Good evening everyone.

I spent a lot of time on this piece. It is shown in the first images.
In Italian it is called "pazienza" which in English would be translated as patience.
I think it's better to call it a bitt or bollard.
The belay pins are inserted onto the boards.
In reality there are two bitts, one on each tree.
I spent a lot of time understanding how those from the mid-19th century were made.
I also looked for the precise dimensions of the belay pins (or belaying pins) to be able to scale them to the right size.
Finally I had to figure out how many running maneuvers to have. Each maneuver corresponded to a belay pin.

The other problem was the opening of the "ports", i.e. the openings for the cannons.
A separate topic should be opened on the cannons of that period, as the topic is vast and interesting.
Unfortunately (that I know of) no model house produces cannons from that period. There are many previous and subsequent periods but none from that period.
They are mainly the Dahlgreen types, from the United States.
I tried to reproduce them with the 3D drawing from some photos, not having the exact measurements, and then I had them printed in 3D. But this should be seen later. Now I will only talk about the openings because I modified the initial plan a bit.
In the end, after much racking, I created eight openings for as many cannons positioned in battery.
In reality, to respect the war layout of a gunboat, I would have had to put one cannon in the hunt (and not all in battery) or one amidships. I also should have differentiated the artillery pieces. Those in the hunt and amidships of larger caliber.
I couldn't put the cannon in the hunt because it would have hindered the maneuvers of the jibs (already difficult enough for me) and there was no space.
With the piece amidships I would have had to demolish a large part of the bulwark and I didn't like the idea at all.
Many choices are conditioned by the fact that this is an RC model and I always had to find the right compromise.

Hello everyone

In one of the previous posts of this same topic I talked about the fumel.

To create this piece, I used the usual Rhinoceros program and then had a friend of mine print the piece.
I already didn't like the print very much due to the knurling but what removed any doubts was the deformation due to the heat (probably due to exposure to the sun).
So I decided not to use it and find another path.

In order to reduce the weight of an element placed so high (and therefore very influential on the position of the center of gravity) I tried to use lightweight materials.
All attempts to use plastic materials, for example by cutting pipes to size, were just a useless waste of time.
In the end I used an aluminum tube.

The main problem was to create particular pieces. Rather than describe them, I'll show them in photos.
They are the ones indicated by the arrows in the second photo.

Needless to say, the result with the 3D printer was terrible, so I adopted a method that is unusual for many but now consolidated for me.
I drew the piece in 2d, then glued it onto thin sheets of plastic which I joined together to form a single piece from multiple layers.
I am satisfied with the result and recommend this method to other model makers because the piece came out precise, light and very resistant.

The sequence of images shows the main assembly phases and the materials used. I'll spare you the details of cutting and other obvious steps.
To give the right inclination to the fumel I used a suitably shaped wooden foot.

Unfortunately I didn't think about setting up a system that emits smoke.

I remembered in school when we learned about Pi (3.14....) how it was calculated. The circle was segmented in ever smaller triangles.
I have to get the pictures together and will post it.

Hi JockScott.

I didn't understand this sentence: "Reminds how the value of Pi was calculated".

If you have a frame file I can try to import it into Rhinoceros. Rhinoceros can create files both in the proprietary format and in other formats (dwg, stl, pdf, etc. etc.) so I think it can also import them.
You can give it a try.

I have never tried to copy designs or import them into Rhinoceros because I made my design from scratch, without copying or importing anything.
However, I know that this is possible.

However, the rectangle method that I have illustrated is useful for those who do not have 3D software available.
All you need are the frames on paper or photocopy (which you will surely have), a pencil, a drawing square and a calculator, time and patience. The PC is not needed.

The discussion on the methods of calculating the volume was born from the topic of Chris who is building the Inga1v.
If the aim is to be able to calculate the submerged volume (and consequently the weight of the ship) we can follow these methods but if the aim is only to obtain the data, the best method (as I also told Chris) is the test in water.

If you want, send me just one frame of yours, let's try it. But remember to draw a line above to delimit the immersed section.


If we can do it for an immersed section we can then do it for all of them. Subsequently, with the distances between the frames we calculate the volume.

Very interested and thank you for detailing the process. Reminds how the value of Pi was calculated.
Without your rhinoceros program it will be too cumbersome to attempt a calculation. I did it very rough some time go to determine how much ballast I have to add to my model to reach loaded draft.
I can send you the frame drawings and distances between the frames if you like to give it a go.

Hi JockScott, good evening everyone.

I explain better what I wanted to say in the last post.

