Bob Legge

Thanks, Steven.
I have faired the hull and installed internal stringers and clamps.The larger wales are positioned where the floors overlap the futtocks at the bend of the bilge as well as where the futtock overlaps the top timber at max breadth. I haven't finished pinning the wales. No trenails were used on the Contarini 1, only nails.
I have put the hull back into the building frame so I can apply the ribbands for bow and stern.
Cheers
Dick
 

 

 

 

 

 

Beautiful work
Somewhere I have read that in warm waters mostly iron nails were used. Because the wooden treenails were eaten too quickly by woodworm.
 
found it. Source : Joao Baptista Lavanha, who died in 1620

hi everyone,
 
After a break for the American Thanksgiving, I got back to the guns.
 
Siggi, that link you provided above is very remarkable. It gives very precise instructions on how to draw an Armstrong pattern gun, quoting Isaac Landman's instructions from 1788. For those who haven't seen it, it has an interactive section where you can choose a gun size, and it will draw the gun for you. Well worth having a look at it.
 
It gave much better information on details like the muzzle and cascable, so I tried his instructions. Interestingly, it creates a slightly different profile than the one I previously drew based on the one in Adrian Caruana's English Sea Ordnance showing the 1732 Regulation. Below, the one at the top is based on the Caruana drawing, the second is constructed from the Landman's instructions.
 
Both purport to show an Armstrong pattern. But notice a couple of differences. The cascable is longer in the Landman, with a broader ogee (the S shaped curve) and the button has a larger diameter. Also, the chase tapers at a somewhat sharper angle than the two reinforce sections, giving the Landman gun a more graceful profile in my opinion. And the muzzle flare is a touch longer.
 
It is beyond my research skill at this point to know which is the real Armstrong pattern, or whether it evolved over time while keeping the same name, or were these various authors looking back to different periods of development? The Landman profile does look like an effort to slim down the gun, which I understand was a desired effort through this period.
 
I have appended the Falconer gun from the date of the Bellona, for comparison.
 
Each step forward raises more questions! But that is the fun of this project.
 
Mark
 
 

I have drawings of 1735 for 1- 3 -6 - 12 -18- 24.
ex.
 

Bill,
 
Thank you so much. This was a treasure to find. As it turns out it reproduced the diagram from the Muller treatise that was obscured in the Goggle digitalization. What a great magazine, looking quickly at some of the other issues and articles. 
 
Another day's research and drawing, and I discovered several interesting anomalies.
 
First, as best I can tell, it appears that M.V. Brewington sometimes used shot diameter, and other times caliber, in calculating dimensions. So Hahn was following him. But the Muller description of the Armstrong proportions clearly works everything from caliber.
 
Second, Muller's description of the Armstrong proportions does not correspond always with his own drawing to which he refers. He quotes the length of the cascable from the hind end of the base ring as 2 ¼ calibers, but the drawing is clearly shorter. And the drawing shows a ring on top of the neck, which I believed came much later in the century. So the more one digs into documents, the more mystifying it all becomes.
 
All is finally laid to rest thanks to druxey, who was able to show me a drawing of the 1732 regulation, which I believe would be the guns on the Bellona in 1760. The shape corresponds to the guns shown on Falconer's Dictionary of the Marine, from the mid 1760s. So, for better or worse, this is the pattern I drew today.
 
Now on to how I am going to make these.
 
Mark
 
 

like this one?

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
 
 

I haven't posted for quite a while. Been doing fiddly stuff, which is now to a point worth posting.
 
I've made the arches for the stern awning over the poop. Following advice by usedtosail I glued thin layers of wood together, shaped them and then separated them with isopropyl alcohol.
 
Druxey, this stuff is MUCH better than metho for dissolving PVA (unfortunately 😠 - 75ml cost something over 5 bucks; metho is about $1.50 for a litre. There's no justice in the world).
 
I used planetree wood for these and the arcades, as I'd used it for the framing and keel as in the original vessels; next time I make something this delicate I'll be using pearwood - planewood's grain is just too coarse and caused me lots of trouble with splitting and breakage. 

 
Using filler made from PVA and sawdust, I've filled the gaps in the arcades. 

 
and filed them smooth.
 

 
One of the corner arches split as I was working on it and had to be repaired. It was then cut and sanded to shape (sorry - no photo of completed arch). 

 
The arcades were bevelled and smoothed off.
 
 
The suspended decks for the xylocastra (wooden castles) have been made;
 

 
 
and joined to the arcades.
 


When it's finished it should look something like this:

 
I've also been working on the new shorter foremast; using an electric drill as a lathe helps but isn't completely satisfactory - too much wobble at the unsecured end. But cleaning up with a series of files of different roughness has got it to shape. (The photo was staged - I'd need three hands to take a photo of it in motion.)
 
That's all for now.
 
Steven
 

Thanks everybody for the likes.
 
Pat, actually the grain ran that way because in the bit of wood I had available. That it gave a bit of strength was fortuitous.
 
HOWEVER, I really wouldn't recommend this technique. It would have been far less work, worry and grief if I'd just made a template and cut four arcades from a sheet of wood 1mm thick. Slitting the four apart from a single block was a real hassle. Perhaps if I'd had a more professional workshop it might have worked better - but then again perhaps not. The major problem was that the piece of fretsaw blade I used to cut the arcades apart kept wandering and cutting in where it wasn't wanted, and there seemed to be very little I could do about it.
 
See the dodgy cut lines in the pictures below. 
 
 
 
I haven't yet decided whether they're worth keeping or whether I should just start again. After all that work I'd be reluctant to throw them away, but it might be the best thing to do. But first I'll see if I can salvage them. If I can get them thick enough, with smooth faces to the outside, they may be worth it.
 
Certainly, the idea I had to make them all identical (based on what others on the forum have done in making multiple blocks) didn't really work very well. There was quite a bit of variation between them anyway, so the major purpose for the technique wasn't achieved.
 
I didn't really gain anything from the experiment except the experience of doing it and the knowledge it's not a very good method. Perhaps that's worthwhile enough in its own right 😥. 
 
Steven 

Finally making a start on the superstructure. There are two wooden "castles" amidships (one each side) and a triangular fortified wooden forecastle, all of which I've designed to have a set of four arches supporting them, standing on round posts. You can see the idea in this cardboard mock-up.
 

 
As all the sets of arches (I suppose I should really call them arcades) are identical, I decided to try something a little different, and make all of them from a single block of wood and then saw them apart.
 
I'm sure I took photos of the block with just the concave side  of the arches cut and smoothed, but I must have deleted them.

I discovered it's a very bad idea to use a file on something this delicate. SNAP! Had to glue it back together before I could proceed.





One arcade separated from the others. Just two more cuts to do, then I can get onto smoothing them off. I used a fine saw-blade, broken short, and worked VERY slowly and carefully cutting them apart. I didn't want to break them again. Definitely an education.

And I've just made a start on the "hoops" for the arched awning at the prymne or poop deck.

I'm doing six of them; this is the first. There'll be "stringers" running between them (inside the arches) to keep them all the same shape. There'll be a pair of posts supporting each of these "hoops".
 
 
Steven
 
 
 
 
 
 

A couple of other images of the finished fore mast shrouds.

Once each side was finished I completed the job with a fresh coat of paint.

I began with 3 per side to establish even stability..then I finished off each side.

Now back to the build......
 
I began to add  six shrouds(3 Per side)....

Hello Joachim!
I would be glad if you join. We will build models together and then there will be more metal ships on the forum.  Iltis II  interesting and original ship.

Then I cover the hull  with a liquid putty for cars. Removing camouflage tape and I get the result on the photo:

The result after grinding on the photo:

Thank's everyone for the "likes".
 
A very small update for today. Started with the deck beams. Quite a lot of measuring, sanding and starting over again.
At the moment I'am quite pleased with the result.
 
 
Götz
 

Hello everyone,
 
a small sunday afternoon update. Finished the planking on the lower deck of the forecastle. Next will be the deck beams.
 

Finished planking of the main deck. Man, that was a tedious job to do.
I think I have to retire to catch up the speed of other builders here on MSW.
 

I hope i get the forecastle finished before begin of advent season.
 
Now it's time for a glass of Orkneys best distillery product.
 
slàinte mhath !
 
 
 

Lower deck framing continues up to beam no.9. This can be frustrating work to keep  everything correctly spaced and symmetrical, constant adjustments need to be made as well to account for drift.
Layout for the aft framing including the beam arms can be seen.
 
ben

Fore part of the lower deck framing underway.
 
ben

Thank you very much Michael,
 
The model is now standing under the window on a side board, in good view from my desk working place...
I was so happy to get all the glas panes without any damage or breakage. Together with my wife we got the glasbonnet gently and slowly down from above and on to the guide pins
 
Nils
 

 
 

Hi all
Hinges ready for blackening
Macro photos reveals all!
Cheers...mick