dafi

Wonderful thread, thank you! Here for completition a modern version of the horse shoe hank of todays Hendrika Bartelds, with steel cable and screwed hanks. XXXDAn

Please also follow the dicussion on the use of oars and sweeps here: Enjoy, XXXDAn

As my quest started with the design of the oars, I was coming from the other direction, but leading my straight to the heart of this topic. Having created oars and sweeps respecting Steel´s data, I was putting them to the test on some of my boats. This lead first to the confimation of the knowledge, that my kit´s versions of boats are not really suitible for the job. Apart from missing all structure and details they also had the thwarts far too high. After reworking the 32 ft pinnace by using only the shell and reconstructing a more true interior it was getting nearer to the real thing. Now I was able to put some crewmen and oars. As a good landlubber I placed immediately two of each on each thwart as suggested by the tholes. But here began my surprise. As Steel indicated: "A leather button is nailed on the foreside, about two inches from the loom, and that edge rounded, to work easily in the rowlock: ..." This lead to the fact, that the oars were far too much in for a double banked use. Basically a crewman should be sitting on the opposite side to be able to grab the handle of his oar, thus crossing the other one. The other fact that can be seen is that in this configuration the crewmen sit far too much on the outside of the boat, resulting in a ridiculus lever for rowing, as already mentioned by Roger in #2. So even if the leather buttom was ignored and the oar taken more out, it would have been a problematic setup. This resulted in the only realistic setup with single banked use and everything looked much more logical. The lengths of the oars fit, the leather button on the right place and a realistic lever for rowing. On the other side I also tried a more broad launch. For these Steel indicated straight sweeps without leather buttom. [note: This is still the original kit´s version, but I think it will do the job this time.] Here we have the space for double banked use. The sweeps do not collide in the middle and the crewmen have enough distance to the rowlock to get a workable lever. This confirmes Allans original quote of Lavery's The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War where he writes that "in 1783 it was ordered that all launches should be equipped to row double banked." And so I am thankful for the topic here, as it was filling the gaps of my puzzle and giving the right contemporary sources to finish it off. This means with my single banked 32ft pinnace from the first pictures I will fill every second thole, alternating on each side. Also the originally intended number supplied of oars (as for double banked and seen in the first pict) for this boat can be halved. Another question concernes the uneven number of oars on each side, in my 32ft pinnace 4 versus 3. Was this in use as for the uneven propulsion or was the bow place then left free? On the other side in the models of RMG there are many boats with a uneven number of tholes regarding the boat´s sides. As someone once called it "experimental archeology in miniature" 😉 I hope it supports or even confirms all the informations to be found in the previous posts. XXXDAn PS: Had a fast Photoshop and eliminated the supernumerary tholes. This gives a nice detail in between single and double banked boats even in stowed position. 🙂

Wonderful, once I saw this info I already found plenty of otherwise very true models showing this "feature" 🙂 But I would expect an even number of twarts for single banked, but there is quite often an uneven number. Does this mean the lesser side had to pull harder or was there one thole left free? Also there seems no rule as to what side of the boat has the most foreward thole. XXXDAn

Thank you bringing up this topic again, as I am at the moment working on that. After working on the sweeps and oars, the question was arising, as the oars prooved too long for double banked use. This thread nicely shows the solution as mostely single banked were used was for the "slimmer" boats. Nicely to be seen for my 1800 subject in the 1765 model of victory. I have the feeling too, that for single banked use oars with a curved blade were used, while for double banked use sweeps with a straight blade were preferred. At least the choice of RMG suggests this. Some more hints from the RMG, sorry I did loose the reference numbers on those ones. alternating single banked with oars double banked with sweeps: Special both versions? perhaps single bancked for 4 oars or alternatively 2 pairs of sculls?

As I have seen pictures of Victory with her false keel coppered in the past together with the keel I also could guess that the original coppering was without the false keel, but when recoppering was done, it was possibly less work to copper over it instead of taking it off. XXXDAn

This is how the british stored their extra shot as found in the wrecks at Thorsminde from 1811. XXXDAn

That was my first thought too. But I think that is a theoretical value. First the big ships of the line did not have sweeping ports and on top I believe towing with the small boats was much more effective. Or is there any contemporary source showing the use of sweeps on this type of ship? In the meantime I got my print of that volume of Steel´s work and it has much additional information not shown in his other books. The print quality and the drawings in this hard copy are of a much better quality than another volume in paparback I got some 10 years ago. Only flaw ist that the plans and tables are spread over 2 pages, mostely even not opposite pages but on the flip page ... Still puzzeling around the "A leather button is nailed on the foreside, about two inches from the loom and that edge rounded, to work easily in the rowlock" ,the small triangular bit to be seen in the graphics. If applied correctly that means a big overlap in the middle in my examples. XXXDAn

Bad luck for me, thank you eagle eye! But there is much more that won´t fit as already the ports have another rhythm. Just see the port o the lower battery and the one on the upper battery: differently aligned ... XXXDAn

Thank you Druxey, but that is part of the game 🙂 Just realized that I missed one entry, here it is: I went over the stovepipe outlet cover plate underneath the fore chains. First it was reduced in size according to the source. On closer inspection of the photograph, I noticed that the support block could also be a brick. Since the entire shipyard is made of red brick, I took the opportunity to add a bit of color. Here is my comparison picture again. The shoe for the anchor is still far too small, but the rest is slowly coming along :-) Even more distinct without color. As the picture is from 1920 and the state I am showing is 10 years earlier I do not know yet how much of the rot I will show. XXXDAn

