Question regarding Lines of HMS Triton, 1773

[rdsaplala]

Hi guys,

 

I'm currently doing a POB model of HMS Triton and when I was fairing the bulkheads, I noticed that my model had a prominent bulge at the after end directly below the aft-most gunports. This "bulge" can also be seen on the beautiful CAD model by Christian as well as the very detailed POF rendition by Wang in the build logs (see pics below):

 

I am  a bit confused because the half breadth plan of Triton at NMM doesn't seem to show this prominent feature:

 

 

I'm now in a bit of conundrum if I should tweak my aft bulkheads to remove the bulge or just leave this bulge on. Thoughts, opinions anyone? Thanks very much.

Edited November 1, 2013 by rdsaplala

[smatsik]

Aldo,

 

You are probably going to have to decide which plans to follow. I have also noticed some differences between the MSW plans and the NMM plans although I am just going by the image in Gardiner for my NMM plans. The biggest question is whether at this point it is even possible to make your hull agree with the NMM plans. I don't have my things in front of me to check, but it may be that the deviation is too much to sand out. Also remember that unless you left extra wood on the inside of the frames, they will now be too thin in this region. If you have to remove more than about a scale inch or so I suspect it will be very visible in the frame thickness unless you plank both inside and out.

 

Hope this helps you think about the problem some.

 

Hoss

[Chuck]

I dont know as I didnt draft those plans myself.  But as you point out,  that bulged shape of the Triton framing is clearly not correct.  The plans were developed so long ago.  I can not even remember who drafted the full hull plans.  However,   it is clear that there would be no easy way for us to correct them at this point.   The individuals who drafted them are long gone from the site and we only have the plans you are now using to build upon.

 

Should anyone wish to compare the Triton frames with the NMM draft and isolate the offending Cant frames...it would be much appreciated.  In the spirit of this community project,  It would be welcomed for anyone who might wish to correct the offending frames and send them to me for replacement.

 

I couldnt even begin to wrap my head around yet another project to investigate and correct these issues myself so any assistance from a member building her would be appreciated and welcomed.  As you know only someone who is familiar with the Triton lines or is currently building her could quickly devise some sort of remedy.

 

It is this kind of MSW community project that hopefully lends itself to a collaborative refinement over time..   

 

Chuck

[rdsaplala]

Thanks for the info, Hoss, as much as I would like to take credit for the beautiful POF Triton in the pic above, it belongs to another Triton builder

I'm  still in the early stage of fairing my bulkheads and am amenable to making some drastic changes to my model.

At this time, I guess I have four options:

 

1. Just live with that bulge

2. Just scrap my Triton build and go for another ship (that AOTS Pandora/Diana perhaps)

3. Get some plans from NMM and trace the aft-most stations (Quite a risk as I the original plans most likely have some distortion and I have absolutely no experience in drafting/correcting distortions )

 

4. Build the model without the 2 aft-most bulkheads to allow a smooth run on of the planks

Edited April 28, 2013 by rdsaplala

[drhemlock2]

as i just about to get er' done i would like to know myself as i have cut all the frames for the aft and bow areas. perhaps someone who has built her already will chime in here and tell us what they did to remedy this problem. i have the original drawings on my hard drive perhaps i could look at them and see what to see. i have yet to begin putting everything together hand problems.

doc

[mtaylor]

Aldo,since your doing the POB, you could probably get away with fairing the bulkheads with a heavy hand.  The POF is a different story. 

[smatsik]

Aldo,

 

Since you are doing POB I have to agree with Mark. You should be able to just fair the bulge away if you are careful and take your time. You don't have to worry about problems with the thickness of the frames which was what had me concerned. It is just a matter of deciding how much extra material you have to remove from the outside. One approach is to test the planking run with battens and then remove material until you get a nice clean run. I would do that before just leaving them out altogether and definitely not scrap the build because of it. This is actually probably not that different from what the original builders did once they had all their frames up. They just smoothed everything out to give a fair run to the hull.

I agree with you about the NMM plans probably being distorted. I have noticed some in Gardiner's image. I would assume (a very dangerous thing) that at least some of the distortion is in the original and not in the image.

 

Good luck with this

Hoss

 

PS For people building POF I checked my copies of the plans that I downloaded from the old site and it looks like the problem starts at cant frame 26.There is a large difference between the fore and aft faces of this frame. Much more than the others. I have not done any drafting to check but I suspect you can get away with modifying cant frames 26, 27 and 28.

