Bob Cleek

Yes. There were 300 copies printed in this run. Anybody who collects modeling books has surely lusted after one. They originally retailed around $3,000 each, but apparently didn't sell well at all at that price point! The few that were sold primarily went to well-endowed academic libraries, from what I've read. I've seen them offered for as little as a few hundred bucks in later years. I suspect these sets were purchased as investments which disappointed. The ads often tout them has having only having the plastic wrapping on one or two of the seven (I believe) volumes having been removed, which indicates to me the owner never looked at the whole set. I've seen photos of the bound set and have ordered individual HAMMS prints from the Smithsonian, but I've always wondered if the bound set includes all the photographic records on the survey subjects, copies of which the Smithsonian also sells, or just the drawings. This would be one set that cries out to be digitized in CD or thumb drive format for on-screen viewing and printing of plans on a large format printer. I doubt that will ever happen, though. The HAMMS and similar collections are probably big profit generators (relatively speaking) for the Smithsonian Institution. 

Yes. There were 300 copies printed in this run. Anybody who collects modeling books has surely lusted after one. They originally retailed around $3,000 each, but apparently didn't sell well at all at that price point! The few that were sold primarily went to well-endowed academic libraries, from what I've read. I've seen them offered for as little as a few hundred bucks in later years. I suspect these sets were purchased as investments which disappointed. The ads often tout them has having only having the plastic wrapping on one or two of the seven (I believe) volumes having been removed, which indicates to me the owner never looked at the whole set. I've seen photos of the bound set and have ordered individual HAMMS prints from the Smithsonian, but I've always wondered if the bound set includes all the photographic records on the survey subjects, copies of which the Smithsonian also sells, or just the drawings. This would be one set that cries out to be digitized in CD or thumb drive format for on-screen viewing and printing of plans on a large format printer. I doubt that will ever happen, though. The HAMMS and similar collections are probably big profit generators (relatively speaking) for the Smithsonian Institution. 

Good advice from all above! Whether you have the plans may be a determining factor. Whether you're interested in restoring her is a question you'll have to answer yourself.
 
I'll add another option, perhaps with tongue in cheek, but your dilemma brought to mind a solution from my childhood regarding the disposition of unwanted models...
 
1.   Get a bunch of friends together with a case of beer or a couple of bottles of the hard stuff.
2.   Get a digital video camera and tripod (a cell phone would do) and set them up on the shore of a suitable pond. at dusk
3.   Fill her with zip-loc bags full of diesel fuel and firecrackers (or cherry bombs, if those are still obtainable!) with the fuses tied together.
4.   Start the video camera, light the fuse, and push her out onto the pond.
5.   Enjoy!
6.   Post the video on MSW!
 
Remember, it's not real fun unless your mother tells you it might put your eye out.
 

Very clever use of the drawer front edge holes and the alligator clips! That trick just went into my memory bank for future use. 
 
She's sure coming along beautifully, Rob. Thanks for sharing. I know these build logs take time and effort.

Very clever use of the drawer front edge holes and the alligator clips! That trick just went into my memory bank for future use. 
 
She's sure coming along beautifully, Rob. Thanks for sharing. I know these build logs take time and effort.

Very clever use of the drawer front edge holes and the alligator clips! That trick just went into my memory bank for future use. 
 
She's sure coming along beautifully, Rob. Thanks for sharing. I know these build logs take time and effort.

Very clever use of the drawer front edge holes and the alligator clips! That trick just went into my memory bank for future use. 
 
She's sure coming along beautifully, Rob. Thanks for sharing. I know these build logs take time and effort.

