Jump to content

HMS Bellona 1760 by SJSoane - Scale 1:64 - English 74-gun - as designed


Recommended Posts

Hi Mark, I knew you were kidding, but your comment did make me curious about how this process could scaled up beyond the needs of one ship. I know now that I would get too bored doing this regularly, even if I could figure out ways to speed it up with multiple moulds.

 

I had jewelry friends who did lost wax, and I did look into the idea a number of years ago. But the cost of the equipment quickly killed that idea for me. Now if I made my cannon out of gold, it might be worth it, because I could sell them as jewelry for pirates!😀

 

Mark

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best looking cannons I've seen are made by CNC, at a very high rate. Can't add the touch hole details or monogram but the barrels are perfect with incredibly delicate astragals and reinforcing rings.

Greg

website
Admiralty Models

moderator Echo Cross-section build
Admiralty Models Cross-section Build

Finished build
Pegasus, 1776, cross-section

Current build
Speedwell, 1752

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg,

 

I thought about upgrading my Sherline lathe and mill to CNC a while ago, but somehow it seems like a steep learning curve and price. Have you considered this?

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the sequence I am going through for facing and boring the muzzles.

 

First, the barrel is put in the centering jig:

zOBJ_Bellona_20190402_2-2.jpg.85846c7fcde6b97c39caa2bb5b089461.jpg

Then the jig is mounted in the 4 jaw chuck, using the drill chuck in the tailstock to grip the cylinder at the front of the barrel, to ensure it is centered before tightening up the 4-jaw chuck:

zOBJ_Bellona_20190306_5.jpg.99f85df4ce1be9e6506a8d09fe4fb35a.jpg

Then the cut-off tool is run up against the long cylinder cast at the front of the cannon, to true it up. I do this turning the chuck by hand. I also true up the outermost edge of the swell of the barrel, also turning the chuck by hand. The pewter is really easy to trim:

zOBJ_Bellona_20190409_6.jpg.0c2d5d534675900ef23a5dd47953b266.jpg

I cut off the excess, using a hand saw:

zOBJ_Bellona_20190408_4.jpg.346f10c2ea7c17a395fa863031baf59f.jpg

 

Then, I center drill and drill the bore:

 

zOBJ_Bellona_20190409_8.jpg.7d9d57dddfd6b6729456469bef531107.jpg

Next, to keep the foremost moulding the same thickness, I run the cutter up against a .10" feeler gauge, and set the digital readout to 0".

 

zOBJ_Bellona_20190409_9.jpg.42259f4ed54c6e07c09e829501b3cce3.jpg

Back up the cutter, face the barrel down until I hit 0" on the digital readout. This trims up the face so the moulding is exactly .10" wide. Done. Next. Only 60 to go....

 

zOBJ_Bellona_20190409_7.jpg.6e43dd609bcaff9fc0d92302e8cbdd77.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the attention to detail!  You will never regret all of the effort you have expended getting this, oh so right;  not the trials, not the errors, and not the extra, extra.

 

It may give you pause though, when considering the armament of your next project 😀

Edited by Hubac's Historian

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, druxey and Marc, for your thoughts on boring cannon. I do remember the advice I got from Gaetan years ago about how one's skills and speed increase through repetition. This is proving to be very true.

 

However, taking a break from drilling cannon, I started looking again at the rigging for the cannon. I dug out my old spreadsheets, and noticed for the first time a big discrepancy in Steel's tables for sizing rigging and blocks.

 

What he says about the sizes of blocks does not correspond to the blocks listed in his master table, a reproduction of which can be seen here:

https://maritime.org/doc/steel/tables/pages/032-ShipOf74Guns.htm

 

So here is what I found. Look at the table:

729299429_Steelblocksizessamplesheet.thumb.png.3ee61c59207ad593242480eabdc67b31.png

Look at these examples to explore:

 

Fore-Top-Mast Braces

rope circumference: 3 ½"

Single Block length: 14"

 

Fore-Top-Mast Leechlines

rope circumference: 2 ½"

Single Block length: 10"

 

But when we follow his instruction on sizing blocks (see spreadsheet below), this is what we find:

The Fore-Top-Mast Braces single block should be 10.3" long

The Fore-Top-Mast Leechlines single block should be 7 1/2" long

 

This isn't just a little off, it is off by over 30%. Every block in the table appears to be larger than what his proportional rules would specify.

