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

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

On 4/8/2020 at 7:05 AM, garyshipwright said:

It would be nice if somebody wrote a book on building one.

It is kind of strange that it is still to do for English ships. 

For the French ships' Boudriot filled that gap, almost 50 years ago. Just to give an example, few weeks ago, I was checking the plans for the knighthead. Not only, did he shows it,  but he also shows it at different stages of its construction.

 

There is a factor which is is very helpful that you should also consider, Assembly sequences which helps to visualize the angles to reach.

 

[druxey]

Yes, Mark. The foremost munion is an odd triangular shape to fill that gap. The carved work hides this awkward junction. Also, it looks like the upper rim (in your mock-up) should be further inboard so that the munions slope in a bit more as seen from ahead.

Edited April 9, 2020 by druxey

[SJSoane]

I am still working on drafting the stern, which is the biggest challenge of orthographic projection I have ever attempted. Good think I have nowhere else to go. I will have more to show later.

 

But as I get up to the top of the stern, I have to make a final decision about which version of the Bellona I will build. I never did like the later 1780s remodel as shown in the second model, with its awkward railing on the sides of the poop deck:

 

SECOND MODEL

I much prefer the original design as seen in the original model below:

 

ORIGINAL MODEL

 

So to be consistent with the original design, I have decided to do all of the ornament as in the original design, which I also think is less fussy than in the second model.

 

And to be consistent, I should probably construct the serpentine curve to the balcony in the original model, as opposed to the balcony with the sharp break in the second model. Although, the original drawings show a balcony with a sharp break:

 

Hard to know how to get back to original...

 

A question for those of you with extensive libraries of photos; notice that in the second model, the decoration in the railing is pierced, whereas in the original model, it is a solid railing with the decoration applied to a solid face. Do you think this was an expediency for the model maker, or are there examples of other ships with similar decoration on a solid rail? I notice in the original model that the quarter gallery windows under the arches are carved from the solid, which I don't think would have been in the actual ship. This suggests that the railing might also be an expediency. It sure would be easier to build if it were solid and not pierced....

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

I've seen contemporary models with both open and solid balcony rails, Mark. Polyphemus, 64 of 1781 definitely showed a closed rail  on the 'as built' draught. Take your pick! The serpentine rails are more graceful though, I think.

 

When it comes to projection drawing, it's much easier to correct one aspect at a time. Trying to juggle and correct for round aft, aft slope etc. at the same time leads to nervous breakdowns! 

[SJSoane]

Thanks, druxey, I like the serpentine curve as well. It is a little unusual, as best I have seen in other ships of this period. I am very tempted to make solid balcony railings. I think it is likely beyond my skills to pierce those railings at 3/16" scale.

 

There is still much more to do, but here is a status report.

I finally figured out how to make that serpentine curved balcony, using 3 sweeps (compare to the hard break version of the balcony below the center line). I also discovered that the quarter galleries are arcs of circles; I found the point of the compass for the curve in my admiralty drawing. This is always exciting, to discover the hand of the original draftsman and how he made the drawing. I also discovered that the planking on the outboard of the frame, at the location of the quarter gallery, is quite thin, about 1 1/2" to 2". I saw this in the admiralty drawing, but did not understand it before. if the normal planking at this level came through to the stern, the interior of the quarter gallery would be very narrow indeed.

 

And here is the stern drawing so far. I blew up photos of the models, and constructed scales based on a known size (width of the frame at the sill of the windows). I could then scale various parts. Since I used two different photos and two different scales, I was able to adjust for perspective while also comparing it to the admiralty sheer and section drawings. I think I am getting pretty close to the shape and location of stern details.

 

 

[druxey]

Where did you find out that the outer plank within the quarter gallery was thinner than the outer planking, please? Can you quote the drawing? This is something new to me.

[SJSoane]

hi druxey

 

it is the plan in posting #1652 above. The plank shown on the inboard side of the frame is accurate, about 4”. The planking around the outside of the quarter gallery is 1 1/2” as you would expect; but then so is the planking on the hull inside the quarter gallery.
 

