trippwj

Pig iron ballast? Sweet looking work, sir. Very nice job!

Yeah, what they all said! I also agree completely with Sjors.

Mind if I pull up a log over here and join the fans (didn't see any good seats left).

Nice work! Will they have heaving lines?

I greatly appreciate all of the contributions to date – each has opened a new area to look into, and some have taken me down quite a diversionary path! Going back to where this all began, I began this journey (which is still only just begun) wondering how the ship designers of old determined the height of the load waterline when they were designing the ship. In looking through various descriptions of the design process in a number of treatises and books from the 18th and early 19th centuries, and then comparing to a small sampling of plans, it appeared that the LWL was not necessarily used to design the vessel, but rather was a goal for how the ship should float. The majority of the plans used design waterlines along with buttock lines and station lines to transfer the shape of the frames and other timbers to the mould loft floor. A quick (and very simplified) review of the principal lines used in these plans: Design waterlines – horizontal lines on the Sheer and Body Plan, curved profiles on the half breadth. Represent fixed distance above the baseline and are usually parallel to the keel. Buttock Lines – curved lines on the Sheer Plan, horizontal lines on the Half Breadth plan and vertical lines on the body plan. Represent the shape at fixed distances parallel to the centerline of the ship. Station Lines – vertical lines on the Sheer Plan and the Half Breadth Plan, curved profiles on the Body plan. Represent the shape of the ship at fixed locations fore and aft of the midship frame. The LWL may, but more often did not, match one of the design waterlines. Since it wasn’t needed to loft the frames, when was it added and how was it determined? To know the amount of water a ship will draw (that is, how deeply it will sit in the water), the weight of the ship is the primary consideration. The weight then is used to determine the amount (volume) of water that will be displaced – regardless of the shape of the ship (that is, a rectangular shape will displace the same amount of water as a ship shaped ship at the same weight). In most references I have looked at covering 1700 to 1850, the British standard was about 64 pounds per cubic foot of seawater. Once the weight and the volume were known, what remained was to determine the level on the ship where the volume below the water matched the volume of seawater. That may seem simple, but proved far more complex in practice! Determining the weight of a ship was, also, an interesting exercise. In theory, by knowing the density (weight per cubic volume) of each material used, and then determining the volume of each item used in the construction (bolts, treenails, frames, beams, planks, and so on, with a different value for each type of wood, that also varied with the dryness and changed over time) the builder could determine the light weight. Then all that was needed was to do the same for the crew (and their personal effects), food, water, masts, spars, blocks, rigging, powder, guns, small arms, lamps, candles, and on and on to determine the fully burdened weight. Not likely to happen – far too much to even attempt that! Another method was that of equivalency – for a given class of ship, determine the height at which it floats empty, then load everything that would be needed and see how much it settled. By determining the difference (how much lower it sat in the water), the additional volume displaced (assuming a fairly simple shape for simplicity in most cases) represented the additional weight above and beyond the ship itself. From various activities such as this, Sutherland (among others) offered a set of assumptions to use in determining the weight of the vessel empty and fully loaded. Not totally, accurate, but a starting point! This was a “close enough” approximation, but only for vessels of similar shape and dimensions. The assumptions fall apart when either is altered more than a small amount. Which, of course, brings me back to the beginning – in the absence of mathematical methods (which the shipbuilders did not like, based on many reports and descriptions from the 18th century – both in France and in Britain), other than “looks about right based on the last one I built”, how would they be able, before launch, to have any certainty that the ship would ride where they intended – whether merchant or war ship? So, there you have it – the “why do this” that is driving me forward! What have I learned so far? Much about the development of the science, a bit of the history of the first Royal School of Naval Architecture (Reverend Inmon and John Fincham were key players there), the resistance to these changes during the time of Captain Symonds as the Surveyor of the Navy, and the influence of France, Spain, The Netherlands and Sweden in advancing the understanding of the science (and applying to shipbuilding long before the British). Also that it appears the Americans were followers for many years with little in the way of contribution to the science until the 19th century. I have also learnt much about the development of mathematics between the time of Archimedes and the mid-19th century. Not to mention (well, okay – I’ll mention it) the value of colleagues who can translate other languages! The quest goes on, and the questions continue to accumulate – please feel free to add to the list and, if you can, shed some light on those darker areas that are yet to be illuminated! Many thanks!!!

