HM Cutter Cheerful 1806 by Chuck - FINISHED - 1:48 scale - kit prototype

[Chuck]

Mark , your guess is as good as mine.

 

I actually think most ships were like this..... but because of Steele and a few other rigging texts that focus mainly on frigates, people have found comfort in being able to say its correct.  But just because one or two contemporary texts write about particular methods however, it sometimes still doesnt match what you see on contemporary models with original rigging or even many contemporary drawings or other not as well known texts.  You see so many contradictions.  

 

I believe its fair to say that you can use what you find in a contemporary rigging source but you shouldnt  get so comfortable or insistent that its the correct and only way it was done.  For each time you read or find another so called contemporary example....you will ultimately find two more that are completely different but just as plausible.   I think when it comes to rigging there was a lot of experimentation and different methods that were acceptable.

 

As an example.....the bobstay on a cutter after 1800.  I have seen them with tackles set up with blocks.  I have seen them with deadeyes and a lanyard.  I have seen some with no bobstay at all.

 

With regard to the bowsprit guys....the same is true.   Some have a lanyard between thimbles and an eyebolt as I show it.  Others have it set up with blocks and a tackle while others also use deadeyes.   Its nuts.  But its comforting in that nobody can say that you are wrong.  Just different!!! 

 

See below for the variations in bowsprit guys on contemporary models.  The surly model in the thomson collection is different than these two which are different.  I have a few others not as close up that show no lanyard or tackle but simply hooked to the eyebolt at the bow.  Its crazy stuff.  Not all are original rigging either but many are. So to everyone building the Cheerful...feel free to choose between the many examples available.  I can only select one.  And I will never pretend that its the one and only correct way.   

 

 

[ASAT]

Chuck, I have been checking out your rigging  since Syren, and comparing those contemporary model masters to your latest work I do hereby declare you the title of "Rigging Master" although I will admit that I am not an authority so that may not mean much - but I like to think I have a "pretty good" eye!  Do you think that some where in the future some ship modeler is going to reference your builds and use it as justification to do what they are doing? I do!!

[Chuck]

Thats funny and thank you.  But like everyone else,  I am always just learning more with every project.  I do however pride myself in doing as much research as I possibly can.  It usually only leads to me second guessing myself.

 

But than you for the kind words.

 

Chuck

[druxey]

I suspect the variations in rig may be the result of these smaller vessels being built in private yards around the coast, and may reflect regional differences.

[captainbob]

I also read that the Master or Boson would think it better to rig things differently, and would make changes after the boat was delivered and sailed.

 

Bob

[michael mott]

Hi Chuck, Very nice work on the bowsprit rigging. Regarding your method of making the thimbles, did you use the tube straight from the raw stock, or did you anneal the brass sections before you used the punch to shape them? I am assuming that you did not anneal them from the colour but just looking for a confirmation.

It occurred to me that one can shape the punch so that it acts as a self regulating one by varying the length of the tip so that you cannot over do it, just musing about the possibilities of making consistent multiples of various sized thimbles, triggered by looking at those you made.

 

Michael 

[Chuck]

Yes I did....right out of the  package. These Albion tubes are so thin-walled there is no need to anneal them.  They are very soft and pliable.  Just a few light taps on each side is all you need.  As you can see in the photo they start out much longer and after you tap them they get thinner because they stretch so easily.

 

Yet when completed they are still stiff enough that they hold their shape real nice.  I dont worry about making them perfectly the same width or length.  It goes so quickly that it takes about a 1/2 hour to make several dozen.  Then as I need them its easy to find a bunch that came out the same if that is what is needed.

 

I used 1.5 mm tubes for these.   

 

 

[michael mott]

Thanks for you quick  answer Chuck.  OK I looked up Albion tubes 

Are these the tubes you are referring to? and that of course leads to the next question what type are the ones you have used because your results speak for themselves.

 

Michael

Edited October 16, 2016 by michael mott

[captain_hook]

That is a very neat looking bowsprit. Can't wait to see more progress.

[rwiederrich]

Fantastic work..clean and neat. Great detail.

 

Rob

[Chuck]

I am about the rig the long guns at the bow.  The dilemma is the usual  concern about how they could have possibly worked the port side gun.  But there is so much ample evidence that this is indeed where the long guns were placed.  Several contemporary model examples show them just as jammed in there.  I have posted a pic of the Rogers collection model although it uses a carronade vs. a long gun.  The original draft even shows the windlass being moved back two feet  to .....as noted on the draft....." make room for the chase guns"

 

There is also another possibility, it could be mounted in the second port aft of the windlass.  I figured I would show an image of the guns in both positions so anyone building the model can see it before committing.    I havent decide yet but will by the end of the day.

