trippwj

One last item to consider: The following excerpts are from Mountaine, William. 1761. The Seaman’s Vade-Mecum and Defensive War by Sea. http://books.google.com/books?id=a8IzAQAAMAAJ.

ooops....got disoriented looking through the plans! You are correct, that is the great cabin not the lower deck. Disregard that one! Boy, do I feel silly! Can I offer ZAZ6594 as compensation??? EDIT: Links I had added are provided in the post above.

The articles mentioned are available on the CD that you can purchase at the NRG website.

One of the challenges, or perhaps benefits, of the NMM is the abundance of draughts for some vessels. Here, for your consideration, I offer the following: Object ID ZAZ6591 Description Scale: 1:48. Plan showing the after fall (platform) with the great cabin for Endeavour (1768), a purchased collier, prior to final fitting as a ship-rigged Bark for exploration. Date made April 1768 Note the absence of deck beams below the mast - the red lines indicate the additions made to the vessel in the area to support this added level. The beams are evident. If the mast were to step here; it is quite likely that at least one beam would be very close to the step. The absence (and the circle representation) are indicative of the mast passing through the deck, not stepping upon it. When we look at the mast heights above deck, all the contemporary representations of the vessel indicate the mizzen was significantly shorter than the main or fore masts. Finally, I would not assume that William Gray [Master Shipwright, Woolwich Dockyard, 1767-1773] would sign off on the dimensions if he had not reviewed them and found them accurate. If we are willing to accept the other drawings as accurate and indicative of the as-refitted condition, why would you doubt these values? Remember, Steel was offering guidelines, not rules or requirements. The captain of a ship still had a great deal of freedom in the masting and rigging. Running the numbers based on the Woolwich values, I find the following: Fore Mast - closest match is Merchant vessel of 400 tons Lower Mast Length 65 feet 4 inches with height above deck of 47 feet 4 inches Steel's Tables for a Naval sloop of 300 tons - 56 feet 0 inches Naval 20 gun of 429 tons 64 feet 0 inches Merchant of 350-360 tons - 63 feet 0 inches Merchant of 400 tons 65 feet 0 inches Main Mast closest match is a Merchant vessel of 400 tons Lower Mast length 69 feet 4 inches with height above deck of 48 feet 10 inches Steel's Tables for a Naval sloop of 300 tons - 63 feet 0 inches Naval 20 gun of 429 tons 72 feet 0 inches Merchant of 350-360 tons - 65 feet 0 inches Merchant of 400 tons 70 feet 0 inches Mizzen Mast closest match is a Naval sloop of 300 tons, though a poor match. Lower mast length 50 feet 5 inches with height above deck (stepped to keelson) of 28 feet 5 inches of 20 feet shorter than the Main mast above deck. Steel's Tables for a Naval sloop of 300 tons - 48 feet 0 inches Naval 20 gun of 429 tons 61 feet 0 inches Merchant of 350-360 tons - 58 feet 0 inches Merchant of 400 tons 62 feet 0 inches The wide disparity in these between the tables from Steel and the reported for Endeavour are quite eye opening.

Not the mast step but rather the support structure beneath were it stepped to the deck not the keelson. That's alot of weight added to an unstrengthened base. You would expect to see added structure beneath the deck to mitigate collapse.

Interesting conundrum on the foremast. Here is the table of masts and yards from ZAZ6594, described as Scale: 96. Plan showing the quarterdeck, upper deck, forecastle, fore & aft falls (a type of platforms), lower deck, and fore & aft platforms for Endeavour (1768), after being re-fitted at Woolwich Dockyard. Signed by William Gray [Master Shipwright, Woolwich Dockyard, 1767-1773]. This same plan sheet shows the deck arrangements (both images may be found at ‘National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London’, http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/86385.html

Good choice of reference for the rigging. I am not particularly familiar with French practice, but offer you the following. Pâris, Edmond (1806-1893). 1882. Collection de plans ou Dessins de navires et de bateaux anciens et modernes, existants ou disparus : avec les éléments numériques nécessaires à leur construction / par le vice-amiral Paris,... http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5699565s. Here are a couple of excerpts from his drawings Royal Louis???)