$225 is a fair bit of change for a hand-cranked sander (apparently) without an accurate tilting table for compound angles and only a rubber disk pad. For another $100, you get a 1/3 hp motor and a highly accurate miter gauge and tilting table with preset angles and variable angle setting and with a thick (1/2" IIRC) disk plate that stores a lot of momentum, so no lagging when the piece connects with the disk. The Byrnes sander has a larger table of CNC machined aluminum. The Byrnes sander also has a very effective dust collection system that hooks up to any shop-vac. Then, too, the Byrnes sander has solid resale value and a manufacturer that stands behind it with a long track record of superior customer satisfaction.  Just sayin'. 
  http://www.byrnesmodelmachines.com/discsander5.html
 

Micro-saws like the Byrnes saw, being smaller, are, I suppose, in theory at least, less dangerous than full sized table saws, but only by degrees of magnitude. Beyond that, I'd go so far as to say the smaller saws are even more likely to cause injury, albeit less massive injury, because they pose exactly the same risk of injury occurring as the full sized saws, but, being smaller, they invite operator error more readily. It's easy to pontificate about power tool safety and that tends to go in one ear and out the other. They say the table saw is the most dangerous power tool, but that's only because there are more of them and this leads completely inexperienced people to attempt to operate them relying solely upon their intuition. "You simply plug it in, turn it on, and feed the wood into the blade. What could be easier? What could possibly go wrong?"
 
Ninety-nine percent of table saw injuries are caused by operator error. These machines don't just jump up and bite you. If you are "experiencing kick-back effects," it's not the saw's fault. It's your fault because you aren't using the tool correctly. (Don't ask me how I know this.) That's as close as I'll get to a safety lecture here, but I can't stifle myself when I hear comments like "I just bought my first table saw and..." followed by a description of a problem that is directly ascribable to extremely dangerous improper operation of the machine. 
 
Please don't mess with any power tool and especially a table saw of any size without getting proper training in its use and particularly in all safety procedures unique to that particular tool. We've all heard Norm Abrams go through his little "safety mantra" on TV ("... and remember this, always wear these: safety glasses.") and then watched him operate his table saw, reaching over the blade and sawing without using push sticks or guards in place. "Lucky Norm" still has all his fingers, but I've got at least four professional woodworker friends who don't.
 
To answer the question,"Does anybody know where there's a good tutorial?" hey, YouTube is your friend. Just watch as many table saw safety and how-to-use videos as you can. You'll find something useful in every one of them. Follow the instructions and you will avoid injury and produce much better work, as well.  https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+to+use+a+table+saw
 
 
 

It's possible that some suppliers have learned from Telemarketers:
 
"But wait there's more!  If you call right now, we'll send you another one free! Just pay separate processing and handling."
 
If you charge enough for shipping, the product is free.

Port Orford cedar is readily available, but probably a special order item outside of the Pacific Coast. As for model building, I'm sure it's entirely suitable, save for appearance. POC's rings are more pronounced than AYC's and it wouldn't be the best choice if one was intending to finish the model bright. The POC would appear out of scale. Best to go with AYC selected to have very light rings. If the model were to be painted, of course, I don't think there's a lot of difference, really. POC can tend to have a coarser grain than AYC, but a lot depends on particular piece of wood.

Port Orford cedar is closely related to Alaska Yellow cedar. Both species are actually cypresses. POC is also known as Lawson's Cypress. POC is a light brown color which darkens some with age. AYC is, as one might expect, yellow. Their structural characteristics, straight grain, and good decay resistance are roughly comparable.

It may bear noting that Alaska yellow cedar is one of those wood species that is known by many different non-scientific names. Thus, sourcing is outside of its range may be made more difficult if you don't ask for it by the right name. First off, it's not a cedar at all, but rather a cypress. It's known as Nootka cypress, yellow cypress, Alaska cypress, Pacific Coast cedar, Nootka cedar, yellow cedar, Alaska cedar, and Alaska yellow cedar. If you are googling for it, you might try some of its other commercial names, although it is most popularly called Alaska yellow cedar.
 
Unfortunately, AYC is becoming harder to source for a variety of reasons. 1) Most of it that's commercially logged is sold locally in the Pacific Northwest, where it is still readily available. 2) It's often found in areas which are difficult (i.e. expensive) to access for logging operations. 3) It's dying off throughout much of its range due to climate change and is being considered for classification as endangered. 4) Asian demand for AYC for fine woodwork sends a lot of it off as export. 5) AYC plantation forestry has only just begun to be studied and it more of a challenge than commercial cultivation of other lumber species. 6) AYC is very slow-growing, with a lifespan of well over a thousand years.
 
