CDR_Ret

Re: mothballing--naval technology is advancing so fast that some warships are becoming obsolete before their planned service lives. The 1st flight 688 subs are a good example. They were the quietest things in the ocean when they were built, but long before their 30-year service life, their base sound levels were already well above that necessary to remain tactically viable. So for ships that depend on advanced technology, mothballing isn't really an option, especially if they're nuclear powered.
 
Carriers are so big that they can be upgraded repeatedly almost indefinitely until it becomes too expensive to replace legacy parts.
 
Then there are the Ticos, that Congress wanted to scrap as a sequestration cost-cutting measure. Fortunately the Navy brass want to keep them and upgrade this very capable and good-looking class of ships. Nothing like the Zumwalt abomination or the LCS jokes for warships.
 
IMHO.
 
Terry

Re: mothballing--naval technology is advancing so fast that some warships are becoming obsolete before their planned service lives. The 1st flight 688 subs are a good example. They were the quietest things in the ocean when they were built, but long before their 30-year service life, their base sound levels were already well above that necessary to remain tactically viable. So for ships that depend on advanced technology, mothballing isn't really an option, especially if they're nuclear powered.
 
Carriers are so big that they can be upgraded repeatedly almost indefinitely until it becomes too expensive to replace legacy parts.
 
Then there are the Ticos, that Congress wanted to scrap as a sequestration cost-cutting measure. Fortunately the Navy brass want to keep them and upgrade this very capable and good-looking class of ships. Nothing like the Zumwalt abomination or the LCS jokes for warships.
 
IMHO.
 
Terry

Re: mothballing--naval technology is advancing so fast that some warships are becoming obsolete before their planned service lives. The 1st flight 688 subs are a good example. They were the quietest things in the ocean when they were built, but long before their 30-year service life, their base sound levels were already well above that necessary to remain tactically viable. So for ships that depend on advanced technology, mothballing isn't really an option, especially if they're nuclear powered.
 
Carriers are so big that they can be upgraded repeatedly almost indefinitely until it becomes too expensive to replace legacy parts.
 
Then there are the Ticos, that Congress wanted to scrap as a sequestration cost-cutting measure. Fortunately the Navy brass want to keep them and upgrade this very capable and good-looking class of ships. Nothing like the Zumwalt abomination or the LCS jokes for warships.
 
IMHO.
 
Terry

I'm an "Old Salt", I guess.  As much as I hated what I was doing, where I was at and where I lived, that old gray ship (USS JF Kennedy CVA 67) aircraft carrier and the people, and experience, upon reflection, were the best days of my life.  Therefore, I couldn't be happier to see her becoming a museum, and like others have said, it's not our generation or the current generation to understand, but future generation a hundred years or more to see what Navy preceded them.   As someone recently said about ships,  "that back "then" there were wooden ships and Iron Men, now we've become iron ships with wooden men soon to be iron ships with no men".  May our history survive for future generations to learn from.  To me that is only by preservation of our heritage....except model ships.
John

Thanks for the responses.
 
I'll take a look at the possibility that the door is actually hinged, but there just seems to be too much external hardware for a standard door. Besides, there isn't a door knob or handle evident at the aft edge, which is reasonably clear.
 
W. H. Curtis's diagram of a conventional door frame, which I have attached, is much simpler and looks very much like a conventional door, even with the high deck coaming.
 
My reconstruction of the forecastle can be seen at my build log.
 
The earlier photo is taken on the ship's weather deck looking forward at the aft port corner of the forecastle deckhouse of the brigantine Galilee, built by Matthew Turner in Benicia CA in 1891. She was hired for Pacific Ocean magnetic survey work in 1906 by the Carnegie Institute's Department of Terrestrial Magnetism (DTM/CIW) and served in that capacity until 1909. My grandfather was one of the survey physicists on board for the second and part of the third chartered cruise. Check out Galilee's Wikpedia page and the Ocean Magnetic Surveys pages at the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism website.
 
