Jaager

Plan 10 - Le Cesar 1767, LedEstin 1777 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 11 - Le Fendant 1772 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 12 - L'Hector 1751 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 13 - L'Intrepide 1747 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines Plan 14 - Le Neptune 1777 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 15 - Le Sceptre 1778 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 16 - Le Souverain 1755 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 17 - La Victoire 1781 74 guns Waterlines, Profile Plan Deck locations - the same status as Plan 6 Plan 18 - Le Zele 1762 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 19 - Le dauphin Royal 1735 70 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1

This appears to be a snapshot of the major vessels of the French Navy from 1775-1793. It is a compilation of the official plans with the addition of a few plans from the RN archives of captured vessels. I suspect that there are more vessels that could have been included if their plans had survived. This volume is similar to ANM in how useful its direct application is for a ship modeler. I think this volume is a drafting of plans from the French Navy archives to a standard 1:72 format. These are a bit different from the plans in the RN archives in the NNM. There is less detail. They seem to focus on the interests of the naval architects. The swimming body and the run of the lines are complete. The overall appearance of the vessels for historical preservation does not seem to be of much interest. The construction details are not present. The following is my evaluation of each from the perspective of a POF scratch builder. Plan 1 - La Bretagne 1762 110 guns 1:72 Body Plan, Waterlines Plan, Profile The wales, rails, gunports, headrails , mast locations at toprail. Nothing on the stern, quarter galleries, figurehead or carvings. There is enough information to frame and plank the hull. Everything else would be generic or spec. Plan 2 - Generic 3 decker and 74 1:144 Spars, sails, rigging side view quarter galleries and side view of figurehead Plan 3 - 64 gun ship (Artsien) and 12lb frigate (Hermione) 1:144 Spars, sails, rigging both are smaller scale copies of what is in their respective individual monographs available from ANCRE Plan 4 - Le Ville de Paris 1757 100 guns Body Plan only This is the same as the information that I received from G. Delacroix when I asked about what was available for this ship. It was the flagship of Rear Admiral Francois Joseph Paul, the Comte de Grasse. Not enough information to model except to get the correct hull shape. Plan 5 - Le Duc de Bourhogne 1748 80 guns 1:72 Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile has rails, gunports, deck locations, no wales, stern, or bow Plan 6 - Le Languedoc 1762 80 guns Waterlines, Profile Plans same data as Plan 1, but no Body Plan The hull could be built using current methods. I could not frame using just this information. Plan 7 - Le Tonnant 1742 80 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 with some carving detail Plan 8 - Le Bien Aime 1767 - La Victoire 1768 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1 Plan 9 - Le Bourgogne 1762 74 guns Body Plan, Waterlines, Profile Plan Same data as Plan 1

Update. A box with 45 plans was on my doorstep this afternoon. I have no French and have not done an on-line translation of any of the blurb on the package. I will provide a brief description of each plan when I complete my review.

Jonathan, The best that you can probably do is a reconstruction. Seaways did a 2 sheet 4 plan of a Manila galleon of about 1575. It would be a hundred year later off spring but it would carry echos. If you look carefully, the heavy footprint of Roman merchant bulk carriers can be seen in Medieval seagoing vessels. We have had several threads going here on this period. Do a search for Louie da fly for a view of what we know. The series of volumes covering the Red Bay wreck gets close. There is the AOTS volume doing a guess about Columbus' vessels. Texas AM has some data. Get to know what is in the Subjects built Up to and including 1500 AD forum. What you seek will not be a simple one off fire and forget. It will involve serious academic immersion in speculative and arcane subjects. It will involve drafting and lofting. It will involve scratch building - tools and wood. It will be a whole world of its own to do correctly. You will do the work that would earn you an advanced academic degree in most other fields, but there will be no robes, diploma, or accolades for the effort.

Since GOOGLE search brings them up as a spam ad superimposition on the page., and they are either a full blown scam or have crashed - with a full mailbox and no live contact, perhaps a rough wave washed the whole crew out to sea - GOOGLE should be notified that they are enabling a criminal enterprise. The way GOOGLE handles it will indicate whether GOOGLE too is a scam at base or legit.

Allen, Your kit is POB. What you are faring are generally termed bulkheads. I believe the first POB kits were Italian. Whoever did the first naming and translation of the first kits was obviously not at all academically inclined. The evidence for this is the use of the term bulkhead to begin with. (Unless the first kit was a submarine.) Since only Chinese wooden ships had actual bulkheads, what they actually are; moulds. To rif a bit about POB: Some sort of outboard support between the moulds will make them less prone to movement or displacement while being abraded. The mass market POB kits tend to have an inadequate number of moulds. This makes for problems with dips and hollows in the first layer of planking. But enough about the problems with moulds. The point I wish to make is that moulds/bulkheads are not frames. Their only resemblance to frames is that they reside where a few of the actual frames of the ship would be. Misuse of terminology can lead to confusion. Should you progress on into scratch POF hull fabrication, you would understand why moulds should never be confused with actual frames.

