ancre La Créole 1827 by archjofo - Scale 1/48 - French corvette

[John Fox III]

On 11/18/2022 at 1:45 AM, archjofo said:

 

Greetings,

 

For my model, however, the question now arises as to how I can reconcile this detail with the drawings by J. Boudriot. I would prefer to stick to the original model. Unfortunately I don't have any meaningful detailed pictures. Ultimately, I will have to make a decision about this detailed design, even with the risk that it will not be entirely correct.

Not to "bad mouth" Boudriot, however I purchased the ancre plans for BonHomme Richard from them of his drawings and found several errors.  I later found in an NRJ article that he often made assumptions that were not correct as well. I was a draftsman for many years, before CAD, and know what Boudriot did. He re-used drawings already done for other vessels, without checking to make sure that the time periods of vessels matched, something that saves a lot of time when hand drafting. He also did not keep in mind that unlike the British, each yard building a ship was allowed to do things differently, there was no definitive plans for various ship parts that were adhered to. Not meaning to make your decisions more difficult, just pointing out facts I have learned.

Anchor's A Weigh!

John Fox III

 

[Keith Black]

16 hours ago, jdbondy said:

I thought it would rest on the top surface of the yard. 

JD, if the studding sail booms were at the top of the yard they would interfere with the lifts. 

 

 

[JerryTodd]

It's American and 20+ years later, but looks like the same principle

 

[wefalck]

We shouldn't be too hard on the 'old masters', such as Boudriot or Marquardt, because they wrote their books at a time, when research was much more involved and difficult as it is often today. Today, we have a lot of resources at our fingertips, which they didn't have. Just a few days ago I edited a manuscript of Marquardt that will posthumously published in the German LOGBUCH and found several (small) errors through a quick Internet-search ...

 

I suppose there is also a cultural difference between countries with respect how such details were treated. In general, the French seem to be much more prescriptive, while the Americans and Brits are more pragmatic and gave individual yards more lee-way. As probably no real practical examples survived, we have to rely on descriptions, textbooks and the likes, that describe how things should have been not how they have been in reality.

[druxey]

Usually the stunsail boom is forward of the yard it is mounted on.

[archjofo]

@John Fox III

@Keith Black

@JerryTodd

@wefalck

 

Your posts on this topic are really very interesting.

 

Ultimately, I will make my conclusions about the details of the yard arms from all the information I have been given, visual material from the Internet and from contemporary literature. 
I hope that this will result in a viable design for my model.

[shipmodel]

Yes, we should allow M. Budriot some leeway in his efforts, but we should also draw a line at some lazy techniques that affect the work of those that he is writing for.   

 

In my case I used his plans for the light frigate Le Mercure when I was building the Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard's flagship.  Although I found his detail drawings to be excellent, both in drafting and historic accuracy, there was a major problem with the hull.  It seemed as though he had simply scaled down the plans for a somewhat larger frigate.  This meant that as drawn the gun deck would have been 4 feet high.  I had to digitally remove one of his lower decks to move everything down to give me enough headroom for the sailors to work the guns.  This then affected the height and spacing of the gunports, which affected the shroud chains, etc.   All in all, it added a good deal of unnecessary work.  All of the details are in my build log if you are interested.

 

I was not overly concerned with this once I had corrected it.  Since no one knows exactly what the QAR looked like, I had a lot of freedom to make reasonable interpretations, unless they contradicted some piece of the actual ship that had been recovered from the sea floor.  However, for those in our community who build to the highest tolerances and the best historic research, I can only advise caution with M. Budriot's work.

 

To use an often quoted truism - "Trust But Verify." 

 

Be well

 

Dan

[G. Delacroix]

11 hours ago, shipmodel said:

Yes, we should allow M. Budriot some leeway in his efforts, but we should also draw a line at some lazy techniques that affect the work of those that he is writing for.   

