trippwj

Members
  • Content count

    2,910
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by trippwj

  1. Knees
  2. Nature
  3. Try this link: http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/150841.html
  4. Thankyou
  5. Coppering of a ship's hull was coming into common use for naval vessels during the late 18th century (I believe around 1780 for the Royal Navy). the US coppered, at great expense, our first Frigates (1794-98). As to the use of copper on merchant vessels, due to the expense it was much less common. At the period in question, the process for rolling sheet copper was still relatively new in the US (see discussion in Smith's The frigate Essex papers) and, while more metal smiths were able to make it, the physical plant required was substantial. I think our colleague Frolick hit on the answer above - if they had the money. Then copper bottomed it was, otherwise white stuff.
  6. Interesting question. i suppose the answer is "it depends". If it was custom built for the purpose, perhaps - intent was to appear as somewhat innocent, confused for a merchant until in range. I suspect the level of fancy work was reflective of the owners, but no documentation I can cite.
  7. Regrettably, for the time period in question, it was done as you are attempting - various reference points were marked based on some method of estimation (ratio of a to b, stuff like that, which varied over time and between designers) and then connected using splines or other similar flexible forms (not the ships curves as we know them today, but a flexible adjustable form. I appologize for not having the reference right to hand, but there is a very nice contemporary illustration available showing the tools of the trade at the time. These did not include ships curves, ducks or anything similar - just rather basic compass, dividers, squares, straight edge, and adjustable battens/bows for curves. Not the types of tools that readily converted to numeric modelling. You may want to take a look at Mungo Murray (1754), Sutherland (several editions, most published posthumously, but each very good. I prefer his 1748), and Stalkartt (1781 - a bit later than the period in question, but still relevant) to get an insight into how the naval architect of the period developed a design. Rees (1819), Steel (1794-1805) and others of that period are also quite handy, if a bit more advanced scientifically (related to displacement and resistance calculations, but still no mathematical models of the hull form itself). The use of "whole moulding" was pretty much limited to small vessels by the 18th century. There is some discussion in the 1711 Sutherland (which is repeated by many others in later publications). It is difficult to find much reference to the method prior to Sutherland. Richard Barker has several excellent articles concerning not only whole moulding but other old methods of ship design available on his website. One other item to consider - has several very nice chapters - is Nowacki, Horst, and Wolfgang Lefèvre, eds. 2009. Creating Shapes in Civil and Naval Architecture: A Cross-Disciplinary Comparison. BRILL. https://books.google.com/books?id=8FoHYXEwAXEC
  8. Looking at things logically, there would likely be very few actual ports on a merchant converted to privateer. The hull and deck structures were not sturdy enough to handle the number of guns required for naval service, and a privateer would do everything possible to avoid contact with a military vessel. Given the fact that the gun ports would be more for show than practicality on the privateer, the spacing could be somewhat arbitrary - to get the most present with the minimum compromise of structural integrity (remember, these were not built to the same scantlings as a naval vessel, so not nearly as many frames present, with more space between frames). You may want to take a look at the Dutchess of Manchester (while actually a snow, it is a good exemplar of a documented American merchant vessel of the timeframe). You may also be able to extract some useful information from Robinson, John, and George Francis Dow. 1922. The Sailing Ships of New England, 1607-1907. Salem, Mass. : Marine Research Society. http://archive.org/details/sailingshipsofne00robirich. Salisbury, William. 1936. “Merchantmen in 1754.” The Mariner’s Mirror 22 (3): 346–55. doi:10.1080/00253359.1936.10657196 provides a good reconstruction of several samples from Mungo Murray (1754. A Treatise on Ship-Building and Navigation. In Three Parts, Wherein the Theory, Practice, and Application of All the Necessary Instruments Are Perspicuously Handled. With the Construction and Use of a New Invented Shipwright’s Sector ... Also Tables of the Sun’s Declination, of Meridional Parts ... To Which Is Added by Way of Appendix, an English Abridgment of Another Treatise on Naval Architecture, Lately Published at Paris by M. Duhamel. London, Printed for D. Henry and R. Cave, for the author. https://archive.org/details/treatiseonshipbu00murr. ) There may also be some useful information in Chapman's Architectura Navalis, though I have not looked in there recently.
  9. reeds brook
  10. magnetic
  11. Clarinet squeak
  12. Their
  13. I just downloaded it again (have been using it for a few years now without any problem). The newly downloaded version asked twice about enabling content - answered yes both times. Works fine for me using Excel (Office 365). Also worked fine under Excel 2007 and 2003.
  14. Probably the 2 best for historical research are Mariner's Mirror (Society for Nautical Research) and The Nirthern Mariner (Canadian Nautical Research Society). While each has a tendency to highlight the home team, so to speak (SNR is from UK), they each cover a broad variety of topics.
  15. I would say the NRJ if you like how to build and how I built mine articles. If looking for historical research that actually examines the construction and so on, don't bother, you won't find it there. At best, there is a cursory history of the subject vessel before the how I built mine, but nothing like there used to be back when folks like Chapelle and his peers were contributors.
  16. Lot
  17. First Rate
  18. An interesting comparison - muzzle loading black powder guns of old had a muzzle velocity on the order of 1,600 feet per second. The 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun used by the US Navy has a muzzle velocity on the order of 2,600 ft/sec. 16 inch guns on an Iowa Class Battleship likewise were about 2,600 ft/sec.
  19. Left overs
  20. Loan
  21. For an interesting discussion of the history and production of pine tar (same stuff, generic name) during the day of hemp, see https://maritime.org/conf/conf-kaye-tar.htm The utility on model shrouds and standing rigging is at best marginal - the scaling of the lines (and the material used) will likely result in a change to the accuracy of the hue relative to the material. It also is potentially a source of frustration over time as it could become a great dust attractant and collector, as well as occasional liquification and dripping onto otherwise clean woodwork. I am not sure if anyone has taken samples of rigging from contemporary models to determine the nature of the compound used to obtain the tinting. Would be an interesting analysis!
  22. Very nice find! Here is the link (note it is the 1812 edition) Steel, David. 1812. The Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture; Or: A Treatise on Ship-Building, Theoretical and Practical, on the Best Principles Established in Great Britain. With Copious Tables of Dimensions, &c. Illustrated with a Series of Thirty-Nine Large Draughts, ... Steel and Company. https://books.google.com/books?id=TWsmw-QqvmAC
  23. Fortunately, most of the noise from firing the guns was to the outside of the hull as the sound was directed out of the gun barrel. It would still be very loud in the hull, but the concussive shockwave of the firing was not present to rupture ear drums and such.
  24. Uncertain how American practice may have varied from British. For British, you might find something in Rees or Steel. For US, possibly in Humphreys notebook.
  25. Can't answer the IPad vice PC query, but the other one is straightforward. If you have posted in a topic it gets a star or asterisk. If not, there is a bullet point. The nice thing is that if you click on either the star or the circle it takes you to the first unread post in that log. Hope that helps!