Bob Cleek

Beautifully overengineered !

I have watched bunches of videos, acquired all of the stuff, torch, flux, Stay Brite solder, but I just am reluctant to start. I get very anxious when learning new skills....

Spent the last two weeks working on various details. The railings on the boiler deck have been giving me nightmares, but I finally figured out a "good-enough" way that works at the level of the rest of the model (representative if not precisely accurate, don't look too close). These were really difficult to bend and shape, especially where they didn't extend between two decks for extra support.
 

I left a gap on either side, forward of the wheels, to allow access to where the boats will be stored. Figured a chain was enough to keep passengers out; this was leftover scrap from a past model:

These stern railings were especially tricky:

Ladders up to the pilot house and various Texas cabins:

A couple broader views:
 


And here's one posed with the painting this model is loosely based on:
 

It's getting ever scarier to handle this model as the fragile details go in. I'm so paranoid about bumping these railings, they were such a pain to do in the first place. And it's just going to get worse...
 

It's a cold day in hell when a model perfectly portrays its prototype and doubly so with historic models whose prototypes don't exist anymore. There are always compromises, extrapolations, wild-assed guesses, and conjectures along the way. We all set our own limits on our models.  
 
Horsefeathers! You're already well beyond half an expert at the tender age of 40. Keep at it and you'll be twice as good at 80!
 

Hi Allan,
 
I wasn't as clear as I might have been in that post when i said, "I've never known that. Is there some reference work that explains it? It doesn't make any sense to me, but that's certainly no indication of its accuracy!"  That statement was in response to druxey's statement way back in post #2, "The answer is that the ensign staff (its proper name) is pivoted at the base. A half-hoop clasp, not shown in the drawing above, is undone, the staff pivoted forward and down, the boom swung over and the staff raised again."
 
I'm familiar with the "tabernacle" fitting used with ensign staffs. My comments were directed to the language: "...the staff pivoted forward and down, the boom swung over and the staff raised again." It was that to which I was referring when I said, "I've never known that. Is there some reference work that explains it? It doesn't make any sense to me..." 
 
At this point in the discussion, I don't think anybody is suggesting that the ensign was flown on the staff while the vessel was under sail and, when tacking, "the staff pivoted forward and down, the boom swung over and the staff raised again." I seriously doubt they would be "striking their colors" every time they tacked! The ensign was flown from the gaff peak while under sail, not only for increased visibility, but also because flying it there didn't interfere with the sailing of the vessel. 
 
There were times, of course, when a lateen yard was carried on the mizzen, or the clew of the spanker didn't extend far enough outboard to foul the ensign staff, where there would not be any problem posed by fouling the staff when sailing, but that's not the case with the vessel depicted in post #1.
 
A much more interesting question is, "Just how much did they actually fly their ensign when under sail?"  I believe, but am not certain, that in actual practice, they wouldn't bother to hoist those huge ensigns unnecessarily when at sea, because they really weren't good for anything other than identification at great range and otherwise simply created a lot of useless windage. Besides, those large ensigns were probably pretty expensive and they wouldn't have wanted to beat them to tatters in daily use in all weathers. Also, it wouldn't have seemed prudent to identify your vessel's nationality to another vessel at sea until you knew who they were, or were ready to stand and fight! Mention of orders to "show the colors"  when another ship was sighted, or even of showing a "false flag" to conceal a ship's nationality, and to only at the last minute, "show your true colors," abound in the literature. Perhaps we worry about ensigns more than they did!  
 
 
 
 

Really, really great job! I particularly like the presentation of the model on the launching ways.
 
(Don''t neglect getting a case for her, if you haven't already.  )

Gloves and running machinery are a no-no. The glove can get caught in chucks etc. and cause serious injuries. What you do is your business, but please don’t give people ideas.

