HMS Tiger 1747 by Siggi52 - 1:48 - 60 gun ship from NMM plans

[Seahawk1313]

Your carving skill is wonderful.  Your model is truly excellent.  It is a pleasure to watch it progress-Hal

[cog]

Now I understand that painful "smile" on leo ... well done Siggi, they turned out fabulous

[Siggi52]

Seahawk and Carl, many thanks and also thanks to all who made there likes for my work.

[Hubac's Historian]

I'm just re-visiting favorite build-logs, and I'd like to say that one of the things that is so pleasing about this model is the side-to-side symmetry and your perfection of line, Siggi.  Just awesome!!

[Siggi52]

Thank you Marc,

 

I'm not very busy these days, because we have here a super summer. The drawback is, it is much too dry. It burns everywhere. But after the last years summer, or was it winter the whole year, I'm not so often in the basement at the shipyard. 

 

But now and then I'm at work, planking the gun deck walls.

 

[Siggi52]

Hello,

 

just that you see that I'm still working, now and then 😉

 I finished the inner planking of the gun deck with deck clamps for the upper gun deck and started to build the gun port lids.

 

 

[Siggi52]

Hello,

 

I'm still there! This year was't one of my best. Since 20 years I have Lyme disease and the doctors always give me Antibiotics and say: you have always antibodies afterwards. Yes, if there are Borreliens left! So when this year my knees begin to make troubles, I went to a doctor in Hamburg. The short version, since June I'm eating Antibiotics of different sorts and I hope that this will work. The Borreliens now are mostly gone 😀 

 

But back to my ship. 

Because the red paint inside the ship dose not really satisfied me, I started searching for a new one. For this ship I changed the paint, from Humbrol to acrylic's from Vallejo. But also there I had to mix the red colour and the red was always dominating. So I looked for the acrylic artist paint. I had the red colour of Prince Fredericks bark in my mind and the most fitting colours are these two

 

 

 

 

Here is my test with these paints. In the upper part of the test, the paint is in two layers. To the left the Lukas, then the Schminke Paint. Both colours did't satisfied me really. Lukas was too light red and Schminke to brown. Following is the mixing of both.

 

Here a test at the ship, to the front the Lukas and then the Schminke paint. It's a great difference. 

 

 

I decided tho use 2 parts of Lukas with one part of Schminke. The result you can see below. The pictures did't show the colour really true, because of lamps, sunlight shade and so on. But I tried to show you the best result. 

 

 

The next problem did't wait. The port lids. The Bellona model ist the only model I know, where the lids have a step that fits into the steps of the port holes. But Goodwin and also Boudriot for his 74 gunner show there a step on the lids. And also not the Victory. That would mean, I have to cut the mortice for the lids deeper 🙁 

 

 

Ore are the lids cut back to the inside, so that they fit into the port holes with the step? Seen from above. 

 

 

Many thank in advance for your help.

 

I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year,

Siegfried

 

 

[druxey]

The inner layer of lid planking (the lining) is vertical and the outer layer follows the line of the outer hull planks in thickness. The inner layer is stepped back or rebated by the thickness of the port stops. The stops are the lining pieces attached to the lower port sill and frames on the sides of the port opening. They are set back by the thickness of the outer planking. Your photo shows these rebates clearly. There is no taper as shown in your sketch.

[Siggi52]

Hello Druxey,

 

so far I thought it would be right too. But I could't find any source that prove that. Goodwin and also Boudriot describe wat you say, but without that step. 

 

 

 

Thats from Goodwin English man o War and below his booklet about the Victory

 

 

Here you could also see clearly the inner planking of the lids. But the outer planking of the lids should be of the thickness of the planking of the ship, and that seems to be here a little too thin. May be together they have that thickness. 

 

I had seen one picture of a Hahn ship that has these steps and on two models here in Hamburg. But not on the huge model of the Wappen von Hamburg III, 1720. This model is ca 3.50 m long and high!

 

 

 

An eastindia man ca 1720. As you could see, rose was also in those days first choice

 

 

A merchant ship ca. 1750

[DORIS]

This is a great pleasure to watch your work, Siggi. Not only beautiful but also very educational. Thank you for sharing. 

Merry Christmas and all the best in New Year 2019,
Doris

[druxey]

The thing is, in different countries and at different time periods the way things were done were not always the same. Also, secondary sources (modern books and models) can be misleading. Check contemporary models on sites such as:

 

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/

[SJSoane]

Hi Siggi,

 

Sorry to hear about your health issues. Let's hope for the best for the new year.

 

I have been assuming that the port lids are as druxey explained, and as are seen in the Bellona model. I take the Bellona model as contemporary first hand source, since it is unlikely the model got rebuilt in this area after it was finished in the 18th century. 