I don’t know how else to read this. If the planking were 5 1/2” thick here (it is the channel wale at this point), the seat would have to be shorter than is shown. Also, the planking would make the munion at this point way too wide at the stern. 
 

what do you think?

 

Mark

[druxey]

I meant if you had a ZAZ number for the plan, Mark! Sorry if I was unclear. 

 

I always thought that the outer plank thickness at the stern was concealed behind ( i.e. forward of) the dummy light and munion. Also, unless the captain was extremely obese, the seat would be quite wide enough to comfortably ensconce himself in a seaway!

[SJSoane]

Hi druxey,

 

This plan was a Xerox I bought from the National Maritime Museum back in the early 1990s, before their internet postings. It is of the Dragon, the Bellona's sister ship, because they did not have Bellona drawings for me at the time. I don't know if they do today, come to think of it. This quarterdeck plan is labeled Regd. No. 968, Box 19.

 

These drawings are pretty basic, which I why I get to spend so much fun time reconstructing much of this ship!

 

 

Mark

 

[druxey]

Ah! That's why. I could not locate a deck plan for Bellona; it must be filed under Dragon. Thanks, Mark. Definitely grist for further research.

[SJSoane]

More drawing. The Bellona has an interesting cove over the balcony, which took some time to plot against the plan and section before finalizing its shape in the stern view. I am not sure yet if the curve matches the curve of the stern screen wall, or the round back of the poop deck above. A dotted line in the plan shows it matching the round back of the poop deck.

 

This shows how small the doors are to the quarter galleries. My captain definitely cannot wear his hat while entering. I have also confirmed that there is a soffit under the balcony deck, which is aligned with the sheer of the quarter galleries. I am showing a frame and panel system for it, as I have shown for the panelling in the ceiling of the balcony.

 

Here I am showing with dotted lines the side planking at 5 1/2" thick, coming through into the quarter gallery. It definitely makes it a smaller space, but not impossible.

 

 

 

And once these details were refined in the plan and section, I had to go back and change some things in the stern view. The cove had to drop at the sides, and the upper windows in the quarter gallery got shorter, both of which match better the photos of both Bellona models. So it must be getting closer to accurate!

 

Mark

 

 

[SJSoane]

I haven't posted in a while, but I have been drawing all day long every day. The stern is definitely challenging to draw. I get the elevation worked out, only to discover that the section or plan no longer aligns. So I have to go back and forth among the three making constant adjustments. And since everything is connected to everything else, all is in constant motion...

 

I finally figured out why things would not line up. I had assumed that on the sheer, a line drawn along the aft most edge of the hull at the sides would be parallel to a line drawn along the aft most edge of all the decks at the center line. But it turns out that the line at the sides is not parallel to the line at the center. They converge slightly towards the top. You can just about see this in the original shipwright's drawing below. Note the two dotted lines, one at the side and the other at the center, are closer together at the bottom than at the top.

I finally figured out that this is because the radius of the aft deck ends is the same for the upper deck, quarter deck and poop deck. And since the decks are progressively narrower as they go higher, the amount of round aft decreases at each deck level. And so they are progressively shorter at the center relative to their sides. The following sketch shows the idea. The two radiuses are the same, but the upper deck gets a longer rise in the chord as at "A", than the rise of the chord for the poop deck at "B" So even though the poop rakes aft of the upper deck at the side, the rise of the chord is less. So the lines at the side and the center eventually converge. A small point, but I could not make the stern geometry work until I figured this out. Those original shipwrights were pretty clever!

 

With that problem fixed, it is now a matter of constructing the side galleries relative to the sheer and the plans of each deck. In the sheer below, the brown lines are the locations of the various rims and stools on the face of the hull itself, while the purple lines are the beginning of the outside view of the side galleries as they project from the side.

 

 

I learned more about the side galleries, working out how everything fits together. I realized that the original Bellona drawing posted previously did not include the thickness of the structure in the quarter gallery; when this is added, the space really starts to get smaller. The purple line shows the 4" thick plank within the quarter gallery; still not sure if it thins down here or not. The thicker plank definitely crashed into the stern window structure, but if there is a wooden backing to the glazing, this awkward junction would not be seen. These are snug places, 3' wide at the greatest width, and a 1'-9" door to get through into it. I am starting to wonder if there was room for a London Times newspaper rack after all...🙂

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by SJSoane

[druxey]

If there was space in there for The Times, it would be weeks if not months out of date. Reminds me of Lord Chesterfield's response to a letter he did not appreciate: "Sir, I have your letter before me. Soon it will be behind me."

 

On a more serious note, I don't think - despite the deck plan - that the outer planking would have changed thickness. The staggered junction of outer and inside outer (that's an oxymoron if there ever was one!)  plank at the fore end of the quarter gallery would be a real pain to execute.

 

I think that your cove in section looks absolutely right. I like your demonstration of the round ups of the various decks at their transoms. If it's any consolation, I had made the same assumption that the rake of the upper counter timbers was identical in my first model, until I discovered it didn't work!

[SJSoane]

Hi  druxey,

 

Thanks for the confirmation about the rakes changing from side to center. It took me several days of trying to get them parallel, and parallel they would not go! I now see that the stern assembly is in fact a large cylinder tilted backwards (same radius at each deck), with each higher deck cutting a little more aft into the cylinder because each is narrower. So obvious, why didn't I see it?🤪 I am frankly astounded at the sophistication of the geometry those shipwrights developed.

 

Yes, I think I am coming around to agreeing with the full width of planking running all the way astern. Now I realize that the drawing in posting #1652 shows 1 1/2" planking all around the quarter gallery, but it shows the seat full length without acknowledging the thickness of the structure that has to be there, which would have shortened the seat. So it is more like a diagram than an accurate expression of the construction. Another curiosity of the set of drawings.

 

Tomorrow, I am going to look at the captain's quarter gallery, where the room seems much narrower towards the top. A section might show just how tight it is.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

 

 

[SJSoane]

Well, now I don't know what to make of the original Bellona drawing labeled as the Quarter Deck plan. The quarter gallery shown here is actually the length of the quarter gallery one deck below, off the Upper Deck:

 

The quarter gallery for the Captain, off the Quarter Deck, is much shorter, and narrower. Indeed, it is quite tight...

 

This is really obvious in the sheer drawing, Captain quarter gallery off the Quarter Deck above, larger quarter gallery off the Upper deck below:

 

So, druxey, it doesn't look like this plan is very reliable evidence of anything, including the 1 1/2" planking around all sides of the quarter gallery shown in this plan. Curious why this is drawn this way...

 

Mark

 

 

[druxey]

A student's draught, perhaps?

 

Of course, when you realise that the average seat is only about 17" to 22" wide, 2' 8 ½" or 34½ " is ample for sitting in solitude. I wouldn't worry too much about the level of comfort here!

[mtaylor]

I'm not sure where I saw it, but one ship had the seat of ease in one quarter gallery and the other one had a small desk and stool in it.  

[garyshipwright]

Hi Mark .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Think I found some thing researched wise on the stern that I thought you may be interested in. For the last week maybe longer I have been researching the upper deck transom to install one in Alfred at beam level for landing the end of the planks on. After trying for a few days to using the measurment from Steel and the Repository and a few others like NMM plans, I had to cut out a good section of the middle of the transom which didn't make sense. Also to make it fit height wise  for the planks to lay level in the rabbit along the front edge, lots of wood had to be trimed away. Steel says it was post to be I believe 13 inchs in the middle. Well lets just say that didn't work to good. Your photo of the original model  doesn't shows  a transom behind the rudder as you show in post 1597 and 1599. The photo of the original model doesn't show a solid transom going all the way across the stern timbers, at deck level, going behind the rudder untill you get higher up  which I believe is the bench transom.  I have been trying to figure out why the space from the last beam on most plans don't show any thing beam wise  after the last beam , like a transom  against the stern timbers like you did. I believe that the space behind the rudder was to tight to fit a transom, and after you trim off the wood to make it fit for landing the end of the planks you would have cut most of you strength away.   Also when you look at the Plan 's in the NMM , one thing you will noticed is that when they drew out those plans every beam and  deck transom was shown on the plan 90 percent of the time. So the question kept coming up, were is that transom.  Most plans don't show a upper deck transom behind the rudder because there wasn't one, which is why there is such a empty space from the last beam in front of the rudder till you get to the stern timbers. Alfred showed me that one could not be fitted. I have seen plans showing a beam/transom that wraped around the rudder from the front that was attached to the stern timbers if you want to see it.  Now you ask, what did they land the deck planks on past that last beam. I believe what they did was install a batton or half beams one per side with a rabbit in the fwd edge, across the stern timbers for the ends of the planks. Not quite as hefty as a transom but do believe that this was hefty enough  to do the trick. There really wasn't any weight back here but they may of reinforced the planks with carling's and ledges underneith it. The only plan that I have seen with a transom behind the rudder was in Steel and that is a 80 gun ship. Maybe by the time of Steel who knows, maybe they increased the space to be able to fit a transom

Edited April 23, 2020 by garyshipwright

[SJSoane]

Hi Gary,

 

You are right. I can't see how to fit a transom behind the rudder that has any thickness to it at all. Below shows the plank running into the fore edge of the stern timber. A transom would really just be separate blocks of wood between the stern timbers, not a continuous structural member across the width of the stern.

 

That triangular block of material directly behind the rudder sitting on top of the stern timbers really has to be something like a chock or something to fill this space, I would think to keep water out of this area. Many years ago, I see I made a big chock behind the rudder hole, the same thickness as the stern timbers at this area. I think it needs to be filled up more to the deck level somehow. I believe the flat spot I made on this chock below is at the level of the top of the beams, so there really isn't room for a transom. Well spotted! So maybe it is a nailer on the tops of the stern timbers that the planks sit upon, either side of the rudder hole.

 

Do you think the curved beam I am showing in front of the rudder is not plausible, given the plans you have looked at?

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[garyshipwright]

Hi Mark  As far as the curved beam in front of the rudder in post 1589 of your log, that will work just fine, its behind the rudder head that causes the headache.  I believe mine is similar to yours and comes from  the  Hector upper deck plan. As soon as my camera gets a full battery I take a picture or two of it. I do believe that they would have done something like what Rekon 54 show on his Le Feuron. Another way that would of worked and probably was used, was to installed half beams with rabbets on the leading edge on each side of the rudder head. Information or the French way can be found in Boudriot 74 gun ship.  Now you say, well this is a english ship but the first true 74's came from the  French so I don't think am to far out in left field. Beside I have not found a better more accurate way and if there is am all ears. You will find Rekon log on page 7 and the photos are on page 12 of his  build. The post that show the batten I was talking about is the 3rd photo in post 347, 10 photo in post 358, and photo 6 in post 359. Let me know please what you think good sir. Mark I got a couple of photo's for you.  This part is still a work in progress so forgive me if every thing is not square. Gary 

Edited April 23, 2020 by garyshipwright

[Hubac's Historian]

At the 3:11 mark, of the following video, the narrator is showing how Victory’s tiller operates, on the actual ship.  Shortly after that point, you can see the tiller’s entry into the ship, and the same curved beam that you have fashioned, just beneath the entry point:

 

 

[druxey]

I'm trying to recall what I did here on Polyphemus, but it was nearly 50 years ago when I was building that part of the model! I do know that there was a curved beam forward of the rudderhead. I think I mortised two half-beam/transoms (with a rabbet for the plank ends) into the angles of the counter timbers, but wouldn't swear to this now. That would have been similar to Gary's proposal.

