out all over the top of the piece and not into the seam as you want. And, as mentioned, using an oven, you're using a whole lot of energy to solder a tiny little jump ring. You want to focus on silver soldering, which is more useful in modeling than "tin/lead" soldering (non-lead "lead" solder is now common.) A soldering gun or iron can be used for tin/lead soldering, but, while I solder electronic connections with a soldering gun, I use silver solder when I'm not concerned about electrical connectivity, but rather with the strength of the joint, as in modeling. For silver soldering, you'll need a jeweler's torch to obtain sufficient heat. (A "resistance" soldering rig can also be used, but that's quite an expensive proposition for a beginner.) Smith's Little Torch is one "industry standard" model, although one can make-do with a small butane torch, as well. (Silvers soldering requires way more than 450 degree heat.) Silver soldering requires a learning curve. It's not hard to do well enough, but it takes practice and experience to do it really well. YouTube is full of jewelry-making instructional videos about silver soldering, which is what you want to watch. In the jewelry trade, the small rings and eyebolts you want to make are called "jump rings," so you might want to search for "making jump rings." Many community colleges have adult education programs in jewelry making and enrolling in one of these is a good way to get training in proper soldering techniques. (The same goes for picking up techniques for working with wire, shaping small metal parts, and sawing shapes with a jeweler's bench saw, all pretty much essential skills for advanced kit building or scratch building.) Here's one very general modeling video which might be helpful in getting started.

Hi Allan, I wasn't as clear as I might have been in that post when i said, "I've never known that. Is there some reference work that explains it? It doesn't make any sense to me, but that's certainly no indication of its accuracy!" That statement was in response to druxey's statement way back in post #2, "The answer is that the ensign staff (its proper name) is pivoted at the base. A half-hoop clasp, not shown in the drawing above, is undone, the staff pivoted forward and down, the boom swung over and the staff raised again." I'm familiar with the "tabernacle" fitting used with ensign staffs. My comments were directed to the language: "...the staff pivoted forward and down, the boom swung over and the staff raised again." It was that to which I was referring when I said, "I've never known that. Is there some reference work that explains it? It doesn't make any sense to me..." At this point in the discussion, I don't think anybody is suggesting that the ensign was flown on the staff while the vessel was under sail and, when tacking, "the staff pivoted forward and down, the boom swung over and the staff raised again." I seriously doubt they would be "striking their colors" every time they tacked! The ensign was flown from the gaff peak while under sail, not only for increased visibility, but also because flying it there didn't interfere with the sailing of the vessel. There were times, of course, when a lateen yard was carried on the mizzen, or the clew of the spanker didn't extend far enough outboard to foul the ensign staff, where there would not be any problem posed by fouling the staff when sailing, but that's not the case with the vessel depicted in post #1. A much more interesting question is, "Just how much did they actually fly their ensign when under sail?" I believe, but am not certain, that in actual practice, they wouldn't bother to hoist those huge ensigns unnecessarily when at sea, because they really weren't good for anything other than identification at great range and otherwise simply created a lot of useless windage. Besides, those large ensigns were probably pretty expensive and they wouldn't have wanted to beat them to tatters in daily use in all weathers. Also, it wouldn't have seemed prudent to identify your vessel's nationality to another vessel at sea until you knew who they were, or were ready to stand and fight! Mention of orders to "show the colors" when another ship was sighted, or even of showing a "false flag" to conceal a ship's nationality, and to only at the last minute, "show your true colors," abound in the literature. Perhaps we worry about ensigns more than they did!

