23 foot Launch by allanyed - Bounty?? - late 18th century

[iMustBeCrazy]

13 minutes ago, allanyed said:

The aft platform always is shown on plans as suspended in air.

ZAZ7455 a 37ft Launch seems to be the only? exception. It appears to show beams athartships supporting the quarterdeck so the planks would lie fore/aft. Contemporary models show a solid (ie. no gaps between planks) quarterdeck. It may show a vertical 'plank' along the keel supporting middle of the beams but this launch has a bow roller and no stern davit.

 

Foredeck is either solid or a grating.

[allanyed]

1 hour ago, iMustBeCrazy said:

ZAZ7455

Great find Craig.   This is one unusual plan with the number of tholes but only a few thwarts shown.   The aft platform/QD with the beams is definitely one example of what could be the solution for other boats.  Lacking information to the contrary, this at least gives ammunition if the solution is questioned.   Hopefully there will be other plans showing this kind of detail.   Many thanks!!

Allan

[Roger Pellett]

I believe that the skeg, an unplanked deadwood, was a characteristic of early launches that differenced from longboats.  It did allow very full quarters to provide buoyancy required for lifting anchors by the stern.  Later, large, full lined boats also called launches at least in the US Navy, had planked deadwoods. 

 

Roger

Edited December 21, 2022 by Roger Pellett

[mtaylor]

I recall somewhere in a discussion of his voyage that the stern area was reworked for stowing rations, water, etc.  It would be a "safe" to monitor and control the distribution of those items.  I don't recall the details however.

[allanyed]

9 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

skeg, an unplanked deadwood,

Never thought of it in that term Roger, but makes sense.  Very interesting.

Allan

[iMustBeCrazy]

23 hours ago, iMustBeCrazy said:

It would make sense having a removable stern seat to give better access when working with the davit and removing the rudder so I'm leaning towards the book drawing.

Thinking about this, if the stern seat and benches were 'loose' it would be better for stacking the boats.

 

I've also been wondering if the knees were perhaps iron, it might explain why they were kept in the chests of the carpenters.

[oakheart]

Good morning everyone.

I contacted Andy Wyke at the National Maritime Museum Cornwall, he was in charge of making the replica.

 

I got a reply just now.

 

Quote

 

No formal plans of the boat or GA were drawn for reprinting. The boat was lofted full size from a drawing produced by the National Maritime Museum in London, and from a plan in a 1927 copy of Yachting Monthly, which is held by our library. Other information regarding the fit out and general arrangement was extracted from a two-volume book entitled The Ship Magnificent, a copy of which is also held in our library.

Construction methods were researched by a combination of examination of HMS Victory’s ship’s boats, and much older publications such as Steele’s The Shipwright’s Vade Mecum, which is available as a download on Google, and The Boats of Men o’ War by W.E May.

 

Scaling up from commercial model plans to full size highlighted a number of inevitable inaccuracies  - I’m not sure if scaling down will be as difficult, but I guess as model makers you are used to those sort of problems.

 

You may already know there are several Titanic organisations, which might also prove useful in defining an accurate model.

 

If you let me know what your questions are I’ll try to answer or at least attempt to steer you in the right direction.

 

Kind regards, 

Andy

 

 

so what do we want to know?

 

Tim

 

[oakheart]

re reading the email, I am somewhat concerned he may have confused our interest with the Titanic lifeboat that they also made.

I will clarify that with him.

 

Tim

[shipman]

Seasons Greetings to all!

 

I've been following this discussion and it strikes me that you are trying to define the undefinable! A common trait here.

Please don't think I'm being disparaging, as I'm looking forward to seeing the results of this build.

 

As I understand it, ships boats were bought in by the navy from innumerable local boat builders, none of which would be working from drawings, relying on traditional empirical construction methods.

Their main specification would be based on type and length, with a relative free-for-all otherwise.

 

I feel too much is relied upon the few surviving period drawings and Steele as examples (while accepting one has to start somewhere).

The reality would have been each boat would have been unique by definition?

[oakheart]

Hi Shipman
Seasons greetings to you too.

