Bob Cleek

My vote goes for the Byrne's sander. Have had mine for a couple months now and find it very useful.
 
If your scratch building, the Byrne's thickness sander is also a great choice.

Ah, the legendary and now out-of-production Aeropiccola electric plank bender, and at a great price, too. They're "finestkind." This one is for British 220 VAC power service.

That's one way to do it.
 
If the pin rail is too thin to run a pin through it horizontally, another solution would be to drill the hole for the fastening at an angle through the top of the pinrail, down at an angle so i exits the bottom or the pin rail. Then drive the pin, nail, or piece of wire, or even bamboo through the angled hole and into the bulwark or frames. The entry hole can then be puttied over so as to make the pin hole invisible. One handy product for filling nail and pin holes is called "furniture repair wax crayons" or "fill sticks." These are crayon-like sticks of wax which softens when warmed by your hand. You just rub the crayon over the hole in the wood press it into the hole, then wipe over the hold to fair the wax to the level of the surface. These come in a number of colors to match various wood species. There are also softer "finishing creams" and "nail hole fillers" in a variety of wood tones and even bright colors. These are used by picture framers to fill nail holes and joints in picture frames.  See: https://www.unitedmfrs.com/frame_touch_up_supplies_s/12.htm?searching=Y&sort=2&show=30&page=1

I find the disk sander I have (unfortunately not the Byrnes one) very useful. 
 
Also do you have the cross-cut sled for the saw? I'm using this a lot.

The US was slow to adopt diesel technology.  The US Navy did not convert its motorized ships boats from gas to diesel until well into the 1930’s and the landing craft that fought in WW II were initially gasoline powered.  American PT boats remained gasoline powered by three Packard engines burning high octane aviation gas throughout the war.
 
 The US has never adopted the very large direct connected slow speed European diesels for marine propulsion.  Applications using large scale diesel power such as the 1000ft Great Lakes ore carriers and the few larger diesel powered US Navy ships use medium speed diesels driving controllable pitch propellers via gear box.
 
Semi diesels have been used in the US, the most famous being the Khalenberg engines built in Two Rivers Wisconsin.  Many of these were used to power Great Lakes fishing boats.  One of these was used to power an environmental research vessel owned by the Superior branch of the University of Wisconsin.  She continued to sail until she was recently sold to a private owner and I lost track of her.  
 
Roger

In American English, "busted" not only means "broken," but also, in slang, "arrested by  the police" or "caught in the commission of a crime."   
 
I enjoyed doing the detective work!
 
Several model part companies make suitably sized sliding stock metal anchors, so they're readily available. See: https://www.castyouranchorhobby.com/Category/KedgeAnchor; https://www.cornwallmodelboats.co.uk/acatalog/amati_anchors.html

Very true, Eberhard. Unlike in Europe, over here, early marine engines were gasoline powered, large-cylindered, slow-turning behemoths. I've had the pleasure of being acquainted by a couple of them, which started by opening a compression-release lever, filling a small cup on a pet cock in the cylinder head with gasoline (or something "hotter" like starting fluid) and kicking a huge flywheel with your foot until you got it turning pretty well. Then one opened the pet cock to let the thimble-full of fuel run into the single cylinder, and quickly closed the pet cock and the compression-release lever. Hopefully, the engine would start with a "ka-thunk, ka-thunk, ka-thunk, ka-thunk,... turning a large, high-torque propeller, and off she'd go. There are still some of these old engines in a few preserved privately owned historic vessels and in museums. The most well-known of the type, the Hicks Engines, were manufactured in my home town, San Francisco. The technology of these high-torque early gasoline marine engines reflects their steam powered antecedents. 
 
 
 
 
And since this is a modeling forum, here's a 1:8 scale working model of a similar Hicks engine. I don't know this modeler, but I'd sure like to meet him. Talk about an amazing example of model engineering. Truly mind-boggling!
 
 

Very true, Eberhard. Unlike in Europe, over here, early marine engines were gasoline powered, large-cylindered, slow-turning behemoths. I've had the pleasure of being acquainted by a couple of them, which started by opening a compression-release lever, filling a small cup on a pet cock in the cylinder head with gasoline (or something "hotter" like starting fluid) and kicking a huge flywheel with your foot until you got it turning pretty well. Then one opened the pet cock to let the thimble-full of fuel run into the single cylinder, and quickly closed the pet cock and the compression-release lever. Hopefully, the engine would start with a "ka-thunk, ka-thunk, ka-thunk, ka-thunk,... turning a large, high-torque propeller, and off she'd go. There are still some of these old engines in a few preserved privately owned historic vessels and in museums. The most well-known of the type, the Hicks Engines, were manufactured in my home town, San Francisco. The technology of these high-torque early gasoline marine engines reflects their steam powered antecedents. 
 
