Morgan

You are right in that the notional length of 9’ 6” refers to length ‘A’, from the muzzle to the reinforcement ring on the breech, to which you add length ‘B’, this is why guns of differing weights of notionally the same length actually vary in length.

The drawing you show is for an Armstrong pattern gun, an earlier version to what Victory currently mounts which are all the later Blomefield pattern - the main distinction is that the Blomefield’s have the thimble or loop for the breaching rope cast in to them.

The Board of Ordnance records held in the National Archives at Kew (ADM 160/154) has a full list of guns that were allocated to Victory upon recommissioning in April 1805, they don’t list the make or pattern but they do give the individual gun weights and cast numbers and from this information they can be tested against the nominal weights for the standard patterns.  This shows that the lower deck 32-Pounders of 9’ 6” were all Blomefield pattern manufactured by Samuel Walker & Co. of Rotherham, the middle deck 24-Pounders of 9’ 6” were all Armstrong pattern manufactured by Alexander Brodie at his Calcutts Ironworks, Upper Deck long 12-Pounders of 9’ were a mixed bag, suggesting a mix of Armstrong and Blomefield pattern, they were predominantly manufactured by Samuel Walker & Co. - these are all Blomefield (24 Nr.), and the 8 Armstrong were possibly also by Brodie but noted as ‘Solid’ which means they were cast solid and bored out (up to 1779 all cannon were cast with a central plug as the basis for the bore), the specific mention of ‘Solid’ denotes  these were very early bored-out guns.  At this stage Victory had 32Nr. long 12’s, 30Nr. were on the upper deck and 2Nr. as forecastle bow chasers. She also carried 10Nr. short 12-Pounders of 7’ 6” on the Quarterdeck of Armstrong pattern all manufactured by Walker & Co.

This was before Victory gained the 68-Pounder carronades and the number of guns conforms precisely to the establishment for First Rates.  At Trafalgar there is some doubt as to how things changed as in August 1804 Victory took delivery of the 68-Pounders from HMS Kent, she also acquired 2 Nr. additional 24-Pounders all in exchange for 6 Nr. 12-Pounders (probably the long ones) - this is mentioned in Hardy’s log. What is not clear is if during August / September 1805 whilst in England for a mini refit, and all the guns removed, whether her armament was restored to account for the additional 24’s and the missing 12’s, that is subject to further research.

Gary

Just in time for my Trincomalee upper deck!

Are the 9 and short 18 pounder cannon Blomefield or Armstrong pattern?

Gary

uss frolic found a model of the Endymion sporting two swivels mounted on the Capstan, finding it once you may dismiss it, but twice and one source is a technical drawing means this must have been common practice.

Gary

Chris,

What length are the 12 Pounders - equivalent to the L / M / S versions?

Gary

Hi Daniel,

All looking good.

Some additional points to consider for the 1805 slice.  The bolster at this date was extended forward, see the blue highlighted area below.  This provided a small ledge for foot support when working the anchors, my sketch is conservative, they are often shown extending further forward.

An additional feature that is not commonly represented, but is intrinsic to the berthed-up forecastle barricades is that the gunwale above the foremost port was hinged such that it swing up and over to create easier access to the outside of the ship for those crew working the anchor, I've highlighted this in red below.  I've shown two samples taken from admiralty draughts for the Union / Boyne (which were based on the Victory 1803 configuration) and the later Nelson, they are not the best quality so perhaps you need to go to the NMM site for better copies. This is one of those things that just doesn't stand out on contemporary paintings or models due to scale, and you would need to know to look for it.  We don't know for certain if Victory had this feature, but given the Boyne / Union plans were taken from the Victory refit plans in 1801 and it is no commonly displayed then in my opinion there is every likelihood that Victory had this feature.

The sketch to the left is my draft capturing these features.

So are we going to see a 1805 slice with the crew working the anchors given this info??  I know you like to tinker and have a challenge.

Gary

This really is a superb looking model. Nice work James.

Gary

Michael,

In practice the cannons could be moved several degrees from centre so they could in theory, and subject to the curvature of the hull / width of the gunport, all fire at 90 degrees to the ship, but I think this would look wrong on the model and you should, in my opinion, go with 90 degrees to the hull at each gunport location, as per the real ship has them displayed.

Gary

19 minutes ago, uss frolick said:The model belongs to the Science Museum of London. They list it as the Frigate Pomone but label their photographs as both Pomone and Endymion. (E was built to the lines of P.)

Thanks for the note, she is now with the National Maritime Museum (SLR0651), from what I recalled all the Science Museum ships were transferred so I thought I’d check and they have better images of her.

Interesting details on the Endymion, there also appears to be a chimney abaft the mizzen.  Records show portable stoves were issued to Ships, but I’ve never seen   physical evidence before.  It’s the kind of detail a sailor would pick up as opposed to a dockyard model maker.  Whilst not as aesthetically pleasing sometimes such models hold a wealth of detail that would otherwise be lost to us.  Where is this model housed?

Gary

1 hour ago, Bill Morrison said:

Theodore Roosevelt also wrote an excellent book on the War of 1812 in which he directly refutes William James' findings while simultaneously not chastising the British.  His is a much more mature and adult work. I recommend it highly.

 

Bill

You should read ‘The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812’ by Professor Andrew Lambert, he brings the views of James and Roosevelt up to date and corrects both.

