Bob Cleek

I've heard of PSME for decades. They supposedly have "the mother of all catalogs" for all things related to modeling. That said, they've got a single page website and no online catalog. Their website doesn't even mention their catalog. Like most, I expect, I've never felt like paying $12 for a mail order catalog. I can't for the life of me understand why a mail order company wouldn't at least have an online catalog in this day and age. It seems like a self-destructive business model! 

I've heard of PSME for decades. They supposedly have "the mother of all catalogs" for all things related to modeling. That said, they've got a single page website and no online catalog. Their website doesn't even mention their catalog. Like most, I expect, I've never felt like paying $12 for a mail order catalog. I can't for the life of me understand why a mail order company wouldn't at least have an online catalog in this day and age. It seems like a self-destructive business model! 

I have been researching topsail schooner rigging and sail plans. I found many questions, answers and comments on the Forum, but no one place that discussed the many variations. I decided to post information that I have found to help others who are interested in these ships.
 

This is a sail plan for a "typical" two mast topsail schooner with one topsail on the fore mast and no topsails on the main mast. Schooners with three or more masts normally repeated the sails and rigging shown here on the main mast.
 
The sails are:
 
1. Flying jib
2. Jib
3. Fore staysail
4. Fore gaff sail or fore sail
5. Main gaff sail or main sail
7. Main gaff topsail
9. Fore course
10. Fore topsail
11. Fore topsail studding sails
 
There were many different rigs for the fore sheets. Here are a few examples. Keep in mind that the sizes of the sails and the attachment points for the stays varied quite a bit from ship to ship. These are just general guides. The position of the fore mast and distance to the bow influenced how the fore stay was rigged, and therefore the fore staysail. Some vessels had the foremast far forward, just aft of the foot of the bowsprit and knights heads. Rigging the forestay to the forward end of the bowsprit (A) was more effective (stronger) and allowed a larger fore staysail than rigging it to the deck at the bow (B). But if the fore mast was positioned farther aft from the bow, as was common, configurations B and C provided adequate strength for the forestay and allowed a suitable sized staysail. Another variation seen on some schooners is a boom for the fore staysail that is anchored to a post on the deck at the bow or on the bowsprit and controlled with sheets similar to the main sail boom.
 

A. This arrangement was common on smaller ships, but some fairly large topsail schooners also used it. The fore staysail (3) is large and rides on the forestay attached at or near the bowsprit cap and to the lower fore top.
 
The jib (2) is also fairly large and rides on the jib stay attached near the end of the bowsprit and to the lower fore top. These sails and stays do not interfere with the fore topsail.
 
The flying jib (1) is shown dotted because not all ships carried one. It rode on a stay attached at the end of the bowsprit and above the working position of the fore topsail yard. If it was present it could be larger than shown here and rigged lower on the stay. There was a lot of variation in the flying jibs.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
B. Here the fore staysail (3) is smaller, and rides on the forestay attached to the hull near the bow of the ship and to the lower fore top.
 
The jib (2) is smaller than in the first example and rides on the jib stay attached to the bowsprit cap and to the lower fore top.
 
The flying jib (1) is fairly large. It may ride on a separate flying jib stay attached to the end of the bowsprit and above the normal working position of the fore topsail yard, or it may ride on the fore topmast stay that attaches at the end of the bowsprit and near the top of the fore topmast.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
C. This rig was found on larger schooners that often had a topsail and topgallant.  The fore staysail (3) rode on the fore stay attached to the hull at the bow and the bottom of the fore top.
 
The jib (2) rode on the jib stay that was attached near the bowsprit cap and to the upper foretop. However, this arrangement would not have been used on a topsail schooner - the stay would interfere with the topsail. The stay would have been rigged to the lower top.
 
The outer jib or fore topmast staysail (1a) rode on the fore topmast stay that attached near the end of the bowsprit and near the top of the fore topmast above the working position of the topsail yard or topgallant yard.
 
The flying jib (1) rode on a stay attached at the end of the bowsprit and near the top of the fore topmast.
 
Larger ships also carried a flying jib boom (not shown) attached to the jib boom that extended farther forward, and the flying jib stay was rigged to the end of the flying jib boom. Up to five jibs (main jib, second jib, third jib, storm jib and spitfire jib) could be rigged forward of the fore staysail (but not all at once) , even on small ships like a single mast cutter!
 
 
These ships were called topsail schooners because unlike pure fore-and-aft schooners they carried spars and square sails on their topmasts. The arrangement of square sails on the foremast were also found on the main mast of some topsail schooners, raising the question of whether they were actually brigs or brigantines.
 

 
Smaller ships carried just the fore topsail (10) on the fore mast. They may also have used studding sails (11) to increase sail area for speed. Larger ships may have carried a fore topgallant (12) above the topsail. Up through the early 1800s the topsail was typically taller than the topgallant. In the mid to late 1800s some ships carried lower (10) and upper (12) topsails that were about the same height. Both arrangements can still be found on modern topsail schooners. Studding sails may also have been carried for the topgallants.
 
A variation of the topsail was the raffee topsail (13) that was used on some vessels. Still another variation on this sail did away with the top spar and just flew a triangular sail.
 
The topsail and topgallant yards were not attached to the masts with trusses, slings or parrals, but were supported entirely by halliards and in some cases by lifts. The course yards often were also not attached to the mast. This allowed the yards and attached sails and rigging to be lowered to the deck and raised again without requiring crew to go aloft. While this may sound strange this practice was also used on large square rigged ships for topgallants and royals. The sails could be rigged to the yards on deck, complete with halliards, lifts and braces, and then hauled aloft. It was a quick way to set sail or reduce canvas as needed. A consequence of this is that some schooners did not have rat lines on the shrouds. When necessary to go aloft the crew climbed the hoops for the gaff sails or were hoisted aloft in a sling or bosuns chair.
 