 
 
 
And since this is a modeling forum, here's a 1:8 scale working model of a similar Hicks engine. I don't know this modeler, but I'd sure like to meet him. Talk about an amazing example of model engineering. Truly mind-boggling!
 
 

Very true, Eberhard. Unlike in Europe, over here, early marine engines were gasoline powered, large-cylindered, slow-turning behemoths. I've had the pleasure of being acquainted by a couple of them, which started by opening a compression-release lever, filling a small cup on a pet cock in the cylinder head with gasoline (or something "hotter" like starting fluid) and kicking a huge flywheel with your foot until you got it turning pretty well. Then one opened the pet cock to let the thimble-full of fuel run into the single cylinder, and quickly closed the pet cock and the compression-release lever. Hopefully, the engine would start with a "ka-thunk, ka-thunk, ka-thunk, ka-thunk,... turning a large, high-torque propeller, and off she'd go. There are still some of these old engines in a few preserved privately owned historic vessels and in museums. The most well-known of the type, the Hicks Engines, were manufactured in my home town, San Francisco. The technology of these high-torque early gasoline marine engines reflects their steam powered antecedents. 
 
 
 
 
And since this is a modeling forum, here's a 1:8 scale working model of a similar Hicks engine. I don't know this modeler, but I'd sure like to meet him. Talk about an amazing example of model engineering. Truly mind-boggling!
 
 

Well, your doubts show you were thinking!  
 
I have that book in my research library, but it's been years since I've opened it. The anchor pictured didn't register on my mind when I read the book. That anchor would be a tricky bit of ship smithing to craft. Note, however, that the anchor in the book, above, is nearly ten feet long from top to bottom! That's a seriously large anchor as might be found on an early Grand Banks fishing schooner three times as long as Glad Tidings. The working anchors on the 39' Glad Tidings probably wouldn't be any longer top to bottom than about four feet and wouldn't warrant the sort of forging sophistication that a ten foot tall anchor would, particularly not in 1937 when Glad Tidings was built and folding stock anchors of the proper size could be bought "off the shelf" in any chandlery in the country. 
 
So, I did a bit of internet sleuthing and ... 
 
Model Shipways "busted !"
 
The Model Shipways model of the fishing schooner Benjamin W. Latham (http://site.nature-crafts.com/MS2109-Benjamin_Latham-Instructions.pdf) at the scale of 1/4" to the foot apparently uses the same anchor casting part (illustrated at figure 31 in the instructions) for the anchor on their Glad Tidings model at the scale of 1/2" to the foot.  The Latham was 84 feet long, about half the size of Glad Tidings, so the 84' Latham's 10 foot tall anchor at 1/4" to the foot would be about 5 foot tall at 1/2" to the foot scale, close enough to pass off as the right size for their '39 Glad Tidings model scaled at 1/2" to the foot!  The instructions for Model Shipways' model of the 143' Grand Banks schooner Bluenose at 3/16" to the foot (https://modelexpo-online.com/assets/images/MS2130_Bluenose NEW 7-15-20.pdf) comments at note 14, "Model Shipways' Grand Bank's anchors have Britannia shanks, but make their stocks from stripwood."
 
The Model Shipways Glad Tidings parts list lists two "Anchor Shanks" as parts WP8150. 
 
Sure enough! Here's the Model Shipways Glad Tidings anchor as part number WP5801, "Anchor Shanks," on their Bluenose model (https://suburbanshipmodeler.com/2017/04/09/anchors/) :
 

 
 

 
See: http://modelshipbuilder.com/e107_files/public/1554385959_5618_FT33665_img_0454a.jpg
 
 
And here it is again as part number WP7124 on Model Shipways' Grand Banks schooner Benjamin W. Latham model:
 

 

 
 
The casting of a folding stock anchor, particularly one with a stock that actually worked, would be a daunting, and, to the manufacturer's thinking, unnecessarily expensive detail. Kit manufacturers frequently use the same small parts in different kits, a practice that often results in gross errors of scale, although I've never seen an error in the type of a part, as here. It looks like all Model Shipways did was use an anchor which was style and period correct for their Grand Banks fishing schooners at twice the prototype size of Glad Tidings which was twice the scale of the Grand Banks schooner models. The size of the anchors Model Shipways provides for Glad Tidings is correct, or close to it, but the type and period of the anchors aren't correct at all.
 
