French FULMINANT rear castle

[Hubac's Historian]

The Ambiteaux and Fulminant were the product of the construction council’s desire to develop the ideal combination of firepower and maneuverability.  The big lumbering 100-gunners were necessary, but not ideal.

[Hubac's Historian]

In a way, if you think about it, they are the origin point of the French 74.

Edited September 16, 2023 by Hubac's Historian

[malachy]

But both were three deckers, right? Le Fulminant had 8-pounders on the upper deck, Le Foudroyant had 12-pounders there. And I thought the classic french 74s had their origin in the successful large 70s with 36-pounders on the lower deck.

 

And this talk about Louis XIV's ships reminds that I still haven`t ordered the La Volage monograph. Brb

[Hubac's Historian]

Correct, they are both full three deckers, and were classified as First-Rates.  When these ships were first constructed in the 1690’s, they were overloaded with the number of guns in such a way that adversely affected their handling, and subsequently their armament was reduced.

 

When I say that they are the origin point for the 74, what I mean is that this was the first attempt to really standardize efficient fire-power and handling.  Ultimately, this tendency culminates in the 74, but there would certainly have been more direct corollaries in the 18th Century. 

[giampieroricci]

On 9/15/2023 at 1:07 PM, HAIIAPHNK said:

 

Give your friend a big bow from me. I was very much influenced by his work at one time. I was very much impressed and for a long time I dreamed of making a main figure from this ship. At that time, I was doing carving on purpose in an accelerated mode in order to be on time for the Universities Cup, which is held in St. Petersburg. It was a wonderful time. 
To this day, this sculpture remains one of my favorites!

However, I must make one clarification: the decorations were not carved from wood but using modelling fillers

[Hubac's Historian]

6 minutes ago, giampieroricci said:

However, I must make one clarification: the decorations were not carved from wood but using modelling fillers

This, to me, is even more impressive.  Doris, for example, makes this seem simple.  It is not at all.

[HAIIAPHNK]

18 hours ago, Hubac's Historian said:

The Ambiteaux and Fulminant were the product of the construction council’s desire to develop the ideal combination of firepower and maneuverability.  The big lumbering 100-gunners were necessary, but not ideal.

19 hours ago, malachy said:

Interesting that Le Fulminant had 'just' two tiers of lights at the stern while the similiar sized Le Foudroyant had three.

 

I wouldn't somehow particularly single out Fulminant and Ambiteaux from the rest of the lineup of ships. They had no particular revolutionary distinctiveness. It was not yet time in France to tightly control decoration so that it did not interfere with a ship's maneuverability and speed. Budrio wrote that many ships had to remove particularly heavy statuary after going to sea. Captains tried to make their ships something that could be fought and sailed on. And disputes between captains and artists were still fought such battles under the rug. These words were said generally about the whole state of the navy, and our two heroes of history were just like the rest of the ships. 
It says much for the fact that the second Ambiteaux was already built with alterations, the extra guns having been removed from it, because the first did not sail well at all.

And the difference in transom construction between Foudroyant and Fulminant is explained quite simply. There were no standards. Each ship was the product of an artist. The logic was: if you, as an artist, make all your ships the same, why should you get paid? If you can't come up with something new, then you're a bad designer. So they did something new every time. Something different from the rest of our colleagues. And so that you could find new things for yourself. That's all. The difference is only cosmetic. Nothing more.

[HAIIAPHNK]

2 hours ago, giampieroricci said:

However, I must make one clarification: the decorations were not carved from wood but using modelling fillers

 

Yes, it's clearly visible that the decor is made of molding rather than wood. It doesn't matter at all. The decor can be anything. It can be carved from wood, molded from plastic materials, or cast from metal. 
The value of the model lies in the craftsmanship. Your friend has captured the style very well. It's as if he lived in 17th century France and served as court painter to Louis. 
Tell me, does he have any other works? Maybe not even nautical. I would love to see the rest of his work. Sculpture, painting, drawing. If it's not a secret, of course.

[empathry]

Hello ; how fascinating is this original Fulminant's drawings 're-discovery' !

