tarbrush

Next boat on my bench is Picket Boat #1. I have many to choose from but most are tall ships. I thought this would be a good way to practice and develope better planking skills along with some other unique/different features. 
For those that will follow along know this build log will be slow as I can only really work on it during weekends and we just started car show season (we have some 1950's cars). I'll try to post as I make progress and hope to share a little more frequently than I did with my first build log. 
 
We got this kit in a trade a while back. After laying it out about a month ago I found I was missing two lazer cut pieces. Nothing huge to keep me from starting but I delayed and reached out to Model Shipways. Took a little biut got the parts in and that motivated me to start. So with new sandpaper on the block and pulling out the files the dust started flying and glue flowing. I find early that, like many logs have mentioned, while the instructions and drawings are great compared to other brands, it is still written so that the reader/modeler needs some background or knowledge of ship building. 

 
The section that tripped me up the most was the center keel assembly. It mentions on the drawings to reference a template but in my review of the plates I did not locate a template. So using a different image I traced the center keel and made my own template then carved away. Picture below shows the plate in the set. Then picture of keel as O carved.  

 
I wrapped up my bench session with the bulkheads, shaping them and then putting in place and ensuring they were 90 degrees off keel. Overall made some progress and its not going back in the box anymore :). 


(I drew the lines on the wrong side of the bulkhead as this won't be visible I opted to not erase)

Following Tom Luria's methodology (seen on YouTube) I fabricated the Fore Sail for the Simpson, lashed it to the boom and gaff and added the mast hoops. Then I made a little stand with a spare piece of 3/8"dowel to simulate the mast and "hung it up".

I did not add the reefing bands/ties or the panel lines since the sail will be furled and much of this detail would be lost. I also made the sail only about three quarters as tall as shown in the sail plan. Previous experience has shown (me) that the larger the sail the more difficult it is to get it furled "properly". Not to say that mine are properly furled, just enough to look more or less "presentable" IMHO.
 
Continuing on with the fore mast I added the rest of the detail using laser board for the bands around the square section and the required blocks. I glued on the trestle trees, added the mast cap and rigged the spreader lifts (using turnbuckles instead of deadeyes - I just could not manage to get the 3mm deadeyes to "work" - too small for my old eyes and hands). I fabricated the "stay irons" from brass flat stock and brass eyebolts soldered into the brass stock. At least I remembered how to do that as it has been many years and models since I had to solder brass fitting together.
 
With the fore mast more or less completed (I am sure I forgot something) I furled the sail and added it to the mast along with the mast cap and the boom rest. Then I rigged the throat and peak halyards - took a bunch of line with the gaff down on top of the boom. Next up are the topping lifts and lazy jacks - then on to the Main sail.

Well its been a while. As said in january I had a break. I recently picked up again.
Not as often as I would like, but every week i get something done again.

First thing I did was finishing the transom. I did de sculptures again on the right scale on the CNC as I done them before but found them just too small.
 

 
After that is tarted to work on the gunport hinges. I tried metal first but didnt like it. So next step was to design them into CNC.
I am happy with the results. I will finish both sides before I will head on to the 'roping' business.

 



0

I've been working on the other frames. Here's one from the bow - the French refer to the V-shaped piece at the bottom, charmingly, as a fourcat.
  

But I came to the conclusion that the shapes I'd worked out for the frames of the aftercastle and some for the bow were based on a wrong premise - I hadn't taken into account the evidence of contemporary pictures and had made them much too narrow, and quite a few of them will have to be either tossed or dramatically altered. The first pic below is the frame as made; the second is how wide it ought to be. I'm hoping I can at least salvage some of the futtocks, but I'm pretty sure the floor timbers will have to be ditched.
      
I eventually got sick of trying to figure out the frame shapes on paper from the lines I'd drawn up - every time I worked it out it was different. So I went a different way. Based on the sterns of carracks from contemporary representations from near the Lomellina's time,
     
    
I made a solid half-hull, going aft from the last frame I was happy with
  
   
Took very little time - a couple hours with a hand-saw and a rasp, once I'd decided to do it.
 
Next I'll be cutting this solid shape into slivers at 10mm ( a bit under half an inch) intervals - equivalent to every second frame - along the length of the keel, to get reliable shapes for the frames. Wish me luck!
 
Steven
 

A very pragmatic and practical approach to lofting! It should work out well.

March 6, 2025 Update
During the weeks of February, the cabin top of the stern cabin was completed. The "flow coat" of epoxy and sanding filler was applied, scraped down and then block-sanded. 
 
The cover over the steps down into the stern cabin was fabricated, scribed to the curving cabin top, checked for proper angles and bonded in place.  The cabin top was then primed and painted.

The hatch was cut in the cabin top. Corner supports for the hatch were glued to the undersides of the beams and carlins.

A mahogany molding was fitted just below the transition from the cabin sides to the aft cabin top

 
And if you were laying down in the bunk when you took a photo looking forward, here is the current view with the hatch open:

Moving to the bow area, I decided to modify the fore cabin's original arrangement due to possible access requirements to the R/C wiring at the bus bar.  A cabin sole was mocked up with card and then cut from 1/16" birch plywood.  Then, card berth-shaped panels were cut out and temporarily tabbed together (after a fair amount of fiddling). A more thorough card joinery exploration followed and I feel that when the time is right, this will serve satisfactorily for patterning the actual birch ply construction of the V-berth area.
 

So, (finally!) work commenced on the actual pilot house unit.  R/C access drove the decision to build this as a vertically removable unit and a horizontal sole was cut out as the base on which to erect the structure. The forward face of the pilot house has a curved, upright shape, so I laminated a pair of "plates" to support the 1/8" th. vertical basswood staves which would form the face of the curve.  While the lower plate simply glued down in place onto the ply sole, the upper plate needed support while the staving was glued on. Some of this support was derived from the lower cabinetry for the navigation station /steering wheel structure while the after edges of the upper "plate"(carlin?) were supported on a pair of temporary card pylons. The quarter-circle hole will provide the entry down a curving set of steps (not yet built) into the fore cabin.

The faces of the pilot house joinery were paneled with 1/16" Cuban mahogany, a chunk of which was kindly gifted to me during my visit last summer with Roger Pellet. It apparently came from an antique bit of furniture which Roger collected many years ago and it has a lovely grain and color. My thanks to Roger!

