Jump to content
Supplies of the Ship Modeler's Handbook are running out. Get your copy NOW before they are gone! Click here to order ×

Martes

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    964

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Martes

  1. Martes
    https://modelshipworld.com/topic/33641-location-of-bell-on-a-cutter/ for some ideas. Probably some makeshift stand forward, or, if you would go for a flying forecastle, between it's supports. Nothing more concrete at the moment.
  2. Martes
    I only said it should be verified to be possible. The chase guns on the brig were usually 9-pounders (although there were cases of long 24s (!) fitted). They were, by default, mounted at the bow, but not at chase positions. There was a long, international discussion about how the poop and the flying forecastle obstruct the use of chase guns, providing very little head room, etc., but on the other hand they were useful for sail tending and provided some degree of protection from weather, which was kind of critical in long commissions. This discussion went well into 1840's and ended with the end of the age of sail practically. Anyway, the sailing ship is not a fixed structure, and if there was a real need to fire astern, a way could be found. So if you needed to really, really fire astern, you could remove the deckhouse partitions (they should have been removed anyway when the ship went to quarters, but just in case), unship the tiller, pass the control of the rudder to those chains via ropes overside (this works for the situation), bring the gun from the front of the ship, and fire. It is unlikely that you can position both guns there and fire (and reload) them both, but that would depend on how desperate the situation is, I guess. And then, if it works out, get everything back. Another thing is that the ports should be able to be closed. I am not sure there were permanent lids fitted (most likely not), but, again, there is a number of situations when you could want them to be shut with something. She still rides very high, as if underloaded
  3. Martes
    Look between gunports 2 and 3 down. You also can give some more curve and volume to the quarter galleries, they look somewhat flatter than they should be. Everything else looks more or less plausible. The difference between 4th rate and 3rd is in size and number of gunports, architecturally they are practically identical (unless you go for a flush-deck version of a 44). Frigates were in the 5th rate There are a lot of high-res plans at wikimedia commons.
  4. Martes
    A small clarification of what I meant. If the blue line goes towards the keel at a certain angle, the red should not curve outwards. It should be either straightly tangent to the last segment of the blue, or even slightly concave, if in the lower part of the hull, and it's rather the blue segment should be slightly curved to ensure the red hits the intersection with the keel.
  5. Martes
    I may be mistaken, but - purely visually - doesn't the transition around M appear to slightly distort the surface?
  6. Martes
    First of all, there is a bulge in region 1. Then, try to get rid of the enormous amount of redundant vertices in 2, 3, 5 and 6 - such regions usually cause terrible headache for smoothing algorithms. Finally, try to make the segments in 4 (and up to the hawseholes) straight on approach to the keel. If done correctly, the shading should appear more or less similar to the model Of course, it's all reverse-engineering, and at certain stage it could be simpler to actually redraw the hull mesh from the plan. But I will not go as far as to recommend it
  7. Martes
    I thought of peculiar nature of industrial espionage in this case. Usually one would think that to steal a design of a ship, a whole lot of documentation must be obtained and transported. But in this case the required information would fit on a scrap of paper or could be just memorized. You just have to have somebody who knows what to do with them There are 2 portraits of the ship by Van de Velde, one mentioned above by @allanyed: https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-136130 And another in a Dutch collection (visit the site for full size, the cat faces on the gunport lids are quite adorable): http://collectie.atlasvanstolk.nl/data_nl.asp?q0=85301&startc=1&subj=27&bron=theslijst The stern decorations on the second drawing are somewhat different those on the plan, and they are probably Commonwealth era.
  8. Martes
    What especially astonishes me here is level of data compression. With these methods, how much numbers you have to memorize to correctly unpack the ship plan afterwards?
  9. Martes
    It more or less should be pinched at the entry. I am not even sure if it's enough (1), the surface should not be convex here, either straight or pinched slightly. Check against the model. https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66465 (and the hull lines on the plan) If you could show me the wireframe, I probably could pinpoint how to fix this (2): Shadow should not fork this way, it indicates some problem with the run of the hull. The roundhouses are ok.
  10. Martes
    Almost! Make them more tangent to the keel at region 1 and smooth out the curve in 2, and it will be all right. As to the roundhouse, I'd simply scale it up somewhat.
  11. Martes
    Better But the hull still bulges down there, and it shouldn't (compare to the shape of the model: ) And there is probably some problem with spacing of timbers on the beakhead, since the roundhouse should be wider and actually partially overhang over the edge of the deck. To ensure disposal.
  12. Martes
    Looks very nice, but there are some little corrections that can be pointed out. 1) The entry seems too bluff underwater and looks unnatural. I understand you started without specific lines, but since you reference the Bellona, her lines at this place were definitely sharper. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:'Dragon'_(1760);_'Superb'_(1760);_'Bellona'_(1760)_RMG_J3099.png 2) The roundhouses forward look a little too small. They were enclosed seats of ease, and they should fit a standing and sitting person: (detail from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:'Shrewsbury'_(1758)_RMG_J3158.png ) 3) Referencing the plans above you may consider moving the hawseholes closer to the keel. Their positions are always somewhat floating (and in different places on same plan sets or models of the same ship), but generally at least first of them should be with less offset. https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66465 https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66464 https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66299
  13. Martes
