trippwj

Davis did some good work as one of the early naval architects turned hobby modeller mentor. Writing for a much different audience, he frequently provides a snippet of the information - just enough (often) to achieve something, but not enough to go any further. Nothing mean or lazy, just vastly different times. If we take a gander at works by Lee (masting and rigging), among others, we can quickly begin to wander the rabbit hole. In an effort to simplify and condense large tables of numbers for lines, poles, spars, blocks, yada yada, the desired dimension (let's use the length of the mizzen gizzard on a 1730 54 gun ship (a ficticious item as I am to lazy to get my book). The gizzard, in contemporary literature, is given as a table of length on deck (across the top) and number of guns (down the side). Now, Lee may have gone through this and found that in 1730, the mizzen gizzard was actually 2.31 times some other item dimension, likewise calculated from some other dimension. The thing of it is, decimal math wasn't in common use - the division left a remainder in xx/yy. Thr builder of old would have used something like 2 and 29/94 units. Modern calculators make those conversions to decimal so easy!

Somewhere I have digital copies of all the pictures of the HL that I could locate. As I recall, the davits are shown on some of them. Will check this evening. She is coming along beautifully - great job!

There are, conservatively, dozens of books about Trafalgar (and/or Nelson, and/or HMS Victory). These range from contemporary reports and "dramatizations" to recent scholarship and reinterpretation (historical, biographical and sociological perspectives). Some works are quite "readable" and others much less so. So, then, are you asking about a new book titled Trafalgar, or looking for a recommendation? If a recommendation, what variety interests you (contemporary, mid-19th century? 20th century? Personal history? Military history? Strategic analysis? Historic re-analysis?). So many choices!

That is the issue with all opinion polling. This one is a nice quick snapshot of what the members who voted think about the kit companies. Recognizing the limitations, few meaningful conclusions, and certainly few statistical measures (standard error, things like that) are possible. It is, surprisingly enough, the same with those amazing opinion polls we see, where they polled 1000 likely voters (or similar qualifying characteristic). While you can say that x% were in favor of something, tge plus or minus y percentage points is NOT so accurate - they base that on questions which they infer to indicate how you REALLY feel about something. It is silly how much emohasis folks place on those polls! 1000 people represent accurately the opinions of 200 million?

Any particular time period? By the early 18th century there was some attempt to have a standard size, but it wasn't until later in the century that it was adopted in the yards. See, for example, Sutherland's various editions as well as the various establishments (Compiled in book form by Allan Yedlinsky) where the port size is related to number of guns and deck (which, approximately, matches the size of the ordinance). There is also some guidance in various treatises published during the 1750's and later (Rees, Steele, others).

So, then. Any thoughts on the type of vessel represented in this drawing believed to have been made by a 10 year old George Washington in 1742? For details, see https://www.history.com/news/drawing-by-10-year-old-george-washington-found

I have the Aeropicola Essex plans here - will look for them this evening and see what the "Tr" stands for.

You have asked an interesting question. If we ignore the honours and distinctions, realizing that opportunity and luck were pre-eminent influencers, then the qualities enumerated by Raleigh (and often repeated) are pretty much what you have listed. It is a challenge, of course, to compare vessels across time. The understanding and application of shape factors changed over time, as did the size and materials used. These, along with the masting and rigging, contributed to the sailing quailities. When looking at number in each class, the historical context is important - was there a war with rapid building? Was there a central design or were individual builders designing? What was the political climate (budgetary)? What was the bureacracy - Symmonds? Sepping? Fincham? Crueze? During the early to mid 1800's, each had different design philosophies, and different results.

It is an interesting old beastie, for sure. The outline does have a "pink" look. Too far for me to take a run down during the week, and another nor'easter due mid week. Oh, well, it will be visible again...maybe.

As I recall, she suffered major damage to her rigging in 1797 and was repaired somewhere in the Mediteranean. Her first trip back to Britain after that was also her final voyage when she foundered. It is perplexing, to say the least!

I disagree, as it is not clear if that is a waterway ir a ceiling plank. As noted, though, difference in interpretation are allowed. Given she had undergone some recent repairs to her rigging at a remote port, it is conceivable (to me) that there may have been a need for a block yet none of the correct size available, so a replacement was used.

No worries, Mark. Differences in interpretation happen. Take a look at the 2002 (I think it was) report where Trench 2 is discussed. No indication of the waterway there (this area is adjacent ti the area shown above). In addition, the profile of the excavation also does not show one. It is idd, that's for certain! That scupper does not appear to protrude beyond the planks. I am still working through some of the reports. The absence of a waterway would seem significant, though I am wondering if it was common on all decks or only on "weather" decks?

