ancre La Mutine and La Topaze by Gregor – 1:64 scale - French Schooners - La Jacinthe Type)

[georgeband]

Gregor,

 

I have the same question about a windlass (and cathead) for the Ballahoo class schooners built in Bermuda. The drawings for Haddock at the National Maritime Museum do not show the windlass, but an earlier drawing does. I will have to go deeper into the references on seamanship to see if there are any clues there.

 

George

 

 

[juhu]

Very interesting topic, also I was following the discussion in George's thread regarding the anchors and how they were operated. Just two cents:

 

1. The drawing above shows HMS Mosquidobit fitted with capstan - however this capstan was according to my references fitted only during her refit, when taken by Brittish, as the original American privateer she did not have any, so another ship with "anchor mystery"

 

2. I have learnt some interesting idea: there was a practise to use the set of tackles laid on the deck to handle anchors. So no fixed device, just a tackle/s  fixed to the point on the deck and easily removed after the job is done - spares space and suits the needs. However I cannot find any drawing or tell whether this is also the case of LaJacinthe type...

[juhu]

Hey, look what I have found, could it be of some help?

 

http://maritime.org/doc/luce/part4.htm

 

Particularly check the figure:

 

 

or

 

http://www.hnsa.org/resources/manuals-documents/age-of-sail/textbook-of-seamanship/ground-tackle/

Edited January 20, 2016 by juhu

[tkay11]

So mast tackles may not have been too far out a thought.

 

Tony

[georgeband]

The evidence for mast tackles being used for catting and fishing the anchor is certainly there, and the picture from Luce that Juraj found sums it up nicely. 

I am not sure what would be done to haul in the main anchor cable though, and it could be deck tackle or the mast tackle. My own thoughts are that deck tackle would be used because it lines up naturally with a hawse hole. On a model it does not really matter unless you want to show the anchor being weighed so it is a question that we can duck quite easily. I still would like to know though. 

 

I have put some references to 'treatises' on the subject in another thread. 

http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/12399-schooner-haddock-cuckoo-ballahoo-drawings-windlass-and-catheads/#entry381752

 

Gregor, you mentioned above that the bower weighed 390kg. I have found on Google that a man can pull 75lb, or about 35kg. Factor in x4 mechanical advantage from a pair of blocks and you get 140kg before any losses from friction. A team of four men could lift that anchor with power to spare!

 

Lovely looking models you are building. I wonder if someone will offer a laser cutting service, in the same way that photo-etching can be done for you. 

 

George

[Gregor]

I apologize for my silence, I had my head on other things (it has been very quiet in my dockyard lately).

*

But thousand thanks for the interesting and motivating discussions – and yes, juhu, the drawing (plate 77) does help a lot: it explains exactly how an anchor is stowed below deck to it’s upright resting place in the main hatch, just as it is shown in the plan of La Mutine. With the help of tackles, as Tony guessed much earlier (and I doubted very much). And the link you posted even shows methods to weigh an anchor with tackles (I saved this bookmark for further reading).

George’s calculations give me hope that it really was possible to work anchors as shown in the drawings without capstan or windlass (even when it seems to be a more complicated way to do the job, but then I’m a mere landsman). The breaking out of an anchor will add a little to the forces, but has to be done carefully anyway (and there were about 30 men, including 2 officers on board to help).

Meanwhile Bruno Orsel, the maker of a wonderful model of La Topaze I mentioned earlier, assured me that there is no evidence at all in contemporary sources of either a windlass or a capstan in a schooner of the Jacinthe-type.

His research and this discussion gives me the confidence to build the schooners as shown in the plans, without missing an important detail and regretting this later – it’s a great relief.

I cant’t thank you enough for your patience and support,

And wish you all the best,

Gregor

 

Edited January 22, 2016 by Gregor

[tkay11]

Just as a matter of interest, Gregor, since I found a cheap copy of the Jacinthe monograph on eBay (and have therefore started considering to do this build as well once my Sherbourne is finished), I was wondering whether you followed Boudriot's suggestions of making the keel thinner and adding veneer to the outsides of the keel, stem and stern.

 

When looking at this I thought this was a bit of a convoluted way of doing things, and thought it would be better to build the fore-aft bulkhead to the correct width. This in turn would mean cutting the slots in the cross-bulkheads to the width of the lengthways bulkhead, although it would also mean cutting out a rabbet.

 

Your pictures suggest that you may have made the thinner version and added veneer as suggested, but I'd be very grateful for your opinion on this matter. I might have PM'd you on this, but thought it would be of interest to others who may want to make the model.

 

Tony

[Gregor]

I don’t mind explaining the method I used here at all: Boudriots plan is in 1:48 scale, my models in 1:64. That means my keels and fore-aft bulkheads are only 3 mm thick. Working with veneer would mean a fore-aft bulkhead of only 2 mm, very prone to warp.

As both hulls will now be painted black and coppered, there is really no need for veneer to hide the plywood (Boudriots model has a natural wood finish). When I chose this method, my only experience was with the Sherbourne kit we both know so well. And I wanted to build a painted and an unpainted hull, originally.

 

 

As you can see in this picture (MDF parts for testing; I used birch ply for the models) I added 1 mm to the fore-aft bulkhead, and then made a rabbet  by chamfering it before filling the space between the cross-bulkheads and adding the keel parts (pear).

Main lesson learned: The rabbet I cut was too small; it would have worked with planks of 0.5 mm, but it didn’t work so well with the 1 mm planks I used. They didn’t fit in completely.

The slots for the bulkheads (2x3 mm each) were very easily adapted, as Boudriot’s plan is very precise here. I had to redraw everything with AdobeIllustrator, and tried to fit the parts together by copying them and holding them together on the screen. As a result of this, and all the sanding I have done, I will never let a measuring tape near my hulls…

(The last bit would better be written in a PM, but it’s out now). That said, even with the rush job I did with the planking – which will be hidden mostly – I’m quite pleased with my schooners so far.

Cheers,

Gregor

[tkay11]

Thanks for the details, Gregor. I'll certainly watch out for the rabbet should I go ahead with this build. I too have been experimenting with sizing it all up on the computer, and my local timber merchant gave me some offcut plywood for £1 with which I can experiment before making any final decisions. Your own experience is invaluable for me -- as it has been with the Sherbourne.

 

Tony

[juhu]

Hello Gregor,

just yesterday I have received the original monography "La Jacinthe" from Ancre - wonderfull book, looking forward to going through it. I am considering a chance to build La Mutine based on the plans. Not sure I will grab the courage, i have too much respect to scratch building and still see it as something beyond my abilities. Nevertheless, I do have some questions even now, may be you could help:

1. In the book there is just one plate of La Mutine and it is rather small - do you have some other sets of plan or use just this one published?

2. How did you design the bullwarks above the deck? I mean, I can use the La Jacinthe plans, but the level above the deck is different, rails vs full planking - I am missing the plans how to raise it correctly above the deck.

3. There are many things I can read from descriptions but cannot see them properly in the plans: "lavatories" fore and aft of the ship, hinged scuppers alongside, stove (?) on the desk amidships. The these small steps on the deck fore and aft too - Jacinthe does not have them, Mutine does....... etc etc.... Although La Jacinthe plan is very detailed, am afraid whether it is possible to build Mutine without further resources :-/

4. We have discussed here the anchor and its raising. In La Mutine plan the anchor is clearly shown stored under deck in the main hatch. What I do not understand is: Is this the main anchor? If yes, where is the second one? There is shown only one and I would expect two here, but no space there anyhow to store the second! And, does it mean that during the regular sailing the anchor/s were unbound from the chains and stored under instead of normal "hanging" on catheads?

 

I know, two many questions, still, if possible to answer, would be glad

Regards

Juraj

[Gregor]

Hi Juraj

It would be great so see another Jacinthe type schooner here! I try to answer as well as I can:

1. The plan of La Mutine from the Atlas du Génie maritime (the one in your book, the one I showed here at the beginning og the build log) is the only one I have. You can get a better copy from the historical service of the Musée de la Marine in Paris for a few Euros (and the promise not to publish it). There is no set, only this one sheet. There is, however, the plan that was sent to the Lorient dockyard in 1823/24. A copy of this plan can be had from the Service historique de l'armée in Vincennes (they insist the plan is from a younger date because of a dated annotation in the margin, but it's without doubt "our" Mutine). That's the plan you can do without, because it shows an identical construction to Boudriot's Jacinthe, and gives no more details.

2. The bulwarks of La Mutine are basically the Jacinthe's, with more planks. If you follow the links to Bruno Orsel's La Topaze, you see the same, only with additional stanchions. Depending on the scale you plan to build your model, you can do exactly that. I choose to work with a bulwark pattern for two reasons: It's my first scratch build, so I stick to what I know; and that is the Sherbourne kit from where I borrowed the idea. At 1:64 the bulwarks are about 3 mm thick – instead of working with 2 mm stanchions and 0.5 mm planks I preferred a solid bulwark (ply, 0.8 mm) and 1 mm planks. As you can see in my log, I used temporary bulkheads to place the ply. It was design by trial and error, first with paper, then with ply, and it took a while…

The plan from the Atlas du Génie maritime is not precise enough to take measurements. But you can easily go to Boudriot's plan and "fill the gaps". At least, that's what I did; a lot of comparing.

3. Well, the aft lavatories are covered, to protect the modesty of the officers… A better copy of the plan helps a lot (then you will see: it's the same flush deck, no steps). I'm still working on the hulls, so for many of these details I have more questions than answers myself. But that's where the real fun is. The Atlas shows a wealth of information about lavatories and everything else the French navy built in the 1830's. So I'm looking forward to more research, discussions, and visits to French museums. If in doubt, start a Jacinthe project. La Topaze and La Mutine were working ships; Boudriot's Jacinthe is like Platon's (or M. Delamonière's) ideal of a schooner.

4. Bruno Orsel's Topaze shows (based on thorough research) anchors stowed inboards, lashed on deck. Lowering a heavy anchor below deck, near the centerline, might influence the balance of a ship favourably… But here I don't have answers yet. As I feel they are not yet important to the construction (like the questions about windlasses or capstans), they can wait. But there is a paragraph about anchors in Boudriot's book, somewhere.

I feel quite confident it's possible to build a Mutine, without having all the answers beforehand.  Just do it.

Yours,

Gregor

[juhu]

Thanks a lot Gregor,

very valuable post. As said I will see, possibly I will try to get the plans you are mentioning or to read as much as I can with spyglass from the Jacinthe book.

I know my technical wording is not perfect, but still I do not understand how you get the correct profiles for the bulwarks above the deck. I studied your pictures and saw the wooden blocks that would help to make a shape, but ho shall be these wooden block precisely made, what length, angle and curves it should  have. I believe it is not just enough to prolong the bulkheads lines to get it right. While stanchions are just straight poles, the planked bulkwarks would have more sophisticated profile... But true, I must check the Topaze build more in details. As I am planning to keep 1/48 scale, any misshape or error would me more evident.

One thing: even from the small plans it is IMHO visible that the La Mutine deck is not as flat as Jacithes's. I do not have a plan right now here, but there are two views, aft and fore from the deck. Aft you see the rudder wheel with an axle going through the elevated platform and fore also there is a small "step" just below the catheads. It is visible also from the deck view. Jacithe has the straight and simplier deck from stem to stern

Regards

Juraj

[aviaamator]

Hello everyone! And here is Hyacinth... 1-20 scale.

[Gregor]

Wow, aviaamator, beautyful! You two (or three, counting in capt'n Sparrow) should really open your own build log; I would be very happy to follow your progress and exchange views. Your Jacinthe deserves to be admired fully.

Yours,

Gregor

@Jurai: I will give you an answer to the deck question asap.

[ofencer29350]

The deck is built well but or is the jambettes of bulwark and the bulwark?
The ribband of flat edge is not at the level of the deck.

[mtaylor]

Wow, aviaamator, beautyful! You two (or three, counting in capt'n Sparrow) should really open your own build log; I would be very happy to follow your progress and exchange views. Your Jacinthe deserves to be admired fully.

Yours,

Gregor

@Jurai: I will give you an answer to the deck question asap.

 

Gregor is right.  You gentlemen should open your own build logs. 

[aviaamator]

Dear colleagues! I don't owe anyone anything!( praise the Lord!) Please, don't reason, I'm still not quite healthy, but have been working on production, although surgeons are against this... Hyacinth is built slowly...

[Gregor]

@Jurai: Here the promised explanation (flush deck of La Mutine).

At the stern there is a counter, as described by Boudriot.

 

 

 

At the bow I see an iron bar (probably part of the rigging instead of belaying pins?), there is no step at all. The iron parts over the rail are also used to attach the anchors with chains, as described in the Atlas du Génie Maritime.

Detail no 36 are the famous lavatories or heads for the common sailors - no modesty protected there.

It really is the same hull - if you discount the distortions of a old print, photographed almost two centuries later, you can see how both plans match each other (I traced the main lines in AdobeIllustrator to draw bulkheads and keel).

Cheers,

Gregor

 

I made new screenshots to show detail no 38.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Gregor

[aviaamator]

Gregor! Can I see detail 38 completely? In the sketch of Boudriot this piece has a square shape, without a pillow...

[juhu]

Hi Gregor,

thanks for explanation. I would need to get more detailed plan and study it carefully. Still, there is something, but I cannot explain it now, I am not fully convinced, but being abroad , cannot make a good plan copy from the book and point out, what I mean. What is available online is too small to discuss (see pics), so I will post better drawn explanation on the weekend.

Cheers

Juraj

 

[tkay11]

Sorry to go back a bit, Gregor, but I've been looking at the rabbet. You said "The rabbet I cut was too small; it would have worked with planks of 0.5 mm, but it didn’t work so well with the 1 mm planks I used. They didn’t fit in completely."

 

I can't quite work out how the rabbet should be cut at 1/64. At that scale, it runs at 1.5mm along its greater part (Boudriot suggests 2mm planks for the 1/48 scale, which would be easy to do). From what you say, it suggests three layers of 0.5mm, or 1 of 1mm and 1 of 0.5mm.

 

For the Sherbourne (also 1/64) I put two layers of planking on the Sherbourne as per the instructions, but instead of two layers of 1mm, I used 1mm planks only for the first layer and the second was 0.5mm.

 

I'd be really grateful if you could clarify how you worked on the rabbet and the garboard strakes. Did you put on only one layer of planking? If so, was that 1mm throughout? Or did you go for two layers?

 

(I also note you used the same basic construction method on these models as the Sherbourne kit, with the keel, stem and stern added on after -- something I have also been working on on the mock-up I have been doing. I'd therefore also be interested in how you lined up and fitted the two sets of parts -- or was that easy because it was all laser cut? I'm just using coping saw and disc sander, hence the question.)

 

Sorry if I missed this in case you explained all this already -- if so, put it down to early senility! But thanks for any guidance!

 

Tony

[Gregor]

Toni, don't hit yourself - it might be my english...

Do these pictures help?

The space between the bulkheads (red) was filled with small pieces of ply. There is only one layer of 1 mm planks. A rabbet was cit in the fore-aft bulkhead (green), then the keel (blue) was added. 

As you can see here, the planks didn't fit in the slot:

 

As both hulls will be coppered, let's call my garboards "simplified". I just let a 1x3 mm plank run naturally, with a filler, as shown in Boudriot's plan.

 

Of course it reminds us of the Sherbourne kit (what else?) 

Bit this might help you also:

http://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t3269f795-Die-Bauanleitung-pur-Bemerkungen-und-Diskussionen-in-den-jeweiligen-Themenfaeden.html

 

The precision of laser cut parts certainly came in handy. After drawing the bulkheads, it was very easy to draw also some filler parts; they helped to get a straight hull, together with an Amati stand I own. Still, a proper building board would have been useful - some force was necessary to get the keel straight. Bun once the space between the buklkheads is filles, you have a very solid hull, prepared to take a heavy sanding. I prefer this method to the one we used for the Sherbourne.

 

Yours,

Gregor

[tkay11]

Thanks, Gregor. I guessed this is what you might have done. I'll probably use Ed Tosti's method of aligning the keel/stem/stern with the body (in his POB build of Young America).

 

Thanks also for the link. Very useful.

 

Tony

[mtaylor]

Gregor,

Try tapering the planks so they fit into the rabbet.  I've done that, it works well and no one can tell that's what you did.

[aviaamator]

Gregor! Two of the bottom Board plating too far on the bow, it is better to make shorter, more space for other boards. And, it seems, we go parallel courses! Good luck to You!

[juhu]

Hi Gregor,

am back home and would like to make my points regarding the La Mutine deck. I have made a photo of the for view and marked with red dots what I believe looks like a deck step. I do not think this is any rigging related bar - it looks like a full beam, not the bar. Moreover, please have a look at the cathead stanchions, marked in my pic by red arrows. They do not go to the deck, but end exactly at the top of the mentioned beam (Or are hidden behind it?). If this is not the deck step, what is it? Just some massive beam laid across the deck? I do not understand .

It is also visible on the deck plan, but it is too narow for any wooden beam, to me it looks more like a deck step, for the iron bar for attaching the rigging it is too low positioned, I think

 

Regarding the aft section, I believe there is a clear step or how to call that from where also the rudder wheel axle protrude?:

Edited January 30, 2016 by juhu

[Gregor]

Jurai, I'm not convinced. In the stern, the thing you call a step is a locker or cabin-like structure, like a high bench. On the starboard side it covers the seat-of-ease for the officers (51). It is described as "Caissons couvrant les bouteilles…". I don’t know what is meant by "bottles", but you can clearly see what it is:

   

 

Flags were stored on the port side; the middle part covers an iron tiller. Please refer to the build log of Bruno Orsel (http://denis-59.forumpro.fr/t792-la-topaze-goelette-de-1823): On La Topaze the arrangement is very similar, although the middle part is left uncovered. It has nothing to do with the deck itself.

 

I still don't see a step at the bow. I can't identify every detail yet, neither my "iron bar" nor your "beam"; but seen from the side there is clearly a flush deck.

 

If invited to speculate I would be tempted to call this "beam" a piece of wood, there to protect other parts from the anchor chain. To speculate further, it could be a "chain-guide", as shown in the Atlas du Génie maritime (for a much younger and bigger corvette).

 

I think we have to accept that the Atlas is not a collection for modellers like us, but a publication where a proud nation shows its might and ingenuity in a contest with other industrialized countries.

 

There is another point: If there is a step, there should be a reason for it. Underneath there are storerooms, according to the plan. But there is not much room to gain with an expensive modification of the basic design. And finally, although it's always sound practice to doubt authorities, I think Jean Boudriot would have discussed a modification like that in his work.

Let's build our very own interpretations – I will stick with the flush deck "iron bar" for the moment.

Gregor

[aviaamator]

Gregor! Thank you! Considered this detail, No. 38, this option suits me.

[juhu]

Thanks Gregor for an answer, I have sent you a PM...

[Gregor]

Slowly, my hulls are looking like real schooners. First colours were applied; straw yellow on the bulkheads, green (La Mutine) and black (La Topaze) on the waterways.

 

 

The first maple planks appear on La Topaze’s deck; there will be chests on either side. The plywood in La Mutine will help me build a chest there; it still grants access to the rudder hole for the moment.

 

 

The channels gave me some headaches. French schooners of that time are showing all kinds of highly individual, often massive solutions. On the two contemporary models shown earlier in this log, from the Musée de la Marine in Paris, they look like these:

 

First Empire:

 

 

Restauration period (like the Jacinthe-class schooners):

 

 

An excellent example of channels of this kind can be seen on the modern reconstruction of La Recouvrance, a French schooner of the same time (http://modelisme-naval-bois.lebonforum.c...ght=recouvrance):

No. 1 (top row, fourth image from the left): http://www.atraverslobjectif.com/photos/la-recouvrance.html#prettyPhoto

No. 2: http://www.pbase.com/image/44215117

 

Here is how it looks on my schooners.

 

 

In La Topeze (in front) the channels were built from two massive pieces of timber, according to Boudriot. In La Mutine, as in La Recouvrance) the channels are supported by a piece of wood (see the detail from the Atlas du Génie Maritime: http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/9743-french-schooners-la-jacinthe-type-la-mutine-and-la-topaze-by-gregor-–-164-scale-1823-1835/?p=384551).

 

 

Now the decks are in planning, railing caps are being prepared, and a very important piece of equipment has been installed (at least for the two officers on board).

 

 

Cheers,

Gregor