QQ Gunports and planking - 1719 Establishment period. Questions:

[Jaager]

I am cutting the rough openings for the Gundeck  ports. of HMS Centurion.

I use a standard 4" for the port sill and 3" for the lintel.  This is my standard for all decks.  Most of their bulk will be planked over, so any difference from prototype thickness does not matter.

How much if any of the top outer edge of the sill and bottom lower edge of the intel shows when planked?  Is there a mortise for the port lid at the top and bottom? Or is the planking flush there?

 

The sides:  rather than try to sand a flat plane at each side and try to make the width exact for the frames at each side, I plan to frame the sides with veneer.   For determining a minimum thickness for this veneer,  the question is = what is the mortise at each side?  How far short does the planking fall?  What is the width of the lid mortise at each side?

 

My intent is to dye the sill, lintel, and side fillers red - the shade is yet to be determined.  A color chart from the first generation ANCRE monographs only has one real red : vermilion.   I am thinking that like most colors, the stark, prismatic, pure colors had to wait about 200 years for the German chemical industry to develop.  The pigment would be a natural mineral.  The interior of a ship is a large surface area so the mineral pigment would need to be an economical one. 

The red that is the aniline dye red is probably too pure a red.  Toning it down is going to be work.  My past experience is that a little added black goes a long, long way.  A grey would be easier, but there are no white dyes to add to the black.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Jaager

[Jim Lad]

Not an expert in the period, but all the photographs I have seen of surviving sailing era warships show the planking flush with the edge of the ports.

 

John

[Jaager]

Thanks John,

 

That does make it much easier to fabricate.  I just checked Goodwin - and the cover art shows lids with a mortise on all four sides, but the text affirms your observation.   The figure with the text shows a bevel at the top and bottom, but no provision for a hermetic type plug for a lid.   They are just two layer plywood.  The outer layer is a continuation of the planking that it interrupts - with a goal to make it invisible when closed.  The inner layer is 1.5" thick vertical boards - 4 of them.  The two middle ones are equal and the same stock width and the two outer boards trimmed to fit the width.  

 

Because wood only changes dimension across wood fibers and not along them, the simple design would avoid jamming if the lid environment had a higher water concentration than that of its construction environment.  The inner layer is too thin to pose a problem if swollen.

 

[allanyed]

Jaager

Not sure exactly what you mean.  A drawing would help.   In the meantime 😀................

The lid is two layers, one horizontal, one vertical. Total thickness of the two layers matches the thickness of the outboard planking so when it is closed and rests against the stops on the sides and bottom of the port the outside of the lid is flush with the surrounding planking. Unless the side of the hull is perfectly vertical  the bottom of the lid has a slight bevel to  match up the opening.   The top of the bottom sills are not visible whether the lid is open or closed as there is a stopper piece.  The bottom of the upper sill can be seen as there is no stopper piece.  The outboard sides of all the sills are covered with the hull planking.  Hope the following photo of a contemporary model in the Rogers collection will help a bit.     TFFM Volume II has excellent drawings and description of the port lids &c.   

Allan

[Jaager]

Allan,

 

It is the inside the port  - of the sill - at frame level  - raised - not flush with the outside planking level -  (shown with your JPEG model) that I am asking about.  

The Goodwin cover art also shows it like this, but the inner layer of the lid is reduced to fit inside the sill and sides - the outside layer being as thick as the outside planking it closes into.

The Goodwin text does not seem to address this, or I am not seeing it if he does.

 

If I leave the lids closed,  the question of flush or raised will be moot.  One point for that option.

 

Another part - I think English style was for interior planking to cover the inside edge of the sill.  The French seem to have had the sill extend over the interior planking and have a lip that was farther inside - like a picture frame.

[allanyed]

Jaager

It is the inside the port  - of the sill - at frame level  - raised - not flush with the outside planking level-   I must be a bit dense tonight as I cannot figure, for sure, what you are describing.   I am sure it is just me so sorry about that 🙃.    Can you perhaps post a picture? 

 

Reading Goodwin's comment on page 188 in The Construction and Fitting  he indeed calls for the inner layer of wood to be smaller than the outside of the port lid, with the outside matching the thickness of the planking but I cannot find any photos of contemporary models with this kind of construction.  To the contrary, all of the photos I can find show the lid total thickness with both layers of wood is the same as that of the planking.   Additional photos from Preble Hall follow.   I think Goodwin is a VERY important work, but as with any "modern" book, it is usually a good idea to research contemporary sources IF available to confirm anything.   It could very well be that both styles of construction were used at some points in time.  I would love to see contemporary information and/or models showing the lids as Goodwin describes as I have used Goodwin's description in at least one previous build.  

Allan

]

[Jaager]

10 hours ago, allanyed said:

Can you perhaps post a picture? 

Allen,

 

I am just too out of practice to draw .   I will use JPG and scans to try to show what I am asking about.  In doing this, I have found that there is a lot of confusing and ambiguous .......  between the contemporary models that you have provided and within Goodwin itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My interpretation is that old model makers, who were making models of specific ships ( as opposed to the very rare classroom instruction models )  were just as prone to use shortcuts as we later modelers for the minor parts.    This would answer why the single layer lids.  Going elaborate for 50-120 lids that few would even notice would extend the building time.

 

I wonder if the two layer tight plug ( plastic foam cooler lid type seal)  comes from  hulks.  Old survivor ships that in the late 19th century and early 20th century had become living quarters and office space could have had the gunports and lids "upgraded" to be more weather tight.    Something that a couple of generations later would be mistaken as being how the ships were when in actual service.

Edited September 22, 2021 by Jaager

[allanyed]

Jaager

You may be right  but I would be disappointed to learn that the old model makers were lazy and took short cuts in this manner.  As the lids are all painted, possibly we just cannot see that there are two layers.   

 

 Sorry for the quality of the third photo.   There are lips on these ports on the sides and top if I remember correctly same as the other models created by the linings.   

 

I did find a French contemporary model, the Ville de Paris which has lids with the inner layer smaller than the outer layer, but so far I cannot find any British models with this construction.  Photo of her ports is below.   I checked another dozen or so contemporary models and the lids were all constructed with the inner and outer layers being the same outside dimensions.   

 

As you said earlier, if the ports are closed, the construction style you decide to go with will not be seen 😀.   

 

You mention a thin layer over the end grains.   Which photo/drawing is this?  I looked in Goodwin and cannot find this.  THANKS

 

Allan

[Jaager]

5 hours ago, allanyed said:

You mention a thin layer over the end grains.   Which photo/drawing is this?

Thanks Allan,

 

Figure 7/5  on page 189

 

It is probably just the artist did not draw the ends of the outside planking as the planks lay on the face of the frame.  I misread the caption.  7/5 are all gunports, and not the alternate under the quarterdeck/poopdeck  "windows" that I had imagined..

In any case, the linings on the sides, sill, lintel allow for the use of "veneer"  to make them.  This is much easier.  

To be a bit self serving about my choice in framing above the wale:

For a model, it sort of makes it an unnecessary effort to shift top timbers so that they precisely frame a port - if complete outside and inside planking will be used.  I compound this further by having a solid wall topside.  No spaces.  It makes an otherwise fragile zone quite strong.   An advantage of POF is that the frames make it easy to locate the gunports.  The lining means that the rough opening does not need to be "pretty".

[Dr PR]

I have been following this discussion because I went through a similar search a year or two back.

 

Wolfram zu Mondfeld's Historic Ship Models (Sterling Publishing, New York, 1989) shows the construction of gun ports (page 96) and gun port lids (page 176) in pretty good detail.

 

I realize many modelers play down Mondfeld's book because it isn't specific to any particular ship or nationality, and he doesn't list his references. This is true. But the book's greatest virtue is the descriptions of parts of ships as they evolved over the centuries and in different parts of the world. For example, he describes gun port lids for British, French and other Continental navies from before 1550 through 1890. Much of what this thread is about is discussed in his book.

 

The book isn't perfect, but it does explain many of the differences you see in contemporary models from different nations and time periods.

[dafi]

In our german forum we also had some heated discussions about the sense or need of the mortises in english ships. The famous model of the Prince of 1670 shows the mortises, but soon after this one disappears on most models. 

 

On 9/22/2021 at 12:56 PM, allanyed said:

I did find a French contemporary model, the Ville de Paris which has lids with the inner layer smaller than the outer layer, but so far I cannot find any British models with this construction.  Photo of her ports is below.   I checked another dozen or so contemporary models and the lids were all constructed with the inner and outer layers being the same outside dimensions.   

 

Sometimes they are still shown so on the wonderful model of Bellona 1760. 

