Thanks Ross👍

Hi Ross, we will be amazed to see all the servos and winches working together.
This naval model will be amazing to see even before we get in the water, make lots of videos please.

I thought you'd made 'em from cotton reels😉
Nice job👍

😎

Are you getting revenge Ross? ahahahaha.
Yours is a much more interesting and difficult dilemma than my little playful question.

Jokes aside, looking at (and above all admiring) your hull inside I was wondering if you intend to strengthen it with brushes of epoxy resin.
I ask you because I don't see many transversal support structures amidships (and it's an advantage because you have all the free space). If you've already covered this topic and I've forgotten, please excuse me.

You will probably put the batteries in the center. I believe servos and winches will correspond to the respective sails and rudder.

I'm curious to see the internal layout. Please take lots of photos and videos.

Mr Holmes, I believe the game is afoot😁

Yes Ross, of course you can put the beams on each rib, you don't have to show them to me, I believe it. The question is that if you put them, how do you access the inside of the hull to replace the batteries, or for maintenance/repair of any faults?
The question could be asked in another way: which and how many openings on the deck do you intend to make?
However, I think I understood that I would not use epoxy resin to reinforce the hull (I mean only inside of course).
I would definitely put it, one hundred percent, because the advantages are too high not to put it. Basically, as already said, you get a very resistant shell, in exchange for an insignificant increase in weight and bulk.
However, I am not recommending it, in fact forget what I told you, because I would not want to be the cause of some problem with the epoxy resin. Not all epoxy resins are easy to handle and, certainly, they are not healthy. In fact, they are very toxic.
On the count of three forget all my nonsense: one, two, three, ahahahahahah.

Perfect.
When I see it I will be able to understand much better.

Hi Ross, sorry if I ask you questions but don't overestimate me. I need to understand, give me some more details and don't assume that I understand everything.
For example, what data do the columns of A, B, C and D contain and in what units of measurement are they expressed?
Are you going to calculate the areas of the immersed sections, then multiply each one by the distances between them and finally add these portions of volume or do you adopt another method that you studied?
Do you remember the method that I used for JockScott, the alternative to the software, is it the same or similar?
Sorry if I ask stupid questions.

One thing is very clear: you know the displacement of the original Bluenose therefore, since you know how to apply the scale factor to the volumes, you easily arrived at the measurement that you should finally obtain, that is about 18.6 liters.
Congratulations, a real beast to transport.

Hi again another thing I frequently do is to work out the expected underwater volume of the prototype and then work out what size model I want.
Then scale it down. This usually produces a hull which is either too light or unstable. Using experience to judge what a practical model should weigh, I see about making the hull larger.

Some years ago I was asked to take a scale display model of a sailing yacht, and make it a practical sailing boat with RC.

The model is a metre long but weighed in at just 7 pounds. I calculated a minimum displacement of the hull for sailing and decided on around 11 pounds.

Lots of thinking came up with having no noticeable changes in hull shape. I did this by double planking with the first planking at 3mm and then the kit supplied 1mm planking diagonally on top. Unexpectedly the fine point of the bow increased the length by 2 cm, well you can't think of everything!

This was not enough. I gained the rest by making the keel fatter and extending it down by about 6 inches and then fitted a bulb keel.

The model is still available as a kit and is the Amati Endeavour Americas cup yacht at 1:35 scale.
The yacht has an enormous sail area and would overwhelm the model. So this was cut back which also allowed a backstay to be fitted.
You may have to pay extra for the conversion information.

Roy

Have you tried the old methods? I get a good estimate using the Prismatic coefficient.
This takes the immersed centre area bulkhead area multiply by the length at the waterline and apply the coefficient for that type of hull which will be a decimal value.

Yachts are around 0.45 - 0.55 ranging to bulk carriers at 0.95. A solid block would be 1.0.

Another way for similar ended hulls is to treat the ends as half each so two ends = 1 and then calculate the centre portion.

The first programme I ever wrote was to produce a look-up fanfold printout to do just this. That would be in 1966 and written in PLAN.
I hate programming! It can take you over thinking about it. I leave it all to my son.

https://www.nautilusshipping.com/form-coefficient-of-ship

Roy

I started learning the basics from an EUP notebook size book called 'Teach yourself Naval Architecture'

I got halfway!
Roy

Good evening to all naval modelers.

I mainly answer to the double R: Roy and Ross, but this message is for all modelers interested in this topic.
I thank Ross for reopening it.
Actually, let me say one thing: I really like it, in fact I adore "much ado about nothing".
I already said that for those who design a hull for a sailboat from scratch, knowing certain information is important, in fact essential. But here we talk about it for pure pleasure and I like to hear your ideas, especially from people so prepared and sharp.