 

Does anybody here possesses the Magali Théron thesis (a copy) which name is " L'ornementation sculptée et peinte des vaisseaux du roi 1660 - 1792 " ... which, once translated means :

" King's vessels sculpted and painted ornaments, from 1660 to 1792 ".  As it is quoted 1792 while king Louis XVI lost his head on january 21 st, 1793... I suppose (logically) that non new vessel launching occurred during this cold month of january 1793, the reason of which Magali Théron's thesis stops year 1792 (lol) !   

 

... and answering HAIIAPHNK questionings about the upper part of the dome (are there possible argument 'pro' 3D for the upper part of the dome ?).  We have a set of three drawing which most important use is to get the King's approval (and signature) for the construction of a new vessel.  Maybe shouldn't we think as XXI th century modelist, trying to wring out the maximum information we can get from those drawings, but as XVII th century courtisans, which aim is to please the King and the King's eyes !  as Hubac's historian is clearly pointing out that there is no necessarily a strong coherence between the rear and the side drawings, the upper part of the dome should probably be flat (2D), notwithstanding the beautiful (and maybe only aesthetic) shades we may observe on the right part of the drawing. 

 

Moreover (and this is my personal argument), to believe that a real (large) window situated here would be a dangerous structural heresy for the hull of the vessel.  

 

Please note that for the mid-deck 2^nd battery, Ambitieux launched 1691 had thirty 18 pounder guns while Ambitieux launched 1692 (as Boudriot’s described it) had only 28.  I am then 'pro' thinking that there was an additional porthole at the 2^nd battery level. 

[Hubac's Historian]

This is my interpretation of the Trompe L’oeil amortisement:

 

[HAIIAPHNK]

12 minutes ago, Hubac's Historian said:

This is my interpretation of the Trompe L’oeil amortisement:

 

Wow! Is this all plastic? Am I wrong? I didn't know you could make something like this out of that material? It's not 3D printing, it's definitely handmade! Is this being built now? What's next? Is this going to be a diorama? I have so many questions...

[HAIIAPHNK]

1 hour ago, empathry said:

... and answering HAIIAPHNK questionings about the upper part of the dome (are there possible argument 'pro' 3D for the upper part of the dome ?).  We have a set of three drawing which most important use is to get the King's approval (and signature) for the construction of a new vessel.  Maybe shouldn't we think as XXI th century modelist, trying to wring out the maximum information we can get from those drawings, but as XVII th century courtisans, which aim is to please the King and the King's eyes !  as Hubac's historian is clearly pointing out that there is no necessarily a strong coherence between the rear and the side drawings, the upper part of the dome should probably be flat (2D), notwithstanding the beautiful (and maybe only aesthetic) shades we may observe on the right part of the drawing. 

 

Moreover (and this is my personal argument), to believe that a real (large) window situated here would be a dangerous structural heresy for the hull of the vessel.  

 

Please note that for the mid-deck 2^nd battery, Ambitieux launched 1691 had thirty 18 pounder guns while Ambitieux launched 1692 (as Boudriot’s described it) had only 28.  I am then 'pro' thinking that there was an additional porthole at the 2^nd battery level. 

 

Thank you. It's so good to have the opportunity to hear so many opinions. Mind you, I've written you all down. If anyone throws tomatoes at me later, I'll give you all away at once! I will say that I trusted the opinion of professionals. 
That's a joke, of course. Thank you for your help. Now I have one less mystery to worry about. And I need to come up with a new one, it's too boring without secrets and questions. 😄

P.S. Wow! I found emoticons! One more mystery less.... I'm going to bed or I'll lose another mystery.

 

 

[HAIIAPHNK]

2 hours ago, empathry said:

Does anybody here possesses the Magali Théron thesis (a copy) which name is " L'ornementation sculptée et peinte des vaisseaux du roi 1660 - 1792 " ... which, once translated means :

" King's vessels sculpted and painted ornaments, from 1660 to 1792 ".  As it is quoted 1792 while king Louis XVI lost his head on january 21 st, 1793... I suppose (logically) that non new vessel launching occurred during this cold month of january 1793, the reason of which Magali Théron's thesis stops year 1792 (lol) !   

 

About the thesis, I don't get it. Are you asking because you're looking for one, or do you have one? Have you read it? Is there anything useful in it that can be applied to building a Fulminant? 

[Hubac's Historian]

33 minutes ago, HAIIAPHNK said:

 

Wow! Is this all plastic? Am I wrong? I didn't know you could make something like this out of that material? It's not 3D printing, it's definitely handmade! Is this being built now? What's next? Is this going to be a diorama? I have so many questions...

This is my current project.  It is an extreme kit bash of the Heller Soleil Royal.  I have reconstructed the entire ornamental program from scratch, in styrene.  Yes, it will ultimately be a waterline diorama.

 

There are a few of us doing these transformation projects on the site.  This is the reason that your Fulminant project is so interesting to me.  I am very interested in broadening the scope of modeling subjects, by developing a better understanding of this less well documented period in French naval architecture.

[HAIIAPHNK]

11 hours ago, Hubac's Historian said:

This is my current project.  It is an extreme kit bash of the Heller Soleil Royal.  I have reconstructed the entire ornamental program from scratch, in styrene.  Yes, it will ultimately be a waterline diorama.

 

There are a few of us doing these transformation projects on the site.  This is the reason that your Fulminant project is so interesting to me.  I am very interested in broadening the scope of modeling subjects, by developing a better understanding of this less well documented period in French naval architecture.

 

Thank you. I'm very lucky. When you have people to share their experiences, it makes the job a lot easier.

[HAIIAPHNK]

Slowly moving on. Historical drawings need to be worked with. Since the basis of the ship is built on book drawings, it is necessary to take them into account. It will not be possible to simply increase to the necessary scale French grisaille and expect that they perfectly match. It would be naive to hope for this. Therefore, the next step is to modify and adjust the drawings so that they look harmoniously on the model.

Even a brief glance at the drawing is already enough to notice that the native sketch of the Fulminant is much wider than the one in the book. I roughly brought the sketch to scale and attached both versions side by side.

 

It's funny. When you look at the book version separately, it seems natural and pleasing to the eye. 
But when the wider drawing of the side galleries appears next to it, the impression of the bookish one changes. Now there is a feeling that the bookish interpretation is too flattened on the sides. As if it lacks air, like a person who has retracted his belly.

For the sake of interest, I attached the "Ambitious" sketch to the drawing in the same way. The original, historical version of Beren was significantly wider in this case as well. I wonder why Budrio flattened this design so much? Surely he had good reasons for such a move.

 

It is interesting to note that a comparison of the grisaille with the book shows that the two ships had different angles of the hull sickle. L'Ambiteaux is almost exactly the same in terms of the slope of the horizontal lines. I laid out check lines (in orange color) to make it easier to see. The Fulminant, on the other hand, has a different slope. You can see that on this sheet the orange lines are at different angles. I won't go into this subject, you can clearly see that from the very beginning of the projects the ships had to carry different amounts of armament, and this seems to be reflected in the construction of the 2 hulls.

I have to decide what to do with my interpretation though? Do I keep the width as fat as Beren's or follow in Budrio's footsteps?

If these sketches had seen the light of day when construction started, more research could have been done and changes could have been made to the hull design, to account for the difference in the sickle. But it's too late to do that now. My goal is to make a decoration that will look logical on the existing hull and please the eye. Correctness of inclinations from the engineering point of view concerns me much less.
But aesthetics is not the only issue here. I have already mentioned that the Fulminant had more cannons and they will have to be placed aft. And the wider I make the side galleries, the less room there is for the cannons. Yes, the difference in width is not 2 times, but it can still have an impact.

And here are some variants, which I got by rough deformations of galleries.

Well here are a few quick variations I got by roughly deforming the galleries.

This is the first stage. We leave the visible part of the sketch only what is needed at the moment and overlay it on the drawing. 
This is what the galleries look like without deformation.

 

And this is how you can see how much wider the sketch is compared to the drawing.

 

Adjusting the slope. In my opinion, this step is necessary. Although in the previous frame you can also find your logic. Then the line of balconies was not on the radian of the location of the cladding, and closer to the line of decks and artillery windows. I like the second option better.

 

The following variations. Here I tried to compare the compression ratio. 
It is more convenient to follow and compare variations when they are in view all at once.  

At this stage I do not pay much attention to accuracy. Compressing the drawing I deform it evenly, so the balcony is also compressed, which disappears completely. It is also necessary to bring manually the height of the balcony railing, now they are not where they need to be. This will all be the next step. Later, when I choose one of the options. I will bring it to the finished state.

I think I've explained everything that can be explained. Now for the final shot, where all the options are in a row.

A- Beren's variant without changes.
B- Beren's variant with a change in the slope of horizontal lines. The total width of the design is unchanged. 
C to D- three gradations of compression.

 

 

One point to keep in mind. In the last illustration I have taken the rest of the hull out of view. Which means that now you can't see how much room there is for the cannons in each compression ratio.

How does it look from the outside? Which option is more pleasing to the eye? Maybe I'm already missing something important in a day's work? I'm intentionally not declaring my opinion now, I'd like to hear an outside opinion.

[druxey]

Well, that was a good analysis, Alexandr. I'd vote for 'B'.

[Martes]

Because everywhere the galleries seem to be aligned to the run of the wales, I'd also vote for B.

[Hubac's Historian]

Simply correcting the sheer of the gallery to match that of the wales does a lot to remedy the problem.  I am marginally inclined to reduce their width just a little to option C.

[Mic_Nao]

The C is the best balanced ( for me... )

[empathry]

This is a remarkable work but I would anyway point out another important concern dealing with the slope (not the aesthetic but the naval engineer's point of view) : as the Fulminant is commonly said to be overgunned, if you have an additional porthole to pierce through the hull ... and which goes (in fine) through a lateral window of the gallery, it's height should be 100 % compatible with the one of the a.m. 2nd battery (mid deck) !  The slope of the Berain drawing is NOT an engineer naval plan but an aesthetic drawing which aim is (partially) bootlicking Louis XIV eyes !    

[HAIIAPHNK]

7 hours ago, druxey said:

Well, that was a good analysis, Alexandr. I'd vote for 'B'.

 

7 hours ago, Mic_Nao said:

The C is the best balanced ( for me... )

 

Thank you so much for your opinions. I really appreciate your participation.

 

7 hours ago, Martes said:

Because everywhere the galleries seem to be aligned to the run of the wales, I'd also vote for B.

 

7 hours ago, Hubac's Historian said:

Simply correcting the sheer of the gallery to match that of the wales does a lot to remedy the problem.  I am marginally inclined to reduce their width just a little to option C.

I just don't understand everything. Is it possible to repeat a little differently what this is about? The translator is telling me about the order in Wales or some rollers and I don't understand what is actually written.

And in the meantime, I'm going to ask this. I don't know how to properly translate the Russian terms of the whole hinged structure we're talking about now. In Russian it sounds like "shtultsy". Sometimes they say "shell" or "side gallery". 
And how will this structure sound in English? If I remember correctly, I think it should be called "Quarter gallery". But I'm not sure if it's the whole structure or just the lower part? What is the correct name?

[HAIIAPHNK]

2 hours ago, empathry said:

This is a remarkable work but I would anyway point out another important concern dealing with the slope (not the aesthetic but the naval engineer's point of view) : as the Fulminant is commonly said to be overgunned, if you have an additional porthole to pierce through the hull ... and which goes (in fine) through a lateral window of the gallery, it's height should be 100 % compatible with the one of the a.m. 2nd battery (mid deck) !  The slope of the Berain drawing is NOT an engineer naval plan but an aesthetic drawing which aim is (partially) bootlicking Louis XIV eyes !    

 

Would you like to suggest placing one of the additional guns in one of the gallery windows? Do I understand the translation correctly? 
Apparently, the question of the gallery view, whether to make changes to the original drawing of Beren is still impossible to solve without drawing the cannon portholes. Otherwise it could be a problem later. So I followed your advice and finalized the made schemes to the next stage. I combined several drawings and this is what I got. Now you can see not only the gallery but also where the decks run. Where the exit to the lower level of the side gallery is made is also visible. The green vertical lines are the vertical direction of the windows, which was on the Ambitious. And the most important thing is where I would place additional cannons. According to my calculations they should not get into the territory of the gallery. However, for this to happen, we need to make a compression. Here I have shown a medium degree of deformation (option C). If the gallery will be wider, there will be no space for cannon on the 2nd deck. You can see that the cannon porthole is very close to the gallery. I have seen models where there was such proximity. That's why I left it like that temporarily. I don't know how feasible it is, though, won't the cannon's own fire set fire to its own hull? That's the only thing that confuses me. And then I'll have to squeeze the gallery a little more.
In short, I've tried to show all the controversial places now. So that it is possible to find the most justified solution. 
If, of course, I understood your remark correctly.