 

But it is interesting that the Victory shows gunport lids with no rabbet; they appear to be the thickness of the exterior planking only. I wonder what they were looking at when they rebuilt this? The sides also appear to be perpendicular to the fronts, not tapered. The lower edge tapers because of the great angle of the tumblehome sides, it looks to me.

 

Mark

[cog]

Siegfried,

Good to see you back at the workbench. As I experienced with scale modelling, colours can be very tricky. It isn't only influenced by scale, but also by the modellers wish to use the true, or the scale colour. At this scale I wonder if scale colour could be possible at all. However, I like the way your red turned out, and do hope you find your answer on the lid's rabbet question.

 

 I wish you a merry xmas, but most of all a healthy and happy new year.

 

[Siggi52]

Hello,

 

thank you all for your comments and likes. 

 

druxey, I searched all models and paintings of the NMM and Science museum of that time and today also the models till 1850 and did't find any model with a rabbet around the port lid like the Bellona had. And that model is also from around 1780. I had a closer look into Boudriot's 74 gunner(1780), Vol II page 164. At a first look there is no step at the lid, but at a closer view there are steps to the sides. Above is nothing and below they cut the rabbet of the gun port back in the thickness of the inner planking of the lid. So, steps there are only to the left and right of the lid. 

 

When I started with the port lids, I had the Bellona in mind and what I have seen till that on other models, and thought that that is true. But then I realize that all the other contemporary models did’t have that future. I'm long enough re-enactor to understand, that that what all do must not be right. May be it's a short cut of the modeller, or it was really so. May be the outer and inner planking of the lids have together the thickness of the outer planking. For what must they be thicker then necessary, they must not be bulletproof. In combat they are open! And if you have seen more then one Western, you know that even kitchen doors are bulletproof 😮

 

So I really don't know what to do. At least I leave them as they are, without a rabbet. 

 

Carl, yes with that colour it's tricky. But I think I have found the right one. For the models the modellers used often vermillion red. But you could't paint a whole ship with that paint. They used cheaper paint for that based on iron oxide or other cheap pigments. Like the red houses in Scandinavia or the barn red in America. If you see Prince Fredericks bark, in the sun the red is really red, but in the shade it's brown. The same problem I have with this paint now, so I had to make a dozens pictures before I got half-ways the right colour to show you.

 

Doris, my ship is nothing against your beautifully models. You build in a higher class.

 

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

Gunshot proof, no; but weather/waterproof, yes! Certainly Steel (British, 1805) describes the rabbeted style of port lid clearly. Either way, you are building a very lovely model.

[Siggi52]

Helo,

 

Druxey, could you please tell me, at wich page in Steels „Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture“ I could find that what you meant about the port lids. I have two volumes of it, one from 1805 and an enlarged volume from 1812. The last one I searched through at google books for ports, port-lids and lids and did't find anything related about this topic. The only thing I found was this and that did't say much new about them

 

 

I think, that the lids did't have these steps and that it did't make sense for making the ports more waterproof. If anybody could show me a picture of a contemporary British model, from the time around 1720-1800, or even later, I would be very glad.

 

The Bellona is the only model I know who had this future. But the Bellona was also a model for demonstrating the coppered hull, it may be, that this was also for showing something new for the gun ports. But that it did't make it. 

 

The last days I lined the port lids, who are here in real 3 inch thick, with a 1 inch layer of wood. Today I made the mortise for the lids at the starboard side 0,5 mm deeper, fit the lid in and painted all. 

 

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

Siggi: in the tables, Folio XXV and XXVI, it states:

 

Port lids. - Every gun deck port to be fitted with a substantial lid made of English oak - Stops of the ports not less than (measurement in table 3 1/2" or 3". 

Well seasoned linings fitted into the stops (measurement in table thickness 1 1/4" to 1")

 

Fitted into the stops implies that the linings overlap, not abut, the stops. I've certainly shown this - rightly or wrongly - in my own models.

Edited December 27, 2018 by druxey

[archjofo]

Fantastic work!

[Mark P]

Greetings Siggi;

 

You are making a very good job of building your model, very neat work, and a beautiful figurehead.

 

Concerning the debate about port lids, see below an extract for a contract to build a 50 gun ship. This is dated 1692, but I have seen the same thing on later contracts. 

 

This clearly states that the ports are to be built with the same size planks as the outer layer, and then lined with a layer of Elm.

 

A very important point here is that the sides of the ports were formed of substantial timbers, the verticals being either futtocks or toptimbers, and the cills of substantial oak pieces. 

 

By leaving the planking stopped short each side of the port, and below, a rebate is formed without any need for lining the ports. I have seen many, many listings of port sizes, and they are all the same, they never mention any slips or linings to form a rebate.

 

As the extract below makes clear, the outer layer of planking is the same as the ship's side at that point. It is not possible to then have any other interpretation except that the elm lining (which would be vertical planks) being fixed behind this outer layer, must fit within the gap between the main frame timbers.

