• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dashi

  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

207 profile views
  1. Hi Mindi here's a link to a discussion we had a few months back http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/13503-mast-lengths-and-their-above-deck-heights-for-hmb-endeavour/?hl=%2Bendeavour+%2Bmizzen. If you are going for the taller mizzen then based on the length given for the mizzen standing mast in 1771 from Woolwich yard @ 50'6" and assuming it to be stepped in the lower deck (see discussion), I've worked out the following for the 1:64 scale Caldercraft Endeavour kit: Above the quarterdeck 181mm, below deck 57mm = Total 238mm. Using the Woolwich yard measurements I've also had to adjust the main and fore standing masts kit lengths to 296mm and 286mm respectively. If you choose to use these measurements then please double check my math. Hope this helps? Cheers Dashi
  2. I just want to say thank you Pat in post #122 for accurately understanding and explaining my position better than I am capable of, and for your well thought answer to my initial question. Also I'd like to thank everyone who contributed their time and input or who has taken an interest in my question. This topic has raised some good points and other questions, such as why the tiller was so long. Unfortunately I don't have the energy or the health to pursue these questions any further in this discussion. My presence is now required in the shipyard and else where so thanks again everyone. Cheers Dashi
  3. Jud I don't how relevant this is as it's not a contemporary source, but I recall learning about cordage diameter to bend ratios when I was in the corps. So I've searched and found this in the 'Rope User's Manual', page 38. http://www.samsonrope.com/Documents/Rope_Users_Manual_WEB.pdf. It's not specifically talking about ship hawse, but suggests a minimum bend ratio of 1:3 for bitts fairleads and chocks. Dashi
  4. Thought I'd repost these so they don't get lost under the recent posts.
  5. Thanks Jud. I was starting to wonder what was going on also? The Encyclopaedia Britannica page does mention such a thing as a Tiller Transom in reference to shipbuilding when the tiller exited the stern in earlier ships which I think Jud is pointing out also. I wonder if it is possible that it is this earlier terminology Cook was drawing on to describe this transverse support timber that he got the carpenters to fix as a tiller support in place of those iron braces? I see the annotation as an attempt to clear up possible misconceptions that may have arisen here because of Cooks use of this term. Therefore I don't think we should dismiss this annotation which indicates that Cook is referring to the carpenters as fixing a transverse timber under the end of the tiller as a support. Pat's answer seems to stack up the to the evidence and as I've already stated my representation could be wrong in light of this.
  6. As indicated in those definitions it is important to include an adjective to describe which transom is being referred to otherwise the context is lost. In this context I think Cook is referring to a Transom associated with the support of the Tiller. Not a deck or Stern Transom etc. Thanks
  7. Welcome aboard. Cook is talking about the Tiller being in danger of breaking, so it is in this context that I think his use of the word 'Transom' is taken to mean a 'Transverse Supporting Timber'. I don't think he is talking about the rudder or rudder head. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tiller looking at the tiller length and weight, and to compare apples with apples so to speak, then I think there are examples of tiller supporting quadrants where the length and weight of the tiller require support. The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815 by Brian Lavery, Chapter 2 Tiller and Whipstaff and Chapter 3 The Steering Wheel. Looking at the Bounty it's tiller appears considerably shorter compared to Endeavour which does highlight that Endeavour appears to have an exceptionally long tiller for the size of vessel and therefore as the physics suggest would have required support possibly by use of a sweep, which have been in use for supporting larger tillers since at least the use of the wipstaff in the 17th century. Where the tiller is below deck then the sweep is fixed to the overhead beams and the tiller hangs from it via what some call a gooseneck. However the term gooseneck is also used for the iron fitting attached to the end of tillers that fitted into the whipstaff. Lavery gives a description and drawing of the use of a sweep above decks in smaller vessels, ( 1771 draught of Endeavour), where the tiller requires supporting. (page 23) The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815 by Brian Lavery, Chapter 2 Tiller and Whipstaff and Chapter 3 The Steering Wheel. Hope this helps answer some of your questions. Cheers Dashi
  8. Pat the more thought I give your interpretation, the more sense it makes. It does seem to hold up quite well with the evidence we have on hand including my very unqualified attempt at figuring the physics. I am still requesting if an engineer, fitter or at least a qualified person from the building trade could check and complete my math in an earlier post to help approximate the size and position of those iron Tiller braces that kept breaking? I have asked fitters about the physics and they all agreed that the physics of that tiller required it to be supported by some means and the best method is that tiller sweep or Transom I think Cook is referring too. I'd imagine those braces would have been working at the limit of their strength with too little tolerance which would explain Cooks apparent frustration with them as being supplied to do a job they weren't up to.
  9. The defininition of transom dosn't just refer to the aft timbers of a ship or boat, but any transverse supporting timber http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transom . I have only referenced one source which agrees with all other sources I have cross referenced for this log entry. So here is another source http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks/e00043.html#ch6 In this context I think Cook is refering to the tiller and not the stern or stern post as opposed to the transoms you are referring. But I need more evidence. A broken stern transom would be a major structural failure resulting in extensive repair work. Granted they were anchored a while with their forge set up on shore for repairs. The note which appears in other sources of the log entry is refering to the end of the tiller. What about the physics? Thanks Frankie for sharing your point of view.
