Author Topic: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive  (Read 5674 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Toby

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 367
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2017, 05:21:41 »
At the 1:32 scale the following measurements were ascertained from the original plans; bear in mind that these were taken from a flat drawing and so one needs to place a wide vertical guide at the bow from which to measure  in a straight line a point on the bulwarks, for example, rather than measuring around the curved shape of the bulwarks.

BP measurement is 40.875" / 1038.2mm
OAL is 44.25" / 1124mm

I have just measured the OAL and find that my hull measures only 43 3/8"  or 1100mm rather than the scale measurement just stated above

Do all other Imara /Perseverance owners get the same measurement???

If this is the case,  then albeit only 24mm or 1" it explains the cramped area at the back or front depending on the position selected for the superstructure.

This possible shortness in OAL came to me when deciding to check and mark off the positions for ports, washports, ladders and fairlead and realising on reaching the stern that all was not going to look as per plan or photographs. Clearly a progressive proportional shortening of the position for fittings along the bulwarks will have to be undertaken so that their position in relation to the superstructure etc is as close as possible. No point in having a washport so far in the wrong place that a comparison to the photograph will make this obvious.

Note this means that although the measurements following are scale and correct,  due to the loss of one inch of boat length these will need to be slightly reduced /and/or superstructure positioned /repositioned. For of one has measured and built from bow to stern then all the loss with have to take place in a small curving area at the stern which means that the fourth washport and the ports either side,  the fairlead on the capping and the bollard behind the washport will over- crowd the area where it curves and it will look wrong. For in addition has to be positioned the rope guide built over the rear separate superstructure.

Bow front to the superstructure
210mm

Bow to centre of second window and first washport
292.5mm
Bow to second washport centre
495mm
Bow to centre of third washport
697.5mm
Bow to centre of fourth washport
922.5mm

Wash port 17mm x 28.5mm
Base of washport at deck level, not above deck; about where rubbing band is fastened.

Toby
« Last Edit: April 18, 2017, 12:59:51 by Toby »

Toby

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 367
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2017, 05:30:19 »
Doors on the model equate to 2ft width so on the model are 18.05mm.

Height of superstructure from the bulwarks capping is 45mm.


Anchor 31.5mm wide and 24mm from base to prong points.  This equates to an anchor fullsize of 39.7" 30.24".

Foremast is 457.5mm tall.

Rudder height 97.5mm.
Rudder had three stretchers base, middle and upper. These are 4.5mm wide and placed 39mm apart.


Fenders are circular tyre shape in appearance made of 'rope'.
The outer diameter is 30mm and the inner 10.5mm.

On the plan they are held by rope /wire  attached to two eye brackets 51mm apart and the wire/rope length is 30mm to the centre edge of the fender.


All above are supported too by that seen in the photographs of Perseverance.

On the original plan is an accommodation ladder shown on the outside of the bulwarks /hull and also fixings for
it on the bulwarks capping.  On starboard it is placed just forward of the stern superstructure fore wall frames with the skylights.

There is a ladder on the port side too but that is towards midships by  112.5mm further (distance between stern side of one ladder to stern side of other ladder).
Clearly the ladders were only attached when needed. No photograph of them in situ during sailing.

The ladders are shown as having 8 steps.



Toby

« Last Edit: April 18, 2017, 17:07:06 by Toby »

Toby

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 367
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2017, 19:33:52 »
All the information so far applies to Imara and Perseverance.
The re- positioning of things can be seen the on the original plan and is supported by photographs of Perseverance.


Toby

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 367
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2017, 19:59:32 »
Looking at the starboard side on the original Imara plan and the same in photographs of Perseverance it appears that the doors and windows need altering as well as door handles and repositioning. Also there are two areas in the mid-section which in the kit seems to be represented by mesh but again plan and photos show that instead there are  two two- hinged large panels each comprising a porthole.

Attached is a photo with the some alterations marked in red. There are more changes yet to mark on.

The doors are not plain with a porthole but frame and panel except the door by the stair. The handles are round knob type not long lever type. The doors were double doors with a secondary one which opened inwards. The inner door had horizontal sloping slats like a fixed sun blind louvre style.