 
The courses (9) were not always flown. They were effective when sailing with a following breeze (wind from astern). It seems to me that if a ship was flying both fore course and main course it would be a brig. The course could be rigged to the yard and used like the fore sail on square riggers. In this case the yard was called the "fore course yard." However, some vessels did not carry a course and the yard was called a "spreader." On some schooners the course was not laced to the yard, but was hauled up by lines attached to the head of the sail. In some cases there was a short spar or club yard about one third the width of the head of the sail attached to the center of the sail, and this spar was raised with a halliard.
 
In some cases a "bonnet" was attached to the lower edge of the sail. This was a rectangular sheet that increased the sail area of the course. On very large ships an additional rectangular sheet called a "drabbler" was attached to the lower edge of the bonnet to increase sail area further. However, I have seen no reference of a drabbler being used on schooners, and I'm not sure bonnets were often used on schooners.
 
There was a consequence to adding square sails to the schooners. Pure fore-and-aft schooners have rather slender light-weight masts because there isn't much weight high on the masts and the force of the wind was distributed on the lower masts. When the topsails were added the masts had to be more robust to carry the added weight of the sails, spars and rigging. The standing rigging had to be heavier to take the added force from the square sails.
 
Ships with square sails on the fore mast only often had fore masts of significantly larger diameter than the main masts. Another consequence, quite pronounced in the Baltimore clippers, is that the beam was widest forward at the foremast instead of midships as in other vessels. The amount of load a hull can carry is related to the amount of water displaced, so the wider beam forward produced more lift for the heavier mast. On ships with topsails on both masts the masts were the same diameter and the beam was widest midships between the masts.
 

 
The largest sails were the fore and main gaff sails, also known as the fore sail (4) and main sail (5). These were suspended from gaffs or booms that attached with jaws to the lower masts just below the tops. The gaffs typically were angled upward to increase the sail area. The gaffs could be lowered to reef the sails. The sails were laced (bent) to the gaffs and attached to the lower masts with rope loops or wooden hoops.
 
The main sail (5) was always bent to the main boom, a horizontal spar that attached with jaws to the lower mast at the lowest position that allowed the boom to swing free from side to side without striking objects on deck, railings or bulwarks. Some schooners had a triangular main sail with the peak hauled up with a halliard. This was called a "Bermuda rig."
 
The fore sail (4) sometimes was attached to a boom - this was common on fore-and-aft rigged schooners. But many topsail schooners had "loose footed" fore sails that did not carry a boom (as shown above), and the clew (lower aft corner) was rigged with port and starboard sheets to positions on the deck or bulwark aft of the main mast. This allowed the sail area to be larger than if a boom was used. When the sail was shifted from side to side the windward sheet was loosened and the lee sheet was tightened to draw the sail around the main mast to the leeward side.
 
A "ringtail" (8) was sometimes hoisted to the aft edge of the mainsail to increase sail area in the same way studding sails were attached to the spars. The ringtail boom attached to the main boom with hardware that allowed it to be pulled in when not in use or run out to carry the ringtail. The ringtail yard was hoisted to the end of the main gaff, raising the ringtail sail with it.
 
It was possible to attach a bonnet (rectangular sail to the bottom edge of the sail or boom to increase sail area. The lower corners were controlled with sheets. I do not know if bonnets were actually used on the gaff sails. Another method was to attach a triangular "watersail" to the lower edge of the sail or boom, with a single sheet controlling the loose corner. Yet another version of the watersail was rigged like a horizontal studding sail, with the yard attached to the aft end of the boom and hanging vertically. The sail was bent to the yard and the loose corners were controlled with sheets. I have seen pictures of watersails used on schooners but I do not know when these came into use, or if it was very common.
 

 
 
Some schooners carried a fore gaff topsail (6a), also called a jib-headed topsail,  behind the fore topmast (this sail was also rigged as in 7c below). The top corner attached to a halyard near the top of the mast. The clew (lower aft corner) attached to a sheet at the end of the fore gaff. The throat (fore lower corner) was pulled down with a tack line. It has the advantage that it swings outboard with the fore gaff sail when the ship is running with the wind and increases sail area. The main top stay interferes with it, so it would be raised after the ship set a course. I have seen a few sail plans showing the fore gaff topsail on 19th century vessels, but it is not common on modern ships.
 
Other ships carried a main top staysail (6b) that rode on the main top stay. A halliard raised the upper aft corner, a tack pulled the lower fore corner to the fore mast, and a sheet pulled the lower aft corner to the main top. This is a much simpler rig and is the most common configuration on topsail schooners from the 18th century to modern times. However American New England fishing schooners often carried a larger version of the main top staysail, often called a fisherman's staysail. These were four-sided sails with the peak pulled to the top of the main mast by a halliard, the throat was fastened to the fore top, the tack was pulled down to deck near the fore mast, and the clew was pulled down and often secured to the main boom. The most common form was as shown in 6c with the sail extending about half way down the fore mast. A more extreme version (6d) found on some racing vessels had the tack and clew extending almost to the deck. These sails had to be hauled down when tacking or jibing and raised again after the new heading was set.
 

 
 
The main mast also carried a gaff topsail (7), but there were many different types of gaff topsails.
 
 

 
The simplest version (7a), a jib-headed topsail, was the same as the fore gaff topsail (6a) described above. It was a "flying" sail with no attachments directly to the gaff or main topmast. It could be raised and lowered from the deck. The second type (7b) was the standing gaff topsail, also called a "shoulder-of-mutton" type. It attached to the topmast with lacing or hoops. It used the same halliards, sheets and tack as the flying sail to control it, but it had to be reefed by crewmen in the top. But on some vessels a brail was rigged to the corners of the sail allowing the sail to be pulled together into a "wad" to reef it by pulling on the brail from the deck.
 
