I, too,would like a short course in how to print out hull plans to exact size on pieces of paper! Even when I have a scale printed out in the computer diagram, I can’t seem to find a way to change the size of the printed image so that the scale is exactly the correct size. Computereze is an opaque jargon!
You may need to go to a “tile” printout and set scale to 100%. It will eat up a bit of paper, as it centers the image in as many sheets as required - which is set in printer default.
I suggest you check the dimensions before setting off to build, since the software may say 100% - but printer and paper feed may make it +/- a few percent (like 3% or so).
Here are a couple of how-to ideas:
-
COPIER ENLARGE/REDUCE METHOD:
Go to this enlargement web page (below) and book mark it. It can be used with copiers that have enlarge/reduce modes. Just measure the actual length of the hull and enter it in “length” and then enter the size you want and select calculate. The calculator will provide you with the percent of enlargement/reduction needed to go from your actual size drawing to the size desired. This will work only on copiers that have enlarge feature. Most only go to 400% so you will have to make an interim copy - then recalculate from that size - I use this for printing out bulkheads - using maximum beams of the drawing and of the finished size of hull beam.
http://www.universalprinting.com/help/proportioncalculator.html -
For printing PDF files full size on small sheet size paper:
a) You need a full version of Adobe Acrobat (not just the free reader).
b) Open the drawing you want to print in Acrobat
c) Select FILE
d) Select PRINT
in the page handling area (left side, middle of open printing instructions)
e) Change from “Fit to Printer Margins” to TILE LARGE PAGES
f) set Tile scale = 100%
g) Set cut marks = Western **
h) In the printer’s properties (top right corner) set the paper size you are printing to.
When you select the paper size you should see a preview of the number of sheets needed to print to 100% - the smaller the paper, the more “tile” pages it will require to print.
** Cut marks allow you line up one tile printed page to the next. I usually cut one page and then line it up to the none-cut pages cut marks. Note the cut marks will print on both the left and right sides of each tile AND on the top and bottom of the sheet. If you have a light box, (or a large window) it makes it easier to line up the cut marks by overlaying the sheets - then you don’t have to cut each sheet. Just tape the sheets together and then cut out the outline, the bulhead cross sections - or hang the entire thing on the wall so you can scale locations for bulkheads, keel, rudder, mast, etc.
Again - is you use the “tile” printing - be sure to check to make sure your printer is accurate. Except for very small dimensions, and error of 1% will not seriously impact your plans.
Hope this helps. Otherwise, enginnering/blueprint shops, Kinkos, or other print places can print directly to wide format paper - 36 or 48 inches wide by whatever length (in feet/meters) you need. This can get expensive, as I recall a set of 4 pages for a multihull originally ran me $32 (US). Good luck, and post questions if you can’t get either/both to work.
Dick
Adobe can be pretty resistant. Here’s what I’ve done. I had to use both techniques recently:
-
Just take two pieces of “letter” sized paper and glue them together so they’re at least 14 inches long. (“letter” is 8.5 X 11 or 215.9mm X 279.4, “legal” is the same width and 14 inches/355.6 mm long)
-
If that’s not enough, take a screen shot (on my computer, the button says “Print Scr/Sys Req”), then paste into paint or some other graphics program and scale or edit to get what you want. You may have to print, measure, and rescale couple of times to get it. Paint only scales in percent by integers, but with some cleverness you can probably get anything you want by scaling twice.
P.S. If you’re patient and thorough, glue stick is a good way to stick the two letter sized pieces together. If not, Scotch tape but I won’t answer for it if it clogs your printer.
If you’re scaling by copier, beware. Some copiers distort things a bit. I’m not sure which ones. I suspect some scanners may do this also, since I’ve seen a skewed drawing on the net which appeared to be scanned. Maybe a box, measure, and see if all the points (including diagonally opposite) are still the correct distance apart.
Alex,
I’ve never tried to print on A3, but I have had occasion to print 8.5x11 sized images on legal paper, and I do so by merely changing the paper in the tray and not telling the computer. I suppose some printers may have sensors to auto-detect the paper size, but if yours doesn’t you shouldn’t have any problems doing something like this as long as the paper you substitute is larger in both directions than the paper the printer thinks it’s using. Alos be sure to check the do not rescale box in the PDF printer control box that pops up when you hit “print”. Hope this works for you too…
Bill
I found a full copy of Adobe, and printed the plans off and they seem to be the correct size.
so…
off to build a third footy…
ALex.
