• LUCZORAMA SHIPWRECK SCAVENGER HUNT GIVEAWAY. 4 Weeks of Fun • 1 Legendary Prize ((OcCre’s Fram Ship)) • Global Crew Welcome!
    **VIEW THREAD HERE**

Grants Xebec 1:60 (using Jabeque Cazador Occre1:60 kit) [COMPLETED BUILD]

Good morning. Added more treenails and a thin coat of poly. I like to add a thin coat to protect the wood when I carry on working. Finesse is not part of Grants skill set.I added another row and nailed the aft of each gun port. Pointless doing the fore side as the gun port lid covers. My method of treenails if mentioned in my reply to Paul above.
AB3783C7-2851-4A88-8EDA-EC78A1A4C279.jpeg
Cheers Grant
 
You will notice in above photo how Lime veneer behaves. It is so porous and soft that sanding with 1000grit scratches it. The pencil also lighty gets into it and changes the appearance. Rubbing with eraser, more gentle sanding worked until the poly coat went on. I’m not disappointed as it actually gives it a nice finish- just hope it is consistent when I do the SB side :
72A3717B-EB77-446E-AC0E-82FD16493F21.jpeg

Cheers Grant
 
The last post (I promise) - sequence of 3 ROTF. I also want to show why I had to turn to CA glue at the stern. You will notice in the close up, a tiny(it is very small) gap between planks 3 and 4. I had these clamped with wood glue and when dried they had shifted marginally. Probably originated from incorrect tapering- Veneer gives no leeway for any margin of error. I think you guys now know Lime veneer is my least favorite wood….by far Cautious.Anyway enough blah blah. Cheers Grant
 
GrantTyler said:
Good morning. My rabbet thought had to be tossed. When I did my bulkwark at the bow and the wale position I made it more accentuated and it fits the stem as per the Occre instructions.

My Sapele veneer planking done similarly to the lime bulkwarks. Caulked lighty and treenails will be added.

View attachment 363915View attachment 363916
Cheers Grant
Click to expand...
That veneer planking looks very nice, Grant, thanks to the preliminary work on the 1st layer. And the planking with the treenails……… great.
Regards, Peter
 
GrantTyler said:
Good morning

A quick Historical summary from some of the articles I have read :

View attachment 352147
The name is derived from the Arabic sabaca. This racy sleek vessel is often associated with Mediterranean Barbary Pirates who caused a bit of havoc along the Southern coast of Europe raiding merchant ships at the beginning of the renaissance.
The close association with the Barbary Pirates to the Xebec leads Maritime Historians to believe that they may have been the first to developed this type of ship.
The design appears to be a derivative of the Galley, Caravel and the Pink. The Pink was a sailing boat in the Mediterranean at the time. Caravel in right picture and Pink lower left. View attachment 352149

In the late 17th Century the “Western “nations around the Mediterranean, who were tired of these fast little ships causing chaos, adopted the Xebec design and built their own. Not only did the “Western” Mediterranean nations use this ship but the design extended further East and North.

For example in the battle of Svensksund in 1790, in the gulf of Finland, the Swedish gunboats Pojama, Turuma and Udema were of similar structure to that of a Xebec. Catherine of Russia,Inspired by Peter the Great, also called on Spanish shipwrights to build Xebecs. These new designed Xebecs were more maneuverable than the Heavy Swedish gunboats. Clearly this did not help Catherine as The Swedes caught the Russians napping and gave them a good hiding. A famous naval victory was achieved.

The Stockholm Museum models of the Pojama (1776) and the Turuma (1771) show the resemblance:
View attachment 352148

Countries which used the Xebec/ Jabeque/Chebec /Sciabecco with some names of those Victorious in battle:

Spain :
Andalus 30 guns, Africa 18 guns, Atrevido 20 guns, Aventurero 30 guns, Muciana 16 guns,
San Antonio

France :
Ruse 18 guns, Serpent 18 guns, Requin 24 guns -( Probably the most well known and most documented.),Indiscret 24 guns.