Sorry Druxey if I gave you a sleepless night 😇 When the side gallery was in place, it didn't seem gloomy enough. An anxious look, and sure enough, the white balusters that I had been looking forward to so much just weren't there. Crap. And painting over it looked like crap. I'm sorry, but it did. Like dafi does what dafi does best: Destruction! So I broke out the white balusters and put in new black ones. Now the eyeliner is still missing in the broad white profiles and then it could work. It's only an approximation anyway, as otherwise the side galleries would have to be completely rebuilt. At that time, the curves were less pronounced and the whole structure was more angular. But I can't reconstruct it much better with the documents I have so far. Maybe later on, new sources might turn up. And since I was just tinkering around, I added the chutes for the signal cannons. Probably so that powder and cartridge residues don't stick to the ship's side. XXXDAn

Parallel to the 1803 ad 1910 Vics, I have been working on the boats. Or rather on the oars. The trigger was once again the "egytian paddles" that had found their way onto an otherwise great model. To start with I did not yet get in contact about that topic. How long? What form? I had no idea. Hope you will be able to cofirm the ext steps. Fortunately, I was given quite fast a reference to David Steel's "The art of Making Masts, Yards, Gaffs, Booms, Blocks, and Oars, as Practised in the Royal Navy, and According to the Most Approved Methods in the ... of an Improved Rule for Mast-makers", a volume I wasn´t aware of before. I just ordered my copy as I found no official legal online source. In there the relevant iformatios were given in 4 tables. Oar-Making The different parts of oars are described by the engraved figures, and their dimensions by the tables. Ships’ sweeps and oars are made of hand-masts, or rafters, suited to the size and length, as per table. They should be chosen straight-grained, free from large knots, shakes, or rind-galls. They are first sawed, or jambed in a snatch-block, and hewed nearly to their size; then raised on horses, and completed by the drawing-knife, spoke-shave, or plane. Open handles are nailed to the sides of the loom in the direction of the flat of the blade, made of oak, about one inch and three-quarters deep, and two inches and one-quarter thick, hollowed to admit the hand easy between that and the loom: the length of the handle is one-third the length of the loom. Barges’, lighters’ and ships’ boats’, oars are made of fir-rafters, similar to ships’, without handles to the sides of the loom. N.B. The looms of boats’ oars are often made round. Oars and sculls for barges, wherries, and skiffs, are made of ash (and sometimes of fir) rafters, which should be chosen tough, straight-grained, without shakes or large knots. The rough wood is taken off with an axe, and finished in a neat manner on horses by drawing-knives, spoke-shaves, and planes. A leather button is nailed on the foreside, about two inches from the loom, and that edge rounded, to work easily in the rowlock: the lower end of the blade is strapped round with tin to prevent its splitting. Sculls for wherries, skiffs, &c. for choice and make are similar to wherries’ oars. The sizes relevant for my Victory boats are the sweeps for the larger workboats with straight blades and the oars with curved blades for the smaller boats. First the sweeps. They have an interesting shape. The thin round handle, the square loom, the round to elliptical shank which then transitions back into the flat of the blade. And here is the oar. Here the design is even more differentiated: round handle, rectangular loom, elliptical shank and the curved flat blade. Here, contemporary models are much more relaxed in the curve, which is why I have not shaped it as extremly as seen in Steel. Also the blades have a reinforcement against splintering on the outer end, in the contemporary models usually formed as a ring and not over the edge as with Steel. And, as always, the fallacy: It's programmed, so it can be printed straight away 🙂 Shull bit. It took a lot of convincing, but in the end something useful came out. Then some more color, dark brown primer and a lighter tone as brushing. And to top it all off, a close-up 🙂 If compared to the model oars and sweeps in RGM it seems the right direction. Still puzzeled about the triangular piece of leather that keeps the oar in place. How did it look and how was it fixed? All the best, DAniel XXXDA

Made a little progress over the last few days. First planked the poop railing, then built the curved end to the aft deck railing, pressed on the end strip using cable ties. Then sanded down the balusters on the side pocket, which has become quite fast. First built the dominant vertical rear end profile. Then came the other window frames. The whole thing sprayed and the white balusters glued on ... ... and then - oh horror - ... ... ... ... XXXDAn

Also Trafalgar was won by the French. At least in Napoleon’s newspapers. Also do not forget personal or political „corrections“, famous today still as alternative fakts or fake news. So nothing was learned since then. Also the eyewitnesses had their own apperception from a special moment or a made up memory as part of trauma or time that passed. So it is always a good starting point for a new research, a new thesis or to confirm the old known facts in spite of the new input 🙂 But sometimes something new really pops up . XXXDAn

I also believe that those discrepancies seen today are simply much more a result of uneven build. As an excuse, the geometrie there is not that easy 🙂 Also one sees that the hull as base is not that even anyway, as the wales in the middle tier seems to have different widths. Compare the black lines and the edges. McKay was often critisised for showing the wales applied onto the planking, but he only shows what was the state of build in those days. This is not to bash his superbe work but only tells one thing: The exhibit in Portsmouth is a wonderful inspiration, gives a great view to the general public, is well kept over the years regarding the resources in research, available material and manpower and most important budget. I am more than happy and enjoyed having been able to visit her several times and thanking all those people involved over the last 200 years. But ... ... my personal conclusion - that took me several years to realize - for modelling on a higher level forget the exhibit there and go back to the sources. Many of the things that I had to replace on my build were inspired by anachronistic features shown there. 🙂 XXXDAn PS: And I am waiting for the shockwave that Gary still will create 😉