Bob Cleek

Building a ship of that period at the scale of 1:120 to 1:135 would be quite a daunting task for most of us. It is a "miniature model" scale. As I'm sure you know, models of that period are most frequently built to a scale of 1:48 or 1:96, 1 inch equals 4 feet or eight feet, respectively. Such modeling is generally the province of a handful of master miniaturists. The only master modelers working in such scales, and even smaller, today of whom I am aware are Phillip Reed in England and Lloyd McCaffery in the United States. Two other Twentieth Century masters of miniature ship models are also well-recognized, Donald McNarry and Norman Ough, but they are now deceased. 
 
All of these masters have written books on the subject of miniature ship modeling. The below volumes specifically address the techniques employed to build miniature scale ship models which, in some respects, are different from building in larger scales and all are quite good. I would urge anyone who was interesting in working at miniature scales to obtain and study these reference works on the subject:
 
Philip Reed, Building Miniature Navy Board Ship Models: Reed, Philip: 9781848320178: Amazon.com: Books
Lloyd McCaffery SHIPS IN MINIATURE: The Classic Manual for Modelmakers: McCaffery, Lloyd: 9780851774855: Amazon.com: Books
Donald McNarry  Shipbuilding in Miniature: McNarry, Donald: 9780668058001: Amazon.com: Books
 
Philip Reed also has an excellent series of YouTube videos on his work. See: Philip Reed - YouTube
 
 
 

Building a ship of that period at the scale of 1:120 to 1:135 would be quite a daunting task for most of us. It is a "miniature model" scale. As I'm sure you know, models of that period are most frequently built to a scale of 1:48 or 1:96, 1 inch equals 4 feet or eight feet, respectively. Such modeling is generally the province of a handful of master miniaturists. The only master modelers working in such scales, and even smaller, today of whom I am aware are Phillip Reed in England and Lloyd McCaffery in the United States. Two other Twentieth Century masters of miniature ship models are also well-recognized, Donald McNarry and Norman Ough, but they are now deceased. 
 
All of these masters have written books on the subject of miniature ship modeling. The below volumes specifically address the techniques employed to build miniature scale ship models which, in some respects, are different from building in larger scales and all are quite good. I would urge anyone who was interesting in working at miniature scales to obtain and study these reference works on the subject:
 
Philip Reed, Building Miniature Navy Board Ship Models: Reed, Philip: 9781848320178: Amazon.com: Books
Lloyd McCaffery SHIPS IN MINIATURE: The Classic Manual for Modelmakers: McCaffery, Lloyd: 9780851774855: Amazon.com: Books
Donald McNarry  Shipbuilding in Miniature: McNarry, Donald: 9780668058001: Amazon.com: Books
 
Philip Reed also has an excellent series of YouTube videos on his work. See: Philip Reed - YouTube
 
 
 

With anything that is adjustable you have to allow for spring back, backlash, slop - whatever you want to call it. With the quad hands I bend the arms farther than I need and allow them to spring back before I try to position them.
 
I also have a ball joint version as shown above, and it is a pain in the posterior to adjust. The problem is the cheap thumb screw set screws that press directly onto the horizontal bar and the alligator clips. When these are tightened that cut into the metal they press against, deforming it. This puts pits and dents in the metal so the next time you try to tighten the screws the bar/clip rotates so the screw fits into the deformities. After a few uses it becomes very difficult to set the position accurately. And then it isn't very firm so things slip out of place. So you tighten the set screws tighter, and create greater deformities that cause even greater problems later.
 
Neither of these devices hold pieces firmly enough to resist much pressure from a soldering iron tip. It takes a lot of practice and patience to use them. But both can be useful.

If it doesn't exist, I'll just have to make it myself.  Doesn't mean I'm not gonna complain about it.
 
Daniel
You said it, not me.   Maybe time to have a go at a scratch build??  I would be happy to send you a full set of drawings for POF or POB for a fifty gun British ship of 1695. in whatever scale you want.   I have an appropriate contemporary contract and full set of scantlings as well.   PM me with your contact information if you are interested.
Two of the 20+ pages are below, including some of the bulkheads for a POB build, to give you an idea of the plans.
Allan
 

 

Ditto here. I love mine. Sorry to hear you tossed the arms to yours. I'd have gladly taken them off of your hands. I don't know what would cause these adjustable arms to spring-back. That's definitely not a good thing for such a device. 

Ditto here. I love mine. Sorry to hear you tossed the arms to yours. I'd have gladly taken them off of your hands. I don't know what would cause these adjustable arms to spring-back. That's definitely not a good thing for such a device. 

Ditto here. I love mine. Sorry to hear you tossed the arms to yours. I'd have gladly taken them off of your hands. I don't know what would cause these adjustable arms to spring-back. That's definitely not a good thing for such a device. 

So, think of the transoms as waterlines in shape. (Yes the deck transom is canted slightly, but you can allow for that.) From the lines drawing you can develop the various waterlines for each transom, top and bottom surfaces. Yes, tedious, but that is the way to go 

Not to worry. There doesn't appear to be any skullduggery afoot. In fact, the 53,000 acre oak forest (to be exact) is located entirely on the reservation of Naval Support Activity Crane, which is about 110 square miles in size, the third largest naval base in the world and entirely under the ownership, management, and control of the U.S. Navy which acquired the land and built the base in 1941. There's no indication that the Navy decided it needed 53,000 acres to keep one ship in repair. Rather, when they realized they were having a hard time sourcing White Oak and realized they already had a whole forest of it at NSA Crane, they decided to establish the entire forest as a naval tree farm reservation, harvesting from it on an as-needed basis.
 
See: The "Wooden Walls" of USS Constitution - USS Constitution Museum:
 
"At Naval Support Activity Crane, near Bloomington, Indiana, the U.S. Navy maintains "Constitution Grove," where a forest of white oaks are grown for the sole purpose of restoring and refitting the USS Constitution, the oldest commissioned vessel still sailing (the UK's HMS Victory is older than the Constitution, but remains in drydock).
NSA Crane is the third largest naval base in the world, and Constitution Grove is not only protected for the white oak trees, but also the biological diversity an oak forest provides, including the wildlife that live there. Three Navy civilian foresters help maintain the wood and ensure that no tree removed from the ecosystem will have an adverse effect on the grove's biodiversity."
 
See also:  Why the US Navy Manages Its Own Private Forest | Military.com
 
From what I have read, Brett Franklin is the owner of Tri-State Lumber, LLC, a logging company that won the most recent bid for the Navy contract to harvest the Navy's white oak for the Constitution's repairs. Neither Franklin nor Tri-State Lumber, LLC, own the Navy's White Oak Reservation.
 
See: Ironsides of Indiana Oak - Indiana Connection:
 
Fortuitously for the venerable vessel, the Navy has in its back pocket 53,000 acres of prime forestland growing all the white oak timber the Constitution should ever need. That novel natural nursery is the Crane naval support center in the Hoosier hills and hollows of mostly northern Martin County.
 
“To be a part of something that was touched — literally — by those who founded the country is pretty cool,” said Trent Osmon, the forester at Crane who manages the white oak trees. “I feel great knowing we’ll be supporting something that’s so important to the Navy and, in a larger sense, the country.”
 
Situated midway between Indianapolis and Evansville, Naval Support Activity (NSA) Crane specializes in developing advanced electronic systems. But beyond the large Navy and civilian workforce employed at Crane, few Hoosiers are probably aware of the exclusive and proud role Indiana has played for the past quarter century in keeping Old Ironsides, designated “America’s Ship of State,” shipshape. “I have run into very few people outside of Crane who have any clue what Crane does for the ship,” Osmon noted. “Other than the folks directly in Boston, or perhaps their superiors, it is not widely known [even in the Navy].”
 
