New Scantling book announced by Seawatch books

[allanyed]

Thanks Druxey!

Allan

[robcg]

Thanks very much for your help Allan and Druxey!  I've got a few additional questions on these scantlings, but perhaps I'll start a new thread for each.  Once again, well done on this compilation, Allan.  It's fantastic to see this info made so much more accessible. 

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

[allanyed]

Rob,

 

As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention.  There is so much information out there that  is simply too difficult or expensive for most of us to access so when this chance came up, I knew what I wanted to do and Bob Friedman was instrumental in making it happen, in spite of  a lot of agida that came with the project.

 

 

Allan

[BobF]

I really had second thoughts about posting this review, since so many good things have already been said, and certainly in a more eloquent manner.  However, Allan and Bob Friedman deserve all the kudos we can give them.  So, here is a review of this remarkable book that appeared in my local club newsletter.

 

Scantlings

 of

Royal Navy Ships

1719—1805

 

Comparisons of 1719, 1745 Establishments,

Ship Builders Repository and

Steel’s Elements & Practice of Naval Architecture

 

by Allan Yedlinsky

 

Distributed by: Sea Watch Books, LLC, Florence, Oregon

www.seawatchbooks.com, seawatchbooks@gmail.com

The first impression one might get when they open Scantlings of the Royal Navy 1719—1805 by Allan Yedlinsky, is that here is a book that would be useful to only the most advanced and demanding model ship builder.  This is certainly understandable, but not necessarily the case.  The reasons for this will be presented later in this review.

   The book begins with an introduction by the author.  He discusses the various sources he has used to research his models, along with the pros and cons of these references, which included as-built drawings, builders drawings and contracts.  Scantlings from the various Establishments were quite useful, but hunting through these multiple sources proved cumbersome and time consuming.  This was the primary factor that motivated Mr. Yedlinsky to compile this remarkable amount of information into a single easy to use reference.

   The book features five primary sources, which are combined into two segments.  The first segment includes the 1719 Establishment that deals with eight vessel sizes rated from 20 to100 guns, the 1745 Establishment, which covers eight vessel sizes rated from 24 to 100 guns, and the 1750 alterations to the 1745 Establishment that shows altered dimensions proposed for several vessels rated from 50 to 90 guns.  The first segment ends with a handy index, Notes for the Establishment Tables, and an interesting  Synopsis  of  the  1745 Establishment Report  that includes tables showing minimum and maximum crew size, position of grape shot for each rate, and the compliment of small arms these vessels would carry.

   The second segment is composed of 1788 The Shipbuilders Repository, author’s name unknown, and 1805 The Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture by David Steel.  Yedlinsky states that the 1788 tables are far from complete.  However, when combined with Steel’s work, they comprise the largest, and most comprehensive section of this book, 174 pages.

   This segment also has it’s own index.  It is interesting to note that in both instances, the author uses “folio numbers” rather than page numbers, which emulates Steel’s practice.  These are located in the upper corner of the tables, next to the spiral binding.  Like the first portion of this book, there are some extensive notes that include quotes by Steel on the fore magazine, and particulars of bomb vessels.  This section concludes with tables describing the scantlings for various ships’ boats and anchors.

   The final 10 pages feature drawings that will help the reader cross-reference the terms used for various timbers on a sailing ship with the information in the tables.  One particular illustration of a First Rate is extremely detailed, but may require magnification.

   Never the less, the author has made every effort to make this book as user-friendly as possible.  Larger fonts are utilized, and typographical errors that occurred in the originals have been eliminated.  This book measures 14”x8 ½”.  The spiral binding allows the pages to lay flat, producing a 28” format that allows for easy viewing of the various tables.

   As stated earlier, novice and intermediate modelers may question the need for such a book.  This is a valid assumption since most confine their projects to plank on bulkhead and solid hull kits.  Yet, it is certainly no secret that the materials provided in these products are often questionable in terms of quality and scale.  As these individuals progress from model to model, they will develop higher standards, and question these inadequacies to a greater extent.  This remarkable book could be considered an investment in their modeling future, but there is no reason why the benefits cannot be realized immediately.

   Scantlings of the Royal Navy 1719—1805 by Allan Yedlinsky is a remarkable research tool that both researchers and modelers will find invaluable.  It is highly recommended.

 

BobF

[allanyed]

Bob,

 

A very sincere thank you.    .

 

Allan

[cookster]

Hi Alan, I know this is now an old topic but I just found and ordered this book.  I had no idea this was out there, I happened to stumble upon it while reading another's build log.  I can't wait to get it, it should help me out tremendously on my Essex build.

 

One question for you if you don't mind, how strictly would you think the colonial ship builders of the American Revolution period would've followed these "recommended practices"?  I know it's said Hunt used the Scantlings of a 74 gun ship to layout the Constitution, and for Essex William Hacket is thought to have used scantlings for a 36 or 38.  I'm just curious as to your opinion.  

 

Thanks! 

[allanyed]

Wes,

 

I have absolutely no experience with US ships other than Gloucester schooners so cannot comment with any authority..  I suspect, there were ship designers and shipwrights from England or trained by British designers and builders, thus may have followed practices from England.  If that is the case, I don't think you would be far off in using the scantlings in the book.   Keep in mind, if you look at contemporary drawings of British ships, there may be differences in the drawings from the scantlings, including Establishment scantlings. When Wayne Kempson and I worked on the Euryalus project he was continually finding differences in the scantlings between the drawings, the contract, and Steel.   We defaulted to the drawings, then the contract, then the scantlings in the tables.   The differences were minimal and hardly noticeable, if at all, in a model, but there were differences to be sure. 

I know this is not really answering your question, but I would feel safe using the scantlings

Allan

[cookster]

Thanks Alan!  I will try and trust the drawings first, that has been my method so far and for the most part it has served me well.  Now that I have the tables I can verify, or improve the accuracy of, things I was before "guessing at".  I received your book yesterday, I'm so glad i found out about it!  It will help me tremendously.  Thanks again for putting it together!

[allanyed]

Wes

 

Please keep in mind I was referring to contemporary drawings that we had purchased from the NMM, not modern drawings.  If we had only had  "modern" drawings we probably would have defaulted to the original contract, then the tables, and probably not considered the drawings very much for dimensions,

 

Allan

[trippwj]

Hi Alan, I know this is now an old topic but I just found and ordered this book.  I had no idea this was out there, I happened to stumble upon it while reading another's build log.  I can't wait to get it, it should help me out tremendously on my Essex build.

 

One question for you if you don't mind, how strictly would you think the colonial ship builders of the American Revolution period would've followed these "recommended practices"?  I know it's said Hunt used the Scantlings of a 74 gun ship to layout the Constitution, and for Essex William Hacket is thought to have used scantlings for a 36 or 38.  I'm just curious as to your opinion.  

 

Thanks! 

 

When considering Continental (American) practice, keep in mind the variety of influences upon their approach to shipbuilding.  British, Dutch, and French design practices all influenced, in varying degrees, the American shipwright.  many (perhaps most?) were not exposed directly to British (naval) practices until they were already well established as shipbuilders.  Remember, until the late 18th century, there were NO dedicated warship constructors in America - all were builders of commercial ships that dabbled (on occasion) in privateers and small ships of war.

 

Humphreys, as one example, was not a builder of warships (though it is generally accepted that during the Revolutionary War there were a couple built in his yard).  He was, however, likely intimately familiar with the French Designed/Dutch built Frigate South Carolina (L'Indien).  The reported scantlings of the South Carolina are very similar to those of a British 74 gun ship - and are commonly believed to have strongly influenced Humphreys design of the original 6 American frigates.