Bob Cleek

I'll see you  your Cannons and raise you my Nikon F Photomic head system and later Nikon 35mm's. Then there's the Leica screw mount stuff I inherited from a friend. The whole cased system, less the IIIg body. My 120 format cut and roll film cameras are gone, but I still have the darkroom equipment for them and a 70+ year old Solar bellows enlarger. I wish I knew some kid that wanted to get into doing their own B/W processing. I can't bring myself to donate it all to Goodwill and I'm too lazy to off it on eBay. I keep telling myself film is going to come back like vinyl LP's are.    

You're "doing it the hard way" and will continue to run into the same problem as you progress in your framing because there's nothing to hold the frames in place. Your solution at the moment shows you are thinking, though. That's the way to solve the problem, but doing it piecemeal as you are without the entire structure held together will probably result in a never-ending game of "frame whack-a-mole" as one moves out of alignment as soon as another is set up. 
 
There's lots of ways to address the issue. One of the more popular is using a building frame from the beginning. one approach is the "Hahn menthod," in which the hull framing is initially set up upside down (keel up) with a base that has provision for holding the frame heads in place. See: https://www.dlumberyard.com/hahn-PART4.html and http://modelshipworldforum.com/resources/Framing_and_Planking/HahnMethodnew.pdf
 

 

 
Another method achieves the same result the same way, but the structure is assembled keel down on a baseboard with the notched frame holding the frame heads raised from the baseboard on sections of threaded rod. This method has the advantage of allowing the installation of internal structural members, particularly keelsons, clamps, shelves, and beams prior to planking. 
 
Another method is the "basket method," which can be found described in the seminal works of Charles Davis and Harold Underhill.  If following the full-size practice of boat building, as opposed to ship building, and is more suited to modeling. This method is similar to what you are attempting right now, except that the battens are extended the length of the hull on both sided, bent over a few widely spaced molds or frames, if your frames are strong enough. (Often, all that is required is a mold at the broadest beam point and one or two forward and aft of that. Your transom and/or stern post forms the landing for the battens aft and the stem rabbet the landing forward. If your molds are accurately set up, the battens (pieces of strip wood the length of the model at various heights) are temporarily fastened to the molds (just as you have done with wire ties) and these battens form a "basket" to hold the frames in position. (The frames in the way of the molds are set up after the rest of the hull is planked up.) Once the framing is complete, planking commences with the wales first and then the rest of the planking fastened to the frames. As the planking progresses, the battens are removed and replaced with planking until all the battens are gone. Then the molds are removed and the remaining frames placed where the molds had been. 
 
The below photos of a half-model displayed on a board demonstrate the technique, although in this instance the battens are permanently fastened on what appear to actually be solid molds or "bulkheads," rather than actual frames, and the opening permits the interior construction to be seen when the model is displayed. This method is also a time-saver when it comes to planking if you run your battens such that they define the run of your planking. In that way, they save the intermediate step of lining out your planking using tape or string. The battens are already there doing that for you. Planking is much easier off of a building board (IMHO) and the battens and previously hung plank maintains a very rigid structure throughout the planking process. 
 
http://www.skipjackmarinegallery.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/half-hull-model-ship-construction-frigate-sloop-of-war-vintage-antique-18069-starboard-side-view.jpg
 
http://www.skipjackmarinegallery.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/half-hull-model-ship-construction-frigate-sloop-of-war-vintage-antique-18069-starboard-bow-view.jpg
 
http://www.skipjackmarinegallery.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/half-hull-model-ship-construction-frigate-sloop-of-war-vintage-antique-18069-stern-view.jpg
 
http://www.skipjackmarinegallery.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/half-hull-model-ship-construction-frigate-sloop-of-war-vintage-antique-18069-rib-interior-view.jpg
 
http://www.skipjackmarinegallery.com/plank-on-frame-half-hull-model-of-ship-of-war.html

This seemed to make sense, but I've only ever been concerned about "tooth" in adhesive applications when using epoxy adhesives. When a good epoxy bond is of paramount importance, I use a preliminary application of penetrating epoxy sealer (Smith's "CPES") and then the epoxy adhesive, not clamped too tightly to avoid "joint starvation." (The penetrating epoxy soaks into the wood and the epoxy adhesive then creates a molecular bond with the penetrating epoxy so long as the two are joined within 48 to 72 hours. (See: tech data at: http://www.smithandcompany.org/) I've used a lot of PVA in woodworking applications and, generally speaking, I'm a "planer," not a "sander." I was taught that "the tighter the joint, the stronger the joint."  I've never given a second thought to joining smoothly planed surfaces with PVA and I've joined a lot of them without ever noticing any problem. This got me thinking. Well, not thinking, as much as googling, and at the risk of falling victim to the comedy of errors known as the internet, I looked it up and found an interesting and credible answer in an excerpt from Popular Woodworking quoting the Senior Technical Specialist for Franklin International, the makers of Titebond PVA adhesives:
 
"Our work has shown that a smooth surface will always have higher strength than a rough surface.  Two-hundred grit or higher sanding to get flat or tight-fitting joints works well."
 
