vaddoc

This is such a fun project to follow Phil! Quick question, why do you sand the superstructure between paint coats?
 
Vaddoc

Dear all
 
I think I did it!
 
But first my deepest thank you to all that visited, hit the like button or replied - much appreciated!
 
How right you all are:
 
Now David, I had forgotten all about the diagonals! Silly as my first efforts to loft the boat were actually using the diagonals, which is what Leo did. Thanks! Diagonals coming up bellow.
 
I did exactly this Mark! Still, this led to a stem just short of 9 inches wide, whereas Leo ended up with a 7 inch stem. No matter how much I tried I could not match this without drastically altering the shape of the sheer or having a stem clearly wrong and too far off the plans.
 
Absolutely. After the hull was pretty much shaped, I realised that what appeared as large unfairness in the CAD lines was in reality just a difference of 3-4 mm, and this in the full size boat.
 
I most certainly will Greg and I also plan to visit Tally Ho (if possible) when Leo gets back home. All in good time!
 
 
Ok, so now let me share the progress made - I must admit I am pretty happy, unless some eagled eyed people find a huge error somewhere!
 
So blending all data sources I found a happy medium for the sheer, the stem, the sternpost, transom, face of stem and keel. I accepted that frame no 2 will be a bit S-shaped (not much). I then went through three lofting cycles. Suddenly, all fell into place! All lines were fair and the frames and waterlines were either touching or just a few mm apart:


These are the sets of frames after each cycle - the white frames are the traced ones from Mr Strange's drawings.

But is the hull really fair? Enter diagonals!

It is actually ok!
The unfairness at the stern is because I used the last frame to create the lines - without it the top three diagonals become completely fair. I will actually not be using this last frame so all good. The bottom diagonal is a bit wonky but the distance to fairness in that aft point in reality is just 2 mm in the full scale boat - meaningless.
At the bow, again the adjustments to make the diagonals fair are tiny.
In any case, I thought I d give it a try. So I faired the diagonals...

......produced the new contact points with the frames and transferred these points over to the finished hull to redraw these frames...

....and then I gave up. It was meaningless, the difference was just a few mm. In the actual boat it would not make a difference, even Leo accepted 1/8 inch tolerance. In 1/12 scale, this tolerance becomes less than 0.5mm.
 
The next photo shows my frames compared the the traced ones - they are pretty close.

So lets see the hull! 

Now, this looks pretty fair. More bellow



Adding the rest of rabet at the stern

And a couple of photos of the complete hull.


I think it is adequate to start the project and the wood will correct any imperfections.
This was the first of I am sure many milestones in this very long journey. We are still far from making any wood dust.
 
Take care all
 
Vaddoc

Dear all
 
I think I did it!
 
But first my deepest thank you to all that visited, hit the like button or replied - much appreciated!
 
How right you all are:
 
Now David, I had forgotten all about the diagonals! Silly as my first efforts to loft the boat were actually using the diagonals, which is what Leo did. Thanks! Diagonals coming up bellow.
 
I did exactly this Mark! Still, this led to a stem just short of 9 inches wide, whereas Leo ended up with a 7 inch stem. No matter how much I tried I could not match this without drastically altering the shape of the sheer or having a stem clearly wrong and too far off the plans.
 
Absolutely. After the hull was pretty much shaped, I realised that what appeared as large unfairness in the CAD lines was in reality just a difference of 3-4 mm, and this in the full size boat.
 
I most certainly will Greg and I also plan to visit Tally Ho (if possible) when Leo gets back home. All in good time!
 
 
Ok, so now let me share the progress made - I must admit I am pretty happy, unless some eagled eyed people find a huge error somewhere!
 
So blending all data sources I found a happy medium for the sheer, the stem, the sternpost, transom, face of stem and keel. I accepted that frame no 2 will be a bit S-shaped (not much). I then went through three lofting cycles. Suddenly, all fell into place! All lines were fair and the frames and waterlines were either touching or just a few mm apart:


These are the sets of frames after each cycle - the white frames are the traced ones from Mr Strange's drawings.

But is the hull really fair? Enter diagonals!

It is actually ok!
The unfairness at the stern is because I used the last frame to create the lines - without it the top three diagonals become completely fair. I will actually not be using this last frame so all good. The bottom diagonal is a bit wonky but the distance to fairness in that aft point in reality is just 2 mm in the full scale boat - meaningless.
At the bow, again the adjustments to make the diagonals fair are tiny.
In any case, I thought I d give it a try. So I faired the diagonals...

......produced the new contact points with the frames and transferred these points over to the finished hull to redraw these frames...

....and then I gave up. It was meaningless, the difference was just a few mm. In the actual boat it would not make a difference, even Leo accepted 1/8 inch tolerance. In 1/12 scale, this tolerance becomes less than 0.5mm.
 
The next photo shows my frames compared the the traced ones - they are pretty close.

So lets see the hull! 

Now, this looks pretty fair. More bellow



Adding the rest of rabet at the stern

And a couple of photos of the complete hull.


I think it is adequate to start the project and the wood will correct any imperfections.
This was the first of I am sure many milestones in this very long journey. We are still far from making any wood dust.
 
Take care all
 
Vaddoc

Dear all
 
I think I did it!
 
But first my deepest thank you to all that visited, hit the like button or replied - much appreciated!
 
How right you all are:
 
Now David, I had forgotten all about the diagonals! Silly as my first efforts to loft the boat were actually using the diagonals, which is what Leo did. Thanks! Diagonals coming up bellow.
 
I did exactly this Mark! Still, this led to a stem just short of 9 inches wide, whereas Leo ended up with a 7 inch stem. No matter how much I tried I could not match this without drastically altering the shape of the sheer or having a stem clearly wrong and too far off the plans.
 
Absolutely. After the hull was pretty much shaped, I realised that what appeared as large unfairness in the CAD lines was in reality just a difference of 3-4 mm, and this in the full size boat.
 
I most certainly will Greg and I also plan to visit Tally Ho (if possible) when Leo gets back home. All in good time!
 
 
Ok, so now let me share the progress made - I must admit I am pretty happy, unless some eagled eyed people find a huge error somewhere!
 
So blending all data sources I found a happy medium for the sheer, the stem, the sternpost, transom, face of stem and keel. I accepted that frame no 2 will be a bit S-shaped (not much). I then went through three lofting cycles. Suddenly, all fell into place! All lines were fair and the frames and waterlines were either touching or just a few mm apart:


These are the sets of frames after each cycle - the white frames are the traced ones from Mr Strange's drawings.

But is the hull really fair? Enter diagonals!

It is actually ok!
The unfairness at the stern is because I used the last frame to create the lines - without it the top three diagonals become completely fair. I will actually not be using this last frame so all good. The bottom diagonal is a bit wonky but the distance to fairness in that aft point in reality is just 2 mm in the full scale boat - meaningless.
At the bow, again the adjustments to make the diagonals fair are tiny.
In any case, I thought I d give it a try. So I faired the diagonals...

