Admiralty model query

[leclaire]

OK, everyone, thanks to your encouragement I will retract my earlier statement about not attempting a scratch build. I have been eyeing the gunboat Philadelphia by MSW and thought it would be interesting to purchase just the plans and go from there. It does not seem like an overly complicated project and might be suitable for a first scratch build. There is only one major obstacle in my way - - the boss says that before I can start any new build I have to finish the three sitting on my workbench in various stages of completion (Black Prince, Niagara, and Chaperon). At my current rate of progress, I'm not sure I have enough years left to even get started on something new. Oh well, I think I will buy the plans anyway (there was no discussion about not doing that as far as I can remember) and maybe it will provide the incentive needed to get the others done.

 

Thanks again for everyone's input. For those of you in the US Midwest areas, stay warm. We had a low last night of 33 F below zero for actual temp and a nice toasty 52 below wind chill. The Mississippi River is good and frozen. Now it is starting to warm back up to zero 😎but it started snowing again.

 

Bob

[pontiachedmark]

Gidday Bob.

Glad to hear you are planning to buy some plans.

I hope you realise that once you have them it is the beginning of "Scratch Building".

You can do a lot of preliminary work from the plans without any construction.

I envy your cold weather, OK maybe not so cold, we are expecting 33 Celsius tomorrow and 38 Celsius on Sunday.

The roast dinner on Sunday will have to be postponed.

Wishing you all the best with your build.

Mark.

[Jaager]

Your window of opportunity may be a short one, as they may be going dark again,  but The Smithsonian has made a big deal of the gunboat Philadelphia.

They have 18 sheets of plans.  One that is Chapelle's and 17 that are based on the archeological work done on the actual hull.

The whole K&K is expensive = $170 but you would have the equivalent of the best ANCRE monograph to work from.

[leclaire]

I would love to have the Smithsonian plans but considering the boss put her foot down on the price of a new kit I doubt the $170 for their plans would fly. I am going to purchase the Philadelphia kit plans from Model Expo for $29.95. I think I can defend myself on that one. Certainly not the same but fine for my first attempt. Thanks for the input.

 

Bob

[Roger Pellett]

Complete plans of the Philadelphia were published many years ago in the Nautical Research Journal.  The plans were drawn by the Smithsonian staff that researched the real thing. Try the index on their website or call the office. A download of a Journal Article costs less than one of the designer coffee drinks that some Admirals buy.

 

Roger

[kurtvd19]

28 minutes ago, leclaire said:

I would love to have the Smithsonian plans but considering the boss put her foot down on the price of a new kit I doubt the $170 for their plans would fly. I am going to purchase the Philadelphia kit plans from Model Expo for $29.95. I think I can defend myself on that one. Certainly not the same but fine for my first attempt. Thanks for the input.

 

Bob:

The NRG article Roger mentioned is from the June 1984 30.2 issue on pages 55-67 and the cover photo.  The article shows the Smithsonian plans and is about making the plans and the model at the Smithsonian.  The plans were printed at a reduced size so each of the 3 plan sheets duplicated in the article are each on a single magazine page.   But they will help with using the Model Shipways plan set.

I just extracted it from the digital files and it is available, like most of our articles, for $2.50 as a PDF that is emailed.  Contact the office to pay the $2.50 by card or pay pal and we will email a copy.  Office phone is 585-968-8111 or nrghomeoffice@gmail.com    9 AM to 4 PM CST for calls.

Kurt

[Roger Pellett]

Strictly my opinion, worth what you paid for it, but I believe that you could build a successful model from the NRG plans by “lofting with a xerox machine.”  You have selected a model where the full sized prototype was not lofted.  The flat bottom was built then the frames were erected.  The frames were shaped using moulds many of which were the same shape.  If it were me, I would get the NRG plans and try to use them first.

 

Roger

[leclaire]

Kurt - thank you very much. I will call next week and take advantage of your offer.

 

Roger - you are probably right but I had already ordered the Model Shipways plan set before seeing your suggestion. Those plus the NRG plans should give me plenty to work with. Thanks.

 

Bob

[jdbondy]

I started perusing this thread because I have been looking for a tutorial on how to properly use ships curves to join points smoothly. In the past when I tried using them, I ended up with some very un-smooth curves that were composed of several curves of different radii. Any suggestions?

