HMS Bellerophon 1786 by AON – scale 1:64 – 74-gun 3rd Rate Man of War - Arrogant-Class

[AON]

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

Edited February 21, 2014 by AON

[AON]

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

[WackoWolf]

I am not bored with this at all. Keep the post and pictures coming. Your doing an excellent job, and I do know what it takes to do this.

[AON]

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

Edited February 24, 2014 by AON

[druxey]

You wrote:

 

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.

 

I don't quite understand what you are saying here, Alan. Could you try again, please?

[AON]

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

[allanyed]

Alan,

The  frames were  beveled inboard and outboard so there was a fair line running from stem to stern and to give a flat surface on which to fay the strakes of planking.  Your  picture on the right is the what you need to achieve.  As you get nearer the  bow and stern, the beveling was extreme before cant  frames became the norm early in the 18th century.  

 

The green line on the  stern looks odd to me.  What does this represent?

 

Thanks for sharing your work with us.

 

Allan

[AON]

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

[AON]

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. 

Edited February 25, 2014 by AON

[druxey]

I see what the question was - but it's already been answered! On another note, the moulded (in and out) dimension of your floor timbers look a bit thick. You might want to check that.

[WackoWolf]

Your doing the frames the same way I am doing them in SoildWorks. Question, are you using 2 planes for each frame, the reason I ask is that I didn't see any planes and wasn't sure if you turn them off yet. And there isn't any DUMB QUESTION. The only Dumb question is the one you don't ask and never find the answer because you still don't know LOL.

[AON]

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

Edited February 25, 2014 by AON

[druxey]

The top of the floor timbers shown on the sheer are the lines of the floor heads, not their cross-section at the keel. That is why the floors in your rendering look too fat. You need to consult Steel's tables to find the moulded dimension on the the floors.

[AON]

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

[WackoWolf]

Thanks, for the picture. That is basically the same way I am doing them, at first you threw me off when you said 3 but them when I seen the pictures I knew right away, just had to ask. A pictures is always worth a thousand words. Keep the pictures coming.

Edited February 26, 2014 by WackoWolf

[AON]

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

Edited February 26, 2014 by AON

[EdT]

Alan,

 

I am not sure what Steel pdf book you are referring to.  the source you need is Steel's Naval Architecture, not the treatise on masting and rigging.  I was not aware the Steel's Naval Architecture was available for download online.  If it is, could you please provide the link.  There are other sources for scantlings - the sizes of the timbers.  In addition to Steel, there is The Shipbuilders Repository 1788.  Both this and Steel are fairly rare and quite expensive.  There is also Steel's Vade Mecum for the Shipbuilder which can be downloaded online.  This not only has scantlings for a 74-gun ship, but also has instructions on preparing drafts.  I would highly recommend reading these before you get too far with this.  The Vade Mecum can be found at this link.

 

http://books.google.com/books?output=acs_help&id=pjcDAAAAQAAJ

 

Another source of dimensions is the original ship's contract which may be available from NMM.  This document is also highly recommended if you are going to do your own plans.  If the contract for Bellerophon is not available, one for one of the other Arrogant class should be identical.

 

Ed

[AON]

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

[garyshipwright]

Alan It does seem that the NMM has a contract for both, the Bellerophon of the Arrogant class of 1758 for the Bellerophon of 1786, Loc-GK11, Box-1, No-114 and the Elephant also Arrogant class 1758, Elephant of 1786 Loc-GK11, Box-3, No-135. Should be a help in ordering them and give you much needed information on sizes of timber such as the frames, keelson, and other main timbers. It is also great when you can even find one for the ship your building

 

Gary

Edited February 26, 2014 by garyshipwright

[allanyed]

Alan,

 Gary beat me to the punch.    I will dig out the scantlings on the framing from the Repository, Steel and the contract and try to put them side by side when I get home tonight.   The contract for Bellerphon may be the most accurate for your project, but do not be surprised if the scantlings in the contract do not match the drawings.  As built drawings are  best if they exist.

