I will say that if ANYBODY wants to commercially manufacture kits of parts for the Emile Bertin, you're welcome to it. All that I ask is that customers know/are informed that the design information itself is the product of a collaborative effort here and in itself, wasn't generated specifically for commercial intentions. I've been looking into obtaining quotes for the smaller ship designs that I have kicking around as those tend to be the more technically demanding and less forgiving to build variations. Thus far, I've received per-kit costs ranging between $16 and 80 for the various designs that I have in-progress assuming that they were to be cut in batches of at least 50 at a time. The key factors that are going to dictate whether any of these are going to be offered as precut kits are the buildability (including all gear necessary to be combat-ready), availability of capital to cover the up-front costs of the production runs, and interest/committments for purchasing kits (volume of casual interest here or somebody taking deposits or pre-payment on kits).
Wow! Now that is impressive kitting! I've always liked CAD designed and laser cut model plane kits and it looks like it works very well for ships too! Amazing job! I love the premade shaft holes too. That will make it very easy for someone to set up the ship perfectly the first time out. Exceptional work! Still needing one test built for proofing? Right now, I'm still moving to South Korea via a lot of States and the MWC Nats. Heh. I do have a moving address (my Dad's house) for now and will have an actual address in South Korea (USPS box) around mid-August. I better get moving on componants. Mike PS I'll be online a little this week while at the MWC Nats, but after that my internet access will be spotty until August.
Just a couple updates on a couple fronts: I will be off Friday. That is the only day I will not be at work while the Post Office is open, so I will have to wait till then to get the 2 kits mailed out. Once again, sorry for the delay on my end of things. [V] The good news is I have finished gluing up all of the predesigned parts. [] The last piece is currently in the clamps. I did use a thicker bodied wood type glue to assemble this one, due to the wide gaps. If I don't forget or get too busy on other projects, sometime tonight I'll post a couple pics of the completed skeleton. I'll try to write up some kind of an "evaluation" or "punch list" sometime this week. I've been keeping a list of a few things that I think would make things easier/ sturdier, but I want to try to post them all at once so they are easier to find for reference. Webwookie: I was tipped off by the bow block drawing when I went to carve the bow block, then after some closer checks of some of the pictures/ line drawings I have, it looks like the bow is a bit raised? I may have to break a few joints apart to get it where it needs to be, I assembled it with the decks flat. If it is raised, how high would it have been above a flat plane projected from the rearmost portion of the fore deck??
I don't have the information for the difference in height between the forwardmost and rearmost portions of the foredeck offhand as I'm not accessing the internet from home at the moment. I'm hoping I'll remember to look it up as soon as I have a chance though. However, the kit was designed with the intention for the rear potion of the ship to be assembled flat and upside-down, then the keels fully attached, following which the hull is then fixed onto its keel, the front ribs installed, and the forward subdeck is then attached. I hope that might offer some insight into the design/assembly.
I think you put an order of assembly earlier in this thread. I had read through it at one point, but due to the warpage of the sub decks, I assembled both decks flat, upside down. The difference at this point appears to be negligable, but I'll wait until you are able to find out what the actual difference is supposed to be before I do anything drastic. Looking at the assembly at this point, unless someone was specifically looking for it, and possibly measuring it, I don't think it would be detected, so I may leave it as is unless there is a possiblility of it causing problems with functionality/ stability, but again, it is pretty much not detectible. I would have probably never noticed without the drawing of the bow block showing a slight radius at the top. Here are the latest pics: Webwookie, if there are any specific areas you would like close ups of, let me know and I can post some.
OK guys... The kits are in the mail!![] They should be in your able hands by mid next week. [8D] Make sure to let me know you get them OK, and if anything is damaged or missing.
Mike, Enjoy Korea, I had a lot of fun when I was stationed over there. Have you ever thought about working on a boat while you're there? Unless you have a busy schedule, it might be nice to have one to tinker with.
