HMCSS Victoria 1855 by Banyan - 1:72

[wefalck]

While I was talking ... one member there made me aware of this offer: https://timesavers.com/search.html?q=drills&go=Search

Not sure whether and at what price they would deliver to Australia.

[BANYAN]

Thanks for trying Eberhard, much appreciated.  We have a long weekend here but will try my usual sources tomorrow; it looks like one of them may carry them (however, logistics/product availability are our biggest problems at the moment) but I may have to wait for a while to get them depending on stock in-hand.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[liteflight]

Pat

This supplier stocks the Bergeon range of Watchmakers supplies, might be worth a call after the holiday.

 

https://www.australianwatchclocksupplies.com.au/tools.html

 

andrew

[BANYAN]

Thanks Andrew, much appreciated.  My usual supplier hasn't got back to me yet.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[BANYAN]

On 6/13/2022 at 3:03 AM, wefalck said:

While I was talking ... one member there made me aware of this offer: https://timesavers.com/search.html?q=drills&go=Search

Not sure whether and at what price they would deliver to Australia.

Hi Eberhard, somehow missed your kind response.  Thanks again, I am currently looking around within Australia, but this is a good fallback option.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[BANYAN]

Ok folks, a small update after a longer than planned shutdown in the dockyard (while I got my act together again) 

 

I've started putting the lower studding/swing boom together, and in doing so, I have discovered a little bit of a dilemma.  First here is the boom (for the eagle eyed; yep the clamp on the end of the boom crane was crooked - since adjusted.

   

 

Now the dilemma, once I have fitted the boat davits, the bows of the cutter-lifeboats will hang over the after end of the boom (including the crane).  The crane is in the right place, as is the length/size of the boom.  The boat davits are placed according to the drawings and all the imagery.  The iron crane is a crutch, fitted to chestrees on the hull, that hold the after ends of the boom and secures it when not in use.  They are scaled for 3" wide iron a 3/8 inch thick.   It sticks out from the ship's side quite a bit to allow the boom to lay parallel with the edge of the fore channel.  As such it will be about in line with the keel of the cutter lifeboats.  The davits did not swing out, nor were they set-up to swivel.  The groove in the cap rail just forward of the chestree in the last photo shows the fore davit arm position.

 

Therefore - how were the lowered past the cranes?  The only solution I have so far is that the boom would have to be swung out or lifted, and the crane taken in, but there is no mention in the contract, nor any evidence in the Specification or imagery that they were designed that way.  One possible alternative is that the crane was not fitted and the booms were simply lashed in place, allowing the boom to be moved when the boats were to be used (but in time of emergency, would you really want to be faffing around with that?)

 

Any ideas?      Ugh, the close-up photography certainly shows all the blemishes I have to fix  

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited July 21, 2022 by BANYAN

[wefalck]

Pat, good to see more progress here and welcome to the club of close-up-photography-haters

 

Could it be that the booms were actually stowed somewhere on deck? Lower stun'sails typically were only set on long-haul tacks, in a chase etc., so actually not very often. In harbour they may also have been used as boat-booms, i.e. the boats were tied to them - there would a safety line running above so that the crew could run along the boom and then climb down into the boats using a rope ladder. In any case, it seems to be more likely that this gear was stowed on deck, where it would be also less exposed to the action of the sea.

[Keith Black]

 Pat, what Eberhard described or the booms were stowed closer to the hull, I don't see another alternative. Seems most models have the booms stowed forward of the main shrouds.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Keith Black

[Roger Pellett]

I agree with Eberhard.  When in port boats were clustered at the vessel’s boat boom where they were available for communication with the shore.  At sea, however, at least in the US Navy, one seaworthy boat was designated as a Lifeboat.  The lifeboat was to be used for recovering a man overboard so it needed to be launched quickly.  If the boat in question was the dedicated lifeboat then the arrangement of the studding sail boom would be problematic.

 

Roger

Edited July 21, 2022 by Roger Pellett

[BANYAN]

Thanks for the comments and the likes folks, much appreciated.

 

Eberhard:  Stowing them inboard is certainly an option; however, most authors imply they were permanently rigged.  Unshipping would also avoid the need of trying to properly secure them for sea.  They certainly were used as the boat booms in harbour; and I am contemplating whether to show one of them swung out and rigged with painters, lizards and jackobs ladders.

