Bob Cleek

That's true. The books cited are for earlier rope-stropped blocks. The ship-smithing is obvious. a rod of suitable length would be formed with a pointed end and then bent to the shape of the hook desired. (The tip of the hook is bent outward from the shaft of the hook to hold the mousing as might be required to keep the hook from coming loose in use.) If used, thimbles would be attached to the hooks when the eye was formed. Thimbles are simply a section of metal tubing flared at either end. Thimbles were frequently made of soft metal such as copper or even lead, as their purpose was to prevent the chafing of the rope eye worked around the thimble. A block would be stropped with a strop large enough that the thimble could be secured to the strop by a throat lashing between the block and the thimble. Later metal stropped blocks would have a metal eye fashioned in the metal strop and a hook attached with a shackle. Blocks with hooks were in the minority, since the only need for a hook on a block would be for a block that needed to be disconnected on a regular basis such as for tackles.
 
As mentioned, there are various options for such construction, but the period will dictate which practices were most common at that time. 
 

 
Here's the "how to" from Ashley's Book of Knots which should answer some of your questions:
 

 
And this from Hervey Garret Smith's The Arts of the Sailor:
 
 

 
Everything you need to know about rigging of any period is in a book somewhere. Each period has its "go-to" reference volumes. You will find it very helpful to acquire whichever reference works are relevant to the period of the model you are building. (Most are available new or used in reprints and occasionally online PDF's.) Asking questions on internet forums may get you pointed in the right direction, but, if you think about it, if you don't know the answer, it's pretty hard to know whether the answer you get from an online "expert" is the correct one, isn't it? 
 
 
 

Right you are. Gyros is another Chinese pirate product. The "real deal" original is the U.S. made V.F. Rogers Drill Bit Set - #61 to #80. However, V.F.Rogers, the original manufacturer, doesn't seem to be in business anymore. MicroMark is selling the Rogers Drill Bit Set which they say they get from Excel hobby knives company. Excel's catalog says they are made in the U.S.A., but I don't know if Excel is now making them or just wholesaling them or what. They've been around for a long time. Another mystery thanks to the world of "offshoring" and Chinese import tool clones. 
 
$30 from MicroMark. The Rogers Drill Bit Set, #61 - #80 (Set Of 20), 20 drill bits from #61 to #80, Includes an indexed drill bit stand, Ultra-sharp high-speed drill bits (micromark.com)  $30.00 USD from MicroMark.  $53.51 USD from Excel Hobby Blade Corporation, which makes or wholesales them these days. 20 Piece Drill Dome Set – Excel Blades You can get individual wire gauge bits from McMaster-Carr, but they aren't cheap! drill bits | McMaster-Carr.  MicroMark sometimes sells little plastic tubes with ten or a dozen wire gauge bits of the same size at dramatically reduced prices as "loss leaders" when they have their big annual sales. I bought the whole range of 20 bits for the Rogers' stand in tubes of ten from MicroMark some time ago. So far, they seem to work fine. Buying them singly to replace broken bits in the drill stand can get painful quickly. McMaster-Carr wants $5.54 USD apiece for an 80 ga. 3/4" long uncoated HSS bit and $1.39 USD for a 60 ga. 1 5/8" one. I don't doubt that the McMaster-Carr bits will cut better and be better all-around in terms of quality control, but I have no idea if they break any less than the cheaper (and probably Chinese made) bits from the hobby outlets. There's a break-even point there somewhere, but I have no idea whether paying top dollar for U.S. made commercial quality bits is worth the money for general modeling use. 
 
Original V.F. Rogers Drill Bit Set. Note "Drill Stand" embossed on top of base center, not "Gyros" letter "G."

 
Original Rogers drill stand bottoms: Manufacturer's ID and patent number: 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Perhaps the term "Admiralty style" is the sort of uninformed lay misnomer that creeps into the lexicon, much like the silly term "tall ship." (Granted, the term, "Tall Ship" is now a registered trademark of Sail Training International.) If a model looks to the untrained eye like a contemporary Navy Board or "Admiralty" ship model, but isn't, it's "Admiralty style." 
 
Somebody with more knowledge of the English period models known as "Navy Board" or "Admiralty Board" ship models will be able to provide a more authoritative explanation, but the term "Navy (or Admiralty) Board ship models" generally refers to those models of British naval vessels built circa 1650 through 1750, primarily by the British Admiralty shipyards . John Franklin provides a detailed explanation of the "type" in his book Navy Board Ship Models  1650-1750. Here, we're talking about the "Faberge eggs" of ship models. 
 
