French war-ship Saint-Philippe 1693 - scale 1/72 - from Lemineur monograph [COMPLETED BUILD]

CRI-CRI said:
After verification with Jean-Claude Lemineur, author of Saint-Philippe's monograph, the ship has a rear inclined keel :

892488386_SaintPhilippeH.jpg.9558c574696f16f6508b0791532bda01.jpg


For exact construction, reproduce this angle pf 1.2 ° by a 1.2 cm part placed under fore keel, and install vertically all frames

For a closed hull construction, it's possible to ignore this particularity, because the difference is very small with 1.2 cm for one meter length, but, in such a case, it will be necessary to prepare a new draw of the horizontal keel, the result of general look could be even a little more "elegant"
Click to expand...

Bonjour,

I see that you talked with M. Lemineur... And I see that he confirmed that the frames are not perpendicular to keel but to the load waterline (L.F.). So the sections I-VI.Av and I-VIII.Ar are indeed not perpendicular to the keel, they should be perpendicular to the L.F. What did he say about sheet 2 and sheet 3? Sheet 2 - is it looking perpendicular to the keel or along frames? The same with sheet 3 - is it looking perpendicular to the keel or normal to the frames?

1.jpeg
 
After discussion, I did'nt keep the inclinated keel, the difference being without any real interest (less than 2 mm at top of frames at scale 1/72)
 
En français :

La différence au sommet d'un couple après pose horizontale de la quille est donnée par 1/cos de l'angle d'inclinaison

Or, au 1/72, la partie avant de la quille est plus haure de 12 mm par rapport à sa partie arrière, soit pour la quille d'un
mètre, une pente de 1.2 %, pour lequel mon calcul trigonométrique a donné en haut une différence inférieure à 2 mm

Inutile de préciser qu'une telle différence est absolument sans effet sur les formes de la carène (tangente de la courbe)

C'est pourquoi j'ai abandonné sans regret cette "fantaisie", comme aussi celle de la liure de beaupré sous la flottaison :)

In english :

The difference at the top of a frame after horizontal laying of the keel is given by 1/cos of the angle of inclination

However, at 1/72, the front part of the keel is 12 mm higher than its rear part, i.e. for the keel of a
meter, a slope of 1.2%, for which my trigonometric formula gave a difference of less than 2 mm at the top

Needless to say, such a difference has absolutely no effect about the shape of the hull (tangent of the curve)

This is why I abandoned this “fantasy” without regret, as that of the bowsprit gammoning sinking under waterline :)
 
Last edited:
CRI-CRI said:
En français :

La différence au sommet d'un couple après pose horizontale de la quille est donnée par 1/cos de l'angle d'inclinaison

Or, au 1/72, la partie avant de la quille est plus haure de 12 mm par rapport à sa partie arrière, soit pour la quille d'un
mètre, une pente de 1.2 %, pour lequel mon calcul trigonométrique a donné en haut une différence inférieure à 2 mm

Inutile de préciser qu'une telle différence est absolument sans effet sur les formes de la carène (tangente de la courbe)

C'est pourquoi j'ai abandonné sans regret cette "fantaisie", comme aussi celle de la liure de beaupré sous la flottaison :)

In english :

The difference at the top of a frame after horizontal laying of the keel is given by 1/cos of the angle of inclination

However, at 1/72, the front part of the keel is 12 mm higher than its rear part, i.e. for the keel of a
meter, a slope of 1.2%, for which my trigonometric formula gave a difference of less than 2 mm at the top

Needless to say, such a difference has absolutely no effect about the shape of the hull (tangent of the curve)

This is why I abandoned this “fantasy” without regret, as that of the bowsprit gammoning sinking under waterline :)
Click to expand...
Bien compris)) I think I will be doing the same - treat the plan2 as if it is looking vertically at the horizontal keel and treat sections on plan3 as if they are perpendicular to the keel. Otherwise it becomes over-difficult...
 
The front is already very rounded to support the considerable weight of the hull, I would not see the point of raising it from the waterline

This was the great problem of all these old ships, they tended to sag at the front (the weight of their heavy artillery), and at the rear (the proliferation of unuseful ornaments)

This is the reason why the Saint Philippe has no upper rear deck, and any gun on the upper rear deck and relativly few sculpted decorations

To compare with the other well known three decked Soleil Royal :)
 
CRI-CRI said:
This was the great problem of all these old ships, they tended to sag at the front (the weight of their heavy artillery), and at the rear (the proliferation of unuseful ornaments)
Click to expand...
Could this bending also have been caused by the position of the centre buoyancy?
 
CRI-CRI said:
This was the great problem of all these old ships, they tended to sag at the front (the weight of their heavy artillery), and at the rear (the proliferation of unuseful ornaments)
Click to expand...
I searched the internet for a bit. What I found is that when buoyancy and loading are not similarly distributed over the length of the ship, this may result in either sagging (too much weight on bow and/or stern) or hogging (too much weight in the middle of the ship. Obviously there is s a lot more to find on this topic, but that goes way over my pay grade and the capacity of my grey matter...
 
CRI-CRI said:
Are you in Saint Philippe built?

Where is you shipyard published?
Click to expand...
Morning Chris,

At the moment I find myself in the early stages of a scratch-build Fokker Spider, so no, I am not involved in a St Phillippe build.
Plus, even though I find the St Phillippe a magnificent ship, I probably lack the courage and the patience to commit myself to a build like the St Phillippe.

Johan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top