 

Keith: thanks for the suggestion.  All authors agree they were stowed parallel with the fore channel.  If unshipped they were probably stowed inboard so need to give this a little more thought; although, it is possible they were stowed in the channels which sort of aligns with your thoughts.  The only problems I see with that though, is that the imagery suggests they were stowed in-situ, and, on the stbd side, would have competed for space in the channels with the stream anchor.

 

Roger: yep, in the RAN we followed the same practices - as the anchor was let go, the call came "out boats and booms" which had to be done smartly.  We did the same with having a boat ready to go at sea with the skipper having a real penchant to test how quick we could do it   - there was a fleet standard that had to be met.  This tested the whole system from the Officer of the Watch through to the duty swimmer and boat crew.  However in Victoria it is more likely the whale boat, which was a better sea boat (especially when pulled), was used as the 'sea boat' - this was on the stbd davits further aft (near the mizen).   I have yet to search the logs and journals thoroughly for this type of information.  All that said, the lifeboats would still need to be easily lowered in case of emergency.

 

Thanks again all; this is now a question of rigged or stowed inboard.  I am leaning towards the latter.  This is another example of the real value of this forum - the willingness of people to help and offer advice.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited July 22, 2022 by BANYAN

[Jim Lad]

A tricky problem, Patrick.  To my eye, that boom crane looks far too long, but if you've made it according to the plans, then it must be correct.  Even is the boom was stowed inboard, that crane would certainly still interfere with the operation of the boat.  I can't imagine the crane being unbolted and removed in order to lower the boat, so I think there must be an error f some sort in the specifications or the available images.

 

I'm just looking at it from the point of view of the practical operation of the ship. The two seem incompatible to me.

 

John

[Tony Hunt]

A fascinating question Pat. Puzzles like this are part of what makes model building so interesting and instructive (in my opinion!).

 

There are quite a few shots of RN vessels with these booms variously stowed or in use, so I thought I'd see if they showed what went on in other vessels.  This one of HMS Sealark* (originally the yacht Consuelo built in 1878) is interesting, although she doesn't rig stun's'ls she has the lower boom rigged, presumably for use by her boats, but in its stowed position the after half of it clearly fouls the lifeboat hoisted above it.  So perhaps they just knew how to get around it?

 

 

 

This picture of HMS Dart shows a similar boom entirely underneath the lifeboat.

 

 

 

 

*There is a much sharper copy of this picture at picture 132 in "The Royal Navy in Old Photographs" by W.P. Trotter.

Edited July 22, 2022 by Tony Hunt

[druxey]

Is there a possibility that a line was rigged from the main yardarm  to swing the boat outboard sufficiently to clear the boom?

[Jim Lad]

That's certainly a possibility, Druxey, but seems a very clumsy way of handling a boat.  Why build in such a way as to make operating the ship and her equipment difficult?

 

I feel there must be a solution that resolves the normal use of both boom and boat.

 

John

[BANYAN]

Hi all, again my sincere thanks for the ongoing suggestions and comments - it all helps.  This is a little long but the only way to fully explain the detail of the dilemma - sorry.  Tony, many thanks for images which aligns with, and sort of confirms the imagery I have.  John and Druxey, many thanks - more food for thought.

 

The imagery is inconclusive but I have found the lithographs to be quite accurate and faithful to how she was fitted and rigged (based on the Specification and Rigging Warrant).  The images are mainly of her in harbour where typically the booms would be typically fitted ready for use as boat booms.  The only clear (ish) image of her under sail does show the boom fitted/rigged while at sea but is a little indistinct.  This is a crop of the Lithograph which I have marked up to show the main issues.  

 

John, the plans do not show a crane (but I only have an original sheer drawing), but there is a non-associated comment within the Specification that sort of alludes to them.  The following images show a large (standing proud of the ship's side) crane the painter has depicted (circled) on which I have based my initial attempt.  While clear in the lithograph, it isn't so clear in the photo but on close inspection it can be made out.

 

 

As you can see, the boat definitely overhangs the end of the boom by some distance.  Even allowing for the aspect distortions  (painted with artist viewing from fine on the stbd bow - the photo is taken from about the same aspect I think) there are a couple of issues with the depiction (but I am allowing for some artistic licence  ).  Firstly, according to all of the contemporary and more modern authors, the boom should start near the start of the fore channel (not about half way back as depicted in the lithograph) - this is more evident (the use of the near fore edge) in the only photograph of the full ship.

 

Also, the end of the boom extends too far back in the lithograph.  I have made my boom IAW the proportion rules offered by Kipping and Fincham (contemporary Naval Architects) which also conforms with the Specification.  The imagery also confirms the boat davit positions forward of the funnel and chestree (with the crane) so I am not concerned with the location and lengths/sizes of the various items; simply concerned with the bow overhanging and getting in the way of the cutter-lifeboat bows. 

