Siggi52

Hello, today we had an inspection from the admiralty. That is the guy with the red coat. The shipwright try to explain, why the shipyard is't working at all: because the main worker did't feel very good. But he should soon start working again. In the background his assistant controlled the high of the deck clamp. It's pretty low. Here you could stay only between the beams! And here is the new crew. I build them from sheets of brass, wire, plaster , paper and cotton for hair. And of coarse a lot of paint. And yes, these clumsy hands could build such small and delicate things. 😉 But it was't easy. I feel a little better now and hope that I could start working again soon. My main problem is that I'm so spiritless, and the next time I have to build the gun ports for the upper decks. That is nothing that really encourage you.

Hello Mark, I think, you think all too complicated. There is a gun crew, and I think that there are one or two members who have the duty to look after the breech rope. And if there would be any problems, they would have changed that system. Then the breech rope is quite heavy, so I think that they will not move so easily then the ropes we use in our models. 😕 An last, as I wrote before above, that there may be a small rope (or something smaller than that, I have at the moment no name for it) to size the breech rope at the cascable. For a better understanding I made a picture.

Dear Druxey, starts now the same procedure as with the paneling of the outer walls? There also all pictures, paintings and sketches I posted where in your eyes fantasy, artistic freedom or you could’t see anything. But at least it turned out, that I was right. So why are the outer circumstances, the color, the wheels and the cannons now are an argument that all the rest is not true? That model is from 1756, may be a little fancier then an original ship. We don’t know what the artist would show us with this model. The white wash came later and also red wheels on cannons made the floor colourful, not only black one. But they are ok. I never heard something against that. At the Victory these wheels where not painted. We agree with the fastening of the breech rope to the rings bolds at the walls. So it’s also at the Victory. I think Falconer did’t show that knot, because it did’t matter. Every man knows, that there has to be a knot. And he shows clearly, that the rope is only laid over the cascable. And that you could all see at that model, so why it’s not useful? I thought that we are here in this forum to share wisdom to build better models. But if it’s not liked to have an other view, or find something out, I let it. I have nobody to ask how I build my ship, and at least it’s not important for me, how other build theirs. So many build there ships in Hahn style and others in druxey style. I was really shocked to see the double curve you build in your wales. Did you never noticed that you are the only one who build it so? And the port lids, only two models I found have that step around the lid! But nobody noticed that before! And nobody, except mtaylor, liked it. Thank you for that Mark. Druxey, I liked the support I got from you over the time. But you should also be more open for others, who found out something different, or noticed something you have overseen.

Hello Druxey, may be the black rim at the wheels are only black paint. The guns at the GD where 42 pdrs and at the MD where 24 pdrs according to R. Winfield's British Warships in the Age of Sail 1714-1792. They have at the breech nearly the same size. The NMM write, that the model was made 1756 and ok, the color. You like more white ships, without much color. But the ships in those days where colourful. And this was a 1. rate! Please have also a look at Falconer's cross section of a 74 gunner, there you see the same thing.

Hello Mark, with that what I know is Druxey right. Then you could shorten the ropes easily to store the guns during voyages, or move the guns. A good example is the model of the Royal George (1756) https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66456.html at the NMM. Here a screen shot And there is no turn of the rope around the cascable. I don't know where, but I remember a picture where the breach rope was sized there with a small rope around the cascable. I hope I could help.

Hello Doris, your work is unbelievable. The yacht and the the crew! That reminds me of this page: https://rococoenminiature.heidecksburg.de/pages/die-ausstellung/shop.php#oben Sorry, only in German and with Flash Player. I have none! I saw a film about this in TV, they have the DVD in the shop. There they show also how they build it, back in the ex DDR. I plan a visit there this year. I forget to mention, it's all in 1:50!

