el cid

My first Civil War stuff.
USS St Clair and. 'City' Class Gunboat on the Mississippi 
13” X 9”
jim

This afternoon's 'Maritime adventure' a 'U' Class submarine during WW2 sunset or sunrise? Either way he'll be diving soon.
13” X 9”

I added the stuns'l booms to the yards and pinned the Topsail and Lower yards onto the masts.
They are just dry fitted and the yards assemblies are not completed yet. I have decided to keep them natural and not paint them black.
Some photo's......

While I move ahead with my forward cant frames and the tree nailing of my aft cant frames to the deadwood, I want to complete my bowsprit.   As I had made a number of rookie errors I thought I'd best get both my sketching and math down clearly on paper.  I've made two bowsprits to date.  The first was a quickly turned cigar shape on the lathe at proper dimensions to simply see the fit in the bollard clearance hole and determine my satisfaction with the diameter (posted earlier).  The second was properly shaped on an Ed Tosti style board as he'd shown on his Young American build.  This last one is not quite right so I will do it again.  Practise makes perfect... or nearly so!
 
To start with I must say I snagged a copy of an excel document entitled Masts and Rigging from somewhere.  I believe it was this forum.  I checked the properties and the author was Danny Vadas.  I've found it to be a very helpful tool to cross check with.  As I cannot see the formulae controlling the results in the cells I need to verify the numbers as best I can.  The following explains the process.  I am new to this so it also serves as my reference for later on as I will do more of this.  I also snagged a copy of another excel document entitled Steels Dimensions by Y. Miroshnikov which is equally as useful.
 
I must say that I found The Fully Framed Model Vol. IV by David Antscherl to have been very helpful because of the photos, plans and descriptions.  The same can be said for Rigging Period Ship Models by Lennarth Petersson.  They helped me understand what I was looking at or searching for.
 
The following detailed explanation is quite long.  I hope you do not mind, but I find the process fascinating.
 
BOWSPRIT with CAPS, BEES and BEE BLOCKS
As mentioned earlier I used REES's  Naval Architecture (1819-1820), page 106, plate VIII for the dimensions, however he does not give much information regarding the Bee's and the Cap.  I had looked at The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships (figure 116, page 185) but something wasn't quite right between this and some Vanguard kit builds I've been following.  I needed to look deeper.
 
Key dates: HMS Bellerophon was ordered in 1782, launched in 1786 and completed in 1787.  This immediately suggests Rees might be a poor choice due to its date of 1819-20.
 
I went to The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860 by James Lee.
 
All the information required is in Section 1.  Mr. Lee agrees with Mr. Rees with regards to the ratio of the tapers of the bowsprit, but length and diameter differ in Appendix I ( Length = 0.6 x the length of the main mast = 104.25 x 0.6 = = 62.55 feet versus 64 feet;  diameter = 62.55/3 x 1.555 = 32.3 inches versus 36 inches).  Appendix II of Lee's reads HMS Valiant 74 gun 3rd rate Bowsprit was 36" diameter x 69'-5" long.
 
Due to the scale of my build (1:64) a difference of 3.7 inches (at scale = 0.06") diameter is not at all noticeable, and 1.45 feet (at scale = 0.27") difference in length is arguable.  As REES shows details I will follow his plate VIII as best I can.
 
Mr. Lee suggests that looking down at the Bees they were somewhat scalloped fore and aft for the time period of my build.
 
The Bees were 2-1/4 times the diameter of the bowsprit at this location (2.25 x 20 = 45 inches long); their breadth would be 2/3rds the diameter (2/3 x 20 = 13.3 inches wide); their thickness inside was 1/4 the diameter (1/4 x 20 = 5 inches thick at the bowsprit) and tapered to 4/5ths the thickness to the outside (4/5 x 5 = 4" thick outboard).  The outboard edge tilted upwards by the thickness of the inner edge plus 1 inch.  This would be 6 inches.  This is all different than what was shown in The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships.
 
I will be following Mr. Lee for the Bee's and Bee Blocks.
 
