Lieste

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.

5 is where the foot of the mast goes when unstepped - this looks to be suitable to take under bridges and on inland waterways, with rigging arrangements to facilitate. 4 is the head of the rudder post/tiller. It is outside the cabin, and the tiller runs on top of the roundhouse.

That one has the near vertical rear cabin wall inside the stern post, and decorative canopy over and behind.

Looking at the diagrams - I read the hawse holes at just above fore-deck height. Following the associated wale back to the first 'break' in the deck plan. At this bulkwark the deck is broken, and is represented as a floor in the bottom of a cockpit/well/small hold, with a second section of full-width deck behind the second 'break' in the plan.. This aft deck is relatively short with a long enclosed cabin below the roundhouse deck - the side hull and roundhouse are longer 'aft' than the enclosed cabin volume, which may just be in line with the stern post.

TBH, what you mark as forward cabin I am reading as a well or hold, with a potential ledge for a removable plank fore and aft where the deck is shown as full width - the near the sheer wale fore and aft of this midship well (signified by the narrower floor). The aft cabin terminating at the stern in a straight line from the top of the perpendicular to the roundhouse deck along the rear edge of the gallery frame, the side plank and roundhouse continuing in a pleasing 'large ship' form to the rear, purely decoratively.

A detail from some models - the transom and rear windows may be in line with the rear of the side gallery, and the extended decoration and deck over are not part of the cabin per-se.

A revised interpretation. The midships plan shows a narrow 'floor' to the cockpit, at about the height of the second diagonal, and the interior plank of the hull. The deck fore and aft at the width of either the main wale or the sheer wale, cabin aft flush to the topline, from the aftmost break in the deck to the counter.

I read the deck height as being at the bottom of the timber square in which the leeboards are mounted. The double plank in that area may be a gangway 'boxed in' above the level of the deck generally and to which the leeboard mounting is affixed. The height of the wale seems insufficient depth to the bulwark, unless I am vastly underestimating the size of the vessel, and by comparison to the model of the similar type.

Consider having a horde printed (with a resin printer - bribe a friend or use a printing on demand service if you don't have one) of the naval crew from Alf Scherer who has a set of gunners and a set of officers and crew for 1760-1820 (as well as a variety of earlier periods (rowers for dark age/ancient vessels, and 17th C gunners and crew). They are fairly simple, but I've seen worse from boxed plastic figures. https://www.myminifactory.com/users/scherera

Though both the (suspiciously small) ensign and the pennant look to be streaming the wrong way for the rest of the rig.

I don't have a good table of dimensions for the pattern, but I would expect - from the pattern of every other piece that it would be a 6" multiple for length - as 11x is more likely a read from 110 - than 10x - I'd perhaps favour 114 and 120, but ymmv, and perhaps they have an 'odd' size like the (much) later 63cwt 32pdr, which is a full 1" longer than the 'ordinary' 55.5/56cwt type. <shrug> If these are parametric and it is not too awkward to add an extra length I might suggest doing both 108 and 114 for the 'short' 24 with a note and letting the end-use select which to print. Unless there is good documentation which specifies what the design length would be (it is possible that variation from mould to mould occurs in these individually created pieces and a measured piece is an inch or two longer, or (less likely) 4" shorter than the pattern... or the dimension is taken off a handwritten list with an error in copying, or the list compiled with error). Some variation in length can be a feature and not a bug, so long as the proportions comply with the rules in 'coarseness'. Later guns are required to be more consistent than the earlier patterns. and after the mass proof failures of the 1780s/1790s the manufacturers and ordnance board was much more enthusiastic about eliminating defective ordnance before the proof firings started, as the 'heightened' testing regime for a batch with failed guns under proof in it often caused a significant fraction or all of a found day's production to be wasted. The slower burning of the older powders (even with the larger powder sizes) were a bit more forgiving of variations from the required strength and proportion.

Unsure. Vesuve class bombard/gabarre Dore and Finisterre were originally designed for 16x24 livre caronades (26 pdr english, roughly) with 18 ports, converted to 8x 24 caronades and 2x12" mortars on the centreline, midships. Were flush decked. The earlier Salamandre really pre-dates widespread iron carronades in French service. Ketches to fit the bomb(s) in the bow would make it harder to 'push' the front end around. I think I would prefer the 'broadside' ship. No firm data on that though, just an impression of the balance looking off.

