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

[SJSoane]

Well, this will be a work in progress.

 

Working back and forth between Lees and Lavery, I have a first idea of the belaying points. The cavels, if I have this right, are used for the main yard, main topsail, and main topmast staysail halliards. The staghorns, or at least the foremost one, is used for the crossjack braces and mizen topsail bowlines. I cannot find a use for the aft staghorn so far. 

 

This feels very sketchy;  if and when I get to rigging, I will need to find some better sources...

 

No guests next week, hopefully some work on the channel wales will commence!

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

[garyshipwright]

Hi Mark. You might able to get a look at Steel's rigging and seamanship vol 1 and 2 which was writtern in 1794, reprint by Sim Comfort Associates in1978. Also Steel's  Elements of Mastmaking, sailmaking and Rigging  reprint by Edward W. Sweetman. This is a smaller book then rigging and seamanship but do believe the info  came from that. This one was also writtern in 1794 and was reprint in 1932 The last on I have come up with is Lever's Young sea officer's sheet anchor also done by Edward W Sweetman reprint in 1963 and was from the second edition 1819. Hope this is of help when you get to that point sir. Gary 

[SJSoane]

Thanks, Gary, I see I will have to spend a little time tracking down rigging arrangements in a couple of sources to see what makes sense for the Bellona. This may be a winter project!

 

At last, I got some time in the shop this morning. I decided to plank the sides, then mask and spray the main wales. I have too many edges on the wales against finished wood, and I am afraid that staining will leech through into the grain of adjacent wood--at least, that is what my tests have shown might happen. So I am not going to risk it. I will mask the wales, and then airbrush a number of thin layers of Admiralty Paints Dull Black.

 

Also, planking above the wales before painting allows me to adjust the black strake to the wales' thickness with a contoured sandpaper block, and so I need to save paint for when everything is adjusted and clean.

 

So, taking the advice of Gary and Siggi, I will install the channel wales next, coming back to plank the thinner stuff between the two.

It worked for the main wales to install a batten below, and I have started with the same idea for the channel wales. However, I see that things are not quite parallel at the bows due to a big twist in the tumblehome that the batten is not accommodating well. I may have to try druxey's use of black thread point glued to the sides...

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

[SJSoane]

I tried druxey's idea of string glued to the line. It is definitely easier than clamping a batten, and easier to see. the bow definitely fairs more easily.  I am not quite sure how easy it will be to fit the individual strakes to this string; it was very comforting to sit the strake on the batten as I fitted its edge.

 

Mark

[druxey]

Glad it works for you and you like it!

 

 

[SJSoane]

Hi druxey,

 

So as I walk around the model, trying to visualize how I start the lower strake, I see that the thread will not be a very firm edge against to start spiling planks. Would I now make a card template cut to the string line, with which I can then use to shape and test the lower edge of the actual wood plank? I would think this will be particularly needed for the first planks which will have to be steamed around the bows.

 

Mark

[druxey]

Spiling a card pattern from your thread line will work very well, Mark. Is the thread at the extreme bow a little high, or does it match the height on the draught?

Edited July 29, 2019 by druxey

[SJSoane]

Thanks, druxey. And thanks for checking, always appreciated! In this case, the string at the bow where it hits the rabbet is at the height as shown on the draught. There is an interesting visual anomaly here. The upper edge of the bow is trimmed to match the sheer of the small platform, which is parallel to the sheer of the upper deck. And since the sheer of the outer planking is more sloped than the deck, there is a little wedge of planking between the two that does not fair with the outer planking  (see below). This little anomaly will likely not show, since the headwork will later mostly cover this up.

 

But as I look at the string again, it looks like it does need to pull up a bit between where it hits the rabbet, and where it begins to go around the bow. It does dip a little between the two data points.

 

After sleeping on this, it occurs to me that I might as well start planking from the wales up, rather than planking the channel wale and then going back to plank in between. Starting at the wale gives me a definite edge against which to start spiling the upper planks. And as long as the channel wale is clearly lined off with the string, it should remain as accurate a placement as it would have been starting at its lower string anyway.

 

Mark

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by SJSoane

[druxey]

Yes, the platform always aligns with the lowest point of the 'bag' of the main rail. The gratings of the head are flush to both when added.

