roach101761

I reviewed my materials, and although I have no contracts from prior to 1750 I did review the Sloop of War Peacock contract found in the History of American Sailing ships.  No mention of the Load Water Line.  It gives the general specifics of the ship in the contract and advises it will be  built according to the plan provided by the Navy Department.  A William Doughty Plan.  This contract is with Noah and Adam Brown of New York.   The Dallas revenue cutter was built to the Doughty Mid sized revenue cutter plan and was also built by the Browns. See Post #      above. 

Maybe its time we think in a different direction.  My observations.

The Math was there to be able to determine the Load water line. However, there may have been relatively few mathematicians up to the task, and fewer who were shipwrights.  As time marches forward and more scientific principals are applied to ship design, more designers have the math skills and have a more formal education. 

In the design plans I have seen, no load water lines appear.

It is likely that the ship designer and shipwright has a very good Idea where the ship would float but did not put it on the plan.

If you look at the plans we have, even us ship modelers can look at the plan and see where the ship should float, or was meant to float probably within a foot.

Although ships have sunk at launching due to stability problems, I know of none that sank because the were too heavy and settled below their maximum sustainable load.

They always floated High and Dry as light ships.

The test for the new ship comes after it was fully outfitted with Masts, equipment and Ballast for stability.  I think in most cases the ship still floated High and was a light ship.

The test becomes whether it can carry the load that was intended.  Such as the stores for a 400 man frigate crew for a cruize of 3 to 6 months or longer together with all its guns.  I think the ship fails if it can not carry its intended load to be useful.

Achieving the Load Water line I think was easy because ballast and stores are a very flexible thing. If stone takes too much room, use Iron bar.  If Iron bar takes too much space use Kentledge.  In the end it comes down to how much beef, pork, peas, water and rum you can carry to support the crew or how much usable space you have for cargo storage.

Thinking about all that I have read, in warships , best sailing trim and the load water line was subject to constant management during a cruize. Every meal eaten by the crew changed the draft of the vessel.

Let us not forget that, depending on the Ocean, salt water densities vary.  In some waters you can carry more, in others you can carry less.  I pulled down my Nicholls's Seamanship and Nautical Knowledge, C.1942 together with a Blue Jacket Manual or two.  I reviewed Plimsoll lines and load marks.

In the merchant service the crews were smaller.  We know that many companies and their captains ignored loading conventions. After all if he can get it in the ship, the ship must be able to carry it.  Right?  On a trip the load line did not vary by much as the crew was too small to have an impact.  We all have seen the pictures and read the stories.

Saying all of this perhaps the load water line was not a primary design concern.  In fact, it might have been a minor thing.  The ship will float where it will.  You must add or subtract weight to make it sail correctly and efficiently.

Perhaps Load lines came much later as safety at sea regulations?

I reviewed all the posts above.  Many make the same points I am making here.  It looks like determining a load water line in an existing ship was learning exercise to determine if you could apply the knowledge to build the next ship.

Wayne, in any of your research do you have any references to load water lines as part of a design parameter, or is calculating it always an exercise on and existing ship?

Phil

Wayne

Beginning  Autumn 2013 Volume 58 No.3 of the Nautical Research Journal Ab Hoving began a 4 part series on Shipbuilding Literature in the Netherlands (1671-1838).  He begins with Nicolaes Wisen. Part 2 is in Volume 58 No.4, Part 3 is in Volume 59 No.1, Part 4 is in Volume 59 No.2. The articles are a good overview of what is available.

Phil

That is the one.  Perhaps a review of the Bounty Materials will yield another singular event. 

Phil

Tony

Do not be so quick to agree with me.   I made my last post late last night after a Friday evening of frivolity.  I dug out some more stuff this morning in an attempt to determine why the Jib Boom was left off inventories. See Gregor's inventory above in post #1  I looked at the kit plans for Dallas and Ranger.  In both plans it is listed as a jib boom.   In Howard Chapelle's book,The History of  American Sailing Ships he gives the inventory of the Cutter Massachusetts.(p.186)  It gives only a flying jib Boom just like Sultana.  I am beginning to think Naming Conventions for Spars where different in the past.  Like most things associated with ships, more research seems to be required.  I will keep looking.