Late ones got a considerable boost with 30 livre no1 or no2 guns (whether as full battery or just chase guns), 30 livre canon-obusier and carronades - later these to be planned for replacement by no3 and no4 guns. 22c obusier no2 on the larger types... while the 'older' styles were trying to be useful with 6 and 8 livre guns, or 18 livre carronades. (the very largest with 24 livre carronades in the main battery. This makes the late period small vessels almost as useful in numbers as a fewer number of larger ships with the same number of guns - because they are often largely the same types, or are very close in performance to the marginally heavier pattern. The ancien vaisseaux and batteaux were much weaker both in number and type of gun as the rating was reduced. Of course many of the new 'small sloops' were larger than the old heavy frigates... even though carrying fewer guns, but there is still a modest growth in direct firepower, and a significant improvement in the proportion which 'reaches'.

Borgard fits in between the 'per foundry' Commonwealth and 'Establishment' Armstrong patterns. They look like a cross between the two (no button astragal, a frieze and astragal on the chase).

Disregard comment above about 'neck semi-diameter' - this is the neck of the button and is a solid diameter of the calibre. The Neck of the muzzle astragal is the same thickness/diameter as the 3.4 muzzle face

Start with the line AT which is the centreline of the gun, forward of the breech ring. Extend it backwards to AX for the cascable and button. Set off a construction line half calibre above and below this line for the bore. Starting at the muzzle 'A' (bore plus thickness 3.4) the first landmark is AB - this is the muzzle moulding which includes a muzzle listel (step) an 's-curve' a second listel. I am unsure on the muzzle swell location (1.2) but for many similar designs it is at 1/2 calibre from the muzzle face. The next landmark is AD which is the breech side of the muzzle astragal at the neck (cd), the Astragal CD lies to the muzzle side of that landmark. The next landmark to set is AG - the length of the chase. where the height 'below and above' 2nd RF are to be set off as construction line. Join the thicknesses 'cd' at D and 'yz' at G for the chace construction line. On the chase there is a plain surface between G and F of the Freize width, the EF is the chace Astragal and listels (two smallish rectangular sections sandwiching the Astragal prominence (a semi-circular section ring). GN sets the position of the front edge of the first reinforce, with again, two heights before and behind the end of the reinforce. Join 'before' the first and 'behind' the second to give the surface of 2nd reinforce. RT sets the position of the end of the bore, and of the 'thickness at the vent'. Extend a line from 'behind' 1st reinforce through 'thickness at the vent' to the end of first reinforce at the position of 'T' for the surface of the 1st reinforce. The 2nd Reinforce ring (and listels) occupy about half the distance GH, and are at the 'breech-ward end' of the 'step' with a prominence above the surface of the reinforce, and the 'muzzle' side of the reinforce ring being an 'S' shaped curve from below the fore listel to the chace (unsure if the moulding has a step or a tangent transition to the chace, it doesn't specify in my notes). 1st Reinforce Ring is similar within NO, with the end of the first reinforce at N from the second reinforce to the ring and listels prominent above the surface in the half towards the breech. The base ring is between ST, again, roughly half ring and listel (At the end 'T', and half moulding falling off to the surface at S. The Frieze is ahead of S a distance of QS, with the vent astragal PQ of prominence of the Astragal and a pair of listels. Behind the base ring there is a listel or radius (diagram unlear), then two 'frying pan' shaped, curved 'cascables' which have some variety of listel or stave between each segment (diameter given - unsure if the outer or inner one) The diameter of the neck is the calibre, and button rather larger, curves are tangent to each other, and meet the neck stave (probably the same diameter as at the button). Aside from the absence of the button astragal the general arrangement is similar-ish to the 8ft (or 96") 6pdr Armstrong, but with some differences in proportion. For the muzzle swell there is a (smallish) radius for the swell set off something like... From the top of the second muzzle listel, to the 'tip of the muzzle swell' a line. At right angles from the 2nd muzzle listel to the position of the swell to fix a point 'Z'. Double the distance to 'Z' from the muzzle swell for the centre of the swell radius. An arc thrown through the neck surface at 'D' and tangent to the muzzle swell curve with a specified radius (or with a centre at the position of D but well 'outside' the gun, as we have no such radius specified here) will give a curve from the neck, continuously through the swell to the muzzle mouldings.