Bluto 1790

Members
  • Content count

    156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bluto 1790

  • Birthday 02/17/1947

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland.
  • Interests
    Model ship building; Model railways; Archery; Pedal Steel Guitar. Woodworking.

Recent Profile Visitors

270 profile views
  1. Henry, Jason and Jan, thanks for your further input!
  2. Hi Nils, Thanks for your comments, and for your very clear explanation. I now understand how the adjustable pendants would allow the required movement of the yard whereas the fixed parrals wouldn't allow for as much as might be needed. In line with most of the square rigged models here I also just intend to have no sails, so the yards will be perpendicular to the masts and will have no need to be braced in either direction. In any case, having looked at the two line pendant system that's what I'll try to fit. (I did say TRY to fit!)
  3. Rick, Steven and Scott, than you for the further input. Steven ~ I had an inkling that it was a 'back-up' stay, it's just that typically mysterious nautical nomenclature that can be misleading! As for the crossjack, I think I'll go with the double line pendant as above. . . . and Scott ~ thanks for wishing me luck! - - - I'm going to need as much as I can get now that I'm all tied up with this rigging caper!
  4. Thanks Mark and Rick for your comments. As my plans/drawings show NOTHING of how any of the yards are attached to the masts I guess I can just go with what works for me. The ship is English from 1790 so I assume it would probably be truss pendants for the mizzen crossjack . . . . . . of course, the plot thickens! - - - Between Peterssen's and Zu Mondfeld's books there are TWO options --- see below >>> So ~ which one is correct ??? . . . or is it again one of those situations "you make your choice and take your chances" ? And how about my other question - - - "While I'm here I might as well reveal the lack of depth of my understanding of nautical language! - - - What is it that the preventer stay on fore and main masts is designed to "prevent"???
  5. Although I've been at this build for some considerable time, I'm now just in the beginnings of the masting and rigging. While I've been aware of many of the words in this foreign language of maritime parts I would now like to know the 'whys and wherefores' of some of these mysteries. For starters ~ what is the function of the 'truss pendants' -- I have Peterssen's rigging book and an illustration of the truss pendant is in there and the book obviously assumes that the reader automatically fully understands the functions of everything shown . . . well, this reader doesn't! If the truss pendant serves the same purpose as parral trucks and ribs then why are some yards shown attached to masts by one of these means or by the other? (I'm assuming that a yard can only employ one method or the other and NOT BOTH ??? ) As I said, I'm not sure of the function of the truss pendant, so that's why I'm asking. While I'm here I might as well reveal the lack of depth of my understanding of nautical language! - - - What is it that the preventer stay on fore and main masts is designed to "prevent"??? (Stay tuned to this channel - - - there is a high probality that more basic questions will arrive!)
  6. Hi Mark, Thanks for your input. As I said, my plans don't show any dimensions for the crosstrees -- only a vague indication as to the length of the trestletrees. See the pic below >>> In that drawing, (which is at a scale of 1:160) the best measurement I can get of the trestletrees is around 7.5mm so I have to double that to get to the scale I'm working at and that gives me 15mm. So, on the basis of your info above, one and two thirds times that would bring it to 25mm for the crosstrees. The top for the mizzen mast measures about 50mm across so that would make the topmast crosstrees about half of that - - - would that be about the correct relative proportion? (In case you're wondering why I'm working at twice the scale of my plans -- I'M NOT ! . . . it's just that the drawings of the standing and running rigging are only at HALF of the scale of the rest of the ship. It's a bit of a bummer now that I'm at the rigging stage as I have no previous experience so I have to ask questions here, or rummage around in other build logs trying to see if I can get hints and answers there.) Jim.
  7. There is no indication in any of my plans/drawings as to the length of the topmast crosstrees relative to the width of the equivalent lower mast top. So, in order that my question is clear I've inserted a picture below. Can anyone give me a formula to calculate the topmast crosstrees for each of the 3 masts please? I don't want to just bludgeon ahead and make them to the dimension that "I think" they might be - - - I'd rather they were more accurate than that!
  8. Gregory, Frankie, Henry and Gary -- thanks for your comments. As this is my first time of arriving at the prospect of doing all the rigging I find it a bit bewildering especially when there is a total lack of details in the drawings/plans -- only what can be seen in the photo I posted above. I guess I'm tending to be over-thinking this thing and since I've considered your comments I can see the answer to this main brace question (in fact it might just be 'staring me in the face'!) However, as can be seen in the photo below, the poop deck of Leopard is completely devoid of bulwarks -- there are only hammock cranes along both sides. There is though, a snatch block mounted at the extreme aft end of each side immediately ahead of the base of the taffrail. I hadn't really considered these to be used for the main braces, but I can see that they're my answer along with the deck mounted cleats that Frankie mentioned. (even badass cleats!)
  9. Well, it's not that I don't know where they are, but specifically, it's not very clear where the main brace is cleated/secured. On the drawing I have it shows the running end of the main brace heading (as seems to be the normal) towards the aft end of the poop deck just below the taffrail. In Peterssen's rigging book it shows that line passing through a sheave in the bulwark and being cleated off to a pin on a pinrail on the inside of the bulwark. On H.M.S. Leopard it's not possible to secure it there as there are no bulwarks on the poop deck -- only hammock cranes . . . see the drawing below where I've highlighted the running end of the brace in red and I'm assuming the fixed end is the one in green >>> It doesn't seem feasible to secure it to a cleat on the taffrail even if there were any there. (there are none in any of the drawings/plans) I'm thinking of continuing to run the line from the taffrail up to a block under the mizzen top and then back down through a series of blocks to a belaying point below. It's just that to do so would seem to make for a very long, convoluted main brace ??? Any comments ?
