Model's scale

[Comandante]

I thought it would be better to start a new thread.

The following are my consideration on the subject.

PART ONE – Researching and collecting the information.

First of all, my previous findings on mini’s scale were wrong.

Remembering DB advise on how to measure the “gun deck length” I started having doubt. Measuring the length of the ship from the base of the cathead to the stern post I introduced a systematic error proportional to the size of the ship (the larger the ship, the larger the error). That’s why the two lines were opening. The 5/6 slope is due to this systematic error.
I visited the Royal Museum Greenwich website and searched for drawings. I noticed that on the ships plans is recorded the length of the gun deck, in imperial feet, that is also marked with two thin red lines.
The collection is a gold mine, and you can find plans of most of the British and captured ships (French, Spanish, American etc…), having this data from the same source (and of course employing the same unit for measurements) is fantastic and virtually would preclude any chance of error. Unfortunately the resolution of the available files doesn’t allow to read the numbers. This meant I had to rely on the accuracy of the noted scale (1:48) and measurement of the sheet, (but I found out that is not always the case, I mean probably the actual drawings are really 1:48 scale but the measurement of the sheet reported on the “object details” table are not always accurate).
I did the re-sizing DB posted and got his same results. Then I searched for drawings of the missing ships.
Once I had collected all data for wave 1 thorough 4 ships, specials included, I cross checked the data from the drawings with the ones from various books and websites, and were I found big differences I investigated both the information and the drawings.
It was at that point that I noticed that the measurement of the sheet reported on the “object details” table, in a few cases, were not accurate. The drawings I choose for Amazon (Cleopatra HIL0231) and Portland (ZAZ1718) were giving me big differences in length from the ones I found. I assumed that (most likely) there was a mistake in the measurement of the sheet. I had to discard them and substitute with the ones you find in the file.
I compared all the data and the difference between the two sets of data is less than (+/-) 4% (Meregildos at +3,87% difference is 2,3 mm in this scale).



And as you can see from this other diagram the difference between the two sets of measurements is limited to a few millimeters.



Finally satisfied, I ended my research; the output of this phase was a table with all the data of the ships’ length and beam and a file (attached) with the 1:1000 drawings (at the best definition I could get) with red lines for each measure. I hope I identified correctly gun deck’s limits in the drawings, and this time I hope I measured all my models correctly (all data were jotted in the table below).



Line Drawings 1-1000.pdf

[Comandante]

PART TWO – Comparing the length.

I compared the dimension of the models with the data I collected. As you can see from the histogram the majority of models are very close to 1:1000 scale.



• 9 models out of 14 are within 1mm difference in size;
• 2 minis are within a + or – 3% difference in size, less than 2 mm for the larger models;
• 3 models exceed a + or - 5% size error.
Considering the scale and all the possible errors that could have been introduced measuring the models, converting measurement units, rescaling drawings, the differences among various sources and so on a difference in size within a + or – 3% is more than acceptable to me.
I don’t know why there are such large differences for the other 3 minis:
• 202 USS Constitution. I checked and checked again. No way, this model is longer, depending on the source, at least 6,85% longer, 3,7 mm (at worst 8,26% longer, 4,4 mm) this means an actual scale circa 1:930.
• 111 Meregildos. These minis are small, again depending on sources between – 12,61% and – 9,09%. – 7,5 mm or at best - 5,2 mm. That is a scale between 1:1100 and 1:1144;
• 112 Nepomuceno. They are to an even smaller scale, between 1:1150 and 1:1170 (between – 13,04% and – 14,47%, 7 to 8 mm shorter).
The following diagram gives a visual idea of the (scale wise) accuracy of the models and how they deviate from the 1:1000 scale.



I conclude virtually lining up the models in order of gun deck lenght. As you can see Constitution is longer than a british first rate, Meregildos are the size of a 74 gun and Nepumeceno is the size of a large frigate.



