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

[Mark P]

Hi Mark;

 

The backwards hook is on one of the two photos you posted here a few days ago.  On the bow view,  between the 2nd & 3rd gunports from the bow,  on the 3rd strake down.  The hook is backwards/upside down,  and the remainder of the plank next to it is actually parallel sided,  or close to it. 

 

You might be right about the apprentice.

 

It is also possible that the individual planks within a strake were of slightly varying lengths.  As long as the butts were kept well apart in adjacent strakes,  it would not seem sensible to cut off a few feet of perfectly serviceable timber just to create a uniform length.  But I might be wrong.

 

I hope Gary can find the number for his picture.  If it shows the whole wale,  that would be most interesting.

 

Below is an extract from the contract specification for the 'Fortitude'  a 74 of 1778.  This was also used for the 'Bombay Castle' of 1779,  the 'Culloden' of 1770,  and the 'Bellerophon' of 1782. 

 

MAIN WALES:  The Main Wales to be in breadth from upper edge to lower edge 4ft 4ins,  and in thickness 8 ½ ins.  To have one fair Seam in the Middle & the two lower & two upper Strakes to be lock’d into each other with Hook & Butt wrought of such lengths and the butts properly disposed so as to give the strongest Shift to the Ports & to each other.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited November 16, 2017 by Mark P

[SJSoane]

Well spotted, Mark, I never noticed the backwards hook! The lesson I will take from this is to draw each piece ahead of time, so I don't get distracted and cut one of mine backwards. I am wondering about my apprentice theory...

 

I printed out the wales from the CAD drawing and taped it to the hull. I was off in length by 1/8th of an inch (too short in the drawing), so I adjusted by marking the actual station lines on the paper and readjusting the station lines back in CAD. All is now good to go, except for wondering if the aft-most gunport would be allowed to cut into the second strake down as shown in the second image without adjustment.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

[garyshipwright]

26 minutes ago, SJSoane said:

Well spotted, Mark, I never noticed the backwards hook! The lesson I will take from this is to draw each piece ahead of time, so I don't get distracted and cut one of mine backwards. I am wondering about my apprentice theory...

 

I printed out the wales from the CAD drawing and taped it to the hull. I was off in length by 1/8th of an inch (too short in the drawing), so I adjusted by marking the actual station lines on the paper and readjusting the station lines back in CAD. All is now good to go, except for wondering if the aft-most gunport would be allowed to cut into the second strake down as shown in the second image without adjustment.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

Hay guys the plan is for the Berwick, and if it had a number on it for ordering it has faded. Hum maybe I can find the paperwork on it and it is of the whole wale and upper side planking. I take some photos of it and see if I can find some numbers for ordering it . As far as length's for the planks, seems they run all the way from 31 feet down to 25 feet 9 inches. Have to agree about cutting off the planks just to get them all the same length is a  big waste of wood. When they cut them like this it allready was a big waste of wood, but waste or strength they went for strength. Just my two cents guys. Ok I  go back to work on my hobby bench now. :o}

Edited November 16, 2017 by garyshipwright

[druxey]

They would be unlikely all cut to the same length, as A) the shift of butts have to be taken into account and  all butts must land in the middle of a frame. As for the aft end of the wale, for wood economy it might have been something like I've sketched. What do you think?

[SJSoane]

Mark, Gary, druxey, it makes all the sense in the world that the individual planks would vary in length to suit the wood available, and to ensure landing on a frame. Andy by extension, ideal proportions of 1/3 to 2/3 on top-and-butt, and 50/50 on anchor, could be adjusted by a foot or two to suit similar real circumstances in actual construction. So perhaps the Bellona model is showing reality more than an idealized model. I keep thinking that the starboard side of the model is demonstrating an unusual framing idea, compared to the conventional system on the port side. Perhaps the wales (which are only on the port side) are showing a conventional, practical system as well.

 

druxey, I like your simplification of the upper strake. My drawing shows perhaps too large a piece for too little additional strength.

 

Mark

[Mark P]

Hi everyone;

 

Gary:  thank you for the info regarding Berwick.  I have found the drawing you refer to in the NMM collections,  ref no is J2633,  or ZAZ7846. This is a remarkable drawing:  lots of lovely information!  I will have to get a copy.

 

Click on it and it comes up a bit larger,  and clearer.

 

The planks of the wale are not symmetrical. 

 

The contracts I mentioned above all ask for hook and butt planking for the spirketting and other locations.  It's very interesting to see this draught showing it so clearly though.