This the binnacle I built for my Endeavor (1770); this solution puts the binnacle over the skylight, with a compass either side, to allow for the helmsman to steer depending on where the wind was from.  The binnacle is unlikely to go over a companion as the crew need to enter/leave via the companion hatch.  However it could back into the other side and would therefore be a small construction.
 
cheers
 
Pat
 

In the end I wound up applying a couple of coats of wipe on poly. As you can see the building frame stayed nice and clean. Clearly visible glue residue inside the hull but not a drop of glue on the frame.

You da man when it comes to solder, Kurt!

Do a search for previous discussions on soldering.  Lots of great tips to be found.
I have found that actual silver soldering is not really needed in our hobby for any issue of strength.  I have used stay-brite a high silver content solder that melts at lower temps than silver solder and it can be blackened unlike regular soft solders.
To get small flakes one can hammer solder flat and snip it off in small flakes.  Much easier to do this with stay-brite than silver solders but that's the way to do it for them too.
I have demonstrated and talked on silver soldering at several NRG Conferences or seminars and used to do it all the time but I have since switched to using stay-brite except when doing joints in close proximity to each other.

Probably nothing good, no doubt. But it shows you're thinking.  
 
In theory, yes, if the oven is hot enough, the solder ought to melt. The question is whether it would flow into the joint.  I'm not entirely sure whether the flux you would use would do its job, though, depending upon the type you were using. The biggest problem you'd have would be getting the solder to flow into the joint because, in an oven, everything would heat up at the same temperature at the same time, and probably relatively slowly, causing your flux to burn off and the metal to oxidize before your solder melts and flows. And, if it does work, you may find all your rings soldered to your wife's cookie sheet at the end of the exercise! 
 
The way soldering is supposed to work, solder is drawn towards the heat. You put a chip of silver solder on top of the fluxed joint and apply heat beneath it and, if all goes well and the moon is in the correct phase, the little chip melts and is magically sucked down into the microscopically tight space between the two surfaces and they are invisibly brazed together. If everything heats up at the same rate, there's no "hotter area" for the solder to be drawn to and your molten solder probably just spreads out all over the top of the piece and not into the seam as you want. And, as mentioned, using an oven, you're using a whole lot of energy to solder a tiny little jump ring.
 
You want to focus on silver soldering, which is more useful in modeling than "tin/lead" soldering (non-lead "lead" solder is now common.) A soldering gun or iron can be used for tin/lead soldering, but, while I solder electronic connections with a soldering gun, I use silver solder when I'm not concerned about electrical connectivity, but rather with the strength of the joint, as in modeling.  For silver soldering, you'll need a jeweler's torch to obtain sufficient heat. (A "resistance" soldering rig can also be used, but that's quite an expensive proposition for a beginner.) Smith's Little Torch is one "industry standard" model, although one can make-do with a small butane torch, as well. (Silvers soldering requires way more than 450 degree heat.) 
 
Silver soldering requires a learning curve. It's not hard to do well enough, but it takes practice and experience to do it really well. YouTube is full of jewelry-making instructional videos about silver soldering, which is what you want to watch. In the jewelry trade, the small rings and eyebolts you want to make are called "jump rings," so you might want to search for "making jump rings." Many community colleges have adult education programs in jewelry making and enrolling in one of these is a good way to get training in proper soldering techniques. (The same goes for picking up techniques for working with wire, shaping small metal parts, and sawing shapes with a jeweler's bench saw, all pretty much essential skills for advanced kit building or scratch building.)
 
 
Here's one very general modeling video which might be helpful in getting started.  
 
 
 

Probably nothing good, no doubt. But it shows you're thinking.  
 
In theory, yes, if the oven is hot enough, the solder ought to melt. The question is whether it would flow into the joint.  I'm not entirely sure whether the flux you would use would do its job, though, depending upon the type you were using. The biggest problem you'd have would be getting the solder to flow into the joint because, in an oven, everything would heat up at the same temperature at the same time, and probably relatively slowly, causing your flux to burn off and the metal to oxidize before your solder melts and flows. And, if it does work, you may find all your rings soldered to your wife's cookie sheet at the end of the exercise! 
 
