dafi

Is there any hint or knowledge if the keel was coppered underneath going round th whole keel or if the coppering went "full stop" at the edge of the false keel? XXXDAn

Coming back to an older entry in this thread: @AON First line possibly means red arrows 🙂 Blue arrows most possibly is the gap for the anchor davit, as the upmost rail passes through and the bolster underneath is visible. XXXDAn

The last time she set sails was on 04th December 1812 heading for portsmouth to get her ballast out and the rigg cut down. Last entry on the sea going log was on 18th December 1812. This was still before the introduction of her round bow in 1816. Afterwards she was still moved around a bit in front of Portsmouth but never on her own sails again. The film gives a great introduction on ships of this age and is marvelously done in this regard. As the reconstruction is based on McKay and Bugler, the details shown for this timeframe 1803 to 1805, there are plenty of anachronisms like the vent trucks for the hold (19th century) and the carpenters walk (1816) and many many more. XXXDAn

It has now been 4.5 months since the big modeling show in Evian France. Since then, my Sleeping Beauty has been lying in her box in the camper van, as I haven't had the time to kiss and wake her nor the space on the work table to lay her down gently. This weekend I finally pricked up my lips and gave her a really nice wake-up kiss 🙂 And I took the opportunity to take a few beauty shots and compare 1803 and 1910 🙂 Is this now considered to be out of box? I also took the opportunity to take a closer look at the new bow. It was based on the three-deckers built between 1800 and 1805. The bowsprit is now also anchored one deck higher. One side is still a bit rough 😉 Hope you like it! XXXDAn

Wunderfully done 🙂 XXXDAn

1765 https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66456 Who´s earlier? 🙂 XXXDA

PS: Just noticed after uploading: Also to my previous personal understanding there there should not have been a stop on the upper sill as mentioned above. But it seems Belona´s model shows them. And a quick look at the pictures I took from Vasa shows them too. Too be honest I would expect one there as for sealing the lid off as this area needs some greater tolerance/space as for easy fitting of the hinges, no stop would leave a bigger gap there. The only contemporary source of an actual fitted gunport is the one of Colossus. original Source, not available any more: http://www.cismas.org.uk/downloads.php original Source, not available any more: http://www.cismas.org.uk/docs/Colossus Monitoring and Investigation Report.pdf Page 32 ff especially page 35 The stop beam below the inside of the port is particularly interesting. Attention: Image is upside down. Also interesting is the position of the scupper, which does not seem to follow the rhythm of the ports. There are two parallel ledges on the left and right in the lower area of the gate: possibly to insert a half-height splash guard Above the gate are two things that could possibly indicate the two eyebolts for lashing in marching position. Above the port there is also a worn semi-circular surface against which the guns were braced. XXXDAn

The lids were smooth with the planking, but I observed different handling on applications complementing the whales: - Sometimes there was an application applied onto the lid complementing the line of the whale. These ones I suppose were to be nailed-on features and not thicker planking per se as the whales were. - Sometimes the lid cuts a whale without an application, leaving a "gap". I never found the time to research if these two versions were favoured to special eras or if there is a rule/pattern to be seen, to decide whitch one was more probable of a certain ship. Are there any observations/facts known? And another question that often rages on and that fits here nicely: Was there a stop on the lid too? Some older models like the Prince show a stop also on the lid, nailed on as the second layer, also the Vasa has them. But later on this feature is seldom shown in models. The Bellona Modell is one of the few ones. The battle rages as some say, it needs this stop on the lid unconditionally to really make sure that the lid can be closed watertight, as the two profiles join together in a way that a fast "caulking" can be done to seal it off. Others say, it is no problem to seal it watertight even if the stop on the lid is missing, also the fitting of the lid is easier or less danger of that it gets stuck due to warping or the hinges getting worn. Is the any more knowledge about this matter? Was the stop a common feature that was only omitted in most of the models? All the best, DAniel

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?

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