There were a couple of scaling problems with the 1:32 drawings, Knut. On my model, I made both the main deck and the lower deck 1/4" thick (height), which is 6.35 mm. The lower deck beams were 1/4" wide, while the upper deck beams were 3/8" (9.525 mm).
The main mast dimensions were wrong also. Based on the AOTS book, the mainmast diameter should be 1' 8-1/2" or 5/8" diameter. That's 15.875 mm. The plans call for tapering the mast below the lower deck, but I left it as is. Regarding the mast foot: It's inside the well and is essentially impossible to see if you plank the center part of the lower deck. You could omit it if you like, or make it large enough to have a hole for the lower end of the mast, either tapered or not.
The main mast dimensions were wrong also. Based on the AOTS book, the mainmast diameter should be 1' 8-1/2" or 5/8" diameter. That's 15.875 mm. The plans call for tapering the mast below the lower deck, but I left it as is. Regarding the mast foot: It's inside the well and is essentially impossible to see if you plank the center part of the lower deck. You could omit it if you like, or make it large enough to have a hole for the lower end of the mast, either tapered or not.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2018
- Messages
- 2,384
- Points
- 538
Great Dave, then I have answers to what I was wondering, Deck beams for Main and lower Deck will be as tall and wide as you said.
The mast that is inside the cabinet won't seem, I'm going to make it because I want to have a mounting point for the mast.
Thank you for specifying the measurements in mm.
The deck beams in my model seem to be a bit longer than one on the drawing (some MM), so I have to place the other parts in the deck as needed. The most important thing is that everything is in line / center and is at an angle.
Greeting.
The mast that is inside the cabinet won't seem, I'm going to make it because I want to have a mounting point for the mast.
Thank you for specifying the measurements in mm.
The deck beams in my model seem to be a bit longer than one on the drawing (some MM), so I have to place the other parts in the deck as needed. The most important thing is that everything is in line / center and is at an angle.
Greeting.
Take your time fitting the deck beams. Make sure they are centered with no side-to-side play. If they are centered, the deck framing is easy. It took me two hours to fit my deck beams!
Ahoy KNUT,
I never found a good answer to this problem. The plans that you have referenced don't jive with the lower deck framing plan. I used the measurements from the lower deck framing plan and ran with that. I hope the helps. Since you have to allow for the curvature of the deck, it is hard to be exact.
I never found a good answer to this problem. The plans that you have referenced don't jive with the lower deck framing plan. I used the measurements from the lower deck framing plan and ran with that. I hope the helps. Since you have to allow for the curvature of the deck, it is hard to be exact.
Hope someone is still reading this thread. I came across this project by mere coincidence. I stumbled over a post with a link to download part 1. I removed the last part of the URL and since directory browsing was allowed I downloaded the full set. A few days later I read another thread in this group and realized that I actually had to fulfil some criteria in order to get a download link. Well, I may not fulfil the criteria 100% yet but I anticipate I will soon. I do agree to the terms that applies once the plans are obtained. Hence I hope I’ll be forgiven for downloading prematurely?
Provided there are no objections I would like to try if I can build the 1:32 version. I will probably use only types of wood I can obtain from the local building supply store as it will be my very first build and not unlikely ends up in the trash bin. It surely doesn’t look promising from the start. I have already run into the first “opportunity” before I have even started:
I printed out the building jig set to ‘Actual size’. Then I checked the length of the 10’ scale. I measured slightly over 95 mm. I’m not familiar with the imperial measurement system but I believe 1 inch = 25.4 mm and 1’ = 12’’, right? 10 x 12 / 32 x 25.4 = 95.25. It seemed to be spot on so I continued with printing the frames. When I came to frame 9 I noticed a metric scale so I checked that one as well and then the shit hit the fan. It is supposed to be 240 mm long but I measure it to slightly over 255 mm which is >6% off. What have I done wrong?