[druxey]

I've never seen a tutorial on this subject, so it's an interesting question. Some pointers:

 

You need an adequate number of points plotted first.

 

Fit a curve through the first three points and try to visualize how the line will extend to meet the next point or two.

 

Fit a curve to the previous two points on the curve and the next point (or two).

 

Continue through to the other end of the series of points and see if further smoothing is required. With some practice, this shouldn't be necessary.

[Roger Pellett]

When I was taught to draw hull lines, pre-cad the preferred method for drawing the long sweeping curves for the waterlines involved the use of splines, not ships curves.  Ships curves were used when the curve was too sharp to use a spline.  If you go to the previous page, you will find a post by Druxey describing the way to draw a fair curve with a curve.   Splines can be easily ripped from straight grained construction lumber.  Where I live, this is SPF (spruce, pine, fur).  Spruce is best.  At a lumber yard or big box store, it is the lightest of the three, the whitest, and does not have the nice resinous smell of the other two.  The spline can be held in place by driving small thin brads into the drawing board.

 

Roger

Edited April 20, 2019 by Roger Pellett

[druxey]

I assumed irregular curves, Roger, but for regular ones a spline or flexible curve will certainly do the job.

[jdbondy]

Bob, I owe you a big thank-you. Your picture of the Keuffel and Esser instruments jogged a memory, and I checked with my mother, a pack rat who moved to the US with her family in the early 1950s. She was a medical illustrator and her brother had done some drafting work. She may be a pack rat, but she knows just where to go find it when I ask about something. A phone call produced this:

The brand on the case is Staedtler, made in Germany. She also has this:

The brand name on the case for this one is Riefler Nesselwang. She estimates this one may be substantially older than the first set, as it was used by her grandfather. 

 

Each set demonstrates corrosion. Any suggestions on who to start checking with on getting them cleaned up? My thought goes to my local Asel Art Supply store to see if they have suggestions.

 

So glad I saw your post!

[druxey]

The older set is the lower one, judging by its style. The upper set, being complete, is the nicer.

 

With light surface corrosion of the steel, try a little penetrating oil on a Q-tip first. If that fails to move it, light buffing using Scotch-Brite radial bristle discs in a rotary tool at slow speed will work. I'd start with 400-grit and move into finer grades from there.

Edited April 21, 2019 by druxey

[Mark P]

Good Morning All;

 

I don't know if iMack, who started this thread will see this, but to go back to his original query:

 

The number of frames/ribs in an Admiralty Board Model is equal to the number of station lines used to set out the ship's body. Each station line represents the fore face of the frames heading aft, and the aft face of the frames heading forwards. Note, however, that draughts normally show only every third station line.

 

The number of station lines was dependent upon the size of the floor timbers to be used to build the ship, as it was this dimension which produced the 'room and space' measurement, which was the distance from face to face of successive frames.

 

An important point to understand here is that in Georgian times the room and space was calculated slightly differently to that of the 17th century, when Admiralty (also commonly called Navy Board Models) started to appear. 

 

For models built in the Admiralty/Navy Board style, the distance between the ribs/frames of the model was normally equal to 17th century full-size practice. In those times, the space between the floor timbers was completely filled by the bottom of the first futtock, with the futtock stopping short of the keel. So to decide the number of station lines, it is necessary to know the room and space. See below an extract from a builder's contract from 1652, giving the room and space as 28". As the floor timbers are 14", the lower ends of the futtocks would also have been 14" to fill the space between the floor timbers.

 

the keele with an ynch and quarter Bolt, the Flowre Tymbers to bee in length two and twenty foote, upp and Downe one foote, fore and aft fourteen inches, roome and Space to bee two foot four ynches,  The Dead Rysing to bee four ynches at least; the lower Futtocks to fill the roome, and to have Six or seaven foote Scarffe in the Midshipps, the other Teere of Futtocks to have six

 

Therefore, a model built to this room and space would have a frame every 28". Room and space varied according to the ship size.

 

 

From early in the 18th century framing methods changed. Amongst other changes, the first futtock now reached the keel.  A small gap, around 2", was left between the face of the futtock and the face of the floor timber of the next station. However, to construct a Navy Board style framed model, the futtock would need to be increased slightly in its sided dimension, to completely fill the space between the floor timbers. Again it is necessary to know the room and space. See below an extract from a builder's contract for 'Warspite' dated 1755. Room and space is 29" (very similar to that of 100 years earlier!) As the floor timbers are 15", the lower ends of the futtocks would be 14" to fill the space between the floor timbers (to build a Navy Board style model, the timbers could all be 14 1/2")

 

Room & Space of Timbers. To be Two feet five inches.

