Ship-of-the-Line Under Construction

[Hiawatha]

I think that the third one looks the best

[Skipper]

I like the second one. First looks a bit top heavy, and the arms of the third are IMO too big.

Looking forward to more updates!

Edited October 5, 2011 by Skipper

[matt22hew]

This MOC is one of the big inspirations for me trying to actually build one too!! Very impressed with the detail!

[Dread Pirate Wesley]

This MOC is one of the big inspirations for me trying to actually build one too!! Very impressed with the detail!

Thanks and Im glad it has inspired you! Looking forward to seeing your design in real brick too.

Completed the cannon for the gundecks this afternoon. Perhaps the last time I would be able to picture a whole gun decks worth together before they are in place so cant let it go to waste! 16 pieces for each cannon so there's about 288 pieces in the second shot:

Next up will be finishing the bow and forecastle with ladderways and details. Stay tuned

DPW

[Horry]

Holy moly, that's a nice pile of MOC-cannons! What is their supposed calibre?

[BrickPerfection]

Very, very nice looking ship with a lot of detail. I'm in awe of your capstan design; i like the second one best!

I followed your build for a while and it's certainly one of the most impressive here on the forums with comparatively quick progress!

I would also like to add that the size of your ship is just about right; looks really good! Not quite as monstrous as a minifigure scale one, but it looks really nice and realistic for the size of a minifigure plus the proportions are pretty sweet too!

I can't add much here; personally I would go for headlight grates and some sort of modularity. I'm always using the pearl grey Lego guns, but your MOC cannons look great too; and much more to scale.

[Dread Pirate Wesley]

Holy moly, that's a nice pile of MOC-cannons! What is their supposed calibre?

There are actually two sizes in that pile, the larger is a 24 pounder the smaller is a 18 pounder. There are 26 of each on the main gundecks. Here's a size comparison between the two with my sigfig:

And with a row of 18 pounders from the upper gundeck:

And thanks for the compliments Perfectionist! I had thought of using Lego cannon originally but size wise they were too impractical, and with all the different calibers and the carronades it would look odd to mix and match.

DPW

[BrosMars]

Maybe is ready a little "candy" update? Thanks for sharing this greath and beautiful project!!!!

BrosMars

[Sir E Fullner]

I envy the captain of that ship. In fact, a captain in my fleet would envy that captain. His ship is only 22 studs long.

[dafi]

Hello Wesley,

found your build by chance as I found a link from my picture - the small little man in between the two capstans.

I like the attempt, that even it is "just" Lego, you take the time to try to understand the original. Wonderful work, much appreciated!!!

I posted a link of your build on my german forum http://forum.bolitho-und-co.de

where the reaction for this - and also for many other of the builds here - was fantastic :-)

All the best, continue, I will follow with interest.

Daniel

[Captain Redbeard]

Great job so far. I love brick built hulls!

[Dread Pirate Wesley]

Hello Wesley,

I posted a link of your build on my german forum http://forum.bolitho-und-co.de

where the reaction for this - and also for many other of the builds here - was fantastic :-)

All the best, continue, I will follow with interest.

Daniel

Hello Daniel!

Glad to hear that you and others are following my build from Germany. Unfortunately I don't speak German very well but Id love to attempt to read it if you could provide a link to the thread.

As for everyone else, this thread has attracted a lot of views since I was in the forum last so I wanted to provide an update. After a bit of a building doldrums I'm starting to get back into this ship. I hope to have the forecastle section with full masts and basic rigging done soon. I actually ran out of cannons after building nearly 50 of them, I must have miscalculated how many pieces I needed but that's easy to do with so many!

More pictures will be posted soon as the forecastle gets finished. Then it will be on to finishing the stern. Thanks for the comments everyone!

Dread Pirate Wesley

[ringleheim]

Dread Pirate Wesley,

Let me start by saying this is a really fantastic build and I have greatly enjoyed following it VERY closely.

I am new to this forum and currently trying to make my own sailing ship so I found this build log fascinating and informative.

I have a few comments which you have likely already considered, but...

First, the proportion of the hull is not right, in that there is way too much ship sticking up out of the water relative to its length. You have the bulk of a 3 decker. But the 64s and even 74s were "thinner" in appearance.

