| |
Warning: The below may well include a little more analysis than is really
needed...
The Canoe Myth of .pirates
Background
I’ve just completed an enjoyable few hours building my 10021 USS Constellation.
For a 1978 set, the original set contained quite a few relatively new pieces -
1x6, 1x4 and 1x3 plates for instance. I mounted the window replacement headlight
bricks backward, which seems to give a better effect than the ‘correct’ way -
and truer to the look of the original 1x1x1 windows. I’m a big fan of headlight
bricks, so the replacement doesn’t concern me particularly.
The Constellation is a great model. The gun deck guns enjoy the same spacing as
the guns on my minifig scale ships (two studs), although my ships use minifig
scale cannons. Clearly a four stud spacing would truer to scale, as well as
being more ergonomic for the crews.
So I thought about scaling the Constellation up. I knew - or at least I thought
I knew - I couldn’t go longer with standard wide hull sections than the
Misérable (6 sections) without getting the dread canoe effect, so a scaled up
Constellation hull would give me the size, but without the hassle of building a
compound curved SNOT hull. Easy.
But then I took some measurements...
The Accepted Canoe Warning .pirates.
The casual reader of .pirates has probably seen warnings about canoe building:
- From Bruce Schlickbernd on the Armada Flagship: “You can add another center section, but beyond that it starts to look like a canoe.”
- From Richard Parsons on big hulls: “At 16 studs, going beyond 4 midsections makes the ship seem too narrow (more like a canoe than a ship).”
- From Matt Morgan on the benefits of cutting hull parts (which was strangely never backed up with pics...): “I have made a few ships with 6 mid-sections they always looked like a canoe”
- From Steve Bliss on the building of a two decker: “It looks too much like a big canoe currently.”
- And from me in .loc.au about extending the Armada Flagship: “Beware building a canoe!”
And I’ve had several conversations as well as email correspondence with ship
builders about the canoeishness of long ships. When ships go beyond four hull
centre sections, they look like canoes. Accepted wisdom. My Misérable is six
centre sections and avoids the canoeish appearance because it extends beyond the
standard width with double rows of inverse 45° slopes on both sides. Accepted
wisdom, too. Of course I’d never checked the dimensions of a real frigate...
Getting the measure on the problem
As I was contemplating building a scaled up Constellation hull, doubling all
dimensions length would bring the hull to 100 studs, and the beam to 20 studs.
Sounds pretty good.
But then I glanced up at the Misérable sitting jealously with it’s topmasts
lowered on top of a nearby bookcase. A quick count confirmed my recollection
that the Mis hull was 77 studs long... So the scaled up Constellation would be
bigger.
All well so far. But the beam of the Misérable (theoretically running
dangerously close to the canoelike) is 20 studs: the same as a double sized
Constellation.
Surely, the USS Constellation is not canoelike? Well...
Vessel
| | Length
| | Beam
| | Length:Beam
|
| | LEGO USS Constellation
(Excl bow dec)
| | 56 studs
50 studs
| | 10 studs
| | 5.6:1
5:1
|
| | Real USS Constellation
| | 164 feet
| | 41 feet
| | 4:1
|
| | Real USS Constitution
| | 175 feet
| | 43.5 feet
| | 4.02:1
|
| | HMBrig Supply
| | 78 feet
| | 22 feet
| | 3.5:1
|
| | HMS Sirius
| | 110 feet
| | 32 feet
| | 3.4:1
|
| | HMS Victory
| | 226’6”
| | 52’6”
| | 4.3: 1
|
| | HMS Indefatiguable
| | 160 feet
| | 44 feet
| | 3.6:1
|
| | LEGO Black Seas Barracuda
(excl bow dec)
| | 65 studs
56 studs
| | 16 studs
| | 4.06:1
3.5:1
|
| | Misérable
(excl bow dec)
| | 85 studs
77 studs
| | 20 studs
| | 4.25:1
3.85:1
|
| | HMLS Intractable
(excl bow dec)
| | 55 studs
50 studs
| | 16 studs
| | 3.43:1
3.13:1
|
I’ve given alternate numbers which exclude bow decoration (that part of
the stem which extends beyond the hull proper). The BSB has a lot of aft
overhang to, but I didn’t exclude that... perhaps I should have.
I tried to track down some measurements for the HMS Agamemnon too, but
without success.
So the LEGO Constellation is the most canoelike of the above vessels - real
or LEGO, and yet it doesn’t look canoelike to me.... nor have I heard it
described as canoelike.
Conclusion
Looking at the ratio’s above, if you accept the LEGO Constellation is not too
canoelike, and use a 5:1 length to beam ratio, you could safely go to 6 (and
maybe even 7) sections using standard wide hull pieces.
Hull Type
| | Centres
at 3.5:1
| | Centres
at 4.0:1
| | Centres
at 4.25:1
| | Centres
at 4.5:1
| | Centres
at 5.0:1
|
| | Narrow
| | 2
| | 2.8
| | 3.1
| | 3.5
| | 4.3
|
| | Narrow w/row
of inv slopes
| | 2.9
| | 3.8
| | 4.2
| | 4.6
| | 5.5
|
| | Wide
| | 3.8
| | 4.8
| | 5.3
| | 5.8
| | 6.8
|
| | Wide w/row
of inv slopes
| | 4.6
| | 5.8
| | 6.3
| | 6.9
| | 8
|
| | Wide w/2 rows
of inv slopes
| | 5.5
| | 6.8
| | 7.4
| | 8
| | 9.3
|
Note that these numbers make no allowance for overhangs fore or
aft. Nevertheless, these are scary numbers compared to what is normally used.
Maybe the canoe myth arose when ship builders where laying out the hull
sections, and constructing the middle layers of the hull. Maybe it arose
because traditional LEGO Black Seas Barracuda designs were used (with no deck)
and the ‘see through to the keel’ effect reminded people of canoes.
I know I got nervous when I laid out the six centres for the Misérable and
saw how long it looked ... and seriously considered revising the design to five.
A dimension I haven’t explored here is the vertical, either the hull or the
rigging. Looking at the Misérable now, it looks a bit too tall in the hull
for it’s length, and maybe now I now the ratios, I’ll be brave and take the
next Misérable out to eight centre sections. ;-)
I do remain convinced though that the biggest obstacle to ship building is
the rigging. Masts aren’t too much of a problem, but keeping them stable is.
The existing long ratlines aren’t tall enough for the Misérable, so they’re
not going to be tall enough for anything bigger. I think the solution may be
either joining ratlines or coming up with strong enough tops which can be used
on mast pieces in lieu of the 6x6 with clips top plate.
I think the key to building bigger vessels is to experiment a bit instead of
following the accepted wisdom. A bare six section hull may look a bit
canoelike, but once the hull is properly completed (and a deck added!) it’s
likely to look properly ship shape!
So, let’s see some bigger ships!
I’ve kept this page as an FTX document which I’ll update for other information
and comments, and post a link to in due course.
Adieu
Richie Dulin
| | Port Brique
Somewhere in the South Pacifique
| | 
| | Misérable
Building a safer South Pacifique
|
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
Warning: The below may well include a little more analysis than is really
needed...
The Canoe Myth of .pirates
|
wow richie, this is quite an analysis! it has been awhile since i last posted,
but i just have to participate. you number analysis was quite in depth, and the
conclusions were interesting. lego’s hulls do lend themselves to be shaped like
a canoe when strung together, but i think it is not because of the number of
hull sections, but the lack of any type of progressive hull curvature along the
length of the ship. what i mean is, the beam was not the same at any one point
on the ship. as you walk down the side of a ship, you can see that the ship is
not bowed only at the bow and stern. if you look at a topdown cutaway of the
decks, they bow outward until about 1/3 of the length, then they straighten out,
then begin to bow inward again, but at a less extreme angle, where they finally
get to their narrowest at the stern. legos hull parts are perfectly straight.
only the bow and stern sections are bowed, or show any taper at all. now, this
works for smaller ships because the tapering sections are proportionally correct
for the ship, but when you string hull parts together, they just become more and
more straight, hence, the “canoe” look. now, as you said, if one builds the hull
up nicely, you can help to break the canoe look up, but at some point, it begins
to look like a double decked canoe! personally, i like to stick with ships with
4 center sections. i can build these ships large enough to get a respectible
number of guns on them, but they do not begin to look unwieldy. however, that is
just my opinion.
you made another interesting comment about the masts. i have a problem with the
lego masts: they are a fixed size (diameter). this sonds funny, but on large
ships, the masts that look just right on 4 center section ships, begin to look
thinner and thinner in relation to the size of the ship, so while one can go
high, one has more problems trying to make the masts appear beefy. as with all
lego, there must be more than one way to skin a cat, but i havent run across it
yet!
great discussion topic by the way, hopefully my 2 cents contributes!
thanks
steve
|
|
| |
> The Canoe Myth of .pirates
> ==========================
> So I thought about scaling the Constellation up. I knew - or at least I
> thought I knew - I couldn't go longer with standard wide hull sections than
> the Misérable (6 sections) without getting the dread canoe effect, so a
> scaled up Constellation hull would give me the size, but without the hassle
> of building a compound curved SNOT hull. Easy.
Hassle of... hey! That's me! ; )
I must admit, SNOTing a scale hull is a bit of a chore, though I'm trying to
develop new techniques to make it more efficient.
*Trying*.
> ~ Real USS Constellation
> ~ 164 feet
> ~ 41 feet
> ~ 4:1
>
> ~ Real USS Constitution
> ~ 175 feet
> ~ 43.5 feet
> ~ 4.02:1
>
> ~ HMS Victory
> ~ 226'6"
> ~ 52'6"
> ~ 4.3: 1
>
> ~ HMS Indefatiguable
> ~ 160 feet
> ~ 44 feet
> ~ 3.6:1
Okay, here's where my obsessive reading of Brian Lavery et. al. pays off. These
numbers are all rather misleading -- if they're what I think they are, they're
all *molded*. Under the British method of measuring a man o' war, measurements
of length are taken along the gun deck only, and width as well. They don't
account for the tumble home (that lovely, incredibly tough to replicate bulge
along each ship's waterline). Most ships were probably a couple of feet wider in
reality than on spec -- even Frigates...
Though I ought to note too that the frigates you've got listed here are, if
memory serves, razees of one form or another. The Indie was a cut down 64, and
I'm pretty sure both these american frigates were finished on keels laid for 74s
(but never finished). Hence their great success -- the average British frigate
of the period (say and 18-pounder 36) comes in probably at about 150 feet long
on the gundeck. The beam too would then be narrower...
So what the deuce am I trying to say? I think part of the problem with Lego
hulls is that they're shaped the wrong way for proper warships of the age of
sail -- said warships bulge, not narrow towards the waterline. That combined
with the straightness Steven Rowe already pointed out makes for a canoe look.
Most frigates of the day were indeed narrow on the gundeck, but even on the
bulge I imagine most fell easily into the general proportions of a lego hull
(just not the big razees)... it's all a question of shape! Constellation, from
the pics I've seen, has a much gentler curve, and is thus looks -- and pardon
this, it's not meant as an insult to pre-fab hulls -- as a 'proper' ship,
despite its size.
> Conclusion
> ----------
>
> Looking at the ratio's above, if you accept the LEGO Constellation is not too
> canoelike, and use a 5:1 length to beam ratio, you could safely go to 6 (and
> maybe even 7) sections using standard wide hull pieces.
Build SNOT and never worry about it! Just worry about pulling out all your hair,
going on anti-depressants, and hearing voices. *cough* ;-)
> A dimension I haven't explored here is the vertical, either the hull or the
> rigging. Looking at the Misérable now, it looks a bit too tall in the hull
> for it's length, and maybe now I now the ratios, I'll be brave and take the
> next Misérable out to {eight} centre sections. ;-)
>
> I do remain convinced though that the biggest obstacle to ship building is
> the rigging. Masts aren't too much of a problem, but keeping them stable is.
> The existing long ratlines aren't tall enough for the Misérable, so they're
> not going to be tall enough for anything bigger. I think the solution may be
> either joining ratlines or coming up with strong enough tops which can be
> used on mast pieces in lieu of the 6x6 with clips top plate.
Absolutely agreed. I've been toying with a SNOT 1 foot=1 stud scale 32-gun for
ages now, but while the hull is challenging, the rigging is *terrifying*. I
prefer not to think about it.
One thing to freeboards, I can only offer a rule of thumb: frigate freeboards to
the bottom of the lowest gunports were usually 7 feet, ships of the line 4
feet (owing to multiple decks). How that compresses, I'm really not sure. Length
additions might indeed flatten Mis. out some...
> I think the key to building bigger vessels is to experiment a bit instead of
> following the accepted wisdom. A bare six section hull may look a bit
> canoelike, but once the hull is properly completed (and a deck added!) it's
> likely to look properly ship shape!
*cough*SNOT*cough*
Come on, I need *somebody* to glean (thieve) ideas from -- and LFB's on hiatus!
:D
> So, let's see some bigger ships!
Yeah yeah yeah, always *bigger* -- from the biggest squadron on the block. ;-)
Let's see what Brickley's Cover can offer...
Regards,
Kenneth Tam
Brickley's Cove
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Stephen Rowe wrote:
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richie Dulin wrote:
lego’s hulls do lend themselves
to be shaped like a canoe when strung together, but i think it is not because
of the number of hull sections, but the lack of any type of progressive hull
curvature along the length of the ship. what i mean is, the beam was not the
same at any one point on the ship. as you walk down the side of a ship, you
can see that the ship is not bowed only at the bow and stern. if you look at
a topdown cutaway of the decks, they bow outward until about 1/3 of the
length, then they straighten out, then begin to bow inward again, but at a
less extreme angle, where they finally get to their narrowest at the stern.
legos hull parts are perfectly straight. only the bow and stern sections are
bowed, or show any taper at all. now, this works for smaller ships because
the tapering sections are proportionally correct for the ship,
|
Good thoughts, however: (1) the LEGO consitution looks ‘right’ doesn’t it?
Despite being even narrower than it should be for its length and (2) the stern
taper can be represented in the top part of the hull, if necessary.