Floor Timbers. The Floor Timbers between Timber three, & Timber C, in the bearing of the Ship, to be Sided one foot three inches, and from 3 to 15 Aft, and from C to H forward to be sided one foot two ins; from 15 Aft, & from H forward, to be Sided one foot one inch; to be in length in Midships twenty five feet, eight inches, and afore and abaft as the draught directs.  

 

If you have a draught which shows station lines, the room and space is easy to find: the draught will normally show every third station line, so to find the room and space, and the number of frames you will need, divide the distance between the station lines into 3 equal portions.

 

To find the shape of the intervening station lines, it will be necessary, as discussed in previous answers to this post, to loft them from the draught.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited April 22, 2019 by Mark P

[Bob Cleek]

12 hours ago, Mark P said:

The number of frames/ribs in an Admiralty Board Model is equal to the number of station lines used to set out the ship's body. Each station line represents the fore face of the frames heading aft, and the aft face of the frames heading forwards. Note, however, that draughts normally show only every third station line.

I can't dispute your assertion about frame placement with respect to Admiralty Board Models offhand, as I don't know enough about them.  However, certainly in full-size construction, in later times, at least, there was necessarily no exact correlation between station lines and frame placement. The practice when drawing lines (and/or taking up offsets) was to divide the length between the extreme perpendiculars (bow and stern) into ten or sometimes twelve equal parts and the station lines were drawn to show the shape at each station, without any relationship to the frame placement, other than that the center frame was generally placed on the middle station line. The "frame and space," also described as the dimension of each frame and the space "between centers," that being the midline of the frame width (eg. 4" on 17" centers) will also vary, depending on the design. Some vessels carry frames of greater scantling ("molded" and/or "sided" dimensions) in areas where greater strength was desired, such as at the "chains," where shrouds are attached. That may involve simply greater scantlings, or closer spacing, or both. Also the frames which are not set on the keel, at the ends, are often spaced differently from the midships frames set on top of the keel. At the bow, especially, cant frames (which are not perpendicular to the vessel's centerline, but fan out to form the curve of the bow) end up evenly spaced as to themselves, but don't follow the "frame and space" or "on centers" designations anywhere along their length except at the sheer, or thereabouts.

 

It is not necessary, however, to build an unplanked "plank on frame" model, what we might call "the Admiralty Board Style" by laying up futtocks as in full-scale practice. Ed Tosti's current log on Young America is a tour 'd force of craftsmanship, depicting the actual construction techniques generally used on the wooden-framed American clipper ships, if not the prototype's actual construction itself, since I don't believe pre- or post-construction draughts were ever made of that vessel. (I believe Ed is relying on Crother's excellent book on the subject for his construction details, but I could be mistaken.) The same can be said for the Admiralty Board models, the actual vessels having been thereafter actually built at the master shipwright's discretion, at least as to "getting out" the timbers from the stock on hand in the yard at the time. The same "open frame" effect can be accomplished on models of full-sized ships by heat-bending the model frames, instead of getting out futtocks and making "built" frames.

 

I'd agree that sawn frames are set up on "frame lines" with the forward side on the frame line aft of the center station line and the aft side of the frame on the frame line forward of the center station line, but only when the rolling frame bevels are not lofted and cut prior to the frame being erected. If the bevels are accurately lofted and cut, there is no need to set up the frames to leave wood to be removed in fairing the bevels after the frame's erection.

 

If one wishes to build an "Admiralty Style" model showing frames and keel structure, all they need to define the shape of the hull is the keel, stem, and sternpost lines, the stern station lines, the middle station lines, and one or two station lines between the middle station line and the stern and between the middle station line and the stem. From these shapes, often readily available in plans as the station lines, molds or bulkheads can be cut and mounted on the keel. Battens are then sprung on the edges of these molds. Frames are then heated and bent and temporarily fastened inboard of the battens. Planking then proceeds, with battens removed as the planking progresses, and you got it done with little or no "lofting" at all. (Harold Underhill describes this technique in detail in his books on hull construction.)

