Bob Cleek

The ideas here helped a lot & I am happy with the results. Most of the tools I used are below: some mesh sanding sheets 400,600, 800 grit; a sponge pad used in a drill, Autosal metal polish. I actually did borrow a fabric polishing head & green Tripoli wax, & it helped as well but didn't seem to do as much as the Autosol & sponge pad...but perhaps I needed to do both. You can see the reflection is  clear, but not a full mirror finish. It took a couple of hours of hand sanding using the sanding sheets, with a light spray lubricant at the same time, about an hour with the fabric head, & about 30 minutes with the sponge head.

 
 There is a slight ghosting in the reflections, but I am very pleased with that. It adds of softness to the reflection that is very appealing, & was quite unexpected. You can see the effect in the reflection below.
 
 
It's likely that I could have gotten closer to a full mirror finish, but I think the result that I got is what I prefer.

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
 
Do not use a buffing wheel chucked into a drill press! Odds are the drill press chuck is held in the quill with a Morse taper which is not designed for side loading. If the wheel is used with any significant pressure, which you will need, the Morse taper will probably come loose (unless it's rusted solid) and cause the chuck to drop out of the quill and possibly cause serious injury to the operator. (Din't ask me how I know this! )
 
Use a six inch or larger solid tightly spiral-sewn cotton or felt buffing wheel mounted on a proper horizontal shaft. Use emory compound (usually black or dark grey) or Tripoli (usually reddish brown) for aggressive buffing. There is also a compound made specifically for stainless, which is fine, as well. When done with the basic buffing, switch to a canton buffing wheel, which is made of a stack of cotton that is loosely sewn, or not sewn at all, and use white rouge compound. (Never use anything but white rouge on the wheel you use for final buffing.)  It will take a long time to bring the shine up. If your buffing wheel gets too full of polishing compound, it can be renewed by gently applying the toothed edge of a hacksaw blade to the wheel's edge to scrape off old compound. Make sure the saw blade is held in a saw frame so it cannot cut you if it catches on the wheel.) Work on one small area at a time until it's done. (If you go all over the sheet, you'll give up long before the whole sheet comes up to a good shine. When it's all shined, wax the sheet with a quality non-yellowing wax. 
 
When working with metal sheet on the buffing wheel, wear leather gloves and exercise extreme caution never to present the edge of the metal plate to the wheel in such a way that the edge of the plate can be caught by when wheel and be knocked out of your hands. Serious injury can result. Always be aware of the wheel's direction of spin when presenting the piece to the lower edge of the wheel when it is spinning downward to be sure the edge will not catch on the wheel. A face mask is a must, and a shop smock is handy, because this is a dirty job.
 
Again, it will take a long time, but you eventually will have a stainless plate with a mirror finish. This is not a job to attempt doing by hand or even with a Dremel tool.  Stainless is hard stuff.
 
Here's a good video how-to-do-it. The safety instructions are very good. Don't underestimate a buffing wheel. It can be a dangerous machine.
 
 
 

I was only going out to the workshop to do a bit of tidying up but honest! but got a little sidetracked I only worked for a hour and half.
 
The forward three ribs were a breeze. When I lifted the keel off the form I left the three aft ribs pinned to the form at the bottom.
 

 
when I replaced it they slotted right back in.
 

 

 

 

 
Then a wet and wrap in a wet paper towel and again on minute each in the microwave.

 
Now to relax for the rest of the evening.
 
Michael
 
 

Cotton and natural rope actually sags more than poly.  It is so finicky when it comes to moisture.  What you describe as sagging one hour and super tight the next absolutely happens with natural and especially cotton ropes.   In fact....if you rig with cotton rope on an especially humid day and make your lines tight......when it dries out the next day the lines will shrink.  I have seen belaying pins pull away from the bulwarks when this happens because cotton shrinks when wet and then it dries.
 
Poly on the other hand is more slippery but has much more stretch.  So if the lines are taught the stretchiness tends to prevent any sagging at all.  Its a trade off.  I like the natural stuff but it tends to be fuzzy.   I also like the poly ropes because it is so crisp and clean.   
 
Now that the unravelling issue is solved,  it is just a matter of personal preference.  
 
I never belay my lines permanently when first rigged.  I let them sit and adjust for a while.  Then I tension them later and permanently belay them.  That helps with either material.  With poly line there is no dye needed.  Only certain brands are really shiny.  So many colors to choose from.  Cotton is more problematic that way although good color choices are out there.   It just tends to be kind of fuzzy.
 
Chuck

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

Beautiful! Does it sound good?  
 
Have you ever visited the website of the Craftsmanship Museum that is run by the Sherline Company that makes small lathes? It's full of beautiful photos and information about the most amazing miniatures and models I've ever seen. (The website has a lot of "depth" beneath the home page, so play around with it to see how much is there.)  Check it out: https://www.craftsmanshipmuseum.com/
 
And all moving parts in the prototype move in the miniature model!