 
 

I realize that the anchors are those provided by the kit manufacturer, but, although I am quite familiar with many boats of this relatively modern boat's era, I've never seen a wooden stocked anchor with the stock passing through a square hole or band through the shank as these Model Shipways anchors do. (Not to mention that wooden stocks on anchors of any size were long obsolete by the time Glad Tidings was built.) That isn't to say there never was such a thing, but this is the first I've ever seen of one in more years than I'd like to admit at this point in my life. It would seem that the manufacturing of such an anchor would be a lot of trouble for not much, if any, benefit and add unnecessary weight. Generally, a late 1930's boat of this size would, contemporary with her launching, carry a standard folding "fisherman" anchor with a metal stock that slid through the shank such that the stock could be positioned to lay alongside the shank when the anchor was stowed flat on the deck, rather than slung on the rail. This was a big improvement over fixed stock anchors and became near universally employed when they became available. In my experience, wooden stocks, when employed, were fitted in pieces over the shank of the anchor and never through the shank.  
 
I want to stress that this is no criticism of the model, which is beautifully done. Just a question about a note of historical accuracy. If anybody knows of this unusual stock design, I'd be interested in hearing more about it. Howard I. Chapelle designed Glad Tidings as his own personal yacht and he knew what he was doing. Perhaps he wanted anchors that looked "old fashioned," but that's just a guess, and, if so, why didn't just make them to fit around the shank as usual?
 
Standard galvanized folding stock "fisherman" anchor as assembled for use:
 

 
Folding stock "fisherman" anchor folded:
 
http://www.herreshoffregistry.org/forum/images/Anchor_1.JPG
 
Folding stock "fisherman" anchor stowed as read for deployment:
 

 
Folding stock "fisherman's" anchor as stowed long-term on deck pads made of wood, or, as here, of cast metal:
 
(Note, the picture merely shows how the pads were commonly placed, but the anchor and pads are here obviously just laying on a hardwood floor, not a boat deck, for photographing. Pad eyes,  were usually set into the deck. Lashings would be rove through the pad eyes and around the shank and/or fluke arms to secure the anchor to the deck.)
 

 
Or stowed below, here in a lazarette locker:
 

 
Herreshoff patent three-piece anchor:
 
Note unique features: Stock runs through the shank and the shackle eyes with cotter pins holding stock in place outside of shackle eyes on each side and the flukes at the crown in this example. (Other examples used a key rather than a pin.) 
 
 

 
 
Herreshoff three-piece patent anchor parts disassembled:
 
Note flared lower end of the shank against which the flukes fetch up. One distinctive advantage of the Herreshoff patent anchors was that because they could be broken down into their component parts, the design was particularly well suited for use as heavy, and (hopefully) infrequently used storm anchors which could be stored, disassembled, in the bilges, keeping the weight low in the vessel and being more easily capable of getting from the bilge to the deck in parts before assembly. In this fashion, a 150 pound storm anchor could pretty easily be brought on deck in fifty pound increments that were easily moved about below, unlike a 150 pound anchor with fixed flukes, shank, and stock.
 

 
Chapelle was an accomplished yachtsman and at the time he designed and had Glad Tidings built, it would have been quite possible he equipped her with Herreshoff patent anchors as they were, for their time, the most efficient and reliable anchors available, pound for pound, due to their scientific engineering.  Here's an extensive article on the Herreshoff patent anchors, if anyone wishes more information on them:  https://www.woodenboat.com/herreshoff-three-piece-stock-anchor
 
Obviously, the fixed stock anchors supplied with the kit leave no other practical option for stowage but slung over the rails port and starboard, as shown in the plans. Were folding stock anchors actually carried on the prototype, they would never have been stowed over the rails in fixed-stock fashion when under sail, except on short trips between anchorages as such a stowage arrangement invites chafe and topside gouges and presents the risk of sheet fouling when tacking, which is less of a consideration in vessels sheeting the jib on a traveler, as does this one.
 