 

Again,  thank you,  Gary.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited November 17, 2017 by Mark P

[SJSoane]

Gary and Mark, very nice! It also shows druxey's idea for the aft strake, but with a little scarph to cut down the length.

 

Also interesting are what appear to be iron hanging knees inboard, or are these compass wood? they look thin for wood.  I don't think the Bellona would have had iron in 1760, but maybe?

 

Mark

[Mark P]

Hi Mark;

 

You raise an interesting point regarding hanging knees.  The Berwick was ordered in 1768.  The Culloden contract,  dated 1770,  makes no mention of iron knees for either the gun-deck or upper deck knees.  However,  the Fortitude contract of 1778 makes several mentions of iron knees for deck beams,  near the stern,  & to as many of the other beams as may be done. 

 

This would make it unlikely that the knees shown in the drawing are of iron,  unless it is from a later re-fit.  The NMM catalogue entry states that the drawing is not dated,  unfortunately,  and so could be later than the build date.  Unless there is something on the drawing which would indicate a date,  we probably cannot be sure if the knees are iron or timber.

 

One final thing:  the NMM have/had a contract for building a ship which was listed as being that for 'Berwick',  and which mentions iron knees.  However,  as the contract is quite specifically dated to 1779,  with Mr Perry at Blackwall (on the Thames) it is most unlikely to refer to a ship which was launched four years previously at Portsmouth.

 

This anomaly has either been recently corrected,  or is about to be so.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited November 17, 2017 by Mark P

[druxey]

The Berwick draught is a very interesting drawing. Those 'extreme' hanging knees shown on the gun and upper decks must surely be iron - they appear to be considerably less than a foot wide, judging from the scale in the upper right. The standards on the upper deck are wider and must be wood.  I was also looking at the knee of the head: all the joints are tabled ones. That would be a modelling challenge!

[garyshipwright]

Hi druxey. I measured the hanging knees on the plan of the upper deck and they come out to be around 8 inches taken in the movement age of the plan. The contract for her, says that they are post to be 8 1/2 inches sided.  

[SJSoane]

So those could be compass wood knees. Some of those are from very twisted trees!

Gary, I can't remember, did you get as far as installing those knees?

 

Mark

[druxey]

Those would be very 'compassy' timbers then!

[AON]

I thought I was reading poetry for a moment. 

[SJSoane]

Those trees come from a mysterious place.

 

A nice by product of expanding the wales in CAD is that I was able to create a very efficient template for cutting out both port and starboard pieces. These are laid out on the actual size of my blank, and the green line below shows where I have to cut down the middle to fit my thickness sander.

 

Mark

[garyshipwright]

3 hours ago, SJSoane said:

So those could be compass wood knees. Some of those are from very twisted trees!

Gary, I can't remember, did you get as far as installing those knees?

 

Mark

No sir have not done the hanging knees yet but have done the upper deck beams and fitted in place. Doing those knees, well that is yet to come.  ;0) 

[SJSoane]

I started looking more carefully at the upper deck framing and the knees we just discussed. In the continuing spirit of noticing things I did not notice before, I see in the Dorsetshire (1757) upper deck plan some very curious deck beams, where the three part scarphed beam has the center piece on the opposite side from the two other pieces, forming a wavy beam. Has anyone come across this, or have an idea why this might be?

The full print can be seen at:

http://prints.rmg.co.uk/art/492743/dorsetshire-1757

 

Mark

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

You are not the first one to observe this:

 

Blaise Ollivier: comparatif de la marine anglaise et hollandais avec celle de France.  12 avril 1737 au 29 aout 1737.

[druxey]

If you look at the forecastle deck plan above, you will see that the deviation of the upper deck beam is to allow the long ends of the spanshackle bolts to pass down through the upper deck beam to be forelocked below it. You may wonder why the beam wasn't simply a regular straight one placed slightly further forward. The outer ends are placed closer to beneath gun port #2 for support.

[SJSoane]

thank you, Gaetan and druxey. There is no end of subtlety and variety in this ship construction tradition.

 

Mark

[SJSoane]

I had to put the wales on hold for a while, waiting for the delivery of replacement thrust bearings for my bandsaw (shame on me, I discovered while tuning my bandsaw after my move that the bearings had completely frozen up). Keeping busy, I continued with the conversion of my drawings from hand-drafted to CAD, working on the upper deck plan. I came across an unusual arrangement, which raises a question. The Bellona has two curved beams in the bows, one fore and one aft of the foremast partners. These form unusual spaces that need to be filled with ledges no closer than 9" or greater than 12" apart. As I have drawn this below, just aft of beam 1, one ledge is landing on the head of the hanging knee, which I have not seen in any contemporary drawings. Has anyone seen this, or is there another arrangement for this? Also notice the space fore of beam 1 , with a lodging knee at an acute angle. I am thinking this knee would have to be scarphed together from two pieces, but I have not seen this in a contemporary drawing either. And a ledge is likely to land on the two arms of the knee. No problem with that as I can think, but very unusual.