Secondly, and this relates to point 1 in a nice way: your lowest black stripe running the length of the hull should be much wider than the upper black stripe. If you simply removed 1 brick height from you upper black stripe you would lower the height of the hull side while correcting the stripe issue all in 1 go, though it sounds like that would ruin your deck height engineering and minifigs would no longer fit!

Third: You addressed this early in your build log, but I still think there is something not right with the angle of your hull sides. Particularly at midship, nearly the entire hull side should angle inward all the way to the top. The angle changes along the way, but its all "leaning" inward.

Fourth: I realize a lot of people go with that bright yellow for the yellow ochre paint, and Lego doesn't give us a good choice with color. But it is just so bright and garish. Have you considered "brick yellow" or "tan" as a substitute? It wouldn't be right either, but it would be more muted and perhaps not look so toy like. I don't really know about this! I am just kicking around ideas here.

Lastly, there is something that does not seem right about how your hull goes straight down into the "water" at the very bottom of the ship. At dead midship, that is probably accurate, but the ship should be angled inward fore and aft in particular, and really only a small portion in the center of the ship is reasonably "straight" or vertical at the waterline. There is an excellent photo of HMS Victory at sea, taken around the year 1900 I believe, at wikipedia. Look at the angle of the hull as it meets the water from bow to stern. There is something that just seems "off" about having the ship go straight down to the water line. I would consider lining the entire bottom of the ship with a row of inverted slope pieces, so that the ship slopes inward, away from the viewer, at the waterline. Or you might want to recess the bottom by even a half stud (plate) followed by another half stud recessed plate. The slope would be much more gradual than by using 45 degree inverted slopes. If any of that makes sense! This also might be one of those things where even if it is technically "correct" to have the ship meet the water vertically, it still doesn't seem right to my eye. It seems like a slght angle (inward) makes sense, even if done as a "creative trick of the eye". These huge ships just didn't meet the waterline in that perfect right angle kind of way.

I offer all these comments as just that: comments to be kicked about. If your ship wasn't as brilliant as it is, I would probably refrain from commenting at all. But you have a real chance here to come up with something truly magnificent (it's practically there already!) so why not go all the way? I'm curious to hear your responses to some of these thoughts, as you have very clearly spent a great deal of time, effort, and money on this wonderful build!

I hope to post photos of my own build (probably stealing some of your own techniques!) in the near future.

Keep up the OUTSTANDING build!

And keep your powder dry!

Edited April 14, 2012 by ringleheim

[dafi]

Hello Wesley,

nice to hear that things are about to move :-)

I could have thought about the english version ...

Here is the thread in MSW: http://modelshipworld.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=13688&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=110

and here a even more detailled one in the Victory Modellers Forum at Pete Coleman: http://pete-coleman.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1035&start=360

(registration needed)

@Ringelheim: Do not take pictures of about 1900 for Victorys appearance, as the ship was much modified and sit far higher in the water as she used too. They even were able to cut small ports for the orlop-deck ...

All the best, Daniel

[Captain Blackmoor]

Ringleheim, that was an outstanding comment. While this is not my topic I've gained some valuable information and indirect feedback as I'm constructing a ship as well. Thanks!

It's great to see another member with an outstanding knowledge about ships.

So to you as well, keep up the good work!

[Dread Pirate Wesley]

Lastly, there is something that does not seem right about how your hull goes straight down into the "water" at the very bottom of the ship. At dead midship, that is probably accurate, but the ship should be angled inward fore and aft in particular, and really only a small portion in the center of the ship is reasonably "straight" or vertical at the waterline. There is an excellent photo of HMS Victory at sea, taken around the year 1900 I believe, at wikipedia. Look at the angle of the hull as it meets the water from bow to stern. There is something that just seems "off" about having the ship go straight down to the water line. I would consider lining the entire bottom of the ship with a row of inverted slope pieces, so that the ship slopes inward, away from the viewer, at the waterline. Or you might want to recess the bottom by even a half stud (plate) followed by another half stud recessed plate. The slope would be much more gradual than by using 45 degree inverted slopes. If any of that makes sense! This also might be one of those things where even if it is technically "correct" to have the ship meet the water vertically, it still doesn't seem right to my eye. It seems like a slght angle (inward) makes sense, even if done as a "creative trick of the eye". These huge ships just didn't meet the waterline in that perfect right angle kind of way.