3D software helps a lot, as you said.
In the first two images you can see how the data relating to the immersed surface (of the frame) is quickly obtained with just a single command.
I took the immersed part of a random frame of my model.

The data that the system detects, with extreme precision, is 9259 mm2.
In my case the small rectangle of the keel should be added (very easy to calculate and always the same).

If you have time available (and desire to do so), take the drawing of your ordinate (only the immersed section) and draw rectangles across the curved line as in image no. 3 and following.

Calculating the individual areas of rectangles and adding them is very simple.


Rectangle 1 75 mm x 4mm=300 mm2
Rectangle 2 73 x 8 = 584 mm2
Rectangle 3 70 x 8 = 560 mm2
Rectangle 4 67 x 8 = 536 mm2
Rectangle 5 65 x 8 = 520 mm2
Rectangle 6 61 x 8 = 488 mm2
Rectangle 7 57 x 8 = 456 mm2
Rectangle 8 53 x 8 = 424 mm2
Rectangle 9 45 x 8 = 360 mm2
Rectangle 10 37 x 6 = 222 mm2
Rectangle 11 27 x 4 = 108 mm2
Rectangle 12 17 x 5 = 85 mm2


4643 mm2 x 2 = 9286 mm2


Rhinoceros = 9259 mm2



In this case I only took 12 rectangles as seen in the photo and as you can see the result is very close to the exact one.
With more rectangles you have greater precision.
At infinity they are the same.

Using rectangles and triangles for the reconstruction, we would be more precise but a little longer.
Portions of the curved line should be approximated to the hypotenuses of the final right triangles.

To obtain the volume, multiply the area of the immediate section by the distance from the next frame and then add all the volumes obtained.

This is an empirical method. I don't think he's the only one.
I'd like to know more (not too difficult); if anyone would like to expose them I would be happy to read the contents.

Well yes, JockScott, you are right, with Rhinoceros it is easy to calculate areas.
Without a 3D program it is much more difficult, which is why I say that the water test method is the best.

If one wanted to and had a lot of time available, and a lot of patience, they would have to draw many rectangles on the edges of the immersed section.
The sum of the areas of the rectangles is the desired surface.
The more rectangles you draw, the more precise the calculation is.
This must be done for each immersed section but it is sufficient to do it only for half the section and then multiply by two.
The more sections you take into consideration, the more precise the calculation is but I believe that ten is more than enough.

Lucky to be able to use the 3D Rhinoceros program. I would have a hard time to calculate surface areas from a frame outline.😊

Good evening to all modelers and in this case in particular to Chris who is busy building the Inga1V.

To calculate the immersed volume, various methods can be followed.
In my opinion, the best method, and infallible if it is a small scale model, is the practical one in water.
I won't repeat how I did it because I already wrote it and it's very simple.

As regards the theoretical methods, in my case, having done the project on the 3d Rhinoceros program, the fastest and most precise method would have been to use the command: "Analyze/Mass Properties/Volume".
Since it was not possible to close the hull volume, this command is not applicable.
Then I multiplied the area of the immersed Sections by the length.
Since I could do it, I cut out ten sections at regular distances and was able to apply this simple calculation.
Surfaces 0=0
1=2956 mm2
2=5107
3=7474
4=9072
5=9173
6=8780
7=8162
8=7158
9=4667
10=0

Displacement: Sum of surfaces x distance between them
62549 x 83.32=5211582.68 mm3

5.21 dm3
5 kg roughly


It is a simplification compared to the sum of the individual products of the area of the submerged sections and the individual distances between them, starting from the bow to the stern.

For fun I calculated the volume of the prism (12462 mm x 833 mm = 10.38 dm3) and comparing it with the immersed volume I got the result 0.5.

Thanks Doogle.

I'm glad the text was understandable, I always have some doubts.

However, you always have very kind words.

Very impressed Alessandro 👏, well documented and informative 👏

Greetings to all the modelers on this forum.

I will now illustrate how I built some elements that are on the deck.

The images concern the construction of the skylight and the ladders (which connect the bow deck with the main deck).
I omit the construction phases of the gratings, you will simply see them appear in the most recent images of the bridge.
For the latter, small strips with teeth that must be joined together are sold. The hardest part is creating the perfectly square outline.

The grating seen in the photo, highlighted with the red arrow, is oblique (crooked) because it was only placed, it had not yet been glued.

For the skylight, the sequence of photos makes up for a written comment well. I designed the skylight myself, inventing it, but I looked at many photos of both real ships from that era and scale models.

For the lineup I wanted to write two lines about the method used.
It could be a tip for other modelers.

