Jaager

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 not disappointed by this purchase at all.  It is more of an addition to my historical archives than for a direct model application.  This provides necessary but not sufficient information to model a ship from the Navy of Louis XVI.

Plan 40  -
La Surveillante  1778  12lb frigate
Stern, aft profile above LWL
akmost no useful information - essentially a place holder
Plan 41  -
L'Alcmene 1774 , L'Aimable 1776  8lb frigate
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1 plus  internal detail, channels quarter gallery, figurehead
No stern
These are RN dockyard plans of a capture done 1781
There is more detail.
.
Plan 42  -
La Danae 1763  8lb frigate
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1 plus  internal detail, channels quarter gallery, figurehead, stern
These are RN dockyard plans of a capture done 1779
There is more detail.
.
Plan 43  -
La Gracieuse 1749  8lb frigate
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1
Plan 44  -
La Migonne 1767  8lb frigate
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1
Plan 45  -
La Pleyade 1754  8lb frigate
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1
 

Plan 30  -
L'Amphion 1748  50 guns
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1
Plan 31 -
Le Fier 1745  50 guns
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1
Plan 32  -
La Charmante 1777 , La Junon 1777  12lb  frigate
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1 but zero bow data
Plan 33  -
La Concorde 1783  12lb  frigate
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1  plus stern, internal detail, channels
Plan 34  -
L'Engageante 1765  12lb  frigate
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1
Plan 35  -
La Magicienne 1777  12lb  frigate
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1  plus figurehead and quarter gallery
Plan 36  -
La Nymphe 1780  12lb  frigate
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1 plus stern, internal detail, channels
Plan 37  -
L'Oiseau 1772  12lb  frigate
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1 plus stern, internal detail, channels
These are RN dockyard plans of a capture done 1772
There is more detail. The interior works and the stern.
Overall, the plans for this ship are much more complete.
Plan 38  -
La Renommee 1767  12lb  frigate
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 39  -
La Sultane 1765  12lb  frigate
Waterlines, Profile Plans same data as Plan 1, but no Body Plan  
Internal data, figurehead, quarter gallery
The hull could be built using current methods.  I could not frame using just this information.
 

Plan 20  -
Le Caton 1770  64 guns
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1
Plan 21  -
Le Fantasque 1756  64 guns
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1
Plan 22  -
Le Jason 1777  64 guns
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1
Plan 23  -
Le Lion 1749  64 guns
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1
Plan 24  -
Le Prothee 1772  64 guns
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
These are RN dockyard plans of a capture done 1781
There is more detail. The interior work sand the stern.
The Body Plan has the additional technical data of English plans from this time.
Overall, the plans for this ship are much more complete.
Plan 25  -
Le Provence 1762  64 guns
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1
Plan 26  -
Le Brillant 1774 , Le Reflechi 1773 , Le Solitaire 1772   64 guns
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1
Plan 27  -
Le Triton 1745  64 guns
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1
Plan 28  -
Le Vaillant 1752  64 guns
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1
Plan 29  -
Le Vengeur 1765  64 guns
Body Plan, Waterlines,  Profile Plan
Same data as Plan 1. There is interior detail.
The channels and deadeyes are present.
 

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.

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.

It’s been a while since I read the archeological report about the Newport Ship.  I also have a book, The World of the Newport Ship that illustrates the reconstruction.   W hen I read the book, which is mostly a collection of very dry papers about Medieval economics, I felt that the presence of the transom stern without any justification was a stretch.
 
I later read a more technical paper on the web where they justified the transom stern.  It had to do with extrapolating waterlines beyond the known remains.  Either by curvature of planking or the last known frame.  Either or both of us could be right.
 
If they sold the pictured “Carrack” model for even 1% of the asking price it only goes to show that PT Barnum was right about suckers.  It would not be worth anything to me since I don’t have a wood burning fireplace.
 
Roger
 
 

I'm afraid I have to agree with Jaager regarding the scarcity of information and the amount of work needed to produce a worthwhile model that is accurate to the time and type of ship.
 
However, there's more known than you might imagine.  Firstly I'd recommend you read and become familiar with
Woodrat's superb Carrack or cocha here: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/4915-venetian-carrack-or-cocha-164-by-woodrat-completed/
This is of an earlier vessel, taken from a drawing of 1445, but many of the features hardly changed, if at all.
 
We know the number and types of ships that took part - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellan's_circumnavigation - four naos (carracks) and a caravel - and the number of crew per vessel, which might give us an indication of their size. And we know they set out in 1519.
 