Fantastic job, Tony - a real treat!!!!

After many (and many more) hours of effort by numerous volunteers, it is now ready and available for viewing. Joshua Humphreys is acknowledged as the principal designer of the original six American frigates. His son, Samuel, was Chief Naval constructor from 1826 until his death in 1846. The Notebook represents essentially an Aide-mémoire or ready reference on a wide variety of information related to ships and shipbuilding. It opens with the hand copied British Establishment of 1719, and also includes the 1745 establishment, dimensions of many vessels from several nations, and notations on ships wheels, various capstans and much more. It runs chronologically from the first entry (not dated) - some entries provide clues as to the date (such as a notation "captured by the British in 1813) but that also is sporadic. For example, there is an entry for "Dimensions of spars of US Frigate President" followed by "Dimensions of Spars of US Frigate Constitution", however they follow entries for the "Dimension of Brig US Nautilus captured by The British in 1812" and "Rules for masting Frigates 1809", and are followed by "Dimensions of Ship Madison Corvette, Built-Launched at Sacketts Harbour on the Lakes November 1812" and an entry titled "Sept 1814 A Better Rule". Overall, there is a great deal of information of various detail provided which can aid in understanding the basis for some of the ship design philosophies of Joshua and Samuel. Please note that spellings have been retained as they appear in the source document for the most part, so there may be multiple spellings of the same word. Emendation has generally been restricted to converting the thorn (looks like a y as in ye ) to the appropriate word (such as "the" for ye ), and spelling out certain abbreviations. It can be downloaded from the Modelshipbuilder website at the bottom of the resources page here: http://modelshipbuilder.com/page.php?24 We hope that this is a useful reference work for you, and have plans to add to the body of knowledge as we continue transcription of other documents related to the early Navy.

SWEET!!!!! That is all - carry on.

Not yet out - according to the good folks at Amazon due out in August 2015. French Warships in the Age of Sail 1786 - 1862: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates Hardcover – August 30, 2015 Hardcover: 352 pages Publisher: Seaforth Publishing (August 30, 2015) Language: English ISBN-10: 1848322046 ISBN-13: 978-1848322042 Product Dimensions: 9.6 x 1.3 x 11.4 inches Shipping Weight: 3.4 pounds

Hoxland, E., 1797: The Naval Officers Formula, Or Stationing Vade Mecum, Showing the Distribution of a Ship’s Company of a First to a Sixth Rate, at Mooring, Un-mooring, Watching, Quartering, Reefing, Furling, and Working Ship. With Order of Battle ... E. Hoxland, 72 pp. http://books.google.com/books?id=eWVGAAAAYAAJ. Captain in the Royal Navy, 1804: Observations and instructions for the use of the commissioned, the junior, and other officers of the Royal navy, on all the material points of professional duty: including also, forms of general and particular orders for the better government and discipline of His Majesty’s ships..With an appendix ; being a complete set of forms for watch, station, and quarter bills for ships of war. Printed for P. Steel, 110 pp. http://books.google.com/books?id=eVwMAQAAMAAJ.

An interesting approach to the challenge! Having only rigged but a single model (and that over a year ago), I can appreciate your question! I think that, given the vessel you are building, it might make sense to install all of the fixed pieces such as blocks, eye bolts, and so on before attempting the weaving. Your spreadsheet makes some sense - allows you to look at the rigging diagram, determine where a line goes and its purpose, then de-conflict from other nearby lines. Knowing the start and end points can aid as well is determining whether some of the terminations need to be done even if the line is not yet routed throughout the various and sundried intermediate points to ensure you have access for that step. Nothing worse than finding that the only way to reach that eyebolt is to try and fit your tweezers through a web of other lines and work nearly blind to affix and then serve it.