 


 
The yard topsail (7c) had the sail laced (bent) to a yard or spar that was hoisted to the top of the topmast with a halliard. The lower corners were controlled with sheet and tack like the flying gaff topsail. The American version (left above) had the halliard attached below the midpoint of the yard. This raised the upper part of the sail above the top of the topmast to catch higher breezes. The lower fore corner had to be pulled down hard with the tack to keep the spar upright. The sail was approximately triangular. This rig was very common on Baltimore clippers. The European version (7d), called a "lugsail" type, allowed the spar to hang more or less horizontally, like a studding sail or ringtail spar. The sail was trapezoidal or rectangular. Both versions 7c and 7d could be raised and lowered from the deck.
 

 
 
A fifth version (7e) is similar to the shoulder-of-mutton (7b) except the top of the sail is bent to a small gaff that rides on the mast with jaws. The forward edge of the sail is attached to the mast with hoops. The lower corners are rigged like the shoulder-of-mutton sail. The final version (7f) is similar to the American version (7c), but the lower end of the spar was attached directly to the fore top cap. The sail was laced to the spar. A halliard was attached above the center of the spar to raise it erect. With arrangements 7e and 7f  the sail could not be lowered to the deck so crewmen had to go into the top to furl the sail. Version 7f was uncommon, and may have been used only in 20th century racing boats. I have seen no evidence it was used on 18th or 19th century topsail schooners. I included it just to emphasize the variety in the configuration of gaff topsails.
 

 
 
 
The Cornish yard topsail type 7g was similar to 7f except the spar was attached to the gaff boom. In some cases the bottom of the spar was attached with a metal fitting on the boom, and in other cases the bottom of the spar was tied to the boom.
 
The jackyard topsail (7h) was introduced in the late 1800s to cheat on racing rules that limited gaff topsail sizes in some classes of racing boats. The rules were vague as to where the sheet attached, and adding the jackyard (which wasn't mentioned in the rules) allowed the sail size to be enlarged. In some cases the jackyard topsail was about equal in area to the main sail!
 
****
 
Remember that these examples do not cover all possible variations in the rigging of topsail schooners, but they do show the more common rigs. If you are building a model of one of these ships, and you are having trouble interpreting the plans (or if you don't have plans), maybe these drawings will help.

Actually, not exactly. This is why it is important for modelers to learn how the ships they model were rigged and how that rigging worked. Details such as belaying locations commonly varied from ship to ship and time to time on a given ship. The maxim, "Different ships, different long splices." applied. Given that, there are conventional rigging arrangements applicable to different historical periods and using these arrangements is entirely accurate if the correct period rigging is modeled. 
 
Given what may be available for HMS Discovery, I might be tempted to extrapolate from the available data and note in the building log and research materials I kept with the model that the lines were "based upon partial draughts and contemporary illustrations." I'd then be comfortable labeling the model as "HMS Discovery (1789)" Conversely, if I were modeling a ship from the actual builder's draughts, (assuming I was comfortable knowing she was built to the draughts and not altered in the stocks,) I'd say, "HMS Xyz based on original draughts from the Royal Museums, Greenwich." Not that it's often important to list the year of launch with a ship's name because the same names tend to be used for a number of ships serially. In the case of the name, "Discovery," there is an HMS Discovery (1774) which sailed with Captain Cooks' third expedition to the South Pacific and an HMS Discovery (1789) that Vancouver sailed to the American Pacific Northwest, as well as an HMS Discovery (1874) used in the British Arctic Expedition of 1875-1876 and an RRS Discovery (1901) of the British National Antarctic Expedition of 1901-1904 ! 
 
Contemporary drawing of HMS Discovery 1789) from which hull shape and other details might be partially extrapolated:
 

 
See also:  
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/87625.html
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/263918.html
 
 
 

Don, You are free to do as you wish no matter what anyone says, but I agree with Bob's sentiment for my own builds and I really don't think I am being an elitist for TRYING to get things done accurately.   (Can't say I always succeed though in the accuracy department :>))  You said that no one could call you wrong for using the wrong body plans.  I disagree as the body plan is a sine qua non for a reasonably accurate hull shape.    Just as a little side note the body plan is not really a framing plan as these are station lines and do not represent any actual frames unless a frame coincidentally lies right on the station line, which some do. 
Allan   

Correct. They are all quite different vessels. HMS Endeavour was a converted collier, a bulk cargo ship designed to carry coal. I doubt that accurate lines exist for her as she was originally a commercial vessel which was only later bought into the Royal Navy for Cook's voyage of exploration and later used as a troop transport and prison hulk. She was chosen for Cook's voyage due to her carrying capacity and was not designed as, nor built as, a fighting ship. She was scuttled when the British sought to blockade Narragansett Bay in 1778 and may possibly have been located about a year ago. https://www.livescience.com/captain-cook-endeavour-shipwreck-possibly-discovered.html#:~:text=Captain Cook's 'Endeavour' Shipwreck Possibly Discovered Off Rhode Island,-By Tom Metcalfe&text=One of the most famous,Newport Harbor in Rhode Island. Archaeological research is continuing and, if the vessel's identity can be confirmed, we may have some accurate construction details from that.
 
The are a few warship "classes" in which sisterships were built, but there was usually some variation among them as designs evolved as each was constructed. If original draughts exist, further research is required to confirm their accuracy as a basis for a model of a sistership. Simply building to the draughts of one sister and calling it a model of the other adds nothing to the historical record.
 
The plans described in the museum catalog are drawings done for the purpose of building models of the various vessels done between 1946 and 1999. Harold A. Underhill and John W. McKay are respected modelers and authorities on modeling. (Underhill's books are classics which belong in any modeler's library, especially his two volume set, Plank-on-Frame Models) That said, these plans are "secondary sources" and not, without further confirmation, accurate plans of the identified vessels, although some may be. That said, standards for the research of modeled ships have become increasingly more stringent over the years and much has been learned, often by the research of avocational historians for modeling purposes, so it is not unusual for even nicely drawn plans by the earlier "masters" to contain inaccuracies and so can't be taken at face value.  What the museum has, given what we know from their catalog, are modern model plans of the three ships drawn by these two modelers, rather than the actual contemporary draughts from which the ships were built. If such plans were used, they should properly be identified as built to the plans drawn by the modern modelers and should be considered their interpretation of the prototypes, depending upon the accuracy of their research. It bears noting that serious modelers of fine original works will make provision for retaining their research materials with the finished model, often incorporating a drawer in the bottom of the model's case to hold a copy of their research and build log. In this fashion, later generations might have all the data, rather than having to guess at the model's accuracy.

