Lieste

The contemporary definition for these things is instructive. Thickstuff comes from the full depth of the tree, and is sawn to thicknesses of 4.5-12" Width is cut to suit when used. Plank is over 11" wide, and over 1.5" thick (but less than 4") Deal is around 9" wide and 1.5-4" thick Batten is 6-7" wide, 2.5" or under. Board is under 1.5" Deal lengths are typically 12ft, but these dimensions can all vary with the source of the material. (Ends are short lengths under 8', rather than the full length of a standard load.) A load is 50cu ft of finished timber, 40cu ft of rough timber. When worked the finished weight of a hull is about half of the timber used in her construction. Roughly. Finished loaded displacements hover near the rough weight of the timber expended in their construction (depending on hull form being comparable to a full bodied frigate or ship of the line.) - a mix of masting, rigging, anchors, guns and ordnance stores, crew and stores, and whatever cargo/passengers are substituted for some of that.

The 'taller' block trail carriage is dimensioned as 989mm to the top of cheeks (526+323+140), while the 'longer, sleeker' one is a little over 940mm (890 +50 for the rise of the lower edge ahead of the truck - it is 450mm above the breast). Both are for 22cm no1 guns of 1842, 1841 and for different vessels. I believe the taller carriage may be the standard 'tween decks' (lower battery) carriage, while the (very slightly) longer and lower one is intended for the spar deck of paddle steamers. As the model is a paddle steamer, this is likely to be the proper design, if not on a double pivot.

In particular - the anspect (levers) for this carriage type have a little roller allowing them to form a 'rear wheel' for when running the guns in or out. Those for truck carriages for earlier patterns of guns just bear the rounded end on the deck to shift the carriage about.

The PDF is a lower res than the online 'zoom-view' where you can easily read dimensioning etc. I have offline copies, but will go onto BNF to get a better view of plates (and some tables). They have a variety of other texts as well, but Lafay is one of the more and better illustrated. The online browsing can sometimes be a bit glitchy though. Being able to zoom at higher resolution is useful for an inset part of a larger plate, which can otherwise be obscure. There is a plethora of French pattern instruments and gunner's materials in the plates too. Not sure how early these patterns would extend, as Lafay is c. 1848 with some last minute additions. Most should go back to the 1837 regulations (unless specifically dated after that)

That one is in Lafay too - a few plates after the 'taller' 1840 no1 carriage. Plt 17 lower

Douglas 1855 has some drawings of a pivot and a (very flat) block trail carriage for the 1842 no1. In line at art 221 Also, try Lafay at BNF https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9737980n/f789.item.r=lafay artillerie Several different block trail carriages and also pivots for the obusiers. (Also the later mod of the truck carriages, braque fixee for the caronade, embarkations etc) In the end plates.

They are parallel to the sheer of the deck to allow the gun to train without restricting depression or elevation at the extremes. The sides are parallel to the frames, which may not be perpendicular to the waterline. This results in each port having a different (non-rectangular) shape in practice, this is fairly minor except right forward and aft, but there is a reason each gun, carriage and port-cover was specific to a particular port.

The double thimble sounds like a modification to the seized breeching at the breeching rings paased through the side. Each end of the breeching, seized to a 'thimble and hook' in the bight, can then be detached at will, rather than being reeved through the breeching loop after the seizing is unpicked. The gun and carriage can then be shifted without removing the breeching from it. (looking at the definition of a 'Gripe' and extending it to a 'double thimble', rather than dead-eye and thimble) The earlier Contsplice could of course be pulled from the gun when needed, allowit it to be shifted, but the breeching, seized to the side would need to be shifted also, or substituted in the new place. A slightly later modification to the breeching loop allows it to be interrupted with a shackle to close the gap to restrain the breeching. If this is correct, then the contsplice is still needed for non-looped ordnance, with the double thimble being a convenience for looped guns which don't have a shackle opening, and more generally for ease of shifting or striking/removal of guns.

While all* new guns (from the 1790s) were cast to Blomefield pattern with the breeching loop, the ordnance wharves had a mix of these new cast guns and older Armstrong Frederick Pattern natures, which had a simple cascable and button requiring a C*** splice on the breeching. (*Except for the Gover 24 pdr, the Congreve guns and such ordnance proofed guns for the HEIC, HWIC and Hudson Bay vessels as were approved - which were often contract guns, only tested for proof, marked and supplied onward). The carriage suitable to the gun and it's intended port and the tackle suited to the gun and carriages were supplied with each gun. **By the 1830s the new patterns of guns started to be issued, with Victorian guns including patterns over the next few decades including those from Dundas, Dickson, Millar and Monk, as well as repurposed and bored up Blomefield patterns as a rapid expedient.

Recall that the wale is thickstuff, and as such increases the maximum beam. Even if the wale is very slightly above the widest part of the frame. It is also possible the frame has the balance slightly off.

