garyshipwright

Hi Siggi. I saw that sir but it seems to only talk about that part of the deck behind the step it self. Behind the step on the upper deck was the fore mast partner which was the heavy type and at the gun deck you had the standard from the bit pins and in front of the step the standard from the stem to help strength the front of it on the forward side. Thing is it doesn't say any thing about in front of the step at the upper deck. I do think that those carlings that I have installed on Montague may of been supported by the messenger roller's. Goodwin shows them on page 178 and gives a time line of 1790 which is 10 years after Montagea, so could she have had them in her time, and am leaning to the side of she did. Hoping some one will set me straight on this one. I did find some thing on a Victory plan in Arthur Bugler book vol 2, which is the plans that show some thing around the bowsprit but at the moment unsure of what that could be. Another one is what the Victory was post of looked like when she was built, One item to noticed is that the plan, I believe I got from the danish museum, doesn't show her as having the small beakhead platform but just the upper deck planking going from the inside to the out side., and that one is for another day. Thank you Siggi and others for their in put and would of been a lot less fun with out those inputs.

Thank Alan and Mark. Alan I did the same I had some pictures of the walk through and as you say they are awol. Maybe some one some were has a set of those area's. Mark those delicate little diagonal pieces may have been installed to help support the heavy partner planking. My reason is that the hole in this was cut in a circle and you problem had the end of some of the planks sitting on those pieces. At the moment Mark am looking for answer's to you question but its a little on the slow side. Has far as the forward part of this opening I have to agree with Siggi and the most forward part of the hole is underneath the collar beam and my earlier build shows what and how this may of looked under the collar beam that I showed in a early photo. Plans show that beam, but not the stanchions. Mark you show pillars underneath the forecastle beams is there a plan that shows this? So far I have not found any thing that says there was but will look at a couple of items that may agree with that. Mark I looked at a couple of contract's that talk about pillars underneath the quarter deck and forecastle but as far as the forecastle it only mention iron ones around the stove. Gary

Hi Alan and Mark. fore give me guys am still trying to come up with answer for your post but in the mean time does any one have any photos showing the space under neith and on top of the upper deck of the Victory were the bowsprit comes through the deck and also were it come out of the small deck of the beakhead deck? Am trying to figure out how the space around and below was filled in. I know that it is a different time for how Victory is done today but it may help give me clues as to how just maybe it was done then. Thank you and will be back to answer on the upper post. Gary

Thank you druxey. Hi Alan and your very welcome, and I would have to say yes to the question.

Alan here is a couple of photo's of the partner on the gun deck for the main mast showing it's construction. Hope you enjoy the photo's. Also i don't think the lighter partners could be moved and once installed could not be adjusted,like the heavy partner's. Gary

