Jump to content

Saint Philippe 1693 by CRI-CRI - scale 1/72 - French warship from Lemineur monograph


Recommended Posts

As you are still in a conjectural planning/spitballing phase, I would like to chime-in on your proposed re-gammoning location.

 

From a timbering standpoint, running the gammoning above the trailboard creates a vulnerable weak spot that jeopardizes the bowsprit.

 

Also, it just wasn’t done, so the wrongness of its appearance, here, would look even more wrong than the gammoning soaking beneath the waterline.

 

It seems to me that, while you may have to re-think the timber joinery beneath the trailbord, there is ample space to locate the gammoning above the waterline, but below the lower cheek.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your last edited photo with the gammoning going through the trailboard is even less structurally sound.

 

All I’m trying to advise, here, is that if you are going to go to the trouble of making something immensely complex, like the SP, then try to avoid glaringly wrong work arounds.

 

If it were me, I might redraw the timbering, so that the gammoning didn’t pierce at an awkward place below the lower cheek, and I would probably cheat the waterline down by a 1/16” - 1/8”.

 

It may not be exactly right, but it is more correct LOOKING than what Lemineur provides for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's what you've understood, If you know the kit of USS Conferderacy, it's the model i'm following for improve the S-P gamonning

 

I shall not modify the waterline position, because it's an absolute reference for all the built

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the "choice" between an historic "probability of truth", and another approach, more "creative"

 

J-C Lemineur wrote to me that my proposition had existed, but later, then it would be an anachronism, that's also your point of view...

 

I shall take a moment of reflection before a definitive decision   😘

Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted a test message because your previous post - for which I received an email notification did not appear, when I went to your page.  No number of refreshes brought it to light.  So, I posted a test message to see whether the page would refresh that way.  Whatever you wrote this morning still isn’t visible to me.  I deleted the test message, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/16/2021 at 4:19 PM, Hubac's Historian said:

[...] if it were me, I might redraw the timbering, so that the gammoning didn’t pierce at an awkward place below the lower cheek, and I would probably cheat the waterline down by a 1/16” - 1/8”.

 

It may not be exactly right, but it is more correct LOOKING than what Lemineur provides for [...]

Here I show you a redraw of plan using your recommendation, and water line cheated down 1/8" (around 3-4 mm) :

 

2023595691_TailleN.jpg.982dfb69cb83adac039a9f7d6dfb5fef.jpg

 

The ropes will be out of water, but with the decorative element hidden by

gamonning, without inconvenient, it's not an immortal masterpiece of Art  😋

 

Edited by CRI-CRI
Link to post
Share on other sites

As an alternative you could cheat:

Part 204 - chock piece  - seems the extend to the top of part 202B - upper head rail.
I would place the two gammoning slots in 204 - just above the upper head rail.

This would save having to move the LWL or hide the carving.

In real life, if the boatswain, I would probably try to place the gammoning where the carving is and adjust the pattern to include it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For reasons I point out in prior posts, doing so creates unnecessary weak points in the structure.  These ships were massive, with tremendous dynamic forces working against them all the time; the gammoning really needs to be secured by the heavy timbering of the cutwater.

 

Anyone, of course, is free to do as they wish.  However, if they want to represent authentic reality, then there are some rules of construction that shouldn’t be violated for the sake of aesthetics.

Edited by Hubac's Historian
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CRI-CRI said:

First frame in position

Language differences aside, that is not a frame.  The usual name is "bulkhead".  It is not really a bulkhead either.  What it actually is = a "mold" or "mould"*.   From my time around microbiology, I prefer mould - even if the site spell checker does not. It also does not like a lot of other words we use, such as "futtock".

 

25 minutes ago, CRI-CRI said:

it will be a fat boy, miraculous

Imagine doing this at 1:48 as provided in the monograph?  

 

* Old Ben, Ben Lankford was the first the make a point of this back on Clay Feldman's listserver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...