I first tried drawing the spaces for the steps directly on the wood.
However, the smallest unit on a square or ruler is the millimeter.
Too big for such a small item. In fact it was too imprecise and consequently crooked.
The caliber was not practical to use in this context, so I chose to use Rhinoceros.
I created the pdf file and printed it on paper.
I cut out the useful parts that I glued to the strips.
Finally I cut the wood directly following the lines of the drawing. In the end I did the job in less time and with more precision.

Probably if I had found some ready-made ladders in a model shop I would have bought them, but there weren't the size I needed.
In addition to checking whether the height and width were suitable for positioning on the model, I was careful that the step was in scale with the real one.

The yellow arrows indicate the screw holes used to lock the covers. The (unsightly) screws will be greased and covered. They will never be visible once the model is completed.

The black arrows point to brass wires. The brass cables are threaded into the holes where the sheets will pass. The brass cables are used to prevent the holes (also made of brass) from sticking with glue and other materials during the manufacturing phases. They will only be released in the final stages when the sheets are passed.

Health to all.

I wanted to illustrate some phases that may be interesting for those who have never done them and could give me an alternative to the processing method.

I always have the impression of not choosing the best technique or the fastest.
I gladly accept every suggestion.

Here's how I proceeded for Capodibanda "Gunwales" (In order not to create misunderstandings on words I indicate it with a red arrow):

Unfortunately I do not find the photos showing the various slaughtered strips, I'm afraid of having overwritten the files.
Since I would never have managed to bend such a wide strip, I created the Gunwales by combining three smaller walnut strips with a square section. You can see the pen drawing.
The three square strips of walnut, logically, had been folded to follow the shape of the bulwark (green arrow).
Gunwales is glued on the bulwark. Gunwales is more protruding than the bulwark.
On the internal part, since the unsightly signs of the bending were seen, I glued a very thin strip (0.5 mm) and therefore very easy to bend.
It remained to cover the part above with a very wide (8-10 mm) and very thin (0.5 mm) strip, so as not to show the unsightly union of the three square strips of walnut.
Not being able to curve the latter strip, it has been cut into various pieces. The unions are seen only in the bow and aft (yellow arrows).

Then I cut and glued the Scalmotti (Futtock, Timber, Bulwark Stanchion?), Indicated in the photo with the blue arrow.

If I was wrong the terms of the elements indicated with the arrows please correct me.

For the moment I jump the description of the parasartie (Channel?) Indicated with the black arrow, because I then had to do them again.
I can anticipate that in the project I had put them too far. Then observing thousands of photos, ships of the time, I realized that that was the wrong position. But this is an intersery topic of sailing naval technique and I would like to talk about it aside.

Hi everyone.

The following photos represent the construction of the stringer.
It wasn't easy to bend that walnut strip.

I couldn't use Rhinoceros' 3D drawing to bring the stringer back to paper in 2D, because I had made too many changes during construction.
The modifications consisted of reinforcing the bow with several layers of battens.
So I used an empirical method that you can see with the sequence of photos.
Maybe it's better this way than a difficult description.
At the stern the piece was not a single piece but several cut pieces.

Hi River Rat, thank you.

I colored all the edges of the strips with 2b pencil before gluing them.

Then I ran the pencil between the cracks after gluing.

Very nice decking, what are you using to simulate caulking. You do very good work, thanks for sharing. I look forward to your trials. RR

Thank you very much Jumpugly, I am very pleased that an attentive observer like you follows my work.

Complimenti per l'italiano, bravissimo!

E' una cosa bellissima Alessandro! 😊

... Creation, positioning and battening of the bow upper deck

...

...Reinforcement of the handrail with mahogany strips and then with Tanganyika walnut strips on the inside...

Welcome everyone.

The following photos show the deck covering with Tanganyika walnut wood slats (it is a lighter walnut).
The Tanganyika walnut strips are 3 mm wide and 0.5 mm thick.

To carry out this coverage I proceeded as follows:
I glued them to the deck along their entire length, starting from the center (i.e. from the longitudinal centerline of the ship) and continuing towards the ends.

Before gluing the strips I had the first dilemma:
Was there a single strip in the center or two placed side by side?
In other words, should I start with a single slat in the center (the first photo) and then place the others next to it on the left and right? And so they would have been an odd number?
Or draw a central line and place the slats next to it on the left and right? In this way the number of strips would be even.
After many requests for information, viewing texts, images and videos of ships of the time, I came to the conclusion that both ways were valid.
As you can see from the photos I chose the second solution, the number of strips is even.

