bruce d

And a cheaper copy: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=goodwin&bi=0&bx=off&cm_sp=SearchF-_-Advtab1-_-Results&ds=30&recentlyadded=all&sortby=17&sts=t&tn=alert It is surprising how often booksellers leave words out of the titles when listing their items. I searched for 'Alert' & 'Goodwin' without the '1777' and sure enough, got two extra hits. Hope it is useful to you, Jorge.

!!!!!

Hello Forest and a warm welcome to MSW.

Ahhhhh.... When we speak I will ask if they have any suggestions about North America-friendly sources. I believe they import from NA so they may have some ideas.

I love these old hot-rods! Mind if I watch?

It looks like you are winning. Will you vac-form the superstructure?

I am speaking to them early next week and will ask. Concerning the castello prices, there are a few nice surprises if you compare the different thicknesses. My 13mm thick piece of castello was less than 20% more than the 6mm equivalent.

Christian, I am enjoying your progress. Is that De Gaulle in command?

Since the subject is up, I have a question. What provisions did the smaller ships have? Would HM schooners and other vessels with crews of 30 to 50 have had such luxuries or should I be making a few extra buckets?

Hi Mark, A UK source, and all I can say is the service is brilliant. https://shop.exotichardwoods.co.uk/boxwoods.html I ordered from them yesterday online after phoning to discuss stock. When viewing online, if the item has an 'add to basket' button, it is in stock. I have visited their wonderful shop in the past and didn't want to leave... HTH Bruce

Found this, It dates from the 1960's. https://aerofred.com/details.php?image_id=93530

There is a step in the hull of your boat that I don't see on the Italian hotrod. IIRC Model Boats magazine (and maybe Marine Modelling? ) published some hydro types back then as plans, maybe worth a look?

Hello Halfdan and a warm welcome to MSW. Both models look good and it is interesting to see what can be done with the MiniMamoli kit when it is treated seriously. Looking forward to your build log. Regards, Bruce

https://www.klueser.de/kit.php?index=5137&language=en Sadly, it appears no logs of Mousa survived, nor is she mentioned in damage reports. Small craft logbooks are rare in The National Archives UK because most were destroyed (without proper consultation from Records Branch) to free up shelf space in the 1950's. If she is mentioned in records it will probably be as a participant in events rather than as the main subject herself. Dean, perhaps you have already applied for your grandfather's service record? It will include not only the ships on which he served but under what command, flotilla etc. This may prove worthwhile because it can reveal involvement in historic events. HTH Bruce

Welcome from the UK, looking forward to seeing the Drakkar. Bruce

It is interesting to see what these guys... https://www.talkbass.com/threads/confused-about-glue.1329881/ ... have to say. The Luthiers Mercantile Yellow product first appears in post#9. I found their observations about the differences in sanding LMY and Titebond a real eye-opener. Also, I was unaware of just how much difference there is between Titebond products until reading this.

Dean, The blood chit is in good condition compared to many I have seen, They came in many forms depending on where they were needed. Here is one: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30081074 ... and judging from the number of languages on yours the user was expecteing to travel a lot!

What good pieces of history, you must be happy to know they are in safe hands. It is possible the 'GENOVA' in the text of the plans refers to the city of that name, but I don't speak Italian so someone else will have to comment on that. There was a ship named GENOVA but at a glance the dates don't line up: "Empire Swan Empire Swan was a 7,965 GRT cargo ship which was built by Merchant Shipbuilding Corp, Chester, Pennsylvania. Completed in June 1925 as Missourian for American Hawaiian Steamship Co. To MoWT in 1940 and renamed Empire Swan. Allocated in 1942 to the Belgian Government and renamed Belgian Freighter. Sold in 1946 to Compagnie Maritime Belge and renamed Capitaine Potie. Sold in 1948 to Compagnia Genovese di Navigazione a Vapore SA, Genoa and renamed Genova. Sold in 1955 to Compagnia Genovese di Armamento and renamed Flaminia. Now 8,791 GRT. Sold in 1963 to Compra Vendita Covena, Genoa. Sold in 1965 to Bakhashab Mohammed Abubakur, Saudi Arabia and renamed King Abdelaziz. Arrived on 23 April 1970 at Kaohsiung, Taiwan for scrapping. " HTH, Bruce