This topic remains very informative! I had not delved into the excavation and survey reports on the Colossus before. They are quite interesting. Of particular note concerning the "stop beam" (note that this is a term the research team coined) is the following analysis from the 2012 Monitoring and Investigation Report available here (page 38): http://www.cismas.org.uk/downloads.php "Just below the gun port a curved timber beam was fastened to the side of the hull, over the inner hull planking (figs 24, 25 & 31). This timber has been assigned the name ‘stop beam’ and its likely function was for the gun carriage to bump against when the gun was pulled up into the firing position – rather than bumping against the inner hull planking. I have been unable to find any concordances for this structural element in any of the literature on ships of the period (or indeed on any sailing vessels). However, a similar wooden beam is known in 19th century terrestrial gun emplacements where it is called a hurter. The stated function of the hurter was to protect the parapet from the wheels of the gun carriage (OED). The stop beam is 1.40m long, 0.16m wide and 0.26m thick at its widest point. The surface of the beam is curved, presumably to facilitate aiming of the gun forward or astern of the beam. The stop beam is fastened to the hull using iron fastenings and trenails. On the underside of this beam (now facing north) were a number of incised lines, one of which consists of three parallel lines, resembling a Roman numeral ‘III’ (fig 32). These may represent builder’s marks – and would have been very difficult to see or access when the ship was upright. Incidentally, this is the third MGD port on the starboard side counting from the stern. The function of this piece of wood was presumably to protect the side of the ship from the impact of the gun carriage when pulled up into the firing position (fig 31). Whether stop beams are a peculiarity of Colossus or merely absent from the literature is not at this stage known – but I suspect the former case is more likely." On a related note, I do not believe that, given the level of attention shown to documenting the survey, they ommitted the waterway, but rather it was not there. Note the scupper that was located at deck level, which would have been covered were there a waterway (note - down is up n these photographs and the sketch. That is, the deck is at the top and the upper deck is at the bottom).

Welcome! Your first build looks quite nice. I look forward to the building of theGrand(kids) fleet!

The shape and depth of the lower hull, amount of ballast and length to beam ratio all came into play. Prior to the late 1700's, generally by trial and error. Scientific approaches implemented at varous times in different nations. Note as well that there was, in naval captains, a strong tendency ti over mast the ship. See Ships and Science for a very readable and thorough overview.

There are many freely available, depending solely on what type of ship and what era. Start with any of the better pdf versions of Steel's Vade Mecum, Rees' Cyclopaedia, Fincham, Falconer &c. Modern reproductions of several are also available. Another source would be archeological reports (too many to list - check places like academia.edu as starting points). Perhaps easiest (although more expensive) would be the publications at Seawatch Books (Fireship Comet, Swan series, the Niad and so on). Exceptional naratives and very nicely done recreations of plans for the model builder.

I am very much a fan of anything without cannon 😀. The Chebacco has always appealed to me so that took top honors.

Where was the single wheel mentioned? That seems odd for the period and the designer.

Progressing nicely. As to your last post, are you referring to keel (horizontal), sternpost (vertical) or rudder with rudder post? Keel would not be rounded on upper surface and taper bow to stern so slight as to be imoerceptible at this scale (fraction of a mm total taper).

I, like you, have been struggling with planking the hull. In my case, I have 3 hills in various degrees of poorly completed planking. In my case, I am struggling to wrap my mind around how to do that clear tape thing (hasn't worked yet for me) and how to use proportional dividers. I hate to scrap a hill that I put a lot of effort into detailing the interior, but I suspect that my ECB shall soon sink into the abyss, to be started once more from the beginning.

Beautiful work, and a wide variety of subject matter to boot! Thank you for sharing these with us. All the best -

Well, that's a fantastic find! Thank you!!!!!

I have periodically searched for said treatise in many of the usual suspect online repositories with no success. I am NOT sure if these would be the same as the tables in his Naval Architecture (available in PDF less the large draughts) at https://books.google.com/books?id=TWsmw-QqvmAC It may be found as a printed version, perhaps, in various libraries (such as New York Public Library, NMM &c.) although I have not looked for it in that format. GOOD LUCK!

Are they in Scantlings of Royal Navy Hips by Allan Yedlinsky?

Actually, based on number of guns, it is a sloop, which is also how the NMM describes it.