Le Fleuron 1729 - 64 Gun Ship PoB Scratch Build in 1:48 - (Ancre Monograph-J. Boudriot/G. Delacroix)

Ok yes. I’ll have to look at his latest methods. He sells the shells too if I remember right. I feel once CNC is involved it’s moved out of modeling and into production. All well and good I guess. It does move things from hobbyist artist to doing it as a business. I know though that many Ukrainian and Russian modelers build to sell and their work is second to none.
 
Good discussion guys.

Nigel, I understand. Here's what I thought I'd do. I've compared the plates of the fore, mid and aft transverse sections of the ship plans and verified them with the same in Jean Boudriot's 74 Gun Ship volume. They are consistent. I would expect so as they are authored by the same person. :) But I like to check. I will next confirm the same diagrams to their specific frames' plan.

After that, I'll compare dimensions from the plan at each deck level, at each of the 3 bulkhead/frames. Ideally, they would be off a consistent %, but I think that is just me being very optimistic. If they are not, I will need to make it so.

Below shows the points of measurement (deck clamps) on the mid and aft transverse sections.
Transverse Diag.jpg

My first thought to adding thickness to the inner hull is to increase the thickness of the inner planking by the requirement. The tricky part for me is to understand how treat the deck clamps. Normally they would be affixed to the frames (or the shell). I would either have to attach them to the inner planks (quickwork), or install the inner planking and then the thicker deck clamps above the planking.

Inner Planking Fix.jpg

This fix would only be needed for the top 2 decks as a false deck will be used for the 1st gun deck. I'm measuring the 1st deck as well just out of curiosity and being thorough.

I would like to keep things as simple as I can so I would go for the example on the left . Also, I am thinking of following your way of piercing the shell with the deck beams to add more strength.

To further check this approach, after I measured and cut my planking at the specific deck and frame, I would dry fit them on port and starboard and then measure the inner distance port wall to starboard inner wall. Then validate against the same on the plans.

What are your thoughts on this approach? Do you have an alternate approach?
,
Oh, one last point. When I look at the thickness of the shell in the general area of the top deck amidship, vs. the same area on the plan, it does not look terribly different. I have my fingers crossed, but won't be able to measure until tomorrow.

Thanks for following and for the "likes" and most important your input.

Till next time...
Cheers.
 
tonphil1960 said:
Ok yes. I’ll have to look at his latest methods. He sells the shells too if I remember right. I feel once CNC is involved it’s moved out of modeling and into production. All well and good I guess. It does move things from hobbyist artist to doing it as a business. I know though that many Ukrainian and Russian modelers build to sell and their work is second to none.
Click to expand...

It is Dimitry Shevelev that sells " shells" and he uses a technique similar to Dr Mike's.I remember a few years ago a shell for a 1/72 French 74 was the equivalent of about $600.Pretty reasonable given the work he puts in.

Alexey builds models to commission and also offers cast fittings.

This was the situation pre conflict.
 
I've sent a couple of emails over the last few months to Alexey's sight inquiring to products/service. To date, I've not received a response.
 
Hoss6262 said:
Good discussion guys.

Nigel, I understand. Here's what I thought I'd do. I've compared the plates of the fore, mid and aft transverse sections of the ship plans and verified them with the same in Jean Boudriot's 74 Gun Ship volume. They are consistent. I would expect so as they are authored by the same person. :) But I like to check. I will next confirm the same diagrams to their specific frames' plan.

After that, I'll compare dimensions from the plan at each deck level, at each of the 3 bulkhead/frames. Ideally, they would be off a consistent %, but I think that is just me being very optimistic. If they are not, I will need to make it so.

Below shows the points of measurement (deck clamps) on the mid and aft transverse sections.
View attachment 327730

My first thought to adding thickness to the inner hull is to increase the thickness of the inner planking by the requirement. The tricky part for me is to understand how treat the deck clamps. Normally they would be affixed to the frames (or the shell). I would either have to attach them to the inner planks (quickwork), or install the inner planking and then the thicker deck clamps above the planking.

View attachment 327732

This fix would only be needed for the top 2 decks as a false deck will be used for the 1st gun deck. I'm measuring the 1st deck as well just out of curiosity and being thorough.

I would like to keep things as simple as I can so I would go for the example on the left . Also, I am thinking of following your way of piercing the shell with the deck beams to add more strength.

To further check this approach, after I measured and cut my planking at the specific deck and frame, I would dry fit them on port and starboard and then measure the inner distance port wall to starboard inner wall. Then validate against the same on the plans.

What are your thoughts on this approach? Do you have an alternate approach?
,
Oh, one last point. When I look at the thickness of the shell in the general area of the top deck amidship, vs. the same area on the plan, it does not look terribly different. I have my fingers crossed, but won't be able to measure until tomorrow.

Thanks for following and for the "likes" and most important your input.

Till next time...
Cheers.
Click to expand...

Hi Ken

Firstly, do you have any outside calibers,not veniers,for measuring the actual thickness? This will give you a better way of measuring shell thickness.

I think you need to decide if your shell is to replicate the framing and you will be using scale thickness lumber for the internal timber work?If so focus on building the shell to the required thickness and fair inside using strip then carry out internal work as per monograph.

