SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

"GOLDEN HIND" WHICH ONE IS CLOSER TO THE REAL ONE HELLER'S OF 1/72 AIRFIX?

46723 views
49 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Monday, June 4, 2007 8:49 PM

I noted the similarity between the Revell kit and the Matthew Baker Manuscript back on the first page of this thread.  (Sheesh, that was a long time ago!)  That's the source that people intent on reconstructing English ships of the sixteenth century generally consult first.  William Baker (no relation - so far as I know) started his Mayflower II design with that same drawing; hence the strong similarity in hull form between the Revell Mayflower and Golden Hind kits.

Unfortunately there seems to be no modern published version of the complete Matthew (or Mathew) Baker Manuscript.  Scholars who've looked at the original (which I haven't) say that relatively little of it actually relates directly to shipbuilding; most of it amounts to a treatise in mathematics.  And some of the drawings in it look questionable, to say the least.  There's one fairly detailed cross-section, for instance, that, if the scale marked at the bottom of it is correct, shows a ship with a beam of 48 feet - bigger than Charles I's Sovereign of the Seas.

The Baker Ms. has become a sort of standard basis for reconstructions of Elizabethan ships, but some historians questions whether it really ought to be used for that purpose.  The date when it was written hasn't been firmly established (some people think parts of it may date from as late as 1620).  I have in front of me at the moment a review of William Baker's book, The Mayflower and Other Colonial Vessels.  The reviewer, Dr. Frank Howard, strongly questions whether the old Baker Ms. is an appropriate basis for a reconstruction of the Mayflower; he thinks the old version by R.C. Anderson is  "much nearer the mark."

Fascinating stuff, and the basis for many an interesting argument.  Unfortunately the bottom line is the one that's been repeated so often in this thread:  we simply don't know enough about ships of that period to reconstruct them with any real confidence.  Maybe researchers in the future will uncover a treasure trove of contemporary information about Elizabethan ships - or even one of the ships themselves.  (We can dream of a later version of the Mary Rose coming to light somewhere.)  Until that happens, the Baker Ms. will do as well as anything else.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: istanbul/Turkey
Posted by kapudan_emir_effendi on Monday, June 4, 2007 4:47 PM
 jtilley wrote:
Regarding Mondfeld and the Revell Golden Hind - I don't have Mr. Mondfeld's book in front of me (it's in the workshop, which is in the back yard, and it's pouring down rain at the moment), so it would be improper for me to offer any really specific comments.  I did, however, dig up a review of the book, by the late Dana McCalip, in the Nautical Research Journal.  (Dana was a friend of mine; he knew what he was talking about.)  He gives the publication date of the book as 1985.  (That's the English-language edition; the original German one may have appeared a little earlier, but not much.)  The Revell Golden Hind kit was originally issued, according to Dr. Graham's book, in 1965.  I think we can rule out the possibility that Mr. Mondfeld's book had anything to do with the origin of the kit.  (I suppose it's conceivable that things worked the other way around:  that Mr. Mondfeld based his drawing on the Revell kit.  But I doubt it.  He seems to have had little if any interest in plastic models.)

Revell seems to have been rather secretive, for some reason, about the historical sources on which that kit is based.  In another Forum thread another member, Papillon, matched it with a set of plans in a book published by a German author, Rolf Hoeckel, in a book entitled Risse von Kriegschiffe des 17th Jh, which apparently was originally published sometime in the 1940s.  I got hold of a copy of that book; the plans in it do indeed match the Revell kit quite closely.  I remain uncertain whether Mr. Hoeckel drew them himself, or based them on some other source.  (A couple of British authors, Clive Millward and Stanley Rodgers, published plans of Elizabethan ships at about the same time; I haven't compared their plans and Mr. Hoeckel's closely.  Nor can I say for certain how, if at all, those plans relate to the ones in the Mondfeld book.)

