Bob Cleek

I want to repeat what Bob said - many printers do not print to scale. I had a HP laser printer that required a print scale of 1:1.043 to get it to print 1:1 on the paper.
 
1. Disable "fit to paper" option in the print dialog.
 
2. Set the scale to 1:1 (every printer manufacturer does this differently - too stupid to come up with a common method).
 
3. Create an image with a ruler scale in it that is known to be accurate. Best to create this with a CAD program and not a simple drawing program like Photoshop or MS Paint. Make the scale long enough to fit on the paper. For example, 8" horizontal and 10" vertical.
 
4. Print the test file.
 
5. Measure the printed ruler. Careful - the error may be small, but these errors can add up.
 
CAUTION: Use an accurate ruler to make the measurement. Many cheap rulers are just the approximate length. Use a steel machinist's rule if you have one, or measure with a caliper.
 
6. Calculate the error +/-. Divide the measured length of the printed ruler by what it is supposed to be.
 
7. Calculate the offset +/- necessary to make the print the right scale. For example, if a 10 inch ruler prints to 9.98 inches, set the print scale in the printer dialog to 1.1002 (or 1:1.1002).
 
8. Repeat steps 3-7 until it comes out right.
 
9. Write down the necessary scale correction for the printer (put it on a stick on not on the printer). If you can, set the "Custom" scale in the printer dialog.
 
10. Be sure to test this with a vertical and horizontal ruler in the printed drawing. Some printers are screwed up in both directions, and the only way to correct this is to create drawings that are skewed in both directions!

I've added 1:32 to my scale rulers HERE. Bob's right, you may have to adjust your print scale using 'Custom' or the like.
 

G'Day all,
 
I have drawn up some scale rulers in CAD. English feet and inches in 1:16, 1:24 and 1:48. EDIT: added 1:32
 
When printing you may have to adjust your printers scaling until 12 feet on the 1:16 ruler is 9 inches.
 
After printing I cover both sides with Scotch 'Magic' tape before cutting them out.
 
I hope somebody finds them useful.
Scale Rulers.pdf
 

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!  

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!  

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:
 

 
 

About the ship - Red Jacket at 1:96  was one of Wm Crothers  - Sea Gull plans.  Still available  at Taubman  (Loyalhannah Dockyard) B/W scan of original blue prints - time has made the contrast between the background and lines less than ideal.  They are both outside the planking -for solid carved like the above - and inside for POF - much detail -  probably too much for 1/8":1'.
One aspect is that the original ship was huge.   Crothers probably would have preferred a 1:48  except that this scale, not many of us could live in the same dwelling with a fully masted and rigged model that is that large.
1:16":1' is miniature scale and is probably too small for anything thicker than rice paper to be suitable as sail material.  It would need to be wispy / ephemeral - the rigging line is challenge enough.  It would almost take having a pet black widow spider to provide scale line starting material.  (I seem to remember reading that the spider once was used to make crosshairs for optics.)
The kit would probably be an excellent initial project for someone with an ambition to try scratch miniature.  The pre-carved hull gets you beyond that first significant barrier.
As is, this kit could probably produce a higher quality decorator model that could live in an office or library - in a case - always in a case.

I believe the current technology you would want to explore for this task (as would most modelers requiring scale lettering and symbols) is the Cricut Everything Maker. (https://cricut.com/en-us/cutting-machines/cricut-maker/everything-maker) Without getting ahead of my skis describing what this machine does, and it does a lot, I'll just say that it is a small CNC cutting machine which, among other things like fabric, leather, thin wood, and cardstock, can apparently cut frisket film to a high degree of accuracy and detail. (Frisket film, if you are not familiar with it, is a adhesive-backed plastic masking film used by artists to mask areas for airbrushing.  https://www.dickblick.com/categories/painting/airbrushing/frisket-film/) The Cricut machine connects with a home computer or smartphone and graphics can be fed from these into the machine. There are a wide range of mediums that can be used in the machine. In addition to frisket film, the machine will produce adhesive-backed transfers for hard surfaces or iron-on transfers (for fabric,) such as tee shirt printing. Beyond that, all I know is that Cricut Machines are all the rage with lady "crafters" these days.
 
