trippwj

Off and running on this one, eh? Nice start - great to see you building again!

Well, that is a difficult query to accurately answer! I suppose that, given just the query itself, my answer would be "It Depends". Previous experience in wood and knowledge of the ship, as well as the era or time period of interest, can all drive the recommendation. In addition, the bias of the respondent can also alter the recommendations. What i offer here are a smattering of what, to me as a beginner, I have found most useful. It is not a complete list, and is heavy on some of the older "classics". The purist builder will find this list shocking - it ignores some of the more modern writers (such as Edward Tosti and David Antscherl) and is focussed on the beginner and the development of experertise and skill, rather than the master builder guides. Note also that most of my recommendations below are also readily available via various book sellers. So, here we go: Campbell, G.F. 1991. Neophyte Shipmodeller’s Jackstay. Model Expo Co. Davis, C.G. 1984. American Sailing Ships: Their Plans and History. New York: Dover Publications. ———. 1986. Ship Models: How to Build Them. New York: Dover Publications. ———. 1988. The Ship Model Builder’s Assistant. New York: Dover Publications. Dressel, D. 1988. Planking Techniques for Model Ship Builders. 1st ed. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: TAB Books. Johnson, G. 1996. Ship Model Building. 3. ed., and enlarged, 11. print. Centreville, Md: Cornell. Julier, K. 1993. The Period Ship Handbook. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. ———. 1995. The Period Ship Handbook 2. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. ———. 2003. Period Ship Kit Builder’s Manual. Annapolis, Md: Naval Institute Press. Lankford, B. 1988. Watercraft Modeler’s Handbook. Silver Spring, Md.: Nautical Research Guild. McCann, E.A. 1927. Ship Model Making: How to Make Worth-While Models of Decorative Ships. 1St Edition edition. The Norman W. Henly Publishing Co. ———. 1995. How to Make a Clipper Ship Model. New York: Dover Publications. Pariser, Daniel, ed. 2009. Ship Modeler’s Shop Notes, II. Cuba, NY: Nautical Research Guild, Inc. Underhill, H.A. 1958. Plank-on-Frame Models and Scale Masting and Rigging. 1: Scale Hull Construction. Glasgow: Brown, Son and Ferguson. Underhill, H.A. 1979. Masting and Rigging: The Clipper Ship [and] Ocean Carrier. With Authentic Plans, Working Drawings and Details of the 19th and 20th Century Sailing Ship. Glasgow: Brown and Ferguson. Underhill, H.A. 1985. Plank-on-Frame Models and Scale Masting and Rigging. 2: Mastmaking and Rigging, Sailing Models and Power Craft Hulls. Glasgow: Brown, Son and Ferguson.

Perhaps lost in the past several pages of debate and discussion is the original purpose of my study – how and when did that simple line (Load Water Line) become a pre-determined height for inclusion on the design plans for a ship? I am not sure there is a singular answer, or date, or individual. There are examples of the presence of the LWL on plans dating back to the times of Matthew Baker (see, for example, his famous drawing of the Revenge, showing the immersed portion of the hull, 16th century). There are also the pre-construction estimates by the Pett’s (cited earlier, I believe) which verified extremely well post-construction (circa 1630). HOWEVER, we also have noted designers/constructors such as Sutherland throwing out a waterline of an apparently arbitrary level, and then others (and I must apologize, for in preparing this quick post I neglected to note the reference for that – I will locate it and add to a latter posting as soon as I am able!) offering the use of the desired waterline as the base line for drawing a ships plan. An interesting approach, but begs the question of how to guarantee the ship, as fully equipped for service, actually swims at the desired depth? I am, perhaps, getting closer to a defensible position, yet not there yet. Finding the boundary between a true “design” waterline (that depth at which the fully equipped ship will float, identified during the design of the ship) versus the “desired” waterline (that depth at which the ship floats when adjustments in equipping, stores, ballast &c. are made such that the vessel floats at the level intended). OOOHHH! Two new definitions added – thoughts on that distinction? Many thanks -