The timber for the restoration was harvested at Crane last February and March. Crane foresters oversaw the felling of 35 mature white oaks set aside for the historic ship. The trees, 110-120 years old and about 40 inches in diameter, were then moved to a covered storage area at Crane, fumigated and covered in plastic.
 
Tri-State Timber, LLC., based in Spencer, cut the trees for Crane. Brett Franklin, an owner of the family company, said knowing the job was for the Constitution made it a bid they wanted to win.“  We just thought it was a proud moment to be a part of history,” he said. “It’s patriotic; everybody wanted to get involved.”
 
When work begins on the ship, Tri-State will also begin hauling the logs as needed to Boston for the milling and shaping to replace deteriorated hull planking and supporting structures called “knees.”
 
Speaking of knees, the relatively recently established NSA Crane isn't the first or only U.S. Navy oak forest resource. Historically, one of the first things the fledgling United States Government did was to snap up all the Southern Live Oak it could for shipbuilding. In 1825, President John Quincy Adams created the Naval Live Oak Reservation program which acquired a virtual monopoly on all the Live Oak forests in the nation. The first such reservation was on Pensacola Bay. White Oak (Quercus Alba) has long straight trunks. Live Oak (quercus virginiana) grows outward with thick curved branches. White Oak was valued for planking, keels, and other straight beams. Live Oak was prized as the highest strength "compass timbers," meaning curved stock from which frames, futtocks, and knees are cut. Constitution's knees and frames are Live Oak, while her keel and planking are White Oak. When the Navy started building iron ships, they had little need for their Live Oak Reservations and in the early 1900's sold or repurposed them for other government use. The Deer Point Naval Live Oaks Reservation in Gulf Breeze, Florida, founded in 1828 as the nation's first naval tree farm, is now preserved as part of the Gulf Islands National Seashore in Florida and Mississippi. While no longer under the auspices of the Navy, the National Park Service provides Live Oak from the former Deer Point Naval Live Oaks Reservation and other NPS lands for the replacement of Live Oak parts on Constitution on an as-needed basis. 
 
See: Naval Live Oaks Reservation - Wikipedia and The Live Oak Tree: A Naval Icon - Gulf Islands National Seashore (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)
 
 

Not to worry. There doesn't appear to be any skullduggery afoot. In fact, the 53,000 acre oak forest (to be exact) is located entirely on the reservation of Naval Support Activity Crane, which is about 110 square miles in size, the third largest naval base in the world and entirely under the ownership, management, and control of the U.S. Navy which acquired the land and built the base in 1941. There's no indication that the Navy decided it needed 53,000 acres to keep one ship in repair. Rather, when they realized they were having a hard time sourcing White Oak and realized they already had a whole forest of it at NSA Crane, they decided to establish the entire forest as a naval tree farm reservation, harvesting from it on an as-needed basis.
 
See: The "Wooden Walls" of USS Constitution - USS Constitution Museum:
 
"At Naval Support Activity Crane, near Bloomington, Indiana, the U.S. Navy maintains "Constitution Grove," where a forest of white oaks are grown for the sole purpose of restoring and refitting the USS Constitution, the oldest commissioned vessel still sailing (the UK's HMS Victory is older than the Constitution, but remains in drydock).
NSA Crane is the third largest naval base in the world, and Constitution Grove is not only protected for the white oak trees, but also the biological diversity an oak forest provides, including the wildlife that live there. Three Navy civilian foresters help maintain the wood and ensure that no tree removed from the ecosystem will have an adverse effect on the grove's biodiversity."
 
See also:  Why the US Navy Manages Its Own Private Forest | Military.com
 
From what I have read, Brett Franklin is the owner of Tri-State Lumber, LLC, a logging company that won the most recent bid for the Navy contract to harvest the Navy's white oak for the Constitution's repairs. Neither Franklin nor Tri-State Lumber, LLC, own the Navy's White Oak Reservation.
 
See: Ironsides of Indiana Oak - Indiana Connection:
 
Fortuitously for the venerable vessel, the Navy has in its back pocket 53,000 acres of prime forestland growing all the white oak timber the Constitution should ever need. That novel natural nursery is the Crane naval support center in the Hoosier hills and hollows of mostly northern Martin County.
 
“To be a part of something that was touched — literally — by those who founded the country is pretty cool,” said Trent Osmon, the forester at Crane who manages the white oak trees. “I feel great knowing we’ll be supporting something that’s so important to the Navy and, in a larger sense, the country.”
 
Situated midway between Indianapolis and Evansville, Naval Support Activity (NSA) Crane specializes in developing advanced electronic systems. But beyond the large Navy and civilian workforce employed at Crane, few Hoosiers are probably aware of the exclusive and proud role Indiana has played for the past quarter century in keeping Old Ironsides, designated “America’s Ship of State,” shipshape. “I have run into very few people outside of Crane who have any clue what Crane does for the ship,” Osmon noted. “Other than the folks directly in Boston, or perhaps their superiors, it is not widely known [even in the Navy].”
 
The timber for the restoration was harvested at Crane last February and March. Crane foresters oversaw the felling of 35 mature white oaks set aside for the historic ship. The trees, 110-120 years old and about 40 inches in diameter, were then moved to a covered storage area at Crane, fumigated and covered in plastic.
 
Tri-State Timber, LLC., based in Spencer, cut the trees for Crane. Brett Franklin, an owner of the family company, said knowing the job was for the Constitution made it a bid they wanted to win.“  We just thought it was a proud moment to be a part of history,” he said. “It’s patriotic; everybody wanted to get involved.”
 
When work begins on the ship, Tri-State will also begin hauling the logs as needed to Boston for the milling and shaping to replace deteriorated hull planking and supporting structures called “knees.”
 
Speaking of knees, the relatively recently established NSA Crane isn't the first or only U.S. Navy oak forest resource. Historically, one of the first things the fledgling United States Government did was to snap up all the Southern Live Oak it could for shipbuilding. In 1825, President John Quincy Adams created the Naval Live Oak Reservation program which acquired a virtual monopoly on all the Live Oak forests in the nation. The first such reservation was on Pensacola Bay. White Oak (Quercus Alba) has long straight trunks. Live Oak (quercus virginiana) grows outward with thick curved branches. White Oak was valued for planking, keels, and other straight beams. Live Oak was prized as the highest strength "compass timbers," meaning curved stock from which frames, futtocks, and knees are cut. Constitution's knees and frames are Live Oak, while her keel and planking are White Oak. When the Navy started building iron ships, they had little need for their Live Oak Reservations and in the early 1900's sold or repurposed them for other government use. The Deer Point Naval Live Oaks Reservation in Gulf Breeze, Florida, founded in 1828 as the nation's first naval tree farm, is now preserved as part of the Gulf Islands National Seashore in Florida and Mississippi. While no longer under the auspices of the Navy, the National Park Service provides Live Oak from the former Deer Point Naval Live Oaks Reservation and other NPS lands for the replacement of Live Oak parts on Constitution on an as-needed basis. 
 
See: Naval Live Oaks Reservation - Wikipedia and The Live Oak Tree: A Naval Icon - Gulf Islands National Seashore (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)
 
 

The history of Admiralty's consumption of white oak is a fascinating subject, particularly as it influenced Britain's attitudes towards its American colonies and the way that influenced our own U.S. history.
 