Correct. They are all quite different vessels. HMS Endeavour was a converted collier, a bulk cargo ship designed to carry coal. I doubt that accurate lines exist for her as she was originally a commercial vessel which was only later bought into the Royal Navy for Cook's voyage of exploration and later used as a troop transport and prison hulk. She was chosen for Cook's voyage due to her carrying capacity and was not designed as, nor built as, a fighting ship. She was scuttled when the British sought to blockade Narragansett Bay in 1778 and may possibly have been located about a year ago. https://www.livescience.com/captain-cook-endeavour-shipwreck-possibly-discovered.html#:~:text=Captain Cook's 'Endeavour' Shipwreck Possibly Discovered Off Rhode Island,-By Tom Metcalfe&text=One of the most famous,Newport Harbor in Rhode Island. Archaeological research is continuing and, if the vessel's identity can be confirmed, we may have some accurate construction details from that.
 
The are a few warship "classes" in which sisterships were built, but there was usually some variation among them as designs evolved as each was constructed. If original draughts exist, further research is required to confirm their accuracy as a basis for a model of a sistership. Simply building to the draughts of one sister and calling it a model of the other adds nothing to the historical record.
 
The plans described in the museum catalog are drawings done for the purpose of building models of the various vessels done between 1946 and 1999. Harold A. Underhill and John W. McKay are respected modelers and authorities on modeling. (Underhill's books are classics which belong in any modeler's library, especially his two volume set, Plank-on-Frame Models) That said, these plans are "secondary sources" and not, without further confirmation, accurate plans of the identified vessels, although some may be. That said, standards for the research of modeled ships have become increasingly more stringent over the years and much has been learned, often by the research of avocational historians for modeling purposes, so it is not unusual for even nicely drawn plans by the earlier "masters" to contain inaccuracies and so can't be taken at face value.  What the museum has, given what we know from their catalog, are modern model plans of the three ships drawn by these two modelers, rather than the actual contemporary draughts from which the ships were built. If such plans were used, they should properly be identified as built to the plans drawn by the modern modelers and should be considered their interpretation of the prototypes, depending upon the accuracy of their research. It bears noting that serious modelers of fine original works will make provision for retaining their research materials with the finished model, often incorporating a drawer in the bottom of the model's case to hold a copy of their research and build log. In this fashion, later generations might have all the data, rather than having to guess at the model's accuracy.

Here you go:
 
Well, you asked for it.    What's to "bash?" It sounds like you are basically contemplating building a Pride of Baltimore kit, adding a few different cannon, and sticking a Hamilton name on it. Why waste a perfectly good Pride of Baltimore kit? (Pride of Baltimore is a modernly designed Baltimore clipper style vessel. That type has no connection to the Great Lakes, as far as I know.)
 
What may be the case is that you can build a topsail schooner that is neither the Pride of Baltimore, nor the Hamilton, nor any other historically documented vessel. You could perhaps build a generic impression of a certain type of vessel, but that's about it. With apologies to the many modelers who have built attractive models of historic vessels about which we have no historically accurate information sufficient upon which to base a model, the result can never be anything much more than a decorator piece, no different than the untold numbers of imaginary Mayflowers, Ninas, Pintas, and Santa Marias.
 
Reasonable minds may differ, but in my opinion, modelers who make any pretense to modeling an historic vessel are obligated, as a matter of academic ethics, not to put a name on it unless there's some sound historical research behind their build.
 
I'd encourage you to consider doing some research on the contemporary vessels of the Great Lakes area and building an accurate model of one of those for which ample historically reliable data is available. Modern advances in underwater archaeology, particularly in the cold fresh waters of the Great Lakes which can preserve much of the original fabric of sunken wooden vessels, A well-researched accurate model can be a contribution to the historical record. Anything less can never be anything more than historical fiction.
 
****************************************************************************************************************
I actually wrote that post with a bit of trepidation that I might be hurting the feelings of some forumites or be seen as being "elitist" by those with an investment in "lowering the net." There are so many who, understandably enamored with building a ship model, look for the shortest distance between that concept and its completed reality and, to my way of thinking, miss the point completely. To build an historically accurate model of a ship requires a detailed intimate knowledge of what that ship looked like at a particular point in its lifespan as well as how it worked. Without that information, which is occasionally available in the written record, the modeler is faced, at best, with making unavoidable educated guesses. At worst, they drift off into flights of fancy which yield nothing of historical value, and worse, risk compounding errors which may become perpetuated. Academic researchers encounter this frequently with inaccurately constructed contemporary models that are very old. Such may obviously be incorrect depictions of the prototype and from that they have to extrapolate that which is likely historically accurate from that which is merely fanciful. (Biblical scholars have made careers of doing the same: "All of the stories in the Bible are true. Some of them may actually have happened.") To produce ship models, particularly technically well-constructed ship models which have the best chance of surviving for generations, which are historically inaccurate, only risks muddying the waters of the historical record. 
 
Rigorous historical research can be a fascinating aspect of the ship modeling hobby. For a true "scratch build" of a model of a ship that's never been modeled before, depending upon the availability of reliable historical documentation, background research can easily take several hours of study for every hour of "model building" once the information necessary to build an accurate model is collected. Indeed, model kits, which are designed to be "assembled" rather than "built," are no absolute guarantee of historical accuracy, either. The experienced serious ship modeler will research their kit model prototype to ensure its accuracy, or rely on reliable reviews by more experience modelers in forums such as this one. A bit of reading will soon make it obvious to the beginner which kit manufacturers adhere to the highest standards of historical accuracy and which are simply selling schlock to the unwitting consumer.
 
There are those who will say, "I do it for fun. It's my model and if I like it, that's good enough for me." For their purposes, I suppose that ends the discussion, but if one wants "to run with the big dogs," have their work judged by recognized academic standards, and perhaps have the time and money they've invested in modeling actually contribute something of value to a wider audience of knowledgeable people, they will endeavor to learn all they can about the subjects they model. Model Ship World and the Nautical Research Guild exist for those who pursue perfection in both historical accuracy and technical expertise. All are welcome, but there are standards if one wishes to be serious about their modeling.
 

I just found that the Vancouver(canada)Maritime Museum has some drawings. I have e-mailed them.

I ran into that phenomenon once when I mistakenly thinned a paint (brand forgotten) with acetone (like lacquer thinner) which was supposed to be thinned with alcohol. It wasn't a "blistering," which is when air or gasses expand beneath the drying paint coating. In my case, it seemed that the acetone caused the binder in the paint to "ball up" or "coagulate" when it hit the surface and when the acetone quickly evaporated and the coat "laid down," I was left with that that rough surface. In my experience, at least, was made up of solids, rather than being "bubbles" as with true blistering. Thoroughly annoyed with myself for overlooking the fact that I'd grabbed a bottle of non-oil-based paint I'd picked up somewhere thinking it was "the good stuff," I solved the problem by starting over with a proper oil-based lacquer and got the perfect finish I wanted.  ("l love the smell of solvent in the morning... smells like... like modeling!") Fortunately, I didn't have to sand the ruined coating off the model because, as Vaddoc noted, I always try out a paint on some scrap before applying it to the model. With all the so-called "safe and sane" water-based paint on the market these days you really can't assume that "paint is paint" anymore. With the low-VOC alternatives, you are usually stuck having to use their (grossly overpriced) proprietary paint thinners and conditioners. If one is going to use the acrylics, the best bet is to pick one brand, become thoroughly familiar with how it behaves, and stick with it.
 

Welcome! You will find a lot of people happy to help you here. Many of them are extremely talented miniaturists. Some are well-known "world class" ship modelers. Don't be discouraged. Experience starts when you begin. Take it one step at a time. Do not rush. Care and attention to detail are the prerequisites to building a respectable model. Everything else you need to know can be found in this forum and in several fine "bibles" of model shipbuilding which you will probably acquire over time.
 
1.     Try to find a build log for this model or one similar to it. Billings has a series of working boats and I expect their building issues (and there will be some... there always are in any kit) will probably be addressed there.
 
2.     Go to the resources section of this forum and study the tutorials there.
 
       Go to the Western NY Model Shipwrights' Guild webpage and study their "resources" page: https://www.modelshipwrightguildwny.org/
 
        On that page, carefully study and learn these two tutorials on planking: 1)  https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/226021_09487f2b95af4dfda94bcf16f7f14016.pdf (Part One) and 2) https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/226021_a1f6a3f402ae4fc38dd90fd7049c7713.pdf (Part Two.) Don't be discouraged if they appear complicated. There's no way around it. Take it one step at a time. Practice on a "mock up," if need be, before you try to plank a plank-on-bulkhead model for your first effort.
 
I'm sure many will have more to add to your specific questions, but here's my two cents worth:
 
Planking Gluing . I have decided to use CA type glue (medium or thick). Hopefully this will avoid pins or clamps but I will have to work fairly fast. I will practise a bit before working on the model.
 
Follow the instructions in the planking tutorials. Read the section in this forum on adhesives. CA has its uses, but it is expensive and somewhat permanent, so mistakes may be hard to rectify. For planking, it is handy for use as "liquid nails" to tack down a plank, but I prefer to rely on good old Elmer's Wood Glue, which is removable with alcohol, for real holding power. Treenails are also good for making sure plank ends stay put where there's a lot of spring away from the rabbet.
 
Plank Bending. I have a Hot Shot Steam Cleaner and tried bending some planks. It seems to work fairly well, but will have to experiment a bit more. Broke one board already, and I notice some separation of the wood fibres in the ones that did bend. Maybe I am trying to bend it too quickly.
 
Steam works, but it's messy and somewhat dangerous, in that you can burn yourself easily with it. It's used in full-size boatbuilding because a whole piece of wood can be heated for an hour without drying the wood out as much and steam is a good way to get the heat to a large surface in a steam box. For little pieces of wood in modeling, getting the wood hot isn't so much of a difficult challenge. A store-bought plank bender, a steam iron (for the heat, not the steam,) or a soldering iron work just fine. Planks should be heat-formed before "hanging" on the model. Trying to bend planking directly on the frames or bulkheads before at least partially bending the plank with heat is the proper technique. You'll save a lot of broken planks that way.
 
Plank Cutting. I can cut planks to rough length before mounting, using a scalpel or Exacto type knife. But how do you trim planks once they are installed? Let’s say that you need to trim 1/8” at the stern after installing a plank. What is the best way to do that? I imagine using a knife would be difficult. Is there a fine saw that you use? Dremmel?
 
Again, read the planking tutorial for tools suggestions. Hobby knives are good. A small 1" iron plane is handy for trimming and beveling planks. No need to spend big bucks on a Lee Valley or Lie Nielsen piece of jewelry. The sharpness of the iron is more important than anything else on a small plane. You'll have plenty of time to collect fine tools along the way, but you can spend thousands on tools you think you must have before ever starting a model. Everybody has at least one modeling tool they bought when they started out, only to discover it was junk and they never used it. (Lot's of 'Loom-A-line" ratline jigs gathering dust in forumites' shops, I'm sure!  ) Micro-Mark, a convenient one-stop source for modeling tools (although there are others offering better quality tools at better value) has a decent little micro-plane for ten bucks and they always are sending 20% off coupons if you sign up for them at the website. See: https://www.micromark.com/Mini-Wood-Plane?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PLA_Brand&utm_term=4576304834449762&utm_content=Micromark PLA
 
For trimming overhanging planks at the end of topsides at a flat transom, a jeweler's saw is the tool of choice. This is essentially a small coping saw. You don't have to spend $150 bucks for one, although that's what the best will cost, but don't buy the cheapo models in the hobby tool catalogs, either. Get a decent mid-price-range one from one of the jeweler's supply mail order outfits on line. There's probably been a thread in here about the best jeweler's saw. If not, start one and you'll find out what people are satisfied using. Get a good selection of blades. The jeweler's saw will be useful for cutting wood and also fine metal sawing. For straight cuts, a "razor saw" that fits in a large "X-Acto" handle (and often comes with an aluminum miter box) is a good basic tool to have.
 
