Subject:
|
Re: The Canoe Myth of .pirates
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.pirates
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Aug 2003 02:49:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2473 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Canoe Myth of .pirates Unmythified
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 21-Aug-03, to lugnet.pirates, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Canoe Myth of .pirates
|
| (...) Words of wisdom, and you even wisely quote the artist first, who surely has a good eye for these kind of things. :-) (...) When I was at the Lego store in Anaheim just a couple of weeks ago, I looked at the Constellation in passing and I (...) (21 years ago, 21-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
|
|
|
|