The Titebond tech expert gives one caveat: PVA will not bond well to burnished wood. While I doubt wood is intentionally burnished by many modelers, burnishing may inadvertently occur when wood is sanded with dull sandpaper and when sanding dust builds up between the abrasive sheet and the worked surface, especially with high speed power sanders, or when dull circular saw blades and other rotary cutting tools rub against wood surfaces, even to the point of burning. Titebond's expert says wood can be tested for burnishing by placing a drop of water on the surface. If he water soaks into the wood, it's not burnished. If water doesn't soak into the surface readily, the bonding surface must be sanded enough to remove the burnished surface. I have little or no experience with laser-cut parts, but I wonder if the heat to which laser-cut surfaces are exposed may create a burnishing effect which might extend to some depth below the "char" into the wood. Perhaps those using laser-cut parts might do the "water drop test" and report back on this question.
 
The article can be found at https://www.popularwoodworking.com/techniques/best-wood-glue-surface-smooth-or-rough/ and is quite informative. What I found of particular interest upon reflection was the fact that the strength of a PVA glue line is in great measure affected by high clamping pressure. This I knew, but never gave any thought to in the context of modeling. The general woodworking maxim is "except when using epoxy adhesives, glue joints should be clamped as tightly as possible until cured." The way I employ clamping in most modeling applications, when a part is clamped at all, is more to hold the part in place than to apply strong clamping pressure. I do try to mechanically fasten parts as much as possible, using pins and pegs, and I'm even more convinced now of the merit of that practice than before. In so many modeling applications, it's just not possible to clamp a part strongly because of its shape, location, the strength of the part itself, or a combination of the above. It would appear that without strong clamping pressure, PVA may not be any better than any other kind of "stickum."
 
As the saying goes, "Your mileage may vary." but I'm buying what Titebond's in-house senior tech says.   

This seemed to make sense, but I've only ever been concerned about "tooth" in adhesive applications when using epoxy adhesives. When a good epoxy bond is of paramount importance, I use a preliminary application of penetrating epoxy sealer (Smith's "CPES") and then the epoxy adhesive, not clamped too tightly to avoid "joint starvation." (The penetrating epoxy soaks into the wood and the epoxy adhesive then creates a molecular bond with the penetrating epoxy so long as the two are joined within 48 to 72 hours. (See: tech data at: http://www.smithandcompany.org/) I've used a lot of PVA in woodworking applications and, generally speaking, I'm a "planer," not a "sander." I was taught that "the tighter the joint, the stronger the joint."  I've never given a second thought to joining smoothly planed surfaces with PVA and I've joined a lot of them without ever noticing any problem. This got me thinking. Well, not thinking, as much as googling, and at the risk of falling victim to the comedy of errors known as the internet, I looked it up and found an interesting and credible answer in an excerpt from Popular Woodworking quoting the Senior Technical Specialist for Franklin International, the makers of Titebond PVA adhesives:
 
"Our work has shown that a smooth surface will always have higher strength than a rough surface.  Two-hundred grit or higher sanding to get flat or tight-fitting joints works well."
 
The Titebond tech expert gives one caveat: PVA will not bond well to burnished wood. While I doubt wood is intentionally burnished by many modelers, burnishing may inadvertently occur when wood is sanded with dull sandpaper and when sanding dust builds up between the abrasive sheet and the worked surface, especially with high speed power sanders, or when dull circular saw blades and other rotary cutting tools rub against wood surfaces, even to the point of burning. Titebond's expert says wood can be tested for burnishing by placing a drop of water on the surface. If he water soaks into the wood, it's not burnished. If water doesn't soak into the surface readily, the bonding surface must be sanded enough to remove the burnished surface. I have little or no experience with laser-cut parts, but I wonder if the heat to which laser-cut surfaces are exposed may create a burnishing effect which might extend to some depth below the "char" into the wood. Perhaps those using laser-cut parts might do the "water drop test" and report back on this question.
 
