Bob Cleek

Larry,
Yes, I treenail IF I can do it at scale and it is appropriate for the vessel.   What ship, scale, year, are you considering?  If trennals are appropriate for the vessel and era, it comes down to scale for many, if not most builders.  Some ships had bolts, depending on era, nation, etc. in place of or in addition to trennals on some planks.  Assume the largest wooden trennals found on the  largest ship are 2" diameter for the hull planking.   At 1/48, the diameter would be 0.04", quite easy to make with a good quality draw plate and bamboo, boxwood, pear and a few other species.  At 1/64 you would still be at about 0.03" diameter and not difficult to make with a good quality drawplate and bamboo.  At 1:96, you would be down to 0.02, about the equivalent of a #75 drill diameter.  (Species other than bamboo, only based on my own personal experience , have not done very well at the smallest sizes. More waste in material and time than is worth it.)  For smaller ships the trennals may be smaller, say 1.5" diameter, depending on the width of the planks themselves.   For 1:96 scale I know of no draw plate that goes small enough or wood that would work.  The smallest hole on a Byrnes plate is 0.16 so too large.  28 gage wire could be used, but the ends would need to be filed and colored in some manner to replicate wood without staining the planking.  Copper wire and liver of sulfate could be used, but it will be black and not replicate wood. It does great to simulate bolts  Also care must be taken to remove metal particles that imbed in the wood as these particles will discolor as well as the intended bolt.
 
Going to deck planking, the trennals are smaller in diameter, closer to 1".   These can still be shown with some precision at 1:48, but for smaller scales will be very difficult to execute at the proper sizes.   Some use pencil point marks but these are not always consistent.  Many deck trennals and/or bolts were covered with wooden plugs making them virtually impossible to see at our scales.
 
Alternatively for both hull and deck planking you can drill the proper size hole and fill them in with wood filler or a sawdust/glue mixture, then scrape and sand finish, which often looks very good.
 
There are a number of  preferences on how to execute using trennals, so you may want to try a few methods to see what works best for you.  If in doubt, it is better to forget about trennals altogether if the alternative is to go over sized.  The appearance of over scale trennals is not a good look.
 
Allan

Do you tree nail or pin your planking as a standard rule for building?

Ah-ha! I knowed it! Only a landsman would ever say, "Good day to you, Sir!" Any sailor knows there's no place to stomp off to in a huff aboard a ship!     

Harold Underhill was British, so we have to keep that in mind. He uses European nomenclature. There's no such thing as a "topsail ketch." It is, or once was, common to see a cruising ketch flying a square sail or two downwind in the trades, often from a yard sent aloft for the occasion rather than permanently rigged to the mast. This arrangement frequently would include a single boom with a rafee (triangular) topsail and a square course. Vessels employing that rig were still ketches. What is distinctive is indeed the absence of a gaff-rigged sail on the foremast. If there isn't a boomed sail on the foremast, it's a brigantine or "hermaphrodite brig." Not a ketch. A ketch must have two fore and aft boomed sails. The staysails instead of the boomed sail are what make it a brigantine (or an hermaphrodite brig in European nomenclature."
 
"Fully-square rigged" is really a meaningless lubbers' term, like "tall ship." (Which is actually a marketing term invented by the advertising agency for the Sail Training Association.) There's no such thing as a "partial square rig." If a vessel carries square sails, those sails are "square-rigged." Simple as that. It isn't the presence of a certain number of square sails, but rather the absence of boomed fore an aft sails that determines the difference between a brigantine and a square topsail schooner.
 
Having a "fairly short fore (lower) mast" doesn't enter into it. Look at the pictures I posted of USS Boxer. She was classified by the United States Navy as a brigantine and I'm betting they knew what the proper names for the rigs on their ships were, no?  
 
At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!  

We flew a watersail on a friend's large spidsgatter years ago. I thought it wasn't going to add much, given its percentage of the overall sail area, but it really did make quite a difference in light air downwind. They're rarely seen these days,.

The number of sails in a "fully-rigged" square-rigged vessel is a function of the size of the vessel. A smaller vessel, as pictured, will carry fewer square sails, the added complexity of a greater number of sails to break the sail plan into manageable segments not being necessary.
 
Photo number two is classified as a brigantine in the US, but is called a "schooner brig," or "hermaphrodite brig" in Europe. The height of the after mast isn't relevant. If a boomed fore and aft sail is carried on a shorter foremast as well as a square topsail, it's a square topsail schooner. 
 
As in the United States, USS Boxer, USN training brigantine. See: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships: http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/sail/boxer4.htm
 
 
 

        And don't come out of that room until I tell ya to!       

