Bob Cleek

Normally, there would be two drain pipe holes in a cockpit like that one, placed at opposite corners port and starboard. Below, the drain pipes would be crossed, so that the port hole pipe drained to the starboard side and the starboard pipe ran to the port side. This permitted the cockpit to drain completely on either tack. With a single drain in the middle of the cockpit, when the vessel heeled, the lower side of the cockpit would not drain below the center hole. 
 
Also, the run of the deck planking is very unusual. Was this as portrayed in the plans? Usually, deck planking will never butt adjacent to another butt. There will not be straight lines of butts across the deck from port to starboard. That is a structurally weak assembly and also difficult to caulk and keep watertight. 
 
These are minor notes, but perhaps of help for future reference.
 
Very nice, crisp work! Excellent detail work on the hinged skylight.  Thanks for sharing it with us.

That steamship model in the background certainly caught my eye!

There's an old saying, "Different ships, different long splices." It means that rigging varied from ship to ship, depending upon the captain's or mate's preferences. There are many model plans sets and books that contain "belaying pin diagrams" showing where each line was belayed, but, truth be told, those were put together by a modeler who did the research, but may or may not have been exactly the way it was done in real life. When you want to know which line to cast off, you look at what you want the line to do and follow it down from there to see which pin it's belayed to. You might remember a particular line if you used it a lot, but I don't think anybody ever intentionally memorized the pin location of every line on a square-rigged ship. The names of the lines, yes, but not the pin locations. There are certain rules of thumb, depending upon the rig and time period, but if you can't find a similarly rigged model plan that shows the belaying schedule, you'll have to fake it. I expect there's a book somewhere that contains a better description of the principles than mine, but, generally 1) The line runs from the block aloft to the nearest pin, so long as it doesn't foul any other line, shroud, sail, or yard. 2) Where there are the same lines doing the same job port and starboard, they run to the same pin on their respective side, so long as they don't foul any other line, shroud, sail, or yard. 3) Halyards and lifts generally run straight down to the closest pin around the base of their respective masts, again, so long as they don't foul any other line, etc.  4.) Sheets and braces generally run to the closest pin on the pin rails on the rails, so long as they don't foul... anything, etc. 5.) Topmast halyards, etc. could be run to the pin rails as well, sometimes led throuigh bullseyes on the shrouds. Just try to keep it orderly and keep the run of the lines clear so they don't foul and chafe on anything. It's all pretty logical and organized. If you imagine yourself a sailor using each line for its intended purpose and ask yourself, "Where should I tie off this line, you won't go too far wrong, I expect.
 
I hope I'm not hurting anybody's feelings here, but I wouldn't give the way those lines are belayed and the falls hung on the pins particularly high marks. Line is flexible and not stiff. It hangs gracefully and not is stiff coils sticking out like is seen in the picture. The coiled fall isn't hung over the pin, either. The fall is belayed and the remaining fall from the pin is coiled. The hand reaches through the center of the coiled fall and grabs the free end of the fall where it comes off the pin, pulls it through the center of the coil while giving it a twist or two, and brings it up over the top of the coil and hangs that one doubled, twisted loop over the pin. Then the coil hangs down from that. In that fashion, one only need pull the loop off the toop of the pin and let the coil fall and the line is ready to cast off the pin and run free. 