What's most important, I think, is that the plans - whatever their origin - are good.  I continue to put the Revell Golden Hind (along with the same company's two versions of the Mayflower) high on my personal list of the best plastic sailing ship kits.

Good Day Professor and everybody !

I did a little more research about Rolf Hoeckel's plans of the kleiner englische galleon 1588, which I compared with the lines of Revell Golden Hind and found them to be perfectly the same. Then I set out to find the genesis of Hoeckel's plans, with the hope of discovering what kind of a ship Revell presented us. I think you will find the results interesting. In the Cogs, Caravelles and Galleons p.105, there is a drawing from Matthew Baker's manuscript, which is titled "Small English Galleon". The lines of her hull are astonishingly similar with that of Herr Hoeckel's draught ! The biggest difference is the poop. The Baker drawing has a low poop with a single quarterdeck while Hoeckel's draught has a two level poop. Also, Baker's ship has a figurehead which is shaped like a human head while Hoeckel replaced it with the familiar deer. But otherwise, hull shape and even the place of gunports seem to be the same. May also someone check this similarity ? If I'm proven, I think we can put Revell's mighty model to the place of second best galleon kit in existence.

cheers !

Don't surrender the ship !
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: 37deg 40.13' N 95deg 29.10'W
Posted by scottrc on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 7:05 AM

I have built the smaller Mayflower, but never the Golden Hind.  I should put on my list someday build.

Scott

  • Member since
    February 2007
Posted by mitsdude on Monday, May 7, 2007 1:44 PM

I remember the Golden Hind, brings back memories!!!! It was one of my first models back in the early 60's. I never did finish it.

 

  • Member since
    December 2006
Posted by woodburner on Monday, May 7, 2007 1:00 PM

Thanks. Neither ship was practical to repair effectively.  

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: 37deg 40.13' N 95deg 29.10'W
Posted by scottrc on Monday, May 7, 2007 12:27 PM

As someone who is a profession clutz, and lives with two children, two cats, a Lab who thows baseballs in the house, and a wife who dusts like a pitman at the Indy 500, I have had my fill of busted yards and bowsprits.

I now set up my rigs in a more traditional manner by installing brass or steel rods in my masts and bowsprit.  This gives added strength when catching the tips with a shirtsleeve or even stands up to wacking the tip of the bowsprit with the edge of a door.

I never glue my yards in place anymore but attach them to brass snap rings or I lash them onto the mast.  You want the yard to be flexable at the attchement point so that it can absorb impact better.  This process also allows more flexibility in adjusting my running rigging.

As for the dust issue, my workbench is right by the furnace cold air return.  In a basement, this is dirt and fur central.  I have to cover my WIP with a clear foodwrap to keep all the gunk from collecting on it.   I am hoping to either move my workshop out of the basement, or I hope to get a whole new enviromental system for the house that will eliminate me sharing the basement with the furnace and AC.

Scott

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: vernon hills illinois
Posted by sumpter250 on Monday, May 7, 2007 10:00 AM
Woodburner,   I know the feeling. My wood hull Constitution,was dismasted by "lowest bidder movers", as was a small clipper ship model built in the late 1800's, and restored by my brother, in 1956. The Constitution had all the standing rigging done, with all the ratlines hand tied. I didn't have the heart to repair the damage. I still haven't tried to restore the clipper, but that one will eventually be done.

Lead me not into temptation ..................I can find it myself

  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Chapin, South Carolina
Posted by Shipwreck on Monday, May 7, 2007 7:42 AM
Woodburner, you have my condolences on the loss of your two ships.

I am fretting on how to protect a 36" Cutty Sark while under construction. Just turning this thing around to work on the other side is a major operation. What are people doing in order to keep the ship intact until completion? And, how do you deal with dust over a drawn out construction period?

I am working on a 48" table that is in a corner of my study that is 46" from a workstation. The immediate work area is 48x46", but is open to a larger room. I am thinking about putting shelves above the work area just to store the ship (and keep it out of reach of Princess the cat).

