Lieste

Okay, dug out an old spreadsheet which among other things had the data from the referenced page (note that the tabulated data doesn't always agree with the 'proportions' from calibre provided, so ... yeah. That might be a problem. Lengths: AT Nominal length 96" 25+15/16 cal 95.97" AG Fore Part 48" 12+31/32 47.98" GN Mid Part 19.2" 5+3/16 19.19" NT Hind Part 28.8" 7+25/32 28.79" AD Head with Astragal 12.75" 3+7/16 12.72" AR Bore 92.3" 24+15/16 92.27" RT Resistance 3.7" 1 3.7" TX Cascable with Button 7.4" 2 7.4" WX Neck & Button 4.81" 1+19/64 4.80" LT Rear of Trunnion to Base Ring 41.14" 11+1/8 41.16" IK Trunnion Length 3.7" 1 3.7" AX Length OA -- -- 103.37" TW Breech face -- -- 2.60" Moulding Breadth with Freize AB Muzzle 1.12" 5/16 1.16" CD EF PQ Astragals 0.75" 13/64 0.75" GH 2nd Reinforce 2.37" 41/64 2.37" NO 1st Reinforce 2.37" 41/64 2.37" ST Base Ring 2.62" 23/32 2.66" TV First Cascable and Stave 1.43" 25/64 1.45" VW Second Cascable and Stave 1" 17/64 0.98" QS Plain Freize 3.7" 1 3.7" PG Second Reinforce Plain Freize 2.77" 3/4 2.78" -- Neck Stave -- -- 0.17" (not explicitly listed in the data at all) Thickness of Metal lm Over Vent 4.62" 1+1/4 4.63" no Behind 1st RF 4.39" 1+3/16 4.39" rs Before 1st RF 3.93" 1+1/16 3.93" tv Behind 2nd RF 3.7" 1 3.7" yz Before 2nd RF 3.24" 7/8 3.24" 3.4 Muzzle 1.85" 1/2 1.85" Moulding Prominence Over Metal ik Base Ring 0.8" 7/32 0.81" pq First Reinforce 0.37" 3/32 0.35" wx Second Reinforce 0.37" 3/32 0.35" 1.2 Head 1.8" 31/64 1.79" Semi Diameter gh First Cascable Stave 4.5" 39/32 4.51" ef Second Cascable 2.65" 23/32 2.66" cd Neck 1.85" 1/2 1.85" ab Button 2.24" 39/64 2.25" LM Trunnion 1.85" 1/2 1.85" Sorry no diagram, but landmarks are consistent, and with reference to an Armstrong gun the necessary order and arrangement should be easy to find. Exact form of mouldings I don't have (I was more interested in internal ballistics, and the line of metal angles). This 8ft 6pdr might or might not be the most suitable Borgard pattern, but it is the only example I have explicit parameters for. I would use the calculated inches (and retain the 64th of an inch / closest 64th of calibre if I were to recompute) - The tangents won't 'flow' with the proper form if the truncations are inconsistent. That said, there are no *very* large differences, aside from the neglect stave of the neck. The lengths are likely improperly stated as multiples of calibre (for the most part), rather than proportions of gun length and 'a calibre' for the trunnion placement and/or 2nd reinforce. Thickness and mouldings.. Breadth of mouldings might be either proportion of calibre or of gun length (French 1786 is fixed per calibre for multiple lengths, Armstrong a fixed proportion of gun length... Moulding prominence could go either way too). Good luck with figuring out what goes where.

I didn't even notice the 18pdr request as it was before the ship identification.... yeah 6pdrs are more appropriate (which is neat as that is the Lavery data set).

Armstrong was rolled out from 1724 - Borgard patterns would have been current in 1716, and continued for a long time after, but the presence of an Armstrong set on a 'later' vessel of the class isn't impossible. There might also have been 'pre-pattern' contract guns still in service, with each built to a contract length and weight, but with the choice of form and moulding left to the individual gunsmith. There is a table of dimension and diagram on P92 of "The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War, 1600-1815", from notes taken from a Library book long since returned. I have (somewhere) the table of dimensions and some brief notes on the landmarks, but I didn't have the ability to copy the diagram at the time - from memory they look superficially like an Armstrong, but a bit more noticeably fatter going from second reinforce to first towards the breech, and the button appears somewhat smaller and without the astragal of the button. From a few feet away Armstrong patterns might be indistinguishable at smaller scales, though there is a difference in the proportion of the first reinforce which would be noticeable with one of each next to each other of the same length and calibre.