Hello, thank you all for your comments and likes. Mark, I don't know if they also used leather for caulking. But old ropes I think they had plenty. Dowmer, »that gunport practice was only one way« of course there are different forms of gun ports, but for my ship there is only the standard form important. When I'm seriously look at the Bellona pictures, I could't see what you see. Even if I want to see there something. The outer planking of the lid should be of the thickness of the outer planking of the ship. That said Goodwin and Mark P confirmed that. Even when his contracts are from the 1690th. That may have changed with the time. But you could't tell it from these pictures. The pictures from the Constitution are from an other time and the port lids seem to be much thinner. Like these from the Victory, after all the repairs. May be they are at that time always thinner, as Steel stated. And if there are an extra sill, I cant see it. I see there only the stop, normally build by the frames. But only to the sides, not at the bottom. But may be you have there more insider knowledge. But as Mark P said, linings where not build. So, for now we have cleared these facts. The port lids have no steps to there sides, even in later times. The outer layer are of the thickness of the planking of the ship at this place, with a lining of elm 1-1,5" thick. That says, there must be cut an extra rabbet. When in later years the port lids get thinner these extra cut rabbet disappear. Not clear is, how that was in 1745. The list of establishment deals only with the main structure, keel frames and so on. So all other things they took I think from the 1719 list of establishment. Ok, they did't mention there port lids. So we did't know if they are getting already thinner at this time, or in 1745.

Just an update with pictures, from the framed Bellona. That did't look like a shortcut.

Hello Marc, that sounds all very logical. But do you think that all modellers of that time make the same shortcut? And also the painters? I did one side of the ship this way, it's more complicated then making the lid with a step. I think that it's a shortcut of modern modellers. Also when that exist already in earlier times. As I once before tried to say, the lids of the contemporary models seams to have the right thickness. Outer planking the same size then the ships planking with a 1-1,5" lining. So they had to cut back the frames a little. And the rabbet is much les then 3-3,5"= 1,6-1,8 mm broad. May be 0,5mm =1" This 1" or a little more and another 1-1,5" deep, that would be the rabbet I'm speaking about. And it's above the gun deck, so the ship would't fall apart from this. On the other hand, who told us, that the outer planking of the lid is of the same thickness then the outer planking of the ship? I found that in Goodwin's book, but what is the source? I cant remember. What is, when the whole lid is between 3-3,5" thick? The magical number from Steel around 1800! Then Victory's Lids are of the same thickness then the planking of the ships side (it looks so), then no extra rabbet is to cut. If that is also true for the older ships, I don't know. As I said before, they look at the models as if they have the right thickness. One argument we did't discus till now is the fact, that if the inner lining of the lid has the same size of the the outer planking, all for sides of the lid lie in the rabbet. Not only the left and right side and the plank above and below, when the lining is cut back. I think the construction is weaker when the lining is only nailed to the back of the outer planking. Druxey, that are your strong arguments? You could put these two sentence in a grinder, there would't come out more. For those who did't know what we are speaking about, that is all from a book of 641 pages! At least it mean, the lid is not less then 3-3,5" thick

Hello Mark, yes I know, but it's the only ship where you could see it today. Yesterday I searched for the Tricomarlee and Unikorn, but it looks like they did't have port lids. The Tricomarlee has one port closed, so you could see nothing and the other ports lids are not there. A happy new year to you

Hello Karl, the ports where caulked with oakum and fat

Good morning, now we are there, where we where before this discussion and as we ever build our models. The only difference is, that to the top of the lid is no stop anymore. You would't find also any model with such a broad rabbet. When yes, they must have the same thickness as most lids, but mostly they are much thinner. I think it's a shortcut as I stated before and most of the contemporary models say I'm right. Why did you ignore that? I mean the contemporary models. Dowmer, why do you think that they did't rabbet into the frames? Goodwin says in his text: that the outer planking of the lid is equal to the thickness of the ships side planking and Y says: variable according to the thickness of the ships side planking. That doset mean automatically, that they are together have the thickness of the outer planking. »None that I can find, show the lid rabbet “let into the ship frame” to make up for the thickness of the lining.« You could see the rabbet all around the port hole on contemporary models. How deep they are you could't see. But deep enough for the lid and that means they have to cut the frames. There are to my knowledge only two models that show a rabbeted lid as Druxey and Mark P will shows us. All other models show lids as the Victory has. Here an other picture of the Victory where you could see the rabbet better. But not at the bottom of the port hole! These port lids seems to me have the thickness of the outer planking of the ship. In this case you haven't to rabbet the frames.