British:
Dart and Arrow
Of course, the British Brig sloop, Speedy’s
defeat of the Spanish El Gamo on 6th May 1801 is a well known story and one of the most famous Victory’s in Naval history.

America:
There are reports of the Xebec being used in the North America and in the great lakes during the American revolution and the 1812 war (Repulse and Champion)

Denmark:
After Horatio Nelson bombed Copenhagen in 1801, Denmark decided to build 12 Xebecs .

Portugal and some of the Italian states are known to have had these ships.

Characteristics;
The Xebec is known for its sleek and sexy (well I think so;)) design with beautiful underwater lines together with Lateen sails and oars.

They were small ships with the largest having a displacement of around 200 tons, around 40m long and 10m wide, and some carried up to 300 men. On the larger Xebecs 36 men would combine for the rudder operation. Relative to that time, they were considered highly manoeuvrable and had the ability to sail close to the wind and in shallow water.

In the late 18th century Xebec frigates appeared. The hulls were similar to the Arabian Xebecs however had 3 or 4 square sails on the main and foremasts with a significantly larger mizzen lateen.

Other styles included square sails only on the foremast and Jib sails on the bowsprit. E.g. The Polacre.
View attachment 352146


Jabeque Cazador
There is very little known about the Jabeque Cazador. What is known is that it was built in the mid 18th century at the Cartagena shipyard with 3 other xebecs (Galgo,Liebre and Volante) . Initially she was to be sent with the 3 other Xebecs to support Septentrion to America leaving the Tigre, Reynawith and 4 Xebecs (Ibicenco, Mallorquin, Valenciano, and Catalan) to cruise the Mediterranean.

With Algerian privateers being increasingly active in the Mediterranean the Cazador was never sent to America and the fleet was sent to the Mediterranean to support the Fuerte, Marte and Glaga.

Spain was conflicted with Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers and Morocco during this time. There is no documented (well that I can find) evidence showing which activities the Cazador participated in. A Noticeable offensive attack during this time was the attack on Algiers 1775. The ships with the Cazador is known to have bolstered the defensive position of the Spanish fleet in the Mediterranean during this time.


There is common thought that the Occre Jabeque Cazador does not reflect the design of the Spanish Xebec during this period. The Spanish Xebecs built at Cartagena were more like the Tipo Jorge Juan, beautifully built by Ramon Olivenza , and the Atrevido (1756) model at the Naval Museum in Cartagena :


1. Tipo Jorge Juan
View attachment 352185

2. Atrevido
View attachment 352151

Cheers Grant
Click to expand...
That was my original thought until I spent a lot more money on Spanish naval texts and finally hit pay-dirt. I am pleased to say that this question was answered by a Spanish book about ships built at Cartagena and discussed in another thread: https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/threads/xebec-cazador-ocre-fantasy.6992/#post-267073; the Occre kit has the general design. The decoration, top down-view and rigging have not been verified (and I have a lot of doubt about the Occre fancy decoration).


The two models in Spanish Museums of the "flat-nose" (my words) Jorge Juan design were by no means contemporaneous. They are Atrevido and Murciano. A third model is the contemporaneous Chambequin Aventuro, which is also flat-nose, but it appears to have received an incorrect rudder during museum repair work.

What exists for the most important Spanish Jabeques are Jorge Juan's 1750's plan book that show side profiles w/no rigging and no decks (for 14 and 30 guns). The flat-nose ships actually built had dimensions that varied all over the place, likely as design flaws were corrected by actual experience and the need arose for more fire-power. Further, many were built when Francisco Gautier was Chief Engineer; he put his stamp on everything even to the point of junking the pre-cut wood for nearly half-a-dozen ships of the line he was called on to finish so I do believe he would have altered the plans for his system's characteristics. That could mean, for example, changes to the cutwater, wales, and rigging methods. The deck layout of these museum models has to be based on the maker's thoughts on what frigates of the same era were using since for this plan there is only one hatch shown in the side-profile (see attachment). The plans are curtesy of the Spanish Naval Museum authorities. The Jorge Juan plan-book has a different, more conventional design of Jabeque in both shallow and deep hull versions with a more conventional nose (and more hatches shown) but again it is just a side profile. The El Gamo jabeque, called by the English a xebec-frigate but actually just a jabeque that could alternately hoist Lateen or square sails, is yet a third design and all we know about it arises from the conventional Jorge Juan design, a drawing of the Spanish shipyard making Jabeques including El Gamo with itsy-bitsy ships at various stations (which tells us about a different stem and potentially poop deck area), and the Peacock drawing said not to be contemporaneous. My research indicates at least the sketch was near-contemporaneous but in any event he did not actually see Gamo. He relied on descriptions. While he is usually very thorough, a normal English seaman is not going to be an expert on the fine details of Spanish Jabeque design. Here again I made a mistake because I failed to understand the nature of one dimension (which was given differently in two different Spanish texts -- different numbers not methods) and concluded Gamo had to be a flat-nose design. After taking up some of Enrique Torralba-Perrez's limited time, I realized Gamo was not a flat-nose version. Incidentally, Murciano was always a frigate-rigged ship whereas the museum model shows her with Latin yards.

Spain went through three an evolution of jabeque design starting with Latin sails and their related masts (able to change out yards from Lateen to square to cope with storms and certain weather) and finishing with a jabeque-style hull and all permanent square sail masts and sails (except for the mizzen course, but you could see that on any conventional ship). Of the great powers, only Spain could get the xebec to work in a coast-guard or full-military environment but they eventually became obsolete as naval requirements demanded heavy guns. The Spanish sent a squad of their jabeque shipbuilders to France to teach them how to build xebecs but the French kept messing them up by using the wrong wood, poor wood and "improving" the Spanish designs. To be fast, xebecs -- even if frigate-sized in length -- were light, required repair after every battle, were not very good in the Atlantic (they could sail to American but that does not make the sailing ideal), and could not carry the heavier guns. A 34-gun xebec could take at most four 12 pounders in its battery of 8 pounders.

AMN PB-album-06-05.png
 

Attachments

Last edited:
dockattner said:
First class planking there Grant!
Click to expand...
Good morning Paul. Thanks. I don’t like working with veneer however if it continues like this I will be happy with the outcome.
Peter Voogt said:
That veneer planking looks very nice, Grant, thanks to the preliminary work on the 1st layer. And the planking with the treenails……… great.
Regards, Peter
Click to expand...
Thank you Peter. I had to spend many hours sanding and filling the first layer. Veneer shows up any variance - so far so good. I am concerned about treenails at this scale, it may end up looking O.T.T. however I am going to just go for it.
Dean62 said:
Looking very good Grant! You got this! ;)
Click to expand...
Thank you Dean. I hope you are right :D
Pathfinder65 said:
Wow, just catching up. What a fine bit of work. I showed my in house critic your progress. Her reaction was ThumbsupThumbsup

Jan
Click to expand...
Good morning Jan. If your Admiral approves then I am most certainly on the right track:D. Thanks Grant
 
Jeffrey Modell said:
That was my original thought until I spent a lot more money on Spanish naval texts and finally hit pay-dirt. I am pleased to say that this question was answered by a Spanish book about ships built at Cartagena and discussed in another thread: https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/threads/xebec-cazador-ocre-fantasy.6992/#post-267073; the Occre kit has the general design. The decoration, top down-view and rigging have not been verified (and I have a lot of doubt about the Occre fancy decoration).


The two models in Spanish Museums of the "flat-nose" (my words) Jorge Juan design were by no means contemporaneous. They are Atrevido and Murciano. A third model is the contemporaneous Chambequin Aventuro, which is also flat-nose, but it appears to have received an incorrect rudder during museum repair work.

