tmj

Hello David! I have a question that might be beneficial to all parties involved within this topic. Scale rules, calipers, tape measures, CMM machines, lasers... whatever measuring devises one wishes to use. I personally struggle with line thicknesses when trying to take accurate measurements from printed drawings, blueprints, etc. 'especially' when the ink on those drawings varies in thickness, ever so slightly, from one area of the drawing to another. I'm not sure if I should shoot for taking dimensions from the 'perceived' middle of the lines, inside of the lines, or the outer most boundaries of those lines. I like to measure with calipers and then transfer those measured dimensions to CAD drawings, however. When doing this, those slight variations in line width often tend to cause problems with creating smooth geometry within my cad work. I discovered this back when I first started the design work for my 'Hancock' build (still at it, haven't given up, just a slow go). I've found a way to fix this, visually, but in such it always bugs me not knowing if I'm actually pulling the proper dimensions, or not, via my smooth looking visual modifications that correct the once awkward and slightly crooked looking CAD geometry. I know that I'm probably splitting a lot of hairs here, but in such I'm also curious as to just how one should best approach taking accurate dimensions from hand drafted drawings without encountering errors due to line width variations?

I personally never use fractions, ever... only decimals even with the metric system. Fractions are sloppy, 4 place decimals are extremely accurate.

You need to know the actual size of the real subject that you are modeling in scale. In your case, if I understand your question properly, 1:12 means that every part you make should be 1/12th the size of the real subject's part. For example, if you wanted to know how long a 100-foot-long item would be if modeled at 1:12 scale you would simply divide 100 by 12. The length would be 8.3333 feet in length.

Micha, I'm a bit behind on your build but will be catching up. I hope that you were able to resolve the problem. For whatever it is worth, this sort of thing is where PVA glue sometimes shines. PVA can be softened with heat from an iron and parts can often be 'taken apart' if bad things happen.

Micha, I've been eyeballing this model for quite some time. I think I'll build this model with you! I just ordered mine from Model Expo. It should be here Friday, maybe Saturday. 🙂

Don't be afraid of that Grand Banks Dory! You should have no trouble, at all, building that model. It should prove to be a great transition from plastic to wood. You'll likely find out that a lot of your previous plastic models were probably more difficult to build than this Dory will be! 🙂 "Don't Fear the Wood!" "Welcome aboard!"

Roger, How do you 'diffuse' the light so that you do not have bright "HOT-SPOTS" where the lights are mounted? I tried making one of these for a gal at work and could never get the light the way we wanted it. If I mounted the lights around the perimeter of the box, with a wide border to hide the lights, the face of the box would be brightest around the outside of the 'window', getting darker as you moved towards the center. If I put the lights in the middle of the window It looked like a box full of light sabers through the diffusion material. Even tried LED strips for a more subtle effect, but still no go. No matter what I tried, I could always see where the lights were. I never achieved a smooth, uniform lighting effect.

I finally got around to building a table and a crate for the Orlop deck. I'll probably make one more of each for the port side of the deck.

Thanks Mark. Unfortunately, the ship in question is the Continental Frigate 'Hancock' (captured) aka the 'Iris'. There doesn't seem to be much data out there, for this vessel, other than RMG's plans.

If the 'Body Plan' offers the exterior geometry of the stations, how does one go about acquiring the 'interior' geometry for those stations? I know that this is a really basic thing for you experienced folks, but I'm stumped!

Autodesk offers a free version for personal, noncommercial use.

High Gregory! I watched that video back when I was first shopping for my router. It's a good video, however. I'm going to stick with Fusion 360 for the CAM end of things. Fusion 360 will do everything the other CAD/CAM software packages can do. I might even transition over to doing all my 3D modeling in Fusion as well. I just need to go through the ol' learning curve as Fusion 360 does not work quite like AutoCAD.

