Lynx 1812 by SaltyScot - Manuta-Panart - 1:62 - building as Mosquidobit

[SaltyScot]

I have decided to embark on an exciting new project that promises to be both challenging and rewarding for me, the Panart "Lynx" 1812 Baltimore Clipper/Schooner build. 

 

Stock Image

 

In preparation, I have thoroughly examined numerous build logs of the Lynx from both MSW (including Gaffrig's build, and this one from Don) and other platforms. A common theme among these logs seemed to be the need for modifications to the kit to enhance historical fidelity. This has prompted me to conduct extensive research on the Lynx, because the historical significance of this vessel has certainly fueled my enthusiasm for accuracy.

 

One of the more challenging realizations is the lack of original build plans for the Lynx itself. The only substantial drawings available are the draughts drawn up by the English after capturing her, renaming her Mosquidobit and sending her to England. (You can read her history here. Source: Wikipedia) I have found invaluable insights (including said drawings) in Howard Irving Chapelle's book, “The Baltimore Clipper,” as well as from the generous contributions of fellow forum members here who have provided references and resources - thank you all for your support!

 

My intention is to model this ship based on Chapelle’s plans for the Mosquidobit, (from pages 82 through 85 of his book), in order to achieve the highest level of historical accuracy possible.

 

And so, my journey begins anew…

Edited Thursday at 09:24 PM by SaltyScot
Image removed, new one added

[Knocklouder]

Good luck on your journey  with this build.

                     Bob  M. 

[SaltyScot]

17 minutes ago, Knocklouder said:

Good luck on your journey  with this build.

                     Bob  M. 

 

Thank you, Bob, and thanks for dropping by sir. Always appreciated.

[SaltyScot]

The first order of business was to identify the relevant bulkhead pieces and match them to the ones in the plans. A few of these pieces are extremely similar in size and I had to do some precise measuring to be able to determine exactly which one was which (which is why there is more than one number on some of the pieces).

 

 

 

The pieces were then carefully removed, lightly sanded to remove any leftover burrs and dry fitted to the keel.

 

 

It all looked good and straight but it was evident that some of the bulkheads were not sitting flush with the top of the false keel. The worst bulkhead was # 11. I will shim all the necessary ones once I finally glue them all in place.
 

 

 

I clamped a spare plank along the bulkheads to get a feel for the run of the planking lines. It didn’t look all that bad actually. Once I raise bulkhead #11 to its rightful place this may change somewhat. 

 

Edited Friday at 10:24 PM by SaltyScot
Image added

[SardonicMeow]

I've been looking forward to it since you mentioned you'd be working on this one.  I'll be following along.

Edited March 3 by SardonicMeow

[Dr PR]

Mark,

 

Good choice for a subject to model. I almost bashed my Albatros build as the Lynx/Mosquidobit.

 

However, the picture of the model you posted has a lot of errors. Whoever built it knew nothing about the topsail schooners of the early 1800s! The rigging of the fore mast yards is just weird! The spreader yard (course yard) lifts are tied to the mast about halfway up the mast??? The topsail lifts are tied to the base of the topmast??? There are stunsail yards on the topgallant yard!

 

The main gaff topsail spars are totally wrong. The jackyard on the gaff didn't appear until the late 1800s or early 1900s. The vertical spar for the head/luff appears to be tied to the topmast and not suspended by a halliard.  The peak halliards are rigged incorrectly (not far enough out to the end of the gaffs). The pin rails on the bulwarks are in the wrong places and I don't see the stays for the bowsprit and jib boom.

 

I would also check the hull dimensions. It looks to be too narrow. The beam was about 1/4 the length of the hull, and on the American two mast topsail schooners the widest part of the hull was forward close to the position of the fore mast, and not midships between the masts. This was because the square sail and fore sails rigging added more weight on the foremast than on the main mast. A caveat here is that some schooners also had topsails on the main mast, so the widest part of the beam would be closer to midships.

