Bob Cleek

Let me say at the outset that Kurt Van Dahm (kurtvd19 - Model Ship World™) is the expert on all things airbrush around here. You should shoot him a message and I'm sure he will be happy to give you the best answer you will get from anybody. He is also some sort of a rep for Badger Airbrush Co., I believe. Anyway, he can recommend the best airbrush and compressor to acquire in your price range and probably know where to get the best deal on it.
 
As for your question about thinning acrylic paint for airbrushing, the answer is yes, it is entirely possible to thin regular acrylic paint to the consistency required for airbrushing. (In fact, most airbrushers condition all their paint for airbrushing regardless of what some manufacturer says on their tiny overpriced bottles. Pre-thinned paint "for airbrushing" is just paying good money for more cheap thinner and less expensive pigment!) That said, you should be very careful to use the particular paint's manufacturer's recommended thinner. Some acrylics are thinned with water and some with alcohol and some with a proprietary thinner which is probably alcohol and Windex or something, but who knows for sure.  YouTube is full of videos teaching how to make your own acrylic paint thinners to save money.  Such homebrews should always be tested before use on a finished piece, of course.
 
Many hobby paint manufacturers sell clear flat coatings for spraying over finishes that are too glossy. Flattening solutions can also be added to the paint and many manufacturers sell their paint not only in many colors, but also in a variety of finishes between flat and high gloss. I only use flat finishes on ship models. Gloss finishes are for automobile models, I expect. 
 
While I have had good results with alcohol-thinned acrylic paints, water-thinned acrylic paints have proven something of a challenge. Airbrushing is designed to spray atomized paint on a surface where it dries very quickly. Unlike alcohol, water doesn't dry quickly at all and it's easy to spray "wet on wet" and make a mess of it. For this reason, I am not a fan of water-thinned acrylic paint, or any other acrylic paint (for a variety of reasons,) but that is just my own personal preference. I have gone increasingly to using tubed artists' oil paints, which can be thinned with any number of solvents with different drying characteristics and can be conditioned with retarding or accelerating agents and flattening additives to achieve a wide range of effects. In the long run, quality artists' oil paint is far less expensive than small bottles of paint sold by the hobby companies, of better quality in many cases, and much easier to mix your own colors from a small pallete of basic colors. Other folks' mileage may differ, I'm sure.

I've only skimmed my copy of the latest issue of WoodenBoat magazine, but I see where there is an article in it on a gozzo (the lateen-rigged Ligurian fishing boat you've mentioned) that has been designed for yacht use with a low doghouse. I don't know about the doghouse, but the plans in the magazine look to be sufficient to build a model from. There's wide range of details on those fishing boats and you can probably learn something from any plans you can lay hands on. One of the catches with indigenous working watercraft is that so often they are built by tradition and by eye with perhaps a mould pattern or three handed down from father to son boatbuilders and drawn plans are hard to come by. 

Sealing bare wood before painting is decidedly a good idea, particularly considering the open-grained species provided by many kit manufacturers. For a number of very good reasons, my own preference for sealing is clear ("white") shellac which can be purchased pre-mixed at most any paint or hardware store. (Zinsser 1-qt. Clear Shellac Traditional Finish and Sealer (Case of 4) 00304H - The Home Depot) Shellac is compatible with all common coatings, whether oil or water based. There is no need to apply anything over shellac before painting nor anything over the paint after painting. The less applied to the model, the better, so as to avoid the loss of crisp detail from thick coating applications.

I did recently complete a paint job for a model using homebrew acrylic paints.  I started with a small selection of quality acrylic artist paints.  These come in tubes. Quality is important as you need finely ground pigments.  I mixed my own 18th Century colors; a dull red and Drab.  I mixed the resulting color with some acrylic Matt Medium, and thinned the mixture to airbrush consistency.  It worked well.
 
Would I do it again?  At the moment I’m supplementing my stash of Floquil Paints for use on my current project!
 