The windows are much smaller with no arched top or the horizontal inner beam of the kit windows.  Note spacing of doors and positioning of this all in red.

Am working all these details out and have yet to organise fresh plan. But that in red is correct so far whether building Imara or Perseverance.


« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 18:34:27 by Toby »

Toby

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 367
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2017, 17:41:43 »
The first photo shows rope type fenders on Perseverance and these are correct on Imara too. Here note that they are merely fastened to something over the bulwarks capping rather than as per original drawings (second photo), as described earlier with measurements. The brackets for the old way of fastening to the outside of the bulwarks still can be seen on the edge of the coloured band in the full photo of Perseverance.

Toby

« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 18:37:45 by Toby »

Toby

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 367
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2017, 17:52:43 »
Per plan.

Toby

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 367
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #21 on: April 02, 2017, 18:14:30 »
Note the sheer of the doors in relation to the vertical and note the size of the windows and their position etc.  This is correct for Imara and Perseverance. The sheer needs to be increased for the whole boat really.

Note the deadlights to the Windows all around the tug. THESE are LATER ADDITIONS and apply to PERSEVERANCE ONLY as is the pipework visible in the snapshot.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 18:41:20 by Toby »

Toby

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 367
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2017, 05:38:50 »
For PERSEVERANCE, ship's boats are clinker built and not cavel / metal as per Imara.
Also PERSEVERANCE ship's  boats were painted black over white.
Likely the interior of the ship's boats was painted superstructure colour but I am yet not 100% sure. ANY ONE CARE TO COMMENT?


See photo portions attached of port and starboard Perseverance ship's boats showing the black and the different features of the tarpaulins.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2017, 08:02:17 by Toby »

Toby

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 367
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2017, 18:28:58 »
On the original plan there is a flagstaff at the stern.  It measures 80mm in length and 3.17mm width at the base; tapered to the tip.
This gives a flagstaff in reality of 12ft 6" x 6" or 3.84m x 152mm.

So our 1:32 scale model should give us flag pole dimensions of: 120mm x 4.75mm for our models.

Toby

Drawing/photo to follow

Toby

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 367
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2017, 16:43:18 »
Starboard main deck superstructure.
In conjunction with earlier plan image with red markings.

From the front (bow) wall of the structure the first window is positioned 16.5mm in and this window should be 12mm wide single pane flat topped. For Perseverance there needs to be added a strip placed horizontally above the window (all other windows too) as well as a channel, placed either side of the window and extending below, in order to accommodate a sheet metal dead light. ...panel to slide up over the window to protect it.

Then there is a 6mm space followed by an 18mm wide door. The doors in the kit are wrong,  whether building as Imara or Perseverance. The doors were never altered as the original plans of Imara and later photographs of Perseverance prove for they show the same design and position.

The door is frame and panel wooden with brass fittings - handle round knob type for both inner and outer doors; each entrance features double doors.  On the plan and in the photos it is strangely evident that the door horizontals appear to follow the sheer. As demonstrated in earlier in this topic the photo and the plan agree. Will be interesting making a door with non 90 angles.  Note that beneath these doors are steps of grating.

After this door  there is a space of 28.5mm followed by another window of similar size to the first. Then another space of 18mm and the final door of similar style to the first albeit here the sheer is slightly different.

I am trying to create a legible drawing and will upload when completed.
Height wise -doors/windows - there is some adjustment needed. The next door to follow and which is located in the recess of the stair to the Upper deck is much higher placed that indicated.

This does mean, of course, that the riveting detail has to be sanded off adjusted and made logical in quite a number of places.

Toby
« Last Edit: April 14, 2017, 19:53:55 by Toby »

Toby

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 367
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2017, 02:54:22 »
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE HELP WITH.

I have been looking at the main deck superstructure and have found it difficult to determine two matters.
1: Were window frames generally made of metal or of wood.
2: Were portholes fastened with countersunk screws or bolts.

Obviously question one helps to know whether to use anything and paint the frames or make from wood and varnish them.

Question two I ask because such was not stated on the plan and in the photographs I have of Perseverance the screw/bolts are very prominent to view rather than being subtle.