As for how many acres of forest were consumed to ensure that "Britannia ruled the waives," the devil is in the details. Even in a virgin forest during the age of wooden ships, I doubt they'd find more than a half dozen mature oaks of sufficient quality for shipbuilding on the average acre of virgin oak forest. They required the largest lumber that could be milled from prime clear timber free of defects.  "Wild" white oak is notoriously variable in those respects. The number of oak trees per acre varies depending upon the species of oak and the growing conditions. To that has to be added the factor of accessibility. They could only harvest trees that they could fell. drag out of the forest and transport to the shipyards and they didn't have the  logging technology we have today to accomplish that. 
 
Some internet sites do indeed recommend planting between 100 and 400 trees per acre for plantation-grown white oak, but this number presumes that the initial planting will be thinned, either by modern forestry practices or natural attrition, over the 100 to 400 years before harvest of mature timber. Other sites say an acre of land will support far fewer white oak trees per acre and recommend planting "between 10 and 20 white oak trees per acre. https://mast-producing-trees.org/how-many-oak-trees-per-acre-should-you-plant/  "... it takes at least 80 years for a white oak to begin reaching a harvestable point. “That doesn’t mean it has hit its value point yet,” he adds. These trees can live up to 400 years, and many of the white oaks being harvested today are 150 to 200 years old." https://www.forestfoundation.org/why-we-do-it/family-forest-blog/managing-white-oaks-during-the-bourbon-boom/
 
As the linked articles above discuss, forest managers have become concerned about the sustainability of quality white oak due to the increased consumption of oak barrels by the wine and whiskey industries. Living where I do in the Northern California "Wine Country," where wine is aged in white oak barrels and there is a large ancillary cooperage industry, I see a lot of white oak barrels. White oak wine barrels impart a flavor to the wine they contain, but after a few uses become "flavor neutral," all the flavor having been leached out of the oak. Whiskey barrels, on the other hand, are charred on the inside and only used once. After that, the barrels are useless for those purposes and are cut in half and recycled as planter boxes, ground up in the chipper for barbeque smoker flavoring, or sometimes repurposed into trinkets for the local tourist trade. Any way you look at it, I think this seems a wasteful way to consume prime lumber that would last centuries if put to a more noble use. (Although the wine and whiskey connoisseurs see it differently, I'm sure, I've always been more interested in the proof than the flavor! )                                               
 
I'd say the the old Admiralty loggers would be lucky to find more than five harvestable white oaks from an acre of virgin forest back in the days of wooden ships and iron men. The problem wasn't that the demands of the Admiralty exceeded the number of acres of oak trees they had, but rather that they exceeded the number of harvestable oak trees suitable for shipbuilding they had. After they had cut all the 200+ year old quality white oaks they could get to, the oak forests remained, but the size and quality of oaks didn't, and wouldn't, until what was left had another 200+ years to mature. In the days of old, the harvesting pressures were obviously greatest in the closest proximity of human habitation and industry, but a fair amount of the forest remained and, until logging technology overwhelmed the resource, it maintained some degree of sustainability. Ultimately, however, man's ability to harvest the timber faster than it could grow began to negatively impact the forest itself, but "running out of timber" is a relative term meaning "running out of timber of sufficient quality,' not necessarily "running out of trees entirely." (Although, "clear cutting" to produce agricultural land did, and still does, destroy large swaths of forest as well.)
 
So, harvesting the 2,000 trees to build a ship of the line didn't take "much of a forest," but just the best shipbuilding trees in a whole lot of forest. It didn't take long for the unavailability of prime white oak to affect the shipbuilding practices of the time. Timbers had to be assembled of increasingly smaller pieces as the "big stuff" was consumed. It should be noted that the oak and pitch pine forests of America's East Coast and the fir forests of British Columbia were invaluable war material resources for the Admiralty at a time when England and the rest of Europe had consumed all their own resources of ship building oak, "Oregon pine" spars and deck planking, and pine tar. England's opposition to American independence was more about retaining timber resources than collecting a tax on tea.
 
So how many acres of oak did it take to find enough timber to get out a ship of the line? The answer is "It depended." However, what we do know is that the U.S. Navy maintains a pristine 50,000 acre natural forest of white oak trees solely for the purpose of repairing U.S.S. Constitution! "The ship completed a two year drydocking and restoration program in 2017. During the restoration 35 trees from the grove were selected to be harvested to replace rotting hull planks."  https://www.oldsaltblog.com/2020/11/constitution-grove-the-navys-white-oak-forest-on-a-high-tech-base/  That should provide some idea of how many acres it took to produce enough white oak to build an entire ship like her.
 
 

You should hire a couple of Mud specialists (usually from Mexican descent) to finish your drywalls. They are experts with the mud and will finish everything in less than a day. Then you can paint and seal all this dust and fibers.
 
Yves

Not to worry. There doesn't appear to be any skullduggery afoot. In fact, the 53,000 acre oak forest (to be exact) is located entirely on the reservation of Naval Support Activity Crane, which is about 110 square miles in size, the third largest naval base in the world and entirely under the ownership, management, and control of the U.S. Navy which acquired the land and built the base in 1941. There's no indication that the Navy decided it needed 53,000 acres to keep one ship in repair. Rather, when they realized they were having a hard time sourcing White Oak and realized they already had a whole forest of it at NSA Crane, they decided to establish the entire forest as a naval tree farm reservation, harvesting from it on an as-needed basis.
 
See: The "Wooden Walls" of USS Constitution - USS Constitution Museum:
 
"At Naval Support Activity Crane, near Bloomington, Indiana, the U.S. Navy maintains "Constitution Grove," where a forest of white oaks are grown for the sole purpose of restoring and refitting the USS Constitution, the oldest commissioned vessel still sailing (the UK's HMS Victory is older than the Constitution, but remains in drydock).
NSA Crane is the third largest naval base in the world, and Constitution Grove is not only protected for the white oak trees, but also the biological diversity an oak forest provides, including the wildlife that live there. Three Navy civilian foresters help maintain the wood and ensure that no tree removed from the ecosystem will have an adverse effect on the grove's biodiversity."
 
See also:  Why the US Navy Manages Its Own Private Forest | Military.com
 
From what I have read, Brett Franklin is the owner of Tri-State Lumber, LLC, a logging company that won the most recent bid for the Navy contract to harvest the Navy's white oak for the Constitution's repairs. Neither Franklin nor Tri-State Lumber, LLC, own the Navy's White Oak Reservation.
 
See: Ironsides of Indiana Oak - Indiana Connection:
 
Fortuitously for the venerable vessel, the Navy has in its back pocket 53,000 acres of prime forestland growing all the white oak timber the Constitution should ever need. That novel natural nursery is the Crane naval support center in the Hoosier hills and hollows of mostly northern Martin County.
 
“To be a part of something that was touched — literally — by those who founded the country is pretty cool,” said Trent Osmon, the forester at Crane who manages the white oak trees. “I feel great knowing we’ll be supporting something that’s so important to the Navy and, in a larger sense, the country.”
 
Situated midway between Indianapolis and Evansville, Naval Support Activity (NSA) Crane specializes in developing advanced electronic systems. But beyond the large Navy and civilian workforce employed at Crane, few Hoosiers are probably aware of the exclusive and proud role Indiana has played for the past quarter century in keeping Old Ironsides, designated “America’s Ship of State,” shipshape. “I have run into very few people outside of Crane who have any clue what Crane does for the ship,” Osmon noted. “Other than the folks directly in Boston, or perhaps their superiors, it is not widely known [even in the Navy].”
 
