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

[druxey]

A was naval style, B merchant style of construction.

[Beef Wellington]

Love it Siggi, so glad to find your new model.  Love the figurehead and the lines of Tiger are very pretty indeed.  Can't wait to see more.

[Siggi52]

Hello and thank you Druxey and Jason.

 

Druxsey, you don't know why it is so as you wrote?

 

I looked in the meantime through my books and pictures, but could't find any thing that confirmed my favourite version, because of the thickness of the rails. If I set these thick rails ( according to the list of establishment) upon the planking, they are out of proportion to the ship. But then I remembered, what I have seen at the model of the Superb. There lie the moulded waist rail upon a thicker plank then the planks around. May be that this is the thick plank they asked in the list of establishment for. And also the plank on which the sheer rail sits, look thicker (but may be not)

 

 

Here  pictures, Mark will know, from the Bellona. There the waist rail lie on a plank and the channels sits also on this plank. But the sheer rails lie directly on the frames! At the next picture we could see the waist rail on a normal plank, but the sheer rail on the frames. So I think anything is possible and nothing is hard and fast. 

 

 

 

Here the coppered Bellona. The waist rail sits on a thicker plank but the sheer rail sits directly on the planking.

 

 

And here is a section from my plan. So, it looks if these rails shown in the plan, represent the thicker planks. The dimension are correct.

 

I have decided, to build the rails with ticker planks under them, as seen at the Superb. May be not so thick as set in the list of establishment. Somewhere in L.G.Carr Laughton's book about Old Ship Figure-Heads and Sterns, he quoted that the rails should also strengthen the upper works and that could't do the moulded rails. 

 

If anybody has other solution, please tell me.

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by Siggi52

[druxey]

I do not know why for certain, but imagine that a naval ship could more easily be repaired if the rails were not part of the planking. Merchant ships were not usually involved in fleet actions!

 

The model photos show the rail directly on the frame only because the model-maker wanted to show it while leaving off planking to show the frames as well.

 

I hope this clears up any confusion.

[Siggi52]

Hello Druxey,

 

with that I do not agree. If they feared that there ships could be damaged, they would't build them so beautiful. No carvings and so on. Just as modern war ships. But they want beautiful ships, especially the shipyards. That was there pride I think.

 

Merchant ships have had there battles too, with pirates and warships of other nations. And all what did not bring the ship from one harbour to the next, was money that did't pay. That where merchants. 

 

In the case that the rail is directly at the frames, they could have build easily a plank under the rail and you would see the frames too. I think so interesting are the frames in this section not. You see many models, where the rails are very flat. Almost even with the other surface. So there it could, be that they build that rail directly on the frames. As I see it now, it's all speculation, this or the other way. But why give they dimension for rails, who work only if the rails where build on the frames? 

 

Here I found a picture in William Falconer's Dictionary of the Marine. That is what I think I will build. The waist rail sits on a thick plank and the sheer rail on the planking. 

 

[Landrotten Highlander]

I do not think we can simply translate modern thinking to that of earlier periods.

 

I believe that the embelishments on ships (and buildings) was the only way to suggest wealth (and thus power).  Look at the British admerality shipbuilding guides: it took nearly a century for both the goverment and the ship buillders to drop the (unnecessary) decoration - or have it replaced by a cheaper form.

 

The merchant fleet has always been different to any naval fleet, since the merchants had to pay for eerything, so anything that does not lead to profit (directle or indirectly) had to go.

 

On 07/03/2018 at 6:53 PM, druxey said:

A was naval style, B merchant style of construction.

I personally think this is a very valid interpretation.

Slainte

L.H.

[Hubac's Historian]

1 hour ago, Landrotten Highlander said:

I do not think we can simply translate modern thinking to that of earlier periods.

 

I believe that the embelishments on ships (and buildings) was the only way to suggest wealth (and thus power).  Look at the British admerality shipbuilding guides: it took nearly a century for both the goverment and the ship buillders to drop the (unnecessary) decoration - or have it replaced by a cheaper form.

 

The merchant fleet has always been different to any naval fleet, since the merchants had to pay for eerything, so anything that does not lead to profit (directle or indirectly) had to go.

 

I personally think this is a very valid interpretation.

Slainte

L.H.

The directive from the Crown, across Europe as the 18th C. developed was to trend towards a reduction of unnecessary ornament.  However, that the great yards in England and France, in particular, where there were deeply entrenched familial traditions of ship ornamentation, which continued to ignore the directives of the crown for as long as they could get away with it, speaks more to a class of artists/artisens who were trying to hold onto their livelihood.  This is my opinion.  Pride of state is a hallmark of the 17th century, but by the 18th century - I agree with Siggi that it is the pride of the yards that keeps the tradition alive, until eventually, the yards just wouldn’t pay what the work was really worth.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Hubac'sHistorian

[druxey]

The illustration form Falconer you posted is correct. The rails are over the planking. Steel (1805) stated that the rails were raised (cut directly) from plank in merchant ships, but not on naval ones.

[Siggi52]

ok, Druxey, but that is in 1805. I think that 50 years before every variation was possible. 

 

About the fight of the Yards and the Admiralty about the costs you could read a lot in Carr Laughton's book, Old Ship Figure-Heads and Sterns. Here a small extract from page 87. 

 

 

 

 

 

[SJSoane]

Hi Siggi,

 

I was away for a few days, and I missed this entire discussion about the mouldings. I enjoyed catching up, very interesting conversation. The drawing from Falconer looks like the best evidence, and it is closer in time to the Tiger. I did notice that the Falconer drawing shows a waterway that is probably not accurate. It looks like a wedge sitting on top of the deck planking, while most other evidence says that it would have been a thickened and shaped plank sitting on the deck beams. Does this call into question how the other details, like the mouldings, are drawn? I would still be inclined to follow the Falconer drawing for the mouldings.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

 

 

[Siggi52]

Hello,

 

as I have always to say, but sometimes forget, thank you for your likes and comments. I really appreciate them. 

 

Mark, I think also that this drawing is the best source for me. There changed so much in the later years, just to get the ships cheaper. That with the waterway I did't noticed till you mentioned it. But I did't know if it's right or wrong. May be that is also such a change. Then when it's work, it's ok.

 

The last days I was not really busy. I just build the under construction for the waist rail and started with planking the room from the channel wales to the top. 

 

 

[archjofo]

Fantastic work!

[SJSoane]

Siggi,

That is a beautiful hooked scarph joint in the last photo!

 

Mark

[minimini]

Hello Siggi

I have found this drawing in the Danish archive. It's a plan of a Danish 90-gun ship of the line  from 1766, I have 3-4 drawings more that show the same

 

Michael

 

[druxey]

That is Continental Danish practice, Michael. Different countries had different building styles, so that although there are similarities, some details would not apply to British ships.

[minimini]

Hi Druxey

Yes, you're right, I've looked up drawings back from 1705 until 1820
and they all show the same thing, like this one  from 1728

Michael

[Siggi52]

Hello Michael,

 

thank you for your efforts.

 

I would prefer the method they used with the Bellona. But I think also, that there was at those times no hard and fast rule for the rails. The 1745 list of establishment was the start to build ships at all shipyards after the same dimensions. But the rails are not mentioned there. There dimensions are from the 1719 list of establishment, and there could have changed a lot since then. 

[Siggi52]

Hello,

 

a smal update. Now I have planked the hull up to the waist rail.

 

What I have learned about this technic till now is, take better plywood and not balsa wood. For the under water ship it is may be ok, but now above the upper wales it's beginning to be too flexible because the walls here are too thin.  

 

 

[SJSoane]

Dear Siggi,

 

I have wondered about planking before the upper decks are installed. Would it help to install some temporary ties along the deck levels, like the ones you already installed at the stern?

 

Mark

[Siggi52]

Good morning Mark,

 

these ties I have already, but not always installed. They are alway in the way if you would clamp down a plank.

 

 

One other problem is, that you could sometimes press a planks into the wood with your clamps. Also sanding is't easy, because the wood bents a little between the plywood and later you have there a bump. The wood would wait, until you are ready with your rulers, before coming out again  Also scribing is a problem. But problems are there, to be solved 

 

[Mirabell61]

Hi Siggi,

 

love those lines of the HMS Tiger, and you`re doing a beautiful planking job...

 

Nils

Edited March 16, 2018 by Mirabell61

[Siggi52]

Thank you, Nils

[Siggi52]

Hello and many thanks for your comments and likes,

 

the rest of the week I was't very busy at the yard, but I finished the waist rail. The greatest problem here was the design that should work together with the channels, who must be integrated into the waist rail. At the first picture you could see the slots for them. For that I made the rail in two parts, leaving out the lower part for the for and main channels. Only for the mizzen channels I had to cut down the lower part. The upper part is also at the waist the drift rail, therefor here not installed.

 

 

 

[Wintergreen]

Siggi, your planking looks great.

What sort of wood are you using for the planking?

[Siggi52]

Håkan, it's black alder

[Wintergreen]

Thanks Siggi. 

Actually, I didn't expect that. Alder, I associate with clogs or matches, now I know better.

 

[SJSoane]

Hi Siggi,

 

Your planking is beginning to show the lovely lines of the Tiger. And very nice mouldings!

 

Mark

[Siggi52]

Hello, and many thanks for your comments and likes.

 

now the upper ship is planked. It was't always an easy job, but it's done. For that event, Leo was invited to take his seat. 

The underwater ship would be easier, because there are no port holes,  but may be other hardships. 

 

 

 

 

  

[dvm27]

Lovely work, Siggi. Your planking shows the beautiful flowing lines of your model. And the finished figurehead is a reminder of the level of perfection you strive for in your models.

[archnav]

Hi Siggi,

 

what a beautiful work !  When using Balsa wood, it get`s "hard" when you coat the surface with diluted wood-glue, one or two times. The wood soakes the glue and the surface gets hard. A positive side-effect is, that planking is easier to do, because the surface is primed with glue yet

 

Weiterhin viel Erfolg !

Edited March 21, 2018 by archnav