My daughter is the district administrator for all the art and music programs for a local school district and happens to have a Cricut machine of her own. There are a range of Cricut Machines ranging in price from around $500 to $1,000. (Ouch!) You may want to find someone you know who has one and could either cut you some frisket masks or some iron-on transfers. All they'd need would be the artwork on a digital file. There is also at least one outfit that will make iron-on transfers for you for a couple of bucks a piece. See: https://ninjatransfers.com/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Cricut&utm_term=cricut heat}&tw_source=bing&tw_adid=80058377713213}&tw_campaign=Cricut&msclkid=46a9d50453211902fe31b1edd7361892&utm_content=Ad group 1
 
As it happens, the Cricut Machine is a small-scale version of the larger machines which produce the same larger adhesive-backed lettering used by full-scale sailmakers for putting sail numbers and other printing on sails.
 
This machine appears to offer lots of promise for use by ship modelers, especially cardstock modelers! (With apologies to everyones' pocketbooks, my motto: "He who dies with the most tools wins!")
 
YouTube is full of Cricut Machine videos. For an overview:
 
 
 
See also:
 
 

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:
 

 
 

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:
 

 
 

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:
 

 
 

I believe the current technology you would want to explore for this task (as would most modelers requiring scale lettering and symbols) is the Cricut Everything Maker. (https://cricut.com/en-us/cutting-machines/cricut-maker/everything-maker) Without getting ahead of my skis describing what this machine does, and it does a lot, I'll just say that it is a small CNC cutting machine which, among other things like fabric, leather, thin wood, and cardstock, can apparently cut frisket film to a high degree of accuracy and detail. (Frisket film, if you are not familiar with it, is a adhesive-backed plastic masking film used by artists to mask areas for airbrushing.  https://www.dickblick.com/categories/painting/airbrushing/frisket-film/) The Cricut machine connects with a home computer or smartphone and graphics can be fed from these into the machine. There are a wide range of mediums that can be used in the machine. In addition to frisket film, the machine will produce adhesive-backed transfers for hard surfaces or iron-on transfers (for fabric,) such as tee shirt printing. Beyond that, all I know is that Cricut Machines are all the rage with lady "crafters" these days.
 
My daughter is the district administrator for all the art and music programs for a local school district and happens to have a Cricut machine of her own. There are a range of Cricut Machines ranging in price from around $500 to $1,000. (Ouch!) You may want to find someone you know who has one and could either cut you some frisket masks or some iron-on transfers. All they'd need would be the artwork on a digital file. There is also at least one outfit that will make iron-on transfers for you for a couple of bucks a piece. See: https://ninjatransfers.com/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Cricut&utm_term=cricut heat}&tw_source=bing&tw_adid=80058377713213}&tw_campaign=Cricut&msclkid=46a9d50453211902fe31b1edd7361892&utm_content=Ad group 1
 
As it happens, the Cricut Machine is a small-scale version of the larger machines which produce the same larger adhesive-backed lettering used by full-scale sailmakers for putting sail numbers and other printing on sails.
 
This machine appears to offer lots of promise for use by ship modelers, especially cardstock modelers! (With apologies to everyones' pocketbooks, my motto: "He who dies with the most tools wins!")
 
YouTube is full of Cricut Machine videos. For an overview:
 
 
 
See also:
 
 

Just a general opinionated observation for what it's worth: 
 
I think that the overwhelming majority of modeling details which are less than optimal are the result of overscale small details which the modeler focuses upon and obsesses over at the expense of the overall impression of reality which is the true objective of the modeling endeavor. Slightly underscale details do not similarly offend the experienced viewer's eyes because our minds, being what they are, unconsciously compensate for details that are smaller than they should be but not for those that are larger and give us a "poke in the eye." It's always better to err on the side of subtlety. When miniaturists undertake to portray a subject with the level of detail found in a ship model, the smaller the scale the more the modeler must be an "impressionist" rather than a "realist." 
 
