rybakov

Hi Dafi
 
In the following link you will find the full process of hauling up the anchor, albeit in the late XIX century, and getting under way.
The capstans are still manual and there is the sequence of operations, the stations for the crew, etc.
 
 
http://www.hnsa.org/resources/manuals-documents/age-of-sail/textbook-of-seamanship/getting-under-way-under-sail/
 
 
hope this helps
 
Zeh

How did they balance all of these, in the absence of slide rules, spreadsheets and calculators?
 
Welcome to the risky world of engineering and architecture. The capabilties of theories and math only go so far and at some point judgement is needed. This still applies in the age of super-computers. Remember that with more knowledge we want to take advantage of it. It also means we soon realise there are more unknowns to deal with. However, decisions have to be made. Some universities teach "design" which try to systematize the process, but these methods usally come up short because the methods of weighting the various factors are too linear.
 
In reality, each design that gets built is an experiment. This point cannot be over-emphasized. Some succeed and some fail, but hopefully someting is always learned. The trick is to know how much the new theories can be "stretched" and still be valid in an untested condition, at which point the system breaks down and a new or modified theory is needed. Too many successes lead to over-confidence in the theory, which often leads to dramatic failures. If you're interested, an engineering professor named Henry Petrosky has documented this through a history of engineering failures. The basic truth is that we learn through failure, not success, because successes don't unusally get near the limits that define a theory. For example, Seppings wouldn't have created diagonal bracing unless previous builders hadn't pushed the limits of ship length to the point where premature hogging occured. Going further, Seppings' method would sooner later have reached its limits and failures would start to appear. However, builders switched to steel construction.....
 
Or, to tie this this back to where it started, judgement comes from experience- experience comes from poor judgement.

800 is probably more than enough, Daniel.  I would imagine that the davit would be set up while the messenger, etc. were being set up.  We have to remember that the gun crews, for example, didn't work anything but the guns or do maintenance (like holystoning) so they would have been the labor for the capstan, stowing, etc.  I'm guessing that some things overlapped such as fishing and securing the anchor but every man had his duty.

There’s a lot of contextual stuff involved in this. Thought I might start with some thoughts on the 1690s and then post on the 1750s and beyond. I believe Jean Boudriot has slogged through the same stuff (and much more) and come the same conclusions; that this was inferential, subjective, and highly dependent on the coup d’oeil and skill of the designer.
 
Beginning with the 1680-90 period, There were “instructions” issued that set out rules, many of which had already been in use for some time. These “regulations” were cast as His Majesty’s desires, but one assumes they were articulated by the staff of Monsieurs Colbert, through Choiseul. The text includes the following:
 
“Two-decked frigates shall have as their greatest breadth outside plank (dehors des bordages) and at the midship bend (le maître), no more than a quarter of the length. … The depth of hold of the vessel shall be fixed at one half the breadth at the midship bend (le maître), counting from the keel to the “fix” point of the “span” of the gundeck (ligne du 1er pont), in a straight line. … With regard to the height of breadth, or breadth extreme (ligne du fort), His Majesty desires that it shall be precisely observed henceforth to place the height of breadth directly at the waterline (ligne de flottaison en charge).”
 
In 1680-90, French ships were built to a box rule of proportionality. Gundeck position was determined by the proportional mathematics of the rule. But the relative height of gundeck above ligne en charge and/or ligne du fort was determined by a “designer’s rule” as to how far off the water the guns were to be carried. Sill height above deck was given by the “regulation” so one simply moved straight down, from ligne du 1er pont, the requisite amount, and drew a horizontal line which became the reference for the load line (or line of max breadth).
 
They had a subjective appreciation of the problem, and the solution was practical, determinable and repeatable geometrically, although not particularly scientific. It was up to the designers to draw midship sections that would accommodate gundeck heights (from depth of hold values) and give a “ligne du fort” that accommodated a desired height of sill.
 
Given the extent of French proportionality and dimensionality rules for virtually everything else, I find the lack of anything related to waterline placement to be very significant. It infers that there was no generally accepted rule. His Majesty “desired” that the load and max breadth lines coincide, but this made no reference to different hull shapes. Clearly, geometric design wasn’t able to comport with reality at the extremes, so launching a vessel would very often result in either a loud “Bien” or a more subdued “Merde”.
 