It is the winter snowpack that insulates the shallow and fine root systems of AYC trees from freezing. With the snow pack becoming thinner each year, the tree roots are more exposed to cold snaps which freeze their fine root systems close to the surface and kill the trees. Photos of large stands of dead AYC would make you cry, but the good news is that the dead timber is as good for lumber as the fresh for at least 90 years, and perhaps more even. Again, AYC's growing terrain makes commercial harvesting less attractive than more accessible lumber species.
 

 
The good news is that while it is considered somewhat rare outside of its natural range, there is plenty of it available in the Pacific Northwest lumberyards. The bad news is that it will cost to ship it elsewhere. I've worked with AYC planking and decking wooden boats and I'm sad to say the offcuts went into the yard dumpster or home for the fireplace. (It's also one of the best fire woods known.) I wish I'd taken more of it for my own "lumberyard" than I did when I had the chance. 
 

 
http://patlbr.com/cedar/
 
 
 

As a retired librarian I have to suggest the possibility of donating them to your local library. That's one way that many people can enjoy them. 

As mtaylor said, you are definitely exhibiting the symptoms of scratch-building, AKA "kit bashing." This is known as "going over to the Dark Side."  It seems you've discovered the dirty secret of most kits: there's no way anybody can build a model that looks like the the picture on the box the kit came in without supplementing what the box contains. To achieve a model as good as what's on the box cover, the builder has to do a lot of customization and research, not to mention having the skills necessary. Your work is quite impressive for a novice. The next thing you know, you'll be building from scratch. Before that, do a couple of really good quality models. Don't let the average-quality European (or, God forbid, Chinese counterfeit) models turn you off to the hobby. Try one of the really good kits to really impress yourself with what you can accomplish. 
 
Just a couple of observations... I'm not sure if your photos show your coppering as complete or not, but in the off chance they were showing what you thought was a completed job, be aware that the coppering covers everywhere there's wood below the waterline, including the entire keel and rudder. You might also consider adding a patina to the copper (if the tape hasn't been coated to prevent that) or paint it to accurately depict the true appearance of a coppered bottom. This is a stylistic thing, I suppose.  Some like shiny copper bottoms, but they don't really exist in real life. Also, cannon balls are colored black, so you may want to paint them flat black. 
 
Nice work on the propeller, although I'd be hesitant to encourage people to "flick" it when the model is done.  If it isn't permanently mounted as yet, you may want to file or sand the casting seams from it. Fortunately, Mamoli did provide an historically accurate two-bladed propeller. Some kits provide inaccurate details like that, since it's cheaper for them to use the same castings in multiple kits. The propeller would have been of iron and should be painted flat black, of course. If you really wanted to make yourself crazy, you could install an electric motor to slowly turn the prop at scale speed and a smoke generator for the stack. (Smoke generators are a model railroading item, sold in model railroading catalogs.) I mention this just to give you an idea of how creative some modelers have gotten.  

Yes, there are easier ways to bend planking. Check out the "more" drop down menu at the forum masthead. There are planking tutorials there which you'll find most helpful. There are many approaches. My favorite is simply dry heat, using a plank bending iron ( a modeling tool) and/or a small travel iron. It's fast and not messy. 
 
For a first effort, it appears you are doing quite well. It can be a steep learning curve, but, obviously, you have what it takes to succeed. 
 
Study the planking tutorials in the forum for tips on planking. I'm not familiar with the model you are building, but I'm sure there are more than one build log on the forum which you can follow and see where the pitfalls are. It's always better to learn from others' mistakes than to learn from our own!  You may want to consider buying after-market planking stock. Generally speaking, the planking material in most kits, save the "boutique" kit companies like Syren and Vanguard (See their sponsor ads on the forum homepage) run the gamut from poor to abysmal. Most experienced kit builders end up using better materials than what are provided with the kits. (Some wood species are much easier to work with than others.) Rigging line is a major after-market item, as are blocks and deadeyes. I can't speak to the quality of your Mamoli kit, but you can see here in the build logs what others decided to do in that respect. 

