HMS Victory by guraus - scale 1:48 - plank on frame

[WackoWolf]

Now I am waiting to find out what is right and what is wrong. But as we all know anything can be fix, just ask Danny LOL. I still see you build as excellent, you guys know way move than I probably ever will about the Victory even though I have almost all the books on her. It shows that you all do your homework when build a ship, that is something everyone should do weather it is a kit or a scratch a person needs to know the ship. Just my 2 cents before the penny is no more.

[guraus]

Hello,

 

Thanks for the great feedback.

 

Fortres, I looked again at my plans and pictures and I I think is a combinations of several cumulated errors of the wales, decks and  gun ports. The main wale looks ok to me. The first gun ports probably should have a bit higher but not as much as you draw it on the picture. The middle wale is probably a bit to high in the front. The upper wale was a lot too high and now with the repair I am doing it will be just fine as its upper edge will end exactly at the level of the beakhead platform. I know is not perfect but in my opinion it will be a lot better than before.

 

This build already spans over more than five years and mistakes I did several years ago when tracing the decks and cutting gunports come up to create other issues I have not foreseen. Conclusion is that each step has to be perfect but is hard to tell as I can't think of all the possible impacts later on. I will know for next time. As for the gunports to low - there are things I am willing to repair and things that I do not - this is one of the latter. I'll live with it.

 

The fact that I corrected at least some of the problems makes me feel better about my build and this is something already.

 

 

Thanks again to all.

 

 

 

[amateur]

Mind: the colourbands do not go one-to-one to the thickstuff.

So when Alexandru is using black wood for the thickstuff, his black bands will be higher

at the bow than the actual black striped on the hull are...

 

Jan

[guraus]

Almost completed the reparation of the planking. Only one plank is missing, some nailing and a thorough sanding.

If you look at the last two pictures (after and before) taken from almost the same angle, I think it looks lot better now. I am happy with the result. And it was a couple of weeks small diversion from the deck framing.

 

Alexandru

[willz]

great work, after looking at the front of your marvelous model it looks like the top rail is too high, it shouldn`t be that close to the middle gun port, at 1/48 scale i get the gap between (not centres) the top and bottom rail about 27mm, i am myself building a 1/72 scratch Victory at the moment and i know how difficult it is to put something right after errors, anyhow the best of luck with your masterpiece.   Willz

[guraus]

Here are some progress pictures for the last couple of weeks.

[guraus]

...

[mtaylor]

Beautiful work, Alexandru.  What is that structure (cabin?) shown being built in the first several photos?  Interesting looking.

[Jim Lad]

Progress is right, Alexandru!  Yoy're going ahead in leaps and bounds!

 

John

[guraus]

Mark,

 

The cabin you are talking about is the fore hanging magazine which unlike the aft one I made fully closed as I left the other one open to see its interior arrangements. They were basically identical.

 

Thank you,

Alexandru

[WackoWolf]

Excellent work on all the detail, just beautiful. Keep the pictures coming.

[gjdale]

Outstanding work, as always Alexandru.

[jaerschen]

Excellent work Alexandru. I looking forward to see more of your build

[guraus]

Thank you all for the kind words and for following my build.

 

I am back so soon with a couple of questions related to the pump well at the level of orlop deck. To better understand the questions I've attached several photos from different sources I have:

 

• first three are from Bugler's plans
• forth one is from McGowan's book
• last two are from McKay's Anatomy of the ship - Victory

As you can see I highlighted in red a big piece of wood placed longitudinally at the level of orlop deck in the pump room. My guess is that this should provide some support to the main mast. The problem with it is that its atwartship width is the same (or less) with the width of the main mast - this can be best seen in the first and second pictures. So if a round hole for the mast is made in this timber it will be cut in two basically as the mast diameter is the same as the timber width. Does this makes any sense? Why use such a thick piece of wood just to cut it in two? Shouldin't it be at least twice as wide?

 

The second question is related to the bulkheads around the pump well at the orlop deck level or the pump room as Bugler calls it. I highlighted in green in the third picture (Bugler) the walls seem to have the planking placed at about 30 dgrees with the vertical so to provide gaps for aeration probably. I've seen this same setting in different other ships - including Swan class sloops. Problem is that in McKay's and McGowin's plans this feature is not shown (picture 4) - instead the walls are plain planked with regular planks butted against eacother - no ventilation gaps. So which one is true?

 

Hope anyone can help me with these question.

