Bob Fraser

Whilst built for the Confederate states, Alabama was built in the UK by Lairds of Birkenhead. Just a coupleof miles from where i used to live.
So she could have been built to British scantlings for the time period. 
There used to be a model of her on display at the outdoor swimming baths at New Brighton that was built by a member of the CSS Alabama Association who wanted to raise her.
Alabama Wiki

Whilst built for the Confederate states, Alabama was built in the UK by Lairds of Birkenhead. Just a coupleof miles from where i used to live.
So she could have been built to British scantlings for the time period. 
There used to be a model of her on display at the outdoor swimming baths at New Brighton that was built by a member of the CSS Alabama Association who wanted to raise her.
Alabama Wiki

Whilst built for the Confederate states, Alabama was built in the UK by Lairds of Birkenhead. Just a coupleof miles from where i used to live.
So she could have been built to British scantlings for the time period. 
There used to be a model of her on display at the outdoor swimming baths at New Brighton that was built by a member of the CSS Alabama Association who wanted to raise her.
Alabama Wiki

Whilst built for the Confederate states, Alabama was built in the UK by Lairds of Birkenhead. Just a coupleof miles from where i used to live.
So she could have been built to British scantlings for the time period. 
There used to be a model of her on display at the outdoor swimming baths at New Brighton that was built by a member of the CSS Alabama Association who wanted to raise her.
Alabama Wiki

Whilst built for the Confederate states, Alabama was built in the UK by Lairds of Birkenhead. Just a coupleof miles from where i used to live.
So she could have been built to British scantlings for the time period. 
There used to be a model of her on display at the outdoor swimming baths at New Brighton that was built by a member of the CSS Alabama Association who wanted to raise her.
Alabama Wiki

Whilst built for the Confederate states, Alabama was built in the UK by Lairds of Birkenhead. Just a coupleof miles from where i used to live.
So she could have been built to British scantlings for the time period. 
There used to be a model of her on display at the outdoor swimming baths at New Brighton that was built by a member of the CSS Alabama Association who wanted to raise her.
Alabama Wiki

Ed, welcome to MSW! The best bet for advice would be to start your old build log rather than starting a separate discussion in a log for someone else's build. That would also be the best place to provide a few photos and/or sketches of what you're asking about and proposing, so we can give you better answers. If you don't want to do a full build log, consider starting a thread in one of the advice sections; there's actually a whole thread about general riverboat questions if you search for it, and that might get you more responses. But my short answer is that this kit is not even remotely prototypically accurate and shouldn't be expected to look real. It makes a very attractive model and people have done some good things with it, but it won't much look like any real riverboat you'll ever find images of, at least to an experienced eye.

We have a Cricut Explore 3 - the machine is tied to the software for conectivity because of proprietary drivers, and the Cricut Design Space software is tied to the internet either via PC and USB, or the app version which connects via bluetooth to the machine.  You can design in other art / graphics software and then import.
We also have another machine, the Sillhouette Curio.  This is very similar to the Cricut in what it does with a couple of plusses.  The Silhouette Studio software isn't tied to the internet, and the machine isn't tied to the software, there are several other softwares that can connect to it. 
They can both do things the other can't. Both can use a range of non-oem pens and cutters with adaptors.
Cricut will import only SVG and DXF in it's free software, while Silhouette will import DXF, PNG, BMP, JPG, GIF, GSD and TIFF (SVG in a paid version). Both will do more filetypes in the paid versions. In both programs DXF will open with the lines of the design ready to be marked for operations, as will SVG, all other files will need to be traced with the software (needs clearly defined lines) but is relatively easy to do.
The Curio will cut up to 2mm wood, as will the Explore, but both need several passes and higher pressure settings to do so. Corners and curves are well cut.
We have both only because they were going being sold off cheap by people who no longer needed them, and they came with loads of materials and tools. My other half said "I need them for my makes, and you can use them too!"
Having only had these a matter of a few weeks I tried both for some small cutting and drawing I found the Curio the easier of the two to use, but I've a long learning curve.
If buying new neither machine comes with much in the way of tools, and Cricut oem are relatively expensive items.
If you're looking to buy one, check out your needs and match them to a model in the available ranges that can do what you want.
She also said a laser cutter / engraver would come in handy for her projects so now I've got that one to learn as well, with Lightburn being the software of choice - while building an enclosure and extraction duct for smoke and vapours.

