BANYAN

Sorry to enter late Mark, but gad to see you back in the workshop and making great progress - an interesting subject and your previous experience with Licorne will help greatly. cheers Pat

I agree with your summation Hallibag as to it being from the Arsenal - Carriage Department. The Rod stamped on it may indicate a proofing device for some of the rods used in the the carriage (1926)? The attached may have something as there are 3 parts - Army, Coastal Defense and Naval gun Carriages discussed. I have only perused the Naval section (Part 3) at the moment and do not recall seeing it, but.... cheers Pat Treatise_on_military_carriages_ W Kemmis 1974.pdf

Nice job on the sea 'colour' - looks like a Force 6-7 on the Beaufort scale. cheers Pat

You're making good and fast progress there Steven. cheers Pat

Sorting yourself out is the highest priority mate; ships in ordinary stayed there for years. My thoughts and wishes are with you. regards Pat

WRT to the upper stringer/strake on top of the gunwale - that was just 'planning for the future' wasn't it Far easier to carve/place the mortices in the new strake for the bench tenons, then cutting slots cheers Pat

Hi Dave, following your build with some interest as I am making a version for use with my 'Air Eraser'. I have read that the fumes from paint can be a fire hazard and that the extractor fans should be well away? I note though that many manufacturers have them on the booth body as well so can't be that much of a problem, especially if there is a filter ayer before the motor? Have you investigated this? cheers Pat

Just found this log Rob; very nice work - I really like the way you are taking this diorama. Hope you will be adding some storm lines/rails for the crew cheers Pat

No rush Rob, she won't go far (unless you have a pond ) cheers Pat

Your research is meticulous Steven, and showing in a great looking model. cheers Pat

Excellent work on those hatches Jason,they look the real deal! cheers Pat

Nice work, and clear photography Won't be long before you have the upper deck planking on now Mark cheers Pat

Not to confuse the situation further, but I think it depends on the era the ship was built. According to Robert Kipping and John Fincham (both published books on Masting and Rigging in 1854), masts in that era (mid-19th century) were given as hounded and headed lengths (deck/partners to the hound stop, and then the masthead length.. The housing (below the deck) was not given and depended on where the mast was stepped. As this period was during the emerging 'steam' period, many Mizen masts were stepped on the Orlop as the screw shaft was in the way and prevented stepping it on the keel. Also, many ships were also moving to the use of an iron-cage or cradle style of stepping in the boiler rooms (these were quite large) so that the steam and heat did not interfere / burn the mast housing. These started to appear as early as the very early 1830s- thumbnail image of NMM image ZAZ6753. cheers Pat

Another warm welcome from downunder - look forward to seeing your work. cheers Pat

Nice repair Steven; looks very good to the eye. cheers Pat

Looking good Steven, she is really taking on the look of a complete ship now. cheers Pat

Nice to see you here Al, look forward to seeing a few more of your builds. cheers Pat

Extraordinary work on the aircraft - great detail at that scale. cheers Pat

Nice work Mike, and some very sage advice re fairing. cheers Pat

In my more 'recent' experience in the Service, stoppers (and nippers) were only temporary and never left rigged unless when used as sea lashing. BTW stoppers were used to hold the cable/rope while being transferred or adjusted, not to permanently take the load. It is possible that some stopper ringbolts may have been utilised but only if the required position was coincidentally co-located. A stopper needs to take the load inline with the load of the cable/rope being worked, and must therefore be correctly positioned. There may have been some allowance or tolerance for the dual use of a ringbolt, but I think it may be better practice for dedicated ringbolts for stoppers. The direction of the eye of the bolt would govern the alignment of the ring, and therefore the ease/ability of working with that ringbolt - if dual purpose, it is very likely the eye direction would have been opposed to one of the 'needs'. That said, the inhaul tackle was used to pull the gun back (out out of battery) and it may not have been so critical to be directly/centrally behind the gun. For example, if a gun had been aimed using spikes to take it off axis/boresight, the inhaul tackle would no longer be directly inline/behind - thus my argument that it being absolutely central may not be so critical - short answer, it might be possible some ringbolts were dual purpose. I am sure more knowledgeable people will provide a better answer. cheers Pat

Hi mate; thanks for the reference - I have that one and his (and Finchams) description of those cheeks are part of the confusion Kipping says the length of the cheek is two-fifths, but Fincham says half of the length of the masthead (3foot 6 inches by Fincham for the 'Victoria').- Kipping is not that far off - only 3 inches . The problem though is that both authors suggest the main and fore mastheads were fitted with different forms of Tops (and possibly hounds) due to the amount of chain used about the mainmast in many Steamers. 'Victoria' though used wire ropes for all shrouds so the masthead shape would have been the same on all masts. I am assuming the rounded style/form as the available imagery I have supports this. Now that I am more confident in the use of the terminology (note Kipping calls them hound pieces - in one) I can move forward from here; the next issue being to sort out the style of the Tops as the imagery I have shows two different types depending on the image I use, and which also differ from the Lower Tops described by Kipping and Fincham - the issues just don't stop I have made some decisions on these and will use a common style of Top on all masts, more aligned to the Topmast style of Tops described by Kipping and Fincham, as that is what is shown in the imagery. The difference being the use of gratings/deck battens in the tops. The photo I have shows them, and the Rigging Warrant mentions them, so rather than skeletal I will add the battens. Many thanks for the help. cheers Pat

Thanks again for sharing DR PR, much appreciated. The two authors of the contemporary dictionaries were A. Young (Nautical Dictionary), and H. Smythe (Sailor's Word Book). Both are available as either an eBook or PDF online. Let me know if you don't have them, or can't find them. I have found them useful being contemporary to Kipping and Fincham. As secondary sources I have been using Underhill, Campbell, Crothers and McCann. I think I am now sufficiently comfortable with the terminology as applicable to HMCSS Victoria which had single tree Lower masts, with a combined Top, Topgallant and Royal mast (Fincham is the only author to even mention the latter :). I was very happy to hear that you also found the terminology used somewhat haphazardly/interchangeable. In particular, your description/interpretation of knees is probably correct based on what I have read, certainly makes sense. In 'Victoria' all of the Lower masts had cheeks/knees with the cheek length half the length of the masthead (3 ft 6 inches in my case). Just need to find a better description for the dimensions (length and breadth in particular) for the skeletal Tops now - slowly getting there. I think I may have to rely mostly on my CAD drawing to confirm these dimensions based on the lead of the shrouds, then cross-reference to the available description to see if they conform. cheers Pat

Thanks DR PR, much appreciate the effort and time you have put into these very detailed responses. You hit the nail on the head when you said that the terms are used differently by almost all authors - that is what caused my confusion also. I thought I had an understanding but then the authors would discuss the same subject matter applying the terms differently That said, i think I have resolved it. I looked at a couple of contemporary nautical/marine dictionaries which all agreed that the the term 'hounds' had started to be used for 'cheeks' in this period. The one part I have not fully resolved is the use of the term 'knees' for these descriptions also. I have assumed that knees are the more modern term for the bibbs? Essentially, for single tree masts (which I am interested in) the cheeks/bibbs or hounds/knees were made from a single piece rather than fayed to each other in this period (1855). The trestletrees sat on the hounds/knees. Thanks again for the feedback, much appreciated. cheers Pat

The best advice will come from JIm; have you contacted him? I have had to replace the belt and it was reasonably straight forward. I think the tensioning of the belt is done by the motor's weight, so if it has stretched I don't think there is much scope for retensioning it. BUT, please confirm with Jim or more technically minded user. cheers Pat

Bump