Just my humble opinions.
 
John

The estimation of load water line and tonnage (displacement or cargo capacity) is just that - an estimation to as a check on the designer's intention that the vessel could fulfill its role.  Nowadays, we understand the physics, the mathematics have been simplified (even without the aid of computers to do the repetitive number crunching), and we have accurate measurements to prove everything.   At the time there were many unknowns and uncertainties, but the the designer still needs some assurance he can be proud of the design, or at the least, not be sued.   These various formulas are nothing more than first approximations that included some basic factors that were easy to measure mixed with a few fudge factors that make the numbers fit with "experience" or a consensus of opinion.  The ease of measurement is important in that different people would get the same results and those who didn't have access to more sophisticated measurement tools were not left at a disadvantage.  
 
As an engineer, I still do a "back of the envelope" calculation like this as a reality check of a computer model analysis.   You may not realize that some rules in standards, such as the National Building Code, are still based on a consensus of experts when the theoretical and experimental data does not provide sufficient information.  
 
The fudge factors would, I assume, vary depending on region, or predominant ship design.  Factors that "work" for shallow draft coastal boats don't work for deep water clipper ships.  However, customs and insurance officials like to have a common formula that can be easily and uniformly applied by their inspectors.  The question arises, who chooses which rule to use?  Ship owners pick the lowest when charged for customs and insurance, and the highest when impressing a customer.  The same is done now in all aspects of business, even if standards organizations are tasked with choosing an evaluation method: there are always factions trying to influence the choice.   It also reminds me of the rating formulas for racing yachts, which resulted in some strange looking boats.   I recall reading somewhere that tonnage rules also produced some un-seaworthy distortions as owners found hull shapes that maximized actual cargo capacity relative to the rated tonnage.  As with all business performance measures, there will always be someone who "games" the formula, resulting in an unintended consequence.
 
My conclusion is that tonnage rules are a different animal than displacement calculations for load waterline or trim.  The tonnage rules have a strong connection to politics and influence.   On the performance side, it may be possible with computational fluid dynamics programs to choose the best displacement and trim for best sailing qualities, but I doubt anyone has figured out the hull design that is the best compromise for all sea conditions, cargoes and sail trim: maybe the designers of the America's Cup boats get the closest to this ideal. Even with computer models, there are still several model ship testing basins used for experimental validation.  There is still a lot of evolution in ship design and that the key to evolution is survival - physical and economic.   The main difference between 2016 and 1816 is that designers have the tools to avoid the failures.  I'm not sure a modern designer, forced to work with wood and hemp, could design a better ship than their predecessors developed by trial and (lots of) error. 

Hello to everybody
My name is Alejandro Yañez, from Spain; I registered in your forum several years ago, into  “reading only category”, as I´m a frustrated modeler (when children came, wife decided there was no room at home for all, and so my unfinished Artesania Latina´s “San Juan Nepomuceno” lies stored in a closet waiting for a better time,...)
 
While making the model I decided to improve my model, and began to investigate Spanish XVIII century shipbuilding. As model building had to stop, I continued with my studies about the real “San Juan Nepomuceno” and Spanish shipbuilding of her age.
The result of all this is a “booklet” about 300 págs. I decided to share my investigations with modelers community in Spain (Foro de Modelismo Naval), and now with you, as I think Spanish shipbuilding is little known outside Spain. You can download it from this link:
 
 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47335803/Nepomuceno_foro.pdf
 
The work is divided in two parts, first one is “San Juan Nepomuceno” history, and the second covers the study of the ship. This one is supported with drawings and photos of models exposed in “Museo Naval de Madrid” (Spanish Navy Museum)  Most photos in my work are from an incredible detailed model there exposed, this is not the real “San Juan Nepomuceno”  but a contemporary model from the french shipbuilder François Gautier (designer and  builder of Nepomuceno), and  so, very useful to study Gautier building system in Spain (1765-1784), also known as “French fashion” in opposition to the previous one developed by Jorge Juan, known as “British fashion”.
 
There is one “big problem” ....is it´s written in Spanish!
 
Hope you like it
 
Alejandro,
 

That is what this forum is all about, we all learn from each other. To bad the rest of the world couldn't get along like we do.

The fishing hook is placed over the fluke ...
 