Edited April 22, 2019 by Bob Cleek

[Bob Cleek]

On ‎4‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 4:28 PM, druxey said:

The older set is the lower one, judging by its style. The upper set, being complete, is the nicer.

 

With light surface corrosion of the steel, try a little penetrating oil on a Q-tip first. If that fails to move it, light buffing using Scotch-Brite radial bristle discs in a rotary tool at slow speed will work. I'd start with 400-grit and move into finer grades from there.

The Dietzgen set is their "second quality," their "Gem Union" line being their best. It is a very good professional set nonetheless. (As a Bentley is to a Rolls Royce!) The Reifler set is indeed older. The white handles (if they are white, and not just reflected light from the metal) are quite likely real ivory. The black ruling pen handles are almost certainly ebony. Riefler was a top end German manufacturer, still in business today. Most all quality drafting instruments sold by the US instrument companies were manufactured in Germany or Switzerland by a small number of companies and labeled by the US firms. Riefler was one of those manufacturers which also sold instruments under their own label. (Given the near-monopoly of instrument production by the Germans, there were extreme shortages of defense-essential drafting and navigational instruments during both World Wars. Keuffel and Esser brought out their own line during that time, called "Minusa," a contraction of "Made in USA." Dietzen had a similar US made line.)

 

Reifler was particularly famous for the innovation of instruments with rounded edges and round "legs," which were preferred by some as being more ergonomic than the sharp-edged square-bodied style instruments,  (See: http://www.mathsinstruments.me.uk/page47.html )Your two sets provide examples of both styles.

 

While divider points alone are sometimes steel, these instruments are generally made of "German silver," sometimes called "nickel silver," an alloy that was not silver at all, but rather an alloy of copper, nickel and zinc. It is favored for its rigidity and resistance to tarnishing. There are specific protocols for cleaning it. The least complicated is washing in dishwashing liquid and water. From there, electrolytic processes are used, such as laying the piece on tinfoil in salty water. Google is your friend here.  I'd be gentle with instruments. You don't want to ruin the fit and finish with rough abrasives.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Bob Cleek

[Mark P]

Good Morning All;

 

The original query was about, and only about, Admiralty Board Models. As these ceased to be made around 1750, the only points to consider are either the construction of the models themselves, or full-size practice during the period when the models were prevalent.

 

To make reference to much later (and much different) practice, or 19th century merchant vessels, is of no relevance to the subject of the original post, however accurately and thoroughly such practices may be discussed.

 

Ships for the Navy were built from draughts from at least the reign of James I, originally using a system of 'whole-moulding'. This was used to develop frame templates at all stations where required. Deane's doctrine of Naval Architecture, and The Keltridge draughts, both from the 1670-80s show either most or all stations. A treatise on ship-building dating from the 1620s gives detailed and complex instructions on how to construct frames at every station, using a combination of geometry and mathematics.

 

To advocate that Naval ship construction was carried out in any way otherwise, without use of a properly-drawn body plan or frame templates, can only be based on an (admitted) lack of knowledge. 

 

Whilst battens can be stretched between a few principal points to provide a hull shape, the degree of flexibility and lack of certainty which can be introduced by this method, especially in areas where a hollow is required, meant that it was both unsuitable and unused in Naval construction, except perhaps for very small vessels.

 

Recent works by authors who have made a close study of Admiralty/Navy Board models shows that the construction of the frames closely replicates full-size practice of room and space. Grant Walker's excellent volume on third rates in the Annapolis Naval Academy collection is a good example of this.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

 

 

[Roger Pellett]

Mark,

 

You might further qualify your post to say “Ships of the Royal Navy” as the practice for At least one other major naval power, the Dutch was much different.

 

Roger

[Mark P]

Evening Roger;

 

Thank you for your thoughts. I agree that it is important to be clear, when talking of ship-building in general, which Navy one is referring to.

 

I would normally add 'Royal' to the word Navy, certainly, and have done in other posts. However, in this case the subject under discussion is Admiralty Board models, which are by definition already associated with the Royal Navy, without any need for further clarification.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[Bob Cleek]

14 hours ago, Mark P said:

To advocate that Naval ship construction was carried out in any way otherwise, without use of a properly-drawn body plan or frame templates, can only be based on an (admitted) lack of knowledge. 

Who? Me?  I certainly did not intend to convey the impression that large ships of the relevant era, naval or otherwise, were build with steam-bent frames on battens and molds! My point was that heat-bent frames on battens and molds could be used in a model of a large ship if one wanted to avoid extensive lofting to achieve an unplanked, frames showing, "Admiralty style" model.

