I've talked with a friend who likes the old galleons of the Spanish Armada and a friend who likes the steam frigates and ironclads of the Civil War era. I personally like the warships of the French and Napoleonic Wars. Someday I will build HMS Bellerophon, a third rate of 74 guns, which fought in more than three major battles, and on at least two occasions fought a First Rate to a standstill. She later accepted the surrender of Napoleon himself. As much as I like ships of the line like Bellerophon, the smaller frigates are also appealing. We need to choose a scale that will make it easy to build the ships we want to model while not making them too large and unwieldy to transport. I think you guys are missing a very good possibility for arming these ships. Big gun style "Indiana" guns have a very flexible design. While most have rotating double-barrel or triple-barrel magazines, they can do much more. A single cannon can be made to fire 6, 8, or more barrels at one. My own VU fires six 7/32" barrels from a single cannon. I know a Dunkerque with 8 bb barrels on a single cannon. I know someone who has started to work on a Kearsarge with 7 bb barrels in the secondary gun mounts on the broadside. It is also worth remembering that these models will be wide, deep, and not need to put much weight into electric motors and batteries (except for pumps). There will be plenty of weight and space for cannons and large CO2 bottles. I was able to squeeze a 20oz bottle and massive magazines (I'd guess at least 1200 rounds of 7/32" balls) in my VU. I don't have data on the draft of the Bellerophon, but a 1/48 scale Bellerophon is the same length and 4" wider, which makes it a MUCH bigger model, with plenty of space and weight to work with. An here are a few videos to have fun with: 1/24 scale HMS Surprise sailing and again HMS Surprise in a squall A "battle" between several 1/24 scale models and another "battle" OT: Some crazy Aussies at a Sub Regatta having too much fun...
I honestly hadn't thought about it; I was more fixated on the mechanics of combat than the years of inclusion. I also think that while it's cool to have an emergency propulsion motor, there ought to be a heavy penalty in game terms for using it, unless it's a totally windless day and everyone is using one. In 1/48 scale, lil' Minerva is huge compared to the real-world much bigger battleships. She's wider than my 1/144 KGV or Baden, and haas a draft of 4.6 inches! top of the hull is 4.25 inches above the waterline. Lots of volume to work with. Might have to use some of the lightweight gun stuff I worked out for the DD projects.
I think we should assume Napoleonic Era for now, and worry about other time periods (galleons, ACW, etc) later. And now, back to the mechanical discussion I cannot stress enough how versatile the Indiana-style Big Gun cannon is. As Gascan said, we're using them for everything from rotating single-barrel bb cannons to mighty six-barrel monsters. It would not be difficult to design a four- or six-barrel cannon capable of firing on two or three decks. If enough people are interested, I can produce all the major components for around $100 per cannon (at four or six barrels each). It's also very easy to produce simple, non-rotating cannons firing multiple balls out a single barrel, for $25 worth of clippard valves and plumbing parts. The biggest benefit is that Big Gun cannons of all sorts provide consistent penetration for years with adjustment via pressure regulator for years, with no need to tweak every sortie or replace geek breeches every few months. Just imagine trying to tweak all 16 guns on HMS Surprise... If Tugboat is considering building a ship, then I think it's time we discussed penetrable area. Here's my thoughts: * 85% of ship length must be penetrable, as measured at the plan waterline. * Bow and Stern impenetrable areas do not need to follow the keel profile, and should be vertical from their location at the waterline. We're building wooden ships for the forseeable future, not fiberglass, so why put in the extra effort? * Penetrable area should start at the first full-length deck. Bulwarks and partial decks need not be penetrable, since they're a very small portion of target area and would require a lot of effort to build and repair. * bottom of penetrable should follow 60 degree rule, not 1-inch rule. Our ships are gonna heel when sailing, I don't want my target heeling so far he exposes his impenetrable waterline. * stern galleries shall be penetrable, just like the hull. * Open gun ports are allowed 1/8" impenetrable around the edges, for shape and strength. Closed gun ports shall not be reinforced. Gun hatches on open gun ports (is that what they're called?) shall be opened about 90 degrees, so that they do not cover penetrable area above the gun port. Did I cover everything? Is this a good idea? Discuss.
I can see going with the 60-degree rule for the lower edge of the penetrable area, but I don't see the point of going all the way up to the deck for the upper area; It will make it considerably harder to model the ships, and really, if you're getting low in the water to the point that hits over 2" up from the waterline are letting more water in, you are already well on the way to Davy Jones' Locker. (with the 2" up rule, one would be able to plank the upper works of the ship, making for a more pleasing scale appearance!) 85% sounds like a reasonable amount of penetrable space to me, and this should also apply to the transom (flat stern). Suggestion: 85% of the shootable area of the stern must be penetrable from port to stbd, including the wood of the sternmost frame. Windows in the stern shall be modelled by painting the 'glass' a light blue or grey color, in lieu of glass or plastic. I'm cool with painting unused gunports on vice framing them in wood! So I gree with your proposal on the gunports as written. For the part on bow & stern impenetrable areas, I would say 'need not follow the keel profile, but may if the captain desires to model the ship in scale'. I'm not against people easing their builds for a part that is underwater, but I wouldn't want to stop anyone that wants to the full effect.
What about this? A realistic smoke system. I have been trying to think of a way to inject smoke into the air stream so that when you shoot smoke would come out. Do the airplane smoke systems leave a residue? if so i would need a seperate system for it with brass capillary tubes.. just thought of it for realism. http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=TMESSPSSD
I've read that some enthusiasts put talc in their accumulators, but I'm not sure how this would affect our guns which actually fire a projectile. I finished tracing ribs on the same kind of ply that I'm using in the Edgar Quinet class. Even a second-rate frigate is HUGE, relative to what I'm used to in 1/144. I have a question for the collective... how should the guns be mounted? Do we say 'put them where you want', or require them to evenly spaced across the gundecks? I would definately require the guns of each gundeck to be on their proper level(s), in an existing gunport. I'm leaning towards evenly spacing the guns to see how it works out. We'll have to see how aiming works with sail power, I wouldn't want guns trained dead flat and have is degenerate into a long range duel which requires no fine shiphandling, but I also don't want to require people to get into knife-fights (nautically speaking). Ram penalties? Hmm... Technically, the upwind captain should give way to the downwind captain, as he has the advantage of easier maneuver. That wouldn't absolve the downwind captain of a ram, but I'm not sure what I would do for this. It's not as easy to assign blame as it usually is in motorized combat.
I was under the impression that most age of sail combat devolved into "knife-fights" anyway what with boardings and all. Even at Trafalgar I think only one or two ships were actually sunk during the battle. Those boats were captured way more often then sunk.
Indeed, most ships surrendered after massive casualties were sustained. The ships rarely sunk, largely because they were made of WOOD. But if you google some old french or british ship names, you will find many that have 'captured' and 'captured back' in their histories @Johnny, I had an idea... what about having 'smoke guns' in gun ports next to the real guns, that fire using a little gas bleed from the firing gun?
Exactly my point good sir! Aside from the obvious drawbacks of a day with no breeze, getting the rigging and sails wet seems like it would cause problems with the ships being VERY top heavy and unstable as well as problems with the actual function. Maybe a capture/disable mechanism would be more realistic and practical than sinking. Or make sinking worth so many points that declaring or "striking your colors" would be the norm.
