Jump to content
EdT

Young America by EdT - extreme clipper 1853

Recommended Posts

I know you will probably hate me forever for this, Ed, and I feel terrible about it, but, then again, I feel somehow responsible for it all and can't let it go without a passing mention.

 

I had written:

 

Also, note the forward mast band to which the forward topping lifts are attached. It appears to be too far aft to be of any use. Imagine that the topping lift is hauling up the boom. With the forward band where it is now, rather than further forward, the angle of the "pull" is really only pulling the boom forward against the gooseneck and not upwards, as a topping lift should. If the band were placed forward so that the direction of pull of the forward topping lift line were in the other direction, the pull of the pendants would be "up" instead of "forward."  If so, they would also better serve as lazy jacks to control the gaff as it came down.

 

The photos of Niagra posted by Dowmer show the correct lead of the spanker topping lifts. The forward leg of bridle leads from the pendent block at an angle running forward of the angle of the pendant. The band needed to be moved forward on the boom, not aft.

 

I am truly sorry for any confusion I may have caused. With that, I'll say no more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, please do not apologize for making comments or suggestions.  That is the purpose of the forum.  Most of the comments I receive are constructive and helpful.  I welcome them, though I may not always agree or adopt.  

 

There was no confusion in my mind with your suggestion.  It was very clear.  I am aware that my correction differs.  I will try to explain that and then offer some comments on my general research/design process.

 

When I noticed the shortness of the tackles, before your comments, I went back to my sources and found that I had incorrectly placed the forward lift band.  My design  for the topping lifts is based on the William Crothers drawing for Young America.  This drawing is my backup when primary sources are not sufficiently definitive.  I believe that his design for the lift - and many other things - was based on meticulous examination of the photographs of the ship as well as other primary sources.  So I went back to the photos to determine if there was a basis for his boom lift design.  There was.  These photos, taken in the 1870's show a shorter boom than the original sail plan, but the forward lift band is clearly visible, as are the lift tackles.  Proportionally, the forward band is well aft and the tackles angle toward a midpoint consistent with the placement of the lift bands on the Crothers drawing - and now on my drawing as well.  So, your comments and the Niagara replica pictures notwithstanding, I am comfortable with my current configuration.  

 

Because my interpretations of many design aspects will be cast into the concrete of my books, I need to be careful about having documented sources wherever possible.  I owe this to the readers.  While I cannot claim exhaustive research, the order for this is: primary YA documents first, then primary general documents, then secondary sources in order of their credibility, then finally my judgement as a last necessary resort when there are conflicts or unknowns.  All the applied sources are listed in bibliographies.   There is no single or perfect interpretation of history, especially of the minutiae we are dealing with.  We do the best we can.

 

Thanks for your input - truly.

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well played, sir! 

 

I have occasion to splice lines in place. A fairly imperceptible way is to fray the ends to be joined by separating out the strands and 'combing' them, them cutting them diagonally. A small wood block in one hand and a sharp scalpel blade in the other achieves this. A small amount of white glue on one end and (with clean, dry fingers) roll the two ends together to make a nice tapered together faux splice. Once you have the technique down, it is a reliable and surprisingly strong method of 'splicing' at small scale. I use this technique extensively for eye splices as well: they hold nicely under tension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good method Druxey.  The three that I have done on the model so far were done in place in some fairly inaccessible locations and/or among other lines.  The method I used was to pass a needle with the one rope end through the other rope at an angle, soak the joint with  Titebond glue,  roll it between fingers and wait until completely dry, then clip off the excess ends.  The lines were Nos. 60 and 40 DMC cotton.  I use the same method on DMC 80 ratline eyesplices.  You are right, the pva glue holds well - if you wait for it to completely dry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Ed wrote:

 

