trippwj

Taking this solid hull to a whole new level - very thorough and detail oriented - which are good things!!! Carry on!

This is from Paasch, H. 1901. “From Keel to Truck” Marine Dictionary in English, French & German... https://books.google.com/books?id=mG_VAAAAMAAJ&.

Not necessarily the best, but here is one example of framing around a hatch. (Source: Curtis, W. H. 1919. The Elements of Wood Ship Construction. http://archive.org/details/TheElementsOfWoodShipConstruction ) I will keep checking some other resources to see if I can find a better sketch. Any particular ship/era/type you are interested in? Practice varied, as in so many parts of ship building, over time and between nations.

In a real ship, the deck planking ends at the hatch coaming (often thicker right around the hatch).

Next up, a very incomplete listing of model ship building related books. I only have about a third of these - Please feel free to offer up additional titles to add to the list! Model Shipbuilding Resources 20Mar2016.pdf

Table of Contents Laying the Keel (Gene Bodnar) Behind the Tiller - an interview with Ed Tosti One Eyed Willy’s Treasure Hunt (Sponsored by Lauck Street Shipyard) The Model Shipwrights Lumberyard (Dave Stevens) Silver Soldering (Bob Hunt) On the Cover - Ocean Harvester Turning Belaying Pins (Bill Edgin) Modelers Toolchest - Magnification Shipwrecks of the World - USCG Escanaba Heraldic Ship Badges - HMCS Ville de Quebec The Book Nook - Nicolaes Witsen and Shipbuilding in the Dutch Golden Age Gene’s Nautical Trivia http://www.msbjournal.com/

Looking good, sir. You may want to look for the book by Gene Johnson on building ship models - he has a short section on shaping solid hulls.

Bummer, dude - but if you aren't satisfied, then a re-do is the way to go! I thought things were already looking good, so can only imagine the next result!

Continuing with Topical selections, here is an Assortment of Resources on the Original American Frigates. First Frigates Resources 13Mar2016.pdf

Thought I would add a brief listing of resources on Dutch shipbuilding. Far from comprehensive, but a start. Dutch Resources 13Mar2016.pdf Additional suggestions welcome - enjoy!!!

Well, now, I guess it's time for some updating! The workshop is now re-floored and operating. The ECB is on the table and have added the garboard strake and the next strake above. Moving along very slowly, but progress is occurring! Since the weather was so nice, I took her down to the shore for some pictures in her "natural habitat". Starboard side - this is the side that will be partly planked (the port side will be fully planked). Bow view Stern view View from above.

Should one have an abiding interest in the papers of Samuel Humphreys, one would be well served to inquire of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania concerning the availability for public research in the following collection - Joshua Humphreys papers (Collection 0306), The Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Listed amongst the collection, should one be so inclined to investigate, are found the following entries - Volumes 1739-1845 2.0 Linear feet ; 19 volumes Volume 18: Samuel Humphreys Philadelphia Naval Yard journal (1818 - 1820) Volume 19: Samuel Humphreys surveys of ships (1834 - 1845) Also - Box 3, Folder 8: Samuel Humphreys documents (1806 - 1838) Box 3, Folder 11: Loose documents from Volumes 18 and 19 (1818 - 1845)

What they all said, Denis! Looking spiffy, she is. I like the lighting effect - nicely done!

Gracious! Step out for a week or so and miss a total revision to the concept! Looks nice, Denis. As noted by others, the whole world is watching and waiting anxiously to see what becomes of the that temptingly open and flat surface.......

She is progressing well, my friend. Your gnomes are doing admirable work on those animal parts!

Looking good there, Tony. I'm probably not the best to ask about planking - haven't finished planking a hull yet (3 started, with 1 suspended and 2 delayed due to life). It think you've gotten the basics on the planking down quite well!

