Lieste

The image/caption will be swapped between that one (obviously a naval pattern gun (can't reliably estimate scale for identification, but it could be a 6pdr or 4pdr by indications from the grain of the timber in the carriage)) and another on the same spread which will be a carronade, labelled as this gun or a third affected caption. TQM from Osprey.

Carronade usually refers to 5-8 calibre bores, with the breech end chambered and the muzzle (in later pieces) extended by a loading cup/flash-hider. True carronades are jointed, but a few trunnioned gunnades were made - and the free standing carriages were more flexible in use than the fixed slides/fighting bolts. That said, the use of the term carronade is often extended to both Howitzers and the early Shell Guns, such as the 'Millars' 68pdr of 50cwt - and this had a proportion shorter or similar to that of a field gun (noticeably shorter than large naval guns typically are: (6ft 8.5", bore the full nominal length to the breech ring, gomer chambered on an 8.05" bore (62.7 Litres capacity) - this compares to the carronade (36cwt 5ft 2", including the muzzle cup and flash-hider with the chamber being cylindrical and also extending to the breech ring 46.1Litres capacity), and to the later "Full gun" of 95cwt 8.12" bore and a capacity of 96.6Litres. While the shell gun was intended to fire hollow shot (unfilled shell) and shell, it did so with an 8lb powder charge, compared to the 5.6lb charge for the carronade (firing solid shot), and the 16lb powder charge of 68pdr gun. A 42pdr carronade is usually assigned a weight of 22.5cwt, so this is approximately the proportion of this otherwise not recorded "48 pdr" - it should be charged with "around" 4lbs of powder (42pdr uses 3.5lbs). With the claimed overcharging there is no purpose... the increase in velocity predicted by Helie (1865/1884) is not for firing conditions within the 'scope' of the ordnance used to derive their prediction/model (and is likely overestimating velocity) but only shows a ~4% increase in velocity and a ~25-27% increase in recoil from a wastage of 73% of the powder used, plus a lot more risk from fire from unburnt or partially burnt power, and the charge extending well outside the chamber into the more lightly constructed bore is ... well ... not at all safe.

Carronades will happily throw shot beyond that which is considered useful for guns. (This requires more elevation than guns, but this also helps partially limit the problem for carronades from the dispersion increase given by firing from an unsteady platform - the roll taken as being the same, the effect on range of random fire for the gun is greater in direct proportion to the help given by flatter fire in the increase of the danger space - making the defect arguable at best... with ricochet fire the short hitting space of lower velocity guns is less important too - with shot weight giving a longer working distance in ricochet). Penetration/shot effect at range strongly favours high calibre/weight over high velocity - with a 42pdr carronade shot penetrating 21" sides at ~ 1700yds, while a 12pdr gun shot with distant charge maybe reaching only ~ 900yds, albeit at a higher velocity and a flatter angle of fire. This also serves to make ricochet fires more attractive to extend useful range for heavy shot (despite the additional loss on each rebound). The "problem" for carronades on the lakes was the meeting of 24pdr carronade broadsides (or hodgepodge armaments with many 6, 9 and 12pdr guns) - with 24pdr and 32pdr long guns on pivots, and 32pdr carronades, where there is no compensating benefit from shot weight, and an absolute penalty is all aspects of long range fire. (Also oft quoted examples have the problem being well within carronade range but anchored and unable to retain springs - so taken apart from the quarter "where not a single carronade could be brought to bear" (alternative rendered as 'no carronade could reach' - both of which are also incorrect/incomplete given the actual report of damage needing repair given by the carpenter's report describing both RN vessels, and the USN prize (and the armaments of the Cherub being 32pdr and 18pdr carronades, against the 32pdr carronades of the Essex (with no indication that this was only a single ship action as Cherub could not fire)).

I would hinge it at the bottom on an outward sloping counter. It is much easier to hold the port closed, and allow it to be open from the same line in this arrangement, with just a simple cleat. Top or side hinges (or a split port with a hinged upper and lower or left and right, or a removable shutter are other arrangements seen on the vertical on inward canted sides.

