Airboat Free Plan May 2023

[Roger De SilvaParticipant @rogerdesilva89927]

I have reviewed the article and plans and can find all the info needed to source the requisite materials but not the actual craft dimensions.

As a digital subscriber I cannot print off the plans. If I could print the plan I could take a known dimension say the prop and calculate everything from that – but I can't.

Can anyone help, or is the answer so obvious I have just missed it?

[Roger De SilvaParticipant @rogerdesilva89927]

Actual sizes

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

When Glynn introduced the plan a couple of years ago he said that it was 21in x 8in.

As a digital subscriber I also wish that some dimensions were always given.

Original Airboat Announcement

Edited By Chris E on 30/04/2023 16:31:09

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

If you are digital subscribers you should find that the plan is now appended at the end of the issue as a PDF file. You should also have access to the Digital Archives which also have the plan in PDF format – I have just checked and it is there.

If you look at the plan, you will see that in the page corners Glynn has included scales in both inches and metric from which you can take off the model dimensions.

Hope this helps.

Colin

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

Colin

You are, of course, correct but if you try & scale things from the scale printed on the plan you will find that accuracy is somewhat limited – well I do anyway. For a simple model like this my method would be to print it A4 and then scale a hand drawn plan. Fortunately with this model the odd 10mm is unlikely to make much difference.

Not complaining as I am delighted to get the plans at all but is ensuring the overall dimensions are included in the text asking too much?

I decided some time ago that if I really wanted a plan, & accuracy mattered I would buy a hard copy of the magazine if I could find one.

Edited By Chris E on 30/04/2023 17:12:13

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Not sure what you mean by accuracy being limited. If the plan has been scanned square as it should have been then all you need is a pair of dividers to take off dimensions. Chart and dividers is the method I used to navigate all around the Solent when I had my 1:1 scale boat. Still went aground occasionally though but that was down to the tide.

Long before that I was using the method in modelling. The Norman Ough Warship drawings, among others, were printed in the magazine back in th 50s & 60s and included a scale on the drawing that you could use to measure the full size item and then apply the scale you were using for your model to it.

I'm no draughtsman by any stretch of the imagination, but I've never had a problem as long as the original drawing is not distorted. This did actually happen with the Canadian rip off of the Bilsdale paddler plan but I had the small reproduction in the original magazine to cross check it.

Very useful things dividers.

Colin

Edited By Colin Bishop on 30/04/2023 17:49:40

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

Colin

I am sure that the magazine is printed square & I was not implying anything else.

I also use dividers, as taught for my Yachtmasters certificate, but when I look at a digital plan I don't have the visual reference of size that those with the full sized plan benefit from. Printing the page and then getting the dividers out to find out how large the model is when reading the magazine seems unnecessary – hence Rogers question.

 

Edited By Chris E on 30/04/2023 18:24:04

[Roger De SilvaParticipant @rogerdesilva89927]

Hi Colin and others

That was some help thanks though it didn't quite work as easily as implied. On the iPad It saved p78 as a PNG image, which I was then able to save to photos, and print that off. I can now see the scales (too feint to read the numbers/letters, but now I know what they are that's fine.

However I could not use the same methodology to save/print p77. Instead it would only save p76, the advert.

As this is just the GA that should be ok, but hopefully the feedback will be useful.

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Hi Roger,

I thought it was supposed to be a PDF file which is what I am getting on my Windows PC. I agree that the scales are faint when printed out and will raise this with the IT people. It was OK on the screen but I needed a magnifying glass on the print so fair point.

I don't know if it works differently on thge Apple IoS. I will ask for this to be checked.

Chris, your point re overall dimensions in the text is relevant. In Glynn's defence, I understand that he originally wrote the article before the digital download option was available. So something to be borne in mind for the future.

I will pass all these points on to Lindsey.

Colin

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

Colin

No attack on Glynn intended. He is generally one of the best at supplying basic information about his models.

Just to observe the obvious. When you print an A4 of a plan all models end up appearing the same size so a scale does matter. The airboat was a relatively small model which makes life easier but try A4 printing the March model – USS Kettlewell – and you will not find using the tiny corner scales very easy. Glynn fortunately gave the dimensions in his text which made enjoying the whole plan article so much easier.

My screen would not like the idea of using dividers on its surface for scaling purposes.