I think "Navy Board" or "Admiralty" style models are simply plank on frame models which resemble the "unplanked below the waterline plank on frame" models of various framing and construction styles which mimic the dominant appearance of the true contemporary Navy Board models. In fact, as Franklin explains, the stylized framing of the true contemporary Navy Board models evolved over time with characteristic "early" and "late" period styles and there is actually a variety of "types" and 'styles" among the true Navy Board models.
 
The Hahn Method is simply a modern day construction method and framing style that mimics the unplanked contemporary Navy Board models, a "faux Navy Board" style, if you will. 
 
What for want of a better term I'd call "scale scantling construction," where each piece is a scale version of full-size construction (nearly always a matter of pure conjecture, BTW) is a style made popular by present day French modelers. "Scale scantling" construction has nothing in common with true Navy Board models other than some stylistic conventions, such as the omission of decking and planking, which in this instance is required to expose the extremely complex workmanship of this style of model.
 
At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.  

For what it's worth, and without ever building a hull Hahn-style, but definitely studying it carefully and at length, my own conclusion is that building a hull as in full-size practice, with shortcuts permitted by scale, is less work by far. For those who haven't tried it, I can attest that the use of temporary battens to hold the frames in place creates a very stable hull framing structure in short order. Only a relatively small number of frames need be set up to establish the run of the battens and it is then easy to place the rest of the frames within the "basket" created by the battens, which can be fastened to the frames by lashing them with twisted wire, If memory serves, both Underhill and Davis describe this method in detail in their books. Once the battens are attached to a minimum of the frames, the battens spring a fair curve to the hull shape and the structure becomes very rigid. Once all the frames are in, the battens are removed as the planking progresses and the hull is free of external attachments that interfere with the planking process, making the planking task much easier. Or at least that's how it seems to me.

From McCaffery's miniature models I've seen "in person" in a museum and his book, I believe he uses very fine twisted wire for his standing and running rigging on his famous miniature models rather than fiber rope and you'd have to use a magnifying glass to tell the difference between his wire rigging and any fiber rigging. His book really doesn't do justice to the amazing detail at incredibly small size that he is able to accomplish with his miniatures. It's difficult to fully appreciate his accomplishments until you can see them "in the flesh." The difficulty of such fine work (and his aging eyes) may explain why he's apparently abandoned his ultra small-scale ship modeling and seems to have redirected his attention to building highly detailed 1:48 scale ship models, and carving miniature figureheads, merry-go-round horses, and dinosaur skeletons instead, although they are also so amazing as to be almost beyond belief!  He's also built an amazing 1:48 scale model of HMY Royal Caroline that is detailed down to the level of his miniature models, and it is truly breath-taking. He used fine silk rope on that model.
 
One can spend some very enjoyable time reading the website and links provided by his sales gallery from which the photos below were taken. See: Lloyd McCaffery — J. Russell Jinishian Gallery (jrusselljinishiangallery.com)
 
1:48 rigging detail on HMY Royal Caroline:
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

From McCaffery's miniature models I've seen "in person" in a museum and his book, I believe he uses very fine twisted wire for his standing and running rigging on his famous miniature models rather than fiber rope and you'd have to use a magnifying glass to tell the difference between his wire rigging and any fiber rigging. His book really doesn't do justice to the amazing detail at incredibly small size that he is able to accomplish with his miniatures. It's difficult to fully appreciate his accomplishments until you can see them "in the flesh." The difficulty of such fine work (and his aging eyes) may explain why he's apparently abandoned his ultra small-scale ship modeling and seems to have redirected his attention to building highly detailed 1:48 scale ship models, and carving miniature figureheads, merry-go-round horses, and dinosaur skeletons instead, although they are also so amazing as to be almost beyond belief!  He's also built an amazing 1:48 scale model of HMY Royal Caroline that is detailed down to the level of his miniature models, and it is truly breath-taking. He used fine silk rope on that model.
 
One can spend some very enjoyable time reading the website and links provided by his sales gallery from which the photos below were taken. See: Lloyd McCaffery — J. Russell Jinishian Gallery (jrusselljinishiangallery.com)
 
1:48 rigging detail on HMY Royal Caroline:
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I have a Vanda-Lay Dremel mototool drill press stand also. I agree, it's far better than the version made by Dremel and the best option out there short of a dedicated benchtop drill press or mill. I have a dedicated new-style Dremel tool mounted in it and haven't noticed any mounting problems. I believe Vanda-Lay may offer different mounting collars for the old-style and new-style Dremel mototools. I gave them a call some time back to ask if they had a mounting collar that would fit a one-inch Foredom handpiece and they said that indeed they did and could provide one on special order. I've never gotten around to ordering one since I have another small combination drill press and milling machine. I'm presently musing about buying the additional parts and turning my Vanda-Lay drill press stand into the full-blown Vanda-Lay combo drill press and X-Y-Z milling machine to use with my Foredom flex shaft machine. I'm curious about the rigidity and accuracy of their new mill/drill and I expect its milling ability is somewhat limited by the power source options. If anybody has one, I'd like to know their thoughts.
 
The entire Vanda-Lay line, which keeps growing, seems extremely clever and reasonably priced. The fit and finish of the entire system, which is entirely CNC-machined aluminum and stainless steel (I think the support post rods are, as I recall.) is perfectly executed. Their system keeps growing. After expanding their milling stand to include a Z-axis, they now have accessories that turn it into a wood turning lathe, a grinding stand, a table router, circular cut-off saw, and grinding and buffing mandrel. Over the years I've acquired more dedicated small power tools than I have time to use and hardly need any of the Vanda-Lay system products because I already have dedicated machines to do all this combination system does, but I still want one because they are just so darn neat.  I would say that, regrettably, their main limitation is their dependence upon the Dremel mototool as a primary power source. The option of using the Foredom flex-shaft instead would, I anticipate, be a great improvement. Beyond that, if Vanda-Lay can ever develop their own foot-controlled variable-speed and reversible higher-powered and more compact and balanced power source, they'd be on their way to having an excellent candidate for the model engineering power tool niche once occupied by the venerable Unimat system which has been vacant for decades now.

I never rely on restorations and recreations as a source for a model, unless the model is of the ship as it exists.  Constellation is no longer coppered, they can't afford it, or much else, and the people in charge are not historians.  The current spar deck arrangement was based on 1:96 scale plans from A.J.Fisher drawn based on the ship as she appeared in 1941, which is not how it was during the American Civil War, as the restoration folks claim to be working toward.
When I coppered my model of Constellation, which was launched in 1855, I looked at photos of ships, mostly 1860's to the 1890's.  There are no other real sources than this.  As stated, restorations are typically no more knowledgeable, and when consulted, usually refer you to their sources (which is how I found out about the AJFisher plans), which in most cases are the books we already consult; Lavery, Lees, etc.  There is no "Arming and Fitting of American Ships of War" and the closest thing to it, "The History of the American Sailing Navy" isn't the same sort of book, it's more of a narrative history with a few details rather than a technical guide.
At any rate; trying to figure out how Constellation was coppered by looking at photos of her and her contemporaries that showed it; I settled on the "no belt" pattern mentioned a few posts earlier.
I painted the hull copper, just-in-case, as this is a working model.  I used peel-and-stick copper tape sold by an electrical supplier online.  The tape is real copper, uncoated, and meant for indoor/outdoor use.  At 1:36 scale I needed tape at least 1/2 inch wide which model suppliers that have it, charge a great deal for, the electrical supplier cost less than half what model suppliers wanted.
(click the pics to see the larger versions)

 
I made dimples in a piece of sheet aluminum with a blunted nail, and pressed that onto the front of the copper piece on a "mars" eraser to imply the nail pattern.  This also made peeling the paper backing off much easier.

Starting at the ship's heel (the lowest point aft end of the keel), I began applying the copper sheets, wrapping them around the back edge of the stern post.  The sheets overlap about 1/16 of an inch.  Each piece was pressed by hand and gently rubbed with the mars eraser to press it to the hull.  This pushed the embossed dimples back out, making a countersunk, flat-head-nail look I was happy with.
 
This went on for a few thousand pieces of tape.  On occasion, a piece would have to be cut because it's end was too close to the end of the piece below it.  I cut pieces so the end would be 1/4" or more from each other when they would have been closer than that otherwise.  When one side was coppered, I worked on something else to let my fingers heal, the coppered the other side.  Finally I laid what I called the "dragon scales" on the stem and bottom of the keel.  The copper was trimmed to stop at the waterline, and a single row of sheets runs around the hull, covering all the points created by this trim.  The copper is therefore 7/16" above the LWL.

To the best I could determine, this was how Constellation and her contemporaries were coppered from the 1850 into the 1900's.  This may not apply to ships of other nationalities, or built in private yards.  Other than the belted, or non-belt patterns, I was mainly concerned with it's appearance fitting the 1:36 scale of my model, which I think it does.
This is how the copper looks 9 years later, after several sailings in the brackish waters of the Chesapeake Bay's tributaries.

I make up to four strands, with the option for a central core that I never use.
I don't have a problem with my rope not being round.
 
I have heard of, but not tried so far, the idea of using small wire as a core to make rope that could hold it's shape, like for better looking foot ropes.

Yeah. It makes non-sense that the "continuous" machine can only work with larger size thread only, and offers only tiny bobbins to load.
 
Thicker thread → The PL4 loads only limited amount, such as 10 meters or 30 feet. → Works well, but Rope rocket is also able to handle same amount of thicker thread at once.
Thinner thread → The PL4 loads more than 100 meters or 400 feet. → Doesn't work. Rope rocket also works well with the thinner threads, but the capacity is limited.
 
I can't help a topic about cored threads. I didn't try it because my biggest issue was making thinner rope.
 
By the way, I don't know why I didn't see Bob Cleek's post a few hours ago....

----
 
 

I'm sorry that I misunderstood the word take up bobbin.
 
I modified or extended the PL4 machine to overcome my issue. I replaced the take up bobbin and related drive systems. There is a red LED digit in the center of the machine. The digit shows speed of the take up spool.
 
Unfortunately, the modified machine is in my rooftop attic because I couldn't get a satisfying result from the machine. 

British ship modeler Brian King has written a number of interesting books about building 1:100 & 1:200 Royal Navy steam warships.  One book focuses on what he calls Model Engineering, the topic at hand.  In typical model ship book fashion he includes chapters on useful hand and power tools.
 
He has a few short comments about a tool that he calls a ”Linisher.”  This is the same as the small bench mounted vertical belt sanders sold everywhere in the US.  These typically use a 1” (25mm) wide belt.  He claims that this is a metal working tool with no real woodworking applications.
 
I bought one of these many years ago at a hardware store that was closing.  Like Mr King I did not find it to be particularly useful until taking his advice I used it to grind a HSS lathe tool.  I personally found it to be much easier to use than a conventional bench grinder.  It produced a well shaped tool quickly.

6 mm holders for triangular inserts are readily available from model engineering shops. I know sources in the UK and continental Europe, but wouldn't know any in the USA. Beware that all those inserts have rounded corners, so are not really suitable for turning sharp shoulders.
 
Grinding HSS-lathe tools for brass work is not a great magic, if you go about it systematically. I still found this the best option for really small pieces that need sharp inside corners. Once ground, I hone them from time to time on an Arkansas-stone. As there is no top-rake for brass, you can just rub the bit flat on the stone.

A simple method of aligning the tailstock is to;
place a piece of stock bar between chuck and tailstock centre
take a small cut on the diameter of the stock bar at the headstock end
measure diameter and set your cross slide dial to zero at depth of cut position
repeat the same depth of cut at the tailstock end of the bar and measure the diameter 
if they are the same you are good to go. If they are different you need to move the tailstock by half the difference in diameter (towards you if the diameter is bigger at the tailstock end) and then repeat the process until they measure the same.
Do this with the longest length you can fit between headstock and tailstock and you should be correct with the tailstock at any position along the bed. If parallel cutting varies when you move the tailstock, then the lathe bed is twisted. That can often be corrected by jacking the feet on the lathe. I don’t expect you to have these issues on such a short bed machine.
All the above should be done after you have set the headstock/saddle square. Bar in chuck, take a skim cut over say 50mm length and measure for parallel. If it’s not then adjust the headstock until it is.
 
Regarding the cutting tools;
The better the ground finish the better the cutting results as with a coarse finish you are more likely to get a “built up edge” if you are machining steels. This built up edge can be regularly removed by dressing your tools with a piece of wet stone.
Successful grinding of lathe tools and drills is a skilled task. Approach, side & front clearance, and rake are all different angles that all need to be considered when grinding tools. For drills it is backing off and point thinning etc.
 
I doubt that many people grind/sharpen drills these days and I think it’s right to consider whether it’s worth grinding standard lathe tools anymore. Indexable carbide inserts for turning are so much cheaper now that they might be considered a better alternative to grinding “in house”. I don’t know if indexable insert tool holders are available for your lathe but they are available in small sizes. Certainly 10mm square or less.
 
Worth a thought
 
Any questions, please feel free to ask as I have done a fair bit of lathe work in the past.
 
Cheers
Paul
 

CORRECTION: I mentioned a couple of Sherline items, such as a steady rest. I had "Sherline" in my head, but as it's actually a Taig lathe, I should have said "Taig" instead of "Sherline." Same difference. Obviously, if you any item, get one that fits your Taig lathe.
 
