need some ideas please

  • Thread starter Thread starter davef
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 3
davef said:
As far as arguing, I argue plans, shipwrights, and your right to build anyway you want. But I learned my lesson recently to stay away from politics, even those in 1776 and 1814.
I like the people here and hope to keep everyone of you until I can't do this anymore.
Click to expand...
Good for you davef. Believe we both believe in that.
 
garyshipwright said:
You may be right Dave if you have the money and time to reconstruct them, but what we come up with really be historical correct or just build what you want and be done with it because its just a hobby. One that most of us have done for 75 percent of our life. Dang that's a long time. Guess you can always hire a researcher to do it, but who can afford that. I believe I read that Hahn did that at one time. I did read a article some were that talks about what models to build and which ones to stay away from. Think I look it up and share it with you.
Click to expand...
Back I guess before online clubs, you had to research the model you wanted. Sometimes it's not possible to be able to reconstruct the ship.
We get the plans from N.M.M. and trace it out. Use our best guess at the time to how it should be outfitted. Like the guns on Psyche, I can only tell you that Thomas Mossington who worked at the yard then said she was a 54 gun frigate and she would be equipped with 28's on gun deck and 32's upper More research is needed obviously but as I said if she was never outfitted why bother. Just build her.
I have taken kits and added more detail than what they provide. Why because I wanted to. Historically correct no.
I designed the Ontario using the available math many moons ago. I reasoned it was a british ship and would be built that way. Not knowing about the french builders being used, I designed her using single frames.
She could have been built this way, and someone mentioned back then if they could actually get close enough to the hull to see the planking and treenail patterns we would know for sure.
So it's a matter of interpretation. Right or wrong.
You will NEVER get historically correct.
 
Dave Stevens (Lumberyard) said:
DaveF

to reconstruct you have to take everything into account

the time period, who were the guys actually doing the building, where the ship was built and why. i will first find out the names of the master shipwrights and look into their history.
Just because there were established methods and things like timbering sizes does not mean they were followed. From the hundreds and hundreds of letters back and forth between Kingston and England i think the Admiralty told Kingston we are not going to send you a boat load of ship carpenters so your on your own hire local builders even barn builders if you have to.
Click to expand...
In this regard I have been following the ship Princess Charlotte. As it is so close to the Psyche that minor differences don't make a huge difference.
What had me confused for a while wad the triple frame a center. I said really. Never heard of this. But when I reread the Wreck of ship Baker by Walker. His redition of the wreck as drawings clearly spelled this out. TH only thing now are the next 2 x's at stern and his rendition of square framing to the stern post. I am not sure I agree as the transoms when you spline draw the ends clearly show a curve like a cant frame.
The digital plans I have a markedly distorted so I have to redraw but very carefully to keep all measurements same.
I agree with Dave Stevens as the ships built here are unique and following establishments does not work.
 
She could have been built this way, and someone mentioned back then if they could actually get close enough to the hull to see the planking and treenail patterns we would know for sure.

that was me i contacted the dive team who found the wreck and asked them if it was possible to see the nail pattern in the hull planking. They said nope to much mussle growth to see much of anything
 
Dave Stevens (Lumberyard) said:
She could have been built this way, and someone mentioned back then if they could actually get close enough to the hull to see the planking and treenail patterns we would know for sure.

that was me i contacted the dive team who found the wreck and asked them if it was possible to see the nail pattern in the hull planking. They said nope to much mussle growth to see much of anything
Click to expand...
It was within our grasp but something always seems to block us. Oh well. Maybe history is just trying to protect itself, keep us guessing and do what we believe is right.
 
I designed the Ontario using the available math many moons ago. I reasoned it was a british ship and would be built that way. Not knowing about the french builders being used, I designed her using single frames.

Did you design the Ontario ??
 
zoly99sask said:
I designed the Ontario using the available math many moons ago. I reasoned it was a british ship and would be built that way. Not knowing about the french builders being used, I designed her using single frames.

Did you design the Ontario ??
Click to expand...
I guess I have to watch my wording. On another site I wanted to draft up the Ontario using the math available at the time.
Sorry for any cofusion
 
i came across odd cannons all around the great lakes in forts and museums and in town squares. i have come across 28 pound guns and short 32s wondered hum never heard of them. Then i thought Cannons were hard to come by in the wilds of the Great Lakes so maybe these were field guns or just named differently. 28s could be 24 long guns so they would not be confused with the shorter 24s in use.
I do know both the British and Americans used whatever they got their hands on. foundries were cropping up in north america and the 28s could be an american odd ball design.

Ev and i been from Nova Scotia and all around the lakes looking at guns

a stubby 32 and a real long 24ish maybe a 28

DSCN6401.JPGDSCN6411.JPG
 
davef said:
I guess I have to watch my wording. On another site I wanted to draft up the Ontario using the math available at the time.
Sorry for any cofusion
Click to expand...
I am building the Ontario

HMS Ontario 1780 scale 1:32 POB full version

Hello everyone,this will be my next build after the Santa Maria,for now I am just gathering information and doing research on her.Here is a little history. HMS Ontario (1780) HMS Ontario was a British warship that sank in a storm in Lake Ontario on 31 October 1780, during the American...
shipsofscale.com
 
Dave Stevens (Lumberyard) said:
i came across odd cannons all around the great lakes in forts and museums and in town squares. i have come across 28 pound guns and short 32s wondered hum never heard of them. Then i thought Cannons were hard to come by in the wilds of the Great Lakes so maybe these were field guns or just named differently. 28s could be 24 long guns so they would not be confused with the shorter 24s in use.
I do know both the British and Americans used whatever they got their hands on. foundries were cropping up in north america and the 28s could be an american odd ball design.

Ev and i been from Nova Scotia and all around the lakes looking at guns

a stubby 32 and a real long 24ish maybe a 28

View attachment 174490View attachment 174491
Click to expand...
I like the handicapped sign above the cannon.
I just can't imagine lifting a 32 pound ball over and over to reload it.
 
zoly99sask said:
I am building the Ontario

HMS Ontario 1780 scale 1:32 POB full version

Hello everyone,this will be my next build after the Santa Maria,for now I am just gathering information and doing research on her.Here is a little history. HMS Ontario (1780) HMS Ontario was a British warship that sank in a storm in Lake Ontario on 31 October 1780, during the American...
shipsofscale.com
Click to expand...
It's a great ship and very interesting in the time it was built.
 
I like the handicapped sign above the cannon.
I just can't imagine lifting a 32 pound ball over and over to reload it.

that's funny i never noticed the sign
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top