AON

Got an extremely quick response from Chris Watton suggesting all the penned annotations may have been a suggestion to lengthen the ship during a refit in 1805 but the idea was not implemented. Considering it all history now. I've moved my stations in my model and presently little seems to have been affected. I will have to take some time to be sure, then clean up my keel, stem and stern post sketch, complete the hull and slice my timbers to make the templates. There is a light at the end of the tunnel

Thank you Alan for the suggestion I sent a PM to this gentleman and now get to practice the fine art of patience... something else I struggle with! On another note... I spent yesterday clearing out half the dungeon in preparation of expanding my play (work) room. Going to be more than doubling the size. Lumber, nails, drywall, screws, second door, hardware jamb kit, electrical plugs and boxes to be delivered this coming Saturday

Yesterday was a rather rainy day in Niagara and so far I’m not sure today will be much better.... the flowers, grass and trees love it. Decided I needed to get going on this project as I could not get any yard work done. Earlier (see above) I took my tracing paper hull template and taped it to some stiff cardboard Now I traced the shape onto the cardboard with a soft (HB) pencil. I printed out a picture of the Bluenose from the forum for reference, measured the overall length, compared it to Charlie’s O/All Length and had my ratio to estimate dimensions After working out the dimensions of the skeg to be added to the underside I drew the shape onto the cardboard. Then cut out the template. I transferred the hull cross sectional shape to paper using my new (larger and brighter!) profile gauge and estimated the width of the skeg or piece of wood I would need to use (looks like 1-1/2 so I'll go with 1-3/4”). I went down to the dungeon and scoured through my scraps. Although I was ready to plane and glue and clamp two or three pieces together I found one piece of maple about 1-7/8” thick. I planed this down to 1-3/4” to create a flat surface. I then planed one edge. I then traced the template shape onto the block of wood, cut of the “ends” to shape with my band saw and now I am ready to shape with chisels and rasps I envision drilling two holes to glue and screw this to the hull. I will insert two dowels to hide the screws and use this as the mount similar to the model/ image I borrowed.

I’ve completed the sketch that nails down my station lines! My first sketch is a combination of double frame and space (2’-8-1/2” x 2 = 5’-5”) plus the spacing I measured to the bow and the stern perpendiculars. This left me with an overall length of 168’-8” which is 8 inches too long. My second sketch was after I noticed the bar scale on the plan read exactly 170 feet under the Bow Perpendicular. Having suddenly realized this I could read the nearest full dimension next to the dead flat position, draw the 1/12th divisions at the dead flat and measure with some degree of confidence the location of the dead flat. This meant whatever was left over at either end was “it”. Now I had my stations (reasonably) properly located. (I must keep reminding myself that I am not building a Swiss time piece!) My final sketch was to help me visualize the timbers, spacing (gaps) and cant frames. Now having a better visual understanding of this part I will be adjusting my model next week, get my hull completed and then, possibly, soon, begin making some templates for an actual build! Thanks goes to my NRG mentor whom I am certain must have been getting annoyed with my stubbornness. (I must keep reminding myself that it will not be full scale!)

you can also purchase extruded aluminium shapes that have the groove in them and use caulking to "glue" the plexiglas in the grooves trying to think outside the box!

I should expand the explanation The (original TIFF and so) PDF images I was measuring off of are "stretched" (due to the original source) and so inaccurate as would be measuring off a (the) print. The lines on the PDF are a wee bit thick when I zoom in to measure so that probably doesn't help. My Solidworks model reflects these inaccuracies and so lines are manipulated If I were to trace off an imported image I get the same inaccuracies because the original image is stretched If I stretch the CAD tracing I would make from the image the curvature/straightness of the lines are compromised and require manipulation No matter what I do I've got to nudge things over and turn them about to make it look right and since I want to try to salvage what I've done to date .... My NRG mentor suggested measuring off the print with dividers and so I've given it a try It can't be any worse than what I've done so far and actually gives me repeatable dimensions where as the zooming in on the PDF to electronically measure rarely gives me the exact same dimension twice (a program tolerance issue) I am doing it all on a reference sketch in DraftSight because I need a "clean sheet" and my SolidWorks model is too distracting so I keep it closed for now. All will be transferred to the model once I get it straightened out.

links don't seem to work for me

Don, How so? (yes it is not recommended practice on the shop floor)

Good morning Druxey Your words about paper stretch from much earlier were very much on my mind when measuring. I attempted measuring directly below but the 1/12th divisions are not there Then I measured at the end nearest the station where the divisons are located Then I compared a few at the opposite end scale I was thinking I'd re-measure and draw out the bow and stern heights of breadth in 2D Draftsight off the half breadth, draw the cant frames and see how that compares for frame and space... then I can comfortable make a decision Alan

At the moment I am going to try to move forward at 168 feet long I need to make corrections to my station line locations My NRG mentor had mentioned measuring with dividers... so I did... off two different plans for comparison Here are the results It was admittedly easier than measuring off the PDF but could eventually result in a grazillion tiny holes on the plans Next I need to make it all add up to 168 feet. My NRG mentor told me the Room and Space dimension of 2'-8-1/2" is held from bow to stern when measured on the outside of the hull (or is that timbers) at the heights of breadth, not at the centre of the keel.... although okay to measure at the centre of the keel for the straight frames. I'll need to plot from my model this to double check. I am beginning to get more comfortable with accepting being close enough for the reduced scale as opposed to being dead nuts on accurate. This is a good thing ... right?

