Jump to content

Mark P

Members
  • Content count

    1,025
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mark P

  • Birthday 09/08/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Rutland, England
  • Interests
    Sailing ship models, scratch built. History, art, architecture, cultural.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,431 profile views
  1. Evening everyone; It's not the USN I know, but in the Royal Navy for many years Gunners were only issued with two tackles per gun. If they needed a train tackle, they would unhitch one of the two gun tackles, and make do with that. They did eventually get issued with three, though. All the best, Mark P
  2. How to measure a jib boom?

    Hi rtwpsom2; All masts and yards were measured parallel to their centreline. They were made on land, and the craftsmen making them needed to know how long to make them. All the best, Mark P
  3. Evening gentlemen; Some interesting things posted here. Backer, the archaeology report is very interesting. Please note, though, that what are referred to here as filling pieces are not the same as filling frames. The keel is missing, and would have been somewhere below the bottom of the drawing. Filling pieces were a common practice, and were inserted between the main frames to fill any gaps between the main timbers. This was done in the bottom of the hold to prevent water build-up and rot. The joints at the ends of the floors are interesting. And the construction appears to be repeating single futtocks (navel or naval timbers they are called in early contracts) which are then sandwiched by a sequence of second futtocks whose ends completely fill the spaces between the ends of the first futtocks. This is similar to the construction shown in many Navy Board ship models, which is generally believed to be un-representative of full-size practice. I would be very cautious of accepting the blue shaded areas as part of the third futtock; they do not seem right for this location EDIT: (I have just noticed that they are listed as firring pieces in the index, which would mean they were added to increase the vessel's breadth) This is food for thought indeed; thank you for the post. All the best, Mark P
  4. Morning Dave; In the AOTS series, the book on 'Blandford', a 20 gun ship from 1720, has some excellent details of her fire-hearth. All the best, Mark P
  5. Evening Dave; My reply is in two parts: The diameter of the head of the bolt would be at least 2x the diameter of the bolt, judging from illustrations I have seen of typical bolts. It needed to be wider to prevent the head pulling through. The largest size bolt I have seen referred to for the period you mention is 1 3/8". The smallest is 3/4" (although I stand to be corrected if necessary) The exact size depends upon the size of vessel concerned, and the bolt's location. Assume a bolt head diameter of around 2" and you are unlikely to be far out. At scale sizes, the difference is unlikely to be noticeable. By the way: before you accept Goodwin's reconstruction as the only one, I would read the beginning of Franklin's 'Navy Board Ship Models, 1650-1750', where he discusses some interesting alternative framing possibilities (in the picture you have posted at the beginning here, there is no means of attaching the second filling frame to the keel, nor is it attached to the floor/futtocks on either side. Effectively, it is floating in air, which cannot be correct) Richard Endsor in his two books on Restoration period vessels shows a lot of detail of framing (his work is greatly superior to Goodwin's in many respects) which I recommend you also get a look at if possible. All the best, Mark P
  6. Hi Lou; Following on from Druxey's comment regarding double rabbets, I have seen old contracts for vessels with round tuck sterns stipulating that the side and stern planking which meets the stern timbers (that is the vertical ones, rising from the ends of the wing transom) should be rebated into the timbers, which can only be for exactly the same reason, to prevent water ingress in the end grain. An alternative, which happened on some vessels, was to cover the end grain with mouldings or carvings. All the best, Mark P
  7. Some questions about shrouds