The standard stowage for RN ships on foreign service was 6 months, and that only reduced for the smallest classes which couldn't store sufficient stores and unmodified French captures which had different hold and Orlop arrangements which didn't conform to British practice. On home station the stowage was reduced to 4 months. It was normal during a moderate or large repair to rebuild a French capture to meet British standards, though many were too badly damaged through battle or rot that they were reserved for harbour duties (freeing a serviceable British hull) or broken up. Victualers, and local resupply from naval stores or local purchases by the ship's purser could extend a ship's service on foreign patrol to 'years'.

The Vasamuseet did an excellent testing of both the "structure under fire" and the "bronze ordnance" when they combined a structural test piece and a new cast 'light 24pdr' in testing at the Bofors instrumented range. The full suite of publications haven't been published yet, but there are some videos of some of the 50+ shot sequence and some commentary and a single presentation that are available on line. Sadly the museum blog on the topic (both of the construction of the 'mechanical test piece' for the hull (which then also served as the gunnery target) and the gun and equipment) got filleted some time ago, so the currently available information is thinner than it was.

Naval ordnance tends to have modest recoil, by design - with the exception of carronades, where projectile velocity is sacrificed for low deployed mass, and heavier than 'battery' shot. A field gun in 12pdr size is below 21cwt, while the upper deck battery of a ship of the line used much heavier guns of 34cwt with the same charges. Getting slightly more velocity (but not that much) and significantly lower recoil velocity and energy. Larger guns tend to a slightly lighter weight of metal per pound of shot, smaller calibre guns to be rather heavier. A 32pdr carronade, by comparison, gets more than 2.5 times the recoil energy - while penetrating only about 80% as well at the near muzzle range (and somewhat better at random fire ranges). (Recoil energy of the carronade is nearly exactly that of the middle charge of the 32pdr gun of 56cwt, though it provides less than 1/2 the shot energy and ~2/3 the penetration at the muzzle and range at 5 degrees) The 'excessive' weight of naval guns was often criticised, but the extra mass was seldom a significant proportion of the entire installed weight of shot, powder, stores, ordnance, crew and carriages, and the benefits of a 'ponderous' recoil were clear to most who actually designed and used the guns. The use of larger shot for better penetration with extended ranges even with lower muzzle velocity were seen in the C19th, with the use of all 24pdr batteries first employed by the RN, with 'all 32pdr' and 'all 30 livre' armaments having a brief period before being supplemented by larger shell guns in small numbers. These sacrificed some controllability for common ammunition supply, greater long range effectiveness and (in theory) simplification of the supply of ordnance - though the RN ended up with 15 different '32 pdrs' (albeit that most were only one of 4 types).

The hollow shot for 68pdr are unfilled shell, at this time, later also specific naval hollow shot, of 56lbs. Manufactured as any other hollow shell. As noted the in the document the Navy - the major consumer of ammunition for ordnance, preferred to use solid shot... at least until the advent of reliable percussion fuses making naval shell a generally acceptable proposition. Bomb vessels relied on a tender to fill and prepare most of the shell used in bombardment, with only a handful of loaded shell being their standard load. Hollow shot, while carrying further (over flat angles of fire), didn't penetrate at long range as well as solid shot from the same gun, and often was relatively weak even at close ranges. (Very large ordnance, such as the shell gun and 68pdr carronade, could use the 'heavy' hollow shot to obtain penetration roughly equivalent to a 32pdr. Caruna is a modern author, the bibliography lists the book referred to.

Pre-1780-82 (ish) carronades are shorter, lacking the extension cup forward of the muzzle rings, as well as having a shorter true bore to those rings. The longer bore and the loading cup/flash hider improved ballistic performance and made firing carronades in the way of rigging less harmful to the ship. This is incomplete, as records were largely destroyed when the Carron pattern room was cleared and the obsolete patterns destroyed, but has a reasonable coverage from what does remain. https://falkirklocalhistorysociety.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/object-9-carronade.pdf

That may include breeching supplied for a 42pdr deck. (which with 7" bore would also be consistent with French practice.) The English tended to reduce guns when not "at war", swapping the heavy 42pdr out for 32pdr with lower manning requirements, the substitution might well be best suited to ironwork on the GD sized for the heavier gun, along with tackles and breechings suited to the heavier. 6" is 1.9"dia 7" is 2.2" 7.5" is 2.4" dia All are still "well below" 3-4" diameter, which prompted the first response.

