NGCathey

Members
  • Content count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About NGCathey

  • Birthday
  1. These look beautiful. I have been looking for a good set. Looks like these would fill the bill. Thanks Druexy
  2. Alan, This sounds a little steep to me. I ordered a set of plans for the Virginia from the NMM in 2010. Each sheet was about a F size drawing (28' x 40" and was about 14 pounds. The total order was about 94 pounds. Send them an email, with the plans you are interested in and they will let you know the cost. Also, as I am thinking about it, it seems that there were different levels of "quality" that you could order or order it to be framed. That may be where the cost come in. The set I got are plenty sufficient for developing a set of plans. As I remember, it did take some time for them to respond. Nathan
  3. All, I started toying with a project several years ago and it is slowing progressing. The project is to do a 1:48 scale plank-on-frame/Navy board style of the CSF Virginia. This will be based on the NMM plans of the Virginia taken off of her in Chatham in 1782. Obviously one of the primary task will be to develop the plans for the model, hence this post. In reading posts on various forums and list, practicums, and books there seems to be two primary ways to develop the plans: 1) draft the plans using information from the original plans, other sources material, and the drafting process, or 2) trace the original plans once they have been scanned and imported into a CAD program. My questions revolve around these two methods. My questions are: Is one method significantly more accurate/true to the design of the ship than the other? Is one more prone to introducing errors/inaccuracies? Would one method impart more knowledge of the ship and its design through the process of developing the plans than the other? Does drawing the pans require more specific knowledge that may not be shown on the plans (e.g., location of the radii for the sweeps, etc.) than tracing the plans? I would think that by tracing the plans, you get the benefit of information that is built into the design from the drawing itself. Is that true? I know that paper is subject to some distortion due to age of the drawing, reproduction process, etc. Would one method deal with these inaccuracies better than the other? Which one would you recommend and why? What other questions should I have asked? A little background on myself. I am an engineer by training and practice, and did do some drafting (paper) back in 1972-73. I am pretty good with visualizing objects from sketches and drawings. I have the plans of the Virginia frm the NMM. Also, I have read several different articles on understanding the lines in ship plans (David White, David Antscherl), David Antscherl's Swan series, Edward Tosti's books on the frigate Naiad, Bob Hunt's CAD practicum, and am reading Wayne Kepsons' "Drafting Ship Plans in CAD". I do have access to David Steel's Naval Architecture and Elements of mast making, Sail Making, and Rigging. I will be drawing the plans using TurboCAD® LTE. The point of the above is that I think I have most of the information that I cold do either method, Thanks in advance, Nathan Washington state.