Bob Cleek

I did a Google search using: Blackfriars Light Oak Gloss Varnish
Clicking on the company site link
Their products are solvent based polyurethane varnish.
There is no shortage of quality brands at your local builders supply mega store or a hardware store.
The volume that you will need =  you could probably return it after using what you need and it would pass as full.  Not a suggestion for possible behavior.  It is meant as an exaggeration.
There are oil stains that mimic light Oak from several mfg from the same vendors.
The surface area that you will be covering is small.  Stain and finish as two steps instead of one,  will not cost you all that much more time.  I suspect that the original instructions are trying to save you money.
It may save you money if you contact your local woodworkers guild -  Someone there is likely to have leftover gloss polyurethane and left over light Oak stain.
(Or a local cabinet maker.)
 
 
I cannot resist an editorial.
These are "unique" instructions for a scale model ship.
Solvent based polyurethane produces a thick layer.  It was great for my Walnut stained White Oak kitchen floor in KY.  Not good practice on a scale model.  It is a thick plastic layer.
Gloss -  is an out of scale finish on a scale model.
I am guessing that this is an actual working motor craft that is intended actually float.
This moves it to the toy category and that makes gloss appropriate. The exposure to water makes solvent based polyurethane and gloss appropriate.
Because most Pear seems to be Swiss Pear - that is, it is steamed and therefore a darkish red and uniform in color, the Oak stain probably will only shift it to be a bit darker. 
Pear is a quality wood and unless using it where black is indicated,  a clear finish is enough.  It can be dyed black and it will stand in for Ebony. 
 

Lead corrosion is primarily a function of its reaction to acids. Sealed in plastic bags may have provided an anaerobic environment that slowed or prevented entirely the process of the lead turning to lead carbonate. The rest of the process is "above my pay grade," as they say. Just about everything a modeler might want to know about lead corrosion in ship models is in this research paper from the Curator of Navy Ship Models, Naval Sea Systems Command, the office in charge of all the US Navy's hundreds of ship models. It's something anybody building an older kit model should read.
 
https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Carderock/Resources/Curator-of-Navy-Ship-Models/Lead-Corrosion-in-Exhibition-Ship-Models/
 

The book's a classic, although dated. It's got a great selection of vessels to model, but it was written at a time when the expectations of amateur modelers were somewhat less than today. There's nothing in them to deter a competent scratch builder, but if one wants to super-detail a model with complete historical accuracy, much more research on the vessels needs to be done. What is so delightful about the book is that Underwood, quite likely at Chapelle's urging, chose vessels not usually modeled at the time and which are very interesting for that reason alone.

The book's a classic, although dated. It's got a great selection of vessels to model, but it was written at a time when the expectations of amateur modelers were somewhat less than today. There's nothing in them to deter a competent scratch builder, but if one wants to super-detail a model with complete historical accuracy, much more research on the vessels needs to be done. What is so delightful about the book is that Underwood, quite likely at Chapelle's urging, chose vessels not usually modeled at the time and which are very interesting for that reason alone.

The book's a classic, although dated. It's got a great selection of vessels to model, but it was written at a time when the expectations of amateur modelers were somewhat less than today. There's nothing in them to deter a competent scratch builder, but if one wants to super-detail a model with complete historical accuracy, much more research on the vessels needs to be done. What is so delightful about the book is that Underwood, quite likely at Chapelle's urging, chose vessels not usually modeled at the time and which are very interesting for that reason alone.

The book's a classic, although dated. It's got a great selection of vessels to model, but it was written at a time when the expectations of amateur modelers were somewhat less than today. There's nothing in them to deter a competent scratch builder, but if one wants to super-detail a model with complete historical accuracy, much more research on the vessels needs to be done. What is so delightful about the book is that Underwood, quite likely at Chapelle's urging, chose vessels not usually modeled at the time and which are very interesting for that reason alone.

Having a good quality set of drawings will be wonderful.  I'm keeping her sheer open for corrections and like I mentioned earlier...her bulkheads are currently mobile, so I can make any corrections, substitutions...etc.
 The near profile image of her just after fitting out...it our best profile of her showing her at ballast....probably riding as high as she can get...clearly showing her quite vertical cutwater and entry...following her aft one can easily see her exit lines.  Her sheer is nice and profiled...not to mention her clean copper/muntz line.
All of this coupled with your drawings will aid in producing the most accurate hull of Glory..I feel is possible.  And that is fine because we are our own best critics.....since the less discriminating eye wouldn't know the difference anyway.
 
I'm so glad we have come to this place...again...thanks for your wonderful contributions.
 
Rob

Topgallant shrouds did not have ratlines. At least not British warships, if we're talking mid 18th century onwards.
 
Patrick O'Brian even mentions the lack of ratlines at the topgallant in his book Desolation Island (HMS Leopard)

A bit like trying to drive a tack with a sledge hammer.