I've found that scale and historical accuracy should always take precedence over all else. If you do the research on scantlings for your vessel, you'll likely find that the stopping in its deck seams was narrower than a half inch. In most vessels other than naval warships maintained "Bristol fashion" with regularly holy-stoned decks, the decks will be quite dark, discolored by weathering, dirt, and the drips of pine tar and paint falling from aloft and tracked by the sticky bare feet of sailors climbing in tarred rigging softened by the hot sun.) Indeed, the deck of a working whaler would appear uniformly black from the grease spread by the rendering of blubber. The appearance of a ship's deck from a scale distance (i.e. if one were observing the prototype vessel from a full-scale distance) will very often lack the details of plank seams and fastening plugs or trunnels that so many modelers seem so determined to portray in miniature when in real life they'd be invisible or nearly so. Needless to say, carvel-hung hull plank seams wouldn't be discernable when viewed from the usual distant scale viewing distance because they were always finished fair and painted over. They weren't intended to be seen. Hull seams might become more apparent over time as the hull "worked" and became "tired," but even then they were painted over and would not show seams of contrasting paint color. 
 
Of course, there are modeling styles that deviate from what the eye would see of the prototype vessel. The most common of these would be the "as built" framed models whose purpose is to accurately portray timbering details and are finished "bright" (unpainted) as some of the Admiralty Board models seen in the higher quality maritime museum collections. Even in these often-unplanked open-framed models, where plank seams and fastenings may be shown, proper scale may well dictate that such details are nearly invisible or only very subtly suggested. In the finest 1:48 scale museum pieces, unfinished pearwood deck planking is sometimes merely drawn with a pencil line the width of a human hair, omitting plank ends or fastenings of any kind. The viewer's eyes see only the barest suggestion of "planking" with no hint of fastenings or plank butts, but their brain correctly says "planked decks." It is this "tricking the eye" that produces the illusion of reality in fine scale models. Overscale details such as prominent fastenings and plugs, particularly when set where no shipwright ever would have put them, too close to the plank edge or even a single fastening in a plank end, and shiny polished "real copper" plates with tacks having rounded heads two scale inches in diameter giving the overall effect of a terminal case of acne, may demonstrate the modeler's dedication and patience, but to no good effect beyond that.
 
I post this opinion not to criticize any particular modeler's efforts, but rather as an exhortation in the interests of "better modeling." We often see a  less experienced modeler proudly posting work in this forum which exhibits out-of-scale and inaccurate details, often after obviously spending a tremendous amount of time creating them. At that point, it's too late to comment gracefully on such flaws and so nobody mentions them, directly at least. Alternately, when newer modelers ask questions regarding their intentions to pursue such errors, experienced modelers circumspectly express their opinions in suggested alternative courses of action in order to avoid causing offense or hurt feelings. The result of this, together with the marketing gimmicks of some kit manufacturers ("Over 1,000 parts... includes real copper plates!") seems to only perpetuate these mistakes. So I offer these comments only generally to those who may wish to consider them. For those who might ask, "So what makes you an expert?" I can only answer, "Because these are all mistakes I've made myself!"
 
Tom Lauria, a master modeler who has an excellent collection of YouTube videos on ship modeling, has a good video entitled Scale and the Compelling Impression. I highly recommend it!
 
 
 
 
 

If the guard is hot it is being contacted by the belt or the pulley.  If the belt guard is hot at the rear look to see it the belt is running in line with the front belt pulley - parallel to the side of the saw.  I just looked at both of my saws and the belt is approximately 3/8" clear of the side of the saw and about 1/4" clear of the inside surface of the belt guard.  This is at the front as the rear pulley is deep inside the guard thus dark back there.  But you can see if the belt and its pulley is clear of the guard at the front and you should be able to see to the back to see if it is running in line with the front pulley.  I used a small flashlight.  The belt guard can be removed to check this.  Also, turn the saw on to see if the belt stays in alignment with the saw running.
 
Only friction of the belt or a pulley rubbing against  the guard can be your source of heat as there is nothing else there.
 
Be sure to tell us what you find.
 

