Thinking Things Through - French Frigates

[mtaylor]

I'm going to steal Robin's (and others) titles for this....  put down some thoughts, confusion, observations, and see how they fly.

 

First a bit of background:

I've become tired of waiting on ANCRE for the translation of the Belle Poule monograph and am doing it myself.  Which as I read leads me down other paths.  Some good, some not so good.    It was recommended that I use this monograph as a "guideline" for my Licorne since it's in the time period (they were together when they ran into Admiral Keppel's fleet and Belle Poule went on to much fame).   I'm also Googling like crazy in the quest for information.

 

Per my sources, Hahn had it wrong on the rig.  The masting and yards might have the proper dimensions for Le Venus but the rig should be from Belle Poule.  Le Venus has some (quite a bit actually) things that were not done at the time of Licorne and Belle Poule.  I do have to be cautious as Belle Poule is "as built" but Licorne is "as captured" which was after a rebuild.  Much is different from the "as captured" and "as built"  when she was built in 1755.

 

So... for the first of many questions and thoughts....

 

1) The first port (chase or hunting port or as the English call it: bridle port).  It wasn't until 1787 that this port had a gun fitted as standard practice.  There was also a full size lid on it.  The rest of the ports were open unless bad weather dictated installation of the covers.   I'm going to follow this practice. 

 

2) The NMM plans for HMS LIcorne are very clear on the cross-section about the wales and how they were done (they blend into the planking as they do down the hull).  Belle Poule and other frigates of this period have them done that way. Originally Licorne had wales like the English ships.   So....  would the thicker planking have continue upwards in the bow area like Belle Poule, Bonhomme Richard, and others?  Or not?    I'm leaning towards following those examples.  See photo (I'm using Karl's photo.  I hope he doesn't mind.) for what I think is right.  It's the area highlighted in red

:

 

As I stumble through this, I'll add to it

Edited January 6, 2015 by mtaylor

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

 thicker planking has to continue upwards in the bow area like Belle Poule, Bonhomme Richard ?

 

It would not be useful to make it thinner !

 

It was the french way to protect when  fishing the anchor.

 

 

[mtaylor]

Thanks Robin.  This is a great way to sort things out and get input from others.  Pity we can't all meet and talk over coffee or tea.

 

Thanks Gaetan.  That's what I was thinking but needed another input. 

[mtaylor]

Thanks Robin.  I'm thinking about getting that book.  I've paused my build while I mill some planking wood and sort out some things. 

[mtaylor]

I blew it again.  Ah the joys of research and being pointed in unknown directions... the 8-pdr frigates that didn't have a chase port did not have them added .  The first port had a gun, no lid, and was smaller because of the location.   Anchor handling was done from the forecastle, the platform, and 'hanging off the side'.   

 

Still digging through these materials.  Better to have found it late than never but I'm at a good point in the build to resolve these kinds of finishing issues.

 

Thanks for letting me think out loud....

Edited January 8, 2015 by mtaylor

[augie]

Glad you got it resolved!  

[mtaylor]

2 down, more to go...

[mtaylor]

Another question...  Gaetan helped with this (for which I'm very grateful) but there's a sticky question in the back of my head.

 

In the monograph, there's dimensions listed (monograph is in French and I'm using Google to translate it) in the following form:

 

"un diameter de 6po. - 34/100^e"

 

I understand the "the diameter is 6 inches" part but not the 34/100^e part.    Can anyone shed some light?  Neither I nor Gaetan had seen this before.  I'm concerned this might be something vital and not just a restatement of the dimension.

[pollex]

French Dimensions: Hello Mark, There is a possibility that the dimension in question may be

"French inches" which are are not the same as English (Imperial) inches.  I don't have the

reference at hand, but 34/100 may represent the "French" inch as  3.4 centimetres,

which is larger than the Imperial inch of  2.54 centimetres.  Regards, Mark Pollex

[mtaylor]

Thanks Mark..   Yes, the pouces are in "French Inches" which was explained as "about 10% bigger". 

 

Hmm... I'll have to see if  that centimeter reference will work. 

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

Who wrote that book?

