-Dallen

Okay, let's delve into this subject a little further by examining a few Mystery Models and discussing what makes them something less than what they often claim or are thought to be.
 
Take a look at Mystery Model #1.

Hopefully, this one doesn't need too much explanation, since it is obviously a curio, something a kid would buy at the gift shop at Mystic Seaport. When the child outgrows it, it might be lucky enough to end up in a yard sale, but more likely it will get round-filed.
 
But not all cheap models are so overtly cheesy. How about Mystery Model #2?

This one looks nice -- from a distance. Once you get up close, you start seeing the chunky, over-sized fittings and less-than-stellar craftsmanship. This is clearly a decor piece. If you have a nautical theme in your office, and you don't want to shell out big bucks for a scale model, you might get something like this at the local home decorating store. Good luck selling it to someone else, though.
 
Mystery Model #3 is something we see a lot of around here.

It looks old. It looks antique. It must therefore be valuable, right? Wrong. This is a classic example of an older style of decor model, probably made in Spain. Columbus' ships were especially popular subjects. Some might have a plaque bearing the name "Fregatta" (fregatta is Spanish for 'frigate'). Unfortunately, unlike perhaps a matched pair of Holland & Holland shotguns, these models don't appreciate in value with age. They just get old, like shag carpet and avocado green appliances.
 
Now, to mix things up a bit, let's look at a model that supposedly represents a ship still in existence. First we have the model:

 
And now we have the real deal, the bark Star of India, the crown jewel of the San Diego Maritime Museum.

At first glance, the model does kind of look like the real ship. But once again, the devil is in the details. Look closely at the real ship. Now look at the model. Notice the difference in the cut of the sails and the way the sails are set on their yards. Notice how fine the rigging looks on the real ship and how chunky it looks on the model. Notice how the model doesn't even have the proper rig (it has square sails on the mizzen mast, the mast at the rear of the ship; the real Star does not). If you could see the model up close, you would see that the lack of fidelity to the original extends to the deck fittings as well. In short, the model is only a crude likeness of the real thing.
 
Now, here's the kicker. This Star of India model is available to purchase on the Internet for (wait for it) -- $999.99. I kid you not. And, sadly, it's kind of like a new car in the sense that once you drive it off the lot, its value plummets. "But wait," you might say, "I bought this model for $999.99, so it must be worth at least $999.99, right?" Um, no. In the first place, no one is going to pay $999.99 for your now-second-hand model when there are tons of brand-new ones available on the Internet. Second, I, at least, am certainly not going to pay that much for it, because I know where I can get a brand new model just like it for less than 1/10 of what you paid for yours (ouch)!
 
In the next installment, I'll cue you in on what model ship buyers really want in a model and how much they might be willing to pay for it. Until then!

Wayne - Thanks for the reply. I was beginning to come to the conclusion "manual tracing" but I didn't want to do it in ignorance. I'm wondering if I should have purchased the "Pro" version. The TurboCAD forum seems to be a little dated.....I guess I'm the last to learn it. 
Dallen

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

Matrim  Good read on your posts. I have TurboCad Deluxe 9 for Mac (V 9.0.11 Build 1204) and can't seem to get a good quality "Trace" of plans. I have ordered the instruction DVD's but have not received them yet, but they don't appear to address my dilemma. Would appreciate your input on this subject. Thank you in advance.
Dallen

Time for another terribly unexciting update. I have now started on the forward cant frames and after some abortive attempts finally managed a process which I was happy with. 
 
Initially I used the traced frames as a starter (the central dashed lines of the double frames). I took a vertical construction line from the lowest visible waterline to the keel and repeated for (usually) the cap rail. Joined the two together and then extended to get my four center points.
 

 
I could then place a vertical where it split the keel and added two parallel lines 10.5 apart.
 

 
I then added little temporary lines where these broke the keel line.
 
Next I moved to the cap rail and added a line perpendicular central line where it broke the cap rail.I could then add two more perpendicular lines also at 10.5
 

 
Now I could join the little temp lines on the keel to the equivalent end points on the construction line (not the cap rail as that would move the lines out of sync)
 

 
Now I extended to new lines so they stretched far beyond all waterlines
 

 
The next job is to add the filler frames. For this I measured the gap between the relevant double frames
 

 
Deducted 21 for the frames themselves, divided what was left by 3 and then added construction lines of that length, then 10.5 either side and then added my helper lines so I could remove the constructions
 

 
The process at the cap rail was similar except here I started by drawing a construction line between the two double frames and used that to right angle my working construction lines
 
before adding the lines as before, extending and eventually trimming
 

 
Eventually I completed the lot. The singles at the end followed the same approach but with less gaps as the far edge was the edge of the last single frame and for the singles closet to the square frames I used my last 'new'  frame as the start point but followed essentially the same process
 

 
Now I could move onto drawing the frames themselves. This followed the 'usual' approach. Vertical constructions through each point (starting from the keel as that makes a nicer line even though that section will eventually get chopped off)
 

 
Repeat for upper waterlines and then join in
 

 
This will keep me busy for a bit and the same process will be followed for the stern cant frames.
 
 
 

And moore pictures.

Yes, I do completely agree with you on this score.
 
Jud you are right I do not want to replace all the wire standing rigging, but I might have to, a closer inspection shows that nearly all of the brass wire rigging is stretched and loose. 
One option is to undo then one at a time and then rewind them again and make a neater job of all of them.
The other is to replace them all.
 
All the funnel stays  are all damaged to some extent, the eye-bolts that go into the funnel are bent wire and then bent down inside.
 

 

 
Only a few of the running rigging lines that are fitted to the booms have been snapped and that will be tricky but likely easier to deal with that the wire rigging.
 
I spent most of the afternoon removing the funnels and the structure under them the tops were crushed a bit.
 

 
An area that is serious and not apparent in the beginning is the area highlighted in the next picture
 

 
This one is troubling. Basically the whole of the front sheet is moved forward away from the deck behind it. This is the brass piece that the top member that supports the boat deck need to be soldered to after making a new piece.
 
One thought is to cut the section at the blue line to remove the side in order to straighten and solder the new section to it.
I am reminded of Druxey's comment now about hidden damage that was not apparent.
 
I am having this feeling of digging a hole and it keeps getting bigger. Definitely stretching my abilities.
 
I would love to have a time machine and go back to see how the chaps at Bassett Lowke assembled the metal rigging, did they have the metal stays pre-made on jigs, or did they wire them up in situ? better yet use the time machine to get to the model just before it got knocked over and prevent it from happening in the first place.
 
Dale yes and a steady hand for sure, I am going to have to practice a bit, notice the fan that has been pinned onto the skylight. Whoever did that was just guessing and they even made a wedge for it.
 
The other hidden damage is regarding the handrail, a number of the stanchions were snapped.
 

 
I used some flush cutters and a bit of brass to lever out the remains.
 

 

 
The handrail was pinned in quite tightly, perhaps the wood has shrunk over the years.
 
This is the section I had to remove. you can see how many of the stations were damaged.
 

 
I did do another experiment with the stays, this is some control line brass wire a little too heavy but interesting.
 

 
Time for a break.
 
 
And Thanks to all who have looked in and pressed the like button. 
 
Michael
 
 
 
 

Druxey, Jagger, Mark, Anthony, Mike and Allanyed;
 
What a response and education! Thank you Jagger and Mark for your eloquent and informative narrative concerning the wale. Thank you Allanyed for your research material. All the information and research data will become part of my running "Deck Log" that will detail my entire voyage as a builder. Druxey, my broad type and era target would be 19th century American/British warships with focus on Frigates. Tweets and flurishes to you all.
 
dallen0121

Dealing mostly with 18th century ships, but also having worked on a 1607 vintage ship model, I got some insight on wales.  I am sure there are more knowledgable people on the subject, but I will add my 2 quid.
 
    One function of the wale is to hold the frames together...sort of like barrel hoops.  I am not sure if that is the intended function, but as a major structural part, that's what it does.
 
   What I believe to be the primary function, is to provide structural "meat" to support other parts of the ship.  In the 18th century, this was to support the deck structures, such as the clamps, knees, etc.  In earlier years, the frames were much different.  Then, the futtocks were NOT bolted to each other.  Rather, they were bolted to a wale where the two futtocks overlapped.  That is why you see several narrower wales on ships like the Santa Maria or same era ships.  ...and, yes, from what I could tell from the plans, there were wales below the waterline.

Greetings dallen; gentlemen;
 
I am glad to know that several people found my post useful. 
 
Mike:  the reason for the gradual reduction in the sheer of a ship seems to be that the higher the bow and stern are built,  the more they catch the wind,  with the result that the ship will heel over more easily,  and make more leeway. 
 
In earlier centuries,  it was considered an advantage to have one's decks higher than those of an enemy,  for the purpose of shooting down at them with bows or spears etc,  whilst it was much harder for the enemy to respond.  Shipwrights therefore curved the hull upwards as much as they could.  As cannon became more important in warfare,  this height became less important,  and performance considerations drove a gradual flattening.
 
