allanyed

There are drawings of secured guns from Congreve's Treatise on the Mounting of Sea Service Ordnance, Falconer's Universal Dictionary of the Marine and Dupin's Voyages dans la Grande Bretagne that can be found on pages 382-388 in volume II of Caruana's The History of English Sea Ordnance For secured guns no lines are lying on the deck. Train tackle is of course removed completely and the running out rigging is frapped. The two most common methods SEEM to be a gun run in, secured and housed and at times the guns could be secured run out. The following are from page 382 of Caruana's The History of English Sea Ordnance ISBN 0-948864-22-2 He does not show any drawings where the guns were turned 90 degrees so they faced fore and aft and were secured to the bulk heads. There may be differences for Armstrong Frederick pattern guns and earlier patterns compared to the Blomefields shown below but I suspect they would all be similar with lines off the deck. Allan

The plank expansion plans are extremely useful for dimensional information and supposedly for the shape they show for every strake. This is a question to everyone and anyone: We know planks were spiled to some extent to achieve the shape needed, especially at the bow. But, would there also be some heating and pre-bending in addition to or instead of spiling as needed in areas such as midships, where the bend is less severe and less prone to lifting if edge set. It has been my understanding that these expansion drawings may have been more of a guide rather than a puzzle showing all the pieces and the exact shapes to which they must adhere when being made. Allan

As there is no scale on the planking expansion drawing you can check the distance between station lines on each drawing near midships. If both drawings are the same scale I THINK the distance between stations would be the same. On the profile drawing the distance between station lines is about 1.21". What is the distance from station to station on the outer planking expansion drawing near midships? It's a shame there is no scale on the outboard or inboard expansion drawings of the Diana. I checked some others and found the expansion plans of the Squirrel has a scale so it was apparently not universal to include/exclude it. Allan

It sounds like you have virtually no experience with wooden ships. If that is the case, many folks here will attest to starting small and learning before tackling a more complex model. It seems a major winner in that category is the three vessel series by David Antscherl available from Model Shipways. https://modelexpo-online.com/Model-Shipways-Shipwright-3-Kit-Combo-Series_p_5465.html is one source, there may be others. You mention wanting a British ship but list Grecian which is American. 😀 Allan

Welcome to MSW George. Is this boat for the steam yacht Greta, 1895 or some other vessel and year? In what country was she built? Finding an appropriate motor driven ship's boat might be a bit easier with a little more information. There are a lot of designs I found on the internet including the one below of a 30 foot boat of 1911 but it may be totally inappropriate in design. If you have not already contacted the folks at the the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, they may have some useful information in their archives. https://rnli.org/about-us/our-history/archive-and-library Allan

Your work looks great to me. I think most/all of us at MSW hope to improve with experience so you are part of a huge team of like minded enthusiasts. Allan

Nice looking boat! Maybe something you would like for your files ,boat scantlings PDF is attached below. These are circa 1800 and there were small variations over time so the dimensions are not cast in stone. From W.E. May Allan Boat Scantlings 1-28-14.pdf

Harry. I calculated the diameter at 1.81 inches then scaled it to 1:48 1.81/48=0.0377. IF your scale is something else, just divide the 1.81 by the scale you are using then convert to metric if you prefer metric. Allan

The model you show is really well done and if you want black rope go for it. You can always just get tan rope and stain it with India ink or wood stain. India ink is acidic so wood stains may be better. Hopefully other members will have suggestions of stains that are appropriate. Keep in mind that the ship is fictional and the model they made is not accurate in some respects. For example it shows belaying pins which were not prevalent until much later in the 18th century. In the end, do what makes you happiest, this is a hobby after all. Allan

Dark brown is realistic. IF tarred rope was used it would have been pine resin or something similar and the color would be dark brown, never black. Kits often include black which is not correct in the majority, or perhaps all, cases. 17th century models often had untarred rope on the standing rigging so the era is something to consider. If you are staying with the 18th century rigging, dark brown is the way to go, not black. Allan

I am pretty sure you have nothing more to do other than start the program by hitting the enter data button at the top, but you put the two dimensions in the first rate box. Your ship is closer to a fifth or sixth rate. I have no idea if the results would actually change. Long hand using the ratios in Lees (88+26)/2=57 57/3= 19 so the mast diameter is 19 inches The circumference of the main stay is 0.5X 19=9.5" The circumference of the shroud is 9.5X 0.6 =5.7" The diameter/thickness is 5.7/3.14159= 1.81" At a scale of 1:48 it is 0.0377" or 0.96mm so 1mm should do well for you if you are building to 1:48 scale. The diameter for the foremast will be smaller and for the mizzen smaller still. For the foremast most people would not notice if you use the same diameter as for the foremast. For buying rope, where are you located?

