Don9of11

Chuck, these carvings look very thin. What precautions did you take to keep from breaking them?

Alan, have tried McMaster-carr
 
https://www.mcmaster.com/helicoil-inserts
 
I ordered from them many times when i was working. 

Alan, have tried McMaster-carr
 
https://www.mcmaster.com/helicoil-inserts
 
I ordered from them many times when i was working. 

I had these sitting in my arsenal on cannon carriages. They were handed down to me so I hand them off to you. I don't recall the source but perhaps there is some information you can use.
 

 

 

What you have circled is called the deadwood knee. The wood that you're looking at on the plans is called deadwood. I discussed this in my post Scantling questions. It starts about half way down the page. The best thing to do is take a look at some contemporary builds, try searching the scratch build section of the forum, HMS Bellerophon comes to mind but there are others. 
 

While I move ahead with my forward cant frames and the tree nailing of my aft cant frames to the deadwood, I want to complete my bowsprit.   As I had made a number of rookie errors I thought I'd best get both my sketching and math down clearly on paper.  I've made two bowsprits to date.  The first was a quickly turned cigar shape on the lathe at proper dimensions to simply see the fit in the bollard clearance hole and determine my satisfaction with the diameter (posted earlier).  The second was properly shaped on an Ed Tosti style board as he'd shown on his Young American build.  This last one is not quite right so I will do it again.  Practise makes perfect... or nearly so!
 
To start with I must say I snagged a copy of an excel document entitled Masts and Rigging from somewhere.  I believe it was this forum.  I checked the properties and the author was Danny Vadas.  I've found it to be a very helpful tool to cross check with.  As I cannot see the formulae controlling the results in the cells I need to verify the numbers as best I can.  The following explains the process.  I am new to this so it also serves as my reference for later on as I will do more of this.  I also snagged a copy of another excel document entitled Steels Dimensions by Y. Miroshnikov which is equally as useful.
 
I must say that I found The Fully Framed Model Vol. IV by David Antscherl to have been very helpful because of the photos, plans and descriptions.  The same can be said for Rigging Period Ship Models by Lennarth Petersson.  They helped me understand what I was looking at or searching for.
 
The following detailed explanation is quite long.  I hope you do not mind, but I find the process fascinating.
 
BOWSPRIT with CAPS, BEES and BEE BLOCKS
As mentioned earlier I used REES's  Naval Architecture (1819-1820), page 106, plate VIII for the dimensions, however he does not give much information regarding the Bee's and the Cap.  I had looked at The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships (figure 116, page 185) but something wasn't quite right between this and some Vanguard kit builds I've been following.  I needed to look deeper.
 
Key dates: HMS Bellerophon was ordered in 1782, launched in 1786 and completed in 1787.  This immediately suggests Rees might be a poor choice due to its date of 1819-20.
 
I went to The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860 by James Lee.
 
All the information required is in Section 1.  Mr. Lee agrees with Mr. Rees with regards to the ratio of the tapers of the bowsprit, but length and diameter differ in Appendix I ( Length = 0.6 x the length of the main mast = 104.25 x 0.6 = = 62.55 feet versus 64 feet;  diameter = 62.55/3 x 1.555 = 32.3 inches versus 36 inches).  Appendix II of Lee's reads HMS Valiant 74 gun 3rd rate Bowsprit was 36" diameter x 69'-5" long.
 
Due to the scale of my build (1:64) a difference of 3.7 inches (at scale = 0.06") diameter is not at all noticeable, and 1.45 feet (at scale = 0.27") difference in length is arguable.  As REES shows details I will follow his plate VIII as best I can.
 
Mr. Lee suggests that looking down at the Bees they were somewhat scalloped fore and aft for the time period of my build.
 
The Bees were 2-1/4 times the diameter of the bowsprit at this location (2.25 x 20 = 45 inches long); their breadth would be 2/3rds the diameter (2/3 x 20 = 13.3 inches wide); their thickness inside was 1/4 the diameter (1/4 x 20 = 5 inches thick at the bowsprit) and tapered to 4/5ths the thickness to the outside (4/5 x 5 = 4" thick outboard).  The outboard edge tilted upwards by the thickness of the inner edge plus 1 inch.  This would be 6 inches.  This is all different than what was shown in The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships.
 
I will be following Mr. Lee for the Bee's and Bee Blocks.
 
Below the Bees are the Bee Blocks.  They were 7/9 times the length of the Bees (45 x 7/9 = 35 inches long).  They were half the width (13.3 / 2 = 6.65" wide) and 2 inches per foot of length in depth ( [35 / 12] x 2 = 5.83 inches deep).
 
There were two holes in each Bee at one for each of the the foretop stay and the foretop preventer stay and one spare per side.  These holes were elongated slightly fore and aft to better receive the stays as they passed through the Bees and Blocks.  There were no sheaves at this time.
 
What size hole do I need in the Bee for the Stay to pass through?
If I know the size of the rope I can determine the hole size needed to clear.
 
I went back to The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860.
In Appendix I it explains that the sizes of  fore topmast stay and the fore topmast preventer stay are calculated to be a proportion of other considerations....
 
The topmast stay is 1/2 the size of the lower stay.
The lower stay is 1/2 the diameter of the lower mast.
The fore topmast preventer stay  was 3/4 the size of the topmast stay.
 
 
The foremast was the same proportions as the main mast.
The main mast diameter from 1773 to 1794 was 9/10 inch per 3 feet of length.
How long was it?
 
In my time period the main mast length was 2.23 times the ships beam.
The ships beam per the contract was to be 46 feet 9  inches (561 inches).
561 x 2.23 = 1251.03 inches (104.25 feet).
The main mast diameter would be 104.25/3 = 34.75 x 9/10 = 31.3 inches diameter.
The foremast would have been the same diameter.
 
Now things start to not make sense to this novice.
If the lower stay (rope) is half the diameter of the lower mast it would be 15.65 inches diameter!
I think he meant size of rope which was the circumference not the diameter!
 
The diameter is the circumference divided by Pi (3.1416).
15.65/3.1416 = 5.3" diameter rope.
 
The top mast stay is half this 5.3 x 1/2 = 2.65 inch diameter (or 8.33 inch rope by circumference = 2.65 inch diameter)
The topmast preventer stay is three quarters this or 2.65 x 3/4 = 1.98 or simply 2 inch diameter.
 
I will  make the holes 3" diameter (at 1:64 scale is 0.05" diameter = #55 drill bit).
 
Since I'm all warmed up I may as well carry on with the Jib Boom details and get it over with.
 
JIB BOOM
I took the dimensions for my Jib Boom directly from REES's Plate VIII.  The major diameter is 11" and the overall length is 51'-0".  Only the heel end is octagonal in shape for a distance of 4'-4".  The length differs from what is described in The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860.  Mr. Lee directs the length of the hex shape at the heel to be 3.5 times the diameter (3.5 x 11 = 38.5 inches).  Mr. Lee also directs the length of the Jib Boom to be 0.41 x the length of the main mast (0.41 x 104.25 = 42.7 feet).  This is a difference of 8.3 feet (1.5" at 1:64 scale).  The diameter is to be 7/8 inch per 3 feet of length or 12.5 inches.
 
Mr. Lee also gives some drawing details for the Heel Lashing Hole and Heel Rope Sheave.  The slot in the Jib Boom for the Heel Lashing Rope Sleeve (sheave) is horizontal and the length of the slot is 1-1/16 x the diameter of the Jib Boom (1.0625 x 11 = 11.7 inches).  The slot is located a distance of 1.5 times the diameter from the heel of the Jib Boom (1.5 x 11 = 16.5 inches whereas Mr. Rees locates this at 2 feet).  The Heel Lashing Hole runs horizontally and is halfway between the Jib Boom heel and the slot for the sheave  (8.25 inches).
 
There is another sheave located at the head of the Jib Boom for the Jib Outhauler.  This sheave runs up and down (vertically).  Mr. Lee directs it to be located "a few inches abaft the rigging stop".  For my time period the rigging stop was tapered back to a shoulder.
 
Mr. Rees shows the horizontal heel sheave slot to be 18" long x 4 or 5" wide.  The outhaul couldn't possibly be the same size as the head of the jib boom is so much smaller in diameter than the heel (7.3" versus 11").  In my novice opinion there seems not enough "meat" left either side in the boom to support it.  To double check this I need to know the size of the Heel Lashing and Jib Outhauler ropes which will determine the sheave sizes.
 
