Stern gallery of Santissima Trinidad

[RKurczewski]

Well- Shapeways looks like a good option- you would have to print it anyway and I am doing my own prints there so at least quality is tested. Theoretically I could make 3d model downloadable but (please, do not take it as a stab on you) I am pretty sure there would be someone taking  advantage of it and starting selling (or use it in other commercial way). I do not mind not earning a penny (after all I got a lot from modeling community so it sounds like a fair payback to share results of my work) but I do not like idea of somebody making money on it.

 

The only problem with Shapeways I see is that their cheaper materials are not THAT exact (certainly not 0.2 mm) so  I would not recommend printing minor details (like balconies) in them. It MIGHT work (theoretically- it should), it is just that I have not tested that for those models (I did it on captain miniature and on lion figurehead- worked like a dream), but if it does not- one would loose money. I do not want to force anybody to anything, so material choice can be made there. For myself- I will go with that... frosty...detailed thing as it is highest resolution material.

 

Regarding windows- I see no reason to NOT do it, although initially I was thinking about making them deeper then necessary (like 4 mm deep), so that inside can be underpainted and then filled with some semi- transparent material imitating glass (plexi or something similar). With no interior it might be better option.

 

Technical detail of their "Frosted Detail" Material

• Min Wall Supported: 0.5mm (Frosted Detail) · 0.3mm (Frosted Ultra Detail)
• Min Wall Free: 0.6mm
• Min Wire Supported: 0.6mm
• Min Wire Free: 0.8mm (if not bearing weight) | 1.0mm (if bearing weight, like a sprue)
• Min Embossed Detail: 0.2mm (Frosted Detail) · 0.1mm (Frosted Ultra Detail)
• Min Engraved Detail: 0.2mm (Frosted Detail) · 0.1mm (Frosted Ultra Detail)
• Min Bounding Box: x+y+z≥12mm
• Max Bounding Box: 298x185x203mm (Frosted Detail) · 127x178x152mm (Frosted Ultra Detail)
• Min Escape Hole: See design tip below
• Interlocking or Enclosed Part?: Yes
• Multiple Part per STL: Yes
• Clearance: 0.1mm (Frosted Detail) · 0.05mm (Frosted Ultra Detail)
• Accuracy: ± 0.025-0.05mm for every 25.4mm

So- looking at max bounding box entire stern section can be printed in one go, without any loose parts. I would still probably remove balconies (painting issues) but other then that...

Edited July 6, 2013 by RKurczewski

[RKurczewski]

With all honesty- I am going to make all things that will not meet my requirements in set. No fixed plan, as I am doing it as part of my own scratchbuilt, not some "bussiness project". Probably a lot, judging by OCCRE instructions.

[Roman]

Are you familiar with this image of Santisima Trinidad?

[RKurczewski]

No, I havent seen it. Is it from so called "Cuban" plan, from library of Samuel Humpheys, that was later used by US naval designers ? One with figurehead in form of an angel ?

[Roman]

The draught is very large. Do not overlook Museu Maritim in Barcelona. I am not that versed in this ship but the building was done in the English style hence Mateo Mullan and his son Ignacio Mullan who completed it. The remodel of the ship after launch if I recall in Ferrol was probably the result of conflicts between the established groups and Jorge Juan's admiration for the British system. I must say this admiration was well founded. As reflected in many ways by the graphic works by the Marques de la Victoria. There were other prolific British builders of the time that had a profound effect in the final transformation of Spanish sail that culminated with the works of perhaps the most famous Romero de Landa and Retamosa. I will not post the image of the figurehead in question. But if you need it I can email direct to you.

[RKurczewski]

Oh- that ship is certainly not my area of expertise either- I started with a presentation model as a base simply because what's in the kit is simply atrocious and I was not able to stand it. Now- English influences are certainly not to be contested here and I believe structure built so far by me reflects that, but I am very curious about decoration. On picture presented by you it is very sober, EVEN by British standards (and those were not really high)- compared to other ships built in Havana, it does not really "fit" very well but then again- if draft mentioned by you is an original one- that's what it is. Would you be so kind as to send it to me ? rkgalery(at)yahoo.com . I'd love to compare it with other materials. 