Improved construction techniques developed under Robert Seppings,  chief surveyor to the Navy,  led to the ability to build longer ships that were less likely to hog due to the greater strength of their hull structure,  thus removing the last reason to build with an upward curve.  Ships could then be made with little or no sheer.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P 

Druxey, Jagger, Mark, Anthony, Mike and Allanyed;
 
What a response and education! Thank you Jagger and Mark for your eloquent and informative narrative concerning the wale. Thank you Allanyed for your research material. All the information and research data will become part of my running "Deck Log" that will detail my entire voyage as a builder. Druxey, my broad type and era target would be 19th century American/British warships with focus on Frigates. Tweets and flurishes to you all.
 
dallen0121

Druxey, Jagger, Mark, Anthony, Mike and Allanyed;
 
What a response and education! Thank you Jagger and Mark for your eloquent and informative narrative concerning the wale. Thank you Allanyed for your research material. All the information and research data will become part of my running "Deck Log" that will detail my entire voyage as a builder. Druxey, my broad type and era target would be 19th century American/British warships with focus on Frigates. Tweets and flurishes to you all.
 
dallen0121

Dallen
 
As mentioned by Druxey, the country and era would help a lot. If for British ships, there is quite a bit of  information available.
 
The 1719 Establishment gives the depth, thickness, mention of hook and butt construction of the main and channel wales and also the thickness and number of diminishing strakes above and below the wales.
 
The Shipbuilders Repository (1788) and Steel's, Elements of Naval Architecture (1805) give the height of the lower edge of the main wales at the stem, dead flat, and after timber as measured from the upper edge of the rabbet for all rates.  It also gives how broad, the  number of strakes and thickness.  It gives distance from the upper edge of the main wales to the lower edge of the channel wale in midships as well as the thickness, etc. of the channel wales.  They also give thickness of the strakes above and below the main wales.   All of the above dimensions can be found in Scantlings of Royal Navy Ships.   
 
Allan

Mark, thanks for the great explainer!
Any thought on why the curvature was reduced over time?

Hi Mark.
That is the best explanations on what a Whale is.
 
Regards Antony.

My observations are:
 
In warships- wales are to mitigate the weakness produced by cutting large holes in the side of a ship and are generally
at the port sills and below, since cutting a wale would negate any usefulness.  They also  resist the tendency of the hull
to hog in all ships and in warships , a source of stress would be the guns - at the side and the heaviest are just above the
waterline, so the heaviest wales are there.  The trick was to find the sweet spot- as low as possible, but not too low. The Vasa
taught European ship designers what happens if they got that wrong.
 
In the 16th C. and 17th C. the wales tended to be purely functional, and stuck out.  By the end of the time of wood and sail, the
wales were often masked by having the planking smoothly transition in cross section.  The increase in thickness of the transition
plank would add strength, but also be more expensive in both wood and carpenters' time.  I suspect that early wales that extended
below the waterline had an adverse effect of speed and handling, so they tend to be above the waterline in their lowest extent - until
 the transition technique was developed.

More information would be helpful in providing you with an answer. What time period and country are you talking about?

Hi dallen;
 
To answer your question in general terms,  relating to British/American warships:
 
The wales were lengths of planking which were considerably thicker than the general exterior planking of a ship,  and so projected beyond the face of the other planks,  which makes them obvious features on both drafts and models.
 
The main wale normally followed the line of the widest part of the ship's body,  known as the line of maximum breadth.  On the majority of British and American vessels,  this was mostly vertical amidships,  and changed profile towards the bow and stern. 
 
As Jaager remarks above,  the wale was intended to counter-act 'hogging' or the tendency of the bow and stern to curve downwards over time,  leading to curvature of the keel and affecting the ship's performance.  This was caused by a combination of over-loading the ship at these points, normally with too many/too heavy cannon,  and by the fact that when at sea,  the movement of the waves often means that the ends of the vessel are not as deep in the water as the midships,  leaving the ends less well supported.
 
As a way of increasing the effectiveness of the wales in resisting this hogging tendency,  the wales were curved upwards at each end more sharply than the decks curved upwards.
 
Ships normally had one wale per deck,  with the main wale the lowest,  and those above diminishing in size.
 
The method of constructing the wales varied considerably over time,  and is one of the diagnostic features used to help date models in Museums and other collections. 
 
The upward curvature of the ship at each end is known as the 'sheer',  and was much greater in earlier centuries than in more modern times,  decreasing gradually,  until by the first quarter of the Victorian era,  most vessels were almost straight from end to end.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

The perfect recipe for a workshop for scratch or semi-scratch builders:
 
1 part Byrnes table saw
1 part Byrnes thickness sander
1 part Byrnes disk sander
 
After simmering, add in 1 part Sherline Mill and 1 part Proxxon planer
Finish with Sherline lathe and mini drill press
 
The above recipe will require a large portion of lettuce (green) but the finished product should last a lifetime