Roger

Let me say at the outset that Kurt Van Dahm (kurtvd19 - Model Ship World™) is the expert on all things airbrush around here. You should shoot him a message and I'm sure he will be happy to give you the best answer you will get from anybody. He is also some sort of a rep for Badger Airbrush Co., I believe. Anyway, he can recommend the best airbrush and compressor to acquire in your price range and probably know where to get the best deal on it.
 
As for your question about thinning acrylic paint for airbrushing, the answer is yes, it is entirely possible to thin regular acrylic paint to the consistency required for airbrushing. (In fact, most airbrushers condition all their paint for airbrushing regardless of what some manufacturer says on their tiny overpriced bottles. Pre-thinned paint "for airbrushing" is just paying good money for more cheap thinner and less expensive pigment!) That said, you should be very careful to use the particular paint's manufacturer's recommended thinner. Some acrylics are thinned with water and some with alcohol and some with a proprietary thinner which is probably alcohol and Windex or something, but who knows for sure.  YouTube is full of videos teaching how to make your own acrylic paint thinners to save money.  Such homebrews should always be tested before use on a finished piece, of course.
 
Many hobby paint manufacturers sell clear flat coatings for spraying over finishes that are too glossy. Flattening solutions can also be added to the paint and many manufacturers sell their paint not only in many colors, but also in a variety of finishes between flat and high gloss. I only use flat finishes on ship models. Gloss finishes are for automobile models, I expect. 
 
While I have had good results with alcohol-thinned acrylic paints, water-thinned acrylic paints have proven something of a challenge. Airbrushing is designed to spray atomized paint on a surface where it dries very quickly. Unlike alcohol, water doesn't dry quickly at all and it's easy to spray "wet on wet" and make a mess of it. For this reason, I am not a fan of water-thinned acrylic paint, or any other acrylic paint (for a variety of reasons,) but that is just my own personal preference. I have gone increasingly to using tubed artists' oil paints, which can be thinned with any number of solvents with different drying characteristics and can be conditioned with retarding or accelerating agents and flattening additives to achieve a wide range of effects. In the long run, quality artists' oil paint is far less expensive than small bottles of paint sold by the hobby companies, of better quality in many cases, and much easier to mix your own colors from a small pallete of basic colors. Other folks' mileage may differ, I'm sure.

I've only skimmed my copy of the latest issue of WoodenBoat magazine, but I see where there is an article in it on a gozzo (the lateen-rigged Ligurian fishing boat you've mentioned) that has been designed for yacht use with a low doghouse. I don't know about the doghouse, but the plans in the magazine look to be sufficient to build a model from. There's wide range of details on those fishing boats and you can probably learn something from any plans you can lay hands on. One of the catches with indigenous working watercraft is that so often they are built by tradition and by eye with perhaps a mould pattern or three handed down from father to son boatbuilders and drawn plans are hard to come by. 

I've only skimmed my copy of the latest issue of WoodenBoat magazine, but I see where there is an article in it on a gozzo (the lateen-rigged Ligurian fishing boat you've mentioned) that has been designed for yacht use with a low doghouse. I don't know about the doghouse, but the plans in the magazine look to be sufficient to build a model from. There's wide range of details on those fishing boats and you can probably learn something from any plans you can lay hands on. One of the catches with indigenous working watercraft is that so often they are built by tradition and by eye with perhaps a mould pattern or three handed down from father to son boatbuilders and drawn plans are hard to come by. 

Ben, Bob and Roger, thanks guys for sharing your knowledge. Ben, I will check out the article you mentioned and by the way I have some of your brown cordage that was for the PdN which was demolished during the early stages of my build. I agree at this scale it would make little difference, but I'm leaning towards brown. Now the next puzzlement is to paint or not to paint. I'll have to work that out in my head before I start the build and after I see my planking job.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

it cant get better than that. astonishing. wow. 

See: 
 
Pine tar is a very dark brown, close to black. "Coca Cola color" is really the best description I've heard. The degree of brown depends upon how much tar is put on the cordage. Standing rigging was heavily tarred (as much as it would soak up) to preserve it and so was so brown it was nearly black. At scale viewing distances, standing rigging would appear black.
 

