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

HBMS Amphion 1798 - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#41
druxey

druxey
  • Members
  • 2,852 posts
  • LocationNiagara on the Lake, Ontario, Canada

This is looking good, Joss!



#42
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 805 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Cheers Druxey, while I have the time I might as well utilise it to do the best I can

 

Joss.



#43
AnobiumPunctatum

AnobiumPunctatum
  • Members
  • 613 posts
  • LocationDuisburg, Germany

Joss,

 

your drawings are looking really good.


Regards Christian
 

In the shipyard: HM Sloop Fly, 1776 - Scale 1/32

On the drawing board: Naval Cutter Alert, 1777 - Scale 1/32


#44
mtaylor

mtaylor

    Bilge Rat

  • SPECIAL CONTRIBUTOR
  • 10,256 posts
  • LocationMedford, OR

Nice work, Joss.  Looking forward to the next installment.



#45
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 805 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Time for another un-thrilling update! I have just completed drawing in the new waterlines and as an expression of my greater confidence have drawn them at 3ft below the wale and 1.5 ft above (in the original plans I went for 2 ft and 1 ft respectively which just added extra work and did not allow the auto curve CAD functions to work as cleanly as they could).

 

Rather than go into exhaustive detail Wayne's tutorial covers this nicely. I did have to make a couple of leaps of faith though. Which I shall detail here just in case they are invalid leaps.

 

First up when working above the wale towards the rear of the ship you will notice that most plan sets suddenly stop 'bending' the lines to the keel and start sticking straight out as so - 

 

A5-RearLine2.jpg

 

Below the wale the waterline should start at the rabbet line. Above the keel this does not exist. Instead I used the handy stern line (here in blue) 

 

A4-RearLine.jpg

 

coupled with one of the rear dotted plan lines from the sheet as my 'start' point above though  I am not entirely certain what this relates to - I don't think (what do I know) that this will affect anything later on as other superstructure builds up this.

 

Whatever else you do don't forget and treat this like a station line though as that will really damage your hull shape..

 

 

The other area is in the placement of the cap rail. annoyingly enough is not the highest rail on the ship but (at the rear) the following (in the light brown colour)

 

A2-CapRailLeft.jpg

 

The superstructure above this is not part of the standard framing as can be seen if I switch on my underlying frames trace.

 

A2-CapRailLeftFull.jpg

 

In the center of the ship I am using the bottom dotted line. Mainly because again that is where my frame plan frames complete.

 

A3-CapRailCentral.jpg

 

At the bow I was confronted with more of a conundrum. Here the frames clearly end at the upper rail but when transposing horizontal constructions across the lines completed at the following (note the little horizontal green lines which indicate this point)

 

A6-CapRailAtFrameHeight.jpg

 

The lines above this suddenly shoot vertical so looking at my plans I drew a construction from the top of the timberheads where they crossed a station line and then threw a couple of horizontal construction lines off. This appears to match the vertical limit of the body plan lines on the body plan. My problem is that the timberheads (if I remember correctly) were an extension of the frames. So my problem is should I use that line as the cap rail on the sheer or the cap rail as it exists for the majority of the frames. - The timberheads are after all intermittent and do not occur on every frame..

 

A7-Aaa.jpg

 

 

Anyone this stage is fast so if anyone has any criticism of the approach then please say before I get back on to it. Thanks for reading..

 

 

Joss

 

 

 

 


  • avsjerome2003 likes this

#46
Wintergreen

Wintergreen
  • Members
  • 200 posts
  • LocationÅtvidaberg, Sweden

Thanks for your discussion Josh!
My own drafting and building has come to a grinding halt so it is a pleasure to follow you along.

 

I cant really get in to talk about your details and findings, just thinking "hm.. yup, ah, yeah that's right" and so ;)


Cheers!

Håkan

__________________________________________

 

Previous builds

Gallery: BB Regina Build log: Regina by Wintergreen

Billing Boats Dana

Billing Boats Wasa

Upcoming projects: TBD


#47
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 805 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Thanks for the comment, I find the cad work relaxing (at least when I believe I am working correctly that is)

 

Joss



#48
WackoWolf

WackoWolf
  • Members
  • 2,163 posts
  • LocationRhode Island

Joss.

 

   Your cad work is excellent. I have been following this from the beginning. Keep the pictures coming.


Wacko
Joe :D

Go MSW :) :)

#49
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 805 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Just a quick update. The plan is redone and faired and I am ready to start (back) on the primary drawings again. Keeping the original plan lines on a hidden layer proved useful in checking the validity of my completed plan as below. Here the new station lines are in blue and the original station lines in black

 

BBodyComparison.jpg

 

Last time through I started on separate completion plans for each section (i.e frames, keel etc etc) this time I am getting the basics correct on the primary plan and then simplifying to work on each new plan. Here is my working copy of the keel master plan. All I have done so far is copy the information from the main plan and started stripping down the info to what I want to show on the plan. No doubt there will be some adjustments I notice that will need to be mimicked back on the main plan but I should be in a better state to undertake this.

 

BKeelMasterStart.jpg

 

Hopefully I will get the smart version of the Keel Master out of the way by next week then can re-do the keel, false keel, stem, bow, keelson individual break out plans.

 

Joss


  • mtaylor and Roman like this

#50
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 805 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Without further ado here is the keel master. As before I am utilising EdT's plan styles because they are just so stylish.

 

KeelMasterPlan.JPG

 

and since I cannot appear to get turbo cad to save it in a readable format for the web

 

KeelMasterRear.png

 

KeelMasterFront.png

 

 

As stated before onto the construction plans for the keel/false keel next

 

Joss


  • WackoWolf, Trussben, druxey and 2 others like this

#51
mtaylor

mtaylor

    Bilge Rat

  • SPECIAL CONTRIBUTOR
  • 10,256 posts
  • LocationMedford, OR

Looks great, Joss.  I think re-starting was a good thing.  Hopefully, it'll go better this time.



#52
Pete38

Pete38
  • Members
  • 649 posts
  • LocationEastview, Kentucky

Been quietly following along on your thread.   The restart seems to be well worth it. Looking good.


Triton Cross Section 1:32

 

SEE YA LATER

 

im-outta-here-bye-bye-smiley-emoticon.gi

 


#53
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 805 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Thanks both for the comments



#54
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 805 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Things are progressing nicely and I am currently on the 'smart' plans. I wont upload the keel/false keel parts plan as that is quite simple and thus not that exciting. Here though is the smart sheer plan. I have also finally worked out how to get a viewable image out of turbocad. Save as a pdf. Open in pdf reader and screenshot it..

 

SheerStandard.jpg

 

Next week I plan on starting on the framing plan.

 

Joss


  • ianmajor, Dubz, druxey and 2 others like this

#55
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 805 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England
Time to move (slowly) onto the framing plan. I decided to not use the existing plan except as a template and then had to make a descision on the vexing question of whether to follow standard practice and having the siding decrease with each frame. On reflection that is beyond my ability so I will keep to equal sided frames except where an actual siding would enable the frame to better map the actual gun ports. Though this will make the construction easier it means there will be some more work to do in ensuring the framing plan adjustments do not upset the integrity of the design.
 
First up I validated some numbers. My Proserpine contract lists the siding of the frames as follows
 
Lower Futtocks between 9 and G sided 13 inch
9-13 + G- >= sided 12 inches
Forward and aft 11.5 inches
 
I then validated this against my own framing plan. Scaling up then down I measured each of the double frames to ensure
they matched the contract above (which they did).
 
Next up I drew in the square frames before calculating the gaps. i.e for the central frames the gap was 36.36 with 2 single frames if each is 13 inches then the three gaps would be 10.36/3 so 3.45 inches.
 
When the frame sidings changed so does the required gaps. Another noticeable difference was the section of the hull where three single frames separated the two doubles.
 
Once the frames were in it was time to check against the various gunports.
 
For the purposes of the gunports the single frames do not usually form the sides so can be ignored (1 gunport was sided by a single but I will get to that later. The next point is that allowing for the drawing method the gunports themselves might not be exact. Measuring the gunports on the  plan I was fairly happy that the width was approximately 35 inches for all the gunports. On my frame plan the measurements were as follows
 
I marked the sternmost gunport of the square frames as I and worked forward from there
 
Gunport CAD frames Original sheer
I             39.36            35.28
II            39.36            35.47
III            38.36           36.17
IV           37.36            35.45
V            32.91            34.96  (bordered on right by a single frame)
VI           36.60            35.21
VII          36.36            35.28
VIII          37.86           35.04
IX           39.36            35.62
 
As can be seen the sheer plan ports (with the noticeable exception of III) all hover around the 35 inch mark. The cad frames are both larger and generally more regular. A lot of this lies in the siding decreasing but it is also covered by the gaps making slight and increasing differences in size which incrementally upset measurements and slight movements in the station line. The adjusting sizes of the gunports as measured on the original sheer has been impacted somewhat by the measurement itself. As CAD lines are thin the thicker line drawn on the map (on the right hand side of the gunport) allows slight adjustments in size to occur. 
 
To resolve this I firstly adjusted the gunport width to exactly 35 inches with the right hand line 'losing out' I then either added diminishing sidings wherever it would push my lines badly off. Height wise the gunports appeared to consistently measure around 29.45 inches.
 
So to start I needed to finally decide which lines would be used as my target gunports - the sheer square or the framing plan ports. Here is a shot of the I gunport two with the sheer port in black.
 