On the Bench:

Revell 1/96 USS Constitution - rigging

Kinetic 1/48 YF-104A 5-2957

Trumpeter 1/350 USS Hornet CV-8

Revell 1/48 B-1B Lancer Prep & Reasearch

 

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Monday, May 7, 2007 3:28 AM

Woodburner, that's a real tragedy!  The Mayflower was looking mighty promising.  Are you absolutely sure it can't be fixed?  Sometimes such things look a little less discouraging after the initial emotional shock has worn off.

I wonder if that alleged 24" Mayflower just might conceivably have been an Imai kit that made its way into a Revell/Monogram box.  But I doubt it.  I think the Revell/Monogram connection came about several years after Imai went out of business.  I've seen Imai kits in Monogram boxes, but not Revell ones.  My best guess is that the 24" figure is simply a mistake.  Such things are quite common in the plastic kit industry.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    December 2006
Posted by woodburner on Monday, May 7, 2007 1:19 AM

The larger Revell Mayflower is 20" long, from bowsprit to outrigger.  Unfortunately, some heavy books shifted on shelves, taking both down when they fell, beyond practical repair. Its a lesson in how not to store fragile models.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, May 6, 2007 11:00 PM

Don't worry, Kapudan - at age 56 I'm confident that I've got quite a few models left in me.  I can retire from the university in about six more years; after that, I fully intend to spend a large percentage of my waking hours in the workshop.  But I don't think I'm up to two Mayflowers.

Maybe I'd better say again, for the sake of clarity and emphasis:  I like the Mondfeld book, and consider it one of the top four or five best available works for people getting started in ship modeling.  But I agree with Dana McCalip:  it's a good start, but that's all.  And frankly I'm more than a little disturbed by all those unaknowledged, copied illustrations.  Such stuff is, whether legal or not, unethical.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: istanbul/Turkey
Posted by kapudan_emir_effendi on Sunday, May 6, 2007 12:20 PM

 jtilley wrote:
If I had all the time in the world I'd consider building both, as a demonstration of how much variation there can be in interpreting the shapes of old ships about which so little hard information is available.

Professor, when you speak as such I get really sad Boohoo [BH] I wish you many more long years and many happy modelling hours more, your students always need your directions and encouragment.

Thank you again for your mighty review of Mondfeld book, it was sight-opening for me. I don't think much different about Revell Golden Hind, it's certainly one of the finest plastic ship models ever produced and worth a build, be it a close-to-reality rendition of that particular ship or not.

Don't surrender the ship !
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, May 6, 2007 12:03 AM

Regarding the Revell and Airfix Mayflowers - the two companies' interpretations of the ship are quite different.  Both Revell kits are based on the Mayflower II, the only difference between them being the scales.  (The smaller one is about 16" long overall; I don't remember just how long the larger one is.  Woodburner - are you there?)  I'm not sure what the origin of the Airfix design was.  It bears some resemblance - but only some - to the reconstructed version done by R.C. Anderson back in the 1920s or thereabouts. 

All three kits are quite good.  The Airfix one doesn't have quite the level of detail of the Revell ones; the planks don't have "wood grain," and the gunports are represented as countersunk squares, with "dummy" gun barrrels plugged into holes in their middles.  (The Revell kits have their gunport lids molded shut.)  If I had all the time in the world I'd consider building both, as a demonstration of how much variation there can be in interpreting the shapes of old ships about which so little hard information is available.