Provided there are no objections I would like to try if I can build the 1:32 version. I will probably use only types of wood I can obtain from the local building supply store as it will be my very first build and not unlikely ends up in the trash bin. It surely doesn’t look promising from the start. I have already run into the first “opportunity” before I have even started:
I printed out the building jig set to ‘Actual size’. Then I checked the length of the 10’ scale. I measured slightly over 95 mm. I’m not familiar with the imperial measurement system but I believe 1 inch = 25.4 mm and 1’ = 12’’, right? 10 x 12 / 32 x 25.4 = 95.25. It seemed to be spot on so I continued with printing the frames. When I came to frame 9 I noticed a metric scale so I checked that one as well and then the shit hit the fan. It is supposed to be 240 mm long but I measure it to slightly over 255 mm which is >6% off. What have I done wrong?
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2017
- Messages
- 1,646
- Points
- 538
You probably have an old version of frame 9. Donnie can make you a member of the group build. This is a copy of the latest revision of frame 9, sorry you had a problem.
Mike
He is already member as he can post here
Thank you @Mike41. Absolutely no reason to be sorry. It is a tremendous and excellent good job you have done with all of this 
. I do not have access to an A3 printer right now but at a glance it seems to be the same version I have. If you look at pattern page you can see with the naked eye that the 10' scale is corresponding to 90 mm. If my calculation is right it should be 95.25 mm
If I just can be sure my calculation is correct it is the metric scale which are off then I'll just disregard the metric scale.
Cheers
Poul
Edit: Typo: A# instead of A3
. I do not have access to an A3 printer right now but at a glance it seems to be the same version I have. If you look at pattern page you can see with the naked eye that the 10' scale is corresponding to 90 mm. If my calculation is right it should be 95.25 mmIf I just can be sure my calculation is correct it is the metric scale which are off then I'll just disregard the metric scale.
Cheers
Poul
Edit: Typo: A# instead of A3
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2017
- Messages
- 1,646
- Points
- 538
Hi Poul, I checked the scales with AutoCAD, and they are ok, if you are taking your measurements on a paper copy it may not have been printed correctly. If you had the drawings printed on the same printer at the same time and use the patterns the model should go together.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2017
- Messages
- 1,646
- Points
- 538
I guess Poul will have the group build symbol added to his signature when he starts a build log.
Sorry for being persistent pain in the b... The issue has nothing to do with the printing. If you look at page 2 of frame 9 in your post (before printing) the 10' scale clearly corresponds to 90 mm. Now, 10' = 120 inch, right? 120 dived by scale 1:32 = 3 3/4 inch (which btw is also exactly what I measure on my printed copy ) 3 3/4 inch converted to mm for all I know = 3.75 x 25.4 = 95.25 mm (not 90 mm).
Anyway, I'll just ignore the metric scale.
//Poul
Lets wait for Donnie ,I think you have a non revised version of the plan set
I will send Poul the full download link. Give a min to do so. Mike added that mm scale I think at the last minute. I think I would just ignore that particular scale. Therefore let me put together all the material for poul
Actually, even if the printer is not printing to the EXACT scale, it does not matter as long as you print everything (patterns and plans) from the SAME printer and SAME settings. The only thing of concern would be the dimensional lumber and that is not an exact science as I usually have to mill my own wood to "fit" anyways.
It was a while ago, but I had some problems with the 1:32 scaling. Mike had to redo the 1:32 scale keel assembly drawings as well as the jig drawings. As it turned out, I had to copy the keel drawing at 101% to get a perfect match with the jig. That slight 1% difference was trivial in the vertical dimension, which was fine on the plans, but solved the problem along the length. It all worked out in the end.
You're right, Donnie. If you're making copies on the same machine, it really doesn't matter if it's a little "off" assuming you use the same copier for all the plans.
You're right, Donnie. If you're making copies on the same machine, it really doesn't matter if it's a little "off" assuming you use the same copier for all the plans.