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

[druxey]

Looks like you're having fun!

[AON]

Good morning Druxey

 

Thank you for following.

I see you are everywhere on the forum  and cannot imagine the time it must take

I greatly appreciate your and other modellers visits as it somehow puts me at ease.

 

Recording the measurements and plotting the points is a bit tedious but I will admit joining the dots is fun (is that weird?) I attribute it to the fact that I can see myself getting closer to starting the actual model.  There have been some frustrating moments... one major one being trying to read and then make sense of Ree's or Steel's. 

 

I am approaching it as I've done many a new challenging task at work, divide and conquer.

I break it up into much smaller but manageable frustrations and overcome them one by one!

 

I will also admit I had not factored in the demands of the new season taking me away from all this.... I hear the grass calling me again  

but (as I am certain you can attest to) it is much more enjoyable being out in the sun then basking in the ice and snow! 

 

Take care Obi-Wan!

(did I just reveal my age?)

 

Alan

Edited June 13, 2014 by AON

[druxey]

Actually, Grasshopper, I don't spend that much time on this site: I do limit the number of threads that I follow, though. Your strategy of 'a piece at a time' is a good one.

[torpedochief]

Wow! If only my clumsy hands were have a talented! Fantastic work. What do you think you spent more time on building or research?  I am running about 50/50.

[AON]

Druxey: "grasshopper"

that put a smile on my face!

thoughts of dear old David Carradine

(I still think Bruce Lee would have been the better kung fu master)

 

Chief: Re: time spent on my actual build

This build is still in the planning/layout/research stage and takes 100% of the time I put on it for now

I cannot comment on anything other than the whaler I did 14/15 years ago where I was intimately familiar with them back then so research was minimal and I practically jumped right in after receiving the print from NMM and the photos from my CPO at HMCS Quadra that summer.

 

Alan

[AON]

Good morning world!

I have been busy building my modelling table and dealing with summer.

 

Getting back into all this with fresh eyes and I've noticed a few things I had done that I cannot recall "why".

(a great advocating point in favour of the build log notes idea mentioned in another forum)

 

Seems I have a double set of station lines and I've no idea why.. apparently I had changed something and left the original set in.

I am trying to determine if I had erroneously used a wrong one anywhere

 

I've measured (what I believe to be meticulously) off the drawing and laid out the keel, stem and stern posts and rabbet line along with shown scarf joints and they do not align properly.

.

At the moment I am extremely frustrated and am very close to shelving what I've done to date, chalking it up to a learning experience and starting over from square one.

 

Another thing that has been nagging at me is the fact that I'm working off the Elephant plans but the Bellerophon contract has a penned notation (correction) to the length changing it from 168 feet to 170 feet long.   This extra 2 feet (1/2" at 1:48)  won't leave my mind... I cannot let it go.

 

I will continue to try to determine if I can salvage what I've done or start over.

 

I cannot adequately describe the feelings I am having at this moment

Alan

[Trussben]

Hi Alan,

 

I feel your pain, I think I have redone parts of my Indy plans at least 3 times up to now, but it does make me much faster the second/third time around and I understand a lot more each time through. Steep learning curve with this stuff.

 

Ben

[AON]

A "do over" would certainly reinforce what I hope I've learned... just not looking forward to starting from scratch.

It would definitely be better organized the second time.

Can't seem to turn my back on the progress I've made to date.

 

My NRG mentor suggested I might have imported the drawing to CAD and traced it versus trying to measure everything.

I'd still have to contend with paper stretch but it would be faster and lines would align.

 

Starting over???

Holy old bald headed Saint Dulabon... what have I gotten myself into?

[druxey]

What you describe sounds so familiar. As Ben pointed out, the learning curve is steep but, rest assured, the payoff eventually is very rewarding if you stick with it. And you are fortunate enough to have a mentor at your shoulder. Hang in there, Alan!

 

Now, take a deep breath and start by checking everything in a calm and logical sequence. Let us know how it goes.

[Don9of11]

Alan, why don't you start a separate configuration using the penned in dimensions, I've done that with the 74 I am working on. I put Steel's dimensions in a configuration all it's own within the same model that way I can refer to it when ever I want. Starting over has it's benefits too as it will test what you learned so far.

[AON]

Don

As explained in our PM (for anyone else wondering) as a habit at work we do not use configurations as they have been the result of some major $$$ errors.

If someone forgets to set to the proper configuration someone else may not realize and WHAM all of a sudden your expecting a pink slip.

 

If I had worked in configurations and this was the error I could easily pick the other one.

 

If you knew how many times I opened the file and started working on it only to discover I was working on the Back Up copy....dumb move once ... really dumb the forth time

 

Druxey

Not making excuses but it can be difficult trying to focus 1-1/2 hours in the evening after spending 8 to 9 hours staring at drawings and documents on a computer screen.

I tend to feel relaxed when do this stuff after the stress of work ... but the last few days of this has not been that relaxing!

Even the 45 to 60 minutes in the morning can be dangerous (am I really awake or am I dreaming about my build????)

 

I am narrowing in on it and believe this is what happened

I think it all happened between my guessing at the station spacings while working with images of the drawings, and then finally receiving and  trying to work with the contract.

It seems my station locations are buggered

I just laid it all out in 2D CAD - Draftsight - and now question the spacings of the forward and aft cant frames

A discussion for me and my mentor

 

I am not one to give up ............ but it certainly humbles a fellow

 

Alan

[druxey]

I realize that after a long day's work one's focus may not be the best, Alan. But we are cheering you on, nevertheless!

[dvm27]

Alan,

 

During the process of building a fully framed model I occasionally arrived at a place where the stress overwhelmed the fun of doing a hobby. At those times I took a break to work on other projects. Sometimes for a week, sometimes longer but  when I came back to it the stress was gone and the work improved.

[AON]

Thank you all for the words of encouragement.

I fear stepping away might cause me to be more forgetful.

(Is that possible?)

 

Regarding the 168 feet versus the 170 feet...

Don has zoomed in on it and tells me it looks more like 175 feet and having done the same last night I tend to think he is right.

The tiny five being very similar to a zero.

(the 8's still look like freakishly twisted 6's)

 

I will stick to my original decision as I believe there cannot be any possible way a builder would put that much more out of pocket expense into a build

 

168 feet it will be.

 

I am still going to try and salvage my work to date

it will mean re-establishing the station locations and when that is done re- fairing the hull.... and that part was such a joy.

 

Hopefully it won't be too bad as I keep having trouble acknowledging the tiny scale.

40 plus years of doing exactly the opposite does not make it easier (drawing small and trying to see it in my mind at full scale)

 

With the weekend around the corner I hope to get adequate time in to resolve my problem

[druxey]

Sometimes builders 'stretched' the ship's dimensions slightly, if it was a merchant yard building for the Navy. Why? Because they got paid by the ton. So, if you are working from an 'as built' draught....

[AON]

Druxey,

 

(Part 1)

The "as built draught" is of HMS Elephant

The non-amended contract for her reads the same as the one for HMS Bellerophon

The contract for HMS Bellerophon has the additional notations

 

 

You will note the contract clearly states 168 feet but just below it is penned (what seems to be) 175 feet

I had mistaken the 5 to be a zero.  Don had caught this.

 

It seems the Length of keel for tonnage was amended to 144 feet 1-5/8 inches

 

The builder was Mr. Edward Greaves and Company of Limehouse, County Middlesex.

 

There are quite a few other notations throughout the contract.

 

When we look at payments....

Edited July 14, 2014 by AON

[druxey]

Yes, any increase in measurements (and therefore tonnage) had to be approved by their Lords of the Admiralty or - no extra monies!

[AON]

(part 2)

 

When we look at payments...

The contract clearly states "not to exceed 1604 - 27/94 tons

The penned notation in the left column reads 1729 - 76/94 tons

 

The last paragraph of this section clearly states "... in the case the said ship shall exceed in dimensions or scantlings contrary to what is herein set forth and declared that no allowance shall be made for any increase of scantlings and dimensions ..."

 

In other words he would be out of pocket for changes instigated by himself.

 

This contract was signed in February of 1782.

The ship was launched 6 October 1787 and completed by March 1787

 

Strangely enough Edward Greaves was bankrupt in 1787 !!!

 

Did the Bellerophon do him in?

Did he ignore the contract?

Was she 175 feet long?

 

 

[AON]

Looking over payments

 

HMS Elephant per contract, no noted amendments = 54530 pounds

 

HMS Bellerophon per original contract = 50704 pounds but with all amendments and payment total made in margins = 91694 pounds !!!

 

I cannot believe the navy filed a contract with all these amendments that they were not in agreement with

All notations therefore must have been agreed to amendments

 

Am I "out to lunch" with my conclusion?

 

Then again, why the bankruptcy?

[druxey]

Why bankruptcy? Charles Dickens had it right: "Income per annum, twenty pounds; expenditures nineteen pounds, nineteen shillings and sixpence, result, happiness. Income twenty pounds; expenses twenty pounds ought and sixpence, result, unhappiness." Presumably Mr. Greaves' expenditures in business exceeded his income, despite all the extra payments.  

[AON]

One more newspaper clipping that tells more about the shipyard

 

Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser Sept 12 1787 re Edward Greaves

 

Certainly a business will go under if not managed well but he was contracted by the government and knowing how timely governments are at collecting versus paying out today I wonder if he had issues with "delayed payments" versus creditors.

 

This side trip into the builder is all very interesting.

 

Regardless, the longer I stare at this contract the more it seems obvious all references to this ship being like the other Arrogant Class ships are likely wrong.  HMS Bellerophon was eight feet longer.  I suppose I need to review Steels and Rees and hunt for other 175 foot 74 gun ships to better understand / visualize the framing, etc...

Edited July 14, 2014 by AON

[Don9of11]

If you look closely next to the scantlings that have been changed or in some cases above the scantling, you will find there are initials. This means that the changes were agreed to, whether before or after the ship was built or if this was a common practice to mark the contract up in this manner, I can't determine. 

 

 

 

[druxey]

If there was a change, often the previous specification was crossed through.

[AON]

MY HEAD IS STARTING TO HURT

 

Today, if I were making any changes to a legal document I would initial each and every change.

I personally would add the date to each also!

 

There are an awful lot of "notations" on the contract and 180% original payments seem to be recorded in the margins.

 

I want to be true to the original build... but I suppose the right thing to do is whatever is right for me.

 

 

 

 

 

What is right for me?

 

What a conundrum.

[Don9of11]

Alan, I'm curious about a note in the upper left corner of the contract next to the first paragraph on page one and a note similar to this with the date of 1805 in the left-hand column several pages later next to the paragraphs Time of Launching. This is just speculation on my part but I wonder if the Bellerophon underwent a refit after the Battle of Trafalgar and these penned scantlings are from that period?

Edited July 14, 2014 by Don9of11

[AON]

I know she had extensive damage during that battle

I imagined the contract was referred to for the refit.

 

Would they have made her longer and wider?

Doesn't seem likely to me.

Is this something they would have done?

 

I cannot imagine spending almost twice the cost of the original build for a refit... I'd have used her for target practice.

 

None of it makes sense to me.

[mtaylor]

Alan,

 

Part of the problem may have been the length of time she sat in the stocks.   She was started in 1782 and launched in '86 with a two-year planned construction time.  So for two years, one of his building slips would have tied up not generating income while the ship seasoned.  The other possibilities are that he had a hard time getting Navy contracts due to the location of his main yards and the Navy not wanting Naval work being done close to the state yards.  Seems merchant yards paid more and the Navy didn't want it's workers poached.

 

There's a good bit of info on all this in:  The Billy Ruffian by David Cordingly.   Boring in places (Cordingly is an academic afterall) but a lot of good info on the ship.   There's also reference to a set of plans reconstructed by Norman Swales that I've not been able to find copies of anywhere.  He based his plans on the Edgar but I have no idea why.

[AON]

Thank you Mark

 

According to the contract she did supply an income during the seasoning period.

There were payments at regular intervals somewhat equal to the build payments

[AON]

Don (and all)

 

The scribbling in the upper left corner of the first page of the document seems to read "Ships Contracted for 2h Jan 1805".

I also see a very small 1805 scribbled above the heading "INTEREST" and below the eighth work payment during seasoning on the second to the last sheet.

 

I am going to sleep on this for a short while and see if any sense of it comes in my dreams.

 

Until then I'll ask again if anyone knows that they might spend 180% of the original cost to make her sea worthy and serviceable again after the Battle of Trafalgar.  Would they actually make her 8 feet longer (how???) and about 9 inches wider (thicker boards on the hull???)

 

Thinking back to the seasoning and launch delay... were the sums in the left column late payments due / made with interest?

Since there was no war would the government be eager to hand out moneys, hence i wonder the cause of the gentleman's bankruptcy.

(this doesn't make sense to me but it was a thought I had)

 

I know there are quite a few forum members that are extremely knowledgeable (and talented) and hope one might shine a brighter light.

More than willing to PM some select portions of sheets of the contract to study.

 

Maybe I should post this problem elsewhere on this site so someone not visiting might see it... good idea.

Will do that in the morning as might allotted play time is up for this evening.

 

Mark: presently waiting the reprint of HMS Bellerophon (announced in the books section of the site) to arrive and wonder if it might reveal anything with regards to size.

 

G'night world.

Edited July 15, 2014 by AON

[mtaylor]

G'night Alan.    That's the new one, which I'm tempted to get.  

 

Would they have lengthened her by 8 foot?  Probably not.  Cordingly makes no reference to her being lengthened after any of the 3 major battles.

 

As for battle damage, she got pretty chewed up at the Glorious First of June and really knocked about at the Nile after being along side L'Orient for most of the battle.

 

On the sums... probably not late payments but storage fees?  I'll have to find the reference, but there was a point in time where the Navy was pretty angry that their new ships were rotting because the wood was green so they started leaving them in the slip to season. 

 

Wish I could help more as this ship fascinates me and I'd love to build her.