Jump to content

Mark P

NRG Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mark P

  • Birthday 09/08/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Rutland, England
  • Interests
    Sailing ship models, scratch built. In-depth research into warship design and construction Henry VIII to 1790. History, art, architecture, archaeology, cultural, furniture making.

Recent Profile Visitors

3,787 profile views
  1. Good Evening WE; That does seem a likely thing, now that you mention it! All the best, Mark P
  2. Good Evening Ian; One thing which may be worth knowing if you have not yet started making all the hammock rolls, is that once the hammocks were stowed in the netting, they were covered with tarred or painted canvas, usually black or very dark grey, to keep them dry. This was certainly done in the Royal Navy, maybe not for French ships. Sailors did not want to sleep in soaking hammocks. Most likely, the nettings were lined with lengths of canvas, like a long trough, so that the hammocks were stowed inside it. Once the netting was full, one edge of the lining could be turned over the top and tucked down behind the other side, to create a seal. All the best, Mark P
  3. A clever piece of work, well done Glen! All the best, Mark P
  4. Good Evening Mati; That is a lovely model you have created. Sincere congratulations. May I ask what plans you used, as I am very interested in early 17th century ship design. All the best, Mark P
  5. Good Evening Jacek; I have no information on the lashing of the pendants; it seem logical that they would not be allowed to flap around, and if Druxey confirms that they were lashed, I would take this a certainty, and lash them as you think best. James Lees, in his book on rigging, states that until 1780 a single block was spliced into the end of the pendants; after that date a metal thimble was used instead. As your model is from 1775 (launch date, presumably) she would have had the pre 1780 version with a single block in each end. According to Lees, in ships with 2 pendants per side (which was those with over 50 guns) the after pendant was 1 foot longer than the fore pendant. All the best, Mark P
  6. Good Evening Gregory; The speculation was ill-founded generally. There has been some debate around the possibility that in the Elizabethan period guns were fired from a fixed position, and not allowed to recoil; but apart from that not-widely-accepted theory, the recoil of cannon is normally taken as a fact There have been at least two posts linking to a video of the Swedish Bofors company firing a replica of one of the Wasa's cannon; the recoil is substantial. This can be found on YouTube also, and is well worth a watch if you have not seen it. Especially the amount of splinters that fly when the ball pierces the replica ship's side, which it does with ease. All the best, Mark P
  7. Good Evening Gregory; 'In-haul' would indeed describe one possible function; although when fired in action the gun's recoil acted as the inhaul force, and the train tackle was only necessary to prevent the gun rolling freely down a heeling deck; ie for restraining it. Training/aiming was indeed carried out by the gun-tackles, which in the same logic would be called 'out-haul' tackles. However, the use of these 'haul'-derived phrases is limited, and contemporary inventories of gunners' stores always refer to train tackles, and gun tackles. The description 'train-tackle' was in use long before the appearance of carronades in the late 18th century. All the best, Mark P
  8. Good Evening Jacek; Those do indeed look like mast tackle pendants, which were the first item over the masthead when dressing the mast with the standing rigging. The wooden thimbles in the end are unusual, though. From what I have seen and read, most of them were fitted with a metal thimble seized in an eye-splice. The pendants were permanent, whereas the tackles were un-rigged when not in use. I would strongly suspect that when not in use, they were fastened to the shrouds with a temporary seizing, to stop them flailing around in any kind of wind or rolling of the ship, when they would chafe against other items, causing wear. All the best, Mark P
  9. Good Evening John; To back up Allan's comment, train tackles were not normally left fitted to the guns in English ships when they were stowed. They were only brought out for exercise and action. My theory, for what it is worth, is that the train tackle, which was not used at all for training the gun, ie aiming it, was originally called the 'restrain tackle', as in restraining, or holding back. All the best, Mark P
  10. Not being afraid to call a spade a spade, I once attempted to write here about the splice around the cascabel/button/knob using the proper word for it, and the site's software would not accept it. Regrettably, it is not therefore possible to be down-to-earth in this matter. The history of the word is very interesting, and apparently until quite recent times it was much more used and acceptable than present-day sensitivities would seem to indicate. All the best, Mark P
  11. That's a nice model, congratulations. All the best, Mark P
  12. Good Evening Tony; To follow up on Druxey's answer, it is possible that the words are 'au hazard', which has an English equivalent, 'at hazard', meaning 'as chance may make it', approximately. Depends upon the context, really, as to whether or not this is a likelihood. All the best, Mark P
  13. Good Evening George; With the latest picture which you have posted, one thing becomes very clear: the structure represented aft of the hatch is not associated with a sliding hatch mechanism. This is because the deck in the way of this structure is shown with multiple shading lines, which indicate an opening in the deck. Furthermore, in the centre of this, there is quite clearly a dashed rectangle on top of the deck beam between the two compartments of this mysterious structure. Due to the proximity of the ship's stove, I would say that this is a two-grating structure, forming a chimney hole, and additional steam vent for the galley, as mentioned in earlier posts. All the best, Mark P Edit: Jason posted his reply while I was writing mine; it would seem that we both have the same thought.
  14. Good Evening Gentlemen; There are archaeologists, who are only happy when they have a trowel in their hands and are down on their knees finding real artefacts; then there are 'archaeologists' who are part of English Heritage, who believe that any decision made in less than a year cannot have been properly considered; any project organised in less than two years cannot possibly have been properly sanctioned; and anything which means that they might have to actually do something in less than three years will automatically be an absolute disaster. The reality that they and their institutional mindset are the actual disaster will of course never strike them. Valuable artefacts being lost forever is only a minor concern, and it seems does not even register on their consciousness as something which should be minimised at all costs. Allowing amateurs to have any real say in decision making, or any real part in actually finding something is a 'Dear me! What a frightful thought!' scenario for the poor dears. Re the Netflix Sutton Hoo film, I too was of a similar opinion to Roger, having read the publicity for the film; but then I read an actual account of the excavations, and it seems that not only did Netflix exaggerate/fabricate a great deal about the inter-personal relationships of most of those involved, which the publicity to some extent admitted; but they also created a new element of tension between Basil Brown and the more experienced archaeologists who took charge once the significance of the site became clear, which was never actually there in real life (note to English Heritage: the 'professional' archaeologists were on site within a very short period, and recovered all that they could with the technology of the time, as quickly as possible) All the best, Mark
  15. Good Evening Gentlemen; One point which arises when discussing the belaying points of the rigging on Royal Caroline is the use of pin rails. As Allan mentions above, there is nothing to indicate that these were present on the bulwarks. However, the drawing which posted showing the plans received with the kit clearly shows a pin rail fitted to the shrouds. One thing I can vouch for is that this is a genuine contemporary detail, and can be seen in several paintings of the ship at different stages of her career. Unfortunately, they are not always shown on the same masts, or on all masts, although I suspect that this is artistic licence, and it would be safe to fit them to all masts, in my opinion. This is not to say that other lines did not belay in the tops, as discussed above; but it is certain that some lines, which on later ships would have come down to the pin rail in the bulwarks, actually belayed to a pin rack in the shrouds. See below an excerpt from the actual painting which is used as the frontispiece of the AOTS book in black and white. A pin rack is quite clear on the mizen; there is also one on the main shrouds, although it looks as though it is a rail fitted to the side of the deckhouse roof. This is an illusion, as other paintings make clear. All the best, Mark P
  • Create New...