Nautical Research Journal 311
4.
Rereading Davis was enjoyable, but the Chapelle plans were the primary basis for templates, study, and most measurements. T e Davis sail plan is attractive but was based on the sail plan of the 32-gun frigate Essex, assuming that the similar class and the fact both ships were designed by James Hackett made the connection plausible. T is overlooks the diff erence in size of the ships and, more importantly, diff erence in date. Rigging was going through an active transition in the twenty-three years that separate these frigates, especially in the mizzen. Mizzen topgallants were still fairly new in Raleigh’s time and mizzen royals were only likely to be set on much larger ships. T e spanker gaff and boom Davis gave Raleigh are appealing but also unlikely for this date. Chapelle had the spar dimensions for the ship, confi rming that it still retained the old-fashioned lateen mizzen yard as well as, in contrast, a spanker boom.
Scale for a ship in a bottle is determined by the bottle’s dimensions instead of traditional fractions of an inch, such 1/8-inch, 3/32-inch, 1/4-inch to a
foot, or the common ratios, such as 1:96, 1:350 and so on. T e bottle chosen for this model of Raleigh is a 10-liter, which allowed for a model about 7-1/2 inches high and just under 11 inches long overall. T e scale worked out to 20-1/2 inches to one foot, or 1:246. T is is closest to 3/64-inch to a foot, or 1:256, but is slightly larger. Once scale was determined, the plans were reduced to the appropriate size and templates made from these.
T e model was made on the oſt en-repeated principle: “you just pull the string and everything comes back up!”. Like many things, in practice it is a bit more complicated. T ere were forty-six lines controlling Raleigh’s rigging, and only a handful of these came out through the bowsprit. Most went into the hull— either through the deck, a railing or the bow—and back out through holes in the lower hull sides.
Managing this array of stays, sheets, tacks, liſt s and braces is much more eff ective if the hull is hollow. Old-timers would hollow out the bottom of their
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
