L'Orenoque Mamoli 1:100 scale

[JerryTodd]

Jerry!!! I knew someone would answer my plea to be stopped! Thank you! I guess I'll have to build the Royal Caroline at some point.

BTW - I'm about to be bitten by the scratch building bug - just between you and me and our shipmates - The Admiral recently gave me a bonus and I am about to pull the trigger on Blue Jacket's Kearsarge kit. That led me to look for plans. That led me to the National Archives which led me to the discovery of of the Civil War Kearsarge AND the predreadnought Kearsarge BB-5 with plans in 1/8 and 1/4 inch scales at the National Archives!!!! ALSO - when I was on the French plans website about a year ago I saw plans for a USS Missouri sidewheel frigate Also asked National Archives for those plans AND for the predreadnought USS Missouri BB-11!!! See, I was thinking to build the USS Susquehanna from scratch based on the plan set I bought of McCardle's model - But since Missouri is my adopted home state - you guessed it - 1/96 scale sidewheeler and predreadhought USS Missouri models!!!!

Yes. Lost my mind

Blessings.
Chuck

I love the archives, especially in person, where I get to see and handle those original documents.

I think building a ship that has some meaning to you is always a good choice; a relative served on it; ancestors came over on it; or just named for a place meaningful to you. I chose Constellation because I spent years working in Baltimore harbor, right next to her, and she was a part of my regular scenery. Pride of Baltimore I helped build, and later crewed on. As a Hornblower fan I wanted to build HMS Lydia, (a fictional boat) but had no clue what plan to base her on, so I went with Macedonian as I had access to drawings, and she served in both with Britain and the US Navy. I basically wanted a British frigate. I had planned to build another boat I worked on; Gazela Primeiro, but I've bitten off more than I can probably chew with the three I have already.
If Missouri touches your heart in some way, certainly, go for it!

 

[The Gavel]

I love the archives, especially in person, where I get to see and handle those original documents.

I think building a ship that has some meaning to you is always a good choice; a relative served on it; ancestors came over on it; or just named for a place meaningful to you. I chose Constellation because I spent years working in Baltimore harbor, right next to her, and she was a part of my regular scenery. Pride of Baltimore I helped build, and later crewed on. As a Hornblower fan I wanted to build HMS Lydia, (a fictional boat) but had no clue what plan to base her on, so I went with Macedonian as I had access to drawings, and she served in both with Britain and the US Navy. I basically wanted a British frigate. I had planned to build another boat I worked on; Gazela Primeiro, but I've bitten off more than I can probably chew with the three I have already.
If Missouri touches your heart in some way, certainly, go for it!

The Lydia! Love it! My attachments are not as significant as yours, Jerry. Although I have had HMS Surprise in the back of my mind for a long long time. I learned a whole lot from those books over the years (1996 - present) and many readings of each one (10 times through). I just think it will be really nifty to build the predecessors to the Big Mo!

Thank you for sharing - I looked at your Lydia/Macedonian WOW!

Blessings. Peace. Gratitude.
Chuck

 

[The Gavel]

What ho, shipmates!

A more or less final detour into my scratch building plans - My friends at the National Archives got back to me. Apparently, if the plans are digitized it's up to the interested person to download them and deal with scaling them. If the plans are not digitized, the interested person can visit the archives and ask, in person, that certain plans be digitized-while-you-wait. I'm looking forward to my trip to College Park, Maryland! And if I get impatient, apparently, one can hire an experienced researcher to do the in-person leg work

Here's my thinking. I want to build 1/96 scale models. So If I find the length of the hull and multiply that by .125 the result will be my hull length in inches - right? So all I have to do is invest a few $ at Kinkos making copies until the copy arrives that fits the above length result - right?

Final question - when an authoritative source gives the hull length - where on the hull is the line for the length - waterline? the longest horizontal distance - ?

