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
65 replies to this topic

#21
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Now the lines are redrawn I have started firming up some of the other lines. The keel, rabbett and false keel were adjusted in size and the beakhead shape adjusted slightly to cope (I ended up using some of Waynes circles listed up above to get the angle looking better). Then these lines were transposed over to the body plan.

 

Here are the full size adjustments over the old.

 

 

2016-08-11.png

 

and the adjusted

 

2016-08-11 (1).png

 

After this I drew in the new 'cutting down line',in my last research log this was covered in huge detail (or to put it another way some valiant souls spent three pages of log correcting my mistakes in understanding). Anyway this time I drew a vertical parallel line 9.5 inches either side of the centerline and copied it over the profile from that.

 

Here is the stern side, the cutting down line is green

 

2016-08-11 (2).png

 

My next 'major' task is to get the frames drawn in so before that I tidied up some of the joints and then corrected the gunports. As with the cutting down line I have covered this already and the basic purpose is to ensure the lines lose any angles caused by bad tracing. End result

 

2016-08-11 (3).png

 

The key being to remember the horizontal lines are not always horizontal to the keel.

 

With some of the rest of the ship..

 

2016-08-11 (4).png

 

Port cills were quick and easy. I decided on the gap I wanted them to stick out and the followed the following procedure.

 

Add angles construction lines along the top and bottom edges

 

2016-08-11 (5).png

 

Add vertical construction lines the distance I wanted them to stick out

 

2016-08-11 (7).png

 

Add a parallel construction line at the top 5 inches away and two of the same type 3inches away from the lower edge of the port

 

2016-08-11 (8).png

 

Draw the cills in

 

2016-08-11 (9).png

 

Remove the construction lines.

 

2016-08-11 (10).png

 

Finally I moved them all to a separate layer as I had originally drawn them as part of the gunports but decided they belonged more closely with the frames as they would not be visible as the gunport would.

 

Next up the large job of the frames.

 

 

 


  • trippwj, Pete38, mtaylor and 2 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


#22
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Carrying on my 'repeat everything I did last time' process I have now finished the square frames, added the rising wood and completed the Centerline presentation plan.

 

I was extra careful ( more careful? I dont want to over egg the pudding) with the rising wood as it was uncertainty concerning the Bearding Line that stopped my build and pushed me back the drawing board (drawing pc? we need new words..)

 

Anyway once I had drawn it in and notched the wrong side (doh!) I then re-checked the base line against my original traced frame plan which I had cunningly not removed and left invisible in case of need - just to apply a sanity check on the line.

 

Here is it... I have temporarilly made the bearding line red (it is usually light green which is the same colour as the original plan frame trace)

 

2016-08-23 (2).png

 

As can be seen the line is very close to the original so I am pleased things match up.

 

The centerline plan ( as before) is loosely (closely) based on EdTs wonderful draftmanship though not as advanced..

 

Here is the front

 

2016-08-23.png

 

And here is the rear

 

2016-08-23 (1).png

 

You'll notice (well perhaps not) the orange 'turret like' line on top of the frames. That is the rising wood. Last time I left this and drew it in after drawing the frames. It makes much more sense to get this on the master plan now so it can be used to get the correct keel base when lofting the frames. I am keeping to the decision I made with the previous build to use less angles (and milling the contents) and using rather more horizontal joins that perhaps is historically accurate. I did wonder whether I should perhaps re-draw some of the angled frame joins with the same simplifying aim in mind.

 

Anyway next up are the cant frames and the build board plan. I may well start generating some scale build plans at that point and only loft the frames when I need them. I will have to see how confident I am when I get closer to that point.


  • allanyed, Pete38, mtaylor and 4 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


#23
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Time for another terribly unexciting update. I have now started on the forward cant frames and after some abortive attempts finally managed a process which I was happy with. 

 

Initially I used the traced frames as a starter (the central dashed lines of the double frames). I took a vertical construction line from the lowest visible waterline to the keel and repeated for (usually) the cap rail. Joined the two together and then extended to get my four center points.

 

2016-08-29.png

 

I could then place a vertical where it split the keel and added two parallel lines 10.5 apart.

 

2016-08-29 (1).png

 

I then added little temporary lines where these broke the keel line.