There's an old saying, "Different ships, different long splices." It means that rigging varied from ship to ship, depending upon the captain's or mate's preferences. There are many model plans sets and books that contain "belaying pin diagrams" showing where each line was belayed, but, truth be told, those were put together by a modeler who did the research, but may or may not have been exactly the way it was done in real life. When you want to know which line to cast off, you look at what you want the line to do and follow it down from there to see which pin it's belayed to. You might remember a particular line if you used it a lot, but I don't think anybody ever intentionally memorized the pin location of every line on a square-rigged ship. The names of the lines, yes, but not the pin locations. There are certain rules of thumb, depending upon the rig and time period, but if you can't find a similarly rigged model plan that shows the belaying schedule, you'll have to fake it. I expect there's a book somewhere that contains a better description of the principles than mine, but, generally 1) The line runs from the block aloft to the nearest pin, so long as it doesn't foul any other line, shroud, sail, or yard. 2) Where there are the same lines doing the same job port and starboard, they run to the same pin on their respective side, so long as they don't foul any other line, shroud, sail, or yard. 3) Halyards and lifts generally run straight down to the closest pin around the base of their respective masts, again, so long as they don't foul any other line, etc.  4.) Sheets and braces generally run to the closest pin on the pin rails on the rails, so long as they don't foul... anything, etc. 5.) Topmast halyards, etc. could be run to the pin rails as well, sometimes led throuigh bullseyes on the shrouds. Just try to keep it orderly and keep the run of the lines clear so they don't foul and chafe on anything. It's all pretty logical and organized. If you imagine yourself a sailor using each line for its intended purpose and ask yourself, "Where should I tie off this line, you won't go too far wrong, I expect.
 
I hope I'm not hurting anybody's feelings here, but I wouldn't give the way those lines are belayed and the falls hung on the pins particularly high marks. Line is flexible and not stiff. It hangs gracefully and not is stiff coils sticking out like is seen in the picture. The coiled fall isn't hung over the pin, either. The fall is belayed and the remaining fall from the pin is coiled. The hand reaches through the center of the coiled fall and grabs the free end of the fall where it comes off the pin, pulls it through the center of the coil while giving it a twist or two, and brings it up over the top of the coil and hangs that one doubled, twisted loop over the pin. Then the coil hangs down from that. In that fashion, one only need pull the loop off the toop of the pin and let the coil fall and the line is ready to cast off the pin and run free. 

Yes, exactly. For a 4mm plank width at the maximum beam, the tapering might be a bit tedious, but given the hull shapes of large vessels, as opposed to small craft, the tapering would be slight and generally at the ends of the vessel, particularly the bows. Remember when modeling that there is a scale to the length of planking as well as to its width. Plank stock isn't ever much more than 24 feet long in real life, given the limitations of tree size and handling. Given a scale plank width of 4mm at the maximum beam, there would be a lot of full length unspiled 4mm planks amidships, so that makes an easier job of it for the planker. (There are also standards for the spacing of plank butts which must be followed for an accurate scale planking job.) Keep in mind also that if the average plank width admidships is 4mm, when planking properly, there will be planks which may need to be wider than the average 4mm plank width to make everything come together without the need for "stealers." Kit manufacturers provide a bunch of pre-cut, square, finished on all four sides, strips for "planking." That stock isn't going to be suitable for all the planking at the size provided because planks aren't square.
 
You can find instructions for laying out plank in the "articles" section of the forum, so I won't repeat them here. However, if you lay out your planking at stem, stern, and each station (or perhaps every other, or even every three, frames or stations, depending upon hull shape and frame spacing,) You'll see that there's not much plank shaping to be done in the "wide open spaces" amidships.
 
If you divide the plank end widths equally at the bows, you should get a fair run on your plank seams and not end up trying to bend a "hook" in your plank seams. And sometimes plank width divisions vary, depending upon hull shape. A band of narrower planks at the turn of the bilge and wider planks (called "broads") in runs over "flat" areas is not uncommon. (In the drawing of the period planked hull below, note the "broads" below the turn of the bilge and running up to the stern post.) Planks in real life are gotten out of wider stock than the average plank width at the maximum beam. Plank stock in full size construction is often "flitch cut," meaning that it is cut as a rough slab sawn from the log, leaving the bark attached. These "flitches" are often slightly curved, as the log grew, which permits sawing out the curved plank shape to make best use of the run of the grain and lumber available. Planks are never bent across their width in full size construction, which is pretty much impossible anyway. Sometimes, a plank will be a bit "shy" and the plankers will "edge set" it by wedging it into place against its mate to get a tight seam, but edge-setting is a sign of poor fitting (which introduces strains on fasteners which can then let go) and not considered "best practices." Specifications sometimes go so far as to state, "no plank shall be edge set." When modelling with small stock of a species which will tolerate such bending, considerable stock can be saved by bending scale planks across their width to simulate what would have been a "dear" (costly) plank that in real life would have had to be cut from a very wide flitch, leaving a lot of wasted wood. That's the genius in Chuck Passaro's edge bending technique described in his great videos on the subject. Even with Chuck's method, though, some planks are going to require their own unique shape.
 
