Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Hi Paul;

 

The solid bar is a method of making the chains which was used before they were forged as a link, which was a later development.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Previously built models (long ago, aged 18-25ish) POB construction. 32 gun frigate, scratch-built sailing model, Underhill plans.

2 masted topsail schooner, Underhill plans.

 

Started at around that time, but unfinished: 74 gun ship 'Bellona' NMM plans. POB 

 

On the drawing board: POF model of Royal Caroline 1749, part-planked with interior details. My own plans, based on Admiralty draughts and archival research.

 

Always on the go: Research into Royal Navy sailing warship design, construction and use, from Tudor times to 1790. 

 

Member of NRG, SNR, NRS, SMS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Siggi: There's always a possibility that I could be wrong. If I am, I'm ready to admit it! However, (I've written a PM to Mark) I have a strong argument for my point of view. We'll see....

Be sure to sign up for an epic Nelson/Trafalgar project if you would like to see it made into a TV series  http://trafalgar.tv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Siggi,

I find this a very interesting discussion.  I think Mark P and Druxey have some very fine points.  One point I would like to add reference your picture below. I do not think they rabbeted into the ship frame.  

 

670FB097-FF80-43FB-B14F-238244BD741C.jpeg.4bfeed11367f23d95f314ebaa77642a3.jpeg

 

If you are not going to show a port lid with a rabbet then the lining and port lid plank together “equal” the thickness of the surrounding ships side plank.  Goodwin shows this in the notes as Y in the drawing you posted earlier in pic below.

 

06026F4D-4D61-4AFF-BBAE-20BE47AE2736.jpeg.e40b38268186371ac49b2f58b258fe17.jpeg

 

 It can also be seen in the photos of the contemporary models posted earlier and the HMS Victory you showed earlier as well.  See pic below.  None that I can find, show the lid rabbet “let into the ship frame” to make up for the thickness of the lining.

 

15ADBA6F-1AD1-4DD2-96A2-53EDBD8282C3.jpeg.8367f2b0e6d860898357c9044c6464ad.jpeg

 

 

I think you can also have a port lid with the outer lid planks the same as the thickness of the ships side planks.  But when you add the inner lining, then you will need to have a rabbet on the port lid underside created by the lining “short of the stops” created, so that when the lining is added it will clear the frames.  This you can see in contemporary models.

 

I will be interested to see where Mark P’s and Druxey’s discussion resolves since they are much more informed than me. 

 

Happy Holidays

 

 

 

 

Edited by Dowmer

 

 

 

Able bodied seaman, subject to the requirements of the service.

"I may very well sink, but I'm damned if I'll Strike!" JPJ

 

My Pacific Northwest Discovery Series:

On the slipways in the lumberyard

Union, 1792 - 1:48 scale - POF Scratch build

18th Century Longboat - circa 1790 as used in the PNW fur trade - FINISHED

 

Future Builds (Wish List)

Columbia Redidiva, 1787

HM Armed Tender Chatham, 1788

HMS Discovery, 1789 Captain Vancouver

Santiago, 1775 - Spanish Frigate of Explorer Bruno de Hezeta

Lady Washington, 1787 - Original Sloop Rig

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Siggi wants to get to the bottom of this, I have a question concerning the watertightness of the gunports when not using Druxey's supported method. Wouldn't it be so that the oak used in constructing the timbers would result in a far less watertight closure (due to the rigidity of the wood) than when using a softer wooden lining as advocated by Druxey?

Carl

"Desperate affairs require desperate measures." Lord Nelson
Search and you might find a log ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings everyone;

 

Having seen Steel's description, sent by Druxey, I can now present a solution which we both agree is the most likely one. 

 

Steel specifies that the port stops must be a minimum of 3 to 3 1/2 " depending upon the rate of the ship.

 

The contracts I quoted in an earlier post state that the outer planking of the port lid is the same thickness as the outer planking of the ships side, and that this is backed up by an elm lining laid vertically and nailed to the outer planks of the port lid.

