wrkempson

I have so enjoyed your work on Euryalus these past several years.  In every aspect you have produced a masterpiece.  Thank you for allowing me to look over your shoulder during this journey.
 
Wayne

I have so enjoyed your work on Euryalus these past several years.  In every aspect you have produced a masterpiece.  Thank you for allowing me to look over your shoulder during this journey.
 
Wayne

I have so enjoyed your work on Euryalus these past several years.  In every aspect you have produced a masterpiece.  Thank you for allowing me to look over your shoulder during this journey.
 
Wayne

There is a nice discussion of the bread bin configuration in Euryalus vol 1, p. 111.  Your final conclusions (door or lid) will be defensible in either case.  I did not find a treatment of the matter in Goodwin.  Lavery, p. 189 states that bread was wrapped was not stored in casks, hence I suppose the bins.  Perhaps the bread room employed racks.  I looked in TFFM but did not find anything in a quick search.
 
Wayne

There is a nice discussion of the bread bin configuration in Euryalus vol 1, p. 111.  Your final conclusions (door or lid) will be defensible in either case.  I did not find a treatment of the matter in Goodwin.  Lavery, p. 189 states that bread was wrapped was not stored in casks, hence I suppose the bins.  Perhaps the bread room employed racks.  I looked in TFFM but did not find anything in a quick search.
 
Wayne

I am enjoying your progress.  The level of precision is remarkable.
 
If memory serves, there are three openings aft the capstan labeled "Gra," "tin," and "g" which is to say, "Grating."  Also, apertures labeled "Hatch" or the like can have gratings as well.  Dashed lines on these openings indicate a shelf in the timber to receive the grating.
 
Well done and inspiring.  Thank you for sharing.
 
Wayne

There is a nice discussion of the bread bin configuration in Euryalus vol 1, p. 111.  Your final conclusions (door or lid) will be defensible in either case.  I did not find a treatment of the matter in Goodwin.  Lavery, p. 189 states that bread was wrapped was not stored in casks, hence I suppose the bins.  Perhaps the bread room employed racks.  I looked in TFFM but did not find anything in a quick search.
 
Wayne

There is a nice discussion of the bread bin configuration in Euryalus vol 1, p. 111.  Your final conclusions (door or lid) will be defensible in either case.  I did not find a treatment of the matter in Goodwin.  Lavery, p. 189 states that bread was wrapped was not stored in casks, hence I suppose the bins.  Perhaps the bread room employed racks.  I looked in TFFM but did not find anything in a quick search.
 
Wayne

There is a nice discussion of the bread bin configuration in Euryalus vol 1, p. 111.  Your final conclusions (door or lid) will be defensible in either case.  I did not find a treatment of the matter in Goodwin.  Lavery, p. 189 states that bread was wrapped was not stored in casks, hence I suppose the bins.  Perhaps the bread room employed racks.  I looked in TFFM but did not find anything in a quick search.
 
Wayne

I am enjoying your progress.  The level of precision is remarkable.
 
If memory serves, there are three openings aft the capstan labeled "Gra," "tin," and "g" which is to say, "Grating."  Also, apertures labeled "Hatch" or the like can have gratings as well.  Dashed lines on these openings indicate a shelf in the timber to receive the grating.
 
Well done and inspiring.  Thank you for sharing.
 
Wayne

I am enjoying your progress.  The level of precision is remarkable.
 
If memory serves, there are three openings aft the capstan labeled "Gra," "tin," and "g" which is to say, "Grating."  Also, apertures labeled "Hatch" or the like can have gratings as well.  Dashed lines on these openings indicate a shelf in the timber to receive the grating.
 
Well done and inspiring.  Thank you for sharing.
 
Wayne

I am enjoying your progress.  The level of precision is remarkable.
 
If memory serves, there are three openings aft the capstan labeled "Gra," "tin," and "g" which is to say, "Grating."  Also, apertures labeled "Hatch" or the like can have gratings as well.  Dashed lines on these openings indicate a shelf in the timber to receive the grating.
 
Well done and inspiring.  Thank you for sharing.
 
Wayne

A work around for TC Deluxe is to put your monogram on the barrel, then create a tube around that section of the barrel that has an inside hole that matches the barrel as to angle but is (say) an inch larger in diameter.  Then subtract the tube from the monogram and you will be left with an upper surface of the monogram that is curved with a radius parallel to the barrel.  Takes but a minute.

I presume you are building the Model Shipways kit.  If so, I found the manual at http://modelexpo-online.com/assets/images/documents/MS2018-Flying_Fish-Instructions-Complete.pdf .  On page 24 Figure 36B there is a good illustration.  The knightheads are the two timbers on either side of the opening for the bowsprit and each one receives an eyebolt.  The Figure gives a profile and top view of the piece you are asked to make.  The exact shape will be determined by your own model so the process is to cut and fit, sand, fit, shape again, fit, etc. until the timbers are in place.  I do not have the plans, but the manual points you in the right direction.  On the actual vessel, the knightheads extend from the rail level down along the side of the stem to a place well below the water line.  On your model they are represented with only the visible portion above the deck.  When you install them make sure they are secure as they will have quite a bit of strain on them from the fore stay that attaches to the eyebolts.
 
It is unclear to me what your exact question might be, but maybe the above helps.  
 
Wayne

I look forward to your progress.  It looks like an exciting project.
 
One very small thing.  The box shows two pins at the ends of the spokes set into the felloes.  I don't believe these are at all right.  There are no pins or fasteners in the wheel.  Everything was held together by the iron tyre (rim).  If you consult photographs you should see there are no such pins.  
 
I feel like I am being more dogmatic than I should, so I am open to correction and reproof.
 
Thanks for letting us look over your shoulder while building.
 
Wayne

Very nice.  Getting the right entry and run can be quite a challenge.  
 
Wayne

Greetings all,
While I am pretty sure posting anything made from a 3d printer is probably bad form here I wanted to share a side project I worked on over the weekend. I personally love seeing crew figures on model boat/ships but always have a hard time finding them in the scales or poses I want. This weekend I digitally drew out 4 "age of sail" style crew in 4 poses in my 3d aoftware. I then printed them in 1/48 ish scale. The awesome part about having these designs is I can size them up to 40mm or down to 3mm tall.   I think they would look at home on a pirate ship or navy vessel depending on how they get painted. In the second photo I have compared my prints to an Amati figure (right) and a 1/48 scale figure on the left. The figure with the saber was literally transposed from a Captain Morgan rum ad! The UV light is used to cure the resin.
 
Has anyone else done this?
 

I have used the plastic chains and channels.  I suspect this is what you mean by the "platform" for the shrouds.  I also used the kit's deadeyes and lanyards (the round things with ropes between them).  The only part I discarded was the preformed shroud and ratline piece (looks like a triangular ladder).  So, using the plastic parts, I set up the shrouds as was done in real practice.  The final result was quite pleasing.  You have already chosen plastic as the medium for your model, so there is no real requirement that you use wood deadeyes.  I have followed this procedure on three of the Revell 1:96 models.  They have gone the way of my childhood and are no longer available for photographs.
 
I'm pretty sure eyebolts are not the answer.  The choices really come down to setting up wood deadeyes or using the procedure I outline above.  I wish you the best as you complete your model.
 
Disclaimer:  perhaps I presume too little experience on your part, but your use of terminology tells me you are at the front end of the learning curve for rigging a model..
 
Wayne

Terry,
 
I think your observations in the original post are entirely correct.  I might add that there are some conventions in ship plan drawings that are not to be found in the actual construction of the ship.  Rabbet lines are one such convention.  The dotted lines on the body plan are indeed indicators of the depth of the rabbet, but the actual lines would be quite fiddly (read: almost impossible) to loft and would be of no value at any rate.  On the profile plan the "flat" stretch of the inner rabbet line is not in fact flat; but since it varies from the width of the garboard plank by fractions of an inch there is no good purpose in lofting the actual shape of the line in a basic drawing.  I have lofted this line myself and can tell you the amount of curvature is virtually nil (but only virtually, it is real nonetheless) and is possible only in CAD or some such overly precise drawing tool.  At any rate, the finally shape of the rabbet must be cut in situ so drawing it with precision is not productive.  
 
So, your inner rabbet line ultimately should be lofted on the basis of the how the frame line is finished off at the keel, another process in the drawings that is done more by convention than by geometric accuracy in the older drawings.  As you point out, the inner rabbet line derives from the intersection of the frame line (equals the inside face of the planking) and the plane of the side of the keel.  I have seen modern drawings where these lines are done accurately.  I don't know about the era in question for your ship, but suspect there was still a bit of simplification going on.  Now, add to all this the taper of the keel fore and aft and you have quite a donnybrook.  
 
I have no conclusions for you in all this, just some observations to agree with your final game plan.  Berger's drawing may be neither in error nor mistaken.  More likely it simply follows the conventions of the day which the men in the yard would know to adjust during construction.  None of what I have to say relates to the shape of the garboard.  Finally, the notices made of the DTM plan ring true to my inexpert understanding.  It looks like it may have been drawn using accepted conventions and a modicum of guesswork (regarding actual bolt placement, garboard shape, etc.).
 
Usual disclaimers inserted here,
 
Wayne

Very nice work. vaddoc!  Are you using Rhino?    First of all, I understand the pushback from the "ship's curves and paper" fans, but at the same time, I think part of the frustration some experience is that CAD offers a LOT more precision, and old boats simply were not that precise.  Go down to the drydock on a nice, salt-spray-blowing November day in Bristol, crawl around a large hull taking measurements, dodging teams of workers doing sheathing and caulk, go back to the office and calculate the offsets by candlelight--Or during the initial build, lay out the stations with splines, ducks and chalk on the lofting floor, then have wrights rough the sections out of wood with a pit saw and broadaxe.... It's enough to give a quality assurance/risk mitigation director nightmares...  I think the historian in all of us can't help but have enormous respect for primary sources, or  high-profile scholars working at an earlier time (Chapelle, Longridge, et al.), but the reality is that by CAD standards, the original plans often weren't all that accurate. 
 
One of the biggest problems in lofting a hull in 3D is getting the stations and WL's to line up and meet while being fair in both directions.  I have yet to trace a vintage plan where that happens, because the original was never fully-resolved until wood started coming together.  There is a bit of an 80/20 rule--what is good enough to start construction without wasting too much material?  When doing it in CAD, every tiny surface imperfection is abundantly highlighted; where on the model, it's an issue that may be solved in 30 seconds with some 120 grit. 
 
vaddoc, the truly good news is that now that you've put the work in to make a faired hull, once you make it solid you can boolean ribs and even planking out of it,  setting up shiplap profiles at a station and extruding single-rail surfaces using the planking curves projected onto the hull. You can also offset the polysurfs to accommodate whatever you choose for wood thicknesses...
 
Great-looking hull!

The main thing you need to understand about CAD programs is that they all have a steep learning curve. It will take months to become reasonably proficient with a new program. This is especially true with 3D CAD! If you have used a CAD program before it will be easier, but no two programs work the same way.
 
I have been using CAD programs for over 30 years - several different programs - so I am quite proficient with my favorite program (DesignCAD). But for simple things I still just make a sketch on paper rather than take the time to start the program. But for complex multi-part assemblies I always use CAD. Perhaps the best thing about working in CAD is that it allows you to "test fit" parts before actually building them. This has saved me a lot of time, materials and frustration!
 
To answer a point that was raised about the scaling of line widths when drawings are enlarged, it is true that the line width often scales pretty wide, decreasing the precision of the drawing. But, in most cases the ship builders used standard measurements (feet/inches/meters/millimeters). When you scale the drawing you can be sure that the dimensions are multiples of some basic measurement. And designers tended to use whole numbers instead of random fractions of the basic unit. After working with the drawing for a while you learn to guess the actual precise measurements from the overly wide lines. This is especially true when you have multiple drawings of parts that have to fit together. So the precision of a CAD program is useful even when the original drawing you are working from is a bit "fuzzy."
 
The same is true when you are trying to determine dimensions from photographs.

A work around for TC Deluxe is to put your monogram on the barrel, then create a tube around that section of the barrel that has an inside hole that matches the barrel as to angle but is (say) an inch larger in diameter.  Then subtract the tube from the monogram and you will be left with an upper surface of the monogram that is curved with a radius parallel to the barrel.  Takes but a minute.