Gary

I think financially a pair of frigates such as Shannon and Chesapeake would out sell any others on the market, there is a real history there with broad appeal on both sides of the Atlantic (and broader), the great thing with a Leda class such as Shannon is that there are over 40 sister ships to choose from from the Leda herself with open rails forward through to the Trincomalee and later berthed up configuration.  I know this has been touched on before, but there is a point when you have to look at the balance between what you want to design and what sells and that is so much harder with the larger kits.

of course Endymion and President would have a similar broad appeal.

Gary

I’ve used Britannia white metal for casting many times and can highly recommend it, no shrinkage, flows well and minimal fumes makes it easy to work with.

Gary

Daniel,

I would have thought the lower edge of the cover would have a bolt rope like the edge of a sail in order to provide a uniform distribution of tension, it’s where a sailmaker would default to if you think about it, with eyes or loops in the bolt rope at each stanchion for tying down.

Gary

Daniel,

Go back to Turner.  We know the Poop deck cranes were boarded over on the outside, this probably applied to the waist as well, but not the Quarterdeck or Forecastle (although this changed in future years). Netting to the inside of the hammock cranes.  We can see from Turner that the covers sat as an envelope over the hammock cranes, probably in overlapping sections fastened at the bottom to the hammock cranes. These envelopes would have been open at the bottom to allow water and moisture to drain away and dry / air the hammocks.

Gary

None of the preparatory field works of the contemporary great artists who sketched Victory during the campaign of Trafalgar (1803 - 1805) show her with crows feet, these were Turner, Constable and Pocock, you’ll not get better eyewitnesses.
 

Gary

Hi Daniel,

Have a look at the NMM model and plans for the Royal George of 1756, even though earlier she carried her chains above the upper deck ports, so the same height as 1803 Victory, this is the nearest I have found so far.

Gary

12 minutes ago, dafi said:

The only thing I do not understand are the stantions for the hammock netting on the quarter deck. This does not make too much sense to my understanding. Any idea about that?

To have the open rails sat within the hammock stanchions is strange, but is this a forerunner to the built-up barricade? If the hammocks can be manoeuvred past the rail then a small-arms barrier of hammocks can be created. It makes no sense to have them sat atop an open rail as that would negate their efficacy.

BTW - there is the anchor lining, although not shown on the present Victory Goodwin references this at page 88 of his HMS Victory pocket manual and that it would have been in place when the ship was operational.

Gary

It is contemporary with her launch in 1765.

Gary

I don’t see why you can’t modify an existing kit.  The Victory as she is now is a hybrid 1765 / 1803 stemming from her 1920’s refit, they used the original 1765 plans for her restoration as there was little other information to hand in those days, so a kit takes you a long way.  The main challenges will be reconstructing her open stern galleries and the complex figurehead she sported when first built, fortunately there are several contemporary models available at the National Maritime Museum (search ‘rmg collections HMS Victory’) to help, as well as plans.

You will be faced with making or obtaining figureheads whether you modify a kit or scratch build, the problem with off the shelf carvings is one of scale, and matching them to your base kit, so it could all be down to your modelling skills.  CAF Models one of the forum sponsor offers a 1765 figurehead at 1:72 which matches the Amati Victory Models kit, but at $923 is as expensive as the kit.

I’ve included some images below of Victory as launched.

Gary

Welcome on board, nice to have another fellow north easterner on the forum. Good luck with the build, the ‘Ham n eggs’ as she was knows to the sailors of the time is a beautiful ship, I’ll tag along to see what you produce, you’re off to a good start.

Gary

From the plans it was either Royal George or Britannia.  Royal George is a good shout for research, plenty of contemporary drawings, paintings and models.  When you say it’s a while off we probably have to allow for Chris Watton development timescales with 6 models out in 2 years you run at a different pace to your competitors! 
 

Gary

Royal George?

Maybe the quality of materials is aligned to historical timeframe of the subject, for instance the Victory of Trafalgar is traditionally painted why would you plank with pear when you are covering it up, whereas the Victory of 1765 would look splendid if you used the Duchess colour scheme - I’m not advocating Victory it’s just one ship that changed of which we have many examples and can gauge how she looks in her different guises. For your proposed Frigates the Indefatigable with built up bulwarks would, in my book, look best in a painted format in keeping with her timeframe, whereas the other frigates in their earlier form lend themselves predominantly to natural wood.  So perhaps anything pre 1800 go with the more expensive woods, anything after 1800 go with cheaper planking where it is to be painted. 
 

This is what you generally see in the NMM model collections. 
 

Gary

Perhaps the moderators can help you set up a poll to get a more in depth opinion from the forum, it’s hard to know from a few comments and exchanges. You have established a brand and quality / feel to the kits that go together, I would personally go with a stronger wood, but the cost may, as you indicate, disenfranchise people on larger kits, but you can also make the argument that on a larger kit if your going to spend the money why would you skimp. Customer survey required!
 

Gary

25 minutes ago, James H said:

Some people have asked me what the weight of this kit is.

 

Ok, remember that this isn't a final product, and the Lady Nelson was also in the box. But, offset that against the lack of cast cannon and the plans sent separately, plus the shortage of lime plank, then I think we can take a semi-educated guess. 

 

The weight of this box was listed with DHL as 20kg. I think that is roughly the weight....maybe minus 2 or 3 kg for proper boxing etc. 

Going to need a bigger bench!