Anchor rodes should, at a minimum, be eight times the depth of the deepest water in which the vessel is expected to anchor. If, for example, the greatest anchorage depth expected is thirty feet, 240 feet of anchor rode would be required. While it's difficult to know for sure from the photos, it appears the rodes attached to the anchors are nowhere close to 240 scale feet. One might carry the total rode required in separate lengths, for ease of stowage. However, in any event, the rodes would never be carried on deck "flemished" (coiled flat) as depicted when under sail. The rodes would not run free from the outside of the coil, as depicted and one flush of green water over the foredeck would instantly turn those flemished mats into a tangled mess strewn up and down the waterways. (Normally, they would be run through a chain pipe on deck to a rode locker below, or stowed below separate from the anchor when not in use.)  Flemishing was an affectation employed on naval ships when dressed for inspection, frequently seen on the falls of the gun tackles, but never done during operations. A fouled gun tackle fall, e.g. a hockle jammed in a block, can put a gun out of commission for as long as it takes to remedy, thereby reducing it's rate of fire.
 
So, I offer these thoughts not as any gratuitous criticism of what is a masterfully built model and a beautifully presented build log, but out of genuine intellectual curiosity and in the possible event that the kit plans, even from a manufacturer as highly regarded as Model Shipways, may contain an historical error. I readily acknowledge that it's entirely possible that I may be "whistling into the wind." I gave it some thought and figured that I might have something to share on the subject and because I believe it is more collegially helpful to question apparent errors gracefully to say nothing. This may be a topic for a separate thread sometime, but I'll mention in closing that my own "rule of thumb" is that if I think that an apparent minor issue with a model is one which could mean the difference between a win and an "also ran" in a competition, I'll say something because if I were in the modeler's shoes, I'd appreciate someone bringing it to my attention. Little is to be learned by the large number of congratulatory posts so often seen in other modeling forums. They generate a lot of warmth, but little light.
 
 
 
 
 

Very true, Eberhard. Unlike in Europe, over here, early marine engines were gasoline powered, large-cylindered, slow-turning behemoths. I've had the pleasure of being acquainted by a couple of them, which started by opening a compression-release lever, filling a small cup on a pet cock in the cylinder head with gasoline (or something "hotter" like starting fluid) and kicking a huge flywheel with your foot until you got it turning pretty well. Then one opened the pet cock to let the thimble-full of fuel run into the single cylinder, and quickly closed the pet cock and the compression-release lever. Hopefully, the engine would start with a "ka-thunk, ka-thunk, ka-thunk, ka-thunk,... turning a large, high-torque propeller, and off she'd go. There are still some of these old engines in a few preserved privately owned historic vessels and in museums. The most well-known of the type, the Hicks Engines, were manufactured in my home town, San Francisco. The technology of these high-torque early gasoline marine engines reflects their steam powered antecedents. 
 
 
 
 
And since this is a modeling forum, here's a 1:8 scale working model of a similar Hicks engine. I don't know this modeler, but I'd sure like to meet him. Talk about an amazing example of model engineering. Truly mind-boggling!
 
 

Well, your doubts show you were thinking!  
 
I have that book in my research library, but it's been years since I've opened it. The anchor pictured didn't register on my mind when I read the book. That anchor would be a tricky bit of ship smithing to craft. Note, however, that the anchor in the book, above, is nearly ten feet long from top to bottom! That's a seriously large anchor as might be found on an early Grand Banks fishing schooner three times as long as Glad Tidings. The working anchors on the 39' Glad Tidings probably wouldn't be any longer top to bottom than about four feet and wouldn't warrant the sort of forging sophistication that a ten foot tall anchor would, particularly not in 1937 when Glad Tidings was built and folding stock anchors of the proper size could be bought "off the shelf" in any chandlery in the country. 
 
So, I did a bit of internet sleuthing and ... 
 
Model Shipways "busted !"
 
The Model Shipways model of the fishing schooner Benjamin W. Latham (http://site.nature-crafts.com/MS2109-Benjamin_Latham-Instructions.pdf) at the scale of 1/4" to the foot apparently uses the same anchor casting part (illustrated at figure 31 in the instructions) for the anchor on their Glad Tidings model at the scale of 1/2" to the foot.  The Latham was 84 feet long, about half the size of Glad Tidings, so the 84' Latham's 10 foot tall anchor at 1/4" to the foot would be about 5 foot tall at 1/2" to the foot scale, close enough to pass off as the right size for their '39 Glad Tidings model scaled at 1/2" to the foot!  The instructions for Model Shipways' model of the 143' Grand Banks schooner Bluenose at 3/16" to the foot (https://modelexpo-online.com/assets/images/MS2130_Bluenose NEW 7-15-20.pdf) comments at note 14, "Model Shipways' Grand Bank's anchors have Britannia shanks, but make their stocks from stripwood."
 
