Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, allanyed said:

Larry, I would edit your post and get rid of the email address.  It will open you to all kinds of spam.  You can have your email address in your profile for  members only to have access.   

That sounds like a good idea. But I don't see a place for email in the profile. Unless you just type it in as a comment or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Larry Cowden said:

Can you export in native dwg. files for AutoCAD? I would greatly like to have your files for working with and analysis.  My email is QRRanger@aol.com. 

The free-for-hobby use version that I have does not export export dwg or dxf, or I think any 2D files. I'm not doing "blueprints" with dimensions. But I'm happy to make scale PDFs or bitmaps, and can send screen captures of my sketches showing dimensions.

 

BTW, the statement I made that you quoted is when I was working on the Hahn/Robertson style carriage, probably most used by hobbiests, but not apparently on the Victory. I'm working on the Victory carriages now, using Bugler's drawings which mostly agree with McKay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I can't produce DXF or DWG files, I can produce PDFs. This is the project for the 32-pounder to date. I believe the barrel to be pretty accurate and the carriage as well, although I haven't yet put detail to the carriage, such as bolts, chamfers, capsquares, etc. The outline and such is about the best I can do at this point, and think it is quite accurate. I'll attach scale PDFs in a number of scales.

Bugler 32-Pounder Views 1-24 Hidden.pdf Bugler 32-Pounder Views 1-24.pdf Bugler 32-Pounder Views 1-48.pdf Bugler 32-Pounder Views 1-72.pdf Bugler 32-Pounder Views 1-98.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick, in my profile I put my email address in the MSN and YAHOO lines and it seems to work.   Otherwise I have sent PMs with my email address in the PM itself to whoever I wanted to email me.  There is probably an easier way, but I am not sure what that is.  Maybe one of the moderators will add to this.

Allan

Edited by allanyed
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the much higher recoil energy of a 32lb gun, I seriously doubt the correctness of a mocked up carriage and gun with '24 lb' trunnions and carriage to be representative of her wartime fit.

Also the proportion of the carriage look wrong, the fore axeltree is too narrow - contemporary diagrams of carriages show a different config for fore and hind axletrees, with the cutout for the cheeks in the fore-tree being closer together, but the width overall is extremely close if not identical and there is a noticeably wide "set" of the trucks 'out' from the cheeks.

If nothing else, they shouldn't be the same carriage to allow for the additional breadth of the breechring and to allow normal room for working of the handspikes to deal with the higher weight on the quoin from the same 1/20th preponderance of a heavier gun.

You can 'stick' a gun, real or reproduction onto a mocked up carriage, but that doesn't make it a properly sized mock up or a safe and usable combination. "very few of Victory's original guns remain, most being 'reproductions' of wood and fibreglass".

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lieste said:

With the much higher recoil energy of a 32lb gun, I seriously doubt the correctness of a mocked up carriage and gun with '24 lb' trunnions and carriage to be representative of her wartime fit.

Also the proportion of the carriage look wrong, the fore axeltree is too narrow - contemporary diagrams of carriages show a different config for fore and hind axletrees, with the cutout for the cheeks in the fore-tree being closer together, but the width overall is extremely close if not identical and there is a noticeably wide "set" of the trucks 'out' from the cheeks.

If nothing else, they shouldn't be the same carriage to allow for the additional breadth of the breechring and to allow normal room for working of the handspikes to deal with the higher weight on the quoin from the same 1/20th preponderance of a heavier gun.

You can 'stick' a gun, real or reproduction onto a mocked up carriage, but that doesn't make it a properly sized mock up or a safe and usable combination. "very few of Victory's original guns remain, most being 'reproductions' of wood and fibreglass".

I wouldn't call this a "mocked up carriage". It is modeled after drawings made from actual HMS Victory guns and carriages on the Victory during the time of the 20s refit by people interested in preserving history and taking their work quite seriously. This study and publication by Arthur Bugler, who apprenticed on the Victory in 1918, is considered the bible as far as HMS Victory information, selling for over $500 today, and he had the full support, assistance and record of the HMS Victory Society during his work and book publication.

 

As to the trunnion diameter, they do note 6" diameter on the plans, while some sources list 6.105" as the bore and trunnion size for a 32-pound and others as 6.41". If 6.105", they could have written 6" as it is quite close; but both McKay, Bugler and other sources indicate that the carriages for the 32-pound and 24-pound were identical.

 

The additional breadth for the breech ring and other barrel dimensions isn't as much as you'd think. First, the carriage is sized to fit the 32-pounder, so has no problem fitting the 24-pounder, which is 1.31" smaller in diameter at the breech and 0.89" smaller at the trunnion.

 

Yes, most of Victory's guns today are from other sources or reproductions, but in fact during the refit there were 9 original 32-pounders and three original 24-pounders. All dimensions at the time were taken from originals, both to document actual dimensions and layout as well as to provide a guide for production of reproductions.

 

As I first posted in this topic when I started, if you or anyone else has dimensioned drawings and layout specific to original Victory guns, I would love to see them. The ones I am using are the only ones I know of. Comparing them and denigrating their design  because of knowledge from other sources does not make them wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may say based on the latest exchanges, these emphasise the need for further research,  and there is a way to go, the excellent drawings are a good starting point.  That said caution needs to be exercised in respect of researching the true appearance and fit-out of Victory during the Trafalgar campaign.  One of the chief distractions is the ship herself, when ‘restored’ during the 1920’s many compromises were made for a variety of reasons, such as cost, operational needs, and available research, the gun carriages may well be a victim of such compromises.  Certainly the advisory committee had disagreements on how to proceed in the 1920’s and those errors are still being understood and corrected.

 

Bugler merely records the ship as she was in the 1960’s, he does not seek to establish what the ship looked like in 1805, and somewhat slavishly follows the 1920’s reconstruction, in that respect he repeats and perpetuates whatever inaccuracies were built in to her structure.  McGowan and McKay merely update Bugler’s work, with none of them challenging the accuracy of the ship as presented.

 

An example is the contribution I made at post #4 above, the pattern of guns carried currently by Victory are all of the Blomefield type, this is not how she was armed.  A large proportion of her guns were of the older pattern Armstrong type, as confirmed by the Admiralty records at her recommissioning in 1803.  Here for instance, not having looked at the gun carriages, does the pattern of the gun change the carriage due to weight, diameter, trunion position for instance - does a 24-Pounder Blomefield use the same carriage as a 24-Pounder Armstrong?

 

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree, Morgan, and that is a concern. However, a search of the Net will find dozens of carriage plans, most of which referring to the recommended plans by Robertson, and later elaborated on and copied by Hahn. Not one I have found has been specific to HMS Victory. Whereas Bugler has fairly well detailed drawings, with dimensions, and elaborate text specifying thickness of material, bolts, cheeks and more, even including what wood was used. Was he measuring the "right" or "correct" gun at the time? One would hope so, given he checked dates on cannon barrels, and seemed to know which were from Trafalgar, which were not original, etc.

 

All I can say is that "he was there", and made decisions, not on his own, but with the assistance of the committee. Yes, I know there were many compromises on the restoration. But with true, correct examples to use, why use others? I'm confident he made the best decision with information available at the time, and today we lack that information.

 

I'm not saying he was absolutely correct; I'm saying that, to my knowledge, no documented dimensioned drawing of Victory guns exist, other than his. Why would that make it more believable that the design is wrong, rather than right? I would LOVE to see additional information on Victory's guns. But no one has sent me any, and I haven't been able to find it. Lacking any contradictory information, I'm proceeding with what was authorized and published by someone far closer to the project, and the guns, than we can ever be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of Bugler’s assertions about the number of existing Trafalgar guns have been proven wrong, there are for example only 3Nr.  32-Pounders and 1Nr. alleged 24-Pounder, not the number he claimed, I say alleged because Victory had the 24-Pounders removed in 1808 and replaced with 18-Pounders and in the 1820’s she was reduced to 21 guns, the 24-Pounders are also of the wrong design. So it is not clear where the current 24-Pounder ‘Trafalgar’ cannon comes from.  
 

The cannon are identifiable from their individual cast and makers marks stamped on the trunnions, these can be traced from one commission to the next.

 

There is no dispute on the Blomefield pattern guns they are of the standard pattern, there is no ‘Victory’ specific design, and what Bugler has drawn is correct.  
 

For the 32-Pounder gun carriage you need NMM’s drawing ZAZ7009 dated by Brian Lavery to 1800, this is attached below, you would need a full size copy of the original to scale it at ‘Half an inch to the foot’ this would be the definitive version.  You can order a copy the repro reference is J2117. You could try to print re-scale it, the original drawing is noted as being 185mm x 290mm.  

6D9CA67E-822D-46F2-8EDC-1DA3C5EDD246.jpeg.0c88c9d25f0f731db678d1a3f94d2660.jpeg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, allanyed said:

Rick, in my profile I put my email address in the MSN and YAHOO lines and it seems to work.   Otherwise I have sent PMs with my email address in the PM itself to whoever I wanted to email me.  There is probably an easier way, but I am not sure what that is.  Maybe one of the moderators will add to this.

Allan

 

We do get crawled by many search engines which if your email is posted in the clear, you get a lot of spam.  So.. as Allan says, use PM's for exchanging any personal info be it email, mailing addresses, and phone numbers.  

 

The Internet is a jungle so it's best to be safe.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2021 at 12:29 AM, rraisley said:

While I can't produce DXF or DWG files, I can produce PDFs. This is the project for the 32-pounder to date. I believe the barrel to be pretty accurate and the carriage as well, although I haven't yet put detail to the carriage, such as bolts, chamfers, capsquares, etc. The outline and such is about the best I can do at this point, and think it is quite accurate. I'll attach scale PDFs in a number of scales.

Bugler 32-Pounder Views 1-24 Hidden.pdf 75.13 kB · 6 downloads Bugler 32-Pounder Views 1-24.pdf 32.52 kB · 5 downloads Bugler 32-Pounder Views 1-48.pdf 75.56 kB · 5 downloads Bugler 32-Pounder Views 1-72.pdf 70.16 kB · 2 downloads Bugler 32-Pounder Views 1-98.pdf 70.18 kB · 4 downloads

Thanks for the prints.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've completed modeling of the 12-Pounder gun, based on Longridge, Bugler & McKay, as well as Blomefield for barrel dimensions. All sources in this case agree very well. Here are some 3D pics. I'll attach a 1:24 scale 3-View as well, and some other scales, in PDF format. Let me know if you want anything additional.

image.png.361a9907c4c76fc4fc3728a3228b8877.png

 

image.png.b27cc37e183160cf448fbf59b9a98f82.png

 

image.png.ac870dcef7be7e4db0628785a4f3a55b.png

12-Pounder Views 1-24 Final.pdf 12-Pounder Views 1-48.pdf 12-Pounder Views 1-98.pdf 12-Pounder Views 1-24.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...