Mr. Lee directs that the Heel Lashing is the same size as the Bowsprit Shroud Lanyard which were the same size as the Gammoning which were 0.44 of the Forestay.  The Lower Stays are 1/2 the diameter of the lower mast.  The lower mast was the same proportions as the main mast... 9/10ths  inch per 3 feet of length of the fore mast, which was 0.93 x the length of the main mast which I'd already determined to be 104.25 feet.
 
104.25 x 0.93 / 3 x 9/10 x 0.5 x 0.44 = 6.4 inches circumference / 3.1416 = 2 inches diameter rope.
 
From Steels I find the sheave diameter is 5x the thickness of the sheave but in Lee's it is 4x; the sheave thickness is 1/10th more than the rope diameter; the breadth of the sheave hole is 1/16 inch greater than the sheave thickness; the length of the sheave hole is the sheave diameter plus one rope diameter in Steels whereas in Lee's it is 1-1/3 x the sheave diameter.
 
A sheave for a 2 inch diameter rope would be 2.1 inches thick x 10.5 (Steels) or 8.4" (Lee's) inches diameter.  The sheave slot would be 2.163 inches x 12.5 or 11 inches.
 
For the Jib Heel Lashing on my drawing I find a 10.5 inch diameter sheave does not suit my 9.5" across flats hex shaped heel of the jib boom.  I made my Heel Lashing Sheave 8.4" diameter and the hole 2.2" x 11".
 
Search as I might I cannot seem to identify the rope size ratio for the Jib Outhauler.  The Mast and Rigging spread sheet (which has proven to be reasonably accurate up to now) suggests the Spritsail Yard Halliard and Running Lifts and the Fore Trisail Outhauler are all 1" diameter.  As these are all in the same general area it seems reasonable for the Jib Sail to be similar.
 
The sheave for a 1" diameter rope would be 1.1 inches thick x 5.5 or 4.4 inches diameter.  The hole would be 1.163 inches wide  x 6.5 or 5.7 inches long.  Again the differences are those between Messrs. Lee and Rees.
 
I will use the 5.5 inch diameter sheave and the 1.1 inch wide x 6.5 inch long slot for the Jib Outhauler.
 
This fits nicely in my drawing.  PDF attached!
Also a couple pictures from my second Bowsprit.
 
****
This exercise took a number hours over just as many days.  I needed to walk away and shake my head clear a few times, review a number of books and re-read passages many times.  This is the kind of stuff that cranks me up and gets me jumping for more! 
Yes I really enjoyed it that much.
 




Bowsprit + Jib Boom.pdf

Amazing work Alan! Nice job.

Amazing work Alan! Nice job.

Amazing work Alan! Nice job.

I have been working on a 3D CAD model of the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 as configured in 1971 since 2004. It is just about complete now. I will try to describe the steps I followed to make a very accurate 1:1 scale model, including the problems I encountered and the research (which took most of the time) necessary.
 
I am a former Lieutenant in the US Naval Reserve, and I was the Nuclear/Special Weapons Officer on the Okie Boat from January 1970 through March of 1972, hence my interest in the ship. If you want to know more about the ship, it's history and a lot more, have a look at my web page at
 
https://www.okieboat.com/index.html
 
****
 
To summarize, the OK City was commissioned in 1944, the 20th of 27 Cleveland class light cruisers. It entered the war in mid 1945 and earned two battle stars, one at Okinawa and one for attacks on the Japanese homeland. After the war it was mothballed, but was chosen in the 1950s to be converted into one of the first guided missile cruisers. It was to carry the Talos surface to air missile. Talos design was changed several times between 1945 and 1955, from a range of 20 nmi, to 60 nmi, and eventually 130 nmi. Meanwhile a Talos test missile was developed into the Terrier missile, and Terrier was the first missile to enter the fleet. The changes to Talos delayed introduction to the fleet until 1958.
 
The Oklahoma City was recommissioned as CLG-5 in 1960. It was a fleet flagship, and served as First and Seventh Fleet flagships for most of it's 19 year service. It was Flagship of the Seventh Fleet for most of the Vietnam War, where it earned 13 more battle stars, becoming the most decorated of all the Cleveland class ships. The OK City was the first ship in the US Navy to use a surface to surface missile in combat successfully, and the first to use an anti-radiation (ARM) missile against an enemy radar successfully. It was decommissioned in 1979 and expended as a target ship in 1999. It was one of the US Navy's historic ships.
 
****
 
In future posts I will describe the steps I took to research the design of the ship and how I proceeded to make the CAD model. Bear with me though. I am fairly busy with other things and there is a lot to tell.
 
Phil

I tried Blender a few years back and I found it difficult to use. Blender like 3DS Max is an artistic program verses a mechanical drafting program (IMHO) I have seen a lot of cool stuff created with Blender and like any program you have to stick with it in order to learn it.

Started work on a new project, the extreme clipper Witch of the Wave, built in 1851. She was designed and built by George Reynes of Portsmouth, NH.  She was originally owned by Glidden & Williams of Boston. Oddly enough, Gerorge Reynes son George Jr also built a packet freighter by the same name in 1856 in the same yard his father built this one in, so there is the possibility to get confused.
 
Witch of the Wave was quite long lived for an extreme clipper, sailing for at least 34 years. She set only one record, her 1855 passage from Calcutta, India to Boston, MA in 102 days.  She was quite beautiful even by standards of the day. A great deal of attention had been paid to the details of her workmanship and the quality of her fittings.  Her cabins were fitted out with rare woods of curious workmanship and expensive furnishings.  She had a library of over 100 books. Her figurehead was that of a beautiful woman holding aloft a scarf as she glides across the waves, with gilded branches and leaves stretching out behind her that grow to wrap around the hawse holes. She also had occuli, painted eyes on each side of her bowspirit commonly found on ships involved in the tea trade.
 
This log isn't intended to be anything but a log of how I do stuff.  Others do stuff differently and use different tools and concepts to do them. I'm not saying they aren't right, or that my ideas are better than theirs.  I'm only trying to show how I go about it.  I've worked in SolidWorks professionally since about 2006 and have done some WWII era warship models for Dragon Models and some CAD models of airframes for a company that restores WWII era fighter aircraft. So I'm posting this with the idea that you guys might be interested in how I do things.  The quid pro quo is that I am hoping you guys can share your knowledge about ships where I am lacking, and I have been able to ask a few things in the forum already, for which I'm grateful.  That said, I am hoping this doesn't come across as me being stuck up about how I do things or that I feel superior to others in my skills and knowledge-base.  I do things my way and steal ideas from everyone else when I don't know how to do something. You might notice that EdT's work on Young America is something I consider highly influential.  
 
This is where I started, research-wise. This was the first hard data I found on WotW. It comes from The Search for Speed Under Sail; 1700-1855 by Howard I. Chappelle. The book is 10" tall x 8" wide so unfolded this layout was 10" x 16", a pretty decent size to work with for a scan. Fortunately I happen to have a large format flatbed scanner which can do 11" x 17" at 12,000 DPI.

The resulting image was 18528 x 12408 pixels. I cropped a part of it here for you to imagine how large the full size image (zoom for effect). Needless to say it would be a little unwieldy in this format so I had some work to do on it. Here you see the occuli and her figurehead.

The first problem is that the plan and profile images were split on two pages.  Fortunately the image didn't go down into the gutter of the spine so I had nice clean edges to work with. In Photoshop I cut out pieces of the image and pasted them into a new document.  I then lined them up using the grid and rotate layer command. Here is the profile image done. The processes I'm describing were done for all images, I'm just showing a couple quick reference images in order to save time and space.  This is  apretty lengthy process by itself and should probably have it's own discussion.

The next part was a little more involved. There was minor warping all over the image.  Fortunately there were tons of grid lines that I knew should be straight.  I had to use the warp transform tool on the parts to get them into some semblance of straight and true lines. Needless to say this wasn't easy and took me about an hour for each view. The fore/aft view wasn't as hard because I didn't have to stitch two halves together, but it still got straightened up. Here is the plan view done.

Next I used the sketch picture tool under sketch tools in SolidWorks to insert the resulting images into a new part.  I added relevant geometry and used the dimensions I knew to scale the image up to the proper size.  I found out that the frame stations were on 32" centers which did not diminish near the ends. I then added in more geometry for the individual frame stations.

Next I created a new sketch on the midship plane and added the hull lines and some waterline geometry.

And after that the plan view with buttock lines.
The resulting work in 3D.
Next I added in some rudimentary sketches for the bowspirit and jib boom.  This gave me a rough overall length of 273' to 274'.  

