Question about possible incorrect dimensions of my frame construction for the Le Rochefort

[clogger]

Hi
I'm having a go at my first plank on frame model Le Rochefort 1/36 scale using Adrian Sorolla's guide book and Le Rochefort Monograph by Delacroix.
He calls for the dimensions of the frames to be 5.3mm thick. (I'm using cherry wood BTW).
Then once the frames are cut prior to gluing together and assembling, he advised running the frames through a table saw to acheive a standardised thickness.
I have found with my preparations I have some frame pieces only 4.9mm thick to 5.3mm thick. Is it going to be a big problem if I have standardize the frames all to 4.9mm thick? Obviously the only affect this would have would be the adjustment needed for the mortice cuts in the rising wood so as to acheive a good fit.
Otherwise I'm thinking I will have to start again and ensure my final frame thicknesses are 5.3mm.

 

[Uwek]

Hi
I'm having a go at my first plank on frame model Le Rochefort 1/36 scale using Adrian Sorolla's guide book and Le Rochefort Monograph by Delacroix.
He calls for the dimensions of the frames to be 5.3mm thick. (I'm using cherry wood BTW).
Then once the frames are cut prior to gluing together and assembling, he advised running the frames through a table saw to acheive a standardised thickness.
I have found with my preparations I have some frame pieces only 4.9mm thick to 5.3mm thick. Is it going to be a big problem if I have standardize the frames all to 4.9mm thick? Obviously the only affect this would have would be the adjustment needed for the mortice cuts in the rising wood so as to acheive a good fit.
Otherwise I'm thinking I will have to start again and ensure my final frame thicknesses are 5.3mm.

Hallo @clogger ,
just checked the information given in the monograph
Indeed Gérard is defining the width of the frames with 5,25mm (189mm) and with this also the defined spaces between the frames

I am not sure if he has this dimension directly from contemporary sources


The Rochefort is a very massive construction, so that the umplanked model will look like the model here made by Jean-Maurice Darville


I think, that if you correct and adjust everything accordingly (like you mentioned) it would be acceptable especially if it not every frame - but at the end it will be your decision......

 

[Gilles Korent]

The short answer is that, you can work around the difference by, as you said, adjusting the size of the mortises cut into the rising-wood.

This said, it will surely alter the spacing between frames when installed.

Your frames are double layer frames, so when the 2 layers are assembled to form one single frame, the difference between what is in the plans and what the total thickness of the frame on your model, will be 0.8mm (0.4mm on each layer or 0.4mm at both edges of the frame from the center line of that frame): total thickness of a frame on the plan = 10.6 versus 9.8 on your model.

As mentioned above, this will obviously have a repercussion on the size of the space between assembled or complete frames on the keel: spacing increased by a total of 0.8mm between each frame.

It will also have a very minor effect at the front and back of the ship but you can compensate in those areas to keep the distance between the forward edge of the first forward frame and stem rabbet as per the plan, and the aft edge of the last aft frame and the sternpost rabbet as per the plan: but this is nitpicking.
___________________________________________

The best is of course to try to follow the dimension indicated the monograph, but personally, I would consider a 0.4mm (or less) difference on each layer as minute. But then again, I work with hand tools only so my tolerance is slightly different. If you do not follow the text, measurements taken from the plans using a ruler are always going to be off by 0.1 to 0.3mm.

It is important to be as consistent as possible: eventually you will have to install some spacers between frames and consistency will make that step easier.

Always remember (make a note of) the compromises, compensations or adjustments you make, as differences will possibly affect other measurements you will need later.



G.

 

[clogger]

Wow, thanks for the prompt replies, and detailed answers to my problem! Really appreciate effort put in. I'm wondering still whether to persist with my errant dimensioned frames as apractice, and start again more carefully with a new round of 32 double frames.

 

[Uwek]

BTW: It would be a great step, if you could show us your work in a Building log - it will be interesting for us to see, and also in future we will be able to help and assist, when ever necessary and requested

 

[Gilles Korent]

Whether keep going or redo is a decision to be made by individual modelers: as long as any decision is carefully evaluated for future repercussions.
Everything is relative.

My personal opinion is as follows:
If there is one area in the construction of a model ship where one can afford such compromise, difference or adjustment in the thickness of a particular part, and compensation for such, it is the framing. Now if you were talking about a 0.4mm increase or decrease on a nail, guardrail, rope diameter, etc… that would be different.

It really depends on your tolerance for compromise.

Personally, I would prefer looking at a model which framing is irregular in sizing (I would even think that it is somewhat “historically accurate”) instead of oversize or undersized fittings, including thickness for timbers used in the construction of items such as a binnacle, watch-bench, blocks, guardrails, in the metal work such as nails, stanchions, rudder irons, etc… and the list could be quite lengthy.

Although you are building a scale model, some things can be compromised on, others should not.


G.

 

[Tony P]

How did you arrive at the materials needed for this ship ? I have the Sorolla book and Delecroix monograph, neither gives such info but I haven't really looked far. Thanks

 

[Uwek]

How did you arrive at the materials needed for this ship ? I have the Sorolla book and Delecroix monograph, neither gives such info but I haven't really looked far. Thanks

Usually in these monographs you will not find a materials list.
This is usually one of the research tasks for the modeler to list all the necessary wood dimensions during the study of the drawings

 

[Tony P]

Yes ok seems so thanks

 

[Uwek]

Hi
I'm having a go at my first plank on frame model Le Rochefort 1/36 scale using Adrian Sorolla's guide book and Le Rochefort Monograph by Delacroix.
He calls for the dimensions of the frames to be 5.3mm thick. (I'm using cherry wood BTW).
Then once the frames are cut prior to gluing together and assembling, he advised running the frames through a table saw to acheive a standardised thickness.
I have found with my preparations I have some frame pieces only 4.9mm thick to 5.3mm thick. Is it going to be a big problem if I have standardize the frames all to 4.9mm thick? Obviously the only affect this would have would be the adjustment needed for the mortice cuts in the rising wood so as to acheive a good fit.
Otherwise I'm thinking I will have to start again and ensure my final frame thicknesses are 5.3mm.

Hallo @clogger
we wish you all the BEST and a HAPPY BIRTHDAY

Did you finally solve the problem with the timber thickness of the frames?
Would be interesting to see your actual status of your project on the Rochefort....

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

after reading a lot of archaeological reports on ship wrecks i found the frames and the spaces between frames varies by as much as a few inches. Exact and consistent frames are a modeling thing and not how actual ship were built.
as an example

 

[Tony P]

Looking forward to seeing Rochefort builds indeed. Hoping it’ll be my second project after the Blandford section,