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

[garyshipwright]

Hi Alex. Have to agree with you and went through a few plans and saw the same thing. In the contracts, found a couple that said the stemson went all the way up to the upper deck breast hook and others said it stopped at the gun deck breast hook. Some make no mention of the standard at the stemson and others do. it seems to comes down to what your plans might show and how that person may want to  do it. Alan has the contract of that ship and plans that shows how this was done and  his plan shows the stemson which doesn't go all the way up, which seem to be a commen thing on weither the standard was installed or not. In my cause Alfred shows the standard at the apron  with the stemson stopping at the gun deck breast hook, but her sister ship the Montague shows the stemson going all the way up to the upper deck breast hook and no standard.  Mark forgive me for taken up space in you log but hopfully the infor will help others. Well back to researching. Gary

[SJSoane]

Thanks so much, Alex, Alan and Gary. This research is endlessly fascinating! The Bellona project is particularly challenging, because the original Admiralty drawings had very little detail, much less than I see in these later draughts.

 

And as I read elsewhere on this website, the absence of something in the archeological record is not proof of its actual absence; so I cannot assume that if something is not drawn in the Bellona draughts, it does not exist.

 

So it is particularly interesting to hear of the pattern Alex identified, and Gary confirmed, that there seem to be two different approaches to reinforcing the stem. One has the false stem or apron going all the way up to the upper deck breast hook, and no standard; and the other has the false stem stopping at the gundeck breast hook and then includes a standard on the gundeck. Two schools of thought.

 

Based on that pattern, I see that the Bellona draught (below) has the false stem going up to the upper deck breasthook, and therefore would not have a standard.

 

If a drawing ever shows up circa 1750-60 with a false stem up to the upper deck breast hook, and also a standard on the gundeck and a breasthook just under the hawse holes, then I will reconsider. but until then....

 

I am humbled at how sharp-eyed you all are, to see these issues and patterns. And I benefit from it; thank you so much.

 

And by the way, Alex, your drawings of the Anson are as detailed and as beautifully drafted as any I have ever seen. You are a master, and you have inspired me to improve my own drawings of the Bellona. You set a very high standard!

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

You have drawn some good conclusions about false stem/breast hook/standard construction.

[garyshipwright]

Well Mark  it may not be the right time frame but, a few years later then Bellona one does show up. Merry Christmas sir. 

[SJSoane]

Hi Gary,

 

Well spotted. So here is an example of an apron up to the upper deck, and also a standard on the gundeck. So the question is whether this was done around 1760, or came in later, by 1780. You have all found enough examples around 1780 to make it pretty clear this was normal by then.

 

Might be a toss-up for the Bellona. Either it was normal practice, just not shown on the Bellona or Dorsetshire sections, or it came later, maybe as the gundeck lengths increased?

 

I might rough one up, and see how it looks. At the rate I am going, the gundeck will still be open a long enough time that we will find clearer evidence for me to make a final decision. Maybe too late to make a split apart hull like the one at Annapolis!

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

 

 

 

[Alex M]

2 hours ago, garyshipwright said:

Well Mark  it may not be the right time frame but, a few years later then Bellona one does show up. Merry Christmas sir. 

 

Hi Gary,

 

I have seen this plan, the Standard is drawed with pensil, what is unusual for "official" alterations, and ist not noted on the plan as other alterations usually does. It can be that it is drawed much later for another purpose like building a modell? Some plans in NMM have such details drawed with pensill...

[garyshipwright]

Hi Alex and Mark. Alex your right sir and it is drawn in, being a much later time frame with a few other alteration going on.  Mark I wouldn't change a thing sir. When I was going through more plans,  I noticed that more was of the type with the stemson going all the way up to the bottom of the upper deck breast hook and no standard, which I believe was the norm untill much later. I did see a couple , later time period that show a standard, with the stemson going all the way up to the bottom of the upper deck breast hook but when you blow them up it looks as if someone had erased the stemson from the upper deck breast hook down to the bottom of the gun deck breast hook, which tell's me you had one or the other but not both.  That is untill some one comes up with some thing that says difference. Merry Christmas  guys.  

