allanyed

Thanks Pat!!! Yes I do have this and for the early 19th century I have found both Steel and the Vade Mecum to be extremely useful. Allan

Dave, The bore for a four pounder Armstrong cannon of 1760 was 3.204" so the breeching rope was 3". By about 1770 four pounders were all 5'6" to 6' long. Their predecessor, the minion could be as much as 7 feet long. I found similar information on the running tackle that you posted in Lavery's Arming and Fitting which indicates the running tackle is 2" except for the 24 pounders and larger which was 2.5" Allan

Mick, I am not familiar with the area you mention as I live in Florida. Sorry to go off topic, but as you are a fisherman I thought you would appreciate the following. We had a 25 foot sport fisherman but sold it after having it for 10 years and took up golf. I still try to get out on the water for fishing four or five times a year though and as a former seafarer in the merchant marine, I think I will always have a love of the sea. Still like to gather with friends in Loreto, Mexico for a week of fishing the Sea of Cortez every year or two. Pictures from one of the best trips to Mexico follows. Two of us had 124 dorado (mahi mahi) over 30 pounds and four striped marlin (all released.) Allan

Dave, What were the gun sizes? If you have the weight of shot and barrel length, that may be enough information to find rope sizes, more so than the rate of the ship. Look up the gun sizes of 5th and 6th rate ships around the time of Endeavour and if they are the same as what Endeavour carried, you are in luck. Are you looking for the breeching, running out, and/or training tackle? There is also the muzzle lashing but I cannot recall ever seeing these on a model. Taking a look in Caruana's History of British Sea Ordnance Volume II, he gives information on diameter and length of the breeching rope for various calibers and barrel lengths, but I could not find the running out or training tackle sizes. The muzzle lashings were 2" diameter for all sizes according to Caruana. Lees is always a good source on most any type of rigging within the confines of time he covers. Anderson is good between 1600 and 1720 so not appropriate for Endeavour anyway. Allan

Welcome to MSW Art, Contact the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum boatyard in St. Michaels, Maryland and ask them about this. They were very helpful to me and even allowed me to take 2 foot long piece of an original keel from a skipjack they were restoring on one of my visits to their facility. I used this wood to cut into planks on my last skipjack model. https://cbmm.org/exhibitions/working-shipyard/ The following lists individual skipjacks and you can do a search of these then contact the owners directly. http://lastskipjacks.com/list.html Allan

They look to have very competitive prices for Foredom products. Are there good reasons to go with their 1/3HP rather than the 1/6HP for our ship model drilling and carving needs? My old Dremel flex unit is still working, but I am not sure how much longer it will last. At least that is what I keep telling myself in order to justify the expenditure for a Foredom unit. TIA Allan

It is always a learning process Mick. Lord knows I never run out of new information (because of my making mistakes) after forty five years of scratch building in this hobby. Regarding the battens and ledges of the gratings, the below is easier than words. I admire you taking on scratch building. For your next build, if you continue with scratching, there are about 800 sets of high resolution plans held by RMG available for free along with a couple thousand low res available on the Wiki Commons website. There are of course thousands more available from RMG in low res for free and high res for a price. I look forward to your next build log! Aside ...... are you an aficionado of Thorndike's Doctor Syn book series? If you are, would you recommend them to a prospective Romney Marsh series reader? Allan

Just checked in to your build log and find your model to be one of the best executions of a Bounty kit here at MSW. Your workmanship is extremely nice to see. One thing to keep in mind for the gratings when you get to them on the upper deck, the ledges run athwartships and the the battens run fore and aft, not the opposite way as they appear to be on your lower deck. The contemporary drawings and other images of the Bounty on the RMG Collections site may be helpful if you have not already researched them. https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/search/Bounty Looking forward to your next posting and photos! Allan

Hi Syn, What they seem to show are ties, not jeers. It is hard to tell from the drawing but it looks like they may actually be a combination of ties and jeers on the same line which I don't think was ever used. Ties were no longer used on small ships by about 1640 and 1660 on large ships. Both Franklin and Lees concur on this approximate time line. I realize it is not your doing, but rather the kit plans, as I see a several other things that are not correct. For example, there are what appear to be holes in the bitt cross pieces as if there were supposed to be belaying pins. The problem is belaying pins were not used on Mordaunt, or any British ship in the 17th century for that matter. And, when they came into use on cross pieces in the 18th century, they were not in double rows. Another example are the gratings. There should not be open holes on the ends, and the battens should be running fore and aft, not the ledges. Again, I assume this is likely poor research on the part of the kit maker. For future, it is always a good idea to research everything with most kits the same as if it were a scratch build. If the rigging situation is still unclear, my apologies. Let me know and I will try to take a little time to do a sketch as I don't think it is a good idea to post copies of the drawings from the books as they are under copyright protection. Allan

Thank you very much for the smile you gave to another person with their fair share of senile moments (that person being me😀) Glad the other information may be of help. Allan

Your model really does look super Tom. One question, hope you don't mind. What diameter are the treenails for the deck planks? I believe that at your scale they would normally be between 0.015" and 0.02" diameter (3/4"-1" full size). Thanks Allan

