SAINT PHILIPPE 1693 in 1/64 PoB by Iterum

Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Messages
171
Points
143

Location
Berlin/Germany
Hello friends of the baroque ship.

As I am starting the build of SAINT PHILIPPE in 1/64 let's do it in an proper way - click for music:
March de Triomphe

SP was launched in 1693 as replacement for the fire assisinated SAINT PHILIPPE of 1669 burnt down by the British after beaching the damaged hull.
SP fought her only sea battle at Malaga 1704 and there are three paintings I do know from what only one shows a abbreviation of her:

Screenshot_20200225_150705.jpg
The ship has got four gunports under the transom - but there does the similarity does find its end.

The other source we have got are lines and former plans
IMG_20190101_222825.thumb.jpg.1db83211be98a9c26a1ee0f246bcc427.jpg
and a decorations drawing from the Toulon ship yard:
le-saint-philippe-1693.jpg
IMG_20190331_155707.thumb.jpg.83b26db4cc190ac418de3f35322ecd02.jpg
There are several differences to the Lemineur reconstruction published by Ancre - we will discuss these later on.

IMG_20190102_061028.thumb.png.0450332e15bef9bf4326e86d040e8510.png

Here we can see the four instead of two gunports for the 36polounders under the transom and a pair of 24pounders integrated into the transom - nearly comoflaged in the structure.


I am very doubtful to this setting as in my opinion the recoil of the 24pfd gun is to much for
1566139572935348434692.thumb.jpg.f311d70ca1e456e1385e1d2b002177db.jpg
IMG-20190818-WA0007.thumb.jpeg.c62236c8f0446e5708fee91792c9a813.jpeg

the slim timbers already holding the mass of decorational carvings and glass and balconies and columns. But as I told I will go deeper into this matter later on.

In a first step there are serious alternation between the plan of the transom balkonies and the Ancre solution (here shown in a scetch a cut along the center line) :

1555499041352-1064020613.thumb.jpg.1c078fd10748e8c0234ab1c5b6d5043d.jpg
This maybe right due to some rebuilds done after the original pair of Toulon drawings

IMG_20190803_144714.png.effe619c6f27714102fa668a83d7b6df.png
This painting shall show SP, twoo - but with one floor and row of windows less.

Even at Rif Winfield important book FRENCH WARSHIPS IN THE AGR OF SAIL 1626-1786 we do not get any proper answers to those questions.

51aOvkiBepL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
And this contemporary painting of the battle of Malaga is a kind of bad if not dirty joke:

Screenshot_20200225_152003.jpg
So there are a lot if doubts due to the transom's reconstruction. I my point of view Ancre pressed the reconstruction into a 90 barrels on carriages wearing hull - let's call them "counting guns"
DpE95EYX4AA6Emh.jpg
not thinking about the swivel guns that may be in charge, too. But I am not in the situation to handle this case properly at the moment.

So what did I do yesterday? I paid nearly the price for the monograph again spent into ink plotter print outs in 1/64. And I have to admit that some of the plates are wrongly named due to the scale! (Keep this in mind when resize your plans!)

So the resulting hull is a beast of a ship still 1/4 smaller than the original plan - she will be fully rigged nearly four French feet long.
IMG-20200224-WA0021.jpeg
And is a beauty also as a hull model:
IMG-20200224-WA0019.jpeg

Here compared to the Heller hull I do transfer from SOLEIL ROYAL to SP:

IMG-20200224-WA0024.jpeg

Changing the scale to 1/92 so the hull fits better.

But st the very end the model will be a fully rigged one:

image.png.ddf938c63b514a093cdbe365ac687397.png

Myfirst step is to build a cardboardmodel for the first impression of the size and to get a feeling for the hill's shape. Let us call it a rough 3D-scretch to play with in the flat due to find a place for the proper model. So tomorrow I will reenter the Copyshop with the needed plans to get my working copies and cutout paper to be glued on the cardboards.

