JohnE

Apologies for my prolonged absence. Health issues presented an unexpected and unwanted intrusion. It seriously disturbed my Wa. Easing back into the harness so should be able to, once again, make a pest of myself in the near future.
 
John

Hello Terry. I'm late to the party, as usual.
 
In 1900 the West Coast was no different from anywhere else when it came to ship technology. The old SF Engineer’s Gazette and WC Marine Transactions from 1900 show a complete familiarity with contemporary discoveries and practice in NE, NY, and UK. Anti-fouling was a sexy topic back then and California was up to speed on it.
 
For period anti-fouling, the popular metal salts were oxides and chlorides of copper and mercury, along with some admixture of zinc, tin, antimony, lead (even arsenic). The metal salts were suspended in a binder; think they called it varnish back then, but it was basically a ‘relatively’ permeable paint. The metals added some pigmentation to the base but it all depended on what color the base was on how the mix eventually turned out.
 
Then, as now, the antifouling mechanism was the active component leaching through the binder. After a few years (two to four, depending), all the good stuff leaches away and it’s time for a new paint job. Grind away the old stuff with big blocks of volcanic pumice (today’s fart rock), and slather on a new layer of paint. It may or may not be the same composition, so it’s quite reasonable for a vessel to have a different bottom color every few years.
 
I do believe if you paint her bottom in a dull, dingy, green or a dull, dingy, reddish brown, you would be perfectly accurate for at least one period in her life.
 
John

Me too, but I must add .. "exquisite".
 
Jno

Reminded of a story. A Friday nite beercan from Rush Creek to Chandler's Landing and back. It was dusk, and flat. We had rounded and were ghosting with the kite in 'maybe' 3-4 knots. Upwind comes a Harmony 24 who just dropped her genoa. A young boy was on the bow, covered with lines and draped with the sail. It was a silent kind of evening, and over the water floats this plaintive little voice saying "Daddy .. what the sh*t do I do now?"
 
Thus it is with first time anything. I appreciate and agree with Chris' cautionary tale. However, I think that we, as a community, might extend the paradigm a bit. One doesn't tell a landsman that he is on the fore topmast. It takes time and help (yes, and training) to get anywhere in an area as complex as this can be. Some of our threads are populated by people that are the equivalent of Olympic, America's Cup, or Volvo champions. Pity the young foredeck monkey.
 
Can we make a separate space for first-time, intermediate, modellers, where they can post and ask, and we can help and comment, without their being intimidated by competing with some of our member's exquisiteness? I know this is not politically correct, and has implications for being on 'the second tier', but someone who is truly interested in the 'hobby' and wants to learn and grow, may find it useful.
 
Just saying.
 
Ciao. John

Hi Mark.
 
Many happy returns, young man.
 
Check out rybakov’s post #3 on http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/716-hammocks-cranes-and-covers/  Admittedly a couple decades after your Licorne, but it suggests that your gallery upper finish was known and used, although apparently it wasn’t all that pervasive.  I know the aft end of the railing takes a hard turn and runs straight to the hull, but I can envision a more elliptical shape.
 
As to the straight line in the drawing, I do not know, but opine that it has to be some interior structure (against the hull) associated with the gallery ‘tub’ finish, since it spans the end-points of the curvature of the top gallery rail. I think druxey has it – the line of the hull edge of the interior ‘lining’ of the ‘tub’, ‘bin’, or what have you. But this is just an opinion.
 
I know you will do what you think best, and it will be appropriate and well executed.
 
Ciao.
 
John

Speaking of yard dogs, I've been a yard dog with the Cornelie design. I have been doing a complete reconstruction of the lines plans according to the paradigm set out by Howard Chapelle and Merritt Edson, and it has been an astonishing experience. I have found that much of the original French tablature is quite relevant and accurate (most of it, actually). But there were some significant grey areas in the regions from Station VII-a to the stern, particularly in the region of the 'malicieux et capricieux' estain. She has been an absolute witch for over a year, but I think I got her attention, now.
 
Plotting the new lines has been fun. Overlaying the old lines shows just how closely the old and new coincide in pertinent part. Those areas that differ, do so by a matter of a pouce (1:1 scale French feet). Amazing what one pouce here, one pouce there, actually does. Most of the tweaks were in terms of lignes (1/12 of a pouce), on a full scale drawing - Woof !!!
 
So have a serious set of offsets and plotted the diagonals Only minimal tweaking required to the body plan, that did not disturb waterlines. Looked really good, so decided to have some fun and plot the diagonals on the profile plan. These are the French 'lisses' which are the batten positions according to the documentation of the design "devis".
 