Phil

You are looking at the right Sultana. After it was taken into Royal Service, the basic schooner rig was expanded to include topmasts and topsails and a flying jib boom.  I  was originally confused as to why the jib boom was also not included in the inventory of spars for Sherbourne. I have determined the ship was too small to have bowsprit, jib boom and flying Jib boom.  The out board spar is  apparently always the flying jib boom.  The most out board sail would be the flying jib.(i think, someone correct me if I am wrong.  See article by Dana L. McCalip in the Nautical Research Journal on the rigging of Sultana. Even in basic schooner mode he shows the flying jib boom.   See the model shipways kit and the practicum on line at Model Expo written by Chuck Passaro.  

Phil 

I have identified some design plans above.  What other well know design plans are there?  Also, do the original as built plans of ships acquired by the admiralty indicate a load water line.  Somewhere I have seen the survey of Bethia(The Bounty before she was  Bounty)   Also the cutter Lady Hammond before she was Lady Hammond.  Do these surveys have Load water lines on them?

I say, lets identify known plans or surveys and where they are published and take a look at what was recorded originally upon acquisition by the admiralty.

Phil

I have continued to review the facsimile plans from the last vol. of the the Naval documents book referred to in post number 16 above.

Wasp                                     No load water line.

Vixen schooner, later brig      No load water line.

Siren  brig                              No load water line.

Philadelphia                           No load water line.  

New York, Frigate                   No load water line.   

Constitution                            No load water line.

Constellation                          No load water line

Boston Frigate                       No load water line

Argus Brig                              No load water line

Various gun boats                  No load water line.

I believe all these plans to be design plans, NOT as built plans.  There are lots of water lines, shear lines and the like on these plans, but nothing marked load water line, or best sailing trim.  

For American ships it is looking like the shipwrights did not want to commit on paper where the ship would float, until it floated.  However, they must have had a good idea because the super frigates were designed to keep the lower port sills out of the water so the whole battery could be fought in a heavier sea than a three decked ship.  This means Humphries, Fox and Doughtry were no dummies most of the time.  This is what I have for now. I will keep looking.

Phil

I found those plans right where I put them.  I have been collecting Essex stuff for years so I was a little panicked.  I put the box in my son's room behind his TV.  They were safe and sound.  I did not have the Large Hackett plan from the archives.  I think I must order it.

However I own the last volume of the Naval Documents set of books published in 1945, covering the years  1801-1807.  In the back pocket are 21 plates of vessels belonging to the US Navy for the time period. The Preface states that the plans of vessels are all taken from the Archives or the The Library of Congress. They are represented to be repaired facsimiles of the original documents.  All the plan sheets fold out to about 20 inches.  The Essex plan is Hackett's plan.   No Load water Line.  I will look at he other plans later today.

Phil

Spent a few minutes looking up Sherbourne.  Did not spend much time but could not locate any box art of the kit here.    Does the Kit rig it with the flying jib boom?   Anyway, 1763 was right when the Seven Years War died down and the Crown was concentrating on raising and protecting the Revenue to Pay for the war.   Thus new building programs in Britain for Cutters and acquisition and conversion of those little Schooner's in North America and those repressive acts of Parliament  which the colonist found so distasteful.   All were small ships. I know it was common to send down the topmasts in those early schooners.  I also have read the same is true for the Flying Jib Boom.  You could take it in.  Perhaps in practice the Flying Jib was a light airs sail on your cutter. 

As to rigging it, you have a contemporary North American example in Sultana. 

Hope this helps. 

Phil

Give us some information on the Sherbourne of 1763.  Where is it from, where did it sail, who commanded, where was it built, why was it built.  This is at the same period that the first revenue  cutters in North America, like Halifax and Sultana were put in service.   I am unfamiliar with Sherbourn so give me some history.

Phil

John Weliver of Fort Myer's Florida modeled his launch depicting a known event in the launch, complete with all the figures.  He added a bird, alighting on the mast about to be captured and eaten.

Phil

Same story different day.    Could not find those plans last night.  I must have put them somewhere safe so I could be sure to find them.  Oddly, they may be in my office.  I will keep looking.

Phil

Thanks for that information.   Mine are also.  That really surprised me about this kit.  For me that will a challenge in this kit if I ever get around to building it.

Phil

Joel you are of course correct, perhaps a bad example.  Mark, in air craft building you only get to re-tweak and fly again if you survived the first flight.

In my office, I have framed and hung on my wall, Howard Chapelle's reconstructed plan of Essex.  From my review of Hackett's design plan that I looked at this morning it seems the LWL and best Sailing Trim has been added by Chapelle.  I will look at those Hackett plans again tonight.  I thought I had a copy of Hackett's plan from the Archeives. (it is of course huge compared to the ones reproduced in my books). 

Phil

Wayne

This topic is intriguing.  This is a quick reply this morning, only after about 20 minutes of research.  I am leaning toward the replies that the shipwrights and builder's relied on tried and true methods and experiences to build the hull, and then when it was afloat could then actually determine the load water line and best sailing trim.  The shipwrights and naval architects might have had a good idea where it was supposed to be, but for the times there were to many factors that influenced the final product that few would want to commit themselves officially on paper to be so easily judged for a failure.  It is very high math to calculate and perhaps there were to many variables in materials,(wood)(availability), methods, and skills at building wood ships to determine for sure.  The advancement in Ship design was very slow and conservative. 

I am drawn to my conclusion by the review of several known successes and known failures.  Failures include Wasa, Mary Rose, and the US ship of the line Independence and William Doughtys design of his mid size revenue cutter plan of 1815/16. (Dallas) This little cutter was off.  It had great difficulty carrying its ballast and supplies for 30 days.   When all was on board it was found that that with a 10 draft, less than 2 feet of free board remained.  The plan in the archives does not have the water line marked.(unless I missed it)

Successes include Constitution and Essex.  Hacket's plan of Essex is available.  Maybe I have missed it but I can not find where he marked the Load Water line on the plan.   I did not have time to locate or  carefully examine Humphry's or Fox's Plans of the first US frigates, but I bet if you look at the DESIGN plans the LWL may not be on them(This could be my failure to understand all those lines, please let me know if it is).  Make sure you are not looking at as built plans after the ship was afloat.  Chapelle in his reconstructed plans seems to have added the LWL and Best Sailing Trim.  I am curious how he knew as he only had the archives available, not the ship(Constitution an obvious exception,but I do not know if he visited the ship for his reconstructions).  Did Chapelle calculate the LWL more than a hundred years after the fact?

When did LWL's actually appear routinely on design plans?

Hope this helps.

Phil

Mostly I use the excel blades because Model Expo sells them as George mentions above.  I have Testors because they were on clearance at Wal-Mart.  I have the X-acto blades because they come with he knife handles I keep having to buy.  It is not likely I will buy more Tamiya blades due to lack of bulk availability and the extreme cost of just 5 blades. 

Phil

Well,  I now know the answer.   Over the past week my new surgical tools arrived.  I received  Numbers 4, 3, and 7 handles  and a 7 handle that was for dental work.  With those I received a number of different blades. (10,11,20 and 21).  Of course Surgical tools were a side bar to the real question as to whether there is a better number 11 handle.   I got out some wood; Cherry, Walnut, Box wood, and Bass wood. I started making cuts with the new surgical tools and blades, two X-acto handles with Number 11 blades and my new Tamiya hobby knife with the o'l number 11.  Craft knife number 11 blades were, testors, excel, Tamiya and x-acto.  We all know that we try to do too much with our knives.  Cuts we should saw rather than cut.  The surgical tools did NOT make the grade here. Here is a super technical term.  The surgical blades were too "wiggly".  The blades are not clamped into the handle. They sort of snap in place by springing the blade into place.  The metal of the surgical blades is thinner.  I measured on my Caliper .36mm.  Craft #11 measured .50mm. I hope someone will let me know how accurate my caliper is.  The surgical blades were far more flexible.  They can not take a lot of pressure.   I also learned, that although not exact, the surgical blade types and sizes roughly correlate to the same types as the craft blades.  

As to the #11 blades, I found no discernible difference in brand.