I got that. I thought you were speaking of the name of the sail. My point was that the fore and aft sail on the aftermost mast was called by several different names. It was, however, the same sail, whether it be on a naval ship or a merchant bark with however many masts. It was, of course, a successor to the lateen sail previously in use. It's variants included a gaff headed sail, and even sails with two gaff booms, and, much later, jib-headed sails. These sails all had lower booms. I think the only line of demarcation in types that makes much difference between lateen yarded sails and gaff rigged boomed sails. There were plenty of gaff-rigged boomed mizzen sails on smaller craft long before the demise of the lateen rigged mizzen sail on larger European ships and the evolution was a natural one prompted by their better suitability for the use intended. The lateen rig endured during an overlapping period on Mediterranean-based naval ships, such as the xebecs, and owing to its heritage, the lateen ("Latin") rig continues to this day on the small craft of areas which were part of the Roman Empire. In this "transitional period," even the lateen rigged xebecs began to replace their lateen rigged sails with square sails, while retaining the lateen fore and aft sail on the aftermost mast, as with this square-rigged xebec of the 1780-1815 period: That's certainly true. There are, of course, any number of other uses for a temporarily rigged outboard boom on the quarters. My point was, however, that there would be absolutely nothing to be gained by sheeting a boomed fore and aft sail outboard, would there? I don't think whether it's a naval vessel or a merchant vessel makes any difference when we are talking about the aftermost fore and aft sail. The Fortitude contract quote is indeed specific. They do seem to be speaking of the "driver boom," but as Popeye explained so clearly above, they are using the term "driver" to designate a sail that basically extends the leech of the gaff-rigged spanker sail to add sail area in light airs. That sail is "set flying" with its halyard run to a block at the gaff peak and its foot secured to "the driver boom abaft on the quarter" The specification speaks of ironwork, including a "hoop and swivel for the driver boom." The driver boom (or booms) port and starboard would be run out through an iron hoop and swivel, much like a stuns'l boom. These temporarily rigged booms would not have anything to do with the lower boom of the gaff-rigged spanker, though. The driver sail, unlike the spanker, was only used when the ship was off the wind in very light air. It had no utility in windward work. I disagree. I really don't see any validity to the distinction you make between naval vessels and merchant vessels for the purposes of this analysis. Efficiency in the operation of the merchant vessel was undoubtedly motivated by profit, but efficiency in the operation of the naval vessel was every bit as motivated by a desire to maximize the vessel's fighting capacity, i.e. the very survival of the ship and her crew. Naval vessels might have had enough men aboard to "find sufficient men" to "rig and re-rig a rather small sail when going about," but why in the world would they want to? The whole point of a boomed fore and aft sail is that all that needs be done when tacking is to let the boom swing from one side to the other! And would they really have sufficient men in combat when there were eight to ten men to a gun, plus powder monkeys, etc., and boarding parties, all specifically assigned, not to mention crew to sail the ship? No way. The less crew required, the farther the ship can travel without re-provisioning, the more guns, powder, and shot she can carry, and perhaps most importantly to the Admiralty, the less she costs to operate. Actually, the management of a lateen sail is much more a matter of timing and trained coordination than it is brute force and muscle power. Frequently, the lateen boom isn't moved to the leeward side of the mast at all when short-tacking. Lateen sails are referred to as having "good tack" (boom to leeward) and "bad tack" (boom to windward) sides, one being more efficient than the other. A lateen boom is generally only moved from the "bad tack' side of the mast to the "good tack" side when it was expected that the vessel would be sailing on that tack for long enough to make the work of doing it worth the trouble. Actually moving the spar from one side to the other is easier than might be expected. The forward brace has a tackle attached. As the sail luffs, the upper brace is cast off, the throat halyard is two-blocked, space aloft allowing for the spar to be raised enough for its arm to clear the deck when vertical, and the forward brace is hauled aft by the tackle until the end of the spar is parallel with the mast. It's then pushed to the other side and allowed to swing, or is hauled, forward, the throat halyard is slacked off as necessary, the top brace set up, and the sail sheeted in. Easy as that may be for a few trained crewmen to accomplish, if the captain of a fighting ship could dispense with that evolution entirely and simply leave a gaff sail to tend itself, particularly in the heat of battle, why wouldn't he? Which is exactly why the gaff sail replaced the lateen over time. Yes, it would certainly seem so. The driver was similar to a stuns'l, as Popeye explained, but was only "set flying" from the gaff peak, i..e. hoisted on a halyard. The foot of the driver would bent to a spar extending from the quarter, while the lower spanker boom would be sheeted separately. The two sails were separate, save for their common connection at the gaff peak. Obviously, it was a lot easier to simply extend the spanker gaff and boom to increase the sail area of the aftermost fore and aft sail (and adding reef points as needed) and this occurred in due course, rendering the driver sail, but not its name, obsolete. No, that's not possible. The spanker places considerably more tension on its sheet than the driver and the driver, only a light air sail, wouldn't have the strength to carry the forces of the much heavier spanker on its own. However, there is such a thing as a watersail, which is a sail that is bent to a fore and aft sail's boom beneath the boom and sail bent on above the boom, sort of like a "skirt," for light air use. They don't really add much and are relatively rare outside of period yacht racing applications. The mechanics of the thing defines it. If it doesn't work, it wasn't used. Simple as that. At least, for the moment, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

I can relate. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. Welcome back!

