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

[sb-77]

Hi Alan,

Hexnut mentioned about lofting surfaces, you would be advised to play with them, rather than with the solid loft. They are easier to adjust as you are only dealing with a one sided shape as opposed to a solid. It also makes the creation of the inside of the frame surface easier as you will find when you try to shell the solid you currently have. (it will not work as the frame will be the same thickness from top to bottom, and when you got to cut or slice out the individual frames some will be very very awkward to cut correctly. Not to criticize your work (you are learning a lot by trial and error) I would if you do not mind lake to suggest the following sequence to build the hull.

Using surfaces only ( its easier once you get the hang of it and you can use them later to generate your solids), only build one half of the hull, less work and mirror is a simple command to use later)

1, Build the keel side surface, add the lower part of the rabbit. Build the bow section, again only adding the lower or outer section of the rabbit.

2. Add your stations and body lines, you only need the left half ( or right depending on which half you are modeling). Set the body lines in their correct positions. ( Almost like you have already done with the solid sections.) Extend the upper part of the body lines to a common height ( say 2" above the tallest body line, this will even out your surface appearance) You will be able to trim the final surface to the profile which will remove the extra later.

3. Edit each of the body line sketches so that the lowest point is in contact with the upper part of the rabbit surface. This will give you the correct form of the upper section of the rabbit.

4. Try some surface lofts using the body lines, were the lofted surface is lumpy just deselect that station from the loft. Try to aim for a smooth surface, use a guide line that runs along the upper edge of the rabbit surface.

5. Do not worry about the extreme bow section that is missing or the wing transom until later ( the bow is easy and the wing transom is a female dog)

6. Your surface will still probably be a little lumpy or uneven ( if its not you have drawn a perfect body plan - which is more than i ever manage to do)

7. Make some diagonal planes ( easy way open a sketch draw some diagonals on it and surface extrude them a little. Make a new sketch on each of the new diagonal surfaces and use the surface intersection tool. This will show you any areas that need to be smoothed.

8. You also have to option to edit the just created diagonal (simplify spline ect) to make it smoother, you can use these to loft a much smoother hull shape.

 

Good luck

Tony D

[AON]

Tony,

Thank you for the suggestions.

 

I seem to have only the one "loft" button ... which means I do not understand the "how to" of lofting a surface.

Giving up is not in my DNA so with a bit of time and the internet I will figure this out.

 

I wish I had someone at the office that did this so I could just have them show me ... but alas this is not something we do.

 

Hexnut, sorry I didn't "get it" earlier.

[hexnut]

Alan, when you do "get it", please let me know, because I sure have a lot left to learn!

The only way I ever learn any of this stuff is by doing it wrong a bunch of times.  Even giving advice is a bit tough, as something that worked fine a bunch of times might not work for a given application.

 

I do surfacing all of the time for work, and I still face: "it worked fine until I tried to put rads on it", "What do you mean it won't import as a solid? It told me it was a solid!"  " Why won't you shell?" etc...

 

You should be able to hit > insert> surface> loft> to get into it, pick your stations, do a simple loft, pick guide curves, etc...

[sb-77]

Alan,

, The tool bars that show up in SW is configurable, you can add and remove individual items or whole tool bars. You are looking for the surface tool bar.

So right click off of the sketching view port ( in one of the side areas) lots of different tools will show up, and select the one that says surface.

See if that helps

Tony D

[AON]

DOH!

 

something new to play with 

[AON]

Thanks to Tony I was able to complete a surface loft of the hull yesterday.

I am continuing my fairing clean up of the model.... tedious work.

 

I am getting anxious to receive the build contracts because my station locations are admittedly wrong and the locations provides in the scantling "tables" do not add up for me as it refers to 176 ft long 74 gun man of war and the Bellerophon was 168 feet long.

The tables also lists stations I do not have.

 

Originally I just measured the image and then picked what I thought was logical spacings based on what I measured.

Rookie error.

 

All stations should be 5'-6" spacing per the "tables" with about 6 feet at the bow and 4' at the stern.