My problem seems to be the reverse. I’m trying to print out a set of ‘frames’ for a Footy which were generated on Hullform 9S. They have a marked scale from the Hullform program showing mm and cm, but when I use all the scaling tools in the Paint and ‘Print’ facilities, the scale is slightly smaller than reality as measured by a metric ruler.
I’m begining to think that the printer (Dell) is resizing my diagrams to fit the legal size paper. Is this possible? If I reduce the span of my image (i.e. larger margins around my image on “Paint”) will this overcome this problem?
I’ve tried to print this half a dozen times without success.
Rod - somewhere your printer is getting instructions to print to page size. You can eliminate any margins and disregard the error code saying you are printing outside of the print area. In “most” cases, this will allow sufficient space to print.
Also as noted above - you can “tell” your printer you are printing 11x14 and insert 8.5 x 11. You may need to rotate your file 180 degrees if it cuts off the last bulkhead.
Alternatively, perhaps you can print only 1/2 bulkhead and trace to a piece of folded paper to provide full size view when unfolded.
Hi All,
Not sure if this will help with the printing issues but if you have CAD software then the DXF files are attached.
Regards
Peter & Clare
Progress
Rudder completed 6.3g before varnishing, 6.5g varnished.
Hatch cover with screws unvarnished 6g, varnished 7.1g.
Regards
Peter & Clare
To Dick Lemke
Solved my problem, but many thanks for your effort.
Turned out that when I saved my diagram in JPEG it was considered a photo. When printed out of the photo file it got resized. However, when it was in a Paint file, it printed out at exact size. The screen image in Paint was adjusted so that the included scale measured accurately both on the screen and on the paper.
Live and learn!
Rod
I use Irfanview as an image viewer. It has the capability to print the picture by its pixel size with or without resizing, and other ways.
I can view most any kind of image.
It’s free too. www.irfanview.com
Progress update.
The most distasteful job - making the bulb.
Jarvis Walker is an Ozzie fishing supplies manufacturer and Snapper is a fish (that is the total we know about fishing or fish), their size 5 is right for making a bulb.
With an increased moment arm of 117% (longer keel) and a previous bulb weight 190g we aimed for a weight of 160g.
Shaped, it weighed 162.2g but with the cutout for the keel it came down to 139.9g. A bit lower than liked but it took 3g of epoxy to attach it and then add paint. Also we are still hopeful of a lower AUW.
As pictured weight is 240g.
Regards
Peter & Clare
P & C - Smart looking boat. I would get an interpretation about your aerial. If it is considered part of the boat (and it might be because of the semi rigid covering) then I think it might be illegal.
Most wire antennae are run up the mast or are done internally. I think that wire is okay because it is not structural, sort of the way a string bridle for sheet control can be above the box rim but a solid tube sheet outlet cannot.
Anyway, I only bring this up because I wouldn’t want your fine craftsmanship barred from competition somewhere. So contact Angus and get a thumbs up or down from the tech boys.
I have run into similar problems with aerials. I tried fastening the aerial around the inside of the hull just below the bulwalks, and also on the outside in an almost similar position, and found that reception was poor and control was spotty even at short distances like 50-100 ft. While the aerial can be run up beside the mast in sloops, it is hard to do with McRigs. I did use an aerial from the deck beside the mast and fastened (loosely) to the top of the McRig "mast’ in a hull designed to take both sloop and McRig rigging. However it interfered with the full range of motion of the McRig as the exit point from the deck was beside the Sloop’s mast position, while the McRig pivotted further forward.
I note in photos that many boats have an aerial tube protruding at about 45 degrees from the stern.
Has any ruling on the “box fit” of aerials ever been made?
NO! and it is not needed as an aerial is not a component that makes a difference to the speed of the craft.
Line 2 of the Footy Class Rules states that :-
" These are open class rules in which anything not specifically restricted or prohibited is permitted. "
The Footy Class Rule B.2 then states that :-
" The following may project above the top of the measurement box: sail(s), mast(s), spars, rigging, aerial, wind indicator(s), associated fittings. "
Rule B.4 states that :- " The following may project aft of the measurement box: bumpkin, rudder. "
Rule B.2 is explicit in that it specifically allows an aerial to be above the box, whilst rule B.4. is, unfortunately, mildly ambiguous in that it specifically allows a bumkin or rudder but does not specifically allow an aerial to be aft of the box - but there again it doesn’t specifically prohibit one either.
