rybakov

Continuation: Ratlines - Enfléchures
With the lashing of the shroud ladder, the mizzen mast shrouds of the French corvette on the port side, including ratlines, could be completed. 

 
Now we continue with the ratlines for the starboard mizzen mast shrouds.
See you soon ...

@Vladimir_Wairoa
Hello,
thank you very much for the kind words and thanks to all the others for the many LIKES.
 
Continuation: Ratlines - Enfléchures
It's been quite a while since I finished the ratlines for the main mast shrouds. Especially with monotonous work, it is good for motivation to deal with other details, such as the signpost blocks, in between and thus provide variety.
Meanwhile I am again dealing with the ratlines, namely those of the mizzen mast shrouds, as you can see on the following pictures. The binding of the eye splice at the first and last shroud I have already described in detail in previous reports.

 

 

Alright, so I’m pretty psyched with how this all came together:





Before glueing on the top and bottom moulding plates, I faired the canopy to the curvature of the upper bulwarks.  Now I can simply sand the plates down to match.
 
For this profile scraper, I decided that attempting to scrape the full reverse curve was likely to chatter and dig into the plastic - particularly, along the bottom return.  So, I simply ground the top portion of the reverse curve, and then rounded the underside by hand.

Now, I can move-on to the upper finishing of the amortisement.  That should be a fun little bit of trompe-l’oeil, as I attempt to create a sense of depth in what is now a very shallow platform.

A little step:

 

 

 

 

Good morning.

In our german forum we had a nice discussion about the "single bar was 1/3 the maximum beam" . On my Vic it fits perfectly for the lower capstans, but not for those on higher decks as for the curving in of the hull (tumbledome?) as also for the capstans on quarterdecks of frigates with the deck already getting more narrow on top. The conclusion was that the 1/3 beam must have beeb defined by the place and deck the capstan is situated.
 
Here are some thoughts I had some years ago on my Vic

Red is the 1/3 beam, the others were variations. The small circles are the stanchions that have to be taken out for the bigger circles of the same color.
 

 
One can see, that the 1/3 beams works there if the guns are moved. But as the aft capstan was basically worked from the middle deck, these long bars would already touch the hull 😞

 



 
XXXDAn

Thank you very much, Victor and EJ!
 
This next level of the amortisement is fun to make because, while it seems simple, it is actually a pretty complex form.  Without having drawn a top plan view, I have to wing-it, a little, when it comes to establishing depth and taper.
 
The first step was to make up a styrene billet.  The canopy is 1/4” in height, between the top and bottom mouldings.  I made my billet stock a little wider, in order to file in the top and bottom taper necessitated by the tumblehome of the ship’s sides (see pic below).

Once I had billet stock, I could lay out all of the paneling and the outer parameters of the canopy:

The tricky thing about this aspect of the project is that there does need to be some depth to the canopy - which will be further overhung by the top and bottom mouldings - because the upper-most section of the amortisement has at least some depth, at its center, which tapers out to the sides (where they abut the pixies).  Considering that, the canopy must also diminish, slightly, in depth, from top to bottom.  And, on top of all of that - there are a series of reverse curves that define the bombastic form of the canopy.
 
In layout, and looking at it from the top view, that all looks like this (excepting for the reverse curves, at the ends, which I did not draw-in):

With the layout pencilled-in, top and bottom, and on the outer face,  I could then make a series of shoulder cuts, with a fine back saw.  After hogging out the bulk of waste, at the ends, this is what that looks like:

Once all of the shoulders were neatly defined, I could set-to shaping the subtly curves ends and middle:

The end scallops are set-down about 1/32” lower than their adjacent short flats, so that when I apply the panel framing details, in the next step, there will remain a stepped demarcation between the ends and middle section.
 
As I had hoped, the second Xs moulding came out much more cleanly than the first.  These decorations are springy enough to accommodate the tapering surface, without appearing to become distorted.  Once, I have the port-side canopy made and both canopies paneled, I can use them to pattern the exact top and bottom overhang of the mouldings.
 
More to follow...

Is this video what you're referring to? i don't know what it's called but the video is great.
https://www.facebook.com/ostindiefararengotheborg/videos/1403173769883475/
 

Starting on the shrouds. Because this is a mediaeval Mediterranean lateener the shrouds are fixed to the hull with pairs of blocks, not deadeyes, and they are attached to the blocks with toggles, for quick release.
 
     
 

   
 
I've also been working on the belaying points for the tacks. To allow the tacks to be belayed near the lower end of the yard, but also to enable them to be pulled back aft of the mast so the yard could be pulled the behind the mast  to the other side I'd originally intended to add modern style "open" fairleads. Mainly because I couldn't think of any other way to do it. 
 