The Model Shipways Glad Tidings parts list lists two "Anchor Shanks" as parts WP8150. 
 
Sure enough! Here's the Model Shipways Glad Tidings anchor as part number WP5801, "Anchor Shanks," on their Bluenose model (https://suburbanshipmodeler.com/2017/04/09/anchors/) :
 

 
 

 
See: http://modelshipbuilder.com/e107_files/public/1554385959_5618_FT33665_img_0454a.jpg
 
 
And here it is again as part number WP7124 on Model Shipways' Grand Banks schooner Benjamin W. Latham model:
 

 

 
 
The casting of a folding stock anchor, particularly one with a stock that actually worked, would be a daunting, and, to the manufacturer's thinking, unnecessarily expensive detail. Kit manufacturers frequently use the same small parts in different kits, a practice that often results in gross errors of scale, although I've never seen an error in the type of a part, as here. It looks like all Model Shipways did was use an anchor which was style and period correct for their Grand Banks fishing schooners at twice the prototype size of Glad Tidings which was twice the scale of the Grand Banks schooner models. The size of the anchors Model Shipways provides for Glad Tidings is correct, or close to it, but the type and period of the anchors aren't correct at all.
 
 
 

I realize that the anchors are those provided by the kit manufacturer, but, although I am quite familiar with many boats of this relatively modern boat's era, I've never seen a wooden stocked anchor with the stock passing through a square hole or band through the shank as these Model Shipways anchors do. (Not to mention that wooden stocks on anchors of any size were long obsolete by the time Glad Tidings was built.) That isn't to say there never was such a thing, but this is the first I've ever seen of one in more years than I'd like to admit at this point in my life. It would seem that the manufacturing of such an anchor would be a lot of trouble for not much, if any, benefit and add unnecessary weight. Generally, a late 1930's boat of this size would, contemporary with her launching, carry a standard folding "fisherman" anchor with a metal stock that slid through the shank such that the stock could be positioned to lay alongside the shank when the anchor was stowed flat on the deck, rather than slung on the rail. This was a big improvement over fixed stock anchors and became near universally employed when they became available. In my experience, wooden stocks, when employed, were fitted in pieces over the shank of the anchor and never through the shank.  
 
I want to stress that this is no criticism of the model, which is beautifully done. Just a question about a note of historical accuracy. If anybody knows of this unusual stock design, I'd be interested in hearing more about it. Howard I. Chapelle designed Glad Tidings as his own personal yacht and he knew what he was doing. Perhaps he wanted anchors that looked "old fashioned," but that's just a guess, and, if so, why didn't just make them to fit around the shank as usual?
 
Standard galvanized folding stock "fisherman" anchor as assembled for use:
 

 
Folding stock "fisherman" anchor folded:
 
http://www.herreshoffregistry.org/forum/images/Anchor_1.JPG
 
Folding stock "fisherman" anchor stowed as read for deployment:
 

 
Folding stock "fisherman's" anchor as stowed long-term on deck pads made of wood, or, as here, of cast metal:
 
(Note, the picture merely shows how the pads were commonly placed, but the anchor and pads are here obviously just laying on a hardwood floor, not a boat deck, for photographing. Pad eyes,  were usually set into the deck. Lashings would be rove through the pad eyes and around the shank and/or fluke arms to secure the anchor to the deck.)
 

 
Or stowed below, here in a lazarette locker:
 

 
Herreshoff patent three-piece anchor:
 
Note unique features: Stock runs through the shank and the shackle eyes with cotter pins holding stock in place outside of shackle eyes on each side and the flukes at the crown in this example. (Other examples used a key rather than a pin.) 
 
 

 
 
Herreshoff three-piece patent anchor parts disassembled:
 
Note flared lower end of the shank against which the flukes fetch up. One distinctive advantage of the Herreshoff patent anchors was that because they could be broken down into their component parts, the design was particularly well suited for use as heavy, and (hopefully) infrequently used storm anchors which could be stored, disassembled, in the bilges, keeping the weight low in the vessel and being more easily capable of getting from the bilge to the deck in parts before assembly. In this fashion, a 150 pound storm anchor could pretty easily be brought on deck in fifty pound increments that were easily moved about below, unlike a 150 pound anchor with fixed flukes, shank, and stock.
 