What exists for the most important Spanish Jabeques are Jorge Juan's 1750's plan book that show side profiles w/no rigging and no decks (for 14 and 30 guns). The flat-nose ships actually built had dimensions that varied all over the place, likely as design flaws were corrected by actual experience and the need arose for more fire-power. Further, many were built when Francisco Gautier was Chief Engineer; he put his stamp on everything even to the point of junking the pre-cut wood for nearly half-a-dozen ships of the line he was called on to finish so I do believe he would have altered the plans for his system's characteristics. That could mean, for example, changes to the cutwater, wales, and rigging methods. The deck layout of these museum models has to be based on the maker's thoughts on what frigates of the same era were using since for this plan there is only one hatch shown in the side-profile (see attachment). The plans are curtesy of the Spanish Naval Museum authorities. The Jorge Juan plan-book has a different, more conventional design of Jabeque in both shallow and deep hull versions with a more conventional nose (and more hatches shown) but again it is just a side profile. The El Gamo jabeque, called by the English a xebec-frigate but actually just a jabeque that could alternately hoist Lateen or square sails, is yet a third design and all we know about it arises from the conventional Jorge Juan design, a drawing of the Spanish shipyard making Jabeques including El Gamo with itsy-bitsy ships at various stations (which tells us about a different stem and potentially poop deck area), and the Peacock drawing said not to be contemporaneous. My research indicates at least the sketch was near-contemporaneous but in any event he did not actually see Gamo. He relied on descriptions. While he is usually very thorough, a normal English seaman is not going to be an expert on the fine details of Spanish Jabeque design. Here again I made a mistake because I failed to understand the nature of one dimension (which was given differently in two different Spanish texts -- different numbers not methods) and concluded Gamo had to be a flat-nose design. After taking up some of Enrique Torralba-Perrez's limited time, I realized Gamo was not a flat-nose version. Incidentally, Murciano was always a frigate-rigged ship whereas the museum model shows her with Latin yards.

Spain went through three an evolution of jabeque design starting with Latin sails and their related masts (able to change out yards from Lateen to square to cope with storms and certain weather) and finishing with a jabeque-style hull and all permament square sail masts and sails (except for the mizzen course, but you could see that on any conventional ship. Of the great powers, only Spain could get the xebec to work in a coast-guard or full-military environment but they eventually became obsolete as naval requirements demanded heavy guns. To be fast, xebecs -- even if frigate-sized in length -- were light, required repair after every battle, were not very good in the Atlantic (they could sail to American but that does not make the sailing ideal), and could not carry the heavier guns. A 34-gun xebec could take at most four 12 pounders in its batter of 8 pounders.

View attachment 363940
Click to expand...
Good morning Jeffery. Thank you for this insightful post. It is good to get some informed research on these ships. I find it frustrating when naval museums display models with incorrect specs when they themselves have the correct schematics of the ships displayed. Thank you for this I enjoyed the learning here. Cheers Grant
 
Good work with the repair of the "wrong" plank
Just for information - I made the same "mistake" of short planks also on my Granado - just not thinking - and I also changed it

Only one suggestion, especially because you are making the treenailing of the outer planking
next to the gunports the planks were fixed on both sides with treenails - the same with the sweep ports for the oars
72A3717B-EB77-446E-AC0E-82FD16493F21.jpeg
 
Uwek said:
Good work with the repair of the "wrong" plank
Just for information - I made the same "mistake" of short planks also on my Granado - just not thinking - and I also changed it

Only one suggestion, especially because you are making the treenailing of the outer planking
next to the gunports the planks were fixed on both sides with treenails - the same with the sweep ports for the oars
View attachment 364167
Click to expand...
Good morning Uwek. Thanks for this advise. I am just being a little lazy here as the gunport lids cover the treenails on the fore of the gunports. Luckily they cover most of the errors on the "short" planks as well. I will add the two treenails on the oar ports tho. I appreciate you pointing this out for me. Cheers Grant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top