The timber for the restoration was harvested at Crane last February and March. Crane foresters oversaw the felling of 35 mature white oaks set aside for the historic ship. The trees, 110-120 years old and about 40 inches in diameter, were then moved to a covered storage area at Crane, fumigated and covered in plastic.
 
Tri-State Timber, LLC., based in Spencer, cut the trees for Crane. Brett Franklin, an owner of the family company, said knowing the job was for the Constitution made it a bid they wanted to win.“  We just thought it was a proud moment to be a part of history,” he said. “It’s patriotic; everybody wanted to get involved.”
 
When work begins on the ship, Tri-State will also begin hauling the logs as needed to Boston for the milling and shaping to replace deteriorated hull planking and supporting structures called “knees.”
 
Speaking of knees, the relatively recently established NSA Crane isn't the first or only U.S. Navy oak forest resource. Historically, one of the first things the fledgling United States Government did was to snap up all the Southern Live Oak it could for shipbuilding. In 1825, President John Quincy Adams created the Naval Live Oak Reservation program which acquired a virtual monopoly on all the Live Oak forests in the nation. The first such reservation was on Pensacola Bay. White Oak (Quercus Alba) has long straight trunks. Live Oak (quercus virginiana) grows outward with thick curved branches. White Oak was valued for planking, keels, and other straight beams. Live Oak was prized as the highest strength "compass timbers," meaning curved stock from which frames, futtocks, and knees are cut. Constitution's knees and frames are Live Oak, while her keel and planking are White Oak. When the Navy started building iron ships, they had little need for their Live Oak Reservations and in the early 1900's sold or repurposed them for other government use. The Deer Point Naval Live Oaks Reservation in Gulf Breeze, Florida, founded in 1828 as the nation's first naval tree farm, is now preserved as part of the Gulf Islands National Seashore in Florida and Mississippi. While no longer under the auspices of the Navy, the National Park Service provides Live Oak from the former Deer Point Naval Live Oaks Reservation and other NPS lands for the replacement of Live Oak parts on Constitution on an as-needed basis. 
 
See: Naval Live Oaks Reservation - Wikipedia and The Live Oak Tree: A Naval Icon - Gulf Islands National Seashore (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)
 
 

The history of Admiralty's consumption of white oak is a fascinating subject, particularly as it influenced Britain's attitudes towards its American colonies and the way that influenced our own U.S. history.
 
As for how many acres of forest were consumed to ensure that "Britannia ruled the waives," the devil is in the details. Even in a virgin forest during the age of wooden ships, I doubt they'd find more than a half dozen mature oaks of sufficient quality for shipbuilding on the average acre of virgin oak forest. They required the largest lumber that could be milled from prime clear timber free of defects.  "Wild" white oak is notoriously variable in those respects. The number of oak trees per acre varies depending upon the species of oak and the growing conditions. To that has to be added the factor of accessibility. They could only harvest trees that they could fell. drag out of the forest and transport to the shipyards and they didn't have the  logging technology we have today to accomplish that. 
 
Some internet sites do indeed recommend planting between 100 and 400 trees per acre for plantation-grown white oak, but this number presumes that the initial planting will be thinned, either by modern forestry practices or natural attrition, over the 100 to 400 years before harvest of mature timber. Other sites say an acre of land will support far fewer white oak trees per acre and recommend planting "between 10 and 20 white oak trees per acre. https://mast-producing-trees.org/how-many-oak-trees-per-acre-should-you-plant/  "... it takes at least 80 years for a white oak to begin reaching a harvestable point. “That doesn’t mean it has hit its value point yet,” he adds. These trees can live up to 400 years, and many of the white oaks being harvested today are 150 to 200 years old." https://www.forestfoundation.org/why-we-do-it/family-forest-blog/managing-white-oaks-during-the-bourbon-boom/
 
As the linked articles above discuss, forest managers have become concerned about the sustainability of quality white oak due to the increased consumption of oak barrels by the wine and whiskey industries. Living where I do in the Northern California "Wine Country," where wine is aged in white oak barrels and there is a large ancillary cooperage industry, I see a lot of white oak barrels. White oak wine barrels impart a flavor to the wine they contain, but after a few uses become "flavor neutral," all the flavor having been leached out of the oak. Whiskey barrels, on the other hand, are charred on the inside and only used once. After that, the barrels are useless for those purposes and are cut in half and recycled as planter boxes, ground up in the chipper for barbeque smoker flavoring, or sometimes repurposed into trinkets for the local tourist trade. Any way you look at it, I think this seems a wasteful way to consume prime lumber that would last centuries if put to a more noble use. (Although the wine and whiskey connoisseurs see it differently, I'm sure, I've always been more interested in the proof than the flavor! )                                               
 
I'd say the the old Admiralty loggers would be lucky to find more than five harvestable white oaks from an acre of virgin forest back in the days of wooden ships and iron men. The problem wasn't that the demands of the Admiralty exceeded the number of acres of oak trees they had, but rather that they exceeded the number of harvestable oak trees suitable for shipbuilding they had. After they had cut all the 200+ year old quality white oaks they could get to, the oak forests remained, but the size and quality of oaks didn't, and wouldn't, until what was left had another 200+ years to mature. In the days of old, the harvesting pressures were obviously greatest in the closest proximity of human habitation and industry, but a fair amount of the forest remained and, until logging technology overwhelmed the resource, it maintained some degree of sustainability. Ultimately, however, man's ability to harvest the timber faster than it could grow began to negatively impact the forest itself, but "running out of timber" is a relative term meaning "running out of timber of sufficient quality,' not necessarily "running out of trees entirely." (Although, "clear cutting" to produce agricultural land did, and still does, destroy large swaths of forest as well.)
 
So, harvesting the 2,000 trees to build a ship of the line didn't take "much of a forest," but just the best shipbuilding trees in a whole lot of forest. It didn't take long for the unavailability of prime white oak to affect the shipbuilding practices of the time. Timbers had to be assembled of increasingly smaller pieces as the "big stuff" was consumed. It should be noted that the oak and pitch pine forests of America's East Coast and the fir forests of British Columbia were invaluable war material resources for the Admiralty at a time when England and the rest of Europe had consumed all their own resources of ship building oak, "Oregon pine" spars and deck planking, and pine tar. England's opposition to American independence was more about retaining timber resources than collecting a tax on tea.
 
So how many acres of oak did it take to find enough timber to get out a ship of the line? The answer is "It depended." However, what we do know is that the U.S. Navy maintains a pristine 50,000 acre natural forest of white oak trees solely for the purpose of repairing U.S.S. Constitution! "The ship completed a two year drydocking and restoration program in 2017. During the restoration 35 trees from the grove were selected to be harvested to replace rotting hull planks."  https://www.oldsaltblog.com/2020/11/constitution-grove-the-navys-white-oak-forest-on-a-high-tech-base/  That should provide some idea of how many acres it took to produce enough white oak to build an entire ship like her.
 
 

The history of Admiralty's consumption of white oak is a fascinating subject, particularly as it influenced Britain's attitudes towards its American colonies and the way that influenced our own U.S. history.
 
As for how many acres of forest were consumed to ensure that "Britannia ruled the waives," the devil is in the details. Even in a virgin forest during the age of wooden ships, I doubt they'd find more than a half dozen mature oaks of sufficient quality for shipbuilding on the average acre of virgin oak forest. They required the largest lumber that could be milled from prime clear timber free of defects.  "Wild" white oak is notoriously variable in those respects. The number of oak trees per acre varies depending upon the species of oak and the growing conditions. To that has to be added the factor of accessibility. They could only harvest trees that they could fell. drag out of the forest and transport to the shipyards and they didn't have the  logging technology we have today to accomplish that. 
 