Below the Bees are the Bee Blocks.  They were 7/9 times the length of the Bees (45 x 7/9 = 35 inches long).  They were half the width (13.3 / 2 = 6.65" wide) and 2 inches per foot of length in depth ( [35 / 12] x 2 = 5.83 inches deep).
 
There were two holes in each Bee at one for each of the the foretop stay and the foretop preventer stay and one spare per side.  These holes were elongated slightly fore and aft to better receive the stays as they passed through the Bees and Blocks.  There were no sheaves at this time.
 
What size hole do I need in the Bee for the Stay to pass through?
If I know the size of the rope I can determine the hole size needed to clear.
 
I went back to The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860.
In Appendix I it explains that the sizes of  fore topmast stay and the fore topmast preventer stay are calculated to be a proportion of other considerations....
 
The topmast stay is 1/2 the size of the lower stay.
The lower stay is 1/2 the diameter of the lower mast.
The fore topmast preventer stay  was 3/4 the size of the topmast stay.
 
 
The foremast was the same proportions as the main mast.
The main mast diameter from 1773 to 1794 was 9/10 inch per 3 feet of length.
How long was it?
 
In my time period the main mast length was 2.23 times the ships beam.
The ships beam per the contract was to be 46 feet 9  inches (561 inches).
561 x 2.23 = 1251.03 inches (104.25 feet).
The main mast diameter would be 104.25/3 = 34.75 x 9/10 = 31.3 inches diameter.
The foremast would have been the same diameter.
 
Now things start to not make sense to this novice.
If the lower stay (rope) is half the diameter of the lower mast it would be 15.65 inches diameter!
I think he meant size of rope which was the circumference not the diameter!
 
The diameter is the circumference divided by Pi (3.1416).
15.65/3.1416 = 5.3" diameter rope.
 
The top mast stay is half this 5.3 x 1/2 = 2.65 inch diameter (or 8.33 inch rope by circumference = 2.65 inch diameter)
The topmast preventer stay is three quarters this or 2.65 x 3/4 = 1.98 or simply 2 inch diameter.
 
I will  make the holes 3" diameter (at 1:64 scale is 0.05" diameter = #55 drill bit).
 
Since I'm all warmed up I may as well carry on with the Jib Boom details and get it over with.
 
JIB BOOM
I took the dimensions for my Jib Boom directly from REES's Plate VIII.  The major diameter is 11" and the overall length is 51'-0".  Only the heel end is octagonal in shape for a distance of 4'-4".  The length differs from what is described in The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860.  Mr. Lee directs the length of the hex shape at the heel to be 3.5 times the diameter (3.5 x 11 = 38.5 inches).  Mr. Lee also directs the length of the Jib Boom to be 0.41 x the length of the main mast (0.41 x 104.25 = 42.7 feet).  This is a difference of 8.3 feet (1.5" at 1:64 scale).  The diameter is to be 7/8 inch per 3 feet of length or 12.5 inches.
 
Mr. Lee also gives some drawing details for the Heel Lashing Hole and Heel Rope Sheave.  The slot in the Jib Boom for the Heel Lashing Rope Sleeve (sheave) is horizontal and the length of the slot is 1-1/16 x the diameter of the Jib Boom (1.0625 x 11 = 11.7 inches).  The slot is located a distance of 1.5 times the diameter from the heel of the Jib Boom (1.5 x 11 = 16.5 inches whereas Mr. Rees locates this at 2 feet).  The Heel Lashing Hole runs horizontally and is halfway between the Jib Boom heel and the slot for the sheave  (8.25 inches).
 
There is another sheave located at the head of the Jib Boom for the Jib Outhauler.  This sheave runs up and down (vertically).  Mr. Lee directs it to be located "a few inches abaft the rigging stop".  For my time period the rigging stop was tapered back to a shoulder.
 
Mr. Rees shows the horizontal heel sheave slot to be 18" long x 4 or 5" wide.  The outhaul couldn't possibly be the same size as the head of the jib boom is so much smaller in diameter than the heel (7.3" versus 11").  In my novice opinion there seems not enough "meat" left either side in the boom to support it.  To double check this I need to know the size of the Heel Lashing and Jib Outhauler ropes which will determine the sheave sizes.
 