Druxey, unfortunately my concern with your arrangement would mean transferring the weight of the of the boat entirely to the other tackle negating the practicality/fit of the davits in the first place.

 

So my quest continues; cheers

 

Pat

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by BANYAN

[Jim Lad]

Patrick, I had a bit of a fiddle with your photo in Topaz Denoise, but could only get a marginal improvement.

 

I agree with you that the photo shows some sort of bracket abaft the davit and also clearly shows another problem - the boom topping lift (or whatever you would call it in the Grey Funnel Line) clearly leads from the after end of the boom and up to the mast.  While this could easily be unshackled and stowed prior to sailing, it's yet another impediment to working that boat.

 

If it were my ship, I'd have some sort of quick release pin fitted inboard to ditch the crane in an emergency, but that still wouldn't explain how the boat was launched in port! 

 

As has been said in Hollywood, "It is indeed a puzzlement".

 

John

[BANYAN]

I had seen that John; thanks for your follow-up comment. I think the topping lift is the inner one that went to the top lug of the spiderband (about 2/3 of the way out).  The other line (cannot recall at the moment) was led via  a hole (fairlead) in the bulwark just forward of the chestree (you can see the hole I have left for that in my post 846 earlier - it needs a little more refinement yet).  This was done a while ago, and perhaps should have been placed a little closer to the chestree.  What looks like the extension of the line to the end of the boom I think is perhaps the upper part of the crane?  It is certainly on the same level for that perception to be made?)  I think the illusion of it being the topping lift may just be a quirk caused by the aspect the photograph was taken from, and the lack of resolution in the photo.  I could be wrong with this entirely, so remain open to all suggestions and possibilities.  A 'puzzlement" indeed

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited July 23, 2022 by BANYAN

[KeithAug]

Pat, is it possible that the fore support for the boom has a pivot to allow the aft end to swing out supported by the topping lift, thus allowing the boats to be launched between the boom and the hull. It seems to me that this would be the simplest and quickest way of completing the exercise,  but then again what do I know🥴.

[Jim Lad]

Yes, of course, Keith.  In port the boom would be swung out into its rigged position to become the boat boom, but that still leaves the problem of the crane sitting right under the boat, plus the problem of dealing with the boom in an emergency at sea.!
 

John

[Roger Pellett]

Is it possible that the crane swiveled to lay flat against the hull when not needed to support the boom?

[BANYAN]

Thanks for the follow-on comments Keith, John and Roger; I think you guys may be onto something there.  The boom did indeed swivel in two axis  (horizontal and upward to a limited degree).  I did not attempt this and have only modelled the horizontal axis - yep you can flay me later  The actual swivel joint probably looked like the following, but could have been a simple angled rod (older type) which I have used.  Image from The Century Dictionary by WD Whitney 1911.

 

 

Now if the boom could be got out of the way quickly, the idea of a hinged crane bracket would do the trick.  The model I have used uses a rod gusset between the upright and horizontal bracket legs.  Now, if this gusset was a simple rod that fitted into a retainer on the vertical leg, and into a hole in the horizontal leg, then it could be easily removed.  Now if the horizontal part was hinged in near the ship's side, it could fold inward out of the way.  Not ideal but workable; however I would not have much faith in the capacity of the lower bracket leg to secure the boom effectively if the topping lift did not have the weight.  

 

Even better might be Roger's idea.   If the inner ends of the crane simply dropped into brackets (probably with forelocked pins, the whole assembly would swivel in out of the way.  It is not like the crane is supporting a lot of weight; it is more a securing device.

 

Now I really wish this issue had been more evident before I attached the current 'interpretation' of a crane to the model.  As it was well and truely glued I think I will damage the model trying to take it off so will have to live with it.  I think I will do the other side properly though.

 

Thoughts/ideas?

 

Many thanks again.

 

Pat

 

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by BANYAN

[BANYAN]

OK, based on the suggestions received, I have gone back though my sources.  From what I can see, no contemporary nor more modern authors discuss any sort of a mechanism, resulting in some conjecture in the probable fit.  The mechanism will have had to be easy to operate or rig/unrig and of an uncomplicated design.  Having swung the boom clear, the crane would then have to be cleared away from the obstacle zone.

 

Accordingly, the first of the best two options being that the entire assembly (crane) could be shipped or unshipped from dedicated fittings or brackets on the hull.  This arrangement may have been as simple as horseshoe shaped mating brackets to receive the upper and lower ends of the inner part of the bracket, and locked in place with pins.  Whatever the design, the receiving brackets or bolts, and the inner upright part of the crane will have been designed to sit flush against the hull to stop the crane swinging.  It was then simply shipped/unshipped as required.

 

The alternative method would be to swing the crane forward or aft out of the way.  Again, the crane would need to mate with brackets on the hull, but in this design will have been round spigots, to allow the assembly to swing.  This arrangement will have required some form of guys to be fitted which are not evident in any of the imagery and has therefore been discounted.

 

This works, and the added benefit I don't have to try and correct the fitting I have made, as at this scale, the shoes/receivers would be nigh invisible.  However, I am still contemplating adding a thin bit of strip brass to the upper end of the upright part of the crane to simulate the upper shoe/bracket.

 

cheers, and many thanks again to all - the power and value of this site is well demonstrated with the excellent exchange of info and suggestions.

 

Pat 

[Louie da fly]

I've been following this discussion with interest but without feeling sufficiently qualified to make any suggestions. I'm glad you've come up with a solution you're happy with, and that doesn't require pulling everything apart and starting again.

 

Steven

[Glen McGuire]

5 hours ago, Louie da fly said:

I've been following this discussion with interest but without feeling sufficiently qualified to make any suggestions. I'm glad you've come up with a solution you're happy with, and that doesn't require pulling everything apart and starting again.

Same here!

[rwiederrich]

What a fun adventure. I would suspect that the error lies in the drawing because photographs and logic dictate the boom Has to be clear of the boat and davit work. The boat must lower from the davit without impediment from the boom. Period!

Glean from what is already known how stun sail booms were mounted to clipper ships.

This surely isn’t rocket science it must be simpler than we are implying.

For all intensive purposes I would just stick with the short boom crane to clear the boat way.  Done deal.

 

But that’s just me because I’m just a simple man, a lazy modeler at heart.

 

whatever you do Pat, will be perfect. 

Personally, I’m an open carry Artistic license kinda guy, so make the call.  I’m on your side. 
 

Rob

[BANYAN]

Just a small update, I have been fiddling around trying to determine the best way to make some of the swing boom fittings, and I think I have settles on the way to go.  I have found some thin wall brass tube which has the correct ID for the spider band.  Using my mill with an indexing head and sensitive drill attachment, I can drill small holes 90 degrees apart using a carbon bit (good bight on the brass).  I have made some small eyes with a 0.5mm twisted shank which fit these holes nicely so that I can solder them in place.  I then nip and file away any of the eye shaft in the ID of the tube leaving a nice smooth finish that slides onto the boom for a firm fit.  The finished band look very acceptable when cleaned up and blackened.

 

For the inner end fitting I have used some PE I had made that when put into a former and domed using a burnisher, provides the base of the fitting.  I was having some issues getting the small thin strip to sit properly for me to solder so had to find another solution.  I found a bit of thick walled brass tube that had near the right ID to slide over the arms of the fitting but had to ream that out a tad.  I then pushed this onto a bit of scrap dowel and put a brass nail in to the end to expand the wood so the tube was held tightly.  I then put that into my lathe and cut, filed and polished the OD of the tube to form a very thin wall.  Once parted in the small saw jig (micro 'V' mitre box) the inner form could be removed leaving me with a nice thin band.  I think the photos show this process but also shows that care needs to be taken even with a jig - one cut got away from me as you can see - the parted tube/band has a very rough edge where my sawing technique was not up to par - luckily I had enough to make plenty of the bands.  Now to solder them into place.  For comparison, the thickness of the formed base of the gooseneck fitting is 0.2mm and the ruler ticks are 1mm apart.

 

cheers

 

Pat

 

[French Mr Bean]

I discovered this subject, it is magnificent!

[wefalck]

Looking good, Pat!

 

Just wondered, whether you couldn't have used some solid round brass, turned down the OD and drilled/bored out the ID to fit?

 

When parting off with a saw, I would do this on the lathe, running at low RPM. I usually make a first cut with an cut-off tool to provide a guide for the saw and then finish it off with the latter.

[druxey]

I've had good success by drilling a hole in brass sheet of the thickness of the ring I need. The hole is the OD of the tube 'slice'.  I insert the rough-sawed ring and file the surface flush to the sheet using a fine file. Your turned result using lathe and wood mandrel is very nice indeed.

[KeithAug]

Nice work Pat. That turned out well.