Le Saint Philippe 1693 after Jean-Claude Lemineur (Ancre) in scale 1:48

[GIG1810]

Hey Paul,

What a project!!! I am sooo curious and will be watching you. I wish I could do the same!!! Respect

Best regards

Günther

 

[Peter Voogt]

A thoughts to add to the discussion about the angle of the frames relative to the keel and/or waterline:
The advantage of all frames perpendicular to the waterline: all interior walls connected to the frames will also be straight.
In my opinion you are on the right track, Paul. However, given the position of the frames relative to the keel of 1.5 dgr and perpendicular to the waterline in my Balder, my opinion may be biased.
But 'stuurlast/steering load' is a factor that has a positive effect on the sailing characteristics of a ship.
Regards, Peter

 

[Eric L'Emaillet]

je travaille actuellement sur les plans de la Néréide, de JC Lemineur aussi. https://5500.forumactif.org/t4659-la-nereide-au-48e-par-eric-l-emaillet
Je rencontre les mêmes problèmes, dessins mal faits, ne respectant pas les règles habituelles du dessin de monographie, aucun commentaire des planches, manque de correspondance entre les différentes planches, etc.
cet auteur n'est pas une bonne publicité pour Ancre, qui a par ailleurs d'excellents auteurs. Mes difficultés ne viennent pas du fait que je sois débutant https://sites.google.com/view/modelismenavaldarsenal/accueil
bon courage pour le St Philippe.

I'm currently working on the plans for the Néréide, also by JC Lemineur. https://5500.forumactif.org/t4659-la-nereide-au-48e-par-eric-l-emailletI'm having the same problems: poorly done drawings that don't follow the usual rules for drawing in a monograph, no commentary on the plates, a lack of correspondence between the different plates, etc.This author isn't a good advertisement for Ancre, which also has excellent authors. My difficulties aren't due to the fact that I'm a beginner. https://sites.google.com/view/modelismenavaldarsenal/accueilGood luck with the St. Philippe.

 

[Steef66]

This is all about the ‘trim’ of a ship.
Here’s a interesting article: MaritimePage
The main conclusion:
The term “trim” refers to the fore-and-aft balance of a ship It is the difference between the draft forward and aft. When a vessel is properly trimmed, her stern sits lower in the water than her bow, which gives her more speed and maneuverability. The word “trim” can also be used to refer to the act of adjusting a ship’s ballast to achieve this ideal balance.

Maarten @Maarten also wrote about thatin post #15:
the draft on the rear is more than at the bow


As you already made a ramp of 1.2 dgr under you keel, the frames are not tilted …… Rotate that part of the drawings 1.2 dgr counterclockwise and they are standing correct …… in opposite of the waterline. It’s common to build the frame perpendiculair to the waterline and the constructor determines how much trim they want to give the ship/keel.
Regards, Peter

I completely agree with Peter here. If you built a 17 century Dutchman the keel was stacked on blocks (Yk/Witsen). Such that the keel tilted back a bit. If the frames were placed using a plumb line they were not perpendicular to the keel but to the waterline. With a Dutchman it could be even worse because there the keel hung through in the middle and that meant that the frames at the front were even at a different angle to the keel.

 

[dockattner]

A thoughts to add to the discussion about the angle of the frames relative to the keel and/or waterline:
The advantage of all frames perpendicular to the waterline: all interior walls connected to the frames will also be straight.
In my opinion you are on the right track, Paul. However, given the position of the frames relative to the keel of 1.5 dgr and perpendicular to the waterline in my Balder, my opinion may be biased.
But 'stuurlast/steering load' is a factor that has a positive effect on the sailing characteristics of a ship.
Regards, Peter

Thanks for continuing to think this through, Peter. I appreciate your contribution.

 

[dockattner]

je travaille actuellement sur les plans de la Néréide, de JC Lemineur aussi. https://5500.forumactif.org/t4659-la-nereide-au-48e-par-eric-l-emaillet
Je rencontre les mêmes problèmes, dessins mal faits, ne respectant pas les règles habituelles du dessin de monographie, aucun commentaire des planches, manque de correspondance entre les différentes planches, etc.
cet auteur n'est pas une bonne publicité pour Ancre, qui a par ailleurs d'excellents auteurs. Mes difficultés ne viennent pas du fait que je sois débutant https://sites.google.com/view/modelismenavaldarsenal/accueil
bon courage pour le St Philippe.

