Lieste

The gundeck 'heavy smoothbore' on the truck carriage with breeching loop should be 68 pdr 95cwt guns, rather than the 8" shell guns which are of a much lighter construction. The earlier 'all 32pdr' gun wooden ships in service from ~1830-1855 ish use a variety of weights of 32pdr gun, plus the 65cwt 9' 8" shell gun (which later form the basis for the 64pdr RML rebores, after relining with a 6.25" steel tube, swaged with a few discharges and then engraved with the rifling grooves).

Did we ever get an answer to the question about which plans were used to design this kit? The 'as displayed' Oseberg ship, (reconstructed as Dronningen) or the 'in cooperation with Roskilde' reconstruction (reconstructed as Saga Oseberg), which corrects damage and lost width and stem angle from the fore-hull.

French "installation de vaisseaux" for the 74s has a linear shot garland on the side between ports (10 each side), with arrangement for double headed shot, grape and the valets suspended below. To support the immediate fight there are also two shot parks per deck between hatches on the centre-line for a few hundred shot each. This would apply to the upper deck of the Frigate as well, but I don't recall shot-parks for the gaillards, only the garlands and stowage for special shot and valets.

Most ship guns, especially later are cast iron (much cheaper) painted with a dark anti-corrosion. Often made with lamp-black, but dark browns are used by some navies. Copper based guns are seen for the signal/short practice/boat gun, but otherwise they are rarer than iron ordnance in the C18th and C19th.(Also field guns and howitzers for land service are usually copper-alloy gunmetal.)

For a 'Common 74' of His Britannic Majesty's Navy - pre 1817 32pdr shot (LD guns, FC (later also QD) carronades) average 6.156", with low and high gauges at 6.105" and 6.207" 18pdr shot (UD guns, RH carronades) average 5.082", with low and high gauges at 5.04" and 5.124" 9pdr shot average 4.0333", low and high gauges, 4" and 4.0667" Very late 74s get 12pdr guns in small proportion alongside a majority 32pdr carronade castles loadout, but an Early example like Bellona would only have the establishments of 1778 or 1794 or a variation by order on these. A very small number were armed experimentally with a 'uniform' 24 pdr gun, 24pdr 'Gover' medium gun and 24 pdr carronades - but Bellona isn't in this group, nor the other alternative 'carronades' group which existed as experiments in the early 1780s. The very large 'French' 74s get quite variable armaments, some including 24pdr on the UD - but again, Bellona is a common or 'small' 74 of British construction. At 1:100 these are 1.56mm, 1.29mm, 1.02mm rounded to nearest 0.1mm - 1.6mm/1.3mm/1mm unsure what sizes are trivially available.

In addition to set, furled or non sails, you can also show them reefed (less effective area, with the upper part gathered in the furl), or clewed up (the clews raised to depower and very roughly reduce the set area from raising the foot of the sail, but without a tight furling.

There are various ordinances, reglements over the years, I see records for 1674, 1685, 1689, 1721, 1758 (which iirc is Maritz), 1766, 1779 (which had short and long patterns for most of the smaller natures {possibly the second Maritz, but unsure) and 1786 (6-36 livres, with short pattern for the 8 and 6, as well as brass 24 and 18 livre guns and the 1 livre perrier... and followed in 1787 by 4 livre, long and short and the brass Obusier de Vaisseau, which system is the Manson pattern) I've mostly been interested in the long serving Manson guns, and know their dimensions quite well, but have summary notes for the others ( taken from their tables of dimension and mouldings - length, wt and the number and general form of their mouldings in notes - all of the iron guns are *much* simpler than the corresponding brass guns, but there are more mouldings and two reinforces on the patterns before 1786, reduced for the Manson pattern to a single reinforce (but with a moulding half way on the reinforce for the two largest), and simpler breech forms. Further simplified for the 1820 no1 and no2 30 livres and the 1824 short patterns for 36, 24 and 18. My currently open notes don't include the largest guns for the earlier periods, and the 18 was (initially) the largest type feasible with the 24 then 36 following as iron casting was perfected.