 
Chapelle was an accomplished yachtsman and at the time he designed and had Glad Tidings built, it would have been quite possible he equipped her with Herreshoff patent anchors as they were, for their time, the most efficient and reliable anchors available, pound for pound, due to their scientific engineering.  Here's an extensive article on the Herreshoff patent anchors, if anyone wishes more information on them:  https://www.woodenboat.com/herreshoff-three-piece-stock-anchor
 
Obviously, the fixed stock anchors supplied with the kit leave no other practical option for stowage but slung over the rails port and starboard, as shown in the plans. Were folding stock anchors actually carried on the prototype, they would never have been stowed over the rails in fixed-stock fashion when under sail, except on short trips between anchorages as such a stowage arrangement invites chafe and topside gouges and presents the risk of sheet fouling when tacking, which is less of a consideration in vessels sheeting the jib on a traveler, as does this one.
 
Anchor rodes should, at a minimum, be eight times the depth of the deepest water in which the vessel is expected to anchor. If, for example, the greatest anchorage depth expected is thirty feet, 240 feet of anchor rode would be required. While it's difficult to know for sure from the photos, it appears the rodes attached to the anchors are nowhere close to 240 scale feet. One might carry the total rode required in separate lengths, for ease of stowage. However, in any event, the rodes would never be carried on deck "flemished" (coiled flat) as depicted when under sail. The rodes would not run free from the outside of the coil, as depicted and one flush of green water over the foredeck would instantly turn those flemished mats into a tangled mess strewn up and down the waterways. (Normally, they would be run through a chain pipe on deck to a rode locker below, or stowed below separate from the anchor when not in use.)  Flemishing was an affectation employed on naval ships when dressed for inspection, frequently seen on the falls of the gun tackles, but never done during operations. A fouled gun tackle fall, e.g. a hockle jammed in a block, can put a gun out of commission for as long as it takes to remedy, thereby reducing it's rate of fire.
 
So, I offer these thoughts not as any gratuitous criticism of what is a masterfully built model and a beautifully presented build log, but out of genuine intellectual curiosity and in the possible event that the kit plans, even from a manufacturer as highly regarded as Model Shipways, may contain an historical error. I readily acknowledge that it's entirely possible that I may be "whistling into the wind." I gave it some thought and figured that I might have something to share on the subject and because I believe it is more collegially helpful to question apparent errors gracefully to say nothing. This may be a topic for a separate thread sometime, but I'll mention in closing that my own "rule of thumb" is that if I think that an apparent minor issue with a model is one which could mean the difference between a win and an "also ran" in a competition, I'll say something because if I were in the modeler's shoes, I'd appreciate someone bringing it to my attention. Little is to be learned by the large number of congratulatory posts so often seen in other modeling forums. They generate a lot of warmth, but little light.
 
 
 
 
 

Very true, Eberhard. Unlike in Europe, over here, early marine engines were gasoline powered, large-cylindered, slow-turning behemoths. I've had the pleasure of being acquainted by a couple of them, which started by opening a compression-release lever, filling a small cup on a pet cock in the cylinder head with gasoline (or something "hotter" like starting fluid) and kicking a huge flywheel with your foot until you got it turning pretty well. Then one opened the pet cock to let the thimble-full of fuel run into the single cylinder, and quickly closed the pet cock and the compression-release lever. Hopefully, the engine would start with a "ka-thunk, ka-thunk, ka-thunk, ka-thunk,... turning a large, high-torque propeller, and off she'd go. There are still some of these old engines in a few preserved privately owned historic vessels and in museums. The most well-known of the type, the Hicks Engines, were manufactured in my home town, San Francisco. The technology of these high-torque early gasoline marine engines reflects their steam powered antecedents. 
 
 
 
 
And since this is a modeling forum, here's a 1:8 scale working model of a similar Hicks engine. I don't know this modeler, but I'd sure like to meet him. Talk about an amazing example of model engineering. Truly mind-boggling!
 
 

When and what to paint really depends upon the progress of the build. Generally, apply finish coatings when it is easiest to do so. It's surely easier to paint separate parts and then secure them to the model if that avoids having to mask or carefully cut in edges. If a hull has a lot of "attachments," it's often much easier to finish the overall hull coatings first and then add the attachments because you'll be sanding "wide open spaces" and not having to sand around edges and corners (which you don't want to round off with sandpaper, anyhow.) Bottom line, "use your own judgment."
 
As for protecting finished work, here again, common sense prevails and discovering solutions is part of the joy of the hobby. I often find using those foam insulating split tubes they sell at the hardware store to keep pipes from freezing or to insulate hot water pipes under houses is a good way to protect finishes during construction. They can be cut up in sections and several sections taped together at the ends with duct tape to form a "cradle" that will hold a model hull upright and secure without marring the finish on the hull.
 
You will often read that parts should best not be glued to finish coated surfaces and that's generally sound advice. That said, however, many of us hew to the traditional US Navy contract ship model "mil-spec" requirements and always mechanically fasten parts on our models, most often with a peg glued into a drilled hole or similar. This practice renders the "don't glue to painted surfaces" advise irrelevant and also eliminates most all  problems with adhesives letting go.
 
Finish coatings are an essential feature of a well done model and developing the skills necessary to do a good job does present something of a learning curve, even for a somewhat experienced painter. You'd do well to try to find some instructional videos on the subject and study up on it before you start painting your model. YouTube is full of videos on painting models. Don't just look for ship models. Some of the best are done by the military equipment modelers and the fantasy gaming figure modelers. Painting any miniature is all pretty much the same, but it isn't the same as painting a house!
 
Finally, one bit of advice that few new painters learn out the easy way. Always try out every coating you are going to use on a similar surface other than your model and on the test piece determine if the paint's consistency, "leveling ability,"  and drying time, etc., are as you intend them to be. If we had a dime for every post that started, "I've waited a couple of days after painting my hull and it's still all sticky and not dry..." we'd be rich people today. Learn to condition your paint and always test it first on a scrap piece of material ! (And save those scraps in case you want to paint over it later, too. That's the way to make sure that a later coat is compatible with the earlier one ! )

I don't know about the US, but over here in Europe powering boats began with semi-diesel IC engines on the commercial side, while amateurs put petrol engines into boats already at the turn of the century. The semi-diesels were hefty chunks of cast iron. The Danish were pioneers at that, followed quickly by the Dutch and the Germans. These semi-diesels would eat anything from rancid butter (there was often a fuel pre-heater on top of the cylinder-head to reduce its viscosity) to petrol. They had a glow-bulb (similar to aircraft model IC engines) that had to be heated with a blow-torch before the engine could be started. Similar engines were used as agricultural power-plants and tractors. They ran at relatively low speed (perhaps as low as 100 rpm empty), but had a high torque - torque is also a function of cylinder displacement and mass inertia in the system.
 
Even at that low speed you would probably need at least a 1:20 to 1:40 ratio in the worm-drive.

Prior to World War 1 most internal combustion engines were massive things turning at relatively slow RPM.
 
World War 1, particularly the aircraft industry, really spurred the development of powerful compact I/C engines.  Since power is a function of torque x RPM, these new engines turned at high speeds.  While this worked fine with propellers turning in air the marine propellers of the time performed poorly.  The problem was cavitation, the vaporizing of water around the propeller.
 
The big problem confronting marine engineers wishing to use these new engines was therefore developing a transmission system to connect the high speed power source to the slow speed propeller.  The obvious solution was  a gear drive that would also have the advantage of providing a means for easily reversing.  Gears were, however, expensive and at least in the US organizations able to make them were limited.
 
As metallurgy improved and automobile industry grew compact marine gear drives were developed.  Between the wars, naval architects and boatbuilders  developed improved hull forms to reduce the cavitation problem.  As a result, in the US by the late 1930’s boats with improved hull forms, propelled by light weight high RPM automotive type engines connected to propellers by efficient, compact geared transmissions were available to support the war effort.
 
Charles Davis was a conventionally trained naval architect with experience working on the mass production of large vessels during WW I.  My guess is that this was a brainstorm of his, typical of the ideas that are thrown out but do not stick for any new technology.
 
None of this is meant to imply that you shouldn’t build this model.  Practical or not it is an example of an idea that was seriously proposed at a particular time.
 
Roger

Strips of copper, zinc, or lead roofers' flashing material are often good for taking off curves, as well.
 

My God! What a story. What was he thinking, then? You must have wanted to kill him.  

My God! What a story. What was he thinking, then? You must have wanted to kill him.  

Strips of copper, zinc, or lead roofers' flashing material are often good for taking off curves, as well.
 

I posted this in response to a similar question in another thread. It applies here as well:
 
If somebody is building an "Admiralty Board" style bright finished hull (i.e. unpainted,) the plank seams are often highlighted by coloring the edges before installation. This is somewhat a matter of style and a taste. Otherwise, in a painted hull depicting the vessel as it would appear in real life, at all but very large scales on super-detailed and "distressed" models, which we rarely see, plank seams are not appropriately visible. In full-size construction, the seams are "stopped" (filled with putty) to protect the caulking material and sanded fair. the hull is thereafter painted. A well-built full-size vessel whose planking is properly fastened should not "show her seams." More significantly, the seams of the hull of a real-life ship at "scale viewing distance" wouldn't be visible at that distance even if they were visible close up.
 