 

Thank you,

Alexandru

 

 

 

[norriro]

Hi Alexandru,

 

You have the answer to both your questions on one of those great photos you took of the Victory (0273). This shows that the pump well was planked in a louvered way as you say for ventilation. And the large baulk of timber on which a short pillar is supported (also on your photo) is the end of the main mast partner on the Orlop deck. It only supports the mast in a fore and aft manner as it is bisected by the main mast. In any case there are also mast partners on the decks above with wedges to give lateral support. In actual fact the existing timber on the Victory doesn't look like a solid block. It was probably replaced during restoration with a box as the masts are made of metal and supported below the ship anyway (see Bugler's description of this). Not sure what the purpose is of the square timber above the mast partner. Could it be a seal to stop dirt ending up in the well below? 

 

Keep up the great work. I always look forward to your next post!

 

Bob

[chris watton]

Alexandru

 

Nasal part of deck was heaved up later, than ship is built.

The underbody of beakhead bulkhead testifies to it, on that until now there are decorative pilaster and partial continuation of roundhous below than level of deck on a side in the district of head reils of latrine.

Probably, a deck it was heaved up because from an error in constructing before beakhead bulkhead a bowl turned out in 2 feet in depth, that was filled by water at skipper's daughter...

I have interest too, what you looked books through this question.

Especially I am interested by "HMS Victory - Building, Restoration & Repairs" Arthur R. Bugler,that I can not find on-line.

 

Prompt me - how to place pictures in posts on your web-site ?

Konstantin.

This is my take on this area too. I am designing a 64th scale version, and this area has given me the biggest problems. Do I follow John McKay's drawings, or follow what I see on the real ship today? I think that the fact that the decorative pillars extend all the way down to the upper gun deck level confirms that this was the bow deck's original position - it makes no sense to take the roundhouses and decoration down two feet further than they needed to be. (The same profile in the book HMS Victory - her Construction, Career and Restoration by Alan McGowan show this also (although again, John McKay did the drawings in this book) 

 

One thing I have noticed with the bow deck at lower gun deck level is the run of the extended rail moulding, which extends to the underside of the catheads. On the real Victory now, it is quite a soft curve, due to the extra 2 feet in height of the bow. But on my model, the curve is slightly more acute, as the level is lower.

 

Also, I am not sure if it's me, but I think that on the McKay drawings, the lower stern counter frames are angled too acutely, they seem to be a little more 'vertical' than shown, compared to the real version.

 

Chris

 

ETA - Almost forgot to say - Great work, a hugely enjoyable thread with great pictures. 

Edited May 28, 2013 by chris watton

[guraus]

Thanks Bob,

I've missed that picture - there are so many - I think you are referring to the one that I attached.

I can see there the end of that big piece of wood (as you said this is probably just a box now) and the louvered planks. Looking at it I can't see the ventilation gap between the planks - maybe the angle is not good?

 

Chris, thanks for the explanations. I am not there yet with my build and I am not sure what will I do when I get there. One step at a time for me.

 

Thanks,

Alexandru

[norriro]

Alexandru, yes that's the photo I meant. I would leave a very small gap between the planks because if they are  louvered it was for ventilation, otherwise the simpler normal bulkhead method would have been easier. It may be a that during restoration they took the easy route just putting the planks in one on top of the other or else successive coats of paint have partly filled in the gap! The "box" on the photo highlights a recurring problem I have come up against several times when it comes to following the construction of the Victory as she is now. The most glaring example is the present representation of the main wale which is built in two layers for convenience and economy, while the original construction would have been made up of solid baulk of timber around 10 inches thick wrought top and butt. Bugler and McKay show the present set up. Its a shame they didn't put in a footnote pointing this out as I presume most model makers will want to show the Victory in its 1805 condition. And this is what the restoration was supposed to do, but understandably the cost got in the way, and corners had to be cut where it didn't show. In  the same vein you will soon be coming up with a problem which I also face: the lower gun deck waterways. I took several photos of these on the Victory, which show a patchwork of approaches (concave, convex, a sort of skirting board) probably the result of repairs and restoration when the Victory was no longer expected to navigate on the high seas and ship seawater. Here I will follow what John Fincham (Outline of the Practice of Shipbuilding) says for the period and put in 5 inch (full scale size) concave waterways butting up against the 4 inch deck planking. I will also make the first few outer strakes of planking top and but. I forgot to mention in my previous reply that the reason I remembered the photo is that I used it to get the shape of the pillar, although after what I've just said above, it may have been replaced anyway and not be the 1805 version!  

Bob

[norriro]

Chris Watton has once again raised the question of the higher level of the beak head deck/platform compared to the level of its corresponding gun deck. The set up on the Victory is very clear with the beak head platform being around 26-27 inches higher. Contrary to McKay, Bugler shows this and also shows that the construction of the gun deck continues below the level of the platform, which would, I presume, have been done to strengthen the ship at this level with a deck hook below the deck itself. The answer to my mind of why the platform is higher is because of the height of the Channel Wale at the fore. If the normal deck level had been carried on to the beak head, you would have created a small pool like structure if the wale continued on with the need to foresee large scuppers to evacuate seawater, thereby weakening the wale. Alternatively the wale would have needed to be cut before reaching the stern post also weakening the fore structure. By continuing on the deck and wale and then covering over the "pool" with a platform, the best of all worlds was achieved: an overall stronger fore structure, better access to the bowsprit and more comfort for the poor sailors using the "seats of ease", who were a little higher above the waves!     

[guraus]

Thanks Bob,

 

I totally agree with your opinion concerning the beak head deck.

Here are some more progress photos.

 

Alexandru

[guraus]

...

[garyshipwright]

Hello Alexandru. I know this has been brought up before but just some food for thought on the beakhead bulkhead raised platform. For me I don't think that Victory or other 90 to 100 gun ships had this platform. My reason are that plans of the Victory as well as others such as the Princess Royal of 1773,Ville de Paris of 1788, don't show this raised platform. My thinking is that the raised platform didn't come about on Victory till after they redid the bow turning it in to a round bow minius the whole beakhead itself. The upper deck went all the way fwd and was even with the main rail of the head work making ever thing on a even keel. There really was't any need for this small raised platform. Once the Victory bow was redone, as she looks today, it show's the beakhead buckhead, along with the  raised platform. Do believe that some of the authors that has been posted,do not show the small platform because plans and other primary reseach doesn't show this. Here are some photo's of the plans I have of Victory going back to her first drawing which came from the Danish NMM. Also one from the English NMM and one out of Bugler book. One thing you will noticed is the primary plan doesn't show the small platform. You will also notice the plan of Victory with all of her carvings also doesn't show this small deck. It's not till you see the plan by Buglar that shows this. This might also explain why the round houses and collums go down two feet more. I have also added a photo of Alfred that does show the raised platform which was a common item on ships of 74 guns. It seems that if they had this raised platform it seems that primary plans would show this. If you look in Rob Napier book Legacy of a Ship model, on page 89, 90,91 and 92 how it shows the upper deck going all the way fwd and no small raised platform. Do hope that this is some food for thought on this small raised deck that raises a lot of question about did she or didn't she. Some food for thought sir.

 

Gary

[druxey]

I would agree with Gary. The headwork was changed from the original 'as built' conformation, the lowest point of the main rail being raised. This would necessitate the platform, in order to make a continuous surface on both sides of the beakhead bulkhead.However, the platform was 'original manufacturers' practice on 64 and 74 gun two-deckers, as Gary shows.

[norriro]

My first thought on reading Gary's comments about the beak head was that the underlying issue was the move in the turn of the century towards round bows. The Victory as she is now is supposed to represent her state in 1805 at the time of the battle of Trafalgar. A short time before she had been the subject of a major refit. This would have included strengthening the bows, which was the tendency at the time. At Trafalgar Victory led one of the two lines that cut the French/Spanish lines. During the approach the bows would have received a massive pounding from the enemy broadsides. That Victory was able to withstand this is a testament to its solid bow construction. Subsequently, Victory had further refits, which included a full rounded bow. When she was restored to her 1805 condition, I do not think that the platform remained from her rounded bow configuration as Gary suggests. I believe she was returned to her 1805 state which would have included the platform for the reasons I suggested in my previous post. At first sight Gary's comments appeared to be valid for the period prior to the turn of the century. Thereafter the plans for a proposed 80-gun ship annexed to David Steel's 1805 treatise show that the wale went all the way to the post with corresponding framing and even include a platform above the level of the deck. I then started to wade through some of the other volumes I have and found that the practice of introducing a platform existed even earlier. in John Franklin's Navy Board Ship Models 1650-1750 a photo of the 1685 90-gun Coronation model, shows a platform with the (split) wales below, which continue to the post. And Lavery's The Ship of the Line Volume 1, includes a plan of the 70-gun Royal Oak of 1741 which has a platform and a round house well above the level of the deck. This leads me to conclude, that at the time of actual construction (as opposed to what is shown on the plans), the wale would normally have continued to the stem and if necessary a platform, probably of light construction, would have filled in the space created above the deck. I believe that in looking at these issues one should try to put oneself in the shoes of the shipwright. In this case would he cut the wale before it reached the stem? And then only to ensure the nice lines in the original plan. I wonder if this is the key: the plans for the most part don't  show what happens to the wale behind the rails, but in practice they do continue to the stem and then one has to find a solution if the resulting height of the wale is above the level of the deck. The Royal Oak plan seems to suggest that even in the 18th century the solution was a platform.

