allanyed

5 hours ago, MikeR said:

I have been thinking of another little project, a carronade

Hi Mike,

If you have not already seen them, there are about a dozen contemporary carronade drawings on the RMG Collections website including the two 18 pounders below.  In addition I would be happy to PM what I have redrawn from Caruana in whatever scale you would like.

Sorry to go off subject, Western PA is our old stomping grounds.   We will be in Oakmont in October visiting friends and going to the Steeler/Jaguars game.  Black and gold all the way in our family.  I did my graduate work at Pitt and the Admiral is a graduate of IUP to boot.  I still have many fond memories including the great walleye fishing in Pymatuning.  You are in a wonderful part of the country. 

Allan

Knocklouder

 In TFFM Volume II,  David Antscherl mentions the lack of room and thus the possibility that they were six feet from muzzle to cascabel rather than muzzle to breech ring.   FWIW below is a drawing with dimensions for 1:64 of Armstrong Fredericks which would be right for Pegasus 1776.  It shows one with 6 feet from muzzle to breech ring and one with 6 feet from muzzle to cascabel.  Note that the AF pattern has a flash pan, cascabel ring and a chase astragal ring.  The cascabel ring is a predominant feature on both the Armstrong pattern and Armstrong-Frederick pattern cannons.  Sorry for the imperial figures versus metric.  The bore in the drawing below is 3.6" as the 6 pounders were 3.5" in diameter.  

Allan

13 hours ago, MikeR said:

Summer time is a slow time for modeling,

Hi MIke,

Totally understood! Enjoy the outdoors, sounds like you are north and contend with cooler winter weather so enjoy the rest of your summertime.

Regarding the cannon, again, your project really looks great.   For the future keep in mind that the specified length of the gun is the length from the muzzle to the breech ring, not the overall length, thus the dimensions I show in the sketch for  7' 6" barrels.  

Allan

This is absolutely gorgeous and looks like it was a fun break from your Flying Fish model.  The carriage and accoutrements are especially great looking.

Cannon patterns came up in another topic lately.  Assuming this is Pallas 1757, she would probably have had Armstrong pattern cannon.  Did all the Armstrong pattern castings have a chase astragal and fillets between the muzzle astragal and the second reinforce ring and a button ring or were some cast without these?  Like you I have been thinking about doing a similar project for a change of pace and was curious about this before taking the plunge for this approximate time period.  I realize the Armstrong Frederick pattern came into use about 1760, but other than the addition of the primer pan, their appearance is very similar on drawings that I have seen that are based on contemporary information.  The sketch below is based on Armstrong pattern drawings in The History of English Sea Ordnance Volume II by Adriana Caruana.

Thanks

Allan

If you do a search here at MSW you will see a lot of these old decorator models which have virtually no monetary value.  They are interesting as they are approaching 100 years old and if you like it, that is the most important thing.  It is not an accurate model of any real ship but the value is whatever owning it means to you, so enjoy it.

Allan

Mark,

The formulae are really not too complex, BUT, there would need to be double the amount of entries available for ships built between 1670 and 1710.

Group 1

Ships with a beam more than 27 feet

(Length of the keel for computation X + Breadth Y+ Depth in the hold Z)/1.66 - (Y-27) 

Group 2 

Ships with a beam less than 27 feet

(Length of the keel for computation X + Breadth Y+ Depth in the hold Z)/1.66 + (27-Y)) 

You can do a quick bit of research by Googling Higgins boats and go to images for lots of plans then download and save whichever ones you want.  Not sure which ones you want though, the LCVP or some others as they built a number of vessels at their yards with the 20,000 workers employed there during WWII 

Insert into your CAD program and scale to whatever you need or save on a flash drive and take it to a local print shop.   DOUBLE CHECK  the measurements when they print as half the time I have found them to be slightly out of scale.  An engineering printing company is your best best as they seem to always get it right.    The pic at the following address can be opened in high res if you click on the original file bottom left of the drawing.  

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/LCVP_Landing_Craft-_Inboard_Profile_and_Construction_Plan_-_NARA_-_78116787.jpg

Allan

Julian Stockwin's series about Thomas Kidd,  26 books to 2023,  I enjoyed these as much as the Dewey Lambdin series.  Both are up there with O'Brien IMHO

Thomas Paine Kydd, a young wig-maker from Guildford, is seized by a press gang in book one and climbs the ladder from there.

Allan

Mark,

Thank you!  IF I can come up with the formula can I send it to you to fix the program in the data base?  I don't need to do this just for me as I have a copy of Lees which I have used in the past for that span of years.

Allan

9 hours ago, mtaylor said:

Just about every OS banned Flash as it was leaky and easily hacked.  

I think I will stick with Lees' and do it the long way with his set of ratios.   Would love to have the original spread sheets that Danny made and fix the early dates although the math is not so easy for that 1670-1710 period.  

Allan

13 hours ago, Thukydides said:

the characteristics of the 6 pounders which were installed in 1778 replacing the old 4 pounders.

Thank you.  I am guessing these would have been Armstrong Fredericks which came into use about 1760 and which are different than the pattern in the picture.  It appears to be missing the ring around the button and the chase astragal and fillets found on both Armstrong  and Armstrong Frederick patterns but probably not that noticeable at 1:64.    Picture below may help for a 6'-6" six pounder with lengths shown at full size and at 1:64 that may help.  Do you know what the smallest guns were that carried the cypher?  I show the George III cypher here but not sure if it is was cast on every Armstrong Frederick six pounder.  Vanguard's cannons are beautiful and have the chase astragal so I am guessing it is just missing on the drawing.

Allan

On 7/12/2023 at 2:30 PM, Azzoun said:

By the way, all those references came from a book you should get if you're going to continue rigging ships. 

Peterson's book has nice drawings but unfortunately no dimensional information for blocks or lines and is very limited as it is based solely on one model of an English 36 gun frigate, the Melampus 1794.  It might not be very appropriate for other British naval rates and eras (or Canadian fishing schooners that came 127 years later.)  There is a lot of rigging information, including block sizes and more for American fishing schooners that may be more closely related to a Canadian fishing schooner in Chappelle's book The American Fishing Schooners.  

Allan

Hi Bill,

Ref. photos in post #955..... Is there a reason you used "tarred" line instead of normal running rigging line?  I would think tarred line would gum up the sheaves in the blocks if used on a real ship.   I cannot find any information so far where tarred line was run through blocks.  Maybe someone can shed some light on this based on sources contemporary to the 17th through 19th centuries.

Allan

Do you know what pattern gun is in the drawing?  It looks a little bit like an Armstrong-Frederick pattern which would be appropriate for 1777 but the one in the drawing is a design I have never seen before for this period.  

Allan

Thank you Pat and Bob.   I had been wondering if someone could have created a problem in the articles data base and that was why my system would not allow it to open.  I see that I can bypass this, but still wonder if there is not some problem in the program.   In the end there is always the complete version in Lees albeit much slower to use than Danny's spreadsheets. 

Thanks again everyone!

Allan

Thukydides

Do you know what size and pattern cannon is in the drawing you show in the first post?   I imagine it is something like six pounders on a cutter but not sure as the rigging with the double block is more like what was normally used only for the largest calibers.

Thanks

Allan

11 hours ago, Thukydides said:

I am having trouble picturing what you mean by thimbles attached to the neck of the button.

Me too.  I cannot find a picture anywhere.   The only information I can find is from Caruana .History of English Sea Ordnance Volume II, page 383

It is documented in the first edition of Falconers Marine Dictionary , (T. Cadell, London, 1769) where it is stated that "the middle of the breeching is seized to the thimble of the pommillion", when the guns were cast loose prior to firing.  The so-called Burner edition of Falconer, published by Cadell in 1815 is more specific (but very out-of-date) stating that the breeching "is fixed by reeving it through a thimble, strapped upon the cascabel".   A gun fitted in this manner exists at the Rotunda Museum of Artillery   

Allan

Thank you very much Ben and Bruce!!!  VERY much appreciated.

Allan

Way too much to copy from Caruana's History of English Sea Ordnance Volume II, pp381-3    In short, up to about the middle of the 18th century the breeching was simply taken in a round turn round the neck of the button and secured by means of a seizing.

The next solution employed wrought iron double thimbles attached to the neck of the button. 

The thimbles were eventually discontinued in favor of a spliced eye in the bight of the breeching.  This is described in Steel's Art of Rigging of 1797. 

Of course the breeching ring of the Blomefield changed everything.

Allan

I believe finding boxwood in any form is difficult and it is expensive.   I found small logs some years back and have hoarded it for carvings so if you have more than you need right now, be happy.

Allan

1 hour ago, BenD said:

What are you using?

 Sorry Ben, but I have no idea what you mean.   All I know is that it says Microsoft is blocking due to macro.

Allan

4 hours ago, DaveBaxt said:

This  boxwood seems to have a larger grain than boxwood previously used.and has a tendency to split, when cutting the sweeping ports and gun ports ,

The work still looks really fine David.   Splitting and larger grain on boxwood does sound odd.  Is this a true English buxus or a different species going by the name boxwood as was the case with Castello for period of time?

Allan

Has anyone recently tried to use this lately?  I had no issues in years past but recently I get a message that the program has a potentially dangerous macro and will not open.  I have no idea what that means, and I am worried the program has been compromised.  It would be a shame as it quickly provides the same data  based on James Lees proportions in The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War.  (The exception is the time period 1670-1710 as the ratios Danny used in the spread sheet are incorrect and should not be used.)  

Allan

8 hours ago, alpayed said:

I have found errors in Steel's work.

There are several errors in Steel's Elements and Practices of Naval Architecture as well, usually scantlings on two lines transposed such as breadth having the thickness dimension and thickness having the breadth dimension.   Even with these few miscues both the Steel rigging and building books are great, the only drawback is that they apply to a somewhat limited time frame.

Allan  

7 hours ago, AlainB said:

the machine will work in the garden!

I don't know where you are located in France, but if you are in Provence I would work in the garden every day that I could, surrounded by lavender,  and snacking on Charentais melons.   Allan