Attached here is another photo, very grainy, of the Galilee's port side, showing the relation of the forecastle to the ship. A small galley structure was added for Cruise II forward of the foremast. You can see that there is no exterior door evident, which means it must have opened into the galley. The galley is structurally similar to the forecastle in all respects except for size.
 
The forward end of the magnetic observation bridge is above the forecastle.
 
Terry

Need some help interpreting what I am seeing here. In the attached photo of Galilee's middle deckhouse port side, there is evidently a sliding door mounted on wheel tracks top and bottom.
 
Here are some questions:
How was such a door made reasonably weatherproof? Would there be water stops built into the frame to prevent major water intrusions during boarding seas? Would the door handle/latch be a lever or just a hand grab like a staple? As you can see, the photo is pretty muddy where a handle would be. There is a suggestion of a vertical metal rib along the forward edge of the doorway, which might be a water stop.
 
Like all sliding doors on ships in my experience, there was probably a standing latch when the door was fully open and a latch when it was shut. I have no idea if technology of the late 1800s would have produced a mechanism that would operate both latches.
 
If anyone has reference photos or other images of such an installation, I'd appreciate seeing them.
 
Thanks.
 
Terry

Need some help interpreting what I am seeing here. In the attached photo of Galilee's middle deckhouse port side, there is evidently a sliding door mounted on wheel tracks top and bottom.
 
Here are some questions:
How was such a door made reasonably weatherproof? Would there be water stops built into the frame to prevent major water intrusions during boarding seas? Would the door handle/latch be a lever or just a hand grab like a staple? As you can see, the photo is pretty muddy where a handle would be. There is a suggestion of a vertical metal rib along the forward edge of the doorway, which might be a water stop.
 
Like all sliding doors on ships in my experience, there was probably a standing latch when the door was fully open and a latch when it was shut. I have no idea if technology of the late 1800s would have produced a mechanism that would operate both latches.
 
If anyone has reference photos or other images of such an installation, I'd appreciate seeing them.
 
Thanks.
 
Terry

Good morning lehmann.
 
Nice work with that CAD model!
 
I've been using DELFTship Free for developing a set of plans for my brigantine Galilee project, which is featured elsewhere on this site.
 
I must be dense, but the program was anything but intuitive to start a project in. The manual is only marginally helpful. After a steep learning curve, I'm approaching the point where I believe I have a reasonable hull.
 
My reason for using the program arises from the need to correct the stern/transom shape of the vessel in the Smithsonian plans, which are the only existing complete set of drawings for the ship. I have a number of contemporary photos of the vessel that show a distinctively different shape. Chasing these kinds of adjustments around three 2D views is a frustrating task, while the consequences of making adjustments are immediately visible in a 3D CAD program.
 
I'd like to see more modeler interest using this program. It has a lot of potential for identifying errors in plans before committing time and wood to the build.
 
Terry

Hi Guy.
 
I regret to say that right now I am wrapped up doing a bathroom renovation and haven't put any time into this project for several months. I am hoping to get back to the planning and research in February.
 
Terry

Larry,
 
I stand corrected on the 'Bama. That would make a more interesting (and challenging) model to work on.
 
If you are going to model directly on a drawing, you still need a spreadsheet or table with offset-like (x, y, z) intersections to enter into the control net point editor. Otherwise, you will end up with a 2D model.
 