If you want to use the internal timber work to build up any shortfall in thickness,I think you may have a lot of issues.The chances are you are going to have to "fade" the buildup of thickness in the hull.What I mean is the shell at the lower gundeck may require 2mm of material but topsides none.Doing this on planking that is to be covered with a final layer is a lot more forgiving.

The crux of the matter is in theory your bulkhead profiles should have been taken from the insides of the frames on the framing drawings not the lines plan.I was not aware you were wanting the correct thickness shell to match the framing thickness as the original when you started.

The beam installation is a personal preference thing.I will be adopting the piercing of the framing on Saint Philippe when I get to that stage.The ends will be covered by planking so it will not be visible inside or out.The dovetails that hold the deck beam to the clamp and stop the hull spreading are not seen after assembly.Keep in mind though if you plan on having the ends of the deck beams just sat on deck clamps you really need that dovetail as bonding area is limited.

Kind Regards

Nigel
 
Hoss6262 said:
I've sent a couple of emails over the last few months to Alexey's sight inquiring to products/service. To date, I've not received a response.
Click to expand...

He has put one or two posts on Facebook since the start of the conflict.He is based in Odessa so as far as I am aware has avoided the worst of the conflict to date but I would imagine his focus may be on other things
 
Thanks for the speedy reply Nigel. I do have calipers, but their jaws to measure externally are not long enough to reach far enough down the shell to get a measurement beyond the 1st deck. I will figure something out.

NMBROOK said:
I think you need to decide if your shell is to replicate the framing and you will be using scale thickness lumber for the internal timber work?If so focus on building the shell to the required thickness and fair inside using strip then carry out internal work as per monograph.
Click to expand...
Ok, yes. The exterior of the shell is currently meets the same as the external measurements of the frames in the plan. When you say "using strip", what do you mean exactly? Use wood strips and plank first, sand and then continue with deck clamps and inner planking? I want to make sure I understand....thanks.

NMBROOK said:
The crux of the matter is in theory your bulkhead profiles should have been taken from the insides of the frames on the framing drawings not the lines plan.I was not aware you were wanting the correct thickness shell to match the framing thickness as the original when you started.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is a very good point. While I did use the frame drawings and not the line drawings, I reduced the 16 frame drawings by a %. It was not the % where the outside of the reduced frame drawing equaled the inside diameter of the frame. I am thinking if I had used the inside of the frame as a starting point, I still would have had to fair the shell as the frames themselves are faired from bottom to top, yes? But, yes this method would have replicated the frames in the shell.

Thanks for your input. It's very helpful.

Cheers.
 
Ken I said strip rather than planks otherwise this starts getting confusingROTFI mean to build the inside of the shell up with rough planking and then fair.Then add spirketing quick work and deck clamps identical to the drawing thickness.

If you had used the INSIDE profile of the frames and made your bulkheads exactly to those then the inside of your hull would be perfect form i.e it would match the insides of the frames as per monograph.You would have to layer up the hull as you have done but with more layers so you can can sand back to produce the correct outside profile.OR reduce planking thickness as you work up the side of the hull to allow for the narrowing of the frames reducing sanding.

Yes you would have had to fair your bulkheads as in any other build.Which line you work to on the frame section and which side of the line on the keel you put the bulkheads ( always Farside of frame face on the keel relative to deadflat ) is critical to allow for fairing(bevelling)

Kind Regards

Nigel
 
Hi Heinrich,

Hope you are well. I will cite my mantra of "spurts and sputters". The Flower's shell was indeed a series of spurts, due mostly to my good understanding of what needed to be done. I've made progress in plotting many of the key structural points, when life got in the way of progress.

A couple of family "life events", of the sad kind has called me to the front lines to support. I just got back home this last Sunday. I hope to get back to working on my girl shortly.

I need to catch up on everyone else's builds as well, including yours.

Hope to share some progress soon.
 
Not good news about the family occurrences, but I am glad to hear that you will be back behind the bench soon.
 
Wow, I am truly humbled by everyone's support. Thank you very much. SoS is so much more than a site of model ship builders. It is a forum of friends, (FoF)!!! It makes me feel safe in sharing some of my personal challenges. My Mom passed two months ago. My time, along with that of my brothers and sisters was taken up managing/resolving her estate.

Two weeks after that, my Dad, who is 89 was diagnosed with 3 aortic aneurisms. One of which is very large and the medical recommendation was to perform a stint procedure. Once again, 6 of his 8 kids met to visit him at his home to discuss the different aspects of it all. Literally, days after we all arrived back at our homes, his wife, 80 performed an in-home Cologuard test which came back positive for colon cancer.

I'm sharing this with everyone as your support makes me feel like I'm not alone. A large family really helps, but a family outside the family is equally comforting. Thank you again.

There is a high probability that I, along with some of my siblings will need to travel to SC again to help, when called. We all understand these things are all part of life's journey. I expect there will be more Le Fleuron "sputters" on the horizon.

All of these recent things made one thing very obvious to me. Building model ships is not just a problem solving exercise that keeps my mind sharp. But, more importantly, it is therapy for me, something that was never more clear than it is now.

Thank you again, EVERYONE. You guys are special!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top