Gunport1.jpg
 
And measurement for both
 
Frame ports 
 
Gunport2FrameMeasurement.jpg
 
Sheer plan gunports
 
Gunport2GunportMeasurement.jpg
 
 
Now the horizontal for this port is not true horizontal - using two vertical starts it matches 34 inch but measuring the full length of the line almost hits 35 (hence the discrepancy between this and the above width marks which followed the horizontal). There is nothing there really to make me prefer one over the other - something which was consistent over the other ports so I had to pick one. I decided in the end to use the sheer plan ports and not the framing ports.
 
Now the next shot is of the sheer I port and the double and single frames in that area of the ship - this is also where the gap should be the worst as it is incrementally furthest away from the central double (0) frame.
 
Gunport3DrawnFrames.jpg
 
Now on the framing plan there are some large sidings adjustments as follows
 
Sternwards
 
Gunport4FrameToStern.jpg
 
Bowards
 
Gunport5FrametoBow.jpg
 
 
So I shall replicate. My next job therefore is to ensure the gunports are all the correct size and bordered by frames. If anyone has anyone opinions as to gunports sizes or the best way to resolve this then please say.
 
Anyway bye for now.
 
Joss
 
 


#56
druxey

druxey
  • Members
  • 2,852 posts
  • LocationNiagara on the Lake, Ontario, Canada

Ports are spec'd at 28" deep by 30" wide for a 32 gun ship (Steel, 1805). The sizes you quote are very close to those for a 38 gun ship (30" x 34").



#57
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 805 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Cheers Druxey, I shall carry out some more validation against some of the other original plans tonight. Is that measurement frame to frame or would it include any 'interior' wood i.e gunport sill would reduce the height of the gap and could be around 2 inches plus any wood (if any was used) on the vertical.

 

I will hit the books before carrying on further to see if I can resolve the discrepancy myself.

 

Cheers,

 

Joss.



#58
Doreltomin

Doreltomin
  • Members
  • 184 posts
  • LocationConstanta, Romania

Hello, I just wonder if this computer-aided design of a period wooden ship isn't plain misleading. Don't misunderstand me, I also work as a professional architect, busy all the day long with my 3D models, but I remember the old days of the hand drawing and I have seen how this 3D models and uncanny precision of the CAD can modify your thinking. I mean, there may be too much precision which for practical reasons wouldn't be necessary for a wooden ship, where some 1-2 cm of adjustment and deviation from the standard dimensions would have been quite normal. 

 

Then, there is something else which annoys me from a long time ago and I am not yet sure how it was on a real ships.What do I mean:

 

I know all period plans of these ships show the vertical sides of a gunport to be a true vertical, while the "horizontals" are parallel with the respective gundeck. Is it like that on their period plans because it is plainly easier to draw or was it also true in reality?

Each gundeck lid would have been custom-built and then fixed to place, a tedious and time consuming process. 

 

For the real ship I believe it would have been easier to do it otherwise. I mean, on the shipyard there must have been a logical development of the things. First, the frames were erected and put to place. Then, the external wooden skin was put to place, then the gundeck beams were fixed inside and the gundeck put over. Then, I believe for practical reasons it would have been easier for them to make a wooden jig of exactly the needed size for the gunport aperture including two "legs' to align it do the deck at the needed height, mark the place and then cut the gunport along the marks. If it was needed, the true vertical of the frame was adjusted away to make room for the gunport aperture. This way the "horizontals" would be paralel with the deck, the "verticals" of the gunports wouldn't be true verticals anymore, however the gunport lids would have been at 90 degrees each, easy to build, easy to adjust and easy to switch from one gunport to another if needed. 

 

What do you think?


Edited by Doreltomin, 03 September 2013 - 02:17 PM.

  • Roman likes this

#59
Matrim

Matrim

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 805 posts
  • LocationLeicestershire, England

Cheers for the comment. Other people will probably give a better answer than I can but as the decks can sweep at quite an angle it would make no sense to have the gunports true horizontal as they would then be angled as to the deck the gun was being serviced from. If the ports were true horizontal then the gun would not always be able to cover all directions as the deck drop/rise would cause the cannon to 'touch' the gunport or alternately not be able to reach it at all.

 

The sides would be vertical because the frames that erm framed them were vertical (and if they were not then the ship wrights would have a much worse time building the ship than they would coping with what are much smaller angled gunports).

 

I doubt that is a very satisfactory answer though so we will see if anyone can provide a better one.

 

Joss..



#60
druxey

druxey
  • Members
  • 2,852 posts
  • LocationNiagara on the Lake, Ontario, Canada

If port sills were all horizontal and not parallel to the deck sheer then the planking of each inside would need to be chiselled out square. In addition, the curve of the ship's sides prevents port lids from being interchangeable. You could ask why a ship has sheer and is not flat along the decks. Sheer is required to counteract the tendency for the (wooden) structure to sag and for drainage. A ship is very unlike the architecture of a building, where all items are at right angles, parallel and eight horizontal or vertical, modern day cruise ships excepted!






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.