 

Thrust bearings arrived yesterday, hope to be making sawdust again soon.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

[druxey]

Mark: for various odd-shaped spaces, I've seen wedge-shaped ledges rather like the ones in my illustration.

[SJSoane]

Hi druxey,

 

Thanks, I now remember seeing ledges like this in contemporary drawings, but did not understand what they were or why they appeared in certain places and not others. Now I see the logic once I tried to solve the problem myself.

 

One of the great delights of this endeavor, for me and I am sure others, is to reconstruct the logic of the construction from the evidence of the historical record. 

 

Mark

[SJSoane]

Yesterday I managed to cut out all of the wales parts. To refine the curved edges, I cut a sanding template to the radius of the wales in sheer in the center, and I am using this with my shooting board. The shooting board has a sloped ramp for the sanding template, which means a wider surface of sanding paper is presented to the piece as it slides back and forth, using the sandpaper more efficiently and avoiding grooves in the piece.

 

Mark

[druxey]

Seriously methodical!

Edited December 11, 2017 by druxey

[michael mott]

3 hours ago, SJSoane said:

The shooting board has a sloped ramp for the sanding template, which means a wider surface of sanding paper is presented to the piece as it slides back and forth, using the sandpaper more efficiently and avoiding grooves in the piece.

Mark this is one of those Ideas that I ask myself "why didn't I think of this"

 

Michael

[albert]

Great and precise work Mark.

[SJSoane]

Thanks, druxey, Michael and Albert. I am constantly fighting my natural tendency to "bodge" through things, rather than being more methodical. Methodical is more satisfying for me.

After playing around with various ways of cutting the hooked scarphs, I settled for now on using the Sherline mill to trim the inner flats, the disk sander to trim the outer flats, and the curved sanding blocks for the outer edges. I decided to keep the outer edges a little fat so I can trim these once on the hull.

 

three parts fitted, 53 to go...

 

Mark

[dvm27]

Sweet work, Mark. So, for those inner flat cuts are you simply drawing lines parallel to the cut line and aligning these with the mill vice jaws? I'll follow with interest as you proceed with your expanded illustrations at the bow!

[michael mott]

21 hours ago, SJSoane said:

I am constantly fighting my natural tendency to "bodge" through things, rather than being more methodical.

There is an interesting parallel to this. It is falling into the rhythm of trying to do everything on the next piece with the same tools as we used for the last piece, ie the mill, or the sander ,or the scroll saw. so I smiled when reading about using both tools to accomplish the task, because sometimes we just miss the opportunity and don't switch out of the rhythm.

 

Michael

[SJSoane]

Greg, I am putting an ⅛" brass spacer on top of the vise, and visually aligning the red line of the CAD printout on the blank to the spacer. I am keeping the cutter at a constant height as I change pieces. This means there is a slight variation from piece to piece as I inevitably align slightly higher or lower, or ever so slightly tipped one way or the other.

 

I am finding that I occasionally need to adjust these cuts slightly with a chisel and sanding blocks, to pull the faces on either side of the hook fully together. 

There might be another way to make this more accurate right out of the mill, but I am not sure if the extra time it would take to indicate surfaces and creep down to the line with the Z-axis handwheel would be worth it. If I were cutting these inner faces entirely by hand, I would be doing the minute adjustments with chisel or sandpaper anyway. But I am open to ideas on this!

 

I am concerned about what will happen when I begin bending these pre-made pieces at the bow. I hope my CAD true projection of the wale is accurate. I did print it out and wrap it on the hull to confirm the length; but I don't know if the joints will still be tight after bending. I may have to consider laminating the first pieces at the bow. The pieces are 9/64" thick, and I have experienced considerable spring-back when bending this wood in the past.

 

Michael, interesting comment about the rhythm of processing pieces through a tool. I learned from a comment from Gaetan a few years ago about the importance of repetition building accuracy and speed. I have extended this idea a bit by first cutting all the hooks on the scroll saw, then sanding all the flats on the disk sander, then moving to the mill for the inner faces. And now I see I have to move to the chisel and sandpaper to clean up the fits, which is more piece by piece.

 

Mark