  10. Thanks Jud, and Pat. I re read it and Pat your interpretation is a possibility I need to consider and how it might change the construction of the tiller transom and how those iron tiller braces fit into the picture. If I've understood you, then this interpretation suggests the job of those iron tiller braces was to take the weight of the tiller and that Cook was not happy with them for possibly the same reasons Jud and I have worked out here. So if this is the case then Im not sure if he is referring to repairing the iron gudgeon braces as has been previously suggested? Cheers
  11. From the entry for Saturday 27th January from the book, 'First Voyage Around the World: Captain Cook's Journal During his First Voyage, Page 272, Cook writes: "Saturday, 27th. Fresh gales, Westerly. This day we got the Tiller properly secured, which hath been the Employment of the Armourers and part of the Carpenters since we Anchor'd at this place; the former in repairing and making new Iron work, and the Latter in fixing a Transom,* for the want of which the Tiller has often been in danger of being broke; the Iron braces that supply'd the want of a Transom have broke every time they have been repair'd." *The reference at the bottom of page 272 is indicating in this context Cook is saying: * A transom is a curved piece of wood which supports the end of the tiller. Note: As has been pointed out later in this discussion this is not the generally accepted use of the word 'transom', which leaves this entry open to interpretation. It is my understanding that in earlier vessels such as carracks where the tiller passed out a hole in the stern, that the transom which passed under the tiller was reffered to as a tiller transom.https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=QU40AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=tiller+transom+definition&source=bl&ots=qs6UGheA-I&sig=u-x5Oq0-HxISibbwwICUKXlkS18&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirnaKZz6DNAhWHspQKHTNTAZUQ6AEIJzAG#v=onepage&q=tiller%20transom%20definition&f=false My opinion based on the evidence to hand is that in this context the anotation is using the term 'transom' to mean a transverse timber support which passes under the tiller to support it's weight along it's sweep to replace the job of the iron tiller braces that kept breaking. But not having the carpenters log then this is just my best guess and we may never know for sure. I hope we can agree that Cook wouldn't have sailed with out ensuring the 'fix' to the tiller support 'defect' that took place over 12 days in Queen Charlotte's Sound New Zealand among other running maintenance repairs and de-fouling was up to the job and going to last the long voyage through uncharted waters that was still ahead. https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=WT4zDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA272&dq=endeavour%20tiller%20transom&pg=PA272#v=onepage&q=endeavour%20tiller%20transom&f=false Cheers
  12. I did consider that Druxey but figured in my head that if the formula to work out the diameter of the main and foremasts was the same, then if you take the ratios of their fulcrums and compare it to a lower deck stepped mizzen then this ratio should be proportional and therefore the falcrum forces will be ok. You can check this if you like. But I'm ok with it for now. By the way Wayne you will be pleased to know I found that last painting you posted and its by Samuel Atkins 1794. It appears to be evidence for the taller mizzen because although it is late if you rule a horizontal line parallel to the water line of the bark from the fore top (not the top masts or gallant) it should cross below the main top 3 to 5 feet and then where it crosses the mizzen the top should be around 8 feet below the line. Which looks to be the same as in Parkinsons sketch with the mizzen at the taller height putting the mizzen top around 8-9 feet below the main top. If it were the shorter mizzen mast stepped in the hold then the mizzen top would be 18 feet below the main top which it isn't. So interesting thanks. Anyways I've taken a step back from this discussion as I have an answer I can live with for now. It might not be the answer others want but they are equally free to draw their own answers from the validated evidence presented here. Thanks again everyone.