 

Close examination of Admiralty Board models seems to indicate that few have built-up sawn frames as some of today's master modelers have depicted in attempting to construct ever more accurate interpretations of the original vessels. (With the exception of Victory, which is extant, and those few which may have had lines and construction details recorded, a truly accurate portrayal of actual constructions details is impossible.) I would suspect the frames on many, if not most, Navy Board models may well have been heat-bent as I described. To get the curves required sawn out of a single piece of wood would result in grain run-out resulting in fatal structural weakness. None of those pictured below, collected from a casual internet search, appear to have sistered frames or separate futtocks, the frames all appearing to be single pieces of wood.

 

Mordaunt, Royal Museums, Greenwich 

 

 

 

 

Below: Bonaventure (ff. 1683) National Maritime Museum

 

Ship of 44 guns - unknown- Royal Museums Greenwich:

 

 

 

Navy Board model, Boston Museum of Fine Arts

 

 

 

 

[Mark P]

Good Evening Bob;

 

Your point that you were referring to models when talking of battens is fair enough, and I am happy to stand corrected on that.

 

Thank you for posting the pictures, which are always so lovely to see. As to whether or not the timbers of the frames for these models are bent to shape or cut from naturally curved timber, it is impossible to say, as the end results are visually identical.

 

However one wishes to make a model's frames, naturally curved timber would be best, but is obviously not easy to get. 

 

The Boston model is, I believe, although I am not certain, the Royal William. The damaged model is either late 17th or very early 18th century. The Bonaventure is dated on its stern 1682 (not 83, if that is what the NMM has listed) and the Mordaunt, originally built as a privateer, I think, is of similar age. All of which leads on to the following:

What is perhaps not realised by those more familiar with later building techniques is just how close to full-size 17th century practice the framing of such models is. Although it is generally stylised, especially as regards to the deadwood, and the length of the lower futtocks. Nonetheless, the use of interlocking floors, futtocks, navel timbers, and toptimbers was similar to that shown on the models. In the early and mid 17th century, few ships had more than 2 futtocks, and all contracts state quite specifically that the lower futtocks should fill the room, that is, they should fit tightly between the floor timbers.

 

Although the use of paired frames and filling frames came into use well within the period in which such models were made, the models continued to be made representative of earlier practice for many years.

 

The Peregrine galley, built at the turn of the century, was constructed with lower futtocks which stopped 2 to 3 feet short of the keel (this was reported when she was repaired in 1750)

 

If the futtocks only overlap, and are attached to, one floor, as is sometimes shown in reconstructions in books on this subject, this is a much weaker form of construction than if the overlaps of the floors and futtocks form a continuous solid band of timber, such as the models show, and as full sized practice was. 

 

So to conclude, the models are a fair approximation to full-size methods during a large part of the 17th century. This has been discussed very well by John Franklin in his excellent book on Navy Board ship models, and by others since then. The sided thickness of the timbers used was also a reflection of full-sized dimensions, and was rarely, if ever, arbitrary.

 

All the best,

 

Mark 

 

 

 

[dvm27]

41 minutes ago, Mark P said:

Thank you for posting the pictures, which are always so lovely to see. As to whether or not the timbers of the frames for these models are bent to shape or cut from naturally curved timber, it is impossible to say, as the end results are visually identical.

Don't know if you have Simon Stevens new book Navy Board Ship Models Mark but his description of the frame making process on these models echos Bob's thoughts on their construction:

 

"Navy Board models followed a construction sequence that had a noticable difference from that used on full-sized ships. Each complete frame was cut out from planks of wood, probably with a frame saw, rather than made up of separate floor timber, futtocks and top timbers. The hull would then be constructed of a run of complete frames glued together"

 

Following this, a section of every alternate frame or frame pair was removed with a chisel. These chisel marks are easily viewed with magnification. 

 

In actuality, building a Navy Board ship model this way would be very quick and easy. On would just need to lay out the entire frame pattern over a suitably dimensioned plank of wood, cut out the frame in one piece and move onto to the next. All the frames could be temporarily tacked together, faired and the lines of floor heads marked out. Disassemble, remove alternate frame sections and reassemble. The model below was actually made of solid  plywood frames except for the visible frames on each end.