Hopefully you like this limited project as I will build it PoB due to my workshops limitations.

Thanks for your interest.
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Messages
171
Points
143

Location
Berlin/Germany
Thanks a lot zoly - as with our 1/48 project we do find errors so the progress will be quite slwoly as it is bound to the 1/92 plastic bashing of Heller's SOLEIL ROYAL and the first is a cardboard test build. So please do not expect too much from me) as I am also with only one eye that does not work very well.)

Let's hide this in the wise sent nce:
Patience and precision is the model builders best friend
 

NMBROOK

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
1,424
Points
483

Location
Yorkshire England
Fabulous!There were no online builds of this magnificent ship anywhere,now we have three on SOS:):):):)Brilliant stuff,I look forward to following your work and I am interested in your chosen direction as to the stern.

Kind Regards

Nigel
 

Uwek

Administrative
Staff member
Administrative
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Messages
12,363
Points
928

Location
Vienna, Austria
Great Great Great
I am so glad you decided to start this log and I am very happy that you show us and share with us also your thoughts and research work.
I will follow your log (and everything else) with big interest.
For everybody interested in the basic planset iterum is using - here you can find the planset review:

and when it is allowed I show here a photo of the stern built by Michel Magerotte you showed already with a slightly better angle where you can recognize the 4 gunports better
IMG_02721.JPG
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Messages
171
Points
143

Location
Berlin/Germany
Hello and thanks for your interest...
Single Malt or Beer, guys... Or Coca???

I am on my way back from the local copyshop payed 290 bucks in the last three days for large format ink copies spending four hours in there?!

So I'll this evening cut out my bulkhead paper copies - adding the CWL and the decks and name them.

IMG-20200226-WA0004.jpeg
8" or 200mms ruler for the metric guys .

So there will be little to see today.

IMG-20200226-WA0006.jpeg
The Keel is 9/32" or 7mms of breadth.

Best wishes from Berlin,

Heinrich
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Messages
171
Points
143

Location
Berlin/Germany
As I told you not really very much happened today, I just decorated the 1/64 printout in the living room:Polish_20200226_222945313.jpg

And then I started to set the CWL/L. . in every bulkheads print out and didn't find my two big triangle rulers so I only managed to draw the L. F. in an acceptable quality on the main bulkhead - M. G. M.:

Polish_20200226_223021749.jpg

This from
here
now
& me

Good night all together,
Heinrich

____
And greetings to all the moose over the world from above the SP !
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Messages
171
Points
143

Location
Berlin/Germany
I have seen the Russian videos about hull constrution and symetytests and are following this path throu out the next days. Here my first pair of compasses test to symmetry for the Ar-bulkheads:
IMG-20200227-WA0045.jpeg

If the line meets the crossing twice exactly on starboard
IMG-20200227-WA0042.jpeg

AND portside
IMG-20200227-WA0041.jpeg

than my copy is exactly right done...

"Constructing is always and in anyway much more exactly than measuring."

And by this I pointed out the line of I Ar.
by a yellow aquarell pencil and was able to lay the L.F.

Let's proof the concept:

IMG-20200227-WA0047.jpeg
Starboard hits the LF-line

IMG-20200227-WA0049.jpeg
at portside, too - so the big question is if it is rectangular to the CL?
IMG-20200227-WA0050.jpeg

YES!
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Messages
171
Points
143

Location
Berlin/Germany
Wow... I cannot imagine it... But am coming to an end if drawing L.F./CWLs for today. I am really through it! o_Oo_O

I managed to set all the L.F. lines horizontally and had proven the plan copy to ve symmetrical:

IMG-20200227-WA0058.jpeg

So at starboard the line meets not 100% exactly but in a tolerable way of being exactly in less than 1/10 of a millimeter:
IMG-20200227-WA0056.jpeg

And on the port side it does work much better:
IMG-20200227-WA0057.jpeg

So I added the L.F. to every Av. bulkhead and IMG-20200227-WA0065.jpeg
just got in trouble with the naming of the forecasted former's lines - as the "mix up" and seperate again - but what line belongs to what former? :eek::eek::eek:

I am not absolutely sure I have done it right. So I have to recheck that on tomorrow. Has any of my other SP-building colleagues some helpful hint to me?

