Jump to content

HMS Montague/ Alfred class by Gary B - 74 gun ship built in 1779 (garyshipwright)


Recommended Posts

Good morning Gary,

 

that is really great modelling what you did. I can not really help you with your question, but send you a picture of the plan for the 1745 establishment. It's for a 60 gunner, so the ship is a little smaller than yours. 

 

980175965_Bildschirmfoto2020-09-30um10_08_09.jpg.6278bfe828533fd2a8d758cb1f74e3d2.jpg

 

I think, in front of the bow sprit you did not need planks, because there would't walk any one and below is the manger. In the back the planks endet around the bowsprit. I don't think that you need there any ledges to support them, or at least one as you have build it already. But that is only a guess. I hope that I could help a little.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks  druxey, Hubac's, Alan, Mark and Siggi. Every bit help guys.  druxey I took a look at Longridge plate  and your probably right there may of been some type of landing and will just have to work through it. Mark the framing of the beakhead that is in the photo's  was version 1 of the frame work, which is gone and looks like the one with the stump bowsprit at the moment.  Siggi thats a good one sir and it looks as if its a as built plan with the parts and pieces not all being symmetric. When looking forward at the middle of the beam arms  you see the carling but unsure of how wide those carling's  really are. Also any ideal of what the square's in the middle are? You can see were the ledges are installed on the outside of the middle carling but then what looks like another skinny carling is sitting on top of the bottom one. The smaller ledges sitting on top of the lower carling looks like what I have on Montuga.  The bottom carling if I may call it that really looks very wide don't you think.  I don't see the step for the bowsprit but that may just be the way am looking at it. Do you know what the two squares are that is sitting between the carlings.  Best guess maybe. Thanks Siggi, do you have a sheer plan of this same place to look at. Was wondering if you can see how the side of the  step for the bowsprit looked.  Interesting plan Siggi and again thank you. it seems my knowledge is showing or maybe my lack of. Thanks again every one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary,

 

The only place I can find anything is in David Antscherl's book: The Fully Framed Model (Swan Class Sloops) Vol.2, Chapter 10, page 166, which is a drawing revealing carlings with a filler bowsprit partner filling the space left open by the bowsprit as it passes through.  The bowsprit partner is somewhat egg shape or elliptically profile cut to mate to the bowsprit.  As a 2" plank it is a filler piece and not a bowsprit support.  Greg Herbert (Vol 3, Chapter 10, Pages 154 & 155) has images there also, but he had an excellent companion 3D model made that complements the book series and there are two wonderful 3D colour images of this in chapter 10 of the collection (the very first two images). 

 

I believe this idea is what Druxey was alluding to in his post of yesterday (4th post from the bottom).

 

Although this reference is for a sloop and not a 74 gun 3rd rate, I would like to think they would likely not reinvent the wheel over this simple gap filler.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Gary,

 

at least, I puzzled also over that plan and together with the sheer plan it is much more confusing.

 

372054064_Bildschirmfoto2020-09-30um16_06_27.jpg.2c5cb2422fd86bb1b3562785d9b43255.jpg

 

It is not a of a existing ship, it's the plan for the 1745 establishment. May be you find there something. Goodwin and also Lavery have it printed in there books.

Below is the plan of Tiger, build also after this establishment.

 

818962309_Bildschirmfoto2020-09-30um16_11_56.jpg.23850aa9358cc54119adbb41652036f5.jpg

 

1857814052_Bildschirmfoto2020-09-30um10_08_09.jpg.eb0db6ebda3d9fe54028331c2604a562.jpg

 

One thought, could it be that the blue lines are the carlings and that green square is the foot fore the bow sprit? Than may be the four (or at least two) broader planks are the one through which the bow sprit goes, with an opening that fits the bow sprit. Like the those around the mast. Sorry my english 🤔

Link to post
Share on other sites

Siggi your english is good sir and understand every word you spoke. Shoot I can barely speak english much less another language.  For some reason I think the green item might be a cover like a scuttle hole and the square behind it as the foot of the Fore topsail sheet bitts. If you look at the green item it shows dash lines on the sides that maybe saying it is a cover of some sort with the aft and forward piece being small ledges to help support it.  Looking at the large carling I think they ran all the way over to the side of what am thinking is a cover and that the blue items are battens that run on top of the main carling. It shows them running all the way back to the front of the fore mast partner and up under neither the collums of the bulk head.  Maybe battens that would level with the green hatch and a place for the planking to butt up against the side of it all being level with the planking it self.  A scuttle here would keep people from falling down the rabbet hole. And one would then not be to worried about the planking part. The forward side of the hole would be filled with the bowsprit so don't think planking would be necessary and if nothing else a large cover that would be rabbit in to the carlings to cover the gap. . Just my thoughts folks and you input please.  Alan i have to agree with you about the item in David's book but am thinking this would come in to play more around the bowsprit has it comes through the small beak head deck, to make the hole water tight. Thank you. Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary,

 

I wonder, does every vertical mast (fore, main, and mizzen) have a "partner" at every deck level?

 

When you find the answer to that you may have the answer you are looking for with regards to the horizontal bowsprit mast.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

The short answer Alan is no. The main mast partner is on the gun deck and the foremast is on the upper deck. the mizzen mast doesn't really have a partner like the other two, more of just a  heavy set of planks around it. I have seen plans were there was some times two or they was installed on another deck, but most of the time  the norm was just one each. On the two forward mast they were able to shifted the tilt of the mast forward or back ward due to the way the step was set up. I don't believe that the mizzen mast was set up the same way.  Alan the misses wants me to take her to the store so when I get back I give you some more detail  on them. As far as the bowsprit it seems she had a step then a collar beam/stations plus was clamped between the knight heads, along with binging heavly tied in place, plus some more rigging, so with all that I don't think it was going any place.Some times looking and researching is a pain in the butt.  Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary

 

I cannot say what Alfred had, but per The Fully Framed Model four volume series of books, and also The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships (pg 46),  both sloops and 1st rates had partners (aka housings) on each deck arranged to keep the mast steady.  So I imagine 3rd rates had them also.  I believe the rake of each mast would be set and locked in/steadied at all levels.  First the step and top most level (Locked), followed by those in between (Steadied).

 

I hope I have been of some service as I prefer to pass "it" forward if and whenever I can.  I have been wrong a few times.  I profess to know nothing more about this subject at this time.  Still a lowly entry level trainee in this hobby, though at rare times I present as really smart.

 

Looking forward to reading any information you have for Alfred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alan. Your right sir all decks had partners but there is a difference in those partners. If you look in vol 1 of the Swan,  pg 259, 264 and 265 you will see the partners of the lower deck's. If you go to vol 2, page 60, 61,62,63,64, and page 65 you will see that those partners are of a heavy type and not all decks had this type. The mizen mast partners on the upper deck was just a heavy type of of planking rabbet together to make up the mast partner.  Your right and all deck's had partners but there is a difference in what type was used on what deck. I have some photo's of alfred deck plan and you will see the difference of the heavy type of mast partner and the type that was just a heavier type of planking. I agree also that the rake was set depending on what the Captain wanted and how he wanted her to sail. If you look at vol 1 page 199, 200 and 201 , on page 199, you can see that the step could be moved forward or backward depending on what the Captain wanted. On page 200 he does say that in larger ships the foremast was moveable and when you look up the French 74 you will be able to see how this was done. On a 74 English the step was installed most of the time between two breast hooks and by moving wedges on either side could be moved forward or backwards to the whim of the Captain. The mizzen on larger ships such as 74, the mizzen mast step  could have been on the orlop deck the, keel and the only way to know was to research those items. Was it adjustable on that I don't believe it was but have been wrong before. Forgive me for not being more precise on the difference of the two type's of partners, and the heavy type is the one I was talking about.  Here are some Photos of Alfred's gun deck and upper deck and quarter deck and forcastle. deck. You will noticed that on Alfred gun deck at the main mast you will see the heavy type but when you go up to the upper deck you will see a lighter partner. Same thing at the fore mast accept this time the heavy type is on the upper deck and a lighter one is on the gun deck. Some times the one on the gun deck looks like a heavy one but contracts don't say this. If it looked like the upper deck main mast then to me it would have been a lighter one. Maybe it had a lot more pressure then what the other mast had.  You will also noticed  that the mizzen mast partner is just a hole in the deck. Was the mast wedge at each deck am sure they were, but am not sure if they installed the rain coat on each deck or just the one's open to the weather. Alan i laid out the photo's so they would I hope make sense. The first of three are of alfreds upper gun deck going from the stern to the bow. The next set is the gun deck going from the bow to the stern. The next set is the Hector upper deck going from the stern to the bow and finally the last three is of the fore castle, quarter deck main mast and finally the quarter deck. The should show you the difference on Alfred's heavy partner and light partner. I don't have Victory deck lay out so am not sure how they was laid out but being she was a first rate she probably had two per mast but that is just a guess. My apology for making it confusing. If you want some of other deck,s from other ships I will be more then happy to upload them here for you.  It was the misses fault alan, she made me take her to the store and didn't have time to properly answer your question and thats my story and am sticking to it.😁