Edited December 28, 2020 by garyshipwright

[SJSoane]

Thanks, Gary, that sounds as definite as I need to omit the standard. I guess there are a few compensations for building a ship in the early mid 18th century; more stuff appears later on, like the sweep for the tiller. It makes my project downright easy!😊

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

[SJSoane]

A patient day of final shaping of the standards, and making bolts. Starboard done today, port tomorrow. then clear finish and final installation at last!

 

The Foredom drill press converted to a sander worked very well for final shaping.

 

 

 

 

 

[Stuntflyer]

Awesome work!

 

Mike

[SJSoane]

Thanks so much, Mike, that is high praise indeed coming from you--you set a standard of craftsmanship on your project that I aspire to!

Mark

[druxey]

Looking very good indeed, Mark. Question: it's hard to tell in the photos, but are the edges of those standards chamfered off?

[garyshipwright]

Nice job Mark. Just one question sir and was wondering what your using to make your bolt's? Thank you for a real treat. Gary

Edited December 31, 2020 by garyshipwright

[SJSoane]

Thanks so much, druxey and Gary. druxey, I still have to chamfer the edges, at this scale a slight bevel with a sanding stick. Gary, I used the Amnesia black monofilament fishing line. For the required 1 1/4" diameter bolts, I used 25lb line which is pretty close to accurate size for 3/16"=1'-0". A #73 drill, and Locktite gel superglue.

 

I am still working out ways to get these pinned in place. I am going to have to scrape finish away on the spirketting and quickwork, and also in some places on the deck which I finished many years ago before realizing it was premature for things like this still to come. So I am a little worried about glue alone keeping the standards from coming adrift, if I can't get reliably down to bare wood in these locations.

 

One day to go before this year is over!

 

Mark

[garyshipwright]

Mark couldn't you do the same thing that I was talking about for holding the cannons. Take a flat piece of wood and make it the same size as the bottom of the standards with a couple of holes in it. Then you could mark the bottom of the standards, drill the holes and put peg's in them. At the same time use that same flat piece of wood with the holes in it to  mark the lay out of the holes  on the beams. I know you will come up with some thing.  Happy New Year Mark. Gary

[SJSoane]

Gary, nice idea.

 

I started thinking it through, and realized that I can't get my drill into the right place on the deck and keep it vertical, so it would be difficult to line up holes in the standard and then the deck at the same angle. I also worried about being able to push the standard firmly against the bulwarks, if the pin were slightly off.

 

But then that made me think of using a spline instead. With a little space at each end, it would let me slide the standard firmly up to the side, and also provide a lot of glue surface for the joint. And the spine would keep the standard centered in the beam.

 

Maybe I will need to pin the top of the standard to the quickwork or upper deck clamp, but I could use a wooden dowel so it would not be too obvious.

 

I could rout the slot in the bottom of the standard using the mill, and I will have to drill a few holes in the beam and then clean up with a chisel.

 

This seems like a lot of work, but the fact that both gluing surfaces are already finished means I would have to scrape down to bare wood in every location, in an awkward spot given the tumblehome. It would be way more fun to build a really sturdy spline and not worry about gluing to the deck or spirketting at all!

 

Thanks again for getting me thinking in this direction. I'll see how it goes...

 

If this works, I will think about routing the slot in the upper deck beams for the upper deck standards, when I still have them off the ship.

 

Mark

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by SJSoane

[druxey]

Now that is a creative solution; to allow a slide-in fit. I like it!  I doubt if extra pinning would be required: you would have ample gluing surface, plus a kind of shallow dovetail at the ship's side. Of course, if you are a 'belt and braces' man...

 

A healthy and happy New Year to you, Mark.

[SJSoane]

Thanks so much, druxey, and a better new year for all of us!

 

I proceeded with the spline idea. A little jig for the mill made quick work of the slots in the standards themselves:

 

For the slots in the deck beams, I made a little marking jig, ensuring the slots would be laid out parallel to the sides of the beam, on the center line, and also the correct distance from the end of the standard. Then a few holed drilled out to hog out the main waste, and then chisel work to clean up.

 

 

I did discover a slight flaw in my plan. If I made the splines as long as I had expected, the standard could not fit over the spline and then slide under the upper deck clamp. So I had to shorten the splines and keep them as far out from the sides as possible. This allows me to fit the standard down on the spline, and then slide into position while completely flat on the beam. But still more than enough area for gluing.

 

Three down, just 19 to go....

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by SJSoane

[druxey]

Good stuff! Glad your bright idea works well in practice.

[JANRUS]

DearMark,

         My utmost respect in regards to your building log, sir! Thus far your dermination, patience and shipwright skills has been very impressive. Love it. I believe that one of the factors the standard in question has not been initially installed on the stem (and did show up on later constructions) was the novelty of the 74's design for the British Navy, and perheps during ship's operation Admin. decided to add this detail as the safety reinforcement. 

J. Fincham in his "The Practice of ship-building" describes standards as follows:

For some times already I've been studying various sources on "Bellona" initial rigging setup (1757)

and found similar challenges you have with her structure. 

Best Regards, 

JR

 

[SJSoane]

Thanks so much, JR, for your kind comments and also the additional information from Fincham.

 

I would be interested in hearing more from you about your studies on the Bellona rigging.  I spent a fair amount of time years ago trying to understand this, and still do not have it completely clear in my mind.

 

So far, I have relied primarily on the table of masts and yards lengths and diameters from a Plymouth dockyard document, 1754, in James Lees, Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War. For additional details on the masts and yards like hounds, caps, crosstrees, etc., I used Mungo Murray's Treatise on Masting, ca. 1765. I looked at his data for an 80 gun ship based on the 1745 Establishment, which seemed in overall size to be about the same as a 74 gun ship ca. 1760, which is the Bellona.

 

All other rigging information I have taken from Lees for various dates at which rigging details came into general use. I also looked to Steel for tables of rigging sizes. But Steel is a good half century later than the Bellona, and I am not sure how much changed in that period.

 

But there are still some discrepancies and omissions in my own understanding, which I will have to recall from my notes at this point.

 

While it might be a long time before I get to rigging, I have to be thinking about belaying points built into the hull somewhat sooner.  

 

I would be happy to exchange information with you about this. I have a spreadsheet linking all of my research together.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

 

 

[druxey]

Fincham is, unfortunately almost a century later (1851). Although changes were slow in the 1700's, they rapidly advanced in the Industrial Age with more iron and steel production, composite hulls and then all-metal ones.

[SJSoane]

Thanks so much, JR, for your kind comments, and druxey for your reminder of time scales.  I wish there were as much detailed information for 1760 as there is in later books like Fincham. As I discovered in the earlier thread here on the standard at the stem, even a difference of 30 years--between 1750 and 1780--seems to make a difference. It is interesting to see trends towards bigger or smaller, and wood or iron, over these time periods. 

 

JR, I would be interested in hearing more from you about your studies on the Bellona rigging.  I spent a fair amount of time years ago trying to understand this, and still do not have it completely clear in my mind.

 

So far, I have relied primarily on the table of masts and yards lengths and diameters from a Plymouth dockyard document, 1754, in James Lees, Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War. For additional details on the masts and yards like hounds, caps, crosstrees, etc., I used Mungo Murray's Treatise on Masting, ca. 1765. I looked at data for an 80 gun ship based on the 1745 Establishment, which seemed in overall size to be about the same as a 74 gun ship ca. 1760, which is the Bellona.

 

All other rigging information I have taken from Lees for various dates at which rigging details came into general use. I also looked to Steel for tables of rigging sizes. But Steel is a good half century later than the Bellona, and I am not sure how much changed in that period.