Robin - Here is the link to the Layman pamphlet Layman, William. 1813. Precursor to an Exposé on Forest Trees and Timber ... as Connected with the Maritime Strength ... of the United Kingdom. https://books.google.com/books?id=KNxbAAAAQAAJ. The Naval Chronicle for 1818 has an interesting little addenda to the Biographical memoir for Captain Layman as well (which mentions the pamphlet). See Gold, Joyce, ed. 1818. “Addenda to the Biographical Memoir of Captain William Layman of the Royal Navy.” The Naval Chronicle, Containing a General and Biographical History of the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom, with a Variety of Original Papers on Nautical Subjects 39 (January to June, 1818): 177–85. https://books.google.com/books?id=4AFdAAAAcAAJ.

In what context, Victor? Founded in 1860, they are still a very active professional society (website: http://www.rina.org.uk/). Many of the older volumes of Transactions can be found on the internet (see detailed index here Royal Institution of Naval Architects. 1905. Index to Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects Vol 1 - 54. https://books.google.com/books?id=8cU6AAAAMAAJ.)

Here is another point to ponder - the following are from The Elements and Practice of Rigging And Seamanship, 1794, by David Steel (online at http://www.hnsa.org/resources/manuals-documents/age-of-sail/the-elements-and-practice-of-rigging-and-seamanship/ ) First, a table of masts for Naval vessels of similar tunnage Now a table for merchant vessels of like tunnage.

The interesting thing about Steel is that he was neither a mariner nor a ship builder, but rather a lawyer (who once worked in the Admiralty and was fairly well connected) and a book publisher! It has been a topic of speculation over many years as to who actually wrote some of the materials Steel published. It was obvious where his Navy Lists came from, but the information on rigging and seamanship, not to mention his Naval Architecture, have been confounding historians for many a year.

Here's the output if you use the 1745 Establishment (spreadsheet courtesy of Danny Vadas, posted here http://modelshipworldforum.com/ship-model-masts-and-yards.php)based on a 20 gun 6th rate. If I change to a 30 gun we get the following.

I think Robin's point is that it would be a significant rebuild to the vessel to reinforce the deck to support the mizzen rather than stepping it to the keelson. I would use the results from Steel with a measure of caution - while it is a good starting point, it was not prescriptive (that is, did not describe how it must be done). You may want to take a look at Lees, James. 1984. The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, 1625-1860. He offers a variety of mesures for different periods, including a table from the 1754 Establishment for various rates. An additional check may be made of the early Universal Dictionary by Falconer.

Greetings all. I have been gathering links to a wide variety of resources (old and new) available on the internet for use in model building. These range from scanned treatises from the 16th century (the oldest I currently have is from 1578) to available academic research (including theses and dissertations). Topics range from ship specific (such as the US Frigate Constellation) to highly generic (such as period treatises on rigging). I am contemplating posting these links to a website that I can update periodically, rather than continuing to update my posts here on MSW. Where i could use your help is, first, in getting a feel for whether you would use such a site, and second in deciding the best way to organize the website - I will not be uploading the actual documents, but rather a brief description with a link to the URL to access the document. Would it be more useful to be organized by subject (such as Dutch Shipbuilding; Masts and Rigging; Naval Architecture; Early American Frigate documents) or in some other manner? How would you want to be able to find the desired information on such a site? CAVEAT - I know NOTHING about web design, and am going to be learning as I go, so keep any advice on the structure and so on for a neophyte with little or no knowledge! Many thanks!

The copy at Mystic is probably one of those printed in 1973. Since Mystic does not own the copyright, only a copy of the plan, they can not offer reproductions - even for personal use. Unless he transferred it, Burrows owns the copyright. Wonder if anyone is familiar with him?

