• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jwileyr4

  • Birthday September 4

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Portland, OR area.
  1. I have a bit of information that might help get closer. There were 2 replicas of the Discovery. The first was launched in Jamestown in 1984. It is currently berthed in England. A second one was launched in 2006. It was built by Boothbay Harbor Shipyard of Boothbay Harbor, Maine. I suggest contacting them directly about the disposition of plans. http://boothbayharborshipyard.com/index.html You can click into their Completed Projects section and find mention of the Discovery.
  2. I believe you are looking at strap hinges on the outside of the square ventilation doors running from the top down.
  3. Jason, I was looking through various books I have and while looking at the Anatomy of the Ship Series on the Bounty (by John McKay) I found several references to them. They appear on the framing plan (pg 38) as "Air Scuttles". They appear in many more diagrams of framing and planking diagrams but are unlabeled. Finally they appear again on pg 58 and are labeled as "Air Scuttles added (three locations port and three locations starboard)". Earlier in the book there is a diagram of the ship when it was launched as the collier Bethia in which they did not appear. It seems to be a fairly low risk guess to assume they were added when the Bethia was taken into the service for their specific mission as a breadfruit hauler. These vents would have allowed airflow management for the Great Cabin where the breadfruit racks were built for their transportation. Wiley
  4. Cathead, a bit more thinking after some further study of Petersson and your posting. One of the three vessels he studies is an "American Schooner". In his diagram the sail plan is almost identical to your diagram of the Louisiana linked above. While Frankie is correct in that this is documentation of a single museum model of the type, we might as well tap it for all its worth. Frankie's screen shot is of a Lugger belaying plan, not a Schooner (which is also in his book) and the pin locations are not the same. The third craft Petersson studies is a Schooner like yours. It is the Experiment of about 1812. She was purchased by the Swedes and used as a prototype for 4 more vessels. Here's the way I'd break it down if I was building your model: Your black line is pretty straight forward as a main shroud for the main mast. It is taken around a deadeye, the only one you have on your main channel. One for each side. Shown in one of my attachments above. One deadeye might seem unusual but I found other Schooner diagrams with the same characteristic. In these cases there were other shrouds, just not ones turned around deadeyes on the channel. I bet your rigging plan has other lines playing these roles. Your Red and Blue lines. I noticed (for the first time) that your picture seems to show both of these lines going through spreaders. If this is correct they are clearly topgallent shrouds. Petersson shows two treatments of these at the spreader. In one they are actually seized to lashings on the spreader directly and stop there. In another they pass through the spreader, are gathered back to the mainmast by a "necklace" through which they pass down to the deck. I can easily imagine on your ship they might not run through this necklace and run from the spreader to the channel/belaying pin rack. The other ideas I posted earlier did not take into account the spreaders, sorry about that. Topgallent Shrouds.pdf
  5. Fore and Main actually. No mizzen on these. Poor use or terminology on my part.
  6. Here's an illustration of the backstays for a topmast. Your original picture shows the red and blue lines terminating there instead of the cross-trees. While this diagram shows these as separate lines terminated on the channel it could be a "running back-stay" as Jerry mentions. Backstays.pdf
  7. Cathead, your sail plan description lines up exactly with one of the diagrams I looked at. Foremast with fore and aft mainsail with 1 or 2 crossed square sail gaffs above. This mast had ratlines. The mizzen was a single shroud, no ratlines and no square sail gaffs. So far so good... I looked at the book Rigging Period Fore and Aft Craft by Lennarth Petersson. There were several illustrations of a "Main Tackle Top" that was part of the standing rigging but was not terminated in a deadeye. The line would reeve through 2 blocks presumably allowing the hands to adjust the shroud tension as required. Both ends of this arrangement were terminated on the channel. Your diagram only shows one terminating there but I bet you have a version of this arrangement. This theory does require a block attached to a line terminated at the crosstree through which this line reeves. I've attached a picture of the illustration to this post. Cathead.pdf
  8. Cathead, wondering about this myself I hit my books and found several drawings of Revenue Cutters in the book The Coast Guard Under Sail by Irving King. It showed every ratline configuration from none on any mast to being included on every mast. Several were shown with 2 shrouds on the foremast, including ratlines, and a single shroud on the mizzen without rat lines. In every case of missing ratlines the masts were equipped only with fore and aft sails, no square sails. It seems conceivable that type of rig could be managed entirely from the deck. If your model has no square sails then this lines up...
  9. All, as some of you are aware through prior posts I am struggling with learning TurboCAD software for 2D use in lofting/drawing ship plans from blueprints. I wanted to share a recent bonanza with you. I stumbled across a CNC machine site that happened to provide basic training on TurboCAD. It is the best stuff I have found so far as a general introduction to TC. http://www.legacycncwoodworking.com/lifetime-training-tutorials/ Focus on the ones with “TurboCAD Class…”. I hope you find them as effective as I do. Wiley
  10. Excellent feedback, let me reflect back what I read here... Wayne, my question of "objects" was the assumption that the various lines describing an object somehow had to be joined together so TC recognized it as an actual object (i.e. rectangle) with properties like height and width. I suspected 4 lines could be "joined" somehow to make a rectangle instead of starting with a rectangle object. I think I've learned part of the answer. Looking at various on-line training aids it appears the object is defined by what tool you use to draw it and TC prefers to build a rectangle with the rectangle tool instead of 4 lines from the line tool. I suspect there are ways to “translate” object types from one to the other as required but I’ll figure out those capabilities a bit later. You mentioned test fitting parts with 3D. That’s exactly what I was thinking of when 3D popped into my head. I caught your statement “Also, I found that using 3D was an easier way to project the stern timbers, and maybe the head timbers, but that's about it.” I think that answers my question about using 3D throughout. The value is limited to a few specific purposes. Your attached renderings are certainly the “sizzle” driving me to consider 3D. Thanks for sharing the eye-candy. Harvey, I registered your observation that having working experience with 2D and 3D you find 2D works fine for ship modeling. The books you mentioned are actually already on my bookshelf. Thanks for pointing out their value in this particular discussion. The youtube videos… I found the same guy while digging around last night and watched some of this stuff. I noticed the 2 videos of his I sampled were using TC with the “old interface”. One of the MANY things I learned last night was TC went through several user interface updates with the most recent being version 18. Classes done in an older version won’t sync directly unless you reset the newer software into the old UI mode. None-the-less the basic functions are very similar and I appreciate you passing on this source to me. It looks close to an online reference to TC functionality. Tony, you seem to echo Wayne and Harvey in your feelings about 3D not adding much to your modelling experience. That makes it unanimous. Just in case I’ve done an inadequate job of saying so, THANKS. These thoughts and comments are helping me navigation a complex path through a deep topic.