We have a Cricut Explore 3 - the machine is tied to the software for conectivity because of proprietary drivers, and the Cricut Design Space software is tied to the internet either via PC and USB, or the app version which connects via bluetooth to the machine.  You can design in other art / graphics software and then import.
We also have another machine, the Sillhouette Curio.  This is very similar to the Cricut in what it does with a couple of plusses.  The Silhouette Studio software isn't tied to the internet, and the machine isn't tied to the software, there are several other softwares that can connect to it. 
They can both do things the other can't. Both can use a range of non-oem pens and cutters with adaptors.
Cricut will import only SVG and DXF in it's free software, while Silhouette will import DXF, PNG, BMP, JPG, GIF, GSD and TIFF (SVG in a paid version). Both will do more filetypes in the paid versions. In both programs DXF will open with the lines of the design ready to be marked for operations, as will SVG, all other files will need to be traced with the software (needs clearly defined lines) but is relatively easy to do.
The Curio will cut up to 2mm wood, as will the Explore, but both need several passes and higher pressure settings to do so. Corners and curves are well cut.
We have both only because they were going being sold off cheap by people who no longer needed them, and they came with loads of materials and tools. My other half said "I need them for my makes, and you can use them too!"
Having only had these a matter of a few weeks I tried both for some small cutting and drawing I found the Curio the easier of the two to use, but I've a long learning curve.
If buying new neither machine comes with much in the way of tools, and Cricut oem are relatively expensive items.
If you're looking to buy one, check out your needs and match them to a model in the available ranges that can do what you want.
She also said a laser cutter / engraver would come in handy for her projects so now I've got that one to learn as well, with Lightburn being the software of choice - while building an enclosure and extraction duct for smoke and vapours.

We have a Cricut Explore 3 - the machine is tied to the software for conectivity because of proprietary drivers, and the Cricut Design Space software is tied to the internet either via PC and USB, or the app version which connects via bluetooth to the machine.  You can design in other art / graphics software and then import.
We also have another machine, the Sillhouette Curio.  This is very similar to the Cricut in what it does with a couple of plusses.  The Silhouette Studio software isn't tied to the internet, and the machine isn't tied to the software, there are several other softwares that can connect to it. 
They can both do things the other can't. Both can use a range of non-oem pens and cutters with adaptors.
Cricut will import only SVG and DXF in it's free software, while Silhouette will import DXF, PNG, BMP, JPG, GIF, GSD and TIFF (SVG in a paid version). Both will do more filetypes in the paid versions. In both programs DXF will open with the lines of the design ready to be marked for operations, as will SVG, all other files will need to be traced with the software (needs clearly defined lines) but is relatively easy to do.
The Curio will cut up to 2mm wood, as will the Explore, but both need several passes and higher pressure settings to do so. Corners and curves are well cut.
We have both only because they were going being sold off cheap by people who no longer needed them, and they came with loads of materials and tools. My other half said "I need them for my makes, and you can use them too!"
Having only had these a matter of a few weeks I tried both for some small cutting and drawing I found the Curio the easier of the two to use, but I've a long learning curve.
If buying new neither machine comes with much in the way of tools, and Cricut oem are relatively expensive items.
If you're looking to buy one, check out your needs and match them to a model in the available ranges that can do what you want.
She also said a laser cutter / engraver would come in handy for her projects so now I've got that one to learn as well, with Lightburn being the software of choice - while building an enclosure and extraction duct for smoke and vapours.

