HMS Jason by Beef Wellington - Caldercraft - 1:64 - Artois-class frigate modified from HMS Diana 1794

[Barbossa]

Beautiful indeed, Jason.

Your finishing is a benchmark for my future project(s)

One question ( probably overlooked this in your buildlog) which brand/color code do you use for the red parts : gun carriages, inner bulwarks,...?

[Vane]

Amazing to see! This is definitely a masterpiece on this forum.

[Landlubber Mike]

Absolutely amazing work.  I have to say, you're one of the best builders on this site.  Your lines, etc. are just so clean and precise.  I'm very jealous  

[Timmo]

Great tackle and stove there and very nice weathering on the copper.

[Snow]

Nice love ya thinking  

[Beef Wellington]

Thanks everyone for the continued interest

 

Pat - all I did was add a few bits of wire, credit goes to the guys that made the 3D print!

Mort - Think I've already decided to leave any boats out of the waist, maybe 1, we'll see.  Depends on how well I can build one of those, but I have considered putting some alongside but will also depend on how I'll display her if I ever get there.  So many decisions.  As for leaving of planking off, I've ruled that out as I think there would need to be other modifications as well to hide the typical kit build method deficiencies before I'd be happy, and I want to avoid getting bogged down.

Christian - the paint is the Admiralty brand Red Ochre offered by Caldercraft, I like to keep it simple to ease touch ups and the colour is pleasing to my eye

Vane - you definitely have me confused with someone else!  Everything I know I learned from this great site, and my mind is continually thinking about how to do it better next time.  There are definitely things I would do differently if I were starting afresh, but everything is a learning opportunity.  There are many modelers here of a much higher standard than me.

Mike - You can credit the Syren blocks and lines there, there are much more pleasant to work with than the usual kit stuff.  I do like to identify a repeatable 'system'.

[Beef Wellington]

Quick update.  Increasingly realizing I'm reaching a point that I need to attach the upper false foc's'l and quarter deck template before more progress can be made, but  a couple of items I need to finalize and figure out first.

 

Main and mizzen backstay stools:

Unfortunately when I made the channels I neglected to make the stools at the same time, In a moment of focus decided to just get these done.  These smaller items were definitely trickier than the channels when scraping the edge profile, other than that, these can be put aside for when I'm ready to install the quarterdeck drift rail.

 

 

Upper deck coamings:

As mentioned previously, I'd like to keep the option to have a few of the gratings be removeable.  First off, appropriately sized gratings were made up, and the coamings then sized accordingly.  I cheated here and used a simple butt joint as I didn't think the more authentic lap joint would really be visible.  These were made of 3x3mm strip and 2x3mm strip with the inside ledge added after with some slightly thinned 1mm strip.  The grating thickness had to be thinned quite a bit to make it them sit flush.  These will also be simulating actual practice and so the edges were rounded off to 1mm above the bottom to butt up against planking.  TFFM was used as a guide here.

 

 

Once the coamings were finished, the fake beams and cross pieces could be made up to the appropriate size.  The ends were sloped to ensure that the end of the face beam would not be visible for viewing angles.

 

 

Adjustments were made to the false deck to accommodate the larger openings and positions tweaked a little.  For the foc's'l, the coaming size does not match the deck cut-out or AOTS exactly due to the limited incremental options for the grating size.  The stove flue needs to sit equidistant between the steam grate and the forward grating which moved forward slightly.  The steam grating needs to be positioned appropriately to allow the belfy to sit on the aft end of the steam grate coaming.

 

The top tackle scuttles have been filled in to ease future planking - the instructions indicate that there should be coamings and gratings here, however, these will be modeled as flush scuppers without a coaming as described in AOTS and shown on contemporary models. Although the surface of the center deck is very slightly curved, it is a close enough approximation to a flat surface that the flat top of the fake frame seem to sit without issue.  Lighting is clearly an issue here, and the interior is a little more visible than the photo's suggest, and probably more so in a well lit room.

 

Of note is the fact that the stove, and especially the condenser, sits a little higher than ideally would be the case, although looking at the AOTS diagrams its still a tight fit there as well.  In retrospect, I would probably not have put wooden battens underneath the bottom plate to lower this by 1mm or so, but not going to risk damage at this point to redo.

 

 

Putting some scrap planking in place give a better sense for the final proportion and the above deck rounded edge.  Think these will be a nice contrast to the much higher coamings of the exposed upper deck below needed to withstand water ingress.

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by Beef Wellington

[egkb]

Hey There Jason .. Looks amazing As Usual !!

