Doreltomin

Charles Parson's Turbinia of 1894! Her original power plant is in the Science Museum, South Kensington

Hello Jud, Now that your question is back again, even if it might not add precisely to Harvey's thread, I can, with the due apologies to him, at least try an answer; although I am not by any means very good in maths. It is right that almost any curve may have a mathematical formule attached. I used to know how to calculate some simple basic formulae a long time ago, but now I believe for practical reasons today with our CAD-CAM's we can simply forget all that. In simple days of lofting ships "the old way" starting with, say, 17th century, these lines were drawn using long flexible profiles of wood which were held in place using weights. I draw my ship plans even today using the same technique, only the wooden profil is kept in place with sewing pins nailed lightly into the drawing board. To be more specific, I use a software for my job as an architect, but when it comes to ships which is just a hobby, I love to do it by hand in the dear old way. Back in the 17th century they even had several kind of devices with more or less the likeness of a bow where the shipwright could tighten or loose several screws to obtain the required curve.These curves obtained from flexible profiles are called in today's language "splines" . AutoCAD has them as well as my professional software which is designed by a Munich based firm called Nemetschek. Basically, you can trace a spline using certain attach points and the spline takes its shape exactly in the same way as the wooden profile. Moreover, this is a curve which can be "adjusted" by tiny movements up or down of the attach points. Of course this curve may indeed have a mathematical formule attached, but since it is the software which "produces" it, who cares which is that? The mathematical curve was useful in the old days because you had to use the formulae to replicate the curve in a bigger or smaller scale. Today the technology does that for us with practically no pain. Hope this helps...

Hello Harvey, Digital scans of large scale plans are made with a machine which carries the format of the paper back and forth between two rollers while an optical head reads the plan in continuous rows and puts them together. This only works well if the paper is perfectly straight, flat and and of the same thickness all over. Old plans are just the opposite of that. Due to being stored, often rolled, for long times, they are full of wrinkles, creases and irregularities. Besides, this "roller" system often gives an overall dimensional distortion over its lenght because it is calculated for an "average" thickness and it may be that the plan is much different of that. Last, but not least, paper is a material sensible to moisture. It lengthens or shrinks depending of the air humidity. So while it may have been drawn in perfect scale, as the general level of humidity increased or decreased, so did the plan. Even worse, because the material itself is far for being uniform in its mass, certain parts of the drawing shrinked more, the others less. All this cause unwanted, but sometimes heavy distorsions of the scanned image. It is precisely what you see in your plan. My suggestion is either that before importing the scanned image into TurboCAD you have to make it as clear and straight as possible. There are even unexpensive image softwares like the "Paint" which comes as a pack with Windows which you can use for that. You can even cut the plan into several slices and put them manually to fit the vertical. Another option is that you can work with your TurboCAD (I haven't worked with that, but I know how to use AutoCAD, it may be fairly similar) and put your drawing on a working layer on top with a number of vertical guidelines at proper angles and distances, with the scanned drawing on another layer as a background and then as your drawing goes on, move the background slightly for each part to make the drawing in correct shape and dimensions. Hope I made myself understood, good luck with your drawing and show us what you did! Best wishes,

The plan of the Benjamin Latham published in the (Former East) German Magazine "Modellbau Heute" in 1987 or 1989 does not show anything like that. See for yourself here: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5c0tef95LTc/Tjw2f6WVc6I/AAAAAAAAAnw/Biv0C9B_87E/s1600/01.jpg

I'm also confused because she looks like a ship built into Charles 2nd reign, yet she is different from the known portraits of the Royal Charles former Naseby. The rake of the taffrail is smaller and instead of the big decoration which is now at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam (thank you for posting that, Jan!) there is a row of windows. So she cannot be the former Naseby. Perhaps she is the SECOND Royal Charles, a 100 gun launched in 1673, renamed Queen in 1693, rebuilt in 1715 and renamed Royal George, again rebuilt in 1756, renamed Royal Anne this time, and broken up in 1767. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Royal_Charles So, she must be the Royal Charles of 1673; of course, here in the first likeness, or maybe the second, being renamed Queen. Anyway, it's sporting the English ensign, so at least it is before 1707 when Union Jack became the regular ensign. Am I correct?

Hello dear friend Doris, Thank you for the links to the Czech forum, that is very interesting, when I will arrive that far I will "borrow" your techniques too! Actually I believe "paper model" is not quite right to say in your case. The ultra-orthodox so to say paper modellers do make everything in paper, starting with the hull and ending with the masts, spars and so on. Yours approach is very different, you do the hull in paper, but then the 3D pieces are done in different media according to the required shape and look. I believe "Mixed media" would be more appropriate for your technique. You are as always a true inspiration for me, I only hope to be able some day to model something at least half as beautiful as yours! Best wishes, Dorin

Kiwiron, please follow the rules of this game: 1) only the person which finds the correct answer can post the next quiz. 2) You cannot post a picture of a ship of which you don't know precisely which is what 3) And, by the way, your mystery ship is the Russian Cruiser Aurora, now a museum ship in Sankt Petersburg. @ Dave: so, is it right, your mystery ship is the Royal Charles, former Naseby, took by the Dutch at Medway? If yes, that's a very nice picture.. I hadn't had that!

Hi Dave, Just found your excellent thread! Your little wonder is impressive even by itself... not to say it will be put inside a bottle! Good luck with your build.. hope it will squeeze through the bottleneck!

Hello DFellingham, Congratulations, you hit it right in the middle from the first shot! She is indeed the armoured corvette built by Stabilimento Technico Triestino, San Rocco, Yard number 51/ 1868. As with the name, there is indeed a big problem here which still makes the historians argue after so many years, because back in the 19th century the Turkish used the Arabic alphabet and at the beginning of the 20th century they switched to the Latin alphabet, and some of the names are at best only partially transliterated from Turkish. Here: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da%C4%9F%C4%B1lma_d%C3%B6nemi_Osmanl%C4%B1_donanmas%C4%B1 you can see the Wikipedia page in Turkish which writes the name using the Turkish rules like that: İclâliye. It is indeed the same name which transliterated to English would have to be written Idjalieh. Excellent job, your turn!

Haha, not that bad Jan! In fact, you should know about me two things: first, I am an architect, so knowing the style of a building from the first glance is a professional thing. Secondly, incidentally I have had a post graduate course in your lovely "small country fit for frogs" and I have travelled extensively in many major cities around the Netherlands, so it was not so difficult for me to recognize, if not exactly Flushing in your picture, at least the Dutch environment. Then it was a piece of cake to google for the history of your first submarines. Not to mention how much I love your culture, your "golden century" and your wonderful Dutch ships. Thank you very much again for unveiling me another fact of your history, this time about your submarines. I believe this is the best part out of this game: Seeing/showing a picture, trying to find what it is, then at the end reading a little excerpt of the history of a a certain ship. So this being said, It seems It is time to put in the next mystery picture. Of course, at the beginning I have tampered with the flag, otherwise it would have been too easy. Good luck and have a nice Sunday!

@ Louie, thank you very much for the tip... very interesting link and photos! @ Woodrat: you are right about the Mataro being much tampered with. Louie is right that other cited sources are very useful as well. And one last point, which is a bit tricky because you should have thought of it earlier: Have you considered putting a MIRROR instead of the plank on which the half model is put? In such a way the model would look complete from any angle! Of course since the plane of the cut isn't now made exactly in the middle but a bit before that, you must "shave" everything to the exact middle and make not a full round mast, but just half of it. A bit tricky but I believe it would worth the trouble!

Thanks Jan... Not so good in submarines, however the background looks distinctively Dutch so may I try: O1?

Sorry Captain, that was not a Russian but a French ship. Congratulations Jan! You are perfectly right, see the attached nameplate. That's indeed the Kabyle, "torpilleur de haute mer" of the Type Agile, built by the same Chantiers et Forges de la Mediteranee, la Seyne in 1892 and scrapped in 1911 in Toulon. Your turn!

