The Ship Model Forum

So I got the plans for the ship I'm planning on building, the S.S. LYLEPARK of 1929, sunk in 1942 by the raider MICHAEL.

I've got a shell expansion plan in 1/48th, mast and rudder plans in 1/24th, hull lines and general arrangement in 1/96th, and I'm planning on building her in 1/72.

What would be best, having the plans (upto 8' long) photocopied and rescaled? Use a digital camera on a tripod to digitize the plans? Have them professionally digitized (if possible)?

For cutting the hull ribs, how much should I trim off for the hull skin, when I am planning on having it R/C? 1/16th of an inch, and use 32nd balsa and fibreglass?

Thanks, probably more questions later!

I'd definitely scale up the hull cross-sections, along with the stem and stern profiles, at the very least, using a photocopier.

1/96th to 1/72nd means you'll need to multiply by 4/3rds - but do check the copier (whether this is done professionally or by yourself) by drawing a square of a known size on a piece of paper, scale it up, and then check that the output gives you the size you'd expect across both axes.

If the cross sections have been taken at original frame numbers, you'd be best working out what these frames' distances were in real life, rather than just scaling a length in mm. For a vessel of this provenance and timeframe the hull would have been built to imperial units, so measure off the 1/96th scale plan (thinking "eight feet to the inch") before marking out on your keel (thinking "six feet to the inch" - making a ruler for both scales is recommended.)

For example, if I measured 57.5mm on the plan, between two frames, that's 18.110 feet "in real life". But I can assume it's more likely that this measurement was 18 feet in the shipyard (and therefore should be 57.15mm on the plan - something I can also assume I can't measure accurately enough). So I'd put these frames three inches (18 feet) apart.

Understanding the measurements on the original ship means that you can dramatically tighten up a small set of plans when enlarging them. My experience with my Dreadnought (plan at 1/384th, frames at 1/192nd, and model at 1/72nd) led me to redraw the plans at model size, safe in the knowledge that I was dealing with 2' and 3' original spaces between frames, and had the original overall dimensions of the vessel to guide me.

With regards to hull skinning I am sure 1/32nd is too thin for balsa. Other than the risks of putting your finger through it during plating, it'll be hard to ensure that the butt edges glue together well, and that the skin takes true curves between frames. I used 1/16th balsa, and shouldn't have done. I would have found 1/8th much better. I fibreglassed the inside for more rigidity (this also means the frames and skin are extremely well bonded) and have plated the outside with cartridge paper - since I also had a shell plating diagram and wanted to replicate it.

Once you have the frames blown up, I'd highly recommend trimming them down to a size allowing for your hull skinning - but think more like 1/8th for your balsa and 1/32nd for a skin of resined fibreglass tissue, if external.

Phew...long reply.

Andy

Thanks Andy

The longer the reply, the more information. Thanks.

I'd never use balsa to plank a hull , balsa is to weak ...

I use for such big hulls 3mm thick ply on 5mm thick frames ...

using such thickness for the planking allows you to skip the fibreglassing process

Regards ,

Laurent

I just looked at the plans again, and the vertical ribs shown are about 40 scale feet apart.
However, it has horizontal ribs at 6-10 feet apart.

Would I have to use both, in order to have the closest to original hullform?

...

Why go there, in scratch build there.s 15 pages of building IRON DUKE, pictures and text, it will give you more ideas.

...

Ingura, Im not surgesting he does not go there, Im saying while he is here, Iron Duke is a good artical to look at.

The Iron Duke thread is more for once someone's already started.

I'm surprised to see in the link provided by Ingura that the modeller doesn't count the thickness of the planking , the guy cuts the frames are they are drawn , but they should be thinner by the planking thickness ...

just my thoughts ...

Laurent

...my apologies, Ingura, but I perceived your post as a slight toward Ron, a fellow that has done much for scratchbuilders and has never been one to withhold good ideas and advice.

Laurent wrote:I'm surprised to see in the link provided by Ingura that the modeller doesn't count the thickness of the planking , the guy cuts the frames are they are drawn , but they should be thinner by the planking thickness ...just my thoughts ...Laurent

Hello Laurent, I am on here all the time, reading, enjoying, but do not post very often.

It is not accurate what you said. I spent a lot of time planning how to accomodate the exact thickness of the planks I cut. To quote myself from my web site,

How to Build a Battleship Model from Scratch:The S.M.S. Pommern wrote:Station Templates
"Plank on frame" seemed to be the standard for building a hull, so this is what I decided to do. I thought the frames were called "bulkheads" but they
seem to be referred to as "hull stations" so this is what I will call them. The sheet for the hull station templates was reduced to 96% of its original
size to account for the thickness of the planks I planned on using.

HERE is the page. What I do admit to being, is the world's slowest ship model builder.

Hey guys, give him some credit, she said he reduced the frames to 96% to allow for the planking, that sounds right.

...

ARH wrote:Hey guys, give him some credit, she said he reduced the frames to 96% to allow for the planking, that sounds right.

Hi again !

Sorry , I didn't see this ...

Consider I didn't say anything , all right ?

Regards ,

Laurent

Well Ingura that really offends me , I dont mind you posting the picture, but to leave off the writing.


Hi Guys, As you can see from the bow shot still work to do on the hull.



The hull was just a flimsy piece of resin and paste , no guts, and like all bow shots not exactly square on,

Tony & Kaiser wrote:What I do admit to being, is the world's slowest ship model builder.

Want to bet on that?

Andy

...

Andy G wrote: Want to bet on that? Andy

I accept your challenge Andy! I laid my keel for SMS Pommern in the spring of 2002. After the making the basic hull, I jumped to building the funnels, decks, guns, etc, I am just now finally completing the hull. So I am on my sixth year.....