 

All The Very Best Mate

 

Eamonn

[BANYAN]

Excellent work on those hatches Jason,they look the real deal!

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Old Collingwood]

Excellent work as always mate.

 

OC.

[Beef Wellington]

Many thanks all for the comments and likes, definitely good to have people along for the journey..

 

Feels like a chapter is coming to a close, finally seem to be closing in on completing the upper deck.  Definitely a multitude of time consuming small tasks.  First off I needed to address the fixed part of the gangway.  This is shown quite clearly in plan view on page 46 of AOTS Diana, however it is not shown in profile.  Given that it appears to contain its own lodging knee, I decided to extend the profile of the deck beam.  This seems to make sense when recognizing that a ladder will eventually be located here.  This highlights one of the inconsistencies in the AOTS book, many diagrams show the non-flush gangboards which I understand were going out of fashion at this point to be replaced by flush gangboards.  Hoping I'm not too far off the mark here.  A strip with a slight profile was added also to the deck beam to sit flush with the false quarterdeck.

 

The base plate to the stove was ripped off and replaced despite my intentions to leave as, hopefully this sits a little more harmoniously.

 

 

Cables have been added and "secured" to the various ring bolts beside the midship gratings.  AOTS describes these as being used for stoppers, but decided to secure with simpler ring ropes as described in Lever.  Stoppers have been modelled as per Lever on the 2 foremost ring bolts, but not yet tied on or attached permanently to allow me to finally decide (or others to refute) the approach taken.

 

 

Even though this area will only ever be glimpsed, time was spent fully building out the area around the foremast with the For jeer and for topsail sheet bitts as they would appear.  The actual bitts on the fo'c'sl will be mounted to the deck, seemed unnecessarily complicated to build these fully.  Couldn't quite figure out what was represented on diagrams for the fore jeer bitts until I saw interior photos of contemporary models in the Roger's Dockyard Model collection - but still no clue what the "swan neck" arrangement is called.  What is very interesting is how crowded this forward area really is, fighting these guns must have been a real challenge.

 

 

Warning:  Here follows some highly indulgent closeups taken on Captain's rounds!  This is the closest I guess I'll get to seeing what this looked like in practice

 

 

And finally...some overall shots with where things stand..

 

[marktiedens]

Beautiful work!!!!

 

Mark

[Old Collingwood]

Superb work mate  so clean and tidy.

 

OC.

[BANYAN]

Great gundeck BW; I think you 'nailed' the ringbolt positioning.  That supervisor of yours gets around doesn't he; I hope he has received an extra 'tot' fr his efforts

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Dr PR]

Jason,

 

I just came across your build. Very impressive!!

 

What size Syren blocks did you use for the gun tackle? Your work is very neat.

 

I have been trying to decide what to do with the falls (loose ends) of the gun tackle. Your example of frapping is interesting.

 

The Syren gun carriages are very neat. You may have stated this earlier, and I missed it, but what finish did you use for the red color?

 

One last question (for now). What did you use for the very thin thread seizing around the splices in post #614??

Edited September 3, 2019 by Dr PR

[Vane]

Amazing work and also photography. It must be abit tight to squeeze in a DSLR with a macro lens inside the hull. What are you shooting with?

[Bob Cleek]

 

Beautiful workmanship! Thanks for sharing it.

 

I saw this treatment of the gun tackles, which I believe you called "frapping." Is there some historical authority for this practice in the old days? It seems lubberly. Unwrapping and untwisting what would end up being "kinky" cordage if stowed in that fashion would be the last thing one would want to be doing as they "beat to quarters." (The same goes for "flemishing," coiling tackle falls into coiled flat mats on the deck. That would get you a real chewing out by the chief bosun's mate.  )

[el cid]

Bob, I’ve wondered about this too.  I assume when a gun is stowed, the tackle is used to secure it against the bulwark to prevent it rolling about.  That would require the line be secured to itself or some hard point (cleated, stoppered, knotted?).  Were wheel chocks used as well?  I imagine great care was taken to prevent a loose cannon.  Leaving a gun untended with the tackle lines just coiled on deck (flemmished or otherwise) doesn’t seem prudent.

 

Jason, your model is magnificent!

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

[Dr PR]

I have been wondering what to do with the falls from the gun tackle. I have seen four methods - so far.

 

1. Flemish coils on the deck. I have seen the ends of ropes Flemished on some of the ships I have served on, but only for show when we were having an inspection or open ship (visiting ship). There is no way this method would have been used at sea! The unsecured ropes would soon be scattered all over the deck.