Some internet sites do indeed recommend planting between 100 and 400 trees per acre for plantation-grown white oak, but this number presumes that the initial planting will be thinned, either by modern forestry practices or natural attrition, over the 100 to 400 years before harvest of mature timber. Other sites say an acre of land will support far fewer white oak trees per acre and recommend planting "between 10 and 20 white oak trees per acre. https://mast-producing-trees.org/how-many-oak-trees-per-acre-should-you-plant/  "... it takes at least 80 years for a white oak to begin reaching a harvestable point. “That doesn’t mean it has hit its value point yet,” he adds. These trees can live up to 400 years, and many of the white oaks being harvested today are 150 to 200 years old." https://www.forestfoundation.org/why-we-do-it/family-forest-blog/managing-white-oaks-during-the-bourbon-boom/
 
As the linked articles above discuss, forest managers have become concerned about the sustainability of quality white oak due to the increased consumption of oak barrels by the wine and whiskey industries. Living where I do in the Northern California "Wine Country," where wine is aged in white oak barrels and there is a large ancillary cooperage industry, I see a lot of white oak barrels. White oak wine barrels impart a flavor to the wine they contain, but after a few uses become "flavor neutral," all the flavor having been leached out of the oak. Whiskey barrels, on the other hand, are charred on the inside and only used once. After that, the barrels are useless for those purposes and are cut in half and recycled as planter boxes, ground up in the chipper for barbeque smoker flavoring, or sometimes repurposed into trinkets for the local tourist trade. Any way you look at it, I think this seems a wasteful way to consume prime lumber that would last centuries if put to a more noble use. (Although the wine and whiskey connoisseurs see it differently, I'm sure, I've always been more interested in the proof than the flavor! )                                               
 
I'd say the the old Admiralty loggers would be lucky to find more than five harvestable white oaks from an acre of virgin forest back in the days of wooden ships and iron men. The problem wasn't that the demands of the Admiralty exceeded the number of acres of oak trees they had, but rather that they exceeded the number of harvestable oak trees suitable for shipbuilding they had. After they had cut all the 200+ year old quality white oaks they could get to, the oak forests remained, but the size and quality of oaks didn't, and wouldn't, until what was left had another 200+ years to mature. In the days of old, the harvesting pressures were obviously greatest in the closest proximity of human habitation and industry, but a fair amount of the forest remained and, until logging technology overwhelmed the resource, it maintained some degree of sustainability. Ultimately, however, man's ability to harvest the timber faster than it could grow began to negatively impact the forest itself, but "running out of timber" is a relative term meaning "running out of timber of sufficient quality,' not necessarily "running out of trees entirely." (Although, "clear cutting" to produce agricultural land did, and still does, destroy large swaths of forest as well.)
 
So, harvesting the 2,000 trees to build a ship of the line didn't take "much of a forest," but just the best shipbuilding trees in a whole lot of forest. It didn't take long for the unavailability of prime white oak to affect the shipbuilding practices of the time. Timbers had to be assembled of increasingly smaller pieces as the "big stuff" was consumed. It should be noted that the oak and pitch pine forests of America's East Coast and the fir forests of British Columbia were invaluable war material resources for the Admiralty at a time when England and the rest of Europe had consumed all their own resources of ship building oak, "Oregon pine" spars and deck planking, and pine tar. England's opposition to American independence was more about retaining timber resources than collecting a tax on tea.
 
So how many acres of oak did it take to find enough timber to get out a ship of the line? The answer is "It depended." However, what we do know is that the U.S. Navy maintains a pristine 50,000 acre natural forest of white oak trees solely for the purpose of repairing U.S.S. Constitution! "The ship completed a two year drydocking and restoration program in 2017. During the restoration 35 trees from the grove were selected to be harvested to replace rotting hull planks."  https://www.oldsaltblog.com/2020/11/constitution-grove-the-navys-white-oak-forest-on-a-high-tech-base/  That should provide some idea of how many acres it took to produce enough white oak to build an entire ship like her.
 
 

I understand what you are saying, but there's a whole lot of difference between "imagining building a model boat" and actually doing it if you've never done it before. When working to scale, there are some things that just get too small to be possible to depict in the scale model. Study the building process illustrated in the Gartside link I provided above. Gartside's building process in that case is not a traditional construction process. I provided it as an illustration of the framing for a fantail stern. What Gartside did was to epoxy laminate a double planked monocoque skin on top of a "frame" plug to which he'd bent very light frames, certainly more for appearances' sake than for structural value. It's primarily a "cold-molded" hull with light framing which makes for a strong, light hull. Although the planks are glued together, they all must be spiled (essentially lofted in place to create a custom pattern for every plank,) and that done twice because it's double-planked. It's really a beautiful boat.
 
Now let's think about building a model of it just as the prototype was constructed. Gartside's boat is 22 feet long and your prototype is 42 feet long, so "for government work" let's say your prototype is twice the size of Gartside's. Gartside's boat's frames, which are bent over an upside down "plug" of transverse section mold patterns and battens, are 1" X 5/8". While the scantlings aren't directly  proportional, for our purposes let's say that in your prototype at twice the size, the frames are 2" X 1.25". Now, you are going to build a model at a scale of one inch equals one foot, so we do the math and the frames in your 42" model will have to be .167" X .104". The double planking in a model you are contemplating, given that Gartside's were 1/4" for the inner layer and 1/2" for the outer layer would be .021" thick for the inner layer and .042" thick for the outer layer of planking. Those are the same thicknesses of about five and ten sheets of copy paper, respectively. Where can one find strip wood in those sizes? (Hint: Start saving to by a Byrnes saw. https://byrnesmodelmachines.com/tablesaw5.html)
 
So, when you "imagine" how to build this model boat, how thick do you "imagine" a tenth of an inch thick frame is and how do you "imagine" you will be able to fasten planking onto frame stock that is a tenth of an inch by half again as much in size? What wood would you use that had the strength, the fineness and straightness of grain, and the "bendabilty" to be bent to those shapes (and made to stay that way) without crumbling to bits? It never ceases to amaze me what feats of miniaturization members of this forum can achieve, but they're far better men than I, Gunga Din!  
 
I'm not saying this to "beat you up" or make fun of you. Not by a long shot. I'm just trying to illustrate that modeling is often an art of "creating the illusion of reality," as Tom Lauria calls it. It's like a painting that is meant to be appreciated from a "viewing distance" in which the eye is tricked into seeing "reality" when actually, viewed up close, it's all just a lot of brush strokes, or in modern terms "pixels." The art of modeling is in tricking the viewer's eye to see a real vessel viewed from several hundred feet away in, say, quarter inch scale, and that magic is increasingly difficult as the scale decreases in size. In twelve inch scale, more detail can be replicated in miniature, but still there's a point where the mechanics of the thing in miniature can't be expected to serve their purpose and we have to structure it differently if the model is to be built at all, and particularly so if that model is intended to actually sail! An experienced master modeler who wished to depict such light framing in an open boat would most likely build the hull first and apply faux framing afterwards by gluing it to the inside of the completed hull shell, or, similar to what Gartside did in full size, laminate the hull on top of a plug that supported the non-structural faux frames all in one go. I'm sure it can be done, but for most of us, the men in the white coats would be wheeling us away before we got half-way finished gluing all those microscopic wooden slivers into all those fastener holes! 
 