Maybe, I should spend a couple of hours building a double scale Constellation
Hull? The Port Brique shipwrights have been uncharacteristically idle for the
last few weeks.
| |
but when you
string hull parts together, they just become more and more straight, hence,
the “canoe” look. now, as you said, if one builds the hull up nicely, you can
help to break the canoe look up, but at some point, it begins to look like a
double decked canoe!
|
I’m not convinced, but I haven’t done the experimentation. An eight centre
Misérable II is on the cards, but a long way off (months, not weeks!)
| |
personally, i like to stick with ships with 4 center
sections. i can build these ships large enough to get a respectible number of
guns on them, but they do not begin to look unwieldy. however, that is just
my opinion.
|
I think 4 centre sections is ideal as a compromise - it’s playable, the masts
are easy, the rigging is mostly easy, and there’s enought space on (and below)
deck for a decent amount of activity.
| |
you made another interesting comment about the masts. i have a problem with
the lego masts: they are a fixed size (diameter). this sonds funny, but on
large ships, the masts that look just right on 4 center section ships, begin
to look thinner and thinner in relation to the size of the ship, so while one
can go high, one has more problems trying to make the masts appear beefy. as
with all lego, there must be more than one way to skin a cat, but i havent
run across it yet!
|
2x2x11 (iirc) rounds are a good start. It’s hard to make a strong conection to
the top of them though. (I use a collar made from 2x2 L-bricks under a 4x4 mast
base) 2x2 rounds with a technic rod through the centre are also useful. But the
rigging to hold it steady is the tricky bit.
Sandwiched plates (a la Constellation) are also a possibility. With the use of
2x1 plates with one tile, you could probably even get a vaguely rounded cross
section.
| |
great discussion topic by the way, hopefully my 2 cents contributes!
|
Thanks for the comments!
Adieu
Richie Dulin
| | Port Brique
Somewhere in the South Pacifique
| |
| | Misérable
Building a safer South Pacifique
|
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Kenneth Tam wrote:
| |
| |
So I thought about scaling the Constellation up. I knew - or at least I
thought I knew - I couldn’t go longer with standard wide hull sections than
the Misérable (6 sections) without getting the dread canoe effect, so a
scaled up Constellation hull would give me the size, but without the hassle
of building a compound curved SNOT hull. Easy.
|
Hassle of... hey! That’s me! ; )
I must admit, SNOTing a scale hull is a bit of a chore, though I’m trying to
develop new techniques to make it more efficient.
|
Just make sure you share them once they’re developed! :-)
| |
| |
HMS Victory
| | 226’6”
| | 52’6”
| | 4.3: 1
|
| | HMS Indefatiguable
| | 160 feet
| | 44 feet
| | 3.6:1
|
|
Okay, here’s where my obsessive reading of Brian Lavery et. al. pays off.
These numbers are all rather misleading -- if they’re what I think they are,
they’re all *molded*. Under the British method of measuring a man o’ war,
measurements of length are taken along the gun deck only, and width as well.
They don’t account for the tumble home (that lovely, incredibly tough to
replicate bulge along each ship’s waterline). Most ships were probably a
couple of feet wider in reality than on spec -- even Frigates...
|
The British Man-o-war measurements could be misleading. The tumble home is
definitely not accounted for (but isn’t a problem in, say, the HMS Supply - nor
does the Supply have a gun deck to confuse measurements). But no tumblehome is
present on the LEGO Constellation.
| |
Though I ought to note too that the frigates you’ve got listed here are, if
memory serves, razees of one form or another. The Indie was a cut down 64, and
I’m pretty sure both these american frigates were finished on keels laid for
74s (but never finished). Hence their great success -- the average British
frigate of the period (say and 18-pounder 36) comes in probably at about 150
feet long on the gundeck. The beam too would then be narrower...
So what the deuce am I trying to say? I think part of the problem with Lego
hulls is that they’re shaped the wrong way for proper warships of the age of
sail -- said warships bulge, not narrow towards the waterline.
|
You’re right. I hadn’t thought of that as the core of the problem... but I don’t
think I’d describe that as canoeishness (though ymmv).
| |
That combined
with the straightness Steven Rowe already pointed out makes for a canoe look.
Most frigates of the day were indeed narrow on the gundeck, but even on the
bulge I imagine most fell easily into the general proportions of a lego hull
(just not the big razees)... it’s all a question of shape! Constellation, from
the pics I’ve seen, has a much gentler curve, and is thus looks -- and pardon
this, it’s not meant as an insult to pre-fab hulls -- as a ‘proper’ ship,
despite its size.
|
Ships certainly became longer, narrower (proportionately) and straighter as sail
gave way to steam (and indeed, timber to iron). IIRC the Constellation was
fairly modern compared to some of the British examples.
| |
| |
Conclusion
Looking at the ratio’s above, if you accept the LEGO Constellation is not too
canoelike, and use a 5:1 length to beam ratio, you could safely go to 6 (and
maybe even 7) sections using standard wide hull pieces.
|
Build SNOT and never worry about it! Just worry about pulling out all your
hair, going on anti-depressants, and hearing voices. *cough* ;-)
|
| |
| |
A dimension I haven’t explored here is the vertical, either the hull or the
rigging. Looking at the Misérable now, it looks a bit too tall in the hull
for it’s length, and maybe now I now the ratios, I’ll be brave and take the
next Misérable out to eight centre sections. ;-)
I do remain convinced though that the biggest obstacle to ship building is
the rigging. Masts aren’t too much of a problem, but keeping them stable is.
The existing long ratlines aren’t tall enough for the Misérable, so they’re
not going to be tall enough for anything bigger. I think the solution may be
either joining ratlines or coming up with strong enough tops which can be
used on mast pieces in lieu of the 6x6 with clips top plate.
|
Absolutely agreed. I’ve been toying with a SNOT 1 foot=1 stud scale 32-gun for
ages now, but while the hull is challenging, the rigging is *terrifying*. I
prefer not to think about it.
One thing to freeboards, I can only offer a rule of thumb: frigate freeboards
to the bottom of the lowest gunports were usually 7 feet, ships of the line 4
feet (owing to multiple decks). How that compresses, I’m really not sure.
Length additions might indeed flatten Mis. out some...
|
Hmmm 7’ or 4’ freeboard, with the widest part being about the waterline.... why
are we bothering with hull pieces (or a finely sculpted SNOT hull) at all?
Just build a few rows of bricks up from the waterline, use tall slopes for the
tumble home, and the ship’s done. Save for the bow and stern, of course :-(
The challenge of marrying a SNOT bow to SOT hullsides with tall slope tumblehome
would be, well, a challenge.
| |
| |
I think the key to building bigger vessels is to experiment a bit instead of
following the accepted wisdom. A bare six section hull may look a bit
canoelike, but once the hull is properly completed (and a deck added!) it’s
likely to look properly ship shape!
|
Come on, I need *somebody* to glean (thieve) ideas from -- and LFB’s on
hiatus!
|
| |
| |
So, let’s see some bigger ships!
|
Yeah yeah yeah, always *bigger* -- from the biggest squadron on the block. ;-)
Let’s see what Brickley’s Cover can offer...
|
Can’t wait :-)
Adieu
Richie Dulin
| | Port Brique
Somewhere in the South Pacifique
| |
| | Misérable
Building a safer South Pacifique
|
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
The Accepted Canoe Warning .pirates.
The casual reader of .pirates has probably seen warnings about canoe
building:
- From Bruce Schlickbernd on the Armada Flagship: “You can add another center section, but beyond that it starts to look like a canoe.”
- From Richard Parsons on big hulls: “At 16 studs, going beyond 4 midsections makes the ship seem too narrow (more like a canoe than a ship).”
- From Matt Morgan on the benefits of cutting hull parts (which was strangely never backed up with pics...): “I have made a few ships with 6 mid-sections they always looked like a canoe”
- From Steve Bliss on the building of a two decker: “It looks too much like a big canoe currently.”
- And from me in .loc.au about extending the Armada Flagship: “Beware building a canoe!”
|
Words of wisdom, and you even wisely quote the artist first, who surely has a
good eye for these kind of things. :-)
| |
Surely, the USS Constellation is not canoelike? Well...
|
When I was at the Lego store in Anaheim just a couple of weeks ago, I looked at
the Constellation in passing and I thought it looked a bit canoe-ish (really!).
| |
Vessel
| | Length
| | Beam
| | Length:Beam
|
| | LEGO USS Constellation
(Excl bow dec)
| | 56 studs
50 studs
| | 10 studs
| | 5.6:1
5:1
|
| | Real USS Constellation
| | 164 feet
| | 41 feet
| | 4:1
|
| | Real USS Constitution
| | 175 feet
| | 43.5 feet
| | 4.02:1
|
|
You are quoting the waterline length. The overall length is 204 feet for the
Constitution - and by this, they mean “head (bow) to taffrail”. Anyway, that
would make a ratio of about 4.7 to 1 as opposed to the 5.6 (the bow would
include anything but the bowsprit) for the Lego Constellation. Visually, this
is what you will key on. Going over a ratio of 5 to 1 is going to increasingly
make the ship look like a canoe...or more properly like it is a later era
clipper or schooner that has (or should have) more than three masts (4, 5, 6, 7,
I believe there was a 9, maybe more).
The Mary Rose, a much earlier ship, didn’t even rate out to 4 to 1 (looking and
calculating...about 3.8:1), and about 3.25:1 at the waterline). This pretty
much confirms what our tells us: the earlier ships were tubbier.
<snipping excess ship data)
| |
HMLS Intractable
(excl bow dec)
| | 55 studs
50 studs
| | 16 studs
| | 3.43:1
3.13:1
|
Looking at the ratio’s above, if you accept the LEGO Constellation is not too
canoelike, and use a 5:1 length to beam ratio, you could safely go to 6 (and
maybe even 7) sections using standard wide hull pieces.
Note that these numbers make no allowance for overhangs fore or
aft. Nevertheless, these are scary numbers compared to what is normally used.
|
I suspect you are trying to prove a bumblebee can’t fly.
| |
Maybe the canoe myth arose when ship builders where laying out the hull
sections, and constructing the middle layers of the hull. Maybe it arose
because traditional LEGO Black Seas Barracuda designs were used (with no
deck) and the ‘see through to the keel’ effect reminded people of canoes.
I know I got nervous when I laid out the six centres for the Misérable and
saw how long it looked ... and seriously considered revising the design to
five.
|
I always judged by looking at someone’s finished ship.
| |
A dimension I haven’t explored here is the vertical, either the hull or the
rigging. Looking at the Misérable now, it looks a bit too tall in the hull
for it’s length, and maybe now I now the ratios, I’ll be brave and take the
next Misérable out to eight centre sections. ;-)
I do remain convinced though that the biggest obstacle to ship building is
the rigging. Masts aren’t too much of a problem, but keeping them stable is.
The existing long ratlines aren’t tall enough for the Misérable, so they’re
not going to be tall enough for anything bigger. I think the solution may be
either joining ratlines or coming up with strong enough tops which can be
used on mast pieces in lieu of the 6x6 with clips top plate.
|
You literally need to use the same rigging as a real ship to some degree and
stabilize the masts not just to the sides: fore and aft “stays” help (string, or
the one-round-plates connected by string).
| |
I think the key to building bigger vessels is to experiment a bit instead of
following the accepted wisdom. A bare six section hull may look a bit
canoelike, but once the hull is properly completed (and a deck added!) it’s
likely to look properly ship shape!
So, let’s see some bigger ships!
|
You do the work, I’ll tote along the canoe paddles! :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
The Accepted Canoe Warning .pirates.
The casual reader of .pirates has probably seen warnings about canoe
building:
- From Bruce Schlickbernd on the Armada Flagship: “You can add another center section, but beyond that it starts to look like a canoe.”
|
|
-snip-
| |
Words of wisdom, and you even wisely quote the artist first, who surely has a
good eye for these kind of things. :-)
|
Of course!
| |
| |
Surely, the USS Constellation is not canoelike? Well...
|
When I was at the Lego store in Anaheim just a couple of weeks ago, I looked
at the Constellation in passing and I thought it looked a bit canoe-ish
(really!).
|
I’ve had a browse of www.constellation.org, and while I wouldn’t describe the
real constellation as canoeish, she does seem long, narrow, and fairly straight
sided.
| |
| |
Vessel
| | Length
| | Beam
| | Length:Beam
|
| | LEGO USS Constellation
(Excl bow dec)
| | 56 studs
50 studs
| | 10 studs
| | 5.6:1
5:1
|
| | Real USS Constellation
| | 164 feet
| | 41 feet
| | 4:1
|
| | Real USS Constitution
| | 175 feet
| | 43.5 feet
| | 4.02:1
|
|
You are quoting the waterline length. The overall length is 204 feet for the
Constitution - and by this, they mean “head (bow) to taffrail”. Anyway, that
would make a ratio of about 4.7 to 1 as opposed to the 5.6 (the bow would
include anything but the bowsprit) for the Lego Constellation.
|
You’ve lost me there... how would using a larger measurement for the length,
make the length:beam ratio smaller?
| |
Visually,
this is what you will key on. Going over a ratio of 5 to 1 is going to
increasingly make the ship look like a canoe...or more properly like it is a
later era clipper or schooner that has (or should have) more than three masts
(4, 5, 6, 7, I believe there was a 9, maybe more).
|
Agreed.
| |
The Mary Rose, a much earlier ship, didn’t even rate out to 4 to 1 (looking
and calculating...about 3.8:1), and about 3.25:1 at the waterline). This
pretty much confirms what our tells us: the earlier ships were tubbier.
|
True.
| |
<snipping excess ship data)
| |
HMLS Intractable
(excl bow dec)
| | 55 studs
50 studs
| | 16 studs
| | 3.43:1
3.13:1
|
Looking at the ratio’s above, if you accept the LEGO Constellation is not
too canoelike, and use a 5:1 length to beam ratio, you could safely go to 6
(and maybe even 7) sections using standard wide hull pieces.
Note that these numbers make no allowance for overhangs fore or
aft. Nevertheless, these are scary numbers compared to what is normally
used.
|
I suspect you are trying to prove a bumblebee can’t fly.
|
Maybe :-)
| |
| |
Maybe the canoe myth arose when ship builders where laying out the hull
sections, and constructing the middle layers of the hull. Maybe it arose
because traditional LEGO Black Seas Barracuda designs were used (with no
deck) and the ‘see through to the keel’ effect reminded people of canoes.