 

Allan

[EdT]

Alan,

 

I think you will find the Vade Mecum very helpful.  It may take some time to digest, but it will be well spent.  It took me some weeks and some things did not sink in for months.  I would draw your attention to some specifics:

 

p 144 begins the section on making drafts.  p 162 begins the specifics of drawing the sheer plan - which should be done first - in 2D at least - I can't comment on 3D - as with the original guys, I don't use it.  P 195 explains the diagonals.  You have not mentioned these.  They are quite important - for setting frame joints, fairing lines and drawing the body lines. p.255 begins the section on tables for forming the bodies and describes important lines that are used to make the draft.  Scantlings begin on p 266.  The glossary is also very useful and sometimes very import points are mentioned only there.

 

I caught up with your log late, but just a few observations:

 

I note that you are taking dimensions from the bottom of the keel.  It was/is normal practice to use the top of the keel as the primary dimensional reference line.  Some dimensions in tables will be on that basis, but it is otherwise just a matter of convention.

 

You have not mentioned "room and space".  This is the distance between frame lines.  2X room and space is the distance beweeen "stations" - main frame lines on the draft.  Room and space allows room for two frames plus air space between the floors.  There are then 4 frames for every station.  Room and space also sets the gunport width since the ports are framed main timbers. 

 

If you are planning to loft individual frames you should consider how these will be defined.  You may find, as I did, that at least the intermediate frame profiles are needed and perhaps some in between to accurately define frame bevels - the ones Allan mentioned. 

 

You mentioned dimensional error between views on the drafts but did not say how much.  I checked the original Naiad drafts - before using them - for accuracy using the scale at the bottom and some other points on the drawing and found them to be 99.8 to 99.9% accurate.  These were paper copies.  From my experience scanning often induces distortion and I would not be surpised to find digitized versions to be less accurate.  However, what is important is to decide what tolerances you will set for your drawings and then decide whether dimensional variation on the drafts is material or not based on that.  For example if the moulded half-breadth of your ship is 20', how much deviation would you accept on the model - 1/32"?  1/64"?  at 1:48 these equate to .63% and .31% respectively - for dimensions like that.  For timber thickness, if you work to say .005"  on a 12" timber (at 1:48) that equates to a tolerance of about 2% on dimensions of that type.  From this you can determine acceptable drawing error.  I think 1 to 2% is generally quite reasonable for model work.

 

Waterlines on these ships are not often keel-parallel and  - as druxey says - you must build on a surface parallel to the keel to be able to set frames vertically.  Actually, except for fairing, waterlines on these ships were not very useful.  Diagonals were much more useful even for fairing - and certainly more accurate for plotting hull profiles.  I found it convenient to define separate keel-parallel waterlines and draw those from the body plan on the half-breadth.  I then used those for whatever purpose needed - for example templates to check the hull - those are best set up parallel to the board surface.

 

There are a lot of lines on the original drafts and some may be mysterious.  All are important.  I would make sure to understand what each one is.  The Vade Mecum will help with that.

 

I hope these few points will be helpful.

 

You are just beginning a major and very complex effort.  All the best with it.

 

Ed

[AON]

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

Edited February 26, 2014 by AON

[allanyed]

Alan,

Maybe the following will help a bit.  It has the scantlings from the Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture, SR and the Elephant contract. 

Allan

74 gun frames.pdf

[AON]

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

Edited February 26, 2014 by AON

[allanyed]

Alan,

Sorry, yes there are only two pages with information.  Should have looked for blanks on the original Excel pages.

 

Allan

[AON]

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

 

[druxey]

Patience, and - eventually -  all will be revealed!

[EdT]

Yes, Alan, the plates would be a big help, but I guess you get what you pay for -and this is a wonderful freebie. Digesting this can be a challenge - make frequent use of he dictionary at the front - and again, good luck. It is a journey.

 

Ed

[AON]

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

[AON]

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

Edited February 28, 2014 by AON