"And I am comfortable  keeping my fingers closer to the blade than I would with the Byrne saw without fearing an injury."
 
Getting comfortable keeping one's fingers closer to the blade... without fearing an injury" is often the cause of "missing some pieces."  
 

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

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

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

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

So, the moldings I cut and ebonized yesterday have been assembled on the base and the acrylic pedestals installed. The model has been mounted on these using spots of epoxy. I now have to wait for the case to be made before I can mount the base on the much larger sub-base and attach the oars. Almost there!
 

I LOVE McMaster Carr, have also used it for decades at work and home.  I used to live 10 minutes from their DC in NJ and would go pick up orders the same day or next day.  The only thing I have not used then for is copper wire as I found smaller quantities at a better price on line.  Overall though they cannot be beat in quality, service and price compared to hobby shops and even hardware stores in most cases.  Grainger is another good source and they are worth a look as well.
Allan

Brass or copper are the ideal materials, easy to form and solder, and strong enough.  They blacken easily, with spots touched up with flat black paint.  Using a harder material like piano wire would seem to be doing things the hard way.
 
Roger

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

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

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


 
 

 

 

 





 
 
 

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

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00017a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00018a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00019a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00019a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00021a/resource/
 

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00022a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00023a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00024a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00025a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00026a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00027a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00028a/resource/
 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00029a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00030a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00031a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00032a/resource/
 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00033a/resource/
/
 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00034a/resource/
 

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00035a/resource/

 
 
 
HAER cabin drawings of the San Francisco scow schooner Alma, a smaller vessel about Swift's size: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=alma scow schooner

Great information there! Just enough to explain the use of the term, "caulked trunnels." By that is obviously meant, variously, wedging the end of the trunnel, or actually caulking it, but not in the way described by one poster above as driving oakum in the seam between the trunnel and the plank! This latter meaning also better explains the purpose of a "trenail caulking iron" mentioned in the Antique Tool Collectors' Research Forum. http://www.numismalink.com/drew.ency.34.59a.html  I've never before heard of the method described, but it makes perfect sense. The trunnel iron would be a "dumb iron" the width of a trunnel diameter used to split the trunnel end-grain and spread it to create a caulking seam. Oakum would then be driven into the crossed caulking seams in the head of the trunnel with an ordinary spike iron the width of the trunnel diameter, thereby spreading four quadrants of the trunnel end to apply pressure to the sides of the hole. These seams would then be stopped as any other  caulked seam. The term, "caulking," is used consistently here, and properly, to increase the pressure against adjacent faying surfaces in order to create a watertight seal. The inboard end of a through-trunnel would presumably be simply wedged, as watertightness from that end would not be a concern. Trunnels which were set in "blind holes" which were not drilled entirely through the frame, would be "wedged blind," being split at the inboard end with the wedge partially inserted before driving, such that when the trunnel "bottomed out" in the hole, the wedge would be driven fully into the trunnel, spreading the end of the trunnel as it reached the bottom of the blind hole.
 
This mechanics of caulking are often misunderstood by laypersons who think that it is the "caulking" material that "keeps the water out." (Although in modern general usage the term is used to describe the use of putties and tube-packaged goops to seal windows and bathtub seams and so do just that.) Not so. "Caulking" in the shipbuilding sense, is the practice of hammering material between joints to increase the pressure of the faying surfaces against each other which then, with the swelling of the wood in a wet environment, creates a tight seam under great pressure. That tight wood-to-wood joint is what makes the joint watertight.
 
So, if one is anally oriented, it's time for them to start drawing little black (or dark brown) "X's" on the heads of all those over-scale trunnels to which they seem so attached.
 
As for the good Mr. Caruthers' explanation of "caulked" plugs over countersunk fastenings as described above, I have to say "baloney" to that. Plugs are cut so their grain, when in place, will run the same as the host plank, not perpendicular to the surrounding grain, as do trunnels. (Were it otherwise, the plug's end-grain, being "tougher," would wear less than the face of the planks and, in short order, the plugs would begin to stand proud of the plank, resulting in a "bumpy" deck, making holystoning difficult, if not impossible, and protruding plugs liable to being knocked loose over time.) Trunnels, as described earlier, are held in place by being driven drier than the surrounding wood and then swelling up as they absorb moisture. Plugs are driven tight, but are held in place simply by that friction in their holes and may, or may not, be set in thickened shellac or other adhesive to ensure they stay in place. Plugs are not subject to the mechanical stresses that trunnels are. In fact, plugs are subject to little or no stress whatsoever once in place. Coating the countersunk head of an iron fastening with tar before the plug is set is sufficient to retard rusting which could serve to push the plug up and out of the countersunk hole. Traditionally, square-cut bare iron ship's nails had a string of oakum wrapped around the shank beneath their heads and the nail and oakum wrapping dipped in tar immediately before driving the square nail into the smaller round drilled pilot hole for the nail. The same was done beneath the washers with iron bolts and drifts. (This was in later times called "Chinese galvanizing," but I'm not exactly sure why. Perhaps it was a perjorative reference intended to convey a "quick and dirty" cost-cutting practice.) The plug was then set in the countersunk hole. There's no way to "caulk" a countersunk plug because its end-grain can't be split because it runs horizontally, not vertically, as does a trunnel's.  Obviously, if a driven iron fastening were so loose that it was not watertight all on its own, watertightness was the least of its problems! 