......produced the new contact points with the frames and transferred these points over to the finished hull to redraw these frames...

....and then I gave up. It was meaningless, the difference was just a few mm. In the actual boat it would not make a difference, even Leo accepted 1/8 inch tolerance. In 1/12 scale, this tolerance becomes less than 0.5mm.
 
The next photo shows my frames compared the the traced ones - they are pretty close.

So lets see the hull! 

Now, this looks pretty fair. More bellow



Adding the rest of rabet at the stern

And a couple of photos of the complete hull.


I think it is adequate to start the project and the wood will correct any imperfections.
This was the first of I am sure many milestones in this very long journey. We are still far from making any wood dust.
 
Take care all
 
Vaddoc

Dear all
 
I think I did it!
 
But first my deepest thank you to all that visited, hit the like button or replied - much appreciated!
 
How right you all are:
 
Now David, I had forgotten all about the diagonals! Silly as my first efforts to loft the boat were actually using the diagonals, which is what Leo did. Thanks! Diagonals coming up bellow.
 
I did exactly this Mark! Still, this led to a stem just short of 9 inches wide, whereas Leo ended up with a 7 inch stem. No matter how much I tried I could not match this without drastically altering the shape of the sheer or having a stem clearly wrong and too far off the plans.
 
Absolutely. After the hull was pretty much shaped, I realised that what appeared as large unfairness in the CAD lines was in reality just a difference of 3-4 mm, and this in the full size boat.
 
I most certainly will Greg and I also plan to visit Tally Ho (if possible) when Leo gets back home. All in good time!
 
 
Ok, so now let me share the progress made - I must admit I am pretty happy, unless some eagled eyed people find a huge error somewhere!
 
So blending all data sources I found a happy medium for the sheer, the stem, the sternpost, transom, face of stem and keel. I accepted that frame no 2 will be a bit S-shaped (not much). I then went through three lofting cycles. Suddenly, all fell into place! All lines were fair and the frames and waterlines were either touching or just a few mm apart:


These are the sets of frames after each cycle - the white frames are the traced ones from Mr Strange's drawings.

But is the hull really fair? Enter diagonals!

It is actually ok!
The unfairness at the stern is because I used the last frame to create the lines - without it the top three diagonals become completely fair. I will actually not be using this last frame so all good. The bottom diagonal is a bit wonky but the distance to fairness in that aft point in reality is just 2 mm in the full scale boat - meaningless.
At the bow, again the adjustments to make the diagonals fair are tiny.
In any case, I thought I d give it a try. So I faired the diagonals...

......produced the new contact points with the frames and transferred these points over to the finished hull to redraw these frames...

....and then I gave up. It was meaningless, the difference was just a few mm. In the actual boat it would not make a difference, even Leo accepted 1/8 inch tolerance. In 1/12 scale, this tolerance becomes less than 0.5mm.
 
The next photo shows my frames compared the the traced ones - they are pretty close.

So lets see the hull! 

Now, this looks pretty fair. More bellow



Adding the rest of rabet at the stern

And a couple of photos of the complete hull.


I think it is adequate to start the project and the wood will correct any imperfections.
This was the first of I am sure many milestones in this very long journey. We are still far from making any wood dust.
 
Take care all
 
Vaddoc

This is such a fun project to follow Phil! Quick question, why do you sand the superstructure between paint coats?
 
Vaddoc

This is such a fun project to follow Phil! Quick question, why do you sand the superstructure between paint coats?
 
Vaddoc

More details on the deck houses. I have put the "lid" on the O1 deckhouse. I still haven't attached the O1 level house to the main deck house.
 

 
 

I have been adding some deck edge trim around the sides of the deck houses. While it adds some nice detail it also serves a very good modelling purpose. The house sides and decks are made of 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) plywood, with the decks resting on the top edges of the sides. Finishing the edges of plywood is trickier than the surfaces, with multiple porous layers to fill.
 
The upper horizontal trim is 5/32 x 1/32 inch (4 x 0.8 mm), and the lower vertical piece is 3/32 x 1/32 inch (2.4 mm x 0.8 mm). These dimensions are pretty close  to scale. The vertical piece conveniently hides the edges of the plywood deck.
 
The real ship was built with 3/4 inch (19 mm) plywood house sides and deck. The trim served to seal the edges of the plywood from the weather.
 
 
The main deck house has the same type trim as the O1 level house. There is also another 3/32 x 1/32 trim piece at the bottom of the deck house sides. The houses fit pretty tightly to the decks, but there are some slight gaps. These bottom trim pieces allow me to cover any gaps and seal the houses tightly to the decks.
 
A vent trunk fits to the rear of the main deck house. Inside was a large fan that ventilated the engine room below.
 
The blueprints and early photos of the MSIs show deck edge trim like on the house sides, and a hawser reel on top of the vent trunk. However, when I was aboard in 1969 both of the MSIs had an inclined ladder from the main deck to the top of the vent trunk. Steps had been added up to the O1 level. I will be adding the ladder and steps.
 
Originally, if you were on the O1 level and wanted to get to the main deck you had two choices. There was a vertical ladder on the starboard aft side of the main deckhouse. Or you could go through the pilot house to the radio room, and down an inclined ladder in a companionway. Then you could go through the mess decks and passageway to the door at the port rear of the deckhouse (shown in this picture).
 
I guess they got tired of taking the long way around and added the inclined ladder. The hawser reel was moved to the port rear corner of the O1 level, above the door.
 
There was another addition to both MSIs inside a recess in the main deckhouse port side. There was a scuttle in the deck at the bottom of this recess. It was an escape scuttle from the mine sweeping generator room.
 
Originally there was nothing in the recess. But somewhere along the line a locker was added at the top of the recess. I do not recall what was stowed in the locker. The recess was 3 feet (about 1 meter) wide, and the locker was about the same height. It would have been about 18 inches (about half a meter) deep.
 
I'll be adding more small details to the main deckhouse sides, and planning for the life rails on the O2 level. I have also started on the mast. Conveniently, it was 12 inches (305 mm) square, and that is 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) at 1:48 scale. I used a 1/4 inch square dowel and rounded the edges slightly like the real mast.
 

Still working on the small details for the O1 deck house.
 

 
The bell bracket was made from 0.030 inch (8 mm) brass. The bell is from Bluejacket Ship Crafters (1/4 inch, part F0483). I have made bells from scratch, but it was much easier to order the bell while I was also ordering the propeller. The parts on the right are brackets to belay signal halliards.
 

 
Here are a couple of photos of the signal bridge. the flag bag (flag locker) has a "canvas" cover. It was made from some of the scrap silkspan I had left over from the topsail schooner build. It was painted off-white for the schooner sails so I brushed on some Tamiya "German Grey" (XF-63). This is what I will use for the O1 and O2 level decks.
 