I know I got nervous when I laid out the six centres for the Misérable and
saw how long it looked ... and seriously considered revising the design to
five.
|
I always judged by looking at someone’s finished ship.
|
The Misérable did not attract any ‘canoeish’ comment when I first posted it. I
still don’t think it does look canoeish.... this
pic
probably shows the length and breadth the best. I don’t think it looks too long
(or two narrow), although I do increasingly think it might be a tad to tall.
| |
| |
A dimension I haven’t explored here is the vertical, either the hull or the
rigging. Looking at the Misérable now, it looks a bit too tall in the hull
for it’s length, and maybe now I now the ratios, I’ll be brave and take the
next Misérable out to eight centre sections. ;-)
I do remain convinced though that the biggest obstacle to ship building is
the rigging. Masts aren’t too much of a problem, but keeping them stable is.
The existing long ratlines aren’t tall enough for the Misérable, so they’re
not going to be tall enough for anything bigger. I think the solution may be
either joining ratlines or coming up with strong enough tops which can be
used on mast pieces in lieu of the 6x6 with clips top plate.
|
You literally need to use the same rigging as a real ship to some degree and
stabilize the masts not just to the sides: fore and aft “stays” help (string,
or the one-round-plates connected by string).
|
Yes! Once you get very tall, you’re putting a lot of leverage on whatevers
anchoring the ratlines.
| |
| |
I think the key to building bigger vessels is to experiment a bit instead of
following the accepted wisdom. A bare six section hull may look a bit
canoelike, but once the hull is properly completed (and a deck added!) it’s
likely to look properly ship shape!
So, let’s see some bigger ships!
|
You do the work, I’ll tote along the canoe paddles! :-)
|
Adieu
Richie Dulin
| | Port Brique
Somewhere in the South Pacifique
| |
| | Misérable
Building a safer South Pacifique
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
Surely, the USS Constellation is not canoelike? Well...
|
When I was at the Lego store in Anaheim just a couple of weeks ago, I looked
at the Constellation in passing and I thought it looked a bit canoe-ish
(really!).
|
I’ve had a browse of www.constellation.org, and while I wouldn’t describe the
real constellation as canoeish, she does seem long, narrow, and fairly
straight sided.
|
Okay...which Constellation are you refering to? And for that matter, which one
is Lego refering to? You quoted the waterline of the original, but if you
talking about the photos, those are of the second one built in 1854 (whose
proportion is 4.14:1, considerably less than the 5.6 of the Lego model).
| |
| |
You are quoting the waterline length. The overall length is 204 feet for
the Constitution - and by this, they mean “head (bow) to taffrail”. Anyway,
that would make a ratio of about 4.7 to 1 as opposed to the 5.6 (the bow
would include anything but the bowsprit) for the Lego Constellation.
|
You’ve lost me there... how would using a larger measurement for the length,
make the length:beam ratio smaller?
|
Now you’ve confused me: It makes it larger, but that wasn’t the point, since the
other number got larger, too.
I am trying to compare apples to apples instead of apples to oranges. The point
being that you need to use the 5.6 number, not the 5.0 on the Lego Constellation
and then compare that to a similiar dimension on the real thing. The Lego model
is too long in comparison to the real thing (vis a vis width), which confirms
what I visually concluded: it has a canoe-look to it.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
| |
| |
| |
Surely, the USS Constellation is not canoelike? Well...
|
When I was at the Lego store in Anaheim just a couple of weeks ago, I
looked at the Constellation in passing and I thought it looked a bit
canoe-ish (really!).
|
I’ve had a browse of www.constellation.org, and while I wouldn’t describe
the real constellation as canoeish, she does seem long, narrow, and fairly
straight sided.
|
Okay...which Constellation are you refering to? And for that matter, which
one is Lego refering to? You quoted the waterline of the original, but if
you talking about the photos, those are of the second one built in 1854
(whose proportion is 4.14:1, considerably less than the 5.6 of the Lego
model).
|
The later date explains the long/thin - though not canoeish ;-) - look.
| |
| |
| |
You are quoting the waterline length. The overall length is 204 feet for
the Constitution - and by this, they mean “head (bow) to taffrail”.
Anyway, that would make a ratio of about 4.7 to 1 as opposed to the 5.6
(the bow would include anything but the bowsprit) for the Lego
Constellation.
|
You’ve lost me there... how would using a larger measurement for the length,
make the length:beam ratio smaller?
|
Now you’ve confused me: It makes it larger, but that wasn’t the point, since
the other number got larger, too.
|
I see - you didn’t mention any change in the other number.
| |
I am trying to compare apples to apples instead of apples to oranges. The
point being that you need to use the 5.6 number, not the 5.0 on the Lego
Constellation and then compare that to a similiar dimension on the real
thing. The Lego model is too long in comparison to the real thing (vis a
vis width), which confirms what I visually concluded: it has a canoe-look to
it.
|
That may be true... but it strikes me as odd that I have not heard it remarked
on before. But then, until recent times, the LEGO Constellation has been quite a
rare model indeed.
