taper the top timbers/ribs of the plattforms!??

[Theodosius]

I have question regarding the top timbers (ribs) of the plattforms, Mars(?).

 

Started this in my build log, but I think it should be here, perhaps I can get more Information in this part of the forum.

 

I started with the masts, nothing to see jet, but still a first insecurity regarding the plattforms(?):

 

 

My reference here is Longridges's "The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships". I know that the book is about HMS Victory, and not HMS Speedy, but they are from the same navy/time/area, so similar building rules must be used. Am I wrong here?

In the book there are severel drawings which shows very clearly, that the top timbers (ribs?) on top of the plattforms are tapered from the hole in the middle to about half or a little bit more of the length.

I tryied to mark it in this picture:

 

 

My marks are very thin, I hope you can see 'em :-).

 

So my question is: is it the right way to taper all the top timbers the way I marked one of em, or is it all bul*sh*t, and I can spare that work?

I did'nt found anything in my Speedy-plan-sheets regarding this, so perhaps the easy way is the right one, but I want to be shure of that. Now it would be quite easy to file them all down.

Thank you all for your help! 🙂

 

This is what I wrote in my Speedy-build-log, @TBlack was so friendly to point out, that there is no tapering in Druxey's instructions in his Swan Class book, volume IV.

 

So I start to go through the sources I have:

 

R. C. Anderson, this is for earlier time, 1600-1720, but not much, in his book the timbers are tapert.

 

Wolfram zu Mondfeld: in this book the timbers/ribs are are also always tapert.

 

I mean: why would you add not needet weight high above the point of gravity? I think you would only let the timbers untapered, if it would be structural needet, don't you?

 

So I tend to taper on my build too, but I'm not full convinced jet.
 

[allanyed]

You mention the ship Mars but then the Speedy.   There were many ships named Mars from different nations so a clear answer is not easy.  Assuming you are speaking about the Speedy of 1782.  If you use the design by Steel shown in James Lees' The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War dated 1795 it may be OK.  He also shows a version from a model built to the 1745 Establishment that is similar.   Earlier and later designs were different.

The photo below is from  The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War  page 23 ISBN  0-87021-948-0  The battens taper from 4 inches thick to 2 inches thick according to Lees.  The outer part of the battens rest on top of the rim rather than ending at the same height.   Maybe too complex to duplicate at 1:64, but adding the taper to the battens should be reasonably easy.

Allan

Edited September 22, 2023 by allanyed

[Theodosius]

Thank's a lot! That is exactly what I meant and what I was looking for! Sorry for my confusing entry because of the name/wording/vocabular/ship name.  I'm not a native speaker, that makes it even more difficult, but I will try to improve my skills on that front also! 🙂 

I will do it like you say: tapering is easy, I will do that, but build a more to scale "what is the right vocabular for the plattform?" in 1:64 is still way beyond my skills :-).

 

Again: thank you very much for your help and clarification.

 

PS: funny thing is, this morning I searched the net for exactly the book you referred too (James Lee), but at about 120.- bucks I'm not so sure if I need one. Propably not as long as I build a Vanguard kit with its phantastic plans and Chris approach to make his model kits as much as historical accurate as is possible in that scale! 🙂

[druxey]

Kits are simplified, but you can modify things to make them more like the 'real thing' as little or as much as you wish. Allan has shown you how it was done in the mid to late 18th century on British ships.