AON

What have I been up to? (I didn't give up) Just bought a copy of Rees's Naval Architecture 1819-20 as a companion reference to the PDF of theThe Shipwrights Vade Mecum as the plates (figures) in Rees are very similar to those missing in the PDF ($80 versus $500-$1000).... so I am now busy re-reading parts of the Vade Mecum. Many thanks to YKWYA for recommending the book. Reviewing my sheer plan(s) versus scantlings and all and noticed I am missing the hollow that helps create the flat where the futtock meets the keel at the dead flat section -O- . NMM quoted me printed copies of ship's contracts but this department won't take payment via credit card. They suggested I might rather have electronic images and I thought I should see what they cost... Haven't heard back from NMM regarding images as yet. Also looking at purchasing framing drawings. Hoping to be moving forward very soon.

I just purchased a planer and intend to use it to quickly level out rough stock to size. It will dial down to 3/16" but 1/8" pass at a time I could rip this with my band saw to individual board (i.e.. plank) thicknesses or scroll saw to make other individual pieces I would use a sander to finish.

My short journey (so far) with The Shipwrights Vade Mecum Started with a quick browse and was lost. Came back to it fresh and took my time… a dim light illuminated. Came back yet a third time and opened a second copy in another window and kept it on the Glossary (definitions of words) section. This made unraveling some of the words and phrases a bit quicker and so easier to digest. What have I learnt so far is mind boggling! I know why the body is shaped the way it is: Length and breadth, fitting the guns, carry more sail, reduce water resistance, stability, stiffness, speed, steering, preventing rolling and pitching and simply looking damn good. (I enjoyed this section so much I honestly wished it didn't end) I learned why the 74 gun ships and the single deck 44 gun ships were the best at what they did and considered near perfect. Plans and Lines: I have quite a bit better understanding of most of the lines. The red lines in the body plan are the diagonals … and what they represent. I know what the green line in the sheer means (and that my plans don’t seem to have it) I know about flats and dead rising and rising of the floor. I also learnt about water coming in through the rudder hole (helm port)! I learnt a lot of terms and names that some are understood but most are still a bit of a mystery so I need to go back for a fourth, fifth, sixth… reading until I get it. The “Rosetta Stone” plates would have been an invaluable aid! And the tables… OMG! In short this has been one fantastic ride so far. Thanks to the forum and members who steered me to it. I highly recommend any and all other beginners out there should take this journey.

Ed Regarding your posting 26FEB at 6:47... had to take some time to re-read your post. I am still absorbing the Vade Mecum; trying to make notes, sketches with labelling, to better understand what it describes and it is slow going. The 3D Model vs. normal drawing: I drew the Half Breadth first from (hopefully) very careful measurements on what one might call the bottom view (plane); then drew the Shear Lines on the front view (plane); and finally the Body Plan(s) on individual end views (planes). Drawing all in 2D on separate planes in Solidworks. I used the shear lines to help develop the body plan and then compared the body plan to the Half Breadth. I admit to not knowing what all the lines mean and hope to rectify that shortly… followed by drawing updates. To make 3D models one would extrude from the appropriate lines on a 2D plane. Normally each individual item becomes it’s own detail file and 3D model. I use the original sketches as my master to create all other individual files (parts). This way they should all fit (mate) properly. The major difference between a normal 2D (paper or AutoCAD) drawing and drawing 2D on 3D planes is that in 3D you cannot relate directly one to the other until you make the 3D model. The closest you can come before that is to turn all 2D sketches on and view them in three planes (X, Y and Z) together… as I did. I noticed how one person in the forum faired their plan by creating a “shell” of their 3D model and inspecting it for flaws (dimples, folds, etc). I will do this also but need to define the limits (outer edges of the shell) first. I am not quite there as yet. Yes I took dimensions from the bottom of the keel. Honestly, I had suffered from draftsman blindness, staring at the line in the shear diagram that suggested it should be used but didn’t really see it (register in my thick skull) until I was well on my way. I will not make that mistake again. I intended to do all station frames and then possibly those in between afterwards. It seems no one bevels the inside/outside faces in the actual model builds, but rather simply sands them to shape afterwards, so I am not sure I need to go to that detail in the model… so long as I leave enough (a smidgen at scale) material to allow physical shaping (sanding). Room and Space: From what I was referencing (and it did not qualify a time period) it seemed frames were cheek to jowl. Earlier this week I read how there was a material scarcity in the late 1600s so the latter half of the 1700s likely had made allowances for this (?). Still learning about this and hope to have better direction soon. I am still waiting for my quote on the Bellerophon & Elephant Contracts and so once these are received I will possibly have a better defined direction to follow. The 74 Gun Frames.pdf Allen supplied has opened my eyes. Dimensional error: I know I mentioned 5/8” to 2”. A couple were as much as 6” or 7” at full scale. Presently I’ve cleaned them all up … or so I want to believe. At the reduced model build scale (whatever it will be) I feel I might be too finicky with some of the smaller dimensional deviations but I’d rather spend the time now as opposed to wondering what happened later… or I am just being to ALAN (re-arrange the letters and you will get it). Presently I am not making much headway in my virtual part of the build but there is a flurry of activity in the self-schooling portion. I know I should have done more of this earlier but you know what they say about hindsight. My head was inflated and I am humbled by the experience. Hope to be posting minor progress soon. On another note, I picked up a 12.5” planer last night (adjusts down to 3/16”), got it out of the box and the outer casing was cracked. Exchanging it tonight! Alan

Thank you Ed and Druxey (now that I know what druxey means) I am determined to 1) become reasonably and competently knowledgeable and 2) complete this build; expecting it to take a considerable amount of time and willing to document my struggle. By then I may be truly one of you (that would be the goal) Alan

Steel's Vade Mecum for the Shipbuilder Browsed through it last night and I have to say it was like reading "The last of the Mohicans" which is a book I particularly enjoyed but took awhile to get the language prose. This is a completely and totally new language. I thought it would be English (there is that learning curve again) I particularly enjoyed the one table where Google took great care in copying (see image below) And I really needed a "map" that would explain what all the items listed were to the layman... then I came to the folded images at the end and got all excited as I might have the key or Rosetta Stone if you will to understand it all. Flipped the page and ..... nothing.... to my great disappointment I find they didn't bother to unfold it. (see image below) I love a challenge ... I love a challenge .. I love a ... Alan

Allan, Opened your PDF and 2 pages of 4 are blank. I am assuming they were meant to be. Printing it off and will try my very best to learn, understand and better appreciate it's value. Thank you very much for this info. I just e-mailed Julie at NMM for a quote on the contracts so hope to have a message back by mid-day tomorrow. I will now begin the study of the PDF of Steel's Vade Mecum for the Shipbuilder that my darling wife had downloaded for me this morning! Alan

Thank you everyone for the guidance and help. (what a fantastic group) I will contact NMM again tonight.... and will be reading through the download PDF through the weekend I imagine. I suspected I would not get to touching wood (forgive me) until mid summer. Being a "scheduler" at heart I always leave room for "do overs" in my time estimates and I am in no rush to get it all wrong. My horizontal dimensions in the sheer plan as compared to the breadth plan were out as much as 5/8" to 2" in full scale. On an entirely other note... Picked up a nice 10" drill press on the weekend and have my eye on a 13" planer at the moment (on sale at $100 off regular price) Breaks over .. time to "work". Alan

Ed Thank you for the info and guidance. The link I was given was to the one you provided above. My darling wife downloaded it for me as I just had to break away from the computer to go to work this morning .. if it wasn't for work getting in the way I might get something done! I will ask if NMM has the contract for Bellerophon or Elephant. When I did my search I did not see them but that does not mean they are not there! Alan

