HMS Bristol 1775 by robdurant - Scale 1:64 - Portland-class 50-gun ship - as built from NMM plans

[robdurant]

Not much work done on this recently as I've been on a push to get Barque Stefano completed... but we're making progress. The sails are complete, and being attached to the yards...  However, tomorrow I have an exciting day planned. I'm visiting the National Archives in Kew, London, to look at the Captain's and Master's logs of HMS Bristol. I'm hoping to read the logs for a few major events in Bristol's history - in particular her dismasting during the Great Hurricane in 1780, and a few other events.

 

So... watch this space, and I'll try and share some of what I discover. I find this part of the process really helpful in building the desire to really dig into the design and build. The connection with the vessel drives me on to see the model completed.

 

Thanks for looking in.

[robdurant]

Hi all,

 

A tiny update... I'm still working on getting this into Blender to check out the stations before I commit too heavily to real components (and working on Barque Stefano, too)... I've managed to work out how to get things neatly out of QCAD (the 2D CAD programme I use) into Blender, so progress is becoming more simple...

 

Here's a teaser with deadcentre and '7' frames in place....

 

[robdurant]

Progress is being made, and confidence is growing  I'm pleased to see that the flow seems to be good between each frame... Next is some work on the transom...

 

[robdurant]

Well, it's a bit of fun, but I'm definitely making progress learning blender now... Here's a few seconds of the hull so far at dusk...  I haven't closed off the bow or stern at the moment... it's more of an experiment... Once I'm happy with it, I can up the rendering settings, and it'll look much sharper, but I thought some might be interested.

 

 

[robdurant]

And a last post for today.... I've roughly shaped the bow, changed the lighting, started playing with moving the camera, and added some texture...

 

 

[robdurant]

Time to revisit this thread... I haven't stalled, but I have been spending lots of time thinking, reading and revisiting how I've approached this. I've gone right back to scratch with all I've learned, and redone the drawings from the plans, and I'm much more happy with the results (shown below)... they're all works in progress, but reconciling the profile, half-breadth and body plan, suggest that the fairing process is going well so far. Plotting the buttock lines went perfectly with no changes required, which was very satisfying indeed. I'm indebted to Wayne Kempson for his article on this site (Drafting Ship Plans in CAD) - it's been a massive help.

 

So - initial lines... There are decks, the two wales, buttock lines, and the rabbet line at the stern... As the plan stands, I'm now hoping to build this as a fully framed model without any planking, except possible the wales, much like a model (I think of Centurion?) I saw in Chatham a few weeks ago...  (Apologies for the quality of the photo)

 

 

Beginnings of a frame plan... (this will need redoing, but it gives some idea of the flow of the frames)

And the body plan... 

 

My next step is to confirm the heights of the caprails...

[druxey]

When you get to that stage, don't forget to run a  couple of 'proof diagonals' to check that all fairs out!

[scrubbyj427]

Off to a great start. Have you found the framing plan for the Portland class yet? It’s available at the NMM.

[AnobiumPunctatum]

I own a copy of the plan. It has the numer ZAZ1719

[robdurant]

2 hours ago, scrubbyj427 said:

Off to a great start. Have you found the framing plan for the Portland class yet? It’s available at the NMM.

Yes, I also own a copy. I've been working from that for the framing plan. It pretty much lays neatly over the Bristol side profile plan, although the caprail height towards the stern is considerably different (raised higher in Bristol), and the transom posts are at a slightly different height, even though the quartergalleries are at the same height... Considering the complexity of these drawings, they really are magnificent achievements in themselves.

 

Thank you for the prompt, though. I also received this in the post today, which I'm expecting to be very helpful... It was £4.50 on AbeBooks, and only £2.50 postage, so an absolute no-brainer!

Much happy reading is in store!

 

Rob

[scrubbyj427]

On 11/10/2023 at 4:44 PM, robdurant said:

Yes, I also own a copy. I've been working from that for the framing plan. It pretty much lays neatly over the Bristol side profile plan, although the caprail height towards the stern is considerably different (raised higher in Bristol), and the transom posts are at a slightly different height, even though the quartergalleries are at the same height... Considering the complexity of these drawings, they really are magnificent achievements in themselves.

 

Thank you for the prompt, though. I also received this in the post today, which I'm expecting to be very helpful... It was £4.50 on AbeBooks, and only £2.50 postage, so an absolute no-brainer!

Much happy reading is in store!

 

Rob

There are several differences between the class, as I’ve been designing Portland, the 1st in class, I’ve found several differences between her and Bristol, of course Bristol being the 2nd in class. Length of poop deck and cabins being one major change. Portland shows higher Taft rail which may also contribute to the higher frames you mention.

The framing drawing is dated 1776 and although it does mention Europa, Jupiter, Hannibal and Adamant, I believe this is possibly an as built drawing or slight revision as it’s labeled as a copy that was sent out for those listed ships to be built. It did overlay well on my profile drawing of Portland dated 1766.

[AnobiumPunctatum]

In my opinion the framing design changed in 1775 - 1776. You will find similiary changes also in other classes, for example the Swan class sloops.

I think that Portland has the conventional framing pattern with double and single frames. For Bristol I don't know but had the same thoughts as you.

[allanyed]

I have a few high res plans for Bristol and Portland, if anyone is interested, PM me.   

Bristol 1778 Body plan and inboard profile with frieze and stern painting, and Orlop and Gundeck.  The frieze work is a rarity.

Portland 1770  Framing plan and Inboard profile.  If anyone has the body plan in high res I would love to see it as I would like to compare it to Bristol.

 

8 hours ago, AnobiumPunctatum said:

In my opinion the framing design changed in 1775 - 1776.

Hi Christian,

You may very well be correct and this got me curious so I went hunting.    I found only a few framing distribution drawings on RMG Collections prior to 1775, and these were close to that year, the earliest 1769. Included are the Royal Oak (74) 1769, Orpheus (32) and Diamond (32)  1774,  and Intrepid (64) 1770.  They are low res so hard to see, but it appears to be the same as those of later years, albeit with canting at the upper deck gun ports in some cases. 

 

For years after 1775 one of the things I found that I thought curious is that every other set of floors/first futtocks touch on the plans for Ardent (64) 1782 but on the plans for the Director (64) 1784, no floors/first futtocks pair touch.  Draftsmen, designer, actual practice?

 

Possibly of further interest, this is from a contract for a 74 in 1781, possibly of the Arrogant class. ....... and that the first futtocks be bolted to the respective floors of every bend with three bolts of 1 ¾ diameter  It does not state one way or the other if there were spacers for air between them though. 

 

Allan

 

[scrubbyj427]

2 minutes ago, allanyed said:

I have a few high res plans for Bristol and Portland, if anyone is interested, PM me.   

Bristol 1778 Body plan and inboard profile with frieze and stern painting, and Orlop and Gundeck.  The frieze work is a rarity.

Portland 1770  Framing plan and Inboard profile.  If anyone has the body plan in high res I would love to see it as I would like to compare it to Bristol.

 

Hi Christian,

You may very well be correct and this got me curious so I went hunting.    I found only a few framing distribution drawings on RMG Collections prior to 1775, and these were close to that year, the earliest 1769. Included are the Royal Oak (74) 1769, Orpheus (32) and Diamond (32)  1774,  and Intrepid (64) 1770.  They are low res so hard to see, but it appears to be the same as those of later years, albeit with canting at the upper deck gun ports in some cases. 

 

For years after 1775 one of the things I found that I thought curious is that every other set of floors/first futtocks touch on the plans for Ardent (64) 1782 but on the plans for the Director (64) 1784, no floors/first futtocks pair touch.  Draftsmen, designer, actual practice?

 

Possibly of further interest, this is from a contract for a 74 in 1781, possibly of the Arrogant class. ....... and that the first futtocks be bolted to the respective floors of every bend with three bolts of 1 ¾ diameter  It does not state one way or the other if there were spacers for air between them though. 

 

Allan

 

Allan, 
I do have the Bristol Drawings but I’m curious to what hi res Portland drawings you have? I have Portland framing plan ZAZ1719 and Portland inboard profile ZAZ1720, these the ones you are referring to?

 

I also have a very high res drawing of Portland profile drawing and body plan ZAZ718.

 

ZAZ1718 has Portland written specifically on the drawing near the mast  particulars. It is dated 10th January, 1766 and it matches up very well with the marshal painting of the Portland contemporary model.

[robdurant]

Interesting. I'm using ZAZ1719 for the framing and ZAZ1749 for the profile of Bristol... this is the plan with the decoration on it. It hadn't occurred to me that the framing might have changed so drastically between Portland and Bristol. Without evidence to the contrary I would feel inclined to follow the framing plans for Portland as closely as possible, I think?

[robdurant]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that the framing plan for Portland didn't quite match up with the profile plan for Bristol, and @scrubbyj427 and @allanyed and @AnobiumPunctatum, you've been kind enough to continue the discussion prompting me to think about this whole task in ways I hadn't before. My horizons are broadening!

 

Looking back at the plans, and doing some measuring (the CAD I'm drawing is at 1:1 scale for the original) I now realise that the door is only 3" out of place, so what seemed like a gaping difference when I looked at it, is pretty close all things considered.  Here's a picture of a small section of ZAZ1749 (Bristol profile) and ZAZ1719 (Portland framing plan) overlaid to show the difference. The green square marks the quartergallery door as per the Bristol profile.

[allanyed]

15 hours ago, scrubbyj427 said:

I do have the Bristol Drawings but I’m curious to what hi res Portland drawings you have? I have Portland framing plan ZAZ1719 and Portland inboard profile ZAZ1720, these the ones you are referring to?

Those are the ones I have in high res from the Wiki Commons site.

Allan

[scrubbyj427]

On 11/27/2023 at 6:25 PM, robdurant said:

I mentioned earlier in this thread that the framing plan for Portland didn't quite match up with the profile plan for Bristol, and @scrubbyj427 and @allanyed and @AnobiumPunctatum, you've been kind enough to continue the discussion prompting me to think about this whole task in ways I hadn't before. My horizons are broadening!

 

Looking back at the plans, and doing some measuring (the CAD I'm drawing is at 1:1 scale for the original) I now realise that the door is only 3" out of place, so what seemed like a gaping difference when I looked at it, is pretty close all things considered.  Here's a picture of a small section of ZAZ1749 (Bristol profile) and ZAZ1719 (Portland framing plan) overlaid to show the difference. The green square marks the quartergallery door as per the Bristol profile.

Hi Rob,

I experienced the same thing with the QG door framing, in the end I landed somewhere between the framing drawing and the Portland outboard profile. Looking at my 3D model with the QG in place, it would be extremely difficult to spot an error or discrepancy through the window frame and QG structure. 
 

Edited November 29, 2023 by scrubbyj427

[allanyed]

Another anomaly that Scrubby and I have come across when comparing the Bristol and Portland plans is regarding the orlop deck beams.  The Portland plans show scarphed deck beams which was not so common on the orlop, and the Bristol shows 16.5" broad single piece beams.  I checked Steel and he shows 50 gun ships had orlop beams that varied in siding from 11" to 13" depending on where in the hold they were located.  The Shipbuilder's Repository 1788 does not give any widths for the orlop beams.  The 1719, 1745, and 1750 Establishments show 13" siding.  In the end, barring seeing a contract I would follow the drawing, but that is a significant difference.  As both were built at the RN yard in Sheerness, there would not be a contract, but perhaps others of this class were built in private yards so contracts would have been written and could shed some light.   

Allan 

 

[robdurant]

A brief update to say that I haven't stopped all progress on this project, but there hasn't been much to show. I've been fine-tuning the CAD plans, interpolating between the waterlines, before I begin to loft the frames.

 

It currently looks like this...  I'm beginning to have confidence that these lines will make a good-looking hull. I still have to add interpolated lines above where the tumblehome begins... that's the next step.

I've also redrawn all of the square frames, so that they are one of three "sides" (depths of wood front to back) - I hope this will make the final construction much more efficient. Once I'm happy with the lines, I'll add the canted frames, too.

Thanks for looking in, and for all of the fascinating discussion. My efforts must appear very stone-age, but I'm having fun, and enjoying the pace I'm working at, so I figure that's a win! Stefano's beginning to reach the final stages (just running rigging to do) so I'll have more time soon - and hopefully some space on my build desk again!

 

Rob

 

[scrubbyj427]

Your lines are looking nice and fair, Rob. What are you going to build with?

 

JJ

[AnobiumPunctatum]

Don't forget to check the buttock lines. If the waterlines are looking al right the buttock lines can make some problems.

[robdurant]

On 12/30/2023 at 4:04 PM, AnobiumPunctatum said:

Don't forget to check the buttock lines. If the waterlines are looking al right the buttock lines can make some problems.

Thanks - That's the next task after I finish these waterlines... The first attempt without the interpolation looked fine, but I've moved things since then, so I'll go over it again.

 

Here's a snapshot of progress to date... I'm looking forward to the bit where I can say I'm happy with these lines, and I think I'm edging closer.

 

[robdurant]

Finished the waterlines, and here are the buttock lines. Only very minor changes, and they look pretty smooth, so I think I'm happy to start sketching out the square frames...

 

[robdurant]

Hi all. 

 

Apologies that this build has stalled from my perspective. The post here will explain

 

 

Blessings on you all.

 

Rob

[allanyed]

Rob,

I TRULY hope all goes well for you!! 

I have recently been doing some more studying of the Portland class as the 50 gun ships of any era are probably my favorites.   

This is very late to the table---  Christian mentioned I think that Portland has the conventional framing pattern with double and single frames.  This made sense to me but I just noticed a few days ago that on the framing plan for Portland there is a note that there are to be dry pieces of oak between every frame.  They show an example of these pieces at station O.  Whether this carried over to the later ships of the class I have no idea, but barring additional contemporary information to the contrary, I think one could argue there were no double frames.

Allan