[SaltyScot]

13 hours ago, SardonicMeow said:

I've been looking forward to it since you mentioned you'd be working on this one.  I'll be following along.

 

I am honored, Peter. Thank you.

[SaltyScot]

6 hours ago, Dr PR said:

Mark,

 

Good choice for a subject to model. I almost bashed my Albatros build as the Lynx/Mosquidobit.

 

However, the picture of the model you posted has a lot of errors. Whoever built it knew nothing about the topsail schooners of the early 1800s! The rigging of the fore mast yards is just weird! The spreader yard (course yard) lifts are tied to the mast about halfway up the mast??? The topsail lifts are tied to the base of the topmast??? There are stunsail yards on the topgallant yard!

 

The main gaff topsail spars are totally wrong. The jackyard on the gaff didn't appear until the late 1800s or early 1900s. The vertical spar for the head/luff appears to be tied to the topmast and not suspended by a halliard.  The peak halliards are rigged incorrectly (not far enough out to the end of the gaffs). The pin rails on the bulwarks are in the wrong places and I don't see the stays for the bowsprit and jib boom.

 

I would also check the hull dimensions. It looks to be too narrow. The beam was about 1/4 the length of the hull, and on the American two mast topsail schooners the widest part of the hull was forward close to the position of the fore mast, and not midships between the masts. This was because the square sail and fore sails rigging added more weight on the foremast than on the main mast. A caveat here is that some schooners also had topsails on the main mast, so the widest part of the beam would be closer to midships.

 

Wow, Phil, I am amazed at your knowledge sir! I think you and I will be in close contact throughout this build, I will need to pick your brain if I may. Firstly, I will dissect this reply here and see if I can see what you saw. Thank you, truly, it is evident I have an awful lot to learn about these vessels and I am looking forward to it.

[Dr PR]

Mark,

 

I'll be happy to help if I can. If it is a topic that might benefit everyone post it here. For other things you can contact me with a Forum message.

 

As I said, the Lynx/Mosquidobit is one of my favorite ships. There are pictures of the reconstructed Lynx on the Internet that show how the plans were interpreted for the modern version of this vessel. 

Edited Wednesday at 07:33 AM by Dr PR

[SaltyScot]

6 hours ago, Dr PR said:

I'll be happy to help if I can. If it is a topic that might benefit everyone post it here. For other things you can contact me with a Forum message.

 

Thank you, Phil, I will certainly do that. A question, sir, is the rigging on the existing replica anywhere near similar to the original build (taking into consideration that there is apparently not a lot of information on the original rigging)? 

[SaltyScot]

I had the plans from Chapelle's book enlarged at our local library:

 

 

We can see on these plans that the length on deck is 94' 7" (according to maritime regulations, "length on deck" is defined as the horizontal distance between the forward-most and after-most points on a specified deck, measured along the deck, excluding sheer).

 

 

Using the info from the NRG spreadsheets for modeling calculations here which I programed into a Google sheet, we can also see that the length of the Musquidobit, as measured by the English in 1816, would have been (scaled down to 1:64 scale) very close to 17.75 inches:

 

 

I measured the deck on the kit plans and I got a whole different number:

 

 

I also measured the model itself:

 

 

 

From what I see we have 18.5 inches here. Before I go much further with the build I am going to take a good look at the 1816 plans and see what I can do. Exciting times.

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:50 PM by SaltyScot
Image removed

[Kenchington]

I'd like to lay claim to the prototype, based on her name and my location. Sadly (for me), the name had little to do with the place and the schooner nothing at all: She could not have safely approached any closer than Cape Jeddore. The Admiralty just had a penchant for naming schooners after rivers in what were then called the "British Provinces".

 

"Mosquidobit" at the time, spelt "Musquodoboit" now but pronounced "Musk-a-dah-bit" -- and only known as "Mosquito Bite" in jest, however apt that version may be.

 

Trevor

[SaltyScot]

4 minutes ago, Kenchington said:

and only known as "Mosquito Bite" in jest

 

Trevor, that is exactly how my good lady says it  Thank you for dropping by, sir. It is very much appreciated.

