G. Delacroix

I agree with you that the whole of the decoration is generally symmetrical but we must be vigilant because some parts of the original drawing are not: they are those indicated with a red point on this extract of the plans.
 

Hello,
 
On the monograph drawings, the decoration is not symmetrical as in the original drawings.
Here is the realization of Jacques Maillière at 1/24.
 

 

 

 
Regards,
GD

I agree with you that the whole of the decoration is generally symmetrical but we must be vigilant because some parts of the original drawing are not: they are those indicated with a red point on this extract of the plans.
 

Hello,
 
On the monograph drawings, the decoration is not symmetrical as in the original drawings.
Here is the realization of Jacques Maillière at 1/24.
 

 

 

 
Regards,
GD

I agree with you that the whole of the decoration is generally symmetrical but we must be vigilant because some parts of the original drawing are not: they are those indicated with a red point on this extract of the plans.
 

Hello,
 
On the monograph drawings, the decoration is not symmetrical as in the original drawings.
Here is the realization of Jacques Maillière at 1/24.
 

 

 

 
Regards,
GD

Hello,
 
On the monograph drawings, the decoration is not symmetrical as in the original drawings.
Here is the realization of Jacques Maillière at 1/24.
 

 

 

 
Regards,
GD

I agree with you that the whole of the decoration is generally symmetrical but we must be vigilant because some parts of the original drawing are not: they are those indicated with a red point on this extract of the plans.
 

I agree with you that the whole of the decoration is generally symmetrical but we must be vigilant because some parts of the original drawing are not: they are those indicated with a red point on this extract of the plans.
 

Hello,
 
On the monograph drawings, the decoration is not symmetrical as in the original drawings.
Here is the realization of Jacques Maillière at 1/24.
 

 

 

 
Regards,
GD

I agree with you that the whole of the decoration is generally symmetrical but we must be vigilant because some parts of the original drawing are not: they are those indicated with a red point on this extract of the plans.
 

Hello,
 
The monograph of L'Amarante is not an Ancre production, it can be found here, in its author / publisher web site.
 
GD

Hello,
 
The monograph of L'Amarante is not an Ancre production, it can be found here, in its author / publisher web site.
 
GD

Hello,
 
The monograph of L'Amarante is not an Ancre production, it can be found here, in its author / publisher web site.
 
GD

Hello,
 
Mr Lemineur communicated the following:   It may be well to point out that the Soleil Royal of Heller as well as that of Tanneron exhibited at the Musée de la Marine in Paris are not the Soleil Royal  of 1668 built by Laurent Hubac in Brest. It is actually the 2e Soleil Royal, named on cale "Le Foudroyant" and renamed the Soleil Royal  in 1693. This second Soleil Royal, built by Etienne Hubac, Laurent's son, measured 170 feet long while the length of that of 1668 was 164 ½ feet. It was pierced with 14 ports on the low battery. The 15th port, reserved for hunting, was not armed. The piercing of the Soleil Royal of 1668 was to 16 ports, the 16th of the front, destined for the shooting, was armed only at the moment, the 15th canon of the front being removed from its port to be put in battery to the so-called hunting port! The distribution of the artillery on the 2nd Soleil Royal which determines the general architecture of the vessel is therefore totally different from that of the Soleil Royal of 1668. Finally, in order to demonstrate the extent of the gap separating Heller's model from historical reality, it is necessary, for example, to compare the draught of water. That of Heller measures 4 cm on the 1/100 scale and therefore 4 meters at scale 1/1. On the Soleil Royal of 1668, it was 23 ½ feet, that is to say 7 meters and 23 cm, the French foot of King measuring 32,48 cm. There is therefore a difference of 3.23 meters and therefore a total lack of conformity and proportions.   Unfortunately, for people too credulous, the model of Heller demonstrates a total lack of intellectual honesty against which we struggle most of the time without success.   GD Approximately Translate by Google   

Hello,
 
Mr Lemineur communicated the following:   It may be well to point out that the Soleil Royal of Heller as well as that of Tanneron exhibited at the Musée de la Marine in Paris are not the Soleil Royal  of 1668 built by Laurent Hubac in Brest. It is actually the 2e Soleil Royal, named on cale "Le Foudroyant" and renamed the Soleil Royal  in 1693. This second Soleil Royal, built by Etienne Hubac, Laurent's son, measured 170 feet long while the length of that of 1668 was 164 ½ feet. It was pierced with 14 ports on the low battery. The 15th port, reserved for hunting, was not armed. The piercing of the Soleil Royal of 1668 was to 16 ports, the 16th of the front, destined for the shooting, was armed only at the moment, the 15th canon of the front being removed from its port to be put in battery to the so-called hunting port! The distribution of the artillery on the 2nd Soleil Royal which determines the general architecture of the vessel is therefore totally different from that of the Soleil Royal of 1668. Finally, in order to demonstrate the extent of the gap separating Heller's model from historical reality, it is necessary, for example, to compare the draught of water. That of Heller measures 4 cm on the 1/100 scale and therefore 4 meters at scale 1/1. On the Soleil Royal of 1668, it was 23 ½ feet, that is to say 7 meters and 23 cm, the French foot of King measuring 32,48 cm. There is therefore a difference of 3.23 meters and therefore a total lack of conformity and proportions.   Unfortunately, for people too credulous, the model of Heller demonstrates a total lack of intellectual honesty against which we struggle most of the time without success.   GD Approximately Translate by Google   

Hello,
 
Mr Lemineur communicated the following:   It may be well to point out that the Soleil Royal of Heller as well as that of Tanneron exhibited at the Musée de la Marine in Paris are not the Soleil Royal  of 1668 built by Laurent Hubac in Brest. It is actually the 2e Soleil Royal, named on cale "Le Foudroyant" and renamed the Soleil Royal  in 1693. This second Soleil Royal, built by Etienne Hubac, Laurent's son, measured 170 feet long while the length of that of 1668 was 164 ½ feet. It was pierced with 14 ports on the low battery. The 15th port, reserved for hunting, was not armed. The piercing of the Soleil Royal of 1668 was to 16 ports, the 16th of the front, destined for the shooting, was armed only at the moment, the 15th canon of the front being removed from its port to be put in battery to the so-called hunting port! The distribution of the artillery on the 2nd Soleil Royal which determines the general architecture of the vessel is therefore totally different from that of the Soleil Royal of 1668. Finally, in order to demonstrate the extent of the gap separating Heller's model from historical reality, it is necessary, for example, to compare the draught of water. That of Heller measures 4 cm on the 1/100 scale and therefore 4 meters at scale 1/1. On the Soleil Royal of 1668, it was 23 ½ feet, that is to say 7 meters and 23 cm, the French foot of King measuring 32,48 cm. There is therefore a difference of 3.23 meters and therefore a total lack of conformity and proportions.   Unfortunately, for people too credulous, the model of Heller demonstrates a total lack of intellectual honesty against which we struggle most of the time without success.   GD Approximately Translate by Google   

Hello,
 
I am pleased to announce the upcoming publication of a new monograph on an harbor (fitting-part ?) yacht *   The ship choosed is Le Rochefort 1787. This is a small vessel particularly suited to construcion framing beginners, Plans are accompanied by a richly illustrated manual 3D drawings. The book is in French. More information here: http://gerard.delacroix.pagesperso-orange.fr/rochefort/plaquette.htm     * These yachts were designed to transport powder to the ships anchored in the harbor.   Gérard Delacroix (Sorry for my bad english...)

Thank you for the compliments.
 
It is very curious what you say because, precisely, I am currently collects information about L'Egyptienne, 24 frigate.
I need to find enough documents and in particular the wood quotations to make my choice.
 
GD

Hello,
 
This "object", which is composed of a large piece of sheepskin with its all its wool, is designed to avoid tearing of the back sail by the top end of the fore yard when they are handling. This yard end is very flexible.
The great latin sails are succeptibles to many positions to function properly, this involves yard movements sometimes poorly controlled with high winds.
The bottom of the yard is often equipped with this accessory but this part is more controllable because it is steeper and it is headed by a rope.
 
Regards,
Gérard Delacroix

Hello,
 
I must say that I have never met the name of the accessory that is quite common in Latin rigging. Present at the end of the yards but also on the head of the bow for the same purpose: to save sails.
 
This element could it be a wooden disc as it would appear on some drawings? Why not but I doubt because the weight of such a disk would bend the yard.
 
Concerning the curvature of the yard, it's natural and due to the weight and the flexibility of the yard wood (pine).
For huge galleys yards I studied, the "comite" or executive chief of the galley (that is, among others the function, sail master), takes the curvature into account when cutting the sails. The arc of this curve is, at rest, between 3 and 4% of the length of the yard so about 3 feet to a yard of around 100 feet for the longest of them.
With the wind, the rope retaining and swelling of the sail this curvature increases.
 
Regards,
Gérard Delacroix

Hello,
 
I must say that I have never met the name of the accessory that is quite common in Latin rigging. Present at the end of the yards but also on the head of the bow for the same purpose: to save sails.
 
This element could it be a wooden disc as it would appear on some drawings? Why not but I doubt because the weight of such a disk would bend the yard.
 
Concerning the curvature of the yard, it's natural and due to the weight and the flexibility of the yard wood (pine).
For huge galleys yards I studied, the "comite" or executive chief of the galley (that is, among others the function, sail master), takes the curvature into account when cutting the sails. The arc of this curve is, at rest, between 3 and 4% of the length of the yard so about 3 feet to a yard of around 100 feet for the longest of them.
With the wind, the rope retaining and swelling of the sail this curvature increases.
 
Regards,
Gérard Delacroix

Hello,
 
I must say that I have never met the name of the accessory that is quite common in Latin rigging. Present at the end of the yards but also on the head of the bow for the same purpose: to save sails.
 
This element could it be a wooden disc as it would appear on some drawings? Why not but I doubt because the weight of such a disk would bend the yard.
 
Concerning the curvature of the yard, it's natural and due to the weight and the flexibility of the yard wood (pine).
For huge galleys yards I studied, the "comite" or executive chief of the galley (that is, among others the function, sail master), takes the curvature into account when cutting the sails. The arc of this curve is, at rest, between 3 and 4% of the length of the yard so about 3 feet to a yard of around 100 feet for the longest of them.
With the wind, the rope retaining and swelling of the sail this curvature increases.
 
Regards,
Gérard Delacroix

Hello,
 
I must say that I have never met the name of the accessory that is quite common in Latin rigging. Present at the end of the yards but also on the head of the bow for the same purpose: to save sails.
 
This element could it be a wooden disc as it would appear on some drawings? Why not but I doubt because the weight of such a disk would bend the yard.
 
Concerning the curvature of the yard, it's natural and due to the weight and the flexibility of the yard wood (pine).
For huge galleys yards I studied, the "comite" or executive chief of the galley (that is, among others the function, sail master), takes the curvature into account when cutting the sails. The arc of this curve is, at rest, between 3 and 4% of the length of the yard so about 3 feet to a yard of around 100 feet for the longest of them.
With the wind, the rope retaining and swelling of the sail this curvature increases.
 
Regards,
Gérard Delacroix

Hello,
 
Plans are probably pretty easy to find: the square-rigged ships were inspired by The Santa Maria of Columbus, Latin rigged ships come from the Nina and the Pinta.
 
GD