My suggested sequence to start this project DELFTShip would be the following, though this isn't the only way to proceed.
Create separate profile, plan, and body view JPG files, all at the same scale. You will need a photo editor to do this. Make them as high resolution as you can (300+ dpi). Create a new project in DELFTShip. I don't have the program in front of me right now, but I think you just click on the white blank page icon in the upper left corner. Follow the instructions and save it. The 7.X version of the program has a Windows-like ribbon. Under the Home tab, click on the Project Settings button. Fill in the General stuff as desired. The really important thing to get right at the beginning is the type of units used. Select either metric or imperial (English), according to your plans. If you forget to do this and leave it in metric (default), when you go back and try to switch to English, it does a dimensional conversion, not numerical. In other words, if you create a model 150 feet long in the meters setting, and then realize you want it to be in feet, and switch the units here in the Settings dialog, the model is now 3.281 ft/m X 150 m, or 492 feet long! All is not lost though. Just use the Scaling feature on the Tools tab and scale length, width, and height by 1/3.281, or 0.3047. Still in the Settings dialog, click on the Main Particulars tab and fill in the Length or LBP (distance between aft face of stern post at LWL to intersection of stem rabbet at LWL), Beam (maximum moulded width), and LWL Draft to baseline. Galilee's baseline was the keel rabbet line. You will need to determine your plan's waterline baseline for this data. The Mid-ship location is set by default at 50% of Length, but if you have a station at that point, I would select a position between stations. This item determines at what point the program splits the stations between the front and stern halves of the body plan view. It should correspond to your body plan image you will be using. You also need to select the Longitudinal reference point. It defaults to the midpoint, but many plans use either the AP or the FP for reference. Galilee's plan used its vertical stern post for the reference. (I recommend the AP because all x values will be positive forward of this point.) The rest of the settings are of little interest to the modeler (IMHO). I can't recall exactly, but I think there is a default model in the new project window. Just select all and delete the model. The next step would be to add the three images in their appropriate views. This is done under the Tools tab. The process is addressed under Section 3.4 of the manual, but it's pretty vague as to the order of operations to make the process reliable and straightforward. I need to be looking at the program to explain this, so it will have to wait. For Bruce, I think it was more the fact that I held an eagle feather in my left hand, and shook the rattles twice before clicking Accept that made the images go where they were supposed to.  Some general hints on hull modeling from scratch: Building a model using a Control Net is not the same thing as drawing an image in 2D. You are creating a subsurface framework that influences the shape of the underlying surface but is NOT part of the surface except at its edges and at "creases". Read Section 3.1 for a (very) brief overview of this modeling method. If you have used Blender or other subsurface modeling programs, then this should be old hat. To create a surface, you need to first have at a minimum of 3 control points in different locations (see below).Then you have to select all the points that will be used to shape that surface. This is done by holding the Ctrl key down and selecting all the points one at a time (more control) or by band-boxing (less control). Then press the Add Face button (the manual's button doesn't agree with the program's here because the GUI was updated since the manual was published). Connect the control points with control lines as desired. This is done by selecting two or more points as above, then clicking on the Insert Line button. For more control, I usually do this with pairs of points, though you can generally do a string of them as long as they don't form an obvious polygon. Otherwise, you may have lines connecting all the points to each other. When you use the Add Point button on the Ribbon, it places the new point at the 0, 0, 0 location and displays the Point editor. To obtain a precise location, as with offset table coordinates, fill in the x, y, and z values in the point editor box. Note that x is positive forward of the longitudinal reference (a good reason to make it the AP), y is positive from centerline outboard, and z is positive from the baseline up. All coordinates are negative on the opposite sides of their respective reference lines. One last thing about selections. In the newest version of the program, clicking on control points with just the mouse deselects the previous point selected (selected points are highlighted yellow). Not so control lines and surface patches. Sequentially selecting lines and patches keeps all selected until you press Escape. I think there is a Deselect All button in the ribbon with the newest version, but I haven't checked that out. This bug can get you if you are trying to select edges to make them creases, such as along the edges of the keel or stern post. You end up toggling one edge to uncrease as you try to crease another if you don't unselect it first. Very annoying. I just noticed that the DELFTShip Free webpage doesn't have their latest manual available for download. You will need to send an email to Maarten Visser (maarten@delftship.net) at their site and request the latest (it should be "manual_714_282.pdf" or later and it's nearly 10 MB). If it's a later version, please let me know.
 
