davyboy

Superb photo's Maurice,a credit to your skills. I look forward to your next little masterwork.
 
Dave 

You mention European built vessels so there would be differences with those built by Spain in Havana and the Philippines.    I have no idea how accurate the following article might be, but it may be a little help. 
https://www.worldhistory.org/Spanish_Galleon/
Allan

I glue, but it isn’t needed.  The rigging holds the masts in place quite well.

There is an old expression about a boat being a hole in the water into which you throw money.  Unfortunately, United States is just a bigger hole to fill.
 
IMHO there are engineering, business, and legal reasons preventing her from sailing again:
 
Business:  The passenger ship business seems to be aimed at two different demographics; at one end those that want to join 4999 others aboard a floating theme park/ 24-7 floating casino and at the other end those wanting a quiet experience aboard a small ship.  United States would seem to appeal to neither of these groups.  The United States, while a big ship carried 1000-2000 passengers. Fares would, therefore, be high, so she would have to tap into the small cruise ship market.  Would ongoing demand be high enough to allow her to book profitable passenger loads?
 
Engineering:  She is a steam ship!  Nobody, operates steamships any more.  She has a 900psi US Navy plant.  The only steam plants operated today in US Navy vessels are in nuclear powered vessels; different animals.  Her boilers, if they can even be brought back to life are equipped to burn bunker c oil, a nasty pollutant that the rest of the world is trying to eliminate from their merchant marine fleets. The state of the art today in marine engineering for passenger carrying vessels seems to be an integrated system where electricity from one source is distributed to both the propulsion system and the system supplying on board hotel services. This also allows use of electric driven trainable pods to improve maneuvering.  Even if it could be brought back to life, United States’ machinery is 70 years out of date.
 
Legal:  She is an American Flagged ship.  The Jones act would require her to be manned with an expensive American crew.  She could be reflagged under a flag of convenience; Liberia, Panama, Bahamas, etc. but would she then be the United States?
 
Better for whoever owns her to admit defeat and as Bob Cleek says turn her into razor blades.
 
Roger
 
 
 
 

Or a lot of razor blades, as the saying goes!  

Always sad to a grand old ship neglected and in decline, but I can understand why. They are expensive to fix and expensive to maintain, and there's a lot of resources locked up in all that metal.

Hello everyone, and thank you all ☺️ temporary assembly:  
 
 
 

Hi, and thanks at all ❤️
 
 

more....

Steven,
 
1150 borders on prehistory, a long, long, time ago.  Short of digging up a well preserved vessel no one can really say how these vessels were built and sailed.  Likewise, no one can really say if details known to exist on much later lateen rigged vessels were used in 1150.  The best anyone can do is to make use of contemporary information available, which you are doing.  Keep up the good work, while realizing that this is a difficult subject.
 
Roger

I've come across this discussion a bit late, but that's probably a good thing, as I've had the opportunity to read arguments for and against the lateen interpretation.
 
Tartane, I appreciate your input and suggestions, as I do those of the others who've posted on this subject. I've also done a lot of research on the rigging and configuration of lateen sails, not only on this build but on my dromon of some years ago. And though I don't regard myself as an expert by any means, I feel I have a good understanding of the rig. 
 
Of the mosaics I posted at the beginning of this log, only one is actually under sail, and even that is having the sails furled. There are two other ship mosaics of this series in San Marco, plus one from another similar series, but two have the sails completely furled,
  
and the other (from the other series) shows pretty definite triangular sails.

Although the classic image of a lateen sail is triangular, with a sharply angled yard:

The sail can take many configurations, including with the yard all but horizontal, depending on the angle of the ship in relation to the wind:
  
  
and see also 1:23 to 1:30 in this video:
 
 
Though the yards in the mosaics are mostly not far from horizontal, I am nonetheless satisfied that they depict lateen, not square rig. The first picture in my log could be interpreted as almost any type of sail, but the second seems (at least to me) to taper to a point at the bottom - in other words, a triangle. This is supported by the multitude of mediaeval representations of lateen rigged Mediterranean round ships.
 
     
     
I am not trying to claim that all Mediterranean ships in the mediaeval period were lateen-rigged - particularly after the cog began to reach there from the Atlantic - but there is certainly ample evidence for my interpretation of the sails of my Venetian ship to be lateen.
 
Tartane, I do appreciate your posting the picture of the knevel. I had been puzzling over how to  belay the shrouds, and though I've already committed myself now, I find the knevel to be a simple and practical apparatus, and better than what I came up with myself - to the point that I wish I'd seen it earlier as I would have used it on this model. The wooden toggle that joins the shroud to the rope loop has been found time and time again in marine archaeology from ancient times through mediaeval, and is still use on Mediterranean lateeners today.
 
Yes, I'm doing exactly as you pointed out when tacking, that the leeward shrouds are loosened to allow the sail to belly out and take full advantage of the wind. I mentioned this in an earlier post.
 