When viewed from "scale distances," hull plank seams are barely visible, if at all, and more so the smaller the scale is (and thus, the farther the viewing distance,) even in old museum ships.  A young, well-kept ship in commission shouldn't be "showing her seams" when viewed from a distance. Many models can be faulted for exaggerated, out of scale details, such as trunnels of contrasting color, overly-wide plank seams, and over-scale copper plating laps and tacks. Studying really great models in museums soon makes it apparent that creating an impression of reality in a model is often an artistic exercise in subtle suggestion. You mileage may vary, of course.
 
 

When viewed from "scale distances," hull plank seams are barely visible, if at all, and more so the smaller the scale is (and thus, the farther the viewing distance,) even in old museum ships.  A young, well-kept ship in commission shouldn't be "showing her seams" when viewed from a distance. Many models can be faulted for exaggerated, out of scale details, such as trunnels of contrasting color, overly-wide plank seams, and over-scale copper plating laps and tacks. Studying really great models in museums soon makes it apparent that creating an impression of reality in a model is often an artistic exercise in subtle suggestion. You mileage may vary, of course.
 
 

A bit like trying to drive a tack with a sledge hammer.

When viewed from "scale distances," hull plank seams are barely visible, if at all, and more so the smaller the scale is (and thus, the farther the viewing distance,) even in old museum ships.  A young, well-kept ship in commission shouldn't be "showing her seams" when viewed from a distance. Many models can be faulted for exaggerated, out of scale details, such as trunnels of contrasting color, overly-wide plank seams, and over-scale copper plating laps and tacks. Studying really great models in museums soon makes it apparent that creating an impression of reality in a model is often an artistic exercise in subtle suggestion. You mileage may vary, of course.
 
 

When viewed from "scale distances," hull plank seams are barely visible, if at all, and more so the smaller the scale is (and thus, the farther the viewing distance,) even in old museum ships.  A young, well-kept ship in commission shouldn't be "showing her seams" when viewed from a distance. Many models can be faulted for exaggerated, out of scale details, such as trunnels of contrasting color, overly-wide plank seams, and over-scale copper plating laps and tacks. Studying really great models in museums soon makes it apparent that creating an impression of reality in a model is often an artistic exercise in subtle suggestion. You mileage may vary, of course.
 
 

And finally, here's my stripped, cleaned and freshly lubed Unimat3.
 

A bit like trying to drive a tack with a sledge hammer.

In my opinion, a planer, mentioned above, is intended to perform a different function than a thickness sander.  I have a Dewalt planer bought for milling cedar canoe ribs and planking.  It’s useful when you need to remove a lot of stock quickly.  Downside is that it makes a very loud noise and mounds of dust and shavings.  It, therefore, sits on a rolling stand and I take it outside to use.  This limits its usefulness to major projects in good weather.  I cannot imagine trying to use a planer, no matter how small, in the very small spaces that some modelers work in.
 
The thickness sander is quiet and dust is manageable.  It is convenient to use when I only need to remove very little material and for otherwise small projects.
 
Roger

Bob,
I will indeed check out those additional links you've provided; Thanks! I was not aware of them. I'm not positive, but I think the various windlasses/winches that each class of ship carries on board are based on the amount of load (tons) that the particular unit is expected to lift, so they would be rated to carry xx amount of tons load. It's possible that Liberty/Victory ships were similar in windlass size or model, but tankers might be different due to the loaded capacity of the ship when fully laden. In any event, it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't a table drawn up which (like ballistic tables or Logarithm tables) spelled out what was to be used in a given situation, etc.
 
The photo and story behind it of your relative's "ride" in 1898 is very interesting - I can certainly see why you wish to build a model of that particular ship - the colorized photo is wonderful!!! Ships from that era simply make good models because of all the intricate details they display! You will indeed need detailed drawings of all of her deck levels and equipment. I would think a model of 1:200 scale would be a very nice size (37+/-") (38 7/8" @ 1/192 scale). A 1/144 scale would give you a monster - 4'-3"+!!! I do hope you are able to build one to your satisfaction.
 
Hank
 
 
 

That's not right. Is there a way to adjust the axle? If the sanding drum isn't perfectly parallel to the table, it's certainly not much good for the use intended. Sounds like it's time to start saving up for a Byrnes.
 

Right! I forgot about the pandemic shut-downs.
 
I know that a lot of the manuals on line are more recent than the time the T-2/T-3 tankers were designed, most being built during the war. I just thought there'd be a chance that the newer manuals would address existing vessels, especially since the class was in service for such an unusually long period of time.
 
I neglected to mention three other possible sources, again if you haven't mined them already, 
 
1.   The Sausalito Historical Society Marinship Exhibit - US Corp of Engineers, Bay Model,  2100 Bridgeway, Sausalito, CA 94965  http://www.sausalitohistoricalsociety.com/marinship
 
The Marinship Shipyard was one of the primary builders of the fleet oil tankers during the War. They have a museum at the former shipyard site with builder's models of the Liberty ships and T-2 tankers built there, as well as a large photo and document archive.
 