Is he comparing old english and french foot?

3 po 6 lignes  195/100

1,95 x 2,707   5,27cm

3.5 pouces x 2.707 cm/pouces :  9.47 cm

 

link :  centieme partie de la chaine: 7,92 pouces

1,95x  5,27            9,87

195/100 :    9,87 cm

 

Link:  chain subdivision  in arpentage in England

[mtaylor]

It's the ANCRE La Belle-Poule monograh, Gaetan.   From their website:  Author : Jean BOUDRIOT & Hubert BERTI

 

I'm assuming the pouces/lignes are the French inch which, and I might have mistranslated it, are the "old" pouces/lignes.  If I measure the figure in the plans, he's larger than the figure in the other two monographs I have from them.     So it's possible that the 195/100 is the comparison.  although some others are of the form:  8 lignes - 37/100^e or 1 pouce 1/2 90/100.    Very different to my brain.

 

I'm only trying to sort this out to get the rigging right... so I guess close counts.

[augie]

If you're worried about the superscript 'e' it's just the French version of our 'nd' or 'th' as in 2nd or ninth.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Augie

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

Mark, which page, I will look in the french version.

[mtaylor]

Page 95. Gaetan.  I believe the discussion on measurements is on page 63.  The computer hiccupped after I typed into the translator and I haven't redone it yet.  The only version they have of this is French which is why I'm hammering away at a translation via Google Translate and several on-line dictionaries.   Thanks for all your help Gaetan.  You're a model saver!

 

Thanks Augie.  I wasn't aware of that.

Edited January 16, 2015 by mtaylor

[dafi]

I do not know if it helps:

 

There is a page of measurement calculation charts in the french Arsenal-Forum.

 

http://5500.forumactif.org/t13-tableaux-de-calculs

 

In some there should be a translation to english, as I did the german translations. In last case, I should have a old working copy on my laptop.

 

Cheers, DAniel

[wq3296]

Greetings m...

 

I wouldn't over complicate. To me, it makes sense that 6" and 34/100 simply means 6.34" regardless of the length of their actual inch. What does it matter, so long as you are consistent? Additionally, I am quite confident that the original ship was not built as shown on the drawings - nothing ever is, from ships, to buildings, to bridges, etc. My point: if something doesn't make sense to you, it probably didn't make sense to the original builders either so they changed it to something that worked or was easier to build. Finally, do you really think the builders of 15th, 16th, 17th, century ships were really concerned about fractions of an inch? Doubtful. 

 

wq3296

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

Here is the example.

 

3 inches 6 lines 195/100^e

 

^{I really do not know the answer, are these 2 values the same thing, is the unit of 195 represented in 1/100?}

 

[augie]

It seems really strange that they would express fractions in a way that's larger than a whole number.  One can make sense out of 64/100 but 195/100?  Is there some convention we're not aware of?  

[mtaylor]

This may be one of things where "close counts".   At the scale I'm building at, 1 or 2 inches won't matter on planking or anything wood.  I notice that they do the rigging area a bit different and it's just one measurement.   But, I do like answers to mysteries but with this, it may not be possible.

[mtaylor]

On a different note, I am finding things out by inference.. such as the rudder on Belle-Poule wasn't tapered (fore and aft but is top to bottom) but had the turbulence grove.  Hahn shows Licorne with no groove but nothing on the plans for fore-aft taper (only taper he shows is vertical)..  His build appears to show a fore-aft tapered rudder.   I'm going to follow Belle-Poule on this... 

[wq3296]

Greetings Augie,

 

In my opinion:

 

To your point, 195/100 must be the same as 1.95 to 1.00 - in other words a ratio. A ratio would apply to any unit of measure i.e. feet, inches, meters, etc. We know that the design of ships of that era was based on the ratio system. You've seen it: the length of the main mast was based on a fixed percentage of the hull length between perpendiculars, the main sail yard was based on the main mast length, etc. I think this is what we are seeing in Mark's case. This must be why the fraction is shown in parenthesis - it represents the ratio of the dimension preceding it to another dimension. All we need to know is the unit of measure to which the ratio applies.

