shipman

Hello there, I have a query:- often it is said, 'add a tiny drop of 2-part epoxy'. This part of the planet that means Araldite. Well, if you have just a couple or three eye-bolts to attach, my experience with the stuff tells me you're going to waste a lot of it, even if you just dispense the smallest blob. Then there's the problem with the screw caps locking up. Araldite has a lot of usefulness, but for ring-bolts etc., surely there's a better product. Has anyone tried what could be a suitable 'Locktight' product?

Hi guy's, I've enjoyed your perceptive comments and observations, some rather thrilling. Just a thought to put my ha'perth in; as I understand it, a ship would only go to a full spread of canvas (including stunsails) during and to maximise from a period of light winds. Presumably in such conditions the sea would be relatively smooth. Surely it would be folly to be crashing through a heavy sea with all sails set. The entire plot would be ripped apart! Heave Ho, lads!

Hi, forgive me if this is the wrong area to ask this question. Perhaps it's been covered in the past, however, it's occurred to me, for extreme miniatures, has anyone any experience using human hair for rigging? Judging by the age of Victorian 'momento moiry', hair lasts forever and surely would be a better substitute than nylon mono-filament, very thin wire or stretched plastic sprue which are commonly used. And at these scales hair is a lot stronger and comes in a variety of colours. I'd appreciate feedback on the topic, thank you.

While being laudable, the book on ships boats by May is unique, sadly all the plans are poor reproductions of draughts from the NMM. Like many other maritime books, I think I've seen enough of this cheap and grubby practice of raiding the archives and cheaply reproducing far too small facsimilie of much larger source material. I'm old enough to remember that the only way to see these drawings, once upon a time, was an expensive trip to Greenwich. Perhaps we're living in an age where there's too much of a good thing! Surely there is room to produced a good book of clean common (1:48?) scale drawings in the style of the 'Anatomy of the ship' series. In fact the publishers have all the artwork necessary to put together a comprehensive compendium. That would be a true service to the ship model community. Put my name first on the delivery list.

Guy's, I surrender my sword. It just goes to show how easy it can be to be mislead by unreliable sources. my original figures came from a quick Google search. Your collective responses have driven me to my dusty bookshelves (really must organise them better). The first tomes to hand, AOTS Victory and the Ballantyne/Eastland book of the ship both refer to Slades original intention that the gun port sills should ride 5'3'' fully laden, however, at launch it was this was 9'' lower than expected, giving 4'6''. Google give this figure at launch! There was concern the ports would have to remain closed in action if a sea was running. Fortunately, Victory never went into combat in anything other than calm water. Eventually I will unearth the information about caulking port lids in rough weather being common practice. It would seem Victory was a prime candidate for this, but the information didn't refer to this specific ship. As for water coming on-board, ships weren't always driven into a head sea, big waves came in all directions. Catch a look at the old films of clippers in storms on youtube with decks seriously awash, some of which may have been shot by that doyen Alan Villiers. My respects, Gentlemen.

Hi Talos, I admit I was wrong in my assumption as to how low Victories' gun-port sills were. At launch they were 4'6'' above the water. However, at launch the ship wasn't complete by a long way. No guns, many fixtures and fitting absent, no masts or cordage, minimal ballast, no stores or crew. All of which adds up to a not inconsiderable tonnage. Without ploughing through a heap of books, I would suggest the lower gun deck must have been pretty close to the waterline at full load; the sills being only 2 feet above the deck, so that is only 6 inches above my original assumption of perhaps 1'6'' above water. The sea is rarely flat. I will attempt to find the actual figures. Thanks for the illustration showing hammocks stowed in the waist, a familiar feature. When did this practice originate? A single decker such as this would have been even more prone to having heavy seas coming over the bulwarks. Once aboard the biggest and most obvious drainage rout would have been straight through the proportionally massive open waist and directly into the rest of the ship. Bearing in mind the British spent prolonged periods in all weathers blockading French ports and were rarely and reluctantly forced to abandon their duty on station, surely there must have been provision to minimise incoming water, otherwise a ship would surely and rapidly become awash. I'm enjoying the opportunity for this discourse, and am keen to hear from members with actual deep sea sailing experience on this matter. Thanks to you and everyone else for humouring my curiosity. To be here is my privilege and pleasure.

Har Har, uss frolick. I did read somewhere sometime, that it was common practice to caulk gun port lids shut in heavy weather, which if you look at these lids they often have a small 'port' lid in the middle with that distinctive horseshoe hinge, presumably to gain a little ventilation. It's hard to imagine, but all these sailing ships were relatively small compared to ships these days and you know how even large modern ships can be thrown about like the proverbial cork in a big storm. Can't remember how near the water 'Victory's' lower gun ports were, but it could have been only about foot or so when fully loaded. Crikey! Had another thought today....when did hammock nettings/cradles come into common use? And is there any evidence to suggest the open waists had some sort of canvass covering during heavy weather. Again, in a storm, they must have taken regular green seas over the bulwarks. Sailors were seriously tough then, and there was a significant number discharged with insanity. Truly a different world. I also believe it was common to rig nets over the open decks, to catch any falling tackle/debris, especially during combat. When was the last time that you saw that feature on a model? Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to this post. Much appreciated.

Thanks for the heads up guys, I'll be delving into your suggestions. dafi !!! I'm honoured with this tenuous contact. I've sent you a couple of e-mails recently; wishing to order your sheet of brass ringbolts and hooks. Unfortunately I've had no response. Must be doing something wrong (wouldn't surprise me).

Thanks for a quick response Mark, I'll check that out. I am aware of museum models as a 3 decker, you've surprised me. My best to you

I'm curious; was there a set convention regulating the size of gun ports relating to different size guns carried on different rated ships (ie. does a 12 pound gun have a smaller port compared to that of a 32 pounder) ? Common sense tells me there must be differences, but what are they?

Hi, I'd be interested to find out which 90/100 gun ships were cut down from 3 to 2 gun decks and if there are any decent illustrations and or models to be found. If this appeal turns anything useful I'd consider letting my curiosity run over onto the work bench. Searching the forums hasn't been successful.