I went back to my sources and found that I had incorrectly placed the forward lift band.  My design  for the topping lifts is based on the William Crothers drawing for Young America.  This drawing is my backup when primary sources are not sufficiently definitive.  I believe that his design for the lift - and many other things - was based on meticulous examination of the photographs of the ship as well as other primary sources.  So I went back to the photos to determine if there was a basis for his boom lift design.  There was.  These photos, taken in the 1870's show a shorter boom than the original sail plan, but the forward lift band is clearly visible, as are the lift tackles.  Proportionally, the forward band is well aft and the tackles angle toward a midpoint consistent with the placement of the lift bands on the Crothers drawing - and now on my drawing as well.  So, your comments and the Niagara replica pictures notwithstanding, I am comfortable with my current configuration.  

 

Ed, you certainly must have far more information on Young America than I will ever have, and, as clippers go, there's a fair amount of documentation on her. What caught my eye was simply the incorrectness of the topping lift rigging, specifically the angle of the forward end of the bridle which, as a matter of physics, has to be in line with, if not preferably forward of the vector of the pendant. If it isn't, the bridle really does nothing mechanically useful. This isn't to say that she might not have actually had the forward end of the bridle attached to that forward band, but unlike yourself, I don't have immediate access to any contemporary photos or drawings which would illustrate that. It was a puzzlement to me that any rigger would rig a topping lift like that, but your comment that her boom was shortened answered the question.

 

Early contemporary illustrations clearly show that her spanker boom had considerable overhang. Your model depicts her original boom length with a footrope to access the overhang.  That boom length is evident in early contemporary illustrations.

 

YOUNG_AMERICA_(Ship)_(c112-02-48).jpg

 

637f67568b00285d30e89f8815ec6d69.jpg

1280px-Youngamericaclipperblackandwhite.

I think it's safe to assume there are no photographs of Young America early in her life. Photography wasn't widely in common use at that time. However, when we look at later photographs of Young America, notably those taken at North Point wharf in San Francisco in 1873, we see that her spanker boom had been "bobbed," with the previous considerable overhang removed.  

 

ss057.jpg

This photograph (you can enlarge it considerably with your browser's "tools" feature) clearly shows the shortened boom with a boom band slightly ahead of the end of the boom where the spanker sheets are attached and another boom band slightly forward of the wheelbox. It does not appear, from the resolution of the on-line photograph at least, that there is any bridle or lift attached to the aftermost boom band at all. The boom band immediately forward may have a topping lift attached to it, but there is no indication in the picture of any topping lift bridle on the shortened boom and it does not appear to be in the same place as either of the forward two boom bands that you have on your model depicting the original longer boom. Granted, the photo is not razor sharp on my screen and the photo, most likely from a glass plate negative in the J.Porter Shaw collection of the San Francisco Maritime Museum, would probably be much sharper.

 

Additionally, looking at the photo taken at North Point wharf, if my eyes don't deceive me, it appears that the taper of the boom indicates that the boom in the photo is the original boom cut shorter at its aft end, as the thickest part of the boom appears to be aft of the center of the boom's length.  I suggest for your consideration that what in fact occurred was that when the boom was shortened, doing away with the aftermost mast band to which the after end of the topping lift bridles were attached, the riggers simply did away with the bridles entirely and connected the topping lifts to the single band shown in the photo.  The bridle would have been intended to spread the lifting tension to two points on the boom and prevent the long boom from bending at its narrow end when being lifted. With a shorter boom, a band at the thicker portion of the shortened boom would have been sufficient to lift the boom without unduly straining it.

 

If a bridle was retained after bobbing the boom, the after end of the bridle would have been attached to the spanker boom sheet band, thereby moving that point of attachment forward, and, correspondingly, the attachment of the forward bridle end would have had to have been moved forward as well in order to provide for its being angled forward of the vector of the pendant in order to do any work.