These look very good as well. Mr Mark-1 eyeball is pleased. Everything from VIII-a to VII-f is smooth and uniform. From VII-a, VIII-a to the fashion, things diverge, but I look at the lines between VII-a and l'estain, and I can see the curve velocity and convexity change such that I can visualize the complex curvature of the stern, just from the lines on the profile.
 
Howard Chapelle, Merritt Edson, Jr. The yard dogs vade mecum. Woof !! Woof, woof, woof !!
 
John
 

Speaking of yard dogs, I've been a yard dog with the Cornelie design. I have been doing a complete reconstruction of the lines plans according to the paradigm set out by Howard Chapelle and Merritt Edson, and it has been an astonishing experience. I have found that much of the original French tablature is quite relevant and accurate (most of it, actually). But there were some significant grey areas in the regions from Station VII-a to the stern, particularly in the region of the 'malicieux et capricieux' estain. She has been an absolute witch for over a year, but I think I got her attention, now.
 
Plotting the new lines has been fun. Overlaying the old lines shows just how closely the old and new coincide in pertinent part. Those areas that differ, do so by a matter of a pouce (1:1 scale French feet). Amazing what one pouce here, one pouce there, actually does. Most of the tweaks were in terms of lignes (1/12 of a pouce), on a full scale drawing - Woof !!!
 
So have a serious set of offsets and plotted the diagonals Only minimal tweaking required to the body plan, that did not disturb waterlines. Looked really good, so decided to have some fun and plot the diagonals on the profile plan. These are the French 'lisses' which are the batten positions according to the documentation of the design "devis".
 
These look very good as well. Mr Mark-1 eyeball is pleased. Everything from VIII-a to VII-f is smooth and uniform. From VII-a, VIII-a to the fashion, things diverge, but I look at the lines between VII-a and l'estain, and I can see the curve velocity and convexity change such that I can visualize the complex curvature of the stern, just from the lines on the profile.
 
Howard Chapelle, Merritt Edson, Jr. The yard dogs vade mecum. Woof !! Woof, woof, woof !!
 
John
 

Mark, I think you are on the right track. Druxey likely found the same stuff I have.
 
Even some bottle-style quarter galleries had a cup-like bin at the tippy top, judging from drawing shadows and perspective. After Caffiere, there was radical change in gallery design and by 1780 you saw all kinds of stuff for the gallery upper-finish; flat closed roofs, angled roofs with or without carving, and roofs with ‘rails’, forming a bin for MOB gear or a cistern, or whatever. The 1787 Vial du Clairbois shows a ‘roof bin’ finish with respect to 74s. Frigates would not have been substantially different.
 

 
The 1785 Calypso had ‘rails’, Proserpine did not (just finish roof carving). Admittedly, the photos are of models of 1800 and 1804 ships, but show the idea of how the ‘rails’ extend outside the side of the hull, so you can see how it goes. Boudriot notes there was even a canvas shelter top that deployed over the top of the bin and notes the doorway (small) cut into the bulwark, way aft, for access (at least in La Flore).
 
Your NMM plans show a feature that I would consider dispositive, although there is lots of room for disagreement. The top line of Licorne’s quarter gallery finish is a curve.  This curve is displaced from the line of wale and line of rail, and has a curvature that cannot be reconciled with some older sheer line of the vessel. Other ships that had a simple, ‘railless’, roof finished by being faired to and flowing into the corresponding sheer or main rail. . Licorne’s is clearly something that curves outwardly from the hull surface in this area, as shown by other ‘bin-top’ vessels.
 
The rail slopes inward and can be an open rail (not usual), or lined with lead or canvas (typical).  The underlying physical roof structure will be a skoosh flatter – wood, lead covered. Hard to know the actual roof angle, but Vial gives the proportion of 2/3 the overall rise for a 74. Licorne is also unusual in that the after edge of the finish does not connect with the cove (horseshoe). This suggests a “dome-like” roof which was very common for the period and might well be an artifact of the bottle roof. For a rebuild, a yard dog would very likely take the path of “save what you can, and use what you save”, but this is pure speculation.
 
Enough of my blithering. I hope this helps somewhat.
 
Ciao. John

Plotted deck lines on the half breadth plan and they are looking shiny. Right off the off-set tables. Either I'm living right or I have a bit too much El Jimador in my margarita and am fooling myself that I'm seeing clearly.
 
Bava might appreciate the conjugation, since deck lines were a problem when he put the old files into blender. Gosh, I love the people here. They push and poke and prod and make one do it right. Anyway ...
 

 
John

Thank you all. Appreciate it a lot.
 