Hi Alan. Your right sir all decks had partners but there is a difference in those partners. If you look in vol 1 of the Swan, pg 259, 264 and 265 you will see the partners of the lower deck's. If you go to vol 2, page 60, 61,62,63,64, and page 65 you will see that those partners are of a heavy type and not all decks had this type. The mizen mast partners on the upper deck was just a heavy type of of planking rabbet together to make up the mast partner. Your right and all deck's had partners but there is a difference in what type was used on what deck. I have some photo's of alfred deck plan and you will see the difference of the heavy type of mast partner and the type that was just a heavier type of planking. I agree also that the rake was set depending on what the Captain wanted and how he wanted her to sail. If you look at vol 1 page 199, 200 and 201 , on page 199, you can see that the step could be moved forward or backward depending on what the Captain wanted. On page 200 he does say that in larger ships the foremast was moveable and when you look up the French 74 you will be able to see how this was done. On a 74 English the step was installed most of the time between two breast hooks and by moving wedges on either side could be moved forward or backwards to the whim of the Captain. The mizzen on larger ships such as 74, the mizzen mast step could have been on the orlop deck the, keel and the only way to know was to research those items. Was it adjustable on that I don't believe it was but have been wrong before. Forgive me for not being more precise on the difference of the two type's of partners, and the heavy type is the one I was talking about. Here are some Photos of Alfred's gun deck and upper deck and quarter deck and forcastle. deck. You will noticed that on Alfred gun deck at the main mast you will see the heavy type but when you go up to the upper deck you will see a lighter partner. Same thing at the fore mast accept this time the heavy type is on the upper deck and a lighter one is on the gun deck. Some times the one on the gun deck looks like a heavy one but contracts don't say this. If it looked like the upper deck main mast then to me it would have been a lighter one. Maybe it had a lot more pressure then what the other mast had. You will also noticed that the mizzen mast partner is just a hole in the deck. Was the mast wedge at each deck am sure they were, but am not sure if they installed the rain coat on each deck or just the one's open to the weather. Alan i laid out the photo's so they would I hope make sense. The first of three are of alfreds upper gun deck going from the stern to the bow. The next set is the gun deck going from the bow to the stern. The next set is the Hector upper deck going from the stern to the bow and finally the last three is of the fore castle, quarter deck main mast and finally the quarter deck. The should show you the difference on Alfred's heavy partner and light partner. I don't have Victory deck lay out so am not sure how they was laid out but being she was a first rate she probably had two per mast but that is just a guess. My apology for making it confusing. If you want some of other deck,s from other ships I will be more then happy to upload them here for you. It was the misses fault alan, she made me take her to the store and didn't have time to properly answer your question and thats my story and am sticking to it.😁

The short answer Alan is no. The main mast partner is on the gun deck and the foremast is on the upper deck. the mizzen mast doesn't really have a partner like the other two, more of just a heavy set of planks around it. I have seen plans were there was some times two or they was installed on another deck, but most of the time the norm was just one each. On the two forward mast they were able to shifted the tilt of the mast forward or back ward due to the way the step was set up. I don't believe that the mizzen mast was set up the same way. Alan the misses wants me to take her to the store so when I get back I give you some more detail on them. As far as the bowsprit it seems she had a step then a collar beam/stations plus was clamped between the knight heads, along with binging heavly tied in place, plus some more rigging, so with all that I don't think it was going any place.Some times looking and researching is a pain in the butt. Gary

Siggi your english is good sir and understand every word you spoke. Shoot I can barely speak english much less another language. For some reason I think the green item might be a cover like a scuttle hole and the square behind it as the foot of the Fore topsail sheet bitts. If you look at the green item it shows dash lines on the sides that maybe saying it is a cover of some sort with the aft and forward piece being small ledges to help support it. Looking at the large carling I think they ran all the way over to the side of what am thinking is a cover and that the blue items are battens that run on top of the main carling. It shows them running all the way back to the front of the fore mast partner and up under neither the collums of the bulk head. Maybe battens that would level with the green hatch and a place for the planking to butt up against the side of it all being level with the planking it self. A scuttle here would keep people from falling down the rabbet hole. And one would then not be to worried about the planking part. The forward side of the hole would be filled with the bowsprit so don't think planking would be necessary and if nothing else a large cover that would be rabbit in to the carlings to cover the gap. . Just my thoughts folks and you input please. Alan i have to agree with you about the item in David's book but am thinking this would come in to play more around the bowsprit has it comes through the small beak head deck, to make the hole water tight. Thank you. Gary

Thanks druxey, Hubac's, Alan, Mark and Siggi. Every bit help guys. druxey I took a look at Longridge plate and your probably right there may of been some type of landing and will just have to work through it. Mark the framing of the beakhead that is in the photo's was version 1 of the frame work, which is gone and looks like the one with the stump bowsprit at the moment. Siggi thats a good one sir and it looks as if its a as built plan with the parts and pieces not all being symmetric. When looking forward at the middle of the beam arms you see the carling but unsure of how wide those carling's really are. Also any ideal of what the square's in the middle are? You can see were the ledges are installed on the outside of the middle carling but then what looks like another skinny carling is sitting on top of the bottom one. The smaller ledges sitting on top of the lower carling looks like what I have on Montuga. The bottom carling if I may call it that really looks very wide don't you think. I don't see the step for the bowsprit but that may just be the way am looking at it. Do you know what the two squares are that is sitting between the carlings. Best guess maybe. Thanks Siggi, do you have a sheer plan of this same place to look at. Was wondering if you can see how the side of the step for the bowsprit looked. Interesting plan Siggi and again thank you. it seems my knowledge is showing or maybe my lack of. Thanks again every one.

Alan here's a old one showing the crew goofing off. Gary

Hi Alan. I do think that they had what I think was at least a box like bracing around the vertical mast and called it a collar beams. , to have a collar beam afore at the heights of the ports, 11 inches square, kneed at each end with on substantial iron knee, bolted with six saucer headed bolts of 1 inch diameter, or have two stantions run down to a cant on the upper deck and half beams with a rabbitt for the plank of the beakhead, as shall be directed. Mark has a photo of the Bellona beak head that show those two stantions . do believe that had a hard time getting a collar beam and settled on the Stanction's. This is a earlier photo before I started the deck over and tore all of this out. Thanks Alan but I believe you are experienced modeller and thanks for all the help you do give me.

Hello every one. Need some thought's on this and maybe a little input. The carlings that was installed on the sides of the bow sprit on the upper deck, I believe to keep it locked in place from shifting side ways, maybe or just to support the ledges on the outside. Most plans don't t show nothing like ledges between them to support the planking. Come to think of it most plans don't show ledges at all, at least not any that I have looked at. Any ideal's? I drew up what I thought may of been there to support the deck planks around the bow sprint, but can not find any info on what was there. Am sure they filled in between with ledges, but just want some thought's on it. I looked in the swan books and a few more but unsure. Thanks in advance. Don't be to hard on my drawing and who knows maybe in my next life time I come back as Michelangelo😁

This is outstanding Alan and as druxey said look forward to seeing you getting back to working on her.

Hi Giampiero Your stove looks outstanding and the metal work to. Nice job sir. Gary

Ok thanks, O by the way you parked it behind my car in the drive way. Thanks. Gar

Thanks Hubac's that means a lot coming to some one with very red cheeks. You know am going to have to work even harder to come up to that bar that you have set high. Thank you again. Wonder were I can get a taller ladder. TAXI, Lowes please. 😭 Gary

She does have some nice detail druxey but some thing else I noticed is the hand pump which in front of the aft chain pump and goes up to the upper deck. Alfred didn't have that detail and read some of them had those hand pumps and others didn't. Since Alfred doesn't show this and Montuga does, does not mean that Alfred had one? Another one of those question that I have been looking for a answer, but yet to find one. Well seems that question on Montuga answer that but still very interested in a answer if there is one. Maybe a best guess. 😭 Gary

Outstanding Johann, it so nice to wake up seeing your outstanding work. Thank you Gary

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

Your welcome Christian, They are nice. Gary

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 rebuild in 1803, so not sure if they were there before or after. The plans are black and white so it makes it just a little on the hard side.

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 deck beam, but it will still support it. If you want I can send you a couple of plans but you can see the same thing going on with the Glory I did send you one plan of the Temple of 1757 that shows the same pillar setting in front of the end of the tiller..

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

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

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 to figure out what is what. if I was further along with the stern and bow I probably would not have done the change. I take some photos to show you the carvings .I have been using her plan's along with Alfred and it does seem that there are more detail plans of her then Alfred. Another thing is that Montague is rare compared to Alfred which also may of had some thing to do with the change. Also another thing that help my decision with the change was the Swan books were they build the class plan and by changing the carvings they came up with a different swan ship. There may be a few more things that might be different and will cross that path when I get to it. That good sir is my story and am sticking to it. 😊 Thank you for asking. Gary