Help with scale

[UssIntelagentFIsh]

Quick question Is this 60ft? It came out low quality but It says 60.0 on the top next to the text.

 

[AllanKP69]

838.75 Hard to understand the words from where they are measuring. 60 feet is shown on line A that I have added. Overall length is 838.75 inches. (Line B) This is assuming the overall print is not stretched or shrunk or otherwise degraded. I inserted the print into CAD and took it full scale using the rule under the keel.
Hope this helps. Do you know the source of this drawing? It may be easier to get clearer information if you know who holds the original.
Allan

 

[UssIntelagentFIsh]

838.75 Hard to understand the words from where they are measuring. 60 feet is shown on line A that I have added. Overall length is 838.75 inches. (Line B) This is assuming the overall print is not stretched or shrunk or otherwise degraded. I inserted the print into CAD and took it full scale using the rule under the keel.
Hope this helps. Do you know the source of this drawing? It may be easier to get clearer information if you know who holds the original.
Allan

View attachment 584696

Thank you for the help.
I edited the drawing to be grayscale when printed. this is the site where I got if from is :https://www.model-monkey.com/product-page/royal-navy-cutter-1781
for some reason the quality lowered when I posted it hear.

Note: I don't know if attaching files makes the files accessible in the original size to others but I added both the original and the edited version

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

My guess for the source is a plate in:

NAVAL ARCHITECTURE 1787 2ND ED 2 VOLUMES
STALKARTT,MARMADUKE

It may or may not be the plan of an actual vessel.
I do not think that either A or B would match the 60 ft description.

The thicker lowest black line at the wale. Where it hits the thick black line at the wing transom aft and the aft edge of the stem rabbet. A perpendicular line at each point AP aft FP fore. Use that for the 60 ft.

 

[UssIntelagentFIsh]

My guess for the source is a plate in:

NAVAL ARCHITECTURE 1787 2ND ED 2 VOLUMES
STALKARTT,MARMADUKE

It may or may not be the plan of an actual vessel.
I do not think that either A or B would match the 60 ft description.

The thicker lowest black line at the wale. Where it hits the thick black line at the wing transom aft and the aft edge of the stem rabbet. A perpendicular line at each point AP aft FP fore. Use that for the 60 ft.

This makes sense because this cutter has a lot in comin with HMS Alert which was about 90ft. But maybe that's just because there both British cutters.
Thanks for the help -DAWarden-(Jaager) & AllanKP69.



Hears a comparison of the two :

​

↓ HMS Alert

 

[Roger Pellett]

OK, forget about the 60ft. We naval architects are like lawyers. If we didn’t confuse things everyone would know what we are doing! As a result there are several definitions of Length.

On the other hand, the word Beam is well defined. It refers to the vessel’s maximum breadth, easily measured on your drawing. If I am reading the small sized drawing correctly the extreme breadth is also listed there. The ratio between the measured breadth and that listed on the drawing is the scale.

Roger

 

[AllanKP69]

I do not think that either A or B would match the 60 ft description.

My bad for causing confusion. Neither line that I drew was meant to match the description, I was just showing you the actual dimensions at those points as examples. The drawing is full size, 1 to 1 scale, and dimensions/lines I show are actual at those points.
Allan

On the other hand, the word Beam is well defined. It refers to the vessel’s maximum breadth, easily measured on your drawing. If I am reading the small sized drawing correctly the extreme breadth is also listed there.

Great point Roger, thanks. The plan matches the legend, 25' 4"
"C" below

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

I do not know the real or actual of what is Breadth. I have read that there are two different measurements and uses.

The version that I work from is:
The LxBxD number for breadth is extreme Breadth
extreme breadth includes the thickness of the bottom planking and that number is used to calculate tonnage? or some reflection of the volume of the hull.
On design plans the Body plan is the breadth at the inside of any planking.
To make it even more ambiguous, the breadth is usually where is the wale. The wale is thicker than the bottom plank.

I got AP and FP from Deane's Doctrine. They are his key design beginning points.

Length is too confusing for me to even have anything to do with.
Touch - 17thC. the section of the keel that sits on the baseline.
LBP
length on the gundeck
length for tonnage
LOA

There are design plans that have no standard scale grid. Nothing internally accurate to measure.
Length is hopeless for me.
Depth? no chance
Breadth is it. If the official breadth also includes the width of the planking then using it as the value for the X line on the Body plan will produce a scale correction factor that is a percent or four too large.
If the the thickness of the bottom planking x2 is subtracted from the Official Breadth, it helps to know just how thick is the bottom planking.
A few days ago I lofted Shark 8 1732. There is no scale on the plans. An OfficeDepot scan to PDF is inflated a fudge more than twice the print scanned. An eight gun two masted vessel is below the notice of the 1719 Establishments. I had to wet finger a plank thickness.

 

[UssIntelagentFIsh]

Hears the original scale of the blue print: https://static.wixstatic.com/media/484564_e91952d765d448a4a3d11fdc2bb1ada0~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_2004,h_946,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/484564_e91952d765d448a4a3d11fdc2bb1ada0~mv2.jpg
-& thank you Roger

Edit: Its still a little small sorry hears a different link: https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipN2xqJ8I3hv9pwYqO046EgHDk_16Z7UOR1XtOpV

 

[Roger Pellett]

That will do it

 

[UssIntelagentFIsh]

See you tomorrow.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

I lesson that I think that I have learned is that if I am going to do the work it is false economy for me to start with an inferior, or too small a scale, or incomplete plan - a scan of a book illustration for example. I saves money but it involves much ambiguity and a high possibility of error. There is a lot of frustration. I just bite the bullet and pay for a print of the plan at 1/4" scale.

The Stalkartt plan has no detail except for the hull itself with the focus on its swimming body.

If there are large scale cutter plans on WIKI Commons, I missed them or they are after 1776.

I have a list with small JPEG of NMM cutter plans up to 1776. The RN gets too popular for me in the Nelson and Napoleon era. The zip is 150 meg. DM if interested. The Smithsonian has a series of of cutter plans redrawn by MAE Jr. for what looks like an abandoned project.