Gaetan Bordeleau

74 guns ship by Gaetan Bordeleau - 1:24

139 posts in this topic

There's an expression, "Go big or go home". In your case, Gaetan, it should be "Go big and get a bigger home"! Seriously, I am enjoying this discussion very much.

One can get very large prints made, (think outdoor billboards) but I don't know whether distortion for model-making purposes may become a factor in extremely large sizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I had the drawings of Otte Blom (the 7P) printed on an architect paper printer.

They are in size, when printed 1 to 1, bigger than A0 (how to convert to feet???).

So yes these printers exist and the nice thing about these printers (in fact they are called plotters here) are for  what we call "work drawings" the paper does not shrink or expand during printing or afterwards.They are measure and scale fixed, so no distortion.

Maybe an idea?

 

Rgds Hans.

Jeronimo, druxey and michael mott like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The limit is probably the width of the printer.

There is also another limit, the size of the door. A 74 guns pass through the door but if we add masting, height become s a problem. The only way to overcome this problem being to have removable masts

Does distortion for model-making purposes may become a factor in extremely large sizes. I faced that problem with my last build. Framing could have been a bit bigger, plus adding with other considerations such as humidity, the size of the ship move. In this way, I could not fit all the parts made exactly as ''plans'' are drawn, often parts must be adjusted. In this instance the construction of the model are the real lengths even if the guide are the plans. The bigger the scale the bigger the a compensation must be applied the length. The easiest to observe is the width which at 1/24 can easily change from 1/2 inch.

In fact I guess that it is possible to plot drawings more precise than the real thing in wood.

Metal would not be better, the length of a  wire cable  transporting electricity has a sag variation of many feet on a long distance

PRECISION is important for many assembly, by example if  we drill a hole smaller than the bar, problems will follow.

In wood assembly,  greater tolerances are acceptable.

Different scales, different uses, different tolerances.

 

I  had the plan of HMS pegasus enlarged at 1/12 but the difference of the width of the frames was not that big.

Frame size Pegasus 1/12 approximately the same size as a 74 guns at 1/24.  Like this

_DM32271.jpg

_DM32274.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1/12 for a Swan Class Sloop would be a dream. 1/32 is the biggest scale which is possible for me. Fully rigged the model would be 5 feet long and around 3 feet height.

I own Alexanders drawings for HMS Anson and think if it is possible to build a hull model with all frames in 1/32. But this is a project if I am retired because a lot of time and much more experience than I have is necessary.

Jeronimo and zoly99sask like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian, the best advice I could give you go 1/32 (or 1/36).

As we all know: bigger is better and we should not forget to add bigger is easier.

Probably also 1 one of the brakes which can stop you is to say: I do not have room to store it.

I did not have room to store  one 1/24, and now I store two  1/24.

Jeronimo likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am of the opinion as someone new coming into this field, that bigger might well be easier, but surely been able to do it bigger and therefore not only see what you are doing but see how you are doing it enables you to understand better what is going on. This means in my logic that when you go to a smaller scale you can understand better what parts are important and therefore which parts may or could be omitted with out spoiling the finished item. I may be wrong of course

Jeronimo and coxswain like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try to clarify what I mean:

 

Bigger is easier in the way that it is easier to handle a part  with your hand instead of only 2 fingers.

Easier in the way that you have more control of your movement.

The more control you will have, the greater the possibilities to produce  a more accurate part.

You can create smaller parts with great accuracy but you will need a greater concentration.

 

At smaller scale you have to omit parts because many parts would be too small to handle properly.

 

To understand more easily how a part is made it is easier to do it at a bigger scale and also you will understand better because you will see the components more easily.

 

Probably I will understand better the intricacy of the construction if I do it at a bigger scale  which will allow to see more parts.

 

 

druxey, Jeronimo, coxswain and 5 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaetan,

 

I followed your other Projects with interest (and awe!) and I can see your point about building yet another 74 gun ship.

