Impenetrable Area

Discussion in 'Age of Sail' started by McSpuds, Oct 14, 2013.

  1. McSpuds

    McSpuds Vendor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2011
    Posts:
    814
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky
    Ok, back to rules. I hate to do this, but darnit I have a issue that I think we need to address before a person can build any ship smaller than a Frigate. It's the total impenatrable area for the length of the ship. Here is my issue. If I build the US Brig Syren, 94', at scale of 1:48, that gives her 23.5 inches to build with from bow to stern. Now... If I use the allocated 1" for the stern and the allocated 2" for the bow.. "of which is needed for a ship that size in AOS because of the drastic curves in the bow and sterns" I will only have .525 inches left for ribs... that is not going to work! o_O At 1/8" thick, I would need 1 3/8" of material, darn near twice what the current rules allow. Even then, I do not think that thickness will properly and safely support the ship hull, masts, and keel weight.
    In 1:144 scale fastgun and Biggun, those ships have very little force on their ribs... unlike those ships, our AOS ships will have tremedous force on the ribs due to sailing. The masts, the keel, the wind, the bb's, all put together will spell disaster for a ship with 1/8" ribs..
    Not sure what to suggest, but maybe something like a dropping scale instead of percentages... meaning we come up with what we think the standard 3 or 4 sizes are going to be in rib thickness and come up with a scale that will support the vessel.

    IE...
    If a captain uses 1/4" thick material, he/she can place 1 rib for every two inches of lenght.
    If a captain uses 3/16" thick material, he/she can place 1 rib for every one and onehalf inches of lenght.
    If a captain uses 1/8" think material, he/she can place 1 rib for every one inch of lenght.
    Allow the standard 1" for the stern and 2" for the bow as solid material.
    ....thoughts?
     
  2. mike5334

    mike5334 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Posts:
    1,877
    Location:
    Mississippi
    RE: Impenatrable Area
    If you insist on having a 2" bow and 1" stern hard area, then what is left is what is left. Reducing the stern hard area to 0.5" would gain four 1/8" ribs. Reducing the bow by 1" would gain eight 1/8" ribs. Altogether the 15% hard area rule would still be maintained. The ribs can be spaced at 3" and still have enough support for the sheeting. I would not rely on the ribs to provide structural rigidity. The Requin hull was very twist flexible even with the sub deck on it. It did not stiffen up until the bottom was added on it.

    If I remember right, I took some from the bow of the Requin to get more ribs. www.rcnavalcombat.com/Forum/tabid/5...fault.aspx.

    The Requin is a small ship in 1:48th scale ... probably near or at the lower end of what is feasable to be built and armed. It was a challenge to build and will be a huge challenge to arm even with 4 cannons. Weight is a major factor. The ship will not only need a keel weight to stay upright but will have to carry four cannons, CO2 system, solenoids, and radio w/ winch servos.
    It is possible to build small ships like these and still meet the rules. Yet it will be a challenge.
     
  3. irnuke

    irnuke -->> C T D <<--

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Posts:
    1,079
    Location:
    York, SC
    RE: Impenatrable Area
    I think what Spudsy was concerned about w/ the bow was maintaining enough hard area for the complex shapes AoS ships had in the bow supporting the bowsprit. 1" may be enough, but sheeting it could be nasty. Taking the stern down to 1/2" is a good idea too, so long as the ship's stern galleries / quarterdeck / poop deck allowed doing so.
     
  4. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,298
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    RE: Impenatrable Area Lolok at Mike's Requin build thread. If that can be sheeted (it was), then anything can be sheeted :)
     
  5. McSpuds

    McSpuds Vendor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2011
    Posts:
    814
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky
    RE: Impenatrable Area
    not clear, will re edit
     
  6. McSpuds

    McSpuds Vendor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2011
    Posts:
    814
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky
    My overall concern is just how strong is the hull if it has limited ribs.. let alone only 1/8" think ribs... these ships will have a lot more stress on them when sailing than a typical model warship in our club...

