Figure out the Figures

Rwatson, as you have shrewdly guessed, it is a 3D CAD. I have represented the transversal sections and, on that basis, create the hull surface. But that is just the information in 5 columns of the table.
What, as I think, we investigate here is how to interpret the information in the table to represent the various lines that define fully the hull of the ship, the frames, the deck line, the longitudinal profile, the longitudinal sections and wáter lines. That is, as you know very well, the ship body plan. As you commented, I interpret that you know how to do it, in 3D with a computer, and therefore I would greatly appreciate you to explain what procedure you use for it, which represent the values of each of the columns, etc. ..
In short: I think I have 5 columns clear, although I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct. The remaining data in the table, please, tell us what they mean.
Very grateful in advance.

 

Forgive me my insistence but I am very interested in this hieroglyph, which I can not decipher. Apparently there are a couple of fellow members who have ideas to solve it. In case anyone want to lend a hand, I prepared the table RumnCoke an Excel spreadsheet, to facilitate the work, with a couple of bug fixes.
Columns 5 through 11 correspond to the data of frames which are circular arcs. The radius of the arc is the value that appears in column no.11. And not much else I can say.
rwatson??? .... nzboy??? ...... Thanks for your feedback ...

 

The boat in question

 

@Nzboy,
Dude you are a fraking genius. That is the boat!

 

I was going to say the transom looks different than the model, but then I see that the model has been modified.

On the first paper posted, at the top of the sheer and profile columns there are the numbers 3.5 . I was thinking they were baselines, but couldn't figure out how the profile could go above and below that number while the sheer only goes below.

What is meant by 'profile'? And 'sheer' also I guess.

What is meant by the 3.5 number and how does it relate to the renderings of nzboy?

 

That particular hull has been a test mule several times over. The hull radius was even softened a bit in the last 70 to 80% section. The transom was canted forward a bit so I could get the backstay hardware within the required measurements. The sheerline cut down to minimums to get the sailplan down lower to improve healing moment.

The 3.5 is the vertical distance between the deckline and the waterline at the bow.

 

I had also seen the .3 in that empty column. What is that?

Also the 60 in the other empty column?

 

If I knew, then I may have done it myself. NZboy might have an answer.

 

.3= skin thickness?
60= my skull thickness?

 

RumnCoke, I would like you to analyze these views. Nzboy boats and mine are very similar and very different at the same time.
Rwatson, what do you think?.

 

@Tansl,
Well what I see right away is that the vertical height at the bow is different comparing the two. Next, I see that the hull contour seems almost reversed at profile on your rendering. The hull should be very full and open quickly from the bow back to 50%. This is happening on Nzboy's . The Keel line Rocker on Nzboy's is visually true to the line I have been viewing for the last 20 years on this boat. I have to say he got it right.

 

RumnCoke, of course you know the boat better than anyone but I assure you that neither NZboy model, nor mine are totally correct. If you do not have more information, I'm afraid it will not be possible to achieve your goal.

 

what is your intended use for such a hull? unless you have a lot of ballast in the bottom, or perhaps a weighted keel (bulb keel?), it will not be very stable.

It seems to me that making a low drag shape is fairly easy, making one that is useful and works in real conditions is much more difficult.

 

Correct. Its an RC sail hull. It is a racer. There is a proportionaly deep keel with a hunk of torpedo shaped lead on the bottom yes.
The drawings, while shaped correctly, are not to scale. The boat is actually only 1 meter long.

 

Been a bit busy lately .Thought I would show you what the offsets mean .They are a very logical table that I am familiar with and use similar methods my self .1st column are your stations as percentages and measurements 2nd column are half breadths 3rd column sheer (distance above waterline)4th profile (buttocks (bottom) rabbitline) distance from sheer to bottom of hull. Normally when hulls are built upside down you want the distance from sheer (floor of building) to buttocks .In free ship measurements are from buttocks up So its are simple case of creating a new profile offset table. For example sheer at 50% 2.500( this comes 4.700) profile 4700 This establishes draught at 2200 and becomes base or 0 on z axis in freeship sheer at transom is 1.500 and profile 1.500 so is on waterline bow, is the same sheer 3.500 profile 3.500 below sheer (waterline)So for an example sheer3.100 (becomes 5.300)profile 4.673 (5.300 minus 4.673 equals 0.627 on z axis. The profile table is a differential table (because when you are building a boat you are concerned with each station) so .627 plus.187 next.627 plus .748 etc. Free ship works from stern to bow, these offsets are bow to stern ( just reverse them). It was easier to create the hull at 39.37 feet ( freeship doesn't like 1 metre boats ) then scale 1/12 So david asked me the displacement I said 6-8 ton. That was before I plugged the numbers in freeship came in 6.8ton ( he bit fairly well) freeship says 4kg but I think maybe 4.5 plus as a guess cp of .56 So maybe you would need2- 2.5kg ballast on a pole which means 2kg for hull maybe I really haven't a clue about model boats. The last model I made was 35 years ago