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:
 

Very nicely done job! To my eye, your omission of the deck plank butts and plank fastening plugs or trunnels gives a very good effect without cluttering things up. Your nibbed planking against the covering boards is "finestkind!" That must have taken a bit of time to work out.
 
Just a minor note: the tar, or "marine glue" in later times, which was poured hot into the deck seams is called "stopping" or more modernly "seam compound." The seam is caulked with oakum, or cotton "rope" in small craft, which is driven into the vee-shaped seam. The seam is created by planing the sides of the planks at a slight angle after they are initially fitted flush against each other. The seams are primed with paint, the caulking is driven home, and then the caulking material is soaked with thinned paint and allowed to dry. The "stopping" is then poured hot on top of the driven caulking material. The stopping is intended to protect the caulking material from the weather. The watertightness of the seam is provided by the driven caulking material and the swelling of the plank edges below the caulking seam against each other as with a wooden staved barrel. 
 
The width of the vee-shaped seam at the outboard face of the plank is dependent upon the thickness of the plank. The planks should be tightly butted against each other at their inboard edges with the vee-shaped seam above that. The angle of the vee need only be sufficient to hold the caulking material. There are rules of thumb as to how deep, and therefore how wide, the seam has to be to hold the caulking material. I'd have to go hunting for it, but offhand my recollection is that the depth of the seam should be about half the length of the plank thickness. (It's been a while since I last hung and caulked carvel plank.) Consequently, caulking irons are made with varying thicknesses to their edges to fit the different widths of the vee-shaped caulking seams. The irons' edges are identified as to their width by the number of "creases" in the edge of the seam. The creases are lengthwise indentations on the edge of the iron which gives the iron face a corrugated surface. A larger vessel's plank seams will require a "double" or "triple crease" iron, the "double" being twice the thickness of the single crease, and so on.
 
Ship's caulking irons in a range of sizes:
 
Approximately 7'' long. The "ship's iron" has a larger head that a "boat iron."
Blades are 2-1/2'' wide  
 
"Ship's irons'" thicknesses below correspond to the seam width. The vee-shaped seam at the deck surface would be slightly wider than the properly sized iron so as to accommodate the stopping:
 
Right to left: 
 
1/32''  - #00      "Double aught crease iron"
1/16'  -  #0        "Single aught crease iron."
1/8''    - #1        "Single crease iron."  
3/16  '-  #2        "Double crease iron"
1/4''-     #3        "Three crease iron."
5/16''-   #4        "Four crease iron." (Not pictured below.)
 

 
See: Ship Caulkers and Their Tools (sydnassloot.com) and C. DREW & Co. Shipwrights Caulking Tools (numismalink.com) 

Just a general opinionated observation for what it's worth: 
 
I think that the overwhelming majority of modeling details which are less than optimal are the result of overscale small details which the modeler focuses upon and obsesses over at the expense of the overall impression of reality which is the true objective of the modeling endeavor. Slightly underscale details do not similarly offend the experienced viewer's eyes because our minds, being what they are, unconsciously compensate for details that are smaller than they should be but not for those that are larger and give us a "poke in the eye." It's always better to err on the side of subtlety. When miniaturists undertake to portray a subject with the level of detail found in a ship model, the smaller the scale the more the modeler must be an "impressionist" rather than a "realist." 
 
I've found that scale and historical accuracy should always take precedence over all else. If you do the research on scantlings for your vessel, you'll likely find that the stopping in its deck seams was narrower than a half inch. In most vessels other than naval warships maintained "Bristol fashion" with regularly holy-stoned decks, the decks will be quite dark, discolored by weathering, dirt, and the drips of pine tar and paint falling from aloft and tracked by the sticky bare feet of sailors climbing in tarred rigging softened by the hot sun.) Indeed, the deck of a working whaler would appear uniformly black from the grease spread by the rendering of blubber. The appearance of a ship's deck from a scale distance (i.e. if one were observing the prototype vessel from a full-scale distance) will very often lack the details of plank seams and fastening plugs or trunnels that so many modelers seem so determined to portray in miniature when in real life they'd be invisible or nearly so. Needless to say, carvel-hung hull plank seams wouldn't be discernable when viewed from the usual distant scale viewing distance because they were always finished fair and painted over. They weren't intended to be seen. Hull seams might become more apparent over time as the hull "worked" and became "tired," but even then they were painted over and would not show seams of contrasting paint color. 
 
