Matrim

I've found that drilling the holes before shaping (or at least before cutting the deadeyes apart) reduces the chance of splitting.

Indeed, let opponent come
preferably along port and starboard, because maneuvering is not yet possible 
Thanks 
 
Making the triangular deadeyes (Much work, little progress)
To the person who once invented the triangular deadeyes , rounds are much easier to make (I think this advice comes centuries late...)
Make these to scale,   with the grain of the wood in the longitudinal direction is not easy 
Much time has passed to find a way how to build them.
 
Examples are the Vasa and Mary Rose. The triangular deadeyes from this era look quite thin.

 
 
And determine the size.
A surplus of my Heller Soleyl Royal has about the right thickness height and length. The deadeyes (plastic) of Billing's Vasa are clearly too thick.

 
Building a wooden prototype and a mold


First saw wooden beams
 



Sand the wood to size so that it just goes through the mold.


File grooves


cutting this is fairly easy because it is in the same direction as the grain.


 
Sanding to thickness.


8 done 40 more to go.  Then drill the holes. That will also be a challenge.
 
Thanks for following, comments and likes

Variety is the spice of life! or something along those lines....So any model is a pleasure to see built. Nice to have you aboard.

Variety is the spice of life! or something along those lines....So any model is a pleasure to see built. Nice to have you aboard.

Good build choice and I will also search out the book. 

Good build choice and I will also search out the book. 

Good build choice and I will also search out the book. 

Good build choice and I will also search out the book. 

Greetings, any existing skill with making stuff should mean you have an advantage over many beginners. Nice to have you here.

Cannot say yet, as the 'other' revisit is a way off.
 
I am back at work now, so time is limited again, dammit, but I have just started designs for my 7th kit, which will have gun ports integrated with the hull frames/bulkheads.
 
Also, today I received my samples (3-d prints at this time, will have the nice resin castings sometime next month) of another 32 pounder and 18 pounder (latter a frigate 18 pounder, but not my 7th kit, that's for later..), plus 18, 24 and 32 pounder carronade barrels and finally a late entry, an early (1780) 12 pounder carronade barrel with trunnions. Will laser cut the carriages for them when I have time and take pics. I have sent PE files to be done, so these will be offered as a complete unit, carriage, barrel and PE parts.

I think I may have mentioned it before but I have actually held (and swished about) Broke's sabre (it was owned by a private collector). It was quite surreal holding a piece of history like that even though it was something only a naval historian would even recognise as important.

I think I may have mentioned it before but I have actually held (and swished about) Broke's sabre (it was owned by a private collector). It was quite surreal holding a piece of history like that even though it was something only a naval historian would even recognise as important.

I think I may have mentioned it before but I have actually held (and swished about) Broke's sabre (it was owned by a private collector). It was quite surreal holding a piece of history like that even though it was something only a naval historian would even recognise as important.

The Shannon/Chesapeake battle was indeed one of the more interesting fights of the age. Although the two ships were as close as any two combatants in the age of sail in size and force, there were overlooked factors contributing to Broke's victory.
 
First and foremost, the Shannons were just amazingly good, and they were led by the most capable man in the Royal Navy. Few other frigates could have stood against them. They earned their victory, and it was fair.
 
But on the American side, there were other things to consider:
 
When the Chesapeake sailed out of Boston Harbor to give battle that June 1st, 1813, her captain and crew had served together at sea for fewer hours, than the British crew had served together for years!
 
There were five American courts martial and one preliminary court of inquiry that looked into the causes of the humiliating loss. What stands out in all of them, is that the officers did not know the names of the sailors in their division, or even the gun crews. Many sailors testified that they had not yet served at quarters together. This was a recipe for disaster. This was Lawrences fault, because his people were not ready. Lawrence was brave, but cocky, and he paid with his life.
 
Lawrence threw his opening salvo away needlessly. One officer testified that when they approached the Shannon, their long 18-pounders  had been loaded with one round and one grape shot in each. At the last minute, Lawrence ordered one canister and one bar shot to be added on top of this load. Amazingly, none of these quadruple-shotted cannon exploded during the first broadside, but most of the projectiles imbedded themselves into the Shannon's hull - and few penetrated. Were they aimed true, and had they all passed through the Briton's side, as they would have done had the guns remained double-shotted, the British loss would have been much higher. Shannon's first discharge was reportedly their most lethal, and reportedly instantly destroyed the American crew's morale.
 
The Chesapeake's wardroom had been in turmoil long before she set sail. Her previous commander, Samuel Evans, had to relinquish his command due to chronic bouts of blindness, the result of a cutlass blow to the face in a duel. Lawrence was given his frigate as a reward for sinking HBM Brig Peacock, and when he came aboard, he quickly replaced many of Evan's old officers in important positions of command with his own followers from the Hornet, causing great anger. Politics played a role in this, too. Lawrence and his followers were Federalists (Hamilton-ites), while Evans and his old hand-picked wardroom were Republican/Democrats (Jefferson-ians). Things became so heated that First Lieutenant Page resigned in a huff, while another of Evans's lieutenants left the frigate too, supposedly on "sick leave". After the disastrous battle, the senior surviving Evans-era officer, William Budd, accused the senior Lawrence surviver, William Cox, of cowardice. Cox was court martialed, found guilty, and dismissed the service. Just before the battle, the old hands had refused to go to their quarters, because the overdue prize money due them from the previous cruise had yet to be distributed. Lawrence gave in to their demands, and had the purser pay them. Many of them then handed their money over to Lieutenant Budd for safe keeping. But Budd decided it was okay keep the money belonging to some the killed sailors afterwards, causing a letter of complaint by one of the survivors to be sent to the Secretary of the Navy.
 