Keel Gluing. This particular ship comes with the keel split in 2 halves. Instructions say to plank first, then glue the keel together. However some people have posted that they glue the keel halves together first, then plank. I think the latter would be more difficult, but planking each half individually might lead to warping. Comments?
 
I have no experience with that building method and it would concern me. Rigidity of the keel and bulkhead structure is essential. So is alignment of the bulkheads square to the keel where that is indicated (the "fixed frames.") I can't imagine why anyone would add the complication of making sure half of each bulkhead was perfectly aligned with it's other half, if that's what you're describing. Sorry, but if that's the way Billings designed the model, I guess you may have to dance with the girl you brought. Search the building logs and see if anybody has described doing, or not doing, it the way the instructions direct. That will probably save you a lot of grief. 
 
Hull Finishing. The hull will be a single layer of planking, and will be painted, so I will need to fill in the cracks. I have seen various methods including wood filler and glue & sawdust. Has anyone used gyproc  (sheet rock) filler? This works great for nail holes, baseboard joints, etc. so why not for a model? I want to get the hull as smooth as possible – this model scale is 1:30, so a scratch of 1/32” (0.8 mm) equals a gouge of almost 1” (2.5 cm). Ouch.
 
Double-layer planking is more forgiving. Again, read the planking tutorial. Meticulous attention to detail is required for a fair planking job. The bulkheads have to be perfect or the planking will be funky. If you pay attention to planking correctly, you shouldn't have "cracks" to fill in. If you need to fair a less that perfect planking job, drywall patch will work, but you won't get a "model scale" finish out of it easily. The product that I've had the best success with is what is used on yachts for perfectly faired topside finishing, marine "glazing compound" or "surfacing putty" (same thing,) which is thinned with acetone and dries very quickly. It is specifically formulated for sanding and comes in pint cans. It also sands very easily and takes paint well. It's specifically designed for the job. Drywall plaster is coarser and you won't get as smooth a surface as with surfacing putty. It's softer and scratches easily. Drywall putty tends to soak up a lot of paint. Bondo and other stuff like that, while it might work, is far harder to shape and sand, as it's hard. (Bondo is really for use on metal, not wood. You'd get fired if you were caught using it in a good boatyard.) 
 
Decking Glue. I have seen several tutorials on how to lay out the wood decking strips. But I haven’t seen anything that tells me what sort of glue to use, or how to fasten the decking in place. I plan to stain this decking to look like a teak deck, so I don’t want any glue residue which will not absorb stain or finish. How do you guys fasten the decking?
 
For openers, there aren't many working fish boats with teak decks. It's very expensive stuff. Most work boats are planked with fir, larch, and similar species. It's your model. Just sayin'. Again, most use white or yellow wood glue ("Elmers" is the best-known brand.) If the deck planks are glued down, they aren't going anywhere. Many modelers will additionally fasten deck planks (and hull planks, if they show bare wood) with treenails. Care should be taken to place them where they would actually be on a real boat. (i.e at last two side by side at the ends of planks and at every intersection with a deck frame.) Wipe off glue residue with a water-dampened rag before it dries. Neatness counts in the first place, of course. Alcohol will remove any that you can't otherwise get off.  If you are going to stain or paint your deck, I'd suggest doing so before the planks are laid. Painting the edges black should ensure the planking looks real, as on real boats the deck planking is caulked and the seams paid with tar.
 
Scuppers.  I plan to add scuppers to this boat. A real boat would have provisions for quick drainage of water from nets, rain, or spray in rough weather. So I will endeavour to cut some scuppers in the perimeter bulwarks.
 
If you study your vessel carefully, or those of its type, you'll probably find a lot of details that can be added. By all means, do so if you so desire. That's what makes your boat "yours." Note that the picture of the boat on the kit box will always be of the model built by an accomplished modeler and often will have many added details. In many cases, if one built the model exactly as the instructions directed and used only the materials provided in the kit, it would look like crap. For instance, many modelers will automatically throw the planking stock and other wood in their scrap bin if it's junk, as it often is in kits, and order better wood from modeling suppliers on line. The same goes for rigging line and fittings. These are the parts of kits that are often not really suitable for a good model. "But that's everything in the kit!" you say.  See, now your are becoming an experienced ship modeler! Starting with a kit is a great way to go. Most do it that way, but most quickly move to "kit bashing" and, ultimately, to "scratch-building" as they build on the experience gained by their first kit builds.
 
 
 
 
 

I ran into that phenomenon once when I mistakenly thinned a paint (brand forgotten) with acetone (like lacquer thinner) which was supposed to be thinned with alcohol. It wasn't a "blistering," which is when air or gasses expand beneath the drying paint coating. In my case, it seemed that the acetone caused the binder in the paint to "ball up" or "coagulate" when it hit the surface and when the acetone quickly evaporated and the coat "laid down," I was left with that that rough surface. In my experience, at least, was made up of solids, rather than being "bubbles" as with true blistering. Thoroughly annoyed with myself for overlooking the fact that I'd grabbed a bottle of non-oil-based paint I'd picked up somewhere thinking it was "the good stuff," I solved the problem by starting over with a proper oil-based lacquer and got the perfect finish I wanted.  ("l love the smell of solvent in the morning... smells like... like modeling!") Fortunately, I didn't have to sand the ruined coating off the model because, as Vaddoc noted, I always try out a paint on some scrap before applying it to the model. With all the so-called "safe and sane" water-based paint on the market these days you really can't assume that "paint is paint" anymore. With the low-VOC alternatives, you are usually stuck having to use their (grossly overpriced) proprietary paint thinners and conditioners. If one is going to use the acrylics, the best bet is to pick one brand, become thoroughly familiar with how it behaves, and stick with it.
 