 

Now- when it comes to influences- Brits have created a system, and that was certainly their greatest achievement (not talking about tactic now)- but when it comes to innovation and quality of ships, English opinion about Spanish ones was actually quite favorable (to mention San Josef, built in Ferrol and serving in Royal Navy, "because of her superior design and spaciousness (...)much sought after by admirals for flagship"). France, Spain, England- all three countries influenced each other and I would not dare to try pointing out who was most influential before last quarter of XVIII century.

[Roman]

Speaking of influences,most think that Spains dominace of the Seas died with the failed invasion of the Armada in the 16th century. The fact is that Spain was too occupied trying to maintain dominance of its colonies and not much time for technical developments that were easily acquired thru captures or secret diplomacy, such as the events with Jorge Juan. The Sun never set in the Spanish empire either but it was the British that popularised the term. Spain did what nations with interests do, purchased the technology so as to stay in the game. France on the other hand was more developed in terms of Naval Architecture although not perfect by any means but they pushed the science forward and Spain bought into it from France. Francico Gauthier comes to mind. Much the same way the Spanish builders sold their services to the French when France needed to build Chevecs such as "Le Requin" and others. Sorry I did not mean to deviate from the topic of Trinidad.

[RKurczewski]

Oh- by all means. It is a very interesting subject and with all honesty I rarely have a pleasure to talk about it.

[Anaga]

Hello Rado,

For the last two years I´ve been researching Santisima Trinidad and I´d like to give you a hand on this endeavor of yours. First, the pictures you´ve posted from the stern are from Santisima´s antecessor San Carlos. The model was done by Mateo Mullan and Santisima probably looked very much like it when it left Cuba on it´s maiden voyage. If you want to build Santisima as it was in 1769 then Santisima Trinidad had 112 guns. The following link can be translated with Google:

http://pinake.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/navios-espanoles-del-siglo-xviii-i/

It is an eight part article on Spanish ship of the line construction systems. On the first installment you can download a plan from Trinidad when it had 112 guns like the San Carlos model from Madrid´s Museo Naval. On the sixth installment you can also download a Jorge Juan system Spanish 58 gun frigate similar to the beautiful one on plate 145 from the Marques de La Victoria album. The article has also a lot of interesting info on Spanish naval architects such as Gaztañeta, Jorge Juan, Gautier, Romero Landa and Retamosa. 

Second, the model I want to build is a 1/72 Santisima just before 1805. I´m using OcCre and the Museo Naval plans you can download from the web. The plans available from the web are those Museo Naval was selling and its author is Mr. Rafael Berenguer Moreno de Guerra. OcCre´s plans are based on Mr Berenguer plans which in turn are based on the plan Roman posted before. The "American plan " can be found at: 

The Records of the Bureau of Ships, Record Group 19,

National Archives and Records Administration,

8601 Adelphi Road, College Park,

Maryland 20740, USA.

The funny thing is that the plan is also a copy of the only original plan of Santisima Trinidad Known to exist. This plan is signed by Romero Landa and is in St. Petersburg (Rusia). The "Rusian plan"  depicts Trinidad in 1796 with 130 guns. In 1803, according to Spanish records, it had 134 and lastly in 1805 144guns. 

Third, there is not a single drawing of Santisima Trinidad´s stern. So you are free to imagine or design as you please. Due to copyright issues cannot post some of the work I´ve done and drawings from books I have. I´ll be glad to help you on that via MP. Meanwhile check this pictures from the best model of Santisima I´ve seen so far. It belongs to Mr Berenguer and it was build in 1973, scale 1/100: 

 

http://usuarios2.arsystel.com/naviost2/RBMG/modelo1973.htm

 

Roman said:

Spain did what nations with interests do, purchased the technology so as to stay in the game. France on the other hand was more developed in terms of Naval Architecture although not perfect by any means but they pushed the science forward and Spain bought into it from France. Francico Gauthier comes to mind.