 
But looking at modern lateeners, I found they tended to use a much simpler system for belaying - just a vertical wooden rod, basically. I adapted this for the fairleads,using what amounts to a sort of bollard - put a loop around it and it can act as a fairlead and a belaying point as you choose. You can see them sticking up from the "battlements" just at the after end of the forecastle. 
 

 
And here is the banner still in progress. One side finished:
 

 
And because I put down a coat of white first, I have to paint the other side as well, to cover up the white. A bit of overlap past the outline of the "tails" but that's intentional - this will be cut off when I trim them to shape.
 

 

The beakhead bulkhead is painted, now, and ready for installation.  Before I do so, though, I will do a little addition to increase the glue surface area, backing the bulkhead.
 
I decided at the last minute to add panel framing around the foliate diamond ornaments.  It echos, if not exactly, panel framing around the lowest tier of fleurs on the upper bulwarks.

I didn’t really have the necessary space to copy this, so I simplified the paneling.  In fact, I originally wanted to use fleurs, but I couldn’t reduce them enough to make it work.  Even the smaller fleurs that I made for the stern counter were too big.
 
So, here’s the paint work bright and clean, as on the first day of her re-launching in 1689/90:

And here is two years of sea grime and paint oxidation, as just before the battle of Barfleur:

The blue, here, is really a cobalt blue, but it deepens to the ultra-marine with a very light wash of walnut ink.
 
The first red acrylic I applied was a proprietary mix for BLICK art supply.  The color was lovely, but I soon discovered that the paint would wash away when wetted.  I’m not sure why that is; perhaps, in thinning the paint with regular tap water, I altered its curing properties.
 
Anyway, I washed away the paint with soap and water and then applied ModelMaster’s Insignia Red acrylic, which is the red I’ve been using everywhere else.  I can successfully thin this formulation with tap water.  It turns into a pleasing red ocher, once the walnut ink is applied.
 
The other decision I had to make was whether to paint the top sheer of drift rails gold or yellow ocher.  I decided, ultimately, to go with the yellow ocher, and to save gold for the ornaments, themselves.

Thanks for the likes, comments and looking in!

Thanks everybody for the likes, and thanks for the comments, Liteflight.
 
However I need to point out that there's an older meaning for bodging, but even more irrelevant to the present case (I see your pedantry and raise it). In Tudor times a bodger was someone who pulled old garments apart and re-made the fabric into new garments. But I was using the broader Australian meaning mentioned by Banyan above: "to tie a few parts together with fencing wire and you will have a true Aussie creation"
 
The little guys are carved from pear wood from our neighbour's tree, from small branches that have been sitting under the house for a few years. This time I didn't use sawdust and glue - the gunge was (barely) adequate to glue to; in fact its consistency was very similar to that very sawdust and glue that you asked about (Oops! Ended a sentence with a preposition).
 
Here are the three topmen painted and ready to go.
 
 

 
Note that they've taken off their shoes and hose to improve grip as they climb the yard (I do this when I go up on the roof of our house, for the same reason). I've made their legs paler than their hands and faces because they're usually covered so they haven't got tanned. The man in the red tunic is the one with the dodgy leg; it's not perfect but not too bad. I can always tell myself he had a childhood accident and his leg healed crooked. And I've tried a little shading, having been inspired by the soldiers in Old Collingwood's Waterloo diorama.
 
And here they are dry fitted to the yard. I have to furl the sail and hoist it before I can put them in place permanently. Note the shallowness of the sail, which stops it looking too full when furled.
 
  
 
 

 
 
 

 
Now I have to decide whether to remove the 8 oarsmen furthest aft and put their oars in storage along the benches - because the original idea was that those would be the guys pulling on the halyard and unfurling the sail, so their benches should be empty.  Otherwise there are extra crew members who only work when under sail, and I can't see them doing that when there are plenty of big strong men pulling the oars who could be temporarily re-purposed.
 
 

The wooldings for the after mast wedges in progress, and complete:
 
           
 
 
 
Foremast - as mentioned above the halyard knight needed to be moved aft so the mast didn't foul its operation. Here is the deck with the knight removed, then with the slot in the deck extended aft and a new length of plank inserted to close up the gap, all the way to the mast. Then I trimmed the gap so the tenon of the knight fitted exactly into it and relocated the knight to allow enough room for its lanyards to run freely. 
 
