Mark P

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mark P

  • Birthday 09/08/1960

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

356 profile views
  1. Hi Herask; thank you for posting this. It is another example of something I will never be able to do! I am okay with 2D CAD, but all this 3D stuff is beyond my experience. You seem to have made a good start. I will watch with interest. All the best, Mark P
  2. Hi gentlemen; A bit off topic, so I'll keep it brief: I wonder if the name Crothers is derived from the English name Carruthers, which sounds very similar (I have a bit of an interest in English names for people and places) All the best, Mark P
  3. Thanks Meddo; A clear explanation. My mind is at rest. All the best, Mark P
  4. Hi Tom; thanks for the reassuring post, but I have to ask: what is a docent? I have not seen it on this side of the pond. All the best, Mark
  5. Hi ronkamin; Every illustration I have ever seen of ships with studding sails (normally abbreviated to stun's'ls or similar) shows them rigged out on both sides. However, one slight point to watch if anyone is showing them set: the sails overlap in sequence. In other words, port and starboard stun's'ls are not both set abaft, nor afore the square sail they join. If the port one is abaft the sail, the starboard one will be afore it, and vice versa. The one the most to windward was set behind. This was done to ensure that the wind did not pass through the overlap of the sails, but had to pass behind all three. When the ship changed tack, the stun's'ls were shifted to the other side of the square sail. Must have been a lot of work to shift them all on a large vessel. All the best, Mark P
  6. Hi Vossiewulf; In the decades just before the French Revolution in 1789, Royal Navy contracts with merchant builders (ie not Royal Dockyards) specified a minimum plank length of 24 - 25 feet for hull planking on large vessels, sometimes stating that no plank should be wider than 12". I am not sure how much this latter point would be applied to un-rated vessels such as cutters, though. One reason for a maximum width could be that if they were wider, they would not fit well around the curves of the frames, unless the inside face was hollowed. Which would be a lot of extra work. Another could be that unless very well-seasoned, all planks shrink across their width; and the wider the plank, the greater the distance it will reduce itself by as it dries out. Under the demands of war-time needs, with greatly increased workloads, the proper seasoning of timber probably became less important than getting the ship off the ways and into the water as quickly as possible. A similar thing happened with the 30 ships programme in the late 17th century: many of these rotted rapidly at their moorings, needing major re-builds within a year or two of launching. This was widely attributed to the use of un-seasoned timber, made necessary by the sudden increase in demand for seasoned wood, which rapidly exhausted available stocks (although it was also found to be due to those supposedly taking care of the vessels not actually living aboard, with the result that the gun-ports were not opened as they should have been, to allow air to circulate) I would not use planks any larger than the 12" width given above for the bottom planking, or shorter than the length given. However, on the upperworks some planks were wider: the sheer strake, for example, being specified as 15" wide, or 'as wide as may be got'; so around 15" was probably the maximum available most of the time. All the best, Mark P
  7. Hi ppddry; Absolutely wonderful draughting work. The level of detail incorporated is something that would reward many hours of studying your drawings, and there would still be more to find. One very small point, given by someone who knows he can never equal what you have done here, but I hope you would like to know it, is that the knee of the head tapered forwards, and was much narrower below the figurehead than where it was bolted to the stem, which you show correctly. However, the standard in the head, at the top of the knee, was narrower, and almost parallel sided, and did not follow the taper of the timbers below it, leaving a ledge where the standard sat on the knee. The leading edge in the upper part of the knee was also rounded over, quite noticeably at the top, diminishing to nothing as it went down. If this has been left as a chamfer deliberately, apologies for raising it before you have finished. All the best, Mark P
  8. Hi Timboat; Have you got the AOTS volume on Blandford. It has loads of information you may need, but unfortunately there is nothing there that deals with sweep stowage, not that I can see. However, I might have missed something lurking deep within the text. All the best, Mark P
  9. Hi Tom; Just one note of caution. The 1745 establishment might be a better guide to Liverpool, as this listed mast and yard lengths and diameters for various sizes of vessel. Steel is about 40 years later than Liverpool (unless you are modelling her after a refit) and there were quite a few rigging changes in those decades (the widespread use of royal sails, for example) This establishment only lists a 24 gun vessel, not a 28, but Lees will give the formula which applied during this period for calculating main mast length, and which can be used to work it out for Liverpool. You could then check this against the establishment, and work out the proportion for the difference, if there is one. The result could also be compared against those listed in Steel. They may well end up being similar, but they may not. I would check, if only for peace of mind. All the best, Mark P
  10. Hi Doc; From what I have seen whilst researching among the NMM draughts of masts and spars, pole masts were used as much as possible until around 1780. After this date, New England (American) timber was no longer available, due to the loss of the American Colonies, and built masts were required to make up the shortfall. For small vessels, pole mast timbers could still be imported from the Baltic, but it would appear that these were not available in such long lengths as the New England timbers, and far more Naval vessels therefore needed built masts than had been the case previously. I cannot quote any record that states this, but there are quite a number of mast drawings from the late 1770s, which show masts for all sizes of ship, and how many blanks were required to be joined to make the built mast. Based on the sudden appearance of a complete range of drawings, it would seem reasonable to assume that prior to this, built masts were much less required due to larger timber being available. Wooldings were used on larger pole masts to strengthen them against splitting, but bands were only used on built masts. All the best, Mark P
  11. Hi everyone; One further tip: when cutting the paper strips to make the barrel hoops, cut them slightly curved, not as a straight strip. This will mean they lie completely flat against the wood, without any trouble. All the best, Mark P
  12. Hi Joel; I agree with Phil; I would only look at your book with a view to seeing what it was like, and if I liked it, to purchase my own copy. All the best, Mark P
  13. Hi everyone; To determine the widths of the planks (known as staves) mathematically, take the diameter of the barrel at a number of points, including the centre. Multiply this by 3.142, which will give the circumference at that point. Divide the centre circumference by the number of approximately 4" staves that would fit into it (46" would take 12 @ 3.83") By taking the diameter at points midway between the centre and ends, and dividing by the same number of planks as at the centre, it will be possible to calculate the curvature required for the edges of each individual stave. All the best, Mark P
  14. Hi FriedClams; Interesting pictures, and a very nice result from your method. The paper bands look just like metal. Thank you for posting this. All the best, Mark P
  15. Hi Greg; Regarding Chapman's draught, I forgot to add that the Swedish MM took photographs of it for me. The best ones were separate pictures of the bow, stern and midship areas. They also initially took one of the whole draught, but this cannot be zoomed in on enough to see the carving detail clearly. All the files were sent as tiffs, which are large files, but store more detail than jpegs. They were extremely helpful, and answered all my requests quickly. I cannot thank them enough. All the best, Mark P