I realize there is a certain reluctance to render the obvious careful work of a good planking job invisible by painting it properly, but out-of-scale plank seams are just wrong. There seems a strong tendency, indeed, even a convention, these days to incorporate out-of-scale detail in an apparent effort to emulate full-size practices. This seems to be encouraged by certain kit manufacturers for the sake of making their kits "more complete" or accurate.   Commonly seen are bottoms sheathed with wildly over-scale-size "real copper plates" which modelers spend huge amounts of time "dimpling" with "rivets" (which were never used) that, at best, are at scale the size of railroad spikes, or larger, misplaced and often over-scale-sized plank fastenings and fastening plugs, frequently of contrasting color, which would never be the case in real-life practice, and incorrectly colored rigging (e.g. lightly colored deadeye lanyards.) Such affectations will ruin an otherwise excellent model.
 
If you hull isn't fair, there is nothing for it but to putty the depressions and sand it fair. That is going to foreclose a bright finished hull. You can scratch in the plank seams through the putty, but I'd urge you to consider whether you are intending to build an accurate scale model of a vessel and depict her with plank seams open by two or more scale inches.
 
You ask, "Would a slightly rough hewn quality make it seem more authentic to the building standards of the time?" In a word, no. Your understanding of "the building standards of the time" is incorrect. These vessels were built by master craftsmen. There was nothing "slightly rough hewn" about them.  Spend some time looking at real ships, or pictures of real ships, taken from a distance that makes them appear to be the same size as your model will be when someone looks at it from a few feet away. Your model and the real ship should appear as much the same as possible. Like women who always look better at closing time, ships always look better the farther away you are when looking at them. "Too much out of scale detail" is a fault found far more often than "not enough."
 
Your hull needs to be 1) sealed (shellac works well and is far less expensive and works better than the stuff sold by model paint companies,) 2) liberally filled with marine grade surfacing putty (sometimes called "glazing putty," which has nothing to with windows) and, when the putty has set up, sanded perfectly fair and smooth.  https://www.go2marine.com/product/205507F/surfacing-putty.html?WT.mc_id=b1&msclkid=7830403141f71de2c52a1bc6efdc414c&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Go2marine Product Ad Campaign(BSC)&utm_term=1100402429854&utm_content=Bing Product Listing Ad
This product is made for this application and sands easily and takes finish paint well. It is thinned with acetone. Keep the top on the can at all times, as exposure to the air will cause it to skin over. Add a teaspoon of acetone to the can before closing it after use. Make sure the top is well sealed. Store the can on the shelf upside down to prevent evaporation in the can. The added acetone will be absorbed by the putty overnight and keep the putty the correct consistency.

Davis' explanation of the advantages of the double paddle wheels was most interesting. I hadn't known that. I've never seen it mentioned in any of the classic works on steam propulsion, but then, having those old engineering books doesn't mean I've actually read them! :D  They're terribly slow going, as anybody who's delved into the subject soon finds out. 

I've never seen a worm-drive for a paddle-wheel before, either. Those I've seen, which are not traditionally driven by connecting rods from horizontal steam engines, in small boats like this one, were all driven by chain or belt drives. The worm drive gear here seems way out of size to accomplish the reduction necessary with the RPM from a gasoline engine. I'd think that if the engine did not stall out, this design would have the paddles turning at much too high a speed. There's also the problem of what happens if the paddles ground out. I'd expect catastrophic failure to the gearing and shaft would result. I have a fair number of such old powered small boat designs in my library. The "backyard" engineering of many which employ the then-new internal combusion engines, most automotive conversions, is "quaint" to say the least! I assume this design was what was then called a "folly," a small boat for fun, though not especially practical. One would wonder why it was not simply propeller-driven from the gas engine. The only answer is that the paddle wheel was just more fun!
 
Interesting model! There were a lot of similar designs in the early Twentieth Century and the plans literature is fairly available. (See e.g.: http://shellbackslibrary.dngoodchild.com/ an excellent vendor!) They are great subjects for modeling, especially in the larger scales which allow great detail without resulting in a model that will chase you out of the room. They are rarely seen subjects for models, but, for some reason, most modelers seem to turn their noses up at models of small craft in favor of the challenges of a Nelson's Victory or a Constitution and the joy of trying to find a place to display them!