 

 

It's very difficult to keep everything going at the same time. If we go from the opinion that Beren's drawing should be recreated as accurately as possible, it would affect that such a design would sit somewhat awkwardly (IMНO) on the hull from Ambitious. The grisaille shows how far away the nearest cannons are. And this does not fit with the general data. If we start from the figures and the already finished hull, it is not possible to leave the sketch in its original form. And here we have to decide how much we can shrink the design of the galleries so that they do not become ugly. A little more and I will feel Budrio to the end and understand why he deformed his sketch so much in his version.

[Martes]

wale = бархоут

 

And the structure is indeed called a quarter gallery.

 

I am not sure about the compression, though.

 

If this depiction is of any reference, it shows the quarter galleries to be very long, reaching the aftermost gunport on the lower deck, and it is consistent with the archive design.

[Hubac's Historian]

4 hours ago, HAIIAPHNK said:

 

 

Thank you so much for your opinions. I really appreciate your participation.

 

 

I just don't understand everything. Is it possible to repeat a little differently what this is about? The translator is telling me about the order in Wales or some rollers and I don't understand what is actually written.

And in the meantime, I'm going to ask this. I don't know how to properly translate the Russian terms of the whole hinged structure we're talking about now. In Russian it sounds like "shtultsy". Sometimes they say "shell" or "side gallery". 
And how will this structure sound in English? If I remember correctly, I think it should be called "Quarter gallery". But I'm not sure if it's the whole structure or just the lower part? What is the correct name?

In English, the wales are the double bands of thicker timber that follow the upward sheer of the ship, often crossing over the aft-most ports.  The French call these timbers the precients.

 

The “quarter galleries” encompass the entirety of the lightly framed side structures, which include the functional seats of ease - usually on the middle deck level, as well as the upper and lower finishing.

 

The French call these structures, bouteille for their resemblance to perfume bottles.

[Hubac's Historian]

Is is my understanding that the false windows of the quarter galleries were often removable panels concealing additional cannon ports.  I can only imagine, in that scenario, that the gunners were not overly concerned with the galleries catching fire.

[Chapman]

Hi!

 

Version B gives the correct distance between the gun ports and fits into the "fake window!

[HAIIAPHNK]

11 hours ago, Martes said:

wale = бархоут

 

And the structure is indeed called a quarter gallery.

 

9 hours ago, Hubac's Historian said:

In English, the wales are the double bands of thicker timber that follow the upward sheer of the ship, often crossing over the aft-most ports.  The French call these timbers the precients.

 

The “quarter galleries” encompass the entirety of the lightly framed side structures, which include the functional seats of ease - usually on the middle deck level, as well as the upper and lower finishing.

 

The French call these structures, bouteille for their resemblance to perfume bottles.

 

Thank you very much for the clarification. It all makes sense now. But I will gradually get used to the nautical terms in English. It is difficult, but I will try. Feel free to correct me if I use them incorrectly.

[HAIIAPHNK]

11 hours ago, Martes said:

If this depiction is of any reference, it shows the quarter galleries to be very long, reaching the aftermost gunport on the lower deck, and it is consistent with the archive design.

 

9 hours ago, Hubac's Historian said:

Is is my understanding that the false windows of the quarter galleries were often removable panels concealing additional cannon ports.  I can only imagine, in that scenario, that the gunners were not overly concerned with the galleries catching fire.

 

1 hour ago, Chapman said:

Version B gives the correct distance between the gun ports and fits into the "fake window!

 

Excellent and very important comments. Here we are, and we've stepped onto the road of the suspense detective. My response will take time, so I ask for a little patience. And I'm off to write. I'll be back soon, don't shoot yet. 🙂

 

[Theodosius]

I'm late to this party :-). But you ask for personal oppinion, not necessarily with any know-how, so version B pleased my eyes the most!