 

Next I moved to the cap rail and added a line perpendicular central line where it broke the cap rail.I could then add two more perpendicular lines also at 10.5

 

2016-08-29 (2).png

 

Now I could join the little temp lines on the keel to the equivalent end points on the construction line (not the cap rail as that would move the lines out of sync)

 

2016-08-29 (3).png

 

Now I extended to new lines so they stretched far beyond all waterlines

 

2016-08-29 (4).png

 

The next job is to add the filler frames. For this I measured the gap between the relevant double frames

 

2016-08-30.png

 

Deducted 21 for the frames themselves, divided what was left by 3 and then added construction lines of that length, then 10.5 either side and then added my helper lines so I could remove the constructions

 

2016-08-30 (1).png

 

The process at the cap rail was similar except here I started by drawing a construction line between the two double frames and used that to right angle my working construction lines

 

before adding the lines as before, extending and eventually trimming

 

2016-08-30 (3).png

 

Eventually I completed the lot. The singles at the end followed the same approach but with less gaps as the far edge was the edge of the last single frame and for the singles closet to the square frames I used my last 'new'  frame as the start point but followed essentially the same process

 

2016-08-30 (5).png

 

Now I could move onto drawing the frames themselves. This followed the 'usual' approach. Vertical constructions through each point (starting from the keel as that makes a nicer line even though that section will eventually get chopped off)

 

2016-08-30 (6).png

 

Repeat for upper waterlines and then join in

 

2016-08-30 (8).png

 

This will keep me busy for a bit and the same process will be followed for the stern cant frames.

 

 

 


  • Pete38, mtaylor, druxey and 2 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


#24
maaaslo

maaaslo
  • Members
  • 106 posts
  • LocationShenfield, UK
Hi
Magnificient and trully masterfully crafted plans are being drawn here.
One thing i would like to ask. Since i only visit the forum occasionally, i do not recall seeing any previous versions of your plans, nor i recall actually stumbling upon any of the previous works you have mentioned in your first post. What exactly are you planing to do with the finished plans? Are you going to release the data in any form? If so, how would one be able to obtain the results and where?
  • mtaylor likes this
 

Pavol stands for Paul, Pablo, Paolo etc. Please do not try to pronounce it, just call me Pav...


#25
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Thanks for the compliment though a lot of others do 'better' plans than I do.

 

I am actually at a point now where I could start building of the plans (I should really do an update though will probably wait until I get the frame master out) as I may avoid doing the individual frames until I need them. It took avery long time to get little individual pieces out of the way last time so I will have time during the build itself.

 

I had not thought about releasing them plus would need to complete the model to be confident the plans were good enough for the same (and that is a looong time away)..


  • Pete38 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


#26
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Time for another presentation plan. This one is for the frames so not particularly exciting plus I a may re-work the hawse pieces as their is something there I am not quite happy with, the full plans go into some interesting fiddly work that I have not decided whether to reproduce or not.

 

After this comes the building board plan or the 'fishbones' as I like to see it, which is possibly the most useful of the large plans. After that I may churn out the individual build plans for the central section of the ships spine - keel, false keel, stem and apron etc.

 

frames22.png


  • Chuck, trippwj, allanyed and 4 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


#27
druxey

druxey
  • Members
  • 4,774 posts
  • LocationNiagara on the Lake, Ontario, Canada

Looks good, but do the aft cant frames really run down all the way to the keel? Usually they sit on a stepped or curved ledge on the deadwood. This also applies, to a lesser extent, on the fore cant frames at the forefoot.


  • trippwj, mtaylor and Matrim like this

#28
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Good point as they dont!  I usually take the cant frames from the keel so that the curve, when it hits the ledge, has a smoother curve (I found it appeared disjointed slightly when started from the ledge which may just be the way I was drafting it) therefore It looks like I forgot to trim...

 

Revision one incoming quickly..


  • mtaylor and druxey 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


#29
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Here is the revision. Took a little longer as I had to adjust the master first then re-apply to thje presentation frame plan.

 

framev2.png


  • Pete38, mtaylor, dvm27 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


#30
druxey

druxey
  • Members
  • 4,774 posts
  • LocationNiagara on the Lake, Ontario, Canada

Much better, Joss!


  • mtaylor and Matrim like this

#31
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

K next up we have my fish plan (or the gangway overhead frames plan if you have no poetry). This is almost the key starting plan as it shall be printed full scale size (well in scale sections), laminated, then glued to the building board.

 

In certain respects I have simplified it somewhat in that I have not completed all the relevant hawse piece details (mainly as I am still considering re-work there) or added much stern structure detail beyond the outline. Both these areas will be worked on against the master as and when I need them so may be added to a version two of this plan which would provide more structural detail than the building board would need. I also decided to not add the station numbers as they don't have much use for this plan.

 

Additions that did not exist in the last are more details on the rising wood and the keel/false keel seperators. I found in my earlier look at building that I found it difficult to ascertain the correct overall size of those pieces as I did not have a single plan with 'all' the keel on. Since this plan is the total size it makes sense for that information to be on here so it should assist with building the keel/false keel/rising wood beyond its usual main purpose of assisting in frame layout and size generally.

 

Finally I might switch the scale of this I was originally going to keep to 1:60 but might drop to 1:50. I don't plan on including the top gallants, the masts will be angled to catch the wind (reducing height and width of the end model) and the extra size will help make some of the bits like the rising wood much less fiddly when I get round to them. Not decided either way yet though.

 

fish.png


  • Pete38 and albert 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


#32
mtaylor

mtaylor

    Bilge Rat

  • SPECIAL CONTRIBUTOR
  • 14,236 posts
  • LocationMedford, OR

Joss,

 

While you're probably right about not adding the station numbers, you might consider adding frame numbers if you haven't already.   

 

Looking good still.


  • Matrim likes this

Mark

"The shipwright is slow, but the wood is patient." - me


Current Build:

Licorne - 1755 from Hahn Plans (Scratch) Version 2.0

Past Builds:
Triton Cross-Section
USS Constellaton (kit bashed to 1854 Sloop of War (Gallery) Build Log
Wasa (Gallery)


Member of the Nautical Research Guild


#33
druxey

druxey
  • Members
  • 4,774 posts
  • LocationNiagara on the Lake, Ontario, Canada

If you are considering upsizing, why not 1:48 (a standard scale) rather than 1:50? As Mark mentioned, I'd also recommend numbering/lettering your frames, as it's so easy to mix them up (or put them in back to front!).


  • mtaylor and Matrim like this

#34
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Seems sensible so I have added them on (0n the frames themselves but below where the keel and supporting wood will go once building starts). It does beg the rather irrelevant question of 'what did they name the two single frames between ( (  B  )and B?

 

So on the plan moving out from the (0) central frame I have

 

(0) double

(Al)

(Ar)

(  B  ) double

?

?

B double

Cl

Cr

D double

 

and on

 

For the moment I am using B-l and B-R but I did wonder  if there was a correct naming convention ( admittedly a question of spectacular unimportance)


  • 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


#35
druxey

druxey
  • Members
  • 4,774 posts
  • LocationNiagara on the Lake, Ontario, Canada

I imagine with a parallel body those frames would be designated (B double), (B aft), (B fore), B double, C aft, C fore, D double, etc.


Edited by druxey, 30 October 2016 - 01:52 PM.

  • mtaylor likes this

#36
Dupree Allen

Dupree Allen
  • Members
  • 77 posts
  • LocationClarksville, AR

Matrim  Good read on your posts. I have TurboCad Deluxe 9 for Mac (V 9.0.11 Build 1204) and can't seem to get a good quality "Trace" of plans. I have ordered the instruction DVD's but have not received them yet, but they don't appear to address my dilemma. Would appreciate your input on this subject. Thank you in advance.

Dallen


  • mtaylor likes this

Dupree

 

"A slow steady hand conquers a fast shaky mind" - me

 

 

HMS Triton 1:32 Cross Section


#37
wrkempson

wrkempson
  • Members
  • 192 posts

I have TC for PC v19 and have been using TC since v8 (actually v4, but it's a long story).  

 

The trace tool in TC is not good enough for our kind of work.  Under the best of circumstances it leaves one frustrated with its poor quality.

 

I now have a 64 bit version of TC that no longer has a trace tool.  When using Trace in earlier 32 bit versions I quickly gave up on its utility.

 

You might want to check out http://forums.turboc...p?topic=11696.0

and http://forums.turboc...p?topic=12575.0 for insight from the TC forum.

 

For our kind of work importing the image and then manually "tracing" is better anyway.

 

Wayne


Edited by wrkempson, 30 October 2016 - 09:13 PM.

  • mtaylor, Matrim and Dupree Allen like this

#38
Dupree Allen

Dupree Allen
  • Members
  • 77 posts
  • LocationClarksville, AR

Wayne - Thanks for the reply. I was beginning to come to the conclusion "manual tracing" but I didn't want to do it in ignorance. I'm wondering if I should have purchased the "Pro" version. The TurboCAD forum seems to be a little dated.....I guess I'm the last to learn it.  :)

Dallen


  • mtaylor likes this

Dupree

 

"A slow steady hand conquers a fast shaky mind" - me

 

 

HMS Triton 1:32 Cross Section


#39
wrkempson

wrkempson
  • Members
  • 192 posts

Pro would make no difference.  Deluxe will do everything you need.


  • mtaylor and Matrim like this

#40
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

I agree. I am using (currently) 2016 Deluxe and tend to upgrade every other year.

 

I also load the image in and then manually trace (it is surprisingly enjoyable). One thing I did have to do was to switch off the red dot graphics thingy that seems to default as it made the imported plan image 'fuzzy' when drilling in (which is really not good for tracing) BUT that was on a windows machine so may well not be relevent..


  • mtaylor and aviaamator 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





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.