Jump to content

AnobiumPunctatum

Members
  • Posts

    1,267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AnobiumPunctatum

  1. The design of the parallel frames is finished. I tried to follow the original drawing as close as possible without one change.

     

    If you have a closer look at the gun port position of the original drawing you will see a pencil note, which indicates that there was added a 5th deadeye, which is not common for cutters. I did not know any other cutter drawing with more than 4 deadeyes.

     

    post-380-0-30411900-1420292981_thumb.jpg

     

    So I decided that I like to show this update of the original design - the Marshall drawing also shows 5 deadeyes. For this change I modified the gun port position and the top timber heads in this area.

     

    post-380-0-94337900-1420293003_thumb.jpg

     

    My biggest problem during the design was, that the gun ports and top timber heads did not match the position of the double frames. I could not solve this problem with using another design, so I decided to shift the futtocks as I've seen in some contemporary drawings.

     

    If you compare this design with the known design of the Aots-book (I don't like adding a scan to avoid problems with Copyright issues) you will see that this design is much more rugged. The gunports ar not put on top of the framing as Goodwin did.

     

    I don't know but I hope that it's a little bit closer to the original framing. If you think that I can optimize the position of some frames, please let me know. Next I start with the fore cant frames.

     

  2. Happy New Year

     

     

    It's time for another short update. The design takes more time than expected. I notice that I don't have any experience in doing this. I reconstructed the square frames from station line H to station line 4 for both options.

     

    I don't know which one could be right.

     

    Both options have their advantages and disadvantages

     

    Option 1:

    + The real double frames are more common than the design in option 2

    +  The relationship of room and space is more common comparing with other (bigger) ships of that time

    -  The width of the floor timber given through the two station lines for station 0 does not fit.

     

    Option 2:

    +  The width of the floor timber fits two the station lines at station 0.

    +  The frame design allows a better ventilation between the frames

    +  The frame design is very light which is positive for a fast sailing ship

    -   The relationship of room and space is very uncommon

     

    post-380-0-29301500-1420140555_thumb.jpg

     

    In my opinion the given historical dimensions for framing a cutter are not very helpful for a cutter of the Alert-Class

    The shipbuilders repsoitory is from 1788 and Steel from 1805. There was a very important change in the armament of ships between the design of Alert and the two documents: the introduction of the carronades.

    In the older repositories the cutters would not mentioned.

     

    What do you think, which is the solution you would prefer?

×
×
  • Create New...