Forecastle timberheads on Granado 1/64 Caldercraft

[HardeeHarHar]

Just curious, the timberheads as provided in the kit don't fit in the recesses in the forecastle capping rail where they are to be positioned.  I figure I can file either the timberheads down or the recesses bigger and get them to fit, or figure out how to attach them so that they are firmly attached to the capping rail, even though not set within the recess.   I suspect many of the ship modeler's on this site have encountered the same issue, and have figured out the best way to proceed.  If so, please reply with your ideas or solutions (I realize this may be a trivial question, but that is why I am asking it, because it must be a no brainer to everyone but me....).  Thanks in advance for any and all assistance.

Brian

[allanyed]

Brian

The actual timber heads could very well be extensions of top timbers so it would be more realistic for the holes in the cap rail to be enlarged.   A sharp chisel should do the job very nicely.  Not sure a file would fit in the holes.  Either way, I doubt anyone will be able to tell if the fit is really good.   

 

Note the kit has five timberheads between the aft most and middle swivel gun posts, port and starboard on the forecastle.  The contemporary drawing shows six.   You can study the drawing to see if there are any other differences between the kit and the original drawing of the actual ship. The contemporary drawing is below, but if it is not clear you can download the high res drawing (43mb) found on the Wiki Commons site for free.  The drawing is on the first page.   

There is another drawing of Comet, Terror, Granado, et al from 1741 that shows no timber heads on the forecastle.   It is at    https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/search/Granado 1742 but is low resolution.

 Allan

 

[HardeeHarHar]

@allanyed  Hey Allan, that is exactly the kind of advice I was hoping to receive.  Thank you so very much for your kind reply!  Interestingly, I have the image of the official Granado plan you sent framed and hanging on our entryway wall along with three lithographs by John Noble.  I wouldn't have considered using a chisel, but that sounds like the appropriate approach, and I just happen to have a set of good chisels that should do the job nicely.  One thing I should note, the Caldercraft kit plans shows 6 timberheads between the aft most and middle swivel gun posts, port and starboard on the forecastle, and has 6 recesses on the capping rail to accommodate the timberheads (I believe I am reading things correctly). I don't want to take advantage of your time and good will, but your response brought a question to mind about the timberheads on the main deck of the Granado.  There are two sets, the forward pair of timberheads is verticle in orientation, and set at a right angle to the deck, whereas the aft pair of timberheads is set at an angle.  I was contemplating not doing that and putting it at a right angle because it looks strange at an angle, but then I went ahead and did it the way it is shown in the plans.  Is this commonly seen on ships and common practice, or is that an oddity of the Granado?  Just curious on this issue.  Thanks again Allan, I really appreciate your thoughts because I would not have thought of the chisel approach!!!

Best regards,

Brian  

[allanyed]

Glad the plans have the right number of timberheads.  I saw a photo of their model and only counted five, thus my comment.  I may have missed one that is not viewable.   Photo below.

 

Not sure what you mean about leaning timber heads.  I THINKG they should pretty much follow the line of the top timbers if it were a fully framed model.    Hopefully some one will have a firm answer for you but perhaps the body plan may give you an idea of the line.  

 

Cheers

 

Allan

[HardeeHarHar]

@allanyed  Well I'll be darned, it does look like there are 5 on that model, but looking at the plans that came with my kit, it looks like the modeler put the swivel cannons where the 6th timberheads should go (see plan below).  It also looks like the modeler lost one of the swivel cannons on the starboard side (the one where there should be a timberhead ;-).  I also included a picture of the plans to show the angle of the timberheads (part nos 36 and 37).  You can see (I hope) that the aft main deck timberheads are at a slight angle as opposed to the forward main deck timberheads (which are pretty much vertical at 90 degrees).  Just interesting to see them at that angle...and it seemed strange to me that they weren't vertical because as you said, the timberheads "pretty much follow the line of the top timbers if it were a fully framed model".  So be it, they are CA'd at the angle in the plan, for better or worse!  Thanks again Allan, I do appreciate your kind and informative replies!!!

 

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by HardeeHarHar

[allanyed]

Now I understand.  Numbers 36 and 37 are not timberheads like those at the forecastle.  These are definitely not extensions of the top timbers, but look more like a variation of what could be a cavel block.   The drawing seems to show a hole in the cavel block, where as it would normally be a sheave arrangement closer to the deck for the  line the pass through to the cleat next to it (if it is indeed a cavel block. )

 

As to the angle, I have no idea how they came up with this, but it may be correct based on some contemporary plans or models they found.  I did some quick looking at photos of contemporary models in Franklin, The Kriegstein collection, and photos from Preble Hall and cannot find anything to confirm or dispute what they show on the plans.

 

Allan

 

[Dr PR]

The Granado was an interesting ship. I looked in the Anatomy of the Ship book (The Bomb Vessel Granado 1742, Peter Goodwin, Naval Institute Press, 1989) to see what it had to say about these objects. Although there are many detailed drawings of just about every part of the ship - inside and out - I could find none for these parts. In the two page inboard drawing (page 54-55) the aft one is lost in the page fold and the forward one seems to be behind the mast.

 

However, photos of the model on page 32 and 35 do show these parts, and in the close up photo on page 35 it does appear that the post is leaning forward (from bottom to top) slightly, as shown in the drawing Brain posted.

 

I would call these things kevel blocks, and zu Mondfeld (page 163) even has a drawing of one angled as in Brian's drawing (Historic Ship Models, Wolfram zu Mondfeld, Sterling Publishing Company, New York, 1989).

[HardeeHarHar]

It is interesting, because the build manual does use the term kevel for some of the other parts of the ship, but calls these 4 items timberheads.  I looked at the AOS Granado and couldn't locate them in the drawing.  I will go back and look more now that I know where they are.  Thanks a ton @Dr PR and @allanyed, I am learning more and more as I go along!

[HardeeHarHar]

Interesting, after looking at the photos in AOS, the aft "kevels/timberheads" are at the angle, but aren't in the same place as shown in the kit's plans, and the photo has them sticking above the capping rail, whereas the kit's plans show them flush with the capping rail or slightly lower.  I wish I had looked at the photos just to give it full consideration before I glued them in place, but I think it will "all be ok in the end" 😉

 

[allanyed]

I think there is a play on words regarding cavel versus kevel.   According Lees' Masting and Rigging on page 170, they are two different things.  Maybe there are other sources that do not agree.  Anderson calls the cavel blocks small knights.   Neither calls anything looking like the cavel block below a kevel.  Anderson does show kevels but they look exactly like those labeled kevels below.  Not a big deal regarding the name now, but for future, it may cause some confusion for those picturing one thing in their mind  and others something else.  Interestingly I cannot find the origin of the word cavel in the marine sense other than it is a variation of the word kevel.   Another day, another quandary!!   Allan   

 

  

 

 

 

 

[HardeeHarHar]

The Granado build manual from Caldercraft calls the 4 "posts", 2 of which are leaning a little, timberheads, and uses the term kevel cleat for a different part.  But having read Allanyed's latest commentary, I suspect  the 4 posts they call "timberheads fore" and "timberheads aft" are likely to more appropriately called a Cavel block.

[Dr PR]

Allen,

 

This isn't the only confusing terminology I have seen referring to historic ships. Mondfeld (page 163) calls your "kevel" a "staghorn" and his "kevel block" is similar to your "cavel block." However, on page 246 he has a drawing of ropes fastened to one of his staghorns, labeled "Belaying to a kevel!"

 

George Biddlecombe's "The Art of Rigging" (page 18) says a kevel is two crooked pieces of timber with the lower ends together and the heads branching out like horns, agreeing with Lees "cavel."

 

Webster's "Third New International Dictionary" 1966, the font of all knowledge about ships, says a "kevel" or "cavel" is "a strong timber, bollard or cleat ... or a timber bolted across two stanchions." This latter definition is closer to Lees "cavel cleat" on page 170. A kevel is also a staff or hammer.

 

Nordbock's "The Lore of Ships" (page 32) shows a "kevel" similar to Lees "cavel" and Mondfeldths "staghorn." On page 33 he shoes a "kevel head" as a timber mounted to the bulwark next to a cathead, with a top protruding above the cap rail and turned like a timberhead.

 

Charles Davis' "Ship Models How to Build Them" describes a  "cavil" as a "stout cleat of wood bolted fore and aft on the inside of the bulwark stanchions" used to secure heavy ropes.

 

Bjorn Landstrom's "Sailing Ships" refers to "large V-shaped cavils" for securing sheets.

 

Campbel's "Neophyte Ship Modeler's Jackstay" (page 28-29) shows nine different "cavels" or"kevels." He says the earliest of the 17th and 18th century were shaped like two horns (Mondfeldt's "staghorns") and shows a Dutch type (A) and an English type (B). The third is the type on the Victory of1765 (C). Another (D) is horizontal with or without a sheave, on the fo'c'sle bulwark to take the end of the catfall tackle (something like Nortbock's "kevel head").  Type E is a "verticle kevel with sheave" from before 1800 (a "kevel block"). The heavier type F was used after 1800.

 

 

 

The type G is a lighter type used on schooners, type H was used on English luggers, and last, but not least, is type I, a heavy cavel with a hole that aligned with a mooring port in the bulwark.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So it looks like just about anything you can tie a line to is a kevel! Or cavel. Or cavil.

 

I may be belaboring this a bit, but it is just this sort of name differences between authors that has caused me much confusion (and still does) as I try to learn more about sailing ships. Even worse is when authors use various terms without bothering to define them, just assuming that everyone else in the universe can read their minds!

Edited October 29, 2021 by Dr PR

[allanyed]

Phil

This is the downside to proper research.  Sometimes it raises more questions than giving answers 😁

[HardeeHarHar]

Indeed, I never would have imagined that the conversation would go to such an elevated level.  I am glad I asked the question, and that I have such informative replies!!!!    I will take a picture of the part(s) that is/are called kevels or kevel cleats so we can be further bewildered and/or amused, but it might take me a few days to get back to the Granado to do it.  So, stay tuned and thanks again!!!!