Eberhard is correct that a test bar can be very expensive, and this is quite true. They can be much less expensive if for use on small lathes. I'm not sure what size or style of spindle taper (if any) is on the Taig lathes, but smaller tapered test alignment bars (e.g. MT1) are going for as little as $40 new on eBay, (MT 1 Precision Parallel Test Bar for Lathe Machine Head Alignment | eBay) and, in any event, you can always easily make your own on an accurate lathe.  See: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Yes, they apparently are. The Taig literature notes that the stock three-jaw self-centering chuck has soft jaws, and these jaws must be trued to the individual spindle before it can be used accurately. This task will require a properly sized boring bar and boring bar holder. See: http://warhammer.mcc.virginia.edu/ty/7x10/vault/Lathes/Taig/Manual/TAIG-Manual.html 
 
See also: 
 
 
 
In checking out this interesting information on the Taig lathes, I noticed in their catalog that they do have a long, extended woodturning tool rest with two "legs." I mentioned making a longer tool rest or finding an aftermarket one, but there's no need as Taig already offers one as a standard accessory. 
 
I also saw where Taig advertised their "one step jawed" three jaw self-centering chuck as good for use in wood turning. I presume this is because the shorter jaws protrude less from the face of the chuck. I certainly will not say I know more about this point than the manufacturer does, but I will say that while a "stepped-jaw" chuck can be used to hold wood for turning, any wood turning operation done anywhere in the vicinity of protruding spinning chuck jaws, while done by some on occasion, is in my opinion (and experience) a very risky operation and unnecessary when safer curved-jaw woodturning chucks are available. Much like an airplane propeller, when such jaws spin, they often become virtually invisible... until they hit something. The rounded "cupped jaws" of most wood turning chucks don't pose the same "invisible" risk. 
 

 
Safety lectures are probably about as welcome as somebody ringing your doorbell with a Bible in their hand. "Safety warnings" have become so ubiquitous today that many of us, me included, tend to ignore them. (Has anybody every really read all the safety instructions now posted on every ladder we buy?) However, in the spirit of "do what I say, not what I do," I feel obligated to offer a brief sermon reminding anyone who is not a trained and experienced machinist or woodturner that a lathe is an extremely dangerous machine. You won't see a lathe, metal or wood turning, often listed in "Top Ten" lists of "most dangerous machines" because statistics are kept on the basis of how many injuries are reported per type of machine. Consequently, machines like table and chain saws always top these lists because there are so many more of them in the hands of untrained non-occupational operators. Comparatively, there are relatively few lathes in circulation for a variety of reasons, not least of all their operational complexity and price. That said, in terms of the inherent danger of any given tool in the course of its ordinary operation, lathes are not only among the most dangerous of any stationary power tool, but also capable of causing far more catastrophic injuries than many other power tools. The lathe is uniquely dangerous because 1) Its operation requires considerable knowledge and training, 2) its operation involves close proximity of the operator's body parts with unshielded moving parts of the machine, 3) its operation poses a high risk of "throwing" loose material of all sizes at high velocities, 4) its operation poses a high risk of "grabbing" any loose material which comes in contact with moving parts and when this occurs, the lathe will with great speed and strength pull that material into the moving parts of the lathe, and 5) its operation often involves high speeds and always involves tremendous torque. Certainly, the magnitude of the injuries inherent in all lathe operations tends to vary to some extent with the size and power of the lathe involved, but even the dangers posed by so-called "mini lathes" are sufficient to frequently cause the same type and degree of injury as a large size lathe. (It won't matter to a hand coming in contact with a spinning chuck jaw whether it's a three-inch or a twelve-inch chuck. Neither will the size of the lathe matter to an eye punctured by a hot chip shot out of it.) No one should ever operate a lathe without being completely familiar with all the operational details of that particular lathe and knowing and faithfully observing all safety procedures attendant to the operations they perform on it. I know this probably sounds like a pedantic lecture, but in pursuit of the rather "safe" hobby of building miniature ships, I fear that some might fail to recognize that a "miniature" lathe is not a tool that poses miniature risks.   
 
 
top slide tapers

Talking about parting-off: our small lathes are just not rigid and stiff enough for stress-free parting-off of anything say above 6 mm diameter, even when you use so-called parting knives. What I do is that I first cut a narrow groove and then complete the parting-off with a fret- or hacksaw while the machine is running at very slow speed.
 
One has to do this very cautiously, particularly when the part is held in a jaw-chuck, and make sure to keep the head/face out of the line of cutting in case there is a snag or backlash.
 
My most used cutting tool is an HSS-toolbit that is ground like a grooving bit with straight cutting face of 0.4 mm width at the front. This allows me to machine most small parts without changing the tool and therefore loosing measures. For brass the bit has zero top-rake, for steel, aluminium and acrylics around 3°.
 