Got to get back to work, but if you desire, I can elaborate on some of the other basic processes and features sometime later.
 
Terry

Hi Guy.
 
I regret to say that right now I am wrapped up doing a bathroom renovation and haven't put any time into this project for several months. I am hoping to get back to the planning and research in February.
 
Terry

It's an airbrush for me for 90 percent of my painting.  I use acrylics and airbrush cleanup is easy.  The secret to airbrushing small areas is to use an airbrush meant for detail work vs one meant for larger areas. 
Spray cans are of limited use in my opinion with the hobby brands, Testors, etc. being OK but the use of hardware store paints (spray or cans) is to be avoided due to the size of the paint pigments.  Model paints are in the 1 micron range while hardware store paints, meant to cover in one application range about 17 to 32 microns and will obscure details..
To avoid water based paints from raising the grain of basswood or other woods a coat of shellac sprayed or brushed will seal the wood and the water based paint applied over the shellac will not raise the grain.
Kurt

I, too, read Nordhoff/Hall's trilogy in high school some 50 years ago. Bligh came across as a villain, though one had to acknowledge he was a consummate navigator. Christian was the beleaguered-but-competent first officer who finally had had enough.
 
But then I recently read Bligh's journals that covered the Tahiti voyage, the mutiny, and the return to safety, which are available from various sources on the web as well as distilled versions in paperback. I came away with a totally different opinion of the man. According to these sources, he detested corporal punishment, and if anything was too lenient with his crew. The narrative pertaining to Christian in Bligh's words paints a disturbed, insolent, and insubordinate individual who chafed under any kind of discipline. Yet Bligh repeatedly gave him the benefit of the doubt and overlooked punishable offenses (and this may have given Christian the courage to go through with the mutiny).
 
One could suggest that Bligh wrote his journals to favor his viewpoint and prejudice the crew's, but that hypothesis doesn't really ring true. Bligh is detailed in all of his entries, and at the time he made the earlier ones, he had no clue a mutiny would occur later. His attempts to maintain discipline and his concern for the welfare of the crew are remarkable. Ventilating the 'tweendecks, collecting rainwater as often as possible so the crew can wash their clothes, and having the cook provide a variety of prepared meals to keep the crew's spirits up. The journals were hand-written in ink and could hardly be edited later on. Some reviewers believe we have only heavily revised and rewritten versions that tell the narrative Bligh wanted, but if that were the case, he must have had an extraordinary memory, because the details of his narrative fit seamlessly together.
 
So, as is always the case, it's best to acquire your information on historical figures from a variety of sources in order to arrive at a balanced opinion.
 
Terry

I, too, read Nordhoff/Hall's trilogy in high school some 50 years ago. Bligh came across as a villain, though one had to acknowledge he was a consummate navigator. Christian was the beleaguered-but-competent first officer who finally had had enough.
 
But then I recently read Bligh's journals that covered the Tahiti voyage, the mutiny, and the return to safety, which are available from various sources on the web as well as distilled versions in paperback. I came away with a totally different opinion of the man. According to these sources, he detested corporal punishment, and if anything was too lenient with his crew. The narrative pertaining to Christian in Bligh's words paints a disturbed, insolent, and insubordinate individual who chafed under any kind of discipline. Yet Bligh repeatedly gave him the benefit of the doubt and overlooked punishable offenses (and this may have given Christian the courage to go through with the mutiny).
 
One could suggest that Bligh wrote his journals to favor his viewpoint and prejudice the crew's, but that hypothesis doesn't really ring true. Bligh is detailed in all of his entries, and at the time he made the earlier ones, he had no clue a mutiny would occur later. His attempts to maintain discipline and his concern for the welfare of the crew are remarkable. Ventilating the 'tweendecks, collecting rainwater as often as possible so the crew can wash their clothes, and having the cook provide a variety of prepared meals to keep the crew's spirits up. The journals were hand-written in ink and could hardly be edited later on. Some reviewers believe we have only heavily revised and rewritten versions that tell the narrative Bligh wanted, but if that were the case, he must have had an extraordinary memory, because the details of his narrative fit seamlessly together.
 