 

But there are still some discrepancies and omissions in my own understanding. And while it might be a long time before I get to rigging, I have to be thinking about belaying points built into the hull somewhat sooner.  

 

I would be happy to exchange information with you about this. I have a spreadsheet linking all of my research together.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

 

 

[SJSoane]

I was ready to install the gun deck standards, when I realized that I should probably put in the eyebolts and rings for the guns when I still have a little maneuvering room. I made up a few eyebolts and rings out of copper, and blackened them with JAX for copper following the instructions on the bottle. Looked great, until all the black came right off when I picked them up with needle nose pliers to push them into the holes in the quickwork. 

 

So, then I tried Ed Tosti's method in his book on the Naiad, using Liver of Sulphur which can be painted on even after the metalwork is installed in the wood. This worked, as can be seen in this sample:

 

That means I could install the eyebolts, then blacken them in place.

 

 

But then I realized that I would need to seize the breaching ropes around the rings off the model, which means that I can't then blacken the rings after installation without messing up the rope.

 

So, I read David Antscherl's advice more carefully on blacking, in the Fully Framed Model series. He advised diluting blackening agents as much as 8:1 with water. It acts much more slowly--it took mine about 45 minutes instead of a few seconds--but it was beautifully black and stable. 

 

I tried it on a strap on the stern timbers, a beautiful sheen to the black, just like iron.

 

So, the next test is to make up ring/eyebolts , blacken them with JAX, and assemble with a breaching rope and seizing. Then try installing and see if the black stays on.

 

Much to learn about metal!

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2021 by SJSoane

[dvm27]

I had the same issues you did but did some experimentation and came up with this (thread):

https://modelshipworld.com/topic/21710-blackening-revisited/?tab=comments#comment-651453

My blackening has improved 100% since then.

[Hubac's Historian]

You know, I just marvel at the fact that even the parts of the model that aren’t to be seen - in the end - can be looked at freely.

[SJSoane]

Greg, thanks so much for that tutorial online. Interestingly, I started using the Otto Frei version of Sparex called OttoTech Pickle, but abandoned it when I got the flakey first effort. I turned to Acetone and then to Isopropanol before I got a good result. But I later realized that I got a good result only when I diluted the JAX, not when I changed cleaners. So I will try your various cleaning steps and see if it turns out even better.

 

How much baking soda do you put into the neutralizing bath?

 

Marc, I appreciate your appreciation for making it look good even when eventually we will no longer see it. I am under pressure from my wife to abandon all of the eyebolts and rings on the gundeck, because they will never be seen. But I KNOW they should be there....

 

I think she is worried that I won't finish before I pass on, and then how will she put my ashes on the model and push it out into the lake, maybe on fire....🙃

 

Mark

 

 

[druxey]

Your wife already has designs on you? That's not a good sign, Mark! 

 

Yes, being patient with dilute blackener gives far better results, I find. It usually takes two to five minutes, depending on how fresh the solution is. I still buff the finished pieces to rub off any slight 'soot'.

Edited January 10, 2021 by druxey

[JANRUS]

Hello Mark,

      My apology for not responding to you immediately, due to time constrains I am not very often logging in on the forum.

      A while ago I inherited “Bellona” ship’s model built based on Corel Plans in 1:100 of metric scale. She was still under construction with the hull almost completed (the builder used his own materials; however all fittings seem to be purchased from Corel), masts and rigging were not installed.

       She landed on the shelf at our home library, but my intention was always to finish it completely by adding sails as well, which required from me to do some research beyond the plans.  I’ve received all Corel drawings, unfortunately no instruction manual.

     The plans describe a model after the ship’s refit in 1780 with some alternative fittings related to the original design of 1857.