 

By the way Mark (SJ Soane, see post above) I never envisioned a rebate in the frame timbers. A misunderstanding somewhere along the line. Siggi's left hand sketch in post 201 was as I interpreted the contract description.  This has now been slightly refined, see attached sketch. 

 

The stop distance given by Steel is the distance by which the outer planking of the port lid overlaps onto the face of futtock or toptimber.  He also states that the lining is to be 1" to 1 1/4" thick.  This will be the thickness of the elm lining boards on the inner face of the gunport lid.

 

No extra work required, no need to form rebates, no need for the stated dimensions of the gunport to be reduced by a separate lining, and no need to fit the separate lining. 

 

244760841_Gunportsections003.thumb.jpg.7557c697e304b71eac0785949623f2df.jpg

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Gun port sections002.pdf

Edited by Mark P

Previously built models (long ago, aged 18-25ish) POB construction. 32 gun frigate, scratch-built sailing model, Underhill plans.

2 masted topsail schooner, Underhill plans.

 

Started at around that time, but unfinished: 74 gun ship 'Bellona' NMM plans. POB 

 

On the drawing board: POF model of Royal Caroline 1749, part-planked with interior details. My own plans, based on Admiralty draughts and archival research.

 

Always on the go: Research into Royal Navy sailing warship design, construction and use, from Tudor times to 1790. 

 

Member of NRG, SNR, NRS, SMS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This certainly looks logical and craftsman-like.  Thanks, Siggi, druxey and Mark for exploring this fascinating detail.

 

Mark

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning,

 

now we are there, where we where before this discussion and as we ever build our models. The only difference is, that to the top of the lid is no stop anymore. You would't find also any model with such a broad rabbet. When yes, they must have the same thickness as most lids, but mostly they are much thinner. I think it's a shortcut as I stated before and most of the contemporary models say I'm right. Why did you ignore that? I mean the contemporary models.

 

Dowmer, why do you think that they did't rabbet into the frames?

Goodwin says in his text: that the outer planking of the lid is equal to the thickness of the ships side planking and Y says: variable according to the thickness of the ships side planking. That doset mean automatically, that they are together have the thickness of the outer planking. 

 

»None that I can find, show the lid rabbet “let into the ship frame” to make up for the thickness of the lining.«

 

You could see the rabbet all around the port hole on contemporary models. How deep they are you could't see. But deep enough for the lid and that means they have to cut the frames. There are to my knowledge only two models that show a rabbeted lid as Druxey and Mark P will shows us. All other models show lids as the Victory has. Here an other picture of the Victory where you could see the rabbet better. But not at the bottom of the port hole! These port lids seems to me have the thickness of the outer planking of the ship. In this case you haven't to rabbet the frames.

 

177899720_Bildschirmfoto2018-12-30um09_55_54.thumb.jpg.8d2ee14f45ef5c0cdc6c767555c0a2c1.jpg

 

 

Regards,

Siggi

 

Recent build: HMS Tiger (1747)

Captains Barge ca. 1760, scratch build
HMS Dragon 74 gunner 1760, scratch build

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Morning Siggi;

 

The picture of Victory is interesting. If you look closely at the gunports, you can see that a narrow strip of wood has been nailed into the bottom of the port in the ship's side, to fill the space where the rebate would have been.

 

As an example of proper practice in the 18th century, I would not refer to the present Victory, though. As you probably know, she has been repaired and patched so many times that there is very little original left, and I would doubt that the present gunport lids are faithful replicas of those she had at Trafalgar or earlier. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Previously built models (long ago, aged 18-25ish) POB construction. 32 gun frigate, scratch-built sailing model, Underhill plans.

2 masted topsail schooner, Underhill plans.

 

Started at around that time, but unfinished: 74 gun ship 'Bellona' NMM plans. POB 

 

On the drawing board: POF model of Royal Caroline 1749, part-planked with interior details. My own plans, based on Admiralty draughts and archival research.

 

Always on the go: Research into Royal Navy sailing warship design, construction and use, from Tudor times to 1790. 

