SJSoane

Thanks, Jason, that makes sense. I just didn't think the sword was prominent enough, so I followed Siggi's good advice about a removable metal shaft and went back to the lance or spear that we see in the first image in posting #1721 above. Here is what it looks like. I could make the spear out of blackened copper, and drill a hole in her hand to hold it. Or, would it be shiny metal in real life? Now I really, really, am getting back to planking today! Mark

Hi Mark P., I forgot to comment on your posting. Yes, it was interesting to see the bird in the sculpture and the figurehead. I wonder if the figurehead sculptor saw the stone sculpture for inspiration, or whether it is indeed a reference to a well known view of the ancient Romans regarding predicting the future. I haven't come across anything about this yet. And also, interesting about "bella" as referring both to aggression and beauty. Does anyone more literate in Latin than I am know why the root is common for what one would assume are almost diametrical opposite ideas? Mark

Siggi, that is a good point about the spear being removable. I may look again at the spear idea instead of the sword. The sword doesn't look very impressive so far.... And Greg, thanks for the kind comment. I have never carved anything this small, so this will be a big uphill challenge. I had been looking forward to a future workshop with you and David on carving, but in light of the pandemic who knows when that will be possible again? My son is starting to acquire expertise on 3-D printing. If I get desperate, I may print it and paint it ochre! And will I ever tell anyone if I do? But that would also require learning Blender, which is no easy task as I see it right now. Might be easier in the long run to carve it from wood.... Best wishes, Mark

Greg, the masting looks terrific. Well done! I see you used the Fiebings shoe dye for the black parts. How did you stop it from leeching into the bright work parts of the masts, where the black and the natural were all the same piece of wood? Best wishes, Mark

Thanks, Mark, Jason and Mark. Fascinating to learn more about Roman armor and tactics. I played with the spear idea, since Bellona is sometimes depicted with one. But I began to worry about a very thin piece of wood jutting out from the model, and thought that mine would meet the same fate as that carried on the second Bellona model--it would be broken off eventually. So, I tried the sword idea, at first the shorter Gladius and then the longer Spatha. I am showing the Spatha in this drawing, just because it looks a little more scary in Bellona's right hand.... The shield cannot be made as large as those shown in the images in my previous post, because it would cover most of the figurehead. So I have scaled one down to what looks like a shield in the second Bellona model, with her resting her left hand upon it. I confess I was tempted to place the sword in her left hand, since I am left handed. But then decided I should stick with greater authenticity. But who is to say that Bellona was not left-handed? It would have made her more "sinistra"😙 Mark

Thank you, Marc, druxey, Mark and Mark. You helped reinforce an already happy marriage, and my wife feels vindicated! So this conversation led me to learning more about the goddess Bellona. There is good coverage in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellona_(goddess). I discovered that she had a temple devoted to her in Rome, and that she was celebrated every June 3. I will have to observe that date from now on... Interesting that she was noted for wearing a plumed helmet, which is in the second model but not the first. In various artistic images over the ages, she is variously entirely covered in armor, nude, and everything in between. She mostly carries a shield, often covered with a gorgon (see in sculpture below), the mythical creature with snakes for hair. Weapons are harder to generalize. The 1770 sculpture below by Jean Batiste Straub shows a thin spear, with perhaps some feathers or metal ornament underneath the head. Johann Baptist Straub, 1770 Public Domain http://warburg.sas.ac.uk/vpc/VPC_search/pdf_frame.php?image=00034081 And is this what we see in the second model of the Bellona, maybe made a decade after the Straub sculpture, with a spear held upside down? It looks to me like there was once a longer shaft, broken off at her hand. Otherwise, I don't know what that weapon is. But why does the shaft appear to flair out like a handle just below her hand? Maybe it is something like this reproduction Roman spear: http://romans.etrusia.co.uk/roman_army_intro_p3.php I did not find any art examples with a sword, which I assume would be like the reproduction below. I am not sure of how this would be held, for upward or downward thrust. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uncrossed_gladius.jpg I really should get back to planking.... Mark

It is looking great, Marc. Masts give a hull an entirely new perspective on just how big these ships were! Mark

The cannon carriages lined up like that really shows the true function of these great ships. Imagine the noise on that deck when a broadside was fired! It is looking great, Siggi. Mark

Well, it was a rainy day, and I felt like drawing more than building. I kept going on the head, including the figurehead. The curve of the various rails needs refining, but I thought I would do that after after expanding these to true length. This at least gives me approximate locations of things. I have to make a decision now about which figurehead to use. The one I prefer and have drawn above is the one on the original model, likely built about the same time as the ship was constructed ca. 1760: The other is on the second model, either constructed or modified when the ship itself underwent a major refit around 1780: I like the simplicity of the first one; too many gee-gaws on the second one, like the bird on Bellona's heel. And I have made many decisions about details over the years consistent with the original design, not the second model. So I really need and want to stay with the look of the first model. However, my wife is insisting that Bellona needs arms if I build the first version. Is it at all possible that the original figurehead would be without arms? Does anyone know of other figureheads of this time without arms? If not, I could assume that the figurehead was shown as incomplete and in process, just like the rest of the model itself. In that case, I could reconstruct arms, following the quarter post sculptures on the stern:

