SJSoane

Hi Gary, Here are some photos of the capstan in the ca. 1760 Bellona model, at midships. It shows the simple "kick under the capstan" kind of pawl. In my Bellona Admiralty drawings, the capstan shown here on the upper deck has a space as shown here for the pawl to go underneath, presumably to a rachet of some kind? But the capstan directly underneath on the gundeck does not show a similar space between it and the deck. Does this suggest that the gundeck capstan had no pawls? There is some evidence that this model was built while the ship was under construction in 1760 (relocations of the gunports are drawn in over the original drawing with instructions to the dockyard; these correspond to the locations of the gunports in the model.) However, there are some details like gratings of very different sizes, which suggest some things were repaired, or replaced over time. Whether the capstan is original I cannot say! I would guess that while the capstan might have been replaced later, less likely they would have pulled up the capstan partners in a repair... And then there is the photo of the split hull model of a gundeck shown in the AOS of the Bellona--the Ajax?--which shows two kick under pawls located closer together. So I am guessing this is the norm through the 1760s-70s at least. Best wishes, mark

Ed, it is looking very nice indeed. I learn from every post you make. Mark

Remco, Nice, very nice! Absolutely convincing. Mark

Thanks, everyone, I am working on wood now thanks to all of your help. And Alex, thank you very much for the Ardent drawing. That is the only drawing except Steel's 80 gun ship that I have seen of the old fashioned stern with the balcony like the Bellona. It helped me enormously to check the various curves against my own reconstruction. Best wishes, Mark

Gary, So how did you get the cast iron look? Mark

Gary, Looks absolutely spectacular! Mark

Hi everyone, So I think I see how this works, now that I have looked at the quarterdeck plan more closely, I believe there is enough space between the aftermost beam and the transom to allow the decking to smoothly rise from the normal beam roundup to the higher roundup on the transom. All beams keep the same roundup, the transom matches the roundup of the lights, the deck connects the two. You can see how this would work in the photo of the model. The quarterdeck planks at midship can be seen through the doorways in the side, sitting on top of the transom. So you were all right about the standard beam roundup, and I was right about a higher roundup on the transom. Re-reading the obscure parts of Steel sometimes reveal unexpected insights! Ahhh..... Mark

Sorry, forgot to add in response to Ed's last post. I now think this is probably right, that the last five beams are slightly adjusted to pick up the 2 inch difference by the time the deck hits the transom. This is now my story and i am sticking with it...;-) Mark

Hi everyone, I deeply appreciate your help on this increasingly interesting question. As you have all seen, I am trying to deduce the roundup at the stern transoms from the sheer diagram which shows the beam heights at the side and midships; I can also measure the heights of the knuckles of the upper and lower counters from the sheer diagram since it shows the stern timbers at the sides and midships. Now it would be nice to validate this against a drawing of the stern; but very unfortunately, there is no drawing of the Bellona's stern that I have ever been able to find in the Maritime Museum collection. I only have photos of the 1760 model. So I have been reconstructing the stern construction from what I believe I know from the sheer drawing, and what I can infer from the photos of the model. I have attached my working drawing of the stern (ignore the 5 plan drawings of the various transoms and knuckles at the bottom of the drawing). I am showing my reconstruction of four lines: lowest is the roundup of the wing transom; then above it the line of the knuckle at the top of the lower counter; then above it the line of the knuckle at the upper counter which is also the line of the sills of the lights; and then finally the line at the top of the quarterdeck transom which is also the head of the lights. And the best I can tell, as Ed mentioned, the roundup of the knuckle of the lower counter is not the same as the transom of the upper deck behind it. Nor is it the same as the line of the knuckle of the upper counter or the transom of the quarterdeck. But I believe from looking at the model that the quarterdeck decking sits directly on the quarterdeck transom, and so the quarterdeck transom has the same roundup as the quarterdeck beams behind it. I am showing here the roundup of the quarterdeck transom as I measure it in the sheer drawing; 5" at the outer face of the transom at midships. The balcony obviously carries out beyond that. So this is where druxey's warning is important. If I dropped the roundup of the quarterdeck transom to 3" here, I think the stern lights would look squished at the top. I was surprised to see that there are five beams in the quarterdeck abaft the last gunport. So if adjustments have to be made to kick it up at the stern to match the transom, it will be 5 beams to fix. Last thing, Steel says, the "lower gallery lights in the length on the rake should be 3'-6"." That suggests that the upper knuckle and the top of the quarterdeck transom would be parallel. Even at 5" roundup mine looks flatter at the quarterdeck transom. A little worrying. And regarding the quarterdeck transom, Steel says, "round up agreeably to the lights below, and moulded as broad as can be gotten." That seems to affirm Ed's idea that the transom was adjusted to make the stern lights look right. And yet the model shows the deck the same as the transom. My head hurts.... Best wishes, Mark

Thanks, druxey, I began to think I was going mad. Tomorrow I'll have to look at how many beams in the stern will have to be adjusted from the standard radius for this to work. It may only be a few, since I assume the deck would want to be at the standard roundup at least past the sternmost gunport. I will keep in mind Ed's good thought that the captain's table will want a smoothly faired deck to sit on so it doesn't rock. I would certainly be annoyed if I were the captain, and there was an abrupt lump in my deck... Best wishes, Mark

Hi everyone, Thank you for your thoughtful contributions to this interesting question of the beam roundup. I am reconciled to averaging the roundup between midships and at the transom. But just for the record, I have attached an annotated drawing of the situation. The deck would droop if the radius for the beams is held constant. I have also attached my photo of the 1760 Bellona model, showing that the quarterdeck decking clearly sits on top of the transom above the lights, and so the transom does not have a different roundup from the deck. It may be druxey, Greg and Ed have the right idea; the roundup must have increased over the gunroom in the final set of beams in the quarterdeck. But more subtle than I think I want to address in my model.... Best wishes, Mark

Thanks, everyone, this is perplexing. I completely understand why the shipyard--and the model shipbuilder--would want constant radii on beams. I did the calculation druxey suggested, and if I kept the radius constant based on the 8 ½" at midships, then the roundup at the stern transom would be a shade over 3"; or 2" short of what I measure in the admiralty sheer plan as the difference between the beam heights at the side and at the center. I was intrigued by Ed's quote from Steel, which says the decks are to have sufficient round abaft, to correspond to the roundup of the stern above the lights; but I could only read this as the curve in plan, not cross section. I think I am reconciled to the possibility that there is a mistake in the Admiralty drawing, or there is something else going on that I cannot resolve. I think that the roundup at the stern is more important to maintain, so the lines of the heads and sills of the stern lights are agreeable with each other. So I think I will split the difference, and use a constant roundup based on 4" at the stern transom which would equate to 9 ½" at midships. That makes a sanding difference, as Ed wisely advises, split between midships and at the stern. Thanks, everyone, onwards and upwards (until someone finds and obscure quote somewhere that would explain this). Best wishes, Mark

Toni, very nice. I had to give up on the pump tubes on my build because of my framing system, but before I did so, I came to appreciate just how complicated those are when they come through the deck. Many parts in motion! Best wishes, Mark

Hey, Remco, go for it! I can't wait to see this at your usual exceptionally high standard! Are you going to have to lower the beams at the bow to make this fit? Best wishes, Mark

Hi everyone, First of all, thanks druxey for helping me past my misunderstanding about geometry. On further investigation the problem still continues, though. I discovered a mistake in measuring width (I was measuring to the inside of the frames), but now corrected to outside the frames I still come up with different radii at midships and at the stern transom. I forgot to mention that I got into this because I was using some large radius template for drafting the beam roundup, and I discovered I needed a different radius for the two locations. So then I looked up some arc calculators online, and calculated the radius at midships as 60" at midships (42'-6" wide, 8 ½" rise converted to 1:64 scale); the radius calculated at the stern (25'-5" wide, 5" rise converted to 1:64 scale), calls for a 36" radius. These correspond to the templates I needed when I physically constructed them. Whichever way I look at it, the radius of the beam roundup at the stern appears to be smaller (giving a higher rise at a given width), than at midships. And I have measured these heights on the sheer drawing showing the top of beam lines at the side and at the center, so I am not getting confused by a transom that is a different radius from the deck beams. I am pretty sure at this point that the radii change, but in this case, they are getting smaller further aft, creating a higher rise. Greg, do you recall where you read about changing radii? I am suddenly very interested, and also soberly thinking about how efficiently I am going to construct beams with unique radii aft of midships.... It would be tempted to fudge this, except that an accurate radius at the stern is essential to the overall effect of the roundups of the windows, counter knuckles, etc. And the stern radius would make the deck at midships look quite rounded. There is always a new problem to solve! Best wishes, Mark

Hi everyone, So here is a perplexing issue, that shows I don't really understand these ships yet. I was setting up a sanding template for the quarterdeck beams, in anticipation of making the transom at the stern. I measured from my Admiralty drawings in the sheer plan that the deck rounds up 8 ½" at midship, which is 40'-8" wide. At the stern transom it measures a 5" round up, over a width of 21'-5". This clearly is not the same radius at midship and at the stern. The ship is roughly twice as wide at the center as at the stern, but the roundups do not double. So, are the radii of the beams different along the length of the deck? This was less noticeable on the gun deck, with a smaller roundup. Best wishes, Mark

Thanks, Gaetan, I'll track it down.

