17th Century British Galley Friggot by allanyed - 1:64

[allanyed]

I am starting a new project,  a 17th century British galley frigate.  It is based mainly on a RMG/NMM drawing of the Charles Galley built at Woolwich by Phineas Pett in 1676. The buyer has asked for slight modifications, including one less gun port on each side of the QD and that the side be planked to the cap rails.  Drawings by Van De Velde the Elder show what may be the frames at the area of the top timbers with fillers between frames, but no horizontal planking, or this may be vertical covering planks. As it was likely painted blue in any case, it will not be glaring in the final appearance.  Both a sketch and a later painting (1677) of her under sail by VDV show no wreaths below the QD which is an anomaly for that time. Information from Richard Endsor's book The Master Shipwrights Secrets including the Charles Galley and a smaller ship, the James Galley are also being consulted extensively.   The contemporary contract for the James Galley from the National Archives in Kew is turning out to be a big help as well, albeit with scantlings that are slightly smaller in some cases than would have been appropriate for the Charles Galley.  Measuring items such as the keel on the contemporary drawing is confirming this supposition.   In addition, photos of a contemporary model of an unnamed  royal yacht of 1702 have striking similarities and will be used for such items as gratings, bitts, etc.  Lastly, books by Lavery, Goodwin and others are being studied for a number of items. The model will be a POB and will not be rigged.   I intend to give a try at the carvings using clay as Doris has shown so beautifully in her recent build log of the Royal Katherine 1664.  Failing success in these, I will go back to using wood and my trusty set of chisels from Mihail Kirsanov 

 

Note that the topic title has the word Friggot.  This is not a misspelling but rather the spelling used in the contract.   Transcribing the contract took a few days even though the scribes had handwriting that could be deciphered more easily than others that I have transcribed in in the past.  Still, there were some words that had me baffled and one of our members, Mark Porter,  was kind enough to help me get this done correctly.  

The below is a portion of the transcription and the original contract.   If anyone is interested in the complete contract, please feel free to PM  me with your email address and I will be happy to send these out to a number of people (hopefully not all 39,000 members will ask for this😃)  It was suggested that I do not post the entire contract to avoid it being pirated, and I believe this to be an excellent suggestion.  Note that the spelling, grammar, capitalizing, punctuation &c. are as in the contract.   For those who have not tried to read one of these contracts, it is a fun, and often frustrating, experience.  The Archives at Kew have a free tutorial on reading these old documents.   Note that the National Archives in Kew, unlike the Royal Museum Greenwich (National Maritime Museum), allows providing a copy of these contracts to others for personal use and only requires acknowledgement of the National Archives being the holder/source of the original.   

 

The drawing from NMM is shown in part, as well as one of the VDV drawings.

 

Allan

 

This Indenture made the One and Thirtyeth Day of July in the year of our Lord 1686   Betweene ye  Principall   Officers and Com.rs for Managing the Affaires of his  Ma^tys Navy for and on behalf of His Majesty on the one part and Mr. John Deane of the other part Witnesseth that the said John Deane for the Considerations hereafter Exprest, doth covenant,  promise and grant to and with your principall officers and commissioners for and behalf of His Majesty that hee, the said John Deane, his executors , admin^s servants or assigns, shall and will at his and their own proper costs and charges well and workmanlike will erect and build off the stocks for the use of the King, one substantial new Ship or Friggot   of good and well seasoned Tymber and Planck and that the said Ship shall contain in Length by the keel one hundred and four feet, Breadth from outside to outside of the Planck Twenty nine feet, depth with hold from ye Top of the Ceiling to ye upper edge of the Gundeck eleavon feet, Breadth of ye transom fifteen feet,  Rake forward of the Stem, seavon feet, At the Harping, Rake aft four feet, to ye Maine Transome   The Keele to be Twelve inches square in the Mid Ships, To be sheathed with a three inch Planck for a false Keel ~ To have three feet six inches Scarfs, to be laid in the Keele, and to be well boulted with six boults of an inch auger  To have a firme substantiall Stemme of twelve inches thwart ships, and thirteene inches fore and aft, w^th a sufficient False Stem, of six inches thick, And one foot six inches broad w^th a Scarfe of three feet two inches long, six bolts in each Scarfe of inch Auger, To have substantiall Sterne post of two feet deep w^th a long Armed Knee, of foure feet six inches long, each Arme to be well Bolted, w^th an inch and one eight Auger Bolt, fastening ye same together

 

Original  

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by allanyed

[bruce d]

Allan, what a project!

I hope we will be invited to watch? 😁

 

[allanyed]

All are  invited Bruce, admission is free, but bring your own popcorn. I really hope I do not disappoint.   Should be an interesting ride, for me at least.

Allan

[druxey]

Well, an interesting subject, for sure. Allan.  I, for one, have the popcorn maker plugged in.... 