We have a Cricut Explore 3 - the machine is tied to the software for conectivity because of proprietary drivers, and the Cricut Design Space software is tied to the internet either via PC and USB, or the app version which connects via bluetooth to the machine.  You can design in other art / graphics software and then import.
We also have another machine, the Sillhouette Curio.  This is very similar to the Cricut in what it does with a couple of plusses.  The Silhouette Studio software isn't tied to the internet, and the machine isn't tied to the software, there are several other softwares that can connect to it. 
They can both do things the other can't. Both can use a range of non-oem pens and cutters with adaptors.
Cricut will import only SVG and DXF in it's free software, while Silhouette will import DXF, PNG, BMP, JPG, GIF, GSD and TIFF (SVG in a paid version). Both will do more filetypes in the paid versions. In both programs DXF will open with the lines of the design ready to be marked for operations, as will SVG, all other files will need to be traced with the software (needs clearly defined lines) but is relatively easy to do.
The Curio will cut up to 2mm wood, as will the Explore, but both need several passes and higher pressure settings to do so. Corners and curves are well cut.
We have both only because they were going being sold off cheap by people who no longer needed them, and they came with loads of materials and tools. My other half said "I need them for my makes, and you can use them too!"
Having only had these a matter of a few weeks I tried both for some small cutting and drawing I found the Curio the easier of the two to use, but I've a long learning curve.
If buying new neither machine comes with much in the way of tools, and Cricut oem are relatively expensive items.
If you're looking to buy one, check out your needs and match them to a model in the available ranges that can do what you want.
She also said a laser cutter / engraver would come in handy for her projects so now I've got that one to learn as well, with Lightburn being the software of choice - while building an enclosure and extraction duct for smoke and vapours.

Its been a while since I posted but, I managed to build and sand the keel and plank the deck. As for those holes in the keel I filled them with scrap wood and just sanded it to fit in the groove, it may not look the best but couple coats of primer and paint will hide it. Now im wondering: do I varnish the deck first, and varnish should I use, because there are a lot of components that will be glued on the deck or do I continue building the ship and varnish the deck later?

In Danny's quest to make the Lees ratios available to everyone for free and easy to use it appears he may have some ratios wrong.  In addition to the 1670-1710 period which is not useable, he may have misinterpreted the ratios in other time periods for the foremast diameters, therefore his diameters for the foremast are wrong so it may be best not to use his system for the foremasts diameters.  Lees states that the diameter of the foremast is the same proportion as the main mast.   I believe this means proportion to the foremast length, not the main mast length.  If not, why not just writer the diameter of the foremast is the same as the main mast, which it was not.  For example, for the Artois class, 1794.
 
                     Main Mast   Length   Diameter
Lees                                   92.645'     27.79"
Vadas                                 92.645'    28.236" 
          
                       Foremast   Length   Diameter
 Lees                                  83.38'     25"
 Vadas                                83.38'     28.236"       
 
For possible confirmation that the foremasts were smaller in both length and diameter, at least for the approximate period in question, I looked at some contemporary plans of masts.  The foremasts are smaller in diameter than the main masts.  An  example are plans J7801 and J 7796 at RMG and on the Wiki Commons site in high resolution. for a 74 gun ship .  The main mast maximum diameter is 37" and length is 111.6'   The foremast maximum  diameter is 32" and has a length of 95' 8"   
 
From David Steel's The Elements and Practice of Rigging 1794
The diameters in proportion to the length, in the royal navy, are as follow: viz.
The main and foremasts of ships of 100 to 64 guns inclusive, are one inch in diameter at the partners to every yard in length. Ships of 50 to 32 guns inclusive, 9/10 of an inch to every yard in length. And ships of 28 guns and under, 7/8 a of an inch to every yard in the length.  
https://maritime.org/doc/steel/
 
Allan
 
 
 
 

Hello, Gregory was exactly right.  Below is a photo of my mini-Mamoli Nina.   The keel parts are glued into the pre-drilled groove all the way along the keel.  Since the keel will be painted below the waterline, it doesn't really matter what pattern of pieces you cobble together down there as long as they are all snug in the groove, and against each other.  It also helps to install pieces which stick out too far as well, so the entire keel/stem can be sanded down as one unit after the glue dries.
 
