Mark P

My respects, gentlemen!
I am glad that you have found this information useful for further research.
I would like to add that these pages are located among the personal documents of the Russian tsar Peter  I in The Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences .
The Library was founded in 1714 by Tsar Peter I.
 
By the way, I also want to say that there are a lot of drawings of English ships of the 18th-19th centuries in the Russian archives.
I can say with confidence that there are drawings of English ships that are not in the English or Danish archives. Today they are unique.
Many shipbuilders from Russia were trained and practiced at English shipyards. The students made copies of the original drawings and brought them back to Russia. 
Some drawings were sent to Russia by English shipbuilders or the Admiralty.
I will try to inform you about these drawings periodically.
 
 

Good Evening All;
 
As Murphy says above, the contract is for the Hampshire, and stipulates that the ship is to carry fifty guns. There were at least half a dozen of these 50-gun fourth rate contracts awarded to merchant builders around 1695-6, a time when the demands of what was often called 'King William's war' made it imperative to increase the forces available to the Navy. 
 
I suspect, subject to confirmation on closer reading, that the collection comprises a variety of documents gathered over a period of time, and may well have been taken to Russia following Peter the Great's tour of European, including English, dockyards, wherein he spent many months learning the shipwright's trade in some detail (and indulging in some hard drinking after working up a thirst) It seems to include at least one of the formal 'Establishments', possibly that of 1706, the first really formal one; although it may be the more informal establishment of the 1690s (the exact date of which I cannot recall) If not taken by Peter the Great himself, they may well have gone with an English shipwright who went to Russia to help set up Peter's nascent Russian Navy. I will have to check these dimensions against some of the multitudes of various scantlings which exist from the latter part of the 17th century for an idea of the exact source of the Russian archive's documents.
 
The information about the ships of 1677 may well appear because in the 1690s there were at least two acts of Parliament authorising a large programme of ship-building. Lacking a Navy Board member of sufficient stature to force Parliament to pay more than the bare minimum it wanted to, and advise them fully of the reasons why they should pay more for better results (a role ably fulfilled by Samuel Pepys in the 1670s) Parliament relied upon a resurrection of the scantlings and dimensions for the 1670s programme, the ships of which had been regarded as successful designs. What they did not realise was that King Charles II (died 1685) had insisted that the earlier ships were built to increased dimensions and tonnages, rather than those which had been authorised by the act of Parliament. Hence the later ships were of inferior performance.
 
The section on the construction of a drawing of a ship is of great interest, certainly.
 
Many thanks to you Eugen for posting this.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good Evening All;
 
As Murphy says above, the contract is for the Hampshire, and stipulates that the ship is to carry fifty guns. There were at least half a dozen of these 50-gun fourth rate contracts awarded to merchant builders around 1695-6, a time when the demands of what was often called 'King William's war' made it imperative to increase the forces available to the Navy. 
 
I suspect, subject to confirmation on closer reading, that the collection comprises a variety of documents gathered over a period of time, and may well have been taken to Russia following Peter the Great's tour of European, including English, dockyards, wherein he spent many months learning the shipwright's trade in some detail (and indulging in some hard drinking after working up a thirst) It seems to include at least one of the formal 'Establishments', possibly that of 1706, the first really formal one; although it may be the more informal establishment of the 1690s (the exact date of which I cannot recall) If not taken by Peter the Great himself, they may well have gone with an English shipwright who went to Russia to help set up Peter's nascent Russian Navy. I will have to check these dimensions against some of the multitudes of various scantlings which exist from the latter part of the 17th century for an idea of the exact source of the Russian archive's documents.
 
The information about the ships of 1677 may well appear because in the 1690s there were at least two acts of Parliament authorising a large programme of ship-building. Lacking a Navy Board member of sufficient stature to force Parliament to pay more than the bare minimum it wanted to, and advise them fully of the reasons why they should pay more for better results (a role ably fulfilled by Samuel Pepys in the 1670s) Parliament relied upon a resurrection of the scantlings and dimensions for the 1670s programme, the ships of which had been regarded as successful designs. What they did not realise was that King Charles II (died 1685) had insisted that the earlier ships were built to increased dimensions and tonnages, rather than those which had been authorised by the act of Parliament. Hence the later ships were of inferior performance.
 