Do the kit ladders all have only three steps? The distance between the orlop deck planks to the top of the lower gun deck planking is about 80". Thanks Allan

Thank you very much Adam Allan

The shroud circumference is 0.6 X the stay of that mast. The lower stay was half the diameter of the appropriate lower mast. Depending on the era, the mast diameter was 0.9 to 1 inch for each 3 feet of length. The length of the main mast was 2.4 the beam up to 1669. From 1670 you add the length of the keel, breadth of the ship and depth of the ship, then divide by 1.66. Then, if the beam exceeds 27 feet deduct from the total the amount that the beam is in excess of 27 feet, If the beam is less than 27 feet add to the total, the amount that the beam is short of 27 feet. From 1711 it is the length of the lower gun deck plus the extreme beam (outside of the planking) and divide the total by two. This is all from Lees' Masting and Rigging Allan

If you wind up doing a hull without copper or just leave it plain wood for any reason, there usually are no stealers at the bow, but there were sometimes drop strakes. There were times when stealers were used aft which were to fill an open space where as the drop strakes forward were used because of too little space. Hope this makes sense.

I just double checked and now I am confused. I missed that Steel indicates that there is a filling transom between the wing and deck transom AND two filling transoms below the deck transom for a total of five. Part of my own confusion is that he gives the space between the wing and filling transom below it as 2.5" but there is no space given between that filling transom and deck transom. The Shipbuilder's Repository 1788 has a filling transom between the wing transom and deck transom but no indication of transoms below the deck transom. The Establishments give scantlings for the filling transoms and space between them but no information as to how many filling transoms there are. And to add more confusion, the following is from a 28 gun ship the Aurora, 1776. She is slightly larger than Porcupine and Crocodile Porcupine Length 114 ft 3 in (34.82 m) (overall) 94 ft 2 in (28.70 m) (keel) Beam 32 ft 2+1⁄2 in (9.817 m) Aurora Length 120 ft 6 in (36.73 m) (overall) 99 ft 4 in (30.28 m) (keel) Beam 33 ft 7 in (10.2 m) From the Aurora contract: WING TRANSOM … The Wing transom to be sided 11½ ins, & moulded at the ends 13 ins, in the Middle 20 ins No Chocks to be admitted on the Aftside, & to be bolted to the Post with 2 bolts of 1¼ inch diameter & to be left 13 ins in the middle for the better room for the bolts. FILLING TRsm To have two Transoms between the Wing & deck Transoms sided 10 ½ ins & to be left for air between the wing & filling & each other 4 ½ ins & filling & deck planks 5” & to be to be bolted to the post with one bolt of one in diameter. The Chocks on the Aft side, if any not to exceed 12 ins, DECK TRsm The Deck Transom to be sided 11 ins & moulded a broad as may be for the better fastening of the plank of the Deck, bolted to the post with one bolt of one in diameter. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OTHER TRsm To have one whole Transom below the deck Transom free from shakes to be sided 10 ins to lye 3” clear of the deck Transom & both this & the deck Transom kindly grown as not to require the Chocks of the Breech to be too large. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Which ship is your drawing? Allan

Welcome to MSW Harry!! Hope you post some pics as this sounds like a very interesting project. Regarding the rigging, it is almost always given in circumference rather than thickness (diameter) so you will have to do some converting. There is a chart here at MSW where all you have to do is enter some basic data and it will give you the dimensions of the masts, yards, and rigging lines. The Disney series was taking place about 1728 but the ship design looks more like 17th century. The earliest you can use with the chart is 1627 and 1640 or you can use 1711. DO NOT USE 1670 as the spread sheet is completely wrong for 1670-1710. Go to https://thenrg.org/resource/articles and scroll down to the rigging spread sheet by Danny Vadas. In actual practice for your build, depending on your scale, you can probably just use 7 or 8 different size lines and it will look good so you can just use the chart as a general guide. Good luck Allan

https://www.modelshipbuilder.com/page.php?224 Scroll down to the Hancock Allan

Purely a guess but unless things changed drastically between the 16th and 17th century there would have been inboard planking. The below is from a 17th century set of scantlings where you can see dimensions of various planking inboard for the 6 rates of ship.

In the scantlings in The Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture by Steel, Folio IV, it gives a total of four transoms with dimensions for a 24 gun ship. These include the wing, deck and two filling transoms for a 24 gun ship so match up with the contemporary plans of Porcupine, Crocodile, Squirrel, Pelican, Syren, and others. Where did you find Steel showing five transoms for a 24? In the Steel scantlings that I have, the smallest ship with five transoms is a 38. I would go with Steel scantlings and the contemporary plans rather than a modern publication. I looked at 28's and the ones I studied all had two transoms between the wing and deck and one filling transom below the deck transom. Larger ships, but not enough for an extra transom??? Allan

Thanks Phil! I may be working on a new project shortly, but even so, rigging will be months down the road so whenever you get to it, I look forward to hearing the results. Enjoy your vacation!! Allan

Clever!!!!

She is a beautiful model! Your planking was done so well that I am sad to see paint covering your great work. Allan

Even the old masters often rigged models without sails but they all still included the running rigging. Your choice in the end, but you already have running rigging in place why not do the rest. There is no good way to install the booms without the lifts and such, which is running rigging, and already installed. Is there a reason you ran tarred lines through some of the blocks (your last photo of the boom tackle)? I would guess that they would gum up the sheaves in no time. It may just be the photo but those lines look black, thus my question. Very nice looking model Boerscht! Allan

Very interesting idea Phil. I hope it works and please do post photos for us. TIA Allan