Mr. Lee directs that the Heel Lashing is the same size as the Bowsprit Shroud Lanyard which were the same size as the Gammoning which were 0.44 of the Forestay.  The Lower Stays are 1/2 the diameter of the lower mast.  The lower mast was the same proportions as the main mast... 9/10ths  inch per 3 feet of length of the fore mast, which was 0.93 x the length of the main mast which I'd already determined to be 104.25 feet.
 
104.25 x 0.93 / 3 x 9/10 x 0.5 x 0.44 = 6.4 inches circumference / 3.1416 = 2 inches diameter rope.
 
From Steels I find the sheave diameter is 5x the thickness of the sheave but in Lee's it is 4x; the sheave thickness is 1/10th more than the rope diameter; the breadth of the sheave hole is 1/16 inch greater than the sheave thickness; the length of the sheave hole is the sheave diameter plus one rope diameter in Steels whereas in Lee's it is 1-1/3 x the sheave diameter.
 
A sheave for a 2 inch diameter rope would be 2.1 inches thick x 10.5 (Steels) or 8.4" (Lee's) inches diameter.  The sheave slot would be 2.163 inches x 12.5 or 11 inches.
 
For the Jib Heel Lashing on my drawing I find a 10.5 inch diameter sheave does not suit my 9.5" across flats hex shaped heel of the jib boom.  I made my Heel Lashing Sheave 8.4" diameter and the hole 2.2" x 11".
 
Search as I might I cannot seem to identify the rope size ratio for the Jib Outhauler.  The Mast and Rigging spread sheet (which has proven to be reasonably accurate up to now) suggests the Spritsail Yard Halliard and Running Lifts and the Fore Trisail Outhauler are all 1" diameter.  As these are all in the same general area it seems reasonable for the Jib Sail to be similar.
 
The sheave for a 1" diameter rope would be 1.1 inches thick x 5.5 or 4.4 inches diameter.  The hole would be 1.163 inches wide  x 6.5 or 5.7 inches long.  Again the differences are those between Messrs. Lee and Rees.
 
I will use the 5.5 inch diameter sheave and the 1.1 inch wide x 6.5 inch long slot for the Jib Outhauler.
 
This fits nicely in my drawing.  PDF attached!
Also a couple pictures from my second Bowsprit.
 
****
This exercise took a number hours over just as many days.  I needed to walk away and shake my head clear a few times, review a number of books and re-read passages many times.  This is the kind of stuff that cranks me up and gets me jumping for more! 
Yes I really enjoyed it that much.
 




Bowsprit + Jib Boom.pdf

Thanks for commenting Chad. I’ve been looking a Civil War stuff, and it looks interesting, so a good chance I’ll get round to doing something. 
Latest one 
German Heavy Cruiser 'Prinz Eugen' escorting the Battleship 'Bismarck' (right) into Grimstadfjord Bergen May 1941.
13” X 9” Watercolour 
Jim
 

This afternoon's painting. Corvette HMCS Arvida and Sloop HMS Mermaid passing stores by Line 
Watercolour 13” X 10”

Inferno 
A torpedoed Tanker sinking by the bows with a corvette standing by to pickup survivors ………perhaps!
W/C 13” X 8”
 

Ok let me take a moment to tell you about the program that will be using this model in the classroom. The school is located in Astoria, Oregon. They have 120 students in the Maritime program. There are 18 instructors. The kids must be under the age of 26 and underprivileged. They have to meet an income requirement. That is family income below a certain level. They come from all over the US. They live on campus and the program consists of 18 months of classroom and 6 months of experience. At the end of the training. They must pass a few exams. If they complete the program and get a passing grade. They get certified by the US Coast Guard and Union membership. The Union takes on the responsibility of finding a job. Currently everyone who completes the program finds a job.
 
One of the critical tests is Rules of the Road. The student must be able to look at the model,read the lights, and tell you what they stand for. He/She must also know the dispersion angle of all the lights. So my challenge is to get it right when I build the model. I don't want a student to fail just because I screwed up.
 
Besides the learning that I am doing for this project. It is nice to know that all this work is going for a good cause.

