Matrim

Amphion Drafts Mark III

85 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Matrim, mtaylor and druxey like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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, druxey and Mark P like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

post-387-0-51334600-1484159168_thumb.png

 

post-387-0-74369600-1484159176_thumb.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.

 

 

 

 

druxey and mtaylor like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

 

post-387-0-68171300-1484694173_thumb.png

 

post-387-0-87894600-1484694180_thumb.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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not decided yet so am continuing (at least until the spine of the ship is potentially done so the knee of the head, stern posts/rudder/rear deadwood) as an when really.

 

Next shot is the side view of the apron

 

post-387-0-23761800-1485382349_thumb.png

 

Nothing very exciting though the split in three appears unusual (either that or other plans deliberately leave it at two to simplify the piece..)

 

I considered doing a fron view but since that will involve various curves to fit I will eventually cut to sized wood and resize above and below the bearding line accordingly. Well that is the current plan and may change when tool comes to wood..

 

Cheers for reading as always. I may do the knee of the head side view next following the same setup mainly as that is relatively simple..

BANYAN and mtaylor like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm following along Joss :) and enjoying your discussion.  I am currently doing a simple 2D plan and side elevation drawing of the Victoria, but one day hope to draw up full plans - so I am following along to see what you do 

 

cheers

 

Pat

mtaylor and Matrim like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the aft piece the fore deadwood rather than a third section of apron?

Matrim and mtaylor like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would make logical sense except for the fact that the majority of the cant frames sit on that piece... When I get home tonight I will post a composite of all the relevant pieces of that section (apron, stem, keelson) which should help validate/deny...

druxey and mtaylor like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K here are some more 'global' plans. I have adjusted the colour of what is assumed to be the apron (above) to light green so it can be picked out amongst the surroundings easier.

 

post-387-0-84665300-1485466041.png

 

Second shot includes the cant frames but focuses more on the keel area than the above

 

post-387-0-07581800-1485466046_thumb.png

 

I am going to have to search through some of the paper plans though as I also decided to validate against the originals and on the sheer (at least) the upper joint does not occur.  Therefore it is possible that the lower apron is very short and the upper quite long.. I shall have to go and drag out all the plans though as that joint will have occured on one of them otherwise it would not have been added to the master..

mtaylor, druxey and BANYAN like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like an upper and lower piece to the fore deadwood to my eye, Joss. 

Matrim and mtaylor like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joss,

 

I really like your drawings but are you sure about size and shape of the scarph between gripe and main piece ? I think it is unusually long...

 

/Rainer

mtaylor likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The long line between the lips of the scarph is actually an arc, I suspect.  Several years ago there was a discussion of the shape of the "flat" of the scarph of the stem pieces at 

 

http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/4080-scantling-questions/page-17#entry289479

 

If that discussion is accurate, and I suspect it is, then perhaps the scarph of the break water is also curved.  The "flat" arc passes through a point halfway between the lips and at the mid point for the thickness of the timber.  Attached shows this for the scarph in question.

 

post-24-0-34908800-1485655354_thumb.jpg

 

I think this makes a much more serviceable joint.

 

Wayne

Matrim and mtaylor like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the scarph the length was indicated by the plans and I always take the plans over other considerations (inlcuding Steel). I also (deliberately) flatten the scarph because it makes it easier to cut and join pieces together so is a simplification of actual practice to simplify building. Useful to know what it should be so thank you both.

 

I have also looked around the various books and in the Swan and Euryalus the plans have the apron in two piece , labelled the apron. In the Naid the relevent section is in three pieces and the joints match shape and direction with the ones in mine with the lowest joint marked lower apron and the upper two upper apron. All the books have deadwood above the apron and all the books have the apron starting next to (but not exactly on) the upper line of the rising wood. So as far as I can tell (and lets face it we have several authors here so anything I say should be taken with a ton of salt if it in any way disagrees with posted pronouncements) this is the apron. I will try and move into more primary sources though (and still have not checked the other plans).

 

Thanks all for your comments..

druxey likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Madce an attempt at a knee of the head plan. May not go this approach (which requires more research) as I am still umming and aaing about different structures and possibly simplifying to make the construction easier.

 

 

post-387-0-47098900-1486503215_thumb.png

 

From what I have read so far there are several different ways of building this up so it is a matter of designer preference as to how...

BANYAN and mtaylor like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be a lot easier if there weren't so many options huh Joss :)  I am having the same issue with researching my Victoria.  You seem to be making some good headway though.

 

cheers

 

Pat

mtaylor and Matrim like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, a part of me does keep thinking how much stronger the end structure would be (and easier to make) if I just did it in one piece. I keep hitting that part of me on the head with a plank of wood to keep it in check..

mtaylor likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joss: the standard and extension were generally smaller, along the lines of the image I've taken the liberty of drawing over. The narrow 'wear' strip along the fore edge was made to be easily replaceable. Feel free to ignore my suggestions!

post-635-0-06066200-1486559467.jpg

dvm27, Mark P, BANYAN and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will adjust accordingly! Thanks for the info.. A lot of those lines were approximations dependant on the relevant books...

druxey, BANYAN, Mark P and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Onwards and upwards! Anyway I have adjusted the stem closer to Druxeys ever helpfull hints and have moved onto the rear deadwood. This is just a first attempt as I may play around with the tops of the sternposts slightly as I dont think I have enough detail on the plans to make an accurate attempt. The wing transom also looks a bit severe to my eyes but it is supposed to be at an angle so I may just have to check things through.

 

reardeadwood.png.e8a8d81f3f8baa9eb68a7bda2c6b3600.png

BANYAN, druxey, wrkempson and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks pretty good to me. Would the aft end of 'Deadwood 5' have a lip rather than taper to a point?

mtaylor and Matrim like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are making some great progress there mate; looking good.  Sorry I cannot offer technical comment as I simply do not have the experience, but I am closely following to learn what I can for when I have the same exercise to do for my build. :)

 

cheers

 

Pat

Matrim and mtaylor like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks both, i will also add deadwood 5 to my list of things to check on before continuing..

mtaylor likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joss and Druxey

The NMM plans for Euryalus show the deadwood piece number five with the same tapered aft end.  Not to say that is how it was actually built, just that the drawings show this feature.   I did some looking at the "Collections" at NMM and there is a stern model showing that each piece of the deadwood had a lip on the aft end.  

Allan

druxey, mtaylor and Matrim like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.