Yes, exactly. For a 4mm plank width at the maximum beam, the tapering might be a bit tedious, but given the hull shapes of large vessels, as opposed to small craft, the tapering would be slight and generally at the ends of the vessel, particularly the bows. Remember when modeling that there is a scale to the length of planking as well as to its width. Plank stock isn't ever much more than 24 feet long in real life, given the limitations of tree size and handling. Given a scale plank width of 4mm at the maximum beam, there would be a lot of full length unspiled 4mm planks amidships, so that makes an easier job of it for the planker. (There are also standards for the spacing of plank butts which must be followed for an accurate scale planking job.) Keep in mind also that if the average plank width admidships is 4mm, when planking properly, there will be planks which may need to be wider than the average 4mm plank width to make everything come together without the need for "stealers." Kit manufacturers provide a bunch of pre-cut, square, finished on all four sides, strips for "planking." That stock isn't going to be suitable for all the planking at the size provided because planks aren't square. You can find instructions for laying out plank in the "articles" section of the forum, so I won't repeat them here. However, if you lay out your planking at stem, stern, and each station (or perhaps every other, or even every three, frames or stations, depending upon hull shape and frame spacing,) You'll see that there's not much plank shaping to be done in the "wide open spaces" amidships. If you divide the plank end widths equally at the bows, you should get a fair run on your plank seams and not end up trying to bend a "hook" in your plank seams. And sometimes plank width divisions vary, depending upon hull shape. A band of narrower planks at the turn of the bilge and wider planks (called "broads") in runs over "flat" areas is not uncommon. (In the drawing of the period planked hull below, note the "broads" below the turn of the bilge and running up to the stern post.) Planks in real life are gotten out of wider stock than the average plank width at the maximum beam. Plank stock in full size construction is often "flitch cut," meaning that it is cut as a rough slab sawn from the log, leaving the bark attached. These "flitches" are often slightly curved, as the log grew, which permits sawing out the curved plank shape to make best use of the run of the grain and lumber available. Planks are never bent across their width in full size construction, which is pretty much impossible anyway. Sometimes, a plank will be a bit "shy" and the plankers will "edge set" it by wedging it into place against its mate to get a tight seam, but edge-setting is a sign of poor fitting (which introduces strains on fasteners which can then let go) and not considered "best practices." Specifications sometimes go so far as to state, "no plank shall be edge set." When modelling with small stock of a species which will tolerate such bending, considerable stock can be saved by bending scale planks across their width to simulate what would have been a "dear" (costly) plank that in real life would have had to be cut from a very wide flitch, leaving a lot of wasted wood. That's the genius in Chuck Passaro's edge bending technique described in his great videos on the subject. Even with Chuck's method, though, some planks are going to require their own unique shape. The smaller the boat, the more the plank shape differences are exaggerated. The below illustration shows the plank shapes needed to plank the hull illustrated. Note that the sheer plank shape colored white is actually wider at its ends than at its middle. In your planking job, the lack of the same sort of greater width at the stem rabet created a cumulative deficit in plank width which eventually created the upwards "hook" that became greater than you could bend your strip wood to accommodate. Trying to continue to hang 4mm wide planks in that rabet would only increase the deficit. (See the drawing of the period wooden hull planking below to see how the old-time plankers solved the problem you've got now.) On a large wooden ship, the planking curves are not as radical, but do require curves to accommodate the shape of the hull just the same. In large construction, owing to the natural limitations of available plank stock width, "hooked," "doubler," or "stealer" planks are used to plank wider spaces than the available stock permits being gotten out of a single flitch. If a model is to show the plank seams, it must be planked as was its prototype. (Of course, if the plank seams are to be filled and the hull sanded fair and painted, it doesn't matter what the planking run looks like.) Look carefully at the plank seams in the bow and stern quarter of the below illustration to see the use of "hooked," "doubler," or "stealer" planks. (There's a larger picture and good planking instructions in the attached link.) https://www.modelerscentral.com/blog/planking-tips-for-building-a-model-ship/ Don't let this discourage you. Kit manufacturers have been frustrating modelers with strip wood "planking" since kits were invented.