Ain't that the truth! Maybe it's a generational thing, and I certainly can embrace many of the benefits of "the digitization of everything" (without which this forum wouldn't exist,) but I do think we do a disservice to the art of ship modeling by an inordinate focus on CAD and CNC machine tool applications at the expense of a sound grounding in how the vessels we seek to model were actually built in real life. I know I'm a Luddite, and old enough now that it doesn't matter, but as far as I know, nobody's yet invented a CAD program that can strike a fair curve as quickly, easily, accurately, and inexpensively, as a flexible batten of wood, nor a CNC machine tool that can cut a curved piece of wood to fit against its mate as quickly, easily, and inexpensively as a sharp edged tool in an experienced hand.  I, too, marvel at the "master machinists" who turn out perfect replicas using state-of-the-art digital age machinery (and I have a lot of tools myself,) but I lament the elevating of the technical above the artistic for therein lies the difference between an art and a craft.

I ran into that phenomenon once when I mistakenly thinned a paint (brand forgotten) with acetone (like lacquer thinner) which was supposed to be thinned with alcohol. It wasn't a "blistering," which is when air or gasses expand beneath the drying paint coating. In my case, it seemed that the acetone caused the binder in the paint to "ball up" or "coagulate" when it hit the surface and when the acetone quickly evaporated and the coat "laid down," I was left with that that rough surface. In my experience, at least, was made up of solids, rather than being "bubbles" as with true blistering. Thoroughly annoyed with myself for overlooking the fact that I'd grabbed a bottle of non-oil-based paint I'd picked up somewhere thinking it was "the good stuff," I solved the problem by starting over with a proper oil-based lacquer and got the perfect finish I wanted.  ("l love the smell of solvent in the morning... smells like... like modeling!") Fortunately, I didn't have to sand the ruined coating off the model because, as Vaddoc noted, I always try out a paint on some scrap before applying it to the model. With all the so-called "safe and sane" water-based paint on the market these days you really can't assume that "paint is paint" anymore. With the low-VOC alternatives, you are usually stuck having to use their (grossly overpriced) proprietary paint thinners and conditioners. If one is going to use the acrylics, the best bet is to pick one brand, become thoroughly familiar with how it behaves, and stick with it.
 

This sound so familiar to me. When I was still building custom made electric guitars the painting proces showed all kinds of horrible effects. Imagine a body sanded untill it shone like a mirror with after spraying all sorts of blisters coming uit. The most horrible effects with reactions between filler and paint, paint and paint and anything that can cause disasters. It almost drove me crazy, although I have to admit that once the effect of spraying cause a beautiful, but unplanned crackling, like on an antique painting. Making guitars was a piece of cake compared to spraying them. In the end I just painted the bodies. More work, polishing afterwards, but no blisters any more...

I ran into that phenomenon once when I mistakenly thinned a paint (brand forgotten) with acetone (like lacquer thinner) which was supposed to be thinned with alcohol. It wasn't a "blistering," which is when air or gasses expand beneath the drying paint coating. In my case, it seemed that the acetone caused the binder in the paint to "ball up" or "coagulate" when it hit the surface and when the acetone quickly evaporated and the coat "laid down," I was left with that that rough surface. In my experience, at least, was made up of solids, rather than being "bubbles" as with true blistering. Thoroughly annoyed with myself for overlooking the fact that I'd grabbed a bottle of non-oil-based paint I'd picked up somewhere thinking it was "the good stuff," I solved the problem by starting over with a proper oil-based lacquer and got the perfect finish I wanted.  ("l love the smell of solvent in the morning... smells like... like modeling!") Fortunately, I didn't have to sand the ruined coating off the model because, as Vaddoc noted, I always try out a paint on some scrap before applying it to the model. With all the so-called "safe and sane" water-based paint on the market these days you really can't assume that "paint is paint" anymore. With the low-VOC alternatives, you are usually stuck having to use their (grossly overpriced) proprietary paint thinners and conditioners. If one is going to use the acrylics, the best bet is to pick one brand, become thoroughly familiar with how it behaves, and stick with it.
 

Then that's it! I'm not "CAD literate," but as an old time pen and ink draftsman, I'm certain that trusting your "eye" to judge fit and fairness of the build is the surest guarantee of a good outcome. I've never seen a wooden boat builder who didn't follow the maxim, "build to the boat and not to the plans." There are so many curves and variables to the parts of a vessel and opportunities for compounding errors of measurement, it's a very difficult thing to reduce them all to dimensions having the accuracy tolerances that mimic the "interchangeable parts" processes of modern mass production. It makes perfect sense in theory, but never seems to work in practice with a "one off" build. 

Ain't that the truth! Maybe it's a generational thing, and I certainly can embrace many of the benefits of "the digitization of everything" (without which this forum wouldn't exist,) but I do think we do a disservice to the art of ship modeling by an inordinate focus on CAD and CNC machine tool applications at the expense of a sound grounding in how the vessels we seek to model were actually built in real life. I know I'm a Luddite, and old enough now that it doesn't matter, but as far as I know, nobody's yet invented a CAD program that can strike a fair curve as quickly, easily, accurately, and inexpensively, as a flexible batten of wood, nor a CNC machine tool that can cut a curved piece of wood to fit against its mate as quickly, easily, and inexpensively as a sharp edged tool in an experienced hand.  I, too, marvel at the "master machinists" who turn out perfect replicas using state-of-the-art digital age machinery (and I have a lot of tools myself,) but I lament the elevating of the technical above the artistic for therein lies the difference between an art and a craft.

