Beef Wellington

Quick update - even though I've been gathering the info above for some time, immediately after making this post I stumbled across another plan that I had not seen before. (Available at Ship plan of HMS 'Diana' (1794): expansion of outboard works (rmg.co.uk) ). Thankfully this supports the thinking outlined above, but makes me happily retract the statement that there are no plans of the Artois class reflecting the 1793 Admiralty order for 4 quarterdeck carronades. Unfortunately I can't find a high resolution version to be able to read the text, but this planking expansion clearly shows the 2 carronade port alignment. Fortunately, the approach I've taken described above has been validated and I can continue with a clean(er) conscience. Of interest to other Artois builders, this adds yet another option for the bulwarks showing a fully built up bow, and squared profile of the quaterdeck not commonly seen. Ship plan of HMS 'Diana' (1794): expansion of outboard works (NMM J5533)

Hi Beez, think your toned down stern is much more in keeping. You're making great progress.

Thoughts and conjectures on 'Jason's' (and Artois class frigate) armament and bulwark configuration: Currently knee deep trying to think through a number of problems making sharing photos at this stage a little premature. I have however reached a stage where certain decisions are required, specifically the armament bulwark gunport/carronade configuration. I very much enjoy seeing other builders' thoughts and decisions on how to build their Artois class frigate, Diana or otherwise, and at the risk of putting people to sleep I'm summarizing my thoughts below. As has been commented many times, much is unknown leaving a lot to builders' discretion, but I think the available evidence suggests that these options can be. Without either the builders or ships logs to shed more light, much will remain conjecture. My goal was to arrive at the most likely (IMHO) scenario for 'Jason' when she was launched, but also not let this get in the way of the model I want to build. (Recognizing of course that certain anachronisms will persist, for example copper plates, armament etc. would not be present at launch). My intent is not to spark debate, but to get my thoughts on paper. 🙂 Chronological timeline of evidence and events: Date unknown: Various NMM models with no armament, pierced for canons with open quarterdeck bulwarks and multiple design differences discussed fully in AOTS. 1793 (NMM Plan Ref ZAZ2383) – open bulwarks with quarterdeck, with more additional exposed quarterdeck timberheads, ports for cannons only (no carronades) March 1793 (NMM Plan Ref ZAZ2341) - Open bulwarks, originally reflects, but reflects updates (likely1797?) showing 6 quarterdeck, 2 forecastle carronade ports March/April 1793 (NMM Wikimedia Commons J5552) – Open bulwarks, reflects 6 quarterdeck, 2 forecastle carronade ports 1st April 1793 (NMM Wikimedia Commons J7737) - Closed bulwarks, ports for cannons only (no carronades) 4th April 1793 (NMM Plan ZAZ2344, NMM Wikimedia Commons J7733) – Framing plan, open bulwarks, ports for cannons only (no carronades) 12 June 1793 (NMM Wikimedia Commons J5549) – Closed bulwarks, ports for cannons, (reflects change for 6 quarterdeck, 2 forecastle carronade ports, as well as subsequent adjustments to gunport position – date unknown). Interestingly also shows the mainmast brace bits moved forward adjacent to the barricade which is not reflected in any other sources. November 1793: Admiralty promulgated Order defines armament: Quarterdeck: 8 x 9lb’er, 4 x 24lb Carronade per Admiralty Order, fo’c’sle: 2 x 9lb’er (Likely long nine chase guns), 2 x 24lb Carronade April 1794: JASON LAUNCHED November 1794: Admiralty promulgated order to replace 24lb Carronades and carry additional 32lb Carronades at expense of some carriage guns. Quarterdeck: 6 x 9lb’er, 6 x 32lb Carronade, fo’c’sle: 2 x 9lb’er (Probably long nine chase guns), 2 x 32lb Carronade 1797 (NMM Plan Ref ZAZ2341) Closed quarterdeck bulwarks shown on plan per current practice (Details of design or build channel and open bulwark arrangement shown). This plan also indicates the more austere square finish to the quarterdeck bulwark in addition to the more ornate version used in the illustration on the jacket and used as basis for the kit configuration. Interestingly, plan indicates that the Foremast of Jason and Diamond were moved forward 6 ¼ inches. Quarterdeck piercings for 12 carriage guns shown as designed/built together subsequent adjustments for piercings for 6 x carriage guns and 6 x Carronades Aug 1798: JASON WRECKED December 1799: All upper deck armament to comprise 32lb Carronades per Admiralty Order, with exception of 2 chase guns) Quarterdeck: 12 x 32lb carronade, fo’c’sle: 2 x 9lb’er (Probably long nine chase guns), 2 x 32b Carronade Decisions and rationale for how to represent ‘Jason’ “as launched”: Bulwarks: Sufficient historical ambiguity to allow the model maker (me) to feel comfortable that both open or built-up bulwarks are historically viable. This short period of a few years when these ships were built was a time when the preference for 'built up' and 'open' bulwarks switched back and forth. The earlier older design variance of open bulwark with exposed timberheads, while intriguing to model, seems unlikely by 1794. Armament: The admiralty order of November 1793 will be reflected as I believe there would be sufficient time to between issuance and launch for this to be reflected. As such, Jason will be equipped with Quarterdeck: 8 x 9lb’er, 4 x 24lb Carronade and fo’c’sle: 2 x 9lb’er and 2 x 24lb Carronade. Gunports: ‘Jason’s’ gunports will be pierced to reflect the armament described above. There are however no (existing) plans that show this configuration (i.e. only 2 quarterdeck carronades per side). In my view, this does not seem problematic: CORRECTED - there is! See post #691 below There was only a 12 month period between the Nov 1793 Admiralty orders to carry 4x24lb quarterdeck carronades, and the Nov 1794 order to carry 6x32lb quarterdeck carronades. Only plans drawn up in this period would reflect this configuration, and given that plans for each member of the class were drawn up pretty extensively in 1793, there doesn’t seem to have been much need to redo. The available plans reflect different things, but it's not definitively known exactly what. Various plans showing the original cannon only configuration show subsequent modifications for the 6 carronade ports, but none show only 4. It seems reasonable that any updates to reflect the 1793 (4) carronade configuration, would likely have been updated again to reflect the 6 carronade configuration after 1794, or just updated to once after 1794. My conclusion therefore is that the absence of a plan showing this configuration does not preclude it. The ports least encumbered by stays were selected, and which are consistent with subsequent carronade layout. Hopefully back to some photo's next update...

