el cid

Hi all,
Thanks again Edward for your kind words and, again, they are most appreciated.
Well, here are the final pictures, l have enjoyed making the Sherbourne and learnt plenty on the journey. I like to think l rectified the mistakes l made during my first build, the "Ballahoo" but l am afraid l still made plenty more during this build. I guess that is a fact of life.
Thank you all for looking in and encouraging me, for the likes and,  of course, for the invaluable advice l recieved from time to time.
Best wishes as always, 
The Lazy Saint. 

Lou,
Just like any other aircraft.. slow, steady movement on the controls.  If you're shaking from nervousness, that's normal.  I flew CH-34's and CH-53's on avionics test flights as "co-pilot" and a couple of real pilots taught me how so they could just sit back and watch the world go by.  Fun stuff......   I did the door gunner bit also but we got .50 cals. in the CH-53.  

I'm afraid I either wrote my last post wrong or it was not interpreted correctly OC.
 
I was NOT a pilot in Hueys or any other aircraft, fixed or rotary wing. That would have taken some semblance of intelligence, something I have always been rather short of. I sat in the right side doorway held onto an M-60 and said "Yes Sir" a lot. The closest I ever got to actually flying anything was when one of the pilots I knew pretty well asked me if I wanted to fly an OH-58 Kiowa and when I stupidly said I would love to, he gave me the controls for I think was only a few minutes. It seemed like several hours and I think I managed to make it go in every direction other than straight. I would not have been surprised if the pilot had told me I had been flying backwards! I KNOW I was going sideways at least once. I could probably have landed it, but I am not so certain anyone would walk away from it.
 
Years later I was doing some cross country flying with a friend in his Cessna 150. I did only slightly better. I pretty much kept it in a straight line and only changed altitude by 500 feet or so at a time. There is no doubt in my mind that if I even tried to land it there would be no survivors.
 
Having said that I have spent enough time in aircraft to know that there are pilots and there are PILOTS. It is not just a skill, done properly it is also an art form.
 
Sorry for the confusion.

Jim, I flew F-4Es from Eglin AFB, 58 TFS Gorillas. Flying air-superiority missions of Combat Air Patrol and Escort. Fun couple of years there.

A small story that happened in a big war
 
In 1943 these fell down from the sky (emty 0.50 casings).

They were large planes, where other small planes flew around... 

That's the story my mother always told.
My mother witnessed a fight between American B17s and German fighters. And the empty shells fell to the ground next to her.
All this happened above Sint Gillis (west of Antwerp). No plains were lost on that moment.
 
 

This magic trick allows you to tie a series of evenly spaced overhand knots on a line.  But you can do it the old fashioned way by just hand-tying individual knots. Headrig footropes are simply pairs of lines hanging down at such a height that a crewperson standing on them has the spar at navel hight. The two ends are hitched over the spar or tied to an eyebolt. They do need to be in pairs though, Port and Starboard. A single rope won’t sufice. 
 

Thanks as always for the comments and ideas Steven! The strakes were pre-cut, which is where those shapes come from. It did make things a lot easier in the long run though, I think. It’s just how to do the transition at the stem/stern from clinker to carvel which wasn’t immediately intuitive and took me awhile to understand.
 
The carved stem/stern in the original would have made it a lot easier! I definitely now understand, from a practical perspective, why they did things that way! The stealers mentioned in rgzm were actually carved in a similar fashion to the stems. They are beyond my capabilities at the moment! Here’s one of the two they found (from the Skuldelev book):

In the end I just went ahead and finished the planking. I then went back and just trimmed the strakes down to size, and sanded them into rough shape. This is the rear section. Looks alright! I’ll probably add some filler and maybe do a bit of sanding to make it merge in to the post a bit better.

I really love the overall shape of the hull. Reminds me a bit of your dromon Steven! In the discussion about this ship in the book, Crumlin-Pedersen and Olsen wonder if the norsemen serving in the byzantine empire brought back innovations. These ships with large length-to-beam ratios only started appearing in the 10th century. They may have been developed in the British Isles by the Anglo-Saxons, under Alfred the Great, during their conflicts with the Danes (according to Crumlin-Pedersen and Olsen). During the 9th century, Scandinavian ships tended to be shorter and wider with room for only about 30 rowers, like the Gokstad and Ladby ships. In fact, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of 896 states that King Alfred introduced a ship design “...almost twice as long as the others, some had sixty oars, some more; they were both swifter, steadier, and with more freeboard than the others; they were built neither after the Frisian design nor after the Danish, but as it seemed to himself that they could be most serviceable.” Alfred himself did spend time in the Mediterranean in his youth, so I wonder if he was familiar with the galleys and dromons in use at the time.

For particularly delicate or small features, I sometimes fabricate it as a larger piece and attach it to the model, then carefully trim, file, or sand it to final size/shape.
 
HTH,
 
Keith

I do not know anything about the number of shot lockers, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the ships mates (young lads - kids, really) were used to haul shot manually from the locker and delivering them to the required batteries: i.e.  Jimmy lad would go down into the shot locker, Wullie lad would lower a bag for Jimmy lad to fill, then Wullie lad would bring the bag to the appropriate gun and run back to get more shot from Jimmy lad.
I am assuming that something similar was done while loading the shot into the locker: rather than dumping them from height (particulalry for the first layer) they would be lowered for one lad to place them properly inside the locker.  Dropping them from a height would always result in damage to the floor, and since this is so close to the keel it would be very difficult (and hence expensive) to repair.
 
I would also think that shot for smaller guns and carronades would be stored into the hold, as such ammunition would be needed whenever they landed somewhere so it needs to be really accessible.
 
Looking forward to hear other thoughts on this.

Lull at Murmansk
There must have been periods between raids, but little rest for the cargo handlers.
W/C 15” X11”

USS Taurus (AF-25), formerly SS San Benito, was a refrigerated banana boat of the United Fruit Company that may have been the first merchant ship to be built with turbo-electric transmission. From October 1942 to December 1945 she was a United States Navy stores ship in the Pacific Ocean theatre of World War II.
W/C 9.5 X 7.5 inches 
Jim

'Twerking'
H.M. Armed Trawler King Sol exposes her prop in a drop of ruffers! 
Watercolour 10.5 X 7.5 inches
Jim
 

After adding the MACK, the rigging and the HF whip antennas this one is ready to go on the shelf. Time to get back to making sawdust on a wood model.

I'll be using Orange Hobby's USS Robert E. Peary 1/350 resin kit to build a model of my first ship, USS Kirk (FF-1087), a Knox - class frigate I served on 1979-81.

The kit comes with a boatload of PE ( more about that in the next post), a few machined metal parts and resin for the bulk of the model. The decal sheet has the name and hull #'s only for the Peary so I will use GMM decals.
There are 4 main resin pieces; upper and lower hull (in case you want to build a waterline model), the MACK (mast and stack structure), and the helo hanger.

I was not real happy with the fit of the upper and lower hull, given the price of this kit. I had to remove the moulding plugs from the upper hull but I left on the lower ones to provide more strength.
 
There were several areas where the lower hull was too wide or too narrow. I built up the narrow areas with strip plastic and then used Bondo's glazing putty where needed. It took a lot of sanding and several iterations of priming, puttying and sanding before things were shipshape. I forgot to take a photo before I started removing the "hurricane" bow bulwarks which were added to KIRK after my time onboard. You can still see some residual parts of it - it was very easy to remove with an X-acto knife.




 
I'll be assembling the MACK next, because as you will see it is the most complicated part of the build, and since the chances of getting replacement parts from a Chinese company are slim, it is also the most risky so if I end up having to trash the build at least I will find it out before investing a lot of time on the simpler parts.

This from page 42; it seems closing the gun ports between shots was situational, perhaps as a ship rolls or comes about in heavy seas?
 

Pages 52 - 54 describes securing and housing a gun, but I'm having a hard time visualizing exactly how the breeching, side tackles, and train tackle are used in the process.  Lots of new terms to decipher.  It does mention the use of two different types of wheel chock, which I don't recall ever seeing modeled.
 
Thanks again for posting this reference.
 
Cheers,
 
Keith 

This from page 42; it seems closing the gun ports between shots was situational, perhaps as a ship rolls or comes about in heavy seas?
 

This from page 42; it seems closing the gun ports between shots was situational, perhaps as a ship rolls or comes about in heavy seas?
 

Evening, 
On the couch, cold drink on the end table, Red Sox playing the Yankees at Fenway on the tube.
Thought I'd share an update. 
 
Gary,
I took a look at the tip you gave. Your right, It's a few steps before I get there, but I see what you mean.
With the wire it should give the piece some "backbone" and limit the twist.
I should be starting Yards soon.  
 
I started the Main TG/Royal Mast. 
I start by marking off certain features then start shaping.  

If you look at the plans, I mark the date of when I started a certain piece. 
Don't know why, Just do. 
But, Sadly, It's taken a year from when I started the Fore TG/Royal to when I started the Main TG/Royal.
Little bit of a snails pace here!!!!
 
Oh well, no rush.  

Generally start to cut in certain features, then continue to slowly shape/sand. 
Having no belt sander, lathe, or the like, It's all by hand. 

Always checking the fit with the Main Top Mast. 

She's still a bit rough, but will slowly smooth out into its final shape. 

I now have a full compliment of masts!
Little bit of a milestone in my head. 

The board for the masts should prove invaluable when I start rigging. 

Thanks for watching!
 
Tom E 
 
 
 

Great information! Though I am not convinced about the gun port being closed after each shot.  The port would have had to stay open to allow for the rammer, swab, and worm to be able to be inserted into the muzzle for loading the next round.
 
Regards,
 

I don't recall seeing the inhaul tackle modeled, while the outhauls seem to be almost mandatory these days.. 
If modelers feel such detail is important, why omit the inhaul?
 
I remember when just the breaching rope was considered a nice touch.

This is a rehash of much I have found on the forum and possibly some new information. I have seen discussion of how to model the rigging of carriage guns, with lots of speculation. I hope to condense this a bit here.
 
Here are some drawings of British and American gun tackle and breeching lines. The breeching lines are attached to ring bolts on the bulwarks and are attached to the cascobels at the rear of the cannon. In some cases they are wrapped around the cascobel as shown at the left. Sometimes they were attached with a cut splice that fit around the cascobel, as shown at the right.  Later guns had a breeching ring cast into the barrel above the cascobel, and the breecing line passed through it. The breeching line stopped the recoil of the gun when it was fired, preventing it from crashing about the deck. It was roughly 1/3 the diameter of the shot, and was long enough (3 times the length of the cannon bore) to allow the cannon to move about a foot or two inboard of the bulwark to give the gun crew room to swab and load the cannon. There were very specific methods of attaching the breeching lines to the bulwark ring bolts, normally using seizing of small line wrapped around the breeching line.
 


 
The gun tackle (outhaul tackle) hooked to a ring bolt on the bulwark, and hooked to a ring bolt on the gun carriage. The gun tackle was used to haul the gun out to the battery (firing) position after it was loaded. This tackle for larger guns consisted of a single block hooked to the gun carriage and a double block hooked to the bulwark. Smaller guns might just use two single blocks. A "loose end" (pun intended) in the descriptions of the gun tackle is what to do with the falls (loose ends) of the tackle? The line leading from the block attached to the bulwark had to be long enough for the gun crew to grab. Then when the gun was hauled to battery and the blocks came together, more line, 3-4 times the longest distance between the blocks when the gun was in the loading position, was pulled out of the tackle - that is a lot of line. Typically drawings just show the falls going off somewhere. What did they do with all of that line?
 

I have seen four variations for dealing with the gun tackle falls. The picture on the left above shows the loose ends "frapped" (wrapped) around the tackle. However, most of the falls was taken up by looping it a few times through the rings on the hooks at the bulwark and gun carriage, with the remaining part frapped around the bundle of lines. This would have been used to secure the guns when they weren't being used, in port or at sea. Note the breeching loop cast into the rear of the cannon.
 
The picture right above shows the end of the falls "Flemished" in a tight spiral on the deck. Many models use this method because it is a simple way to deal with the loose ends. However, on real ships this was done for show only, during inspections or ship visiting days. There is no way this would have been used at sea! The loose ropes would be scattered all over the deck, and this was not good!
 

 
Another way to secure the gun tackle loose ends that I have seen was to belay the line around cleats or belaying pins on the bulwarks. This would be a "ready stowage" solution to keep the ropes from flopping around the decks and getting tangled while approaching a battle. But it could also be used when the guns were secured. Another method was to just roll the line into a lose coil and place it on the deck near the bulwark block. Again, this would have been a temporary stowage while preparing for battle.
 
In battle the falls would have been pulled taut straight back from the block along side the cannon by the side tacklemen, and perhaps faked down on deck for long falls. When the gun was fired the line ran cleanly through the block - the tackle absorbed some of the recoil momentum. Note: Not everyone is happy with this explanation - see the references below to support my reasoning.
 
