HMS Diana by Caldercraft

HMSFly said:
I'm not really looking forward to putting these ropes in a spiral. What was the right way (in the past)? Drawing or photo?
Click to expand...
Better make spiral versions.
The French or Flemish type coil of rope has always been used. They were made before a battle or in a traveling position in order to use the tackles as quickly as possible. Any sailor could spin a French or Flemish-type coil of rope in a matter of seconds. On average I do it in 17 seconds. But I'm fat and old. :). There is no talk of any admiral reviews or inspections. The climbing ropes (around the tackle) are removed before the fight. All fixed ropes are released.
The French or Flemish type coil of rope is shown in many ancient books as an option for movement and before combat.

If you decide to make a climbing version, then secure all the ropes over the barrel, close the gun barrels with plugs, and remove the wedges. But it won't be pretty.


1c8657.jpg 10_0780d99baee61ddfce0dc2d738b5f544.jpg 16_DSC_7466.jpg 17_DSC_7480.jpg 3352574.jpg 5661690_m.jpg victory_36.jpg 5385902.jpg 7890-06.jpg 20220731_12182250.thumb.jpg.e431120533aade7538327e2cda6734e7.jpg 710269759_NMMGundeckBellerophonePAD6115.jpg.6ffeba545fcd3d69fe02f4c93e6c45db.jpg 15722633935_abd7708270_b.jpg.8c8b0a3fc337593abc00eea2110c1e46.jpg 1236745697_Russiancannontackle.jpg.8854aaa931468d206daa5f451ae8b41d.jpg 2047697538_Cannonrigging.thumb.JPG.fdfda9d153b256385061a17608d12953.jpg IMG_0285.jpeg.400ebcd25bed235dd1dc6f1e2d404e2e.jpeg Victory002 Modified.jpg1280px-2006Boston088.jpg USS_Constitution-IMG_5264.JPG USS_Constitution-IMG_5284.JPG usa1146.jpg
 
Last edited:
Careful using some of the photos as examples as some are not correctly rigged. This one in particular was pointed out in another log lately. Note that for the breech rope they forgot to run it through the ring on the bracket. Text and drawings in Congreve's Treatise on the Mounting of Sea Service Ordnance may be of interest for English guns in the time of the Blomefield pattern gun and carriage. https://digital.ub.umu.se/relation/371758? destination=node/352554/preview/21&language=en&fulltext-query="olof östergrens boksamling" You can scroll from page to page with arrows top right.
Allan
1731063586811.png
 
This is a synopsis of the information in Caruana's The History of English Sea Ordnance, Volume II, page 384.

The securing of the breechings varied over time. Before 1750 British (and French) had the breech line secured to the ring in the bulkhead secured by a round turn and two half hitches with the tail seized to the standing part. From about 1750 to 1790 it was simplified to a single half hitch and the tail seized to the standing part. From 1790 when the Blomefield pattern came into use a thimble was inserted in the ring and the breeching seized at the throat at the thimble then knotted. According to William Congreve in An Elementary Treatise on the Mounting of Naval Ordnance by 1811 the knot was eliminated and a second seizing was used. Note that for some lighter guns merely had an eye in the rope without a thimble.

Another point, the gun in the photo looks like an Armstrong Frederick patter which were made between 1760 and 1790 so the rigging would have been round turn, single half hitch and one seizing on the tail. The rigging in the photo above is not appropriate.

Allan
 
Thanks for posting Iutar. It further confirms there are some errors on modern rebuilds such as Victory and Constitution. The guns in the photo in post #206 are rigged using the method used up to 1790 which would be for Armstrong Fredericks. But, the guns in the photo are Blomefields which would have rigging of the breechings with a thimble inserted in the ring and the breeching seized at the throat of the thimble then knotted as mentioned above. As Caruana is considered the foremost expert in British naval ordnance for these time periods and he based his writings on contemporary sources, I trust his information unless there is other contemporary evidence to the contrary. We all realize there were exceptions in many things on these ships of old but lacking alternatives specific to Diana that indicates something else, I would trust the information found and presented by Caruana.

The running out rigging is also a question mark as the gun is run out but the running out rigging is frapped which makes no sense. I am guessing this was done strictly for show.
Allan
 
Gentlemen,

I'm a little bit lost now... ;)
rigging as post #206?

Other question:
At the rear there is an opening in the gun deck. This is also stated on the plan, and unless there is a mistake on my part it should remain that way as this is no longer visible once the Main deck is installed.

Am I making a mistake if I also provide gratings here?

Marc

1731169481088.png
 
HMSFly said:
Gentlemen,

I'm a little bit lost now... ;)
rigging as post #206?

Other question:
At the rear there is an opening in the gun deck. This is also stated on the plan, and unless there is a mistake on my part it should remain that way as this is no longer visible once the Main deck is installed.

Am I making a mistake if I also provide gratings here?

Marc

View attachment 483171
Click to expand...
Seems a bit strange maybe a slight oversight when the kit was produced. Personally I would embrace it and improvise on it with rope rails, grating, or just even scratch building it into an armoury deposit box hold.
Double check the plans further down the line just to be sure though before you decide.
 
HMSFly said:
Yes this is crystal clear now. Thx.

Marc
Click to expand...
Hi Marc

Here is a more extensive picture for the upper deck taken from " The Anatomy of the ship DIANA" by David White.
This shows the the companion and ladderway to the lower deck of which you were originally enquiring nos 7 & 8 of the plan of structure & nos 12 & 13 of the Arrangement of fittings.

Hope this helps.

20241110_141323.jpg

20241110_141333.jpg

20241110_141224.jpg

20241110_141238.jpg

20241110_141242.jpg

20241110_141300.jpg
 
Rob. T. said:
Hi Marc

Here is a more extensive picture for the upper deck taken from " The Anatomy of the ship DIANA" by David White.
This shows the the companion and ladderway to the lower deck of which you were originally enquiring nos 7 & 8 of the plan of structure & nos 12 & 13 of the Arrangement of fittings.

Hope this helps.

View attachment 483393

View attachment 483394

View attachment 483395

View attachment 483396

View attachment 483397

View attachment 483398
Click to expand...
Hello Rob!

Great :)
P.S
I might have been better off buying this book. But I hardly used the book of my previous realization, the USS Constitution. So I didn't think I needed this for HMS Diana either. Mistake on my part...

Marc
 
HMSFly said:
Hello Rob!

Great :)
P.S
I might have been better off buying this book. But I hardly used the book of my previous realization, the USS Constitution. So I didn't think I needed this for HMS Diana either. Mistake on my part...

Marc
Click to expand...

I buy Anatomy of the Ship books whenever I see them and can afford them. Mostly for the reading pleasure but also with an eye on possible future projects. Beautiful books. Mmmmm…:p
 
In the meantime I installed the "Allan" ;) grating around the "hole". It's true that you don't see the "hole" anymore after installing the Main deck but...I like to finish something.
Thanks to the plans Rob sent me.
the support beams and the Cavil Blocks have also been placed..
And now the Chain pumps:
Unfortunately, the plans (normally 1:1) are contradictory in terms of dimensions (e.g. distance between the Main jeer and Main Topsail Bitts, differences between plan 1 and plan 2 and the instruction booklet)... so just guess...:mad:

Oh yeah, I ordered 400 hooks...to start rigging the Guns;)
Marc

Diana565.jpg

Diana566.jpg

Diana567.jpg

Diana568.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top