                  
 
I started making the lateen sails. As they are going to be furled I made them narrower than full size so they wouldn't be too bulky when furled. Unfortunately the first method I used didn't work - I cut the fabric out, then taped it down and glued the bolt rope to the top of the sail (the bit that goes against the yard). But as the fabric  was cut on the bias - i.e. at 45 degrees to the weave - the sails mutated. You can see below that the straight line I'd cut along the horizontal had stretched downward, pulling the ends inward - I trimmed the cloth against the bolt rope, but when I measured the sails against the yards they were quite a bit too short.
 
        
 
       
  
So I started again. This time I didn't cut the fabric until the bolt ropes were glued in place, which kept it from deforming.
 
  
 
And when the glue was dry I cut the sails out. Now, because I'd allowed extra fabric in case they shrank the sails were too long, so I cut them to length and everything worked very nicely. Now I'm in the process of fixing the first sail to the yard with robands - a lot more fiddly and difficult than I'd expected - and very frustrating; I have great difficulty tying a reef knot in cotton thread - fingers too clumsy, tweezers keep on slipping at the last moment - I've finally taken to tying a thumb knot and adding a dab of glue, allowing it to dry and coming back to finish the knot. Very time consuming.
 
I took the third photo from a funny angle, so it looks like the sail starts a fair way down the yard. In fact it comes all the way up to the blocks - the end part is just flipped on its edge so you can't see it.
 
 
         
 
 
While I'm waiting for the glue to dry I've been getting the halyards themselves sorted out and attached to the yards:
 
 
 
 

 
That's all for now. More to follow as I get more done.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thank you Gary and druxey.
 
Very nice detail the small flap. Could it also be to protect the bar from the side effects of the shot? Often the ports for the carronades were higher in size for that reason.
 
Also I realised the bolster being extended forward. My interpretation was - as I realisd it mostely underneath gunports - that it would perhaps allow an temporary extension for the board. The step is a great explanation too. I do not think this was for sounding the lead I know it being done out of the channels or another small platform amidship. There too the breaststrap could be fixed more easily that allowed the men to lean against and have the hands free.
 

 
Difficult to be seen, but the strap is there 🙂
 
XXXDAn
 

Thanks so much druxey and Siggi. I think, I hope, I have finally got it.
 
Using primary sources closest in date to the Bellona, the Dorsetshire section and the Falconer dictionary, here is what I now see:
The sweep is one beam astern of the end of the tiller, and the lines run to a sheave in the side, not to a free-hanging block, as in the Dorsetshire:
 

 
And I will use five wraps on the hub, according to Falconer, which works perfectly with the maximum 2 full turns to each side or 4 turns lock to lock, with a fifth wrap for the nail at the center. This leaves a little bit shorter slot for the rope to traverse back and forth at the quarter deck level:
 

 
And centering the sheaves in the upper deck framing on the center of each slot, we get:
 

Back to shaping my upper deck beams!
 
Mark
 
 
 

Thanks druxey and Gary.
Gary, I see what you mean. Couldn't see it in three dimensions until looking at your stern. So I left the hanging knees out for now, will see how long my horizontal knees come into this space.
 

 
druxey, fascinating little sketch of the wheel. First, I had the sheaves backwards relative to yours. I switched, and now I have the starboard sheave forward of the one on the port, as above.
 
So I did my own calculations, based on your reasoning. With a barrel diameter of 21", one turn of the wheel pulls in 66" of rope. My tiller can only swing 10'-11" to one side from dead center, because of the gooseneck hitting the beam behind the sweep as discussed before. So I need 1.98 (rounded to 2) turns of the wheel to pull the tiller its maximum distance to one side, or 4 turns lock to lock.
 
So, if I understand how this works, with seven turns around the wheel hub,  the rope will move four rope diameters along the hub when turning from dead center to full port, and the same from dead center to full starboard. And turning the wheel itself to port moves the tiller to starboard and the ship to port. In the drawing below, forward is to the right.
 
Assuming I have this right, I located the holes down to the sheaves in the deck so they are about equidistant from the two extremes that the rope on that side will travel. The purple circles are the locations of the holes down to the sheaves. Or would these be slots in the deck down to the sheave, allowing the rope to traverse its full four diameters?
 
I understand HMS Victory had sliding plates allowing the ropes to move without a big slot in the deck; but I am not sure if this had been invented yet in 1760. So many unknowns!
 
Mark

 
 
 
 
 
 

I appreciate the compliment, Mark!
 
Well, with the harps made, the windows are now complete, and I’m about 60% of the way, done, with the amortisement.
 
Final assembly will take some finessing, but here is what we have so far:

Next up, I will tackle the semi-structural elements above the windows.
 
Thanks for the likes and for looking in!

Hello and thanks to everyone for the kind comments.
Karl
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you, Dan!  What makes it all the more gratifying is how easy it is to do.
 
Well, this has been a banner week in my mobile shipyard.  I’ve made up the false amortisement windows, and I have finished modifying and prepping to paint the beakhead bulkhead.
 




What’s missing is the lyre carving between the windows.  I’ll re-draw that this weekend, and get busy making those next week.
 
Now, these windows would be fine, as is, but they’re a little two-dimensional, IMO.  Adding just a little bit of moulding gives the windows a better sense of dimension:

I will likely just paint them flat black with either white or yellow ocher mullions.  I haven’t yet decided.
 
The Beakhead Bulkhead:


After grafting-on side extension pieces to make up the extra width of the hull, I decided to close what I find to be the exaggerated open timberhead space on the bulkhead.  I will cut-in the cathead timbers, at deck level, when it comes time to install them.

Once painted, this paneled effect will disappear.  I added another band of moulding to delineate the space:


I decided to close the lower chase ports, as they won’t be armed, anyway.  I also filled the concavities that would ordinarily accept the lower footing of the roundhouses; these were no longer necessary, as the bulkhead has been set back, by its thickness, so that the ship sides overlap it, as would be the case in actual practice.
 
As a side note - I have found that I really like the Tamiya white putty; it’s much finer than the squadron white, easier to apply and more durable.
 
I, then, scraped away the raised grain; re-engraved the plank seams so that they extended all the way to the ship sides; sanded for texture with 50 grit paper, and drilled for the nailing.  To finish up my modifications, I decided to add a field of fleurs, as was often done at this time.  I also decided to make use of my foliate diamond ornaments for the band I created when filling-in the timberheads.

Next, I’ll prime, paint and install the bulkhead.
 
As always - thank you for the likes and looking in!
 

I followed with much interest this conversation and I would like to bring some considerations about the physics involved.
 
I found that the argumentation of Mark P. are fundamentally correct from a 'first principles' approach point of view. Adding a lot of details about 'real effects' (as powder, distribution of forces, ...) do not help to shed light on the underlying concepts. One can consider two extreme 'ideal' pictures, i.e. a gun free to recoil and a gun rigidly bolted to a large (infinite for our considerations) mass. If you do correctly the math, applying the conservation of energy and the conservation of momentum principles (do not get involved into the details of forces), you find out that the velocity of the cannon ball (measured w.r.t. the ship) is higher in the second case.
 
Clearly these are 'idealizations' but they show in a simple way the trends of the phenomena. Of course, in a real case you have to consider practical implementation issues, like the forces that the gun transmits to its attachment points which might be a weak bottleneck or the strength any other structural link that connects the gun to the closest hard point of the ship structure. Increasing the energy and the efficiency of the guns, the reaction to these forces in the case of rigid connections and not recoiling guns might become prohibitive, especially considering a technology based on wood and nails. In addition, the need of having a gun that can be retracted for a quicker recharging, might have prevailed over the design of having a fixed gun at the cost of a small loss of velocity.
 
As far as the entity of the forces, for a given amount of energy delivered as useful energy for propelling the cannonball (i.e. net useful energy purged by the energy lost into heat, friction, noise, ...), this energy must be ultimately transformed into 'work' of the reaction points, being 'work' made of a force multiplied by a 'stroke' (i.e. Energy = force x displacement). Now, if the stroke is only the elastic deformation of a stiff supporting structure (case of a rigid connection of the gun to a structure), being this normally of the order of a fraction of a millimeter, it occurs that the forces are of huge entity. If, instead, a compliant structure is interposed (a kind of 'spring'), the stroke becomes much longer and consequently the forces to be reacted are much smaller.
 
I hope that the above is of help,
best regards,
Dan.

I have just finished reading a very interesting article in Mariner's Mirror, volume 82 (1996) no.3 p301-324. This was written by NAM Rodger, and is titled 'The Development of Broadside Gunnery'. This discusses, amongst other points, the evidence for the development of broadside gunnery as opposed to the use of bow & stern chasers, which latter seemingly continued much longer than most of us might suppose. 
 
Several points arise which I will try to summarise here, as they will be of interest to fellow modellers: 
 
Firstly, in 16th & early 17th century ships, the heaviest guns were frequently mounted to fire forward over the bows, as tactics generally dictated that the bows were pointed at the enemy in an attack, and not the broadside. The broadside guns were angled forwards, or 'bowed', as much as possible, to allow them to participate in the action. 
 
Secondly, the guns were loaded and fired relatively infrequently, being re-loaded in progression by a team of gunners once the ship had wore (assuming she had the weather gage) and moved away from the enemy fleet.
 