    Thats the main pitfall with wooden ships. Lines always show the frames, not planking. It's little, but it is visible. Especially, as I said, around the bow, where the hull curves, and horizontal offset becomes much more pronounced. Without it the ship will appear unnaturally slim. Plus you have a completely distorted area around the keel. And the wale is around twice the plank (midship section plan), so it's 2% already. And because of the irregularity of the plank cover thickness, the external form of the ship is slightly, but visibly different from that of the frame plan - the otherwise totally straight walls would have a light tumblehome, for example. And yes, that's what you get for going to historical modelling forum. I guess 3d artists wouldn't be that whimsical
  14. Martes
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:COLUMBINE_1806_RMG_J5090.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diligence_(1795);_Seagull_(1795);_Curlew_(1795);_Harpy_(1796);_Hound_(1796);_Chamelion_(1795)_(alternative_spelling-_Cameleon);_Racoon_(1795);_Kangaroo_(1795)_RMG_J4420.png Check these hi-res plans, and, if you want, try to read all what is written on them to delve into the murky waters of Admiralty bureaucracy. Problem with the brigs is that they were very numerous and had an impossible number of in-service alterations. It's very difficult to track them all. But if you search long enough you will notice that most of the brigs that even don't have some details drawn on the profile, get them on deck/inboard plans, meaning they were added very soon after approval and sometimes even before completion. There was a long discussion of habitability of those ships and they gradually received more and more details. And no, the poop it's not only vantage point. It's also a some cover, and a roof over the cabins. Check the deck. The plans I see have it slightly rise towards the stern.
  15. Martes
    @druxey, the cabins, the poop and the flying forecastle are generally shown on inboard profile plans, and there are lots of them for the class. https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-84378
  16. Martes
    Then double-check the position of the deck. The stern ports are there to fire through them. Ouch. I... Again hate to break it, but the there is a severe problem with the hull. It should not follow the hull lines on the plan, but to envelop them. The lines show the outer shape of the frames, which are then covered with plank. See the midship section https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-83745 The difference is not constant. It's larger at the wale, and will generally differ around the bow, as the the hull curves inwards towards the keel, and there you can use the top projection on the main plan to see if the envelope goes right. I saw you did part of the frames, so you have to adjust them, and envelope them with the planking.
  17. Martes
    I do have to correct myself about the chains. Technically, they could have been fixed to the hull (the model in fact shows exactly this, it's just barely visible). There are no holes in the tuck. Because, when needed, cables would be fixed to them, and then go into the hull where it would be convenient under the situation: But try to verify the positions of the stern ports, you should be able to fire through them - either carronades or chase guns, if there are any fitted.
  18. Martes
    Yes, it definitely should be larger (to fit the closets) or removed at all.
  19. Martes
    You might want to browse this place: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=brig+rmg&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image but beware, it's a rabbit hole out there.
  20. Martes
    Also, I think you should remove the name from the stern. They appeared on the ships briefly after the american war, but with the start of the french revolutionary war there was an order to remove them to prevent exact identification of the ships, IIRC, and it stayed that way long afterwards. So it would be easier to represent different ships with one model
  21. Martes
    And here is another model, but be careful, it's a modern interpretation, and may be just a little too fancy and slightly more 1840's in style:
  22. Martes
    As to the stern, I am afraid you'll have to remove even the lantern (or at least put them to the sides and lower). Did you notice the holder in the center of the sternboard on the model? It's for the spanker boom. Nothing should stick it's head above it.
  23. Martes
    Of course you can! Check my post again https://modelshipworld.com/topic/33504-3d-brig-rose-in-blender-33x/?do=findComment&comment=958183 I said "The tiller should be visible behind the wheel, as there is no place to fit it below the deck:" not "get rid of the wheel" or something. It's just that you can steer using the tiller without a wheel, but not vice versa. "It" in "to fit it" meant the tiller, obviously, since if it's not on the deck, it is invisible, i.e. below the deck, and there is no place there. And the same post has the plans with the tiller quite visibly drawn. And the stern lockers. Note that there were tons of variations in positioning of both, like here, where the initial position of the wheel is before the port, with longer and inclined tiller, and corrected places it aft with shorter and lower tiller. So it's your choice:
  24. Martes
    That's exactly what I am trying to tell you, there is no, and cannot be a conflict between the wheel and the tiller. The wheel turns the tiller. The tiller is either on the same deck just after the wheel, or down below, but it is there, you can't do without it. The chains are used as a backup in case the wheel and the tiller are shot out. And the photos I posted are from the same model, two different views. Got that about the rings, I thought they might have represented shut scuttles or something. Anyway, no such rings would appear on ships then. It's something consistent with our times, and I never seen one on any 18-th or 19-th century model or plan. If ever they were used, they would be fitted just prior to docking and removed afterwards, I'd guess. Concerning taffrail, I think it should be somehow decided if this ship represents a period ship or a modern replica of one. At the time no one would fit such rails to military ship, since it's a source of splinters and windage, and generally unnecessary detail. Because it obstructs the spanker boom and requires to restrict the spanker's area, first of all, and you don't need people walking there anyway. It's like you would add propellers and say "but they are fitted on the Surprise". Of course I believe you, but the safety requirements and regulations back in 1800 were very different from those now
  25. Martes
    Note that the bowsprit should be locked from the back into a structure, it wouldn't hold in place otherwise:

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

Model Ship World ® and the MSW logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,929,264 & No. 6,929,274, registered Dec. 20, 2022)

Helpful Links

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem ®

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

Nautical Research Guild ® and the NRG logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,999,236 & No. 6,999,237, registered March 14, 2023)

×
×
  • Create New...