 

forward to be Twelve Inches Square at the head. To make and hang all the Ports on each side upon Each Deck and in each Bulkhead with the same Size of Planck ye Side is wrought with. To lyne the same with Elm Boards well nailed. To build a fair head with a firm and Substantiall

 

In the gallery, there are pictures of models which I have taken at the Science Museum and the NMM archives. All of these show a rebate for the port lids.

 

All the port lids on models seem to be made of a single layer, though. This is presumably to keep it simple, as many are kept shut.

 

All the best, and keep up the impressive work!

 

Mark P

[Mark P]

Greetings again Siggi;

 

See below an extract from a contract for 'Newark', an 80 gun ship, dated 1693. 

 

This gives more detail of the gun-port lids and their eye-bolts etc. 

 

Port Lids To make all the Port Lidds on each Side for each Deck, & through the Bulkheads and for the Chases afore and abaft with Such Thickness of Oak Planck, and Prussia deals as the Planck is where they Respectively fall, to line them with Elme Board and Full Naile them. To Hang them with Substantiall Iron Hooks of Such Length as may Come within Two Inches of through the Ship’s side, and the Hinges to Reach within Three Inches of the Lower Edge on Each Port Lidd Bolted and Fore locked aloft. And to fit to each Port Lidd of the Lower deck Two Inside Substantiall Shackles and one neare the Lower Edge of the Port without Board,  all the rest of the Port Lidds to have One only within and one without,  and to well Belay all of them with good Rings, and Forelocks.

All the best,

Mark P

[Siggi52]

Hello,

 

many thanks for your comments and likes.

Druxey, now I found it too. That looks as if you are right, but why did't have the Victory that? May be that changed from time to time. 

 

Mark, thank you for your efforts. When I understand what you have written, then you mean the rabbet in the port. That is not the question. I asked me, and you, if the lid has a step, that fits into this rabbet. 

 

The left drawing shows what Druxey says and the right drawing what I understand, seeing all the contemporary models and also the Victory, with no step at the lid. 

 

I found one other model then the Bellona (below) who has that step.

 

 

It's probably the frigate Lowestoft SLR 0339, a model from about 1761.

 

 

But even the large model of the cannon decks from the Royal George did't have it.

 

 

May be its only a shortcut from the modellers not to show the lining. But at the other hand, I could argue it's a shortcut of the modellers today not have the lining the same wide as the lid. Then also the lining would lie at the rabbet and add strength to the lid. Not for stopping cannon balls, but the sea to come in. 

 

I build my ship now as I started and because most models look so, I think that it might be right. 

[SJSoane]

Thanks, Siggi and everyone else, this was a very interesting discussion!

David Antscherl's books on the Fully Framed model show an additional port liner added to the sides of the frames, to create the rabbet. Mark P's descriptions seem to suggest that the rabbets were cut into the face of the frames themselves, as Siggi's drawing show. Whichever it is, would the size of the port called for in the contracts and drawings be measured between the inner face of the linings, or between the ends of the outer planks? My own model made a decision for the latter many years ago, so I am already committed. But would be interesting to know.

 

 

Mark

[druxey]

Not quite, Siggi. The stop is attached to the frame, the frame is not rabbetted.

Edited December 28, 2018 by druxey

[Siggi52]

Druxey, that is opposite to that what Mark P wrote a little above, #199 and 200. He tells us, that there where no linings to the frames to build the port stop.

[Mark P]

Good Evening Siggi;

 

Your left hand sketch shows exactly how I always understood the ports to be formed,  and agrees with the descriptions in both contracts. 

 

The size of the port is measured between the timbers of the frame.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with Druxey's sketch above. It is much simpler to build the ports as in Siggi's sketch. No need to add a lining around the port. 

 

Other contracts stipulate that the top-timbers which make the sides of ports are to be sided 1" more than top-timbers which do not form ports. This would seem to be needed because part of the timber was to be left un-covered to form the stop for the port-lid, whilst still leaving a good width of timber to fix the ends of the planking to.

 

That is full-size practice. There are more than enough precedents in contemporary models for Siggi to make his gun-port lids without a rebated edge. This was done, though, only for simplicity in the making of the model.  The two pictures in post 201 above show the reality.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited December 29, 2018 by Mark P

[druxey]

Mark P: I'm interested as to why you think that the stop was not a separate piece when Steel spec's it as such. (He does not call for a rebate to be cut into the frame.) My reasoning for the frames being 1" greater sided on the sides of the ports is for extra strength when driving and fixing the ringbolts for the breeching and gun tackle.

[Mark P]

Good Morning Druxey;

 

Your point re the timbers being thicker for the ringbolts is a good one, I had not considered that; but it does not negate my proposition, it would be an additional reason to need a thicker timber, as well as leaving part of the timber exposed externally.

