Stockholm tar

Eamonn,

Thanks. I didn't get as far on her as I had hoped but, as you say, roll on next year!

John,

I think each gun would have been perpendicular to its own gunport, which means it would actually follow the curve of the bulwarks overall, depending on how much or little that was. The gun tackles would have induced that. Any horizontal aim required on a target would have been achieved by a crew during a battle, levering it's own particular gun round with the use of hand spikes.

The gun would also probably not literally have been right up against the side of the ship, as there would have been a gap caused by the by the foremost trucks coming up against the waterway.

As mentioned, there are 33 frames indicated on Underhill’s half-breadth and sheer profile drawings. Those of the fore body are numbered consecutively from the bow, running aft 1-6, then alternately 7, 9, 11 and 13; the after frames also run consecutively from the stern, running forward 33 – 27, then 25, 23, 21, and 19. Mid-ship frames Nos. 15 and 17 are not shown on the half breadth, since presumably they are of the same dimensions as frames 13 and 19, making four similar sized frames amidships.

Now we come to the really exciting bit – the task of tracing out each individual frame, transferring them onto paper templates, cutting them out and gluing each template to the birch ply. There are also the keel, stem and sternpost elements to make but, since the SL was built in the early 20^th century, these will not be very prominent. They will be attached to the backboard first, as naturally they form the base for the frames, and will be positioned rather more to the left hand side of the backboard. With the bowsprit being to the right, repositioning the hull a little more the other way will equalise the ‘visual’ distance each side of the model. (Incidentally, there would seem to be a convention that the bow of half models was normally to the right and the stern to the left. I am not sure why this was so, but it would appear to be almost an unwritten ‘rule’.) I don’t intend to tempt fate – and will follow tradition!

Sourcing the birch ply turned out to be something of a problem. The model shops I first looked at only sold 3-4mm thick sheets in small sizes, which would produce at most about four frames per sheet – and would turn out a little expensive, since I would need to buy several sheets. Luckily, a more general craft shop sold larger sheets of 760cm by 760cm, a much better prospect, being enough to make all the frames, with material over for bulwarks, false deck, etc. However they had only three quite badly warped sheets left, obviously caused by incorrect storage. Needless to say I didn’t buy any of them but, unbeknown to me, my wife returned to the shop some days later, when they had new stock, and came home with a flattish, but acceptable, sheet – although she wasn’t exactly carrying it under her arm! Since I wasn’t aware that she was going to do this I was, as you might imagine, somewhat surprised and delighted.

The first thing to do was do was to mark out the sheet at 10cm intervals, making seven sections, with the 760cm by 6cm piece left over as mentioned above. Each section will accommodate at least five frames, perhaps more with the smaller ones at bow and stern, so there will be enough to make them all.

As I mentioned this is a summer project, so unfortunately this is as far as I will be able to progress this year. The board will be layed flat on a table, weighted down over the winter, and hopefully it will be ready for me to begin cutting out the frames next year.

Photo shows tracings of the frames, two transferred to paper templates, set on the birchply board:

Eamonn,

Looks just the job. Now you've set me off thinking about the darn big rudder hole on my Sherbourne, which I think I could still fix. The finish on your guns looks good, as if they have been well used. I hope to be starting on my Sherbourne again soon. Now, where was I? Oh, yes, the staysail sheet horse, I think...

I know what you mean about Italian coffee. We were in Naples earlier this year, and could hardly go past a coffee shop without going in for a top up!

Hi Eamonn,

Good to have you back and making good progress on your 'Bally'. Sounds like you've the guns to your satisfaction – although of course, we can't tell until we see the pics?

Glad you had a good time in Venice. My wife and I went there for our honeymoon, and enjoyed it very much. How's the flood prevention work progressing, or didn't you see much of that?

In the meantime, don't get into 'convulsions' with the planking – or should that be 'do'?   

I thought it was one of those parts that served no real function like a figurehead or something...

What?!! I think if you'd said that back in the eighteenth century (and the 16th, 17th and probably 19th as well) to a ship's company, you would very likely been thrown overboard!

The figurehead represented the 'soul' of the ship and was treated with great reverence. There is at least one occasion one record where, in the middle of a battle, the figurehead's hat was shot away and the ship's company refused to fight on until it was replaced. I believe the captain replaced it with his own and the fight was then resumed. Off the top of my head, I think the ship was the Brunswick and that it was during the Seven Years War – but I stand to be corrected.

Sorry, as you were...

I too treasure my copy of William James's six volume "The Naval History of Great Britain". But old Billy-Jim tends to be a bit of an Ameri-phobe, especially in his first work, "Naval Occurrences ..." published in 1816.

Perhaps. However, even though he was English, he was not a naval officer or in the government, but a trained lawyer (I believe he had practised in Jamaica). As you might expect, he systematically weighed up all the available evidence from his own, seemingly thorough, investigations. I might say that in this regard he also fell foul of some British naval officers, over deductions he made over some British ship actions during the Napoleanic Wars – I believe one of them even going to so far as visiting his house and knocking him down!

As far as the official report goes, I don't think British naval officers were in the habit of writing untruths, why would they? The Admiralty would have found out pretty quickly and, in any case, there would have been too many witnesses of the event. I am a little surprised that the American version seems to be based on a newspaper report, or are there others more official?

USS,

Interesting, so...

Btw, the contemporary naval historian and lawyer William James, considered an authority on the War of 1812 and which he wrote about in some detail in his book, 'Naval Occurrences of the War of 1812', states that the Endymion's armament indeed included twenty two 32pdr. carronades, as you originally mention. He also says that she also carried a 12pdr. boat carronade, and that there were a total number of 50 guns.