Dan - perhaps this site may be of some use to you: http://www.gwpda.org/naval/s0900000.htm. I have not yet been able to locate the original source document in on-line format, other than the bibliographic information: Admiralty, Great Britain. 1913. Handbook of Signalling. H.M. Stationery Office. 1. The Alphabetical Sign shows from which side the signs are to be read. 2. The Signs, as a general rule, are made by a Signalman facing the ships addressed; they are read from the right-hand side of the sending Signalman. 3. As it is often necessary to signal in opposite directions by the same semaphore, Signalmen must be careful to observe in which direction the Sender is facing, more especially when he is using hand flags, so that they can tell the side they must read the signs from their point of view. It should be noted that when the Alphabetical Sign is shown it is the left arm which is extended horizontally.

You ask some good questions, Michael. In reference to the first portion: "Imagine the meeting or meetings where the new Establishment was agreed on sometime in 1745. Don't you think that sailors captains rigger, so called technical experts would have been called in. Ship's top hamper was constantly being repaired, modified, and experimented with. Look at the never ending discussions on this website about the finer points of Old Ironsides rig. So I think these guy showed up and said "here are some things we have been doing at sea over the last few years that improve performance".And they got them made official. Under that scenario you might reasonably find some of the changes of 1745 actually in use on ship prior to that time." According to Brian Lavery, for the previous Establishments, the dimensions had been decided upon through consultation with the Surveyor and senior shipwrights. In June 1745, the Admiralty took the lead when it decided to deal with the problem of ship sizes, and set up a committee to review proposals made by the Navy Board. The original purpose of the Establishments was to standardise the fleet, but because ships had been built and rebuilt at various times to varying established dimensions, there was little more standardisation than had been present before the 1706 Establishment came into being. The new Establishment of 1745 was intended to correct this situation, and at the same time solve the issues with British ships that had been the cause of complaint by sea officers for several years. The Establishments, in some ways, reflect the evolution and internal bureaucratic struggles within the navy. The earlier establishments were more like guidelines, and subject to individual interpretation. They reflected the conservative tendencies of the established shipwrights. The 1745 establishment attempted to require standardized design by also require the development of plans for each ship designed to the establishment, and the strengthening of the authority of the surveyor of the navy. In regards to the second part: "Everyone is fixated on the ratio of beam to mainmast. True enough and it changes over time. But the other spars changed in relation to the main mast as well. In particular the length of the topgallant yards in relation to the length of the other yard increased steadily over the years. You can see from my tables above the ratio of topgallant yard yo topsail yard went from .58 in 1719 to .69 in 1745.The ratio of the topsail yard to the main yard remained at .7 The ratio of the topgallant mast to the top mast remained the same as well at about .48-.49. The topgallants in 1745 were noticblely wider in proportion to thier depths and to the topsails in 1745 than in 1719. This had the effect of reducing the taper of the sail plan as it went up. I ma certainly not an engineer but it must have been improvements in hull stability and spar materials that allowed them to raise the center of effort." It may have reflected a gain in experience, but hardly a recognition of the importance of terms like "stability" and "center of effort". The Royal Navy was exceedingly slow to recognize the physics involved and incorporate those ideas into ship design - not until the late 18th and early 19th centuries did the Navy shipwrights begin to discuss these ideas, establishing the School of Naval Architecture in 1811 (and then closing it as a result of political infighting and changes in who was most influential) until the mid 1800's. There is much more that could be added concerning those issues, but not germane here - see my ongoing analysis here http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/9892-seeking-information-on-determining-load-waterline/ "So the question is which Establishment do my self titled" inter-Establishment" ship look most like." That, my friend, is indeed a very good question. Look to the builder and captain, and their other ships of similar size, for the most likely answer.

Prior to adoption of the 1745 establishment, the most recent predecessor would be in use. If there were no changes to the masting rations in 1733 or 1743, then the 1719 establishment would be the most appropriate. I am not familiar enough with the 1733 and 1743 establishments so can't be much aid there.

The beam was used to calculate the size of the spars - the dimension of the spar would change with the beam, not as a proportionate change to the other vessel. For example, in the 1719 establishment, the length of the main mast for a 60 gun 4th rate was 2.34 times the beam. In the 1745 establishment it was 2.22 times the beam. All the other spars were then related to the main mast or, for the yards, the length of the gun deck.

I have never seen any of the establishments published in full, although Lees has tables from several in his work. The 1745 establishment, according to Lees, may be found in the Caird Library at the NMM.

Danny Vadas has provided a spreadsheet which will calculate the size for various lines based on the data in Lees for English ships of war 1625 to 1860. It may be downloaded here: http://modelshipworldforum.com/ship-model-masts-and-yards.php

I suppose, since Sutherland was mentioned above, I ought to include a snippet from him. This is from the 1717 version: Sutherland, W. 1717. Britain’s Glory: Or, Ship-Building Unvail’d, Being a General Director, for Building and Compleating the Said Machines. Tho. Norris. http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/ECHOdocuView?url=/permanent/shipbuilding/Suthe_Brita_01_1717/index.meta.

Unfortunately, I have not come across very many good tables on rigging thus far - that is the next in depth topic I am going to be pursuing. In the interim, here are a couple of thoughts and a resource of sorts. Rigging methods and ratios, much like ship building and naval architecture as a whole, developed slowly and incrementally, rarely undergoing periods of great change. While the methods of attaching specific lines to blocks or of manufacturing blocks may have evolved, along with the nuamnces of a mast or sail (such as the spritsail topmast, for example), the fundamentals (such as the thickness of a cable required to support a mast or yard) remained relatively constant until the advent of steel and iron cables. This matters, because Steel (1794, 1796) would reflect established practice for the period preceeding publication - which was likely in use during the mid-18th century. It may prove beneficial to compare Steel (1794) to Bond (1704) to see what may have changed, and likewise see how Mountaine (1761) fits into the gap. Bond, H. 1704. The Art of Apparelling and Fitting of Any Ship... http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/MPIWG:A09VZBVW. Mountaine, W. 1761. The Seaman’s Vade-Mecum and Defensive War by Sea. http://books.google.com/books?id=a8IzAQAAMAAJ. From Bond (1704, originally puclished 1663) From Steel (1794) From Mountaine - provides narrative based on size of the item to which a line is assigned.

Belated Happy Birthday, Elijah. That should be a neat second build for you!

This discussion is quite interesting, although sometimes it moves between topics so rapidly that additional research and input becomes lost in the flow. I think that the over-rigging of these frigates and sloops was a long term ongoing concern, both for the young American Navy and the mature, bureaucratic British and French Navies. Sticking solely with the American Navy, one need look no further than the debates surrounding the construction of the original 6 frigates. The Secretary of War ORDERED the assigned Superintendents (future Captain of the assigned ship) Barry, Talbot & Truxton to meet with Humphreys and provide a report with the recommended dimensions for the rigging. War office Sept 30 1795 The Secretary of War requests the Captains Barry, Talbot & Truxton now at Philadelphia with Mr. Humphreys the constructor, to consult together on the proper dimensions of the masts and spars for the frigates, and report their opinion under their hands in such form that the same may be transmitted to all the constructors and superintendents on their guide. Timothy Pickering This was partially in response to a letter from Truxton enclosing a copy of both his approach to masting and that published by Steel (see attached appendix 6 from Truxton - this copy appears to have been that of Fox). 1794 Masts Article_Truxtun.pdf Also see this letter Truxton to Pickering, then forwarded by Pickering to all the Captains, concerning same. 1795-3-25 TP circular to Captains_NBB19 3pgs.pdf The end result was a capitulation - each Captain, in consultation with the constructor for his frigate, was to determine the best method and dimensions and then send them to the War Department. 1796-1-25 TP to JH ST_Mast as wish circular letter NBS03 NBD01 1 page.pdf