Oh, buoy! A couple of fantastic updates! Lookin' good, old man. Carry on - but do try to make the show last a mite longer for us voyeurs!!!!!

Walt - Here is a picture from the 1930's that shows part of the windlass. May be of help in determining what the original windlass looked like before restoration etc. Can not guarantee this is what was originally installed in 1866, but a good starting point. You may also be interested in an article from the Mariner's Mirror (most recent issue): Harland, J. H., 2015: The Evolution of the Windlass in the Nineteenth Century. The Mariner’s Mirror, 101, 38–62, doi:10.1080/00253359.2015.994874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00253359.2015.994874(Accessed April 29, 2015). There are numerous illustrations of various models from the 1800's that may be of use. Hope this helps!

Backing off in time, I have been able to find a copy of the Bourne Treasure for Travellers of 1578, and am now testing my vision whilst perusing the same. Here is the link and a teaser of the first page on ship building. Bourne, W., 1578: 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. Imprinted at London : [by Thomas Dawson] for Thomas Woodcocke, dwelling in Paules Churchyarde, at the sygne of the blacke beare, 286 pp. http://archive.org/details/bookecalledtreas00bour(Accessed April 26, 2015).

Here is an interesting item concerning the works by David Steel from Mariner's Mirror: Decencière, P., 2009: Correspondence: Bourdé de Villehuet and Steel. The Mariner’s Mirror, 95, 221–223, doi:10.1080/00253359.2009.10657100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00253359.2009.10657100(Accessed April 29, 2015). In his note on ‘Hauling out the mizzen’, (Mariner’s Mirror 94 (2008), 321) John Harland expresses his surprise to find Steel describing at such a late date as 1795 a practice the author considers to have been ‘obsolete well before 1800’. This point can easily been answered: Steel was not the actual author of his Seamanship in Theory and Practice, as this book is a mere compilation that had already been edited as the second part of his earlier Elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship (1794). In the foreword to this second part, Steel clearly acknowledges that he had freely used Bourdé’s Le Manoeuvrier: ‘To have passed over a work of such character would have been highly blame able’, (p 243). In fact, Steel took no chance to be blamed, as most of the ‘seamanship’ part of his book (if not all) comes from the French author, rearranged under a different order. The quotations of Steel gathered by John Harland are mere word-for-word translations of what can found on pages 85, 87, 88 and 89 of Le Manoeuvrier. This explains why the same statements are to be found in Steel’s Seamanship in Theory and Practice, and later, in Seamanship published in 1824 in New York by Blunt, who cribbed Steel in his turn. Bourdé’s Le Manoeuvrier is available at: Villehuet, J. B. de, 1769: Le manoeuvrier. 468 pp. https://books.google.com/books?id=C_mSSuhA7uwC. A link to the 1813 Blunt (have not located the 1824 version referenced above) may be found at Blunt, E. M., 1813: Seamanship, both in theory and practice: to which is annexed, an essay on naval tactics and signals : also, regulations for the government of the Navy of the United States of America ... : including also, forms of general and particular orders for the better government and discipline of armed ships ... : with a system of naval discipline, and the acts concerning letters of marque, reprisals, their officers and men : with a cartel for usage and exchange of prisoners ... E.M. Blunt, 310 pp. https://books.google.com/books?id=cPpOAAAAYAAJ. Steel's "Seamanship" is available here (oops - pasted the wrong citation originally!): Steel, D., 1795: Seamanship, Both in Theory and Practice. Printed and published for, and at, Steel’s Navigation-Warehouse, Tower-Hill, 246 pp. docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/rarebooks_1600-1800/VK541S81795.PDF.

