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

[druxey]

Ah, the legendary Studley cabinet! Isn't it amazing. Now, Mark, don't get side-tracked into creating a replica!

[SJSoane]

Now the shop is set up, it has taken some time to remember where I left off, and what I need to do next. I have focused on the waterways on the gundeck.

The Bellona waterways have a quarter circle rabbet in the edge. I reviewed Ed Tosti's Naiad book on this process, as well as David Antscherl's Fully Framed Model, for ideas on how to cut a rabbet on a curved piece. I settled on the Foredom in its drill press. To be able to moved the burr up and down and back and forth precisely, I added a few fixtures to the drill press. The top fixture clamps on the upright, and the brass screw allows precise up and down adjustments pushing against the saddle holding the Foredom. The white screws allow the fence to move back and forth precisely.

 

Best wishes

 

Mark

 

 

[dvm27]

Welcome back, Mark! Your ingenious problem-solving solutions are always instructional for the rest of us.

[SJSoane]

Thanks, Greg, it is great to be back in the shop!

 

While working on the gundeck waterways, I starting thinking again about the arrangements at the stern. I had long believed that there is a wing transom knee as shown in the red lines below. I saw this in Peter Goodwin's Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War, p. 30. But I find no other information about it in Goodwin, and I cannot find images of it elsewhere, or dimensions ca. 1760. Goodwin only explains in more detail a knee on the helm port transom just above the wing transom, but does not show this additional knee in the drawing on page. 30. Can anyone point me in the right direction on this elusive wing transom knee?

 

Absent from the shop for well over a year, I am having a little trouble remembering the various resources I have referred to in the past; apologies if this is in a really obvious reference...

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

 

 

[SJSoane]

Just found the answer to my question, looking at the model of the lower deck of the Ajax of 1767, illustrated in the Lavery book on the Bellona, p. 27. Also, Goodwin mentions it on page 26.

[davec]

Mark - welcome back!  I enjoyed following your build before, and am looking forward to seeing it progress.

 

Best,

 

Dave

[Mark P]

Hi Mark;

 

Speaking of the wing transom knee,  I have copies of several contracts for the building of 74s,  and all of them describe the knees to be fixed between the wing transom an the ship's side.  If you want some dimensions I will send them over.

 

Keep the project rolling:  it's great to follow,  inspirational everywhere.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[SJSoane]

Dave, thank you for your kind comment. I am discovering that I have forgotten a lot about the project having been out of the shop for well over a year, and am not quite in the groove for getting going again smoothly. But I am working on it each day. Hopefully, it will start to flow again. Hand cutting scarph joints on the waterways is helping focus my attention!

 

Mark, if you have dimensions for a 74 circa 1760 wing transom, that would be great. The Bellona, I have read, was first called a 70 relative to the 1745 Establishment, but its dimensions are closer to an 80. I believe this is because the shipwright Slade was sneaking a new idea of a 74 through the Admiralty and had to relate it back to the Establishment figures. So it does not always compare well in dimensions to later 74s, in the Repository or Steel dimensions. Part of the fun of building the Bellona!

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

[SJSoane]

I am starting to get back into the swing of things, working on the gundeck waterways. Starting my new retirement phase of construction, I resolved to begin cutting as many joints by hand as possible. I had earlier relied on building extensive jigs for machines to control quality, but I have been inspired by the books by David Antscherl and Ed Tosti regarding how to do this with chisels and files. I also took to heart Gaetan's good advice to me a few years ago that the more one repeats a task, the better one gets at it. I learned this when cutting the mortises for the carlings and ledges in the gundeck itself.

So here is the port waterway ready to be installed, with handcut scarph joints. The last photo shows a little trick I tried successfully to keep the chisel perfectly vertical to the cut. I drew a line on the cutting block, which is reflected in the back of the chisel. When the line is straight between the block and the reflection, the chisel is vertical.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

[druxey]

That is a good trick, Mark. Another (my party trick) is to cut a perfect 45 degree angle without measuring. Again, angle of reflection is the secret! But don't tell anyone.

[Mark P]

Hi Mark;

 

The following is taken from the contract for 'Culloden',  1770:

 

The wing Transom knee to be sided 12 1/2" the fore and aft arm to be 16' in length or to give shift to the after part.  the thwartship arm to be 6' 0" to be Bolted with 5 Bolts of 1 1/4" diam in the thwartship arm, and with 7 no in the fore and aft arm, and with two small bolts of 7/8" Diam in the lips of the scarph.

 

The contract for 'Bombay Castle' of 1782 is very similar,  except that it adds that the knee is to scarph with hook and butt upon the upper strake of spirketting.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[SJSoane]

Druxey, I will have to try the party trick. I will give you full credit at parties if I can do it!

