garyshipwright

Mike, Dremel makes a 90 degree attachment for their motor tool and cost is about 30 dollars. They also make a shaft tool that also has a 90 degree attachment but am not sure the cost on that one. I own the motor tool attachment and comes in handy for drilling hole's on the in side of the hull and comes in real handy for drilling all of those holes. Are the straight most of the time no but that's ok, like somebody side they wasn't straight in real life either. Gary

Hi Alex and Mark. Alex your right sir and it is drawn in, being a much later time frame with a few other alteration going on. Mark I wouldn't change a thing sir. When I was going through more plans, I noticed that more was of the type with the stemson going all the way up to the bottom of the upper deck breast hook and no standard, which I believe was the norm untill much later. I did see a couple , later time period that show a standard, with the stemson going all the way up to the bottom of the upper deck breast hook but when you blow them up it looks as if someone had erased the stemson from the upper deck breast hook down to the bottom of the gun deck breast hook, which tell's me you had one or the other but not both. That is untill some one comes up with some thing that says difference. Merry Christmas guys.

Well Mark it may not be the right time frame but, a few years later then Bellona one does show up. Merry Christmas sir.

Hi Alex. Have to agree with you and went through a few plans and saw the same thing. In the contracts, found a couple that said the stemson went all the way up to the upper deck breast hook and others said it stopped at the gun deck breast hook. Some make no mention of the standard at the stemson and others do. it seems to comes down to what your plans might show and how that person may want to do it. Alan has the contract of that ship and plans that shows how this was done and his plan shows the stemson which doesn't go all the way up, which seem to be a commen thing on weither the standard was installed or not. In my cause Alfred shows the standard at the apron with the stemson stopping at the gun deck breast hook, but her sister ship the Montague shows the stemson going all the way up to the upper deck breast hook and no standard. Mark forgive me for taken up space in you log but hopfully the infor will help others. Well back to researching. Gary

Mark you could be right and may not of had one in Bellona time but will see what else I can come up with. Things did change through out those years and what happen in Montague time and Bellona time were different. Well Mark seems after a couple of hour's, searching seems to have turn up that looks like she may not had a standard at the stem. As you said one has to be aware of the time frame. Gary

Thank you Mark. Am planning on installing the gundeck guns permanently, and then just work carefully around the barrels sticking out as I proceed. I just haven't found a better way. I did find plans that show the standard and others that had it drawn in. The plan of Alfred shows both the standard and the breast hook and another plan I found shows from above how this was put together. Am not sure what they called it but a metal strap across the front side to strengthen the standard and breast hook. Goodwin is a good source but I try to go beyond what he gives us and look for primary stuff that back's up what Goodwin is showing us. Some times I have good luck at finding what am looking for and no luck at all on other things, such as a finding the layout of the scuppers. Reading contracts is a big item for me which helps me in building MontagueI. I upload some photo's showing a little jig that help's me mount the front trucks of the gun's to the deck, by aligning up the pegs in the front trucks with the drilled holes in the deck. Like you knocking them loose is a big thing if they are not well secured. Should give you a ideal or two to help you. Am also adding the rigging for the port lid's which would be a real head ack if I waited to install them after the beams are in place.

Mark I was looking at your last set of photo's and noticed some thing. Was wondering where the standand at the bow against the stem? Am sure they would have had one there. Just wondering good sir. Also you could make a gun platform to help you rig the cannons. Here is what I use to help me get the breach and tackles just right

Merry Christmas every one and may 2021 be a much better year for us all. Happy New year to you, and I do hope you all receive some thing nice from Santa.

Hi Alex. I have gone through your log at least 3 to 4 times and must say your building is as outstanding as the plans your drawing up. I am really enjoying you Anson plans and have finally answer to some question that I have long sought for a answer. Thank you again. I only have a couple of question. Do you by chance have any construction photo's of how you made the scuppers you installed and what material they were made of? If the crew here want a outstanding set of plan's for a 64 gun ship, getting Alex plan is a outstanding investment. Thanks again Alex, look forward to your next update. Gary

Hi Alan. If you look in Goodwin's book Sailing Man of War on page 108 he says you can see a contract in Deane's Doctrine of Naval Architecture but call's them shoulders of two inch plank under them. This is a contract that was written for a 3rd rate of 1666-7 and is on page117 Am not sure when the name was changed from shoulder to sholes. I did find this in M Stalkartt Naval Architecture 1787 page 228 and says Sholes, Pieces of plank put under the shores where there are no groundways. Now when you get to 1805 in Steel books, such as Steel the Shipwright's vade-mecum 1805, page 151 he say's sholes, Pieces of oak or plank, placed under the soles of the standards, or under the heels of the shores, in docks or slips where there are no groundways, to enable them to sustain the weight required without sinking. Old hanging port lids are particularly suitable and useful for this purpose. He also gives the meaning for Sole page 152. A sort of lining to prevent wearing or tearing away the main part to which it may be attached; as the rudder, bilgeways. I also included a photo of the standard's showing the sholes attached on the lower deck Plate 8 from Steel's Naval Architecture. Also Mark if you read this, believe this is the plate that I used that shows the opening between the standard and the water way. I did look for this in the contract's but didn't find any thing in them. Well guess what guys the moment I said that, I found it in one of the contracts I have. My apology. Gary

Hi Mark. No sir I didn't pin them and when I get around to the upper deck I probably will pin them in place. The bolts were made from Amnesia by Sunset, a fishing line black in color and Ed used it in The Naiad Frigate. When I was laying out the holes I just eyed that part to get as close to even looking when you look at them.