My unofficial interpretation of this would be that aerials can be fitted anywhere you want.
In my humble opinion rule B.4 is unnecessary in that if it wasn’t there at all then neither bumkin nor rudder would have been specifically referred to and as such both would have been allowed under Line 2 of the rules.
The sheet guide reasoning is slightly different I think. Footy Rule B.2, as we have seen above, allows Rigging to be above the box. Unfortunately the ERS Rule F.1.5 defines Rigging as being :-
" Any equipment attached at one or both ends to spars, sails or other rigging and capable of working in tension only. Includes associated fittings which are not permanently fixed to a hull, spar or spreader. "
The " tension only " and " not permanently fitted " requirements have been interpreted by some influential folk in the U.K. to exclude the use of rigid sheet guide mechanisms because they are capable of taking loads in compression and are permanently fitted.
There is effectively no difference in how these two methods of sheet guide actually work with neither one conferring an unfair advantage over the other. Also, I could put forward an argument that a rigid sheet guide is an associated fitting which would allow its use under Footy Rule B.2. Again, in my humble opinion, the sooner this anomily is cleared-up in the rules the better.
Cheers,
firstfooty
Well, first the wording of both B.2 and B.4 grant permission for the subject of their rules. This is in conflict with Line 2 of Footy Class Rules in which anything not specifically restricted or prohibited is permitted. Both B.2 and B.4, as pointed out by FF above, are confusing because they grant permission for what is not explicitly restricted as per Line 2. Both these rules should state what is restricted, and the items in both rules should not have been specified as permitted.
That said, we wander into the swamp of the rules’ intents. My interpretation of the above clauses’ intentions is that the rudder and bumkin (if you use one) are the only items that can extend aft of the box (in most cases this would mean the hull as well). The aerial is allowed to extend above the box rim, just not aft of it.
So, hypothetically, if you were to allow the aerial to extend aft of the box dimensions, in the manner of the rudder and/or bumkin, then how would you apply that to a diagonally placed boat like Hop2It? The box has a specific slot for the rudder if the boat is placed longitudinally in it, but the rudder allowance is lost if the boat is placed diagonally. Should a stiff aerial be allowed to project aft of the box on a diagonally placed boat?
A race related issue is also in play here which is why I don’t think that an aerial that extends aft of the boat is legal. The aerial is part of the boat and an aft aerial in effect makes the boat longer in the eyes of the racing rules. So visually, at a distance, one may see no overlap situation, but in the jury room the aft mounted aerial may technically change the relationship of the boats in conflict. This is the main reason that I interpret the intent of these two rules the way I have.
But then the aerial must be below the top of the box, as it is not part of the “rig”. But what if it is fastened to the metal spring wire of the McRig, (below the deck, I presume)? Or perhaps a thin wire run up the inside of the ‘hollow’ carbon tube mast. Does it then become a pro tempore ad hoc part of the rig?
I am become reduced to a quivering mass of gibbering incoherence. I always knew it might happen someday.
Hi All,
Niel has raised an interesting point regarding the aerial placement and it’s legality. We have always (3 boats) mounted the aerial this way having copied the idea from the original rules summary sketch (attached). It looks like this aerial doesn’t protrude through the slot but rather goes above the edge of the box.
For us this is a very academic question because, as mentioned before, there are no other Footys for official races.
We only have 36MHz equipment with long aerials and are more concerned with reliable radio operation. It appears that in the end 2.4G will replace everything and the issue of long aerials will disappear. Our local aeromodelling shop hasn’t sold anything other than 2.4G sets for over a year now.
Some observations though.
1/ Our aerial tube has a bit of silicon fuel tubing at the base to make it flexible.
2/ The aerial tube needs to flex to fit the boat in the measurement box. Another interpretation required? See pic in following post.
3/ With the aerial tube flexed and fitted in the box the aerial tube could be considered to be stopping the free movement of the boom. So there could be another question.
4/ Niel’s additional point re race protest committees and the aerial is true. As we don’t have to be too strict with ourselves regarding sailing rules it is an often occurrence that the boat behind can swing the boat ahead just by pushing against the aerial tube. It is easy to do and sends the other boat off in the wrong direction. One of Clare’s favorite tactics Clare:) Peter 
Regards
Peter & Clare