AON

I spent a portion of the early morning reviewing two walk through tour videos, and it appears the public were not allowed in that area. I also noticed they seem to never take any pictures of the one thing you are looking for at the time. I have a CD of pics that was copied and distributed at one of our club meetings... and of course any image of the area is AWOL.

If you consider the bowsprit in the sense of a mechanical fulcrum, as I see it, the knights head is the pivot point. All lines (or ropes) outboard are either pulling down or up, except the guy pendants which are keeping it from sliding forward (unstepping), the gammoning is doing both, and the foot of the mast in the step is holding that end of the fulcrum stationary. I think the partners (housings) are beefy fillers in an attempt to assist in keeping the mast from shifting, and keeping water from passing to other levels. Possibly someone in the know might jump in.

Thank you Gary. These are all very useful! So I guess the answer to your original question would be that there would be a partner or housing at each deck level the bowsprit passed through.

Gary I cannot say what Alfred had, but per The Fully Framed Model four volume series of books, and also The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships (pg 46), both sloops and 1st rates had partners (aka housings) on each deck arranged to keep the mast steady. So I imagine 3rd rates had them also. I believe the rake of each mast would be set and locked in/steadied at all levels. First the step and top most level (Locked), followed by those in between (Steadied). I hope I have been of some service as I prefer to pass "it" forward if and whenever I can. I have been wrong a few times. I profess to know nothing more about this subject at this time. Still a lowly entry level trainee in this hobby, though at rare times I present as really smart. Looking forward to reading any information you have for Alfred.

Gary, I wonder, does every vertical mast (fore, main, and mizzen) have a "partner" at every deck level? When you find the answer to that you may have the answer you are looking for with regards to the horizontal bowsprit mast. Alan

Gary, The only place I can find anything is in David Antscherl's book: The Fully Framed Model (Swan Class Sloops) Vol.2, Chapter 10, page 166, which is a drawing revealing carlings with a filler bowsprit partner filling the space left open by the bowsprit as it passes through. The bowsprit partner is somewhat egg shape or elliptically profile cut to mate to the bowsprit. As a 2" plank it is a filler piece and not a bowsprit support. Greg Herbert (Vol 3, Chapter 10, Pages 154 & 155) has images there also, but he had an excellent companion 3D model made that complements the book series and there are two wonderful 3D colour images of this in chapter 10 of the collection (the very first two images). I believe this idea is what Druxey was alluding to in his post of yesterday (4th post from the bottom). Although this reference is for a sloop and not a 74 gun 3rd rate, I would like to think they would likely not reinvent the wheel over this simple gap filler.

funny story... I was reluctant to go down to check when I had the first eye done as I was concerned I might not like what I saw. You cannot imagine. Once I got enough courage I walked in and braced for the worst.... I was very much surprised and relieved.

Had the book opened and under a short stack of others on the side table to my right. Found plate 30 (photo) and it took me a moment to register the bowsprit passing through on the left hand side. That oriented me, and then I understood what I was seeing ... prior to that all I registered was a table, two chairs, and what looked like a possible pigeon coop... or really big chickens.

Mark, thank you for the vote of confidence. I will refer to it the next time I am in doubt (which is often). I made an error in my post, corrected it and added a note identifying it. (Horizontal, horizontal, horizontal, .......... ad nauseam ) I admit I was aware of the collar beam, and so possibly should have added it to the list, but I suspect the bowsprit passes clearly under it as it might be difficult to install if it didn't. I'll be copying your photo if you don't mind.

I tend to believe they did not for this "horizontal" mast as with everything I've seen (looked at) in the last couple of years did not seem to indicate any such bracing. ("correction": I originally referred to this as a vertical mast which was an error on my part. Now I need to get a brain tuneup) I imagine that between locking the foot in place in it's step, the gammoning bindings, and the bowsprit shrouds, it t'weren't go'in nowhere. Waiting to read what the more experienced modellers have to say... as I am unfortunately not one of those.

OMG. I never thought of it like that. That makes Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, the !st of Canada. Somehow I find it hard to believe a whole nation got it wrong. But then again, being the good docile child nation, possibly we don't really care about the number. Sorry Mum.

great use of elastic bands. I find I either haven't enough or they are too short. I am also always worried the "timber" (sliver of wood) I am binding back to will snap off

It is done and my vision is amazing. Everything is so much brighter now. I will likely need weak reading glasses and am presently using my shop safety glasses that have +1.5 magnification. I was using the pair with +2.5 magnification the other day. (Neither of these worked for me at all when my son gave them to me a year ago) I am itching to get back in the shop, and the weather is not cooperating, it was sunny and warm yesterday. It will be difficult to chose the basement over the outdoors in about 2 weeks when the doctor gives me the "all clear".