The section on the construction of a drawing of a ship is of great interest, certainly.
 
Many thanks to you Eugen for posting this.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good Evening All;
 
As Murphy says above, the contract is for the Hampshire, and stipulates that the ship is to carry fifty guns. There were at least half a dozen of these 50-gun fourth rate contracts awarded to merchant builders around 1695-6, a time when the demands of what was often called 'King William's war' made it imperative to increase the forces available to the Navy. 
 
I suspect, subject to confirmation on closer reading, that the collection comprises a variety of documents gathered over a period of time, and may well have been taken to Russia following Peter the Great's tour of European, including English, dockyards, wherein he spent many months learning the shipwright's trade in some detail (and indulging in some hard drinking after working up a thirst) It seems to include at least one of the formal 'Establishments', possibly that of 1706, the first really formal one; although it may be the more informal establishment of the 1690s (the exact date of which I cannot recall) If not taken by Peter the Great himself, they may well have gone with an English shipwright who went to Russia to help set up Peter's nascent Russian Navy. I will have to check these dimensions against some of the multitudes of various scantlings which exist from the latter part of the 17th century for an idea of the exact source of the Russian archive's documents.
 
The information about the ships of 1677 may well appear because in the 1690s there were at least two acts of Parliament authorising a large programme of ship-building. Lacking a Navy Board member of sufficient stature to force Parliament to pay more than the bare minimum it wanted to, and advise them fully of the reasons why they should pay more for better results (a role ably fulfilled by Samuel Pepys in the 1670s) Parliament relied upon a resurrection of the scantlings and dimensions for the 1670s programme, the ships of which had been regarded as successful designs. What they did not realise was that King Charles II (died 1685) had insisted that the earlier ships were built to increased dimensions and tonnages, rather than those which had been authorised by the act of Parliament. Hence the later ships were of inferior performance.
 
The section on the construction of a drawing of a ship is of great interest, certainly.
 
Many thanks to you Eugen for posting this.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Every time I see a new comment on this post, my pulse races thinking that it is an announcement for the release of the third volume of the Rogers Collection by Grant Walker.

Good Evening Rob;
 
I wish you all the best with your project. The model of Bristol in the Ontario Art Gallery has always been one of my favourites. It is also one of the very rare examples where the name of the builder, and the date of the model are known. A note was found inside her, informing posterity that she had been built by George Stockwell, dated 7th May 1774. A further line informs us that he was a shipwright at Sheerness Yard, which is where the Bristol was built, so he presumably knew her very well. 
 
The draught is a beautiful example of art; its rendition of the internal details of the ship is one of the highest quality examples of which I am aware, and it is my intention to purchase a digital copy of the draught one fine day when funds are plentiful.
 
Interestingly, the frieze on the model does not match that shown on the draught. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 
 

Good Morning All;
 
Another suggestion for Ferrus Manus re a good book to purchase for information about galleons is Peter Kirsch's book 'Galleon', which is based around contemporary sources, and contains plans for a complete galleon. I don't remember my copy being particularly pricey when I bought it.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Published by the Mary Rose Trust
Author ??
Edited By Peter Marsden
First Published in 2009
 
A very detailed book about the construction (detailed description of the shipwreck) of the Mary Rose .
Contains little info about the cannons, 
The book (433 pages) is accompanied by an extra cover that contains 15 drawings in 1/100 scale.
The book contains drawings of the frames.
The extra drawings have also a rigging, sailplan.
 
recommended 👍
 
Main cover, book and the cover with te drawings

Index and the list of figures

Some of the content

The 15 drawings scale 1/100

drawing n°1

 

Good Morning All;
 
Another suggestion for Ferrus Manus re a good book to purchase for information about galleons is Peter Kirsch's book 'Galleon', which is based around contemporary sources, and contains plans for a complete galleon. I don't remember my copy being particularly pricey when I bought it.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good Morning All;
 
Another suggestion for Ferrus Manus re a good book to purchase for information about galleons is Peter Kirsch's book 'Galleon', which is based around contemporary sources, and contains plans for a complete galleon. I don't remember my copy being particularly pricey when I bought it.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

About 15 years ago I bought a Simm Comfort 1971 copy of David Steel's The Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture for $150.   Within a year or two I found a second copy for $100.    I waited a year and sold one of them for $300 if I remember correctly.   It is now going for over 750 pounds and there is one at Abe Books for over $1800.  I bought a few books from the NRG when they closed their library 10 or 15 years ago and one of these was The Shipbuilder's Repository which I still have and use that I bought for $100 and is now going for over $400.    Not only can these be extremely interesting and useful, they turned out to be a great investment.  Even newer books can do this.  Volume I of Euryalus 1803 went to over $200 (sold new at $80 a couple years ago) when it went out of stock at SeaWatch books.   
Allan
 
 

Well put, Roger!