 

Member of NRG, SNR, NRS, SMS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Mark,

 

yes I know, but it's the only ship where you could see it today. Yesterday I searched for the Tricomarlee and Unikorn, but it looks like they did't have port lids. The Tricomarlee has one port closed, so you could see nothing and the other ports lids are not there. 

 

A happy new year to you

Regards,

Siggi

 

Recent build: HMS Tiger (1747)

Captains Barge ca. 1760, scratch build
HMS Dragon 74 gunner 1760, scratch build

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been following this debate from the sidelines, and not commenting until now.

 

For all practical purposes, and thinking like a tradesman, it would seem to make the most sense to stop the planking a few inches short of the frame siding, along the sides of the ports, and to cut the plank opening around the sills.

 

Although ship carpenters of yore would have been fantastically adept with their tools, chopping additional mortises into the frames and sills would be remarkably labor intensive, with the disadvantage of weakening, to some small degree, the underlying frames.

 

Also, from a practical perspective, it would seem to create a better gasket, if the lid linings were stepped back around all four sides of the lid, so that they fit into the opening.

 

While it is good and usefull to look at surviving examples, like Victory, as Druxey points out, the history of repairs - even on an important ship - isn’t always reliable; sometimes modern carpenters do strange rot-prone things like filling the lower rabbet with short stock - for whatever reason, I can not tell you.

 

Perhaps a better surviving example, albeit from a much earlier time, is the Vasa.  She has not been altered, but re-assembled, and she exhibits stepped lid linings and rabbeted ports.

 

It just seems to me that a shipyard, regardless of the epoch, would work as efficiently as possible.  And there are sound mechanical advantages to fitting the port lids in this way.

 

Certain details on contemporary models, on the other hand, are often simplified for the sake of making models more quickly.  

We are all works in progress, all of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Marc,

 

that sounds all very logical. But do you think that all modellers of that time make the same shortcut? And also the painters? I did one side of the ship this way, it's more complicated then making the lid with a step. I think that it's a shortcut of modern modellers. Also when that exist already in earlier times. 

 

As I once before tried to say, the lids of the contemporary models seams to have the right thickness. Outer planking the same size then the ships planking with a 1-1,5" lining. So they had to cut back the frames a little. And the rabbet is much les then 3-3,5"= 1,6-1,8 mm broad. May be 0,5mm =1" This 1" or a little more and another 1-1,5" deep, that would be the rabbet I'm speaking about. And it's above the gun deck, so the ship would't fall apart from this. 

 

On the other hand, who told us, that the outer planking of the lid is of the same thickness then the outer planking of the ship? I found that in Goodwin's book, but what is the source? I cant remember. What is, when the whole lid is between 3-3,5" thick? The magical number from Steel around 1800!  Then Victory's Lids are of the same thickness then the planking of the ships side (it looks so), then no extra rabbet is to cut. If that is also true for the older ships, I don't know. As I said before, they look at the models as if they have the right thickness. 

 

One argument we did't discus till now is the fact, that if the inner lining of the lid has the same size of the the outer planking, all for sides of the lid lie in the rabbet. Not only the left and right side and the plank above and below, when the lining is cut back. I think the construction is weaker when the lining is only nailed to the back of the outer planking.

 

Druxey, that are your strong arguments? You could put these two sentence in a grinder, there would't come out more. 

 

For those who did't know what we are speaking about, that is all from a book of 641 pages! At least it mean, the lid is not less then 3-3,5" thick

238141047_Bildschirmfoto2018-12-30um17_58_51.jpg.30b889bf207b0ed76f763b3b48a82488.jpg

709290793_Bildschirmfoto2018-12-30um17_58_16.jpg.acf69cc0ea16527db00cde3653d339e5.jpg

Regards,

Siggi

 

Recent build: HMS Tiger (1747)

Captains Barge ca. 1760, scratch build
HMS Dragon 74 gunner 1760, scratch build

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion and very informative.   I recall reading that during heavy weather, leather strips were used similar to a gasket to seal the lids to the hull.  Would this be true for this era or is it myth?

