HMS Fowey 44 - Gun 1744 by AllanKP69

[AllanKP69]

This will be a little bit of history and a build log for the 44 gun fifth rate HMS Fowey built by Blaydes at Kingston upon Hull and launched in August, 1744. She was lost when she sank at Legare age in Biscayne Bay, thankfully without loss of life. There is a wealth of information including the book Lost and Found by Fischer and Skowronek. There is also more recent information in articles by archeologist Joshua Marano, one of which is attached below, and at least one thesis, A SUBMERGED CULTURAL RESOURCES SITE REPORT: HMS FOWEY by Cornelia Lowerre, also attached below. For fans of wrecks and history, these are interesting ;papers. I could go on for pages, but I think most build log followers (myself included) quit reading after a paragraph or two. I did purchase the high resolutiuon drawing from RMG which has brought up some interesting things that I will go into later.


She was one of eight 44 gun fifth rates built in the early 1740's built to the 1741 Establishment. Her basic dimensions are as follows:
Length of Gundeck 126' 9"Imperial Feet
Length of Keel 102' 6"Imperial Feet
Breadth 36' 1"Imperial Feet
Depth in Hold 15' 5 ½"Imperial Feet
Burthen 709 82⁄94Tons builders' old measurement

A book with a lot of interesting information on the ship and wreck site.


Not much saw dust but the layout is on the build board and some Castello has been sawn, planed, and thickness sanded for the keel, false keel, and rising wood. As the model will be planked except at the dead flat, fully framed construction will be used midships, and alternate framing forward and aft of midships will be used elsewhere. More on the framing to be used will be posted later.

Allan

 

[AllanKP69]

NB: I am wide open to any questions, suggestions, comments, recommendations or hearing about any errors anyone spots. The model will be going to the National Parks Museum in Biscayne Bay and sit amongst the HMS Fowey artifacts on display, so I am striving for the highest quality I can achieve on this project.
Allan

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

Allan,
Which ZAZ#### is your plan?

I have ZAZ2290 Torrington.
ZAZ2278 Pearl has the stern.
I have eight lines plans for this group - they are the small JPEG but only this one shows the stern from the rear view.

Are you going 1:48?

It would be nice if the cover artist for the book had .........

 

[AllanKP69]

Which ZAZ#### is your plan?

Hi Dean
ZAZ2236. In the top right corner there is a list of the ships planned for drawing. There are two others that were probably used for Anglesea and possibly one or two other early 1740 44s. ZAZ2290 and ZAZ2296. The reason 2236 was chosen originally by the staff is because Fowey is one of the ships listed.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

I have ZAZ2236 - it is cleaner than ZAZ2290 - it just does not come up for me at the RMG prints site.
Either your sponsors know somebody or they paid a lot more. RMG charges more for a JPEG download that for a print.
If they have to scan it because the request is the first one, there is an additional fee.
Anyway, it does not have galleries or windows either. Enlarging a KB ZAZ2278 JPEG gets messy but it is better than guessing.

I am not going to do a canvas of my files, but I think a plan with an exposition of the framing is decades in the future.
,Based on pattern of behavior, I would bet that it was bends at the stations and singleton frames in between.

Checking Torrington - the stations are at near three bend intervals.
You are probably aware that I do stylized framing so for Torrington I planned 13" sided for both floors and futtock one. Six frames between each station.
Checking your book I see 14" for floors and 13.5" for F1. Stations are 78" apart --- 13" x 6 = 78"
You will have spaces. The math 14" + 13.5" = 27.5" that have to be there. there are 50.5" left.
50.5 - 14 = 36.5 = floor
36.5 - 13.5= 23 = F1
The math does not work out. There can be either one floor or one F1. To keep the pattern of the floor at a bend always on the away side of the station there must be an additional floor and and additional F1. That leaves spaces for the whole 23 inches.
Three 7.67" spaces.

I doubt that all bends were used but maybe it was. Two 11.5" spaces are not outrageous. If it was two singleton frames - either butt chocks or side chock scabs are pretty much necessary. Depending on an end grain to end grain bond to hold up to shaping forces is a path to heartache.
Being that it is the RN F2 has to be reduced siding - 13" or 12.25" F3 11" F4 11.5" or 10.75". A nightmare using standard POF methods.

I can't restrain myself from teasing: Stylized framing looks better and is easier to do. But even for the most complicated framing i.e. reduced siding going up and shifting top timbers to frame ports without cutting into them - There is an easier way. A way that requires no baseboard or frame support jig. There is no need for butt chocks - provided that internal riders or external battens are there for support after the hull is framed.
Lt. Orr: "You really ought to fly with me, you know"

 

[BradNSW]

Awesome, another exciting build log to follow!!

We look forward to seeing this build begin to rise. I'm sure it will be exceptional.

Thanks for sharing the background research.

 

[AllanKP69]

Either your sponsors know somebody

Their copy was a poor JPG renditon. I paid for an electronic copy from RMG, 60 pounds sterling. Not crazy expensive, but not cheap either. I had it printed with the brownish hew from age and gave a copy to the Museum to be framed and hung at some point and a B&W copy for my own work. The prints cost nearly as much as the electronic copy. This was a local architectural print company and it still took them four tries to get the scale right. They were shocked when I showed up with a caliper to check the scale on the plan and told them they were off enough that it was off by 0.35 inches on the length of the gun deck. In answer to their surprised looks I told them that this meant their print was off by more than a foot so they seemed to get it after that. All worked out in the end.
Allan

 

[Thukydides]

This looks like it is going to be really interesting. In particular those archeological surveys add some interesting detail. Did you manage to find anything on the 1741 specifications?

 

[AllanKP69]

Sadly I have had no luck finding a copy of the 1741 Establishment scantlings. Fortunately the drawing is high resolution so is going to be pretty useful, although it has raised some questions that I will go into later. I have the 1745 Establishment scantlings for 44's so I should be very close, if not exact. Heck, the shipyards results were rarely if ever exactly the same as the plans. The length on the gundeck was supposed to be 126 feet, but the actual ship wound up at 126' 9" The breadth was supposed to be 36 feet but wound up at 36' 1".
Allan