 

Quote

The reality would have been each boat would have been unique by definition?

 

I totally agree about each boat being unique, from what I have seen in the build logs here, that's exactly what model builders do as well.

With my build, if it ever works out, I have decided I will make my build as it was on the journey. The discussion here will help me to do that.
I suppose we do have to be careful not to go down too many rabbit holes. As I said in one of my posts I do feel myself becoming a bit of a plank counter.

 

Tim

Edited December 22, 2022 by oakheart

[shipman]

Hi Tim.

Good luck with your build.

 

It's a while since I read Bligh's diary/log, but I recall he did describe some of the changes featured to adapt the boat to the situation; all of which, by their nature would have been rough and ready.

I would hope these details will be evident on your model.

 

Also, by the end of the 'adventure' the boat would have looked extremely worse for wear.

It would be unusual but accurate to reflect that and be refreshing because of it.

[allanyed]

On 12/22/2022 at 6:15 AM, shipman said:

you are trying to define the undefinable!

You have a valid point Shipman.   Having had separate conversations with both Tim and Craig, it is not so much we think we know all the details or can even  find all the details to make a perfect replica of the actual launch, but, we are sure our results will be much more realistic than the Bounty boat kits that we see. They are not remotely close to the construction of the Bounty launch, or any ship's boat for that matter, many starting with calling them by the wrong name!  My idea is to show that anyone can make an accurate ship's boat for their scratch or kit build ship without an array of modern power tools, including this launch, at any scale they desire.

Allan  

[shipman]

I appreciate your considered reply; I entirely agree with your comments and observations and eagerly wait to see the results of your collective endeavours to build a vessel which will transport us all forward and into an exciting and positive New Year.

[Roger Pellett]

The principals of small boat seamanship have not changed since Bligh’s day.  GPS, high tech winches, Better sails, etc. may have made things easier but the principals are the same.  Likewise, sailors of old were not super humans.  They were not capable of doing the impossible.  See contentious debate on Medway Longboat thread about mainsheet traveler running beneath the rudder.  A well made model should be based on sound practical seamanship.

 

Roger

[shipman]

Just come across this which may be of some interest....

https://www.classicboat.co.uk/articles/captain-bligh-replicas-race-head-to-head/

[allanyed]

On 12/21/2022 at 2:27 PM, iMustBeCrazy said:

I've also been wondering if the knees were perhaps iron, it might explain why they were kept in the chests of the carpenters.

I just read somewhere yesterday that iron knees were used on some boats in the late 18th century.  Now I cannot find where I saw this, but it was pretty specific that they were used in some cases.

Allan

[shipman]

I've never seen a proper explanation as to the use of knee's and thwart's in a boat.

I've always assumed thwarts were all removable; so were the knee's fitted by 'knocking' them in?

[allanyed]

On 12/22/2022 at 5:46 AM, oakheart said:

so what do we want to know?

Did they use the scantings given in the legend on drawing ZAZ7361?

Thanks

Allan

[iMustBeCrazy]

8 hours ago, allanyed said:

I just read somewhere yesterday that iron knees were used on some boats in the late 18th century.  Now I cannot find where I saw this, but it was pretty specific that they were used in some cases.

Probably Mays book, or this post

 

[iMustBeCrazy]

On 12/27/2022 at 6:49 AM, shipman said:

Just come across this which may be of some interest....

It was.

 

8 hours ago, allanyed said:

Did they use the scantings given in the legend on drawing ZAZ7361?

From the article shipman linked to, they used the book drawing and most probably the scantlings on it.

 

Although I suspect the only part of the drawing used for Bounty’s End was the length.

 

I would assume the NMMC lofted and corrected the drawings for Bligh’s Tribute.

 

 

Two passages from Falconers 'An Introductory Outline of the Practice of Ship Building (1821)':

 

The Launches, long boats, barges, pinnaces, and
yawls, are carvel-built; and cutters, jolly boats, galleys,
gigs, and life boats, are clincher-built.

-------

The thwarts of boats are loose and fixed ;
in general three are fixed, and are called the fore, main, and after
thwarts ; those fixed are commonly kneed at each end :
to carvel-built boats, in general, the main with two iron knees,
and the fore and after with one, which have two
nuts and screws or forelock bolts through the side, one of
them through the gunwale, and two up-nd-down bolts
through the thwarts. When the knees are wood, which
most commonly is' the case in cIincher-built boats, they
are fastened with nails, which are in general rivetted on
roves.

 

Now, this is 1821 and he is apparently talking about larger launches. But it is suggestive.

[allanyed]

One item that was difficult for me to finalize was the mast step for each mast.   I found a drawing in the Wiki Commons site (ZAZ5814) from 1801 that shows a step and I have revised the inboard profile to reflect this step design for both masts.   Note that it rests on top of the keelson.    In order to do that for the forward mast the keelson has been extended forward.   There may be other variations, but this is the only contemporary design I could find so far.   The replica built at the NMMCornwall shows a hole for the step in the keelson itself which makes no sense to me.  To me the hole weakens the keelson and puts a lot of stress on it when under sail thus jeopordizes the entire purpose of the keelson.   Hopefully they found additional contemporary evidence that the keelson had holes cut in them to step the masts and used that as their design basis.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by allanyed

[iMustBeCrazy]

30 minutes ago, allanyed said:

Hopefully they found additional contemporary evidence that the keelson had holes cut in them to step the masts and used that as their design basis.

Possibly ZAZ7356 (1787):

 

[allanyed]

Ahhh, now we have choices!!!   Gotta love it!  Do you have this in high res?

Thanks Craig.

[iMustBeCrazy]

13 minutes ago, allanyed said:

Do you have this in high res?

Only 'enlarged'.

 

ZAZ7356 (1787) j1146g.rar

[allanyed]

Thanks Craig,

The keelson in this 34 foot launch measures about 3" thick, where as the 23 foot boat would have had about a 2" thick keelson if May is correct.   A two inch keelson seems awfully fragile to support the mast, especially in a stiff wind.    As mentioned above, we have choices and evidence to support each method of seating the masts.  

 

Allan

 

[druxey]

With a thin keelson, would there perhaps also have been a reinforcing step or shoe above to support the mast?

[iMustBeCrazy]

37 minutes ago, allanyed said:

A two inch keelson seems awfully fragile to support the mast, especially in a stiff wind.    As mentioned above, we have choices and evidence to support each method of seating the masts

Don't forget that there would also be a bracket on the thwart.

 

33 minutes ago, druxey said:

would there perhaps also have been a reinforcing step or shoe above to support the mast?

Quite possibly, we have to remember that these are not engineering drawings.

 

I will probably go halfway in between with smaller steps than Allan posted above. I think it will be a good compromise.

[allanyed]

9 hours ago, druxey said:

would there perhaps also have been a reinforcing step or shoe above to support the mast?

Druxey,  this seems to be the case on drawing ZAZ5814 above, or are you thinking of something else?

Thanks!

Allan

[allanyed]

Planking, gunwales, risers, keelson, steps and footwaling in place.   While I tried to have the fraing and subsequent planking port and starboard perfectly symmetrical it was close, but not perfect.  To overcome this I laminated two pieces of wood 3 1/4" thick, inverted the boat onto the lamination and traced on side.   I then but out the pair of gunwales knowing they were exactly the same.   Once sanded they were glue in place knowing they were exactly the same.   

 

I used the design from ZAZ5814 for the aft mast step.  This absolutely would not work for the fore mast which comes on top of the stemson.    The keelson on this boat is too thin and would have to ride up on the stemson if used as a step so I made a step that is more akin to those used on the ships. 

 

There is some trimming and sanding still needed and two frames need to be repaired where a piece broke off at the top on the starboard side.

Where information is available all the parts so far are based on the dimensions in the scantlings in post #1. 

 

Allan

[druxey]

Yes, In ZAZ 5814 there is a shoe or step added. In ZAZ 7356 the keelson seems to be 5" to 6" deep, so no 'extra' material would be required.