Grinding HSS-toolbits is quite easy and a bench-grinder is an important machine in the workshop.
 
Another accessory I find most useful and would not be without is a quick-change toolpost (QCTP) with a good supply of inserts. This allows to pre-set toolheight without fuss and as name says to quickly change between different tools without having to reset the tools every time. Small enough QCTPs are not so easy to find, but they do pop up as aftermarket products on ebay etc. from time to time.
 
In fact, there are designs for QCTPs that can be machined on the lathe itself.
 
 
 
 

I have a Dominoff PL4 which I have to admit I've only fiddled with a bit so far. Necessity will be the mother of invention and I'll get to it when I have to, I suppose. I am curious about a couple of things. The only (potential and perhaps unjustified) complaints that I have so far with the Dominoff PL4 is the lack of documentation regarding operation, which I hope will be negated by experience when I get more of it and the size of the take-up spool. The machine will make rope "continuously," limited by the capacity of the standard sewing machine bobbins, but the wooden take-up spool doesn't appear to have anything near a capacity to hold what I'm expecting to be the amount of rope that can be made from the capacity of the bobbins (which will vary to some extent by the size of the thread loaded on the bobbins.) I wonder if anyone has addressed the take-up spool issue with a workable solution. I expect I'll turn a few extra take-up spools with smaller center cores eventually and that may be the trick, but I haven't gotten around to that either.  
 
When making four-strand rope, the Dominoff machines have a fifth central "tube" which allows (from a stationary fifth bobbin on the PL4) which provides a central core strand of proportionately smaller size around which the four main strands are twisted. Its purpose is to prevent the four main strands from "collapsing" and turning into what one person described as "square" rope. The other four-strand machines I've seen don't appear to provide for a central core strand when making four-strand rope. I'm curious as to whether this central core strand really makes a big difference. 

Being that a machinist's lathe is about the most versatile machine there is, there's a tremendous amount that can be learned about operating one. As a self-teaching lathe operator who has only scratched the surface of what can be known, the best advice anyone ever gave me about leaning to run my 12" Atlas-Craftsman lathe was to get a copy of The Manual of Lathe Operation & Machinists Tables published by the Atlas Press Co., maker of the Atlas-Craftsman lathes. It is not only specific to the Atlas-Craftsman lathes, but to all machinist's lathes in general and has all the information one could need. Fortunately, the 23rd Edition (which I think was the last) published in 1967 is available as a free PDF download from VintageMachinery.org. See: Atlas Press Co. - Publication Reprints - Manual of Lathe Operation & Machinists Tables (MOLO) 23rd Edition | VintageMachinery.org  Just below the lower left hand corner of th picture of the front of the book ("Publication Preview") is a link: "View PDF" in blue printing. Click on that and the whole book should come up on your screen. It may take a few seconds because it's a long 273 page download. Scroll down to read it. 
 
There are also some excellent U.S. military training manuals which are available as free PDF's you can google up. I found those very helpful because the military does an excellent job of teaching the average idiot like me who knows nothing about a subject how to do highly technical things. 

I have a Dominoff PL4 which I have to admit I've only fiddled with a bit so far. Necessity will be the mother of invention and I'll get to it when I have to, I suppose. I am curious about a couple of things. The only (potential and perhaps unjustified) complaints that I have so far with the Dominoff PL4 is the lack of documentation regarding operation, which I hope will be negated by experience when I get more of it and the size of the take-up spool. The machine will make rope "continuously," limited by the capacity of the standard sewing machine bobbins, but the wooden take-up spool doesn't appear to have anything near a capacity to hold what I'm expecting to be the amount of rope that can be made from the capacity of the bobbins (which will vary to some extent by the size of the thread loaded on the bobbins.) I wonder if anyone has addressed the take-up spool issue with a workable solution. I expect I'll turn a few extra take-up spools with smaller center cores eventually and that may be the trick, but I haven't gotten around to that either.  
 
When making four-strand rope, the Dominoff machines have a fifth central "tube" which allows (from a stationary fifth bobbin on the PL4) which provides a central core strand of proportionately smaller size around which the four main strands are twisted. Its purpose is to prevent the four main strands from "collapsing" and turning into what one person described as "square" rope. The other four-strand machines I've seen don't appear to provide for a central core strand when making four-strand rope. I'm curious as to whether this central core strand really makes a big difference. 

I'm not all that familiar with the Sherline lathes and I may be looking at some of these and not recognizing them, but, in no particular order, a quick offhand list would be:
 
A parting tool and tool holder for metal work. (It may be there with the cutting tools and I just don't see it.)
 