    Hi Vinnie; Your picture doesn't show it, so unless it is shown elsewhere, there was a rounded piece of timber, the bolster, set on top of the trestle-trees. This was to ensure that the shrouds did not sit against a sharp edge, and become weakened by it. Also, on many ships, the shrouds were not the first ropes to go over the masthead. If you are making a warship, take a look at James Lees' 'Masting and rigging of English Ships of War'. If it is a merchant vessel, try Underhill's 'Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier', which is very well illustrated and informative, written by a man who loved sailing ships, when there were still enough of them around for him to have personal experience of them. All the best, Mark P
  8. Hi Ben; I am not sure if you are doing this for ease of draughting, to be altered later, but the joints in your keel are what is called a 'half-lap' joint. This is much weaker than the joint which was actually used in a keel, the 'scarph' joint, where the cut was only one third into the timber at the shoulder. I suspect that as you have obviously read the TFFM volumes, you are aware of this, but I thought it best to be sure. All the best, Mark P
  9. Greetings Sandor; One other point with cannon which were stowed is that the bore was closed by a tompion being placed in the muzzle. This was a solid timber shape like a filled in bucket, often with the visible end carved and painted. They were standard issue as part of the Gunner's stores. In the Royal Navy, 'take out your tompions' was the second command given when preparing the guns for use/drill. I am sure it would be the same in other navies. All the best, Mark P
  10. Greetings everyone; I was just replying to a post about lines on a draught for a 74, but when I clicked submit, I got an error message. The whole thread has now disappeared. Is this likely to an accident, or has it been deleted somehow. Is this relevant to Chuck's post re deleting not being possible? All the best, Mark P
  11. Greetings everyone; For those with any interest in the fighting for American independence in the later 18th century, I highly recommend the book by Sam Willis, titled 'The Struggle for Sea-Power'. I am only half way through it (it's not small!) but it is written in a way which makes the reader aware of how many obstacles there were to overcome before any of the participants could actually fire a cannon. It is filled with examples of patriotic devotion to duty, and to the contrary, lays out many opportunities missed because of a lack of this. The writing is clear and very well informed, and I feel sure brings to light many small aspects of the war and the logistics involved which have not been much written about before. All theatres of the war are considered, and its impact on the colonists, the sailors (on all sides) and all those who made a living connected to the sea or the major rivers that run into it. Anyone reading this will, by its end, know far more about the struggle for independence, and the good and bad luck, the wise judgements and mistakes, which combined to bring about the British defeat. I am very glad that I purchased this book, and consider it to be excellent value, well worth the time that will be taken to read it. Happy reading! Mark P
  12. Cut down / Razeed ships

    Good evening everyone; To throw some light on references to caulking port lids shut, this was certainly done with some of a certain type of Royal Navy vessel. I refer to the 80 gun three-decker, bane of many captains' lives during the first half of the 18th century. These ships became notorious for their inability to open a lower-deck gunport in any kind of sea. One admiral complained that his ships were useless, and unless on a mill-pond would never be able to haul up a port-lid, and he named at least one ship under his command whose ports had been caulked when she was launched. The 80 gun ships were too short, too high, but most importantly could not displace enough water to provide the lift required to raise them far enough out of the water to be usable. The shipwrights, however, stuck doggedly to their guns, and refused to admit that there was anything wrong with the type even in the face of the most determined criticism from the sea officers. The situation was resolved by Lord Anson, First Lord of the Admiralty, who upon the death of Jacob Acworth, the long-serving Surveyor of the Navy, installed Thomas Slade and William Bateley as joint Surveyors. They had urgent plans to construct a 74 gun ship, but to try and divert criticism, for a long time they had to claim that the first 74 was actually a new 70 gun ship. All the best, Mark P
  13. Cut down / Razeed ships

    Hi Shipman; The first one to spring to mind is the Royal William, which never actually sailed as a three-decker, and was eventually cut down to a two-decker (I think with 80 guns) Look her up. All the best, Mark P
  14. Greatest 74 gun ship

    Hi Sailor; One factor which is generally agreed upon in contemporary assessments of British v French ships is that the French ones were built with smaller section timbers and less fastenings, such as bolts and knees. This was presumably because the French ships were not intended to remain constantly at sea, unlike their British counterparts. When captured, it was normal for the dockyards to survey foreign vessels, and the report normally mentioned that she was in need of strengthening, which was frequently done. It was also frequently found that captured French ships were so badly strained and worked by a few years sea-service that they were beyond economical repair, and were hulked or broken up. All the best, Mark P
  15. terminology question - points off

    Hi everyone; One point that some may not be aware of: the picture posted by Jud shows what is known as a 'Compass Rose'. This was the name of the (fictional?) corvette in Nicholas Monserrat's WW11 sea novel, and it wasn't until many years after I first read it that I realised what the name meant. All the best, Mark P

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model shipcraft.

The Nautical Research Guild puts on ship modeling seminars, yearly conferences, and juried competitions. We publish books on ship modeling techniques as well as our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, whose pages are full of articles by master ship modelers who show you how they build those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you what details to build.

Our Emblem

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research
×