rybakov

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

Nelsons bunk is hanging beside the gun :-)
 
HE had the space ;-)
 
XXXDAn
 
http://www.hms-victory.com/things-to-see/great-cabin
 

Hello Dafi
 
Taking for example Nelson's bunk we see it slung from the beams, so there is a degree
of freedom in choosing where to sling it from, to clear the breech of the gun for example.
what I tend to think, without any pretense of certainty is that the bunks were only slung at turn in time,
being unslung, collapsed and stowed against the bullwark.
 
Assuming they were not slung but fixed I really don't like an athwartship bunk,
most uncomfortable, trying to sleep with your head quite  lower than your feet.
 
All the best
Zeh

Hello Dafi
 
Taking for example Nelson's bunk we see it slung from the beams, so there is a degree
of freedom in choosing where to sling it from, to clear the breech of the gun for example.
what I tend to think, without any pretense of certainty is that the bunks were only slung at turn in time,
being unslung, collapsed and stowed against the bullwark.
 
Assuming they were not slung but fixed I really don't like an athwartship bunk,
most uncomfortable, trying to sleep with your head quite  lower than your feet.
 
All the best
Zeh

Hello Dafi
 
Taking for example Nelson's bunk we see it slung from the beams, so there is a degree
of freedom in choosing where to sling it from, to clear the breech of the gun for example.
what I tend to think, without any pretense of certainty is that the bunks were only slung at turn in time,
being unslung, collapsed and stowed against the bullwark.
 
Assuming they were not slung but fixed I really don't like an athwartship bunk,
most uncomfortable, trying to sleep with your head quite  lower than your feet.
 
All the best
Zeh

Oh dear... we're all going to burn for this....       

Planning on adding pi** dales, Dafi?

I think he's taking the **** Mark.........

You're not thinking of pissoir are you?  Not exactly a swimming pool....     

How the hell did I know that I would get your attention with THIS one?!?
 
...hihihihihihihi...
 
XXXDAn

If I'm not mistaken "piscine"
 
About your Victory................at loss for words about research and execution
.............I very much like it.
 
 
All the best
Zeh

Almost Zeh, almost ...
 
... it´s a pi**-in ...
 
... and why did this come up to me?
 
XXXDAn

If I'm not mistaken "piscine"
 
About your Victory................at loss for words about research and execution
.............I very much like it.
 
 
All the best
Zeh

Hello Dafi
 
Taking for example Nelson's bunk we see it slung from the beams, so there is a degree
of freedom in choosing where to sling it from, to clear the breech of the gun for example.
what I tend to think, without any pretense of certainty is that the bunks were only slung at turn in time,
being unslung, collapsed and stowed against the bullwark.
 
Assuming they were not slung but fixed I really don't like an athwartship bunk,
most uncomfortable, trying to sleep with your head quite  lower than your feet.
 
All the best
Zeh

Update
 
I`m planing the arrangement for the staggered two breakwater barriers, the the elevated guide / slide rails for the heavy anchor stud link chains, the two large forecastle capstan winches with incorporated horizontal turning chain sprocket wheels. These wheels will get a 180° wrap angle, before the chains are led down through the deck into the chain hold.
Thanks to Peter (Mr. Hollom) there is a lovely photo of this detail on the actual ship, also showing the outcuts for the chain guide rails in the upper section of the second breakwater, next to the mighty capstans in the background.
 
The chain sprocket grooves ought to be made from castings, but because that is beyond my capability, I made a dummy from a wooden dowel, in order to determine the geometrie, of diameter, groove size, etc. to close fit the chain links well in a 180° wrap. The chain is also a dummy, until I receive the ordered stud link chain in same dimensions
 
An earlier little failure in planing caused quite a lot of fiddily recovering work : the forecastle railings should have been mounted after the two breakwaters are fixed in place. Now I ca`nt make them in one piece, I just do`nt get them stuck in and through the railing (now made in two halves....., wich ca`nt be soldered sufficiently without damaging the deck. Have to find a solution on this feature later on
 
Nils
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

This is as close as I can get to how the forecastle is depicted in the original drawing. Note the asymmetry (foremast not yet stepped). The bowsprit sticks out over the starboard rail of the forecastle. Again, the carpentry is crude and appears temporary.
 