Thanks, Chuck - have booked our room. We WILL be there for this conference (I hope...). When will the conference registration form be posted?

You are at the wrong website, Jay. You want to be at http://www.modelshipbuilder.com(www modelshipbuilder com)

Very odd - I can not find any link at MSB where you can register - just the email the Admin link!

Agree with Mark here - even when setting all sails the masts would still have a rake due to the way the stays and shrouds were set up. The good news is that there is room for builders judgement as it was not at all unusual for the sailing master and Captain to "tweak" the masts and trim to suit individual preference. She is looking beautiful!

Email the Admin to get set up as a member at MSB. Winston Scoville email: winston @ modelshipbuilder dot com (remove spaces and replace "dot" with "." If you wish to become a member of the site please include the following info in your email (it will save an email or two): Real Name: Username: (for login puroses only. must be one name with no spaces) Password: (can be changed after you login) Email Address: (AOL email addresses not currently accepted due to technical issues in the past with AOL) I don't see any place there on my profile that that information was requested. Are you sure you were at the right site - http://modelshipbuilder.com ?

Fantastic looking work on this, Augie. When I grow up I want to be just like you!

Very nice work, Sjors - ditto all of the prior superlatives!

Looking nice - also love the dinghy for the mini-admiral!

Richard - The Doughty Revenue cutters are such an interesting class but so little is really known about them! I would not assume there is a windlass on these - the Dallas and Surprise were both relatively small 79 ton (BM) top sail schooners of about 69' 6"length on deck. While Chapelle took some liberties in reconstructing the features, he tended toward the error of adding rather than removing deck features. His redrawing of the 1831 Revenue Cutter Morris (designed and built by Samuel Humphreys, slightly larger at 73' 4" length between perpendiculars) shows a winch mounted to the side of each pin rack (fife rail?) - just forward of each mast. While it is not necessarily the standard used in the US at the time, according to Falconer's (1815 Burney edition), the largest anchor would be about 14 cwt (hundred weight - 1,400 pounds) for a gun brig of 180 tons - double the size of these revenue cutters. When I get a moment, I'll dig into my anchor references and see what else I can come up with. EDIT: here is the earliest US specific guidance I currently have: Totten, Benjamin J. Naval Text-Book. Letters to the Midshipmen of the United States Navy on Masting, Rigging, and Managing Vessels of War. Boston: C. C. Little and J. Brown, 1841. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008602848.

Thank you, druxey. That is useful - I have been searching (unsuccessfully) for a copy of this book. Please let me know if you come across any! Thus far I have only been able to gain a small understanding from Barker's narrative published as Barker, Richard. “Fragments From The Pepysian Library.” Revista Da Universidade de Coimbra XXXII (1985): 161–78. http://home.clara.net/rabarker/Fragments83txt.htm. He notes the following, which really keyed my interest! One of the more intriguing aspects of the numerical work in Fragments is the frequent calculation of sectional areas of moulds below the depth by Baker, usually linked with the product breadth x depth, effectively giving a prismatic coefficient. Taken with Bourne’s Treasure for Travellers on mensuration of ships lines and waterplanes, from which it is perfectly clear that Bourne and his contemporaries knew how to measure displacement tonnage at any selected draught, either as a paper exercise or with the use of models, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Deane’s contribution to the principles at least of determining displacement (and thence draught at launching) has been overstated. It appears to rest entirely on Pepys’ record of what Deane told him. Even Deane is not explicit in his Doctrine about his methods in the procedures covered now by Simpson’s Rules, and begs a number of question in his treatment. Just what Baker was doing with prismatic coefficients and immersed (?) areas of sections remains a mystery, but the practice should at least be credited to his era. It is at least possible that the incentive for both Baker and Wells was the search for a satisfactory tonnage rule. Baker apparently changed his method about 1582: Wells was heavily involved in a Commission to investigate tonnage rules in 1626.