allanyed

Les. Sorry Les, but I am confused. Are you thinking of planking the entire hull in oak rather than walnut? You mentioned you ran out of walnut so it sounded like you had already started the planking in that kind of wood. If you already finished half the planking in walnut, oak does not seem to make sense. I have always found oak in places like Home Depot and Lowes to be very grainy but I have no idea what species they sell. As yours has a tight grain I am curious to know what species, if you happen to know. From what I can find there are over 50 species of oak in North America. I was very surprised to find there were so many!! Allan

Les, You may want to consider the type of walnut, claro, black, English or some other. Try making a few planks the easy way first from your board and see if it is a reasonable match in color and grain to the planks that came in your kit. If it is a different species, the contrast may not be what you would like regardless of which direction you make the cuts from the board that you have. Allan

Hi Henry As a result of this topic being posted, I did some digging and learned a lot about something that I had little or no knowledge previously, so it was a great learning experience for me as well. As you say in your signature Laissez le bon temps rouler!!! Allan

Jud, Can you post a photo or drawing of how this is done? What you wrote makes total good sense, but how was this done? I am thinking 18th century and I envision pockets cut into the board for the rings to rest when laying down. Thanks! Allan

Hi Tom, that is definitely a possible solution although was difficult to reach. An example would be Medway, 1742 where the stay tackle and preventer stay tackle were belayed "round itself" Hi Henry, deadeyes were only used for the fore topmast stays between 1670 and 1680 (The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, page 52). Preventer stays are a different matter. Fore topmast preventer stays came into use about 1700 and deadeyes were used for some ships at the start, and by nearly all rates by 1719. They were no longer used by 1745 when bees with sheaves came into use but there were exceptions. (The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, page 54). Endeavor was launched nineteen years later, so odds are she would not have had deadeyes on the preventer stay. Allan

Stephen For the tissue I apply a light coat of white or yellow glue to one edge of the plank. If it is to be tapered, make sure that is done first. Lay the plank with the glued edge onto the paper which should be on a flat surface. It will dry in a few minutes. I use a scalpel, as the blades are sharper and cheaper than Xacto blades, to cut the the plank away from the sheet, them trim any excess paper left hanging. Sorry I do not have any photos that would make it easier to describe. If this still not enough info, let me know and I will try to make up a couple planks with tissue and take photos. Allan

Welcome to MSW Stephen, Black tissue gift wrap paper works beautifully. You can get a package at a craft store like Michaels for a under $2US and it will last a long time. The appearance is much more clear than pencil or inked edges but does take a little more time than the pencil or inking method. If the scale is smaller, such as 1:98, I would go with pencil or marker ink. Allan

Richard, The drawings certainly are more clear, but, they show the fore topmast stay rigged to a long block which was not used for the fore topmast stay after 1745, according to Lees. Don't know who has it right on this one, Mr. Lees or Mr. Marquardt. Allan

Welcome to our motley crew Jack. Do let us know about your current and/or planned projects. No lack of helpful hands here for you. Allan

Hi Pleasant, The only thing I could find was in Lees' Masting and Rigging. The fore topmast stay did have a set of blocks as on your drawing. The stay rove through the bee on the starboard side of the sprit and had a double block seized in the end. The running part was as your drawing, but the only thing he mentions about belaying is that it is "made fast on the forecastle." The preventer would run through the bee on the port side as on the drawing and belay on the forecastle as well. Allan

Cherry wood makes great furniture, but if you want a reddish color for planking, frames, or other parts of your model, Swiss (steamed) pear is a great way to go. It has no figuring and very small if any visible grain, holds an edge, carves and finishes well. Allan

Pleasant, Belated welcome to MSW. To the drawing, this does not look right. What are the rest of the words "repeated fore prev" ... ? On top of the sprit, the "S" looks to be deadeyes for the forestay and the deadeyes just forward of those are for the fore preventer stay. The line below could be a bobstay, but for Endeavor's time period, these would probably have been rigged with deadeyes, not blocks. Do the plans give a name to this line? Can you show the rest of the picture of the sprit. Assuming it is shown correctly, the running part of the line would have to run aft and secured possibly at a timber head or cleat. Again, welcome to MSW Allan