That said paint was mixed by hand, so it is quite appropriate to have variation per 'piece' of work, around a common theme.

The bore is the hollow, the sond of the bore is the deepest part of that hollow (a flat covering 11/12th of the bore radius in A/AF pattern, or the middle of a shallow ellipsoid in Blomefield and later pattern guns - according to Boxer at least - Some, such as carronades would have a deeper curve - in this case a hemisphere occupying half the typical nominal chamber length, with 'zero' length behind the sond (aside from the cascabel and breech face)). Manson pattern guns are well documented - they are the French 1786 pattern naval iron guns - and while they have no direct commonality to any British pattern... however they do share a general definition of *how* the thickness at the breech, and of the wall at the sond are defined (they are equal and based on a specified proportion of the bore, which can be modified by calibre).

The thickness of the metal in the breech is taken from the sond of the bore to the rear of the breech ring (The breechface and cascable are additional). At right angles to the bore the thickness of metal is the 'breech' proportion at the position of the sond. The 'base height' of the metal at the rear of the breech ring is enlarged from this land-mark by the line of metal of the reinforce, and a shorter gun 'comes out' slightly taller. The actual surface of the metal takes an angle after allowing for the 'step' of the first reinforce, as it is the height of the 'surface' under the second reinforce moulding. I have the general principle in memory, but not the details, which I have in a spreadsheet which will generate the elevation of any arbitrary Armstrong Frederick Pattern Gun (and with a change to the ventfield the Armstrong ones (in Iron).. the rules and proportions are different for gun metal and I haven't teased the necessary adjustments to fair lines by calculation rather than construction and inspection... There are some awkward linked calculations for the A-F pattern, especially in the mouldings, the muzzle swell and the cascable and button to get clean tangent joins between the two portions, that can be found trivially within a CAD program such as FreeCAD using a sketch with constraints for each construction line and segment of the surface. This is the same definition of 'thickness at the breech' as defined in e.g the Manson pattern 1786 naval guns, though of course the details of proportion and moulding aren't generally the same.

The proportion at the sond of the bore (and to the surface at the bore end) 42 pdr 32/32 32pdr 34/32 24pdr 36/32 18pdr 38/32 12pdr 40/32 9pdr 42/32 All smaller 44/32 The reinforce is then increasing in the same pattern from 27/32 in 1/32 increments, and the 'neck' at the muzzle astragal from 18/32 in 1/32 increments. The instructions for proportions are given for a 24pdr, and you should replace the proportion of 36/32, 29/32 and 20/32 for those three landmarks with the scale suitable to the calibre.

Iron guns are not bare metal, they are painted with a paint combining carbon black and an anti-corrosion compound. They should look like oil paint, rather than 'metallic'. Same as all the other ironwork. Brass could either be painted, or would be kept 'clear' and polished. The patina of heavily oxidised copper is appropriate only for waterline and below elements (and concentrated between wind and water), or for 'long abandoned' wreck or museum pieces. While 'chips and rust' may look fancy, they go against the principles of keeping a ship's crew busy and the vessel in good condition - though Ordnance board dictated the schedule and materials for maintenance so *some*, light damages to the paint might be acceptable. Heavy wear would be made good, but the schedule of maintenance would likely keep ordnance in good condition aside from specific injury. The appearance of museum pieces (even those employed as working guns) may not be up to the standards expected of active ordnance (most I have seen have significant losses of material from rust, components missing or damaged on carriages and ordnance, and often things like elevation screws are missing even from 'prestige' ordnance like the Victory carronades.