 

 

 
... and if pulled up ends up automatically on the right place the small shoe underneath the channels :-)
 

 

 
and secured with the chain and nicely stowed should look like this.
 

 
soon to be updated :-)
 
XXXDAn
 

Hi Ed,
 
thanks for looking in and for your nice compliment. I was stuck a bit in the winch fabrication, lifeboats and vents, and sorting out the related design, so there is not much progress on the basic model, but following your wish, I`m happy to show the present state (pics taken  this afternoon )
 
Nils
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

It doesn't have to be hot to form a head.
It doesn't have to have heads both ends to be a bolt.
They have found wrecks with square iron 'bolts' driven through, more like a very large spike.

Hello Nils
 
First it's a wonderful build, I've been following and enjoying.
 
Now, about the winches: I think what you are missing is a plan where they show a layout for eyebolts on deck 
and on the sides of the deck houses to know where you can attach a block to change the direction of the rope run,
The rope must be fed into the winches drums as straight as possible, so to work the boats you would have to have a block through
wich the rope would go and make a 90 degree turn, Even so I think two or at most three boats could be worked.
On the other hand you have two funnels that need constant touching up and a lot of very heavy rigging that also need
to be looked after and eventually replaced at regular intervals and those stays are heavy.
 
Perhaps?....I don't know, but I can't resist imagining how things can possibly work.
 
 
 
 
Cheers 
Zeh

Hello Nils
 
First it's a wonderful build, I've been following and enjoying.
 
Now, about the winches: I think what you are missing is a plan where they show a layout for eyebolts on deck 
and on the sides of the deck houses to know where you can attach a block to change the direction of the rope run,
The rope must be fed into the winches drums as straight as possible, so to work the boats you would have to have a block through
wich the rope would go and make a 90 degree turn, Even so I think two or at most three boats could be worked.
On the other hand you have two funnels that need constant touching up and a lot of very heavy rigging that also need
to be looked after and eventually replaced at regular intervals and those stays are heavy.
 
Perhaps?....I don't know, but I can't resist imagining how things can possibly work.
 
 
 
 
Cheers 
Zeh

As the great model maker meeting in Augsburg (near Munich) is approaching, I found it necessary to just knot some of the loose ends together.
  The officer´s hammocks have been prepared already for a long time ...     ... and some more petiteness like a small desk and a chair for Mr Rivers the gunner ...     ... some of the lumber to be seen on contemporary pictures: (under-)deck chairs and packages wrapped in sail cloth.     And immediately we have some homeliness in the smallest confinements  ...             ... and soon all is shipshape und Bristol fashion for coming Saturday in Augsburg :-)   Cheers, Daniel

Hello Nils
 
First it's a wonderful build, I've been following and enjoying.
 
Now, about the winches: I think what you are missing is a plan where they show a layout for eyebolts on deck 
and on the sides of the deck houses to know where you can attach a block to change the direction of the rope run,
The rope must be fed into the winches drums as straight as possible, so to work the boats you would have to have a block through
wich the rope would go and make a 90 degree turn, Even so I think two or at most three boats could be worked.
On the other hand you have two funnels that need constant touching up and a lot of very heavy rigging that also need
to be looked after and eventually replaced at regular intervals and those stays are heavy.
 
Perhaps?....I don't know, but I can't resist imagining how things can possibly work.
 
 
 
 
Cheers 
Zeh

Hello Nils
 
First it's a wonderful build, I've been following and enjoying.
 
Now, about the winches: I think what you are missing is a plan where they show a layout for eyebolts on deck 
and on the sides of the deck houses to know where you can attach a block to change the direction of the rope run,
The rope must be fed into the winches drums as straight as possible, so to work the boats you would have to have a block through
wich the rope would go and make a 90 degree turn, Even so I think two or at most three boats could be worked.
On the other hand you have two funnels that need constant touching up and a lot of very heavy rigging that also need
to be looked after and eventually replaced at regular intervals and those stays are heavy.
 
Perhaps?....I don't know, but I can't resist imagining how things can possibly work.
 
 
 
 
Cheers 
Zeh

Thanks very much Zeh,
 
for your input on this, and for looking in, a good analysis of yours, yes it makes sense, that the machine is a kind of "multi purpose winch", in combination with appropriate rollers, blocks, etc, for leading the lines into the required directions. Unfortunately impossible to get a detailed plan of the eyebolts
 
Nils

Hello Nils
 
First it's a wonderful build, I've been following and enjoying.
 