Good morning Mark, the cannon looks very good. Happy new year to you Mark

Hello Johann, your ropes looking great, especially the silk ropes. I burned my linen ropes to eliminate the fine hairs. Should your Creole look afterwards also like this model? The captain must have been on vacation!

Hello, no, you did't take my threat over. I started the discussion and thought that we could settle this may be for all. What makes me a little curios is the fact, that most, when not all, admiralty models have these square ports, without any step. So as I drew it at the right side of my drawing. I think that this is not only a shortcut, they are nearly in the accurate size. To understand what I mean, my planks at the gun deck are 3" thick and have a lining of 1" = 1,6 mm + 0,5 mm = 2,1 mm Here the Centurion 1:48 and the 60 gunner 1:60. Here the ports are slightly thinner. You could see, that the dimensions are nearly the same. They did't skip the lining. There is not much written about the port lids. Goodwin wrote that they are without a step around them and the Victory has that future. Lavery mention them, but did't write nothing special, because he had no information I think. And there is that one sentence in Steels treatise from around 1800 that is now the truth. I would no one irritate, but we should together find an answer and the models speak for themselves. The shipwrights know what to do. That is with most things of the past the case, where every body know how it looks like. Druxey, could't it be that you misinterpret the sentence: Well seasoned linings fitted into the stops. That could mean all, even that: And most models give me right. Ok, you have to rewrite some of your books, that is the bad thing about it and I'm not lucky about it. You remember the wales. You could interpret it your way, but all the models show it the other way. So what is right?

Druxey, that is opposite to that what Mark P wrote a little above, #199 and 200. He tells us, that there where no linings to the frames to build the port stop.

Doris, that is unbelievable. By the way, my car needs also some renovation 😙

Hello, many thanks for your comments and likes. Druxey, now I found it too. That looks as if you are right, but why did't have the Victory that? May be that changed from time to time. Mark, thank you for your efforts. When I understand what you have written, then you mean the rabbet in the port. That is not the question. I asked me, and you, if the lid has a step, that fits into this rabbet. The left drawing shows what Druxey says and the right drawing what I understand, seeing all the contemporary models and also the Victory, with no step at the lid. I found one other model then the Bellona (below) who has that step. It's probably the frigate Lowestoft SLR 0339, a model from about 1761. But even the large model of the cannon decks from the Royal George did't have it. May be its only a shortcut from the modellers not to show the lining. But at the other hand, I could argue it's a shortcut of the modellers today not have the lining the same wide as the lid. Then also the lining would lie at the rabbet and add strength to the lid. Not for stopping cannon balls, but the sea to come in. I build my ship now as I started and because most models look so, I think that it might be right.

Helo, Druxey, could you please tell me, at wich page in Steels „Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture“ I could find that what you meant about the port lids. I have two volumes of it, one from 1805 and an enlarged volume from 1812. The last one I searched through at google books for ports, port-lids and lids and did't find anything related about this topic. The only thing I found was this and that did't say much new about them I think, that the lids did't have these steps and that it did't make sense for making the ports more waterproof. If anybody could show me a picture of a contemporary British model, from the time around 1720-1800, or even later, I would be very glad. The Bellona is the only model I know who had this future. But the Bellona was also a model for demonstrating the coppered hull, it may be, that this was also for showing something new for the gun ports. But that it did't make it. The last days I lined the port lids, who are here in real 3 inch thick, with a 1 inch layer of wood. Today I made the mortise for the lids at the starboard side 0,5 mm deeper, fit the lid in and painted all.