[norriro]

Sorry to hark on about the beak head, but I've just had a look at what French practice was. The plans in Boudriot's Volume 1 of the 74-gun ship (circa 1780) show a continuous (split) wale and a raised platform at the beak head. 

[garyshipwright]

Hi Alexandru.

Sorry sir and forgive me for stealing your log and after this I will not say another word on this small platform.

Hi Norriro.

To me the biggest question is when did Victory received this little deck and yes sir I do agree that this little platform did show up through out wooden ships. I went looking for some more primary research on this and did find a couple or is it one and some other's that are contempory. I have added 5 photo's showing the changes to Victory's bow and one that shows a first rate with a round bow. There is a picture like this one that is the Victory but I can't seem to find it now which is why I put this one here. The main one showing a model of the Victory's beakhead buckhead after she had her large repair in 1803 prior to the battle of Trafalgar, which is what the NMM web site says about it. If you look you can see the height of the chase ports from the deck. Now if you look at the painting, not sure of its date but looking at the back ground it probably was in the 1920's when she was being refit as she was post to look like in 1805. In this photo you can see that the chase ports are not at the same height as in the first picture which is probably due to the raised small platform. This is the time that I believe they strip away the round bow and tried to give her that 1805 look but the model shows what it really was post to look like in 1805. Her beakhead I don't belive is right if you compare the two. Also I added a painting not sure of the date but shows Victory breaking the French line with the same beakhead bulk head. I do believe as you said because her bow was all shot up, that when she was repaired do believe that is when she got her round bow, just like the older ship in the picture. The model also shows how the upper wale, stop short of the stem and ends under the aft part of the main rail. Could be total wrong sir but does give food for thought, and has been interesting. Thank you.

Gary

Edited June 11, 2013 by garyshipwright

[JerseyCity Frankie]

I'm in awe of this project. I think everyone who starts building ship models will, within a year or two of getting into the hobby, consider the notion of building a huge 1/48 scale H.M.S. Victory. Very few people have the determination and will to start and cary through such a project! My hat is off to you. I am jealous on one level but on another level I am glad it is not me! It takes a special kind of person to do what you are doing.

[norriro]

Alexandru, I agree with Gary that we should not be using your site for this discussion. It should be used by you for a discussion of your fantastic model, which is a great example and inspiration to us all. I fully agree with the latest comments above on this. I will just sign off on earlier issue by saying that the model shown in Gary's post doesn't convince me. Most of the details are wrong, like the timber heads, the bulkhead, three gun ports on the poop deck and the strange shape of the knightheads. Unfortunately it looks like the model maker didn't have access to all the information that we now have. If you had to model using NMM plans you would probably model the beak head in this way. I know that is how I originally thought it should be done, with the deck extended forward. But because I am finding more and more evidence to show that the wale did extend up to the stem, a platform of some sort becomes inevitable. Anyway Gary and I can agree to differ on this!

Bob

[guraus]

Thank you guys for the time you took to do all this research and to post all this valuable information.

Based on what I've seen it seems that both options (with or without the platform) were used in practice. It also seems that the fact that the upper wale went all the way through to the stem and it was above the level of the upper deck a platform was built and if the wale ended up before then the sides of the ship only went up to the level of the upper deck and no platform was required. The combination upper wale to the stem and  above deck level plus no platform does not seems to be used and I think is logical.

Now, concerning Victory - it seems that there is no consensus on how it was and when that platform was build. It is there now and the wale ends up at stem - which I did on my model too so I will probably build the platform too. Were the sides of the ship at beak head level rise when the round bow was added later on Victory? Probably. Later again when the restoration of her to 1805 shape was done these were cut off at about 2 ft above the upper deck level - and a platform was installed. All evidence seems to point to that. Was this how she looked in 1805? I don't know. The original plans do not show the platform but this does not necessarily means that it was not there. The shipwright of the time had a great liberty when building a ship - thus the necessity of "as built" plans.

Once again thank you for the info and for your interest.

 

Alexandru

[Fortres]

Hello, colleagues !

I use computer translation, on it not everything I understand.
But main understood - you discuss a question that interests me - about heaved up nasal part of midl deck before a beakhead bulkhead.
I got a photo on that evidently, that as early as 1983 there was original nasal part of deck that was covered by a  heaved up a platform at a reconstruction 1922-1925 year.

 

 

I am sure that a deck it was heaved up exactly then.


In 1816 on shipboard did a round nasal partition and ship began to look so.

 

 

 

In Royal Museums Greenwich the draft of deck is kept from June, 17, 1830, where evidently, that a deck extends to the nose without getting up.

 

In such kind a ship was 1925 to, when did a reconstruction, used drafts from 1788 from Royal Museums Greenwich.
Then heaved(probably) up nasal part of deck, what to even her with the grate of latrine.

Konstantin.