Bellona POF scratch build

[warren47]

Thank you Allan
I have that drawing but have, to date, not seen a reason to study it. This brings up a question. How do you discover the changes between documents? Are you looking for an answer to a question or do you study and compare drawings? I spent some time yesterday looking at the two drawings. From station 2 aft and station A forward I see no changes. With the lack of detail on the inboard profile plan I cannot see that much has changed other than moving the midship mark. Seems like I should just keep moving until I have to make the midship frames/bends.
warren

 

[AllanKP69]

Are you looking for an answer to a question or do you study and compare drawings?

I do not mean to be indirect, but it depends on what is available. When doing a scratch build of an English ship in the age of sail, the following is my order of preference for dimensional information, if they are available.
As-built drawings for the specific ship
Contract for the specific ship or a sister ship
Design drawings for a specific ship or a sister ship
Establishments from 1719 to 1750 and for some years beyond
The Shipbuilder's Repository 1788
David Steel's Elements and practice of Naval Architecture.

I cannot think of any part that would be made or installed without looking at the most appropriate plans and scantlings list.

Even if all the above are available, a good book on how these things were installed is invaluable. Small fittings such as bolts are not on drawings but they are often specified in contracts, or lacking a contract, the scantling sources mentioned above. For Bellona I would compare scantlings from the contract for the closest ships I could find which is for, Culloden 1776 along with The Shipbuilder's Repository and the plans. Interesting aside about the Culloden contract. There are red ink changes that were used for the Thunderer 1783

Sorry for a long drawn out answer, but I hope it makes some sort of sense.

Allan

 

[warren47]

I do not mean to be indirect, but it depends on what is available. When doing a scratch build of an English ship in the age of sail, the following is my order of preference for dimensional information, if they are available.
As-built drawings for the specific ship
Contract for the specific ship or a sister ship
Design drawings for a specific ship or a sister ship
Establishments from 1719 to 1750 and for some years beyond
The Shipbuilder's Repository 1788
David Steel's Elements and practice of Naval Architecture.

I cannot think of any part that would be madeor installed without looking at the most appropriate plans and scantlings list.

Even if all the above are available, a good book on how these things were installed is invaluable. Small fittings such as bolts are not on drawings but they are often specified in contracts, or lacking a contract, the scantling sources mentioned above. For Bellona I would compare scantlings from the contract for the closest ships I could find which is for, Culloden 1776 along with The Shipbuilder's Repository and the plans. Interesting aside about the Culloden contract. There are red ink changes that were used for the Thunderer 1783

Sorry for a long drawn out answer, but I hope it makes some sort of sense.

Allan

This is not drawn out at all. You have actually answered my question and anticipated the next. Thank you.
warren

 

[warren47]

deleted

 

[warren47]

It has been a while, but I am back. Having taken a break I took a fresh look at my lofting problem. Upon very close examination of the body plan I discovered it was rotated 0.17 degrees counter clockwise. After correcting this my stern and bow lofting lines finally worked together and my spline lines were all very smooth. Time to revisit cant frames and get going.

 

[AllanKP69]

I discovered it was rotated 0.17 degrees counter clockwise.

I have not inserted one RMG drawing, be it from their website, purchased from RMG, or a downloaded copy ot the high res drawings from RMG on the Wiki website that did not need to be rotated slightly. Same thing for drawings from any archives. I load the drawing onto a new page in CAD then the first thing is to make sure it is full scale 1:1, then draw a straight line along the keel or center line (for decks and such) as appropriate. Deck drawings are the worst for symmetry so a straight horizontal line on the center line then draw half, port or starboard. After the half is done mirror image and done. Drafting perfectly symmetrical halves by hand wasn't easy when done by hand.

Allan

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

Repeating myself = Of over 200 plans that I have experience with, not one had identical 0 (midship) station shapes on the right Fore and left Aft with the Body plan.
I just usually use the Fore shape.
The vast majority of NMM plans have tears with taped repair and or stretch or shift or contraction along the Sheer/Profile plans.

My advantage with the Profile is that a single 1 pixel vertical line of data at each station is all that I need.
For my purposes, spending half a year recreating a 3D hull in CAD is totally unnecessary.