Square or round tuck?

[lmagna]

I have a question for people here on the forum. Hopefully someone looking in will have some input on the matter.

 

In my original and continual research on building the Continental sloop Providence, some things out of necessity are determined by common practice rather than actual knowledge of what was done on the Providence in particular, as there is no record available that is definitive to the Providence, and certainly no plans or builders drawings.

I have already decided on the shape and structure of the bow and entry on this model based on lines and plans for other ships of the time and a research paper by Kellie Michelle Vanhorn called EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY COLONIAL AMERICAN MERCHANT SHIP CONSTRUCTION. 

 

The area I am requesting information and opinions on is described on pages 24-26 of her paper, called square and round tucks. Indicating the area below the stern counter, mostly above the waterline on either side of the stern rudder beam where the stern starts to flare outward.

 

As far as I can determine the two styles of stern were almost interchangeable for ships of this type and size, and it made little difference if they were built for merchant or military use. Chuck's Cheerful clearly uses a version of the square tuck while the Sultana uses a rounded tuck. The other ships I have used as reference also seem to be pretty random in this area with no apparent preference. The Cheerful does seem to be unique in that she is the only one I have found that seems to use framing around the square tuck and the planks along the side of the hull where they meet at the stern.

 

Does anyone out there have knowledge in this area of design that would lend favor to one design over the other for this particular build?  

[druxey]

Without knowledge of the particular builders of Providence, it would be hard to determine which method was used in that specific case. My personal bet would be a square stern (not tuck), as this was more common on smaller vessels.

 

Your observation on Chuck's Cheerful is a good one. This detail of construction is not usually seen on modern models. It was done this way with rabbets in both directions to prevent plank end-grain from being exposed to water. If not done, moisture followed by rot would quickly wick its way in. One can see this detail of construction on models in the USNA museum collection, as well as being explained in the new book on The Hayling Hoy of 1759-60.

[Mark P]

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 

[lmagna]

Hi druxey

Thanks for the input. To be honest I was beginning to think I was on my own on this.

 

By most accounts the Providence was originally built at the personal shipyard of the John Brown family of Rhode Island in 1768. Prior to being used first as Katy, and later as Providence as a warship for Rhode Island and the Continental Navy, she was used both as a cargo and whaling ship by the Brown family. Although built after the French and Indian war, there is some evidence that she was built with the possibility of being used as a privateer and almost certainly as a smuggler, was designed to carry 10 four pounders even before entering into service for Rhode Island in 1775. This was increased to 12 guns after she was taken over by the Continental Navy.

 

I at least partly based my question on the following:

• Square-sterned vessels could have either of two styles of tucks – a square tuck or a round tuck. In the square tuck, the transoms extended horizontally straight from the sternpost to the fashion piece, essentially the last frame. In the round tuck, the transoms were curved forward and the bottom of the fashion piece no longer was secured to the sternpost, but attached to some of the frame timbers farther forward. This change allowed the planking to run more smoothly up to the wing transom in the counter. Both styles were different than a true round stern, in which the wales and planking ran directly into the sternpost and were supported by vertical cant frames.

The remainder of the question is based on photographs, plans and pictures of contemporary ships, none of which seem to show a preference of one style over the other.

[lmagna]

Hello Mark

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something here.

 

I was of the belief that a square tuck stern was where they ran vertical timbers down from the counter stopping where the horizontal planks extended to the same location thus forming a 'V' shape below the counter with the rudder bisecting the port and starboard sides.

 

A round tuck was where the horizontal planks coming back from the forward hull make the final sharp bend vertically at the stern and butted up or are covered by the horizontal counter beams.

 

In both cases the area in question would mostly or totally be above the waterline with the stern plank, where the rudder attaches, covering the below the waterline plank ends that do not form part of the stern.

Edited June 6, 2018 by lmagna

[Tom P.]

I hope someone out there can help me a question relating to square and round tuck sterns.  I'm trying to reconstruct what the Nina looked like - Columbus' ship.  As a ship from the late 1400's, I read that she likely had a round tuck stern, that the square tuck became prevalent only in the next century.  The earliest definitive evidence that I've found is the wreck of the San Juan in Red Bay Labrador, a Basque nao dated to 1565: she had a square stern.  The recovery and preservation of this wreck was such that from the published photographs you can easily see the end grain issue discussed above.  I understand that square sterns are easier to construct, but I wonder how they affected the efficiency of the rudder; would they have resulted in more turbulence / less efficiency? I ask this because the Nina and Pinta were reputed to have been good sailors.  I would gladly hear anyone's thoughts on this topic.

 

Thanks,

Tom P.