Smaller shot were carried in shot boxes (a leather 'trefoil' which could stow two tiers of 3 shot), larger shot were moved individually, but likely also in a bag or box, as with the gargousses containing and protecting the powder. Most of the 'first hour' could be fought using the shot in garlands and shot parks on the gun decks, and additional shot would be brought up from the hold if this began to run low and at any lull in the fighting if the crew wasn't fully occupied with firefighting and/or pumps to control flooding. Shot could be lacquered, as were the grape stands to reduce the risks of rusting, and to protect the iron. Later practice at least specifically calls out white or white/black to highlight marginal or rejected shot, while passing shot were lacquered black. The piles of shot in store were then built on 'white' shot in the bottom tier, with the good shot stacked in the 'pyramid' above. French shot making of the 1766 regulations onward were cast slightly oversize and then hammer forged to gauge sizing between two 'hollow hemisphere' hammers, while being rotated and shifted using the casting lugs, which were then cut off when finishing the shot. Shot which test high are then 'shaved' and re-worked to the intended gauge. Those which test below the low gauge are 'turned at the waist' and then hammered down to the next smaller shot. The 'Forges' gauge allowance was 6 lines, but in use a wastage of 3 additional lines was permitted in the 'places' gauge. French land service gauges are considerably 'higher' than the marine service gauge. The high gauge of both British and French naval guns is similar, but in larger natures the British gauges have a greater interval between low and high than the French ones do. (British windages were until 1817 stated as that from calibre to the low ball, while French practice is to state the windage as from the calibre to the high ball. Later the practice was to specify the 'average' windage for the average shot or the middle of the gauges. - This causes many 'light' treatments of the subject to categorically state that French guns had a lower windage, when in practice the difference in absolute windage is much smaller (and favours the smaller natures of the English system), but the French shot gauges are closer together - especially for the more effective, larger guns, giving more consistency. In the 1820s and later the new gauges (rather than merely recasting the use of the old gauges to refer to the middle windage) raised the English 'low' gauge and reduced the difference still further. (A few other guns got minor changes to the high gauge as well (mostly smaller natures), but the major change in British windage reduction was in the diminishing of the calibre of new and/or rebored guns, similar to the reduced calibre of the English (and to a lesser degree the second round of French caronades 1818, 18 and 12 livre, and the 1820 30 livre and 1824 and 1825 rectifie 24 and 36 livre caronade - the earlier OdV 36 and 1804 36 and 24 livre caronades were full calibre (but chambered) ordnance with no windage reduction compared to the gun.

Marine pattern iron guns are not interchangeable with field or siege artillery in bronze.

FDM printers use the slicer to construct a series of straight line segments for each polygon in the layer - with a maximum deviation from a point or from the straightline before inserting a path-point and a minimum distance between sequential points set in the slicer. Generally you get better results from a higher poly/smoother surface, but the slicer is faster if the surface detail isn't excessive. A long straight is stored as two points. A curve is stored as more points, and the slicer geometry is 'similar' once you get above a strongly faceted shape. There can be directional artefacts if you have lower deviation accuracy, and surface noise if the minimum distance is kept too low (the defaults can be set an order of magnitude too small for clean paths, and introduce too many points, but with limited accuracy, and some tuning and test prints are useful to improve both speed and surface finish/detail - 'measles' is how I'd describe this particular fault.).

32pdr shot have a high gauge of 6.207" and low gauge of 6.105" until the 1820s, when the gauges are revised to 6.207" and 6.147". The mean shot diameter is thus 6.156" early and 6.177" later. Carronade calibre is 6.25" , with a smaller diameter chamber and an enlarged loading/blast cup muzzle extension forward of the muzzle swell moulding. This build shows garlands at the hatch coamings.

With FDM printers a high model resolution is useful (smoother shapes are possible), but the print result is often better if you allow the slicer to cull to a minimum spacing between points - the changes in direction can result in 'bumps' in the surface as the head overshoots path points which are too close together. By default this can be a touch aggressive or off... but you can tune these settings to suit the model type and printing speeds desired. This can also modify shape accuracy for CW/CCW path loops which can ruin surface finish where the error is excessive for the size and curvature. Resin can generally give much better results, faster and with smaller/finer detail, but there is more mess potential.

I think #3 is the rail end for the arrangement seen in the image of post #13, where the tiller is handled by a line and lies between the roundhouse deck and the transverse rail.

What I saw on some of the models and paintings was a frame just forward of the roundhouse 'over' the end of the tiller bar, which is over and flush/low to the roundhouse. The cables run to the outsides of the frame and to the tiller - presumably then down to a wheel or a similar contrivance in the cockpit. These are moderate vessels designed to appear much larger/grander than they are, and with the tiller 'overhead' and behind the working space. Not large enough to pass the tiller inside the cabin, or to have the helmsman on the roundhouse - so some method of working the tiller from afore the cabin and lower than the tiller position is needed.

In the plan view, the outer line is the 'breadth line'. The inner line is the line of the top timber. At the stern, the roundhouse deck is more or less flush with the rail, and is fully occupied by the tiller, which is operated by a cable run over a frame above the leading edge of the roundhouse, or potentially the position just forward of the roundhouse rail break. The roundhouse form is largely decorative - the cabin is short and 'upright' with an overhanging deck and decorative canopy extended purely for aesthetic reasons, to mimic the appearance feasible with a 'working' form in a larger vessel. As is usual with hullforms, the sides of the upper works are not included within the plan view - only the breadth line and the width of the topline. Just fair the top-timbers a needed to provide the tumblehome shown.