SLR0338 https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66299

 

Still the discussion rages as some believe that the mortise needs to be there for good sealing of the ports. But still why are they then neglegted on most models? Were those "fashion items" that followed the taste or experience of the shipyard or master of construction?

 

XXXDAn

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by dafi

[dafi]

Another discussion led here in MSW is to be found here: 

https://modelshipworld.com/topic/12576-gunport-stops-only-mentioned-by-steel-1805-identification/?do=findComment&comment=380745

 

One of the given reasons for the mortise in the lid as for my understanding was to seal the lids. Here is a fast sketch:

 

On the bottom you see how the lid is secured by the lanyards (or hooks) with the help of the blue batten against the hull. If one inserts sealing material like cloth or hamp one pushes the lid open, sse red arrows. On the top one sees that the sealing material is squeezed in between the gap and not giving too much pressure against the fastening.

 

XXXDAn

 

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by dafi

[allanyed]

Good find on the photo Dafi,  und danke for the drawings.   As with most things in this hobby, there do not seem to be any constants.

Allan 

[Jaager]

I am still uncertain as to the way to construct the visible part of the gun ports. 

That is a ways off. 

 

I am taking a break because I can find no simple way to remove the Scotch Tape adhesive from the frame openings so that I can shellac them.  It resists Naphtha, Lacquer thinner,  Heptane,  EtOH,  IsopOH,  but Mineral Spirits seemed to do more than the others on a quick test.  I know now that I should have only burnished the tape on the Pine filler and not the Maple frames.   Now needs to return inspiration and determination - before I am seduced by another hull to frame..

[druxey]

Try a piece of crêpe rubber eraser on the  gummy remnants instead of solvent.

 

Have you tried the low-tack version: 3M's Scotch brand removable matt tape instead?

[Jaager]

1 hour ago, druxey said:

Have you tried the low-tack version: 3M's Scotch brand removable matt tape instead?

It is the tack that is important.  I bond my frame timbers using Titebond II - PVA - I shape my frames in station to station thick batches.  The station shape from the Body plan is all of the lofting I need for the outside shape.  I have a quick and simple method for getting the inside moulded shape.   I scroll cut the individual timbers - it is the least wasteful way.  Now comes the job of precisely aligning a thick section of stacked frame timers.  Vertical alignment lines in the same place on all timbers does this.  BUT, except at the dead flat no vertical line will connect the inside of all of the frames in a station to station thick section.  The bevel is usually too much.   Vertical lines outside the edges of the frame shape will do exactly what I want.  This additional width means that there is more wood to remove.  A station to station section of frame timbers is a thick layer of plywood.  It needs aggressive stock removal.   To keep the frames from being damaged and protect the edges at the spaces, I use temporary space fillers during the shaping process.  I use construction Pine now.   To keep these space fills in place during the wood removal process, I need an adhesive that will stand up to 60-80 grit sanding belt and drum force.  Then, when finished, I need it to release/ reverse so that I can punch out the filler Pine.  The solvent to remove it must not affect a PVA bond.  I tried Duco = acetone does not affect PVA.  Duco did not provide the shear hold strength that I needed.  I tried liquid hide glue - heat + EtOH totally denatures the protein.  It holds like a champ, but the frame thickness makes it almost impossible to get sufficient heat to the glue in the middle without cooking the actual frame timbers surface.   Scotch Perm Double Stick tape holds  and solvents weaken it enough to allow the Pine to be punched out.  To hold, it needs pressure.  This has residual adhesive staying with the frame timer surface.  It is a narrow gap.  It is a pain to get at.   For the hold needed, it helps to burnish one side of the tape down.  I now know that it is a bad idea to do the burnishing on the frame Maple instead of the spacer Pine.  My system had the tape burnished to the Maple on one side of the spacer and burnished to the Pine on the other.   The tape went with the burnished side.  The Maple is clean on one side and gummy on the other.  I also had to use a #11 blade to work the burnished tape off the Maple.  It was difficult to see the residual too.   Solvent and a scrapper eventually cleans it up.   It is just that there a whole lot of separate open spaces between the frames of a 60 gun ship's hull.  A gum rubbing crepe piece may do as well as a #11 scrapper but them's a tight space however I do it. 

This as been an unwelcome surprise and I just needed to vent.

I have not found a "magic" strong but instantly reversible adhesive so far.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Jaager

[druxey]

I see the issue more clearly now. If you cut the crêpe rubber to the width of the openings between the frame elements or a whisker less, that should work.