My calculated lengths 'Nominal, In-bore, overall' for the Armstrong guns are... (inches 1dp, english) 42pdr 10ft 120, 112.5, 136 (3455mm) 42pdr 9.5ft 114, 107.4, 130 (3302mm) 32pdr 10ft 120, 113.2, 134.6 (3419mm) 32pdr 9.5ft 114, 108, 128.6 (3267mm) 24pdr 9.5ft 114, 107.4, 127.3 (3233mm) 24pdr 9ft 108, 101.4, 121.3 (3081mm) 18pdr 9ft 108, 101.7, 120 (3049mm) 18pdr 8ft 96, 89.7, 108 (2745mm) 12pdr 9ft 108, 102.2, 118.5 (3011mm) 12pdr 8.5ft 102, 96.2, 112.5 (2859mm) 12pdr 7.5ft 90, 84.2, 100.5 (2534mm) 9pdr 9ft 108, 102.5, 117.6 (2987mm) 9pdr 8.5ft 102, 96.5, 111.6 (2834mm) 9pdr 7.5ft 90, 84.5, 99.6 (2529mm) 9pdr 7ft 84, 78.5, 93.6 (2377mm) 6pdr 8.5ft 102, 97.2, 110.4 (2803mm) 6pdr 8ft 96, 91.2, 104.4 (2651mm) 6pdr 7.5ft 90, 85.2, 98.4 (2499mm) 6pdr 7ft 84, 79.2, 92.4 (2346mm) 6pdr 6.5ft 78, 73.2 86.4 (2194mm) 6pdr 6ft 72, 67.2, 80.4 (2041mm) 4pdr 6ft 72, 67.8, 79.3 (2015mm) 4pdr 5ft 60, 55.8, 67.3 (1710mm) 3pdr 6ft 72, 68.2, 78.6 (1998mm) 3pdr 4.5ft 54, 50.2, 60.6 (1540mm) Within any nominal length the smaller calibre has a combination of a shorter overall length in the difference in cascabel length, and a longer bore from a smaller bore (though the thickness of metal 'in the breech' is relatively longer (and broader) for smaller bore guns, it is only in the proportion 32/32 for 42pdr to 44/32 for 6pdr and all smaller in 2 part increments per calibre

I'm not sure about the relative length of the 9.5ft 32pdr and 24pdr for example - they should have the same length from breech ring to muzzle face, but the 32pdr should be a little longer in the cascabel.for an overall difference just under 1% but the two models appear to slice to an equal number of slices when vertical on their face.

I was thinking you might want a parts group(s) option which also allows arranging the model as 'cleared for action' as well as set up for navigation... because mostly we only see the ships closed to the weather if the are extant, or in film representations, or in physical models... because they are prettier that way (and/or are .. 'supplied that way' and are weather proof)

I think your initial phrasing was confusing. If I am understanding your intent correctly, even today the package remains undelivered... while the implication of the wording in the first post was the package had been delivered on that day...

Rigged for navigation, the partitions are all appropriate, but on clearing for action most if not all were struck down, along with removable furniture.

But most sane people specified cylinders.... the box is a choice.

Wow, those square rimbases are... a choice.

Swivels tended to see use at least as boat guns through the whole of the latter part of the age of sail, alongside the smaller carronades after their introduction, which mostly displaced small carriage guns, or amusettes on field carriages, usually with a larger ordnance in the bow, and pairs of swivels on the bulwark. Not all boats were armed, and the smallest tended only to receive swivels. When not in embarcation, the swivels were provided for the waist gangways, the poop, the marine walk and/or the fighting tops (though some captains preferred a quiet poop, and disliked firearms in the rigging because of a perceived fire risk (Nelson for both counts as an example).. Later carronades were in their turn displaced by light howitzers or obusiers on field carriage to support the landing operation from the shore, with the large but light carriage being easily manhandled or carried by a few sailors or marines once ashore.

You may indeed. I'm English, I practice understatement and equivocation more than might be ideal.

There were slings on C16th ships, making up a significant portion of the headline gun numbers - fitted to the gun wale. The new 1721 brass swivel may be the first of its exact kind, but it is far from the first swivel/antipersonnel gun - and many of the early ones would use a preloaded chamber rather than the later cartridge muzzle loaded types.

Though Victory is likely to be using many Armstrong or Armstrong Frederick pattern ordnance of the same lengths... I've not got a comprehensive list, but there were fewer new cast guns and older guns in store than the required numbers at the time of transition, and major older vessels tended to keep their gun sets through refits to a significant degree, with some exceptions and aside from changes to the establishment (e.g upgrades of 6pdrs to 12 pdrs, supplementation by carronades, variations in numbers of qtr deck guns, replacement of 12pdrs (and 9pdrs for smaller classes) qtr deck guns by 32pdr carronades on a broad scale in the very end of the Napoleonic period and into the 1820s, as well as when rating changed the 100 gun 1st rates to 2nd rates with 18pdr middle deck battery. Morgan's chapter on armament is being pushed out in a few weeks and should answer these 'general' questions with specificity to Victory in 1805.

