• Win a Free Custom Engraved Brass Coin!!!
    As a way to introduce our brass coins to the community, we will raffle off a free coin during the month of August. Follow link ABOVE for instructions for entering.

HMS AGAMEMNON 1781 from scratch - scale 1/75

Allan,
I've a question relating to the beams and how they were attached. Are they in one or in two pieces as shown on hms victory plans ?
How were the beams attached on the Gang boards ? underneath ? above ??
I suppose beams were supported by colums..
I would be very grateful if I could be helped.
 
I just looked at the high resolution version of the QD and FC drawing and there is a penciled note that is adding some confusion for me. Based on the year for Agamemnon I would have guessed the skid beam/booms rested on iron cradles rather than being fixed. But seeing the note , I would guess the booms/skid beams were more or less permanent, much like deck beams, rather than resting on iron cradles as was done in earlier time periods.

The Deck to be laid and properly framed with the Hatch and Ladderways, Chocks for the Beams, and Boats. If chocks, instead of cradles, I THINK the skids would be under the gangway planking and resting in chock on or around the deck clamp.
This same penciled note can be found on the inboard profile drawing as well.


1760352218775.png
The photos of the contemporary model below of a 64 circa 1775 shows the skid beam going under the gangways, so probably secured in chocks as described above. I cannot see if the beams are in two pieces or not, but there are support pillars/columns.

1760353085972.png
1760353174863.png
 
thanks a lot Allan and Iutar.
Honestly, it's not easy to see things clearly sometimes, but thanks to your expertise and knowledge, I can make progress with my model with assurance.
I will communicate that to Mark (hmsFly) who is making the same model.
have a nice day
 
I did find the following in a contract for a smaller ship. Not sure it would apply to Aggie.

to have proper Beams in the Waist under the Gangboards, kneed at each End, and framed, and the Gangboards laid as shall be directed by the Draught, or Overseer inspecting the same.
 
William, the large twin beams on Victory's waist are a carryover from the days when the entire spar deck was covered with decking. The fact is that in the 19th century, Victory had one deck too many, according to the regulations of the time. It wasn't until the 20th century that the upper deck was removed and the forecastle and quarterdeck restored. The beams remained from the removed deck. Such powerful beams are not needed for storing boats. Make beams like those on the museum model of a 64-gun ship.
HMS_Victory,_Nelson's_flagship_at_the_Battle_of_Trafalgar,_anchored_in_Portsmouth_Harbour_in_1...jpg
HMS_'Victory'_on_which_Nelson_died._Portsmouth_RMG_PW7815.jpgTriumphs_and_wonders_of_the_19th_century,_the_true_mirror_of_a_phenomenal_era,_a_volume_of_ori...jpgVictory_Portsmouth_um_1900.jpgHalfdek_van_de_HMS_Victory_Quarter_deck_(titel_op_object),_RP-F-2001-7-228-3_(cropped).jpg
 
iutar said:
William, the large twin beams on Victory's waist are a carryover from the days when the entire spar deck was covered with decking. The fact is that in the 19th century, Victory had one deck too many, according to the regulations of the time. It wasn't until the 20th century that the upper deck was removed and the forecastle and quarterdeck restored. The beams remained from the removed deck. Such powerful beams are not needed for storing boats. Make beams like those on the museum model of a 64-gun ship.
View attachment 550036
View attachment 550037View attachment 550038View attachment 550039View attachment 550035
Click to expand...
Excellent !
:)
 
William1961 said:
but I see that on the magority of pictures...
Click to expand...
Betting it is just a terminology translation thing I think you are referring to the standing back stays, rather than the topmast and topgallant mast shrouds. James Lees describes the standing back stays as sometimes going to a stool or otherwise to a deadeye plate that was secured directly to the hull. If there is a stool it appears it would be at about the underside of the quarterdeck drift rail as shown on the Vigilant drawing, not on the same line as the mizzen channel. I can only find a couple contemporary fully rigged 64 gun models and they both appear to have a stool. I wonder if, Agamemnon might have had mizzen stools at some point during her life. Looking at other contemporary models of various sizes, all but one have mizzen stools. The one with what looks to be deadeye plates is late 17th or very early 18th century so not a good example for your project. I am starting to wonder about the accuracy of the drawing at RMG. If you go with the stools, there is a lot of evidence that would back your choice. Just be sure they are high enough. I think the Vigilant drawing would be a good guide. :)
Allan
 
You are right Allan with the terminology, we are talking of course about the standing back stays.. According to your post 51, I removed the stool located after de mizzen chanel. Thank you for this information.
Beams are now installed. Thanks Iutar.
Hull is completed at 95 %, Next steps on my to do list : deadeye and chains on channels, gun ports.. Nettings will be made later in the construction process because of their fragility.
Welcome on board..

1760532516130.jpeg

1760532572436.jpeg

1760532485425.jpeg
 
Last edited:
It is so nice to see belaying [ins that do not look like giant bowling pins that no sailor could have gotten his hand and fingers around. Nicely done.

Allan
 
William1961 said:
Thanks Iutar.
Click to expand...
Dear William! You have a good model. It's a shame you were so influenced by Mr. Darch's model. It's very flawed and far from the prototype. And yet you've read such good and useful books! It's a shame that renowned experts didn't have much influence on your model. But, thank God, you can still make at least superficial changes that could significantly improve the reliability of your model. Perhaps (I repeat: perhaps!) you'd like to improve your model. In that case, I could point out a couple of silly mistakes I see in your photographs. Alas, the charm of Mr. Darch's wild delirium has hidden some obvious things from you. Perhaps we could get rid of the absurdities? But for this, your desire and strong-willed decision are necessary.
Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to offend or hurt you in any way. You're a good person, and you have an interesting model.
You haven't blogged about your build here or asked any questions. I usually don't interfere or help people who don't ask for it. I'm also indifferent to models where the author doesn't want to change anything. But your model shows your commitment to improving, so I want to help you.
 
Thank you Iutar for your willingness to want to help me, and I read with attention your comments on hmsFly's building log (Mark). Because the current state of the model, I will not be able to change everything, and you will surely understand. I am indeed very influenced by Mr. Darch's model because I find his work to be of exceptional quality and of extraordinary aesthetic harmony. Please do not be shocked if I ask you not to criticize Mr. Darch's work, as he works on commission and his work also responds to the requests of his clients.
I learned from you that there are inconsistencies, for exemple, in the colors of the hull, but I will not change that. I find the model too beautiful as it is, and besides, it will allow me to explain to my visitors how the ships of that period evolved.
I have already made changes to my model, since I follow your advice, but it is very complicated sometimes and I damaged other parts.
Iutar, don't be upset if I don't change everything, but I am definitely interested in receiving your advices.
william
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top