 

My reasons for being certain that there was no lining of the timbers forming the sides of the ports are several:

 

1 - Firstly, I have both read and photographed many, many contracts for building Navy ships in merchant yards, over a hundred of them. I have transcribed over twenty of these.  Whilst some of them detail the construction of the port lids as shown in the extract above, not one of them mentions separate linings being fitted around the ports. Whilst the very early contracts can be brief, the mid 18th century ones onward generally go into great detail, and I cannot believe that they would not specify a separate lining if such was expected.  The builders would be justified in omitting it, thereby saving a considerable cost to themselves in time and materials, and the Navy Board would be unable to enforce them being fitted.

 

2 - Why would there be any need to add separate timbers, which would take time and money to do, when a stop can be formed as shown in Siggi's sketch, which is in complete accordance with the contract extracts in my previous post. This method of construction gives a good seal against water, and requires no additional work operations. The Navy Board was very strict about reducing costs wherever possible, and I cannot believe that they would have sanctioned an un-necessary process of fitting wood around all ports which had a lid.

 

If it is believed that the ports were lined to prevent the gun-crews getting splinters in their hands from a sawn finish to the timbers, there is a counter to this in the contracts.  These frequently state, and presumably this was universal, that all the beams, knees, standards and planking of the sides were to be planed, with the corners struck with a bead. The timber was also painted, normally with three coats of paint, periodically refreshed. A relevant point here would be what happened to the ports in the waist, which had no lids?

 

3 - The builders' contracts also frequently specify, when dealing with the ships' framing and fitting of the gun-port cills, that a certain amount of timber must be left beyond the birds-beaks cut into the timber for the port cills. They often then continue by saying that when the port is cut out to its bigness, no sap or wain can be left in the timbers. This can only really refer to any minor trimming or smoothing of timbers to leave the hole the exact correct size as specified (see also item 4 below)

 

4 - I have checked the sizes of the ports as shown on the framing plans of various vessels against the port sizes listed in the contracts. In all cases the dimensions matched. Any lining fitted would therefore reduce the size of the opening below that specified. To my interpretation, this is another good indication that no linings were fitted as separate pieces.

 

5 - There is no mention of stops as separate pieces of timber in any contemporary work of reference which I have seen. Can you post a copy of the section of Steel in which they are listed. How exact is Steel's description, is it clear to what he is referring.

 

Falconer makes no mention of stops, neither are they listed in the copy of Steel's 'Vade Mecum', of both of which I have (pdf) copies. 

 

6 - The excavation report of the 'Colossus', part of which dealt at some length with a gun-port on the wreck of that ship, includes colour photographs of the interior view of the port, with a curved, projecting piece of timber fastened inside the lower cill, against which the gun carriage's front end would have hit when the gun was run out. This is quite likely to be referred to as a stop, although this depends upon Steel's description of this, and the dimensions he gives for it.

 

I would believe that items 1 to 4 above add up to a considerable set of reasons for separate linings to form stops being neither done nor necessary.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

 

 

Edited December 29, 2018 by Mark P

[druxey]

Dear Mark,

 

As we seem to be taking over Siggi's thread, I'll PM you. However, thank you for your thoughtful response!

[Siggi52]

Hello,

 

no, you did't take my threat over. I started the discussion and thought that we could settle this may be for all.

 

What makes me a little curios is the fact, that most, when not all, admiralty models have these square ports, without any step. So as I drew it at the right side of my drawing. I think that this is not only a shortcut, they are nearly in the accurate size. To understand what I mean, my planks at the gun deck are 3" thick and have a lining of 1" = 1,6 mm + 0,5 mm = 2,1 mm

 

 

 

Here the Centurion 1:48

 

 

and the 60 gunner 1:60. Here the ports are slightly thinner.

 

 

You could see, that the dimensions are nearly the same. They did't skip the lining. 

 

There is not much written about the port lids. Goodwin wrote that they are without a step around them and the Victory has that future. Lavery mention them, but did't write nothing special, because he had no information I think. And there is that one sentence in Steels treatise from around 1800 that is now the truth.

 

I would no one irritate, but we should together find an answer and the models speak for themselves. The shipwrights know what to do. That is with most things of the past the case, where every body know how it looks like. 

 

Druxey, could't it be that you misinterpret the sentence: Well seasoned linings fitted into the stops. That could mean all, even that:

 

 

And most models give me right. Ok, you have to rewrite some of your books, that is the bad thing about it and I'm not lucky about it. You remember the wales. You could interpret it your way, but all the models show it the other way. So what is right?

[paulsutcliffe]

Another interesting thing for me on both of those pictures you have shown above is the chains made from straight bits of brass not wire rings shaped and soldered as generally shown now and the way the anchor linings are portrayed

Regards

Paul