[Ray Wood 3Participant @raywood3]

Hi All,

I have the May issue with the plan still stapled in , not my sort of boat at the moment , my airscrews have aeroplanes behind them

£6.20 + postage ??

Regards Ray

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

The airboat is a simple rectangular craft and I agree that mention of the length and width would be useful to digital subscribers thinking of building it to get an idea of how big it is, but what other written dimensions would you expect to see? Trying to dimension every line would look very messy. For more conventional subjetcts with curved hulls etc. the overall length and beam is all that needs to be mentioned. A body lines plan is all that you actually need to build a hull and if you have a computer you can easily adjust and print it out at full size for the model. You would have to be building a very large model if it didn't fit on a sheet of A4!

I have printed out the airboat plan and If I were to build it then I would make myself a scale ruler based on the printed scales from a strip of plywood from which the dimensions of any line can be directly read off in either Imperial or Metric and transferred to the actual model material using a full size ruler. For a more complex project I would make or buy a set of proportional dividers which was the method I used when scaling down the NMM plans of my Isle of Wight ferry Shanklin back in 1983. Take the measurement off the small end and use the large end to transfer to the model.

My projects over the years have rarely enjoyed the luxury of a full size plan because the source material has usually come from different places at different scales.

I have never been tempted to stick A4 sheets together to make a full size plan, I just don't think it is necessary.

Colin

[ashley needhamParticipant @ashleyneedham69188]

As I see it, the EXACT dimensions are not critical. As long as the proportions are about right I would have no hesitation in building this simply from having a drawing and choosing a length approximating that of the original and working from there.

Making it 10mm shorter/longer/wider/deeper/slightly lighter/slightly heavier is likely to make no practical difference, and probably only noticeable if you were to sail with the original.

Ashley

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

Posted by Colin Bishop on 01/05/2023 10:34:54:

………….., but what other written dimensions would you expect to see? ………………..

The only dimensions that I would ask for are an overall length & beam which could either be on the plan or obvious within the accompanying article. This would give a sense of scale when looking at the plan and 2 very different measurements to help with scaling anthing else.

I agree that dimensioning anything more is undesirable and relatively unnecessary.

I wouldn't mind whether the dimensions were printed on the plan or were obvious in the accompanying article as long as they are included somewhere.

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

I have drawn Lindsey's attention to this for future reference.

Colin

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

Thank you. 

Edited By Chris E on 01/05/2023 13:52:10

[David Marks 2Participant @davidmarks2]

I am currently in the final stages of presenting Editor Lindsay with a package i.e. plan/write-up/images for a pusher tug. To keep the write-up within the limits (maximum words) requested by Lindsay I have included plenty of written information on the plan (what I would normally call Drawing Notes) with any required dimensions/sizes given in millimetres. I can add a length and beam for the model if that is of assistance but my preferred method would be a dual scale as you find on an OS Map of 5 inches/127 millimeters. If this seems a bit weird, with 1 inch being equal to 25.4 mm, 5 inches and 127 mm are where both imperial and metric dimensions are whole numbers. Personally, as an apprentice I was working in metric from around 1967/8 and quoting a dimension in millimetres is far better and easier than inches and fractions of an inch.

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

I look forward to seeing your model.

The critical point here is that phsical magazine readers get a full size plan which is easy to read and where the size of the model is very obvious.

Digital subscribers get a digital copy of the plan which appears to be the same size regardless of whether the model is 300mm or 1000mm. It is thus critical that digital viewers have some other way of knowing the size of the model. Colin's suggestion of dividers is fine on a print but does not work well on my computer screen. As my printer is A4 I cannot easily print full sized versions of the plan. Small measures on the plan are also of limited value. The above has led me to conclude that a simple statement somewere of the overall model size is far and away the simplest answer.

Text on the plan is not such a problem. I can magnify the text on my computer screen without problems. What I cannot do is magnify the whole model at once.

If you have access to the digital archive please have a look at Glynn's plan in the March 2023 edition and print it A4. You will see what I mean. If you don't have access please message me with your email address & I will send you a copy of the plan that digital subscribers get unless the magazine objects to me doing so for copyright reasons..

