allanyed

Hi Lieste For 42 pounders, from the same sources as above. 1723 1743 6" 7" Thanks for sharing about the British replacing 42 pounders with 32 pounders during peacetime, this was new information for me. I would like to learn more about this as it is actually very interesting so if you would be so kind, can you share your source for this? Thanks again, your help on this is appreciated. Allan

Dave, If I am understanding you correctly, the rings are not glued to the carriage brackets but rather are on eye bolts. These would be for the breechings. There are also eyebolts on which the running out rigging is hooked. Spyglasses photo shows this. The drawing below may also help. I strongly doubt glue, even epoxy, will hold up to any contact without coming off. I still wonder why so many kits still use cast carriages as they are not close to realistic and difficult to work with for things such as this. It is nice to see there are a couple kit makers that have provided these in wood. Cheers Allan

Hi Lyle, Sorry for the late reply. Regarding the gratings, a picture may be easier. Just an FYI regarding the name on the stern. The names on the stern were not made of pieces, but rather were painted on. (This only lasted from about 1781 to 1791, before and after which until late in the 19th century, names were not shown at all.) For this size, it may be easier to buy a page of stick on letters as they are so thin as to look like they are painted. Happy holidays!! Allan

Lieste, Sorry for any confusion, I was only referring to English ships as Jay's subject was for HMS Victory. I have no information on French ships, but for English ships: Below- 1723, 1743 and 1765 data are from the Public Records Office and 1747 is from a list of stores on the HMS Invincible (NMM RUSI/6) Caruana, The History of English Sea Ordnance, Volume 2 page 385 1723 1743 1747 1765 6" 6" 7.5" 7" Allan

Bonjour Mic. Bienvenue a toi notre nouvel ami. Where do you live in France? Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you and your family.

Hi Lieste, Jay's project is for Victory, 1765 so it probably would more appropriately be based on the 1745 and 1750 Establishments (which were very similar) , not the Seaman's Vade Mecum which did not come out until 1812. The Vade Mecum is probably a great thing to have for ships built after 1812, but maybe not so much for the 1700's. Out of curiosity, have you compared the Vade Mecum with Steel's Elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship 1795? I wonder how close they might be. Have a great holiday season!! Allan

From another former merchant marine engineer, welcome aboard MSW Boydie. Allan

Thanks Bill! Alas I have never built a kit and probably never will. One of my suppliers gave me the SOS or maybe it was the Soleil Royale many years ago and when I opened it and saw the materials I decided to stay with scratch building. Wish we had MSW back then to give it to someone here as it wound up in our neighborhood garage sale. I know there are finally two or maybe three kit designers/makers that do a fine job, but after investing in tools over the years, it would make no sense for me to make the switch. Thanks again for your post, it is very much appreciated. Allan

Super warm welcome to MSW. The diversity in home locations of our members never ceases to amaze! Allan

Welcome Rock, Your introduction was great and quite entertaining!!! Thanks for that!! Looking forward to seeing more of you here at MSW Allan

Your library for building a model of Victory is impressive to say the least. If you plan to do any rigging, I urge you to get a copy of David Lees book The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War. For armament, the best book, IMHO to have is Adrian Caruana's The History of British Sea Ordnance, Volume 2. For Victory I do not believe there are a full set of contemporary plans still around, including at RMG. As Victory has been done to death by modelers for eons, there are many other vessels with complete sets of contemporary plans available at RMG you might want to consider if you are going to be scratch building. A good example of a second rate with seven detailed high resolution drawings available for free is the 98 gun HMS Glory 1788. Scantlings from The Shipbuilder's Repository 1788 would fit right in and is available on its own or in the Scantlings of Royal Navy Ships 1719-1805 from SeaWatch Books. I realize you are well invested in Victory by now, but thought an alternative could be interesting for you. Considering your obvious interest in doing research first, (kudos to you for that!!!) I hope you start a build log and post photos as you progress in your project. AND as a fan of Victory, please do sign up per my signature below. Adam Preston is making progress to get this TV series going. Allan

Thanks for the explanation Bill, much appreciated and added more mystery to the mystery of the MC. In researching the model kit I did see that the kit changed the name a well. Enjoy the project!!! Allan

Hi Bill Are you speaking of the Mary Celeste which was found with her crew missing? Just as a point of interest there was no actual ship named the Marie Celeste. If you search Mary Celeste 1861 there is some information at the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian and maybe other museum/sources. They have paintings and photographs that may be of help. Allan