The top support is way over engineered. Cutting a hole for the Vac intake will involve a lot of work. The back vertical face will want a piece of material - cardboard will do - that comes down for a distance of about to the middle of the drum - to make an enclosure for the drum thrown wood flour. The volume of dust generated by a drum sander needs to be seen to be believed. Because of my thickness sander as well as my drum sander table, I had a supply of N-95 masks when this current disaster washed over us. A shop vac (serious volume) and an inline cyclone trap ( a serious sanding session will fill a 16 gal vac container in less time than would be expected as well as filling a vac filter in an all too short time).

1700 rpm is about the max for any of this sort of sanding machine. I have not done the experiment, but I suspect that mush faster will produce a well charred surface. If the rotation is in the direction of the feed, you will have an electric motor driven version of a medieval or Roman era projectile throwing weapon war machine. Even at your slower 4500 rpm, any stock will probably deeply penetrate drywall. Mere human flesh would not stand a chance. I suggest dropping back 10 yards and buying a Byrnes Sander. I have experience with making my own - from way before there was any commercial machine - and the ease of use and precision with the Byrnes makes any homemade machine an exercise in pointless frustration.

Given the source of your posted link, it would serve you to read some of the posts here concerning pirated model kits and the sites that promote this practice - as short sighted and self defeating as pirating is. Understand that such a stand requires a want of moral and ethical integrity. That lack of ethics is a broad based one and not limited to just pirating. Be careful of anything that involves trust and always CYA there. I took your original inquiry for a single reference to be a literal and sincere request and came as close to matching it I could. As you are now beginning a sweeping arc on this subject, some time spent chasing the numerous posts here about the volumes available on this subject. The reality of it is that it takes a library to cover the subject. There was a blooming of available references in the 70's-90's. Most of those volumes are out of print or rapidly approaching that status. The years have taught me to view new books as skeet. Your window of opportunity to acquire them is often fleeting.

I am a total outsider - just observing as far as POB for method, but is not the second (surface) layer of planking not in in essence a filler for the first layer? What practical purpose does filling the cracks in the first layer with putty serve? If the moulds are so widely placed that the first layer requires hollows to be filled so as to get a smooth sweet running surface for the outside planking, significant hollows = scab a thin layer of wood veneer using PVA. minor dips = an easily sanded, porous material with a PVA strength binding agent.

The ships of 1701 were only superficially related to those of 1800. Although, unlike what happened over the next 100 years, the basic technology as far as building materials and propulsive technology was pretty much the same, there was a significant evolution over that 100 year span. If you have to cut it to an unrealistic bare bones, I suggest the following will cover the the subject in a broad manner: SCANTLINGS OF THE ROYAL NAVY 1719-1805 by Allan Yedlinsky THE 74 GUN SHIP Practical Treatise of Naval Art 1780 by Jean Boudriot - all 4 volumes.

Well, PP completed the transfer of funds, so I made the purchase of the box of plans. Today, I was notified that the box has been shipped. I paid for the higher level shipping. It should not be too long before I find out if these plans fit my requirements.

I have no definitive answers, just some thoughts: Your finished product will "live" in what ever is the relative humidity of your interior environment. A humidifier can be added to your HVAC system. This will involve incurring added expense, attention, and maintenance. It also involves constant isolation of your interior environment. But you pays your money and takes your chances with this sort of choice. I suggest that it is better to assemble in the same conditions as those of the finished object. I would be more concerned about the transported finished models and how they fare when they equilibrate with lower humidity. My suggestion is to step back to a wider focus and work with species of wood that are less brittle and more appropriate to begin with. This does involve having to become, at the bare minimum, a magnitude more involved in what your shop will need. Appropriate species are not easily obtained.

I did. That is how I obtained the information that I posted. I have the hope that someone with more knowledge will jump in an expand on this. The postage on the plans is significant. There seems to be some weight and volume there. I am willing to take the gamble that they are what I think they are.

An email add came in from ANCRE yesterday. I have no French, so I can only guess about them. The subject seems to focus on the fleet of Louis XVI that was involved in the battle at the Chesapeake Capes that allowed for the successful siege at Yorktown. The text is French only, so I will wait for an English translation. There also seen to be a set of what I guess are lines plans at 1/72 or smaller for many of the vessels of the French fleet. I tried to use the main site to translate, but the new product is not there yet. My CC company added a new step with a password that I have no clue about - so my purchase failed. I have to wait for PayPal to do a transfer ( with these ridiculously now interest rates, what is the point in PP taking a week to transfer funds? ) ( I neither have nor want the capability for text on a phone - but banks are seeming to act like EVERYBODY has active phone texting. ) I am really interested in seeing if this new set is really lines plans for a whole French fleet. For one, the City of Paris is potentially a big deal here - being just down the road from Cape Henry.

A first rate ship of the line was a significant undertaking for any government of the time. A model of one involves similar effort on the part of an individual. Should you begin to feel overwhelmed or discouraged give some thought to leaving the project on the ways and switching to a much smaller vessel - not smaller in the actual model size - rather a smaller vessel at a larger scale. When the basics become a familiar skill, the first rate will seem to present a more shallow slope.