 

 

 

the forecastle from aft. There were no crew quarters. They slept where they could find shelter. Hammocks were unknown.
   

 

Our aesthetics are still dominated by the 18th century classicistic scholars and the re-discovery of medieval and earlier art in the early 19th century. At that time much of the original paint on buildings and other artefacts had crumbled away and faded. Hence, we tend to expect either the 'pure' material (wood, marble, other stone), rather than a colourful paint-scheme. Modern archeological techniques, however, have revealed many traces of paint that allow us to reconstruct paint-schemes and painting techniques. As a result, one must assume that many ships and buildings over history were painted in rather garish colours.
 
There is no comprehensive study on colours and paints used in decorating and preserving ships. It is quite certain, however, that the dominant pigments were mineral ones because they were cheap and stable. Many plant-derived pigments, particularly reds, are not permanent, i.e. they will fade when exposed to sunlight. Yellows, brick-reds and browns are all iron(hydr)oxides that are derived from natural ochre that has been heated to varying degrees and they are relatively cheap. Blues and greens can be derived from cobalt- or copper-containing minerals or synthesised from salts of these metals. They are more expensive. White, being derived from chalk or lime is cheap too. This gives you the main palette and other colours can be produced by mixing pigments.
 
As we all know, due to the long-wave light absorption by the water vapour in the air, colours appear to become more blue and paler the more distant you are from the painted object. In order to sufficiently impress across the typical viewing distance of several hundred meters you have to use a more garish paint scheme. Of course, if you reproduce this on a model that is being viewed from a short distance, it may not be very pleasing aesthetically to the modern beholder. Even modern replicas, such as the UTRECHT statenjacht or the frigate HERMIONE are not really pleasing to the eye that has been trained by museum models and old paintings.
 
Old paintings are another problem. Often the varnish on them tones down the original colour scheme. I have been shocked, when I discovered the original bright colouring in some paintings that I have known before their varnish was stripped off and they were cleaned.

Many people underestimate the part that economics and politics played. I suspect some of the preliminary models were as ornate as possible to raise interest in the project and the prestige of the shipwright. Once the ship was approved, funded, built and in service the navies would then maintain them using the cheapest, plainest paints that could be found on the planet. Many time purchasing from corrupt suppliers who supplied sub par product.

Well, nice to see that I wasn't completely off about a way of determining the load waterline.
On the other hand there are some questions that process and John's commentary raise:
  Is the designed LW an ideal LW or a do not exceed LW, sort of a Plimsol marking?
  I would assume that a ship statically trimmed to an even keel would be sailing trimmed by the head,
  Is that desirable or usual?
  so is that drawn line that important or is it there just to give an impression of how the ship would look
  in the water, referring to John again.
 
Meanwhile I keep watching, learning and having something to think about
 
 
Thank you all
 
Zeh

My personal opinion is that load lines are not all that important in an objective sense, but rather serve as a designer’s reference points.
 
Four Spanish third-rate sister-ships built between 1785 and 1789; two at Ferrol, two at Cartagena.
San Ildefonso: Empty – not known. Best Trim – 24’ 3” aft, 22’ 8” forward.  San Francisco de Paula: Empty – 19’ 5” aft, 14’ 0” forward. Best Trim – 24’ 8.5” aft, 22’ 9.5” forward. San Telmo: Empty – 19’ 2” aft, 13’ 5” forward.  Best Trim – 24’ 4” aft, 22’ 10” forward. Europa: Empty – 18’ 10” aft, 14’ 3” forward. Best Trim – not known. [Francisco Fernández-González]
 
Capitain de Vaisseau Pigue Villemaurin recorded trials of Cornelie: Lightship – not known, Best Trim – 17’ 3” aft, 15’ 4.5” forward.  Sill height recorded at best trim – 6’ 5.5”, after six recorded runs at different trim lines. [personal copy, Devis de la fregate de Republique, la Cornelie].
 
Inferring that the actual load line was a dynamic, after-the-fact, quantity.
 
According to Boudriot, when French 74s were disarmed for yard work, “everything” was removed except the ballast, lower masts and bowsprit. “In the disarmed condition, a 74 would float 8 pieds above water amidships (water to port sill distance) as opposed to the loaded condition where the gundeck sills were 5 pieds above the waterline”. Again inferring that the nominal load line depended on the desired height of the gunports. It was a dynamic, after-the-fact, quantity.
 