Presumably they weren't brand-new ships - it's unlikely the king would have had them especially built for the voyage, as he was strapped for cash and had to get loans to pay for the expedition - but they wouldn't have been more than, perhaps, 10 years old. So that gives us a rough idea of when they were built - maybe 1510 or thereabouts. Given the size of the crews they weren't all that big, and probably would have had three masts, not four as larger and later carracks had.
 
So what do we have from that time, keeping in mind that this was a period of considerable evolution in carrack design - they were getting bigger and adding decks, and starting to be pierced for heavy cannon. With the crew sizes quoted they  wouldn't have been as big as the Santa Caterina do Monto Sinai (see https://modelshipworld.com/topic/25590-santa-catarina-do-monte-sinai-by-robert-taylor-pyro-1144-scale-plastic/), and she's a bit late anyway - launched in 1520.
 
Probably the best available pictures the right size and from about the right time are below:
 
 
 
 1495-1500 carrack fleet from Story of the Destruction of Troy the Great, French.
 

 
1492-3 Jonah and the Whale Nancy, France BNF MS Lat. 10491 f. 166v.
 

 
1494 reprint 1518 Consolat de Mar Barcelona, Catalunya (Spain)
 

 
1500 approx.Octavian de Saint Gelais France
 
    
 
                                                                                     1500 Jacopo Barbari Panorama of Venice (details)
 

 
1504 Return of Vasco da Gama from India, Tapestry.  Tournai, Belgium (detail)
 

 
1514 Jonah by Bellano. Basilica of San Antonio, Padua, Italy
 

 
1515 Panorama of Antwerp Roadstead, Holland (detail). This one might be a bit late - it seems somewhat too advanced and sophisticated.

These are probably the most appropriate for the time period you're looking at. However, it has also to be kept in mind that different regions had different details - for example the shrouds of carracks serving in the Atlantic had ratlines and were fixed to the hull with deadeyes, while carracks of the Mediterranean had a single rope ladder per mast, and the shrouds were fixed to the hull with blocks. Also, contemporary pictures very often show the bow as too "tubby" compared with the reality, and exaggerate (often dramatically) the sheer of the decks and particularly the forecastle. For an accurate carrack shape, look at Woodrat's build referenced above.
 
I've put together a Pinterest page on carracks at https://www.pinterest.com.au/lowe1847/carracks/ which you might find of use. And there's a collection of archaeological reports on carrack wrecks at https://modelshipworld.com/topic/10190-archaeological-studies-on-carrack-wrecks/
 
 
And don't take too much notice of modern reconstructions - they have no more information than you do, and often get it very wrong indeed.
 
But to get something that is as close as possible to Magellan's ships given the lack of information, you'll need to draw your own plans based on what is available, and build from scratch. The alternative would be to get a Santa Maria kit and bash it to be more in line with what we know. Some of them would probably be suitable for this and end up with a ship that was pretty close to the reality of Magellan's vessels - but choose one with a round stern, not a flat one. Though caravels had flat sterns, carracks didn't begin being built with them till later.
 
The only other thing I'd recommend is to get hold of the contemporary account of Magellan's voyage, to see if they mentioned anything about the ships or their rig or characteristics (for example, Columbus's account describes the rig of Santa Maria and how they changed the rig of one of the caravels from lateen to square, so perhaps there's similar information in the Magellan accounts).
 
For the caravel, you could use a kit of Pinta or Nina. Apart from getting bigger, caravels didn't change much over the period they were in use.
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

It has been year ago, but the sanding sealer that I used was thick and produced a significant layer.
For furniture - especially on open pore wood like Oak or Walnut or non-Birch plywood it is a useful
prep.  It could have out of scale effect on a model.
 
I favor the traditional:
1) super blonde shellac flakes 5% solution in denatured alcohol or 100% isopropyl alcohol *
2) pure Tung oil 1:1 with mineral spirits as a primer.
 
The first coat is ragged on and wiped off after a few minutes.  It soaks into the wood instead of leaving a surface layer.
 
* Normal super blonde shellac is 10% soln.
The off the shelf garnet shellac is ~20% - the waxes increase its solubility.

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.

Jarrod,
Do yourself a favor,  saving yourself pointless stress and buy a copy of both books.  If 17th C. Dutch is a focus, then you will want both anyway.
You are lucky if you can still buy a copy of The Ships of Abel Tasman.  The time window is not as long as you imagine it to be.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).