At the forward end of the pilot house structure is a lower portion of the house for deck access, ventilation and light to the fore cabin below.  The curving face of this extension was built up with staving similar to the main portion of the pilot house and the sides fair back into the line of the pilot house sides just forward of the location for the (future) pilot house doors P&S. 
 
Along about this time, while making up a card template for these PH doors, I noticed an error by the designer:  The doors, as drawn would have been all of 5'-6" tall. (I had a few choices thoughts for the designer's ineptitude) .
So the boatbuilder conferred with the designer and *we* agreed to a solution:  Raise the height of the pilot house sufficiently to provide for 6'-3" (scale) doors.  While this modification was ongoing, hanging knees of AYC were glued in place to support the 1/16" ply extensions as well as the the sub-ceiling above. The vertical panel at the upper aft end of the pilot house was glued in to tie the raised cabin sides together with the correct rake.
(The designer slunk off, mumbling about, "nobody is perfect! ...Sniff...)
Onward.  Rummaging through my parts bin, I located the ship's steering wheel and temporarily mounted it in place to check for sufficient clearances from the joinery.

To finish up this post today, here is an image from just forward of the future pilot house windows, looking aft into the as-yet un-built main cabin. 
Apologies about the various wires photo-bombing the picture.

Thanks for looking in.  I do appreciate your support and comments.
 
Until again,
 
Craig
 
 
 
 

I've been thinking about whether or not the ship should have a poop deck. Botticelli's Judgment of Paris is one of the very few images that show a carrack from a viewpoint that shows the decks, and he shows one. 

It's also a good guide to where the hatches are and various other interesting details. But I think he's made a mistake with the location of the ladder to the poop - it seems to be in a completely illogical place - with the bottom at an open hatch and the top at a set of crossbeams you'd have to clamber over to get to the poop. Perhaps he did his sketch a bit wrong? He's not noted for his maritime pictures and may not have thought through what he was painting. It's hard to make out if there's a separate quarterdeck or the "main" deck continues all the way from the forecastle to the poop deck. Those railings to the main deck are unusual, as well, apparently continuing the same line as the railing at the poop.
 
Needs some thought.
 
Steven

I'm starting with the mainsail.  First, it's laced to the gaff.

I decided it was best to attach the boom to the sail before placing it on the model.  The tack of the sail is attached to a hook above the boom jaws.  The outhaul passes through a sheave at the end of the boom and ends on a block which, along with another block on the boom, is a tackle for the outhaul.  I pre-ran the line for that tackle.  The parrels were added to the gaff and boom with some tape to keep the beads from coming off.

The sail is attached first by the throat and peak halliards.  Loose at first, then gently tugging little by little into place.

Wire was previously twisted around each mast hoop, and this wire went through holes in the luff of the sail.  Foolishly, I didn't attach the wire before the mast hoops were on the mast and impossible to remove.  Therefore, it was awkward to get the wire twisted and it couldn't be done neatly.  It's not bad from far away but doesn't look so great close up.
 
The topping lift and boom sheet were threaded, and the sail is looking pretty good.  Right now, nothing is glued.  Everything is held in by friction and can be adjusted as needed.


One sail down, five to go.

Still figuring out the plans. I've now got a pretty good idea of the lines of the main and lower decks and the orlop, the configuration and position of the stempost (awaiting confirmation from France!), and the location of the mainmast, the halyard knight and the capstan, plus where on the keel the 12 cross-section views were taken. Still a bit up in the air, but I believe I'm on the right track. And she's starting to look rather pretty!

Though there's no archaeological evidence of a foremast or mizzen - they would both have been relatively small and it's unlikely they'd have been stepped on the keel -  I am completely certain a ship of this size at this time would have had both.
 
Now I'm thinking about the height of the bulwarks above the main (weather) deck, and the height, angle and configuration of the forecastle. The Botticelli painting The Judgment of Paris contains a carrack which can be seen, unusually, from above, and it looks like it has a poop deck.

Perhaps I'll give the Lomellina one as well.
 
Steven

Thanks for all the comments and likes. News is that I've been in touch with Max Guérot, and he's sent me the latest reconstruction info, and with that plus having tied down reference points even more firmly (I have the locations of the 12 cross-sections relative to the keel now, AND to the grid lines, for example, plus levels for the decks), I've been able do more work on laying out the side view.

Steven
 

I've spent a frustrating evening trying to get a zero point to base my measurements and frame positions on. The archaeological team worked very systematically, dividing the wreck site into a grid of squares 1 metre x 1 metre, starting well aft of the a*se aft end of the wreck and ending well forward of it, so as not to miss anything. The diving season is limited (presumably because of weather), so beginning in 1983 they covered an area of 40 square metres each year, starting at the stern.
 
The after end of the keel is one known point, but the other 'zero' they chose for all other measurements - and in particular, the locations of 12 cross-sections shown in diagrams - was oriented to the outer end of a particular strake, and I couldn't find any way to relate it to the keel. Eventually, in a discussion of the framing, they gave the distance from the after end of the keel to the assumed master frame (or, as in French the word for frame is feminine, the mistress frame), labelled W59. So I now have my reference point, and I can move forward.
 
One thing that becomes plain is that for the time, the Lomellina was BIG. An overall length of something like 46.5 metres (152 feet). The Santa Maria was only 36 metres (117 feet) and the Gribshunden, the Danish royal flagship (which was built around 1486 and sank in 1495) was only 32-35 metres (105 -115 feet).
 
That's all for now, except to show what she would probably have looked like. These ships are from the Ursula Legend series painted by Carpaccio in Venice in 1497-8 (5-6 years before the date I believe the Lomellina was built) and presumably depict typical Venetian carracks of the time. Although there were differences in construction between Venetian and Genoese vessels, they would have been very much like this.

Steven
 
 

Little steps, little steps. Here is as far as I've got with the drawings - the aftermost piece of the keel, plus the rising wood attached to the top of it, plus the notional (because missing) sternpost, plus what remains of the rudder, in the process of being creatively reconstructed into a full rudder. Which I'm now having to look at contemporary pictures of carracks to get an idea of, because I don't agree with their interpretation as shown in the diagram in the previous post.
 
This has taken me two or three days of struggling over (and bit by bit correcting) two or three pages of a Google translated archaeological report, interpreting it as an image from the diagram and the descriptions, and turning it into a 1:100 scaled drawing. It's all fun and games till someone loses an eye . . .

Thanks everybody for the likes and comments.
 