Joe: you are very welcome Druxey: I agree the floor timber is too thick, that I read the print wrong, a newbie misteak (sic) Still struggling to find info on frame moulding dimensions. What I have found has cast doubts on the direction I was going with the framing. I will continue digging into this and would greatly appreciate any and all help. Update: two members helped with a link to download the free Google Steel's PDF format book. I will be busy tonight! Alan

Steel's Tables on line at http://hnsa.org/doc/steel/index.htm is massive volumes about masts, yards and rigging. I cannot yet find tables for moulded dimensions on the floors. I will keep searching but could you please help point me in the right direction? Alan

Thank you all for your comments and likes! DRUXEY: image below is from the sheer plan at frame -0- and shows what I took to be every other timber sectioned on the plan showing the Siding (width) and Moulding (height) so I could get the dimensions. Please steer me back on course if I am drifting. I haven't any references that suggest otherwise. What I do have suggest all frames were full with joints staggered (I was going to do one of these next to show this) and place face to face making a solid hull. My confession: I thought I knew more about ship's construction than I find I actually do (the rude awakening) and the learning curve is steep... but I love a challenge! Wacko Joe: image below shows the 3 planes used (always have a minimum of three) but everything was drawn on the one and extruded from it. If anyone sees I am doing anything wrong please let me know and send me an image if possible for reference. Alan

SKETCHING FRAME –0- 1. Copy the original plan sketch out and rename FRAME –0- 2. Remove all other Planes and Frames not relating to –0- 3. Measure the deck levels off the original plan and add lines to the Frame drawing to represent the levels NOTE: all deck levels should have been drawn onto the Sheer Plan already to assure they shape/blend properly but I jumped ahead on this one because I needed to do something different at this moment. As I will start from Station –O- when I do this I should be okay with this frame. 4. Measure the frame thickness at the deck levels at Frame –O- and add points to the Frame drawing to represent these thickness 5. Draw a spline line for the inside of the frame joining the few points 6. Add a series of new spline points to the spline and adjust them to reshape the inner shape of the frame 7. Sketch in the Deadwood on top of the keel 8. Sketch in Futtock Lines (where the frame joints will be). These are done “by eye” guessing where the best break would be in a length of timber due to change in grain direction. 9. Layout the Scarph (scarf?) Chock, Hooked or Plain Scarf Joints. Using the rules stated on pages 29 and 30 of “The Elements of Wood Ship Construction” by Curtis 1919 (length not less than 6 times the depth) I could not fit a plain or hooked scarf joint anywhere along the curved sections of the frame as the material became too thin. These type joints seem to be meant to be used on less curved sections. Therefore I used the Scarph (scarf?) joint as referenced in "Historic Ship Models" by Wolfram Zu Mondfeld (pg 78) and "A Ship Model Makers Manual" by John Bowen (pg 77). (Thank you yet again for the books!) 10. Copy the file out and rename it TEMPLATE Frame -0- and change all lines to be construction lines. Use this template to begin all individual models for frame -0- 11. Copy the file out again and rename it CROSS CHOCK. Change all cross chock lines to object lines. Add points on the curved lines and draw a splined object line over it. Fully dimension/define the object lines and extrude the shape to complete the model of the Cross Chock. (Fully define means to lock each point and line in position so it cannot accidentally float away in the future and create havoc and total chaos). 12. Repeat for all Butt Chocks and then for all Futtocks. 13. Assemble Frame –O- 3D model.