What's not to like about that? I had good success in one instance years ago by laminating three layers of birch tongue depressors (readily obtainable in bulk from crafts stores and dirt cheap) with PVA clamped with binder clips. I used Underhill's method, later further popularized by Hahn, for angling pieces to form the rough frame shape, cutting the joints on a paper cutter, and then jig-sawing the laminated form to shape. It works fine. By overlapping the joints and tight clamping, very solid frames which will resist breakage otherwise due to short cross-grain orientation can be made. The only issue I had with it was that when finish shaping the frames on the drum sander, the PVA adhesive tended to melt with the heat of the sanding and gum up the abrasive. That was pretty easy to keep ahead of by slowing the speed of the drum and regularly cleaning with a crepe abrasive cleaning stick, but in the future, I'd look for an adhesive that was harder and less prone to gum up when sanding.

I have no idea what the metal is for  your castings but be careful as it may be a very low melt point alloy.  Would hate to see you melt one.  Maybe ask  the kit maker what the metal is and the melt point as they should have or be able to get this information even if  they are outsourcing.  
Allan

Thanks guys I had a feeling it was probably a no go. I think that is why I asked to be sure. I am not sure what the casting supplied with the kit os made of. Some kind of alloy and quite soft and easy to file/sand. Perhpas this is part alloy. I will see if I can soutce some brass tube of the same bore/diameter.and hopefully I can manage this instead. Telescope brass is readily available ,I am assuming this should solder ok Thanks to everyone for there quick responses, you have saved me a bit of time and frustration. Best regards Dave

Ditto to Bill and Alan’s comments.  Aluminum cannot be soldered with conventional soldering materials.  It also melts at about 1200F making it hard to weld.  I use it for holding brass parts to be soldered as it doesn’t “stick” to the solder.
 
I have seen special solders advertised for aluminum but have not tried them. I am unaware of any solder that will fuze brass to aluminum.  Buy some brass tubing.  Brass is easy to solder to itself.
 
Roger

Bill's post just came up as I posted this.   I am anxious to read responses on what to use as some aluminum alloys are very hard to weld.   There seem to be some solutions on the 'net, but I hope someone here has done it with success and can share what they used and what they did.  
 
Dave, why not order a pack of brass or copper tubing and rods?  Copper is easy to soft solder and clean up for blackening with liver of sulfur.
 
Hope to see a new solution to add to my tool kit!
 
Allan

IMHO One cannot solder aluminum. As a matter of fact I have some jigs made of aluminum used to fabricated model railroad track components. Aluminum is used specifically because it rejects solder. I would stick to all brass components for good results.
 

A long time ago I did some work with aluminum and welding it.   Not for the faint of heart.   Usually needs a inert gas to be present around it and extreme temperature control.  Not worth the hassle unless you're doing something an aircraft or auto body.  Also, dissimilar metals create other headaches.  Go with the all brass.
 
Your castings are probably so-called "pot metal" or "britannia metal" and isn't suitable for soldering.

A really poor bit of instruction!    PVA should have been used.  It is not instant grab and clamping can be a challenge.  Unlike a contact adhesive, PVA will last.  PVA can be made to be like a contact adhesive.  A thin coat on both surfaces - let dry - join - apply enough, but not too much heat with an iron.  The bond will not be as strong as wet to wet PVA, but will probably be stronger than DAP. 
 
I have found no solvent that dissolved DAP contact cement.  It losses its bond and makes sticky balls when rubbed with Naphtha or Mineral Spirits.  It is a real mess to undo.  It makes for a bond that lasts maybe 10 - 20 years.  Time and probably 02 , make it become brittle.  A painful learning experience?
 
 
A single coat of 1:1 diluted shellac  (1 part shellac to 1 part 95% ethanol (shellac thinner)) ( Even if you could get 100% ethanol - which requires distillation from Benzene - as soon as it is exposed to air, it sucks in water from the atmosphere and quickly becomes 95%.).
If you are compulsive - a follow-on coat of full strength shellac.  Buff with a ScotchBrite pad - wipe clean and use any sort of paint.
 
 

It's truly refreshing to see trunnels and plugs depicted at the proper scale, in the proper places, and with an appropriate species of wood. Too many otherwise well-done models are marred by improperly placed, over-sized trunnels and plugs of  contrasting color. 
 
These are so good, I bet the grain's even running in the right direction!