Jump to content
Siggi52

HMS Tiger 1747 by Siggi52 - 1:48 - 60 gun ship from NMM plans

Recommended Posts

Siggi: There's always a possibility that I could be wrong. If I am, I'm ready to admit it! However, (I've written a PM to Mark) I have a strong argument for my point of view. We'll see....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Siggi,

I find this a very interesting discussion.  I think Mark P and Druxey have some very fine points.  One point I would like to add reference your picture below. I do not think they rabbeted into the ship frame.  

 

670FB097-FF80-43FB-B14F-238244BD741C.jpeg.4bfeed11367f23d95f314ebaa77642a3.jpeg

 

If you are not going to show a port lid with a rabbet then the lining and port lid plank together “equal” the thickness of the surrounding ships side plank.  Goodwin shows this in the notes as Y in the drawing you posted earlier in pic below.

 

06026F4D-4D61-4AFF-BBAE-20BE47AE2736.jpeg.e40b38268186371ac49b2f58b258fe17.jpeg

 

 It can also be seen in the photos of the contemporary models posted earlier and the HMS Victory you showed earlier as well.  See pic below.  None that I can find, show the lid rabbet “let into the ship frame” to make up for the thickness of the lining.

 

15ADBA6F-1AD1-4DD2-96A2-53EDBD8282C3.jpeg.8367f2b0e6d860898357c9044c6464ad.jpeg

 

 

I think you can also have a port lid with the outer lid planks the same as the thickness of the ships side planks.  But when you add the inner lining, then you will need to have a rabbet on the port lid underside created by the lining “short of the stops” created, so that when the lining is added it will clear the frames.  This you can see in contemporary models.

 

I will be interested to see where Mark P’s and Druxey’s discussion resolves since they are much more informed than me. 

 

Happy Holidays

 

 

 

 

Edited by Dowmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Siggi wants to get to the bottom of this, I have a question concerning the watertightness of the gunports when not using Druxey's supported method. Wouldn't it be so that the oak used in constructing the timbers would result in a far less watertight closure (due to the rigidity of the wood) than when using a softer wooden lining as advocated by Druxey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings everyone;

 

Having seen Steel's description, sent by Druxey, I can now present a solution which we both agree is the most likely one. 

 

Steel specifies that the port stops must be a minimum of 3 to 3 1/2 " depending upon the rate of the ship.

 

The contracts I quoted in an earlier post state that the outer planking of the port lid is the same thickness as the outer planking of the ships side, and that this is backed up by an elm lining laid vertically and nailed to the outer planks of the port lid.

 

By the way Mark (SJ Soane, see post above) I never envisioned a rebate in the frame timbers. A misunderstanding somewhere along the line. Siggi's left hand sketch in post 201 was as I interpreted the contract description.  This has now been slightly refined, see attached sketch. 

 

The stop distance given by Steel is the distance by which the outer planking of the port lid overlaps onto the face of futtock or toptimber.  He also states that the lining is to be 1" to 1 1/4" thick.  This will be the thickness of the elm lining boards on the inner face of the gunport lid.

 

No extra work required, no need to form rebates, no need for the stated dimensions of the gunport to be reduced by a separate lining, and no need to fit the separate lining. 

 

244760841_Gunportsections003.thumb.jpg.7557c697e304b71eac0785949623f2df.jpg

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Gun port sections002.pdf

Edited by Mark P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning,

 

now we are there, where we where before this discussion and as we ever build our models. The only difference is, that to the top of the lid is no stop anymore. You would't find also any model with such a broad rabbet. When yes, they must have the same thickness as most lids, but mostly they are much thinner. I think it's a shortcut as I stated before and most of the contemporary models say I'm right. Why did you ignore that? I mean the contemporary models.

 

Dowmer, why do you think that they did't rabbet into the frames?

Goodwin says in his text: that the outer planking of the lid is equal to the thickness of the ships side planking and Y says: variable according to the thickness of the ships side planking. That doset mean automatically, that they are together have the thickness of the outer planking. 

 

»None that I can find, show the lid rabbet “let into the ship frame” to make up for the thickness of the lining.«

 

You could see the rabbet all around the port hole on contemporary models. How deep they are you could't see. But deep enough for the lid and that means they have to cut the frames. There are to my knowledge only two models that show a rabbeted lid as Druxey and Mark P will shows us. All other models show lids as the Victory has. Here an other picture of the Victory where you could see the rabbet better. But not at the bottom of the port hole! These port lids seems to me have the thickness of the outer planking of the ship. In this case you haven't to rabbet the frames.

 

177899720_Bildschirmfoto2018-12-30um09_55_54.thumb.jpg.8d2ee14f45ef5c0cdc6c767555c0a2c1.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning Siggi;

 

The picture of Victory is interesting. If you look closely at the gunports, you can see that a narrow strip of wood has been nailed into the bottom of the port in the ship's side, to fill the space where the rebate would have been.

 

As an example of proper practice in the 18th century, I would not refer to the present Victory, though. As you probably know, she has been repaired and patched so many times that there is very little original left, and I would doubt that the present gunport lids are faithful replicas of those she had at Trafalgar or earlier. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Mark,

 

yes I know, but it's the only ship where you could see it today. Yesterday I searched for the Tricomarlee and Unikorn, but it looks like they did't have port lids. The Tricomarlee has one port closed, so you could see nothing and the other ports lids are not there. 

 

A happy new year to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this debate from the sidelines, and not commenting until now.

 

For all practical purposes, and thinking like a tradesman, it would seem to make the most sense to stop the planking a few inches short of the frame siding, along the sides of the ports, and to cut the plank opening around the sills.

 

Although ship carpenters of yore would have been fantastically adept with their tools, chopping additional mortises into the frames and sills would be remarkably labor intensive, with the disadvantage of weakening, to some small degree, the underlying frames.

 

Also, from a practical perspective, it would seem to create a better gasket, if the lid linings were stepped back around all four sides of the lid, so that they fit into the opening.

 

While it is good and usefull to look at surviving examples, like Victory, as Druxey points out, the history of repairs - even on an important ship - isn’t always reliable; sometimes modern carpenters do strange rot-prone things like filling the lower rabbet with short stock - for whatever reason, I can not tell you.

 

Perhaps a better surviving example, albeit from a much earlier time, is the Vasa.  She has not been altered, but re-assembled, and she exhibits stepped lid linings and rabbeted ports.

 

It just seems to me that a shipyard, regardless of the epoch, would work as efficiently as possible.  And there are sound mechanical advantages to fitting the port lids in this way.

 

Certain details on contemporary models, on the other hand, are often simplified for the sake of making models more quickly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Marc,

 

that sounds all very logical. But do you think that all modellers of that time make the same shortcut? And also the painters? I did one side of the ship this way, it's more complicated then making the lid with a step. I think that it's a shortcut of modern modellers. Also when that exist already in earlier times. 

 

As I once before tried to say, the lids of the contemporary models seams to have the right thickness. Outer planking the same size then the ships planking with a 1-1,5" lining. So they had to cut back the frames a little. And the rabbet is much les then 3-3,5"= 1,6-1,8 mm broad. May be 0,5mm =1" This 1" or a little more and another 1-1,5" deep, that would be the rabbet I'm speaking about. And it's above the gun deck, so the ship would't fall apart from this. 

 

On the other hand, who told us, that the outer planking of the lid is of the same thickness then the outer planking of the ship? I found that in Goodwin's book, but what is the source? I cant remember. What is, when the whole lid is between 3-3,5" thick? The magical number from Steel around 1800!  Then Victory's Lids are of the same thickness then the planking of the ships side (it looks so), then no extra rabbet is to cut. If that is also true for the older ships, I don't know. As I said before, they look at the models as if they have the right thickness. 

 

One argument we did't discus till now is the fact, that if the inner lining of the lid has the same size of the the outer planking, all for sides of the lid lie in the rabbet. Not only the left and right side and the plank above and below, when the lining is cut back. I think the construction is weaker when the lining is only nailed to the back of the outer planking.

 

Druxey, that are your strong arguments? You could put these two sentence in a grinder, there would't come out more. 

 

For those who did't know what we are speaking about, that is all from a book of 641 pages! At least it mean, the lid is not less then 3-3,5" thick

238141047_Bildschirmfoto2018-12-30um17_58_51.jpg.30b889bf207b0ed76f763b3b48a82488.jpg

709290793_Bildschirmfoto2018-12-30um17_58_16.jpg.acf69cc0ea16527db00cde3653d339e5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion and very informative.   I recall reading that during heavy weather, leather strips were used similar to a gasket to seal the lids to the hull.  Would this be true for this era or is it myth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Siggi,

I agree, no shortcut and these ships were built to very exacting standards, albeit with certain artistic interpretations such as the admiralty framing which isn’t full size practice.

 

It seems that this discussion keeps stating that gunport practice was only one way.  In fact, gunport practice I believe was multiple different ways....or at least two or three.  

 

The framed Bellona pictures above clearly show no port lid rabbet, but a rabbet created by the ship’s plank sides, creating a groove for the port.  It also shows that the lid total port lid thickness is the thickness of the ships side planking which includes the lining.  So port planking and lining = ship side thickness in this particular case.  It is also very clear there is no rabbet “cut” into the frames as you suggested earlier.

 

A bit of a different era (1797). But here is a picture of Constitution during her 1875 refit with the outer planking removed to show the frames.  The forward gun ports can be seen, and no rabbet cut into the ship frames can be seen.  So in this case, the rabbet was created by the ships plank like the Bellona picture above.  

 

 

D1FE753C-A47D-46E4-9164-85AC3A89009B.jpeg.340475a07b64a90c8ca02f6b8a938e03.jpeg

 

 

Also, the port gun lids in photo below show that the lining was full size.  Gun port Plank and lining = thickness of ship plank.  No cut rabbet into the frames.  Granted, the port lids were two two piece which was a later era.  It’s also possible that the gun port had an extra sill lining to create the port stop like Druxey mentioned before but it isn’t clear in the picture.  The point is that the port lid has no rabbet except where the two halves meet.

 

5AA7EF7C-197C-4722-BC72-E01256CCDBF6.jpeg.ea2bdf6a87dc6cb98c85bf6c49bed717.jpeg

 

 

 

Edited by Dowmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One argument for the lining being flush with all four sides of the lid is that because it is nailed to the outer planking at right angles - perhaps a full height and width lining helps to more completely balance the forces of expansion and contraction, thus allowing for a tighter fit inside the opening.

 

I will say that the Bellona model appears to be a very deliberate and detailed representation of this detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

thank you all for your comments and likes.

 

Mark, I don't know if they also used leather for caulking. But old ropes I think they had plenty.

 

Dowmer, »that gunport practice was only one way« of course there are different forms of gun ports, but for my ship there is only the standard form important. 

 

When I'm seriously look at the Bellona pictures, I could't see what you see. Even if I want to see there something. The outer planking of the lid should be of the thickness of the outer planking of the ship. That said Goodwin and Mark P confirmed that. Even when his contracts are from the 1690th. That may have changed with the time. But you could't tell it from these pictures.

 

The pictures from the Constitution are from an other time and the port lids seem to be much thinner. Like these from the Victory, after all the repairs. May be they are at that time always thinner, as Steel stated. And if there are an extra sill, I cant see it. I see there only the stop, normally build by the frames. But only to the sides, not at the bottom. But may be you have there more insider knowledge. But as Mark P said, linings where not build. 

 

So, for now we have cleared these facts. The port lids have no steps to there sides, even in later times. The outer layer are of the thickness of the planking of the ship at this place, with a lining of elm 1-1,5" thick. That says, there must be cut an extra rabbet. When in later years the port lids get thinner these extra cut rabbet disappear.

 

Not clear is, how that was in 1745. The list of establishment deals only with the main structure, keel frames and so on. So all other things they took  I think from the 1719 list of establishment. Ok, they did't mention there port lids. So we did't know if they are getting already thinner at this time, or in 1745.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

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
×