Following my historical research, I concluded that the boards used were roughly between 5 and 6 meters long. In 1/60 scale this means slats 90 mm long.
Logically, I didn't create the 90mm pieces first and then glue them, but I used a small chisel to carve the entire slats, which extended from bow to stern.
I followed a very precise design (consistent with historical information) of alternating the tables.
In reality the ends of the boards rested on the beams (coinciding with the "bulwark stanchion, stood, stay" "brackets").
I respected this feature on the model too.
I followed the sequence shown in the diagram using a drawing made on cardboard.

For the black spaces between the strips (which simulate pitch) I simply used pencil (black is graphite). Some model makers use black cardstock, as I later discovered, but I don't regret the method used.

I didn't feel it necessary to reproduce the nails in the boards, because in reality they were covered by wooden caps. Furthermore, in scale, they would have been too small to see.

The final result, once painted, was acceptable. Unfortunately, the cuts caused by opening the covers and screws ruined the aesthetics.

I tried to cut following the design of the strips but a good closure was not guaranteed, so I gave up. So, finally, I made clean cuts along the openings of the lids.

In some photos you can see the smokestack. This was initially made entirely with the 3D printer (on a design I made with Rhinoceros).
That piece warped (curved slightly) from the heat, so I threw it away and chose another way to build it.
Afterwards it came out much better. I'm very satisfied with that, then you'll see and judge for yourselves.

In conjunction with the deck slats, I reinforced the entire handrail with mahogany slats and then with Tanganyika walnut slats on the inside.

The precise location of the hawse hole (the hole where the anchor chain passes through) required further research in books and the internet. The hawse hole is made of brass, then it will be colored blue like the hull.

Hello to all naval modelers.

In the first videos you can see some tests of electrical absorption at low rpm and without impediments (apart from the friction of this fluid that we call water).
Unfortunately I haven't documented them all.
Engine tests, vibration tests and rudder tests at low rpm.
The others, with forced rotations, are not documented but, if you want to believe me, it performed well enough to induce me to continue with the construction.
The ammeter was protected up to 10 amps then it was removed.
Don't pay attention to the chaos of cables, of course, they were then shortened and arranged in symmetrical order. The heaviest cables are at the bottom in the special pre-cut guides of the frames and the smaller ones are positioned along the longitudinal reinforcement squares.

The videos of the dry tests of the propeller and rudder follow.


Then there are videos of other lateral stability tests almost at full load.

In this post I would also like to show you how I made the decks.
As you may have already understood, this type of steamer does not have any superstructures on the topsides which are suitable for hiding the lids.
Those who do static modeling do not have the problem of lids at all. But dynamic modelers know well that access to change batteries or replace any broken parts must be guaranteed.
The superstructures are a holy hand, blessed is he who has them.

I used two overlapping sheets of plywood as seen in the drawing and as seen in the photos, so that the lids then fit together.
In practice I created a step on both the deck and the lid.
The lids will all be secured by wood screws. I found that screws are superfluous because the double stop allows for a very stable fit. I couldn't have known in advance.
The screws are not only screwed into plywood, which would be too thin and too fragile, but into a pre-threaded and very sturdy wooden support. The screw sockets are reinforced by small glued plastic funnels (perhaps a completely superfluous precaution).

Initially, as you can see from the comparison of the first photos with the last ones, I had foreseen (stupidly) many openings on the deck, but very small ones. It didn't take long for me to realize that so many openings would have ruined the deck slats even more and wouldn't have allowed me to even insert a hand into the hold of the model (which is damned small for everything it has to do).

However, once the double decks have been glued, the model is very robust.

Only the handrail is still very delicate but we will see later.

The more rigidity the better. Looking good as it goes.

Yes, JockScott, includes full ballast.

Without it the weights are positioned in such a way that the righting torque is present, but of lower intensity, much less.

Consider what must be added: sails, complete masts, cannons, lifeboats, anchors, etc. etc.

Does that include full ballast?

Hi JockScott.

Here is one of the first tests of lateral stability, the decks were only supported.

Hi everyone

So far I have not asked for your advice because I illustrated and I describe choices already adopted. Soon I will need your advice.
However, even regarding past choices, if anyone had doubts or wanted to express a negative opinion, I would be very interested in their opinion.

I decided to paint the model only from the waterline up, leaving the natural color of the mahogany underneath.
I didn't like any of the existing shades of blue in the Humbrol catalogs (I considered them the best nail polishes), so I mixed various shades until I found the one I liked best.
Here are the proportions:
the current combination of the third hand is HUM104= 7 ml, HUM33= 6 ml, HUM230= 3 ml.
There's not much to say, I'll attach the photos.

