- Joined
- Oct 2, 2025
- Messages
- 313
- Points
- 128
Just remember - you came in here and asked - no protecting of kit builder sensibilities back here.
If a kit is involved in any way - it is not scratch building.
"Fabricating deck structure, equipment, masts, spars, and rigging to add to a hull built from a kit is “Kit bashing.”". Not my quote. I do not see that augmentation and supplementation of a kit as a "bash". It reflects a degree of awareness and sophistication about what you actually have with your kit. It suggests that crossing over to actual scratch building should be a serious consideration.
It is to scream in frustration to see a scratch build log where the OP states that he is beginning with plans from a kit. Why start with a second hand economy bias intrepretation and then go with all the physical original work? It is ultimately unreliable as far as being anything historically relevant - no matter how well it is executed.
The challenge is to start with an actual original design plan or as taken off plan and produce a physical model from it.
To start with a modeler's plan where an another author has done the lofting or ( hearing the hiss-boo annnd ducking the thrown bricks and fire brands) a monograph -which is another author having done the lofting - is missing half of the challenge and reward of scratch building. These two situations do count as scratch building - but from a cold sober perspective, they are JV. They ARE pure and often magnificent examples of physical craft and skills. It just excludes any intellectual component. It also adds nothing to our store of historical knowledge. It is plowing an already over plowed furrow.
It requires: A big boy bandsaw. A big boy planer. A 10" type tablesaw or and edger.
For scratch in general:
The Byrnes tool triad (if so fortunate) or what will substitute now is also more or less necessary. It all can and was done using hand tools - it just takes much longer.
Your examples of the imagined tools needed is more a reflection of a kit based perspective.
Because I do POF at a larger scale, I prefer a 9" benchtop bandsaw strictly for its scroll cutting function over an actual scrollsaw, but one or the other for efficiency. A hand Knew saw (or the budget version) will do it -it just takes more time and much more ATP.
But for the other two:
A laser cutter is better used by a mfg of multiples of every pattern. The same for a CNC cutter. One off deserves up close and personal hand tool attention.
For wood and sail : Far far beyond the Pale is anything 3D printed. The plastic IS going to prove to be evanescent. That it is plastic touching wood is disrespectful enough to be unacceptable.
Fabricating your own parts for a kit is in no way what is meant by scratch building. It is just practice. Important and for most of us necessary.
If a kit is involved in any way - it is not scratch building.
"Fabricating deck structure, equipment, masts, spars, and rigging to add to a hull built from a kit is “Kit bashing.”". Not my quote. I do not see that augmentation and supplementation of a kit as a "bash". It reflects a degree of awareness and sophistication about what you actually have with your kit. It suggests that crossing over to actual scratch building should be a serious consideration.
It is to scream in frustration to see a scratch build log where the OP states that he is beginning with plans from a kit. Why start with a second hand economy bias intrepretation and then go with all the physical original work? It is ultimately unreliable as far as being anything historically relevant - no matter how well it is executed.
The challenge is to start with an actual original design plan or as taken off plan and produce a physical model from it.
To start with a modeler's plan where an another author has done the lofting or ( hearing the hiss-boo annnd ducking the thrown bricks and fire brands) a monograph -which is another author having done the lofting - is missing half of the challenge and reward of scratch building. These two situations do count as scratch building - but from a cold sober perspective, they are JV. They ARE pure and often magnificent examples of physical craft and skills. It just excludes any intellectual component. It also adds nothing to our store of historical knowledge. It is plowing an already over plowed furrow.
Scratch building can be tool heavy. This is certainly the situation if being your own sawmill is a goal - which is really necessary if POF is your hull fabrication method.
It requires: A big boy bandsaw. A big boy planer. A 10" type tablesaw or and edger.
For scratch in general:
The Byrnes tool triad (if so fortunate) or what will substitute now is also more or less necessary. It all can and was done using hand tools - it just takes much longer.
Your examples of the imagined tools needed is more a reflection of a kit based perspective.
Because I do POF at a larger scale, I prefer a 9" benchtop bandsaw strictly for its scroll cutting function over an actual scrollsaw, but one or the other for efficiency. A hand Knew saw (or the budget version) will do it -it just takes more time and much more ATP.
But for the other two:
A laser cutter is better used by a mfg of multiples of every pattern. The same for a CNC cutter. One off deserves up close and personal hand tool attention.
For wood and sail : Far far beyond the Pale is anything 3D printed. The plastic IS going to prove to be evanescent. That it is plastic touching wood is disrespectful enough to be unacceptable.