 

Am I misunderstanding something here? And if not, should I be following his table, or following his calculations?

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

1110672348_ScreenShot2019-04-14at3_09_51PM.png.c75cba323938560d5221c270c0b372ae.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and I was confused when multiple sources would not agree.

I'll be watching to see what our knowledgeable members suggest is the reason for Steel's discrepancy

 

It is not a year thing is it?

Table for after a particular date and description for before that date??

Edited by AON

Alan O'Neill
"only dead fish go with the flow"   :dancetl6:

Ongoing Build (31 Dec 2013) - HMS BELLEROPHON (1786), POF scratch build, scale 1:64, 74 gun 3rd rate Man of War, Arrogant Class

Member of the Model Shipwrights of Niagara, Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada (2016), and the Nautical Research Guild (since 2014)

Associate member of the Nautical Research and Model Ship Society (2021)

Offshore member of The Society of Model Shipwrights (2021)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi druxey,

 

I got them from:

 

https://www.hnsa.org/manuals-documents/age-of-sail/the-elements-and-practice-of-rigging-and-seamanship/block-making-vol-i/

 

2078907120_ScreenShot2019-04-14at4_57_31PM.thumb.png.641dad86ea1ecf90915ad3de656bcffa.png

and these are repeated in David Antscherl's Fully Framed Model Vol. IV p. 63. They also can be found in Lees' Masting and Rigging, p. 164, but there are some discrepancies in this source relative to the other two. Lees, for example, has the sheave diameter as 4 times the width of the sheave, but the other two are five times. Also, Lees has the width of the sheave hole as a sixteenth more than the sheave, but the other two have it as 1/16" larger.

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, more or less, with your calculations (post #1267). And I agree that the proportionality is not in agreement with the tables on pages 31 et seq. Is it possible that Steel lifted the proportions from an earlier work and the tabular matter from the then current specifications? I do note that over the years scantlings, etc, tended to get beefed up. However, in defence, there is the caveat in the last line on your quotation in The Practice of Block-making that there could be variance from these proportions!

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

Thanks, druxey, I am glad I didn't overlook something. You and Alan are probably on the right line of thinking that this has to do with the dates.

 

The Bellona was built in 1760, 30 years before Steel's tables or formulas. Since everything grew as the century wore on, I would think the Bellona's sizes would be at the smaller end of possibilities, likely smaller than in the tables at the end of the century.

 

So I will likely stick with the formulas, assuming this was an earlier tradition passed down to Steel even as the blocks were being made larger in practice, as reflected in his tables.

 

Oh, boy, more fun with a spreadsheet...

 

Mark

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and sometimes close enough is practical.  The hardest lesson I have trouble with is accepting that no one is going to take a caliper to my model.

Alan O'Neill
"only dead fish go with the flow"   :dancetl6:

Ongoing Build (31 Dec 2013) - HMS BELLEROPHON (1786), POF scratch build, scale 1:64, 74 gun 3rd rate Man of War, Arrogant Class

Member of the Model Shipwrights of Niagara, Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada (2016), and the Nautical Research Guild (since 2014)

Associate member of the Nautical Research and Model Ship Society (2021)

Offshore member of The Society of Model Shipwrights (2021)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm buggered now. 😣

Alan O'Neill
"only dead fish go with the flow"   :dancetl6:

Ongoing Build (31 Dec 2013) - HMS BELLEROPHON (1786), POF scratch build, scale 1:64, 74 gun 3rd rate Man of War, Arrogant Class

Member of the Model Shipwrights of Niagara, Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada (2016), and the Nautical Research Guild (since 2014)

Associate member of the Nautical Research and Model Ship Society (2021)

Offshore member of The Society of Model Shipwrights (2021)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, you are right, we seem to have an irresistible desire to get it "exactly right", even though the difference is imperceptible--until druxey gets his calipers out, of course. It is like wanting to solve a math or engineering problem, where there is a great feeling that one has found the right answer, not an almost answer. But what a crazy attitude to bring to this hobby, where everything is approximate. Oh, well!

 

It still amazes me to see how much full size boat construction is done by eye, not by precise measurements. There is a lesson here!