****
 
The training tackle (inhaul tackle)  was similar to the gun tackle. It hooked to a ring bolt at the rear of the gun carriage and to another ring bolt mounted in the deck some distance behind the gun.  The training tackle was used to haul the gun back inboard to the loading position. Some ships used a single training tackle, others used two training tackles (only the heaviest guns >= 36 pounders had two training tackles), and you often see pictures and drawings where no training tackle is used. What did they do with the training tackle when it wasn't being used? Apparently it was stowed with all the other gun handling gear, often on the bulwarks between the guns, at least while they were preparing for battle. When the guns were secured all the loose paraphernalia was probably stowed below.
 

 
This drawing shows a Continental (French, Dutch, etc.) style gun. First note that the breeching line passes through a hole in the gun carriage, and it does not attach to the cannon. It serves the same function, to stop the recoil, and it must be long enough to allow the gun to move inboard at least 1/3 meter for loading.
 
The drawing shows the gun in a stowed position with the end of the barrel raised (with the quoin removed) and pulled tightly against the top of the inside of the gun port. This was common in all navies, but there were probably as many variations as there were ships. The tackle was used to draw the gun tight against the bulwark, and lines were frapped to take up slack. Chocks were also used to secure the gun. The last thing you wanted was a loose cannon rolling around the decks in heavy seas!
 
 
 
The answers to many of these questions are found in Ordnance Instructions for the Unites States Navy (1860) which can be downloaded here:
 
https://archive.org/details/ordnanceinstruc00ordngoog
 
Gun and train tackles were not removed before the gun was fired (pages 45 -47)! Up to the Ready/Fire commands the side tacklemen held the falls taut. At the command "fire!" side tacklemen dropped the tackle and falls and let them run to slow the recoil. The train tacklemen pulled on the falls to take up the slack as the gun recoiled, and then held the gun until it was loaded. However, the train tackle could be unhooked before firing in calm seas and then attached after recoil.
 
Note: The text describes when the gun tackles are hooked to the bulkheads and to the rings on the gun carriage, and which of the gun crew does each task. It never mentions unhooking the gun tackle until the gun is to be secured and stowed. In the drawing below the gun tackles and training tackles are attached in the firing position.
 
The gun was pointed by hauling it in to the extent allowed by the breeching line, and then one or the other side tackle was hauled in to swing the gun left or right (page 46). Here is a diagram showing pointing, firing and loading:

Breeching must be long enough to allow the gun to clear the gun port at least one foot when hauled fully inboard. Neither breeching nor tackle can be blackened or treated in any other way that reduces flexibility. They are to be made of manila or another pliable rope. (page 150).
 
I haven't read it all, but I couldn't find any description of how the gun tackle falls were to be secured/stowed when not in use. However, at the command "cast loose" the tackles were to be removed from stowage and then hooked to the bulwark and gun carriage. So maybe they were not hooked to the guns while they were stowed? Or were the frapped tackle considered "stowed?"

****
 
As far as placement of the ring bolts for the gun tackle on the bulwarks, the diagram above shows the attachment points spaced far from the gun port to allow a significant angle of pull on the tackle for pointing the gun. But most photos and drawings do not show them as widely spaced as in the drawing above. I have also see (somewhere) a drawing showing double ring bolts for the train tackle on the bulwarks, on each side of the gun port, spaced fairly close together, in case one bolt fails.
 
In the description of how to point the gun it says the gunners used the handspikes to lever the gun left/right to assist the tackle. So it wasn't necessary for the gun tackles to be spaced widely as shown in the diagram above. The tackle could be used to hold and fine tune the point. The handspikes were also used to raise the breech to free the quoin so it could be repositiond to change the gun elevation.
 
One other detail I had been wondering about - the port tackle (for the gun port lid) was secured to a cleat on the inner top of the gun port. The door/lid was to be raised high to prevent damage from the blast of the gun. After each shot the port lids might be closed to provide protection for the gun crews while they were reloading.
 
****
 
There is a lot of useful information in this document. It was written in 1855 and amended in 1860, but gunnery practices probably had not changed much in centuries except as new gun types were introduced. The referenced text describes practices for smooth bore muzzle loading guns.
 
****
 
I hope this is helpful, and that it will stimulate further discussion.
 

Got the Port side Bouy and Anchor rigging done.
 
Jesse
 

Jason,
 
Will do. I was worried that we were hijacking your thread. When I get time I will post a condensation of these discussions in the deck furniture, boats, guns and other fittings section.

Gents, very much appreciate the information being shared.  Could I please suggest that any further discussion on gun rigging and cannon firing techniques and procedures find their way into a specific post for that purpose, there are already quite a few of these already on the site and definitely better placed there to keep all content relevant and on topic.  Of course more than happy to answer questions on the approach taken for this model.