Interesting information. Obviously a localized type and perhaps now extinct. From the contemporary drawings, the gaff mizzen sail indicated a later evolution. The vessel may indeed be "Ottoman," certainly as the drawings confirm.
 
Until a better term is discovered, in consideration of it's apparent national origin, why don't we call it a "turkey?"  

To my eye, the mainsail on the brig appears to be tightly furled on the main yard.
 
You are indeed correct that the Thames barge carries a spritsail rig.

Did Royal Navy boats carry oars of varying lengths to suit each rowing station as did whaleboats which carried oars between 16 to 18 feet long, together with a 22 foot long steering oar?

Fortunately, you don't have to worry about a model ship sinking if you didn't do a proper job of building it.  
 
Most all of us build models for fun. Some are interested in building to the highest archival standards possible, as an exercise in discipline and technique in pursuit of a "personal best," if nothing else. Others not so much. For some, learning about "best archival practices" is more of an academic exercise than anything else. All I can say for myself is that if I were a kit builder and was spending into the four figures on a kit that I expected to take three years to complete, I wouldn't be spending that much money and time on something that I considered to be just "good enough." Your mileage may vary, I suppose. 
 
It bears noting, however, that the hobby in Eastern Europe where ship models are entered in judged competitions, is considered more a competitive sport than a hobby and consequently what they consider "good enough" is from all appearances a whole lot better than what we consider "good enough." If they'd been as good at building rocket ships as they are at ship modeling, the Russians would have landed a man on the moon long before we did! At the end of the day, isn't the exercise of ship modeling all about the pursuit of perfection rather than just one's own opinion of what's  "good enough? "

Mechanical fastenings such as treenails and nails permit each plank to shrink and swell independently of the others, thereby spreading the wood movement proportionally over the entire structure, piece by piece, so long as the plank seams are not glued one to the other. When the seams are glued, the shrinkage (and swelling) of the solid glued piece will occur at the weakest point, often resulting in a split piece of wood or a cracked seam the width of the movement. Remember the percentage of movement, whatever it may be, is across the moving dimension of the piece. The larger the piece, the greater the movement across the moving dimension. If you glue a bunch pieces together, they will move as one. Instead of tiny bits of movement between each piece, you'll get the total movement of the glued pieces at one spot.
 
Flexible adhesives certainly mitigate the problem of wood movement to the extent they flex, but flexible joints may pose other structural problems in a model. The problem with any adhesive, including the epoxies, the limitations of their archival and working qualities.  These involve the degree of long-term changes in coloration, brittleness, acidic outgassing, loss of strength, particularly shear strength, and the reversibility of the bond in the event future conservation or restoration work may be required. These considerations usually vary greatly, depending upon the formulation of the particular adhesive. At present, the "gold standard" museum conservation epoxy adhesive is a product known as HXTAL NYL-1 designed specifically for the repair of glass and ceramic artifacts. It closely mimics the refractive index of glass and so produces an invisible repair.  It's claimed to be the only epoxy adhesive which does not yellow upon exposure to light. This is a very specialized (and expensive) epoxy adhesive having very exacting mixing and application requirements and, importantly, is not easily reversible, as far as i know. While it is an excellent product for glass and ceramic repair, it isn't very suitable for modeling because it has a very long minimum setting times in excess of three days! See: https://www.hxtal.com/ and http://www.lakesidepottery.com/HTML Text/Tips/Hxtal-NYL-instructions-glass-epoxy.htm
 
 

I'll admit in hindsight that this was perhaps not the best example because I do know it was not due to any shortcoming of the model designer, but because the kit was based exactly upon a contemporary model. I was unaware of the existence of a contemporary draught showing the same and would love to study a copy of that.  However, the draught doesn't lend any strength to an argument that the arrangement is correct. There's really no way a boat could be sailed the way it's rigged.
 
In fact, there are ways to rig a double-ended mainsheet with blocks at the quarters that serve the same purpose of leaving the tiller clear to helm without resort to a sheet horse at all, but the only purpose of a sheet horse is to allow the lower sheet block to clear the tiller without fouling it and the prototype can have no other purpose for that sheet horse.
 
All I can say is that there is no way the boat can be sailed the way that tiller is set up. The boom will cross amidships taking the lower sheet block with it sliding along the sheet horse every time the boat is tacked or jibed and every time that happens, the helmsman will be unable to control the tiller to complete the evolution because the sheet will foul the tiller. I know of no boat anywhere, save these two NMM models which have been cited, that has ever had such an arrangement. Chuck and I have discussed this and I don't dispute his position that the Model Shipways kit is a "model of a contemporary model." That's indeed one way to look at it. I don't know that he has any other explanation for it except that that's the way it is on the contemporary models. He certainly didn't make a mistake when designing the kit on that basis.
 