For example the Sidewheel Steam Frigate Missouri info from Naval History and Heritage Command gives these specs: (Steam Frigate: displacement 3,220 tons; length 229'0"; beam 40'0"; draft 19'0"; complement 257; armament: 2 X-inch Paixhan guns, 8 VIII-inch Paixhan guns; class Mississippi)

229 feet long and 40 feet beam at 1/96 scale is 28.625 inches long and 5 inches wide (not including the sponsons).

Looking forward to your thoughts!

Blessings. Peace. Gratitude.
Chuck

 

[JerryTodd]

What ho, shipmates!

A more or less final detour into my scratch building plans - My friends at the National Archives got back to me. Apparently, if the plans are digitized it's up to the interested person to download them and deal with scaling them. If the plans are not digitized, the interested person can visit the archives and ask, in person, that certain plans be digitized-while-you-wait. I'm looking forward to my trip to College Park, Maryland! And if I get impatient, apparently, one can hire an experienced researcher to do the in-person leg work

Here's my thinking. I want to build 1/96 scale models. So If I find the length of the hull and multiply that by .125 the result will be my hull length in inches - right? So all I have to do is invest a few $ at Kinkos making copies until the copy arrives that fits the above length result - right?

Final question - when an authoritative source gives the hull length - where on the hull is the line for the length - waterline? the longest horizontal distance - ?

For example the Sidewheel Steam Frigate Missouri info from Naval History and Heritage Command gives these specs: (Steam Frigate: displacement 3,220 tons; length 229'0"; beam 40'0"; draft 19'0"; complement 257; armament: 2 X-inch Paixhan guns, 8 VIII-inch Paixhan guns; class Mississippi)

229 feet long and 40 feet beam at 1/96 scale is 28.625 inches long and 5 inches wide (not including the sponsons).

Looking forward to your thoughts!

Blessings. Peace. Gratitude.
Chuck

The thing with "length" is, where are they measuring? Taff-rail to the figurehead's eyebrows? Between perpendiculars? On deck, and which deck, spar, gun?
It's best when there's a scale on the drawing, usually right under the keel. American drawings often have something like "1 inch equals 8 feet" which is worthless unless you have a copy you know to be 1:1 with the original. You have no way of knowing if a digital copy is true to the original drawing or not.
I have 3D models of the Mississippi's 10in pivots, and 8" shell-guns ready to print

 

[Namabiiru]

I was under the impression that the stated size of the hull was a measurement of the waterline in three dimensions as it follows the curve of the hull, as opposed to a 2-D straight line from stem to stern. Of course, I might be completely wrong about that

 

[Martin By Eye]

From my understanding it would appear to be upper (or main) deck length if registered with lloyds . you can see it is marked here on the upper design of Campbells Cutty plans.

 

[The Gavel]

What ho, shipmates!

Thanks for the input on "length." Namabiiru, I like Martin's answer better . I can see it either way - back then, I suppose a designer could take the measurements between the hull profiles at the waterline level and have the 3D length. (See lower right hand corner of the Cutty plan Martin posted.) Occam' razor is telling me that length of deck makes more sense because it is the simple answer.

Since all I got in response to my math questions was - and thank you all for that, I you too - I am proceeding from the conclusion that my math and logic are, if not correct, at least .

Been a super busy week - BIG PLANS for time in the shipyard starting at cock crow tomorrow

I hope you all have, are having, will have your best day ever!

Blessings. Peace. Gratitude.
Chuck

 

[Martin By Eye]

What ho, shipmates!

Thanks for the input on "length." Namabiiru, I like Martin's answer better . I can see it either way - back then, I suppose a designer could take the measurements between the hull profiles at the waterline level and have the 3D length. (See lower right hand corner of the Cutty plan Martin posted.) Occam' razor is telling me that length of deck makes more sense because it is the simple answer.

Since all I got in response to my math questions was - and thank you all for that, I you too - I am proceeding from the conclusion that my math and logic are, if not correct, at least .

Been a super busy week - BIG PLANS for time in the shipyard starting at cock crow tomorrow

I hope you all have, are having, will have your best day ever!