Ringleheim,

Thank you for the comments. All builds in the Lego medium tend to be a mixture of compromise unfortunately. My compromise on this model was to make the ship taller so that it could be filled with life (minifigs) yet still maintain as much historical accuracy as possible. There are many things that I wish I could make more accurate, and some that I probably will once I find a solution.

When it comes to your final point on the tumblehome, or slope of the hull as you describe it, I refer you to this image from my plans:

On the left side of this drawing we see the shape as it progresses forward from the stern. On the right we are looking at the bow as it progresses aft. I added the blue line to simulate where the waterline would be. As you can see, towards the stern the hull does indeed slope inwards towards the waterline as you say. But as the ship runs forward, especially with as bluff a bow as this, the hull becomes much more vertical and even slopes outward momentarily around midships. This would be even more pronounced when a ship was preceding to battle, as captains generally shifted ballast forward to give a "nose low" attitude especially under heavy sail. I would refer you to Geoff Hunt's painting of HMS Victory under stunsails, an excellent depiction of this. Under calm winds or light loading a ship would certainly have a more "rounded" appearance above the waterline tapering inwards, but that's not quite what I'm going for. The stern section in its current form does slope inwards as you can see, as a larger portion of it would be raised than the bow when under sail. Here's how she sits right now, and you can see how it curves inward toward the stern while being vertical from midships forward:

If I could, I would lower the entire ship one brick so it wasn't quite so steep, perhaps I will find a way to do that in the future. As for the color I tried many different colors after looking on bricklink for what parts came in what colors. Yellow was the only solution available for now that I would consider close to accurate. I love the new dark tan, which I used for the decks, but they simply don't make the kinds of bricks I need in that color... yet.

Daniel,

I have been following your Victory build on MSW very closely as you can tell! Hopefully you don't mind me using some of your images for reference, the level of detail in your build log has proved invaluable even though my ship is a third rate not a first.

Thanks again for the comments. Any advice is always welcome as it will probably always be a WIP!

DPW

[Sebeus I]

So, how long (studs) do you estimate it will be when finished ?

With a max width of 24 studs it's more narrow than my Flying Dutchman (26 studs) but I'm guessing it will probably be longer.

(my ship has a total lenght, tip of the prow to stern lanterns, of 129 studs).

Man I'd love to compare your ship with mine, as they are both waterline models they most looks great engaging in battle

[Dread Pirate Wesley]

So, how long (studs) do you estimate it will be when finished ?

With a max width of 24 studs it's more narrow than my Flying Dutchman (26 studs) but I'm guessing it will probably be longer.

(my ship has a total lenght, tip of the prow to stern lanterns, of 129 studs).

Man I'd love to compare your ship with mine, as they are both waterline models they most looks great engaging in battle

Currently the hull is 100 studs long not including the beakhead and adding 8 studs for the stern galleys (dont have lanterns yet). The beakhead is about 8 studs long but its hard to measure due to the building techniques. So when its all finished I would estimate length approximately 110 studs and beam of 24 studs. On the main gundeck the length is 92 studs which gives a length to beam ratio of 3.8. For comparison, the most famous 64 HMS Agamemnon has a length to beam ratio of 3.63 on the main gundeck, so fairly close to my own proportions.

When it's finished we shall have to have a photoshop Pirate vs. Navy battle between our two flagships. Yours is a great build and I hope mine holds the same level of detail when she is finished. Until then the dockyards shall remain hard at work while the Dutchman takes its toll to the locker unchallenged.

DPW

[Frank Brick Wright]

It is quite obvious that you have committed a great deal of work into this: it shows detail and careful study.

There are, however, some points in which I think you could improve. It is also plain that you have tons of skill so I will be criticizing as hardly as I can. I am sure the final work will be something awesome.

I couldn't avoid posting here another photo of Sebeus' F.D.. I know you already know the photo but since both ships have a similar hull-building method I thought it would be easier to understand what I am talking about.

First: I get the impression that you ship-of-the-line should get that curve like in this F.D. from the bow to the middle of the ship, which is way too straight. In fact, in yours, it does not even gets a larger beam in the middle of the vessel. I might be mistaken, but I am quite sure this should happen if if only for half a stud.

Second: note that the ship meets the waterline vertically but it immediately starts turning inward in an angle that changes all the way long; yours is way too vertical (again, Sebeus' amazing work is a reference).

The problem here is the scale. Since it is all so large and gigantic (and fantastic ), small mistakes are made enormous. This is why, IMO, even if she is already impressive, her curves do not look very natural.

