wrkempson
-
Posts
288 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation Activity
-
wrkempson got a reaction from mtaylor in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
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
-
wrkempson got a reaction from Matrim in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
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
-
wrkempson got a reaction from Mark P in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
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
-
wrkempson got a reaction from Matrim in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
By Hoss's citation the taper would begin 4 feet distant for every 1 inch differential between the midship siding and the end siding. In your case, 15-12=3 and so 3X4=12. Hence, the taper would be 12 feet from the end, not 6 feet. I think you may have halved the 3 inch differential unnecessarily.
Twelve feet still seems too short for my viscera, but if you follow Hoss's formula that's what it is.
I have argued elsewhere for a different way to view the taper, but for the present I am no longer as certain as before. It's just that 12 feet is awfully severe to me.
Wayne
-
wrkempson got a reaction from druxey in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
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
-
wrkempson got a reaction from Matrim in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
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
-
wrkempson got a reaction from mtaylor in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
By Hoss's citation the taper would begin 4 feet distant for every 1 inch differential between the midship siding and the end siding. In your case, 15-12=3 and so 3X4=12. Hence, the taper would be 12 feet from the end, not 6 feet. I think you may have halved the 3 inch differential unnecessarily.
Twelve feet still seems too short for my viscera, but if you follow Hoss's formula that's what it is.
I have argued elsewhere for a different way to view the taper, but for the present I am no longer as certain as before. It's just that 12 feet is awfully severe to me.
Wayne
-
wrkempson got a reaction from mtaylor in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
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
-
wrkempson got a reaction from BANYAN in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
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
-
wrkempson reacted to druxey in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
My gut feeling is that your current taper seems right: the other would be much too abrupt. My vote is that you are good.
-
wrkempson got a reaction from mtaylor in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
Many, many thanks.
Wayne
-
wrkempson got a reaction from mtaylor in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
Hoss, can you provide the page where this is found?
Wayne
EDIT: Found it in An Outline of Ship Building by John Fincham, 1852, p. 72 for the fore foot.
-
wrkempson reacted to smatsik in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
Wayne,
In the 1825 Second Edition I got from Google it is page 9, Section 3. Did you get the 1852 version from Google. I will have to see if I can get it and check for what is different. Sounds like there are a lot of changes.
Hoss
-
wrkempson reacted to Matrim in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
Interesting concept though i don't think it is doable. Perhaps for modern plans with no 'give' but for anything on old paper you have to spend a lot of time making certain the plans tie up to each other correctly even before you get to drawing the frames.
The other problem is more specific and directly related to the taper quote. We do not have a definitive way of doing these things and my way is almost certainly a fudge. When build plans are made you spend a lot of time deciding how much detail you want to put in and there are always tradefoffs between realism, ability to draw in scale and time.
-
wrkempson reacted to ivica70 in HMS Sophie
Hi!
A little update. Currently working to improve the glass material of the windows. Afterwards will have to repaint the beams in the great cabin and the part of the helm that is crossing through the cabin...
Greetings
Ivi
-
wrkempson got a reaction from mtaylor in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
Did I miss the taper?
-
wrkempson got a reaction from Matrim in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
Did I miss the taper?
-
wrkempson reacted to Matrim in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
Another (slow) update. I have started on some build plans. The following are provisionally measured at 1:48 scale though this may be adjusted later after more consideration.
We have two keel build plans. The first showing the side
and the second the top
The False Keel will be an easy addition along the same lines then I will probably move to the stem plans. You will notice the first plan has a 'green L'. I tend to add these to build plans at the correct scale so 1:1 those two lines each measure 48 inches in this case. When printing I can then measure those lines and they should be exactly on 1 inch. If so then no problems with scaling has occurred..
-
wrkempson reacted to BANYAN in 3D Cannon and Carriage - Learning TurboCAD - by Banyan
Hi folks,
Well now that my Endeavour build is complete I have a little more time to do things and decided I would try to learn 3D (using TurboCAD). I learn by doing so I decided to invest in a Tutorial produced by Don Cheke of Textual Creations. Don has created a TC 3D tutorial for an antique cannon that while not exactly true to design is very close, so I thought this would be a good way of developing the skills I will need to design and create the cannon and carriage for HMCSS Victoria.
The following show the carriage in a near complete state (still have to do the quoin and the trucks) and then onto the cannon itself. These are just basic renders with no materials or the like applied yet.
It's been fun but I have soooooooo much to learn yet - just getting my head around the work planes is daunting
cheers
Pat
-
wrkempson reacted to Don9of11 in How to deal with badly drawn plans?
Most likely you are dealing with a copy of a copy of a copy and as such nothing is likely parallel or straight. I found the best thing you can do is establish your perpendiculars, the correct length, breadth and depth of your ship and scale your plans to fit as best you can to those parameters. You'll then need to make some assumptions and educated guesses, create you own water lines and diagonals and make the best of it. In the end your plans will be fair and workable.
Warning... with CAD there is a danger of wanting make everything supper accurate and super fair. Little deviations here and there can slow your work down to a crawl and drive you mad...lol.
-
wrkempson reacted to Matrim in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
You might be better of posting a topic in the cad forum as you may have more chance of reaching someone who uses turbocad with the mac.
Also try posting in the turbocad forums. Again you are more likely to find a mac user there and the forums are generally more responsive than contacting the company.
-
wrkempson reacted to _SalD_ in 3-D Armenia by SalD – Hudson River Sidewheeler, 1847
It’s been a while since my last post. It just seems I’m busier now after retiring than I was when I was working full time.
Working on the rudder to try and finish up the hull.
Started with the gudgeons and pintles
Next was the rudder itself. It appeared to be constructed of individual timbers.
Rudder post and steering post added
Finally the steering chains and rudder stop chains were added. Fortunately I found a ‘lisp’ program, which runs inside AutoCAD that actually draws the chain links along an established line.
-
wrkempson got a reaction from Matrim in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
I have TC for PC v19 and have been using TC since v8 (actually v4, but it's a long story).
The trace tool in TC is not good enough for our kind of work. Under the best of circumstances it leaves one frustrated with its poor quality.
I now have a 64 bit version of TC that no longer has a trace tool. When using Trace in earlier 32 bit versions I quickly gave up on its utility.
You might want to check out http://forums.turbocad.com/index.php?topic=11696.0
and http://forums.turbocad.com/index.php?topic=12575.0 for insight from the TC forum.
For our kind of work importing the image and then manually "tracing" is better anyway.
Wayne
-
wrkempson got a reaction from Matrim in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
Pro would make no difference. Deluxe will do everything you need.
-
wrkempson got a reaction from mtaylor in HBMS Amphion 1798 by Matrim - 32 Gun 18pdr Frigate
Pro would make no difference. Deluxe will do everything you need.
Our Emblem ®