How true Bob! Nothing beats laying a baten on the hull. This was a lovely post, made me feel a bit like a shipwright of old!
 

Then that's it! I'm not "CAD literate," but as an old time pen and ink draftsman, I'm certain that trusting your "eye" to judge fit and fairness of the build is the surest guarantee of a good outcome. I've never seen a wooden boat builder who didn't follow the maxim, "build to the boat and not to the plans." There are so many curves and variables to the parts of a vessel and opportunities for compounding errors of measurement, it's a very difficult thing to reduce them all to dimensions having the accuracy tolerances that mimic the "interchangeable parts" processes of modern mass production. It makes perfect sense in theory, but never seems to work in practice with a "one off" build. 

Then that's it! I'm not "CAD literate," but as an old time pen and ink draftsman, I'm certain that trusting your "eye" to judge fit and fairness of the build is the surest guarantee of a good outcome. I've never seen a wooden boat builder who didn't follow the maxim, "build to the boat and not to the plans." There are so many curves and variables to the parts of a vessel and opportunities for compounding errors of measurement, it's a very difficult thing to reduce them all to dimensions having the accuracy tolerances that mimic the "interchangeable parts" processes of modern mass production. It makes perfect sense in theory, but never seems to work in practice with a "one off" build. 

Many thanks to all for your likes and comments!
 
 
Indeed Bob, in all plans the transom might look vertical but essentially is the projection of the angled transom to the vertical plane. When I developed the plans on CAD, I did the opposite - that is I projected the transom as given in the plans to a surface in the appropriate angle. Then the sheer was faired and the hull developed and faired.
The problem was that the notches on the frames were not deep enough to accept the keel. This was evident as the transom was very accurately cut and positioned but the keel was hovering high up without touching the transom.
No idea how this happened as individually all pieces all seem to be very accurately cut but still refused to work together. So I am forgetting CAD accuracy-I ll just sand and shim things as needed until all curves flow nicely! But I checked the hull and it looks ok.

Interesting discussion! The term "kit bashing" seems to have evolved over time to convey the meanings others have noted. I'm not sure when it first came into common usage, but the first time I heard it used was in the second half of the seventies. I was living in Marin County at the time and had for many years. We had something of an "influx" of folks moving into my neighborhood who had been recruited by George Lucas, who was setting up his operations there, primarily, at first, Industrial Light and Magic ("ILM") and later Lucasfilm. I remember meeting one guy who moved in a couple of houses down from us telling me when I asked what he did for a living, "I'm a model maker." Of course, my immediate response was, "You mean people can make a living at it?"   After that, we were "off to the races." He was the first guy who told me about what they called "kit bashing." My understanding was that the term was commonly used by movie industry model makers to mean using off-the-shelf plastic model kit parts to build entirely different models from what the kits' original subjects represented. The technique was originated by model makers working on the movie 2001 - A Space Odyssey. They built a lot of models from scratch, but when they needed bits and pieces, they'd take them from plastic kits which had nothing to do with the model they were making. They'd often buy large numbers of the same kit just to obtain a sufficient number of a particular part they wanted that was in each kit. These kit parts which the modelers used frequently and in large numbers they called "greeblies," which I think was just a made-up word. It was all quite fascinating and at the time something of a "trade secret." (Lucas even kept the name and address of ILM secret for a long time. It was just a nondescript warehouse in an industrial district on Kerner Street in San Rafael, CA with a sign on the front that simply said "The Kerner Company.")
 
I found this photo online showing ILM's "kit bashing" shop in action building the original Millenium Falcon, Han Solo's space ship in the Star Wars movies.  Note the boxes of kits on the shelves in the background. Note the three rectangular parts with the black holes in their centers in the foreground laying on top of the front of the model. These appear to be tank body decks, the holes being where the turrets would be placed on the tank model. The second picture shows them in the finished model where they became exhaust ports or something like that.
 

 
 

 
Below is a yet-to-be weathered section of an ILM spaceship. Some may be able to recognize parts from specific model kits. I'm guessing there are some aircraft carrier parts in there somewhere!
 

 
 
Below is the original "droid strip," the top of the "X-wing fighter" right behind the pilot's seat, flown by Luke Skywalker in the first Star Wars movie with the original model kits from which the parts identified were sourced:
 

 
Close inspection of later Star Wars kits marketed to the public show some differences in the details. I wonder if some details weren't changed in the later model kits to avoid violating the original kit manufacturer's copyrights. I'd certainly hate to think Lucasfilm was authorizing the production of "pirated" kits!   Just kidding. I knew the lady who worked for Lucas writing "cease and desist" letters to anybody who so much as thought of violating a Lucasfilm copyright. They were very scrupulous about that.
 
So, I'd say that to be really accurate in the use of the term "kit bashing," it should only apply to building something entirely different from what the kit the parts came from was. Using tank kit parts to depict something different from what they were on the tank kit to portray a part on a ship model is "kit bashing." Using an anchor winch casting from one ship model kit to portray an anchor winch on another ship model isn't "kit bashing." That's just "parts swapping." But, it's really not all that important in the grand scheme of things, is it? 
 
 

Well, Hard Maple and Black Cherry are among the species that are right for scratch building wooden sailing ship models.  Maple can be a bit interesting in what figure is on display.  It is low contrast and is generally only obvious up close.  It can be controlled by paying attention to the orientation of the stock to the resaw blade.  I see it as adding character, so it does not bother me. 
But it not one of Bob's "three or four now-exotic (over-harvested) species".  It does not seem to rate as a species to be bragged about or score points in some informal contest here.  It does however preform quite well when used for most any component of a scratch built POF ship model.   By all means burn the Oak. Go ahead and burn any soft Maple species - even though the BTU of it is fairly low.  Please burn any Sycamore - even though it probably stinks.  Sassafras and soft Elm are not so good.   But consider storing under cover any Cherry and Maple that is clear enough to be useful.

The first tool I would buy in fact would not be a workbench. , I prefer an electric adjustable height table. You can find at different prices and relatively low prices.