The Ship Model Forum

[quote="Neptune"]Anh progress on this one Maarten?[/quote]
Hi Neptune, thanks for asking!

I made only very slight progress: I cleaned up the gun ports and started to build the new transom from scratch, with all its detail embellishment. Having detailed plans is also creating a challenge! :big_grin: But I will post again when I have something worthwile to show.

On the other side: my investigation on this particular ship als caused me to start writing a book on the broader subject, about the ships that originated in the Napoleonic navy (mainly Antwerp, Amsterdam and other shipyards in the Low Countries and kingdom Italy) but had their useful life after Napoleon's fall in 1815. It appears to be a largely less recorded time period until 1830, before the age of steam and sail drew all the attention! The book will be due to be available by end 2026, in time for the bicentennial of the foundering of Zr.Ms. Wassenaar.

Hence I was able to respond quickly when Kazec from Hong Kong made enquiries about the French Pallas class frigates (62 units), that is the other big source of Napoleonic ships in this period, besides the VERY large Téméraire class of around 120 units (with its Pluton/Borée subs class). [url]http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=376272[/url]

Anh progress on this one Maarten?

Sorry, I did not want to dilute your log ... for me also the context and the (socio-economic) conditions in which these ships were built are interesting. They often tell you why certain things were done in a particular way or why not. Say it's easy to critise the use of softwood, but this relativises, when one understands the availability of hardwood. Or take the plank lengths: hand-sawn planks were limited to about 5 to 6 metres, while with the windmills and the mechanical transportation through the saw-frame straight and even planks twice this length could be produced (re. the frequent discussion of plank lengths in fora).

Nice, windmills are also interesting subjects for model building! But we're veering off-topic.

My take of the Paltrock-sawmill at the Zaanse Schans:

[img]https://www.imago-orbis.org/holland/070322-72.jpg[/img]

On the left the pigment mill 'De Kat' with vertical mill-stones on a stone tray (pan grinder and Kollergang in German), another invention of the time that improved the mass production of pigments and thus made painting ships cheaper.

More pictures here on my photographic Web-site: [url]https://www.imago-orbis.org/holland/holland.html[/url]

Hi Wefalck,
[attachment=0]nvm-3006004-paltrok-houtzaagmolen-de-eenhoorn.jpg[/attachment]
Yes, the invention of the wind-driven sawmill (with a crankshaft indeed) was an enormous enabler for the ship building industry on the river Zaan, north of Amsterdam. But you mention very rightly: the material came from somewhere else! Holland (meaning literally 'wood-land') never had large oak forests, as the country was, from Roman times until the late Middle Ages, much too wet for these. The softer and faster growing species like elm and poplar were more dominant here. In the early 17th century some forests for mast-wood fir were planted, the still existing 'Mastbos' south of Breda was the largest, you can still find very tall firs there today. Oak generally required higher and dryer ground, and grew too slow to provide a good and sustainable source for construction oak.

So the vast majority of all oak timber required for building ships came from abroad, mainly from the forests along the river Weser and Elbe, and around the Baltic, Denmark, Estonia and Latvia (Livland) in particular. The Baltic trade remained dominant throughout the 17th and 18th century for Dutch shipping, although the Far East and Transatlantic trade caught the limelight. Oak was also required for construction of large buildings, roofs, bridges andsoforth. Wood and shipping were really intertwined: transport over water of wood was vital, and the shipping relied on wood.

But not only the Dutch were in search for construction timber (and firewood!), so were all the other European peoples from the early Middle Ages on. Between us, we chopped down much of the forests of the continent, in some areas almost to the bare bottom: Scotland, southern Scandinavia, Spain, but also Holland. Around 1900 the the amount of forest reached a minimum, today the situation has become slightly better thanks to re-forestation programs. Really something to think about when we scold the Brazilians or the Indonesians for cutting down their rain forests. In Europe we did just the same, although in a slower pace over many centuries.

I am reading at the moment

BONKE, H. et al. (2004): Cornelis Corneliszoon van Uitgeest. Uitvinder aan de basis van de Gouden Eeuw.- 209 p., Uitgeest/Zutphen (Stichting Industrieel Erfgoedpark 'De Hoop'/Walburg Pers).

The book discusses the industrial development of the Zaanstreek, the area around the modern Zaandam, since the late 16th century. The efficient utilisation of windpower in sawmills (Corneliszoon is credited with being the first to apply a crank-driven saw-frame in a windmill) in this area lead to bloom of the lumber industry that lasted until the middle of the 19th century, when steam began to eclipse the windmills. A good deal of the Black Forest and other forests along the river Rhine and its tributaries went through the sawmills of this area, which also led to the growth of the shibuilding industry. The latter went down, when the locks in the area became too small for the demand of ever increasing ship sizes.

The oaks of the forests along the Rhine and other rivers flowing from northwestern Germany were soon exhausted, the Black Forest mainly supplied fir.

[quote="wefalck"]Yep, an amazing amount of (good quality) wood went into these ships ...[/quote]

Hi Wefalck, nice to hear from you again!

Yes, there was to be a thick 'wall of wood' in front, that provided some protection to this 'raking fire'. Much more than the bulkhead that was there in the centuries before.

Well... as for the Wassenaar and the other Pluton/Borée class ships built in this crash program by Napoleon, the [b][i]quality[/i][/b] of the wood was nowhere what it was supposed to be... As seasoned oak was hardly available in the Low Countries at that time, these ships were built from birch, elm and poplar instead. Not dried and seasoned, and much more prone to rot, fungus andsoforth. In one (Danish!) report on these ships, lying in the roadstead at Hoedekenskerke on the Scheldt in 1808 (Pulstuck and Dantzick had a Danish crew for one year), I read these ships were so wet inside even during summer that the powder bags in the store were rotting away by fungus...

This didn't spell much good for the strength of these ships in battle. Neither did it spell good for the Wassenaar when she hit a gale in January 1827 when tasked to sail a batallion of troops to the Netherlands East Indies...

Yep, an amazing amount of (good quality) wood went into these ships ...

Hi interested followers!

No, I have not given up, I was only distracted for some time by a necessary groin rupture surgery, which took longer than expected to recover. But I'm back at the Wassenaar project!

Marijn van Gils had pointed me at another flaw in the Heller kit: the hull walls are too skinny, and he's right. In reality the frames had a thickness of about one foot in the bottom of the ship, maybe even more, tapering to about four inches at the bulwarks. Add to that the thickness of the hull external and internal planking, and the total thickness should be at least 3mm on this scale at the level of the gunports, and slightly less at the upper deck bulwarks.

This lack of 'substance' in the gunports gives the model a 'toy' appearance, so I decided to add 1mm of Evergreen strips to the inside walls of the decks. I still have to file out all the gunports again.

Almost by itself I also found a way to build up another structural difference between the kit and my objective: the 'round bow'. As Robert Seppings had proposed to decrease the vulnerability for 'raking fire', i.e. shooting with a gun through the forward bulkhead and taking out a lot of crew on an entire deck, the bow was taken up one level higher. The photos below show very well how I did this.[attachment=2]1200px IMG_0389.jpg[/attachment][attachment=1]1200px IMG_0387.jpg[/attachment][attachment=0]1200px IMG_0388.jpg[/attachment]
The resulting seam won't be a problem: the crane bar (which is also slightly different from the standard Téméraires) will be covering this nicely.

[quote="maxim"]Regarding the anchor hawse holes: on the painting, which show that detail, I only saw anchor chains in the forward hawse hole, nothing in the rear pair.

E.g. also today Trincomalee:
[url]http://www.modellmarine.de/images/albums/hartlepool-trincomalee/trincomalee32.jpg[/url]

and D. Fernando II e Glória:
[url]http://www.modellmarine.de/images/albums/dom_fernando-rumpf/dom_fernando-r04.jpg[/url]

I would assume that the interior to be painted white more fitting to the exterior black-white.

Compare HMS Unicorn:
[url]http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php/fotogalerien/217-museumsschiffe-segel/4756-fregatte-hms-unicorn-in-dundee[/url]

HMS Trincomalee:
[url]http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php/fotogalerien/217-museumsschiffe-segel/4338-hms-trincomalee-in-hartlepool[/url]

USS Constitution:
[url]http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php/fotogalerien/217-museumsschiffe-segel/5935-fregatte-uss-constitution-in-charlestown-boston[/url]

D. Fernando II e Glória:
[url]http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php/fotogalerien/217-museumsschiffe-segel/2107-fregatte-d-fernando-ii-e-gloria-die-decks[/url][/quote]
Super links and info, thanks a lot Maxim! Only the forward (inboard) hawse holes I will use. And use the forward anchor bitt for belaying the cables.

Regarding the anchor hawse holes: on the painting, which show that detail, I only saw anchor chains in the forward hawse hole, nothing in the rear pair.

E.g. also today Trincomalee:
[url]http://www.modellmarine.de/images/albums/hartlepool-trincomalee/trincomalee32.jpg[/url]

and D. Fernando II e Glória:
[url]http://www.modellmarine.de/images/albums/dom_fernando-rumpf/dom_fernando-r04.jpg[/url]

I would assume that the interior to be painted white more fitting to the exterior black-white.

Compare HMS Unicorn:
[url]http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php/fotogalerien/217-museumsschiffe-segel/4756-fregatte-hms-unicorn-in-dundee[/url]

HMS Trincomalee:
[url]http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php/fotogalerien/217-museumsschiffe-segel/4338-hms-trincomalee-in-hartlepool[/url]

USS Constitution:
[url]http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php/fotogalerien/217-museumsschiffe-segel/5935-fregatte-uss-constitution-in-charlestown-boston[/url]

D. Fernando II e Glória:
[url]http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php/fotogalerien/217-museumsschiffe-segel/2107-fregatte-d-fernando-ii-e-gloria-die-decks[/url]

There have been many discussions of paint colors for the early half of the 1800s on the Model Ship World forum. You should post the question there.