DSC_0366.JPG

DSC_0362.JPG

DSC_0364.JPG

DSC_0428.JPG

DSC_0429.JPG

DSC_0430.JPG

DSC_0433.JPG

DSC_0432.JPG

DSC_0431.JPG

DSC_0434.JPG

DSC_0435.JPG

DSC_0436.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gary, 

Many apologies if I am late to the party in helping think about this bowsprit deck framing question. Too many things taking me away from the shop lately...

 

But here are some more thoughts.

I have always wondered about those delicate little diagonal pieces in the forecastle partners for the foremast in the first Bellona model. They can't make sense as real partners, so they must be a model-making shorthand for saying "partners go here". Although why they would detail everything else accurately and not this, I have no idea...

 

zOBJ_Bellona_20111208_531.jpg.752175d574eef2923a46caa91d15df37.jpg

 

So if that is the case, then I think druxey is right in saying that the real issue is how to land the planks around the bowsprit, coming in at an angle to the deck. I agree with Alan that this does not have to be structural, because there is already the step, the top of the stem, gammoning and stays holding the bowsprit in place.

I drew in purple the areas where a "thicker than planking" but "thinner than a structural step" would be needed to land the planks around the bowsprit. There would not be a need for planking fore of the bowsprit as Siggi pointed out, particularly since it is directly beneath the platform at the beakhead; but aft is definitely a walkable area needing planking.

So is this like the thicker baulking around the opening for the rudder at the stern of this deck? the purple highlighted in the cross section is the depth of the carling on either side of the bowsprit. Maybe the baulking could be a little thinner?

 

Best wishes,

 

Mark

 

 

 

1161909351_ScreenShot2020-10-03at9_14_38AM.thumb.png.2b2ce012def5fce5f4aaefdf6e8d2789.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2005362538_ScreenShot2020-10-03at9_15_06AM.thumb.png.1b21ebeffae0164a8dc694b22873d9ab.png

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary

One more thought.

In terms of structure,  the main issue to address is the upward lift of the bowsprit due to the lines mostly exerting an upward force.

If we think of the bowsprit step as a pivot point, then the upward lift has to be counterbalanced by downward forces. The further away from the pivot point, the better, and the gammoning is furthest out and therefore more effective.

Partners so close to the pivot point of the step would not be as effective, particularly since it would be the aft part of the partner resisting the upward lift, and this is super close to the step, less effective. In fact, if the gammoning is tight, I don't see how there would be any upward movement of the bowsprit at the location of the partners that the partners would need to resist.

The engineers in the group might have a better thought about this...

 

Mark

 

IMG_9346.thumb.JPG.1f4bbce1cc7d2d40c66b5ac1f6811c88.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you consider the bowsprit in the sense of a mechanical fulcrum, as I see it, the knights head is the pivot point.  All lines (or ropes) outboard are either pulling down or up, except the guy pendants which are keeping it from sliding forward (unstepping), the gammoning is doing both, and the foot of the mast in the step is holding that end of the fulcrum stationary.

 

I think the partners (housings) are beefy fillers in an attempt to assist in keeping the mast from shifting, and keeping water from passing to other levels.