So, as is always the case, it's best to acquire your information on historical figures from a variety of sources in order to arrive at a balanced opinion.
 
Terry

I, too, read Nordhoff/Hall's trilogy in high school some 50 years ago. Bligh came across as a villain, though one had to acknowledge he was a consummate navigator. Christian was the beleaguered-but-competent first officer who finally had had enough.
 
But then I recently read Bligh's journals that covered the Tahiti voyage, the mutiny, and the return to safety, which are available from various sources on the web as well as distilled versions in paperback. I came away with a totally different opinion of the man. According to these sources, he detested corporal punishment, and if anything was too lenient with his crew. The narrative pertaining to Christian in Bligh's words paints a disturbed, insolent, and insubordinate individual who chafed under any kind of discipline. Yet Bligh repeatedly gave him the benefit of the doubt and overlooked punishable offenses (and this may have given Christian the courage to go through with the mutiny).
 
One could suggest that Bligh wrote his journals to favor his viewpoint and prejudice the crew's, but that hypothesis doesn't really ring true. Bligh is detailed in all of his entries, and at the time he made the earlier ones, he had no clue a mutiny would occur later. His attempts to maintain discipline and his concern for the welfare of the crew are remarkable. Ventilating the 'tweendecks, collecting rainwater as often as possible so the crew can wash their clothes, and having the cook provide a variety of prepared meals to keep the crew's spirits up. The journals were hand-written in ink and could hardly be edited later on. Some reviewers believe we have only heavily revised and rewritten versions that tell the narrative Bligh wanted, but if that were the case, he must have had an extraordinary memory, because the details of his narrative fit seamlessly together.
 
So, as is always the case, it's best to acquire your information on historical figures from a variety of sources in order to arrive at a balanced opinion.
 
Terry

I, too, read Nordhoff/Hall's trilogy in high school some 50 years ago. Bligh came across as a villain, though one had to acknowledge he was a consummate navigator. Christian was the beleaguered-but-competent first officer who finally had had enough.
 
But then I recently read Bligh's journals that covered the Tahiti voyage, the mutiny, and the return to safety, which are available from various sources on the web as well as distilled versions in paperback. I came away with a totally different opinion of the man. According to these sources, he detested corporal punishment, and if anything was too lenient with his crew. The narrative pertaining to Christian in Bligh's words paints a disturbed, insolent, and insubordinate individual who chafed under any kind of discipline. Yet Bligh repeatedly gave him the benefit of the doubt and overlooked punishable offenses (and this may have given Christian the courage to go through with the mutiny).
 
One could suggest that Bligh wrote his journals to favor his viewpoint and prejudice the crew's, but that hypothesis doesn't really ring true. Bligh is detailed in all of his entries, and at the time he made the earlier ones, he had no clue a mutiny would occur later. His attempts to maintain discipline and his concern for the welfare of the crew are remarkable. Ventilating the 'tweendecks, collecting rainwater as often as possible so the crew can wash their clothes, and having the cook provide a variety of prepared meals to keep the crew's spirits up. The journals were hand-written in ink and could hardly be edited later on. Some reviewers believe we have only heavily revised and rewritten versions that tell the narrative Bligh wanted, but if that were the case, he must have had an extraordinary memory, because the details of his narrative fit seamlessly together.
 
So, as is always the case, it's best to acquire your information on historical figures from a variety of sources in order to arrive at a balanced opinion.
 
Terry

In answer to Bill - I am both an impressionist  - for what I make can only be my artist impression of what I see - and also a realist - in that I know my limitations, and that of the materials that I have to use.