Alan

What Mamoli is looking for you to do is trace out a pattern like I have made in red, then use strip wood pieced together like I have indicated in blue, where you would then trace the pattern to give you a shape to fit over the bow and stern without any gaps.
 
You may want to use  more pieces than they have shown in the instructions in order to easier make a curve.
 
If this is still a problem for you and I may be able to put together a little demo with some wood.

Dave asked earlier if the spreadsheet could be re-written to account for the foremast discrepancy.
I've managed to get the spreadsheet so it's unprotected, made it so you can see the rows/columns and sheet tabs.  Also frozen some headers so they don't get lost.
The calculations can now be seen and followed, but they seem to go round in circles to me (probably just me not seeing it right).
Would an Excel wizz like to have a go?
Masting and Rigging - Danny Vadas - open.xlsm
 
Forgot to mention you'll likely get some warnings about active code. These will need to be allowed to run it properly.

I need to get to my drawing tools later, and I can show you what I think you need to do..

Dave asked earlier if the spreadsheet could be re-written to account for the foremast discrepancy.
I've managed to get the spreadsheet so it's unprotected, made it so you can see the rows/columns and sheet tabs.  Also frozen some headers so they don't get lost.
The calculations can now be seen and followed, but they seem to go round in circles to me (probably just me not seeing it right).
Would an Excel wizz like to have a go?
Masting and Rigging - Danny Vadas - open.xlsm
 
Forgot to mention you'll likely get some warnings about active code. These will need to be allowed to run it properly.

Phew I am glad I got that one sorted. So for my masting and spars I think I am pretty well sorted then. However apart from the breeching rope and the gun tackle I think I will leave the rest of the rigging for another day. But  a huge thanks for walking me through this. Best regards Dave

Hi Dave.
This is the DV spreadsheet on Windows view of the masting sizes for Diana as per the contract - available at the nmm here Artois Contract
Using Extreme Breadth as 39' and length of lower deck as 146'

 
Steel gives the same main mast length as the spreadsheet, 1745 Establishment as 88.92'
There were amendments to the 1745 Establishment for larger ships in the intervening times.
Using Lees the 1/64 diameter comes to 10.80mm
Does the same for my little sloop, too!
You'd need to do the math for the other given sizes of the fore to work out if there are any other differences.
The spreadsheet is protected from editing, and I'm not a genius with spreadsheets.
 

Hi Dave.
This is the DV spreadsheet on Windows view of the masting sizes for Diana as per the contract - available at the nmm here Artois Contract
Using Extreme Breadth as 39' and length of lower deck as 146'

 
Steel gives the same main mast length as the spreadsheet, 1745 Establishment as 88.92'
There were amendments to the 1745 Establishment for larger ships in the intervening times.
Using Lees the 1/64 diameter comes to 10.80mm
Does the same for my little sloop, too!
You'd need to do the math for the other given sizes of the fore to work out if there are any other differences.
The spreadsheet is protected from editing, and I'm not a genius with spreadsheets.
 

