Endeavour by Bill97 - OcCre - 1/54

[Bill97]

Thanks Trevor. You have been extremely helpful. 

[Kenchington]

Glad to assist where I can!

[Bill97]

So Trevor I guess the easiest thing would be just to stow them on deck maybe. However I think I am confused. Are the fish davits just used to hoist the anchor and then stowed away once the anchor is locked in the weighed position or are they part of the weighed setup?  Are they still helping to support the anchor the entire time it is secured on the side of the ship?

[Kenchington]

My understanding is that fish davits, of the era you are portraying, were stowed away when not actually in use for raising an anchor up to its stowage position.

 

Have a good look at contemporary sources before showing your ship with no anchors on the bows. I don't doubt that there almost always some on deck but there may also have been some on the bows (unless they were on the bottom of some anchorage). If they were brought inboard when out in mid-ocean, then one would expect the sails to be set if the anchors are on deck. Not that you would be wrong to show the ship that way but it would look a bit odd to someone expecting to see the anchors outboard, if the anchors were in and all sails furled.

[alpayed]

Hi guys.

On a collier like Endeavour the anchors were carried as shown here. Best bower and second bower were catted and stowed as shown.

I have not shown the shank painter or the securing of the sheet and kedge anchors stored on the fore channels.

She would have carried spare anchors in the hold.

The fish davit was moved from place to place and probably stored in the channels when not used.

 

[Bill97]

Ok great. My curiosity kenchington was, as you stated above, the fish davits were stowed away when not actually in use.  alpayed I am leaving the anchors at the bow. So my question was once the anchors were raised with the help of the fish davits and fixed in position was the fish davit then stowed away? From what you guys are saying I think it was. So if I have my anchors on the bow then the fish davits should be stowed away not sticking out as mine are now. I need to remove them and stow on deck somewhere. 

Edited Tuesday at 01:23 PM by Bill97

[Kenchington]

Just one fish davit! One alone was awkward enough.

 

Until a generation before the time you are representing, large ships had a long davit (as long as the ship's beam) that was stowed across the forecastle and lashed down. When in use, it was moved so that one end or the other projected far enough for its purpose. By the time of Endeavour, the much shorter davit that you have already modelled was preferred. In use, it was mounted on whichever did of the forecastle it was needed. 

 

Unfortunately, the near-contemporary seamanship manuals, like Darcy Lever's and Brady's, go on at length about how the davit was rigged for fishing an anchor, then go silent on what was done with it afterwards. Maybe somebody can come up with specific evidence. (Sometimes details can emerge from the oddest sources, such as an aside mention in a court-martial record. I've never gone looking that deeply for anything to do with fish davits.) All I can offer is surmise:

 

The davit was big, awkward and heavy. Stowing it somewhere near where it was used but out of the way would be the first choice, though there were plenty of men and plenty of tackle, if it was necessary to hoist the beastly thing. If you can find somewhere on the forecastle where the davit might be lashed down, without obstructing other gear or the men's access to wherever they had to go, then that would be a likely spot. Another possibility would be the fore chains, between the ship's side and the deadeyes of the foremast shrouds. Or perhaps on the boat skids across the waist, if your ship had those. Making things serve two (or more) purposes has value in a small, crowded ship. I'm not sure what second purpose a davit might serve, other than as a place for men to sit when having yarn during a dog-watch, but maybe someone can be more imaginative.

 

Trevor

 

[Kenchington]

8 hours ago, alpayed said:

Hi guys.

On a collier like Endeavour ...

 

That's a beautiful illustration, Alpayed!

 

In my own defence, however, I'll just note that how gear was handled on a collier serving the regular trade down the coast from Newcastle to London and how it was handled on an ex-collier leaving the Cape for a long voyage into an unknown ocean were not necessarily one and the same.

 

Given the prominence of Cook's voyages, I'd not be surprised if the officer's journals have been published. I wonder whether any of them happened to mention specific details?

 

Trevor

[Bill97]

Thanks gentlemen. Sorry to have belabored such a small detail, but so appreciate your help. I am going to remove both fish davits, repair the area where it was, and find a convenient place to stow just one. Will show update when completed. 
Thanks again

 

Bill

[alpayed]

4 hours ago, Kenchington said:

In my own defence

Hi Trevor, sorry you felt you needed to defend yourself. It was not intending to offend just adding to the discussion.

 

Hi Bill.

Trevor may be right. there could be 2 fish davits, 1 each side. Harland states that the earlier type is manhandled side to side and then talks about the shorter one. (easily confused)

The stowage of the smaller latter type is a grey area. given that is secured to the deck in an iron "shoe" (Harland) as Karl depicts.

Maybe it was stood vertically and secured using the topping lift, (probable) or maybe over the side permanently. (unlikely) Or the shoe could be a loose fit and they were removed and stowed elsewhere.

My guess is as good as another's unless some evidence turns up later.

 

Harland also details where the anchors were stowed.

Flinders records dropping 2,3 and sometimes 4 anchors at various places on his circumnavigation. These must have been ready to drop quickly at these times.

 

This is the details of Investigators anchors:

 

Anchor stowage

(A) Best Bower.                 starboard, secured with shank painters to the timber heads with the fluke on gunwale. and to the cat heads with stoppers.

(B) Small bower.                port similar to best bower

(C) spare anchor,               carried port and fixed to the fore part of the fore channel.

(F) Sheet anchor.    starboard and fixed to the fore part of the fore channel.

(H) Kedge starboard and fixed to the aft part of the fore channel.

(D,E,G,I )  Stored in hold

Stream and Kedge anchors

The spare stream and kedge anchors were stowed below.

The sheet anchor (starboard) and spare anchor (port) were stowed at the after ends of the fore channels with the stream and kedge anchors on the spare anchor or down below.

 

Regards

Allan

[Bill97]

OK Trevor and Allan you guys have given me good advice s far. I tinkered with the anchor situation good part f the day and have some progress, but also a head scratcher. I attached a few photos. I think I can successfully move the fish davits inboard on the forecastle. The end is in a ring that pivots. I basically lifted loose end up and rotated it forward on the bow out of the way where I can lash it to a timber. In this configuration the crew could raise the loose end and pivot it back to the side to use. It is an idea. I also rigged the anchor to the cathead with a double block with a hook. My issue here that I need additional thought on is the cathead is right beside the bumpkin. The bumpkin shrouds go down to points on the hull. See red lines in photos. If the anchor would be pulled up to the side of the bow it comes in contact with the bumpkin shroud. What might I have wrong?

[Kenchington]

Ouch!

 

I don't have specific drawings for Endeavour, so I must leave the solution to others, but I do see the problem.

 

There must be a clear run for all parts of the cat tackle to lift the weight of the anchor. If any part rubbed across the bumkin, it would swiftly fail under tension. Worse, that tackle must remain clear of obstructions as the anchor is fished and its ring pulled aft. For all I know, the bumkins were unshipped when anchor work was going on. If not, either the bumkin or the cathead is in the wrong place on your model.

 

When the anchor is down on the seabed, its cable must lead forward from the hawsehole, so between the stem and the forward bumkin shroud. So, once the anchor is up and suspended from the cathead, the cable must pass outboard of that shroud in reaching from the hawsehole to the anchor's ring. However, the cable would be slack then, so no problem with cable and shroud coming into contact. The bigger problem with the shrouds would be with the one angled outboard. Would it even be possible to pass the anchor between that and the ship's side? The geometry looks very tight.

 

But without details that I don't have, I can't advise on how to solve the riddle!

 

Trevor

[alpayed]

Hi Guys.

The Boomkins were for the fore tacks. Any force on them would be to the aft and slightly upwards.

I looked at this issue when I was looking the anchor catting/fishing on Investigator.

On Investigator I have kept them to the cutwater/stem. I may move one down lower.

I also remember it on Endeavour.  This model was built in the late 90's so I only have scans of photos.

Note also where I put the fish davit. I suppose there must have been some way of raising the other anchors also hinting that they may have been moved about.????

I rigged the model after Karl published the book.

Look at the photos in Karl's book. You will see I put the boomkin stays close to the stem.

From Steel:

BOOMKIN-SHROUDS, to support the boomkins, have their after ends hooked to eye-bolts, one above the cheeks of the head, the other in the cutwater:

 

I think Karl has them a bit too far out in his drawings.

Hope this helps.

Regards Allan.

 

[Bill97]

This is the drawing in the Anatomy of the Ship book by Marquardt. Showing the catheads inside the bumpkins. How would this have been possible for the anchor and rope not to have interfered with the bumpkin shrouds. Interesting 

[Bill97]

Allan this photo is from the same point of view as the one you posted of your build except mine is from the port side. I am trying to see what I have different from your’s that would solve the riddle. One thing I see is my rope from the anchor to the howser hole is shorter. Don’t know that would make a difference. think I am going to move further toward the stern of the ship working on rigging of the main mast while I continue to study and seek help on this bumpkin shroud/cathead anchor riddle. Surly someone out there has the answer. For now the bow of my model will just look in disarray. I could just say the heck with it and rig it as OcCre instructs (who would really know or care) but as we have discovered it would not be correct. 

Edited Thursday at 03:09 PM by Bill97

[Kenchington]

2 hours ago, Bill97 said:

This is the drawing in the Anatomy of the Ship book by Marquardt. Showing the catheads inside the bumpkins. How would this have been possible for the anchor and rope not to have interfered with the bumpkin shrouds. Interesting 

Many years ago, I did a lot of book reviewing for a maritime-history journal. As they came out, the editor sent me each of the Anatomy of the Ship series that addressed sailing ships (not the ones on 20th Century warships). After a half-dozen of them, I had to ask him to stop as I couldn't give any of them a positive review and it didn't seem fair to the publisher to keep slamming the errors in the series.

 

Some very skilled draughtsmen who are also enthusiasts for historical nautical technology have done their level best with those books and I don't like to put their efforts down. But the end results are commercial products, not academic tomes incorporating the expertise of multiple specialists. Use them, of course, and learn from them -- but my advice would be to not rely on them as some sort of ultimate, unchallengeable authority. Now, by trying to reproduce one particular detail in three dimensions, you have discovered an error in the Endeavour book that might easily have been missed until someone tried suspending a model anchor from a model cathead. So we now know that the book is wrong on that point, however right it is about other details.

 

One thought: What if the bumkin went over the cathead, instead of under it? The cathead could be flat on the deck, such that the weight of the anchor was transferred more readily to the ship's structure. The bumkin, which does not need to bear anywhere near as great a load, could be arched over the cathead, such that its outer end is in the same place as in your present modelling, while leaving plenty of space for the cat-tackle falls to pass under the arch. That would need the least modification to the AotS draughting.

 

Trevor

[Kenchington]

6 hours ago, alpayed said:

I suppose there must have been some way of raising the other anchors also hinting that they may have been moved about.????

That's a good point, Allan.

 

Contemporary accounts go on about catting and fishing bower anchors but nothing (that I know of) on how a sheet anchor was got outboard when needed in a hurry, how the spare bowers were got into their positions, a little abaft the best bowers, nor how the kedge and stream anchors were moved about for stowage. I suspect that the answers lie in experienced seamen being very inventive in how they used the many spars and tackles in a ship's rig. With a tackle from the foremast head, another from the end of the fore yard, plus the stay tackle (on the main stay) that was used when hoisting out the boats, heavy weights could likely be moved around, a bit the way that ships were loaded and unloaded using union purchases (back before the coming of the "box boats"). Not something to be done every day, perhaps, but anchors other than the best bowers, stream and kedge did not need to be moved every day.

 

Somewhere, I have seen a series of engravings showing a vessel sent up the Adriatic to load large marble slabs from a quarry there. The artist showed how the rig was partially disassembled, then the spars and tackle arranged to get the heavy lumps of rock down from the hillside and onto the vessel. It was a lesson in the adaptability of the technology, when handled by men with knowledge and practical experience now lost to us.

 

Trevor

[Bill97]

Thanks Trevor. I will give your suggestion a study to see how it might solve our riddle. 

[alpayed]

Hi Guys.

Going back a few years now so I have to go digging for info. My memory is not what it used to be.

Bill here is what I would do. Move the boomkin shroud over to the blue line.

This is about how Steel describes them. The existing one to the cutwater and the blue to above the head knees. (which is about where the would be is Endeavour had them)

Unless you can swing the boomkin slightly to the bowsprit leave well enough alone.

Redo the cat falls to be behind the boomkin

 

 

 

This is my drawing of Endeavour from the 1990's Obviously I had a different idea to Karl at the time.

I am going to stick my head out now and say that Karl is wrong here.

It would not be practical to be removing and replacing guys every time an anchor is used.

 

 

 

This is arrangement for Investigator.

 

 

 

Finally here is Parkinson's sketch of the bow of Endeavour.

The boomkins are clearly forward of the cathead.

Regards

Allan

 

Edited yesterday at 08:17 AM by alpayed
edit cat head to boomkin

[Bill97]

Thanks guys. You have given me a path forward to solve this riddle. Will keep you informed. I think I will move the boomkins like the illustration above and also the shrouds as you show Allan. Wish me luck. Will require a bit of wood repair work but not to difficult. 
 

Bill

[Bill97]

Gentlemen the fix is in. Moved both boomkin shrouds over to the knee. Also repositioned the cathead which makes the whole system work and look better. Now only thing remaining is deciding for sure where I want to reposition the fish davits. I currently have them where I left one end bolted to the deck by a ring bolt which permits rotating it inboard and outboard. I added an additional piece of wood where it would rest on the bulwark when in use. The additional oiece of wood is to protect the top of the bulwark. I currently rotated the davits forward and lay next to the cathead where I could lash them if I decide this is what I want. 

[alpayed]

Well done Bill.

I think you could move the fish davit next to the boomkin with it resting on the bulwark and lash it there.

Regards Allan 

[Bill97]

Thanks Allan. I will see how that looks. 

[shipaholic]

Hi Bill

Just my opinion, but I've always had an issue with the presence of boomkins on Endeavour, especially how the AOTS shows them. I imagine they would cause all sorts of issues with the anchor, even if they aren't directly under the catheads. The ship will move around whilst at anchor due to wind and currents and, with the boomkins there, those stays would foul with the anchor cables. So I left boomkins off my Endeavour model because I could not see how they would work, especially if they are situated where the supposed boomkins on Parkinson's sketch are. Also, in my opinion those things on Parkinson's sketch do not look like boomkins.

Keep up the good work

Steve

Edited 12 hours ago by shipaholic
spelling

[alpayed]

Hi Guys.

Parkinson drew "something" in that sketch. It is a matter of interpretation as to what they are. If they are not bumpkins or boomkins then the question remains what are they.

Until there is a better explanation one can safely assume that the are boomkins.

This quote from Harland suggests why Karl put his boomkins at a steep angle from the centreline. On ships with a head they could be on a large angle, but probably more like 30deg.

Keeping in mind that Endeavour was a relatively small ship, Harland states "hold-downs were often fitted"  inferring that guys were not always fitted.

The lower guy could probably be removed altogether hence solving that issue with fouling the cables.

From Harland

About 1710 or so, English ships began to fit 'tack bumpkins', and these remained in use until the later 1800s. They were sturdy timbers, often exhibiting a slight downward curve, which projected out over the headrail of the beakhead, at an angle of forty-five degrees from the centreline. French ships of the Napoleonic era carried the tack bumpkin at a sharper angle to the midline than their English contemporaries, the intention being to make them more weatherly. When taken into the English service, captured vessels had their bumpkins altered, because it was felt they then tacked more readily than before, the foresail taking aback quicker than when rigged in the French fashion (Griffiths, 180). Because of the tremendous upward pull of the tack, hold-downs were often fitted.

 

On a ship with a head  the 2 guys can be fitted exactly as Steel suggests.

BOOMKIN-SHROUDS, to support the boomkins, have their after ends hooked to eye-bolts, one above the cheeks of the head, the other in the cutwater:

Once again remember Steel is referring to ships in general and on smaller ships the guys may not have been required. Endeavour's fore sail was not particularly large.

Harland only shows 1 guy in his drawing of a boomkin going to the cutwater fairly high up.

 

Regards

Allan

 

[shipaholic]

Sorry Allan, you don't address my issue with the potential fouling of the anchor cables with the boomkin shrouds in the arrangement you suggest. The boomkin shrouds would need to be above the hawse holes like in larger Men-o-war. Also those things on Parkinson's drawing a way too fat to be boomkins, and their position suggests no advantage to having the tacks leading to them rather than to the catheads. Despite numerous searches, I am yet to see a period painting of a ship with no beakhead that has boomkins/bumkins

Cheers

Steve

Edited 8 hours ago by shipaholic
Spelling

[Ian_Grant]

Interesting discussion. Here's a theory .... When coming in to harbour they'd be under topsails alone, probably. Knowing they were about to anchor they could remove the bumpkin shrouds. If when anchored the tide was across the wind or whatever the anchor cable could be at any weird angle without fouling the absent shrouds. As to whether Endeavour herself had bumpkins, I have no idea.

[alpayed]

Don't be sorry Steve. We will not advance our knowledge without discussion.

Yes I did Steve.

There may be only 1 guy.

Harland says that guys were often fitted. Often means not always.

He then shows a larger vessel with a head with only 1 guy.

A small ship may only have 1 guy or non at all.

It is a simple method to just move the guy to the stem piece.

 

 

Harland goes on:

Bumpkins dropped out of use in the late 1800s, the tack being got down to the cathead, or some other suitable point. The change was related to the concomitant shift of the foremast further aft, relative to the hull. Tacks rove double (that is to say leading through a block at the clew) only came into use late in the 1700s (Lees, 159). Before that time, a tackle was used to get the tack down, hence the term guff tackle', still in use today. 

 

The tack was not led to the cat head until late 1800's

 

Here is what I was saying.

Tack leading to the boomkin braced with a single guy to the stem piece.

 

 

 

This pic is a good reason not to dismiss a contemporary painting.

George Raper. First fleet artist. Armed Tender Supply Main brace boomkins. Not shown anywhere else.

Notice there does not seem to be any guys.

 

 

These artists did not draw fantasy. We have to try to understand what they were depicting not just dismiss it.

What was Parkinson trying to show?? I have no other explanation. but whatever they are the were there.

 

Karl was the first person to research Endeavour in detail and propose the boomkins on Endeavour.

I have to say I think Karl's boomkins are NQR.

That pains me a bit as he was one of my mentors and a great friend. I think he was largely infallible.

Ray Parkin also has en excellent volume on Endeavour but has a different idea on Parkinson's sketch.

I had a few discussions with Ray also but we could never agree on the boomkin theory. Never mind hopefully time will tell.

 

 

Regards

Allan

Edited 6 hours ago by alpayed

[Kenchington]

Bumpkin: Townsman's insulting term for an unsophisticated countryman, without whose labour the townsfolk would have starved. Possibly from a Dutch word with similar meaning. Modern Dutch has Boerenkinkel, literally "Farmers kink" or "twist".

 

Boomkin, commonly pronounced Bumkin: Literally "baby boom" or "child of a boom", used of a spar projecting from the hull of a boat or ship.

 

And yet both Smythe and Paasch, in the 19th Century, offered the "p" spelling as an alternative for the nautical meaning. Falconer and Blanckley, in the 18th, did not.

[Bill97]

Steve where did you attach the tacks from the fore course sail if you didn’t have the boomkins?  I am still open to making changes with the guy(s)/shrouds.  Not going to remove the boomkins. That would make for a bunch of woodwork repair. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Bill97