rybakov

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

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