I don't claim to be an authority on Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century British Admiralty shipbuilding practices, but I do have a small bit of hands-on experience calking seams and driving trunnels. I may later stand corrected, but I don't believe seams on vertical surfaces were ever payed, which is the process of pouring hot molten liquid tar (or pitch compounds) from a hot can with a specialized spout designed for the purpose. Generally, then, it was only decks which were payed. I believe seams on vertical surfaces were "stopped" with similar "stopping" compounds of "plastic," rather than "liquid," pitch or tar applied with a putty knife. 
 
I don't dispute the obvious reference in the contemporary specifications to "caulking" trunnels, but, in that instance, I believe the reference is to the practice of sealing the end-grain with tar or pitch inside of the trunnel hole immediately before driving the trunnel or to apply stopping to wedged trunnels which had split or broken edges after driving. There is certainly no reason to drive oakum around a trunnel as has been described above in this thread. That's just plain silly. I've got at least a couple of dozen caulking irons in my caulker's bucket, which I obtained many years ago from the widow of a lifelong master ship caulker. While some are "bent irons," with their shafts bent to permit accessing difficult to reach seams, none are shaped like a gouge on the working edge of the iron for the purpose of caulking curved seams or trunnels. This is simply because such a gouge-shaped iron would prevent the proper driving of the caulking material which requires the iron to be "rocked" as the material is progressively driven down the length of the seam. Furthermore, caulking must be driven into a proper "V"-shaped "caulking seam" and there are irons called "dumb irons" which are made for the purpose of creating such seams. There's no such thing as a "dumb iron" for making caulking seams around the sides of trunnels. Making a caulking seam around the head of a trunnel would serve no purpose whatsoever, and would serve to weaken the holding power of the trunnel itself. 
 
Most of my caulking irons were made by C.Drew and Company, the foremost American manufacturers of wooden shipwrights tools back in the day. Fortunately, some wonk has posted the old Drew catalogs on the Antique Tool Collectors' Research Forum. http://www.numismalink.com/drew.ency.34.59a.html The Drew catalogs do mention "treenail irons," but provide no details or pictures. The author adds a detailed note, however, explaining that another apparently British catalog shows a picture of a "treenail iron" and describes the treenail iron as "like a spike iron but usually with a blunt edge about 1" wide" and the catalog explains that these were "Used for splitting and spreading the head of a trenail (British spelling) before inserting a wedge or caulking material." It remains a mystery why a caulker would ever have occasion to "caulk" a wedge, except that wedges or trunnel edges may chip, split, creating defective voids and these would be filled with stopping compound as the caulkers came across them when stopping the hull seams. http://www.numismalink.com/drew.note19.html
 
Bottom line, it would appear nobody ever drove oakum around trunnels. Just imagine, were the assertion true, how much work that would be to create the caulking seam, drive the caulking material home. and stop the seam in thousands of trunnels ... and for what purpose? 

Paying a horizontal seam with hot tar is a trick I'd love to see.  
 
Fascinating. i've never heard of caulked trunnels. or "Dutchmen" (a graving piece let in over a bolt in this case.) Trunnels are always driven as dry as they can be into tight holes so that when they swell back in the higher relative humidity, they will hold fast. They may also be tenoned, blind at the bottom, and/or at the top. There's no caulking in the world that is going to create a stronger friction fit than that (which would only be around the outer edge of the trunnel, anyhow.) I can't imagine what benefit there would possibly be to a "caulked" trunnel. As for Dutchmen, there's not enough meat on them for any sort of caulking to hold them in place reliably. Until the advent of modern adhesives, they were generally bedded and mechanically fastened.
 
Is there a book that tells more about early trunneling practices? I sure can't wrap my head around what you're describing about caulking them.

Pencils.  Use the eraser against the wood.  It grips better than wood on wood.

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

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00017a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00018a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00019a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00019a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00021a/resource/
 

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00022a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00023a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00024a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00025a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00026a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00027a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00028a/resource/
 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00029a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00030a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00031a/resource/

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00032a/resource/
 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00033a/resource/
/
 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00034a/resource/
 

 
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca1506.sheet.00035a/resource/

 
 
 
HAER cabin drawings of the San Francisco scow schooner Alma, a smaller vessel about Swift's size: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=alma scow schooner

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


 
 

 

 

 





 
 
 

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