Landing Craft October What Size?

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

What size is the Mini Landing Craft in the October Model Boats? The article doesn't give an overall length but then there is the plan………..

I have been asking for better scales to be included on plans to help digital readers and Lindsey has agreed to do this from the next plan to be prepared.
As a result of this interest I have had a look at Glynn Guests Mini Landing Craft in the October Model Boats. I know that the original model was 14in because details were published here (14in length in post 2):

RC Groups see post 1 to 4

Glynn does give some dimensions on the plan such as the propshaft length which is 5in. Sure enough if I scale that the overall length of the model is 14in.
Unfortunately the plan provided to digital readers when printed on the A4 of the magazine gives a model of around 9-10in.

Is the same true for print readers? If built to the print plan what would be the actual length of the model?

If the same 9-10in then surely some sort of warning would have been appropriate to help the less experienced and roll on the better (or indeed any) scales printed on plans.

Edited By Chris E on 13/09/2023 12:18:10

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Yes, the size in the print edition is exactly the same as printed out from the digital version. Maybe the plan was originally intended as a full size pull out and shrunk to fit the centre spread in the magazines as a 'mini plan'.

It is fairly obvious from the prop and shaft sizes quoted, but I agree it could have been made more obvious for the benefit of the beginner.

Colin

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

You are more forgiving than I am.

An article with no overall length given and a plan where you have to scale it by using the propshaft length sounds like a real mess to me.

As I said roll on good quality scales being printed on all plans.

[Chris FellowsParticipant @chrisfellows72943]

Whilst not wanting to criticise anyone who is going to the trouble of providing plans in these times I have to agree with Chris here. Not having the overall length on the drawings or even in the title is a serious omission, especially for a build aimed at beginners. This is such a basic requirement.

The magazine is almost worse here as you can't use the plan without enlarging it (unless you are happy with the size) as unless the builder can scan and enlarge it themselves then I doubt many will bother.

Chris

 

Edited By Chris Fellows on 13/09/2023 16:53:34

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

I do appreciate the points you are making. It is certainly an oversight on somebody's part! Sometimes these things just slip through when people are in a hurry, in this case the plan may have been repurposed and the article not closely scrutinised to check what changes needed to be made.

In my Bilsdale article I went to great lengths to explain how the image in the print edition and its counterpart in the digital edition could be enlarged at various scales and the consequences of doing so. I thought I had made everything clear but, with serveral people involved, things still went off the rails a bit initially and had to be corrected which was a bit frustrating.

Colin

[Ray Wood 3Participant @raywood3]

Hi Chris F

I have PM'd you

Regards Ray

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

Perhaps I should add that I am not blaming Glynn for this problem. I guess that the responsibility lies elsewhere just as it did with Bilsdale.

[Ray Wood 3Participant @raywood3]

Hi All,

I think the production team do a great job putting the magazine together, as they have very little knowledge of the subject

Paul F would have been all over it like a rash as he was a fine modeller, still sadly missed

Regards Ray

[The Long BuildParticipant @thelongbuild]

Does it really matter, just build it the size you want it to be

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Does it really matter, just build it the size you want it to be

Yes, quite, but it is aimed at beginners who probably expect to be able to cut out the bits from the pages in the magazine rather than have them enlarged first..

Colin

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

Posted by Colin Bishop on 13/09/2023 19:50:55:

Does it really matter, just build it the size you want it to be

Yes, quite, but it is aimed at beginners who probably expect to be able to cut out the bits from the pages in the magazine rather than have them enlarged first..

Colin

……if they even recognize that they need to enlarge them and what size model the running gear is designed to support. It isn't the enlarging that is the biggest problem but rather the lack of it being obvious that you need to do so and just how much.

Ray's argument that they do a good job as they have very little experience of modelling doesn't really cut it for me either. If the magazine is to survive it needs to be a polished professional product and the excuse that those producing it know little about the subject just doesn't achieve that.

Edited By Chris E on 13/09/2023 20:20:10

[Ray Wood 3Participant @raywood3]

Hi Chris

Not really an argument at all just a statement of fact ! You'd better get your CV to Morton's

Regards Ray

[David Marks 2Participant @davidmarks2]

The free plan for the November 2023 edition is my creation. Lindsey has the build guide, the images to accompany it and the plan is currently being CADified. The plan defines the hull dimensions i.e. length and beam. There is also a reference scale with increments of 50mm along one long and one short side of the plan. For those interested, is that sufficient information?