I was planning on using silk from old parachute flares for my sails. Even wet, the ship is so huge that it won't GREATLY destabilize with them wet. But seriously, the hulls of these ships are nearly square in cross-section... Artemise is like 9" wide and 9" high. 4.5 - 5" of that is underwater. There's a LOT of room for systems and ballast. I was thinking a 3" high penetrable area that starts at 1" below the waterline. Carl raised a valid point about s ship rolling under sail to expose impenetrable area, so I could see going further down the hull, but I think that further upwards wouldn't make the game more fun. I like the strike the colors idea... maybe something simple like a float connected to a simple flag arm mechanism that lowers the flag when flooding reaches a certain level?
By the time the water level in your bilges starts rising, you're already sinking. So striking your colors at a certain water level seems a bit silly to me. Unless we fill our ships with foam, at which point they don't sink to begin with. BTW, Gascan and I are looking into building a soda-bottle square-rigger, so we can learn how to sail square-rigged ships. Since that's a project that mostly doesn't require machine shop time, it shouldn't delay any of our regular projects.
Here are a couple interesting references I found. One talks about making a topsail schooner from a plastic juice carton. The other lists verious models of square riggers, and has some great visuals on rigging and controling the sails towards the bottom.
@ Carl - The float level can be set to whatever the desired 'I surrender!' water level is. I looked at Eric's links, they had some inspiration for learning boats and guidance on more advanced square-rig setups (once you follow your nose for a bit). @ Eric - thanks for the links! They led me to some interesting places... I think I'll do one quick so that I have something to practice sailing with while Artemis is on the ways. It only requires 2 channels so I can use my old RC car radio (27MHz) for the fun. The Harpy is pretty much all balsa apart from the keel, mast, and various small parts. A little more expensive than a bottle boat but either would be fun to play with. One could probably make a bang-up bottle boat with a 2L Coke bottle. For those who want to learn using a more conventional sloop rig, this site has free plans for The Harpy, a foot-long balsa and epoxy boat. I saw one interesting thing in some of the pics at one site Eric linked to: One square-rigger had a PVC torpedo ballast hanging down on ropes from the keel proper. Not planning on going that route myself, but we'll see what happens when the saw hits wood. I got the ribs for Gangut cut out last weekend so Artie isn't far from commencing. Ribs are drawn, plywood is waiting. The deck will be flat, which is not technically scale (who cares), and the masts will be fixed to the deck, although they will extend down to the bilge where there will be sockets to slip into to help take the torque of the rig.
yea Tug, that was my alternate idea was to have a capillary tube near the barrel that blew smoke when the guns fired. That would be easy to plumb with either brass or 1/16 gun tubing.
The other option is to do every other barrel as a talcum-blower. So you'd have armed-talcum-armed-talcum-armed-talcum on all the armed gun decks. @tugboat can you provide a link to the Harpy?
Here you go, Carl: http://www.scalesailing.com/support.htm There are 4 pdfs to download, 3 are plans, one's instructions. I plan on doing mine without the foam (i.e. just balsa for the hull). Some other footy plans at: http://footy.rcsailing.net/plans.php
Looking at those plans, they seem a lot more like a sailboat than a square-rigged ship. I studied how the builder designed his ship, then drew up my own design in Delftship. It currently measures 24" long hull, and is built with 11 pieces of balsa: a deck, a keel, three ribs, and six hull plates. Tomorrow after work, I will transform my Delftship model into usable plans, then post them here. Gascan will begin construction of two of them on Thursday. BTW, I thought you might get a laugh out of this "pirate ship in a bottle": http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2590875
Why settle for two masts, when you can have... THREE!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Actually, according to reports, the ability to control the foremast independently of the main and mizzen masts is pretty important when tacking. So this will be to experiment, as much as it is to learn.And since we'll be building two, we can do a side-by-side comparison. Drat. I just found out that, while my hull is perfectly developable (can be made using only plates like the Harpy), my copy of Delftship Free has the View Plate Developments feature disabled. I'll have to pay 178 euros to unlock it. Arrgh! I mean... YAR!
I just fired up my Delftship to see if the older version was any different, but NO! No ability to view ANYTHING useful. humpf. And I don't have $300 either.