[SJSoane]

Hmm, I will get back to the stern frame in a little bit, but this morning I am struggling visualizing the mouldings that wrap around the stern to the quarter galleries. The stern slopes one way, and the side gallery slopes the opposite. In this image, the same green moulding is aligned with the rake aft to the left, and the rake of the quarter gallery to the right. These won't form a clean miter at the corner. The orange moulding shown here works for the rake of the stern, but has to be changed entirely in its profile to fit the quarter gallery, because it upward sloping surface has slope down on the side gallery to match at the corner.

 

 

The problem with the geometry is shown here. The upper diagram is a clean miter when both sides are the same rake, in this case vertical. The second diagram shows what happens with the left piece rakes aft, while the side piece rakes the other direction. The two can't form a clean miter. And yet, there are thousands of models that do this. Can't visualize it!

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

The green outline in your sketch should have the 'back' at right angles to the sheer of the quarter gallery. (Fip the forward green c/s, move it aft  and you'll see it will match). Mock it up in #3D if you need convincing.

[SJSoane]

So, I think I see it now, thanks druxey. I think the blanks for the mouldings at each location have to be shaped with a different back, to match the surface upon which it sits. The guide is the moulding on the stern, which will have a horizontal top surface. The ones on the quarter galleries then align to this, with a different back angle. And, the mouldings at the sill of the window are different in their back angle than the ones at the window head, because they sit on different raked surfaces. In the drawing below, the green moulding at the left (top and bottom) is the profile swept along the moulding, which keeps the top horizontal to the ground. The green mouldings on the right (top and bottom) are what I believe will match along the quarter galleries. I may have to make up some samples to really see this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SJSoane]

Marc, thanks so much for sending that video of the Victory. Fascinating to see some of the detail close up, and it is always a good reminder of how large all of these things are in the real ship, as opposed to our relatively dainty models. When we think about all of the details that are discussed on this website, and then think about how big they were in real life, it gives one an even greater appreciation for those shipwrights.

 

Mark

[Hubac's Historian]

Yes, it truly is mind-boggling.  In 2003, when I was standing in the guts of the Provincien, at Batavia Werf, it was almost incomprehensible to me how tall the stern rose above the keel.  The counter timber was gigantic!

 

You are really doing an incredible job, here, Mark.  It’s fascinating to me, the questions that arise as one works through their process.  And, as you say, it is astounding the complicated geometry that these shipwrights could render with their trained eyes and hands.

 

 

[druxey]

re post 1674: you've got it, Mark!

[SJSoane]

For geometry nerds only:

I woke up at 3 in the morning, suddenly remembering that traditional classical architecture has long dealt with how to wrap complex mouldings around a variety of forms. I dug out an old drawing book from 1919:

 

It reminded me that classical mouldings change their profile when they run into a surface not in the same plane, like a pediment moulding running down on an angle and then hitting a vertical wall. This book shows how to determine the profiles at various places.

 

 

The key to working this out is realizing that in plan, the various lines of the moulding have to match up at the line of the miter. In the drawing below of a quarter gallery corner (stern to the left), the brown line represents the edge of the moulding at the top, the green line represents the moulding at the bottom, and the blue lines represent the lines of the various moulding pieces like the vertical fillets. Since the moulding at the stern rakes back and the moulding at the side of the quarter gallery rakes in, the overall width of the moulding at the side will be narrower than the moulding at the stern. Furthermore, the top line of the stern moulding is aligned with the sheer of the hull, while the top line of the moulding at the side aligns with the roundup of the deck. When these all match up, then the profile shapes change relative to each other. The top two drawings represent the moulding at the stern and then at the quarter gallery respectively.

 

Now at 3/16" scale, the difference between these might be minuscule, probably outside my technical abilities to make different. One scraper might do the job for both. But it is finally satisfying to understand the true geometry, as the shipwrights would have had to work out on the real thing. 

 

Here is the difference in the actual profile edge:

 

 

Geometry lesson over, you can go back to your regularly scheduled programming!

 

Mark

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by SJSoane

[druxey]

Happy now?