The smaller the boat, the more the plank shape differences are exaggerated. The below illustration shows the plank shapes needed to plank the hull illustrated. Note that the sheer plank shape colored white is actually wider at its ends than at its middle. In your planking job, the lack of the same sort of greater width at the stem rabet created a cumulative deficit in plank width which eventually created the upwards "hook" that became greater than you could bend your strip wood to accommodate. Trying to continue to hang 4mm wide planks in that rabet would only increase the deficit. (See the drawing of the period wooden hull planking below to see how the old-time plankers solved the problem you've got now.)
 

 
On a large wooden ship, the planking curves are not as radical, but do require curves to accommodate the shape of the hull just the same. In large construction, owing to the natural limitations of available plank stock width, "hooked," "doubler," or "stealer" planks are used to plank wider spaces than the available stock permits being gotten out of a single flitch. If a model is to show the plank seams, it must be planked as was its prototype. (Of course, if the plank seams are to be filled and the hull sanded fair and painted, it doesn't matter what the planking run looks like.) Look carefully at the plank seams in the bow and stern quarter of the below illustration to see the use of "hooked," "doubler," or "stealer" planks. (There's a larger picture and good planking instructions in the attached link.)
 

 
 
 
https://www.modelerscentral.com/blog/planking-tips-for-building-a-model-ship/
 
Don't let this discourage you. Kit manufacturers have been frustrating modelers with strip wood "planking" since kits were invented.  
 
 

I think what you are experiencing is very common to scale modelling.  Aesthetically, the proper size rope can appear too heavy for the model.  Although you use the exact right size for the rigging the overall look of the rig will appear to be overpowering.  It is often said to err on the small side if you have to make a choice.
 
If you look at the rigging of a real ship it appears to be almost delicate with plenty of space between each element.  On the model everything is compressed together and that delicate feeling can be lost.
 
Regards,

Most of the brass stock box tubing is sized so the next smaller size fits perfectly into the next larger size, That make soldering sections together a piece of cake. 
 
If this were a display model (and I shudder to think how much glass it would take to display it in a case,) I'd say any tight and straight grained hard wood (hard... wood, not just "hardwood") would work.  Bamboo might do well if you could get it in long sections out of a large species. You'd have to scarf pieces together to get them long enough. (Think old time fly fishing poles.) That said, if it's going to be an R/C model, you want something that has some strength because no matter how hard you try, they're going to get whacked sooner or later. You'll have to do some engineering experiments to see if the metal tubing isn't too heavy. You don't want to have a lot of weight aloft that could cause the boat to turn turtle. You can compensate for that some with some ballast, but stability is going to be an issue no matter how you cut it. 
 
Nice boat to model! There was a made for TV moving called Hemmingway and Gellhorn. It's on all the streaming video channels, some for free. It's not all that bad a movie. Worth checking out if you haven't seen it.  https://www.amazon.com/Hemingway-Gellhorn-Nicole-Kidman/dp/B00C58QKAY  There's some shots of the boat the set decorators worked up for the movie shots. I watched them work up close in the boatyard. I used to be a "boat wrangler" for the movie people when I was working for a yacht brokerage, so I had somewhat of a professional interest in it. They did a good job from a movie standpoint, but the brightwork was all faux painted and they didn't spend much time on the side that wasn't going to be on camera. It was a an old hulk they hauled off  the mud in the Petaluma River here in Sonoma County. I think they patched the holes in her bottom with plywood and wet patch. It didn't run, of course. That's no problem in the movies, though. just lash an inflatable with an outboard alongside out of camera range in you're in business.  It worked for the movie but the boat wasn't a sistership to Pilar by any stretch. As they say, "It created a compelling impression." 

