Magenta 1861 by GrandpaPhil - 1/72 - CARD - French Ironclad Broadside Battleship - built as designed

[GrandpaPhil]

Also taking notes of scupper locations on the Solferino kit:

Edited December 20, 2021 by GrandpaPhil

[GrandpaPhil]

And so it begins:

 

 

To give an idea of scale, those drawings are sitting on two 6 foot folding tables.

[Keith Black]

 Phil, I'm really looking forward to this build and I'm hoping you enjoy every minute of it.  

[Glen McGuire]

This is going to be so cool to watch from the start.  In my short history of ship modeling, I'm getting to be a real fan of these steam/sail ships and how unique they are. 

 

Let 'er rip, Phil!!

[Keith Black]

2 minutes ago, Glen McGuire said:

I'm getting to be a real fan of these steam/sail ships

 Glen, the transitional period is unique and some gorgeous ships came from this period. The Magenta is one of those beauties. I wish more folks would model ships from this period and I wish more kit manufactures would design kit's from this period. 

[GrandpaPhil]

Thank you both very much!

 

Orel makes some very nice kits of the transitional era warships.

 

Also, the French Ministry Of Defense has a pretty nice selection of plans of mid to late 19th century warships hosted on the Wayback Machine.  
 

That is where I got these.

 

Wikipedia linked to them.

 

The originals were in .tif format.

[mbp521]

Phil,

 

I’m pulling up a chair and getting ready for the ride. Really looking forward to this build. A transitional era ship is on my list to build, just haven’t figured out which one yet. 
 

-Brian

[GrandpaPhil]

Thank you very much!

 

Thank you all very much for the likes and just for stopping by!

First vent!

 

 

I’m relearning how to draft, lol.

 

I have not drafted anything in nearly 20 years.
 

I’m doing better than I thought I would.  
 

Here soon I’ll have to figure out the walkway around the blockhouse.

 

 

 

 

It’s shown on the original plans, but not the Paris model.  
 

On the Paris model, the walkway is only on the aft side of the blockhouse and does not go all the way around.

However, Magenta underwent a major refit in 1865.  

 

She also had a barquentine rig prior to that.
 

I would like to build her as originally built though, so I’ll figure out how to integrate it with the model.

Edited January 29, 2022 by GrandpaPhil

[GrandpaPhil]

Plan modification and drawing continues.
 

The final stack drawings:

 

 

Found another major variation.

 

The Orel kit that I am referencing appears to reference the Paris model.

 

The original plans have a raised stern observation platform with some kind of structure beneath it.

 

The platform is where the ruler is.

 

 

There is a structure below the observation platform that I would assume would be a skylight, grating or ladderwell, but there is no ladder on the Inboard Profile.

 

 

According to the Upper Gundeck Plan, that structure is located directly over the Admiral’s Suite.

 

And, according to the Inboard Profile, it’s a solid structure:

 

 

And the Outboard Profile just shows the side view of the observation platform.

 

 

Any thoughts?

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by GrandpaPhil
Corrected a plan reading error

[Keith Black]

 Phil, purely a guess but could it be a protected companionway for the officers? The walls wouldn't extend beyond the companionway itself. 

 

 The two photos from the Tennessee, the first shows the officers companionway behind the binnacle protected by the deck above, the second photo shows one of the crew companionways on deck. 

[GrandpaPhil]

I thought the same initially, but there’s no corresponding ladder shown on either the inboard profile or the upper gundeck plan.

 

 

I thought about it possibly being a deck locker, too.

Edited January 30, 2022 by GrandpaPhil

[Keith Black]

 I can't see the officers using the same companionway stairways as the crew. The officers had to be able to reach the deck independent from and unimpeded by the crew. If that's not a companionway below the platform then the officers companionway would have to be the stern most companionway according to the plans (the way I interpret them) and that companionway leads to an unprotected deck.

 

 On the Tennessee, the crew companionways, (four total) they were placed in groups of two in close proximity to one another, one for going below deck and one for coming up on deck. This prevented the jamming of crew bodies in the stairwells particularly in times of manning battle stations or abandon ship procedures. 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by Keith Black

[GrandpaPhil]

I agree.  

 

It looks like there’s a skylight, where the plans show the Admiral’s ladderwell, on the Paris model.

