bruce d

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

One picture, thousand words etc. If I am reading this wrong, PLEASE straighten me out.

That is the part. I have now looked at a few examples and wonder (as mentioned in post#12 above) if it was (A) an American rule and (B) ... … is not something I have used but does the '1870' indicate a different date and practice? I don't know the answer but someone does. If there is an error in Longridge's Anatomy of Nelson's Ships we should nail it down.

… and then I thought again. Were the rules for the English ships the same? Jaager has cited the American rule.

Sketch 2, row 1 and 2, from the top: Right hand side, the butts are one beam apart. I have looked at the original in Anatomy of Nelson's Ships countless times and didn't see it even when I was writing my 'program notes' for the deck I am laying out. Whether I would or would not have picked it up when cutting holly, who knows? All I can say is 'better late than never'. Thanks Jaager.

Me too, but now I am alert I see another 'fail' in the second sketch in post#2: planks 1 and 2, right hand side, also incorrectly spaced.

Ahhhh. Got it. I must have looked at that a dozen times, thanks.

Okay, maybe I am being thick. How does it fail? There are three planks between the butts and three beams betwen the butts: what am I missing?

Welcome to MSW and let me add my compliments. That is a good looking ship.

Kevin, well done. Untill I watched I didn't 'get' the decision to use a master with grooves cut in, or for that matter how to make the grooves. Now I get it and clearly it is a good way to produce identical boats. A couple of questions, if you don't mind. (They will not make sense to anyone who hasn't watched the video) Once the ribs/frames were in place, you sanded them down. I get that and of course this was possible because the ribs were supported in the grooves in which they were sitting, but still I wonder how you went about the sanding without overstressing the already small pieces. Hand held sanding block? Rotary tool? The PVA release agent looks like a good find, well done English (see the video to decipher that message). If I am hearing your dialogue correctly you say that it left a residue: is that correct? Does the residue peel off or does it perhaps soak in to the wood which may affect later finishes? Thanks for taking the time to produce the videos. Bruce

Found this; La Belle.pdf LA BELLE: RIGGING IN THE DAYS OF THE SPRITSAIL TOPMAST, A RECONSTRUCTION OF A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY SHIP’S RIG A Thesis by CATHARINE LEIGH INBODY CORDER - La Belle was a late 17c French vessel that was described as a barque or 'small figate'. Many artifacts illustrated and direct comparisons with the practices of other countries. Should be useful if considering a subject from 17th-18th centuries. HTH Bruce

Nice work. There is a dredger drawing in this PDF, page 214 (page numbers are reacting oddly, it is magazine page 180 something). canadian ship marine engineering p 214.pdf

Happy birthday, Kevin! Many happy returns of the day! The boat looks good, show us the cake.

1874 publication 'Code of yachting signals'by the New York Yacht Club, title says it all. Hope it is useful to someone. Code of yachting signals - New York Yacht Club.pdf Bruce

Hello Neil, thank you and welcome to MSW. May I suggest posting as well in 'New Member Introductions'? https://modelshipworld.com/forum/3-new-member-introductions/ I am on my way to your website as soon as this is posted! Regards, Bruce

I will get erasers immediately, looks to be the perfect tool for the job. A kitchen chopping board, the food-grade plastic type, is ideal for slicing up into push sticks and featherboards for small work. I stole an expired one from the Admiral's stash and was so impressed I bought a new one (£1) on the next trip to Ikea.

Very nice work on the buckets. That lathe looks like an MD65: I knew they were bulletproof, now it seems waterproof as well.

And on wood that will get a coat of poly, shellac, sealer or just about anything.

Hello Bartley, Not being a chemist, I must generalize quite a bit. A small amount of silicone completely ruined the finish on three projects underway in my old workplace quite a few years back. Someone had a trace on their hands (left hand from the evidence) and three of the four items we were sweating blood to get ready before a deadline had reactions when painted leaving finger and palm patterns where they had been handled. Besides the commercial crisis because of the need for the whole team to pull two all-nighters in a row to put right the damage there was considerable human fall-out. The likely source was a can of spray lube for a garage-type door that had just been bought. We had a ceremonial can-burning, Wicker Man style. A friend in electronics then told me his own version of the problem and introduced me to 'silicone nodule migration' (yes, it is a thing). Hence the NO SILICONE rule when I started putting together my workshop a few years ago in anticipation of woodwork and modelmaking. I know most people use it and don't have a problem, but any silicone-bearing product in our little corner of heaven has to stay in the house, not the important area where I fiddle around.

I would have thought the different rig would be a good enough reason. Perhaps when it is possible you could post pictures of the two for comparison, I expect some people will ooohh and aaaahh at different features.