A board with cleats for securing halliards is above the flag bag, with the halliard belays on either side. The thing with the red top is the shore connection box where the ship was "plugged in" to shore power while docked. There are three vent hoods from the fan room at the aft end of the O1 level house.

Here are a few more small details.
 
The ship had several lights on the external bulkheads to illuminate the decks at night. I had the approximate dimensions and a 3D CAD file from the Okieboat CAD model. All I needed to do was make them in styrene.
 

 
I used two sizes of styrene tubing - 0.100 and 0.125 inch (2.5 and 3.2 mm) diameter (left). I chose tubes instead of rods because they would fit concentric around a center rod and I wouldn't have to machine all of the dimensions. The base was turned and shaped with files to get the rim around the light. I didn't have the appropriate size rod so I rounded a piece of 0.0625 inch (1.7 mm) square styrene for the tubing to fit onto. After the glue set the end of the "bulb" was rounded with files and a 0.022 inch (0.6 mm) hole was drilled through the lamp base for the wiring.
 
The next step was to cut pieces of a 0.100 inch (2.5 mm) angle for the mounting bracket (right). A bit of 0.015 inch (0.4 mm) styrene was shaped and glued into the angle. A small piece of 0.030 x 0.060 inch (0.8 x 1.5 mm) styrene was glued to the top of the lamp assembly, and the mounting bracket was glued onto this. The pieces were painted and this finished the lamp assemblies. I know I will need six or seven of these but I made a dozen. I will choose the best for the model.
 

 
The photo on the right shows a lamp mounted on the port bulkhead of the O1 deck house behind the pilot house. A two colored Polarity Light is mounted above the window over the chart desk. The wiring for the lights is 0.020 inch (0.5 mm) copper wire. Ideally there would be a short "stuffing tube" around the wires where they enter the light housings, and another where the wires penetrate the bulkheads, but I couldn't figure a way to make these repeatably at this scale. The deck house sides have been painted with an acrylic base sealer, two coats of grey acrylic paint, and sanded. I will add another coat of paint, sand again, and finish with a clear satin acrylic varnish.
 
Here are a few more photos of the pilot house after the front bulkhead was attached. The compartment was 9 feet (3 meters) wide with just enough room for the helmsman at the wheel and the navigator at the chart desk and radar.
 

 
 

I am adding details to the exterior of the O1 level deckhouse and am about ready to put the O2 level deck over the house. This will also involve making the footing and attachments for the mast.
 
There are actually relatively few wiring details on the exterior of this ship. It has wooden bulkheads that were framed much like ordinary house construction, and most of the wiring was placed inside the walls. This is in contrast to metal ships with thin (3/8 inch or 10 mm) steel plate bulkheads where much of the wiring is routed externally.
 
There were railings around the O2 level on top of the deck house, and a few assorted odds and ends on the O2 level.

I needed one more detail to finish the forward bulkhead of the pilot house - a phone. The Navy used sound powered telephones (current was generated by the microphone in the handset) for internal communications because they required no external power.
 
The sending and receiving unit could be an ordinary looking telephone handset or a separate microphone and earphones.
 
There were three handsets in the pilot house and on the bridge. I carved this one out of a 6 mm (~1/4 inch) piece of boxwood. It is pretty crude, but good enough for this use. The handset is housed in a cradle
 
It took about six hours to carve this one. I need two more!
 
 
You can see the handset on the right in these photos, next to the phone system call unit (hand cranked to generate the ring signal.).
 

 
At left center is the radar unit. two pairs of tachometers for the engines flank the wheel, with the phone system to the right and a bell below the telephone call unit. On the shelf in front of the wheel are the main gyro (left), magnetic compass (binnacle, center) and the engine control (throttle) on the right. Above, from left to right, are the gyro amplifier, the small windshield wiper control, the rudder angle indicator, clinometer, voice tube, clock and propeller shaft rotation indicator.
 

 
In these photos I have placed the front bulkhead and side bulkheads in the alignment jig to show how the pieces fit together. Not much is on the port bulkhead - just a sound powered phone call unit (less the handset). On the starboard bulkhead are an amplifier and control unit for the radios, and a heater. The CO2 cylinder will fit at the angle in front of the heater. The Engine Order Telegraph will be positioned on the deck beside the heater.
 
I suppose I could add some more wiring here and there, but it wouldn't be visible, so I guess the pilot house interior is complete - except for one more telephone handset on the port bulkhead beside the chart table.
 
I guess I will use the Syren 1 - 1/4 inch wheel, even though it is 25% oversized (should be 1 inch or 4 feet at full scale) and ten spokes instead of eight. No one but me will know the difference.
 
I will now take a break to do the taxes as Treasurer for a non-profit. That could take a few days to two weeks.

More fiddly bits.
 

 
The binnacle was turned out of a piece of 1/4 inch (5 mm) aluminum rod - part of a small wind chime (I didn't have a brass rod the proper diameter). The dome was shaped using a hand drill and files. The binnacle on the ship had two sliding doors that closed in front of the compass rose. To simulate this I carved the aluminum with a #11 blade and a tiny chisel made from a dentist's tool. It was a slow process! The two thin brass rods sticking out were for the two knobs.
 
On the right the binnacle is in position in front of then helm. It was painted with the brushed bronze paint I used on the propeller. A few other small details can be seen. The voice tube from the bridge hangs over the helm station. The tachometers for the engines are on either side of the helm, and a sound powered phone call station is at the lower right. A phone hand set and a few more pieces will be added beside the binnacle and above the windows.
 

 
 
Here is the lee helm or Engine Order Telegraph (EOT). It is made from 11 different pieces. It is 1.14 inches (29 mm) high from the base to the top of the handle (a bronze belaying pin). That is 4 feet 6 inches (1.4 meters) at 1:1 scale.
 
I buffed it up good and then applied a layer of clear acrylic varnish to keep the shine. However, it appears the varnish may have reacted with the brass, and it is a lot duller a day later!
 
I don't know if the EOT was ever used. The ship had a throttle beside the binnacle that the helmsman could use to control the engines. However, I do recall using standard engine orders - Ahead/Back 1/3, 2/3 and Full - when pulling away from the pier, so maybe it was normally used. The throttle might have been used to change propeller speed a few RPM in station keeping while sweeping mines.
 
 
 
The 6 inch (150 mm) 15# CO2 bottle was turned from a 0.185 inch (4.7 mm) brass rod. The cone is styrene rod.
 
I still have 14 more pieces to go on the forward bulkhead and side bulkheads of the pilot house.

One coffee cup coming up!
 
First I drilled out a piece of 1/16 (1.59 mm) brass tubing to about 0.050 inch (1.3 mm). Then I drilled two 0.016 inch (0.4 mm) holes for the handle. The handle is 0.012 inch (0.3 mm) brass wire. The wire was soldered into place and the interior filed to remove the wire stubs.
 