Now, about the winches: I think what you are missing is a plan where they show a layout for eyebolts on deck 
and on the sides of the deck houses to know where you can attach a block to change the direction of the rope run,
The rope must be fed into the winches drums as straight as possible, so to work the boats you would have to have a block through
wich the rope would go and make a 90 degree turn, Even so I think two or at most three boats could be worked.
On the other hand you have two funnels that need constant touching up and a lot of very heavy rigging that also need
to be looked after and eventually replaced at regular intervals and those stays are heavy.
 
Perhaps?....I don't know, but I can't resist imagining how things can possibly work.
 
 
 
 
Cheers 
Zeh

Just finished furbishing Mr. Rivers small cabin. You see he is leaving with a happy smile on his face :-)
 

 
XXXDAn

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 150 – Ship’s Boats 6
 
In addition to the workhorse longboat(s), clippers carried smaller boats for convenience and for the safety of the crews.  Government regulations had begun to exist to aid in crew and passenger safety.  A variety of different types and sizes were used and it is most likely that boats on a given ship varied over time.  With Young America’s long, 30 year career I am sure there were replacements. I am still pondering the fourth boat, but the third is to be a 25 foot clinker built cutter that will rest inverted on the skid beams outside the longboat on the starboard side.  It is likely that the fourth boat – to be suspended from quarter davits - will be a somewhat smaller cutter.  So, on to the first cutter.
 
In the first picture, the sheer line at the top of the side is being scribed into the partially shaped pine plug.
 

 
The boat pattern can be seen pasted to the block.  This initial shape was formed using the disk sander.  In the next picture the plug has been fully shaped and the area below the topside given a coat of white shellac, sanded and well waxed.
 

 
The frames being formed in this picture are slightly smaller than the longboat frames.  They too, are pear and were left in water overnight before being placed as shown above.  They were about as flexible as string.  The process being used is the same as for the longboats, but thanks to the learning curve, it is still evolving and becoming more efficient.  In the next picture planking is well along.
 

 
Planking began after both halves of all the frames shown were fitted over the plug, the keel assembly installed on them and the topside guide strip nailed over the frames as shown above.  Frames at the ends were added later.
 
The clinker planking requires more work and care than the carvel planking used on the longboats.  First, because the planking lines will be very pronounced even after painting.  Also, the upper edges of each plank need to be beveled to bed the next plank, working up from the bottom.  The next picture shows the first step in that beveling using a paring chisel.
 

 
On the carvel hulls the planks were tapered at the ends to provide fair lines and to conform to the contraction of the planked area at the ends.  The same was done here before beveling the planks as shown above.  After the paring step, a flat file was used to smooth out the bevels along the plank.  The next planks were then overlapped and glued to both the plank above and the frames.  The next picture shows the topside plank above the wale being installed against the guide strip.
 

 
The next picture shows the planking nearing completion.
 

 
In the next picture, the boat has been removed from the plug and some internal members have been added.
 

 
As with the longboats, except for the unplanked boat, the internals are simplified on these upside-down boats.  The last picture shows the cutter in its position on the skid beams.
 

 
In this picture the boat has been given a first coat of white shellac primer, to be followed by the white acrylic.  The wales on this boat – and the one at the top – will then be installed.  The two longboats can then be secured, but this cutter will be left loose to provide access for rigging on the rail below, if needed.
 
Ed

Thank you Sirs,
  now back to the front, doing some catting :-)   First mistreated some wood ...     ... rounding things up ...     ... and prepared for blackening.     And there it already hangs ...     ... depper darling, deeper ...     ... ohohoh hihihigher ...                 ... and all on top ...         I hope the next updates will get more exciting again :-)   XXXDAn

Good morning Dafi
 
 
I really failed to convey what I was thinking.
What I meant is that the bunk could be slung next to the bullwark or one meter inside,
giving it more room to swing without hitting anything, and the gun being lashed with the
muzzle up to the deckhead the breech would be lower and give a little bit extra space.
 