Set of suitably-sized center drill bits for metal turning. (Required if you are turning metal rod stock between head and tail stocks.)
 
A live tailstock center for metal work.
 
Sherline steady rest for wood and metal turning.
 
Buy or make (looks like an easy job) a longer wood turning tool rest. The Sherline one you have is rather short. You won't be able to turn anything longer than the tool rest you have there without moving the tool rest. Since it's mounted on your lathe cross-slide, it will be easy to move with your lead-screw handwheel, but still less accommodating than a longer tool rest. 
 
Alignment test bar ("test mandrel") for setting up concentricity of head and tail stocks.
 
Quick-change tool post for metal working.
 
Boring bar set and boring bar holder.
 
Suitable knurling tool(s)
 
A face plate and dogs.
 
An independent four-jaw chuck, 
 
Vamda=Lay Industries Sherline lathe duplicator if you plan to make multiple identical parts (chair legs, cannon, etc.) DUPLICATOR (vanda-layindustries.com)
 
A wood-turning chuck. (Jawed metal holding chucks are not intended for wood-turning and even in a tiny lathe like this one, can be dangerous if used to turn wood.) (Lots of cheap ones available from China.)
 
Wood-turning live center, spur driver and cup center. (You can't turn wood without them.)
 
A suitable dial test indicator and adjustable stand (It doesn't have to be a super-expensive one.)
 
Small Inside and outside calipers (for wood-turning measurements.)
 
Measuring calipers, dial or digital, your preference. (Vernier is fine, too, if you still have the eyesight for them. They are easy to use once you learn how to read the Vernier scale.) You don't have to spend and arm and a leg for the super-accurate ones. 
 
You may want to design and build a "backsplash" box with the ability to hook up a fairly powerful vacuum to it. This would be primarily for wood-turning, which generates a lot of dust and debris. If it can contain metal chips and especially "flying" cutting lubricants, so much the better. (Lathes generate a lot of mess.  )
 
As they so often say, it isn't the lathe that's expensive, it's the tooling you need to do anything with it!
 

FWIW, below is the overlap as drawn by Peter Goodwin in The Construction and Fitting of English Man of War, pp 225-26.  He does show the plating overlap the strake above.
Allan

 

When I wrote earlier 'from the keel up' I did not mean that the keel itself was covered first; just the hull planking. Those plates were put on next to last, with a small flange over the keel/garboard to overlap the first row of hull plating. The very last was under the keel itself, with another overlap to the side keel plates.

This is a bit after-the-fact at his point, but...
While there are businesses today that turn masts on giant lathes, that cheat wasn't available to the mast-makers in the times most of the ships we're modeling were made.
Forgoing "built-up" and metal masts, for our purposes, assume we start with a single log, as most spars for models will.  This is an abbreviation of the way real spars are made, and once you're accustomed to making spars this way, you'll find it's not so tedious as it seems.
I make, and have made, spars in this way for real boats, and models of any scale from 1:96 to 1:20.
 
A stick, is square-cut from a board of straight, clear grain, to the largest diameter of the finished spar. 
Where the spar has different shapes, such as in the pic below; square heel, 8-sided, round, 8 sided again, square doubling, angled cap-tenon; all are marked along with the taper in each section, if any.
Cut the tapers and sizes on all 4 sides.  I use a band-saw or scroll-saw on most of it, fine thin saws like a razor-saw on the delicate places.  You may need to remark the spar.
There's a jig for marking a spar to make it 8-sided, but when the stick is less than a centimeter around, it's near impossible to use; so I divide the width into 1/3 at each end to the taper, and connect the tick marks with a straight edge.  Do this to all 4 sides again, then using a knife, scraper, plane, or whatever work best for the size of the spar you're making, and take off the square corners down to the lines you drew to make this portion of the spare 8-sided.  The portions of the spar that will be round also are made 8-sided first.
For the portions that finish 8-sided, you're done, but for the round portions, you need to knock off the corners to make that portion 16-sided.  At small scales this is probably best done with a scraper.  Technically you then make it 32-sided, and even 64-sided; but at our scales you just gently knock off corners to get it to round - all done by eye.
You will find making yourself a "shooting board" to cradle the stick as you work will be a big help.  Cut a strip that's about 1/3 the sticks diameter at 45° down it's length. and glue the two strips to a board so the 45° cut forms a V for the spar to lay in.  Put a block at one end for the spar to stop against, and maybe a bock on the bottom of the opposite end to hook your workbench to keep the work in front of you instead of on the floor on the other side of the room. 

