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

#61
smatsik

smatsik
  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • LocationClinton, MA

Wayne,

 

You are probably right on that. I always thought the taper was a little extreme too, but was caught in the 1/8 inch on each side thinking. I will probably go with your interpretation from now.

 

Hoss


  • Matrim likes this

#62
wrkempson

wrkempson
  • Members
  • 192 posts

Druxey's "hunch" for a long time has been that the taper begins close to where the cant frames begin.  The 24' figure comports well with that notion.

 

I got to thinking.  What if the length of the taper also defines the length of the keel piece?  For example, if we use Steel for a 36 gun frigate, the length of the keel tread is 126' 2"; the keel is sided amidships 1' 4", forward 1' 2" and aft 1' 1".  By this the after taper begins 24' and the forward taper 16' from the respective ends.  Steel calls for six keel pieces (the Repository calls for five).  Now, if the forward keel piece is 16' and the after piece is 24' (for a total of 40'), then the remaining four keel pieces take up 86' 2" and each piece would be 21' 7".  Should one use five pieces the inner pieces would be 28' 8" (or 9").  These seem like viable lengths for the keel pieces.  

 

The same procedure for a 74 gives the fore and aft pieces at 24' with five inner pieces of 22' 5" (or 6").  Again, this seems viable.

 

Of course, all these would be adjusted to account for the joints.

 

I have made my keel piece lengths as roughly equal, but the above was an amusing exercise if nothing else.  

 

Wayne


  • mtaylor, Matrim and druxey like this

#63
wrkempson

wrkempson
  • Members
  • 192 posts

On the other hand, the only plan I have that shows the keel scarphs shows them equidistant from one another, so we add some hesitation to the above calculations.

 

Wayne


  • mtaylor likes this

#64
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Wonderful work guys plus the 24 ft does match the current taper start location quite well so I wont have to re-draw. That was a quite interesting discussion for a point that turns out to validate the guestimate approach taken by many of us :)


  • 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


#65
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

K, after the (much needed) assistance from Wayne and Druxey (see Rising wood thread currently around 2 higher than this).

 

I have drawn out the rising wood though I had to redraw on the master plan first.

 

risingtop.png

 

risingside.png

 

As before I am using a simplified notch system to make it easier to seat the frames, As with a lot of things this will introduce its own complications though these will mainly occur when cross marking the relevant heights on the actual individual frame plans (the seat of the frame on the rising wood is usually angled so if it is not horizontal then it needs to be equally carefully marked as it wont be a default height above the bottom any more but will be higher (or lower) dependant on where the horizontal line was taken off of)

 

Just to reiterate what was done a fresh buttock line was taken off of the body plan using the keel lines. This generated a line that sank veey close to the keel itself at the centerpoint but did not quite touch. Horizontal lines were then thrown up from here 6 inches (the base size of the notch) generating the plans above.

 

As mentioned before another way of doing this include generating an angled rising wood section with no notches. I did not follow this path because I am happier with right angles and the notches will also help seat the frames at the correct location.

 

Phew. Next up the much simpler stem and apron structures.

 

 

 

 


  • 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


#66
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Just produced the Stem Plans. Not really certain of the best way to get the tapering on the plan so we'll have to see if this approach works or if it needs further adjustments..

 

stemsplit.png

 

stemcombined.png

 

I have enough to get started (and keep me busy a few months) so I might stop work on plans until my Bounty is out of the way and start when I start work on the build.

 

 

Then again....hmm have to consider the pros and cons.

 

 


  • Pete38, mtaylor, AnobiumPunctatum 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





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.