Mark
"The shipwright is slow, but the wood is patient." - me

Current Build:                                                                                             
Past Builds:
 La Belle Poule 1765 - French Frigate from ANCRE plans - ON HOLD           Triton Cross-Section   

 NRG Hallf Hull Planking Kit                                                                            HMS Sphinx 1775 - Vanguard Models - 1:64               

 

Non-Ship Model:                                                                                         On hold, maybe forever:           

CH-53 Sikorsky - 1:48 - Revell - Completed                                                   Licorne - 1755 from Hahn Plans (Scratch) Version 2.0 (Abandoned)         

         

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Siggi,

I agree, no shortcut and these ships were built to very exacting standards, albeit with certain artistic interpretations such as the admiralty framing which isn’t full size practice.

 

It seems that this discussion keeps stating that gunport practice was only one way.  In fact, gunport practice I believe was multiple different ways....or at least two or three.  

 

The framed Bellona pictures above clearly show no port lid rabbet, but a rabbet created by the ship’s plank sides, creating a groove for the port.  It also shows that the lid total port lid thickness is the thickness of the ships side planking which includes the lining.  So port planking and lining = ship side thickness in this particular case.  It is also very clear there is no rabbet “cut” into the frames as you suggested earlier.

 

A bit of a different era (1797). But here is a picture of Constitution during her 1875 refit with the outer planking removed to show the frames.  The forward gun ports can be seen, and no rabbet cut into the ship frames can be seen.  So in this case, the rabbet was created by the ships plank like the Bellona picture above.  

 

 

D1FE753C-A47D-46E4-9164-85AC3A89009B.jpeg.340475a07b64a90c8ca02f6b8a938e03.jpeg

 

 

Also, the port gun lids in photo below show that the lining was full size.  Gun port Plank and lining = thickness of ship plank.  No cut rabbet into the frames.  Granted, the port lids were two two piece which was a later era.  It’s also possible that the gun port had an extra sill lining to create the port stop like Druxey mentioned before but it isn’t clear in the picture.  The point is that the port lid has no rabbet except where the two halves meet.

 

5AA7EF7C-197C-4722-BC72-E01256CCDBF6.jpeg.ea2bdf6a87dc6cb98c85bf6c49bed717.jpeg

 

 

 

Edited by Dowmer

 

 

 

Able bodied seaman, subject to the requirements of the service.

"I may very well sink, but I'm damned if I'll Strike!" JPJ

 

My Pacific Northwest Discovery Series:

On the slipways in the lumberyard

Union, 1792 - 1:48 scale - POF Scratch build

18th Century Longboat - circa 1790 as used in the PNW fur trade - FINISHED

 

Future Builds (Wish List)

Columbia Redidiva, 1787

HM Armed Tender Chatham, 1788

HMS Discovery, 1789 Captain Vancouver

Santiago, 1775 - Spanish Frigate of Explorer Bruno de Hezeta

Lady Washington, 1787 - Original Sloop Rig

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One argument for the lining being flush with all four sides of the lid is that because it is nailed to the outer planking at right angles - perhaps a full height and width lining helps to more completely balance the forces of expansion and contraction, thus allowing for a tighter fit inside the opening.

 

I will say that the Bellona model appears to be a very deliberate and detailed representation of this detail.

We are all works in progress, all of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

thank you all for your comments and likes.

 

Mark, I don't know if they also used leather for caulking. But old ropes I think they had plenty.

 

Dowmer, »that gunport practice was only one way« of course there are different forms of gun ports, but for my ship there is only the standard form important. 

 

When I'm seriously look at the Bellona pictures, I could't see what you see. Even if I want to see there something. The outer planking of the lid should be of the thickness of the outer planking of the ship. That said Goodwin and Mark P confirmed that. Even when his contracts are from the 1690th. That may have changed with the time. But you could't tell it from these pictures.