Regarding Mondfeld and the Revell Golden Hind - I don't have Mr. Mondfeld's book in front of me (it's in the workshop, which is in the back yard, and it's pouring down rain at the moment), so it would be improper for me to offer any really specific comments.  I did, however, dig up a review of the book, by the late Dana McCalip, in the Nautical Research Journal.  (Dana was a friend of mine; he knew what he was talking about.)  He gives the publication date of the book as 1985.  (That's the English-language edition; the original German one may have appeared a little earlier, but not much.)  The Revell Golden Hind kit was originally issued, according to Dr. Graham's book, in 1965.  I think we can rule out the possibility that Mr. Mondfeld's book had anything to do with the origin of the kit.  (I suppose it's conceivable that things worked the other way around:  that Mr. Mondfeld based his drawing on the Revell kit.  But I doubt it.  He seems to have had little if any interest in plastic models.)

Revell seems to have been rather secretive, for some reason, about the historical sources on which that kit is based.  In another Forum thread another member, Papillon, matched it with a set of plans in a book published by a German author, Rolf Hoeckel, in a book entitled Risse von Kriegschiffe des 17th Jh, which apparently was originally published sometime in the 1940s.  I got hold of a copy of that book; the plans in it do indeed match the Revell kit quite closely.  I remain uncertain whether Mr. Hoeckel drew them himself, or based them on some other source.  (A couple of British authors, Clive Millward and Stanley Rodgers, published plans of Elizabethan ships at about the same time; I haven't compared their plans and Mr. Hoeckel's closely.  Nor can I say for certain how, if at all, those plans relate to the ones in the Mondfeld book.)

What's most important, I think, is that the plans - whatever their origin - are good.  I continue to put the Revell Golden Hind (along with the same company's two versions of the Mayflower) high on my personal list of the best plastic sailing ship kits.

This brings up another general topic:  the reliability of the Mondfeld book, which seems to be pretty popular (and recently appeared in a new paperback edition).  I'm not really familiar with Mr. Mondfeld's credentials; he seems to know a good deal about ships and ship models.  But scarcely any of the illlustrations in that book are original.  Dana McCalip's review of it makes the same observation I made the first time I looked at it:  most of the drawings are copied out of other secondary sources.  Dana comments that "it was quite obvious that Mondfeld had copied or traced the works of these other authors and made slight variations to avoid copyright infringement," and calls it "puzzling...that there are no acknowledgments as to the sources of information in the book or whom the illustrations were based on."  He goes on to note that, while the book is useful as a highly generalized introduction to the subject, it is not to be relied upon for information about specific ships.

My opinion of the book is about the same.  There aren't a lot of "beginner books" on ship modeling - and few of the ones that are available are much good.  (Many of the "beginner book" authors, I fear, never got beyond beginner status themselves.  And veteran ship modelers tend to write books and articles that show off advanced techniques, which beginners are likely to find either confusing or discouraging.)  When people ask me to recommend books for newcomers to the hobby, Mr. Mondfeld's book is always high on the list I give them.  (Others include George Campbell's Neophyte Shipmodeler's Jackstay and Ben Lankford's How To Build First-Rate Ship Models From Kits.)  Dana McCalip says that the errors and omissions from Mr. Mondfeld's book are "a shame, because what could have been an outstanding compendium on the subject can only be considered average.  I would still heartily recommend this book to any serious minded beginner as a book to use as a foundation on which to build a more comprehensive liberary."  I agree.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    January 2006
Posted by EPinniger on Saturday, May 5, 2007 12:51 PM
This isn't about the Golden Hind, but it's similar to the original poster's question. I'm interested to know the differences between the Revell Mayflower kit (which I have, though not built yet) and the Airfix one. Are they both based on the same design (the replica Mayflower II) or are they, like the Golden Hind, different interpretations of the subject (in which case they could both be built, possibly with a bit of modification, to represent different ships from the same period)? Are there any photos of the Airfix Mayflower (kit parts or built up) available online? I don't think I've ever seen this kit out of the box.

