Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Chapman, thank you for that super clear image of the Grand Monarque’s bow.  I see your point about the relative scantling of timber that the gammoning passes through, in these early First Marine vessels.  Twenty years later, though, the head structure of French ships had changed significantly, and the cutwater was significantly more “meaty” in the area of the gammoning.  There was a transition from the beakhead style (more characteristically Dutch) to this later style, which is more like the English head structure - excepting the headrails, themselves, which are characteristically French.

Edited by Hubac's Historian
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaager

Not sure I understand why you feel the regularity and symmetry of the molds is open to debate (moot).    As you said, it will be hidden with planking so what does it matter - (except where gun port openings are a consideration as I have encountered in a current POB build.)

 

Cri,  I just tuned in to your build and am enjoying the ride.   Anxious to see your progress.

 

Allan

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, allanyed said:

Not sure I understand why you feel the regularity and symmetry of the molds is open to debate (moot). 

Allan,

I say this about the spacing of moulds on a POB build.  It may be only a slight difference in final shape, but altering the placement of the moulds along the central spine to a different position from those defined by the plans is not a good thing to do. Especially if the reason is to have the moulds be at regular and equal distant intervals. This does change the hull curves.   This ship seems to be singularly unique in that it has four sets of Station intervals.  There are 4 sets of frame thicknesses and space thicknesses.  It is fiercely complicated when compared to similar monographs.   I am saying that by moving the station intervals so that they are equally spaced, just for looks does not do anything important. The moulds should be hidden by the planking and not seen anyway.  I do not see the point for having symmetry there.  But this is my particular OCD.  It seems that even the designer of the plans says that moving the stations and rotating them CCW 1.2 degrees machts nicht anyway.  (For me this injects certain questions about the author.) 

 

The 17th century hulls (most of them. anyway) were developed using three stations.  The main one at the deadflat, one forward  and one aft.  The various profile curves that define where are the arc centers produce the two smaller moulds at an arbitrary position fore and aft chosen by the architect.  But the hull shape can be changed by sliding these outer moulds along the keel.  Move the forward one closer to the bow and the entry is more buff.  Move the after one closer to the stern and the run there is fatter.  (If I understand it correctly, Dutch shipbuilders did this with three bends on the ways, instead of on paper.  The English and French had more politicians involved and less trust in the shipbuilders, so they started with paper/parchment.)  The waterlines, buttock lines, diagonal "proof" lines were to check for unwanted hollows or bulges.  These guys did not have test tanks, laminar flow tests, eddy checks.  They used experience and preconceived  prejudice as their "scientific" tests for proper hull form.  Moving the stations is redesigning the hull shape.

 

All these problems are minor factors.  This ship is special.  It is elegant.  It is about a magnitude above any competitors in beauty. Even if CRI-CRI is using the awful POB method, he seems to be capturing the hull curves so far. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaager I agreed with you and still do if the bulkheads being used are those supplied with a kit.   I just did not understand that after your explanation why you then changed and said it was moot, that is, open to debate 🤔

 

In any case, I have drawn and am making the bulkheads for my current build of the 17th century Charles Galley along station lines at times and other than on the station lines to account for gun ports that will be open.     The body plan is a great guide, but the individual station lines are not necessarily the lines to be used at times.    Totally different than a fully framed model which I prefer, if given the time needed to do so.  

 

Allan

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Allan,

If I am reading it correctly, what you are doing is lofting new mould shapes at the positions that you have selected.  It is more work, but it would still exactly replicate the hull.

The English seemed to go to laborious means to get their frame sides to define the sides of their gun ports.  The French and North Americans seem to have just used more material and less space in their upper works and cut the ports into the framing timbers.  I make it a goal to only need to use the existing stations from the Body plan to use as patterns for my frames.  I do not do well at drawing curves and doing something like 200 of them instead of just isolating 20 or so station shapes is weeks if not months quicker.  It is also less prone to me induced artifacts.  This means that on average, I am shaping 2-3-4 bends (4-6-8 frames) and their intervening spaces as a unit.  I fill the spaces with low cost Pine held using double sided tape to make it solid and protect the frame edges.

 

I make everything above the main wale a solid wall - no spaces - I find the actual framing there ugly anyway, so I hide it. 

 

In your place, I would use my method instead of POB.  I would use Yellow Poplar.  (Framing lumber Pine will do - specially if you can get No.1 material. HomeDepot "quality" stuff is No.2) The layer thickness where there would be frames can be any convenient dimension. The sum of the layers needs to be equal to the station interval.  It is way more work, but the thicknesses can be set to frame the gun ports without any later cutting in.  The wood species there can be something more pretty than Yellow Poplar.  I used Rock Elm for Renommee gun port sides - a red close to natural mineral pigment red.  By using pin alignments outside the actual frames, the layers are exact and there is an identical pattern in the identical location on both sides of a stack-  The bevels on both sides have their patterns.  No baseboard needed.  Getting the stacks joined properly requires care.  The result is a solid base for single layer planking.  If you fill the gaps between moulds in POB - My way is probably quicker and if you have the machinery -  a serious scroll saw (I use 1/8" blade on a 9" bendtop bandsaw) and a drum sanding table  and a drill press - the alignment pins need a blue million holes.  It makes for a better looking under the planking hull that is hollow if you want to include any guts.

 

Edited by Jaager
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...