[Mark P]

Good Morning Greg;

 

This is an interesting debate. I am afraid that I would not agree with you that the method as described by Simon Stevens echos Bob's comments. Bob mentions that not bending the timbers, and cutting them from straight timber would produce timbers with end grain in them, which is not desirable. If I understand Bob's posts correctly, we are both, as far as models go, attempting to describe a process where the desired result is a curved timber with no end grain. 

 

If Simon is correct, and he has undoubtedly seen far more ship models than almost anyone else, then there will be a lot of end grain visible in the frames of the models. I assume that Simon is describing the frames correctly, and that end-grain exists, and is merely difficult to see in the many published close-up photographs. 

 

My main point, however, is not the construction methods of the models themselves, but the extent to which the finished appearance of the models resembles full-size practice. Simon's description as quoted above does not discuss this, as he is describing only the method by which this appearance was achieved in the models. 

 

See below an extract from a contract from 1649, which was for 'Foresight', built by Jonas Shish at Deptford: 

 

This describes the floor timbers, and then specifies that the Navill timbers (lower futtocks) are to fill the room, that is to fit between the floor timbers. Then the next tier of futtocks is described, again with the proviso that they must also fill the room. This is a description of a ship built with a succession of interlocking, overlapping timbers, exactly as the Navy Board models appear. The six foot scarph describes the minimum extent of the overlap of the adjacent, side-by-side timbers. It is not referring to the later method of joining timbers. 

 

Auger Bolt fastening the same together, The space of Tymber and Roome, to be Two foote & Two ynches at ye most, The floor tymbers of the Shipp to bee Fourteene ynches up & downe, upon the Keele, and Eleven ynches in & out at the Wrong heads Att ye Bearynge & ten Afore & abaft, The Navill tymbers to fill the Roome, and to have Six foote Skarfe, The Tymbers upwards at the Gunndeck to bee Eight ynches in & out, & to have the like Skarfe, and the Roomes to bee filled with Tymber, To have a Substansiall Kelson, Fourteene ynches up & downe, and Sixteene

 

The actual construction of the models is secondary to the main theme I am writing about. Which is that the appearance of the models is much closer to real, early to mid 1600s construction techniques than most people, more accustomed to later, much better documented, methods of ship-building, are aware. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[druxey]

Mark brings up a good point: a 'Six foote Skarfe' means that the adjacent timbers are in contact with each others' sides for a minimum of six feet, as opposed to a scarf joint, where two timbers are joined end to end.

[CDW]

On 1/23/2019 at 5:05 AM, Bob Cleek said:

They aren't "bulkheads" or frames. They are station lines

Until reading this explanation, I had no idea my early (decades ago) career in land and construction surveying had so much in common with ship modeling terminology. Almost everything you said here about ship modeling/terminology mirror the principles, practice, and terminology of land surveying. 🙂

[Bob Cleek]

Thanks for the fascinating detailed information, Mark! It is most interesting. Of course, we are a rather small family of "wonks" who would have the slightest interest in such trivia when measured against the population as a whole, but I expect most of us have long ago gotten used to the fact that the level of historic detail and leaning we find so rewarding escapes most of the rest of the world.

 

And thanks for the tip on the John Franklin book!

[Bob Cleek]

11 hours ago, CDW said:

Until reading this explanation, I had no idea my early (decades ago) career in land and construction surveying had so much in common with ship modeling terminology. Almost everything you said here about ship modeling/terminology mirror the principles, practice, and terminology of land surveying. 🙂

Yes! That's certainly true. Each field of technical drawing has it's own refinements and they can often get very complicated. With nautical drafting, developing rolling bevels or curved elliptical transoms, for example, can be quite involved, but at the end of the day, the "grammar" and "vocabulary" of the "language" of drafting is pretty much all the same. At the risk of being accused of setting this thread "adrift," I'll offer the observation that since US high schools quit teaching drafting (often called "mechanical drawing" or "technical drawing") a generation ago, we've become an increasingly "drafting illiterate" culture. I doubt many under the age of fifty know what orthographic projection is.