 

The pictures from the Constitution are from an other time and the port lids seem to be much thinner. Like these from the Victory, after all the repairs. May be they are at that time always thinner, as Steel stated. And if there are an extra sill, I cant see it. I see there only the stop, normally build by the frames. But only to the sides, not at the bottom. But may be you have there more insider knowledge. But as Mark P said, linings where not build. 

 

So, for now we have cleared these facts. The port lids have no steps to there sides, even in later times. The outer layer are of the thickness of the planking of the ship at this place, with a lining of elm 1-1,5" thick. That says, there must be cut an extra rabbet. When in later years the port lids get thinner these extra cut rabbet disappear.

 

Not clear is, how that was in 1745. The list of establishment deals only with the main structure, keel frames and so on. So all other things they took  I think from the 1719 list of establishment. Ok, they did't mention there port lids. So we did't know if they are getting already thinner at this time, or in 1745.

 

Regards,

Siggi

 

Recent build: HMS Tiger (1747)

Captains Barge ca. 1760, scratch build
HMS Dragon 74 gunner 1760, scratch build

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hello,

 

today we had an inspection from the admiralty. That is the guy with the red coat. The shipwright try to explain, why the shipyard is't working at all: because the main worker did't feel very good. But he should soon start working again. 

 

In the background his assistant controlled the high of the deck clamp. It's pretty low. Here you could stay only between the beams!

 

IMG_1198.thumb.jpg.490496b59547d388cdb70c66cdb7d6db.jpg

 

IMG_1195.thumb.jpg.712fac078b222065c9f1d332fb51fece.jpg

 

And here is the new crew. I build them from sheets of brass, wire, plaster , paper and cotton for hair. And of coarse a lot of paint. And yes, these clumsy hands could build such small and delicate things. 😉 But it was't easy. 

 

I feel a little better now and hope that I could start working again soon. My main problem is that I'm so spiritless, and the next time I have to build the gun ports for the upper decks. That is nothing that really encourage you.

 

DSC00296.thumb.jpg.f8e133e4921c1bd06949b04963bcb28d.jpg

 

DSC00294.thumb.jpg.76fd5ef4d86a4f668c45433ffcdcb531.jpg

 

DSC00289.thumb.jpg.ba5fb0382af77a9532f676b5f6165356.jpg

 

DSC00291.thumb.jpg.339000086cffe662886967eb6d039d4a.jpg

 

DSC00292.thumb.jpg.1c66426ac21d4211f493e7b9534b9e70.jpg

Regards,

Siggi

 

Recent build: HMS Tiger (1747)

Captains Barge ca. 1760, scratch build
HMS Dragon 74 gunner 1760, scratch build

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Siggi,

 

congrats on modeling those lovely figurines, I just love them.....   :)

very well done !

Nils

Current builds

-Lightship Elbe 1

Completed

- Steamship Ergenstrasse ex Laker Corsicana 1918- scale 1:87 scratchbuild

"Zeesboot"  heritage wooden fishing small craft around 1870, POB  clinker scratch build scale 1:24

Pilot Schooner # 5 ELBE  ex Wanderbird, scale 1:50 scratchbuild

Mississippi Sterwheelsteamer built as christmapresent for grandson modified kit build

Chebec "Eagle of Algier" 1753--scale 1:48-POB-(scratchbuild) 

"SS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse" four stacker passenger liner of 1897, blue ribbond awarded, 1:144 (scratchbuild)
"HMS Pegasus" , 16 gun sloop, Swan-Class 1776-1777 scale 1:64 from Amati plan 

-"Pamir" 4-mast barque, P-liner, 1:96  (scratchbuild)

-"Gorch Fock 2" German Navy cadet training 3-mast barque, 1:95 (scratchbuild) 

"Heinrich Kayser" heritage Merchant Steamship, 1:96 (scratchbuild)  original was my grandfathers ship

-"Bohuslän" , heritage ,live Swedish museum passenger steamer (Billings kit), 1:50 

"Lorbas", river tug, steam driven for RC, fictive design (scratchbuild), scale appr. 1:32

under restoration / restoration finished 

"Hjejlen" steam paddlewheeler, 1861, Billings Boats rare old kit, scale 1:50

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Jan,

 

I think you mean how I managed it? The short version is, with much patience and and strong glasses.