Hi Gaetan, I look forward to seeing the entire presentation, if you want to post it here when you are done. By the way, I read in the first page of information that you used Bokens linen thread, size 90. Is that thread free of the little bumps or blurbs that I have found in linen thread so far? At my scale of 1:64, the bumps really show up when I have made up a line on the ropewalk. I am still on the search for good linen thread! Best wishes, Mark

Hi Doris, Your photos defy description. It is hard to imagine this kind of detail at any scale, and even more, built out of card! Could you give us a little more information on how you built the small details, like the table settings, chairs, etc. Is some of this papier-mâché? And how did you get such smooth finishes? I was thinking about building a captain's table and chairs in my Bellona project someday, but I was thinking about a simple trestle table. You have inspired me to think a little more boldly! Best wishes, Mark

Hi Michael, I just had a chance to look over your new project. I'll be watching this one. Like others, I am very impressed by your building jig. I look forward to seeing how it works for you. That must have been very scary when the mill broke. A timely reminder of wearing eye protection at all times. I will be curious to hear more about your wood bending. Are you getting spring-back? and if so, how are you compensating for that when setting up the bending jigs? Best wishes for the new year, Mark

Hi Ed, The project is looking great. Interesting way of clamping, with driven pins. Can you tell me a little more about what kinds of pins you are using, and do you size the drilled hole a tiny bit smaller than the measured diameter of the pin? Hammering always looks a little scary on a model.... Best wishes, Mark

Hi Remco, Funny thing about research. You don't often see things unless you are explicitly looking for them, and sometimes you see them but they don't yet make sense. Even after studying drawings for some time before a build, we don't really understand some of it until we start building. So unless we are willing to go back and tear out everything that we now understand differently, our models will always be a little out of sync with our current understanding. This is especially true with the more schematic admiralty drawings that you and I are working from, where not much detail is shown. I have sometimes fantasized about building the Bellona again, only closer to my current understanding. But I quickly put those thoughts aside. Only you and the original shipwright will know for sure where your outstanding model deviates from the original. best wishes, Mark

Hi Gaetan, That is a spectacular presentation. Beautiful sheets. I am not sure I would change this because of one person's comments. I participate in a number of juries for architecture projects, and I am amazed how one year a group of jurors will love a project that the last year's group disliked or ignored. It really is more subjective than one would believe. But use your best judgement. best wishes for the new year, Mark

Hi everyone, Thank you, remco, grant and brian for your comments. They help keep me going. druxey, beautiful model, exquisitely built! What I am thinking about on the carlings for the upper deck is a way to scribe the carlings locations right at the start. On the gun deck, I penciled the lines, and later they faded a bit. I like the idea of getting a positive scribed line against which to register the chisel. Did you pencil or scribe to get such perfect alignment? Alex, you are right that this is a matter of taste. I fell in love with the admiralty models in the National Maritime Museum in London many years ago, and could not get the color scheme out of my head. I do worry a bit about red inboard planking, which is the admiralty norm, but druxey's photo in the last post shows how effective this can be. I may try some dummy setups of colored card to see how it looks before committing. I had to throw away my original riding bitts, because I painted them, and they were too garish. Red stain was more effective, a little more subtle for me. Greg, interesting to hear that you are rethinking color. It is difficult. I sympathize with remco's concern about losing some of the detail in his beautiful masts if he stains the tops black; but then the blackened mast heads look great from afar. I may have a scotch before deciding myself... Gaetan, thank you for the vote of approval. I will thank you again publicly for the great advice on craftsmanship. I was able to work much faster, and more accurately, keeping to one step at a time, and processing as many similar pieces as possible at the same time. I have attached a couple of photos of the stern timbers beginning to take form. A lot still to go! Best wishes, Mark

Karl, Beautiful work. It gets better with every detail. Can you remind me how you are marking the joints between the planks on the sides? It shows the joint nicely, but it is subtle at the same time. Best wishes, Mark