Druxey, That is what I originally thought... some ones thoughts scribbled on the contract. But there are so many other things ... the 1805 date for example. I usually love a puzzle and my darling wife (the super sleuth) has been doing what she does best ... looking for clues and finding additional info on the bankruptcy and the date of death for dear Mr. Edward Greaves. I e-mailed my contact at NMM this morning to ask for help deciphering the contract notations and hope I have better luck with a response then the poor fellow I had provided the contact info to for quotes on plans elsewhere on this site. I also asked my NRG mentor early yesterday and had not heard back from him as yet, I prefer to think he is working on it rather than him "having a life"! I need to learn the virtue of patience!

Good morning all. Thank you for the additional info and thoughts Mark. I was looking at the data I had printed out / collected from various source including Wikipedia (which I am told to take that particular info with a grain of salt) and very little agrees with each other. As for the NMM and their plans... it is my understanding that they still have stuff that is waiting to be reviewed, identified and catalogued so with my luck I am positive it will all come to light the day after I am done After one nights sleep on it I had another thought.... I wonder if there may be an "expert" at the NMM that can make sense of it all? Lord knows what strange things they've seen. As for the Billy Ruffian, as a 13 year old she (the sea cadet corps in Welland, Ontario, Canada) saved me. Also... If not for the sea cadet corps I would have never met the young girl that I now share my life with, my wife. I went through the ranks to eventually become Chief of the corps (cox'n) and then as an adult went further to be Officer Commanding the Corps for five years. Although as an old man I had no involvement for the last 20 years of her existence, it broke my heart (along with many other men and women) to see her shut down. This is my attachment to the name Bellerophon and why I am so keen on building this particular ship and not HMS Elephant for which I seem to have easily acquired all the info for.

Don (and all) The scribbling in the upper left corner of the first page of the document seems to read "Ships Contracted for 2h Jan 1805". I also see a very small 1805 scribbled above the heading "INTEREST" and below the eighth work payment during seasoning on the second to the last sheet. I am going to sleep on this for a short while and see if any sense of it comes in my dreams. Until then I'll ask again if anyone knows that they might spend 180% of the original cost to make her sea worthy and serviceable again after the Battle of Trafalgar. Would they actually make her 8 feet longer (how???) and about 9 inches wider (thicker boards on the hull???) Thinking back to the seasoning and launch delay... were the sums in the left column late payments due / made with interest? Since there was no war would the government be eager to hand out moneys, hence i wonder the cause of the gentleman's bankruptcy. (this doesn't make sense to me but it was a thought I had) I know there are quite a few forum members that are extremely knowledgeable (and talented) and hope one might shine a brighter light. More than willing to PM some select portions of sheets of the contract to study. Maybe I should post this problem elsewhere on this site so someone not visiting might see it... good idea. Will do that in the morning as might allotted play time is up for this evening. Mark: presently waiting the reprint of HMS Bellerophon (announced in the books section of the site) to arrive and wonder if it might reveal anything with regards to size. G'night world.

Thank you Mark According to the contract she did supply an income during the seasoning period. There were payments at regular intervals somewhat equal to the build payments

I know she had extensive damage during that battle I imagined the contract was referred to for the refit. Would they have made her longer and wider? Doesn't seem likely to me. Is this something they would have done? I cannot imagine spending almost twice the cost of the original build for a refit... I'd have used her for target practice. None of it makes sense to me.

MY HEAD IS STARTING TO HURT Today, if I were making any changes to a legal document I would initial each and every change. I personally would add the date to each also! There are an awful lot of "notations" on the contract and 180% original payments seem to be recorded in the margins. I want to be true to the original build... but I suppose the right thing to do is whatever is right for me. What is right for me? What a conundrum.

One more newspaper clipping that tells more about the shipyard Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser Sept 12 1787 re Edward Greaves Certainly a business will go under if not managed well but he was contracted by the government and knowing how timely governments are at collecting versus paying out today I wonder if he had issues with "delayed payments" versus creditors. This side trip into the builder is all very interesting. Regardless, the longer I stare at this contract the more it seems obvious all references to this ship being like the other Arrogant Class ships are likely wrong. HMS Bellerophon was eight feet longer. I suppose I need to review Steels and Rees and hunt for other 175 foot 74 gun ships to better understand / visualize the framing, etc...