 

 

Not quite Roman. Check this book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/026251415X#_

[Roman]

I am curious Anaga, what part of what I've said you disagree with. The mere fact that the Trinidad from the mind of an Irish man existed is evidence of this technical know how transfer between nations. This idea is practiced to this day. I am not saying that Spain did not have Architects competent enough to build great ships; I happen to think that Spanish ships were beautiful in design incorporating what was good in the architecture of the day but it was not always home grown. Like I said before; Mullan, Rooth, Turner, Gauthier and others were not Spaniards. This does not diminish Spain at all, quite the contrary it was very forward thinking and it still is to this day.

 

Best regards

Roman

Edited July 28, 2013 by Roman

[Anaga]

Roman,

I´m sorry perhaps I was a bit short or didn´t elaborate more the argument on Spanish naval architecture. You are right but what I meant to say is that naval architecture was not a French only matter and Spanish architects had also an important saying on the matter too. There were important contributions from Swedish, Dutch, Portuguese, Italian, German and Spanish constructors/scientists.

The book I recommended is an excellent source to Know who is who in XVIII century naval architecture, what they did and when they did it. Here is an excerpt from the book:

It is perhaps surprising that stability theory was not routinely used in the Spanish
navy until the 1780s, given that one of the most important figures in the history of
naval architecture, Jorge Juan y Santacilia, was both well acquainted with stability
theory and in charge of naval construction from 1752 to 1754. As described in the
prologue, Juan y Santacilia had traversed the Andes with Bouguer as a young lieutenant,
and may have learned about the metacenter directly from Bouguer even before
the latter had finished his manuscript. He had since kept abreast of developments in
ship theory, corresponding with the academies of Paris, Berlin, and Saint Petersburg,
and by 1752 was writing Examen marítimo (Maritime Examination), in which he
greatly expounded on stability theory and provided real-life examples of stability calculations.
Juan y Santacilia, as head of the Council of Constructors that established
construction standards, was in a position to institutionalize stability theory in the
design process; and as head of the Navy Guards, he had authority over the officers
who would oversee the dockyards. So why did the metacenter not appear on Spanish
ship plans until so late?
One possible answer may lie in the letter Juan y Santacilia wrote in 1766 to his colleague
José Romero Fernández de Landa, critical of theoretical naval architecture in
general (also discussed in chapters 1 and 3):
The calculation to find out the volume that the Ship occupies under the water is the only thing
that Bouguer and Duhamel have brought with certainty; but it is also older than their grandfathers;
all the rest are false . . . even the Metacenter which serves to determine the support for
the Sail, because [the calculations] lack the details that are needed
Jorge Juan saw, probably more clearly than his contemporaries, that the basic geometrical
calculations then in use provided only the height of the metacenter above
the center of buoyancy ( ), but that was effectively meaningless without also
knowing the height above the center of gravity ( ), and that calculation was too
laborious for almost any constructor.
Nonetheless, that calculation was part of the new French standardization that Jean-
François Gautier was tasked to bring to Spanish naval construction; as discussed in
chapter 1, Gautier was called to Spain in 1765 to oversee the alignment of the Spanish
navy with the French, and to begin the process of professionalization of constructors.
The Navy Ordinance of 1776, like Choiseul’s 1765 ordinance, established the technical
information required to be included on ship plans, including displacement and
stability calculations. In the pattern of other countries, as students became working
constructors, stability calculations began showing up on plans. Ironically, it was Juan
y Santacilia’s Examen marítimo, the standard textbook of the Spain’s Corps of Naval
Engineers, which would guide them through the process, despite the author’s own
cynicism about the utility of the theory.