The next thing I wanted to focus on was the fact that I didn't have a midship cross section to work with, only small sections of individual parts like the keelsons and garboard.  A midship cross section is important, as it will help you lay out geometry and understand the interactions of the pieces more easily.  So I created this one to get a general idea of how she laid out. Here you can see her rather unique keelson setup.  Her sister keelsons were fayed to the floor and transitioned into her 4.5" floor ceilings.

Next was adding planes for each frame station. I accidentally named the first plane m when it should have been l but I fixed that later on.

The garboard is 7" thick at midships but thins out to 4" at the stem and stern. The frame angle varies from about 86º at the stem to 18.5º at midships, then back to 87º at the stern.  After doing some number crunching I came up with a rabbet line, shown here in blue. In this view we are looking down the centerline of the ship from just above the baseline so you can see how it warps.
And then I added a bearding line for the keel, again highlighted in blue. Here we are on the horizontal baseline of the keel, looking at it from just right of centerline. If the above rabbet line is the warp, this curve would be the weft.

SolidWorks finds it easier to loft a surface if you maintain some uniformity to it's geometry. I intend to do this in one surface if I can, so I am making each frame loft section full height. It might make more sense once I'm done.  Trust me, I'm a professional.
Here I've finished adding in the port side lines.  As before, all lines go from the baseline up to the 36' line. These line remain unsmoothed as yet.  I will start smoothing them once all the lines are drawn.

Looking from an isometric viewpoint, you can see where the bottom edge of the lines are constrained to the rabbet line (red arrows).  That will give us a good start for smoothing later. The blue arrow indicates a good example of how the lines are not smooth yet.  Even a well controlled spline won't always do exactly what you told it to and takes some coaxing.
Aft of midships, I run into the rather small problem of having to draw lines on the starboard side of the ship.  The solution is rather easy, a simple mirror command, which necessitates we also add a centerline.

Work on the lines nears completion.
Added in a rough estimate of the transom, this is probably not final. The green color is an approximation of the color of Zinc Chromate, the paint used on the insides of aircraft during WWII to curb corrosion.  The parts template I use for work has this color as standard, so just ignore it. Or don't, you're an adult, you can do what you want.
Added in planes to add in sketches for the buttock lines. I noticed that when I put the scan in for the reference image I forgot to scale it horizontally.  The blue plane lines should line up with the tick marks on the scan.  When you scan a drawing to put into CAD like this you need to scale it not only vertically but horizontally as well, and make sure the two are not linked.  Line drawings scanned from books are never scaled perfectly one to one in both axis.
Here is the first buttock line. I added in a spline with the same number of control points as there were frames.  I then selected a control point and one of the frame lines and used the pierce constraint.  The control point of the spline is now connected to the frame line as if it "pierces" through the control point.  This let's us compare the model shape against the drawn buttocks lines.  The closer I can get the buttock lines to match the lines in the scan, the more accurate the hull will be.

The second line is added and what I am seeing is that the frame lines and buttock lines from the scan are pretty good so far.

Once all the buttock lines are in you can see that me not scaling the lines horizontally is probably causing some issues, since the gap gets worse the further out from centerline you get. I'm probably going to have to adjust the horizontal scale of that front view image again and redo all the frame lines.

Just to check, I moved the planes I created outwards until they lined up with the wrongly scaled front view to see how the change would affect the buttock lines and the result says, "Yep, you're gonna have to fix em."

I added the 39' 8" width in as a couple of reference lines mirrored across the centerline.  Then I edited the picture to scale it properly.  Remember to uncheck the item in the red box to ensure it doesn't just scale the whole image.

Here's something I do a lot when I am tracing images for a loft.  I offset the spline by just larger than than the scanned line is.  In this case the line I scanned is scaling out to  around 3/4" thick so I offset at 1/2 inch in each direction (bi-directional) and check the offset geometry under construction to make the outside lines into construction or reference lines.

Here's a close up of the result, you can see how it is helpful to get right down the centerline.

Since I know the lines in the drawings I scanned are pretty good, I am going to start the smoothing process.  This starts by selecting the main spline and selecting "Show Curvature" in the properties manager.  You get a series of lines called  a Curvature Comb that you can use to check your spline.  You want a smooth comb without these kinks in it when you're done.

Next is to add dimensions to control points.  These are already constrained vertically so the only way they can move is horizontally.  Controlling them with numbers is the easiest way for me to smooth the curve. Here you can see we have a couple of bad spots but overall it's not terrible.

Sometimes the result isn't a beautiful comb where it is exactly the same thickness throughout, in this case I'm working on frame Y which is in the transition area between the concave curve at the prow and the convex curve amidships. That little dent about 2/3rds of the way up is the remnants of the prow's concavity.

Usually you prefer to see something line frame g, which is straighter as it approaches the bow and begins to curve in a more uniform manner the higher you go.

Smoothing is coming along, but is really tedious so to distract myself I have added some details to midship section. Lower planking was 4" x 14" up to the turn of the bilge. Turn of the bilge is a rather arbitrary term so I put the change where I thought it should be.  From there to her plank sheer the planking was 5.5" x 7". The width of the wales planks is only 7 inches, compared to the 14 inches of the the lower planks, this is because the curve becomes more pronounced and the 14" planks are too wide to accommodate the curve.  I might still pull out a couple of those lower planks and move the wales down and in a little more, I haven't decided yet, but the curve looks a little to much for those last two.  

Her plank sheer is 5 inches think and her main rail is 5.5" x 20". Nothing else is dimensioned so the rest of this is best guess to get the known dimensions to agree with each other.  Her bulwark planking is 3" x 6" and only on the outside of the hull.  Inside her bulwarks are open up to the rack rail.  She has 4" thick clamps above and below the main rail, these fill the gap between the main rail and the monkey rail (fancy rail). I'm not sure about the waterway, in the description by Bruzelius they are said to be 14" square but this seems a bit excessive.  They would end up cutting away a quarter of the material when they cut the molding into it. It also doesn't leave a great deal of open space between the plank sheer and the rack rail, but that seems to be an aesthetic thing to me so I'm not sure if that's more than just my opinion.

The next question I need to clear up is the masts location and rake angle. Most of my work is based on the Chappelle drawings, so I kind of default to his being right most of the time, but here I have to disagree with him.  Bruzelius describes the rake angles of the masts in inches to the foot, while Chappelle drew them in angular degrees. In other words, Bruzlius says the fore mast is 1.25 inches rake to the foot. If you draw a triangle with one side 12 inches and the other 1.25 inches, you get a rake angle of 5.95º.  Chappelle has drawn his masts at 1.25º directly.  In my drawing each mast has two lines.  The solid line represents the rake angle in inches per foot and the dashed line in degrees. I think we can agree that Chappelle made the common mistake of replacing triangular dimensions with angular dimensions.
 
The second question is location and here I think Chappelle might be right but I'm not sure. Bruzelius describes the ship as being 202 feet between perpendiculars, but Chappelle describes it as 204'.  The reason for the discrepancy is the length between the frames.  The original waterlines, when scaled to 204' show a spacing between frames of 32". But at 202' the gap is 31.9".  a gap of 31.9 inches seems implausible, so 204' is the more likely length between perpendiculars.
 
Bruzelius' dimensions for the mast locations are 45' from front perpendicular to the fore, 67' from fore to main, and 53' from main to mizzen, with 37 remaining between mizzen and aft perpendicular. Chappelle, however has the given dims as 45', 68', 53'6", and 37'6". These numbers are in better keeping with the ratio numbers listed in Crother's Clipper book. The below drawing shows the masts located according to Bruzelius. The image below that has them located according to Chappelle.
 
These changes, overall, will make a little more room at the front of the main deck, but are going to make the poop deck a bit more cramped.

So, overall, this is where work has progressed to after about a weeks work.  If you guys see any errors, please let me know, I'd rather fix them now than find them later on.

 

Onshape limits you to 10 private files. If you make your files public you have 5 gb of storage. I like your launch Wayne, I think Fusion 360 has better rendering than the Turbo cad. I also think you have a good definition of whole molding that is very few Bezier curves.

So I took the Fusion 360 challenge.  Having used Turbocad for years, I found F360 to be fairly straight forward.  The hardest part is finding the tool you want and learning the peculiarities of the program.  I have done some work in Onshape and found it comparable.  It seems to me that anyone willing to put in a bit of time, willing to look at training videos and willing to persevere can learn both F360 and Onshape in a reasonably short time frame.  The work flow details differ, but not so much as to make difficult the adapting previous of methods to each program.
 
Both Onshape and F360 are free cloud based programs.  Onshape's free version is fully functional but limits the number of files one can store to 10.  Fusion 360 offers the fully functional version for free to hobbyists.  You do have to sign up and indicate that you are either a hobbyist or a start up business.  The guidelines for signing up are very clear.  
 
I choose to model a 29' Launch in TC and F360 just to compare the two.  I was learning F360 from scratch and have done a fair amount or work in TC.  The results are appended.  Do not get too excited about comparing the renderings since my skills in rendering are quite crude.  The point is that each program produces an interesting model.  Perhaps I will test out converting the models to 2D drawings at some future date.  I should mention that launches were still whole moulded, so there was very little employment of Beziers in these models.
 
This the the Launch from Fusion 360:
 


And the same plan in Turbocad v. 19:
 


 
Wayne

I use Onshape exclusively for my ship design and woodshop projects. There are tons of tutorials to get you started. If you are already familiar with 3D modeling you'll pick up on things pretty quickly if not the tutorials are very good. There is no software to download. You can signup for a free account or paid subscription.  I've inserts a few screen shots. Hope this helps. 

I use Onshape exclusively for my ship design and woodshop projects. There are tons of tutorials to get you started. If you are already familiar with 3D modeling you'll pick up on things pretty quickly if not the tutorials are very good. There is no software to download. You can signup for a free account or paid subscription.  I've inserts a few screen shots. Hope this helps. 

I can tell you that Draftsight is a lot like Autocad. I think the makers of Solidworks took an old Autocad program and updated it. I suggest you check out Onshape. 

I use Onshape exclusively for my ship design and woodshop projects. There are tons of tutorials to get you started. If you are already familiar with 3D modeling you'll pick up on things pretty quickly if not the tutorials are very good. There is no software to download. You can signup for a free account or paid subscription.  I've inserts a few screen shots. Hope this helps. 

You might also take a look at Onshape.  It's cloud based, with a free and paid subscription. Created by the original Solidworks developers. 

I came across this article on the HMS Implacable a 74 gun ship. I follow WoodenBoat on FB and this is how i came to know about it, thought I would share. There are several you tube videos you can watch if you search. 
 
https://www.greenwich.co.uk/blogs/

I came across this article on the HMS Implacable a 74 gun ship. I follow WoodenBoat on FB and this is how i came to know about it, thought I would share. There are several you tube videos you can watch if you search. 
 
https://www.greenwich.co.uk/blogs/

I was on a drafting table for about 6 years as a die designer in the forging industry then switched over to a 2D program called ANVIL 1000; it's still around but a little pricy. Then we migrated to SolidWorks which I prefer to use. Each one of these programs has a learning curve but it is easier to grasp the fundamentals and get up to a production level if you have previous drawing board experience. (IMHO)
 
I found the best way to learn SketchUp was to start modeling some of my old high school vocational projects . Simple geometric shapes at first then gradually working into something more advanced. Even if you're just going to trace over an existing design, it still helps to have a good knowledge of the basic tools and what you can do with them under your belt.
 
If you start out with "lofty" ideas (no pun intended), your CAD program could end up in the closet along with your model ship. Like anything else it takes practice, practice, practice.
 
Some examples of SketchUp work I have done in addition to what I have posted already.
 
 

 
-----added----
 
If you're looking for a good SketchUp learning source I found the tutorials at the Chiefwoodworkers Blog to be excellent http://www.srww.com/blog/

For those of you curious about how an actual rudder was constructed, our resident 3D guru, Denis, has prepared these renderings for our Swan class model. These tabled joints would be very difficult to emulate on model (please give it a go Mark!) and virtually impossible to see unless you could actually visualize both sides of the rudder at the same time. When completed our 3D Swan class ship will offer a more complete (and historically accurate) treatise on contemporary ship building than the AOS series.

 

I am back.
Having successfully bevelled a futtock chock joint.
What a painful process it was for me to accomplish.
I pray I've got it going the proper way.
 
If not S/Lt Martin (she has since been promoted to Admiral) will have my hide! 
 
Feels like I've a quadrillion to go... so many opportunities to improve 

I had these sitting in my arsenal on cannon carriages. They were handed down to me so I hand them off to you. I don't recall the source but perhaps there is some information you can use.