Mark P

Hi Brett; Take a look at some of the build logs on this site. Ed Tosti, in the scratch-build forum has some really good tips about transferring measurements from draught to model. All the best, Mark

Greetings gentlemen: Patrick O'Brian was certainly not nearly the first author in this genre, whatever he may rank by quantity. Leaving aside the Marryatt mentioned above (who also write 'The Children of the New Forest', once a children's classic) C. S. Forester, who died in 1966, wrote the Hornblower series between 1937 & 1962. It was only after Forester's death in 1966 that an American publisher suggested to O'Brian that he should try writing historic fiction set in the sailing navy era; which was obviously a great success. All the best, Mark P

Hi Pat; I would be very dubious that shrouds were ever led through a fairlead. The stress on the fairlead would be quite high. I have never seen a shroud led in any other way than straight to a dead-eye, without anything inbetween. My interpretation is that the diagram above shows a plan of the shrouds (4 of them) and two topmast backstays, with a pin rail inside the bulwarks, or possibly on the shrouds themselves. There are then also fairleads on the first two or three shrouds through which ropes 100-102 are reeved. All the best. Mark P

Hi Herask; thank you for posting this. It is another example of something I will never be able to do! I am okay with 2D CAD, but all this 3D stuff is beyond my experience. You seem to have made a good start. I will watch with interest. All the best, Mark P

Hi gentlemen; A bit off topic, so I'll keep it brief: I wonder if the name Crothers is derived from the English name Carruthers, which sounds very similar (I have a bit of an interest in English names for people and places) All the best, Mark P

Hi ronkamin; Every illustration I have ever seen of ships with studding sails (normally abbreviated to stun's'ls or similar) shows them rigged out on both sides. However, one slight point to watch if anyone is showing them set: the sails overlap in sequence. In other words, port and starboard stun's'ls are not both set abaft, nor afore the square sail they join. If the port one is abaft the sail, the starboard one will be afore it, and vice versa. The one the most to windward was set behind. This was done to ensure that the wind did not pass through the overlap of the sails, but had to pass behind all three. When the ship changed tack, the stun's'ls were shifted to the other side of the square sail. Must have been a lot of work to shift them all on a large vessel. All the best, Mark P

Hi Vossiewulf; In the decades just before the French Revolution in 1789, Royal Navy contracts with merchant builders (ie not Royal Dockyards) specified a minimum plank length of 24 - 25 feet for hull planking on large vessels, sometimes stating that no plank should be wider than 12". I am not sure how much this latter point would be applied to un-rated vessels such as cutters, though. One reason for a maximum width could be that if they were wider, they would not fit well around the curves of the frames, unless the inside face was hollowed. Which would be a lot of extra work. Another could be that unless very well-seasoned, all planks shrink across their width; and the wider the plank, the greater the distance it will reduce itself by as it dries out. Under the demands of war-time needs, with greatly increased workloads, the proper seasoning of timber probably became less important than getting the ship off the ways and into the water as quickly as possible. A similar thing happened with the 30 ships programme in the late 17th century: many of these rotted rapidly at their moorings, needing major re-builds within a year or two of launching. This was widely attributed to the use of un-seasoned timber, made necessary by the sudden increase in demand for seasoned wood, which rapidly exhausted available stocks (although it was also found to be due to those supposedly taking care of the vessels not actually living aboard, with the result that the gun-ports were not opened as they should have been, to allow air to circulate) I would not use planks any larger than the 12" width given above for the bottom planking, or shorter than the length given. However, on the upperworks some planks were wider: the sheer strake, for example, being specified as 15" wide, or 'as wide as may be got'; so around 15" was probably the maximum available most of the time. All the best, Mark P