Just a quick point to start with. That diagram of the keel assembly wasn't done by me - it was from the published archaeological report, kindly sent to me by Dr Max Guérot, the leader of the archaeological expedition that uncovered the Lomellina, along with many many other reports and references to other wrecks that he sent me. He has been very generous and I'm very grateful indeed for all his selfless help. I've just emailed him to let him know I've finally started - it's a little embarrassing - it's been more than four years since we've been in contact and he'd probably given up on me. Anyhow, things are finally starting to move, albeit slowly.
 
One thing I'm beginning to realise is that I'd been a little over-confident about how much of the ship survived to act as a reference for my reconstruction. There's certainly a lot less than, for example, the Mary Rose. Here's a model that was made of what does survive.
 
But on the other hand, there's quite a bit to work with - we have a fair bit of the keel, quite a bit of framing and planking, part of the rudder, guns (with carriages!) and even a gunport lid, for heaven's sake! And lead sheathing on the underwater hull! No forecastle, unfortunately (dammit!) But I'm pretty confident I can get something worthwhile out of what's available and fill the gaps from contemporary images, particularly the superb Ursula Legend paintings by Carpaccio, dating to maybe a decade before the Lomellina was built. Venetian rather than Genoese, and I'm aware there were differences in construction between the ships of the two city-states, but in general, a good guide.
 
Woodrat, I'll probably be availing myself of your generous offer of help with traduire, and yes, I'm planning on a round tuck - all carracks of this period seem to have them, and the theoretical reconstruction drawings from the dig show one -

 
- and anyway, the earliest evidence for a flat stern on a carrack that I'm aware of is 1511.
 
By the way, looking back at the manuscript illustration of the first Lomellina, above - I will only be taking from that what I believe to be relevant - it's of an earlier ship and the artist doesn't seem to have understood ships very well.
 
I've been drawing the keel assembly based on the archaeological report, and to be honest I may have trouble duplicating the carpentry of the scarph joints at 1:100 - I'm just not that precise at woodwork. I expect I'll have to rationalise and simplify somewhat. And I'm not planning on duplicating every aspect of the vessel, particularly not the more complex inner construction details. That way lies madness.
 
But it will certainly be more historically accurate for the period than the one that was made by a model-maker in the early 1990's supposedly showing how she was - maybe half a century too late, and wrong in so many ways.

Steven

Interesting - Elisabetta is flying the banner of the Lomellini family, plus the red cross on white of Genoa.
 

 
And if she was built in 1490, she would be 13 years or so old when the Lomellina was built.
 
Steven

Fantastic work! One thing you might consider is carving out the edge of a plank to show one of each type of tenon in place, just for everyone to see the complete construction methods employed.

Hello again to all.  Thanks for the likes and ‘wow’s.  They are always very encouraging.
 
Cutting and fitting the first three planks –
Now with the working drawing in hand (Figure 19) I started butchering wood.  These will be the first of 17 planks, large and small, that will make up the model.  They are the bottom planks of the boat and take the place of the keel, so I wanted to get them right.  I printed out the drawing full sized and cut out the three plank patterns, then affixed them to 12mm thick basswood planks with spray mounting adhesive.  The planks had to be cut separately so I could get at the joggles with my saw. (Figure 27)
 
I carefully cut them out on the band saw and matched the joggles to their partners. (Figure 28)
 
The fit was checked by turning them over to see the gaps between the planks.  These were reduced by hand sanding until there was a tight fit. (Figure 29)
 
Mortice and tenon joints - 
Edge joining hull planks with mortice and tenon joints has been a common feature of ancient shipbuilding almost since boats have been built.  They have been found in Greek and Roman ships, and even up to later European 15th century ships.  Egyptian examples are scarce, but all include this feature, although with variations. 
 
The closest Egyptian boats to our subject that have been discovered to date are the five (or six) small boats excavated near the pyramid of Senwosret III at Dashur, just south of Giza, and date from around 1850 BC (six hundred years after Khufu).  In addition there are several planks for a small boat found at El-Lisht dating from around 1950 BC.  All of them have large tenons measuring about 20cm long, 7cm wide, and 1.5cm thick.  They are also tapered towards their ends so they are lozenge shaped.  (Figure 30 – Dashur m/t drawing).
 
 
The mortices are cut a bit wider than the tenons, but are tight to their thickness.  As a shipwright I suspect that this extra width as well as the tapered shape was so that the tenon would be more easily inserted and re-inserted during construction where the plank might have to be repeatedly offered to its neighbor for trimming and alignment.  Shims along the sides of the tenons, and even adhesive putty substances have been found, which may have temporarily held the tenons in place during construction.  This design would have allowed some lateral movement for adjustment, but would resist any vertical movement of the planks relative to each other.
 
The mortices were chiseled along the centerline of the plank edges, as seen in the wall art of Ti (Figure 25, above).  Some additional mortices were also cut, perhaps for strength at critical points.  In this view of a plank from a Dashur boat now located at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Chicago, you can see three mortices, one with a replacement tenon inserted.  Note that the openings are wider than the marked sizes of the mortices, and there is even one which shows a crushed corner from the shaft of the chisel that cut it.  For clarity I have outlined the approximate plank edges.  (Figure 31 – Carnegie mortices). 

In the Khufu barge the tenons are shaped from sidder (Ziziphus spinachristi), a local hard and durable wood, but suitable only for small items as the branches are quite narrow.  They are set about 90cm apart along the length of the longest planks such as the four garboard strakes, as measured on Mustafa’s plank expansion drawing (see, Figure 13 above).  However, this is not a fixed dimension.  The 14 tenons along the forward starboard garboard plank actually vary from about 70cm to 130cm apart.  In other locations there are multiple closely spaced tenons where planks scarf or butt to each other.  This leads me to conclude that they were placed where needed rather than using a rigid spacing scheme. (Figure 32 – tenons in use).
 
The tenons of the Khufu boat are substantially different from the Dashur and Lisht tenons.  Although they are similarly 7cm wide and 1.6cm thick, they are only half the length, measuring 10cm rather than 20cm.  This means that only 5cm (2 inches) fit into each mortice.  I was concerned that such short tenons could slip out of the wide mortices if the planks shifted laterally.  A scale drawing shows that with a 7cm tenon in a 9cm mortice this could happen fairly easily. (Figure 33).
 