 

wq3296 

[mtaylor]

I've been doing a lot of reading of late and researching my build so I thought I share what I've found out.  I have more questions than answers but that's probably to be expected.   Hahn and sometimes Frolich speak of "capturing a moment in time".  Which is fine but I'm building a model of a ship, not a moment in it's life.  So that gives me some latitude I hope. 

 

My reference works currently are the monographs for Belle Poule and Le Renommée along with Boudroit's History of the French Frigate 1650-1850 and some emails from the Museum of the Marine in France.    Seems that record keeping wasn't one of the French strongpoints during the 1700's plus WWII destroyed much.  

 

Here's some points, and some research and I'm open to any comments, critiques, etc. on this:

 

The deck cabins.  On the 8-pdr frigates, these were built for the comfort of the officers.  While it appears that they were removed in wartime, and even banished at some point, they were in pretty much continual use on the 8-pdr's.    I'm not planning on putting them on as I agree with Boudroit in that they are ugly.  Oh.. and by definition, these were normally called "roundhouses" because originally, there was space between the cabin(s) and the bulwarks thus, the crew when working the lines could walk "around them".  

 

The Great Cabin.  This has caused me some consternation.  On the 8-pdrs, this wasn't the domain of the Captain.  He had (in peacetime) one of the roundhouses on the quarterdeck.   The bulwarks were not paneled nor was the deck anything different than the rest of the deck.  On the bigger frigates, it was a different story as this was the Captain's domain.  On the 8-pdrs it was the wardroom for all the officers. With some canvas walls put up for the first officer and master to have private sleeping space.   During the day, the Captain had a place for his work.  During peacetime, the last two guns were removed and lights with glazing covered those ports.   I'll be following the decking plan and bulwark planking... nothing special.  Just a bench along the transom area except for where the two ports were.   Which brings me to the ports.  On the 8-pdrs, there were two ports but not gunports as on the larger frigates.  These were too low for that and appear to be for air and probably loading or unloading supplies at etc.  There are two more ports above the lower ports that may have been or planned for use at chase ports, but due to the counter, it would appear that cannon would have needed to be discharged well inside of the stern framing so these ports appear to be pretty useless.

 

Stern decorations.  On the Licorne, as built had a large unicorn head.  After the great rebuild (I still have no idea when that was or where it took place), the shape changed as did the decorations.   The NMM prints indicate the arms of France were above the stern lights and I have several examples. Based on the timeframe, those used on the Belle Poule seem to be the ones to be used.  Hahn used Le Venus as a refence point but she was built after Licorne was captured.

 

Stern Lantern.  Definitely needs to have one.

 

Rudder.  The turbulence groove should be there so I'll put one in.

 

Quarter galleries.. ah this one had me going.  She was built with the galleries like Le Renommée but at the time of capture had galleries similar to Belle Poule.  Boudroit says that the lights were deadlights and the only glazing was the center frame of the center light.  I'm still checking.  They were fully glazed on the larger frigates... hmm....

 

Gundeck and Quarterdeck.  The as-captured drawings indicate that there were thicker planks used along side and between the hatches.  The cross-sections for Licorne is unclear about this.  However, all the 8-pdr drawings I could find show the deck completely flush but with the hatch coamings higher much like what we see in English ships.  The 8-pdrs did have a thicker and wider plank running outside the coamings but it was let into the beams and flush with the deck surface.

 

Bow area..  I'm following the method I mentioned earlier with picture about planking to prevent anchor damage.  There is a cowl (for lack of a better term) on the forecastle.  It could be a companionway but there's no ladder for it.  I'm still sorting this out but no other frigate plan from this tmeframe has this feature.  It also appears that the majority of 8-pdr frigates did not have bolsters at the hawse ports.

 

Carvings.  I've think Hahn got the carvings on the catheads wrong.   I'm pretty sure, right now, that it's not leaves but for lack of a better term, the whirly-thingie.  The head rails should be more elaborate than what Hahn used.  He appears to have used the English style which are a bit plainer. 

 

Armament.  This is area of confusion.  There's two regulations for guns.  One in 1750 and one in 1766.   The biggest difference is in length with the 1766 being shorter.  Thus, I can assume she was armed with the regulation guns of 1750.  After a great rebuild, would she have been re-armed with the newer guns?   I'm thinking not as the newer, bigger frigates probably would have received them.

 

Rigging.   Interesting bits here... she has the masting and yardarm dimensions of Le Venus.  Yet Le Venus was built long after her capture.  There was a period of changes and experimentation and I think Licorne was one that had some of this type work done.   I've seen the sailing reports from the launch but not any after.  The rigging itself will follow the plan of Belle Poule as that seems to be more right than any other.  But I'm still seeking information.

 

Minor (maybe not so minor) detail.  The French used iron knees on the 8-pdr frigate which made me raise my eyebrows.

 

Thanks for listening (or reading actually) my ramble...

[Guest Tim I.]

I am also at a similar juncture on my L'Hermione build. I have been toying with the idea of making it an Admiralty board model, as I have not found enough information to feel comfortable replicating the rigging in any degree of accuracy.

 

Great thread!

 

- Tim

[mtaylor]

Tim

 

If you have it, take a look at Belle-Poule... it was  12-pdr of that period.   What plan are they using for the replica?  

 

I'm glad you like it.   This more or less just thinking out loud.  I get pointed in directions sometimes and it does help.   Feel free to ask questions yourself.  Those of us building the French vessels have precious few resources at our disposal and sharing what we have is a good thing.

[druxey]

I believe you are correct in suspecting Hahn: he stylized many things in his models, by his own admission.

[Guest Tim I.]

Tim

 

If you have it, take a look at Belle-Poule... it was  12-pdr of that period.   What plan are they using for the replica?  

 

I'm glad you like it.   This more or less just thinking out loud.  I get pointed in directions sometimes and it does help.   Feel free to ask questions yourself.  Those of us building the French vessels have precious few resources at our disposal and sharing what we have is a good thing.

 

This is what I have been able to find and has been published.

 

 

I also have over 120 different photographs of the replica's rigging, but I still do not feel comfortable using these sources as my only reference. I will take a look at the book you suggest. All of my books / research is packed away as I finally move next week. So in about a month I should be able to begin working on research again.

 

I have also been toying with the idea if I make my L'Hermione a admiralty, also doing a cross section in the same scale to be part of the same display

 

- Tim

Edited March 20, 2015 by Tim I.

[Guest Tim I.]

I would like to add, that after I finish my current projects I might consider doing some more obscure French and British vessels. I have become really enamored with French designs, in comparison to the Anglo-American designs of the period.

 

- Tim

[mtaylor]

Druxey,

 

Hahn was an artist.  I wish I could come close to his works.  I'm aware of the stylizing and in many cases, I think it was either bad info or no info.  What I'm seeing on this ship is a lack of info and the info I'm seeing is from sources after Hahn's time.

 

Tim,

 

Admiralty model may not be bad idea.   There's tables in Boudroit's History of the French Frigate that would help with the masting.  If you know what Regulation it falls under (and wasn't being used as a test) you can figure out the size of the masts and yards.  Then go for the rig...  As I understand it, each ship was slightly different in some areas but overall, it was pretty much standardized.  So you could use one of the ANCRE monographs (base it on the year it was built) and rig it accordingly. 

 

These ships are fascinating to me because they are different.  Or at least infrequently built.  The biggest problem I see is acquiring sufficient plans.  The French did wonderful lines drawings and the drawings for the carvings and decorations.   Deck layouts and interior works are tough to find as they didn't often do them.

 

What the French lacked in drawings they made up for in design and the way they built them.  The "surveyor" or head designer at a given yard, was trained in math, physics and the science (what was known at that time) of ships.  They could calculate the load waterline pretty close just based on their design.  Even the wood was acquired differently as well as the labor in the yards.  Reading the History of French Frigates and the 74 Gun Ship series really brought this home. 

 

Anyway.. I'm wandering all over the place on this topic... apologies.

[Guest Tim I.]

Mark,

 

Is there any place where the ANCRE monographs can be purchased in the US? 

Thank you,

 

Tim