 

If you like to Know more on the subject contact me via MP. By the way on this link you can download the Marquis of La Victoria Album. I forgot to post it on my previous message. The beautiful frigate is at page145:

http://www.um.es/catedranaval/docs/MDLV.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roman]

No worries Anaga,  that is good stuff. Jorge Juan is a very significant figure for the reasons you have stated and for others that had important political ramifications. He was a master at his art both political and scientific. In any case I am very familiar with his two volumes work "Examen Maritimo". Do not worry about reproductive rights I own an original copy. Hope this helps those interested.  Sorry for deviating from the stern topic.

 

Saludos

Edited July 28, 2013 by Roman

[isali]

This is in the future of modeling. Many of us will continue carving wood or clay but many will opt for the ease of designing (or buying) pre fab sculptured parts, just like we buy brass parts now.

[Roman]

I am afraid this is the present. You are right though. 3d printing is one more tool in the model makers arsenal.

[RKurczewski]

I would really love to see printers improved bit more (they are still not perfect). Sorry for delay with the project- some... storms in my private life. By no means abandoning it.

[malachy]

Great to see another Blender user here. I hope your 'storms' are over soon and you are able to continue your lovely work!

[RKurczewski]

I know I am not the fastest around BUT I do not sink. Managed to calculate proper proportions for side gallery windows.

 

[WackoWolf]

That came out very nice, excellent work. Keep the post and pictures. I am really enjoying this.

[RKurczewski]

Okay... I have spotted an error so day of work goes down the flush. Take a look:

 

 

The lowest condignation angle is incorrect. Outlines (or how do you want to call it, my english might be failing me) obviously should be either parallel OR "meet" in one central point- orange lines in this case). Here we go again...

 

EDIT:

 

After correcting it all windows lined up "by themselves" beautifully, structure became much more regular and "clean".

 

 

I know I am spending hell of the time on those pesky details, but I do not want this thing to be just a sketchy "meh, good enough" thing.

Edited November 28, 2013 by RKurczewski

[RKurczewski]

Ok- got two lower rows all lined up and HOPEFULLY correct. Uppermost one is a different matter.

 

 

And now I got a dilemma again. Please, be so kind to advise.

 

 

Angles are now ok BUT looking at size of windows- I am begining to think that upper and middle row of windows should have two columns (not three). Problem is- spaces between them would be considerably larger, which in turn will cause small pilaster- like decorations to be wider. Any hints ? Ideas ?

 

EDIT:

 

Additionally: "Tiles" in lowest row are "proper" size. IF each higher row gets a bit smaller, uppermost ones will be ridiculously tiny. 

 

Edited December 2, 2013 by RKurczewski

[RKurczewski]

So- that's how it looks like by the end of the day. Railings to be re- done, some pilasters added and- in long last- time to start sculpting.

 

[RKurczewski]

Guess I will be going back to three- column windows in uppermost row, otherwise spaces between windows will be just too large, even with columns in- between.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2013 by RKurczewski

[mtaylor]

I like what you've done, I just can't answer any of your questions about the windows.    What I see is very well done.

[RKurczewski]

Thank you, you are very kind. I think I will go with following window "setup". Time to close railings. Later on I will probably have to make them separate objects (otherwise entire thing will be very hard to paint) but that kind of technological questions can wait till model is done.

 

 

 

[Roman]

Look at the US or Russian plans if you can locate, it shows these details on the sheer plan. I admire your effort on this, not an easy subject.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Roman

[RKurczewski]

Yeah, I got them but with all honesty- I have to admit I do have some reservations. 

 

Santissima with angel as a figurehead ? No decoration in- between windows (actually- almost no decoration AT ALL) ? Inverted decoration of balconies (compared to model) ?  That hardly sounds probable (I am not saying IT IS IMPOSSIBLE you know-- just... very strange). Now- am I right to have those doubts ? No idea, some sources say one thing, others- another. That's why the subject is- as you said- not very easy.

 

I am pretty sure that when they will finally film the wreck (they found it in 2009 I believe) everything I will do will go down the sink...