Blessings. Peace. Gratitude.
Chuck

You only get a for maths in imperial because i can no longer follow it! I was schooled in it but it changed over to metric when i was about seven and that seems a long time ago now !

 

[Roger Pellett]

There are several definitions of Length depending on the situation:

Length overall- just that, measured from the bow to the stern.

Length on Deck- Again, as the name implies the length of the main deck.

Length between perpendiculars- The length between the Forward and After Perpendiculars shown in the vessel’s lines drawing.

Register Length- Used in the calculation of the vessel’s tonnage; it’s internal cargo carrying volume.

Don’t know which of these the Naval Historical Center is using, but the last two are unlikely. Of the first two I thin that it’s length on deck. Of course in no case do these measurements include spars such as the bowsprit.

Roger

 

[The Gavel]

What ho, shipmates!

Thanks for the input on "length." Namabiiru, I like Martin's answer better . I can see it either way - back then, I suppose a designer could take the measurements between the hull profiles at the waterline level and have the 3D length. (See lower right hand corner of the Cutty plan Martin posted.) Occam' razor is telling me that length of deck makes more sense because it is the simple answer.

Since all I got in response to my math questions was - and thank you all for that, I you too - I am proceeding from the conclusion that my math and logic are, if not correct, at least .

Been a super busy week - BIG PLANS for time in the shipyard starting at cock crow tomorrow

I hope you all have, are having, will have your best day ever!

Blessings. Peace. Gratitude.
Chuck

 

[The Gavel]

What ho, shipmates!

Guess what!?! I'm making good progress . After spending about a month on the mast do-overs and overs, I've settled dowm to the minutia of getting the deck and hull ready for the iron work of installing the railings and ladders. Get it? "Iron work" Soldering iron work!

My Admiral doesn't always laugh at my jokes either.

So, what have I accomplished since we last spoke? I got all of the masts oiled and painted, the fighting tops with back railings made and attached. I am very pleased with the warm wood contrast with black. The mast hoops are done and awaiting the permanent installation of the masts. I still need to apply the woulding to the lower masts - a step that I will take just before planting the sticks. I also installed the cap rail so the hull is taking on a finished look. I just this morning made the catheads. Since I am planning to install two anchors per side, I am contemplating a second cat head per side. Like this:



Please let me know what you think.

I am making the channels now and will get to work on the pin rails etc. Then I need to really think about the numbers and locations of eyebolts on the deck and rails - make then and install them. THEN I can get busy with the iron work!!! So much excitement I can barely stand it

I promise you pictures later today!

Blessings. Peace. Gratitude.
Chuck

P.S. The admiral says I can put HMS Warrior in the greatroom when she's done! That will save a lot of space in the Shangri-a Shipyard

 

[BradNSW]

Awesome you have permission to display her in the greatroom!

No expertise on the cathead/anchor issue. I would assume one cathead was the norm. The second (backup) anchor would be tightly secured.

IF the main anchor was lost or not holding, the second could easily be tied into the cathead and lowered. I think recovery could also be done sequentially, with only one cathead.

If your research finds any documentation on two catheads, would love to see it.

Thanks for the update but looking forward to the pictures you promised!

 

[GrantTyler]

iron work of installing the railings and ladders. Get it? "Iron work" Soldering iron work!

…..sorry Chuck I’m not “getting” this…. .

I promise you pictures later today!

Pics, I want pics….
Cheers Grant

 

[The Gavel]

If your research finds any documentation on two catheads, would love to see it.

Brad! Well, the idea of double catheads is from Wolfram zu Mondfeld's Historic Ship Models - that's the image I posted. zu Mondfeld writes that it was a "thing" in the 19th Century. I had also seen it as I was thinking about double catheads for Harriet Lane. Plans for the USS Mississippi show her wearing double catheads.

In any event, the deed is done and I love the double catheads on L'Orenoque

Pics soon - promise!​