 
Never underestimate your skills until you've tried to develop them! If our skill levels determined the limits of our abilities, we'd never develop any skills at all. The late "Pete" Culler, a famous boat designer who, incidentally, designed some beautiful steam launches, once wrote when encouraging his inexperienced readers not to underestimate their abilities, "Experience begins when you start." There actually isn't a lot of what I'd call "freehand carving" in building a "bread and butter" hull. (It's also called the "lift method," referring to the "lifts" or cut planks stacked up to form the shape of the hull.) The edges of each "lift" define the shape to "carve." It's really only a process of planing off the "pointy edges" until you reach the inner corners and you've got your shape right there. A batten (flat stick) with sandpaper glued onto it like a big nail file, is bent to the curves as you go along and the stiff batten's bent curved shape defines the curve it's sanding right down to where the joints of the lifts indicate is "far enough." I know from my own experience that it is much easier and less work than plank on frame construction. The interior of the bread and butter hull is a bit more tedious to finish because you have to work inside the hull, but you only have to perfectly fair the areas that will show in an open boat. Once that's done, it's a fairly easy task to glue on the faux frames to the inside of the hull where they show. I've attached three somewhat dated and perhaps silly videos of old Brits "carving" a bread and butter hulls. A picture is worth a thousand words and a video is even better.
 
I share these thoughts not to discourage you, but rather to encourage you, because I think you've got a great idea and are "imagining" what could be a great model. I've seen enough to know you can do it. I'm only hoping to offer some suggestions that will promote your success and avoid the frustration than causes so many unfinished models. Get the books. Read and study them. Start another thread asking for suggestions on the best books for aspiring scratch-builders to acquire. (Building a library of related books and publications is usually an essential part of most serious modeler's hobby.) The more you learn about modeling, the more you will "imagine!" 
 
 
 
 

I decided to take a little time and touch up the hoops. The narrow parts were about 0.020" thick so there was extra material to be removed from the thicker spots (radial). I used a small file to take off the high spots around the loops. I also filed material from the vertical parts to get more even 0.050" height.
 
Then I applied two coats of the brown paint I used for the bulwarks and deck furniture. After this was dry I buffed the pieces with #0000 steel wool.
 
So here are the 26 finished mast hoops. Carefully hand crafted individually produced (none of those mass produced parts) wooden mast hoops made in the USA!
 

Bob,
 
Great suggestions. Thanks!
 
I can see how your method would produce more uniform hoops and the radial thickness should be more uniform.
 
I remembered your post, and as I was shaving wood from the dowel I thought I would try to use it for the hoops. Next time I will try your method.
 
For what it is worth, the aliphatic glue did not stick to the aluminum knife handle mandrel, but I didn't leave the hoops on the mandrel until the glue set up.
 
I should add that I broke a few of the hoops with too aggressive sanding when I was reducing the vertical height. However, the laminated hoops are very tough considering they are only 0.020" (0.5 mm) thick (give or take a few thousandths). No need to worry about breaking them while rigging the sails!

I understand what you are saying, but there's a whole lot of difference between "imagining building a model boat" and actually doing it if you've never done it before. When working to scale, there are some things that just get too small to be possible to depict in the scale model. Study the building process illustrated in the Gartside link I provided above. Gartside's building process in that case is not a traditional construction process. I provided it as an illustration of the framing for a fantail stern. What Gartside did was to epoxy laminate a double planked monocoque skin on top of a "frame" plug to which he'd bent very light frames, certainly more for appearances' sake than for structural value. It's primarily a "cold-molded" hull with light framing which makes for a strong, light hull. Although the planks are glued together, they all must be spiled (essentially lofted in place to create a custom pattern for every plank,) and that done twice because it's double-planked. It's really a beautiful boat.
 
Now let's think about building a model of it just as the prototype was constructed. Gartside's boat is 22 feet long and your prototype is 42 feet long, so "for government work" let's say your prototype is twice the size of Gartside's. Gartside's boat's frames, which are bent over an upside down "plug" of transverse section mold patterns and battens, are 1" X 5/8". While the scantlings aren't directly  proportional, for our purposes let's say that in your prototype at twice the size, the frames are 2" X 1.25". Now, you are going to build a model at a scale of one inch equals one foot, so we do the math and the frames in your 42" model will have to be .167" X .104". The double planking in a model you are contemplating, given that Gartside's were 1/4" for the inner layer and 1/2" for the outer layer would be .021" thick for the inner layer and .042" thick for the outer layer of planking. Those are the same thicknesses of about five and ten sheets of copy paper, respectively. Where can one find strip wood in those sizes? (Hint: Start saving to by a Byrnes saw. https://byrnesmodelmachines.com/tablesaw5.html)
 
So, when you "imagine" how to build this model boat, how thick do you "imagine" a tenth of an inch thick frame is and how do you "imagine" you will be able to fasten planking onto frame stock that is a tenth of an inch by half again as much in size? What wood would you use that had the strength, the fineness and straightness of grain, and the "bendabilty" to be bent to those shapes (and made to stay that way) without crumbling to bits? It never ceases to amaze me what feats of miniaturization members of this forum can achieve, but they're far better men than I, Gunga Din!  
 
I'm not saying this to "beat you up" or make fun of you. Not by a long shot. I'm just trying to illustrate that modeling is often an art of "creating the illusion of reality," as Tom Lauria calls it. It's like a painting that is meant to be appreciated from a "viewing distance" in which the eye is tricked into seeing "reality" when actually, viewed up close, it's all just a lot of brush strokes, or in modern terms "pixels." The art of modeling is in tricking the viewer's eye to see a real vessel viewed from several hundred feet away in, say, quarter inch scale, and that magic is increasingly difficult as the scale decreases in size. In twelve inch scale, more detail can be replicated in miniature, but still there's a point where the mechanics of the thing in miniature can't be expected to serve their purpose and we have to structure it differently if the model is to be built at all, and particularly so if that model is intended to actually sail! An experienced master modeler who wished to depict such light framing in an open boat would most likely build the hull first and apply faux framing afterwards by gluing it to the inside of the completed hull shell, or, similar to what Gartside did in full size, laminate the hull on top of a plug that supported the non-structural faux frames all in one go. I'm sure it can be done, but for most of us, the men in the white coats would be wheeling us away before we got half-way finished gluing all those microscopic wooden slivers into all those fastener holes! 
 
 
Never underestimate your skills until you've tried to develop them! If our skill levels determined the limits of our abilities, we'd never develop any skills at all. The late "Pete" Culler, a famous boat designer who, incidentally, designed some beautiful steam launches, once wrote when encouraging his inexperienced readers not to underestimate their abilities, "Experience begins when you start." There actually isn't a lot of what I'd call "freehand carving" in building a "bread and butter" hull. (It's also called the "lift method," referring to the "lifts" or cut planks stacked up to form the shape of the hull.) The edges of each "lift" define the shape to "carve." It's really only a process of planing off the "pointy edges" until you reach the inner corners and you've got your shape right there. A batten (flat stick) with sandpaper glued onto it like a big nail file, is bent to the curves as you go along and the stiff batten's bent curved shape defines the curve it's sanding right down to where the joints of the lifts indicate is "far enough." I know from my own experience that it is much easier and less work than plank on frame construction. The interior of the bread and butter hull is a bit more tedious to finish because you have to work inside the hull, but you only have to perfectly fair the areas that will show in an open boat. Once that's done, it's a fairly easy task to glue on the faux frames to the inside of the hull where they show. I've attached three somewhat dated and perhaps silly videos of old Brits "carving" a bread and butter hulls. A picture is worth a thousand words and a video is even better.
 