    I have seen keels break off due to the stress of the wind on the sails and the water pressure against the keel,,, broke it right off...
     
  7. McSpuds

    McSpuds Vendor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2011
    Posts:
    814
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky
    I do know some ships will need more solid material in the bow than others...
    [​IMG]

    To me.... This is a hard curve!!!! :woot:
     
  8. McSpuds

    McSpuds Vendor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2011
    Posts:
    814
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky
    My intention here is not to reinvent the wheel. So far the rules have been modified very well. I would just like to bring in new ideas or solutions from a fresh source or new look. Maybe an idea will be good and the group will ask for the change.
    I would like to know what you all think about a few areas:
    1. Total impenetrable area (Ribs)
    2. Gunwales and decks
    3. Gunports, and Chain Plates

    1. Ribs and total percentage of impenetrable area
    I still think we are trying to compare oranges to apples when we use the standard "15% of total length" rule, as is in the fastgun format to judge how many ribs we can have. Most ships in WWI or WWII have simple hulls. Yes there are exceptions! But for the most part, a builder can go several inches along a ship's hull before needing any rib to change the shape of the hull. Most if not all of the AOS format ships have more complex hull shapes. You can no longer go several inches before needing a rib to help change the hull shape. Especially smaller vessels where this issue is compounded. They need more ribs to maintain those more complex hull shapes.
    In general, every 17th century model up to now has been made by using the hull lines provided on the ship plans. The number of ribs where not an issue.
    My worry is this... and after I get this Syren built, may be nothing but a worry....... but to me, the lines on the plans tend to be in more numbers than the AOS rules will allow... thus it will be very difficult to maintain the ship's hull profile on a smaller vessel if using less ribs than there are hull lines on the plans.
    Did all that make sense?
    I am going to try the Syren build with 1/8" ribs and lessen the bow and stern area as mush as possible.
    2. Gunwales
    I see a possible change we may want to consider as far as the side windows. Right now the rules state that ALL ships no matter what their size must have the same size window on the sides for penetrable areas. The 3" inches above rule is the one I am addressing, not the 2 and 1/2" below.
    For a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rate ship, that is perfect.... but did we think about this... On most if not all of the ships, the running gear, tackle, mast leads, and channel plates are all attached to those gunwales. It is very easy for a captain with a large ship, to be able to keep all of his rigging attached to "Solid" areas. All of the rigging is attached to the gunwales and they are clear of any penetrable areas....
    A captain of a smaller vessel is not so lucky. ALL of his rigging is inside of that 3" window, or at least most of it. For a 6th rate brig or sloop, all of it's rigging is on the gunwales that are supposed to be made penetrable.
    Yes, we can add frames to gunports, add a stringer here or there to support them. Then add 3/8" for the deck... then a 1/8" or 1/4" caprail across the gunwales... then add a stringer and solid area for the channel plates... see where I am going with this... by the time you add up all that solid area to support all the crap on the gunwale, you might as well make the entire gunwale impenetrable. It would be less complicated! thus less of a issue later on as captains want this or that made solid..
    So how can we be fair about the gunwales? Simple I think. First things first... lets address the 3" window above the waterline.. to me it makes no sense to have a window requirement for a ship that would be completely inside of that window... Lets try to fit the window to the ship a little better....
    change the window area above the waterline to match the rates...
    1st, 2nd, and 3rd rate ships, these ships have the original 3" window. Heaven knows they have the room along the hull for that... LOL
    4th, and 5th rate ships, these ships have a 2" inch window above the waterline.
    6th rate, and unrated ships, these ships have a 1" window above the waterline.
    Next would be to add the rule that any main deck (uppermost deck) may have a 3/8" solid area for the decking, and the gunwale above the said main deck may be impenetrable. This will remove all the issues over channel plates, gunports on main decks, toprails or caprails, ect... Any area below the main deck that is inside the penetrable area as set above is still there to put holes into. The main reason I suggest this rule change is not to lessen the penetrable area, but so that the smaller vessels, ones that do not even come close to having 2 or 3" inches of hull above the waterline, can have a good, secure area to place running gear and rigging. The fair way to do this is to change the penetrable area on the gunwales and adjust the size of windows to match the ships height.
    3. Gunports
    I would suggest cleaning up the rule on gunports to allow us to have actual ports in the hull if we wish. What I mean is if a captain chooses to build the gunports into the hull instead of painting them, this will allow them to do so.
    The rule would expand on the 1/4" frame around any "used" gunport and place that same frame around unused ports if they are actualy ports that are build into the hull. These frames will also be allowed to extent their bottom and top sills or frames, to attach to the adjacent frames. Thus securing the frames to the hull.
    Any area inside of the frame of a unused gunport, minus any false cannons, must be made penetrable. Any used gunports may have the area inside of the frame made impenetrable to allow protection of the bb cannons.