Third: as far as I know, that deck-curve that exists in reality and that you depicted only to the stern, i.e. that the middle of the deck is indeed lower that the extremities, should also extend to the bow, even if not as pronounced as to the back. I mean: the front cannons should be in a slightly higher level than the middle ones.

This is as far as I can go. She is indeed amazing and the bow is an ouevre d'art. If I am pointing out this 3 points it is only because I see here the potential of a great vessel and I want to help in every manner I can.

[Captain Blackmoor]

Jumper plates and the bending technique work quite well to solve this issue quite easily.

It's still quite vertical, but it shows a small curve as well.

Your ship is looking great and it's awesome to see the project back in action. Keep it up!

[Bart]

(...)

Third: as far as I know, that deck-curve that exists in reality and that you depicted only to the stern, i.e. that the middle of the deck is indeed lower that the extremities, should also extend to the bow, even if not as pronounced as to the back. I mean: the front cannons should be in a slightly higher level than the middle ones.

(...)

This really depends on how you build your model, if you build a full hull model you would raise the deck at the bow, so to speak. But when building a waterline model you also have to look at the way this ships lay in the water. Under sail or not. And most of this ships were head heavy. Due to stowage and due to the the positions of the sails. There bows were pushed down. So it appeared the decks at the bow were the lowest and rises going aft.

This same principle goes some way for the debate about the waterline too. At the bow the ship met the water almost at a vertical. And this being a model, making it vertical is the best. At the stern the hull would move inward at the waterline, until it meets the rudder.

Maybe its due to the angle of the picture but it kind of looks that in you model the hull goes inward quit rapidly after the midships.

For the rest great build so far, looking forward to the next update :)

Bart

[Dread Pirate Wesley]

First: I get the impression that you ship-of-the-line should get that curve like in this F.D. from the bow to the middle of the ship, which is way too straight. In fact, in yours, it does not even gets a larger beam in the middle of the vessel. I might be mistaken, but I am quite sure this should happen if if only for half a stud.

Second: note that the ship meets the waterline vertically but it immediately starts turning inward in an angle that changes all the way long; yours is way too vertical (again, Sebeus' amazing work is a reference).

Third: as far as I know, that deck-curve that exists in reality and that you depicted only to the stern, i.e. that the middle of the deck is indeed lower that the extremities, should also extend to the bow, even if not as pronounced as to the back. I mean: the front cannons should be in a slightly higher level than the middle ones.

I will try to address all of your points although Bart already answered the third for me. There is a major difference between a ship becalmed and a ship under sail, mine is meant to be under sail. In that case, try to imagine that the gunstripe at the bow would be parallel to the waters surface as the ships bow would be much lower as it pushes through the water. So in this case, it should not curve upward at the bow. It would however curve more and more upward as it runs aft. Here is one of my favorite paintings of Agamemnon under sail and you can see how parallel the gunline looks under sail:

Again, I am basing this model on a vessel under sail so models and drawings will not match those lines. My model begins its curve up from midships and continues to the stern.

Also, I can't compare my ship to Sebeus's Dutchman, the two ships are too different. Our building techniques may seem similar but they are very different technically. I believe (and he may correct me if Im wrong) but his is an adaptation of CGH's frigate technique using hinge plates, mine uses a system of hing bricks to make a complex curve increasingly inward as it goes higher. I dont believe any other ship uses this technique at this time. You can see it more clearly in this old image, as you can see it is only truly vertical for 2 bricks before it starts sloping inwards:

I will work on a solution of making the whole ship lower to the water by one brick as I think this will enhance the look greatly.

Bart,

Im glad you understand what I am going for. It does curve inwards in the last third of the ship more and more towards the rudder, are you saying that it curves too much or too soon?

Thanks for the comments,

DPW

[Bart]

From the side view picture a couple of pages back the curve looks good.

but from the frontal view it looks kind of abrupt.

I think this is really due to camera angle. I would leave it the way it is, as I think you have done it as smooth as possible with bricks.

Bart

[Captain Blackmoor]

Obtaining these weird curves with square-ish bricks is the greatest challenge for a ship builder. Especially the curves in the bow and stern, you can´t bend plastic bricks like wooden beams and planks.

[Bart]

(...) you can´t bend plastic bricks like wooden beams and planks.

I see a challenge !