I think that's true of a lot of kits. If one has basic skills and can follow directions, and the directions are well-written, anybody ought to be able to build one. I think the skill level ratings really apply to the amount of patience and determination it takes to complete a given kit and the kit manufacturers use them as "insurance" so when somebody buys an expensive complex kit that's going to take them ages to build, they have an excuse if the failed builder tries to blame them. 
 
But what do I know, I'm not a kit manufacturer. What I do know, though, is that the quality of the finished product is always a result of the builder's abilities, no matter how long it takes or how many parts the kit has.

This notice by the discussed site may explain the problems some are having: 
 
 "This site uses a custom design that depends on HTML5 support, meaning that for it to work properly you must be using a fairly current web browser.  If you are using an older browser (any version of Internet Explorer, or any web browser older than about 2 years), you will likely see things that don’t look right or don’t work properly."
 
Download a free copy of the Chrome browser. That works for me. Internet Explorer, a widely used browser, is, I believe, no longer supported and has been replace by Chrome, Bing, and others. As time goes on, with increasing frequency, we who have used Internet Explorer for many years will continue to encounter problems such as those mentioned in this thread. Remember when they came out with 45 RPM records with the big hole in the middle? Perhaps not.  Anyway, if you are still  playing your eight-track tapes, don't try to figure this out. Just use Chrome or Bing and you'll be okay.

Most of the brass stock box tubing is sized so the next smaller size fits perfectly into the next larger size, That make soldering sections together a piece of cake. 
 
If this were a display model (and I shudder to think how much glass it would take to display it in a case,) I'd say any tight and straight grained hard wood (hard... wood, not just "hardwood") would work.  Bamboo might do well if you could get it in long sections out of a large species. You'd have to scarf pieces together to get them long enough. (Think old time fly fishing poles.) That said, if it's going to be an R/C model, you want something that has some strength because no matter how hard you try, they're going to get whacked sooner or later. You'll have to do some engineering experiments to see if the metal tubing isn't too heavy. You don't want to have a lot of weight aloft that could cause the boat to turn turtle. You can compensate for that some with some ballast, but stability is going to be an issue no matter how you cut it. 
 
Nice boat to model! There was a made for TV moving called Hemmingway and Gellhorn. It's on all the streaming video channels, some for free. It's not all that bad a movie. Worth checking out if you haven't seen it.  https://www.amazon.com/Hemingway-Gellhorn-Nicole-Kidman/dp/B00C58QKAY  There's some shots of the boat the set decorators worked up for the movie shots. I watched them work up close in the boatyard. I used to be a "boat wrangler" for the movie people when I was working for a yacht brokerage, so I had somewhat of a professional interest in it. They did a good job from a movie standpoint, but the brightwork was all faux painted and they didn't spend much time on the side that wasn't going to be on camera. It was a an old hulk they hauled off  the mud in the Petaluma River here in Sonoma County. I think they patched the holes in her bottom with plywood and wet patch. It didn't run, of course. That's no problem in the movies, though. just lash an inflatable with an outboard alongside out of camera range in you're in business.  It worked for the movie but the boat wasn't a sistership to Pilar by any stretch. As they say, "It created a compelling impression." 

I think that's true of a lot of kits. If one has basic skills and can follow directions, and the directions are well-written, anybody ought to be able to build one. I think the skill level ratings really apply to the amount of patience and determination it takes to complete a given kit and the kit manufacturers use them as "insurance" so when somebody buys an expensive complex kit that's going to take them ages to build, they have an excuse if the failed builder tries to blame them. 
 
But what do I know, I'm not a kit manufacturer. What I do know, though, is that the quality of the finished product is always a result of the builder's abilities, no matter how long it takes or how many parts the kit has.

I apologise in advance if this is a point you have already considered, but are you sure you are not confusing circumference and diameter? As I'm sure you know, historical sources tend to give rope sizes in circumference. Even on a first rate like HMS Victory at 1:48 scale, very few ropes would be 2mm in diameter - the main stay and a few others, but certainly not the shrouds and the running rigging.
 