I'm not a "naysayer." I'm a "give me one good reason why" sayer!
 
I'd be interested in knowing what the curators at the NMM would have to say about it, or perhaps Ab Hoving, who knows as much about such things in that period as anybody.

Mechanical fastenings such as treenails and nails permit each plank to shrink and swell independently of the others, thereby spreading the wood movement proportionally over the entire structure, piece by piece, so long as the plank seams are not glued one to the other. When the seams are glued, the shrinkage (and swelling) of the solid glued piece will occur at the weakest point, often resulting in a split piece of wood or a cracked seam the width of the movement. Remember the percentage of movement, whatever it may be, is across the moving dimension of the piece. The larger the piece, the greater the movement across the moving dimension. If you glue a bunch pieces together, they will move as one. Instead of tiny bits of movement between each piece, you'll get the total movement of the glued pieces at one spot.
 
Flexible adhesives certainly mitigate the problem of wood movement to the extent they flex, but flexible joints may pose other structural problems in a model. The problem with any adhesive, including the epoxies, the limitations of their archival and working qualities.  These involve the degree of long-term changes in coloration, brittleness, acidic outgassing, loss of strength, particularly shear strength, and the reversibility of the bond in the event future conservation or restoration work may be required. These considerations usually vary greatly, depending upon the formulation of the particular adhesive. At present, the "gold standard" museum conservation epoxy adhesive is a product known as HXTAL NYL-1 designed specifically for the repair of glass and ceramic artifacts. It closely mimics the refractive index of glass and so produces an invisible repair.  It's claimed to be the only epoxy adhesive which does not yellow upon exposure to light. This is a very specialized (and expensive) epoxy adhesive having very exacting mixing and application requirements and, importantly, is not easily reversible, as far as i know. While it is an excellent product for glass and ceramic repair, it isn't very suitable for modeling because it has a very long minimum setting times in excess of three days! See: https://www.hxtal.com/ and http://www.lakesidepottery.com/HTML Text/Tips/Hxtal-NYL-instructions-glass-epoxy.htm
 
 

We flew a watersail on a friend's large spidsgatter years ago. I thought it wasn't going to add much, given its percentage of the overall sail area, but it really did make quite a difference in light air downwind. They're rarely seen these days,.

The traveler is blocked by the tiller.  Jibing would be pretty exciting if removing and replacing the tiller became part of the process.    The tiller should probably be under the traveler.

A lubber?
 
Good day to you, sir.  

Mark,
 
It was not uncommon for topsail schooners to carry a fore course - a square sail suspended from the lower yard. I have seen several examples in books about schooners, such as the French privateer Le Comtesse Emererian 1810, ex privateer Herald or HMS Pictou 1815, HMS Sea Lark and HMS Alban1817, US revenue Cutter Louisiana 1819, and slaver Mary Adeline 1852. Howard Chapelle's "The Baltimore Clipper" has numerous other examples, including drawings from Marestier taken off ships and published in 1824.
 
A fore course doesn't seem to be common on modern topsail schooners, but some photos (below) of the modern French Navy Belle Poule show her flying a square course with a spar to the clew something like a spinnaker or a studding sail! Note that they also have a water sail on the main boom, so they are spreading a lot of canvas to catch the wind. Like about everything else I have seen about schooner rigging it seems to have been up to the owner's/captain's whim.
 

 
While I agree that brigantines are supposed to have a taller main mast than a fore mast, what else would you call the second example? I'd call it a topsail ketch but I have never heard that name used!

I checked Marquardt, and he does not name the rigs of ships from regions other than the northern European regions. He labels the shiptypes, not the rigs.
 
I don't know how it is in Turkey, but in the Netherlands, you can sort of classify the shiptypes, but there are many 'in betweens', as ships were always build by a specific builder for a specific buyer. Ie: it was not type x that was agreed upon but a ship 'like the one you build for my neighbor, but I would liketo have it slightly different'. 
 
I do very much like the (for a Dutchman) rather excentric rigs, and sometimes completely different ways of sailhandling that you see in the mediterranean ships.
 
Jan

Interesting information. Obviously a localized type and perhaps now extinct. From the contemporary drawings, the gaff mizzen sail indicated a later evolution. The vessel may indeed be "Ottoman," certainly as the drawings confirm.
 
Until a better term is discovered, in consideration of it's apparent national origin, why don't we call it a "turkey?"  

To my eye, the mainsail on the brig appears to be tightly furled on the main yard.
 
You are indeed correct that the Thames barge carries a spritsail rig.