 

 

I am curious what you guys think?  Any thoughts??

 

 

 

 

[Mahuna]

I think I like them better in the front gun ports.  But I see in the contemporary models that there aren't any empty gun ports shown in the photo - why leave any gun ports empty?.  

[Chuck]

The contemporary model isnt Cheerful even though it is called Cheerful.  It has been wrongfully identified.  It is the same period though.  The Cheerful had only ten 18 pound Carronade and 2 six pounders according to the draft "to be used as chase guns".  Other contemporary sources indicate she had two long 12's instead of six pounders.   So I am sticking to the contemporary sources and just going with 12 guns total.

[Erik W]

Chuck,

 

Regardless of how accurate having the long guns in the forward-most ports is, I think they look better there vs. leaving those forward ports empty, (whether you move the long guns back, or just leave them off entirely).  My thought with models, ships or otherwise, is that sometimes you have to forgo realism for the sake of esthetics.  My humble $.02 is that the ship simply looks better with the long guns forward.

 

Erik

[Tigersteve]

Have to agree with Erik. Your first version is more pleasing to the eye.

Steve

[druxey]

'Short' versions of long guns at the bow, perhaps? Even so, the carriage has little space for recoil on the port side.

[michael mott]

 

Even so, the carriage has little space for recoil on the port side.

Or even loading for that matter.

 

Michael

[Chuck]

Indeed you are correct.  These barrels are in fact the length of short sixes.  I just cant figure it out.  If you look at the contemporary model the same problem exists although loading would not be an issue because its a carronade on the one pictured.  Rather than sit it on it and over contemplate I am just going to rig them as bow chasers.  I am sure that additional info will come to light soon after but I hate to ignore contemporary sources.  They must have known something we dont.   Even six pounders with a barrel about 3/32" - 1/8" shorter would be problematic. ....at least to us 225 years later anyway.  

 

Chuck

[juhu]

I vote for no guns in those ports. I know my opinion has no value, still IMHO it looks strange: as already said, there is no space for recoil, manipulation, loading etc. To me such a configuration does not look better if it does not reflect reality. And conteporary models may be wrong too, unless we have something like Admiralty drawing for the period. I know on bigger ships with more decks those front ports, often missinterpeted as gun ports (!), were used to assist anchor manipulation and not for placing the guns. Still, even here I would close them with the lids and leave them without the guns. I seriously doubt, particularly during the sail over the high seas, they would leave these ports open, right?. And if you consider placing there the gun, how would you then move them back to close the lids? There is no space. To me such a configuration is not realistic and therefore not attractive.

[Chuck]

In light of the overwhelming contemporary evidence I cant really ignore it on my model.   There most certainly were no port lids.  Rather than just speculate based on a gut feeling its better to leave all possibilities open for individual consideration.  But for my model I will rig them as bow chasers as stated on the original draft.  Image below.

 

 

Now one other possibility would be to go with a smaller 6 pounder cannon but correspondence from the period and written accounts from her time at sea also indicate they were actually 12 pounders.   My guns are 1 29/64" long or the size of short six pounders at this scale.  I think either size would have little impact on how functional they would be just looking at them 225 years later crammed into that tiny space, but I would rather think that the methods that made them useful are just not known to us at this time.  That it would be wrong to simply ignore all of the contemporary accounts and evidence because we just have a gut feeling.  But that doesnt mean that others building Cheerful cant come to a different conclusion.   Hopefully it will be based on actual contemporary information and research however rather than just a casual impression based on current limited impressions and generalities.  Just my thoughts on it.

 

So I will finish up the rigging and just move ahead to constructing the lower mast.  I do appreciate and find the discussion fascinating none the less.

 

Chuck

[druxey]

Short twelves, Chuck? I doubt whether a cutter would have a heavier long gun than a six-pounder. Most had three or four-pounders. Later ones had 12 or 18- pounder carronades instead.

[Chuck]

I do agree with that Druxey 100%.  Please help me with some math.....

 

In fact, lets assume that as documented on the original draft that six pounders were used as chase guns.  Based on my research, a short six pounder was around 6 feet long.   At 1:48 scale that would be 1 1/2" long.   The cannon on my model are actually 1 29/64" long or slightly shorter than the historical norm for a short 6'.   So basically they are right on the money so-to-speak.  So what you are looking at on my model is representative of a short six pounder if my math is correct.   I could have gone shorter but that wouldnt bear out with the info I have on ordinance fro the time period.   

 

Not that this helps with the way they appear on the model....   But these guns are the size of short six pounder cannon 6' long.  Have I made a math error though????  Math wasnt exactly my strong-suit.  I also considered going with my 1 11/64" barrels but they are closer to 4 pounders and very small for the scale.  So this was my thinking when deciding to go with this size barrel and the only thing I can think of is that my assumption of a six foot long short six is wrong.   Can someone confirm that 6' long is an accurate premise for a short six pounder at this time?

 

I am using several sources for this info

 

Arming and fitting.....Goodwin

Ship of the line.....Lavery

Volume II of Swan series....Antscherl

[druxey]

A standard Blomefield 6-pounder was 6' 0" long. Cutters generally carried either 3-pounders (4' 6") or 4-pounders (5' 6"). Information from Adrian Caruana, English Sea Ordnance: The Age of the System, page 299.

[Chuck]

Thanks.....so my 1 11/64" barrels would be a great fit for those wishing to go with a 3 pounder gun instead.    I am going to leave it as is however based on the notation on the draft.   Plus its already completely rigged.  Next up I will start making the lower mast.

 

Thanks Druxey 

[Chuck]

Here is what the six pounders look like rigged.......

 

Those wishing to replace and use the smaller 3 pounder barrels just remember that the carriages will need to be reworked.  They will need to be made the same height but reduced in length.     

 

[Landrotten Highlander]

Maybe a daft question, but could they have rigged the canons in such a way they are pointing more forward of the vessel (i.e. not perpendicular to the bow-shape, but more parallel to the keel).  That way they appear to have a bit more moveability (if this is a proper word).

[davyboy]

Is there any reason why the chase guns could not be reloaded by the guncrew standing on the deck ? The bulwark is only about 3'9" high,shortened breeching allowing perhaps 6" to 9" recoil would suffice as the muzzle is only around 15" from the hull when fully run out anyway. No H & S 200 years ago   

 

This is just a thought but I have seen a drawing by I think Van de Veldt of similar being done on a much larger ship.

 

Dave

[Chuck]

I have no idea....but either the six pounders as I have used or smaller would work.   But even the smaller 3 pounders would be hairy to work in such a confined space.   Either way we know they were there its just we have no idea how they handled them.  I am pretty confident in going with the six pounders as indicated on the draft itself...I will however leave it up to the imagination as to how they were worked.

 

Chuck

[shipmodel]

Hi Chuck -

 

I agree with Highlander that the chase guns would be pointed as high toward the bow as possible when they were in use.  The point of a chase port is to fire as directly ahead as possible.  You would also want to tack/wear/yaw as little as possible from side to side to get both guns into action.  Even then, the rate of fire would be much lower than a broadside gun.  There would be plenty of time to slew the gun around as needed to worm, sponge, and reload. 

 

If the guns, especially the port one, can be maneuvered with the trucks in back fitted between the knees for the windlass and the bowsprit it looks like there would be just enough room to reload.  If you can move the cannon around to that position in the limited space without lifting it off the deck it should have been possible for the crew to do so as well. 

 

Just trying to put myself into the shoes of the sailors.

 

Dan

[Chuck]

I figured the same Dan.   The lower mast has been completed and I am now working on the topmast.

 

To begin,  I started with square boxwood stock.  Then I squared up and tapered the top according to the plans using some chisels and sanding sticks.  But before doing that I drilled the holes for the sheave as you can see.  Once the top portion was squared off and tapered I finished up the sheave by rounding it off and cleaning it up.  You can also see the 7/10/7 ratio applied to the lower mast.  I am about to chisel it to an octagon in preparation for rounding it off.  The entire mast was left a bit long so I have some extra to chock it in my hand drill.

 

 

It was chocked and rounded off with some sandpaper.  I also carefull added the taper to the rounded portion while sanding it.

 

 

Then the boom rest was fabricated from a washer of boxwood 3/32" thick.  Just like the mast coat it was shaped with its profile using needle files and sanding sticks.  It was cut in half and then the small chocks were added around the perimeter after it was glued into position.  I still have to add the cleats around the base of the lower mast as well.

 

I made sure to make the mast hoops using the mini-kits from Syren and slip those on the mast before adding the trestle tree permanently.   I was afraid that I would forget but I didnt.  

 

 

The trees were crafted from boxwood using the plans as a guide.  It was pretty straight forward except for the fact that it must be angled properly on the mast.  Once the cheeks were shaped and glued to the mast the proper angle for the trees was filed into the mast.  The mast is angled or raked aft and the trees must remain parallel to the deck.  So considerable time was used to establish the correct angle.

 

 

Finally the cleats were added and the lower portion painted red.

 

 

Then the masthead area from the bottom of the cheeks upwards was painted black.  That was done after adding the mast bands and eyebolts.  These will be used for the boom and gaff rigging later.