Bill,

Only to happy to 'stick my oar in', as it were!

I chose the name due to the fact that I have lived in Stockholm for twenty one years now (formerly from the UK) and have done a fair bit of sailing in my younger years – also a play on the term for the sticky stuff used on ships, said to have originated in Stockholm. There is actually a place, near the old shipyards, that is the home of Stockholm tar! (It says so on a board!)

I believe quite a few Swedes, and others, emigrated to the US about that time – so much so that I gather the places they settled they are almost like Sweden abroad!

All the best.

Nick,

I don't think you are talking about the same thing as featuremerchant. I believe you are referring to the ordinary sailing ship 'top', whereas I think he means the actual structure, known as a crow's nest, which was provided for the lookout. I believe they were originally used on whalers and arctic exploration ships, as a means of protection from the elements, and often made from a barrel. These came rather later than the traditional top and, as his vessel is dated 1914, I would think this is rather what he means. By that date the structure had probably evolved from the simple barrel.

In passing, the term 'crow's nest' somehow seems to have become the accepted one for any position where the lookout was stationed. This is not strictly true, as it was an actual enclosed structure. I don't think many ship-of-the line had crow's nests, the lookout probably being situated in the foretop or at the crosstrees.

Featuremerchant, I don't really know the answer to your question. I would imagine with the early ones, the lookout merely climbed over the edge from above, and dropped down into it. The later ones might very well have had a door on the aft side, as you mention.

Gregor,

You're making great progress, she looks superb.

I haven't been posting of late, being caught up with other jobs, but I will be home next week when I can return to my Sherbourne. Now where was I? Oh yes, the sheet horse, and then the forestay with it's mouse. That should be fun.

I wonder whether I should give more clues right now. I'm having the feeling noone is there to read it anyway.   

Menno,

Actually, I think there are probably quite a few following this thread, so, as has been suggested...

Rather belated, but Happy Birthday Mike.    I hope you had a good day.

I can only echo Martin's post, great research and thinking ahead! I'm sure she'll turn out to be a superb model.

Eamonn,

Your dog house looks great – and I'm sure Nigel's dog would be at home down there. Very Happy Birthday by the way Nigel, if a bit belated. Hope you had a good day.

I agree, you need some sort of latch on the inside of the doors, to finish it off. As for the finish, Nigel's obviously going for the 'executive' look.

Gregor,

Noises, noises? No, I don't know what you mean.

She's coming long nicely. Your mention of gluing the mast cap, before fitting the shrouds, reminded me that I did the same thing – and I thought it was only me!  Your mousing the forestays also reminded me that I'll soon be at that stage.

every time i look into this subject i find more info, i had not even thought about where  the fwd stuns are attached when deployed and for some reason i thought the stun boom would support the top of the lower sail and the bottom of the one above it, 

Kevin,

And not only this subject... The stun boom itself would also have to be supported, and so on, and so fifth... (as someone, who's name I can't remember, once said.)

Ian,

Yes, that's just what I meant.

Heinz,

Welcome to the site, and you look to be doing a good job on your Victory. However, this is an English forum, and I'm sure the members would appreciate your log rather more if you wrote in that language, please.

Ian,

As you say the lower stunsail booms were hinged to the channels, and were swung forward in use. I believe the 'upper stunsail booms' were those pushed outward from the yards, and the 'stunsail yards' were the short spars attached to the head of the stunsails themselves and hoisted, with the sail, up to the stunsail yards. I stand to be corrected of course.

Dafi,

I think you're right. The lower booms were swung out and used for mooring the boats when in harbour.

Michael,

I agree, a very nice shot of the Europa which, since she looks to be in mid-ocean, was probably taken from her boat. I believe she is one of the few square riggers today that sets stunsails, on her round the world voyages.

In addition to what has already been said stunsails, like spinnakers on modern yachts, can be tricky to handle. Some years ago, 1991 I seem to remember, I sailed on what was then thought to be the oldest square rigger in the world, the brig Maria Assumpta (which, very sadly, some years later grounded and sank). She had stunsails, and it took some practice to get them set just right.

There has actually been some debate as to whether stunsails made any real difference to a ship's speed, and whether the effort spent in setting them really justified the advantages, if any, that were gained. I think the jury is still out on that one.

As the above pic show though, they do look good.

Jdiven,

Several thin coats is much better then one or two thick ones. Remember that thick coats can also obliterate details, such as lines of planking if you want that to show.

I use acrylic paints and just thin with water, but I don't know about the paint you're using.

Hi Bibounde,

Very good start on your Lady Nelson, and I see you managed to take off the frame tops neatly. I don't think it matters much with the false deck, it will be planked over in any case.

It will be interesting to follow this one.

Pete,

Another case of 'lost in translation'. Not to worry.

Pete,

It think it is actually a 'fluyt'. See pic top left:

https://www.google.se/search?q=fluyt&client=firefox-a&hs=PJR&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&imgil=BWsO2rjhJAaWVM%253A%253BgwhOwiE0E7T-SM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.modelships.de%25252FDerfflinger_I%25252FDerfflinger_I_eng.htm&source=iu&usg=__y8xfvVqOV7LJxOG60qAqoBBplAQ%3D&sa=X&ei=sDznU4OFKaK_ywP-84DgCA&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAQ&biw=1067&bih=525#imgdii=_

Pete,

Nice model, but are you sure 'felucca' is the correct term? So far as I know, and I have googled it, a felucca ia an Arab vessel, completely lateen-rigged. It would be interesting to know where you obtained the information.

I feel sure there must be another term for this square-rigged vessel.