The way soldering is supposed to work, solder is drawn towards the heat. You put a chip of silver solder on top of the fluxed joint and apply heat beneath it and, if all goes well and the moon is in the correct phase, the little chip melts and is magically sucked down into the microscopically tight space between the two surfaces and they are invisibly brazed together. If everything heats up at the same rate, there's no "hotter area" for the solder to be drawn to and your molten solder probably just spreads out all over the top of the piece and not into the seam as you want. And, as mentioned, using an oven, you're using a whole lot of energy to solder a tiny little jump ring.
 
You want to focus on silver soldering, which is more useful in modeling than "tin/lead" soldering (non-lead "lead" solder is now common.) A soldering gun or iron can be used for tin/lead soldering, but, while I solder electronic connections with a soldering gun, I use silver solder when I'm not concerned about electrical connectivity, but rather with the strength of the joint, as in modeling.  For silver soldering, you'll need a jeweler's torch to obtain sufficient heat. (A "resistance" soldering rig can also be used, but that's quite an expensive proposition for a beginner.) Smith's Little Torch is one "industry standard" model, although one can make-do with a small butane torch, as well. (Silvers soldering requires way more than 450 degree heat.) 
 
Silver soldering requires a learning curve. It's not hard to do well enough, but it takes practice and experience to do it really well. YouTube is full of jewelry-making instructional videos about silver soldering, which is what you want to watch. In the jewelry trade, the small rings and eyebolts you want to make are called "jump rings," so you might want to search for "making jump rings." Many community colleges have adult education programs in jewelry making and enrolling in one of these is a good way to get training in proper soldering techniques. (The same goes for picking up techniques for working with wire, shaping small metal parts, and sawing shapes with a jeweler's bench saw, all pretty much essential skills for advanced kit building or scratch building.)
 
 
Here's one very general modeling video which might be helpful in getting started.  
 
 
 

Applying shellac to the foot rope works well. The shellac soaks into the thread readily. As the alcohol solvent evaporates, the shellac begins to harden. Before it becomes completely hard, it can be shaped as one desires. When it hardens, the string will stay where you had put it. For smaller scales, however, blackened fine wire is easier to work with.
 

On my Syren build, in the manual it was suggested to use an appropriate gauge black wire. I think I used 28. At that size it is difficult to know the difference and I could shape the hang of it until it looked right.

Hi Allan,
 
I wasn't as clear as I might have been in that post when i said, "I've never known that. Is there some reference work that explains it? It doesn't make any sense to me, but that's certainly no indication of its accuracy!"  That statement was in response to druxey's statement way back in post #2, "The answer is that the ensign staff (its proper name) is pivoted at the base. A half-hoop clasp, not shown in the drawing above, is undone, the staff pivoted forward and down, the boom swung over and the staff raised again."
 
I'm familiar with the "tabernacle" fitting used with ensign staffs. My comments were directed to the language: "...the staff pivoted forward and down, the boom swung over and the staff raised again." It was that to which I was referring when I said, "I've never known that. Is there some reference work that explains it? It doesn't make any sense to me..." 
 
At this point in the discussion, I don't think anybody is suggesting that the ensign was flown on the staff while the vessel was under sail and, when tacking, "the staff pivoted forward and down, the boom swung over and the staff raised again." I seriously doubt they would be "striking their colors" every time they tacked! The ensign was flown from the gaff peak while under sail, not only for increased visibility, but also because flying it there didn't interfere with the sailing of the vessel. 
 
There were times, of course, when a lateen yard was carried on the mizzen, or the clew of the spanker didn't extend far enough outboard to foul the ensign staff, where there would not be any problem posed by fouling the staff when sailing, but that's not the case with the vessel depicted in post #1.
 
A much more interesting question is, "Just how much did they actually fly their ensign when under sail?"  I believe, but am not certain, that in actual practice, they wouldn't bother to hoist those huge ensigns unnecessarily when at sea, because they really weren't good for anything other than identification at great range and otherwise simply created a lot of useless windage. Besides, those large ensigns were probably pretty expensive and they wouldn't have wanted to beat them to tatters in daily use in all weathers. Also, it wouldn't have seemed prudent to identify your vessel's nationality to another vessel at sea until you knew who they were, or were ready to stand and fight! Mention of orders to "show the colors"  when another ship was sighted, or even of showing a "false flag" to conceal a ship's nationality, and to only at the last minute, "show your true colors," abound in the literature. Perhaps we worry about ensigns more than they did!  
 
 
 
 

I got that. I thought you were speaking of the name of the sail. My point was that the fore and aft sail on the aftermost mast was called by several different names. It was, however, the same sail, whether it be on a naval ship or a merchant bark with however many masts. It was, of course, a successor to the lateen sail previously in use. It's variants included a gaff headed sail, and even sails with two gaff booms, and, much later, jib-headed sails. These sails all had lower booms. I think the only line of demarcation in types that makes much difference between lateen yarded sails and gaff rigged boomed sails. There were plenty of gaff-rigged boomed mizzen sails on smaller craft long before the demise of the lateen rigged mizzen sail on larger European ships and the evolution was a natural one prompted by their better suitability for the use intended. The lateen rig endured during an overlapping period on Mediterranean-based naval ships, such as the xebecs, and owing to its heritage, the lateen ("Latin") rig continues to this day on the small craft of areas which were part of the Roman Empire.  In this "transitional period," even the lateen rigged xebecs began to replace their lateen rigged sails with square sails, while retaining the lateen fore and aft sail on the aftermost mast, as with this square-rigged xebec of the 1780-1815 period:
 
 
 
That's certainly true. There are, of course, any number of other uses for a temporarily rigged outboard boom on the quarters. My point was, however, that there would be absolutely nothing to be gained by sheeting a boomed fore and aft sail outboard, would there?
 
I don't think whether it's a naval vessel or a merchant vessel makes any difference when we are talking about the aftermost fore and aft sail. The Fortitude contract quote is indeed specific. They do seem to be speaking of the "driver boom," but as Popeye explained so clearly above, they are using the term "driver" to designate a sail that basically extends the leech of the gaff-rigged spanker sail to add sail area in light airs. That sail is "set flying" with its halyard run to a block at the gaff peak and its foot secured to "the driver boom abaft on the quarter" The specification speaks of ironwork, including a "hoop and swivel for the driver boom." The driver boom (or booms) port and starboard would be run out through an iron hoop and swivel, much like a stuns'l boom. These temporarily rigged booms would not have anything to do with the lower boom of the gaff-rigged spanker, though. The driver sail, unlike the spanker, was only used when the ship was off the wind in very light air. It had no utility in windward work.
 
I disagree. I really don't see any validity to the distinction you make between naval vessels and merchant vessels for the purposes of this analysis. Efficiency in the operation of the merchant vessel was undoubtedly motivated by profit, but efficiency in the operation of the naval vessel was every bit as motivated by a desire to maximize the vessel's fighting capacity, i.e. the very survival of the ship and her crew. Naval vessels might have had enough men aboard to "find sufficient men" to "rig and re-rig a rather small sail when going about," but why in the world would they want to? The whole point of a boomed fore and aft sail is that all that needs be done when tacking is to let the boom swing from one side to the other! And would they really have sufficient men in combat when there were eight to ten men to a gun, plus powder monkeys, etc., and boarding parties, all specifically assigned, not to mention crew to sail the ship? No way. The less crew required, the farther the ship can travel without re-provisioning, the more guns, powder, and shot she can carry, and perhaps most importantly to the Admiralty, the less she costs to operate.
 
Actually, the management of a lateen sail is much more a matter of timing and trained coordination than it is brute force and muscle power. Frequently, the lateen boom isn't moved to the leeward side of the mast at all when short-tacking. Lateen sails are referred to as having "good tack" (boom to leeward) and "bad tack" (boom to windward) sides, one being more efficient than the other. A lateen boom is generally only moved from the "bad tack' side of the mast to the "good tack" side when it was expected that the vessel would be sailing on that tack for long enough to make the work of doing it worth the trouble. Actually moving the spar from one side to the other is easier than might be expected. The forward brace has a tackle attached. As the sail luffs, the upper brace is cast off, the throat halyard is two-blocked, space aloft allowing for the spar to be raised enough for its arm to clear the deck when vertical, and the forward brace is hauled aft by the tackle until the end of the spar is parallel with the mast. It's then pushed to the other side and allowed to swing, or is hauled, forward, the throat halyard is slacked off as necessary, the top brace set up, and the sail sheeted in. Easy as that may be for a few trained crewmen to accomplish, if the captain of a fighting ship could dispense with that evolution entirely and simply leave a gaff sail to tend itself, particularly in the heat of battle, why wouldn't he? Which is exactly why the gaff sail replaced the lateen over time.
Yes, it would certainly seem so. The driver was similar to a stuns'l, as Popeye explained, but was only "set flying" from the gaff peak, i..e. hoisted on a halyard. The foot of the driver would bent to a spar extending from the quarter, while the lower spanker boom would be sheeted separately. The two sails were separate, save for their common connection at the gaff peak. Obviously, it was a lot easier to simply extend the spanker gaff and boom to increase the sail area of the aftermost fore and aft sail (and adding reef points as needed) and this occurred in due course, rendering the driver sail, but not its name, obsolete. 
 
No, that's not possible. The spanker places considerably more tension on its sheet than the driver and the driver, only a light air sail, wouldn't have the strength to carry the forces of the much heavier spanker on its own. However, there is such a thing as a watersail, which is a sail that is bent to a fore and aft sail's boom beneath the boom and sail bent on above the boom, sort of like a "skirt," for light air use. They don't really add much and are relatively rare outside of period yacht racing applications.
 
The mechanics of the thing defines it. If it doesn't work, it wasn't used. Simple as that. At least, for the moment, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.  
 
 
 
 

Not a historical example, but that's the way it is on the Sultana replica.  Here is a picture on the Sultana Projects Flickr showing the ensign staff.  Note that the staff is offset to starboard so that the boom can remain at the center line.  When the mainsail is raised, the flag is moved to the gaff peak and the staff slides completely out of its holder.
 

Coming back to the original question on the use of the Ensign staff, I think current Royal Navy (and probably other Commonwealth, likely all other) provides the answer.  By tradition, an ensign is flown from the ensign staff only while not underway either in harbor or at anchor together with the union jack at the for jack staff during daylight hours.  Modern ensign staffs similarly pivot per Druxey's description to avoid any entanglement with the variety of modern operations that occur in the stern area.  While underway, the ensign is flown from a different location wherever the primary mast structure is, which is both most visible and least encumbering.  Taking this practice back to the days of sail, it would seem logical to infer from this the same practice (although I suspect the ensign staff would be removed entirely while underway) and with the sea going location being flown from the gaff peak and the ensign staff lowered or stowed.

Thank you very much, gentlemen 
😇
 
*******************************************
 
Steering-stands
 
The steering-stands consists of two pillars supporting a pair of wheels. These pillars were somehow bolted to the deck, but drawings and photographs do not show how it was done. On the model this detail will be barely visible, as the lower part of the columns will be hidden by the gratings platform.
The grating actually were photo-etched a long time ago. However, I did not like the rounded-out corners, which are due to my somewhat primitive etching process. Therefore, I cut the gratings also with the laser from Canson-paper. By playing around with the settings of the laser-cutter, I managed to produce reasonably square field and sharp corners. The fields resp. the ‘laths’ are only 0.3 mm wide and the grating is 0.3 mm thick (0.3 mm in 1:160 scale is equivalent to just under 50 mm for the prototype). I would have found it impossible to produce a grating in these dimensions prototype fashion.
 

