catopower

The coamings look nice, Charlie. But consider that the grating illustrations may not quite match the final construction for any number of reasons. Forcing them to fit your already built coamings may require some shaving of the gratings that will result in half holes. I find it best to construct the gratings first, with symmetrical borders on all sides, then build the hatch coamings and head ledges around them. The final assembly may vary from the prototype by an inch or two but will look better. I believe Dan has published a nice article on this site (or in the NRG book) regarding this technique.

This anchor marks the end of Book I of the instructions, hooray! On to Book II -- I started tapering the mast today.
 

And finally, some real progress to show. Forecastle complete and mounted. Just a few small bits to do before beginning masting and rigging.
 

 

Next update: Frame extensions and the last planking strake that goes with them completed, along with the remaining interior framing at bow and stern. One issue to look out for, albeit a very minor one, is that the the last three interior frames at the stern had the left and right labels (L and P, in Polish) reversed. Not a big deal, since the parts are identical, but using them as labeled will result in the reverse side of the ply facing out, if that makes a difference to anyone.

The fit of the frames isn't as perfect as the next photo suggests; some of the frames extend slightly above the bulwark (how much above depends on how good a planking job one does) and must be cut and sanded flush with the top edge.


That takes us through p. 17 of the hull construction.

No admiral here to worry about, but I will probably try one more time, cutting the bridge wing supports, and if that doesn't work, I'll try the grilled ziplock bag sandwich method. But, for now, I decided that I'd deal with the issue of the bridge wing supports by NOT dealing with them for now. Taking a break from it, while I get a few other things done that need to be done anyway.
 
Finished making the remaining ventilators, and adding the launch. Seems odd that the kit didn't include a cradle for the boat. I fashioned something simple out of card scraps. I attached them to the boat and cut small notches in each of their corners. Then, I could use the smallest rigging line I have to tie the boat down. 
 


My only concern with the ropes on the launch is that it's going to look really heavy compared to the rest of the 'rigging' on the model. But, this is the only rope on the ship, the others are going to represent wire guys and radio antenna wires, so maybe the thick rope on the launch is okay.
 
Next, I didn't cut those bridge wing supports, but I did manage to cut these parts that required a lot of careful little tiny chops, like what Chris was describing as the Woodpecker technique. I had to use thin CA on the parts first, though. Also, I didn't laminate any of these parts.

These all went pretty much without a hitch. I was amazed at how well the crane structure turned out.

There is another explanation, even more likely. The differences in the hull shapes on both plans from that era are due to the fact that although the British were able to measure the hulls of the captured vessels very accurately, already when drawing up their plans, they were, in a sense, designing such vessels from scratch, but using different design methods, which inevitably altered the actual shapes of the hulls to a greater or lesser extent. Not to mention the natural deformations of the hull during the ship's use.
 
This is why today's French researchers consistently reject the lines from such plans of captured ships, preferring instead the original plans by the French designers (if, of course, they have a choice). And rightly so, and this is the first exception to this rule that I am aware of.
 
For the above reasons, the original French design plan should be considered more reliable in terms of the shape of the hull, rather than an approximation made after the ship's capture using other design techniques that are incompatible with the original ones.
 
 

Hello,
 
Admiral Pâris relied on existing plans in the naval archives for his older ships. At that time, research on naval architecture was less advanced, and the drawings in his collection of plans are sometimes questionable.
In the case of Le Coureur, he simply used the original plan referenced D1_63-13 from the archives (see below), adding the masts and rigging.
 
As for the AAMM plans, they were largely copied from Pâris's albums and made usable by modelers without further research.

No admiral here to worry about, but I will probably try one more time, cutting the bridge wing supports, and if that doesn't work, I'll try the grilled ziplock bag sandwich method. But, for now, I decided that I'd deal with the issue of the bridge wing supports by NOT dealing with them for now. Taking a break from it, while I get a few other things done that need to be done anyway.
 
Finished making the remaining ventilators, and adding the launch. Seems odd that the kit didn't include a cradle for the boat. I fashioned something simple out of card scraps. I attached them to the boat and cut small notches in each of their corners. Then, I could use the smallest rigging line I have to tie the boat down. 
 


My only concern with the ropes on the launch is that it's going to look really heavy compared to the rest of the 'rigging' on the model. But, this is the only rope on the ship, the others are going to represent wire guys and radio antenna wires, so maybe the thick rope on the launch is okay.
 
Next, I didn't cut those bridge wing supports, but I did manage to cut these parts that required a lot of careful little tiny chops, like what Chris was describing as the Woodpecker technique. I had to use thin CA on the parts first, though. Also, I didn't laminate any of these parts.

These all went pretty much without a hitch. I was amazed at how well the crane structure turned out.

Only Shipyard can answer this, but the Paris drawings were pretty commonly available since the late 1800s. If you examine other older kits of Le Coureur, like Mamoli's and others, they all tend to be based on Paris, even down to the point of being seemingly based on the related AAMM model plans. Shipyard seems to have simply followed suit.

But, I'm glad you mentioned those drawings. My own interest is to take the Shpyard kit and make the modifications to make it closer to these, using the Boudriot/Berti monograph. It should make for an interesting project.

Jeff, I'd say these laser-cut kits are easier than the regular paper models, since the scale is a bit larger and all the parts are cut out for you. Also, you're not expected to roll your own cannon barrels, and figureheads are cast resin, and some of the scroll work is usually laser-etched card stock, so  you don't just have 2D images of scroll work. Same with gratings. But, you can do a lot with the paper models, and they don't take much room to work on or to display.

No admiral here to worry about, but I will probably try one more time, cutting the bridge wing supports, and if that doesn't work, I'll try the grilled ziplock bag sandwich method. But, for now, I decided that I'd deal with the issue of the bridge wing supports by NOT dealing with them for now. Taking a break from it, while I get a few other things done that need to be done anyway.
 
Finished making the remaining ventilators, and adding the launch. Seems odd that the kit didn't include a cradle for the boat. I fashioned something simple out of card scraps. I attached them to the boat and cut small notches in each of their corners. Then, I could use the smallest rigging line I have to tie the boat down. 
 


My only concern with the ropes on the launch is that it's going to look really heavy compared to the rest of the 'rigging' on the model. But, this is the only rope on the ship, the others are going to represent wire guys and radio antenna wires, so maybe the thick rope on the launch is okay.
 
Next, I didn't cut those bridge wing supports, but I did manage to cut these parts that required a lot of careful little tiny chops, like what Chris was describing as the Woodpecker technique. I had to use thin CA on the parts first, though. Also, I didn't laminate any of these parts.

These all went pretty much without a hitch. I was amazed at how well the crane structure turned out.

No admiral here to worry about, but I will probably try one more time, cutting the bridge wing supports, and if that doesn't work, I'll try the grilled ziplock bag sandwich method. But, for now, I decided that I'd deal with the issue of the bridge wing supports by NOT dealing with them for now. Taking a break from it, while I get a few other things done that need to be done anyway.
 
Finished making the remaining ventilators, and adding the launch. Seems odd that the kit didn't include a cradle for the boat. I fashioned something simple out of card scraps. I attached them to the boat and cut small notches in each of their corners. Then, I could use the smallest rigging line I have to tie the boat down. 
 


My only concern with the ropes on the launch is that it's going to look really heavy compared to the rest of the 'rigging' on the model. But, this is the only rope on the ship, the others are going to represent wire guys and radio antenna wires, so maybe the thick rope on the launch is okay.
 
Next, I didn't cut those bridge wing supports, but I did manage to cut these parts that required a lot of careful little tiny chops, like what Chris was describing as the Woodpecker technique. I had to use thin CA on the parts first, though. Also, I didn't laminate any of these parts.

These all went pretty much without a hitch. I was amazed at how well the crane structure turned out.

Only Shipyard can answer this, but the Paris drawings were pretty commonly available since the late 1800s. If you examine other older kits of Le Coureur, like Mamoli's and others, they all tend to be based on Paris, even down to the point of being seemingly based on the related AAMM model plans. Shipyard seems to have simply followed suit.

But, I'm glad you mentioned those drawings. My own interest is to take the Shpyard kit and make the modifications to make it closer to these, using the Boudriot/Berti monograph. It should make for an interesting project.

I finished the drawings for the Commonwealth Pattern cannons from 1650 to the end of Charles II's reign.
 
The original pattern was developed during the Commonwealth control 1640 to 49, and originally featured their cypher. When Charles came to power those cyphers were removed from the existing cannons, leaving cannons with plain barrels.
 
These drawings feature the plain barrels and those with Charles' cyphers.
 
I still need to go through and create the STL files, and the graphics for each cannon, as well as updating the spreadsheet to include them. So it will be a couple of weeks before I publish them.
 
I hope to add these to the NRG Resource page.
 
Overhead and perspective views with the original 2D drawing at the top. The 2D drawing mistakenly shows the Tutor Rose as the correct cypher.
 


A closeup of one of the larger caliber guns showing both types of barrels. Note: that the drawing shows them 12X size this is how I typically scale the drawings to be able to get the fine details, as SketchUp is designed for architecture and has a 1/32" minimum drawing unit (at least my 2017 version). For these drawings I had to go with 144X due to the small "pearls" in the crown.
 
When I create and verify the STL files, I rescale to 1:1 in the verification program.
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The cannons look fantastic—you did a great job Ron!

On a note about the above post. The Commonwealth Pattern cannons came in three major "favors". With the Commonwealth Cypher, a plain barrel (After King Charles reign started, the Commonwealth cypher were filed off any existing cannons), and with the Charles II cypher cast on. I have the defaced, plain, barrels drawn, already.
 
I will not be doing the Commonwealth cypher for this set. The cyphers take a long time to get right, and I have many projects on my plate, so drawing a cypher that only spanned 10 years is more than I want to take on. The same applies for any cannons cast after Charles reign, if the cypher pattern was changed.

Finished the files for the cannons on HMS Tiger ca. 1650 to 1690. I'm not sure just when this set of cannons were carried. The cannons are from illustrations in the book "The Master Shipwright's Secrets".  Three of the cannons in the pictures had no cypher, so that is how I drew them.
 
These drawings were requested by a forum member.
 
6 Foot 6 Inch Saker 6 Pounder
 

6 Foot 6 Inch Saker 6 Pounder Full Size_2166_14mm.stl
 
 
7 foot Saker 6 Pounder
 

7 Foot Saker 6 Pounder_Full Size_2436_94mm.stl
 
9 Foot 3 Inch Saker 6 Pounder
 

9 Foot 3 Inch Saker 6 Pounder Full Size_3050_38mm.stl
 
 
9 Foot Demi-Culvern 12 Pounder This was shown with the Tudor Rose cypher.
 

 
9 Foot Demi_Culveren 12 Pounder Full Size_2945_34mm.stl
 
Rupertino Saker Cutt 6 Pounder. This cannon is based on a cut down cannon. They shortened cannons from a previous design whose muzzles had cracked, for the original Cutt cannons, liked the performance, and cast new cannons to this length with a muzzle flair. This cannon has the King Charles II cypher.
 
 

Rupertino_Saker_Cutt 6 Pounder Full Size_1716_09mm.stl
 
 
Though I can't promise when, I have already drawn the Commonwealth Pattern cannon barrels, and will be posting them after I've added the Charles II cyphers. This cypher gave me a lot of trouble, and takes a while to "weld" to the 3D barrels.
 
 
 

Here is the first of the Commonwealth cannon barrels. This is the 32 Pounder 108 barrel. I'm going to draw all the barrels I have 2D drawings for, initially, with no cyphers. The earlier cannons had the "Arms Of The Commonwealth" cypher on them, then when Charles II retook the throne, these were removed Filed off), leaving no cypher. Cannons cast during his reign had his cypher cast on.
 
I will draw that "Commonwealth" and Charles "Tudor Rose" cypers after I've finished all the barrels.
 
Yes the trunnions are too long. I did this on purpose, after doing a couple of barrels for Chuck, last year. He leaves his long, so that modelers can then trim them to match the carriages they build, which might end up a little wider than a "Perfectly Scale" width. Easy to do for small scale models. When installed the ends can be trimmed to match the model carriage.
 

I finished the baggage shed drawings for the Boron Station.
 
I started with the only two photographs I could find. One is a color photo of two sides of the shed, as of about 1995. The other is a picture out of the magazine I found the drawings in.
 
Here is the color photo I found showing one end and the side with the sliding door. I heavily adjusted the original to highlight the battens so I could scale for the drawings. The battens are spaced 12 inches apart. The door is shown at the righthand side of the picture. The exposed door framing resembled that for a sliding shed door. This framing would originally be on the inside. I think the door used to have the standard tongue and grove siding when built in 1912. As time went on the siding started to decay, and they nailed a piece of plywood on the inside to strengthen it. By 1995, all the siding had decayed leaving the exposed framing shown in the photo. I CADed the door as having the original style siding. The shed was drawn as being 12 X 16 feet, as indicated by the battens, and I made the door opening the standard 82-inch height of a shed door. The door opening measures out at 30 inches, which is narrow for a standard shed door, but I went with the shown width.
 

 
Here is the picture from the article, showing just a little of the opposite end on the station side. The portion of the window that is visible, shows that it is in the same position as the one on the side shown in the color photo, and that the pane was originally a 6 pane 2 vertical x 3 horizontal sash, like the ones on the station.
 

 
I left the rear wall plain with no doors or windows. That seems correct for a building like this baggage shed.
 
Here are two colored drawings of the shed, showing all four walls. Note that the photos showed exposed rafter ends. This was also typical of the standard Santa Fe shed designs.
 

 

 
These next two graphics show the station and shed; in the general configuration they were in when at the Boron spur area. The red and black tiles/linoleum floor shown in the station, was what the station drawings showed. The graphics show the building as seen from the tracks.

 

 
This last graphic shows the underside of the roof with the rafter ends.
 

 
Now that I finished these drawings, I’m going back to CADing cannons, this time the British Commonwealth Pattern ones, from the mid to later 1600s.

OK, thanks!

Yessir, to virtually any number of decimal places you desire in either imperial or metric units. I use Blender mainly as a free 3D CAD  program after Sketchup was no longer free to hobbyists.
 
As others have mentioned, Blender has a steep learning curve, but there are helpful, experienced users in our community.
 
Terry

Spent some time today generating the graphics for the PDF on assembling the cannon and carriage today. I know most of you have built one or know how to do it, but someone just coming across the files might not.
 
I have not turned all the drawings into graphics yet, and I do not plan on coloring all the pictures, but I did color the assemble cannon and carriage. I did it mostly so that the letters designating the eyelets stand out, but it also looks cool!
 
Anyway here is one of the "Glamor Shots:.
 

Yes, I'm using SketchUp. I have an old loaded on the computer version. Because it is so old, I have been locked out of being able to load any of the extensions. So I am being very careful to not mess up my system drive, as I can no longer reload what I have. I'm thinking of going to either the subscription versions of either SketchUp or Fusion. Hate to spend the money though.

Looks great Ron! Are you designing with SketchUp? Your last image makes me think so. You're really making me think about getting a resin 3D printer with all of this great stuff you're designing. I think the through bolt should added afterwards along with all of the other wire eyelets, although you don't really see it when the barrel is mounted. I'm not experienced enough with resin printing to comment on whether to print as separate pieces or all as one. Looking forward to your finished design.
 
Cheers,
 
Todd

When I drew the Carronade with trunnions, I showed a few posts back, I used a drawing from 1826 to make it from.
 

 
Well, I decided to try my hand at generating the carriage shown for it in the drawing. This drawing does not show the parts used to elevate the barrel. The Stool Bed, and the Quoin. I went through my library, and found drawings for a 32 Pounder in the Anatomy Of The Ship book on HMS Pandora. I rescaled the carriage drawings, and found the rescaled drawings to be quite close a match in length and height to fit the 9 Pounder (the carriage was wider rescaled, but a little math got me a scaled width for the parts). I used the drawings for the two parts as a basis for new ones. I also added eyes to the front and back of the carriage, as shown in the Pandora drawings.
 
Here are a graphics of the carriage with and without the 9 pounder barrel. I still have to add locating holes and pins to the 3D drawing, before I generate the final 3D print files. I'll post them in a few days. The letters refer to wire eyelets that the modeler will have to make, I'll include drawings for them too. 3D printing them would be a nightmare, and the resin parts would be quite fragile. The modeler would also have to make the brass rings that hold the trucks to the axles.
 


 
I'm going to have all the major parts as separate pieces, thus the need for locating pins. The Cap Squares (pieces that holds the cannon to the carriage have to be separate anyway to allow for the cannon to be installed). Should I, also, have an assembled (except for the cap squares, and truck rings) version? There is a through "bolt" that the front of the stool bed rests on that would be hard to print, in place, especially in smaller scales.