Hello, thank you all for your comments and likes. druxey, I searched all models and paintings of the NMM and Science museum of that time and today also the models till 1850 and did't find any model with a rabbet around the port lid like the Bellona had. And that model is also from around 1780. I had a closer look into Boudriot's 74 gunner(1780), Vol II page 164. At a first look there is no step at the lid, but at a closer view there are steps to the sides. Above is nothing and below they cut the rabbet of the gun port back in the thickness of the inner planking of the lid. So, steps there are only to the left and right of the lid. When I started with the port lids, I had the Bellona in mind and what I have seen till that on other models, and thought that that is true. But then I realize that all the other contemporary models did’t have that future. I'm long enough re-enactor to understand, that that what all do must not be right. May be it's a short cut of the modeller, or it was really so. May be the outer and inner planking of the lids have together the thickness of the outer planking. For what must they be thicker then necessary, they must not be bulletproof. In combat they are open! And if you have seen more then one Western, you know that even kitchen doors are bulletproof 😮 So I really don't know what to do. At least I leave them as they are, without a rabbet. Carl, yes with that colour it's tricky. But I think I have found the right one. For the models the modellers used often vermillion red. But you could't paint a whole ship with that paint. They used cheaper paint for that based on iron oxide or other cheap pigments. Like the red houses in Scandinavia or the barn red in America. If you see Prince Fredericks bark, in the sun the red is really red, but in the shade it's brown. The same problem I have with this paint now, so I had to make a dozens pictures before I got half-ways the right colour to show you. Doris, my ship is nothing against your beautifully models. You build in a higher class.

Hello Druxey, so far I thought it would be right too. But I could't find any source that prove that. Goodwin and also Boudriot describe wat you say, but without that step. Thats from Goodwin English man o War and below his booklet about the Victory Here you could also see clearly the inner planking of the lids. But the outer planking of the lids should be of the thickness of the planking of the ship, and that seems to be here a little too thin. May be together they have that thickness. I had seen one picture of a Hahn ship that has these steps and on two models here in Hamburg. But not on the huge model of the Wappen von Hamburg III, 1720. This model is ca 3.50 m long and high! An eastindia man ca 1720. As you could see, rose was also in those days first choice A merchant ship ca. 1750

Hello, I'm still there! This year was't one of my best. Since 20 years I have Lyme disease and the doctors always give me Antibiotics and say: you have always antibodies afterwards. Yes, if there are Borreliens left! So when this year my knees begin to make troubles, I went to a doctor in Hamburg. The short version, since June I'm eating Antibiotics of different sorts and I hope that this will work. The Borreliens now are mostly gone 😀 But back to my ship. Because the red paint inside the ship dose not really satisfied me, I started searching for a new one. For this ship I changed the paint, from Humbrol to acrylic's from Vallejo. But also there I had to mix the red colour and the red was always dominating. So I looked for the acrylic artist paint. I had the red colour of Prince Fredericks bark in my mind and the most fitting colours are these two Here is my test with these paints. In the upper part of the test, the paint is in two layers. To the left the Lukas, then the Schminke Paint. Both colours did't satisfied me really. Lukas was too light red and Schminke to brown. Following is the mixing of both. Here a test at the ship, to the front the Lukas and then the Schminke paint. It's a great difference. I decided tho use 2 parts of Lukas with one part of Schminke. The result you can see below. The pictures did't show the colour really true, because of lamps, sunlight shade and so on. But I tried to show you the best result. The next problem did't wait. The port lids. The Bellona model ist the only model I know, where the lids have a step that fits into the steps of the port holes. But Goodwin and also Boudriot for his 74 gunner show there a step on the lids. And also not the Victory. That would mean, I have to cut the mortice for the lids deeper 🙁 Ore are the lids cut back to the inside, so that they fit into the port holes with the step? Seen from above. Many thank in advance for your help. I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year, Siegfried

Good morning, these pictures of cannons I made 2013 in Chatham. Most of the muzzles are like the one in Marks second drawing, not so step. So what is right? The No 9 is the big mortar far back to the right, No 18 is the mortar where the explanations are lying on.

Hello Mark, first of all, I'm happy to see you back at the shipyard. I think that I will return in the near future. Like you, I have the problem, which cannon design should I use for a 1747 launched ship. I found this side in the internet, about britisch cannons. https://www.arc.id.au/Cannon.html But the more you know, the more complicated it seams. I decided for me, to use the Armstrong pattern of 1760. Scaled down to 1:48 I hope there will be no real difference to the 1722/24 or 1742 design. Because I could't find any description of these designs. If anybody has an description about these designs, it would be great to know more about it.

Hello, just that you see that I'm still working, now and then 😉 I finished the inner planking of the gun deck with deck clamps for the upper gun deck and started to build the gun port lids.