 

I first heard about the "Old Implacable" in 1987 in a Television series and was struck about her being scuttled in 1949, when she was 150 years old - a Trafalgar Veteran. Ever since then I've been collecting everything about the Implacable, the former Duguay Trouin, that I can get hold of. I have started drawing plans of her using my Computer Programme AutoCAD 2017. You can see Images below. Plans are also available at the National Maritime Museum. I only plan to draw a set of timbering plans, similar to the plans drawn by Lemineur, not any more. Should you like to use my plans for your new project, you should want to get the NMM plans too.

 

001.jpggratis bilder hochladen

 

002.jpggratis bilder hochladen

 

003.jpgBilder hochladen

 

050b.jpgbilder upload

 

The Implacable was built in 1800 (some sources say 1795) to a Sane design. She was captured shortly after Trafalgar and was renamed Implacable.

 

Please let me know what you think. I could send you the plans as DWGs or PDFs, whatever you prefer. They are of course by no means finished, but there is enough for you to get started.

 

Regards

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice constructional drawings, Peter! Implacable/Duguay Trouin's stern and tafferel are preserved at the National Maritime Museum, now Royal Museums Greenwich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Hi Peter,

 

What a nice offer and a nice project you have. I have no abilities with Autocad. Even If I bought  plans from Lemineur I draw some frames parts.

 

I saw pictures from 1949 of this ship.

I am now using Lemineur drawings enlarged  at 300%.

 

There are many reasons if  I still want to build a forth 74 according to Boudriot drawings. I like his artistic vision. 1775-1780 is a period, where the shape of the 74  was very nice.

 

To use your plans the measures should be identical to Boudriot' 74. I do not know enough about this ship.

I also saw other models  photos by Lemineur. For me, to be able to build a model, it is in part a love story between me and the model. If there is no attraction, there is no interest to build it.  I will go with Minerve, a nice figurehead and stern decorations  came to be simplified in comparison  of  the other extremity like Le Soleil royal.

 

I could suggest some additions to the plans you are drawing. When you draw, you think like an architect and you do not want to repeat identical parts. For this reason, and to save few paper sheets, Lemineur  has draw only 1 frame side.

 

From the perspective of a model ship builder, it is not very helpfull.

What I would like from a set of plans, is a complete set of frames.

 

How many copies do you think I have to do if I want to be able to build a complete frame : left and right side, double thickness, each thickness having his own parts. I did 2 copies and I draw half side of the 62 frames. I am actually cutting the drawings in parts.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2017 at 3:56 PM, Gaetan Bordeleau said:

 

Probably the maximum I could go would be restricted by paper size for frames, in this case 3 feet, 

printer larger than 3 feet probably exists?

 

 

I've got full size plans for a boat, kayak and stand up paddle board here at up to 18 feet x 5 feet Gaetan. If I can get that size printed in Turkey then I'm sure you could get them in Canada.  :)

donrobinson and mtaylor like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preparation of the frames for the KIT.

 

I have to draw the other half of the plans.

Drawing is made by hand, it is easier to draw a circle than a straight line and all the frames are only curves

 

About 2/3 of the blanks are cut, a lot of wood is use and a lot of wood is thrown in the garbage, up to now 1 ½  trash can.

 

_MG_9686.jpg

_MG_9690.jpg

_MG_9691.jpg

DSCF2665.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy cow....  mind-boggling to say the least.   One never thinks of bigger models need a lot bigger wood... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to the party Gaetan, but I hope I can find some standing room somewhere?  I will enjoy this build; I have followed all your others so this will be a masterpiece with all that practice :)

 

cheers

 

Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting to see just how much time and wood goes in this. Wondering if you are keeping a time log on this project and also what the weight of the final build will be. Agree with other post regarding needing a bigger door, I was wondering about the muscles needed to move such a piece. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pierre,

 

I was keeping a log  but it was more for construction details, now it is just the build log on MSW.

On MSW 1.0 we saw another 74 at 1/24 and weight was 130 pounds. It was difficult to move it upstair. The guys were strong men.