Will, Next time you glue up the strips, here is an alternative that you might like. I glue long strips (6" or more) together slightly thicker than needed. Once dry I run them through my thickness sander to get to the final thickness. Once done I can cut of pieces to suit the lengths and widths that I need. Allan

Ciao Matiz Thanks again for continuing to share, it is a pleasure to follow your build. buon Natale!!! Allan

Your cutter is very impressive! I think if you had an inventory of cannon barrel STL drawings covering 1600 through about 1825 and 3 pounders to 32 pounders you could be kept quite busy with your hobby of 3D printing. Actually one or two drawings for each period would probably work as I know you can scale them up or down for various scales and sizes. I have been using 3D printed barrels on two projects and the detail is as detailed as the drawings. Based on some of the build logs here at MSW I am flabbergasted some kits still provide cannon that are more imaginative than realistic in shape and scale size, so your audience could include both kit and scratchers. Then again, it is no longer a hobby if you go into production and maybe not so much fun. Allan

Dave, Just remember that the Vadas spread sheet is completely wrong for the period between 1670 through 1710 and should not be used if your vessel falls into that time frame. Allan

Dave, Interesting point. I do not recall ever hearing of or seeing a tarred anchor line on contemporary models, but....... Remember that the anchor cable did not go around the capstans, but rather the messenger did. Allan

Juraj The main boom crotch usually stepped in a matching hole in the taffrail when the vessel was not underway but removed otherwise as it would of course interfere with movement of the boom when underway. It was secured by setting up the sheet hard and with crotch tackles. As you plan to put on sails as if she were underway, the crotches would be removed and stowed. I cannot find anything on whether they were stowed below deck or secured in someway on deck when not in use. If you choose to have the crotches in place, there is a detailed explanation of how to rig main, fore, and jumbo boom crotches in Chappelle's American Fishing Schooners 1825-1935 p431 Allan

Dave, It may be the photo but the bore looks oversized and off center. The bore of a 3 pounder at 1:64 should be about 0.045". The website in Kirby's post is a good one and easy to use. The dimensions match those in other sources including Caruana et al. Allan

Glad to see you are back and feeling well!!!! Allan

Hi Joseph, I agree with Bruce, it would be polite behavior if you would first post a hello and little something on the new member forum. I also agree you have a good question and I too am anxious to see if there is a contemporary answer to your question. In the meantime, welcome to MSW!! Allan

Even in Mexico there are daily limits on most species to avoid overfishing. For the dorado it is two per person which we share with the panga captain and local restaurants as we can only carry so much in coolers on planes back to the US. Allan

Welcome to MSW Jay, As this was your first post it would be nice if you posted a little introduction on the new members page. Questioning plans from most kits is a good idea, and based on the drawings you posted, well founded. What ship and year? Can you share where these plans come from? The reason I ask is that there appear several errors in the drawings. There looks to be pairs of double blocks for the training tackle and running out tackle which is not correct for a Bromefield 32 pounder. For 32 pounders there would be a single and double. For lesser calibers there would be two singles. (Caruana The History of English Ordnance p386) The breech did not attach to the ring as shown. This appears to be a Bromefield gun so for that era, the breeching line would secure to the ring with a half hitch and then the tail would be seized to the standing part. (Caruana The History of English Ordnance p.384) I have never seen bolts in the knees but I don't know if this was actually done at times. Maybe someone else here at MSW can verify if they only secured into the bulwarks or at times went into the knees. Goodwin provides a chart for the carriages of various sizes of ringbolts and eyebolts on page 217 of The Construction and Fitting of the English Ship of War. For your 32 pounder: For a LONG 32 pounder he gives the following RING BOLT EYEBOLTS Bolt diameter Ring internal diameter Bolt diameter Ring internal diameter 1.5" 5.75" 1.25" 2.75" I cannot find dimensions for the breech rope rings but scaling from 2.5" circumference running tackle rope to 7" circumference breeching should get you very close. Same for your port tackle and muzzle rope. You can size by ratio based on the line sizes. Keep in mind that the smaller guns on your model had different size rings and bolts. Allan

Dave, If you have not yet found this, https://books.google.com/books?id=aztFAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Just remember it is from 1812 so may not always fit for 18th century. Steel's Elements and Practice of Rigging (1794) is another free source for very late 18th and early 19th century, https://maritime.org/doc/steel/ Allan