Hi Alan. Am not sure and have not come across any thing that talks about rot, It would have helped with standing water and help preserve the bottom of the standard but I believe that Fincham points more to the strength of the joint. He says , the standards were of wood or iron , and in general bolted with nine bolts, four up and down, and five in and out, the up and down bolts were collar beaded, and driven from the upper part of the standard, and clenched upon the under side of the beam. In general, the toe bolt, when the standard was of wood, was driven through a plate that clasped it, as in the working of the top side there was a great tendency for the toe to separate from the deck, and frequently to split. The in and out bolts were driven from the outside, and clenched upon the standard. This come from the reprint Fincham's Ship Building by The ship Model society of Rhode Island 1933.

Hi Mark. the sholes goes on to the bottom of the standard. Here is what Fincham said. There were in general from nine to twelve standard on each side, fixed on pieces upon the deck, called a shole, from three to four inches in thickness. It was like the standard sat on the shole and then they sat down on the deck. They was just a plank that was 3 to 4 inch's thick that was attach to the bottom of the standard, length wise depended on the length of the bottom of the standard it self

Hi druxey and Mark don't forget the sholes/soles. It seems I forgot to add them. Ok I know but thats my story and am sticking to it. 😔

Mark am not sure where I found the information on that spacing and will look and see if I can find it. I think you might have to be the ship wright in this case and I added a photo so you can see what I did on the ones I made. I think this is a better photo showing the space then the one above.

Mark you may already know this the space between the standard's and the water way should be open so it wouldn't block the movement of water to the scuppers. I found out that fitting the back of the standards to the wall first and the bottom to be a good fit then I cut the outside profile. Just my way of doing them and also do the lodging and hanging knees the same way. She is look good to by the way and was wondering are you going to install bolts in them? Gary

Yes sir it is. In the book by William Sutherland in 1711. He says Fig D is a plan of the lower Gun deck, consisting of beams, Carlings, Ledges, Knees, Partners, Capstand,s, Cross pieces and bits. The Red in this plan is beams, the yellow, knees as arms to hold the knees and sides together, the green carlings, the blue is ledges and the bounding of the plan repressents the ships sides, out board plank yellow, the Timber black and the inside plank Green. Gary

Hi Gaetan and I would total agree with you and saying that it was between 1750 and 1760 is total wrong and probably over a period was larger.

Mark I am going to up loaded a photo of Sutherlands plan of the ship which shows this layout, that is as soon as my camera is charged. I think druxey hit the nail on the head, each shipwright some times had to make up his own mind to what was best for the ship he was building, and how precious timbers could be used in the building. When iron knees came in to use more am sure that many of the problems on placement of knees became a thing of the past. One thing that I find odd is that Steel and the Shipbuilder's Repository doesn't show or tell us about the direction of which side the hanging and lodging knees placement. Steel does show us them on the gun deck plate but are not shown on the upper deck plate. I find these things a little odd, but will continue to look for a answer. Sure would be nice to have that time machine right now. I did take a look at Stalkartt Naval Architecture 1787. Says the lodging knees are generally disposed on that side of the beam, which makes them the most without a square and the hanging knee placed clear of the ports and of standards on the deck below.

Thanks Mark and Mark. Just more question and answer good sir's. When the rule was made it was based on William Sutherland, Shipbuilding Unveiled 1717 and those passage can be seen in Peter Goodwin book Sailing man of war page 75, bottom right hand side. Thing is am not sure how many folks have read his book or the 1711 The Ship Builders assistant but if you have would love to hear your view points. When you look at the first page of the 1717 book it seems to reference the 1711 book. Now you wonder how am able to read the 1711 book being of its age but Jean Boudriot Publication in 1989 did a reprint of it and I just happen to pick up one for my young library. I also have a computer copy of the 1711, 1717, 1729, 1755, 1766, and the 1784 to help me research them. Now in Goodwin book on page 75 he says The hanging Knees are placed in the same position with the timbers, bolted both to beams and timbers for holding the beams to the sides. He goes on to say The beams ought to be placed one between and one under the ports of each deck, with this caution that the hanging knee may be placed clear of the ports and lodging knees abaft the beams forward and afore the beams abaft, for the benefit of making these knees as much greater than a square or as obtuse and angle as possible for the easiness of procuring them. Now what one doesn't read from Goodwin is in William Sutherland book which at one time was only a dream to own. In the book of 1711 page 36 at the bottom of page, he says, There ought to be always this special remark in spacing the beam of each deck, that the knees of each beam may be place clear of the ports, that you may not be put to the shift of using dagger knees, or those that are crooked, which are seldom strong, and more difficult to purchase than straight. Now on page 39 he says, The beams ought to be place one between and one under the ports of each deck, with this caution, that the hanging knee may be placed clear of the ports and the lodging knees abaft the beams forward, and afore the beams abaft, for the benefit of making those knees as much without a square, or as obtuse and angle as possible for the Easiness of obtaining them.

Your welcome Mark. You could put a hanging knee on the aft side which would ensure one hanging and one lodging knee. From looking at your drawing your sheave at the side is clear of the aft side of the beam so I am not sure why you just don't put the hanging knee there. As you can see on mine I also had a standard to deal with. Another item comes to mind is your sheave in the side or attached to the underside of the tiller sweep? Gary

Mark how come you just don't put in two lodging knees between 15 and 16? Here is a couple of photo's of Hector which may help. Good ideal of putting in a dagger knee, looks good. I do believe that having a hanging /lodging knee on the ends of the beam was probably the most important. Mark if you look at the second beam forward and its arm your noticed that between the arm and beam it has two hanging knees and a double set of lodging knee between beam 2 and 3 and has a missing lodging knee on the front of the arm. Wouldn't you have as much stress here from the fore mast as you would at the main mast? Sleep tight.

Hi Mark. No sir I have not seen the original other then the one in the AOS book. Looks like what I was saying earlier that the ship wright shifted the hanging and lodging knees forward and backwards depending on the best place ment for them much like what we are finding out on our build's. I did find a answer for my question on Hector and Vengeance of 1774. Fincham said that the lodging knees were on the aft side of the beam on the aft side of the middle line and on the forward side on the forward side of the beam. So it seems am going in the right direction after all. I did find the middle line is at the forward capstain. It does seem that the layout of the upper deck was just a bit more hectic.

Mark I do believe that the placement of the lodge knees and hanging knees was changed around the 1750/1760. I believe that you could go back to Charles second, of the way knee's were laid out. I have been looking at this and belive that the plans I show of the Vengeance and Hector is right and really didn't have any thing to do with were they were built. If you go back in Endsor book The Master Shipwright's secrets, to page 185 you will see that the beams of the gun deck and upper deck has the hanging knees shown as druxey said and the plan is of the Tyger 1681. Now if you jump to 1711, in William Sultherland on page 42 he shows what I believe is a plan of a 3 decker showing the placement of the hanging knee's aft on the aft beams and forward on the forward beams. Now if you move forward to Dorsetshire built I believe to the 1745 establishment on her upper deck it shows, the same. Now the plan of the arrogant of 1761 shows a change of were some hanging knees are on the forward side and some on the aft side. Now we get up to 1774 where Hector and Vengrance both come in to play. Both have the same set up and shows lodging knees on the aft side on the aft beam's and on the forward side of the forward beams which I believe is right and takes us all the way up to Fincham 1853. Now when you look at Reess Navy Architecture of 1819/1820 he shows on the gundeck plate 5 showing 21 hanging knees were on the aft side and 10 were on the fwd side. Steel 1805 shows in plate 5, 21hanging knees were on the aft side and 10 was on the fwd side. Now in Fincham book of 1853, Outline of shipbuilding, pg 46 gives us this. It doesn't give us the layout of the hanging knees but the lodging knees which is in line with the Hector and Vengrance plan. The lodging knee were placed on the after side of the beams before the middle and on the fore side abaft, that the knees might be obtuse angles with out a square for the ease of getting them and that they might be of less expense. They say the middle line which I believe in Hector case and Vengeance that the middle line was in aline with the forward capstain

Mark am still looking for this rule that says that they went on the aft side aft and the forward side forward. I brought this same thing up in my log about the placement of hanging knees and strength wise. Most deck plans don't show the knees but I have found with the help of other's a few plans that in fact show the placement and seems to show the hanging knee's on the fwd side. If you can mount them as you have shown then why would you use a cast knee when you could use a normal hanging knee. Was this rule so enforced that the ship wright was over ruled and used up timber that was hard to find. As druxey said If I were master shipwright I might be tempted to place 14A forward of the beam as well.... and total agree with him. i find on Montague/Alfred that I have ran in to the same problem that you have and probably will shift them to one side or the other but at the same time try to maintain the rule. On the other item using a contract of 1770 it say's to have four rings and two eye bolts to each port and two of the ring bolts to be placed in the second timber from the port , the ring to be 5 inch's in Dia and the eye bolts sufficiently open for the tackle hooks. It also said that there are two eye bolts over each port for lashing the guns. More to come