Subject:
|
Re: The Canoe Myth of .pirates
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.pirates
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Aug 2003 22:05:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2438 times
|
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Canoe Myth of .pirates
|
| (...) Just make sure you share them once they're developed! :-) (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 21-Aug-03, to lugnet.pirates, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | The Canoe Myth of .pirates
|
| 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 (...) (21 years ago, 20-Aug-03, to lugnet.pirates, FTX)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