Edited April 28, 2013 by smatsik

[rdsaplala]

Thanks very much for sharing your opinions, Chuck, Doc, Mark and Hoss, I appreciate it

 

@ Chuck: Thanks for the info, Sir, no worries, I just needed some opinions if my interpretation of the plans is correct. I think I could rectify the bulge for the POB using Hoss' and Mark's suggestions and the NMM draughts, if it proves to be successful, I'll post some drawings of my revised bulkheads here 

 

@Mark and Hoss: thanks for the tips guys, I've given them a go and they were very helpful. For the POB, I noticed that the offending bulkheads were the 4 aftmost ones (#27, 24, 21 and 18). Bulkheads 18 and 21 are still amenable to some heavy fairing, but 24 and 27 weren't so I took a different approach for these. I'm currently trying out how fair my revised bulkheads are with temporary planks, will post a detailed explanation and pics for the benefit of other POB builders once I'm done

 

 

Edited May 1, 2013 by rdsaplala

[rdsaplala]

Hi guys, just wanted to share the outcome of the my "experiment" on fixing the bulge on the bulkheads. Here's the half hull mock up I made (pardon the old, worn out ply I used for this project, I wanted to make sure I don't waste any wood if my efforts fail )

 

 

I think the bulge is now gone based on the run of the temporary planks I attached.

 

 

Now it's time to make a new hull using better ply....... on second thought, I think I could live with this dirty old plywood and just attach my spare bulkheads for the starboard side (too lazy to cut new bulkheads again ) Thanks very much again for all the help guys, I appreciate it

Edited May 1, 2013 by rdsaplala

[Chuck]

That is a vast improvement.  It look quite well done.  I would consider replacing that missing bullhead for stability and smoothness of planking.  But other than that...no ugly bulge.

 

Chuck

[42rocker]

First looks Well Done.. Second my thoughts, don't short cut it. Start over again and use the good stuff, you might always be looking back saying I wish I had redone this. Also agree with Chuck, add a bulkhead or something don't leave those planks without support.

 

Later 42rocker

[AnobiumPunctatum]

As far as I know the cant frames are sitting under another angle on the deadwood as shown on the original drawings.This simplification was made to build the  hull only with double frames.

I will get the original drawing of the NMM later this year and will prepare some drawings because I like to build the model after HMS Fly with the original frame design as shown on the original drawings. If I can fix the problem with the MSW drawing I let you know.

[Chuck]

Thank you very much Christian.  

[smatsik]

Looks good Aldo. I agree with the others. Go ahead and replace the missing bulkhead. It will make things easier in the long run to have the support for the planking.

 

Hoss

[rdsaplala]

Thank you very much for the kind words as well as for sharing your tips, Chuck, 42rocker, and Hoss, I will implement your suggestions  

 

Christian, thanks for offering your help on correcting the plans for the POF model, I'm sure  a lot of our builders will benefit from this  

Edited May 2, 2013 by rdsaplala

[the learner]

As far as I know the cant frames are sitting under another angle on the deadwood as shown on the original drawings.This simplification was made to build the  hull only with double frames.

I will get the original drawing of the NMM later this year and will prepare some drawings because I like to build the model after HMS Fly with the original frame design as shown on the original drawings. If I can fix the problem with the MSW drawing I let you know.

 

Will you please post the drawings for the group when you draw them out?

 

Guy

[AnobiumPunctatum]

Guy, I don't know. It's a decision of the board admirality, if they like to offer a second set of drawings. I don't know in the moment if I can use the square frames of the community build. But this is my intention. Than I only have to change the cant frames.

 

The second reason is that I need a lot of time for the drawings. In the moment I have started the build of HMS Fly and I like to complete her before I start with the build this beautyful frigate.

[Chuck]

We would have a look at them and then decide whether to replace those offending cant frames.  Other than that we wont post another wntire set of drawings.  Just a fix for those that may have been created with errors.

 

Chuck

[AnobiumPunctatum]

A short info. Yesterday I got the message that my copy of the new colored NMM drawing is in the post. So I can start with the drawings for the POB very soon.

Is it a good idea only to mark the center line and some parallel lines at the bulkhead?  At the center board I will mark the fore or after position of the bulkhead and also some parallel lines.

I think that every model builder likes to use another thickness of the plywood and prefers another scale for his model.

Chuck, you have much more experience in drawing plans for ship modelers. If this is not a good idea please let me know.

[rdsaplala]

Hi Christian,

 

I'm pleased to know that your NMM Plan will arrive very shortly, I've been examining my hard copy of the plans as well the smaller soft copy by using David Antscherl's articles on drafting as well as interpreting Admiralty plans and identifying/correcting distortions and it appears that both plans have very minimal horizontal distortion. I have yet to check them for vertical distortion, but what I did notice in both plans is that the baseline to top-timber distance of the sections in the body plan, do not match the top-timber heights of their counterpart sections in the sheer profile.

 

As seen below, taking the foremost section as an example, it appears that the toptimber height of this section (red line) in the body plan is higher when compared to its top timber height in the sheer plan (don't mind the juxtaposed colored plan):

 

 

 

 

 

Could you verify if this is also the case in your plan when it arrives?

 

By the way, did I understand correctly that you will be drawing some Plank on Bulkhead (POB) plans?

If yes, it would be great if you could share it here for the benefit of POB builders like me