However, going back to Lipke’s writing, I found that he notes that there were two sizes of tenon found with the boat.  The first was the one already mentioned.  The other was the same length and thickness, but only half the width, at 3.5cm rather than 7cm.  Dr. Mark also went back to Lipke’s notes, photos and drawings and found that these narrow tenons were inserted across the grain of the plank edges rather than along the grain.  These, along with the plank joggles, would have significantly limited any lateral movement of the planks against each other and probably eliminated any possibility of the tenons coming out. (Figure 34 – two tenon types).
 
Using Lipke’s information, Dr. Mark went back to the plank expansion drawing and cleaned it up by removing the marks of the transverse lacing holes to more clearly show the locations of the two tenon types.  He indicates that the narrow cross-tenons only start with the third planking strake of the five side strakes.  Happily, therefore, I will not have to worry about them until later in the building process. (Figure 35 – Mark plank expansion w tenons).
 
Cutting the mortices on the model started with marking out the locations on the plank edges.  A compass was used to find and mark the centerlines of the plank edges, then 7mm widths were marked at the mortice locations taken from the various plank expansion drawings. Matching planks were clamped together so the locations could be easily aligned.  (Figure 36 – mortices marked.)
 
Mortices were drilled and chiseled 5mm deep into the plank edges using 1.2mm (.045 inch) bitts.  They were widened as needed to accept tenons of cherry wood 10mm x 7mm x 1.6mm which fit snugly into the mortices. (Figure 37 – tenons installed).
 
Tenons were inserted into mortices along the sides of the outer planks and aligned with the mortices of the middle plank. (Figure 38 – tenons aligned).
 
The three bottom planks fit together well and securely with the tenons installed.  The planks ended up flat and level with each other.  No glue or other fastenings were used so the planks could be separated and worked on individually.  (Figure 39 – planks together).
 
Transverse lacing tunnels –
I began the process of cutting in the transverse lacing tunnels by drilling shallow holes through the paper pattern at the corners of the lacing holes.  (Figure 40 – holes marked).
 
With the pattern removed a series of angled holes were drilled from both directions that, hopefully, met in the middle under the surface of the wood.  The depth of the holes was controlled by making a mark on the drill bitt that corresponded to the length of half the lacing tunnel.  When I got the distances right I could feel the drill find and slide into the hole coming from the opposite direction.  (Figure 41 – tunnels started).
 
The webbing of wood between the drilled holes was removed with the side of the drill bitt and cleaned up with a flat hobby chisel down to a depth marked on the shaft.  (Figure 42 – tunnel chiseled).
 
I checked that the two tunnel halves met by shining a light into one side so I could see that they fully met.  Once the tunnel halves were cleaned out I smoothed the bottom surface with a needle file. (Figure 43 – tunnel filed).
 
To check that the tunnel was open and the bottom walls smooth I ran a curved strip of bendable brass through the tunnel.  The end was curled up and slid down one side and then it was forced to ride up the smooth opposite bottom wall.  The brass strip was moved back and forth and side to side to clear any remaining wood that might interfere with the next step. (Figure 44 – tunnel checked).
 
A strip of cloth-backed sanding paper was cut and one end rounded.  That end was stiffened with cyano for a distance of about an inch.  Once the glue was dry the end was curled like the brass strip and fed through the tunnel.  This took some gentle persuasion in most cases, but eventually I could lace the sanding strip through each of the tunnels.  The sanding strip was pulled back and forth, further opening the tunnel and smoothing the surface of the upper wall.  Most importantly it opened and rounded off the tight pointed bend at the bottom of the tunnel which would otherwise be hard to get ropes to go around. (Figure 45 – tunnel sanded).
 
Finally, each tunnel and set of tunnels was checked by running transverse lacing ropes through them.  Rather than do this with each rope individually I glued five of them together and stiffened the last inch with cyano.  The end was then curled like the sanding strip and fed through the lacing tunnels.  This was substantially easier after the tunnels had been opened and smoothed with the sanding strip.  (Figure 46 – laced tunnel set).
 
All that remains is to repeat this process over and over until each of the transverse lacing tunnels, 60 in all for the three center planks, hundreds for the full model,  are carved and laced.  I am still in the middle of this lengthy task. 
 
If anyone has any thoughts on how I can make the process more efficient or how the end result can be improved, please give me your ideas.
 
When I post again, which may be a while, I will have a photo of the progress.
 
Until then, be well.
 
Dan

Great idea! Im excited to keep reading and watch your progress. 
J

A lovely methodic approach, Dan!

Hello again to all.  I trust that my fellow Americans all had a good Thanksgiving with family and friends.  Now that my tryptophan coma has abated, it’s back to the ol’ computer.
 
I have received permissions to reprint drawings and photographs from my primary sources, Paul Lipke and Samuel Mark, so this build log can go forward.  I am deeply thankful to them for their courtesy and encouragement.  I am still waiting for the same from Nancy Jenkins’ publisher and from Dr. Cheryl Ward Haldane, whose work I also am relying on, but to a much lesser extent.
 
When section 1 left off I had identified the area of the boat that I wanted to model.  This was shown in the Primary Photograph taken during the boat’s reconstruction.  (Figure 11). 
 
The first task was therefore to determine exactly where this section of the boat was located.  Because the plank edges are covered I went to a drawing of the batten patterns originally created by Dr. Moustafa, reproduced by Lipke and then cleaned up and sharpened by Mark.   This is the common derivation of many of the drawings that I am using.  (Figure 12 – batten pattern). 
 
Although not precisely to scale it is accurate enough to use for this purpose.  Comparing plank and batten shapes, especially those large batten pieces, the only location which fits all the details starts near the bow end of the three center bottom planks.  For ease of comparison I have abstracted and rotated the section that I believe matches the photo. (see insert).  The model will therefore be a recreation of the slice of the hull between the red lines.
 
To develop working drawings of this area I turned to my good friend PhotoShop.  Using its expansion function and its rulers and guidelines, I could resize the drawings of the overall boat until they read as 43.6 meters long and 5.9 meters breadth.  I then took the batten pattern with the selected area and resized it to those overall drawings using landmarks such as plank shapes and joints to make them match.  Finally I took the most detailed plank expansion drawing made by Dr. Moustafa (as redrawn by Mark) and matched it to the prior two drawings.  The resulting multiple image made it easier for me to understand exactly what I was attempting. (Figure 13 – multiple sized drawings). 
 
It turned out that my selected area was located just forward of midships, with its aft edge a bit wider than the fore end.  It was also almost exactly 3 meters long, so I adjusted my design to fit that dimension.  This turned out to be a fortunate decision, as will be seen.
 