Ok, I think I’ve finally got all of my thoughts together to try to write up a “wish list” for the Emile Bertin, so here goes, but please keep in mind that this is just my opinion. To keep us on the same page, lets assume that the first 1/8” thick rib on the bow is rib #1, and numbered in succession to the last 1/8” rib on the stern being #17. 1) It seems as if it would be beneficial to extend the bilge keels to rib #6 forward, and rib # 12 aft. Not that an extra length of it would be visible on the outside, it would run just under the sheeting or planking. The purpose here would be to tie more of the ribs together, and easily add a little more rigidity to the hull, especially where the bow portion of the ship is connected to the main portion. As is, the only thing holding the two pieces together are the two thin keels and the interdeck connecter. To the aft, the bilge keels would only need to be extended about 3/8” to reach rib #12. Of course they should be “notched in” to the ribs they were extended to, as they are already notched in to the rest. 2)Rib #15 is the only one without some type of step to positively locate it to the proper height on the sub deck. It would make assembly easier if one were added. 3)On the ribs that straddle the double keel (#s 6-12), the tops are solid, and the bottoms on most are open. The thought here is to cut out the centers of the tops out after glue up. I’m not sure, but it may be helpful to have the bottoms solid also, with a notch to receive the keels, and then the centers would also need to be cut out after glue up. This would create an extra assembly step, but it might facilitate getting everything glued up straight. 4)It would really help to locate the prop stuffing tubes at the proper angle if there were two holes for each to go through to hold them correctly while they are epoxied in instead of one. Due to the design of the real ship, it looks like the extras would possibly have to be sacrificial, in that they would be cut off after the tubes were in, or possibly just some type of temporary brace that slip fit over the keels or ribs somewhere to aid in location, then be discarded afterwards. 5) Rib #1 would be easier to get in the right spot if it had an 1/8” tall tab on the top, and a receiving hole in the sub deck. It would also help if it was extended into the keel a bit, and the keel notched to accept it. 6) The little triangle shaped rudder tube holder, and the small stern keel are difficult to install. There does not look to be a way to make it idiot proof, but if it were “notched in” in a couple places it would help. Off hand, I think that if the half of the keel, where it meets the sub deck were extended to go through the sub deck it would make it easier. Also, if the area of the triangle that meets rib #16 had a notch that extended 1/8” aft of rib #16( halfway between rib 16 and the hole), and the keel that straddles ribs 13-16 extended through it. I modified up some DXFs to try to illustrate this a little better. I’ll post a screen shot. I can upload the file also, if desired. Words don’t work so well in trying to describe some of this stuff!! Screen shot of some of the proposed mods: 7) If a solid model of the bow and stern block were posted, I might be able to machine a plug to make fiberglass ones from, but that would be stretching what I can get away with at work. 8) Do you guys think it would be feasible to design and make rudders out of wood for this ship?? If so, of course the blank could be laser cut like the rest of the parts. 9) On the subject of the rudder, I may need to draw this up to give a clear picture of what I’m talking about, but I’ll try it with text… Would it be possible to design in some type of “plate”, in addition to the little triangle shaped one, to aid in rudder post and rudder servo mounting? For my Iowa, I added some steps to the side of the ribs for a plate to sit on. The plate has notches to locate it on the ribs, and holes for the rudder posts, and the servo. I’ll post a picture, but I'm heading out of town for a day or two, so I may not get to it until next week. I just know I would like to nail down as much of the variables as possible, so that as much of the mounting has been pre worked out by us before a rookie gets it and has to try to figure out where everything goes. I realize that it will probably be until a couple of these are fitted out before we know where motors, servos, bottles, and cannons etc. will be mounted. Oh and uuummmm.... Sorry I wrote another book[]
Cannonman, for #9 I believe what you're talking about is called a "servo tray". I just got done helping one of my buddies install a new one in his Dunkerque as part of a refit. It's the 1/8" thick plate that you stick your rudder servo, firing servos, etc. Having a hole for the rudder post is not necessary in most servo trays, but if it helps hold it in place then that is good. Having notches in a rib to support it is also good, but a full crossbrace is even better.
I'm just checking in for a moment but I've noted your comments and I should have some time to pull up the model and look into some options for incorporating them sometime tonight.
Cool, of course the other guys will have things to add/ subtract, so as far as I'm concerned, the list is quite "fluid" right now. They are the pros, and I'm the rookie, so I would say that there suggestions would take precedence over mine. [8D] Yes, I feel the same way, the hole is not necessary. The reason I suggested it is to incorporate a few things into one piece, and to help "shore up" the rudder post. The way the assembly is in that area of the boat, the small rudder support triangle is just not very "robust", so I thought it might and some additional structure, as well as improve assembly accuracy. I like the thought of mounting the other required servos in the same "tray".[]
Seeing as time tonight has flown much faster than I had anticipated, I doubt I'll have a chance to revise the model to a degree of readiness suitable for uploading tonight; however, I am making some design revisions to the model that I hope to be able to upload to the file manager in the form of a new .pdf and .dxf's sometime in the near future.