Both the framing and line drawings clearly attest to the 6' and 4' spacings.  The 5'-6" seem to be different.

 

This has been baffling me for quite some time and I am hoping the contract clears it up.

(The PDF sheet ALLENYED provided earlier suggests different dimensions which tends to make sense of all this)

Edited March 24, 2014 by AON

[AON]

It has been a few weeks since my last post.

I had suffered back problems and couldn't get anything done.

A lot has happened since.

Not sure if I mentioned my Bellerophon and Elephant Build Contracts and Elephant framing drawing came in from NMM.

I also received the copy of the Ship Modeller's Shop Notes Book 2 from NRG... and I was assigned a mentor from the NRG program!.

 

Now that my back is back to (ab)normal and I can sit for prolonged periods I've finally got the fairing completed.

It was a long, nit picky process.

The hull at the bow kept buckling on me because of the sharp change in form at the timberline.

I had to insert a third intermediate 3D guide curve below the upper most one at the topside.

This took care of the problem.

 

Below are the results.

Next I want to get 3 or 4 of the frames done up in 3D at midships just to see how to do it.

Then I will draw and model the keel stem and stern post assemblies.

 

I will have another project to distract me though, designing and building a modeling work station just outside my work (play) room down in the basement.

I may be posting elsewhere on the form to solicit ideas and comments on my plans for this.

 

Alan 

 

[AON]

My NRG mentor suggests I need to get off the fence and pick a model scale!

Okay, he didn’t exactly say that (he is much nicer than that) but essentially that is what needs to be done.

 

Well I have come to admit my reluctance to picking a scale…. I have trouble seeing the finish size in my head.  You see in my line of work I envision the task in full detail (all the wee bits and pieces going together are revealed in full glory in my mind’s eye) and only then can I draw it. To do this I work in sub-assemblies.  So how do I see the completely assembled magnificence of a Man Of War in my mind.  Photos just don’t seem to be enough so I calculated the overall length stern to bowsprit, keel to tip of the main top gallant and width not being the full breadth of the hull but the length of the main yard. Then I picked the scales that I would consider working in and compared it all with tape measures on the floor and an old fashioned yard stick in hand.

 

My rough estimated calculations yielded something very near 222 feet (67.7m) long x 215 feet (65.5m) tall x 99 feet (30.2m) wide at full size.

 

At    1 : 48  (1/4” = 1 ft)   = approx. 55” (140 cm Long x 54” (137 cm) tall x 25” (64 cm) wide

At    1 : 64  (3/16” = 1 ft) = approx. 42” (107 cm) Long x 40” (102 cm) tall x 19” (48 cm) wide.

At    1 : 72  (1/6” = 1 ft)   = approx. 37” (94 cm) Long x 36” (91 cm) tall x 17” (43 cm) wide

At    1 : 96  (1/8” = 1 ft)   = approx.  28” (71 cm) Long x 27” (69 cm) tall x 13” (33 cm) wide

 

 In my mind smaller is going to be tougher to build but possibly more forgiving whereas larger might be easier to build but more revealing (warts and all).  A 14” sided frame will be very near ¼” to 1/8” at the various scales.  Tiny frames may be something to worry about…. Particularly as they only get smaller as you build upwards to the timber line where they are 1/8” to 1/16” sided dimension.

 

Where to display my model years from now must be decided and has been my number one nagging thought since the moment I decided to move forward with this whole endeavour. 

 

The fireplace mantle is narrow; the foyer cabinet under my grand-dad’s picture in his RNNR sailor uniform is far too small; the cabinet in the den might be nice but I am just now thinking down in the dungeon area (basement) where I will be building the model might be the best location as inspiration for all other builds that might follow.

 

If this is the case 1:48 scale is definitely on the table for consideration.

 

I would very much like to hear from forum members about concerns with scale before I chisel it in stone.

 

Comments?

 

Presently I am creating the 3D image of my hull at dead flat and going to trim out a few frames just so I get a feel for it.

Having tried revealed my hull is not so fair as I had hoped and so I will be back onto that.

When is fair fair enough I wonder?

Once again we are back to the issue of scale.

 

I will be posting my Hull 3D images and steps to get it done hopefully by this weekend.

Edited May 2, 2014 by AON

[mtaylor]

Alan,

 

The only thing I can offer is that 1:64 is about as small as I can handle with full frames, etc.   There's also an issue of going smaller and things like deadeyes and block, etc. getting too small.  But you're the judge of your eye/hand co-ordination.

 

I'd say 1:48 sounds good and if things get too large or out of hand, think stub masts...

[AON]

Thank you Mark

 

Below is a visual aid for the different scales I created from my frame model section at dead flat

 

Alan

[AON]

What I am about to describe was a test to figure out how to actually do what I am about to show.

This is likely not the only way or possibly the best way but....

 

My method of creating the Frame thickness (moulded dimension) layout at station  -0-  (dead flat) using Solidworks  (Images 1, 2 and 3)

 

Steps:

 

Offset the previously drawn outside frame line an arbitrary distance for reference.

I used 1’-9” which is noted as the height of the Floor Timber above the keel.

The build contract states 1’-11” but above that is penned in 1’-9” (as built notation).

 

Locate the head of the Floor Timber = heel of the 2nd Futtock.

The build contract states the Floor Timber is 23 feet at midships.

Draw a reference line perpendicular between the existing outside frame line to the inside reference frame line.

Lock the reference line in place with a “fix” mate.

Insert a point on this perpendicular reference line and create a coincident mate between it and the reference line so it is locked to the reference line

Locate the point at a distance of 13.5 inches from the outside of the frame using a dimension.

The 13.5” represents the moulded dimension of the frame at the head of the Floor Timber.

The addition of the dimension locks it in place.

 

Repeat these steps for each moulded dimension called out on the build contract

Head of Lower (1st) Futtock at 7’. Moulded dimension 12.75”

Head of 2nd Futtock at 7’. Moulded dimension 12.25”

Head of 3rd Futtock at 7’. Moulded dimension 11-5/6” (11.83”)

Head of 4th Futtock at 11’-6”. Moulded dimension 10.5”

Top Timber moulded dimension 5.5”

 

Insert a point to represent the Top of the Floor Timber above the Keel at 1’-9”

Lock it in position with a coincident mate on the centre line and a dimension for the height

 

Draw a Polyline representing the inside frame line connecting all points from the Top of the Floor to the Top Timber.

This line looked perfect except for the area between the heads of the 3rd and 4th futtock so I introduced an intermediate point at half distances to correct the look of it.

I inserted a point on the polyline and then moved it to the intermediate point to correct the look of the polyline in this area.

 

The contract also states that the framing moulded depth dimension at gun ports 12” versus 11.83” or 10.5”.  At a scale build this is miniscule (about 0.03" at ¼ scale and 0.02” at 1/6 scale) and hardly controllable after any sanding so I’ve decided to not get too excited about it for now.

 

I then drew lines to join the outside/inside at the Top Timber and also traced in the frame joint at the keel.

Mirrored the sketch to produced the opposite side and extruded the whole thing from mid-plane to get the 3D hull frame thickness

 

Edited May 2, 2014 by AON

[AON]

My method of cutting out Frames in the 3D Hull (Images 4 thru 13)

 

First turned off the keel by rolling up to hide it.

I drew a single rectangle (taller than wide) to represent the SPACE between frames and located it to one side of dead flat. 

 

Room and Space is 32-1/2” and the sided dimension of the floor timber is 16” so the space is ½”

I made the rectangle ½” wide

I then copied the rectangle using the Linear Pattern feature at 8" intervals

 

I extrude cut through the hull in one step to reveal individual frames.

Then to my amazement I noticed each frame was saved individually as Cut Extrude 1 thru 15.

I could pick frames and hide them.

So I hid all but the frame at dead flat.

Edited May 2, 2014 by AON

[AON]

Siding the Individual Frames (Images 14 thru 19)

Having hid all but the one frame at dead flat I could work on it to chisel away to it’s sided dimensions.

 

The frame sided dimensions differ from Floor Timber (16”) to 2nd Futtock (13-1/2”) to 4th Futtock (13”)

 

To create the sided dimension for the 2nd Futtock I inserted a plane against the face of the floor timber and using reference lines sketched in a box to remove 16” – 13-1/2” = 2-1/2” from the frame.  I mirrored the box and completed the extrude cut.

 

I repeated this for the 4th Futtock sided dimension which was a removal of a mere ½”.

 

I then sketched in the outline of the Chock at the head of the Floor Timber and the Scarf Joint at the head of the 2nd Futtock. 

 

I offset the chock and scarf joint  lines  a distance of 0.01” (1/8” at full scale) and extrude cut through the timber to reveal the joint.

I picked 0.01” arbitrarily as it was something I didn’t have to zoom in too closely to see.

 

I am not certain the chock would have been stepped to match the frame as I’ve done.

These steps would be used to create the sided dimensions of the adjacent frame and reveal the Cross Chock at the floor and the Scarf Joints.

 

If anyone has a cleaner method of accomplishing what Ive just posted please let me know!

 

That's all for now.

I have to get back to fairing my hull yet again!

 

[druxey]

Alan: according to Steel, the top timbers are moulded  6½ " at the top of the side amidships and 7"  along forecastle and quarter deck, not 5½" as you have it at present.

[AON]

Thank you Druxey

 

I'll double check the build contract which I was certain read 5-1/2" but who is to say these old eyes didn't read the even older writing incorrectly.

I can say the "8"'s look very weird to me.  At first I thought they were 6's.

 

Alan

[druxey]

It takes a while to get used to read older manuscript hands. If you are interested, there are excellent free self-tutorials on the National Archive (U.K.) web site on reading earlier handwriting as well as Latin - if you want to go that far back!

[zzzyyy54]

I love u sw works

[Trussben]

Congrats on getting paired with a NRG mentor, I managed to get paired with a really awesome guy who is helping me no end with my Pegasus build.

 

Ben

[AON]

Ben:  Apparently we are the lucky ones as there aren't enough mentors to match all the various requests!

 

Druxey: Below is the section of the build contract. If I'm reading it correctly the Billy Ruffian once again breaks the mold as the dimension seems to be 5-1/2"

 

Alan

Edited May 2, 2014 by AON

[AON]

Had some time away from all this as I've been working on my modelling table.

Started back on the fairing of the 3D hull model with fresh eyes and found quite a few hiccups

 

Below are some updated images

I find the copper tone colour reflects blemishes better than the yellow I used previously.

Zebra stripe and curvature view are becoming less of a mystery but I am not quite comfortable with them.

 

I'll need to work on it a wee bit more yet... but I feel that I am getting there!

 

Alan

Edited May 22, 2014 by AON

[druxey]

I've no idea what the Newtonian ring effect is telling me, but it looks interesting!

 

Going back to your earlier post showing the extract from the contract, I was amused at the notation: '0 feet and 13 inches'!

[AON]

That's like me telling people I am 4'-22-3/4" tall     and getting shorter

 

Speaking of the contract....

It does get confusing when the contract states the length was to be 168 ft but they pen in that the length was 170 ft but then again the plan reads "as built 168 ft"

 

What do I believe?

 

Alan

[hexnut]

Looking nice Alan!

It might be easier to use the spherical map for zebra view, as there are no borders to obscure tangency breaks.

 

On a related note, I was just at a tradeshow talking to a Solidworks rep, asked him about custom or user-supplied maps in realview, as Rhino3d has a nice feature called "environment map" that shows a reflective surface, great for checking continuity and surface flow.  I got the typical tech support:"Why would you want to do that?" Oh well...

 

Another important thing to remember is what you are using the model for.  If you need to make a perfect class A surface, then its worth the hours tweaking the matches and curves.  If, however, the intent is to get to cutting out wood parts, just call it a day when the bumps and ripples are within a planking width, draw your frame stations to the outside of the planking and sand fair after assembly.  To quote the WWII Soviet war plane designers: "Perfection is the enemy of good enough."