Here's a portion of my work log on a 1:20 scale schooner where I made it's bowsprit from white pine using this method.
http://todd.mainecav.org/model/pride/model11.html
 
The lower masts of that 1:20 scale schooner are hollow, and made using the "Bird's Mouth Method"  which isn't really practical for smaller scales where the mast is less than 2cm in diameter, but you can see them being made this way here:
http://todd.mainecav.org/model/pride/model10.html

Being that a machinist's lathe is about the most versatile machine there is, there's a tremendous amount that can be learned about operating one. As a self-teaching lathe operator who has only scratched the surface of what can be known, the best advice anyone ever gave me about leaning to run my 12" Atlas-Craftsman lathe was to get a copy of The Manual of Lathe Operation & Machinists Tables published by the Atlas Press Co., maker of the Atlas-Craftsman lathes. It is not only specific to the Atlas-Craftsman lathes, but to all machinist's lathes in general and has all the information one could need. Fortunately, the 23rd Edition (which I think was the last) published in 1967 is available as a free PDF download from VintageMachinery.org. See: Atlas Press Co. - Publication Reprints - Manual of Lathe Operation & Machinists Tables (MOLO) 23rd Edition | VintageMachinery.org  Just below the lower left hand corner of th picture of the front of the book ("Publication Preview") is a link: "View PDF" in blue printing. Click on that and the whole book should come up on your screen. It may take a few seconds because it's a long 273 page download. Scroll down to read it. 
 
There are also some excellent U.S. military training manuals which are available as free PDF's you can google up. I found those very helpful because the military does an excellent job of teaching the average idiot like me who knows nothing about a subject how to do highly technical things. 

In the picture see below I have some tooling some collets (which I was surprised that only one or two are completely open- can push material through headstock).  The long shiny rod at the bottom is supposed to be a live center (it works but not what I expected).  But yeah a longer tool rest would be very easy to build.  It mounts directly to the bed ways so you loosen a bolt and move then lock it down.  It’ll work not dissatisfied with any of the options just thought some….  Well, not what I was expecting.  (Even though I seen pictures before I bought them).
 
 The 3 jaw I believe they are soft jaws but if not I can get some.  Step jaw I like more than the single step on the taig 3 jaw chuck. 
 
all in all very happy with it so far and thank you for all your input.  Greatly appreciated.
 

I'm not all that familiar with the Sherline lathes and I may be looking at some of these and not recognizing them, but, in no particular order, a quick offhand list would be:
 
A parting tool and tool holder for metal work. (It may be there with the cutting tools and I just don't see it.)
 
Set of suitably-sized center drill bits for metal turning. (Required if you are turning metal rod stock between head and tail stocks.)
 
A live tailstock center for metal work.
 
Sherline steady rest for wood and metal turning.
 
Buy or make (looks like an easy job) a longer wood turning tool rest. The Sherline one you have is rather short. You won't be able to turn anything longer than the tool rest you have there without moving the tool rest. Since it's mounted on your lathe cross-slide, it will be easy to move with your lead-screw handwheel, but still less accommodating than a longer tool rest. 
 
Alignment test bar ("test mandrel") for setting up concentricity of head and tail stocks.
 
Quick-change tool post for metal working.
 
Boring bar set and boring bar holder.
 
Suitable knurling tool(s)
 
A face plate and dogs.
 
An independent four-jaw chuck, 
 
Vamda=Lay Industries Sherline lathe duplicator if you plan to make multiple identical parts (chair legs, cannon, etc.) DUPLICATOR (vanda-layindustries.com)
 
A wood-turning chuck. (Jawed metal holding chucks are not intended for wood-turning and even in a tiny lathe like this one, can be dangerous if used to turn wood.) (Lots of cheap ones available from China.)
 
Wood-turning live center, spur driver and cup center. (You can't turn wood without them.)
 
A suitable dial test indicator and adjustable stand (It doesn't have to be a super-expensive one.)
 
Small Inside and outside calipers (for wood-turning measurements.)
 
Measuring calipers, dial or digital, your preference. (Vernier is fine, too, if you still have the eyesight for them. They are easy to use once you learn how to read the Vernier scale.) You don't have to spend and arm and a leg for the super-accurate ones. 
 
You may want to design and build a "backsplash" box with the ability to hook up a fairly powerful vacuum to it. This would be primarily for wood-turning, which generates a lot of dust and debris. If it can contain metal chips and especially "flying" cutting lubricants, so much the better. (Lathes generate a lot of mess.  )
 
As they so often say, it isn't the lathe that's expensive, it's the tooling you need to do anything with it!