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

[druxey]

Item: the moulding along the knuckle of the junctions of the counters should be 1" below the lower counter plank as a drip edge. You can see this feature on contemporary models if you squat down! Your illustration is above incorrect. Also, the upper surfaces of the mouldings are parallel to the sheer, not the decks. If this is not the case, you will end up with an ugly joint at the corners with the quarter galleries!

Edited April 4, 2020 by druxey

[SJSoane]

Thanks, druxey, that answers the question I had about making the miter at the corner work. I'll try redrawing it...

[SJSoane]

Hi druxey,

Here is a revision of the stern mouldings at the top and bottom of the upper counter, matching the sheer. I now see this has to work this way, so the mouldings wrap smoothly around the corner of the quarter galleries.

Less obvious is the moulding at the head of the windows, where the balcony sails over the top of a transom. the transom has to align with the deck sheer, but the top of the window wants to align with the outboard sheer so the middle stool runs smoothly into it. So there must be a wedge between the transom and the top of the window frame?

[SJSoane]

Like this:

 

And then there is a problem with the balcony above having to match the sheer of the deck, but the moulding at its face has to align with the sheer outboard. That means the soffit underneath the balcony is going to do something funny. In the photo below, the red line is the angle of the deck at the balcony, but the green line is a steeper line of the outboard sheer. So that moulding twists a little as it comes around the corner of the quarter gallery and flattens out under the balcony. I guess at 3/16" scale it won't be very noticeable!

 

[SJSoane]

Like this:

 

And since the balcony edge in plan is curved, the moulding will gradually adjust from the dotted on at the right (corresponding to the angle of the green line in the last post), to the one on the left (corresponding to the red line in the last post). How the original shipwrights worked out details like this to look good when it was all said and done is an increasing mystery to me!

[SJSoane]

Apologies, everyone, for my disconnected posts over the weekend. I was really thinking out loud, rather than explaining what I was thinking about.

 

The issue has to do with the mouldings at the knuckles of the upper and lower counters, and also at the head of the stern windows, which extend beyond the hull to form the quarter galleries.

 

Until druxey clarified this for me, I had assumed that the upper and lower surfaces of these mouldings were parallel to the sheer of the decks. But the sides of the quarter galleries are aligned with the sheer on the outboard. which is steeper than the decks at the stern. In this photo, the red line corresponds to the sheer of the deck, while the green line corresponds to the sheer outboard. You can see here that the tops of my moulding blanks are aligned more with the sheer of the deck. The little green line at the outboard end of the moulding shows what the alignment should be.

The reason for this is that the moulding wraps around the side of the quarter gallery, and will be at the line of the outboard sheer. If the top of the moulding across the stern were aligned with the deck, then there would be an awkward joint where the sides and the back come together:

 

Instead, the top of the moulding needs to be aligned with the sheer of the quarter gallery and therefore the sheer outboard.

 

So, all of the mouldings have to be designed as below, and the windows need to align with the outboard sheer, not the sheer of the deck. Below, green is the outboard sheer, red is the sheer of the deck. And you can see how the balcony is at the line of the deck, and so there is an inevitable but awkward junction between the two right above the windows. You can see that in the photo in post #1623 above.

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by SJSoane

[stuglo]

Just perfect

[druxey]

By George, I think you've got it! Although whether the sills to the lights slope with the deck or sheer is a mystery to me. I suspect that the gallery foot rail slopes as the sheer all the way across and, again, has a drip edge.

[garyshipwright]

Hi Mark. Just to let you know sir, druxey is a big help in getting us through the in's  and out's of the stern and every thing that goes to build this part. Will be watching your progress as we go. On a different not back a couple you talked about the chocks and other items aroun the rudder head and may use this in Alfred, with you permission that is. Being there really isn't any real evidence to show other wise on her. That and a little artistic licensing that is. ;o). Keep up the good work. Gary

Edited April 6, 2020 by garyshipwright

[rlb]

Speaking as an architect, not a shipwright, my preference would be for the sills and heads of the lights to be parallel to the deck sheer.  You wouldn't have that triangular sliver at the heads that way, and it would look more natural from the inside.

Edited April 6, 2020 by rlb

[rlb]

These are quickly grabbed online of Victory, how applicable I don't know, but they look to me like sill and heads are following the deck.

[Mark P]

Good Evening Mark;

 

I have seen references before to the fact that the deck in the quarter galleries did not follow the deck in the main cabin. 

 

I have also looked through my pictures of models, and although I don't have many looking at the quarter galleries square on, the one below is from Egmont, in the Science Museum. It is clear that the upper gallery windows follow the sheer of the ships mouldings etc. The bottom windows are slightly distorted due to their being below the centre of the camera lens (the model seems to have had a bit of a hard life, but the run of the windows is not affected by this)

 

The shot below, of Endymion, shows the same thing.

 

Regarding the curvature of the line of window cills and heads on the stern, the amount of curvature would increase with each successive level. This is one of the fundamental principles of elegant design. None of the curves on the stern are parallel to each other, although the difference is slight. The window cills will not be parallel with the deck, for example, but somewhat higher in the centre than at the sides. The picture of Victory actually illustrates this. The height of the moulded panel below the window can be compared to the height between the glazing bars. In the centre window the panel and the pane of glass are not greatly different in height. However, on the window closest to the side, the panel mould below is noticeably less in height than the pane of glass is. This can be confirmed by measurement of the photo.

 

Keep up the good work!

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Edited April 6, 2020 by Mark P

[druxey]

And the floor of the gallery follows the deck sheer, not that of the quarter gallery itself!

Edited April 6, 2020 by druxey

[SJSoane]

Thank you stuglo, druxey Gary, and rlb for your comments. This is an exceedingly subtle detail, I have discovered, and having many eyes on it will certainly make it better!

 

druxey, you are right, I overlooked the foot rail at the aft edge of the balcony; it should have a drip and also align with the moulding at the face of the stern. I will work on that detail a little more tomorrow.

 

Gary, by all means use any detail I came up on the Bellona for use on the Alfred. Because most of my details were worked out with the help of everyone especially including you, Gary. I look forward to seeing how it works out.

 

druxey and rlb, that is an interesting question about whether the sills of the windows slope on the line of the outboard sheer, or the sheer of the decks. My reasoning for aligning it all with the outboard sheer is in this very crude and out of scale drawing. I think all of the surfaces shaded in orange need to be co-planar, if I use that term correctly. Otherwise, inside the quarter gallery, the window sill at the aft end of the quarter gallery would be higher on the inside than the window sill at the side. And they meet each other right at the inside corner of the corner post where the discrepancy would be obvious.

 

I am not sure if this drawing shows this well enough, or if I have analyzed this correctly. All comments are welcome!

 

rlb, I was also trained in architecture, and I have had the same feeling as you at times, that the details of this ship seem awkward in terms of how one would detail a building. Different systems kind of crash into each other, like at this window detail, or like how the gunports just cut right across the outboard sheer. It can really upset one's aesthetic sense of how things ought to go together logically and beautifully! On the other hand, this ship has so many multiple curved surfaces interacting with each other that the awkward moments are just about inevitable. It continues to amaze me how well they reconciled so much of this.

 

Mark

 

 

[rlb]

Mark,

 

Yes, that is a big reason I love these ships, especially this time period.  Everything is curved in different directions, and yet so gracefully resolved.

 

Ron

[druxey]

Some of this only became obvious to me as I built the stern and quarter galleries. It was next to impossible to simply visualize! Of course, it meant a few makeovers, but it all works nicely in the (stern) end.

[mtaylor]

Mark,

The simple way to think of it is... two angles... the deck for inside, and the sheer for outside.   I don't remember who but this was pointed out when I did Licorne.   Sadly, I just remembered that even though I've been watching this whole time.

[garyshipwright]

On 3/6/2020 at 4:43 PM, SJSoane said:

Something a little more like this. This is about as wide as the mast partners. And a little wider seat on the rabbet.

 

 

Hi Mark thinking that I miss something back here.  After looking at your drawing some of the items make sense  such as the curved deck beam in front of the rudder. On Alfred upper deck plan does not show this beam so I did a little digging and Steel and other's say the upper deck had 28 beams but Alfred plan on shows 27 with a some what big gap from the front of  rudder to the back of the last beam. Seems to me I found my missing 28 beam. This curve beam does't show up on the sheer plan but shows up nicely on the deck plan of the Hecter.  Any way need to do some more research and a little deconstruction on a couple of  item if need be Thank you sir. Gary.

Edited April 7, 2020 by garyshipwright

[Siggi52]

9 hours ago, druxey said:

And the floor of the gallery follows the deck sheer, not that of the quarter gallery itself!

How should that go? Explain that please for me.

Please see also: the Construction & Fitting of ... by Goodwin, page 199. The floor is build into the quarter rails, and they follow the sheer of the galleries.

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

from Steel plates

 

I do not know about the English practices, it is  easier to build the French ones, everything aligns.

[druxey]

Just imagine that the deck juts through the side into the quarter gallery. The two surfaces are co-planar.

Edited April 7, 2020 by druxey

[SJSoane]

HI everyone,

 

The stern galleries elicited a lot of good comments. Thank you!

 

Ron, thanks for the photos of the Victory. I agree that the sills seem to line up with the deck; it would be interesting to see how far apart the outboard sheer is in relationship to the deck sheer. The Victory was originally built about the same time as the Bellona, and I believe had a similar sheer. When it was rebuilt for Nelson's time, did the sheer flatten? 

Also, it is interesting to see that the panelling below the windows inboard are recessed in-between the stern timbers; I have been assuming that the panelling was on the forward face of the stern timbers. My assumption makes the window frames quite wide, and the triangular piece at the head is prominent. But if the windows and walls were thinner, like in the Victory, this would be less obvious. I might explore that idea.

 

Mark, thanks for the photos of those models. Those show your point well, and they also show some great detail like on the moulding profiles. I like your rule of deck sheer inboard, everything outboard follows the outboard sheer. That seems to apply to everything I have seen so far. And regarding the changing angles as a way of creating beauty, I notice they also reduce the width of the mouldings as they are higher in the ship; matts for drawings and paintings also have a wider base than the sides and top for the same reason--it gives a solid visual base.