 

Possibly someone in the know might jump in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alan and Mark. fore give me guys am still trying to come up with answer for your post but in the mean time does any one have any photos showing the space under neith and on top of the upper deck of the Victory were the bowsprit comes through the deck and also were it come out of the small deck of the beakhead deck? Am trying to figure out how the space around and below was filled in. I know that it is a different time for how Victory is done today but it may help give me clues as to how just maybe it was done then. Thank you and will be back to answer on the upper post. Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent a portion of the early morning reviewing two walk through tour videos, and it appears the public were not allowed in that area.

I also noticed they seem to never take any pictures of the one thing you are looking for at the time.

 

I have a CD of pics that was copied and distributed at one of our club meetings... and of course any image of the area is AWOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank Alan and Mark. Alan I did the same I had some pictures of the walk through and as you say they are awol. Maybe some one some were has a set of those area's.  Mark  those delicate little diagonal pieces may have been installed to help support the heavy partner planking. My reason is that the hole in this was cut in a circle and you problem had the end of some of the planks sitting on those pieces. At the moment Mark am looking for answer's to you question but its a little on the slow side.  Has far as the forward part of this opening I have to agree with Siggi and the most forward part of the hole is underneath the collar beam and my earlier build shows what and how this may of looked under the collar beam that I showed in a early photo. Plans show that beam, but not the stanchions. Mark you show pillars underneath the forecastle beams is there a plan that shows this? So far I have not found any thing that says there was but will look at a couple of items that may agree with that. Mark I looked at a couple of contract's that talk about pillars underneath the quarter deck and forecastle but as far as the forecastle it only mention iron ones around the stove. Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Siggi. I saw that sir but it seems to only talk about that part of the deck behind the step it self. Behind the step on the upper deck was the fore mast partner which was the heavy type and at the gun deck you had the standard from the bit pins and in front of the step the standard from the stem to help strength the front of it on the forward side. Thing is it doesn't say any thing about in front of the step at the upper deck. I do think that those carlings that I have installed on Montague may of been supported by the messenger roller's. Goodwin shows them on page 178 and gives a time line of 1790 which is 10 years after Montagea, so could she have had them in her time, and  am leaning to the side of she did. Hoping some one will set me straight on this one. I did find some thing on a Victory plan in Arthur Bugler book vol 2, which is the plans that show some thing around the bowsprit but at the moment unsure of what that could be. Another one is what the Victory was post of looked like when she was built, One item to noticed is that the plan, I believe I got from the danish museum, doesn't show her as having the small beakhead platform but just the upper deck planking going from the inside to the out side., and that one is for another day. Thank you Siggi and others for their in put and would of been a lot less fun with out those inputs.  

DSC_0185.JPG

DSC_0186.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I think happened with Victory. Originally the beakhead platform was flush with, and an extension of, the upper deck. The original head rails had a greater curve or 'bag', so the lowest part of the main rail was in line with the upper deck. At some point the headwork was replaced. The new head rails had a flatter curve. To make the gratings of the head flush and level with the rail, a platform was constructed over the fore end of the upper deck. The two plans shown above demonstrate my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well observed, druxey. I hadn't noticed the change in the bag of the upper rail.

I wonder why, in a rebuild, they would make this change for what would be mainly an aesthetic look. Changing tastes? or they found a purpose for the space beneath the platform?  In a 74 it is only about 2 feet high in the clear, and of course, split in two by the bowsprit.

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hello every one. Here is a small update on my build showing the stages that making a cast knee goes through to become a cast knee for my build. Also a few photos showing the fore mast partner on the  upper gun deck beams.The photo also show's the bolts being installed and is made up of 10 piece's of wood. Hope you enjoy the photo's

 

 

DSC_0468.JPG

DSC_0459.JPG

DSC_0458.JPG

DSC_0467.JPG

DSC_0470.JPG

DSC_0463.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Hi Guys. Have a question about the messenger rollers time frame when they were used. According to Peter Goodwin,  The Sailing Man of War, page 156, he says that they came in 1790/1792. Does any one know if they was in use earlier then this?  She was broken up in 1818 so adding them  as I show her would that be to much of a reach being they didn't come out till  10 years later? Also how did the messenger round the coner in the manger it self or was it helped along by the crew to do this taken away hands from the capstan?  I know it was three question but curious minds are wondering. I know it would be nice to have a time machine, but your thought's would be greatly appreciate.  Thanks.  Gary

Edited by garyshipwright
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...