HMS Bellerophon 1786 by AON – scale 1:64 – 74-gun 3rd Rate Man of War - Arrogant-Class

[mtaylor]

I did some reading... Cordingly mentions 3 repairs after the major battles.  All that was done was new copper and planks (as needed), masting, etc.  Nothing about changing the length.   Swale's drawing says 168 feet (1604 tons) which agrees with the original data you have. 

 

Wikipedia shows the same dimensions but 1612 tons. 

 

http://britainsnavy.co.uk/Ships/HMS%20Bellerophon/HMS%20Bellerophon%20(1786)%201.htm  shows 168 feet but 1643 tons.

 

I'm not sure where that 175 feet came from. Very strange but then again, it's strange that the plans are missing from the NMM.  Supposedly they have nothing.

[AON]

Good morning all.

 

Thank you for the additional info and thoughts Mark.

 

I was looking at the data I had printed out / collected from various source including Wikipedia (which I am told to take that particular info with a grain of salt) and very little agrees with each other.

 

As for the NMM and their plans... it is my understanding that they still have stuff that is waiting to be reviewed, identified and catalogued so with my luck I am positive it will all come to light the day after I am done 

 

After one nights sleep on it I had another thought.... I wonder if there may be an "expert" at the NMM that can make sense of it all?

Lord knows what strange things they've seen.

 

As for the Billy Ruffian, as a 13 year old she (the sea cadet corps in Welland, Ontario, Canada) saved me.  Also... If not for the sea cadet corps I would have never met the young girl that I now share my life with, my wife. I went through the ranks to eventually become Chief of the corps (cox'n) and then as an adult went further to be Officer Commanding the Corps for five years. Although as an old man I had no involvement for the last 20 years of her existence, it broke my heart (along with many other men and women) to see her shut down.  This is my attachment to the name Bellerophon and why I am so keen on building this particular ship and not HMS Elephant for which I seem to have easily acquired all the info for.

[druxey]

I've been pondering that length problem, Alan. As 168' 0" was never crossed out on the contract and replaced with 175' 0" and the 'as launched' draught states 168' 0", I'd say the longer measurement is a red herring. Fergeddabahtitt!

[AON]

Druxey,

 

That is what I originally thought... some ones thoughts scribbled on the contract. But there are so many other things ... the 1805 date for example. I usually love a puzzle and my darling wife (the super sleuth) has been doing what she does best ... looking for clues and finding additional info on the bankruptcy and the date of death for dear Mr. Edward Greaves.

 

I e-mailed my contact at NMM this morning to ask for help deciphering the contract notations and hope I have better luck with a response then the poor fellow I had provided the contact info to for quotes on plans elsewhere on this site.

 

I also asked my NRG mentor early yesterday and had not heard back from him as yet, I prefer to think he is working on it rather than him "having a life"!

 

I need to learn the virtue of patience!

Edited July 15, 2014 by AON

[AON]

At the moment I am going to try to move forward at 168 feet long  

 

I need to make corrections to my station line locations

My NRG mentor had mentioned measuring with dividers... so I did... off two different plans for comparison

Here are the results

 

It was admittedly easier than measuring off the PDF but could eventually result in a grazillion tiny holes on the plans

 

Next I need to make it all add up to 168 feet.

 

My NRG mentor told me the Room and Space dimension of 2'-8-1/2" is held from bow to stern when measured on the outside of the hull (or is that timbers) at the heights of breadth, not at the centre of the keel.... although okay to measure at the centre of the keel for the straight frames.  I'll need to plot from my model this to double check.

 

I am beginning to get more comfortable with accepting being close enough for the reduced scale as opposed to being dead nuts on accurate.  This is a good thing ... right?  

Edited July 16, 2014 by AON

[druxey]

Might I suggest you use the sheer plan as your basis? Once the 'framework' of station lines and perpendiculars is established on a new sheer plan, the framing can be superimposed over this. Otherwise you will drive yourself crazy trying to reconcile things.

 

Are you measuring the distances between stations off the part of the scale immediately below the same part on the sheer draught? Distortion will usually vary along the plan, so this is one way of taking this into account.

[AON]

Good morning Druxey

 

Your words about paper stretch from much earlier were very much on my mind when measuring.

I  attempted measuring directly below but the 1/12th divisions are not there

Then I measured at the end nearest the station where the divisons are located

Then I compared a few at the opposite end scale

 

I was thinking I'd re-measure and draw out the bow and stern heights of breadth in 2D Draftsight off the half breadth, draw the cant frames and see how that compares for frame and space... then I can comfortable make a decision

 

Alan

[druxey]

I pencil in the twelfth divisions wherever I need them for convenience.

[Don9of11]

Your decision to measure the drawings surprises me; still it's interesting to see the differences from one plan to the other.

[AON]

Don,

How so?

(yes it is not recommended practice on the shop floor)

Edited July 16, 2014 by AON

[AON]

I should expand the explanation

 

The (original TIFF and so) PDF images I was measuring off of are "stretched" (due to the original source) and so inaccurate as would be measuring off a (the) print. The lines on the PDF are a wee bit thick when I zoom in to measure so that probably doesn't help.

 

My Solidworks model reflects these inaccuracies and so lines are manipulated

 

If I were to trace off an imported image I get the same inaccuracies because the original image is stretched

 

If I stretch the CAD tracing I would make from the image the curvature/straightness of the lines are compromised and require manipulation

 

No matter what I do I've got to nudge things over and turn them about to make it look right and since I want to try to salvage what I've done to date ....

 

My NRG mentor suggested measuring off the print with dividers and so I've given it a try

It can't be any worse than what I've done so far and actually gives me repeatable dimensions where as the zooming in on the PDF to electronically measure rarely gives me the exact same dimension twice (a program tolerance issue)

 

I am doing it all on a reference sketch in DraftSight because I need a "clean sheet" and my SolidWorks model is too distracting so I keep it closed for now.

 

All will be transferred to the model once I get it straightened out.

[AON]

I’ve completed the sketch that nails down my station lines!

 

My first sketch is a combination of double frame and space (2’-8-1/2” x 2 = 5’-5”) plus the spacing I measured to the bow and the stern perpendiculars.

This left me with an overall length of 168’-8” which is 8 inches too long.

 

My second sketch was after I noticed the bar scale on the plan read exactly 170 feet under the Bow Perpendicular.  Having suddenly realized this I could read the nearest full dimension next to the dead flat position, draw the 1/12th divisions at the dead flat and measure with some degree of confidence the location of the dead flat.  This meant whatever was left over at either end was “it”.   Now I had my stations (reasonably) properly located.  (I must keep reminding myself that I am not building a Swiss time piece!)

 

My final sketch was to help me visualize the timbers, spacing (gaps) and cant frames.

Now having a better visual understanding of this part I will be adjusting my model next week, get my hull completed and then, possibly, soon, begin making some templates for an actual build!

 

Thanks goes to my NRG mentor whom I am certain must have been getting annoyed with my stubbornness.  (I must keep reminding myself that it will not be full scale!)

 

[alangr4]

Master Po and Kwai Chang Caine

I have watched your journey, "young" grasshopper with great interest and enjoyment.

One thought which you may have already considered, Chris Watton (a member of this august order) did the design for the Arrogant kit released a year or so ago by Amati. I wonder whether he may be able to shed any enlightenment on the quandary you are currently in?

I hope you find the answers you seek.

Alan

‘Never assume that because a man has no eyes, he cannot see.’ -Master Po

 

Edited July 20, 2014 by alangr4

[AON]

Thank you Alan for the suggestion

 

I sent a PM to this gentleman and now get to practice the fine art of patience... something else I struggle with!  

 

On another note...

I spent yesterday clearing out half the dungeon in preparation of expanding my play (work) room.  Going to be more than doubling the size.

Lumber, nails, drywall, screws, second door, hardware jamb kit, electrical plugs and boxes to be delivered this coming Saturday

Edited July 21, 2014 by AON

[AON]

Got an extremely quick response from Chris Watton suggesting all the penned annotations may have been a suggestion to lengthen the ship during a refit in 1805 but the idea was not implemented.

 

Considering it all history now.

 

I've moved my stations in my model and presently little seems to have been affected.

I will have to take some time to be sure, then clean up my keel, stem and stern post sketch, complete the hull and slice my timbers to make the templates.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel

Edited July 21, 2014 by AON

[Trussben]

Glad to hear you are now passed all of the dilemma on the length.

 

Ben

[mtaylor]

Good to hear that, Alan.  I think we all were perplexed.  I guess you're getting closer to making sawdust?

[AON]

Close? ...............I can almost smell the wood!

For some reason completing the hull has got me a little anxious but, like everything else, I'll eventually plough through it

 

Not sure if I mentioned this before but I've always had to envision the part or assembly in my mind before I could draw it.  The exciting part is I can now see all the timbers sitting on the keel and the cant frames curling into the posts.  That is what excites me.

 

Thank you and everyone else for following, the helpful comments and the words of encouragement

(thank God for this forum, otherwise I'd likely be building a raft... and I'd get part of that wrong    )

 

After having moved my stations I've noticed the sketch points for the stem and stern post and the keel need to be realigned as I had not yet anchored them.  As I move them many seem to be falling into a  more proper place now.  Only half a zillion more to go.

 

Alan

Edited July 22, 2014 by AON

[AON]

On another note my contact at NMM (Julie) just responded to my e-mail about the contract.

Seems she was "out of the office" (vacation?) and forwarded my questions to the ships department.

 

It will be interesting to learn what they believe the annotations were all about.

[AON]

Regarding the additional annotations... I post the following with written permission of the author:

 

 

I have taken a look at the contract in questions (ADT0009) and my conclusions are thus:

 

a) The original contract was written for Bellerophon (1786).

The amendments date from 1805 and are irrelevant to the above vessel.

c) The amendments relate to building ships of the Fame class (1799) that had been ordered in 1805 - of which there were 4, possibly 5 (date of the latter is uncertain). The additional dimensions match the Fame class.

 

I do not know why the Navy Office decided to reuse the contract as a specification for the Fame class, except that it may imply the Arrogant class and Fame class are more closely related than either David Lyon or Rif Winfield realised: the Arrogant class was designed by Slade and the Fame class by Henslow.

 

For the purposes of the Bellerophon project the 1805 additions can be ignored.

 

I hope that this makes sense. I have updated the Museum catalogue so it should go 'live' sometime.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Jeremy Michell, MA

Historic Photographs and Ships Plans Manager, National Maritime Museum

Edited July 29, 2014 by AON

[AON]

While making my corrections I found an error.

I had an extra inch in the overall length and it took me days to realize the error.

One dimension at the bow perpendicular was off.

The node on the dimension leader is not connected to the line

I had to zoom in to find it.

Once corrected all the stars aligned perfectly

[AON]

Below is the corrected model results.

I've got the hull outline at the bow figured out and need to understand (draw) the same at the stern.

 

[AON]

I began sketching in the deck elevations at the bow and stern and noticed the round house deck is slightly elevated (above) the upper deck.

 

Having studied the Vanguard models built and in progress on the forum I note they are at the same elevation on them.

I also have thumbnail images of the Edgar and my plans of the Goliath locate them at the same elevation.

Ree's plates show it as being on the same elevation.

 

Would anyone have an explanation why the Elephant's as built plans are so different?

[druxey]

The raised beakhead platform was so that there is no step between this and the head gratings. It is the result of the headwork of the ship being designed higher than in earlier ships. You will notice that the platform is in line with the main rail of the head. This layout is also seen on Victory today: her headwork was raised during one of her many refits.

[AON]

Presently busy realigning all previous station frame outlines to intersect with the upper rabbet line.

 

Amazing just how much an error will teach a person

[AON]

it has been awhile since I posted any update.  I've been rather busy with diversions.  My play area (workroom) extension is well underway with the size having been slightly more than doubled ..... studs up, wiring to electrical plug outlets and light switches installed, drywall up.  I need to wire to new lights in the ceiling and install the drop ceiling tiles that I have had stashed in a corner for about 12 years.  Then the walls and floor get painted and I move everything back in.  Geeze I hope it is big enough!

 

Left work last night to have a beer with an old acquaintance (employment placement agent or better known as a head hunter  aka pimp)... why? because I just discover back when he actually worked for a living he was a naval architect. We discussed my model.  The first thing he said was that I was going to have trouble because I would be striving for perfection and they were anything but perfect. (damn he knows me and my type well... probably why he is so successful in his new career) He told me they would build per the yards experience using the contract and drawings as a guide. Dimensions would be close to but not less than the scantlings.  Most people couldn't read so they did what they knew and made it functional utilizing the sizes and shape of wood available to them.  No two ships of the same design would have been identical even if built in the same yard off the same plans with the same contract.

 

There was a lot more discussed but the "striving for perfection" has been a battle I've been losing and to hear him blurt it out so easily having not witnessed my struggles so far.... hit me hard on the chin.  So maybe what some honest people here on the forum have been saying will finally sink in and I can relax some?

 

Then I came home to discover my four volume set of TFFM arrived.  Started thumbing through volume one and the rest of the evening was lost.

Thank you David for writing the 3 volumes... have not yet unseal wrapped Greg's contribution but I am certain it will have me cemented to the chair also!

 

At present, after having completed establishing the rabbet lines I am re-lofting the hull and want to better establish the stern but as I said I've created many diversion projects so it may be awhile.

Edited August 21, 2014 by AON

[Don9of11]

TFFM? I dislike acronyms. 

 

It doesn't surprise me that the yard would build ships per experience and material available but they couldn't be to far off the mark as there were penalties to pay. I'm following your post very closely, so if you make a mistake, I'm blaming you...LOL.

[AON]

TFFM: The Fully Framed Model

4 volume set

and seems really worth every penny I spent

 

Missteaks?

not me

[AON]

My meager progress report

I am sure there is likely easier ways to do what I've done.....

 

Having established the rabbet line I completed the bow shape as follows:

 

1. You will note I have an additional frame outline towards the bow. The aft is the foremost station Y off the plan. The one forward of it is located at the forward face of the HEAD bulkhead.  I created two (2) planes at this exact location.

2. On one I created the full HEAD Bulkead frame tracing. 

3. On the other I traced over the first to create the shorter HEAD Bulkhead frame outline.

4. I did this at each station where the TOP TIMBER heights change

5. I created a 3D sketch of GUIDE LINES. I created new lines at the very top of the top timbers where the elevation changes

 

more to follow shortly

Edited August 27, 2014 by AON

[AON]

... continued

 

6. Pick LOFT FEATURE

     drop down menu – Insert > surface > loft

7. Pick first GUIDE CURVE

     pick in the lower box to highlight it;

     pick the guide curve on your drawing;

     pick the green check box

8. Pick 1st PROFILE LINE (I created a separate line on my RABBET line sketch to represent this)

    pick the upper box to highlight it;

    pick the profile line (Upper Rabbet Line on Stem Post)

    pick the green check box

9. Pick 2nd PROFILE LINE

    I picked my shorter HEAD Bulkhead frame outline in step 3 above