Like Baker, I too have an extensive library of maritime history books.  I began buying books by Howard Chapelle in my 20’s and have continued ever since.  In 2018, I joined the ranks of authors the first (and last)book that I wrote was published by an academic press.  In several ways, books are like ship model kits.  Many model builders never have enough of them and their value is not in paper and cardboard (or plywood and sticks) but in the work that the author spent  accumulating and sharing the knowledge that they contain.  These books are specialized and in most cases neither the authors or publishers are getting rich from them.  In my case I enjoyed my 15 minutes of fame twice when my book was selected for two awards.  Financially 4-1/2 years after publication the payment to the person hired to index the book has exceeded the royalties paid or owed to me.  This is not a complaint,  I don’t need the money and take great pleasure knowing that my research on a unique Great Lakes ship type will be available to scholars, model builders, etc long after I am gone.
 
Over the years, I have bought my share of “how to” ship modeling books but have disposed of most of them as I find their lasting value and to be limited.  I did buy the recent book by Rob Napier published by Seawatch and am eagerly looking forward to reading it.  At the other end of the book spectrum I really like published reports of maritime Archeology research of which the Mary Rose Book reviewed by Baker and included in my library, is an outstanding example.  As these are even more specialized than run of the mill maritime history books, by necessity, they are more expensive.
 
if Ferrus Marcus is interested in building a model of a Spanish Galleon I would recommend the “Underwater Archeology of Red Bay” published by Parks Canada and distributed in the USA by Casemate Books.  This book describes excavation of an actual Spanish vessel of the mid-late 1500’s.  There is enough information within, including separate drawings to build a model incorporating all known historically accurate information.
 
Roger
 
 
 

I have done one 3D drawing with help from a member here of a cannon barrel based on English design circa 1690.   The results were excellent and the parts that resulted were cheap.
A project to consider:
1. I stink at 3D 
2. I am somewhat proficient at 2D
3. I have Caruana's book on RN ordnance which has drawings and specs for a few hundred year range
4. I would be happy to draw and provide 2D drawings of all barrel patterns and lengths up to and including the Blomefield pattern in four views at full scale. 
5. I would like to work with someone who is willing to spend the time to convert these to 3D in STL or similar format that can be used by a 3D printer.
6. These drawings could then be posted as a collated collection, hopefully in the articles database here at MSW for all members to use to get barrels printed that are era and pattern specific, accurate, and inexpensive.
Please PM me if interested in working together on this.
Thanks!!!
Allan
 
 

Thank you guys for very nice comments. Preparing to make these blocks was quite a challenge for me. But the result exceeded all my expectations. Uncritically, I have to admit that I myself am very satisfied with the result..
To Hsae - The blocks are made with a CNC milling machine, not from Proxxon, but a commonly available Chinese milling machine. The material for the blocks is pear.
The construction of the model moved to the next stage - rigging. I start by attaching the bowsprit.

I am very pleased with the positive reactions to the use of a CNC milling machine in the construction of the model, but to be honest, I myself would need a lot of lessons from more experienced people (at least as far as 3D computer modeling is concerned).
To Vladimir_Wairoa: I use French Sajou threads, which are waxed (at least that's what the manufacturer says), so I don't have so many problems with "hair" on the ropes.
I continue making pendants and lower mast shrouds.

Currently cutting the top cuts with the mill and like a lot of ship building things it is proving that old quote of 'think three times, measure twice, cut once' is usually true.
I rapidly hit issues due to having to do maths in my head when cutting. So let's say the horizontal axis was at 0.48 and I needed to make a cut 3.68 then ... anyway the waste of electricity and chance of mistakes were huge so after some thought I decided on a more reasoned approach. I split the stages of cuts into 4 so we have drop cut/cut/release and setup and decided the horizontal axis would be sacrosanct so at least one axis would have minimal risk of backlash. 
 
I then split the cuts into three simplified unique types - Forward to zero, Forward 1 full turn and forward by a specific amount indicated on a cut list in this way F0+0.43 1FT 1FT +0.55 would be forward to zero for 0.43, two separate full turns (so 2.43 cut so far) then forward to 0.55 (so 2.99 for that cut). For the cut and release cuts these would always use the positive axis and move forward. The vertical axis though had the drop cut moving forward and the release cut moving up (so had back to zero 1BT for 1 back turn and -0.44) . That way I could split the cut into recognisable steps that can, more importantly, be tracked.
 
Now that is is also a lot of maths so I wrote a simple program to do the maths and produce the individual steps for me. (screen shot below, that particular cut list is for the fourth rising wood, you will note I also colour the release step in bold red as that's the point an error is more likely to occur). The program not also calculated the individual steps it also printed the end drill point on the sherline axis counters so i could also mentally evaluate the step as I was cutting it. Finally I also added incremental counters so I could show on screen the horizontal and vertical cut list so I could validate that the amounts the program thought it was cutting matched the input I wanted it to cut.
 

 
The nice thing about this approach is that it simplified the methodology. I would start on a piece, go to turbo cad with a handy sheet of A4. Write D/C/R/S and then measure off the plan each cut directly. Once done transfer the totals into the application adding the expected start wood depth and the start height and run the app. Once finished I would validate the horizontal and vertical cuts were as expected then print them off.
Now the actual cutting. I used a 4mm end mill - I tried the 6mm as the largest mill to fit the gaps but found this had a tendency to damage the wood or at least cause excess weird shavings... The 4mm seemed a good compromise between cutting and not being so thin as to be influenced by the wood it was cutting into.
 
When cutting I carried out each step in the cut chart and then crossed it out with a pencil before carrying out another. I also restricted any cut to 2mm max (so a 2.16 cut would be a single cut of 2 followed by a cut of 0.16). This was protection in the larger cuts of wood damage or losing alignment. I also found the end mill mush preferred cutting into the wood from the direction closest to me as opposed to scooping it out from the end closest to the mill base ( logical really when it approaches from 'my' side the drill cuts a relatively even amount of material, when from the other side it starts with a very light cut the gets progressively deeper - whether that's true or not I don't know but I found cutting this way made for cleaner cuts with less mill complaining). This meant I had to carry out a cut then return the mill to its start point as I set up the next. 
 
Usually I also pulled the mill away from the wood to set up the next cut with one important exception which was the drop cuts which I tried to setup half on and half off the wood. This is because the drop cuts usually occur after the tiny 'steps' and this way reduced the risk of those steps (some as small as 1.36mm wide) being damaged..
 
Anyway apart from the cut list no nice pictures here and only a technical description. I am almost done with these top cuts then have to think about the best way to do the sides...

Lovely work on the headrails.  I am working on mine as I wrote this so I know what a task it is.  Your head work looks fantastic.

Hello,
it is done, the rails are ready. That was more work then expected and not so easy to do. The next things at my list, are the supporter knees for the cathead 

Hello,
it is done! The rails are now hard and fast. Now are only the short stanchions at the end of the upper rails and the painted covers for the stanchions left.

Hello,
the carpenters where busy today and made the mouldings at the rails. I will ask the painter, if he will paint them this evening. I think for an extra beer it could work 😉

Hello, thank you Gary and all others for your likes,
today only a short update, I cut out the rails and fitted them in. The stanchions now are also fast installed. The next step would be to give these rails there contours.

Hello,
yes, they are tricky Druxey. But I think, now I got it. The forth version of the upper rail and the stanchion to the right looks more like a piece of plywood. But some fine tuning here and there and a lot of paint and it is't to be distinguish with a good head. We will see how it looks with the real rails.

Hello,
today I was for some time back at the yard and I tried to fit the rails into the stanchions. The rails are just templates to see how they fit and what I have to change. And at least you see at a picture the most faults. But I think, this version will do it.

Hello,
Mark and Håkan, so let inspire you. I will see then if it has worked.
 
Here the first rail is mostly in shape and the second one is on the way to it.