Subject: SMML VOL 1453 Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 04:07:53 +1100 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: Re: Warning about AOTS books, esp. the Hood! 2: Re: Maryland Silver Company 3: Re: Plans Reduction/Enlargement 4: Re: Plans Reduction/Enlargement 5: Re: Plans Reduction/Enlargement 6: Lindberg Jolly Roger...I beg to differ.... 7: USS Baltimore 8: Merry Christmas 9: Lindberg Jolly Roger 10: Best Wishes 11: Holiday Greetings 12: Re: Actual scale of plans 13: Re: Update on the latest Classic Warships Books! 14: Maritime Disasters of the Second World War 15: Plans Reduction/Enlargement 16: Lindberg "Jolly Roger" Part II 17: Re: Lindberg Jolly Roger 18: Seasons greetings 19: Re: Plans Reduction/Enlargement 20: Re: "Nuclear Carrier" 21: Lindberg Jolly Roger -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Infomation 1: SMML site update -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD INDEX 1: New GMM PE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS Hi all, Lorna & I wish everyone on the list and their kin a most joyous Christmas. Shane & Lorna -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: "Mark Brown" Subject: Re: Warning about AOTS books, esp. the Hood! Hi Steve, Thanks for the warning regarding scale in the AOTS books. I am creating a 3D computer model of the Hood. Exact scale is not so important but it is still good to know that a problem may exist. I have never seen the AOTS Hood book. The only AOTS book I own is the one for the Bartolomeo Colleoni. I particularly want my model of Hood to be viewable from the inside and therefore need the sort of interior layout drawings that the AOTS books give. Will the AOTS Hood book give me much in the way of interior detail? If anyone has, or knows of any photos or drawings that show *any* interior views of Hood (eg bridge interior, corridors, turret interiors, etc, etc, etc) I would love to hear from you! mailto:mabrown@senet.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Bradford Chaucer Subject: Re: Maryland Silver Company >> I have ordered several planbooks from MSC as well as their 1866 Union Navy ordnance manual and their stuff is indeed excellent, albeit not cheap. I recommend their paper catalog for browsing. << I'd second that. They are quite friendly and helpful by phone. Regards, Bradford Chaucer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: "Michael London" Subject: Re: Plans Reduction/Enlargement To reduce or enlarge plans it is a matter of comparing the ratio of the original plan to the ratio required for the new plan. A 1:600 original (50ft = 1in), for example, will be larger than a 1:700 new plan by a factor of 7/6 or 1.17. To reduce to 1:700 using a photocopier with reducing/enlarging capabilities the ratio of new to original will be 1/1.17 = 0.85. Set the the copier scale at 85% and copy. If the original is large it may have to be copied in sections and the prints pasted together. If working with reductions/enlargements that exceed the scale on the copier it will be necessary to do the work in stages. Make copies first at the lowest or highest limit as appropriate and then copy the resulting prints at a further reduction/enlargement. When measuring drawings use a metric scale, not feet and inches, and one of the most useful is a 1/500 surveyor's scale which is divided into 500 gradations on a 12in length. If all dimensions are converted to units on this scale there should be no confusion. Alternatively use a true metric scale and measure in millimeters. If a copier is not an option, and copying must be done by hand, purchase a set of proportional dividers. These can be set at the appropriate ratio and allow transfer of one dimension to the drawing at its new value. With best wishes to all for the holiday season. Michael London -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: "David Ian Moore" Subject: Re: Plans Reduction/Enlargement To Derek Wakefield Re Scale Plans enlagement reduction A fellow SMMLie had advised me there is a free downlaod program available called Scalecalc.com Have use it extensively and it is great for checking measurements, determining scale and converting from any scale to any scale simply by entering the actual and desired scale or measurements. A great program at a great price. Seasons best to all Ian Moore -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: AAA Hobby Subject: Re: Plans Reduction/Enlargement >> What is the proper mathmatical formula needed to reduce and/or enlarge plans to smaller/larger scales? I know this has been brought up here before, but I can't seem to find the message tonight. << The way to do it is very simple. Divide provide scale by desired scale (old/new) and multiply by 100 to get the copier percentages: 700 to 600 = 117% 600 to 350 = 171% 350 to 700 = 50% 192 to 350 = 55% 96 to 192 = 50% 96 to 87(HO) = 110% 96 to 72 = 133% 72 to 48 = 150% 48 to 32 = 150% Most copiers can handle between 25-200%. If you want to take a line drawing from a book that is 1/116 (one example I have done) to 1/700, the reduction is 0.1657142, below the ability of the copier. I simply take two steps, reduce the plan first to 1/350 (33%) and then take the copy to 700 (50%). This is one of the simplest formulas to follow, and if you get it backwards, it is very ready to spot as you would know that a 350 plan in 600 should be about half as big, not twice as big! James Corley AAA Hobby Supply email: aaahobby@earthlink.