Derek  

I think that's true of a lot of kits. If one has basic skills and can follow directions, and the directions are well-written, anybody ought to be able to build one. I think the skill level ratings really apply to the amount of patience and determination it takes to complete a given kit and the kit manufacturers use them as "insurance" so when somebody buys an expensive complex kit that's going to take them ages to build, they have an excuse if the failed builder tries to blame them. 
 
But what do I know, I'm not a kit manufacturer. What I do know, though, is that the quality of the finished product is always a result of the builder's abilities, no matter how long it takes or how many parts the kit has.

Most of the brass stock box tubing is sized so the next smaller size fits perfectly into the next larger size, That make soldering sections together a piece of cake. 
 
If this were a display model (and I shudder to think how much glass it would take to display it in a case,) I'd say any tight and straight grained hard wood (hard... wood, not just "hardwood") would work.  Bamboo might do well if you could get it in long sections out of a large species. You'd have to scarf pieces together to get them long enough. (Think old time fly fishing poles.) That said, if it's going to be an R/C model, you want something that has some strength because no matter how hard you try, they're going to get whacked sooner or later. You'll have to do some engineering experiments to see if the metal tubing isn't too heavy. You don't want to have a lot of weight aloft that could cause the boat to turn turtle. You can compensate for that some with some ballast, but stability is going to be an issue no matter how you cut it. 
 
Nice boat to model! There was a made for TV moving called Hemmingway and Gellhorn. It's on all the streaming video channels, some for free. It's not all that bad a movie. Worth checking out if you haven't seen it.  https://www.amazon.com/Hemingway-Gellhorn-Nicole-Kidman/dp/B00C58QKAY  There's some shots of the boat the set decorators worked up for the movie shots. I watched them work up close in the boatyard. I used to be a "boat wrangler" for the movie people when I was working for a yacht brokerage, so I had somewhat of a professional interest in it. They did a good job from a movie standpoint, but the brightwork was all faux painted and they didn't spend much time on the side that wasn't going to be on camera. It was a an old hulk they hauled off  the mud in the Petaluma River here in Sonoma County. I think they patched the holes in her bottom with plywood and wet patch. It didn't run, of course. That's no problem in the movies, though. just lash an inflatable with an outboard alongside out of camera range in you're in business.  It worked for the movie but the boat wasn't a sistership to Pilar by any stretch. As they say, "It created a compelling impression." 

Most of the brass stock box tubing is sized so the next smaller size fits perfectly into the next larger size, That make soldering sections together a piece of cake. 
 
If this were a display model (and I shudder to think how much glass it would take to display it in a case,) I'd say any tight and straight grained hard wood (hard... wood, not just "hardwood") would work.  Bamboo might do well if you could get it in long sections out of a large species. You'd have to scarf pieces together to get them long enough. (Think old time fly fishing poles.) That said, if it's going to be an R/C model, you want something that has some strength because no matter how hard you try, they're going to get whacked sooner or later. You'll have to do some engineering experiments to see if the metal tubing isn't too heavy. You don't want to have a lot of weight aloft that could cause the boat to turn turtle. You can compensate for that some with some ballast, but stability is going to be an issue no matter how you cut it. 
 
Nice boat to model! There was a made for TV moving called Hemmingway and Gellhorn. It's on all the streaming video channels, some for free. It's not all that bad a movie. Worth checking out if you haven't seen it.  https://www.amazon.com/Hemingway-Gellhorn-Nicole-Kidman/dp/B00C58QKAY  There's some shots of the boat the set decorators worked up for the movie shots. I watched them work up close in the boatyard. I used to be a "boat wrangler" for the movie people when I was working for a yacht brokerage, so I had somewhat of a professional interest in it. They did a good job from a movie standpoint, but the brightwork was all faux painted and they didn't spend much time on the side that wasn't going to be on camera. It was a an old hulk they hauled off  the mud in the Petaluma River here in Sonoma County. I think they patched the holes in her bottom with plywood and wet patch. It didn't run, of course. That's no problem in the movies, though. just lash an inflatable with an outboard alongside out of camera range in you're in business.  It worked for the movie but the boat wasn't a sistership to Pilar by any stretch. As they say, "It created a compelling impression." 