 

I think the lack of knowledge of technical drawing basics is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for many modelers who otherwise would be able to seamlessly transition from kit-building to scratch-building, and with that, the reason we lack a greater diversity of subjects being modeled. So many feel limited only to kits, or at best, to subjects with available "model plans." Yet, our maritime museums and other archives are chock-full of incredibly interesting modeling subjects which are rarely, if ever, modeled because many are intimidated by the full-scale lines drawings and tables of offsets. The Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) has detailed drawings and photographs of tons of historic vessels, available in TIFF format, which can be enlarged without loss of definition, all for free on the internet.  You have to do some searching on their search engine, but if you are looking for an existing museum ship in the US, you can probably find it by name. For example, HAER has dozens and dozens of photographs of all the details any modeler could possibly want, together with exquisitely detailed modern drawings of the sailing ship Balclutha on display at the San Francisco Maritime Historical Park. See: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=Balclutha&sp=1&co=hh   So many ships and so little time...

 

Anybody who wants to expand their modeling horizons need only pick up a used "Mechanical Drawing" or "Technical Drawing" high school textbook and a copy of Alan Vaitses' book Lofting, still in print, do a little reading and have a go at it!

 

From HAER:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Balclutha's HAER historical documentation file contains sixty-nine pages of plans drawings and well over a hundred (I didn't count) photographs, some old and some current, covering every square inch of this vessel. All the research possible has been done, "our tax dollars at work" and in the public domain, ready to download. What isn't anybody modeling her?

 

(If anybody wants to study the photos or plans up close, click on the "TIFF" pixel option on the individual image page after clicking on the thumbnail, and then use your PDF page "tools" icon to enlarge the image to whatever size you want.)

Edited April 24, 2019 by Bob Cleek

[Mark P]

Good Morning Bob;

 

That sounds like a valuable resource for anyone with an interest in 19th century ships. As you say, we are perhaps a bit 'wonkish', but to judge by the number of members on this website, we are all together a good-sized community.

 

Thank you for the mention of the book on lofting. I have modern versions of several old volumes on this subject, but I will get hold of a copy of Alan Vaitses' book, as it might help to fill in some gaps. This is a new one to me, as I have never heard of it before, despite numerous searches on the Internet.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[Bob Cleek]

15 hours ago, Mark P said:

Thank you for the mention of the book on lofting. I have modern versions of several old volumes on this subject, but I will get hold of a copy of Alan Vaitses' book, as it might help to fill in some gaps. This is a new one to me, as I have never heard of it before, despite numerous searches on the Internet.

Here are a couple of sources. I didn't know it's available in hardcover for $45 USD from Amazon, but I have the paperback, which is spiral-bound, and that is quire convenient for folding it over and laying it flat when I'm using it for reference on my workbench or drafting table. It's copiously illustrated with full text explanations. It is also helpful for clarifying what one needs to loft to build a boat versus what can be lofted if for some reason one wants to develop higher levels of detail.

 

Like any language, fluency in lofting is more easily acquired by "immersion," rather than from books. I'd urge anybody who's interested in it (which should be all modelers who remotely contemplate working from anything other than plans drawn for modeling purposes to the scale they desire) to get some basic drafting tools and "just do it" with a book open at the same time.

 

I'd say the minimum equipment required would be a board, a T-square, a triangle, a compass, some battens (which could simply be flexible strips of wood, plastic, or even a length of broken bandsaw blade) something to hold the battens in place (weights, pins, etc.), a good rule for measuring, an eraser and erasing shield, and some hard pencils and a sharpener (which could, at the very least, simply be a pen knife and a piece of sandpaper glued to a stick.)

 

The picture on the cover of the book below shows the use of a batten to lay out the shape of a plank on the stock with a batten after the shape had been transferred from the loft floor.  It illustrates how a batten is used to develop fair curves on the drawing board, as well, although on the board, the batten would be smaller and held in place with weights ("ducks") or pins, rather than the ice picks and joggle sticks shown in the picture below.)

 

 

https://www.woodenboatstore.com/product/book_Lofting/boatbuilding - $20 USD

 

https://www.amazon.com/Lofting-Allan-H-Vaitses/dp/0937822558 - Used $15 USD

 

Lofting a Boat: A step-by-step manual (The Adlard Coles Classic Boat series) by Roger Kopanycia has also been highly recommended by some whose opinions I respect. I have not seen a copy myself. It may be more readily available in the UK.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Lofting-Boat-step-step-Classic/dp/1408131129/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=77653017128321&hvbmt=bp&hvdev=c&hvqmt=p&keywords=lofting&qid=1556226359&s=gateway&sr=8-1