[Nearshore]

Hi Mark,

 

Look forward to following your progress. Good luck on your journey. 

 

Nearshore

[SaltyScot]

I just discovered something rather interesting. I had a screenshot on my desktop of the Lynx plans. I have no recollection of where it came from. I have read @Gaffrig's build log on this vessel and he had picked up on something from some other plans regarding the transom on the Musquidobit:

 

 

There was a difference between this one and the images in the kit:

 

 

Looking at the Lynx plans it is my opinion that the kit must have been modeled originally from the Lynx lines (I have no proof or concrete evidence of this). Look at the difference in the transom on these plans. First the Lynx:

 

 

Now the Musquidobit:

 

 

The Lynx plans show the keel going straight (at an angle of course) up to below the main transom. On the other plans, however, there appears to be a "dip" in the run of the keel. @Gaffrig described it as another transom in his log. This is another area of the model that will need some "reconstructing".

Edited Wednesday at 09:31 PM by SaltyScot
duplicate image removed

[SaltyScot]

11 minutes ago, Nearshore said:

Look forward to following your progress. Good luck on your journey. 

 

Thanks mate, much appreciated.

[Kenchington]

1 hour ago, SaltyScot said:

 

Hi Mark,

 

It looks to me that you have four different versions. Hard to be sure from the limited amount showing in your screenshot but that looks like it may have come from a scan of the original draughting by the English shipwrights who took her lines off in whichever dockyard she was sent to. Its layout, colouring etc. looks like draughts prepared for the Navy Board. I would suggest that that is the only fully authoritative source, though the others may be very useful in suggesting ways of filling gaps.

 

Your goelette (which, for the benefit of others who may read this, is simply French for "schooner", though used for some other kinds of vessel too) drawing is dated 1836, so presumably a copy of the English draught. Maybe something prepared for Admiral Paris' study of ship types? Your middle illustration is Howard Chapelle's, of course, with his usual degree of interpretive reconstruction. Chapelle chose to call his drawing "Lynx" (probably because he was most interested in her pre-capture origins) and the French used "Musquidobit", which would have been the name on the draught in the Admiralty collection, but I'd suggest that both show the same vessel at the same point in her career: When she reach England after her capture (though the original may include indications of planned modifications). I doubt that her lines were taken off at any other time.

 

Then there's the kit version, much simplified to aid construction.

 

If my guesses are right, then the prototype's planking ran to a wing transom just below the deck. (That's the timber shown in section in your screenshot and cut by your red circle.) There was then a counter that swept aft, across the head of the post ("sternpost", for those who like tautologies) and included a helm port for the rudderhead to pass through. Then, above deck level, the stern of the vessel was closed off by a transom, comprising a combination of a decorative elliptical shape and a practical squared one. [Note the dual meanings of "transom", one referring to a thwartships structural timber spanning the post, the other a more-or-less flat construction forming the outer shape of the hull, where squared off aft!]

 

Maybe even crude drawings will help:

Red indicates the (structural) transoms, seen in section where they cut the midline of the hull, green marks the post, blue the rudder and rudderhead, yellow the counter and purple the (external) transom. The dark shadow in the middle of the stern view of the counter is the helm port, with the rudderhead passing through.

 

That's a much more developed, much prettier stern than the one shown in the kit-instructions drawing. It would also be a good bit for complicated to build.

 

Trevor

 

 

[SaltyScot]

2 hours ago, Kenchington said:

That's a much more developed, much prettier stern than the one shown in the kit-instructions drawing. It would also be a good bit for complicated to build.

 

Firstly, Trevor, thank you so very much for your in depth explanation, I have certainly learned something there (I now know what a counter is!) If the truth be told, I had not intended for the last image of my post to have the second schooner in it, I did have a cropped version that I wanted to drop in there. In retrospect, I am now glad I did. Your insights have helped immensely, sir.