Excellent point! It addresses a shortcoming of internet forums: Everybody has a soapbox, but some have a lot more to say than others do.  Forums are like good restaurants: Once they are discovered, they often tend to begin to decline in quality. The reason there are so many highly accomplished and experienced modelers on this forum, aside from its association with the Nautical Research Guild, is because they seek out each other and the rest of us are lucky to be able to look over their shoulders. They are here and make MSW what it is because this is where they can continue to learn from those who are playing the game at their level.  When a forum becomes inundated with "newbies," the "level of play" naturally drops and the "high achievers" find it increasingly less worth their while and drift off.
 
Learning is an exercise best done with the eyes open and the mouth closed, (although in my case clearly more so of the former than the latter.) The most useful learning tool of all it the search engine. Notwithstanding that most of the forum platform software packaged search engines are disappointing in the performance when compared with stand-alone search engines such as Google and Bing, they still remain the best way to look up something specific within a given forum. Given the size and age of MSW forum, there is a very high likelihood that most any question one might encounter in the course of building a ship model, excepting really esoteric historical minutia, will have been addressed, often at length, before. It's poor internet forum manners to ask others to answer a question before having exhausted your own efforts to find the answer on your own. Don't expect others to become your "information codependents." Everybody soon tires of a forum that requires hours of wasted time "separating the fly poop from the pepper" (like that other ship modeling forum we all know.) The very basic questions "newbies" ask over and over again have all been asked before. While I encourage and welcome beginners, I must confess that I rarely am moved to devote my time to answering a question they could have found themselves using the search engine.
 
To the original poster who bemoaned the lack of responses to his build log, and to the management of the forum which encourages "build logging" and "newbies" to the hobby (and we all should,) I express my sympathy. On the one hand, build logs are a valuable feature of the forum, if not its heart and soul, but on the other hand, the "build logger" has to understand that he is competing with all the other build logs for attention and it's a jungle out there. If you are new to the hobby and are posting the seventeenth active build log of a popular kit model, your build log isn't going to generate the same amount of interest as the scratch-built masterpiece of one of the published "Superstars of Ship Modeling." I'm not knocking kits by a long shot, but they are ship modeling's "gateway drug." There is an inevitable progression, at rates varying as to the individual, from building kits to "The Dark Side" of scratch-building. No two ways about it, there is far more to learn from following the scratch-build of a never-before- modeled prototype. Don't feel discouraged starting out. Learning to crawl is just as much an accomplishment as learning to walk. 

Bob:
Tru Vue sells a wide range of archival glass and acrylics for framing and case makers.  Their acrylic product under the name of "Optimum" has all the advantages of glass without the weight or shattering hazard.  It is expensive.

Bob:
 
The bad odor from hide glue occurs when a pot of glue is left to set for a few days, unused, until it turns rancid.  Discard unused glue when done with a glue up and there will be no problem.  The glue comes in a dried granular form that is mixed with water and heated just prior to use.  The dry granules are odorless.   
 
 I am involved in making a display case for a Native American artifact; a wooden, Tlingit halibut hook, and this raised concern about the archival properties of glues, finishes and types of wood.  All common "wood glues" off-gas ascetic acid as do finishes based on organic oils or waxes.  This off-gassing persists at ever diminishing levels for years and can accumulate to deleterious levels in the confines of a display case.   I've been unable to find data on the archival suitability of CA.  When it "kicks over" it does emit a puff of very disagreeable gas.  Again, I don't know the chemical nature of this gas or its longevity.  Nor are the archival properties of Titebond's liquid hide glue to be found.   What my research boiled down to is traditional hide glue and shellac are the only common glue and finish that do not pose any archival threat.  These are what I will use but I still worked unobtrusive ventilation holes into the case's design.         

CA isn't even close to the same as PVA.  Yellow wood glue is PVA (as is normal white glue).  CA is 'super glue' type glue which comes in various speeds and thicknesses but shares common attributes with, including that it will stick to your fingers (or anything else) and if it gets on a visible wood surface it will be extremely difficult to remove as it will soak into the wood fibers and create a super-hard spot that will show up through almost all finishes as even paint sometimes.

As I said above, I try to avoid CA at all costs when working with wood.  If I need to bind wood to metal or some other material CA is one possibility, but an epoxy would be a better solution whenever possible.

Hi tomsimon - Your question is one that I wondered when I first started building and for me it came back to one thing - time!
 
If your in no rush and are happy to take your time then carpenters glue or better aliphatic resin is my choice.  It gives me loads of time to place whatever I'm gluing where I want it and the clean up is so easy.  It is for me the laid back enjoyable way of building.
 
If however you need to build somewhat faster, then CA can be dropped between the carpenters glue to grab what your gluing much faster.  I find this method very unforgiving but thats just my way of building  - others find this way better.
 
Try both and you'll find what suits your building technique