Hi Allan, Dave.
Allan - I'd seen that comment about the dates before, but couldn't remember it fully. Thanks for the reminder.
As you say, a fantastic resource.
I'm no expert or have extensive experience in these calculations, and my use has only been with this one ship.
The ship I based my comment on was a RN sloop built 1756/57 and would most likely have been built to the 1745 Establishment, quick mast drawing measurements taken with a brass caliper.
I would imagine that you are aware of all the different calculations over the 18th Century 🤣  I wasn't at all except for the 1745 Establishment, and was surprised by the variations 🤯
 
I was hospitalised last year for 10 days with covid and while I was there I did a little research on the sloop to give some working mast dimensions. but only from 1711 to 1794, and came up with the following table of authors.
Purely for my own benefit!
--------------------------
Dimensions for Bonetta 1756 as designed -
Deck 85’10”, Breadth 24’ 4”, Depth in Hold 10’ 10”, Keel 78’ (as per Ollivier)1, 220 40/94 tons (profile plan ZAZ4368 RMG)
Dimensions for Bonetta as built -
Deck 86ft 4in, Breadth 24’ 6”, Depth in Hold 10’ 10”, calculated Keel 78’5”, 22760/94 tons (Winfield, 2007)
 
RD is Range of Lower Gun Deck or upper deck on a single deck, EB is Extreme Breadth, DIH is Depth in Hold, K is Keel length, BMF is Beam Multiplication Factor.
 
Calculation Information
Main Mast Length (Ft In)
Beam Multiplication Factor
 
Date
Name
Formula
As Designed
As Built
As Designed
As Built
Reference
 
Davis
EB*BMF
 
 
2.66
-------------
(Marquardt, 1986)
1711
Establishment
(RD + EB) / 2
 
 
 
 
(Lees, 1979)
1719
Establishment
No Change to 1711
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
(Lees, 1979)
1723
Anderson
EB*BMF
 
 
2.25
-------------
(Marquardt, 1986)
1726
William Sutherland**
(((EB + DIH) * 3) / 5)*3
 
 
 
 
(Marquardt, 1986), (Sutherland, 1726)
1735
James Love
((K + EB) * 2) / 3
 
 
 
 
(Marquardt, 1986), (Love, 1705)
1737
Blaise Ollivier
EB*BMF
 
 
2.33
-------------
(Ollivier, 1737)
1745
Establishment
EB*BMF
55.479 
55'7 3/4"
 
2.28
-------------
(Lees, 1979)
1752
Duhamel Monceau 1
EB*BMF
 
 
2.5
-------------
(Marquardt, 1986), (Monceau, 1752)
1752
Duhamel Monceau 2
(EB*2) + DIH
 
 
 
 
(Marquardt, 1986), (Monceau, 1752)
1756
William Mountaine
(K + EB) / 2
 
 
 
 
(Marquardt, 1986),(Mountaine, 1767)
1768
Chapman
EB*BMF
 
 
2.43
------------
(Marquardt, 1986)
1794
Steel
(RD + EB) / 2
55.083
55'1"
 
 
-------------
(Steel, 1794)
** EB+DIH in feet, multiply by 2 and then divide by 5 = length in yards. Multiply by 3 = feet and part.
------------------------
Hoping my calculations above are right, Dannys spreadsheet first entry for a sloop is 1794, and his calculations came out as 55' 7" to 3 decimal places, 55' 6" to 2 decimals for the inches part as input.
Looks like the 1745 Establishment is used up to at least that date in the spreadsheet, as per Lees. Steels dimensions come out smaller.
 
I have the Lees and Marquardt books, Love, Monceau, Mountaine, Sutherland are available as Google books.
 
Dave - I think even an XP based laptop with Excel on it will run the spreadsheet.
BTW, a distant cousin of mine captained Diana in 1799!
 
 

Hi Dave.
This is the DV spreadsheet on Windows view of the masting sizes for Diana as per the contract - available at the nmm here Artois Contract
Using Extreme Breadth as 39' and length of lower deck as 146'

 
Steel gives the same main mast length as the spreadsheet, 1745 Establishment as 88.92'
There were amendments to the 1745 Establishment for larger ships in the intervening times.
Using Lees the 1/64 diameter comes to 10.80mm
Does the same for my little sloop, too!
You'd need to do the math for the other given sizes of the fore to work out if there are any other differences.
The spreadsheet is protected from editing, and I'm not a genius with spreadsheets.
 

Hi Allan, Dave.
Allan - I'd seen that comment about the dates before, but couldn't remember it fully. Thanks for the reminder.
As you say, a fantastic resource.
I'm no expert or have extensive experience in these calculations, and my use has only been with this one ship.
The ship I based my comment on was a RN sloop built 1756/57 and would most likely have been built to the 1745 Establishment, quick mast drawing measurements taken with a brass caliper.
I would imagine that you are aware of all the different calculations over the 18th Century 🤣  I wasn't at all except for the 1745 Establishment, and was surprised by the variations 🤯
 
I was hospitalised last year for 10 days with covid and while I was there I did a little research on the sloop to give some working mast dimensions. but only from 1711 to 1794, and came up with the following table of authors.
Purely for my own benefit!
--------------------------
Dimensions for Bonetta 1756 as designed -
Deck 85’10”, Breadth 24’ 4”, Depth in Hold 10’ 10”, Keel 78’ (as per Ollivier)1, 220 40/94 tons (profile plan ZAZ4368 RMG)
Dimensions for Bonetta as built -
Deck 86ft 4in, Breadth 24’ 6”, Depth in Hold 10’ 10”, calculated Keel 78’5”, 22760/94 tons (Winfield, 2007)
 
RD is Range of Lower Gun Deck or upper deck on a single deck, EB is Extreme Breadth, DIH is Depth in Hold, K is Keel length, BMF is Beam Multiplication Factor.
 
Calculation Information
Main Mast Length (Ft In)
Beam Multiplication Factor
 
Date
Name
Formula
As Designed
As Built
As Designed
As Built
Reference
 
Davis
EB*BMF
 
 
2.66
-------------
(Marquardt, 1986)
1711
Establishment
(RD + EB) / 2
 
 
 
 
(Lees, 1979)
1719
Establishment
No Change to 1711
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
(Lees, 1979)
1723
Anderson
EB*BMF
 
 
2.25
-------------
(Marquardt, 1986)
1726
William Sutherland**
(((EB + DIH) * 3) / 5)*3
 
 
 
 
(Marquardt, 1986), (Sutherland, 1726)
1735
James Love
((K + EB) * 2) / 3
 
 
 
 
(Marquardt, 1986), (Love, 1705)
1737
Blaise Ollivier
EB*BMF
 
 
2.33
-------------
(Ollivier, 1737)
1745
Establishment
EB*BMF
55.479 
55'7 3/4"
 
2.28
-------------
(Lees, 1979)
1752
Duhamel Monceau 1
EB*BMF
 
 
2.5
-------------
(Marquardt, 1986), (Monceau, 1752)
1752
Duhamel Monceau 2
(EB*2) + DIH
 
 
 
 
(Marquardt, 1986), (Monceau, 1752)
1756
William Mountaine
(K + EB) / 2
 
 
 
 
(Marquardt, 1986),(Mountaine, 1767)
1768
Chapman
EB*BMF
 
 
2.43
------------
(Marquardt, 1986)
1794
Steel
(RD + EB) / 2
55.083
55'1"
 
 
-------------
(Steel, 1794)
** EB+DIH in feet, multiply by 2 and then divide by 5 = length in yards. Multiply by 3 = feet and part.
------------------------
Hoping my calculations above are right, Dannys spreadsheet first entry for a sloop is 1794, and his calculations came out as 55' 7" to 3 decimal places, 55' 6" to 2 decimals for the inches part as input.
Looks like the 1745 Establishment is used up to at least that date in the spreadsheet, as per Lees. Steels dimensions come out smaller.
 
I have the Lees and Marquardt books, Love, Monceau, Mountaine, Sutherland are available as Google books.
 
Dave - I think even an XP based laptop with Excel on it will run the spreadsheet.
BTW, a distant cousin of mine captained Diana in 1799!
 