When considering Continental (American) practice, keep in mind the variety of influences upon their approach to shipbuilding. British, Dutch, and French design practices all influenced, in varying degrees, the American shipwright. many (perhaps most?) were not exposed directly to British (naval) practices until they were already well established as shipbuilders. Remember, until the late 18th century, there were NO dedicated warship constructors in America - all were builders of commercial ships that dabbled (on occasion) in privateers and small ships of war. Humphreys, as one example, was not a builder of warships (though it is generally accepted that during the Revolutionary War there were a couple built in his yard). He was, however, likely intimately familiar with the French Designed/Dutch built Frigate South Carolina (L'Indien). The reported scantlings of the South Carolina are very similar to those of a British 74 gun ship - and are commonly believed to have strongly influenced Humphreys design of the original 6 American frigates.

It may, perchance, be worth a visit to the Mariner's Mirror for some information on past practice. For example, we have a collection of eye witness sketches and detailed descriptions of the vessels at the Battle of the Nile available here: Paul, L. 1914. An Artist’s Notes at the Battle of the Nile. The Mariner’s Mirror 4, no. 8: 266–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00253359.1914.10654827. We may also glean a bit of information from the Carpenter's notes concerning supplies &c. for the Victory discussed by one of the eminent marine historians (a former curator for the Victory) available here: Goodwin, P.G. 2013. The Application and Scheme of Paintworks in British Men-of-War in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries. The Mariner’s Mirror 99, no. 3: 287–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00253359.2013.815993. Here are a couple of tidbits from the latter: The Victory’s carpenter on 18 August 1805 recorded: ‘To whitewashing the Tiers, Wings Cock-pits Store-roomes (sic) Lower & Middle Decks – Lime 12 Bushels Glue 12 Pounds’. Acting on this information a request was submitted to the VATC to change the internal colour along the ship’s side of those gun decks from buff yellow to white. It appears that the original reasons for paying up the Victory’s internal sides with whitewash were as follows: 1 To brighten up and improve light levels to the interior of the gun decks where the majority of the seamen and marines lived 2 To kill off potential bacteria (a natural property of whitewash) for much the same purpose as the common land practice at that time of whitewashing back yards and outhouses etc. of houses. 3 Whitewash, being a cheap commodity could be applied regularly. Research revealed that the glue was fish glue, which acted as a binding agent. The whitewash mix would have comprised slaked lime and sea salt, boiled with water, added to which was the fish glue. The carpenter’s entry dated 14 September reads: To painting the ships side after caulking, the Gunroom and Officers Apartments under the Awning and Quarter deck Waist &c. after Refitting and the paint and materials consumed for the above entry listed in the margin are given as: Yellow – 350 lbs; Black – 150 lbs; White – 450 lbs.; Oil – 47 gallons; Brushes – 20 in No. It should be noted that the oil referred to is linseed oil, which is commonly used in paint as a binding and adhesive agent. These are the relevant stores supplied to Victory at Portsmouth on 31 August 1805: 1. White – 120 lb 2. Yellow – 34 lb 3. Black Varnish – 66 gallons 4. Glue – 12 lb 5. Lime – 8 bushels 6. Whitewash brushes – 6 Then on 2 September 1805: 1. Yellow – 350 lb 2. Black – 150 lb 3. White – 150 lb 4. Oil. – 47 gallons 5. White – 66 lb 6. Black – 13 lb 7. Yellow – 78 lb 8. Verdigris (sic) – 5 lb 9. Prussian Blue – 1 lb Then on 6 September 1805: 1. White – 86 lb 2. Yellow – 234 lb 3. Oil. – 2 1/2 gallons 4. Black Varnish – 66 gallons. lb.32 Note that no red is listed. Now, I freely concede that the information which I have offered is limited both in time and space (time - late 18th early 19th century, and space - Royal Navy. Sort of a warp in the space-time continuum reflective of the gravity of the Nelson era, eh?). HOWEVER - Goodwin brings in more perspective on earlier period (mainly, again, British navy, although there is a bit on the French). Practice in the US is likewise available, though for a bit more work. I recommend, for example, the information on stores in Smith, P.C.F. 1974. The Frigate Essex Papers: Building the Salem Frigate, 1798-1799. Salem [Mass.]: Peabody Museum of Salem.

Indeed! As "anonymous" pointed out (transcription courtesy of R. Barker) - 61. The height of the ship above water must be in proportion unto that part of the ship under water &c the height of the ship in the mid-ship must not exceed the depth under water & the height of the stern must not exceed the height of the depth twice & the height of the forecastle must not exceed the depth once & 1/3. Not particularly scientific - more a rule of thumb based on existing practice and experience?