I’ve generated offset tables for the horizontals; waterlines, topsides, deck lines, and lines of the sheer and main rails based on the reconstructions of the body plan curves.  I use a particular definition of the placement of the line of the fashion frame (lisse d’estain), and thought it appropriate to include an explanation with the offset tables. But also thought it nice to include it here, such as it is.
 
The basic French station line bisects the corresponding couple. L’estain is also a ‘couple’. The aft fashion has an aft edge, the forward fashion has a forward edge and there is a centerline where the two frames join. Different designers used different lines; some using the aft edge, some using the centerline. I chose to use the aft edge and had to make sure the body and water lines conform to the choice.
 
Here is a very simplified frame drawing showing position of the lines in profile. The red dashed line is really just a projection down. The physical aft fashion stops where the heel rests on the deadwood of the massif. The massif also has some surface contour and defines/continues the lower portion of the fashion frame’s body line.
 
There is nothing much behind l’estain to define measurement locations in profile. The filling transoms live in the space behind the lazy s. Behind l’estain’s upright top timber edge are filling timbers that go back to the side counter timber, leaving room for the door to the head. So, l’estain is truly the aftermost “line of reference” of the profile that defines lines in the other orthogonal views (the stern rabbet notwithstanding since it simply defines termination points for lower waterlines).

 
John

Well then, druxey noticed some inconsistencies in the transoms, Bava noticed some inconsistencies in the topsides, and I found a couple others. So I did a Chapelle. By that, I mean proving the lines in all views so as to have them 'fair' and let the offsets fall where they may.
 
So I did that and 'lo' I can drop this girl into a Boudriot book and have her go unnoticed. I fought with the topside lines (made some specific horizontals) and then plotted the results as 'special' waterlines (a la Boudriot) and worked things iteratively till ... it necessitated a bit of tweaking for certain stations at the top waterline, but hey, what's CAD for anyway.
 
The topsides are smooth and fair; no bumps or hollows. And the lines connect up with the gallery top view, within a half pouce. Pretty good. I ran everything through my NACA Matlab program and the results are striking. I don't want to use a modern curve-fit program, for obvious reasons, but it's nice to know that a yard dog's batten was sweet.
 
So, final, final, on the body plan and the half breadth. So final that I made a table of offsets. Talk about commitment, Woof. Offsets are in French pieds, expressed in decimal. Next column is the same measurement in decimeters. It's in 4 sig-figs, so going to millimeters is brainless. Plans are drawn in 1:12.
 
Oh yeah, S is the line of the sheer rail; M is the line of the main rail (hemi, demi, semi, equivalent to the English top-timber line).
 

And then, following the paradigm of reconstruction, the artist did a cove carving that was too perfect for words.
 
The ‘original’ Cornélie had a note of a busy cove carving that may not have been done in actual practice, but looked good in dockyard records. Since this ship is not of the ‘original’ Cornélie , it seemed good and right to let the artist have the freedom to play.
 
This was the result: Cornelia and Vesta offering, together, to la flamme sacrée. It is  right in line with the figurehead. Oh, gosh, an artist that “knows” ships as well as “knows” his Greek and Roman. Life doesn’t get any better.
 

 
Ciao John
 
 

Have a sneak peak of the carvings. The only known reference to the carvings of the “real” Cornélie is a few sentences in dockyard records. Not much to go on, but her figurehead was described as Cornélie, “hair bound in roman fashion and holding a vessel of the sacred flame”.
 
Cornelia Scipionis Africana, mother of the Gracchi, was the touchstone of motherhood virtue (home and hearth) in Rome; the only woman who ever got a statue in the forum. She refused the marriage proposal of Ptolemy Physcon, who offered the crown and treasures of Egypt, by bringing out her sons and saying “These are my treasures.” Who would not love a ship named for such an incredible woman.
 
The Roman goddess of motherhood (and virtue, and other stuff) was Vesta (the Greek Hestia) who was keeper of the sacred flame of home and hearth and virtue. Her statues and images show her holding a ‘vessel’ of the sacred flame. Some of these are brass cups having the flame, but most are of the ice cream-cone shaped bundle of rods with la flamme sacrée issuing from the top.
 

 
Since I can’t draw, one of our members and contributors offered to come and play. He did the perfect figurehead. Can’t begin to say how well this works.

Reconciliation is going very well. I’m keeping extensive notes so when I have a senior moment, I can look up how I did something and why. So far, so good.
 
However, I note some inconsistencies in the buttock region of the diagonals of the half-breadth. They are due primarily to “angular projection” of the fashion frame, the periodicity and center of the last ‘square’ couple (after VIII, but before fillers) and, most importantly, the perspective “view”.
 