 

2. Frapping similar to what Jason has done. However, the fall (the part pulled upon) is usually fairly long and is often looped around the hooks at either end of the tackle before the remaining line is frapped around the rest between the blocks. This would be done when the guns were stowed in port and possibly when at sea with no probability of using the guns.

 

3. I have seen drawings showing guns run out and ready for action with the falls loosely coiled (not Flemished) on the deck near the double block by the bulwark. This would position the rope out of the way of the crew and ready to run through the blocks as the gun recoiled. The coil would have to be arranged carefully to avoid tangled loops that would hang up on the blocks. Maybe the line would be uncoiled and pulled taut just before the gun was fired to ensure it would run free without tangles.

 

4. A fourth method that would be used when the guns were run out, but not to be fired immediately, was to loop the rope over a cleat or belaying pin on the bulwark near the double block. This would keep the line off the deck and in a known untangled state that could be prepared for firing quickly. I suspect this method would be used when there was a potential for action but the ship was not at quarters (Condition 1 or General Quarters) -  what we called "Condition 2" when I was in the Navy. I have seen only one drawing showing this, and I don't recall seeing it on a model.

 

I am considering either method 2 or 4 for my current model.

 

Remember that sailing ships moved very slowly - even the fastest clippers went only about 16 knots average. Sails on tall ships would be visible at a distance of 20 miles or better (up to 40 miles from the tops) and it would take quite a while for the ships to come into gun range after they spotted the enemy. Even if both ships sailed toward each other, at 6-8 knots it would take hours to close within smooth bore gun range. That would be plenty of time to prepare and run out the guns.

Edited September 3, 2019 by Dr PR

[Bob Cleek]

I'm sure there are contemporary records for the procedures involved in firing the guns. Somebody in this forum must have that information to contribute.

 

Wrapping the falls of the tackle around the tackle has been done before in modern times, but perhaps incorrectly.

 

 

 

As said, wrapping the fall tightly like that would tend to ruin the cordage, as anybody who's had the dubious pleasure of unwrapping a hank that had been frapped like that.  Perhaps, like Flemished coils, it was an occasional affectation seen only when the ship was "dressed." I note from the top picture that the wheels are chocked and the tackles and breeching line are loose. The breeching line is merely wrapped around the button rather than through a c*nt splice. Those chocks appear to be rather inadequate for the purpose intended were the shlp to be in any sort of seaway. The gunport netting around the barrel seems intended to keep curious little boys from falling overboard, more than anything else. 

 

It must be kept in mind that the gun tackles were only for training the guns. They were not for halting the recoil, which was the job of heavy breeching lines. If the training tackles were attached when the gun was fired and the breeching lines looser than the training tackles, the tackles quite possibly wouldn't survive the recoil and could pull their fastening rings out of the bulwarks. If they were left to run free upon recoil, the chance that a hockle on the running fall could fetch up and jamb was a distinct possibility, not to mention that a line running free like that underfoot would be a hazard to the gun crew. There is also the chance that a carriage wheel could end up on top of the training tackle fall upon recoil, which would then require horsing the carriage off the wheel so the training tackle could be used. In any event, I've not seen any indication that the hooks on training tackles were ever moused (no reverse curve at the end of the hooks,) so that indicates that one or both ends were cast off after the gun was trained. 

 

While I haven't researched it, my guess is that the training tackles were thrown off the carriage once the gun was trained and probably laid out in the waterway, or otherwise secured, prior to firing. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Bob Cleek

[Dr PR]

Bob,

 

Good photos. They show the frapping well.

 

I agree that it would make sense to unhook the tackle, at least from the gun carriage, before firing the gun. There is too much chance that the fall will be tangled and jam in the block. With a single/double block tackle there are four lines running between the blocks. So for every foot of gun recoil four feet of the fall would be drawn into the blocks. The rope would be whizzing through the tackle very fast. I don't think that could be managed to avoid tangles very easily, but experienced gunners might have had a way to do it.

 

However, I have seen other discussions on this forum saying that the tackle was attached and acted as a shock absorber as the lines ran through it. I have also read that the hooks were moused. But that is all speculation.

 

I would also guess that the gun tackle was also used as training tackle, since both would not normally be in use at the same time. Just unhook it from one position and move it to the other. In this case the hooks certainly would not be moused!

 

The drawings I have seen show both the breeching line and the gun tackles fastened to ring bolts that penetrated through the timbers and planking to fasteners on the outside of the hull. If these could take the shock of the breeching line they would also be able to withstand the lesser shock of a gun tackle slowing the recoil.

 

Somewhere here I read a post that quoted from a 19th century gunnery manual, but I don't remember who had it. That might answer the questions. I have looked through several books that I have for rigging sailing ships but they don't mention the guns.

 

Note in your first picture that there are belaying pin rails to either side of the gun where the falls could be belayed when the gun was not in use. But they would not necessarily be used. Again, speculation. Also notice that the fall was looped through the eyes of the hooks at least twice before the frapping was wound. This took up most of the falls and only the free end was used for frapping. So the part of the line that passes through the blocks would not be wound in the frapping.

 

Have we hijacked Jason's thread? Should this discussion be elsewhere?

Edited September 3, 2019 by Dr PR

[Beef Wellington]

Cheers Mark, OC for kind words and the likes, appreciate the ongoing interest.

 

@Pat - he does sup while working 🙂

@Bob - Welcome aboard!  My main source for this is The Fully Framed Model by David Anscherl (in this case Vol II, page 145), an excellent and very digestibly reference pulling together information only otherwise available in primary sources. As Phil points out above, line would be looped around the tackle blocks a couple of times first, and this is a slightly simplified representation, as pointed out, this can be seen on HMS Victory in practice.  I think a lot of modelling decisions are based on aesthetics, and my personal preference is for a nice clear deck.  Practically, guessing this would have kept the line off of an exposed deck which would likely have resulted in rot issues over extended periods of time.

@Phil - I appreciate the interest and kind words.  The blocks are 1/8" single and double, and the paint used is Admiralty Red Ochre supplied by Caldercraft.  The fine thread is UNI-Thread W 6/0 Tan - not sure what that means, but that's what's on the reel!  Nothing fancy, think I picked it up at a local craft store some time ago, its synthetic so need to use GS-Hypo cement rather than PVA if it needs to be secured. 

@Vane - I'm embarrassed to say it, photos are from an iPhone.... 🤐

Edited September 3, 2019 by Beef Wellington

[Dr PR]

Jason,

 

Thanks for the information.

 

Your 1:64 build is very clean and neat! Much more so than my 1:48, so I was wondering how you do it. But I think I understand now.

 

The Diana/Jason was 121 feet on the keel and 146 feet overall. My Baltimore clipper was 68 feet between perps.  Your model will be about 22 inches on the keel while mine is about 17 inches, so yours is about 1/3 larger. I would expect the larger scale model to be neater than a smaller scale just because wood grain, loose thread fibers, dust etc. would be smaller relative to the model. However, your model appears to have less of those details and fewer visible imperfections in the photos - especially the guns. I am envious!

 

However, I am modeling 6 pounder cannons at 1:48 and you are modelling much larger 18 pounder guns at 1:64, so your model cannon and carriages are about 1.75 times as large as mine! In the close up photos my imperfections and dust get 3-4 times as many pixels - and I am using one of the best macro lenses made (Nikon 105 mm macro) that makes very sharp pictures of the imperfections! Now I think my work isn't quite as crude as I thought compared to yours.

 

Because of some peculiarities of the kit I am building (and my kitbash) I had to make the gun carriages from scratch. I think they look OK, but for future builds I will try to use Chuck's gun carriages. They are very clean.

 

I am using the Syren 3/32 blocks for the gun tackle, and they are very small! As you said, these blighters take time!

Edited September 3, 2019 by Dr PR

[Vane]

Iphone... who could had guessed… :-P

Well there are alot of choices as you say and I have also noticed the red/yellow inner walls which I thing looks really awesome. Is that something that you came up with on your own?
Black frames instead of just plain walnut or red is also abit special.
 

[Beef Wellington]

Vane - My preference is always to look to evidence where possible for inspiration.  "The Sailing Frigate" by Robert Gardiner is an illustrated book charting the history of the frigate using contemporary models...I take no credit for anything! 

 

The following images are from the National Maritime Museum collections site, but are illustrated in book mentioned.

 

Minerva (1780) showing the yellow ochre bulwarks with red spirketting

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66278.html

 

Winchelsea (1772) showing the black coamings

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66277.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Beef Wellington

[Old Collingwood]

Am I reading this correct  -  when the canon  is not in use the tackle is frapped and secured from the carriage to the bulkhead, but when In use the tackle would be hooked up to one of the lashing points mid deck with the rope going through a block and  hauled into possition after firing.

Would this then tidy up and not leave a coil of tackle rope by the canon (or is that rope for another purpose)?

 

OC.

[Bob Cleek]

6 hours ago, Old Collingwood said:

Am I reading this correct  -  when the canon  is not in use the tackle is frapped and secured from the carriage to the bulkhead, but when In use the tackle would be hooked up to one of the lashing points mid deck with the rope going through a block and  hauled into possition after firing.

Would this then tidy up and not leave a coil of tackle rope by the canon (or is that rope for another purpose)?

 

OC.

It could well be a case of "different ships, different long splices." A variation from ship to ship. My guess is that there were at least two attachment rings on the bulkheads, two on either side of the gunport and two farther out, so that the inner ones could be used to most efficiently simply run the gun straight out, as when firing broadsides, and the outter two were used to train the gun from side to side from a better angle of purchase. The training tackles would be detached from the carriage when not in use and stowed along the bulwarks along with the rest of the gunners tools, which were hung on the bulwarks as well. Remember, too, that a gun also necessarily had a third gun tackle attached from a ring on deck to the after end of the carriage which was used to pull the gun inboard for cleaning and loading. This required the breaching line be cast off the button and forward over the barrel and then replaced when the loaded gun was again run out for firing. I don't frequently notice this third "charging tackle" depicted on models. These would almost certainly be removed when the gun was not in operation.

[ASAT]

Jason, I always look forward to your updates, there just are not enough superlatives to compliment your efforts. Definitely one of my inspirational models....  Just consistently awesome execution! 

[Dr PR]

The answers to many of our questions are found in Ordnance Instructions for the Unites States Navy (1860) which can be downloaded here:

 

https://archive.org/details/ordnanceinstruc00ordngoog

 

First of all, gun and train tackles were not removed before the gun was fired (pages 45 -47)! Up to the Ready/Fire commands the side tacklemen held the falls taut. At the command "fire!" side tacklemen dropped the tackle and falls and let them run to slow the recoil. The train tacklemen pulled on the falls to take up the slack as the gun recoiled, and then held the gun until it was loaded. However, the train tackle could be unhooked before firing in calm seas and then attached after recoil.

 

Note: The text describes when the gun tackles are hooked to the bulkheads and to the rings on the gun carriage, and which of the gun crew does each task. It never mentions unhooking the gun tackle until the gun is to be secured and stowed.

 

The gun was pointed by hauling it in to the extent allowed by the breeching line, and then one or the other side tackle was hauled in to swing the gun left or right (page 46). Here is a diagram showing pointing, firing and loading:

Breeching must be long enough to allow the gun to clear the gun port at least one foot when hauled fully inboard. Neither breeching nor tackle can be blackened or treated in any other way that reduces flexibility. They are to be made of manila or another pliable rope. (page 150).

 

I haven't read it all, but I couldn't find any description of how the gun tackle falls were to be secured/stowed when not in use. However, at the command "cast loose" the tackles were to be removed from stowage and then hooked to the bulwark and gun carriage. So apparently they were not hooked to the guns while they were stowed.

****

 

As far as placement of the ring bolts for the gun tackle on the bulwarks, the diagram above shows the attachment points spaced far from the gun port to allow a significant angle of pull on the tackle for pointing the gun. But most photos and drawings do not show them  as widely spaced as in the drawing above. I have also see (somewhere) a drawing showing double ring bolts for the train tackle on the bulwarks, on each side of the gun port, spaced fairly close together, in case one bolt fails.

 

In the description of how to point the gun it says the gunners used the handspikes to lever the gun left/right to assist the tackle. So it wasn't necessary for the gun tackles to be spaced widely as shown in the diagram above. The tackle could be used to hold and fine tune the point. The handspikes were also used to raise the breech to free the quoin so it could be repositiond to change the gun elevation.

 

One other detail I had been wondering about - the port tackle (for the gun port lid) was secured to a cleat on the inner top of the gun port. The door/lid was to be raised high to prevent damage from the blast of the gun. After each shot the port lids were closed to provide protection for the gun crews while they were reloading.

 

****

 

There is a lot of useful information in this document. It was written in 1855 and amended in 1860, but gunnery practices probably had not changed much in centuries except as new gun types were introduced. The referenced text describes practices for smooth bore muzzle loading guns.

Edited September 5, 2019 by Dr PR

[el cid]

Good stuff.  The “Boy’s Manual of Seamanship and Gunnery” (found via google) seems to indicate Royal Navy practice was similar (surprise).

 

As for stowing the guns on actual seagoing vessels (as opposed to static museum ships), a web search for L’Hermione cannon images may give some ideas.  Seems that crew often uses the side tackle falls to shorten and secure the breeching line.  They seem to secure the guns as I would, using all available lines to help ensure that the thing can’t shift as the ship rolls.  I suspect an actual navy crew would have had very specific techniques for doing same.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith