Jump to content

Welcome to Model Ship World
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Amphion Drafts Mark III


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#1
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,036 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

As noted elsewhere I am re-starting (for the second time) my Amphion plans, explantions elsewhere.

 

This does have some advantages. First up I am much more competent with Turbo cad so it should be an easier process along with the fact that I seem to need to do things multiple times to understand what I am doing. Secondly the first plan set was documented on the original MSW (back in 2012 if I remember correctly). This meant that a lot of the early donkey work was lost which will hopefully not happen again.

 

I will leave both superceded research and build threads open until this is (re) done and then mark them as deprecated.

 

To start I am going to lay down some ground rules for the project to avoid the mess I got into last time. This will be incredibly boring to anyone who is not ocd so i recommend most stop reading here, at least until I get to something more interesting draft wise.

 

 

 

Drafting Style Guide

 

To better control the validity and understanding of what a file actually occurs the following guide will be followed.

Folder Structure

 

Past experience says that large amounts of files will be generated in the drafting process. The folder structure can be used to ensure a files location indicates its relevance. Files will be held locally on a pc and auto backed up to a one drive folder.

 

folders.png

 

  • Source Scans:     Contains the scanned version of any source plans. Will not change once added
  • Plans:                    Parent plan folder. Will only contain other folders.
  • Structural:           (Or source). This will contain master plans that will be used in the building process to generate the actual working plans. As an example the sheer and framing plans will appear in here
  • Build:                     This will contain plans intending to be built off of. Individual frames, keel sub plans etc
  • Presentation:    This is for helper plans that show, usually styalised versions to assist in building. Examples include the ‘fish’ plan and subsections showing how parts go together or what they are called

 

Each of the three main working folders (listed above as Structural, Build and Presentation) will contain a sub folder called ‘[Primary Folder Name] Approved’. When a plan is regarded as complete it will be moved to the relevant Approved folder and its file name adjusted.

 

Each of the three Approved folders will have a sub-folder named ‘[Primary Folder Name]-Revisions’. When an approved file is changed the old version will be moved here and only the new version will reside in the approved folder. This means that there should only be single files in the approved folder but both the working folders and revision folders could contain multiple files.

Change log

A change log will be generated and held in a one note page for each primary folder. This will list the file name, the added date, the superseded date and either a ‘current’ indicator or a description of what was changed and why. I.e

 

changelog.pgn.png

 

File Naming Conventions TCW Files

 AM-[Zone]-[Friendly Name]-V[number].tcw

‘AM’ is the project name (in this case short for ‘Amphion’)

Zone indicates which working folder the file is intended for. Currently ST for Structural, BU for Build and PR for Presentation.

Friendly Name will be an appropriate name for the file in question i.e Sheer or Keel etc

V[number] is the version

 

So a sheer plan may be called

 

AM-ST-SheetMaster-V5.tcw

Indicating the 5th version of the Structural ‘Sheer’ Master plan for the Amphion project

 

Approval

When a plan is ‘Approved’ (as hopefully complete) a copy will be moved to the approved folder and its name will change to

AM-[Zone]A-[Friendly Name]-RC[number].tcw

RC is a software development short hand for ‘Release Candidate’. Therefore there are two visual indicators that a plan is complete  - the ‘RC’ version and the ‘A’ after the zone. So if the above sheer plan is regarded as complete then the copies name would ne

 

AM-STA-SheerMaster-RC1.tcw

Copies will be made to prevent accidental adjustments of originals.

 

Paper Space Naming conventions

This will be different to the file name and is intended for printed versions of complete plans as opposed to draft versions. This naming convention will be

 

AM-[Zone][Plan Number][Plan Subset]-V[Version]

Only approved plans will have paper space so the above sheer master might have a print name of

 

AM-STA-5-V1

So version 1 of approved structural plan 5. All printed plans will also have a name describing the plan and a separate title.

 

 

 

 

 

So allowing I stick to the above if I down tools for a year or two and return then I should be able to at least ensure I can access and find the correct current plans.

 


  • trippwj, Pete38, mtaylor and 3 others like this

Ours is a life of constant reruns. We're always circling back to where we'd we started, then starting all over again. Even if we don't run extra laps that day, we surely will come back for more of the same another day soon. - Joe Henderson


#2
Talos

Talos
  • Members
  • 215 posts

Looking forward to following this!


  • mtaylor, Matrim and Canute like this

#3
jud

jud
  • Members
  • 1,090 posts
  • LocationLexington, Oregon

Need to keep track of your methods, perhaps change my ways now. Working through some plans I have obtained for 542 Class LST's with the intent of a build, already I see problems developing with folder and file organization. Drawing in full scale using Traverse PC for COGO work and General Cad for drawing cleanup. Started with cad from downloaded plans, then added some plans I purchased from 'The Floating Drydock', did not like how this was progressing, but it was easy to produce an image that didn't look bad. I wanted more than line work, I wanted a Coordinate File using point numbers in a table form, although the coordinates were there in cad they were not in a format I liked or easy to extract. Dropped the cad for now and went to Traverce PC, a 2D surveying program I am familiar with. Few measurements on the plans and lacking some details, but enough to end up with some good coordinates for the hull to work with. No crown on LST's decks and they are built perpendicular and parallel except for the sloping bottom for beaching so bearing-bearing, bearing-distance and distance-distance intersections produce good missing points with their coordinates from a few known points and distances. Some details need to be rooted out from other sources, but I have plenty of data for now. Why am I doing it this way? I want the coordinates of the points, curve data and the ability to use the cross section routines in the program for frame shapes. I will take all into cad for fine tuning of the appearance, will also print patterns from cad. Planning on 1/72 scale, but I will be able to print at any scale, even full scale, if you provide the plotter. :P

Any suggestions or pointers are encouraged, this is my first attempt at this.

jud  :pirate41:


Edited by jud, 22 June 2016 - 05:38 PM.

  • mtaylor and Canute like this

#4
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,036 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

I might as well start at the beginning, please note I use TurboCad for the draft plans so these posts will be heavily turbo cad specific.. I hit an unexpected early snag when I 'upgraded' to TurboCad2016 from TurboCad20 which was a few years old now. On adding the profile picture to be traced I eventually noticed that it did not seem to be coping very well with drilling into the image and it rapidly lost both definition and focus. 

 

Confused I tried saving various versions including png, bmp, 24 bit bmp, jpg but none of them seemed to avoid the issue. I did wonder if I was being overly sensitive so I tried the same action in TurboCad20 and it did not happen. This indicated either a settings issue or a bug in the newer release and eventually I found the issue was the first. Later version of turbo cad have a fancy new image manipulator called Redsdk this was trying to do something fancy and failing. Switching this off and returning to default gdi allowed excellent clarity on drilling down.

 

graphics.png

 

Once I could drill down the next job is to make sure the image is horizontal. The guide 'Wayne.K's excellent walkthrough available on MSW') says to use the keel line it being the bottom line of the rabbett but I found this too thick on my plan to accurately get an indication of how the image needs adjusting so instead used the upper edge of the rabbett which has the added advantage of providing a semi-end start point here

 

straighten.png

 

From this point I drew a long line that ended at the opposite end of the keel (approximately in the middle of the same start line). I then drew a second line from an identical start (hit v for vertex and then when dragging the line hold shift down which ensures you get an exact horizontal line).

 

stragith32.png

 

I then 'disappeared' the image, added a vertical construction line (use this to avoid mismatches when the angle is worked out) and then used the angle measurer to indicate the difference between the two

 

angle.png

 

The picture is then returned and selected and this value is entered into the rotation field. If you are 'rotating the wrong way' then either roll it back or move a negative distance in the other direction.

 

rotate.png

 

After the image is rotated I then carry out the same exercise and allowing the rotation is correct the lines should be identical. Just for safeties sake I also drew out horizontal lines on the keel line, the base of the false keel and the top of the false keel. Allowing the plan is not warped they should all be level and within the original line markings. In this case they were so I can now start tracing which is always rather fun.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

 


  • Pete38, mtaylor, Canute and 1 other like this

Ours is a life of constant reruns. We're always circling back to where we'd we started, then starting all over again. Even if we don't run extra laps that day, we surely will come back for more of the same another day soon. - Joe Henderson


#5
wrkempson

wrkempson
  • Members
  • 191 posts

If I called for using the bottom of the rabbet line for leveling I was mistaken.  The top of the keel is correct as you have done.