    Once again I hope I made this understandable. Anyway here is a diagram to help understand what I am proposing.

    Any thoughts are welcome.... :confused:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  9. mike5334

    mike5334 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Posts:
    1,877
    Location:
    Mississippi
    I have to point out that the Requin, which uses 1/8" ribs, handles the stress of sailing just fine. :)
    Totally understand the part about hard area above the deck. I had the same concerns while building the Requin and talked to a couple captains about some other options similier to the proposal above. The idea I proposed was basically everything above the lowermost deck railing would be impenetrable. Using the Requin as an example, all of the side area above the main deck railing would be impenetrable. The thought was basically if the water level reached that railing, the ship would be sunk anyway and any holes above it would not have contributed to the sink.
     
  10. Kotori87

    Kotori87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Posts:
    3,522
    A few thoughts...

    3" above the waterline does not extend as far up as you might think. On Constitution, it covers the gun deck. It does not reach the main deck, gunwales, or gun ports up there. Many two-deckers and three-deckers are similar: only the lowest gun deck is actually in the penetrable area. The rest can be made from whatever you want, with as many open gun ports as you want. Also, most ships of the line kept their lowest gun deck closed except in very calm weather, because of the risk of doing a Vasa. With that in mind, I will need to see more support from other captains before I add dummy gun ports to the rules.

    About gunwales, I don't see any mention of them in the rules, either penetrable or non-penetrable. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, and I like what you've come up with for it. Same thing for the channels, they are also not currently mentioned. Once I get confirmation from the rest of the group, I will write that in.

    Lastly, a bit of nautical terminology I recently found out. The side platforms to which the backstays are anchored are properly called "channels". A chain plate is the metal strap that extends beneath a channel, holding the bottom block to the channel.
     
  11. irnuke

    irnuke -->> C T D <<--

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Posts:
    1,079
    Location:
    York, SC
    Have to point out a discrepancy, Spudsy...

    You first state that gunwhales are solid. Then, for your gunport diagram, you show gunports on the gunwhale of your drawing. Must clarify for clarity.
     
  12. McSpuds

    McSpuds Vendor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2011
    Posts:
    814
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky
    I hope your right about the strenght, LOL, or it's gonna be a short sailing day... :pinch:

    Still doesnt cover the worry about keeping the hull profile, but we I will see how hard that is soon enough and then if it's still a issue we can readdress it.
     
  13. McSpuds

    McSpuds Vendor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2011
    Posts:
    814
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky
    Crap, one should not type or do diagrams late at night after dinking a few... did I actually type "Gunwhales"? LOL Jeff, you didn't point that out you Grammer Natzi!
    [EDIT: -2 for spelling. Correctly put: Grammar Nazi. Signed, the Spelling Nazi.] :)