 

We have to recognize, of course, that the photo shows the vessel with all sails sent down (probably sent to Simpson and Fisher, the sail loft nearby at the time, for repairs after a long voyage around the Horn or across the Pacific) and there's no knowing what running rigging they might have sent down for repairs as well at the time the photo was taken. There does not seem to be any boom gallows rigged and her spanker sheets are taken up tightly amidships, so it would appear the topping lift, attached to the forward boom band is doing its job of holding the boom up off the deck.

 

As for Crothers, I don't have his plans for Young America, but he says in his book, The American-Built Clipper Ship, speaking generally of the spanker boom topping lifts on American clippers:

 

"The topping lift, which went double, flat against each side of the sail, was made up of a span (bridle,) a pendant, and falls. The span was set up with one point approaching the midpoint of the boom, giving support to its considerable slender length; the other end was set up to the after stop of the boom after the span had been rove through a block which had the pendant turned in. ... Each topping lift was a complete assembly port and starboard, and together they controlled the height at which the boom hung. (See Figure 30.2)" [Op.cit.: p.484]

 

Figure 30.2, on pages 480 and 481, shows the running rigging of a "representative" clipper ship. That drawing shows a boom with considerable overhang, though not as much as in contemporary illustrations of Young America, with the forward end of the bridle, or span, as Crother's calls it, attached slightly after of the middle of the boom's length and angling forward of the vector of the pendant.

 

In summary, I entirely agree with Crothers description and drawing of the running rigging of a "representative" clipper ship and would feel safe in assuming such was the arrangement on Young America as she was built, but I would find reliance upon photographs of the vessel when she was long past her prime and cut down for employment in less glamorous enterprises than originally intended suspect authority for rigging details present when she was originally built. Is it possible that your perceived error in the placement of the band you moved aft discovered when examining photographs taken later in her life wasn't an error at all, but rather simply confusion created by the fact that the plans depicted the placement of the band as built and the photo depicted the placement of a band installed in a different place on the boom after her spanker boom was shortened?  One would expect that the original band would have been moved forward because the shortening of the boom caused the point of attachment of the after end of the bridle to have been moved forward significantly.  Logically, the forward band would have to had been moved forward on the boom about the same distance as the after bridle attachment was moved forward if it were originally attached to the boom end that was cut off. That would have been absolutely necessary to get the bridle angles correct in relation to the pendant's angle. I presume you are modeling her as built, given her original full length boom. In that case, I'd say you'd be safer to rely on Crothers' description in his book than photos taken long after she was built and when her rig had been cut down and place the forward band ahead of where you originally had it so that the forward end of the bridle angled forward of the vector of the pendant when attached to it. 

 

Unfortunately Crothers is apparently no longer with us, so we don't have the luxury of asking him about his plans.  If Crothers' rigging plan for Young America does indeed have the forward end of the bridle angled aft of the pendant vector, contradicting his own commentary in his book (not to mention the physics of the arrangement,) there's also always the possibility that he erred in drawing it the way he did. It's certainly not the first time that's happened in published model plans. I hope that possibility doesn't make you too crazy! :D

 

 

Edited by Bob Cleek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, all this is not making me crazy - but I confess to getting weary.  At the same time I rejoice that the other 700 or so lines on the model are not getting this kind of oversight.  I am comfortably going to stick with my current configuration. 

 

I am tempted to take issue with a number of points in your latest post where I disagree, but in the interest of time will instead focus on your final point, one item that  I believe we agree on:  The location of my span shackles are almost precisely proportional to Crothers' representative drawing in his first book, which you "entirely agree with" as well as his model drawings.

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tempted to take issue with a number of points in your latest post where I disagree, but in the interest of time will instead focus on your final point, one item that  I believe we agree on:  The location of my span shackles are almost precisely proportional to Crothers' representative drawing in his first book, which you "entirely agree with" as well as his model drawings.