Minesweeper HMS Halcyon and  Liberty Ship (take your pic for a name!) in ice off the Kola Inlet 
Watercolour 12” X 7”
Jim

Its a chucky "Syren Brand".  You cant buy it in any store.   I get it custom made and dyed in Europe.  Unfortunately I dont plan on selling the raw stuff retail.  That is a trade "secret" of sorts.   The only way to get it is to buy my finished rope.  Its too expensive for me to start supplying the raw stuff to folks and I wont make any $$$.  Sorry.   Unfortunately you are left with trying the usual suspects that have been talked about on this site.  I want my Syren Rope to be special and I only want it to be available in rope form from my store.  Too much competition out there and I need avery edge I can get.  I have been asked before but unfortunately that is the case.  Sorry.
 
Chuck

Well - I'm 90% done with my ratlines.  I'm not posting a photo, because the last shroud I've done seemed markedly different in appearance than the other three.  I've been staring at it for a while, and it finally dawned on me why it seems so different...the fact is, my technique seems to have improved over the last three sets of shrouds.  This final one seems to have less noticeable distortion of the side shrouds...giving it a more symmetrical, and narrow, appearance versus the other three sets that I've completed.
 
Sigh...CRAP.  My eye is magnifying the difference...and it's bugging me.  So, the question is whether I redo it/them...which would require redoing both sides...or whether I live and learn, and simply move on with the next steps in the build?  I don't know why I'm being so hard on myself...this is my first wooden ship...and it can't be perfect.  (Perfect fell by the wayside a LONG time ago)
 
But -  a couple of things I might do different....
 
1. The miniature rope seemed too heavy (at least for me with the tension I had on th shrouds - which might not have been enough to keep them from distorting as I tied the ratlins)...I used Chuck's recommendation of 0.008" rope....but I found that pulls or pushes the shrouds - depending on whether the ratlin is too taught or slack...it's a maddening balance of ratlin tensile strength versus the vertical taughtness/resistance in the two shrouds you are connecting.  I would use smaller gauge rope/thread next time.
 
2. I was think of using a hairclip (flat duckbill clip) stylists use to hold curlers in ladies hair...I imagine putting these on the shrouds above and below the area you are applying the ratlins might help you keep them more aligned.  Just a thought...
 
Moving on...or am I?  (conflicted...)

I've pointed out more than once that Petterson makes no claims about technical accuracy, and that he is documenting specific models.
 
The objections here, come from discussions where someone asks for rigging references and Petterson gets thrown in with  with Lees, and etc..
The distinction is important.
 
I love Petterson's books.  Particularly the first one.  I go to them all the time.  They are very good for showing how 99% of the lines run..  Particularly on the three mast ship..

Not to question the (obviously correct) observations above, I want to say something in response.
We tend to read Peterson as an historical guide to rigging, in line with others mentioned above: Lees, Biddlecom, Anderson Underhill and a large number of contempory literature on rigging or (near) academic studies into this field.
 
Peterson himself does state other intentions of his book: 
"As a professional illustrator and an amatuer modelmaker I have, along with many others, often found it so difficult to find detailed information about ships [..]. This is particularly true when it comes to the rigging of ships, particularly the rigs of smaller craft."
"My first book was intended to help modellers to understand  a three masted ship rig" [..]
"This [second] book is not intended to be an academic contribution to the field of maritime historical research; as a visual study based solely on three models it is rather intended as an accessible guide for the enthousiast and model shipwright" [..] "I hope that the illustrations will be an inspiration to other modelmakers"
 
All quotes [with minor left outs] from the introduction of his second book on fore-and-aft craft. Peterson himself clearly states the limited historical reliability of his drawings, and also states that an historical study was not his intention. Complaining that his work does not match the historical standards sounds to me as as someone eating dinner at my table  complaining that it is not French haute cuisine :)
 
Jan
 
 
 
 

'U' class Submarine heading up the Tay to HMS Ambrose Dundee's Submarine Base
W/C 13” X 10”
Jim