 

Mark, thanks for the information. I will try that against my hull dimensions, and also to the Ajax model closer to my time period, to see if anything significant changed from 1760 to the 1770s and 80s.

 

Mark

[SJSoane]

Using small off-cuts. Since this shipwright is now living in retirement, wood has to be used as frugally as possible. I have boxes of off-cuts from earlier work, because I previously tended to cut pieces out of freshly cut large sheets. I did this to keep fingers away from blades, and also to be long enough to go through the thickness sander. So as I ponder many small parts still coming, like knees, I considered how I could manage using more of my off-cuts.

 

To solve the thickness sander issue, I built a simple sled. I was able to attach a number of off-cuts to it with double sided tape. The tape adds .005" to the height of the top side of the wood to the top of the sled, so I use the depth indicator on my calipers to check the thickness after each pass, subtracting .005" from what I measure.

 

Because my power scroll saw sometimes grabs at small pieces, particularly when they are only caught by one side of the foot, it makes me nervous on little parts. So I have tried using the Knew Concepts hand scroll saw shown below. It is a little slower, but much less nerve-wracking.

 

Wing transom knee. I came across an interesting issue regarding the wing transom knees. Goodwin's book says the knee attaches to the frames, and the thickness of the knee at the fore end of the fore and aft arm is 6". But the spirketting is 7" thick at the waterway and 5 ½" at the top just under the ports. So the wing transom knee would be buried in the spirketting, which does not seem right. Rob Napier's book on the contemporary model Princess Royal shows the wing transom knee fayed against the spirketting. Was this a modeling convenience, and if not, would the wing transom knees have a thicker dimension on the fore and aft arm in order to accommodate the spirketting? and I thought this was going to be an easy piece!

 

Mark

 

 

[EdT]

Nice idea for the small pieces, Mark.  As for the hand scroll saw, I'll take your word for it.

 

Ed

[druxey]

If there is a scarph between the side arm and spirketting, my impression is that the hook of the scarph on the arm fits to a score in the spirketting on the side, thus locking it. 

 

Anyone have an opinion to the contrary?

[EdT]

That is my interpretation as well, Druxey.  Here are two photos from the Naiad build log showing how I interpreted that.

 

First the score in the spirketing.

 

Then the installed transom knee with the s-curve into the spirketing score.  I did not plank this side under above the structural spirketing.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Ed

[SJSoane]

I knew this would get interesting!

 

The only primary sources I have for this are:

 

The image of the half model of HMS Ajax 1767, showing a straight fore and aft arm, without an S-curve. But as best I can see, this model does not have spirketting and the arm appears to fay onto the frames themselves. (I see this in Lavery's Bellona, p. 27.)

The image of the repair Rob Napier did in this area on the contemporary model Princess Royal 1773. Again, a straight arm without an S-curve, and in this one the knee abuts the spirketting. See p. 58.

And then there is Mark P.'s contract for the Bombay Castle, noting a hook scarph to the spirketting. this is 1782, almost a quarter century after the Bellona.

I tried staring down into the image I took of the Bellona at Chatham (see below) but too far in the murky depths to see...

 

Secondary sources are:

Goodwin's drawing of the knee on page 30, abutting the frames, no S-curve. (the members in this drawing have always seemed out of scale to me, by the way).

John Franklin's model of the Egmont 1768 in Goodwin, page 45 showing the wing transom knee as straight and abutting the frames. As far as I can see, he did not include spirketting, or I cannot see a later image of this area that would show.

 

The one common feature is a straight knee, with no S-curve, while the primary sources disagree in showing one on the frames and another on the spirketting. But both primary sources are stylized models to a certain extent, and therefore not entirely reliable as guides one way or the other.

 

I am inclined to think that Ed and druxey, who think like shipwrights solving problems, have the right idea. The spirketting continues aft to the transoms, and is scored for the wing transom knee. otherwise, the upper strake of spirketting would basically stop at the fore end of the knee, weakening its longitudinal strength at this critical aft location.

I think the knee fore and aft arm is probably straight, not S-curved, for this 74.

 

So, the wing transom knees have to increase their transverse dimensions to include the distance they would be set into the scores in the spirketting, leaving them still 6" proud of the spirketting at the fore end, if Goodwin has this dimension right.

 

Ed, your score looks about halfway into the spirketting; I will follow suit!

 

Mark

 

 

[druxey]

I concur with the straight side arm, if it lands on the spirketting, Mark.

[EdT]

Some additional thoughts:

 

The standard-form frigate contract of the late 18th Century contains the following spec:  "To have a wing transom knee on each side 10 inches sided, the knee fore and aft arms 14 feet 0 inches long, the athwartship arms 7 feet 0 inches long, to hook with a long hook scarph to the spirketing and bolted with 13 bolts of 1 1/2" diameter, and 2 of 7/8" diameter in the lip of the scarph."  It is true that this is a frigate contract, so it may be different for a 74.  If you have contract for the larger ship I would be interested in the text.  If not, I suggest getting one from NMM.  The question is: what is the orientation of the hook scarph - horizontal or vertical?  With the number and size of the bolts I put it in the vertical plane, simulating it with a wide score into the spirketing, since such a hook scarph in that plane is invisible - and hard to cut in situ.

 

Whether the fore and aft arm of this knee is straight or curved would, I guess, depend on the relative heights of the transom vs. the spirketing.  In my case the spirketing was lower so the knee was curved to allow the knee leg to enter the spirketing scarph (score) on a parallel line.  On Naiad (see the photos) the knee if left straight could easily have been scarphed into the deck clamps above the spirketing, but that is not what the contract says, so I did not do that.  Actually from the glue residue on the frames, I may have first  bolted it directly to the frames then changed it after reading the spec.  Can't recall.

 

Edited-an after thought on the curve knee:  Curving the knee so that the top face of the short leg is parallel to the wing transom, permits bolts to be driven through.  Angling it down might preclude this.

 

I cannot recall if I had other reference(s) for this.  I think it was just the contract language cited asbove.

 

Ed

 

 

Edited November 3, 2017 by EdT

[SJSoane]

Hi Ed,

 

Thank you, this is very helpful. I think you identified the reason for the curved or straight knee, and it appears to do with assuring that the knee and the spirketting are locked together. In the case of the Bellona, the top surface of the wing transom is aligned exactly with the top surface of the upper strake of the spirketting, and so these would lock in the same horiontal plane. In the case of the frigate, the spirketting is below the wing transom, and so would need the curved knee to connect together. This makes structural sense.

 

Just out of curiosity, which way would the hooked scarph be arranged? If I understand the structural role of the wales and spirketting, it is to help resist the hull's tendency towards "hogging", where the bow and stern tend to drop down due to greater buoyancy midships. So the wales and spirketting are put into tension, not compression along their lengths. This means that the hook in the scarph would be aligned as shown below. Would this make sense? (I am not sure I am going to cut the hook, but I am interested nonetheless).

 

I have seen no reference to a contract for the Bellona, including in Lavery's books which focus on the ship. I had assumed all these years I have been working on this that no contract exists. But I should look into this. Is anyone aware of a contract for the Bellona? I will try contacting the NMM.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

[SJSoane]

On reflection, maybe the hooked scarph joint looks more like this. This would bring more wood fibers into resisting the tension along the joint.

[EdT]

Mark,

 

I would concur with the scarph arrangement you have shown - the first one.

 

You may not need the contract specific to Bellona, but only one from her era and for the general 74 class.  These may or may not exist for her time, or if ships of this type were all built in Admiralty yards.   Frigates were commonly contracted out.   Contracts I have were specific to the frigate type but were fill-in-the-blank on dimensions.  I used the contract for the Artois class, but the text is identical for smaller classes of frigates.  I recall Gary B (garyshipwright) having a collection of contracts for 74's so they must have been used at some point and something close should be obtainable.

 

Ed

Edited November 3, 2017 by EdT

[druxey]

I believe that the scarph was arranged as in the first version you posted. The purpose of this was to 'bind' the stern framing from separating away aft from the sides of the ship, not to prevent hogging. I've never seen an illustration of the second arrangement of a scarph that you've sketched.

[Mark P]

Good evening Mark;

 

Concerning your query for the siting of the wing transom knee, I think that the important word is in the contract reference where it says that the knee is scarphed 'upon the spirketting'.  I would interpret this to mean that the spirketting is fixed first,  and the knee afterwards,  on the spirketting.  As you mention above,  the spirketting adds to the strength of the ship,  and I cannot believe that it would be terminated at the beginning of the knee.  Especially as the knee is 16' long,  much shorter than a strake of planking would be.  It cannot mean upon as in the sense of 'on top of',  as the wing transom is not higher than the spirketting.

 

Ed:  I have some information from the NMM on the contracts that they hold,  and for 74s they have the following: (there may be others I was not told of,  though)

 

Saturn,  January 1782 (contract dates given here)  ADT0102

Elephant,  February 1782.  ADT0030

Bellerophon,  January 1782.  ADT0011

Bombay Castle,  September 1779.  ADT0009

Berwick & Ganges,  May 1778.  ADT0012

Culloden, Thunderer Class,  May 1770.  ADT0166  (note that this Culloden is an earlier vessel than her namesake listed below)

 

The contract for Ganges,  ADT0012,  I have recently suggest to the NMM was actually Fortitude (1778) which has now been agreed by the Museum,  and will be re-catalogued as set out in their email below:  

 

Dear Mark,

 

I have taken a look at the above contract and my conclusions are as follows:

 

The black dimensions (i.e. the ones the contract was originally written for) – Fortitude (1780), as the only one from the Albion class to be built by Randall in that period.

