Mark P

The heck with that. I remember when I was stationed on the USS Piedmont AD-17 and I was conducting a PMS spot check. I reached in the box and pulled out Blinking Light Maintenance. The guy laughs and hands me a safety harness and says let's go. That's when I found out this blinking light was at the end of the yardarm. I got up there wrapped that safety harness line around until it was tight and watched the maintenance. Took about an hour for them to get me down as I have this great fear of heights. You wouldn't believe how much that yard moves.

Evening all;
 
For anyone who is still interested in this topic, I have found a reliable method to copy a log or post, with the creator's permission. This is for Windows; I have no idea how this would play out in Mac.
 
Right click on the current page, and this brings up a context menu. Click on 'Save as', and create a folder for the saved image where you want it to be. Name it, and save it. Job done! This will save the entire page you are on; not just the visible part, but all the rest also. If a build log has 5 pages, you will need to do this 5 times, saving each page separately. This is much faster than working on only what is visible on the screen. The saved images are identical to the screen, nothing is lost. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Evening all;
 
For anyone who is still interested in this topic, I have found a reliable method to copy a log or post, with the creator's permission. This is for Windows; I have no idea how this would play out in Mac.
 
Right click on the current page, and this brings up a context menu. Click on 'Save as', and create a folder for the saved image where you want it to be. Name it, and save it. Job done! This will save the entire page you are on; not just the visible part, but all the rest also. If a build log has 5 pages, you will need to do this 5 times, saving each page separately. This is much faster than working on only what is visible on the screen. The saved images are identical to the screen, nothing is lost. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Interesting thread, but like most modern theories' it fails to address the reason for the general shape of the lower hull to begin with. Curved frames add strength, but so does mass, so strength is unlikely to be the primary reason for the general shape of the lower hull. I throw this idea out for thought. Buoyancy and the fact that sailing ships traveled on their heeled over sides more often than level is what caused the shape of the lower hulls to be constructed as they were to maintained a constant buoyancy as the ship heeled over in her travels using the typical rigs of the time. The upper hulls return towards the C/L was dealing with center of gravity and resolves a different need. All the mathematical theories were aimed at obtaining a mathematical constant in hull design that fit the discovered, 'by trial and error', conclusion of the best shape of the lower hull to maintain constant buoyancy as she heeled over. Later sail rigs and much larger hulls with lower Center of Gravities eliminated that need and the basic reason for the shape was forgotten. I have made no scientific study for this theory, it developed after observation and a curiosity of why, over time, but I think it has enough merit to drop it in for consideration and perhaps there has been a study on the subject and someone can bring it to light.
 

Slow and methodical does the trick.... That framing looks really nice so far.

With the jig bolted to the building board I have been doing a bit of sanding with a block fitted to the contour of the frames. It is not a fast process for me as I don't like to work with sandpaper rougher than 150 grit. This is the fourth straight day with at least two hours toward the fairing process on the interior starboard side of the dredger. Another couple of days and this side will be done and I can then move on to the port side.

 
While this is meaningful work, it is slow and I will be glad to move on to fabricating the next pieces to be attached to the structure!

I have chosen to build a model of 'A Port Dredger' following the Ancre monograph by Gerard Delacroix:
 

It does not appear to be a common project, although there is a wonderful build log on MSW: 
 
Machine a curer les ports 1750 by guraus (Alexandru) - 1/36 - Finished   
I have chosen cherry as the wood species for the model. I was given a piece of this species of wood by a friend a number of years ago and it is being used for the frames and main carlings. Unfortunately, the piece will not be enough to complete the project, but fortunately I was able to source additional matching cherry locally. All of the wood is rough cut so I will be milling everything I need for the model.
 
I began by making the three main carlings and 28 of the 30 floors:
 

The floors were cut overlength and marked for 6 notches each that will match with the carlings.

The notches were fashioned with a chisel, unlike the notches in the carlings which were milled.

The floors and carlings nicely mate!

 
Next knees and top timbers where cut out with a scroll saw.

 
The knees where positioned and glued to the floors. At this point, the hull was starting to take form (here the frames and carlings are not permanently connected). 
 

 
After a bit of final adjustment on the knees to be completely level with the floors, the top timbers were added.
 