[allanyed]

The more I study the 17th century ships, the more differences I find compared to the 18th and early 19th century.  Starting with the keel, the rabbet starts at the top of the keel as shown here as the frames sat directly on top of the keel without a mortice cut into the floors and first futtocks' chocks.   As this is to be a POB, and will be totally planked it is not so critical, but I followed this style in making the keel regardless.    I had used this previously for an earlier project which is on the back burner for now and found it easy to  make the keel with two chamfered pieces, one top of the other.

 

The boxing joint also is a bit different than what I am used to for later eras.  This alternative design  is shown on drawings of Lenox, Mordaunt, Charles Galley, and James Galley by Richard Endsor.  These are based on the joint shown in a drawing by William Sutherland in Shipbuilding Unvail'd, 1711, page 26.    I did forego making the joint as a tabled scarph as the tabling cannot be seen and for the model, the boxing joint without the tabling is still incredibly strong.  In the photo of the boxing joint below, the false keel has not yet been made and assembled in place on the bottom of the keel. So far, I have been unable to find more information regarding specific dates for boxing joint design details .   Goodwin shows several styles n the Construction and Fitting of the  English Man of War but does not include the design shown in Sutherland and gives no dates for the various designs he does show.  As with many things in our hobby, I have had to make what I hope is a well educated guess as to the design that would be appropriate for this ship.  Note that I cannot find any models contemporary to the Charles Galley that show any type of boxing joint.   One example follows the sketches

 

                                                                       

[druxey]

See also Navy Board Ship Models by Franklin for other examples of earlier boxing joints.

[allanyed]

Great call Druxey.  Just did a quick flip through Franklin and found that the boxing joint I chose to go with is confirmed to have been a possibility by several of the models in the book including on page 109 and the drawings on page 18.  There are alternatives shown, but without the way back machine, no way to know for sure which was used on the CG.  I did note that the style I show above for the 18th century is shown as an example for at least one ship in the 17th century, Breda 1692.  Franklin does comment though that this style was seen on most models of the eighteenth century.   Thanks for sharing!!

Allan

[druxey]

Glad to be of help, Allan.

[allanyed]

Frames have been drawn based on the station lines, for the most part.  Several are not exactly on the station lines to account for the openings of gun ports that will be open and will create the sides of the ports.   Unlike POF, this is a relatively easy endeavor but a sufficient number of bulkheads are needed to give enough landings for the hull planking.  Filler pieces will be needed between the bulkheads for strength and additional landing surface for the planking.  The bulkheads are set up to act as deck beams as well, but as this will be totally planked, only the decks that will be visible are cut into the bulkheads as seen on the example below.   I still like to print these on label paper and then cut them out and stick them on to the wood that is used for the individual pieces, and in the case of frame/bulkheads, it is  birch veneer plywood.    Aircraft plywood would be a better choice, but  it is costly ($250 for a 4 foot X 4 foot sheet -1/4" thick, including freight)  and not really necessary.    It is far easier than gluing regular paper which can tend to stretch and wrinkle at times when wet with glue.  Even a glue stick is troublesome compared to using label paper.    The wood does need to be wiped down with a tacky cloth to be sure the surface is free of dust. 

 

NB: The station lines of the Charles Galley are all numbered, from 4 aft to 124 forward.  No letters forward or bracketed station numbers in the area of the dead flat are used on the original plans.

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2021 by allanyed

[druxey]

$250 a sheet for ¼" for Baltic birch ply? I must be sitting on a fortune! But I digress. Looks like a good start, Allan.

[allanyed]

Thanks Druxey.   The freight is as much as the darned wood.  The aircraft ply itself is high as it is, but add in the freight and it becomes an extravagance to buy it.   The wood I was interested in is military spec MIL-P-6070B.  If I was in your neck of the woods, I would be happy to bid on a sheet 😃

 

[druxey]

I don't think my stock is 'military grade'. However, it is beautiful stuff. I shudder to think what my ¾" sheet must be worth now....

[Tony Hunt]

10 hours ago, allanyed said:

I still like to print these on label paper and then cut them out and stick them on to the wood that is used for the individual pieces, and in the case of frame/bulkheads, it is  birch veneer plywood.  It is far easier than gluing regular paper which can tend to stretch and wrinkle at times when wet with glue.  Even a glue stick is troublesome compared to using label paper.    The wood does need to be wiped down with a tacky cloth to be sure the surface is free of dust. 

 

 

What a clever idea - it has never occurred to me but now that you suggest it seems so obvious. I've always struggled to stop the paper from deforming when gluing it on, no matter what kind of adhesive I've used, glue sticks, spray-on, whatever.

[allanyed]

Glad to help Tony.  This website is chock full of great ideas from thousands of members and I am SOOOOOO happy to be a member.

[allanyed]

Druxey,

 

I shudder to think of the cost of 3/4" aircraft plywood.  The following website only offers up to 1/4" but you can see the prices.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/wppages/finnishbirch.php

 

[druxey]

Wow! That set me back on my heels. I'm sitting on a  small fortune, then. "Rich, rich, I tell you; beyond the wildest dreams of avarice!!!" Well, not quite. Thanks for that, Allan.

[BANYAN]

Hi Allan, another great project you are undertaking.  Move over a bit Bruce  and I'll take a pew also, but I will share my popcorn

 

cheers

 

Pat

[allanyed]

In studying some details on 17th century ships, I found an interesting item I had never noticed before.  There were  ports in the doors in both the QD and FC bulkheads.   I found these described in John Franklin's Navy Board Ship Models on pages 31 and 32.  He states "Until the early years of the eighteenth century, ports are often pierced in the doors of the forecastle and quarterdeck bulkheads." From what I can find this is not referring to the beakhead bulkhead in the case of the FC.  The below drawing shows the set up of a sixth rate of 1697.  The below photo shows ports in the doors as well although slightly different configuration as it is about 1702 and on a royal yacht.   Similar setups can be seen in other 17th century contemporary models.

 

Question.  What are these ports for?   To defend the ship  against boarders caught in the waist while the crew is taking refuge inside the FC and QD?    For passing items through the bulkheads rather than opening the doors?   I am anxious to hear any ideas, but especially if based on contemporary information if it exists.

 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by allanyed

[druxey]

I've read that one use for these was defensive. If you look at some of the bulkheads on models of these 17th century ships, there were also roundhouse-like projections with loop-holes in them, allowing both protection and a wider field of fire. There are several good examples of this type of bulkhead in the Kriegstein book. So, I'd say your laterally hinged port-in-door arrangement is also defensive.

[allanyed]

Thanks Druxey.  Would hate to have been caught in the waist with cross fire coming at me.    Alas, the Kriegstein book is not in my library, but I have found a few examples, including the loop holes, in a couple photos of the bulkhead  in Franklin.   

 

 

[Mark P]

Good Afternoon Allan;

 

You and Druxey are both correct, the function of these ports was indeed to defend the ship should she be boarded. 17the century bulkheads each end of the waist were much more substantial than later ones, for this reason, and I believe that they were permanent, not removable as they later became (must check that) The ports in the doors are sometimes referred to 'murther-holes'. The same name was used for small holes in the ceiling over a castle's gate-house passage, from which the garrison could fire down on any attackers below. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[allanyed]

While the scale is decidedly small, carvings still need to be done with as much precision as possible.  I received the below photo from a kind member here of a carving that is from the Rijksmuseum  for the Royal Charles, and is a match for the drawing of the stern carving on the Charles Galley.   I understood the motif would be normally the same for a given monarch and this appears to confirm it. 

 

[allanyed]

Stem pieces and knee of the head are done.   Again, I printed the pieces on label paper then cut them out with a scalpel and stuck them on castello that was first planed and thickness sanded to the maximum thickness required on the assembly.  Once sized the pieces were rough cut then carefully sanded to the edge of the paper templates.  Once all was assembled the assembly was tapered vertically and horizontally.  The slot for the gammoning has been rough drilled and will be finished with files.   This is one of those times I would prefer to have a mill but hopefully sooner than later will go ahead  to buy one.     The admiral says I should go ahead and buy one instead of complaining that I need/want one all the time.  Gotta love my boss!!!!   

 

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by allanyed

[bruce d]

30 minutes ago, allanyed said:

The admiral says I should go ahead and buy one

If it comes from The Admiral, surely it's an order? Respect the chain of command.

Looking good so far.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by bruce d

[allanyed]

 Bruce,  I plan to take your advice!!!  

[Hubac's Historian]

Well, I'm 2for2 2night; first Matiz's 74, and now this!  Allan, I'm happy to have caught this in the early stages.  I'm really looking forward to seeing your journey on this one.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Hubac's Historian

[Hubac's Historian]

On 3/22/2021 at 4:51 PM, druxey said:

I don't think my stock is 'military grade'. However, it is beautiful stuff. I shudder to think what my ¾" sheet must be worth now....

Something like Ship Modelers’ Bitcoin.

[allanyed]

Thanks Hubac.     I hope NYC will be getting back to normal for you soon.  I miss the City, not being able to go for over a year now, thanks to Covid, after having lived nearby for 35 years and then traveling there the past 5 years for business and pleasure, mainly to Manhattan and Queens, (but I do love all the boroughs.)

  

Edited April 9, 2021 by allanyed

[Hubac's Historian]

It is remarkable how much life has changed since the Pandemic began.  Going forward, I’m sure life in American cities will be different in ways great and small.  As crazy as it all has been, I’m very happy to still be healthy and working, and that my family has also been as lucky.

 

Well, I look forward to this project of yours.  The Charles Galley is such an interesting subject.  That is a curious detail in the VDV drawing, re: the apparently un-planked framing.  Perhaps the drawing shows the end stages of a refit in-process?

Edited April 9, 2021 by Hubac's Historian

[druxey]

Allan: you wrote: 'Drawings by Van De Velde the Elder show what may be the frames at the area of the top timbers with fillers between frames, but no horizontal planking, or this may be vertical covering planks.' 

 

I read that on the drawing as ornamental vertical plank, scalloped or reeded to provide ornamentation that didn't cost an arm and a leg!