Hi Don,
I got the lines plan of Lady Anne from the Scottish MAritime museum free of charge except for printing and mail.
I signed an agreement with them that the plans will be used once for model boat building only and not to be distributed.
However, you could email to this gentlemean athe the museum, Mr Mike Porter, mike@porternetwork.com for your own copy
Here is the lady Anne, 72", 44lbs displacement
Gerald
x Earl
tank you for the very clear sketch , actually it is more clear to me, I will work on that idea and I will follow your suggestion about sail plan
Thanks again
X Gerald & Don
I’ m busy since 3 years with the construction of the TUIGA another Fife design. Is the admiral yacht of Monaco is racing all around and winning all the times . Fantastic Yacht !
I have made all the drawings at scale 1:15 therefore the overall lenght is 2meters while the hull is 1.54meters, if you are interested my plans are in CDR (coreldraw) !
Cheers to all
Claudio
Gerald
Thank you. I got the deck plan for the Cicely from them but thats all they had. I got the lines from a magazine article. I found the SMM very friendly to deal with so I won’t hesitate to go there again. The hull on my Cicely is only 48". The rudder linkage took me a week to figure out. The deck on your Lady Anne is the same as mine. Ain’t joggling fun. I managed to get access to all my servos through the cabins and skylights but I really need a stronger winch. She pretty much sits on the shelf because I got a little fiddley with the rigging and it takes too much time to set it up. I only got to sail it when we went camping with the fifth wheel so I could carry it assembled. It sailed well even with the scale rudder. It sure looked pretty.
Claudio
I have had an ongoing war with CorelDraw but I would still be interested in seeing your plans. Can you attach them here or do you want me to PM my e-mail address. The Tuiga is a beautiful boat but then he didn’t make any ugly ones did he.
Thanks
Don
Hi Don
Yes pass me your E-Mail in PM.
Actually My PC is victim of the antivirus Mcafee “uptading” that treated Windows XP as a virus, my PC is out of order, therefore I need to recover the situation first.
Thanks
Claudio
PS: some of my work can be seen here : www.nonsolovele.com
select on the left column “le barche” and then “Vintage” you will find the TUIGA file incluing two downlodables PDF files
Claudio
Thank you very much. That is way more info than I had when I built the Cicely. Maybe the Lady Anne will have to wait. Are the two PDF’s all the info or do you still need my e-mail?
Don
HI Don,
I can supply the PDF or CDR plans at 1:15 on separate files in zip form unless the one seen on ‘nonsolovele’ are OK for you.
Cheers
Claudio
Hi Claudio
The ones I have are fine because I will probably be using a smaller scale. It’s the layout, lines and detail that I was after.
Thanks again
Don
Sorry Earl,
I have a second thinking and I would appreciate to understand the rationale you described (see above).
Why more ballast forwad of CB it is and advantage ?
Thanks a lot
Cheers,
Claudio
Altering the profile as I’ve done tends to move the volume of the fin (and hence the ballast) aft somewhat. Making the fin wider in its forward part gives room for more ballast there to compensate. Otherwise the forward ballast has to be placed higher, which reduces the righting moment. These hulls are much more difficult to trim than a fin and bulb arrangement.
Cheers,
Earl
Hi Earl
tank you very much, I got it.
Having told that, I assume that there nothing tecnical against the ‘fin/bulb’ prothesis, except that is not nice to see once out of water.
In principle, at home the prothesis is removed anyhow.
I’m still in conflit between these two options.
Cheers,
Claudio
It is, of course, a matter of taste. Since these hulls sail heeled most of the time, the bulb is often visible in the water, which I find unsightly. Also, as a student of the J’s, I found that having to deal with the same issues of trim and balance as the original designers increased my appreciation of their skills.
Cheers,
Earl
Hi Earl,
lot of thanks again !
Cheers
Claudio
HI Claudio,
I would like to ask if you would mind if I post your Enterprise drawings on the J Class website for builders to use? www.officialJClass.org They would be a tremendous help for anyone wanting to build since we are always short of drawings/plans for J Class models, and your set is wonderful.
Larry
Hi Larry,
happy to serve you and all other modelers willing to build a J Class, simply mention the source.
These plans are of course a scale reduction of the original one.
Up to the modeler to adopt the ballast position and weight suitable for proper navigation.
Actually, after discussion with Earl, I’m preparing a new set of drawing where the long fin is modified in depth and form to allow ballast increase.
Cheers
Claudio
There it is !
The Enterprise scaled 1/28 with modified keel.
The ballast is 4160g equivalent to 65% of the total displacement of 6400g
2240g are available for the full construction.
Actually I need of course to build one in order to verify that the modification is valid.
At the time of construction a new tread will be open for the Enterprise build-log
Cheers
Claudio
Very, very pretty. I think you’ll find it’s not necessary to increase the chord of the rudder, the additional depth (span) will give you all the area you need.
Cheers,
Earl
Thank Earl,
for the suggestion but this will permit to control the CLR position.
Today I will redraw the immersed volume in order to increase the depth but limiting the overall volume as such to allow less ballast and keeping the same righting moment. In other words : smaller ballast but deeper .
Regards
Claudio
That’s it
Displacement 6120g
Ballast 3875g
Depth 200mm
Claudio
Summary of ENTERPRISE drawings
3 model’s options main data:
1 - Original Form & Data - scale 1/28 : Dspl 5810g - ballast 3490g - build allocation 2300g - ratio Dspl/Balast 60 % - depth 160mm
2 - Wide Keel : Dspl 6400g - ballast 4160g - build allocation 2240g - ratio Dspl/Ballast 65 % - depth 185mm
3 - Deep Keel : Dspl 6120g - ballast 3875g - buld allocation 2245g - ratio Dspl/Ballast 63.3 % - depth 200mm
The 1st option, being the lighter, will probably perform better with low wind conditions.
The 2nd option is the heavier and should perform with higher wind conditions, the depth is limited to 185mm almost 1 inch deeper then the original
The 3rd is lighter then the second option, the keel is deeper of all and the ballast too - the righting moment is slightly higher compared to the the 2nd option .
The margins for the overall construction is similar for the 3 options 2240g/2300 g
Very probably I will choose the 3rd option , unless the experts would suggest another choice.
Regards
Claudio
I think we now know about as much as we can from your excellent analysis so it will depend on which appearance one prefers. It would be interesting to build both the second and third options for comparison purposes 
As far as the rudder shape goes, I would still suggest less chord and not worrying about using the scale mast position. The mast position on the full size boats was a compromise for the varying CEs that resulted from the extreme flexibility of the triple-headed rig.
Cheers,
Earl