Bob Cleek

While I'm no expert on period ordinance, I agree that there are questions that I'd certainly be expecting answered before I bought it. Consider the following:
 
If it is an "insurance cannon," of approximately 1780, how did they come to this conclusion? What was it doing in a river? What river and what was the archaeological context in which it was found. (A shipwreck or just alone in the mud? Etc.) I suppose if the river was freshwater, this cannon might show less deterioration than were it in saltwater for 250 years, but, based on the old iron cannon I've seen, I'd expect this one to show a lot more evidence of iron corrosion, even with state of the art conservation. The rusting (which accelerates rapidly once they are out of the water) can be stopped but not reversed. This cannon looks suspiciously well-preserved, but here again, I'm not an expert in conserving cannon.
 
If it is an "insurance cannon," it was present for "insurance purposes" and I doubt any insurer would have extended coverage to the vessel without a survey which would include confirming the required ordinance aboard, together with proper provision for the safe stowage of powder, competent crew to operate the piece, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the insurer would have required some identification data on the requisite cannon when the vessel survey was done, but it seems this cannon has no identifying markings at all.
 
I would presume that any ordinance barrel of that period would have been made by a competent cannon foundry, but during that period only certain barrels would have been proof-marked, primarily military ones and then only when placed in service. British tubes would certainly have carried the "Broad Arrow" together with other identifying marks. (American arms were, and still are, not required to be proofed, although many were and are.) This marking chart may, or may not, be helpful if there are any foundry markings on the piece: https://www.nramuseum.org/media/940944/proofmarks.pdf Foundry markings, as distinct by proofing-markings, have been somewhat standardized for centuries now. As you probably know, these marks will be found on the top of the breech, the face of the muzzle, and the faces of each trunion. I find it suspicious that this cannon carries no identifying markings at all. 
 
From the photo of the muzzle, it appears the barrel was sleeved, which is curious.  This is done to restore the usefulness of worn barrels or to strengthen old barrels for use with modern smokeless, rather than black powder. This could have been done at any point in the cannon's life, but it is interesting to note that the technology for boring cast cannon bores, which would have been a prerequisite to installing a sleeve, didn't come into existence until the late 1700's as the Industrial Revolution developed the technology to do it. It is possible that this cannon was cast modernly and sleeved when new. Some reproduction cast iron cannon sold today can be ordered sleeved to permit actual projectile firing. 
 
As I understand it, "insurance guns" were primarily mounted on wheeled carriages similar to mountain howitzer carriages so that they could be easily stowed and easily rolled to where they were to be used, being the only gun on deck. Some were also mounted as swivel guns. Most fired grapeshot, since that would be most effective against pirates approaching in small boats and the size of this cannon shot wouldn't do much of anything against the hull of a ship. (The merchantmen carrying the "insurance guns" were no match for any well-armed vessel.) The naval truck it is now on would not likely have been used because not only is it less easy to move and train, but also because it requires a gun stations with gun ports, and breeching rope and training tackles at each station, none of which are commonly found on merchantmen.
 
There are a number of retailers in the US and GB who make cast iron reproduction cannon very similar to this one. It may be that the story about it being found underwater and 250 years old is pure bunk, in which case, it would be a lot of fun to have and to fire if you have $2,500 you don't know what to do with. See: https://www.castcannons.co.uk/

Glad I was able to answer your questions. I wouldn't say that a "fully framed" model isn't possible and a "Navy Board style" partially-planked model of Glad Tidings would be quite nice. Given her relatively small size, the model at 1:24 would be 30" long allowing a lot of opportunity for detail or 1:48 scale would give you a 15" model that wouldn't chase you out of the room when cased. You will have to put a lot of effort into setting up molds and laying off battens to create the "basket" for forming your steam-bent frames. You would then have to remove the battens as you planked from the sheer down to the waterline, then remove the molds and replace them with steam-bent frames, and then install the stringers, clamps, and shelves. After that you could install the interior furniture and the deck beams over that. Any one of the good practicums on fully-framed construction like Tosti's or Antscherl's with show you the way. You will also find a good treatment of "basket" construction in Underhill's Plank on Frame Models, Vol. I. This won't be simplified kit model construction, though. You will have to steam your frames in place in the basket and then tie each to the longitudinal battens in order to form a fair framing system to which you can fasten your planks. 
 
If you like the looks of Chapelle's Glad Tidings, a hull from the Smithsonian's collection that Chapelle customized as his personal yacht, you might want to take a look at some of R.D. ("Pete") Culler's designs. These are published in a number of study plans books he wrote, as well as full plans drawings sets available from Mystic Seaport. Pete Culler's Lizard King, a Baltimore Clipper, is a favorite of mine. Lizard King has built up frames which would be easier to build a model around than steamed in place frames like Glad Tidings'. She also can carry a fore course and rafee fore topsail and/or a main topsail.
 
See: Chapter 55: Baltimore Clipper Schooner Lizard King - Pete Culler on Wooden Boats: The Master Craftsman's Collected Teachings on Boat Design, Building, Repair, and Use (zoboko.com)
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

I'll defer to your expertise with 17th and 18th Century period craft. I have no first hand experience with vessels that old. The 19th and 20th Century "drifts" to which Chapelle was referring were the same diameter for their entire length, however. Apparently, the meaning of the term changed over time. 

I'll defer to your expertise with 17th and 18th Century period craft. I have no first hand experience with vessels that old. The 19th and 20th Century "drifts" to which Chapelle was referring were the same diameter for their entire length, however. Apparently, the meaning of the term changed over time. 

That is a very good question. The jumbo halyard would be readily available and would hoist to the foremast top, but there's no readily obvious reason to bend the jumbo halyard to the end of an anchor cable. I could only guess. Why would one want to haul the end of an anchor cable aloft? To get it out of the way and dried out in order to stow it separately, clearing deck space for the wet, muddy end of the anchor cable that was going to be coming up from the bottom?  Or haul the wet anchor cable around on the foredeck when it comes off the windlass. In a boat that size, wet cordage cable can get pretty heavy.  Two wild guesses that come to mind.