Hi everyone,
 
I wanted to give an update on my progress.  Normal life stuff has been busy since the last post.  My company was acquired, subsequent expansion of our office here in the U.K., met a nice English girl and more focus on my U.S. Brig Niagara.  All sorts of great things.
 
Anyways, enough about that.  As I was progressing through later parts of drafting, I came  to realize I wasn't really happy with how some of the lines were formed.  Also, AutoDesk launched CV splines for Fusion 360!
 
I ended up starting a starting over my 3d model to incorporate lessons learned about Fusion and feedback from ya'll.  Also, I stopped straddling the fence on how much to use from the TFFM plans and the original drafts -- I've decided to go using the original references almost exclusively.
 
In this second start, I've switched to the following techniques in fusion:
 
Using CV splines for the body plan and striving to keep the same number of control vertices Defining key curves using CV splines that are fit using numerical optimization methods.  
This last part took some R&D (I work in technology and spend a bit of time doing data science/AI type solutions).  Below is an example of what I've done relating to this.
 
I started by taking measurements off the drafts and correlating them across plans.  This yields points to fit, one challenging is that fitting CV Splines isn't a common practice.  This is partly because they are parametric which to my knowledge doesn't have an analytical solution.  What I did was use a genetic algorithm to solve for solutions that are very close using the points that match above. 
 
The result seems to be a more smoother fit that is much closer to real curve than I could manage moving points around. FWIW, there are a few naval architecture research papers that describe this technique.
 
Below is an example of a breadth curve fit to the measurements.  One interesting consequence of this is that it yields a fully constrained sketch in Fusion. 

 
 
It seems that splines also tend to work better when lofting.  I think overall it's a much nicer fit than the previous technique I used.
 

 
 
 

I have been thinking about how the hull could be lofted in pieces rather than all at once.  Each section between stations would be lofted, using whatever rails are common to the two.  In the end, there would be an option to combine the pieces together.
 
Here are the first several sections.
 

 
And so on down the line.  You'll notice that I skipped one section, because it's problematic.
 

 
What to do here?  If I loft between the two stations, the back end of the keel isn't covered.
 

 
I realized I need to break this into two parts.  One loft at the top from the smaller station (#12) to the upper part of the larger station (#11).  Then a separate loft from the back end of the keel to the bottom part of station 11.
 
To do this, I needed to break the larger station into two parts, while also retaining an intact copy for lofts forward.
 
First, I highlighted the curve of station 11 and hit Control-C.  Then I started a new sketch in the same plane and hit Control-V to paste.  That was repeated to get three copies of the station line.  The original will remain untouched.  Copy 1 will be cut leaving only the upper part and copy 2 will be cut at the same spot, leaving only the lower part.
 
Let's work on copy 1 (upper) first.  I edit the sketch, and keep station 12 visible.
 

 
Next I sketch a line from the bottom point of station 12 running horizontally to cross over the curve of station 11.
 

 
Now I go to Sketch -> Trim.  When I hover over the bottom portion of the curve below the line, it's highlighted in red.  I click to remove the red portion of the curve.
 

 
Here is the final result.
 

 
Working on the second copy, the same procedure is repeated, but the top portion of the curve is trimmed.  Only the blue portion remains.
 

 
Now I can complete the lofting.  First, I loft from station 12 to the copy of station 11 containing the top of the curve.
 

 
And then the bottom part is lofted from the back end of the keel / sternpost line to the bottom of the station 11 curve.
 

 
The final result is a set of surfaces that is an improvement over my earlier attempts at sculpting the hull as a single surface.  You will notice there are some thin gaps between the surfaces in the aft area of the hull.  I think if I loft using a larger number of faces, the surfaces will fit better to the curves and reduce those gaps.  I did try using the edge merge tool in the Sculpt environment, but I ended up with distortions in the smoothness of the surface at the merge areas.
 

It's not as good as the results I got from importing a mesh built in Blender (see my Blender thread for details) but it's the best result so far.
 
 
 

That's all for now. Someday I will create a 3D model of the Kaman SH-2B Seasprite helo that the ship carried, but right now I do not have very good drawings and dimensions to work from.
 
The next step it to start creating the plans for the actual 1:96 scale model.
 
Phil