7.5ft and 9ft (breech ring to muzzle face) 12pdrs and a 9.5ft 24pdr (overall length is roughly 2 calibres longer with the cascable and button). The full suite of guns includes these common lengths... 32pdr 9.5ft 24pdr 9.5ft, 9ft 18pdr 9ft, 8ft 12pdr 9ft, 8.5ft, 7.5ft (land service iron (no breeching ring) 6ft) 9pdr 9ft, 8.5ft, 7.5ft, 7ft (land service iron 5.5ft) 6pdr 7ft, 6.5ft, 6ft (there are other theoretical lengths mostly longer, but the 6pdr was mostly deprecated by now) The group of rebored guns include other lengths of these patterns which I've only ever seen as donors for rebore natures... as well as some more common types, but that is deep into the 1820s, 1830s and beyond. They externally look identical to the original pattern of smaller gun, but with a larger diameter bore to suit their new purpose.

BTW AFAIK the end of reinforce sight patch is a rather late modification to the pattern, probably c1830+, early examples of the Blomefield predate the wide adoption of sights, and only the topline (breech-ring and muzzle swell) were lightly marked with no disparting block or hausse. The sides of the breechring may have quarter degree marks which meet the top of the carriage cheek on some examples, but I don't have extensive dated examples to guess at when these marks were in use - presumably before 1830.

The issue I raised and was confirmed in replies as being a more general issue than merely with Cura, is where the slice is joined as the outside ring and filled, then the inside ring filled to the outside in random layers of the print, rather than the 'proper' filling of the ring between the inside and outside loops. It is a slicer issue or one with the definition of an STL file and how it interacts with the slicer. Breaking each 'ring' into two parts (halves or a 'big wedge'/'little wedge' prevents the treatment of the outer loop and inner loop as two objects and the forcing of the proper handling of each closed loop without holes/islands. I've seen it particularly where the object originates as a profile and is a solid of revolution. It is only secondarily an issue of the linking of different longitudinal elements. Cura sometimes does the same thing with the automatic 'tree supports' if they are needed 'all around' and form an external loop (which is where I first noticed the behaviour before I saw it repeat on a model ordnance barrel).

I would suggest considering the upfront expense on an Ecotank model of printer to be well worth the expense if you actually plan to use the printer when you want, rather than needing to ration the ridiculously expensive consumables of a typical inkjet. I have two - An Epson ET-2650 (A4 printer/scanner/copier) and an ET-7750 (A3 printer/scanner/copier), which work out cheaper than monochrome laser prints for 'average' colour prints on plain paper (though a coated paper does give better quality results - and noticeably increases print costs). I've so far recovered about half the cost of the printers in reduced printing costs and they are both still functioning and I expect them to do so for many years to come, because they are actually used, rather than left to clag-up.

A solid of rotation - depending on the modelling software often has a start and stop and sweeps the surface around until the two 'ends' meet with zero gap. This (when it exists) can cause slicers to have a bit of a freak out... sometimes. I know that this can be a major issue with the interaction between Blender and Cura... and can be averted by making the barrel in two parts so there is a single polygon for the top, joined to a single polygon for the bottom - rather than one polygon which forms a 'just closed ring' or a ring with a hole in it. It is how the slicer interprets the geometry, rather than a problem with the geometry in the model as such.

A single part joined at a semi-seam like that sometimes fails to print well. You may be better off with two halves - it is a problem for some slicers to have an edge which is outside to outside within the same part in a 'ring'. It can cause the bore to 'infill' rather than remain open at an edge in a 'random' point and can interfere with supports placement too. Two separate parts placed together so the bore isn't "inside" the outer perimeter of any single part can slice better in some cases. It doesn't have to be 'literally sliced in half - excising a narrow wedge from the lower surface 'below' the trunnions might be sufficient to avoid the problem, and better hides the 'seam' between the two elements.