Quite so. The stern staffs would have been hinged for ease of raising and lowering them. It would have been some sort of mechanism similar to a small boat tabernacle, depending upon the creativity of the builders. I don't have a reference at hand at the moment, but I believe the Admiralty issued standing orders for the flying of ensigns and signals which designated the ensign to be flown from the aftermost gaff peak when underway. The names of masts were not standardized beyond "fore, main, and mizzen." Sometimes, they even varied on the same ship under different masters. The Thomas W. Lawson, (above,) built in 1902, the only seven-masted schooner ever built, seems to have had her mast names changed as often as she changed skippers. The terms "spanker" and "pusher" were generally used interchangeably to designate the aftermost mast, while the term, "driver," was generally used to designate the mast immediately forward of the aftermost mast in vessels having five or more masts. At one time, it was a custom that sailing masters in the American Merchant Marine would ask prospective hands to name the masts of a seven-masted vessel as a test of their knowledge and seamanship. The expected answer, which many memorized for the occasion, was "fore, main, mizzen, jigger, driver, pusher, spanker," but the real answer depended upon who was the Lawson's captain at the time. It would seem not. The evolutions required for tacking, jibing, or wearing a square-rigged vessel are complicated enough without having to strike a sail beforehand and setting it afterwards. That would be particularly so with an "aftermost fore and aft sail" (spanker) which served not only to provide motive force, but also was employed for purposes of steerage. (Note above that Captain Howland on the Lawson called the aftermost fore and aft mast the "rudder mast," obviously in recognition of this function.) Quarter booms would most likely have been employed to hold the lower aft-mast's stuns'l sheet turning blocks outboard in the same manner as the forward masts' stuns'l sheet turning blocks forward of the quarters. The below video illustrates the evolutions practiced in sailing a square-rigged ship and the manner in which the spanker is employed to provide steerage. Studying the manner in which the vessel one is modeling is actually sailed, and indeed all of the operations aboard, makes modeling the vessel, and particularly rigging it, a much clearer task for the modeler. It's often difficult to rig a model by looking at a drawing and an instruction book when one doesn't have a working familiarity with how the mechanism they are modeling actually works in real life. Once the operation of a rig is understood, rigging becomes intuitive and one hardly needs to refer to any instructions at all. This fact is apparent in the many Admiralty models which were unrigged. There was no need to explain to the riggers what the rig looked like because they knew how it had to work.

I've never known that. Is there some reference work that explains it? It doesn't make any sense to me, but that's certainly no indication of its accuracy! No sailor would ever rig a vessel so that a stern staff flying her ensign would have to be lowered to accommodate the boom's crossing the centerline while under sail. A stern staff that pivots to be lowered makes perfect sense, but it would go down and stay down until the voyage was over and never be left up while sailing. In support of my theory, I offer the following observations: 1. The ensign was always flown from the aftermost gaff peak when the vessel was under sail. There would be no need for a stern staff whatsoever while the vessel was sailing, and so, never any need to "drop the staff" to permit the spanker boom to cross the centerline while sailing. 2. The large size of ensigns in the Age of Sail was to best identify the nationality of the vessel at sea, often over considerable distances and in poor visibility. On the other hand, when not under sail and moored, alongside, or docked, the ensign was never flown from the gaff peak, which might well be down on the deck, the sail having been lowered, but rather was flown from the stern staff. The ensign flown when not underway was sometimes considerably smaller than the ensign flown when underway and the stern staff would be correspondingly shorter. Flying a huge ensign in the harbor would obviously be unnecessary. The stern staff would be unshipped prior to sailing and stowed. If the model were displayed with the gaff hoisted, the stern staff would properly not be in place at the stern, but rather stowed, most likely on the spar rack. Contemporary illustration: Large Red Ensigns flying from the gaff peaks while underway. (Note absence of stern staff.) HMS Victory in 1884, flying smaller ensign from stern staff. Earlier rigs carrying a lateen spanker, did not have the problem of a spanker boom crossing the centerline. "But wait!" you say. "Here's a picture of a ship clearly flying its (smaller) ensign from the stern staff while under sail!" It's surely a neat picture, but... Gotcha! It's actually a modern depiction, not a period one, and it well-illustrates again the sort of errors we see from artists and modelers who lack first-hand experience as sailormen. (I'll grant that it might be argued that the ship had just gotten underway as evidenced by the boat "straining to catch up," and they were going to switch ensigns shortly.) It's not a masterpiece from the NMM. It's a paint-by-numbers kit! https://paintcanvasaction.com/products/diy-canvas-paint-by-numbers-old-war-ship-with-cannons

