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

[SJSoane]

druxey, good suggestions. I drew the location of the gun carriage at the port to study this, and realized that the standard has to shift forward of the gundeck beam below it, to give enough clearance for the gun when it is run out. That then leaves room for the port tackle eyebolt to remain in its correct position, and the breeching ringbolt can move onto the face of the standard. And this only works if I shift the hanging knees at 14A and 15 to the fore sides of their respective beams. The dotted lines are my original idea, the purple lines are the proposed solution. Who says there are a lot of inter-relationships among the parts!☺️

 

Mark

 

 

 

[garyshipwright]

Mark am still looking for this rule that says that they went on the aft side aft and the forward side  forward.  I brought this same thing up in my log about the placement of hanging knees and strength wise. Most deck plans don't show the knees but I have found with the help of other's a few plans that in fact show the placement and seems to show the hanging knee's on the fwd side. If you can mount  them as you have shown then why would you use a cast knee when you could use a normal hanging knee. Was this rule so enforced that the ship wright was over ruled and used up timber that was hard to find.  As druxey said  If I were master shipwright I might be tempted to place 14A forward of the beam as well.... and total agree with him.   i find on Montague/Alfred that I have ran in to the same problem that you have and probably will shift them to one side or the other but at the same time try to maintain the rule.  On the other item using a contract of 1770 it say's to have four rings and two eye bolts to each port and two of the ring bolts to be placed in the second timber from the port , the ring to be 5 inch's in Dia and the eye bolts sufficiently open for the tackle hooks. It also said that there are two eye bolts over each port for lashing the guns. More to come

Edited December 6, 2020 by garyshipwright

[druxey]

Almost exactly what I envisaged, Mark. A workable solution! The hanging knee in this position does not have to be so extreme: the surfaces that are near horizontal can be a few inches higher and still provide room for the bolts to the beam.

[garyshipwright]

Mark I do believe that the placement of the lodge knees and hanging knees was changed around the 1750/1760. I believe that you could go back to Charles second, of the way knee's were laid out. I have been looking at this and belive that the plans I show of the Vengeance and Hector is right and really didn't have any thing to do with were they were built. If you go back in Endsor book The Master Shipwright's secrets, to page 185 you will see that the beams of the gun deck and upper deck has the hanging knees shown as druxey said and the plan is of the Tyger 1681. Now if you jump to 1711, in William Sultherland  on page 42 he shows what I believe is a plan of a 3 decker showing the placement of the hanging knee's aft on the aft beams and forward on the forward beams. Now if you move forward to Dorsetshire built I believe to the 1745 establishment on her upper deck it shows, the same. Now the plan of the arrogant of 1761 shows a change of were some hanging  knees are on the forward side and some on the aft side. Now we get up to 1774 where Hector and Vengrance both come in to play. Both have the same set up and shows lodging knees on the aft side on the aft beam's and on the forward side of the forward beams which I believe is right and  takes us all the way up to Fincham 1853. Now when you look at Reess Navy Architecture of 1819/1820 he shows on the gundeck plate 5 showing 21 hanging knees were on the aft side and 10 were on the fwd side.  Steel 1805 shows in plate 5, 21hanging knees were on the aft side and 10 was on the fwd side. Now in Fincham book of 1853, Outline of shipbuilding, pg 46 gives us this. It doesn't give us the layout of the hanging knees but the lodging knees which is in line with the Hector and Vengrance plan.  The lodging knee were placed on the after side of the beams before the middle  and on the fore side abaft, that the knees might be obtuse angles with out a square for the ease of getting them and that they might be of less expense. They say the middle line which I believe in Hector case and Vengeance that the middle line was in aline with the forward capstain

[Siggi52]

Hello Mark,

 

your problem is a self made problem. If you had a look at the decks plan of the gun deck, you would see it. Here I show the decks plan to the sheer plan. In blue are the beams you have drawn, but you did't draw the short bowed beams, in red. Sorry my english. If you set the standard at that short beam, you did it! The same with he next beam. Why did you omit that standard in your drawing?

 

 

 

 

[SJSoane]

Thanks, Gary, your historical look does suggest this was an evolving idea in the shipwrights' world. the internal planking diagram of the Arrogant of 1761 (in the Lavery Bellona book, page 46) does show hanging knees on the upper deck bouncing back and forth between fore or aft of the beam, not necessarily related to the midships line of the hull. So your date of about 1760 seems right, as a time when things started to change. The difference in dates between your ship and mine may make a difference in how we handle this.

 

Thanks, Siggi. My short curved beams are 14A and 13A in the section, which don't line up with a beam in the gundeck below, so I didn't see how there could be standards at those locations. I assumed that standards would always line up with a beam below, otherwise they would be pressing down on thin planking, not structure. But the contracts of the time call for 11 standards on the gundeck, which is fewer than the number of beams. So maybe I have the standards in the wrong places. I will have to look at that.

 

In the cold light of morning, I see the knock-on effect of moving these knees around. My purple proposal below puts two hanging knees in the space between 14 and 14A, which leaves no room for a lodging knee. And a lodging knee seems particularly important here, taking some of the load of the short curved beam to the side of the hull.

 

 

 

I can't find any examples of  two HANGING knees in the same space in an important location like this. I have seen, and drew, two LODGING knees in a same space, which is how the pattern changes from fore to aft of center. See the locking lodging knees between 12 and 13 below.

 

 

 

 

The only example I have seen of a space with two hanging knees and no lodging knee is in the internal planking diagram from the Arrogant of 1761, referenced above. But the several instances are  in places with another beam very close by, with little room for a lodging knee. A lodging knee in these spots would not be nearly as important as the one between 14 and 14A above.

 

 

So I think the quest continues on how to manage this particular intersection of knees and standards....

 

I sure am glad I am retired and can spend lots of time on fun problems like this!🙂

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by SJSoane

[druxey]

I didn't realise from the previous elevations that 13 A and 14A were the curved half beams. As most of the stress on these is from the mast and sails, it would be lateral rather than compressive. An heretical thought: was perhaps hanging knee 15 omitted altogether?

[Siggi52]

Hello Mark,

 

one question, did you plan the standards for the gun deck or upper gun deck? The gun deck has also these short curved beams. They are directly under the beams 13a and 14a. At the Dorsetshire they had no scruple to set standards above them, so why you? 

[SJSoane]

Siggi, Ah, you are absolutely right! I did not draw the small curved beams in the gundeck on the section drawing. That changes my options a great deal, giving two more locations for standards. Maybe I can get the #6 standard away from the troublesome area. Thank you so much! I'll spend a little time rethinking what is going on in this area.

 

It sure does help to have many people looking at these details, since I seem very able to miss things by mistake.

 

Mark

[SJSoane]

I am gluing in the quickwork, now stained red, but I have only 4 clamps that will work through the gunports, so this is a day of glue, wait, glue, wait... It gives me time between gluing to think more about the knee issue here.

 

With Siggi's help, I moved standard #6 forward one beam, which cleaned up room for resolving the hanging knee on beam 15. It could: 1) run aft, as shown dotted; 2) or starting aft of the beam but running forward, as in the purple; 3) from forward of the beam as shown in orange.

 

The orange option is the cleanest in section, but in plan it puts two hanging knees in the same space, leaving no room for a lodging knee. And beam 15 is especially important, anchoring the main mast partners and the bitts at the center. I would think it would want all possible lateral support in the way of a lodging knee.

 

The purple and dotted option leave a lodging knee forward of beam 15, but  would be some of the weirdest compass timbers ever grown. I think I will have to sleep on this choice....

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

[SJSoane]

I just saw druxey's earlier note, wondering if a lodging knee does anything in this short space between 15 and 14A. It has virtually no longitudinal arm, so really isn't doing much in the way of lateral support. Maybe 14A is acting as a massive knee for 15. Food for thought....

 

I'll bet when the master shipwright was done laying out ports, beams, etc., he left it to the poor assistant shipwrights to figure out these little details, and to swear a little at the master shipwright not thinking this through more fully!