 

My copy of Crothers' book has the forward end of the span fastened ahead of where the vector line of the pendant crosses the boom, of that I am sure.  No matter, though.  I know the "weary" factor well. About forty years ago, early in my adult model building "career," I built a kit model of the Mary Taylor in 1/8" scale. When all was said and done, I belatedly realized that I'd put all the deadeyes in upside down, with the middle hole on the bottom instead of the top. I have no idea why I did that, and it was intentional at the time. I just did one that way and made the rest the same, without giving it a second thought, even though at that time  I owed a full-sized boat rigged correctly with deadeyes and lanyards! Just your basic brain fhart, I guess. I never re-did them. The model, in a nice glass case, has sat in my office since then and many have complemented it. Nobody's ever noticed the upside down deadeyes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bob Cleek said:

belatedly realized that I'd put all the deadeyes in upside down

 

 

Bob, oh the horror !!!!!!!!!!   😁  

 No worries Bob, sometimes you just have to pick your battles. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, I really wanted to get off of this.

 

You said:

My copy of Crothers' book has the forward end of the span fastened ahead of where the vector line of the pendant crosses the boom, of that I am sure.  No matter, though.

 

With the span running through a block on the pendant, the vector of the pendant will always fall between the two legs of the span regardless of where the ends of the span are fixed. 

 

Ed

Edited by EdT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 304 – Spanker Boom 2/Gaff 1

 

Done with rework, back to moving the ball forward - hopefully.  This post describes completion of the boom rigging.  Gaff rigging seen in these pictures will be covered in a later post.

 

The first picture shows the corrected topping lift spans as well as cosmetic repair to the boom at the old band position.  The foot ropes and the boom sheets are also shown in this picture.

 

567169201_YA30401.jpg.f6bb93d418be5a0ab66993ac882ad286.jpg

 

The three lines running vertically to the gaff in this picture will be described later.  The boom sheets are luff tackles with lead blocks, one on each side of the boom just aft of the wheel enclosure.  Each consists of a double block shackled to the boom band, a single block hooked to a deck eyebolt, a second lead block also hooked to a deck eye, and finally a cleat in the deck to belay the fall.  The next picture may show this more clearly.

 

927113444_YA30402.jpg.b5dd661aee1284f63e19fd796010b7db.jpg

 

The sheets control the sweep of the boom.  The boom is also fitted with an inhauler and outhauler that attach to the clew of the spanker sail.  In the absence of sails, the outhauler is stopped at the gooseneck, runs aft over the boom to a sheave near the end, back under the boom to a cleat near the foot, with the remaining line coiled on the roof of the cabin.  The line and boom sheave may be seen in the above photo and the inner end in the next.

 

994997939_YA30403.jpg.1782dfeb10f68997c0be138ccf3fe143.jpg

 

The inhauler is a very short line on the no-sails model.  It is stopped at the end in a block strapped to the gooseneck and belayed just below on the spider band, where most of this line will be coiled on the model.  This line would also be secured to the clew and run out by the outhauler when setting the sail.

 

The next few pictures show fabrication of the gaff.  In the first, the spar has been shaped by the usual methods. The 40' spar is 9" at its maximum diameter, which occurs 1/3 in from the outer end, as on the boom.  Five inch thick wood blanks have been cut to form the jaws of the yoke that will secure the gaff to the spanker mast.

 

185736979_YA30404.jpg.06e42c5bb9faef0aaa242a31fdef89b6.jpg

 

The jaws were first glued and clamped to the sides of the gaff, then shaped.

 

955921779_YA30405.jpg.6401dddbc70065859f60e08c561fa493.jpg

 

Cross bolts were then added using black monofilament.  In the last picture an iron band around the jaws has been fitted and the necessary blocks have been lashed to the spar and to eyebolts in the band.  After the addition of lashing eyes on the jaws and clipping of the excess block lashings, the gaff will be ready to go up.

 

230390648_YA30406.jpg.61fd42984af6985a5781d690ac9c77af.jpg

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Masterful job Ed, as usual.

Talking about gaffs...will you be adding the pennant gaff between the mizzen spreaders?  I'm wondering...what era have you decided to model YA...I don't recall...I'm sure you mentioned it earlier?  If later...she didn't possess either fore or main gaffs from what I gather?

 

Rob(2 thumbs waaay up)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer your questions, Rob, there will be Spencer gaffs on the fore and main and a monkey (pennant) gaff on the mizzen, all per the original Webb sail plan.  I am modeling the ship roughly as configured after the addition of double topsails in 1854, one year after launch, and before the conversion to single-stick topgallant/royal/skysail pole masts at an unknown later date, but before the two photos taken in the 1870's.  So, I believe the period would be mid to late 1850's.

 

I should add that this would be during her "extreme" period.

 

Ed

Edited by EdT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double top-sails already in 1854 ? This must be then a very early example. I thought that they were only introduced in the early 1860s - or maybe this applies to Europe only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert Bennett Forbes of Boston began fitting double topsails in 1844.  His design featured an extended masthead with a collar on the topmast below the cap to support the yard.  By 1853 people began fitting what became the Howes type truss to a boss on  the lower masthead cap to support an upper topsail.  These were generally fitted to the standard masthead, sometimes with a strut from a collar on the topmast below the cap.  Using the existing, standard masthead made the conversion easier.  Frederick Howes of Yarmouth, Mass. patented this rig in 1854.  This basic type of truss was fitted to YA's 3 masts about a year after launch in 1854 and is the type fitted to my model.  Perhaps these were adopted later in Europe as you suggest.

 

Ed

Edited by EdT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, I really wanted to get off of this.

 

You said:

My copy of Crothers' book has the forward end of the span fastened ahead of where the vector line of the pendant crosses the boom, of that I am sure.  No matter, though.

 

With the span running through a block on the pendant, the vector of the pendant will always fall between the two legs of the span regardless of where the ends of the span are fixed. 

  

Ed

 

Yep, I agree, Ed. We really have flogged the poodle on this one.  However, "in the interests of full disclosure," you are absolutely correct. My bad. It's been a while since I got my "gentleman's C" in geometry, so I had to look it up. What I should have said is that the angles formed by the bridle legs running from the pendant blocks should be obtuse and not acute.

 

Crothers' running rigging diagram is what I meant.  T'was I, as well as the angle, that was obtuse!

 

Beautifully executed work, Ed!

 

 

Edited by Bob Cleek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a nod to Monty Python, "and now for something completely different..."

 

The sheets control the sweep of the boom.  The boom is also fitted with an inhauler and outhauler that attach to the clew of the spanker sail.  In the absence of sails, the outhauler is stopped at the gooseneck, runs aft over the boom to a sheave near the end, back under the boom to a cleat near the foot, with the remaining line coiled on the roof of the cabin.  The line and boom sheave may be seen in the above photo and the inner end in the next.

 

994997939_YA30403.jpg.1782dfeb10f68997c0be138ccf3fe143.jpg

I'm sure you've placed the spanker outhaul belaying cleat exactly where is shows it's supposed to be on the plans you are following. I'm simply curious if you might know why the cleat is placed on the boom so that it is over the cabin house where hauling it (the direction of the hauling would be forward when tightening the outhaul) would seem to put the seaman hauling it in a most inconvenient position, perched on top of the cabin. This would be particularly so where there is no purchase on the outhaul and tightening it would be done, on the wind at least, by letting the boom luff, and the cleat on the boom consequently swinging further forward over the cabin top, to port or starboard as the case might be, hauling in on the outhaul, belaying it, and then sheeting in the spanker boom?  I would have expected the cleat to be on the boom directly above, or slightly aft of the leading edge of the skylight so a seaman could have his feet on the deck and really put his back into hauling the outhaul and belaying it.

 

Please understand it isn't my intent to pester you. I just find that there is much to learn from the way they rigged these clippers which were pretty much the highest stage of development of rigging technology. There's always a sound reason for everything they did on these vessels and there's so much to learn in discovering why the things we know they did were done.

