wrkempson

The boats on Lagoda have the oars, paddles, mast, sail, harpoons etc., and line tubs.  This photo is not terribly clear, but indicates the contents.  In that this model at half scale was built by men who had personal experience with whaling, I would give this arrangement serious weight.
 
Wayne 
 

The boats on Lagoda have the oars, paddles, mast, sail, harpoons etc., and line tubs.  This photo is not terribly clear, but indicates the contents.  In that this model at half scale was built by men who had personal experience with whaling, I would give this arrangement serious weight.
 
Wayne 
 

I note your water lines are not the same height as those on the original plan and so of course will not match up with the halfbreadth plan.  Without drawing them out, I suspect this would account for a great deal of the variance.
 
Wayne
 

From a quick glance at the original plan, it seems to me the waterlines you have drawn (on the left) are misplaced.  It is not apparent why this is, but I think I would draw another set.  If the second set comes out like your first lofting, then we are in trouble.  I suspect a second effort might come closer to the original, however.  Again, a quick glance says to me that something has been missed along the way.
 
Diagonals can be thought of as a cross between buttock and water lines.  Draw a diagonal line on the body plan.  This is normally drawn through the turn of the bilge.  The angle is somewhat arbitrary.  Anyway, draw a diagonal line on the body plan where it will be a straight line.  Then project this line to the half breadth plan with the same procedure as projecting a water line.  This gives you the look of the diagonal as if looking at it from above.  It will be a curved line, but will not match the waterlines because it isn't one.  Then project the diagonal line from the body plan to the sheer plan using the same procedure as you do for a buttock line.  This will result in a curved line that does not match the buttock lines because, well, it isn't one.  Then check for fairness on these two curved lines.  If you have done your station lines correctly the curved diagonal lines will be fair.
 
Employing multiple diagonal lines offers multiple checks on the fairness of the hull.
 
This is one reason for lofting or laying off the lines on the floor.
 
Wayne
 
PS on further reflection, your lines seem to treat the stern post as if it were perfectly vertical rather than angled.  Is this so?
 
PPS an image of your body plan (station lines with the waterlines) might help analyze what is going on.

I think that as a rule I would think of a water line as the inside of the hull planking.  Thus, the water, like the inside of the planking, will end at a point that is the distance of the planking thickness from the outer rabbet line; this point will create a line with the rabbet line that is perpendicular to the water line.  Think of it as the planking being drawn in, but only the inner side and end line of the planking.  This is something I have started doing in the last few years.
 
So, I would construct a circle with the radius of the thickness of the planking (3" in  my example) and the center at the intersection of your construction line and the side of the  keel.  This circle gives the depth of the planking that is let into the keel.  Then terminate your water line (or polyline marker) on the circle so that the line is tangent to the circle.  Draw a line from this  point to the circle center and you will have the 90 degree line representing the end of the planking.
 
Is this why the old drawings have the water lines set into the keel?  I think so but can't say I have read this  anywhere, it just makes sense to me.
 

 
The inner rabbet line as drawn on the plans (parallel to the outer rabbet line) is a kind of fictional convention  since it does not exist on  the ship when built.
 
Wayne

Upon looking at Fincham again, his words are "It [the keel] is parallel in breadth or siding, excepting towards the extremities, where it is reduced from two to three inches; in the proportion of 1/8 inch in a foot on each side."
 
Ignoring the archaic punctuation, this can be read to mean that the taper extends over a length of one foot per 1/8 inch of differential between the midship and end siding of the keel.  Thus, a total taper of 3 inches would begin at a length of 24 feet from the end.  The formula in Finch (a foot to 1/8 inch) does not describe the angle of the taper but is a rule to establish where the taper begins.  So, there is a taper on both sides that begins at a distance of a foot per 1/8 inch of the total differential.
 
So, I guess I would amend Hoss's formula and suggest the taper begins at 24 feet from the end (if we follow Fincham).
 
I can think of one reason to ignore Fincham for earlier vessels, but I'm not sure of it enough to suggest it here.
 
Wayne

A quick search found
 
http://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/sciencemuseum/sciencemuseum.html
 
scroll down and click for 
 
http://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/sciencemuseum/ScienceMuseumShipping-11.jpg
 
Wayne

A quick search found
 
http://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/sciencemuseum/sciencemuseum.html
 
scroll down and click for 
 
http://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/sciencemuseum/ScienceMuseumShipping-11.jpg
 
Wayne

A quick search found
 
http://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/sciencemuseum/sciencemuseum.html
 
scroll down and click for 
 
http://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/sciencemuseum/ScienceMuseumShipping-11.jpg
 
Wayne

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.
 

 
I think this makes a much more serviceable joint.
 
Wayne

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.
 