 

druxey, I was going to ask if you knew about the sheer of the mouldings because you had already found out the hard way...thanks for letting me learn from your initial mistake.🙂

 

Gaetan, I like your comment that the French ships are so much more rational. I know from my study of architectural history that the French were always known for a more rational approach to design, even when they applied elaborate Baroque decoration. So it is interesting to hear that they would be more rational in their ship designs.

 

Gary, my drawings of the Bellona also show a big empty space at the aft end of the upper deck, no transom,  no aft most beam, nothing around the rudder.  I looked at a number of deck plans that druxey sent in previous posts, and kind of made up the curved beam as the only reasonable way to get a beam in the empty space and still avoid hitting the rudder head. All the rest of it is also conjecture about how to encase the rudder head. I wonder why the shipwrights did not show any detail in this area of their drawings...

 

Steel says that the aft most knee should cast down to the beam fore of the curved beam; but I don't see how that works with a knee fore of the curved beam. So something isn't quite right here yet. And I assume there is a rabbet in the transom, to house the plank ends. But that is conjecture as well. I look forward to any other research you might turn up on this!

 

druxey and Siggi, I am going to mock up with cardboard the lower stool, and stick my captain on it to see what happens with the floor of the quarter gallery. This is such a perplexing detail, clearly designed to look good on the outside with less consideration for what happens within. I wonder if the officers read old copies of the London Times, and if there was a little newspaper rack....😏

 

Mark

 

 

 

[Beef Wellington]

 

5 hours ago, SJSoane said:

Gaetan, I like your comment that the French ships are so much more rational. I know from my study of architectural history that the French were always known for a more rational approach to design, even when they applied elaborate Baroque decoration. So it is interesting to hear that they would be more rational in their ship designs.

 

Be careful what you say, rationality is in the eye of the beholder!  The more exaggerated wales on British ships would help counteract hogging.  More of a concern on British ships which typically were more heavily constructed given the differences in expected role and tactics.

[druxey]

Yes, the deck transoms are rabbeted for the plank ends.

[mtaylor]

4 hours ago, Beef Wellington said:

Be careful what you say, rationality is in the eye of the beholder!  The more exaggerated wales on British ships would help counteract hogging.  More of a concern on British ships which typically were more heavily constructed given the differences in expected role and tactics.

The French did the same thing but differently.  They used a thick plank for the wale and then tapered the planks down from there.  See attached,  The wale is at the bottom of the chainplates.

[garyshipwright]

11 hours ago, druxey said:

Yes, the deck transoms are rabbeted for the plank ends.

Thanks druxey. It would be nice if somebody wrote a book on building one. Know any body by chance. ;o)

[SJSoane]

Mark, that is a very interesting cross section, for those of us focused on English construction. The tumblehome actually turns back out topside.

 

Well, I have spent a very interesting day working out the geometry of the quarter galleries. The green below is the head of the windows just under the quarter deck, while the purple is the sill of the same window, up from the upper deck. According to Steel, the lines of the muntins between the windows in plan should be parallel, in order to ensure no winding in the window face (which would make it impossible to fit flat glass). However, when I get to the muntin at the fore end of the quarter gallery, the line is not parallel to the others. It should be the leftmost blue line which is parallel to the others, and it turns out to be the rightmost blue line, which is based on the original sheer showing where the gallery hits the side of the hull at each of these levels. So something is not lining up right.

 

Did I read somewhere that the windows on the quarter gallery would have to be like the side of a cylinder, as opposed to the side of a cone, in order to ensure it is out of winding? Is that what the parallel lines insisted upon by Steel are meant to ensure?

 

Maybe a fresh look in the morning!

 

Mark

 

 

 

[druxey]

The quarter gallery lights are parallel top and bottom as well as the sides which are also parallel. Any inequality is taken up at the forward end and hidden under the canting livre. Yes, there are books that describe all this! Hint: the curve of the lower and upper sills are identical, simply the upper one is shifted in and aft by the rake of the gallery.

Edited April 9, 2020 by druxey

[SJSoane]

Thanks, druxey, so it is like on a cylinder not a cone. I put tracing paper over the Steel Plate VII, and sure enough, the upper and lower curves are the same, just shifted.

On paper, this makes my lower cill too short to accommodate the foremost munition; so it must be a drafting error somewhere. I will try mocking up some cardboard parts on the actual model and see what is going on here.

[SJSoane]

So a little paper shows a lot! My CAD drawing was accurate, and model reveals that if the top and bottom of the windows are parallel but offset, the top one has to pull out further from the hull in order for the lower one to just hit the side. In other words, there is a gap at the top one, as seen here:

Looking back at the second Bellona model, it is clear that this is made up somehow by what druxey called the canting livre, as seen here:

 

I see I need to lay out the window muntins from the lower sill, and leave the gap at the head. Then it is filled by that little triangle. Funny, I never knew what those were for, until I tried to lay out the quarter galleries!

 

Mark