Each frame / knee/ top timber combination was then drilled for 10 'bolts'. The holes are 0.5mm and the 'bolts' are 24 GA copper wire. It did take me 3 #74 drill bits to do the job as I did break 2 of them. After inserting the copper wire with a touch of CA glue, followed with a bit of filing and finish sanding got the job done.  I am satisfied that the 'bolts' are visible but don't overly direct my eyes to them.

 
 

Good Evening All;
 
Well, I must say full marks to the people at SeaWatch. I ordered 3 books on Monday 5th December, and they arrived at my home in England today, the 9th December. That's damned good service, and deserves a mention in dispatches.
 
Thank you one and all involved; whoever does the shipping is obviously well-organised, and worth the cost. 
 
I shared Druxey's pessimism, I have to admit, and did not expect to receive anything for at least another week.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good News for all nautical book addicts:
 
I have just ordered the three volumes of Ed Tosti's Young America work (more for techniques, tips and jigs, as I am unlikely to ever build the model) and not only is there a discount for purchasing the three together, the postage for all three to England was only $35 total. Shipping costs have indeed been reduced dramatically.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Typically, designers used proprietary methods in a fairly uniform way, so the shape of the breadth line fore was already somewhat easier to reproduce. The logarithmic curve was a perfect fit here, however, a curve composed of two circles of different radii, which approximates the logarithmic curve quite well and commonly used by English designers up to this time, could also be chosen with almost equally good results.
 
I have also updated the master frame diagram. Here the only difference is the correction of the lower breadth sweep from 13' 10" to a round 14 feet.
 

 

 
 

Bob: I respectfully disagree. 17th and 18th century vessels had these long bolts (not always 'drifted'), typically through deadwoods and other structures that required longer bolts. 'Drift' in the period sense of the word meant a change in level, such as the topside of a ship or diameter of a longer bolt.

Not necessarily, but sort of, I suppose. A drift is a thick wooden or metal rod, in this case 5/16" to 3/8" in diameter, with a slightly pointed or rounded end which is driven into a tightly-fitting blind hole in order to fasten major timbers in a vessel. After driving, the top of the rod may be somewhat galled and so could be said to be "wider," but that's of no matter. Properly, a "drift" was the term used for the hole into which a trunnel (wooden) or drift rod or bolt (metal), was driven, but in later times it seems the term "drift" became synonymous with the rod stock used as well. 
 
In modern times, drift bolts became more common. The drift bolt is a metal rod which has threads cut in the top end and a washer and nut are attached before the drift bolt is driven into the drift hole.  Two nuts are screwed onto the rod but only not far as to allow any of the rod to protrude above the face of the top nut.  The drift bolt is driven with a sledgehammer striking the face of the topmost nut. When the drift bolt is driven to its full depth, the topmost nut is removed, the lower nut is tightened and the excess threaded rod extending above the nut may be cut off if so desired. The use of the doubled nuts provides a "head" so the drift bolt can be driven without galling the threads on the rod by striking them with the sledge.
 
Drifts are generally set in pairs driven at opposing angles. In the case of a floor-to-keel fastening, as was common, the drifts would be driven through the top of the keelson and/or frame into the keel at approximately 30 degree angles, or whatever angle the size of the timbers would accommodate. In addition to the friction of the tight fit of the tight blind hole (i.e. not through-drilled at the bottom) and the washer and nut in the case of a drift bolt, the opposing angles of the paired drifts operate to sufficiently oppose any tension between the timbers and keep them from pulling apart. From an engineering standpoint, this is an extremely effective fastening system. 
 
In short, drifts work like big headless nails that are driven into big timbers at an angle and the opposing angles of the drifts keep the timbers from pulling apart. Modernly, drifts have been replaced by rod threaded at each end and fitted at right angles to the timber joint, being secured in tension with washers and nuts at both ends. This method has the advantage of permitting the removal of keel and other major timber fastenings for inspection and/or replacement if needed. The tightly-driven drifts are often impossible to remove without destroying the surrounding structure. Iron bolts, especially keel bolts, can rust to the point of ceasing to exist in the middle of their length inside the hole, at which point, replacement is generally impossible. Replaceable keel bolts potentially extend the life of a wooden vessel exponentially.
 