 
Then the cup was cut off from the tube, polished and painted. The paint needs to dry more before a second coat is applied.
 

 
Here is the 1:48 scale 3 inch (75 mm) cup next to the real 1:1 thing. I calculate it will take about 120,000 "cups" from the scale cup to fill the real thing.
 

 
 
 
And here is the navigator's cup on the chart desk.
 
In the real Navy you would never place a coffee cup on the chart desk. But the Cape was McHale's Navy, and we went by Cape rules.
 
The really difficult part was painting the Navy seal on the cup. That took a steady hand!

Dear all
 
I was too fast congratulating myself! Not only I have no progress to show in this short update but actually I ve gone backwards. Still, my understanding of this hull has grown.
 
Now, this is going again to be a bit technical which means quite boring!
 
When I went to do the second round of fairing, I noticed that the frame No2 had acquired an S shape. I am sensitive to No 2 frames - consistently in my boats they creates issues. Looking deeper, I did not like it. So I scrapped everything and started again, this time using the table of offsets. But I again run into problems as things did not add up.
 
These are the issues I have encountered so far with these plans:
 
1. The sheer is difficult to define
 
The start and finish of the sheer, which are at the face of the stem and at the back face of the transom, are not given in the table of offsets. These can be measured from the lines drawing but it does not work very well. 
Furthermore, the sheer in the lines drawing is far from fair and the half breadths and depths in the table of offsets also do not produce a fair sheer and do not work at all well with all the other information given in the various sheets of the plans.
It took a lot of head scratching but finally, combining all sources, I managed to produce a sheer that I feel is half descend.
 
2. The shape and position of the stem is difficult to define.
 
This information is given in three places. In the table of offsets, in a separate sheet in the plans where distances are give from the baseline and the forward end of the sheer (the latter is NOT given though in the table of offsets!), and also can be defined by the plan drawings. These three sources provide three different stems! The difference is not huge but still significant. Again, by blending everything I think I have a reasonable stem
 
4. The width of the face of the stem after tapering from the rabet is a bit of a quizz
 
Now, this face progressively widens from the top of the stem finally reaching the full width of the keel. These widths are given at various heights but still fairing of the lateral edge of the face is needed so that this transition is smooth.


I finally managed to do this, which of course changed some of the dimensions given in the table of offsets, but, whereas Leo starts this face at 1.25" wide, in the lines drawings it is much wider, almost 2" or more. (This information is not written anywhere else). In 1:12 scale this face will be 2.5 mm so maybe a bit too narrow. In my CAD drawings I ve followed Leo and did it 1.25" but may need to revisit this to make it wider - this will unfortunately mean that I will need to redo the sheer. We will see.
 
5. The sternpost and transom dimensions are not given
 
I traced the lines drawings to get this. The width of the sternpost is not given either but luckily Leo mentions it is 4" wide - which looks about right.
 
6. There seems to be a problem with the body plan
 
Now, this is important.
The plans contain a table of offsets and also the lines in profile view and body view. Now, these do match, with the exception of the bottom end of the frames. (All of the frames)
 
In the following photo, the waterline is the blue line.
Note what is happening with frames 1 and 2.
 
The top ends of the frames indeed meet the sheer where they should in the profile plan.
The green lines show where the frames should finish according to the table of offsets. These heights are correct in the profile plan but not in the body plan. The frames seem to reach the keel quite a bit higher. This is the case for all frames. (Apologies, for frame No4 both lines are green but the upper one should be red)

I really tried to figure this out but cannot find an explanation. Interestingly, Leo in his own lofting seem to have positioned the bottom end of frame No 2 in the position given in the table of offsets - about 3/4 of the way down between the 2 waterlines
 

Frame No 2 in his plans appear to be ever so slightly S shaped - which is what I think it should be.
 
Now, I ve been fighting this a few weeks now and am a bit broken, I need to recover a bit before I continue.
 
If any of the wise elders can provide any advice on the discrepancy between the body and profile plans, I really would be grateful!
 
Take care all
Vaddoc
 

Dear all
 
I was too fast congratulating myself! Not only I have no progress to show in this short update but actually I ve gone backwards. Still, my understanding of this hull has grown.
 
Now, this is going again to be a bit technical which means quite boring!
 
When I went to do the second round of fairing, I noticed that the frame No2 had acquired an S shape. I am sensitive to No 2 frames - consistently in my boats they creates issues. Looking deeper, I did not like it. So I scrapped everything and started again, this time using the table of offsets. But I again run into problems as things did not add up.
 
These are the issues I have encountered so far with these plans:
 
1. The sheer is difficult to define
 
The start and finish of the sheer, which are at the face of the stem and at the back face of the transom, are not given in the table of offsets. These can be measured from the lines drawing but it does not work very well. 
Furthermore, the sheer in the lines drawing is far from fair and the half breadths and depths in the table of offsets also do not produce a fair sheer and do not work at all well with all the other information given in the various sheets of the plans.
It took a lot of head scratching but finally, combining all sources, I managed to produce a sheer that I feel is half descend.
 
2. The shape and position of the stem is difficult to define.
 
This information is given in three places. In the table of offsets, in a separate sheet in the plans where distances are give from the baseline and the forward end of the sheer (the latter is NOT given though in the table of offsets!), and also can be defined by the plan drawings. These three sources provide three different stems! The difference is not huge but still significant. Again, by blending everything I think I have a reasonable stem
 
4. The width of the face of the stem after tapering from the rabet is a bit of a quizz
 
Now, this face progressively widens from the top of the stem finally reaching the full width of the keel. These widths are given at various heights but still fairing of the lateral edge of the face is needed so that this transition is smooth.


I finally managed to do this, which of course changed some of the dimensions given in the table of offsets, but, whereas Leo starts this face at 1.25" wide, in the lines drawings it is much wider, almost 2" or more. (This information is not written anywhere else). In 1:12 scale this face will be 2.5 mm so maybe a bit too narrow. In my CAD drawings I ve followed Leo and did it 1.25" but may need to revisit this to make it wider - this will unfortunately mean that I will need to redo the sheer. We will see.
 
5. The sternpost and transom dimensions are not given
 
I traced the lines drawings to get this. The width of the sternpost is not given either but luckily Leo mentions it is 4" wide - which looks about right.
 
6. There seems to be a problem with the body plan
 
Now, this is important.
The plans contain a table of offsets and also the lines in profile view and body view. Now, these do match, with the exception of the bottom end of the frames. (All of the frames)
 
In the following photo, the waterline is the blue line.
Note what is happening with frames 1 and 2.
 
The top ends of the frames indeed meet the sheer where they should in the profile plan.
The green lines show where the frames should finish according to the table of offsets. These heights are correct in the profile plan but not in the body plan. The frames seem to reach the keel quite a bit higher. This is the case for all frames. (Apologies, for frame No4 both lines are green but the upper one should be red)

I really tried to figure this out but cannot find an explanation. Interestingly, Leo in his own lofting seem to have positioned the bottom end of frame No 2 in the position given in the table of offsets - about 3/4 of the way down between the 2 waterlines
 

Frame No 2 in his plans appear to be ever so slightly S shaped - which is what I think it should be.
 
Now, I ve been fighting this a few weeks now and am a bit broken, I need to recover a bit before I continue.
 
If any of the wise elders can provide any advice on the discrepancy between the body and profile plans, I really would be grateful!
 
Take care all
Vaddoc
 

Dear all
 
I was too fast congratulating myself! Not only I have no progress to show in this short update but actually I ve gone backwards. Still, my understanding of this hull has grown.
 
Now, this is going again to be a bit technical which means quite boring!
 
When I went to do the second round of fairing, I noticed that the frame No2 had acquired an S shape. I am sensitive to No 2 frames - consistently in my boats they creates issues. Looking deeper, I did not like it. So I scrapped everything and started again, this time using the table of offsets. But I again run into problems as things did not add up.
 
These are the issues I have encountered so far with these plans:
 
1. The sheer is difficult to define
 
The start and finish of the sheer, which are at the face of the stem and at the back face of the transom, are not given in the table of offsets. These can be measured from the lines drawing but it does not work very well. 
Furthermore, the sheer in the lines drawing is far from fair and the half breadths and depths in the table of offsets also do not produce a fair sheer and do not work at all well with all the other information given in the various sheets of the plans.
It took a lot of head scratching but finally, combining all sources, I managed to produce a sheer that I feel is half descend.
 
2. The shape and position of the stem is difficult to define.
 
This information is given in three places. In the table of offsets, in a separate sheet in the plans where distances are give from the baseline and the forward end of the sheer (the latter is NOT given though in the table of offsets!), and also can be defined by the plan drawings. These three sources provide three different stems! The difference is not huge but still significant. Again, by blending everything I think I have a reasonable stem
 
4. The width of the face of the stem after tapering from the rabet is a bit of a quizz
 
Now, this face progressively widens from the top of the stem finally reaching the full width of the keel. These widths are given at various heights but still fairing of the lateral edge of the face is needed so that this transition is smooth.


I finally managed to do this, which of course changed some of the dimensions given in the table of offsets, but, whereas Leo starts this face at 1.25" wide, in the lines drawings it is much wider, almost 2" or more. (This information is not written anywhere else). In 1:12 scale this face will be 2.5 mm so maybe a bit too narrow. In my CAD drawings I ve followed Leo and did it 1.25" but may need to revisit this to make it wider - this will unfortunately mean that I will need to redo the sheer. We will see.
 
5. The sternpost and transom dimensions are not given
 
I traced the lines drawings to get this. The width of the sternpost is not given either but luckily Leo mentions it is 4" wide - which looks about right.
 
6. There seems to be a problem with the body plan
 
Now, this is important.
The plans contain a table of offsets and also the lines in profile view and body view. Now, these do match, with the exception of the bottom end of the frames. (All of the frames)
 
In the following photo, the waterline is the blue line.
Note what is happening with frames 1 and 2.
 
The top ends of the frames indeed meet the sheer where they should in the profile plan.
The green lines show where the frames should finish according to the table of offsets. These heights are correct in the profile plan but not in the body plan. The frames seem to reach the keel quite a bit higher. This is the case for all frames. (Apologies, for frame No4 both lines are green but the upper one should be red)

I really tried to figure this out but cannot find an explanation. Interestingly, Leo in his own lofting seem to have positioned the bottom end of frame No 2 in the position given in the table of offsets - about 3/4 of the way down between the 2 waterlines
 

Frame No 2 in his plans appear to be ever so slightly S shaped - which is what I think it should be.
 
Now, I ve been fighting this a few weeks now and am a bit broken, I need to recover a bit before I continue.
 
If any of the wise elders can provide any advice on the discrepancy between the body and profile plans, I really would be grateful!
 
Take care all
Vaddoc
 

Dear all
 
I was too fast congratulating myself! Not only I have no progress to show in this short update but actually I ve gone backwards. Still, my understanding of this hull has grown.
 
Now, this is going again to be a bit technical which means quite boring!
 
When I went to do the second round of fairing, I noticed that the frame No2 had acquired an S shape. I am sensitive to No 2 frames - consistently in my boats they creates issues. Looking deeper, I did not like it. So I scrapped everything and started again, this time using the table of offsets. But I again run into problems as things did not add up.
 
These are the issues I have encountered so far with these plans:
 
1. The sheer is difficult to define
 
The start and finish of the sheer, which are at the face of the stem and at the back face of the transom, are not given in the table of offsets. These can be measured from the lines drawing but it does not work very well. 
Furthermore, the sheer in the lines drawing is far from fair and the half breadths and depths in the table of offsets also do not produce a fair sheer and do not work at all well with all the other information given in the various sheets of the plans.
It took a lot of head scratching but finally, combining all sources, I managed to produce a sheer that I feel is half descend.
 
2. The shape and position of the stem is difficult to define.
 
This information is given in three places. In the table of offsets, in a separate sheet in the plans where distances are give from the baseline and the forward end of the sheer (the latter is NOT given though in the table of offsets!), and also can be defined by the plan drawings. These three sources provide three different stems! The difference is not huge but still significant. Again, by blending everything I think I have a reasonable stem
 
4. The width of the face of the stem after tapering from the rabet is a bit of a quizz
 
Now, this face progressively widens from the top of the stem finally reaching the full width of the keel. These widths are given at various heights but still fairing of the lateral edge of the face is needed so that this transition is smooth.


I finally managed to do this, which of course changed some of the dimensions given in the table of offsets, but, whereas Leo starts this face at 1.25" wide, in the lines drawings it is much wider, almost 2" or more. (This information is not written anywhere else). In 1:12 scale this face will be 2.5 mm so maybe a bit too narrow. In my CAD drawings I ve followed Leo and did it 1.25" but may need to revisit this to make it wider - this will unfortunately mean that I will need to redo the sheer. We will see.
 
5. The sternpost and transom dimensions are not given
 
I traced the lines drawings to get this. The width of the sternpost is not given either but luckily Leo mentions it is 4" wide - which looks about right.
 
6. There seems to be a problem with the body plan
 
Now, this is important.
The plans contain a table of offsets and also the lines in profile view and body view. Now, these do match, with the exception of the bottom end of the frames. (All of the frames)
 
In the following photo, the waterline is the blue line.
Note what is happening with frames 1 and 2.
 
The top ends of the frames indeed meet the sheer where they should in the profile plan.
The green lines show where the frames should finish according to the table of offsets. These heights are correct in the profile plan but not in the body plan. The frames seem to reach the keel quite a bit higher. This is the case for all frames. (Apologies, for frame No4 both lines are green but the upper one should be red)

I really tried to figure this out but cannot find an explanation. Interestingly, Leo in his own lofting seem to have positioned the bottom end of frame No 2 in the position given in the table of offsets - about 3/4 of the way down between the 2 waterlines
 

Frame No 2 in his plans appear to be ever so slightly S shaped - which is what I think it should be.
 
Now, I ve been fighting this a few weeks now and am a bit broken, I need to recover a bit before I continue.
 
If any of the wise elders can provide any advice on the discrepancy between the body and profile plans, I really would be grateful!
 
Take care all
Vaddoc
 

Dear all
 
I was too fast congratulating myself! Not only I have no progress to show in this short update but actually I ve gone backwards. Still, my understanding of this hull has grown.
 
Now, this is going again to be a bit technical which means quite boring!
 
When I went to do the second round of fairing, I noticed that the frame No2 had acquired an S shape. I am sensitive to No 2 frames - consistently in my boats they creates issues. Looking deeper, I did not like it. So I scrapped everything and started again, this time using the table of offsets. But I again run into problems as things did not add up.
 
These are the issues I have encountered so far with these plans:
 
1. The sheer is difficult to define
 
The start and finish of the sheer, which are at the face of the stem and at the back face of the transom, are not given in the table of offsets. These can be measured from the lines drawing but it does not work very well. 
Furthermore, the sheer in the lines drawing is far from fair and the half breadths and depths in the table of offsets also do not produce a fair sheer and do not work at all well with all the other information given in the various sheets of the plans.
It took a lot of head scratching but finally, combining all sources, I managed to produce a sheer that I feel is half descend.
 
2. The shape and position of the stem is difficult to define.
 
This information is given in three places. In the table of offsets, in a separate sheet in the plans where distances are give from the baseline and the forward end of the sheer (the latter is NOT given though in the table of offsets!), and also can be defined by the plan drawings. These three sources provide three different stems! The difference is not huge but still significant. Again, by blending everything I think I have a reasonable stem
 
4. The width of the face of the stem after tapering from the rabet is a bit of a quizz
 
Now, this face progressively widens from the top of the stem finally reaching the full width of the keel. These widths are given at various heights but still fairing of the lateral edge of the face is needed so that this transition is smooth.


I finally managed to do this, which of course changed some of the dimensions given in the table of offsets, but, whereas Leo starts this face at 1.25" wide, in the lines drawings it is much wider, almost 2" or more. (This information is not written anywhere else). In 1:12 scale this face will be 2.5 mm so maybe a bit too narrow. In my CAD drawings I ve followed Leo and did it 1.25" but may need to revisit this to make it wider - this will unfortunately mean that I will need to redo the sheer. We will see.
 
5. The sternpost and transom dimensions are not given
 
I traced the lines drawings to get this. The width of the sternpost is not given either but luckily Leo mentions it is 4" wide - which looks about right.
 
6. There seems to be a problem with the body plan
 
Now, this is important.
The plans contain a table of offsets and also the lines in profile view and body view. Now, these do match, with the exception of the bottom end of the frames. (All of the frames)
 
In the following photo, the waterline is the blue line.
Note what is happening with frames 1 and 2.
 
The top ends of the frames indeed meet the sheer where they should in the profile plan.
The green lines show where the frames should finish according to the table of offsets. These heights are correct in the profile plan but not in the body plan. The frames seem to reach the keel quite a bit higher. This is the case for all frames. (Apologies, for frame No4 both lines are green but the upper one should be red)

I really tried to figure this out but cannot find an explanation. Interestingly, Leo in his own lofting seem to have positioned the bottom end of frame No 2 in the position given in the table of offsets - about 3/4 of the way down between the 2 waterlines
 

Frame No 2 in his plans appear to be ever so slightly S shaped - which is what I think it should be.
 
Now, I ve been fighting this a few weeks now and am a bit broken, I need to recover a bit before I continue.
 
If any of the wise elders can provide any advice on the discrepancy between the body and profile plans, I really would be grateful!
 
Take care all
Vaddoc
 

Dear all
 
A wee  bit of an update as I found a bit of time here and there to work on the boat. No sawdust yet (and will not be for a long time!) but a lot of digital ink spilled over my monitors.
 
@KennyH78 Kenny, if you decide to build Tally Ho, let me know and I will send you the CAD file - if I manage to loft the boat that is. Still, lofting the boat is fun but also would give you a much better understanding of the hull lines and how she should be built.
 
So lets discuss Tally Ho's plans.  There is no doubt that there are issues with the plans in the archives of the Albert Strange Association. 
 
Tally Ho is a bit different to all the other boats I have lofted. The curvature of the hull does not stop at the rabet but continues at the stem, sternpost and all the way to the bottom of the keel.
 
I think I remember Leo in one of his videos mentioning that there were missing data from the plans, specifically the offsets for the stem and sternpost. This is indeed one of the issues I am facing. Furthermore, the paper has been distorted over the years, there seems to be a bit of damage but also, my copy of the plans has not been scanned very well so there are some gaps with the lines and the text. Also, CAD is very unforgiving and I am picking up all sorts of issues with the plans - Leo must have seen this but to a lesser degree, as he did not use CAD for his lofting.
 
Ok, so lets get a bit more technical - This may be boring but may also help some people with their lofting (and lofting of Tally Ho in particular).
 
For me, the first step in lofting a boat is to find the edges of the hull surface. These are the sheer at the top, the rabet/bottom of keel at the bottom, the sternpost/transom aft and the stem with its rabet at the front. Most but not all of this info is in the table of offsets but again there are issues.
 
The table of offsets does not seem to correspond to the dimensions as measured using the plan lines. I initially created the sheer using the numbers from the table, however the position of the stem and transom, which define the start and finish of the sheer, must be taken from the lines - also the width of the stem. Combining all these does not really work. Using just the lines again does not work - the boat comes out short by half foot and generally things do not work well, the lines are not fair and there are issues with the keel.
 
So I decided to ignore the table of offsets - I only used the half breadths for the bottom of the keel.
 
I traced all the frames (except frame 13 which is missing) and positioned them in their stations (2 feet apart) using the same reference point to make sure they were aligned. I added some diagonals of my own - Leo was right, this boat is much easier to loft using diagonals. I then added the sheer, keel, sternpost/Transom and stem. Again it did not work!
 
So I went back to watching the You Tube videos and the solution was there. You see, Leo had the same plans as I do but he also had the boat!
 
He mentions that the sternpost face is 4 inches wide - excellent. But he also showed this drawing:
 

This shows that the stem is 7 inches wide (although he chose 8 inches to give more support the the hood ends of the planks. The lines show the stem less thick at 6 inches. Mine was 10.6 inches so clearly wrong. The face of the stem is only 1.25 inches and the rabet 6.75" from the stem face.
 
This was very useful. I also measured the distances of the stem from station 6 at all waterlines, to get its shape

I used all these to draw a new stem with a new shape at a new position. I then created a new sheer from the top of the frames I had traced. Combining all worked beautifully!
 
The boat is now 47.5' long and the stem just over 7" wide!
 
The drawing bellow is the same as Leos. The yellow line is the contact surface of the planks with the stem. The arrow shows the half thickness of the stem. The blue line is the sheer.

So now with all boundaries defined, it was time to start lofting. Some work was done to get the half breadths at the bottom of the keel correct.
 
I traced all the diagonals, waterlines and buttocks. They were of course all over the place:

Fairing this line produces a much more satisfying curve.

After all the lines had been drawn and faired, new frames were produced - using only the diagonals.


All new frames drawn and faired. I noticed that there was very little deviation from the original contact points with the diagonals. The last frame aft is a different colour because it did not really cooperate. This needs more work.


This is just the first cycle of lofting but I tried to make a surface and I was half surprised how well it worked. I knew the lines where not that far off but I did not expect this:


The hull is already reasonable and the areas where usually I have issues, at the bow and stern, look mostly ok.
 
The boat needs at least one more lofting cycle but it looks promising. 
 
Take care all
 
Vaddoc

Dear all
 
A wee  bit of an update as I found a bit of time here and there to work on the boat. No sawdust yet (and will not be for a long time!) but a lot of digital ink spilled over my monitors.
 
@KennyH78 Kenny, if you decide to build Tally Ho, let me know and I will send you the CAD file - if I manage to loft the boat that is. Still, lofting the boat is fun but also would give you a much better understanding of the hull lines and how she should be built.
 
So lets discuss Tally Ho's plans.  There is no doubt that there are issues with the plans in the archives of the Albert Strange Association. 
 
Tally Ho is a bit different to all the other boats I have lofted. The curvature of the hull does not stop at the rabet but continues at the stem, sternpost and all the way to the bottom of the keel.
 
I think I remember Leo in one of his videos mentioning that there were missing data from the plans, specifically the offsets for the stem and sternpost. This is indeed one of the issues I am facing. Furthermore, the paper has been distorted over the years, there seems to be a bit of damage but also, my copy of the plans has not been scanned very well so there are some gaps with the lines and the text. Also, CAD is very unforgiving and I am picking up all sorts of issues with the plans - Leo must have seen this but to a lesser degree, as he did not use CAD for his lofting.
 
Ok, so lets get a bit more technical - This may be boring but may also help some people with their lofting (and lofting of Tally Ho in particular).
 
For me, the first step in lofting a boat is to find the edges of the hull surface. These are the sheer at the top, the rabet/bottom of keel at the bottom, the sternpost/transom aft and the stem with its rabet at the front. Most but not all of this info is in the table of offsets but again there are issues.
 
The table of offsets does not seem to correspond to the dimensions as measured using the plan lines. I initially created the sheer using the numbers from the table, however the position of the stem and transom, which define the start and finish of the sheer, must be taken from the lines - also the width of the stem. Combining all these does not really work. Using just the lines again does not work - the boat comes out short by half foot and generally things do not work well, the lines are not fair and there are issues with the keel.
 
So I decided to ignore the table of offsets - I only used the half breadths for the bottom of the keel.
 
I traced all the frames (except frame 13 which is missing) and positioned them in their stations (2 feet apart) using the same reference point to make sure they were aligned. I added some diagonals of my own - Leo was right, this boat is much easier to loft using diagonals. I then added the sheer, keel, sternpost/Transom and stem. Again it did not work!
 
So I went back to watching the You Tube videos and the solution was there. You see, Leo had the same plans as I do but he also had the boat!
 
He mentions that the sternpost face is 4 inches wide - excellent. But he also showed this drawing:
 

This shows that the stem is 7 inches wide (although he chose 8 inches to give more support the the hood ends of the planks. The lines show the stem less thick at 6 inches. Mine was 10.6 inches so clearly wrong. The face of the stem is only 1.25 inches and the rabet 6.75" from the stem face.
 
This was very useful. I also measured the distances of the stem from station 6 at all waterlines, to get its shape

I used all these to draw a new stem with a new shape at a new position. I then created a new sheer from the top of the frames I had traced. Combining all worked beautifully!
 
The boat is now 47.5' long and the stem just over 7" wide!
 
The drawing bellow is the same as Leos. The yellow line is the contact surface of the planks with the stem. The arrow shows the half thickness of the stem. The blue line is the sheer.

So now with all boundaries defined, it was time to start lofting. Some work was done to get the half breadths at the bottom of the keel correct.
 
I traced all the diagonals, waterlines and buttocks. They were of course all over the place:

Fairing this line produces a much more satisfying curve.

After all the lines had been drawn and faired, new frames were produced - using only the diagonals.


All new frames drawn and faired. I noticed that there was very little deviation from the original contact points with the diagonals. The last frame aft is a different colour because it did not really cooperate. This needs more work.


This is just the first cycle of lofting but I tried to make a surface and I was half surprised how well it worked. I knew the lines where not that far off but I did not expect this:


The hull is already reasonable and the areas where usually I have issues, at the bow and stern, look mostly ok.
 
The boat needs at least one more lofting cycle but it looks promising. 
 
Take care all
 
Vaddoc

Dear all
 
A wee  bit of an update as I found a bit of time here and there to work on the boat. No sawdust yet (and will not be for a long time!) but a lot of digital ink spilled over my monitors.
 
@KennyH78 Kenny, if you decide to build Tally Ho, let me know and I will send you the CAD file - if I manage to loft the boat that is. Still, lofting the boat is fun but also would give you a much better understanding of the hull lines and how she should be built.
 
So lets discuss Tally Ho's plans.  There is no doubt that there are issues with the plans in the archives of the Albert Strange Association. 
 
Tally Ho is a bit different to all the other boats I have lofted. The curvature of the hull does not stop at the rabet but continues at the stem, sternpost and all the way to the bottom of the keel.
 
I think I remember Leo in one of his videos mentioning that there were missing data from the plans, specifically the offsets for the stem and sternpost. This is indeed one of the issues I am facing. Furthermore, the paper has been distorted over the years, there seems to be a bit of damage but also, my copy of the plans has not been scanned very well so there are some gaps with the lines and the text. Also, CAD is very unforgiving and I am picking up all sorts of issues with the plans - Leo must have seen this but to a lesser degree, as he did not use CAD for his lofting.
 
Ok, so lets get a bit more technical - This may be boring but may also help some people with their lofting (and lofting of Tally Ho in particular).
 
For me, the first step in lofting a boat is to find the edges of the hull surface. These are the sheer at the top, the rabet/bottom of keel at the bottom, the sternpost/transom aft and the stem with its rabet at the front. Most but not all of this info is in the table of offsets but again there are issues.
 
The table of offsets does not seem to correspond to the dimensions as measured using the plan lines. I initially created the sheer using the numbers from the table, however the position of the stem and transom, which define the start and finish of the sheer, must be taken from the lines - also the width of the stem. Combining all these does not really work. Using just the lines again does not work - the boat comes out short by half foot and generally things do not work well, the lines are not fair and there are issues with the keel.
 