OK, I will tell you what I thought when I first saw the picture: it looks like one of the publications put out by museums to describe the exhibits. The second booklet in the picture has the same style. So, no, I do not know the book but ... look for museum publications about SS Great Britain to get you started. Have you tried a Google Image Search? HTH Bruce

Update: the replies above suggested that it was not common practice to clean the copper on a ship. I thought differently but had to admit I could not point to anything that confirmed the practice. Today I stumbled on an entry in the description of a document held at The National Archives UK which clears up the matter. Document ID: ADM 359/47C/72, dated August 13 1827 'Copy letter from the Sheerness Officers stating that it has been the general practice for the scrubbing of ships' bottoms to clean the copper to be carried out by the crews of the ships. Mr Abethell states that while he was a Foreman in Plymouth for 7-8 years, it was the invariable rule to have the copper cleaned by the ship's company. This was the case with the Prince Regent, the flagship of the Port Admiral when he docked here last August. Captain Horton said that when the Gloucester docked here in July 1825, no such requisition was made by Mr Lang, the then Master Shipwright.' The original is held by the National Maritime Museum and is included in the catalogue of The National Archives. Perhaps other navies had different views on the subject but this shows that the practice in England was to clean the copper. HTH Bruce

I know it rambled a bit but the answer is in post#22. Also, since then I have had confirmation of the practice. The turning point from tapered to straight planks being the norm is the introduction of (and gradual access to) advances in sawmills. A plank cut by hand using a sawpit does not have to be straight and may as well use the natural taper of the log, whereas a log run through a sawmill will have straight edges as the norm and be much quicker (= cheaper) to produce. So, after a shipyard installs an adequate sawmill, the bulk of the planking will be straight. Some yards mixed the two, perhaps under terms of a contract since change takes time. Of course joggling was still needed and generally followed traditional practice.

Hello Stu, I asked a question some time ago that addressed the same point: The subject was bigger than my original question. Hope it is helpful. Bruce

It has been an entertaining show and I am sure others have enjoyed it as much as I have. Add to the topic? I would never assume anything I stumble across is 'news' to you so … tell us what you are still looking for. Thanks, Bruce

I'm glad you raised the subject. It cleared up a little misunderstanding in my thinking. Bruce

It is very possible that we have been mixing our apples and oranges. I certainly have, because the English practice did not reflect the American rule quoted. The original question concerned an 1855 ship, HMCSS Victoria. Jaager's answer quoted text from an American rule of building from around that time. However, the illustration which first appeared in post#2 is from Goodwin's The Construction And Fitting Of English Men Of War 1650-1850, clearly a work on English ships. According to Langridge, Anatomy of Nelson's Ships, and David White Traditional Wooden Shipbuilding (pt 9), the illustration in post#2 from Goodwin's The Construction And Fitting Of English Men Of War 1650-1850 is correct. It is worth pointing out that all three of these works mentioned are based on original sources and not rehashhes of the work of others. I do not have access to their original sources but accept their findings. To quote White (Traditional Wooden Shipbuilding (pt 9) Model Shipwright 63, page 56): '...(the planks) should be worked to a three plank shift, which meant that there should be three whole planks between any two butts on the same beam. Second, the butts had to overlaunch or be shifted at least 6ft. That is to say the butts in any two adjacent planks should not be closer together than 6ft.' He illustrates his description with a drawing which I have recreated below. It shows two butts on adjacent rows of planks and they are 6 feet apart, hence they conform to the requirements. The '6ft overlaunch or shift’ is the rule that he cites, not the number of beams. He does not quote any rule at any point that I have yet found which requires a minimum number of beams between butts; to the contrary, he describes what to do when butts are on adjacent planks. He also tells in detail how to work around hatches, deck fittings etc but that is beyond the original question. So, if the ship is being built to English rules and the layout of the deck and the shift pattern calls for it , keep six or more scale feet between butts when on adjacent planks and you are ‘legit’, whether it is a three, four or five butt shift. It seems that the clarity of the American rule is admirable but does not reflect English practice. HTH Bruce