michaelpsutton2

amazing

nice

The latest in the series by Rif Winfield and company has just been published. If you liked the others (and I did) you will like this one too. No need for a review because it's just like the others. A quality volume filled with plans and illustrations. I like all of these books because if the particular plan I am working with is missing some detail I can look at others and at least see what was common at the time. So... if you want the best reference for the French navy short of living across the street from the Musee de la Marine this is it.
 
 
US Naval Institute has it for cheaper than anywhere else that I could find if that's an issue.

amazing

If you peruse the plans on the NMM website, you will see that for some ships oar ports are not shown on the sheer plans but appear only on the inboard profiles

What frigate is shown in the pic above?

If you peruse the plans on the NMM website, you will see that for some ships oar ports are not shown on the sheer plans but appear only on the inboard profiles

What frigate is shown in the pic above?

If you peruse the plans on the NMM website, you will see that for some ships oar ports are not shown on the sheer plans but appear only on the inboard profiles

If you peruse the plans on the NMM website, you will see that for some ships oar ports are not shown on the sheer plans but appear only on the inboard profiles

What frigate is shown in the pic above?

Each generation was at least in theory an improvement on the previous. So in a strictly arbitrary sense the very last should have the benefit of past mistakes and be the best. The last generation of wooden , pure sail, warships were never presented with the opportunities to earn honors in the large scale fleet actions that their ancestors did. It would seem as the 19th century wore on, navies were more and more hesitant to risk their best (most expensive) ships in combat. The "fleets in being" served as a deterrent and spent thier lives either in ordinary or parading from port to port "showing the flag"

Each generation was at least in theory an improvement on the previous. So in a strictly arbitrary sense the very last should have the benefit of past mistakes and be the best. The last generation of wooden , pure sail, warships were never presented with the opportunities to earn honors in the large scale fleet actions that their ancestors did. It would seem as the 19th century wore on, navies were more and more hesitant to risk their best (most expensive) ships in combat. The "fleets in being" served as a deterrent and spent thier lives either in ordinary or parading from port to port "showing the flag"

Each generation was at least in theory an improvement on the previous. So in a strictly arbitrary sense the very last should have the benefit of past mistakes and be the best. The last generation of wooden , pure sail, warships were never presented with the opportunities to earn honors in the large scale fleet actions that their ancestors did. It would seem as the 19th century wore on, navies were more and more hesitant to risk their best (most expensive) ships in combat. The "fleets in being" served as a deterrent and spent thier lives either in ordinary or parading from port to port "showing the flag"

Each generation was at least in theory an improvement on the previous. So in a strictly arbitrary sense the very last should have the benefit of past mistakes and be the best. The last generation of wooden , pure sail, warships were never presented with the opportunities to earn honors in the large scale fleet actions that their ancestors did. It would seem as the 19th century wore on, navies were more and more hesitant to risk their best (most expensive) ships in combat. The "fleets in being" served as a deterrent and spent thier lives either in ordinary or parading from port to port "showing the flag"

Each generation was at least in theory an improvement on the previous. So in a strictly arbitrary sense the very last should have the benefit of past mistakes and be the best. The last generation of wooden , pure sail, warships were never presented with the opportunities to earn honors in the large scale fleet actions that their ancestors did. It would seem as the 19th century wore on, navies were more and more hesitant to risk their best (most expensive) ships in combat. The "fleets in being" served as a deterrent and spent thier lives either in ordinary or parading from port to port "showing the flag"

Hello all,
 
after building the Dragon, I'm starting now the blog about building the Tiger from 1747.
 
The Tiger was a 60 gunner after the 1745 establisment. Last year I ordered the plans for the 60 gunners of the 1745 establishment, but learned later that all the 6 ships, build after that plan, where all a little different. So I decided to build the Tiger and that, because it was the only plan that shows also the artwork of the ship. Interessting is also, that they moved the captains cabin sometimes down to the upper deck! There was more space.
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections.html#!csearch;searchTerm=Tiger_(1747) Here you could see the plans.
 
Then last fall I went to Chatham to see two models of 60 gunners, the Centurion and a unspecified ship (SLR0442 SLR0472). Both ships from the 1730s, but the models are made ca. 1745/47. They will be my reference for the Tiger.
 
And because I had build the Dragon already with frames, I decided to be lazy and build in the bulwark technique. So I started early this year with the hull and that he is.
 

 

 

 
 
 
But before I started with the hull, I made the figure head. Just to see if I could do it after pause for a year. 
 

 
And before the questions come, with what did you do the carving, here is most of it to see. Just with hand tools. To the right you see Leo the second.
 

 
And here is Leo III. From toe to crown hi is 9 cm high, in reality he was 4,5 m high  
 

 

 

 
Here Leo did a sit sample. The guy in the background it's me. 
 