I'm currently working on the plans for the Néréide, also by JC Lemineur. https://5500.forumactif.org/t4659-la-nereide-au-48e-par-eric-l-emailletI'm having the same problems: poorly done drawings that don't follow the usual rules for drawing in a monograph, no commentary on the plates, a lack of correspondence between the different plates, etc.This author isn't a good advertisement for Ancre, which also has excellent authors. My difficulties aren't due to the fact that I'm a beginner. https://sites.google.com/view/modelismenavaldarsenal/accueilGood luck with the St. Philippe.

Greetings, Eric. I am familiar with your magnificent work. Indeed, you are not a beginner!

 

[dockattner]

I completely agree with Peter here. If you built a 17 century Dutchman the keel was stacked on blocks (Yk/Witsen). Such that the keel tilted back a bit. If the frames were placed using a plumb line they were not perpendicular to the keel but to the waterline. With a Dutchman it could be even worse because there the keel hung through in the middle and that meant that the frames at the front were even at a different angle to the keel.

Understood. Setting the frames is not the difficulty (Maarten and Nigel provided a very elegant solution). It is the uncertain perspective of the other 40 drawings that is creating difficulties.

 

[GrantTyler]

The only pictures are people with fish...

View attachment 534776 View attachment 534778 View attachment 534777 View attachment 534779

Our 'second official' 40th Anniversary trip comes in a month (Prague, Nuremberg, Danube River through Germany and Austria, finishing in Budapest).

I want Paul’s job…he is as always somewhere around the world on holiday…… . As for the “angle of the dangle “ I will leave that conversation to the experts.

Cool pics Paul.
Cheers Grant
PS I don’t really want Paul’s job as there would be a lot of people with screw teeth.

 

[RussF]

Something has been bugging me as I've followed along, Paul. Early on, you solved the issue of how to build the leaning frames by raising the forward end of the keel 1.2 deg., allowing you to place the frames at 90 deg. to your building board. Exactly what I would have done. However, and this just may be a trick of the eye or camera or perspective, in each photo you have posted that shows a broadside view, it appears that the frames are indeed leaning forward, even though the keel still looks elevated at the forward end. While things were still in the fixture, I thought it was the sloped top frame that gave the illusion that the frames were tilted, so I didn't say anything at the time.

Subsequent pictures have me wondering, though - you didn't by any chance elevate the keel AND tip the frames forward, forgetting that the keel was elevated?

 

[Steef66]

PS I don’t really want Paul’s job as there would be a lot of people with screw teeth.

You can start a living in the UK in that case, nobody will notice.

 

[dockattner]

Something has been bugging me as I've followed along, Paul. Early on, you solved the issue of how to build the leaning frames by raising the forward end of the keel 1.2 deg., allowing you to place the frames at 90 deg. to your building board. Exactly what I would have done. However, and this just may be a trick of the eye or camera or perspective, in each photo you have posted that shows a broadside view, it appears that the frames are indeed leaning forward, even though the keel still looks elevated at the forward end. While things were still in the fixture, I thought it was the sloped top frame that gave the illusion that the frames were tilted, so I didn't say anything at the time.

Subsequent pictures have me wondering, though - you didn't by any chance elevate the keel AND tip the frames forward, forgetting that the keel was elevated?

Nope. The forward keel was elevated and I used a perfect perpendicular to the base to install the frames. It may just be something in the way I took the photos - or maybe the forward keel wasn't pushed all the way down to the board while taking pictures (it has a robust friction fit between the guides rails). But I do appreciate you sharing your concern! I'm certainly capable of messing this up!

 

[Maarten]

Understood. Setting the frames is not the difficulty (Maarten and Nigel provided a very elegant solution). It is the uncertain perspective of the other 40 drawings that is creating difficulties.

Hi Paul, if you need an extra pair of eyes I do have these drawings and the monograph. Just let me know.

 

[serikoff]

Unfortunately, all the drawings are just sketches... the only thing that can give a complete picture is 3D, but there are few such models and working on them takes a huge amount of time and effort, and those who did this are naturally right to ask for monetary compensation for this. Otherwise - suffer with "drawings"