Store-bought or kit-supplied strip wood isn't "pre-cut planking." Each plank must be spiled (its shape developed and cut to shape) before it's hung. You can get away hanging strips like you were hanging siding on a flat house wall for some distance, depending upon the shape of the hull, but the error is cumulative, as you've now discovered. Hanging un-shaped strip wood on a hull shape as you've done will always result in the problem you are now having. The wood breaks because it has to. It won't break if it is shaped to fit properly. Sometimes you can economize on wood by heat-bending a piece of strip wood across its width, as in the videos by Chuck Passaro above. Those "edge-set" planks still must be spiled to ensure that the plank widths are correct at each station and bow and stern such that the curve of the seam is fair. Watch the videos and then read the planking tutorials on the forum's "Articles Database."

A truly beautiful piece of work! Congratulations and thanks for taking what was a lot of time to share your building her with us!

I agree. That's always the best option if finances permit.

It looks great. Nice work! In your video above, you showed a picture of the Smith's "Tiny Torch" as a possible solution to your now-solved soldering problem. You expressed concern that using a torch "on the model" would be risky. That's true, of course, but as the owner of one of these little gems, I have to say that with tinfoil shields in place on a model, I'd try it without too much hesitation... as a last resort, certainly. I'd encourage you to add a Little Torch to your tool collection. I expect if you did, you'd find your soldering iron gathering dust thereafter. (For one thing, irons require contact between the iron and the pieces to be soldered which usually creates movement that results in a cold joint.) The flame can be as small as a grain of rice and is super hot with propane. I use Benzomatic disposable gas and oxygen bottles from the hardware store and the pre-set regulators for the Benzomatic gas bottles. Hotter flames can be obtained by using acetylene, mapp, or hydrogen gas and oxygen. The high heat permits much more localized melting of solder than a soldering gun or iron. It also provides the higher temperatures necessary for silver soldering and even for melting small amounts of metal for small castings. There's a surprisingly wide price range for the Smith Little Torch because the less expensive ones are Asian knock-offs. The more expensive US-made ones have wider selections of nozzles and I think some of the specialty nozzles have sapphire tips, which may also explain the price variations. (Tips can be purchased separately.) I got an inexpensive kit, including pre-set regulators and hoses, for around fifty bucks online from the Harbor Freight catalog. (I don't think they still carry it.) It was fine, save for a leaky hose clamp, a problem which was quickly diagnosed and easily remedied. Being bought from Harbor Freight, a US "discount" tool supply outfit known for its low prices and commensurate quality, I figured I'd take a chance on the cheap one and wasn't disappointed. If I were a commercial jeweler, I'd spring for the US-made one, but found the Harbor Freight one fine for modeling purposes. https://store.cyberweld.com/smlitoou23.html https://www.wish.com/product/55826ae0f7533125ccf5d466?hide_login_modal=true&from_ad=goog_shopping&_display_country_code=US&_force_currency_code=USD&pid=googleadwords_int&c={campaignId}&ad_cid=55826ae0f7533125ccf5d466&ad_cc=US&ad_curr=USD&ad_price=39.69&campaign_id=7203534630&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhsf6l8y26AIVCB6tBh371gLGEAQYBCABEgIAcPD_BwE&share=web

Great picture! I presume the print is from a photograph. It sure would be neat if the original could be located and digitally enhanced. A framed digitally enhanced print of that shot would be a wonderful companion to the model.

Yes, indeed. I don't think we'll be seeing any CAD prints hanging in maritime museums a hundred years from now. They don't make them like they used to. All hand-drawn with drafting instruments:

Yeah, you have to keep them scrupulously clean, Nothing gives a drawing the "snap" of real India ink, though. I agree, Letraset stunk. Nobody could equal K&E's LEROY system. It's such a shame that the art of drafting went by the boards. I realize the advantages of CAD, goodness knows, but I'm sorry that the younger generation doesn't realize that there was a time when drafting was a real art ! When one goes over the near-photographic mechanically drawn illustrations of drafting instruments in the old K&E and Dietzgen catalogs and realize they were all done with drafting instruments, it makes me sad to realize we've lost that today with CAD printouts. The old time engineers and mechanics could look at a drawing and vizualize it in 3D. Now, that is easily done for the "dummies" right on the screen. It's not the same, though. I've looked at thousands of drawings and there's no comparison between a good mechanical drawing and a CAD print out, no matter how you cut it. The human-drawn plan has life. The CAD drawing doesn't.