Jump to content

Morgan

Members
  • Content Count

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Morgan

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    gary.morgan666@hotmail.co.uk

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,986 profile views
  1. I'll raise you 5 days and half that period! Dispatched on Tuesday 2nd and just delivered, not bad at all. Gary Edit: Just checked - shipping notice from Chuck on 2nd at 15:26 UK time, delivered today at 12:35 - just under 4 days Trans Atlantic - must be close on to some form of record!
  2. His follow up is ‘Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars’, and there was also the earlier ‘First Frigates - Nine-Pounder and Twelve-Pounder 1748 - 1815’. Gary
  3. Victory’s figurehead dating from 1815, that may have earlier 1803 elements has been discovered, it seems it was disassembled in 2009 with a chainsaw when they thought it was a 20th Century reconstruction! https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/scientists-rediscover-200-year-old-royal-navy-figurehead-mistakenly-sawn-pieces-3129766 Gary
  4. Whilst that’s a nice turnover for a small business who needs retirement feeling like work! Retirement should be about what you want to do not what you feel guilty about not doing (now if I can convince my wife of that 🤔). Gary
  5. Certainly for British service as Surprise L’Unite was fitted with 4 chain pumps, 2 pair either side of the mainmast, the other feature is an Elm Tree or Brake pump. The book ‘The Frigate Surprise’ by Brian Lavery and Geoff Hunt show this in drawings provided by Karl Heinz Marquardt (they actually have 2 Elm Tree Pumps), you can also see it in the photo below which is from Caldercrafts long awaited prototype photos for the Surprise. The drawings you are using don’t show all details, so you can’t rely on something not being there, there is a large degree of variability in Admiralty
  6. Hi Daniel, My thoughts on your points are as follows: Two deckers - this probably is a matter of space as you highlight and probably manpower, a three decker can accommodate 2 decks of men manning crank handles, but it also has a larger hull capacity and in a bad situation more water to shift, so may merely be a matter of convenience (men and available space). I think there would have been a continuation of the taper between the middle deck wheels and foot of the pump system, so they would be in line but still tapering between the lower and middle decks. Ha
  7. Daniel, My research correlates with what you have captured. The single level chain pumps had a combined cistern, water could be discharged from either side with a simple partitioning of the cistern at the centre to allow water to discharge to port or starboard irrespective of which pump was operating. It had an access hatch at the centre to allow the partition to be put in place that then closed off the port from the starboard cistern for single pump / side use. The middle deck chain pumps only operated from this deck level, they could discharge to either the lower or
  8. Just for Info Steel describes these forms of planking as follows: The difference between Top and Butt and Anchor Stock is the first is asymmetrical and the latter symmetrical. Just thought seeing which is which helps the conversation. Little known factoid for fun 🤪, Victory has several surviving 19th Century strakes of Top and Butt planking below the main wale which shows she wasn’t parallel planked, but also points to the Wales probably being one of the other two forms before they ripped them off her in the 1850’s, which leads back to the Sphinx Wales being plank
  9. Falconer notes that the eyebolts were fixed by way of a ‘clench’ which seems a bit like a rove used to fix nails on clinker built ship. Gregory - The problem with the Constitution is if you look inboard at the breaching rope fixings is that they are not eyebolts, but a more modern double bolt affair and you do see these fixed outboard, but if you look at the in haul / training tackle fixings these are traditional eyebolts and as the photo shows these do not show outboard, these are fitted mid port so should appear to the side of the gunport outboard. Open to other info
  10. I agree, it needs to be an eyebolt affair with whatever capping nut is being used prevented from pulling through the wood by means of an outsize washer of some form, so I agree with the configuration of the bolts shown by Pavel at the start of this thread, but just not surface mounted. I think this is merely stylisation as Druxy mentions. Gary
  11. Only in respect of British ships they are not to be seen on any of the present historic ships, neither are they evident on 19th Century photos or contemporary paintings. They must have been rebated in to the external planking and plugged or set in to the frames, after all exposed metalwork corrodes and the last thing you need to break are the retaining bolts (although they sometimes did). Gary
  12. That is an elegant solution, otherwise where do you stack the spare grating on such crowded decks, so makes sense. Gary
  13. A little more digging has yielded some further information. In an article in The Mariner’s Mirror in November 1952 by JD Moody he has the following to say: “In the late eighteenth century ‘horns’ were added to the front edge of the brackets [cheeks] to butt against the port sill when the gun was run out. The first I have seen are those on the Royal George carriage, where they are nailed on. Later they appear as an integral part of the lower planks of the brackets. (These were made of two planks dowelled and bolted together.). They are referred to in 1810 as showing t
  14. I agree, although the depictions and photos I’ve seen have various size eyes, but whatever they won’t carry the main breaching rope. The only way that I could see this would work relative to the breach rope would be if they were to accommodate lashings to constrain the breaching rope, possibly to help control the gun jumping when fired as the breach would rise as it pivoted on the trunnions. Gary
×
×
  • Create New...