I also compared the billet head to taffrail length of the models with the drawings. The difference is acceptable for most of the models but, no big surprise, Constitution is longer than she should be while Meregildos and Nepumeceno are noticeably shorter.

[Comandante]

I also compared the beam and I had some surprisingly results. In the graph below you have the percentage error between data on records and the models.



10 models are over a + or – 3% error. This said 4 models exceed 1 mm error and 3 are very close to this figure:
• 202 USS Constitution is 1,8 mm larger (1:880 scale);
• 111 Meregildos are 2 mm thinner (1:1140 scale);
• 101 Concorde is 1.4 mm thinner (1:1140 scale);
• 102 Temeraire is 0.9 mm thinner (1:1064 scale);
• 104 Bellona is 0.8 mm larger (1:946 scale).
• 107 Swan is 0.9 mm larger (1:900 scale).
You can better notice the differences in the histogram below:

[Comandante]

I also compared wave 3 models with previous waves and the following is my opinion about the minis:
• 109 Artesien.
- Scale excellent;
- barrels’ chase and muzzle don’t show much out of the gunports;
- jibs and spanker have a different attitude to the wind.
• 110 Portland.
- Scale good;
- quarterdeck and forecastle cannons/carronades absent;
- barrels’ chase and muzzle don’t show much out of the gunports;
- jibs and spanker have a different attitude to the wind.
• 111 Meregildos.
- Scale poor (1:1100), short and skinny, they are the size of a 74 gun SoL;
- quarterdeck and forecastle cannons/obúses absent;
- barrels’ chase and muzzle don’t show much out of the gunports.
• 112 Nepomuceno.
- Scale poor (1:1150), too short, they are smaller than a 64 gun SoL about the size of a large frigate;
- quarterdeck and forecastle cannons/obúses absent;
- barrels’ chase and muzzle don’t show much out of the gunports.

[Diamondback]

Franco, you might want to re-run 112 under two scenarios:
--Bahama, 53.34m as in Greenwich draught
--Bahama, 50.79m as-built
Bahama is specifically THE ship the SGN112 model is designed from, so maybe those numbers will make a little more sense. I THINK what happened was that while working from the Greenwich draught of Bahama as captured, they SHAPED Bahama for her later life but SCALED her to "as built." An easy mistake to make, and as noted on Sails Facebook there's more difference than that across the five designs spread across half a century's time that make up SGN108.

Also, the drawing I was able to find Ares for Meregildos was the 57m Salvador del Mundo, 2m shorter than all other Meregildos class.

If it helps to know, I just checked with a couple pros and as a general rule "Length On Deck" is usually from the point of the bow back to the transom (flat back wall under gallery) on lowest continuous deck. (Admittedly, usually pretty close to the waterline.)

[Comandante]

Thanks, DB I will, add Bahama. Did you have the chance to look at the pdf with the ships' line drawings. Do you think the length on deck I measured are acceptable?
Thanks again,
Franco

[Diamondback]

Franco, not having my sample set yet, and with my collection being in Remote Storage a few hours' bus ride away, I haven't really had much chance to check the numbers myself. You do make a good illustration of how freakishly huge the Oceans were, though, I can tell you that right off the top. I'll compile a list of the "official design lengths" we worked from and post a table of those once compiled. I will say they seem generally pretty close to recorded as I remember them... but I will also caution that with numerous other engineering projects both business and personal on my plate, my memory is not all that I would like it to be.

I also found a citation in Winfield that gives design length for the Humphreys superfrigates as 194'10"--yes, we know President as-built was only 173' and the others weren't a whole lot bigger, but I wonder if that larger number might fit with the scaling. (Speaking for myself, a mistake where I think I can see how it was made is easier to forgive than a total out-of-nowhere "WTF?!" is. It still takes work to "get past," but understanding at least for me makes that work both easier and more worthwhile.)

