Jump to content

Position of Channels on ships Hull


Go to solution Solved by allanyed,

Recommended Posts

I am currently building the HMb Endeavour  by Caldercraft and according to the drawings the Channels are attached to the Hull directly under the upper wale or as they call itupper side rail. However when looking at a the replica of the Endeavour you can see from photographs that the channel is in line with the wale and not underneath. I have looked at one or two blogs of this and can only see they are the same as the replica and even look like they might be attached to the rail/wale and not the hull but doubt this as it would not be strong enough. Unfortunately I do not own the AOTS book of the Endeavour to check this out .Although this has probably no bearing on which is correct my last ship The Bounty by Amati also had the Channels in line with one of the wales/upper side rail. Hopefully someone can help me with this. Best regards Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David

Have you looked at the six color photos of the model of the Earl of Pembroke (renamed Endeavor after its purchase)?  https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66316  This is a modern (1947) model, but as it is at RMG I would guess there is some credibility to its construction (or maybe not???)

Allan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just reading text about the life stage of a model.   The position of the channels was used to date the point in the ship's career that the model represented.   Position X and it was = before year N and position Y = after.    The point being that channel location could change.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. and just for a bit more back ground here is one of the photos that I have of the replica. I suppose if the position of the Channels could change, Is there any models of the Endeavour out there which have the Channels under the wale? Just wonder where Caldercraft got there information from. 

gIMGP3581.jpgThanks you Allenyed for the link to the photo  which also has the channel in line with the wale.. I also wonder what position other model makers of the Endeavour  have their Channels. I thought I would also add a photo of the drawing I have form Caldercraft.

 

 

20210925_065200.jpgF

Am I correct in thinking that if I place the Channels where indicated there would be a reduced chance that the shrouds would clear the cap rail .  Also does anyone actually fit the channels onto the wale itself and pin right through into the hull ? ( As stated inthe book Historic ship models by Wolfain Monfield. In my last modal The Bounty and my first .I cut the wale away  then fitted the channel onto the hull. What is the correct procedure? Sorry for more questions.

I have since looked at a number of photos of this vessel including the replica and paintings other than the model made by Caldercraft  there is only one that I could find from the Australian Maritime muesem ( sorry I could not copy and paste this for some reason) so it would appear that both could be correct. If I did however fit this under the wale and cut the wale to fit the brackets ,I think this would be very strong. Best regards Dave

Edited by DaveBaxt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Solution

Why use just the plans from a kit rather than the contemporary plans for the actual details?  There are  contemporary drawings  including two profile drawings and all her decks as re-fitted in Deptford in 1768 for her exploration voyage and possible additional changes in 1771 when James Gordon took command and Cook went to Resolution.   I assume the kit plans and replica were based on some of these but which ones?  

 

The contemporary drawings are very high resolution and free, so probably better than anything in the kit or the replica.  There are actually two contemporary profile drawings, one of which shows her original lines plus ticked lines showing the alterations to be made at Deptford.  The other profile drawing is after the alterations.  If you use the deck plans, be careful.  There are deck plans from Deptford in 1768 showing her refit design, plus another from 1771 at Woolwich.  i did not study them to find the differences so there may be some, or maybe not.   

 

They are all on the Wikimedia commons site.   Go to the site and scroll down to the eighth page.  All of the drawings can be downloaded in high res.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ship_plans_of_the_Royal_Museums_Greenwich

 

Following  these drawings will insure an accurate model based on original sources. 

 

Allan

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, allanyed said:

Why use just the plans from a kit rather than the contemporary plans for the actual details?  There are  contemporary drawings  including two profile drawings and all her decks as re-fitted in Deptford in 1768 for her exploration voyage and possible additional changes in 1771 when James Gordon took command and Cook went to Resolution.   I assume the kit plans and replica were based on some of these but which ones?  

 

The contemporary drawings are very high resolution and free, so probably better than anything in the kit or the replica.  There are actually two contemporary profile drawings, one of which shows her original lines plus ticked lines showing the alterations to be made at Deptford.  The other profile drawing is after the alterations.  If you use the deck plans, be careful.  There are deck plans from Deptford in 1768 showing her refit design, plus another from 1771 at Woolwich.  i did not study them to find the differences so there may be some, or maybe not.   