Ah yes, perhaps some advice for those who are just starting to do modelling, certainly not for those who are experts.
When you put protective tape, it should be painted under it and not over it.
I know it's trivial and obvious but many people make mistakes, even just out of distraction, and then they end up with some drippings under the tape.

Logically, before painting I had already glued the Incintone (I haven't been able to find the English term yet, as soon as I find it I'll insert it).

Wow you are taking the model boat building to a high level of technical integrity.👍 Something new to learn.

Hi JockScott.

Thanks for the compliments.

You had a wonderful experience visiting this sailing ship. Lucky you.

As regards the issue of stability, it is difficult to translate the same Italian technical terms into English.
Maybe I seemed exaggerated to you in trying to reduce weight.
In reality, I had made an estimate from the beginning of everything that could fit into the naval model and I was convinced that I had a certain margin. Yet if I hadn't been careful about every weight saving today I would have exceeded the imposed limit.
This is to respect the waterline.

For stability the issue is even more delicate.
Even a moderate weight, if placed high, raises the ship's center of gravity.
A weight placed high up could influence her position more than a heavier weight placed close to the center of the hull.
I made the parrel on the boom in brass because it wasn't possible to make it in any other material. it was low anyway.
Instead, the gooseneck of the peak was very high up. Although not excessively heavy, it would have influenced the position of the center of gravity a little.
Many small details determine the overall result.

There are two concepts of stability: I don't know if I translate the technical terms well.
One is called "form stability" and one "weight stability".
Don't be fooled by the terms. in reality they have very specific characteristics.
This could be a "question of the day", but it is not very easy. Those who get their pleasure boating license and all those who study this fascinating subject at various levels are certainly familiar with it.
In form stability, the ship's center of gravity is above its hull center, and it has a righting thrust as long as the metacentric height is positive.
The higher the metacenter the better.
In weight stability the center of gravity is under the center of the hull.
Technically, if it is possible to obtain "shape stability", the ship (even the real ones logically) manages to right itself within a certain angle of heel.
Almost all ships (warships, ocean liners, ferries, freighters, etc. etc.) have "stability of form".
If "weight stability" is achieved, the ship always rights itself at any angle of heel.
In my model, I would have liked, already in the design phase with the 3D software, to verify and obtain weight stability.
During the construction phase I obtained an excellent straightening thrust.
At the end of the day: "The weight must be kept as low as possible."

In the first three images you can see a situation where there is weight stability.
In the fourth image there is shape stability. In this last situation, which is more difficult to achieve, the ship never capsizes.

I hope I have been useful to you, if I made a mistake with the translation, please tell me, I won't be offended.

Your attention to details is admirable. I never built a working sailboat but I feel the brass fittings should not impact a great deal your center of gravity. Maybe someone with more experience in this area may chime in.
Here is a photo of a boom from the live replica of the 1920 built 'Blue Nose' in Lunenburg NS I just visited this summer.

Good evening everyone or good morning, it depends on the time zone.

To make up for some lost time I will insert quite a few photos, to conclude, or almost, the masts topic.
I hope I don't cause confusion.
I used walnut rods, of various diameters, (in scale with the 1/60 model) bought in a model shop.
As everyone knows, rods must be tapered. That is, from a diameter of 8 mm measured at the base, for example, we arrive at a diameter of 6 mm at the top.
At my father's suggestion, and using his workbench, I tapered the wooden rods with a drill, an electric motor and sandpaper, as seen in the photos. The drill is used to rotate the rod and the electric motor keeps it perfectly aligned while it rotates.
I also tried using the glass method and it is very effective and fast; I did not expect.
In this way I prepared the two mainmast trunks, the two foremast trunks, the two booms, the two peaks and the bowsprit (not in the photo). Everything duplicated to always have a replacement ready.
Logically all the masts have been painted.

As for the peaks and booms movement system, I used two different methods.
On the peaks I used the oldest one with the gooseneck and the bertocci (it doesn't translate. They are wooden balls. They form like a sort of necklace behind the trozza) as you can see in the drawing.
At that time they began to use a method to replace the gooseneck, a steel joint as can be seen in the photo. A parrel.
I made the latter by working a brass rod, with a hacksaw and file, sheets of other pieces of brass.
You can't see it in these photos but I didn't leave the original color of the brass but created a darker, more realistic metal mix with the Humbrols.
The gooseneck was much more complicated. As you can see in the photo, this is a kind of fork that hugs the mast.
Making it in metal wasn't good for the sake of keeping the center of gravity low.
Making it out of wood was impossible because it was too small and therefore very fragile.
This is why I invented a method that I make available to everyone. I designed the gooseneck with Rhinoceros software. Then I printed the goosenecks and glued them onto sheets of clear plastic. They are just under half a millimeter thick and are the ones normally used in the office. I cut them out and glued them gradually, folding them as needed. Once glued to the peak they proved to be the same as the original and very resistant.
I made a sort of sandwich with all the layers overlapping.