Snap shots attached.
Toby

Toby

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 367
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2017, 20:12:33 »
I thought that I would make a few measurements of the main superstructure and place cut Paper strips to represent the doors, covers and windows.

What a game!

The superstructure I have is of very poor moulding quality with a number of distortions. Clearly all the rivet effect is going to have to be scrapped too and then redone in more suitable positions. In fact it will likely be quicker to build a superstructure than correct all the mistakes of the moulded thing.
I have already cambered and sheered the whole so that it sits to the deck.

If we take the starboard side for reference we find that the lower stern section is the correct length and depth. The next section all the way to the front is 5mm short in height; to be added to the roof, not below at the base of the wall.
Then the first part of this section up to the stairway is short. This can be corrected by adding and have the stair moved forward and its rake corrected to the proper angle.  This brings all into line with the original plans. It reduces the stair recess area to the correct dimensions too. 

Now the fore section is 5mm short in length.

See attached photo. I have not stuck paper on to represent the windows albeit one is shown in pencil roughly.

The davits for the ship's boats are totally wrong whether building as Imara or Perseverance. They do not sit on top of the superstructure but as marked on the attached are hinged to the superstructure wall.

Toby
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 20:17:40 by Toby »

model tugman

  • Site Supporter
  • Admiral Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 2731
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2017, 10:07:36 »
Are you glad you started this one Toby?
Tugs are for life      George B

Toby

  • Site Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 367
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2017, 10:52:15 »
GLAD TO SEE YOU HAVE RETURNED AND ARE IN GOOD FORM GEORGE!!!!!

In a word, NO.

It just goes to show that proper and accurate plans scaled to suit and scratch -building a model is less arduous, quicker and more rewarding.  Frankly there seems to be very few kits that are well designed and without errors in how they say to build them. Parts not matching to instructions and even marked out decks not fitting the hull on some models.  Accuracy regardless of producer in any country seems to be lacking. It further shows how many modelers are not that fussed about accuracy and obviously do not research. If I had paid the kit price i would be more than fuming and would feel ripped off. When one pays a very high price one expects it to be correct. ....surely that is why it is so priced. . It likely means all models of even Imara,  let alone Perseverance,  are wrong for no one has said that they did any research and found out that similar to me. In fact no one has commented, questioned or queried on this thread at all, except John and Peter,  albeit there have been more than 1000 views; and yet I believe that you said this was a popular model.

Perhaps better if producers concentrated on  building accurate full length hulls only.

My aim was to have this tug built in a jiffy and have something to go 'ponding' with whilst I returned to Danube. But something doesn't mean anything will do! I thought that my research would just be a leaving off or adding this or that which would turn the model into Perseverance rather than Imara. I had no idea I was going to have to get the boat correct before starting. It has taken longer to get this little model sorted than building and adding all those rivet heads to the huge Danube model to the stage that it is at.

I will just have a Laphroaig and then I may be able to
:) 
Toby

« Last Edit: April 18, 2017, 12:45:43 by Toby »

des

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Researching Imara/Perseverance 2017 Greenwich Archive
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2017, 23:59:32 »
Hi Toby

The problem with producing low-cost model kits (that is, priced so they can sell, not necessarily for the mass market) is one of cost of tooling.  Frequently sacrifices must be made regarding accuracy simply in order to be able to produce a mould for a reasonable cost - the mould must be made such that the product can be removed from the mould, so "tumble-homes" at the stern will almost always be flattened out.  But I can't see why a moulding cannot have accurate length, width and height, door and window placement, etc.  Also, manufacturing tolerances can result in parts not fitting correctly.  Different kits will have different problems, which we modellers must "accept", no matter how reluctantly.

As an example, for my project the hull is fibreglass and most of the rest is styrene, with many parts pre-cut.  I accurately cut out and cleaned up the pre-cut foredeck piece, but then found I had to re-shape the whole of the bow curvature - and then I found that the hull is not symmetrical as the deck piece will only fit one way up.  I still haven't worked out how I'm going to hide this as the project progresses.  Similarly, the stern quarters of the main deck piece did not fit the corners of the hull, and had to be shaped by more than 6mm on one side to get both corners to fit the hull moulding.

Still, as they say, press on rewardless.

Good luck.

Des.