Thanks so much, Mark. It is difficult to find information for ships designed around the Bellona's 1759 date. Most published sources I can find are from several decades later. I have to assume in many cases that things did not change all that much. So I look forward to comparing these numbers to the Ship-Builder's Repository and to Steel, to see the differences if any. I do note in what you sent that it does not seem to prescribe the length of the Cat Heads outboard, only the length inboard, when it is called a Cat Tail, is it not? Do I read this correctly? Mark

Thanks, Mark, that is a terrific book! The 74 gun ship definitely shows its reduction in size in everything relative to the larger Princess Royal. The Bellona hull at this point flairs out dramatically, to provide sufficient overhang for the catheads and anchors. It leaves less space at the bulkhead for the roundhouse, if the roundhouse is pushed outboard far enough beyond the hull to provide the discharge for the head. The red lines below show a 1'-8" wide door, the same as the doors in the quarter galleries aft. It still needs to chamfer off the lower outboard corner because of the flair of the hull. But it looks like it would work with hinges on the vertical inboard post. Thanks! Mark

Further evidence that the roundhouse has to be at the level of the platform; the side slopes in so far that access to it would disappear at the upper deck level. I am now showing the seat tucked around the corner, as in the last post. But interesting question as to how a door would be hung on the roundhouse. It would have to be hung on the inboard post, and would be a trapezoid (trapezium outside North America?) in shape. And I would think pretty annoying to try to get around it while squeezing into the opening. OK, enough of this, back to planking!

Hi druxey and Ron, By jove, I think you two together got it! Pushing the seat off center into the outboard side leaves plenty of room to actually crawl in the roundhouse with room to sit. Just no room for the rack for copies of the London Times.😏 It is a bit of a bend to get in, but not hugely worse than the quarter gallery doors for the officers. They all were just more nimble back then, I guess. And Ron, please do keep posting pictures like that. It was immensely helpful! Mark

quick update on my last post's last question about access from the upper deck; the access could not be from the upper deck because the beam forming the aft edge of the platform is in the way. We can see the beam in the photo below as the lower red beam, with the doorway to the roundhouse above it just at the extreme port end of the bulkhead. And we can see the beam here in the cross section. This leaves the roundhouse as a very tiny affair!

Hi druxey, I thought that for a long time, but on closer inspection of the 2nd Bellona model, it shows the roundhouse base sitting on top of the platform, not the upper deck. In this photo, we can see the ledges or grating that extends out from the level of the platform, and it is the same level as the bottom of the roundhouse that is just peeking out beyond the main rail. in the drawing below, the upper dotted line is the level of the platform and grate, the lower level is the level of the upper deck. or, what if the seat is the part cut off at the level of the platform, but the access from the upper deck is at the level of the deck? It would be a cantilevered seat of sorts... Mark

As I got closer to topping out the planking at the head, I notices some discrepancies between the drawings and the model I had built so far, relative to the height at which I had trimmed the frame right at the bows for the small deck afore the beakhead bulkhead. So I had to go back and reconstruct what had gone wrong. As it turned out, when I trimmed the hull around 15 years ago, I had trimmed it to the top of the deck, whereas the decking laps over the top of the hull at this point. So I will have to trim the edge down to accommodate the thickness of the deck planking. While studying this, I also realized that I had drawn the little deck with a sheer matching the rest of the ship, but on closer inspection, it is horizontal. The following drawing fixes this. However, in changing this, I notice that the opening to the roundhouse has gotten pretty short. Even if I put the seat only 8" above the deck as seen here, the opening is only 2'-4" high. This would take some agility to twist around into this opening, and then sit with your legs spayed out in front of you. I have double checked the heights of the various beams controlling this, and it is accurate. Maybe the seat opening is closer to the aft end of this opening, maybe even over the top of the beam? Or maybe at the level of the floor? Then your legs would hang down the ladder at least. It nonetheless would still be better than doing your business out in the weather afore the beakhead bulkhead! Mark

On with more planking. I am working on the channel wale, which blessedly does not have any ports interrupting it until the last 4 ports astern. I am finding it quite efficient to plot the upper edge of each plank at various points along its length, and then put in a fair line using the artist's tape. Much easier than trying to fit a flexible curve, which is also impossible once the piece is steamed and bent. Also, I have learned to cut the upper edge of the planks a little full, so I can fair the whole edge with a curved sanding block once installed. A plank in the second strake up makes a wicked curve from convex to concave as it proceeds aft, and it also twists quite dramatically. That would have been something to see in the actual shipyard. that one plank took about 5 hours to shape and install: And here is progress to date. Nice to see those boo-boos from 15 years ago disappear under planking at last. I see that I will have to make a sanding jig to later level the channel wale to an even projection from the lower planking. Not sure why this is wavering a bit. Mark