 

In my case I used his plans for the light frigate Le Mercure when I was building the Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard's flagship.  Although I found his detail drawings to be excellent, both in drafting and historic accuracy, there was a major problem with the hull.  It seemed as though he had simply scaled down the plans for a somewhat larger frigate.  This meant that as drawn the gun deck would have been 4 feet high.  I had to digitally remove one of his lower decks to move everything down to give me enough headroom for the sailors to work the guns.  This then affected the height and spacing of the gunports, which affected the shroud chains, etc.   All in all, it added a good deal of unnecessary work.  All of the details are in my build log if you are interested.

 

I was not overly concerned with this once I had corrected it.  Since no one knows exactly what the QAR looked like, I had a lot of freedom to make reasonable interpretations, unless they contradicted some piece of the actual ship that had been recovered from the sea floor.  However, for those in our community who build to the highest tolerances and the best historic research, I can only advise caution with M. Budriot's work.

 

To use an often quoted truism - "Trust But Verify." 

 

Be well

 

Dan

Hello,

 

"Trust but verify"...

First, verify your own knowledge in this field, where your culture is obviously very superficial and does not allow you to judge objectively the work of Jean Boudriot, who is otherwise recognized as one of the great, if not the greatest, specialist in French naval archaeology.
Using the construction plans of a merchant ship to deduce those of a 40-gun frigate is a very hazardous venture whose credibility can be seriously questioned.
But everyone has the right to be wrong.

 

GD

 

[archjofo]

Hello,

in between I made a video about the naval artillery of my french corvette. I tried to show the different stages of construction. 
I hope that one or the other likes it and perhaps serves as inspiration.
Have fun !  LINK

Edited November 25, 2022 by archjofo

[Keith Black]

 Great video, Johann. Such beautiful work. 

[shipmodel]

 

M. Delacroix  - 

 

You are certainly correct when you say "Using the construction plans of a merchant ship to deduce those of a 40-gun frigate is a very hazardous venture whose credibility can be seriously questioned."  However, that was not my point.  

 

Deducing the structure and appearance of Queen Anne's Revenge (built privately as Le Concorde, a small frigate) from contemporary sources was done by the History Department of East Carolina University, which is responsible for the underwater excavation and conservation of the actual ship.  I simply followed their directions to use for the external structure the Admiralty plans of Beaver's Prize and for the internal structure and details to use M. Budriot's reconstruction of Le Mercure.  My own knowledge, or lack of it, didn't come into it, just my model shipbuilding skills.

 

My point was only that the plans of Le Mercure are internally inconsistent.  No ship would have a gun deck with only 4 feet of headroom.  The sailors would have had to fight on their knees.  Something was wrong.  My thoughts and solutions to this problem are all laid out in my build log.  I hope you will read through it and let me know if you have other ideas or if you reach any different conclusions.

 

I applaud M. Budriot as one of the " greatest, specialist in French naval archaeology."  I applaud Howard Chapelle for his expertise in American shipbuilding and Brian Lavery for his works on English naval construction.  But these are men, not gods, and I have occasionally had issues with their plans and/or conclusions while still honoring the huge contributions they have made to our current knowledge of ship design and construction in the Great Age of Sail.

 

Thank you for engaging in an entertaining discussion.

 

Dan    

[giampieroricci]

you are doing a real masterpiece, a sublime model, a true source of inspiration!!

[G. Delacroix]

Hello,

Concerning the height of Le Mercure deck under the forecastle, I checked in the monograph and, measured on the plan, it is 5 feet 1 inches (0.325 m French feet) from plank to plank. This gives a height of 1.68 m.
In his "Traité de Construction" dated circa 1730, the period that interests us, Blaise Ollivier gives, for merchant ships, a height of "4 feet to 4 feet 10 inches / 5 feet above the deck" (still French feet). And this height is also present in the description of small frigates.
Jean Boudriot therefore applied the current practices at that time to make his drawings.
Often, information from the past surprises us and we tend to think of an error. By cross-checking the data, we realize that this is not the case and above all that our mind is not adapted to the criteria of the time.
I think you have been badly advised because there is documentation on the frigates of the time much more suitable than Le Mercure for your reconstitution.

 

Sorry Johannes for this drift of the subject.

 

GD

Edited November 22, 2022 by G. Delacroix
Orthography

[shipmodel]

Hi Gerard - 

 

I guess I did not realize how small French sailors of the period were.

And now back to appreciating Johann's modeling mastery.

 

Be well

 

Dan

[hollowneck]

Dan, check your PM.

 

[archjofo]

On 11/22/2022 at 10:27 AM, G. Delacroix said:

Hello,

Concerning the height of Le Mercure deck under the forecastle, I checked in the monograph and, measured on the plan, it is 5 feet 1 inches (0.325 m French feet) from plank to plank. This gives a height of 1.68 m.
In his "Traité de Construction" dated circa 1730, the period that interests us, Blaise Ollivier gives, for merchant ships, a height of "4 feet to 4 feet 10 inches / 5 feet above the deck" (still French feet). And this height is also present in the description of small frigates.
Jean Boudriot therefore applied the current practices at that time to make his drawings.
Often, information from the past surprises us and we tend to think of an error. By cross-checking the data, we realize that this is not the case and above all that our mind is not adapted to the criteria of the time.
I think you have been badly advised because there is documentation on the frigates of the time much more suitable than Le Mercure for your reconstitution.

 

Sorry Johannes for this drift of the subject.

 

GD

Hello Gerard,
no problem. Discussion was factual, and was not uninteresting.

Now back to the real problems of the world ... 
to the yard arms of La Creole ...  😁

Edited November 23, 2022 by archjofo

[archjofo]

 

Hello,

many thanks to you for your interest and your contributions, as well as thanks to the many LIKES.

 

Continued: Clarifying the yard arms
After researching contemporary ship models from the Musée national de Marine, I assembled a collection of yard arms as shown below:

As you can see, there were the most diverse forms of yardarms, probably also depending on the shipyard in which these yards were manufactured. But they all have the "spiky" cleats, which do not always stick out vertically, but often horizontally and are mainly to be found on the topsail yards. The yard arms of the lower yards were somewhat simpler and often designed like the following example from L'Achille 1804:

 

Source: Musée national de Marine, L'Achille 1804

Source: monograph La Créole v. J Boudriot

 

Taking into account the results of the research in connection with Boudriot's drawings, I tried, initially in drawing, to represent the yards of the Mars yards of La Créole as they might have looked. In particular, I orientated myself on the yard arm of the yard on the model of the Le Suffren 1829. Not only does the period fit, the Le Suffren was also designed by the naval architect P. M. Leroux, like the La Créole. Therefore, I see my subsequent attempt at reconstruction as a thoroughly realistic variant.

The cleats may also have been vertical. In this respect, I will also draw a variant and then make a decision.

Sequel follows …

[wefalck]

As these protrusion serve to preven the eyes of the topping-lifts from slipping inward, they should be 90° off-set compared to the direction of pull of these.

[G. Delacroix]

Hello,

I just found this in my archives, if it helps you, circa 1830:

 

GD

[archjofo]

Hello Gerard,
Thank you very much, that is a very big help, especially the chronological classification.

This gives me confidence in my decision to bring the studding sail boom irons directly in front of the yards.
I recently received higher resolution images from La Créole from the Musée national de Marine Paris. You can see the details of the yardarms a little better there. But only so far that you can see that the studding sail boom irons do not have a 45 ° angle, but place the studding sail boom directly in front of the yards.

Here I show a compilation of the lower yard arms of La Créole in the form of excerpts from the image material available to me.

Source: Musée national de Marine Paris

Edited December 4, 2022 by archjofo

[archjofo]

Continuation: Clarification of the yardarms
As already announced, I have now also drawn a variant with vertical cleats. However,  with this variant I see a big problem with the guidance of the topgallant sheets. 
 
In addition, I find on the contemporary ship models actually predominantly horizontally arranged cleats. 

The pictures of the La Créole, which were kindly given to me by the Musée national de Marine Paris, do not show the decisive details of these filigree parts in spite of a higher resolution. But in connection with the already shown yardarm of the Le Suffren I will most likely realize the previously drawn variant. The yardarm of the Le Friedland 1810 also goes in this same direction.

 
During all the research I also found out that the yardarms of the lower yards so far are not quite correct, so I simply made these yards (shown in the picture above) again, as shown below: 
To be continued ...

[archjofo]

[archjofo]

Hello fellow colleagues,

happy new year 2023,
and above all health.

Before we continue with the yards with fresh energy and motivation, I would like to clarify one more question about the ship's compass.

 

ship compass
There is a cylindrical part on the back of the La Créole compass housing, which I recently discovered in one of the high-resolution images from the Musée national de Marine Paris.

Source: Musée national de Marine Paris

 

 

This part can be seen even better on a photograph of the steering gear of a contemporary model from the Paris Museum (compass is unfortunately missing).

 

Source: Musée national de Marine Paris

 

I would like to add this part to my model and find out more about its function.
Based on what I've learned so far, I see two possibilities:
- It could be a so-called flinders bar (soft iron corrector), which reduces the influence of the compass needle on iron parts;
- or to a lighting.
However, the fact that it is a wooden ship speaks against the flinders bar. Only the guns could have a corresponding impact on the compass needle.
Basically, these brass binnacles of the compasses were illuminated with oil lamps, which were also cylindrical and designed with a round attachment (ventilation). From what I saw on the internet, for example, these cylindrical parts were located directly on top of the housing and were usually attached on both sides.
Therefore, I see this part in its function as a soft iron corrector, or is there another explanation?

I would be very grateful for your help with this. It would be nice if I could get more information on this.

Edited January 5, 2023 by archjofo

[Keith Black]

 Johann, I believe it to be a lamp. 

[bdgiantman2]

It almost seems to me to some kind of small external gear to the compass box.  Was going to guess a part of the tiller operation but then I realized that La Creole would have still have rope tiller around the wheel and into the hull.  But as the picture of the contemporary model shows, maybe it is a broken off arm for like the ship's bell.

[Keith Black]

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/134391155611?hash=item1f4a564b9b:g:2f8AAOSw-DRjd9vo

 

 

compass and lamp combined 

[archjofo]

14 hours ago, bdgiantman2 said:

It almost seems to me to some kind of small external gear to the compass box.  Was going to guess a part of the tiller operation but then I realized that La Creole would have still have rope tiller around the wheel and into the hull.  But as the picture of the contemporary model shows, maybe it is a broken off arm for like the ship's bell.

It's an interesting approach, let's see.

 

 

 

22 hours ago, Keith Black said:

 Johann, I believe it to be a lamp. 

Isn't it too far down for a lamp?

[realworkingsailor]

If you don’t mind me chiming in here (amazing build, BTW), I believe you are most likely correct that the device is some form of compass correction. Flinders wrote his paper on compasses and magnetism around 1805, so it’s quite possible that a Flinders bar, or some similar device was in regular use at the time of your Creole. There are many facets to the errors that can be found in a magnetic compass, not solely the iron present in the ship (of which, the ordinance is more than enough to induce an error). Other factors like drastic changes in latitude, or the nature of the cargo carried can also cause errors.

 

Andy

[Keith Black]

6 hours ago, archjofo said:

Isn't it too far down for a lamp?

 The compass had to be illuminated, if that's not the lamp then where is the lamp? Yes, if in fact that is the lamp then it's low but then the compass itself is low which I don't understand the reasoning behind as compasses/binnacles were normally close to eye level.  

 

 A Flinders bar was placed at the fore of the compass, not the aft. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flinders_bar

 

Another compass with lamp.

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/255774428696?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=255774428696&targetid=1263094004866&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=1019476&poi=&campaignid=14859008593&mkgroupid=130497710760&rlsatarget=pla-1263094004866&abcId=9300678&merchantid=6296724&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIoaDQ2caz_AIVmg2tBh3wtwKZEAkYBSABEgKT8vD_BwE

 

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Keith Black

[archjofo]

Hello fellow colleagues,

Thank you for your interesting contributions. Andy's explanation
(@realworkingsailor) meanwhile I also think it's very plausible. Thank you for this post too.