Material for small-scale oars

[Bob Cleek]

49 minutes ago, wefalck said:

BTW, I think the drawplates for wires have a slight chamfer at the small side to prevent the wire becoming marred or cut, when not drawn 100% perpendicular through the plate.

 

The drawplates for dowels obviously don't have such chamfers, as it is the sharp edge of the hole that cuts.

I have three drawplates, one being the Byrnes Model machines one. All of them (except possibly the Byrnes... I'm not looking at it right now) have a chamfer on one side of the plate with a hole on the other side that is the indicated diameter. I believe that the "funnel" shape of the hole is for wire, with the wire going in the larger end. The wire is pulled through the "funnel" hole and is compressed as it goes through the "funnel" hole, gradually resulting in a narrower "extruded" length of wire. The "funnel" shape of the hole is for the purpose of "squeezing" the wire as it goes through, without regard for the wire being marred or cut. On the other hand, putting a piece of wood or bamboo through in the opposite direction, which causes the sharp edge of the narrow end of a hole to scrape the wood off, creating a narrower diameter as the process progresses through smaller and smaller holes, surely does easily cause the piece to break by any sharp flexion at the narrow end of the hole. 

[Dan DSilva]

Wow, this kicked off more discussion than I expected.

 

When I mentioned "a draw plate made for wood" I was thinking specifically of this one from Micro-Mark, which says it "is designed specifically for shaving wood."  It's more expensive than I'm used to paying for tools, but if I get much use out of it, it may be worthwhile.  The projects I have planned will require well over a hundred oars, totaling about five meters worth of shafts.

 

I wrote to Micro-Mark and they just got back to me yesterday.  They were skeptical about whether bamboo would work with a draw plate, but given that other people have done so, I'll probably give it a try once I've saved up a bit.

 

The Byrnes plate sounds good and is less than half the price of the Micro-Mark, but its holes start at a much smaller size.  Using it with 1/8-inch skewers would require reducing them in diameter first.  It could probably work with toothpicks, but since skewers are about five times as long as toothpicks, it would be more efficient to use skewers with a plate that's large enough for them, unless their length makes them prone to breaking when they start getting very thin.

[Dan DSilva]

On 3/10/2024 at 1:54 PM, wefalck said:

one reason why bamboo is so hard and stiff is, that the cells contain silicium dioxide (meaning quartz or glass)

Never knew that!  I wonder if that's why my eyes itch so much after I sand a lot of bamboo.

 

Thanks everyone for the advice!  I'll let you know how it goes.

[allanyed]

Dan,

I have the draw plate you posted in the photo and the draw plate from Jim Byrnes.   No comparison as to quality and accuracy as the Byrnes is superior in all aspects.  I use bamboo for many things, including tree nails.  I can take most bamboo species down to 0.016" which is the equivalent of  1" at 1:64 or 0.75" at 1:48.  Bamboo skewers typically work best in my experience plus they are subtle in color in addition to being at the proper scale.  I split the skewers so they can pass through the largest diameter hole then pass the piece through each hole two or three times at a slight angle, then to the next smallest hole until I get to the diameter I need.

 

Donna Byrnes indicates accessories are available so you may be in luck.   https://www.byrnesmodelmachines.com/drawplate5.html

 

Allan

Edited March 12 by allanyed

[Dan DSilva]

I got the Byrne draw plate, but somehow when I split bamboo skewers and draw them, they keep coming out crooked or curved.  Maybe it's my technique, I dunno.

 

What has worked is starting with WoodenModelShipKit 1mm ramin dowel.  It's still tedious, and it'll cost more in the long run than skewers, but the results are more consistent than sanding by hand and drawing a yard at once makes it faster.  I think on balance this is the most optimal way of doing it.

Edited April 9 by Dan DSilva

[allanyed]

I love bamboo for treenails, but would go with another species for oars.  Even then, a draw plate does not work for me for oars as they are shaped as in the pics below from Steel which I hope you find helpful.  I realize the shapes were likely different from boatyard to boatyard and era to era, but I cannot find any contemporary information prior to Steel's information.

Allan

 

 

Oar Scantlings and oar making.doc

Edited April 10 by allanyed

[Dan DSilva]

Thanks Allan.  I realize oars of the 18th and 19th century weren't simple cylinders, the trouble is I just don't see how it would be feasible to carve them in the correct shape at such a minuscule scale, and fancier equipment like a laser cutter is beyond my budget.

[Keith Black]

 I've seen folks carve the shaft/handle separate from the blade and then join the two. 

[barkeater]

These are ships boats I've been working on. The oars were made from a thin dowel from a craft store (Hobby Lobby) for the shaft and a strip of cherry for the blade. The scale is 1/48. I don't know what scale you are working on.

Rich

[Bob Cleek]

On 3/12/2024 at 5:06 AM, Dan DSilva said:

I was thinking specifically of this one from Micro-Mark, which says it "is designed specifically for shaving wood."  It's more expensive than I'm used to paying for tools, but if I get much use out of it, it may be worthwhile. 

The Micro-Mark drawplate you've mentioned is insanely overpriced. If it is anything like the same item I once naively purchased from Micro-Mark ages ago, it's junk, probably made in India or Pakistan. Drawplates are not inexpensive. The decent ones are made to high tolerances of accuracy from high-quality steel, or even tungsten, but they run in the same price range, if not lower, than the crummy low-quality one Micro-Mark offers. The fact that Micro-Mark claims its "regular price" is $75.00 is ludicrous! 

 

Rule one on tool buying (which in this instance I broke, to my dismay) is to only buy a tool when you need it and then buy the best tool of that type you can possibly afford. Quality compromises will allow you to get a lesser quality tool, but in this instance, the Micro-Mark drawplate is at the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality and priced equivalent to, if not more than, professional level jeweler's drawplates sold by the top jewelers' tool supply companies. Drawplates come in various size ranges as well as a wide variety of extrusion "shapes.' You can get drawplates that will produce wire sizes with "star" shaped cross-sections, as well as squares, half-moons, diamonds, half-rounds, and so on. Obviously, a simple round shape drawplate is the easiest to make and will therefore be less expensive that the more difficult to fabricate shapes.

 

While Micro-Mark is always an entertaining catalog and their sales are sometimes quite worthwhile if you know what you are buying, the best source of quality ship modeling tools will often be found in the catalogs of professional supply houses that cater to jewelers, and in dental and medical instrument supply houses. Check out what Otto Frei, one of the largest jewelers' supply houses, has to offer: Drawplates & Drawbenches — Otto Frei Otto Frei's least expensive offerings are priced about the same as Micro-Mark's offering, and up, but you should be able to expect that you will be getting a better quality tools from them. (Rather commonly, retailers that focus on the "hobby" market, will sell lower cost, lower quality products than retailers that focus on professional customers.) There is also a plethora of jeweler's drawplates listed for sale on eBay. Of course, eBay is definitely "buyer beware country," but if you examine the listings closely and avoid buying from an Asian distributor of knock-off tools, you may find some good bargains: jeweler's drawplates for sale | eBay

Edited April 11 by Bob Cleek

[allanyed]

As Keith mentioned, it is sometimes better to make the oars in two pieces.   The first photo below has oars in two pieces (scale1:48) The oars in the second photo are all single piece both for the 23 foot  launch in 1:48 and 32 foot launch in 1:96.   Hand tools were used for making the oars from scrap strips, so high tech equipment is not required.

Allan

 

Edited April 11 by allanyed

[Kauz]

1 hour ago, Bob Cleek said:

professional level jeweler's drawplates sold by the top jewelers' tool supply companies. 

Hello,

being a master goldsmith and working with these drawplates on a day to day basis, please take into consideration that jewellers' drawplates are not designed to scrape away material. On one side the holes have a deep taper to facilitate wire to be reduced in diameter by compressing the metal (and lengthening in consequence, volume of wire remains the same), on the other side, the holes are chamfered. You'd have to grind away a considerable amount of metal from the side where the diameters of the holes are smaller to get to the point of the nominal size of the hole, their smallest diameters. Otherwise, these drawplates don't cut.

[Dan DSilva]

10 hours ago, barkeater said:

These are ships boats I've been working on. The oars were made from a thin dowel from a craft store (Hobby Lobby) for the shaft and a strip of cherry for the blade. The scale is 1/48. I don't know what scale you are working on.

Rich

Looks good!  Unfortunately I'm working in 1:128 scale.

[Keith Black]

34 minutes ago, Dan DSilva said:

Unfortunately I'm working in 1:128 scale.

Dan, if I can make some of the goofy stuff I've made at 1:120, I'm quite certain you can make acceptable looking 1:128 oars. In fact, look at the oars Eberhard made in his 1:160 build log, page 25, post #733. 

 

 

[wefalck]

Indeed, jewellers' drawplates are not suitable for reducing wood in size. I think we had this discussion already in some thread here.

 

The anatomy of an oar depends on it's use and the period. Sea-oars are rather different from the oars that are used on inland waterways. Basically, sea-oars are symmetrical, so that one can use them forward and backward. Also the diameter is round for much of the length. Likewise, the blade is quite narrow.

 

The diameter is, of course, proportionate to the length. The length depends on the breadth of the boat and whether it is single- or double-banked. For single-banked boats the length would be about three- to four-times the breadth.

 

In 1/128 scale I think it would be not so easy to make the blade and the shaft in two pieces. You would need to slot the shaft for the blade and this could be a challenge for a shaft only somewhere, say, 0.6 to 0.8 mm in diameter. I would start from a flat piece of wood (or styrene), layout the shape, cut out the shape, and then shape the shaft and blade by scraping and sanding.

 

My 1/160 scale oars where made from layer of paper blanks cut out with the laser-cutter and laminated together using varnish. They were further shaped using diamond files.

[allanyed]

An oar at 128 scale - I saw this as a self imposed challenge and chose a 20 foot oar for a boat with a 6 foot breadth.    Drawplate for part, scalpel and sandpaper for the rest.  Where the shank meets the blade could use a little sanding as it is a bit heavy.  The blade width and thickness are to-scale but I think it would look better if a tad wider.  Overall not the greatest, but at this scale, my old eyes should be content with a little more scraping and/or sanding.  Scantlings follow the photo

Allan

Scantlings for oars 1 to 128 scale.docx

 

[Keith Black]

https://www.shawandtenney.com/how-size-your-oars

Edited April 12 by Keith Black

[Dan DSilva]

Reason I was leaning toward starting with round rod or dowel is that it's easier to get fast and consistent results than carving each oar individually when I have to turn them out by the dozens.  I spent the afternoon thinking about how to expedite making more accurate ones, and right now the idea I have is starting with 1mm square dowel, reducing the shaft and handle with the draw plate, cleaning up with sandpaper, shaving the end of the shaft flat with a knife, and gluing it to a card stock blade.

 

Quick proof of concept made from a toothpick and not to any particular measurements.

 

Problems:  The blade has a rib only on one face, and joins the shaft asymmetrically when viewed on edge.  I tried cutting slots in the card stock with a Dremel cutoff wheel, but even with a thin wheel, the slots were too large.  I suspect a wheel thin enough to make the size of slots I need would crack if I touched it, so right now I'm about ready to stop looking further and accept the drawbacks.

Edited April 11 by Dan DSilva

[Bob Cleek]

15 hours ago, Kauz said:

Hello,

being a master goldsmith and working with these drawplates on a day to day basis, please take into consideration that jewelers' drawplates are not designed to scrape away material. On one side the holes have a deep taper to facilitate wire to be reduced in diameter by compressing the metal (and lengthening in consequence, volume of wire remains the same), on the other side, the holes are chamfered. You'd have to grind away a considerable amount of metal from the side where the diameters of the holes are smaller to get to the point of the nominal size of the hole, their smallest diameters. Otherwise, these drawplates don't cut.

 

8 hours ago, wefalck said:

Indeed, jewelers' drawplates are not suitable for reducing wood in size. I think we had this discussion already in some thread here.

Well, I learn something new everyday! Thanks for the clarification, guys! It makes sense that a metalworking drawplate might have a slight chamfer on the "exit" side of the plate to allow for a bit of 'wiggle room" as the wire exits the plate. I guess I've just been lucky in obtaining woodworking drawplates without knowing the difference.

 

My Byrnes drawplate is marketed as useful for making trunnels nails, but doesn't mention any further distinction regarding its use for wood or metal one way or the other. It has "(T)hirty precision holes cover the range from .016" through .059" - at 1:48 (1/4" scale) that represents full-size trunnels of 3/4" diameter through almost 2" in diameter!" The smallest holes on the Byrnes drawplate are so small as to be nearly invisible when viewed from the back ("exit") side and I had to hold it up to the light to see them without a magnifying glass. The back of the Byrnes drawplate is perfectly flat and the "exit" side of the holes aren't chamfered. Like all things "Byrnes," this drawplate is an elegantly finished tool, although I can't imagine ever needing a .016" diameter dowel, nor finding a species of wood that would draw down to such a size without breaking! (Some species of long-grained bamboo, perhaps?) 

 

The cheesy drawplate I got first from Micro-Mark has 24 holes, which are not numbered as to size. The smallest hole looks to be about the same diameter as the smallest hole on the Byrnes drawplate, but the largest hole is around .125", a bit more than twice the diameter of the largest hole in the Byrnes drawplate. Thus, the Micro-Mark drawplate provides a wider range of sizes in a fewer number of holes and therefore a much less gradual progression of hole sizes. This fact makes it a lot more difficult to use with the narrower holes because each successively sized hole takes a much larger "bite" out of the material at each step in the shaving process than a greater number of holes over the same size range which tends to encourage breakage, . The "exit" side of its holes aren't chamfered.

 

The second drawplate which I acquired, (if memory serves, on eBay,) has 83 holes running from about .125" to what looks like a couple of steps smaller than the smallest hole on the Byrnes drawplate at .016, a rather wide range of sizes with three and a half times as many holes over the same range of sizes on the Micro-Mark drawplate. This fact greatly reduces the problem of breakage characteristic of the Micro-Mark with its greater a progression between sizes. 

 

While the Byrnes drawplate is marked with wire gauge sizes for each hole, neither of my other two are. The larger drawplate I got off of eBay is better finished than the Micro-Mark drawplate and, of course, the Byrnes drawplate is impeccably machined. (I have no idea where any of their manufacturers get the bits that drill the smallest holes!) My largest drawplate is about .225" thick. The Byrnes drawplate is about .125" thick, and the Micro-Mark drawplate is about .096" thick. The Micro-Mark drawplate decidedly lacks the "heft" of the other two. 

 

Given the example of the Byrnes drawplate, I "lapped" the other two on their back ("exit") sides to "sharpen" their wood-cutting edges by taping a few abrasive sheets to the machined cast iron table of my Unisaw and took them down to a uniform surface finish of about 600 grit. This markedly improved their cutting smoothness.  

 

I have on a few occasions drawn annealed fine copper wire through these plates with acceptable results, but never having done so with a "real" metal-working drawplate I can't offer any comparisons between the two types of plates for drawing wire. I would expect that a goldsmith or silversmith would be far more demanding of the results than my limited experience permits! As much of a conclusion as I can offer from my limited experience is that a woodworking drawplate can be made to draw metal wire, albeit perhaps crudely by professional jewelers' standards, but a metalworking drawplate cannot be used to "shave" wood at all, at least not without taking the back ("exit") side of the plate down below the chamfer to the level of the sized hole alone as noted in the comments above.

 

That said, while I've found this to be so only with round-sectioned material, I doubt the same can be said for many, if not all, of the many other drawplate section shapes available for drawing wire. It certainly would be convenient to be able to get out half- and quarter-round wood trim on a drawplate, wouldn't it? I currently produce half- and quarter-round trim stock with an Artesania Latina scraper applied to the edge of a suitably-thicknessed strip of wood and then cut the shaped edge from the strip on my Byrnes table saw and have no complaints beyond the tedium of the scraping. 

 

For those unfamiliar with these handy tools, they come in three separate sets ("Set A" through "Set C") of three scrapers each. Every shape is different. Available in the U.S. from all the "usual suspects" and sometimes on eBay. Priced between USD$10.00 and USD$17.00 per set of three scrapers. Pictured below approximately "life-sized." 

 

(Note below: Not my hairy thumb!)

Note: I find it more effective to hold the scraper in a jeweler's hand vise with the vise jaws close to the working edge of the scraper. This further stiffens the scraper and gives better control of the scraper, not to mention saving wear and tear on fingertips!

 

 

 

SET "A": https://artesanialatina.net/en/micro-tools/1295-micro-moulding-scrapers-a-shapers-for-wooden-plastic-models-miniatures-8421426273007.html

 

SET"B": https://artesanialatina.net/en/micro-tools/1296-micro-moulding-scrapers-B-shapers-for-wooden-plastic-models-miniatures-8421426273014.html

SET "C": https://artesanialatina.net/en/micro-tools/62355-micro-moulding-scrapers-c-shapers-for-wooden-plastic-models-miniatures-8437021128222.html

  

Edited April 12 by Bob Cleek

[allanyed]

8 hours ago, Bob Cleek said:

Given the example of the Byrnes drawplate, I "lapped" the other two on their back ("exit") sides to "sharpen" their wood-cutting edges by taping a few abrasive sheets to the machined cast iron table of my Unisaw and took them down to a uniform surface finish of about 600 grit. This markedly improved their cutting smoothness.  

I was going to ask if this was doable and practicable so thanks for pointing this out.  My Byrnes plate has seen hundreds of passes and I wondered if it and the moulding cutters you posted can be similarly sharpened?  Heretofore I have made my own moulding cutters from stiff back razors or pieces of hack saw blade but for the price, these cutters look like a great alternative.

 

Allan

Edited April 12 by allanyed

[wefalck]

I was about to suggest to use a home-made scraper with a half-round profile, made from a piece of razor-blade to shape the shafts of the oars. You can cut the profile into an ordinary razor-blade with a diamond burr. Brake off the piece with pliers. This scraper can be held in a pin-vice that is slotted cross-wise. I have used such purpose-made scrapers for shaping very small profiles etc.

[Bob Cleek]

10 hours ago, allanyed said:

I was going to ask if this was doable and practicable so thanks for pointing this out.  My Byrnes plate has seen hundreds of passes and I wondered if it and the moulding cutters you posted can be similarly sharpened?  Heretofore I have made my own moulding cutters from stiff back razors or pieces of hack saw blade but for the price, these cutters look like a great alternative.

 

Allan

 

10 hours ago, wefalck said:

I was about to suggest to use a home-made scraper with a half-round profile, made from a piece of razor-blade to shape the shafts of the oars. You can cut the profile into an ordinary razor-blade with a diamond burr. Brake off the piece with pliers. This scraper can be held in a pin-vice that is slotted cross-wise. I have used such purpose-made scrapers for shaping very small profiles etc.

Yes, I don't see any reason why the Byrnes drawplate can't be sharpened. All it takes is a flat surface, some fine abrasive sheet that will cut metal decently, and the patience to do the bit of handwork required (which I expect could actually be substantial if the drawplate is hardened steel as I expect the Byrnes model is. I've also used razor blades as well as hacksaw and drywall knife blades as stock to grind my own scraper shapes which works fine once you master the shaping. I use a rotary tool with a diamond burr or a metal cutting ceramic disk. It takes a careful touch, of course. l've never tried to sharpen the Artesania Latina molding scrapers. While I haven't found the need to do so as yet, I expect it would be possible, but how effective, I'm not sure. Further experimentation is in oder!  The Artesania Latina scrapers are a bit pricy and not essential for ship modeling until you run into a more complex molding shape that's required. Simple 1/8" half rounds and larger probably just as easily made with DIY scraper. Artesania Latina scrapers come into their own when the more detailed and complex trim and molding shapes that are much more difficult to grind yourself are required.

Edited April 12 by Bob Cleek

[Keith Black]

 Later era photo of oars in use noting oar length and blade shape and width. Does it appear that the oar lengths decrease moving away from mid boat?

 

 

[wefalck]

I can only speak about German naval boats, but I think it would be more or less the same for all navies: The bow-oars were indeed shorter than the others, as the boat would be much narrower at the first bench.

 

Some 30 years ago a colleague of mine, who unfortunately died prematurely a couple of years ago, wrote a series of articles on the naval oars of the Imperial German Navy that summarise the knowledge pulled together from various books, naval instruction manuals etc. that are difficult to put your hands on. Although, I do have some of these sources, these articles were extremely helpful, when I worked on my current project.

 

He gives as a rule of thumb the following dimensions/proportions:

 

Length = 3 times largest breadth of the boat, 2/3 outside, 1/3 inside the boat.

Max diameter = 0.017 times the length at 1/3 of the length

Handle = 0.8 times the larges diameter and about a foot long

Length of the blade = 0.27 to 0.3 of the total length of the oar

Max breadth of the blade = 1.5 times the max. diameter.

Min. thickness of the blade = 0.16 times the max. diameter, at the end.

 

In fact, there are tables with detailed dimensions for all the oars of the Imperial Navy, which were standardised to nine different sizes and matched to the different boat types, which were provided in different size classes. In fact, there were some 20 different boat types in the navy.