I may well be alone in this, but I have no clue about the subject of your inquiry. The best I can imagine is that your area of interest is steel Navy or merchant and it is an older vessel with an uneven multi coat paint job that is being simulated. If this is the situation, the guys who do plastic models and whose focus is on the finish instead of the structure are probably a more productive resource. For me, and I suspect many others who focus on wood, paint and the finish are a necessary evil.

I suspect that this particular vessel is a fictional one. This means that it is difficult to get it wrong - since there is no specific right - as long as you are true to what was done in the particular time period. I did a Google search and looked at the UK site for Mantua kits. The copy reads as though this is indeed a stand in for a broad class of two masted brigantines. The site photo shows a quarter badge and the vessel looks mid 18th century to me. 1. the site lists instructions in English. - perhaps contact with them could gain you a copy of their instructions. 2. they list it as being 1:150 scale - this is well within the miniature range - it makes matching prototype practice difficult - tricks and illusions are needed -these are their own set of skills. 3. Wooden ship model kits are a unique sort of critter. I think it is not reasonable to expect the instructions for a particular kit to be sufficient information for completion. They should be complete in the What for a particular vessel. The How is a different matter. There are books aplenty covering construction techniques and the myriad paths available to get there. There are journal articles readily available. This site has CD versions of three of the four major English language ship model journals. Only Model Shipwright is being lost to time. This is probably due to a major failure at the Suit level of the publisher. This site has build logs. The methods shown are far from specifically limited to the individual subject. For miniature - there are three major books that I think can still be obtained. If you are in anyway serious about this, the accumulation of a significant reference library is all but unavoidable. The period of your ship has a fairly large volume of available information - both contemporary and more modern interpretations.

I think that the garboard is the key factor. The imperative is to avoid having it creep up at the stem and stern. The horizontal part of the rabbet ends farther back than is intuitive. It is important to start cutting into the plank where the horizontal ends. The other suggestion is to use the planking fan to measure the spilling for each strake anew.

In theory, I would use a slitting blade. Thin sheets of non ferrous metal will probably react poorly to the stress of cutting if it is pushed thru the blade by itself. I would use thin sheets of model aircraft plywood and double sided tape to make a sandwich. The metal fixed between two sheets of ply. Cut using one of the more coarse toothed slitting blades, but still a lot of teeth. I have no actual experimental data to confirm that this would work. But, I expect that curling and other adverse problems would be avoided. A top hold down stick and butt end pusher should resist kickback.

Mark, The remark about builders plans was meant as bait for others. It was not aimed at you. There is/are thread/s about the USN pre War of 1812 frigates that seem to disparage builders plans and get way into the weeds, making a major production of microscopic factors. The implied tone is that unless the plans are perfect, a model of the ship should not be attempted. Maybe if the build was for display in a naval historical museum, I see the the validity, but otherwise, not so much. About your above comments, I am all but horrified when I see a model of the supposed 1799 frigate with an elliptical stern. "That's just not right."

Mark, HIC drew the builders plan for Congress/Constellation (HIC #8) so SI would be one possible source. I am perplexed by the disdain expressed for the value of builders plans. At base it is a chance to see how our shipyards do using the original source.

Caution is advised regarding this name. It was used for two different ships. The 1799 frigate underwent the fade based evolution at a time of great change, so the year that you are representing has an affect on the dimensions. There is data in the Appendix of HASN. The second ship with this name still sort of exists. It was a corvette and the last of the sailing warships for the USN. It has undergone several severe cosmetic alterations, some pure fantasy that tried to make it into the 1799 frigate. HASN has dimensions for Albany that are within a decade of the launch of the corvette. The various captains had a lot of say in how these ships were spared and some were fad prone. This is probably a situation were close enough is good enough. A more important factor is to get the spared and rigged model into a protective case. A view of restoration logs here should demonstrate the result of leaving a model of a sailing vessel open to the environment.

Ash, like Hickory and any Oak, has open pores and a distinct and distracting grain. This causes any one of them to be a poor choice for any part that is to be left natural. It also requires that the pores be filled if any of these species are to be painted. If the framing is to be completely planked over and the deck is completely planked, Ash will serve, since it will be totally hidden. Pet peeve about the internet: Now, about your question as asked, This is not any sort of competition. A ranking based on some arbitrary score serves no purpose. Using the superlative tense is some creature of the internet, and in most cases takes a discussion in a non productive direction. In addition, the best in a group that is all crap, is still crap. A productive ask would be a search for excellence. You do not supply your location on Terra. If you are located in eastern North America, and you are seeking commercially available domestic wood that is a reasonable price, Hard Maple and Black Cherry are excellent species to use for framing. If you can harvest, mill and season your own wood, the choice of excellent species becomes a much larger one.

If support for a sail does not fit, could it fit another function? Would it work as part of a crane? Would there be work for a floating crane during its period. I tried to imagine how or even why it would function as a single mast with alternate steps.