I believe that you can order a copy of the 1973 plans by Burows. They list the following: ENTERPRISE: Lines; Profile SHIPS PLANS Blueline print Burrows, John Shober Blueline print SP.1973.4.14.21.1 http://mobius.mysticseaport.org/detail.php?t=objects&type=all&f=&s=SP.1973.4.14.21&record=1 ENTERPRISE: Schooner of war SHIPS PLANS Plans set Spencer, Henry; Burrows, John Shober 1973 1 sheet of plans for 83.5 ft. schooner of war, ENTERPRISE (built 1799), built by Henry Spencer. Date on plan is 1973. SP.1973.4.14.21 http://mobius.mysticseaport.org/detail.php?t=objects&type=all&f=&s=SP.1973.4.14.21&record=0 These remaining ones may be of the J class yacht Enterprise but not sure. SP.1983.12.43.83.1 ENTERPRISE: Lines Burgess, W. Starling View SP.1992.62.90.43.43 ENTERPRISE: Sail View SP.1995.1.1.908.1 ENTERPRISE: Sail; ENTERPRISE: Profile Stephens, W. P. View SP.1995.1.1.908.2 ENTERPRISE: Profile Stephens, W. P. View SP.1995.1.1.908.3 ENTERPRISE: Lines; ENTERPRISE: Arrangement; ENTERPRISE: Profile Stephens, W. P. View

Just as an aid in your future endeavors in converting measurements, I offer the three tables below extracted from the 1838 edition of The Nautical Magazine and Naval Chronicle... a Journal of Papers on Subjects Connected with Maritime Affairs. Simpkin, Marshall & Company. https://books.google.com/books?id=QAV1riauZOQC. Remember - not all feet are created equal! :P :rolleyes:

Not hardly, Robin! I have, over my various endeavors for the past too many years of my working life, had the need to work in metric, imperial, and the International System of Units (successor to the metric system). Each has it's place. As others have noted, I can "see" a foot, a yard and so on. I grew up using the imperial system (though I never did get the difference back in the day between a US and a Canadian gallon, but I digress). I like the precision of metric, but do not like the loss of fidelity when converting. Most period ship plans were laid out in some variety of imperial units (although those varied over time and across nations), as were the ratios and derived dimensions (such as keel for tunnage). Those don't always convert so nicely to metric - try converting a number like 127 & 87/95 tun (note this is not to be confused with a weight of a ton/tonne, but rather a cargo capacity of a tun, as determined by the regulations of the time) to a metric equivalent! I guess what I am saying is that, as has been pointed out by others, working in a measurement system that one is familiar with is the most important - fighting a measurement system while also trying to get reasonable measurements for a build is counter-productive. Trying to convert some measurements from old systems to others is, likewise, a potential source for error to creep in.

Ummmm....a lump of coal? Postage due, of course. Taxes and duties payable upon receipt.

The convergence of three separate yet ultimately related concerns resulted in the availability to the shipbuilder of a reasonably accurate method to predetermine the displacement (and thus the LWL) for a ship, whether a war ship or a merchant ship, when fully loaded for the intended purpose. The need to accurately determine the carrying capacity of a vessel (particularly a merchant ship) for collection of duties, port fees and so on. The desire to identify the form of a ship which offers the least resistance to the water. 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. Each of these separate lines of study, coupled with advances in scientific theory and mathematical capabilities, resulted in methodologies that also allowed the shipbuilder to predetermine the displacement from the plans, before construction, rather than having a desired floating level that was dependent on limiting stowage on the ship. The first concern has already been discussed in an earlier post, with incremental changes in methods leading up to the work of Moorsom in the 1850’s, which relied on mathematical approaches developed in response to the other concerns. Efforts to identify the best form of a ship have been ongoing for more than 300 years, and continue today, although with a much higher level of sophistication. As various approaches were developed to identify the best form to part the water, efforts were also undertaken to mathematically explain the empirical results. Euler, Bouguer, Beaufoy and Chapman are among those who developed stability (and displacement) theories based on initial work around the form of least resistance. Earlier work by Pardies, Renaud and others attempted to provide a theoretical framework to describe the motion of a ship – why it could sail against the wind, for example, rather than be pushed hither and yon. This yielded a method to calculate the dérive (drift of ships or lee way) as a point of reference (see figure from Pardies below). From Pardies, I.G. 1673. La statique ou la science des forces mouvantes. Sébastien Mabre-Cramoisy. http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/MPIWG:46XPZMX8.

Here are a couple of additional places to check for information: Biddlecombe, G. 1848. The Art of Rigging. http://books.google.com/books?id=9RkEAAAAQAAJ. Lever, D. 1853. The Young Sea Officer’s Sheet Anchor; Or, A Key to the Leading of Rigging, and to Practical Seamanship (American Edition). E. & G.W. Blunt. https://books.google.com/books?id=HmJJAAAAYAAJ. Kipping, R. 1853. Rudimentary Treatise on Masting, Mast-Making, and Rigging of Ships. John Weale. ———. 1864. Rudimentary Treatise on Masting, Mast-Making, and Rigging of Ships. Virtue Bros.

Sea ports were a much more crowded beast, with individual lines and merchants owning their own pier to recieve cargo. While some may have had cargo handling gear, most did not. When in port, some spars and blocks could be used to hoist cargo, with the occassional temporary spar fitted. The ship needed to be self sufficient as possible, so they had ways to do it. Will do some checking in Crothers, Clark and Lubbock to see what I can find.

Daniel - I believe they can be found in Navy Records Society (Great Britain). 1905. Fighting Instructions, 1530-1816 Publications Of The Navy Records Society. Vol. 29. [London]. http://archive.org/details/fightinginstruct00navyuoft. Portions are also available online at The Maritime History Virtual Archives website - “Sailing and Fighting Instructions for His Majesty’s Fleet”, 1775. Accessed May 15. http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Signalling/SFI(1775).html.

“At the very forefront of early photojournalism, John Gibson and his descendants were determined to be first on the scene when these shipwrecks struck. Each and every wreck had its own story to tell with unfolding drama, heroics, tragedies and triumphs to be photographed and recorded – the news of which the Gibsons would disseminate to the British mainland and beyond.” https://artblart.com/2014/03/30/photographic-archive-the-gibson-archive-at-the-royal-museums-greenwich-rmg/ The archive of dramatic and often haunting images, assembled over 125 years (1872 to 1997) by four generations of the Gibson family, records over 200 wrecks – the ships, heroic rescues, survivors, burials and salvage scenes – off the treacherous coastline of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, was acquired by the RMG at auction in 2013. The collection includes the following: 585 Glass plate negatives (214: 12 x 10in: 8 x 6in) housed in 16 original wooden boxes and one cardboard box. 407 Glass plate copy negatives (6½ x 4¾ in) in 4 cardboard boxes. 179 Glass plate negatives (4¼ x 3¼in). 198 film negatives (5 x 4in) in three boxes. 335 cut film negatives (various sizes) and 39 (35mm) film negatives. 97 original photographs of shipwrecks (silver prints, 12 x 10in) Manuscript ledger by Alexander and Herbert Gibson on the shipwrecks of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. A collection of books by John Fowles, John Arlott, John Le Carré, and Rex Cowan on the Gibsons of Scilly, together with newspaper and magazine articles. I am not sure if they are on display at the Royal Museums Greenwich or not, but several may be viewed at the link above. Enjoy!

You may want to take a look at the section by Richard Barker, 2003. “Cradles of Navigation” Re-Visited. In Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods from the Renaissance to the 18th Century: A Workshop Report, 103–163. Preprint 245. [berlin]: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte. https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P245.PDF. He provides several sketches of a variety of launching methods starting on page 155.