HAIIAPHNK

Is this little table really enough to work on? It's completely incomprehensible to me. I'm going to close this picture before my wife sees how much space is needed for a shipyard. Otherwise I'll be in danger )

Estelle: -Joe, have you seen me in ecstasy? Joe: -No. Estelle: -Well, look! Now I'll show you myself in ecstasy. It's true. And even though you can't see anything special on the outside, inside at this moment I felt soooooooooooooooooooo much pleasure. The whole thing is that not more than half an hour before this moment I found the most unique shots. Maybe even the only one in the world. I found what Vaska's back looks like. It's a truly mysterious place, impossible to find anywhere else. But I did. So at this very moment, a rumba is playing in my head!

Oh! I apologize. I re-read your post several times. And only then I realized that the picture refers to the first part of your answer and it is useless to look for a divided lid there. That's what initially confused me. Now everything has fallen into place. Indeed, your idea is very simple and natural. If the gallery has halves that open out to the sides, like a normal window, it immediately solves all the problems. Thank you. It's so simple. In the end, I can show anything I want to show. I can close the doors and it'll look exactly like Beren's. Or I can open it on the other side and show you how the gun is hidden. It looks like the answers have been found and this issue is over!

That's an interesting solution. What was the benefit of splitting the single cover vertically? A horizontal cut I can imagine. So, for example, you can put the cannon as far forward as possible so it takes up less space in the cabin. And then the horizontal doors "hug" the gun barrel. You can quickly open them if necessary without moving the cannon. But what does the vertical separation do? In the picture I see that all hatches open upwards. Why make a cut then? It doesn't make sense. The vertical separation should change the mounting style. In this case, the hatch should swing out to the sides like a normal window. Am I wrong? Or did I see something wrong?

Thank you, Martes, you've put my mind at ease. So I can forget about worrying about changing the tilt. That's good news.

Thank you for your input and suggested option. I was considering placing a cannon porthole in that location. This was before we even got the original sketches. And I only had the book drawings for the Ambitionary on hand at the time. At that time the whole quartet gallery drawing was a complete fantasy. But that option had to be abandoned. On the given sketch at scanning became worse quality, but it is still possible to discern. The azure lines show the belt where all the cannon portholes go. If the cannon is placed in the place you suggested, it will be above the planned level. No one would make a separate carriage with a higher position of the cannon barrel. And then it was necessary to change the gallery drawing, to lower the window level. In principle it is possible, but in the end it would be too far from the source. But the next problem will not be avoided for sure. If you look closely, you can see the doorway in the same drawing. It crosses the border of the window to the left of the viewer. Do you see it? So the porthole and the doorway will be one huge hole in the hull. Which is impossible. We conclude: if we have given up the idea of putting the cannon in the doorway itself, then we are left with only two options - the cannon can stand either in the last section of the porthole or already on the gallery's edge. The cannon outside the gallery was also discussed, and it was also rejected.

Stones for grinding decks were certainly used. Water + sand and this mass was rubbed on the deck with stones. Then it was washed off with clean water. Cleaning was necessary not so much because of splinters, but rather to remove salt from the deck. Which harmed bare feet much more often, because it was all over the deck. Remember in the movie about Captain Aubrey the moment with the cleaning of the deck? As to the question, what could there have been but brooms and mops? What else do you need for cleaning? You can think of scoops or trowels, of course. A ship is no different in this process than any home. If these simple tools are enough, what else do you need to clean a ship? The process itself is also quite predictable. Today, many people who are forced to clean simply pretend to clean. And instead of a proper process, they sweep the trash where it is less visible. I think people are still the same in this and many used to do much the same thing. And some of the trash gradually migrated lower and lower on the decks. And eventually ended up in the hold. As they say, ballast is also needed on the ship, I brought some more 😄. The tools were stored in the bosun's room. Next to rags, ropes and tar. We can mention one more item related to cleaning. I don't know how appropriate it is to equate this with the usual brooms and mops this item is, but it is also part of the cleaning process. This is a limber rope. It's a long rope that was knotted at intervals. This rope was inside the limber hall, at the very bottom of the ship. Sooner or later all kinds of debris would fall to the bottom and get clogged up in this drainage channel. That's what the cable was for. It was used to clear the debris. When it was clear from the condition of the rope that it was beginning to rot, a new one was tied to one of the ends and pulled into the limber hall in an understandable way. This conduit is not often mentioned. But it's interesting. There were different designs at different times. The Dutch were very different from the English or French. It seems like an insignificant detail, but without it, the ship could rot much faster. I've gone beyond the boundaries of your interest. But maybe this also fits into the topic of cleaning....

The second thought is separate from the first and has to do with the cannon porthole, which is what you gave me good examples and advice on. I will try to explain what exactly concerns me about this issue. As you have noticed, I have dived deeper into the description of this topic than just appearance. Yes, of course, I can just do the ultimate "picture" of this issue. And either show the cannon itself, or cover everything with a window (real or false) altogether and remove the presence of the cannon from view. But! This would all be enough if I was building a regular, classic model. In my case we are talking about the Admiralty version. I use the term I am used to. I hope that in English the type of model, when deliberately not made the outer skin and shown internal engineering device is called by the same term. And since I will be able to see both the cut porthole and the structural skeleton of the gallery from one side, I need to understand as accurately as possible what exactly the details look like, which in a classical model I would not need to show. That is my task: to understand the correct construction. Different situations may well arise as the construction progresses, but if I need to leave something open I care about correctness on all layers. And I am very grateful for your help.

