trippwj

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.

I think Elijah nailed it - making a ser from the plans is probably your best option. I have the templates, but after cutting them out and using to fair the hull, rhey are a bit seasoned. Send me a PM with your mailing address and I'll send them to you.

Let’s take a moment to consider what, exactly, was meant in point 3 above: 3. The requirement to identify the shape and form of a ship which provides suitable sailing and handling qualities in all conditions, and to handle the intended sails well. Many treatisers and mariners from the time provided their own description of what these qualities were. Let’s take a quick look at a few: From 1792: A ship, whether destined for war or commerce, ought to be able to bear a certain determined lading, and be sufficiently capacious to afford ample accommodations for her crew, with all the contingencies involved in the consideration of their health and comfort. She must carry the cargo with ease to herself; the artillery in a perfectly efficient state, whether space for working the guns, or the height of those guns above the surface of the sea, be considered. She must be so formed that she shall be able to make her passages with velocity when the wind is favourable, and contend with it advantageously when it is unfavourable. The ship must be capable of being worked with ease, rapidity, and certainty, however adverse the circumstances may be under which the maneuvers are performed; for it will sometimes happen, that the more unfavourable the circumstances are, the more imperative is this necessity for success. She must have great stability, or the power of resisting inclination, and of restoring herself to an upright position when inclined; and this must be so nicely graduated and adjusted, that the perfect safety of the vessel may be insured without any injurious strain being brought upon the masts or rigging by an excess of this resisting power. She must be able to sail over rough seas without any injury from the pitching or rolling motions which will ensue, and without the hazards to the crew, to the vessel, or to the cargo, which would result from a tendency to ship seas when thus situated. Her masts must be so proportioned that they shall be sufficiently strong, taking into consideration the support they derive from the rigging, to resist the strains to which they will be subjected, and that without being so heavy as to diminish unnecessarily the stability of the ship, or require superfluous lading from extra ballast. The masts must be lofty enough to spread an adequate surface of canvass to furnish the propelling power, and, at the same time, be so placed and so proportioned to each other, that this propelling power may be readily converted into a series of mutually counteracting or co-operating forces to insure quickness of maneuvering.1 Let’s jump forward about 30 years to 1829: Disregarding the fundamental principals of floating bodies, and too hastily giving up as hopeless the attainment of a theory combining experience with established scientific principle, they have contented themselves with ingeniously inventing mechanical methods of forming the designs of ships bodies, which they did not even pretend to prove had any conexion with the properties of the machine, necessary to ensure the qualities conducive to its intended use. For instance, - some invented methods of forming ships' bodies of arcs of circles; others of arcs of ellipses, parabolas, or of whatever curve they might arbitrarily assume. Taking anyone of these curves as the principle of their design, they investigated, with mathematical accuracy, the means of completing the form of the ship's body in correct accordance with their assumption. They did not attempt to show that these curves possessed any property which would render a ship a faster sailer, a more weatherly, or a safer ship than any other curves which might have been adopted in the construction of the ship's body.2 There are many others with similar statements. What was desired for a ship was that it: 1. Handled the intended sails well (that is, was stable and responsive) 2. Must carry the cargo (or weapons &.c.) intended at the correct draught of water. 3. Should sail well at all points of the wind. 4. Should be a fast sailer. Each of these qualities brings a specific set of design criterion, often at odds with each other. Designing a stable vessel by increasing breadth often decreases the speed. Increased ability to sail to windward may reduce the ability to carry the intended cargo at the desired draught. Trial and error design approaches brought the ship near to a desired condition, but as often as not a success in one aspect resulted in a poor result in another. What Morgan & Crueze (and, indeed, many others during the later 18th and 19th centuries) were trying to accomplish was to apply a mathematical solution to the design of a ship to achieve the best compromise between the competing design requirements. 1. Society for the improvement of naval architecture London. 1792. Some Account of the Institution, Plan, and Present State, of the Society for the Improvement of Naval Architecture: With the Premiums Offered by the Society, List of Members, and the Rules and Orders of the Society. To Which Are Annexed Some Papers on Subjects of Naval Architecture Received by the Committee. http://archive.org/details/someaccountinst00unkngoog. Page 5 (43 of 128) 2. William Morgan and Augustin Francis Bullock Creuze, Papers on Naval Architecture and Other Subjects Connected with Naval Science Vol. II, vol. II (G.B. Whittaker, 1829), page 3.

Ah, you are much to kind, sir! 'Tis a common error for those from away (in this case, defined as beyond New England) to confuse anything north of New York City with "Boston". Not your error, but rather who ever posted the one you spotted. Sort of like assuming that since you are from Florida you must be close to Jacksonville. About the same distance separates the locations. I actually had not been familiar with the Battle of Machias Bay until after moving here - as I noted, it is a rather large point of pride for the residents of Machias and neighboring communities.

Nope. First is claimed off Fairhaven Mass. On 14 May 1775. The capture of the Margheretta was June 11, but nowhere near Boston. The battle was in Machias Bay on the coast of Maine (at the time, part of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay). Quite the annual celebration each year in Machias (parade was yesterday).

Just a very small update. I am currently working on the webpage design - what is currently there is really just a place holder until I can get the whole thing working. I also believe I have located a good database to move the information into, which should enable search functionality using keywords, date, title, author etc. While I am working on this, I will have an occasional post about interesting resources that can be found on the internet - Many thanks!

Again, take a look at Steel - he describes the stowage of the rope as well as how to secure it whrn anchoring. While it may seem counterintuitive based on modern useage, it was impossible to move the anchor hawser to any point other than the hawse holes once the anchor was attached. It was also not likely the cathead was used as it was not equipped to handle that size of hawser. I may not be understanding your question, though - are you suggesting that the anchor hawser was not led through the hawse hole for weighing, as I have read it, or something else?

I'm in - inconceivable to not follow this build!!!@! Off to a good start -

It may be worth a read of the process for "Getting up or Weighing an Anchor" published in Steel, D. 1795. Seamanship, Both in Theory and Practice. Printed and published for, and at, Steel’s Navigation-Warehouse, Tower-Hill. docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/rarebooks_1600-1800/VK541S81795.PDF. The description begins on page 154. It is fairly brief, reflecting the process previously described (raise using the hawser until the anchor is clear the water then catted and fished). He also describes using additional mechanical means when necessary: When the strain is so great as to require other purchases, the top tackles may be used thus : The double block is lashed to the main-masl or topsail-sheet bits, the treble block is lashed on the cable, and the fall brought to the capstern. If the top-tackle falls are thought insufficient, any hawser may be used that will reeve through the blocks.

Well, not sure how much assistance I can offer, but have built (well, nearly - still have some rigging to finish) the HL. She is a fun build, but takes some getting used to because of the scale.

There was no way to reposition the cable to the cat, and (particularly on larger vessels), the messenger was below deck, not on the upper deck with the cat. As Zeh pointed out, the cathead was for final stage as the anchor cleared the water for stowage.

Well played, Sam. Take your time - you can't hurry a work of art.

You continue to progress nicely, with due dilligence and care. Dang, that almost sounded intellectual! She looks good, Elijah. Keep on doing what you are doing! I have a partially built one of these on the shelf - started it last year with my granddaughter. Will pull it back out when she visits in July and use your log as an aid, if you don't mind?

Are you building the solid hull version?

Dashi - Your analysis is understood, just offering alternative interpretations. Do you happen to know if the tiller arrangement on the upper deck was one of the modifications made to the collier for the expedition? There would be some change to the mechanical advantage of a ships wheel when the tiller is nearly level with it rather than in a below deck position. If they moved it up to make space in the great cabin for the "distinguished gentlemen), then it may have been a best guess at how it may work using braces, which ultimately were not successful, hence constructing a rider (for lack of a better term) for it to sit upon. If you look at the profile plan below, you can just make out the red lines which generally indicate the changes made bringing the rudder post and tiller to the upper deck. Would certainly support the theory that this arc (shown on the 1671 deck plan, which includes the masts and spar dimensions and is signed by Wm. Gray. circa 1768 (ZAZ 6588) 16 October 1771 (ZAZ 6594)

Two additional notes - going back to the original transcriptions of the hournal, the asterisk comment is NOT original to the entry, but rather a latter addition by one of the editors of a published (printed) edition. From the transcription without editorial comments: Saturday, 27th. Fresh gales, Westerly. This day we got the Tiller properly secured, which hath been the Employment of the Armourers and part of the Carpenters since we Anchor’d at this place; the former in repairing and making new Iron work, and the Latter in fixing a Transom, for the want of which the Tiller has often been in danger of being broke; the Iron braces that supply’d the want of a Transom have broke every time they have been repair’d. Coopers still employ’d repairing the Casks; some hands with the Long boat getting on board Stones to put into the bottom of the bread room to bring the Ship more by the Stern; while others were employ’d cutting wood, repairing the rigging, and fishing. While of minor significance in this instance, in interpreting historical content for meaning, it is always important to separate editorial comment from original content. The reference cited for the quote with explanatory asterisk is from 1893 - quite a bit after the fact, and not contemporary in the least. Second - there was a log entry above which may be of some note. 17 August 1768. Little wind ^Easterly and hazey weather. Sent some Cordage to the Yard in order to be exchanged for smaller. Several Ship wrights and Joiners from the Yard Employ'd on board refiting the gentlemens Cabbins, and making a Platform over the Tiller, &c Any idea the nature of this platform?

Jersey City Frankie has made a couple of good points, Dashi, which you seem to dismiss out of hand. Reliance on a marking that appears on but a single plan over others is not the historians route. By any chance does this same plan show the mizzen step? Accuracy assumed for one aspect should agree with the others. One must recall that Cook was extremely familiar with colliers. As a general vessel type, were the tillers longer than expected? While modified by a Naval yard, the ship was originally and would remain fundamentally a collier.

High there, John! Actually have a domain on Bluehost. Would appreciate any advice as I move forward! http://nauticalresources.info/

I probably could. Just need to figure out how to build and support a database integrated into the website. Very early draft is up - note that it is still a very early work in progress. Working to learn Wordpress as well as figure out a database method. (Yep, never done anything with a web page before). http://nauticalresources.info/

Actually, i think there is some logic to the addition of a support given the odd geometry and the length of the tiller. I was just supporting an earlier post concerning the use of the word transom. None of the period treatisers on shipbuilding chose to use that word to describe anything other than the stern timbers.

Here are some expanded definitions from the 1815 (Burney) edition. ALL identified transoms are the transverse timbers across the sternpost. Falconer, William. 1815. Falconer’s New Universal Dictionary of the Marine: 1815 Edition. Naval Institute Press. http://www.ageofnelson.org/Document11.html.

Each definition is for the noun transom - as used during the 17th and 18th centuries, no further description was needed, other than perhaps which of the transoms at the stern post (upper, middle etc), There were no other definitions for transom in these reference works.

For what it's worth, here are a few contemporary definitions of transom: Smith, Captain John. 1691. The Seamans Grammar and Dictionary, Explaining All the difficult Terms Navigation: And the Practical Navigator and Gunner: In Two Parts. http://www.shipbrook.net/jeff/seamansgrammar/. Falconer, William. 1769. An Universal Dictionary of the Marine: Or, A Copious Explanation of the Technical Terms and Phrases Employed in the Construction, Equipment, Furniture, Machinery, Movements, and Military Operations of a Ship, Illustrated with Variety of Original Designs of Shipping, in Different Situations; Together with Separate Views of Their Masts, Sails, Yards, and Rigging. To Which Is Annexed, a Translation of the French Sea-Terms and Phrases, Collected from the Works of Mess. Du Hamel, Aubin, Saverien, &c. London, Printed for T. Cadell (successor to Mr. Millar) in the Strand. http://archive.org/details/universaldiction00will. Steel, David. 1805. The Shipwright’s Vade-Mecum. http://archive.org/details/shipwrightsvade00steegoog