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: Richard Sweeney Subject: Lindberg Jolly Roger...I beg to differ.... Derek, The Lindberg Jolly Roger was, as were most of their ship kits, an old Pyro kit. Yes, It's an old mold, but it is by no means a generic ship... The "Jolly Roger" is actually the French Frigate "La Vestal" Built in 1756. She took part in the "Battle of Quiberon Bay" in 1759. She was captured by the British Frigate Unicorn in January 1761 and her name was changed to "The Flora." She served in the Royal Navy under Captain John Brisbane and was scuttle in Newport Rhode Island in August of 1778. The American's raised her in 1780 and re-fitted her, and she was employed as the American Privateer, "the Flora" until she was SOLD BACK to the French Navy and became "La Flore" until the French realised that they already had a "La Flore" and renamed her "La Reconnaissance." She was crusing off of Africa from 1787 to 1789, and her captain reported that "she steered well and heeled less than any warship in Europe". In 1792 the French navy decommissioned her and sold her to Sieur Faure de Rochefort for use as a privateer. She was captured again by the British in 1798, and sold in Admiralty Court. There are four paintings of her in British service by Francis Holman in the Peabody Museum in Salem, Ma. and there are two wooden models of her, one at "the Musee de la Marine" in Paris and one which was given to President John F. Kennedy by the French Minister of Culture when President and Mrs. Kennedy Visited France in the early 1960's. The second model is in the collection of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Dorchester, Massachusetts. The Kit is a bit rough but has all the right details, including the correct decorations on her stem and her stern galleries. Her major problem visually is the way the Main grateing goes into the Gun Deck, part of the deck is attached to the main hatch gratins and will not properly seat as part of the deck. The best solution is to use scribed Bass wood sheet cut to size to replace the deck. I used to work at the Kennedy Library and am very well aquainted with their model, the details of the Lindberg kit match almost perfectly. My Two cents worth. Richard Sweeney (Reference for ships history: "American Ships of the Colonial and Revolutionary Period. " John F Millar, W.W. Norton and Company, Inc. New York, New York. Copyright 1978, PP 128-131.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: "Steve" Subject: USS Baltimore My Christmas present to myself arrived yesterday in the form of Don Preul's 1/192 USS Baltimore hull. It is absolutely beautiful. All I need now are for the plans to arrive from Floating Drydock. Merry Christmas to all. Steve Sobieralski -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Friedrich Kappes Subject: Merry Christmas Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all of you! Thank you so much for the support you gave me in 2001!! See you in 2002!!! Friedrich The FriedrichFiles -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: JKrakow@aol.com Subject: Lindberg Jolly Roger Hi Derek A few years ago Lindberg re-released two old sailing vessel kits calling them "pirate ships" as a marketing ploy. One was a frigate (I think this was titled "Jolly Roger" by Lindberg) the other was a Man o' War (I think they called this one "Captain Kidd"). The "Jolly Roger" kit is actually a model of the French 18th Century Frigate "La Flore" armed with thirty 9-pounders and measuring 47 meters stem to stern. Due its distinctively French features such as a very narrow beam, converting this model into an accurate rendition of an American vessel may be problematic. Some privateers might have been based on French frigate designs, but I doubt if any Continental or USN vessels were. The "Captain Kidd" is a model of the Hansiatic vessel "Wappen von Hamburg" a Dutch design circa 1670. This is the better of the two kits. Although these kits do have some nice details, sailing ships tend to push the limits of plastic. Plastic masts, notorious for bending and sagging, are best replaced with real wood. Mimicing a varnished natural wood finish on the hull is a major challenge. Vacformed billowing sails with their massive molded in seams don't look very convincing. Nor do the molded plastic ratlines and clunky blocks. I don't care for the raised plank lines and cheezy simulated wood grain either. My bottom line opinion on these kits: be prepared for either a lot of labor using materials outside the box, or a toy-like finished product. Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject: Best Wishes It is my pleasure to express my appreciation for the encouragement and help I have received from and through SMML in my efforts to make my model as accurate and as "correct" as I can. It is indeed gratifying to know that such highly skilled modelers are so willing to share their knowledge and expertise with this rank amateur. And a very special thanks to the proprieters of SMML for their prodigious effort in keeping it going. We should never take such people for granted. Therefore, as one of my kids used to say (when he was still a kid), "I thank all of you, from my bottom to my heart". Please accept my sincerest best wishes to all of your families and to yourselves, not only for the Holiday Season, but for the endless future as well. Franklyn Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "Daniel Bauer" Subject: Holiday Greetings Merry Christmas from Guam! To all a Happy Holiday! Hope you all get what you asked for; a new model ship under your tree! God Bless you all! Dan Bauer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "George Sinkankas" Subject: Re: Actual scale of plans Just a note in response to Steve Wiper's message about stated scale versus true scale in AOTS books. Being a cataloging teacher by trade until my retirement, I've cataloged my collection of books on ships and ship modelling in some detail over the last 2 years, including about 90% of the AOTS titles, as well as numerous other books with plans on regular text pages, fold-outs, and separate sheets of plans. There are scale problems in all these areas, in AOTS and in many other books. In AOTS I've noticed more than one absolutely incorrect scale statement, e.g. where the legend might say "1:192" and the drawing is actually at 1:384. However, this actual mislabeling seems rare based on my recollected experience. Much more common is the omission of scale information entirely from what seems clearly to be a scaled drawing. My plan notes often include the phrase "scale unstated" to describe this omission. Many drawings in AOTS are actually labeled "no scale." This is a helpful disclosure that I reproduce in my notes so that "no scale" means something different from "scale unstated." The traditional approach to scale, and the best, is to give scale information by means of an actual scale ruler drawn on the plan itself by the draftsman, including information about the unit of measurement used on the scale. This makes recently-drawn plans largely immune to most kinds of scale-related error and misunderstanding. However, in older plans research may be necessary to determine just what the unit of measurement really is (see Chapman). Real standardization is surprisingly recent (just as real profanity is surprisingly ancient!). If you know the unit of measurement, a scale ruler also allows reasonably accurate conversion between English and metric measurement. From my experience, I believe that questions of publishing economics have often worked to make life more difficult for modellers. Often, plans were supplied with a book, but in very small scales, with the suggestion that the modeller enlarge them to produce the actual model. For example, a clipper might be depicted at 1:384 for a model intended to be at 1:192 or even 1:96. The cost savings for the publisher are obvious. Modellers, typically penniless but heroic, then used a grid system to enlarge each drawing; a laborious and inaccurate process. Today, scanning and Xerography can be used instead, and are cheap when compared to the time and care expended to produce even a small model. They are, however, not without cost to accuracy, owing to such things as line thickening, ill-adjusted machinery, or operator's mistakes. A more insidious problem is where a drawing is slightly larger or smaller than stated or expected. For example the stated scale might be "1:48," but measurement of the scale ruler (assuming one is present) discloses that, as printed, it is actually 1:50, or 1:49.1. Or, the unit of measurement on the scale rule looks like a foot, and looks 1/4" long at first glance, but careful measurement discloses that the drawing is again actually 1:50 or 1:49.2, etc. On a 1-sheet plan, not much of a concern. This problem gets worse when drawings are not only reproduced slightly off-scale, but inconsistently so. For example, you have five sheets of plans, all ostensibly at 1:48, and each with a helpful scale ruler drawn in some strategic location. You put a good caliper to each scale and discover that each plan is actually to a slightly (or even not-so-slightly!) different scale, e.g. 1:48 (lucky you!), 1:48.5, 1:50, 1:47, and so on. Authors on the subject have attributed this to changes in paper dimensions due to the environment, or error, incompetence, sloppiness, etc. in production, or both. And of course, different copies go to different environments. There's a Petrejus in Pheonix and a Petrejus in Seattle! The draftsman tried to get it right, and probably the publisher as well, but somewhere between source and destination the message got degraded. It is a principle of information science that all messages lose information in transmission; the only thing in question is how to minimize or compensate for this loss. Another problem is deliberate variance in the scale of drawings. First, though, it should be said that differently-scaled drawings, when the scales are chosen for the right reasons, are often very helpful, particularly when they supplement on-scale depictions of the same item. For example, a double-scale drawing depicting masthead detail can clarify the tangle of shrouds, cranes, blocks, etc. when laid beside an on-scale drawing of the same masthead. Ronnberg's 1:24 detail drawings of the masts of the Benjamin J. Latham (model at 1:48) are an excellent demonstration of the use of double-scale views. However, deliberate variation can be taken to the point where only a small number of the drawings are actually at the scale of the intended model. One hopes these are the key views: waterlines, body plan, overhead view, outboard profile. Rigging plans have often been given a reduced scale for economic reasons. When accompanied by model-scale views of masts and yards, paper and printing cost savings here seem reasonable. A more serious matter is when plans are enlarged or reduced to fit a specific sheet size. This can produce a huge range of scales. Even worse, modern printing technology seems to enable odd and strange reductions. Add to this a certain sloppiness in holding to an intended scale for what a modeller would consider the key drawings, and the results can be a nightmare for a modeller hoping to cut out a few parts and have them fit together! For example, here are excerpts from my catalog notes about the hull plan sheets enclosed with a recently published book: 1. outboard profile, scale ca. 1:64.8 2. inboard profile, ca. 1:65 3. upper deck, ca. 1:64.9 5. lower deck, ca. 1:55.1 7. lines and sheer plan, ca. 1:60.7 8. body plan and 1 cross section, ca. 1:47.8 9. hold plan, ca. 1:65, and 5 cross sections, ca. 1:65.5 10. cross sections at fore- and main masts with views of masts and yards, ca. 1:60 11. 2 cross sections, ca. 1:65.2, miscellaneous details, various scales 12. framing plan and profile, ca. 1:59.9 14. keel and upper deck framing plans, ca. 1:59.6 16. platform framing plan and inboard framing profile, ca. 1:59.6 17. framing details: outboard profile, and framing details: section, ca. 1:17.6 [an odd scale but an outstanding example of a helpful large-scale drawing!] 18. foremast sails, ca. 1:53.8 20. rigging profile (standing and running rigging plan), ca. 1:79.7 [an example of a rigging plan scale reduction] 22. foremast rigging, ca. 1:53.8 23. belaying plan, ca. 1:75.4 First, it must be said that this book is an outstanding work of scholarship and draftsmanship; that it is offered at a bargain price; that modellers intending to use the plans are by no means the only, or even the major, audience for the book; and that the book is a veritable cornucopia of graphic depictions created as an historical record of a vessel important to the history of a country. In short this is an outstanding work for which we should be thankful. It gives an important vessel a life on paper (and in our minds and hearts) that it no longer has in wood and iron. For this book, the draftsman provided every appropriate drawing with a scale ruler delineated in feet and located so as to make obvious which ruler belonged to which drawing. (Rulers weren't appropriate to some isometric and dimensioned drawings.) To get the actual scale as printed, I select a stretch of the ruler, measure that stretch carefully with a Starrett 6" digital caliper, then do some simple math to get a proportion, rounding off to the nearest tenth. The stretch selected is substantial (e.g. 20 feet for a 1:64 drawing, or 5 feet for a 1:20 drawing), and always taken from inside the ruler to avoid any errors at the ends. Points are placed carefully. While not totally accurate, this method is pretty good. As can be seen by the extracts, no two drawings are to exactly the same scale, and even drawings that appear as if they were meant to be the same scale actually vary from sheet to sheet. My impression is that the major (my word; the author made no such claim) plans were intended to be printed at 1:64. None of them are actually 1:64; instead they vary from around 1:64.8 to 1:65.5. This range seems minor. However, the body plan is printed at 1:47.8, the keel profile is at 1:59, and the lines and sheer plans are at 1:60.7. These larger variations make it difficult to cut out, set up, and smooth either a lift-built or POB hull at 1:64. I don't think these results are what the draftsman intended, but they are what was published. Modellers need a related set of views in order to create a 3-dimensional object from a 2-dimensional depiction. For a lift-built hull, the members of this set are at a dead minimum the sheer, waterline, and body plans. These really must be at the same scale. Other views, such as buttock lines, diagonals, outboard profiles, etc. are also most helpful if at the same scale. The only lesson to be drawn from the discussion is to check before you begin. Measure the scale ruler of every plan, do the math, then annotate the plan with its actual as-printed scale. Some key plans can be scanned and enlarged or reduced. I guess 1:64.8 to 1:65.5 is OK, but reducing the body plan, keel plan, lines and sheer plans (3 sheets in this book) to as close to 1:64 as possible might make sense to a scratch-builder just beginning work, regardless of cost. These comments have been made primarily about books that discuss ships and document their discussions with plans (e.g. AOTS titles), or that describe model projects and supply plans for the modeller to use in the project (e.g. Petrejus). Other plans are sold specifically as plans for model builders, and may or may not be associated with a book or set of directions (e.g. Hahn or Ronnburg). Still others are documentation for actual ships, and not really intended for models at all (e.g. NMM plans). All should be greeted with equal caution, and surveyed with equal care, before grabbing that sheet of plywood and heading for the scroll saw. Merry Christmas to all who keep it! GMS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: IAAFru2@aol.com Subject: Re: Update on the latest Classic Warships Books! >> Warship Pictorial #16 USS New Jersey BB-62 (Photo Album) << When can we expect it? I'm modeling the New Jersey and any help I can get will be of great benefit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: JRKutina@webtv.net (John Kutina) Subject: Maritime Disasters of the Second World War http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/maritime.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: NEVENGER@aol.com Subject: Plans Reduction/Enlargement I have been using this little program for a while and it works perfectly for me. Goto the site listed below and load the free shareware file at the bottom called scalecalc.exe it is a very simple program with a lot of power. It will do the reductions and enlargement from one scale or size to another in both metric and inches/feet http://www.slickmodel.com.br/acessorio.htm Sincerely, Rich -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: Richard Sweeney Subject: Lindberg "Jolly Roger" Part II Derek, If you would like a more detailed paint scheme based on the Model at the Kennedy Library, email me off line, it's basically in a brightsides pattern with Gold on Black Quarter galleries and Red Bulwarks, and white lead below the waterline. But there is more to it than that. Richard Sweeney -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17) From: "A. H. Lindstrom" Subject: Re: Lindberg Jolly Roger I actually built the Lindberg Jolly Roger recently with my daughter for an 8th grade history/science project. No idea what the kit is really supposed to represent and I didn't care - we actually just need a generic sailing ship - it was fun building something where I didn't have to worry in the slightest about accuracy for once. Alan Lindstrom -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18) From: "Robert Hill" Subject: Seasons greetings To the Webmaster and my friends all over the world; may the Grace of our Lord be with us all, Merry Christmas to all. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19) From: Gord and Doreen Smith Subject: Re: Plans Reduction/Enlargement >> What is the proper mathmatical formula needed to reduce and/or enlarge plans to smaller/larger scales? I know this has been brought up here before, but I can't seem to find the message tonight. << Hi Derek, Before I got my computer/scanner/printer/software I used to use my office copier to change plans (some times piece by piece). I finally learned that you take the longest diagonal measurement of your plan and decide on the longest diagonal measure of your new plan; a ratio of one to the other gave me the size change to set on the copier (the fun started when the change ratio was greater than that allowed by the copier). Gordo Canada -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20) From: Loren Perry Subject: Re: "Nuclear Carrier" >> I found this 1986 magazine entitled "Nuclear Carrier" by the editors of Sea Classics. After reading it I noticed that it was written by our own SMMLie Mr. Loren Perry. Nice work. Very nice work. I envy you in being able to go on an operational cruise like that, rather than the rest of us who can only visit a ship while in port. << Ah, yes, those were the days. Glad you liked it. It's going to be my primary reference when I build my own 1/720 version of the Vinson in the near future. Loren Perry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21) From: "Axel Wolters" Subject: Lindberg Jolly Roger Hi all, A merry christmas and a happy, peaceful and healthy new year. The Lindberg Jolly Roger originally was offered as french frigate "La Flore" several years ago, I had built it in the 70s. The same for "Captain Kidds Pirate ship", which originally was the german "Wappen von Hamburg" from the 17th century. The pirate ship kit still has the original decals for the flags, a yellow "H" for Hamburg! Seems as the ships sold not well in the USA, because nobody knew these ships, so they were reboxed to pirate ships. Hope this is helpful. Axel Wolters Moenchengladbach Germany -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model club & SMMLcon Infomation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Mistress Lorna Subject: SMML site update After you've all eaten and drunk more than is good for you on the 25th, instead of having a nap, check out Jim Baumann's models in the Members Models section along with the latest from Chris Drage. Truly fantastic models, practically guaranteed to make you want to get to the modelling bench. Or have a look at the launch of HMS Bulwark in the Reference section. Of course the latest archives (1414-1453) have also been added. May you all have a great holiday season Lorna -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRADERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS & NOTICEBOARD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Loren Perry Subject: New GMM PE Gold Medal Models' all new 1/700 PE set for the new Revell plastic kit of the modern LHD assault ship USS Wasp/USS Essex is now in stock and shipping has begun. See the GMM website for more information: www.goldmm.com This class of large modern warships is now involved in the destruction of the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden's forces in Afghanistan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Backissues, Member's models & reference pictures at: http://smmlonline.com Check out the APMA site for an index of ship articles in the Reference section at: http://apma.org.au/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume