Some observations on building my first wooden ship kit...

Actually I don't think the French (or "continental") system would be any more difficult - if you've got the means of drilling holes.  Just drill a couple of holes in the gun carriage sides, run a piece of line through them, and secure the ends of the line to either eyebolts or holes in the bulwarks beside the gunports.  That shouldn't take more than a few minutes per gun.  The side train tackles are, to all intents and purposes, identical in the two systems - and you probably wouldn't install the train tackles on the rear ends of the carriages anyway.

All this assumes, of course, that you haven't installed the guns permanently yet.  If you have, I don't think I'd recommend trying to drill holes in their carriages - or anywhere in the vicinity.  As I mentioned earlier, plenty of contemporary eighteenth-century models don't have rigging on their guns.  You always have the option of telling people you're working according to the old, historical style.

Good luck on the bicycle trip.  Sounds like a wonderful thing to do this time of year.

jtilley wrote:

Last night I dug out my copy of the Mondfelt book.  It's an English-language edition that I bought quite a few years ago.  I know there's a new edition, which may differ from mine.  I imagine Katzennahrung is looking at the German edition.  I think there may be some minor errors in translation.

Last night I dug out my copy of the Mondfelt book.  It's an English-language edition that I bought quite a few years ago.  I know there's a new edition, which may differ from mine.  I imagine Katzennahrung is looking at the German edition.  I think there may be some minor errors in translation. 

The book I have shows two methods of rigging guns:  British and French.  (The word "Continental" isn't there.)  The author warns modelers at some length not to rig the breeching rope taut; he emphasizes that, if the gun is run out, there must be enough slack in the breeching to allow for the recoil.  And he advises modelers to select either the British or French rigging system.  For the British system he provides a drawing that matches the description I gave earlier - with the breeching running around the cascable.  The drawing he uses to illustrate the French system is pretty clearly copied from the Boudriot book - with the "breeching" running through holes in the carriage cheeks, and two train tackles rigged to the back of the carriage.

Mondfelt, at least in the edition I have, doesn't talk about any guns other than British and French. There's nothing about Spanish, Dutch, or Danish ones - or, for that matter, American ones.

I don't disagree significantly with any of that.  I question whether those "British" and "French systems" were used universally by the British and the French; I think there were more variations than Mondfelt acknowledges.  But that sort of thing probably is inevitable in a relatively small book that tries to cover such an enormous subject.  (He also makes some overly-broad generalizations about how the shapes of guns developed - particularly regarding the eye on the cascabel.)

His advice on leaving slack in the breeching lines certainly is sound - with one small caveat.  Some modern researchers think that, prior to the late seventeenth century, warships did  rig their breechings taut.  If a breeching line is heavy and taut enough, it can stop the gun from recoiling (particularly if the gun is a relatively small one).  Some historians think the concept of letting the gun recoil is a relatively new one.  They point out, for instance, that some of the fine paintings by the Van de Veldes show the gunners leaning out through the gunports to load the guns - which are shown in the run-out positions.  I have my doubts about that, but I'll be interested to read any new ideas about the subject.

jtilley wrote:

Katzennahrung - I looked up the web version Mondfeld book (at www.all-model.com).  The web version only seems to include the chapters of the book that relate to rigging - not the one on guns.  So the following is not based on my having read what Mondfeld actually wrote.

jtilley wrote:

The breeching is a very heavy rope running between two eyebolts or ring bolts, one on either side of the gunport, and around the breech of the gun.  Just how it's secured to the breech varies according to the design of the gun.  Some guns (especially older ones) had rings cast in their breeches for the breeching to run through.  If there wasn't any ring, the breeching would be looped around the cascabel (the "button" on the breech); it might or might not have an eye seized in it for that purpose.

Thanks for the English terminology. I think zu Mondfeld is talking about that "breeching" rope.  There are the version you describe: the rope is running through two eyebolts on either side of the gunport and /through/ the rear breech of the gun.

But zu Mondfeld goes further and says: there were the versions that the rope runs only through two ring bolts on the sides of the gunport without going through the breech of the gun (you call it cascabel: button on the breech).

That was the distinction continental vs. British.

I for one now own a digital camera and will make an image of the sketches in zu Mondfeld's book. I now also have a homepage and will post the image tomorrow.

I hope I am not citing zu Mondfeld wrongly (I will have to look up again in the evening what he writes) but I recall with confidence he clearly states that most of the kits got that "breeching rope"  wrong.

So, for me that means: I will make at least that breeching rope on my guns even still she is a French ship. I will then show the rope running through the cascade. Still not perfect (since there are no ring bolts or eyebolts at the gunport walls) but better than only going through the gunport since I forgot to drill holes for this into the "tiny" gunport walls of my canons.

Thanks jtilley.

Regards,
Katzennahrung

Katzennahrung - I looked up the web version Mondfeld book (at www.all-model.com).  The web version only seems to include the chapters of the book that relate to rigging - not the one on guns.  So the following is not based on my having read what Mondfeld actually wrote.

I like and respect that book, but I do have some reservations about it.  It tries to be broad and comprehensive in its coverage - broader and more comprehensive than any one volume can possibly be.  The author generally seems to know what he's talking about, but he does occasionally write some things that just don't make much sense.  (A few days ago we got into an interesting Forum discussion about the history and dimensions of belaying pins.  Mondfeld's generalizations about belaying pins are utter nonsense; I can't imagine what sources he must have consulted.)

I've never heard of any distinctly "Continental" or "British" system for rigging gun tackles.  The details certainly varied over time, and probably from country to country at any one time.  But the basic system was simple.  The rigging of a gun falls into three categories.  One - the heavy breeching line, which keeps the gun from recoiling too far across the deck when fired.  Two - the train tackles, which are used to run the gun in and out, and to train it back and forth.  Three - some additional lines that lash the gun against the bulwark during heavy weather.

The breeching is a very heavy rope running between two eyebolts or ring bolts, one on either side of the gunport, and around the breech of the gun.  Just how it's secured to the breech varies according to the design of the gun.  Some guns (especially older ones) had rings cast in their breeches for the breeching to run through.  If there wasn't any ring, the breeching would be looped around the cascabel (the "button" on the breech); it might or might not have an eye seized in it for that purpose.

There generally were three train tackles.  Each consisted of a pair of blocks and a rope running between them.  (The blocks might have one or two sheaves, depending on the size of the gun.)  Two train tackles were rigged on the sides of the gun, with one block hooked to an eye in the after end of the carriage cheek and the other to an eye in the bulwark beside the gunport.  The third train tackle ran between an eye in the middle of the rear of the rear axle of the carriage and an eye in the deck, inboard of the gun.  (That tackle generally was set up only when the gun was being fired.  The others generally stayed in place all the time.)

There certainly were variations on this system.  Sometimes the eyebolts in the bulwark were halfway up the height of the gunport; sometimes they were a few inches above the deck.  Jean Boudriot's Le Vaisseau d 74 Canons, which deals with a typical French ship of the line from the late eighteenth century, shows a variation on the theme of the breeching.  (Instead of the line running around the breech of the gun, Boudriot shows it passing through a large hole in one carriage cheek, below the gun barrel, and out the other side.  He also, at least on the enormous, 36-pounder lower deck guns, shows two after train tackles rather than one.)  But the basic system seems to have been pretty universal.  I have a copy of the relevant Conway's History of the Ship volume in front of me; it contains several contemporary eighteenth-century drawings of Danish guns.  They're rigged in just the manner I described above.

Gun rigging does present a problem for the ship modeler - especially when the scale is small.  There are several perfectly legitimate approaches.  Many contemporary models - including the wonderful British "Board Room" models - omit the guns entirely.  When the guns are present on those old models they frequently don't have rigging.  Setting up all the gear on every gun in a small-scale model of a ship-of-the-line would be quite an exercise - and a rather foolish one, since most of the guns wouldn't be visible on the finished model. 

To me personally, a gun sitting on a deck with no restraining ropework whatever looks odd - especially if the model's rigging is reasonably complete in other respects.  One possible compromise is to rig the breeching and forget the rest.  (It isn't really difficult, though it takes a little time.  Drill holes for the eyebolts in the bulwarks.  Rig the lines off the model.  Set up some simple jig to space the eyebolts correctly, rig the line between them, and superglue the eyebolts into the holes.)  If that doesn't wear you out completely, think about adding the side train tackles.  (Again, rig them off the model.  You can set up a small production line, and finish the job in a few evenings.)  I haven't seen many models with the after train tackles rigged.  And for heaven's sake don't bother with any rigging on the guns that aren't clearly visible on the finished model.

On really small scales, a possible solution (which I haven't tried personally, but it seems like it might be satisfactory) would be to omit the eyebolts and seizings for the breeching lines.  Drill holes for them all the way through the bulwarks, superglue the ends of the breechings in the holes, and cut off the excess line on the outside of the hull.  Careful trimming and a careful paint job should conceal the evidence.

Hope that helps a little.  Good luck.

Katzennahrung wrote:

Lufbery wrote: Hi all, The web site for the practicum is here. In old terms and according to Wolfram zu Mondfeld his book the practicum's link shows a "continetal" rigging type of canons. Surely, zu Mondfeld speaks of European vs. British canon rigging. I abadoned the idea of showing a simplified canon rigging with my Heller "Le Glorieux" since it must be continental I assume. Showing a very simplified "British" kind of rigging would be easier for me. The rigging ropes are situated different in that case. Does one know whether such a distinction was always true for French ships? Thanks, Kater Katze Felix

jtilley wrote:

I'll cheerfully concede some Basic Truths about model building.  One - all other things being equal (as they rarely are), a scratchbuilt model represents more work, skill, and knowledge than a kit-built model.

I think that phrase is the nutshell summary of what I'm experiencing. The difference with this project isn't so much the subject or materials, but the fact that I'm semi-scratchbuilding the hull, and will have to scratch build everything else.

If I were scratch building anything else, I'd still have the innumeral small, repeated steps and the amazing amount of preperatory work before "getting started" on building the model.

There are differences between working with plastic and working with wood, but I agree that they're not quite as pronounced as some people seem to think. Still, steam-bending styrene can be pretty messy. :)

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts.

Regards,

Lufbery wrote:

Hi all, The web site for the practicum is here.

I guess I'd start by saying that, in my opinion, there are differences all right but not as many as some people seem to think.  And I don't think there's any inherent qualitative difference between a plastic ship model and a wood ship model.  Some wood ship models are far more accurate, and demonstrate far superior workanship, than some plastic ship models - and vice versa.  When it comes to kits, I've often made the observation that (a) most plastic sailing ship kits are garbage, and (b) most wood sailing ship kits are worse.

I'm troubled by the common perception that "plastic modeling" and "wood modeling" are different hobbies.  There's no reason for them to be so.  If they would take the trouble, modelers on both sides of that artificial fence would discover that they have a great deal to learn from each other.  I don't think of myself as a plastic modeler or a wood modeler; I think of myself as a ship modeler.  (Except on those occasions when I'm working on an airplane, or - more rarely - a railroad car.)

I worked my way through grad school in a hobby shop that catered to lots of different hobbies.  It wasn't a big store, and (especially in the summer) I had some idle time on my hands.  I spent much of it browsing through catalogs and products, partly to get more familiar with the stuff I was selling and partly in the hope of finding stuff that would be useful for my own models.  Among the tidbits I picked up:

- HO scale lumber, in the form of either basswood or styrene, provides a huge variety of shapes and sizes that are extremely useful in ship modeling.

- HO railroaders have access to a huge variety of beautifully-molded miniature figures.  HO scale is 1/87 - slightly larger than the common ship scale of 1/96.  Many Preiser HO figures scale out to about six feet tall on 1/96 scale.

- Model aircraft and railroad manufacturers make all sorts of decals and paint colors that are extremely useful in ship modeling.  So do armor manufacturers.  (Those cryptically-named shades of brown used to camouflage tanks and airplanes work perfectly well for wood shades on ships - or railroads.  But lots of model railroaders in those days thought there was only one shade of brown on the planet:  "Roof Brown," by Floquil.)

- Model railroad companies like Grandt Line and CalScale offer lots of brass and styrene detail parts that have nautical applications.  (Check out such things as nut-bolt-washer castings and dummy turnbuckles.)

- Sheet styrene, a staple material for airplane, railroad, and armor modelers, is also an extremely versatile material for ship modeling.

- Butterfly collectors use extremely fine steel "insect pins" that come in handy for lots of purposes in ship modeling.

- Sable and synthetic-bristle brushes found in arts and craft stores are often cheaper than those sold in hobby shops, and work just as well if not better.

- Craft departments sell a huge variety of glass and ceramic beads that come in handy for such things as parrel trucks.

- Local hobby shops are unlikely to stock Bluejacket "Brass Black," but are far more likely to carry various chemicals designed to blacken brass parts on locomotives.  It's the same stuff.

And so on. 

I sometimes get a little amused at how hobbyists tend to get in ruts, and to be nervous about using new techniques and/or materials.  I've known lots of scale aircraft modelers who are literally afraid to make things out of wood.  Model railroaders use wood all the time - but it's almost invariably basswood.  Serious ship modelers know that basswood is nice stuff for some purposes, but not so good for others.  When was the last time a Model Railroader or Railroad Model Craftsman suggested making something out of boxwood, holly, maple, or cherry?  Ship modelers know those are great woods for lots of purposes.  They'd be just as useful in model railroading - or model airplane building.  (Lots of WWI airplane modelers replace kit-supplied wing struts with scratchbuilt styrene ones.  Why not wood?)  And too many sailing ship modelers recoil at the thought of making anything out of styrene.  Why?

One of the most irritating aspects of the hobby world, in my opinion, is the all-too-common tendency of hobbiests to sneer at people who approach their hobbies differently.  I know of far too many self-proclaimed "tall ship modelers" who hold plastic kits in contempt.  (Such people often have no idea that the hideously expensive continental European wood kits on which they dote bear scarcely any resemblance to real ships.  Examination often reveals that those people actually know scarcely anything about ships - and have no idea what plastic scale modeling is about.)  I've also been to model competitions in which the airplane modelers didn't bother to look at the ship models, and the ship modelers didn't condescend to look at the armor models.  And, for that matter, modern warship modelers who referred contemptuously to "those stick-and-string guys."  When I go to a model exhibition I try to admire - and learn something from - everything that's being exhibited. 

I built my first model (a disastrous Revell DC-7) in 1956, when I was five years old.  I guess I can claim membership in the first generation that grew up in the age of the plastic kit.  I find it sobering that this is my fiftieth year as a model builder.  On the other hand, I get a good bit of pleasure from the realization that so far I've only learned an extremely small percentage of what can be learned about model building.  Ten years or so down the road I'm going to retire and, I hope, spend a good deal more time in the workshop.  I suspect by the time my eyesight and finger muscles give out I may - may - be ten percent of the way toward a total knowledge of the subject.  I find that thought stimulating. 

I'll cheerfully concede some Basic Truths about model building.  One - all other things being equal (as they rarely are), a scratchbuilt model represents more work, skill, and knowledge than a kit-built model.  Two - all other things being equal (please remember that caveat at all times), a model on a smaller scale  represents a higher level of workmanship than an otherwise identical model on a larger scale.  (I can think of some exceptions to that one, but I think it's generally true.)  Three - freshly-cut wood smells better than freshly-cut styrene.  Beyond those profound observations, my opinion is that each modeler ought to feel utterly at liberty to pick his/her favorite subjects, techniques, materials, and stylistic approaches, and have an appropriate amount of respect for everybody else's.  End of sermon.

Drew-

The first thing I can tell you is that with Clayton Feldman and The Lumberyard, you are in good hands.

Having been working on a wooden ship model on-and-off for 6 years now, I have come to the conclusion that wooden ship modeling is a Zen experience. The process is what matters... indeed, each MOMENT is what matters.  The eventual model is the icing, not the cake.

Worth it? You bet.