Hi Jim, That drawing looks like Agamemnon 1781. Can you share how did you came to find this is from 1876? The reason I ask is that the British were building ironclads by 1876 and the vessel in the plans is surely 18th century, not late 19th century. Your signature has you building the Caldercraft Agamemnon which is the 1781vessel so a little confusing (or maybe a typo 😃) Mike may be correct, but assuming this is Agamemnon 1781 the arrows might not be the top and bottom of the wales. The bottom arrow looks to be pointing at the wales but the top arrow is pointing at what may be the black strake, which is not part of the wales as it is not as thick as the wales. The main wales of a 64 like Agamemnon in 1781 were 7" thick and later in the century went to 8" thick. The main wales on a 64 were 4' 2" broad (0.78125" at 1:64) The strake on top of the wales (which I believe is also known as the black strake) was 6.5" thick and 16" (0.25") broad. The planking above this strake was 4" thick. These figures are from both The Shipbuilder's Repository 1788 and Steel's Elements and of Naval Architecture 1805. As an FYI, the Establishments up to 1750 gave a thickness of 7" for a 60 (there are no 64's in the Establishment scantlings). The strake above the main wales in the Establishments was 5.5" thick. Allan

Warm welcome to you!! Glad to hear the sea takes precedence over air!! Allan

Syn I found a fourth rate Mordaunt in the 17th century, (1681) but no Mordaunt from the 18th century. It probably does not matter too much as the rigging for the jeers was pretty much the same from 1670 to 1811 depending on the rating of the ship. Can you post a photo or two of what you have found so far? If it is indeed from 1681 Richard Endsor has fantastic plans/ drawings of her in The Master Shipwright's Secrets that you would benefit from having to achieve accuracy in your model. In the meantime, based on information from Lees' Masting and Rigging English Ships of War and Anderson's Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast (1600-1720) I there would be a double jeers for the lower yard (both main and fore). There are very clear drawings of the upper part of the jeer rigging on pages 64 and 65 in Lees' book. In general each standing part was hitched or seized to the yard. Each of the two running parts rove between upper and lower blocks on the yard and sling in the tops then went down to the bitts. The port line went through the inboard sheave on the port bitt and belayed to the cross piece. The starboard line went through the inboard sheave on the starboard bitt and then belayed to the cross piece. Neither line went through two sheaves. Other lines ran through the other sheave holes. Belaying pins were not used at the time of Mordaunt. In case you have not already seen these photos, there is a model of Mordaunt 1681 at RMG that you can see in the collection section. https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-65965 This is a admiralty style, not rigged, but may be of some help none-the-less. Allan

Thanks Al, Have you been in touch with Maine Maritime Museum which I think is part of or next to the current shipyard complex which consists of five buildings, all part of the original Percy and Small Shipyard? As these are 20th century, perhaps they still have scantlings and/or drawings that may be of some help to you. Other members here may have more details for you based on their own research. Allan

Al Jaager makes excellent points. Are you talking about military, pleasure, fishing or some other type of schooner? English, American, Canadian, or??? If not a specific schooner, what size vessel? If you can provide these additional details, that could be a help in providing sources and/or details. Allan

Let me know if the drawing below is readable for you. For a scale of 1:64 the main mast, from the upper deck to the top of the mast is 9.46" The mizzen is 6.77" from the quarter deck to the top of the mast. I am also sending via PM Cheers Allan

Dave I did not check but I assume Derek's figures are right . Using those 70'7" and 60' 8" mast heights from the steps to the top I superimposed these on the low res profile drawing of Endeavour from RMG so you can pick a spot on the decks from which to measure. Hope this helps. If this is not working, PM me and I can forward as an attachment. I can send in whatever scale you want. Allan

Your work should be an inspiration to all members. Looking forward to the next progress report. Allan

Me too ShotLocker. If you go by Patti's on Philadelphia Street say hello from an old fan of their hot sausage hoagies back in the late 60's. My admiral graduated from IUP in '70 so I had a chance to spend some quality hours there when coming to visit her. Allan

This guy was something else! https://www.adventure-journal.com/2021/12/this-is-one-of-the-most-badass-sea-crossings-ever/

Thanks Vaddoc, much appreciated! Just as an FYI for the future, the planking should be 8 inches broad (0.80 inches at 1:10 scale) and 7/8" thick. I cannot tell from the photo but they look closer to 0.5" or 0.6" Of course sanding will take the thickness down so probably a non-issue. If you don't already have it, detailed scantlings for every part of the various types and sizes of ships' boats can be found in W.E. Mays book on boats of English men of war. There is a copy on Amazon for less than $10. Cheers Allan

Hi Vaddoc I like your build very much! Is this from the RMG drawing https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-86936 for the late 18th century? Thank you Allan

Welcome to MSW Steve. You now have over 40,000 new acquaintances and friends. Allan

What you are saying Shipman makes a lot of sense, but in redrawing plans from RMG over the years I have found that they are often a bit distorted in one dimension or both due to folds and changes from aging. I always check the scale on the contemporary drawing and the called for length on the gun deck or other given dimension often found on the heading of the drawing, then insert the drawing into my CAD program and adjust the dimensions accordingly before having them printed or if I am redrawing them. I have found as much as a half inch differential in length of the drawing compared to the called for dimension on the original at times. I have no doubt the draftsman had it right when he prepared the plans, but 300 years can have its effect on the physical drawing. Allan