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

[druxey]

Thanks for the explanation. Annoying when things like that happen, no?

[allanyed]

Re-worked location of the clamps, beams, and platform planks.

Allan

 

[allanyed]

Ear, breasthook, and transom knees in place.

 

Allan

[iMustBeCrazy]

Allan, I keep forgetting how small your model is so here's yours, mine and Tims:

 

 

 

[allanyed]

Yeah, it is a bit smaller😀

This may help give a little perspective.

Allan

 

[allanyed]

A couple more things have popped up about which I am unsure.  Ref: below plan.

 

ZAZ 7361 has two dashed lines at the aft benches which was pointed out earlier.  This is impossible if they represent one bench resting on the other bench as shown for the side bench and aft most thwart marked A.  Assuming (usually a really bad idea_) the side benches rest on the after most bench, what is supporting the after most bench?  The clamps for the thwarts are shown but no clamp or other support is shown for this bench.  I have drawn in a small piece that would act as a clamp

 

Even more confusing for me is the forward most platform at area B.   It is shown on this and other plans as butting up to the forward most thwart. The clamp does not extend far enough to support the platform pieces that would be running athwartships.   If the platform planks run fore and aft, beams and clamps would be needed but then I cannot reconcile the design where the existing clamp is located.  I have made an attempt at a design in this area shown in magenta on the drawing below.

 

Any input is appreciated.

 

Allan

Edited January 4, 2023 by allanyed

[iMustBeCrazy]

32 minutes ago, allanyed said:

ZAZ 7361 has two dashed lines

That one''s easy, they're the two diagonals as they run across the transom.

 

34 minutes ago, allanyed said:

the forward most platform

Not so easy, the aft end is probably a half lap joint to the forward thwart the same as the benches to the aft thwart (or see ZAZ7192). As for the fore end, it's possibly supported on one of those lower breasthooks (whatever they call them).

[druxey]

IMBC is correct: dashed lines are proof diagonals, as seen on the body plan and half breadth.

 

I suspect the the aft ends of the stern sheets (benches) simply rest on a reinforcing batten across each side of the transom. The problematic forepeak grating - removable - is a press fit at the bow and rests on a ledge formed by a protruding batten fixed under the foremost thwart.

[allanyed]

2 hours ago, druxey said:

proof diagonals

 

3 hours ago, iMustBeCrazy said:

That one''s easy, they're the two diagonals as they run across the transom.

OK I am game.   A sketch would really help if you can.  I am definitely missing something here.

 

2 hours ago, druxey said:

stern sheets (benches)

Ahh, a new term which was totally new for me. 

 

2 hours ago, druxey said:

forepeak grating - removable

I get the batten or even a lap joint as shown on ZAZ7192, but was this always a grating or could it also be a solid platform of planking?   A grating would look "grate" and a challenge to make.

 

Many thanks gentlemen.

Allan

[druxey]

Think of proof diagonals as waterlines that run at angles - see the body plan's ticked lines. These are projected on the half breadth. If the hull is fair, they always form convex lines without any waviness, thus 'proving' the design fair.

 

Looking at contemporary models, earlier ones seems not to have any platform or grating, 19th century ones do have what appear to be loose planks. Your choice!

Edited January 5, 2023 by druxey

[iMustBeCrazy]

38 minutes ago, allanyed said:

OK I am game.   A sketch would really help if you can.  I am definitely missing something here.

You have to think in 3D. Because the transom is at an angle not vertical as the diagonal crosses it from the centre line it also moves forward. Sketch coming.

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by iMustBeCrazy

[oakheart]

7 hours ago, iMustBeCrazy said:

You have to think in 3D.  Sketch coming.

Nice drawings, as always.

 

Tim

[allanyed]

Thanks everyone!  My apologies but I don't think I was very clear, thus any confusion is my fault.  It was hard to see on the last plans that I posted so the below may be of more help.   I doubt that this has anything to do with proof diagonals.  Again, I should have been more clear to start.

 

The below is what is shown on plan ZAZ7651.  The side bench obviously sits on the aft most thwart but does the side bench sit on the transom bench or does the transom bench sit on the side bench?  Unlike Craig's great drawing, the original plan shows two dashed lines as below which makes no sense to me.  It could very well just be a mistake, but even if that is the case should it be as Craig shows above or the other was around, or possibly as on the contemporary Medway model, flush.

 

Thanks again

 

Allan

Edited January 5, 2023 by allanyed

[AON]

Common sense suggests the side bench being above the aft thwart would therefore sit on top of the aft bench... so it must obviously be the other way around 😏

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[allanyed]

Alan,  I read your post twice then paused then burst out laughing!!!!   Made my day with a smile that will last for hours.

Allan

[AON]

Your welcome.😇

 

Seriously now... possibly a full lap joint?

 

 

[druxey]

Oh, those dashed lines! Now I see your dilemma. Alan has it figured nicely.

[druxey]

Alan: with wood perhaps an  inch and a half thick, a lap as you suggest would be time and labor intensive to cut by hand.

[allanyed]

I agree Druxey, but then again there is a lap joint on the foremost thwart on the pinnace drawing ZAZ7192.  Posted below but may be better to go to the RMG Collections to see it more clearly. https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-86983  Of course the drawing does not mean anyone actually built it that way.😀

Allan    

[oakheart]

3 hours ago, allanyed said:

 Of course the drawing does not mean anyone actually built it that way.

 

Talking of building it, I just watched this video, nothing to do with our Bounty Launch boat, but really interesting details

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcM46DkSaZ4

Tim

[iMustBeCrazy]

Oops.

 

7 hours ago, allanyed said:

Unlike Craig's great drawing, the original plan shows two dashed lines as below which makes no sense to me.  It could very well just be a mistake

It has to be a mistake as it simply can't be built that way.

 

However that sticks us with working out how it was done.

 

The joint is depicted as flush, as it seems to be in most drawings. That would probably limit us to a half lap joint (as often depicted at the bow) or a butt joint with the benches sitting on other supports.

 

 

So, which way does the joint go? Other drawings aren't much help as many are equally confusing. Bligh had the side benches nailed to the quarters to raise them which would leave nothing to sit on if the transom seat was supported by the side benches. That doesn't really help as if could have been either way.

 

A transverse support under the front edge of the transom seat doesn't work as the depth of the seat doesn't line up with the futtock (if I have the futtock right).

 

 

Perhaps a diagonal brace between the futtock and transom or stern post?

 

 

At this stage, I don't know.

 

Edit: Oh, and things have to be removable for stacking the boats.

Edited January 5, 2023 by iMustBeCrazy

[allanyed]

And another case where someone needs to find and bring out the WABAC machine 

Or find George and get his machine up and running.

[iMustBeCrazy]

Having looked through the drawings, from most common to least:

 

1/ The vast majority give us no clue at all.

2/ The next biggest group (but only a small number) show us dashed lines in both directions, which gives us no clue at all.

3/ Slightly fewer show a full width transom seat.

4/ Slightly fewer again show full length side benches,

 

So unless Mr. Peabody can help I think I'm going with option 3.

 

 

[allanyed]

Thwarts, knees and benches in place.

Allan

[druxey]

#139 shows a locker under the seat that supports the front edge. Also, the side stern sheet can rest on the same locker front without any half-lap required.

[iMustBeCrazy]

39 minutes ago, druxey said:

#139 shows a locker under the seat that supports the front edge. Also, the side stern sheet can rest on the same locker front without any half-lap required.

All true, unfortunately although some of the Pinnace drawings like that in #139 show such a locker none of the Launch drawings do. I assume they wanted access to the stern area for anchor handling.

[druxey]

Would side lockers impede the davit and anchor handling?

[iMustBeCrazy]

1 hour ago, druxey said:

Would side lockers impede the davit and anchor handling?

Well, yes. But how much and was that even a consideration I don't know. But there are 40-50 Launch drawings and none of them show lockers. It doesn't mean that there weren't any but it seems unlikely.

My solution in #143 probably isn't right either but what can we do but take a guess.

[oakheart]

I am just about to start working out the planking on my 1:24 scale build.
Was there a consensus reached on the number of planks the original would have had?

Allan on yours I can't tell from the photos if you went for 8 or 9 ?

 

Tim

[allanyed]

The breadths for each of the planks including upper strake, landing strake and bottom planking are in the scantlings in post 1.   Use tick strips to find the total area at

station 0 then divide by 8 and it should be very close to the breadth in the scantlings.    I think breadth from about 6.5": to 8" would look right.  There seems to be a tendency on kits to use planking that is not wide enough but who knows what came out of any individual boat building yard.   The planks are all  7/8" thick which is really important.  I went a little thicker (1.25") so I had plenty of material to sand down to the 7/8.  If it is too thick the gunwale will not cover and slightly overhang the heads of the futtocks and planking.  Again, there seems to be a tendency to have the gunwale much too wide on a lot of the builds.   In this case, based on the scantlings from May, it is only about 3".  If you add up the thickness at the top of the futtocks and the thickness of the planking the total is 2.75".

 

This brings up a question......   The scantlings give gunwale dimensions of thickness and depth.  Is the depth the width when looking down and the thickness the dimension when looking from the side, or vice versa?   The differnce in this case is only 0.25" so 5 thousandths at 1:48, not really noticeable, but at larger scales this might be considered by some as significant.

Allan