  11. OK gents, I got some basic direction about how to tackle TurboCAD for lofting my drawings and have already gone splat. Wayne, I was reading your tutorial on reproducing plans in CAD and it started me thinking. Before I get into the mechanics of importing and "converting" my drawing there seems to be some fundamental approach questions I need to review. At this point my thinking is a dangerous and unbounded activity since I'm not grounded in CAD reality yet. I find myself stuck with some higher level "approach" issues I need to work out before I begin. I started by wondering if TurboCAD had a tight definition of an "object". Meaning if I was drawing any object, are overlapping line segments making an outline enough or do they have to be "joined" in some mystical TurboCAD way to become an object? Or is it just a "grouping" function like Visio might use? Then I started thinking again (Oh oh) about how much more effort is it to make these 3D objects? Seems like a reasonable extra step that brings some interesting benefits? If I want to do renderings of the CAD objects doesn't that require 3D data? If I am interested in fleshing out model/framing details in CAD and not on the building table does that also suggest 3D? Finally, 3D data is also a requirement for 3D printing, yes? Wayne, if you were to do this again would you take the step to 3D? When? What practical solutions/uses does it provide that 2D just can't do? Grant? Tony? Harvey? All of you have travelled this path. Your thoughts? 2D vs. 3D? Others? Wiley the Apprentice
  12. Gentleman, thanks one and all for your replies. Looks like the elusive "easy button" remains just that BUT each of you has relevant thoughts. I also know that most, if not all, of you learned this the old fashioned way, one step at a time. There is only one high school in my county and they are lucky to keep an athletic program. Adult education is beyond them. There is indeed a community college about 45 minutes away but nothing turned up searching their web-page. Other potential resources are further away than I’m willing to drive. I checked out the TurboCAD forums and was delighted to see topics on lofting specifically. My hopes are twitching with reanimation… Tony I absolutely believe you, I’ve just reached a beaten-down state in trying this one. There is enough meaningful information here that I might be able to rally again… maybe… Wayne! Oh my! 79 pages of how to do it in an already-assembled guide? I’m beginning to hear angels singing… Based on the collective ideas so far this looks like the path: Become a member of the TurboCAD community. Read Wayne’s tiny treatise, taking each working section to the actual software. Use the forum (this and TurboCAD) to explore each functional area for currency/efficiency and thoughts on current best-practices. Frank, since you are starting the TurboCAD climb as well perhaps we should start a mutual support group/survivors club? Wayne, have you thought about tutoring? Did I mention I’m paying? <one last shot at the easy-button> Thanks all, Wiley
  13. Help! I'm overwhelmed. I'm trying to climb the mountain of learning TurboCAD to loft some blueprints. I'd really like to use it to transform this blueprint data into some actual building templates, etc. I know there is a "promised land" out there where these fantasies come true but I can't find it. My need is almost entirely about using TurboCAD. I get lofting (in theory. Haven't done it from start to finish yet). I get drafting (have done old-fashioned pencil and paper lots of times). TurboCAD is just too big a mountain to climb without a friendly guide. I've tried their training stuff but find it useless without a context to prioritize exposure to the features. The kicker is I work in the computer security industry and am looking at computers all day. I get them too. So why and I posting here? I'd like to try something novel. I'd very much like to engage one of you experienced TurboCAD users to actually guide me through the learning process using some easy-to-use remote one-on-one instruction technology. I even want to pay for your time. Something of a tutoring engagement on TurboCAD for openers and maybe lofting in CAD as a bonus. I can supply all the software and remote connection technology as long as you have a computer and access to TurboCAD. I have TurboCAD Deluxe V21. I'm even willing to spend money on other options if required. Here's the kinds of questions I'm trying to answer: Just how far does TurboCAD go in the lofting process? Do I need more? What parts of it do I need to know in what order to move from blueprint to building templates/drawings? How can I enter primary data from blueprints and "flesh out" the rest of the details in TurboCAD? What does it look/feel like to loft a few elements using TurboCAD? What is the overall process to move from blueprint to construction drawings? Some logistics: I live in the Pacific Coast time zone and work full time so we're talking about potentially late-hour sessions if you're far from the west coast. I'm more than happy to adapt to your availability within these limits including weekends. I have a full-time "real life" as I'm sure you do (including kids!) and don't expect an intense pace. Did I say I look at this as professional tutoring and am willing/expecting to pay for your time? If you are brave/crazy/creative/adaptable enough to explore this please let me know (shades of desperation showing) via Private Message on this board.