Another plank expansion drawing that was of great help was also created by Mark based on Lipke’s work. It is much simplified from Mustafa’s drawing and, although not to scale, shows some details more clearly.  (Figure 14 – Mark plank expansion). 
 
From the two plank expansion drawings I marked out the appropriate sections of the planks, cropped them from the larger drawings, enlarged them, rotated them, and matched them to each other.  Now I could get a more complete idea of the sizes and shapes of the plank sections that would make up the model. (Figure 15 – model planks). 
 
Close examination of these drawings also gave me information on several construction details that will be incorporated into the model.  First, the many rectangular marks on the planks in Moustafa’s drawing represent the ‘transverse lacing holes’ for the lashings that go from sheer to sheer.  They do not exactly match their sizes or locations as seen in the Primary Photo, but they are close.   As before, where there is a conflict between drawings and photographs, I go with the photos.  Second, the tenons between the plank edges are shown as small tabs on the sides of the planks (for the central three bottom planks the tenons are not indicated on this drawing, but they are on another of Mustafa’s plans). 
 
In Mark’s drawing, first note that most of the planks have notches, or joggles, that fit to the neighboring plank.  These would have prevented the planks from sliding past each other and would have given a great deal of lengthwise rigidity to the hull.  Second, in this drawing the rectangular marks give the locations of what have been called ‘strategic lacing holes’ to distinguish them from the ‘transverse lacing holes’.  Much more on these later.
 
Now was the time to decide a thorny philosophical question:  how much accuracy should I aim for?  The drawings are only accurate for a given value of ‘accurate’; they are not modern engineering blueprints.  Should I try to replicate every bump and irregularity of the planks in Moustafa’s drawing, or go for a smoother, simpler build closer to the look of Mark’s drawing.  I have to confess that I finally went for the simpler construction.  Not only would this speed the building process, but it may even be closer to the shapes that the planks had originally before they sat and warped for 4,500 years. Nonetheless, I will strive to make the model as true to the original boat as I can envision.
 
What scale should I use for the build?  It had to be selected so the model is not too small to reasonably build the fine details, yet not too large to make it unwieldly.  I started with 1:20, the same scale as Dr. Mustafa’s model, but the test model that I built proved too small to allow me to easily cut the hundreds of tunnels into the planks.  It taught me many important lessons, but ultimately had to be abandoned. (Figure 16 – small test model).  
 
I considered 1:15, which would have meant converting dimensions for each piece, and even 1:12 if I wanted to convert from metric dimensions to Imperial ones each time.  Both of these would involve lots of calculations which I could get wrong.
 
Ultimately, although it would make for a larger model, I settled on 1:10.  Since Mustafa, Lipke and Mark all use metric measurements, conversion would be a snap.  The overall size of the model will therefore be 59cm from sheer to sheer, 17.8cm bottom plank to the sheer, and 30cm front to back (23” x 7” x 12”).  This is, I believe, the same scale as the Texas A&M model.  It should make for a model with a considerable amount of detail, but one that can be easily viewed and understood.
 
Now the actual dimensions to cut each piece had to be established.  Only that one drawing of the planks has any measuring scale, and I understand that this was added after the drawing was made and, in any case, Mustafa did not want it published.  I therefore used it only for limited purposes and did not rely on it completely. 
 
Instead, I took all of the scaled and expanded drawings and compared the dimensions for the forward end of the combined three center planks.  Using not only the scale on the drawing but also my PhotoShop rulers, I got a pretty consistent width of 180cm.  Now to determine the size of each of the three planks.  Going back to the Primary Photograph I compared the width of each plank to the others, measured directly from the image on my computer screen (assuming that the plank edges are centered under the battens).  The ratio turned out to be four width units for plank 1, two units for plank 2, and three units for plank 3.  So if 9 width units equals 180cm, each unit is 20cm.  Therefore plank 1 is 80cm wide; plank 2 is 40cm; and plank 3 is 60cm (Figure 17).
 
I expanded the photo image until the PhotoShop rulers gave those same dimensions.  Now I could directly measure details in the photo.   The first was the size of the battens covering the plank edges.  From the photo I measured widths of between 15 and 17cm.  I will incorporate some variation, but I used 16cm as my basic width for the battens on the model.
 
Next was the spacing of the transverse lacing holes.  Looking at the patterns of holes it is obvious to me that they were chiseled in pairs (being the ends of the lacing tunnels in the planks).  They form double lines with the outer holes closer to the edges of the planks and the inner ones a reasonably consistent distance inside them.  Lipke records that the holes are spaced an average 10cm apart.  I don’t know what or where this was measured, but it doesn’t quite match the dimensions in the photo.  It may be that for these first planks the tunnels were a bit longer.  However, as before, where there is a conflict between the photographs and the written dimensions, I go with the photographs.  Directly measuring these holes I get a distance of 13 to 15cm between pairs, so I chose to average this to 14cm, and this is the dimension that I used.
 
The next question was - where are the lines of holes located in relation to the edges of the planks which are hidden by the battens?  Using 16cm for the width of the battens and adding another 5cm for the outer holes to clear the sides of the batten, this means that the outer holes will be located about 13cm from the edge of the plank, which matches several of the measured distances.    
 
The lacing holes are also important to determine the plank shapes.  If the double lines of holes are a set distance from the plank edges, then the distance between the two lines becomes a variable dependant on the shape of the plank.  If this distance is consistent, then the plank edges are parallel.  Based on this, Plank 1 has a consistent width, since the space between the inner holes does not seem to change.  Similarly, Plank 2 is also of consistent width although only half that of Plank 1. 
 
Plank 3, however, widens gradually as it moves away from the camera.  At the near end there are only three holes in the line running across the plank where the lacing is (for clarity I am calling this transverse line of holes a ‘set’, whether across one or multiple planks).  The three hole set at the near end of the plank is created when the plank is narrow and the inner holes of two lacing tunnels merge at the same spot.  But the lines start to diverge and by the fourth set there are four distinct and separate holes.  By the tenth set (seen just under the frame), the four holes are equally spaced across the plank, a gain of approximately 14cm.  This happens as the boat’s breadth widens toward the midships point.
 
How far apart are the sets of holes?  Lipke reports that they are approximately 25cm apart, a dimension which I adopted.  Now the fortunate decision to make the model span 3m of the boat came into its own.  With this spacing there will be 13 sets of holes with 12 spaces between them.  The two sets at the ends will be only half sets and will be open on the edges of the planks to show the construction of the lacing tunnels and mortice and tenon joints.  Sweet!
 