Thirdly, the guns were fired from a fixed position, and were not allowed to recoil inboard, with re-loading carried out from outboard (this is a reasonable method if the ship is not engaged broadside to broadside with an enemy vessel) Rodger gives examples of early writings which support these arguments, and also dismantles some previously quoted texts which seem to support broadside firing from an early date, by showing that they have been mis-translated. 
 
One piece of evidence cited is Sir Henry Mainwayring's 'Seaman's Dictionary', written in the early 1630s, which specifically states that breechings are not used in a fight, but only at sea, chiefly in foul weather. An advantage to firing without allowing a recoil, not stated by Rodger, but which may well be a good reason for it, is that all the energy produced by the explosion of the powder is used to propel the shot from the barrel. By allowing recoil, the amount of energy necessary for this is thereby not used to propel the shot. The amount of energy necessary to move a 1-ton cannon backwards, especially if up a sloping deck, would be considerable, and would represent a noticeable reduction in the force of the cannon-shot, presumably. 
 
With the development of broadside firing (which Rodger shows was probably not fully developed until the mid 1620s) and a much more rapid rate of fire (early gun-crews were too small to allow individual running-in and out) it presumably became apparent that an increased rate of fire, brought about by allowing recoil and allocating much larger gun crews, outweighed the loss of projectile force. 
 
There is a lot more there, and I recommend the article to all with an interest in this era. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 

Hi Daniel,
 
All looking good.
 
Some additional points to consider for the 1805 slice.  The bolster at this date was extended forward, see the blue highlighted area below.  This provided a small ledge for foot support when working the anchors, my sketch is conservative, they are often shown extending further forward.
 
An additional feature that is not commonly represented, but is intrinsic to the berthed-up forecastle barricades is that the gunwale above the foremost port was hinged such that it swing up and over to create easier access to the outside of the ship for those crew working the anchor, I've highlighted this in red below.  I've shown two samples taken from admiralty draughts for the Union / Boyne (which were based on the Victory 1803 configuration) and the later Nelson, they are not the best quality so perhaps you need to go to the NMM site for better copies. This is one of those things that just doesn't stand out on contemporary paintings or models due to scale, and you would need to know to look for it.  We don't know for certain if Victory had this feature, but given the Boyne / Union plans were taken from the Victory refit plans in 1801 and it is no commonly displayed then in my opinion there is every likelihood that Victory had this feature.
 
The sketch to the left is my draft capturing these features.
 
So are we going to see a 1805 slice with the crew working the anchors given this info??  I know you like to tinker and have a challenge.
 
Gary
 

So the trilogy of the 4 slices is almost done 🙂
- 1765 to 1780 (as build)
- September 1805 mid Atlantic on the chase of Villeneuve
- 1920 before docking
- and the latest revamp 2018
 
Still have to make a nice frame.
 
XXXDAn

Luckily @Morgan discovered a small detail in the large Turner painting: The anchor lining, almost hidden by the fallen fore sail.
 

 
Looking at the Turner scribbles there is a line, that could be interpreted as the bolster for the lost lining.
 

 
Looking at the Queen Charlotte of the the same time, one could see how it should have looked.
 

 
First the frame was added ...
 

 
... then I realised that the lower batten should have been the bolster. Took one step that was left from the entry port and it fitted 🙂
 

 
Unfortunately it broke while fixing 😞
 
The replacement part was bent the wrong way, so I took the time for a cup of tea and did hang the part inside to make it flexible, bent it the right direction and let it cool down in its new shape.
 

 
After fixing it, I realised that it sat not properly ... 
 

 
... even the paint did not help.
 

 
So another disassembly took place ...
 

 
... and then it fitted 🙂
 
As the anchor lining was to protect the hull and the irons from the anchor, I wanted to show some scratches. First I took a spare anchor to simulate its way up ...
 

 

 

 

 
But how do those scratches look like? It was not a metal hull with clean rounded scratches, but I opted for some splinters on the edges of the planks and some flakes of paint coming off. The color I oppted for a warm siversih grey, like old exposed wood is showing.
 

 
Need some black ink to simulate depth.
 

 
After the lanyards was fixed ...
 

 
... things were done 🙂
 

 
Cheers, DAniel

After missing information on how the covers were fixed, I opted for easy folds and will change that as suitable information comes.
 

 
Still got some netting on the face side and fixed an iron hook.
 

 
After a transatlantic voyage, I suppose the ship to look a bit tattered. So some man are meant to do do a small face lift 🙂
 

 


So the last slice is done. Still need to clean the others up and fix them on the frame. Soon this project is finally to be finished 🙂
 
Titel: 1805 mid Atlantic, return from the Caribbean, ...
 

 

 
Enjoy, DAn