Buttocks of French ships are the least well described, and most often frustrating, portions of a model. French plans are rather inconsistent in their depiction of diagonal “view” as a function of other 3-space elements. Even the original sources, like Vial, pass it off. “Mediocrity will never do.” French had their own paradigms for plotting these lines, but that is of interest to historians. Model builders need something more substantive and determinative. So I went back to the well; back to the loaf of bread, actually.
 
Chapelle (and Wayne Kempson) put it succinctly; just slice a bread loaf. Slice along the plane of a diagonal and you get ‘options’. First of all, that plane is not orthogonal to any specific point. It is vertically skewed in accordance with the design rule, so the diagonal line will ‘project’ accordingly. If you do an accurate top-down view, accepting the angular plane-of-cut, you will get one set of curves. These will be ugly in the buttock region, and not in accordance with French practice.
 
Alternatively, once you get a diagonal “slice”, you can lay it down on the horizontal plane (making due allowance for stern to bow vertical shift). This gives another aspect to potential planking bend/flow in this critical area.
 
I know this isn’t how the French did it, neither did the English. But this is the best I can do to present the plans of a representative French frigate in a way that modelers can understand and reproduce.
 
Ok, so another half-breadth with another paradigm and buttock detail after VIII.
 
It seems like my life has zeroed down to massaging French buttocks. That’s ok ‘cause my Admiral is a Chillena and has the perkiest buttocks in the world.
 
John

And then, following the paradigm of reconstruction, the artist did a cove carving that was too perfect for words.
 
The ‘original’ Cornélie had a note of a busy cove carving that may not have been done in actual practice, but looked good in dockyard records. Since this ship is not of the ‘original’ Cornélie , it seemed good and right to let the artist have the freedom to play.
 
This was the result: Cornelia and Vesta offering, together, to la flamme sacrée. It is  right in line with the figurehead. Oh, gosh, an artist that “knows” ships as well as “knows” his Greek and Roman. Life doesn’t get any better.
 

 
Ciao John
 
 

Have a sneak peak of the carvings. The only known reference to the carvings of the “real” Cornélie is a few sentences in dockyard records. Not much to go on, but her figurehead was described as Cornélie, “hair bound in roman fashion and holding a vessel of the sacred flame”.
 
Cornelia Scipionis Africana, mother of the Gracchi, was the touchstone of motherhood virtue (home and hearth) in Rome; the only woman who ever got a statue in the forum. She refused the marriage proposal of Ptolemy Physcon, who offered the crown and treasures of Egypt, by bringing out her sons and saying “These are my treasures.” Who would not love a ship named for such an incredible woman.
 
The Roman goddess of motherhood (and virtue, and other stuff) was Vesta (the Greek Hestia) who was keeper of the sacred flame of home and hearth and virtue. Her statues and images show her holding a ‘vessel’ of the sacred flame. Some of these are brass cups having the flame, but most are of the ice cream-cone shaped bundle of rods with la flamme sacrée issuing from the top.
 

 
Since I can’t draw, one of our members and contributors offered to come and play. He did the perfect figurehead. Can’t begin to say how well this works.

Mark,
 
That is really cool and doesn't surprise me. My copy is still lurking in the bowels of the Customs Service, but I'll make sure to check that out and get my chuckle when it finally arrives. I see that a lot in the wreck archaeology reports from TAMU and from the Canadians working on provincial marine wrecks. There's always a couple pages, if not a chapter, describing the differences between the wreck timbers and what's shown on plans.
 
T'is exciting stuff for a model builder or plan designer. It pretty much says that one is not straight-jacketed by strict conformance to scantling or dimensionality. It's good to do good plans and faithfully follow them, but sometimes, departures must be made. We are yard dogs in scale. Nice to know the big dogs did the same thing.
 
One day someone will do a monograph on yards and yard dogs that focuses on their knowledge, professionalism, and that je ne sais quoi that lets them get away with it. I'll be all over that one. Thanks, Mark.
 
John

Mark,
 
That is really cool and doesn't surprise me. My copy is still lurking in the bowels of the Customs Service, but I'll make sure to check that out and get my chuckle when it finally arrives. I see that a lot in the wreck archaeology reports from TAMU and from the Canadians working on provincial marine wrecks. There's always a couple pages, if not a chapter, describing the differences between the wreck timbers and what's shown on plans.
 