Edited by Bob Cleek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, you seem obsessed with the details of my spanker boom.  Your opinions on these issues could no doubt be debated to exhaustion without adding much to our actual historical knowledge.  I suggest you consult George Campbell, China Clippers, for an example of an underside boom cleat and Jeffers and Muprhy 1849 Nautical Routine for the configuration I used on the boom outhauler – admittedly one possible variation.  Both are reliable sources – among others. You may find these useful before suggesting errors in my rigging decisions on this build log.  That would certainly save me a lot of time in responding to these criticisms, and possibly avoid confusing others following the topic.  I hope you will understand that for this latter reason I find it necessary to rebut at least some of your assertions and that this has become very time consuming – and frankly, not very productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another two cents. In general, what model is one building. Is it the one from the plans and built to the best standards available at the time of the ship was built. Is it exactly as it was just before launch. This no one will know unless the ship exists today as it was originally built. Is it the same ship that one of the captains decided to make some rigging changes since he didn't like the way the ship handled under certain sea conditions. I understand that some British captains changed rigging and/or rake of masts to help the handling but being against Admiralty orders not to change rigging. I think it is not possible to reproduce a model exactly as originally built.

 

I think we need to let Ed get on with this magnificent build thread and understand that he is building this to the plans set that he has and building to best available standards of the time and incorporating the best of the research that he has done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree ir3...it can be nearly impossible to fabricate a model of a vessel as it was originally created from this limited and somewhat diverse time frame.  Changes were happening so fast as were the hull designs that a truly accurate representation is probably very difficult.  Now, unless you are addressing some blatant errors or scale issues....I would defer to the most ardent experts who wrote on the subject...Underhill, Crothers, Campbell...etc.

 

Somethings for representation purposes just have to be accepted.

 

Rob

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that sometimes, lacking a time machine or specific evidence to the contrary, 'best guess' after extensive research must make do. Annoying for those of us with OCD, but necessary!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all the extremely fine modelers I have had the pleasure of learning from over many years visiting MSW, I think EdT would be among the LAST artist I would choose to challenge.

Hope Bob gets the clear message.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, druxey said:

I agree that sometimes, lacking a time machine or specific evidence to the contrary, 'best guess' after extensive research must make do. Annoying for those of us with OCD, but necessary!

Apart from blatant errors or scale issues....my criticisms generally lay dormant......Cuz... I'm generally a lazy modeler and another's models *clean* construction techniques generally trump my critiques.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SawdustDave said:

Of all the extremely fine modelers I have had the pleasure of learning from over many years visiting MSW, I think EdT would be among the LAST artist I would choose to challenge.

Hope Bob gets the clear message.

 

Cheers

If Ed is half the expert of Clipper rigging and architecture as he is a master of modeling technique and skill, he will respectfully accept any criticism of his creations(which he has).  The smartest expert is the one who treasures challenges to his expertise.  And since I see no hands on experts who sailed on clipper ships...the best we can be is an interpreter of history with many holes in it.

 

I believe Bob's *challenge* was not intended to belittle or lower Ed's expertise......but more to the point that some physical dynamics of function might have been overlooked.  No one is perfect.

 

Personally I appreciate Ed's wonderful work...even though I may not do things such as he did...but that is not the point of the Log.

 

It's to enjoy and engage in his wonderful creation.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should be left to building YA to your "interpretation/view" as it is your buildlog, Ed. I know of very little people whom give such a detailed, and I think I should say, in depth review of their work, so others can benefit from it ... still enjoy it from the (mostly) silent side line

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed; I'm a rookie in this wonderful world of model ships. All I can say it has been a joy following your build and learning so much from it. I sincerely appreciate the added time you spent to photograph your work and then write about it. Thank you, thank you, thank you...Moab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 305 – Spanker Gaff 2

 

(First a side note: While I very much appreciate some of the supportive comments following my last post, I deeply regret that we are having this dialogue at all.  In the almost 6 years of regular posting on this site I have been very grateful for the comments, questions, suggestions, and yes, the constructive criticism that my work has received.  In return I have done my best to answer all questions, explain detailed aspects of the work, appropriately adopt suggestions for improvement, and to improve the posts based on what followers seem to want.  I truly hope that this will not be disrupted by any of my recent comments.  I wish there were sufficient time to address every comment adequately, even those that require time consuming analysis, careful response, and yes, polite rebuttal.  Unfortunately, time is limited.  I only ask that my need to prioritize be acknowledged.

 

Some basic clarification of the basis of my rigging work may help.  There is no set of plans or definitive data describing the full rigging of Young America.  The ship had a 30 year career, several different owners, and many different captains.  The ship evolved from the extreme clipper concept of her early career to the more mundane plodding of her later years.  Her career spanned a period of major changes in ships' rigs as chain, wire, and new iron fittings emerged.  For these reasons I have never represented that my design is a replica of the actual ship or any other ship.  The design is based on input from the best primary and secondary documented references available to me.  Thanks.)

 

The first picture shows the spanker gaff with all its rigging installed.

 

1096605070_YA30501.jpg.9f8ea9bd8a5a93c0642ee89094e3a018.jpg

A simple lashing between eyebolts on the throat was used to fasten the gaff to the spanker mast.  In the picture the two lines slanted down to the deck in an inverted V are the vangs.  These long pendants with tackles control the sweep of the gaff.  A signal halyard is run through a block at the end of the gaff and belays on the iron rail.  The next picture provides a better view of the peak halyard and other rigging to the gaff.

6650743_YA30502.jpg.45f59e2e230773ff31158ef81c4ccda6.jpg

 

The standing end of the peak halyard is fixed to the topmast crosstrees, runs down to a single block near the end of the boom, back through a double block at the cap, through another single block on the gaff, back through the cap block, then down to belay on the mast spider band. 

 

The head outhauler may be seen in the next picture.

 

1767084533_YA30503.jpg.0e500d3d59f0c9a8c6941572a090df32.jpg

 

The standing end of the outhauler is stopped under the gaff at the gooseneck.  It then runs under the gaff to the sheave at the end, back through a single block hooked under the port side of the cap, thence to a tackle hooked on the deck and belayed on the port pin rail.  The tackle is long enough to allow the standing end of the line to be hauled out to the end of the gaff.

 

The next picture shows the throat halyard tackle under the top.

 

153035515_YA30504.jpg.7aa6dc9e11fc9100ed8dbe15c8cde955.jpg

 

The throat halyard tackle that was used to raise the entire gaff is hooked under the port trestletree and to the throat of the gaff.  The fall then runs down along the mast to be belayed on the spider band.  The picture also shows the head outhauler stopped off in the block under the gaff throat band.  The line stopped in this block is the head inhaul (or downhaul) used to take in the sail at the top.  This line also runs down to a tackle on the deck aft of the throat tackle.  The next picture shows the two tackles.  The inhaul tackle is almost block-to-block since the inhaul is fully overhauled to the gaff throat – waiting for a sail.

 

282133120_YA30505.jpg.7c013925a18d57f882982b960c79d59c.jpg

 

It will be nice to get rid of this unsightly masking tape but for now it is a lifesaver in keeping rope and other debris out of the decks below.

 

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Ed, fantastic work as usual ( don't forget the arrows ha!!) seriously though what you are doing is awesome and a pleasure to read/watch along 

Regards

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model shipcraft.

The Nautical Research Guild puts on ship modeling seminars, yearly conferences, and juried competitions. We publish books on ship modeling techniques as well as our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, whose pages are full of articles by master ship modelers who show you how they build those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you what details to build.

Our Emblem

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research
×