Bigger door, bigger home, bigger workshop, bigger ship; it took years to be installed as now. There are a lot of wires and some heavy machinery. The most difficult to bring in was the Hardinge lathe, quite heavy. With that lathe, over 1 ton, I understood what turning without vibrations means. I am satisfied with the installation and it' s versatility. Having the medium tools on wheels is a big plus. Having the tool at the right place at the right time can save a lot of time and a lot of walking.

 

There could be another possibility  a 74 at 1/12 but made in 3,4, ,5,  or 6 parts slices, may be I should ask Karl to come to help me.

zoly99sask, druxey, mtaylor and 7 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1:12? That's gargantuan. No longer a model but a true small yacht. A very VERY detailed small yacht. Would be very cool to see. I love the 74s and can't see enough of them. Keep up the beautiful work Gaetan.

Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3.3.2017 at 3:09 PM, Gaetan Bordeleau said:

Hi Pierre,

 

I was keeping a log  but it was more for construction details, now it is just the build log on MSW.

On MSW 1.0 we saw another 74 at 1/24 and weight was 130 pounds. It was difficult to move it upstair. The guys were strong men.

Bigger door, bigger home, bigger workshop, bigger ship; it took years to be installed as now. There are a lot of wires and some heavy machinery. The most difficult to bring in was the Hardinge lathe, quite heavy. With that lathe, over 1 ton, I understood what turning without vibrations means. I am satisfied with the installation and it' s versatility. Having the medium tools on wheels is a big plus. Having the tool at the right place at the right time can save a lot of time and a lot of walking.

 

There could be another possibility  a 74 at 1/12 but made in 3,4, ,5,  or 6 parts slices, may be I should ask Karl to come to help me.

 

 

It's of course entirely up to you to which scale you wish to build but i think one can build too large. At 1:12 the ship might start to lose it's unique charm of being a model and might be in danger of being perceived as overly large. Your Fleuron, while certainly on the large side, was a piece of the finest ship modelling i have ever seen, partly because of your fine craftmanship but also because she was still recognisable as a model and not a threat to the royal navy :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redshirt, 

It is probably a nice interrogation to ask ourselves what it is the limit in the scale we can reach.

I did explore  few scales  and I am probably at the limit I can reach.

 

I remember vaguely to have seen about 30 years ago, in Montreal, a model  made to learn the rigging to the officers. The model was about 20 feet long.

At what scale I do not remember.

mtaylor, vossiewulf and Jeronimo like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to understand Gaetan, a 1:24 74 built to your level and fully RC would probably be enough for people to make a physical pilgrimage to see it under sail in the local lake :) Me included.

 

At 1:12, no need for RC you can ride inside with head through the quarterdeck, sailing her with a zillion little lines run down below deck :)

mtaylor likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the scales used to build models? Let's try some speculation.

 

For the french I saw 2 scales: 1/24 used to teach the construction of the ship or to teach rigging.

Also  Augustin PIC built one 74  at 1/24.

Many models are built at 1/48.

 

English ship models I know are built at 1/48 scale.

 

We know that 1/48 was use, I would say, for 2 reasons:

Build a model to present to the king for his acceptance for the construction of the real one at 1/1 scale.

1/48 scale represents the largest scale which ca be easily handle by one person.

 

There are surely other models built at different scales in Museums.

 

A standard scale would have a derivation from the english foot and would be a multiple of 12. It is also preferable to use one of these multiples because it will be easier to work with especially in ratio used like for reproduction: 150%, 200%, 300%, and other variations. I would not want to use strange combination because this makes it more difficult to calculate  bringing even fractions. Also, if I use a weird scale, it will be impossible to use the proportional divider: my common use being to work on 1/48 plans for ease to use ( a 4 feet long sheet) and double the lenghts at 1/24 with the proportional divider.

 

Let's try to guess what happened when they came with kit. (I do not know when, is this something new like 1970? I have no idea). Purely for money reasons, they created smaller scales. 

 

Is there a standard size to build? My answer is no and this is a kind of false affirmation.

 

In fact, the standard scale is the size that everyone is using for his own reason.

 

So there is no good or bad answer.

 

Capture d’écran 2017-03-05 à 07.20.45.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.