  13. First I think before dismissing this out of hand we to need review draught zaz6591 of the cabin or orlop deck which you provided and which omits the hole for the mizzen standing mast as I think it raises some interesting questions that need answering. To do this and in the interests of clarity I will attempt to list some of the main points that have been raised in this discussion and possible relationships between them. Point 1 : Draught zaz6691 raises the question that the mizzen was stepped in the orlop deck if Waynes 'no hole' argument is true. Point 2: Wayne you made the argument that you didn't think the shipwrights would have made mistakes. I'd like to agree with this but the evidence you have provided in draught zaz6691 might not support this argument. Point 3: Draught zaz6594 of the 1771 deck plan provide by Wayne along with other deck draughts disagree with draught zaz6691 and show holes through all the decks for the mizzen. Point 4: Point 3 supports the argument that the missing mizzen hole in draught zaz6691 is in fact very likely a draughting error. If there is no other supporting evidence for the theory of the deck holes or lack of them for determining mast steps on plans then this argument needs to be discounted. Point 5: Point 4 negates points 1 and 2. Point 6: The last painting Wayne provided has no reference date or who it is by or what ship it is and so can't be verified as evidence for this discussion. Point 7: Parkinsons sketchs clearly show a taller mizzen inline with contemporary ship building measurements wayne has provided and the shrouds all appear very close at the same angle from their respective channels. Point 8: Steves AL model because of the lower mizzen and the replica Endeavour also because of the lower mizzen have the mizzen shrouds at a lower angle compared to the fore and main shrouds. Point 9: Point 7 negates point 8. Point 10:Wayne in your last post your provided evidence with a link in which it clearly gives two formula for working out the length of the mizzen. If the mizzen is to be stepped on deck then it is to be 2/3 the length of the main mast and if it is to be stepped in the hold then 3/4 the length of the main mast. Point 11: The formula in point 10 is further supporting evidence for the practice of both deck stepped mizzens from at least 1761. Which deck they are referring to it doesn't say. It is proof that other formula were used which isn't in dispute. Working backward none of these formulas appear to support the Woolwich Yard measurements with the exception of a formula in Steel's compilation which is not listed here and came 30 years later. Point 12: Druxey worked out the mizzen height from it's diameter which came to 60' which matches one of steel's formula. Referencing points10 and 11 suggests that this is the length if it were stepped in the hold and makes it 10' taller than the Woolwich Yard measurement of 50',5" which it would be if stepped in the lower deck. It would need to keep the diameter proportional to the longer mast of 60' because the stresses from the quarterdeck partners would still be the same regardless of whether hold or lower deck stepped. In conclusion: I feel like we have exhausted all the evidence there is. After careful consideration the theory of a deck stepped mizzen is supported and does explain the Woolwich yard measurements using a formula from Steel's compilation of 30 years later as I originally posited. This is not conclusive but it is valid. Secondly the question of the foremast length: After further research I think the Woolwich yard measurements are ok here, but that it is still possible that there has been an error. As far as I'm concerned this discussion has answered my questions, I really appreciate the efforts of everyone who took the time to provide valid evidence and their respective points of view. Nothing is conclusive and we are each entitled to our own conclusions and points of view so with that in mind I'd like to thank everyone as I have learned a lot that I can now use on my build of the HMB Endeavour.
  14. Here is a link to an engraving by William Byrne believed to be done from a lost drawing by Sydney Parkinson of Endeavour being repaired. http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/269382.html If you look closely you will notice two interesting facts. First the angle of the shrouds are identical and second the ratio of differences in height of the standing masts. The mizzen standing mast does not appear to be anywhere near 18 feet shorter than the main standing mast and the fore standing mast height appears to be some where between the main and the mizzen. Comparing the shrouds, they all appear to be at the same angle which the mizzen standing mast shrouds couldn't be if it were 18 feet shorter than the main standing mast. And here is another Parkinson sketch showing the shrouds all at the same angle. https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=sydney+parkinson+endeavour&client=tablet-android-samsung&prmd=inmv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjinfvcnvvMAhWEW5QKHQ2FA6sQ_AUIBygB&biw=1280&bih=800#imgrc=2Kjd5xBOBhUSFM%3A
  15. Thanks Wayne. Thats an interesting draught from NMM id ZAZ6591 you put up of what looks to be the orlop deck and while I can see the hole for the main mast forward of the quaterdeck hatch passing through it I can't see the hole for the mizzen? Your arguement seems to be at odds with this draught, are you saying that the mizzen is stepped in this deck because there isn't a hole for it? As to the deck beams as far as I am aware it was the quarter deck that was significantly altered and not the lower deck but I could be wrong so I'm not clear on what you are trying to say here regarding the quaterdeck beams and I am aware of the broken red lines on the proposed refit of 1768. As far as deck beams are concerned they are placed where they need to be and not necessarily placed hard up against a mast if you look at the hole for the main mast in the draught you have provided. You make a good point about the accuracy of the Woolwich yard measurements which I wan't to agree with and am trying to prove here because one of the arguments around the mizzen is that Woolwich made a mistake with the slip of a pen which like you say I also find hard to believe. Parkinson's drawings clearly show the Endeavour with the taller standing mizzen and these were drawn first hand. It is his drawings and the woolwich yard measurements that suggest to me the mizzen was stepped in the lower deck and not the keelson. Here is a link to Parkinsons drawing. https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=parkinson+endeavour&client=tablet-android-samsung&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9qMWV-_rMAhWGn5QKHfIGBVIQ_AUIBygB&biw=1280&bih=800#imgrc=hClazxzzPQr-HM%3A As far as the foremast is concerned I have been rechecking everything and using the Woolwich measurements there is about a 2.5' drop in height from the main to the fore standing masts contrary to what I first thought which might be ok. But this is what I'm asking for help with to check these heights. With the mizzen stepped in the lower deck there is a drop in height of around 8' from the main standing mast to the mizzen standing mast and 5.5' from the fore standing mast to the mizzen standing mast. But if you were to step the 50' mizzen in the keel then this would change to an 18' drop from the main to the mizzen which dosn't agree with any of the figures in any of the charts that you have provided and nor does it agree with Parkinson's drawings.