The article can be found at https://www.popularwoodworking.com/techniques/best-wood-glue-surface-smooth-or-rough/ and is quite informative. What I found of particular interest upon reflection was the fact that the strength of a PVA glue line is in great measure affected by high clamping pressure. This I knew, but never gave any thought to in the context of modeling. The general woodworking maxim is "except when using epoxy adhesives, glue joints should be clamped as tightly as possible until cured." The way I employ clamping in most modeling applications, when a part is clamped at all, is more to hold the part in place than to apply strong clamping pressure. I do try to mechanically fasten parts as much as possible, using pins and pegs, and I'm even more convinced now of the merit of that practice than before. In so many modeling applications, it's just not possible to clamp a part strongly because of its shape, location, the strength of the part itself, or a combination of the above. It would appear that without strong clamping pressure, PVA may not be any better than any other kind of "stickum."
 
As the saying goes, "Your mileage may vary." but I'm buying what Titebond's in-house senior tech says.   

Who's the lubber that brought that butt-ugly hank of yellow climbing rope aboard?  

I'll see you  your Cannons and raise you my Nikon F Photomic head system and later Nikon 35mm's. Then there's the Leica screw mount stuff I inherited from a friend. The whole cased system, less the IIIg body. My 120 format cut and roll film cameras are gone, but I still have the darkroom equipment for them and a 70+ year old Solar bellows enlarger. I wish I knew some kid that wanted to get into doing their own B/W processing. I can't bring myself to donate it all to Goodwill and I'm too lazy to off it on eBay. I keep telling myself film is going to come back like vinyl LP's are.    

I'll see you  your Cannons and raise you my Nikon F Photomic head system and later Nikon 35mm's. Then there's the Leica screw mount stuff I inherited from a friend. The whole cased system, less the IIIg body. My 120 format cut and roll film cameras are gone, but I still have the darkroom equipment for them and a 70+ year old Solar bellows enlarger. I wish I knew some kid that wanted to get into doing their own B/W processing. I can't bring myself to donate it all to Goodwill and I'm too lazy to off it on eBay. I keep telling myself film is going to come back like vinyl LP's are.    

Yeah, as the sayings go, in full-size boatbuilding, "You can never have enough clamps." and in ship modeling, "You can never have enough research!." at some point, you just have to start building. You're way ahead of me on that score.   I enjoy the research as much as the building, though. 

Some time ago I took this pic of my (unfinished) model of the Rattlesnake, using focus stacking and Photoshop. It works.

Anyone want a complete Nikon F3 system with a selection of focus screens and a 6X vertical viewfinder that replaces the pentaprism?
 
The two rail bellows attachment allows the lens to be shifted side to side and rotated a bit to accomplish the effects Charles mentions - to a degree.
 
I have used it with Nikon digital bodies, but everything is totally manual.
 
Photo stacking does work, and I don't find it to be much more trouble than editing ordinary photos. This picture was made with 12 stacked photos. The model is 22.5 inches long from the tip of the bowsprit to the ends of the boat booms on the stern, and it is in focus the entire distance! The pictures were made with a Nikon Micro Nikkor 105 mm f2.8 macro lens at f25 and 1 second.
 

 
However, all is not perfect. I did the stacking in Photoshop and it did get confused at the lower left. Looking at the plank edges you can see where it  picked the wrong images and the edges are  out of focus. Still, a 22.5 inch depth of field would be very hard to get any other way.
 
Another way to get an extended depth of field is to use a long focal length lens and photograph the object from a long distance with a small diaphragm opening (large f-stop number). You will need a lot of light and a lot of room to set up the shot.
 

Yeah, as the sayings go, in full-size boatbuilding, "You can never have enough clamps." and in ship modeling, "You can never have enough research!." at some point, you just have to start building. You're way ahead of me on that score.   I enjoy the research as much as the building, though. 

Roger,
Jim uses a 1/3 HP motor for many of his machines that is heavy enough that tipping over is an unlikely problem.
It is probably a good idea to set the distance between the table and the drum to remove a minimum layer of wood.
The force from the hand feeding the stock should be fairly low. Most of it is resisting kickback.  The push should not be enough
to tip over a much lighter unit.   The pull from the vac hose should be minimized.  A sky hook with a bungee or it being a horse shoe, with
down stream on the bench surface.
The only problem I have experienced is a weak spring holding the depth dial. It only wants the open, so I fit a 2" C-clamp to it and have it butt the table.
The media is easy to mount - not like me having to glue it to a Maple drum on my old NRJ plans homemade unit.
 