Thank you Allen That will certainly challenge things for me! The green line is the aft or stern body plan. It is green only because I "picked it" to highlight it in the view, otherwise it would have been grey/black as in the two views immediately above it. Alan

Sorry! A picture is worth a thousand words.... this should be better than my trying to explain it in just words. I think they must have made them with an angled face but I do not know for certain. Alan

Thank you Joe. It just doesn't seem as exciting to look at as the physical build. My frame -0- model is about 50% done. Had some issues with the "joinery" between futtocks... but I'll explain that later. (A question for all the experienced modellers out there...) I have often claimed 'there is no such thing as a dumb question' but I am beginning to doubt that at this moment. I am wondering, do the actual inner/outer frame surfaces angle to mimic the inner/outer profile of the hull? One "square" frame up against another "square" frame set in or out a bit to follow the half breadth doesn't seem right. Looking at the plan I believe the framing is full/solid, one nested against the other. Alan

I completed the finicky tweaking of all points on all section lines. Had to make compromises, blending well and looking aesthetically pleasing won out over clashing dimensions. This is the last batch of section line development sketches. I am going to model section -0- frame because I need to do something different before I go back to more sketches... I am certain many following may be getting as bored as I am at the moment (plus my head hurts!). I think the momentary change will recharge my batteries! Alan

DOH! Sorry, my head is into the other problem! It's the lubrication of course! Not too much though or it quickly becomes the worst tool on the desk. I also found I have to look straight into the magnifying glass to get a good measurement reading, looking at a slight angle throws the cross sight hairlines off. Wish I had a 60 inch monitor so I didn't need the magnifying glass.... now that would be one beauty of a tool on the desk. I tried doing a split screen (like in 2D AutoCAD) but couldn't figure out how... possibly it doesn't have this feature. It definitely is not mentioned in my reference book. Alan

Try this site to calculate three points segments on a arc of a given radius. http://www.mathopenref.com/arcradius.html Then if you like draw a scaled down version and scale it up and see if it matches. I would hope they do. I am using SW2007 and do not yet know if I will have the same problem some time in the near (I hope) future. Alan

Sorry, I don't understand. "Which one" what? I am going to assume what the question means and so that answer is: The actual original plan views do not match each other. The Breadth plan as I plotted it has one point seemingly out of place a wee bit ... likely me. The original body half plans at -0- station are not identical. I've measured them a quite a few times to make sure it wasn't me... hence everything before or after them is out somewhat similarly. I can accept this is normal for a pencil drawing. You can only be as accurate as the point on the pencil and the sharpness of your eye. Today with 5 decimal place dimensions on CAD drawings it would not be tolerated. Them were the good old days. Alan

It finally got stronger than me. That little feeling that something just wasn't right The dimensions from the half breadth do not agree with body plan The -0- station body plan versus the stern and bow plan outer most waterline and top most end points should match but don't The body plan aft points are inboard and the forward points are outboard ... and not at equal distances I tried to keep my measurements as accurate as I could so I attribute it to a combination of original paper/pencil draughting error, original paper distortion over the centuries and of course ... me. Although I only have four stations to go I have to stop and make the corrections choosing the half breadth as the plan to follow as closely as possible. My only consolation is that at the scale my build will be no one will notice so long as the points are near and blend seamlessly. Alan

Progress to date Stations 2 to 16 yet to complete Once this stage is done I intend to review them all together and assure their shape is consistent with the original plan (nothing looks out of place or odd). When I am happy with this I will add an internal detail sketch (deck levels) One step at a time ... long way to go before creating 3D part models (templates) Alan

Made further progress, plotted all intersecting points for stations (2) to 30 waterlines. Completed upper outlines at the Aft or Stern Perpendicular and sections 29 and 30. Need to complete (2) to 28! I will post some images when done this stage. Meanwhile here is a picture of my CAD workstation. Can you spot the most important tool on the desk? If you picked the magnifying glass your wrong (it would be number 2) Alan

Today's progress.... Managed to get from -O- to Y Foward Section Lines done. I measured these off the Body Plan and compared to the Half Breadth Plan. They are not too far off and blend nicely .. but it took some manipulation of a few sections to look right. So far I am happy with the out come . Next are the Aft Section Lines. But not tonight Alan

Had a request for help interpreting a perceived problem... if you had read it I just deleted it as I figured it out. It was a 3D illusion. Alan