 

Another way to level the drawing is to draw in the reference line as you have done in red.  Then select both the drawing and the reference line.  Place the reference point on the end of the red line (use D) and then relocate the X-axis control arm point at the other end of the red line (hold down CNTRL while clicking on the X-axis control point).  Then click on the X-axis to rotate the line and the drawing around the reference point at the end of the red line.  By holding down SHIFT and then clicking the line and the drawing are automatically leveled.  This method eliminates measuring the angle.  I was unaware of this procedure when I penned the little treatise you were so kind to mention.  

 

I have yet to find a top of keel line on an old plan that was straight.  

 

Wayne


  • allanyed, mtaylor, Matrim and 2 others like this

#6
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,036 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Much more likely to have been me mis-understanding though ;)


  • mtaylor and Canute like this

Ours is a life of constant reruns. We're always circling back to where we'd we started, then starting all over again. Even if we don't run extra laps that day, we surely will come back for more of the same another day soon. - Joe Henderson


#7
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,036 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Initial tracing of the profile, half-breadth and body has been completed. It is fairly routine except perhaps to comment that I prefer to always make the lines to long and shorten as opposed to being to short and having to lengthen then shorten. I also trace the half-breadth and body and keep the traces (in a separate layer) so that I can compare the results of my plan fairing to the originals.

 

2016-07-01.png

 

2016-07-01 (1).png

 

What I want to cover today is setting up the other two trace plans. Before starting you will have (obviously…) worked out which plan was the most 'accurate' to use as the 'written in stone' plan. In my case I did this years ago with the profile and frame plan being very similar whereas the inboard works is all over the place warping wise. Therefore my next trace was to be the inboard works because I like a challenge.

 

Now some will not even bother to trace this but I like having it on the master trace because it gives extra build details and it is useful to get this normalized with your master plan early. Anyway the process I used is as follows.

 

I added the bitmap file to a new turbocad document and straightened as before. Once this was done I resized to 'full' size using the two perpendiculars and the supplied length (in the Amphion's case 144 feet). This does not guarantee it will match so I then copied the majority of my primary profile plan (leaving out decoration and external stuff) so I could size this plan according to the master without any worries about upsetting the master. Now the width should be very close to the existing trace but the height can be more problematic. In this case I picked a common point on both plans (the top of the stern post) and added horizontal and vertical lines to the trace the inboard works picture. This allowed me to see the difference in height and then to resize just the vertical dimension on the picture so it was the same. I then dragged the entire trace master over the picture using the front keel boxing joint as my starter and looked for problems.

 

I did find some. Height was good and the front of the ship matched slightly better than the rear. Nothing that was not workable. If lines were 'off' vertically slightly I would trace the original and then move the trace to match the correct deck line. The end result will be inboard works brought into line with the preferred master. When finished I copied just the layer with my new trace over into a new master where it matched exactly (as intended). It was then locked and hidden in case I need it. As an aside I also added the extra mast and rudder data to the original master as it seems more relevant to group it together than to split.

 

2016-07-08.png

 

 

For those who had an un-natural interest in my file system here is a less than exciting shot of my one-note tracker document listing what I have so far.

 

2016-07-09.png


  • wrkempson, allanyed, mtaylor and 1 other like this

Ours is a life of constant reruns. We're always circling back to where we'd we started, then starting all over again. Even if we don't run extra laps that day, we surely will come back for more of the same another day soon. - Joe Henderson


#8
wrkempson

wrkempson
  • Members
  • 191 posts

A masterful job.  How rewarding to produce such a beautiful set of lines.  I think you should be in pretty good shape for the work that follows.

 

Now, may I inject a few remarks on the subject of tracing the plan.  On Naiad (I believe it was) Ed did not trace the lines so much as measure from the plan and then place the lines into his CAD drawing.  If I do not recall this correctly someone let me know.  Anyway, this got me to thinking about the idea of tracing the plan.  I could be the one who has brought in the term since in the little treatise that I wrote I must have used a line such as "trace everything" or some such.  This is what I did on Euryalus and Foudroyant and the results were quite usable.

 

However, since thinking some more about it, mere tracing is not quite the right way to go.  For example, on the inboard profile the decks and inner bulkheads are a specific width (eg, a 3" deck planking).  So, rather than tracing both lines, one line is placed on top of the plan line and then the second line is set parallel at the specified width from the first line.  And thus throughout the inboard profile plan.  In this way we are creating an accurate drawing that has "corrected" the vagaries of the original.

 

Even more significant is the way I would generate the rabbet lines of the stem.  Rather than trace them with a Bezier (which I did on Euryalus) today I would generate an arc that is tangent to the top of the keel and passes through two points on the inner rabbet line of the stem.  The top of the stem is a straight line which can be drawn in.  Then a second arc is generated as tangent to the first arc and tangent to the straight line and passing through one point on the plan.  The result is a rather elegant line.

 

In the picture below, the red arc is tangent to the top of the keel, the yellow line is straight, and the blue arc reconciles the arc to the line.  When cleaned up the result is the inner rabbet line.  

 

zzInner Rabbet.jpg

 

When trimmed, this inner rabbet line can be copied offset the prescribed distance (for example, 3" depending on the call out of the hull planking).  

 

zzInner Rabbet Trimmed.jpg

 

A similar procedure can be followed to generate the cutwater by a series of reconciled arcs rather than by using a Bezier.  In the picture below there are seven arcs that define the cutwater.  If you trim off the loose ends the results is indeed serpentine.

 

zzCutwater.jpg

 

The hang of the decks I have to put in with a Bezier.  I suspect the shape of the line might be a catenary, but even if so I don't think my CAD has a catenary tool anyway.  But once the deck line is drawn in, the attending lines indicating round up should be placed in through measurement as was done in the old days.  This again results is a more accurate drawing that has reworked the old drawing and thereby corrects what was lost due to age and distortion.

 

I think these observations may apply to the frame/station lines as well, but I have not substituted arcs and lines for the Beziers I used on Euryalus.  I am doing just that on my current project.

 

Well, this is a rather long winded way to applaud your work and cast my vote for more of the same.  The observations above are just an articulation of my current thinking.

 

Wayne

 

 


  • mtaylor, Matrim and jud like this

#9
Mark P

Mark P
  • Members
  • 249 posts
  • LocationRutland, England

Hi Matrim;

 

Excellent draughting!

 

One thought that might be of interest:  when I have been copying/drawing a draught,  I make each station line a different colour.  Then,  when the lines are drawn on the body plan,  at the outer edges,  where they overlap a lot,  it is easier to distinguish which is which.  I also make any datum marks on the body plan the same colour as the station line to which they belong.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P 


  • mtaylor and Matrim like this

#10
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,036 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Thanks both for the comments. Wayne, you appear to be moving to 'full shipwright' status. Have you considered a book on plans. Might be a possibility when you are happy with your approach....

 

Mark I tend to colour the water lines and have not had particular problems with the stations mainly because I switch the colour of the one I am working on to bright yellow and the ones done to a different colour so I don't tend to get confused. Then again I have probably entirely misunderstood the point..


  • mtaylor and jud like this

Ours is a life of constant reruns. We're always circling back to where we'd we started, then starting all over again. Even if we don't run extra laps that day, we surely will come back for more of the same another day soon. - Joe Henderson


#11
Mark P

Mark P
  • Members
  • 249 posts
  • LocationRutland, England

Hi Matrim;

 

thank you for the reply.  Everybody develops their own way of working,  and if it works well,  that's all we need.  I thought that you would probably have your own system to avoid confusing frames,  as it seems to be necessary.  I had not really thought of using a temporary colour change.  I'll keep it in mind as it might well be useful for other things.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P


  • mtaylor and jud like this

#12
jud

jud
  • Members
  • 1,090 posts
  • LocationLexington, Oregon

A follow up on lying out  those circular curves is to locate where the tangents points are or where you want them to be first, then extend those tangents ahead and back to an intersection with the neighboring tangent. Laying the tangents out first will enable you to locate the radius points so all connecting curves are tangent to each other and also the curves will be tangent to any straight lines coming in or out of the curve or set of curves. Works with curve segments running in the same direction or for reversed curves, much easier to work with than spirals. Working with tangent circular curves is much easier than working with non tangent circular curves although there is a place for them, minimizing their number is good planning.

jud


  • mtaylor and Matrim like this

#13
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,036 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

There are always people around with more skill...especially on this site so I bow to your knowledge.

 

Quick update. I have repeated the procedure with the frames and as can be seen below they match the primary plan quite well (most notable on the gunports)

 

 

2016-07-12.png

 

Now I will start re-doing the key lines as per instructions.

 

 


  • wrkempson and mtaylor like this

Ours is a life of constant reruns. We're always circling back to where we'd we started, then starting all over again. Even if we don't run extra laps that day, we surely will come back for more of the same another day soon. - Joe Henderson


#14
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,036 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

The 'Joys of fairing' (repeatedly). Joking side I do like fairing though the ancient rule of 'if it feels wrong then it is wrong' usually applies and I have already re-done several. I am also taking some liberties with the process which are probably not correct but in the big scheme of things I don't think it will hurt that much.

 

To run through the process I adjust the line colours from the layer colour as I move. On the body and profile lines that are completed are light green (as is the central station line). The current 'active' waterline is yellow. On the half breadth O also tend to use Light Grey to colour out my uncertain lines and to remind me to 'miss' them - not forgetting that left hand side 'bad' station lines should be repeated on the right otherwise you could select that line where the polyline crosses and get a slightly out of sync line.

 

Anyway as that probably made no sense except to four people in the universe here are some 'action' shots.

 

 

So below you can see 'done' light green lines and the current active yellow

 

2016-07-15.png

 

Here are some 'bad' station lines that I have coloured yellow just to make them more obvious. Note the bottom one covers both the left and right halves.

 

2016-07-15 (6).png

 

 

I take the start point from the rabbett on the bow.

 

2016-07-15 (2).png

 

And the same on the stern

 

2016-07-15 (3).png

 

Once the construction lines are dropped I am starting (and this may be heretical) from an adjusted keel line. Since the keel tapers at bow and stern I have aplied the taper - as I will apply it on the model (so not gradually over the entire keel) and am starting from there. On the original plan the waterlines start much deeper so I suspect they are copying the rabbett depth so this may be a bad idea (if any of the 4 has an opinion on this please say)

 

2016-07-15 (4).png

 

Once the two marker lines are done the left is mirrored onto the right section and a bezier joins them together

 

2016-07-15 (5).png

 

 

- not forgetting to 'miss' the dodgy grey lines and all done. I then always change my current work lines to green (for completed) but do not set up the next line as I have forgotten (in the past) whether that was a line I had completed but forgot to change colour or a line ready  to be done. I found it easier to leave it in a stable state which prevented mental stress when re-starting.

 

2016-07-15 (7).png

 

If anyone disagrees vociferously with me using those two rabbett lines as the start point then also please say. I vaguely recollect being told to use those years ago but as that was on MSW1 and around six years ago have utterly forgotten.

 

 

 

 


  • wrkempson, Pete38, mtaylor and 1 other like this

Ours is a life of constant reruns. We're always circling back to where we'd we started, then starting all over again. Even if we don't run extra laps that day, we surely will come back for more of the same another day soon. - Joe Henderson


#15
wrkempson

wrkempson
  • Members
  • 191 posts

I think that as a rule I would think of a water line as the inside of the hull planking.  Thus, the water, like the inside of the planking, will end at a point that is the distance of the planking thickness from the outer rabbet line; this point will create a line with the rabbet line that is perpendicular to the water line.  Think of it as the planking being drawn in, but only the inner side and end line of the planking.  This is something I have started doing in the last few years.

 

So, I would construct a circle with the radius of the thickness of the planking (3" in  my example) and the center at the intersection of your construction line and the side of the  keel.  This circle gives the depth of the planking that is let into the keel.  Then terminate your water line (or polyline marker) on the circle so that the line is tangent to the circle.  Draw a line from this  point to the circle center and you will have the 90 degree line representing the end of the planking.

 

Is this why the old drawings have the water lines set into the keel?  I think so but can't say I have read this  anywhere, it just makes sense to me.

 

Waterline.jpg

 

The inner rabbet line as drawn on the plans (parallel to the outer rabbet line) is a kind of fictional convention  since it does not exist on  the ship when built.

 

Wayne


  • Pete38, mtaylor, Matrim and 1 other like this

#16
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,036 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Thanks for that Wayne - it makes sense and adds a tiny improvement to the plans as well so I will re-do using that approach.  :)


  • mtaylor and jud like this

Ours is a life of constant reruns. We're always circling back to where we'd we started, then starting all over again. Even if we don't run extra laps that day, we surely will come back for more of the same another day soon. - Joe Henderson


#17
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,036 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

k, waterlines on the half breadth are now done, I also validated the 'curves' against the original traced waterlines as so (original in yellow)

 

2016-07-28.png

 

Remembering that my waterline locations don't match the originals (so they would not be 'on top' of each other) this allows the angles to be approximately validated to see if anything is drastically off.

 

After this the Buttock Lines went in, this is a nice easy job.

 

After the Buttock Lines the station lines were re-done. For the distance I measured the traced gaps as so (remembering one of the station line gaps is larger than the rest presumably to not include a station line that matches the central ones closely and to allow 'better' locations for some of the aft lines)

 

2016-07-27.png

 

Here the red dimension is the larger one. From this I settled at 62 inches for standard gaps and 75 for the larger.

 

2016-07-27 (1).png

 

Here they are drawn in. I keep the central station line a different colour (green). You also get a good view of the Buttock Lines as well (Pink)

 

Finally I compared locations to the originals. This has no relevance beyond showing how closely the body plan station lines will be close to the originals. As can be seen they are relatively close though some of the furthest aft lines are separating slightly so I can expect some line shadowing there.

 

2016-07-27 (2).png

 

Next up re-drawing the station lines on the body plan.

 

 

 

 


  • Pete38, mtaylor and jud like this

Ours is a life of constant reruns. We're always circling back to where we'd we started, then starting all over again. Even if we don't run extra laps that day, we surely will come back for more of the same another day soon. - Joe Henderson


#18
wrkempson

wrkempson
  • Members
  • 191 posts

I think now is the time to decide on the scantlings for your floor and first futtock timbers.  The 62" figure will have two Room & Space measurements for a R&S scantling of 31" or 2' 7".  Steel gives the R&S of a 32 gun frigate as 2' 3 3/4 ", but his 32 is shorter than Amphion so a 2' 7" figure might fit for the longer LBP that you have.  Into that 31" must fit a floor, a first futtock and a space.  Steel gives 13" for the siding of the floor and futtock of a 32, but again I think we might up that to 14".  Twice 14" is 28" leaving a space of 3".  This is a bit spacey, but I think it might serve.  Now, into the 62" will go a two floors, two futtocks and two spaces, but because the spaces are distributed over three gaps (the bends are not sistered) we have 6/3" gaps of 2" air gaps between the timbers.  Again, this seems to me to be a bit spacey but not impossible.

 

Now for the 75" figure.  This longer distance is due to the presence of a frame that has only a floor timber without a companion first futtock.  This is what will cause the floor to "shift" from being on the forward side of the frame pair to the after side.  This arrangement was handled in a plethora of ways, but you will have to play around with spacing and disposition to make things work.

 

If any of this makes sense then take it for what it cost you.  These are just some speculations I went through when I saw the 62" and 75" figures.

 

Good work all around as far as I can see.

 

Wayne


Edited by wrkempson, 28 July 2016 - 06:44 PM.

  • mtaylor, dvm27 and jud like this

#19
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,036 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Thank you Wayne, as an 'assist' the Prosepines Build book (sister ship and the only one I can access) stated
 

 

Room and space of the timbers to be 2ft 7in

 

 

The floor timbers are

 

 

Floor timbers 9-G  sided 13 inch

9aft and G forward 12 inches

Length midships - 20ft 6 inch

 

 

 

and lower futtocks

 

Lower Futtocks between 9 and G sided 13 inch

9-13 + G- >= sided 12 inches

Forward and aft 11.5 inches

 

 

 

 

So it looks like they increased the 'space' of the room and space for this class...As an added precaution I measured the frame sizes and space on the traced frame plan and the frames are usually slightly over 13 (since it is a trace that is well within copy error boundaries) and the space is usually 4.7ish dropping to 3.5 ish towards the front of the ship.


  • wrkempson and mtaylor like this

Ours is a life of constant reruns. We're always circling back to where we'd we started, then starting all over again. Even if we don't run extra laps that day, we surely will come back for more of the same another day soon. - Joe Henderson


#20
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,036 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Work is progressing nicely. I started to re-do the body plan station lines but rapidly something felt wrong. In this case when comparing the newly drawn lines with the originals I noticed that the station line was not bulging as deeply as the original. As at this point the station lines are in identical places bar the odd cm this should not be occurring.

 

2016-07-30.png

 

The purple lines are new and the green original. As you can see the anchor points on the pink Buttock lines and the waterlines. Initially it looked like the hull needed a few extra buttock lines to help assist in drawing the curve so I added one and redrew one of the station lines (browny orange on top of the existing)

 

2016-07-30 (1).png

 

This seemed to correct the issue as the line now at least appears to be matching the expected curve more closely.

 

On starting to re-do some of the earlier lines I was still not happy and decided some of the buttock lines were 'out' anyway. 

This could be due to many reasons but the most logical was a waterline misstep or including an 'uncertain' line when it should have been avoided. To test the theory I removed the buttock lines and added some new.

 

I then re-started and the problems seemed to go away. The key is that if the buttock lines are built of the original station lines that also built the waterlines then they should match. If either seems to be pulling away from the other then something is wrong. 

 

So my (current) full approach is as follows.

 

I color the current working station lines on vertical half breadth and profile yellow with all 'done' lines red.

 

2016-07-30 (2).png

 

2016-07-30 (3).png

 

Then the buttock lines on the profile have their horizontal constructions added for the working 'yellow' line

 

2016-07-30 (4).png

 

I then draw these in with a pink Polyline (so I can tell this apart from the waterlines which will overlap somewhat)

 

2016-07-30 (5).png

 

The vertical construction lines for the lower waterlines are then drawn in with a random different color (I think this looks Khaki like)

 

2016-07-30 (6).png

 

You'll notice how you can see how the buttock line polyline is  in sync with the lower waterlines line.

 

The upper waterlines and cap rail vertical constructions are then added. Also note (if you have good eyesight) the rapidly finishing cap rail (line on the left at this point). This is one reason I tried to make the new station lines match the original as presumably they were placed to avoid nasty locations. Though that could also be utter rubbish..

 

2016-07-30 (7).png

 

A better picture to show this is the cap rail height picture that I am taking from the underside of the cap rail (this could be wrong). Here you can also see the waist cap rail ending just past the station line.

 

2016-07-30 (8).png

 

And the upper polyline added

 

2016-07-30 (9).png

 

When drawing the bezier close attention was paid to whether the buttock lines and waterlines were working well together

 

2016-07-30 (10).png

 

And finally a close up of some of the redone lines (purple) with the original traced body (green) matching a lot better.

 

2016-07-30 (11).png

 

As I move further away from the center I expect these lines to separate slightly as my stations move slightly at either end of the ship compared to the originals but they should still follow a visibly similar shape..

 

 

 

 


  • mtaylor likes this

Ours is a life of constant reruns. We're always circling back to where we'd we started, then starting all over again. Even if we don't run extra laps that day, we surely will come back for more of the same another day soon. - Joe Henderson





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Welcome GUEST to the Model Ship World Community.
Please LOGIN or REGISTER to use all of our feautures.