Thats a nice guide, and the results show you're clearly an old hand at ratlines. BTW - I *think* the tool you show is called a bradawl, but not sure if that name applies to squared tips and maybe others can confrim...in any event, I wish I had one!

Hi Sparky, you've made a solid start. I'm not familiar with the kit, but just a suggestion, looking at your pictures it doesn't seem that you have faired the bulkheads anywhere near enough to get a smooth run for the planks. You really want the fairing to all the way to the aft face of the bulkhead so all of the plank face contacts it. I think if you revisited that, it would make your planking a much easier and enjoyable experience.

Nice results there David, looking great. Just curious whether you looked at and compared the 'aftermarket' pins provided by Caldercraft, they are much slimmer and proportional that those provided in the earlier kits. I doff my cap to you as well for making 60 of those things!

Very nice Kevin, those frames look SOOOO much better!

Beautiful Vane!

Bit late, but congratulations on yet another fine build, with just the perfect amount of period 'je ne sais quoi' that you excel at!

Hancing pieces and volutes.... I'm a little embarrassed that it has been so long that I've been away, somewhat from the shipyard but also this wonderful site. With the weather starting to turn and a bit more available time it seemed a good time to get back into things and try to pick up from a point that I left a little disheartened so many months ago. To be able to move forward, I had to come up with a solution for the hancing pieces which should then really allow much of the final hull form to be finalised. The problem I faced stemmed from the fact that I had to come up with a hancing piece volute 6mm high (per NMM plans) to transition the upper rails into the waist, and following a profile already established for the other rails. Although these are not large details, they are features that to my eye need to be sufficiently elegant and accurate to avoid detracting from the lines of the hull. I tried many different approaches, but here is the one that worked best for me and provided a method of construction that allowed consistent results. I'll apologize in advance for quality of the photographs, I was so focused on the work and forgot to check the photo quality as I progressed. 2.2 mm holes were drilled using a pin vise into some 2mm pear wood (actually 1.5mm + 0.5mm pear laminated together cross grain because I didn't have any 2mm sheet stock), this matches the starting thickness used for the upper rails which started as 2x2mm square strip. (A 2.2mm hole was found through visual trial and error to introduce the gradual narrowing of the rail into the end of the volute). A 1.5mm diameter recess was then carefully made at the edge using a round needle file at 45deg to the bottom of the hole. Each 'blank' was then cut from the sheet, given a slight reduced profile using an exacto blade, and a thin cut made above the filed lobe (explanation below). Small sections of 1.5mm diameter pear dowel were then glued into the 1.5mm recess, so they very slightly protruded above the top of the block. Sufficient PVA glue was used to ensure that these were well bonded. Once dry, a the top of the blanks were gently cut back and carefully finished against a circular sander so that the top edge of the blank was tangential to the top of the 2.2mm drilled hole (the cut previously made above the recess allows this section to release easily as it will no longer be needed. A length of 2x2mm pear wood strip was scraped with the same molding profile as used previously in the build, but care taken to leave an untouched section toward the end. The volute blanks were then attached to the unfinished end of the scraped molding. PVA glue was used generously, and left to dry overnight to ensure a full strength bond. Once dry, the excess was then carefully cut away to give proportions pleasing to the eye (mine at least) and ensure that the final volute form would be 6mm high. The rough cut was then very carefully reduced to its final shape using various grades of sanding sticks. Once the final shape was achieved, a profile needed to be introduced to match, and transition as smoothly as possible from the molding strip into the curve of the volute. To do this I needed to create a second scraper profile at the very edge of a razor blade to work on the volute curve effectively (the scraper profile used previously for strip had been centered to give best control on straight strip). This was performed very slowly as catastrophic failure would be very easy! While it is true that it took multiple experiments to get this method down, it did work well and the four needed volutes were all first time efforts with no rework, and despite the many imperfections highlighted by the macro lens, the results to the naked eye exceeded my expectations. In position, the volutes will now allow final shaping of the hull profile. Onto the next challenges!

Very much enjoyed catching up on your progress David. If only progress could be as speedy as reading a build log. Great to see some of the techniques you're using, and I totally agree the carronades need some serious TLC, yours came out very nice.

Like many things, I believe it depends on the period and the nation in question. From what I understand, the iron T-plates gradually replaced the wooden knees as metalwork became more prevalent in late 18th century. Thanasis' post above shows the redundancy that seems to be in place by having both - which probably did occur during the transition, and seems to have been ubiquitous through the history of ships.

Awesome progress David...been 'away' and missed so much of your progress, probably overloaded your inbox with 'likes' 🙂

This subject and kit are very intriguing Mike, will definitely be following along. There seem to be a multitude of molded plastic/resin (?) parts which I'm hoping the kit provides elements to further detail these.

Looking great. I have nothing to point to, but the red ochre 'waterline' looks awkwardly low on the hull. Curious what pointed you in the direction of doing it so low.

Its amazing how you have created the various 3D printed parts David. You're really showing how this kit can really be taken to the next level with these details, you have a really beautiful model coming together. I'd love to know how to do what you do 🙂

Adam, very much enjoyed catching up on your log, I very much appreciate you showing how you approached the basic wood working of each piece for those of us not too familiar with basic techniques, you make it look simple! A beautiful model you have coming together here, very much want to follow along.

Looking fantastic! BTW - you could honestly sell that ladder making jig, I would buy one!

Looking very good David!