Jeff, The reef tackle, throat halyard, and main sheets may very well have used a combination of both single and double blocks. I would be very surprised in no double blocks were used. Allan

Jaager I had this very conversation recently as it would be a second phase to the Scantlings of Royal Navy Ships. MOST of the contracts over a spread of a few years are virtually identical for a given rate once you get past the names of the builders, yard location and dates. It would likely only take a few contracts for each rate in any five or ten year period to have a pretty comprehensive set of contracts. You do have to be careful though as scantlings sometimes varied slightly from contract to contract. There are contracts for ships' boats as well which would be a nice thing to include. There are a lot of contracts for later ships in type face so much much easier to "interpret," but not nearly as much fun 😐 After 1718 the Establishments, Shipbuilder's Repository and Steel really say it all but I found there were definitely some small differences in contracts at those times compared to these sources. If I remember this correctly Mark P explained to me that there are not many, if any, contracts during the peace years as ships could pretty much all be built in Royal yards so the Establishments scantlings would be the information to follow if a model is from those peace years. I am sure he can enlighten all of us a bit more as he is truly an expert in this area. Allan

I think Jaager has the right idea if you only need a few knees. Years ago I had visions of making lodging and hanging knees from branches pruned in a local apple orchard. No problem collecting hundreds of branches, but the cutting was not easy at scale so I gave up and used close grained (Castello boxwood) wood with no issues what so ever. If you go with the crooked pieces, pear or apple would be great, and again, with only a few to make, it could be fun little project. Problem right now is that they do not usually prune this time of year, but maybe a local orchard will have brush piles as did the one near me and as Jaager suggests. These would have pretty well dried wood. Do not use fresh cut unless you want to debark them then wait months for them to thoroughly dry. Allan

Sorry Frank, I have not had the "pleasure" of transcribing any contracts prior to the 1690's, which is a fun filled hour or more (per page) I don't think that you can assume that because hooks and eyes are not mentioned, that they were bolted. Then again, no one can say the model builder had it wrong if there is no evidence otherwise. Allan

I am with Mark, you can make a variety of custom sized sanding sticks to meet your needs, from scrap wood, at no cost other than the sandpaper. Inside and outside radiuses are easily cut on a scroll saw or band saw. Soft holders are good for some surfaces to be sure, but not really necessary. I have a rubber block that I use on the hull for final sanding, otherwise, wooden sticks are better suited in many, if not most, cases because they can be custom sized. As to the finger nail sanding blocks, I tried these as well, but she was very upset when she went to look for hers and it was on my workbench. Be aware!! Allan

Frank, If the bolts in the standards/knees go all the way through the bitts into the cross pieces, it seems to me it would defeat the purpose of easy removal. Just my thoughts though. Mark, Thank you, the drawing is a big help. Druxey, Great points all around thank you. Lived and learned, so was a good day! Allan