2.     The Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front Historical Park, 1414 Harbour Way South, Suite 3000, Richmond, CA 94804.
 
This is a museum and park run by the NPS on the site of the Kaiser Shipyards in Richmond, CA, which built more ships than any other during the War. They have exhibits of the construction of Liberty Ships and the Victory museum ship, Red Oak Victory. They may have useful photos and archives, but I'm not sure if they built tankers there. This is the yard that set the record for building a Liberty ship in four and a half days. I think it may be a safe bet that the same cargo and anchor windlasses were used on the Victories and the tankers, so the volunteers who work on the Red Oak Victory may be able to provide the data you are looking for.
 
3.  The Mare Island Museum at the Mare Island Historic Park in Vallejo, CA, http://www.mareislandmuseum.org/venues/museum/
 
This is a relatively new, but apparently very active museum on the site of the now-decommissioned Mare Island Naval Shipyard, the oldest on the West Coast. It was the primary West Coast Naval Shipyard during the War and its records are now, I believe, available at the National Archives branch in San Bruno, CA. They surely did a lot of maintenance work on tankers and might be worth a try.
 
Yes, RMS Lucania had an identical sistership, RMS Campania (1892), both being built for simultaneous use in regular transatlantic passenger service. At the time, they were the largest passenger ships afloat with the largest triple-expansion engines ever built. Campania took the Blue Ribband on her second crossing, only to have it taken from her by her sister, Lucania, which for unknown reasons, was always the slightly faster vessel. Lucania and Campania were the first transatlantic steamships built without auxiliary sails, Cunard taking the big leap of faith in  steam propulsion without reliance on sail power redundancy. Lucania was also the first transatlantic vessel to be equipped with the new-fangled Marconi wireless technology. Campania was the first to maintain radio contact with shore throughout the course of an entire crossing. Lucania held the Blue Ribband for five years, a remarkable achievement at the time when the major shipping powers were competing strenuously to produce the fastest liner afloat. She lost it to Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse of Germany, which was the first liner to be powered by steam turbine engines. From a modeling standpoint, Lucania and her sister are interesting in that they have many somewhat unique details. For example, they were the first to employ electric lighting throughout, but carried dual running lights, one light above the other, one being electrically lit, while the other was lit by an oil lamp. This was required by the regulations because the authorities did not consider electrical lighting to be sufficiently reliable for use as navigational lights at the time she was built. They also were equipped with electrical communications systems from the crows' nest to the bridge and even had a sort of "capsule" affair at the stem into which a crewman could climb and be lowered so that he could advise the bridge with a view of conditions in the "blind spots" on either side beneath the bows during anchoring and mooring operations. I have a personal interest in Lucania because my maternal grandmother emigrated from Ireland to the US on her in 1898.
 

Actually Bob - No! Not good to go. With NARA closed, I'm not sure written requests are even being answered at this point. However, I am checking with one of the regular USN historian/modelers who makes a couple trips a year (Rick E. Davis) who is also a friend, and see what the current situation is there.
 
Re. the Maritime.org documents - most of their manuals are 1990s/2000 vintage which doesn't help at all. The operational manuals don't give either scaled or dimensioned drawings, just diagrams.
 
As for NMM or NSM drawings in the U.K., that (as you've noted) can be a very expensive proposition if you choose to purchase. I'm wondering, however - did LUCANIA have a sister? If so, that might be a fairly accurate alternative.
 
And Yes! most draftsmen show items such as winches/windlasses, etc. as blocks with maybe an extended drum on the plans. Their details are minimal, usually only showing possibly a scaled footprint for its location.
 
Hank

That's not right. Is there a way to adjust the axle? If the sanding drum isn't perfectly parallel to the table, it's certainly not much good for the use intended. Sounds like it's time to start saving up for a Byrnes.
 

That would work but not quite as accurate, I Did find these  plans and by applying the 109ft should work as the under water shape is similar. If I drew out the section plans and compared them they should be similar.
Thanks, guy

I can't speak to the MicroMark, but the Byrnes sure does. It's a wheel on a threaded rod. Turn the wheel and adjust the thickness by as little as a gnat's ***... "bottom." (Darn Net Nanny censored me. They're doing violence to the King's English, I tell ya! Here, of all places, a man ought to be able to talk like a sailor.) 
 
 

Oh, okay... I'll put you guys out of your misery. Here's the USN's Booklet of General Plans, 1944, for the Woban Class. You'll have to draw your own lines drawings using the sections provided, but that's easy enough. The PDF is high-pixel quality and can be enlarged by holding down your "control" key and turning your mouse wheel.
 
See: https://maritime.org/doc/plans/ytb142.pdf