Another Mayflower question: the current (or at least most recent) Revell Germany issue of the Mayflower has a scale of 1/83 shown on the box. (This is the one I have). I assume this is the smaller of the two Revell Mayflower kits? (I can't remember the hull dimensions, unfortunately!)
  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: istanbul/Turkey
Posted by kapudan_emir_effendi on Saturday, May 5, 2007 8:05 AM

Hello,

I don't know if anyone already noticed but, in the classical book Historical Ship Models by Wolfram zu Mondfeld, a full set of Revell Golden Hind's plans are published but as "Small English Galleon 1588" not as Golden Hind. I really wonder if those plans preceded 1965 Revell kit, as I heavily doubt that a professional researcher in the calibre of zu Mondfeld shall act like a HECEPOB company plan hijacker. In the lightof my discovery, I'm inclined to think about reviewing our support for Revell kit's authenticity.

Don't surrender the ship !
  • Member since
    April 2004
Posted by Chuck Fan on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:20 AM
 Russ39 wrote:

Dick:

That's an interesting demonstration. The big problem I see with that gun reenactment is that it does not take into acount the full process of running in a gun on that ship during that time period. The breechings used for the carriage guns during that period were three times the length of the gun barrel (roughly 27 ft on Constitution) so it is highly likely that they could at least get the muzzle of the gun all the way inboard. That still leaves them reaching outboard through the port a bit with the rammers and sponges, but the gun barrel's full length would most likley have been all the inboard.

Russ 

 

 

Yes, the barrel can be drawn all the way in until the muzzle are at least 2 feet inboard of the gun port frames.   In fact, it is possible to load the gun with portlids closed.    To do this the crew would use flexible sponges and rammers.   These are just like normal sponge and rammers, except the rod is replaced with a length of thick hawser.  The hawser is flexible enough to allow the ram to be inserted into the barrel behind the closed lids, but stiff enough to still ram the shot and powder down the barrel.

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Monday, March 19, 2007 10:59 PM

It's the same kit, all right.  That's confirmed by Dr. Graham's book. The kit was originally released in 1965, with the number H-324.  H-325 is listed as having been re-released in 1972, and stayed in the Revell catalog through 1977.

The reissued version may possibly have the "modern" injection-molded "shrouds and ratlines," rather than the plastic-coated thread versions that were in the 1965 original.  Every serious ship modeler I know throws those...things...out anyway.

It's a beautiful kit - highly recommended.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Chapin, South Carolina
Posted by Shipwreck on Monday, March 19, 2007 6:17 PM
Thanks John, but now I have a more specific question. I have the opportunity to buy a 1975 Revell Golden Hind, no H325. There is no scale on the box, or on the instructions. Do you think that I can assume it is one of the 1/96 kits?

On the Bench:

Revell 1/96 USS Constitution - rigging

Kinetic 1/48 YF-104A 5-2957

Trumpeter 1/350 USS Hornet CV-8

Revell 1/48 B-1B Lancer Prep & Reasearch

 

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Monday, March 19, 2007 7:56 AM
The Revell Golden Hind is stated as being on 1/96 scale (1/8" = 1').  Since nobody knows exactly how big the real ship was, it's not possible to check the scale the way one could in the case of an airplane, car, etc.  But 1/96 certainly is a believable scale for the kit - and the beautiful crew figures seem to be on that scale.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Chapin, South Carolina
Posted by Shipwreck on Monday, March 19, 2007 5:07 AM
What is the scale of the Revell Golden Hind? Thank you.

On the Bench:

Revell 1/96 USS Constitution - rigging

Kinetic 1/48 YF-104A 5-2957

Trumpeter 1/350 USS Hornet CV-8

Revell 1/48 B-1B Lancer Prep & Reasearch

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2006
Posted by woodburner on Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:41 PM

Hatton's shield is possible.  

  • Member since
    December 2006
Posted by woodburner on Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:45 PM

The Airfix Hind includes two coats of arms, one of Sir Christopher Hatton, a patron of the voyage, the other of Francis Drake, knighted after the voyage in 1581. 