It really depends upon the nation, and I am nor familiar with French practice.

In the American Navy ship colors were not standardized until the 1830s or 1840s. It was up to the owner or captain, but it often followed British practice. Before 1825 the hull stripe was yellow, as in the British Navy, and later was white. I do know that deck furniture and inner bulwarks started being painted white in the US Navy about 1835. Before that deep red, green or brown were common. Brighter color paints were more expensive and therefore usually weren't used on privateers and merchant vessels, and the US Navy was short on cash so bright colors were rarely used.

I am sure the British practice is well documented, especially in the Royal Navy.

Phil

A few hours of nice weather inspired me to make the two hefty anchor bitts on the lower battery deck. As these could be figured out accurately from the plans no guessing required what they would look like:[attachment=0]1200px IMG_0324.jpg[/attachment]

Now I'm getting to a few questions for which I need some advice:
1st: which anchor hawse holes would be in daily use on a warship like this? The two inboard or the two outboard ones? Or all four of them? I'can't recall to have seen that.
2nd: what would be the normal practice: cables of the inner hawse holes belayed on the forward bitts, and the outer ones to the aft bitts? Or the other way around?

And to the question of colours: this ship around 1825 had the 'modern' fashion of white hull stripes in the line of the gun ports, and most if not all embellishments also in (matte) white. What would have been the internal colours in this period? Also predominantly white? Or still the buff and oxen blood red of the previous period? I would like to hear your suggestions! Also need to know the color of the gun carriages.

Thank you, Jim! In this case I'm discovering a lot of early 19th century maritime technology too, for me novel! Nice.

I first now have to turn my attention to the decks. As mentioned above I have decided to use Evergreen 4050, with planks 1.3mm wide. Should be fine for a ship of this era. First I scribed the butt ends, in a fashion suggested by Zu Mondfeld of repetition every six planks. I painted the planks with a bit streaky Humbrol 103, after adding a wash of dark brown oil paint (Talens Van Dijck brown) it will look great. [attachment=1]1200px IMG_0323.jpg[/attachment]

First asembly of the decks:[attachment=0]1200px IMG_0322.jpg[/attachment]

The lower battery deck (with the 36 pounders) is very empty in the kit. I will add at least the two large anchor bitts, the capstan (which is a double one with the deck above and some of the gratings. The section and deck plan below will prove very helpful.
[attachment=2]Langsdoorsnede Couronne.jpg[/attachment]

.... :wave_1: impressive project and impressive methodology so far! :thumbs_up_1:

JIM B

Thank you, Dafi and Marijn!

Regarding the wall thickness: I hadn't given it a thought yet, but I think you're right: at least when viewing the gun ports the thickness of their frames should be around 2 mm, or one foot in reality. When I will install the lower gun deck (with the 36 pdr guns) I will add a strip, or smal strips vertically to simulate the frames. The thickness of the kit wall is 1 mm so adding one mm should do. I was also wondering when I added the bulwark to the foc'sle to add 0.5mm there as well.

Dafi, I found that on your marvellous Victory you did a similar thing, right?

Wonderful project!!!

XXXDAn

Great job Maarten! :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1:

A very clever and simple solution for the gun ports! :thumbs_up_1:
And a good idea too to replace the (visible) decks. That will give you much more flexibility.

Have you thought about thickening the hull walls? I may be mistaken, but the kit's hull sides look pretty thin to me. That's a common defect with plastic sailing ships, caused by the limitations of injection moulding (at least back when these models were first made). At the lower gun ports, I think the walls should be about 3mm thick in 1/150 if I remember correctly. But maybe just a little thinner than the real thing would still look ok. You wouldn't need to thicken everywhere of course, only around the gun ports etc.

I will be following this thread with great interest! :smallsmile: :wave_1:

The next update: I assembled the lower mast parts, including brass rods into them to add stiffness. This will later be vital to get the rigging taut.

Then I modified the mast sockets on the keel: each of the three masts requires to be repositioned several mm to the rear. The relocated holes in the lower deck served as a guide to create the new sockets. In this ship the masts are all three square to the keel: this is not the case with most 17th century sailing ships.

Then I modeled the forecastle bulwarks from scratch. To have them firm and strong I included brass pins into them, seven in each. Holes drilled into the kit hull rims to receive the pins. The results look good in my view.[attachment=2]1200px IMG_0292.jpg[/attachment][attachment=1]1200px IMG_0293.jpg[/attachment][attachment=0]1200px IMG_0291.jpg[/attachment]