Deck beams between frames or against them?

[Jaager]

It sort of comes down to what your goal for the final model is.

Is it a piece of art or is it intended to represent the actual - but really "idealized" underlying  construction as whole? To be used in an engineering instruction classroom?  

The actual ship is likely to have been messy and irregular.  Close enough was good enough.  Use what you have.  Time is money.  Materials coat money, waste costs money.  There would likely have been lots of square or rectangular chocks between the bends and probably within each bend for air circulation.

 

Note that what is shown is all bends and a small space between each bend.  The space is more than a liner of that era would have, it is still mostly wood. 

Leaving off planking would show something with academic interest.  But from an artistic perspective, there is little of visual interest there. 

A fully planked hull would probably be prettier.

But, to my eye, doing an exact Hahn style framing - that is omitting every other bend for visual interest, would leave too much as space.  If there is more space than room, it looks snaggle tooth.

[Waldemar]

 

Right. This is perhaps why Navy Board style models are so “sexy”…

[allanyed]

Something new everyday!  😀    It appears to be a combination of a framing disposition and planking expansion.  Very interesting when compared to the more common disposition and expansion drawings like those found at

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ship_plans_of_the_Royal_Museums_Greenwich#/media/File:'Aquilon'_(1786),_(also_spelt_Aquillon_or_Acquillon)_RMG_J7958.png

and https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-83495 which shows both inboard and outboard planking details.

Allan

 

 

[Waldemar]

Nice warships. Anyway...

 

I assume that most modellers want to build their models in as fun and painless way as possible, without the need to spend much money on obscure, often out-of-print books, waiting for inter-loans nor in-depth thematic studies, e.g. by delving into complicated, somewhat theoretical establishment tables.

 

However, those wishing wishing to go further could start with hopefully easy-to-get, some modern studies on British merchant ships (beside Marquardt's monograph on the "Endeavour" itself) such as:

 

– R. Gardiner (ed.), The Hayday of Sail. The Merchant Sailing Ship 1650–1830 (including a chapter: "Merchant Shipping of the British Empire", p. 10–33),

 

– or even more technically oriented – D. MacGregor, Merchant Sailing Ships. Sovereignty of Sail 1775–1815 (many useful detailed data, and even a dedicated chapter on "The Earl of Pembroke" and shipbuilding at Whitby and on the North-East Coast).

 

For those wishing to go even further, the "Table of the dimensions and scantlings of ships of each class" is a most useful source. It must be taken from the original Steel's "The Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture", 1805 (sorry, it is impractical to reproduce the whole large table here), and not from the modern re-compilation referenced before in this thread, as all data on merchant ships are omitted in this secondary work. 

 

From a number of remarks in the original table it is perfectly clear that there were differences between naval and merchant framing practices. One would only ask, to what extent (geographically, chronologically etc.)

 

Hopes this would be of help.

[Waldemar]

 

The full title of the table in the Steel work is: "Tables of the Principal Dimensions and Scantlings of Ships and Vessels of Each Class, both in the Royal Navy and in the Merchant Service; accompanied with such directions as are necessary to the practical explanation of them".

 

All in all, 58 double-page folios. Merchant ships' scantlings and all other data as much detailed as for the Navy ships. Below a sample page with types of merchant vessels embodied in the table (referred to by Tons as opposed to Guns).

 

[allanyed]

Most, if not all scratch builders are familiar with the various sources for scantlings, but kit builders would be well served to reference them as well. Steel's tables are part of the book from 1805 so not necessarily applicable to ships built much before then.   The Shipbuilders Repository 1788 may be a better alternative or the 1719, 1745, or 1750 Establishment depending on when the ship one is modeling was built.  For anyone wanting the entire set of folios and index which is just one small part of David Steel's Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture, the Sim Comfort reprint from 1977 is still found on occasion at Abe Books and other sources for anywhere from $250 to $500US and sometimes higher if the drawing plates are included.  Facsimiles of The Shipbuilder's Repository, can be found for about $400,  and the 1719, 1745, and 1750 Establishments can be found reprinted  on occasion and can be purchased from the RMG.   Scantlings of the Royal Navy 1719-1805 has all of these and is is offered from Seawatch Books for $45 new.  The merchant ship scantlings of the private East India Company are indeed missing in this book as Waldemar correctly  points out above but this book was meant to be as the title indicates, Scantlings of the Royal Navy, not the navy and privately owned ships.   

Allan 

[Waldemar]

 

🙃 ...

 

Now I'm just curious about the look of Hakai's model, regardless of his choices. Maybe it will be shown...

 

[Morgan]

4 hours ago, allanyed said:

Most, if not all scratch builders are familiar with the various sources for scantlings, but kit builders would be well served to reference them as well. Steel's tables are part of the book from 1805 so not necessarily applicable to ships built much before then.   The Shipbuilders Repository 1788 may be a better alternative or the 1719, 1745, or 1750 Establishment depending on when the ship one is modeling was built.  For anyone wanting the entire set of folios and index which is just one small part of David Steel's Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture, the Sim Comfort reprint from 1977 is still found on occasion at Abe Books and other sources for anywhere from $250 to $500US and sometimes higher if the drawing plates are included.  Facsimiles of The Shipbuilder's Repository, can be found for about $400,  and the 1719, 1745, and 1750 Establishments can be found reprinted  on occasion and can be purchased from the RMG.   Scantlings of the Royal Navy 1719-1805 has all of these and is is offered from Seawatch Books for $45 new.  The merchant ship scantlings of the private East India Company are indeed missing in this book as Waldemar correctly  points out above but this book was meant to be as the title indicates, Scantlings of the Royal Navy, not the navy and privately owned ships.   

Allan 

For those who are interested you can still purchase new sets of the Sim Comfort’s reprints of Steel’s works as Allan mentions above directly from him, I recently brought his Naval Achievements by James Jenkins, you can also still get Steel’s Rigging and Seamanship.  They are not cheap, but are of the highest quality and as limited reprints will only increase in value over the coming years.  You can contact him via his website at:
 

https://simcomfort.co.uk/naval.htm

 

As an aside, Sim is an acknowledged authority on Napoleonic edged weapons and the NMM recently acquired his collection, including Nelson’s fighting sword.  The collection is undergoing conservation and may be destined for the NMM North here in Hartlepool alongside the Trincomalee.

 

I have no connection to Sim other than as a customer and avid book collector.

 

Gary

[allanyed]

This is great to know.   Unfortunately they only have about 50 copies remaining of the 500 limited edition printing.  I had heard some years back that there were many more in a warehouse that suffered irreparable damage from damp rot.     

 

$850US plus shipping is a hefty price but as they are harder to come by, maybe not a bad investment.    

 

Allan

[Morgan]

Steel’s ‘Architecture’ is steep, but you get 2 volumes, and the plan-set quality is phenomenal. Although non ship specific you get quite a few 1:48 plans for many ship classes and boats, based on my experience if you were to buy these from the NMM you would pay far more on a per-print basis.  Also, these plans are fully annotated so you find you way around the draughts, you learn much more quickly when all the parts are labelled.
 

Anyway, that was my justification and I’m sticking to it 😁

 

Gary

[Waldemar]

 

So many prices here... And you Allan, do you have any business connections with the sale of the book you are advertising?

 

Almost forgot... You have misinterpreted my words again. I wrote that the book you are advertising does not contain information on all merchant ships, not just those of the East India Company.

[allanyed]

Hi Waldemar

You are correct, the book I am referring is not for merchant ships and I purposely did not include information on merchant vessels when preparing it for publication by Sea Watch Books.   

Cheers

Allan

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

... then there is a room for a suitable supplement so that the book could cover a wider spectrum than just warships...

 

Sincere good luck!

[allanyed]

Thanks Waldemar.  I have had no interest in the merchant marine since quitting my last ship and walking down her gangplank without looking back over 50 years ago.  Maybe there is someone here at MSW that would be interested in tackling such a project.  Other than East India Company ships what others would you suggest are included between 1719 and 1805, or would you do a book with a wider spread of time?   With all of these ships coming from private owners and shipyards, researching scantlings may be a nigh impossible task.    

 

Cheers

[Waldemar]

 

True. Written works such as those by Bushnell, Sutherland or Chapman are more concerned with shaping the hull bodies rather than timber scantlings. Shipwrecks are too scanty and even somewhat unsuitable for systematic data to be obtained. And each private shipyard or shipbuilder could have its own idiosyncrasies. Possibly extant contracts could be explored here, but this could call a decade lasting research, and with no certainty of securing comprehensive data. One would say, a hopeless task...

 

Actually we are left perhaps with Steel's works only, and I believe you could relatively easy integrate relevant data into your already fine work. To use just what is available.  ???

 

[allanyed]

Thanks Waldemar.    The only merchant scantlings I have seen categorized are those that you point out, in Steel.   Anyone interested in just those are probably better off to find a copy of the Elements and Practices.  To incorporate them into the Scantlings of The Royal Navy book would take a lot of time to reformat the book plus the cost for a new print run for what is likely a very small audience.     

 

Then again, isolating and transcribing just the merchant scantlings from Steel might be a good pamphlet size project for someone  (you???😀) to do

 

Allan

 

 

[Jaager]

The physics - the engineering characteristics - the strength - of wood has not changed over the last 2500 years.  The hull volume and length would determine most of it.  The warships would have to factor in the mass of the guns and the stresses produced by discharging them.  There were fads -  because they did not practice real Science for their inquiries and did not have any instruments that could measure the data anyway.  So from 1650 to 1860 at least - any variation in scantlings relative to and within a class of vessel size is probably difficult to observe - at 1:48 and smaller.  

 

Personal philosophy:

It is easy and probably natural to become hung up on what are insignificant differences.  A tendency toward obsession over minor details comes with this territory.  Letting a search for the Perfect become a blocking force field for getting to the Good - can be counterproductive and discouraging of an otherwise worthy project.  I am happy to have finally found my way out of that mental wilderness.

[Waldemar]

 

Good summary Jaager.

 

In this context, it will perhaps not be out of place to mention a surprise I had recently when comparing two French works on shipbuilding. Both works from the late 17th century and both about warships. Both describing the same class (size) of ship built in government shipyards.

 

But one in the Mediterranean tradition and the other in the Atlantic one. It turned out that many, even the most important parts of the hull skeleton have completely different scantlings. So what can be expected from practices in private shipyards?

 

[Waldemar]

 

Allan,

 

No, no, no... First, because like you, I'm more a fan of warships than merchant ships. Besides, a number of other reasons: other projects, language skills, etc.

[Jaager]

49 minutes ago, Waldemar said:

So what can be expected from practices in private shipyards?

I do not know much at all about The Med.  Are tides much of a factor?  Does anything like an Atlantic hurricane every roar across it?

The galleys seem to have gotten by with fairly light scantlings - for a long, long time. 

For the Atlantic, no matter the country, my bet is that most merchants did not care to bare the cost of a cargo voyage solo.  They would tend to spread the financial risk out to investors.  Investors would want some protection from unnecessary risk.   When insurance companies came into being so that many more than just "buddies" could get in on the risk/gain of shipping - the standards evolved into something formal.  But before then, when it was just "buddies", they would have had limits on how weak a ship they would invest in.  

So private yards probably had fairly rigid constraints on their degrees of freedom.   Play too fast and loose,  have a vessel fail because of how it was built, and farming or fishing may have been the next job choice.

Edited April 3, 2022 by Jaager

[mtaylor]

2 hours ago, Waldemar said:

 

Good summary Jaager.

 

In this context, it will perhaps not be out of place to mention a surprise I had recently when comparing two French works on shipbuilding. Both works from the late 17th century and both about warships. Both describing the same class (size) of ship built in government shipyards.

 

But one in the Mediterranean tradition and the other in the Atlantic one. It turned out that many, even the most important parts of the hull skeleton have completely different scantlings. So what can be expected from practices in private shipyards?

 

The French, it seemed, had a different philosophy on building than the English.   They had basically a formal training program for the designers of ships and that included an apprenticeship.  They were not afraid to experiment. They also had different methods of building ships and wood supplies.   However, the Revolution in France changed many things.  

[Hakai43]

Here is my progress on Endeavour. Very much appreciate the discussion on framing and learning to accept what you have. Will be doing some rearrangement of the upper futtocks and taking options discussed here into consideration.