 
I think this makes a much more serviceable joint.
 
Wayne

A quick search found
 
http://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/sciencemuseum/sciencemuseum.html
 
scroll down and click for 
 
http://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/sciencemuseum/ScienceMuseumShipping-11.jpg
 
Wayne

A quick search found
 
http://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/sciencemuseum/sciencemuseum.html
 
scroll down and click for 
 
http://www.maritima-et-mechanika.org/maritime/sciencemuseum/ScienceMuseumShipping-11.jpg
 
Wayne

I agree with Frankie regarding including sails on schooners.  I do not like sails on square rigged models, but I have always had sails on schooner models.  I was not in favor of it the first time I built one, but I was given no choice so included them and have no regrets and   have included sails on schooners ever since. 
 
Just one more opinion
 
Allan

But you did ask about the Bluenose in particular, not sails on models in general. Personally I'm in FAVOR of sails on all schooner models. Why? Because of the nature of the schooner rig. With no square yards schooners like Bluenose look particularly desolate with just a pair of naked sticks poking high up above the deck. From across the room, a Bluenose model with sails is going to look great and draw the eye. The huge volumes of space above the deck will be DEFINED by the sails. A bare-poled Bluenose will be hardly visible at all from across the room, and may actually appear to be incomplete. Also, rigging the Bluenose with sails is going to be relatively easy compared to rigging something square rigged, all you need to do is attach the halyards (which you would have to rig anyway) and put the sheets onto the headsails, you would already have sheets on he Fore and Main with bare poles.

Addictive, indeed.

Addictive, indeed.

Addictive, indeed.

Jokes about early manuscripts aside, there is a wonderful tutorial on the National Archives (U.K.) site that will teach you how to read different manuscript 'hands'. The examples they give you go from easy to progressively more difficult. You 'translate' these samples and then check against their transcription for feedback.
 
Also, if you go back far enough, official manuscripts were in Latin. There is also a great 'teach yourself Latin' course on the same web site. I highly recommend both.
 
Warning: the learning to read manuscript instructional course is addictive!

Tom,
 
If you bring up the Help menu and click on Help Topics, when that comes up, look through the contents.  Especially, I would think that "Inserting Objects" will list out the drawing tools for TC and you should be able to see their similarity to AC.  Read through the Help topics for descriptions, explanations and guides. There are some good tutorials available for a price, but a lot of free stuff on YouTube.  I learned TC by exploring and reading the Help Topics (well, back then it was a printed manual, but the presentation was the same).
 
Wayne

Wayne,
 
I have used TurboCAD for years.  The deluxe version in the add you received is sufficient to draw out ship plans.  TC is what I used to produce the drawings for Euryalus.  TC is a robust program that is priced far, far below other programs.  I'm sure the extra two, three, or four thousand dollars is worth it to buy some of the programs mentioned on this thread, especially if you are after 3D model building.  TC deluxe can do only a limited amount of 3D work; TC Pro and Platinum can do some pretty impressive stuff, but for ships I don't see them matching the higher priced programs in the 3D arena.
 
Once you decide you are after drawing out 2D plans and not building 3D models, then the problem is simplified greatly.  Think about it, prior to computers people were drawing out these things with paper, pencil and a few drawing tools.  These are well replicated in TC deluxe.  Again, if you are after 3D modeling, TC runs into its limitations after awhile.  (Then again, I am an amateur in the CAD world, so there are probably some TC gurus who can run rings around my understanding of TC's capabilities.)
 
Now, TC v20 is just out.  I started with v4, then moved in order to v8, v10, v14 and now use v19 Pro.  My observation is that you really don't need v20, one of the earlier versions will do.  I still go back to v14 sometimes.  Look for it on ebay, often the older versions can be had legitimately for a song.  Beginning with v19 a 64 bit capability greatly increases the rendering power of TC, so that's something to keep in mind if you want to do 3D at some point.  Also, visit the TC forums ( forums.turbocad.com ) and look through the gallery section to see some really good models people have done with TC.  
 
As for being a novice, I have no training at all in CAD, designing, engineering, or pastry cooking (I thought I would throw that in).  Nonetheless, I had no trouble learning TC.  For that matter, knowing TC has given me a basis for dabbling in AutoCAD.  I managed to draw out a basic set of lines for Boreas in AC before the 30 days ran out.
 
In short, I answered the TC add years ago and have been very happy and content with TurboCAD.  I have played around with the trial versions of AutoCAD and recently with Microstation.  I have also dabbled in Alibre and Sketchup.  In my limited experience, TC can hold its own in the 2D field and acquits itself very well in the 3D arena as well.
 
Wayne

Some details of the metalwork from the Model Dockyard plans. The lathe will start turning in April when sawdust will also be created. A build log will follow.

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

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

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