Have you checked out for any community college or adult education classes?  One of the high schools down here offer (on an irregular basis) Adult Educaton classes on TurboCad, Solidworks, or Blender. No credit and it's weeknights one or two nights a weeks.   It depends on the quarter and other factors. Last time I saw TurboCad was year ago but the class was canceled because there's a minimum class size that wasn't met. 

I spoke with a Solidworks CSR on the phone a few days ago. She said that the $20 student version for Vets is renewable annually for the same $20 price. Also, Canadian vets get the same deal by providing a copy of their NDI 75 or CAF 75 cards. I expressed my concern about supplying my Social Security number on the DD214. She said that you can redact any sensitive PID (e.g., SSN) on the DD214 or other ID cards. All they need is confirmation that you served, were discharged, and that you are who you say you are.
 
Terry

I spoke with a Solidworks CSR on the phone a few days ago. She said that the $20 student version for Vets is renewable annually for the same $20 price. Also, Canadian vets get the same deal by providing a copy of their NDI 75 or CAF 75 cards. I expressed my concern about supplying my Social Security number on the DD214. She said that you can redact any sensitive PID (e.g., SSN) on the DD214 or other ID cards. All they need is confirmation that you served, were discharged, and that you are who you say you are.
 
Terry

I spoke with a Solidworks CSR on the phone a few days ago. She said that the $20 student version for Vets is renewable annually for the same $20 price. Also, Canadian vets get the same deal by providing a copy of their NDI 75 or CAF 75 cards. I expressed my concern about supplying my Social Security number on the DD214. She said that you can redact any sensitive PID (e.g., SSN) on the DD214 or other ID cards. All they need is confirmation that you served, were discharged, and that you are who you say you are.
 
Terry

I spoke with a Solidworks CSR on the phone a few days ago. She said that the $20 student version for Vets is renewable annually for the same $20 price. Also, Canadian vets get the same deal by providing a copy of their NDI 75 or CAF 75 cards. I expressed my concern about supplying my Social Security number on the DD214. She said that you can redact any sensitive PID (e.g., SSN) on the DD214 or other ID cards. All they need is confirmation that you served, were discharged, and that you are who you say you are.
 
Terry

Not sure that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can assume that backfitting geometric rules to extant plans will automatically yield what the original designers had in mind. We know from historical writings that the Greek architects used the Golden Mean for designing their temples. But I suspect that in the early days of designing ocean-going ships, the forms developed based on regional perceptions of what worked and what didn't. And a lot of the designing was done on the building ways by eye and experience, not by compass and straight edge in the loft. Later on, when marine underwriters and governments began establishing rules for insuring and taxing ships and their cargoes, the designs shifted to maximize real cargo capacity while minimizing the tonnage under the rules. This approach resulted in designs that no geometer would have been proud of!
 
Terry

Not sure that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can assume that backfitting geometric rules to extant plans will automatically yield what the original designers had in mind. We know from historical writings that the Greek architects used the Golden Mean for designing their temples. But I suspect that in the early days of designing ocean-going ships, the forms developed based on regional perceptions of what worked and what didn't. And a lot of the designing was done on the building ways by eye and experience, not by compass and straight edge in the loft. Later on, when marine underwriters and governments began establishing rules for insuring and taxing ships and their cargoes, the designs shifted to maximize real cargo capacity while minimizing the tonnage under the rules. This approach resulted in designs that no geometer would have been proud of!
 
Terry

Not sure that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can assume that backfitting geometric rules to extant plans will automatically yield what the original designers had in mind. We know from historical writings that the Greek architects used the Golden Mean for designing their temples. But I suspect that in the early days of designing ocean-going ships, the forms developed based on regional perceptions of what worked and what didn't. And a lot of the designing was done on the building ways by eye and experience, not by compass and straight edge in the loft. Later on, when marine underwriters and governments began establishing rules for insuring and taxing ships and their cargoes, the designs shifted to maximize real cargo capacity while minimizing the tonnage under the rules. This approach resulted in designs that no geometer would have been proud of!
 
Terry