According to the description, this was while in ordinary in Norfolk, VA. See http://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-108000/NH-108535.html

I would, in reference to early 19th century US Naval ship design, be careful about using terms like "standard issue" and "standard design". The US Navy was still far from a bureaucratic beast at the time, and while there was a Naval Constructor (Fox, Doughty, Samuel Humphreys and Henry Eckford during the period in question), it was not until much later that the Chief Naval Constructor really achieved some solid measure of authority. Each of these designers, responsible for various classes of ships built at the time, had very different design approaches, and the vessels would show the individual bias of the designer. HOWEVER, the captain also had a great deal of leeway to make cosmetic adjustments within the approved construction budget, so there may be some trends toward commonality, not in design so much as in the taste of the skipper.

The shipyard has long been closed. A good starting point may be the Sail Power & Steam Museum here (located at the site of the former I. L. Snow shipyard). There may also be some information available here at the Maine Maritime Museum (just down the coast a mite in Bath). It may also be beneficial to contact the New-York Historical Society for information on the items in the Maritime History Collection PR 100 (see finding aid here).

Looking wicked good, Elijah. Nice start on the coppering. You may not need to do too much to get the patina on the copper tape - about 6 months in, if not treated, the tape starts to take on a dull and seasoned look. I'll try and get you a picture of how it has come on out my Harriet Lane 9using same brand of copper tape). Alternatively, look for the builds by riverboat (Frank) to see weathering to a high level. There are also some threads around how best to weather your copper that may have some helpful advice. Enjoy your vacation -

While I need to go back and get you the source, here are 2 relatively contemporary drawings which are also contradictory - one with and one without gun port lids. Note the one with lids shows them opening down, not up. The "official" picture from the USCG Historian is likewise odd - no ports, but I am a bit confused by the gaff sail on the foremast. Given the location of the pilot house, and the smoke stack, it appears that the fore sail would be a great mess if ever used. Note that this is the only picture that includes that sail.

Contents: Making Silkspan Sails Shipwrecks of the World - Rouse Simmons On the Cover - Cutter Making Long Gun Carriages The Modelers Tool Chest - Rigging tools Heraldic Ship Badges—HMNZS Philoman Current issue and all back issues are available at http://www.msbjournal.com

My gracious, Sjors, but that is one nice looking bottom!

OK, Carl - just for you! Please ignore the rough finish and obvious gaps...plenty of sanding and (gulp) filling to be done! The workshop has come together nicely - adding several outlets and LED ligthing has made a huge difference! Overall view of Emma Starboard side - this one will remain partially planked. Port side - this one will be fully planked. My challenge right now (for both sides) is to achieve a balanced planking while addressing the difference in space at the extremities from the mid-ship section. Learning to work with proportional dividers and taper planks.

Gracious - has it really been nearly 5 months since my last update??? Hull planking continues, albeit slowly. I have never planked a hull before, and am taking great care to ensure I don't make too big a mess of this! I have no pictures at present, for which i apologize. I hope to share the progress (perhaps by next weekend) if I can get one side completed. Will keep you posted!

The HL is a fun build - once you get used to the small scale, that is! She is looking mighty nice. That rudder came out very well - will you be coppering it as well?

POF, mid-18th to early 19th century schooners, brigs &c. (merchant or fishing). Scale, that's a tough one. I'm less concerned with all my models matching than being able to work on it. For example, I found 1:128 far too small when building, but the 20 inch product is a good size. 1:48 is easier to work, but the result if rigged is a burly beast. I like the ala carte menu option - build it your way! Instructions (at least detailed guidance on sequence) would be most beneficial. Detailed step by step, maybe but, for a beginner, seem proscriptive rather than suggestive. (Oops - I missed that step, dangit! Now what? ShouldI start over? Tear out what I just did?) Price point is tough. Done as ala carte, components bought over several months or years, total price can be higher, so long as component units stay in that target range!

The adventure continues!!! How many of these over the past 25 years, my friend? Hope you had a great day.