Are we thinking that gun power had reduced or guns got lighter (thus increasing recoil energy from higher recoil velocity)? Cross checking with the French practice of the 1770s, from the "74 gun ship", has a breeching (strictly a carriage rope), which is a ~7.5" circumference rope, with a ~7" diameter bore. The sizes are likely to be the closest standard circumference of ropes used in the rigging of ships to the bore diameter. A book compiled and published in 1812 is likely reporting information largely gathered by notes over the past decades of practice - well before the major actions of the late war, but I also see little reason to assume thicker breechings for earlier, heavy, less powerful powder/ordnance in a long period of reasonably stable technology. Cross checking some other sources shows a heavier breeching on carronades, but one unlikely to be visually distinct.

By The Vade Mecum table, the circ of the Breeching is 6", 5" or 4" according to the nature of the piece. This is below 2" diameter for all natures. (1.9" for 24/32pdr, 1.7" for 18/12pdr, 1.3" for 9/6/4pdr - carronades explicitly not stated, but recoil energy of a carronade exceeds that of the gun firing in single shot with distance charge, so they should probably be at least the same, and these are existing ropes for breeching, so using the same is not unreasonable. 68pdr might need a slightly higher breeching).

Rope sizes are circumference, masts are diameters. A 19" spar is 3 times the diameter of a 20" cable.

It can be higher than that. The aero forces are the vector sum of lifting and drag forces. Depending on the form, lift can significantly exceed a Cl of 1.0, and drag, - form, skin and vortex can be a significant fraction of lift for the relatively low aspect ratio of a square rig. When stalled and either not lifting well, or acting as a parachute drag becomes the dominant factor, with relatively low lift forces. A backed sail is constrained against the mast, so will not fill to the same form, but otherwise behaves similarly to a filling sail. The overall effect is complex, with the lift from one mast altering the flow over those both up and downstream from it, as well as reducing wake energy for following masts.

Sailing on the wind, and on a reach is done with the sails lifting, even on square rig. It is *only* when going downwind that sails can only be employed in a stalled drag mode, and sailing speed suffers from the combination of running with the wind, and the lower sail efficiency in this mode. Upwind sailing performance is limited by the bracing angle of the sails, rather than a failure of the sails to lift when the angle of attack is appropriate.

I routinely print models 'offscale' For minor tweaks in scale, the printability isn't significantly affected, and can just be tweaked to give the appropriate dimension. When upscaling, the detail becomes rather 'soft' and can look oversized if taken too far, but generally there is no limit to the amount of upscaling you can perform if the degree of softness is acceptable. When downscaling fine details can become unprintable 'as is', however if dimensions are mutable, the slicer can add a 'hair' of horizontal expansion to retain printable minor walls, and I routinely print models with an intended scale of 1:72 or 1:100 down to 1:330 with few problems, as well as 1:700 to 1:1000 and 1:2973. It is likely that a model generated explicitly for the target scale might print with a better result - but there is a broad range of printable scales for any single model where it will print, with broadly acceptable results.

There have been a number of simulations attempted along those lines - Among these are the old "HMS Surprise" applet, a set of notes, plans and a spreadsheet on HMS Southampton (1757), from iirc Richard Braithwaite, and an 'admittedly hacked together' simulation of a 5th rate 'Lively' ish ship in "Painted Ocean", which is still available to download and play with on Twitch.io (the others seem to have fallen by the wayside along the way). There are also some papers which cover approaches to the problem and some of these might ease 're-inventing the wheel' - for example a paper entitled "Application of simulation technology to the performance evaluation of HMS Victory as an exemplar of the ships at the battle of Trafalagar", from the University of Southampton (Jan 2006) is downloadable online, and at a first glance might serve as a point of entry at least. (Though I haven't been able to look over it and crunch numbers/play with dynamic behaviour to see if the model holds water).

Resin cures in light, so I'd keep it in the bottle when not actually printing. You don't want to find cured resin all over your vat and screen. I'm only using an FDM printer right now, so I don't have experience for how quickly you can create problems for yourself, but I have run a film camera and darkroom and know that light sensitive materials can be ruined by careless handling ~ and here you have expensive and delicate components in close proximity to the resin... plus fumes from the resin are not good to have just lying about without ventilation... put it in the bottle, and save the potential trouble.