I share these thoughts not to discourage you, but rather to encourage you, because I think you've got a great idea and are "imagining" what could be a great model. I've seen enough to know you can do it. I'm only hoping to offer some suggestions that will promote your success and avoid the frustration than causes so many unfinished models. Get the books. Read and study them. Start another thread asking for suggestions on the best books for aspiring scratch-builders to acquire. (Building a library of related books and publications is usually an essential part of most serious modeler's hobby.) The more you learn about modeling, the more you will "imagine!" 
 
 
 
 

I understand what you are saying, but there's a whole lot of difference between "imagining building a model boat" and actually doing it if you've never done it before. When working to scale, there are some things that just get too small to be possible to depict in the scale model. Study the building process illustrated in the Gartside link I provided above. Gartside's building process in that case is not a traditional construction process. I provided it as an illustration of the framing for a fantail stern. What Gartside did was to epoxy laminate a double planked monocoque skin on top of a "frame" plug to which he'd bent very light frames, certainly more for appearances' sake than for structural value. It's primarily a "cold-molded" hull with light framing which makes for a strong, light hull. Although the planks are glued together, they all must be spiled (essentially lofted in place to create a custom pattern for every plank,) and that done twice because it's double-planked. It's really a beautiful boat.
 
Now let's think about building a model of it just as the prototype was constructed. Gartside's boat is 22 feet long and your prototype is 42 feet long, so "for government work" let's say your prototype is twice the size of Gartside's. Gartside's boat's frames, which are bent over an upside down "plug" of transverse section mold patterns and battens, are 1" X 5/8". While the scantlings aren't directly  proportional, for our purposes let's say that in your prototype at twice the size, the frames are 2" X 1.25". Now, you are going to build a model at a scale of one inch equals one foot, so we do the math and the frames in your 42" model will have to be .167" X .104". The double planking in a model you are contemplating, given that Gartside's were 1/4" for the inner layer and 1/2" for the outer layer would be .021" thick for the inner layer and .042" thick for the outer layer of planking. Those are the same thicknesses of about five and ten sheets of copy paper, respectively. Where can one find strip wood in those sizes? (Hint: Start saving to by a Byrnes saw. https://byrnesmodelmachines.com/tablesaw5.html)
 
So, when you "imagine" how to build this model boat, how thick do you "imagine" a tenth of an inch thick frame is and how do you "imagine" you will be able to fasten planking onto frame stock that is a tenth of an inch by half again as much in size? What wood would you use that had the strength, the fineness and straightness of grain, and the "bendabilty" to be bent to those shapes (and made to stay that way) without crumbling to bits? It never ceases to amaze me what feats of miniaturization members of this forum can achieve, but they're far better men than I, Gunga Din!  
 
I'm not saying this to "beat you up" or make fun of you. Not by a long shot. I'm just trying to illustrate that modeling is often an art of "creating the illusion of reality," as Tom Lauria calls it. It's like a painting that is meant to be appreciated from a "viewing distance" in which the eye is tricked into seeing "reality" when actually, viewed up close, it's all just a lot of brush strokes, or in modern terms "pixels." The art of modeling is in tricking the viewer's eye to see a real vessel viewed from several hundred feet away in, say, quarter inch scale, and that magic is increasingly difficult as the scale decreases in size. In twelve inch scale, more detail can be replicated in miniature, but still there's a point where the mechanics of the thing in miniature can't be expected to serve their purpose and we have to structure it differently if the model is to be built at all, and particularly so if that model is intended to actually sail! An experienced master modeler who wished to depict such light framing in an open boat would most likely build the hull first and apply faux framing afterwards by gluing it to the inside of the completed hull shell, or, similar to what Gartside did in full size, laminate the hull on top of a plug that supported the non-structural faux frames all in one go. I'm sure it can be done, but for most of us, the men in the white coats would be wheeling us away before we got half-way finished gluing all those microscopic wooden slivers into all those fastener holes! 
 
 
Never underestimate your skills until you've tried to develop them! If our skill levels determined the limits of our abilities, we'd never develop any skills at all. The late "Pete" Culler, a famous boat designer who, incidentally, designed some beautiful steam launches, once wrote when encouraging his inexperienced readers not to underestimate their abilities, "Experience begins when you start." There actually isn't a lot of what I'd call "freehand carving" in building a "bread and butter" hull. (It's also called the "lift method," referring to the "lifts" or cut planks stacked up to form the shape of the hull.) The edges of each "lift" define the shape to "carve." It's really only a process of planing off the "pointy edges" until you reach the inner corners and you've got your shape right there. A batten (flat stick) with sandpaper glued onto it like a big nail file, is bent to the curves as you go along and the stiff batten's bent curved shape defines the curve it's sanding right down to where the joints of the lifts indicate is "far enough." I know from my own experience that it is much easier and less work than plank on frame construction. The interior of the bread and butter hull is a bit more tedious to finish because you have to work inside the hull, but you only have to perfectly fair the areas that will show in an open boat. Once that's done, it's a fairly easy task to glue on the faux frames to the inside of the hull where they show. I've attached three somewhat dated and perhaps silly videos of old Brits "carving" a bread and butter hulls. A picture is worth a thousand words and a video is even better.
 
I share these thoughts not to discourage you, but rather to encourage you, because I think you've got a great idea and are "imagining" what could be a great model. I've seen enough to know you can do it. I'm only hoping to offer some suggestions that will promote your success and avoid the frustration than causes so many unfinished models. Get the books. Read and study them. Start another thread asking for suggestions on the best books for aspiring scratch-builders to acquire. (Building a library of related books and publications is usually an essential part of most serious modeler's hobby.) The more you learn about modeling, the more you will "imagine!" 
 
 
 
 

I understand what you are saying, but there's a whole lot of difference between "imagining building a model boat" and actually doing it if you've never done it before. When working to scale, there are some things that just get too small to be possible to depict in the scale model. Study the building process illustrated in the Gartside link I provided above. Gartside's building process in that case is not a traditional construction process. I provided it as an illustration of the framing for a fantail stern. What Gartside did was to epoxy laminate a double planked monocoque skin on top of a "frame" plug to which he'd bent very light frames, certainly more for appearances' sake than for structural value. It's primarily a "cold-molded" hull with light framing which makes for a strong, light hull. Although the planks are glued together, they all must be spiled (essentially lofted in place to create a custom pattern for every plank,) and that done twice because it's double-planked. It's really a beautiful boat.
 
Now let's think about building a model of it just as the prototype was constructed. Gartside's boat is 22 feet long and your prototype is 42 feet long, so "for government work" let's say your prototype is twice the size of Gartside's. Gartside's boat's frames, which are bent over an upside down "plug" of transverse section mold patterns and battens, are 1" X 5/8". While the scantlings aren't directly  proportional, for our purposes let's say that in your prototype at twice the size, the frames are 2" X 1.25". Now, you are going to build a model at a scale of one inch equals one foot, so we do the math and the frames in your 42" model will have to be .167" X .104". The double planking in a model you are contemplating, given that Gartside's were 1/4" for the inner layer and 1/2" for the outer layer would be .021" thick for the inner layer and .042" thick for the outer layer of planking. Those are the same thicknesses of about five and ten sheets of copy paper, respectively. Where can one find strip wood in those sizes? (Hint: Start saving to by a Byrnes saw. https://byrnesmodelmachines.com/tablesaw5.html)
 
So, when you "imagine" how to build this model boat, how thick do you "imagine" a tenth of an inch thick frame is and how do you "imagine" you will be able to fasten planking onto frame stock that is a tenth of an inch by half again as much in size? What wood would you use that had the strength, the fineness and straightness of grain, and the "bendabilty" to be bent to those shapes (and made to stay that way) without crumbling to bits? It never ceases to amaze me what feats of miniaturization members of this forum can achieve, but they're far better men than I, Gunga Din!  
 