[Chris FellowsParticipant @chrisfellows72943]

Hi David

When you say the plan defines the dimensions do you mean that these are actually stated in mm? If so, that's great. The reference scales are good as well. Are they quite long as that provides more accuracy when printing/scaling up. To be honest the overall length and beam are more important especially if indicated by dimension lines as this clarifies where the dimensions relate e.g. inside or outside rubbing strips etc.

I produce my own drawings and don't always draw full size and so when printing at say 120% having reference points/distances is invaluable.

Chris

Edited By Chris Fellows on 13/09/2023 22:18:22

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

It should be but make sure it happens when you get the proofs to check. As suggested by others, the accompanying article should also state key dimensions (length & beam) etc. to back up the plan.

Is the digital version of the plan being tiled as seems to be the standard now?

It may be stating the obvious but often the obvious needs to be stated!

I look forward to seeing it.

Colin

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

Posted by David Marks 1 on 13/09/2023 21:13:13:

The free plan for the November 2023 edition is my creation. Lindsey has the build guide, the images to accompany it and the plan is currently being CADified. The plan defines the hull dimensions i.e. length and beam. There is also a reference scale with increments of 50mm along one long and one short side of the plan. For those interested, is that sufficient information?

That sounds great. Thank you.

With tiled plans it isn't easy to see the overall dimensions so having them in the article is really helpful whilst the scales on the plans are also of great value when looking at parts.

I look forward to seeing it.

As Colin says just make sure what they are doing is what you expect!

Edited By Chris E on 13/09/2023 22:25:16

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Glynn is not pleased about his plan! He had prepared it for two A3 sheets in the expectation that elevation and plan view would be displayed horizontally across the centrespread where it would have fitted at full size. The pages comprising the reverse of the centrespread could have been used to display the various parts. Looking at the article there would have been room to do this by reducing the size of the large images illustrating the article. Instead the sheets were reduced to A4 and the length of the model from 14 inches to 10 inches. It isn’t clear why this was done.

Colin

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

I am not surprised that Glynn isn't pleased. There can't be many others with as much experience of having centre page plans published as Glynn. Funny that all the others have been done the same way until this one.

Just another example of style over function (one of my per hates).

The problems with both your & Glynn's plans suggest that there is a real problem at the magazine that needs addressing. What are they going to do with future plans to stop this happening again.

[David Marks 2Participant @davidmarks2]

Posted by Chris Fellows on 13/09/2023 22:06:06:

Hi David

When you say the plan defines the dimensions do you mean that these are actually stated in mm? If so, that's great. The reference scales are good as well. Are they quite long as that provides more accuracy when printing/scaling up. To be honest the overall length and beam are more important especially if indicated by dimension lines as this clarifies where the dimensions relate e.g. inside or outside rubbing strips etc.

I produce my own drawings and don't always draw full size and so when printing at say 120% having reference points/distances is invaluable.

Edited By Chris Fellows on 13/09/2023 22:18:22

Chris

Yes the o/a length and beam are defined in millimetres just below the title block in David Metcalfe fashion, if you have ever seen any of his plans, I can add the two arrows for these two dimensions when I get the plan back for review. I will also add a dimension for the "recommended freeboard" to the plan, although it is defined in the text covering the build.

The two scales cover the full length/height of my plan sheets which I produced at A2. but I expect the version for the mag will be both sides of of A1 or A0. It may be an idea to change my 50 mm increments to 25 mm and possibly add imperial scales (1 inch increments) on the other two edges of what i would call the "drawing blank". Although I have been working in metric (for work related drawings) since about 1967.

[Chris FellowsParticipant @chrisfellows72943]

Hi David

Sounds as though you have it covered. Personally I wouldn't bother with imperial as well as most builders are able to build from metric drawings.

I've worked in both professionally and find metric more convenient for model boat building. Well everything really!

Chris

[Chris EParticipant @chrise]

Posted by Chris Fellows on 15/09/2023 00:14:05:

Hi David

Sounds as though you have it covered. Personally I wouldn't bother with imperial as well as most builders are able to build from metric drawings.

I've worked in both professionally and find metric more convenient for model boat building. Well everything really!

Chris

Seconded.

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

I'm happy in both as I guess are most people of retirement age + which includes a lot of our members. No harm in providing a choice really.

Colin

[ashley needhamParticipant @ashleyneedham69188]

I find Cubits are easy to work with.

Ashley

[Chris FellowsParticipant @chrisfellows72943]

Only on full-size though!

Chris

[Author]

Posts