 

As far as the kit goes, I view it as, shall we say, a baseline on which to build the model up from as historically correct as possible, with the provided plans, in places, being substituted with these drawings. At this point, I fully intend to attempt the more difficult stern option. I do not want to "blow my own trumpet" here, but I do have a fair bit of experience as a woodworker (we're talking years here) and, when I set my mind to something, I tend to stick to it and see it through. I have a feeling this build will be a steep learning curve but it is one I am looking forward to getting my teeth into.

 

Again, my thanks for your insights, they are truly appreciated.

[Kenchington]

You are very welcome! And, if you can make as good a job of your Mosquidobit as you have of Endeavour, she will be just wonderful. 

[SaltyScot]

9 minutes ago, Kenchington said:

You are very welcome! And, if you can make as good a job of your Mosquidobit as you have of Endeavour, she will be just wonderful. 

 

What a truly nice thing to say. Thank you, Trevor. No pressure then 😄

[Dr PR]

Mark,

 

Regarding your measurements in post #11, it looks like you measured from forward of where the bulkheads come together at the bow to the top of the transom at the stern. This was a distance of about 18.5 inches (470 mm). This is not the length on deck! It looks like the length on deck is about 17.5 inches (445 mm). But I really can't tell where the deck planking would end at the bow or stern without the deck n place, but your measurements are pretty close to what the plans give.

 

It looks like the stern of the Lynx/Mosquidobit had a "square tuck" and a "wing transom" below the deck level. Square tuck means that the hull planking ran back to the edge of the wing transom and terminated there with a sharp angle. Some vessels had a "round tuck" where the planking boards were curved up sharply at the stern to meet the transom. There are two types of wing transoms - flat and curved. The flat transom runs straight at an angle to the upper transom above the deck, down to where it intersects the deck planks. The curved version has a slight upward concave curvature from the upper transom down to the planking.

 

The "golette" plan shows the wing transom to be in two parts/angles, both flat. The vessel is rigged in the European style (horizontal short spar on the main gaff topsail, and foresails all rigged to the fore mast top.

 

Chapelle's plan and the "golette" plan both seem to show the upper transom to be flat vertically but with a bit of transverse curvature from side to side. Photos of the modern Lynx appear to show a flat transom with a curved upper edge (taffrail), and a single piece flat wing transom.

 

There are a lot of photos of the modern Lynx on line. I don't know how accurate it is to the original Lynx. The Brits probably re-rigged the vessel as the Mosquitobit - they didn't like the very large tophamper on the American ships. They were dangerous to sail in high winds.

 

Here are some highly enhanced pictures of the stern planking on the modern Lynx. They appear to show a flat wing transom. The upper transom could also be flat, with just the upper and lower edges curved upward in the center - hard to tell.

 

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 07:07 AM by Dr PR

[SaltyScot]

6 hours ago, Dr PR said:

This is not the length on deck! It looks like the length on deck is about 17.5 inches (445 mm). But I really can't tell where the deck planking would end at the bow or stern without the deck n place, but your measurements are pretty close to what the plans give.

 

Good morning, Phil,

 

Thank you for pointing that out, newbie error. It actually gives me peace of mind that I was off with the measuring because now I can continue to get those bulkheads fitted and squared off without concerning myself with how to shorten the keel. I will still spend some time today comparing photographs and plans so that I get that transom and the stern built correctly. I am still leaning towards the Musquidobit build with the counter that Trevor pointed out. I feel that this would still be historically correct if I am indeed sticking to those particular plans.

[GrandpaPhil]

Looking forward to seeing this build!

[Jolly Jo]

This is going to be an exciting build! I gladly follow

[SaltyScot]

57 minutes ago, Jolly Jo said:

This is going to be an exciting build! I gladly follow

 

Herzlichen Dank, Jo. Welcome aboard!!

[SaltyScot]

Friday March 7th

 

A productive day in the shipyard today. I fixed the issue with bulkhead #11 first making sure it sat nice and square on the dry fitting:

 

 

 

It will be glued into place later once the rabbet is done, that’s next up. I got a good line for the rabbet using a planking strip from another build and the dry fitted bulkheads:

 

 

 

Once I had marked my line I chiseled and sanded in the rabbet:

 

 

 

I did a test dry fit of the lower deck into bulkhead #2 before going any further. Some adjustment was needed. It was an easy fix:

 

 

 

There is a piece that sits on the nose of the lower deck. The piece itself has a slot in it but there is no slot or any reason for one being there in the plans:

 

 

 

Because I will be covering the lower deck, I filled in the slot to prep it for planking. I also dry fitted the transom (that will need shortening by 10 mm to comply with the correct length of the vessel:

 

 

 

 

Now I was ready to start glueing the bulkheads in place. I started at the stern and, after placement, made sure each bulkhead was nice and square:

 

 

With them all in place and dry I then dry fitted the lower deck to check the fit:

 

 

She looks pretty square to me.

 

 

Edited Friday at 11:00 PM by SaltyScot

[SaltyScot]

I decided to measure the mast rake. I was surprised to see from the Musquidobit plans taken from Chapelle's book that the angles were different. I measured using a horizontal line drawn beneath the foot of the masts and a center line going through the middle of the masts:

 

 

 

By my reckoning (and please correct me if I am wrong here), the fore mast has an angle of 14 degrees and the main mast 11 degrees. Is it normal for a schooner to have different angles? (Newbie question).

 

 

Edited yesterday at 08:19 PM by SaltyScot
Spelling correction

[Kenchington]

24 minutes ago, SaltyScot said:

By my reckoning (and please correct me if I am wrong here), the fore mast has an angle of 14 degrees and the main mast 11 degrees. Is it normal for a schooner to have different angles?

I'd say that it is normal (though doubtless not universal) for all multi-masted sailing craft to have different rakes for each mast. But it is also normal for the rake to increase from forward to aft: Foremast nearest to vertical, mizzen most raked, in a three-master.

 

Yet there is no doubt that Chapelle's re-drawing of the Admiralty draught shows the foremast noticeably more raked than the main. Now that you have pointed it out, it is easy to see in his book. I wonder whether the rake of one or the other mast was altered after construction, when her rig may have proven a bit off balance.

 

Trevor

[SaltyScot]

2 hours ago, Kenchington said:

I wonder whether the rake of one or the other mast was altered after construction, when her rig may have proven a bit off balance.

 

I know there is some substance in the fact that the English found the American vessels to be a bit "top heavy" for European waters. Maybe that had something to do with it anf they changed the rake?

[Kenchington]

50 minutes ago, SaltyScot said:

 

I know there is some substance in the fact that the English found the American vessels to be a bit "top heavy" for European waters. Maybe that had something to do with it anf they changed the rake?

If you had somebody with time to spare in London who could search the archival material, you might find correspondence showing whether the draught was made before any alterations or perhaps showed proposed changes. Logbooks might mention a need to change the rake. Come to that, inspection of the original draft would help distinguish Chapelle's reconstructions from what was recorded at the time. However, any or all of that would be a substantial research effort.

 

As to British versus American perceptions: There are significant differences in environmental conditions. The northeast Atlantic, being on the downwind side, has frequent, heavy swells, which we don't. But there was also a difference in the task to be fulfilled. A privateer could lie in wait, then make a short cruise when conditions were right. Great risks could be run, in seeking great rewards, while evading deadly encounters with naval patrols. Naval schooners, in contrast, often had cruise off the privateer's bases, riding out whatever weather might come, with little reward for risking a knock-down in a squall.

 

Then again, what a Baltimore captain could do, in the type of schooner her had been raised to sail, may just have been beyond the skills of officers trained under square rig. The later "sharpshooters", of the Gloucester mackerel and halibut fisheries, were also capable of very fine sailing -- but disaster was never far away and they needed a very experienced hand on the helm. The sad story of the first Pride of Baltimore shows all too clearly what could happen.

 

Trevor