I would suggest that for anyone to consider purchasing a plan to your design, they would need to see some images of the completed model on water. I scratch build model boats using my own plans and in reality you get so far with the design and then commence the build with the remainder of the design evolving as the build continues. Also as you would be competing against the likes of Sarik Hobbies, your design would I think need to be something unique which is not already covered by the proven designs in the Sarik range,

While a plan might look feasible on paper there is no doubt in my mind that you would have to build the model to A) prove the competed model actually works as expected with the suggested power train etc. and B) Discover any building difficulties that you may have overlooked on paper that may only come to light when you actually try to put the parts together.

If you don't build the model then the resultant plan can only be classified as 'Unproven'

Edited By Richard Simpson on 17/09/2023 23:39:33

Hi Haydn,

I'm in agreement with all the comments so far, being brutal you need to practice the whole process from deciding on which type of boat, produce a drawing you can build from, build it taking photos at each stage, finish it to a good standard, sail it take more pictures, write the article text, and a description of each photo and see how long that process takes If you then submit it to our editor she may put it in the magazine as a free plan ? The standard fee for a Design & build article is £250 as one off payment as they are free with the magazine ………. So If your keen to work for £1.00 per hour crack on

Good luck with what ever you decide , review the SARIK range of plans to see if you can find any gaps, It's more of an old archive of design's you can purchase and hasn't been added too since 2016 when it was bought from Mytime Media by Traplet who went broke then SARIK.

Regards Ray

Edited By Ray Wood 2 on 18/09/2023 10:30:20

Airboats have been quite popular subjects over the years and there are already a lot of designs out there and magazine articles too. There was one published in August so I doubt if the magazine will want to run another one very soon.

If you love building model boats then whay not just build one for your own satisfaction without all the complications of trying to sell the design to someone. They all look pretty similar although some are more successful than others.

As Ray says, Sarik no longer buy plans from Model Boats magazine, just selling those they already have.

Colin

Chris, agree there. Drawings for own use are one thing, for others, completely different. The Bumper plan has been the only plan I have submitted and I did that because it was about as easy as it gets, and you don’t need to copy lines etc off it. The actual car body half fitted in a page and that’s the only bit you needed.

Ashley

You have done well there Bob. Drawing plans is a dying art is this digital world. My recent articles in Model Boats  on ps Bilsdale and latterly my Greek fishing boat have drawn on existing published plans as I lack the skills to draw up my own.

In the days of yore, there were many people with drafting experience who could design plans for modelmakers but now there are very few and we have to depend on those who originally contributed to the Model Maker Magazine Plans Service which still provides a rich resource via Sarik Hobbies.

But there are very few new plans being added to the model making collections and many of those are of relatively simple subjects.

I am currently persevering with a 1:150 scale model of the liner Miltiades of 1901. The reference sources I have are:

1:1200 scale plans from R Carpenter in Model Boats magazine.

1:1200scale plans published by John Bowen in his Miniature Merchant Ships model book

Umpteen photos I took of the builder’s model in the London Science Museum before they put it into storage

Very many photos of the original builders plans now held by the National Maritime Museum of the ship as originally built and subsequently lengthened from a visit with Ashley Needham in 2019.

Various internet photos of the ship taken during her service life.

And guess what? There are notable discrepancies between most of these sources. In some cases the design has been simplified for modelling purposes but quite significantly. In others the builder’s model does not conform to the NMM plans. The reality is probably that various minor changes were made to the appearance of the ship whilst she was still on the building slip and these are not reflected in the builder’s model

So my model can never be more than a ‘best guess’ based on interpolating the various sources and in the knowledge that a definitive solution is lost forever!

When undertaking a project like this it is really helpful to have full details of the interior layout of the ship as this does help to clarify some of the issues. In this case there are some oddities as the space under beds on the promenade deck is used to provide light and air to the cabins on the deck below. You expect decks to be level but in this case there are instances where they are perforated to give light and air to the one underneath! (see pic)

Anyway, it is all an interesting puzzle  although unlikely to be appreciated by anyone casually viewing the model.

Colin

The John Bowen plans are fine for miniatures but are not accurate for larger models. The promenade deck houses have been massively simplified for example. The Carpenter plan has got the central deck house wrong too.

Colin

I think the proportions are generally OK on both the Bowen and Carpenter plans. You can only show a limited amount of detail at 1:1200 scale anyway.

The drawings in the NMM collections of Marathon/Miltiades are a mixture of ‘as built’ and ‘as rebuilt’. When looking at them it is easy to be confused as they are mixed up together. Just out of interest, here are the Carpenter and Bowen plans and my photo of the central promenade deckhouse taken from the original drawings. Both Bowen & Carpenter have omitted the cabins flanking the boiler casings. Also, Carpenter shows shell doors along the main deck which are not present on the Bowen drawing. Simplification for 1:1200 scale models is understandable but it does show the dangers of scaling up without supporting information.

And when there is a discrepancy between the builder’s model and the original plans then either could be correct!

Colin.

And this is the St Helena as completed as Northland Prince in 1963.

I was once very lucky to be in the Blohm + Voss shipyard in mid December while five thrusters were being changed.  Myself and the ship’s doctor decided to go for a walk, myself in particular as I wanted to see the slip where the Bismarck had been built.  Having done that I mentioned to the doctor that I knew there was a 1/10th scale builder’s model somewhere in the site office so suggested we went for a look around.

We went into the old original office building, beautiful ornate red brick building, and had a look at the stunning huge Christmas tree that was in the main atrium on the first landing of the main staircase.  A tall and very distinguished looking chap walked past and I asked him if it was possible to view the builder’s model of the Bismarck.  He asked who we were and, when I told him I was the Chief Engineer and my colleague was the ship’s doctor of the ship currently in the main dock, he said something along the lines of us being suitably important and told us to follow him.  As he keyed in a code to a large carved door I started to get the impression that this chap was someone quite important.  Anyway through the door and along a very long narrow quite dimly lit corridor.  Along this corridor was a glass case on the right hand wall with around three or four shelves in it.  This case was filled with 1/1200th scale models of every ship the yard had ever built in chronological order, starting with the first wooden ships right the way through to the latest vessels.  You could tell the war years by the huge number of U-Boats and of course the Bismarck.

We came to the end of the corridor and emerged into a good sized room.  One entire half of this room was taken up with the most stunning sight I have ever seen, the 1/10th scale builder’s model of the Bismarck.  It was absolutely magnificent, breathtaking in its size and detail and all the beauty of the real ship.

Interestingly though, and the point of the story, was that I noticed many differences in the model to what I knew of the real ship during Operation Rheinubung.  When I asked the gent about this he explained that the design was almost continuously changing during the build.  Obviously not so much as regards structural at that point but certainly things like armament type and positioning, radar etc.  It was a fascinating conversation and ended far too quickly.  He gave us both a yard copy of the original builder’s promotional spec and photograph, which I framed and put above my own model.

So even in such a short operational life there is still a significant degree of uncertainty as regards how she looked on what particular date, especially when it came to paint schemes, which changed a number of times.  I never did find out who the gent was but I’ll always be grateful to him for an amazing experience.

A perfect example would be the QE2, I think she changed visually externally at just about every dry dock she did.  From adding the magradome, to adding the penthouses, to a completely new funnel during the re-engineing, to going pebble grey and back to royal blue and many lifeboat changes over the years.  To make a model you really have to select a year and stick with it.

I actually have a very nice Japanese kit of her, as built, and always wanted to convert it to the diesel engine funnel but then I would have to make all sorts of other modifications as well.  Consequently it has sat on the shelf for around 30 years!