My bias towards POF warped my view.  I probably would not have guessed this.   It does explain what is on display.
 
Imagining how I would approach a model of this vessel,  I cannot see trying to replicate the actual vessel's construction.  Getting the outside done correctly would be challenge enough.   I am totally dedicated to POF,  but some hulls just look better fully planked.

Bob: I respectfully disagree. 17th and 18th century vessels had these long bolts (not always 'drifted'), typically through deadwoods and other structures that required longer bolts. 'Drift' in the period sense of the word meant a change in level, such as the topside of a ship or diameter of a longer bolt.

I've seen lots of drifts in my day and I've never seen one that was "a longer bolt with different diameter sections... ever. They are just "big nails" without heads or even sharp points to speak of. (Often one end will often have its sharp edge hammered round so it won't hang up when being driven.) They are  driven into a tight hole in pairs at opposing angles. It's the opposing angle of the fastening that keeps the joint from separating in tension. They were a very common type of heavy fastening method in the days of wooden ships.
 
Below: A piece of a shipwreck with nails and a drift rod through it.
 

 

 
Sunken hulk with numerous iron drifts in structural timbers revealed by decay of the surrounding wood. The large number of drifts driven into large vessels was the reason they burned worn-out ships for their fastenings back in the old days. There was a serious amount of scrap metal in those old wooden ships. 

Not necessarily, but sort of, I suppose. A drift is a thick wooden or metal rod, in this case 5/16" to 3/8" in diameter, with a slightly pointed or rounded end which is driven into a tightly-fitting blind hole in order to fasten major timbers in a vessel. After driving, the top of the rod may be somewhat galled and so could be said to be "wider," but that's of no matter. Properly, a "drift" was the term used for the hole into which a trunnel (wooden) or drift rod or bolt (metal), was driven, but in later times it seems the term "drift" became synonymous with the rod stock used as well. 
 
In modern times, drift bolts became more common. The drift bolt is a metal rod which has threads cut in the top end and a washer and nut are attached before the drift bolt is driven into the drift hole.  Two nuts are screwed onto the rod but only not far as to allow any of the rod to protrude above the face of the top nut.  The drift bolt is driven with a sledgehammer striking the face of the topmost nut. When the drift bolt is driven to its full depth, the topmost nut is removed, the lower nut is tightened and the excess threaded rod extending above the nut may be cut off if so desired. The use of the doubled nuts provides a "head" so the drift bolt can be driven without galling the threads on the rod by striking them with the sledge.
 
Drifts are generally set in pairs driven at opposing angles. In the case of a floor-to-keel fastening, as was common, the drifts would be driven through the top of the keelson and/or frame into the keel at approximately 30 degree angles, or whatever angle the size of the timbers would accommodate. In addition to the friction of the tight fit of the tight blind hole (i.e. not through-drilled at the bottom) and the washer and nut in the case of a drift bolt, the opposing angles of the paired drifts operate to sufficiently oppose any tension between the timbers and keep them from pulling apart. From an engineering standpoint, this is an extremely effective fastening system. 
 
In short, drifts work like big headless nails that are driven into big timbers at an angle and the opposing angles of the drifts keep the timbers from pulling apart. Modernly, drifts have been replaced by rod threaded at each end and fitted at right angles to the timber joint, being secured in tension with washers and nuts at both ends. This method has the advantage of permitting the removal of keel and other major timber fastenings for inspection and/or replacement if needed. The tightly-driven drifts are often impossible to remove without destroying the surrounding structure. Iron bolts, especially keel bolts, can rust to the point of ceasing to exist in the middle of their length inside the hole, at which point, replacement is generally impossible. Replaceable keel bolts potentially extend the life of a wooden vessel exponentially.
 
As I recall, Chapelle explains the use of drifts in his book, Boatbuilding. He was quite comfortable with this fastening method which appears to have been somewhat dated by the time Chapelle was writing. It was then still a well-accepted "workboat" construction practice, but high-quality "yacht" or "naval" scantling practice was transitioning from drifts to threaded bolts. Chapelle's agenda was to encourage the continuation and preservation of locally evolved watercraft, many of which he felt were well-suited for use as pleasure craft and his plans often retain earlier construction details. 
The structural design is indicated on the construction plan:
 

 
You can see the cross-sections of the floors below the cabin sole. These have been "darkened" with cross-hatching to indicate a cut-away "sectioned" view. (Note the three "dark" floor sections supporting the mast step.) Every other frame is fastened to a floor timber.  Glad Tidings has steamed frames.  These would have been fastened with fore and aft fasteners through the side of the frame and into or through the floor timber. The intermediate frames would have been similarly steamed and likely simply fitted into a notch cut into the edge of the keel inboard of the rabbet, or not, depending upon the preference of the designer. (There's a long history of controversy between various naval architects regarding whether a notched keel is best or not. It's one of those "six of one and half dozen of another" type things.) The intermediate frames can simply be "toenailed" to the top of the keel, or be set into a notch and fastened with a single screw set into the center of the notch. The stress on the plank-to-frame structure is primarily in shear to the plank fastenings, and the frame foot fastenings to the floors are more than adequate to keep the hull attached to the keel. In this construction, there's no need to fasten every frame to the keel. Notice also that the spacing of the floors and the deck beams alternate, with the frames terminating alternately to a floor or a deck beam. This structure is further tied together by an (apparent) shelf and clamp at the sheer and a bilge stringer.  That said, the problem to be overcome is figuring out how to build it with scale-size parts that aren't going to have the relative strength that the full-size parts have. 
 
I'm not certain if I understand you completely, but from your statement I presume you are planning to build a model of Glad Tidings from Chapelle's plans for the actual vessel. Please don't take offense if I am stating the obvious to you. If so, consider my comment offered for the benefit of others less experienced. Directly put, there is a world of difference between plans for a vessel and plans for a model of that vessel. The questions you're asking indicate that you aren't experienced with full-sized wooden boatbuilding. It's frequently quite different from scale model building if for no reason other than that the parts at scale size often lack the strength to serve the structural purposes they were designed for at full size. In order to build a model of Glad Tidings from Chapelle's plans, which are the construction plans for the full-size boat, you must determine whether you are going to build an exact structural copy of the vessel as designed but to a smaller scale, which is possible, but will require a complete familiarity with full-sized boatbuilding practices, or a scale representation of the vessel which will not necessarily bear any relation to how the original was constructed. Solid hull or plank on bulkhead construction will require devising an entirely different manner of building the hull entirely.  Plank on frame will require inventing an entirely new construction sequence. If you read Chapelle's books, Boatbuilding and Yacht Designing and Planning, you will be able to learn all you need to know about building his Glad Tidings full-size and from that be able to translate it all to the model scale you want.
 
Translating a full-size construction plan for scratch-building a scale model is always a fascinating challenge. There are loads of full-size construction plans available for all sorts of vessels. Re-engineering those plans for modeling purposes is essential if one is going to enjoy all the opportunities of scratch-building. I'd urge you to start a log at the real beginning, the development of plans for a model, and share the process with everyone. There are plenty of tricks of the trade for developing plans for models. I'm sure that the population of MSW can come up with solutions to every challenge you encounter along the way!
 
 
 
 
 

If there were such a thing as a standing ovation on the internet, we'd all be jumping up and down on our seats. Thanks so much for sharing your work with us. Your progress was a pleasure, and an education, to watch. Keep safe and know that all of us in the West are rooting, and praying, for you and for Ukraine. 

For serious cleaning of acrylics on airbrushes, I've always found Goof Off  paint splatter remover and Goof Off adhesive remover to be excellent cleaning solvents. It is designed for cleaning up paint splatters on full scale water-based painting jobs.  It removes dried acrylic very effectively.
 

 

 
 
 

 
Get the strong stuff. It works well. Just dampen a folded up paper towel with some Goof Off and wipe off the paint splatters. It's specially formulated to remove dried water-based paint. It is really effective on air brush innards.
 
 
 
 

For serious cleaning of acrylics on airbrushes, I've always found Goof Off  paint splatter remover and Goof Off adhesive remover to be excellent cleaning solvents. It is designed for cleaning up paint splatters on full scale water-based painting jobs.  It removes dried acrylic very effectively.
 

 

 
 
 

 
Get the strong stuff. It works well. Just dampen a folded up paper towel with some Goof Off and wipe off the paint splatters. It's specially formulated to remove dried water-based paint. It is really effective on air brush innards.
 
 
 
 

Jaager, it appears from Chapelle's construction drawings that Glad Tidings has full-length steamed frames. They aren't built frames. There aren't any futtocks. They're just fastened to the side of the floor timbers. 

I've seen lots of drifts in my day and I've never seen one that was "a longer bolt with different diameter sections... ever. They are just "big nails" without heads or even sharp points to speak of. (Often one end will often have its sharp edge hammered round so it won't hang up when being driven.) They are  driven into a tight hole in pairs at opposing angles. It's the opposing angle of the fastening that keeps the joint from separating in tension. They were a very common type of heavy fastening method in the days of wooden ships.
 
Below: A piece of a shipwreck with nails and a drift rod through it.
 

 

 
Sunken hulk with numerous iron drifts in structural timbers revealed by decay of the surrounding wood. The large number of drifts driven into large vessels was the reason they burned worn-out ships for their fastenings back in the old days. There was a serious amount of scrap metal in those old wooden ships. 

Not necessarily, but sort of, I suppose. A drift is a thick wooden or metal rod, in this case 5/16" to 3/8" in diameter, with a slightly pointed or rounded end which is driven into a tightly-fitting blind hole in order to fasten major timbers in a vessel. After driving, the top of the rod may be somewhat galled and so could be said to be "wider," but that's of no matter. Properly, a "drift" was the term used for the hole into which a trunnel (wooden) or drift rod or bolt (metal), was driven, but in later times it seems the term "drift" became synonymous with the rod stock used as well. 
 
In modern times, drift bolts became more common. The drift bolt is a metal rod which has threads cut in the top end and a washer and nut are attached before the drift bolt is driven into the drift hole.  Two nuts are screwed onto the rod but only not far as to allow any of the rod to protrude above the face of the top nut.  The drift bolt is driven with a sledgehammer striking the face of the topmost nut. When the drift bolt is driven to its full depth, the topmost nut is removed, the lower nut is tightened and the excess threaded rod extending above the nut may be cut off if so desired. The use of the doubled nuts provides a "head" so the drift bolt can be driven without galling the threads on the rod by striking them with the sledge.
 
Drifts are generally set in pairs driven at opposing angles. In the case of a floor-to-keel fastening, as was common, the drifts would be driven through the top of the keelson and/or frame into the keel at approximately 30 degree angles, or whatever angle the size of the timbers would accommodate. In addition to the friction of the tight fit of the tight blind hole (i.e. not through-drilled at the bottom) and the washer and nut in the case of a drift bolt, the opposing angles of the paired drifts operate to sufficiently oppose any tension between the timbers and keep them from pulling apart. From an engineering standpoint, this is an extremely effective fastening system. 
 
In short, drifts work like big headless nails that are driven into big timbers at an angle and the opposing angles of the drifts keep the timbers from pulling apart. Modernly, drifts have been replaced by rod threaded at each end and fitted at right angles to the timber joint, being secured in tension with washers and nuts at both ends. This method has the advantage of permitting the removal of keel and other major timber fastenings for inspection and/or replacement if needed. The tightly-driven drifts are often impossible to remove without destroying the surrounding structure. Iron bolts, especially keel bolts, can rust to the point of ceasing to exist in the middle of their length inside the hole, at which point, replacement is generally impossible. Replaceable keel bolts potentially extend the life of a wooden vessel exponentially.
 
As I recall, Chapelle explains the use of drifts in his book, Boatbuilding. He was quite comfortable with this fastening method which appears to have been somewhat dated by the time Chapelle was writing. It was then still a well-accepted "workboat" construction practice, but high-quality "yacht" or "naval" scantling practice was transitioning from drifts to threaded bolts. Chapelle's agenda was to encourage the continuation and preservation of locally evolved watercraft, many of which he felt were well-suited for use as pleasure craft and his plans often retain earlier construction details. 
The structural design is indicated on the construction plan:
 

 
You can see the cross-sections of the floors below the cabin sole. These have been "darkened" with cross-hatching to indicate a cut-away "sectioned" view. (Note the three "dark" floor sections supporting the mast step.) Every other frame is fastened to a floor timber.  Glad Tidings has steamed frames.  These would have been fastened with fore and aft fasteners through the side of the frame and into or through the floor timber. The intermediate frames would have been similarly steamed and likely simply fitted into a notch cut into the edge of the keel inboard of the rabbet, or not, depending upon the preference of the designer. (There's a long history of controversy between various naval architects regarding whether a notched keel is best or not. It's one of those "six of one and half dozen of another" type things.) The intermediate frames can simply be "toenailed" to the top of the keel, or be set into a notch and fastened with a single screw set into the center of the notch. The stress on the plank-to-frame structure is primarily in shear to the plank fastenings, and the frame foot fastenings to the floors are more than adequate to keep the hull attached to the keel. In this construction, there's no need to fasten every frame to the keel. Notice also that the spacing of the floors and the deck beams alternate, with the frames terminating alternately to a floor or a deck beam. This structure is further tied together by an (apparent) shelf and clamp at the sheer and a bilge stringer.  That said, the problem to be overcome is figuring out how to build it with scale-size parts that aren't going to have the relative strength that the full-size parts have. 
 
I'm not certain if I understand you completely, but from your statement I presume you are planning to build a model of Glad Tidings from Chapelle's plans for the actual vessel. Please don't take offense if I am stating the obvious to you. If so, consider my comment offered for the benefit of others less experienced. Directly put, there is a world of difference between plans for a vessel and plans for a model of that vessel. The questions you're asking indicate that you aren't experienced with full-sized wooden boatbuilding. It's frequently quite different from scale model building if for no reason other than that the parts at scale size often lack the strength to serve the structural purposes they were designed for at full size. In order to build a model of Glad Tidings from Chapelle's plans, which are the construction plans for the full-size boat, you must determine whether you are going to build an exact structural copy of the vessel as designed but to a smaller scale, which is possible, but will require a complete familiarity with full-sized boatbuilding practices, or a scale representation of the vessel which will not necessarily bear any relation to how the original was constructed. Solid hull or plank on bulkhead construction will require devising an entirely different manner of building the hull entirely.  Plank on frame will require inventing an entirely new construction sequence. If you read Chapelle's books, Boatbuilding and Yacht Designing and Planning, you will be able to learn all you need to know about building his Glad Tidings full-size and from that be able to translate it all to the model scale you want.
 
Translating a full-size construction plan for scratch-building a scale model is always a fascinating challenge. There are loads of full-size construction plans available for all sorts of vessels. Re-engineering those plans for modeling purposes is essential if one is going to enjoy all the opportunities of scratch-building. I'd urge you to start a log at the real beginning, the development of plans for a model, and share the process with everyone. There are plenty of tricks of the trade for developing plans for models. I'm sure that the population of MSW can come up with solutions to every challenge you encounter along the way!
 
 
 
 
 

That is a very good question. The jumbo halyard would be readily available and would hoist to the foremast top, but there's no readily obvious reason to bend the jumbo halyard to the end of an anchor cable. I could only guess. Why would one want to haul the end of an anchor cable aloft? To get it out of the way and dried out in order to stow it separately, clearing deck space for the wet, muddy end of the anchor cable that was going to be coming up from the bottom?  Or haul the wet anchor cable around on the foredeck when it comes off the windlass. In a boat that size, wet cordage cable can get pretty heavy.  Two wild guesses that come to mind.

Not necessarily, but sort of, I suppose. A drift is a thick wooden or metal rod, in this case 5/16" to 3/8" in diameter, with a slightly pointed or rounded end which is driven into a tightly-fitting blind hole in order to fasten major timbers in a vessel. After driving, the top of the rod may be somewhat galled and so could be said to be "wider," but that's of no matter. Properly, a "drift" was the term used for the hole into which a trunnel (wooden) or drift rod or bolt (metal), was driven, but in later times it seems the term "drift" became synonymous with the rod stock used as well. 
 
In modern times, drift bolts became more common. The drift bolt is a metal rod which has threads cut in the top end and a washer and nut are attached before the drift bolt is driven into the drift hole.  Two nuts are screwed onto the rod but only not far as to allow any of the rod to protrude above the face of the top nut.  The drift bolt is driven with a sledgehammer striking the face of the topmost nut. When the drift bolt is driven to its full depth, the topmost nut is removed, the lower nut is tightened and the excess threaded rod extending above the nut may be cut off if so desired. The use of the doubled nuts provides a "head" so the drift bolt can be driven without galling the threads on the rod by striking them with the sledge.
 
Drifts are generally set in pairs driven at opposing angles. In the case of a floor-to-keel fastening, as was common, the drifts would be driven through the top of the keelson and/or frame into the keel at approximately 30 degree angles, or whatever angle the size of the timbers would accommodate. In addition to the friction of the tight fit of the tight blind hole (i.e. not through-drilled at the bottom) and the washer and nut in the case of a drift bolt, the opposing angles of the paired drifts operate to sufficiently oppose any tension between the timbers and keep them from pulling apart. From an engineering standpoint, this is an extremely effective fastening system. 
 
In short, drifts work like big headless nails that are driven into big timbers at an angle and the opposing angles of the drifts keep the timbers from pulling apart. Modernly, drifts have been replaced by rod threaded at each end and fitted at right angles to the timber joint, being secured in tension with washers and nuts at both ends. This method has the advantage of permitting the removal of keel and other major timber fastenings for inspection and/or replacement if needed. The tightly-driven drifts are often impossible to remove without destroying the surrounding structure. Iron bolts, especially keel bolts, can rust to the point of ceasing to exist in the middle of their length inside the hole, at which point, replacement is generally impossible. Replaceable keel bolts potentially extend the life of a wooden vessel exponentially.
 