Gary, Magnificent! Mark

Beautiful work, Gaetan! Mark

When I have to make a very precise joint, I have tried a variety of strategies like building jigs. But more recently, I have settled on cutting roughly to the line with whatever saw is handy, and then refining the face with a paring chisel, sanding blocks or files. Here artist's transfer paper or carbon paper is your friend. You slip a piece of this between the two pieces of the joint, and pull it out. This leaves some graphite on the spot that is too tight. Sand or file the graphite away, and then repeat. In complex pieces, like the ones where I am refining the edges of planks bent around a bow, I may have to repeat this process 10-12 times. But it will achieve a perfect fit if you are patient. When sanding a flat face as in your keel joint, hold the piece firmly on a work surface against a square block to ensure it is vertical, then slide the sanding block back and forth while it rides on the horizontal work surface. You do not want to hold each in your hand while you try to sand it, because this is guaranteed to wander off a right angle, and also likely round the face. I am getting better at doing this with a file, but it took me a long time to learn how to control flat and vertical cuts. The sanding block on a flat surface is more reliable. David Antscherl's excellent books on the Fully Framed Model also give great advice about how to cut things accurately with very sharp chisels. When I first read these, I thought that level of skill was way beyond me, and it was when I first tried. But a lot of practice--and constantly keeping the chisel razor sharp--has got my skills to a point that I can more reliably count on this approach. Three secrets to success with chisels, for me. First, scribe the line to be cut with a scalpel, using a square or straightedge. This give something for the chisel edge to register to, rather than trying to line it up by eye. Second, look at the reflection of the piece of wood in the face of the chisel, and change the alignment of the chisel until the wood and its reflection are straight, ensuring that you are holding the chisel straight up vertically. Third, only pare away thin slices multiple times, rather than trying to take off a larger chunk. The larger chunk approach will often crush the wood rather than slice it, and it tends to push the blade in at an angle as the wedge of the chisel tries to cope with the greater forces needed. Light and delicate is the key, and thin slices can be removed with little effort, with a gratifying "snick" sound. And I concur with other comments here; learning this process involved making lots of mistakes and doing parts over. But that is part of the fun, because you can see a visual trail of how much better you are getting, when you look at your earlier, less successful efforts! Best wishes, Mark

Hi Alan and druxey, I will likely use a mechanical means of laying out a paper strip when it comes to cutting wood, since I will have to be bending it in two directions, but the mathematical method is interesting to see, a simple means of proportion--thanks, Alan! So in the example below, the curve of the stern at the balcony level (minus the balcony itself) is a 50' radius. the angle between the lines at the ends of the chord is 26.8º. The formula would be: C= 2 × π × radius = 314'-2" angle = 26.8º x/C = 26.8/360 x = 24' 4 5/8" Nice! Working out a ratio between the curved and un-curved could be used to stretch the original drawing in Turbocad. But now I am back to cutting wood... Mark

Hi Kurt, yes, I always liked drawing, which I learned long before CAD was invented. I learned from an architect who was a master at drawing, although I never reached anywhere near his level. I like the way drawing can help me visualize things, before committing time and material to making even more mistakes than I do already. Although it is nice to be able to make a quick freehand sketch now and then, CAD really has made the production of drawings easier. Jason, no, I did not adjust the profile to the curvature--yet--I am thinking about it. I confess that I don't understand how to account for the round back on the stern, as well as the round up of the decks. I suspect that I have to do a true projection accounting for the curve one way, and then do a true projection on that second drawing. But I am not sure what I will end up with, because it will not help me shape the mouldings in the two directions. So the paper stern I put on this morning is indeed a tiny bit short, good enough to see what it will look like. Does anyone know how to flatten out a curve to get a true projection of its actual length unfolded? I have not figured this out yet. Looking at Steel's drawings, he seems to show how, but I don't really understand it. Maybe an evening studying it more closely... Best wishes, Mark

Well, I got it out of my system. I am a long way from actually being able to construct the stern-a few decks still to install--but at least I can see an outline of what the stern will look like. Back to planking.... Mark

Thanks so much, Jason. I am using TurboCad Deluxe for the Mac, a relatively cheap CAD program, about $150, as opposed to thousands for AutoCad. It is a little buggy sometimes, but it is getting the job done. I started out drafting this project many years ago by hand, and I have become a convert to CAD as I started to refine the drawings I needed for the model. It is so easy to try things and change, duplicate and mirror, put things on layers to see how they relate to each other. Mark

A good day of drawing. Now I understand this complex structure more completely, I am just about ready to start mocking up some parts on the model! Mark