Perhaps I should add that of you look at any model boat for sale or Sarik plan list they all quote length and beam as primary information. I am just asking that plans presented in the magazine do the same,

Edited By Chris E on 01/05/2023 16:03:22

[Dave Cooper 6Participant @davecooper6]

Hi All,

As an aid to modelling in general, I sometimes use an Architects 'Scale'. Mine is a 'cheapo' plastic version and has a fairly wide variety of linear scales to choose from printed on it. By multiplying / dividing these you can get many more useful ones.,,

My proportional dividers (wooden) came from my art group (about £1 I think) and have nice brass fittings. At about 1 foot long (30cm-ish), they are also very useful for measurements, They can also be used for component size comparisons, and, at a pinch, inside /outside calipers.

Combined with a pocket calculator, these two tools cover most of my needs.

Happy modelling,

Dave

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Something else that people should note.

I noticed that my PDF print was quite faint when sent directly to the printer, paricularly the lines. On doing a search online I found that this is a common issue.

I loaded the file into my old copy of Photoshop Elements and printed it out from there and the rsult is much clearer, the scales show up fine and all the lines are much darker. On the original print the scales could barely be made out.

Edit:

I have since tried printing out in Acrobat Reader and that is better than direct printing but not as good as from Photoshop Elements.

Colin

Edited By Colin Bishop on 03/05/2023 13:14:39

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

I am amazed at the way that this thread has gone as I thought the suggestion to be so obviously an improvement. Perhaps I am misreading it and there is enthusiasm for my suggestion but I don't see it. Most plans/articles already provide this information so I a just asking that it be made universal.

I suspect that the digital subscription is the most profitable way to distribute the magazine and can only grow in importance so surely an effort should be made to make it better. Including the plan was an enormous first step but it needs just a little tweaking.

So much is made of beginners, trying to attract new modellers, encouraging the less experienced etc yet here we are telling digital subscribers that even if the printed scale were made more legible they need to print the plan so that they can use dividers to calculate the size of the model. To remedy the current unreadability problem they might also need to go into photo processing with software most of them will not have and probably don't know how to use. All this just to find out the absolutely basic information of the size of a model that might be of interest. This hardly encourages them to have a go.

This overall length and breadth information is provided for every plan in the Sarik list and every model boat kit that I have ever seen so why not all the plans in the magazine?

I agree that a longer and legible scale printed along the edge of the plan would be nice but in my opinion it isn't a replacement for the basic numbers and still requires the plan to be printed to use the scale as in the portrait mode used in the digital issue the model is pretty small on a laptop screen (landscape) & I won't use dividers on my screen anyway.

Rant over.

Edited By Chris E on 03/05/2023 16:44:19

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Chris, we have no problems with quoting the length and beam of any models offered as a free plan. The only reason it was missing in this case is that the plan was prepared as a print offering before the decision was taken to offer the digital version to subscribers. I have asked Lindsey to take this on board.

Because the Airboat plan was not expected to be digitised when drawn the scales were in very small text and thin line thickness and so have become very faint in the A4 print. Obviously that can be corrected without the need for Photoshop etc.

If the digital subscriber wants a full size plan then it is certainly possible to just take the PDF file along to a copy shop and ask for a print at A1.I have seen it recommended that as a safeguard then a couple of dimensioned reference lines, vertical and horizontal might be marked off on an A4 print as a double check against distortion which can happen. The scanned copy of my paddler sold at full size by a supplier in Canada was significantly distorted and I'm told that copy shop printers are not always perfectly calibrated.

Whilst most builders of the free plans will prefer a full size copy, some people don't realise that it is not always necessary, especially with a subject like the Airboat and it's nice to have simple alternative options.

As to printing off the plan on a home printer in multiple sheets then this is a rather messy job and suffers from the fact that printers often don't print that accurately due to paper handling tolerances. I have been comparing my A4 print of the Airboat with the plan in the magazine and there is a difference of around 0.3 inches in the hull length between them. Not much but annoying.

I've never heard of anyone using dividers on a screen and can't imagine why it would be necessary in normal circumstances.

Colin

 

 

Edited By Colin Bishop on 03/05/2023 18:00:40

[Ray Wood 3Participant @raywood3]

Hi All,

Those of us who have been taking the magazine for 50 years or so will recall most of the more complex plans (Feature Plans) had to be bought mail order from the various owners of the plans range at the time.

But with the noticeable decline in the number of designs being produced by contributors and models being built subsequently by the readership means that the free plans are the only new work available

PS if you decide from the digital subscription copy you fancy the build buy a hard copy with the plan it's only £6.20 !! cheaper than going and getting a couple of copies run off

Regards Ray

[Author]

Posts