In a battle that lasted, at most, three broadsides, the Americans managed to inflict about 75 casualties on the victorious British in only somewhere between 12 to 15 minutes - more than Constitution inflicted on the Guerriere in 90 minutes.
 
Still, the Americans lost about 170 casualties all told, including her captain, most of her marines, and near every officer on deck, enough to insure defeat in any US frigate.
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Yes that was a fascinating encounter and Lawrence was a brave man (who had certainly proved himself in the Hornet/Peacock US win). If he had had more time to train his crew to his own standards then that combat would have been much more even.
 
You (I am fairly sure) will have read Ian Tolls book as well where he delves into the design decisions of the American designers and Humphreys versus Fox. You would have to say that Humphrey's was proved correct in the end.

Yes that was a fascinating encounter and Lawrence was a brave man (who had certainly proved himself in the Hornet/Peacock US win). If he had had more time to train his crew to his own standards then that combat would have been much more even.
 
You (I am fairly sure) will have read Ian Tolls book as well where he delves into the design decisions of the American designers and Humphreys versus Fox. You would have to say that Humphrey's was proved correct in the end.

This is exciting!

I have read all three and agree somewhat,  However, in the HMS Shannon v. USS Chesapeake battle, both ships were very similarly and evenly matched, except that Shannon and her crew had years of training and experience under Captain Broke, a gunnery expert, while USS Chesapeake was under Captain Lawrence, who had never sailed with or drilled his crew.  Many of the crew were also new to the ship.  As would be expected, Shannon won that battle in close to 15 minutes.

Not quite at the building stage yet (my new work desk apparently arrives 15th October at which point I can switch my home office from my workroom back to the house and start building).
 
I do have some slight progress. Thanks to the generosity of fellow MSW member Mark P - who kindly offered to use his larger printer to print out a lovely full size copy of my base board plan (to avoid having to try and do so on my A4 printer with resultant possible join errors) I now have a lovely base plan on the building board ready for work to begin.
 

 
lovely. I can't wait
 
 

Not quite at the building stage yet (my new work desk apparently arrives 15th October at which point I can switch my home office from my workroom back to the house and start building).
 
I do have some slight progress. Thanks to the generosity of fellow MSW member Mark P - who kindly offered to use his larger printer to print out a lovely full size copy of my base board plan (to avoid having to try and do so on my A4 printer with resultant possible join errors) I now have a lovely base plan on the building board ready for work to begin.
 

 
lovely. I can't wait
 
 

Not quite at the building stage yet (my new work desk apparently arrives 15th October at which point I can switch my home office from my workroom back to the house and start building).
 
I do have some slight progress. Thanks to the generosity of fellow MSW member Mark P - who kindly offered to use his larger printer to print out a lovely full size copy of my base board plan (to avoid having to try and do so on my A4 printer with resultant possible join errors) I now have a lovely base plan on the building board ready for work to begin.
 

 
lovely. I can't wait
 
 

lovely topic that I shall return too when back on planks..

Not quite at the building stage yet (my new work desk apparently arrives 15th October at which point I can switch my home office from my workroom back to the house and start building).
 
I do have some slight progress. Thanks to the generosity of fellow MSW member Mark P - who kindly offered to use his larger printer to print out a lovely full size copy of my base board plan (to avoid having to try and do so on my A4 printer with resultant possible join errors) I now have a lovely base plan on the building board ready for work to begin.
 

 
lovely. I can't wait
 
 

Not quite at the building stage yet (my new work desk apparently arrives 15th October at which point I can switch my home office from my workroom back to the house and start building).
 
I do have some slight progress. Thanks to the generosity of fellow MSW member Mark P - who kindly offered to use his larger printer to print out a lovely full size copy of my base board plan (to avoid having to try and do so on my A4 printer with resultant possible join errors) I now have a lovely base plan on the building board ready for work to begin.
 

 
lovely. I can't wait
 
 

Roosevelts bias is much more subtle than James though its still there. James's case for the prosecution is his War of 1812. When he wrote his huge naval history and got to the 1812 war he states that he wont go into all the arguments as he already covered that in his book on 1812. Roosevelt uses the Naval History and not the War of 1812 as his base to argue against so you sometimes get into strange situations when James says A in his Naval History . Roosevelt argues against A for reasons B & C (which seem reasonable) but then you look at the War of 1812 and James adds arguments D & E with F directly countering C.  
 
If anyone is interested I can try and research up some examples (it will take me a while as I would have to re-read them all, and by a while I mean months-years to do properly). 
 
James is certainly more strident but he was basically a lawyer attacking press lies in public. Roosevelt is a historian so is writing a very different book and against someone who cant argue back.
 
You have to read all three to see the historiography of it....though go for Roosevelt and James's 1812 to get a feel for the direct arguments and see what you think for yourself. 
 
Personally I follow NAM Rodgers opinion. The bigger ship won in every single frigate engagement (not smaller ships like sloops where even combats occurred and the US won), both navies were good and you don't need to read any nationalistic superiority into it beyond that.