garyshipwright

Outstanding Mark. A real joy to wake up to seeing your masterpiece. Thank you for sharing her. Gary

Thanks Hubac's and druxey. Druxey I do have a book on the Barnard Dynasty c 1697-1851 writtern by John Barnard who traces the history of four generation of the Barnard Family of Ship builders and they built a lot of ships for the Royal Navy and doesn't really say any thing on the knee's, which I didn't think it would but the Hector was in the book. Am sure they had a good understanding of how they were to be built for them which as you said earlier was a experment or they approved it. Thanks again.

Druxey even through they left things out that was normal known, could things have been left out because they didn't know how to show it in the finally shape and its fitting was left up to the shipwright like the helm port transom which doesn't show on her upper deck plan like the one below?

Well to throw another monkey in the mix I found another one, the Vengeance built in 1774 also of the Royal Oak Class designed by Williams and built by Randall, Rotherhithe and shows the upper deck hanging knees, which most are on the forward side. I take it that she was also built in a merchant yard. Well this brings up more question for me. If the hanging knees are post to go a certain way, should this have been inforced by the inspectors or was this just over looked. Both ships were drawn up by Williams so if he drew them showing the knees which is right and which is wrong. Even more question and no time machine. Well I took another look about were Dorsetshire and she seems to have the same set up with hanging knees on the forward side of the aft beams . Well this gives one something to ponder.

Thanks every one and what if I said that when it came to the upper deck, if I said that depends. If one looks at the lay out of the gun deck of the Hampton court and the Dorsetshire it does in fact show on the gun deck that the beams on the forward side of the pumps, were on the forward side and the beams, aft of the pumps on the aft side, so you guys are right, they could have this lay out. When I installed the knee's on Montague gun deck this is how I installed them but on the upper deck it's not the same. Now when you get to the upper deck looking at the Dorsetshire of 1757 you will noticed that they don't follow that lay out of the gun deck but in fact are on the fwd side of the beams but Hampton Court does keep the gun deck lay out when it comes to the knees. If you look at the plan of the Dorsetshire on her upper gun deck 18 of the hanging knees were on the forward side of the beams and only 5 was on the aft per side. Now another plan that I have been using is the upper deck plan of the 74 gun ship Hector of 1774. This one shows that 21 hanging knees on the forward side and only 7 on the aft side per side. When I look at the layout of the lower deck gun ports and the upper deck beams lay out I find my self seeing that normal hanging knees would fit on the fwd side easier then on the aft side because of the gun port below it. Plans of the Dorsetshire and the Hector shows this wasn't always true that they were not always like Hampton court on the upper deck. Can anyone show me were this was written that this was done doing this time frame. Finding plans that show the placement of knees is rare, and makes it just a little hard but if you have one that shows this please show it and would be most grateful for adding to our knowledge. That why I asked would it matter on which side it was installed on for strength. Sorry if my question confused any one.

Hay guys have a two part question. On the hanging knees do we know what side those would be on such as on the aft side of the beam or the forward side? Also for strength wise would it matter if it was on the fwd side or aft side? Cast hanging knee's depending on the placement could take on a large curve in order to miss blocking gun ports adding on to the amount and size of the timber itself? Your thoughts on the question would be most grateful. Thanks in advance. Gary

Hi Richard. I would go with Greg's 6 inches, and on Montague a 74 gun ship she has 6 1/2 inches thick at the top. On another note your build looks very good and will be watching you bring her to life. Just a ideal but you could scrap the insides which would keep down the dust. Gary

My Wife also asked me that same question and told her, for my family to have a very good Christmas and a cure for this bug. Happy thanksgiven guys

Thanks Mark and druxey your comments help keep me going, of course I have to thank the Swan guys, Greg and David and their books for showing me some ideals that really help make the job a whole lot easier, such as how Greg would take a over size piece, get the joint to fit first and then cut out the rest of the item. Gives one lots of wiggle room. I take a over size piece and fit it to the wall and then cut out the front curve shape along with the upper edge of knee against the beam it self. Greg shows the stem and dead wood in vol 3, page 18 and 20. Another thing to some that's not sure is take a piece of card file to fit the space. Put rubber cement on the open side and then clip it in place and the shape can then be filled in with small pieces to get the shape of that area. Once again thank you.

Hi Guys. Have a question about the messenger rollers time frame when they were used. According to Peter Goodwin, The Sailing Man of War, page 156, he says that they came in 1790/1792. Does any one know if they was in use earlier then this? She was broken up in 1818 so adding them as I show her would that be to much of a reach being they didn't come out till 10 years later? Also how did the messenger round the coner in the manger it self or was it helped along by the crew to do this taken away hands from the capstan? I know it was three question but curious minds are wondering. I know it would be nice to have a time machine, but your thought's would be greatly appreciate. Thanks. Gary

Siggi one of the contract's I have, time frame wise ,1770 and also used in 1775 says that the gun deck and upper deck had 11 per side. I looked for the number of standard's in a couple of books, for your time frame but could not find the number, other then the number of them in your post. My reason for the question was if there is only two standards on the gun deck per side where would that placement be. Maybe as you said in the middle of the deck. It does say the iron ones on the upper deck were place under the forecastle and quarter deck but still doesn't say where. I added a picture showing the ones on my gun deck. It may come down to, she didn't have many, just what the establishments said. Siggi I was able to go back, contract wise to 1755 to the 74 gun ship Warspite and it said that there was 13 standards per side on the Gun/Upper deck. Then I went forward to 1763 to the Marlborough and seems to have been reduced down to 11per side per deck. I wonder if any one has contracts that takes us back even further. Sort of like a time machine. Ggary

Hi Siggi. Question, does it say where these standards are located? I am looking for a answer but so far have not come up with a answer for you. Will be back? Gary

Thanks Richard, I take a second look and you just may be right if I can mill out those holes and doesn't make it weak. Gary

Hi Roger. Thats what we were talking about in the above post and the chuck would have to be able to overset the center of it up to a 1/4 inch. Thank you for you post. Gary

Mark I seen photo's or model's, not sure which one but it shows the pillars as having hinges at the top so they could be pushed up out of the way for working the capstan, but as druxey said they may of just been moved out of the way for working things. Gary

Hi Richard and no I haven't given those much thought and do have the small OJT chuck with the adjustable back. From reading the description and specifications on their site it lead's me to believe it only very small movement's for centering very small drill bits. Gary

Hi Alan. Not speaking for Karl but the photo you show of the gun is the English way of rigging the breech and if you look in Boudriot 74 gun ship vol 2 it shows the breeching as Karl shows it.

That's ok Richard and thank you for the help. That's what counts. i also had to buy a new lever collet closer Riser so in the long run I just may have to purchase 1291 along with those other items, that is if I can get my request approved. It does seem when you change one thing, you have to change 30 more items. 🥺Gary

Thanks Richard but I need to raise the tailstock. The one I purchased is 1294. If I use item 1291, riser block, then I would have to buy a lot more of the items on your page which would raise the cost over all and don't believe the ladyship will approved the request. I already have Tool post along with other item's and purchasing tall one's would be just a waste of money. Cheaper in the long run just to raise the tail stock end, if I can figure out how. Might have to modify the tail stock it self. Thanks again. Gary.

Thanks Richards I saw that one but its to tall. The head stock riser that am getting only raising the head stock a 1/4 of a inch from what I can tell and the one you mention I believe raise's the head stock a little over a inch. The 8 inch table is 7/8 of a inch thick and the 6 inch cross slide table is 5/8 thick. Thank you. Gary

Hay guys have question for you and hoping maybe some one has a answer on it. On my Sherline lathe I am adding a 8 inch cross slide table to it but have to get a riser block for the headstock but my question is what about the tailstock? If I raise the headstock it seem's that I also need to raise the tail stock the same amount but have not seen any thing about Sherling making a riser block for that. Do you know what others do to raise the tail stock so the centers are right and even with each other? I can't see changing the 8 inch out to the 6 inch when I need to use the tail stock and we like to leave it set up with the 8 inch table permanently. All ideals and thought's are much needed. Thanks. Gary

Your very welcome John. As far as cutting the holes out, I would of done the same thing. Gary

John to answer your question on are deck cutouts needed. The answer is it depends. Is there some thing to see or is it a black hole underneith. What it comes down to is some times it's what the ship wright wants to do. Being that you are the shipwright of your vessel it is what every you want to do. It would be easier if you planked the subpanel and then cut out the holes if there isn't any thing to see and if there is then you might want to open it up. It goes along with me building a tank and installing all of the parts in side of it and once all the parts have been installed on goes the cover and you then can't see anything that you installed, which is ok and covering it all up was always a toss up, Do I or don't I. Much like putting a B17 together and not seeing what's on the inside. Most of the time it's just what the builder wants and nothing more. Another saying is its the journey, not the finish line. Hope this of some help. Gary

John please don't feel Intimidated, we all started out very much like your self, and probably felt the same when I would ask those very same question on some ones build that to me had been doing this for a very long time. Others here have already answered some of your points but if you have any question hope over to my log and will be happy to help any way I can, not only your self but other's. Gary

Hi Alan. When I was building my frames up for Alfred/Montagu I made all the pieces of that frame a little over size because of the parts being off set. Am not sure if you have a mill but I milled the pieces that were needed to be reduced in thickness, much as you show above, which had spacer's some times underneith to help keep every thing level. Those spacer's were glue to one side or the other with rubber cement and once ever thing was milled they could be removed and the cement rubbed off. I increased the size of my table by clamping a piece of temper glass to support the whole frame. Cast timber's were made thicker and then milled down with the help of thicker spacer's. You can see the cast timber in the last photo label number 5 at the top.