Of course, there are modeling styles that deviate from what the eye would see of the prototype vessel. The most common of these would be the "as built" framed models whose purpose is to accurately portray timbering details and are finished "bright" (unpainted) as some of the Admiralty Board models seen in the higher quality maritime museum collections. Even in these often-unplanked open-framed models, where plank seams and fastenings may be shown, proper scale may well dictate that such details are nearly invisible or only very subtly suggested. In the finest 1:48 scale museum pieces, unfinished pearwood deck planking is sometimes merely drawn with a pencil line the width of a human hair, omitting plank ends or fastenings of any kind. The viewer's eyes see only the barest suggestion of "planking" with no hint of fastenings or plank butts, but their brain correctly says "planked decks." It is this "tricking the eye" that produces the illusion of reality in fine scale models. Overscale details such as prominent fastenings and plugs, particularly when set where no shipwright ever would have put them, too close to the plank edge or even a single fastening in a plank end, and shiny polished "real copper" plates with tacks having rounded heads two scale inches in diameter giving the overall effect of a terminal case of acne, may demonstrate the modeler's dedication and patience, but to no good effect beyond that.
 
I post this opinion not to criticize any particular modeler's efforts, but rather as an exhortation in the interests of "better modeling." We often see a  less experienced modeler proudly posting work in this forum which exhibits out-of-scale and inaccurate details, often after obviously spending a tremendous amount of time creating them. At that point, it's too late to comment gracefully on such flaws and so nobody mentions them, directly at least. Alternately, when newer modelers ask questions regarding their intentions to pursue such errors, experienced modelers circumspectly express their opinions in suggested alternative courses of action in order to avoid causing offense or hurt feelings. The result of this, together with the marketing gimmicks of some kit manufacturers ("Over 1,000 parts... includes real copper plates!") seems to only perpetuate these mistakes. So I offer these comments only generally to those who may wish to consider them. For those who might ask, "So what makes you an expert?" I can only answer, "Because these are all mistakes I've made myself!"
 
Tom Lauria, a master modeler who has an excellent collection of YouTube videos on ship modeling, has a good video entitled Scale and the Compelling Impression. I highly recommend it!
 
 
 
 
 

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:
 

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:
 

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:
 

Just a general opinionated observation for what it's worth: 
 
I think that the overwhelming majority of modeling details which are less than optimal are the result of overscale small details which the modeler focuses upon and obsesses over at the expense of the overall impression of reality which is the true objective of the modeling endeavor. Slightly underscale details do not similarly offend the experienced viewer's eyes because our minds, being what they are, unconsciously compensate for details that are smaller than they should be but not for those that are larger and give us a "poke in the eye." It's always better to err on the side of subtlety. When miniaturists undertake to portray a subject with the level of detail found in a ship model, the smaller the scale the more the modeler must be an "impressionist" rather than a "realist." 
 
I've found that scale and historical accuracy should always take precedence over all else. If you do the research on scantlings for your vessel, you'll likely find that the stopping in its deck seams was narrower than a half inch. In most vessels other than naval warships maintained "Bristol fashion" with regularly holy-stoned decks, the decks will be quite dark, discolored by weathering, dirt, and the drips of pine tar and paint falling from aloft and tracked by the sticky bare feet of sailors climbing in tarred rigging softened by the hot sun.) Indeed, the deck of a working whaler would appear uniformly black from the grease spread by the rendering of blubber. The appearance of a ship's deck from a scale distance (i.e. if one were observing the prototype vessel from a full-scale distance) will very often lack the details of plank seams and fastening plugs or trunnels that so many modelers seem so determined to portray in miniature when in real life they'd be invisible or nearly so. Needless to say, carvel-hung hull plank seams wouldn't be discernable when viewed from the usual distant scale viewing distance because they were always finished fair and painted over. They weren't intended to be seen. Hull seams might become more apparent over time as the hull "worked" and became "tired," but even then they were painted over and would not show seams of contrasting paint color. 
 