Finally I made the "brown heads" (cap) and the "cheeks" masks.

The masts, as can be seen from the two final photos, are not glued but blocked by a split pin.

Hi everyone.

Before continuing the quick presentation of the works, I wanted to answer those who asked me other questions about the atypical position of the engine, illustrated a few messages back.

In fact, more than one person has rightly asked: "Why didn't you also make the main mast reach all the way? To do this, it would have been enough to move the engine a little further back, by a few cm.
In this way, removing the engine in the event of a fault would also have been much easier."

The answer is that it was a forced choice.

To explain this I will use images from Rhino.

By moving the engine backwards, so that it is no longer under the main mast, and the latter can go all the way down, the engine comes out of the shape of the hull (note the red arrow). He comes out of the hull because the stern frames narrow and rise.
To move the engine behind it is therefore mandatory to lift it to make it remain inside the hull.
This means that the center of gravity moves a little backwards (and this is not an unsolvable problem) but above all it rises (and this is serious).
Furthermore, with the engine in that position there would no longer have been room for the stern winch, which would have come out of the shape of the deck.

I am far from trying a sailing model as the Tanker will take me at least 5 years if not more.
Maybe I need a break in between.

You're welcome. JockScott.

It was a pleasure. I was just afraid of the translation.
I note that I was quite understandable.

If you want to try your hand at RC sailing modeling in the future, I will be very happy to follow your work, but for advice I warn you that I am a novice in this field.

From what I have seen this month, there are very, very good RC sailing ship modelers on this forum.
Look, for example, at AndyN's models. He's the one who introduced me to this forum. I saw his navigations on YouTube, they are beautiful. I look at them every now and then.

Thank you for your comprehensive explanation to my question. I learned something to remember when I may (in the future) build a pure sailing yacht.

Hi JockScott.

Congratulations on your scale model of a tanker and congratulations on how you made the rudder.
I see he's a balanced rudder.

Let me explain better, hoping to make an understandable translation.

My problem could be sailing exclusively with wind, at low speeds. Could be.

In motor navigation there is no problem. The flow of water directly onto the propeller makes any rudder effective.

Your balanced rudder is certainly very efficient.
Furthermore, I have never seen any motorized RC modeler have turning problems. It doesn't exist as a problem.
The problem is for sailing ships.
Sailing RC modelers use oversized rudders.

To see if a rudder is efficient even without a propeller, just push the model outwards with your hands. Immediately afterwards give the radio command left or right.

As far as the material is concerned, you have built an effective rudder that is very faithful to the original. You could do it in metal,
I chose a light material, such as wood, ABS or PLA, because I have very strong weight limitations. Strict limitations that concern both the total weight and the position of the individual weights.

Your intervention made me very happy, I hope I was clear but I will be very happy to answer any other doubts or negative opinions you may have.

I don't quite understand why you worry about the rudder performance.
When I did the rudder for my project of a 1960's tanker I wanted to achieve sharp edges which I may not get using wood. I decided on a hybrid built; brass sheets and tubes soldered for the shape and profile and filled with wood, using 2part epoxy marine glue for filler and waterproofing.

Sorry, it wasn't an extremely concise attack. I didn't become super laconic all of a sudden.
I just forgot to paste the translation, ahahahahahah!

Hello everyone

The images are of the rudder.
As regards the pin, I proceeded, more or less, in the same way as for the propeller axis. I used brass rod, micro ball bearings, etc. etc.
It is replaceable in case of damage: only the aluminum cylinder that contains everything is glued and unremovable. Just like with the propeller shaft case.

I had already designed the rudder on Rhinoceros and cut it with the laser, because the first intention was to make it out of wood and then paint it.
However, managing to close the volume of the rudder, I had the opportunity to create it with the 3D printer.
I don't remember if the material used was PLA or ABS, however the surfaces are not perfectly smooth but knurled.