Steven
 
 
 

Post One Hundred and Seventy-two
Sphinx and ‘Indy’
I thought members may be interested to see the comparison between Chris’s two premier kits, Sphinx and Indefatigable.
They sort of represent the alpha to omega of British frigates.
Sphinx, the bijou 9 pounder vessel, and ‘Indy’, the pocket battleship of her day, carrying 24 pounders supplemented with 42 pounder carronades.
I recall that when I built Sphinx I thought she was quite large, when ‘Indy’ arrived I thought I’m going to need a bigger bench!

04505

04506

04507

04508

04512

05413

05414

04517
If a large statement model is required ‘Indy’ is a good choice, but if masted and fully rigged she will take up a lot of room.
Built Navy Board style she is still a heavy model and a glass case even with reduced height and width adds considerably to the weight.
Sphinx is certainly of a size more amenable to a domestic setting; a pretty little frigate that appeals to my deeper affection for the more decorative vessels of the 18thc. before austerity took over as the expensive Napoleonic wars ground on.
 
Indefatigable sort of spans this period, all black and yellow, no decorative topsides, but the stern gallery still looks good to my eye. She is modelled with an open Fo’csle before her bulwarks were built up, and she does have a magnificent Figure at her head.
 
I am more than happy to have both in my collection.
 
 
Thank you, Chris, for providing me with an engrossing thirteen months of work. It is a tribute to your designs, to be able to build a model of this quality and detail in such a short time.
 
Thanks are also due to James, for producing the prototype ‘Indy’ build which provided a very useful reference guide.
 
B.E.
02/05/2024

Glue isn't needed. After all the rigging is installed the masts and bowsprit aren't going anywhere!
 
I prefer to install the cradles for the bases of the mast on the keel/keelson and frames for just below the deck planking while the hull is open to work on. I get everything aligned so the masts are aligned and raked correctly. Then when the masts are finally inserted into the hull they will be aligned correctly.
 
The same is true for the bowsprit. It should have a heel and tenon that fits tightly between the bitts/knightheads, timberheads (whatever you want to call them). This should prevent the bowsprit from slipping backwards between the posts, and it should hold the bowsprit in alignment. If the bowsprit can slip between the posts drill a hole down through the assembly and install a pin to hold it in place.

I am fairly new to the hobby, so I can’t speak to longevity.  On my first build I use PVA, but I don’t think I needed to.  On my second build I didn’t use any glue.  The bow sprit, foremast and main mast went in straight and are held there by the shrouds.  The mizzen mast wanted to lean a little so I used some wedges to get it straight and then relied on the shrouds to keep it straight.  

Continuation: Equipment of the Cross Bramrah – Vergue de perruche
A moment of inattention results in the following:

 At the broken point the mizzen topgallant yard is just 1.9 mm in diameter. Annoying, but gluing is not an option.
Sequel follows …

Just a small update...
 
I was eager to get started with the planking of the bulwarks.   There is no trick for this.  Its just a grind of cutting and shaping planks to fit between the ports.   Its a slow process and you must be very neat and keep the cuts around the ports straight etc.
 
The planking is all 3/64" thick.   Just as I did with the Winnie, the two strakes below the the ports (the spirketting) were added first.  The spirketting is normally thicker than the planks above it and stands proud.  I have always accomplished this by planking the spirketting in two layers.  It still amazes me how few kit mfgs even show this feature.  You dont have to do it this way if you dont want to.  You could just use 1/16" or even 5/64" thick planking and do it one layer.   Its up to you.  I will add the second layer of spirketting once the entire side has been planked.  I will use a .025" thick second layer.  
 
Having said this...some notes are in order.   The top of the spirketting is lined up perfectly flush with the bottom of the gun ports and sweep ports.   This is great if you happened to get lucky and they all line up perfectly.   I dont care who is making the model, this is pretty impossible to do.   Even the most skilled builders will need to tweak the bottom sills of each port so they line up perfectly with the top edge of spirketting.  This will become very apparent after you run your planking strip down the inboard bulwarks.   I was very lucky in that most of the ports only needed some minor tweaking.   Some were just a hair too high.  Less than 1/64".   So I used a sharp chisel to  make the ports sits flush along the top of the spirketting.  you can see that in the photo below.  The ports will need a lot of paint touch up which was expected.  Whatever you do,  do not notch out your spirketting to accommodate a port.  Try and keep the top edge of the spirketting a nice continuous run without notching it.  Should one of your ports sit too low...I recommend instead that you add a sliver of wood on top of the port sill to raise it up in line with the spirketting.
 
I hope that makes sense.
 
See below...notice how I did not use any pencil to simulate the seams between each strake.   In fact, just the opposite.   I am painting the bulwarks red so this allowed me to take a small shortcut.  You may want to consider it as well.  I dont want any seams to show at all.  In fact I didnt even have to use two individual strakes for the spirketting.   If you look towards the fcastle bulwark planking you can see the area I havent planked yet.  I used one wide strip of 3/64" thick cedar instead of using two narrower strakes as is typical.  I believe it was around 1/2" wide.  Probably slightly wider on the aft portion.   
 
Then because we know the sweep ports are 3/16" high,  a 3/16" strip was used next and cut between the ports and sweeps.   I was careful to be very neat with these cuts.
 
Finally the remaining planking above the sweep ports would normally consist of two more strakes.   Because I am painting the bulwarks, I once again used ONE wider strip of 3/64" thick cedar so I could quickly fill in those areas in one pass.  It should paint up very nicely.  This reduced the number of neatly cut ends to all those strakes between the ports.   There are fewer seams to keep neat as well.   The photo almost looks like a solid hull because there are few seams showing between strakes.  
 
Now if you are NOT going to paint the bulwarks red....this means you will have to use individual narrow strakes.  It will take many more cuts and trial fittings...repeat and repeat again.  That is your choice.  I will take more pics after the second layer of spirketting is added and after the bulwarks are painted red.  The bow area will be planked with narrower strakes just as they should be.  It will be easier to bend those.   But once the bulwarks are painted red nobody will be able to tell how many strakes you actually used.   So you must make a decision ...to paint or not to paint.  Essentially you can plank what's remaining of the bulwarks with just three rows cedar strips.   The wood package comes with your typical 3/16", 7/32", 1/4" and 9/32" wide planking strips that are narrow, so you will need to buy some 3/64" sheets should you want to plank your bulwarks like I have done here.  Then you can cut some 1/2" wide strips instead.   But only if you will be painting the bulwarks red.
 
 
 
 

First.
Thanks everyone for watching, liking and comments.
 
Building the upper part of the hull at the waist. We change from fraims on the inside of the planking to standards on the outside. Planking is quite thin here, only about 4cm 1/1 scale.
First the stadards, luckily some of these remained. And my standards were created based on them. One by one, time consuming

Glue the standards in place after dry fitting

Then the planking on the rear castle is neatly cut.

The first plank


The second plank, all hands (clamps) on deck.


Additional supports around the gun ports.

Glued the middle rail in place

And the top rail.


The starboard side is ready, the tops of the rails still need to be shortened slightly. 
I'm happy with the look of this part, if I say so myself 

Thanks, Eric. I'm afraid I'm a bit of a show pony in that regard. I enjoy trying for a bit of extra interest in my builds to spark the attention of those in the know.
 
Steven

While I've enjoyed this discussion as a novice in this area, I think Steven nails it at one point in observing that some small details that may or may not be in error act as discussion points for the knowledgeable and will not be noticed by the casual viewer. I certainly have a few on my models and it's actually a thrill when someone notices one in person and it sparks an informed discussion. Well done Steven and carry on!

nope...You are good.  I changed that part of the deadwood later on after I built it.  The current plans are correct which match your parts which are also correct.   
 
It just made sense to change it after I built it the first time and makes building that area easier for all of you.   My model and log will sometimes be slightly different as improvements are made after the fact....so just follow the plans and instructions and you will be fine.
 
It will make adding the wing transom and creating the square tuck much easier.   

Whilst built for the Confederate states, Alabama was built in the UK by Lairds of Birkenhead. Just a coupleof miles from where i used to live.
So she could have been built to British scantlings for the time period. 
There used to be a model of her on display at the outdoor swimming baths at New Brighton that was built by a member of the CSS Alabama Association who wanted to raise her.
Alabama Wiki

The swivel gun mounts:
 







 

Why thank you, Mark. Unfortunately, they are going to be on the weather side, so I think Doreltomin's point stands. However, perhaps a flick of the rudder(s) could take the load off for a short time even if they were weather shrouds. [And of course if they were just completing a tack and hadn't yet got under way, these guys tightening the last weather shroud could well be believable].
 
Tartane, yes, I'm still going to be using lateen sails. I've looked carefully at your arguments and they aren't convincing enough to make me change. I realise that you have the best intentions in making your suggestions, but I have done plenty of research of my own and I'm satisfied that I'm making the right decisions. What may have been the practice for a chebec in the 18th/19th century is by no means necessarily what was done in the 12th century, and I believe I have ample evidence to back me up.
 
Theoretical reconstructions will always be a matter of interpretation of the available evidence, and our interpretations are different. I think the best policy is for us to agree to disagree. I'm not really willing to engage in any further discussion on these points, as I find it's distracting me from the build.
 
Steven

Post One hundred and Seventy-one
Album photo's
I have at last got around to taking the completion photo’s which will form part of the Photo build record book that I’m currently putting together.

4395
4361A

4392

4364

4365

4391

4390

4396

4369

4405

4395

2161A

2145a

4397

2162a

2164a

4380

4379

4388

4494a
I am currently faffing around with a clinker built 18’ cutter, and ‘Indy’ is yet to be enclosed in her case, so the story has not quite ended.
 
Then there’s the 26’ Launch, still on my mind.
 
Cheers,
 
B.E.
 

So I have set up the knighthead and have glued all the bracing in place. Not my best work but it is now straight and stable. 


So I now have to trim everything flush with the bulkheads. Time to check all the plank runs to find where I need to fine tune the shape. 
Also, I can get all the measurements of the below deck, main, for castle and aft decks.