USRC Harriet Lane Model Shipways 1:96 scale circa 1863

[The Gavel]

Time now for the final pint of coffee to make sure my hands are really jittery before I start on the non-gun related parts to add forward . Also, you may have seen where I wrote "Terry" instead of Jerry in this morning's posts. Sorry about that Jerry! I went back and changed the posts, comprehensively, I hope.

 

[The Gavel]

BTW - any reason Harriett Lane could NOT have a pair of steam launches like USS Michigan?

 

[JerryTodd]

Good morning, Jerry! In these drawings and your model the forward part of the carriage base is pinned in some way to the deck, is that right? So, on a gun mounted in the center of a circle with the trucks of its base on the circle (BTW still trucks for this carriage?) would be pinned to the deck in the center of the lower carriage?

The Mississippi carriage does not have provision for a center pivot, but then again, is doesn't match the carriage the 9" Dahlgren is mounted on in the photo, which is the carriage slide I'm researching, as it is not just a scaled down version of the 11" gun's carriage/slide.


The carriages developed for the Dahlgrens did have center pivots, and two pivot points at the front to facilitate different pivot point arrangements. Note the downward slope in the XI inch guns carriage top (where the trunnions sit) and the flat top in the IX gun photo. The IX gun is fatter than the Mississippi's carriage allows for as well.

 

[The Gavel]

The Mississippi carriage does not have provision for a center pivot, but then again, is doesn't match the carriage the 9" Dahlgren is mounted on in the photo, which is the carriage slide I'm researching, as it is not just a scaled down version of the 11" gun's carriage/slide.
View attachment 427269 View attachment 427268

The carriages developed for the Dahlgrens did have center pivots, and two pivot points at the front to facilitate different pivot point arrangements. Note the downward slope in the XI inch guns carriage top (where the trunnions sit) and the flat top in the IX gun photo. The IX gun is fatter than the Mississippi's carriage allows for as well.

Thanks for the info, Jerry! I see the differences you pointed out. I'll keep this in mind as the plan evolves.

 

[The Gavel]

I kept looking on line and finally decided to search "dahlgren gun schematics." I found a nice picture of an XI inch on the Kearsarge. Even better, I found an open source naval ordinance manual!



Moreover, to the degree that Dahlgren's Wikipedia page can be trusted, here are some measurements that will help me understand what to call my big BJS Dahlgren! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahlgren_gun

 

[JerryTodd]

I'm building a 3D model of a 9" gun on a pivot carriage, which is the most probable the Lane had. The 10"Dahlgrens were somewhat rare, unless Cumberland's were salvaged and one of them put on the Lane. I think the 11" would be too much. At 12,000 pound just for the tube, pivoting it over and out to the rail to fire would probably cause the boat to heel, much more than the 9,200 pound 9" gun would do.
I've been trying to find images or drawings of the carriage the 9" pivots got, as shown in the photo posted earlier. The blank portions in this drawing are where someone was blocking the view in the photo. I think the curve behind the trunnion goes into a step, maybe two, like the Marsilly carriage has - which is the detail I'm trying to confirm.


This is the tube, which just got a bore installed, on the Mississippi carriage just to get an idea of how it'll look, the above image is the carriage it'll get. The tube needs the details near the breech added, and the cascable finished to be done.


Here's the 9" gun and 11" gun drawn at 1:96 scale. You can print this and cut it out to get an idea of size and fit

 

[The Gavel]

I'm building a 3D model of a 9" gun on a pivot carriage, which is the most probable the Lane had. The 10"Dahlgrens were somewhat rare, unless Cumberland's were salvaged and one of them put on the Lane. I think the 11" would be too much. At 12,000 pound just for the tube, pivoting it over and out to the rail to fire would probably cause the boat to heel, much more than the 9,200 pound 9" gun would do.
I've been trying to find images or drawings of the carriage the 9" pivots got, as shown in the photo posted earlier. The blank portions in this drawing are where someone was blocking the view in the photo. I think the curve behind the trunnion goes into a step, maybe two, like the Marsilly carriage has - which is the detail I'm trying to confirm.
View attachment 427348

This is the tube, which just got a bore installed, on the Mississippi carriage just to get an idea of how it'll look, the above image is the carriage it'll get. The tube needs the details near the breech added, and the cascable finished to be done.
View attachment 427349

Here's the 9" gun and 11" gun drawn at 1:96 scale. You can print this and cut it out to get an idea of size and fit
View attachment 427387

Dear Jerry, this is really cool stuff! Thank you for the effort and the diffusion of knowledge a/k/a sharing! I noted the time stamp on your post - I hope you're not losing any sleep over this .