Were these quotes based on ships of a bit less size/ fewer parts than the Emile Bertin? I just can't seem to get the numbers that low for a complete hull/ superstructure skeleton kit. Current figures put me close, but no cigar. The killer is the machine time. I'm trying to base off of known data for the hull, and assumed data for the superstructure, and the materials and machine time to complete them. The hull is approximately 30 pieces of two different thicknesses, and I assummed a maximum of 10 pieces of 1/8" for the superstructure. Of course the superstructure may be thinner, (which adds a bit of setup time due to an additional material thickness to tend with) and may be more or less pieces, but I needed a baseline guess to try to estimate from for cost feasibility, to see if I'm even in the ballpark. The cost could probably be reduced a bit, if not for my unwilliness to invest in run sizes of more that around 10 at a time to start with.
I got a little package in the mail... Looks great. I'd post pictures if I could figure out how. I guess I have to read the instructions again Mike
The low end of those quotes were for a couple of the options for the V105-108 while the high end was a preliminary quote for a Destroyer, based upon an estimated part count, estimated material usage, and quantity of 50. A quote I received for an earlier (incomplete) revision of the Emilé Bertin hull (no superstructure) was in the ballpark of $150 (minimum quantity of 25 sets), with a $300 set-up charge per run. In contrast, based upon the same Emilé Bertin data as in that quote, having the frame cut from G-10 fiberglass sheet was quoted at $210/kit.
Hey, I got a package too! Looking good. Pity I have evening classes in an hour For machine time, etc. have you heard of Techshop? It's a company that's offering a neat machine shop for $30 per day, and they've got everything from bridgeport mills to CNC mills to laser cutters to plasma cutters. Apparently their laser cutter can even use .jpg files. Buy a stack of wood, pay your $30, and spend a day running hulls through their laser cutter. Big cost savings there, I'd think.
Wow!! I can't believe the kits arrived already. Gotta love the US Postal service. [] That Techshop looks way too cool. [8D][8D] Too bad there is not one near me!! Looks like they may only have benchtop type CNCs, so the laser they advertise is probably on the small side too. When I get a chance, I'll look the brand up to see what they offer. I feel a lot better now, on the costing of the kits that is. I just did not see a way of getting the cost that low without increasing the feedrates beyond the point that good accuracy could be achieved. The kits we already made were probably a little over the top in that regard. Some of the lead ins, lead outs, and corners were overshot a bit, due to high feedrates. I feel reasonably confident at this point in saying that we could offer the kit consisting of the necessary parts to make the hull and superstructure skeleton for between $80 - $100 and they would be of a higher quality than the ones we already produced. Of course I'm not sure what the superstructre design will require yet. Based on what I've seen in the hobby, that would represent a great value, I think. What I envision (or hope) is achieved at the culmination of this project is a combat ship that can be built start to finish entirely by purchasing "off the shelf" kits and components. No fabrication required. No "engineering" required. No shop equipment required (except for maybe a Dremel and some clamps?). Just reading directions, assembly, and a little handywork. More like building a model kit instead of engineering and building a combat vessel! []
Hi all! The ships look great! I love the flow of ideas and possible improvements to the kit. Great job! I plan on embarking on an aggressive building schedule once I get settled in Korea. Which ships will be built is fluid at the moment, but I would like to build a 96th scale ship for Battlestations, a ship just for Treaty (possibly a Gascogne), and a slow Allied 4 or 5 unit fast gun ship. I also shipped a partially completed Mogador to finish up. There is always room for more though! Anyways, the rookie ship project is moving along nicely with all the input and people here on the forums working on it. Hopefully, I'll get to contribute once settled in Korea.
I unpacked the box today... the thing that is jumping out at me is that I like the caprail to be narrower, to allow my hands and tools in when working on the guts, or to allow a tray with all the goodies to be lifted out. At this point once assembled it can be trimmed. mike