 

I would also finish up the bow before worrying too much about getting C2 surface matches, the bow curvature will change the deceleration of the waterlines for your foremost stations.

[AON]

Spherical boarders, eh?

I'll have to have a look into that

 

I must agree that it is likely "good enough" considering scale and the sanding to final shape ... but not being able to explain it I just have to tweak it a wee bit more.

Edited May 22, 2014 by AON

[hexnut]

All that I meant was with the spherical zebra map you don't see the direction change of the lines on the cube faces.

 

Actually, I know exactly what you mean.  My work stuff all has to go out the door on deadline, so for fun stuff, it can be really fulfilling noodling something out until I'm happy with it, screw deadlines...

Edited May 22, 2014 by hexnut

[druxey]

If the plan measures 168' 0" as well as states so, then I'd go with that. I suspect that the pen notation length of 170' 0" was questioned and the master shipwright told that it was approved for him to proceed with the 168' 0" measurement.

[AON]

Hexnut:  The fun left a long time ago with fairing the 3D hull.  I just couldn't let it beat me.  

As I came back refreshed and could see errors again I will admit some "fun" was brought back to it.

 

Druxey: I have a similar issue with the floor timber height measurement stated in the contract and feel I should likely stick to the contract and ignore the penned notation

 

I spent about 2 hours making nit picky fine adjustments to the upper portion

Unsurpressed the loft feature to show the new shape in 3D and slowly spun it about looking for shadows pin pointing blemishes

Cleaned them all up ... I cannot find any more in that manner

Turned on the zebra view and changed it to Spherical Map (wish I had noticed it before) and the image is below

At this point I am ready to move on. (hurray!!)  

 

Alan

Edited May 23, 2014 by AON

[Don9of11]

Thanks for posting your SW views Alan, nice work. I like the copper tone as well and I may give that a try. I found the spherical zebra option a better choice but I am going to use the traditional waterline approach to fair my hull. I also like the idea of using a plank thickness as a tolerance.

[AON]

Thank you Don.

I'll be watching for your model posts 

 

I initially used the traditional WL and longitudinal section views for checking and caught quite a bit but the final slow spinning and studying of the light reflection off the copper tone looking for dark spots was the final step that seems to have caught it all for me

 

The reflection off the copper tone is similar to the zebra stripe effect but was easier for me to understand.

I am not certain how a plank thickness changes anything but we each have to do what we have to and as I said I'll be watching.

 

Seems I also needed to walk away for a few weeks as I couldn't "see" anything... like I had blinders on.

I also went back and restudy each frame sketch, found minor line spacing issues and made numerous corrections.

 

Having said all that it all seems a wee bit excessive and possibly OCD (or is that CDO) for the drastically reduced scale model but the need was stronger than me.  It is not like my making adjustments after I've built the model is going to help me at all. 

 

Going out to buy some rose bushes to replace those that didn't survive the winter, plant them and what we bought last weekend ... and cut that darned grass again!

[AON]

Some minor KEEL, Stem and Stern Post layout progress taking place as I take a break from building my modelling table.

 

I had taken a multitude of measurements off the plan and am now plotting them to draw the lines to establish the various pieces and the rabbet line.

 

The circle near the bow is to remind me of something that does not blend well in that area... I need to double check my dimensions and/or redraw the polyline to more reference points.

 

I am also having some problems at the bow drawing in the edge in the area above the gammoning holes as the plan does not distinguish any detail of this surface edge.

 

Looking at Ree's Plate X, figure 1, ( I understand they are very similar to Steel's) there are two dotted (hidden) lines that I believe the lower one is what I need.

 

This area does not look anything like the Vanguard or Bellerophon kits I see being assembled on the forum.

- block for the figure head is not stepped

- two round bobstay holes versus three

- another round hole up above the inboard gammoning hole

 

Alan