How large are the holes themselves?  They are recorded as being 7cm long and 1.5cm wide.  This would be reasonable for tunnels that would receive lashings of 5 ropes, each of approximately 1cm diameter.
 
A note here about dimensions.  The ancient Egyptians relied on measurements taken from the human body.  The average hand provides several of these.  If their hands were similar to mine, dimensions of 7cm (palm), 10cm (hand), 1.8cm (finger), and 24cm (span) are all readily available. (Figure 18).  There is also the cubit, known from Noah’s ark, which is the distance from the tips of the fingers to the elbow and estimated to be 50cm.  All of these could be quickly used by the workmen to mark out the hole locations.  Of course having some sort of simple ruler or measuring device is too obvious to ignore, but it was likely based on the hand dimensions as well.
 
Merging all of this information I developed a measured construction drawing for the three center planks. It is a little rough because it is only a working drawing, but the measurements are accurate enough to use. Printed out full size it became the pattern for cutting and detailing each plank.  (Figure 19).
 
 
I incorporated three additional details into the working drawing.  From the several plank expansion drawings it appears that there are joggles between the three planks to help lock them together.  So although the lines of lacing holes appear reasonably straight, I have shown the two joggles which will be hidden by the battens in the final model.  The locations of the eight mortice and tenon joints between the planks were taken from Dr. Mustafa’s drawing, although their size and shapes will be further examined as they come up in the building process.  Similarly, the strategic holes are located as indicated in the drawings but their details may be changed during construction.
 
At the bottom of the drawing is a cross sectional sketch of the plank ends.  The lacing tunnels and mortice locations are marked in grey.  I imagine that the sides of the tunnels would have been chiseled out from both directions at around 45 degrees, thus meeting in the middle approximately 6-7cm below the face of the plank.  The merged tunnels of plank 3 create the 3-hole set seen in the Primary Photo. It is also clear that the mortices, if cut into the edge of the plank at about mid-thickness, never come near interfering with the lacing tunnels or weakening the plank. 
 
The outer edges of planks 1 and 3 are beveled to accept the garboard strakes.  Lipke records the angle between the center and garboard planks to be 40 degrees, so the bevel was carved to 20 degrees, and the same will be done for the edge of the garboard.
 
I know that I have used straight lines in several places where the photo shows slightly irregular and meandering lines.  I will be cutting and chiseling the wood by hand, so there will be some variation built into the construction process, but I do recognize that I have simplified the model a bit.  Hopefully, not too much to make a major difference to any conclusions that I may draw from building it.   
 
With this drawing in hand it is finally time to start cutting wood!
 
More soon.
 
Dan
 

Hi again to all - 
 
Thanks for the likes and interest.
 
My next segment was going to be the development of my scaled and measured working drawings.  For the illustrations I need to include the copyright materials, for which I have only partial permissions.  So instead, this will be part 3, a discussion of Egyptian construction methods, moved up to part 2.  The sequence numbers for the images are therefore out of order, but they are all from open source websites.
 
Before cutting wood, I wanted to look into historic Egyptian shipbuilding.  I made a commitment on this model to build it by relying on the original Egyptian techniques, at least as closely as possible for only one workman building a miniature.  So here is a quick dip into the original techniques might have been in use at the time that the Khufu ship was built. 
 
I was fortunate in this regard with information from a remarkably preserved tomb which has a series of wall carvings that show boats under construction.  In the cemetery at Saqqara is the tomb, or mastaba, of Ti (or Ty).  He was a long serving senior official and royal architect during the Fifth Dynasty, only 100 years or so after the Fourth Dynasty, the time of Pharaoh Khufu.  The tomb was discovered in the late 1800s by French archaeologist August Mariette and has some of the best bas-relief carvings of daily life from Egypt’s Old Kingdom.  In one of the outer chambers is a unique carved wall showing five boats under construction and two side panels with men working on planks for the boats. (Figure 21). 
 
It is a shame that I could not find a color image of the wall, just some smaller sections, since the carvings and even the polychrome pigments have survived for all this time. (Figure 22 – ti wall detail).  
 
Ti is known to have been in charge of the decoration of the tombs of several Pharaohs, so he must have had a long career where he was perfectly placed to assign the best craftsmen to work on his own tomb.  In this close-up you can see that even individual fingers were delicately carved.  You can certainly see what the workmen are doing and the strange tools that they are using.  (Figure 23 – using adzes)
 
Here are a selection of the actual tools.  At the top is a large axe, with two different saws below it, while at the bottom left are several small awls and chisels.  In the middle is a bent wood bow for a drill.  The largest tool, the one the workmen are using, is an adze, like a plane blade mounted on a bent handle. (Figure 24 – tools).
 
In Figure 23, above, three workmen are using adzes to trim wood and to smooth the outside planks of the hull, a technique called dubbing that is still used today.  The quality of the carving is so high that you can see the subtle differences in the shapes of the adze handles to do the two different tasks.  In the hieroglyphics there are representations of several tools.  Above the upper worker is a short handled axe, a hatchet.  To the right of the feather is an awl or chisel.  Maybe the rest of the symbols are talking about that tool, but I have no idea.
 
In the next scene a man is doing some sawing with a weighted stick and rope that is holding the kerf in the workpiece open (or closed, it is not clear).  Two others are sitting on an upended plank and chiseling mortices into its edge.  Above them seem to be carved images of the two types of saws and another chisel. (Figure 25).
 
In the third detail image the first man is, I believe, using a two-handed sledgehammer.  A similar type of hammer is still used to drive in fence posts.  The second man, who seems to be left-handed, is holding an awl or a marking tool, it is impossible to tell.  In the carvings the only thing that might be a tool is the twisted rope at the top left.  But what the paired faces of the monkey and Alfred E. Newman are supposed to be saying, I truly have no idea. (Figure 26).
 
What does all this mean for my project?  That the ancient Egyptians built their boats with the same techniques that we would use if all the electricity were turned off.  They were not stupid or unsophisticated, and didn’t need the help of aliens to build boats or pyramids.  I feel confident that my use of similar techniques, but with a few power tools, will not compromise the historic accuracy that I am working to achieve.
 
More soon when I can post drawings.
 