Of course, there are modeling styles that deviate from what the eye would see of the prototype vessel. The most common of these would be the "as built" framed models whose purpose is to accurately portray timbering details and are finished "bright" (unpainted) as some of the Admiralty Board models seen in the higher quality maritime museum collections. Even in these often-unplanked open-framed models, where plank seams and fastenings may be shown, proper scale may well dictate that such details are nearly invisible or only very subtly suggested. In the finest 1:48 scale museum pieces, unfinished pearwood deck planking is sometimes merely drawn with a pencil line the width of a human hair, omitting plank ends or fastenings of any kind. The viewer's eyes see only the barest suggestion of "planking" with no hint of fastenings or plank butts, but their brain correctly says "planked decks." It is this "tricking the eye" that produces the illusion of reality in fine scale models. Overscale details such as prominent fastenings and plugs, particularly when set where no shipwright ever would have put them, too close to the plank edge or even a single fastening in a plank end, and shiny polished "real copper" plates with tacks having rounded heads two scale inches in diameter giving the overall effect of a terminal case of acne, may demonstrate the modeler's dedication and patience, but to no good effect beyond that.
 
I post this opinion not to criticize any particular modeler's efforts, but rather as an exhortation in the interests of "better modeling." We often see a  less experienced modeler proudly posting work in this forum which exhibits out-of-scale and inaccurate details, often after obviously spending a tremendous amount of time creating them. At that point, it's too late to comment gracefully on such flaws and so nobody mentions them, directly at least. Alternately, when newer modelers ask questions regarding their intentions to pursue such errors, experienced modelers circumspectly express their opinions in suggested alternative courses of action in order to avoid causing offense or hurt feelings. The result of this, together with the marketing gimmicks of some kit manufacturers ("Over 1,000 parts... includes real copper plates!") seems to only perpetuate these mistakes. So I offer these comments only generally to those who may wish to consider them. For those who might ask, "So what makes you an expert?" I can only answer, "Because these are all mistakes I've made myself!"
 
Tom Lauria, a master modeler who has an excellent collection of YouTube videos on ship modeling, has a good video entitled Scale and the Compelling Impression. I highly recommend it!
 
 
 
 
 

Very nicely done job! To my eye, your omission of the deck plank butts and plank fastening plugs or trunnels gives a very good effect without cluttering things up. Your nibbed planking against the covering boards is "finestkind!" That must have taken a bit of time to work out.
 
Just a minor note: the tar, or "marine glue" in later times, which was poured hot into the deck seams is called "stopping" or more modernly "seam compound." The seam is caulked with oakum, or cotton "rope" in small craft, which is driven into the vee-shaped seam. The seam is created by planing the sides of the planks at a slight angle after they are initially fitted flush against each other. The seams are primed with paint, the caulking is driven home, and then the caulking material is soaked with thinned paint and allowed to dry. The "stopping" is then poured hot on top of the driven caulking material. The stopping is intended to protect the caulking material from the weather. The watertightness of the seam is provided by the driven caulking material and the swelling of the plank edges below the caulking seam against each other as with a wooden staved barrel. 
 
The width of the vee-shaped seam at the outboard face of the plank is dependent upon the thickness of the plank. The planks should be tightly butted against each other at their inboard edges with the vee-shaped seam above that. The angle of the vee need only be sufficient to hold the caulking material. There are rules of thumb as to how deep, and therefore how wide, the seam has to be to hold the caulking material. I'd have to go hunting for it, but offhand my recollection is that the depth of the seam should be about half the length of the plank thickness. (It's been a while since I last hung and caulked carvel plank.) Consequently, caulking irons are made with varying thicknesses to their edges to fit the different widths of the vee-shaped caulking seams. The irons' edges are identified as to their width by the number of "creases" in the edge of the seam. The creases are lengthwise indentations on the edge of the iron which gives the iron face a corrugated surface. A larger vessel's plank seams will require a "double" or "triple crease" iron, the "double" being twice the thickness of the single crease, and so on.
 