As I recall, Chapelle explains the use of drifts in his book, Boatbuilding. He was quite comfortable with this fastening method which appears to have been somewhat dated by the time Chapelle was writing. It was then still a well-accepted "workboat" construction practice, but high-quality "yacht" or "naval" scantling practice was transitioning from drifts to threaded bolts. Chapelle's agenda was to encourage the continuation and preservation of locally evolved watercraft, many of which he felt were well-suited for use as pleasure craft and his plans often retain earlier construction details. 
The structural design is indicated on the construction plan:
 

 
You can see the cross-sections of the floors below the cabin sole. These have been "darkened" with cross-hatching to indicate a cut-away "sectioned" view. (Note the three "dark" floor sections supporting the mast step.) Every other frame is fastened to a floor timber.  Glad Tidings has steamed frames.  These would have been fastened with fore and aft fasteners through the side of the frame and into or through the floor timber. The intermediate frames would have been similarly steamed and likely simply fitted into a notch cut into the edge of the keel inboard of the rabbet, or not, depending upon the preference of the designer. (There's a long history of controversy between various naval architects regarding whether a notched keel is best or not. It's one of those "six of one and half dozen of another" type things.) The intermediate frames can simply be "toenailed" to the top of the keel, or be set into a notch and fastened with a single screw set into the center of the notch. The stress on the plank-to-frame structure is primarily in shear to the plank fastenings, and the frame foot fastenings to the floors are more than adequate to keep the hull attached to the keel. In this construction, there's no need to fasten every frame to the keel. Notice also that the spacing of the floors and the deck beams alternate, with the frames terminating alternately to a floor or a deck beam. This structure is further tied together by an (apparent) shelf and clamp at the sheer and a bilge stringer.  That said, the problem to be overcome is figuring out how to build it with scale-size parts that aren't going to have the relative strength that the full-size parts have. 
 
I'm not certain if I understand you completely, but from your statement I presume you are planning to build a model of Glad Tidings from Chapelle's plans for the actual vessel. Please don't take offense if I am stating the obvious to you. If so, consider my comment offered for the benefit of others less experienced. Directly put, there is a world of difference between plans for a vessel and plans for a model of that vessel. The questions you're asking indicate that you aren't experienced with full-sized wooden boatbuilding. It's frequently quite different from scale model building if for no reason other than that the parts at scale size often lack the strength to serve the structural purposes they were designed for at full size. In order to build a model of Glad Tidings from Chapelle's plans, which are the construction plans for the full-size boat, you must determine whether you are going to build an exact structural copy of the vessel as designed but to a smaller scale, which is possible, but will require a complete familiarity with full-sized boatbuilding practices, or a scale representation of the vessel which will not necessarily bear any relation to how the original was constructed. Solid hull or plank on bulkhead construction will require devising an entirely different manner of building the hull entirely.  Plank on frame will require inventing an entirely new construction sequence. If you read Chapelle's books, Boatbuilding and Yacht Designing and Planning, you will be able to learn all you need to know about building his Glad Tidings full-size and from that be able to translate it all to the model scale you want.
 
Translating a full-size construction plan for scratch-building a scale model is always a fascinating challenge. There are loads of full-size construction plans available for all sorts of vessels. Re-engineering those plans for modeling purposes is essential if one is going to enjoy all the opportunities of scratch-building. I'd urge you to start a log at the real beginning, the development of plans for a model, and share the process with everyone. There are plenty of tricks of the trade for developing plans for models. I'm sure that the population of MSW can come up with solutions to every challenge you encounter along the way!
 
 
 
 
 

Drift in this context would be a longer bolt with different diameter sections, the narrowest near the tip. The changes in diameter would be in small steps.And yes, it would be a friction fit.

Good Evening Martes;
 
You are quite correct in your recall; the wreck is located close to a busy shipping lane, and the prop-wash from passing ships, and tidal scour of the exposed remains, are causing rapid deterioration. A further unhelpful factor is the refusal of Historic England to allow any items to be removed from the wreck site. This means that artefacts and ship's timbers can be observed when they are exposed, but cannot be removed to preserve them. Important pieces of the ship's structure and artefacts have been noted, which have now disappeared without any chance to make an official record or attempt to preserve them. Which is very frustrating for all those who want to know more about this time capsule's contents. 
 
It is possible that the circumstances have now changed, and recovery of at-risk artefacts etc is now allowed; my information is not up-to-date; but I am not overly hopeful of anything involving a complicated bureaucracy's minions. Especially as many of them are now, post Covid, probably 'working' from home. 
 