 

 
Pine tar applied to a baseball bat to afford a "sticky' grip for the batter's hands:
 

 
Coal tar, essentially creosote, is entirely jet black:
 

 
In the Age of Sail, pine tar was a "naval store," and an " essential strategic material." The finest pine tar came from the forests of Sweden and was generically called "Stockholm tar." Obviously, every European navy required pine tar and they all had to be in Sweden's good graces if they wanted to have access to Swedish "Stockholm tar." As with strategic materials even today, nations would try to influence third party producer nations not to sell such materials to their enemies. Britain was forever fighting with her neighbors and a reliable supply of pine tar was virtually essential to her survival. One of the more important reasons England was so possessive of her American colonies was because they ensured that England had her own supply of pine tar and was immune to the vagaries of the European pine tar market. Coal tar is a by-product of the production of coke and coal gas from coal.  When the Industrial Revolution powered by coal commenced, coal-rich Britain found itself with plenty of coal tar and less need for pine tar. It would stand to reason that ships built and maintained in the Colonies would have used pine tar, which was readily available in America, for longer than would the British maritime industry that had coal tar more readily available. It would also be presumed that as America joined in the Industrial Revolution, with her rich coal resources, she also would have gone over to the less expensive and more readily available coal tar, as well. 
 
 
 
 

See: 
 
Pine tar is a very dark brown, close to black. "Coca Cola color" is really the best description I've heard. The degree of brown depends upon how much tar is put on the cordage. Standing rigging was heavily tarred (as much as it would soak up) to preserve it and so was so brown it was nearly black. At scale viewing distances, standing rigging would appear black.
 

 

 
Pine tar applied to a baseball bat to afford a "sticky' grip for the batter's hands:
 

 
Coal tar, essentially creosote, is entirely jet black:
 

 
In the Age of Sail, pine tar was a "naval store," and an " essential strategic material." The finest pine tar came from the forests of Sweden and was generically called "Stockholm tar." Obviously, every European navy required pine tar and they all had to be in Sweden's good graces if they wanted to have access to Swedish "Stockholm tar." As with strategic materials even today, nations would try to influence third party producer nations not to sell such materials to their enemies. Britain was forever fighting with her neighbors and a reliable supply of pine tar was virtually essential to her survival. One of the more important reasons England was so possessive of her American colonies was because they ensured that England had her own supply of pine tar and was immune to the vagaries of the European pine tar market. Coal tar is a by-product of the production of coke and coal gas from coal.  When the Industrial Revolution powered by coal commenced, coal-rich Britain found itself with plenty of coal tar and less need for pine tar. It would stand to reason that ships built and maintained in the Colonies would have used pine tar, which was readily available in America, for longer than would the British maritime industry that had coal tar more readily available. It would also be presumed that as America joined in the Industrial Revolution, with her rich coal resources, she also would have gone over to the less expensive and more readily available coal tar, as well. 
 
 
 
 

For sure. The drafting machine scales are actually nothing other than regular scales with a couple of threaded holes to attach the clip for attaching them to the drafting machine arm. They were made in every scale imaginable. The common scales are still widely available on eBay. Some of the odd-ball scales may be a bit more difficult to find. They run around five or ten bucks a piece. Before they were plastic, they were made of metal, and before that, of boxwood and celluloid or ivory. The boxwood ones were the same scales that came in the fitted velvet-lined cases with eight, ten, or twelve scales in the box, each having one, or sometimes two scale markings on them. I've picked up quite a few such scales over the years. I have plastic and metal ones for my drafting machine and a fair number of the old K&E Paragon boxwood ones, although not a complete set of those. Sad to say, for quite some time when the beautiful old boxwood rules were plentiful, modelers encouraged probably by some article in a modeling magazine, snapped up as many as they could as a source of cheap boxwood and "recycled" them! I'd love to find a boxed set, but they are very pricey when they turn up on occasion. 
 
Only based on my own experience, I'd guess one person in ten, or less, knows that accurate professional scales are supposed to be used by picking up the distances with a pair of dividers (preferably a hairspring divider to make the most minute adjustments) and comparing them to the scale with the dividers. Most think they are like school rulers that double as straight edges and stand-alone measuring tools.
 

