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

[AON]

Thanks Druxey.

Now that is ever so slightly different again.

Why can't things be simple?

 

[Lieste]

My notes show the 18pdr is 5.16" (rather than the 5.292" of the gun (and 5.17" of the later mid C19th re-bored 9/12pdrs)).

[AON]

Here is the table I got my info from.

The date is 1805.

Given my build scale of 1:64 I doubt inches or fractions thereof will be noticeable

[AON]

Druxey,

As you've stated, the Comet was 1783.

Changes introduced by the manufacturer in 1782 would possibly not be in service in the next year, 1783.

 

This is what I've noted for my time period: Launched in 1786 and in service in 1790.

The paper Lieste provided in an earlier post states both the muzzle cup and the muzzle flash was introduced in 1782, as was the carronade loop replacing the trunnion and simplifying the carriage.

The elevating screw was used in conjunction with the quion; a quoin patch added to the underside of the carronade to deal with recoil forces on the screw.

There was a front sight but no dispatch and stepped sights.

There was a design for sights for the 68 Pdr presented to the Admiralty in May 1782 but the sketch has been lost.  Could this be the stepped sights?  Who knows.

The fighting bolt and swivelling slide was introduced in 1782.

The traversing wheels had shown up in 1790, possibly a bit earlier.

 

So my guns will be like these two images below, one figure from the paper provided by Lieste and one of my photos from my day sail on the USS Brig Niagara.

The traverse wheels support block will be quite short as I will not require the height, and the fighting bolt (securing pivot bolt) will be mounted outboard.

This is somewhat similar to what Flyer has on his kit build of the Bellerophon except his "bolt" is inboard.

Edited June 1, 2022 by AON

[AON]

Here is my model of the barrel.

I am going to create the remainder of the parts via 3D modelling and resin print them.

[AON]

here is a view from the rear

[Lieste]

5 hours ago, AON said:

Here is the table I got my info from.

The date is 1805.

Given my build scale of 1:64 I doubt inches or fractions thereof will be noticeable

The calibre for an 18pdr in 1805 is apparently wrong - that is for pre-1780(ish) carronades only (the length is for a longer, later example, after the increase in bore).

I have Boxer, Douglas, downloads of various googlebooks documents (including the Gunner's Vade Mecum, Adye's Pocket Bombardier (among many others), and the useful summary document https://www.silverhawkauthor.com/post/artillery-in-canadian-service-british-smoothbore-muzzleloading-sbml-cannon-in-canada-david-mcconnell
Appendix N and page 109.
 

[AON]

Yes, I see that the 18 Pdr bore was 5.14" in 1780 and 5.16" in 1800.

My point is that this is 0.0803" vs. 0.0806" at 1:64 scale... no one will care about this slight difference on the model.

 

the 32 Pdr did not change

[druxey]

There were a lot of experimental carriages in the early years of naval carronades. My information was mainly from Caruana Volume II, The Age of the System, 1715-1815. He draws on primary sources.

Edited June 2, 2022 by druxey

[AON]

Thank you Druxey... that is one expensive book!

[druxey]

I was lucky enough to score my copy some years ago before it was as expensive as it is now.

[AON]

Oh.

I had the impression you must be some multi-billionaire  🤑

Thought possibly you might want to adopt me.

But if you're not made of money.....

🙄

Edited June 2, 2022 by AON

[garyshipwright]

They have got a little on the expensive side havn't they. Druxey do you have Vol 1 also?  It is a nice set and a good addition for one's  library.

[AON]

Here the model is done.

I will make the base pieces in wood.

I will scale this 3D model down to 1:64 for the 32 Pdr and then then again at 75% for the 18 Pdr, create my STL file and get them resin printed.

 

[bruce d]

No royal crest?

[AON]

As per the document supplied by Lieste earlier - "The Carronade" by Geoff B. Bailey (Falkirk Local History Society):

Very few had the royal cypher.  They should have a broad arrow to show that they had been proofed by the Navy.

Edited June 3, 2022 by AON

[Lieste]

Not sure about the sight. Boxer (while considerably later) has the dispart sight on the reinforce just ahead of the joint block, with a sight patch for long range fire on the flat just ahead (and part of) the original pattern length mouldings.
The blast-tube and loading cap is unadorned.

These are designed to project into the port (or through it when fitted on an outboard fighting bolt), and recoil with a velocity at least 3 times as fast as the guns they substitute for. Projections at the muzzle would routinely wood the port and be damaged and cause damage. Placing the sight projection on the reinforce protects the sight and the port from unnecessary damage.

It is possible that some sights were tried on the same principle of land ordnance howitzers (which use a full dispart wedge on the tulip) and tangent sights for all ranges, but this doesn't seem to have been a common practice for naval ordnance fired through ports (or for coastal or fortress ordnance fired through casements), where making a smaller port and protecting the port and sight was more important than a very long sight radius. (Precision from an unsteady platform isn't terribly useful in any case).

(The BSBML McConnell document shows an earlier example of carronade sights from c1825 on p107, which are identical to those of Boxer - this is obviously later than 1786, but the sights had been introduced in ~1780 and refined along with tube length and the loading cup by the mid 1780s and then much seemed to remain the same until the last carronades were retired in favour of light guns in large bore (e.g. the 18pdr+ rebored (medium) guns to 32pdr, and 9 and 12pdr rebored (medium) guns to 18pdr)).

Edited June 3, 2022 by Lieste

[mtaylor]

5 hours ago, AON said:

As per the document supplied by Lieste earlier - "The Carronade" by Geoff B. Bailey (Falkirk Local History Society):

Very few had the royal cypher.  They should have a broad arrow to show that they had been proofed by the Navy.

I wonder how many people would think that the arrow shows which way to point the gun?

[Lieste]

30 minutes ago, mtaylor said:

I wonder how many people would think that the arrow shows which way to point the gun?

When I order a Basket hilted backsword* I am totally going to have the blade engraved "Front Toward Enemy". For Scottish sword and targe. For reasons. (old joke, but one I want to participate in).

[AON]

I decided to paint the 3D printed guns I presently have before the wife uses up my can of spray paint on some other project... then put them back into storage.

 

First up were the swivel guns.

I had to figure out how to hold them... then spotted the Styrofoam sheet in my "keep" pile.

So as the part of the forked support stanchion that sets into the wood swivel gun mounting chock does not need to be painted I simple stuck it into the Styrofoam.

This sat on the rotating pedestal inside a cardboard box to catch any over spray.

A light spray with a acrylic flat black while rotating the pedestal., then let it dry, then repeat a few times.

 

Now to do the cannons... first up are the 18 Pdrs.

[ccoyle]

24 minutes ago, AON said:

before the wife uses up my can of spray paint

 

Good to see that I'm not the only modeler who must zealously guard his stash of tools and supplies from unauthorized uses.

[BANYAN]

The occasional use by the 'Admiral' I can handle as I know where the tool/item is; BUT, my real issue is when the boys use my shed as their local Bunnings/Lowes depot  

 

cheers

 

Pat

[AON]

I received a response from Kews.  They sent me links to help me search. I spent 3 hours searching from 4AM to 7AM.  I found 3 documents, masters logs for the periods of 1790-91, 1793-94 and 1794-95.  These may or may not have any mention of guns and there placement.  I did not find any mention of Ordnance or Gunner's records for this ship or her sister ships.

I tried looking at models and figures at NMM.... I hate the new layout.

Edited June 15, 2022 by AON

[allanyed]

42 minutes ago, AON said:

I hate the new layout.

You have a LOT of company.    Why bother posting dozens and dozens of "no image online" icons?  If it is to let us know they have them in storage, will they send these if requested individually in low resolution so one can decide which to purchase in high resolution?   I realize museums do not have deep pockets, and RMG is still an unbelievably great source for all of us, even with the changes.   Worse than the changes in the Collections is the fact that what few models they had on display were put in storage.  Maybe they put them back out, it has been a few years now, but if not I wonder what they put in their place.

 

Allan 

[Lieste]

1 hour ago, AON said:

I received a response from Kews.  They sent me links to help me search. I spent 3 hours searching from 4AM to 7AM.  I found 3 documents,masters logs for the periods of 1790-91, 1793-94 and 1794-95.  These may or may not have any mention of guns and there placement.  I did not find any mention of Ordnance or Gunner's records for this ship or her sister ships.

I tried looking a models and figures at NMM.... I hate the new layout.

Not the same type of ship, but there is a diagram for the 80 gunners in Winfield, which shows the two long guns in the forward port and first shroud gap, with a carronade in the second shroud gap. It is possible that that was the arrangement... however the current setup for the Victory has the Carronade in the forward/chase position, where it is clear of the shrouds.

It should also be noted that the (much) later arrangement for 74s was to replace all but a pair of guns on each of f'csle and qtr deck with a 'standard' number of carronades, and none on the roundhouse... giving the later arrangement as 74 ordnance again - and it is this interim period with the 'additional carronades as they fit' with the uncertainty in practice - though only a single pair on the f'csle needs to be considered here, as the roundhouse carronades (if fitted) were always supernumerary.

Nothing particular to your vessel or this particular time, but two options to consider alongside whatever records you can uncover - although the wording of the AO does specify these as additional carronades to the established armament, rather than explicitly stating them to replace a pair of guns, that is also a possible reading of the actual installation in practice, though it goes against your manuscript indicating a total of 82 ordnance.

[AON]

Can you post that portion of the image?

I'd very much like to see it.

 

In my mind I can visualize the carronade mounted on the cat tail beam that runs athwartships aft of the head and on top of the forecastle deck as I see the cat tail beam might be an impediment to the carriage of the 9 Pdr cannon.

 

Then the other concern might possibly be the bowsprit, jib boom and yards rigging being in the line of fire(???) .

[garyshipwright]

Alan just a question for you. When I was doing  more research on Alfred, which of course I have not ,stop I was searching the Public Record Office, better know as PRO, lead me to WO51/291/882H which lead me to info on what guns Alfred carried and ADM 51/34 1056 44 which was her log books  I believe, around the 1780's. This is when I was looking for info on the lathorn in the magazine.  I went through your build and couldn't find that you may of used these, hope they are of some help.  Gary

[AON]

The documents mentioned in my above posting are ADM 52/2752, ADM 52/2779 and ADM 52/3359.

I never thought there was anything but the 74 guns.  I never searched further once I found she wasn't on the list of ships issued carronades.

Then I discovered the swivel guns.

Now there are the carronades.

So short answer is no I hadn't but now I shall.

How did you know they mentioned the guns before got your hands on copies?  were they posted on PRO to read?

[Lieste]

You might also look for the arrangement for Goliath 1806.12.29, when she was restablished with Govers - as she is listed with 2 guns and 4 carronades on her f'clse - the opposite arrangement, but the same number of ordnance as the 'supplemented' 1782/1794 fitting (she still only carries 74, as the quarterdeck is reduced from 14 guns to 2 guns and 10 carronades, but the open question is how the smaller f'csle of the Edgar/Arrogant was adapted to 6 ordnance.

[AON]

I have been searching Bellerophon, Elephant and Goliath but from 1786 to 1800.

 

The point you make about the opposite ordnance is very interesting.

Edited June 15, 2022 by AON
1786 not 1876!