 

Hi Allan, Dave.
Allan - I'd seen that comment about the dates before, but couldn't remember it fully. Thanks for the reminder.
As you say, a fantastic resource.
I'm no expert or have extensive experience in these calculations, and my use has only been with this one ship.
The ship I based my comment on was a RN sloop built 1756/57 and would most likely have been built to the 1745 Establishment, quick mast drawing measurements taken with a brass caliper.
I would imagine that you are aware of all the different calculations over the 18th Century 🤣  I wasn't at all except for the 1745 Establishment, and was surprised by the variations 🤯
 
I was hospitalised last year for 10 days with covid and while I was there I did a little research on the sloop to give some working mast dimensions. but only from 1711 to 1794, and came up with the following table of authors.
Purely for my own benefit!
--------------------------
Dimensions for Bonetta 1756 as designed -
Deck 85’10”, Breadth 24’ 4”, Depth in Hold 10’ 10”, Keel 78’ (as per Ollivier)1, 220 40/94 tons (profile plan ZAZ4368 RMG)
Dimensions for Bonetta as built -
Deck 86ft 4in, Breadth 24’ 6”, Depth in Hold 10’ 10”, calculated Keel 78’5”, 22760/94 tons (Winfield, 2007)
 
RD is Range of Lower Gun Deck or upper deck on a single deck, EB is Extreme Breadth, DIH is Depth in Hold, K is Keel length, BMF is Beam Multiplication Factor.
 
Calculation Information
Main Mast Length (Ft In)
Beam Multiplication Factor
 
Date
Name
Formula
As Designed
As Built
As Designed
As Built
Reference
 
Davis
EB*BMF
 
 
2.66
-------------
(Marquardt, 1986)
1711
Establishment
(RD + EB) / 2
 
 
 
 
(Lees, 1979)
1719
Establishment
No Change to 1711
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
(Lees, 1979)
1723
Anderson
EB*BMF
 
 
2.25
-------------
(Marquardt, 1986)
1726
William Sutherland**
(((EB + DIH) * 3) / 5)*3
 
 
 
 
(Marquardt, 1986), (Sutherland, 1726)
1735
James Love
((K + EB) * 2) / 3
 
 
 
 
(Marquardt, 1986), (Love, 1705)
1737
Blaise Ollivier
EB*BMF
 
 
2.33
-------------
(Ollivier, 1737)
1745
Establishment
EB*BMF
55.479 
55'7 3/4"
 
2.28
-------------
(Lees, 1979)
1752
Duhamel Monceau 1
EB*BMF
 
 
2.5
-------------
(Marquardt, 1986), (Monceau, 1752)
1752
Duhamel Monceau 2
(EB*2) + DIH
 
 
 
 
(Marquardt, 1986), (Monceau, 1752)
1756
William Mountaine
(K + EB) / 2
 
 
 
 
(Marquardt, 1986),(Mountaine, 1767)
1768
Chapman
EB*BMF
 
 
2.43
------------
(Marquardt, 1986)
1794
Steel
(RD + EB) / 2
55.083
55'1"
 
 
-------------
(Steel, 1794)
** EB+DIH in feet, multiply by 2 and then divide by 5 = length in yards. Multiply by 3 = feet and part.
------------------------
Hoping my calculations above are right, Dannys spreadsheet first entry for a sloop is 1794, and his calculations came out as 55' 7" to 3 decimal places, 55' 6" to 2 decimals for the inches part as input.
Looks like the 1745 Establishment is used up to at least that date in the spreadsheet, as per Lees. Steels dimensions come out smaller.
 
I have the Lees and Marquardt books, Love, Monceau, Mountaine, Sutherland are available as Google books.
 
Dave - I think even an XP based laptop with Excel on it will run the spreadsheet.
BTW, a distant cousin of mine captained Diana in 1799!