Ship's caulking irons in a range of sizes:
 
Approximately 7'' long. The "ship's iron" has a larger head that a "boat iron."
Blades are 2-1/2'' wide  
 
"Ship's irons'" thicknesses below correspond to the seam width. The vee-shaped seam at the deck surface would be slightly wider than the properly sized iron so as to accommodate the stopping:
 
Right to left: 
 
1/32''  - #00      "Double aught crease iron"
1/16'  -  #0        "Single aught crease iron."
1/8''    - #1        "Single crease iron."  
3/16  '-  #2        "Double crease iron"
1/4''-     #3        "Three crease iron."
5/16''-   #4        "Four crease iron." (Not pictured below.)
 

 
See: Ship Caulkers and Their Tools (sydnassloot.com) and C. DREW & Co. Shipwrights Caulking Tools (numismalink.com) 

Just a general opinionated observation for what it's worth: 
 
I think that the overwhelming majority of modeling details which are less than optimal are the result of overscale small details which the modeler focuses upon and obsesses over at the expense of the overall impression of reality which is the true objective of the modeling endeavor. Slightly underscale details do not similarly offend the experienced viewer's eyes because our minds, being what they are, unconsciously compensate for details that are smaller than they should be but not for those that are larger and give us a "poke in the eye." It's always better to err on the side of subtlety. When miniaturists undertake to portray a subject with the level of detail found in a ship model, the smaller the scale the more the modeler must be an "impressionist" rather than a "realist." 
 
I've found that scale and historical accuracy should always take precedence over all else. If you do the research on scantlings for your vessel, you'll likely find that the stopping in its deck seams was narrower than a half inch. In most vessels other than naval warships maintained "Bristol fashion" with regularly holy-stoned decks, the decks will be quite dark, discolored by weathering, dirt, and the drips of pine tar and paint falling from aloft and tracked by the sticky bare feet of sailors climbing in tarred rigging softened by the hot sun.) Indeed, the deck of a working whaler would appear uniformly black from the grease spread by the rendering of blubber. The appearance of a ship's deck from a scale distance (i.e. if one were observing the prototype vessel from a full-scale distance) will very often lack the details of plank seams and fastening plugs or trunnels that so many modelers seem so determined to portray in miniature when in real life they'd be invisible or nearly so. Needless to say, carvel-hung hull plank seams wouldn't be discernable when viewed from the usual distant scale viewing distance because they were always finished fair and painted over. They weren't intended to be seen. Hull seams might become more apparent over time as the hull "worked" and became "tired," but even then they were painted over and would not show seams of contrasting paint color. 
 
Of course, there are modeling styles that deviate from what the eye would see of the prototype vessel. The most common of these would be the "as built" framed models whose purpose is to accurately portray timbering details and are finished "bright" (unpainted) as some of the Admiralty Board models seen in the higher quality maritime museum collections. Even in these often-unplanked open-framed models, where plank seams and fastenings may be shown, proper scale may well dictate that such details are nearly invisible or only very subtly suggested. In the finest 1:48 scale museum pieces, unfinished pearwood deck planking is sometimes merely drawn with a pencil line the width of a human hair, omitting plank ends or fastenings of any kind. The viewer's eyes see only the barest suggestion of "planking" with no hint of fastenings or plank butts, but their brain correctly says "planked decks." It is this "tricking the eye" that produces the illusion of reality in fine scale models. Overscale details such as prominent fastenings and plugs, particularly when set where no shipwright ever would have put them, too close to the plank edge or even a single fastening in a plank end, and shiny polished "real copper" plates with tacks having rounded heads two scale inches in diameter giving the overall effect of a terminal case of acne, may demonstrate the modeler's dedication and patience, but to no good effect beyond that.
 
I post this opinion not to criticize any particular modeler's efforts, but rather as an exhortation in the interests of "better modeling." We often see a  less experienced modeler proudly posting work in this forum which exhibits out-of-scale and inaccurate details, often after obviously spending a tremendous amount of time creating them. At that point, it's too late to comment gracefully on such flaws and so nobody mentions them, directly at least. Alternately, when newer modelers ask questions regarding their intentions to pursue such errors, experienced modelers circumspectly express their opinions in suggested alternative courses of action in order to avoid causing offense or hurt feelings. The result of this, together with the marketing gimmicks of some kit manufacturers ("Over 1,000 parts... includes real copper plates!") seems to only perpetuate these mistakes. So I offer these comments only generally to those who may wish to consider them. For those who might ask, "So what makes you an expert?" I can only answer, "Because these are all mistakes I've made myself!"
 
Tom Lauria, a master modeler who has an excellent collection of YouTube videos on ship modeling, has a good video entitled Scale and the Compelling Impression. I highly recommend it!
 
 
 
 
 

Bob,
 
Re: your post #7 above.  Well said! I don’t remember, where I read it but a master model has written about the need to “think in scale.”  This can be helped if you are building to a common scale and are using an architect’s scale to measure things.  I also find it useful to quickly relate scale sizes in my head.  For example, my current project is 1/8”=1ft or 1:96.  That’s close to 1:100.  If I am selecting a piece of wire to make an eye bolt and grab a piece of 1/32in dis wire; in my head- 1/32=.032.   Move the decimal point to the right 2 places: 1:1 scale is 3.2” dia; way over scale!  Reasonable diameter of wire to scale is .0032in.
 
Roger
 
 

Very nicely done job! To my eye, your omission of the deck plank butts and plank fastening plugs or trunnels gives a very good effect without cluttering things up. Your nibbed planking against the covering boards is "finestkind!" That must have taken a bit of time to work out.
 
Just a minor note: the tar, or "marine glue" in later times, which was poured hot into the deck seams is called "stopping" or more modernly "seam compound." The seam is caulked with oakum, or cotton "rope" in small craft, which is driven into the vee-shaped seam. The seam is created by planing the sides of the planks at a slight angle after they are initially fitted flush against each other. The seams are primed with paint, the caulking is driven home, and then the caulking material is soaked with thinned paint and allowed to dry. The "stopping" is then poured hot on top of the driven caulking material. The stopping is intended to protect the caulking material from the weather. The watertightness of the seam is provided by the driven caulking material and the swelling of the plank edges below the caulking seam against each other as with a wooden staved barrel. 
 
The width of the vee-shaped seam at the outboard face of the plank is dependent upon the thickness of the plank. The planks should be tightly butted against each other at their inboard edges with the vee-shaped seam above that. The angle of the vee need only be sufficient to hold the caulking material. There are rules of thumb as to how deep, and therefore how wide, the seam has to be to hold the caulking material. I'd have to go hunting for it, but offhand my recollection is that the depth of the seam should be about half the length of the plank thickness. (It's been a while since I last hung and caulked carvel plank.) Consequently, caulking irons are made with varying thicknesses to their edges to fit the different widths of the vee-shaped caulking seams. The irons' edges are identified as to their width by the number of "creases" in the edge of the seam. The creases are lengthwise indentations on the edge of the iron which gives the iron face a corrugated surface. A larger vessel's plank seams will require a "double" or "triple crease" iron, the "double" being twice the thickness of the single crease, and so on.
 
Ship's caulking irons in a range of sizes:
 
Approximately 7'' long. The "ship's iron" has a larger head that a "boat iron."
Blades are 2-1/2'' wide  
 
"Ship's irons'" thicknesses below correspond to the seam width. The vee-shaped seam at the deck surface would be slightly wider than the properly sized iron so as to accommodate the stopping:
 
Right to left: 
 
1/32''  - #00      "Double aught crease iron"
1/16'  -  #0        "Single aught crease iron."
1/8''    - #1        "Single crease iron."  
3/16  '-  #2        "Double crease iron"
1/4''-     #3        "Three crease iron."
5/16''-   #4        "Four crease iron." (Not pictured below.)
 

 
See: Ship Caulkers and Their Tools (sydnassloot.com) and C. DREW & Co. Shipwrights Caulking Tools (numismalink.com)