Before designing the rudder, however, I knew that this was a great unknown, from many points of view.
Usually, I put two needs on the scales:
one is the need to make a beautiful model, aesthetically pleasing, accurate, coherent from a historical point of view, the other need is to make the model work, that is, to be able to make it move in the water (it must not sink, it must not take on water, it must not tip over, it must move) by motor and sail, therefore it must respond well to all radio commands.
In the model there is, therefore, always a compromise between these two needs, often conflicting with each other.
In the case of the rudder, the balance certainly tipped in favor of the RC requirement.
I painted it and made it look as real as possible, and I could further improve, but it is quite different from the original ones.
If I had made the rudder exactly the same as the real ones of that era, I doubt it would have been able to make turns while sailing.
I have found, over time, that RC naval modelers use transparent plexiglass additions on the rudder, to obtain acceptable performance they either greatly oversize the rudder measurements or, if they can, make a much larger balanced rudder.
When designing it, I had no idea how the rudder would respond in the water.
I was certain that there would be no problems with the propeller in action, in fact, from an airfoil of that kind, hit directly by the propeller flow, I would have expected an excellent reaction even with a few degrees, and a turn almost on placed with the engine at maximum and the rudder above 50 degrees. But with the schooner sailing only by wind it was all an unknown.
The risk is that it does not turn the schooner well when sailing exclusively by wind and is not perfectly identical to those of the time.

As you can see, the rudder is not a simple shaped tablet, but is a real symmetrical biconvex airfoil.
This is intentional. The rudder is made like this because it not only diverts the flow of water, imparting a consequent torque to the ship, but it generates a lift that adds to the other effect.

Hello everyone.

While I insert the photos of the last piece: the bow winch, I briefly describe the electrical connections.

In reality the last piece is the receiver but it is light and small enough not to cause major problems. Fixed with double-sided rubber. Perhaps you will see how it is connected with the descriptive exposition of the other advances.

Therefore, I gave up on the first scheme which involved two 6 volt 4.5 Ah AGM lead batteries in parallel connected to the ESC, which powered everything via the BEC, as can be seen in the first sketch.
Currently the configuration is this one of the second and third schemes. I separated the drawings.
The first is related to the motor: a battery is connected to the ESC, with large cables passing down, into the frame holes. The cables are interrupted by two fuses. The ESC only powers the motor because the positive of the BEC is interrupted. Logically the cut occurred on an extension cord and not directly on the BEC cables.
The other identical battery is connected directly to the positive and negative of the receiver, which therefore powers the rudder servomechanism and sail winches in parallel.
I'm thinking about improvements.

I was forgetting to write that at that time, longitudinal and transversal reinforcements of the frames were gradually added.

Hi Len. Thank you.

You're right, Velcro could have been a solution.
I used this Velcro that you see in the photo, (very common) to secure one of the two batteries. In reality it was a superfluous security because it was already firmly in place.
I had thought about using it to also stop the ESC, but in the end I preferred not to. The ESC didn't stay in place well, I didn't like it. Furthermore, during tests I often take it off and put it back on, so it loses its holding power.
There was a similar product but in plastic marketed by 3M, with infinite durability, but I would have had to buy a whole roll for just a few cm, and it was very expensive.
Thanks for your opinion and advice Len, I really appreciate it.

nice work. I use hook and loop tape, also called Velcro, instead of double faced tape if I want to be able to easily remove or move something

Hello everyone.

Initially I bought an excellent ESC, with a really good value for money.
GRA2880, by Graupner, V30R 30 Ah naval variator with reverse gear
Operating voltage 6 ... 12 V, Maximum current: 30 Ah, Max reverse current: 20 Ah, BEC: 5 V / peak 5 A, Dimensions 69x31x11mm, Weight 65 g.
Then I put one for 10 euros, a car ESC. (I have to find the characteristics but it is the same as the one in the photo)

I will gradually show how I arranged the devices in the hull, paying attention to the weight and positions.

At the beginning there is a lot of confusion, then you will see the electrical cables and the braid for the sails in order.

To fix the ESC I had to create a structure between the frames. I could have fixed it with double-sided tape but then I saw that there were problems. Either it comes off on its own after a while, or it is too difficult to detach because it is too tenacious. In fact, after positioning the deck the grip is not easy and it is not possible to apply force.
For these reasons I created a removable interlocking structure.
All this in anticipation of failure and the need for replacement.

Buonasera a tutti.

A suo tempo ho pensato molto se fosse meglio comandare tutte le vele con un unico verricello oppure metterne di più. Addirittura avevo pensato a tre verricelli. A quel tempo non avevo accesso a tutte le informazioni che potrei avere oggi.


Anche per il verricello ho creato una sede in legno amovibile.
I motivi sono gli stessi.
Questa è stata un pò più complicata ed ha una forma strana.

Feci delle prove elettriche con i verricello, aiutato da mio figlio.
Erano prove per verificare sia gli assorbimenti elettrici, sia per vedere quanto filo riuscisse ad avvolgere.