I'm still struggling to figure out just how Fusion 360 works. My knowledge of traditional AutoCad doesn't seem to apply... and watching Youtube videos isn't proving to be of much help either. I guess I'm just going to have to 'bite the bullet', turn in my "Man-Card" and actually resort to reluctantly reading the written instructions! *sigh*

No Allan. I have them backwards, "of course!" Another newbie lesson learned! 💩 That's okay. This is just a training model. I need to make as many mistakes as possible on this build in hopes of 'kinda' knowing what I'm doing when I start my next build. Thanks for pointing this out. This is another one of those 'little' things that I'd have never thought would have a right way and a wrong way!

I used to mess around with primitive archery, bow building, flint knapping and building arrows that were 'spined' in the 70–100-pound range. I used bamboo shafts purchased on eBay, directly from China. They always worked very well and are very tough. I wonder if bamboo intended for arrows would be a good choice for drawing through a plate in small diameters. I still have quite a few unused shafts. I'm going to give this a try, however. I don't yet have a drawplate. Speaking of such. Does anyone know if Jim Byrnes is ever 'really' going to open up for business again??? Below is a bamboo arrow spined for a 90-pound bow. I've never shot this arrow due to the obsidian point, but all of my field points flew really well on the bamboo shafts. I just wanted to show this arrow off. It's the best obsidian point that I ever knapped. 🙂

I agree with the shape thing, but not so sure about the size. When looking at the construction methods of the 'Essex', I'd say that the horseshoe shaped 'plate' was quite large... larger than any horse hoof. Yes, I'm curious too. I don't understand the shape. There would definitely be far better plate designs than that! Maybe the old-world builders were just superstitious and simply wanted the inverted horseshoe shape to trap and hold good luck! 🙃 As for the size? The below image is of the 'Essex's' stem, stern and keel. I'm using the Essex to model the construction methods of the 'Hancock'. If the resource I'm using is correct (32 Gun Frigate 'Essex', anatomy of the ship, by Portiat Takakjian) that horseshoe would fit a horse of 'mythical' proportions! Hopefully, someone with more knowledge will be able to chime in and clear up some of the odd-looking details and curious questions. I'll certainly be interested in this as my Hancock build will only be planked from the waterline up. All construction details 'below' the waterline will be exposed.

Sorry Bob. I sometimes use the search box, but most times I do not. I've grown accustomed to finding everything under the sun 'except' for what I'm truly looking for when I use the forum's search option. It's usually easier and faster to ask a question and get a response like this. 🙂

Were 'horseshoe' plates, on early American warships, bolted to the exterior of the lower stem timbers, or possibly 'inlayed' flush to the outside of those timbers to keep things streamlined in the water?

Got it. "Thanks Gary!"

Thanks Gary. I think that these dimensions will be quite doable at 1:98 scale.

Were the 68 pounders actually on board during the Trafalgar era?

Here's my first thought, unless a different style of arranging the shot would be more proper... like a 'pyramid' or some other configuration for staging the shot...

I'm trying to find the approximate diameters of the cannon shot that would be found on all three of HMS Victory's gun decks. I keep finding 'poundage' ratings for the shot, but no actual diameters. I'm searching for the diameters of the shot(s) in order to determine whether or not I can feasibly fabricate scale replicas of the type of shot garland 'construction' presented by Morgan, earlier in this thread. Who here knows what the diameter of what HMS Victory's different size shots would have been?

I just took a peek at a plan view showing the top of the keel, just to make sure that I did not miss anything. No joints at all are shown on the top/plan view of 'that' drawing of the keel. "It's amazing the stories that can be told with more than one view and the understanding of a 'symbol'! 🙂

Allan, 'That' answers the question! Thank you for the plan view and an elevation view! It makes sense now. I've never seen any hidden lines in the drawings that I have looked at. I only see a solid rectangle with an 'X' going from corner to corner. That 'X' does not belong in a mechanical drawing depicting a joint like this, not for true construction. This tells me that the rectangle with an 'X' 'is' just a symbol! I also now understand why such a joint is called a 'vertical' scarf joint! Thank you! Would this joint have been tree-nailed, bolted, or bolted like a sandwich with metal plates being on the port and starboard sides of the joint?