 

 
The next steps would be to close the counter and then made the cannon ports. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I would include the jackyard even if it was not normally deployed carried without the sail. It speaks to the loftiness of the sail plans that this class of vessel was noted for. Many models include items of rigging that are associated with sails even when the sails are not represented, buntlines and brails to name bit a few.

I had a question with regards to the rigging of the fore t'gallant sheets on the Pride of Baltimore II. The sail is substantially shorter than the topsail yard and I did not understand how the sheets could lead to blocks at the yardarms. I emailed her captain, Miles I think, and rec'd a prompt and very informative reply. Capt Mile told me there are thimbles seized at the yardarms on long pendants that reach in to where the sail is.. The sheets lead through the thimbles down aft of the sails.  The t'gallant yard is hoisted with the sail already bent to it and set flying (no braces). The sail in never furled on the yard, instead the whole assembly is brought down on deck. This is why there are no pictures of her with the t'gallant yard unless the sail is set. Capt Miles said he in not an expert on how it happens. He just issues the command set the t'gallant and the crew takes care of it. More to your problem, the "Pride" also carries a jackyard on the main.
You could also try the crew of the Lynx that you pictured above.

I had a question with regards to the rigging of the fore t'gallant sheets on the Pride of Baltimore II. The sail is substantially shorter than the topsail yard and I did not understand how the sheets could lead to blocks at the yardarms. I emailed her captain, Miles I think, and rec'd a prompt and very informative reply. Capt Mile told me there are thimbles seized at the yardarms on long pendants that reach in to where the sail is.. The sheets lead through the thimbles down aft of the sails.  The t'gallant yard is hoisted with the sail already bent to it and set flying (no braces). The sail in never furled on the yard, instead the whole assembly is brought down on deck. This is why there are no pictures of her with the t'gallant yard unless the sail is set. Capt Miles said he in not an expert on how it happens. He just issues the command set the t'gallant and the crew takes care of it. More to your problem, the "Pride" also carries a jackyard on the main.
You could also try the crew of the Lynx that you pictured above.

I am fairly sure it was not permanently hoisted. There was a small block seized around the main topmast at the upper shoulder. A line was seized around the jackyard near the middle. It was led through the block and down to a pin on a spider band around the mast at the deck or a pin-rail in roughly the same spot. The yard would be hoisted with the sail already bent to it. When the line attached to the tack was tightened it would cause one end of the jackyard to come down parallel to the topmast and the other end would swing straight up above the truck. Most schooners of the type would carry both of the topsails shown by Gregory in his last post: a regular and a larger "kite" with a jackyard for light weather. Some large schooner yachts in the late 19th century had jackyards on the fore mast as well, but I have never that in either naval or merchant service.

I am fairly sure it was not permanently hoisted. There was a small block seized around the main topmast at the upper shoulder. A line was seized around the jackyard near the middle. It was led through the block and down to a pin on a spider band around the mast at the deck or a pin-rail in roughly the same spot. The yard would be hoisted with the sail already bent to it. When the line attached to the tack was tightened it would cause one end of the jackyard to come down parallel to the topmast and the other end would swing straight up above the truck. Most schooners of the type would carry both of the topsails shown by Gregory in his last post: a regular and a larger "kite" with a jackyard for light weather. Some large schooner yachts in the late 19th century had jackyards on the fore mast as well, but I have never that in either naval or merchant service.

I am fairly sure it was not permanently hoisted. There was a small block seized around the main topmast at the upper shoulder. A line was seized around the jackyard near the middle. It was led through the block and down to a pin on a spider band around the mast at the deck or a pin-rail in roughly the same spot. The yard would be hoisted with the sail already bent to it. When the line attached to the tack was tightened it would cause one end of the jackyard to come down parallel to the topmast and the other end would swing straight up above the truck. Most schooners of the type would carry both of the topsails shown by Gregory in his last post: a regular and a larger "kite" with a jackyard for light weather. Some large schooner yachts in the late 19th century had jackyards on the fore mast as well, but I have never that in either naval or merchant service.

I am fairly sure it was not permanently hoisted. There was a small block seized around the main topmast at the upper shoulder. A line was seized around the jackyard near the middle. It was led through the block and down to a pin on a spider band around the mast at the deck or a pin-rail in roughly the same spot. The yard would be hoisted with the sail already bent to it. When the line attached to the tack was tightened it would cause one end of the jackyard to come down parallel to the topmast and the other end would swing straight up above the truck. Most schooners of the type would carry both of the topsails shown by Gregory in his last post: a regular and a larger "kite" with a jackyard for light weather. Some large schooner yachts in the late 19th century had jackyards on the fore mast as well, but I have never that in either naval or merchant service.

Pretty much like the double but there would only be  a wheel at the foreward end of the barrel. Here is the wheel on the inboard works of the Seaford class sloop HMS Rose of 1757. Think similar but larger