Looking over payments HMS Elephant per contract, no noted amendments = 54530 pounds HMS Bellerophon per original contract = 50704 pounds but with all amendments and payment total made in margins = 91694 pounds !!! I cannot believe the navy filed a contract with all these amendments that they were not in agreement with All notations therefore must have been agreed to amendments Am I "out to lunch" with my conclusion? Then again, why the bankruptcy?

(part 2) When we look at payments... The contract clearly states "not to exceed 1604 - 27/94 tons The penned notation in the left column reads 1729 - 76/94 tons The last paragraph of this section clearly states "... in the case the said ship shall exceed in dimensions or scantlings contrary to what is herein set forth and declared that no allowance shall be made for any increase of scantlings and dimensions ..." In other words he would be out of pocket for changes instigated by himself. This contract was signed in February of 1782. The ship was launched 6 October 1787 and completed by March 1787 Strangely enough Edward Greaves was bankrupt in 1787 !!! Did the Bellerophon do him in? Did he ignore the contract? Was she 175 feet long?

Druxey, (Part 1) The "as built draught" is of HMS Elephant The non-amended contract for her reads the same as the one for HMS Bellerophon The contract for HMS Bellerophon has the additional notations You will note the contract clearly states 168 feet but just below it is penned (what seems to be) 175 feet I had mistaken the 5 to be a zero. Don had caught this. It seems the Length of keel for tonnage was amended to 144 feet 1-5/8 inches The builder was Mr. Edward Greaves and Company of Limehouse, County Middlesex. There are quite a few other notations throughout the contract. When we look at payments....

Thank you all for the words of encouragement. I fear stepping away might cause me to be more forgetful. (Is that possible?) Regarding the 168 feet versus the 170 feet... Don has zoomed in on it and tells me it looks more like 175 feet and having done the same last night I tend to think he is right. The tiny five being very similar to a zero. (the 8's still look like freakishly twisted 6's) I will stick to my original decision as I believe there cannot be any possible way a builder would put that much more out of pocket expense into a build 168 feet it will be. I am still going to try and salvage my work to date it will mean re-establishing the station locations and when that is done re- fairing the hull.... and that part was such a joy. Hopefully it won't be too bad as I keep having trouble acknowledging the tiny scale. 40 plus years of doing exactly the opposite does not make it easier (drawing small and trying to see it in my mind at full scale) With the weekend around the corner I hope to get adequate time in to resolve my problem

Don As explained in our PM (for anyone else wondering) as a habit at work we do not use configurations as they have been the result of some major $$$ errors. If someone forgets to set to the proper configuration someone else may not realize and WHAM all of a sudden your expecting a pink slip. If I had worked in configurations and this was the error I could easily pick the other one. If you knew how many times I opened the file and started working on it only to discover I was working on the Back Up copy....dumb move once ... really dumb the forth time Druxey Not making excuses but it can be difficult trying to focus 1-1/2 hours in the evening after spending 8 to 9 hours staring at drawings and documents on a computer screen. I tend to feel relaxed when do this stuff after the stress of work ... but the last few days of this has not been that relaxing! Even the 45 to 60 minutes in the morning can be dangerous (am I really awake or am I dreaming about my build????) I am narrowing in on it and believe this is what happened I think it all happened between my guessing at the station spacings while working with images of the drawings, and then finally receiving and trying to work with the contract. It seems my station locations are buggered I just laid it all out in 2D CAD - Draftsight - and now question the spacings of the forward and aft cant frames A discussion for me and my mentor I am not one to give up ............ but it certainly humbles a fellow Alan

HOLY MOLLY !!! fan-bleed'n-tastic

A "do over" would certainly reinforce what I hope I've learned... just not looking forward to starting from scratch. It would definitely be better organized the second time. Can't seem to turn my back on the progress I've made to date. My NRG mentor suggested I might have imported the drawing to CAD and traced it versus trying to measure everything. I'd still have to contend with paper stretch but it would be faster and lines would align. Starting over??? Holy old bald headed Saint Dulabon... what have I gotten myself into?

Good morning world! I have been busy building my modelling table and dealing with summer. Getting back into all this with fresh eyes and I've noticed a few things I had done that I cannot recall "why". (a great advocating point in favour of the build log notes idea mentioned in another forum) Seems I have a double set of station lines and I've no idea why.. apparently I had changed something and left the original set in. I am trying to determine if I had erroneously used a wrong one anywhere I've measured (what I believe to be meticulously) off the drawing and laid out the keel, stem and stern posts and rabbet line along with shown scarf joints and they do not align properly. . At the moment I am extremely frustrated and am very close to shelving what I've done to date, chalking it up to a learning experience and starting over from square one. Another thing that has been nagging at me is the fact that I'm working off the Elephant plans but the Bellerophon contract has a penned notation (correction) to the length changing it from 168 feet to 170 feet long. This extra 2 feet (1/2" at 1:48) won't leave my mind... I cannot let it go. I will continue to try to determine if I can salvage what I've done or start over. I cannot adequately describe the feelings I am having at this moment Alan