Inizialmente rimasi contento che avvolgeva ben 36 cm di filo.
Siccome non avevo mai fatto un lavoro del genere pensavo fosse un bene. In realtà cos' tanto filo mi avrebbe dato problemi in seguito.
Infatti, per passare dall'andatura al lasco (slack gait) a quella upwind pace, bastano molti meno cm sul mio modello.


Good evening everyone.

At his time I thought a lot about whether it would be better to control all the sails with a single winch or to use more.
I had even thought about three winches.
At that time I didn't have access to all the information I might have today.


I also created a removable wooden seat for the winch.
The reasons are the same.
This one was a little more complicated and has a strange shape.

I did some electrical tests with the winches, helped by my son.
They were tests to check both the electrical absorption and to see how much wire he could wind.

Initially I was happy that it wrapped 36 cm of wire.
Since I had never done a job like this I thought it was good. In reality, this much thread would have given me problems later.
In fact, to go from slack gait to upwind pace, much less cm is needed on my model.

Beautiful

Grazie Jumphugly, ahahahah!

Thank you, Jumpughly, ahahahah!

Allessandro!

Salve a tutti.

Il lavoro del modello è proseguito con la costruzione di un alloggiamento per il verricello del timone.
Ho preferito creare una struttura amovibile perchè, in caso di guasto e sostituizione, è molto più facile sfilare tutto il pezzo che dover svitare le viti del servomeccanismo.
Non pensate allo scafo come si vede ora tutto libero e facile da gestire. Con il ponte i movimenti sono molto limitati.

Prima di costruire il pezzo, ho dovuto ricreare le ortogonalità all'interno dello scafo con dei quadrelli di rinforzo.

Il pezzo amovibile potete vederlo in questo brevissimo video:


Hello everyone.

Model work continued with the construction of a housing for the rudder winch.
I preferred to create a removable structure because, in the event of failure and replacement, it is much easier to remove the entire piece than having to unscrew the screws of the servomechanism.
Don't think about the hull as you can see it now, all free and easy to manage. With the bridge, movements are very limited.

Before building the piece, I had to recreate the orthogonalities inside the hull with reinforcing squares.

You can see the removable piece in this very short video.

Salve Doug (RNinMunich).

Ho inserito due foto per farti capire qual è il pezzo che va tolto per sfilare l'asse dell'elica in modo da poter liberare il motore. Questo nel caso in cui malauguratamente debba essere sostituito per avaria.

Come puoi vedere è fissato ma non incollato. Certo se va tolto, non sarà facile a causa della coppiglia (difficile da sfilare) e della verniciatura.

In queste immagini il timone ancora non c'è e l'elica non è ancofra verniciata per sembrare metallica.


Hi Doug (RNinMunich).

I have inserted two photos to help you understand which piece needs to be removed to remove the propeller shaft in order to free the engine. This is in case it unfortunately needs to be replaced due to failure.

As you can see it is fixed but not glued. Of course, if it has to be removed, it won't be easy due to the cotter pin (difficult to remove) and the paint.

In these images the rudder is not yet there and the propeller is not yet painted to look metallic.

Salve RNinMuncih

Si, credo che sia abbastanza funzionale, anche al massimo dei giri non si muove affatto e non ho notato vibrazioni preoccupanti.

Dicevo che è complesso da smontare perchè è sotto a tutto.
Se dovessi toglierlo, dovrei sfilare di qualche millimetro l'asse dell'elica. Per fare questo dovrei prima togliere un elemento che separa elica e timone. Per fortuna l'ho fatto amovibile.
Poi bisogna levare il verricello della randa di maestra. Infine, agire sui blocchi del motore.
Quelli laterali metallici, che impediscono la rotazione (come giustamente hai notato tu) sono fermati da due viti.
Il blocco ad archetti sopra al motore è fatto con incastri in legno. Basta togliere delle coppiglie e sfilarlo.

Ho fatto in modo che il motore fosse ben saldo ma che prendesse aria.

Hi RNinMuncih

Yes, I think it's quite functional, even at maximum rpm it doesn't move at all and I haven't noticed any worrying vibrations.

I was saying that it's complex to dismantle because it's underneath everything.
If I were to remove it, I would have to remove the propeller shaft by a few millimeters.
To do this I would first have to remove an element that separates the propeller and rudder. Luckily I made it removable.
Then you need to remove the mainsail winch.
Finally act on the engine blocks. The metal side ones, which prevent rotation (as you rightly noticed) are stopped by two screws. The arched block above the engine is made with wooden joints. Just remove some cotter pins and slide it off.

I made sure the engine was secure but still getting air.

Grazie a River Rat e RNinMunich.

Thanks to River Rat and RNinMunich.