T'is exciting stuff for a model builder or plan designer. It pretty much says that one is not straight-jacketed by strict conformance to scantling or dimensionality. It's good to do good plans and faithfully follow them, but sometimes, departures must be made. We are yard dogs in scale. Nice to know the big dogs did the same thing.
 
One day someone will do a monograph on yards and yard dogs that focuses on their knowledge, professionalism, and that je ne sais quoi that lets them get away with it. I'll be all over that one. Thanks, Mark.
 
John

John,
 
I was reading the monograph for L'Hermione, and thought this interesting and maybe give you a chuckle.   There's two sets of framing diagrams included..  One is the "as designed" which is nice and neat.  The other is the same diagram but with the dimensions from the wreck for the frames and space.  The frames are so much thicker and the space much reduced on what they found from the wreck.   Makes me think the yard dogs built it the way they thought it should be.  

Thank you Nils. French lines sure were elegant.
 
Bava, is your Cybele the Nymphe class frigate by P.A. Lamothe? I can't seem to find another Cybele in the lists anywhere. Just fyi, if she is the Lamothe frigate, Thetis was another Nymphe and much of a muchness with Cybele. The British captured Thetis in 1808 and NMM has plans of her as HMS Brune. Might be good for comparison purposes. Just sayin'.
 
Put some thoughts on the Lamothe Cybele on the research sub-forum. I think she is worth considering.
 
Ciao. John

Plotted deck lines on the half breadth plan and they are looking shiny. Right off the off-set tables. Either I'm living right or I have a bit too much El Jimador in my margarita and am fooling myself that I'm seeing clearly.
 
Bava might appreciate the conjugation, since deck lines were a problem when he put the old files into blender. Gosh, I love the people here. They push and poke and prod and make one do it right. Anyway ...
 

 
John

Plotted deck lines on the half breadth plan and they are looking shiny. Right off the off-set tables. Either I'm living right or I have a bit too much El Jimador in my margarita and am fooling myself that I'm seeing clearly.
 
Bava might appreciate the conjugation, since deck lines were a problem when he put the old files into blender. Gosh, I love the people here. They push and poke and prod and make one do it right. Anyway ...
 

 
John

Plotted deck lines on the half breadth plan and they are looking shiny. Right off the off-set tables. Either I'm living right or I have a bit too much El Jimador in my margarita and am fooling myself that I'm seeing clearly.
 
Bava might appreciate the conjugation, since deck lines were a problem when he put the old files into blender. Gosh, I love the people here. They push and poke and prod and make one do it right. Anyway ...
 

 
John

Hi Mark.
 
Many happy returns, young man.
 
Check out rybakov’s post #3 on http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/716-hammocks-cranes-and-covers/  Admittedly a couple decades after your Licorne, but it suggests that your gallery upper finish was known and used, although apparently it wasn’t all that pervasive.  I know the aft end of the railing takes a hard turn and runs straight to the hull, but I can envision a more elliptical shape.
 
As to the straight line in the drawing, I do not know, but opine that it has to be some interior structure (against the hull) associated with the gallery ‘tub’ finish, since it spans the end-points of the curvature of the top gallery rail. I think druxey has it – the line of the hull edge of the interior ‘lining’ of the ‘tub’, ‘bin’, or what have you. But this is just an opinion.
 
I know you will do what you think best, and it will be appropriate and well executed.
 
Ciao.
 
John

Thank you all. Appreciate it a lot.
 
I’ve generated offset tables for the horizontals; waterlines, topsides, deck lines, and lines of the sheer and main rails based on the reconstructions of the body plan curves.  I use a particular definition of the placement of the line of the fashion frame (lisse d’estain), and thought it appropriate to include an explanation with the offset tables. But also thought it nice to include it here, such as it is.
 
The basic French station line bisects the corresponding couple. L’estain is also a ‘couple’. The aft fashion has an aft edge, the forward fashion has a forward edge and there is a centerline where the two frames join. Different designers used different lines; some using the aft edge, some using the centerline. I chose to use the aft edge and had to make sure the body and water lines conform to the choice.
 
Here is a very simplified frame drawing showing position of the lines in profile. The red dashed line is really just a projection down. The physical aft fashion stops where the heel rests on the deadwood of the massif. The massif also has some surface contour and defines/continues the lower portion of the fashion frame’s body line.
 
There is nothing much behind l’estain to define measurement locations in profile. The filling transoms live in the space behind the lazy s. Behind l’estain’s upright top timber edge are filling timbers that go back to the side counter timber, leaving room for the door to the head. So, l’estain is truly the aftermost “line of reference” of the profile that defines lines in the other orthogonal views (the stern rabbet notwithstanding since it simply defines termination points for lower waterlines).

 
John