Some people swear by the surgical tools.  Knowing personally two of the individuals who posted their testimony above, I also know they are much better and more proficient modeler's than myself.  I could see the benefit in a more skilled operator. For instance(even for me) they are superior for shaving type operations(because they more readily flex) and if I were cutting paper for making templates you would be hard pressed to find a better blade and handle than the surgical blades. My handles were very  inexpensive, however the weight in all the handles was very evenly distributed with the exception  of the dental tool where the weight was in the end toward the blade.  I will keep my surgical tools and I will order better handles.  I liked the number 7 handles because you hold them like a pencil, and therefore you have more control.  They will all go into my tool box and I will continue to use them, I am sure I will learn the best applications for me. 

Another draw back for the surgical blades is they are more delicate and as a result I do not think they hold their edge as well as the craft blade.(I would like someone to confirm or refute my conclusion on whether they do not hold their edge as well)  They became duller much faster for me.

However, to the point,  I will keep my X-ACTO handle, and I will keep my Tamiya handle.  These are CRAFT knives.  I do not want anyone to chew my head off, or start another discussion, but building ship models is a Craft for most of us.  The handles are beefier, the blades are thicker. I Like the X-acto handles I have because the weight of the handle is evenly distributed through out.   An advantage in making  heavy cuts in which you grip the knife with the whole of the palm of your hand.   I like the Tamiya handle(it is longer) because the weight is in the end, for when you want a finer detail cut and you grip the handle like a pencil. 

Tamiya's method of clamping the blade is a superior method.(I am sure it is patented)  As I stated in a previous post, it grips the edges of the blade evenly.  X-acto clamps the flat of the blade by squeezing the colet closed, only really at one end. There is probably no contact at the rear of the blade.  This I think allows the blade to slide.  The machining and materials  in current X-acto handles leaves much to be desired.   I would appreciate a finer made tool with less slack tolerances. I think X-acto should at least re-design the colet so it is only .50mm wide at the base and wider at the top.  This would clamp the blade more uniformly. 

Is there a better #11 blade handle for all purposes?  NO.  Have the right tool for the job.  Use the tool that you like best and know how to use.  It is safer that way. However, Tamiya's colet seems better to me.

Phil

The video was not so bad.   They obviously set that royal flying.  It seems apparent that they hoisted it from the deck.  I wonder how they manage the lines.  I think the choice I am leaning toward is to set up the rigging so the square sail yard and the topsail yard both come down and go up together.  On this small schooner the squaresail yard travels on a horse, and if the square sail is set on it, it is done on the deck and the square sail boom attached also.  It does not seem so far fetched that the square sail yard comes down to bend the topsail to  the topsail yard and hoist both back up, especially since the topsail is sheeted to the square sail yard.  Will keep looking for more information.  Thanks Frank.

Phil

The boat looks great.  I have a question about your kit.   What material are the gun carriages made of?

Phil

Thanks for the update on the Cambridge print on demand 1800 version of Steel.

Phil

Just read the February 2015 SMA news letter.  In their Mayflower group, Don Dressel discussed drill bits.  He was trying to drill brass.  The bits he had from the usual suspects for  model tools failed to perform. They were the lesser and less expensive bits manufactured in China.  He just happened to have some bits made in Japan and he reported that the performance was superior.  He advised that the better quality bits(actually he said far superior), and therefore more expensive bits are made in the USA, Japan and Germany.  His friend Steve Jones recommended a supplier called Travers.   www.travers.com   Apparently they have a great supply in small sizes, as well as HSS miniature end mills.

Phil

Joel

I agree.  I have not yet attempted to fashion them yet.  It involves drilling holes in the margin plank at the bow.  I will try to make them look like extension of the timbers, but however on the model they will not actually be extensions because it is a plank no bulkhead model.   Thanks for your input. 

Phil

Bill

Good to hear from you.  What a genuine surprise.  From your question I take it that you are doing a fully framed model.   I also see that this is your first post.   I think that the frame spacing question will have a general practices answer.  It of course is not in the contract for Dallas we have.  I will see what I can find on the site and let you know.  I am still learning the site.  I know it can be searched.   Will get back to you.

Phil Roach

Forgot to ask?  How did the NRG article hold up in comparison to the books you now have in your hand.

Phil