There is a charity devoted to preserving/raising the remains, 'Save the London', managed by the Nautical Archaeology Society. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good Evening Martes;
 
You are quite correct in your recall; the wreck is located close to a busy shipping lane, and the prop-wash from passing ships, and tidal scour of the exposed remains, are causing rapid deterioration. A further unhelpful factor is the refusal of Historic England to allow any items to be removed from the wreck site. This means that artefacts and ship's timbers can be observed when they are exposed, but cannot be removed to preserve them. Important pieces of the ship's structure and artefacts have been noted, which have now disappeared without any chance to make an official record or attempt to preserve them. Which is very frustrating for all those who want to know more about this time capsule's contents. 
 
It is possible that the circumstances have now changed, and recovery of at-risk artefacts etc is now allowed; my information is not up-to-date; but I am not overly hopeful of anything involving a complicated bureaucracy's minions. Especially as many of them are now, post Covid, probably 'working' from home. 
 
There is a charity devoted to preserving/raising the remains, 'Save the London', managed by the Nautical Archaeology Society. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good Evening Martes;
 
You are quite correct in your recall; the wreck is located close to a busy shipping lane, and the prop-wash from passing ships, and tidal scour of the exposed remains, are causing rapid deterioration. A further unhelpful factor is the refusal of Historic England to allow any items to be removed from the wreck site. This means that artefacts and ship's timbers can be observed when they are exposed, but cannot be removed to preserve them. Important pieces of the ship's structure and artefacts have been noted, which have now disappeared without any chance to make an official record or attempt to preserve them. Which is very frustrating for all those who want to know more about this time capsule's contents. 
 
It is possible that the circumstances have now changed, and recovery of at-risk artefacts etc is now allowed; my information is not up-to-date; but I am not overly hopeful of anything involving a complicated bureaucracy's minions. Especially as many of them are now, post Covid, probably 'working' from home. 
 
There is a charity devoted to preserving/raising the remains, 'Save the London', managed by the Nautical Archaeology Society. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good Evening Martes;
 
You are quite correct in your recall; the wreck is located close to a busy shipping lane, and the prop-wash from passing ships, and tidal scour of the exposed remains, are causing rapid deterioration. A further unhelpful factor is the refusal of Historic England to allow any items to be removed from the wreck site. This means that artefacts and ship's timbers can be observed when they are exposed, but cannot be removed to preserve them. Important pieces of the ship's structure and artefacts have been noted, which have now disappeared without any chance to make an official record or attempt to preserve them. Which is very frustrating for all those who want to know more about this time capsule's contents. 
 
It is possible that the circumstances have now changed, and recovery of at-risk artefacts etc is now allowed; my information is not up-to-date; but I am not overly hopeful of anything involving a complicated bureaucracy's minions. Especially as many of them are now, post Covid, probably 'working' from home. 
 
There is a charity devoted to preserving/raising the remains, 'Save the London', managed by the Nautical Archaeology Society. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good Evening Martes;
 
You are quite correct in your recall; the wreck is located close to a busy shipping lane, and the prop-wash from passing ships, and tidal scour of the exposed remains, are causing rapid deterioration. A further unhelpful factor is the refusal of Historic England to allow any items to be removed from the wreck site. This means that artefacts and ship's timbers can be observed when they are exposed, but cannot be removed to preserve them. Important pieces of the ship's structure and artefacts have been noted, which have now disappeared without any chance to make an official record or attempt to preserve them. Which is very frustrating for all those who want to know more about this time capsule's contents. 
 
It is possible that the circumstances have now changed, and recovery of at-risk artefacts etc is now allowed; my information is not up-to-date; but I am not overly hopeful of anything involving a complicated bureaucracy's minions. Especially as many of them are now, post Covid, probably 'working' from home. 
 
There is a charity devoted to preserving/raising the remains, 'Save the London', managed by the Nautical Archaeology Society. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

This is al deck and interior related pics I have.....
Pics were taken march 5th, 2010 when the ship was in Utrecht for a winter-overhaul.
Therefore most deckfittings (decklights) were covered in tarpaulin......
 



 
I hope they are of some use to you, as the requested structures are not in the pics
 
Jan
 
 

Nice update article and video on this vessel:
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-64151535
 

That's good news, and it looks like their current reconstruction is much more like the examples from contemporary pictures than their first version. But there's really not very much of her left. Here's a reconstruction model of the existing remains.