As it is, we know on BHR they first wanted to use the old Revell model, based on a wooden piece of home-decor that was nowhere near accurate, as their design basis but I persuaded them that a copy of the rare and expensive Boudriot forensic reconstruction of her draughts would be worth the investment and make for a much better model. (Of the published plans, most are faulty and have major compromises--Boudriot went back to every similar ship Antoine Groignard designed and used the known data from them adjusted to BHR's known dimensions. As I said, sometimes you just have to take your best guess in this business and hope it's in the ballpark... :( ) Admittedly, to turn her into her EIM sisters you're gonna have to perform some surgery, but when the set releases I'll post a thread on John Paul Jones's engineering changes.

[twsl]

Unfortunately I can't see any of your pics Franco but it seems like we came to roughly the same conclusion that 111 and 112 are a bit smaller than we would have liked.

This is a pic of the HMS Bahama (closest 112 I had to hand)

My 44mm measurement was from blue line to blue line and a 51mm measurement would be red line to red line.
I did the same blue line to blue line measurement on all the ships (right or wrong for consistency) and was happy with most of the outcomes give or take a mm or two,
knowing if I was out at the stern a little bit it should make it closer to the gun deck metres number.
I'm also happy to be corrected if I'm measuring the wrong place.

[Comandante]

I re-run 112 as Bahama “as built” and as in Greenwich draught.
As far as I know Bahama was built as a 64 (1780) and rebuilt in 1788 as a 74.
The model is clearly representative of the 74 in the Greenwich draught and looks nice, with the only exception of the missing guns on the forecastle (4) and quarterdeck (4), the stern gallery is lovely and clearly the Bahama’s one, Nepumecenos having a different design.
The model has a 46,7 mm gun deck compared to:
• Bahama as built, is 4,1 mm shorter and 1:1088 scale
• Bahama 74, is 6,6 mm shorter, 1:1141 scale

111 as Salvador del Mundo (ZAZ0042 is the draught I used for comparison) is 5,2 mm short and perfect 1:1100 scale.

I also compared 202 to the large Humphreys design and she would be 1,7 mm short and within a 3% error.

The following graph gives a visual idea of how much each model is close to 1:1000 scale:



Numbers make more sense now but, as you can see from the graph, 112 and 111 are not to scale, the error being still greater than the one of all the other models.
If you compare them to the others models in the following graph, 112 is smaller than a 64 and 111 is the size of a 74.



108 is a handy model and probably my favorite. It is not perfect but, as far as length and beam are concerned, it can be used for most 1st and 2nd rate.
In the attached pdf file you can see that to compare Bonhomme Richard I choose to refer to a drawing from the book by Boudriot, I guess is the same DB mentions, and if ARES used that source to research its model, it should be easy to compare the results when it’s released.

I also attach the update table whit all data.



And the updated pdf file with the draught.

Line Drawings 1-1000 V2.pdf

[Comandante]

Unfortunately I can't see any of your pics Franco but it seems like we came to roughly the same conclusion that 111 and 112 are a bit smaller than we would have liked.

This is a pic of the HMS Bahama (closest 112 I had to hand)

My 44mm measurement was from blue line to blue line and a 51mm measurement would be red line to red line.
I did the same blue line to blue line measurement on all the ships (right or wrong for consistency) and was happy with most of the outcomes give or take a mm or two,
knowing if I was out at the stern a little bit it should make it closer to the gun deck metres number.
I'm also happy to be corrected if I'm measuring the wrong place.

I measure from the stern red line to the green line approximately. That should be the gun deck length. I measured 46,7mm



This is the Bahama Greenwich draught:



The innermost red lines being my appreciation of the gun deck.

[Hjl]

So basically every ship from wave three is wrong?

Ares seem adamant that they are correct and you seem adamant that they are wrong. Your proof is easy to follow and compelling but it relies on length data that we don't have. Is it possible that they just used different ship plans to you?

[Comandante]

Hugh, I wouldn’t say that, at least from the scale standpoint.
110 is 1:972 scale a 2,9% length error (1,3mm). To me is acceptable and comparable to all the previous models. 109 is better scale-wise. As you mentioned there is not consistency among the sources and depending on the plans you use you can have different results. I'm not adamant, that’s why I would give a pass to any model that falls in the range 1:950 to 1:1050 scale, to allow for any differences in sources and possible errors.
For those two models the noticeable mistake is that jibs and spanker have a different attitude to the wind, not the scale. Where does the wind come from? Port or starboard? That does not depend on the plan you used.
Unless I made some mistake, 111 and 112 are far from 1:1000 scale, they are small in a way I think it wouldn’t be possible to accommodate the number of cannons they would be supposed to carry, and my conclusion is that there is something more than having used a different plan.

[Hjl]

both! they are at the exact center of a tornado obviously...

[Comandante]

I did not considered that! that might be the case.

[Diamondback]

The red lines on Alan's photo are closer to it. LD extends up into the round section of the bow, all the way to the post, and the exact number they had to work from on Bahama at 64-gun length as a San Pedro de Alcantara was 50.79m.

Also, she may be overpowered as a 74 because her LD only carried 24pdrs, not the 32's or 36's of her bigger rate-mates. This is why you can't just say "a 74 is a 74 is a 74"...

If I've seemed a little snappish of late, please forgive me--I don't like being a referee very much and I'm having to do too much of it in politics between two factions each claiming "if you aren't 100% in lockstep with us you're The Enemy." (Between the crowd who Trump could murder children on the White House table and they'd still make excuses for him, and those who if he donated part of his liver to save a kid needing transplant they'd still find reason to denounce his doing it... and in between you have those of us who try to be objective, calling the balls and strikes as we see them. Which is not opening a political discussion, just noting the effects of polarizing situations on us in the middle.)

I have a sample set of my own, one of each sculpt, on the way, and I will be conducting my own independent investigation and sending a report of my findings to Ares. Forty-eight hours after they have my report, you'll all have it too. All I ask is that y'all step back, and give the Big Brown Truck time to cross the US, and then for me to get over to my forwarding address, pick 'em up and do the work. Delivery is scheduled for next Wednesday, soonest I can retrieve them is Saturday.

[Hjl]

The red lines on Alan's photo are closer to it. LD extends up into the round section of the bow, all the way to the post, and the exact number they had to work from on Bahama at 64-gun length as a San Pedro de Alcantara was 50.79m.

Also, she may be overpowered as a 74 because her LD only carried 24pdrs, not the 32's or 36's of her bigger rate-mates. This is why you can't just say "a 74 is a 74 is a 74"...

If I've seemed a little snappish of late, please forgive me--I don't like being a referee very much and I'm having to do too much of it in politics between two factions each claiming "if you aren't 100% in lockstep with us you're The Enemy." (Between the crowd who Trump could murder children on the White House table and they'd still make excuses for him, and those who if he donated part of his liver to save a kid needing transplant they'd still find reason to denounce his doing it... and in between you have those of us who try to be objective, calling the balls and strikes as we see them. Which is not opening a political discussion, just noting the effects of polarizing situations on us in the middle.)

I have a sample set of my own, one of each sculpt, on the way, and I will be conducting my own independent investigation and sending a report of my findings to Ares. Forty-eight hours after they have my report, you'll all have it too. All I ask is that y'all step back, and give the Big Brown Truck time to cross the US, and then for me to get over to my forwarding address, pick 'em up and do the work. Delivery is scheduled for next Wednesday, soonest I can retrieve them is Saturday.

As a Brit living in the us I am in the odd position of having taxation without representation whilst simultaneously being able to excuse myself from political debates by saying I'm a foreigner and can't vote :D

[Bligh]

Smart move Hugh.
i felt very much like that when we visited Colonial Williamsburg and listened to all the speechs denouncing the Government for all those things which we still live under 200 years later.
Nor is this political in any way DB! I'm just reflecting on history and its ramifications.
Often we live in far too interesting times.
Rob.