Thanks for your interest.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Messages
171
Points
143

Location
Berlin/Germany
Okay let's figure out real errors:
I layed at LF of
Plate1 the lower half of Plate 2 on it at MGM as the very good fixing piont.

And ony VI Av. does fit at all!!!
IMG-20200228-WA0026.jpeg

IV.Ar and V. Ar. Does fail 1/10mm - the very rest is catastrophic!
IMG-20200228-WA0033.jpeg

COL is shifted 4mm towards the STEM!
IMG-20200228-WA0035.jpeg

Even the complete STEM is dis-placed:
IMG-20200228-WA0028.jpeg
So What can I do about this mess?o_O

My logical idea was to cut out the water lines some 10mm deep and place them between the bulkheads to preform a good shape of the hull and to get the bulkheads fixed not only by softwood to be planned into shape. So instead it should show a twin effect :
The right distance is kept and the shape of the hull at this certain area of the hull should be given by the same pice of wood.
Is this not possible as with cardboard models (where I have stolen my idea from)?


So what can I do?
 
Last edited:

NMBROOK

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
1,424
Points
483

Location
Yorkshire England
Heinrich,I cannot really pass comment as to the discrepancies you have found.I haven't even looked at the "waterlines" plan sheet.I have used the sections of each frame and the framing plan sheet number 15.Are the drawings incorrect or is it an error with the copying?

When I was trying to understand how JCL had drawn the hawse timbers I had massive head scratching for a few days.It became apparent that the plan was taken parallel to the keel not the waterline.The keel slopes but the frames are plumb when in the water.I would have thought it would be parallel to LF but is wasn't.This made a big difference to where things worked out.

Kind Regards

Nigel
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Messages
171
Points
143

Location
Berlin/Germany
Best given music to this post


Yes Nigel that is totally clear due to the bent L.F. in the formers drawing.
The Bulkheads are rectangular towards the CWL not the keel - here the MGM frame MGM (orange) against the L.F. (blue):
Polish_20200228_200908430.jpg

And let's double check the former Ar.V and the keel:
IMG-20200228-WA0063.jpeg

Where we get an angle of 1°:
IMG-20200228-WA0067.jpeg


But at an top projection from ahead of the deck - the former's lines will be drawn in the L. F. or under the keel. But I am in the project of checking the deck plans plate 25 to plate31 and the difference seems to appeare between decks and furnitured decks o_O...

It is not the very end of the diagnosing but my first idea of horror.

Is it dossible the Lamoneur changed the layer between in L. F. and parallel to keel?

At COL we do get this:IMG-20200228-WA0070.jpeg
If the change the basis from rectangular to the L.F. towards rectengular to the keel er get a 2,xy mm distance - when our pivot axle is on COL. It we pivot around the point L.F./M.G.M. the way of shifting will be much more.
So our poisoned question is what is the projections basis the lines are rectangular to?

If this changes from drawing to drawing get proofed reality it is a pure horrific nightmare.

Depressed,
Heinrich
_____________
Geometric discussion in English - no English teacher ever prepared me to this...
 
Last edited:

NMBROOK

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
1,424
Points
483

Location
Yorkshire England
Heinrich I don't know.I am very wary of any drawings that are possibly derived from CAD.I have many experiences in my day job with so called "true Views" which are not that.Typically the CAD operator had clicked on two points for a datum for the projection but sometimes these are wrong.I had many a heated debate with the CAD operator that his drawing was wrong and an explanation from myself looking and pointing at the 3D model on the screen sorted the issue and a new view was produced.
Unfortunately this is not a possibility with these monographs,we can only try to relate to what information is shown.

Kind Regards

Nigel
 
Top