  10. Hi Marc, I'm glad I found this post of yours. I've just recently arrived at the masting and rigging stage of my build and have been trying to think of all the difficulties that lie ahead if I go ahead and fit something 'now' that should be fitted 'later' and vice versa. I've already made the mizzen lower and topmast and the main lower and topmast and when I look at them in position (they're just loose, not secured yet) and visualise all of the shrouds in position I just can't think how I would be able to fit the yards . . . so I'll definitely be fitting as much as possible 'off ship' before stepping the masts.
  11. Allan, Just as you say (and as I already said), Peterssen's book is pretty much specific to one model. It provides, however, a fairly comprehensive guide to where all the rigging lines go - - - it's just that in many cases the 'end point', i.e. the belaying position, just isn't in the same vicinity on 'Leopard' so some inventiveness will be required. As I won't be having sails on the ship there will surely be a few vacant belaying points that can be used. As for scratch building, it would probably be more accurate to say that it's about a 90 to 95% scratch build as there have been some items that have been 'over-the-counter' purchases, so it is a bit of a compromise. Things like all the countless deadeyes, blocks and rigging lines have been bought, and while I scratch built the carriages, I did buy the cannon barrels as I don't really have the resources to turn metal (not to mention the lack of experience in that venture!). Apart from these items just about every other aspect and part of the build has been 'scratched'.
  12. Hi Kurt, I have no experience of this glue, but there are some opinions from users of the glue if you click on this link > http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/questions-answers-154/32838-anybody-try-super-phatic-glue.html
  13. If you're a fan of extremely crude jigs, read on . . . I have a small collection of jigs that fit the above description - - - but they all work! Here's just one. I'm now at the rigging stage in my build and have to admit that I have copied the design for the futtock plates from Johann (archjofo) in his build log (La Creole). Here's my version of Johann's design >>> My problem is that I have to get the metal parts soldered together and they're so small to hold still. I like to have two hands free when soldering so, a jig it is then. Here it is. It's just a collection of a few scrap pieces of wood attached to a scrap piece of melamine >>> I'm using 5mm deadeyes, and in the middle piece of wood on the jig there is a 5.5mm hole. The deadeye drops into the hole and is held firmly in position by the left-hand 'pointy' clamp, keeping the metal strop level with the futtock plate >>> The plate is held by the right-hand clamp, and I have two free hands >>> The jig also holds the plate steady while the hole is drilled in the plate >>>
  14. Thanks to Ulises Victoria, Gregory and Frankie for your further comments. Gregory said: "If you will notice, the number and set-up of those stays of your 50 gun ship, appears identical to Ptersson's frigate. As far as belaying, taking the natural lead of the line to the closest pin, while avoiding interference with other lines, will probably not get you in trouble with any Admiral who may view your work." I realised after I posted my previous comments that I probably gave the impression that I'm of the opinion that Petersson's book won't work for my 'Leopard'. That's not the case and I fully realise that the book will be invaluable to me once I get properly started with all those ropes and tying knots and as Gregory said, I'll just have to be inventive with the 'closest pin.' Frankie ~ I haven't seen the Peterssen book that you have but the one I have seems to be fairly reliable. I'm sure it will suffice for the amount of rigging that I intend to do. I intend (hope!) to have masts and yards (no sails) with the bare minimum of required rigging without anything becoming over-complicated. If I end up with something like the ship below I'll be happy >>>
  15. iiihmb, Danny, Gregory, Ulises Victoria and Jan ~ thank you all for your very quick replies! Ulises Victoria wrote: "Hello Jim. Try to find Rigging Period Ship Models by Lennarth Petersson, or the more expensive The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860 by James Lees They will provide you with specific details on how to fix those lines in your model. It seems to me that since you are tackling a very advanced method of building (scratch building) it is taken for granted that you should already know those things. Cheers." - - - Actually, apart from a very crude attempt ("very crude" doesn't really describe it!) several years ago at building a ship . . . a ship that never actually existed but was made without any plans just as I imagined it might be, I've never even had a go at even the most basic kit build. This is my first foray into the world of building a model of a ship that actually existed. When I started the build over six years ago I wasn't even aware of the existence of this, or any other great resource for ship modellers, but I'm sure glad I found it coz I know all you good guys are always here to help! Oh ~ and you're right --- after all this time I SHOULD know all these things! (But I don't!) And this is even more embarrassing ~ I DO have a copy of Lennarth Petersson's rigging book. However, what I have found is that his book is pretty much for the rigging of a frigate and the configuration of the positions of the belaying points on this 50 gun ship are really very different. I know I'll just have to be a bit inventive and adapt and apply the principles in his book to the layout of my model . . . . . . of course, that doesn't mean that I won't be coming back here with more stupid questions!