Anyway I would recomend to choose yous sleeping position with the head away from the
gun just in case the assumptions are wrong and the ship's roll makes the bunk hit the gun
 
 
Cheers
 
Zeh

Back again for a bit more review
First of all, THANK YOU for your so many spended Likes
Next things to do were the gun carriages. The DANZIG had 12 pivot guns of three different weights on board, all in 20,4cm caliber. The weights were 95 - 60 - and 52 hundredweights.

 
First to build was the upper carriages, they are made from birch wood of 3mm thickness, milled as 4 pairs at once, and then glued together in a glueing form



 
After glueing this parts I drawed some photo etched parts and gave them to the etching fabric, all blue drawn parts are for that.

 
When the etched parts were ready, I had to bend some of them for mounting them to the carriages, most of the parts were for the largest upper carriages. They have lifters at the rear, and they even work in my model carriages. 




 
Also the pivot carriages are "ready for use" on deck, when this is built, some brass parts are not etched, but handmade. All eyelets are made from 0,5mm brass sheet, or from 0,3mm brass wire. Every single part that is shown in the drawings is mounted to the carriages, so I can rig them in original way at the ship.


 
This was only shown in a very short form, requests and critics are always welcome!
 
Best regards
Gerhard
 
 
 
 
 
 

Everything to delight you Gerhard, my pleasure!!!
  But then disaster, the eminent authority from my german forum destroyed my hope of getting more "like"s ...   ... "the securing thread of the hook should be done in figures of 8" he said, how can one do such a failure ...   ... so back into the ship yard and - this time with 3 spectacles one placed over the other - some micro chirurgic minimal invasive wizardry to satisfy my master.     Then on onto the other side ...     ... and with the experience even the smartening of the splice came out more ship shape and Bristol fashion.   Then used my drawing plate ...     ... to get the small toggle for the securing line.     And a small overview.     Looks great, but dear Dirk/Dubz started a discussion in our german forum about the rope extension, if this one was a correct feature. The chain is shown on many models, the rope not ...   XXXDAn

Just wanted to remind you at the calculation that I already made earlier about the average stay time there and at my prove, that this was a mere leisure event :-)
 
#5589 I cite myself:
 
Some small thoughts ...
 
... with 800 men crew and 6 seats we get this optimized calculation:    800 men (NCO) / 6 seats gives 133 men/seat    In a optimized 24 hours use using all seats we get the following numbers:    24 hours = 1440 minutes    1440 minutes / 133 men = 10,5 minutes/man per day. This means no second wasted and the next user always stand by.    If you take account of that not the whole day it is possible to have this steady usage because of time, scedules and weather, the usage time per person sinks dramatically. If I remember well, constipation was widely spread, which leads to longer men mean residence time.    So the conclusion is, that the heads, regarding the weather, daytime and service schedule, could possibly be a quite crowded place at certain moments.    This account only includes the "big business". There still would be some persons too to be expected at the heads for the "small business", if they are not preferring hanging out in the shrouds (leewards): One hand for the ship and one hand for yourself - now that line is finally understood.    A quick research in German Law and regulations indicates the following:    Puplic Law of the State of lower Saxony says for a leisure event of 800 visitors the calculation should be:  800:100 x 0,8 = 7 seated toilets and 800:100 x 1,2 = 10 urinals (always rounded)    The Law of Working Spaces "Arbeitsstätten-Richtlinie, ArbStätt 5.037.1, vom 26. Juni 1976 (ArbSch. 9/1976 S. 322)"  for 250 employes one needs 10 seated toilets and 10 urinals, that means more than double for 800 employees.    In a converse argument that leads to the conclusion:  For a working place the ship should have 5 times more seated toilets and this leads to - that by the number of seats - the ship must be a leisure event - Join the Navy - see the better world!    Sehr geehrter Gruß, Ihr treuergebener Diener most sincerely, your humble servant,   dafi

Good morning Dafi
 
 
I really failed to convey what I was thinking.
What I meant is that the bunk could be slung next to the bullwark or one meter inside,
giving it more room to swing without hitting anything, and the gun being lashed with the
muzzle up to the deckhead the breech would be lower and give a little bit extra space.
 
Anyway I would recomend to choose yous sleeping position with the head away from the
gun just in case the assumptions are wrong and the ship's roll makes the bunk hit the gun
 
 
Cheers
 
Zeh