Hello Jan, seems it's time for a hint: perhaps it's not incidental that the previous was built in France and this one is French too. Maybe there's a link between them

Well done Dick, excellent point with the frames seen between the wales! Good luck with the rigging and don't be afraid, it is actually simpler than in the 17th century, only you have to do it the way it was done at the time... you can take the Mataro ship as an example. The blocks for instance are different. Will follow you with interest!

Hi Druxey and Woodrat, Thanks for asking precisely the question I was about to put myself! These ships are indeed truly confusing and without having at least one real example under our nose all this discussion may remain just pure speculation. However, it is very interesting that your model makes us put such good questions and trying find the correct answer. As one friend here on the MSW puts it so nicely, it's not only the model itself, it's mainly the knowledge we gain when building it!

Hello Jan, Happy New Year 2014! As for the old bridge in the harbour of Marseille, I would quote a character from a famous cartoon movie (to name it, Tom & Jerrie) saying "Touche, Pussy Cat!"

Thank you, Captain! So here's the next quiz: Which ship is this one in the foreground? Please note that for the beginning, to make it fair, I have tampered with the nameplate.

Hi Woodrat, I'm glad to see your topic here again... your carrack was truly inspiring, thank you for your pictures. Wish you all the best for this New Year 2014!

Hello Doris, May this New Year 2014 bring you good health, and happiness, and joy, and whatever you wished for 2013 and it did not show off true, let it show this year! Best wishes and keep us posted with your stunning work! For me, your models are truly inspiring... please keep the pictures coming! Warm regards from the Black Sea shoreline, Dorin.

Armoured cruiser Bayan, built by Forges et Chantiers de la Mediteranee, la Seyne, 1900?

You can bet it's Sagres, she is the only ship among her sisters with red crosses on the sails. One more word about the Romanian Training Ship Mircea. It is actually Mircea II to tell her apart of the first training brig with the same name which was built in 1881 by Thames Iron Works, Orchard Yard, Blackwall, and was lost due to bombing during WW2.

Hello, Interesting subject and interesting question. However, have you thought, as our friend Nenad has put it previously, that masting and rigging was the "top technology" of the last centuries, perfectly comparable with today's building of the Space Shuttle or computer technology? It's certainly an area so vast that you can't embrace all... you have to focus on certain points and areas of interest. Is it early ages? it it 17th... 18th or 19th century? There may be a "best answer" for each century and subject, depending on what's on your mind. Sometimes there is an entire book "definitive" on a ship only. Sometimes there's a definitive book for an entire era as is certainly the case for "1600-1720 The rigging of the ships in the days of the spritsail topmast" by R.C. Anderson.

Hi Michael, Thank you.. very interesting and helpful hint! Would you mind to tell also what you use to heat the material to cherry red? An open fire is enough for that or you need also some kind of blower to heat the fire up?

Hello Sailor, While building a cross section of a composite at a bigger scale to demonstrate the technique would be both feasable and interesting, I believe doing a model of an entire ship in composite build largely exceeds the possibilities of an average modeller. Also, it is worth saying I would not believe such an extreme approach would actually "pay off" in modeller terms. You also have to know that composite built is a bit more complex than just putting a layer of wooden strakes over a structure of iron frames. What you miss from the picture is the strong electrolytic reaction which occurs between iron and English oak in presence of salt water. Therefore, I don't know exactly how was Cutty Sark made but I have found the original papers of the training ship Mircea in the Romanian Archives and I can tell you how was this ship made. The builder was Thames Iron Works at Orchard Yard, Blackwall, which is east of London on the Thames and the year was 1882. Just to make yourself an idea, they first make the frames using iron angles, then they do the inner layer of planks which are bolted with iron bolts to the frames; the bolts are driven from outside with heads placed in recesses made into the wood and the nuts are put inside. Then they do the outer layer of planks over it which are fixed on the first layer with copper clench bolts. The inner layer of planks is teak, the outer canadian rock elm or english oak, and great care is taken that no iron piece ever touches the oak. If there is no other possibility, they put a plank of teak between them to protect the iron. All the iron work is protected with red lead and between the first and the second layer of planking they may have put a continuous layer of tarred horse hair tissue. Now, do you really believe a modeller could do all this stuff to his scale model without getting crazy?