In my humble opinion.  John

Well, nice to see that I wasn't completely off about a way of determining the load waterline.
On the other hand there are some questions that process and John's commentary raise:
  Is the designed LW an ideal LW or a do not exceed LW, sort of a Plimsol marking?
  I would assume that a ship statically trimmed to an even keel would be sailing trimmed by the head,
  Is that desirable or usual?
  so is that drawn line that important or is it there just to give an impression of how the ship would look
  in the water, referring to John again.
 
Meanwhile I keep watching, learning and having something to think about
 
 
Thank you all
 
Zeh

The 1740-1790 period was very interesting because this is when certain “modern” scientific principles took hold. Once again, the period texts give no rule, regulation, instruction, for a consistent, determinable, placement of the “load waterline”.  Once again, I believe this is a significant omission. The period extends from Pierre Morineau to Vial du Clairbois and includes Spain’s Romero Landa. Interestingly, at various times during the period, Spain was leading-edge in certain aspects of Naval Architecture and ship design.
 
Morineau followed the earlier paradigm and often put the load line coincident with height of breadth for his corvettes. In fregate and vaisseau designs, the ligne en charge was set at his “height of sill” definitions and the height of breadth fell where it may. Actually, it was the other way around, but “chicken or egg”. Ligne en charge “shall be no lower than a twelfth part (pouce par pied) of breadth below ligne du fort”. So again, LwL was subjective and depended on designer’s choice of section curvature. But LwL was not determinative.
 
The Spanish system, as late as 1790 (and maybe longer), was to use well known principles for buoyancy to do their designs. They launched the ship and made careful records of her “lightship” draught, fore and aft. They loaded her out (with moveable ballast) and made iterative sea trials to determine her best sailing trim. They made careful recordings of draft fore and aft under “best” conditions, and poof, a Load-Waterline.
 
Romero Landa, Reglamento de Maderas Necesarias para la Fábrica de los Baxeles del Rey,
Madrid, 1784 [Prof. Francisco Fernández-González, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Navales, Madrid]
 
Even today, Lwl is a dynamic quantity. Every racing sailor knows that some boats like to go “butt-up” and some like “butt down”, and it all depends on aspect to the breeze. I would only ever give something a design “lightship” float mark for any of my designs, because the practical reality is so completely different.
 
John

The messenger still moves backwards and changes direction on those solid stanchions ...     ... towards the capstan ...       ... and the strain of the pulling already worked the messenger up the drum.   Behind the capstan 3 gents are pulling the rope clear ...       ... in that area I placed two more stanchions as they are out of the way and on the rest of the track ...     ... some other gents make sure that the messenger is moving swiftly forwards again.    
Cheers, Daniel

I read that the French intellectual investigations into ship design didn't actually make it into the ships themselves and remained a mostly theoretical endeavor.  The British had the same experience and shortly cancelled the academics.

I have been following this thread with interest and enjoying the level of knowledge of old shipwrightry far superior to mine.
Nevertheless I would like to put up for consideration my thougts on the matter.
 
First, I think the load waterline marked on the plan marks the desirable immersion of the ship.
To have the ship float at that immersion (draft) is not overly complicated, although the actions taken to attain it would have 
some effect on the ship's qualities.
If upon launching the draft is noted and then after loading a few tons of ballast the new draft is read we have TPI (tons per inch
immersion).
Knowing the distance to the load waterline we know how many tons we may load.
(of course the TPI increases as the draft increases, but we may consider it as an allowance for the timbers soaking up water.) 
The weights of masts riggin and so on are known, crew weight is approximately known so we are left with provisions and ballast
to play around to get the ship to the load waterline.
If we put on board water and food for 60 days instead of 80, or 100 rounds per gun instead of 120 for example, or reduce some ballast, we eventually
will get it floating at the desired draft.
Of course it will have quite different nautical properties than if things were spot on - less ballast to move around to trim properly, less sail carrying capacity in a breeze, if we err in the other direction and have to add ballast we will have a stiffer ship wich, at the limit, could endanger the masts.
 
Well, this is how I think they would go about getting the ship to the load waterline, and it really doesn't need much mathematics.
I try to keep in mind they were practical people.
 
 
Al the best
 
Zeh