 

The red ink dimensions (written above the black ink) – This matches the Ganges class of 1779. If we were to assume the Randall builder was relevant to this amendment then the two ships they built from this class are Ganges (1780) and Culloden (1782).

 

The green in dimensions (written below the black ink) – This matches the revived Elizabeth class of 1760. Again, if we assume the builder is relevant to this amendment then the ship here is Defiance (1783).  The old catalogue mentions Berwick of the same class, but she was built at Portsmouth.

 

I will make the amendments to the catalogue.  I hope that this is of interest.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

[SJSoane]

Hi Mark

 

This is very interesting. Looking up the list of ships similar to the Bellona, I see that Saturn, Elephant and Bellerophon are all of the Arrogant Class, which Brian Lavery notes has the same design dimensions as the Bellona class. The Elizabeth class, which includes the Berwick and Bombay Castle, is just a foot longer in design dimensions, and so likely close enough for the scale I am working at.

 

So even though these are almost a quarter century more recent than the Bellona, they are likely to have the same scantlings. And there is nothing to be found closer to the Bellona's 1758 design date anyway.

 

Are any of these available online, or for purchase from the NMM? I did not have any success finding any of these on the NMM website (although I did find the Lieutenant's logs for the Bellona from 1760).

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

 

[Mark P]

Hi Mark;

 

They are all available as photocopies.  Some are hand-written,  and some are printed,  with the dimensions filled in by hand.  They follow a fairly standard formula,  but vary slightly in the amount of detail they include. 

 

The majority of them were written for ships built in merchant builders' yards,  to ensure that they built to the same standards as the Royal Dockyards;  but at least one,  Culloden 1770,  was for a Royal Dockyard. 

 

I do not believe that any of these are available online.  They are all A3 size sheets.  The printed ones are around 24 pages.  At least one of the handwritten ones runs to 80 pages (although it includes not much any different;  it is just written in a large script;  although that makes it easy to read!)

 

They should show up under a search on the collections website under the keyword 'contracts',  or 'specifications',  filtered to the 18th century.

 

To purchase,  send an email to pictures@rmg.co.uk ,  quoting the ADT number I have given.  When I purchased mine,  they were bought from the plan store,  but the system is different now.  They might be available now as a digital download;  I do not know.

 

A further item of interest,  and apparently a very rare survivor,  is ADT0253,  a rigging warrant for HMS Monarch,  1765.  This lists every conceivable piece of rope for the whole ship:  its diameter,  length,  and associated block type and size.  It was used for the issue of rigging stores from the dockyard,  when the rigging of the ship was set up after launching.  I don't remember ever seeing this referred to in any book,  rather strangely,  as it is very important for anyone rigging a 74.

 

If you intend to set up rigging,  this is invaluable.  There were a lot of changes to ships' rigging in the 1770s,  but as this warrant is earlier,  it would apply to Bellona.

 

All the best,

 

Mark

Edited November 4, 2017 by Mark P

[AON]

I have both the Elephant and Bellerophon contracts. Arrogant class following the Bellona.   I will look at them in the morning and get back to you.

Edited November 4, 2017 by AON

[AON]

I PM'd you some info.

 

look at page 35

 

Wing Transom Knees: WING TRANSOM KNEES⁽¹³⁰⁾ ---- To have two wing tranfom (transom) knees fided (sided) 12 inches, the fore and aft to be 16 feet 0 inches long; the athwartfhips (athwarthships) to be 6 feet 0 inches long, to fcarph (scarph) with hook and butt^{(78, 81, 104)} upon the upper strake of spirkitting⁽¹³¹⁾ and bolted with 5 bolts 1-1/4 inches diameter in the thwartfhips (thwartships) arm, and with 8 bolts in the fore and aft arm, and with 2 bolts of 7/8 of an inch in the lip of the scarph.

[SJSoane]

Thanks, everyone, for this help with the wing transom knees. 

I have completed the gundeck waterways, ready for installation. I have pondered whether I can get these glued and clamped within the 5 minute "open time" for Titebond Original glue. I consulted with the ship cat, and she agrees that it would be risky. So a trip to the store to find some Titebond III, with an "open time" of 10 minutes. Good thing to have a smart ship cat.

 

Mark

[druxey]

Smart - and handsome too!