 

They are all on the Wikimedia commons site.   Go to the site and scroll down to the eighth page.  All of the drawings can be downloaded in high res.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ship_plans_of_the_Royal_Museums_Greenwich

 

Following  these drawings will insure an accurate model based on original sources. 

 

Allan

Thank you Allan. That is brilliant and I didn,t know it exsisited. Look at the drawing it would appear that the channels are cut into the wale somehow as the wale is wider than the channel. I now just need to figure the best way to do it. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave,

 

Goodwin shows a shallow groove cut into the hull in which the channels sit plus the various types of knees and standards and such that were employed over the years.  I don't know if this groove was used in actual practice or not, but for the model I am sure there are a lot of  methods used by members here that are successful.  The following is just one that has worked for me over the years.

 

if you just bolt and glue the channels to the hull then add the support brackets or standards, whichever is appropriate for  the time of Endeavour, it should be plenty strong.   I find it easiest to drill both the chain plate holes and the bolt holes in the channels before gluing them in place.   Keep in mind that the slots with covering boards for the deadeye chain plates did not come into use until 1771 (Goodwin Construction and Fitting, p. 187) so, if he is correct, there were still just be holes through the channels for the dead eye chain plates in 1768.   For the bolts that hold the channel to the hull, the bolt hole diameter should be such that it allows the bolts (brass rod works well) to fit easily but not be a sloppy fit.    I then  glue the channel in place.  Once the glue is cured I drill with a slightly smaller bit through the predrilled bolt holes and into the hull so the bolts will fit snuggly when tapped home.    A touch of epoxy is a good idea to be sure the bolts are actually holding the channel.     Once you add the chain plates and deadeyes there will be even more strength.    

 

Hope to see pics of your work!!

 

Allan

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, allanyed said:

Dave,

 

Goodwin shows a shallow groove cut into the hull in which the channels sit plus the various types of knees and standards and such that were employed over the years.  I don't know if this groove was used in actual practice or not, but for the model I am sure there are a lot of  methods used by members here that are successful.  The following is just one that has worked for me over the years.

 

if you just bolt and glue the channels to the hull then add the support brackets or standards, whichever is appropriate for  the time of Endeavour, it should be plenty strong.   I find it easiest to drill both the chain plate holes and the bolt holes in the channels before gluing them in place.   Keep in mind that the slots with covering boards for the deadeye chain plates did not come into use until 1771 (Goodwin Construction and Fitting, p. 187) so, if he is correct, there were still just be holes through the channels for the dead eye chain plates in 1768.   For the bolts that hold the channel to the hull, the bolt hole diameter should be such that it allows the bolts (brass rod works well) to fit easily but not be a sloppy fit.    I then  glue the channel in place.  Once the glue is cured I drill with a slightly smaller bit through the predrilled bolt holes and into the hull so the bolts will fit snuggly when tapped home.    A touch of epoxy is a good idea to be sure the bolts are actually holding the channel.     Once you add the chain plates and deadeyes there will be even more strength.    

 

Hope to see pics of your work!!

 

Allan

 

 

Allan I have now been looking at all that you mentioned and I am now thinking of removing the section of the 4mm wale where the 2mm channel fits and then fitting a piece of 2x 1 mm walnut under the channel, which hopefully will help to strengthen the channel. I am also thinking of fitting brass rods into the hull for extra support. As the channels are only 2 mm thick I think I can only fit a max of 1 mm brass rod and hope this will be sufficient. I haven,t got much thickness spare so hopefully this will be ok. The channels are really small compared to my last model so its a bit of a learning curve for me. I am wondering how to mark the holes in the hull for the brass rods and thinking it would be easier to drill right through the channels and then whilst the channels is in the correct position I can then mark the holes by using a drill through the holes in the channel. Hope this makes sense.