Get spare screws.  A plank fixed to the motor base floor with holes to hold the Allen wrenches and a contact lens type container with a lid to hold screws
will keep everything to hand and keep bits from going away while doing a media change has been good for me.

Roger,
 
Like all of Jim’s tools, the thickness sander is a superbly designed, easy to use tool. I have had one for several years now and have never had an issue of it wanting to tip during use. It may have something to do with the slight upward angle of the feed table. Regardless, I guess the key would be to not try to take too much off in one pass, but you’ll quickly get a feel for what is “about right” for the particular species and thickness you’re using at the time.
 
Not sure if it’s included with the base package, but there is a separate 6” retainer bar iavailable n addition to the two 3” ones. The two 3” ones allows you to load two different grades of sandpaper onto the machine so you have a “coarse” and a “fine” without having to change paper. If you’ve got slight wider stock, you may want to replace these with the single 6” retainer bar and a single grade of sandpaper. I have found this to be a useful addition.

I haven't used a view camera in a long time.  Got rid of my darkroom when I concluded that spending time in it took time I could be shooting so farmed the darkroom work out to the pro lab and concentrated on the photography.  Sold the 4x5 and the RB67 just in time before you couldn't give away film cameras (and a 4x5 digital back is just too much cash.   Anybody want to buy a few Canon F1's and a bunch of Canon lenses (that don't work on my digital Canons)?
 
Enter the digital age and knowing the limitations of a TS lens decided that focus stacking was the way for me to go.  A bit of hassle but it does work.
Kurt

I will be following your gléoiteog build with interest. I have a Galway Hooker on deck for my next build, a larger gleoiteog or a smaller leathbhad, if i ever can get my shop reorganized. I've done the research and, compared to other types, there's precious little available on the hookers, really, and some of the sail plans published aren't accurate at all. I can count the number of reliably accurate published plans drawings on one hand. (Notably, Chapelle's "Boston Hooker's" sail plan is nothing like the distinctive rig of the hookers and, contrary to his description in American Small Sailing Craft, there was no difference between the Galway Hookers and the Boston Hookers, the latter being built at Boston by a transplanted hooker builder from Galway.) If you can afford the astounding prices they're asking for a used copy (as much as $675 for the out-of-print 160 page paperback, but it can be found for much less if you search for it) Galway Hookers: Working Sailboats of Galway Bay, by Richard J. Scott, will be found invaluable. It is the only authoritative source detailing the methods employed for building these boats, for which no plans were ever used. They are built "basket style," by setting up four molds: a midship mold and one forward and aft of midships, a transom mold and the stem. These molds were made from patterns handed down through the generations, perhaps as far back as the mid-Eighteenth Century, by the handful of boatbuilders on the coast of County Galway and enlarged or reduced to suit the size of  the vessel to be built. Scott's book gives all the other proportional scantlings and measurements which were dictated by oral tradition, all being derived from the length of the vessel. (e.g. "the mast is as long as the boat is long; The bowsprit is half the length of the boat," sort of thing.)
 
With the backbone laid down, the patterns were set up and battens run from stem to transom and the frames were then built to fit inside the "basket" formed by the battens which, together with the patterns, The framing method of single futtocks alternately lapped was unique to our experience until the recent archaeological find of a Sixteenth Century Basque fishing boat, which more strongly evidences that the evolutionary genetics of the Galway Hooker may have been Iberian than was previously known.
 
Traditional Boats of Ireland, History, Forklore, and Construction is another great book, but it only briefly covers the hookers, giving them equal space along with all the other Irish working watercraft, of which there are many. While the hookers have enjoyed a resurgence of popularity in recent decades, they remain something of a local phenomenon. The best connection is probably the Galway Hooker's Association: https://www.galwayhookers.ie/  Padraig O'Sabhain's 304 page thesis The centrality of the Galway hooker to dwelling in the island and coastal communities of south west Conamara is linked on the Association's home page and, while I haven't had time to read it all, looks to be a something fun to curl up with on a rainy night.
 
One catch about researching the Irish hookers is that everything about them, from the names of their variants to the parts of the vessels are expressed in Irish Gaelic which uses Roman letters, but does not have the same phonetics as English. While I grew up in a home where Irish was spoken, we never learned it as children because it was the language my grandmother and mother spoke as "code" when they didn't want the kids to know what they were saying! That was only natural for my grandmother from "around the corner" from Galway in County Cork. When she was growing up, the British did all they could to stamp out the language. Children were forbidden to speak it in school. In today's Irish Republic, Irish is taught in all the schools and far more widely spoken than during the British Colonial period. Who'd have ever thought I'd have had any need to learn it later in life!
 
(I figure you know this stuff, but others who may have an interest in modeling the hooker might not.)
 
I plan to build a static model to a larger scale, perhaps 1:24, to permit depiction of all the classic details. 
 
Good luck with your build!
 
 

Very clever approach to planking first and removing the bulkheads! Your hull has a nice shape.
 
I'm not sure to what extent you are planning to display your framing, but you might want to take a closer look at the framing detail. While there is one set of construction drawings on the internet done by Nick Branson (https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/26ft-galway-hooker-pucan-to-build.40781/) which shows a simple half-lap scarf to join futtocks to create a single frame, these plans have been "modernized" and do not employ the traditional, and very distinctive, framing and other construction methods and scantlings of the traditional Irish hookers. There are no steamed frames in a traditionally-built Irish hooker.  Hookers have sawn frames.The molded depth of the frames is perhaps twice their sided width.  Peculiarly, the futtocks are staggered. There is a floor timber (no keelson) from which which three overlapping futtocks rise, alternating to one side or the other.  Their ends are cut at an angle and fastened with a bolt and four nails holding them where they overlap. These overlaps are lined up in a fair line fore and aft. Frames far forward and far aft are canted and, where their shape allows in the bow, may be sawn from a single timber. One might overlook this detail for the sake of "artistic license," but as it is so distinctive a construction feature, and one that reaches back in a straight line perhaps as much as 300 or more years to its likely Basque antecedents, you may wish to depict this feature accurately in your model. 
 
This series of three videos contains a fair amount of detail on the construction of the traditional hooker. You can hit "pause" when you see a hooker in frame and study how the futtocks are placed. 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3R4ZdW3trY
 
 
 
 

Yes, on all counts. i can't imagine running one without a good vacuum pickup. (My Byrnes sander has and excellent one.)
 
Plain sandpaper isn't really the best option. What is the best is the same heavy cloth-backed abrasive material that belt sander belts are made of.

Yes, on all counts. i can't imagine running one without a good vacuum pickup. (My Byrnes sander has and excellent one.)
 
Plain sandpaper isn't really the best option. What is the best is the same heavy cloth-backed abrasive material that belt sander belts are made of.

I don't really have any experience with drum sanders and don't really need one for my current projects - however, I would be a bit concerned for the motor life with the open commutator. Dust can accumulate in the motor very quickly.
 
I gather the life-time of the abrasive paper also depends on how much thickness you take off by pass. If the drum gets too hot, you may rip out more easily the grains. So there will be RRMs, feed rate and thickness per pass to consider.

Eberhard, cleaver work resulting in nice attention to detail.

Not at all, no soldering. As I wrote above, the stiles are simply cemented on using the brand cement UHU Alleskleber. Seems to hold on well for several decades now on glass and some five years on the first case I built from Plexiglas.
 
I must admit, that I took the design from McCaffery's book on Miniature Ship models. He uses silicone to cement together the glass panes, as well as to stick on the stiles. At one time I found that I ran out of silicone and because of the weekend resorted to UHU. It is much easier to clean up than silicone, which tends to creep around (which of course is the purpose). Also, although McCaffery is really preoccopied with the longevity and stability of materials, he kind of ignores the issue of acetic acid fumes that form, when silicone cures and penetrate into the case.

Who's the lubber that brought that butt-ugly hank of yellow climbing rope aboard?  

The plastic bellows of the scroll saw needed to be replace. It would have cost about $100 to replace it. I did not like that price, so I replaced it with an aquarium air pump.

The old gunsmith’s formula for finishing gunstocks is 1/3 linseed oil, 1/3 turpentine, and 1/3 varnish.  This is applied with a rag and rubbed out with a Mark 1 Mod 0 finger.
 
I mixed some up a while ago using  stuff on hand from previous projects; satin marine varnish (not polyurethane), boiled linseed oil, and real turpentine.  It works great, providing a hard satin finish.  It,keeps well in a screw top jar.
 
incidently, I have a big waste basket container in my shop where I keep a supply of tin cans, plastic yougart cups, etc.  like Bob says, don’t throw things away.
 
Roger

Of course! The "Traditional Boats of Ireland Project" web page is from the same people who put together the book of the same name I mentioned. The book isn't cheap (or wasn't when I bought it new,) but if you liked the web page, you'll love the book.