Edited December 5, 2013 by RKurczewski

[Roman]

I understand your reservations. Currently the best we have is those plans. Some say the US plan has the hand of Mullan while the Russian plan is by Landa and both show same figurehead despite regulatory Lion. The lack of stern ornamentation is of not much relevance at this point as most plans of the period did not illustrate this. By the way the model attributed to Mullan built between 1766 and 1767 is said to be that of the Real Carlos  this seems to have been a dedication of the model to the king contibuting to the confusion; this is according to Gonzalez Aller. You are doing a wonderful job. Keep it up.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Roman

[RKurczewski]

By no means denying it (and I am glad you understand why I am a bit reluctant towards them). Thank you very much for sharing knowledge- that's something that's priceless.

 

When it comes to model: around 1766 (add or remove 15 years) there was no ship named Real Carlos. There was a San Carlos from 1765 (94 cannons), in 1801 rebuilt to be a 112 cannon, but it certainly is not this one. To my best knowledge it is a model built il La Carraca, between 1766-67, following plan PB-197 (description on plans:

 

 Signatura Topográfica: mnm_pb_0197 

• Título: Plano de un navío de 114 cañones. Mateo Mullan. 1759. Sistema inglés. (Santísima Trinidad 1769). 

• Tipo: Buques de guerra: trazado 

• Tipo General: Buques de guerra

 

 

Model was built following project of 114 cannon ship by I. Mullan and was mentioned in his letter to Julian de Arriaga from 27.04.1767. It was- to our best knowledge- project for Santissima (Informations from mr. Krzysztof Gerlach). Now- OF COURSE we do not know how exactly it resembles real ship - it was certainly "beautified" to be impressive (after all it was a "marketing piece") but how, to which degree- we do not really know.

 

I wish I had access to PB_0197, sadly- my resources are too limited for that.

Edited December 6, 2013 by RKurczewski

[RKurczewski]

Columns of gallery on side added. Much more regular then before, with better angles and alignment. Truth is- they will be about 3 mm high so not much will be visible but- still...

 

 

 

Now- another dilemma. The upper balcony should have a wrought steel (or some other type of "lacework") railing filling. Now- it can be easily modeled, BUT it will not print in 3d (under 0,2 mm thick). I got two options: to make it an embossed surface and then drill some openings in it OR to leave it open and fill later on with photoetched details. At the moment I am leaning towards second option.

 

Oh- one more thing. I have found a new reconstruction, by spanish historian, Joaquin Rodriguez Crespo.To me it is rather questionable from point of view of iconography (decorations of stern) and overly "english-iz-ed" but... it's certainly worth mentioning.

 

 

 

On bit different subject:

 

I have also tracked POSSIBLE explanation for an archangel figurehead. As can be easily seen on US and russian draft, a main element of sculpture is a shield, covering Michael' chest. Now- traditional image placed on shield of archangel Michael is so called "shield of Trinity" , a symbol, sometimes dubbed "a God' coat of arms" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity ) and also a very usefull diagram explaining concept of Trinity in catholicism. That's one and only link between st. Michael and Trinity I was able to find so far. 

Edited December 7, 2013 by RKurczewski

[Roman]

Crespo's work is one of the best studies of this subject. This ship was built english style and that explains his tendency; outside of this and going back to plans and models, it is worth mentioning that PB-0002 plan shows what appears to be the ship portrayed in PB-0197 in drydock at La Carraca with a profile of the vessel and dock. The San Carlos was a smaller vessel some 94 guns or so dated 1765 Built Habana and this corresponds to PB-0003. There is also another drawing reported to be of the Trinidad officers boarding entrance detail at the side of the ship PB-0097. Although not of Trinidad PB-0092 by Bryant and the english style as well as PB-0343 for Stern and Bow details, These are all worth looking at. The carving on the stern of the model clearly carved El RL Carlos 1766. This is beieved by many to just represent a gesture to the King not to mention trying to gain  the Royal favor. I am sure this was lobbying and the Mullans were not the first.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Roman