 

Mark

[SJSoane]

Enough drawing; here are the first images of the quickwork being installed. The red is looking very dramatic.

Also note the thickness of the hull at the gunports. That was some substantial work.

 

The quickwork became quicker when I took a clue from Greg Herbert and David Antscherl, making up card patterns from multiple pieces. I taped a piece to the top of the spirketting that was not the full height of the quickwork; and then another piece under the clamp above, taped to the lower piece. When I pulled this off, I had the exact shape and width of the quickwork needed. I traced onto the wood, and bob's your uncle. The biggest challenge was keeping the notes clear on each piece as to which way is forward, and which edges are concave or convex.

 

 

I also set up a little drilling jig for the eyebolts. Since the quickwork pieces were not uniformly the same width and had different angles cut on the ends, I set the fence of the drill the desired distance up from the lower edge, and a stop that was pointed at the exact height above the lower edge needed for the hole. That way, different pieces were always registered at the right distance up and out from the lower edge of the port.

 

And finally, scoring and staining

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by SJSoane

[garyshipwright]

Mark how come you just don't put in two lodging knees between 15 and 16? Here is a couple of photo's of Hector which may help. Good ideal of putting in a dagger knee, looks good. I do believe that having a hanging /lodging knee on the ends of the beam was probably the most important. Mark if you look at the second beam forward and its arm your noticed that between the arm and beam it has two hanging knees and a double set of lodging knee between beam 2 and 3 and has a missing lodging knee on the front of the arm. Wouldn't you have as much stress here from the fore mast as you would at the main mast?  Sleep tight. 

Edited December 6, 2020 by garyshipwright

[SJSoane]

Gary, thanks so much.

 

Your attached drawings showed me the way, I think. Inflexibly following the rule of hanging knees aft of the beam when aft of midships, I had to create very large and even improbable compass timber knees. Once I saw in your Hector drawings that the shipwrights periodically shifted to the fore side of the beam when needed for other reasons, it gave me the freedom to simplify the knee shapes and locations. In the drawing below, the purple shows where the knees violate the general rule, but simplify the construction. By the way, I looked again at the Dorsetshire plan, and it also shows places like this where two lodging knees fill the same space without hanging knees.

 

The most extreme compass timber on a hanging knee is at beam 23. But I left a hanging beam off of 24 to leave room for the sheave in the side for the tiller rope. So running the hanging knee at 23 aft seemed to give a little more structure to this area of the hull.

 

I don't know about the general pattern after about 1760, but within this period there was definitely some flexibility with the general rule, for good constructional reasons.

 

Thanks again,

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

And now you have earned the title of Master Shipwright, Mark. Congratulations!

[SJSoane]

Coming from you, druxey, that means a great deal! The toughest part of the exam was calculating the displacement of the hull by 18th century math techniques...🙃

 

Mark

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

1 hour ago, SJSoane said:

within this period there was definitely some flexibility with the general rule, for good constructional reasons.

 

I would think that the period was larger. There were variations  from one port to the other and from a builder to the other. Also, from time to time there were also variations from the drawings, because sometime, there are details, which almost only can be seen, on the  construction site, exactly as today.

[garyshipwright]

Your welcome Mark. You could put a hanging knee on the aft side which would ensure one hanging and one lodging knee. From looking at your drawing your sheave at the side is clear of the aft side of the beam so I am not sure why you just don't put the hanging knee there. As you can see on mine I also had a standard to deal with. Another item comes to mind is your sheave in the side or attached to the underside of the tiller sweep? Gary

[stuglo]

a level to aspire to

[SJSoane]

Hi Gaetan, I am coming to the same conclusion, that the rules were something to aim towards, but not something that could be followed without adjustment. There are too many conflicting rules: 1) a beam under every port; 2) no excessive curved, compass timber in knees; 3) knees relative to fore or aft side of a beam different fore and aft of midships. Not all rules could be followed in every location. So it is up to the experience and judgement of the shipwright to find the best compromise among all of the rules.

 

Thank you, stuglo, for your kind comment.

 

Gary, I posted something on your postings about this. Also, I will look at whether I can get a hanging knee near the sheave for the tiller. And regards the tiller sweep, I am relying on Goodwin's Construction and Fitting book that the sweeps did not come into use until a few decades after the Bellona (1760), so I am having to do sheaves on the sides and ropes straight from the tiller to the sheave, and back to the sheave taking it up to the quarterdeck. I understand the tiller ropes go slack at some point in this older system, which eventually I will find out when I built it.

 

And, here is the starboard quickwork completed, and a template starting for the first standard. Once the red goes all the way up through all three decks, it is going to look like a red velvet liner inside a jewelry box!

Mark

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

Looking lovely, Mark. But what is that piece just aft of the aftermost lower deck port?

[SJSoane]

Oops! I had temporarily attached a wooden pad to the side for clamping in the last piece of quickwork without damaging the wale. I forgot to take it off before I took the picture. It could be used as a spare rudder, perhaps, like on a Viking longboat?🧐

 

That reminds me that I don't know how I would have built this without those handy gun ports providing endless places to clamp. I can never do a merchant ship....

 

Mark

 

 

[garyshipwright]

6 hours ago, Gaetan Bordeleau said:

 

I would think that the period was larger. There were variations  from one port to the other and from a builder to the other. Also, from time to time there were also variations from the drawings, because sometime, there are details, which almost only can be seen, on the  construction site, exactly as today.

Hi Gaetan and I would total agree with you and saying that it was between 1750 and 1760 is total wrong and probably over a period was larger.

[SJSoane]

The Christmas tree I built to my wife's design....

 

Now on to the real stuff. I started on the standards on the gun deck, which I remember Gary saying was really tedious. Now I know why.

 

It was a full week, making the patterns of individual pieces taped together--thanks Greg and druxey, I think this was your idea originally. Then siding and rough cutting the blanks, then measuring the angles of the deck sheer and the curving in of the hull side at each point.

 

And finally, shaping the first standard. It only took me about 4 hours, and just 21 still to go! I am sure it will get faster--won't it?

 

I was thinking about leaving them and the breasthook natural wood rather than staining red, but now I am not so sure. I will put in a few more, along with the gun carriages, to see the overall effect.

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

That's a great start and yes; things get easier and faster with practice, or we'd never finish a model!

[garyshipwright]

Mark you may already know this the space between the standard's and the water way should be open so it wouldn't block the movement of water to the scuppers.  I found out that fitting the back of the standards to the wall  first and the bottom to be a good fit then I cut the outside profile.  Just my way of doing them and also do the lodging and hanging knees the same way. She is look good  to by the way and was wondering are you going to install bolts in them?  Gary

[SJSoane]

Thanks, druxey, and at least the ones towards midships are not as angled in both directions.

 

I forgot to mention that for the knees I decided to use up old cut-offs of boxwood from the hull frames that have been lying around for years. The biggest challenge was siding and then sawing out their profiles. The pieces were too small to run through the thickness sander, or to cut on the power scroll saw. I built a little sled for the thickness sander, and stuck them down with double sided tape. I measured thickness using the digital caliper's depth gauge. And a fret saw and a bench pin made quick work of the sawing. Less noise, very pleasant....

 

 

[SJSoane]

Hi Gary,

 

Just saw your post as I was posting my second one. No, I did not know that there is a space between the standard and the waterway. It makes perfect sense, though.

 

That would make this a very much easier process. Getting that tight was the slowest part. Do the photos on your site show the gap shape and size?

 

Yes, I have copied your process, fitting first to the beam, then slide up to fit to the side, then cut the curved profile when everything is properly fitting. It sure makes things easier for me to be a number of steps behind you; I get to learn from your solving the problems first!

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

[SJSoane]

Gary, 

 

Here is one of the photos from your project. it looks like the gap is just a bit clear of the waterway in both width and height. Is that right?

 

 

 

[garyshipwright]

Mark am not sure where I found the information on that spacing and will look and see if I can find it.  I think you might have to be the ship wright in this case and I added a photo so you can see what I did on the ones I made. I think this is a better photo showing the space then the one above.

Edited December 19, 2020 by garyshipwright