So true! The fact is, it's only been in recent times that kits with a high level of historical accuracy and quality materials have been available at all. There are now some pretty darn good kits on  the market, but you have to know what you are doing to make sure you're not buying junk. The old kits some of us cut our teeth on forty or fifty years ago were really scratch builds more than anything else. You'd get a set of plans, a rough shaped hull block, some dowels and some sheet wood, a bit of wire and string, and some (often poorly) cast metal fittings. After that, you were on your own. Laser cut wood parts were unheard of.   
 
That said, if you invest the time and effort to learn how to read and draft plans, there is a near-limitless supply of ship modeling subjects all over the place. You can buy really nice plans drawn for modeling purposes, or spring for some of the Anatomy of the Ship books, or you can scale up something from Chapelle's and Chapman's books, order plans from the HAMMS collection at the Smithsonian or The Historic American Engineering Record Survey (HAERS) plans that are free online from the National Park website, the latter being some of the best historic ship plans available anywhere.
 
People buy kits because they think the kit is going to make it easier. Kits do make it easier for those who are starting out, but you really pay a price for that. Kits cost many times more than scratch-building. For what some pay for kits that often remain unfinished, they could amass a great collection of fine tools and be able to build anything, anytime, anywhere, for next to nothing... and be able to sell the tools when they were done and spend the money on a nice tombstone. The only catch is that one must do their own research and look up what they need to know to get the job done. Thanks to the internet, that task is easier today by orders of magnitude than it was before. There's a lot more to this hobby than just following instructions and assembling a model no different than hundreds or thousands of others out of parts from a box. When the day comes that you start to think about freeing yourself from the constraints of the model kit marketplace, you know you've begun to arrive at an entirely different level of interest and enjoyment.

So true! The fact is, it's only been in recent times that kits with a high level of historical accuracy and quality materials have been available at all. There are now some pretty darn good kits on  the market, but you have to know what you are doing to make sure you're not buying junk. The old kits some of us cut our teeth on forty or fifty years ago were really scratch builds more than anything else. You'd get a set of plans, a rough shaped hull block, some dowels and some sheet wood, a bit of wire and string, and some (often poorly) cast metal fittings. After that, you were on your own. Laser cut wood parts were unheard of.   
 
That said, if you invest the time and effort to learn how to read and draft plans, there is a near-limitless supply of ship modeling subjects all over the place. You can buy really nice plans drawn for modeling purposes, or spring for some of the Anatomy of the Ship books, or you can scale up something from Chapelle's and Chapman's books, order plans from the HAMMS collection at the Smithsonian or The Historic American Engineering Record Survey (HAERS) plans that are free online from the National Park website, the latter being some of the best historic ship plans available anywhere.
 
People buy kits because they think the kit is going to make it easier. Kits do make it easier for those who are starting out, but you really pay a price for that. Kits cost many times more than scratch-building. For what some pay for kits that often remain unfinished, they could amass a great collection of fine tools and be able to build anything, anytime, anywhere, for next to nothing... and be able to sell the tools when they were done and spend the money on a nice tombstone. The only catch is that one must do their own research and look up what they need to know to get the job done. Thanks to the internet, that task is easier today by orders of magnitude than it was before. There's a lot more to this hobby than just following instructions and assembling a model no different than hundreds or thousands of others out of parts from a box. When the day comes that you start to think about freeing yourself from the constraints of the model kit marketplace, you know you've begun to arrive at an entirely different level of interest and enjoyment.

It has been almost a year since the last post. I have been too busy business-wise and been side-tracked by various tool-making projects, which seem to be easier to do with the frequent interruptions by business-travels. There has been some small progress, however. Though this was not easy, as I have been struggling with the possibilities of the available materials and with my own skills. The 1/160 is pretty small, if you have set yourself the target to put as much detail into as one would do in say 1/96 or even 1/48 scale ... One of my struggles has been to produce acceptable ladders, on which I will report in the next post.
 
*********************************************************
The officers’ mess skylight produced previously did not turn out quite to my satisfaction. It was not as crisp as I had wished. It was build up from layers of bakelite sheet around a milled core of acrylic glass. The mouldings present on the original were simulated by 0.4 mm copper wire milled to half-rounds. This all entailed messing around with cyano-acrylate cement, which is not my favourite and at which I am not very skilled.
 

Officers’ mess skylight milled from a small block of acrylic glass
 
It then occurred to me that much of all this could be milled from a solid piece of acrylic glass. One has to start from a block that envelopes the maximum width and depth, including the mouldings, and then has has to plan strategically which layers to mill off until the desired shape appears (reminds me of the joke, where an old lady asked a sculptor during an exhibition whether it was difficult to sculpt a lion – the artist replied: not really, madam, one takes a big block of marble and knock off everything that doesn’t look like a lion ...). The mouldings were left standing as square protrusions. They were rounded off using a draw-plate fasioned from a piece of razor-blade and held in a pin-vise. The half-round notch was cut using a thin cut-off wheel mounted on an arbor in the milling machine.
 

Micro-drawplate for half-round moldings
 
It is, of course, not possible to simulate panelling by this method. However, some parts can be left standing and the other completed with thin styrene-strips. For reasons of material stability, I am not such a big fan of polystyrene, it becomes brittle with age, but it has the advantage that it can be ‘welded’ onto acrylic glass or onto itself using dichlormethane. This results in invisible bonds and you cannot smear any glue around.
 

Trial of milling out skylight window-frame
 
The next challenge were the protective grilles that were laid into the wooden frames above the actual skylight glass-panes. The bar of brass or bronze had a diameter of less than a centimetre, which translates to something like 0.05 mm on the model. However, the thinnest brass-coloured wire I could find had a diametre of 0.1 mm, so is slightly oversize. Recently I came across molybdenum wires that are readily available down to diametres of 0.02 mm ! It seems that they are used in the repair of mobile phones, to separate the front-glass from the LCD-display. I obtained a selection of sizes, but have not worked with the wires yet. The wires are supposed to be tough, so I do not know how easy it is to cut them to length.
 

 
Spool of gold-coloured molybdenum wire
 
I tried various methods to construct the window-frames with exactly spaced out bar. In the first instance I tried to mill-out the frame from a thin piece of acrylic glass. Evenly spaced notches for the ‘bars’ were milled with a pointed engraving bit. However, I did not manage to get the edges and corners as crisp and clean as desired.
 

Milling notches for window bars
 
 

Placing wires as window bars
 
I then wanted to construct the frame near-prototype fashion. To this end I drilled holes for the 0.01 mm wires into the edges of 0.5 mm by 1.0 mm strips of styrene. It proved difficult, however, to align the four parts of the frame well enough.
 

Drilling frame for protective bars
 
In the final version I welded 0.25 mm thick strips of styrene onto the milled acrylic glass body of the skylight. The block then was presented at the correct angle to an engraving cutter in the milling machine and the notches for the wires cut. In the next step the wires were glued into these notches, which was a major challenge – for the steadiness of my hand and my patience ...
 

Built-up frames
 
 

 In situ milling of notches for wire bars
 
The frame was completed by another layer of 0.25 mm styrene strips. As the total thickness should have been only 0.4 mm, the excess was sanded off on the milling machine. Finally, the edges were trimmed to size and rounded with the draw-plate described above.
 

Sanding frames to scale thickness
 
The officers' mess skylight will receive an outside protective grille on the basis of an etched part.
 

Completed skylights for the pantry (left) and the officers’ mess (right)
 
To be continued ....
 

Found this schooner up in Pt Townsend.   Pretty cool name .

For most ship modelling purposes a long bed lathe is not essential. Yes, for small objects such as deadeyes, turned stanchions, cannon and those kind of items a precision lathe with collets is great. However, I've never understood the need to turn masts and yards or other long pieces. The shipwrights' method in miniature works just fine. Cut the spar four-square, then eight-square and finally round it off using sandpaper strips works just fine!

The Vallejo Varnishes are water-based and, from everything that I have read, their Flow Improver, Retarder Medium and Airbrush Thinner are all compatible with their water-based products.
 
I think the problem is mainly due to how I applied the varnish. I was trying to keep the application wet and I applied too thick of a coat. My air pressure may not have been ideal either and I may have gotten the airbrush too close to the hull at times as well. So I don't think compatibility was the main culprit. I think my technique was the problem with the varnish not leveling well.
 
I was looking at the hull this morning and, quite honestly, you can not really see the orange peel effect from 2 feet away. You can see the orange peel effect if I hold the hull up close so the light hits it at an angle. My wife thinks it looks fine but I certainly wish it was better. 
 
I have some Micro Mesh Soft Sanding Pads on order and there will be 9 pads with grits from 1500 to 12000. I've been reading where modelers have been able to polish out the orange peel effect with these pads successfully so I will give them a try. Evidently, using them up to 6000 gives you a more satin sheen and from 6000 on up the sheen becomes more glossy.
 
 

Fix it.  If you don't you will look at it sometime in the future - near or far out - and wish you had. 
The voice of experience.

Bob, that is why I don't use Vallejo airbush varnishes as I wrote in the beginning of this thread. On my ship builds I have restricted myself to Vallejo rattlecan varnishes, and AK airbrush varnish on the airplanes I've built. I've used the airbrush varnishes from vallejo after the first faillure only with a brush !!

When I want a real smooth wood surface I use this auto body filler.  It's meant to cover the scratches from sanding on metal/fiberglass not big dents.  I use an old credit card or the ones we all get in the mail as a spreader.  I force the filler into the surface as thin as possible.  When it's cured I sand it and check as best I can that I have a good smooth surface and then I prime.  Depending how the primer looks I either lightly sand and apply more filler in areas where it's needed and then sand again or if it's good at that point I skip the sanding and then paint.  When the primer doesn't show any defects it's time to paint.

So true! The fact is, it's only been in recent times that kits with a high level of historical accuracy and quality materials have been available at all. There are now some pretty darn good kits on  the market, but you have to know what you are doing to make sure you're not buying junk. The old kits some of us cut our teeth on forty or fifty years ago were really scratch builds more than anything else. You'd get a set of plans, a rough shaped hull block, some dowels and some sheet wood, a bit of wire and string, and some (often poorly) cast metal fittings. After that, you were on your own. Laser cut wood parts were unheard of.   
 
That said, if you invest the time and effort to learn how to read and draft plans, there is a near-limitless supply of ship modeling subjects all over the place. You can buy really nice plans drawn for modeling purposes, or spring for some of the Anatomy of the Ship books, or you can scale up something from Chapelle's and Chapman's books, order plans from the HAMMS collection at the Smithsonian or The Historic American Engineering Record Survey (HAERS) plans that are free online from the National Park website, the latter being some of the best historic ship plans available anywhere.
 
People buy kits because they think the kit is going to make it easier. Kits do make it easier for those who are starting out, but you really pay a price for that. Kits cost many times more than scratch-building. For what some pay for kits that often remain unfinished, they could amass a great collection of fine tools and be able to build anything, anytime, anywhere, for next to nothing... and be able to sell the tools when they were done and spend the money on a nice tombstone. The only catch is that one must do their own research and look up what they need to know to get the job done. Thanks to the internet, that task is easier today by orders of magnitude than it was before. There's a lot more to this hobby than just following instructions and assembling a model no different than hundreds or thousands of others out of parts from a box. When the day comes that you start to think about freeing yourself from the constraints of the model kit marketplace, you know you've begun to arrive at an entirely different level of interest and enjoyment.