To begin somehow, I collected a small library of various books and reprints:

       B. Lavery’s - “Bellona - anatomy of the ship” from where I retrieved dimensions of masts and yards and verified them with Corel drawings. Sails measurements were useful too. The monography doesn’t provide sufficient details on rigging, therefore I’ve reached for

J. Lees’ classic, but since he is quiet often referring to Darcy’s “A Young Sea Officer’s sheet Anchor”, I did buy this book too,

plus, reprints of Steel (Goodchild edition from 2000) to take all ropes and blocks measurements and sails details, then

Longridge “The Anatomy of Nelson Ships”, and

R.H. Anderson “The Rigging of the Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast 1600-1720”.

J. Harland’s “The Seamanship in The Age of Sail” was invaluable for me to understand how these ships were managed, and

G. Biddlecombe’s -  “The Art of Rigging” was indispensable for understanding of terms, phrases and his progressive rigging method.

       Since the history of the three major sea powers French, Spanish and British intertwined strongly during this period, I thought it would be beneficial to find out how they were competing when comes to developing of the ships and technology:

J. Boudriot (Le vaisseau de 74 canons,  first 3 parts), Spanish - Architectura Naval Antigua y Moderna , Marquardt’s and Zu Montfeld’s etc….

       Also this forum is an excellent source of the information – with a good number of modelers representing incredible knowledge on the matter – you guys rock 😊 especially Druxey, Greg H. (dmv), Ed, Gaetan, Chuck, Garry, Amaro’s build of Montanes (would love to hear more from him about the resources, not a problem if it’s in Spanish) and obviously D. Antscherl’s books. My apology to those I didn’t mention here.

I am positive Mark yours model after finishing will become universally recognized.

Not so far ago I went thru the log – HMS Pegasus by Blue Ensign where he made a good comparison of different sources when doing his rigging. Vadas log is useful too.

I’m also checking on 5500.forumactif.org

       Coming back to the initial subject I must say Corel did a good research work on this part of the model. Rigging drawings are clear and as expected with details related to this scale, however some have no references to the sources I did mention above but determining exact dates for changes in the rigging of such ships is exceedingly difficult.

Another challenge was to add to the existing structure missing belaying points.

As Anderson mentioned – “Nine ropes out of ten have to be belayed somewhere and somehow on or near the bulwarks and rails. For this purpose, there were three devices different in details, but the same in principle, cleats, kevels, and belaying pins”.

The picture below shows her present stage:

Decided to go with dry trial of all elements, if satisfactory and historically correct will fix them permanently.

Hopefully in the near future will be able to dedicate more time to this project.

I would be more than happy to assist you with your plans.

Thanks, and Best Regards,

JR

[SJSoane]

Thanks so much, JR, it sounds like you have done a great deal of research. I look forward to hearing more as you are able to give the project more attention. I might start writing down all of the issues that I don't understand yet, particularly the belaying points.

 

Now I have confirmed that I can indeed form and blacken the iron work, I am looking ahead to another piece of ironwork that I put off dealing with until now. That is the capsquares on the gun carriages. I am still considering the possibility of installing the carriages now, but leaving the barrels off until a few years later, when I have completed more of the upper works and decks, and will be less liable to accidentally knock a cannon out of place from the outside.

 

But that means the capsquares would have to really hinge up, so I could insert the barrel through the gun port with epoxy on the trunnions, slip them under the capsquares, and press the capsquare down in place.

 

I made a crude mockup of a cap square, just to see how small they are, and how well I could make them hinge.

 

 

Not well, I found out. the flat plate is too long, doesn't allow pivoting around the eyebolt head. So more work to do here.

 

To make these more efficiently, I am thinking about making a small die, which would press the right shape, and then align drilling for the bolts.

I know the eyebolt and joint bolt are both rectangular in section, but I am thinking this will make it exceedingly difficult to manufacture and install at this small scale. I am interested if others have managed something like this at 3/16" scale.

 

 

And these are the largest cannon. It will get progressively more difficult as the guns get smaller on upper decks!

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark