SJSoane

Oops, mis-labled. Here is the correct labeling.... Thanks for catching that, Alan! The long 9# were for the forecastle, presumably for chasing possibilities. The shorter 9# were on the quarterdeck.

Thanks Allan, this is very helpful. However I proceed with forming the cannon, I first need new masters for all guns sizes. I have drawn the four needed for the Bellona: 32# 9'-6"; 18# 9'-0"; 9# 7'-6"; and 9# 8'-6". Finding the right proportions was a little challenging. These cannon would have been designed to a convention predating 1760, so some of the evolutions of the later 18th century would not have applied. Working with Brian Lavery's "The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815", I discovered that the most likely patterns were developed by Albert Borgard in 1716, modified slightly by John Armstrong after 1725. The biggest changes came after the Bellona's time, with Thomas Blomefield after 1780. A little searching online found a Google digitized copy of Muller's "A Treatise of Artillery". In that book, Muller gives John Armstrong's proportions, and then offers criticism and proposals for changes. I only needed Armstrong's proportions, not Muller's proposed changes, so I was good to go. I don't know if or where Muller's proposals would have been implemented; he proposed removing the flair at the end of the muzzle, and placing the trunnions on the centerline of the gun, for example, neither of which seem to have happened in most of the 18th century. The digitized book did not reproduce the plates, so for further details on the cascable and the muzzle I turned to the drawings in Lavery's book of a 6# gun based on Bogard's proportions, and a print from the National Maritime Museum of drawing a muzzle and cascable from a 24# gun c 1770. (pages 93 and 94 in Lavery.) These vary primarily in the stave shapes in the cascable, the moulded sections between the base ring and the neck of the button. I chose the 1770 pattern, because it gives me a little more room to develop the mouldings at my small scale. I am assuming that this is not far off from what would have been cast in 1760. Interestingly, I looked at Harold Hahn's summary sheet for guns in "Ships of the American Revolution and Their Models" (p. 195). There are several key issues which do not correspond with the information in the Muller book. First, Hahn takes the given length (for example, 9'-6" for the 32# gun) as the total length including the cascable. Muller's book clearly says the given dimensions do not include the cascable; they are to the hind end of the base ring. Second, Hahn lists the caliber dimensions for various gun weights, for example, 6.105" for a 32# gun. This is a critical dimension, because all of the gun dimensions are based on the caliber. But Muller's book lists both caliber and shot dimension for each gun size, and the calibers are larger than the numbers listed by Hahn; for example the caliber listed for a 32# is 6.410". Indeed, it looks as if Hahn listed the shot dimension as if they were the caliber dimensions. I used the caliber sizes from the Muller book, and this consequently makes the guns slightly larger in their widths. Since the bore is the same as the caliber, it makes sense that the caliber is larger than the diameter of the shot, to provide windage clearance. Hahn reported that he got his information from an M.V. Brewington article in "American Neptune", 1943. I don't have access to that, so I can't confirm one way or the other if there was a different interpretation of caliber and shot size. Lacking any other information, I will go with the primary source I find in Muller. Mark

One more thought about the wales at that difficult-to visualize corner. I have sketched over my photo to show how the planking immediately under the wale rests on the TOP of the lower edge of the wale, and then curves away from the wale to abut into the lower counter. But the little blue triangle of planking abuts into the SIDE of the wale. This leaves a little piece of the wale kind of hanging out at the corner, just where it curves at its lowest, aftmost extremity. You can see this in the color cover photo of Rob Napier's "Legacy of a Ship Model, Examining HMS Princess Royal 1773", and in the black and white photo of Brian Lavery's "The 74 Gun Ship Bellona". Now i finally understand what is going on here, I have to say that I find this to be an awkward detail, both visually and functionally. These don't fair together gracefully, and the little triangle of planking with sharp acute angles is just asking for damage and rot. Perhaps it was the best the shipwrights could figure out for a very awkward design decision to chop off the stern to create those great stern galleries. A curved surface had to transform into a square one in a very small space in which to resolve the two. One can see why the rounded and elliptical sterns eventually replaced this in the early nineteenth century. I can imagine the original directive from the Admiralty to the shipwrights; "we want the stern galleries, so figure it out as best you can". One of the joys of building this model is to see how the shipwrights melded form and function together in almost all aspects, from the largest shapes to the finest details. Here is one place where function and beauty could not be fully resolved, in my humble opinion. But this is the only design detail that I have so far found that would earn a B in an otherwise A+ design. Mark

Thanks, druxey, I will look at that. I am sure I can move the pin holes to suit. Was there any profile to the drip edge, or just the full width of the moulding 1" below the counter? Mark

Thanks, Greg, there has been little movement in the hull parts for these many years, although the annual humidity changes continue to affect the overall hull length. Now that I have a lot of longitudinal members in place, like the deck clamps and the wales, the hull adjusts by opening up a few gaps in frames here and there. Once the upper planking is complete, I hope this will not be noticeable. The mouldings were sawn to the curves in both directions, and then refined on sanding blocks cut to the right curves. I don't remember how I made the sanding blocks, since they would have been a different radius due to the sloped inner face of the moulding. Maybe it was by trial and error. I sure hope I don't screw up when I try to cut the outer surfaces to the correct moulding profile.... Mark

Thanks, Ed and druxey, I am resolved to do a better job on the cannon this time around. Good thing I had to put that project aside while retiring and moving. A little time away made it very clear that I needed to do better. And now I have renewed energy to tackle it again. Thanks, John, for your kind comments. I have come to think of this as a lot of separate parts, each of which needs full time and attention. I have continued to be inspired by Remco's comment "Treat each part as if it is a model on its own, you will finish more models in a day than others do in a lifetime". Here are a few pictures of the wales refined a little more at the stern. I temporarily attached the mouldings at the stern, made many years ago and just waiting for their time again. Reflecting on the wales, now they are almost done, It is pretty remarkable how a series of relatively short planks can be fitted together not only for structural strength longitudinally, but also how they can accommodate to a hull curving gracefully in several directions. The individual parts recede in emphasis, revealing the beauty of the collective whole. Like so many things on these models, the individual parts will likely not show themselves in the final model, but we all know they are there! Mark

Mike, very nice, crisp joinery. Looking great! Mark

thanks, druxey, I have now completed the lowest pieces, except for some final refinement of the lower sweeping curve. I can see why this had to be carved in the real ship; the lieutenant standing on top of the wale shows how large this lower piece is, and it curves all over the place. Since I am not planking the lower hull, it does look a little strange to have the wales hanging down at the stern at the corners, but they would obviously have done so to house the ends of the lower planking. Thanks, Ed, this is very helpful. And I apologize; I had entirely forgotten about the instructions in the Sherline manual. I think at the time I bought the machine, I did not think I would ever be making my own cutters, and so eventually forgot about it. My needs and confidence have risen since purchasing the machine. A few more days cleaning up the wales, and it is time to think about the cannon again. I have decided to re-cut the master, since my first efforts necked in the muzzle end too much. So I will get a little more experience with cutting a gun on the lathe, and think about whether I want to go that direction or try casting again, from a new master. Good thing I am retired and in no rush. And thanks, Michael, it is fun to see the hull upside down again. Somehow the full beauty of the hull does not quite show up when it is right side up. Mark

Michael, it looks like the full size boat. Remarkable craftsmanship!

Hi Greg, thanks, that was exceptionally informative. I also looked at the previous video starting the cannon, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuxYcbxPuiI&t=2s I hope to get to cannon again soon, after finishing up a few more hull parts. The last photos show more of the center decking and fixtures installed, and the masts in again to ensure alignment of the mizzen partners. Nice to have those hatches and partners finally glued down after all these years. The photos with blue tape show the upside down carved pieces, the last planks of the wales. These show two versions of how the wale might curve up to meet the hull at this very awkward and difficult to visualize corner. The one with the tape on the left has the lower edge of the wale smoothly curving into the hull, leaving an awkwardly sharp triangular corner to be filled by planking. The one with the tape on the right has the lower edge of the wale hitting the hull a little more perpendicularly, which I think would be a more realistic landing for housing the planking at this piont. I can't find anything contrary to this, and it seems a more logical way to house the end of the triangular plank in this area. Mark

Thanks, everyone, perhaps I will try casting one more time before turning to turning... Allen, can you tell me a little more about your one piece casting method? Specifically: 1. what rubber mould brand did you use? I used Micro-Mark 1-to-1/ Rapid RTV Silicone, and it was surprisingly fragile. You can see how it broke out in the mould I showed earlier. Did you find something more durable? 2. Did you provide any vents for gasses, or is it not needed with such a simple form? 3. When you pour the metal, do you leave the rubber mould in its forming box so it doesn't distort? 4. Do you use the Micro Mark lead free pewter? Thanks in advance for your help! Mark

Hi Michael, I was just looking at your trains on your thread! Very impressive. I will look into Cerrobend. After putting the casting efforts away for a couple of years, I am starting to think that the metal I used was not the best. Mark

Interesting that Michael and druxey at almost the same time wondered afresh about casting as the better way to go. In the spirit of full disclosure, and at the risk of high embarrassment showing my modeling failures, here are higher resolution photos of my casting failures, so you can see all its glorious detail. I tried two moulds, the first has a funnel shaped pouring spout, as in David Antscherl's Fully Framed Model casting section. The second time, I tried a waisted-in pouring funnel like shown in an 18th century drawing on casting a barrel. I think this latter idea was a mistake, because you can see the metal was cooling before it fully filled the mould, as seen in the blackened cast barrel. Notice also the discolored mould (with the funnel top). I used pewter purchased at a jewelry supply in Denver, and it seemed to have a lot of dross in it. It was not kind to the mould. I put these away well over 2 years ago, and I see that the rubber moulds have already begun to break down in a few places (like at the button at the rear of the barrel). If I chose to cast again, I think I would return to the Antscherl shaped funnel, increase the sizes of the vents, and try even more carefully to get a clean cut of the clay up to the master before pouring the first half of the rubber mould. I think I would also try the pewter from Micro-Mark, which seems to be tailored to model casting. Any thoughts? Mark

Hi Ed, I read your Victory post on making the barrels. Very informative. How did you cut the cutters for the muzzle and pommel? I have blanks for the Sherline lathe, but I have never tried shaping one. Do I have to heat and quench? Your Victory project is very impressive indeed, by the way. I am humbled by the number of ships you have built, all at the very highest standards. Mark

druxey, those are gorgeous cannon! what is the finish, might I ask? I may go back to casting if my duplicating efforts do not work out. But my first efforts at casting left an annoying seam down the length, and also an incomplete pour at the top. The incomplete pour might be solved by building a larger top funnel giving greater weight to the pour. But as best as I tried to smooth the clay up to the master, some of the rubber mould material still found enough imperfections at the junction of the clay and the master to produce a seam in the final product. Still more skills for me to learn with casting!

Thanks, Hubac's Historian, those are very kind words. Interesting to hear about the quality of the Royal James. It is curiously reassuring to see that the 18th century model masters were not perfect, because I keep trying to reach what I thought was their level of perfection. In that regard, I really enjoyed reading Rob Napier's Legacy of a Shop Model about the HMS Princess Royal model of 1773. He discovered all sorts of mistakes and re-makes in that model, which did let me drop my expectations a little. If those model makers worked at my speed, they would have completed one model in their lifetimes. Probably not a good business plan! Mark

Hi Gaetan, so you use different cutters for different parts of the barrel. Are you using a duplicator, or cutting and then regularly checking length and diameter against a template? Mark, here is the corrected section drawing. Does that look more accurate? I also adjusted the black strake in this drawing, to reflect the conversation earlier in this thread.

Thanks, Greg for the affirmation of my decision to install planking below the guns. It seems really obvious at this point, I don't know why I was resisting the idea for so long. And Michael and Jack, I hope an endoscope never finds its way inside the Bellona; too many unsightly details to reveal to the world! The photos I keep for when the deck is no longer visible may have a little photoshopping to do... Mark, thank you for catching that mistake. It is my drawing, and I am not sure where I picked up the curved spirketting; maybe just in my head. All of my sources show it as you describe. I will correct it. No wood cut yet. Thanks, Alex, for more detail on your duplicator. I looked again at the 32# gun I had turned as the master for my previous casting efforts. It looks way better than the casting efforts, so I am resolved to see if I can turn these in multiples with a duplicator as you have shown. My biggest challenge turning this master is that when I used a sharp pointed cutter to get into the sides of the mouldings, it left a ragged finish on the longer smooth surfaces. I had to clean up with a file. The secret looks to be a thin cutter with a small flat face. With the last but one plank installed and waiting to dry, I turned my attention to the next steps on the gundeck. I am installing the first strakes on either side of the fittings down the center, before tackling the planking under the guns.

Thanks Alex, I will try grinding down a cutting tool like yours, and have a go with the duplicator. I may have additional questions once I get started! druxey, you really got me thinking about the deck. In the middle of the night, I suddenly wondered why many years ago I had rejected the idea of decking under the guns. I think at the time I wanted to show off all of the deck framing. But once I realized this will all be covered up with subsequent decks, I thought why not just build 5 strakes of decking under the guns and be done with it. I will have photos of the original framing to remind me what it looked like, and a solid deck is going to be a much better anchoring point for the guns. I do worry about them shifting around over the years to come, when it will be exceedingly difficult to get in and re-fix one in place if it comes adrift. The first photo shows what it might look like, with the correct thickness of planks. The second photo shows that I have one plank left in the wales, before the carved one at the very aft end. This one also has a nasty bend, and I have had to fay a spacer on the end as I did on the starboard side. Should be done tomorrow!

druxey, I have pondered putting little dabs of wood planking under each truck, but it seemed it would be confusing. Acrylic is an interesting idea. Do you know of any examples where someone has tried this? Would it be a little rectangle under the entire carriage, or separate pieces under each truck? I imagine I could drill down through the trucks into the acrylic for pins. The deck is 4" at 3/16" scale, so only a 1/16" actual. Hi Alex, thanks for the welcome back. It has been a long time! I was just looking at your Sphynx build, admiring your gun barrels. My efforts at casting metal guns have not been satisfactory, and I was thinking about turning them like you did. Can you show me the shape of the cutting bit you used with your duplicator, to allow cutting close up to each side of a ring, but still having a smooth surface in the rest of the barrel? Mark

I wonder if the Nautical Research Guild would do a line of neckties for modeling...👔 Pretty sure I would not wear one, but you never know. I am three strakes away from the end. The last ones will require some bending and shaping, so will slow down my progress a little. While waiting for glue to dry, I started thinking ahead to some next steps. At some point, I need to install the guns on the gundeck. I have not figured out a way to pin them in place, since I will not have decking under them. Perhaps a spacer connecting to the spirketting, as shown in the red rectangle in the drawing below? Mark

Thanks, Michael, very clever!

Hi Gaetan, I have wondered about building at your 1:24 scale, since I highly admire your work. But I would have no room in the house for the final project! I was just given a booklet, entitled "Building a Model of the Flying Cloud, by James Tate, 1929. It has a lot of interesting information, and also images of how modelers apparently used to dress, with tie and waistcoat. At least the waistcoat keeps the tie from wrapping around your lathe! I am proceeding with finishing the wales. Pretty straightforward after lots of practice so far on this little project. Here are a few unusual items of note: In the third photo, I am showing a strake that still had too much springback after clamping to the hull overnight, I avoided forcing the piece into place by faying a small spacer onto the inner face to match the curve of the hull, and after it was attached, I faired the outer face to match the rest. The first photo shows a jeweler's clamp I bought many, many years ago, and never used. But I have acquired a case of tendonitis, which makes it painful to hold small pieces for sanding. This clamp eases the pain. Should have used this years ago. The final photos show progress, including a closeup of the hooked joints. Mark

Hi Michael, I am just catching up on your log after some time away. I am very impressed by your willingness to rework things until they meet your very high standards. A lesson for us all. A quick question regarding the rail on the boom. Were you using the sanding block on a rail previously roughed out on the mill, or was that a new rail shaped entirely with a sanding block? If so, how did you index the slots? Great work! Mark

Hi Ed, Just catching up after being away for some time. The detail and craftsmanship continues to amaze. One does not realize just how many specialized parts and pieces there are, until seeing your closeups. All the more astonishing how all of this evolved over time, and became more complex, in the latter years of the sailing ships. Fewer crew, more complexity in the machine. Mark