            I have been looking closely at the link you sent me and in the side elevation of the endeavour it shows that the forward shroud looks to be in line with the aft of each mast wxcept for the mizzen mast which is well aft of the mast. I am sure I read somewhere that the forward shrouds should line up with its corrisponding mast but I have looked through my books but cannot find where. Sorry again for another question but I would like to know precisely what are the rules for this if any? Thank you again for taking your time to answer all these questions. Best regards Dave

Edited by DaveBaxt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are exceptions to having the first shroud athwartships of the center of the mast, and Endeavour is one of these case. The reason, I think, is because a swivel gun mount occupies that position. See ZAZA 6587:

 

Endeavour_(1768)_RMG_J2056.png

 

As for construction, generally the channel was placed against the side, not in a slot. There were long slots on the inner edges of the channel for water drainage to prevent rot. The only places the channel touched the side was where the bolts went through. This is seldom seen on models. Here is one example before the chains were added.1643082629_Cforeswivelbolts30.1.thumb.jpg.7ea8ebb0c7906c1b62556a1b473ec954.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, druxey said:

There are exceptions to having the first shroud athwartships of the center of the mast, and Endeavour is one of these case. The reason, I think, is because a swivel gun mount occupies that position. See ZAZA 6587:

 

Endeavour_(1768)_RMG_J2056.png

 

As for construction, generally the channel was placed against the side, not in a slot. There were long slots on the inner edges of the channel for water drainage to prevent rot. The only places the channel touched the side was where the bolts went through. This is seldom seen on models. Here is one example before the chains were added.1643082629_Cforeswivelbolts30.1.thumb.jpg.7ea8ebb0c7906c1b62556a1b473ec954.jpg

Thank you Druxey for that great photo regarding the slots to allow water to drain away but not sure if that is the case on the Endeavour but an interesting idea all the same.Regards the bolts going into the hull, I am assuming this is what the brass rods are supposed to simulate?  You may well be correct regarding the position of the shrouds in regard to the mast and will have to go with what you have suggested and the drawings I now have available to me . Best regards Dave

Edited by DaveBaxt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Morning Dave;

 

Strictly speaking, the bolts would not be visible, except perhaps at the extreme ends of the channels. This is because a 'cover-strip', a separate, long thin piece of timber with a simple moulding on it, was nailed over the outer edge of the channels. The chains themselves were rebated into the outer edge of the channel, and the cover-strip was then fitted over the top.

 

Also, if you want true verisimilitude, the channels are actually tapered, with the outer edge around 1" to 3/4 " thinner than the long edge against the hull.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In light of what the OP wrote about some of his work, I have been holding this back, but I will just type it.

 

The wales and rails were major structural parts of a hull.  I can not conceive of a situation where one would be weakened in any way just to attach a channel.

A channel is a part of the rigging.  It does nothing to strengthen a hull,  If anything,a channel adds addition stress to the hull.  I would expect that it needed a sound attachment to the side of a ship.  An attachment not prone to racking, but it not digging into the hull structure. I see that any decorative molding on a rail or wale would be absent where the channel attached, but that would be about all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jaager said:

In light of what the OP wrote about some of his work, I have been holding this back, but I will just type it.

 

The wales and rails were major structural parts of a hull.  I can not conceive of a situation where one would be weakened in any way just to attach a channel.

A channel is a part of the rigging.  It does nothing to strengthen a hull,  If anything,a channel adds addition stress to the hull.  I would expect that it needed a sound attachment to the side of a ship.  An attachment not prone to racking, but it not digging into the hull structure. I see that any decorative molding on a rail or wale would be absent where the channel attached, but that would be about all.

Thank you for your reply and forgive my ignorance but I don,t think I understand your meaning, My thoughts are that I would agree that the fitting of a channel would not help to strengthen the construction however I do wonder whether or not the  channel itself would be weakened by drilling a hole right through the edge for the fitting of a brass rod or bolt and can the strength of the channel in terms of baring the tension of the shrouds be achieved by glueing alone. Sorry if I have the wrong end of the stick and if I have I would I be grateful if you could further explain to me your meaning. Best regards Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2021 at 2:14 AM, DaveBaxt said:

.I cut the wale away  then fitted the channel onto the hull.

This is what I was referring to.   Fitted to the outer edge of the wale would work.   In a model, it does not matter - as long as the outer edge of the channel is as far out as needed.  But should you be attempting to replicate actual practice in your model, reducing the wale thickness would not be done.   It was acknowledged  to be a potential disaster at worst and bad practice at best, when gunports were cut into a wale.  The guns were the reason that a warship even existed, so it was done where necessary anyway.

 

As far as a the bolts being drilled thru the width of a channel,  the major force on a channel is in the same plane as the bolts.  The bolts were probably stronger than the wood, but the bolts would not be in line with a chain. 