As I recall, Chapelle explains the use of drifts in his book, Boatbuilding. He was quite comfortable with this fastening method which appears to have been somewhat dated by the time Chapelle was writing. It was then still a well-accepted "workboat" construction practice, but high-quality "yacht" or "naval" scantling practice was transitioning from drifts to threaded bolts. Chapelle's agenda was to encourage the continuation and preservation of locally evolved watercraft, many of which he felt were well-suited for use as pleasure craft and his plans often retain earlier construction details. 
The structural design is indicated on the construction plan:
 

 
You can see the cross-sections of the floors below the cabin sole. These have been "darkened" with cross-hatching to indicate a cut-away "sectioned" view. (Note the three "dark" floor sections supporting the mast step.) Every other frame is fastened to a floor timber.  Glad Tidings has steamed frames.  These would have been fastened with fore and aft fasteners through the side of the frame and into or through the floor timber. The intermediate frames would have been similarly steamed and likely simply fitted into a notch cut into the edge of the keel inboard of the rabbet, or not, depending upon the preference of the designer. (There's a long history of controversy between various naval architects regarding whether a notched keel is best or not. It's one of those "six of one and half dozen of another" type things.) The intermediate frames can simply be "toenailed" to the top of the keel, or be set into a notch and fastened with a single screw set into the center of the notch. The stress on the plank-to-frame structure is primarily in shear to the plank fastenings, and the frame foot fastenings to the floors are more than adequate to keep the hull attached to the keel. In this construction, there's no need to fasten every frame to the keel. Notice also that the spacing of the floors and the deck beams alternate, with the frames terminating alternately to a floor or a deck beam. This structure is further tied together by an (apparent) shelf and clamp at the sheer and a bilge stringer.  That said, the problem to be overcome is figuring out how to build it with scale-size parts that aren't going to have the relative strength that the full-size parts have. 
 
I'm not certain if I understand you completely, but from your statement I presume you are planning to build a model of Glad Tidings from Chapelle's plans for the actual vessel. Please don't take offense if I am stating the obvious to you. If so, consider my comment offered for the benefit of others less experienced. Directly put, there is a world of difference between plans for a vessel and plans for a model of that vessel. The questions you're asking indicate that you aren't experienced with full-sized wooden boatbuilding. It's frequently quite different from scale model building if for no reason other than that the parts at scale size often lack the strength to serve the structural purposes they were designed for at full size. In order to build a model of Glad Tidings from Chapelle's plans, which are the construction plans for the full-size boat, you must determine whether you are going to build an exact structural copy of the vessel as designed but to a smaller scale, which is possible, but will require a complete familiarity with full-sized boatbuilding practices, or a scale representation of the vessel which will not necessarily bear any relation to how the original was constructed. Solid hull or plank on bulkhead construction will require devising an entirely different manner of building the hull entirely.  Plank on frame will require inventing an entirely new construction sequence. If you read Chapelle's books, Boatbuilding and Yacht Designing and Planning, you will be able to learn all you need to know about building his Glad Tidings full-size and from that be able to translate it all to the model scale you want.
 
Translating a full-size construction plan for scratch-building a scale model is always a fascinating challenge. There are loads of full-size construction plans available for all sorts of vessels. Re-engineering those plans for modeling purposes is essential if one is going to enjoy all the opportunities of scratch-building. I'd urge you to start a log at the real beginning, the development of plans for a model, and share the process with everyone. There are plenty of tricks of the trade for developing plans for models. I'm sure that the population of MSW can come up with solutions to every challenge you encounter along the way!
 
 
 
 
 

I've seen lots of drifts in my day and I've never seen one that was "a longer bolt with different diameter sections... ever. They are just "big nails" without heads or even sharp points to speak of. (Often one end will often have its sharp edge hammered round so it won't hang up when being driven.) They are  driven into a tight hole in pairs at opposing angles. It's the opposing angle of the fastening that keeps the joint from separating in tension. They were a very common type of heavy fastening method in the days of wooden ships.
 
Below: A piece of a shipwreck with nails and a drift rod through it.
 

 

 
Sunken hulk with numerous iron drifts in structural timbers revealed by decay of the surrounding wood. The large number of drifts driven into large vessels was the reason they burned worn-out ships for their fastenings back in the old days. There was a serious amount of scrap metal in those old wooden ships. 

Jaager, it appears from Chapelle's construction drawings that Glad Tidings has full-length steamed frames. They aren't built frames. There aren't any futtocks. They're just fastened to the side of the floor timbers. 

Not necessarily, but sort of, I suppose. A drift is a thick wooden or metal rod, in this case 5/16" to 3/8" in diameter, with a slightly pointed or rounded end which is driven into a tightly-fitting blind hole in order to fasten major timbers in a vessel. After driving, the top of the rod may be somewhat galled and so could be said to be "wider," but that's of no matter. Properly, a "drift" was the term used for the hole into which a trunnel (wooden) or drift rod or bolt (metal), was driven, but in later times it seems the term "drift" became synonymous with the rod stock used as well. 
 
In modern times, drift bolts became more common. The drift bolt is a metal rod which has threads cut in the top end and a washer and nut are attached before the drift bolt is driven into the drift hole.  Two nuts are screwed onto the rod but only not far as to allow any of the rod to protrude above the face of the top nut.  The drift bolt is driven with a sledgehammer striking the face of the topmost nut. When the drift bolt is driven to its full depth, the topmost nut is removed, the lower nut is tightened and the excess threaded rod extending above the nut may be cut off if so desired. The use of the doubled nuts provides a "head" so the drift bolt can be driven without galling the threads on the rod by striking them with the sledge.
 
Drifts are generally set in pairs driven at opposing angles. In the case of a floor-to-keel fastening, as was common, the drifts would be driven through the top of the keelson and/or frame into the keel at approximately 30 degree angles, or whatever angle the size of the timbers would accommodate. In addition to the friction of the tight fit of the tight blind hole (i.e. not through-drilled at the bottom) and the washer and nut in the case of a drift bolt, the opposing angles of the paired drifts operate to sufficiently oppose any tension between the timbers and keep them from pulling apart. From an engineering standpoint, this is an extremely effective fastening system. 
 
In short, drifts work like big headless nails that are driven into big timbers at an angle and the opposing angles of the drifts keep the timbers from pulling apart. Modernly, drifts have been replaced by rod threaded at each end and fitted at right angles to the timber joint, being secured in tension with washers and nuts at both ends. This method has the advantage of permitting the removal of keel and other major timber fastenings for inspection and/or replacement if needed. The tightly-driven drifts are often impossible to remove without destroying the surrounding structure. Iron bolts, especially keel bolts, can rust to the point of ceasing to exist in the middle of their length inside the hole, at which point, replacement is generally impossible. Replaceable keel bolts potentially extend the life of a wooden vessel exponentially.
 
As I recall, Chapelle explains the use of drifts in his book, Boatbuilding. He was quite comfortable with this fastening method which appears to have been somewhat dated by the time Chapelle was writing. It was then still a well-accepted "workboat" construction practice, but high-quality "yacht" or "naval" scantling practice was transitioning from drifts to threaded bolts. Chapelle's agenda was to encourage the continuation and preservation of locally evolved watercraft, many of which he felt were well-suited for use as pleasure craft and his plans often retain earlier construction details. 
The structural design is indicated on the construction plan:
 

 
You can see the cross-sections of the floors below the cabin sole. These have been "darkened" with cross-hatching to indicate a cut-away "sectioned" view. (Note the three "dark" floor sections supporting the mast step.) Every other frame is fastened to a floor timber.  Glad Tidings has steamed frames.  These would have been fastened with fore and aft fasteners through the side of the frame and into or through the floor timber. The intermediate frames would have been similarly steamed and likely simply fitted into a notch cut into the edge of the keel inboard of the rabbet, or not, depending upon the preference of the designer. (There's a long history of controversy between various naval architects regarding whether a notched keel is best or not. It's one of those "six of one and half dozen of another" type things.) The intermediate frames can simply be "toenailed" to the top of the keel, or be set into a notch and fastened with a single screw set into the center of the notch. The stress on the plank-to-frame structure is primarily in shear to the plank fastenings, and the frame foot fastenings to the floors are more than adequate to keep the hull attached to the keel. In this construction, there's no need to fasten every frame to the keel. Notice also that the spacing of the floors and the deck beams alternate, with the frames terminating alternately to a floor or a deck beam. This structure is further tied together by an (apparent) shelf and clamp at the sheer and a bilge stringer.  That said, the problem to be overcome is figuring out how to build it with scale-size parts that aren't going to have the relative strength that the full-size parts have. 
 
I'm not certain if I understand you completely, but from your statement I presume you are planning to build a model of Glad Tidings from Chapelle's plans for the actual vessel. Please don't take offense if I am stating the obvious to you. If so, consider my comment offered for the benefit of others less experienced. Directly put, there is a world of difference between plans for a vessel and plans for a model of that vessel. The questions you're asking indicate that you aren't experienced with full-sized wooden boatbuilding. It's frequently quite different from scale model building if for no reason other than that the parts at scale size often lack the strength to serve the structural purposes they were designed for at full size. In order to build a model of Glad Tidings from Chapelle's plans, which are the construction plans for the full-size boat, you must determine whether you are going to build an exact structural copy of the vessel as designed but to a smaller scale, which is possible, but will require a complete familiarity with full-sized boatbuilding practices, or a scale representation of the vessel which will not necessarily bear any relation to how the original was constructed. Solid hull or plank on bulkhead construction will require devising an entirely different manner of building the hull entirely.  Plank on frame will require inventing an entirely new construction sequence. If you read Chapelle's books, Boatbuilding and Yacht Designing and Planning, you will be able to learn all you need to know about building his Glad Tidings full-size and from that be able to translate it all to the model scale you want.
 
Translating a full-size construction plan for scratch-building a scale model is always a fascinating challenge. There are loads of full-size construction plans available for all sorts of vessels. Re-engineering those plans for modeling purposes is essential if one is going to enjoy all the opportunities of scratch-building. I'd urge you to start a log at the real beginning, the development of plans for a model, and share the process with everyone. There are plenty of tricks of the trade for developing plans for models. I'm sure that the population of MSW can come up with solutions to every challenge you encounter along the way!
 
 
 
 
 

In machine work, a "drift fit" describes class of fit between a shaft and hole.  At least it did while I was active in shop work.  I can't recall the tolerances, but a considerable amount of force was required to achieve a drift fit.  Descriptive terms for other fits include: loose, running, drive, shrink, etc.  It looks like these terms have been replaced.  Now fits are separated into classes identified by Roman numerals.
 
I will guess a "drift" in this case was a galvanized iron rod, driven in an undersized hole and held by friction, rather than by clenching or with a nut. 
 
In these times, a drift is a tapered tool, a wedge essentially, used to remove a tool held in an arbor by a taper fit.

First off, there is probably no "ready to go" paint, acrylic or otherwise, that is made for airbrushing that doesn't require some sort of conditioning. If there is, you can bet it will require some conditioning the second time you open the bottle to use it. There is a bit of a learning curve to painting and it's best to learn from someone who knows what they are doing and can show you. Writing out instructions takes a long time and I've done it several times over the years and have no taste for doing it again. Suffice it to say your paint for airbrushing must be around the consistency of skim milk or just slightly thicker than water. To get the right consistency, you will have to experiment with your particular airbrush. They are not all exactly alike. Some will atomize quite thick material and others are partial to much thinner material. Follow the instructions with your airbrush to set it up for the material you are using. You should use the manufacturer's recommended thinner and other conditioners, at least until you get the hang of it. Acrylic coatings are best thinned with alcohol, which mixes with the acrylic's water base, but evaporates quickly to permit the best application behavior for spray painting. Alkyd paints should be thinned with mineral spirits or acetone, which, like alcohol in the case of acrylics, dries quickly when applied with an airbrush. Lacquers, should you use these, require lacquer thinner. You should practice with your airbrush until you become comfortable with it. You can use water in it and spray it on cardboard material to practice using the airbrush. Once you have the control mastered, you can use the coating you intend to use applied to a piece of cardboard to make sure you've got the actual material application down pat. Always do a test before any application to the model itself. It's a lot easier to throw a piece of cardboard or paper in the wastebasket than it is to remove sprayed paint from the workpiece.
 
As for colors, I mix my own. I use artist's oils mainly, but acrylics on occasion as well. I buy the paint which is sold in "toothpaste tubes" in art stores.  Mixing your own paint is a simple skill that will save you a lot of money over time.  You can purchase any color you want ready mixed or primary colors you can use to mix your own colors. You can purchase modeler's paints in any color under the sun, as well. They sell them in "brushing" consistency and in "airbrushing" consistency. I see no reason to buy the paint thinned for airbrushing because you are paying the same price as thicker paint with more pigment and getting only paint thinned for airbrushing. Paint is a lot more expensive than thinner. You can go to the painting and airbrushing section of the forum and read the reviews and comments on the various brands of premixed paint. As for colors for copper sheathed hulls, use your eye. I doubt that anybody sells "oxidized penny copper" as a color. I use a medium-dark brown with a fair bit of red in it as a base color for copper sheathing or bottom paint. You'll find many shadings of this color in the "boxcar colors" section of the modeling paint companies' model railroading selections. Verdigris is verdigris color. It's often sold as "copper green" or "verdigris. It's a fairly common color, so pick it off the color chart or rack in your  hobby shop. All I can say about colors is what I've said before: search the web for photographs and replicate the appearance of the real thing, always keeping scale in mind.  Refer to the pictures I posted in post #3 above. The "green" bottom is the vessel hauled and exposed to the air, hence the green oxidation, and the "brown bottom" is the vessel with new copper just applied and about to be launched. 
 
You can use whatever sealer and primer you wish on your wood, providing that your later coats will stick to it. Anything and everything sticks to shellac. I prefer using shellac because it is very thin and soaks into the wood and dries very quickly. Its thinness doesn't build up on parts and "thicken" crisp details. It also cleans up easily with alcohol. You should sand lightly after sealing, but make sure not to sand so much that you remove all of your sealer in spots. If you do, reapply the sealer and sand lightly again. You can spray shellac if you wish, but you'll need to clean your airbrush with alcohol, of course. I find it easier to brush it on, since it soaks right into the wood and brush strokes are not an issue with shellac. Recognize that acrylic coatings often will not adhere well to oil-based coatings, so if you are using acrylic top coats, you'd be well-advised to test your acryllic top coat material on any oil-based  undercoat you may have used. When using different types of coatings it is always best to spray test pieces before you shoot the real deal. 
 
"Some brush strokes with a fan-shaped brush" will not make your hull look more realistic. It will make it look like you are a poor painter who leaves brush strokes when you paint because you don't know how to condition your paint. In the scale you are working with, I'd say you'd be better off forgetting about trying to "make it look realistic" beyond painting it.  At your scale viewing distance, the individual plates aren't going to be discernable, really. If you want to apply paper "plates," you can do so, but you should be careful to apply plates that are of scale thickness. These can be applied using shellac as an adhesive and then shellacking the whole hull afterwards. You will, of course, have to take care also to apply those plates in the proper orientation correctly lined off and so on. That would be extremely tedious, however. The bottom of your model isn't an area that contains much detail and the viewer's eye isn't drawn to it. There's no point in distracting from the finer details of the model with an out of scale and improperly colored coppering job. There is a reason why a realistically depicted coppered bottom on a ship model is an extremely rare thing to encounter. 
 
Your hull will not look better by failing to sand it well. In fact, it will look bad. The whole point of an airbrush is to apply paint thinly so it doesn't build up and ruin the crispness of scale detail. Any lack of sanding is going to be more apparent after having been spray painted. You must sand your hull and topsides until they are as smooth as a baby's bottom.  I use 220 grit for coarse sanding, followed by 320 for finer sanding. I will spray color coats after sanding to 320, but I will sand between finish coats with 600 grit. The sanding must be perfectly smooth with no scratches, nicks or dings. It must also be totally free of all dust. Blow the worst of it off with compressed air (if you have it), then wipe the workpiece down with a tack rag (available at any paint store.) Follow the instructions on the tack rag package or have somebody show you how to use it. If you fold it correctly, you can get a lot of use out of a tack rag. You should also store it in a ziplock plastic sandwich bag after you open its original packaging and it will last you a good long while. Only a tack rag will pick up any dust from the surface, which is what it is designed to do. "Cleanliness is next to godliness" as they say.
 
On a large painted area like a hull, should dust specks end up on the painted surface, these can be removed after the paint dries by hand rubbing with pumice and rottenstone applied to a cloth dampened with water. 
 
See: Amazon.com: Vallejo Game Color Verdigris Paint, 17ml : Arts, Crafts & Sewing
 
Modeling Verdigris: The Weathered Patina of Copper Roofing - Bing video
 
 
 
 

MicroMark offers a Paasche single-action airbrush and for half the price what appears to be the identical item by MicroMark. The online catalog photos of the two airbrushes are identical. Could it be that one is a Chinese counterfeit, or is it just that they are pushing the MicroMark branded airbrush by showing an identical one marked up in price so shoppers will think they are getting a bargain buying the MicroMark one. If MicroMark is pulling this sort of thing, should they not be added to MSW's "rogues gallery" of pirate retailers?

Copper (and other metal) powder is readily available online and in fine arts stores. Copper Powder, 30 g | Home Science Tools This is real copper that is ground to a very fine dust. It can be applied with a dry brush over a partially-dried (tacky) shellac or varnish coat and, upon final drying of the sizing, can be lightly burnished with a cotton ball and will appear as solid copper. (Brass powder can be used for depicting gold leafed details and polished brass on ship models.) That said, coppered ship bottoms don't ever look shiny, except for a very brief time when the copper is first applied and, on a large ship, the time it would take to copper her bottom would probably have the first sheets oxidized before the last shiny ones were hung. I really don't know where the idea of shiny copper bottoms on ship models came from or why. (There are many pictures online of Cutty Sark's recently restored sheathed bottom and it is "shiny," but she is not "coppered," but rather sheathed in Muntz metal, which is a type of brass invented in 1832 and not found on earlier vessels.)
 
As a practical matter, at 1:64 scale, your hull shouldn't require showing individually lapped sheathing at all. Always consider the "scale viewing distance." Better to omit a detail entirely than to add a detail that is over scale. (Don't ask me how I learned this. ) You'd probably be better off finishing the bottom smooth and painting it with a base coat of "used penny brown" and then using an airbrush to add a bit of verdigris "green" at the waterline and a few patches of "dark green grunge" here and there. Do the math and you'll see how small scale plates are at 1:64, then figure out how many you're going to have to apply to cover the bottom! Look at the pictures of coppered bottoms above. There's no place for shiny copper on a ship's bottom. Even if the plates are shiny from the mill, in the time it would take to hang them, they'd be well on their way to acquiring an oxidized surface. 
 
If you aren't familiar with "scale viewing distance," consider the U.S. Navy's"mil spec" contract standard for Navy ship models: "Generally, all items on the prototype twelve inches or larger for 1:96 scale (six inches or larger for 1:48 scale) will be reproduced." [Nautical Research Guild - Article - Specifications for Construction of Exhibition Models of U.S. Naval Vessels (thenrg.org)] Your 1:64 scale is roughly in the middle between 1:96 and 1:48, so, on your model, a good rule of thumb would be that any detail nine inches or larger should be reproduced and any detail smaller than nine inches may be omitted. Obviously, at 1:64 scale, the edge of a 1/16" thick copper plate isn't going to be possible to reproduce, or to see if you could reproduce it.
 
Myself, I wouldn't go crazy trying to lay a "checkerboard" patchwork of differently colored copper plates on a bottom. I suppose there are times when a vessel is hauled and a few random sheets were replaced during repairs and they'd "stand out" color-wise, but I've seen my share of coppered bottoms freshly hauled out in the boatyards and, truth be told, they all have a uniform color appearance after they've been in the water a while. It takes a bit of time for them to develop that "copper green" look after the air gets to the copper.
 
As Jaager noted, shellac is reversible with alcohol, but that doesn't mean it's not a messy job to be avoided. As with all finishing on a model, it is essential to do experimental examples of any coating before going forward on the model itself unless you are absolutely familiar with the technique, compatibility of materials, and environmental conditions. This is the best way to avoid ever having to refinish a hull! Take pieces of scrap planking stock (glue them up side by side even) and try various approaches until you get one that satisfies you. Your finished hull isn't the place to experiment.
 
An airbrush is one tool investment that will kick your modeling abilities up a bunch of notches. It is an investment and there is a learning curve, but if you search for airbrush information on this forum, Kurt can give you all the information you'd ever need about purchasing an airbrushing set up and it doesn't have to put you in the poor house. Learning to use one really boils down to reading the manual and watching YouTube videos. You can use water sprayed on a piece of paper or cardboard to practice getting the hang of controlling the spray, then, when you feel confident, you can graduate to some watercolor and eventually to paint. The airbrush is a very versatile instrument, but for modeling purposes, we generally only avail ourselves of the basics. Think of it as a refillable spray can that will pay for itself in what you'd spend on "rattle cans" with clogged nozzles and wasted paint. The other advantage of an airbrush is that it is a lot easier to obtain a perfect finish than using a brush because learning to use a brush well is apparently more difficult for most. A fine brushed finish will require multiple thin coats, each applied to perfection and very lightly sanded between coats as needed. You have to wait for each coat to dry. An air brush will let you build up fast-drying thin coats in far less time.
 
 

It all depends on the scale. At eighth inch scale, copper plate thickness isn't going to be visible. At a quarter inch to the foot scale, perhaps plate thickness would be barely visible. The modeler should calculate the scale viewing distance and model accordingly. 
 
If a realistic scale effect requires actual lapped plates, cutting plates from paper of suitably scaled thickness and gluing these to the hull (shellac is a good adhesive for this purpose) will provide the desired effect. If individual lapped plates are not required, then the modeler can proceed directly to painting the hull. Realistic coppered bottom weathering effects are best achieved with an airbrush using standard artistic techniques. Refer to online photographs to observe the actual appearance to be replicated.
 
Ship model kit manufacturers frequently include "real copper hull plating" for what can only be a sales gimmick suggesting their kit is "high quality." Unsophisticated purchasers expect this, apparently in the mistaken belief that a high quality model should be constructed of the same materials as the prototype vessel. Individual copper sheet or foil plates would only be useful in very large scale models and the use of real metal sheet or foil is not preferable due to the limitations of adhesives. Most all of the kit-supplied coppering material is over-scale as to thickness, if not as well as to surface dimension. Fasteners will not be visible at model scale viewing distances. (In fact, the mark of a proper coppering job was that the nails were as flush with the surface as possible (accomplished by a proper "coppering hammer" with its dimpled head.) A smooth bottom is a fast bottom. A bottom studded with nail heads the scale size of a man's fist is not.
 
 
 

 

 

 
Photos before and after re-coppering. Note that copper in saltwater environment will quickly turn verdigris green when exposed to air as seen here with USS Constitution in dock as it's pumped out. The second picture shows her newly coppered bottom right before launch. Here the new copper, exposed to the elements, but not saltwater while in the dock, shows the classic "used penny brown" color of naturally oxidized copper. The modeler will have to decide in which condition they wish to depict the vessel's bottom: freshly coppered (which isn't to say "new penny copper" colored,) as a just-hauled fouled bottom, or as a hauled and cleaned bottom exposed to the air (verdigris green, which many prefer.)
 
Note that Constitution has about a five-foot wide band of reddish bottom paint applied over her coppered bottom just above her light load waterline. Modernly, most coppered bottoms have antifouling paint applied over the copper in this fashion. While the copper provides a mechanical barrier to marine boring organisms, it does not prevent fouling with seaweed. The bottom paint prevents this growth in the "sunlight zone" below the surface of the water. Further antifouling applied below where there is sufficient sunlight to sustain seaweed growth is omitted as redundant. Note that this is a period issue. Bottom paint came into common usage around 1850 and copper plating correspondingly decreased thereafter.