So I decided to ignore the table of offsets - I only used the half breadths for the bottom of the keel.
 
I traced all the frames (except frame 13 which is missing) and positioned them in their stations (2 feet apart) using the same reference point to make sure they were aligned. I added some diagonals of my own - Leo was right, this boat is much easier to loft using diagonals. I then added the sheer, keel, sternpost/Transom and stem. Again it did not work!
 
So I went back to watching the You Tube videos and the solution was there. You see, Leo had the same plans as I do but he also had the boat!
 
He mentions that the sternpost face is 4 inches wide - excellent. But he also showed this drawing:
 

This shows that the stem is 7 inches wide (although he chose 8 inches to give more support the the hood ends of the planks. The lines show the stem less thick at 6 inches. Mine was 10.6 inches so clearly wrong. The face of the stem is only 1.25 inches and the rabet 6.75" from the stem face.
 
This was very useful. I also measured the distances of the stem from station 6 at all waterlines, to get its shape

I used all these to draw a new stem with a new shape at a new position. I then created a new sheer from the top of the frames I had traced. Combining all worked beautifully!
 
The boat is now 47.5' long and the stem just over 7" wide!
 
The drawing bellow is the same as Leos. The yellow line is the contact surface of the planks with the stem. The arrow shows the half thickness of the stem. The blue line is the sheer.

So now with all boundaries defined, it was time to start lofting. Some work was done to get the half breadths at the bottom of the keel correct.
 
I traced all the diagonals, waterlines and buttocks. They were of course all over the place:

Fairing this line produces a much more satisfying curve.

After all the lines had been drawn and faired, new frames were produced - using only the diagonals.


All new frames drawn and faired. I noticed that there was very little deviation from the original contact points with the diagonals. The last frame aft is a different colour because it did not really cooperate. This needs more work.


This is just the first cycle of lofting but I tried to make a surface and I was half surprised how well it worked. I knew the lines where not that far off but I did not expect this:


The hull is already reasonable and the areas where usually I have issues, at the bow and stern, look mostly ok.
 
The boat needs at least one more lofting cycle but it looks promising. 
 
Take care all
 
Vaddoc

Dear all
 
A wee  bit of an update as I found a bit of time here and there to work on the boat. No sawdust yet (and will not be for a long time!) but a lot of digital ink spilled over my monitors.
 
@KennyH78 Kenny, if you decide to build Tally Ho, let me know and I will send you the CAD file - if I manage to loft the boat that is. Still, lofting the boat is fun but also would give you a much better understanding of the hull lines and how she should be built.
 
So lets discuss Tally Ho's plans.  There is no doubt that there are issues with the plans in the archives of the Albert Strange Association. 
 
Tally Ho is a bit different to all the other boats I have lofted. The curvature of the hull does not stop at the rabet but continues at the stem, sternpost and all the way to the bottom of the keel.
 
I think I remember Leo in one of his videos mentioning that there were missing data from the plans, specifically the offsets for the stem and sternpost. This is indeed one of the issues I am facing. Furthermore, the paper has been distorted over the years, there seems to be a bit of damage but also, my copy of the plans has not been scanned very well so there are some gaps with the lines and the text. Also, CAD is very unforgiving and I am picking up all sorts of issues with the plans - Leo must have seen this but to a lesser degree, as he did not use CAD for his lofting.
 
Ok, so lets get a bit more technical - This may be boring but may also help some people with their lofting (and lofting of Tally Ho in particular).
 
For me, the first step in lofting a boat is to find the edges of the hull surface. These are the sheer at the top, the rabet/bottom of keel at the bottom, the sternpost/transom aft and the stem with its rabet at the front. Most but not all of this info is in the table of offsets but again there are issues.
 
The table of offsets does not seem to correspond to the dimensions as measured using the plan lines. I initially created the sheer using the numbers from the table, however the position of the stem and transom, which define the start and finish of the sheer, must be taken from the lines - also the width of the stem. Combining all these does not really work. Using just the lines again does not work - the boat comes out short by half foot and generally things do not work well, the lines are not fair and there are issues with the keel.
 
So I decided to ignore the table of offsets - I only used the half breadths for the bottom of the keel.
 
I traced all the frames (except frame 13 which is missing) and positioned them in their stations (2 feet apart) using the same reference point to make sure they were aligned. I added some diagonals of my own - Leo was right, this boat is much easier to loft using diagonals. I then added the sheer, keel, sternpost/Transom and stem. Again it did not work!
 
So I went back to watching the You Tube videos and the solution was there. You see, Leo had the same plans as I do but he also had the boat!
 
He mentions that the sternpost face is 4 inches wide - excellent. But he also showed this drawing:
 

This shows that the stem is 7 inches wide (although he chose 8 inches to give more support the the hood ends of the planks. The lines show the stem less thick at 6 inches. Mine was 10.6 inches so clearly wrong. The face of the stem is only 1.25 inches and the rabet 6.75" from the stem face.
 
This was very useful. I also measured the distances of the stem from station 6 at all waterlines, to get its shape

I used all these to draw a new stem with a new shape at a new position. I then created a new sheer from the top of the frames I had traced. Combining all worked beautifully!
 
The boat is now 47.5' long and the stem just over 7" wide!
 
The drawing bellow is the same as Leos. The yellow line is the contact surface of the planks with the stem. The arrow shows the half thickness of the stem. The blue line is the sheer.

So now with all boundaries defined, it was time to start lofting. Some work was done to get the half breadths at the bottom of the keel correct.
 
I traced all the diagonals, waterlines and buttocks. They were of course all over the place:

Fairing this line produces a much more satisfying curve.

After all the lines had been drawn and faired, new frames were produced - using only the diagonals.


All new frames drawn and faired. I noticed that there was very little deviation from the original contact points with the diagonals. The last frame aft is a different colour because it did not really cooperate. This needs more work.


This is just the first cycle of lofting but I tried to make a surface and I was half surprised how well it worked. I knew the lines where not that far off but I did not expect this:


The hull is already reasonable and the areas where usually I have issues, at the bow and stern, look mostly ok.
 
The boat needs at least one more lofting cycle but it looks promising. 
 
Take care all
 
Vaddoc

vaddoc,
 
I am going to pull up a chair and follow along.  I also watched Leo's YouTube series on rebuilding Tally Ho and thought about building a model of her.  There is something about her story that just draws you in.  I may still attempt a model, but that is a long way off; I need to learn how to draft a set of workable plans for a build from the lines plans first.

I use TurboCAD.  Concerning the table of offsets, I have never used them.  When the actual lofting is done on the floor the offsets are soon abandoned at any rate.  Perhaps my efforts will be useful to you.
 
Wayne

Vaddoc, you have the torch and I have faith you'll carry it to the end. 👍