Hi Jaager, Thank you for your response. Sorry for any miscommunication, I was referring to the riding bitts not the jeer and sheet bitts. There were no belaying pins on the sheet and jeer bitts nor were there pin rails elsewhere, at least on British ships, from the 17th century. I posted a photo from a late 17th century model at NMM below as an example. The contract states that the stern and stem pieces were to be bolted with 1 1/8" bolts so I don't think making three foot long bolts was a problem as those were actually longer. You bring up a very good point when you mention bolts and nuts and rust as at that time, forelock bolts may have been used as well as threaded bolts with nuts due to corrosion problems (although a good coating of tar may have helped.) Then again, Vasa was found to have bolts and nuts used to a high degree. I agree that hooks and eyes would be easier if the cross timber had to be replaced, but how often would that happen, if ever? Maybe during a major overhaul or complete rebuild so I don't think that was the reason. The following is the complete paragraph from the contracts. Note that the spelling below is not mine, but is as found in the contracts. To place Two Pair of Substantiall Bitt Pinns The Aftermost Pair To be Sixteen Inches and the Foremost pair to be Fifteen Inches Square in the Head with Cross Peices to Each pair of the Same Dimentions. To Step them in Hold and to Place them abaft the Beame. To be Stopped with a score of an Inch Deep into the same and Bolted with Two Bolts in Each of an Inch Auger. To score the Crosspeices into the Bitts about Two Inches and to brace them together with Four pair of substantiall Iron Hookes and Eyes. To fix Two Pairs of good Standarts Upon Four Substantiall Carlings Placed between Beame and Beame in the Wake of them. The Fore and Aft Arme to be as long as the Bitt Pinns are in Distance and Bolt them with Five Bolts in Each Standart by an Inch and Eighth Auger. Frank, Thank you as well for your response. These ships were 48 gun fourth rates, and I believe the cross pieces were single pieces, albeit, very heavy. (700 pounds and more) Was the after wear that you mention from handling the anchor cable? I can see this, but it would only take place when handling the anchors and that was not so often. Was the wear that terrific to have to change these out very often? If that is the case, I would think that the hook and eye would not have gone out of favor and been replaced with bolting in place. Wear does seem to be the most logical reason though.

Makes sense Druxey, but I do wonder why the cross piece would be secured to the bitt pins with hooks and eyes rather than bolted. Possibly to more easily mend if struck by a cannon ball? Time to get out the WABAC machine again and visit the old master shipwrights for their take.

Welkom by MSW Andre. Allan

Goodwin gives details on how the bitt pins are mortised and the cross pieces bolted in place. He also shows a sketch of the cross pieces on the Foudroyant being secured to the bitts with hooks and eyes. The hook and eye method was apparently around for a long time as I found the following description in contracts for Severn and Burlington (contract dated 20 September 1695,) Colchester and Romney (contract dated 18 February 1693) and Jersey, (contract dated 31 July 1696) They all use the same wording. To score the Crosspeices into the Bitts about Two Inches and to brace them together with Four pair of substantiall Iron Hookes and Eyes. The contracts describe the bitt pins being bolted to the appropriate beams, but make no mention of the cross pieces being bolted to the pins, just the use of the hooks and eyes. As the cross timbers weighed about 750 pounds (single baulk of English oak, 15"X15" X 128") it would be a chore to remove it for any reason. My question is, unless damaged or worn out, why would it be removed? If it is not to be removed on a regular basis, why have the hook and eye rather than bolting them in place which is more secure and I believe was the more common practice, at least according to Goodwin. As all of the contracts are clear, I plan to use the hook and eye method in the model, but at least this enquiring mind would love to know why it would be used rather than being bolted. TIA Allan

Back in the late 70's, a friend and I were building Islander 32 yacht models from fiber glass. When it came time to make the non-skid patterns for the deck, I mixed powdered glass with paint. Masked off the pattern where the deck was to remain smooth, then painted the appropriate non-side areas with this mixture. Worked beautifully as it was consistent and did not look out of scale. Allan

Vaddoc, I checked in Lavery's Arming and Fitting as he has a lot of information on ships' boats, but only mentions which boats had davits for lifting the buoy rope of the anchors. It SEEMS the davit would be of sufficient weight that there would just be a slot in the bottom to rest on the iron pivot rod. What year is given on the NMM drawing that you are using? In reading up on the yawls, I saw that there were a lot of changes in their design and whether they were clinker or carvel built depending on the year.

Matiz, I am very impressed with your start on Euryalus and will follow your build as she is so close to my heart. For many years I have been lucky to be in Milano and Firenze for work several times each year, but of course now that is not possible. If I ever get back to Toscana, I would love to sip a grappa or two with you and discuss this great hobby of ours. Ciao Allan