David, wlecome to the ever growing Diana/Artois club! Great stat to your planking, those treenails looks very nice. This is definitely a challenging, but fun and rewarding kit to grapple with. I'm sure you've already looked at many of the build logs which highlight some of the unique challenges. You cannot think too far ahead with this build, especially if you plan to make modifications! You already point out probably one of the biggest initial challenges which is the astern alignment, so expect to have to make some adjustments there. Establishing the position and alignment of the quarter galleries based on the run of the upper/gun deck will allow you to then establish the placement of the stern fascia.

Hi Andy, that looks frustrating. It seems to be that the kit curt part did not adequately account for the curvature of the hull. The good part is when you make your own parts, there are never mistakes....not 🙂

Hi David, Just jumping in before you commit re: the top tackle scuttle and pump scuttles. I'm of the opinion that the AOTS is simply wrong, and suspect that Chris's kit plans/instructions follow that. The plan below of the upper deck (of 'Jason' in this case, but likely consistent across the class) clearly shows the scuttles without any coaming, and I don't think there is any reason to suspect that the approach to these would change over time. Practically, these would be used infrequently, offer little in the way of light or other benefit of having permanent coamings and gratings...and likely be hazardous if anything other than flush, especially around the main mast and railing. They also do not appear built up on any of the Artois or other contemporaneous NMM models. All that being said, they do offer some nice visual interest so will look great whichever way you go. Good luck with the tapered planking, definitely time consuming but well worth the effort in retrospect. Looks like you've made a good start. Cheers Jason

Foc's'l Planking Wrap-up: Foc's'l and gangway planking is now complete. Hopefully photo's tell the story. The position of the cathead has been estimated, and a rather bizare planking arrangement was used to hopefully ensure that this will look OK once the cathead is finally installed, basically wanted the planking to be as prototypical as possible, although this will mean staring at a rather jarring joint until this is installed. The second photo in the series below shows how I'm anticipating this will look once the cathead is in place, and which will essentially hide the joint of the waterway and the artificial planking arrangement. Once the angle of the plank-waterway termination was less than 45 deg, a switch was made to hooking the ends of the planks, and each of these had to be cut and shaped from 6mm strip (these were tapered the same as before) The process was continued until the area was complete. The only deviation being that the last 2 planks on each side were tweaked a little more to try to get these as even looking as possible, and of course the last plank being the most laborious to get an acceptable fit. It is hard to see in the photos, but the curve of the plank can be challenge to ensure that the simulated caulking looks as consistent as possible. I eperience this challenge on the quaterdeck as well, but a solution that helped here was the use of thin plates of clear mica to help position these as consistently as possible until glue sets (I use PVA glue almost exclusively for planking). The gangway planking in the waste was pretty straightforward, (in fact the only non-shaped planks on the entire top deck) and comprised almost my last acceptable pieces 4mm maple strip. It was very close, but I did not run out thankfully. Photo below shows how the gangway planking 'sits' on the lip of the entryway platforms that form part of the quarterdeck. The gangway does not have a waterway. Finally, some overall shots of the top deck, the foc's'l has not been scraped or cleaned up at all yet, which will be the next task. The question I ask myself is whether the time and effort to taper the foc's'l planking was worth it. I suspect that anyone looking at this would never notice as the final effect is very subtle, but I can't help but feel that the reason this is hard to see is simply because it complements the shape of the foc's'l without drawing attention to itself. Overall, I am very pleased with the result, and with this almost complete, it will be nice to be able to turn to other tasks.

The second photo with the kit part looks much more with how I'm reading the various profiles and how I will be approaching things. Of course, I'm just as liable to be mistaken as he next man 🙂

Hi David, the trials and tribulations of the channel placement is shared by everyone so you're in good company! I would suggest taking another look at your hancing scroll, to my eye it looks a little on the small side, and possibly a little low, but its always hard to judge from photos. Been looking at this a lot recently, and it seem common practice for the radius of the scroll to extend above the sheer of the deck to transition to the quarterdeck bulwark, so that the rail sits above the level of the deck in the waist. The original plans suggest that this should be around 6mm in diameter at 1:64, which is pretty consistent with the kit supplied part. Unfortunately I lost the plans from the kit in my flood so can't refer to that. Of course, please feel free to ignore me!