Be well
 
Dan

Some thoughts on the construction of the Khufu solar barge derived by building an accurate scale cross section model.
By Dan Pariser
 
   First, thanks to all who have followed me from my prior build log of the SS Mayaguez.  Thanks as well for all the likes and comments and suggestions that this community provided on that project.
   As will be seen, this project is based on information, plans and drawings which have much less precision and certainty than when I was building that modern steel-hulled ship.  I invite and request that all of the readers of this log give me their comments and suggestions to improve the model and keep me from going too far astray.
 
Part 1 - background and research
 
     Ancient civilizations have always fascinated me, especially Pharaonic Egypt, whose culture and religion were so focused on death and the afterlife.  Other early peoples were certainly focused on death, mostly the death of their enemies in war, but this one was all about their own deaths.  Strange.
   
     Somehow though, this philosophy led to some the greatest architectural, engineering and artistic works of the dawn of history.  This was true in shipbuilding as well.  Since the land is dominated by the long, straight river Nile, boats were incredibly important to move people and goods up and down its narrow fertile valley.  Boats of all types are depicted on the walls of tombs and were taken into the afterlife as models which would magically become real for the use of the deceased when the right spells and chants were said. 
 
   One of the oldest of these, and the best preserved, is the solar barge or funerary boat of the Pharaoh Khufu, also known as Cheops, the builder of the Great Pyramid at Giza.  (Figure 1) He wanted to take it with him into the afterlife, not as a model, but the actual boat.  To do this he had it fully built and then disassembled and buried in a sealed underground limestone crypt (Figure 2) next to his pyramid where it remained from about 2,560 BCE till being discovered in 1954, a span of over 4,500 years.  Yet because the seals had not been broken the wood was still in remarkably good condition. (Figure 3). 

   A team led by Egyptian archaeologist Dr. Hag Ahmed Youssef Moustafa spent 13 years putting back together its more than 2000 pieces.  The fully assembled boat was displayed in its own modern purpose built museum next to the Great Pyramid (Figure 4).  It has recently been moved to new quarters with better air conditioning in the Grand Egyptian Museum in Cairo.
 
   The saga of the discovery and reconstruction has been documented by American historic marine construction expert Paul Lipke (Lipke) based on over a hundred hours of translated interviews with Dr. Moustafa and hundreds of photographs and drawings of the boat and its parts made during the reconstruction. (The Royal Ship of Cheops, British Archaeological Reports, 1984).   His fascinating and comprehensive report is mandatory reading for anyone interested in this iconic craft.  He reproduces dozens of photographs of the reconstruction process and gives precise measurements for many of the boat’s details.  He also drew preliminary scale plans of the boat. (Figure 5).  
    Many additional photographs can be found in the book, “The Boat Beneath the Pyramid” by Nancy Jenkins, another must-read source, while other drawings and plans were developed by famed marine archeologist Bjorn Landstrom in “Ships of the Pharaohs”.  The final source that was central to this article is “The Construction of the Khufu I Vessel (c.2566 BC): a Re-Evaluation” by Samuel Mark (Mark) of Texas A&M University, published in the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2009).
 
     From Lipke’s initial plans and measurements various drawings have been created of the boat which give a better idea of its particulars. (Figure 6).  As you can see, the boat itself has a striking shape.  It is quite long at 43.6m (142 feet), but with a breadth of only 5.9m (19 feet) at its widest point.  Its shallow draft is only 1.78m (6 feet) from keel to sheer, with a freeboard from waterline to sheer of less than a meter.   The boat tapers symmetrically to points at both ends which curve up high above the waterline with carved ends that reflect the shape of papyrus reed boats from the dawn of Egyptian history.  On deck is a lightly built deckhouse which may have housed the Pharaoh’s coffin and a small open altar near the bow.
 
     Its construction is unusual to us as well.  Hull planks, 12cm (5 inch) thick, are fitted to their neighbors with mortice and tenon joints.  The planks are then laced to each other with ropes that snake through “V” shaped tunnels chiseled into the interior faces of the planks.  Rounded battens cover the plank seams and are held in place with the same lashings. (Figure 7).   Multiple beams span the hull from sheer to sheer, locked in place and strengthened by two notched side stringers above the beams and a central spine below.  The central spine is supported on short stanchions which rest on frames which spread the deck loads to the bottom planks.  These too are held in place with rope lashings. (Figure 8).   Taken together, the wooden pieces and lashings form a truss structure which would have been quite strong and rigid.
 
     However, these cross sectional and perspective drawings are somewhat simplified and stylized.  There are also two cross section models that I know of, but they are also similarly simplified, although the one built for Texas A&M University is quite accurate in its general configuration. (Figure 9).  This is perhaps because no one has been able to accurately measure and draw plans based on the actual ship.  Even the plans drawn by Lipke were derived from a 1:20 scale model built by Dr. Moustafa to aid his reconstruction work. 
 
    Compared to photographs of the boat’s interior, the profiles in the drawings and the model are too high and steep, the planks are too regular, the battens covering the plank seams are too narrow, rounded and straight, the lashings are too regular, and the tunnels that the lashings go through are not accurately represented. (Figure 10).  Because of this, certain conclusions about construction methods and sequences have been made which are, in my opinion, somewhat inaccurate.

     I decided to attempt the construction of a precise scale cross section of a specific location in the boat to see if I could replicate a workable method and sequence for how it might have been built.  I also resolved to build it as was done by the Egyptians, with mortice and tenon joints, rope lashings, and, most of all, no other fasteners or glue. To do this, instead of relying on the prior drawings I went back to the original boat. 
  
     Although I have no access to the boat itself, there are photographs of the exterior planking and interior structures which are reproduced in the several sources mentioned before, as well as on the internet.  I am also indebted to Mr. Lipke who kindly provided me with others from his personal collection.  Then there are the drawings created by Dr. Moustafa from the boat pieces, as reproduced by Lipke and Mark.  Though many are noted as not being to scale, they are the closest to accurate drawings as can be found.  Wherever there was a conflict between the photos and the drawings, I went with the photos.  Finally, there are drawings on contemporary tomb walls showing boats under construction, as well as academic studies of contemporary boats which also informed my investigation, and which will be referenced later.  These were used a supplements to the first two.
 
     From these I selected one photograph which contained many of the construction details that I wanted to recreate.  Here is that shot, an interior view of the hull taken during reconstruction. I call it my Primary Photograph. (Figure 11). Contrasted with the simplified drawings and models, it shows planks of various widths and shapes, lashing holes in irregular patterns, and flat battens which are pieced together from short sections with angled ends.  Note the large triangular batten piece to the left which must cover seams between several planks. 
   
   Based on the photo I decided to build out the model from the line of lacing in the foreground to just beyond the dark frame, which would then include the large square batten pieces tied with crossed ropes that are sitting just in front of the frame. This would give the model sufficient visual interest for the viewer yet still allow my close adherence to traditional building methods.  
 
     Next time, the development of the working drawings.
 
     Be well
 
     Dan
 
    

Okay, another brief update. The outer hull is painted. It needs a bit of touch up, but otherwise is in pretty good shape.
 

 
I've subsequently started the deck. Annoyingly, the main deck needs to be 24.5 inches long, and I can primarily find 24 inch long lumber. So, the question is whether to do a proper, stepped set of planks or to find some alternative. Ultimately I remembered that the last couple of inches of the main deck are covered by a monkey poop and won't really be visible (as seen here):
 

 
So, bottom line is that I'm just going to join them all at the stern. It's not as neat as staggered joints, but it will be hidden, so, no matter. The forecastle is closed on the Discovery, so the deck only needs to extend a bit forward of the third bulkhead.
 

 
As always, thanks for looking in and the likes!
 
Regards,
George
 
 

Well, finally doing an update. It's been a somewhat chaotic time for me. I'm preemptively looking for a new position, and we went on vacation with my older daughter who lives in Boise. So, good and bad, but either way reduced time in the shipyard. However, before we get there, a couple of photos from our time with our daughter in the Dakotas. We met her in Denver and drove to Rapid City and stopped a bit on the way. So, first, in Nebraska (where she lived before she moved to Boise, but never saw these sights.
 
Scott's Bluff National Monument:

 
Chimney Rock National Historic Site:
 

 
Into the Black Hills of South Dakota, we have a number of sites.
 
Mount Rushmore National Memorial:
 

 
Wind Cave National Park. Unfortunately, the cave was closed, but the park has amazing hiking:
 

 
and all kinds of interesting wildlife including prairie dog towns and these:
 

 
Badlands National Park where we saw Bighorn Sheep and rugged country:
 

 
Devil's Tower in eastern Wyoming:
 

 
FYI - on a nautical theme, this is an old photo, but you see it everywhere in Wyoming:
 

 
Finally, one additional stop, Minuteman Missile National Historical Site. We stopped at the Visitors Center but for some reason they had closed the actual missile site that day. Nevertheless, here is the Delta-9 site.
 

 
One thing I have never been able to explain to my children (who are 26 and 24) is the existential dread that we all had during the Cold War. As I've mentioned in one of my other build logs, I remember the Destroyer I was on being shadowed by a Krivak in the Med off the coast of Lebanon in 1984, the Able Archer 83 fallout, and when I was in Kyiv in 2008, it was really weird to go visit the Mother Ukraine statue (then called the Rodina Mat) and see something similar to this in the form of an R12 MRBM. I certainly never expected to get this close to a (decommissioned) missile silo in my younger days. I wonder if I might have been able to provide a bit more context to my daughter if she had been able to see the missile in situ (it's visible through a glass cupola you can see in the center of the photo so that its decommissioned status can be verified by satellite) but this was the best we could do.
 
On to the model. I've sanded the hull to where it is now ready to start accepting some of the additional components that are needed prior to painting it for real. This is the first version of the lower mount for the rudder (I realized the join piece in the middle is in the wrong place and remade it, but it gives you the idea for what I'm doing. The two roughly triangular pieces mount on the stern post, and the connector is used to create a circular mounting point for the bottom of the rudder 1/8 of an inch in diameter, with a doubled connection of 1/16 inch, with the rest of the connector (the two, 1/8 inch segments closest to the triangular elements mounted on the back of the keel. 
 

 
If that sounds a bit weird, here it is in situ, you can see where the loop is made and the connector is. In addition, I used a ponce wheel on some copper tape to mark some additional ironwork that is on the keel and the sternpost.
 

 

 
Discovery has iron plates on the bow to aid in the breaking of ice. These are being made from copper tape to keep them from getting too far out of scale. I'm looking for some very tiny nails to use on the tape to represent the relatively small number of bolts. I'll see what I can find - if I can't find small enough ones I'll leave them off - they won't be very visible once they are painted anyway. The iron shield extends slightly above the load water line, which is now marked on the hull (you can see it as a pencil line). In fact, I used the LWL to direct the placement of the copper tape representing the plates. You will also see that I have installed some (unpainted) wood that represents the continuation of the main rail once it reaches the forecastle.
 

 
Finally, I pre-bent and did the initial trim on the trailboards (I hope I've got the right terminology here, please correct me if I'm wrong). They will contain the scrollwork on the stem and will not go on until after the hull is painted, but I wanted to shape them first. My plan is to practice carving the scroll work on scrap until I'm confident enough to do the job and then work on the shaped pieces, but here they are for now. Initial piece (soaked in hot water and allowed to dry on the model.
 

 
And with the initial trimming. I think I need to trim the area that currently overlaps the prow - need to check back with the plans.
 

 
Pardon the long and rambling post. As always, thanks for looking in!
 
Regards,
George
 
 

Hi Guys,
recovery is going slow but I am out in the shop modeling again, I am working on an extremely simple Chesapeake Bay buy boat.  probably won't try working on Mary Rose again till next winter.

Quick update - I finished painting the hull. I used unwaxed shellac as a sealer. You can see some places where I didn't quite put on enough - lots of deep lines where the planks meet. The paint bonded well to the shellac.
 
The blue was a bit disappointing - a bit too dark. I used Liquitex ultramarine blue, but it dried much darker than I expected. Most of their paints don't shift colors appreciably when they dry, but this one does. I should have tested first, but I didn't want to add yet a third coat onto the model, so I'm leaving it. It still looks fine in bright light.
 
For the hull color, I used equal mixes of Model-expo's white and Liquitex unbleached titanium. I wanted to see how well the Liquitex works compared to the MSW by itself and it worked very well
 
At the line where the hull tallow color meets the black, I used 1/8"Tamiya masking tape. Over that I used a Scotch brand masking tape for automobile detailing. The Tamiya tape is wonderful - it easily peeled off. The Scotch tape was far too sticky and ended up pulling the paint off the model where I didn't seal it very well. A bit of touch up work fixed the issue.
 
I forgot to paint the window frames, but I'll do that later. Now it's on to finishing the gunports and start working deck details.