 

It looks like  the officer’s ladderwell heading down behind the helm, where the skylight directly aft of the helm is shown on the plans.

 

 

Looking at the Paris model, I believe that the binnacle is located where the aft platform was, along with a chart cabinet.

Also, I initially misinterpreted the plans and updated my previous post with the correct location of the aft platform.

 

 

Do you think the structure under the platform might have been a chart room, away from the bulk of the plating to avoid interfering with the compass and protected from the elements?

Edited January 30, 2022 by GrandpaPhil

[Keith Black]

 I would think the charts would have been kept below in the Captain's quarters. The plans you have are after the 1865 refit, correct? 

 

 What looks like a wall on the plans could be representing a tarp which could be lowered in foul weather. I wonder if the binnacle was moved up on the platform to get it up off the deck and away from the hull? 

[GrandpaPhil]

I have the original builders plans from 1859.  

The Orel kit and the Paris model are the post-1865 version.

Moving it away from the hull would prevent interference from the ship’s magnetic field.

 

Having a tarp there would definitely make sense.  

It would allow for open air navigation in good weather and be the equivalent of the quarterdeck on a conventional ship of the line.

That platform with the binnacle could have been housed inside.

And, having the observation platform there would have been really convenient for taking sextant measurements.

[wefalck]

In these years, before compass compensation arrangements were introduced in the 1880s, it was common practice to put one or more binnacle onto a high pedestal.

 

I wonder, where they put the binnacle after the aft observation bridge was constructed. This metal structure certainly would have not been helpful for reliable compass readings. Many ships of that period would have had also an emergency steering wheel somewhere there, above the tiller.

 

I didn't go through my pictures of the SOLFERINO, but wondered where the main steering position was. The main command position moved forward, close to the engine, when ships were expected to engange in battle mainly under steam. It became important to effectively control the engine. Some ships had the steering position inside the conning tower. However, the relatively large mass of iron, would have made compass readings rather unreliable. Not sure how they handled that problem in the times before compensation for declination and inclination.

[GrandpaPhil]

The Magentas had three steering locations that I can see on the plans.

 

There was the visible one, one inside the blockhouse by the stack and one three decks directly below the blockhouse helm, on the false deck.

 

The aft part of the Magentas was not armored, and they were primarily wooden ships. 

 

That would account for the location of the binnacle.  
 

 

It would have isolated it from the iron part of the hull.

On a related subject, this is a very interesting ship.  

 

I’m glad I found it and even more glad to have found the original plans and to receive all the information that has been provided here.

 

It looks to me like they took a standard two-decker, put a steam engine in it and partially armor plated it.

 

They may not have fully armor plated the Magentas because of weight.

 

As it was, they displaced nearly 6800 tons.

 

That’s a lot, especially for the relatively small size of the ships.

 

Plus, the hulls on these ships were incredibly thick.

 

The plating and planking measured around 18 in. thick (1/4” at 1/72 scale).

 

The full thickness of the hull on this model will be around 1/2” thick at 1/72 scale.

That adds a lot of weight.

That would also account for why the Magentas only carried 52 guns when the hull was pierced for 96 guns.

Edited January 30, 2022 by GrandpaPhil

[Keith Black]

 Phil, I'm a tad confused. The Magenta was christened in 1861and refitted in 1865. The platform was added during the 1865 refit? The Paris model without platform is as she was christened in 1861? The platform is shown on the plans you have so they must be from 1865? 

[Keith Black]

2 hours ago, wefalck said:

I wonder, where they put the binnacle after the aft observation bridge was constructed. This metal structure certainly would have not been helpful for reliable compass readings.

 The Tennessee carried three binnacles and she was wood hulled. The Magenta had to have carried several as well. 

[GrandpaPhil]

1 hour ago, Keith Black said:

 Phil, I'm a tad confused. The Magenta was christened in 1861and refitted in 1865. The platform was added during the 1865 refit? The Paris model without platform is as she was christened in 1861? The platform is shown on the plans you have so they must be from 1865? 

My plans are the original shipyard design plans from 1859.

 

The platform, if it was included, was removed during the refit.

 

I’m building Magenta as she would have appeared when designed and hopefully as she looked when launched.

 

There are several of the deck fittings that show up on the plans, but not on the Paris model and vice versa.

 

I’m trying to use an Orel Solferino in 1/200 scale as a study model (Magenta’s sister ship) to fill in the gaps because I only have the original shipyard builder’s plans (which have many gaps).

 

However, the Orel Solferino is based on the Paris model, which is shown in the late 1860s configuration, after the refit.

 

I’m taking that model, along with the 1859 shipyard plans and turning those plans into model plans.

 

It’s loosely the same thing I did with the Prince de Neufchatel, which I built from Chapelle plans in “The History Of American Sailing Ships” and “The Search For Speed Under Sail”.  

Those plans were drawn by the British when they captured Prince de Neufchatel and took lines off her.

[mtaylor]

4 hours ago, wefalck said:

In these years, before compass compensation arrangements were introduced in the 1880s, it was common practice to put one or more binnacle onto a high pedestal.

Aircraft use a special place on airfields for setting the magnetic compass, Not all airfields have one though.  When we asked (military aviation), we were told that this was way it been done for a long, long time.     Is it possible that they an area in a harbor for setting "north"?  

[wefalck]

Yes, in many harbours they have an area set aside for this purpose. Two beacons are set up to align with true North. The ships can turn in a full 360° circle in this area while taking simultaneously compass readings and observing the beacons. On this basis a deviation table for the ship with its current load will be established. There is also specific flag signal for ships undergoing this procedure to give the right of way.

[GrandpaPhil]

I’m still drawing on my plans:

The Main Deck

 

Stack details

 

Deckhouse and Helm support details

 

Aft part of the ship

 

The middle part of the ship

 

The bow

 

Side view of the helm.

 

It’s coming along.  I could actually start cutting now, but I want to wait until I finish the Solferino.

It’s not good for me to have too many projects going at once.

[robdurant]

What a fascinating vessel, and very interesting conversation - I wish you all the best in this build (and her sister-ship in a different scale), and I hope you don't mind if I follow along with both builds.

[GrandpaPhil]

Thank you very much!  

You are more than welcome!

[GrandpaPhil]

There’s the Magenta, some assembly required:

Seriously though, she’s going to be built of double thickness cardboard for the hull.

I’m amassing the cardboard now.

 

I’ll use roughly the same techniques I did with Hannah to build the hull.

I’ll cover it using a combination of traditional techniques (rough in all of the gunports, windows, etc.) and card techniques.  I’ll use the pulp board to plank below the waterline and then most likely plank with standard card above the waterline.

 

The cool thing about doing it this way is that it will make making armor plating really easy.

[GrandpaPhil]

I just got a whole lot of leftover oversized valentines cards, today.

 

They are about the same size and thickness as the sheets of poster board that I’ve been using for my models.

 

The Prince de Neufchatel only used 5 sheets of poster board, and that includes all of the hull framing pieces.

 

I am going to use this card to make many of the fittings (and possibly part of the hull covering) on Magenta.

 

One thing I’ll have to be careful about is the thickness of the hull framing, planking and armor.

 

Between the planking, framing and armor, the thickness of the hull will come out to about 7/16”.

 

That’s very thick for a model.

 

This ship was designed at the end of age of the wooden warship.

 

So, consequently, she was designed to take a beating.

 

As a result, the planking was incredibly thick, and then on much of her, she wore nearly 5” of armor.

 

The body plan only goes to the outside of the frames.  

So, I’ll have to take great care to ensure that I get the correct sizing of the bulkheads since I won’t be using wood planking.  
 

The hull covering will be around 1mm overall, not including the armor plating, which will be cut individually out of thin card.

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by GrandpaPhil

[mbp521]

8 hours ago, GrandpaPhil said:

she wore nearly 5” of armor.

That’s some thick armor. Makes for one heavy ship. 
 

-Brian

[GrandpaPhil]

Yes, she was.

 

Magenta was essentially a two-decker that the French armored and put a steam engine in.

 

She was pierced for 95 guns but only carried 55.

She was also only armored along the waterline and the battery decks where the guns were.

 

I’m assuming that was because of the weight.

Edited May 8, 2022 by GrandpaPhil

[wefalck]

Much of the armour thickness would have been made up of the hardwood-backing of the steel armour.