Thanks for the feedback and great examples. I will try to respond to your comments and explain what exactly I am trying to clarify. There are two separate topics in my post with the photo of my interpretation that were important for me to show and listen to advice. 1 thought: This is a general view. After a number of discussions, I took educated advice and tried to combine your opinions, namely to leave the overall width of the side gallery design uncompressed and to compose the cannon porthole so that it falls within the gallery area. Along with this I have tried to take into account the advice that the slope of the horizontal directions should be combined with the walles. And I would like to get an outside opinion. Whether the overall pattern is correctly designed. Whether the slopes of the balconies do not look erroneous. I have already written that I can not explain for what reason Beren broke the vertical directions? Why in his sketch they don't go straight? So I took the risk of doing it differently. Suddenly someone knows the reason and will see that I "tweaked" Beren for nothing? This is the first main thought with which I posted my drawing.

The issue of the porthole in the quarter gallery remains unresolved. The construction of the gallery at Budrio on the ground floor is shown as a single room, inside of which one can stay. Now, when instead of one window (real or false) there will be a porthole for the cannon, it is necessary to think how it will look like. Will the lower tier remain a single room, as on Ambiteaux, or is it more correct to cut the room on the border of the window (which is in the middle) and the part of the gallery under the cannon will be blind, as for example on Fleuron? Also I have not yet come to an answer whether to leave the porthole as an open hole or to hide it behind the gallery window? How should this window be opened then? In my opinion, these questions are mutually influencing each other. If you leave the room whole, then inside this gallery you can go to the window and remove it completely or open it like a normal window. If the room is shortened, then it will be more difficult to reach the window and in this case it would be more logical to remove everything that could interfere. And leave the cannon porthole open.

The next step is in the works. Redrew the quarter gallery design, taking into account the ship's hull. Here's what I got. Unfortunately, when transferring the drawing on paper to digital format, the quality is lost. After thinking about it, I decided to align the broken directions into a correct line. Maybe it's a mistake on my part, as I don't know the real reasons why it was done this way in Beren's drawing. But since I never figured out the reason, I did it the way I understand it. What does it look like from the outside with non-tired eyes? What do you think? Any comments? Maybe I missed something important and made mistakes?

Actually there is another reason why I try to make the lion from the ship with Vasa closer to a museum piece. Why I started doing this whole lion collection. And how this scale was chosen. It's a whole story. At first I wanted to write about it, but I decided that again I would go far away and did not publish anything from this story. But there was a reason for the artificial chipping and implants.

Thank you so much for the high praise. I myself find it interesting to look at the sculptures and think about how they were made back in the day. Why not repeat the same way or at least do an imitation of it. Also, the scale I chose is so large that I would be remiss not to show such detail on this lion. More often it happens that you make a model in 1:100 scale and think that you will have to agree to conventions, the figure is too small to show everything on it. But here there can be no excuses.

The next step in the work. The work has long since crossed the equator. The rough work is turning into refinements and finer treatments. And now it is time for the sculpture to be customized. The original figure in the museum shows well how exactly the overall volume was assembled from the individual components. You can see the seams and traces of fasteners. It is time to show them. And at the same time to pay attention to another feature of the figure, which tells about how the construction was carried out. We are well aware that wood is a living material. It cracks, breaks. And we have to take that into account. And if we are talking about a warship, we can add to this the breakdowns that occur during the voyage. These can be accidents or damage that occurs during combat. And such damages are solved with the help of repairs. If it is possible to do without a complete replacement, plugs and implants are inserted in the damaged place. And this applies to the decor as well. The movie about Captain Aubrey and how the crew repaired the broken figure immediately comes to mind. There are also places on Gustav's figure where inserts and implants are visible. Only here it is of particular interest. After all, the ship wasn't involved in any battles. It hasn't even sailed. And the condition that we can look at today can be called perfect. Brand new. Fresh off the assembly line. And then all of a sudden we see these marks on the lion. Can you imagine a situation where you buy a new car. You pick it up from the dealer. It's brand-new. Smells like fresh plastics and leather. Parts and seats have protective film and covers on them. The whole car is shiny with new paint. But then you open the trunk and see traces of putty that was thrown over the dented area. We can't imagine such a thing. And if today discovers a defect on a new purchase, we immediately return the low-quality thing back. And here, on the ship, no one began to change the spoiled and remake again. They just put in the inserts, nailed them in and painted over the top. Interesting detail, isn't it? You can take these little touches in many different ways. You can be surprised and say: Wait a minute, the front paw is quite small, it could easily have been replaced in its entirety to make the figure perfect. Or you may say: Why do unnecessary work? Look, it's just a small part. It doesn't bear any load. Nothing will be weakened by her having an implant on the ship. We've got a lot of work ahead of us. We're not going to redo anything. In reality, it could have gone either way. And the chief sculptor could have made both of those decisions. Or he might not have known about the breakage at all. For example, some ordinary carver was attaching this paw and a nail caused the part to burst. And he quietly and inconspicuously inserted a plug and painted over the damaged place so that no one would know about the problem. That could have happened, too. Today we cannot say exactly how it happened. However, today we can see that our ancestors were not maximalists. They could calmly accept the fact that their work had faults and defects. And now I try diligently to replicate these implants and make artificial chipping so that my figurine becomes similar to the historical original.

You have a good eye. I took one of the old drawings for the search. Here's a gallery from Ambitious. It's narrower than the Fulminant. When the right one comes up, it'll be wider. I need a little time to get it all aligned. We'll see what happens later.

Thanks a lot everyone! For your very valuable tips. I have found a lot of useful thoughts in a short time.

It's as simple as that. Then everything falls into place. I see that I'm not making any logical sense with the theories I'm coming up with. So now I leave the door alone, it is already in the hull and should be justified and the exit to the captain's toilet should remain. I make a cannon porthole next to it so it is in the gallery area. And the gallery itself doesn't need to be compressed now. It turns out roughly like this: Now I need to transfer the gallery drawing from Beren's sketch and combine everything together. The topmost oval porthole at the end of the QD remains a point of contention. And Demerliac's data about a pair of cannons on the poop. I'll leave this question aside for now, I'll finish drawing the gallery first, it should take up more space, there and the dome is more rounded. Let's see how much free space will be left in the end.

Thank you so much.

I'm already drawing new variations based on the new information. In fact, we've almost come to the same solution on our own. The idea of putting the cannon in the doorway was logical. Except that I missed with the second one, I put it outside the gallery. But somehow I think that after the next sketch we would return to the idea of leaving the gallery the same length as on the original. One can speculate a lot, would we have come to this option or not? But this drawing certainly sped up the thinking and searching. Maybe someone has other drawings of this ship? It has become very interesting to look at it in more detail. For example, I have the impression that the outermost cannon on the MD stands higher than the others. This is tied in with the window here, most likely. So as not to break the drawing the cannon looks out of the window. But then it appears to be standing on some sort of bench or catwalk? It seems like a lot of complications for the sake of keeping the appearance intact. Is it just me or are there similar cases? Was there a very small caliber gun standing there that such a gun could be used on a table, raised, lowered? Or was the catwalk permanent? And could the balcony itself be used? Was there an exit left there, or was only a porthole left and the balcony not used as a room? In principle, the captain could climb out through the porthole, but it is still not very consistent with the position of the captain. And if the captain is also of advanced age? I think I just found the answer. And it has its own interesting nuances. The detective continues!

Thank you very much. Interesting information.

Here's another question. Am I right in thinking that this line here means that the two cannons Demerliac thinks were here? And there should be windows in Tafferel for artillery. I've drawn it roughly. Didn't measure the exact spot.

I can only agree. Yes, I know there are places on the ship where the gun is not permanently mounted. When necessary, some cannon portholes were dragged to some cannon portholes by neighbors, or those that were not in use during a given period of combat, such as from the opposite side where there is no one to shoot at. And this was the norm. First of all, such practice was for chase guns. It is simply impossible to put permanent cannons here. They would interfere with the guns on the sides. Plus you also have to take into account that during the battle the cannons need room to roll back. So each cannon on the end of the ship will interfere with 2 or 3 cannons on the sides at once. In Russian, a cannon porthole without a permanent cannon is called a retirade port. And how is it correct in English? Thank you for helping with advice. I am more interested in this question how to correctly perceive the list of cannons in reference books. Demerliac says that there should be 98 cannons. Is it meant by the number of portholes? So there are actually fewer cannons. Or is it exactly 98 cannons plus empty ports? I always thought that such data is about the first variant, am I wrong?

You're absolutely right. Decor drawings are a separate topic. There is a lot to talk about and different aspects to remember. I don't know what sources Budrio was working with in this case. Therefore, I can't speak unequivocally about poor drawing skills. French lions could have been very different. On the one hand, a French lion could be very correct, almost photographically accurate. And at the same time, it could be not very correct. I don't know what the lion was like on this particular model. In this story I had to find out more precisely the wishes of the customer before I started the work. And I missed this point. So it was my mistake. So when everything turned out I removed the first attempt of carving and made a new lion. And in general I like the design of Ankre's books. And the artist's hand drawing the illustrations is very impressive. The four-volume book on the 74-gun ship is the pinnacle for me. So detailed, simple and clear are the illustrations and how they are all supported by explanations. Drawing decorations is not an easy thing to do.

Welcome to the discussions. Personal opinions and proposed versions are just that. Get out your boarding swords, dusty scrolls and blueprints and join the raucous conversation!

I really hope that my verbosity will not break heads and the translator will faithfully translate everything I want to express. I am very thankful for all of you being helpful and sharing your opinions. Maybe there will be some good advice with everything written. Maybe I am lost somewhere in my thinking.