Bruce - I have seen an additional 2 or 3 treatisers whom mention this method, though none seem to actually have used it. The challenge becomes one of actual scale equivalence - scaling length, breadth and depth is fairly easy. Scaling density (specific gravity) and weight is not quite so linear. The weight doesn't scale directly proportional (since the density does not change) when the physical dimensions are scaled. It may be useful to accurately model the below water hull form and then measure the displacement when it is submerged (irregardless of the mass involved), then scale this volume to seawater at a 1:1 scale. Unfortunately, I suspect that the level of accuracy (how small an amount of volume can you measure) plays a role - even a small amount missed at 1:48 scale can become much more important at 1:1 scale.

Good start, Charlie! Love the seal story and assemblage - quite the variety in style and interpretation! I guess a good place to start would be to see if there be records such as there were for the Salem Frigate (the Essex) maintained by the subscribers. Any info out there on the Peck and Carpenter ship yard? I have started some light searching at the Papers of the War Department web site with no success yet, but the search engine there is not particularly robust (difficult to refine searches very well unless you know the writer and recipient precisely).

Wonderful subject, and a wonderfully informative log - mind if I lurk here and admire your work?

Hello, John - As I am regrettably only bilinqual (English and Yankee), any aid in understanding the French (or Dutch, Spanish, Italian etc. ) contemporary reference works would be greatly appreciated!

Still working on how best to visualize the parallel yet disjointed development of the science and implementation into shipbuilding. Not sure this really tells the story - I am thinking that it may be better graphically to keep the science on one side of the timeline and the application on the other. Your thoughts?

Meaning no insult to Sir Anthony Deane, I wanted to take a moment to elaborate somewhat on earlier methods of determining the burthen of a ship. William Bourne published a rather difficult to read (due to the typeface, see earlier post in this thread) treatise called A Booke Called the Treasure for Traveilers : Devided into Five Bookes or Partes, Contaynyng Very Necessary Matters, for All Sortes of Travailers, Eyther by Sea or by Lande. Richard Barker has provided a transcription (and modernized the language) of the sections related to measuring ships. His transcription may be found here: http://home.clara.net/rabarker/Bourne2m.htm Bourne describes two methods - in the first, the vessel is grounded, and the physical dimensions taken. His alternative method is described as "an easier way than rehearsed above, by the Art Statical, to know the true weight of any ship, with all her lading, and all the rest of her furniture". Here is a very brief excerpt - I encourage you to read the full description. And now I caused the mould to be made for every foot, but a quarter of an inch, so that for the 50 feet long the mould was made 12 inches and a half, and for the 20 feet broad, but 5 inches, and for the 12 inches deep, but 3 inches. And that being filled with water, the water being weighed, did contain in weight 3 pounds and 2 of 73 parts [sic: probably derived from the ratio of Troy to Avoirdupois pounds as 60:73. 1/30 Troy pound, 2/5 of a Troy ounce, is 0.438 ounces Avoirdupois. Bourne presumably experimented with a set of Troy weights] of a pound, and that is scant half an ounce, and the true contents of the weight of the water. And then from that you see that the proportion of the length of the mould, is but 12 inches, and one of 2 parts; that is, but the 48[th] part of the length of the ship. Therefore multiply it in this manner 48 times 48 and that makes 2304 and then multiply it by 48 again, and then it makes 110592. Wherefore now multiply 110592 by the weight of the water, that is to say 110592 times 3 and 2 of 73 parts. And that makes 334620, so that you may conclude that the ship weighs 334640 pounds. And now to know how many tons the ship weighs, by dividing by 2240 as declared above, and so further as rehearsed above. And furthermore, you may cause in the proportion of the mould of lead or tin, to be certain parallel lines, to be made but a quarter of an inch asunder, as many as you like, and then you may know by those lines what weight the ship is of, when she is not laden. And also, if you wish, you may know how many tons more in weight, will load the ship, as often as you do know how many feet or inches the ship lacks from her load mark.