As with the Boynes and the Oceans there can be several distinct classes separated by a decade or two. The Edgar is ordered to a modified Arrogant design after the older 64 Edgar was scuttled - elsewhere there are examples of ships merely being renamed to free up the name for a new vessel. As the Edgar group of the modified Arrogant class has revised lines and is temporarily distinct from the two 7YW Arrogant ships it is not unreasonable to refer to it as either an Edgar class, the Edgar group or follow ons in the modified Arrogant class... I see no issue with the use of Group or Class for the Edgar and her sisters as they are established differently to the first pair.

It is how Rif Winfield lists the classes... BELLONA Class. Thomas Slade design approved 31.1.1758. Five ships were built to this draught. ARROGANT (or Modified BELLONA) Class. Thomas Slade design approved 26.1.1759. Two ships were built to this draught during the Seven Years War, but Cornwall was scuttled in 1780. A further ten ships were built from 1773 onwards. EDGAR (or Modified ARROGANT) Class. Revived design of 1774, slightly modified from Slade’s (Seven Years War) original Arrogant design and approved 25.8.1774 It is not a direct follow-on, but modifies the lines. This is commonly enough to generate a new class - as with the Boyne class of 1801, which would otherwise rate alongside Victory in 1807 as 98 gun ships of the second rate. (Originally started as 100 gun first rates, again, alongside Victory at that earlier date/rate). There is a degree of arbitrariness in the naming of classes - as with the Armada class (or forty thieves), while the lead ship 'Vindictive' had been on order for almost 9 months when the design was approved, and Armada was only in the third group of orders.

Some of the large ex-French 74s get more - the highest I know of is Spartiate with 24 Ordnance mounted to FC and QtrD. This was a moderately large (1949 tun) vessel, much larger than a common 74 such as Vanguard (1609 tuns) While there was a period in which supernumerary guns were common, these become less common after the rearmament of 1798, with the exchange of small guns for larger carronades and chase and retreat guns. RH carronades seem to be allowed, but not all designers or captains like them, so 'fitted for, but not with' is quite common. If fully armed a spar deck should be capable of fielding 30-32 ordnance, but this would strongly impair the functioning of the rigging and increase loaded weight if they are of a size to be useful. 32 pdr carronades are a roughly 1:1 exchange for 18 pdr guns for firepower and 12 pdr for total installed weight, so there is a weight penalty moving from 9 pdr to 32pdr carronades* ~ which should drive a moderation in the ordnance numbers. *The 32 pdr Carronade and slide are lighter than a 6 pdr gun and carriage, but 32 pdr ammunition is much heavier - the lower on-deck weight is useful for stability, but ultimately the whole installed weight eats into capacity. Crew requirements are reduced for the Carronade compared to a gun of equivalent tonnage - which can be used for more resilience to manoeuvre and musketry while at quarters, or to reduce the manning requirements of the fleet, and without any loss in longer range potential - 9 pdr and 12pdr guns lack penetration and meaningful advantages in accuracy compared to the heavier carronades.

It is a rule of thumb given on the 1794/1795 abstract and its notes - as such it is not 'official' nor specific to the ordering. The carronade is *usually* on a slide fixed to a fighting bolt, and as such it is best fitted to the second place on the forecastle - the gun on a truck carriage is much more easily shifted to a new position... However, the carronade is generally a lighter ordnance which could relieve strain on the hull... and it is possible to supply a truck carriage with a joint rather than trunnion brackets which can be shifted as a variant carriage, which would allow a carronade to be shifted easily, and there are options to unship a fighting bolt from a slide, and to move the slide carriage to a different fighting bolt. Forward there is less interference between arcs, the carronade muzzle and shrouds/lines, bur once the carronade had been lengthened and the 'outboard' fighting bolt was adopted for most carronades (which should align with the 1798 'general order for quarterdeck carronades'), then the difficulties this caused would be reduced. The French even preferred to use non recoiling slides (short breechings) soon after the adoption of caronades generally, and the British used both, but I have nothing on which ships or dates that should apply. Victory, as at Trafalgar had struck or exchanged down it's forecastle 12pdrs and used only the pair of 68s as chase ordnance. These were also the only exposed ordnance on the weather decks, all 8 of the QD decks were under the stairs or the roundhouse deck, and the waist was mostly closed. This is of course a later armament (and not her official one), but there is scope for vessels to both have unique authorised establishments on application and for changes to be made with forgiveness to be asked, rather than permission sought. A 'typical' 74 is much less well recorded - most continually repeat the 1794 establishment of guns, without adding/substituting the carronades allowed. Almost all fleet lists in common distribution just repeat the 'plain' armament for most ships, even after carronades become common, then widespread for castles armament. Same with frigates which often repeat the 1794 'carronade added' formula, although later fitting also substitute all or almost all spar deck guns by the early C19th.

Nelson didn't like carronades on the Roundhouse.