It is also a relatively common FDM 3d printing filament (after PLA it is probably the most commonly seen).

Not quite. "The captain of the schooner Terpsicore of eleven guns, five on each side and one in the prow, to which were joined eleven other vessels. The largest of these vessels carry no more than 20 cannons, nor the smallest less than 8. The strongest calibre of these guns is twelve pounds*, some only go up to twenty; while that of the the Turkish guns usually weigh 36 and sometimes even goes up to 48". *This is typical of the American fit of guns for vessels of this type and size. Also the 'up to 20' for a few nearly exactly matches the 18pdr claimed as a valid 'heavy gun' of one of these vessels. Turkish guns, would more normally be found on Turkish ships, and the comparison is to show how small and light the schooners were, not to claim this weapon is fitted to the Terpsicore. I would consider this to support a broadside of 5x 12pdr guns, of a relatively short pattern (7.5ft Blomefield/Armstrong might be suitable if English pattern), and a single 18pdr of 8 or 9ft in the prow.

Carronades can be found with joint or with trunnions, they also can be found with elevating screw and round breech rings, or with elevating screw and a quoin patch (where the casting engravings were moved as it was a large flat surface, and the trunnion was absent on most naval carronades ~ where the marking would normally be done), or with a simpler button and just a quoin. The addition of the quoin patch to the naval version of the carronade was a consequence of failures of the elevation mechanism with the "as first cast" cast iron housing for the elevation screw, after this was replaced by a brass bushing (similar to the reasoning behind bushing the vent), the wear and resistance to cracking were improved. The Quoin could also be used to give more depression than the elevation screw. As far as I can tell the provision of both was normal for most of the use of naval carronades. The carronades represented on Victory for example have a quoin under their quoin patch, but are also fitted for an elevation screw on the piece (this is missing from the ordnance and carriage though, which looks to be not appropriate for the carronade they are using.

Further to the 18pdr... a hypothesis that a handwriting or confusing print font/poor quality reproduction led someone to misreport the 18 as a 48 - which combined with a sub-50 cwt ordnance weight led to a conclusion of a carronade, while the actual pivot gun was nothing more exotic than a Blomefeld 18pdr in 43cwt. Discuss.

The diagram doesn't match the ordnance displayed, which is clearly an 1823 18pdr of the British pattern. Length is unclear and the close ups don't include the weight markings to allow inference as to the intended weight and length, but 8ft or 9ft are the common types, at ~38 or 43 cwt.

A Gun or carronade of 36 livre would fire a boulet plein of around 18.28kg (gauges appear to average high). (As well as other ammunition; canister, bombe, boulet croix etc) An canon-obusier or obusier of the calibre of 36 livre would share gauges with the gun or carronade, but would fire only canister, bombe or a boulet croix, with a weight of 11.71kg. The distinction 'of the size of' implies a common size, but distinct character. IMO. (The same would apply to the 48livre calibre - but I don't have values for a 48 livre piece - or indeed English calibres (e.g. the 24pdr iron howitzer fires shell and shrapnel and case in the calibre of the 24pdr shot, but does not fire the plain roundshot... while the calibre distinction is more clearly seen with the 5.5" brass howitzers which were in use at it's introduction - common calibre, but not firing the same ammunition). Other nations refer to their Howitzers by the mass of a solid stone projectile assumed for the weapon, though only hollow shot and shell, carcass and canister are supplied. (e.g. the 'roughly 24pdr equivalent' "7 pd Howitzer"), or use an unusual measurement standard to distinguish the lighter ordnance (e.g. poods, vs artillery pounds in Russian service for their unicorns - the pood being raised on the smaller merchantile trade pound).

A 24pdr of 48cwt might be an answer to the question, that would be suitable for a smallish schooner, and confusable with larger ordnance. This would also match the image of the 'style of gun' presumed to be associated with your schooner, which was a Blomefeld ordnance of a gun pattern (48cwt is the 9ft pattern) - not the shorter, broader style of a shell gun.