A test frame for practice.

[John Murray]

I hope this is the right forum for this subject.
I have been busy getting my garage sorted out with my tools after shifting house.
I have bought the plans for the Swan Class HMS Pegasus. I printed out a cant frame to use the machinery for the 1 time. It was ok only. (I am not a woodworker and so need to start from scratch.)
This is my 2nd attempt and making frame K in the set. I started with Basswood 30x50x1000mm and wanted a board t.7mm thick, 1000 long and 46mm wide. To get the 46mm wide I need to trim the width of the board to 46mm. A cut, a flip and a second cut gave me the 46mm width. In pics with hands showing, the machine was turned off so pics could show what I intended to do.
I printed the patterns out and checked the printed size with a ruler. It was spot on so trimmed the patterns, glued them on with PVA and waited for them to dry. 
I then trimmed them with my scrollaw then cleaned further with my disc sander. I used my Perma Grit files to clean then after that in places the machinery couldn't fix.
Once dry, I then bevelled the frames with the files and sanded the paper off.
As I say, this is only to get practice, nothing more.
Does anything stand out that I could improve on? I am doing this with nothing but youtube and internet to guide me.

[bruce d]

Hello John,

First, well done for doing a 'dress rehearsal' of a vital process.

Just a point concerning the images: it appears the grain in all three pieces is going in the same direction. When you do it for real, I believe the centre piece should have the grain running cross-ways. The direction of grain will was a primary factor in construction for the original shipwrights and will apply in many components in a serious model.

The fit looks good, will watch for next steps. 👍

[John Murray]

14 minutes ago, bruce d said:

Hello John,

First, well done for doing a 'dress rehearsal' of a vital process.

Just a point concerning the images: it appears the grain in all three pieces is going in the same direction. When you do it for real, I believe the centre piece should have the grain running cross-ways. The direction of grain will was a primary factor in construction for the original shipwrights and will apply in many components in a serious model.

The fit looks good, will watch for next steps. 👍

Cheers for that bruce. ☺ That is one thong I didn't address in this piece as so far there was no need. I have been somewhat limited in my thinking due to the proxxon thicknesser and planer can only handlle 80mm wide pieces. i cannot slit 80 mm into a board. Maximum is 46mm with the byrnes table saw. Does that makes sense. I need to investigate how to do this.

Justvreread your comment. The centre piece should be running crossways. Gotcha now👍

Regards

John

Edited September 8, 2022 by John Murray

[Jaager]

6 hours ago, John Murray said:

I printed out a cant frame to use the machinery for

The general way that you did this is OK for a cant frame - because a cant frame is usually a single isolated frame that meets the deadwood at less than 90 degrees. The port side frame is separate from the starboard.

 

6 hours ago, John Murray said:

I started with Basswood

I suggest that you give serious consideration to a species that is a lot harder than Basswood.  The only positive characteristics are that it has no visible grain and has no pores. 

The fibers are easy to crush.  They tend to roll.  It is difficult to keep a crisp edge.

I strongly advise that you use a domestic species that is commercially available.  I am unfamiliar with which domestic species are sold on your continent.   Using the positive characteristics of Basswood grain and pore,  try to find something that is as close as possible.  The  "no visible pores" is the most important characteristic.  A darker color is probably going to be impossible to avoid.   Climate change is probably going to have an adverse effect on availability and cost.  This along with inflation will probably make anyone's imports from anywhere to anywhere economically painful.

 

6 hours ago, John Murray said:

glued them on with PVA and waited for them to dry

I did this with my first POF scratch build.  There is a much easier way.   The water in the PVA can affect the paper.  It takes a day to dry.  The pattern will certainly stand up to any abuse while scroll cutting, drum sanding, and fairing.  But boy is it a lot of work to remove.  Doing it also has an affect on the final thickness of the frames.

I find that rubber cement does an adequate job.  I use a quality brand.  One 4oz bottle with a brush applicator in the cap and a Pint or quart stock bottle to keep it filled.  A stock bottle of the solvent -n-heptane and a bulb pipette to add the ~5ml / 120 ml needed to keep a proper consistency is pretty much necessary.  Apply a serious layer to both the pattern and the wood stock.  When dry (5-15 min) place the pattern.  be careful because no adjustment is possible.  Burnish.  I use a single edge razor blade to get under the pattern to remove it.  The residual on the wood will roll up under your thumb.  A scraper gets it really clean.  Another single edge is a good enough tool for this.

 

If you are interested, I will address the problems that I see with your frame fabrication in a subsequent post.

[mtaylor]

Looking good and Jaager has some good suggestions as well as the one Bruce mentioned.    I would  go a bit easy on the beveling of the frame.  Leave some meat there as sanding prior to planking will get you dead on.  Better to have a bit more wood for sanding/shaping than not enough.

[John Murray]

11 hours ago, mtaylor said:

Looking good and Jaager has some good suggestions as well as the one Bruce mentioned.    I would  go a bit easy on the beveling of the frame.  Leave some meat there as sanding prior to planking will get you dead on.  Better to have a bit more wood for sanding/shaping than not enough.

Yes, I shall be doing that. This is just for practice, nowt else.

[John Murray]

12 hours ago, Jaager said:

The general way that you did this is OK for a cant frame - because a cant frame is usually a single isolated frame that meets the deadwood at less than 90 degrees. The port side frame is separate from the starboard.

 

I suggest that you give serious consideration to a species that is a lot harder than Basswood.  The only positive characteristics are that it has no visible grain and has no pores. 

The fibers are easy to crush.  They tend to roll.  It is difficult to keep a crisp edge.

I strongly advise that you use a domestic species that is commercially available.  I am unfamiliar with which domestic species are sold on your continent.   Using the positive characteristics of Basswood grain and pore,  try to find something that is as close as possible.  The  "no visible pores" is the most important characteristic.  A darker color is probably going to be impossible to avoid.   Climate change is probably going to have an adverse effect on availability and cost.  This along with inflation will probably make anyone's imports from anywhere to anywhere economically painful.

 

I did this with my first POF scratch build.  There is a much easier way.   The water in the PVA can affect the paper.  It takes a day to dry.  The pattern will certainly stand up to any abuse while scroll cutting, drum sanding, and fairing.  But boy is it a lot of work to remove.  Doing it also has an affect on the final thickness of the frames.

I find that rubber cement does an adequate job.  I use a quality brand.  One 4oz bottle with a brush applicator in the cap and a Pint or quart stock bottle to keep it filled.  A stock bottle of the solvent -n-heptane and a bulb pipette to add the ~5ml / 120 ml needed to keep a proper consistency is pretty much necessary.  Apply a serious layer to both the pattern and the wood stock.  When dry (5-15 min) place the pattern.  be careful because no adjustment is possible.  Burnish.  I use a single edge razor blade to get under the pattern to remove it.  The residual on the wood will roll up under your thumb.  A scraper gets it really clean.  Another single edge is a good enough tool for this.

 

If you are interested, I will address the problems that I see with your frame fabrication in a subsequent post.

Cheers,  My first test was a cant frame. This was frame K of the Pegasus.
Re the Basswood, I bought that to act as a filler in between bulkheads on my two kits, especially near the bow and stern. That isn't for actual frames. So far that is the only wood I had available which is why I used that. 
Never heard of rubber cement, I will visit Hammer barn and see what they have. The PVA was at hand. I do take your point re the thickness.
I would appreciate your thoughts on what you see. I am a complete beginner at woodworking. This is only done to familiarise myself and have a play.
I have 2 plank on frame kits to do first before I consider a scratch build.:)

[Jaager]

9 hours ago, John Murray said:

I have 2 plank on frame kits to do first before I consider a scratch build.:) Pending builds:  Victory Models HMS Pegasus and HMS Vanguard

I will digress a bit before I start.   These two kits are Amati POB kits and they are Italian as the primary plans language, even if translated.

 

POB and POF are two entirely different methods of hull construction. 

Once a POB hull is planked and decked - there is essentially no difference from POF in what you do after.

Unless fillers are used between every mold, the POB hull, before it is planked, is about as attractive as a mud fence.

Even the most basic POF hull tends to be elegant.

 

Pegasus is a 6th rate,  a 3 masted man of war.  It may appear small and easy but it is not.

Vanguard is a 3rd rate,  a 74.  This is a formidable beast.   A 120 gun 1st rate at first seems twice as large,  but it is generally just more tedious.  There are more decks and more guns - but that is just more repetition of the same thing - over and over. 

 

Prior experience with plastic kits is probably more of a hindrance than a help for building a wooden ship model kit.  The primary reason is that it tends to lead to unrealistic expectations are far as what the kit instructions provide.  Pegasus will come at you with expectation that you have an in depth background in the basic skills and techniques.  The instructions for large vessels tend to start from this point.

 

You may well be one of the ~5% exceptions who finish when starting at a very advanced project.  But with every project,  even the most experienced of us hit patches where we get frustrated, weary, lose inspiration, and take a break.   Those who find themselves in deeper water than they had imagined when enthusiasm was dominant,  tend not to come back when they hit this patch.

 

You might should consider delaying these two projects.  Give a thought to "going to school" on the basics.  While not the only way by any means,  the MS Model Shipwright series is a safer way to gain experience.  There will be plenty of help here. 

[Jaager]

I wrote this before you wrote that this was not a serious beginning of a scratch hull using POF.

 

 

I will start this photo by photo.

Photo 1 and  2:
 Get a digital caliper.  Precision is more important than accuracy.  You only need to be internally consistent and reproducible.  A steel ruler is only really good for length and eyeball estimate.

Photo 3 and 4:
The NRG saw jig will be a big help.  Use a push stick and or covering board.  The Byrens saw will not bit as deeply as a 10 inch saw but a mistake can ruin your whole day.  The primary job of a table saw is to eat your fingers if you give it a chance.

 

The rest of the photos:

The patterns are for bends
A bend is a pair of frames that each side strengthen the butt joins of its partner..
A major advantage of POF is that frames are built up using timbers.
The timbers are intended to be as straight a section as possible.
In full size, there are limitations on the size of the stock that a tree can provide.
Timbers tended to be 5-8 feet long.  The tops where the moulded dimension not wide and were not as heavy could sustain a much longer piece.
The butts of the timbers  of one frame meet in the middle of its partner frame timber.  The overlap makes for a strong join.
Your frame should two layers.  Your stock is twice as thick as it should be.   You do not even have the most important timber = the floor timber.

Photo 19:
The wood where the floor timber and F1 would be as well as the (twice as wide as it should be) cross chock all have cross grain.  Cross grain is just wrong.

 

[Jaager]

Your patterns indicate where  the timbers are for each of the pair of frames.
This means that with multiple short segments,  you do not need frame stock that is all that wide.  
The way you are proposing to do this is probably not sustainable.   It just will not work for bends at the midship.  This is most of the bends.
When it is broken down into timbers,  the stock width problem is solved.

       I prefer 1:60.  It is close to museum scale which allows for detail.  It is 0.8 less in any one dimension, but the product of the three yields a hull that has 50% of the volume.   Stock that is 2" wide works for any hull for me - even a first rate.  I find that 2 foot long stock is my sweet stock for bench top handling.
I hate cants.  I will not use them.  I use full bends all the way to the FP and AP.  The bevel gets really interesting at the ends.  The keystone shape of the floor timber - being very deep and sometimes wider that 2" of a large  hull means that for some liner hulls 4" stock is necessary.  This is inconvenient.

After years of experimenting, I have found that the optimal method is to use a 14" bandsaw to slice the 2" wide stock from my piece of lumber.  How much extra to set the slice thickness is a continuous challenge..
Too thick and there is waste and tedious extra passes thru the thickness sander.  Too little and the bandsaw blade scars are not removed.  It becomes stock for the next smaller hull.
A poor quality bandsaw can produce cuts with blade deviation.  Wedge shaped slices are difficult to rescue and are never going to work for this hull.
The efficiency of a bandsaw for this makes renting time on one from someone who has one worth it.  I have addressed which type blade more economical in other posts.

 

[Jaager]

Once you have the timbers scroll cut and rough shaped,  the problem is how it assemble them to get the accurate shape.
The POF literature has several methods that attempt to solve this problem
Long quilters pins are useful for this.  
Where to place the pins?
The pattern needs to get into a computer graphics program.  Adjustment of the scale of the printed output is a necessary task.   A raster based program will work well enough.  All that is needed is very basic tools,  
PS in the cloud is quick and dirty, but potentially expensive.
Inside the timbers does not work for many of them when the bevel gets interesting.  There is no inside that is common at either outside face.  The holes need repair.  Dowels are difficult and are fragile at scale.
I solved this by placing the pin locations outside the shape of the bends.  
I use 4 for each timber.  At each corner but not too far.  Sanding the butts will remove sites that are too far.  Close to the pattern lines but not too close.  The holes can mar the sides of the frames.
Rather than guess each site, I made a jig.  It is a 7point Ariel Black "o" merged with a 4 point Ariel Black "o".  The lower case letter o is mostly round.  The inside of the 4 pt is small enough to leave no guessing and the outside of the 7 pt is far enough out if it just kisses the pattern line.

The timbers are a bit wider.  The additional waste is only interesting at the last 2 or 3 stations at either end.
An additional advantage is that there can be an identical pattern on either face of the bend.  This means that all 4 lines are available instead of 3 and guessing the 4th.
You are using plans that already have the bends patterns extrapolated.  I use lines plans and derive my own timber patterns.  I found that extracting three outside and three inside patterns for 60 - 100 bends was beyond tedious and took a long time.   I only use the existing station lines for the outside and made a jig in Painter to quickly draw the inside moulded shape.  I shape each station section of bends as a unit.
It is way way quicker.

A part that needs practice is the timber to timber butt join.  If I try to sand to the middle of the line - that is usually too much.  There is a gap.  I use a 1.5 or 2 pixel line.  I just kiss the line - no white.  This usually produces a tight joint.  It will take practice.

 

[Jaager]

The cross chock that this plan uses is one of roughly four methods of dealing with the butt of F1 port and F1 stb over the keel.   The French often used a more complicated chock system.   A half floor is strong and is easy.  It is more timber expensive.  A long arm F1 meeting a short arm F1 was used on later 19th century merchantmen.  Which was the long arm alternated bend to bend.
The butting of F1 to F1 over the keel was almost universally forbidden.  It would be interesting to know how far back that this was discovered to be a very bad practice and how long it took to figure it out.

Your disc sander   will be useful for the timber butts.  It will be difficult to impossible for a lot of the outside bevels.  It will be essentially useless for the inside bevels.
A sanding drum is the tool.  There are sleeve drums.  The drums are rubber.  The sleeves are fitted by squishing the rubber.  The outward expansion is not always uniform, There is often an out of round situation.  The sleeves have to be bought and are not low cost.  The grit choices are limited.
Sleeveless drums use standard 9x11 sandpaper sheets with a range of grits.  There is a 3inch diameter drum that is 6 inches long.  There are a variety of 3 inch long drum diameters -  3 inch down to 1/2" (if the pad layer is removed.  This helps with inside bevels.  
For POF a table for the drum is mostly in the way.  Almost none of it is 90 degrees.
The machine needed is a 1/3HP or 1/2HP motor with a 1/2" shaft.   The amount of dust generated is impressive.  An open motor runs the risk of becoming dust filled and burning up.
A low cost standard drill press will work.  It would be especially useful if the motor will rotate 180 degrees.   Working with nothing but the stock above the drum is most convenient.  The line being sanded to is easier to illuminate and see.  
A piece of 12" x 12" Masonite with a 1/2" hole in the middle that is placed on the motor shaft right where it exits the motor keeps dust from the motor.
I made mine using a 1/3 HP TEFC 1700 RPM motor.  For sanding wood, 1700 RPM is about as fast as is functional.  Used steel braces and brackets from Home Depot as an Erector Set type motor mount.   Most of my effort was spent adding a table that has not been needed.
A used motor would be a cost efficient way to gain this tool, but a quality new motor  would probably cost more than a mass market spindle sander.  A major negative to a spindle sander is that the motors seem to come with proprietary shaft mounts .  There are a wide variety of cutting, grinding and sanding tools that use a standard 1.2" shaft attachment,
Dust collection and not breathing it will be a challenge and you will want a stage 4 hazmat suit and no matter what you do, your environment will drip with sawdust.   Even in my garage, if I lived with a female, I would face summary execution for the amount and area of dust spread.

 

Looking at my La Renommee build log may help show what I an describing.  It was intended to be a basic methods demonstration.  It is a pseudo carved hull  but it is POF without the spaces.   Dealing with the spaces about doubles the work.  This project was about quick and dirty.

Edited September 9, 2022 by Jaager

[No Idea]

Just my thoughts on this and I'm new to building frames too.................

 

Firstly accuracy is the most important thing as cumulative errors make such an impact over the entire hull.  So as suggested you need some digital callipers to make your measurements exact.

 

Secondly use a hardwood such as Costello or Pear wood as it's easier to be accurate as it holds an edge.  I didn't really understand this until I used it.

 

Thirdly the bevels that are marked on the drawings show the exact final shape and it's easy to just shape the frames to these lines......however the chances of anyone lining up 50+ frames to the exact alignment are slim.  So use them as a guide and leave some on for final shaping.

 

Forth - I use permagrit tools for rough shaping too and have found them to be excellent for this job.  But they do leave deep score so again leave something to work with to make your frames look pretty.  Now that I've had a go I prefer using spoke shaves.

 

Finally - building a Pegasus as a first plank on frame build.  That is one hell of an ask as it's going to be an epic build which will take years.  I've started much smaller and I'm happy with the challenges my little POF build is throwing at me.

 

Good luck and please keep us updated as I'm in on your build 😀

[dvm27]

That's a very respectable frame for a new scratch builder John. Others have made excellent comments above and I agree with all of them. 

 

Do no fair the frames to the bevel lines. I do no pre-beveling on my plank on frame models. If you do so, leave at least 1/16" extra to account for the inevitable errors that occur when installing the frames. As well, use a digital caliper to make sure all frames are to speck with regards to thickness. Cumulative error is always waiting to get you!

 

If you like tools invest in an oscillating spindle sander. It is the best way I know to shape the inside of the frame. You don't need the model with the angled table.

 

Consider building a cross-section to get frame fundamentals down. Below is a photo of my swan class cross-section  Pegasus. It's a great way get some of the basics of scratch building down.

 

[John Murray]

9 hours ago, Jaager said:

I will digress a bit before I start.   These two kits are Amati POB kits and they are Italian as the primary plans language, even if translated.

 

POB and POF are two entirely different methods of hull construction. 

Once a POB hull is planked and decked - there is essentially no difference from POF in what you do after.

Unless fillers are used between every mold, the POB hull, before it is planked, is about as attractive as a mud fence.

Even the most basic POF hull tends to be elegant.

 

Pegasus is a 6th rate,  a 3 masted man of war.  It may appear small and easy but it is not.

Vanguard is a 3rd rate,  a 74.  This is a formidable beast.   A 120 gun 1st rate at first seems twice as large,  but it is generally just more tedious.  There are more decks and more guns - but that is just more repetition of the same thing - over and over. 

 

Prior experience with plastic kits is probably more of a hindrance than a help for building a wooden ship model kit.  The primary reason is that it tends to lead to unrealistic expectations are far as what the kit instructions provide.  Pegasus will come at you with expectation that you have an in depth background in the basic skills and techniques.  The instructions for large vessels tend to start from this point.

 

You may well be one of the ~5% exceptions who finish when starting at a very advanced project.  But with every project,  even the most experienced of us hit patches where we get frustrated, weary, lose inspiration, and take a break.   Those who find themselves in deeper water than they had imagined when enthusiasm was dominant,  tend not to come back when they hit this patch.

 

You might should consider delaying these two projects.  Give a thought to "going to school" on the basics.  While not the only way by any means,  the MS Model Shipwright series is a safer way to gain experience.  There will be plenty of help here. 

Cheers for that Jaager. I am still reading your further responses  and will reply to those later today once I have absorbed them.
POF and POB, yup, I got the difference now. I wasn't sure of the terms, so many to learn.
A bit about me is probably in order. I have been interested in models my entire life. 63 now, I remember my first model back in the mid 60s. For me, the enjoyment comes from trying new things to learn. I am not interested necessarily in completing models, but learning new techniques and tips from each model. If I complete it, that's a bonus. I have done several wooden boats in my late teens and really enjoyed the experience. 
I understand that each genre of modelling has its own unique skillset to be learned. I am under no illusion as to what I am looking at.
I recently found Ohla Batchvarovs Youtube channel and that rekindled my interest in wooden models. After I emptied her channel, I noticed her doing the Pegasus. That appealed to me. 
I recently was lucky to be able to indulge myself as a once off and buy the Pegasus as I had received a compensation payout. Many yrs ago, I bought The anatomy of Nelsons ship by C Nepean Longridge. I was fascinated by the subject. Looking further over the yrs I found myself drawn to the 74 gun ships over the 1st rates. Something about them appealed to me.
The price of kits in Australia is very high. I had looked online and found a supplier in the UK and decided to buy the Vanguard as well since it saved me 50% of the price compared to buying in Australia.
So, now I had 2 kits.
Recalling my earlier model boat experiences, I wanted some machinery to assist me. I found the Byrnes saw and bought one. I bought some Proxxon tools as well.
This was due to the fact that as a once off, the cash would not be there in the future if I wanted to indulge myself.
So, 2 kits and some tools were arriving.
I then stumbled upon the Seawatch books website. I saw there was a 4 book set of the Swan class as a scratch build. It seemed fate was talking so I bought them as well as the plans. 
Now, I have the gear I need and was facing the daunting task of actually doing something. I have just bought https://www.hobbytools.com.au/Model-Shipways-Shipwright-3-Kit-Combo-Series-1-24. I believe this is what you were referring to. I do think this will help me get up to speed to tackle the 1st of the kits. 
I shall reply to your other responses later as I read them and understand.
I appreciate your detailed responses.
 

[John Murray]

4 hours ago, No Idea said:

Just my thoughts on this and I'm new to building frames too.................

 

Firstly accuracy is the most important thing as cumulative errors make such an impact over the entire hull.  So as suggested you need some digital callipers to make your measurements exact.

 

Secondly use a hardwood such as Costello or Pear wood as it's easier to be accurate as it holds an edge.  I didn't really understand this until I used it.

 

Thirdly the bevels that are marked on the drawings show the exact final shape and it's easy to just shape the frames to these lines......however the chances of anyone lining up 50+ frames to the exact alignment are slim.  So use them as a guide and leave some on for final shaping.

 

Forth - I use permagrit tools for rough shaping too and have found them to be excellent for this job.  But they do leave deep score so again leave something to work with to make your frames look pretty.  Now that I've had a go I prefer using spoke shaves.

 

Finally - building a Pegasus as a first plank on frame build.  That is one hell of an ask as it's going to be an epic build which will take years.  I've started much smaller and I'm happy with the challenges my little POF build is throwing at me.

 

Good luck and please keep us updated as I'm in on your build 😀

Cheers for that
I do have digital calipers, they weren't shown in the pictures. Re the wood, I shall take onboard your suggestions. I am not a woodworker. Wood names mean nothing currently as I am not a woodworker>
I understand on the leaving extra for final shaping. This was a once off to enjoy. I shall look into spoke shaves.
I have ordered the following to get me up to speed before starting the Pegasus. https://www.hobbytools.com.au/Model-Shipways-Shipwright-3-Kit-Combo-Series-1-24

[John Murray]

3 hours ago, dvm27 said:

That's a very respectable frame for a new scratch builder John. Others have made excellent comments above and I agree with all of them. 