 

The long version is trying and trying. I think it's the 4. generation you see there. Here some pictures who may explain more then words.

 

DSC00214.thumb.jpg.98bb01f5b8c18d976b7ac83877d05b29.jpg

 

DSC00215.thumb.jpg.811901f10f688921f5d404a1b6d0b1c3.jpg

 

DSC00234.thumb.jpg.1ba4fd2efbaf8ba67d698759322194b5.jpg

 

And that are the guys who did't make it and now had to suffer for some experiments

 

DSC00298.thumb.jpg.9e4a2aec41323342a38fde677bbde2b5.jpg

Regards,

Siggi

 

Recent build: HMS Tiger (1747)

Captains Barge ca. 1760, scratch build
HMS Dragon 74 gunner 1760, scratch build

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 2:42 PM, Siggi52 said:

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

 

DSC00161.thumb.jpg.b1ea595387978b11b9306b14e31a4dca.jpg

 

DSC00159.thumb.jpg.773dabd87e5fdc93533eb67ffc71336a.jpg

 

Here the Centurion 1:48

 

DSC05130.thumb.jpg.e4d8f8a43d570eea2683fc3086c875e8.jpg

 

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

 

DSC05158.thumb.jpg.6dd9b7c19148fc38a49b528b80c8c111.jpg

 

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:

 

303237992_Bildschirmfoto2018-12-29um15_13_34.jpg.3c525a56b84eecabb402a64ff83884e5.jpg

 

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?

From what I understand, all gun ports with lids had the inner sill or lining. I know that Victory shows this on the gun port inner edge sides and top, but interestingly, no step on the bottom (due to the tumblehome, perhaps)?. All gun port openings without lids have a frame that is flush with the hull.

 

Either way, gun ports and lids are a pain on 2 and 3 deckers...

logo.jpg
Vanguard Models on Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hi Guys. Just a late reply on the  theard about the ports and the lining. I have done some research on this and do believe that Mark P, may just be right  about it. I don't think they did a lining around the inside of the port which like some would say cost money to do and really didn't do nothing. Why would you need 3 inches of lining as a stop when you have such big timbers already. Am not sure how many read Fincham who was a Master ship wright for the English Navy I do believe and wrote several books on the subject. I went and took a look in his book Outline of Ship Building written in 1852 and was wondering what is  port stops. My self am thinking that they put a stop lining around the inside of the gun port itself and am sure a lot of folks think the same thing. In Fincham book he tells you what the port stops really are and until now had no clue what it is other the the port linings.Which is total wrong for me The contract's I have says that the stops can not be more then 2 and 1/2  inches which doesn't tell me much, until now. Here is what Fincham say's about port stops Part 4, vocabulary of terms, page 94. Port stops are the ends and edges of the planks left round the ports, from one and a half to two and a quarter inches from the sides of the timbers and upper and lower parts of the sill, to receive the port lids and half-ports. Seems, that this is saying size wise, the  same thing from my contracts. I understand this is a bit of time from Alfred's building to Fincham time but would the term have been different back then. Don't believe so. Sorry for being late with a  little bit more info on this.  Now all I have to do is rip out all the sill's I put in. :o{  Gary

 

 

Edited by garyshipwright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/30/2018 at 11:07 AM, Siggi52 said:

Hello Marc,

 

that sounds all very logical. But do you think that all modellers of that time make the same shortcut? And also the painters? I did one side of the ship this way, it's more complicated then making the lid with a step. I think that it's a shortcut of modern modellers. Also when that exist already in earlier times. 

 

As I once before tried to say, the lids of the contemporary models seams to have the right thickness. Outer planking the same size then the ships planking with a 1-1,5" lining. So they had to cut back the frames a little. And the rabbet is much les then 3-3,5"= 1,6-1,8 mm broad. May be 0,5mm =1" This 1" or a little more and another 1-1,5" deep, that would be the rabbet I'm speaking about. And it's above the gun deck, so the ship would't fall apart from this. 

 

On the other hand, who told us, that the outer planking of the lid is of the same thickness then the outer planking of the ship? I found that in Goodwin's book, but what is the source? I cant remember. What is, when the whole lid is between 3-3,5" thick? The magical number from Steel around 1800!  Then Victory's Lids are of the same thickness then the planking of the ships side (it looks so), then no extra rabbet is to cut. If that is also true for the older ships, I don't know. As I said before, they look at the models as if they have the right thickness. 

 

One argument we did't discus till now is the fact, that if the inner lining of the lid has the same size of the the outer planking, all for sides of the lid lie in the rabbet. Not only the left and right side and the plank above and below, when the lining is cut back. I think the construction is weaker when the lining is only nailed to the back of the outer planking.

 

Druxey, that are your strong arguments? You could put these two sentence in a grinder, there would't come out more. 

 

For those who did't know what we are speaking about, that is all from a book of 641 pages! At least it mean, the lid is not less then 3-3,5" thick

238141047_Bildschirmfoto2018-12-30um17_58_51.jpg.30b889bf207b0ed76f763b3b48a82488.jpg

709290793_Bildschirmfoto2018-12-30um17_58_16.jpg.acf69cc0ea16527db00cde3653d339e5.jpg

Hi Siggi I have read this out of Steel and its not giving you the thickness of the lids but the stops which are the space from the edge of the gunport opening to the end of the plank around the port or the overlap of the sides of the lid, that makes up the water type seal. The thickness of the lid depended on the thickness of the planking at that port.  I do believe that both the english and French navy along with the others probably all made their lids the same way. With out the inner linner  you would not have much of a strong lid to keep the water out.  Probably was easier on the model builders at that time just to make the lids the same thickness as the outside planking.  Today am not sure about how other builders will make their lid's but I probably make them with both. I also read in Boudriot 74 gun ship book that they also cut the planks off a couple of inches before the opening of the port to give  them a stop or flushed, when they  were closed.   I do believe that the lining was cut back about the measurment  of the stops that you show above. Hum come to think about it what if they didn't add a linning to the lids. . Seems that the parts of the hinges are keeping them together. When it came to those main frames and cutting in to them it was a  no no. Gary

Edited by garyshipwright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2018 at 6:04 PM, SJSoane said:

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

Hi Mark I don't believe they were to worried about the rabbet for the gun ports because she doesn't go to sea and  just another way of  cutting back on the amount of money that has to be spent taking care of her. does seem that sombody forgot the port  stop or couldn't figure out how it was post of been done. Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary,

Is there a port stop along the bottom of the port?  I don't remember where I've seen that at this moment.  I'll have to do some digging.

Mark
"The shipwright is slow, but the wood is patient." - me

Current Build:                                                                                             
Past Builds:
 La Belle Poule 1765 - French Frigate from ANCRE plans - ON HOLD           Triton Cross-Section   

 NRG Hallf Hull Planking Kit                                                                            HMS Sphinx 1775 - Vanguard Models - 1:64               

 

Non-Ship Model:                                                                                         On hold, maybe forever:           

CH-53 Sikorsky - 1:48 - Revell - Completed                                                   Licorne - 1755 from Hahn Plans (Scratch) Version 2.0 (Abandoned)         

         

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Siggi how are you doing ??, looking forward to an update on your tiger, especially the amazing painting you were doing on the head

Regards

Paul

 

The clerk of the cheque's yacht of sheerness

Current build HMS Sirius (1797) 1:48 scratch POF from NMM plans

HMS Winchelsea by chuck 1:48

Cutter cheerful by chuck 1:48

Previous builds-

Elidir - Thames steam barge

Cutty Sark-Billings boats

Wasa - billings boats

Among others 😁

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...