Adieu
Richie Dulin
| | Port Brique
Somewhere in the South Pacifique
| |
| | Misérable
Building a safer South Pacifique
|
|
|
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Stephen Rowe wrote:
| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richie Dulin wrote:
lego’s hulls do lend themselves
to be shaped like a canoe when strung together, but i think it is not
because of the number of hull sections, but the lack of any type of
progressive hull curvature along the length of the ship. what i mean is, the
beam was not the same at any one point on the ship. as you walk down the
side of a ship, you can see that the ship is not bowed only at the bow and
stern. if you look at a topdown cutaway of the decks, they bow outward until
about 1/3 of the length, then they straighten out, then begin to bow inward
again, but at a less extreme angle, where they finally get to their
narrowest at the stern. legos hull parts are perfectly straight. only the
bow and stern sections are bowed, or show any taper at all. now, this works
for smaller ships because the tapering sections are proportionally correct
for the ship,
|
Good thoughts, however: (1) the LEGO consitution looks ‘right’ doesn’t it?
Despite being even narrower than it should be for its length and (2) the
stern taper can be represented in the top part of the hull, if necessary.
|
i think that the lego Constellation looks “right” because it is such a small
scale, that the finer detail dont always matter as much. for instance, it doesnt
have the correct number of stays, ropes, etc, but because it is so small, these
are largely ignored because they would not add to the ship. generally, larger
models are more well detailed, because the eye can take a much more discerning
look than one may with smaller models. the constellation look right at the
current size, but if you doubled the scale, and enlarged the ship, it should
begin to strike you as more canoe like. the stern taper can be represented on
the top of the hull, but only so much. the lower hull does not taper until the
final hull piece, and with a ship of 3-4 hull sections (bow, stern, 1-2 center
sections) the taper is enough to look proportionally correct, as it accounts for
1/3 to 1/4 of the ship length. however, when a ship gets larger, aka: more
sections, the proportion of tapering hull to straight hull becomes far less.
with a ship of 4-5 center sections, the taper drops to just 1/6 to 1/7 of the
complete hull length.
| |
Maybe, I should spend a couple of hours building a double scale
Constellation Hull? The Port Brique shipwrights have been
uncharacteristically idle for the last few weeks.
|
you know what they say about the devil and idle hands ;-) if you do, please take
some pics to let us know how it came out, who knows, it may look good!
| |
| |
but when you
string hull parts together, they just become more and more straight, hence,
the “canoe” look. now, as you said, if one builds the hull up nicely, you
can help to break the canoe look up, but at some point, it begins to look
like a double decked canoe!
|
I’m not convinced, but I haven’t done the experimentation. An eight centre
Misérable II is on the cards, but a long way off (months, not weeks!)
|
watch out men, it’s the french long-frigate, Miserable II!!!!!!
well, i attempted to build a 2 decker of 6 center sections one time. now, i
didnt think about widening the hull with inverse slopes, but i thought that if i
lengthened the ship enough, it would look okay if i built it higher. alas, it
began to take on the look of the “double decked canoe”, it was just too high,
and too straight, and obviously not wide enough. so, i abandoned the project,
and broke it down into two ships. however, i have a ship almost completed right
now, another 4 center one, but after all this, i think i will try to increase it
to 5. it does appear a little beefy for it’s length.
| |
| |
personally, i like to stick with ships with 4 center
sections. i can build these ships large enough to get a respectible number
of guns on them, but they do not begin to look unwieldy. however, that is
just my opinion.
|
I think 4 centre sections is ideal as a compromise - it’s playable, the masts
are easy, the rigging is mostly easy, and there’s enought space on (and
below) deck for a decent amount of activity.
|
ahhhh, easy way out huh? ha ha just kidding! yeah, i just run into so many
problems that go hand in hand with inreasing the length.
| |
| |
you made another interesting comment about the masts. i have a problem with
the lego masts: they are a fixed size (diameter). this sonds funny, but on
large ships, the masts that look just right on 4 center section ships, begin
to look thinner and thinner in relation to the size of the ship, so while
one can go high, one has more problems trying to make the masts appear
beefy. as with all lego, there must be more than one way to skin a cat, but
i havent run across it yet!
|
2x2x11 (iirc) rounds are a good start. It’s hard to make a strong conection
to the top of them though. (I use a collar made from 2x2 L-bricks under a 4x4
mast base) 2x2 rounds with a technic rod through the centre are also useful.
But the rigging to hold it steady is the tricky bit.
|
yeah, i had that problem with my failed 6 center section baby, the masts were
just so incredibly fragile.
| |
Sandwiched plates (a la Constellation) are also a possibility. With the use
of 2x1 plates with one tile, you could probably even get a vaguely rounded
cross section.
|
HA HAAH! (dashingly said) build on good man! good luck with your
experimentation.
thanks
steve
| |
Thanks for the comments!
Adieu
Richie Dulin
| | Port Brique
Somewhere in the South Pacifique
| |
| | Misérable
Building a safer South Pacifique
|
|
|
|
|