Here it is compared with the proposed reconstruction:
 
 

 

I'm assuming that what they'll display is the existing timbers, with some sort of framework showing the shape of the rest of the hull, as in the models above. And they're even talking about the possibility of building a full-sized reconstruction and sailing it on the Usk river. It would be nice if that could be done, but at the moment I'm not holding my breath . . .
 
I see they're still going with the flat stern, which I'm not so sure about, though I'm aware they justify this by the shape of the aftermost frame. The ship is believed to have been built in 1449, and carracks of this period are always shown as round-sterned in contemporary pictures. The earliest representation of a flat-sterned carrack-style ship I'm aware of dates to 1511.
 
Having said that, ignoring the stern for the moment, the proposed shape does look good.
 
Steven
 

There is really no such thing as the "right" guns for Constitution. They were changed out fairly frequently over her career.
The ships guns were not considered to be permanent property of the ship, so to speak. They were loaded aboard for the duration of a cruise and were often off loaded when the ship came back from the cruise when the ship would undergo maintenance.  The cannons would then be employed wherever the Navy needed them ashore or on other vessels.
 
When the ship first made ready for sea, 22 July 1798, she had an armament of thirty, iron, 24-pounders from Furnace Hope, in Pennsylvania, sixteen 18-pounders borrowed from Fort Independence on Castle Island, and fourteen 12-pounders of unknown origin  (probably Furnace Hope). Constitution must have had a few brass 24's at some point because a letter from the Secretary of the Navy in 1807 ordered the transfer of two brass 24-pounders to USS Wasp.
 
32-pounder carronades first replaced long guns on the spar deck after the Tripoli campaign in 1804 where they were mounted in the waist. Four of the carronades were transferred to USS Hornet in 1807 and the remaining four were mounted in pairs on the quarter deck and forecastle.  The 1812 spar deck battery of carronades consisted of sixteen 32-pounders on the quarterdeck and six 32-pounders on the forecastle.
 
Constitution's armament changed many times until 1900 when she had none at all.  In 1834 she had twenty two 24 pounder long guns, twenty 32-pounder carronades and two Congreve 24 pounders. In 1842 the ship received four 68-pounder Paixhans guns mounted in pairs in midship ports on the gun deck, replacing four 24-pounders.  In 1847 she mounted twenty six 36-pounder long guns and four 8-inch Paixhans guns on the gun deck and twenty 32 pounder long guns on the spar deck. For the 1907 restoration she had 24 pounder long guns throughout. Because of limited funding and no precise research the design of these guns was based on data found in an eighteeth century book on ordinance, Theodore Roosevelt's The Naval War of 1812, and Louis de Toussard's American Artillerists Companion. In 1927 the spar deck long guns were again replaced with carronades. This restoration also saw the entire battery of guns re-cast for the ship. While far better representations than the 1907 castings they were still not completely accurate to the War of 1812.  These are the current weapons on board and they all carry the King George III monogram.  Since then, Navy Department files have been discovered which contain a drawing detailing the actual guns the ship carried early on.
 
Regards,
 
 

The ships of the Cruizer class, of which Speedwell was one, were built in 1752-1754 to address the prevailing French and Austrian Wars. The Admiralty wanted fast, shallow draught ships that could carry out policing operations in the Channel and Foreland Stations and discourage French privateers and smugglers. Therefore, a variety of hull design and rig combinations was employed by the Admiralty to see which best fulfilled these requirements. Some were ketch rigged (Speedwell, Fly, Happy and Ranger) while others were snow rigged (Wolf and Cruiser). All this experimentation eventually led to a refinement wherein Cruiser was given a mizzen mast (1753) and ship rigged. This proved to be so successful that the ketch rigged sloops fell out of favor as the ship rigged sloop became prevalent. With the advent of the brig-of-war later in the century the snow rig once again gained popularity.
 
(From Building Plank on Frame Ship Models, Ron McCarthy. Naval Institute Press)

You're very welcome, AnobiumPunctatum. Glad to have you following along. 
 
Thank you for that insight Mark. It's fascinating to hear how much we know about this model. It would have been truly amazing to be a fly on the wall in one of these model builders' workshops.

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