    The more I think about it, if we make the gunwales solid on the topmost decks, it will cover the issue of the 3" penetrable area just fine.
    I dont think channeling will be a issue on the bigger ships, as they will need plenty of ballast anyway. The smaller ships will have a hard time because they need every inch they can get.. I would just state :
    * Water channeling may not be created to seal any bulkhead or to prevent water from entering any portion of the ships hull. Water channeling is not allowed above the bottom of the 2 1/2" inch penetrable windows.
    I still can not think of the proper term I heard before for those plates or channels... you might have it right. I also thought I heard them called "Channel Plates" or "Chain Stays". I will have to research that some more but you know what peice I am talking about.... Some ships have one or two below the main deck's gunwale, and those will need solid support.
    I actualy thought about making mine where they have a "slot" in the gunwale, and I can slide those channels into the hull and pin them. When done for the day I can unpin the channel from inside the gunwale and slide the channel out of the slot.. Will make removeing those ratlines easy.
     
  14. McSpuds

    McSpuds Vendor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2011
    Posts:
    814
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky
    I just had them colored to show them against the yellow background. Rule suggestion would be:

    * Any gunport may be build into the hull. Gunports are allowed a 1/4" inch frame around the port, and the top and bottom frames may be used as stringers to extend fore and aft to the next ribs to secure them to the hull framing. The stringers may not go beyound the first rib fore or aft of the gunport unless there is another gunport on the opposite side of the rib.
    * Except for any false cannons, the space inside of any unused gunports must be made penetrable. Used gunports are considered to be any port with an active bb cannon. Used gunports may be made impenetrable for the porpuse of protecting the cannon from bb fire.
    * All BB cannons must be placed in historicly correct gunports. Cannons may not be elevated above 0 degrees for safety reasons. No BB cannons, or false cannons, make extend beyond 1" inch on the gunport frame.
     
  15. Rhukatah

    Rhukatah New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Posts:
    21
    I've got a question:

    When we say "length of the ship" in AOS do we mean length at the waterline or length at the topmost deck? Are the stern galleries included in overall length? Are any of the structures that support the bowsprit not included in overall length?

    And while we're nitpicking the energetic Mr. McSpuds, so far I'm pretty sure no one has built any 17th century models. The Ingermanland seems to be the earliest ship that anyone's started on so far. Her keel was laid in 1712 (The third year of the second decade of the 18th century).
     
  16. rcengr

    rcengr Vendor

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Posts:
    1,291
    Location:
    Ohio
    I think we need to leave the 15% rule alone for now. Changing it to allow ships that may not even be practical is the wrong thing to do at this point.
    The Syren is almost the exact length that my 144 Golo is, and the Golo was built to conform to the same rules. The bow hard area is not even close to 2" and the stern is less the 1", both which had to be sacrificed for more ribs. In addition, I had to mix 1/4" ribs (2 only) with 1/8"ribs to get the strength and shape I wanted. But it worked out and I am confident that the hull would withstand the pressure of sailing. After all, a 3 pound ship will not generate the force that a 40 pound frigate will, so it doesn't need to be as strong. I hope you build the Syren, it will be challenging but not impossible.
    It's the wrong scale and era, but since I have the sail plan for the Golo I may have to try it out. I'll have to unbolt the flat keel weight and replace it with a vertical keel... it should be interesting.
     
  17. McSpuds

    McSpuds Vendor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2011
    Posts:
    814
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky
    I would say that the measurement is of the deck from the bow to stern.

    I have not built a 1:48 rc square rigger yet, but I am working on my 1:64 Syren now...
    modelshipworld.com/index.php
    [​IMG]
    Click here for a larger view
     
  18. McSpuds

    McSpuds Vendor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2011
    Posts:
    814
    Location:
    Louisville, Ky
    The 15% will work if I can get my bow area down to 1".
    The Syren plans are back from my printing shop. As soon as I get the bulkheads converted from a POB model to a POF model I will get the build log going.... probably tonight! :rolleyes: I luv pain!
    I have already done this hull in a smaller POB build so I know the territory..
     
  19. Tugboat

    Tugboat Facilitator RCWC Staff Admiral (Supporter)

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    8,298
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    I have no interest in stringers and actual holes for all the gunports. Life is tough enough without adding unnecessary difficulty in sheeting.