SJSoane

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

Thanks, druxey and Greg. Fairing the carlings to run sweetly fore and aft turned out to be more difficult that I ever would have expected. Even the slightest discrepancy in the mortises in the beams show up as a waver in the line of carlings. I am working on some ideas for doing this more efficiently on the upper deck. Good thing I have a lot of decks to practice on.... And thanks to Gary, who gave me some great insights on next steps, on his Alfred build site. And a happy new year to all of you. New modeling challenges in the new year, new tools to buy or at least to think about buying....;-) Best wishes, Mark

HI Remco, Looking great. I have tried unsuccessfully to find a solution to scribing in tight quarters that your washer does perfectly. That is definitely going into my toolbox! Best wishes, Mark

Hi Gary, I just caught up with your postings. It is looking terrific! I always wondered what that quarter circle between the riding bitts represented in the sheer plan. Mine has no detail, and so I just ignored it. I may try building one like yours, for the Bellona. Where did you find details? I am also inspired by your rhodings. Did you mill them out of a single piece of metal before drilling? Very clever. I also see your upper deck transom more clearly. I have been working through the geometry of the Bellona's stern, and I noticed that this transom would run smack into the rudder head. I was thinking that it would have to be cut, which would make no structural sense. Your bending it forward around the rudder makes perfect sense. I could find no drawings or photos of this looking aft or in plan, so I was shooting in the dark. Steel's 80 gun ship drawings show the transom further aft, and able to clear the rudder. But the Bellona's lower counter is too close to the rudder for this to work. Very complex, these sterns. You continue to inspire and educate me! Best wishes, Mark

Hi everyone, I finally got time over the holidays to get back into the shop and to check out the website. Thank you Ron, and Sailor 123... for your comments. The 74 gun ship of the mid 18th century has the perfect balance of form and function--I learn something new every day about how elegantly the shipwrights met a functional need with a beautiful form. Guy, I would be happy to see anything you might turn up on the Bellona. I finally finished the gun deck framing. I did it in record time, compared to my previous work. I followed Gaetan's advice from some time ago, to keep working systematically at the same task, and it will become easier and faster. I worked out a systematic way of numbering the ledges, and I was able to do each process on each piece, before going back to do the next process on each piece. It helped with a rhythm, and it meant the whole deck was built up in each stage. It was harder that way to say that I had finished a few more bays, and could come back later for the remaining bays. I had to keep working to see any real progress, and then it was all done. It seemed to work for me! I counted up. There are 525 pieces in the deck framing itself--beams, carlings, ledges, and knees. And 856 mortices. I am moving on to framing the stern, for a nice change of scenery. I have made some very interesting discoveries about the Bellona framing, while drafting it up. More on that later. Best wishes, Mark

Hi Kobus, I am glad you found the grating details helpful. As you can see from earlier photos in this build log, I built the first ones way out of scale. It was worth trying again. Best wishes, Mark

I also use them to divide up lengths into equal parts. For example, finding the quarters on a mast, or the spaces between ledges marked out on a carling. It is fiddly to set the screw at exactly the right place, so I always double check on a piece of paper. If I set it at 3, for example, I mark out a line on a piece of paper, and walk the dividers down the line three times. If it exactly lands on the end mark of the line you are set; if not, adjust slightly and try again. I find this infinitely easier than doing the math to divide a length, or the old draftsman trick of laying a scale diagonally across two lines to match even divisions on the scale. Recently, I also used this to set off the diameters of masts at the various quarters. I set the proportional dividers to 2, and used the long legs to measure the correct diameter against an accurate decimal inch ruler. I could then use the short legs to mark half the diameter on either side of the center line. Much faster than dividing the diameter mathematically, and then try to set it off on either side. When you realize that these ships were designed extensively with proportional systems and rules, it is kind of fun to play with the idea of proportions as you construct. Mark