[SJSoane]

It took me a few days to draw the planking plan. I had some difficulty seeing how planking pattern would fit onto the actual sides and interact with the various gunports, so I drew the pattern itself below the ship sides, and then projected a line up to find the appropriate place for the butts (see below). On a few butts needed to be shifted from the pattern, to avoid falling directly above or below a port.

 

I am really appreciating my decision many years ago to do an Admiralty framing system; no planks to worry about below the main wales!

 

I did confirm that all of the gunports have stops, whether carrying a gunport lid or not. I could see this in photos of the 2nd Bellona model, and also in Rob Napier's Legacy of a Ship Model: Examining HMS Princess Royal 1773. I don't know why they would do this, except to provide opportunities to install gunport lids later. But I cannot imagine why they would ever do this. So, another mystery from the 18th century.

 

I have to do some experiments with how I will paint the red around the gunports. I am concerned about my red stain leeching into the ends of the planks, and am considering airbrushing the Admiralty Paints red into the edges. But how this works with my existing red stain is still to be seen...

 

Mark

 

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by SJSoane

[Hubac's Historian]

Just superb planning and draughtsmanship!

[SJSoane]

Thanks so much, Marc, I am a little surprised how much I did not draw when I did my original drawings so many years ago. There is a lot I have learned since then, and a lot I didn't know I needed to know!

 

Mark

[druxey]

Isn't it fun making those planking decisions as master shipwright? However, I would avoid placing butts close to or above ports as you have, aft of the waist. There are several planking expansions on the RMG web site. I'd look at some of those as a helpful guide. Also Steel or Rees have expansion drawings to study.

 

As for red port sills and stops, perhaps paint is a safer choice than stain or dye.

[Mark P]

Good Morning Mark;

 

One thing to keep in mind with planking is that where a continuation of the plank above a gun port would leave only a thin sliver of the next-below strake running over the gun-port, the plank above would often be widened in the vicinity of the port, so that it extended downwards and occupied the position of the below strake. The technical term for this was 'to give wood to the ports', which is frequently mentioned in building contracts. Whilst I have seen planking expansions showing this, I cannot at present remember where I saw one to include here for you. It was done by drawing a line at 45 degrees upward and outward from the top corners of the port, until this line intersected the lower side of the strake above the port. The area thus delineated was included as part of that strake.

 

Also, as Druxey mentions, butts above or below gun-ports were specifically avoided.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

 

 

[Landrotten Highlander]

Is there a possibility of staining the gun ports red before you plank?

[SJSoane]

Hi Landrotten Hghlander, yes, I will probably pre-paint on the frame itself, but the challenge comes in painting the ends of the planks where they land at the port. I am concerned that my stain will wick into the end grain and streak along the surface. My earlier experiments with staining in this area tended to do this. So I will need to use paint at this point, and work to match the color of the red stain elsewhere in the project.

 

Hi druxey and Mark, this planking plan is a monumental jigsaw puzzle. I was not able to find a 74 gun planking plan on the NMM site (does anyone have a link to one?), and so I was left with trying to reconcile various rules for planking with the reality of where I found ports. Also, the extreme sheer of the planking relative to the ports on a 74 leaves places where the two geometries really clash, particularly aft of midships. Here are a couple of issues:

 

Plank length

I worked with planks of 27'-1", which was in the range of Goodwin's 25'-30' lengths, and allowed each end to land on the center of a frame. Also, it seemed to work with the spacing of the lowest gunports; a different length eventually creeped the butt ends into a gun port further down the hull. But this length eventually creeps into the gunports on the upper and quarter decks, since they are at a different spacing.

 

Another option is to reduce the working lengths consistently at one point in the hull, keeping the butts aligned up the hull, but shifting the butts into a better spot. Has anyone seen this idea?

 

Aligning the butt ends?

I could solve some of the awkward butt ends by shifting the pattern to a different plank length higher up the hull. But all of the planking plans I have seen keep the butt ends aligned all the way up the hull. Maybe I should consider changing the lengths higher up? The butt ends won't even show under the frieze painting higher up.

 

Giving wood to the ports

I did give wood to the ports in a number of places, but the ones left unfixed are where the black strake would have to be pulled up to the lower edge of the port. I could not see this done in any photos of contemporary models. Maybe the black strake does pull up, but is dubbed down to match the thickness of the planks above the black strake at these points. This would appear to keep the black strake's upper surface as a smooth, uninterrupted curve. And it would provide a few more breaks in the planks above, reducing some of the butts needed further along the hull when I run out of the 27'- 1" length limit.

 

Little puzzles like this sure make one appreciate the ship builder's art!

 

Mark

Edited August 4, 2019 by SJSoane

[SJSoane]

I forgot to mention in the previous post that the Bellona was an early experiment with a 74, and the gunport spacings are not as regular as later ships. The original drawings from NMM even have the gunports shown in a couple of different locations in different colors at the upper deck and quarterdeck towards the stern, as if they were experimenting with fitting everything together. I chose many years ago to place my ports according to the original Bellona model, which was perhaps the most awkward arrangement. The later Bellona model has them in slightly different locations. In either one, however, any regular butt spacing scheme is bound to crash into a port in one place or another.

 

I have circled below some of the awkward butt ends. I wonder if I should give up on a regular pattern for butt spacing, and just move butts where needed to avoid ports?

 

By the way, the red planks below are the channel wales and the black strake, both thicker planks than the green ones. Also, the pattern of the main wales reproduces the pattern seen on the original Bellona model. So this firmly locates butt ends that the black strake needs to avoid.

 

Mark

Edited August 4, 2019 by SJSoane

[Stuntflyer]

Hi Mark,

 

It doesn't seem possible to prevent the stain from wicking into the plank ends. Then there is the issue of matching the paint to the stained areas. Have you considered doing everything with just paint?

 

Mike

[SJSoane]

Hi Mike,

 

That is a good question, I have been pondering for some time. I originally developed the red stain because I liked the softer look than paint. But I did not think through things like how to color the ends of the planks at the ports.

 

I have purchased the Admiralty Paints red, and I will see how close this matches the stain I have already applied to parts on the gundeck. Then I have a choice; I can try to tint the Admiralty paint to match the existing stain, and use it only where I have wicking problems. Or, I can switch over to paint altogether for the remainder of the ship, knowing that the red stain already applied on the gundeck pieces will be out of sight forever more, once the upper decks go in.

 

Do I recall correctly that you are using Admiralty Paints on your Winchelsea? And are you hand painting or air brushing?

 

Mark

[SJSoane]

When in doubt, look at the sources you already have...

I just looked at Steel's Naval Architecture plates, and discovered the expanded planking plan.

It is clear that the butts are not organized to align vertically on the hull; they bounce all over the place. And there are butts getting close to ports; I will measure to see what the tolerance was.

So, a little redrawing is in order. Two steps forward, one step backward, two steps forward...

 

Mark

[Landrotten Highlander]

It can always get worse -- look for the procession in Echternach, Luxemburgh:  3 steps forward, 2 steps back

[druxey]

Plank lengths did vary. Perhaps you planked yourself in (bad joke) by trying to keep them constant! In the Strel example above, you'll see all butts fall more-or-less halfway between ports. Also, try to avoid very short end planks fore and aft where possible.

[Stuntflyer]

1 hour ago, SJSoane said:

Do I recall correctly that you are using Admiralty Paints on your Winchelsea? And are you hand painting or air brushing?

I'm using Winsor & Newton acrylic paint. Grumbacher is also a good choice. I prefer to airbrush over hand painting, but that depends on how difficult it is to mask off the area being painted.

 

Mike

[SJSoane]

Looking at Steel's expanded planking plan really helped improve my plan. I discovered the following "rules" in his plan:

   1) A butt can fall over the top of a port, if it is at least two planks away from the port

  2) A butt can fall beside a port, if it is at least 2 feet away.

  3)  butts do not necessarily line up vertically; they shift from the normal spot if needed to follow the previous two rules

  4) wood is "worked up or down" to a port if the line of the plank is within 8" of the port.

  5) the black strake as well as the channel wale can be worked up or down.

  6) planks can go as long as 32' if needed to meet the previous rules

 

I also discovered the sheer strake, the one just below the planksheer at midships. It is not called out in the Lavery's Bellona drawings, but it shows in Steel and in David Antscherl's FFM Vol. II p. 21. This is an inch thicker than adjacent planks, and has a hook scarph at midships. I have highlighted it in orange in the drawing below.

 

And I discovered that the planking when worked up or down, falls about 1 ½" below the cill of the port. This implies that the port stop is the cill itself, and the planking drops below it to form the rabbet for the port lid. But Steel's planking plan does not show the same rabbet at the sides. So maybe the port stops are added at the sides?

 

And finally I discovered that the channel wales, if planked in three strakes as defined in most sources, causes the deadeye chain links bolts to fall on a planking seam. That doesn't make sense, but the original Bellona drawings clearly show these lining up one third of the way along the channel wale. Any thoughts about this?

 

So, I present my planking plan, version 2, below. I believe it follows all of the rules for planking that I have discovered, except for the curiosity of the channel wale chain link bolts.

 

Mark

[druxey]

Hmmm. What if you have four instead of five strakes below the sheer strake? What happens on the lower gun deck at port #11 when trying to install the port lid laniards? Sorry to pick holes in your argument, Mark! Check the plan for Hero: the preventers are set higher above the ports than that design plan for Bellona. Also, see the  bolts relative to the ports in the Bellona model photo:

 

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66299.html

[Mark P]

Good Morning Mark;

 

With regard to port stops, Druxey & I, and others, have had some lengthy discussions on the subject, which I feel fairly confident in saying settled the matter to the satisfaction of most, which was that no additional timbers were added to the sides/tops/bottoms of ports, and that the stops were formed by ending the planking short of the sides of the openings. Perhaps Druxey can point you to these posts should you wish. It is beyond my skill level, unfortunately.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[SJSoane]

Hi druxey, yes, more jigsaw puzzle. The image with the blue station lines below shows port #11, and the small dots are the locations of the lid laniers. I eyeball measured the height of these above the gunport from a photo of HMS Victory, as a proportion of the height of the port. Although they fall very close to the seam of the channel wale, they clear the preventer plates.

 

The image without the station lines shows ports around the main mast closer to the waist, and here we can see how the bolts at the tops of the preventer plates come very close to the seam of the channel wale. The wale is specified as three planks, and the wale and the preventer plates are located exactly as drawn in the original Bellona sheer; so as designed, the bolts fall in an unfortunate place. It is also interesting that the lower ends of the plate fall off the wale altogether. Since I am building it as designed, I guess I live with this. It will make an interesting talking point years from now...

 

Mark, thanks for reminding me of the discussion about the port stops. I now remember being convinced by the argument, and intend to form the stops that way on the model. What is interesting about the Steel planking plan is that the plank edges at the bottom of the port show how they form the rabbet at the cill; but the planks at the sides come right up to the edge of the frame without forming a rabbet. I am guessing that this may have been drawn for convenience, and that they should have been shown stopping short. But what do I know?😊

 

Thanks, everyone, for continuing to critique my interpretations and drawings. This project gets significantly more accurate from your questions, comments and suggestions. Good thing I am retired and have time to go back and redo things. This process also points out the value of first drawing it as best one can, then getting comments on the drawing and adjusting accordingly. A temporary step backward, in order to jump forward! (and Landrotten Highlander, I looked up the Echternach, Luxemburgh dance on YouTube; at good metaphor!)

 

Mark

[druxey]

I can't help thinking that the shipwrights cheated the preventer plate up a few inches to avoid the seam. The area above gun deck port #11 looks pretty crowded! That the lower end of the plate is secured below the wale is not unusual: you will need to 'kink' the plate to match the contour of the side. I had to do this on Polyphemus years ago.

[SJSoane]

Thanks, druxey, I will shift them up a little. It only needs to be a few inches. I also note that they are different lengths as they move astern. There is no rhyme or reason to this, except that they were trying to avoid collisions with other things. So there must have been a little flexibility in this.

 

I'll bet when the draftsman was laying out the sheer and the preventer plates, he was not thinking too much about where the plank seams would land; assuming the shipwright would adjust accordingly when working on the actual ship.

 

Mark

Edited August 6, 2019 by SJSoane

[SJSoane]

Here is another oopsie in the different Bellona drawings, where the sheave for the main tack appears to be hiding directly behind the chains and preventer plate/bolt for the  foremast standing backstays. The original sheer from the shipwright does not show the sheave, while Brian Lavery shows a sheave in this location in the drawing on the inboard side of the bulwarks. Could the line from the main tack really sneak its way through this?

 

Mark