I have an article about pine tar that might interest you https://maritime.org/conf/conf-kaye-tar.php It states that the production went on well into the 1900s.
 
I'm pretty certain the industrial process for coal tar didn't pick up until the 1850s (Can't seem to find my article on it). The Grecian being an American vessel I'm not sure about what tar would be used. The Royal Navy would have used Pine tar to the bitter end no doubt. 
 
On tall ships today they use pine tar and coal tar mixed together from what I've read.

Like a lot of "Old Pharts," I'm familiar with Marine Models Company kits from years gone by. They were high quality kits for their time, equivalent to the old Model Shipways "yellow box" kits. What you see above is what you get. Their plans were generally well done, but don't expect an "idiot-proof" step-by-step instruction manual and laser-cut wooden parts.  Kit manufacturers fifty years ago in an age when most gentlemen had a certain degree of manual arts skills acquired from the osmosis of life, if nothing else, expected more of their customers that they would be entitled to expect from today's generation of "keyboard jockeys."   Regrettably, some of MMCo.'s metal castings seem to have contained a fair amount of lead and may be subject to deterioration from oxidation. They should be able to be replicated in cast resin, using the lead originals as patterns.
 
What these kits provided were a set of plans, a rough, machine-carved solid basswood hull, a few metal fittings, some dowel spars, and string. It would be an excellent "transitional" model, for one interested in the clipper ships and looking to make "the leap into hyperspace" to scratch building. (Or "go over to the dark side" as some may believe!) This is a 1:192 (1/16" to the foot) model which will limit the detail one will be able to provide and it will otherwise pose a challenge in terms of its relatively small scale but it is still capable of producing a nice model if built with care and attention. 
 
Red Jacket was the first ship of the White Star Line and had a long live in many trades. She appears to be very well documented and there is a lot of information and plans for her online.
 

 
A forumite build a very nice example of the very similar Bluejacket Shipcrafters' Red Jacket 1:96 scale solid hull model and posted a piece on the completion of that build. (See:
 

 
 

Personal message sent via forum message feature.  I just noticed the original post was dated almost three years ago! One of the dangers of checking the "new posts since last visit" feature, I suppose!  

Roger
 
Amazing, but it strikes mw that with the modern trends towards  "self identification" that it will take many years before parents will know for certain! Or perhaps they just delay the parties for later in life?
 
Thanks to everyone for the good wishes.

As for the arrangement drawn above, not all that far back. The drawing shows the standard USN arrangement for laying wood decking "veneer" on top of a welded steel deck. Welded ship construction became common during WWII. Two inches of wood on top of the steel deck was specified for a light cruiser, apparently. That's not a whole lot of wood. I've not previously encountered the practice of laminating an inch of teak on top of an inch of Doug fir.  The mention of using this laminated decking on "new work," suggests this was a wartime economizing practice. Even with supply lines open, there was not enough teak to supply the naval building program. Only cruisers and battleships rated teak decks. All the Iowa class BB's had teak-sheathed weather decks, but they were built "finestkind" regardless of wartime shortages. (Interestingly, the Montana class BB's, while authorized, were never laid down due to construction delays caused by wartime steel shortages and, by the time supplies were available to build them, the heavy battleship had been rendered obsolete by the aircraft carrier.)
 
Teak, which became widely available to the British beginning around 1824 when they fought the First Anglo-Burmese War (shortly followed by the second) to take control of the primary source of the valuable timber, was favored for decks because teak weathered very well without the need for any paint or oil, provided a good footing,  was abrasion resistant, and easy to maintain. Teak was not favored for other warship construction applications, though, because teak splinters something fierce on impact and large wood "splinters" flying from the impact of cannon shot caused more casualties in the wooden warships than anything else.  
 