Early in the morning on Sunday 10 May 1719 HMS Worcester, HMS Flamborough and HMS Enterprise anchored off Eilean Donan and sent a boat ashore under a flag of truce to negotiate. When the Spanish soldiers in the castle fired at the boat, it was recalled and all three ships opened fire on the castle for an hour or more.The next day the bombardment continued while a landing party was prepared. In the evening under the cover of an intense cannonade, a detachment went ashore in the ships' boats and captured the castle against little resistance. According to Worcester's log, in the castle were "an Irishman, a captain, a Spanish lieutenant, a serjeant, one Scotch rebel and 39 Spanish soldiers, 343 barrels of powder and 52 barrels of musquet shot."The naval force spent the next two days and 27 barrels of gunpowder demolishing the castle.
13” X 10”
Jim

FINISHED 
300 work hours
Oct. 2018-March 2019
 

I agree with Druxey’s comments.  By way of example I purchased some enamel paint mixed to the recently identified Victory colours, and the tonal range of the tan / salmon pink / [insert your own description here!] under different lighting conditions is extreme. You can see why it has received such varied reviews from the public.  The enamel is only 5% gloss, so low sheen, however I then put a satin varnish on the samples and the tonal range changes yet again as it reacts to light - last photo.
 
The black is also that identified by the scientists and is a very dark charcoal grey.
 
Gary
 

One has to also look at the alternatives the men had and how the conditions were on land then and there. Crews main recruited from the lower echelons of society - being an agricultural labourer could be equally bad and depriving, if you had a bad landowner. And it was even more difficult to escape, if you were a serf. Serfdom wasn't lifted around Europe until the middle of the 19th century or even later.

And if you were lucky enough to be in Britian's Royal Navy, you had one of the first real guaranteed veterans' pension systems to look forward to. In those days, that was a huge benefit.

With the possible exception of the American sailor during he American Revolution, seagoing pay could be very lucrative. In merchant ships the crews often were paid  by the cargo. A successful voyage made for good money all around. The same has already been said about prize money on warships. Privateers almost never had a problem signing a crew if the right captain was involved. I think the whaling industry was also done in much the same manner. The more whales the larger the payoff. There was more than one man who after a few voyages was able to buy some land of his own to farm or start up a small store or whatnot to provide a more comfortable existence for himself and his family.
 
The big exception was as I already said, the American Revolutionary War. The Continental Congress had little or no money to pay crews and throughout the war years struggled to fill ship rosters. Sometimes the ship sat at anchor for months trying to get a crew together. There were no shortages of seamen or men willing to go to sea. But the privateers paid better and also out numbered the Continental ships,especially in he last few years of the war. Some Continental sailors, and officers for that matter, were never paid the monies owed to them from serving in the Continental Navy.
 
By the same token it has been said that  the Colonial sailor was also an independent spirit and did not take kindly to rough handling by officers or captain. Even the noted short tempered and tough task master John Paul Jones admitted that he at times had to go to great lengths in dealing with Colonial sailors.He was not always successful.  

Well it's been about four years since I have touched Victory and she's been wrapped up safely in bubble wrap and plastic the whole time.  I suffered some medical setbacks requiring a few surgeries and afterwards just couldn't seem to get my Victory mo-jo going again and followed a few other pursuits.    For some reason, recently I've been glancing over at the bubble wrapped bundle on the shelf and the unused tools, paints and assorted parts still sitting in the box...and feeling the build desire well...build.
 
I took the wrappings off her today, and damn, I'm much further along than I remembered...and she's beautiful!  It will take me a while to get the shipyard back together the way I want it and then I can get back to work on her.  I'm jazzed but also a little intimidated by all the skills and lessons I have to re-learn.  Thank goodness I have my fellow Victory builders and their wonderful logs to fall back on!
 
More to follow!
 
Cheers
 
Patrick (I'm baaaaaack!)

Finally she's a sail boat, almost, still fine tuning to do and buoyancy to organise. 
 



It's getting crowded on the centre board case
 

A destroyer patrols Scappa Flow in moonlight during WW1
Approx 18" X 9" on Mount board
Jim

Sorry I don’t have any. However you have planted a seed!. So far it is a period I haven’t really looked at, so you never know.
jim
Fishing on the Grand Banks
jim

Every ship would be different depending on the "owner" be it Navy or commercial, the Captain, and the crew.  And then one has to take into consideration life on land at the time.  Things were a bit harsher and harder back then.