I've completed my spreadsheet tally of 879 blocks (standing and running rigging, less those in the boats) as at this time I believe I will include furled sails. This includes what we normally think of a blocks, plus parrels, hearts and dead eyes. My reference is Steels Rigging Tables for a 74 gun ship. I've considered all sizes from 5" to 56" and the incremental differences at 1:64 scale. As it will likely be difficult to finish sanding a block shape to "exact scale" I believe I would group them so three consecutive sizes (5", 6" , 7") would be one size block (6") as the difference at 1:64 scale is extremely minimal. I would aim for the middle in any one group and have made a note to remind me of this. I just have to remember where the note is... or that there is a note! This gives me 2 sizes of hearts (16" and 25") , 10 sizes of blocks (6", 9", 12", 15", 18", 21", 25", 28", 38" and 56") and 3 sizes of dead eyes (7-1/2", 11" and 17"). I go to get my other eye done this Friday, and three or four weeks later I will be able to go back down to my shop and get working on the square frames, and some blocks for the two yards I've made for the bowsprit and jib boom masts.

I still refer back to the article where they scrapped off layers of paint to reveal the original colours, then look at the various paintings. But the original point was the number of pillars, single row or set of two rows. We've digressed on Marks build. Sorry for that Mark. Possibly this might be an excellent separate discussion elsewhere?

HMS Bellerophon Gun Deck water colour, date unknown National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/110266.html

Ahhh, but the article states they removed layers upon layers of paint to discover the Orlop deck painted a creamy stone colour, the surgeon's cabin "a grand two shades of blue", and the admiral and Captain's cabin a light blue. So is it not very likely the gun deck was painted something lighter, rather than blood red?

Druxey Below is the image of HMS Victory in 1765 (ref: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2583165/Nelsons-flagship-HMS-Victory-true-colours-blue-deck-none-hideous-orange.html). I am looking for the source of the Bellerophon painting above but suspect it is in early service.

In this painting of HMS Bellerophon's gun deck there seem to be a pair of pillars

On my plans some are aligned with those above and others are not. I've not looked at pillars... something worth keeping an eye out for as I'm thumbing through stuff for the next few weeks.... unless your "friend" notices it first.

Good morning (evening) I find what you've done to the figurehead to be amazing! Very nice job. It is too bad they didn't provide something representative of the original figurehead with the kit as it must have been very impressive as described (Bellerophon mounted on Pegasus with his Javelin). The size of the 3D printed gun barrels poking out the gun ports look much better also. I am so glad you are back.

Welcome back Mitsuaki-san! I had found your last build quite a few years ago and found it to be very educational. I look forward to following your future posts.

You rare absolutely correct about the physical size difference at reduced scale. I'm thinking there might simply be small, medium and large. What they will be has yet to be decided. I'm tallying up all the sizes today to see what there is.

I noted that a word in my post above was replaced with **** the word is the actual term used to describe the bottom or tail end of the block in my opinion it is not vulgar or inappropriate for this forum. Much better than what a back splice was AKA, or a seaman's duffle bag was AKA. so the word is a r s e was that so bad?

Rope blocks are said to be sized for the size of the rope. The size of the rope specified in Steel's / Rees's tables is the circumference and must be divided by the mathematical constant PI or π (3.1416). So a 2-1/2" rope is actually closer to 3/4" diameter. But, rope block sizes as listed is actually the length of the cheek (side) of the block from the head (top) to the **** (bottom). So a 10 inch block would measure nearest 10 inches tall. Steels (and Rees) provide ratio rule of thumb guide to calculating the dimensions of the various size of block shell and shiver (sheave) as determined by the size of rope (see my spreadsheet mentioned in the post above) While working with my spreadsheet I'd noticed a discrepancy between the ratio rule of thumb and the rigging tables, and have been trying to understand why they differ. The tables specify 10" and 9" blocks for 2-1/2" rope whereas the ratio suggests the length of the block should be 7-1/2" ( of rounded up to 8"). I've noted this same thing happening for other size blocks throughout the rigging tables. I should also point out I am not the first to mention this, Mark, SJSloane mentioned this in his build of HMS Bellona. After a day of searching and postulating I've noted the physical difference between 2-1/2" and 3" rope is quite minimal at about 0.8" and 0.9" diameter. 3-1/2" rope is 1.1" diameter.. So what might be called for via the "rule of thumb" for the carpenters to make blocks would not necessarily be what the Navy preferred. Which is pretty well what Druxey suggested. Then again, a rule of thumb is exactly that. So, when the time comes, I will be using sizes as specified in the rigging tables, with dimensions meant to match the block size, not the rope size.