 

Do no fair the frames to the bevel lines. I do no pre-beveling on my plank on frame models. If you do so, leave at least 1/16" extra to account for the inevitable errors that occur when installing the frames. As well, use a digital caliper to make sure all frames are to speck with regards to thickness. Cumulative error is always waiting to get you!

 

If you like tools invest in an oscillating spindle sander. It is the best way I know to shape the inside of the frame. You don't need the model with the angled table.

 

Consider building a cross-section to get frame fundamentals down. Below is a photo of my swan class cross-section  Pegasus. It's a great way get some of the basics of scratch building down.

 

Now that is a cracker model  I had considered doing a cross section as well as a spindle sander.

[John Murray]

On 9/10/2022 at 2:04 AM, Jaager said:

I wrote this before you wrote that this was not a serious beginning of a scratch hull using POF.

 

 

I will start this photo by photo.

Photo 1 and  2:
 Get a digital caliper.  Precision is more important than accuracy.  You only need to be internally consistent and reproducible.  A steel ruler is only really good for length and eyeball estimate.

Photo 3 and 4:
The NRG saw jig will be a big help.  Use a push stick and or covering board.  The Byrens saw will not bit as deeply as a 10 inch saw but a mistake can ruin your whole day.  The primary job of a table saw is to eat your fingers if you give it a chance.

 

The rest of the photos:

The patterns are for bends
A bend is a pair of frames that each side strengthen the butt joins of its partner..
A major advantage of POF is that frames are built up using timbers.
The timbers are intended to be as straight a section as possible.
In full size, there are limitations on the size of the stock that a tree can provide.
Timbers tended to be 5-8 feet long.  The tops where the moulded dimension not wide and were not as heavy could sustain a much longer piece.
The butts of the timbers  of one frame meet in the middle of its partner frame timber.  The overlap makes for a strong join.
Your frame should two layers.  Your stock is twice as thick as it should be.   You do not even have the most important timber = the floor timber.

Photo 19:
The wood where the floor timber and F1 would be as well as the (twice as wide as it should be) cross chock all have cross grain.  Cross grain is just wrong.

 

I do have a set of digital calipers, they just aren't in the pics.
NRG saw jig? I have a push stick that comes with the Proxxon planer. Is that what you are referring to? I am on two blood thinners and anti clot agents and am very careful around stuff that bites. This is why I never got into woodworking. Seeing the spinning blades was enough.
 

[John Murray]

On 9/10/2022 at 2:06 AM, Jaager said:

Your patterns indicate where  the timbers are for each of the pair of frames.
This means that with multiple short segments,  you do not need frame stock that is all that wide.  
The way you are proposing to do this is probably not sustainable.   It just will not work for bends at the midship.  This is most of the bends.
When it is broken down into timbers,  the stock width problem is solved.

       I prefer 1:60.  It is close to museum scale which allows for detail.  It is 0.8 less in any one dimension, but the product of the three yields a hull that has 50% of the volume.   Stock that is 2" wide works for any hull for me - even a first rate.  I find that 2 foot long stock is my sweet stock for bench top handling.
I hate cants.  I will not use them.  I use full bends all the way to the FP and AP.  The bevel gets really interesting at the ends.  The keystone shape of the floor timber - being very deep and sometimes wider that 2" of a large  hull means that for some liner hulls 4" stock is necessary.  This is inconvenient.

After years of experimenting, I have found that the optimal method is to use a 14" bandsaw to slice the 2" wide stock from my piece of lumber.  How much extra to set the slice thickness is a continuous challenge..
Too thick and there is waste and tedious extra passes thru the thickness sander.  Too little and the bandsaw blade scars are not removed.  It becomes stock for the next smaller hull.
A poor quality bandsaw can produce cuts with blade deviation.  Wedge shaped slices are difficult to rescue and are never going to work for this hull.
The efficiency of a bandsaw for this makes renting time on one from someone who has one worth it.  I have addressed which type blade more economical in other posts.

 

Thank you for this. I am starting to understand what you are saying and can see the benefits. FP and AP? I have considered buying a bandsaw but am aware that there are things I don't know and will probably buy something not suitable. 
I have ordered the following to get me up to speed before starting the Pegasus. https://www.hobbytools.com.au/Model-Shipways-Shipwright-3-Kit-Combo-Series-1-24

Edited September 12, 2022 by John Murray
Additional information

[Jaager]

The NRG saw jig is a small device that sits in a slot on the saw table.  Its function is to allow you use the side of the blade opposite the fence as the area where the finished slices are generated.  The small slices do not get bound between the blade and the fence and turned into a missile shot back at you - kickback.   The downside is that the fence has to be moved toward the blade after every slice.

 

Bob Cleek suggests using the eraser end of an old style wooden pencil as a push stick.  It does have a better friction hold.  I do say that a metal push stick is a very bad ideal.  I had to pay to have a carbide tooth welded back on to a Freud blade  because I used one.

 

As for a bandsaw,  - turning a large piece of lumber or a log section into rough stock thickness slices is termed 'resawing'.  Any 9" or 10" bench top bandsaw will be too under powered to be a serious resawing machine.  It takes a big boy floor model saw.  Going low end is false economy.  A machine that has enough power to drive the blade thru a thick piece of wood and engineered to keep the blade from moving while doing the work you ask of it is what is wanted.  If you have such a machine and the blade starts wandering or canting,  it is likely because the blade has become dull.

 

AP - after perpendicular

FP   fore perpenducular

These define the part of the hull that contains the frames.   Short hand naval architecture terms.

 

Scratch POF pretty much requires serious knowledge of basic naval architecture.  Serious scratch POF uses a lot of wood for the frames.  It is much less expensive than kits if you do more than a few hulls and you have the machinery to be your own saw mill.   It helps to be young, but harvesting your own lumber from near by trees really cuts down on the cost of wood.  It also gives access to wood species that are not commercially available  like Apple - the king.  

 

The bleeding from a table saw accident is probably the least of it.  The parts that have been amputated is worse.  I don't think we have access to a Niven autodoc to fix that.

Edited September 11, 2022 by Jaager

[John Murray]

On 9/10/2022 at 2:07 AM, Jaager said:

Once you have the timbers scroll cut and rough shaped,  the problem is how it assemble them to get the accurate shape.
The POF literature has several methods that attempt to solve this problem
Long quilters pins are useful for this.  
Where to place the pins?
The pattern needs to get into a computer graphics program.  Adjustment of the scale of the printed output is a necessary task.   A raster based program will work well enough.  All that is needed is very basic tools,  
PS in the cloud is quick and dirty, but potentially expensive.
Inside the timbers does not work for many of them when the bevel gets interesting.  There is no inside that is common at either outside face.  The holes need repair.  Dowels are difficult and are fragile at scale.
I solved this by placing the pin locations outside the shape of the bends.  
I use 4 for each timber.  At each corner but not too far.  Sanding the butts will remove sites that are too far.  Close to the pattern lines but not too close.  The holes can mar the sides of the frames.
Rather than guess each site, I made a jig.  It is a 7point Ariel Black "o" merged with a 4 point Ariel Black "o".  The lower case letter o is mostly round.  The inside of the 4 pt is small enough to leave no guessing and the outside of the 7 pt is far enough out if it just kisses the pattern line.

The timbers are a bit wider.  The additional waste is only interesting at the last 2 or 3 stations at either end.
An additional advantage is that there can be an identical pattern on either face of the bend.  This means that all 4 lines are available instead of 3 and guessing the 4th.
You are using plans that already have the bends patterns extrapolated.  I use lines plans and derive my own timber patterns.  I found that extracting three outside and three inside patterns for 60 - 100 bends was beyond tedious and took a long time.   I only use the existing station lines for the outside and made a jig in Painter to quickly draw the inside moulded shape.  I shape each station section of bends as a unit.
It is way way quicker.

A part that needs practice is the timber to timber butt join.  If I try to sand to the middle of the line - that is usually too much.  There is a gap.  I use a 1.5 or 2 pixel line.  I just kiss the line - no white.  This usually produces a tight joint.  It will take practice.

 

I understand what you are saying re the quilters pins.
I have Lightroom and Photoshop, graphics programs I have no issue with. think I understand what you are referring to your jig. The penny dropped when I realised you were talking fonts!
I do not currently have the skill set at lofting plans from lines plans. Hopefully one day. Your tip re the butt joint is appreciated.  

[John Murray]

On 9/10/2022 at 2:16 AM, Jaager said:

The cross chock that this plan uses is one of roughly four methods of dealing with the butt of F1 port and F1 stb over the keel.   The French often used a more complicated chock system.   A half floor is strong and is easy.  It is more timber expensive.  A long arm F1 meeting a short arm F1 was used on later 19th century merchantmen.  Which was the long arm alternated bend to bend.
The butting of F1 to F1 over the keel was almost universally forbidden.  It would be interesting to know how far back that this was discovered to be a very bad practice and how long it took to figure it out.

Your disc sander   will be useful for the timber butts.  It will be difficult to impossible for a lot of the outside bevels.  It will be essentially useless for the inside bevels.
A sanding drum is the tool.  There are sleeve drums.  The drums are rubber.  The sleeves are fitted by squishing the rubber.  The outward expansion is not always uniform, There is often an out of round situation.  The sleeves have to be bought and are not low cost.  The grit choices are limited.
Sleeveless drums use standard 9x11 sandpaper sheets with a range of grits.  There is a 3inch diameter drum that is 6 inches long.  There are a variety of 3 inch long drum diameters -  3 inch down to 1/2" (if the pad layer is removed.  This helps with inside bevels.  
For POF a table for the drum is mostly in the way.  Almost none of it is 90 degrees.
The machine needed is a 1/3HP or 1/2HP motor with a 1/2" shaft.   The amount of dust generated is impressive.  An open motor runs the risk of becoming dust filled and burning up.
A low cost standard drill press will work.  It would be especially useful if the motor will rotate 180 degrees.   Working with nothing but the stock above the drum is most convenient.  The line being sanded to is easier to illuminate and see.  
A piece of 12" x 12" Masonite with a 1/2" hole in the middle that is placed on the motor shaft right where it exits the motor keeps dust from the motor.
I made mine using a 1/3 HP TEFC 1700 RPM motor.  For sanding wood, 1700 RPM is about as fast as is functional.  Used steel braces and brackets from Home Depot as an Erector Set type motor mount.   Most of my effort was spent adding a table that has not been needed.
A used motor would be a cost efficient way to gain this tool, but a quality new motor  would probably cost more than a mass market spindle sander.  A major negative to a spindle sander is that the motors seem to come with proprietary shaft mounts .  There are a wide variety of cutting, grinding and sanding tools that use a standard 1.2" shaft attachment,
Dust collection and not breathing it will be a challenge and you will want a stage 4 hazmat suit and no matter what you do, your environment will drip with sawdust.   Even in my garage, if I lived with a female, I would face summary execution for the amount and area of dust spread.

 

Looking at my La Renommee build log may help show what I an describing.  It was intended to be a basic methods demonstration.  It is a pseudo carved hull  but it is POF without the spaces.   Dealing with the spaces about doubles the work.  This project was about quick and dirty.

I discovered the limitations of the disc sander fairly quick...
I currently have a dremel with a drum sander set. I have yet to use it so will investigate. If no good, I shall try looking further into it.
I have the Proxxon vax hooked up and wear a mask. As you say, an impressive amount of dust is generated. I live with my son. My wife died 13 yrs ago. He doesn't see mess so dust doesn't bother him... 🤣 I have all the tools in the garage though.
I shall have a look at your build log. Thanks for that.

[John Murray]

On 9/11/2022 at 3:07 PM, Jaager said:

The NRG saw jig is a small device that sits in a slot on the saw table.  Its function is to allow you use the side of the blade opposite the fence as the area where the finished slices are generated.  The small slices do not get bound between the blade and the fence and turned into a missile shot back at you - kickback.   The downside is that the fence has to be moved toward the blade after every slice.

 

Bob Cleek suggests using the eraser end of an old style wooden pencil as a push stick.  It does have a better friction hold.  I do say that a metal push stick is a very bad ideal.  I had to pay to have a carbide tooth welded back on to a Freud blade  because I used one.

 

As for a bandsaw,  - turning a large piece of lumber or a log section into rough stock thickness slices is termed 'resawing'.  Any 9" or 10" bench top bandsaw will be too under powered to be a serious resawing machine.  It takes a big boy floor model saw.  Going low end is false economy.  A machine that has enough power to drive the blade thru a thick piece of wood and engineered to keep the blade from moving while doing the work you ask of it is what is wanted.  If you have such a machine and the blade starts wandering or canting,  it is likely because the blade has become dull.

 

AP - after perpendicular

FP   fore perpenducular

These define the part of the hull that contains the frames.   Short hand naval architecture terms.

 

Scratch POF pretty much requires serious knowledge of basic naval architecture.  Serious scratch POF uses a lot of wood for the frames.  It is much less expensive than kits if you do more than a few hulls and you have the machinery to be your own saw mill.   It helps to be young, but harvesting your own lumber from near by trees really cuts down on the cost of wood.  It also gives access to wood species that are not commercially available  like Apple - the king.  

 

The bleeding from a table saw accident is probably the least of it.  The parts that have been amputated is worse.  I don't think we have access to a Niven autodoc to fix that.

I have had a look at the NRG Saw jig. I will be looking at getting one. For a push stick, the Proxxon Planer I have comes with a plastic push stick. Seems fairly soft so if I touch the blade, It should just cut into the push stick. I recall my father using those terms and had forgotten what they referred to. He worked in shipyards for a long time.
I cannot see myself getting to the stage of harvesting my own timber. I follow a few YT sites where they do that. To much investment of time, space, and money. 
Apple = Malus Sylvestris? Correct? I have a supplier of rare timbers in Australia down the road from me. The list of product is here. https://www.bukartilla.com.au/timber/2014/3/31/timber-list
The only issue I have is telling Balsa from Plywood! Let alone any of the other species named...