Hi ppddry; Absolutely wonderful draughting work. The level of detail incorporated is something that would reward many hours of studying your drawings, and there would still be more to find. One very small point, given by someone who knows he can never equal what you have done here, but I hope you would like to know it, is that the knee of the head tapered forwards, and was much narrower below the figurehead than where it was bolted to the stem, which you show correctly. However, the standard in the head, at the top of the knee, was narrower, and almost parallel sided, and did not follow the taper of the timbers below it, leaving a ledge where the standard sat on the knee. The leading edge in the upper part of the knee was also rounded over, quite noticeably at the top, diminishing to nothing as it went down. If this has been left as a chamfer deliberately, apologies for raising it before you have finished. All the best, Mark P

Hi Timboat; Have you got the AOTS volume on Blandford. It has loads of information you may need, but unfortunately there is nothing there that deals with sweep stowage, not that I can see. However, I might have missed something lurking deep within the text. All the best, Mark P

Hi Tom; Just one note of caution. The 1745 establishment might be a better guide to Liverpool, as this listed mast and yard lengths and diameters for various sizes of vessel. Steel is about 40 years later than Liverpool (unless you are modelling her after a refit) and there were quite a few rigging changes in those decades (the widespread use of royal sails, for example) This establishment only lists a 24 gun vessel, not a 28, but Lees will give the formula which applied during this period for calculating main mast length, and which can be used to work it out for Liverpool. You could then check this against the establishment, and work out the proportion for the difference, if there is one. The result could also be compared against those listed in Steel. They may well end up being similar, but they may not. I would check, if only for peace of mind. All the best, Mark P

Hi Doc; From what I have seen whilst researching among the NMM draughts of masts and spars, pole masts were used as much as possible until around 1780. After this date, New England (American) timber was no longer available, due to the loss of the American Colonies, and built masts were required to make up the shortfall. For small vessels, pole mast timbers could still be imported from the Baltic, but it would appear that these were not available in such long lengths as the New England timbers, and far more Naval vessels therefore needed built masts than had been the case previously. I cannot quote any record that states this, but there are quite a number of mast drawings from the late 1770s, which show masts for all sizes of ship, and how many blanks were required to be joined to make the built mast. Based on the sudden appearance of a complete range of drawings, it would seem reasonable to assume that prior to this, built masts were much less required due to larger timber being available. Wooldings were used on larger pole masts to strengthen them against splitting, but bands were only used on built masts. All the best, Mark P

Greetings gentlemen; Just to throw up an interesting point for discussion, one thing arises from the picture of the Medway. Between the head rails is a square decorative panel, with a hole in the centre. In the days before boomkins, this was used for the lead of the fore-tack. The fact that this was retained even when boomkins were fitted may indicate that the lead of the fore-tack was still sometimes through this block. I am aware of at least one other vessel which was fitted with both boomkins and this head-rail lead block, and as I have not made a special effort to search for others, there may well be more to be found. Does anyone know more on this subject? All the best, Mark P

Hi Gemma; Speaking of Model Shipwright, David White wrote and illustrated a series of articles on understanding ships' draughts, and the construction of wooden ships. These started in issue 46, and the two subjects alternated through succeeding issues well into the 60s. Unfortunately, the series ended without being completed; nobody knows why. But what was published covered most topics. They are mostly about the 18th century, and explain so much, so clearly, that if you can get access to a set, or these issues, it is well worth it. I refer back to mine regularly. All the best, Mark P

Hi Jim; Thanks for the thought, no matter what the outcome. The more suggestions I receive, the more likely I am to find some answers. All the best, Mark P

Hi Jim; Did you have a specific plate in mind. All Chapman's draughts seem to be normal, with station lines only shown. One or two show frames, but only doubles. Have I overlooked something? All the best, Mark P

Hi Jim; Thanks for the thought. Yes, I do have this, and I have not looked in it. I will correct this oversight. All the best, Mark P

Gentlemen; Thank you all for your suggestions; they are all much appreciated. Grsjax, I seem to remember seeing this advertised in old issues of Model Shipwright. I will look into obtaining a copy. Wayne, I had forgotten that Steel dealt with merchant ships in some of his writings. I have a downloaded copy of the text, and I will look into it. Roger, this all sounds as if it would be interesting even if it was not of any help in the framing. I will have a search and see what I can find. All the best to you all, and many thanks, Mark P

Hi Redshirt; Thanks for your post. If they used double frames then your suspicions are correct: they would not be what I am looking for, unfortunately . I also forgot to specify that I am looking for examples of English vessels. All the best, Mark P

Hi everyone; As there don't seem to be many examples of warships built with single frames, does anyone have any information on the construction of 18th century merchant vessels. I am interested in single-frame construction, without the double frames used in warships. Unfortunately, while I have a good reference library of Naval vessels, I have nothing on merchant ships of this period. However, I am pretty sure that as the single frame method was used at a later date, it would have been used earlier. I would be grateful if any fellow modellers could point me in the right direction for a clear illustration, or a book to enlighten me. Many thanks for any help. All the best, Mark P

Thanks Druxey; I will look into her. If anyone knows of any others, please let me know. All the best, Mark P

Does Anyone Know? I am interested in any examples which fellow modellers may have come across, where a Royal Navy warship of the 18th century was constructed entirely of single frames ie with no paired frames (bends) All frames would have been like filling frames in normal warship construction, with alternating floors and first futtocks. I would like to know how common was this form of construction. Any help would be much appreciated. All the best, Mark P

Hi Dafi; Interesting pictures; thank you for posting them. The name on the boat chandler's shop next door seems slightly optimistic! All the best, Mark P

Hi Herring; Not sure, and no reason is given. But in general changes were made for only two reasons: to enhance the ship's capabilities, or to save money/timber. As the change actually used more timber, it would seem that it was to improve the vessel's performance, and was an increase in her structural strength; especially as the timbers could then be laid in hook and butt, which helped to prevent movement. All the best, Mark P

Greetings gentlemen; I agree with Allan above: this thread has thrown up a lot of potential items to track down and read. One more source of interest is Franklin's 'Navy Board Models, 1650 - 1750' in which he discusses the methods of framing used for models, and concludes that some of them, despite seeming rather odd by later standards, actually represent contemporary methods of construction. All the best, Mark P

Hi Erik; Your mention of painted friezes raises an interesting point. I cannot claim to be an expert on the subject, but from personal observation I think that these were more common than a modern observer, thinking firstly of the expense involved, might expect. One thing to keep in mind is that the sailing man-o'-war was the ultimate visible expression of a country's international prestige, and was visible to a large number of people during her career. Additionally, it was only in the very first years of the 18th century that the custom of covering ships in swathes of elaborate carving had ceased, and painted frieze-work would seem to be a cost effective substitute for this. To pass from these more theoretical points, to the availability of real evidence, I can offer several examples of actual frieze painting in real vessels. The picture by John Cleveley the elder, showing the 'Royal George at Deptford for the launch of the Cambridge' shows the George with painted friezes. The as-built draughts of 'Fly' and 'Bristol' show detailed depictions of frieze-work (there is a model of the 'Bristol' in the Art Gallery of Ontario, which shows her with frieze-work which is slightly different. This model is known to have been made by George Stockwell, who left his name on a piece of paper inside, and the date May 7th 1774. He describes himself as a shipwright at Sheerness dockyard, which is where Bristol was built. She was ordered in 1768, and her keel was laid in 1771. As the model was completed? in May 1774, but she was not launched until 25th October 1775, it would seem reasonable to suppose that the model's frieze-work was not based on reality, as she had probably not then been painted, 18 months prior to launching. George Stockwell presumably created a typical design drawn from experience, whereas the draught shows her as completed much later) I have seen other draughts which give details of the painted decoration on the lower counter and quarter-galleries. Additionally, I have seen references to decorator's bills for painted frieze-work on ships. As neither 'Fly' nor 'Bristol' were vessels of any particular note at the time of their launching, it would seem reasonable to assume that what happened to them was typical of the times. Painted friezes probably finally vanished under the vastly increased workloads the dockyards had to carry out during the Napoleonic wars. All the best, Mark P