Steering-stand gratings: JPG-image as input for the laser-cutter
 
The gratings are made up from two layers of paper 0.15 mm thick each. Imitating the prototype to some degree the lower layer only had transversal laths. Both layers were glued together with lacquer. The transversal reenforcing bars are built up from three layers of paper and glued to the gratings again with lacquer.
 
The platforms are raised above the deck by four short columns that were turned from brass rod. They were slotted for the reenforcing bars on the micro-mill.
 
The steering-wheel pillars were designed on the basis of the photographie showen earlier and what can be deducted from the lithographs. There is a pole protruding from the front pillar of the stand on the bridge, the function of which is unclear to me. It may have supported an indicator for the rudder or just the lanyard for the steam-pipe. The only known photograph that shows a boat before the armoured command tower was installed is too grainy from the printing grid (it is only known from a publication) to allow to discern such details.
 

Steering-wheel pillars: JPG-image as input for the laser-cutter
 
The pillars where built up from three layers of Canson-paer, which allowed to represent the cannelures. The pillar appears to be rather thin, but this is how it is drawn on the lithograph.
 
The axle of the steering-wheel rests in bearings that are clad in brass or bronze. A piece of 2 mm brass rod was bored out for the round heads of the pillars and then a thin disc was parted off. For further machining the discs were held in special insert collets with a low recess turned into the front (so-calle jewelling collets, used by watchmakers to machine watch jewels or bushings).
 

Machining the bearing caps in a 'jewelling' collet
 
The profile on the front was turned with a small boring tool and the dome-shaped cap over the axle was formed with a cup burr, as used by jewellery-makers to round off wires.
 

Shaping the covering cap of the wheel-axle using a cup burr
 
The caps are actually only segments of a disc and were milled of on the micro-mill accordingly.
 

Milling of the segment-shaped caps
 
All parts were glued together using lacquer

The individual parts of the steering-stands
 

Steering-stand on the bridge loosely assembled (a 1 €-cent coin for reference)
 
To be continued ...

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 can relate. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. 
 
Welcome back!

Good Morning Popeye;
 
Thank you for the clear explanation. That makes perfect sense of it all, and fills in the gaps in what I knew. Now if you can fill all the rest of the gaps which still remain.....
 
It also means that the illustration in Lees' book, showing the driver as an alternative to the mizen sail (p 112) with no obvious reason why it should be replaced (the area of the sail is almost identical) is incorrect. The driver actually worked with the mizen, to extend its area, as your post makes clear.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

The spanker and the driver were originally different sails.  The spanker sets from a gaff on the mizzen mast.  It started out as the loose footed mizzen sail which was itself a modification of the lateen mizzen of the 17th century.  At this point it is still referred to as the mizzen sail.  By the late 18th century the foot was extended by a boom.
 
The driver was a sort of studdingsail that was set in addition to the mizzen.  The head of this sail was extended by a small yard that was hoisted by a halyard in the center to the peak of the gaff.  When set square the foot was sheeted out to a boom lashed athwartships to the taffrail and extending out from the sides of the ship.  The driver could also be set more fore and aft as sort of an extension or enlargement of the mizzen in which case its boom was lashed to extend the boom of the mizzen.  (BTW, I think it is at this point that you start to have problems with interference with the ensign flag staff)
 
Eventually, this enlarged and extended fore and aft mizzen/driver combination becomes standard and is called the spanker sail.
 
Regards,

As a beginning ship modeler, a good quality, simple model, elegantly built, will teach you more and give you far more satisfaction for years to come when finished than a good quality, highly complex model, inexpertly built, if you even finish it at all. Kit manufacturers sell dreams that only come true if the dreamer has the skill to make those dreams a reality. As Dirty Harry said, "A man's got to know his limitations." Trying to learn how to swim by jumping into the deep end of the pool straight away rarely ends well.