The Navy built something like 143 aircraft carriers during the war, primarily the 24 large Essex class carriers and 50 Casablanca class escort or "jeep" carriers. All American carriers until the Midway class had Douglas fir wooden decks laid over structural steel as in the drawing in the post above. (In contrast to the British carriers which had armor-plated steel decks.) The wooden decks were favored because they were far lighter than armored decks, permitting more planes to be carried, and battle damage was easily repaired. They were also cooler in the tropics and therefore far easier on the plane tires when landing. (They did not, however, stand up to the Japanese kamakazi attacks as well as the armor-plate decked British carriers!) These wood-sheathed steel decks were not structural nor essential for watertightness, so their caulking was for the purpose of keeping water from running beneath the wood and rusting the deck. They used a special welding rig which would spot-weld the threaded spuds right to the steel deck as is still done today:
 
Stud machine-welded to steel plate:
 

 

 
Stud welding rig in use on steel deck:
 

 
I'd be interested to know how they fastened teak decking to riveted iron decks before ship-welding technology came along. I've never had the opportunity to see a wood-sheathed riveted iron deck dissected.
 
On wooden ships, the wooden decking was a primary structural feature of the ship and the wooden decks in an average-sized shop were easily four inches thick. These planks would be mechanically fastened to deck beams with spikes, bolts, or trunnels and the caulking would be driven "hard" into the seams which put tremendous rigidity into the hull structure. Decks were caulked with a "hawsing iron" which is a massive iron similar to an axe. It's a two-man job with one holding the iron in the seam and the other hitting it with a "beetle," a large two-handed mallet. 
 
Hawsing iron:
 

 
Shipwright with an armful of beetles:
 

Perhaps a tedious step, but not challenging, especially if the planks aren't sprung. To begin with, the studs are welded using a template that ensures all are equally spaced and if they've done that correctly, you're starting out in pretty good shape. To replace a plank, patterns are made from cardstock or doorskin. Squares a bit smaller than plank width are cut and holes matching the stud diameter are drilled in the center of the squares.  The squares are laid over the studs with the stud running through the hole in the square. Longer strips of cardstock or doorskin a smidgen less wide than the distance between the adjacent plank(s) and the studs are laid against the adjacent plank edge and on top of the squares laid over the studs. The squares on the studs are attached to the strip of cardstock or doorsking with a hot melt glue gun. The strip and the squares are then lifted off the studs in one piece and form the template for drilling the holes in the plank to accommodate the threaded studs. If they did a good job of setting the studs, This template can be used repeatedly. If a stud is out of place, the square with the hole at that stud is simply peeled off the template strip, placed over the offending stud, and hot melt glued to the template strip again, thereby eliminating the need to make an entire new template.
 

A 1:32 scale or a 3/8" to the foot scale? Or a 1/32" to the foot scale?   Truth be told, I didn't go looking for the specific scale you were asking about and just posted the sites that had printable scales. My bad! 
 
I neglected to mention that In addition to the internal copying errors issues encountered in printers themselves, printed scales also pose the risk of changing size along with relative humidity. It's not about being exceptionally anal-retentive about measurements, (that being a relative thing among modelers,) but rather, it's just that your measurements are never going to be any more accurate than your rule and errors are so often cumulative.
 
1:32 or 3/8" to the foot scale is a standard architectural drawing scale and it should be found on any standard architect's triangular scale. (Not to be confused with an engineer's triangular scale which is scaled decimally.)  Any modeler would be well-served by owning one. Buy one with decent scale engraving, not a pressed plastic job. You want an accurate scale. They aren't expensive and very commonly available. Get a decent pair of dividers to pick up your measurements from your rule while you're at it if you don't already have a pair. 
 

 
 
 

Perhaps a tedious step, but not challenging, especially if the planks aren't sprung. To begin with, the studs are welded using a template that ensures all are equally spaced and if they've done that correctly, you're starting out in pretty good shape. To replace a plank, patterns are made from cardstock or doorskin. Squares a bit smaller than plank width are cut and holes matching the stud diameter are drilled in the center of the squares.  The squares are laid over the studs with the stud running through the hole in the square. Longer strips of cardstock or doorskin a smidgen less wide than the distance between the adjacent plank(s) and the studs are laid against the adjacent plank edge and on top of the squares laid over the studs. The squares on the studs are attached to the strip of cardstock or doorsking with a hot melt glue gun. The strip and the squares are then lifted off the studs in one piece and form the template for drilling the holes in the plank to accommodate the threaded studs. If they did a good job of setting the studs, This template can be used repeatedly. If a stud is out of place, the square with the hole at that stud is simply peeled off the template strip, placed over the offending stud, and hot melt glued to the template strip again, thereby eliminating the need to make an entire new template.
 

Perhaps a tedious step, but not challenging, especially if the planks aren't sprung. To begin with, the studs are welded using a template that ensures all are equally spaced and if they've done that correctly, you're starting out in pretty good shape. To replace a plank, patterns are made from cardstock or doorskin. Squares a bit smaller than plank width are cut and holes matching the stud diameter are drilled in the center of the squares.  The squares are laid over the studs with the stud running through the hole in the square. Longer strips of cardstock or doorskin a smidgen less wide than the distance between the adjacent plank(s) and the studs are laid against the adjacent plank edge and on top of the squares laid over the studs. The squares on the studs are attached to the strip of cardstock or doorsking with a hot melt glue gun. The strip and the squares are then lifted off the studs in one piece and form the template for drilling the holes in the plank to accommodate the threaded studs. If they did a good job of setting the studs, This template can be used repeatedly. If a stud is out of place, the square with the hole at that stud is simply peeled off the template strip, placed over the offending stud, and hot melt glued to the template strip again, thereby eliminating the need to make an entire new template.
 

My German late 19th/early 20th century shipbuilding textbooks explicitly quote thermal and acoustic isolation as the main reason for putting wooden decks over structural iron-/steel-decks. On warships linoleum may have been used instead. Foothold on steel-decks was increased by painting them with an oil-paint/tar mixture to which sand was added, before dry more sand was sprinkled on.
 
Torpedo-boats in the Autrian navy were painted black and didn't have wooden decking. In the Adriatic (where all the Austrian naval ports were) climate it go so hot underneath in summer and condensation trickled from the celing in winter that they put door-mat like mats in port over them.
 

It all depends on the technology one has access to. These days I perhaps would cut myself a stencil with my small laser-cutter and use it for spray-painting.
 
A completely different approach could be to have a professional making a printing screen (serigraphy) for you. Could be expensive for a one of.
 

A 1:32 scale or a 3/8" to the foot scale? Or a 1/32" to the foot scale?   Truth be told, I didn't go looking for the specific scale you were asking about and just posted the sites that had printable scales. My bad! 
 
I neglected to mention that In addition to the internal copying errors issues encountered in printers themselves, printed scales also pose the risk of changing size along with relative humidity. It's not about being exceptionally anal-retentive about measurements, (that being a relative thing among modelers,) but rather, it's just that your measurements are never going to be any more accurate than your rule and errors are so often cumulative.
 
1:32 or 3/8" to the foot scale is a standard architectural drawing scale and it should be found on any standard architect's triangular scale. (Not to be confused with an engineer's triangular scale which is scaled decimally.)  Any modeler would be well-served by owning one. Buy one with decent scale engraving, not a pressed plastic job. You want an accurate scale. They aren't expensive and very commonly available. Get a decent pair of dividers to pick up your measurements from your rule while you're at it if you don't already have a pair. 
 

 
 
 

Google is your friend, or Bing, as the case may be in this instance: printable scale rulers - Search (bing.com)
 
       See:                          Printable scale rulers - Printable Ruler (printable-ruler.net)
 
                                       Printable Ruler - Free Accurate Ruler Inches, CM, MM - World of Printables
 
                                       9 Sets of Free, Printable Rulers When You Need One Fast (thesprucecrafts.com)
 
The catch with printable rulers is the ability of the particular printer to print the rule accurately.  In the first instance, most copiers and printers these days have a built-in "counterfeiting prevention feature" that prints a slightly off-size copy to prevent people from printing money. Others have less than sufficiently exact sizing scales. At best, if copying a scale, you have to fiddle a lot to adjust the sizing on the machine to get an exactly accurate copy.  These printable scales, being in digital format and not going through a copier, may well have overcome those limitations.