 

Mark

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a long few days, I have only the 9# guns left to drill. Just 18 to go!

Just for fun, I put the 32# into their carriages and into the starboard ports. They are a little low because the deck is not yet in, but it gives a good sense of what the gundeck must have been like. And how awful it would have been to see that ship approaching you with guns run out and a hostile intent!

 

Mark

 

IMG_8513.thumb.jpg.5609b4bdaeffcf676f267c0a8fb1b353.jpgIMG_8510.thumb.jpg.fc6e9b9201024bffdb494b23808c6b92.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Switching back to the block sizes for a minute, I used a spreadsheet to calculate the block sizes according to Steel's directions, and compared the results to the blocks in his table. I did modify this somewhat, when I realized that a calculation based on the circumference of the rope would usually create a block with an inch and fraction length; but the lengths were always even integers. So I rounded up to the next full inch size. This brought the calculated blocks closer to the ones listed in the tables, usually within an inch or two although still smaller.

 

The biggest discrepancy concerned the long-tackle or fiddle blocks.

 

As seen below, I looked at the spritsail halyard, which according to the table is a 3 ½" circumference rope, with a 24" long tackle block.

But using Steel's own formulas, the block would be only 17" long. He describes this block following all of the rules for a single block, only ⅔ times longer, and with the lower part of the block including the second sheave as ⅔ less than the upper part of the block.

 

Lees' Masting and Rigging used different formulas that still arrived at a 17" long block. His formulas give a somewhat thinner and narrower block given the same length. And he give no sources for this formula. (p. 166)

 

17" is a long way from 24", we don't need Alan and druxey's calipers to see this difference. But I have found no other sources that could resolve this discrepancy.

 

I suppose I could work backwards from 24" to determine what the proportions would be for all of the other parts relative to a 3 ½" circumference rope. Presumably, this would create a top sheave larger in diameter than would be required for a single block running the same circumference rope. Maybe the lower sheave should be the size for the single, and the upper 5/3 bigger?

 

Who to trust?

 

Mark

721368601_ScreenShot2019-04-17at12_35_56PM.png.e1d05280277b9225042111a3742ad197.png

 

 

 

 

Edited by SJSoane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite the conundrum!

I've no answer.

Alan O'Neill
"only dead fish go with the flow"   :dancetl6:

Ongoing Build (31 Dec 2013) - HMS BELLEROPHON (1786), POF scratch build, scale 1:64, 74 gun 3rd rate Man of War, Arrogant Class

Member of the Model Shipwrights of Niagara, Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada (2016), and the Nautical Research Guild (since 2014)

Associate member of the Nautical Research and Model Ship Society (2021)

Offshore member of The Society of Model Shipwrights (2021)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I admit I am getting obsessive about this, but I looked at Steel's table more carefully, and discovered that there is no consistent proportion of rope to long tackle block size.

 

See below the 6 different long tackle blocks in Steel's table. The 18" block reeves both 2 ½" and 3" circumference ropes, while a 3" rope reeves through both an 18" and a 20" block, and a 3 ½" rope reeves through both a 22" and a 24" block.

 

And while there is a rough proportion of 6 to 6.86 times the circumference of the rope to the block length, the outliers at the small and large end are both a larger proportion than the middle range.

 

In other words, there is no rational and consistent proportion between rope and block length, according to anyone's proportional systems!

 

Now it could be that the ship did not want to stock too many sizes, and some served equally well for slightly different ropes. Although why the same sized rope could use two different block sizes is anyone's guess.

 

Assuming these were not typos in the tables, and these were the real reality of the ship's blocks, then I am inclined to follow the tables rather than calculate to an unrealistic and inaccurate precision that did not really exist. There had to be a reason for this irrationality that I can no longer fathom, and now my head hurts from trying!

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

546328040_ScreenShot2019-04-17at1_53_56PM.png.f65caef806c4a7094f866f7951bd2e64.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My head hurts from thinking about your level of OCD, Mark! I think, as long as you don't exceed any maximum quoted block size you should be fine. Think of it this way:


Ship's carpenter: We need an 18" double aloft immediately.

Bosun: I've got a 16" handy. Should do, eh?

S.C. Yup. Cap'n'll never notice.

B: Not up there, he won't.

S.C. (Laughs.) And neither will Mark!

(More raucous laughter.)

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

Seems these are more of a guide line than a hard and fast rule.

Alan O'Neill
"only dead fish go with the flow"   :dancetl6:

Ongoing Build (31 Dec 2013) - HMS BELLEROPHON (1786), POF scratch build, scale 1:64, 74 gun 3rd rate Man of War, Arrogant Class

Member of the Model Shipwrights of Niagara, Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada (2016), and the Nautical Research Guild (since 2014)

Associate member of the Nautical Research and Model Ship Society (2021)

Offshore member of The Society of Model Shipwrights (2021)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully confess to OCD on this, I am trying to get help for it...

 

A small reason for this is that I got involved a number of years ago in studying the classical language of architecture, which also used a proportional system for defining the proportions of everything in a building, from the largest shape down to the smallest moulding profiles. I found it to be a fascinating exercise, compared to today's "I feel like it looks good".

 

So, I have been interested in the parallels between buildings and ships designed according to proportional systems, and wondered if the same reasoning held true in both. I think I have discovered that the ships were a lot more flexible in this regard.

 

Fun exercise; now I will follow Steel's table wherever it might lead me!

 

And druxey, surely there never would have been a conversation as you described, in the entire history of ships...😀

 

Mark

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, the cannon are finished except for the blackening. That was five months, off and on, making these cannon.

When they are all laid out in one spot, that is a lot of firepower!

 

Tomorrow, I will try the blackening with Jax's Pewter Black. It is a few years old, but I don't see an expiration date. So I will try and see.

 

I will also try cleaning them with Frei Otto's Pickle, which I got as part of a package of jewelry supplies. It is supposed to clean up and brighten for soldering, so perhaps this will help with the adherence of the blackening. Jax also recommends cleaning with dish soap right before blackening.

Does anyone have experience or advice using this pickle, or any other advice on getting good outcomes with the blackening?

 

Mark

 

IMG_8514.jpg.a1eaf550825fd65e2758c8eb2f6e5c51.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe consider some blackening practise runs on some of the drops (cut off pieces).

Alan O'Neill
"only dead fish go with the flow"   :dancetl6:

Ongoing Build (31 Dec 2013) - HMS BELLEROPHON (1786), POF scratch build, scale 1:64, 74 gun 3rd rate Man of War, Arrogant Class

Member of the Model Shipwrights of Niagara, Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada (2016), and the Nautical Research Guild (since 2014)

Associate member of the Nautical Research and Model Ship Society (2021)

Offshore member of The Society of Model Shipwrights (2021)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On brass it's usually, wash with soap, rinse, pickle, and rinse.  And allow to dry completely and then blacken.  I'd think pewter would be the same.  Wear rubber gloves or use clean tweezers or needle nose pliers. If you pick one up with your bare hands, re-clean it.  My soap of choice is Dawn Dish Soap, for pickling I use plain (unflavored) white vinegar.   I

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

Thanks, Mark, I followed your process, substituting only the pickle solution that I got from Otto Frei. It was quite an elaborate setup on the workbench, with the dawn soap, then rinse, then pickle and its rinse. I used a toothbrush to scrub with the dawn soap:

IMG_8526.jpg.4b3aa87240852e4f2cbf1995d76503c5.jpg

The Jax Pewter Black worked perfectly, even though it was a few years old. I tried a few ways of applying it. First, I put the cannon in a 50/50 solution of Jax chemicals and water, and let soak. It was a terrible outcome, turning a rusty brown. Then I tried applying 100% Jax with a rag, which got a good color, but was a mess after a while. So then I settled on a small paint brush applying the Jax directly. This worked really well, because I could work on a few places taking the color less than others. And it kept the mess to a minimum, with only a small amount of Jax in a little plastic cup.

 

After the Jax dried, it was a little rough and dull. So I tried steel wool afterwards, as suggested by Jax. This really buffed it up, but took too much color out. So then I just buffed the cannon with a small cloth. It gave a very nice luster, and left the color.

IMG_8534.thumb.jpg.545e53d768a2a26fbd126fc2993f6685.jpg

And the entire set is DONE. All they need is a ship now....

 

Mark

 

IMG_8537.thumb.jpg.98f7b8bc8336e5752dc17deb7fabd783.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...