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: K-Town, Germany
Posted by sirdrake on Monday, February 12, 2007 2:48 AM
 jtilley wrote:

Sir Drake - I'll take some pictures when the model's a bit further along, and I've had time to smooth over a few slightly embarrassing rough spots.  I'm reasonaby please with how the model's going so far, though I don't seem to have time to work on it as much as I'd like.  I'm toying around with the idea (which I normally consider semi-heretical) of putting set sails on it.  I've been experimenting with an idea for making sails out scale-width strips of material, so the finished product looks reasonably like a real sail when the light's behind it.  The idea may not work, but it shows some promise.  If it works, I'll do a post about it.

 

I'm looking forward to it. As I had to leave my Golden Hind behind (Big Smile [:D], sorry, Monday morning) when I left the States, I'm currently keeping my eyes open to get another kit from somewhere. I definitely want to build it again - it' s such a beautiful kit. And I promise, this time I will do proper shrouds and ratlines! It will be nice to see how you deal with making the sails.

SD 

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2006
Posted by woodburner on Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:36 PM

Its armed according to a description quoted in the instructions - "The Pelican has seven cast-iron peices a side below hatches, and four above hatches." They interpret this as fourteen sakers below deck, and four falcons on the main deck.  

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: vernon hills illinois
Posted by sumpter250 on Monday, November 6, 2006 11:10 AM

I've been experimenting with an idea for making sails out of scale-width strips of material, so the finished product looks reasonably like a real sail when the light's behind it.  The idea may not work, but it shows some promise.  If it works, I'll do a post about it.

 Professor,  You already have an audience of one for that post. I may choose to debate with you on occasion, but I do respect both your knowlege, and your modeling skill. "If it works", it will be widely used.

Lead me not into temptation ..................I can find it myself

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, November 5, 2006 9:15 PM

I don't have a copy of Dr. Tucker's book, but I've looked through a library copy of it fairly thoroughly.  Those earliest gun carriages were indeed extremely primitive contraptions.  Some of the very early ones amounted to little more than chunks of wood with grooves in them, to accommodate the gun barrels.  Providing a means for the gun to recoil seems to have been a low priority. 

It's also interesting that so many of the earliest naval guns were breech-loaders.  That concept seems to have occurred to gun designers quite early in the evolutionary process.

Some years ago I read (I wish I could remember where) about an exercise that some people interested in ergonomics tried, using a reconstruction of (I think) a late-seventeenth-century gun and its associated equipment.  They discovered that using a rammer and sponge on it without stepping in front of the gun (i.e., without running the gun in) was an extremely demanding athletic exercise.  That makes sense.  (Consider how long and heavy the rammer for, say, a 24-pounder would be.  Then consider how difficult it would be to hold such an object by one end, shove the whole length of the thing down a gun barrel, and pull it out again - all without dropping it into the water below.  The people in that video of the Constitution, to which Mr. Wood was kind enough to link us, have run the gun in till its muzzle is just level with the outside of the bulwark.  TThey're sitting on the port sill in order to work the rammer and sponge, and look like they're working pretty hard at it.  If the gun were run out all the way, the job would be even more strenuous and awkward.  An hour's work of that sort would leave even a strong, healthy person pretty thoroughly exhausted.)  The problem would, of course, intensify as the gun got bigger.  (The small pieces on board a ship like the Golden Hind probably would be quite practical to load, ram, and sponge from inboard; the lower deck guns of H.M.S. Victory, almost impossible.) 

The more I think this problem over, the more likely it seems to me that the driving consideration behind the concept of letting the gun "run itself in" (by recoiling) may have been the practicality of loading and sponging it.  I'm not a physicist, but it seems to me that the percentage of the force in a gun's recoil would not be greatly diminished by letting the gun recoil a few feet before being brought up short by the breeching.  A 32-pounder, left to its own devices, probably would blast itself out the other side of the ship.  The strain it put on the breeching must have been enormous; whether the breeching held it tight against the bulwark or let it recoil a few feet surely wouldn't make much difference.  (In fact, if I remember my high school physics course right [as is highly questionable], keeping the gun snubbed up against the bulwark might actually reduce the stress on the breeching rope.  For the first fraction of a second after the powder exploded, the gun would be overcoming the inertia of rest.  Letting it recoil a few feet would let it build up considerable inertia of motion, which the breeching rope would have to eliminate by absorbing an excruciatingly sudden and powerful yank.)  But letting the gun recoil till the muzzle was inboard would make life considerably easier - and safer - for the gun crew. 

Another consideration, of course, involved the gunport lid (if any).  Gunport lids (except the kind with the semi-circular cutouts in the middle) by definition don't work unless the gun can be run in far enough to bring the muzzle inboard. 

This is the sort of thing that makes maritime technology such a fascinating subject.  We probably won't be able to answer all such questions definitively unless we build a couple of exact replica warships and have them slug it out with each other.

Sir Drake - I'll take some pictures when the model's a bit further along, and I've had time to smooth over a few slightly embarrassing rough spots.  I'm reasonaby please with how the model's going so far, though I don't seem to have time to work on it as much as I'd like.  I'm toying around with the idea (which I normally consider semi-heretical) of putting set sails on it.  I've been experimenting with an idea for making sails out scale-width strips of material, so the finished product looks reasonably like a real sail when the light's behind it.  The idea may not work, but it shows some promise.  If it works, I'll do a post about it.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posted by Russ39 on Sunday, November 5, 2006 7:28 PM

Dick:

That's an interesting demonstration. The big problem I see with that gun reenactment is that it does not take into acount the full process of running in a gun on that ship during that time period. The breechings used for the carriage guns during that period were three times the length of the gun barrel (roughly 27 ft on Constitution) so it is highly likely that they could at least get the muzzle of the gun all the way inboard. That still leaves them reaching outboard through the port a bit with the rammers and sponges, but the gun barrel's full length would most likley have been all the inboard.

Russ 

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 5, 2006 5:15 PM

Here is a link showing a demostration on how a cannon was loaded during the 1800's aboard the Constitution. The number 1 & 2 seamen must have been brave fellows during a engagement at sea.

 http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/xlongguns.html

You will need to scroll down towards the  botton of the page to fing the demostration.

Dr. Tilly do you have a copy of the book "Arming the Fleet" by Spencer Tucker? In the beginning of the book he has included a diagran of some very early gun mounts from  about 1520.  It was a very simple affaif indeed.

 

 

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: K-Town, Germany
Posted by sirdrake on Sunday, November 5, 2006 3:19 PM
 jtilley wrote:

I don't know where I picked up the England connection.  Maybe by illogical inference.  (Drake - Golden Hind - Durham - excellent use of the English language - stupidity on my part....)

I haven't been fortunate enough to visit Germany, but my German history colleagues tell me it's a beautiful country - and, since the events of the early nineties, an extremely hospitable one.  Best of luck.

 

The forum nicely hides the german accent - that helps a lot :-) Thanks for the good wishes. I'll certainly stay with this forum - a 1:96 USS Constitution and a 1:96 Cutty Sark are waiting on the shelf. After all, most of what I know about modeling I learned here.

 

 jtilley wrote:

The Revell kit does have eight gunports on each side - if we count the ones on the quarterdeck and forecastle.  But the total number of guns in the kit obviously is six short of the eighteen that the two contemporary sources seem to imply.  On my model I've added one more port on each side of the maindeck, under the quarterdeck; to my eye that looks perfectly reasonable.  I'm working on the guns at the moment, as a matter of fact.  My intention (subject to change) is to add two more small guns to the quarterdeck and two to the forecastle, pointing forward, bringing the total to eighteen.  For such a small vessel, that's a mighty heavy armament.

 

 

I think I speak for all of us when I say that we'd love to see some pictures of your progress with the Golden Hind...?

  SD

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.