Edited by Jaager
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaager said:

This is what I was referring to.   Fitted to the outer edge of the wale would work.   In a model, it does not matter - as long as the outer edge of the channel is as far out as needed.  But should you be attempting to replicate actual practice in your model, reducing the wale thickness would not be done.   It was acknowledged  to be a potential disaster at worst and bad practice at best, when gunports were cut into a wale.  The guns were the reason that a warship even existed, so it was done where necessary anyway.

 

As far as a the bolts being drilled thru the width of a channel,  the major force on a channel is in the same plane as the bolts.  The bolts were probably stronger than the wood, but the bolts would not be in line with a chain. 

Thank you for your reply, it is much appreciated. The cutting away of the wale to then fit the channel to hull is how I did my last ship but everything I have read since said to firt bolts/brass rods to ensure that it was strong enough. I did not have any issues with doing it my prefered way . However there is always a chance that it might occur in the future. Perhaps Caldercraft are suggesting that the channels to be fitted under the wales to increase the strength but I was trying to be as accurate as possible. They also recomend that they are pinned in place. Best regards Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I know this may be too late, but for MODELING purposes, there is another option found on a contemporary model for channels mounted on the channel wale.  This is from John Franklin's Navy Board Ship Models 1650-1750, page 66.  You can see that the modeler made the channel as a widened section of the channel wale itself.  The book also shows a closeup  photo of this on the  model.

Allan

 

1338176742_Channelwaleandchannel.JPG.cb818915a0357dcf9428de3bd2d847d3.JPG

Edited by allanyed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2021 at 1:09 PM, allanyed said:

I know this may be too late, but for MODELING purposes, there is another option found on a contemporary model for channels mounted on the channel wale.  This is from John Franklin's Navy Board Ship Models 1650-1750, page 66.  You can see that the modeler made the channel as a widened section of the channel wale itself.  The book also shows a closeup  photo of this on the  model.

Allan

 

1338176742_Channelwaleandchannel.JPG.cb818915a0357dcf9428de3bd2d847d3.JPG

Sorry I did not catch this earlier as it did not flag up for some reason. Thank you again for searching this out for me. Am I correct in thinking this would be a plank on frame model and this wale would be fitted before the planking was fitted? Great close  up diagrams are always the best! I think.Best regards Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, allanyed said:

Dave,

The following is the contemporary model located at the Royal Museum Greenwich from which the sketch was made by John Franklin.

Allan

1318752896_ChannelandChannelwalecombination.thumb.JPG.4ef78c3f7cf5fbf4102824baf3ef155a.JPG 

 

 

Thank you for searching that out for me Allan. As they say here in the uk . There are many ways to skin a cat. No idea where that saying came from and not very suitable these days . I am truely amazed at how many different ways the period ships are put together. I just wish I were 50 years younger when I started this hobby, so as to give me enough time to learn it all. Best regards Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, DaveBaxt said:

As they say here in the uk . There are many ways to skin a cat.

HI Dave

 

We use it over here as well.  You piqued my interest on this one so I did a quick search and found the following---

 

The oldest known use of the phrase dates back to the 1840 work 'Way down East; or, Portraitures of Yankee Life by American author Seba Smith.  

In his 1855 classic, Westward Ho!,” British author Charles Kingsley wrote, “There are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with cream.” Others did cats in with butter while a few still offed dogs with pudding.   "There are more ways to do in a dog than hanging it" was a similar term but generally referring to nefarious men.  Even Mark Twain got in on the act in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court  in 1889    --  “She was wise, subtle, and knew more than one way to skin a cat.”

 

Allan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, allanyed said:

 

HI Dave

 

We use it over here as well.  You piqued my interest on this one so I did a quick search and found the following---

 

The oldest known use of the phrase dates back to the 1840 work 'Way down East; or, Portraitures of Yankee Life by American author Seba Smith.  

In his 1855 classic, Westward Ho!,” British author Charles Kingsley wrote, “There are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with cream.” Others did cats in with butter while a few still offed dogs with pudding.   "There are more ways to do in a dog than hanging it" was a similar term but generally referring to nefarious men.  Even Mark Twain got in on the act in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court  in 1889    --  “She was wise, subtle, and knew more than one way to skin a cat.”

 

Allan

 

Brilliant Allan you amaze me we how quickly you research stuff. I always seem to take a wrong turn somewhere and end up off track . Even on here I never seem to get what I need when doing searches but thankfully there is always help from someone such as your good self. So thank you once more. Best regards Dave.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...