I'm not saying this to "beat you up" or make fun of you. Not by a long shot. I'm just trying to illustrate that modeling is often an art of "creating the illusion of reality," as Tom Lauria calls it. It's like a painting that is meant to be appreciated from a "viewing distance" in which the eye is tricked into seeing "reality" when actually, viewed up close, it's all just a lot of brush strokes, or in modern terms "pixels." The art of modeling is in tricking the viewer's eye to see a real vessel viewed from several hundred feet away in, say, quarter inch scale, and that magic is increasingly difficult as the scale decreases in size. In twelve inch scale, more detail can be replicated in miniature, but still there's a point where the mechanics of the thing in miniature can't be expected to serve their purpose and we have to structure it differently if the model is to be built at all, and particularly so if that model is intended to actually sail! An experienced master modeler who wished to depict such light framing in an open boat would most likely build the hull first and apply faux framing afterwards by gluing it to the inside of the completed hull shell, or, similar to what Gartside did in full size, laminate the hull on top of a plug that supported the non-structural faux frames all in one go. I'm sure it can be done, but for most of us, the men in the white coats would be wheeling us away before we got half-way finished gluing all those microscopic wooden slivers into all those fastener holes! 
 
 
Never underestimate your skills until you've tried to develop them! If our skill levels determined the limits of our abilities, we'd never develop any skills at all. The late "Pete" Culler, a famous boat designer who, incidentally, designed some beautiful steam launches, once wrote when encouraging his inexperienced readers not to underestimate their abilities, "Experience begins when you start." There actually isn't a lot of what I'd call "freehand carving" in building a "bread and butter" hull. (It's also called the "lift method," referring to the "lifts" or cut planks stacked up to form the shape of the hull.) The edges of each "lift" define the shape to "carve." It's really only a process of planing off the "pointy edges" until you reach the inner corners and you've got your shape right there. A batten (flat stick) with sandpaper glued onto it like a big nail file, is bent to the curves as you go along and the stiff batten's bent curved shape defines the curve it's sanding right down to where the joints of the lifts indicate is "far enough." I know from my own experience that it is much easier and less work than plank on frame construction. The interior of the bread and butter hull is a bit more tedious to finish because you have to work inside the hull, but you only have to perfectly fair the areas that will show in an open boat. Once that's done, it's a fairly easy task to glue on the faux frames to the inside of the hull where they show. I've attached three somewhat dated and perhaps silly videos of old Brits "carving" a bread and butter hulls. A picture is worth a thousand words and a video is even better.
 
I share these thoughts not to discourage you, but rather to encourage you, because I think you've got a great idea and are "imagining" what could be a great model. I've seen enough to know you can do it. I'm only hoping to offer some suggestions that will promote your success and avoid the frustration than causes so many unfinished models. Get the books. Read and study them. Start another thread asking for suggestions on the best books for aspiring scratch-builders to acquire. (Building a library of related books and publications is usually an essential part of most serious modeler's hobby.) The more you learn about modeling, the more you will "imagine!" 
 
 
 
 

The Lift method is just another name for the Bread and Butter method.
 
Regardless of how you eventually decide to build the hull you need better drawings.  So, if you are set on using the drawing that you have you need to make a traditional lines drawing with regularly spaced waterlines, body plan sections and probably several buttock lines.  This will ensure that your frames will all line up and a fair (smooth) hull will result.  From this you can Loft additional structural elements like frames.
 
Roger

Here in the Northern California Wine Country, there are lots of micro-breweries and if you go into a big chain drug store and ask for IPA, they're likely to send you to the liquor department where the various boutique brands of IPA, India pale ale, are stocked!  As far as my "gentleman's C" in chemistry gets me. I understand that ethyl alcohol, which is distilled from plant starches, and isopropyl alcohol, which is a product derived from petroleum, are entirely different things. I have always used ethyl alcohol in my shop as a solvent for shellac and, where indicated, for thinning acrylic and latex paints, as well as for a marine stove fuel and I buy it by the gallon tin. I've never used it for dissolving PVA adhesive, but I've heard many recommend isopropyl alcohol for that purpose, but never ethyl alcohol. Do any of the chemists in attendance, or even anybody who plays a chemist on the internet, know whether, when we talk about using alcohol for dissolving PVA adhesive or conditioning acrylic paint, it makes any difference whether we use ethyl alcohol or isopropyl alcohol for such purposes, or are the two completely interchangeable?
 

"Thread drift" is an inherent danger is any forum discussion.  It's just as well to head it off at the pass. Back to the subject of hull construction:
 
You are certainly free to build your hull however you wish and, regardless of the construction method you choose, you will have to do some drawing to generate additional transverse body sections, as Wefalck has described so well. That said, I would urge you to carefully study the shape of the classic steam launch hull in which "form follows function." The shape has been developed with speed  and the high-torque low-RPM steam engine's power in mind. (One determining factor being the necessity of the larger diameter higher pitched steam propeller.) Framing and planking the elegant shape of the steam launch's elliptical fan tail counter stern is, in my experience, the most complex and difficult framing and planking job of all stern shapes. Contrasted with the ordinary transom stern where the planks run fairly flat to a relatively vertical sternpost and are "sawed off" at the transom, the fantail launch stern with its long shallow run aft, requires that the planks take a significant twist between the point of maximum beam and the sternpost rabbet, which transitions from relatively vertical at the keel to relatively horizontal at the deck. Therefore, I strongly urge you to seriously consider employing the "lift" or "bread and butter" construction method for such a model hull. The relative difficulties between the alternative construction methods in this instance are at opposite ends of the difficulty spectrum.
 
See: https://www.gartsideboats.com/custom-boatbuilding/22-foot-steam-launch-design-123.html for a sequential photographic demonstration of the construction of a plank on frame steam launch hull. (Plan and photos below from Paul Gartside's website.)
 
 

 

https://www.gartsideboats.com/custom-boatbuilding/22-foot-steam-launch-design-123.html
 

 
 
 
 

Wefalck's above explanation of how to develop waterlines from a set of bulkhead outlines is about as clear and concise as I've ever seen. Don't be intimidated by lofting. It's easy to pick up the basics, but it's a subject best learned by doing it. Get yourself a drawing board, a tee-square, a triangle, and a compass and a pair of dividers, flexible batten, ,a set of french curves and a decent ruler (the triangular architect's scale rules are handy because you can use the scales and not have to convert to scale in your head or on a calculator.) Then just practice drawing boat plans on paper. You'll pick it up fast and be converting two-dimensional drawings to three-dimensional boats in your head in no time.
 
There's a good tutorial to get you started in the forum's "Articles Database" (along with lots of other valuable basic information) : Nautical Research Guild - Article - Interpreting Line Drawings for Ship Modelling (thenrg.org)
 
Once you get the hang of lofting, there's no limit to the number and variety of boats you can build from scratch to plans you've developed yourself. This, along with milling your own wood, will enable you to build models of boats which have never been modeled before and will save you huge amounts of money over buying kits to build. One word of warning, though. Ship modeling can become quite addictive, and expensive no matter how you cut it. Kit builders can spend thousands on kits they intend to build some day, while scratch-builders can spend thousands on tools they plan to use some day!  
 
Happy lofting!