Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About garyshipwright

  • Birthday 06/22/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,630 profile views
  1. Hi Giampiero. Nice build sir. Looking good especially at the scale your building. Your Alfred doesn't look to bad either. Thank you for sharing with us. Gary
  2. Thanks Mark she is good looking. While going over the stern of her I noticed that the bottom out side windows are larger and thought, well wonder if the increase the width of the upper counter and after looking and comparing the two, the outside pieces are not as wide as what's on Alfred allowing them to build bigger windows. Some thing else I took a hard close look at was the framing of the two and it seems they was framed with the same framing plan which I think was the Alfred plan. I did find a couple of cast top timber's that was on Montagu but this framing plan is when she had a large re
  3. Your very welcome Mark. You are right and there isn't any pillars that will interfere with the tiller but there is one that goes between the end of the tiller and the beam on the back side of the mizzen mast. I just got done looking at the Dragon/Bellona Profile inboard works, you should be able to fit one more pillar under the beam were the tiller ends.I have the same set up with one behind the mizzen mast itself. The one forward of the forward bit can sat on top of the gun deck beam and because it goes underneith and hold's up the stove carling it will not be right underneith the upper dec
  4. Well I am not sure if I should put the photo's here or at the beginning and probably just do both. Just to give you some info on the plans Montagu was built at Chatham launch and copper in 1779. Some of the plans show her Large repair in 1803 so figuring out how she was framed and planked when she was built.For some reason some of the photos turn them self's up side down and if one of the mod's can help me fix that I would be most thankful Gary
  5. Hi Christian. If you go to the first page of the log, maybe the second post I made, you should see what the decoration of her stern and bow. I will put up Montague photo's of her sheer for you as soon as I have a cup of coffee and wake up good sir. If you want I can also PM them to you along with putting them up on the log. Gary
  6. Hi Mark. If you go to page one in the log I put Montague history there for other's to read and probably need to add Montague plans there. I did add photo's of her stern and bow. If your interested in what the rest of her looked like let me know and will put some of her full sheer plan up. Montague came after Alfred by a year and yes there was a major differences in the decoration. Both of them was built from the same water lines as far as what I have research on the plans them self. As far as the decoration goes, since I have not reach that point they should not be to hard to do, just have
  7. Mark if you look in Lavery book on the Bellona, on page 27 you will see the lower deck of the ajax of 1767 which shows the layout of the pillars. It does seem a couple of them are missing but you can tell because of the color difference of the wood in those spot's when you look at it. There is also a mid section of a 74 that shows 6 pillars, three per side around the capstain. I don't think that bigger ships with only a 3 foot difference would have called for a double row but a single role untill something like the capstan/pump handles, changed the setting of them. My understanding, and can'
  8. Mark here is a draught of the Glory of 98 guns showing what I believe is the way her pillars were laid out. On her gun deck and middle deck looks to have all her pillars and seems there is one on each side of the capstain on the fwd side. I know its not a 74 but at the moment its the best I can find. Hope it help's. I also added one of the 64 gun ship Standard. Gary
  9. I remember those days accept we had to do it on a chalk board. Well I did get some play time in with my boats. 😊
  10. Alan you forgot one, helmport. 😊😁😁😊. But it does make sense when you go looking up the term rudder hole which you can't find. Ok I go play with my toy boats now, in the bath tub 🤗
  11. Hi Mark. After looking at your knees lay out at the last couple of beams of the upper deck I found out that fitting hanging knees in the last 3 or 4 beams that it was not possible for me and it was because of the knees that fit the helm port and wing transom. They are big knees which stuck out from the side, and would have may it just a little on the hard side fitting hanging knee's. It made of been the way I fitted them but can think of no other reason why Hector plan show's them that way. When you look at the plan of the Hector you will noticed that they used double lodging knees betwee
  12. Hi Mark. I just checked some of the contracts I have and the one in 1755 gives the Hanging knee arm against the beam as 3 feet 7 inches long and the Lodging knee arm against the beam as 4 feet long. The contract of 1763 says the same thing accept the hanging knee arm is a inch shorter. They also say that the lower end of the hanging knee has to run down at least 6 inches past the upper edge of the spirketting. This is what am using as a base line for making mine on Alfred upper deck and doesn't seem to have changed much up to Steel's time and looks like it increased in only a inch or two.
  • Create New...