42rocker

Sure, JC Lemineur drew the frames of the V74 that were demanded by the modeling sphere, but was this necessary? Many 74 are built with their frames and many have an excellent level of job.
 
The good question is: is it reasonable for a publisher to offer a book whose content is questionable? It was perhaps excusable it 20 years ago but today, knowledge in this discipline have evolved and model-makers are much more knowledgeable and especially more demanding.
 
Certainly there are no monographs free of errors but they are often minor and undetectable in the reading of the plans and only discovered during the construction.
 
GD

The main reason for his work, was to draw 11plates showing the frames. He also shows other possibilities for different 74.
 
To work with set of plans containing errors is part of the game. Are these mistakes  so disturbing that someone should not use these plans? If so, nobody would sell plans and nobody would buy plans.

Well to name only two or three:
 
- lack the drawing of the rising-wood (contrequille) on the frame, annoying for implantation
- the thoard (collet) of the varangues is wide and flat as in the XVIIth century, period that JC Lemineur practices much more and which had probably influence him,
- No cross-chock on filling transom,
- etc.
 
The author has probably had good reasons to practice like this but these details are quite disturbing for the modelmakers who are now familiar with the subject.
 
GD

Hello,
 
I worked with Jean Boudriot and I was his friend for many years and I can tell you that the 3D drawings of the V74 are not real drawings calculated on the drawing board, they are only photographs redrawn keeping only the desired part.   On the other hand, it should be noted that the V74 is not representative of the French construction of the 1780s, the model preserved at Rochefort which was used by JB as a working basis, goes against many building rules of the time. But this does not detract from the exceptional contribution of information that are contained in the four volumes of the V74.   For the "Fifth volume" it contains some strange details in the framework plates (11 plates), the rest (31 plates) are enlargements to 1/48 of the four volumes plans. A little expensive just for enlargements ...   This is not a négative criticism, the V74 is an indisputable reference of the French shipbuilding of the end of the eighteenth century. Jean Boudriot composed an extraordinary document on the practices of this period, but we must go beyond his reading to appreciate all the subtleties and therefore the peculiarities.   Jean Boudriot is at the origin of the revival of the "arsenal modelism" and only for that, we owe to him a lot.   GD

The width of the keel  diminish at both extremity and it is well explained in the  book.   What I like about Boudiot is that he always explain at least at 1 place every detail.
 
 
I agree that 3D CAD "build" -errors are easier to spot.  You must admit that Boudriot was extremely talented to draw even in 3D.
 
 
 These publications are all you need for perfection is misrepresenting the truth, there is still a lot of drafting work to be done.  I do not understand what you mean.
 
Are the plans in the books sufficient to build a good representation? I have at least 20 different sets of pictures showing 74 guns built by as many peoples.
 
Is there that much that drafting work to do if I want to build a 74? The only ones I did are the frames.

I  agree on the 0 errors point. It must also be said that Boudroit's volumes on the 74 gun ship were never intended to be a practicum for model makers. That said, they are an essential reference for anyone who intends to make such a model.
I own the English translations of Boudroit's  masterwork and some of the errors may derive from that, whilst all the drawings are scaled, that the dimensions vary from French "pieds" to metres requires concentration.
As an example, the width of the keel varies along the length, in several drawings this is not shown, the width being the same as at midship.
No, I have not built a 74, perhaps I never will, but I have begun to tackle the project in 3D CAD.
No, I do not think that I cannot build a 74 because of the errors, I simply have to surmount them. I have my (many) doubts about my wood working ability but fewer about a 3D CAD "build" -errors are easier to spot and correct in the virtual environment.
My point remains the same, Boudroit's books and Lemineur's plans offer, probably, the most comprehensive resource to the building of a 74. Though not without inevitable errors, their value remains. That these publications are all you need for perfection is misrepresenting the truth, there is still a lot of drafting work to be done. And skill. Time will tell as to how well I will do, probably not at all well, but the journey will be interesting, as will discussions along the road.
 
Ken

Ken, I do not know anybody who can write this kind of technical books and make 0 errors. It is part of the game.
 
Please give us some examples?
How many 74 did you build?
Do you think that you cannot build the 74 guns because there are errors?

Hi Chris, I will answer you privatly
 
Hi GemmaJF,
 
1/24= big and even bigger when you see it for the first time.

Yes Druxey, unfortunately a volume has a third dimension, depth.
 
Zoltan, the sixth book is a copy of the 74 guns build as it appeared in MSW 1.0
 
Christian, each time I double the scale, I double the pleasure. The common sense dictate that a scale below 1/48 is a good scale where you can easily manipulate the model. The easier the task, the more pleasure I have. As I said, it is easier to work a piece of wood if you can hold it with all your 5 fingers of the hand instead of only holding it with 2. This fact seems anodine, but I had to work 7 years at different scales to understand this. Try to play a game of tennis holding the raquette with only 2 fingers, you will not have as much pleasure!
 
   

Does a Gimbal head can help me to build the 74?
 
First, what is a Gimbal head? On the first photo, on the left there is a big lens, which can be heavy to hold for a long period. A gimbal head  can hold that lens and the camera. The combine weight of the lens and the camera is 0 when these 2 components are well balanced on that head.
 
There is another kind of Gimbal head with 3 motors, used for the alignment, horizontally, vertically and for panning (turning on itself on 360 degrees).  With this Gimbal head, everything is done automatically and different kind of cameras can be install. With the small camera, having a too small weight, a weight is added to counterbalanced. The real purpose of that tool is for action film when the camera is moving, the combined action of the 3 motors are  stabilizing continuously the camera.
 
Now, to answer the question, and this is the beauty of this tool, it can attach a camera or a level and  when we insert it inside the ship, there will be no need to realign the level or the camera. This solves the problem that I have when I take a photo inside or use the level , it is always difficult to align the horizontal plan; with this tool, alignment is automatic in both axes: horizontal and vertical. So, here is a gadget, interesting to use but absolutely not essential!

Hi Carl,
 
It is a belt sander # 80 for metal and  the speed is higher than what it would be for wood.
 
Hi Vossiewulf,
 
I did concentrate on the V shape only, it is true that a small angle will give more the look of a knife. I will add some. when completing the finishing. Interesting reference about the spark test.
I compared  with HSS the color is also orange but a lighter color. I could not say what metal is added, I am not familiar with this test.

The main tool to shape the blade is  the belt grinder.  The PM-V11 steel is not like any other steel, it does make very few sparks. I choose briar wood (wood use tom make pipes) and ebony to make the handle. During that quest for a detail knife, I did concentrate exclusively on the blade, I never thought what would be the shape of a good handle, and I still do not know but I wanted to do that knife so I tried one simple shape with 2 recess, 1  for the  index  and 1 for the 3 other fingers. I still have to do some final grinding but that shape of blade is very effective and this blade will not have the quality of my last one; fragility of the blade  at the thinnest part. Also this V blade is very easy to sharpen on water stones because the entire side sits on the water stone and this way you do not have to give any angle to form a secondary bevel.

Thank you all for your likes
 
This log  have observations about 2 things, 2 things that I like 
 
-construction of a model ship boat
-experimentation in photography
 
When you see a guy crazy enough to build a  74 guns by Boudriot for the fourth time, you probably ask what's wrong with me.
 
Learning is important for everyone because without it, life would not be as motivating. Probably, if I could build 100 times the same ship, there would be differences in each and every one.
Here is an example, on the last 74,  the deck beams for the first deck were made of 1,2 and 3 parts. For this build, there will be no 2 parts. In the previous build, I added 2 parts beams when there was opening in the deck because I did not want to have nicks int the beams  around openings.
 
For this build, at first thought, all the deck beams would be installed the same direction, but it will not be the case. Some will be turn 180 degrees so that the thickest face is expose facing the opening.
 
There are 2 advantages by going this way. First, when there will be notches in the deck beam, it will not be on the side of the thinnest wall of the deck beam which could seriously injure the integrity and strongly weaken the resistance of the wood; and this is not desirable, The other advantage is that walls of the openings are in straight line with no nicks.
 
Boudriot did not show this kind of details, he just says that there was 3 parts deck beams on the first deck. Ideally, the plan would show the partition of the deck beams, but this is not the case. Ideally, if I build or install a part, there always would be documentation to support it. I have no access to the books hidden in the museum in France and for this build, research in other books is not my priority.
 
What is encouraging in what I do, is the fact that the engineer who draw the plans for ships, perfectly knew that the builder, the site manager would bring some of his preferences and some derived conventions governing each construction site.
 
This build for instance, contrary to the standard model ship builder has 0 research in books (except the 4 ones of Boudriot) Also, this is not because  a plan is drawn a way that I will necessary build it the exact same way. In some situations, instead of looking in books, I sit in front of the problem, and I try to find a practical solution. For the perfect model ship builder who respects scrupulously History, I am commiting a  serious sacrilege. Is it a fault to go the way I chose for this build? For the purist, of course!  
 
Construction is my favorite part in this project, research is at the opposite. For the aspect  of the respect of the conformity of plans, I will get 0. But from the other point of view, I have a very  good time trying to play to the ship builder.
 
If I take pleasure from model ship building, so one of the main goal is reached.
 
If I would have to choose between 3 months of research and 3 months of construction, I would probably choose the second one. But it does not mean I hate research. One  fact I find interesting about research is about rigging of a gun. Here is another comparison between french and english. Boudriot  as an architect loved ships but he also loved hand guns. He described with great details how to install ropes not only for the mast, but also on the guns of each deck. In comparison, this does not look like to be the same thing with english practices. The best example, is Mark's log with Bellona. Documentation for the subject has not yet become fully accessible. But the good side of that bad side is that people like Mark helps to enhance the knowledge about model ship building and also it is very interesting to see how so many peoples wants to try to this knowledge.
 

Well I've reached that happy sad day. The Medway Longboat is now complete.
 
I must say this is a very fun, interesting and high quality kit. I had a great time building it and I hope all of you 
had as much following along. 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

Hello  Everyone. Seems its been awhile but some times life hits you between the eyes but I did get a little bit down on Montagu. Hope you enjoy the photo's. Gary

Here is a part of the set up;
 
Each model is set with his own light
 
Neon lights are then turned off
 
The $20 led light from Ikea is still used plenty for light adjustment

Thank you,
 
Michael,
In photography, we try to learn to use the light at his best but the perfect light is not necessarily always the best light.
Learning to use less light can creates a more dramatic effect.

For the Gun port openings, I would say, there are 2 ways to align each opening part. An upper part and a lower part are inserted horizontally. I did trace the parts inside and outside, as it can be seen on the last picture of the previous post. The alignment of the gunport can be done on one or the other part but I think greater precision can be achieved with the inside line because this is the part which will be seen, If we check the alignment , we will check it with the inner part not the outside one, planking being installed or not.

Marking of decks and gun ports opening is on the way.
 
To do the marking of the top rails,  the stick which keeps all the frames close to each other, had to be lowered. The lower  the stick is, the greater the distance between frames has the tendancy to want to expand. This is why tie wrap were added temporarily and this is why we always set these sticks at the top.

hear, hear
 
fortunately, this work of art is not a mere model, but amongst others lessons in patience, and creativity ...

Almost Carl,  this method being the long version,  I will only use the short version:
 
Height transfer on a stick
The stick is set at 90 degrees in both axes
a horizontal laser line transfer the line on the model
 
But it would have been nice to do it a bit faster

Carl you understand many things.
 
Let"s see if I understand what you mean:
 
The problem with the projector is that there will always be a projection angle in the ray of light.
To correct this each point is set  by first setting the light in front of the point to set  and at 90 degrees of the keel and at the same height level.
The goal is to project a point without distorsion. The light must be set for each point...
 
drawing: light 2d drawing  beam light through the drawing to the 3d model.
 

Marc clearly explained why using a projector is useless.
So the conclusion of this project is very easy now:

I traced fewer lines; outside shape and decks on a plastic sheet.
Tried a fast transfer.
 
Next step is to compare with transfer method of 1 coordinate at the time.

Hi Carl,
 
Projection on a curved object : you will get distortion either in the vertical, OR, horizontal or both.  
 
Here is how I see it :
The main problem is at the bow.
If I look the curve of the bow from a top view, we see it in true lenght.
If I look  the curve at the bow from side, we see it shorter than what it is really.
 
For this exercise, what is important  is the view side : if the projection exactly fit on the model; lenghts are good and what is important here : the height of the curve is true and the goal here is to set points at the good height.