 

[The Gavel]

I spent some time tonight with the resin gun carriage parts that Pete sent me. Here's what I learned - I hate resin. Very brittle. I broke the lower carriage and even my Gorilla CA couldn't make them stick - worse than Humpty Dumpty. So I measured the resin lower carriage and all of its parts, cut it up for templates and made my own from wood. I used the upper carriage to check the big BJS Dahlgren (It is XI in size BTW) - I love the gun but it is ridiculous on the carriage and on the deck. Decision made - I'll be using the IX Dahlgrens from the kit. THEN something terrible happened!!!

I noticed that the gun sat very high relative to the bulwarks. I then noticed that the bulwark height in the model is significantly shorter than the height shown in the plan. Meaning that I'll probably have to ship the guns on very short carriages. I checked some other build logs - every one of then so far has had this problem - the guns don't sit square in their ports they brush the top of the rail and point down. *^@&*%@%^$!(%&%!(*_@*#&^ is how I'm feeling about it! Adding height is a no go - it will throw off the proportions of the paddle wheel assemblies (I need to add something like 3/16) and it will probably cause the end of days.

The lower carriage isn't finished and the IX incher is in a resin carriage (the wrong type).

Blessings!
Chuck

 

[dockattner]

Some days are better than others...

 

[The Gavel]

Some days are better than others...

True. Happily trying to come up with a solution didn't keep me from sleeping like it sometimes does. I think that I may be able to accommodate the problem a little by having shorter carriages and adding maybe 1/16th to the bulwark height.

Have a good day, Paul!

Blessings. Peace. Gratitude.
Chuck

 

[BMT]

I have been following your build progress, Gavel.

As this was my first build with any armaments, I followed the instructions provided. However, I noticed that the cannons that came with the build did not look to scale, and after reading on one of the build blogs, I discovered that they are actually very close to the actual dimensions when scaled at 1/8" to the foot using an engineer's scale.

Despite this, they still looked too big, I needed to sand down the carriage and wheels and lower the barrels so that they went under the rail.

I have learned a lot from Peter, JerryTood, and yourself, and if I had not already come so far along, I would consider starting over.

I look forward to continually learning from the three of you guys and a number of other people here on Ships of Scale.

BMT

 

[Peter Gutterman]

Murphy's Law as applied to model ships: " The guns and/or carriages provided in any wooden ship model kit will either be slightly too large, or too small. And, if cast of white metal, the trucks will be oval, not round."
2nd law: The scale at which a commercially manufactured model is offered is an approximation...at best,
3rd Law: Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Peter Gutterman]

I have been following your build progress, Gavel.

As this was my first build with any armaments, I followed the instructions provided. However, I noticed that the cannons that came with the build did not look to scale, and after reading on one of the build blogs, I discovered that they are actually very close to the actual dimensions when scaled at 1/8" to the foot using an engineer's scale.

Despite this, they still looked too big, I needed to sand down the carriage and wheels and lower the barrels so that they went under the rail.

I have learned a lot from Peter, JerryTood, and yourself, and if I had not already come so far along, I would consider starting over.

I look forward to continually learning from the three of you guys and a number of other people here on Ships of Scale.

BMT

View attachment 427672View attachment 427673View attachment 427674View attachment 427675

Likewise.

Pete

 

[The Gavel]

BMT!!! Thanks for sharing your experience with the guns of this Harriet Lane model. For a minute there, I thought that I had really gone off the rails. It seems like we spotted the same build logs only I forgot about the meaning of the comments when they talked about the gun placement issues. For anyone who decides to build this heroic ship, we now know that the model as built has significantly lower bulwarks than the model shown on the plans. This means making choices early to increase the bulwark height by more than a scale foot so that the kit supplied guns fit properly in their ports, or to source smaller guns and carriages or a combination of the two solutions. As I look at the build logs for Harriet Lane, including yours, I think that trying to increase the bulwark height will cause so many consequences that it might be wiser to accommodate the problem by reducing the size of the guns.

BMT, your Harriet Lane is looking great. You've captured her lines beautifully. I particularly admire your choice of natural wood for the rail and your work on the bowsprit and jib boom rigging. Very cool! Your attention to detail is excellent and I'm looking forward to your progress with the masting and rigging. I tell you, my first builds might as well have been bath tub toys carved out of soap. In contrast, you've got a ship that you should be proud to display once the last knot is tied. My thought is not to let the "I wish I hads" take away from the enjoyment of what your hands have wrought so far. Nor should they take away from the next steps in your build and how you mast and rig your ship. I bet there's no one on this forum who hasn't thought "Crap! I wish I had . . ." It comes with the territory. What all of the experienced modelers have done (myself excluded) is to remember the list of "I wish I hads . . ." as they move forward on the ship the are building and the next one, etc.

Happily we have the chance to learn from each other. Amen! This is a great society. SOS is one of the primary reasons my bath tub toys are getting a bit better every time (I hope).

I'm really glad to have your log and your input and your presence. Some one to share the joys and miseries of building the Harriet Lane.

Cheers!
Chuck

 

[The Gavel]

Murphy's Law as applied to model ships: " The guns and/or carriages provided in any wooden ship model kit will either be slightly too large, or too small. And, if cast of white metal, the trucks will be oval, not round."
2nd law: The scale at which a commercially manufactured model is offered is an approximation...at best,
3rd Law: Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder.

I was hoping Pete would drop one of his wisdom bombs I think the 3rd law is my favorite!

 

[The Gavel]

After mature consideration - meaning that I am not still having a fit about the height of the bulwarks - I am going to do the following:
1. I'm going to wait for the guns I sourced from Cottage Industries Models to come in.
2. I'm going to use the ones that make sense visually.
3. I'm going to stop thinking about it until the guns arrive.

Other thoughts - although I spent hours scratch building the undercarriage for the forward Dahlgren (see Post # 168), I'm going to have to scrap it. I built it wrong. As the numerous diagrams and pictures show, the width of the upper carriage and the rails of the lower carriage are determined by the distance between the ends of the trunnions. It was, however, not work in vain. I learned how long it takes me to do the task! "Good job, Chuck!" It also taught me that I can do the task. AND because I'm waiting for parts, I can also source some lumber closer to scale. The rails and end pieces on the undercarriage I made are 1/16th" square stock. I think it will look better in 3/64th particularly with the 1/32nd square stock I used for what looks like ladder rungs.

So, plenty of time to start building other deck furniture and masts! Speaking of masts puts me in mind to ask - any references for rigging U.S. ships of this period?
I can also practice soldering with gear I ordered from Amazon. I've never soldered before (except for plumbing). I'm wanting to try and make hooks and other bits that look more to scale than what I might buy. Any tips are solicited and welcomed!

Blessings. Peace. Gratitude.
Chuck

 

[BMT]

I see some improvement in my builds. I understand them more. Looking at what you guys are doing makes me think even more about how I should tackle my next ship. No, I’m not thinking that far ahead, but tomorrow, I start some rigging, and I look forward to seeing how that progresses.

BMT

 

[The Gavel]

I see some improvement in my builds. I understand them more. Looking at what you guys are doing makes me think even more about how I should tackle my next ship. No, I’m not thinking that far ahead, but tomorrow, I start some rigging, and I look forward to seeing how that progresses.

BMT

Excellent!

Also, is the picture in your identity box a Jaguar Mark 2? Yours?

BTW - you need to put those pictures up on your log matey!

 

[BMT]

yes along with a 68 S Type, 2000 S Type and 2017 jaguar xjl portfolio sitting in my garages.

 

[Peter Gutterman]

Remember that the railings over the gunport for the forward Dahlgren pivot gun were removable. or may even dropped down still attached to the bulwark cover lid. (I've seen a contemporary picture of this.) I went with removable as indicated by lines scribed in the rail (hardly visible at 3/32"=1'). I believe the problem of the gun sitting too high to be squarely in the center of the port was an issue in reality, dealt with by getting the railing covering board out of the way when cleared for action.
I don't think this was a problem for the Parrot gun on the forecastle deck.
Of course, I don't know if this is a problem for the guns aft of the deckhouse on your models. It IS a common problem with these wood kits.