Tonight I really got behind with the messages, there is a lot of meat and cooking and I hope I understood everything you said.
I will reread it better even after this message.

So I start from Roy's message in this topic that begins like this: "Have you tried the old methods? I get a good estimate using the Prismatic coefficient..."
And I will follow the discussion in chronological order.
I speak as a layman and ignorant compared to you but the prismatic coefficient method, although valid, is not the most precise, in my opinion.
It is certainly the fastest.
If you remember, in the topic (see link at the end) of the Esso Deutchland tanker by JockScott (hey Jock, greetings from me, you see that your question was very interesting) we had addressed this issue.
More precisely in message no. 33 of that topic, dating back to about nine months ago, I had compared the final results of three methods to calculate the immersed volume.
The methods were the following:
- 3d software method.
- mathematical/geometric method (without 3d software).
- prismatic coefficient method.

The most precise value is the one provided by the software. However, you need to have the software and you need to know how to use it.

The prismatic coefficient method is fast but the least precise.

The method I called "mathematical/geometric" is very laborious and long, but precise and does not require software.
I will not repeat it here (I described it in the second attached link).
I have not read it anywhere, it seemed the most logical and natural to me, especially when I learned to draw (badly and little unfortunately) with Rhinoceros.
Of course I have not invented anything new and who knows how long it has been used. I simply want to say that (for having arrived at it by myself) it is quite simple and intuitive.

Before moving on, a question please: in point no. 1, where you write:
1 Measure area of ​​2 adjacent stations.
Are you referring to submerged sections? In that case, how do you calculate the areas of sections with curved lines (that are not circles, ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas etc. etc. i.e. not identifiable by a mathematical formula or function)? Do you use the method I used for JockScott?

The method that Ross intends to follow, instead, seems different from all the three listed. I think I understood it from these sentences of yours:
"This isn't the usual 'measure the area of ​​the cross-sections and multiply by the length' I did that in high school, and it worked well. I want to try something different this time. This is not my tested and proven method yet. It is still being developed."
Probably the method you discarded is, with some small variations, the one I prefer and use (in the absence of software).
Well, this intrigues me a lot. I am absolutely curious to see it.
It doesn't matter if it won't be a sure success, the mere fact of trying is a merit from my point of view, you have all my moral support.

Well, now let's get to your method.
I think you explained it from the point where you start with this sentence:
"So, visualize an imaginary box that the vessel ..."
I have to be honest. I need to reread it a few times and maybe I'll ask you more questions to understand better, (sorry but translations always put me in difficulty) but like this, at first glance, it seems to me a compendium between the calculation method that Jock Scott empirically did and infinitesimal calculus (but very empirical-practical and without formulas).
If I understood correctly, this method becomes more precise the more cubes of subdivision there are. That is, if instead of 28 units you use many more (increasing the subdivision) you increase the precision.
However, whether I understood or not, it is truly a method that interests me a lot, logical and not impossible to apply in practice. You have my full attention. I will follow all the developments.

Finally, I take a small step back to your question:
"Question I ask here, are there techniques that will allow paper drawn curves to be transferred to computer hull design programs? "
I don't know if I have understood your doubt perfectly but I can tell you that if I have a drawing done on paper, after having scanned it, I have no problem with Rhinoceros to trace all the lines (frames, keel, water lines etc. etc.) in order to reproduce the drawing on Rhino. Creating the hull surface and the volumes is much more difficult (at least for me, not for the good ones).
I already did it for the JockScott tanker.
So if I understood the question correctly, the answer is: Yes, it can be done.
However, if I understood the question correctly, if my answer is correct, your method continues to interest me a lot.

https://model-boats.com/forum/131081

https://model-boats.com/wiki/133196

Remembering back too many years I recall multiplying frame areas 1-4-2-4-2-4-1 and doing things to them I have forgotten.

On another point of kit production by Deans. Ron told me that they obtained permission to produce models from original plans by Camper and Nicholson.

We had a couple of motor yachts, Melita and Dufresne and the very large yacht Blue Leopard. The proviso was that he could use only the prototype drawings and not adjust them for a model.

I talked to Ron when Blue Leopard was first put on the market. He challenged me to find out what he had done. As I knew what to look for I saw he had made the keel very wide to gain more displacement.

I was hoping to have the model to do a build review for the International Boat modeller magazine. The then editor was also a yachtsman and did not like the way it was set up as a model and said he did not want it reviewed.
I was a bit 'iffy' about it as well so there we are.

If anyone is interested the original Blue Leopard model yacht, which when viewed, does look good on the water is now on sale.

I have sailed this one as Ron let me take her out for a spin at the late Pangbourne model boat show now defunct and she does sail well.

Roy